Posted on Jan 26, 2023
What can the DOD do to overcome its recruitment challenges?
133K
412
158
123
123
0
Most agree that the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) is facing historic and possibly unprecedented recruiting challenges. As the AVF turns 50 this July, military and congressional leaders are diagnosing the contributing causes and producing strategies to address them.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, summarized the problem last fall at an oversight hearing she chaired as head of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel.
“By the end of 2022, the active U.S. military will be at its smallest size since the creation of the All-Volunteer Force for which we mark the 50th anniversary next year,” Gillibrand said in opening the Sept. 21 hearing, where service branch officials testified. “All four military services here today have signaled significant concerns about the strength of their recruiting operations and their prospects for success in 2023.”
Why is this the case? Department of Defense (DOD) officials and lawmakers debated some reasons and solutions at December’s Reagan National Defense Forum. The Washington, D.C., event featured comments from:
Gen. David Berger, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.
Gilbert Cisneros, under secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois and an Army reserves Veteran.
Rep. Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin and a Marine Corps Veteran.
Youth less interested in military service
Observers cite the lower interest among young people to serve in the military as one reason for the recruiting deficiencies.
The fifth annual National Defense Survey, which the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute released in late December 2022, found that just 13% of 18- to 29-year-olds are “highly willing” to join the military, 25% are somewhat willing, 20% are not very willing, and about 26% are not willing at all. These and other results are based on interviews of 2,500 Americans conducted Nov. 9-17, 2022.
Trust in the military down
Fewer Americans say they have faith in the military, the Reagan institute survey also found. Just 48% of surveyed respondents said they had a great deal of trust in the military, compared with 70% who said that four years ago. Majorities said they had less confidence in the performance and competence of commanders-in-chief and the civilian military leadership. Other pollsters such as Gallup have found similar erosions in trust in the military.
The military needs to be creative in addressing these and other structural issues driving shortfalls in recruiting, Berger said at the forum and in an article for the U.S. Naval Institute published in November. This includes a long-term decline in the pool of service-eligible Americans who meet physical fitness and health requirements and who can pass the ASVAB, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test.
All of this is occurring in a society that’s more distant from the military, with fewer Americans having familial or community connections to military culture and careers, Berger wrote.
Negative news about an institution that Americans are less familiar with only saps confidence further, he said.
“If the only thing you know about (the military) is what you see on the news, it may not be good,” Berger said at the forum. In his article, he said other factors that have harmed public trust include the character of withdrawal from Afghanistan, military scandals, reports of military sexual assault, and a sense that military skills aren’t relevant to private-sector success.
Some of these perceptions can be shifted, especially now that recruiters can go back to meeting one-on-one with young people at schools, on campuses and in offices. But the old recruiter’s playbook won’t work, Berger and other panelists argued.
Service appeals that resonate with a new generation
Reversing trends in youths’ willingness to serve requires new recruiting strategies and messages that appeal to Generation Z, a cohort that Pew Research Center defines as those born between 1997-2012.
“Simply increasing the advertising budget to amplify existing narratives is unlikely to be effective in the future,” Berger wrote. “The services need new narratives and new vehicles for communicating those narratives.”
One way the military can break through to this generation is to showcase the benefits of military service. “We talk about service and what it does for the country,” Berger said, but less about “what it does for the individual.”
The military can do a better job communicating how even a few years of service can build skills that last a lifetime, he said. And it can demonstrate that service increases a person’s currency in the civilian job market.
Employers want to hire former service members, Berger said, because they know “they’re better citizens, they’re better employees.”
Duckworth said it’s also important to reach the parents of Gen Z, highlighting how service is a viable career path: Their kids “gain lots of experiences” in the military and “they’re going to be ahead of their peers when they come out in terms of a job.”
“That,” she said, is something “I don’t think we’re doing a good job of messaging to the American people.”
The senator noted that most people can understand how an Air Force pilot or medic has a path to a post-military career in aviation or health care. But the public may be less aware of other stepping stones that military service can provide.
Cisneros echoed this, arguing that potential recruits should know that the military can train them for other high-demand and well-paying jobs, including in trades such as in HVAC.
Make the AVF more permeable
The military needs to change how it operates to encourage more people to serve. Berger said it should be “easier to move between active duty and reserve in the civilian sector.”
