I'm now finding out just how bad my recruiter was at his job. I practically have to start over in preparing my OTS package, which I thought had been complete for a full two months.

The fun part is that I was told to leave out the information that was disclosed during the Don't Ask Don't Tell investigation because the investigation cannot be considered. It all made sense, so I left it out.

Then I got a new recruiter.

My new recruiter came across an email about the information contained in the investigation, called me up, and accused me of lying on my paperwork and intentionally concealing information. She got really nasty about it really quickly, and now I'm going through a process with the entire thing hinging on my relationship with this woman who called my integrity into question on the second day being assigned to her. When I explained that I had been advised to omit the information, her response was that she refused to believe any recruiter would tell a recruit to omit information from their paperwork.

Really? Recruiters are notorious for that.

The interesting thing is that it all comes down to her own self-preservation. She was very direct in telling me she doesn't want me to get popped for fraudulently commissioning because it will make her look bad.

The moral of the story folks is that if your recruiter ever tells you to do something that could bite you in the ass, they will throw you under the bus at the first chance they get, and they will defend their own while watching you burn.

Female recruiters

It turns out she is demanding I change my response to the question she thinks I lied on. After re-reading the guidance provided by someone else higher in the food chain and consulting several attorneys on the question, my response is correct and appropriate. But now she is refusing to move my OTS application forward unless the squadron commander or Air Force Recruiting Service commander sign off on it.

Call the office of the area congressman and ask for an investigation.

When I applied to army OCS in '02 I ran into a problem with a recruiter and did the same thing. Within two weeks that recruiter was gone and my packet approved.

I didn't make any friends at that recruiting office, they were all pissed but what they did was wrong and It was corrected.

I'm an Air Force vet and proud of the AF but a couple of comments:

1.I once had a part time DOD job of administering the ASVAB at MEPS, High Schools and reserve centers. Regularly worked with recruiters from all services.

Army, Navy, Marines were always there and helpful. The Air Force people I ran into were seldom around and quite frankly useless. The other recruiters always joked about them.
I once worked with an AF recruiter one on one and I asked him why they were so "invisible". His answer was he had his "quota" filled for the next 8 months and so he "did other things"...however he didn't explain what these other things were.
Quite frankly, I was embarrassed by the lack of effort of Air Force recruiters.

2. You are a vet. don't you know you never trust a recruiter unless you have it in writing?

Yes, I do. That's why the next step on Monday is to ask her to put it in writing that she is refusing to move the package forward. the problem is that if I piss off the squadron, they can kill my package by giving me a bad interview score.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... Are they asking you to disclose something related to DADT?

Isn't the principal behind it (and the new policies about allowing everyone to be open) that it doesn't matter? Disclose or not, the end result is the same.

There isn't really a delicate way around it - I disclosed during the DADT investigation some details of the emotional toll the policy took. She wants me to say I seriously considered killing myself, which I did not. I offered to go have a psych eval done at my own expense to make her happy, but I'm not going to answer yes to that question because it would be a lie.

I don't have a STEM degree and I'm too old to go rated, so I'm already down to less than half of the AFSCs available that I qualify for. A response of yes to that question permanently disqualifies me for any job that requires anything more than minimal security clearance. That will absolutely have a severely damaging effect on my career if I were to be selected.

[This message has been edited by Ryan the Temp (edited 5/5/2014 8:16p).]

That's some BS right there...

I hope everything works out. I'm not military, but have seen a few of your posts on here and your desire to serve is really evident.

Sucks man, I really don't know why a recruiter is giving you such a hard time. You should ditch her and join the Army

The Army age cutoff is 7 years lower the the Air Force, and I'm already age-waivered due to active duty service. If that weren't the case, I might consider it.

Confirmed in writing: My application will not be processed as submitted unless the commander or someone higher says it can.

So sorry to hear the recruiter is ruining your quest to re-enter the military.

Yeah, I'm about 50-50 to just walk away at this point. The recruiting commander is demanding to see the DADT investigation, which I was promised would not be used to make any decisions.

quote:

---

Call the office of the area congressman and ask for an investigation.

---

It has been my experience that Congressionals do get results. If you really want in, find out the location of your Senator and either visit him or make an appointment.

CONGRINTs do get results. I was a recruiting station OPSO and had to answer within 24 hours when OLA (office of legislative affairs) forwarded a CONGRINT. A CONGRINT does not necessarily require a formal investigation to be done but it requires that the military send written response to a congressman. The services' offices of legislative affairs do not want to send sloppy answers to congress so they tend to require the recruiting force to submit a reply that really answers the allegation. It usually boils down to the question of, "did the military follow its published policy in the case in question." If the response is that the service did not follow the policy it had better come with a statement of corrective actions that are being taken.

My CongressWOMAN is Sheila Jackson Lee. Her office is 2-5 years behind on constituent casework. Senators Cornyn and Cruz have refused to assist me because they do not believe I should be permitted to serve in the military.

