In my case they told me I could choose where I was stationed. It turns out what they really meant is I could choose the TYPE of base I was stationed at. Of course during the paperwork they had me sign that I would like a particular type of base saying I had to take that type for my job, not realizing what was going on, I did what I was told.
This is their tactic more than out-and-out lying, they take advantage of your lack of experience with the rules, regulations and verbiage. And they are your only guide through the red-tape, so you follow.
Similarly they told me the job I wanted (computer programming) was not available because it was full since so many people wanted it and recommended electronics on attack helicopters as it was at least technical. (So I did it.) What they didn't say was that new classes open every week, so while the one he showed me was full, the next one wasn't. (Had I balked I believe a class would have had a "sudden opening".) Or that while there were technically electronics it was really just black box replacement and the real work was on the weapons themselves and involved little to no relevant electronic experience.
Again... not out-and-out lies, but certainly to the military's benefit more than your own.
I'm guessing ADA Programmer was getting phased out anyway (it disappeared in 2002). Or was there another programmer MOS around that time period? I don't know of any subsequent programmer MOS's. Some soldiers and sailors program now but those are very limited cases for the "Cyber" Brigades, and not on any table of organization.
In that case it sounds like the recruiter barely knew what went into O-level avionics so he or she guessed and said it was electronics-heavy. You now know that it's the I-level or Depot level techs that actually do troubleshooting with multimeter/oscilloscope, but only because you were involved in the Avionics field.
This was back in '85 ;) And while the skills may not have been applicable these days the work experience in the field at that time surely would have been.
To be fair the 10 month training for 68-J did include classes on circuits, resistors, etc... not that we ever used it.
Yeah the programmer MOS would have been great experience. Especially since the GI Bill benefits were pretty paltry in the 80s-90s (though college was way cheaper!).
I totally agree that the negotiation required to get a specific MOS is well above the ability of most 20-year-olds. That sucks about the recruiter lying about the school being full.
It's probably not the right phrasing. In both cases it seems like the idea was to show you a bunch of things that you think you would want out of the experience. The recruiter then focuses on those abstract ideals that you rate highly and tries to paint a story of how what they're selling will help you obtain those ideals. To me it was pretty overt manipulation. Whether or not you end up fulfilling those ideals is an open question, so whether or not they can be considered "empty promises" is probably in the eye of the beholder. In both cases the potential downside is minimized.
I would prefer military recruitment to focus on the highest integrity rather than the most recruits. I don't have much of a position about this particular tactic, but I do see these two issues as morally linked and I am interested in others' perspective and analysis of the matter.
I think it's good to have society influence military recruitment towards practicing integrity.
That will be secondary to fulfilling requirements to recruit an extra few thousand servicemembers to fulfill a military objective, e.g. The Surge in Iraq. Congress and the Executive will demand results if the military isn't keeping up with recruitment.
I see military service potentially fulfilling all of a person's ideals/goals, but this is primarily based off of that person's willingness to work hard, exploit opportunities, and luck. I could have mixed up the importance of those qualities, maybe luck is the most important.
The occupational field is usually specified in the contract, but often recruiters fail to mention that most Marine recruits end up with the less glamorous job within that field. Many new Marines with the Legal/Administration guarantee end up being Administrative (HR) clerks instead of a legal clerks (a much less common MOS).
I've heard of recruiters telling recruits that they were "guaranteed" to get certain assignments.
Also, my mother (who never has been very good at reading paperwork she is signing) was told she was signing a permission form for my brother to take a test, when actuality she was signing a form giving him permission to enlist. He was 17, but only a few months from turning 18. He would have just joined anyway in a few months if my mom hadn't signed the form, but she was pretty upset that she was lied to about what it was.
Small sample size warning: literally every one of the six people in the military that I know well has told me a story of a promise made by their recruiter that turned out to be a lie, whether in terms of money, their likelihood of being close to their family, their likelihood of seeing active combat or something else.
I don't know anyone who disagreed with this basic sentiment. My samples size is larger, both of my parents were military and I did a year contracting for Northrop Grumman and was located on a base working directly with many active duty personnel. It cames up in discussion too.
Still hardly a statistically strong sample, but it is like 100% so unless we both have Major Sampling Bias... and I never met an officer named "bias".
