• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Army suicides hit record high

10 you're absolutely right in this. The Rev is wrong. I'm not sure why he thinks it is so unusual for someone to get a waiver for a crime so as to enlist in the military. I personally know several people this has happened to.




A waiver is not what she is claiming. I asked her about a waiver no less than 5 times. She claims that as a condition of her sones adjudication he MUST join a branch of service......


this can not be,



Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b: "

Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."
 
Because then they could verify that what I say is true.
There's a record of his arrest, of his charges being suspended, and of his joining the military, isn't there?
The Cap'n's some kind of therapist for teens; he could access these records if he wanted to. And he would never do anything to hurt us, because he's ethical.




I do not require any of that...


1. was there a waiver.

2. what does the court papers say. where in the court decision does it say military or jail.....



thats it, no need for fear, no need for you to reveal names or nothing.....
 
My brother had that--joined the Navy.

They suspend the charges and then drop them. It's part of the bargaining to determine what he might be charged with--and then charges are never actually filed. At least that's how I understand it. It's not being "forced" it's giving them a choice.



When?

I know it happened years ago, this reg i think is fairly recent.
 
I had forgotten that this was your 17-year-old. This makes your story even more credible. I've seen this many times. I believe that the terminology was not explained to you properly, which is the confusion. There is no doubt in my mind that you are telling the truth, here...and EVERYONE knows I am the first to go after liars...friend or foe.

I do not need your personal information to confirm your story. This is how it would happen in NJ. Kid gets arrested. Kid goes to court. Kid gets PTI (pre-trial intervention). This intervention can be a variety of things...community service, military service, counseling, etc... If the kid agrees to this, and follows through with what the court "suggested", then, depending on the the charge, either his record would be expunged, or the consequences of the charge would be eliminated. I have a client, right now, that went through this process. He refused (idiot) and is now facing jail time.

I would always be cautious about sharing personal information on the internet. I am precisely who and what I say I am, but having been involved in internet safety for 10+ years, it's always a little concerning. I do not need your information to confirm what you are saying is accurate, and I'm not sure I could find out anything else if I did.

My suggestion is to let it go. What you say is accurate. Ignore those who do not believe you.

And I also suggest that we end this publicly. No need for it to continue.





this is different than what she claims...


this all could have been settled, had she answered my general, non personal questions....


Join the Military or Go to Jail?


Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b:

"Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."



Expungend means he is good to go. I do not understand the judicial ruling of "eliminated".... do you mean "dropped"?

Are the kids you deal with "depped" until either of these two happen, or are you suggesting the Army is taking people with active charges?



Are you saying the rules are ignores, or is there more to your story?

When I joined I got a speeding ticket. I had to go to court to settle it before i went to basic....
 
Because the alternative was going to jail.
It is exactly as I've stated.
And yes, apparently it happens fairly routinely.
I will not post further details of his situation on the public board; most of my forum friends are already aware of the situation, as it's something I've been dealing with since mid-December.

As I've stated, if proof is needed, I will give his personal information to the Cap'n or someone I can trust, and they can verify it for you.

Repeating over and over that it sounds fishy is pointless.
It happened. It's happening now. I can prove it.

You don't have to "prove it", because such deals are found around the world as well. My brother in law in Europe also had the same deal when in order to avoid jail the judge gave him the choice to enroll in the army.

This kind of deals is optional by the judge, this is to say, that the judge can offer such choice if he wants to. The individual can decide between time in jail or service in the army. This is the same that to decide between jail or community service, but apparently the judge saw in my brother in love that he really needed some discipline but that he didn't have criminal tendencies either, so the army was the best option on the table.

I think that we must need to go back to the old style of recruiting troops and send the prisoners to the front lines in a war, if they survive they can short their years of prison, if they die then they did it servicing the nation with honor. Plus, no psychiatric help should be needed for them later on, but on the contrary, this step should be avoided because the risk of the psychiatrist to be killed by the inmate...:lol:
 
Last edited:
Conquer,


Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b:


"Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."



Please comment.
 
Conquer,


Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b:


"Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."



Please comment.

One thing is to be "ordered to enroll in the army" and a complete different scenario is to hear from the judge "the option to enroll in the army instead of receiving a punishment like jail."

