[QUOTE=Contrary]
Which AIT did you go to? Sorry to be unpitty here, but I’m really curious–also what branch of service?
[/QUOTE]
25M, Multimedia Tech, before it the school was moved to Fort Meade. It was in Lowry Air force Base, Colorado. Yeah, I’m old.
Yeah, thats a big reason in why I hated recruiting and began my career as a closet misanthrope…
(Oh, and Contrary, the branch is US Army)
[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz]
But, as one Poster has suggested, 80% is ridiculously high.
[/QUOTE]
I was not suggesting the mortality rate for those in the service was anywhere near 80%. I am certain there are people who have lost a good number of friends, but that wasn’t my point. I was pointing out that omitting a relevant piece of information is deceitful, even though it is not lying.
[QUOTE=Praetor]
There’s a big difference between lying and being deceitful. I can tell you that I had a great time in the service without mentioning that 8 of my 10 friends died in the service. I might not be lying to you (see note below), but I’m sure as hell being deceitful. Painting a rosy picture of military service is not going to endear you to people who have chosen not to enlist. Before I enlisted I would want an estimate of the probability that I would be injured or killed while in the service.
(Note that I didn’t check your links because I’m at work. I have also never served in the US military. The example above was purely for illustrative purposes. Thus, I would clearly be lying if I said I had a great time in the service, but the recruiter might not be.)
[/QUOTE]
Let me get this straight, you want an actuarial chart showing your chances of dying in the service of your country? You also say that I should tell people that 8 of my friends died in Iraq. How could that possibly be true. No one in my Military Occupational Specialty has died in Iraq to my knowledge. The last one that I know of on active duty died in South Korea. So, I should tell people that they should avoid South Korea? Yes, people die in combat. I don’t sugar coat that. I also advise people that there are jobs in which the risk of being killed by enemy action is less. Yes, Soldiers die, so do accountants and firemen. Do the employers of receptionists tell them that they may get carpal tunnel syndrome?
I don’t know how you would know that I paint a rosy picture of the Army. I do know that a fuck of a lot of people want me to tell people that their sons and daughters will die by serving in the Army. That is not true. I do know that a lot of people believe that only those that can’t get an opportunity in life should serve. I actually had one dad say to me today that he supports the troops and appreciates what the Soldiers do, but his son has his “head screwed on straight” and could get nothing out of the Army. He further stated that his son was very responsible and was considered a leader by his peers, so I would have no use for him. I took insult to that. To me that says, yeah, defend our country if you are dumb enough to do so.
[Quote=TokyoPlayer]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSG Schwartz
There is also a chance you may be killed because you chose to be a Soldier. There is a chance you may be killed working on the line at a Detroit auto assembly plant. What job has the higher percentage of being killed in the line of duty, I have no way of knowing.
If someone asks you about the chances of dying, is this what you say?
[/quote]
Well, no, I am in Paris, Texas. I tell them about the deaths in the Campbell’s soup plant, of course. :smack:
SSG Schwartz
Paris, Texas!? Son, if you kick your CO in the shins and desert in the morning, I, for one, would hold your service obligation discharged in full.
[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz]
Let me get this straight, you want an actuarial chart showing your chances of dying in the service of your country?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Why should recruits not know their chances of dying? At the very least recruits should get statistics for how many people were injured or killed in action for the entire service and breakdowns into combat vs. non-combat roles, and I don’t think it would be unreasonable to get a breakdown into types of jobs (i.e. cook, musician, infantry, etc.). You keep insisting that the recruits are adults who can make their own decisions. Why should they not be making an informed decision?
[QUOTE=Praetor]
Yes. Why should recruits not know their chances of dying? At the very least recruits should get statistics for how many people were injured or killed in action for the entire service and breakdowns into combat vs. non-combat roles, and I don’t think it would be unreasonable to get a breakdown into types of jobs (i.e. cook, musician, infantry, etc.). You keep insisting that the recruits are adults who can make their own decisions. Why should they not be making an informed decision?
[/QUOTE]
I have to agree.
The example of accountants dying is asinine. Firemen dying in the line of duty is a better example and should be a consideration for anyone considering that as a profession.
