Sub-Standard Troops: Keep ‘em?

i am by no means a soldier, but surely soldiers who arnt up to standard due to physical reasons (i.e. being unfit) or lacking in a certain skill could have retraining as a component of there reenlistment?

Stuart,

I agree, there may be reasons for the physical limitations, i.e. a badly injured limb from an IED, that prevents someone from performing the MOS they originally trained in. If they have otherwise always proven to be a good soldier then re-assignment to another MOS should be done. But, if they're just slackers......cut the dead weight, they will simply hold up the whole unit.

Standards are standards but it really depends on which standards you want to measure. I lost the best mechanic in the brigade due to his overweight status. This guy averaged a 240 on his APFT, but it came down to gut size and the Army did not allow him to reenlist. If the Army had retained SGT White, it would have saved thousands of manhours and potentially millions of dollars.

So should soldiers be kept on the books if they desire to stay and serve their country but can’t pass the PT test or meet their unit’s duty requirements?

A friend of mine was overweight. He was being chaptered and a CSM asked him if he wanted to be a soldier. He was hating life, but couldn't bring himself to say no. Now, it was pretty clear from the weight control numbers that he was letting himself go. And so I think simply asking someone is not a good enough way to determine what they desire.

That said, he did his job just fine, was never a burden to his NCOs and never had an article 15. But because he was perpetually flagged he couldn't make rank, be awarded or go to any schools and he's barred from reenlistment. From the Army's perspective, they got another few years of work out of him, but he presented the uniform very poorly and was a bad example for new soldiers. From his perspective, he worked as hard as anyone else but got virtually no credit for his service.

In the long run, it's better to ETS people. Yes, we'll miss the share of the burden they shoulder, but they're a strong negative influence that counseling statements and such can't fix.

I took command of a Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company back in the 90's at Fort Campbell. This HHC had the worst reputation of any of the companies in the brigade...destroyed vehicles from running into each other, burned-down tents, rolled TPUs, generally poor performance. The 1LT that commanded before me just didn't know what to do to fix it. I came in with a new first sergeant, put 6 people out of the Army and releived a platoon sergeant for cause, and suddenly the company did a snap turn.

The Battalion XO counselled me that I was going to gut the company, but it turned out he was wrong.

Good soldiers want to be around good soldiers. Poor soldiers (of whatever kind) who get away with being poor soldiers drag the good soldiers down, in mind, body, soul, and performance.

I think that the genuine slackers and the folks who are just not capable of meeting the standards should be cut. At the same time, however, I think that it's also necessary to make sure that the individual being cut *is* a slacker, or incompetent. Leadership and motivation matter a lot, and sometimes all it takes is a change of scene to make a drag into a great asset.

Which standards are we talking about? If it's conduct and character, that's one thing. Cut them loose.

In other cases, though -- one's ability to do a particular job, for example -- it should usually be a case-by-case thing. Could such a person be effectively moved to a different billet, and is there a matching need? Is he trainable? If it's physical standards, he may deserve a chance to shape up before getting pushed out, especially if his other contributions are very valuable.

I would have trouble with a blanket rule except in the clearest circumstances. (But what else would you expect from a former JAG?)

Which standards are we talking about?

Yah, ditto that. Are we talking about failing a PFT, or violating the UCMJ?

I have to agree with the case by case issue. I think that should be the rule. If the soldier is just sorry cut him. However if the only problem is a little extra around the middle i would keep him and PT the hell out of him. There is a war going on and we need all the guys we can get, especially if there doing the job.

Since I have been removed from ISO, let me just say, IF YOU CAN'T DO THE JOB, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO STAY IN THE MILITARY FOR?????? OH SORRY DO I HAVE TO GO BACK INTO
ISO NOW????

In the civilian world, these people are usually fired.

No, they get jobs in HR. =)

You'd be surprised how goddamn hard it is to fire someone these days, no matter how worthless they are. It is exactly the worthless idiots that will slap you with a wrongful termination suit or some kind of bullshit harassment / discrimination suit, and most companies would rather employ an idiot than deal with such litigation.

I would have voted to say let them stay in, but I would have needed a caveat. In a system as big as an army does the standards have wiggle room? If the system breaks down as soon as you hit that standard then you have to hold to it. If the system can handle a small percentage below the standard and still function, make sure you keep the percentage low by letting them know in no uncertain terms their value.

It depends.

I was once a sub-standard troop. 3 straight rotations on K.P. with a 4th and more on the horizon, that got my attention.

If troops can't be troops, then they need to go before they hurt themselves or someone else.

However, if what the troops need is leadership (and sometimes a kick in the pants) then we need to keep them and do what we need to do to get their attention.

I was involuntarily separated from the service in 1988. I was a USAF Academy '76 grad, with top evaluations, a master's degree plus PME, but I was also an F-4 Weapons System Officer, and the Air Force was shifting from two seat fighters to single seat F-15/f-16s, so I and 5000 others back seaters were shown the door between 1988 and 1992. It damn near killed me. Funny thing was, by 1995, the USAF was having a hard time filling F-15 Strike Eagle navigator positions. Go figure.

If a people aren't performing in one career field, or their career field has been phased out or has an overage, but they still want to serve, it is a failure in leadership to push them out the door rather than find them a spot where they can still serve with honor.

Navy 06, post-CO submariner. My $.02 - overweight by itself is not poor performance. Can be offset by stellar performance in other areas. Actual poor performance in other areas cannot be offset by meeting physical standards!

That said, I struggled to find the right approach to take with the perennially overweight who were otherwise doing great jobs. Sad to say some fine Sailors (officers among them) left. Somehow the Navy survives.

What's the problem with an overweight sailor, anyway? Not like they have to run anywhere. They have a nice ride wherever they want to go. =)