Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Uncle Sam might not want you (Army deems most unqualified to serve)
Wichita Eagle ^ | 3/13/06 | PAULINE JELINEK

Posted on 03/16/2006 5:19:05 PM PST by Libloather

Uncle Sam might not want you
Of the 32 million Americans in its prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24, the Army deems most unqualified to serve.
BY PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press
Posted on Mon, Mar. 13, 2006

WASHINGTON - Uncle Sam wants YOU, that famous Army recruiting poster says. But does he really?

Not if you're a Ritalin-taking, overweight, Generation Y couch potato -- or some combination of the above.

As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too.

With U.S. casualties rising in wars overseas and more opportunities in the civilian work force from an improved U.S. economy, many young people are shunning a career in the armed forces. But recruiting is still a two-way street -- and the military, too, doesn't want most people in this prime recruiting age group of 17 to 24.

Of some 32 million Americans now in this group, the Army deems the vast majority too obese, too uneducated, too flawed in some way, according to its estimates for the current budget year.

"As you look at overall population and you start factoring out people, many are not eligible in the first place to apply," said Doug Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command.

Some experts are skeptical.

Previous Defense Department studies have found that 75 percent of young people are ineligible for military service, noted Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. While the professor emeritus who specializes in military sociology says it is "a baloney number," he acknowledges he has no figures to counter it.

The military's figures are estimates, based partly on census numbers. They are part of an elaborate analysis the military does as it struggles each year to compete with colleges and companies for the nation's best and brightest, plan for future needs and maintain diversity. The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:
• The rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.
• A decline in physical fitness.
• A near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: army; military; most; recruitment; sam; serve; uncle; unclesam; unqualified
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

1 posted on 03/16/2006 5:19:07 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The ban on tatoos is kind of silly.


2 posted on 03/16/2006 5:20:08 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (Olfrygt: the nagging fear of being unable to find beer while out of town.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

AFAIK, the tatoo regs have been relaxed a bit over the last few years. According to my BIL, tats are permitted as long as they aren't visible when in uniform, and if they don't promote gang ties or criminal activity.

He also told me that recruiters are increasingly looking the other way when it comes to obesity (truthfully, he was ranting about it). I was told that many guys are getting into basic who wouldn't have even been looked at 10 years ago. The assumption is that they'll either lose the weight quick, or they'll just quit.


3 posted on 03/16/2006 5:24:35 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

already posted, and Army has modified that tattoo policy:

Army changes Tattoo policy
By J.D. Leipold
March 15, 2006

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Mar. 15, 2006) – The Army has revised its policy on tattoos in an effort to bolster recruitment of highly-qualified individuals who might otherwise have been excluded from joining.

Tattoos are now permitted on the hands and back of the neck if they are not “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.” Army Regulation 670-1, which was modified via a message released Jan. 25, also now specifies: “Any tattoo or brand anywhere on the head or face is prohibited except for permanent make-up.”

For women, allowable make-up would be permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and makeup applied to fill in lips, officials said. They said permanent make-up should be conservative and complement the uniform and complexion in both style and color and will not be trendy.

The change was made because Army officials realized the number of potential recruits bearing skin art had grown enormously over the years.

About 30 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 have tattoos, according to a Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University survey. For those under age 25, the number is about 28 percent. In all, the post-baby-boom generations are more than three times as likely as boomers to have tattoos.

As a result of tattoo attitude changes, Army Regulation 670-1, chapter 1-8E (1) has been modified via an ALARACT 017/2006 message.

Additionally, paragraph 1-8B (1) (A) was revised to state: “Tattoos that are not extremist, indecent, sexist or racist are allowed on the hands and neck. Initial entry determinations will be made according to current guidance.”

The Army has never allowed indecent tattoos on any part of the body, G1 officials pointed out.

The new policy allows recruits and all Soldiers to sport tattoos on the neck behind an imaginary line straight down and back of the jawbone, provided the tattoos don’t violate good taste.

“The only tattoos acceptable on the neck are those on the back of the neck,” said Hank Minitrez, Army G-1 Human Resources Policy spokesman. “The ‘back’ of the neck is defined as being just under the ear lobe and across the back of the head. Throat tattoos on that portion of the neck considered the front, the ear lobe forward) are prohibited.”

Soldiers who are considering putting tattoos on their hands and necks, should consider asking their chain of command prior to being inked.

“While the Army places trust in the integrity of its Soldiers and leaders, if a Soldier has a questionable case regarding tattoos, he or she should seek the advice of the local commander through the chain of command,” added Minitrez.

Should a Soldier not seek advice and have tattoos applied that aren’t in keeping with AR-670, the command will counsel the Soldier on medical options, but may not order the Soldier to have the tattoos removed. However, if a Soldier opts not to take the medical option at Army expense, the Soldier may be discharged from service.

The U.S. Coast Guard has a limitation on the size of a tattoo in percentages of a given area that will not exceed 25 percent of the space between wrist and elbow, knee and ankle, but it does not allow tattoos on the hands or neck.

The Army’s new policy, however, does not mean Soldiers should rush out and have the backs of their necks or their hands entirely covered in decorative art, Minitrez said.

“The Army does not have a percentage policy for tattoos,” Minitrez said. “As long as tattoos do not distract from good military order and discipline and are not extremist, racist, sexist or indecent they’re permitted.”

If a Soldier’s current command has no issue with his/her tattoos, the Soldier should have personnel files so notated that the Soldier is in line with AR-670, officials said. Though not mandatory, having the notation entered serves as back-up documentation at a follow-on command which might feel the Soldier’s tattoos don’t meet Army regulations.


4 posted on 03/16/2006 5:26:12 PM PST by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

thats msm for ya, they probably mean rasist/gang tats...

but off course why write a story with facts


5 posted on 03/16/2006 5:27:12 PM PST by Flavius (Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey

Tatoos are so gross, especially on women.


6 posted on 03/16/2006 5:28:39 PM PST by Bigg Red (Never trust Democrats with national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Can they bring their own body armor?

Image hosting by Photobucket

7 posted on 03/16/2006 5:32:50 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
" As for that fashionable "body art" that the military still calls a tattoo, having one is grounds for rejection, too."

Wow, the only people in my extended family who have tattoos are veterans - it's weird that current regulations would exclude them. They have to drop that rule if they ever institute a draft or everybody who wants to dodge will get ink.
8 posted on 03/16/2006 5:38:37 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
The ban on tatoos is kind of silly.

It tends to filter out criminal elements.

9 posted on 03/16/2006 5:39:06 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Imagine in 35 years, you'll see 70 year old guys with Guns N' Roses tattoo's on their arms.

Tattoo's are permanent cure for temporary insanity.

10 posted on 03/16/2006 5:39:39 PM PST by dancusa (Appeasement, high taxes and regulation collects in the diapers of bed wetting liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion

Recruiters have no say over height and wieght matters. It is the doc at the physical that passes or fails them.


11 posted on 03/16/2006 5:42:37 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
Tatoos are so gross, especially on women.

An otherwise gorgeous 20 year old lady in my office has multiple large tatoos. Tatoos on a lady are no different that dents on a brand new Mercedes.

12 posted on 03/16/2006 5:42:53 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Really, tatoos make you a criminal?

The military checks your criminal record, so that's not the reason.


13 posted on 03/16/2006 5:44:59 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (Olfrygt: the nagging fear of being unable to find beer while out of town.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Based on the 20-40 year old I know with trendy tatoos, I'd speculate the presence of a tatoo strongly indicates political party preference.
14 posted on 03/16/2006 5:45:07 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301
It tends to filter out criminal elements.

It does no such thing. It only brings a visual opinion of a soldier. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

Tattoos have no bearing on a soldiers attitude to his duty. People can easily be gang members or criminals without tattoos.

BTW, I got mine while in Basic Training.

15 posted on 03/16/2006 5:49:32 PM PST by Sarajevo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
It's variable. I lost 25 pounds and the laziness gene in basic. They sent me to about 1.5 years TDY to tech schools. I got my 1st college degree with night school (cheap!:))

So now I get up as early as in basic training without the garbage can lids. With "gotta fix this now" pay LOL!

16 posted on 03/16/2006 5:55:29 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion

The assumption is that they'll either lose the weight quick, or they'll just quit.


RRRRoooooaaaaaadddd GGGGGGaaaaauuuuurrrrrdddd


17 posted on 03/16/2006 5:59:07 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fso301
"Based on the 20-40 year old I know with trendy tatoos, I'd speculate the presence of a tatoo strongly indicates political party preference."

I don't think that's true. I know a lot of people with tattoos and more of them are Republicans or Libertarians than democrats. I think it's common now no matter what political affiliation a person has. I have a tattoo, but I don't like tattoos on women.
18 posted on 03/16/2006 6:00:53 PM PST by TDC1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Not only does the Army want certain undesirables, not everyone deserves to serve in the Army.


19 posted on 03/16/2006 6:01:41 PM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Tattoos are disgusting. Trashy. It's impossible to watch the NCAA Men's Basketball tourney because of this.


20 posted on 03/16/2006 6:02:09 PM PST by D-Chivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson