Author Topic: Army National Guard gets pickier  (Read 1777 times)

shooter32

  • shooter32
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 41
Army National Guard gets pickier
« on: September 03, 2009, 09:25:37 AM »
Forced to shrink, Army National Guard gets pickier
       
… .By MEGHAN BARR, Associated Press Writer Meghan Barr, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 2, 2:45 pm ET
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Suffer from a bad case of acne? That could disqualify you from joining the Army National Guard. Too many speeding tickets? In today's slimmer, smarter Guard, that could keep you out, too.

Under pressure from the Pentagon to trim its ranks, the Guard has been quietly phasing in new restrictions that make it harder to enlist.

"To get in now, you have to be the cream of the crop," said Sgt. 1st Class Brian Clum, a recruiter in Ohio.

Military officials portray the cutbacks as an effort to trim excess from a Guard force that was bloated from years of successful recruiting, especially during the recession.

But there are suspicions inside the Guard and out that the reductions are part of an effort to shift the burden of fighting overseas onto the active-duty Army and ease the public outcry over the way that Guard units — part-time soldiers normally called into action during hurricanes and other disasters at home — have been sent on long, repeated combat tours in Iraq.

In fact, while the Pentagon has cut the National Guard by about 9,000 soldiers to 358,200 over the past six months or so, the nearly 549,000-strong active-duty Army is under orders to recruit 70,000 new soldiers by the end of September and 22,000 more in the coming fiscal year as the fighting in Iraq winds down and the war in Afghanistan escalates.

Under restrictions issued by the National Guard's top recruiting commander early this year, the maximum enlistment age was lowered from 42 to 35. And the minimum score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Test, the exam required by all branches of the military, was raised for the Guard from 31 to 50 out of a possible 100.

Also, the Guard stopped forgiving potential recruits for offenses such as theft, assault, driving under the influence or chronic lawbreaking. And it stopped issuing medical waivers, which allowed recruits to be admitted despite health problems as serious as an extreme food allergy and as minor as a painful bout of acne.

In addition, the Guard's budget for bonus money has been cut. While most recruits since 2006 got $20,000 just for signing up, now only a precious few are eligible for any bonus money at all.

Col. Mike Jones, the Guard's top recruiting commander, said a higher percentage of applicants are being turned away compared with just a few years ago, though he would not give precise figures.

Several states, including Georgia and New York, have long waiting lists of the aspiring soldiers they have rejected.

For some recruiters, the shrinking Guard is a source of frustration and envy, particularly since the regular Army is growing.

"We literally turn people away every day that want to serve and we can't take them," said Lt. Col. Anthony Abbott, recruiting commander for the Georgia Army National Guard. "Sometimes you've got to scratch your head and ask why."

It's an about-face from just a few years ago, when the Guard embarked on a recruiting rush with the start of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Guard was at its lowest strength in history with about 330,000 members, down from an all-time high of 457,000 in 1989.

In May, the Guard accepted 3,026 recruits, compared with 5,311 in May 2008. But the Guard gave no figures on how many men and women applied.

John Pike, director of the military think tank Globalsecurity.org, said the government is trying to reduce the outcry over the heavy use of the Guard in the Iraq war and wants to return the force to its original part-time status.

"They used the Guard a lot more than they had planned several times in Iraq just because that was all they had," Pike said. "They're increasing the active component end strength in order to avoid that in the future."

He added: "In the middle of the war, you do what you have to do. But now that things are slowing down a little bit and they have a little more time, they are trying to do what they want to do rather than what they have to do."

The tougher enlistment standards may have worked all too well. In June and July, the Guard failed to meet its recruiting goals because of what Jones said may have been a combination of the worsening bloodshed in Afghanistan and the higher standards.

In fact, over the past couple of weeks, Jones told Guard commanders in 40 states they are free to reverse some of the restrictions.

"We might have cut a little too deep, too fast," Jones said. "Did we swing too far? Did we cut too much bonus money?" He said the Guard is "working right now to try to get back the momentum that we had in the early part of the year."

For people like 19-year-old Christopher Runyon of Glouster, Ohio, it has been one rejection after another. Runyon has failed the aptitude test three times, getting a 45 on his most recent attempt. A few months ago, that would have been a passing grade.

Runyon said he is still in contact with his local recruiter and plans to retake the test.

"I really got down on myself and I really got discouraged," he said. "But I'm still trying, you know?"

But the future does not look promising. The Guard will release 1,400 recruiters from duty at the end of September. And in the fiscal year that begins in October, the Guard will lose more than $200 million in funding for recruiting and retention.

John Goheen, a spokesman for the National Guard Association, an advocacy group, said it makes little sense to turn off the Guard's recruiting machine when it has been the most successful of any military branch at bringing in high-quality soldiers.

That success stemmed from cutting-edge recruiting methods, including advertising through NASCAR, he said.

