Posted on May 4, 2014
If you are non deployable, you shouldn't be able to get promoted. What do you think?
101K
1.31K
420
46
-5
51
I think being non deployable is the worst thing in the Army. Nothing worst than watching your Soldiers board the plane to deploy and you are in the rear.
I used to work for a SFC that was non deployable and couldn't even wear her vest lol. I was like seriously, why are you even here? Why are you training us on anything and will not be there when it matters the most?
In my eyes if you are non deployable i don't see why the Army doesn't start a chapter packet on the SM or Leader and send them to the house.
There is another way for the Army to downsize right there.
I think you shouldn't be able to get promoted either. Deploying is the biggest and main part of the being a Soldier. Going to war when needed. If you can't go to war or the freaking field for a field problem then why should you be promoted?
I used to work for a SFC that was non deployable and couldn't even wear her vest lol. I was like seriously, why are you even here? Why are you training us on anything and will not be there when it matters the most?
In my eyes if you are non deployable i don't see why the Army doesn't start a chapter packet on the SM or Leader and send them to the house.
There is another way for the Army to downsize right there.
I think you shouldn't be able to get promoted either. Deploying is the biggest and main part of the being a Soldier. Going to war when needed. If you can't go to war or the freaking field for a field problem then why should you be promoted?
Posted in these groups: 
Deployment
Promotions
Deployment Promotions
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 190
11
11
0
SFC Thomas, my interest peaked when I saw the "lol" after the SFC who was non-deployable and couldnt wear a vest. My question(s) are these: 1. Was the training she provided somehow diminished by her non-deployable status? 2. Did it make the information less relevant? 3. Would the information not contribute to the units overall mission success?
And this quote of yours, "Why are you training us on anything and will not be there when it matters the most?" Would her training not save lives and aid you in doing the same?
I retire (not medical retirement) in 2 months and after a 20 year career I am now non-deployable due to my injuries I have received throughout the years. I have been on numerous deployements to Afghanistan and Iraq, I currently work in the realm of antiterrorism and force protection. Due to my non-deployability does that make any training I provide to my units soldiers who are going overseas invalid and any less relevant?
I suggest to you that it does not, I have valuable information and experiences that can be passed on to soldiers heading into the operational environment, that will increase their chances at survivability.
Yes some people ride profiles and become non deployable to avoid service in a hostile area(s) but to say that all are incapable of providing value to our Army is extremely shallow and lacks foresight. You, one day may be non deployable, it doesnt mean you can not contribute to the fight!
And this quote of yours, "Why are you training us on anything and will not be there when it matters the most?" Would her training not save lives and aid you in doing the same?
I retire (not medical retirement) in 2 months and after a 20 year career I am now non-deployable due to my injuries I have received throughout the years. I have been on numerous deployements to Afghanistan and Iraq, I currently work in the realm of antiterrorism and force protection. Due to my non-deployability does that make any training I provide to my units soldiers who are going overseas invalid and any less relevant?
I suggest to you that it does not, I have valuable information and experiences that can be passed on to soldiers heading into the operational environment, that will increase their chances at survivability.
Yes some people ride profiles and become non deployable to avoid service in a hostile area(s) but to say that all are incapable of providing value to our Army is extremely shallow and lacks foresight. You, one day may be non deployable, it doesnt mean you can not contribute to the fight!
(11)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Its not a matter of whether or not you provide value. Getting the MOST value should be the goal. I am certain that the value you provide based on your AT position is necessary and relevant. But I would also guess that there is someone out there who can provide the same value you provide, as well as stand ready to deploy if necessary. With the staggering number of personnel having to be cut to reduce the size of the force, it is ludicrous to think that whether or not you can deploy into an austere environment and be effective on a battlefield should not be a consideration for continued service.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
It's not a bad idea, but in application, it doesn't pan out. There are a myriad of things that can make you non-deployable for any amount of time. For instance, my whole brigade went on block leave for 3 weeks, and returned to head to JRTC immediately. They were gone almost 2 months. Because they had all taken care of their dental they year before, a quarter of the brigade became an MRC 3B for dental, and were non-deployable. To add to it, the dental clinic can only handle a limited number of Soldiers. The last time I went, I was told there were no appointments for the next 3 weeks, and I should return in 1 week to "hopefully" be able to schedule an appointment 3 weeks out.