Remember that the individual "has not been convicted yet", and that the judge is just offering the choice.
 
"adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court,"



please reconcile.
 
"adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court,"



please reconcile.

I should like to do so but I can't, because even judges brake the law.

Of course that Europe has different laws, but in the case of my relative, his father started the deal by giving an expensive gold pen as a gift from his wife to the judge. When it came his son's case turn, the judge listened the case and gave him the choice between jail and the army. The son didn't say anything but his father chose the army for many reasons and the main one was to avoid criminal records for his son.

I have no idea if the army is capable to investigate every similar case in US and around the world, but I agree with 10 that such indeed happens, and if 10 was joking then I am not because I saw my brother in law servicing in the navy of his country right after his case in court. His service in the navy lasted two years, and he has no criminal records as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
I should like to do so but I can't, because even judges brake the law.


I will concede this. I will also state there must be a lie on the part of the court system, that is therefore null and void.


Of course that Europe has different laws, but in the case of my relative, his father started the deal by giving an expensive gold pen as a gift from his wife to the judge. When it came his son's case turn, the judge listened the case and gave him the choice between jail and the army. The son didn't say anything but his father chose the army for many reasons and the main one was to avoid criminal records for his son.

I have no idea if the army is capable to investigate every similar case in US and around the world, but I agree with 10 that such indeed happens, and if 10 was joking then I am not because I saw my brother in law servicing in the navy of his country right after his case in court. His service in the navy lasted two years, and he has no criminal records as far as I know.




I had a supervisor who had the same thing during the vietnam era...... In todays military, It can not happen the way it has been described.


You need a waiver, and your case needs to be fully adjudicated, unless someone is breaking the law.
 
Chapter 4
Waiver and Nonwaiver Enlistment Criteria
Section I
Waiver and Nonwaiver Disqualifications

4–1. General
This section contains waiver and nonwaiver enlistment criteria and prescribes procedures to initiate and process a
request for waiver to meet basic enlistment qualifications.
4–2. Moral and administrative disqualifications
a. Commanders at all levels determine if waiver requests warrant favorable consideration through—
(1) Questioning.
(2) Investigating.
(3) Counseling.
(4) Gathering proper documents and waiver request information.
b. Recruiters do not have the authority to disapprove a waiver request or to refuse to forward an applicant’s request.
c. Applicants who do not meet established enlistment standards are not eligible for enlistment unless a waiver is
authorized. Commanders cited in this regulation have the authority to approve waivers as appropriate. The burden is on
the applicant to prove to waiver authorities that he or she has overcome their disqualifications for enlistment and that
their acceptance would be in the best interests of the Army. Waiver authorities will apply the “whole person” concept
when considering waiver applications.
d. Applicants having tattoos will be screened in accordance with AR 670–1.
e. Suitability will be determined by the following:
(1) Applicants with a criminal history (regardless of disposition) or questionable moral character, but because of
dismissed charges, plea bargains, or release without prosecution, must have a suitability review for determination of
enlistment. Reviewer will determine if a personal interview with the applicant is required, and, if so, may be
accomplished telephonically. Approval will be annotated on the DD Form 1966 remarks section with a review date,
name and title of reviewer.

(a) Suitability review will be conducted on the following charges prior to any moral waiver processing on all
applicants (the appropriate review level is also noted):
1. One or more serious offense, regardless of disposition (Recruiting Company Leadership Team or equivalent
member of the ARNG).
2. Six or more minor traffic convictions where the fine was $250 or more per offense (Recruiting Company
Leadership Team or equivalent member of the ARNG).
3. Five or more minor non-traffic charges (Recruiting Company Leadership Team or equivalent member of the
ARNG).
4. Two or more misdemeanor charges (Recruiting Battalion Leadership Team or equivalent member of the ARNG).
5. Combination of four or more minor non-traffic or misdemeanor charges (Recruiting Battalion Leadership Team or
equivalent member of the ARNG).
6. One serious criminal misconduct charge, regardless of disposition (Recruiting Battalion Leadership Team).
7. Any offenses requiring a suitability review and the appropriate approval level are set out in paragraph 4–11.
Domestic battery/violence charge, includes but is not limited to, charge(s) of domestic violence, assault, simple assault,
assault and battery, battery, assault with the intent to commit bodily harm, assault on a person, or abuse by an applicant
against his/her parent, step-parent, sister, or brother, regardless of disposition. Recruiting Battalion Leadership Team
will forward all such cases to USAREC Waivers or DARNG for review if determined that they fall under the
Lautenberg Amendment.
8. Domestic battery/violence charge as defined under Lautenberg law, regardless of disposition (see definition in
paragraph 4–7f) (CG, USAREC or DARNG).
9. When it is reported (either by visual sighting or annotated on the DD 2807/2808) through a tattoo, behavior,
verbal or written communication, appearance, or gestures that an individual is or may be involved with an extremist
organization, group, or gang, the following procedures will be used to determine eligibility:
a. The commander must ensure from a series of direct and indirect questions that the applicant is in fact given fair
assessment and determination without personal bias or predetermined outcome.

AR 601–210 • 7 June 2007 31
b. A person who admits to or is determined to have been associated with or in a gang linked to criminal or extremist
activity will be questioned concerning the involvement. The fact that a person has been in a gang may not be grounds
for disqualification. The whole person concept must be applied. Criminal background, commander interview, and
potential for meeting Army standards must be reviewed.
(b) Court documents are required for misdemeanor, serious offenses, and serious criminal misconduct charges.
(2) Any applicant who is denied enlistment because of questionable moral character will have the denial information
forwarded via e-mail to USAREC–G3, RO Waivers or DARNG for member of the ARNG.
f. Applicants enlisting in the DEP/DTP/DS or ARNG who conceal charges that require a waiver will be discharged.
All DEP/ DTP/DS or ARNG applicants discharged under this paragraph will incur a 6-month waiting period from date
of separation orders and require a fraudulent enlistment waiver from the recruiting battalion commander along with any
additional waivers as noted in this chapter. The waiting period is for administrative and evaluation purposes. Any
applicant enlisting in the DEP/DTP/DS or ARNG who conceals charges not requiring a waiver will be reviewed in
accordance with the following:
(1) Applicants enlisting in the DEP (RA or USAR)/DS who conceal a charge or charges that do not require a waiver
or USAREC review can be retained and authorized to ship by the Recruiting Brigade Commander or equivalent ARNG
commander.
(2) Discharge authority for DTP or ARNG Soldiers who fraudulently enlist is the same as approval authority
authorized to retain USAR or ARNG Soldiers.
(3) The Brigade Commander (may be delegated to Brigade DCO) may grant an exception to retain in the DEP a
future Solider who requires a waiver as a result of unintentionally concealed information. The term “unintentional” is
used to allow those cases in which an error or the FS admitted to charges but may have not used the technically correct
term, or there were “stacked” charges (related to and part of the same offense) that was omitted unintentionally. This
authority does not include any excuse such as “it was expunged, dismissed, dropped, my lawyer told me not to reveal
or a judge told me I had no record”, these excuses are not valid in that USAREC will require each applicant to
acknowledge that they were not told to conceal charges for these reasons, and the applicant will both in writing and
verbally acknowledge they have not withheld any information based on these reasons. The Brigade Commander or
DCO will determine if the applicant intentionally concealed information and if that determination is affirmative, then
discharge must occur.


About.com: http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r601_210.pdf
 
Last edited:
Undoubtedly young 1069 was "interviewed" and determined acceptable. :roll: Jeesh--why so invested in this, Rev. It's certainly PLAUSIBLE. The waiver occurred via the interview.
 
Undoubtedly young 1069 was "interviewed" and determined acceptable. :roll: Jeesh--why so invested in this, Rev. It's certainly PLAUSIBLE. The waiver occurred via the interview.





Two reasons.


1. That it was factually lacking. I simply asked for clarification. As her explaination did not follow how it usually goes. All she had to say was "yeah waiver". The fact that she dodged that and almost sent me his name is a clue.

2. To show that there was much more to the proccess than a judges order. I showed you the relevant regulation, and stated that a waiver would be required after the case is settled.







