What about restricted-line MOS's for personnel with cyber skills but lacking in physical fitness or weight standards?

MAJ Raymond Haynes - I see where you're coming from sir. If I'm understanding the restricted-line MOS construct correctly, we're still taking a billet, converting it to non-deployable status, and causing another service member to deploy twice to cover the tasking the restricted-line person should have covered. I'm working of the presumption of: Say Battalion One has an authorized strength of 500 Soldiers (totally made up numbers). 200 of those are restricted-line billets. BN has a tasking to send 400 Soldiers downrange during the next 18mo cycle. We now have a shortfall of 100 Soldiers that have to come from somewhere. So we either pull from Battalion Two, who just returned from deployment, or we shortfall 100 billets and make everyone pull double duty while deployed. I still think the better option is to hire them as civilians and use them accordingly.

Hope I'm not totally missing the picture. It's been a while since I was a Unit Deployment Manager and I'm working from dated information that may no longer be relevant.

Just create a new line number to cover the billet. The Army Reserve givith, the Army Reserve taketh away. Please understand that I am not talking about your standard Geek Squad nerd, I'm talking about high value personnel who can bring our floppy disk Army out of the defense and into a position where we call all the shots on the cyber battlefield, no matter the country or platform.

I like the logic but how do we pay for the additional manpower? Do we shortfall other billets or take money away from other line items? We only get so much money in the budget for personnel. I'm not disagreeing with the concept. Just playing devil's advocate on funding and staffing.

Maybe we expand on PO1 (Join to see)'s illustration. Maybe not everyone NEEDS to be deployable. Functions such as drone operator and cyber operations don't HAVE to deploy to perform their functions. Would it make sense to create small units of restricted-line special function billets (such as the aforementioned cyber ops) and leave them at a designated permanent base (CONUS or OCOUNUS)? That way they are completely out of the mix for deployment tasking and other members won't have to pick up additional due to non-deployables on their UMD. I think if done properly, the construct could work out exceptionally well for all stake holders.

A project this important should and most likely will be funded at the highest levels. It could be quite possible that personnel of that status have a direct report that is not even in your unit. They would be assigned as to create the largest impact on training personnel and access to the proper equipment. I would also assume that the activities would be conducted at the Top Secret level, which always opens all kinds of worms. In the simplest of terms they may show up on the unit roster, but take their orders at the "J" level

Thank you Joshua for providing examples, that I was not aware of, to support my point

That's an interesting concept PO1 (Join to see). It's certainly worth additional thought and consideration.

Mayabelle DuBois - I do not believe your statement "Too many; enlist, get military experience, then use their training to commit crimes back home." You are listed on your profile as a potential recruit. With the statements that you have made, and your mindset, you might want to find other work, because the military is not for you.

Sgt (Join to see), I think you are correct.

Sgt (Join to see) - One is "too many" and I've heard people brag about certain skill sets they had and when someone asked them how they know about..., they respond: "Oh, I learned it in Iraq", Afghanistan, the army, etc. Abusive husbands/fathers will learn certain holds to use against an enemy and use it on their families. Don't take my word for it - ask the police.
A lot of people enlist because they don't have enough money to move out of the house, to attend college, etc. so enlisting is one of their only options. Again, too many enlist not because they're necessarily patriotic, want to serve their country, want to make the world a better and safer place, etc., but for their own personal gain. And they are (sometimes) the people who continue to use whatever they've learned, for their personal gain. I know the military is often responsible for turning immature, even selfish individuals into men with honor and integrity but the military doesn't always succeed, I'm sad to say.

I'm sure you don't want to believe my statement. I don't want to believe it either, and I wish it wasn't true but whether we believe or not, it's still a reality (not my mindset). Refusing to keep an open mind isn't going to change that.

The military IS for me because I wouldn't use what I learned for evil instead of good. I would be honored to serve my country and try to make the world a better place for everyone. But that doesn't mean I'd say/think everything was fine when I know it isn't.
If we ignore a problem or not believe it exists, it doesn't solve or fix the problem. It usually makes it worse. If the military only wants people who won't speak up when there's a problem, then maybe I shouldn't enlist.
But there's nothing wrong with the military, only those who expect people to not complain when there's a problem (and unfortunately, the military doesn't have a monopoly on that). It's not realistic and if that's the expectations of some members of the armed forces, don't be surprised if more enlisted personnel have to be "deployed twice to cover the gap".
For example, one of the reasons why so many women don't enlist - and a lot of them would be a great asset to any branch of the armed forces - is because, in the past, when enlisted women reported incidences of abuse (by those who were supposed to have their six) to their CO's (and even went up the chain of command), they were (too often) expected to act like there wasn't a problem. That's not realistic and ultimately just gives a bad name to the military.
And this isn't something that just started with the #MeToo movement. I remember watching an Oprah Winfrey show back in the 1990's where women from all branches of the military appeared on her show and told of how they weren't believed (when they reported abuses) and how others in power expected them to act like there wasn't a problem. Even former President Carter addressed this issue on Letterman.

If people in positions of power in the military keep an open mind when problems are reported, the military will get a good reputation and people will want to enlist. Then we won't have to worry about whether to deploy those with 'cyber skills but are lacking in physical fitness or weight standards' because there will (hopefully) be enough deployed men and women to "get the job done".
And I don't need to tell you - you know better than I do - with terrorists in the world and those who hate us and are jealous of us, we have a lot of work to do. We need all the "manpower" we can get.

Mayabelle DuBois - I disagree with you on many of your statements, but you have convinced me that you are serious about enlisting. The military needs tough men and women to fight and win wars. When we are not at war, we need to train hard for the next war, because we have many enemies that want to see America fall. If you remember seeing images of folks celebrating in the streets when they saw the twin towers fall, you will know that I am right. The military is not a social experiment, where we can have anyone that wants to, join regardless of requirements to enlist. You will find many things about the military that you will not like, but learn to pick your battles.