I have a guy in my unit, outstanding NCO, who shattered his vertebrae on a jump. I don't think it would be right to tell him he is non-promotable because he injured himself training and will have a long road to recovery ahead of him.
I have a guy in my unit, outstanding NCO, who shattered his vertebrae on a jump. I don't think it would be right to tell him he is non-promotable because he injured himself training and will have a long road to recovery ahead of him.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
This is the same reason I never made SFC. Spinal cord injury. Now I am out and "disabled" for this same sh-- ! (Plus bad knees, etc, etc.)
(1)
(0)
PV2 Michael Reidout
I went through a lot up at Fort Drum. I had 2 car accidents - 1 being ran over by a military hummer on base... Finding out, I had a spinal cord injury and being " disabled" ... Sucks.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
All I can say is WOW! So the army has a thing in place called a profile. A P2 profile means the Soldier is limited to what he can do on his APFT, but still meets the requirements to deploy. A Soldier with a temporary P3 usually means he is non deployable and awaiting surgery. If surgery doesn't fix the problem they are usually medically retired with a percentage of disability. I don't think I can recall a P2 who couldn't deploy or a P3 that surgery couldn't fix not get a MEB. I guess the next topic for discussion will be that anyone not able to take all three events on the APFT should go through the WTU and processed out of the Army even if they can deploy. I think Soldiers that have sacrificed on deployments with over 15 years should be allowed to do their 20 and retire if they sustain injuries whether while deployed or back in garrison. Of course those that don't want deploy and find ways out of it are usually chapters and are processed. Of not they are usually awaiting surgery or even in some cases have a family issue like a wife with cancer that no one in the unit knows about but those that need to.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I am a P3 that never received an MEB. I turned in all the paperwork several times and the command dropped the ball on it. So there are a reward of us out there that fall into the rare category.
(0)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
SSG Ward I have heard of it, but never seen it. There must be more to the story like missing documentation or something. If you have a current active P3 the IDES has to either act on it or return it. You cannot just be left in limbo.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Some good discussion, but here is my perspective. I am sure we are all aware of the various positions on post or in IMA that are stateside, non-deploying units that are permanently garrisoned. Also, how many staff positions in garrison are staffed by civilians that could as easily be staffed by non-deployable Soldiers.
The sentiment that a Soldier that becomes medically non-deployable becomes unuseful is the perspective of a soldier who doesn't understand the big picture.
The sentiment that a Soldier that becomes medically non-deployable becomes unuseful is the perspective of a soldier who doesn't understand the big picture.
(7)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I don't think they become worthless. I just don't think they should be leading Soldiers. There are tons of things they can do but leading the Soldiers isn't one of them. Just my opinion.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
I disagree with this for the reason of my experiences. I have deployed 8 times, all of them voluntary, I would PCS to a unit that was short personnel to deploy with them. Blown up in Iraq in 2004 by an IED, and still did 3 more deployments after that. In 2010 I was made non-deployable due to injuries I suffered from in 2004 (bone sticking into my spinal cord, over the years and more deployments was making nerve damage worse). I didn't get help because I didn't want to be made non-deployable, end result is that by not seeking help I now have permanent nerve damage and other problems.
When I was made non-deployable and med-board paperwork was started on me, half the soldiers in my unit looked at me like I was a worthless, they just saw the permanent profile and couldn't deploy. Who cares how many times I was over there. The other half saw past the profile and saw the experience I held. Hardest part of it all was seeing my unit deploy and having to stay back with them. Best part of it, them coming back and being thanked for the training I was able to give them, being told what I showed and taught them was a big help and did make a difference over there.
end result, I appealed my medboard, stayed in to retire and continued to help those willing to be helped, not those with a closed mind that could only see the non-deployable status. There is a saying, cant judge a book by its cover, you sometimes need to look inside and read that book and may learn something.
is someone worthless who is non-deployable, yes if you look at a profile paper. Some of them though have a wealth of knowledge to share, if someone looks past that profile paper.
When I was made non-deployable and med-board paperwork was started on me, half the soldiers in my unit looked at me like I was a worthless, they just saw the permanent profile and couldn't deploy. Who cares how many times I was over there. The other half saw past the profile and saw the experience I held. Hardest part of it all was seeing my unit deploy and having to stay back with them. Best part of it, them coming back and being thanked for the training I was able to give them, being told what I showed and taught them was a big help and did make a difference over there.
end result, I appealed my medboard, stayed in to retire and continued to help those willing to be helped, not those with a closed mind that could only see the non-deployable status. There is a saying, cant judge a book by its cover, you sometimes need to look inside and read that book and may learn something.
is someone worthless who is non-deployable, yes if you look at a profile paper. Some of them though have a wealth of knowledge to share, if someone looks past that profile paper.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
I am non-deployable because I just got back (Oct 2013) from a year long tour in Korea AND I am retiring this year due to RCP. Clearly I am such a horrible Soldier that after nearly 23 years I need to be kicked out??? With all due respect SFC Thomas but that is a bunch of hogwash. I arrived to the unit in December 2013 and my unit left the following month. After speaking to the Rear-D SGM and my BN leadership, the decision was made to keep me back due to the two above circumstances. I DID NOT "beg" to not deploy but made my concerns known since I am being FORCED to retire (another subject). The sad thing is, as the Rear-D S4 AND Supply Sergeant, I control FIVE Hand Receipts, doing COPA and ADL turn-ins, and trying to get things ordered for each Troop to have a good supply package for when they return. All the above is normally done by ELEVEN total personnel but I'm doing it by myself (although just recently I got a non-supply Soldier to help) yet I don't deserve to be promoted??? SMH!!!
(6)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Thomas you have stated several times our Job is to go to war, WRONG. Our mission as an Army is to deter war and if deterrence fails win in combat. I understand what your frustrated about we all have seen it, all I can say is don't be that leader that can't walk the walk.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree Chief. I hold myself to that standard. The only time I will not deploy is the day i retire. Besides that I'm ready at all times. My Soldier will NEVER leave without me, EVER. Thats just me and its sad that others don't feel the same way.
SSG Jones that is the Army's job. WAR. You can sugar coated all you want. The Army doesn't deploy for fun. Politicians, Joint Chiefs, and the President deter war, thats their job.
Your job at the end of the day is to deploy and fight. That is all of our jobs who serve. What you do there depends on a different number of things, but your job is to fight and if your Soldiers don't understand that you need to let them know. Look at when Afghan and Iraq popped off. Soldiers was shocked they had to deploy over there because we had been in garrison for so long, some of them i think wasn't mentally prepared to leave their families and do what they are getting paid for.
SSG Jones that is the Army's job. WAR. You can sugar coated all you want. The Army doesn't deploy for fun. Politicians, Joint Chiefs, and the President deter war, thats their job.
Your job at the end of the day is to deploy and fight. That is all of our jobs who serve. What you do there depends on a different number of things, but your job is to fight and if your Soldiers don't understand that you need to let them know. Look at when Afghan and Iraq popped off. Soldiers was shocked they had to deploy over there because we had been in garrison for so long, some of them i think wasn't mentally prepared to leave their families and do what they are getting paid for.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG Redondo,
Im ready at all times. When my Soldiers go, I go. Point blank and simple. I don't see whats so hard to understand that. Your job is about going to war. The Army is about war. Thats what we train for. We are not the police department. We train to fight the nations wars. So i don't understand why you even think thats not our job.
Lets be honest. 90% of Rear D are either broke or dirtbags that figured out how not to go. Then you have the other 10% that are legit. Either left back by the CDR or CSM to serve in certain roles or PCSing. And I don't care if anyone gives me any thumbs down I still stand by what i think. Non deployed Soldiers should be flagged so they don't get any favorable actions until they come off of that status
If your Soldiers are over there, YOU need to be over there. You owe that to the Soldiers you prepared, even though thats what the Army pays you for anyways. Unless you are missing a limb or eyesight and you have Soldiers you need to be there with them. If you can't deploy with your Soldiers you shouldn't be in charge or leading them if you can't see it through.
Im ready at all times. When my Soldiers go, I go. Point blank and simple. I don't see whats so hard to understand that. Your job is about going to war. The Army is about war. Thats what we train for. We are not the police department. We train to fight the nations wars. So i don't understand why you even think thats not our job.
Lets be honest. 90% of Rear D are either broke or dirtbags that figured out how not to go. Then you have the other 10% that are legit. Either left back by the CDR or CSM to serve in certain roles or PCSing. And I don't care if anyone gives me any thumbs down I still stand by what i think. Non deployed Soldiers should be flagged so they don't get any favorable actions until they come off of that status
If your Soldiers are over there, YOU need to be over there. You owe that to the Soldiers you prepared, even though thats what the Army pays you for anyways. Unless you are missing a limb or eyesight and you have Soldiers you need to be there with them. If you can't deploy with your Soldiers you shouldn't be in charge or leading them if you can't see it through.
(0)
(0)
CW4 John Beebe, BS, DML
SFC Thomas,
I do have to concur with SSG Jones. He is correct. Our job is not to go to War but to protect and defend by having the most powerful force fully capable of winning a war as a deterrent. If some fool choses to give their life for their country, it is our job to send them on their way as quickly as possible. War is always the last result. If our job was only War, we would not be into nation building missions, peace keeping missions, stability operations, etc. I feel very much responsible for my troops and take it personally when I can not be there. Nearly lost my mind when I had to leave an operation for two weeks because my wife (now ex-wife) had her appendix rupture and needed me back CONUS to help her out. I have to admit, I am a soldier through and through. My arm never has to be twisted to go and I have done so 19 times. My tolerance is severely low with shammers and lazy avoidance uniform wearers. All the same, back to my point above, we train in case of war, not to wage war. If the politicians can not solve the problem through kissing butts and stealing babies, and we are called, we will win because that is what we do.
I do have to concur with SSG Jones. He is correct. Our job is not to go to War but to protect and defend by having the most powerful force fully capable of winning a war as a deterrent. If some fool choses to give their life for their country, it is our job to send them on their way as quickly as possible. War is always the last result. If our job was only War, we would not be into nation building missions, peace keeping missions, stability operations, etc. I feel very much responsible for my troops and take it personally when I can not be there. Nearly lost my mind when I had to leave an operation for two weeks because my wife (now ex-wife) had her appendix rupture and needed me back CONUS to help her out. I have to admit, I am a soldier through and through. My arm never has to be twisted to go and I have done so 19 times. My tolerance is severely low with shammers and lazy avoidance uniform wearers. All the same, back to my point above, we train in case of war, not to wage war. If the politicians can not solve the problem through kissing butts and stealing babies, and we are called, we will win because that is what we do.
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
First of all without having people in the rear to keep training and supplying the "deployed" you wouldn't last very long, for when what you carried with you runs out, or when one of your buddies catches one and you have no one to replace. Him, then you understand why there are non- deplorable a there.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
If your unit and Soldiers go down range, you should be going with them. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
(0)
(2)
5
5
0
This is an interesting conversation. My thoughts are these. We fight wars. Everything else is preparation for fighting wars. So when someone is unable to deploy, engage and destroy the enemy, that Soldier ceases to fulfill his or her purpose as a Soldier.
In every case, I believe this is true. Now, before people get their drawers in a knot, let's talk it through.
The Army shouldn't discriminate with a flag.
To begin with, one should be deployable unless there is a serious limiting disability. Hearing, cholesterol, family care plan and the like should not exempt a Soldier from deployment.
So when a serious limiting disability does exist, I believe the Army has an obligation to REHABILITATE if possible. Recommending a chapter for shin splint or stress fractures doesn't seem appropriate. It's an Army value called Loyalty.
If the Soldier cannot or will not be rehabilitated, then the Army should SEPARATE, the individual, regardless of the merits of their former service. Is the person a wise old Soldier with untold combat experience and leadership insight? Let her write a book or go on a motivational speaking tour and let some one who is able bodied take her place and fight wars.
Finally, if we must separate Soldiers because of line-of-duty injuries or other disability not arising from their own misconduct or irresponsibility (as establishes by a Medical Evaluation Board), then we must COMPENSATE the Soldier for lost income based on their current rank and years of service.
Though it's hard to see sometimes, and there is always some personal anecdote to point to the flaws, this is our system. It's what we are doing now. Sure, there is a food blister just stretching the limits of ACU fabric elasticity in that other platoon, but by and large we are rehabilitating or separating non-deployable Soldiers and compensating the wounded and injured.
It boils down to Leaders doing the right thing and insuring the sick get well or get out.
