To downsize, should the Army cut those with more than 10 years of service and no combat deployments?

2015-04-24T09:48:05-04:00

Cut every officer O4 and above, every NCO E7 and above, and every warrant officer CW3 and above, and anyone else in the Army with ten or more years of service who hasn’t done at least 12 cumulative months in combat. When I say “in combat,” I don’t mean “in a combat zone” in places like Qatar or Kuwait, where troops get many of the trappings of combat like the “combat zone tax exclusion” and technically get authorized to wear a combat patch without any of the real risk. I mean places where people are actually getting killed. Does that sound arbitrary? Well, maybe it is. But it’s no less arbitrary than the Army’s current downsizing methodology, and in the long run I think it’s much more equitable and better for the service. Case-by-case exemptions can be made as required.
http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/light-on-the-right-ditch-deployment-dodgers/

“Light on the Right:” Ditch Deployment Dodgers

Ditch the deployment dodgers. Cut anyone in the Army with ten or more years of service who hasn’t done at least 12 cumulative months in combat.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 24 at 2015 9:55 AM

2015-04-24T09:55:41-04:00

Unfortunately your idea sounds like something a bureaucrat would dream up and has already been tried incrementally after every major war - starting with eliminating the 5 star billets, then the flag officers, etc.
Right sizing is difficult but important to prepare for future conflicts. We usually had our nose bloodied in the initial engagements of past wars - check out the Argonne in WWI, Kasserine Pass in WWII, Task Force Smith in Korea.
The best and brightest tend to leave the service early - many of those are the ones that would be best to keep for future requirements - some of which are direct combat [combat arms] and others are providing essential support [CSS] as well as other Service mobility folks to bring us to the fight and sustain the force.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 24 at 2015 10:00 AM

2015-04-24T10:00:46-04:00

You don't choose where you go. The Army does.

Let's work under the assumption that first enlistment/term is "random" so 50/50 chance of "no deployment."

Second Enlistment/term is generally chosen as a "career progression" option. A combination of needs of service, needs of individual. On the USMC side, 3rd enlistment is B-Billet (Recruiting/DI/MSG). That's 12 years.

I joined in 1994. I deployed 2x to Kuwait (with a grunt BN), but 2/3 of my class didn't. I went to Quantico next. Was tagged for Recruiter duty in 2000, and would have been there from 2001-2004. Likely would have been a E7 when I returned, and gone to a non-deploying unit (wrong rank for a BN or a MEU). Would have taken me 6~ years to pick up E8 (2 more command swaps).

So in essence, it's not a case of dodging deployments. Just no deployments to be had.

I'm sure the Army has more available, but I don't think the math supports, and I think you would lose A LOT of good people. Additionally, I "think" there are High Tenure issues when you start talking about E7/O4/CW3 and cutting them loose that early.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Apr 24 at 2015 10:09 AM

2015-04-24T10:09:07-04:00

Well I will be hitting eight years in this November. I am leaving for my first deployment (to Kuwait) in July. I have volunteered for five deployments before, was put on two of them, which were then cancelled (both going to Iraq). I have made every effort I can to get overseas and "do my part" but I do not have much say in going overseas and where I go. The Army determines the job that I do and I do it with a smile on my face.

Why should I lose my career because they never decided to send me to a combat zone? Do we really want the incompetent ride alongs to volunteer for combat deployments just so they can keep their jobs?

I remember hearing years ago about many LTCs and COLs finding their way onto deployments so they could participate in a combat deployment and therefore be promoted to GEN. Their inexperience and/or unwillingness to listen to their combat hardened CPTs and 1SGs lead to increased casualties and inabilities to complete missions. Is this a practice we want to encourage?

Just because you are not fighting, does not mean you are not doing your part to support the military mission. Doing what you are assigned to do, doing it well, and always being willing to assist or volunteer should be more than enough for most.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 10:12 AM

2015-04-24T10:12:54-04:00

Sorry sir. I can't get behind it...Combat experience is not the only side that defines a leader. Experience is relative. They are also individual, as we don't process things the exact same way as those to our left and right.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 10:21 AM

2015-04-24T10:21:35-04:00

Here's a link to the rebuttal of the above article (taken from the bottom of the page). I think it really answers the question fully.

tl;dr: Some specialties are so specialized they can't deploy down due to their nature (surgeon is given as an example). Some people who have deployed are right jerks that need to be cashiered. The person and their impact to the effort should be the metric, not whether or not that received direct fire.

http://www.havokjournal.com/uncategorized/judge-light-on-the-right-by-merit-not-the-merit-badge/

Judge “Light on the Right” by Merit, Not the Merit Badge

"Light on the right:" Let’s keep the focus on an individual’s merit, not the merit badge.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Apr 24 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-04-24T10:41:08-04:00

I am all for dealing with deployment dodgers...but...
all this does is support "dick measuring." You arent as 'hooah' as I am?

The Army is a large organization with many support roles, such as doctors and attorneys and civil engineers, I dont care if my eye doctor or my dentist has deployed.
Also, in some cases, organizations are regionally aligned are concerned with something other than the Middle East, such as drug trafficing in South America.
Not every command is a deploying unit.

also, i remember being stationed at Fort Lewis, the 1st Corps G3 gets up and talks about all these planning conferences in Korea, Japan, Thailand. I so wanted to ask if were doing jack for the War on Terror, but I didnt want to piss him off.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 10:42 AM

2015-04-24T10:42:04-04:00

People are killed quite often here in Fayetteville, so I'm guessing all Bragg Soldiers would be safe from this cut... And you used the word technically without a whisper of maintaining technically proficient Soldiers. Yes, the current system is misguided and vague but, these precise criteria are pretty thoughtless.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 11:06 AM

2015-04-24T11:06:12-04:00

I really hate this administration for their gutting of our forces.

Response by CW2 Stephen Pate made Apr 24 at 2015 11:26 AM

2015-04-24T11:26:28-04:00

I say set up a process to where anyone that wants out can get out. Make it simple, easy and quick. Put out a short time frame to do it and make it hapeen. We would lose a lot of talent but if someone doesn't wanna be here then let then go. That'll reduce numbers!

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 24 at 2015 11:35 AM

2015-04-24T11:35:39-04:00

Just thinking this causes pain....
Consider this .. an E-7 goes to OCS and becomes an officer .. sometime later they are an O-4 over 15 (sort of guessing on time-in-grade). How does an O-4 over 15 look to a bean counter?

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 24 at 2015 12:35 PM

2015-04-24T12:35:55-04:00

I've been around most every downsizing since 'Nam. Being in a small staff corps that gets statistically tied to an overall number can create significant future problems. It's the same problem you get when your accessions (new intake) gets messed up. Holes are created in both rank and specialty that hangs around for the next 15 years. Trying to plug it with an 85% promotion rate degrades the overall quality of the corps by keeping people that should be gone.

A micro case in point was the long term disparity between male and female nurses in the Navy. There had to be a certain number of male O-4 selects to fill the FMF billets. I remember board members in the break room in Millington bemoaning that good women were being sent home to retain a male nurse known to be risky in medical care. I don't know if that is still true but in 2002 it was. Hopefully the demographics are better now.

Downsizing will create gaps that hang around, are costly to recover from, and usually make us get hung up at the worse time due to Murphy's Law. Hopefully there are better business case analysis factors going into the decision making process to help smooth the bumps. And don't give me that "Glide Slope" crap. That's the lazy way out by people who don't want to spend the time to really figure it out.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 2:17 PM

2015-04-24T14:17:10-04:00

I'm just going to leave this here:

A lot of my cohorts haven't deployed and by and large it's not for a lack of trying. I tried for three years before I finally deployed and then I didn't get 12 months because I was wounded. I'm a trauma nurse.

So me, and those who do the same job I do but haven't deployed enough for your recommended yard stick, should go home and you can stabilize yourself for that medevac. Most of those meet your time requirement. Not a well reasoned argument.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 3:29 PM

2015-04-24T15:29:35-04:00

The problem with this approach is that how do you define someone as a "deployment dodger"

1. What if that person was injured during their units depoyment?
2. What if the Army sent them places the A. didnt deploy or B. Had just got back from deployment.
3. In an MOS that does not get the opportunit to deploy as much as others.
4. Went on a short deployment as part of a team (not 12 consecutive months)

While i agree it can be annoying to see someone of higher rank with out a patch we dont know why they have not. To kick those people out of the Army as a means to downsize isnt right is it? Yes there are people out there that have straight up avoided every deployment they could, but i would wager that its not the case with most. To set up a board for something like that there would have to be a lot of time put into setting up the paramaters, reviewing all of those peoples files, and initiating a plan to follow through with it. By that time most would be close to retirement.

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Aug 21 at 2015 12:40 AM

2015-08-21T00:40:26-04:00

I've seen this downsizing thing multiple times - Vietnam, Desert Storm and now the War on Terror (Iraq/AFG). So far, no one seems to have cared for the downsizing process following any of these conflicts. I've seen outstanding Soldiers of all ranks get the boot and less than great ones remain. I've seen the opposite as well. When the military talks about reducing the force by tens of thousands, they are going to establish some basic screening process and those that end up there - well some belong and some don't. The first effective method in my opinion is something I saw after Desert Storm: Voluntary departures with a monetary incentive (a one time "bonus" if you will) and early retirement offers. Both had requirements that had to be met. The involuntary process is the one that's a crap shoot.

My suggestion to those who want to stay in is make sure your records are up to date, you have a current photo, etc., just like prepping for a promotion board. Get that next PD school done. While I suspect the issue of deployments may be a factor, it shouldn't be the primary factor. For those who have been downrange I know this likely won't sit well with you, however, some folks have legit reasons that prevented them from deploying to a combat zone and it doesn't necessarily mean they dodged it. I know a couple of officers and NCO's who HAVE dodged deployment - I will withhold my opinion of them here but it's not complimentary. I also know of some who were deployed involuntarily to non-combat zones, in support of the war on terror (they were needed elsewhere). Additionally, I have seen a lot of folks who are pushed out of active duty join the reserves or NG, to save their careers (at least partially). Ultimately, I don't have a "golden ticket" answer for this issue, there are too many variables and unknowns. Regardless, I wish all of you the best of luck, especially those of you who want to remain and deserve it.

Response by BG Keith Gallagher, FACHE made Dec 4 at 2015 9:11 AM

2015-12-04T09:11:31-05:00

No problem, except for our physicians who deploy on 6-month deployments with the FSTs/CSHs. I would exempt them from this criterion.

Response by SFC Stephen Atchley made Apr 23 at 2018 8:51 AM

2018-04-23T08:51:43-04:00

Major, all I can see your suggestion doing is ridding the Army of a lot of good people that would be sorely missed. Deployment is not something controlled by an individual soldier. It is managed and ordered by the Army according to whatever mysterious logic prevails over such decisions. In my time I volunteered for numerous operations and assignments and only one was approved. That deployment was subsequently cancelled. During the first Gulf War there were hundreds of armor, infantry, and other MOSs from Fort Irwin that enthusiastically volunteered to deploy. The CG at Fort Irwin told the Department of the Army that the NTC mission could not be performed without these solders, so all of the requests were denied. These soldiers were deemed mission critical to the NTC, but by your criteria many of them would have been kicked out.

Efforts should certainly be made to identify, and remove, soldiers from serving that have 'deployment avoidance syndrome'. But, your admittedly arbitrary system would be a disaster.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 23 at 2018 10:14 AM

2018-04-23T10:14:30-04:00

Dang Sir, we are already shorthanded- it is not the fault of the individual for lack of deployments- nor can you shop around for 1- DA decides what units go, and for the USAR/NG what individuals go. Would you wipe out our techs, just because their MOS won't produce in combat? kill the drone operators cause they are flying 1k+ miles away from the shooting? And DOWNSIZE? JCS already had to tell Congress we could not perform our 2 wars around the globe mission due to cuts!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2018 11:34 PM

2018-08-27T23:34:08-04:00

Cutting soldiers and officers arbitrarily like that would simply dwindle your ranks very quickly and increase the brain drain that already occurs in the military.

Big army ultimately dictates which units deploy or not, so why would we punish service members for something the big army did to them? That is not an indication of their individual readiness/willingness to deploy.

You would also lose a lot of subject matter expertise. In the medical field, I worked with surgeons and anesthesiologists who didn’t deploy for their first 8-10 years in the army because they were needed in the big army hospitals. No one in their right mind would try to cut such specialized talent who do a life saving job simply because they didn’t deploy in a given time frame. This is also why the “up or out” approach with promotions has failed because we destroy expertise in favor of trying to promote people as “leaders” until they fail essentially.

Likewise when I deployed I ran into shammers who simply were looking for a right shoulder patch. How is that okay to retain based on the aforementioned criteria but a hard working service member who otherwise has stellar service who didn’t wasn’t given an opportunity to deploy not okay for retainment?

Response by CPO Mark Robinson made Aug 28 at 2018 12:33 AM

2018-08-28T00:33:16-04:00

I suppose Eisenhower would of been kicked out under your program. As far as I know he never served in combat.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Jul 3 at 2019 9:51 PM

2019-07-03T21:51:05-04:00

I think this is well reasoned and well written but I disagree with it.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Jan 13 at 2020 12:20 PM

2020-01-13T12:20:31-05:00

No. Soldiers usually get no say whether or not they deploy. Hell, I had to beg like no other to go on a second deployment. There is no moral reason for penalizing someone for something out of their control. I have had several soldiers who would be cut if this idea were to go in effect, that were outstanding. It is true there are some soldiers who should go, but I think those decisions should be made based on duty performance and other controllable factors. Only the shitbags fail to develop themselves in terms of things in their control. Treating a soldier based on factors beyond their control seems to be a violation of the Army values.