Posted on May 4, 2014
If you are non deployable, you shouldn't be able to get promoted. What do you think?
100K
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
3
3
0
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?
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?
(3)
(0)
SFC Christopher Perry
SFC Thomas,
Now the conversation got really interesting. You see you just went from a leader that cannot deploy to one that can no longer run. With all due respect to a fellow NCO this is just crazy talk now. Those of us that have been doing this a while get beat up. Eventually we all hit that inevitable wall. Granted, I have a seen a few that have somehow made it through without all the past injuries that make it hard to get out of bed in the morning, but they truly are few and far between. For you to make the bold statement that "this will never happen to you" is presumptuous at best.
I am still perfectly able to deploy when called on to do so. But thanks to a foot that is held together with wires from the ankle forward I no longer run. When the Army decides it is no longer in need of my service I shall gladly move on. I take solace in the fact that it will not be a person with a very unrealistic look at humanity, or someone that has placed themselves on a pedestal from which they judge all those they deem unworthy, that will make this decision.
Now the conversation got really interesting. You see you just went from a leader that cannot deploy to one that can no longer run. With all due respect to a fellow NCO this is just crazy talk now. Those of us that have been doing this a while get beat up. Eventually we all hit that inevitable wall. Granted, I have a seen a few that have somehow made it through without all the past injuries that make it hard to get out of bed in the morning, but they truly are few and far between. For you to make the bold statement that "this will never happen to you" is presumptuous at best.
I am still perfectly able to deploy when called on to do so. But thanks to a foot that is held together with wires from the ankle forward I no longer run. When the Army decides it is no longer in need of my service I shall gladly move on. I take solace in the fact that it will not be a person with a very unrealistic look at humanity, or someone that has placed themselves on a pedestal from which they judge all those they deem unworthy, that will make this decision.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Keith Hebert
Sorry about the turn I was trying to make a point. Being on profile or being non deployable does not make it break a leader
(0)
(0)
SFC Christopher Perry
MSgt,
You may have suggested the turn but he took the bait and ran with it. It had been danced around before but had not been directly addressed. In the end SFC Thomas lacks the ability to see the world outside the box he has erected around himself, rendering this entire conversation meaningless. He did not really want to have a conversation to begin with. He only wanted to vent his frustration and personal views no matter how misguided they may be.
You may have suggested the turn but he took the bait and ran with it. It had been danced around before but had not been directly addressed. In the end SFC Thomas lacks the ability to see the world outside the box he has erected around himself, rendering this entire conversation meaningless. He did not really want to have a conversation to begin with. He only wanted to vent his frustration and personal views no matter how misguided they may be.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
PFC Joshua Leonard Wirfs
1SGT, the VA doesn't take care of you though. I served in 2003-2005, got meded out thanks to the wonderful treatment my fellow soldiers gave me cause I asked to go over to Iraq in 04 when they were there since 03. I was the real FNG, so they treated me as such. Just last month VA gave me 100 for the injuries I suffered cause there was little documentation of the little night adventures I had. 11 years I fought with VA. I tried reintegrating, but yeah, that didn't work out so good. Only by the grace of a great employer that I finally had to leave did I keep a roof over my head and food on my table. Not everyone works with us like that. All the while I'm fighting VA in three states I fought them. First 30, then 50, then 5 more years to get 100. A person can't live like that. I got more anxiety from the VA than I did from Iraq. Fix the system, then let the soldiers work it out for themselves, or for the love of all that you hold dear, get them strack with the VA before you get them out. We are not worthless. We all signed up for the same job. I signed up for combat arms. I signed to fight and die. I shouldn't have had to suffer this much just because I was injured.
(0)
(0)
SSG Ronald Rollins
1SG, He is correct. The VA is slow if moving at all. And sometimes, thru no fault of their own they are non-deployable due to injuries. But for some reason if you are an E7 or above with 15 years and not deployable there is no talk of putting them out for the most part. But an E6 and below it seems to be pushed hard to put them out. I do not understand the difference except the rank. A senior NCO is fine to keep but not an E6 or below. And it is the younger ones that are constantly, for lack of a better word, screwed over. I know a soldier that had over 17 years in had medical problems. He was forced out with 20%. He fought to get the 30% so he could get a retirement. The command fought that. He tried for the 15 year retirement. Command denied it. He was a SGT E5. He got 90% VA. That same command had a SFC with a little over 16 years had medical problems. They fought to keep the SFC. But not the SGT. They gave the SFC the medical retirement. The command did all they could to help the SFC. But he only got 50% VA. I can not understand the huge difference in the treatment of each soldier. Both had the same MOS same post same unit. All that was different was the rank. Good ole' boy network? Maybe. Fair treatment. Absolutely not. That is why I do not 100% agree with forcing someone out. There is something that they can do for the unit regardless of rank. Rank should not play a part in these decisions but it seems to and the lesser ranks always seem to get the short end of the stick.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
SSG Ronald Rollins
If you are not deployable, it does not automatically make you a toxic leader. I have seen many toxic leaders that ARE deployable. There are many reasons for toxic leaders. Being non-deployable is not really one of them.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
SSG Jason Penn
Wholeheartedly disagree.... imagine this.... you are teaching your kid to drive, and some idiot runs a red light smashing into the passenger side. As a result, you suffer a broken rib which takes 6 months to heal and places you on non-deployable status. In the mean time, your unit deploys. You are telling me that it is fair and just to place a FLAG on you, making you non-promotable for something you couldn't foresee, nor control, nor was it your fault?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SFC Jeffrey Wade
CPT Roland, I have to agree with you 100%, good quote "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."
Toxic leaders make blanket statements and apply them without regard, good leaders can see read the pages and not judge the book by its cover. That's what the Army says. Look at PTSD, when a soldier who otherwise in the past has been a good soldier, starts behaving bad, late to formations, starts getting in trouble, starts being disrespectful, his performance starts slipping, do you UCMJ him because he has become a dirtbag? Or do you do what the army says, look at the possible reasons why? Look at possible causes? easy to say he knows better, he is a soldier and should always act like one, give him an article 15 and boot him out, but PTSD is treatable, and a good soldier who gets it can become a good soldier again.
Someone who gets hurt (physical or mental) can get treatment and though may not become deployable again, can still be a good soldier and leader.
Someone gets PTSD and becomes non-deployable for it, though they still can teach/lead, you chapter them out, all that it will do is prevent others from seeking help, all will show everyone is that you have PTSD, the army will get you out.
Toxic leaders make blanket statements and apply them without regard, good leaders can see read the pages and not judge the book by its cover. That's what the Army says. Look at PTSD, when a soldier who otherwise in the past has been a good soldier, starts behaving bad, late to formations, starts getting in trouble, starts being disrespectful, his performance starts slipping, do you UCMJ him because he has become a dirtbag? Or do you do what the army says, look at the possible reasons why? Look at possible causes? easy to say he knows better, he is a soldier and should always act like one, give him an article 15 and boot him out, but PTSD is treatable, and a good soldier who gets it can become a good soldier again.
Someone who gets hurt (physical or mental) can get treatment and though may not become deployable again, can still be a good soldier and leader.
Someone gets PTSD and becomes non-deployable for it, though they still can teach/lead, you chapter them out, all that it will do is prevent others from seeking help, all will show everyone is that you have PTSD, the army will get you out.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Excellent example, SFC Wade. Good leadership requires discernment. Discernment takes time, effort, understanding, interest, caring, and a host of other mental activities. Whether it's over-worked/under-staffed for leadership, laziness, lack of mentorship/training, or some other reason (to include truly legitimate reasons... I don't want this to be a snarky comment at leadership because there maybe times with good leadership is just in a position where execution isn't going to happen the way it should), "everyone" gets hurt when due diligence and consideration isn't given. Many times, the quick answer or the easy answer isn't the right answer.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(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 
