Author Topic: WOW, Army Ups Enlistment Age (Read 1483 times)

Gunslinger · « **on:** March 21, 2005, 09:20:34 PM »

Anyone interested in correcting the regret of not joining?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151082,00.html

Quote

Army Ups Enlistment Age to 39

Monday, March 21, 2005

By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

WASHINGTON — The maximum age for new recruits joining the Army Reserve (search) and National Guard (search) has been raised by five years to 39.

Officials for the U.S. Army (search), which is struggling to meet enlistment quotas following two years of war in Iraq, announced the policy on Friday. They said raising the age expands the recruiting pool and strengthens the readiness of Reserve units. Another benefit, the Army said in a statement, is the "maturity, motivation, loyalty and patriotism" older recruits will bring to the service.

Physical requirements will remain the same for all recruits regardless of age. Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins told FOXNews.com that the older recruits will be required to pass the same "standard batter of physical, mental and cognitive tests" and would be expected to enter any environment expected of younger soldiers.

There are many "physically fit, health-conscious individuals in this [age] category who can serve their nation and they do right now," Robbins said.

The Army National Guard missed its recruiting goal for the 2004 fiscal year and is "short across the board right now" in recruiting soldiers for active duty, Reserves and Guardsman, Robbins said. But she added that recruitment during winter months is generally lower than average, while the end of the school year and summer see a jump in enlistments.

The number of Army Reservists and Guardsman mobilized as of March 15 is 47,000 Reservists — about a fifth of the total enlisted reservists and 108,000 Guardsman, nearly a third of the total in the Army's service. Those mobilized can be anywhere, including the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan or local airports.

The latest attempt to attract recruits is one of several initiatives taken by the Army to boost service numbers. Among other efforts, more recruitment offices are on the street and the service has offered several new financial incentives to encourage enlistment.

Robbins said that the Army expected the higher enlistment age to help it reach recruitment goals, but that no specific numerical goal for the older age group was set.

The test program applies only to new recruits and not those currently enlisted soldiers whose age requirements are determined by federal law. The age increase will run to September 2008. After the end of that period, the Army will "collect and analyze statistical data," including how many enlistments were recruited and how many were retained.

FOX News' Nick Simeone contributed to this report.

Rolex · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:23:47 PM »

Keyword: 'Reserve'

Nash · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:26:10 PM »

Is there a difference between the regular army and the guard nowadays?

Pongo · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:42:16 PM »

Man just turned 40 2 weeks ago so I guess I missed it.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:45:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Is there a difference between the regular army and the guard nowadays?

Not much. The guards Equipment is still the Reservs and Actives hand-me-downs so to speak.

The biggest difference is until the guard is federalized they belong to the states gov. He can mobilze his guard for floods and state emergancies.

Beleive it or not alot of the reservists in the more technical fields are actually federal employees. Many USAF jobs require you to join the reserves as well.

Good jobs to get in the guard are the full time ones. All the military bennies with half the military hassle.

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Man just turned 40 2 weeks ago so I guess I missed it.

not to mention the whole "candaian thing"

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2005, 10:06:20 PM »

Nash was making a whatever-the-fudge-the-word-is. The difference between Active Duty, Reserve, and Guards today is negligible since virtually all (I say virtually because of job specs, many may not) will be in Afghanistan or Iraq, or in the immediate US bases in the region. Essentially, "front line".

That above statement has no bearing on my political, if you want to call it that, stance.

I fail to see the "wow" here though, few are physically eligible at that age. EDIT: Actually, I do see the wow. Its less than promising to say the least.
-SW

eskimo2 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2005, 10:08:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Man just turned 40 2 weeks ago so I guess I missed it.

Me too, March 6th.

eskimo

Nash · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2005, 10:10:53 PM »

Yup yer right, and wrong.

The reason that the guard's recruiting is way down is because everyone is gonna wind up in the same place. The guard aint what it used to be during 'nam.

I guess what I was getting at is what is the difference, once they all land there? I mean, if I was thinking about joining the guard, I might as well join the army. Prolly better pay, equipment, and alla that.

So why join the guard? That's the "difference" I was wondering about.

CMC Airboss · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2005, 10:22:07 PM »

Not much chance of expecting a full career with retirment benefits if entering the Army at such a late stage in life.

Now if only the Air Force recruitment age was upped to 39...

MiG

Gunslinger · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2005, 10:49:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Yup yer right, and wrong.

The reason that the guard's recruiting is way down is because everyone is gonna wind up in the same place. The guard aint what it used to be during 'nam.

I guess what I was getting at is what is the difference, once they all land there? I mean, if I was thinking about joining the guard, I might as well join the army. Prolly better pay, equipment, and alla that.

So why join the guard? That's the "difference" I was wondering about.

The pay is exactly the same....and the benifits are some times better. You get some stuff from the state (in some states) that you don't get from the Fed.

as far as winding up in the same place. that's a big negative. Not all guard units are deploying to Iraq. According to the article only 1/5th of the total guard and reserves are on active duty. Once u are on AD however, the bennies are pretty much the same and there is not much difference.

I see what AKS\/\/ulfe is saying with the "Front line" thing. This is true because of the nature of the military force structure today. Units that are normally garison (IE cooks/air wing) are pulling guard and convoy duty just like the grunts.

So essentially if you enlist in the guard as an Apache crew chief you may or may not deployed. If you are the chances of you carrying a rifle at some point in time are virutally 99.99%.

Maverick · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2005, 10:50:59 PM »

Nash,

There is quite a bit of difference between the active Army and the Guard. The Guard gets equipment that is older and less than front line quality. In some cases the state springs for some good stuff and gets pretty fair equipment.

The missions for the guard are first state mandated. Then the Federal missions come into effect when the unit is Federalized. That is placed under Federal orders and essentially taken away from the state.

There are a lot of combat arms units in the guard as the Army made a conscious decision to shift combat arms to the Guard and make the Reserves more in the line of Combat Support and Combat Service Support. That means the Reserve Armor units were deactivated (like my old unit the 8th Bn 40th Armor) as were several of the Infantry units. The original concept was that the active Army needed those support units only on a large deployment and therefor would save money by keeping them a part time operation.

The Airforce did something similar when they put almost all their tanker assets into the Guard. I have to give it to the Air Force as they do a much better job of integrating the Guard and Reserves into the Active force.

If you are really interested in serving I have a feeling your prior activities may be a hindrance to getting in.

Nash · « **Reply #11 on:** March 21, 2005, 11:03:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
If you are really interested in serving I have a feeling your prior activities may be a hindrance to getting in.

Damn! Cuz I'm a CRAZY mothershrecker... Just make sure my boots are tied and point me in the right direction!

Thanks for the info though.

Toad · « **Reply #12 on:** March 21, 2005, 11:17:07 PM »

Two Guard kids from my son's high school class just got back. One from Iraq, the other from the 'Stan. They re-upped.

Nash · « **Reply #13 on:** March 21, 2005, 11:18:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Two Guard kids from my son's high school class just got back. One from Iraq, the other from Iran. They re-upped.

Iran?

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** March 21, 2005, 11:26:57 PM »

Yeah, he's SF in the Guard. He was over there planning the raids on the reactors with the Israeli commandos.

Not really. He was in Afghanistan. Must be late; I edited it and corrected it. Thanks for catching it.