Army can't recruit- Lowers its Standards

Original Article:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true

Quote:

---

Marines Hit Recruiting Goal, Won't Lower Bar
By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer


SAN DIEGO — Unlike the Army, the Marine Corps met its national recruiting goals for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 and has no plans to lower its standards for recruits, officials said.

The Marine Corps achieved 102% of its goal for enlistments in the reserves and 100% of its goal for active-duty enlistments, according to figures released by the Defense Department.

The Army's figures were 84% for the Army Reserve, 80% for the National Guard, and 92% for its active-duty force. As the nation's largest service, the Army needs to attract a larger number of recruits than the Marine Corps, the Navy or the Air Force.

To aid in its recruitment program, the Army announced last week that it had increased from 2% to 4% the percentage of recruits it would accept who score near the bottom of the military aptitude test, so-called Category IV recruits.

The Marine Corps will continue restricting Category IV recruits to 1% of the total, officials said.

Also, Army officials said they were lowering from 67% to 60% the Army's goal for signing recruits who scored in the top half on the aptitude test.

The Marine goal remains 63%. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 69.5% of Marine recruits scored in the top half of the test, said Master Sgt. James Edwards of the recruiting command at Quantico, Va.

---

That is a real shame. At least we can count on the Marine Corps. According to this article you have to be smarter, on average, in order to earn the title United States Marine. ~:cheers:

becuase no one wants to be in army USME NC BABY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

becuase no one wants to be in army USME NC BABY

---

USME NC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Original Article:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true



That is a real shame. At least we can count on the Marine Corps. According to this article you have to be smarter, on average, in order to earn the title United States Marine. ~:cheers:

---

No it doesn't as it doesn't say how hard the tests are.

When I took the aptitude test for the RN it wasn't all that hard, name and date were the toughest.

Yes, but the Royal Navy has been lowering its standards since it let women in in 1991. A good few in my school will be applying/have applied to Her Majesty's Royal Marines, and they go on and on about how hard the three day test is damned hard, and that very few get in. They also have a list of things to apply to if they don't get in -- it goes: HM Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment, then our local regiment the 42nd the Black Watch The Royal Highland Regiment.

By-the-by, does the US Army let women join the combat arms -- the Infantry and the Cavalry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

USME NC?

---

United States Marine Core No Contest Baby

Quote:

---

No it doesn't as it doesn't say how hard the tests are.

---

It's the same test for all U.S. military branches. Its called the ASVAB, Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery.

Anything to take a dig at the Army now it seems. ~:eek: :dizzy2:

What isn't taken into consideration article nor in your comment is the size of both organizations - nor that the Catergory IV's are normally restricted from certain MOS's. Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineers and yes certian Field Artillery MOS don't accept the Catergory IV scores because the requirements. Now there is a percentage of 13B that is catergory IV - but 13F, 13C, 13E, and 13M were not accepting Catergory IVs when I served. Now if you can find an article that states the GT score requirements for those MOSs have been lowered - then I just might get concerned

Now the cooks, the supply clerks, and other such MOS will use the Catergory IV - just like they have always done.

The only part of the article that strikes my concern is this statement

Quote:

---

Also, Army officials said they were lowering from 67% to 60% the Army's goal for signing recruits who scored in the top half on the aptitude test

---

That is more troubling then any other part of the article. However that could be soley an indication that the economy is recovering for now along with the pressure of an armed conflict ongoing on the recruitment effort, therefor the Army is adjusting the goal so that the recruiters can have an slightly easier mission goal - verus a standard. Notice that it was a goal not a requirment - that also indicits that its an adjustable measure based upon the situation. Just like in civilian production I have standards that must be meet - and I have goals that the company would like us to achieve. Sometimes the goals must be adjusted to meet realistic expectations of the environment that one is faced with.


http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20051011-4881.html

http://www.army.mil/recruitingandretention/

Quote:

---

• The active-duty Army closed the fiscal year at 108 percent of its retention mission. The goal was to re-enlist 64,162 Soldiers and 69,512 Soldiers actually reenlisted.
• The Army Reserve closed out fiscal year 2005 at 102 percent of its retention mission, with 16,485 Soldiers reenlisting. The goal was to retain 16,248 Soldiers.
• The Army National Guard finished 2005 at 104 percent. The Guard reenlisted 33,804 Soldiers, surpassing its goal by 1,233.

---

Now its not all gloom or doom as some would like you to believe.

adjusting to their market supply is not problematic.

hey, anything beats a draft.

Oh, you meant smarter than the average squaddie, fair enough thought you meant smarter then the national average. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What isn't taken into consideration article nor in your comment is the size of both organizations - nor that the Catergory IV's are normally restricted from certain MOS's. Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineers and yes certian Field Artillery MOS don't accept the Catergory IV scores because the requirements. Now there is a percentage of 13B that is catergory IV - but 13F, 13C, 13E, and 13M were not accepting Catergory IVs when I served. Now if you can find an article that states the GT score requirements for those MOSs have been lowered - then I just might get concerned

Now the cooks, the supply clerks, and other such MOS will use the Catergory IV - just like they have always done.

---

I was thinking of you when I found this Redleg.~D


As a matter of fact, the size of the organization is mentioned, just not in the first portion that I posted.

I hear ya on the retarded support guys. It seems like everytime you want leave processed or your pay fixed, some complete moron loses the paperwork. I can't tell you how fed up I am with incompetent admin Marines. Best combined arms force in the United States, but we can't figure out how to file paperwork. Thank god we are giving all those jobs to civilians. Half the admin jobs and cook jobs and other base crap have gone civilian.

Sometimes I do want to take that commission, get out into the grunts, and have some fun with the smarter guys.~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I was thinking of you when I found this Redleg.~D


As a matter of fact, the size of the organization is mentioned, just not in the first portion that I posted.

---

Well your link took me to a paper that I would have to register for - no thanks especially that paper. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

I hear ya on the retarded support guys. It seems like everytime you want leave processed or your pay fixed, some complete moron loses the paperwork. I can't tell you how fed up I am with incompetent admin Marines. Best combined arms force in the United States, but we can't figure out how to file paperwork. Thank god we are giving all those jobs to civilians. Half the admin jobs and cook jobs and other base crap have gone civilian.

Sometimes I do want to take that commission, get out into the grunts, and have some fun with the smarter guys.~D

---

And now you know why I am not to worried about Category IV soldiers - they can not mess it up anymore then any of the other admin soldiers that I have seen.

BTW since I commanded a Service Battery in a Field Artillery Battalion - guess how many of them I got to serve with. Many are no worse then the average soldier.

I'm sorry, but they're called... "Category IV"s??

.

.

Look out, we've got a Category III on the firing range, whuh oh-- he just downgraded to a Category IV!! Everybody hit the dirt!!

.

.

~:handball:

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I'm sorry, but they're called... "Category IV"s??

---

Welcome to the world of military jargon and expectations. Yes their are 4 Categories that the Military breaks people into based upon not only the ASVAB, but education and even criminal record.

Quote:

---

Look out, we've got a Category III on the firing range, whuh oh-- he just downgraded to a Category IV!! Everybody hit the dirt!!

---

Once you are in - the enlistment category no longer applies - If you become familiar with how the GT score works in regards to the MOS - its not hard to figure out who was a Category IV enlistment. Knowning thier education level also helps

There is not anything surprising about this really. Our mindset as a nation is not big on acting as an occupational force. It's got to be tough recruiting when even those least likely to be "keeping up with current events" realize they are likely to end up as part of an occupational force dodging shrapnel from IED's and mortars, or bullets from sniping style attacks. It's not the sort of fight that anyone really wants, trying to pick out booby traps and insurgents among the civilian populace.

The Marines should have an easier time recruiting. I expect the Army to feel the pinch first partly because of size, but also due to mindest. The more gung ho/hardcore types have traditionally gone Marine in recent decades. Certainly that is why my family went Marine in WWII. Patriotic to a fault, they wanted to crush the Japanese for the attack on Pearl Harbor rather than the Germans, so they went island hopping with the Marines.

I don't see that the Army had much in the way of options other than easing the standards. The other choice would be offering more financial incentive, but that requires govt action via the budget process I think.

I've been reading of high casualty rates in Iraq for quite awhile (remember seeing a report on a guy who had been wounded in something like 3 or more bombings.) In that vein, a marine battalion of 900 arrived home earlier this month after suffering 198 casualties (48 fatalities) during their tour. That's pretty high.

if anyone has cause to complain, it's the sergeants at boot camp.

As long that the low quality recruits don't get combined into units of their own then there shouldn't be much problem yet. The low scoring men would then be mixed into units where the rest would sort of teach them as they go. They would sort of make up for their lack.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, but intelligence and physical ability does help. But as long as all are strong enough, and most are intelligent enough then there would be no drop really as the intelligent recruits would rub off their abilities onto the few less fortunate recruits.

At some point a critical mass will be reached, but I doubt it less than 10%.

I hear ya on the retarded support guys.
Oh my , and where is that banstick~:eek:

Now its not all gloom or doom as some would like you to believe.
Now Red , those figures , would those be the revised targets that they came up with after they realised they were not going to reach their original targets ?

