Military Shuns Many of Recruiting Age

[acmavm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060312/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/uncle_sam_wants_you

<snip>

WASHINGTON - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really? Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato — or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street — and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

-More-

[electron_blue]

1. good to know (for those in the age group) should the draft get going again

[atreides1]

11. Not Really

If a draft does occur you can bet the standards will be lowered.

Besides, the recruiters have to put the blame somewhere, taking responsibility for their own lack luster performance is like Bush saying he made the wrong decision.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Why would they care about a tattoo? (nt)

nt

[MADem]

7. They consider it a "uniformity" issue

And it isn't really "a" tattoo...it's the rather large and creative ones that the young kids sport nowadays. They especially don't want them on the head and neck, or ones that are visible wearing the everyday uniform. The Army reg is here (PDF): http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf (big, slow loader on dial up, fyi). The salient bits:

(a) Commanders will ensure soldiers understand the tattoo policy.
(b) For soldiers who are not in compliance, commanders may not order the removal of a tattoo or brand. However,
the commander must counsel soldiers, and afford them the opportunity to seek medical advice about removal or
alteration of the tattoo or brand.
(4) If soldiers are not in compliance with the policy, and refuse to remove or alter the tattoos or brands, commanders
will:
(a) Ensure the soldier understands the policy.
(b) Ensure the soldier has been afforded the opportunity to seek medical advice about removal or alteration.
(c) Counsel the soldier in writing. The counseling form will state that the soldier’s refusal to remove extremist,
indecent, sexist, or racist tattoos or brands anywhere on the body, or refusal to remove any type of tattoo or brand
visible in the class A uniform (worn with slacks/trousers), will result in discharge.
(5) Existing tattoos or brands on the hands that are not extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist, but are visible in the
class A uniform (worn with slacks/trousers), are authorized.
(6) Finality of determination.
(a) Recruiting battalion commanders or recruiting battalion executive officers (0–5 or above) will make initial entry
determinations that tattoos or brands comply with this policy for Active Army and Army Reserve soldiers. This
authority will not be delegated further.
(b) Unit commanders or unit executive officers will make determinations for soldiers currently on active duty. This
authority will not be delegated further.
(c) Recruiting and retention managers (O–5 or above) will make initial entry determinations that tattoos or brands
comply with this policy for National Guard soldiers. This authority will not be delegated further.
(d) Professors of military science (O-5 or above) will make initial entry determinations that tattoos or brands comply
with this policy for ROTC cadets. This authority will not be delegated further.
(e) The Director of Admissions will make initial entry determinations that tattoos or brands comply with this policy
for the U.S. Military Academy cadets. This authority will not be delegated further.
(f) Determinations will be fully documented in writing and will include a description of existing tattoos or brands
and their location on the body. A copy of the determination will be provided to the soldier. Unless otherwise directed
by the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, these determinations are final. If a tattoo or brand is discovered to violate this
policy after an initial determination has been documented, commanders must submit requests for an exception to policy
or for discharge through the soldier’s chain of command to the MACOM for approval. Appeals to the MACOM
decision will be forwarded to the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 for decision.
(7) Soldiers may not cover tattoos or brands in order to comply with the tattoo policy.

[TheBaldyMan]

12. in my experience, it's OK to get a tattoo once you're in,

I remember being bollocked by my unit's Sgt-Major for having a pierced ear but I didn't say anything about his collection of tats that went from his wrists and disappeared up his rolled up sleeves.

btw I now advise people if they MUST get a piercing/tattoo to get them where they don't show.

[MADem]

13. Those are not a problem, unless they are racist or sexist

A Class A uniform would cover them. Head and neck, hands--that's where you have a problem. They want everyone to look the same in formation.

[democracyindanger]

3. Making excuses

That's all this is. The military is making more excuses why recruiting numbers have been on the decline.

[acmavm]

4. That's possible. What I couldn't understand about the story was if they're

so damn picky why are older people being recalled? And amputees?

Didn't make sense to me. Glad you said something.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. I'm pretty sure that the rule stated about tattoos is legit. My son

waited until he was out of the military before getting his tattoo because it would have been visible when he was in uniform.

[MADem]

14. I posted the precise regs in post 7, above

If you can SEE the tattoo when you are wearing the Class A uniform, you are NOT good to go. So put that PEACE SIGN on the back of yer young 'un's neck, or on their hand, and there ya have it!

[MADem]

5. Tattoo your children from ass to teakettle, and feed them everything!!!

Come on, little Billy...take your IV of high fructose corn syrup, there's a good lad! We gotta get you up to 270 to be safe from Unka Sam!!!! And hey, I know you may not NEED this Ritalin, but trust me...you'll thank me when the Draft Boards start meeting!!!

The All Volunteer Force was a great thing, when America was America and actually stood for something. Now, we are reviled around the world, and the people the DOD WANT won't touch our once-honorable military with a ten foot pole.

[Duer 157099]

6. OMG finally some good news

With a pre-teen son, this is good news for me, gives me ideas, lol

[aden_nak]

8. Damn! Now I can never be a Navy Seal with my "Buck Fush" forehead tatoo.

[Neil Lisst]

9. did they say "too uneducated"

Ha!

They'll take anything with a pulse, as long as it's not gay or tattooed.

[freethought]

15. Here's some FYI for some of the younger DUers here

The Army/military used to be a good way for young men and women to overcome a disadvantaged life.
My older brother joined the U.S. Army in the late 70s or thereabouts. He had dropped out of high school when he was a junior.
The army took him and took on the task of finishing his high school education. He was not alone in this endeavor. He went on to become a U.S. Army Ranger. He's in his late 40s now and is wrestling with some personal demons. He has said to me on more than one occasion that he wished that he had not been thrown out of the army and quite likely would have done a number of tours of duty. He was thrown out because a prank that went very wrong. Nobody hurt or killed in it fortunately

I did learn that there was one time that some, maybe all, of the armed forces used to have "fat boy" programs. A recruit would come in to the forces and they would work on him till he was a lean, mean fighting machine. For those who may have joined the forces to remake themselves, the military was just the thing. It would help them overcome obstacles and build confidence. They, of course, would have to slog it out.

Why don't they still do this? The key word is in the posting-"budget". It has to do with money. Somewhere along the way the Pentagon felt it was too expensive to run these kind of programs. More likely they preferred to funnel that cash into new weapons systems. I wonder how much extra money it would really be to train up such recruits?