Reference no: EM131657865

CASE STUDY: MILITARY RECRUITING IMPROPRIETIES WRITTEN BY JESSICA-MAY BOUWMAN, EMILY PALMER, KUO-HAO YEH, DAVID GRANDINETTI, & MICHAEL BOETTCHER OVERVIEW On July 23, 2008, a call came down from the United States Recruiter Command to the Columbus Recruiting Battalion. The battalion executive officer, Captain Mike Jordan, took the call. The message didn’t sound good; there was a Congressional Investigation being conducted on possible recruiter violations in one of the recruiter stations. The investigating officer, Major Al Harris was dispatched to conduct the investigation and is scheduled to arrive in two days. Captain Jordan wondered what was causing soldiers to jeopardize their careers with recruiting violations. Recruiting numbers didn’t seem worth risking demotion. By the Army’s own count, there were 320 substantiated cases of what are called recruitment improprieties in 2004, up from 199 in 1999, the last year it missed its activeduty recruitment goal, and 213 in 2002, the year before the war in Iraq started. The offenses varied from threats and coercion to false promises that applicants would not be sent to Iraq. Many incidents involved more than one recruiter, and the number of those investigated rose to 1,118 last year, or nearly one in five of all recruiters, up from 913 in 2002, or one in eight. (Joyner, 2005) The reason for all of this? The ongoing "war on terror" increased the need for additional soldiers, and the army's recruiters are feeling the pressure. When asked, recruiters say that the careers and self-esteem of recruiters rise and fall with their ability to fulfill quotas. The rebound of the economy also threatens the ability to make their quotas. Recruiters said falling short often generates reprimands and threats of demotion or relief of duty from superiors. 2 | P a g e CURRENT SITUATION The army is seeking 101,200 new active-duty army and reserve soldiers this year alone to replenish the ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan, elsewhere in the world, and at home. That means each of the army’s 7,500 recruiters faces the grind a quota of two new recruits a month, at a time of extended war without a draft. For the first time in nearly five years, the army missed its active-duty recruiting goal in February. The reserve has missed its monthly quota since October. (Cave, 2005) While conducting his investigation, Major Harris discovered that two recruiters had violated regulations and criteria while conducting recruiting operations: ? Sergeant Jones was cited with falsifying records to get four future recruits into the military. He was also accused of teaching them how to produce diplomas from a high school that doesn’t even exist. ? Sergeant Smith was charged of coercing recruits to lie about their health problems and past arrest records. ? Both soldiers have been relieved of duty and are now pending punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These charges could lead to reduction in rank and pay. SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION 1. A congressional investigation is being conducted on the Cleveland Recruiting Battalion. 2. Two soldiers are under suspicion of document forgery and coercion of civilians to lie on military applications. 3. The investigation reveals that both Soldiers indeed forged high school diplomas and coerced civilians to lie about past education and arrest records. 4. The soldiers said that they were being pressured by quotas to enlist applicants during a time of war and a growing economy 5. The soldiers also stated that they were getting threats from their superiors to make quotas or receive negative performance reports that will affect their careers. 3 | P a g e CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Does the pressure to recruit soldiers in a time of war justify the army to implement a quota system? Why?

2. What steps should the military take to ensure that recruiters do not violate recruiting improprieties when conducting operations?

3. As a recruiter, you know that the monthly quota cycle is coming to the end and you have not made your two enlistment quota for the period. Would you consider using unethical practices to persuade new recruits to join the military so you will meet your quota for the month? Justify your answer.

4. You are a recruiter at a local military recruiting station that has had four straight months of not making enlistment quotas. You have noticed that two other recruiters are talking to a civilian about enlisting into the Army and you over hear one of the recruiters say “That shouldn’t be a problem; we have ways to get around that.” You interviewed this same applicant four months ago and know that he was pre-determined not suitable for enlistment for one year due to a failed drug pre-screening. Should you say something to the chain of command or keep quiet because it’s their career on the line? Why or why not?

5. Should anything happen to civilians that know that their documentation is falsified by a recruiter but still signs the document verifying that, “By signing this document, I have verified that to the best of my knowledge, that all the information is true?” Why or why not? If there should be a consequence, what should it be?