Army recruiter tells unqualified applicant to get a fake diploma so he can enlist

I disagree. It is very difficult to predict the amount of punishment. Much can happen when negotiating with the member's supervisor, other senior leaders, and even one's own supervisor. Much will depend upon the member's previous record, viability for a future career, and mitigating circumstances. Finally, punishment under Article 15 can vary widely by the convening officer's grade. A company grade officer cannot punish as severely as a field grade officer, who cannot punish as severely as a flag officer.

By the way, reprimands are not considered "non-judicial." They're considered "administrative." Punishment under Article 15 is considered "non-judicial" because a finding of guilt is not sought. The member agrees that the government has sufficient reason to offer the punishment and accepts it in lieu of court-martial. No conviction.

Finally, it is difficult to predict what affect these proceedings will have, if any, on discharge actions. It is also very difficult to predict at what level such an offender would be discharged.

In all of this, we're engaging in way too much speculation with very little basis.

 

Clarification:

Reprimands may be punitive or nonpunitive. An award of a punitive letter of reprimand is infact a nonjudicial punishment.

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States

 

The exception is that a Sailor or a Marine attached to or embarked on a vessel does not have the right to demand trial by court-martial.

 

S'cuse me. As a Former Naval Person (like Winston Churchill? Except that I actually SERVED) do you really NEED a diploma to stop a bullet?

I mean, c'mon. We're gonna have a draft sooner rather than later, unless you count the involuntary extensions AS a draft, in which case we already HAVE one.

You think for FIVE minutes that our glorious War Lord in Chief is going to allow some sort of exemption from military service because THIS particular piece of cannon fodder dropped out of High School?

Get real. We are in Iraq for the next decade. With recruitment goals being missed by, what, 40% at THIS point, the Army and the Marine Corps needs BODIES.

This is a nice, low tech war. Our young people will continue to die. And folks, we have NO WAY OUT.

 

Interesting touch. I would guess most Americans don't realize the, uh, "modifications" sailors and marines experience regarding their Constitutional rights.

As for the difference between punitive and nonpunitive letters of reprimand, the Air Force doesn't (or didn't when I was serving) make this difference. Or, perhaps, letters of reprimand issued as a part of Article 15 punishment would be considered punitive. Either way, they slam the member's career.

 

I disagree. I cannot believe there will be a draft without a serious national interest. Obviously, we do not have one currently. In fact, Iraq is turning out to be quite the opposite, which is why we see such a turndown in enlistments.

The populace has been quite satisfied, since the elimination of the last draft, to allow its most economically disadvantaged go off to get shot. I don't think the average middle or upper-middle class family is quite ready to get behind a draft.

I expect the military will up its incentives tremendously before we see a draft. Or, shocker, the government could realize what a stupid war it's created and get out.

The U.S. has, in the past, been willing to get behind a war that truly reflected its national interests. WWI and WWII are examples of that. Korea was tougher, and Vietnam was impossible to sell to the American people.

If we were slamming al Queda in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, if you want to know the truth of it) instead of getting our people killed in Iraq for no good reason, you might see a lot more interest in being part of it all by our young people. But they're not stupid, nor are they lacking courage. They see the futility of it all and don't want to be a part of it. But a draft? That will take a national consensus, and I just don't see it. Like they did with Vietnam, people will clamor for an end to our involvement before they'll call for a draft.

 

S'cuse me again. We had a draft in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Even where the people ARE behind a war, we still end up drafting young men.

We CAN'T leave, at least not yet. The Iraq "government" remains in place due solely to the support of American bayonets. We destroyed the only secular, anti-Islamic Terrorist regime in the Arab world capable of deterring Iran.

Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a monster, one we helped mightily to create. But by destroying him when he presented no actual threat to the U.S. security, we took upon ourselves the burden Iraq had borne FOR us at small expense.

Two side notes: Our "ultra liberal, Bush hating" press hasn't done more than whisper about the U.K. government memo from pre 9/11 detailling exactly how GWB would justify his intended attack on Iraq and rejecting several possibilities. This memo is a genuine "smoking gun", as if we really needed one.

Second side note: Am I the only person in the Western world who received a nasty shock when this weekend two of our heliocopters were SHOT DOWN? Didn't "crash", didn't get blown up on the ground, they were SHOT DOWN, a non trivial military accomplishment. Nor is that all, Bahgdad ITSELF is the theater of a brand new, major military operation. "Mission accomplished!"

Iraq is in a civil war. We are being lied to yet again about the size and military capability of the so-called "insurgency".

 

I agree with all of Nosborne's points. I brought up Vietnam as a different scene since it both led to the end of the draft and the draft ended while that conflict continued. The American people were sick of that war and would no longer support the draft.

On another related point, I listened to a sound bite from Gen Myers during his commencement speech at West Point. He referred to this country being at war. This is absurd. Our country isn't "at war." The Pentagon is at war, but this country is very much at peace. Is there any aspect of our day-to-day lives even remotely affected by this "war"? Not the "war" in Iraq, not the "war" in Afghanistan, not even the "war" or terrorism. (Which is stupid; terrorism isn't an enemy, it is a tactic.)

We've even shrugged off the most blatant aspect of all of this: the attack on the WTC and Pentagon. I firmly believe this is because of the unrelated--and unwarranted--invasion and occupation of Iraq. We had an opportunity to unite this country behind an effort to defeat the people who did that. Instead, Mr. Bush spent his "political capital" on a huge, wasted sinkhole in Iraq. Where was America's national interest in that? Answer: no where. But it serves some people's interests; America just has to pay for it with blood and money. Nice.

 

Wow, this thread took a change of direction!

The defense rests.

