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

I have deployed three times. Once after having spinal surgery. I am still deployable and I think you need to consider exactly what it is the Soldier is non deployable for. We all know those who have used the system to their advantage and those who are truly considered assets to the organization. It is very difficult to separate these and be considered impartial in the medical community. Unfortunately this is an issue that will require a better understanding from the medical community in all four branches of service.

SFC (Join to see) - There is great value to the civilian world for a non-deployable soldier.

CW4 (Join to see) - And that is where we as leaders need to put the right people in the right places. If I can keep a good troop in the rear because they can whip through paperwork, done. If someone would be better suited to civilian life, put them out. It's a case by case basis and leadership should know where those individuals can best serve the Army, even if it means kicking that troop out.

Then they should be transferred and placed in non deployable billets

Hey top I agree 100% with you because at one point I too was undeployable but I think he means the people that sham out of every deployment. I may be reading too far into it but that's what I got from it. I feel bad because I missed 7 deployments in my short time in but only one was because I wasn't deployable.

Folks let's remain friendly... this is his opinion... secondly I don't think he was talking about wounded warriors... lastly Sfc... I don't think you should be putting up your personal opinions here of all places... especially if your still active duty... how many people know you? And how does this reflect... espically considering who reads these opinions..to be clear... I've known a lot of folks that gave it all ... broke their backs on jumps... doesn't mean they can't fit the army's needs elsewhere...

Well, according to the DOD's new policy SFC was right all along.

Looks like I was right lol

SPC (Join to see) - Since we need a smaller more effective force, How about we just select the ones that can do BOTH,, Speak, communicate effectively AND lead, follow.
The rest, well your service is honorable, but someone has to go..as such, P3 and not in a assignment that fits your limitations,, MEDBOARD.. Can not effectivly communicate out you go..(contrary to your opinion, I found an SM regardless of other attributes, who could not effectively communicate a hindrance to the unit, the team and the mission. )

I had the opportunity to work with many soldiers that had trouble spelling and sometimes communicating but were some of the best engineers around.

I agree SGM,there should be a balance between the two .There's good and bad on both sides,theres soldiers that have been injured but they do their best to set the example,and also theres people w difficulties to communicate and pass instructions but they do their best,and theres also on both sides people that do not care about anything at all ,they just wanna say they "served"and thats it ,some one has to go,but ive seen bad calls on who can stay or not

book smart is NOT always the answer,, I've served with some HERO's who couldn't address a group of soldiers but would give his life to protect you and yours.. How ever I do know of cases of individuals that play the game and reap the benefits,, it does hurt to see them get promoted when they don't meet the standards.. and you work so hard to make them.. It is a two way street,,, But we all know the military does things so NO one is irreplaceable...

I have been in a non-deployable status due to injuries sustained in combat. It was tough watching my unit deploy without me, but they understood and didn't make it a big deal. I was in a WTU for over a year during my rehabilitation. I got promoted, reenlisted, changed my MOS and PCSd. I am still serving today and have deployed 3 times since then. I have been a mentor for a number of junior soldiers and still managed to teach them all they were willing to learn. As for kicking out those non-deployable, it isn't a valid reason, unless they are malingering. But that has to be proven.

I'm curious about the reason behind the down vote.....

So am I SFC Corey.

So many of you missing the forest for the trees. Deployability is THE most important thing for Soldiers. Makes no difference how good a leader you are or how long you've been around. If you cant play in the big game......we don't need you on the team. It is a very simple concept. So many of you are saying.."so a pregnant soldier should be kicked out because she cant deploy?"....of course not. Everybody is going to go through a temporary non deployable period based on an illness, injury or some other administrative criteria. I posted this on other posts.....All Soldiers should be in one of two categories: 1)deployable. 2) temporarily non-deployable and moving towards overcoming whatever condition or obstacle prevents me from deploying. If you are in category 3) Im injured or have a condition which will prevent me from deploying or living in austere conditions permanently.......you need to go. You should retain whatever benefits there are associated with medical separation (if not get better benefits than what are currently being given). While I don't think non-deployable Soldiers are "useless", they do impact the readiness of the units they are assigned to. And if you pack all the NCO academies, Recruiting Stations, and TDA assignments with all the non-deployables just to get them around because they are good leaders. You essentially leave 100% of the war fighting up to 80% of the force. Not smart in my opinion.

Everybody's comments are also based on their experience with Iraq and Afghanistan rotations. Don't lose sight that the next war may be nothing like that.

It's SSgt

Well said SSG! Your points make a lot of sense.

SSgt Fair, you are right that those experienced Marines being valuable to maintaining the readiness of deployable Marines. Their experienced will be well-received as a contractor instructing at a school house somewhere that isn't required to deploy.

I agree. One day I was on top of a Radar truck taking down a "fly swatter' (if PATRIOTS, ya know what they are-an antenna), and my sight went double and I started losing balance-long to short-LT got 2 guys to rescue me before nearly falling off the top of it (About 20 ft fall) and they found out, I had Post Concussion Syndrome from a prior training injury. I was put in Clerk's office and showed what I learned as a Legal Office clerk. Now I am out, almost legally blind and glad that I had the chance to serve cause I learned how to be strong, and I think a few of the guys learned how to be a bit more respectful and tolerant of differences. Never look down on anyone NON Deployable, cause we have more to offer in the rear-such as Office skill, mentoring, helping train those taking your place and ready to go overseas, and be the 'Big Brother/Big Sister' needed. So SSG Fair, I agree, DO NOT LOOK DOWN on those of us that can't deploy due to NO fault of our own.

SFC Thomas, I hope that someday you will see that even those that may be non-deployable for some reason can be valuable members of our military family. I have known several in my career that have been in that role and some time later did get out but for years were serving in a reduced capacity. These individuals had much to give and did so fully within their abilities. I think what bothers many of us it the way you swing a double edged sword of go to war or go home, period! If what you say was the only way it is done and that is final, we would lose more than we would win. On the flipside, the parts that have ruffled your feathers (so to speak) are valid and do happen often. You have to learn in time that every situation is different and similar at the same time. You must weigh your demands and options and then decide. Many units can not afford to rotate people back to share in a rear-d mission and that disrupts the balance of the "family" that is forward. I think that you are partially correct in the below comment to SPC Walo, where you said, "If your unit and Soldiers go down range, you should be going with them. No ifs, ands, or buts about it." The caveat is: if you can, not if you won't! I totally agree with you in cases of duds or those who are constantly avoiding their duty to their country and unit by always working on not working or deploying. They need to quickly be discharge for whatever, since being sucky is not a valid reason, and sent home quickly. We need to have a team both OCONUS and CONUS that stands together. I don't know your take on religion but in the Bible, Matthew 12:25 states (and I paraphrase a bit), a house divided will not stand. It says the same about a kingdom earlier in the verse. FACT! You are clearly a great patriot and warrior, dedicated to our cause. I salute your point but request you to take a moment and digest the counter arguments you have heard. All the Way, Airborne!

Okay, my personal opinion. When I became injured and non-deployable. It really became depressing for me because my goal was to hopefully go to Germany.. But life goes on. There were other LT's and Capt's and even a Sargeant from another company that really tried to get them to keep me and work a different MOS than 11b. "even though this dude is injured, he can still learn a trade while in and once the others come back from Iraq and so forth, he can help the doctors out. Or help with push paperwork". A lot of people saw no real sense in discharging soldiers and non-deployable soldiers during that time....

It seems SMA Dailey shares the original poster's conception of the need to do something about the more than 10% of the active duty Army that "can't do their jobs" because they have permanent profiles and/or can't deploy. Lots of folks on this thread are characterizing the original poster as "unprofessional" essentially, it seems, because he shares the SMA's views on a topic (and partly because the original poster isn't very eloquent in making his argument). Is the SMA thus unprofessional for having a very similar view?