“We have to make it a much more permeable All-Volunteer Force than we have (had) in the past,” he said. “People should be able to step out for two or three or four years, come back in.”
This would familiarize more people with the military, furthering heightening interest in service, he said.
Other ideas to boost recruiting
Other ideas for improving recruitment mentioned by panelists and in the article included:
Allowing the military to tap private-sector talent without requiring a full-fledged service commitment.
Replicating an Army “pre-boot-camp”-type pilot program that’s preparing young people physically and academically for military service.
Creating more opportunities for women and people of diverse backgrounds to succeed in the military.
Taking better care of service personnel and families by addressing food insecurity and other military quality-of-life issues.
Reforming leave policies to make it easier for women to serve.
Making sure the lower ranks can bring forth policy-change ideas.
Addressing generational gaps in recruitment planning so that strategies keep pace with social change and are relevant to the next generation of service members.
Learn more
Watch the forum discussion: https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/programs/reagan-national-defense-forum/rndf-2022
Read Berger’s piece: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/november/recruiting-requires-bold-changes
Watch the Senate hearing: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-status-of-military-recruiting-and-retention-efforts-across-the-department-of-defense
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, summarized the problem last fall at an oversight hearing she chaired as head of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel.
“By the end of 2022, the active U.S. military will be at its smallest size since the creation of the All-Volunteer Force for which we mark the 50th anniversary next year,” Gillibrand said in opening the Sept. 21 hearing, where service branch officials testified. “All four military services here today have signaled significant concerns about the strength of their recruiting operations and their prospects for success in 2023.”
Why is this the case? Department of Defense (DOD) officials and lawmakers debated some reasons and solutions at December’s Reagan National Defense Forum. The Washington, D.C., event featured comments from:
Gen. David Berger, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.
Gilbert Cisneros, under secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois and an Army reserves Veteran.
Rep. Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin and a Marine Corps Veteran.
Youth less interested in military service
Observers cite the lower interest among young people to serve in the military as one reason for the recruiting deficiencies.
The fifth annual National Defense Survey, which the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute released in late December 2022, found that just 13% of 18- to 29-year-olds are “highly willing” to join the military, 25% are somewhat willing, 20% are not very willing, and about 26% are not willing at all. These and other results are based on interviews of 2,500 Americans conducted Nov. 9-17, 2022.
Trust in the military down
Fewer Americans say they have faith in the military, the Reagan institute survey also found. Just 48% of surveyed respondents said they had a great deal of trust in the military, compared with 70% who said that four years ago. Majorities said they had less confidence in the performance and competence of commanders-in-chief and the civilian military leadership. Other pollsters such as Gallup have found similar erosions in trust in the military.
The military needs to be creative in addressing these and other structural issues driving shortfalls in recruiting, Berger said at the forum and in an article for the U.S. Naval Institute published in November. This includes a long-term decline in the pool of service-eligible Americans who meet physical fitness and health requirements and who can pass the ASVAB, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test.
All of this is occurring in a society that’s more distant from the military, with fewer Americans having familial or community connections to military culture and careers, Berger wrote.
Negative news about an institution that Americans are less familiar with only saps confidence further, he said.
“If the only thing you know about (the military) is what you see on the news, it may not be good,” Berger said at the forum. In his article, he said other factors that have harmed public trust include the character of withdrawal from Afghanistan, military scandals, reports of military sexual assault, and a sense that military skills aren’t relevant to private-sector success.
Some of these perceptions can be shifted, especially now that recruiters can go back to meeting one-on-one with young people at schools, on campuses and in offices. But the old recruiter’s playbook won’t work, Berger and other panelists argued.
Service appeals that resonate with a new generation
Reversing trends in youths’ willingness to serve requires new recruiting strategies and messages that appeal to Generation Z, a cohort that Pew Research Center defines as those born between 1997-2012.
“Simply increasing the advertising budget to amplify existing narratives is unlikely to be effective in the future,” Berger wrote. “The services need new narratives and new vehicles for communicating those narratives.”
One way the military can break through to this generation is to showcase the benefits of military service. “We talk about service and what it does for the country,” Berger said, but less about “what it does for the individual.”
The military can do a better job communicating how even a few years of service can build skills that last a lifetime, he said. And it can demonstrate that service increases a person’s currency in the civilian job market.
Employers want to hire former service members, Berger said, because they know “they’re better citizens, they’re better employees.”
