PDA

View Full Version : Enlistment age limit raised to 39



Smeghead
06-25-2014, 12:18 AM
This was posted on the Air Force Recruiting Facebook page. When NIPR stops acting up I'll post a link to the source. I guess as the pool of eligibles shrinks they had to open it up to more. I will say, when I was an MTI the older trainees seemed to prepare more for BMT than the 18 year olds did.

https://www.facebook.com/USAirForceRecruiting

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 12:30 AM
This was posted on the Air Force Recruiting Facebook page. When NIPR stops acting up I'll post a link to the source. I guess as the pool of eligibles shrinks they had to open it up to more. I will say, when I was an MTI the older trainees seemed to prepare more for BMT than the 18 year olds did.

https://www.facebook.com/USAirForceRecruiting

Makes perfect sense. When you're in the middle of cutting numbers you might as well open the pool up to more people...

I would imagine this has something to do with the idea that it might save money. The older they are when they join, the fewer years retirement checks will have to be paid out. Let's be honest, the odds of someone getting out at age 49 with only 10 years to go is highly unlikely as finding a job is pretty difficult at that age. And if you have more people at that age the less resistance there will be against changing the military retirement age to the same as the rest of America since you'd be real close at 20 years of service.

LogDog
06-25-2014, 12:34 AM
This was posted on the Air Force Recruiting Facebook page. When NIPR stops acting up I'll post a link to the source. I guess as the pool of eligibles shrinks they had to open it up to more. I will say, when I was an MTI the older trainees seemed to prepare more for BMT than the 18 year olds did.

https://www.facebook.com/USAirForceRecruiting
I took a look at the website and it says they've risen the age limit from 27 to 39. Why, I have no idea.

Smeghead
06-25-2014, 12:42 AM
http://www.rs.af.mil/recruiteronline/story.asp?id=123415621

To comply with DOD regs this says. So, in about thirty years we could have 70 year old chiefs hobbling around.

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 01:00 AM
http://www.rs.af.mil/recruiteronline/story.asp?id=123415621

To comply with DOD regs this says. So, in about thirty years we could have 70 year old chiefs hobbling around.

But they'll have to comply with the PT scores....1.5 miles in 47 minutes, 7 pushups and 3 situps...so we'll we'd out the slackers...

Measure Man
06-25-2014, 01:02 AM
Interesting...isn't there a prohibition on enlisted members serving past age 55?

39...maybe a guy can retire at 38 and rejoin and start over...LOL

Smeghead
06-25-2014, 01:42 AM
Interesting...isn't there a prohibition on enlisted members serving past age 55?

39...maybe a guy can retire at 38 and rejoin and start over...LOL

There was just a guy went through Army basic at 55 I believe.

I'd love to go through BMT again, lol

Stalwart
06-25-2014, 03:14 AM
The older they are when they join, the fewer years retirement checks will have to be paid out. Let's be honest, the odds of someone getting out at age 49 with only 10 years to go is highly unlikely as finding a job is pretty difficult at that age. And if you have more people at that age the less resistance there will be against changing the military retirement age to the same as the rest of America since you'd be real close at 20 years of service.

I tend to think the reasons may be less nefarious than that ... maybe. In the past, increases to age cutoffs, decreases in educational or 'moral' qualifications were tied to the services having difficulty in meeting recruiting goals, however numbers from March 2014 for recruiting missions/goals from DoD:

• Recruiting. All four active services met or exceeded their numerical accession goals for fiscal 2014, through January.

• Army – 17,002 accessions, with a goal of 16,720; 102 percent
• Navy – 10,116 accessions, with a goal of 10,116; 100 percent
• Marine Corps – 7,173 accessions, with a goal of 7,162; 100 percent
• Air Force – 8,726 accessions, with a goal of 8,726; 100 percent

I have read that while the services are meeting recruitment goals, it is getting harder as the pool of qualified candidate recruits is shrinking (more in the 18-32 age groups not meeting physical fitness standards etc -- I imagine there are plenty of 39 year olds who could do just fine ... but I have not seen numbers or research on the issue.