 

The "vessel exemption" actually applies to all servicemembers. Due to the nature of their assignments, it applies to Sailors and Marines far more than it does to servicemembers of the other branches. Per United States v. Penn, 4 M.J. 879 (N.C.M.R. 1978), the vessel exception does not deny those servicemembers their equal protection rights.

You are not correct, see Air Force Instruction 51-202.

I still maintain that it is very unlikely that the young man would have made it through the Military Entrance Processing Station and actually be allowed to enlist.

History will tell. I'm still waiting for the whole liberal establishment to acknowledge how wrong they were regarding Ronald Reagan and the Cold War.

 

I wish the folk who complain about theological discussion getting arcane would read this thread.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Perhaps they weren't wrong. There are many people who believe Reagan has gotten way too much credit for something that was happening anyway. Many other people, from Thatcher to Walensa, from Pope JPII to Yeltsina and Gorbachev, had a big role as well. Personally, I credit MTV.

Seriously, I believe it was the lure of Western culture and its freedoms that caused a revolution from within. Reagan was a driving force behind the U.S. military buildup, but was it the military that ended the Cold War? The USSR had been spending a huge portion of its GDP on military spending for decades; nothing new there. I hardly think Reagan's buildup forced the USSR to change. But a populace tired of buying ill-fitting Bulgarian shoes did.

 

I hope that everyone reads this thread to enjoy Uncle Janko's wishes.

 

The Gipper deserves precious little credit for anything. The USSR was spending wealth it didn't have and couldn't keep it up. Moral: Capitalists and capitalism are necessary evils, which is exactly what the Red Chinese have had to admit.

I saw "Downfall" last night. L-O-N-G movie and contained little that was new, at least to me. Still, it reminded me of the beginning of Soviet control over Eastern Europe and the horrible cost to the USSR of that war.

The U.S. came out essentially unscathed. I really think that we are more willing to engage in unnecessary warfare because we haven't seen our lives and homeland destroyed by war since 1865.

I couldn't BELIEVE the President's remark that the U.S. traded the freedom of eastern Europeans for peace and that it was a moral failure to do so. Who is FEEDING him that nonsense? What would he have had the U.S. do? Attack the Red Army? The President's bottomless and breathtaking ignorance of history has worried me from the beginning of his regime.

 

Regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union, let me say this about that. I did actually vote for Ronnie in 1980, though, for some reason, I received a letter from the Mesa County, Colorado, Elections Commission claiming that I never voted and another letter from the Republican Party disowning me, the result of which is that I've voted Democrat or Socialist in every subsequent presidential election. I doubt that yelling about evil empires and tearing down walls causes the falls of empires. It has been duly noted hereinabove that the Soviets spent themselves into bankruptcy with the arms race. But I do give Ronnie a bit of credit --- for realizing that by building up the military with those huge military budget increases throughout the 1980s would force the Soviets to spend themselves into bankruptcy. There, Charles, you've got your admission.

 

I agree that it is difficult to predict the amount of punishment, but from my experience as a former commander in the Army, the service to which these recruiters belong, the punishment will more than likely be close to what I described. Given the fact that this story has received this much attention and the severity of the infractions, the Article 15 will more than likely be elevated and carried out by a field grade officer in the recruiter's chain of command (either the battalion commander (an O5) or the brigade commander (an O6)) The two-star general in charge of the entire recruiting command will more than likely also issue a general officer letter of reprimand on top of all of the Article 15.

The Air Force and the Navy may handle things differently, but the Army seems to prefer this path. The recruiter would be foolish to pass up the Article 15 for a trial by courts martial, in which they could face jail time, soldiers are aware of this because JAG lawyers, prior to the Article 15 proceedings, counsel them on what could happen.

 

The key point in both the original topic and the secondary topic of this thread (politics aside) is whether a soldier (or Marine) actually NEEDS A DIPLOMA to do the job at the entry level. I think that most everyone agrees that the recruiters in question were wrong; they were under pressure and engaged in outrageous conduct based upon the standards under which they worked.

In the late 1970s there was a different set of standards in place to keep the all-volunteer military adequately staffed. By 1981, we placed more emphasis on quality and raised the standards. Due to an upswing in patriotism there were sufficient numbers of qualified volunteers and the high school drop-outs weren't welcome. In fact, if memory serves me correct, there were limits on the percentages of GEDs that we could take in (in the Army) and even then, they were restricted to combat arms assignments. [BTW the real blockheads were assigned as artillery crewman ("professional sandbag fillers") or as wireman (humping wire for field telephones) in a Signal unit, not as infantrymen as is commonly believed.]

The military has spent enormous amounts of money post-Vietnam on education and raising educational standards. The generals and admirals will be reluctant to go backwards in that area but circumstances may dictate otherwise. Perhaps the military needs to reassess the minimum educational requirement to enlist. If so, then that opens up another pool of potential applicants from which to draw.

I do agree with Nos, something has to give. We must either scale back our present commitments or find another source of manpower. The "stop-loss" policy (involuntary extension beyond enlistment) is immoral when applied to enlisted personnel and terrible for morale. If you are a commissioned or warrant officer,it comes with the commission (or warrant). However, holding enlisted personnel beyond the end of their enlistment has the unintended long-term effect of reducing reenlistment rates for highly-trained, mid-level NCOs.

 

Soldiers do not need a high school diploma or a GED to do the job, but the Army set the standard and recruiters are expected to only process applicants with one of these. The actual required job skills, for which an applicant enlists, are taught upon completion of basic training. With continued difficultly in meeting recruiting goals, the standard might change.

One of my buddies from the recruiting command enlisted 20 years ago without a high school diploma or a GED (different time – different standards). He earned a GED while serving and is currently working on a BS.

 

I have a relative who beats that... he joined in the 1960s at the age of 16 using a forged birth certificate. He ended up working as a medic.