Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Waivers Post-Iraq

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Waivers Post-Iraq

    I'm interested in joining the Iowa National Guard, but I have a sorted past. I have a history with one ulcer and two periods where I had depression. I had it through a majority of high school and for roughly a year of college with time in between. I've been off medication for over 2 years and while I'm not a doctor, I consider both of them to be situational. I realize to a MEPS/armed forces CO position this would look bad as a seriously mental issue that has the potential to be reoccurring, but I have complete and total faith that it will not (the same can be said for the ulcer). What would be the appropriate steps to go about getting all of this cleared and be in the best position to go through the entire waiver process? I'd ask a recruiter, but any recruiter I've talked to for any branch has just told me to lie...

    I believe my potential to maintain a depressionless life is due to my overall life progress. I have lost over 100 pounds and kept it off, I've never had or currently have any thoughts of harming myself, and I've overcome a lot. I understand it's scary for men in the field to think the man next to them has struggled mentally, but it not so much about how many times you got knocked down, but how many times you got back up?

  • #2
    Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

    I'm a tad disconcerted that Recruiters you've spoken to are advising you to lie. That should be a product of a bygone era, but I suppose it's human nature. In any event, the ulceration is an issue if it's been confirmed by endoscopy or xray, or if you've had a surgical repair. Major depression is also a disqualifer. Just for clairification, not everything is waiverable. I hope you do not think of yourself as mentally ill. No one in or out of military service would or should consider you to be mentally ill, or "struggling mentally". Your issue is one of the MEPS gauntlett and induction regulations. Surprisingly that may have very little to do with your actual mental health. MEPS exsists to KEEP YOU OUT. It's the last failsafe of the government to ensure "we" don't "buy" your pre-exsisting health issues. Don't take any of it personally.
    Last edited by Mongoose772; May 13th, 2012, 09:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

      Originally posted by Mongoose772 View Post
      I'm a tad disconcerted that Recruiters you've spoken to are advising you to lie. That should be a product of a bygone era, but I suppose it's human nature. In any event, the ulceration is an issue if it's been confirmed by endoscopy or xray, or if you've had a surgical repair. Major depression is also a disqualifer. Just for clairification, not everything is waiverable.
      It's actually disconcerting for me too sir. It makes me sad. Recruiters and friends tell me "just don't bring it up if it isn't an issue, they won't check and as long as no issues reoccur they'll never know", but I will and that's the problem. The ulcer has been confirmed by endoscopy. I believe it was due to stomach acid buildup. I've only had one known ulcer ever and I virtually NEVER have issues with pain, bleeding, or acid. I only have heartburn when I eat REALLY bad.

      As for the depression, I'm not sure if it was classified as major depression. I'm collecting my medical records. I'm attempting to get recommendation letters from both of my doctors in hopes that it will sway the MEPS staff to help me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

        I understand everything isn't waiverable. I don't consider myself mentally ill, but by the hardship in terms of waivers regarding people with a history of depression makes me feel that way. I realize it's definitely a calculated risk. The armed forces catches a lot of flack for ANYTHING that happens, the less they deal with the better. They have to pay for a lot of injuries because it's very physical job despite MOS and mental demanding. I just hope I get the option or the chance to prove myself. I'd do ANYTHING asked of me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

          I was curious about the Post-Iraq line in his thread and there is no difference because Iraq is over. There is still a present-Afghanistan and this is what might happen in 8 months. This is what I read yesterday in the new Army Times.

          100,000 more soldiers could be cut

          Vice chiefs testify about readiness, sequestration’s possible impact



          By Andrew Tilghman


          atilghman@militarytimes.com


          As many as 100,000 additional soldiers could be cut, on top of the troop cuts already planned, if Con*gress fails to change the current law that will impose huge defense spending reductions in January, top officials said.

          “It would be devastating,” Gen. Lloyd Austin, Army vice chief of staff, said at a May 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

          The vice chiefs of the four ser*vices testified on readiness levels and disclosed new details about the potential impact of the so-called sequester law, which
          Congress passed in a bipartisan vote last August.

          The cuts could force the Navy to lose 50 ships and the Air Force could be unable to modernize its fleet, according to Navy and Air Force vice chiefs.

