Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My ds 14 is on various prescribed drugs, for ADD, and other reasons. He currently takes seroquel, along with zoloft, and tegratol.
Will this affect his ability to enlist in the military in the future? Even if he goes off those drugs, will just the history of being on them affect his ability to join the military later?
Unfortunately, yes. Unless the standards change he is disqualified indefinitely apart from a miracle happening.
But tell your son to not feel bad; he's in very, very good company. The following link will shock you and just about any Vietnam-era vet (or earlier):
And remember, that was 3 years ago. The number has probably risen.
The sad truth is that despite having thousands of servicemembers who will never deploy or even have a duty station outside the country, the DoD is still adamant about requiring everyone to meet deployment standards regardless of specialty (or likelihood of ever deploying). In ROTC I had an instructor who retired after 20 years having been in only two duty stations, both of which were in the U.S.
Even sadder is that they'll retain servicemembers with conditions that are automatically disqualifying for those seeking entry, if said conditions are developed after enlistment/commissioning. It makes no sense from a 'reduction of liability' standpoint, especially considering the DoD policy stated above, but that's what they do. The reasoning (as it was explained to me) is that it's easier to work with troops who develop serious medical problems while serving, than those coming in with such pre-existing conditions. If you want to see how well the policy works, just google "Bradley Manning" or "Nidal Hasan".
On top of that, I had a USAF recruiter tell me with a straight face that the Air Force tends to be stricter on medical standards with officer candidates than enlistees. This is of course a clear violation of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness (a DoD-wide regulation), but it does happen. Apparently, airmen are a different kind of human...
The good news for you son however, is that he can still support the military as a civil servant or defense contractor. There are many, many gov't employees of the DoD who are where they are now due to having been medically disqualified from military service, but still having a desire to serve the military.
Just a sidenote...
All the above is a big (perhaps the biggest) reason why there are fewer troops and more civil servants than ever before in our military branches. I'm not bagging on gov't employees, but there is a myriad of things servicemembers can do that DoD civilians cannot just by virtue of the different jobs they perform.
Lack of flexibility like the kind we had in WWII and Vietnam is hurting us terribly. There's a reason why we are at the mercy of our allies' cooperation in winning the Global War on Terror. We have nowhere near the numbers we need to win the GWOT without considerable allied assistance (which is almost non-existent, with the exceptions of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia).
Just look at the Army. The largest branch in our military is so strapped with manpower constraints that 60% of all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are National Guard and Reserve. It fills the void that would exist if only Active Duty troops were used, but (with the National Guard) it makes us less secure at home. Add all the above to the economic troubles of DoD and what you get is one big dangerous mess.
What you just read is not widely talked about or well known. Please pass this along. We are in trouble.
Um, no. The limitations on military manpower are statutory, not due to medical disqualification. All of the services met their recruiting quotas this year.
Furthermore, many of the services have had differing standards for enlisted vs officer. The Navy, for example, has different vision standards - this is not a secret and does not break regulations, even though its pretty foolish.
Um, no. The limitations on military manpower are statutory, not due to medical disqualification. All of the services met their recruiting quotas this year.
If you are saying that the statutory limitations on military manpower involve more than just the enforcement of medical standards, I agree. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying.
The Gov't is broke right now, and DoD will not spend money on people they don't "need" to. What's sad is they somehow think that those currently in with medical conditions that would've kept them out, are somehow less of a financial burden than if they had come in with such conditions already. They are not.
As far as the recruiting quotas this year... Yes, this is true. However the numbers were set too low and there are still too many civil servants in billets that should be occupied by military personnel instead.
Even with the widespread lack of interest in military service among military-age citizens, too many are turned away unnecessarily. As I said in my original post, there's no reason why every servicemember should have to meet deployment standards to just get in, when thousands will retire having never once gone overseas to a hostile AOR. Applicant has a condition that would disqualify him or her for OIF/OEF service? Then let the prospective recruit in, so he/she can serve in a non-deployable status and contribute to the GWOT so civil servants and defense contractors don't have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by looktowindward
Furthermore, many of the services have had differing standards for enlisted vs officer. The Navy, for example, has different vision standards - this is not a secret and does not break regulations, even though its pretty foolish.
That's not true. If you were to tell the average American this, he/she would either not care or dismiss your claim completely. At the very least the person would be skeptical, and for the reason you noted. Even many servicemembers don't know this is the norm.
Now, the elevated eyesight standard is justified when it's part of the slotting process for specialties requiring higher medical standards. This is fairly well-known, especially in the case of pilot and aircrew candidates. Same goes for all other specialty-specific medical standards.
Not like in the example you cited, where all officers are somehow deemed to have better eyesight than enlisted regardless of rate. All enlistment/commissioning standards are discriminatory, but should never be prejudicial. This one is both.
And yes it is a violation of regulation. There is no addendum to AR 40-501 authorizing the secretary of any branch to intensify or relax medical standards, on the basis of whether an applicant will train to be an officer or enlisted troop. The foolish policy we both dislike appears nowhere in writing.
Help please, my heart is broken for my son. My son has dreamed of joining the navy for a long time now. He graduated last June and has done everything the Navy has requested. He has done the echogram, EKG, and tracked down his medical records. After all of this the Navy called him tonight and said they cannot take him because he was on anti depressants over 5 years ago. He was only on them for a few years. He is your typical A B band geek and such a great kid. He asked me once, "if you ever won the lottery would you give me any of the money". I said, "of course'. His response was, "well I would still join the military and serve our country". Just trying to give you a back ground on what a great kid he is. So, now that the Navy has refused him I am worried that the Air Force will break his heart too. Should I continue to encourage him to try or tell him its done and he needs to go to college? Your opinions are greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!
Help please, my heart is broken for my son. My son has dreamed of joining the navy for a long time now. He graduated last June and has done everything the Navy has requested. He has done the echogram, EKG, and tracked down his medical records. After all of this the Navy called him tonight and said they cannot take him because he was on anti depressants over 5 years ago. He was only on them for a few years. He is your typical A B band geek and such a great kid. He asked me once, "if you ever won the lottery would you give me any of the money". I said, "of course'. His response was, "well I would still join the military and serve our country". Just trying to give you a back ground on what a great kid he is. So, now that the Navy has refused him I am worried that the Air Force will break his heart too. Should I continue to encourage him to try or tell him its done and he needs to go to college? Your opinions are greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!
I don't know much about enlisting but I don't see how that would effect his enlistment. Considering a lot have even taken people with criminal records and there was just someone who blew their acl out who got in. Those would seem more of a major issue then someone taking anti depressants especially years ago. I would call around and ask why and see if you can get some answers.
There are so many military members with PTSD and they often have normal backgrounds. So why would you expose somebody with a troubled background to an extreme career that even destroys the strongest and bravest??
I am not sure if it is a good choice for a kid who already has a history of depression/violence.... to join the military, carrying a weapon and getting deployed and seeing people get hurt or dying and make lifechanging, rational decisions.
If I would have a child, I would do all I could to keep him/her away from the military if there would be ANY signs of abnormal behavior. You are not only putting your own child in danger, also the children of other people who might get hurt if he rans amok.
I find it wildly irresponsible to give somebody with a violent or depression history a weapon.
There are so many military members with PTSD and they often have normal backgrounds. So why would you expose somebody with a troubled background to an extreme career that even destroys the strongest and bravest??
I am not sure if it is a good choice for a kid who already has a history of depression/violence.... to join the military, carrying a weapon and getting deployed and seeing people get hurt or dying and make lifechanging, rational decisions.
If I would have a child, I would do all I could to keep him/her away from the military if there would be ANY signs of abnormal behavior. You are not only putting your own child in danger, also the children of other people who might get hurt if he rans amok.
I find it wildly irresponsible to give somebody with a violent or depression history a weapon.
Talk to the recruiter first. If he's disqualified from one, chances are the others will be the same. You might try the Air Force National Guard recruiter but they all go through the same screening, I think. There are other ways to serve his country so don't give up.
Not all kids need to be on anti-depressants. We need to be very careful what we give our kids.
Summary of Veterans Statistics for PTSD, TBI, Depression and Suicide.
at least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or Depression. (Military counselors I have interviewed state that, in their opinion, the percentage of veterans with PTSD is much higher;
50% of those with PTSD do not seek treatment
out of the half that seek treatment, only half of them get "minimally adequate" treatment (RAND study)
19% of veterans may have traumatic brain injury (TBI)
Over 260,000 veterans from OIF and OEF so far have been diagnosed with TBI. Traumatic brain injury is much more common in the general population than previously thought: according to the CDC, over 1,700,000 Americans have a traumatic brain injury each year; in Canada 20% of teens had TBI resulting in hospital admission or that involved over 5 minutes of unconsciousness (VA surgeon reporting in BBC News)
7% of veterans have both post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury
rates of post-traumatic stress are greater for these wars than prior conflicts
recent statistical studies show that rates of veteran suicide are much higher than previously thought (see suicide prevention page).
PTSD distribution between services for OND, OIF, and OEF: Army 67% of cases, Air Force 9%, Navy 11%, and Marines 13%. (Congressional Research Service, Sept. 2010)
I don't know much about enlisting but I don't see how that would effect his enlistment. Considering a lot have even taken people with criminal records and there was just someone who blew their acl out who got in. Those would seem more of a major issue then someone taking anti depressants especially years ago. I would call around and ask why and see if you can get some answers.
I have no idea who I would call. Everyone I have talked to said that there is something wrong with this picture. The whole thing has been wrong from the get go. Everything was done backwards at this recruiters office. My husband was also in the Navy and says something is not right. Its been three days and he is still upset over this, but willing to move forward and go to school instead. Its hard to watch your child have his dreams crushed.
Thank you for any suggestions you have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