"If you want to reduce the burden on the Army Guard, grow the Army Guard," Goheen said. "Therefore the burden is reduced because we'll have more units."
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. ~ Gerald Ford - August 12, 1974

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2009, 10:06:28 AM »
This is absolutely stupid. Since the 80's Congress has been shifting more of the combat forces into Guard and reserve units in order to save money, now that they comprise 50% of our combat power they don't want to use them ?

jnevis

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2009, 10:07:30 AM »
God forbid the Guard use the same criteria as the Active force!!  
It has only been in the last few years that the Reserve/Guard started to be taken seriously by the Active military, only because the guys being activated do well.  We have prided ourselves on having a better trained, better, educated, and better equiped military but historically sent the Guard second/third hand gear and let people that were kicked out of an Active unit for poor performance join.  Lowering the standards may get you the number of recruits but does it get you BETTER recruits, I don't think so.  The Navy Reserve had a program to advance people with no prior service if they had enough experience.  Good on paper but sucked in the execution.  We had a guy that was advanced to E-5 as a supply clerk because he was a manager at FedEx.  He didn't know $h1t and finally got kicked out on a random drug test.

It isn't just the Gaurd/Reserve/Military.  There have been plenty of public service agencies that have lowered recruiting standards only to get slammed for it later.  Aks Miami PD about the cops running a drug ring in the 80s.  They hired a bunch of gangbangers and dealers to be cops.  Our Rescue Squad is volunteer and we were trying to get more people and ended up with a few that we had to kick out later when they started to be a liability ti the unit.
When seconds mean the difference between life and death, the police will be minutes away.

You are either SOLVING the problem, or you ARE the problem.

Pathfinder

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6449
  • DRTV Ranger -- NRA Life Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2009, 11:11:36 AM »
Missing the point. Whenever there appears to be inconsistency in the gummint's actions, always always look deeper.

In this case, the answer is fairly simple. The Feds cannot and will not ever control the Guard - they belong to state governors. Even if they federalize the Guard, they will still be state-specific and owe their allegiance to their state and not the Feds. As a result, they are more likely not to obey illegal orders and even make a fuss.

The regular Army, OTOH, is full-time and dedicated to the command of the President, or in the current case - president.

My guess? They are down-sizing the Guard to reduce its effectiveness as a combat force, and playing up the Army's role as it is easier to control and direct - should any S hit the fan (from the Fed's perspective of course.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do this to others and I require the same from them"

J.B. Books

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2009, 11:28:31 AM »
 I would REALLY hate to see the Marine Corps used in this manner.

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #5 on: Today at 02:03:06 PM »

DonWorsham

  • MWAG
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
  • I feel more like I do now than I ever did
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2009, 01:23:44 PM »
So, what is the qualification requirements to get into the Army? Are they less than the Guards?
Don Worsham
Varied Movements Performed Intensely

tt11758

  • Noolis bastardis carborundum (Don't let the bastards wear you down)
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5821
  • DRTV Ranger ~
    • 10-Ring Firearms Training
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2009, 01:38:22 PM »
I would REALLY hate to see the Marine Corps used in this manner.


 :'(
I love waking up every morning knowing that Donald Trump is President!!

fightingquaker13

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11894
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2009, 02:09:42 PM »
Actually this shrinking of the NG started under Cheney, W and Rumsfeld, and is more complicated than it appears. The current force structure, which makes guard and reserve units integral, not just ancillary to regular army units is a by product of Vietnam. The idea behind this was political. The point was that when the army went to war, the nation went to war, we weren't sending mercenaries, we were sending your next door neighbor. Like Reagan said about taxes, the cost should be visible and painful (also note that Ronnie, the "war monger" never took the nation into a signifigant war, gee, maybe there's a correlation?) The problem was that with repeated rotations the stress on these soldiers became too much. They didn't sign up for multiple overseas deployments, if they wanted that they would have chosen the regular army. To his credit, Cheney tried to correct this by restricting the role and size of the NG. Its political, just not in the way that you might think. Nixon Carter and Reagan had a good idea about integrating the reserves but with an increasingly expeditionary miitary, it just seems to be obsolete.
FQ13

tt11758

  • Noolis bastardis carborundum (Don't let the bastards wear you down)
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5821
  • DRTV Ranger ~
    • 10-Ring Firearms Training
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Army National Guard gets pickier
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2009, 04:14:54 PM »
Actually this shrinking of the NG started under Cheney, W and Rumsfeld, and is more complicated than it appears. The current force structure, which makes guard and reserve units integral, not just ancillary to regular army units is a by product of Vietnam. The idea behind this was political. The point was that when the army went to war, the nation went to war, we weren't sending mercenaries, we were sending your next door neighbor. Like Reagan said about taxes, the cost should be visible and painful (also note that Ronnie, the "war monger" never took the nation into a signifigant war, gee, maybe there's a correlation?) The problem was that with repeated rotations the stress on these soldiers became too much. They didn't sign up for multiple overseas deployments, if they wanted that they would have chosen the regular army. To his credit, Cheney tried to correct this by restricting the role and size of the NG. Its political, just not in the way that you might think. Nixon Carter and Reagan had a good idea about integrating the reserves but with an increasingly expeditionary miitary, it just seems to be obsolete.
FQ13


Perhaps the BG knew better than to test Ronaldus Magnus.
I love waking up every morning knowing that Donald Trump is President!!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk