(Via Milinet)

USA Today
July 19, 2000

This Isn't Your Father's Boot Camp Anymore

Short on recruits, the armed forces ease their approach to basic
training - an effort that some observers fear will mean softer
soldiers

By Dave Moniz, USA Today

FORT JACKSON, S.C. - Surrounded by old black-and-white
photographs of
stern warriors whipping recruits into shape, Col. Mick Bednarek
recalls the way boot camp was not so long ago.

"It used to be, the drill sergeant would say, 'If you're good
enough
to come into my Army, then you have to get past me.' "

Many never got past the Army's fearsome gatekeepers. They washed
out
and returned to civilian life after a brief and sometimes
painful
introduction to boot camp. But today, says Bednarek, a training
brigade commander and 24-year Army veteran, virtually anyone who
makes the effort can get through 8-12 weeks of basic training.

In fact, the Army has designed a raft of programs to help
woebegone
trainees graduate, from remedial military drills to special
courses
for those with marginal English language skills. There are
courses
for recruits who arrive too flabby and need a gentler training
pace,
and courses to calm the fears of trainees who try to quit the
Army in
the first week.

Because of that newfound ethos, the Army's largest basic
training
site has experienced an unprecedented drop in recruit failure.
As
recently as December 1998, 23% of Fort Jackson recruits flunked
out
of basic training. By the end of this year, the recruit failure
rate
here is expected to be 10% or lower.

The sudden drop is part of a military-wide trend playing out at
rifle
ranges and recruit barracks across the country. Commanders at
Marine,
Navy and Air Force basic training sites say they, too, are
graduating
recruits who in years past would have been discharged without a
second thought.

Some critics, however, question whether the four services, which
put
about 200,000 recruits through boot camp each year, are
sacrificing
quality as they struggle to attract and keep young men and women
in a
wickedly competitive job market.

Tom Wall, who commanded an Army basic training battalion in the
mid-1990s, is convinced that the services must be lowering
standards.
"The kids didn't suddenly get physically fit. The only way you
do
this is with a floating standard," Wall says.

Boot camp commanders don't necessarily agree. They say they're
using
proven scientific methods to salvage struggling but worthwhile
recruits. Some argue that the drop in attrition reflects the
changing
nature of the people they recruit and an enlightened philosophy
that
brings the military out of the dark ages of social Darwinism.

'Insist and assist'

But it is also true that the Pentagon is short of recruits and
seasoned troops who want to stay in uniform. With field
commanders
screaming for bodies to fill undermanned units, marginal
recruits are
much less likely to be sent packing.

"It's a great paradigm shift. Now, it's gonna be tough, but
we'll
assist you in meeting the standards as long as you don't give up
on
yourself," Bednarek explains.

The new philosophy has become an official part of Army training
doctrine. Known as "insist and assist," the idea is to demand
that
all recruits meet graduation standards while assisting
stragglers in
ways never before imagined.

And it's not just the Army. The other military branches have
also
taken a new approach within the past two years.

"A drill instructor should not give up on a recruit - we don't
leave
our dead on the battlefield," says Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney,
commander of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island,
S.C. "I
would phrase it this way: Drill instructors are there for
inspiration. The proclivity to drop a recruit is not there
anymore."

One of two Marine boot camps (the other is in San Diego), the
legendarily tough Parris Island has cut its failure rate for
male
recruits in half, from 20% to about 10% in the past two years.

Female attrition there has also plunged, from 29% in 1993 to
18.8% last year .

The Army's failure rate for all basic combat training fell to
8.7% as
of May, down from 13% in 1998.

The same trend holds for the Navy and Air Force, although the
decline
in recruit failures isn't as sharp. While the Navy dismissed
17.1% of
all recruits last year; this year it is failing 15.2%.

The Air Force's overall failure rate of 8.3% this year is down
slightly from 8.9% in 1999.

Maj. Gen. Ray Barrett, Fort Jackson's commander, acknowledges
that in
an ideal world, fewer soldiers would successfully complete basic
training than are doing so now. "There's a law of nature that
says
we're going to have some attrition. Is it 1% or 15%? You've got
pre-existing physical conditions, physical and mental problems -
people get hurt. I'm beginning to believe 12-15% is a good
number."

Historically, Barrett says, the services had a large enough
supply of
recruits so that ones who were unfit or discipline problems
could
simply be sent home. He calls the old methods "an industrial
production philosophy."

Some argue that military recruits are as dedicated as those who
joined 10 years ago. The main difference, commanders say, is
that the
services have to find new ways to motivate young people who grew
up
in the Information Age and constantly question authority
figures.

But there are concerns that the armed forces are flirting with
danger. Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern
University in Evanston, Ill., says the military "may be
increasing
problems down the road." One potential outcome of a gentler boot
camp, Moskos theorizes, is an increase in future disciplinary
problems.

"If you're going to have attrition, it's better to have it
early.
Every attrition case in a standing unit is a pain in the neck,"
Moskos says.

Second and third chances

A transforming event that changes civilians into soldiers and
sailors, basic training has for generations been a harrowing
rite of
passage. It is where green recruits get their hair cut short,
learn
to march in cadence and to one day survive combat.

The services defend their new methods and deny they are lowering
the
bar for marginal troops. In fact, all four branches say they
have
recently made basic training more rigorous, adding exercises
such as
the Marine Corps "Crucible," a 54-hour endurance test that
involves
sleep deprivation and long marches.

The difference in making such a philosophical change, commanders
say,
is developing patience that heretofore was not part of basic
training.

"We realize we are in the development business. People develop
at
different rates," says Lt. Col. Bill Gallagher, a basic training
battalion commander at Fort Jackson.

In decades past, poorly performing recruits were almost always
gone
after the first several weeks of the two to three month basic
training process. Today, the Army will rehabilitate injured
soldiers
sometimes for months at a time - and focus intensely on giving
poor
performers a second and even a third chance to shoot rifles or
do
pushups.

The new philosophy can mean a longer boot camp stay for
trainees,
especially those who are injured. In some cases, trainees can
spend
several additional weeks, even several months, completing basic
training.

Sgt. 1st Class Robert Wright, who trains Army recruits at Fort
Jackson, says recruits who screw up deserve a second chance. "My
problem is giving soldiers third and fourth chances. What kind
of
soldiers do they make?" Wright asks.

Andrew Bacevich, a former Army officer and national security
specialist at Boston University, says that it's logical to see a
drop
in soldier quality during robust economic times when interest in
joining the military traditionally declines. In the past two
years,
every service but the Marines has failed to meet its recruiting
goals
at least once.

"If recruits are a dime a dozen, then you have the possibility
of
ratcheting up standards - the training base becomes a true
sorting-out process," Bacevich says. "When recruiting problems
become
great, you can't afford to have sorting-out happen in the
training
base."

There are other reasons the services say they need to rethink
the old
survival-of-the-fittest model. Drill sergeants say that the
decline
of mandatory physical education classes in many high schools has
contributed to a generation of couch-potato teens.

"We're doing an outstanding job with what society is sending
us,"
says Army Sgt. Maj. Willie Hill.

The Navy argues that it is graduating more recruits because
commanders have a better understanding of why they fail.

"What we're doing is bringing young people in the front door of
boot
camp who make perfectly good sailors, except they lack some
fundamental tool," says Rear Adm. Ed Hunter, who commands Navy
basic
training at Great Lakes Naval Training Center near Chicago.

It could be that a smart but out-of-shape enlistee can't run 1
1/2
miles in 14 minutes, as the Navy requires. So instead of cutting
him
loose, Hunter says, the Navy will immediately put him in
remedial
training and take the time to ensure that he passes his fitness
test.

"That's not changing our standards," Hunter says.

'Break them in easy'

Like the Army, the Navy has other programs to nurture struggling
trainees, including one to teach stress and anger management to
recruits who respond poorly to authority figures.

Military commanders have also focused on lowering the washout
rate by
limiting injuries that halt or end training altogether.

All four branches say that in the past five years they've
learned a
great deal about leg problems, such as shin splints and stress
fractures. By custom-fitting recruits with running shoes -
instead of
that old standby, the combat boot - they have been able to
reduce
injury losses early in training.

"If you want to know why young people get shin splints and
blisters
in training, all you have to do is go to church on Sunday,"
Hunter
says. "Everyone is wearing a pair of Nikes."

He adds that few recruits who arrive at Navy basic training have
ever
worn boots or even hard-soled shoes. "You can't bring them in
here
and march them 25 miles a week. You have to break them in easy."

Boot camp failure

Basic training failure rates, by service, from 1998 through
2000.
2000 numbers are year-to-date.

Army: 1998 - 13%, 1999 - 11.1%, 2000 - 8.7%

Navy: 1998 - 16%, 1999 - 17.1%, 2000 - 15.2%

Air Force: 1998 - 8.4%, 1999 - 8.9%, 2000 - 8.3%

Marines: 1998 - 14.4%, 1999 - 12.3%, 2000 - 12.6%

The services say that failure rates historically drop further
after
the summer, when the bulk of recruits go through basic training.
Source: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines

Anyone remember the "S" and "SS" recruit platoons of the Korean War. I went "on the field" as a Buck Sgt in 10/51, was a Jr DI for one platoon, and around 1/52 picked up as a Sr DI. About this time, the Corps had been forced to accept: (1)selective service "volunteers"; (2) its share of the Mental Cat III and IV draftees; and (3) also accept Mental Cat III enlistees. To cope with this, Boot Camp was extended to 12 weeks for Cat III and 14 weeks for Cat IV. The theory was that while the same material was taught to all boots, the "S" & "SS" guys took longer to absorb the same instruction. I had one (thank God, only 1) "SS" platoon & it was the greatest challenge I ever had in the Corps, including war! The experience did, however, significantly improve my patience and my appreciation of "regular" boots when I got my next "regular" platoon!

Hey, we did it too folks! During the Korean War, we had "S" and "SS" platoons. While the Boot Camp curricula was the same for all, the S platoons had two extra weeks to absorb the training and the SS platoons had four extra weeks. I was a DI@PI from 10/51-3/54 and had two "S" and one "SS" and while it was rough, most of the "turds" tried just as hard as regular troops. Unfortunately, they just didn't succeed as often. I had one draftee recruit (obligated for 24 months) who spent 21 months in Boot Camp. Part of this was caused by a broken leg (no, I didn't do it!) and while he tried as hard as anyone, he just didn't have it. He was honorably discharged immediately after graduation.