Army Requests Recruitment Age Be Lifted to 42

Well, if this goes through a lot of us old fogies will have a shot at joining in the GWOT. What's interesting is that the request would apply to all branches of the military -- so you could have a 42 year old enlisting in the Marine Corps. Bad idea? Good idea?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Uncle Sam wants you – even if you’re 42 years old

By Rick Maze
Army Times staff writer

The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.

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 Pentagon’s request to raise the maximum recruit age to 42 is part of what defense officials are calling a package of “urgent wartime support initiatives” sent to Congress Monday night prior to a Tuesday hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.

At that hearing, 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.

Chu mentioned the age change in passing during the hearing but gave no other details, such as 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. They include raising the maximum re-enlistment bonus to $90,000; maximum hardship duty pay to $750 a month; special pay and incentive bonuses for nuclear qualified officers to $30,000; assignment incentive pay to $3,000; and increasing accession and affiliation bonuses for reservists.

The request, not yet approved by the White House, also asks lawmakers to revise some benefits proposals already before Congress.

For example, the Bush administration originally asked Congress to increase enlistment bonuses to $30,000, but the Pentagon now wants bonuses of up to $40,000.

The administration also asked for an Army-only test of a $1,000 referral bonus that would be paid to current soldiers if they get someone to enter the Army and make it through basic and advanced training. Now, the Pentagon wants that payment to be $2,500.

The request also includes a new Army initiative that officials are calling the Army Home Ownership program. It would set aside money for new recruits that could be used to buy a home at the end of an enlistment, an idea that Army officials believe will help convince parents and other “adult influencers” of service-age youths about the benefits of joining the military.

Lawmakers are sympathetic to the need to do more. Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., said he is willing to look at new pay-and-benefits initiatives, although he personally believes that what the Pentagon needs is an increase in personnel to cut the workload on active and reserve service member.

Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas, the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, also vowed to help.

“Recruitment is a challenge right now,” Snyder said. “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.”

can the majority of 42 year old´s even survive marine boot camp?

:laugh4:

My dad could have, although 15 years on he's got a bad back, knees and shoulder.

In Britain the maximum age is something like 27. I guess its all part of the downsizing thing.

This only makes sense at a time when over health of this age group has greatly increased. Retirement ages and life expectancy have both increased dramatically over the last few decades, so a raise on the military's cap is just common sense.
These people would still have to pass all of the normal physical requirements, so who cares what age they are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

can the majority of 42 year old´s even survive marine boot camp?

:laugh4:

---

I doubt I could, but it might be the only way I'd manage to lose these extra 10 pounds. Would I be allowed to wear a knee brace the whole time?

Not really sure what the point of this is. I know they are not meeting the recruitment quotas, but this can't be cost effective. I would think that you would get more dropouts and medical problems with older recruits, and they won't have that invincible mentality young kids have and new troops need. I guess if someone is willing to give it a go, he/she may as well get the chance though.

If they really want troops to fight an unpopular war, there is really only one way to go about it. It rhymes with daft and is synonymous with political suicide.

I could probably survive boot camp, emphasis on the "probably" part. I wonder if there are enough fit under-43-year-olds to make this a meaningful bump in recruitment? Does anybody think this will mean a jump in numbers?

I think its great. :2thumbsup:

Its because the general American youg person does not want to be part of the Military. I have no clue why, besides the administration they have. Such a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

This only makes sense at a time when over health of this age group has greatly increased. Retirement ages and life expectancy have both increased dramatically over the last few decades, so a raise on the military's cap is just common sense.
These people would still have to pass all of the normal physical requirements, so who cares what age they are?

---

Bingo. It's a volunteer force- if you're and good health, able to perform the required tasks and willing to sign up... then hat's off to ya. :bow:

Getting desperate are we?

Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Its because the general American youg person does not want to be part of the Military.

---

Quite a lot of people don't fancy the idea of getting their brains blown out for a somewhat vague cause. Hell I'm not to keen on the idea if the enemy was 100% pure unrefined evil and they'd invaded an innocent country full of puppies and kittens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertgregoor

Getting desperate are we?

Good.

---

I was wondering who was gonna go this route here. Was it desperation when females were allowed in? Or homosexuals?

One more time: Who cares what age they are if they can pass all the physical and mental requirements?

I'd take a grizzled, fit, and 58 year old veteran who can carry his weight over a noodle-armed, computer enthusiast who doesn't know which way the round comes out of an M-16 any day of the week.

Desperation would be drafting 42 year olds. Give me a break.

No. That I didn't say, now did I?

I was just dreaming my pride American.

but he should only worked for a time. until 47?

Last I checked, most enlistment terms are three or five years. So a 42-year-old would not be required to serve past 47, unless she/he were caught in a "stop loss" situation. Looks as though this could really work.

