Minor quibble: ADHD is not disqualifying; it's even in the NAMI waiver guide. You have to function off meds to join, though.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS No transgender personnel will serve . . .
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
The preexisting condition argument sums it up nicely, in my opinion. Transgender or people with diagnosed gender dysphoria have a higher likelihood of becoming non-deployable for medical reasons. That seems more than sufficient reason to limit the service of gender dysphoric or transgender people, especially in light of some other medical conditions (including treatable ones) that prevent people from serving and/or deploying. I also agree with others that POTUS messaging about medical cost is tone-deaf and misses the readiness point completely.
I do find it irritating and fucked up that the fuzzy-wuzzies are claiming military service is a "right" (spoiler alert: it's not), but don't seem to consider gun ownership a "right" (spoiler alert: it is.)
Funny how the definition of "rights" always fits the argument of the day, isn't it?
I do find it irritating and fucked up that the fuzzy-wuzzies are claiming military service is a "right" (spoiler alert: it's not), but don't seem to consider gun ownership a "right" (spoiler alert: it is.)
Funny how the definition of "rights" always fits the argument of the day, isn't it?
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
The requirements to get a waiver through N3M for initial entry for ADHD are such it is often disqualifying for pretty much anyone that has been on meds unless it was when they were a little kid and then went off shortly after.
Maybe it's changed, or maybe I was the exception that proves the rule. Or maybe it's not a fad diagnosis for kids in this generation like it was for mine. I was under the impression that you were still waiverable if you were stable off meds for at least a year prior to applying. That's how it was when I got in. I got through DODMERB, got a ROTC scholarship, and got a NAMI waiver after being on them through middle school. But I grew up in the 80s and 90s when docs were throwing Ritalin around like candy.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
now it is like 3 years, and they want to see all school transcripts, etc......
too many kids being medicated that don't need to be.
If it's in the waiver guide then you are NPQ until you receive a waiver. So it is disqualifying just like LASIK or PRK is if your surgery doesn't come out within standards. Just because a waiver exists, doesn't mean you're gonna get it.
Great. I'm sure some good idea fairy doc read something in a journal article. Ugh. How may kids are going to get fucked because overprotective parents kept them on meds, then they decided to join, but it hasn't been three years?
Don't even get me started.
Now you're quibbling my quibble.
Yes, you're right. But there's a world of difference between "the docs need a closer look and some tests" NPQ and "have a nice civilian life" NPQ.
Many of you are also looking at this from an aviation/NAMI perspective in terms of what is/isn't disqualifying or waiverable. As Navyoffrec has eluded to, the process for Johnny Sailor is very different and the amount of scrutiny that your average recruit gets via N3M or at MEPS and in-processing is next to nil. In the 18 months I've been at my current squadron, we've separated about 10 first term Sailors for various mental health issues. In most cases, you could tell after a 5 minute conversation with these individuals that they had no business being anywhere near the military. It's frustrating that the organization spends so many resources training these people when a rudimentary mental health screening process at MEPS could have identified them as needing additional mental health evaluation prior to being cleared for service.
I understand the political dimension of the transgender service debate, but from a purely practical standpoint, I'm not sure it makes sense to actively recruit individuals with unresolved mental health issues, to include gender dysphoria. Obviously, policy falls somewhere between the political and the practical, and we're seeing that continue to play out before our eyes.
I understand the political dimension of the transgender service debate, but from a purely practical standpoint, I'm not sure it makes sense to actively recruit individuals with unresolved mental health issues, to include gender dysphoria. Obviously, policy falls somewhere between the political and the practical, and we're seeing that continue to play out before our eyes.
Thanks for the cage, Brett.
It does seem as though a minimal screening effort by recruiting agencies is warranted. I can recall as a divo wondering several times how sailor X was let into the military with problem Y.
It does seem as though a minimal screening effort by recruiting agencies is warranted. I can recall as a divo wondering several times how sailor X was let into the military with problem Y.
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
The cost of your no-load dependendopotomasuses and nasty children in BAH/Sep pay/Tricare is 10000000x the cost that these folks bring to the DOD.
And at least these people actually serve their country, unlike your wife who sells essential oils and Tupperware on Facebook.
It's a non-issue. Let them serve. Nineteen other western militaries do. Make them admin only if you have to.
And at least these people actually serve their country, unlike your wife who sells essential oils and Tupperware on Facebook.
It's a non-issue. Let them serve. Nineteen other western militaries do. Make them admin only if you have to.
Next time we have that Dual-Mil Dual-BAH discussion, I want everyone to remember this.
Interesting arguing technique- insult and make gross generalizations about a group of people while trying to defend the rights of others, but I guess that is just par for the course.
I would recommend better facts $6-8M x 1M = $6-8T, dependent extras don't cost that much.
I would recommend better facts $6-8M x 1M = $6-8T, dependent extras don't cost that much.
Dude. Seriously?
Late night time stamp? Check
Nonsensical gibberish? Check
Angry, inflammatory, butthurt? Check
Radicaldude post: confirmed
Nonsensical gibberish? Check
Angry, inflammatory, butthurt? Check
Radicaldude post: confirmed