          The law will impose sweeping cuts to the budgets of all govern*ment departments and agencies, including the Pentagon, unless Congress agrees on an alternative plan to lower federal spending.

          The cuts are projected to be about 10 percent across the board for all departments. The Penta*gon’s share would come on top of the $487 billion in reduced defense spending over 10 years that
          Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined in February.

          Pentagon officials have insisted for months that they are not plan*ning for sequestration, hoping lawmakers will change the law before the trigger date in January. Formal planning may begin this summer if Congress fails to act, according to Panetta.

          Austin said “the back-of-the*envelope calculations” would prob*ably mean reductions of another 100,000 soldiers on top of cuts that are already planned.

          About half of the cuts would come in the active-duty force, and half in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, he said.

          Current plans call for the active*duty Army to shrink from about 560,000 today to about 490,000 during the next five years. Austin’s comments suggest the
          sequester law could push that final active-duty end strength down to about 440,000.


          For the Navy, the budget cuts imposed under sequestration could force today’s fleet of about 285 ships to drop to about 235 ships, Navy officials said.

          That would force the Pentagon to reconsider basic elements of the national security strategy because the Navy would not be able to meet current expectations.

          “It would … cause us to go back and re-look at the strategy because the force that comes out of seques*tration is not the force that can support the current strategy that we’re operating under,” Adm. Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations, told the senators.

          Ferguson said the Navy would have to reduce its annual budget by about $15 billion, roughly the same as its annual shipbuilding budget.

          For the Air Force, sequestration
          cuts would force hard decisions about the size of the air fleet.

          “The Air Force is the oldest it’s ever been in terms of its iron,” said Gen. Philip Breedlove, Air Force vice chief of staff. “We des*perately need to recapitalize our flying fleet.” Current Marine Corps plans call for that service to shrink from today’s level of about 197,000 Marines to 182,000.

          Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Corp’s assistant commandant, said sequestration would force an addi*tional cut of about 18,000 Marines. At that level, he said, “We would not have adequate capabilities or capacities to meet a single major contingency operation. So that’s fairly significant.” Many experts say a break*through agreement is unlikely before the presidential election in November. That could put off the issue until a post-election “lame*duck” session of Congress.

          Last edited by Chief Kemosabe; May 13th, 2012, 11:02 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

            I sincerely hope it works out for you. You should be incredibly proud of having the fortitude to loose 100 pounds. Really amazing. Good luck.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

              Originally posted by fmcityslicker View Post
              I was curious about the Post-Iraq line in his thread and there is no difference because Iraq is over. There is still a present-Afghanistan and this is what might happen in 8 months. This is what I read yesterday in the new Army Times.

              100,000 more soldiers could be cut

              Vice chiefs testify about readiness, sequestration’s possible impact



              By Andrew Tilghman


              atilghman@militarytimes.com


              As many as 100,000 additional soldiers could be cut, on top of the troop cuts already planned, if Con*gress fails to change the current law that will impose huge defense spending reductions in January, top officials said.

              “It would be devastating,” Gen. Lloyd Austin, Army vice chief of staff, said at a May 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

              The vice chiefs of the four ser*vices testified on readiness levels and disclosed new details about the potential impact of the so-called sequester law, which
              Congress passed in a bipartisan vote last August.

              The cuts could force the Navy to lose 50 ships and the Air Force could be unable to modernize its fleet, according to Navy and Air Force vice chiefs.

              The law will impose sweeping cuts to the budgets of all govern*ment departments and agencies, including the Pentagon, unless Congress agrees on an alternative plan to lower federal spending.

              The cuts are projected to be about 10 percent across the board for all departments. The Penta*gon’s share would come on top of the $487 billion in reduced defense spending over 10 years that
              Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined in February.

              Pentagon officials have insisted for months that they are not plan*ning for sequestration, hoping lawmakers will change the law before the trigger date in January. Formal planning may begin this summer if Congress fails to act, according to Panetta.

              Austin said “the back-of-the*envelope calculations” would prob*ably mean reductions of another 100,000 soldiers on top of cuts that are already planned.

              About half of the cuts would come in the active-duty force, and half in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, he said.

