I think I see why my job as an Army recruiter is hard. (Mild)

[Jolly_Roger]

@MsRobyn

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

Thats pretty much how recruiters see it also, MsRobyn. Keep in mind that if an applicant has to get an exam to prove he’s not on ritalin, or whatever else he (or she) has to pay for it. Usually the recruiting station commander will ask the applicant the same questions the MEPs doctor will ask to see what their answers are. Using ritalin as a basis (and i’ve witnessed situations like this a before when i was recruiting):

SC: Have you ever had to be on any prescription drugs?
APPLICANT: Yeah, I had to take ritalin 12 years ago, when I was about 7. I stopped taking it when I was 9. My mom thought I was hyperactive.
SC: Did a doctor prescribe it?
APPLICANT: I don’t know…I was only 7. And we lived in California then. I don’t remember the doctors name. Maybe my mom does…
SC: But you’re not on anything now? no medications, no prescriptions…?
APPLICANT: No, I don’t take anything now. I don’t even think I needed the ritalin.
SC: Ok, here’s the thing…you have really good test scores, I mean, damn, you got a 94 on the ASVAB. You only needed 31 to pass…but you’re golden, man. You said you wanted a job as Satellite systems technician, right? Well, the Army will guarantee you that job and right now the Army is giving enlistment bonuses of 50,000 dollars for people that take that MOS. Also you qualify for the Army College fund on top of the GI bill. but if you tell the doctor at MEPs that you were on ritalin 12 years ago…well, poof…its gone, dude.
APPLICANT: But I’m not on any medication. I don’t have anything wrong with me!
SC: I know. I believe you. But if you say anything about ritalin, the doc is going to want all of the medical records to prove you’re not on it still. That means you’ll have to find this doctor in California to get 'em if he still has them. Sergeant Otherguy here, your recruiter, can’t get them for you…you have to. And you’ve gotta pay for it.
APPLICANT: I don’t even remember the doctors name. He was old then…he’s probably retired now…
SC: Ok, listen, if you’re uncomfortable with it, just tell MEPs about the ritalin. They’ll DQ you, though…and that job you want is highly specialized. They might not be offering it up with a bonus for much longer. But if you don’t say anything about ritalin no one needs to know but you, me and the walls. The doctor is going to tell you that he can punch up your entire medical history on a computer, but he can’t. Its just to scare people into talking. If he could he wouldn’t need us to fill out your medical portion of your application, right? Trust me on this, I’ve been doing this for years. So, when the MEPs doctor asks you about any medications, what are you going to say?
APPLICANT: That I’m not on any prescription drugs, Station commander.
SC: Ok…good. you’ll do fine. Now my recruiter, SGT Otherguy, is gonna pick you up at 0400…thats 4 AM tomorrow…make sure you have clean underwear on…I’m not joking, you have to have underwear or they’ll toss you out of the medical exam. Its gonna be a long day for you, but you’ll make it. Any questions?
APPLICANT: Will I go to Iraq?
SC: Son, I can’t tell you that you will or won’t. You might finish training and go to a unit thats deploying there, or you might end up in Germany at Oktoberfest during your first assignment.
APPLICANT: Ha…that sounds cool…I’d love to go Oktoberfest.
SC: Yeah, that was my first assignment…Stuttgart, Germany…good times, man, good times…when you talk to the Career counselor tomorrow ask if you can get Guaranteed Station of choice. If you do and theres a slot for that MOS in Europe they’ll guarantee it in your contract.
APPLICANT: Cool…I just want to get out of this town…
SC: you’ll do okay. Now, SGT Otherguy will give you a ride home, unless you have more questions for me…

Other than the omission of the ritalin, nothing in that conversation is untrue for an applicant that wants a specific job. sometimes the job won’t be available, but in cases like that the 1st Sergeant would call DA and have them open another slot. They’d rather have the guy in the job he wants than not in the army at all, especially if he has a high test score. Why? Because not everyone can score high enough to qualify for that job. If this guy had wanted another job instead or didn’t have the scores for a high super duper tech one the SC would have talked to him about other jobs or told him to at least go through with the physical and see the counselor who would help him pick a job that he wants. If he didn’t qualify for a bonus or the ACF the SC wouldn’t have mentioned it. You don’t tell people what they can’t have…especially if it comes with the added low blow of “You don’t qualify for it.”. If the guy had a medical problem that would have prevented him from military service, he wouldn’t have gotten this far most likely because the Station Commander isn’t going to send a person to the physical that can’t pass it. that’d waste everyone’s time and surely piss off the entire chain of command. The applicant doesn’t have to sign anything if the contract doesn’t have what he wants. No one is going to force him to. They WANT him to, but the counselor that draws up the contract has no stake in it. He doesn’t care if the guy joins or not.

[Antinor01]

@Jolly Roger

SC: Ok, listen, if you’re uncomfortable with it, just tell MEPs about the ritalin. They’ll DQ you, though…and that job you want is highly specialized. They might not be offering it up with a bonus for much longer. But if you don’t say anything about ritalin no one needs to know but you, me and the walls. The doctor is going to tell you that he can punch up your entire medical history on a computer, but he can’t. Its just to scare people into talking. If he could he wouldn’t need us to fill out your medical portion of your application, right? Trust me on this, I’ve been doing this for years. So, when the MEPs doctor asks you about any medications, what are you going to say?

Quite frankly, that disgusts me. I would lose my license and job if I told people to lie. The same really should apply to military recruiters.

And I consider telling someone, “Well, you can tell the truth if you really, really want to but you won’t get anything. If you lie, life will be roses and candy!” to be the same thing. The only ethical thing I can see to do would be to tell the person, I’m sorry but you won’t qualify.

[Jolly_Roger]

@Antinor01

Quite frankly, that disgusts me. I would lose my license and job if I told people to lie. The same really should apply to military recruiters.

And I consider telling someone, “Well, you can tell the truth if you really, really want to but you won’t get anything. If you lie, life will be roses and candy!” to be the same thing. The only ethical thing I can see to do would be to tell the person, I’m sorry but you won’t qualify.

But he didn’t tell him to lie. He told him what would happen if the ritalin was mentioned. And the applicant has the option of of A) Saying I’m not comfortable with NOT mentioning it or B) Leaving right then and there. If the applicant chooses A then he can go dig up his medical records or getting the needed exams on his own dollar.

And no one said life would be roses and candy. The SC just told him the truth. It would be a lie to say he doesn’t qualify, because the applicant does qualify. Everything from that point on is in the applicant’s court.

[WhyNot]

@Antinor01

Quite frankly, that disgusts me. I would lose my license and job if I told people to lie. The same really should apply to military recruiters.

And I consider telling someone, “Well, you can tell the truth if you really, really want to but you won’t get anything. If you lie, life will be roses and candy!” to be the same thing. The only ethical thing I can see to do would be to tell the person, I’m sorry but you won’t qualify.

Exactly. Someone, somewhere, has been assigned the job of deciding who medically qualifies. And it isn’t the recruiter, and it isn’t the applicant.

How would you feel if you were in Iraq securing a town and asked the owner of a house if he had any guns in it? You’d want an honest answer of “yes” or “no”, right? Not someone who thinks, “Well, there’s my grandfather’s rifle, but I don’t even have any ammunition for it, and I’ve been a pacifist for 30 years and would never shoot anyone! If I say there is a weapon, this guy is going to make my day a living hell; I’ve heard terrible stories about how soldiers treat people when they find guns in their houses. I’m just going to say “no, I don’t have a gun [on me]” and maybe he’ll believe me and go away.”

From what you’re telling us, it’s a simple question (or series of questions): have you taken Ritalin or not? Yes or no. If it really honestly shouldn’t be relevant, that’s still not up to you, recruiter, or him, hopeful young applicant, to decide. Someone else - presumably someone with a medical degree and a larger picture view of military operations, but maybe not - has already decided that.

I thought y’all were into this “chain of command” notion.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Antinor01

Quite frankly, that disgusts me. I would lose my license and job if I told people to lie. The same really should apply to military recruiters.

And I consider telling someone, “Well, you can tell the truth if you really, really want to but you won’t get anything. If you lie, life will be roses and candy!” to be the same thing. The only ethical thing I can see to do would be to tell the person, I’m sorry but you won’t qualify.

