Exceptional NCO forced out for his manageable illness. Do you Think the Army Should Retain Him?

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:26:27 -0400

We talk a lot about Service Members that do not meet the standards. Majority of people say they should be sent back to civilian life, others say leaders are responsible for ensuring they meet the standard.

Please read the article , answer the survey and give your opinion on what you think the Army should have done with SFC Sabata.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/16/crohns-disease-forces-kevin-sabata-forced-out-of-army/25829839/

Exceptional NCO forced out for his manageable illness

Fast-rising Sgt. 1st Class Kevin Sabata will soon be forced out of the Army because of a disease he's had since 2006.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 2:32 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:32:23 -0400

I hate to say this, but a non-deployable Soldier is a non-deployable Soldier. This Sergeant served his nation well, but his body is telling him he can't do this anymore. He needs to listen to his body, and ensure he stays in an environment where his medical needs can be taken care of and managed so as to keep it from worsening.

I wish him god speed and good luck.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 3:02 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:02:18 -0400

In a recent post by one of our members they showed a big fat Army guy and apparently he was still in. Secondly I used to run a support Group for Crohns Disease and a family member at the time had it. The disease is a serious one and affects people differently. Rolf Bernirschke who played in the NFL was determined to keep working in spite of his dx. I think the Army's needs are being undermined by political issues stemming from Sequestration and a general loathing of the military.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 3:11 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:11:31 -0400

Unfortunately in the age of draw downs in the military this happens and it is because he is no longer deployable and not mission capable if needs be. I got it he is a stellar NCO that came up through the ranks quickly, and could possibly be reassigned to recruiting but he is still not mission capable if needed. My one question to this would be; would he do the same for another soldier that was under his command, because I have seen a lot of leaders who wouldn't.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 3:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:41:21 -0400

While detailed as a recruiter I knew two senior NCOs who were were left with no option other than 79R. The first was the company First Sergeant after he was wounded in Mogadishu. His wounds were significant enough he could not be Infantry any more. The other was a station commander who was also infantry but was involved in a vehicle crash that ended any hope he had of returning to the deploying Army.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 4:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:11:45 -0400

While, yes, he is non-deployable, he can still serve. This would take one less recruiting spot from FMC Soldier and allow that person to fight. Proper Personnel Management.

However, maybe there is more that I cannot see yet.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 7:10 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:10:20 -0400

Drawdown. Quotas must be met. Fair? Absolutely not. Fact of life? Yes

It has happened to many good stellar troops. It happened to me.

I wish I knew the answer.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Apr 17 at 2015 8:50 AM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:50:34 -0400

My opinion is that non-deployable doesn't automatically mean non-valuable. He has invested this much of his life in the Army, I would think that the Army could invest back in him. There are plenty of MOS' that don't necessarily have to deploy. As long as he's fit enough to perform one of those, I say let him do it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 8:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:52:45 -0400

CSM: I'd retain him. This is the type of service member we need - one who lives the example. Not every position is the ground pounder, and recruiting is just as important as squeezing a trigger. Kicking him out serves the letter but not the spirit of the regs or the service.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Apr 17 at 2015 8:55 AM

CSM David Heidke — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:55:25 -0400

This guy tries, and he's willing to do a job that nobody wants to do...

But we have people who don't try, and refuse to meet even the basic standards and yet we have to jump hurdles to remove them...

...does anyone else see a disconnect here?

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Apr 17 at 2015 9:09 AM

Maj Chris Nelson — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:09:46 -0400

So, this is a difficult case. There are a few things that have to be considered here.
1. There are very specific standards set forth for MEB (conditions that require an MEB is one of the first and foremost).
2. The process of an MEB is that the Primary Care Provider will generate the MEB based on facts. The MEB leaves NO ROOM for opinion, subjective input, etc. It is very detailed and very fact based.
3. The local provider has NO decision making. Once the report is generated based on specialty notes, clinic visits, etc, it is forwarded up to higher level command. Depending on the illness/injury and the degree, it may be handled at a number of different levels; with or without additional medical evaluation (vs. just a paper review).
4. Crohn's IS an MEB condition. Results of an MEB may have a couple outcomes: a) Separation b) retention with riders such as C-Code/non-deployability or others, c) full release with RILO or annual review of condition required.

