Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Don't deploy, get booted out!

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,324
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Don't deploy, get booted out!

    IMO this policy is about bloody time!.
    Saw it on Thursday in my news feed..

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...oyable-troops/

  2. #2
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    It is more like "Not able to deploy, get booted out"

    I think this is a step in the right direction, waivers for pregnancy and debilitating injury caused by military service are easy to include in the policy. My personal peeve / favorite is the connection of aging to military service ie. things that happen to us naturally as we get older that happened while we were in military service, but not as a direct cause of it. We have all been or know someone who has done more than their share of time deployed due to a shortage of able bodied personnel which exacerbates our manning processes. I can see utility for a small ... small group of personnel who we could permanently put in a non-deployable status etc. Maybe a new NEC, MOS, desginator etc. that could allow E5s, E6s, O3s, O4s in that group promotability up to E7 or in some limited cases O5 ... I don't know ... but I would limit people in that group to people with clearly defined service induced injuries. Any policy that is service or DoD wide is going to be pretty harsh and will have the appearance of the stoic military machine, it should. A process for allowing at some level an individual review should be allowed, but if every unit commander got to make exceptions for a 'good guy' ... we would be in a bad place. People are our most important asset, but we aren't a jobs program and we may have billets that are non-deployable for 2 or 3 years, but if we have career tracks that are non-deployable, we should put that under a microscope.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,324
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    On the debilitating injury angle. If they are that bad, say for more than a year, why not medically separate them?

    For the pregnancy angle. How often can a woman claim "but i am pregnant, you can't deploy me" before it starts becoming malingering?

  4. #4
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    On the debilitating injury angle. If they are that bad, say for more than a year, why not medically separate them?
    That is probably best left up to a doctor. I would say injury in the line of duty I would be more comfortable with letting serve. ie: HQMC has quite a few Marines at the Pentagon who are amputees, burn recovery etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    For the pregnancy angle. How often can a woman claim "but i am pregnant, you can't deploy me" before it starts becoming malingering?
    I would say the "I am (currently) pregnant you can't deploy me" lasts about 9 months, plus post partum with is already establishes ... That really isn't malingering ...

    Malingering: exaggerate or feign illness in order to escape duty or work.

    If they are really pregnant, they are really pregnant. If you mean serial pregnancies ... we won't win that battle if we say "more than x in a y year period and you have to go"; nor do I think we should try. I haven't seen too many women with serial pregnancies who were promotable or had much real responsibility, am sure it happens, but it is likely too infrequent to address in policy and letting local commanders handle it (given the right tools) should suffice.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,324
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    I am talking about deliberately getting pregnant say 3-4 months prior to every deployment, just so they can get out of it. To me that certainly comes under the heading of Malingering.

  6. #6
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    I am talking about deliberately getting pregnant say 3-4 months prior to every deployment, just so they can get out of it. To me that certainly comes under the heading of Malingering.
    Per the definition that isn't malingering. Avoiding duty ... sure ... but:

    A Sailor who gets pregnant while on sea duty is detached and sent to a shore tour for the duration of her pregnancy and post partum, but that isn't a 'new' tour; immediately following post partum she was reassigned to a new ship to get back on her normal sea / shore rotation. That is at least the current Navy policy: allow time for pregnancy, birth, post partum and then back to sea (if they were on sea duty to begin with). Of course there is the chance that when they go back to sea duty that they will not deploy, that is really up to the ship's schedule.

    I had a Sailor who reported that she was pregnant and this is what we did with her, this was her third pregnancy while on sea duty. That was 2010, she will retire this year as a 1st Class. It isn't perfect, but the repeated missing deployments prevented her from making Chief. In my 15 years in the Navy, 27 in the military total ... this is an exception vice the rule.

    Do I think we should separate people that this happens to? No.

    -Try proving it was intentional, unless the Sailor / service-member admits to it, you won't. This goes for a host of issues that come up before a deployment that may prevent a service member from deploying.

    -What about a female who this happens to unintentionally? Do you require them to get an abortion? What if she is a devout Catholic and doesn't believe in birth control; do you persecute her for her beliefs?

    -Do you counsel her for having sex? Good luck, it isn't a violation of the UCMJ unless she does it aboard the ship. Do you bar males from having sex too?

    There just isn't a realistic way to prove and then hold the very few accountable that do what you are describing. Based on my time in the military overall, I know that what you are describing happens, but it is not a pandemic. The best we can do is have a policy that works as a 80/90% etc. solution and provide commanders the tools to deal with the exceptions. Anyone can deal with a simple flowchart or checklist, you don’t need a leader for that.

    Overall the policies aren't bad, they could use some tweaking; but I would ask if you want something that is equal or something that is fair? if you want equal we can separate females for pregnancy ... if a male gets a female pregnant, he now has commitments too, he should go. I think fair is better than equal in some cases.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #7
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    From the link in the OP, this is a policy that is under review. Overall, I think the policy is a good one. As I learned early in my military career, every position in the military is deployable therefore everyone in the military should be deployable. We know there will be people who are recovering from an injury or for some other reason aren't deployable but unless they occupy a critical position that almost no one else can fill they shouldn't be allowed to remain if they can't deploy.

    I hope when this policy is finalized it will give commanders the power to determine whether a person can continue on military service if that person can't deploy. The commander should be familiar with the individual's problem and determine whether it is in the best interest of the military to allow them to continue. With that said, it is also incumbent upon the commander's superiors to ensure their commanders are properly following policy and not giving preferential treatment to their "favorite" troops.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •