Pentagon to service members: Deploy or else!

Monello

Awww, jeez
PREMO Member
Over 10% are not deployable.

The Pentagon on Wednesday announced a new “deploy or be removed” policy that could affect up to nearly 300,000 service members who have been non-deployable for the past 12 months.“This new policy is a 12-month deploy or be removed policy,” Robert Wilkie, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and readiness on Wednesday.
The move comes after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ memo last year stressing the need to ensure that “everyone who comes into the service and everyone who stays in the service is world-wide deployable.”
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
In the late 1990's I was made non-deployable by reason of being a single parent with no one available to provide long-term care of my children should I need to "get underway today", at a moment's notice. After well over a decade of service, I was provided an honorable DD-214.

Is that no longer the case?
 

black dog

Free America
In the late 1990's I was made non-deployable by reason of being a single parent with no one available to provide long-term care of my children should I need to "get underway today", at a moment's notice. After well over a decade of service, I was provided an honorable DD-214.

Is that no longer the case?
Thats interesting, My father was a single parent with my sister and myself in the early sixty's, when he was deployed we were shuttled between my grandfather and a few great aunts and uncles. I've never asked my dad if it was his choice or not.
 

b23hqb

Active Member
PREMO Member
Too bad. Make them go, or get out and off the pension/pay/disability/medical gravy train. Give them the honorable or administrative, preferably, discharge. Just get them out.
 
Last edited:

nutz

Active Member
I did not see numbers in the article for short vs. long term care. This is supposed to be a function of medical evaluation boards. On the flip side, what is the recuperation period for an "addadicktome" or "removeadickfromme" surgery? The Pentagon/others keep allowing stupid policies, maybe they should suffer the consequences of their actions.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
To the gulag for you for even asking that privileged question!
:yay:


I can still see the CNN reports during Desert Shield Build Up .......

:drama: I only signed up for the college fund .... or the reports of huge numbers of females that were going to get pregnant
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Thats interesting, My father was a single parent with my sister and myself in the early sixty's, when he was deployed we were shuttled between my grandfather and a few great aunts and uncles. I've never asked my dad if it was his choice or not.
I had a form I had to fill out saying who would care for the kids. I had no one who could, and thus I was shown the door.
 

Clem72

Active Member
This is good. If you were in any other professional environment and could not do your job, you'd be replaced.
That assumes there are zero stateside jobs for enlisted that could be filled by these people. I know a one-legged fireman that can't ride the truck (works dispatch).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That assumes there are zero stateside jobs for enlisted that could be filled by these people. I know a one-legged fireman that can't ride the truck (works dispatch).
Your one-legged friend, I think, would be called a dispatcher, not a fireman.


My point being that a fireman's job is to go into a fire. Now, we don't send the whole crew into the fire at once, and leave them all there until the fire is out. We rotate who is inside, who is outside, who is back at the firehouse in case reinforcements are needed, and who has the day off.

The military's job is to "fight the fire", so to speak. We don't put them all on the front lines at once. But, if you have people who are supposed to go into the fire that can't due to some extraneous circumstance, then they are taking the roles of those folks outside the fire waiting to be rotated in, those back at the firehouse as a ready surplus, and those who are taking a needed break in a stateside shore billet. That's unfair to the folks who are going into and out of the fire, because it takes a seat from them outside the fire to cool off, train, and resupply.

There are a plethora of DoD jobs for those folks to fill outside of uniform, if they earn and deserve it.
 

acommondisaster

Active Member
I was deemed "undeployable" due to a Navy "Exceptional Family Member" program. Because of my daughter's condition, there were only 6 locations I could be assigned to - all stateside. No remotes, unaccompanied, etc - the Navy's determination. Luckily, I was on a controlled tour and as long as my command was happy with me and I was happy with them, I was untouchable by the regular Navy detailer - so I spent my last 10 years there before retiring at the 20 year mark. What a shame it would have been to have been kicked out because of it - I was a productive smember and a lot of money had been spent training me. Funny thing is, I was actually TDY more than plenty of "regular" sailors - 212 days one year.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
I was deemed "undeployable" due to a Navy "Exceptional Family Member" program. Because of my daughter's condition, there were only 6 locations I could be assigned to - all stateside. No remotes, unaccompanied, etc - the Navy's determination. Luckily, I was on a controlled tour and as long as my command was happy with me and I was happy with them, I was untouchable by the regular Navy detailer - so I spent my last 10 years there before retiring at the 20 year mark. What a shame it would have been to have been kicked out because of it - I was a productive smember and a lot of money had been spent training me. Funny thing is, I was actually TDY more than plenty of "regular" sailors - 212 days one year.
What was your dot’s condition, and why was that a factor? This is an example of what I don’t get about our stupid government.
 

acommondisaster

Active Member
What was your dot’s condition, and why was that a factor? This is an example of what I don’t get about our stupid government.
She's special needs and whatever board looked at the doctor's evaluation made the decision that her needs required that I not go unaccompanied, and that she required a certain level of care/therapy not available at overseas locations. I had no play in the decision beyond handing the doctor the evaluation to fill out and answering some of the doctor's questions.
To this day, I think that my being "the mom" in the equation had something to do with their decision that I couldnt go unaccompanied.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
She's special needs and whatever board looked at the doctor's evaluation made the decision that her needs required that I not go unaccompanied, and that she required a certain level of care/therapy not available at overseas locations. I had no play in the decision beyond handing the doctor the evaluation to fill out and answering some of the doctor's questions.
To this day, I think that my being "the mom" in the equation had something to do with their decision that I couldnt go unaccompanied.
When you include the ‘mom’ thing into the equation, I guess it makes sense, because you were the primary care giver to your precious dot. It sounds like you are happy, overall, with the decision. I hope you, your dot, and fam are doing well. :smile:

Edit: And, thank you for your service. I don’t think I ever told you that.
 
Last edited:

black dog

Free America
I was deemed "undeployable" due to a Navy "Exceptional Family Member" program. Because of my daughter's condition, there were only 6 locations I could be assigned to - all stateside. No remotes, unaccompanied, etc - the Navy's determination. Luckily, I was on a controlled tour and as long as my command was happy with me and I was happy with them, I was untouchable by the regular Navy detailer - so I spent my last 10 years there before retiring at the 20 year mark. What a shame it would have been to have been kicked out because of it - I was a productive smember and a lot of money had been spent training me. Funny thing is, I was actually TDY more than plenty of "regular" sailors - 212 days one year.
Sorry I don't agree with that decision at all, so my single parent father has two children with no known disabilitys and he gets deployed multiple multiple times in my youth.
But yet someone with a disabled child is worth more as a sailer than my father..
Yea... I'm not good with that.... At all...
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Sorry I don't agree with that decision at all, so my single parent father has two children with no known disabilitys and he gets deployed multiple multiple times in my youth.
But yet someone with a disabled child is worth more as a sailer than my father..
Yea... I'm not good with that.... At all...
Those were different times, your dad was most likely a draftee and almost everyone was deployed almost continuously.
 

black dog

Free America
Those were different times, your dad was most likely a draftee and almost everyone was deployed almost continuously.
My dad enlisted in the 50's.. he did 20+ years...
I don't care what time period it is or was.. That's bad policy, no if and or buts..
Just because a service member has a handicapped child / children does not make his or her life more valuable then a service member with normal children..
If you can't deploy, you need to be handed a 214.... God what a horrible policy...
 
Top