Should Basic Training be extended to accommodate the lower fitness levels of new enlistees?

SFC Stephen Hester — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:08:26 -0400

A few good men, women… anybody? Finding qualified recruits becoming more difficult for the...

Though the armed forces adapt their physical training programs to account for emerging environmental factors influencing troops' fitness, there is only so much they can…

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 2:09 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:09:39 -0400

Yes, if they can't meet the basic requirements, they need more PT.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 2:13 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:13:07 -0400

When I went through, the Air Force addressed this issue by giving the trainees remedial PT sessions. The same was true in OTS, where OTs were put on special monitoring status and made to do additional, individualized PT sessions. I think these efforts are sufficient to meet the needs and not drag everyone through additional weeks of basic training, which just increases the overall costs.

I think the message is getting out there, however, that you can't expect to get in shape at BMT/OTS/etc. You need to show up ready to go.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 3:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:05:12 -0400

No, we shouldn't lower the standards

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 3:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:06:51 -0400

That should be dealt by the recruiting stations, save dough, a good chance to introduce personal accountability to recruits

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Apr 9 at 2015 3:18 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 15:18:42 -0400

No. No, No, No! If they can't meet the basic requirements then put them on a bus and send them home. I am very aware that we are having difficulty filling quotas but if we continually lower standards to allow more recruits to start Basic, think about the end results.

Plus, consider the mentality of those who are either obese or rail-thin with no muscle at all. Why would we expect them to have a change of mindset about their body image? I don't want a fattie/skinny struggling with a full pack, his/her weapon and trying to keep their cover on going through a remedial type training designed to "Pass" them all on to AIT.

Think of the fallout rate of those destined to be 11 Bravo troops. With the real unemployment rate above 20% I think the military could advertise the benefits of enlistment and NOT depend solely on desperate recruiters trying to fill a quota.

IMHO,

Rick

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 11:26 PM

SSG Thomas Brousseau — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 23:26:31 -0400

Absolutely not. In such a caotic and dangerous world the standards should be raised. The US Military should be the best in the world. American lives depend on it.

Response by SSG Darian Jones made Apr 10 at 2015 6:35 AM

SSG Darian Jones — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:35:19 -0400

Yes! Trainees also need more combat training also something similar to what the marines do!

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 6:59 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 06:59:25 -0400

There are a lot of no don't lower the standards and a lot of if they can't meet the standards send them home. If we did that we wouldn't have a military.

One Station Unit Training is long enough extending it would not help our recruiting efforts. All Soldiers are "tested" at the reception station, if they can't meet a minimum amount of push ups they are usually put in the P.T. platoon and spend up to a couple weeks there until they "meet the requirement" then they start basic training.

You cannot administratively punish a new Soldier for failing an APFT. It is the responsibility of the Soldiers first duty station and that young NCO who will be the new Soldiers supervisor to get them in shape. There is enough on the POI in OSUT to teach a civilian to try and make them a Soldier in a short amount of time, extending that time would not be a good thing.

With that said, if you can't pass the minimum standards on the APFT you are pretty pathetic but, I know a whole bunch of Infantry Sergeant Team Leaders that will be more than happy to give you some extra training!

Response by SGT Richard H. made Apr 10 at 2015 7:53 AM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:53:15 -0400

Absolutely not. You don't change the organization to fit the individual, you change the individual to fit the organization.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 10 at 2015 8:14 AM

COL Charles Williams — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:14:38 -0400

Absolutely Not. We need to keep the standards high. Lowering standards is never a good idea. The military is an unforgiving profession, and fitness matters for the individual Soldier and those to there left and right. Just because society is soft, does not mean the military should be. If necessary, extend the initial entry training to get folks uo to speed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 8:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:35:57 -0400