This may not be accurate, but from my rough calculations 1 in every 358 people in the US military has died in Iraq and app 1 in 47 has been injured. That is based on the total US military size as of 10/31/07 of 1,419,212 and with 3960 military deaths in Iraq and app 30000 injured. (Note, I only used the injuries noted as being related to hostile forces)
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
I have to agree.
The example of accountants dying is asinine. Firemen dying in the line of duty is a better example and should be a consideration for anyone considering that as a profession.
This may not be accurate, but from my rough calculations 1 in every 358 people in the US military has died in Iraq and app 1 in 47 has been injured. That is based on the total US military size as of 10/31/07 of 1,419,212 and with 3960 military deaths in Iraq and app 30000 injured. (Note, I only used the injuries noted as being related to hostile forces)
[/QUOTE]
No, this would be incorrect. You have to look at all the people who have cycled through the Army since the beginning of the Iraq war to get an accurate count.
How many kids have died through over drinking, DWI, or car accidents in college?
I don’t disagree that the numbers should be available, and I am sure someone, somewhere has crunched them. On the other hand, not everything needs a warning label.
[QUOTE=fisha]
No, this would be incorrect. You have to look at all the people who have cycled through the Army since the beginning of the Iraq war to get an accurate count.
[/QUOTE]
True. I was just using the current numbers that I could get quickly for a rough look at the odds. I’ve been looking for numbers to see how many have cycled through the various forces since 2003 but that numbers appears harder to obtain.
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
This may not be accurate, but from my rough calculations 1 in every 358 people in the US military has died in Iraq and app 1 in 47 has been injured. That is based on the total US military size as of 10/31/07 of 1,419,212 and with 3960 military deaths in Iraq and app 30000 injured. (Note, I only used the injuries noted as being related to hostile forces)
[/QUOTE]
Does that include reservists and National Guardsmen/women?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Does that include reservists and National Guardsmen/women?
[/QUOTE]
Those are the numbers from the DOD for active duty Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard for enlisted and officers.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
The question for me, though, is not whether military doctors make much ado about minor issues. The question is whether it’s ethical for a recruiter to tell a recruit to omit aspects of his medical history because the “stupid” doctors might actually take it into account.
Do you think that it’s official military policy to encourage people to hide their medical history because the military doctors are a bunch of nitpicking pussies? If the military doctor asks a recruit a question about whether he has previously had any injuries, and the recruit says no, is that the right thing to do?
[/QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Simple question: if a MEP asks a recruit about past injuries or medical issues, and the recruiter has told the recruit that the condition is not “safe to admit,” should the recruit lie to the doctor?
I thought you military types were believers in chain of command and in following the rules. If the MEPs have been following the guidelines laid down for them in evaluating recruits’ medical histories, what business does a recruiter have undermining or sidestepping that procedure?
Your position seems to be that the definition of an ethical recruiter is one who condones only a certain amount of dishonesty.
[/QUOTE]
Airman Doors and SSG Schwartz, i realize that you are under no obligation to answer my questions, but if you’re not intentionally ignoring me, i really would be interested in whether you think recruiters should effectively circumvent the role of the MEPs by describing their decisions as “stupid” and suggesting that recruits omit prior medical conditions when asked about medical history by the MEPs.
Because, for me at least, that was the most clearly problematic part of the first video.
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Airman Doors and SSG Schwartz, i realize that you are under no obligation to answer my questions, but if you’re not intentionally ignoring me, i really would be interested in whether you think recruiters should effectively circumvent the role of the MEPs by describing their decisions as “stupid” and suggesting that recruits omit prior medical conditions when asked about medical history by the MEPs.
[/QUOTE]
See, it’s not that simple. As a civilian you withhold information on a regular basis when you see your doctor, since it’s a need-to-know situation. This is much the same. If you can pass the battery of tests, you’re quite qualified to enter the military. However, if you obscure it with other irrelevant information, your chances diminish greatly.
For instance, say you have a child that is “hyperactive” or “inattentive”, and your family physician prescribes Ritalin for him. Did you know that Ritalin, taken under any circumstances and at any time, is an immediate disqualifier for the military? Therefore, a parent, in exercising their judgment at the time, can permanently disqualify their child as early as 5 years old. Now, say this same child is 18, an honor student, and a solid citizen, with none of the issues that the drug was intended to address. Should this person be disqualified for something that was imposed upon him years before? Disclosure equals disqualification, remember.