NOW we have to look at the need of the Force (regardless of which branch, they will look at what THEY need). Times of Drawdown, they are looking for people to leave. non-deploy is a body that is not 100% functional, even if there are people that do not deploy, it is the IDEA that they can't deploy.... The same thing goes for other conditions....when there is an over abundance of pilots, they max the screening process and do not allow waivers for such things as vision...however, in shortage of applicants waivers can be had easily... this is very similar. While his Crohn's is in remission today, this does not mean that it will remain so.... the Army is looking long term and cutting loss later. They will continue to look at what is in the best interest of Big Army (or branch)...not the individual. This sux, but unfortunately, it is what it is.

I see a number of comments about the failure of leadership and failure of the medical team. To those of you that flaunt this, I see your point.... but lets look at the comments going back a few threads.... should a 2LT salute a 1LT? Does a 2LT outrank an E-7/8-9? How about wear of the uniform? Exceptions can be had BUT what you are asking for is to bend/break ESTABLISHED REGULATIONS that are in place for specific reasons. Standards are across the board; not "as we want to enforce them".....

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 17 at 2015 9:10 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:10:50 -0400

No offense to anyone, but you have people missing limbs still in the service, so what is the difference? Let him stay and be a recruiter!

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Apr 17 at 2015 9:33 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:33:51 -0400

A few thoughts:
- NFL Analogy. A Hall of Fame quarterback is injured and is not expected to be able to retake the field. What does the team do? They get a new quarterback. Why? The NFL is a business, rosters are limited in number, and the team can not afford to carry a player on the roster, regardless of past performance, who can not take the field now or in the future.
- Army Perspective. The Army (active component) will most likely drop to 450K. Our mission is to shape, deter, and win. This generally means deploy. Our roster is limited. Why should they Army retain Soldiers who can not deploy?
- Individual Perspective. I understand the NCO's desire to continue to serve. Service, however, is a privilege and not a right. Two arguments I could come up with for retention would be cost/benefit analysis and return on investment.
- Temporal Perspective. What does the NCO do after recruitment duty? Normally the NCO would be assigned back into the operational force. If the NCO can not deploy then what good would he be doing the unit to which he would be assigned? Are we not just delaying the inevitable by not discharging the NCO now?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 9:41 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:41:31 -0400

The Med Board should make the ruling. I have a friend that is an outstanding Naval Officer that discovered he had Crohn's disease early in his career as a JO. We spent a lot of time going back and forth about what he was going to do. It all boiled down to how he was going to present himself to the board. He decided he wanted to fight to stay in and demonstrated to the board that he could manage his disease and be able to deploy. He serves to this day and has a promising career. Fact is that the Navy would have lost an outstanding officer had the board not considered his approach.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 17 at 2015 9:45 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:45:04 -0400

Fair: No

Correct: Yes.

If we were following a "Free a man to fight" philosophy, we should let him serve until the end of his current contract, then medically retire him (or extend until the contingency is over based on the needs of the service). If that happens to be as a recruiter, or stateside, so be it.

But as is, he is non-deployable. We have to take HIS safety, as well as the needs of the service into consideration. Sure, making him a recruiter seems like a great idea at first glance, but some of those stations are in the middle of nowhere, and medical attention is not as readily available as if he were stationed on a base.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 9:54 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:54:31 -0400

Let him stay. Since his condition has been labeled as treatable, then what is the problem? Are there not amputees that are allowed to stay in the service? Keep him as a career Recruiter.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Apr 17 at 2015 9:59 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:59:35 -0400

There is one line in that article that is making me wonder why the Army is not BEGGING him to stay in as a recruiter "He advanced to E-7 in just 10 years; it takes a typical soldier 13-14 years to do that."
So you have a man who has excelled to the point that he is at least three years ahead of the curve, working in a function that will not see him deployed, living the values that are the US Army, and you want to throw him away?
Why? I understand that Crohn's is a chronic illness, and that it could flare up again, but as stated it is a manageable illness.
Recruiters should be the embodiement of what their branch of the service represents. They should look and act like they came right off of the recruiting poster. It seems to me that this person is exactly that.
The Army should let him stay in. IF his Crohn's disease returns, and becomes debilitating, then they should revisit medically retiring him. Until then, let him represent all that is good about the Army.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 10:12 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:12:17 -0400

There is a fine line in this situation from what I can see without doing research and if the regulation is as unclear as it sounds he should be able to be retained especially if his doctor says he is ablt to be retained as a recruiter.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 10:38 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:38:41 -0400

"during a draw-down — probably didn't help matters."

"The Pentagon said on Monday it would shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War Two levels, eliminate the popular A-10 aircraft and reduce military benefits in order to meet 2015 spending caps..."

It's no surprise. He should be able stay but they find him an unfit, easy target. They'll keep the soldiers that REALLY don't want to be there tho. That's usually how it works. He should be kept in at Recruiting.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 10:45 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:45:25 -0400

I have to agree with 1SG Private RallyPoint Member on this one. I don't think you should still serve if you are non-deployable. Lots of people want to serve but not go away for a year to some foreign country and leave their family. That is not an option. I thank this SFC for his service but he no longer meets the standard. I see alot of people saying he could just stay a recruiter they don't deploy and he would free up a fully deployable Soldier to stay in his unit instead of recruiting. The problem with that is it is almost a requirement to have recruiting, drill sergeant or other duty to get those senior promotions. So not only would an NCO possibly have to take an extra deployment for the non deployables; but that NCO would also miss his spot in recruiting and not get promoted. Then he gets QMPed for not progressing. Who got screwed now. The fully mission capable Soldier or the one that can't deploy and fight.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 12:07 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:07:35 -0400

Absolutely yes. We will lose a lot of institutional knowledge and talent.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 12:12 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:12:49 -0400

Can you copy and paste the article?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 12:16 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:16:50 -0400

You hit it right on the head with "axe where a scalpel will do".

I don't think there is proper assessment being done on who gets cut (at all levels).

A prime example of this is the push for the use of more simulations for exercises (WARSIM, JCATS, EST, DSTS, etc) yet we are assessing FA57 branched Officers for cuts based on the general guidelines rather than looking at the new skill sets they bring to the table.

This is an important issue and consideration because we are spending the time and money to prepare these Officers for these roles to help drive training and save the Army money, yet we aren't looking at how we are doing the cuts.

There needs to be a serious converation about where the Army is going and how we are going to execute the cuts in the most effective manner without negatively impacting training for the sake of saving money.

Response by SFC Joseph James made Apr 17 at 2015 12:20 PM

SFC Joseph James — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:20:02 -0400

Ok I got promoted to E7 in less than 9 years. I was wounded in Iraq (lost both legs). Toward the end they gave me two options medically retire or continue as an 13F instructor at Ft Sill under a program called COAD (Continuation of Active Duty). I chose the first. They could do something like that for him. Keep in mind I have no legs.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 12:39 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:39:27 -0400

If his ratings are strong and he can maintain physical fitness standards and proper military bearing then, he can serve in any TDA type force structure. He would not be able to serve in MTOE units as long as his condition deems him non-deployable. Recruiting or working at as an Instructor at an Army Schoolhouse's would be jobs he could hold and still contribute to the success of the Army, provided he could perform the required duties.

Response by SSG Warren Hall made Apr 17 at 2015 12:50 PM

SSG Warren Hall — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:50:01 -0400

I have Colitis, which is lower, instead of upper like Crohn's disease. Like his it was/is controlled by medications. I did conceal it until after being deployed for a second time. I had my spouse mail me my med's. It wasn't until I had two surgeries on my spinal column that they, the Army, caught the colitis. I served for 10 years, and two deployments with this without a problem, as long as I stayed on my meds and did my job. I do not see how this would keep him from doing his job, especially if he is/was a recruiter. I do, to an extent know how the Army does this. While at WTB, following my surgeries, I had a Major tell me, "Because of the extent of my injuries, and my age, they were going to Med Board me out". My only question to him was, "What the hell does my age have to do with it". It seems that it all depends on the Unit you are with, whether or not they give you the option to stay in or not.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 12:53 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:53:21 -0400

I have deep sympathies for NCO's and Officers who were asked to stay in, the military is a family, and sent them on numerous deployments.

They gave up the best part of their lives serving, and had financial, professional, and family goals tied to serving. Like a wisp of a dream, they will be gone, when it is them who were always loyal to the military. I can only wish that all of them will land on their feet so they can pursue their dreams.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 1:28 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:28:58 -0400

I think the avenue of approach by the Army will remain the MED board. He can easily appeal the army % through the PEBLO, the Army has a criteria for % and if you find that you are short changed, and appeal should be done. The VA rep can help with the VA %. The VA has a caregiver funds for the wife, and SS Disability is available but apply for it while in service.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 17 at 2015 1:33 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:33:35 -0400

Crohn's is a funny one. It's one of those "results may vary" conditions. It's manageable until it isn't. You don't have a choice as to the when. I can see why deployability is a problem. I remember a LTC working for me on the joint side that came down with it in the late 90's. Not much was known about it then and some thinking was it was mentally driven. Times change. The LTC took a medical retirement. VA had no ideal how to deal with it then either.

The problem is likely there's no uniform response to what to do about it. Medical boards amongst the services can come to differing individual conclusions. My preference is if there is a path that's worth it to the service, e.g. recruiting, and there's a need, go for it. There's also a short and long term cost consideration but brains better than mine would need to figure it out.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 8:19 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:19:40 -0400

Wishful thinking on my part, but I voted to let him stay. Career recruiter, AIT NCO, schoolhouse instructor. There are plenty of places he could go. I wouldn't suggest it for everyone, but if this soldier is that high speed, why not?
I do understand what the others are saying about letting him go and I agree that the normal process should be the default position.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 8:42 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:42:33 -0400

Does he have some medical problems related to combat that will allow him to MED Board. That might buy him several months to a year.

Response by MSG David Chappell made Apr 17 at 2015 9:35 PM

MSG David Chappell — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:35:09 -0400

We need recruiters and few want that thankless job. If he is a successful recruiter reclassify him and let him serve. We turn our heads for so many issues and let less than adequate remain in who are non-deployable. Let him stay.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 17 at 2015 10:23 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:23:49 -0400

He has completed his service to our country and is no longer fit to continue. His dedication should be commended and his career celebrated.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Apr 17 at 2015 10:36 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:36:23 -0400

He has had this since 2006 and has lasted this long without it affecting anything but his deployability, let him stay in. There are plenty of careers in the Army stateside that he could fill if they absolutely won't alloy him to deploy. Hell, I saw an AF SSgt missing an arm while I was at Tech School. I am assuming he was either an instructor or in training himself for a job that would better suit him. He's a good soldier, keep him.

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Apr 17 at 2015 11:06 PM

SSG Kenneth Lanning — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:06:25 -0400

Do with him what they should be doing with every service member that has deployed and has valuable experience-put him in research and development (RDECOM) and get the civilians some credible input on what we need in the field...at least they will still be helping with the fight, can still know they are making a difference, and still serve their country. We're wasting a valuable resource just chucking people out the door that have a true desire to stay and the experience to pass on.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 17 at 2015 11:39 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 23:39:19 -0400

Pathetic! We retain members without limbs. My WTB Commander barely had use of his legs and was a LTC. He still kicked ass (with assistance of his arm braces...his joke, not mine). He is a recruiter, and apparently a damn good one. That is a perfect, VITAL job that can easily be accomplished by him. Take Bradley Manning's costs for hormone therapy and give this DESERVING soldier some butt and gutt surgery. Crohn's disease sucks, but it is completely manageable. Well, I would die, because caffeine is a no no. I hope he gets to stay in.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 1:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:51:30 -0400

I read his article and I feel that the Army should retain him, if they let his case go before a PEB to determine fitness for duty.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 1:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:39:18 -0400

One standard. They only time this should not be the case is if a soldier is within two years of twenty years of service. They should be allowed to finish and required to retire at twenty.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 2:06 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:06:26 -0400

It's easy to say give the job to a non deployable, but by doing this we are filling the slots and not allowing opportunities for those Soldies that could use the "break" from frequent deployments, compassionate reassignments or the opportunity to rehabilitate their families. Hold EVERYONE by the same standard, it's only fair.

Response by SSG Charles Durham made Apr 18 at 2015 6:17 PM

SSG Charles Durham — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:17:41 -0400

I was struck on the back of the head with a tankers hatch on an AVLB. In the process of being struck was thrown against the opening and my back was injured. I was told that I no longer was able to do my job as a communications chief (Staff Sargent promotable) but I could do something as a civilian.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 8:54 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:54:53 -0400

He should be boarded. The board could find him retainable, deployable, or unfit. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. In fact, it happens every day. Instead of arguing the merits of a medical decision, I would suggest the following. Most on this forum do not possess medical degrees. Those of us that do STILL don't have enough of the medical facts in this case to offer intelligent response. I can empathize with a talented soldier who develops a disease that precludes service, but even if I were that soldier, the court of public opinion is an innapropriate place to adjudicate a fellow warrior's fitness for duty. Just my 2 cents...you may make change if needed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 12:00 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:00:48 -0400

The ARMY / Military are losing Great Leaders with the draw down.

They are looking in the wrong direction as usual. Many will say there is a standard but that is a good to hear statement.

Going back in peoples records or in the case which you mention an illness which does not prevent duty.

There are a multitude of people who are just leaving the Military just because of the silliness and the fact that they cannot assist in many cases which are outlandish.

The current administration is all about reducing the Military and making cuts in benefits. Changing the benefits is another way to encourage people to leave the Military. Once you reduce the incentives people will try a different route.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 19 at 2015 12:09 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:09:26 -0400

There is no conspiracy going on to eliminate the senior folks going on, there is a reduction across the force meaning across the entire force. The fact that this Senior NCO has a medical condition that prevents him form doing his job is the reason that he will have to leave the service (if he cannot reclassify into a specialty that allows him to stay). I do know plenty of Commanders that would show compassion for his condition and assist in every way they could however, I do not know of any Commander that would retain him just because he has served 10 years.....While that might sound calloused, we have to look at the entire spectrum of what we are doing, we are here to defend our country, to engage and destroy our enemies, to shoot them in the face - in another country preferably....do we keep someone because we like them, what about the male Soldier that is 200 pounds overweight or the female Soldier that cannot do one push up, do we keep them as well? While it might sound numb, we have business to take care of and sometimes we have to let really good people go when they can no longer perform the mission we need them to perform.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 19 at 2015 12:21 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:21:44 -0400

Exceptional NCO forced out for his manageable illness. Do you Think the Army Should Retain Him? |...

We talk a lot about Service Members that do not meet the standards. Majority of people say they should be sent back to civilian life, others say leaders are responsible for ensuring they meet the standard. Please read the article , answer the survey and give your opinion on what you think the Army should have done with SFC Sabata. http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/16/crohns-disease-forces-kevin-sabata-forced-out-of-army/25829839/...

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 19 at 2015 12:29 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:29:10 -0400

It is just like the aftermath of the Gulf War drawdown. "Put in your papers and be gne in 30 days." Before they knew it, too many were scrambling and then came the freeze. Then came high bonuses to shore numbers from necessary jobs that vanished. It was ugly for awhile. Slow down, make smart decisions, listen to those 1SG's and CSM's who have the by name list of people they would be THRILLED to be rid of, and then focus on numbers. Act like a doctor by cutting away the dead flesh first and the patient will have a better chance to survive.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 12:32 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:32:14 -0400

yes, they should try to retain him

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 11:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:10:56 -0400

For what I read, this brother in arms should be able to re class and stay. I understand his condition and is one that could be treated, I belive he still got a lot to offer. Please let him stay.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 11:44 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:44:32 -0400

There are lots of people who want to serve, but can't. There are lots of people who want to keep serving, but can't. I'm torn between the two poll options because I can see points for both. So I'm going to vote in favor of the standards but remain overall sympathetic for him.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 12:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:10:54 -0400

I sympathize with the NCOs situation, however what happens the next time someone has a manageable disease/illness/physical disability that otherwise disqualifies them from military service? Should we make all of them recruiters?

Response by COL Ted Mc made Apr 19 at 2015 12:33 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:33:41 -0400

Losing the services of someone who has proven that he is good at his job simply because he cannot do another job is really intelligent - isn't it?

Having a "non-deployable" person doing a job and thus freeing up a deployable person up for deployed duty is really stupid - isn't it?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2015 1:59 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:59:52 -0400

I'l be honest. The ACoS wants a highly expeditionary force that is adaptive and flexible. Soldiers that are non-deployable do not fit in the category. I honestly think every Soldiers that can't take a 3 event APFT or be deployed should be offered a job a recruiter or medically retired.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Apr 22 at 2015 6:37 AM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:37:46 -0400

Tough call, the heart in me says the Army should let him be a recruiter. However, It's a precedent the military shouldn't set. If the standard is you have to be deployable and he's not. Then, the Army must put him out. Making exceptions can quickly become an unmanageable ordeal we don't want go down. Imagine every Soldier with a manageable disease lined up for a pass

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 1:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:13:56 -0400

I hate seeing articles that say "the Army" will or will not let something happen. Here is the thing, he is in the right hands now being placed at a WTU. The WTU will ensure that there is non-biased care of the Soldier and they have much more experience in helping Soldier with medical conditions. The PEB/MEB is not the end of the road. He can still he a COAD (continuation of active duty) or Fit for Duty letter. I myself am an 11B SSG with a no austere environment profile but I got a Fit for Duty letter. I truely hope that they can help out such a dedicated Soldier.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 1:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:14:09 -0400

The Army pick which short comings are ok , how many of us know a soldier that can only walk on the APFT, or a soldier whom can not function outside of PT and the Gym. I feel it depends on the job you have determines if you stay compared to the cost of training you. There are civilian jobs that he can do and still impact soldiers.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 3:09 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:09:54 -0400

The army is totally okay with taking kids in and making them adults who know they could be sent to a combat zone and potentially give their life for the cause of the country. Yet, someone who has been in more then a decade, has scored exceptional marks as a leader and recruiter, gets sick. Now they want him out?

We join knowing our lives could be sacrificed at any time, and here we have a man capable of doing his job, wanting to continue, and willing to continue risking his life, but in a different aspect, to serve the army, yet they force him out.

I guess the mantra of "logic doesn't exist in the army" holds true in every sector imaginable. Keeping him should be as easy a decision as doing inventories when you get a new commander.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 3:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:54:12 -0400

The worst answer and biggest cop out leaders can give soldiers is "There is nothing I can do." What that really translates to is "There is nothing I want to do FOR YOU."

I'm am beyond irritated the Army failed my peer in this instance. If leaders wanted to, they could find a place for this professional.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 4:03 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:03:25 -0400

Yes, manageable state side. Down range not so much

Response by SSG Ricky Findley made Apr 23 at 2015 4:31 PM

SSG Ricky Findley — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:31:23 -0400

It sounds as if this Soldier's Chain of Command was more interested in covering their own backsides than doing the right thing. Every service member has unique talents and abilities that contribute to the strength of the Force. If the condition is manageable, there should be no reason why SFC Sabata should have been retained. If he was reclassed as a recruiter, the argument for deployability becomes a moot point. However, the larger problem is an ingrained organizational culture that clearly values politics above the Soldier and is more interested in hiding behind regulations to protect the careers of those who make decisions of this regard. Another thought....there is such a thing as doing too good of a job, i.e. getting rid of service members that can still effectively contribute to the mission using the drawdown as a reason.

