Army Lowers Recruiting Standards to Allow Criminals

The army has fallen so short of its recruiting goals that it is relaxing the rules that used to prohibit any convictions by prospective officer candidates:

Should these standards be ralaxed, and does this presage the end of the all volunteer army and the return of the draft?

And still they want to leave the “Dont ask, dont tell” policy in place.


The army is allowing in convicts but still refuses to allow homosexuals to serve. Changing that regulation will increase the amount of recruits more than allowing convicts with checkered pasts in.

Have a f*cking clue before chiming in on this or at least read any cites made in the OP:

This is nothing new. How in the hell do you think I became a MP with seventeen traffic citations and an admission of experimental drug use? Waivers. I was interviewed and it was determined that I was young and impressionable and showed potential to overcome past indiscretions. All kinds of minor offences and admission standards shortcomings can be waivered with regards to initial entry and advanced schools like OCS. Perhaps waivers were not being granted commonly in the past but a misdemeanor has never been an absolute bar to commissioning in the US Armed Forces.

I think it’s a good idea. It would provide an option for people out of jail who want to make a fresh start on life. Often, civilian employers are leery of hiring them so they don’t really get a chance to make it in the real world. And even though the army isn’t meant to be a babysitting camp for those with no hope, it’s a hell of a better place to deal with people who might be prone to loosing their temper or performing irrational acts which they may regret later on.

Also, it should be stated that the waiver process used to be easier for enlisted personnel than for officer candidates. This change might be to bring the two more in line with each other.

Why shouldn’t officer candidates be held to a higher standard than enlisted candidates? Have we learned nothing from Abu Ghraib?

The Abu Ghraib were “criminal” inlistees?

The Abu Ghraib bunch were “criminal” inlistees? :smack:

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be held to the same or higher standards once they’re in, only that the waiver process that applies to otherwise well qualified enlistees might be well applied to officer candidates as well.

And Abu Ghraib has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Few of the soldiers implicated in that scandal had civilian criminal records that would have prevented their enlistment or predicted their bad behavior. And while at least two of the soldiers had records as prison guards that could have demonstrated a problem, the military did not seem to have access to these records.

Many a military man has been nudged by a judge into enlisting in the armed forces. “Well, son, I can put you in jail, or you can join the Army.” It happened during the Vietnam war, and it probably still happens. Such a recruit might have a clean record, but only because he chose the “green jail.”

So, criminals in uniform are nothing new.

Bit fuzzy on that,Moto. Did they seek access, but were denied? Seems to me the kind of thing I would expect to be carefully looked at, given the sensitivity of the position. But, apparently, this was not the case. Which is, to me, frankly, a bit negligent.

Are you guessing on this, or have you some info?

Sounds to me like this could also be an incentive for some folks to make it easier to put people in jail. Almost like that Heinlein(?) story about jaywalkers getting death sentences in order to feel the demand for harvested organs…

Niven. “Patchwork girl.”

Oh, and Heinlein would be fine with this ruling.

If you had two jobs, would you expect one employer to have access to your internal discipinary records with the other employer? These soldiers were National Guardsmen who also held jobs as civilian prison guards. Do you have any idea of the logistics (not to mention privacy issues) involved in the reserve components of the armed forces requesting such information from reservists’ employers? Get real.

the lack of volunteer manpower needed in Iraq can be solved by two options:

  1. re-institute the draft
  2. get out of Iraq.

So relax…There’s no new draft coming up.

  1. We built 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.
  2. We still have a military presence in Germany, S. Korea, and 118 other places around the world.

“There’s money, good money to be made,
By supplyin’ the army with the tools of the trade.” --Country Joe McDonald

We haven’t made nearly enough money in Iraq, so we’ll be there…a…long…time.

There were over a dozen cement plants in Iraq before the war. Is it any mystery why all the construction projects in Iraq are using cement from the US?

You forgot #3: Ask all those people who support the war and are eligible for service why they haven’t signed up in support of their beliefs, instead of simply letting others die for their cause.

I’ve also heard of this happening.

A long time ago I knew a Marine who told me he joined because he’d been doing drugs and drinking, and he wanted to make a new start. He said it’d turned his life around. He was a good guy.