Wallace: Waivers do not affect troop quality

[CommunityEditor]

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – The Army’s top training commander on Feb. 28 sought to dispel what he termed “rumors” about the quality of recruits who receive waivers to enter the Army and said the Army will continue to use waivers in recruiting.

After more than six years at war, the Army is striving to find innovative ways of filling the ranks and has relaxed some of its more stringent standards to widen the pool of eligible applicants.

Of the 107,410 active and reserve soldiers who joined the Army in fiscal 2007, roughly 21 percent, or 22,186, were granted waivers for medical conditions, drug and alcohol use, or misdemeanors and felonies, according to Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of Training and Doctrine Command.

Wallace said he can draw on his own experience from youth: He was arrested at age 14 in Louisville, Ky., for shoplifting. He recalled the experience in an interview with Army Times.

“My parents came, the cops had to load the bikes in the back of the cop car,” Wallace said. He and a friend had switched the packaging of a higher priced baseball with that of a cheaper ball and got nabbed by an observant cashier, he said.

With an approach to granting waivers that seeks to include all who want to serve in the Army, Wallace predicted the Army would continue granting moral and medical waivers because “America’s all about opportunity, it’s not about denying people opportunity.

“As long as it’s measured and as long as it’s under control and as long as it’s reasonable and seen as giving a young kid a second chance, then I think it’s a reasonable thing to do,” Wallace said, challenging critics of the Army’s waiver policy to go into the field to meet soldiers who have joined with waivers.

“If you’re concerned about the quality of the American soldier, instead of sitting around smoke-filled rooms in Washington, D.C., debating the statistics,” go out and see a soldier at Fort Jackson, S.C.; Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.; Fort Knox, Ky.; Fort Benning, Ga., or in Iraq and Afghanistan and “make your own assessment,” Wallace said to an audience at the winter meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army on Feb. 28.

In the past five years, Wallace said, the number of soldiers coming in on moral or medical waivers has increased at a rate of up to 2 percent a year.

All waivers are reviewed by at least six people. The records of recruits who come into the Army on felony waivers are reviewed by 10 people, including at least one general officer at U.S. Army Recruiting Command.

Here’s how the number of moral waivers breaks down for fiscal 2007, and the categories of waivers:

• 9.6 percent, or 2,122 people, for incidents the Army deems “serious misconduct.” That includes 598 convicted felons and 1,524 people who were charged with a felony that was never prosecuted. “If the judge didn’t think it was serious enough to prosecute, then why should we be the arbiter?” Wallace posed.

• 6.7 percent, or 1,492 people, for drug and alcohol use and admitted use of recreational drugs. These recruits, Wallace said, have no current record of using drugs. Each is given a test before they come in.

• 38.9 percent, or 8,637 people, for pre-existing medical conditions.

• 44.8 percent, or 9,935 new recruits, who committed misdemeanors.

“From my perspective the United States Army is an inclusive organization rather than an exclusive organization, and we’ve got men and women who are willing to lay down their past foibles and join the U.S. Army and raise their right hands,” Wallace said. “I know that those who have received waivers have had no higher incidence of misconduct or indiscipline once they’re in the military than those who have been allowed in without waivers.”

Wallace said it’s less about the waivers than it is about the quality of the individual, citing the case of an 18-year-old who was granted a waiver despite a felony arson charge brought against him when he was 14.

According to Wallace, the youth set a bee hive on fire on a tree in his family’s back yard, which engulfed the tree and leapt to a neighbor’s yard and burned down a garage.

Another soldier who was granted a waiver had been charged with a felony assault for being part of a group that stole a radio from a car outside a convenience store. He completed 80 hours of community service and paid for the radio.

“If an individual wants to serve, has all the stuff they need to serve, if they want to be a soldier and want to serve their country, if they’ve got the right mental attitude, the right physical and intellectual capabilities then we ought to give them a chance to do it,” he said. “I know for a fact that if you give me a young person, I’ll make them a better person upon graduation than the person they were when they entered basic training.”


Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/army_AUSA_waivers_030108w/

[Biglew97]

"6.7 percent, or 1,492 people, for drug and alcohol use and admitted use of recreational drugs. These recruits, Wallace said, have no current record of using drugs. Each is given a test before they come in."


This is a double standard and I would love for anyone to explain to me why a soldier that may have been discharged for a positive urinalisys, or a minor alcohol related incident that receives an RE - 4 cannot receive a waiver to re-enlist.

"Of the 107,410 active and reserve soldiers who joined the Army in fiscal 2007, roughly 21 percent, or 22,186, were granted waivers for medical conditions, drug and alcohol use, or misdemeanors and felonies, according to Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of Training and Doctrine Command."

I also find it funny if you go into MEPS and fail the urinalisys then they tell you to go home and reapply in a few months and it is no way a disqualifier for entrance into the service.

I know soldiers that would love to serve but are unable because they received an RE-4 for drug use. They know they messed up and would like nothing better that to go back and have a second chance.

Is the RE-4 for drug use fair and equitable for first time offenders who are involuntarily exited from service?

[former31B]

You make a good point. The services would argue that when one enlists, regardless if they need a waiver, the person is given a fresh start in the military. The rationale behind this is that people grow up in different circumstances, with some people being more exposed to violence, drugs, ect. than others. Granting waivers says "we can't fault you for growing up where or how you grow up and we are going to give everyone equal chance to meet the standard". Thus, it might be said that those who pop hot while in the military put themselves in that position.

I do think it rather harsh to give RE-4's to some people who would be waiverable if they were new enlistees. I would like to see waivers made available to RE-4s after some time has passed and the individual can show they made a change in their life. Perhaps allowing such people the opportunity to return to service in the original MOS but without any sort of bonus incentive. Some people simply were dumb at 19 but now at 25 could be more of an asset to the military.

[Biglew97]

I would like to see waivers made available to RE-4s after some time has passed and the individual can show they made a change in their life. Perhaps allowing such people the opportunity to return to service in the original MOS but without any sort of bonus incentive. Some people simply were dumb at 19 but now at 25 could be more of an asset to the military.


I like this Idea,

I know for misconduct waivers there is already a two year wait in place.

I would say that Forgoing any bonuses would be fair and equitable to the military. If the soldier is serious in wanting to serve, the money really shouldn't be an issue, in all likelihood, the soldier would like to serve with honor and dignity and strive to erase any past mistakes made because of immaturity earlier in their careers. Some of these soldiers would be instrumental in educating other soldiers about there mistakes hence possibly reducing the number of soldiers lost to dumb mistakes.

To quote Wallace,
“From my perspective the United States Army is an inclusive organization rather than an exclusive organization, and we’ve got men and women who are willing to lay down their past foibles and join the U.S. Army and raise their right hands,” Wallace said. “I know that those who have received waivers have had no higher incidence of misconduct or indiscipline once they’re in the military than those who have been allowed in without waivers.”

With that being said, I think the waiver process should be more inclusive, of course with caveats stating terms for re-enlistment i.e no bonus, same MOS, to include an RE3 like waiver process so that the record of the individual can be reviewed.

[i wanna serve]

This is just my opinion, I agree that waivers should not effect troop quality, but I believe that anyone enlisting or reenlisting with a moral waiver should have to serve a full term of enlistment or a first reenlistment before being eligible for a bonus to prove that they have serving our country in the way of the Armed Services structure. Everyone deserves a second chance based on a one to one basis. No case is the same of course. I am prior service with no need of any medical or moral waivers. I am in better physical and mental shape than I was when I was enlisted. My only obstacle is my age. General Wallace, if your reading this message board, please take a look at prior service new recruits. There are a pool of ex-soldiers out there along with others over the current age limit that want to serve our great country proudly and wish we had a second chance, waiver, or an exception to policy.