Or let’s talk about illegal drug use. Smoking marijuana is not an automatic disqualifier, but it does complicate the issue of getting a security clearance. The prevailing opinion towards marijuana use as a civilian has changed to where it’s not even a big deal anymore for a large portion of the population, but it is to the DOD. Should you admit to this? If you don’t, you’re all but assured of being rigorously interrogated, because it is assumed that everybody took a hit at some time, but admission is an obstacle. Should you be completely honest, or should you lowball it so you’re not seen as a drug fiend? Keep in mind that you are regularly drug tested once you’re in the service so usage is almost a nonentity, but until you’re in it’s potentially a nonstarter.
Honesty is the best policy, but as with everything, omission of venal sins is not particularly egregious, and coming completely clean can often stop you before you ever have a chance to start.
It’s an ugly gray area, and one that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it’s how business is done, both in the military and in the civilian world. The difference is that in the civilian world you can always get another job. In the military it’s simply over, the person is SOL.
By submitting this, I know I’m opening the door for all sorts of flak, but if you really want to know, there it is. Such is the world we live in.
My question would be, what does the doctor and/or paperwork actually ask? If it asks for a full medical history, or if you have ever taken prescription drugs (which would of course include the ritalin), if you have ever used illegal drugs etc then I would have to say suggesting that a recruit give an answer that is not true is completely unethical.
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
My question would be, what does the doctor and/or paperwork actually ask? If it asks for a full medical history, or if you have ever taken prescription drugs (which would of course include the ritalin), if you have ever used illegal drugs etc then I would have to say suggesting that a recruit give an answer that is not true is completely unethical.
[/QUOTE]
There is a list of too many items to post here, but to summarize, you are asked everything except what was the mass of your last 5 bowel movements. As far as the moral questions are, there are two pages of what will get you permanently disqualified from service in the Army. Medical, OTOH, there are no clear rules for most things and they are not listed. If you used an inhaler when you were ten years old, and never diagnosed with asthma you would still require an exception to policy, waiver. If you broke your arm when you were 13 and it was properly set and you have had no problems since, you would probably need a waiver.
Hell, I have pins in my knee, which should disqualify me from military service. I made over a dozen jumps from aircraft.
I don’t encourage anyone to lie, but I do know that being fully forthright in your answers may keep a fully qualified person from being kept out of the Army. I disagree with Airman Doors that the doctors at MEPS are stupid, but I agree that the rules may be.
As to the comments about posting the stats for risk of injury or death for Servicemembers, when I enlisted, I was over 30 years old. I had a lot of jobs in the civilian workforce. Never once did my employer tell me how many people had been injured or killed while on duty. I applied for a job as a prison guard. The interviewer did not show me a chart of people who had been attacked by inmates. I sprayed lawns with pesticides. During my interview I never was informed of the chances of getting cancer or being sterile, but both were risks I took. So what I am getting is that because combat is a situation an applicant to the Army may find himself, I should say that x number of people in a job unlike yours were killed?
There are some who are ok with those types of jobs. Hell, I had an applicant tell me today he wanted a job where he could kill someone. What should I tell him, sometimes people want to shoot back? Fuck, at that rate, I would have everyone serving in support positions and no one fighting the war.
SSG Schwartz
Suddenly, my job is made easier. Send your kid to college to get shot by a madman, or send your kid to Iraq where she will be trained to shoot back and will issued personal protective equipment to defend herself.
Damn, I wonder what the college recruiters tell their applicants about the risk of death now.
Seriously, not to make light of the situation today, what self defense training do colleges give nowdays? Are applicants told of the risks?
Mr Bus Guy, good to hear yours is ok.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
If you come into money, you can get out (and quite easily at that).
[/QUOTE]
How does this work?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Should this person be disqualified for something that was imposed upon him years before? Disclosure equals disqualification, remember.
[/QUOTE]
YES!
And for the same reason that I encourage my gay friends to go to the blood drives, start the paperwork, and then check that little damning “had homosexual sex” box to disqualify themselves - because until the people putting the little checkbox there suffer for a lack of warm bodies and know exactly why they’re suffering a lack of warm bodies, no one has any incentive to change the fucking form (and regulations)!
Should Ritalin taken as a 5 year old disqualify an otherwise qualified person from entering the armed forces? Damned if I know. Maybe there’s a presumed or actual correlation between past Ritalin use and poor behavior that makes lousy soldiers. Maybe it interferes with all those vaccines soldiers get. Maybe not, but because they think the have a clean slate of non-Ritalin taking soldiers, they don’t have accurate data to show that it’s okay to have taken Ritalin 15 years ago. I assume (ha!) that someone, somewhere, that knows more about the business of running the Army and the effects of Ritalin decided it was a good idea to ban even ancient use of Ritalin, or they wouldn’t have put it in The Book. But maybe that *should *be changed. But how the hell do they have any incentive to change it if y’all keep lying to them and providing them with “Ritalin free” recruits?
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
How does this work?
[/QUOTE]
I think its called a “windfall clause” or something like that. I’m not sure of the entire mechanics, but it goes something like this…
I’m a soldier. I’m used to taking orders, I work long hours sometimes doing things I’d rather not be doing. I inherit or win through a lottery or somehow (legally) acquire a million bucks. I’m rich now.
Why the hell would I continue doing things I’d rather not when I can concievably never work again now? Do you think I’m going to get up at 5 AM if I just don’t feel like it? I’ve got a million bucks! I’m not going to spend my day digging foxholes in the freezing rain.
Now I don’t HAVE to get out. I don’t think they can force me to get out either. But they’d probably want me to. Money changes people. And my sudden riches might be a problem with unit morale if I chose to flaunt it.
…and recruiters are under a lot of stress. That job damn near killed me. I was with a senoir recruiter from my battalion one day at a local 7-11 and we both brought lottery tickets. This guy I was with was a converted recruiter (meaning when he permanently switched his original MOS to recruiting…he volunteered to do it so he must have on some level liked it) and even he said “If I win, I’m going to punch the Sergeant Major in the face, piss on the commander’s desk and move to Jamaica!”.
This isn’t something just military folks would do, either with money…a lot of people would tell their boss to eat shit and die if they came into a buttload of money. Hell, I like my job here and the people I work with but if you give me a few mil I’m outta here.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
YES!
And for the same reason that I encourage my gay friends to go to the blood drives, start the paperwork, and then check that little damning “had homosexual sex” box to disqualify themselves - because until the people putting the little checkbox there suffer for a lack of warm bodies and know exactly why they’re suffering a lack of warm bodies, no one has any incentive to change the fucking form (and regulations)!
Should Ritalin taken as a 5 year old disqualify an otherwise qualified person from entering the armed forces? Damned if I know. Maybe there’s a presumed or actual correlation between past Ritalin use and poor behavior that makes lousy soldiers. Maybe it interferes with all those vaccines soldiers get. Maybe not, but because they think the have a clean slate of non-Ritalin taking soldiers, they don’t have accurate data to show that it’s okay to have taken Ritalin 15 years ago. I assume (ha!) that someone, somewhere, that knows more about the business of running the Army and the effects of Ritalin decided it was a good idea to ban even ancient use of Ritalin, or they wouldn’t have put it in The Book. But maybe that *should *be changed. But how the hell do they have any incentive to change it if y’all keep lying to them and providing them with “Ritalin free” recruits?
[/QUOTE]
I disagree with both of these, for the same reason.
Even though you may be disqualified from donating blood or entering the military, it still costs time and money to get to that point at all, and that’s time and money that can (and IMNSHO should) be spent on someone who isn’t there to make a point about policy.
To be fair, I don’t think a distant history of medication use should be a disqualifier. Kids outgrow ADD and don’t need Ritalin anymore, or maybe they didn’t have it to begin with and got the medication at the behest of a parent or teacher. Perhaps the 13-year-old’s inhaler was intended as a temporary measure because he had acute bronchitis. Ditto for illicit drug use. As long as the applicant isn’t a regular user or has a history of drug- or alcohol-related problems, I don’t see why some guy who smoked a joint at a party two years ago is such a big deal now.
Perhaps in the future, such things will be made irrelevant. For now, though, you’ve got to work the system. I don’t think it’s unnecessarily unethical to use a lie of omission to push an otherwise qualified candidate through. Sure, it could very well come back to haunt; I understand that. Chances are, it won’t.
But wasting everyone’s time, money and energy to make a statement isn’t really a good way to do it.
Robin