Army vets, help me out. Reg 601-210's overt violations. Thoughts?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

Here's the regulation:

"Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.." Army reg 601-210


Now, here's the link to a story I posted earlier today that indicates a direct violation of this reg...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3534980

And, finally, the website that I used for research, which is
admittedly amateur. (my research, not the website)

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/joi...

this is also posted in the original thread.

As an Army veteran, I really recoil at this. There was a good reason that the military balked at bringing in recruits in this "last resort" kind of situation.

As I said in the thread title, another backdoor draft. MKJ

edited for clarity

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. I've been promoting this subject most of the day with lukewarm responses.

Am I the only Army vet who feels that there was a good reason for this reg? Or, are there benefits to offering no jail for service that I'm not aware of? Thanks MKJ

[NYC]

2. I am going to read it now.

Will report back.

[NYC]

3. Does "clearing his record" mean that all evidence

of the conviction will be removed?

...His probation officer told him Army service could clear his record. Otherwise, he could lose rights such as voting, Burns said. "I didn't want to give up those rights."...

...He made counterfeit U.S. money - new $20 bills - using a fancy home printer. It was "easy to get away with" - an addictive habit that Burns said brought him up to $1,000 a week for clothes, video games, Reeboks, Nikes. In January 2004, federal authorities closed him down...

... So he signed up for four years, snagging a $4,000 bonus...

The article doesn't say. Was he able to make restitution with the $4,000 so that the charges were dropped? Was he convicted? This article does not give details.

[Pinboy]

4. I read it. Response lukewarm probably because...

there's a big difference between military enlistment being made a sentencing condition by a court, and advice given by a probation officer.

During the Vietnam War I knew a teenager who went before a court (juvenile referee) on drug charges. He was given 3 months to either get a job or get in school, or he would do time in juvenile hall. With the kid's record, and having been expelled from 4 high schools, he was unable to meet either condition.

The kid knew a young military officer, who took him to an army recruiter. The recruiter said that the regs prohibited him from even talking to anyone charged in an ongoing criminal proceeding, but as a favor to the officer he put the kid through all the physical and other tests and found him qualified for enlistment.

The officer took him to his next court appearance and told the juvenile referree the kid could join up. When a call to the recruiter confirmed that, the charges were dismissed.

I don't remember whether or not enlistment was explicitly made a condition of dismissal -- but I don't remember the military being particularly fussy about that regulation in those days, either.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. So, even though the reg is clear that someone with a criminal charge is

not eligible for enistment...that reg is regularly ignored? This is new to me. I can remember that I was explicitly told that ANY criminal charges could make me ineligible for serving.

How long has this reg been in existence? Is it just the normal course of events that it is ignored and has been for sometime?

MKJ

[Pinboy]

6. Once charges were dismissed, there was no barrier to enlistment.

I don't know what the regs actually said at the time, just the recruiter's characterization. I was aware of the circumstances of that single case; I don't know what the norm was in practice. And I would not be surprised if the criteria for enlistment today have changed from those that were in effect more than 30 years ago.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. Another military article that's been violated,

link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3534980&mesg_id=3536461&page=

MKJ

edited for spelling/clarity
Thanks to MADem for the research.