There has been ongoing effort by some in Congress going back to 2006 to 42.


There was just a guy went through Army basic at 55 I believe.

I'd love to go through BMT again, lol

You are referring to this: http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140614/NEWS/306140044/Senior-strong-55-year-old-SFC-graduates-basic-training

He was a prior service Navy Chief, who after graduating boot camp is a Sergeant First Class with a reserve unit.

I can say I would not see the point in someone who was not prior-service doing this at all, they would not be eligible for retention long enough to retire and frankly would probably not adapt to military life as a 55-year old whose 'peers' are 18-20 too well at all. In addition, he seems to not be the average 55-year old physically (pretty regular cross-fit attendee, is trying to now go to Ranger school.)

Smeghead
06-25-2014, 03:22 AM
I have read that while the services are meeting recruitment goals, it is getting harder as the pool of qualified candidate recruits is shrinking (more in the 18-32 age groups not meeting physical fitness standards etc -- I imagine there are plenty of 39 year olds who could do just fine ... but I have not seen numbers or research on the issue.

What I saw was the older trainees prepared more for BMT, speaking physically. They tended to find out what they needed to do for PT and got themselves in shape (or were already in shape) before coming to Lackland. It was the 18, 19 yr olds who didn't do a damn thing and expected us to get them in shape. We were at PT, I had a new flight in, it was my 39th birthday and I had a trainee who couldn't do one, single push up.

Plus there's been articles about the poool shrinking due to criminal records, drug use, and a big one I read was tattoos and piercing--that whole ear gauging crap.

Stalwart
06-25-2014, 03:33 AM
What I saw was the older trainees prepared more for BMT, speaking physically. They tended to find out what they needed to do for PT and got themselves in shape (or were already in shape) before coming to Lackland. It was the 18, 19 yr olds who didn't do a damn thing and expected us to get them in shape. We were at PT, I had a new flight in, it was my 39th birthday and I had a trainee who couldn't do one, single push up.

Plus there's been articles about the poool shrinking due to criminal records, drug use, and a big one I read was tattoos and piercing--that whole ear gauging crap.

I went through OCS at 31 and was a bit surprised at how many 21-25 year olds were not in very good shape physically and who did little to prepare for what was to come. I left OCS able to run the 1.5 mile test faster, but my 3 mile time was slower and I was physically weaker than when I went as far as bench press, max pull ups etc. Into my 40's I still pretty regularly am outdoing most of my command in physical fitness and I do not exercise near as much as I used to.

I think you can find plenty of 30+ year olds who can physically get thought BMT/boot camp/OCS etc, most may not be the best you have but they could get through it. At the same time most of the really good (i.e. competitive) runners I know didn't peak until they got into their 30's.

Aside from PT, opening the age cutoff does increase the pool who may not have those automatic disqualifiers as you discussed.

sandsjames
06-25-2014, 11:18 AM
Going to be awesome having a bunch of 50 year olds deploying on ILO taskings. Hell, I guess the best way to have more people who meet fitness standards is to recruit a bunch of people who, after 1 year in the service, will be able to walk the 1.5 mile and still pass.

Rusty Jones
06-25-2014, 12:59 PM
This is funny. I took three years of AFJROTC in high school. I had an old friend from high school who left for Army basic back in early May. Why did he join the Army? Because he was too old for the Air Force. He's gonna be PISSED when he finds out!

Sgt HULK
06-25-2014, 02:34 PM
I went through OCS at 31 and was a bit surprised at how many 21-25 year olds were not in very good shape physically and who did little to prepare for what was to come. I left OCS able to run the 1.5 mile test faster, but my 3 mile time was slower and I was physically weaker than when I went as far as bench press, max pull ups etc. Into my 40's I still pretty regularly am outdoing most of my command in physical fitness and I do not exercise near as much as I used to.