Remember, the Army is not a guaranteed job for 20+ years and it's not welfare on direct deposit. Every non-deployable Soldier has a responsibility to get quickly back in to fighting shape. If they cannot, then we cannot afford to keep them.
If I worked at a civilian corporation, say Ford Motor company, and I was disabled such that I couldn't perform my duties, there is no question, I would lose my job. If it was a job related injury, I would be compensated.
Soldiers who think they should be allowed to stay in the Army, but can't deploy are not ENTITLED to permanent employment.
What say you?
In every case, I believe this is true. Now, before people get their drawers in a knot, let's talk it through.
The Army shouldn't discriminate with a flag.
To begin with, one should be deployable unless there is a serious limiting disability. Hearing, cholesterol, family care plan and the like should not exempt a Soldier from deployment.
So when a serious limiting disability does exist, I believe the Army has an obligation to REHABILITATE if possible. Recommending a chapter for shin splint or stress fractures doesn't seem appropriate. It's an Army value called Loyalty.
If the Soldier cannot or will not be rehabilitated, then the Army should SEPARATE, the individual, regardless of the merits of their former service. Is the person a wise old Soldier with untold combat experience and leadership insight? Let her write a book or go on a motivational speaking tour and let some one who is able bodied take her place and fight wars.
Finally, if we must separate Soldiers because of line-of-duty injuries or other disability not arising from their own misconduct or irresponsibility (as establishes by a Medical Evaluation Board), then we must COMPENSATE the Soldier for lost income based on their current rank and years of service.
Though it's hard to see sometimes, and there is always some personal anecdote to point to the flaws, this is our system. It's what we are doing now. Sure, there is a food blister just stretching the limits of ACU fabric elasticity in that other platoon, but by and large we are rehabilitating or separating non-deployable Soldiers and compensating the wounded and injured.
It boils down to Leaders doing the right thing and insuring the sick get well or get out.
Remember, the Army is not a guaranteed job for 20+ years and it's not welfare on direct deposit. Every non-deployable Soldier has a responsibility to get quickly back in to fighting shape. If they cannot, then we cannot afford to keep them.
If I worked at a civilian corporation, say Ford Motor company, and I was disabled such that I couldn't perform my duties, there is no question, I would lose my job. If it was a job related injury, I would be compensated.
Soldiers who think they should be allowed to stay in the Army, but can't deploy are not ENTITLED to permanent employment.
What say you?
(5)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir,
I believe that while saying "when someone is unable to deploy, engage and destroy the enemy, that Soldier ceases to fulfill his or her purpose as a Soldier," the baby is being thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The statement may stand, but there's a false premise in the statement that implies that Soldier is of no further use to the Army, military--whatever branch.
I firmly believe that "non-deployed" does not equal "no value." There is likely knowledge and experience that can be passed on to other Soldiers, not to mention necessary "desk jobs" that need to be filled.
I lost a wonderful MSG as my Training NCO becauses he was MEDed out of the Army for a heart-related issue that kept him from being able to participate in various physical activities, yet he was still maintaining a very active lifestyle. He was "replaced" by an E-5 (who was later OTH discharged). The skills and knowledge that the MSG had will forever be lost to the Army, but those who served with him know the invaluable asset that was set aside. I would take that MSG to train my troops any day of the week and twice on drill days (Reserve unit). He had a heart problem that prevented him from deploying but not from doing his job exceptionally well; the E-5 also had a "heart" problem of a different type, and although he COULD/WOULD have deployed, I didn't want him in front of my troops because of the type of leader that he was.
Too many times we are trading and sacrificing leadership, knowledge, experience for physical fitness. There's more to war than physical fitness, and there are more roles in war than infantry--supporting, non-physical, non-deployable roles exist and are essential.
I believe that while saying "when someone is unable to deploy, engage and destroy the enemy, that Soldier ceases to fulfill his or her purpose as a Soldier," the baby is being thrown out with the proverbial bath water. The statement may stand, but there's a false premise in the statement that implies that Soldier is of no further use to the Army, military--whatever branch.
I firmly believe that "non-deployed" does not equal "no value." There is likely knowledge and experience that can be passed on to other Soldiers, not to mention necessary "desk jobs" that need to be filled.
I lost a wonderful MSG as my Training NCO becauses he was MEDed out of the Army for a heart-related issue that kept him from being able to participate in various physical activities, yet he was still maintaining a very active lifestyle. He was "replaced" by an E-5 (who was later OTH discharged). The skills and knowledge that the MSG had will forever be lost to the Army, but those who served with him know the invaluable asset that was set aside. I would take that MSG to train my troops any day of the week and twice on drill days (Reserve unit). He had a heart problem that prevented him from deploying but not from doing his job exceptionally well; the E-5 also had a "heart" problem of a different type, and although he COULD/WOULD have deployed, I didn't want him in front of my troops because of the type of leader that he was.
Too many times we are trading and sacrificing leadership, knowledge, experience for physical fitness. There's more to war than physical fitness, and there are more roles in war than infantry--supporting, non-physical, non-deployable roles exist and are essential.
(3)
(0)
CH (MAJ) (Join to see)
CPT Roland,
Thank you for your response. More importantly, thank you for your service in AFG.
As for what you said above,
Your account of a good MSG replaced by a bad SGT makes a point, but it's the point I disagree with.
Sure he was a good leader, but if he could not fight, it's was time for him to exit the Army.
The Army is currently drawing down. Good officers, (Captains and Majors right now with Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels very soon), are being boarded for early separation and early retirement. Good leaders, perhaps you yourself, but certainly some people you know and respect, will exit the Army earlier than they had planned. Bear in mind, they have done nothing wrong, aren't overweight and they are deployable. Yet, the army will let them go in the next 9 months. The cuts and boards will continue for the next three years. Why is the Army separating good officers "for no reason?" There is a reason, we are reducing the force. We are "retaining the Aces."
You see where this is going. Medically Non-deployable Soldiers cannot do ALL that is required of them. Senior leaders, despite decades of experience and wisdom, leave the Army every day. This is as it should be.
You need you fighters with good knees , strong backs and keen intellects to kick in the doors and wear that body armor 14 hours at a time.
Every "desk job" burdens the actual fighting force, making Soldiers rotate to theatre more often me perform their duties with less rest between combat missions. When Battalions deploy at 79% of their MTOE strength it Weakens the unit, and compromises our strength on the battlefield.
Every support soldier turned into a mechanized infantryman on my last deployment. Other than 1 intel specialist, as far as I know, every member of the unit participated in combat missions. This includes medics, the chaplain and chaplains assistant. It included a 52 year old CPT, a MAJ who was called out of retirement and a 93 lb female PFC. Everybody fights.
Consider the Pig. Breakfast is ham and eggs with a glass of milk. The chicken and the cow contribute, but the pig is committed.
Now that we no longer have room for some of the people we recruited before the Surge, like people with drug arrests, we also have no room for those who cannot put their boots on the ground.
It's not about their value. They are valuable, but we have to become a lean fighting force. The next war could begin as soon as lunch is over today.
Once again I want to point out that Soldiers have a sense that they are entitled to a 20+ year career. That is not the case. It isn't an injustice to release employees who are no longer capable of doing their job. Their job is combat. Consider the words of the Soldiers Creed, "I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America by fire and close-combat." Did you get the close combat part? That's fix bayonets, put your boot in their chest and kill them in a physically demanding, whatever it takes, struggle for your own life.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Collegially,
Chaplain Davis
Thank you for your response. More importantly, thank you for your service in AFG.
As for what you said above,
Your account of a good MSG replaced by a bad SGT makes a point, but it's the point I disagree with.
Sure he was a good leader, but if he could not fight, it's was time for him to exit the Army.
The Army is currently drawing down. Good officers, (Captains and Majors right now with Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels very soon), are being boarded for early separation and early retirement. Good leaders, perhaps you yourself, but certainly some people you know and respect, will exit the Army earlier than they had planned. Bear in mind, they have done nothing wrong, aren't overweight and they are deployable. Yet, the army will let them go in the next 9 months. The cuts and boards will continue for the next three years. Why is the Army separating good officers "for no reason?" There is a reason, we are reducing the force. We are "retaining the Aces."
You see where this is going. Medically Non-deployable Soldiers cannot do ALL that is required of them. Senior leaders, despite decades of experience and wisdom, leave the Army every day. This is as it should be.
You need you fighters with good knees , strong backs and keen intellects to kick in the doors and wear that body armor 14 hours at a time.
