WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2007
Military Granting More Criminal Waivers
Army, Marine Corps Allowing More Recruits With Felony Convictions To Join Up
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Military 101
Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
The military routinely grants waivers to take in recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Most are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.
Defense Department statistics show that the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.
The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003.
The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors, which could be petty theft, writing a bad check or some assaults, jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006. The minor crimes represented more than three-quarters of the moral waivers granted by the Army in 2006, up from more than half in 2003.
Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who may have made a mistake early in life but have overcome past behavior. And they said about two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Marines are for drug use, because they — unlike the other services — require a waiver if someone has been convicted once for marijuana use.
Lawmakers and other observers say they are concerned that the struggle to fill the military ranks in this time of war has forced the services to lower their moral standards.
"The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. "By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country."
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday he is concerned because the Pentagon data differs from Army numbers. But overall, he said, "anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review."
"Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies," Boyce said.
The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues.
"The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.
Belkin said a new study commissioned by the center also concludes that the military does not have any programs that help convicted felons adjust to military life.
In recent years, as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have dragged on, the military has also relaxed some standards in order to meet recruitment demands. The Army, for example, increased its age limit for recruits from 35 to 42, and is accepting more people whose scores on a standardized aptitude test are at the lower end of the acceptable range.
In its report, the Pentagon said, "The waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military."
According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of new military recruits needed some type of waiver in 2006, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.
The military in its report divides moral waivers into six categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses. Because many states have different crimes categorized as a felony or misdemeanor, the groupings are more general.
About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver to enlist in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003. In addition, the report showed that the Army granted substantially fewer waivers for drug use and serious traffic violations last year than in 2003.
More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements. Felony waivers made up about 2 percent of the Marine waivers, while other lesser crimes made up about 25 percent, both up slightly from 2003.
About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up only slightly from 2003. Two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Navy were for misdemeanor-type crimes and about 5 percent were for felonies.
Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003. Nearly all of the waivers were for the misdemeanor-type crimes.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Actually, it's kind of a smart decision because a) the government scores a live body to send to Iraq, and b) the tainted enlistee gets to go to Iraq to kill people.
What a novel concept -- geeze!
Posted by dallison7 at 11:43 AM : Feb 14, 2007
You are such a "global" moron. The man has 2 years left in office....care to explain how he plans "global domination"? I'd LOVE to see your worthless liberal a** inducted into the Army - not ours, maybe France's .....bald head an all!
For those of you who have sons, daughters, brothers, fathers and are serving in Iraq, do you feel comfort that their lives may now be in the hands of someone who scored less than what was previously considered acceptable on an aptitude test? When you are in a battle situation, you need to be able to depend on everyone in your squad. One weak link could risk the entire squad. And considering the pressure to meet recruiting objectives, do you really believe that only those who "have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military" will receive waivers?
Posted by bigwhtpony at 11:55 AM : Feb 14, 2007
Wow, I can%u2019t believe I'm posting this, but I actually agree w/you on this one. Part of the problem w/this war (besides the fact that it never should have been started in the first place) is that the poor are disproportionably represented. Much of that has to do with the fact that, for many of our nations poor, joining the service provides an opening to a better life they otherwise would not have. While deferments would still occur among the very elite, a more diverse service would emerge.
I still say that we just need to get the h e l l out of there, though.
Posted by scott4261 at 12:31 PM : Feb 14, 2007
See! Hope springs eternal! :)
GI Jane is back, still blaming everything on the "previous administration."
WAKE UP, jane!! This is 2007!! Clinton left office SIX YEARS ago!!
FACE FACTS!! Bush didn't even properly equip the Armed Forces that he sent to do his dirty work!!
He let BIN LADIN excape in Tora Bora.
Wake up, jane. Wake up!
Actually, the "gutting" started under Bush I after the cold war ended. And most of those slashes under Bush I and Clinton were big ticket items.
The biggest problem now are small but vital things - armor protection for vehicles and vests. And, as down-ndirty said, Clinton is gone six years now. Even if troops were shorted on these small things with Bubba, Bush has had more than enough time to get this small stuff to our troops and he hasn't done it. It takes six years to build an aircraft carrier. But it doesn't take six years to make body armor.
The homosexual and terrorist soldiers already serving aren't deviant enough in Iraq; let's raid the prisons and turn the inmates loose across the planet.
We wail on the Chinese for allegedly using prisoners to provide goods and services for export; but we are exporting criminal soldiers who are even more deft at murder, robbery, rape and sodomy. LOL
The eternal question: What's better? Or, in this case, worst? A convict who wants to be there or a draftee who doesn't?
