Deploy or 'Find Something Else to Do' in Civilian Life: Mattis

[RV_]

This is a real issue today and I am of two minds for it. A lot of the waivered personnel are older, or wounded and the call of whether the wounds are the issue or an early onset arthritis or neuralgia etc could result in a disservice to service members. We will have to see what happens. They say there will be exceptions. Bone spurs can grow while serving as an example.

Excerpt:

"Defense Secretary Jim Mattis used tough terms to back up the new deploy-or-get out rules, saying those held back for administrative reasons place an unfair burden on troops who routinely serve multiple combat tours.

"You're either deployable, or you need to find something else to do. I'm not going have some people deploying constantly and then other people, who seem to not pay that price, in the U.S. military," Mattis told reporters traveling with him on his way home Saturday from a week-long trip to Europe.

"If you can't go overseas [and] carry a combat load, then obviously someone else has got to go. I want this spread fairly and expertly across the force," he said.

Defense Department officials have said there will be numerous exceptions to the new rules forcing out service members unable to deploy for 12 consecutive months -- including waivers for those wounded in combat and those who are pregnant -- but Mattis is firm on the overall concept.

Troops who routinely deploy "need time at home, they need time with their families. We may enlist soldiers, but we re-enlist families. That's the way it is," he said.

"If you can't keep the family together, then you're either going to lose the family or you're going to lose the soldier, and that's a net loss for our society and for our military," Mattis said.

His major concern, he said, is for the DoD to find ways for those wounded or injured in the field to continue to serve, if that is their choice.

"We'll find a place to use them. That's a special category. They've earned that special status," he said.

The DoD's new deploy-or-out rules, first reported by Military Times, were disclosed by Army Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford.

Troxell said about 11 percent -- or 235,000 -- of the 2.1 million personnel serving on active duty, in the reserves or National Guard are currently non-deployable.

Of that 235,000, about 99,000 are on the list for administrative reasons, such as not having all their immunizations or required dental exams. About 20,000 are not deployable due to pregnancy, and 116,000 are not deployable due to either short- or long-term injuries or wounds, Troxell said.

Robert Wilkie, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, gave different numbers in testimony last week to the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel. He said up to 286,000 service members could potentially face being forced out of the military.

"This new policy is a 12-month deploy or be removed policy," he said, with exceptions for pregnancies and wounded troops cleared to remain in the military by medical boards.

"On any given day, about 13 to 14 percent of the force is medically unable to deploy -- that comes out to be around 286,000 service members," Wilkie said.

The new policy stems from Mattis' directive to the services last summer to take steps to improve the "lethality" of the force.

In justifying the major policy initiative, Wilkie said, "The situation we face today is really unlike anything we have faced -- certainly in the post-World War II era. We have to ensure, given the climate this country faces, that everyone who signs up can be deployed anywhere in the world."

In a department-wide memo released Thursday on "Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members," Wilkie said he would also seek to establish "standardized criteria for retaining non-deployable service members."

However, "service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation," the memo states. In addition, the services do not have to wait until a service member has been non-deployable for 12 consecutive months to begin the separation process.

As for exceptions, the memo states the service secretaries will be "authorized to grant a waiver to retain in service a service member whose period of non-deployability exceeds the 12 consecutive months limit."

Wilkie gave the services until Oct. 1 to implement the new policy, but said they also could begin separating non-deployable personnel immediately, at their discretion.

During his flight home, Mattis gave several examples of why he thought the old rules on deployments are unfair to those who go again and again into war zones.

"Let me explain what happens: If you have 100,000 troops -- let's just pick a number, just for the sake of giving you [a] mental model of this -- if 10,000 of them are not deployable, then 90,000 deploy more often, obviously to meet the same deployment standard. So that's unfair."

He spoke of meeting a woman who told him that "her husband was on -- who is preparing -- no, is on his sixth deployment, completing his fifth, and is now on his sixth combat deployment."