I believe with our Armed Service structure, our command and ncos have Esprit de corps, tact and leadership skills. Such as stressing the Army Seven Values. Those who are entering with moral waivers wear the uniform with pride and serving our country with honor. Second chances are hard to come by and should not be taken advantage of when given the opportunity or wasted. I wish those of you good luck. Press forward .

Thank you to all men and women serving in the Armed Services.

[Measure Man]

This is just my opinion, I agree that waivers should not effect troop quality, but I believe that anyone enlisting or reenlisting with a moral waiver should have to serve a full term of enlistment or a first reenlistment before being eligible for a bonus to prove that they have serving our country in the way of the Armed Services structure. Everyone deserves a second chance based on a one to one basis. No case is the same of course. I am prior service with no need of any medical or moral waivers. I am in better physical and mental shape than I was when I was enlisted. My only obstacle is my age. General Wallace, if your reading this message board, please take a look at prior service new recruits. There are a pool of ex-soldiers out there along with others over the current age limit that want to serve our great country proudly and wish we had a second chance, waiver, or an exception to policy.

I believe with our Armed Service structure, our command and ncos have Esprit de corps, tact and leadership skills. Such as stressing the Army Seven Values. Those who are entering with moral waivers wear the uniform with pride and serving our country with honor. Second chances are hard to come by and should not be taken advantage of when given the opportunity or wasted. I wish those of you good luck. Press forward .

Thank you to all men and women serving in the Armed Services.

Interesting points.

I've always wondered why we are so tough on prior service guys coming back in. The only reason I could think of is to deter people from getting out...thinking they can test the commercial waters and come back in if it doesn't work out...

But now, as we are working our way down the list of "allowable felonies"...things like age and prior service should be more easily waivable I think.

[Biglew97]

This is just my opinion, I agree that waivers should not effect troop quality, but I believe that anyone enlisting or reenlisting with a moral waiver should have to serve a full term of enlistment or a first reenlistment before being eligible for a bonus to prove that they have serving our country in the way of the Armed Services structure. Everyone deserves a second chance based on a one to one basis. No case is the same of course. I am prior service with no need of any medical or moral waivers. I am in better physical and mental shape than I was when I was enlisted. My only obstacle is my age. General Wallace, if your reading this message board, please take a look at prior service new recruits. There are a pool of ex-soldiers out there along with others over the current age limit that want to serve our great country proudly and wish we had a second chance, waiver, or an exception to policy.

I believe with our Armed Service structure, our command and ncos have Esprit de corps, tact and leadership skills. Such as stressing the Army Seven Values. Those who are entering with moral waivers wear the uniform with pride and serving our country with honor. Second chances are hard to come by and should not be taken advantage of when given the opportunity or wasted. I wish those of you good luck. Press forward .

Thank you to all men and women serving in the Armed Services.


I think a persons desire to serve should absolutely be weighed. I know for a fact that if you have no desire to do your job, civilian or military, you will not perform to the best of your ability. I also acknowledge that just because you are getting up there in years, doesn't mean you can't serve. Look a Jack Lalane for christ sake....LOL

To be quite honest, I can't remember in recent history of any 15 mile road marches with 100# packs, and I'm not saying they aren't happening either because I don't know. For what its worth most of our combat forces go into battle in a vehicle these days.

I support your service...

[Biglew97]

Interesting points.

I've always wondered why we are so tough on prior service guys coming back in. The only reason I could think of is to deter people from getting out...thinking they can test the commercial waters and come back in if it doesn't work out...

But now, as we are working our way down the list of "allowable felonies"...things like age and prior service should be more easily waivable I think.

To expand on that idea, I think that the Army should be a little more careful assigning RE-4. RE-4 is a re-enlistment killer for most.

I just think that if you are going to let "Felons" in with a waiver, irregarless if they were juveniles, then maybe the Army needs to re-evaluate the entrance process for New recruits an prior service alike.