I think you can find plenty of 30+ year olds who can physically get thought BMT/boot camp/OCS etc, most may not be the best you have but they could get through it. At the same time most of the really good (i.e. competitive) runners I know didn't peak until they got into their 30's.

Aside from PT, opening the age cutoff does increase the pool who may not have those automatic disqualifiers as you discussed.

Same here, I went through OTS at age 34, out PT test on day 3, we had a guy do 3 push ups and 6 sit ups. he is a civilian again and he was young 20's heck i went through BMT at age 24, lived on my own for 6 years and was married. Seeing kids cry at night in their bunk was comical. BMT was a way for me to get away from my wife for a few weeks. My TI's thought that was funny. although age isnt always a predictor of maturity, most of us old guys in BMT and even in OTS handled it better than the young kids

hustonj
06-25-2014, 03:28 PM
I first saw this elsewhere on the web this morning. I did some quick Google-fu and discovered that Congress has previously passed a law mandating the maximum age for a new acenssion at 42. The services have voluntarily set their recruiting limits at lower ages than this.

Until today, I didn't realize that each service and each service compoent actually had different maximum starting ages . . ..

BENDER56
06-25-2014, 04:06 PM
Interesting...isn't there a prohibition on enlisted members serving past age 55?

First thing I thought of. Anyone joining after age 35 wouldn't be able to get a 20-year retirement.

I went to the Facebook page linked to by the OP and this was the first comment: "Wait, by age limit, do you mean you have to be 39yrs old to join or that your max age for joining is 39?" Good to know there are still sharp candidates out there to recruit.

Rusty Jones
06-25-2014, 04:16 PM
Interesting...isn't there a prohibition on enlisted members serving past age 55?

If there is, it's not being enforced. Plenty of people with long periods of broken service, or 30 year E9's who joined at the age of 26 or later.

Rusty Jones
06-25-2014, 05:03 PM
What about the 43 year old SrA who is taking orders from the 23 year old Lt or has to shit from the 25 year old TSgt

What about it? The one thing I quickly got sick and tired of during my time, were the older people that thought that everyone else needed to take their age into consideration before divvying out tasks, or who to put in charge of a detail.

Sorry, but if anyone gave a damn about your age, there'd be a number on your sleeve instead of stripes.

In that aspect, I have to disagree with Smeghead that older is better. The younger troops may have some more maturing to do, but at least they know their place.

Rainmaker
06-25-2014, 05:05 PM
This makes no sense. Why would they do this when they supposedly have a manpower overage? Are they readying the country for the draft?

This is a great idea. Millions of illegal gangbanger "dreamers" posing as children will have a direct path to citizenship, and just think of the cost savings. Hell, some of em are already on base a hop skip and jump from their new home.

Zxc
06-25-2014, 06:57 PM
My sister joined the Navy earlier this year because she was unable to join the AF. She turned 30 last month.

Smeghead
06-25-2014, 10:59 PM
In that aspect, I have to disagree with Smeghead that older is better. The younger troops may have some more maturing to do, but at least they know their place.

I said based on my experiences as an MTI. How much time do you have as an DS/DI/RDC/MTI?

Gonzo432
06-26-2014, 02:02 AM
There's gonna be 2-stripers competing with retirees for the Buick LeSabres and Lincoln Town Cars at estate auctions.

Smeghead
06-26-2014, 03:32 AM
I went to the Facebook page linked to by the OP and this was the first comment: "Wait, by age limit, do you mean you have to be 39yrs old to join or that your max age for joining is 39?" Good to know there are still sharp candidates out there to recruit.

I saw that also. The recruiters answering questions on that page have the patience of saints. I would have just replied with http://army.com/

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 01:18 PM
I said based on my experiences as an MTI. How much time do you have as an DS/DI/RDC/MTI?