"This lady had been married to the soldier for 11 years, OK? When that sort of thing happens, that brings sharply into focus that some people are carrying more than the share of the load that I want them to carry," Mattis said.

"But the bottom line is, we expect everyone to carry their share of the load and, you know, sometimes things happen, people bust their legs in training or they're in a car accident, we understand that, and if they -- sometimes that even takes months of recovery," he said.

"We understand that. But this is a deployable military. It's a lethal military that aligns with our allies and partners," and boosting the overall lethality of the force is the major issue, he added.

Mattis said the Army was the catalyst in convincing him to adopt new rules on deployments.

Wilkie "defined the problem that initially was brought to his attention by the U.S. Army, where they had many non-deployables on their rolls," Mattis said.

"I'm not talking about combat injured now. That's a separate category. But people who are, just for one reason or another, are not able to deploy with their units," he said. "It was a significant number, and the Army brought their concerns forward. The other services also highlighted the concerns."

More here and related links:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/18/mattis-deploy-or-find-something-else-do-civilian-life.html?ESRC=airforce_a_180221.nl

And here:

The Pentagon's new "deploy-or-out" policy could result in the separation from military service of possibly 286,000 personnel who are currently deemed medically unfit for overseas duty.

"This new policy is a 12-month deploy or be removed policy," Robert Wilkie, the undersecretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness, told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel Wednesday.

Wilkie said there would be exceptions for pregnancies and the services would also be able to retain wounded troops who are cleared by medical boards.

"On any given day, about 13 to 14 percent of the force is medically unable to deploy -- that comes out to be around 286,000 service members," Wilkie said.

The new policy grew out of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' directive last summer to the services to take steps to improve the "lethality" of the force in overseas operations. Mattis' guidance said the services' actions should be "designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future."

The solution the services came up with required service members to be deployable within 12 months or be forced out of the military.

In justifying the major policy initiative, Wilkie said that "The situation we face today is really unlike anything we have faced -- certainly in the post-World War II era. We have to ensure, given the climate this country faces, that everyone who signs up can be deployed anywhere in the world."

In a department-wide memo released Thursday on "Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members," Wilkie said he would also be seeking to establish "standardized criteria for retaining non-deployable service members."

However, "service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation," the memo said. In addition, the services would not have to wait until a service member has been non-deployable for 12 consecutive months to begin the process of separation."

Much more here:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/15/pentagons-new-deploy-or-out-policy-could-separate-286k.html

Most of us who retired here may have kids in service. But it could be a contentious issue. Or not.

I can tell you I stopped advising young folks in the family to go Air Force, as well as any branch. THe folks on base are saying the service is way too political and "every day is you bet your career day."

 

[SKP100681]

I can't say as I can complain about "Mad Dog's" policy.  When I was in the USAF (for 26 years) there were far too many fellow AF folks who were carried as non-deployable some for the flimsiest excuse/reasons.   Lowered hearing level due to too many hours on the shooting range for personal reasons (not duty related).   Bad back,  Shaving waver (??  yup),  Sprained ankle (for two years?),  Wife/girlfriend is pregnant, Enrolled in an off duty course of education,  Etc., Etc.   That means others have to take their place and carry their load.  Not right and not fair to those who do the job they signed up to do.

Dave J, USAF Retired.

[don&penny]

I can't argue with the fairness issue, but I don't see any real advantage to kicking the non-deployables out.

To use Mattis's example - you have, say 100,000 service members and you need to deploy 100,000 personnel. 10% (10,000) are "non-deployable", leaving the other 90,000 to be deployed more often (or longer per deployment). If you kick the non-deployables out you now have 90,000 deployable members that you will have to send out more often or for longer deployments.

I suppose the benefit is, the non-deployable people that are kicked out won't have to be paid.

We had a similar problem back in the 1970's when I was in the navy. Women were not allowed to be stationed on combatant ships. Ratings that had significant numbers of shore billets allowed women to carry those ratings and they were always in shore billets, making for fewer shore billets available for men that could be stationed on combatant ships. Hence the men were unfairly required to be stationed aboard ship longer/more often and deployed on cruises more often/longer.

