8 ms·

The genesis of today's military recruiting crisis (2023)

42 points by apsec112 2y ago

buckle8017 2y ago
[flagged]
- bbqfog 2y ago
  I'm sure it has to do with fighting a bunch of "wars" for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I'm sure the dudes who got their legs blown off in Iraq for "reasons" feel great about it.
- tomrod 2y ago
  As far as this median voter representative is aware, folks haven't been calling "patriotism" as "racism" for a decade, folks have been pointing out racism (both bigotry and structural) for a decade. As with all things related to recruiting: the real issue is comp.
pushcx 2y ago
This article mostly talks about full-time recruiting, but a friend recently went through this while getting recruited to the reserves. One purpose of the reserves is to allow the military to hire mid-career professionals with specific in-demand technical skills. My friend had used a telehealth counseling service during acutely stressful events and Genesis demanded records that the service couldn't really be bothered to produce. It refused records from the actual doctor. Genesis's nitpicky follow-ups really went poorly with the modern standard for customer service, which is mostly nonexistent outside of billing. The back-and-forth went on for 8 months until my friend gave up.
psunavy03 2y ago
As someone who spent a twenty-year active and reserve career as an aviator on a childhood ADHD waiver, the military needs to take a hard look at what is and is not disqualifying. There are legit concerns here - medical conditions that are treatable after an ambulance ride or urgent care visit in the US or a modern country may require medical evacuation in theater. Medicines may not be able to be resupplied depending on logistics, and people who require them often have to deploy with a 90-180 day supply of what they need. And though the military has much to do to eliminate toxic leadership, military service will be inherently stressful in the best of units, which indicates against admitting people with certain mental conditions. That said, I'm skeptical that things like milder ADHD cases, some other milder or resolved mental issues, sprains, broken bones, etc. truly need the amount of scrutiny and skepticism that military medicine gives them. Seems to my non-doctor point of view that disqualifying potential enlistees or commissionees en masse is the "easy button." It doesn't incur risk to say "no," only "yes." But if medical doesn't take a hard look on when to say "yes,' we're missing the next Jack Kennedy (whole hosts of issues), Bill Halsey (shingles), or who knows what superstar commander who'd take us through the next big fight. Also, banning recruiters from schools is juvenile and disgusting. I'm thankful I had a mom and dad who supported my dream to fly jets off an aircraft carrier instead of trying to crush it for their own selfish fears.
- jamiek88 2y ago
  “ banning recruiters from schools is juvenile and disgusting” And I think letting them in is problematic . They only target the poor schools anyway. Which actually is pretty ‘disgusting’ to me. You don’t get to claim the moral high ground here. Nor do I, but I wasn’t attempting to by using words like ‘disgusting’ to describe any difference in opinion. Why did you do that? Why are you unable to talk about this without reaching for such obvious rhetorical props?
  - mlhpdx 2y ago
    > They only target the poor schools anyway. The three schools around me are among the richest in the state and all have recruiters visit regularly. What’s your source for that belief?
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      Prejudice, most likely.
      - consteval 2y ago
        Or, more likely, the reality that the US military industrial complex is built off the dream of upwards social mobility for impoverished Americans. The US has very little social programs, on purpose. Those social programs ARE the military. If you need help to pull you out of poverty, you go into the military. Then you get education, healthcare, affordable housing, and guaranteed work - the typical social benefits you'd see in a modern democratic socialist nation. They're simply "rebranded" to fit the American dream, and, in turn, provide the military with a steady supply of warm bodies. The military, at it's core, is nothing more than a work program and tiny little socialist nation within the US. The rich don't join the military because they don't have to. These social benefits are for average to poor Americans.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - 2y ago
freeone3000 2y ago
This does not mention the numbers. one-third of applicants are denied for medical. Once the Pentagon started issuing waivers in 2022 (recent expansion last month from 39 to 54 conditions, with restrictions; ex, one year no treatment for adhd) this fell to 20% from 33%. I estimate that if they only restrict the intake medical history to conditions that disqualify a candidate from active duty, they’d get the numbers they want.
JoeAltmaier 2y ago
My son had enormous enthusiasm, good health, ambition. His experience in the army eroded most of that. Fumbled recruiting promises; repeated injury and incompetent treatment; frustrated advancement goals. Ended up a Sargeant, could have done so much more. Eventual medical discharge from accumulated health problems.
- petsfed 2y ago
  I'm reminded of a passage from Neal Stephenson's The Confusion: "Jack's chief source of discomfort, then, was a feeling well known to soldiers of low rank, to doctors' patients, and to people getting their hair cut; namely, that he was utterly in the power an incompetent."
jimmar 2y ago
I talked to an ROTC cadet about recruiting this past week and I mentioned how easy it was to be disqualified. She told me it comes down to the military not wanting to be responsible for your death. E.g., if a soldier with depression enlists, there's a much higher chance of that solider taking their own life. Basically, poor health (mental or physical) means poor metrics. Like in many things in life, follow the incentives. Recruiters tell people to lie on the medical forms because that boosts the recruiters' metrics. But somebody with a high rank doesn't want unhealthy troops because they'll be grilled if those troops aren't fit for battle, or worse, take their own lives, so they may keep arguing for stringent health screening criteria.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  nah. death is part and parcel of the military. they don't want to be responsible for health care, esp. because it's absurdly expensive in the US. once you're in the military is responsible for your care, and if it's likely your knees are going to snap during training, even if just 10%, they don't want to take the financial risk. like, you getting killed is easy; pay out SGLI once and send a flag to someone's house. but the cost of broken troopers goes on forever, and it may cost 2 Trillion in total for Iraq and AFG because of veteran's care.
potato3732842 2y ago
>Political leaders and partisan pundits blame today’s recruiting crisis on everything from so-called “woke” diversity training to kids these days being too fat and lazy to cut it. >Military brass have blamed an under-educated public, a roaring civilian jobs market and bad perceptions of service fueled by negative headlines. >But multiple recruiters who spoke with Military Times blame Genesis above all else. Lol, they're probably all right to various extents. I'm gonna lose less than zero sleep over reduced availability of cannon fodder for future boondoggles in the sandbox. God forbid the people who call the shots exercise a little more restraint. If there is a true need to have more bodies in uniform then the political will will surely materialize to get it done.
ike2792 2y ago
I don't think most civilians realize just how strict (and absurd) the screening process is. When I went to enlist at 17 I had a cut on my knee that started bleeding during one of the medical tests (they make you walk across a tile floor on your bare knees for 10 yards or so). The doctor running the screening station wanted to make me come back a week later once the cut healed, otherwise they were going to fail me. Thankfully someone more senior overrode him and I was able to enlist. People get disqualified for having used marijuana once as a teenager, for well-controlled asthma that hasn't flared up in years, or for seeking treatment for anxiety, depression, or ADHD. Once you are in the military, you are strongly incentivized to not seek treatment for anything that could get you medically separated, particularly any mental health issues whatsoever. I understand there are standards but the current system basically assumes that any issue is disqualifying until the recruit can prove it isn't (and sometimes not even then).
- derektank 2y ago
  I would only disagree with your penultimate sentence. There are certainly some career fields where diagnosed mental health conditions could have negative consequences for your career; specifically I'm thinking of members enrolled in PRP. But my understanding is that a diagnosis of anxiety or ADHD is not a career killer and will not usually result in a medical discharge. Getting access to care still requires jumping through a lot of hoops but I wouldn't want to discourage anyone that's considering enlisting or commissioning to avoid doing so if they think they might receive a diagnosis later in life. My experience is entirely limited to the Air Force though and different branches might have different restrictions that I'm unaware of.
  - xethos 2y ago
    Per the article, past use of ADHD meds can absolutely prevent someone from signing up > Multiple recruiters on the ground, from different services and locations, are more blunt in their assessments. They say Genesis has ended an applicant’s ability to gloss over or knowingly ignore minor medical issues, such as past use of ADHD meds or inhalers, before signing up. and a second quote without the disqualifier "ADHD meds", instead pointing to just mental health causes like ADHD or depression > That makes it harder, some recruiters say, to squeeze applicants through despite past maladies they did not disclose — such as ADHD, depression or a years-old broken bone. Recruiting numbers suffer as a result. Previously, such applicants could enlist if they concealed, or genuinely had forgotten about, these issues.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-navy-recruit-numbers https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-n... ("Vox: America isn’t ready for another war — because it doesn’t have the troops. The US military’s recruiting crisis, explained.") https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/ https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/ ("USAfacts.org: Military recruitment is down. Why don’t young Americans want to join? A diminishing pool of Americans are eligible to join the Army, Navy, or Air Force. An even smaller pool want to.") https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-want-their-children-to-join-510e1a25 https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-vete... | https://archive.today/W23Jq https://archive.today/W23Jq ("WSJ: The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Families to Join") https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-08-15/military-sexual-assault-numbers-14871731.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-08-15/military-sexu... ("Stripes: Military sexual assaults far exceed DOD estimates, new report finds") https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/suicide-now-the-primary-cause-of-death-among-active-duty-us-soldiers/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/suicide-now-the-primary-cau... ("Boston University: Suicide Now the Primary Cause of Death among Active Duty US Soldiers") https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-shameful-way-america-treats-its-veterans-52825/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-sham... ("Rolling Stone: The Shameful Way America Treats Its Veterans") With my apologies to Jordan Belfort, "Sell me on this job."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Today being (2023)
bbqfog 2y ago
[flagged]
rawgabbit 2y ago
It was a very long time ago and I forgot some of the details. I just remembered the doctor who examined me was somewhat amused by my bad eyesight, bad feet, and poor lungs. I never drank (at the time), smoked, or did any drugs prescribed or otherwise. I did have excellent grades and I guess I wore my heart on my sleeve and my intense desire to enlist and do what it takes was plain to see. The recruiting officer had a few words with me, thanked me for my desire to serve, and checked I believe his strong recommendation for my enlistment and eventual commission. There was no mention of my physical condition. At the various schools I struggled with some of physical requirements. Mostly the ones that required explosive strength. Even then they gave me extra help so I could do things like pull ups and clean & jerks. I have to say the military for all of its faults and problems was one of the best places I have ever worked at and I look back on my experience quite fondly.
- _gmax0 2y ago
  I had anticipated that this would've ended with you becoming Captain America.
erikerikson 2y ago
And then you get in. I came out of combat training a PFC with commendations, albeit a Hollywood Marine. Know... They aren't hitting you because the trash can bounced off the bed you were next to. If they don't like you they'll make you exercise yourself until you break your hip. You aren't violating the Geneva convention if you accidentally hit the person with that weapon that is not approved for use against people if you were targeting the equipment you were standing next to. Honor, courage, and commitment you say? I made the mistake of saying. After two weeks of painting curbs and cutting the lawn with hedge trimmers, I found myself moving from Monterey to the Mojave in my dress blues. There I found myself in a Catch-22 style administrative black hole where I couldn't get orders until I was assigned to a school and couldn't be assigned to a school until I had orders. There were some incredible people but it was a very mixed bag.
from-nibly 2y ago
The dichotomy serves the military. If someone has a health condition and they lie about it then the military is not at fault for death or injury of the liar. They want to set extremely tight controls on health conditions and then have recruiters tell recruits to lie (only that part isn't explicit ). That way they aren't liable. Someone just didn't get the memo before implementing Genesis. It's like speeding, if everyone is always speeding, then a police officer can always pull you over for whatever secret reason they have. If everyone lies to get into the military they can always blame the victim for lying.
wrp 2y ago
> "What it takes to get in the Army is, quite frankly, a lot of fraud and perjury," one recruiter said. I knew a guy who retired from a TLA after a long period of doing security checks on new hires. He said that people who try to be honest generally fail the interview. "If you ever apply there, just say "No" to everything."
tennisflyi 2y ago
