Thousands of Service Members Jobs at Risk

[kadee79]

Thousands of service members who are deemed unfit to deploy overseas are at risk of losing their jobs because of a new policy being adopted by the Department of Defense, a U.S. defense official told ABC News.
According to the memo released Thursday, the new policy states any member — with the exception of pregnant or postpartum members — who has been ineligible for deployment for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation — the process of leaving the military — or referred to the Disability Evaluation System. The military has until Oct. 1 to start the required processing.

Secretaries who lead military services will be the only individuals authorized to grant waivers allowing a member to remain on payroll.

A service member can be deemed unfit to deploy for a variety of reasons, including traumatic brain injury, out of date vaccines, failing fitness tests, mental health concerns, pregnancy or neck and back pain that may prevent the individual from wearing a helmet or body armor.

www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/thousands-of-service-members-jobs-at-risk-under-new-pentagon-policy/ar-BBJdVA6?li=BBnbfcL

[billisonboard]

Seems on first read to be reasonable. I am not coming up with a situation that it would be unfair to say, "You haven't been able to fulfill your full obligation for 12 months. Time to move on."

[kadee79]

Feb 17, 2018 10:52:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Seems on first read to be reasonable. I am not coming up with a situation that it would be unfair to say, "You haven't been able to fulfill your full obligation for 12 months. Time to move on."

Talk to someone who is active duty or works on a military base.  There are many who are not fit for deployment that are doing this/that...or just drinking coffee & smoking (or not) and hanging around until retirement or until their stint is up.   

[dezii]

Feb 18, 2018 9:41:40 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

Feb 17, 2018 10:52:31 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Seems on first read to be reasonable. I am not coming up with a situation that it would be unfair to say, "You haven't been able to fulfill your full obligation for 12 months. Time to move on."

Talk to someone who is active duty or works on a military base.  There are many who are not fit for deployment that are doing this/that...or just drinking coffee & smoking (or not) and hanging around until retirement or until their stint is up.   

Are u sure as far as "many".

The active duty folks I have seen ...EM / Officers who are assigned to local recruiting office...Army, Marines...look very fit...in fact u can tell they work out and have seen them together in regular every day jogging at a high school track...Same can be said of my local police officers, male and female..u know they all work out...I have said so to them and they agreed, seems to be proud of that fact and that it is noticed.

Also pictures of deployed look very, very fit to me...better then myself and my  fellows back in the day and that was during real active duty...Not saying there are some as u describe but as a professional volunteer force, it seems there is a professional idea of realizing that in their chosen profession , whether one enlistment or more...one is in a demanding profession and it behooves them to be very, very fit as well as as well trained as possible.  Just saying.

[billisonboard]

Feb 21, 2018 14:56:39 GMT -5 dezii said:

Feb 18, 2018 9:41:40 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

Talk to someone who is active duty or works on a military base.  There are many who are not fit for deployment that are doing this/that...or just drinking coffee & smoking (or not) and hanging around until retirement or until their stint is up.   

Are u sure as far as "many".

The active duty folks I have seen ...EM / Officers who are assigned to local recruiting office...Army, Marines...look very fit... ...

I am sure they are very fit. These who are assigned recruiting duty are hand picked at least in part for their ability to project a very positive image of military personnel.

[dezii]

Feb 21, 2018 15:03:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 21, 2018 14:56:39 GMT -5 dezii said:

Are u sure as far as "many".

The active duty folks I have seen ...EM / Officers who are assigned to local recruiting office...Army, Marines...look very fit... ...

I am sure they are very fit. These who are assigned recruiting duty are hand picked at least in part for their ability to project a very positive image of military personnel.

I also, up to a few years ago, volunteered at the local VA hospital here...with some other friends from the VFW chapter I am a member of....found these guys, and gals, very fit...very sharp...

None were assigned there by the way...I am not here to argue here with u...I am sure there are service folks who don't meet the grade but with the services so under strength to meet the missions being assigned them, they can't afford many not really fit for service and am sure they rift them to make room for those who can do the missions assigned to them...

