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

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?

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.

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

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.

It would have to be a case by case basis. Combat injuries would be one thing, but somebody manipulating the system for their personal benefit is something else.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You were right SFC. Not only can they not get promoted now but they can't even stay in.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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

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.

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.

I think the SFC is talking about people who've been in 15 plus years never deployed, can't wear there vest because of this or that. Those are the same people who go to training thinking they know everything and that gets on my nerve. I've been in 7 years did 1 real deployment to Afghanistan and a second "deployment" to Kuwait now I have under my belt as a SPC, will probably end up with 5 deployments total, how can I take a SFC or a MSG seriously if they've never deployed or are non-deployable. How can you even make it that far in your career without one deployment.

I agree why follow and "learn" from them if they can never go overseas with you. Unless I had to learn how to ride a soft shoe profile

SFC (Join to see) I know of an NCO was ND due to weight prior to ODS. When his unit was deployed he said "I'm ND" they told him get ready to deploy that weight control was a peacetime requirement and he deployed and was subsequently promoted to SSG.

Seems like SMA agrees with me and thinks it's the number 1 problem in the Army lol

I think that would be correct. If you cannot deploy, you cannot perform your wartime mission. If you cannot perform your wartime mission. Time to move on to other career options

SFC (Join to see) Well i read through a lot of the responses and your post. And all i have to say is your comments are that of an E7 not that as a SFC. You had a valid point then but the way you have it worded is that if you cant deploy you are useless and need to out process. If this is still your mind set i hope you do not make it any farther up the ranks. you have such a narrow point of view. I pray that you never get so injured you are non-deployable because then you meet your out demise based on what you wrote above. I have worked for someone like you and my time there sucked because if your narrow minded here where else are you narrow minded. This mentality will hurt a troop more because when they do get injured they wont get help for fear of being told they need to leave service. You should think of the backlash this could have on the Services.

So SFC Thomas I should be sent home because I'm not deployable because I tore my ACL and meniscus in Afghanistan earlier this year? Had two surgeries to fix my knee and won't be deployable until next year sometime due to recovery time.

There are plenty examples of good soldiers who are not deployable, and plenty of bad soldiers who are. With all due respect SFC your premise needs some thinking through.

With you on this. If you cannot fit in your gear, can't be trained, and can't do your job, then you are wasting a valuable space that could be taken by someone who is trying to make a career out of this. Anyone who is just bullshitting around needs to just get out. This is a very honorable job that should be respected and not freeloaded. Yeah, we have some perks like college, but that should not be the only reason a fatass (as you described, SFC) would want to stay in.

But I also know that some jobs are not deployable, mine in particular. Some units stay back while others go overseas.

I have had many leaders like you SFC Thomas. I certainly respect your opinion regarding this matter, I only hope that you don't ever fall into the category you are putting physically disabled Soldiers in...it is a bad place. I am judged everyday because of my physical limitations. My job still gets done and done to my high standards. I ensure my Soldier achieves this same standard. I do not think that having physical limitations means I shouldn't be able to get promoted and lead Soldiers, but there are senior leaders, like you, who think this and therefore make it impossible for some to get promoted. It is kind of refreshing to hear a senior leader say this, because I have been saying there are senior leaders who discriminate against Soldiers with physical limitations.

SFC,
Not every unit in the Army are deployable!
However, they do importent job as well....so, is that case, should we not be promoted ? Or be chaptered out?