Should every new service member have a mental health evaluation?

As my dad (LTC, ret) once told me, "You have to be crazy to want to join, but you can't join if you're crazy!"

My concern is it will be like the pre and post health screening we have now. Cookie cutter interview, check the block. Having no residual value unless the SM wants help, and an SM that wants help now can get it...

When you see the doc now, you get asked, Are you depressed? Do you want to hurt yourself? Are you having homicidal thoughts?
Id love to see the stats of the number of persons that have been forced, coerced, self referred to mental health post having these questions asked and answered YES, at a regularly and routine visits?
If they wanted the help, I don't think being asked at a visit for an ingrown toenail removal is going to be the tripping point.

If we require all to have a mental health assessment as part of enlistment, It could weed out the truly psychotic.. the one that would answer yes to "Do you want to kill people" "Is torturing a captured enemy ok, if they might have information on a recent bombing?" "If you captured three enemy soldiers, and only had room for two in the vehicle, and one was wounded.. Would you release him? Execute and then leave him for his fellow fighters to recover and provide services for him? Tie him to the bumper and drive slowly making him follow behind the vehicle? Call for assistance and secure/wait till help arrives?"

this looks like a double edged sword...
why... what is it going to show... who is going to administer it ... what are they going to use as a base Lin and to set the Norms...
There are some reasons to Have it to show the potential for depression but i feel it will be used to exclude the troops and by some segments of society to restrict access and rights of the troops...

This should already be apart of the entrance process. If they were properly screening potential new recruits we would not run into issues like the Berghdal blunder. He washed out of coast guard BCT due to mental health reasons but joined the Army and forever cemented his legacy of stupidity.

Yes, especially upon separation. As service members we are put through a lot of stress and hardships. Our mental health is just as important as our physical health.

In the USAF, every BMTer does complete a mental health screening. If red flags are raised there, further evaluations ensue. I can tell you that there are many people with real MH issues that fly under the radar and don't get caught by such screenings. I would also hazard a guess that a disposition for MH illness may not manifest until more significant stress is applied (e.g., following BMT).

On second thought, I would say no. Too much sensitive data which could well be misused against the GI.

Yes...and this is a question because? We don't need to enlist and train folks thta should be assigned to Dr Dippy's Retreat.
but then some folks don't consider their mental condition to be a mental condition.

Problem with the question using "evaluation" when the article is talking a "screening tool". Very different things.

I'm weighing in from the actual experience end. When I was a freshly minted O-1, I got to get a shrink test at Treasure Island due to my assignment to Antarctica. Seems it's too expensive and too dangerous to have someone go whacko down on the ice. There was a battery of tests and discussions trying to figure out if I was high or low risk of going off the deep end. It was a three day process. That said, the time and cost of doing that for every recruit is way out of line. That was an evaluation. You want to hit about 98% assurance on those things knowing no amount of time and money can capture the other 2%. I had the luck of my relief failing the shrink test and having to make a third deployment. Story of my life.

So now we get to screening tool which from a systems (look at the numbers) viewpoint might be a good business decision. If we spend this much time and money to develop a tool that screens out this percentage from the get go, then we don't have to deal with X number of MILs offing themselves in the future. So where's the cut point? Probably when you hit diminishing returns. Where's that? Don't know yet. We likely really won't know until a number of years down the road and we're on Version 9.0. So it looks like we're going to try because the number of suicides, PTSDers, etc. is a huge liability tail. I'd hope those who do work the issue have some true systems support to keep them on track and away from pushing ropes. We have to acknowledge we don't have infinite money and other resources to prevent all of it.

I am going to weigh in here from the medical side- probably not the brightest idea. Be careful what you wish for as the results may diminish your force tremendously. Who will evaluate the standard versus findings and how would a member appeal? I am sure even those of us not broken have some issues and will restate- be careful what you wish for. Great question SSG Carlos Madden