And thank you for telling us all your admirable ethics. I admire you, in fact, because you’re the only person I’ve ever met, seen, or heard of that has never told a lie. Had you told a lie, ever, you would have a mighty hard time holding this position. Obviously you haven’t. Are you Catholic? I’ll let the Pope know about you so we can expedite your elevation to sainthood.

OK, I’m done with the sarcasm now.

There is a difference between fessing up to Ritalin (or some other disqualifying drug) that you clearly do not use anymore and maybe never needed that was imposed on you, and not disclosing your bone necrosis or partial brain damage or something that will obviously have an effect on your performance.

[Antinor01]

@Jolly Roger

But he didn’t tell him to lie. He told him what would happen if the ritalin was mentioned. And the applicant has the option of of A) Saying I’m not comfortable with NOT mentioning it or B) Leaving right then and there. If the applicant chooses A then he can go dig up his medical records or getting the needed exams on his own dollar.

And no one said life would be roses and candy. The SC just told him the truth. It would be a lie to say he doesn’t qualify, because the applicant does qualify. Everything from that point on is in the applicant’s court.

But if you don’t say anything about ritalin no one needs to know but you, me and the walls. The doctor is going to tell you that he can punch up your entire medical history on a computer, but he can’t. Its just to scare people into talking. If he could he wouldn’t need us to fill out your medical portion of your application, right? Trust me on this, I’ve been doing this for years. So, when the MEPs doctor asks you about any medications, what are you going to say?
APPLICANT: That I’m not on any prescription drugs, Station commander.
SC: Ok…good. you’ll do fine.

That sounds like telling them to lie to me. Perhaps not directly, but it is still leading them to tell a lie. And no, the applicant doesn’t qualify. Their medical history that you have been given direct knowledge of disqualifies them per what has been said in this thread.

[Antinor01]

@Airman Doors

And thank you for telling us all your admirable ethics. I admire you, in fact, because you’re the only person I’ve ever met, seen, or heard of that has never told a lie. Had you told a lie, ever, you would have a mighty hard time holding this position. Obviously you haven’t. Are you Catholic? I’ll let the Pope know about you so we can expedite your elevation to sainthood.

OK, I’m done with the sarcasm now.

There is a difference between fessing up to Ritalin (or some other disqualifying drug) that you clearly do not use anymore and maybe never needed that was imposed on you, and not disclosing your bone necrosis or partial brain damage or something that will obviously have an effect on your performance.

I never said I have never lied. Reread what I said and try again.

[Jolly_Roger]

@Airman Doors

And thank you for telling us all your admirable ethics. I admire you, in fact, because you’re the only person I’ve ever met, seen, or heard of that has never told a lie. Had you told a lie, ever, you would have a mighty hard time holding this position. Obviously you haven’t. Are you Catholic? I’ll let the Pope know about you so we can expedite your elevation to sainthood.

OK, I’m done with the sarcasm now.

There is a difference between fessing up to Ritalin (or some other disqualifying drug) that you clearly do not use anymore and maybe never needed that was imposed on you, and not disclosing your bone necrosis or partial brain damage or something that will obviously have an effect on your performance.

The ironic thing is this giuy could go through training, get assigned to his first unit and go scream in the commander’s office at the top of his lungs “I took ritalin when I was 7!” and the commander would probably say “So? Who didn’t?”.

As you said Airman Doors, it would disgust me that a person wanting to join the military couldn’t because he said “I took ritalin when I was 7”.

It also disgusts me when Car salesmen say “I don’t know if we can take that offer on that fine vehicle…I’m going to go talk to my boss and see if he’ll agree, but I’m tellin’ ya…I don’t think he will.”, then they go pretend to haggle on your behalf when they’re really cackling about how they just took you for a deal you could probably improve, and come back and say “We’re taking a loss on this, but you’re a good guy. My boss went crazy but I told him we’re gonna sell you this car.”.

Because he just lied to me. the SC told the guy the truth. But then I could just walk out of the car lot. Just like the applicant could just walk out of the recruiting station.

[Lobohan]

@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.

What a stupid comment.

[Tenebras]

Wait, now you’re comparing yourself to a crooked car salesman? Are you entirely sure this is the course you want to be charting?

[Jolly_Roger]

@Antinor01

That sounds like telling them to lie to me. Perhaps not directly, but it is still leading them to tell a lie. And no, the applicant doesn’t qualify. Their medical history that you have been given direct knowledge of disqualifies them per what has been said in this thread.

