Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Don't really know what to make of this:
42-year-olds now in Pentagon's sightsTo allow this to happen, Congress would have to make changes to Title X (I think that's the one) that specifies the maximum age for entry into the U.S. military.As part of a package of "urgent wartime support initiatives," the Defense Department has requested that Congress raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.
According to a report in the Army Times, the move would raise considerably the age of potential service members. Under current law, the maximum age to enlist in the active components is 35, while people up to age 39 may enlist in the reserves. By practice, the accepted age for recruits is 27 for the Air Force, 28 for the Marine Corps and 34 for the Navy and Army, although the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve sometimes take people up to age 39 in some specialties, the report stated.
At a hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee last month, David S.C. Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said he felt the military's recent problems with recruiting were improving, but that additional incentives would help.
The Times reported Chu did not elaborate on the request to raise the recruitment age and did not mention whether any of the services were seriously considering recruiting 42-year-olds.
Most of the initiatives in the package were previously requested by the Bush administration as part of the 2006 defense budget, which is pending before Congress, and include raises in certain pay bonuses in incentives to help bolster recruiting.
"Recruitment is a challenge right now," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., at the hearing. "Both the military and Congress are working on solutions, but I expect these challenges will be with us for some time. Military service is honorable and can be a real growing opportunity for a young man or woman."
Recruitment goals for most of the months this year have not been met, and military leaders have begun instituting various creative incentives to try to boost the numbers.
The current law(s) basically say that for anyone to go into the military, they cannot be older than 35 years of age and as the article says there are exceptions for specific jobs.
And what is the underlying reason? The person entering military service must be able to attain 20 years service by age 55.
I found this out the difficult way back in the summer of 2000.
I had made calls to the local Navy recruiter about a program the Navy was offering for officer candidates. I was trying to work out a way to make the transfer up here to UCSD and still be able to support my family - and the Navy seemed to have a way for me to do it.
Roughly speaking, the program offered to help support program participants while they attended school. During the program, the participants would be active duty, receive all benefits that an E-5 would receive while they did not have to 'work' for the Navy. The one 'downside' was that if you were in this program, you'd have to foot the bill for school yourself. After you graduated, you'd attend Officer Candidate School and serve for some specific time duration (I cannot recall what it was specifically).
For me, the trouble began the day that I took the placement test. While we (me and the other possible candidates) were waiting for the test results to be graded, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was chit-chatting with us. I made some comment about being 32 or so (bear in mind that this was in 2000). The OIC asked if I had graduated yet; I said no. She then informed me about the 'graduate before you turn 35 years old clause' and how I wouldn't be eligible.
It would seem that my mistake was that I called and talked to some civilian flunky about the requirements. The civvy told me that the age restriction was 35 years old, but that I would get an extension because I had served four years on active duty previously.
And in my research to find a loophole in this requirement was when I learned about Title X and the necessity for anyone entering military service be able to attain 20 years service to be able to receive retirement benefits; they won't let anyone enter the military if they cannot attain retirement. 'It wouldn't be fair' I was told.
So, the Navy said 'no' and that was that. Even my emphasizing that I had previous military service and that the Navy would benefit from me didn't sway them. I was gonna have to find another way to support the family while I went to school.
And it's all academic now: eight months later I was diagnosed with my kidney disease and I'd be ineligible for military service anyways.
It sucked then and it still sucks now, but I guess I have to live with not being in the Navy any longer and just work for the Navy instead.
Well, along with the 18 month enlistment and extra recruiters on the ground you'd think they'd ha
Read more in Age Limitations
Mad Mikey said:
TOMS: That's why I said I wasn't sure what to make of it.
Maybe it's to fulfill recruitme
Read more in Age Limitations
The Other Mike S said:
[Dons fire-proof clothing for upcoming flaming.]
You REALLY don't know why they're doing
Read more in Age Limitations
Davey said:
Actually, I think this will help a lot. When I was an Army Recruiter back in 2002, a lot of olde
Read more in Age Limitations
Trackback Information for Age Limitations
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/107791Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Age Limitations'.
Comments on Age Limitations
Actually, I think this will help a lot. When I was an Army Recruiter back in 2002, a lot of older guys would come in and we had to turn them away because they were too old. It'll help a little, but every little bit helps.
|| Posted by Davey, August 10, 2005 09:19 PM ||[Dons fire-proof clothing for upcoming flaming.]
You REALLY don't know why they're doing this?
They are behind in their recruitment targets. Why are they behind? Because people see two things about Iraq: 1. It's an unwarranted war, or 2. Those that do believe it is a just war see that current soldiers are getting screwed by being forced to do extra tours or are having their stints extended.
Mostly, I believe it's number 1. Most Americans believe we have no business being the cops of the world. We are not, nor were we ever, in danger from anyone or anything in Iraq. Our Constitution allows us to defend ourselves, not other countries in the world. It could be argued that it allows us to defend our allies, as that is in the interest of the US.
None of which were the case with Iraq. The missed recruitment goals are the most "real" opinion poll our government could ever get. Hopefully, they'll listen.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, August 11, 2005 01:25 PM ||TOMS: That's why I said I wasn't sure what to make of it.
Maybe it's to fulfill recruitment goals....maybe it's to retain/procure members that are more 'mature' (I know that when I went into the Navy after just turning 18 years old that I was quite disappointed in the maturity level of some of the people I worked with...)
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, August 11, 2005 04:13 PM ||Well, along with the 18 month enlistment and extra recruiters on the ground you'd think they'd have plenty of boots for Iraq.
Now, if all those young chickenhawks would sign up they'd be set. Of course, they support the war, they just don't think the cause is worth fighting for.
|| Posted by scroff, August 13, 2005 08:44 AM ||