Eh. I’m very, very mid/basic. I had no problem. I even got a waiver from the Surgeon General at the time
sevensor 2y ago
I’m surprised they don’t want kids who broke bones when they were younger. Seems like that’s exactly the kid you want under arms.
pcb-rework 2y ago
Recruits need to realize the real potential for life-long mental and physical disability like my college roommate and also my neighbor. If you do become a DV, the cheapest place to live is TX and the cost of living is relatively very cheap short of moving to a Central American country. Typical injuries include exposure to chemicals like my dad being gassed with Agent Orange causing bladder cancer and type-1 adult-onset diabetes, college roommate busted their back doing a benchpress. Grandpa had a bad jump in combat that busted his neck and knees, and neighbor was blown up in a vehicle hit with an IED. Compared to wartime: Both grandfathers lied about their ages (17) to enter WW2 and weren't particularly ultra-fit or healthy: one became a paratrooper commando who was severely injured (paratroopers don't actually jump into combat anymore), and the other was a forward-deployed radio tech. Each topped out at E8 and E7 respectively. First grandpa retired with triple retirements when that was possible.
mlhpdx 2y ago
Perhaps there needs to be some acknowledgment that people aren’t perfect and soldiers don’t need to be and a more flexible, nuanced screening process. A system that required dishonesty wasn’t honorable and it seems odd to blame the software/system that exposed that.
- asoneth 2y ago
  I helped develop software for warfighters and it became clear that the most effective officers and enlisted members were those who understand when to follow doctrine and when to exercise independent judgement. Think of the last time you interacted with a tech support person who refused to deviate from their script. Now imagine that, but directing operations in a war zone. > A system that required dishonesty wasn’t honorable and it seems odd to blame the software/system that exposed that. Personally I would place the majority of the blame on the people who designed and deployed this software. At best, inflexible software that programmatically enforces standard operating procedure is ignored by the folks on the ground. At worst, it craters mission readiness until someone with sufficient authority to make "a more flexible, nuanced screening process" takes notice and updates doctrine.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  Calling it "not honorable" is a little overwrought. It's just an example of bureaucratic stupidity being worked around as military members have done for decades if not centuries.
  - xbar 2y ago
    I think you are saying that if you are not ready to lie on a form, you do not belong in the military, and thus it is an appropriate control during recruitment?
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      Life exists in shades of gray. If you read the article, it spells out this dilemma quite clearly. The problem is that the military generally ran on a pool of recruits post-Vietnam who were largely effective and got the job done. This happened despite military doctors setting sometimes-unrealistic standards for who could get in at all, or who needed voluminous amounts of paperwork for a waiver of standards. Kids hid conditions, and recruiters made tough calls to balance what kids truly were a bad fit (asthma, major mental issues, morbid obesity) as opposed to the track star who merely had a broken leg once. Now Genesis came along and made everyone strictly play "by the rules," and exposed the problems with this kind of black-and-white thinking. It turns out the standards the military was REALLY operating on were not the standards they thought they were getting. And the standards they REALLY were operating under got the job done, whereas the strictest standards they COULD apply would result in not being able to staff the force, because doctors were not willing to incur enough risk. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether or not to break a rule at potentially little or no consequence to accomplish an important goal, or to be so pedantic at applying the rules that the organization cannot achieve its goals. The FAA and airlines have the same problem. Scores of airline pilots hide and fail to report medical conditions so as not to lose their jobs. And eventually someone goes nuts and tries to crash a commuter plane. But for that one nutjob who obviously shouldn't have been flying, there's scores of airline pilots fudging their paperwork and seeing docs off-network for cash who nonetheless safely and effectively fly their aircraft. So what IS the standard, or what should it be? Because the black-and-white standard then becomes just a lie doctors tell themselves to avoid risk.
xnx 2y ago
The article describes an interesting situation where strict enforcement has exposed problems from old rules. The title is a bit of a play on words, and the article doesn't touch on huge factors for military recruiting overall like the historically low unemployment rate.
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  I'm a little surprised (but maybe shouldn't be, given that it's from a publication called "Military Times") it doesn't also touch on the fact that young Americans largely don't think that joining the military is a noble goal or a stable career path. They grew up watching the US get involved in disastrous wars, do some pretty bad shit to civilians and prisoners of war overseas, and then let countless veterans fall into poverty when they get back. Perhaps not for nothing that "America starts wars for oil" is a well-tread Zoomer meme.
  - spauldo 2y ago
    None of that seemed to dampen recruiting among my generation, whose parents fought in 'Nam. Things are a lot better for Afghanistan War vets than they were for Vietnam War vets. I suspect it's more a cultural change than anything specific to the military. Different times, different attitudes.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    that's been a well-tread meme since 1991, and it took a lot of dead people in 9/11 to overcome it.
anon291 2y ago
In high school I met my very good friend, a young man obsessed with the military. He ended up at the Naval academy, and then an officer in the navy. To put it bluntly. The sort of young man who does this is not at all into the various social programs the military has now been implementing. Moreover, they started scrutinizing the basic, popular political beliefs of many of the recruits. Those interested in the Navy tend to be of a particular political persuasion, and even those who do not share that tend to have similar underlying belief structures. What my friend wanted to be a career ended up being the minimum required years of service. It's unfortunate. They lost a loyal, educated officer. For what? What was gained by their novel program? At the end of the day, the military is a thing that many young men are attracted to. We can debate the reasons why until the cows come home, but the military can choose to either build upon that innate attraction or pursue a different direction, and they've frankly chosen the latter. At every step of the way, they trample upon the factors that led these young men to join, and then they wonder why no one wants it anymore. From my perspective, they've achieved something that few civilizations in history have managed, which is to make the armed forces actively unattractive to vast swaths of young males.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  > Moreover, they started scrutinizing the basic, popular political beliefs of many of the recruits. Those interested in the Navy tend to be of a particular political persuasion, and even those who do not share that tend to have similar underlying belief structures. Yeah, completely wrong. Great article on this from one of my former flight instructors. https://jecurtis.medium.com/ship-to-shore-f0910048c451 https://jecurtis.medium.com/ship-to-shore-f0910048c451
  - petsfed 2y ago
    To summarize the article, and paraphrase and editorialize, I've heard a lot of criticisms of the US Navy culture ("boat feudalism" is one of my favorites), but I don't think anyone has ever seriously accused the US Navy of being so open, egalitarian, and woke as to become even the second best navy on the planet.
- jgys 2y ago
glitchc 2y ago
Let those who want to serve, serve, medical issues notwithstanding. Basic training can filter out those who are physically incapable of serving. The medical should only be done after that, to weed out certain issues like epilepsy, which may not be revealed during basic but could pose a liability when deployed.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  It doesn't serve anyone to proceed with training if there's a disqualifying condition. We bear the same costs only to then decline to admit the candidate, and for that individual, it is a tremendous waste of time, energy, and opportunity.
  - glitchc 2y ago
    Is eight weeks of basic training really that much higher in cost compared to a comprehensive medical work-up? The effort is mostly borne by the candidate. I'd wager the latter is significantly more expensive to the military.
    - derektank 2y ago
      It costs tens of thousands of dollars to put one person through basic training. So yes, it's more expensive than a comprehensive medical workup.
      - macintux 2y ago
        And the disruption to the failed candidate presumably ranges from “my old job’s gone” to “I’m now attending my own funeral”.
sickofparadox 2y ago
I have been trying for many months to commission into the Reserves. I have a number of reasons to want to do this, not least of which is that I know that they are severely lacking manpower in the field I work in and I want to do my part in remedying that. Every time I have spoken with a recruiter, they have told me that the only way in is to get "undiagnosed" with ADHD in writing, wait a year, then get past MEPS and immediately get re-diagnosed so that I can continue taking the medication I need to actually do the job I have. One even told me he just got his diagnosis the day after MEPS. I have spoken with people all the way up to a Major about this and it really is just that stupid to get in, for no real benefit, since the military does not care if you have ADHD once you are in.
- gnarbarian 2y ago
  maybe you can get in as a contractor?
- musha68k 2y ago
  Interesting, I would have assumed any army would have a higher proportion of people on the ADHD spectrum.
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    Apparently it does, just none of them happened to know about their condition before they joined. What are the chances?!
- quercusa 2y ago
  Went through this with my son, whom the recruiter recognized as very well suited for a particular specialty. But the lying and the whole rigamarole about being diagnosed once in because "everybody knows what's going on" made him lose any interest.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  This is a huge issue in civil aviation, too, for people wanting to become pilots. ADHD (if you currently require medication) is disqualifying and there are many illnesses, especially neurological, that will disqualify you if you were ever in your life diagnosed, regardless of whether you are currently displaying symptoms or taking medication. This applies if you want to fly passenger airliners down to a little two person Cessna. And now we have a shortage of pilots throughout the training pipeline. Government applications for things in general have way too many “have you ever in your life” questions. No recognition at all that people change throughout their lives, medically and otherwise.
joe_the_user 2y ago
The problem with a state surveillance program that has unintended consequences is that the state can't "unsee" things about citizens. "The old way" can't be gone back to because not only the informal networks no longer exist but also because going back would tell everyone and many more would try to go through these "informal channels". Just in the situation of gay people, "don't ask, don't tell" was sometimes the policy before it became official policy and once it was official policy, it was doomed to be replaced because the state's ability to know simply always increases. ... and the article is likely related to the current headlines[1]. And here, I'd note that if the state starts looking for the "gender non-conforming", it's going to be finding more and more of them. [1] "Donald Trump ‘to expel all transgender people from military’" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-trump-to-expel-all-transgender-people-from-military/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-tr... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-trump-to-expel-all-transgender-people-from-military/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-tr...
shrubble 2y ago
This article doesn’t mention morale or “esprit de corps” which was considered so essential that Clausewitz had a separate section in his writing for his thoughts on the subject.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  That isn't the subject of the article. The subject of the article is how to even get people in the door to form teams with in the first place.
  - rockskon 2y ago
    People who walk out the door talk.
- cwmma 2y ago
  The whole point is that those things are totally irreverent if you can't actually get somebody into the corps without going through months of bullshit paperwork over minor injuries from years ago.
vandyswa 2y ago
A nice limited hangout. Within the suspended reality field of the current USA military, the loss of a warrior culture must not be addressed. In fact, hidden. You are richly rewarded to place emphasis on almost anything else.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  How many years did you serve? Because this is not a problem I saw in twenty years in uniform.
  - hnpolicestate 2y ago
    Ya I would assume those already recruited into the military have a warrior mentality. But the article is talking about recruiting first from the general public. American men have very much feminized over the past 50 years. I remember back how the high school seniors at my school in 2002 had mustaches, were smoking cigarettes, they looked like full grown men. Something has changed. I think a social premium on safety also results in a poorer recruiting class in the U.S.
    - cafard 2y ago
      If it's fifty years of feminization, and seniors 22 years ago had mustaches and were smoking cigarettes, just think what us knuckle-draggers were doing in the class of 1973. (Only a few guys smoked cigarettes, and apart from one beard-growing contest one year, facial hair was not permitted.)
- mrob 2y ago
  Why would any modern military want a warrior culture? Warriors fight for personal glory, not maximum operational effectiveness. E.g. a warrior culture would never use drones to their fullest extent, despite their demonstrated effectiveness, because killing people via drone isn't glamorous. Modern militaries want soldiers, not warriors. Consider the idiom "soldier on". A single warrior beats a single soldier, but soldiers scale much better.