I'm thinking from what you wrote about the DADT "emotional toll"....that would cause me to be hesitant in allowing you in, it appears that you are not pschologically fit and would be a medical early retiree because of it...just my opinion

Col. A 1976

quote:

---

it appears that you are not pschologically fit and would be a medical early retiree because of it...just my opinion

---

Oh, neat, look, we have an "expert" here giving unsolicited medical review board advice.

ProTip: I've known RyanTheTemp personally for a long time. Dude's an A+ American and would be a very strong addition to the US military.

quote:

---

it appears that you are not pschologically fit and would be a medical early retiree because of it...just my opinion

---

Colonel A. 1976,

If you were booted out of the military because you were heterosexual, it would have taken an "emotional toll" on you too.

Bigoted remarks have no place here.

Be nice to Colonel. I think his perspective is a fair and valid consideration under certain circumstances, but it just doesn't apply to my particular circumstances.

Dude, don't worry about their back log. Their office doesn't actually do the leg work. There is a Congressional Liaison Office that does. All they do is send a fax.

quote:

---

All they do is send a fax.

---

2-5 years after it is received in her office.

Other than PTSD..any emotional toll caused by military regs/policy is suspect in my opinion, hence my unfit statement regarding service and such allowed service would be in my opinion a future burden and problem for the military...unsolicited advice , find a job, if you love the military so much why cause more heartburn with a congrint,,not gonna help you in the long run

quote:

---

why cause more heartburn with a congrint,,not gonna help you in the long run

---

I agree 100%. The AF promised me this second chance, and I promised I wouldn't force my way back in through legal, Congressional, etc. means. Nobody wins in that case. It looks like what we had here was a subjective interpretation of information that ran counter to AFRS guidance, and it got sorted out late yesterday.

I'm back on track. Now if Air Staff would just schedule the damn FY15 boards.

Ryan,

Good deal. BTW - If a congressional office is sitting on a congressional to the liaison office, there is something wrong with that action and is not standard business practice or regulatory guidance.

Looks like you don't need it anymore, but if you become and officer and a trooper actually needs the process, do not accept what you are describing as acceptable business or regulatory practice.

As for a congressional inq, if it does help you (or one of your Soldiers/Airmen) in the long run, AND it's the right thing to do, I couldn't give a crap about heartburn. Sometimes people in positions of power abuse that power or simply do not know what the heck they are doing.

Glad things are working out.

[This message has been edited by Fly Army 97 (edited 5/9/2014 4:53p).]

I am happy to hear you are back on track! Please keep us updated.

quote:

---

Good deal. BTW - If a congressional office is sitting on a congressional to the liaison office, there is something wrong with that action and is not standard business practice or regulatory guidance.

---

Obviously you don't know who the Congress WOMANNNNNN! SJL is.

Muss I die! before more people recognize her.

quote:

---

Obviously you don't know who the Congress WOMANNNNNN! SJL is.

---

I once stood between her and a microphone and lived to tell about it. That's got to count for something on my application, right?

When i was attempting to apply for army OCS in '02 my recruiter demanded I enlist then apply after one year as enlisted. I refused and when my packet was almost complete he refused to send it up to the recruiting battalion in dallas.

After two months of messing with it and getting close to graduation my dad wanted to contact a friend of his who at the time was set to become commanding general of ft. Benning. (I don't want to give his name, he retired recently, great guy and role model).

I freaked out at this and said no way, let me try to fix it on my own. Just to try something I emailed the office of the area congressman and within two days I heard back from his office.

Two days after that the recruiter was gone, along with a captain at that recruiting station. I'm still not sure what happened other than I was told my hell raising cost them, that's what an E-6 told me anyways. I've never asked my dad if he said anything because I didn't want to know if by some chance he did.

Long story short, I was accepted but the whole applying part sucked because of the recruiter.

[This message has been edited by Irish_man (edited 5/10/2014 3:44p).]

[This message has been edited by Irish_man (edited 5/10/2014 3:45p).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Obviously you don't know who the Congress WOMANNNNNN! SJL is.

---

I once stood between her and a microphone and lived to tell about it. That's got to count for something on my application, right?

---

Very impressive.

quote:

---

Bigoted remarks have no place here.

---

This was completely uncalled for. He said nothing bigoted.

Glad you got it sorted out, RTT.

quote:

---

Senators Cornyn and Cruz have refused to assist me because they do not believe I should be permitted to serve in the military.

---

Ryan,

Could you clarify the above for me? Did both of these senators outright refuse to help you because you are gay? Cornyn I don't really care about but I have been pleased with Cruz to this point. While I get that you could be opposed to a given position politically, once it is policy he has an obligation to assist his constituents on matters such as these (imho).

It really pisses me off to hear this, and if this is the stance Cruz is taking, this is likely to impact my support of him in other areas.

Yes, that is correct.

"I'm sorry, but the Senator is opposed to gays serving in the military, so we will not be able to assist you with this."