English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

From what I have read in here I ask.
Why is the Army, so quick to throw their soldiers out instead of trying to fix the problem or issues the soldier has. I've seen it when I was in, instead of trying to help you through a tough time in your life, they say we don't need this, get out!
So much for "Of the Troops, For the Troops"
Granted I know it depends on the unit sometimes, I tried to go to a different unit, my orders got magically deleted.

2006-10-02 21:30:30 · 10 answers · asked by ? 1 in Politics & Government Military

True, the Army always does take the cheapest route.

2006-10-02 21:39:35 · update #1

10 answers

First, a soldier has to be in a constant state of readiness in order to perform his or her job. Therefore, if a soldier's problems directly interfere with his or her's performance, they are no longer an asset to that unit. In fact, they have now become a liability... and as with any other job... the military cannot or will not retain that person when they are no longer able to function and fulfill thier duties. Would any other workplace keep a non-working person as an employee and pay them to fix their problem? I don't think so. Further, the military, out of necessity, must have the most able-bodied (both physically and mentally) people as its employees since many, many lives depend on each and every soldier and his or her decisions.

2006-10-02 21:48:19 · answer #1 · answered by Laurie V 4 · 0 1

I Guess the US Marines are a little different .
I always got help for my Marines when there were problems , it was part of my job .
Late one night I had the duty and in touring the battation area I heard a baby cry . Not a sound you hear normally , I followed the sound .
A young Marine , who had just reported into the unit and was waiting for his pay to catch up , had moved his wife and 2 children into the barracks . He had no money to put them up somewhere.
As you can imagine this is a huge Violation of regulations .
The Marines in that platoon had given up their bunks and hung blankets for privacy .
They were none to happy when I come walking in , they were sure the crap had met the fan .
I got the kids story , along with a lot of pleading , from the Marine
and told him to let me see what I could do .
Now , it's a Friday night , 2 AM , And I start making phone calls.
I end up getting the Sgt. Major out of bed , told him what was what .
He told me to get the Marine and his family and meet him at his office in 15 minutes .
The Sgt Major drove the family off base , got them a hotel room and loaned them money to eat on .
I really expected an *** chewing from on high , but I couldn't throw 2 babies out in the cold .
Lucky for me , the Sgt Major felt the same way .

2006-10-03 06:07:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Old school, good Old Boys and cheap answer but we were taught a "Leopard never changes his stripes". Heck, if you're out appeal it directly to Secretary Rumsfeld or better yet to the JCC.
(See Following Note)

Joint Chief Of Staffs
Pentagon, Washington DC 20318-9999

General Peter Pace
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General Michael W. Hagee
Commandant of the Marine Corps

General Peter J. Schoomaker
Army Chief of Staff

Admiral Michael G. Mullen
US Navy Chief of Operations

General T. Michael Moseley
US Air Force Chief of Staff

What have you got to lose? I think you had a excellent point from which to argue: the shortage of troops and what it cost to have trained you. Get the local media, VFW, DAV, (this sounds cold but it is not) may-be some families who have lost someone as support and take a swing! Best of luck. God bless you and the Southern People.

2006-10-03 05:17:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think alot of this falls on the leadership, most would rather rid the problems than deal with the problems. If you have a good NCO and or Officer chain of command they will try to work these problems to a point, but they can not not waste their time if the soldier really doesn't want to help

2006-10-03 08:45:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well each case has it merits and extenuating circumstances... and yes, chain of command and concern both play a part in that. But we are required to try to re-habilitate soldiers first. Steps must be taken to assist/help the soldier first... that is required by regulation... hence the reason we now use the "new" DA Form 4856... Developmental Counseling Form.

Sometimes a rehab transfer is the best.... other times it isn't.

2006-10-03 07:09:27 · answer #5 · answered by tcatmech2 4 · 0 0

Perhaps it was because your problem wasn't worth repairing...no offense meant, but I know you'll take it. People live, people die...people have problems. If you wanted job security you should have went Navy or Air Force, you get broken in the Army, you're just a hinderance now.

2006-10-03 04:48:05 · answer #6 · answered by Kamikaze 3 · 0 1

It probably would cost the army more to fix their problems compared with throwing them out.

2006-10-03 04:35:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It's easier to get rid of someone then fix them. As one officer used to tell me "We don't hire the handicapped."

2006-10-03 08:48:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fix their problems compared with throwing them out

2006-10-03 04:37:23 · answer #9 · answered by auvee_263 2 · 0 1

U need to be assertive.
Built trust and make them idolise you.

That's about leadership.

2006-10-03 05:12:58 · answer #10 · answered by jameshgt 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers