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?
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 190
If Soldiers at "non-deployable" because if injuries physical or mental then they should be allowed to get promoted if they meet the guidelines. Soldiers who dodge deploying but are capable should be sent to fort couch.
(2)
(0)
My opinion is that I guess it would depend on the the reason he or she is not deployable. Is it a weight issue, or were they injured? A blanket yes or no doesn't really work.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir,
How can you train and not fight? How can you look at your Soldiers and tell them you are not going with them, when its no longer training and its real.
Its time to find a new profession. This is about war. We train for war, that is the main purpose of the Army and if you can't do that its time to roll out.
How can you train and not fight? How can you look at your Soldiers and tell them you are not going with them, when its no longer training and its real.
Its time to find a new profession. This is about war. We train for war, that is the main purpose of the Army and if you can't do that its time to roll out.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree, however, I am saying there are a multitude of reasons someone might not be currently deployable. Saying "all or nothing" doesn't necessarily fit the situation.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I bet if the Army flagged people if they were non deployable you have people put forth the same effort to become deployable, just like they do become non deployable.
(0)
(0)
I believe that would depend on whether or not the soldier was on a permanant undeployable status or just temporary like I was after my last knee surgery.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Temporary is cool because you will come off but permanent its time for you to find a new career path
(1)
(1)
MSG (Join to see)
You must be upset at some experiences you've had. All MOS's have a PULHES requirement. You can have a P2 and still be qualified in your MOS. All P3s have to go through a MEB to determine they are still qualified to perform their duties. Some Soldiers have sacrificed their bodies at performing their duties. My opinion, they should be placed in a position to continue to serve, even if they can't deploy, if they choose to do so.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Nope im not upset. I accept the Army for what it is and i accept the people in the army for who they are. Im just stating what i think, my opinion. You either agree or disagree. Its not that deep.
(0)
(0)
You were right SFC. Not only can they not get promoted now but they can't even stay in.
(1)
(0)
Couldn't agree more. This especially bad in the National Guard where you can make general and be non-deployable. A Californian was a LTC on 9/11, today here's a two star. Non deployable. Embarrassing. Elsewhere, the first four star Army Chief, National Guard Bureau was BG on 9/11. Never deployed anywhere on his long career. Embarrassing. And comparisons to Eisenhower are ridiculous, he's no Eisenhower.
(1)
(0)
I'm not sure what your getting at here SFC... Seems to me you are publicly berating a group of your fellow soldiers which is not something I would expect from any rank above E-2... I have known people injured in combat who could not deploy, Are you telling me they shouldn't be promoted because they gave 110% and paid a price for it? I get it every branch has their shit birds but 99% of Marines I knew who weren't deploy-able had a valid reason. My advice to you would be, take a step back get to know your soldiers and their reason for the status and mentor, rehabilitate and train them to the best of your ability to get them back in the fight rather than bashing them here. But what do I know I'm just a jarhead.
Best Regards,
-Cpl D.
Best Regards,
-Cpl D.
(1)
(0)
First off I have never seen -10 likes before. Secondly I would have to say that a non deployable NCO should be separated from the line. Before everyone unlikes this let me finish. This non deployable NCO may be the top NCO in the brigade. He/she may be nondeployable due to losing legs in a valorous act. The reason I say separated is because when you train up for a deployment you train as an individual, then team, squad and platoon. You learn the mannerisms, leadership style, and build confidence with you team. These things make a squad go from mediocre to lethal. That nondeployable NCO should be utilized for their skills. You don't make it to SFC with zero skills to offer. Let that person advice, assist and mentor. Do not let that person have a permanent duty with in an Infantry/ combat arms unit and then have to replace or retrain someone once it's deployment time.
(1)
(0)
When there are situations (especially Medical) beyond ones control then how is it fair if they have met all of their schooling requirements, passed their most recent APFT/PT Test and met all other requirements prior to would it be fair that they not get promoted just because they are non-deployable??
If someone is milking the cow/Sick Call Ranger as you seem to be suggesting then I'd readily agree with you, but if it is something that they hadn't planned or just happened then they should still warrant promotion even if they are non-deployable.
If someone is milking the cow/Sick Call Ranger as you seem to be suggesting then I'd readily agree with you, but if it is something that they hadn't planned or just happened then they should still warrant promotion even if they are non-deployable.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I understand your comments and understand your frustration. I think much depends upon the MOS and reason why the soldier is non-deployable? With that said, do not disagree with your comments about who and where to make cuts...which is easy for me to say from the Retired Reserve.
I understand your comments and understand your frustration. I think much depends upon the MOS and reason why the soldier is non-deployable? With that said, do not disagree with your comments about who and where to make cuts...which is easy for me to say from the Retired Reserve.