[billisonboard]

Feb 21, 2018 15:22:08 GMT -5 dezii said:

... ...I am sure there are service folks who don't meet the grade but with the services so under strength to meet the missions being assigned them, they can't afford many not really fit for service and am sure they rift them to make room for those who can do the missions assigned to them...

A couple of things:

The under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, Robert Wilkie told senators 13 percent to 14 percent of service members — about 286,000 to 300,000 — are medically ineligible to deploy on any given day, according to ABC. (from the link in the OP)

I would consider that percentage "many". YMMV

According to the memo released Thursday, the new policy states any member — with the exception of pregnant or postpartum members — who has been ineligible for deployment for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation — the process of leaving the military — or referred to the Disability Evaluation System. (again from the link in the OP)

The thread topic is about a new specific policy on rifting them.

[dezii]

Feb 21, 2018 15:30:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 21, 2018 15:22:08 GMT -5 dezii said:

... ...I am sure there are service folks who don't meet the grade but with the services so under strength to meet the missions being assigned them, they can't afford many not really fit for service and am sure they rift them to make room for those who can do the missions assigned to them...

A couple of things:

The under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, Robert Wilkie told senators 13 percent to 14 percent of service members — about 286,000 to 300,000 — are medically ineligible to deploy on any given day, according to ABC. (from the link in the OP)

I would consider that percentage "many". YMMV

According to the memo released Thursday, the new policy states any member — with the exception of pregnant or postpartum members — who has been ineligible for deployment for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation — the process of leaving the military — or referred to the Disability Evaluation System. (again from the link in the OP)

The thread topic is about a new specific policy on rifting them.

That's  a lot of personnel not able to be deployed...13/14 %....military really falling down IMHO...there are always personnel who are on sick call..in hospital..accidents and such..but to have so many not fit for duty , remember, we are talking about young people for the most part...even very senior leaders are not that old..whether officers or senior non coms and warrents..some one is falling down somewhere...IMHO.

Who I was referring ton was young professionals who understand their jobs are strenuous, dangerous ..especially the front line troops, and they have to stay in condition and do so...Then there are the support troops, many reservist who are used more and more in a active duty role where in the past really not used except when militarily needed..today it seems more and more are being deployed on semi regular basis...and no, don't believe they would be, over all, as physically fit as regular duty troops...happens when one is a civilian for a bit and these folks are both..

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

My wonderful DH is active duty military. He is 51 years old. Every year, he is required to pass a PT (physical training) test that includes performing a certain number situps, pushups, and completing a run within a specified time. There is also a waist measurement. In addition, he also has to undergo a detailed physical examination (including blood tests for HIV, cholesterol, etc) as well as sight and hearing exams.  He is worldwide deployable ... and deploys a lot.

[billisonboard]

Feb 21, 2018 17:03:39 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

My wonderful DH is active duty military. He is 51 years old. Every year, he is required to pass a PT (physical training) test that includes performing a certain number situps, pushups, and completing a run within a specified time. There is also a waist measurement. In addition, he also has to undergo a detailed physical examination (including blood tests for HIV, cholesterol, etc) as well as sight and hearing exams.  He is worldwide deployable ... and deploys a lot.

A question: What happens if he fails to meet one of the requirements? And I don't mean for this to be about him personally but just using him as an example. Let's pick the "run within a specified time". Lets say he can't meet the requirement because he broke his ankle tripping over a cat ;~). I would guess that he would be allowed to retest after the ankle heals. (The military has too much money invested in training him to fire him on the spot, I would think.) So months later he retests and falls a little short of the time. I would guess he would get lectured on rehabbing harder and allowed a little more time to get faster. If he isn't able to pass it after a year, what then? All this new policy is saying is that he can't just hang out for longer than a year. Life happens and sometimes military personnel fall victim to injury or illness. Not really fair to just kick them out immediately. But if they aren't ready to deploy for a full year, it isn't really fair for them to keep getting a paycheck just like the ones the people who are able to be deployed are getting. This is how I interpret the information in the link in the OP.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Feb 21, 2018 18:29:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 21, 2018 17:03:39 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

My wonderful DH is active duty military. He is 51 years old. Every year, he is required to pass a PT (physical training) test that includes performing a certain number situps, pushups, and completing a run within a specified time. There is also a waist measurement. In addition, he also has to undergo a detailed physical examination (including blood tests for HIV, cholesterol, etc) as well as sight and hearing exams.  He is worldwide deployable ... and deploys a lot.

A question: What happens if he fails to meet one of the requirements? And I don't mean for this to be about him personally but just using him as an example. Let's pick the "run within a specified time". Lets say he can't meet the requirement because he broke his ankle tripping over a cat ;~). I would guess that he would be allowed to retest after the ankle heals. (The military has too much money invested in training him to fire him on the spot, I would think.) So months later he retests and falls a little short of the time. I would guess he would get lectured on rehabbing harder and allowed a little more time to get faster. If he isn't able to pass it after a year, what then? All this new policy is saying is that he can't just hang out for longer than a year. Life happens and sometimes military personnel fall victim to injury or illness. Not really fair to just kick them out immediately. But if they aren't ready to deploy for a full year, it isn't really fair for them to keep getting a paycheck just like the ones the people who are able to be deployed are getting. This is how I interpret the information in the link in the OP.

Well, he's been in for 34 years, 3 months and 17 days and has never failed his PT test ~ so I don't know. (I imagine he knows ... he's just never mentioned it to me.) 

[cktc]

Feb 21, 2018 18:29:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 21, 2018 17:03:39 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

My wonderful DH is active duty military. He is 51 years old. Every year, he is required to pass a PT (physical training) test that includes performing a certain number situps, pushups, and completing a run within a specified time. There is also a waist measurement. In addition, he also has to undergo a detailed physical examination (including blood tests for HIV, cholesterol, etc) as well as sight and hearing exams.  He is worldwide deployable ... and deploys a lot.

A question: What happens if he fails to meet one of the requirements? And I don't mean for this to be about him personally but just using him as an example. Let's pick the "run within a specified time". Lets say he can't meet the requirement because he broke his ankle tripping over a cat ;~). I would guess that he would be allowed to retest after the ankle heals. (The military has too much money invested in training him to fire him on the spot, I would think.) So months later he retests and falls a little short of the time. I would guess he would get lectured on rehabbing harder and allowed a little more time to get faster. If he isn't able to pass it after a year, what then? All this new policy is saying is that he can't just hang out for longer than a year. Life happens and sometimes military personnel fall victim to injury or illness. Not really fair to just kick them out immediately. But if they aren't ready to deploy for a full year, it isn't really fair for them to keep getting a paycheck just like the ones the people who are able to be deployed are getting. This is how I interpret the information in the link in the OP.

This actually happened to my DH, although it was a drill accident, he didn't trip over a cat   and he has always managed to pass within a few months. Basically it puts everything extra on hold, they aren't eligible for deployment, school, promotions, bonus etc... They still have a military job that they are expected to perform. In his case he took the PT test monthly, not on record, until he was able to comfortably pass it. If he'd made it to another mandatory PT without being able to pass there would have been more consequences, something informally called fat camp, I'm not sure what else as he's always managed to pass before it actually became a large problem. DH actually thinks too much emphasis is put on PT. There are people who don't know how to set up a tent, but they can skate by on high PT scores and get promotions off of that because it's measurable and monitored so closely whereas someone else can set up a tent, or cover any other number of knowledge and skill deficiencies without it being on anyone's radar.

I'm inclined to agree with him as there is more to the military than combat. The conspiracy theorist in me actually thinks this is a bit fishy and a way to reduce the number of people who are eligible to hit 20 years.  I mean, one minute they are talking about calling people up after they have retired because the numbers are down, and now they want to force more people out? So the guy who has been in 16 years with a technical job has to go because he put on some weight, meanwhile the guy who put in 6 years and decided not to reenlist is vital?

[NastyWoman]

Does this count for every member of the military? What about the commander in chief? Can we fire him if he doesn't pass his PT? Please, pretty please...

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I did my last 22 years in the reserves. We had PT every 6 months. Sit ups, push ups and a timed 1-1/2 mile run.  3 fails was a discharge. 