I know a lot of troops that made bad decisions in the army and were put out with an RE-4, and would love nothing more than to be given a second chance. They would perform with distinction and generally without complaints. The Army could field at least a Brigade easily, kinda like Frances French Foriegn Legion....

LOL

[i wanna serve]

I think a persons desire to serve should absolutely be weighed. I know for a fact that if you have no desire to do your job, civilian or military, you will not perform to the best of your ability. I also acknowledge that just because you are getting up there in years, doesn't mean you can't serve. Look a Jack Lalane for christ sake....LOL

To be quite honest, I can't remember in recent history of any 15 mile road marches with 100# packs, and I'm not saying they aren't happening either because I don't know. For what its worth most of our combat forces go into battle in a vehicle these days.

I support your service...

Thank you for your response. I've been wondering if Congress had to pass a bill to approve waivers and exceptions to policies to allow felons and RE-4s to enlist and reinlist. I'm patiently waiting for Congress to pass the bill to increase the age limit. I was denied a waiver and an exception to pollicy because of my age and not having enough prior service time. There are no waivers or exception to policy for the age requirement at this time. I have proof of this because my U.S. Senator and Congressman both wrote letters to the Department of Defense on my behalf requesting such. I'm glad there are waivers for felons and RE-4 reenlistees. A friend of mine was 11B/20P. He had some personal domestic problems, fell apart and got out. He tried forever to reenlist because of his RE-3 or RE-4 (I'm not sure which), but he did get a waiver to reenlist. I suppose its due the War in Iraq. He got his rank back fast and I'm glad for that. I still believe waivers should be based on a case by case basis. Those who desire to serve should be allowed to serve. As for me, I would rather fight next to someone who wanted to serve, but needed a moral waiver than someone who was drafted and did not want to be there.

I'm not as old as Mr. Lalane, but I certainly would buy that juicer he's promoting on the info commercials so I can be fit and strong just like him.

Press forward. Think positive.

[i wanna serve]

Interesting points.

I've always wondered why we are so tough on prior service guys coming back in. The only reason I could think of is to deter people from getting out...thinking they can test the commercial waters and come back in if it doesn't work out...

But now, as we are working our way down the list of "allowable felonies"...things like age and prior service should be more easily waivable I think.

I would agree that some day in the near future that age and prior service issues would be waivable as they are for "allowable fellons." Thanks

Press forward, think positive.

[ringjamesa]

I don't really agree on the age thing so much. With the exception of the Army (42 for NPS) all branches require that when you come in you have enough time left so you can complete your 20 years before you hit age 60-mainly for PS folks. For NPS folks the biggest issue is Basic Training. Basic training is meant to be physically challenging for an 18-27 year old. How challenging do you think that would be for someone 35+? As far as the waivers for morals, it is a fresh start. I don't particularly care for some of the things they are waiving but hey! What do I know? As far as the Re-code thing. The logic is that if you couldn't keep your nose clean for your 1-6 years while you were in the first time...why would someone think you would the 2nd or 3rd time around? Yes some of those things are the same things being waived for NPS and PS folks that committed them while in civilian status. I don't really see a double standard though. Say you have someone that comes in with no issues and then does drugs at their first base. They get kicked out. You have another guy that does drugs and gets a waiver to come in and never does anything seriously wrong while in. Who do you think the military got the most out of? I think that it comes from the fact that once you have completed Basic and AIT, there is a certian amount of trust placed in you and if you violate that trust, the military is less likely to forgive you than if you had committed the same crime before or after you completed service. I agee that waivers don't necessarily equal a lower quality recruit. I have a bigger problem with the Army's lowering of the ASVAB standard.

