Did you know that the Army Has 50,000 Active Soldiers Who Can't Deploy, Top NCO Says?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:51:13 -0500

Did you know that the Army Has 50,000 Active Soldiers Who Can't Deploy, Top NCO Says?

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/25/army-has-50000-active-soldiers-who-cant-deploy-top-nco-says.html

The U.S. Army's top enlisted soldier said the number-one readiness problem facing the service is that the active component -- the most deployable force -- has 50,000 soldiers who can't deploy.

That figure represents the largest number of non-deployable soldiers in all three components of the service. The National Guard has 28,000 non-deployable soldiers and the Reserve component has 25,000, according to Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel Dailey's office.

Having 50,000 non-deployable, active soldiers is comparable to three of the Army's 10 active combat divisions, Dailey told a group of sergeants recently at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to an Army press release.

"That's huge. That's three out of the 10 divisions," he said. "If you will not or cannot fight and win, then there's no place for you in the Army. We have to become unemotional about this. We have a job to do."

Army Has 50,000 Active Soldiers Who Can't Deploy, Top NCO Says

The sergeant major of the Army said the high number of non-deployable soldiers is the top readiness problem facing the force.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 28 at 2015 11:56 AM

MAJ Alvin B. — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:56:58 -0500

Yea. It is a great institutional and individual leadership,challenge.. However, I wonder what the actual breakdown of the numbers indicates when examined as to the individual and specific reasons for being donsidered non-deployable?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2015 12:03 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 12:03:13 -0500

Sir, on the non-medical personnel that can not deploy, the Army needs to find ways to decrease the number of personnel that can not be deployed.

Response by SFC Joseph McCausland made Nov 28 at 2015 12:07 PM

SFC Joseph McCausland — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 12:07:51 -0500

I would like to know what makes them non-deployable; if that's the case, shouldn't they be transferred to the IRR and replaced with deployable soldiers?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Nov 28 at 2015 12:12 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 12:12:34 -0500

It has been a huge problem for as long as I can remember as a senior leader. I'm envious of the leaders today, having this issue being not only brought forward, but addressed by the SMA. This is the level of thought, consideration and action it has always needed.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 28 at 2015 1:41 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 13:41:54 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I am not surprised that the top Army NCO is stating that the Army Has 50,000 Active Soldiers who can't deploy. The headline is slightly misleading since it focuses on the Active Component non-deployable of 50,000 while teh article includes "National Guard has 28,000 non-deployable soldiers and the Reserve component has 25,000, according to Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel Dailey's office." [Thanks to COL Jon Thompson for reminding me that the total number is 103,000 including 50,000 AC soldiers.]
103,000 nondeployable soldiers is significant. I do not know what Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel Dailey's end game is.
1) I hope he is not pushing to terminate the military service of the permanently non-deployable soldiers as well as some of the temporary nondeployable AC soldiers as a way of instituting a force reduction.
2) I hope he is not trying to reduce the Reserve Component forces structure by eliminating faces and then eliminating the associated spaces. The reason many Reserve Component military personnel are in the military is to serve their nation while holding down a civilian job. The Reserve Component units and personnel have been mobilized much more than intended since 2001 and this is most likely one of the primary reasons for the non-deployable rate in the Reserve Components.
I expect that many of these non-deployable soldiers are temporarily non-deployable for administrative through medical reasons such as recovery from surgery, pregnancy, and other temporary medical profiles. It would be very interesting to see the actual numbers by category.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 28 at 2015 2:46 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:46:24 -0500

I can see a lot of injustice and inequity when we start chaptering and medically retiring folks.

Response by CPL Richard Flagg made Nov 28 at 2015 2:56 PM

CPL Richard Flagg — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:56:38 -0500

Once again all those budget cutbacks are hurting the war fighters who are taking the brunt and wear and tear of their deployments.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Nov 28 at 2015 3:37 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:37:04 -0500

After reading about this and commenting here and in other discussions, I think what is missing here is the reasons why these Soldiers are non-deployable. Without knowing the "why", it is hard to come up with any solutions. I would think there are temporary and non-temporary reasons why Soldiers are non-deployable and we always think of medical reasons as being primary. I would like to see more of the data so better understand this. The same goes for the reserve components as well.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2015 4:03 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 16:03:45 -0500

According to the article, only 23% of 37,000 (or approx 8500) are actually "hardcore" non deplorable. The rest have minor medical situations that can be resolved in less than 30 days or have a admin/legal issue that is waiverable by the unit CDR in order to still deploy. In my opinion, statistics have always been able to be manipulated to prove a point. The real question to I have is what is the pint trying to be made? Unit CDRs are rightly charged with decreasing their non available numbers and across the Army, that has been happening over the past few years. So, why all the hoopla about an issue that "we" in the trenches have known about for years?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 11:11 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:11:44 -0500

Just because they can't deploy does not mean they don't bring value to the organization.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2015 7:55 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 19:55:39 -0500

Can't deploy, time to trim the fat