When the draft comes for us old farts, I'm joining the Coast Guard. Actually, if they take me, they WILL be getting desparate. I got rejected by the Navy the day before I signed on the dotted line, due to a heart murmur. I didn't think it was any big deal, but the corpsman did say I could have issues with it. Mind you, this was 1988... they were trying to steer people OUT Of the service in those days.

They've also reduced the physical aspects of basic training.

Its obvious they are really scrapping the bottom of the barrell here.
First

well my uncle who lives in america is 42 and is a seargent major in the marine corps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Its obvious they are really scrapping the bottom of the barrell here.

---

I don't think that's the obvious conclusion. People in their thirties and forties can be astonishingly fit, and they might bring a level of cool and calm that would be very welcome in an environment like Iraq. Eighteen year olds full of testosterone aren't what you want for every situation.

I think it's a good move for a host of reasons.

Fit 42-year-olds?

No, I'd rather have people without fully developed minds who can't rent cars in most areas.

Crazed Rabbit

"Whom can we send?....Here am I, send me" (Book of Isaiah)

As a somewhat fit 47 year old, who has served my country for around 27 years, I would say that if someone in their 40's is able to complete Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training, then he or she should by all means be welcome. While I am not able to serve in the frontline infantry as I once did, I am still very able to make a contribution in the Aviation Logistics field as a mechanic. I still retain most of my infantry defensive skills, and feel I would be able to handle myself in most combat situations. My knees, admitedly, are not what they used to be, but I can still maintain a good roadmarch pace of 4 miles an hour with my combat gear on. One of the things that older soldiers have learned is to pace themselves for the long haul. Younger soldiers tend to over-achieve in the short term, and often fail to keep a reserve of strength.

I sure do miss my days of running 6 minute miles and being able to leap a tall building in a single bound. :laugh4:

Let em' join up if they are able. If it is a sign of desperation, then let's rethink our strategy, but don't discriminate against the middle aged if they are willing to serve.

PS: I pity the fool who thinks that I'm gonna take off running when it gets tough. As I can no longer run as fast, I am that much more determined to stand my ground and fight. I'll let the other guy get tired.

There is a reason they put guys like us in the Triarii line. ~;)

To get this, one must understand the mentality of those proposing it. They, believe with all sincerity, that by showing a need to raise the age of volunteering ... it will somehow shame those of the real age they seek to volunteer. Dumb (in the knowings of the lower classes), ignorant (of the middleclasses), unwilling to allow their own kids fight for their nation, were unwilling to fight for it themselves - so it seems reasonable to these turds that by showing an extreme need will increase the enlistment rate.

The real reason? Well, I just opened a thread on it - and it is about allowing people of other nations (especially India) to get instant citizenship. That is the real reason, to expand our Imperialism by stealing the best of the growing 3rd world industrializing nations. It is a brilliant plan, if you think about it. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

To get this, one must understand the mentality of those proposing it. They, believe with all sincerity, that by showing a need to raise the age of volunteering ... it will somehow shame those of the real age they seek to volunteer. Dumb (in the knowings of the lower classes), ignorant (of the middleclasses), unwilling to allow their own kids fight for their nation, were unwilling to fight for it themselves - so it seems reasonable to these turds that by showing an extreme need will increase the enlistment rate.

The real reason? Well, I just opened a thread on it - and it is about allowing people of other nations (especially India) to get instant citizenship. That is the real reason, to expand our Imperialism by stealing the best of the growing 3rd world industrializing nations. It is a brilliant plan, if you think about it. :balloon2:

---

Reminds me during the Roman Imperialism how men from conquered nations found citizenship through the army. Alot of people think america is like rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

Reminds me during the Roman Imperialism how men from conquered nations found citizenship through the army. Alot of people think america is like rome.

---

The only problem I see with that is that Rome eventually fell! In many ways America is similar to Rome. Similar mind you, not the same.

Yes the US will be forever.~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

To get this, one must understand the mentality of those proposing it. They, believe with all sincerity, that by showing a need to raise the age of volunteering ... it will somehow shame those of the real age they seek to volunteer. Dumb (in the knowings of the lower classes), ignorant (of the middleclasses), unwilling to allow their own kids fight for their nation, were unwilling to fight for it themselves - so it seems reasonable to these turds that by showing an extreme need will increase the enlistment rate.
..............

---

Shame younger men into joining up? Hardly.
The military simply needs more warm bodies. They have relaxed academic requirements, physical and mental aptitude testing along with relaxed medical and prior drug/misdemeneour offenses. Relaxing age requirements is simply another case of allowing more people to join up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks as though this could really work.

---

of course it can. :balloon2: