Forum: Story Recommendations

I know there is no such thing as a former Marine, once a Marine, always a Marine.

Is that actually true? I can't imagine any job where every employee loves their work, especially if it's liable to leave them mentally and physically maimed.

AJ

Thank you.

I'm not sure whether that's impressive or scary.

AJ

Having seen their training and having met (and worked with) the end result in real life, my opinion has always been that the USMC is legalised indoctrination. In fact, it's a very well established cult, one that's helped by the... how do I put this politely... general level of mental ability of the recruits.

Obviously, those indoctrinated are going to disagree with that assessment.

That being said, I can see why their training is structured the way it is. Sometimes, too much thought is a disability. Right tool for the job and all that...

An example I am aware of is the marine in Okinawa that had raped a 12-year-old girl in the town outside the base. I do not know his final disposition but knowing the status-of-forces agreement of the time I would not be surprised if he was dishonorably discharged and then turned over to the Okinawa legal system for punishment.

Because of the SOFA, things like that are interesting.

In a lot of crimes like drugs, assault, rape and murder Japan maintains jurisdiction. But in general, so long as it is on base involving other Americans they let the US handle it. If it happens out in town or involves Japanese citizens, the chance of their taking jurisdiction increases sharply.

But they are resolved the other way around. Japan takes custody of them, then only after they had been tried and punished are they returned back to the US. Where the US then gets a chance to put them on trial again.

And a couple of times a year, they will actually do just that. And it is something we are all aware of. One guy I knew on Okinawa showed positive in a piss test for drugs. He had taken them when home on leave, but under the SOFA Japan had the right to prosecute them. And under Japanese law, a positive piss test is the same as possession of drugs (you have to have it in order to use it).

And in this case, we got a call from the main gate saying the JPs were wanting onto the base (they will do that a couple of times a year to "make an example" of them). They went to the Base Commander, the kid was sent for, and immediately went to a Japanese jail. Where a month later he was convicted, sentenced to five years in prison. With the sentence reduced to time served, but he was immediately ejected from the country.

I had to drive him to Kadena Air Force Base, where he got on the first plane leaving the country (it was to South Korea). He most likely was back in the US about a week later, where he would then face a court martial for Unauthorized Absence and other rule and regulation charges.

But only after all local punishments are resolved do the military finally get them back. I saw something similar years later in the Army. Where a guy was arrested and convicted for armed robbery in New Mexico. Ultimately, only after that was all resolved years later after sitting in a New Mexico prison for three years was he turned back over to the Army where they then took their turn at him.

But a Dishonorable Discharge is no joke. That is actually the exact same thing as a Felony Conviction (and has all the prohibitions of a felony conviction like being unable to own a firearm or run for many public offices), and is rarely given out unless really deserved.

I resemble that remark.

I know that I have read at least a couple of stories where the court offered jail time or volunteering for the service.

Old wives tale, has not been real for many many decades.

Yes, that was common during WWII, and up to Vietnam. But after 1973 when the military went "All Volunteer" that all stopped. And each decade the background checks became more and more strict.

One of the things I had to resolve in 2007 when I joined the Army was a freaking parking ticket I had forgotten. Showed up in my background check, I had to resolve that before I could join.

Now if you have a conviction they can grant a "waiver" to allow you to join, but so long as you have any charges outstanding you are frozen until after they are resolved. Even being on probation or parole is a guarantee stop on somebody trying to join.

I recently represented a juvenile. A juvenile charge assault by auto. No conviction, the charge was expunged from his record and no adult arrests.
He was rejected when he tried to enlist. I wound up having to meet with the recruiter and provide a written explanation of what happened with documentary backup. He was finally let in.

Expunged does not quite mean what a lot of people think it does. Yes, it "expunges" it as far as future unrelated criminal actions are concerned, but it is still on record and the military will still reject somebody because of it.

It sounds like he likely thought it had been 'erased", and then had to follow the procedure to get a waiver. The fact is, almost anything can be waved. It just differs depending on how recruiting is going at the time. If they are below their quota, more likely. At or above their quota, less likely.

One of the things I needed a waiver for in 2007 was a shoplifting arrest I had without a conviction back in freaking 1980. But I informed them of it when I started the paperwork, and the waiver was pretty much nothing.

Old wives tale, has not been real for many many decades.

Could this be regional? I know that it's common in the UK. Whilst I'm not sure if it's officially court mandated, I have heard first hand accounts from (young) individuals who had been due for court appearances for serious crimes who had told the courts that they were in the process of 'joining' (A decision made after their initial arrest) and their court dates had been 'pushed back' in lieu of this. Often, officers from their unit (or training regiment) would then accompany them to court as character witness's. What would have been a custodial for several years years, would then be mitigated to a fine.

From the felons point of view, military service provides a harsher regime than that of prison, but it also allows a level of autonomy not allowed inside (weekends in your own time, mandated leave, consumption of alcohol, mixing with members of the opposite sex, etc etc). Depending on the crime, minimal service could also be faster than time served inside, and would also look better on your CV going forward.

There is a caveat to this. This is based on information correct a decade ago. However, military recruitment in the UK has since been outsourced from the military branches themselves, to a private contractor. The reason for this, was supposedly greater efficiency and cheaper costs. The reality, unsurprisingly, was more expensive costs, a vast reduction in recruit applications and a process that is often, politely, described as 'glacial'. In other words, it has been a complete and un-mitigated disaster that is serious bone of contention between military 'top brass' and career politicians. Many would-be recruits have complained that the process takes more than a year (up from the previous average of a few months to allow for vetting checks) and that they have 'moved-on' when they finally get a date for their basic training. This has made joining up to avoid a custodial less of an option, however, given the speed at which courts deal with some offenders, it may still be an option.

I'm pretty sure Mushroom was referring specifically to the US military.

I gathered that, hence why I said 'Regional'. It could well be the case in non American countries and people may have thought similar applied to American forces.

Then there are the "third world" countries that have gone into the prisons and simply tell prisoners that they are now in the army.

Both Russia and Iraq had a history of doing exactly that.

But I would not say that either of them had a well regarded military force in the first place.

Russia did something similar quite recently. Wagner PMC recruited thousands of hardened criminals on the basis that if they fought for a year they would be free, if they deserted they would be hunted and killed.

As I said, they had a long history of doing exactly that. They also had "Penal Battalions" in WWII, actually made up of largely unarmed prisoners that would take the point in assaults against the Germans. Survive enough battles and you would eventually earn a pardon.

But do not make the mistake of thinking prisoners are all low IQ. Or even the majority are low IQ.

But also do not for any reason think that Russia uses a "Volunteer Army". Believe it or not, 2025 is the 100th year of mandatory conscription there. For the past 100 years, all males in Russia have had to serve a mandatory time in uniform, ranging from one to four years depending on when they served.

Could this be regional? I know that it's common in the UK.

This would be more accurately described as "National", not "Regional". But for the US, yes this was the case nationwide. In the early 1970s all branches of the military started to crack down on prohibiting criminals from joining the military.