Doesn't one's status go down as a military person with one's service and association with KNOWN CRIMINALS? LOL
Lets put criminals in the military!
Maybe they'll be rehabilitated?
The military is desparate for new recruits?
I wonder why.
This could be an option for people who are going to go to prison.
Go to jail or join the Army.
I could clean out our prisons.
I could clean out our prisons.
Posted by getcentered at 01:22 PM : Feb 14, 2007
In the late 60's (and probably before) an amazing number of people were offered that choice. More then a few criminal cases were settled with a plea bargain that included going to Vietnam.
The numbers don't justify the hype, nor do the men and women who have served their time in jail/prison. They are trying to help our country because we the civilized have closed off jobs, housing, and other services here at home. It seems some within the ranks, or those so called quality people, have also committed crimes. What about those at Abu Gharib? They weren't criminals before they entered.The military is not a monastery or convent.
When they return to society, they will be 'well trained' and better equipped to wail on defenseless Americans. LOL
Geee....I wonder why that is? Let's see, could there be some kind of cause and effect relationship here?
Well, iraq was invaded in '03....hmmmmm. Maybe the better quality recruits decided they didn't want to be endangered in a ridiculous neocon boondoggle? Maybe???
Posted by crater7 at 03:49 PM : Feb 14, 2007
Cite one instance where an INS employee has been arrested and prosecuted for "doing their job".
to go and kill the yellow man.
Bruce Springsteen, "Born in the USA".
-------------------------------------
When I was a senior in high school, in 1965, a boy I had a crush on stole a car and got caught. Instead of going to jail, since he was of draftable age, he went to Viet Nam. He made it thru, but came home addicted to heroin, he OD'd and died about 5 years later. Shoulda went to jail, I guess.
This is nothing new.
I saw many take to the needle in Viet Nam. A big part of it was that we all knew it was an American boondoggle, just like many of our warriors feel about Iraq.
I correspond via email with a young female warrior in Iraq and she states that most of them have to "drink the Kool-Aid" in front of the cameras to avoid courts martial, but privately, they have the same feelings we had in Viet Nam...a ridiculous and total waste.
Posted by r_bayless at 04:44 PM : Feb 14, 2007
Bro, we would have killed to have these MRE's these kids today get. We made do on C-Rats, and a lot of stale ones at that! lol.
what is it good for?
absolutely nothing
Say it again
War-I despise
'Cos it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers how
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives
I said
War-huh
It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
It's an enemy of all mankind
the thought of war blows my mind
war has caused unrest within the younger generation
induction then destruction, who wants to die?
It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War
it got one friend that's the undertaker
War has shattered
Many young men's dreams
made him disabled, bitter, and mean
life is much too short and precious to spend fighting wars these days
war can't give life, it can only take it away
It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
We've got no place for it today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's just got to be a better way
War
War
War-Good God, yall
Give it to me, yeah
What is it good for?
Thank you for the words to ths song!! It has been a favorite of mine ever since it first came out....
I appreciate your concern that what I wrote may be interpreted as being disrespectful to those serving. Apologies, as it was not intended that way.
However, by the same token, not all ex-cons are untrustworthy, nor are they disloyal to their country, nor would they not want to serve this country. The news article itself described the small increases in waivers, not exactly flooding the system. Also, felons covers a large group of crimes including some traffic violations. These are not murderers, rapists, arsonists nor even violent assaultive criminals. That the military would accept them is neither degrading to the military nor is it putting our country or servicemen and women in greater danger. The issue is trust; and trust is earned regardless of past. If a person, i.e. ex-con, can make it through boot camp and through the required training, why would I have reason to assume that at the last moment or the vital moment this singular person--based upon some drug incident in his past or some larceny--will now abandon his squad? The logic doesn't fit; the fear does, but not the logic. "Once a con always a con" is a faded stereotype.
If klinton did not need a waiver when he applied for a job to keep his dirty finger on the nukelar button, then, sure as hell, those young guys do not need no stupid waiver for smoking marijuana or for been in some fist fight.
--Michael Vilkin
-
by frankbowers
February 16, 2007 6:00 PM EST
- I would like to remind this mikeevilkin if Mr Clinton (correct spelling don't blame everthing on Clinton a blow *job* which you would have enjoyed)not dumb nut* like gwb I would like for you to think who received a scholarship to the best college in the world & if he did inhale he would not have been admitted to the army in those days deserters in those days wern't allow to run for president.If U think for one minute gwb wasn't a deserter I lived in Houston from 61 to 79 on Terrydale 77037 and can recall in 72 the AP's were looking for a drug user/deserter, lt. g.w.bush. That is a fact.The best of good byes FBowers
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 36 Comments