That problem didn't affect me, since I was in a rating that was only used aboard combatants (except for training commands for that particular rating).

At least those issues are no longer problems, now that women can be stationed on combatant ships.

Don

[SKP100681]

One thing to consider is that all of our services have caps on how many people we have aboard.

If we "lose" 15 percent that are not deployable we can then replace them.   If they are allowed to stay aboard in non-deployable status they are taking up slots that can't be filled with new recruits because of the cap limits on the affected service.

[markandkim]

 "service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation," the memo said. In addition, the services would not have to wait until a service member has been non-deployable for 12 consecutive months to begin the process of separation."

Agree!

 

[funesytrvl]

My service  as a warrior was extremely physical and my body paid the price and broke down fast. So I left what I loved, I couldn't see my self complaining from  the rear echelon in a swivel chair from camp cup cake while not being able to rotate in and out of a missions. If you can't heal up and perform you need to go. BUT! you should be capable of getting your retirement for how ever many years you put in immediately upon separation. Regardless if you deployed to some hell hole or spent your time in some cozy office. You volunteered to protect this country, you earned the amount of time you put in. They could come up with a % for every year served and pay it out upon separation of service, that would be taking care of our veterans.

[Kirk W]

10 hours ago, don&penny said:

I suppose the benefit is, the non-deployable people that are kicked out won't have to be paid.

The benefit is that they replace the people who can't be deployed with others who can be. 

[remoandiris]

I understand the policy's intent, however there was a recent article about Army basic being modified because the slugs joining aren't physically/mentally/emotionally mature/disciplined enough to accomplish getting to work on time.  Yep, can't even get out of bed.  Oh, and they can't throw a grenade 20+ meters, either, so that requirement to graduate is being removed.

Tossing out those who can and replacing them with those who can't is not a good policy.  Add to it the improving economy and the chaff will overwhelm the wheat in military accessions.  It won't be long before we're reading about low recruitment numbers and having to pay bonuses just to get bodies into uniforms.

IMO, the military REALLY needs to look at what is MISSION required at the deployed locations.  There are some jobs that can be done by a less than 100% "deployable" person.  Plus, the military calls EVERYTHING a "deployment" these days.  Sorry, not sorry, Bahrain is NOT a deployment!!!  It is a friggin TDY!!!  If you're not wearing the battle rattle, YOU'RE NOT DEPLOYED!!

[Kirk W]

7 hours ago, remoandiris said:

Oh, and they can't throw a grenade 20+ meters, either, so that requirement to graduate is being removed.

You clearly read that article to say some very different things from what I saw in it. 

Big changes are coming to Army basic training

We (parents) have to share at least share part of the blame.  I expect less from my kids than my folks did.  I know my parents expected less than their parents.  Life and society HAVE gotten easier physically. Recruiting and basic training have to take what is available in the qualified pool (an estimated 60-70% of the American 17-24-year-olds are not qualified), that actually have the propensity to join the military.  We (society and parents) produced those "slugs"

[remoandiris]

1 hour ago, Kirk Wood said:

You clearly read that article to say some very different things from what I saw in it. 

I clearly read what was stated in the article.  A different article than the one you posted.  Maybe the changes WILL make better soldiers at their first duty station, but if they can't teach a recruit to throw a grenade, how will they instill the capabilities needed to perform more complex tasks?  Time will tell.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/09/low-discipline-new-soldiers-prompts-army-redesign-basic-training.html

'A Sense of Entitlement'

"What leaders have observed in general is they believe that there is too much of a sense of entitlement, questioning of lawful orders, not listening to instruction, too much of a buddy mentality with NCOs and officers and a lot of tardiness being late to formation and duties," Frost said. "These are trends that they see as increasing that they think are part of the discipline aspect that is missing and that they would like to see in the trainees that become soldiers that come to them as their first unit of assignment."