Oh and I really do not care. :lol: this is a discussion board. I had info, I argued it. :mrgreen:



I hope he does well in the Army. Though I am still curious why if "he did not want to go" but had a choice of branches, he chose the Army.... ;)
 
Last edited:
I offered to join the Army, but they thought I'd be more beneficial continue to them fighting liberalism on this website. :rofl:
 
I offered to join the Army, but they thought I'd be more beneficial continue to them fighting liberalism on this website. :rofl:

I believe it.
 
I offered to join the Army, but they thought I'd be more beneficial continue to them fighting liberalism on this website. :rofl:

I thought Don't Ask Don't Tell kept you out?


OH SNAP!!!!1111one
 
I can't believe you think I would lie about what's happening to my poor baby.
Do you really think this makes a good or entertaining story?
My friends on the board, including the Cap'n, have known about all this since mid-December. I've been distraught, I've been PMing them about things as they develop. This is my youngest, my baby, my 17-year-old. Just turned 17.

Is everyone else on the board also willing to give Cap'n their children's names and social security numbers so that he can look into their criminal records and verify that they are who they say they are?
I have been extremely careful about sharing identifying information in my years on this board.
I think I can trust the Cap'n not to mess things up for us, at least not deliberately. I'm just so scared about giving out my baby's name and identifying information to anyone on the internet, when his situation is so precarious. He's enlisted, but he's not shipping for months yet. I've got to get him safely through the next few months. It's just a very uncertain time. His safety, his future, and possibly his very life is hanging in the balance, and I think that might be a little more important than mom's internet cred, unless mom is a completely psychotic asshole. I trust the Cap'n, but I don't really know who he is. And if the forum at large, after knowing me three years, thinks I'd lie about such a thing, I'm not sure why I'd feel compelled to give out my minor child's identifying information in order to prove anything to you anyway. You obviously don't know me, care about me, or have my or my child's best interests at heart.

Cap'n, tell me what to do. What would you do in this situation?

And Rev, don't you ever let me catch you impunging others' service again. Your service isn't crap, compared to being forced to send one's beloved child into war. If you think I wouldn't go in his place if they'd let me, you're insane, you don't understand what it is to be a parent, and you aren't fit to be one, and you never will be.

Actually, I don't believe you are lying. If you went ahead with this, I am sure that the Reverend would end up having to apologize to you.

BTW - I made my post before I noticed CC's warning post, so sorry I stuck my nose into this.

Truce, 10?
 
Actually, I don't believe you are lying. If you went ahead with this, I am sure that the Reverend would end up having to apologize to you.

BTW - I made my post before I noticed CC's warning post, so sorry I stuck my nose into this.

Truce, 10?

And do you think an apology is going to be useful to me in some way?
Is it going to somehow help my situation?
An apology from a stranger on the internet?

There is nothing illegal going on here. Everything is legal and aboveboard.
If you try to make trouble for us in any way, in ANY WAY, I will find you and make you sorry.
Do you hear me, Rev?
Stay the **** out of our lives.
This is none of your affair.
 
Last edited:
Many of these suicides aren't about the deployments. They occur after the serviceman has come home to find his life turned upside down because he married an unsupportive cheater.

The whole "PTSD" excuse is largely a sham for sympathy. To state that it is simply because of the deployment is erroneous and it does no favor to those who actually suffer from PTSD.
 
Last edited:
Many of these suicides aren't about the deployments. They occur after the serviceman has come home to find his life turned upside down because he married an unsupportive cheater.

The whole "PTSD" excuse is largely a sham for sympathy. To state that it is simply because of the deployment is erroneous and it does no favor to those who actually suffer from PTSD.

Of course they're not going to reveal cheaters in the poll because it would reveal how morally bankrupt this country is in the family values dept.
 
Of course they're not going to reveal cheaters in the poll because it would reveal how morally bankrupt this country is in the family values dept.

It's so true for a surprisingly high number of people.
 
The whole "PTSD" excuse is largely a sham for sympathy.

Denial of post traumatic stress disorder shows disrespect for the military and the true cost of their service. These men and women have had too much asked of them, and deserve all the support we can provide.
 
Denial of post traumatic stress disorder shows disrespect for the military and the true cost of their service. These men and women have had too much asked of them, and deserve all the support we can provide.

I'm pretty sure Gunny's been in the USMC longer than I've been alive.
 
Back
Top Bottom