I share the SMA's view. If three divisions' worth of Soldiers (50,000 is the number he's used) "can't do their jobs" and the Army is downsizing, shouldn't we at least consider looking at one's ability to do their job as part of promotion and retention processes? I think if one is unable to do their job for medical reasons, then the Army should use existing processes (medical boards, medical retirement) to shape the force. What sense does it make to retain those that "can't do their jobs" for medical reasons over fully able-bodied Soldiers who can do their jobs? I'm not saying just kick these folks to the curb; process them, and if the Army caused or contributed to their condition, medically retire them. But the Army--at the end of the day--is a physical profession. It's unfortunate that we don't have an ethos like "every Marine is a rifleman" and that we've lost sight of the fact that the Army needs able-bodied Soldiers.

On similar lines, I also think the Army should look to shape the force by separating those who fail to meet MOS standards. It makes no sense to retain those who are not MOS-qualified while separating those who are MOS qualified. In my career field (FAO) for example, part of MOS qualification is maintaining a 2/2 DLPT score in one's target (assigned) language. Yet the Army is actively retaining and promoting FAOs (mostly Col and Ltc) who are not MOS qualified because they do not maintain the required language skills, and at the same time is retiring or involuntarily separating FAOs who are MOS-qualified. Senseless, and tantamount to corporate fraud, waste, and abuse.

In a shrinking Army, if a Soldier "can't do the job" required by the MOS, there are dozens of Soldiers who can do the job that should be retained instead.b

This may be hard to accept for some----the military is no longer the free-ride gravy train it once was. Folks will actually have to do their job, and do it well, to be retained and promoted (as will shortly be manifested by the new NCOER and SMA's plans to drastically reduce RCPs). In the down-sizing project, the Army would be wise to have some empathy for those it no longer needs. Part of this could be expanded medical retirements for those who are non-deplorable or on permanent profile. Part of it could be an expansion of TERA for NCOs with 15 years or more who are RCP'd before 20 years. Part of this could be extension of invol separation pay for those separated against their will but not offered retirement of some sort. At the same time, though, folks need to realize the Army doesn't owe them anything beyond what is in the specific terms of their contract with the Army.

Has anyone heard of RECLASS to a New MOS???? There is more than 11B-Clerks, Quartermasters, Chaplain Assistants, so on. Before 'throwing out' someone who is willing to serve-find ANOTHER task that takes their military and civilian skills into consideration. We are in a time of Conflict and it may only get worse, so THINK before discharging SM's.

Sir, very well said.

SFC Evelyn, SSG Porter,
- The original author proposed that a non deployable Soldier should not be promoted. I did not address this issue directly but rather decided to target what I feel is the illness (non deployables) and not the symptom (promotion of non deployables).
- Writing that the needs of the individual and the needs of the organization should be balanced but the needs of the organization takes priority does not imply that a non deployable Soldier should be transitioned out. I refer you back to my point #4 above.
- For example, striking this balance could be accomplished by assigning a non deployable Soldier into a non deploying position thus opening up a deployable position for a deployable Soldier.
- Many factors would have to be taken into account both individually and organizationally. For example individually: cause of non deployable status, severity of non deployable status, temporary or permanent non deployable, ability to continue to serve. Organizationally: needs of organization, ability to place Soldier into different position or organization, strategic needs and guidance.

That is why the Colonel is in charge and we aren't. I am with you Sir. If a guy has lost a foot for example and he can't hump a pack anymore, does that mean that he is not an asset to the military? No. He has other skill sets and lessons and leadership skills that he can pass on to our troops. The original poster actually when I reflect on it sounds like somebody who is angry and has a personal axe to grind.