Every "desk job" burdens the actual fighting force, making Soldiers rotate to theatre more often me perform their duties with less rest between combat missions. When Battalions deploy at 79% of their MTOE strength it Weakens the unit, and compromises our strength on the battlefield.
Every support soldier turned into a mechanized infantryman on my last deployment. Other than 1 intel specialist, as far as I know, every member of the unit participated in combat missions. This includes medics, the chaplain and chaplains assistant. It included a 52 year old CPT, a MAJ who was called out of retirement and a 93 lb female PFC. Everybody fights.
Consider the Pig. Breakfast is ham and eggs with a glass of milk. The chicken and the cow contribute, but the pig is committed.
Now that we no longer have room for some of the people we recruited before the Surge, like people with drug arrests, we also have no room for those who cannot put their boots on the ground.
It's not about their value. They are valuable, but we have to become a lean fighting force. The next war could begin as soon as lunch is over today.
Once again I want to point out that Soldiers have a sense that they are entitled to a 20+ year career. That is not the case. It isn't an injustice to release employees who are no longer capable of doing their job. Their job is combat. Consider the words of the Soldiers Creed, "I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America by fire and close-combat." Did you get the close combat part? That's fix bayonets, put your boot in their chest and kill them in a physically demanding, whatever it takes, struggle for your own life.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Collegially,
Chaplain Davis
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
I knew a soldier who has a beautiful family. His wife was struck with a disease that required constant care. She can' even stay in her wheelchair for long periods of time. They sold everything, their life is miserable and he loves his wife more than ever. He is non-deployable. Would you like his phone number?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
SFC Thomas,
You are dealing only in absolutes. I agree Soldiers must be able to deploy, however stating a Soldier who is not deployable should not be a leader/have Soldiers is shortsighted and absolute. If anyone who became non-deployable had to give up their leadership position (particular senior NCOS or mid to senior officer) everyone would be constantly having to complete COR NCOER/OER's...the example I give is somewhat sarcastic but has some truth to it.
I do find it troublesome when I see a SGM (or such) with no combat patch or deployments. There are some few legitimate examples of this (although I cant think of one) but I see far too many examples of this.
You are dealing only in absolutes. I agree Soldiers must be able to deploy, however stating a Soldier who is not deployable should not be a leader/have Soldiers is shortsighted and absolute. If anyone who became non-deployable had to give up their leadership position (particular senior NCOS or mid to senior officer) everyone would be constantly having to complete COR NCOER/OER's...the example I give is somewhat sarcastic but has some truth to it.
I do find it troublesome when I see a SGM (or such) with no combat patch or deployments. There are some few legitimate examples of this (although I cant think of one) but I see far too many examples of this.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MSG,
You don't want to hear my view on discharging people. The Army takes to long to do that anyways.
I think part of the solution would be the SM will be flagged and a bar is placed on them. Until they fix whatever is wrong with them.
If its permanent its time for them to find another profession. From my little time in the Army i personally think a non deployable leader or Soldier is toxic. Once again thats just my opinion.
Also the army gives credit or promotion points to young leaders for deployments. Ive never sat on a centralized board but i hope they give seniors the same respect on that board level also. I would. If Im selecting the best of the best. You need to be able to roll out with your Soldiers.
Is rear D important? Yes it is but A Leader of Soldiers should be with the Soldier not sending them care packages.
You don't want to hear my view on discharging people. The Army takes to long to do that anyways.
I think part of the solution would be the SM will be flagged and a bar is placed on them. Until they fix whatever is wrong with them.
If its permanent its time for them to find another profession. From my little time in the Army i personally think a non deployable leader or Soldier is toxic. Once again thats just my opinion.
Also the army gives credit or promotion points to young leaders for deployments. Ive never sat on a centralized board but i hope they give seniors the same respect on that board level also. I would. If Im selecting the best of the best. You need to be able to roll out with your Soldiers.
Is rear D important? Yes it is but A Leader of Soldiers should be with the Soldier not sending them care packages.
(0)
(1)
MSG (Join to see)
I have been a Career Counselor for 13 years so I see the problems daily. My peers and fellow NCO's across the Army see the problems as well. Flags and BARS, get us Counselors boiling at every command and staff. It all boils down to the simple thing called a DA Form 4856. But, this is not happening, you know it, I know it, and many others know it. Until that is held accountable, which since 1992(my BASD)good luck I say.