 

Some Qualifications Nixed

The new BCT does, however, do away with hand grenade qualification and land navigation course qualification as graduation requirements.

"What we have found is it is taking far, far too much time. It's taking three to four times as much time ... just to qualify folks on the hand grenade course than we had designated so what is happening is it is taking away from other aspects of training," Frost said.

"We are finding that there are a large number of trainees that come in that quite frankly just physically don't have the capacity to throw a hand grenade 20 to 25 to 30 meters. In 10 weeks, we are on a 48-hour period; you are just not going to be able to teach someone how to throw if they haven't thrown growing up."

[remoandiris]

12 hours ago, funesytrvl said:

My service  as a warrior was extremely physical and my body paid the price and broke down fast. So I left what I loved, I couldn't see my self complaining from  the rear echelon in a swivel chair from camp cup cake while not being able to rotate in and out of a missions. If you can't heal up and perform you need to go. BUT! you should be capable of getting your retirement for how ever many years you put in immediately upon separation. Regardless if you deployed to some hell hole or spent your time in some cozy office. You volunteered to protect this country, you earned the amount of time you put in. They could come up with a % for every year served and pay it out upon separation of service, that would be taking care of our veterans.

In the article cited above, quoting SECDEF, it looks like he agrees with you. 

His major concern, he said, is for the DoD to find ways for those wounded or injured in the field to continue to serve, if that is their choice.

"We'll find a place to use them. That's a special category. They've earned that special status," he said.

 

 

[remoandiris]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 5:44 PM, RV_ said:

This is a real issue today and I am of two minds for it. A lot of the waivered personnel are older, or wounded and the call of whether the wounds are the issue or an early onset arthritis or neuralgia etc could result in a disservice to service members. We will have to see what happens. They say there will be exceptions. Bone spurs can grow while serving as an example.

--------------------------------------

Most of us who retired here may have kids in service. But it could be a contentious issue. Or not.

---------------------------------------

I can tell you I stopped advising young folks in the family to go Air Force, as well as any branch. THe folks on base are saying the service is way too political and "every day is you bet your career day."

 

When you look at the number Troxell mentioned, 99K are non-deployable for admin stuff like needing an immunization or dental work.  Those can be easily waived or taken care of in a short time and it is doubtful those would fall into the 12-month non-deploy policy.  The 20K pregnancies will take a female off the deployment rolls for a year (or more), but there is a known end date for that.  The other 116,000 will face MEBs and such.  Those 116,000 end up being about 6% of the total force.

I don't think it will be a contentious issue in the services.  They know what is coming.  What may become contentious is how the policy is executed.  I don't have faith it will be fairly and evenly done across the services or even within the same branches.  Or even at the same bases.  MEBs take unit CC comments into the decision making process.  Unit CCs lie on performance reports.  I have no faith they will all be 100% honest in MEB comments.   

I, too, stopped suggesting the military as a career.  Now I tell them if they want to serve, get into a career field that is transferable to civilian life, get as much training and education as they can, and no one has their best interests at heart as much as they will themselves.

[pinger]

I thought we went where we were told and did what we were supposed to do..

[SKP100681]

Most of us do/did.  It's the 10-15 % of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who always try/tried to find ways of getting out of deployments for which the that the "go or get out" applies.

[Kirk W]

22 hours ago, remoandiris said:

I can tell you I stopped advising young folks in the family to go Air Force, as well as any branch.

I have a grandson in the Army and another in the Navy and I am proud of them!

[funesytrvl]

17 hours ago, Kirk Wood said:

I have a grandson in the Army and another in the Navy and I am proud of them!

As you should be.

I thank them for Serving!

 

[remoandiris]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 6:16 PM, Kirk Wood said:

I have a grandson in the Army and another in the Navy and I am proud of them!

 

6 hours ago, funesytrvl said:

As you should be.

I thank them for Serving!

 

Agreed.  Anyone who serves well and honorably is to be commended.