42 points by apsec112 2y ago

buckle8017 2y ago

[flagged]

bbqfog 2y ago
I'm sure it has to do with fighting a bunch of "wars" for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I'm sure the dudes who got their legs blown off in Iraq for "reasons" feel great about it.
tomrod 2y ago
As far as this median voter representative is aware, folks haven't been calling "patriotism" as "racism" for a decade, folks have been pointing out racism (both bigotry and structural) for a decade. As with all things related to recruiting: the real issue is comp.

pushcx 2y ago

This article mostly talks about full-time recruiting, but a friend recently went through this while getting recruited to the reserves. One purpose of the reserves is to allow the military to hire mid-career professionals with specific in-demand technical skills. My friend had used a telehealth counseling service during acutely stressful events and Genesis demanded records that the service couldn't really be bothered to produce. It refused records from the actual doctor. Genesis's nitpicky follow-ups really went poorly with the modern standard for customer service, which is mostly nonexistent outside of billing. The back-and-forth went on for 8 months until my friend gave up.

psunavy03 2y ago

As someone who spent a twenty-year active and reserve career as an aviator on a childhood ADHD waiver, the military needs to take a hard look at what is and is not disqualifying. There are legit concerns here - medical conditions that are treatable after an ambulance ride or urgent care visit in the US or a modern country may require medical evacuation in theater. Medicines may not be able to be resupplied depending on logistics, and people who require them often have to deploy with a 90-180 day supply of what they need. And though the military has much to do to eliminate toxic leadership, military service will be inherently stressful in the best of units, which indicates against admitting people with certain mental conditions. That said, I'm skeptical that things like milder ADHD cases, some other milder or resolved mental issues, sprains, broken bones, etc. truly need the amount of scrutiny and skepticism that military medicine gives them. Seems to my non-doctor point of view that disqualifying potential enlistees or commissionees en masse is the "easy button." It doesn't incur risk to say "no," only "yes." But if medical doesn't take a hard look on when to say "yes,' we're missing the next Jack Kennedy (whole hosts of issues), Bill Halsey (shingles), or who knows what superstar commander who'd take us through the next big fight. Also, banning recruiters from schools is juvenile and disgusting. I'm thankful I had a mom and dad who supported my dream to fly jets off an aircraft carrier instead of trying to crush it for their own selfish fears.

jamiek88 2y ago
“ banning recruiters from schools is juvenile and disgusting” And I think letting them in is problematic . They only target the poor schools anyway. Which actually is pretty ‘disgusting’ to me. You don’t get to claim the moral high ground here. Nor do I, but I wasn’t attempting to by using words like ‘disgusting’ to describe any difference in opinion. Why did you do that? Why are you unable to talk about this without reaching for such obvious rhetorical props?
- mlhpdx 2y ago
  > They only target the poor schools anyway. The three schools around me are among the richest in the state and all have recruiters visit regularly. What’s your source for that belief?
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Prejudice, most likely.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Or, more likely, the reality that the US military industrial complex is built off the dream of upwards social mobility for impoverished Americans. The US has very little social programs, on purpose. Those social programs ARE the military. If you need help to pull you out of poverty, you go into the military. Then you get education, healthcare, affordable housing, and guaranteed work - the typical social benefits you'd see in a modern democratic socialist nation. They're simply "rebranded" to fit the American dream, and, in turn, provide the military with a steady supply of warm bodies. The military, at it's core, is nothing more than a work program and tiny little socialist nation within the US. The rich don't join the military because they don't have to. These social benefits are for average to poor Americans.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- 2y ago

freeone3000 2y ago

This does not mention the numbers. one-third of applicants are denied for medical. Once the Pentagon started issuing waivers in 2022 (recent expansion last month from 39 to 54 conditions, with restrictions; ex, one year no treatment for adhd) this fell to 20% from 33%. I estimate that if they only restrict the intake medical history to conditions that disqualify a candidate from active duty, they’d get the numbers they want.

JoeAltmaier 2y ago

My son had enormous enthusiasm, good health, ambition. His experience in the army eroded most of that. Fumbled recruiting promises; repeated injury and incompetent treatment; frustrated advancement goals. Ended up a Sargeant, could have done so much more. Eventual medical discharge from accumulated health problems.

petsfed 2y ago
I'm reminded of a passage from Neal Stephenson's The Confusion: "Jack's chief source of discomfort, then, was a feeling well known to soldiers of low rank, to doctors' patients, and to people getting their hair cut; namely, that he was utterly in the power an incompetent."

jimmar 2y ago

I talked to an ROTC cadet about recruiting this past week and I mentioned how easy it was to be disqualified. She told me it comes down to the military not wanting to be responsible for your death. E.g., if a soldier with depression enlists, there's a much higher chance of that solider taking their own life. Basically, poor health (mental or physical) means poor metrics. Like in many things in life, follow the incentives. Recruiters tell people to lie on the medical forms because that boosts the recruiters' metrics. But somebody with a high rank doesn't want unhealthy troops because they'll be grilled if those troops aren't fit for battle, or worse, take their own lives, so they may keep arguing for stringent health screening criteria.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
nah. death is part and parcel of the military. they don't want to be responsible for health care, esp. because it's absurdly expensive in the US. once you're in the military is responsible for your care, and if it's likely your knees are going to snap during training, even if just 10%, they don't want to take the financial risk. like, you getting killed is easy; pay out SGLI once and send a flag to someone's house. but the cost of broken troopers goes on forever, and it may cost 2 Trillion in total for Iraq and AFG because of veteran's care.

potato3732842 2y ago

>Political leaders and partisan pundits blame today’s recruiting crisis on everything from so-called “woke” diversity training to kids these days being too fat and lazy to cut it. >Military brass have blamed an under-educated public, a roaring civilian jobs market and bad perceptions of service fueled by negative headlines. >But multiple recruiters who spoke with Military Times blame Genesis above all else. Lol, they're probably all right to various extents. I'm gonna lose less than zero sleep over reduced availability of cannon fodder for future boondoggles in the sandbox. God forbid the people who call the shots exercise a little more restraint. If there is a true need to have more bodies in uniform then the political will will surely materialize to get it done.

ike2792 2y ago

I don't think most civilians realize just how strict (and absurd) the screening process is. When I went to enlist at 17 I had a cut on my knee that started bleeding during one of the medical tests (they make you walk across a tile floor on your bare knees for 10 yards or so). The doctor running the screening station wanted to make me come back a week later once the cut healed, otherwise they were going to fail me. Thankfully someone more senior overrode him and I was able to enlist. People get disqualified for having used marijuana once as a teenager, for well-controlled asthma that hasn't flared up in years, or for seeking treatment for anxiety, depression, or ADHD. Once you are in the military, you are strongly incentivized to not seek treatment for anything that could get you medically separated, particularly any mental health issues whatsoever. I understand there are standards but the current system basically assumes that any issue is disqualifying until the recruit can prove it isn't (and sometimes not even then).

derektank 2y ago
I would only disagree with your penultimate sentence. There are certainly some career fields where diagnosed mental health conditions could have negative consequences for your career; specifically I'm thinking of members enrolled in PRP. But my understanding is that a diagnosis of anxiety or ADHD is not a career killer and will not usually result in a medical discharge. Getting access to care still requires jumping through a lot of hoops but I wouldn't want to discourage anyone that's considering enlisting or commissioning to avoid doing so if they think they might receive a diagnosis later in life. My experience is entirely limited to the Air Force though and different branches might have different restrictions that I'm unaware of.
- xethos 2y ago
  Per the article, past use of ADHD meds can absolutely prevent someone from signing up > Multiple recruiters on the ground, from different services and locations, are more blunt in their assessments. They say Genesis has ended an applicant’s ability to gloss over or knowingly ignore minor medical issues, such as past use of ADHD meds or inhalers, before signing up. and a second quote without the disqualifier "ADHD meds", instead pointing to just mental health causes like ADHD or depression > That makes it harder, some recruiters say, to squeeze applicants through despite past maladies they did not disclose — such as ADHD, depression or a years-old broken bone. Recruiting numbers suffer as a result. Previously, such applicants could enlist if they concealed, or genuinely had forgotten about, these issues.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-navy-recruit-numbers https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-n... ("Vox: America isn’t ready for another war — because it doesn’t have the troops. The US military’s recruiting crisis, explained.") https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/ https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/ ("USAfacts.org: Military recruitment is down. Why don’t young Americans want to join? A diminishing pool of Americans are eligible to join the Army, Navy, or Air Force. An even smaller pool want to.") https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-want-their-children-to-join-510e1a25 https://www.wsj.com/articles/military-recruiting-crisis-vete... | https://archive.today/W23Jq https://archive.today/W23Jq ("WSJ: The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Families to Join") https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-08-15/military-sexual-assault-numbers-14871731.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-08-15/military-sexu... ("Stripes: Military sexual assaults far exceed DOD estimates, new report finds") https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/suicide-now-the-primary-cause-of-death-among-active-duty-us-soldiers/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/suicide-now-the-primary-cau... ("Boston University: Suicide Now the Primary Cause of Death among Active Duty US Soldiers") https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-shameful-way-america-treats-its-veterans-52825/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-sham... ("Rolling Stone: The Shameful Way America Treats Its Veterans") With my apologies to Jordan Belfort, "Sell me on this job."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Today being (2023)

bbqfog 2y ago

[flagged]

rawgabbit 2y ago

It was a very long time ago and I forgot some of the details. I just remembered the doctor who examined me was somewhat amused by my bad eyesight, bad feet, and poor lungs. I never drank (at the time), smoked, or did any drugs prescribed or otherwise. I did have excellent grades and I guess I wore my heart on my sleeve and my intense desire to enlist and do what it takes was plain to see. The recruiting officer had a few words with me, thanked me for my desire to serve, and checked I believe his strong recommendation for my enlistment and eventual commission. There was no mention of my physical condition. At the various schools I struggled with some of physical requirements. Mostly the ones that required explosive strength. Even then they gave me extra help so I could do things like pull ups and clean & jerks. I have to say the military for all of its faults and problems was one of the best places I have ever worked at and I look back on my experience quite fondly.

_gmax0 2y ago
I had anticipated that this would've ended with you becoming Captain America.

erikerikson 2y ago

And then you get in. I came out of combat training a PFC with commendations, albeit a Hollywood Marine. Know... They aren't hitting you because the trash can bounced off the bed you were next to. If they don't like you they'll make you exercise yourself until you break your hip. You aren't violating the Geneva convention if you accidentally hit the person with that weapon that is not approved for use against people if you were targeting the equipment you were standing next to. Honor, courage, and commitment you say? I made the mistake of saying. After two weeks of painting curbs and cutting the lawn with hedge trimmers, I found myself moving from Monterey to the Mojave in my dress blues. There I found myself in a Catch-22 style administrative black hole where I couldn't get orders until I was assigned to a school and couldn't be assigned to a school until I had orders. There were some incredible people but it was a very mixed bag.

from-nibly 2y ago

The dichotomy serves the military. If someone has a health condition and they lie about it then the military is not at fault for death or injury of the liar. They want to set extremely tight controls on health conditions and then have recruiters tell recruits to lie (only that part isn't explicit ). That way they aren't liable. Someone just didn't get the memo before implementing Genesis. It's like speeding, if everyone is always speeding, then a police officer can always pull you over for whatever secret reason they have. If everyone lies to get into the military they can always blame the victim for lying.

wrp 2y ago

> "What it takes to get in the Army is, quite frankly, a lot of fraud and perjury," one recruiter said. I knew a guy who retired from a TLA after a long period of doing security checks on new hires. He said that people who try to be honest generally fail the interview. "If you ever apply there, just say "No" to everything."

tennisflyi 2y ago

Eh. I’m very, very mid/basic. I had no problem. I even got a waiver from the Surgeon General at the time

sevensor 2y ago

I’m surprised they don’t want kids who broke bones when they were younger. Seems like that’s exactly the kid you want under arms.

pcb-rework 2y ago

Recruits need to realize the real potential for life-long mental and physical disability like my college roommate and also my neighbor. If you do become a DV, the cheapest place to live is TX and the cost of living is relatively very cheap short of moving to a Central American country. Typical injuries include exposure to chemicals like my dad being gassed with Agent Orange causing bladder cancer and type-1 adult-onset diabetes, college roommate busted their back doing a benchpress. Grandpa had a bad jump in combat that busted his neck and knees, and neighbor was blown up in a vehicle hit with an IED. Compared to wartime: Both grandfathers lied about their ages (17) to enter WW2 and weren't particularly ultra-fit or healthy: one became a paratrooper commando who was severely injured (paratroopers don't actually jump into combat anymore), and the other was a forward-deployed radio tech. Each topped out at E8 and E7 respectively. First grandpa retired with triple retirements when that was possible.

mlhpdx 2y ago

Perhaps there needs to be some acknowledgment that people aren’t perfect and soldiers don’t need to be and a more flexible, nuanced screening process. A system that required dishonesty wasn’t honorable and it seems odd to blame the software/system that exposed that.

asoneth 2y ago
I helped develop software for warfighters and it became clear that the most effective officers and enlisted members were those who understand when to follow doctrine and when to exercise independent judgement. Think of the last time you interacted with a tech support person who refused to deviate from their script. Now imagine that, but directing operations in a war zone. > A system that required dishonesty wasn’t honorable and it seems odd to blame the software/system that exposed that. Personally I would place the majority of the blame on the people who designed and deployed this software. At best, inflexible software that programmatically enforces standard operating procedure is ignored by the folks on the ground. At worst, it craters mission readiness until someone with sufficient authority to make "a more flexible, nuanced screening process" takes notice and updates doctrine.
psunavy03 2y ago
Calling it "not honorable" is a little overwrought. It's just an example of bureaucratic stupidity being worked around as military members have done for decades if not centuries.
- xbar 2y ago
  I think you are saying that if you are not ready to lie on a form, you do not belong in the military, and thus it is an appropriate control during recruitment?
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Life exists in shades of gray. If you read the article, it spells out this dilemma quite clearly. The problem is that the military generally ran on a pool of recruits post-Vietnam who were largely effective and got the job done. This happened despite military doctors setting sometimes-unrealistic standards for who could get in at all, or who needed voluminous amounts of paperwork for a waiver of standards. Kids hid conditions, and recruiters made tough calls to balance what kids truly were a bad fit (asthma, major mental issues, morbid obesity) as opposed to the track star who merely had a broken leg once. Now Genesis came along and made everyone strictly play "by the rules," and exposed the problems with this kind of black-and-white thinking. It turns out the standards the military was REALLY operating on were not the standards they thought they were getting. And the standards they REALLY were operating under got the job done, whereas the strictest standards they COULD apply would result in not being able to staff the force, because doctors were not willing to incur enough risk. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether or not to break a rule at potentially little or no consequence to accomplish an important goal, or to be so pedantic at applying the rules that the organization cannot achieve its goals. The FAA and airlines have the same problem. Scores of airline pilots hide and fail to report medical conditions so as not to lose their jobs. And eventually someone goes nuts and tries to crash a commuter plane. But for that one nutjob who obviously shouldn't have been flying, there's scores of airline pilots fudging their paperwork and seeing docs off-network for cash who nonetheless safely and effectively fly their aircraft. So what IS the standard, or what should it be? Because the black-and-white standard then becomes just a lie doctors tell themselves to avoid risk.

xnx 2y ago

The article describes an interesting situation where strict enforcement has exposed problems from old rules. The title is a bit of a play on words, and the article doesn't touch on huge factors for military recruiting overall like the historically low unemployment rate.

spondylosaurus 2y ago
I'm a little surprised (but maybe shouldn't be, given that it's from a publication called "Military Times") it doesn't also touch on the fact that young Americans largely don't think that joining the military is a noble goal or a stable career path. They grew up watching the US get involved in disastrous wars, do some pretty bad shit to civilians and prisoners of war overseas, and then let countless veterans fall into poverty when they get back. Perhaps not for nothing that "America starts wars for oil" is a well-tread Zoomer meme.
- spauldo 2y ago
  None of that seemed to dampen recruiting among my generation, whose parents fought in 'Nam. Things are a lot better for Afghanistan War vets than they were for Vietnam War vets. I suspect it's more a cultural change than anything specific to the military. Different times, different attitudes.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  that's been a well-tread meme since 1991, and it took a lot of dead people in 9/11 to overcome it.

anon291 2y ago

In high school I met my very good friend, a young man obsessed with the military. He ended up at the Naval academy, and then an officer in the navy. To put it bluntly. The sort of young man who does this is not at all into the various social programs the military has now been implementing. Moreover, they started scrutinizing the basic, popular political beliefs of many of the recruits. Those interested in the Navy tend to be of a particular political persuasion, and even those who do not share that tend to have similar underlying belief structures. What my friend wanted to be a career ended up being the minimum required years of service. It's unfortunate. They lost a loyal, educated officer. For what? What was gained by their novel program? At the end of the day, the military is a thing that many young men are attracted to. We can debate the reasons why until the cows come home, but the military can choose to either build upon that innate attraction or pursue a different direction, and they've frankly chosen the latter. At every step of the way, they trample upon the factors that led these young men to join, and then they wonder why no one wants it anymore. From my perspective, they've achieved something that few civilizations in history have managed, which is to make the armed forces actively unattractive to vast swaths of young males.

psunavy03 2y ago
> Moreover, they started scrutinizing the basic, popular political beliefs of many of the recruits. Those interested in the Navy tend to be of a particular political persuasion, and even those who do not share that tend to have similar underlying belief structures. Yeah, completely wrong. Great article on this from one of my former flight instructors. https://jecurtis.medium.com/ship-to-shore-f0910048c451 https://jecurtis.medium.com/ship-to-shore-f0910048c451
- petsfed 2y ago
  To summarize the article, and paraphrase and editorialize, I've heard a lot of criticisms of the US Navy culture ("boat feudalism" is one of my favorites), but I don't think anyone has ever seriously accused the US Navy of being so open, egalitarian, and woke as to become even the second best navy on the planet.
jgys 2y ago

glitchc 2y ago

Let those who want to serve, serve, medical issues notwithstanding. Basic training can filter out those who are physically incapable of serving. The medical should only be done after that, to weed out certain issues like epilepsy, which may not be revealed during basic but could pose a liability when deployed.

ibejoeb 2y ago
It doesn't serve anyone to proceed with training if there's a disqualifying condition. We bear the same costs only to then decline to admit the candidate, and for that individual, it is a tremendous waste of time, energy, and opportunity.
- glitchc 2y ago
  Is eight weeks of basic training really that much higher in cost compared to a comprehensive medical work-up? The effort is mostly borne by the candidate. I'd wager the latter is significantly more expensive to the military.
  - derektank 2y ago
    It costs tens of thousands of dollars to put one person through basic training. So yes, it's more expensive than a comprehensive medical workup.
    - macintux 2y ago
      And the disruption to the failed candidate presumably ranges from “my old job’s gone” to “I’m now attending my own funeral”.

sickofparadox 2y ago

I have been trying for many months to commission into the Reserves. I have a number of reasons to want to do this, not least of which is that I know that they are severely lacking manpower in the field I work in and I want to do my part in remedying that. Every time I have spoken with a recruiter, they have told me that the only way in is to get "undiagnosed" with ADHD in writing, wait a year, then get past MEPS and immediately get re-diagnosed so that I can continue taking the medication I need to actually do the job I have. One even told me he just got his diagnosis the day after MEPS. I have spoken with people all the way up to a Major about this and it really is just that stupid to get in, for no real benefit, since the military does not care if you have ADHD once you are in.

gnarbarian 2y ago
maybe you can get in as a contractor?
musha68k 2y ago
Interesting, I would have assumed any army would have a higher proportion of people on the ADHD spectrum.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  Apparently it does, just none of them happened to know about their condition before they joined. What are the chances?!
quercusa 2y ago
Went through this with my son, whom the recruiter recognized as very well suited for a particular specialty. But the lying and the whole rigamarole about being diagnosed once in because "everybody knows what's going on" made him lose any interest.
ryandrake 2y ago
This is a huge issue in civil aviation, too, for people wanting to become pilots. ADHD (if you currently require medication) is disqualifying and there are many illnesses, especially neurological, that will disqualify you if you were ever in your life diagnosed, regardless of whether you are currently displaying symptoms or taking medication. This applies if you want to fly passenger airliners down to a little two person Cessna. And now we have a shortage of pilots throughout the training pipeline. Government applications for things in general have way too many “have you ever in your life” questions. No recognition at all that people change throughout their lives, medically and otherwise.

joe_the_user 2y ago

The problem with a state surveillance program that has unintended consequences is that the state can't "unsee" things about citizens. "The old way" can't be gone back to because not only the informal networks no longer exist but also because going back would tell everyone and many more would try to go through these "informal channels". Just in the situation of gay people, "don't ask, don't tell" was sometimes the policy before it became official policy and once it was official policy, it was doomed to be replaced because the state's ability to know simply always increases. ... and the article is likely related to the current headlines[1]. And here, I'd note that if the state starts looking for the "gender non-conforming", it's going to be finding more and more of them. [1] "Donald Trump ‘to expel all transgender people from military’" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-trump-to-expel-all-transgender-people-from-military/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-tr... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-trump-to-expel-all-transgender-people-from-military/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/25/donald-tr...

shrubble 2y ago

This article doesn’t mention morale or “esprit de corps” which was considered so essential that Clausewitz had a separate section in his writing for his thoughts on the subject.

psunavy03 2y ago
That isn't the subject of the article. The subject of the article is how to even get people in the door to form teams with in the first place.
- rockskon 2y ago
  People who walk out the door talk.
cwmma 2y ago
The whole point is that those things are totally irreverent if you can't actually get somebody into the corps without going through months of bullshit paperwork over minor injuries from years ago.

vandyswa 2y ago

A nice limited hangout. Within the suspended reality field of the current USA military, the loss of a warrior culture must not be addressed. In fact, hidden. You are richly rewarded to place emphasis on almost anything else.

psunavy03 2y ago
How many years did you serve? Because this is not a problem I saw in twenty years in uniform.
- hnpolicestate 2y ago
  Ya I would assume those already recruited into the military have a warrior mentality. But the article is talking about recruiting first from the general public. American men have very much feminized over the past 50 years. I remember back how the high school seniors at my school in 2002 had mustaches, were smoking cigarettes, they looked like full grown men. Something has changed. I think a social premium on safety also results in a poorer recruiting class in the U.S.
  - cafard 2y ago
    If it's fifty years of feminization, and seniors 22 years ago had mustaches and were smoking cigarettes, just think what us knuckle-draggers were doing in the class of 1973. (Only a few guys smoked cigarettes, and apart from one beard-growing contest one year, facial hair was not permitted.)
mrob 2y ago
Why would any modern military want a warrior culture? Warriors fight for personal glory, not maximum operational effectiveness. E.g. a warrior culture would never use drones to their fullest extent, despite their demonstrated effectiveness, because killing people via drone isn't glamorous. Modern militaries want soldiers, not warriors. Consider the idiom "soldier on". A single warrior beats a single soldier, but soldiers scale much better.