Military Accepting More Ex-Cons

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
I guess this is the real reason behind DTB's optimistic enrollment figures.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,125220,00.html?wh=news


Military Accepting More Ex-Cons
Associated Press | February 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, as the armed services cope with a dwindling pool of volunteers during wartime.

The military routinely grants waivers to take in recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Most are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.

Defense Department statistics show that the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.

The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than in 2003.

The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors - from petty theft or writing a bad check to some assaults - jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006, representing more than three-quarters of moral waivers granted by the Army.

Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who had made a mistake but overcome past behavior.

Lawmakers and other observers said they were concerned that the struggle to fill military ranks in this time of war had caused standards to fall.

"Our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. "By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday he was concerned that the Pentagon data differed from Army numbers, but said that "anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review."

"Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies," Boyce said.

The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues.

"The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.

The military also does not have programs that help convicted felons adjust to military life, according to a new study commissioned by the center, Belkin said.

As the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have dragged on, the military also has relaxed some standards in order to meet recruitment demands. The Army, for example, increased its age limit for recruits from 35 to 42, and is accepting more people with lower scores on a standardized aptitude test.

The Pentagon said in its report that "the waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military."

The military in its report divides moral waivers into six categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses.

According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of military recruits in 2006 needed some type of waiver, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.

About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003.

More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements.

About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up slightly from 2003.

Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,407
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
That would be disurbing to me Smurph--your statement was also interesting Chad--I'm trying to figure out how A.P. article got on an apparent military website--will let you know what I find out
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,407
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
Was interesting search smurph I've went through 5 pages of search on "can felons join military" of the five pages all appeared to be liberal blogs on issue with exception of your source which seems to be legit. Good job!

From what I can figure so far is felons can enter military if they receive waiver and each case is reviewed individually--I do not care for any felon joining myself--I hope marine sees this and sheds some light on issue. Appears out of 69,000 recruits 901 were felons--way too many for my liking-- did find one other source in 5 pages that wasn't a blog--if you would- read this from NYT and note how they speak of felons but then bring misdemeanors into count without telling anyone--even classifying misdemeanors as "criminal backrounds"--bad enough as I understand it--but their reporting is very misleading--would you say?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/u...12&ex=1171688400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
49
Fort Worth, TX
I read this and have seen it around the news lately. No time to write now, but I will put together some info on it for you.

Quick summary:
Yes, waivers are on an individual basis and very thoroughly reviewed at high levels.

Hey, people always cry that its wrong to let convicted felons vote, and all the restrictions placed on them and how oppressive society is to a convicted felon. Now they can join the military and all of a sudden they are incompetent?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
The point of the article is that the military has been forced to lower thier criminal record standards in order to compensate for a drop in enlistments. Do the numbers lie? Maybe it's a good thing to have more felons in the military. I don't know.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
saw this on cnn the other day. some of the soldiers were not to happy about it and i dont blame them. Kinda remember a guy named marine blasting me about me saying a judge waived a few things on a guy i knew if he joined the military. On Cnn they were showing just this. Im sure they didn't get this idea from me 5 months ago. This stuff happens and it was just kept under the rug and now the rug is off. Kinda makes you feel the war is wrong if they have to stoop to this low. I think that asshole from Virgina who raped that young Iraq girl and then lit their house on fire killing the whole family had a previous record. Nice kid. You get kids wanting to fight for the country and they have to serve with an asshole like that. This one wife on CNN had a restraining order against her husband and is scared to death of him. he is one of those wacko jealous people. Thought she was having an affair so he lit the guys car on fire. he is ready to go back to Iraq. Wife said he told her how easy it is to kill one of his buddies if he doesn't like him because nobody would know that it wasn't an accident. Another nice kid to serve with.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
49
Fort Worth, TX
Stop spinning things Sponge. You said that the judge would waive his DUI/DWI. As in, remove them from his record if he joined the service.

I still stand by my hoisting of the BS Flag on that. You think these folks with convictions that are joining the service now are getting them expunged from their record?
All that happens is it is annotaed in their service record that they had these problems... it still stays on the books.

As for the wife on CNN... it happened AFTER he joined the military. Not everyone has the mental strength that you do and some are unable to cope with a military lifestyle and a family lifestyle merged together. Look at the military divorce rate for further proof.


To others, I disagree with the allowance of those with felony convictions being allowed in the military.
I'm not going to post anymore on the topic however because lord knows what kind of snippet and spin sponge will spew with it.



im not gonna call his father and ask him this. What i do know is that his kid kept getting in trouble. Not the type of trouble like stealing. High school type of trouble. what id do know is that he was told that if he wanted the stuff wavied off of his record he could join the military. I also do know he has gone back twice and his father begs him not to go because he like me knows you guys are fighting for absolute bullshit.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
I will hopefully get the whole story tomorrow. Now Marine this is basically apples and oranges. There is nothing i can gain from making up a story like that and now its happening right before our eyes. Im sorry i couldn't get the details 100 percent right but 90 percent is pretty close. The only reason i didn't pursue the story is because i would have had to deal with people i can't stand to get to the father so it wasn't worth it to me. Since time has past i think i can do it another way.
As for me having mental toughness? If i saw people heads blown off time and time again i think i might have to get a little therapy myself. Maybe even a lot.
One time in New York i was getting ready to get on and elevator and something happen before it stopped. The doors open and then slammed shut. A guy had his head almost out the door and when the door shut his head got chopped of. The head bounced and hit my leg. I was terrifying. I looked down at the head and the head looked up at me and started singing IIIIIIIIIIII aint got nooooo booooody. I almost passed out
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
Hey, people always cry that its wrong to let convicted felons vote, and all the restrictions placed on them and how oppressive society is to a convicted felon. Now they can join the military and all of a sudden they are incompetent?


couldn`t have said it better.....the old left-wing double standard....having it both ways...
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
49
Fort Worth, TX
Im sorry i couldn't get the details 100 percent right but 90 percent is pretty close.


Now you sound just like the media. congrats sponge
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
couldn`t have said it better.....the old left-wing double standard....having it both ways...
i really dont know who you are talking about. this article is only about stats - not a statement about extreme liberals.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,407
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
As I stated initially I am not fan of felons in service period--but if you think 75 extra recruits (felons) a month are big diff on meeting quota's I would beg to differ. All branchs have met their quota's with exception of Guard and Reserves--and I can understand that as most don't join with anticipation of leaving states.

Now I do see recruiting to be more of a prob in future--reasons are obvious as you have the liberal anti military movement--no ROTC-no recruiters--media assualts--and they are even trying to indocrinate children--letting them out of class for protest--even distibuting anti miltary comics books to children in school--
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=assignment_7&id=5014115

So don't blame war on it--those doing the fighting have been re-enlisting at record rates.

As always it not a prob with those serving-its those that shudder of thought of having to serve.

If they made one or two years service mandatory it would solve lots of problems--and the U.S. would be much better place as result.

on retention--

Army surpassing year's retention goal by 15%
Posted 4/9/2006

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.
The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.

Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year. Army recruiting figures for the first half of the year are to be released today.

The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001.

Soldiers like the Army, "and the war is not causing people to leave," says Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Through March, 2,325 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq; 1,593 were Army soldiers.

The Pentagon announced in March that each of the armed forces was on track to meet its retention goal for the year.

Pay and re-enlistment bonuses help, Hilferty says. Bonuses range from nothing to $150,000 for a handful of special operations commandos. The average re-enlistment bonus is $6,000, Hilferty says.

"It's not just pay," Hilferty says. "Our people want to be part of something greater than themselves, and they're willing to put up with a lot."

Charles Henning, a national defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, says robust re-enlistment allows the Army to maintain its strength.

"Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."

In the longer term, the trend could create an older, more expensive-to-maintain Army, according to military sociologist Charles Moskos, an emeritus professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.

The Army needs to balance career soldiers with younger troops who serve for just a few years, Moskos says.

"It can be financially astounding in terms of retirement and health benefits," Moskos says. "You need more citizen soldiers rather than professionals."

The Army accounts for age when it accepts soldiers for re-enlistment, Hilferty says. While the Army has fewer privates and more specialists than in the past, he says, the age structure is balanced. "We're aware of it, and we're considering it."
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Let anyone in that passes a back ground check IF one is needed. Some good mean bastards could be found this way. Better on your side then against you. Now back to years ago when they let us die for our girl friends. But we were not old enough to have a bear or vote. I say anyone let in military if 18 should also be able to vote. Our military can do more for many then any prison ever will. Of course murder's,rapists and such need not apply.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
49
Fort Worth, TX
I say anyone let in military if 18 should also be able to vote.


Congress feels teh same way and granted that right to 18 year olds even who were NOT serving in the military.

Talk about wacky crazy ideas eh djv?


And this is some pretty fuzzy math here.

The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors - from petty theft or writing a bad check to some assaults - jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006, representing more than three-quarters of moral waivers granted by the Army.

The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.

According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of military recruits in 2006 needed some type of waiver, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.


I am not following these numbers. is it 100,000 felons? or 900 felons and 100,000 "troubled pasts"
The AP write who put this together should be sent back to math and stats class.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I understand the18 year old law that passed. But it took years of debate to get it. Many times they pushed 19. That went away finally.
As for prisoners that cost us estimated 27000 each a year to house. We might as well pay some for duty. Say 3/4 years. In exchange for there 5 to 7 for some of these minor drug charges that are filling our prisons to over flow status. And of course they must tow the line or go back to jail. Could be a win/win.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
49
Fort Worth, TX
Sorry djv, but I will continue to stand against putting people that are currently in jail into military service under the guide of "getting something back" or "teaching them to be a man".

It's crap.

If they are ok to put into military service then they are just as ok to become janitors in federal buildings, parking lot attendants at federal and state facilities as well.
Start putting them in other federal jobs and then I might change my stance on allowing them into the military.
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Marine- I don't pretend to have enough knowledge on the issue to have much of a stance, but just out of curiosity, is your problem with the people presently in jail, or anyone with a felony on their record? Or anyone with any misdemeanor as well?


But we were not old enough to have a bear or vote.

DJV- I know what you meant, but this gave me a good laugh. I didn't realize there was that much demand for bear ownership!
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
From last year, this:

Army misses recruiting goal
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON ? In what could be a troubling sign for the military, the active-duty Army missed its February recruiting goal by more than 27%. It was the first time in almost five years that the Army has failed to meet a monthly target.

The Army signed up 5,114 recruits in February, 1,936 fewer than its goal of 7,050. The last time the Army missed a monthly target was in May 2000.

The February shortfall is especially worrisome because it comes as the Army is trying to lure recruits with the largest enlistment bonuses it has ever offered: up to $20,000 to some recruits willing to sign on for four years. The Pentagon has also been adding thousands of recruiters for the Army and other branches.

Doug Smith, a spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox in Kentucky, attributed the shortfall in part to competition from the improving economy and parents' fears that their children could be injured or killed in Iraq. As of Wednesday, nearly 1,500 U.S. servicemembers had died in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003.

Smith also said the Army has used up many of its "delayed entry" recruits ? people who agree to sign up, but whose enlistment is delayed until later for their convenience or the Army's. Last year, the Army rushed several thousand recruits in the delayed entry program into basic training to meet its 2004 recruiting target. Normally, those recruits would have been available this year to boost recruiting numbers.

"It's just going to be a rough year," Smith said.

The Marine Corps missed its monthly target in January for the first time in nearly 10 years, but it met its February goal.

David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland who monitors personnel trends, said the Army's February numbers reflect the extraordinary demands on the nation's ground forces and the uneasiness many Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

"We all knew this was coming if you looked at what is happening in the Army Guard and Army Reserve," Segal said, pointing to recruiting problems in those two part-time military forces. "The question was not whether it would happen to the Army, but when."

The active-duty Army needs to recruit 80,000 new soldiers this year ? 3,000 more than last year ? to replenish its ranks. Segal said he does not think the Army will achieve that goal.

Guard and reserve recruiting has lagged. Through January, four months into a recruiting year that runs from October 2004 through September 2005, the Army Guard was almost 24% behind its recruiting target. Figures were unavailable for February. The Army Reserve was about 10% below its recruiting target through February.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are part-time forces made up of soldiers who train typically one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer in peacetime. That has changed dramatically, however. Guard and reserve troops now make up about 40% of the full-time U.S. troops in Iraq.

February's results are the first sign that recruiting problems plaguing the Guard and reserve are spreading to the active force.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said several Army generals told him last year that recruiting was likely to "fall off a cliff" in 2005. "I think this spells a major recruiting shortfall for the Army," he said.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
US lowers standards in army numbers crisis

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian

The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was "a matter of great concern" in an army at war. It told officers: "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations."

Officially, the memo, reported in the Wall Street Journal and posted on Slate.com, ordered battalion commanders to refer cases of problem soldiers up to brigade level. Military experts warned that the move would make it more difficult to remove poor soldiers and would lower quality in the ranks.

A military spokesman told the Guardian yesterday: "It was merely a question of an additional set of eyes looking at an issue before we release potential recruits."

The Wall Street Journal quoted a battalion commander as saying: "It is the guys on weight control ... school no-shows, drug users, etc, who eat up my time and cause my hair to grey prematurely ... Often they have more than one of these issues simultaneously."

Asked what the new policy meant, John Pike from the thinktank Globalsecurity.org said: "It means there is a war on. They need all the soldiers they can get. But it is a dilemma. You need good soldiers more in wartime than peacetime."

The latest controversy comes amid a growing recruitment and retention crisis in the US military. Last month the army announced that it was 6,659 soldiers short of its recruitment targets for the year so far. On Wednesday, the department of defence withheld the latest figures, a move seen by most commentators as heralding more bad news.

The military's target is 80,000 new recruits this year, but the army only managed 73% of its target in February, 68% in March and 57% in April, forcing the expansion of a pilot programme offering 15-month active duty enlistments, rather than the usual four years.

The crisis has even led to fears - despite repeated denials by President George Bush - of a return to the draft system that conscripted 1.8 million Americans during the Vietnam war.

Major General Michael Rochelle, the head of army recruitment, said this was the "toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army", with the war raising concern among potential recruits and their families.

"Recruiters have been given greater leeway," said Mr Pike. "By doing things to increase quantity you are also doing things to decrease quality, but they have made the judgment that that is the way to go."

One recruiting standard that was about to be lowered was a rule governing tattoos in the navy and marines. "If you have excessively prominent and vulgar tattoos they will not take you right now, but that is about to change," he said.

A commander quoted in the Wall Street Journal linked the growing attrition rate among new recruits to a slipping of standards by recruiters, who were under pressure to meet their monthly quotas.

An army spokeswoman said: "We are doing our best to decrease attrition level, but we have not and will not lower our standards for recruiting and retaining soldiers."

Yet in March 17.4% of all new army recruits failed to complete training, while another 7.3% did not finish the first three years with their unit.

Last month it emerged that one recruiter gave advice on how to cheat a mandatory drug test to a potential would-be soldier who said he had a drug problem.

In another incident in Texas, a recruiter threatened a 20-year-old man with arrest if he did not turn up to an interview. As a result all military recruiters stopped work for one day to attend retraining classes on acceptable practices.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top