Duckworth said it’s also important to reach the parents of Gen Z, highlighting how service is a viable career path: Their kids “gain lots of experiences” in the military and “they’re going to be ahead of their peers when they come out in terms of a job.”
“That,” she said, is something “I don’t think we’re doing a good job of messaging to the American people.”
The senator noted that most people can understand how an Air Force pilot or medic has a path to a post-military career in aviation or health care. But the public may be less aware of other stepping stones that military service can provide.
Cisneros echoed this, arguing that potential recruits should know that the military can train them for other high-demand and well-paying jobs, including in trades such as in HVAC.
Make the AVF more permeable
The military needs to change how it operates to encourage more people to serve. Berger said it should be “easier to move between active duty and reserve in the civilian sector.”
“We have to make it a much more permeable All-Volunteer Force than we have (had) in the past,” he said. “People should be able to step out for two or three or four years, come back in.”
This would familiarize more people with the military, furthering heightening interest in service, he said.
Other ideas to boost recruiting
Other ideas for improving recruitment mentioned by panelists and in the article included:
Allowing the military to tap private-sector talent without requiring a full-fledged service commitment.
Replicating an Army “pre-boot-camp”-type pilot program that’s preparing young people physically and academically for military service.
Creating more opportunities for women and people of diverse backgrounds to succeed in the military.
Taking better care of service personnel and families by addressing food insecurity and other military quality-of-life issues.
Reforming leave policies to make it easier for women to serve.
Making sure the lower ranks can bring forth policy-change ideas.
Addressing generational gaps in recruitment planning so that strategies keep pace with social change and are relevant to the next generation of service members.
Learn more
Watch the forum discussion: https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/programs/reagan-national-defense-forum/rndf-2022
Read Berger’s piece: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/november/recruiting-requires-bold-changes
Watch the Senate hearing: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-status-of-military-recruiting-and-retention-efforts-across-the-department-of-defense
DoD
Recruit
Recruiting
Training
United States Senate
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 65
43
42
1
It has ups and downs- now the woke crap is in the majority- have no love of country, nor giving for somebody else. Brainwashed, coupled with the fact so many are so out of shape, they are a heart attack waiting to happen. Don't forget parents unable to raise their kids, and send them to drug land. land
(43)
(1)
1SG Mark Rodgers
This "Woke" thing is blown out of proportion by ppl that are idiots! Some of the things or conclusions reached, are reality even for me in the mid 70's. I wanted an occupational opportunity, that's why when they offered me a bonus to be a tank driver I said NO. If it doesn't offer a leg up 2 yrs or 20 later, then it's not worth it.
There is a need to get into their heads early, before they are 19, and show what can benefit them in the long run!
Oh and I graduated at 17, from high school, basic and advanced training before I turned 18. My ASVAB scores were high enough to get recruited while in high school. Knew what I wanted and the military could provide some of it. My career started with me graduating helicopter repairman training, UH-1H, with a 89.7 gpa. I became a crew chief and was in the air over the Korean DMZ for Operation Paul Bunyan. I was short and volunteered to go back up.
Get in their head! But maybe they are scared to die!
There is a need to get into their heads early, before they are 19, and show what can benefit them in the long run!
Oh and I graduated at 17, from high school, basic and advanced training before I turned 18. My ASVAB scores were high enough to get recruited while in high school. Knew what I wanted and the military could provide some of it. My career started with me graduating helicopter repairman training, UH-1H, with a 89.7 gpa. I became a crew chief and was in the air over the Korean DMZ for Operation Paul Bunyan. I was short and volunteered to go back up.
Get in their head! But maybe they are scared to die!
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC Michael Brown
Capt Seid Waddell - Why would you assume that I did not know what it meant? I simply pointed out if this is the only comeback you can come up with to sound like you can make a argument you already lost the debate.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Koa Feliciano
1SG Mark Rodgers - Are you me!? LOL! I did the same. Graduated at 17 and was in the Army (Delayed entry program) at 18. I scored high and elected aviation maintenance Uh-1H Helicopter repairer. Became Crew Chief. Another duty station, floor phased maintenance supervisor. Pushed out in 92 during RIF. Army got rid of Huey's and no longer had need of me, refused to let me transition to anything else such as Black Hawk, Chinook, Apache etc. My son is 24 and wanted to join the military but he's autistic. Recruiter told him no. We have been a military family since the Korean war. The way things are now, I don't blame the younger generation for not wanting to join. The military has changed drastically.
(0)
(0)
23
23
0
I listen to Christian radio and they have interviewed servicemembers who have recently separated from active duty. ALL have said money is being spent on "woke policies". You can't expect people to want to join the military when they know their very faith will be a detriment.
(23)
(0)
SP5 Koa Feliciano
Just give it up. The comments you are receiving already back up your comment on your post.
(2)
(0)
SPC David C.
Since so many of you are completely clueless to what Shoafstall was saying, allow me to educate you. Because infantry is what I know, I'll use that as my first example. As infantry, anything that is not specific to killing the enemy, or that can be applied to combat, is a waste of time. That means mandatory training on how to address ANYONE by pronouns. If I have a rank and a name, use one or the other. Not a fucking pronoun...WOKE as fuck. Recruitment efforts specific to transgendered persons...less than .003% of the US population, who obviously have mental health issues, that takes money away from training for war. WOKE as fuck. The military paying for transgender surgeries and medications that guarantees that service member is non-deployable during times of war...WOKE as fuck. The military changing PT standards, because select social groups politicians want in specific job roles but can't meet the standard. WOKE as fuck. Taking tens of millions of dollars away from training and equipment to change base names...WOKE as fuck. Service women being told to "toughen up" when they don't want to share shower facilities with male transgendered soldiers...WOKE as fuck. Required cyber training on domestic abuse...Yeah, because THAT'LL stop some abusive asshole from being an abusive asshole. If you don't know not to beat a woman before you go in, a 10 minute exercise in mouse clicking isn't going to change anything. Those are but a few examples. For those of you who attacked Shoafstall and completely twisted what he posted, I can forgive your ignorance, I won't forgive your cowardice or laziness in accepting these policies because you're morally weak or bankrupt.
(5)
(0)
CW3 Donald Mann
“WOKE as fuck” . . . Yep, you sure are.
“Morally weak or bankrupt?” Yep, you sure are.
“We” don’t want or need your forgiveness. And “we” are not ignorant . . . but it does appear that you are. Nor are “we” cowards or lazy by accepting these policies.
“Woke” is not a pejorative. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “woke”: “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”
As you vulgarly use the term: “often used in contexts that suggest someone's expressed beliefs about such matters are not backed with genuine concern or action.”
Being Infantry, I would think being “woke” would be an asset, especially in combat. I would hope you would be “aware” of your position and surroundings.
Now, as to your legitimate and vocabulary correct concerns . . . You seem to be a strongly biased gun toter who thinks the rest of the military MOS are insignificant and inconsequential, or as you said, “anything that is not specific to killing the enemy, or that can be applied to combat, is a waste of time”.
So, Mr. Expert on military “wokeness”, educate us. Don’t all those other MOS exist to support the Combat Arms (infantry, armor, artillery, etc)? You need the cooks (to feed you), mechanics, admin personnel (to keep your pay, leave squared away), supply (beans and bullets), truck drivers, pilots and aviation mechanics, computer geeks, engineers, electricians, doctors, nurses, medics, generator operators, lawyers . . . you know, all the same folks in the civilian world that keep society functioning. Those same folks are necessary to keep the military functioning, too.
Not everyone is a macho hero special forces wannabe racist misogynist like you appear to be. But that’s OK . . . We need everyone to fill the necessary jobs to keep the military functioning well. Why do you care who processes your paycheck as long as you get it on time? Why do you care who runs the warehouses or delivers your bullets or washes your uniforms or keeps the water running in your showers or keeps the parts coming to maintain your tanks and trucks? What difference does it make if any of those soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are “different” in any physical way than you as long as they are capable of doing their job and do it at least as well as you do yours? The obvious answer is that those “woke” are among your myriad personal biases and dislikes, therefore deserving of your hate and rage and are unacceptable . . . and should not be allowed to serve their country in whatever capacity they are willing and capable.
Perhaps if your mother and father taught you how to treat everyone the way you want to be treated the military would not need to train you in such basic human get along with everyone skills and traits. You know, respect, empathy, compassion, teamwork. Those are not weaknesses. You are no better than anyone else and deserve no more respect and dignity than what you give to others. Your job and job related skill are not in question. Hopefully the military recognizes and positions and promotes you according to your merit and capabilities, not your gender, race, ethnicity, or religious or political beliefs.
