If you are non deployable, you shouldn't be able to get promoted. What do you think?

Amazed at the dialog on this thread.

I remember my "tunnel vision" of everyone must go mentality. It took some CSM's and peers to pull me aside to realize that everyone has a piece of the pie when we think combat multiplier. Also, leaving Fort Bragg, NC and coming to the strategic side. The "non-deployable" Soldier/NCO should be dealt with, and that is the units responsibilities. However, that individual is the one providing the rear element support whether you like it or not. Which in you're case, these individuals are worthless, being honest and to the point.

It's hard to make a blanket statement like this. Certainly if a soldier is temporarily non deployable, that soldier should be given adequate time to recover. Those that are on a permanent non deployable status, however, would need to be analyzed on a case by case basis. There are many strong leaders with invaluable knowledge and experience who are not physically capable of carrying a rucksack. I think the method to downsize those non deployable soldiers would need to be based on such factors as: time in grade and service, ratings (ERS), promotable status, and the reason for non deployment. Another option for those soldiers could be a transfer to TRADOC or other non deployable duty assignments.

I do agree with you in most cases. It is part of the Soldier's creed and I do think every Soldier should be ready to deploy when called upon. I also think there has to be some judgement in place and the first question I would ask is why is the Soldier non-deployable. If it is medical reasons, what is going on with the review process (MEB/MRB). The Army does have processes to medically retire those who are injured in the line of duty and cannot do their job anymore. That being said, it costs the Army a lot of money to train a person and I think it is fair to see if the Army can use that person and his/her experiences somewhere else in the institutional Army. If the Soldier is a leader in a deployable unit, I think the Army should transfer them out. IMHO, it would be hard to be an effective leader if one cannot lead Soldiers on their wartime mission. However, their limitations may not restrict someone from being an outstanding trainer, administrator, logistician, etc. I think we will see non-deployable status become a discriminator in promotions with the SMA wanting that to become a check box on an NCOER. I do support deployable status having an impact on promotions and even if the Army lets someone continue to serve, I think it is hard to justify a promotion for them over someone who can deploy.

After I was shot twice in combat I was "non-deployable" until I got back on my legs... Went on to selections and units you couldnt/didnt do with non injured legs.. Then went on to excel in every duty position, and advance in grade at a faster pace than you, am I the guy they should have kicked out of the Army?

SFC Thomas, I can see your point and respect your position, but I'd have to disagree with this as a blanket statement. MND covers a broad range of issues, but none of them make a Soldier any less of a Soldier. The only exception I would make to this is if someone intentionally sought out MND status in order to avoid deployment. However, assuming that we are talking about those who were wounded or had a medical condition through no fault of their own, I will proceed...

First, consider the difference between someone being medically non-deployable and medically non-able to train. If you develop type II diabetes, sleep apnea, or even a benign tumor, by regulation you should be considered MND. However, you can hardly argue that an E-7 with 15+ years of experience who develops diabetes and has to take an insulin shot several times a day is not qualified to pass on their knowledge and experience.

Developing and mentoring your subordinates to be Soldiers and leaders of character and sound morals may be the most important task of a leader, second only to care of those under you. These are things you can't learn from a TM, an AR, or any other form of training. Not only this, but there are soooo many stateside administrative positions meant for senior NCO's that are crucial to service support and combat service support in the Army. Are we to tell an MND E-6 who just might be the most skilled and qualified person in the Army at their job that they cannot take that E-8 spot at Division because MND disqualifies them from gaining their second rocker?

Your argument is that an MND soldier should not be promotable simple because they cannot follow their troops into battle, but leading isn't always in the moment and from the front. An NCO or officer who strives to develop and train their subordinates in the States is more of a leader than the one who half-asses both and continues to do so in theatre.

Because a person is medically non deployable, they should be able to hold leadership positions and be promoted. There is one thing you have to understand the Army is not going to separate you just because you are medically non deployable. I knew a Soldier who had a pace maker, guess what he was fit for duty and was able to continue on. Sometimes bad things happens to good Soldiers. The ones that need to go are the ones ducking and dodging deployment. They are screwing their fellow Soldier.

That's one of the most asinine concepts I have ever heard. Soldiers are injured on a regular basis both through deployment related injuries and training related injuries. Neither of these make them less valuable as soldier or leaders.

SFC Definitely going to have to dosagree with you on this. There ar emany reasons why a person could be non-deployable. Think of the SM that get injured in combat and is now non-deployable. Or if I go out and break my leg or destroy a knee or shouder I am going to be non-deployable for a period of time especially if I require surgery to fully recover. This can leave someone non-deployable for a year or more but they are able to recover and get back in the fight.

Also there are many positions in the military that are required to be filled but the unit is non-deployable. training commands and depot level maintenance facilities are two exzmples as well as base units. It is possible for a person to work in one of these areas or units and suport the warfighter. By sticking them in a non-deployable unit you can free up an able bodied individuals for deployments.

Being injured to the extent that it prevents you from being a force multiplier, and by extension a liability to the effectiveness of a unit to accomplish its mission is not we as professionals have the option of not taking seriously. The goal, however would be to put that soldier on a path to correct that Medical not deployable (MND) deficiency to the extent that they join the rest of the unit on the field of battle and do the job they signed up to do.