Response by CPT Jim Kotva made Apr 23 at 2015 5:03 PM

CPT Jim Kotva — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:03:04 -0400

Keep him in it is not like we have deployments any longer. He would do fine as a recruiter

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 5:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:18:18 -0400

He needs to work the process. He should be providing the board with evidence in person from other doctors and letters from his command why he should be retained. It's what I did when in the same boat. If your packet goes to an MEB without being present yourself, you're gone. Showing up and proving you can still do your job goes a long way to convincing that full bird he or she should keep you.

Response by SSG Steve Young made Apr 23 at 2015 7:10 PM

SSG Steve Young — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:10:49 -0400

If he is just going to be a recruiter and manage his illness why not . don't be like me I always depended on upper NCO's to give advice and retired after a meeting with my commander and 4 years waiting on a Med board that seem like it was never going to happen I gave up and lost other benefits I could really use.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2015 7:48 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:48:52 -0400

As a soldier, you have to maintain a deployable status. It's in the soldiers creed. "I will maintain my arms, my equipment and myself."

Response by SSG Michael Montoya made Apr 23 at 2015 8:04 PM

SSG Michael Montoya — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:04:30 -0400

He didn't his MOS changed to a career recruiter , so Med Board him. If he would have gotten that completed then sure they should have let him stay in, but he didn't so it's time to go. It gets to be a pain in the ass when we have soldiers in critical positions in the rear, but then when it is time for a deployment they can't go due to medical issues. Then someone else who doesn't have the experience of doing that job has to step up in order to fill that short fall. Meanwhile those who are non deployable are afforded a good NCOER for that same job that they trained for but didn't do.

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made Apr 24 at 2015 1:22 AM

CPL Jay Freeman — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:22:19 -0400

He should stay in we need recruiters let him stay in that slots it frees up a spot for a deployable soldier who wants to go

Response by SSG Roderick Smith made Apr 24 at 2015 1:42 AM

SSG Roderick Smith — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 01:42:58 -0400

This story strikes a chord for me. I was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes (no previous or heredity history) as a PFC with less than 2 years in service. Almost a year later, I was found Fit for Duty. No appeals, no craziness, and I was deployable. I left Eustis and went to Fort Sill. THAT is where I ran into trouble. The doctors there were a nightmare. I was in a high OPTEMPO job as a dog handler, and whenever I got ready to deploy, they flipped out. In 6 years at Sill, I had 5 MEBs initiated on me by doctors that never took the time to actually evaluate me. I walked in one day, and I had a new PCM. She asked me if I knew I was diabetic. Umm... only going on 7 years at that point. She immediately initiated the process. Didn't matter that I was controlled, or that I had never scored below a 290 on an APFT, or that I got promoted to SSG in less than 5 years. Merit has no bearing in the process. I was at the mercy of the system. Year 6 at Sill, I finally went through an entire PEB, and was found Fit for Duty again.

Bottom line... It all comes down to how much money and liability the Army is willing to allocate to you in a war zone. I'm not stupid. I know my luck is running out, which is why I'll be ETSing in 2018, no ifs ands or buts. I have been taking up a slot that some able-bodied NCO could be filling for too long. It sucks, but that's what happens.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 2:14 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 02:14:50 -0400

First, there are degrees of Crohns. Some are highly manageable, others can be significantly limiting when exacerbated. We don't know the details. Keep in mind, this is HIS side of the story, and the Army isn't able to defend itself.

Second, there is the commander's letter. If his recruiting commander had stated that he felt he wasn't mission capable, then the MEB/PEB provider will likely support that. NCOERs are not part of your medical packet.

Third, I would love to know the documents of the MEB/PEBs packet. I see a lot of people pushing to MEB/PEB before a treatment is stabilized. It's infuriating, because the regs say "greater than 12 months", but there is also a requirement for a solid grasp of the diagnosis to be at least SOMEWHAT understood. We as medical providers are failing our Soldiers if we make such career-deciding actions with a swift stroke of the pen.

As far as retention, this is a question that I have asked myself several times: When you have a Soldier that is still trying hard, but will never be able to go overseas and may have occasional periods where he/she is not mission capable even here at home...what do you do? That "cut" could salvage a worldwide-deployable Soldier somewhere, but you are still losing valuable experience. Additionally, it is hard to factor in personalities other than the patient....such as saving a dirtbag Soldier from being cut while medically discharging the injured/ill ones.

I have many things I could discuss regarding medical, but I'm not sure that this is the appropriate time/place.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 12:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:43:14 -0400

I know several Service Members who have been diagnosed with similar disorders and are still serving. He has his Crohn's under control and it isn't interfering with his ability to perform duties of a recruiter

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 1:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:01:48 -0400

if your still fit for duty and still perform the necessary task to meet army standards then by all means let them stay in. there's more Soldiers out there with higher rank who can't meet the standards and yet they are still in cause they have no issues. the ones that the Army should be worrying about is the ones who can't meet the Army standards as a leader. Soldiers will follow the leads of there superior. that's why us NCO lead from the front.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 11:48 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:48:19 -0400

I had the honor and privilege of speaking with SFC Sabata this week, he is an exceptionally intelligent young man who wants to serve his country. I contacted him after reading his story shared with me by a coworker who knows my own issues with Crohns Disease and the medications that makes Soldiers like us non deployable. The Army's leadership in how they deal with issues that require them to use their backbone seem to have diminished during my 16 year tenure in the Army. I was retained by MEB with Crohns in 2010 in my current MOS of 51C. Four years later my command decided I no longer am qualified to perform a job that requires me to sit behind a desk and use my brain. It doesn't pass the common sense test. This whole downsize business boggles my mind. Never mind those of us who want to serve, can smoke a PT test, offer outstanding leadership...just keep the rapists you recruited, the can't get rights, the folks with a history of UCMJ because they are deployable bodies. Makes complete sense. At least in the eyes of those who are making the decisions. SFC Sabata I am rooting for you and I hope USAREC contacts you. We need more NCOs like you who aren't afraid to speak up and who truly WANT to be here. You have my full support.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2015 12:09 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:09:46 -0400

CSM, I have to state that this could have been easily solved by leadership. To my understanding the CDR of every unit still has the last say on any recommendations made by any speciality in this case the Dr. Whats the harm in processing his Packet? He's non deployable yes, but not all missions require deployment. His Leadership should have continued processing his packet. I would retain this SFC. Less than 10yrs E7 that alone is a Great Achievement.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 26 at 2015 8:12 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:12:22 -0400

How many years does he have in? How many years do you have to be to lock in retirement?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 8:37 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 May 2015 08:37:08 -0400

Just a drive by down vote CSM or did you have something to contribute to the discussion?

Response by 1SG Mike Demers made Dec 19 at 2015 2:03 PM

1SG Mike Demers — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:03:49 -0500

There is a program called Continued On Active Duty (COAD), I served my last 4 years in this program because of Injuries sustained in Combat and Training. There are TDA jobs out there with non MOS specific codes. Placing a Soldier who is in this Program as opposed to a fully capable Gun fighter is the responsible thing to do. Before I was Injured I would have much rather deployed and let one of these gun fighters in my position of BNCOC Instructor.

I was placed in a COAD position as a Promotable E7 Infantryman. It was an Aviation position that wanted infantry in the position, TDA. The military does this for people in the duke enrollment program and EFMP system. Why not Soldiers who served honorably and were wounded or got a decease while on Active duty, because the VA isn't going to give them the help they need.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Feb 18 at 2016 9:08 PM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 21:08:41 -0500

It's the old battle of deployable versus non-deployable. All things considered you want Soldiers who can deploy. As I understand it The Army has such a high level of non-deployables that the SMA addressed it as a key concern. My way of thinking is that Medical Boards make recommendations and its up to the leaders to make the right decisions.