Like for example , if I was to do a job and aim to get $1000 dollars out of it by the end of the day , yet at lunchtime after running into a few problems thought that maybe I wasn't going to meet the deadline , so then said OK maybe I will cut my losses and get $800 by the end of the day .
Then at the end of the day ended up with $850 , would that be better or worse than I had expected when I made my requirements for doing the job in the first place ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I hear ya on the retarded support guys.
Oh my , and where is that banstick~:eek:

---

No no no. You have it backwards. We can call people retards. That's good juju, baby!


We just can't whine about it when someone else does it.

ALL WHINING MUST CEASE LEST DARTH SOLY CUTTETH YOU WITH HIS BAN-SABER.

We just can't whine about it when someone else does it.

Its funny , I was at a wedding recently and my wife made a comment about me spending too much time "debating" on internet forums and someone made the Special Oympics joke directed at me .
But he is a Special Olympiad (as well as competing in the the Paralympics) and works for a disabled rights group .
So should I have been offended , or was he offended , or should I have been offended on his behalf , or AAAGGHHHHH!!!!!! its all too confusing ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman
[B

Now its not all gloom or doom as some would like you to believe.[/B]
Now Red , those figures , would those be the revised targets that they came up with after they realised they were not going to reach their original targets ?

---

Care to guess how many times the retention goal moved up and down while I was in command - or how much it can shift based upon the projections of the military. Or how about when units are activated or de-activated. Lots of things adjust the retention and the recruiting goals - that is why they are called Goals something that is adjustable depending upon all the forces that are involved.

Quote:

---

Like for example , if I was to do a job and aim to get $1000 dollars out of it by the end of the day , yet at lunchtime after running into a few problems thought that maybe I wasn't going to meet the deadline , so then said OK maybe I will cut my losses and get $800 by the end of the day .
Then at the end of the day ended up with $850 , would that be better or worse than I had expected when I made my requirements for doing the job in the first place ?

---

Not the same scenerio - but I expect that you know that already.

Its not just that you could not meet the production deadline because of problems - its that many outside forces have forced changes onto your organization - and adjustments have to be made to insure some level of operational readiness - What I imaged happened is that the Military initially planned on trying to get the personal manning to a certain amount - then and then adjusted back as the year progressed.

BTW my company adjusts its profit expectations and workforce by quarter to meet the conditions of the market, to meet the expectations of the shareholder, and for cost restrictions. Are you attempting to state because its the military that they must have hard and set numbers to meet that are not adjustable from when the initial estimates and goals are set 12-18 monthes before the end of the reporting period one is looking at?

Ah but Red , when there is a massive drive to increase recruitment and retention at a time of need , when bonuses are being increased and extra measures implemented to fulfil that need , then downsizing your requirement because you know you cannot meet the requirement is not adjusting to requirements . It is cooking the figures to make them look better .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but Red , when there is a massive drive to increase recruitment and retention at a time of need , when bonuses are being increased and extra measures implemented to fulfil that need , then downsizing your requirement because you know you cannot meet the requirement is not adjusting to requirements . It is cooking the figures to make them look better .

---

Only to those who are cynic in nature about what they believe the organization is up to.

The adjustment of Recruiting and Retention numbers happen every year - again business as usual - the problem is that many never bothered to pay attention to the data until a conflict came up.

You might be right - or you might be wrong - but it seems that you are only focusing on the now - without realizing that this adjustment happens every year since before I got into the service because guess what its an all volunteer force.

For instance one year I had a retention goal of 8 Specialists and below, 3 mid-career Sergeants and 1 senior sergeant. This was in 1997.

I retained 6 Specialists, 4 mid-career Sergeants, and 2 Senior Sergeants - and was given a retention rating of over 100% for my battery. Obviousily I didn't make all of my goals but I was given 100% credit for meeting them since I exceeded in two areas.

Now for some articles that paint the picture a little better

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...50317_232.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...050303_81.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...50414_609.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...0610-3621.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2...0626_1856.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...0711-3941.html


Now if you bother to read all of those releases it shows that the goal has been adjusted several times to include a 30,000 expansion of personal. This expanision I know happened in part because of a new re-organziation of the Army effecting serval installations.

So the requirment was increased during the year and then decreased - again not the cooked book anology that you are attempting here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah but Red , when there is a massive drive to increase recruitment and retention at a time of need , when bonuses are being increased and extra measures implemented to fulfil that need , then downsizing your requirement because you know you cannot meet the requirement is not adjusting to requirements . It is cooking the figures to make them look better .

---

Now if you really want to know what figures are cooked up to make everything look better - its not recruiting and retention goals its something else. Lets see if you can guess the report that always includes cooked figures to make things look better.

casualties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now if you really want to know what figures are cooked up to make everything look better - its not recruiting and retention goals its something else. Lets see if you can guess the report that always includes cooked figures to make things look better.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

casualties?