Non deployable Soldiers absolutely should be transitioned out of the Army. I'm not talking about the temp profile Soldiers...I'm talking those that have a physical condition that permanently prevents them from deploying. All Soldiers should fit one of two categories.....1.deployable and 2. working towards overcoming the reason i cant deploy right now. Like the COL said...if the condition is a result of Army activities then there should be some form of compensation (MEB process). I also don't agree with just sticking the non-deployables into non deploying positions. Rotations in and out of deployable units is necessary to maintain the force.....if you just stick all the non deployables in those jobs because it's all they can do, it is going to put undo strain on the rest of the force. I don't understand how any of you can have the opinion that being able to go to war or not should not be a consideration of continued service in the ARMY! ....IT'S THE ARMY!!...Being able to go to war is what we do!

My 2 cents

SSG Burns,
I have to concur with your rear-d perspective. I have had the unfortunate privilege of being rear-d when I was a Corporal many years ago. I hated it and still had to do the job. Some of the spouses really make you wonder what the soldier saw in them causing them to get married. More recently, some of the Officers and NCO's that gallantly did their job in the Rear Detachment had to deal with the foolish youths that were the spouses of nearly 1/3 of our Squadron. These young girls (that is all I can say good about them) wanted to divorce their husbands and get taken care of for the rest of their lives. WHAAATTT? This was the frivolous garbage that was the big issue to them and this was their first deployment with their service member gone. The stress level for the upper leadership was astronomical. Competent leaders hate being left behind, but someone has to do the job and often, the Command has to pick someone reliable that won't get relieved of duty while the real command is forward. I have been in almost 30 years and have seen all kinds of junk call itself a soldier. I get the frustration of SFC Thomas, but you brought up a clearly valid point in why not to blanket attack those who may not have fought to stay home.

I get this and what you are saying. This come back to one simple principle: (All in caps) EVERYTHING RISES AND FALLS ON LEADERSHIP! That is it. If the command does not understand this, you will have a super crappy rear-d that will do nothing. I have seen these in other units. My skin curls when we have privates waiting to go to theater or getting chaptered and they are being treated like heroes of war when they have less than 10 months in the Army and nothing accomplished yet. This is a leadership problem and the leadership needs to see some from their bosses in the form of COL and GO intervention. When junior leaders know that their career is in the balance all the time, they get very astute at their job and pay close attention to getting it right more than just getting it done. Comments????

Well stated, Chief.

Are you confusing "hasn't deployed" with "non deployable"? I believe the conversation is about those people who can't deploy because of physical, mental, financial or family reasons. If the mission (the reason we exist) of the Army is to fight and win the nation's wars, only people who are capable of deploying should be serving.

If somebody is hurt or injured use the medical system to get them healthy again. If they are still non deployable they need to be separated.

I hated coming home from 6 months to 18 months or longer only to find that rear-d sick-call warriors were not only promoted, sent to schools, but also given medals that us whom did deploy in combat zones did not get...such as a bronze star given to our supply clerk... she was the #1 sick call warrior...never went to a singe FTX let alone a deployment.

Exactly SSG Tolbert. It still happens. You over there doing what you are getting paid to do, come home and the rear D people been to SLC, ALC, getting awards. Its hilarious. How you get a bronze star in garrison amazes me.

SFC Thomas I was referring to a very dear friend and SGM who was blown up in Iraq, lost nearly his entire crew, his right leg needed to be reattached and held together with rods, his jaw was blown off along with an ear and luckily reattached. Scarred for life, and will be 100% disabled for the rest of his life yet he gets up through the pain every day and puts his uniform on for the pleasure of serving. However due to his injuries he has been deemed non-deployable and is being med boarded against his will. He is an outstanding leader but someone decided he was no longer useful. Is that right?

SFC (Join to see) - I was ND after being diagnosed with a neuro disease in 92. I was retained on a profile and reassigned out of my branch (Armor). I knew that I wasn't getting a command and no command no 06. I eventually retired because I saw no future and more so because I felt that I was no longer an asset to the Army.