Avatar feed
Responses: 5
MCPO Roger Collins
6
6
0
I’m fine with this, but wonder why a bunch of politicians should be defining who should be a member. It would seem that their Board of Directors would make this decision.
(6)
Comment
(0)
1SG Retired
1SG (Join to see)
5 y
Only because it was chartered by Congress, so the law had to be changed. 36 U.S. Code § 21703. Membership.
(2)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
5 y
1SG (Join to see) So, the law that changed this statute couldn’t be modified to permit the senior leadership to manage eligibility for membership?
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG Retired
1SG (Join to see)
5 y
MCPO Roger Collins I was only responding to the question posed.
I don't oppose it, but I'm not familiar enough with charters by Congress. I suppose they could have changed it over the years, but haven't, and I don't know their reasoning.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
5 y
1SG (Join to see) What question? My comment started with, “I wonder.....
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 John Johnson
4
4
0
Almost every AL Post I've been to allows active and retired in for a couple of barley pops, without having to join, so what was the big deal in the first place?
(4)
Comment
(0)
MSgt Danny Hope
MSgt Danny Hope
5 y
My have something to do with membership discounts
(1)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
5 y
The AL has to find a way to grow membership or cease to exist. An honorable discharge should be the only requirement. Next, find some younger leadership to draw in members to replace those that served with Methuselah. It’s a matter of survival.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Capt Daniel Goodman
3
3
0
Obv good....
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close