Posted September 3, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
EmailDiscussShare »PrintAAA
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Suffer from a bad case of acne? That could disqualify you from joining the Army National Guard. Too many speeding tickets? In today's slimmer, smarter Guard, that could keep you out, too.
Under pressure from the Pentagon to trim its ranks, the Guard has been quietly phasing in new restrictions that make it harder to enlist.
"To get in now, you have to be the cream of the crop," said Sgt. 1st Class Brian Clum, a recruiter in Ohio.
Military officials portray the cutbacks as an effort to trim excess from a Guard force that was bloated from years of successful recruiting, especially during the recession.
Under restrictions issued by the National Guard's top recruiting commander early this year, the maximum enlistment age was lowered from 42 to 35. And the minimum score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Test, the exam required by all branches of the military, was raised for the Guard from 31 to 50 out of a possible 100.
Also, the Guard stopped forgiving potential recruits for offenses such as theft, assault, driving under the influence or chronic lawbreaking. And it stopped issuing medical waivers, which allowed recruits to be admitted despite health problems as serious as an extreme food allergy and as minor as a painful bout of acne.
In addition, the Guard's budget for bonus money has been cut. While most recruits since 2006 got $20,000 just for signing up, now only a precious few are eligible for any bonus money at all.
Col. Mike Jones, the Guard's top recruiting commander, said a higher percentage of applicants are being turned away compared with just a few years ago, though he would not give precise figures.
For some recruiters, the shrinking Guard is a source of frustration and envy, particularly since the regular Army is growing.
"We literally turn people away every day that want to serve and we can't take them," said Lt. Col. Anthony Abbott, recruiting commander for the Georgia Army National Guard.
It's an about-face from just a few years ago, when the Guard embarked on a recruiting rush with the start of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Guard was at its lowest strength in history with about 330,000 members, down from an all-time high of 457,000 in 1989.
In May, the Guard accepted 3,026 recruits, compared with 5,311 in May 2008. But the Guard gave no figures on how many men and women applied.
John Pike, director of the military think tank Globalsecurity.org, said the government is trying to reduce the outcry over the heavy use of the Guard in the Iraq war and wants to return the force to its original part-time status.
"They used the Guard a lot more than they had planned several times in Iraq just because that was all they had," Pike said.
The tougher enlistment standards may have worked all too well. In June and July, the Guard failed to meet its recruiting goals because of what Jones said may have been a combination of the worsening bloodshed in Afghanistan and the higher standards.
In fact, over the past couple of weeks, Jones told Guard commanders in 40 states they are free to reverse some of the restrictions.
"We might have cut a little too deep, too fast," Jones said.
Is Pentagon responding to public anger?
There are suspicions inside the Guard and out that the reductions are part of an effort to shift the burden of fighting overseas onto the active-duty Army and ease the public outcry over the way that Guard units -- part-time soldiers normally called into action during hurricanes and other disasters at home -- have been sent on long, repeated combat tours in Iraq.
In fact, while the Pentagon has cut the National Guard by about 9,000 soldiers to 358,200 over the past six months or so, the nearly 549,000-strong active-duty Army is under orders to recruit 70,000 new soldiers by the end of September and 22,000 more in the coming fiscal year as the fighting in Iraq winds down and the war in Afghanistan escalates.
— Associated Pr
No comments:
Post a Comment