By Caleb Rothmeyer
It was on September 30th of this year that the Army announced they would fail to meet their recruitment goals, coming up short by a whopping 25 percent of their target. The failure in recruiting could mean as many as 30,000 soldiers below target. Pundits speculated that the issue stemmed from everything from the tight labor market to falling trust in US institutions. Thus the typical solutions offered were massive bonuses designed to incentivize new recruits by up to $50,000. However, simply bleeding more money away at the problem is not the solution. Instead, the standards for recruitment should be reformed to reflect the modern nature of the army, warfare, and medical understanding; specifically what is considered disqualifying. Doing this would cost less than distributing absurd signing bonuses, and would tap a portion of the population that is eager and capable to serve. When this idea is presented it typically is met with immediate resistance. Concerns over readiness are understandable but they represent a misunderstanding of the problem itself. It is important to note all of these disqualifying factors are based on five principles: the possibility of contagion, excessive time lost for treatment, capability to accomplish the mission, capability to accomplish the mission without exacerbating existing health issues, and adaptability to different mission sets.
Many of the restrictions are reasonable. For example, a prospective soldier with Tuberculosis will be disqualified because he or she poses a risk to his or her fellow soldiers, and thus should not be allowed into the army until they are no longer a threat and can properly do their job. These principles are reasonable but the system still requires reform. As it stands right now the Army only considers 23% of Americans fit to fight. This demonstrates a problem of excessive disqualification. Not all of these cases can be blamed on obesity and missing limbs. There are three main problem areas that merit strong reconsideration.
The first is jobs that do not require peak human capability and health but are subject to the same strenuous standards as combat arms. These are the behind-the-scenes jobs that make up much of what the Army does. Workers tied to a desk should not be held to the same standard as those expected to engage in combat.
The second is disqualifying factors that are on a spectrum and subject to an arbitrary opinion. Many people for instance may have some amount of anxiety or depression. But it does not necessarily preclude them from meaningful service.
Third and finally, there are some disqualifying factors that are simply asinine or are reflections of outdated moors and taboos that have largely no place in contemporary society.
The argument will be made that by changing the standards, lower-quality soldiers will be allowed into the ranks and will degrade readiness. However, the current system excludes good soldiers and insists on overqualified candidates for certain positions.
Furthermore, the true threat to readiness is a diminished fighting force with crippling personnel shortages, weaker soldiers that are allowed to slip through the cracks after underperforming at Physical Training (PT), and funds redirected from other areas critical to the Army’s mission in order to try to sign on lower quality candidates. However, there is an alternative. The Army can reexamine what is disqualifying.
To begin with the first category. There are numerous disqualifying factors that would make sense for infantry or other combat arms but should not disqualify soldiers from holding less strenuous positions. Austere environments are not the norm for some uniformed personnel. Obviously, a cavalry scout cannot have moderate asthma, however, a hospital worker that may never even operate outside of the US should not have an issue using an inhaler once in a while. A combat engineer must not have a shoulder that dislocates easily, however, a truck driver is not subject to the same occupational hazards and stress. In order to increase readiness, standards should be changed to be Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) specific. This would allow for more applicants to be admitted that are qualified to be admitted to those positions. With all of this in mind, it should be noted that plenty of these positions are unnecessarily filled by servicemembers. Many of these jobs that require the same medical qualifications but will not see combat are excessively restrictive. Put simply, civilian jobs should be left to civilians, not civilians in uniform. Those expected to engage in combat can still be held to a high standard. Those who will not be put into combat positions should be employed as civilians, should not go to basic training, and should not be subject to the same medical standards. This reform will lead to a smaller force on paper, however, the army will have an easier time filling its combat positions as it does not need to focus on filling desk jobs with the most physically fit soldiers. This poses the problem of the last principle for the medically disqualifying factors. Soldiers must be adaptable to different mission sets. At the end of the day, a JAG officer must be able to put down the law book and pick up a rifle. However, if a war has gotten so bad (particularly if a draft is imposed to handle personnel shortages) that we are asking finance personnel to go into battle instead of armor brigade combat teams, no one will care if that accountant has 20/20 vision or not.
The second issue is that many disqualifying factors are on a broad spectrum. This is in part good. It allows for medical review boards to distinguish between non-issues and severe crises that would present a threat to the soldiers and mission. However, it can still boil down to one doctor making an arbitrary judgment call. If the candidate is lucky, their appeal might make it through a board; however, it’s still a shot in the dark made by an overworked bureaucratic system filled with people who just want to go home. For obvious reasons it is difficult to know how many people are unfairly disqualified from service, however, it is not hard to imagine a significant number of quality candidates being rejected because they fell somewhere on a spectrum for a certain issue. There are numerous factors that can be disqualifying if they are extreme enough: allergies, ADD, acne and so much more can all be grounds for disqualification. No matter how severe each case is, if it led to any sort of diagnosis or treatment, a review board will have to make an arbitrary decision as to whether or not that person is fit to serve. Given the nature of the bureaucratic beast, it can never fully take into account the complexities of each person’s case. For instance, a potential soldier may have had ADHD as a child (a disorder that affects 5-8% of the population). Under current regulations, if medication has not been taken in the past 24 months, there have been no accommodations provided since the fourteenth birthday, comorbid mental disorders have not been an issue, and there is no documentation of an adverse effect on performance…a waiver may be granted. However taking medication only for tests in an academic environment, such as the SAT or finals, would be disqualifying. They may not require medication in a military environment. It is not hard to imagine other areas where these nuances would be an issue. Imagine the complexity of mental health issues ranging from self-mutilation to suicidal ideation and the vast array of circumstances that could lead to a candidate having experience with this. To solve this problem, the Department of Defense Medical Evaluation Review Board (DODMERB), Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), and other review processes should see an increase in staffing and local providers should have more of a say in whether the candidate is fit for service. The local provider has the most experience with the candidate and in some cases may even have known them from birth. Lastly, the review process should be more accepting of imperfections.
Finally, there are disqualifying factors that are simply asinine or anachronistic. Mental health can be a serious concern not only for the well-being of the soldier but also for their reliability and capability to accomplish their mission. With that being said the military is excessively cautious in what it restricts. Treatment for depression or anxiety within the past twelve months is considered disqualifying. The CDC states that “about 1 out of every 6 adults will have depression at some time in their life. Depression affects about 16 million American adults every year…Anxiety disorders often go hand in hand with depression.” Given how many Americans are disqualified from service it is imprudent to outright disqualify potential soldiers based off of the fact that they have seen a counselor or take anti-depressants. Instead, the severity of each case should be examined by multiple qualified professionals. Furthermore, people already in the service should be able to get help without fear of reprisal. Putting aside the moral reasons for this, by allowing soldiers to seek treatment at least some problems can be stopped or ameliorated before they get to the point where the soldier has a problem great enough to truly impact the mission or safety. This problem is epitomized by a few examples: the drugs recommended by the VA for PTSD are actually disqualifying. suicidal ideation, including “discussion” and “gestures”, is disqualifying. Any attempted suicide, at any point, no matter the context, is disqualifying and is in some instances even a prosecutable offense. Any sort of self-mutilation can be disqualifying, again regardless of the broader context. This problem however is not limited to mental health. There are other qualifications that are exacerbating the recruiting crisis. Marijuana usage is still illegal under federal law. As a result, thousands of Americans are disqualified from service because they consumed marijuana at one point or another. According to a recent Gallup poll, forty-nine percent of American adults have tried marijuana (Nearly Half of U.S. Adults Have Tried Marijuana (gallup.com). This eliminates their prospects for service if they cannot pass a drug test despite the fact that numerous states have legalized the drug and recently the president pardoned all those convicted of possession. STDs can be a disqualifying factor. This makes sense for HIV, a deadly disease, but the logic runs out when one considers easily treatable infections with no bearing on a soldier’s ability to execute his or her mission. As if to illustrate the absurdity, those in the special warfare community can be disqualified for having a laparotomy, meaning a small surgical incision into the abdomen. For example, if someone were to have their gallbladder or appendix removed they could be disqualified from service in special operations.
If the consequences were not so dire these restrictions would almost be comical. However, the ramifications of this flawed system have serious implications for national security. By disqualifying people from service who are in fact fit to serve, America loses readiness. The current system of determining who is qualified needs great reform. The fact is, not all jobs require the same level of health and the standards should reflect that. There is no cookie-cutter diagnosis for who is fit to serve, so when an arbitrary decision has to be made the provider on the ground should have the biggest say, and a pragmatic review board that is equipped to handle its caseload should make the final call. Finally, inane, irrelevant, and anachronistic moral judgments must be left out of the selection process. There is not a silver bullet to the Army’s recruiting crisis, but the first step should be unjamming the weapon so good rounds can get in the chamber.
Comments