Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does anyone here have any insight on this current situation, especially in light of what happened with Bergdahl?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/13/army-lifts-ban-on-cutters-mentally-ill-and-drug-abusers-to-meet-recruiting-goals.html

Utterly silly outside of a draft situation where you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Drug users have been waved in the past, it was a common thing when I joined. If they're clean let them join. and it will just be a odd coincidence their number is called for every "random" drug test. Which is one of the first things they do when you get into boot camp.

the mentally ill though? that's just wrong. But I suppose this is what happens when you deport people who serve in the military, then ban others who want to join. I'm sure a going on 30 year war with no end in sight isn't helping any either.

I think the ban was blocked, wasn't it?

 nomsheep wrote:
I think the ban was blocked, wasn't it?

maybe, but trump could always try it again. When you have a voluntary force, bad PR is bad for recruitment.

My understanding was that there was a reasonably in-depth review process and the drug users in question were largely (if not exclusively) marijuana rather than something actually dangerous.

Transgender? BAD! JESUS HATES YOU! GET OUT OF OUR MILITARY! Serious mental illness and drug abuse? Welcome in, those recruitment quotas aren't going to fill themselves you know. Makes perfect sense to me...

Yeah... I'm just going to sit back and watch the ignorant rabble on about this one... not even worth trying with some of the posts already made in here.

Quote from the article
""It's also important to note that the conditions themselves have been unfairly characterized," he added. "For example, a child who received behavioral counseling at age 10 would be forever banned from military service were it not for the ability to make a waiver request."


To my mind this is their intent, but light reporting of the general policy is easy to muddy the waters and miss represent the policy change.
It sounds like a positive move; plus its important to realise that not all branches of the armed forces are active duty.

Of course a policy move like this can so easily backfire if badly reported upon or if the relaxation of the barriers of entry goes too far.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah... I'm just going to sit back and watch the ignorant rabble on about this one... not even worth trying with some of the posts already made in here.

It only took six posts for that high horse to be mounted. That has to be a new record!

But anyways, when you listen to what the Pentagon actually says regarding the matter, it's fine. It isn't like they're just taking any mentally ill person off the street and strapping a gun on them. People with mental illness in their medical history aren't necessarily permanently damaged; that's a damning stigma that needs to be broken and I think this might help.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
People with mental illness in their medical history aren't necessarily permanently damaged; that's a damning stigma that needs to be broken and I think this might help.

I remember Steven Fry saying one big problem with mental illness is that people don't talk about it. In fact its generally a discouraged topic where if it mentioned adults go quite, start mumbling and try to change the topic.

Couple that to a lot of the "its all special snowflake" arguments and you've got a hotbed of stigma that is hard to shift.

I think also a lot of it is because people don't know how to react to it; when someone has a broken leg you generally know what to do and not to do. When someone says they've got depression or autism people get all locked up and worried; they don't know what they are "supposed" to do or talk about or how they are supposed to treat someone like that.

seems perfectly reasonable...train people with mental illnesses how to use guns. Good plan. Nothing bad could come of that.

Mental illness covers anything from the guy that shot up the church in Texas, to the guy that was diagnosed with ADHD as a child.

Drugs cover anything from the guy walking into the recruiting station with bleeding track-marks in his arm after shooting up in the parking lot, to the guy who got passed his first joint in the high school bathroom right as the police walked in.

I am one of the guys that argued that it's worth to critically examine the waivers we granted during the times we had a hard time meeting recruitment goals. And I will argue that it's still worth to critically examine any future waivers we are granting now. But just like in the other thread I will also argue that needing a waiver doesn't mean you are going to be a gakky soldier. There is always the risk that recruiters are going to feel pressured to hit their goals, and that somebody will get a waiver that really shouldn't be in a military. That just means we need to make sure we have a process that looks at each waiver critically to protect the military as well as the applicants wanting to join.

 d-usa wrote:
Mental illness covers anything from the guy that shot up the church in Texas, to the guy that was diagnosed with ADHD as a child.

Drugs cover anything from the guy walking into the recruiting station with bleeding track-marks in his arm after shooting up in the parking lot, to the guy who got passed his first joint in the high school bathroom right as the police walked in.

And that's the part the sensationalists are glossing over.
This policy seems aimed at making a sane system, especially when you consider over the last few decades how many mental conditions have been identified and become accepted concepts within society; and within each of the terms/concepts there's a huge range from those it hardly affects through to those seriously handicapped by it.

Having a blanket "no" policy in place does seriously the potential choices and turns people who are perfectly suited to the job, away from it.

 Overread wrote:
depression or autism

 d-usa wrote:
ADHD as a child

I know you are both trying to be positive, but I have to point out the error here. Neither autism or ADHD are mental illnesses. Many people with them have mental help problems, but mostly this is down to lack of understanding and support.

The DSM-V would like to strongly disagree with you.

Certain people have abilities and skills that are still very useful.

Israel I belive used those with a degree of autistic spectrum to alylise data, data literacy images etx.

There ability to concentrate, and find out information other missed was quite the advantage once properly worked with, supported and adapted to best utilise.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/422850/

 Peregrine wrote:
Transgender? BAD! JESUS HATES YOU! GET OUT OF OUR MILITARY! Serious mental illness and drug abuse? Welcome in, those recruitment quotas aren't going to fill themselves you know. Makes perfect sense to me...

Except what you're saying here is fictional, and not at all what is actually happening.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My understanding was that there was a reasonably in-depth review process and the drug users in question were largely (if not exclusively) marijuana rather than something actually dangerous.

I think the entire thing needs a deeper explanation.

I don't really care if someone smoked a joint. It's reached the point in America where I can honestly just ask "who hasn't smoked a joint" and it'll be easier to tally. Meth though? Really? Lots of mental illnesses can be very well managed, but I'm not exactly short of imaginable scenarios were someone can't get the necessary meds or therapy they need to maintain a handle on their condition under battlefield conditions. Part of the quoted sections make it sound like the military isn't just opening the door and letting everyone in, but is rather going to start dealing with these issues with more care. That's how I read some of them anyway. Anyone got some other articles with more detail about the new policy? Is it open door, or is it stuff like "we're not going to hold that joint you got caught smoking one time in freshman year against you, and you with the mild OCD disorder, your therapist says your good and we'll take his word for it." Is this including stuff like the Ritalin ban? A policy that prevented people from joining the military for a perfectly legal prescription simply on the basis of a single study that suggest there were mild negative effects of long term use? The way the OP article presents this is very suspicious to me, and not just because it's coming from Fox News. It reads like the author was going out of their way to induce outraged responses.

Gradation isn't a bad thing, especially given the extreme limit examples put forward already in this thread. That doesn't mean I believe that there should be a blanket "let 'em in" for every single occurrence, nor do I think they should ALL be blocked out.

Now, if the ban on felony convictions or domestic violence convictions is somehow waived, THAT would be a disaster.

The trans argument: I ain't touching that one except to say that the one legitimate concern in all that is group billeting.

"Mental illness" is a pretty damn broad spectrum in terms of symptoms and impact. The idea that this will immediately lead to unmedicated bipolar people given m249s seems a bit silly. It really depends on how it's implemented.

Similarly from drug use, if someone smoked weed in high school and wants to enroll (and will abstain) once they hit 23, not sure what the harm is.

 d-usa wrote:
The DSM-V would like to strongly disagree with you.

Am I correct in thinking your classing “diagnostic criteria are included in DSM-5” as being equivalent to it classification as a mental illness? Or do you have access to a copy of DSM-5 and how it classifies ADHD and autism. Inclusion in DSM-5 is not the same as being a mental illness. It is a set of diagnostic criteria for conditions that are diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Inclusion in DSM-5 is not the same as being a mental illness.

Yes it is. Setting aside that in common usage "mental illness" and "mental disorder" are the same thing and used interchangeably. Beside that, one of the DSM's specific goals is to produce a universal clinical terminology for diagnosis, and as such it defines only mental disorders and doesn't define mental illness at all because within the field that term is avoided, partly due to negative connotations and partly because "illness" is a really bad way to characterize a lot of psychological disorders. The OP article even includes a quote to that effect;

“The label of mental illness is meaningless,” he said.

 LordofHats wrote:
Lots of mental illnesses can be very well managed, but I'm not exactly short of imaginable scenarios were someone can't get the necessary meds or therapy they need to maintain a handle on their condition under battlefield conditions.

I'm aware that in the UK army there are restrictions on people joining if they require continuous medication. I know one person who was refused because they were diabetic and the argument was that if they were deployed the army could not ensure a supply of insulin at all times.

I would assume the US army is the same in that individuals which require ongoing medication might not be able to sign up for deployment positions due to the risk of a breakdown of supplies.

My view is that this policy change is aimed at allowing entry to people who have had minor issues in the past which no longer affect their current status; or which have mental issues* which don't affect their daily life in a meaningful way with regard to the demands of a military role.



*and as identified earlier in the thread the casual understanding of mental conditions is an area where specific terminology is often poorly understood; leading to a lot of very blanket/carpet/casual used terms that encompass a vast range of conditions even if those conditions are not similar in any form; and takes no accounting of the fact that even a single condition has a vast range of impacts/severities.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Inclusion in DSM-5 is not the same as being a mental illness.

