<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Army Keeping Problem Soldiers to Keep Troop Levels Up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/army_keeping_problem_soldiers_to_keep_troop_levels_up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/army_keeping_problem_soldiers_to_keep_troop_levels_up/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:32:40 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Charles Fenwick</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/army_keeping_problem_soldiers_to_keep_troop_levels_up/comment-page-1/#comment-47861</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Fenwick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2005 21:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=10818#comment-47861</guid>
		<description>My thoughts mirror Mr. Joyner&#039;s.

I enlisted in &#039;lean times&#039; for the Navy (1999)
when retention was under 50% and recruiting
efforts were not filling the gap.  

At the time my enlistement was ending, 
retention was above 65%,  In the time since,
a number of things have ocurred to tighten 
the ability of people to re-enlist or otherwise
remain in the Navy.  For example, in 1999 a Third Class Petty Officer could get up to twelve 
years in service before getting separated for
not being advanced (promoted).  Now they are
getting separated at eight years (unless they have a waiver).  

I would think overall, the Navy&#039;s standards 
are getting back to where they were in the
early 90&#039;s during the drawdown.  As posted, it
is a normal cycle; standards float with the 
needs of the service.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My thoughts mirror Mr. Joyner's.</p>
<p>I enlisted in 'lean times' for the Navy (1999)<br />
when retention was under 50% and recruiting<br />
efforts were not filling the gap.  </p>
<p>At the time my enlistement was ending,<br />
retention was above 65%,  In the time since,<br />
a number of things have ocurred to tighten<br />
the ability of people to re-enlist or otherwise<br />
remain in the Navy.  For example, in 1999 a Third Class Petty Officer could get up to twelve<br />
years in service before getting separated for<br />
not being advanced (promoted).  Now they are<br />
getting separated at eight years (unless they have a waiver).  </p>
<p>I would think overall, the Navy's standards<br />
are getting back to where they were in the<br />
early 90's during the drawdown.  As posted, it<br />
is a normal cycle; standards float with the<br />
needs of the service.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JACK ARMY</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/army_keeping_problem_soldiers_to_keep_troop_levels_up/comment-page-1/#comment-47839</link>
		<dc:creator>JACK ARMY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2005 05:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=10818#comment-47839</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt; US lowers standards in army numbers crisis&lt;/strong&gt;

Also, right now at this time in America, young Americans see two different militaries: the first is relatively safe and stays out of harms way. The other is dangerous and continuously places itself in harms way. Can you guess which branches go with whi...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong> US lowers standards in army numbers crisis</strong></p>
<p>Also, right now at this time in America, young Americans see two different militaries: the first is relatively safe and stays out of harms way. The other is dangerous and continuously places itself in harms way. Can you guess which branches go with whi...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Just Me</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/army_keeping_problem_soldiers_to_keep_troop_levels_up/comment-page-1/#comment-47837</link>
		<dc:creator>Just Me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=10818#comment-47837</guid>
		<description>I think it is baloney to throw in the issues of failed fitness tests and pregnancy, as if those two things actually make soldiers unfit (as compared to alcohol or drug abuse which was the other thing listed).

My husband was in the Navy during the 90&#039;s, and they were discharging people, because their BMI&#039;s were too high, even though they could actually pass the fitness portion of the fitness test (one of my husbands friends was discharged for this).

I also am not a fan of the pregnancy out.  It bothered me that a lot of women would get pregnant on purpose in order to get the easy out, at the very least they should have to stay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is baloney to throw in the issues of failed fitness tests and pregnancy, as if those two things actually make soldiers unfit (as compared to alcohol or drug abuse which was the other thing listed).</p>
<p>My husband was in the Navy during the 90's, and they were discharging people, because their BMI's were too high, even though they could actually pass the fitness portion of the fitness test (one of my husbands friends was discharged for this).</p>
<p>I also am not a fan of the pregnancy out.  It bothered me that a lot of women would get pregnant on purpose in order to get the easy out, at the very least they should have to stay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