[billisonboard]

Feb 22, 2018 19:59:29 GMT -5 cktc said:

... So the guy who has been in 16 years with a technical job has to go because he put on some weight, ...

or he gets to stay stateside while the guy who has been in 16 years has to go on deployments repeatedly because he didn't put on some extra weight.

[cktc]

Feb 22, 2018 21:02:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 22, 2018 19:59:29 GMT -5 cktc said:

... So the guy who has been in 16 years with a technical job has to go because he put on some weight, ...

or he gets to stay stateside while the guy who has been in 16 years has to go on deployments repeatedly because he didn't put on some extra weight.

Maybe it's a bigger issue outside the reserves? Not passing PT and missing deployments isn't really a source of pride. I think if it's a close call and the soldier isn't in an elite force exceptions could be made as necessary.

[billisonboard]

Feb 22, 2018 21:20:21 GMT -5 cktc said:

... I think if it's a close call and the soldier isn't in an elite force exceptions could be made as necessary.

Yes, the article linked in the OP says exceptions can be granted:

Secretaries who lead military services will be the only individuals authorized to grant waivers allowing a member to remain on payroll.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Feb 22, 2018 19:59:29 GMT -5 cktc said:

Feb 21, 2018 18:29:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A question: What happens if he fails to meet one of the requirements? And I don't mean for this to be about him personally but just using him as an example. Let's pick the "run within a specified time". Lets say he can't meet the requirement because he broke his ankle tripping over a cat ;~). I would guess that he would be allowed to retest after the ankle heals. (The military has too much money invested in training him to fire him on the spot, I would think.) So months later he retests and falls a little short of the time. I would guess he would get lectured on rehabbing harder and allowed a little more time to get faster. If he isn't able to pass it after a year, what then? All this new policy is saying is that he can't just hang out for longer than a year. Life happens and sometimes military personnel fall victim to injury or illness. Not really fair to just kick them out immediately. But if they aren't ready to deploy for a full year, it isn't really fair for them to keep getting a paycheck just like the ones the people who are able to be deployed are getting. This is how I interpret the information in the link in the OP.

This actually happened to my DH, although it was a drill accident, he didn't trip over a cat   and he has always managed to pass within a few months. Basically it puts everything extra on hold, they aren't eligible for deployment, school, promotions, bonus etc... They still have a military job that they are expected to perform. In his case he took the PT test monthly, not on record, until he was able to comfortably pass it. If he'd made it to another mandatory PT without being able to pass there would have been more consequences, something informally called fat camp, I'm not sure what else as he's always managed to pass before it actually became a large problem. DH actually thinks too much emphasis is put on PT. There are people who don't know how to set up a tent, but they can skate by on high PT scores and get promotions off of that because it's measurable and monitored so closely whereas someone else can set up a tent, or cover any other number of knowledge and skill deficiencies without it being on anyone's radar.

I'm inclined to agree with him as there is more to the military than combat. The conspiracy theorist in me actually thinks this is a bit fishy and a way to reduce the number of people who are eligible to hit 20 years.  I mean, one minute they are talking about calling people up after they have retired because the numbers are down, and now they want to force more people out? So the guy who has been in 16 years with a technical job has to go because he put on some weight, meanwhile the guy who put in 6 years and decided not to reenlist is vital?

I agree with you on many points. I had a weight problem in the end but came  first in the run because I was a runner. I had people working for me who could't do their job due to arthritis so I had to ask someone else to do it. I was not in a combat unit but a highly technical unit (electronics and crypto) . By then I had 26 years and told them to go to hell. They called later wanting me back. I hope the hypocrites learned their lesson. BTW it was years later I got a certificate of retirement releasing me, not knowing I was subject to recall. 

[dezii]

Feb 21, 2018 17:03:39 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

My wonderful DH is active duty military. He is 51 years old. Every year, he is required to pass a PT (physical training) test that includes performing a certain number situps, pushups, and completing a run within a specified time. There is also a waist measurement. In addition, he also has to undergo a detailed physical examination (including blood tests for HIV, cholesterol, etc) as well as sight and hearing exams.  He is worldwide deployable ... and deploys a lot.

Thank him for his service...I mean and appreciate that...he must be closing in on retirement...if so, both of u enjoy that...