From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"George Sherwood"  wrote in message
news:pan.2006.01.28.17.54.33.71764{at}beernabeer.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:14:28 -0600, Robert G Lewis wrote:
>
>>
>> "George Sherwood"  wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.01.28.16.54.10.72791{at}beernabeer.com...
>>> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:46:46 -0500, Robert Comer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having re-ups is fine, but if nobody wants to go in
anymore, it's a war
>>>> of
>>>> attrition and we all know how well those turn out.
>>>
>>> The Army has met its goal for recruiting now for 3 months.
>>>
>>>
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060110-063639-6166r
>>>
>>> George
>>
>> What changes have they made to recruiting standards recently ? I know
>> they
>> have raised the max age to 40 and increased some  bonuses. I've seen some
>> references to the Military taking in more lower quality recruits ( who
>> still
>> meet pentagon standards) and making more difficult to kick them out of
>> boot
>> camp but I don't know how accurate that is.
>
> I really am not involved any where close to this, so I don't know. I know
> they aren't going to take some 40 year-old and send him to an infantry
> group. My guess is for that age, we are talking very special skills
> required and probably previous experience.  I haven't heard any of my Army
> friends complain about the quality so I can't speak to that at all either.
> I know that they complain about the physical condition of the recruits.
> Army physical standards actually go up with age since recruits are so out
> of shape when they enter.

I think the max of age 40 is with no prior service. I do know the Navy will
accept 50 + year olds with prior service and a specialty. Had a cousin who
was an enlisted during WWII join the Navy in the early 80's. He got tired
of Cheshire Conn and had the Navy move him to San Diego - MD ,Psycharist.

Some of what little I've read was dealing with education etc but don't know
that much about how valid it really is.

>
>
>>
>>  Are the current quotas the same , higher or lower than quotas over the
>>  last
>> couple of years ?
>
> I believe this year's quotas are less then last year's, but still more
> then the year before.  Or something like that.  It is a moving target
> based on number of re-enlistments and what they needed.  Clearly it also
> changes with each month, summer months higher then winter due to
> graduations.
>
>
> George

I thought last years were revised downward from the year before.

I know that I feel really sorry for anyone serving as a recruiter from the
stories I've read. And I personally would encourage military
service, wish that I had served, I've worked with a lot of good retired
military people.

I'm just a wee bit leery of 'good news' , seen too many cases where it was
either  a comparison of apples and oranges or intentionally misleading.

Bob Lewis

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5