The applicant isn’t DQ’d. The SC has no proof of this “ritalin” he’s not a doctor. He just told him what would happen if he told the doctor that. If he had said “I’m still taking ritalin!” then he would have been DQ’d to the SC and he would have said “Sorry, you can’t join while you’re on ritalin.”. You can look at that however you want to, but as a former recruiter I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with that applicant from what he told the SC. There’s nothing in the recruiting manual regulations that was broken by what the SC said…and trust me, if there was DA would investigate. Heck, they investigated me because a girl got pregnant before she shipped off and claimed I knocked her up. (which was ridiculous…she was ugly as sin)

Is it a little white lie of omission? Sure. But the cold hard facts are there aren’t many people that have never seen a doctor, been prescribed something, fallen off of a bike and needed stitches, etc., and the MEPS doctor will want to see every single record of even if you tell him that you had a hangnail on your big toe when you were 10. Its ridiculous, and I wish it weren’t so, but it is. Meanwhile recruiting command will be screaming “Put him in boots ASAP, because we don’t care about 12 year old ritalin prescriptions”. If anything, the MEPS should relax their rules a bit. When you have applicants getting turned away for acne and a blister on a foot because the applicant ran ten miles a day, it gets stupid. It gets beyond stupid when you want the guy to pay for an exam on a single blister from running or go see a dermatologist just to clear him for a freaking medical exam at MEPS. (because once the doctor says he wants records your physical is over).

[Jolly_Roger]

@Tenebras

Wait, now you’re comparing yourself to a crooked car salesman? Are you entirely sure this is the course you want to be charting?

Well, my point was that the SC didn’t lie to the applicant in that example. I guess I was writing it badly, especially since I got a pretty good deal on my car.

[Lobohan]

You know what just came to me? Years ago I sold vacation home timeshares in Hawaii. It’s a 90 minute presentation where you get two free luau tickets for listening and they try to sell you. I was one of the salesmen.

But the other half of the business is the OPCs. The guys in the street with the sandwich boards and booths who get tourists passing by to attend the shows. The salespeople (my side) put requirements on people to get in. Like they have to have $55k a year in combined income(for a couple), because you want them to be able to afford to buy the timeshare.

But the OPCs, get paid for each client that shows up, regardless of whether they buy or not. So they often tell people to lie so they can get paid for them. “Oh you only make $44k combined as a couple, well just tell them you make 56.” There are other requirements, and they get them to lie about those as well.

It’s in the OPCs interest to lie. The best spots with the most traffic go to the OPCs who produce most. So being a lying scumbag is positively reinforced by being an income multiplier.

So I just realized that military recruiters are just like those scummy OPCs in Waikiki. They tell their marks to lie because once their in who the fuck cares. Quota reached. Numbers achieved! Hu-Rah!

[Antinor01]

@Jolly Roger

The applicant isn’t DQ’d. The SC has no proof of this “ritalin” he’s not a doctor. He just told him what would happen if he told the doctor that. If he had said “I’m still taking ritalin!” then he would have been DQ’d to the SC and he would have said “Sorry, you can’t join while you’re on ritalin.”. You can look at that however you want to, but as a former recruiter I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with that applicant from what he told the SC. There’s nothing in the recruiting manual regulations that was broken by what the SC said…and trust me, if there was DA would investigate. Heck, they investigated me because a girl got pregnant before she shipped off and claimed I knocked her up. (which was ridiculous…she was ugly as sin)

I see we’re never going to agree on this as it seems our standards of what is acceptable are vastly different. Ah well, I’m sure we’ll get along over things in other threads.

[Skywatcher]

@eleanorigby

did the military insist on HS diplomas in WW2?

Hell, plenty of guys who weren’t quite old enough to have a diploma joined up. My dad was 16 when he enlisted.

[mhendo]

@Airman Doors

There is a difference between fessing up to Ritalin (or some other disqualifying drug) that you clearly do not use anymore and maybe never needed that was imposed on you, and not disclosing your bone necrosis or partial brain damage or something that will obviously have an effect on your performance.

I agree with this.

@MsRobyn

To be fair, I don’t think a distant history of medication use should be a disqualifier.