Now then, if “recruitment efforts specific to transgendered persons...less than .003% of the US population” is true . . .then it’s gotta be a similar .003% of the military population, and therefore can’t be a significant amount of money taken away from training for war.
And as an infantryman, I’m sure your training for war makes you an expert on their mental health issues.
“The military changing PT standards, because select social groups politicians want in specific job roles but can't meet the standard.” I, myself, was a helicopter pilot in the Army, then a city cop in a large department for 25 years. I was the department RangeMaster and also trained in the academy. I was dismayed by the lowering of PT standards, but that was the only way to get enough “qualified” recruits (both male and female). But I will tell you, I found several women and blacks and other ethnic minorities and even a few homosexuals that I would rather have backing me up in a dangerous situation than many of the white misogynistic men that were hired. Attitude, ethics, courage, common sense, as well as training was more critical than their pronouns or gender or ethnicity or religion. We all bled “blue”. It really does not matter what a person “is” as long as they can do the job assigned.
Your comment on cyber training on domestic abuse . . . you are correct . . . a 10 minute exercise in mouse clicking isn't going to change anything. That abusive asshole should never have been recruited . . . those men truly have mental health issues inconsistent with any job in the military or civilian society. But if you exclude that demographic, you would lose a sizable segment of the misogynist white male population who are actually attracted to the military. The military knows this, hence the need for the domestic abuse training. BTW . . . I know this because of my 25 years as a white male cop . . . a disproportionate number of domestic violence abusers are white males, and frequently substance abusers as well. They are also misogynists (feel superior to women and treat them as less than equal) and have anger issues.
By the way . . . where do you get your information that the government is taking tens of millions of dollars away from training and equipment to change base names? And why should military bases be named honoring traitors to the United States of America?
Again . . . Thank You . . . for educating us on being “WOKE as fuck.”
“Morally weak or bankrupt?” Yep, you sure are.
“We” don’t want or need your forgiveness. And “we” are not ignorant . . . but it does appear that you are. Nor are “we” cowards or lazy by accepting these policies.
“Woke” is not a pejorative. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “woke”: “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”
As you vulgarly use the term: “often used in contexts that suggest someone's expressed beliefs about such matters are not backed with genuine concern or action.”
Being Infantry, I would think being “woke” would be an asset, especially in combat. I would hope you would be “aware” of your position and surroundings.
Now, as to your legitimate and vocabulary correct concerns . . . You seem to be a strongly biased gun toter who thinks the rest of the military MOS are insignificant and inconsequential, or as you said, “anything that is not specific to killing the enemy, or that can be applied to combat, is a waste of time”.
So, Mr. Expert on military “wokeness”, educate us. Don’t all those other MOS exist to support the Combat Arms (infantry, armor, artillery, etc)? You need the cooks (to feed you), mechanics, admin personnel (to keep your pay, leave squared away), supply (beans and bullets), truck drivers, pilots and aviation mechanics, computer geeks, engineers, electricians, doctors, nurses, medics, generator operators, lawyers . . . you know, all the same folks in the civilian world that keep society functioning. Those same folks are necessary to keep the military functioning, too.
Not everyone is a macho hero special forces wannabe racist misogynist like you appear to be. But that’s OK . . . We need everyone to fill the necessary jobs to keep the military functioning well. Why do you care who processes your paycheck as long as you get it on time? Why do you care who runs the warehouses or delivers your bullets or washes your uniforms or keeps the water running in your showers or keeps the parts coming to maintain your tanks and trucks? What difference does it make if any of those soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are “different” in any physical way than you as long as they are capable of doing their job and do it at least as well as you do yours? The obvious answer is that those “woke” are among your myriad personal biases and dislikes, therefore deserving of your hate and rage and are unacceptable . . . and should not be allowed to serve their country in whatever capacity they are willing and capable.
Perhaps if your mother and father taught you how to treat everyone the way you want to be treated the military would not need to train you in such basic human get along with everyone skills and traits. You know, respect, empathy, compassion, teamwork. Those are not weaknesses. You are no better than anyone else and deserve no more respect and dignity than what you give to others. Your job and job related skill are not in question. Hopefully the military recognizes and positions and promotes you according to your merit and capabilities, not your gender, race, ethnicity, or religious or political beliefs.