[Biglew97]

I don't really agree on the age thing so much. With the exception of the Army (42 for NPS) all branches require that when you come in you have enough time left so you can complete your 20 years before you hit age 60-mainly for PS folks. For NPS folks the biggest issue is Basic Training. Basic training is meant to be physically challenging for an 18-27 year old. How challenging do you think that would be for someone 35+? As far as the waivers for morals, it is a fresh start. I don't particularly care for some of the things they are waiving but hey! What do I know? As far as the Re-code thing. The logic is that if you couldn't keep your nose clean for your 1-6 years while you were in the first time...why would someone think you would the 2nd or 3rd time around? Yes some of those things are the same things being waived for NPS and PS folks that committed them while in civilian status. I don't really see a double standard though. Say you have someone that comes in with no issues and then does drugs at their first base. They get kicked out. You have another guy that does drugs and gets a waiver to come in and never does anything seriously wrong while in. Who do you think the military got the most out of? I think that it comes from the fact that once you have completed Basic and AIT, there is a certian amount of trust placed in you and if you violate that trust, the military is less likely to forgive you than if you had committed the same crime before or after you completed service. I agee that waivers don't necessarily equal a lower quality recruit. I have a bigger problem with the Army's lowering of the ASVAB standard.

I don't completely disagree.

I just think that an isolated mistake is just that isolated. A soldier should be punished not persecuted for it. People deserve a second chance especially when you know you did something totally retarded when you were young. Its part of the maturation process. I'm sure a lot of ex-soldiers look back and think to themselves " I was an idiot, I wonder if there is a way that I can serve and restore my good name, and serve with honor and Dignity.

Besides we could probably use these soldiers, I just read that Stop Loss was up 43% already

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/gns_stoploss_042208/


Check out the concept of the Legionaires?

http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1564026

[ringjamesa]

The fact of the matter is that they do have that option if they choose to take it. They might not have the option of AD right away but I'm positive the guard would take them. The Reserve-Maybe/maybe not but the guard sure as heck will.

[Biglew97]

The fact of the matter is that they do have that option if they choose to take it. They might not have the option of AD right away but I'm positive the guard would take them. The Reserve-Maybe/maybe not but the guard sure as heck will.

As it stands now US Army RE-4s' are non-waiverable for entrance into the Army National Guard.

[ringjamesa]

Really? That is retarded. They will take someone with a General Discharge but not a 4 Re-code? What's the SPD code?

[Biglew97]

Really? That is retarded. They will take someone with a General Discharge but not a 4 Re-code? What's the SPD code?

"http://https://www.nh.ngb.army.mil/Recruiting/Tools_files/FY-07%20ECM.pdf (https://www.nh.ngb.army.mil/Recruiting/Tools_files/FY-07%20ECM.pdf)

2-26. Reentry Eligibility (RE) codes and Narrative Reasons for Separation
a. Reentry Eligibility (RE) codes are unique to each branch of the Armed Forces to include the reserve components. In most
cases the "narrative reason for separation" as well as Separation Program Designator (SPD) are relatively standard throughout
DOD. Applicants with an RE-4 from the Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard are not eligible for enlistment into the
ARNG and no waivers or exceptions are authorized (the only exception to this rule is for PS applicants discharged for
failure to obtain US Citizenship with in their 8 year MSO, see para 2-14c). An RE-4 from any other service will be
considered depending on the narrative reason for separation and the SPD code. While the RE code designates reenlistment
eligibility at the time of separation, the "narrative reason for separation" provides the underlying reason or conditions that the
service member was separated/discharged. ARNG recruiting officials must understand that the "narrative reason for
separation" and/or the SPD become the prevailing factor in determining an applicant's enlistment eligibility. In cases where the
"narrative reason for separation" conflicts with SPD, the SPD will take precedence. (See AR 635-5-1 for list of current
SPDs.) For the purposes of enlistment eligibility, Table 2-1 identifies those narratives that are acceptable for
enlistment, and those that are disqualifying. Table 2-1 applies to PS and GNPS applicants."

[former31B]

Really? That is retarded. They will take someone with a General Discharge but not a 4 Re-code? What's the SPD code?

Not really. RE code refers to suitability for future military service. The type of discharge refers to prior performance.