I agree with this.

@Jolly Roger

If anything, the MEPS should relax their rules a bit.

Based on the information we’ve been given in this thread, i agree with this too.

But here’s what gets me about the whole thing:

Whenever non-military folks question or criticize some aspect of military procedure, and argue that it doesn’t make sense or is unreasonable, we’re told that the military is different from everywhere else, and that you can’t apply the same rules of what constitutes “reasonable” or what should be allowed when you’re talking about the military. The military has very good reasons for setting different standards, because the military is a unique organization.

Now you’re telling us that, in this case, the military has set certain standards, and that MEPs have very clear guidelines on what they require in order to pass someone through to the military, but that it’s OK to slide around those rules because you don’t think they’re reasonable. In this case, the military isn’t different from everywhere else; it’s just as banal and shady with the truth as a used car salesperson, and we need to realize that sometimes you have to tell a “white lie of omission” in order to get around some silly rules.

To be quite honest, i don’t care very much about the whole issue of omitting a previous medical condition like the ones you’ve been describing. As i said above, i agree with you that many such things shouldn’t disqualify people. It’s just somewhat disconcerting to hear people who believe in military rules and the military chain of command talk so blithely of circumventing a rule because they think it’s stupid. Makes you wonder how many other “stupid” rules are being ignored, or observed only in the breach, every day.

In the past, i’ve had military folks tell me that if you don’t like a rule or a procedure in the military, you don’t get to ignore it. You should, instead, use the chain of command to investigate whether the rule or procedure can be changed. My only question is why that doesn’t apply here?

[WhyNot]

@MsRobyn

Perhaps in the future, such things will be made irrelevant.

<snip>

But wasting everyone’s time, money and energy to make a statement isn’t really a good way to do it.

Robin

Why will such things be made irrelevant in the future (as I agree that they probably should be) if there is no waste of time, money or energy and no lack of “qualified” recruits because everyone’s lying? Why would they change anything at all?

All you’re letting them do is take advantage of you and play Cover Their Ass if someday some chemical agent does react with decades old traces of Ritalin in your spinal fluid (all that was just made up, of course. Come, come to hypothetical land with me!)…you end up disabled and then they unearth your pediatric records and go, “Gotcha! You lied on your medical history and so your permanent paralysis is all *your *fault! Not only will we not pay your disability and pension, but you owe US money for wasting all those resources recruiting, training and supporting you for all those years you were in the service under false pretenses.”

Think they won’t pull that sort of thing? Ha.

[Jolly_Roger]

@Antinor01

I see we’re never going to agree on this as it seems our standards of what is acceptable are vastly different. Ah well, I’m sure we’ll get along over things in other threads.

I got no problem with that. Truth be told I didn’t like recruiting and I certainly didn’t enjoy the nebulous shady side of it. Theres a lot of room for improvement in it, and trust me, I was punished for not putting people in by hook or crook. Maybe one day someone will start a thread on what its like to be a recruiter…oh, man, then there will be tales of woe.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

In the interests of full disclosure here, by the way, I am a victim of this policy. Without going into too much detail, I went into MEPS ready to go, and when they asked some medical questions I answered truthfully. This caused me to be permanently disqualified.

However, I really wanted to join, so in conjunction with the Guard recruiter, one of the doctors, and a wait of 7 years so that I could answer the question truthfully (since my answer was on record), we found a way to get me in, which has worked out for the benefit of all involved.

The irony is that the disqualification was based on the opinion of one man who I was compelled to see by (and with) my mother for a very short time, who made a judgment that has, in the fullness of time, proven to be incorrect. It was incorrect even then, but I had no recourse.

My point is that this, for me, is not an abstract exercise. It actually happened to me. Take that for what it’s worth.

[Antinor01]

@Airman Doors

My point is that this, for me, is not an abstract exercise. It actually happened to me. Take that for what it’s worth.

It’s not entirely abstract for me either. I sell health insurance. In the individual line of business there is a detailed health history questionaire. If I were to encourage/advise or otherwise lead someone to believe that it was ok to not mention something because I personally felt it shouldn’t matter, I would lose my license to sell insurance and my livelyhood.

I fully understand that it’s not 100% the same situation, but I’m not speaking in only hypotheticals here either.