Can You Intentionally Underperform in Military Training to Avoid Service?

Can You Intentionally Underperform in Military Training to Avoid Service?

The idea of intentionally performing poorly during military training to avoid service is one that has been explored in various contexts, particularly in times of conflict. However, this strategy is rarely, if ever, a viable or effective option. Let’s explore the complexities and realities behind this notion.

Assessment of Performance in Military Training

Military training programs are meticulously designed to evaluate a trainee's skills and attributes. These assessments are comprehensive and objective, covering a wide range of competencies. Deliberately underperforming during such evaluations does not necessarily guarantee dismissal. Instead, it may result in disciplinary action, ill-preparation for future missions, or even remediation, where trainees are given additional training to reach the required standards.

Standards and Expectations in Military Training

The military sets stringent standards that all trainees must meet. Consistently failing to meet these benchmarks can lead to various outcomes, including:

Remediation Plans: Trainers will put the trainee on a remediation plan to improve their performance over time. Disciplinary Action: Repeated subpar performance can result in disciplinary measures, including verbal or written warnings. Separation: If the issue persists despite remediation, the trainee may face separation from the armed forces.

However, these processes are typically lengthy and complicated, and dismissal is not always guaranteed.

Legal and Ethical Implications

Intentionally sabotaging one’s training not only violates military ethics but can also raise legal concerns. The military places a high value on commitment and integrity. An attempt to intentionally underperform is seen as a lack of these values and can seriously affect one’s military record.

Potential Consequences

The potential consequences of attempting to underperform are significant:

Additional Scrutiny: Even if one is dismissed, they may face additional scrutiny and counseling. Less Favorable Discharge Status: A poor performance can lead to a less favorable discharge status, which can impact future opportunities, such as job prospects and education. Increased Scrutiny During Conscription: In the event of an active draft, poor performance during training may result in increased scrutiny and more difficult discharge processes.

Alternative Actions

If someone has genuine concerns about serving, exploring other options may be more effective. These include:

Deferments: Seeking a deferment, which allows an individual additional time before mandatory service. Conscientious Objector Status: Applying for conscientious objector status, which is granted to individuals who have a moral or religious objection to military service. Legal Avenues: Exploring legal avenues, such as enlisting in alternative service programs or seeking legal exemptions.

Historical Context: Vietnam War

During the Vietnam War (1960-1971), the draft was a contentious issue. While the draft department took a more relaxed approach to performance, allowing those with low scores to be considered, there were still constraints. Individuals who scored above average or very high were often assigned to rear-line support rather than the front lines, where risks were higher.

The idea of deliberately failing training as a draft-dodging strategy has its merits, but it also comes with significant drawbacks. Life outside of the training environment is difficult, and peer pressure, hunger, thirst, and physical discomfort all play a role in maintaining one's resolve.

In summary, while the idea might seem appealing, the realities of military training and the potential consequences make it a risky and often ineffective approach. Exploring other, more ethically sound options is generally the better course of action.