In today’s Boston Globe, Bryan Bender reports that “nearly 12 percent of Army recruits who entered basic training this year needed a special waiver for those with criminal records, a dramatic increase over last year and 2 1/2 times the percentage four years ago.” Why is this occurring? “Army officials acknowledge privately that the increase in moral waivers reflects the difficulty of signing up sufficient numbers of recruits to sustain an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.” Thus, the bar has been lowered, allowing more and more individuals with a history of troubles to enter the armed forces.
So what happens down the road when these seemingly less-than-suitable soldiers manifest emotional and/or behavioral difficulties? Presumably, some are dishonorably discharged, while others—who have served honorably but reacted negatively to the trauma of combat—are discharged for psychiatric reasons and labeled with a preexisting personality disorder. Indeed, as reported by ABC News, this is happening to a good many soldiers, regardless of past criminal history. These wounded warriors then find themselves both out of the military and out of luck when it comes to needed treatment:
Questionable Treatment for Some Iraq Heroes
Army Spc. Jonathan Town is back home in Ohio now, but still very much at war.
“When you see bits and pieces of actual people or people bleeding to death or anything, it’s very unsettling. It’s something you’ll never be able to forget. Period,” Town told ABC News’ Bob Woodruff.
Since his discharge in 2006, Town has not only dealt with the emotional scars of war, but he has also found himself at the center of a national debate on mental health care for veterans as a crowd as diverse as singer Dave Matthews and members of Congress has questioned how 22,000 veterans were diagnosed and discharged since 2001.
In Town’s case, the discharge came two years after he was injured in an attack. In the fall of 2004, a 107 mm rocket ripped through his unit’s headquarters in Ramadi, exploding two feet above Town’s head and knocking him unconscious.
The rocket blast left Town with hearing loss, headaches, memory problems, anxiety and insomnia. For his wounds, he was awarded the Purple Heart.
But when he returned to the states seeking treatment for those very wounds, the Army quickly discharged him, asserting his problems had been caused not by the war but by a personality disorder that predated his military career.
A Quick Way Out
It is known as a “Chapter 5-13,” “separation because of personality disorder.” The Army defines it as a pre-existing “maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration” that interferes with the soldier’s ability to perform his duties.
In practical terms, this diagnosis means the personality disorder existed before military service, and therefore medical care and disability payments are not the military’s responsibility. But some veterans and veterans’ advocates have been vocal in their belief that personality disorder is being misdiagnosed in combat veterans.
“A significant percentage of the ones who are discharged with personality disorder truly have it, but there is another percentage that are put out simply to eliminate them from military service. And it’s done maliciously or as some sort of a policy,” said Russell K. Terry, founder of the veterans’ advocacy organization, Iraq War Veterans Organization.
Since 2001, more than 22,000 servicemen and women from all branches of the military have been separated under the personality disorder discharge, according to figures provided by the Department of Defense. [full text]
Kmareka.com 
I heard a story on NPR that they’ve also raised the acceptable age to 42. This is a significant increase in the upper limit.
Two implications: 1) Bush’s juvenile desire to be a macho tough-guy “War President” has seriously degraded our armed forces. 2) Any notion of invading Iran is pure fantasy, of the sort who said the Iraq invasion would be a “cakewalk” and that we’d be “greeted as liberators.”
BTW, I saw a bumper sticker that read “Impeach Cheney First.”
The current situation in Iraq has reached a plateau of chaos that no entity, certainly not the military, can or should be expected to resolve. The inability and of the Bush administration to shift policies as needed speaks for a lack of leadership at the very top, not the lack of capability of the military. The failures are those of political leadership. However, to use the failures of Mr. Bush, both as a thinking man and as a leader, can spillover in ways that are not well considered, in my opinion.
Numbers mean different things to different people. For example, if I said that approximately 52,000 (rounding out here) Americans die each year in vehicle related accidents, the magnitude of that number is horrific to be sure. That means 1,000 Americans die each week in car wrecks or more than 140 each day. But if I add a caveat and accurately note that there are about 240,000,000 vehicles in the U.S., amongst some 110,000,000 U.S. households. and if only 75% are in use each week (18,000,000), and each drives only 100 miles each week, the numbers of deaths is 1-per-1,800,000 miles driven. Of course this number of miles driven can actually be twice the number (200) and the number of deaths would be 1-per-3,600,000 miles driven. In no way do I intend to diminish the horror of the loss of tens of thousands of Americans in auto related accidents. Now what does this have to do with the percentage of special waivers for “criminal” records granted by the military? I suggest it is relevant and that numbers may mean different things to different people.
If we look closely at what was written in the Boston Globe, a fine newspaper that I can read on line from time to time, even out here at the ranch in God’s country, the number “12%” is actually an approximation of the ration of approximately 8,000 waivers granted out of the total number of 69,000 new recruits. That more accurate number is then 11.6%. This number seems large, but if we look at the figures released for the last several years, we find that in 2006, 7.9% received waivers; 6.2% in 2005 and 4.6% in 2004. What do these waivers mean? It is likely that most are issued for misdemeanors and to kids likely bewteen the ages of 17-18 and 21, so we can assume there are a fair number of beer parties, DUI-related, perhaps pot-related, etc., kinds of bad behavior matters. Some, undoubtedly, are more serious: fights, burglary, etc., but none are “major” crimes. Those of us old enough, or perhaps actually participants can reacll the common “sentence” guideline for young males up to the end of the draft: “Young man, the choice is yours. Which will it be? Join the military or jail?” In some ways, the draft and the courts were democratizers and incentivizing agents. Most of these waiver kids will grow up and get through training and become good soldiers, perhaps 80% or 6,400 of the 8,000 waiver kids. The others left will not and most will be gone before training ends, perhaps 75% or 1,200 of the 1,600 remaining. Perhaps 400 hard cases will get through of the 8,000 and their performance as soldiers will mostly be just fine. The military has that kind of effect on young people; they do better than expected in group situations.
If we look at the U.S. population, and use the same Boston Globe as a source, what do we find? The Boston Globe reports that 1 in 12 Americans uses illegal drugs overall. But it gets worse: 15.1% of construction workers uses illegal drugs, 17.4% of restaurant workers; 4% of teachers and social service workers. 19% of Americans, ages 18-25 use illegal drugs. This number declines to 10% in age group 26-34; 7% in age group 35-49; and just 2.6% in age group 50-64.
Thus, it would seem that even those receiving military waivers (11.9%)are in a group with a smaller percentage of behavior issues than most Americans in the 18-25 age group, or restaurant workers, or construction workers.
In response to Klaus, I suspect I would advocate a more aggressive posture with the idiots in Iran. Better to confront them on our terms than wait. More bluster than substance, the Iranians are a danger because or the availability of the nuclear option and it is not possible for us to tolerate an Iranian bomb.
In the matter of the age increase mentioned by Klaus, I suggest it is not really as odd as might be seen. Many vacancies exist in special categories. For example, a need for medical people with special training will certainly mean that the population will be in the 40-plus or older group. The same would apply to attorneys or engineers with experience, etc. By the same token, since the age group 35-49 seems to be better behaved, perhaps the selection of them would not be such a bad idea after all.
I accompanied Jon Town in Washington and was by his side along with Josh Kors when they both testified about Personality Disorder Discharges at the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on July 25, 2007.
He was joined in testimony by The Nation journalist Joshua Kors and two veteran advocacy organization representatives, all of whom told a most sorry story for the Committee. Josh is a crack reporter and presented a thoroughly credible picture of what he has uncovered. And Jon did a wonderful job as a very sympathetic victim of this shameful practice.
They were followed in testimony by Army officers who did all they could do to explain away their folly and debunk this incredible story. This covey of pentagon “yes-men” sat right behind the press table, and each was warmly greeted by the Republican committee members who shuttled back and forth between their committee seats and the “opposition”. It was clear whose “side” many of these committee members were on. Although most did express their misgivings, at a minimum.
Most striking, in a shameful, partisan attack prior to the start of testimony, Representative Steve Buyer of IN, the ranking Republican on the Committee, came out swinging. He had obviously been given his marching orders. It was clearly evident by his demeanor and the nature of his questions that he had already made up his mind – before even hearing any testimony – that this was a story to be squashed. He made an outrageous spectacle of himself. And even his fellow republicans on the Committee distanced themselves from his performance. This sad partisan expression marred an otherwise encouraging step in what will be a long and arduous journey to right this shameful and outrageous practice of Personality Disorder discharges.
Hi George, Thank you for your comment on this and for your advocacy for soldiers who are being wrongfully labeled and discharged. As someone who practices in a psychiatric setting, I see how personality disorder labels are thrown around at times and used inappropriately. There is no objective test to determine if someone has a personality disorder, and even the definition of what constitutes a personality disorder is a subject of controversy. This seems to be a convenient way for the army to disown people and restrict services as the numbers of wounded and treatment-needy soldiers and veterans increases.