There are 3 groups I separate these into. Those whose deficiency can be corrected and they are making, and continue to make, every effort to correct that deficiency. Those whose deficiency can be corrected and they are not making much of an effort to correct it. the last is those with an uncorrectable deficiency but make every effort to stay and find a way to contribute, join their unit overseas and serve their country anyway despite the injury.

In any of those cases we as professionals have no business judging them or creating an atmosphere of mistrust because they were injured. Scrutinizing a soldier due to an injury they sustained does nobody any good and it certainly isn't going to inspire that soldier to magically get healed overnight. Let the system do what it was designed to do. The doctors know what they are doing. The command should know what they are doing. As long as they do that soldier right and do their due diligence it will all work out for the good of the unit, the army, the country and most importantly the soldier.

As far as promotion is concerned I would have to say that a perennial deployment dodger provision should have a place in the promotion system but even then they would have to be a confirmed multiple violator that has taken very little, or no, action to correct a correctable deficiency.

I could see looking at non-deployables for possible discharge....can someone say "med-board", but certainly not removing them all.

I was medically non-deployable due to an admin error that took me two years to get fixed - all because an admin misread the doctor's writing. Under your proposed system, I would have been kicked out during that time with no questions asked.

There are always shades of gray...and there needs to be.

SFC I have to disagree with you. There are positions where that NCOs ability can be used.
The blanket statement is erroneous and can be harmful.
So I ask the question should the SM with a permanent profile against running be discharged cause he can't do the run?

I see a lot of folks complaining that it's not fair to the non-deployable soldier. Guess who it is really not fair to...the guys that do deploy and end up deploying short handed because you don't get replacements for those non-deployables until MAYBE after deploying. If you are temp non-deployable you should be rear-d and probably not a priority for promotion until after. If you are permanently non-deployable..I am sorry fo' Ya' but med board and we need to make sure VA takes care of you.

Some of the mindsets people have on this are mind blowing. 1st of all if any of you have to feel the need to correct someone's grammar go correct it on a Harvard forum it's petty and beneath you. 2nd if you are non-deployable as in permanently non deployable then you are a toxic leader. You are forcing everyone around you to cover your slack. And covering for those people is the reason why the army has a 1 in 8 non deployable rate

There are a lot of good soldiers that want to keep serving, such as people who have gone COAD after an injury that would have retired them. This is an issue that would be unique to each individual.

It would have to be a case by case basis. Combat injuries would be one thing, but somebody manipulating the system for their personal benefit is something else.

Whatever condition results in a nondeployable status should also result in a FLAG of all favorable actions. If this condition is permanent. It should result in a med board action for retention, reclassification etc

If the soldier is caught faking an injury that keeps them from deploying then action needs to be taken. If they are non-deployable thru something that is not their fault, then you cannot blame the soldier. If they are doing a great job then let them continue to do it. Why kick them out? If they are trying to better themself that is all the better. I have worked with non deployable soldiers especially seniors. Some had medical problems due to military service. One had a heart problem. But he did a gret job training soldiers and getting them ready to join the unit downrange. Not all soldiers are shammers. They have real problems and kicking them out is not only wrong but unfair to those who are really trying. I had to get medivaced out on my last tour of Iraq. I wound up being non deployable, I became a Instructor at the MP school. I still made a difference and helped train future soldiers.

Have you even been in combat? I don't mean deployed to a combat zone. Have you ever seen combat. I know a few non deployable guys that have combat or training injuries that will follow them for the rest of their lives. Is that how we want to treat our comrades? They have issues that were caused from military service so we will punish them by not promoting them. I'm pretty sure drill sgts aren't being deployed while they wear the hat and badge. They are training Soldiers to goto war. They clearly do a pretty good job. I completely disagree with you. If they are fat and it's not because of a medical issue then they should not be promoted. If they can't pass their pt test and don't have a medical reason then they should not be promoted.

I want to say that I do understand the intent, but the proposed solution is flawed.

I've made comments in other portions of this thread, but I haven't seen the other side of the argument considered.

So the original statement is that "if you are non-deployable, [the Army should send you] to the house," i.e. kick you out, and the example given involves physical capabilities or the lack thereof. I hope that's a fair assessment. So, taking that one step further, all Soldiers fill positions, and if Soldiers deploy, then positions should be deployable positions. But not all positions are deployable.

So, if a Soldier is deployable, but a position is not, then is not an injustice is being done to both the Soldier who is capable of deploying and wants to deploy, as well as to the military by keeping a deployable Soldier in a non-deployable slot? (There are non-deployable positions and non-deployable units that are filled by deployable Soldiers out of choice and necessity, my "devil's argument" is not to belittle them. If you read my other posts, you'll get the big picture.) If you take all the non-deployable Soldiers and kick them out, then are you not left with an Army made up entirely of deployable Soldiers? I believe it is inefficient and wrong to remove an otherwise valuable asset from the military just because they cannot deploy, and lose the knowledge, experience, and leadership that Soldier may have (case-by-case basis, maybe)? Why can't that Soldier train other Soldiers? Training still has to occur in the rear to send more Soldiers forward. Support ops have to take place. For goodness' sakes... we all want to get paid, don't we? Does finance have to be deployable? My check comes from Ft. McCoy.

If anything needs to be kicked out of the Army, it's blanket statements that don't take into considerations the various factors that are influenced if that good idea fairy were to become policy.

Sfc Thomas

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I have known many leaders who were unable to deploy who taught us invaluable lessons for combat. Additionally, if you have folks who are non deployable, then that's less deployable personnel you need to leave behind.