(1)
(0)
I see where you are coming from on this, but I'm not sure it is being communicated in the correct tone. I understand what you mean, "If you can't go to war or the freaking field for a field problem then why should you be promoted?", but it feels like you are ranting here, like you have a personal problem going on in your unit or your experience with another unit in your time in service.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Maybe I should have articulated it better. I wasn't ranting but I can see how people would have taken it that way
(0)
(0)
I was non-deployable for nearly a year and a half. I was promoted from E-5 to E-6 in that time frame. And I am still in the army today. Actually got promoted this year to E-7. So should I have been chaptered out in that time frame? If you don't know the reasons that people are non-deployable, don't jump to conclusions that this person or that person is just dead weight. Maybe there is a legitimate reason why they are non-deployable. Don't judge people you know absolutely nothing about.
(1)
(0)
For myself, I set a standard. If I ever got to the point where I needed a profile to stay in, then it was time to get out - but that was just me and the standard I had for myself. After I came back from Iraq , in 2004, I needed a profile because I couldn't take the APFT, and I knew with the collapsed disk in my back and the problem with my shoulder I was non deployable, so I got out. I guess it was just the final nail in my "career coffin". If I couldn't lead from the front, then I didn't feel I belonged - THIS WAS MY PERSONAL STANDARD. I lost 10yrs of service I'd planed on, but I wouldn't change my standard.
I'm not saying this is for everyone. There are a lot of reasons for non deployable status. I also know there are those who shouldn't be in the military because they don't have the commitment. When I was SNCO (1SG acting) of a unit(USAR), we had a soldier holding a position in our unit. We got notified we were going to get deployed. In the Reserve, before the official deployment order was released, if a person had a chance to get out. We had a soldier who was in leadership position wanting out because he was in school and didn't want to miss any classes. The CDR let him transfer to a USAR school so he could stay in school. There were other soldiers who were missing school, but went anyway. I know there was a job at the school to be done, but I lost all respect for this soldier because he was taking a position which at the last minute we had to scramble to fill.
I feel if a soldier is in a deployable unit and is in a non deployable status, then this person shouldn't be in a leadership position. Our units should always "train as they fight", and if the training leadership can't deploy, then there's a hole. Yea, I know we all train up and down because we all are expendable, but when a unit has to start with a hole to fill, then I think it is very non-professional of the soldier to put a unit in this position. They can be used in the unit, maybe as Rear Det or something, but if this soldier was a PS, then he/she shouldn't be training the platoon to deploy.
I'm not saying this is for everyone. There are a lot of reasons for non deployable status. I also know there are those who shouldn't be in the military because they don't have the commitment. When I was SNCO (1SG acting) of a unit(USAR), we had a soldier holding a position in our unit. We got notified we were going to get deployed. In the Reserve, before the official deployment order was released, if a person had a chance to get out. We had a soldier who was in leadership position wanting out because he was in school and didn't want to miss any classes. The CDR let him transfer to a USAR school so he could stay in school. There were other soldiers who were missing school, but went anyway. I know there was a job at the school to be done, but I lost all respect for this soldier because he was taking a position which at the last minute we had to scramble to fill.
I feel if a soldier is in a deployable unit and is in a non deployable status, then this person shouldn't be in a leadership position. Our units should always "train as they fight", and if the training leadership can't deploy, then there's a hole. Yea, I know we all train up and down because we all are expendable, but when a unit has to start with a hole to fill, then I think it is very non-professional of the soldier to put a unit in this position. They can be used in the unit, maybe as Rear Det or something, but if this soldier was a PS, then he/she shouldn't be training the platoon to deploy.
(1)
(0)
There was this Sm that when Top told us we were going to Iraq in 03 the Sm stated they did not sign up to do this, let's just say that Sm and a few more Sick Call soldier's stayed back in the rear with the gear, Had a Plt. Sgt like that couldn't wear the Vest couldn't Pt But could train us and cuss us out just because one soldier was running behind for morning formation and this Sm was a good soldier never late for formation never a neg 4856.
(1)
(0)
I think that if you are really non deployable you need to be separated. Period. When the SMA recently discussed the 50,000 Soldiers who are non deployable he included in that number many who are simply not compliant with MEDPROS. It is a constant struggle to keep people up to date simply because junior leaders aren't engaged and invested in ensuring the Soldiers they lead are medically deployable.
I believe that the only reason to have an Army is to kill people and break things. If you can't wear you gear, carry a weapon and go to the field you basically are taking up a spot from somebody who is fully mission capable.
One thing you can do is not approve leave or passes if people aren't compliant with MEDPROS.
As far as legitimately non deployable folks go, I think we have to be careful about pulling the trigger too fast on medical separations. If somebody is legitimately hurt/injured we have an obligation to see if we can fix them and return them to duty. If they aren't going to get better they need to be separated.
That's just my $.02 worth, and all I feel like jamming out on an iPad.
I believe that the only reason to have an Army is to kill people and break things. If you can't wear you gear, carry a weapon and go to the field you basically are taking up a spot from somebody who is fully mission capable.
One thing you can do is not approve leave or passes if people aren't compliant with MEDPROS.
As far as legitimately non deployable folks go, I think we have to be careful about pulling the trigger too fast on medical separations. If somebody is legitimately hurt/injured we have an obligation to see if we can fix them and return them to duty. If they aren't going to get better they need to be separated.
That's just my $.02 worth, and all I feel like jamming out on an iPad.
(1)
(0)
It used to be that if you were non-deployable this was always the case. When you status changed, you were allowed back on the promotion list. I left the active Army in 92 & went in the Guard. We had a guy who weaseled his way out deploying saying he had asthma as a kid. He didn't come with us & it ticked off everybody that he got promoted. When our CG found out about all of the shenanigans, he busted him back down & made sure to get deserving, deployed people their promotions. I am sorry, but it's like training for the Olympics & not being able to participate. Being deployable is what the expectation of your job is. Many people who got injured had their careers ruined & were forced out. That's just the risk of doing the job.
(1)
(0)
I think it depends on the reason they aren't deployable; I don't think anyone is going to begrudge the guy who got wounded in action taking a billet back home. The ones that grate are the ones that seem to be working the system to avoid going overseas. I'm guessing that this is harder to do on active duty than in the guard/reserves, but when I was at Hood 07-08 time frame, there were a lot of instructors who had been there for years without deploying. Some of whom definitely were not professional NCOs.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Leaders, I think most of you forgot the most important reason for Soldiers not deploying...they were not ordered to deploy. I have never deployed to a combat zone and even volunteered to go(deployed to humanitarian missions twice). No Soldier can just board a plane when they want to without being given orders. Also, if the Army puts you in a location that they need you then that is your job. A lot of you are making this assumption that NCOs without a combat patch "dodged" deployments. If you are not ordered to deploy then YOU don't deploy! Many leaders have not been ordered to deploy. Think about this before we label all NCOs without a combat patch as "dodgers".
(0)
(0)
I agree , if this was the norm there are plenty of military personal missing limbs that would still like to serve and can't . It's one thing if it's not in your MOS but shouldn't be taking up a billet if you can't perform !
(1)
(0)
I think all of you are being sensitive. #allopinionsmatter lol. Just because one person's opinion doesn't parallel yours doesn't mean that they're unprofessional, just like your opinion of said person making an opinion makes you more professional. I myself (an infantryman) have been deployed 5 times to real combat between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make me less experienced than someone who has 7 or more experienced than someone who has less than me. There are plenty of MSG's and SGM/CSM's that have not deployed once I there 25+ year career but still have more experience than I do as a SFC with 18+ years. There are are plenty of people with "real combat" deployments that have no experience whatsoever. That's just how it is. I think the key is to identify those who aren't deployable, find out why, then if their issue is valid put them in positions where they can still serve honorably. JMHO
(1)
(0)
IMO, if you can't deploy, you should be separated. Get out, get the treatment you need, etc. RCP is a waste of $. Why let a Soldier stay in that's non dep? Then not promote them? They'll be allowed to stay in, prolonging the inevitable. This isn't to say non deployable Soldiers aren't good leaders, etc. Our job is to be deployable. If you cant, then you need to get out, get the help you need, and get a job that doesn't require you to deploy. Respectfully.
(1)
(0)
I think everyone should have to deploy but there are reasonable exceptions. Look at Gregory D. Gadson. he lost both legs in the service. He didn't want to leave the service and he stayed in after the injury. Situations like that, I am OK with someone being non deployable. However if they are non deployable because they don't want to be away from their family or other reason similar, then I don't agree with it. I am a Navy vet. I did two deployments. I was in the gulf during the Iraq/Iran war and then Desert Storm. I had to be away from my family during that time and short cruises as well. I was lucky that my ship is in port when my wife went in labor on both my kids, so I got to see them born. However there are many sailors, grunts, soldiers airmen that wasn't as lucky as me. Those positions should be available for those that have been deployed to give them a break in order to spend time with their family. I don't know how the Army works but sailors do a tour at sea and then a tour on shore duty. I imagine the Army is the same. They are up for orders every so many years. The only other ones I think should be able to get a nondeployable orders would be for situations like Gregory D. Gadson.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next