Pre and post deployment support

[reed11b]

-- or, better yet, such an assessment before service entry and rejection of those likely to need heavy support.

An idea which ought to fire up the PC crowd...

A true assessment or a simple review of existing history and the resulting go/no-go from it? I would agree if a true assessment was involved as MH diagnosis is not an exact science and I have meet many diagnosed as ODD that I would diagnose as "teenagers". A diagnosis does not make true, but a suitability screening may pay dividends. On a historical note, we had extensive MH screening during WWII and high no-go rates from them, but they had very little impact on MH casualties during that conflict, hence why we no longer use them. One thing that I do advocate for is a required mental health screening for combat vets w/i a certain period of there redeployment if they are involved in any UCMJ disciplinary actions or civilian legal violations. I feel this is often our first warning sign with a vet that fails to self-disclose.
Reed

[Ken White]

A true assessment or a simple review of existing history and the resulting go/no-go from it? ... On a historical note, we had extensive MH screening during WWII and high no-go rates from them, but they had very little impact on MH casualties during that conflict, hence why we no longer use them.

True but theoretically we're 65 years smarter today. Such an assessment won't be a panacea nor will it catch 'em all but I do believe it would be better than today's shotgun approach.

...One thing that I do advocate for is a required mental health screening for combat vets w/i a certain period of there redeployment if they are involved in any UCMJ disciplinary actions or civilian legal violations. I feel this is often our first warning sign with a vet that fails to self-disclose.
Reed

Makes sense; those that stay in are fairly well covered by the system; those that ETS -- or the RC folks -- have a different problem...

[reed11b]

True but theoretically we're 65 years smarter today. Such an assessment won't be a panacea nor will it catch 'em all but I do believe it would be better than today's shotgun approach...

What research and studies exist, suggest that is incorrect, at least in regards to MH casualties. The reason for this is that, while a history of pre-existing mental health issues make PTSD more likely, the majority of soldiers diagnosed with PTSD have had NOsignificant MH history. There is also a large body of deployed soldiers w/ MH histories that have had no Combat related MH troubles. I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME. Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.
Reed

[Ken White]

wrong direction. Don't look for pre-existing issues, they're obviously not reliable as a forecast mechanism, not what I intended at all.

Look for the mental outlook that can and will tolerate stress. Hire more sociopaths -- and yes, I'm quite serious.

...while a history of pre-existing mental health issues make PTSD more likely, the majority of soldiers diagnosed with PTSD have had NOsignificant MH history.

Obviously.

...There is also a large body of deployed soldiers w/ MH histories that have had no Combat related MH troubles.

Also obviously. I'd add that the combat flip out is variable, can occur early or later and that the number of triggers available on the battlefield is vast. MH issues in general do not show how well combat stress will be tolerated, people are too variable -- but the sociopathic trend, if not total, can aid in acceptance of most combat stressors.

...I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME.

Gee, thanks. I appreciate your appreciation. Always good to deal with experts even if they do go in the wrong direction..

...Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.Reed

Nothing to do with combat stress; in fact the guy with minor disciplinary problems is probably more tolerant of combat stress than the average straight arrow. We probably should stop trying to throw 'em all out of the service and exercise a little leadership.

[reed11b]

wrong direction. Don't look for pre-existing issues, they're obviously not reliable as a forecast mechanism, not what I intended at all.

Look for the mental outlook that can and will tolerate stress. Hire more sociopaths -- and yes, I'm quite serious.

OK, but not eneogh sociopaths exist to fill the Army's need, and many of us "straight arrows" develop sociopathic traits in service. This thread is now waaaaay of target, I'm looking for what social service and mental health programs that exist should be kept, wich can go and what needs to be changed.
Reed

[Ken White]

...This thread is now waaaaay of target, I'm looking for what social service and mental health programs that exist should be kept, wich can go and what needs to be changed. Reed

I merely suggested that a focussed psychological screening to detect those who may be better able to tolerate combat stress might be worth exploring. That seems consistent with what you asked.

IIRC, several recent research projects using a variety of methods including MRIs have determined that many people have a distinct aversion to violence while others seem to tolerate it well. That tracks with my observation over a number of years. The Sociopath tendency should not be totally rejected; most of us have a variety of little pathys in there and it seems to me that screening merits consideration.

With that, I'll leave you the floor.

[Stan]

I appreciate your participation in the subject Ken, but on this matter I am closer to being a SME. Prevention of disciplinary failures in basic and early in enlistments may be more achievable through pre-screening however.

Hello Reed,
Not to be a wise old retired NCO herein, but exactly what would you have expected from Ken having read your quotes below?

Let's get a little less personal with the seniors and respect the fact that Ken's background and experience is significant and plays a much larger role than some acronym SME.

Back in my days, SME translated to 15 years minimum.

Regards, Stan

4 years active duty paratrooper (mortars) and responded to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as an untrained mental Health Specialist.

This seems to be important on a page w/ so many high grade officers and NCO's; I am a career smartass SPC. Turned down PLDC twice.

[reed11b]

Hello Reed,
Not to be a wise old retired NCO herein, but exactly what would you have expected from Ken having read your quotes below?

Let's get a little less personal with the seniors and respect the fact that Ken's background and experience is significant and plays a much larger role than some acronym SME.

Back in my days, SME translated to 15 years minimum.

Regards, Stan

My knowledge comes from schooling and that I work as a outreach and education coordinator for the Readjustment Counseling Service (part of the VHA), not my military experience. I am not SME, but I do have solid specific knowledge on this topic (MH and PTSD). Sorry I touched a nerve w/ you salty old-timers, but the topic IS important. Perhaps instead of just being defensive you could make some valid suggestions.
Reed

[Stan]

Similar to my response to your PM...

I applaud your continued service and education.

No nerves touched here with me, but I'm not going to discount my military leadership education (aka PLC) in order to fix what you have indicated is a shortfall.

For the record, we attack the subject, not the members that post their thoughts and opinions.

Let's keep the thread and posts professional.

[jmm99]

for me because I think immediately of sociopaths as we think of that term in the criminal justice system - serial criminals (whether murder, rape, robbery or theft), who lack any empathy and are extremely self-centered.

I don't think that is what you are really saying, Ken - since IMO none of the criminal sociopaths I've known would have been at all useful in the military.

Slap may well have an opinion on this which is based on more experience - despite his relative youth.

There are personality types (probably galore) who can hack violence - even when it is of the cold-blooded kind. I think of three friends over the years (two still with us in the Copper Country) who were Marine snipers in Nam and who seem to have been relatively untouched by the experience. If anything, it seems to have been a positive thing - that from an outside observer who is not into their heads, but just a guy who drank a fair amount of beer with them.

On the other hand, there are personality types (again probably galore) who cannot hack violence. And, a bunch in between. So, it would seem useful to expand on some personality profiles as you guys know them (no need for shrink jargon).

Both Ken and Reed recognize what they are willing to call "sociopathy" - Ken in other threads as well as here; Reed here:

OK, but not eneogh sociopaths exist to fill the Army's need, and many of us "straight arrows" develop sociopathic traits in service.

I conclude that what you must mean as "sociopathic traits" are different from how I would use the term as a lawyer.

If what Reed said was meant, it seems to me that "sociopathic traits" or lack of same is an issue which is far from off-topic - since the support required will vary with the personality profile (METT-TC, to borrow from you guys).