Just about this time last year, we bemoaned the increase in “conduct waivers” issued by the Army to enlist recruits with criminal records. A year later, we cheer the news, as reported in today’s WaPo, that last month the Army stopped enlisting potential recruits with felony convictions and recent drug use. Ann Scott Tyson, Army More Selective as Economy Lags, Wash. Post, Apr. 19, 2009, at A6. The article also reports that this year, the Army is on track to meet its goal of 90% of recruits with high school diplomas — a goal the Army hasn’t met since 2004.

The article indicates that while the Army issued 511 waivers to enlist convicted felons in 2007, “adult major misconduct” waivers are no longer available.

11 Responses to “Army stops accepting felons and recent drug users”

  1. Anonymous says:

    You’ll see, my discharged clients will be back in the ranks in no time!

    //optimist?

  2. Anonymous says:

    I was planning on going blue to green, but I guess that is out now.

  3. John O'Connor says:

    I think half this blog’s commentariat is now ineligible for Army service.

  4. Anonymous says:

    J’OC, I agree. Any chance the managers of this blog can diseminate a policy of ignoring all commentary from self-proclaimed convicts? Society takes away their rights to vote, bear arms, etc. CAAFlog should take away their First Amendment right to comment on this blog, at least by instituting a silent treatment policy. Maybe this blog could then return to more of a discussion on the law . . . .

  5. Tony B.F. of M. says:

    “J’OC, I agree. Any chance the managers of this blog can diseminate a policy of ignoring all commentary from self-proclaimed convicts? “

    What about self-proclaimed lawyers Anom? Are you even a lawyer or are you to chichen $h!% to give out your name?

    People with a Punitive are not eligible for blue to green anyways (trust me, I tried). You will not get permission from your commander to transfer with a Discharge hanging over your head.

    Society takes away their rights to vote, bear arms, etc. CAAFlog should take away their First Amendment right to comment on this blog, at least by instituting a silent treatment policy. Maybe this blog could then return to more of a discussion on the law . . . .Here’s the problem dummy.

    1.) CAAFlog is not the “Government”. They should have had that “discussion of law” (the differences between private and public forums vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment’s protections) in whatever crack-pot law school you got your JD in.

    2.) Mr. S believes in free speech, amoung other fundemental rights.

    3.) Just because you have a JD doesnot mean:
    a) You know what you are talking about (as evident in your rhetoric)
    b) The oppositions arguement is/ is not persuasive.

    4.) How would you like it if I took your “Constitutional Right” of privacy?

  6. Anonymous says:

    *fundamental, typing too fast. Don’t what the grammar Nazi’s comming after me.

    -T.B.F.M

  7. John O'Connor says:

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  8. Anonymous says:

    It’s just ridiculous that anyone would joke around that a military member court-martialed with either a punitive of General Discharge would have been able to transfer intra-service. As if it’s that easy.

  9. Anonymous says:

    While I like reading the thoughtful analysis of legal issues, I cannot help but to love reading replies from certain individuals when others purposefully provoke them with facetious comments.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Nemo me impune lecissit

    -tc

  11. Phil Cave says:

    http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2009/02/10/accession-numbers-january-2009#more-759