---

Naw - its something else and has been around a long time - both in peacetime and in war

That would be my guess as well. Don't they not report the total number of wounded, only those KIA? That would lower the figures drastically as there are almost always several times more wounded than dead and in this war people are surviving who would not have without advances in field medicine. Correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a long time since I heard that and I might not remember it correctly.

EDIT: Guess it at least wasn't the one you were looking for....

Casualty reports I've seen from the DoD on various public sites have typically been in three categories: 1. Fatalities. 2. Wounded and not returning to duty within 72 hours. 3. Wounded and returning to duty within 72 hours.)

Numbers at present are:
1. 1,970 U.S. Casualties
2. 7,030 Wounded non-RTD
3. 7,872 Wounded RTD

So the "non-retention" loss rate from casualties is probably around 3,000-4,000 per year in Iraq at the moment. This assumes that non-RTD usually means a rather serious injury.

they actually report the number killed in iraq, only. the wounded who are evac'd to germany (or elsewhere) and then die there aren't listed as official iraq casualties. but anyway, it isn't what Redleg was referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

That would be my guess as well. Don't they not report the total number of wounded, only those KIA? That would lower the figures drastically as there are almost always several times more wounded than dead and in this war people are surviving who would not have without advances in field medicine. Correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a long time since I heard that and I might not remember it correctly.

EDIT: Guess it at least wasn't the one you were looking for....

---

I will give you all a clue - the Army Posture Statement is also based upon this Monthly report.

Edit: Now while causality figures could be one - its only a wartime method - the one I am talking about is used in both war and peacetime - its a constant system.

Well, if this report is true, meaning that it's harder for the army to get smart people to enlist, I believe that is positive news. It means that smart people instead enter the private sector and actually contribute to economic growth and prosperity..... ~;)

Only to those who are cynic in nature about what they believe the organization is up to.

You noticed did you ~;)
The adjustment of Recruiting and Retention numbers happen every year - again business as usual - the problem is that many never bothered to pay attention to the data until a conflict came up.

Thats because a usual problem can have a lot more impact in times of conflict .
This expanision I know happened in part because of a new re-organziation of the Army effecting serval installations.

Would that be the reorganisation that has become neccasary because the strategic make up of the armed forces and the formula of activity it was supposed to be able to work to has turned out to be faulty ?
Lucky they had a couple of wars eh ? Otherwise they wouldn't have known that the 4:2:1:1 plan was rubbish~D
Oh and I thought it was 50,000 , is 30,000 a downward readjustment ~;)

Anyway I have a plane to catch . Back in a week ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman[B

The adjustment of Recruiting and Retention numbers happen every year - again business as usual - the problem is that many never bothered to pay attention to the data until a conflict came up.
[/B]
Thats because a usual problem can have a lot more impact in times of conflict .

---

This impact has been ongoing for a number of years - again its not a new problem - recruitment and retention numbers are adjust every year throughout the year based upon a number of factors.

Quote:

---

This expanision I know happened in part because of a new re-organziation of the Army effecting serval installations.

Would that be the reorganisation that has become neccasary because the strategic make up of the armed forces and the formula of activity it was supposed to be able to work to has turned out to be faulty ?
Lucky they had a couple of wars eh ? Otherwise they wouldn't have known that the 4:2:1:1 plan was rubbish~D
Oh and I thought it was 50,000 , is 30,000 a downward readjustment ~;)

---

Actually the 4:2:1:1 plan was intially developed when there were three more active duty divisions available. The rubbish part seems to be that the powers believed they could accomplish the mission with the same number of divisions. Unfortunely you can't blame that one on the current administration.

It seems that you don't know what report generates in part the Recruiting and Retention goals.

Tsk Tsk...

Quote:

---

Anyway I have a plane to catch . Back in a week ~:wave:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

they actually report the number killed in iraq, only. the wounded who are evac'd to germany (or elsewhere) and then die there aren't listed as official iraq casualties. but anyway, it isn't what Redleg was referring to.

---

If you really want to know Solypsist - check out the media records on Congress and the reviewing of the Army Posture Statement and the Army Status Report (I think that is the name of the overall report) but both are based upon monthly submissions and quarterly submissions of the Unit Status Report (USR). ITs been brought forward to Congress during the 1990 that these reports are not always accurate.

that logic is seriously flawed. a number of people with university degrees enlist, usually as officers, since military service endows quite a few advantages on the resume, etc. what seems to be hindering new enlistment is the worry of short-timers getting recalled, requiring them to leave their professioanl jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, if this report is true, meaning that it's harder for the army to get smart people to enlist, I believe that is positive news. It means that smart people instead enter the private sector and actually contribute to economic growth and prosperity..... ~;)

---