              Current plans call for the active*duty Army to shrink from about 560,000 today to about 490,000 during the next five years. Austin’s comments suggest the
              sequester law could push that final active-duty end strength down to about 440,000.


              For the Navy, the budget cuts imposed under sequestration could force today’s fleet of about 285 ships to drop to about 235 ships, Navy officials said.

              That would force the Pentagon to reconsider basic elements of the national security strategy because the Navy would not be able to meet current expectations.

              “It would … cause us to go back and re-look at the strategy because the force that comes out of seques*tration is not the force that can support the current strategy that we’re operating under,” Adm. Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations, told the senators.

              Ferguson said the Navy would have to reduce its annual budget by about $15 billion, roughly the same as its annual shipbuilding budget.

              For the Air Force, sequestration
              cuts would force hard decisions about the size of the air fleet.

              “The Air Force is the oldest it’s ever been in terms of its iron,” said Gen. Philip Breedlove, Air Force vice chief of staff. “We des*perately need to recapitalize our flying fleet.” Current Marine Corps plans call for that service to shrink from today’s level of about 197,000 Marines to 182,000.

              Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Corp’s assistant commandant, said sequestration would force an addi*tional cut of about 18,000 Marines. At that level, he said, “We would not have adequate capabilities or capacities to meet a single major contingency operation. So that’s fairly significant.” Many experts say a break*through agreement is unlikely before the presidential election in November. That could put off the issue until a post-election “lame*duck” session of Congress.

              I didn't mean any offense by that sir. I just go by the feel of the recruiters and what I hear from friends in the armed forces. I've been told with the shrinking budget and overall war effort it's become harder to not only get it, but also to stay in. The branches have upped their standards. I like to think I'd make a great candidate aside from a couple minor medical history notations.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

                Originally posted by fmcityslicker View Post
                I was curious about the Post-Iraq line in his thread and there is no difference because Iraq is over. There is still a present-Afghanistan and this is what might happen in 8 months. This is what I read yesterday in the new Army Times.

                100,000 more soldiers could be cut

                Vice chiefs testify about readiness, sequestration’s possible impact



                By Andrew Tilghman


                atilghman@militarytimes.com


                As many as 100,000 additional soldiers could be cut, on top of the troop cuts already planned, if Con*gress fails to change the current law that will impose huge defense spending reductions in January, top officials said.

                “It would be devastating,” Gen. Lloyd Austin, Army vice chief of staff, said at a May 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

                The vice chiefs of the four ser*vices testified on readiness levels and disclosed new details about the potential impact of the so-called sequester law, which
                Congress passed in a bipartisan vote last August.

                The cuts could force the Navy to lose 50 ships and the Air Force could be unable to modernize its fleet, according to Navy and Air Force vice chiefs.

                The law will impose sweeping cuts to the budgets of all govern*ment departments and agencies, including the Pentagon, unless Congress agrees on an alternative plan to lower federal spending.

                The cuts are projected to be about 10 percent across the board for all departments. The Penta*gon’s share would come on top of the $487 billion in reduced defense spending over 10 years that
                Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined in February.

                Pentagon officials have insisted for months that they are not plan*ning for sequestration, hoping lawmakers will change the law before the trigger date in January. Formal planning may begin this summer if Congress fails to act, according to Panetta.

                Austin said “the back-of-the*envelope calculations” would prob*ably mean reductions of another 100,000 soldiers on top of cuts that are already planned.

                About half of the cuts would come in the active-duty force, and half in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, he said.

                Current plans call for the active*duty Army to shrink from about 560,000 today to about 490,000 during the next five years. Austin’s comments suggest the
                sequester law could push that final active-duty end strength down to about 440,000.


                For the Navy, the budget cuts imposed under sequestration could force today’s fleet of about 285 ships to drop to about 235 ships, Navy officials said.

                That would force the Pentagon to reconsider basic elements of the national security strategy because the Navy would not be able to meet current expectations.

                “It would … cause us to go back and re-look at the strategy because the force that comes out of seques*tration is not the force that can support the current strategy that we’re operating under,” Adm. Mark Ferguson, vice chief of naval operations, told the senators.

                Ferguson said the Navy would have to reduce its annual budget by about $15 billion, roughly the same as its annual shipbuilding budget.

                For the Air Force, sequestration
                cuts would force hard decisions about the size of the air fleet.

                “The Air Force is the oldest it’s ever been in terms of its iron,” said Gen. Philip Breedlove, Air Force vice chief of staff. “We des*perately need to recapitalize our flying fleet.” Current Marine Corps plans call for that service to shrink from today’s level of about 197,000 Marines to 182,000.

                Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Corp’s assistant commandant, said sequestration would force an addi*tional cut of about 18,000 Marines. At that level, he said, “We would not have adequate capabilities or capacities to meet a single major contingency operation. So that’s fairly significant.” Many experts say a break*through agreement is unlikely before the presidential election in November. That could put off the issue until a post-election “lame*duck” session of Congress.

                I meant no disrespect sir. It just seems like they're upping their standards and kicking people out now that one of the war-fronts has diminished, which might make it harder to receive a waiver.

                Thank you Mongoose!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

                  Originally posted by Akinaga View Post
                  I'm interested in joining the Iowa National Guard, but I have a sorted past. I have a history with one ulcer and two periods where I had depression. I had it through a majority of high school and for roughly a year of college with time in between. I've been off medication for over 2 years and while I'm not a doctor, I consider both of them to be situational. I realize to a MEPS/armed forces CO position this would look bad as a seriously mental issue that has the potential to be reoccurring, but I have complete and total faith that it will not (the same can be said for the ulcer). What would be the appropriate steps to go about getting all of this cleared and be in the best position to go through the entire waiver process? I'd ask a recruiter, but any recruiter I've talked to for any branch has just told me to lie...

                  I believe my potential to maintain a depressionless life is due to my overall life progress. I have lost over 100 pounds and kept it off, I've never had or currently have any thoughts of harming myself, and I've overcome a lot. I understand it's scary for men in the field to think the man next to them has struggled mentally, but it not so much about how many times you got knocked down, but how many times you got back up?
                  I'm not telling you to lie or condoning any sort of misrepresentation. But...you need to understand that the military does not have access to your health records in the fashion that they portray. Because of privacy laws they only know what you tell them or what they can physically see on your body. Recruiters tell applicants not to disclose certain things at times and whether right, wrong or indifferent...the reason is simple. There is no benefit in doing so. If the depression isn't an issue, it can't be verified, and you know it will DQ you....doesn't that answer your own question??

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

                    Originally posted by Akinaga View Post
                    I believe my potential to maintain a depressionless life is due to my overall life progress.
                    I want to add based on this sentence which could be interpreted in different ways; is that your ability to enter the military service which is part of your overall ambitions may lead to further depression due to the type of jobs we had. Believe me; I have had stressful and depressing days since serving lol. Also, relationships, other jobs, finances have contributed to my adult mental state woes. And to be serious, currently there are comrades in my unit severely angry and depressed since a soldier of ours was killed this weekend.

                    That is why that information is pertinent on the application. It is a gauge whether you can mentally adapt to military service which many fail to do.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

                      Originally posted by fmcityslicker View Post
                      I want to add based on this sentence which could be interpreted in different ways; is that your ability to enter the military service which is part of your overall ambitions may lead to further depression due to the type of jobs we had. Believe me; I have had stressful and depressing days since serving lol. Also, relationships, other jobs, finances have contributed to my adult mental state woes. And to be serious, currently there are comrades in my unit severely angry and depressed since a soldier of ours was killed this weekend.

                      That is why that information is pertinent on the application. It is a gauge whether you can mentally adapt to military service which many fail to do.
                      Well, I fully expect to have ups and downs, but I have honestly faced a good bit. Not to say I'm unshockable or unbreakable, but I've been poor, had the weight of friends and family on my shoulders, lost friends and family, and experienced scrutiny from many directions. Some of them really wore on me, but I'm here and ready and willing to face them again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

                        I just wanted to know what your progress was or if you ended up enlisting.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Waivers Post-Iraq

                          What my Paralegal friend said is accurate, but I don't condone it. The Army JUST had an entire Suicide Safety Stand Down day last Thursday because one of the key issues facing the Army is the nearly pandemic suicide rate. We have a moratorium on depression and mental health issues because undisclosed ones are literally killing us.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X