On the senior boards, they do take notice when they quickly screen the records and award the points. It is look down upon, but, you have to realize it's under the "whole Soldier concept".
On the senior boards, they do take notice when they quickly screen the records and award the points. It is look down upon, but, you have to realize it's under the "whole Soldier concept".
(1)
(0)
CW4 John Beebe, BS, DML
OK. I have to comment on this one. SFC Thomas, the comment of, "A Leader of Soldiers should be with the Soldier not sending them care packages." Just opened up Pandora's Box. You are saying in essence that the incoming, PCS'ing, injured, EML/R&R, Medical Hold, Administrative, etc. are not soldiers. This is troubling. I do fully feel your sentiments as I have some of the same peeves and irritations with the same "junk" capitalizing on avoidance than participation. Please be cautious of blanket statements. I can feel your frustration in how you comment and there is much truth in varied situations behind that frustration. Just remember, like in a football team, not everyone is the quarterback or some other X-back or receiver. We need the center and linemen as well or the team will fail. Commands need to share your fire for getting it done right and weeding out junk that is milking the system. Agreed! The rest are performing a valuable team service by caring for our families, replacements, augmentees, peers, etc. I would challenge you to stop, step back, and think of your best friends being in some of these positions, how would you deal with them then?
Sincerely, I will be watching for your response. You brought up a frustrating subject, there is no cookie cutter solution.
Sincerely, I will be watching for your response. You brought up a frustrating subject, there is no cookie cutter solution.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I didn't say they are not Soldiers Chief. Maybe I should've went into more detail.
In my opinion if you can not deploy, you should not be in a leadership position leading Soldiers. I also say you should be flagged. Well maybe flagged is harsh but that person should not be able to attend any NCOES, promotion board, Soldier or NCO of the month board at least until the unit gets back from the deployment.
There are other things that person can do. If they can't deploy. Not one time have i stated that the person is useless, worthless, a piece of crap, a horrible Soldier, or anything close to that. I have said that maybe they need to find another profession.
I think certain opinions and topics people take it as a personal shot to them. Its not, I thought this was a forum for professionals to state opinions and hear feedback? Not insults. I posted a topic about adultery being a crime in the Army. Next thing i know I'm reading that I'm trying to justify or looking for approval. On this topic I've called non deployable Soldiers everything but a Soldier, been told I'm only shape because I'm a truck driver.
I haven't disrespected anyone on this site. I either agree with you give you a thumbs up or disagree and state why. I don't insult or put down people and thats what I'm seeing on this issue.
Its a difference in being passionate about a topic and taking it personal.
In my opinion if you can not deploy, you should not be in a leadership position leading Soldiers. I also say you should be flagged. Well maybe flagged is harsh but that person should not be able to attend any NCOES, promotion board, Soldier or NCO of the month board at least until the unit gets back from the deployment.
There are other things that person can do. If they can't deploy. Not one time have i stated that the person is useless, worthless, a piece of crap, a horrible Soldier, or anything close to that. I have said that maybe they need to find another profession.
I think certain opinions and topics people take it as a personal shot to them. Its not, I thought this was a forum for professionals to state opinions and hear feedback? Not insults. I posted a topic about adultery being a crime in the Army. Next thing i know I'm reading that I'm trying to justify or looking for approval. On this topic I've called non deployable Soldiers everything but a Soldier, been told I'm only shape because I'm a truck driver.
I haven't disrespected anyone on this site. I either agree with you give you a thumbs up or disagree and state why. I don't insult or put down people and thats what I'm seeing on this issue.
Its a difference in being passionate about a topic and taking it personal.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
100% concur. While I understand how those who are non-deployable can be seen as "getting over" (and those that ARE getting over should be shown the door), I think there is a lot to be said for the concept of freeing an able-bodied Soldier for the fight. Definitely SHOULD impact promotability, but I can see a lot of scenarios where a non-deployable Soldier can add significant value.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Terrell
The Army doesn't separate if you are medically non deployable but will separate you if you fail 3 PT test or height and weight. Big Army should look at that.
The Army doesn't separate if you are medically non deployable but will separate you if you fail 3 PT test or height and weight. Big Army should look at that.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Well i think it does when they can no longer deploy. You have your opinion and i have mine.
(0)
(2)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google