The army is so inconsistent with these standards; when I came in you could not leave reception until you could pass a partial APFT and by that I mean it was like 20 pushups and sit ups and a 1 mile run and some people couldn't pass and got left behind, this was in 2002, I took over a detachment in 2008 and had 20 soldiers fresh out of AIT snd their standards had dropped to where it wasn't even madatory to pass an apft to graduate anymore. The figured once at the 1st duty station we could get them straight. And what ends up happening is that soldiers not in compliance come to the unit and you have a year to get them within standard before you start processing them out of the military. Crazy thing is some of these guys get deployed and die and had they made it back to home station they would have been processed out

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 9:08 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:08:05 -0400

The length of the training is not the issue, it's the mindset of the trainees. When I went through basic I was a little tubby who thought I was going to die every day. When my 9ish weeks were over, I had lost 35 pounds and dropped my run time from 23:00 to 13:30. If they can't/won't apply themselves while they're in the perfect environment (BCT), then I don't want that Soldier coming to my unit. Considering the length of Intel AIT (up to 24 months including language training), I just can't understand why I still get Soldiers that have issues with PT/weight.

It all comes down to personal motivation. If they don't have it, thank them for trying and kick them to the curb to open up a spot for someone who really wants it and is willing to work for it.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 10 at 2015 10:27 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:27:53 -0400

A couple years ago I was talking to an ex-DS who told me the physical shape of incoming was so low the BCT time was taken in getting these slugs into shape... all combat training was being pushed to AIT.

I am starting to think there should be a PT requirement just to get in!

Lower the bar for BCT?
Hell no!

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 11:39 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:39:31 -0400

Why not? Basic Training is just that. Right or wrong the military must change with the times and today's lifestyle is not as physically active as years before. In no way am I advocating the lowering of standards to actually finish Basic but giving more time to raise the fitness levels of troops is only a positive.

On slightly different note, I have always thought that all military branches attend an initial basic training together. As an AF member I have always thought basic was too soft I think that is partly the blame for the lacidasical attitude in the Air Force when it comes to tradition and military bearings. Put every one in a branch neutral basic and make it tougher more akin to the Marines basic. Make it something to be proud of and make it feel like you earned it... but I digress.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 10 at 2015 5:19 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:19:18 -0400

As long as they cut the mustard at the end.

Response by SFC Stephen Hester made Apr 10 at 2015 6:03 PM

SFC Stephen Hester — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:03:14 -0400

These are some great comments.It's apparent that PT is still a hot topic even among us retirees and veterans. It's good to see so many folks who are no longer in but still care deeply about what's going on in the services.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 6:07 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 18:07:20 -0400

The question was not about lowering standards. It was about allowing more training time to meet the established standard. The average teenager is in much worse physical condition than their peers of 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. This is a societal fact. I don't see where adapting to this reality and allowing recruits a few more weeks of PT in order to meet the standard is lowering the standard.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 7:05 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:05:45 -0400

Yes and fitness should be part of everyday work

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2015 12:35 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:35:46 -0400

I don't see why not. A perfect world would have every trainee coming to basic physically ready to attend ranger school, but we don't live in that world. The truth is it's going to get worse as the American lifestyle becomes more sedentary. I've got problems trying to find people who can consistently lift fifty pounds in and out delivery trucks. I laughed one employee out of my office who told me he wanted to be a PJ in the air force. Later I felt bad and apologized. I explained to him what he would have to do to get through basic and helped him research the requirements. I don't know what he'll do.

Response by SSG Scott Burk made Apr 13 at 2015 4:03 PM

SSG Scott Burk — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:03:32 -0400

No, just recycle them if they can't pass with their class. In 1981 I went to Basic and AIT at Ft. Sill and trained as an FO (13F). We had soldiers recycled for academics and a few for PT. It was very rare for a PT failure because 13F was a high speed MOS and our DS's didn't play. All were Vets from 'Nam and came from the Recon side of the tracks. We ran everywhere and did pushups until our hands looked like our feet.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Apr 13 at 2015 5:02 PM

SSG Jim Foreman — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:02:54 -0400

I think it is the responsibility of the recruit and recruiter to insure they meet the pt standards prior to getting to basic training. If they don't pass the pt test they can always be recycled.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made Apr 13 at 2015 5:49 PM

SGT Michael Touchet — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:49:08 -0400

This would be akin to the mindset that everyone who shows up gets a participation award or trophy. Don't relax the standards otherwise they really wouldn't be standards would they. Lastly, would you really want to count on someone that couldn't carry their share of the task; I wouldn't.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 6:32 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:32:43 -0400

Should we get rid of basic training and send recruits straight to their units and into war?

Whatever you answer to this question is going to be answer for this.

In my humble opinion Basic Training should be comparable to Marine Standards of basic training and interchangeable. Almost all of the other countries (especially Russia and Australia) have harder basic training.

Besides the point of basic training is to weed out those who cannot cut it and distinguish those who will either not make it or the risk factor. For example I can admit, I was singled out during basic and it helped me. Why? It motivated me to become better soldier and put serious effort. If you provide incentive for others to improve, they simply wont. Basic training is meant just for that.

Just like my college teacher said (he is former Staff Sergeant from AF) if you keep driving down the same street once with the speed marker of 25 miles an hour and you do 30, IF no one ever will stop you, you will either continue driving at that speed or faster until you get caught.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 6:42 PM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:42:48 -0400

Extended no. Hardened yes.
I along with several other battles that went to basic together thought the physical part of it was way too easy. Yet there were certain people who couldn't keep up with the runs or ruck marches.
I think you either do personal PT, or if you can't find the motivation, go to your local recruiting station and PT with them until you are in above mediocre shape before coming to basic. I would watch people fall out of the slowest of runs during basic and wonder, "what did they expect coming here?".

Response by CPL Bryan Claeys made Apr 13 at 2015 9:30 PM

CPL Bryan Claeys — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:30:19 -0400

No. Basic training should be plenty of time to whip the new recruits into shape, that is to say if the Drill Sargent's are doing their jobs properly. If the recruit's can't manage to score a 60 in the 3 events then they deserve to be recycled....

Response by Sgt Alan Voracek made Apr 14 at 2015 8:13 AM

Sgt Alan Voracek — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:10 -0400

No way, if you cant handle basic training how do you expect to handle the rigors of combat.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 8:17 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:17:26 -0400

No. Add more pt sessions yes, but extend because new recruits are not that physically prepared for the challenge ahead? NO!!!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 9:12 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:12:30 -0400

This is an interesting thread and some of you have made very good points. However, there are a lot of very uninformed posts as well. The answer to this question is simple in my opinion and strictly my opinion.

I have been a Drill sergeant for both Basic Training at Ft. Knox KY and OSUT Infantry at Ft. Benning GA. I have seen the differences between them (which isn't much honestly). Standards to pass Basic Training are 50% in each category. Standards to pass AIT/OSUT are at 60%. This 60% is an Army Standard, albeit a minimum standard it is what they have to achieve.

The intent of Basic Training / AIT is to get that Soldier to a point where they are trainable by their unit. To give them a baseline understanding of what it is to be a Soldier. Anyone of you who learned their job to the point of perfection in Basic/AIT is a better Soldier than I.

Also, from my experience young recruits these days are in fact generally less physically fit than they were lets say 15/20 years ago. This is the reason the Army has moved toward the PRT model. While a lot of people complain about this model its intent was to keep from breaking Soldiers before they get to their units. If indeed recruits are at a lower physical fitness level than they used to be you cannot train them in the same manner it makes no sense.

The endstate is get the Soldier to a point where they can be trained by their unit. The standards have not been lowered and contrary to popular belief no one was "pushed" through basic training. Drill Sergeants are among the first to call a recruit out or call foul if they need to be removed from service or need extra training. Just like in the regular Army there are those that are going to slip through. There are those who meet the requirements but then lose their physical readiness over their leave/home town recruiting. If you don't like your Soldier's current physical status, fix it! The Team Leader has the hardest job in the Army for a reason!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 4:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:59:40 -0400

I'll be honest with you: when I went to basic my initial 2 mile run was almost 22 minutes by the end of basic it was 16:12. Now that may not be impressive this stage in the game (lol) but back then that's a pretty big jump in just under two months. I did nothing that everyone else wasn't also doing. I had great DS's. Real backbones of the Army. It's really just that simple.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Apr 14 at 2015 6:49 PM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:49:16 -0400

I went thru basic ages ago. It wasn't extended for everybody, we had people who were recycled. In between, they were given daily exercise to strengthen them before going thru basic again. I think if people are flagged from the start, maybe a 6 week program to bring them up to par before entering basic training. It's not unheard of. We had folks who trained 6 weeks prior to basic to learn English so why not to get in shape? If they can't pass a rudimentary PT eval by the end of the 6 weeks, send them home. It saves money & keeps them from wasting everybody's efforts putting them thru basic when they can't achieve a higher fitness level for whatever reason.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Apr 14 at 2015 8:06 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:06:51 -0400

SFC Stephen Hester , I don't believe that Basic Combat Training should be extended to accommodate the lower fitness levels of new enlistees, nor do I believe that standards should be further lowered. At some point in time, the line must be drawn.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 14 at 2015 8:10 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:10:17 -0400

We have 3 Courses of Action here, and only two are feasible, suitable and acceptable in my view.

COA 1 - Lower the standards, or turn your cheek, and allow unfit, unqualified trainees to graduated and pass that burden on to their first unit. That is not suitable or acceptable in my view.

COA2 - If they can't meet the standards, then they should be dropped (trainee discharge program). This is likely not a good solution for the Recruiting Command.

COA3 - Extend BCT until a Solider can meet the basic standards. This is the only good standard, if we can't find recruits who can meet the standards in the time allotted.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 8:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:14:46 -0400

They shouldn't extend Basic Training because of lower physical standards. Potential recruits should know that there are physical standards that must be met in order to become a Soldier.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 10:40 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:40:18 -0400

Absolutely not. If you lower a standard, then a) you should have never had a standard to begin with, and b), eventually, you'll lower it so much, there won't BE a standard.

Response by SSG Christopher Parrish made Apr 15 at 2015 2:30 PM

SSG Christopher Parrish — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:30:26 -0400

How do you get better at push ups? Do more push ups!

The standards should not be lowered. When I went to BCT in '92 if you couldn't do the 10 or whatever mall number of push ups to get from reception to BCT you went to the fat farm and did PT. That is how is should be, outside of the obvious answer of recruiters making sure their recruits can meet the minimums.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Apr 15 at 2015 3:33 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:33:48 -0400

No, many recruiting offices run a PT program for recruits. The military PT standards are easy to find, if you are unable to train to standards than clearly the military is not for you. We should not accomodate potential soldiers who do not have the disclipline and motivation to meet initial enlistment requirements. At some point we have to expect people to be self-starters.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 1:32 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 01:32:15 -0400

No the standards should not be lowered. If you can't meet the standards that are made in basic training then you should be a holdover until you get to that standard. Over the years the military has relaxed it's standards and we haven't gotten a lot of good quality soldiers since then.

Response by LCpl Michael Vertner made Apr 18 at 2015 1:39 AM

LCpl Michael Vertner — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:39:00 -0400

When I went in the Corp in 1979 boot camp was 16 weeks

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2015 9:59 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 09:59:49 -0400

One Idea for a fix .. ask your local recruiter if you can volunteer your time to run 100% voluntary PT ramp up sessions. If they have the desire, then they would have the means.. No coddling, no handouts, just people helping themselves.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2015 12:47 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 12:47:01 -0400

Lowering standards to accommodate the weak only weakens us as a whole. We are only as strong as our weakest link and allowing for weaker and weaker links will surely cause the chain to break and fail

Response by SPC William Henschke made Apr 21 at 2015 8:04 PM

SPC William Henschke — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:04:19 -0400

No.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 2:10 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:10:31 -0400

Extend it, and raise the pt standard to 60% to graduate.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 7:00 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:00:48 -0400

Why would they lower the standards if anything they should raise the standers basic and AIT is a breeze

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jul 21 at 2015 12:45 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:45:43 -0400

SFC Stephen Hester, We have: pre-West Point, pre-ranger, pre-SF selection, pre-SEAL, ext. The military needs troops, why not train them to enter the military?

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jul 21 at 2015 4:10 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 04:10:17 -0400

Here is my unPC version of the question: should BCT cater to fat bodies?

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jul 21 at 2015 9:33 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:33:10 -0400

I think that they should extend it for this reason and that they are not really qualified on alot of thing period. They throw it off to the " you'll get more training when you get to your unit". I understand that they can't possibly train for every circumstance, however we are getting kids that still don't have good techniques on BRM. They can't hit shit on the range. I have retrain some that said that it wasn't trained or had enough range time. Go back to the basics and train these folks. I understand that is what we as NCO's are for but at the National guard level we don't get range time that often to begin with. This is just one of the thing that I have seen.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Jul 21 at 2015 9:40 AM

SPC Margaret Higgins — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:40:57 -0400

No. Not in Today's Armed Forces.
However, I don't want to be a hypocrite here. I WAS overweight in Basic Training- at the outset. Then, I came in first, when I was running around the track.
I was a Squad Leader in AIT. [Greatest shape of my life! :)]
I had trouble, once again, with my weight; once I was discharged. Now I am in top notch form; again.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 10:23 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:23:09 -0400

No, basic training should weed out the week and those who can't get fit in time should be let go

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:31:45 -0400

I recently graduated BCT, especially on a PT level, I would've requested it be harder. Only doing five counts of an exercise? Not using a real ruck sack, but an empty backpack? It seemed like my training could have been more difficult. However, I understand that most recruits aren't in the best shape.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 3:47 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:47:55 -0400

When I entered in 1985, if you were overweigh or didn't meet a standard of fitness, you were sent to a separate training platoon. You stayed there until you were able to meet the standard and join the next cycle, or were separated from the Army.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made May 22 at 2017 8:31 AM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Mon, 22 May 2017 08:31:58 -0400

No. We had guys who lost 40 lbs. In boot camp and they didn't die from it.

Response by SPC Tony Pacheco made Oct 14 at 2018 6:52 PM

SPC Tony Pacheco — Sun, 14 Oct 2018 18:52:41 -0400

You know, so many recruiters are willing to lie cheat and steal to get a recruit through, why not have them work those delay entry candidates out more. I get it, they can’t really make them do anything, but if the kid wants in they’ll show up to work. That’ll get these kids up to par and better prepare them for the awesome experience that is basic training. This way the standards are not lowered. In fact there may be an increase quality people arriving at basic. I’m not 100% sure, but I remember reading that one of the SOF organizations did something like this and had a higher graduation rate. Why couldn’t it work for initial entry?!

Response by PO2 Thomas Tutton made Oct 16 at 2018 9:40 AM

PO2 Thomas Tutton — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:40:41 -0400

Absolutely no. The Military has a set of standards. You want in get yourself to the standards

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 17 at 2018 2:58 PM

Maj John Bell — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:58:42 -0400

Most people who are out of shape at the age of initial enlistment/commissioning are not new to obesity and inadequate strength, endurance, speed, and flexibility. They got where they are because of bad habits. The real question is can a few weeks of boot camp create new habits. Do we need recruits that sap the time of the chain of command to keep them at the minimal standards. Reducing entrance standards, getting them up to speed, then putting them in operational units that are mission focused is a readiness issue.

Make them prove, on their own, they have what it takes to maintain the required fitness, BEFORE we expend budget dollars on initial training and MOS training. Or earmark them as high risk physical fitness members and have mandatory remedial training whenever they drop out of first class status, Or make them pay back every dime plus interest (at credit card rates) if they get the boot for physical fitness standard discharges.

Response by LTC Stephan Porter made Nov 19 at 2018 8:26 PM

LTC Stephan Porter — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 20:26:02 -0500

Yes! Absolutely!

Response by SSG Kenneth Ponder made Mar 31 at 2020 11:29 AM

SSG Kenneth Ponder — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:29:35 -0400

Just recycle.