Posted on May 4, 2014
SFC Bde Mobility Nco
100K
1.31K
420
46
-5
51
C83aad82
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?
Posted in these groups: Imgres DeploymentStar Promotions
Edited 11 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 190
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
SFC Physical Security Program Manager
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!
(11)
Comment
(0)
1SG Military Police
1SG (Join to see)
9 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Retention Operations Nco
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.
(8)
Comment
(0)
SFC Health I.T. (Hit) Systems Security Engineer
SFC (Join to see)
11 y
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)
Reply
(0)
PV2 Michael Reidout
PV2 Michael Reidout
11 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG S3 Operations Ncoic
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)
Comment
(0)
SSG Squad Leader
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
CPT Mark Gonzalez
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Acquisition, Logistics & Technology (AL&T) Contracting NCO
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.
(7)
Comment
(0)
SFC Bde Mobility Nco
SFC (Join to see)
11 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SFC Acquisition, Logistics & Technology (AL&T) Contracting NCO
SFC (Join to see)
11 y
I would agree with that in most cases, the exception being WTU.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Jeffrey Wade
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.
(6)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG General Services Technician And State Vehicle Inspector
6
6
0
Edited 11 y ago
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)
Comment
(0)
SSG Clinical Pastoral Division Ncoic
SSG (Join to see)
11 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SFC Bde Mobility Nco
SFC (Join to see)
11 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Bde Mobility Nco
SFC (Join to see)
11 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW4 John Beebe, BS, DML
CW4 John Beebe, BS, DML
11 y
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.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Robert Walo
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)
Comment
(0)
SFC Bde Mobility Nco
SFC (Join to see)
11 y
If your unit and Soldiers go down range, you should be going with them. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
(0)
Reply
(2)
Avatar small
CH (MAJ) Chaplain
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?
(5)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Assigned Representative
MAJ (Join to see)
11 y
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.
(3)
Reply
(0)
CH (MAJ) Chaplain
CH (MAJ) (Join to see)
11 y
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
(3)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Mark Merino
4
4
0
Edited >1 y ago
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSG (Non-Rated)
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.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.