It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Army quietly discharging immigrant recruits

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Aazadan

Really why would you allow non citizens into the military that seems to me to be height of stupidity .
How would you be sure they were not placed there for intelligence gathering purposes?



Are you serious? Did you fail 2nd grade History and from then on?

The US has always, ALWAYS employed the services of bandits, pirates, or otherwise. Where do you think all of the Irish soldiers from the North came from during the civil war? Maine? What choice do you think Uncle Same gave them when they got here and Lee was making #### hit the fan in Washington?




posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

before you bust out the pitchforks, I think you may want to get some more information. 40 soldiers so far, and the official explanation is security risks due to family issues. Security clearances are a big thing. (unless you are a high ranking democrat)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Didn’t trumps IG say hillary Clinton should never have been charged??

#lockherup

Lmao



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Fighting for a country is an age old way to join that country.. always has been.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
When you have a president in office who is a proven racist, actions of this nature appear highly suspicious.


(post by andy06shake removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm uncertain if anyone acting like military lawyers have ever read or even know about Army Regulation 635-200 (19 Dec 2016)--this governs every aspect of administrative discharges from reasons why someone can be discharged to how to write up the discharge paperwork to who the approval authorities are and how Soldiers must be notified of "chapter" proceedings and their right to seek counsel concerning the proceedings.

The downfall of the article to which you linked is that it doesn't reference a single chapter under 635-200 that any of these guys were discharged under. Having the knowledge of the AR like I do (writing, processing, and counseling both commanders and Soldiers about chapter paperwork was a pretty core function of my work as a 71D in the military) tells me that either these discharged people are not being 100% honest, this Margaret Stock lady is being intentionally misleading or withholding, or the AP is intentionally misleading via their reporting.

There are quite a few chapters where someone can be discharged for the "Convenience of the Government" (Chapter 5 of the AR noted), and Chapter 5-10 is titled "Discharge of aliens not lawfully admitted to the United States." There is also the 5-11 for people who don't meet fitness standards. There is the 5-13 (Personality Disorder), and 5-17 ("other designated physical or mental conditions), and those examples are just scratching the surface. There are myriad reason why a Soldier can be administratively discharged from the Army--I gave you a few examples from one chapter of many. You will note, though, that paragraph 5-1(b) notes that an honorable discharge under Chapter 5 "is normally inappropriate" for some of the reasons under the chapter.

Also, the "uncharachterized" discharge is only given to people with less than 180 days of military service, so if there are some of these people who have received that, it was probably while they were in Basic, AIT, or just arrived to their first duty station. They have not served long enough to earn the benefits and recognition that comes with receiving an honorable discharge.

But seriously, this report by the AP is massively lacking in details that matter to people who are capable of more than just emotional responses. Having been immersed in this aspect of the Army for my entire service, I'm going to call BS on the hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing and secrecy surrounding the separations.

See, it's absolute bullsh*t to claim that these Soldiers were discharged without being told, and I'll be kind enough to quote you from AR 635-200(1-15)(a) & (b):

1–15. Guidance

A substantial investment is made in training persons enlisted or inducted into the Army; therefore, this general
guidance will be considered when initiating separation action.
    a. Unless separation is mandatory, the potential for rehabilitation and further useful military service will be considered by
    the separation authority; where applicable, the administrative separation board will also consider these factors. If separation
    is warranted despite the potential for rehabilitation, consider suspending the separation, if authorized.

    b. Adequate counseling and rehabilitation measures will be taken before initiating separation action against a Soldier when
    the reason for separation so specifies. An alleged or established inadequacy in previous rehabilitation efforts does not
    provide a legal bar to separation.

As you can see, "potential for rehabilitation" will be considered where appropriate, and "counseling and rehabilitation measures will be taken before initiating separation action." These Soldier are lying about not being notified about the proceedings.

Also, and of very worthy note, ALL SOLDIERS have a right to have their administrative-discharge heard before an administrative board--the Soldier must waive that right if they do not want to go before a board, meaning that they know full well that there are discharge proceedings happening on them.

This is all a bunch of BS, and you fell for it. If you have any questions from someone who actually knows what they're talking about concerning Administrative Discharges and the process involved, feel free to ask me, and if I don't know off of the top of my head, I'll be happy to look it up and let you know where the answer lies--in the actual Army regulation, not an AP article.
edit on 6-7-2018 by SlapMonkey because: posted an empty response



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

An unknown 'is' a security risk.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Topcraft
a reply to: Arnie123

All I can go on is my own experience. Things may have changed. In 1969 while in Vietnam, I was base security for several naval bases in I corps. We would get intel reports to read that pertained to whatever area we were operating in at the time. Most were marked confidential, some secret. I never asked for any clearance, I was told that I was authorized to read them. It is need to know, but you still have to have the clearance to have access. Oh, I was e3 at the time, and an electrician when I got in country. I assume I only had a confidential clearance before I got there. No paperwork ever.



 



in 1966 I recall... Both USAREUR (US Army Europe) together with NATO... required all forces to have a 'SECRET' security clearance

the SECRET clearance was only a National Records Check...& Not a deep, 'Background-Investigation' that was required for getting higher TopSecret or other specialized Clearances


There was an ADM Platoon attached to the Combat Engineer Unit I served in as the Battalion clerk-typist for the S-2, so I was up to my neck in getting the 1,000+ men their security clearances ASAP...and i know i handled the ADM Security Clearance-Background-Investigation differently than the newly required SECRET clearance for everyone else


 




all i can say is that the foreigner recruits were not properly vetted for the potential citizenship program...


or else, a 'red flag' popped up to investigate those personnel for potential Discharge proceedings...

it sometimes takes a long time for things to link up...my guess is that their vetting was underway in the background but they were allowed to proceed in the program until TSHTF, because after-all, they were a captive in the system & could have used their period of 'good behavior' to enhance their future status to continue their 7 years-to-Citizenship


edit on th31153096095407552018 by St Udio because: (no reason given)


(post by roguetechie removed for a manners violation)


top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join