Now then, if “recruitment efforts specific to transgendered persons...less than .003% of the US population” is true . . .then it’s gotta be a similar .003% of the military population, and therefore can’t be a significant amount of money taken away from training for war.
And as an infantryman, I’m sure your training for war makes you an expert on their mental health issues.
“The military changing PT standards, because select social groups politicians want in specific job roles but can't meet the standard.” I, myself, was a helicopter pilot in the Army, then a city cop in a large department for 25 years. I was the department RangeMaster and also trained in the academy. I was dismayed by the lowering of PT standards, but that was the only way to get enough “qualified” recruits (both male and female). But I will tell you, I found several women and blacks and other ethnic minorities and even a few homosexuals that I would rather have backing me up in a dangerous situation than many of the white misogynistic men that were hired. Attitude, ethics, courage, common sense, as well as training was more critical than their pronouns or gender or ethnicity or religion. We all bled “blue”. It really does not matter what a person “is” as long as they can do the job assigned.
Your comment on cyber training on domestic abuse . . . you are correct . . . a 10 minute exercise in mouse clicking isn't going to change anything. That abusive asshole should never have been recruited . . . those men truly have mental health issues inconsistent with any job in the military or civilian society. But if you exclude that demographic, you would lose a sizable segment of the misogynist white male population who are actually attracted to the military. The military knows this, hence the need for the domestic abuse training. BTW . . . I know this because of my 25 years as a white male cop . . . a disproportionate number of domestic violence abusers are white males, and frequently substance abusers as well. They are also misogynists (feel superior to women and treat them as less than equal) and have anger issues.
By the way . . . where do you get your information that the government is taking tens of millions of dollars away from training and equipment to change base names? And why should military bases be named honoring traitors to the United States of America?
Again . . . Thank You . . . for educating us on being “WOKE as fuck.”
(1)
(0)
19
19
0
Excellent post. Thank You for sharing this. I think one way would that the Navy never should've came with that High Year Tenure stuff. A lot of active duty Navy Sailors were involuntarily seperated. The same went for the Navy Reserves. I knew a lot of active duty Sailors who were involuntarily seperated. And one E-8 Senior Chied in the Navy Reserves who was involuntarily seperated. Ironically, He was planning to retire as well. The same goes with the active duty Army. They call it Retention Control Program or something by that name. Now, recruiters are having a hard time recruiting individuals.
(19)
(0)
CW4 Don Nicholas
Sort of like the "up or out" program that looks good on paper but overlooks that a good SFC might not be an effective 1st Sgt.
(0)
(0)
SFC Gene Garcia
RCP retention control points are placed for a reason, if you are not bettering yourself and getting promoted why does the military want to carry dead weight.
(1)
(0)
A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney
SFC Gene Garcia -
Normally Gene I'd Agree With You; But If You Look On My Shoulders You'll Only See 2 Lousy Stripes Because Uncle Sam Had Me Working In Various Fields Outside My AFSC.
Now Then That's Done To An E-3 Or Anyone Else For That Matter, How Could I Be Rated? I Wasn't Working In My Field, I Was Under A Different Command Whom Couldn't Rate Job Performance In My ASFSC, Because I Wasn't Working In It, I Was Working For Them, And My ASFC Was In A Different Field. When I Left The USAF I'd Almost Bet I Had The Most Time-In-Grade As An E-3 Than Anyone Else In The USAF ~ And I Didn't Even Get A "Participation Trophy" ~ LMAO~ And I LOVED Every Minute Of It! ~
Sorry Uncle Sam, NO REFUNDS On That Deal.
Normally Gene I'd Agree With You; But If You Look On My Shoulders You'll Only See 2 Lousy Stripes Because Uncle Sam Had Me Working In Various Fields Outside My AFSC.
Now Then That's Done To An E-3 Or Anyone Else For That Matter, How Could I Be Rated? I Wasn't Working In My Field, I Was Under A Different Command Whom Couldn't Rate Job Performance In My ASFSC, Because I Wasn't Working In It, I Was Working For Them, And My ASFC Was In A Different Field. When I Left The USAF I'd Almost Bet I Had The Most Time-In-Grade As An E-3 Than Anyone Else In The USAF ~ And I Didn't Even Get A "Participation Trophy" ~ LMAO~ And I LOVED Every Minute Of It! ~
Sorry Uncle Sam, NO REFUNDS On That Deal.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google