Who cares? The careers of non-rates don't end in boot camp. They eventually graduate, and hit the Fleet. I hate the phrase "sense of entitlement" with a passion, but I have to use it here... because that's what many of the older non-rates have. Just because they're 26 years old, they shouldn't have to scrub toilets with the 18 year olds. A 28 year old E2 thinking that they shouldn't have to answer to a 21-year old E5 who paid his dues for four years.

Again, if anyone gave a damn about your age, there'd be a number on your sleeve. But there isn't. There's RANK.

Tell me, as an NCO, have you ever had non-NCO subordinates who were older than you? I have. And they tended to be the most difficult.

THEY chose to join the military later in their lives. That decision was theirs, and theirs alone. This should NEVER come at the expense of those who joined at a younger age and have paid their dues.

Chief_KO
06-26-2014, 01:19 PM
Just the next step in eliminating the all-volunteer force.

1. Eliminate male-only skills (AFSC, MOS, Rating)
2. Eliminate DADT (and any other "discriminatory" policy)
3. Establish one age limit for all branches (eliminate separate Service standards)
4. Mandate females register w/Selective Service (I actually like this one...can't fight for #1 without it IMO)

Measure Man
06-26-2014, 04:00 PM
Just the next step in eliminating the all-volunteer force.

1. Eliminate male-only skills (AFSC, MOS, Rating)
2. Eliminate DADT (and any other "discriminatory" policy)
3. Establish one age limit for all branches (eliminate separate Service standards)
4. Mandate females register w/Selective Service (I actually like this one...can't fight for #1 without it IMO)

I don't follow your logic at all.

First, #1, #2 and #3 all allow the services MORE volunteer recruits....how would they be steps to eliminating the all-volunteer force?

Second, no politician wants to eliminate the all-volunteer force...having an all-volunteer force allows them to send the military into a lot of missions without getting too much grief from the public...because their sons and daughters don't have to go, unless they sign up to go. I really don't think we'd send the military to half the things we do if there were non-volunteers.

Smeghead
06-26-2014, 04:40 PM
Who cares? The careers of non-rates don't end in boot camp. They eventually graduate, and hit the Fleet. I hate the phrase "sense of entitlement" with a passion, but I have to use it here... because that's what many of the older non-rates have. Just because they're 26 years old, they shouldn't have to scrub toilets with the 18 year olds. A 28 year old E2 thinking that they shouldn't have to answer to a 21-year old E5 who paid his dues for four years.

Again, if anyone gave a damn about your age, there'd be a number on your sleeve. But there isn't. There's RANK.

Tell me, as an NCO, have you ever had non-NCO subordinates who were older than you? I have. And they tended to be the most difficult.

THEY chose to join the military later in their lives. That decision was theirs, and theirs alone. This should NEVER come at the expense of those who joined at a younger age and have paid their dues.

Such a fucking troll. When did I mention E2s and E5s? Never. When did I say anything about people going into "the fleet" (whatever the fuck that is, last time I checked this was the Air Force forum.) Again, never.

I said, BMT. as in Basic Military Training. As is Air Force Basic Military Training. I also said in my experience older recruits prepared themselves more physically, as in for the PT portion of BMT.

You know what the fuck I was talking about. But go ahead, disagree with shit I never said.

Rusty Jones
06-26-2014, 04:51 PM
Such a fucking troll. When did I mention E2s and E5s? Never. When did I say anything about people going into "the fleet" (whatever the fuck that is, last time I checked this was the Air Force forum.) Again, never.

I said, BMT. as in Basic Military Training. As is Air Force Basic Military Training. I also said in my experience older recruits prepared themselves more physically, as in for the PT portion of BMT.

You know what the fuck I was talking about. But go ahead, disagree with shit I never said.

Oops, my bad. I pulled a WJ5 on you. My apologies.

Sergeant eNYgma
07-05-2014, 11:40 AM
What I saw was the older trainees prepared more for BMT, speaking physically. They tended to find out what they needed to do for PT and got themselves in shape (or were already in shape) before coming to Lackland. It was the 18, 19 yr olds who didn't do a damn thing and expected us to get them in shape. We were at PT, I had a new flight in, it was my 39th birthday and I had a trainee who couldn't do one, single push up.

Plus there's been articles about the poool shrinking due to criminal records, drug use, and a big one I read was tattoos and piercing--that whole ear gauging crap.

We had a guy like that, couldn't muster a single pushup and a handful of situps....needless to say he became famous rather quickly...

UncaRastus
07-05-2014, 01:12 PM
Chief KO,

I have to respectfully disagree to the age limit leveling that you suggested.

The USMC had an age limit for the enlisted set at 29. If it went up from there, many of the newly eligible to enlist people would fail from the beginning in boot camp, because of the very physical nature of boot camp.

When I was in boot camp, and also as a Drill Instructor, every platoon dropped a butt load, because they just couldn't match up to the requirements of physical fitness, including those dropped due to injuries.

A number of the drops DID include those that were mentally unfit, either in attitude or just plain inability to get though the academic part of boot camp, so the total did indeed come out to about 50%.

Yes, even the Marines have a limit as to mental inatability, either in learning, or in just plain low IQs, or the inability to adapt.

Maybe the USMC has changed as to the age limit. As I understood the age limit, I do believe that it was set at age 29 for the officer corps, also, unless mustanged.

Or maybe the age limit for all of the services should be changed to 29, also? As I also understood the Navy age limits, at the time, had an age limit of 29, except for nurses, which was adjusted upwards.

As a rule (which was broken once in awhile), anyone getting into the Marines from another branch of the services had to go to boot camp again. I am not sure of the age limit on that. When I went Navy, I had to attend OSVET training, which at the time, was 6 weeks of waiting for uniforms, and not learning much at all.

In other words, into the Corps from another service, boot camp. From the Corps into another service, no BMT, as a regular recruit.

I have heard that the drops are now at 30%. That is because of pre-boot camp training, for the Marines. However, the USMC wants 'quality recruits', not just any Joe Blow.

The Marines have a different set of boot camp and fleet standards than any one else has, military wise, as a whole. Marines, as a result of boot camp, are more likely to follow an order, rather that to try to analyze the order first.

That is the difference between the Marines and other services. I am not putting down the other services. That is largely the point about how Marines have always been that way. It is the reason that Marines are returning to a more amphibious role, once again. Also, the Marines being on MEUs for humanitarian, and for the role of kicking in the door, so to speak. When they can be any where within six hours, to be more of a shock troop kind of thing.

If there were older people coming out of boot camp for the Marines, and if there was a more lengthy period of time before going from an MEU from ship to shore, I can only think about how the MEU concept would having to be revamped, due to second guessing.

Younger people are more moldable, in other words. Which is part of the reason for the Marines being stringent on their age limits.

And the fact that older people just couldn't (with a few exceptions) make it through boot camp, due to the heavy load of PT and the 'changing of the mind' from being a 'good old boy' into becoming a Marine that follows orders, no questions asked.

Let me find a word or two on the Marine's mindset.

Not to be mean, but the simplest words for this is 'brain washing'. Not the communist way, but more of a mission oriented way.

Older recruits would, in my opinion, be too set in their ways, to become a 'good' Marine.

That is my 2 cents worth.

garhkal
07-05-2014, 08:04 PM
Interesting...isn't there a prohibition on enlisted members serving past age 55?


Not that i know of. BUT there should be age caps for serving in congress!!!


Just the next step in eliminating the all-volunteer force.

1. Eliminate male-only skills (AFSC, MOS, Rating)
2. Eliminate DADT (and any other "discriminatory" policy)
3. Establish one age limit for all branches (eliminate separate Service standards)
4. Mandate females register w/Selective Service (I actually like this one...can't fight for #1 without it IMO)

I am in agreement that IF we go the route of #1, we also need to do #4. If they want equality in what they can get into, then ladies need to start being required to sign up for selective service.