Yes it is. Setting aside that in common usage "mental illness" and "mental disorder" are the same thing and used interchangeably. Beside that, one of the DSM's specific goals is to produce a universal clinical terminology for diagnosis, and as such it defines only mental disorders and doesn't define mental illness at all because within the field that term is avoided, partly due to negative connotations and partly because "illness" is a really bad way to characterize a lot of psychological disorders. The OP article even includes a quote to that effect;

“The label of mental illness is meaningless,” he said.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue. I say DSM does is not the same as being a mental illness, you say it is then go on to say DSM doesn't mental illness... That is the very point I was making...that DSM does not define mental illnesses, and autism and SPLDs fit under no definition mental illnesses, and that the fact that they are included in DSM is not evidence that they are.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The DSM-V would like to strongly disagree with you.

Am I correct in thinking your classing “diagnostic criteria are included in DSM-5” as being equivalent to it classification as a mental illness? Or do you have access to a copy of DSM-5 and how it classifies ADHD and autism. Inclusion in DSM-5 is not the same as being a mental illness. It is a set of diagnostic criteria for conditions that are diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist.

I do have a copy handy, my wife is a childhood therapist. Page 59 of the DSM-V has the listing for ADHD (DSM-V 314.01), which is classified as a Neurodevelopment Disorder (the group that also contains Autism Spectrum Disorders. The DSM-5 is not a set of tools to make a diagnosis, it is the authoritative definition of each mental health diagnosis. It goes through revisions, and things that used to be “mental illness” get removed and added, but inclusion in the DSM-V as a diagnosis means that it is a mental illness. It is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders after all. From the book: “The American Psychiatric Association’s DSM is a classification of mental disorders with associated criteria designed to facilitate more reliable diagnoses of these disorders.”

I think people have a problem classifying common things like ADHD as a mental illness because of the stigma we have on mental illness, and because so many people think of the paranoid schizophrenic guy rocking and talking to voices when we talk about mental illness. This can also be seen by trying to draw arbitrary lines and trying to make distinct groups of “illness” vs “disorders”. But breaking that stigma is important, and that includes talking honestly about all mental illness, pointing out that it includes many many different (and often not severe) things, and it also includes maybe not having a blanket ban on people with mental illnesses. The military doesn’t have a blanket ban on “physical illness”, and they somehow managed to realize that you can have a physical illness that keeps you from being able to serve and also a physical illness that doesn’t keep you from being able to serve. Seasonal allergies and brain cancer are both physical illnesses, and a blanket ban would treat both the same. Yet people, and the military, can both look at them and realize that there is a gradient here. People need to get to the same point when it comes to mental illness: having one doesn’t mean it’s a severe issue, and it doesn’t automatically keep you from being a normal functioning and contributing member of society.

 Steve steveson wrote:


I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue. I say DSM does is not the same as being a mental illness, you say it is then go on to say DSM doesn't mental illness... That is the very point I was making...that DSM does not define mental illnesses, and autism and SPLDs fit under no definition mental illnesses, and that the fact that they are included in DSM is not evidence that they are.

The point I'm making is that your arguing meaningless semantics. The DSM does not define "mental illness" because the field itself does not recognize the term as meaningful. Outside the field people use mental illness and mental disorder interchangeably to mean the same thing. In either case there is no meaningful difference between the terms. There is no classification of "illness" vs "disorder" in psychology, and there isn't one for the rest of us either, except for right now because you're trying to make an argument based on meaningless semantics.

 Just Tony wrote:
Gradation isn't a bad thing, especially given the extreme limit examples put forward already in this thread. That doesn't mean I believe that there should be a blanket "let 'em in" for every single occurrence, nor do I think they should ALL be blocked out.

Now, if the ban on felony convictions or domestic violence convictions is somehow waived, THAT would be a disaster.

Why? It seems to me that these are some of the people who can benefit most from the discipline and standards the military sets. At least with regards to the felons.

Edit: And it would definitely be a good way for them to start their life over. By all means, keep 'em on a tight leash, but I'd say give 'em the chance to improve their lot.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Gradation isn't a bad thing, especially given the extreme limit examples put forward already in this thread. That doesn't mean I believe that there should be a blanket "let 'em in" for every single occurrence, nor do I think they should ALL be blocked out.

Now, if the ban on felony convictions or domestic violence convictions is somehow waived, THAT would be a disaster.

Why? It seems to me that these are some of the people who can benefit most from the discipline and standards the military sets. At least with regards to the felons.

Edit: And it would definitely be a good way for them to start their life over. By all means, keep 'em on a tight leash, but I'd say give 'em the chance to improve their lot.

The kind of person who would look his wife or child in the face, the person/people he swore to love and protect, and punch them in the face like an enemy combatant is too far gone. Once they are to that point, their behavior is pretty much set in stone. Now, you want that person in a position where they will potentially get reprimanded or some other ego-damaging maneuver by a female soldier, that they already view as inferior and have no qualms beating mercilessly. Oh, and we'll train him to excel at hand to hand combat to boot. This seems like a good idea to you?

No, I was referring to the felons, not the wife-beaters, who are only slightly higher on the evolutionary ladder than pedophiles, and both rate lower than bowel bacteria.

I even literally said thar in my posr.