TexasCHLforum.com

another thing to consider....I could be wrong but.....unless he's already signed on the dotted line

Pres. Obama is talking about cutting the military back....
Romney is talking about building it up....

if it were my son...I'd council him to wait until after the election and see who his Commander is going to be, is he going to have faith in him, for at least his first 4 years....just some food for thought.

The ASVAB score is a percentile type score so the max is 100. A score of 31 is the current minimum for the Army. All Army enlistments are for 8 years. That is normally split between 3-5 years active duty and the remainder in the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR). A Soldier can elect to spend their non-active time in the Reserves or the National Guard instead of the IRR. Whether or not a Soldier gets deployed is a function of what unit he is assigned to, not what MOS the Soldier has.

Deleted.

C-dub wrote: ... and see if he's really interested in serving our country or just wants to get away from mom and dad.

If the latter is the reason, he is going to be in for a big surprise. Uncle Sam keeps a close eye on his property.

C-dub, please post after your heart-to-heart.

Last I heard, professional is served out at the Pentagon, Foreign Embassies, foreign and domestic bases, posts, ports and in all services world wide. The professional argument is usually debated in bars and not on battle fields. I don’t drink.

Thanks so much for all the input so far. I will let everyone know how our meeting goes this weekend.

I was aware of the guaranteed contracts, that's what I had when I went in, but don't know if he'll be able to get anything like that. What other kind of stuff is there? I'm also thinking he might be more interested in a support type role. Something like a cook or personnel or something. I'll also find out his actual score if that 31 number isn't accurate.

Is that 31 a test done at the recruiting station or is it the official one from the MEPS? If he has not gone for a physical at the MEPS, he needs to make sure he is clean on a drug screen. Any trace of a drug will disqualify him from serving in any branch now. The minimum has changed several times, but if 31 still qualifies, you would most likely be looking at something similar to infantry or close field support.

Good luck to him.

sugar land dave wrote:Is that 31 a test done at the recruiting station or is it the official one from the MEPS? If he has not gone for a physical at the MEPS, he needs to make sure he is clean on a drug screen. Any trace of a drug will disqualify him from serving in any branch now. The minimum has changed several times, but if 31 still qualifies, you would most likely be looking at something similar to infantry or close field support.

Good luck to him.

I don't know where he took the test. I do know that he did not take it while in high school. He graduated in 2011 and only recently took the test because he's thinking about going in. I did hear from his sister, she's a senior this year, that he and several of his friends are also talking about going in together.

My BIL told me what he thinks was his test score, but isn't sure. No one on my BILs side of the family has been in the military in the last century and my dad and I are the only one's on our side, so by default I'm the expert. I served from 1983-1987, so while my experience can be helpful to them it is far from current. I also suspect that I will be asked to accompany him to the recruiter the next time he goes and I will be happy to go with him.

Deleted.

I spent 6 years in the Army infantry. While I was in, my buddies and I all saw how good the Air Force had it and all of us said "I should have joined the Air Force." That was just some general griping while we were sleeping in a muddy hole eating MREs and the AF guys had air conditioning and were eating steaks and ice cream.

Now that I'm out, I look back and think "I should have joined the Marines." There's a camaraderie among Marines that you don't find in any of the other services. As an example, my Uncle spent 4 years in the Marines. He received 3 Purple Hearts in Vietnam. After being discharged, he went to college then joined the Army, which sent him to medical school. My Uncle then spent the next 27 years in the Army, and was last deployed to Mosul in 2003. He still identifies himself primarily as a Marine.

That said, with a 31 ASVAB score the Marines won't take him. The 31 basically means he scored better than 31 percent of other people who took it when he did and the Marines require a 32. The Air Force requires a 36. In both cases, waivers can be granted but only 1% of requested waivers are granted. With the coming downsizing, I don't see any waivers being granted based on ASVAB score.

The Army minimum is a 31. The Coast Guard requires a 40, the Navy requires 35. It looks like the Army is his only service option, and very likely the infantry will be his only MOS option.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/ ... inimum.htm

Kythas wrote: That said, with a 31 ASVAB score the Marines won't take him. The 31 basically means he scored better than 31 percent of other people who took it when he did and the Marines require a 32. The Air Force requires a 36. In both cases, waivers can be granted but only 1% of requested waivers are granted. With the coming downsizing, I don't see any waivers being granted based on ASVAB score.

The Army minimum is a 31. The Coast Guard requires a 40, the Navy requires 35. It looks like the Army is his only service option, and very likely the infantry will be his only MOS option.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/ ... inimum.htm

Old data, pre Obama and congress military cuts.

We are cutting many thousand of service members, and initial enlistment is just as tight right now.
No waivers for anything, ASVAB scores higher than 31, and no low individual scores either, no derogatory info or events in background, no drug use past (it would be a waiver), ect ect..

This stuff changes monthly.. so whats true today will be wrong next month,, but the trend right now and in the foreseeable future is tight entrance requirements, no waivers, and a hard look at what is coming down the pipe from the CSA and SMA... so tats visible when in a T shirt... well if the SMA gets the legal review he wants.. not only will you not be coming in with em, you will be told your services are no longer needed.

bronco78 wrote:

Kythas wrote: That said, with a 31 ASVAB score the Marines won't take him. The 31 basically means he scored better than 31 percent of other people who took it when he did and the Marines require a 32. The Air Force requires a 36. In both cases, waivers can be granted but only 1% of requested waivers are granted. With the coming downsizing, I don't see any waivers being granted based on ASVAB score.

The Army minimum is a 31. The Coast Guard requires a 40, the Navy requires 35. It looks like the Army is his only service option, and very likely the infantry will be his only MOS option.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/ ... inimum.htm

Old data, pre Obama and congress military cuts.

We are cutting many thousand of service members, and initial enlistment is just as tight right now.
No waivers for anything, ASVAB scores higher than 31, and no low individual scores either, no derogatory info or events in background, no drug use past (it would be a waiver), ect ect..

This stuff changes monthly.. so whats true today will be wrong next month,, but the trend right now and in the foreseeable future is tight entrance requirements, no waivers, and a hard look at what is coming down the pipe from the CSA and SMA... so tats visible when in a T shirt... well if the SMA gets the legal review he wants.. not only will you not be coming in with em, you will be told your services are no longer needed.

So, they are seriously thinking about booting out soldiers just for having a tattoo visible while in a T-shirt? Even if they have nothing against them in their service record? That is the exact sort of thing that is simply ridiculous. Why don't they go through the personnel files and look for trouble? Sad to see good soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines get sent packing or not allowed to re-enlist over something that doesn't affect whether they can do, and have done, their jobs or not. I know, OT, but still irritating. And I say that with experience, having lost some good folks over the years for silly reasons. (Waist size, but otherwise fit, comes to mind.)

Heartland Patriot wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

Kythas wrote: That said, with a 31 ASVAB score the Marines won't take him. The 31 basically means he scored better than 31 percent of other people who took it when he did and the Marines require a 32. The Air Force requires a 36. In both cases, waivers can be granted but only 1% of requested waivers are granted. With the coming downsizing, I don't see any waivers being granted based on ASVAB score.

The Army minimum is a 31. The Coast Guard requires a 40, the Navy requires 35. It looks like the Army is his only service option, and very likely the infantry will be his only MOS option.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/ ... inimum.htm

Old data, pre Obama and congress military cuts.

We are cutting many thousand of service members, and initial enlistment is just as tight right now.
No waivers for anything, ASVAB scores higher than 31, and no low individual scores either, no derogatory info or events in background, no drug use past (it would be a waiver), ect ect..

This stuff changes monthly.. so whats true today will be wrong next month,, but the trend right now and in the foreseeable future is tight entrance requirements, no waivers, and a hard look at what is coming down the pipe from the CSA and SMA... so tats visible when in a T shirt... well if the SMA gets the legal review he wants.. not only will you not be coming in with em, you will be told your services are no longer needed.

So, they are seriously thinking about booting out soldiers just for having a tattoo visible while in a T-shirt? Even if they have nothing against them in their service record? That is the exact sort of thing that is simply ridiculous. Why don't they go through the personnel files and look for trouble? Sad to see good soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines get sent packing or not allowed to re-enlist over something that doesn't affect whether they can do, and have done, their jobs or not. I know, OT, but still irritating. And I say that with experience, having lost some good folks over the years for silly reasons. (Waist size, but otherwise fit, comes to mind.)

Not yet approved or in the new AR670-1 reg, but the SMA's intent is clear.. his words..
"10. Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the IPFU is worn. Tattoos will not
extend below the wrist line and not on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited.

And that is in addition to current restrictions on extremist tattoos.

Some of his other "ideas"
Notes From Sergeant Major of The Army Raymond F. Chandler posted 17 NOV 11

Military Retirement:
The current retirement program we are under is not going to change for those already in the
Army. He said that he can't find one Congressman that supports changing our retirement
plan for those already serving. Less than 1% of US citizens serve in our Armed Forces and
our nation owes us this for standing up for our freedoms. Our Nation would be breaking a
commitment / agreement to those that volunteered to serve our nation.

The SMA said that the Chief of Staff and him trust us to do the right thing and we need to
trust them with this issue. The SMA also made it clear that the Army does not control this.
Congress does. He also gave examples of how the military pay has changed in the last 30
years. Final pay to high three and the 1990 Redux.

U.S. Army Drawdown:
The Army will be drawing down. This will be accomplished through less retention, a selective
early retirement board for those that are retirement eligible and by separating Soldiers for
mis-conduct.

Average Performers:
NCOs / Soldiers that are just average performers may find it difficult to stay in the Army or in
their current MOS when it comes time to re-enlist.
For those that receive a no on the values portion of the NCOER, receive a poor NCOER,
DUI, or Article 15 may find it difficult to stay in the Army.
If they are allowed to stay they could be forced to fill a MOS, other than
their current one, that the Army needs help in filling. He used the phrase
"Tightening up the ranks" a lot tonight.

NCOER:
NCOERs are over inflated. NCOERs will be changed to be in line with FM 6-22
(LEADERSHIP). More responsibility on the rated individual along with stricter counseling
requirements that are documented.

New APFT:
The new APFT is under his review. He stated that the run will not be 1.5 miles. He would
like to see it changed to 4.0 miles. He is also reviewing two of the new events, broad jump
and the shuttle run, and a proposal for the new APFT will be submitted in February 2012.
Another COA would be to just keep the current one, but I feel the run is going to change due
to his comments concerning overweight NCOs/Soldiers in the ranks. Age groups are also
being discussed. Possibly just one age group or two. Under 40 and over 40. The standards
will remain different for males and females.

Army Overweight Personnel:
We have the highest tolerances for body fat % in the armed forces. I am tired of being last
and want to be first. Personal appearance will be addressed in the upcoming new version of
AR 670-1 that will be released in 6 months. We are going to "Tighten up the Ranks" on
overweight personnel and he feels that it is a leadership failure for a lot of the overweight
personnel in our ranks. We should be conducting more counseling, monitoring PT training
plans, and getting rid of those that do not comply. SMA Quote "
can't look like a stuffed summer sausage in your ACUs".

Tattoos in the Military:
A change is coming on tattoos that service personnel may have. No Tattoos above the neck
or past the wrist area. The uniform should cover all Tattoos, "no red lips on your neck". For
females, if you get a Tattoo on your calf, then you will not be able to wear the Army skirt, you
will wear pants, so the Tattoo may not be seen. If you get a Tattoo that is visible it could
become grounds for separation from the Army. You are a professional, and if you want to
serve in the Army you will look professional or leave our ranks.

Grooming standards:
Haircuts. Photos are coming showing what proper haircuts can look like.
There will be an authorized short, medium and long haircut. As a uniformed service, we
should look uniform (a like). Females included.

Side burns. No pointy sideburns. Reg's not changing, just enforcing the length, shape and
density.

Fingernails. No long finger nails for men and no finger nail polish for females in duty uniform.
Polish in ASUs will be neutral tones or may go away completely.

Earrings for females while wearing the duty uniform. This reg is being reviewed and may be
changed to allow female Soldiers to wear studs while in duty uniform.

Sexual Assault/Harassment:
Must conduct sexual assault training, 95% of sexual assaults are males
against females. He sees on average 2 sexual assault / harassment cases
concerning E-9s per week. He feels that if training and counseling were conducted more
Soldiers would be ID'd early in their career and separated from the Army if this type of
behavior continued.

There will be a reduction in the civilian work force for US Army Bases. For example, Soldiers
manning gates and cutting grass, FT Stewart is already doing so.

2nd Quarter Sergeant Major of the Army Board of Directors Meeting

AR 670-1 UPDATE

1. MANY changes are coming to AR 670-1. This is just a summary of some of them.
DO NOT BEGIN TO ENFORCE UNTIL THE REGULATION IS COMPLETE, APPROVED, AND
PUBLISHED!

2. New revision of the regulation will define the following terms: eccentric, faddish,
conservative, inconspicuous, unsightly, hair braids/plaits.

3. AR 670-1 will be a PUNITIVE order in the new regulation.

4. Sideburns will not extend below the top of the ear.

5. Soldiers will be clean shaven on AND off duty (even during leave).

6. Female and Male hair grooming standards will become more restrictive and better defined
(I'll have pictures for you at MHS).

7. Females will be allowed to put their hair into a pony tail during PT.

8. Males will be prohibited from wearing cosmetics to include nail polish, females may wear
cosmetics conservatively, but can only wear nail polish in service, mess, or dress uniforms.

9. Females fingernail length will not exceed 1/4 inch, no fake nails, add-ons, or extensions will be
authorized.

10. Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the IPFU is worn. Tattoos will not
extend below the wrist line and not on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited (this one will
be grandfathered).

11. Soldiers will not walk while engaged in activities that require the hand salute (eating, cell
phone use, smoking, etc.).

12. ACUs will not be commercially pressed; hand ironing of the ACU only will be authorized.
13. Bags worn over the shoulder will only be black or the color print of the uniform i.e. ACU,
without logos.

14. the new regulation will specify civilian clothes standards both on and off duty and both on
and off post.

15. No visible body piercings on or off duty and on or off post, males will never be allowed to
wear earrings. Ear gauging will be unauthorized.

16. No dental ornamentation or gold teeth will be authorized.

17. Soldiers will be authorized to wear authorized ballistic eye wear in garrison.

18. Officers will be authorized to wear non-subdued rank on their headgear in garrison.

19. Males will be authorized to carry black umbrella with ASU.

like he said that's old, pre-Obama. Take a walk around BAMC or any base around SA and there are tatoos on the majority of the young men. I had understood they were discouraging large, visible tats. By visible, my understanding was outside of a t-shirt.

The best place to get the correct info would be a recruiter. And I'm betting he's not going to be certain of anything until the election and possibly not until later.