Soldiers & Family. Our Soldiers and Family; Newcomers; Command Sponsorship; Request a Sponsor; Family Readiness Group. Safety Program; Sitemap; Useful Links; Website Search; Contacts. Contact Information; Web Contact. Support our troops and disabled veterans through Soldiers Angels. Veterans donations benefit VA hospital and adopt a soldier programs for families of troops and veterans of America. The Single Soldier Program. THE WRONG RELATIONSHIP COULD BE MORE INTENSE THAN ANY OF IT. Maybe you’re in a relationship now, and are thinking. It’s open to single Soldiers In the Army, Army. Whether you’re interested in Army Reserve or Active Duty, there are many ways to serve in the Army. Explore the possible Army careers and contact an Army Recruiter. The mission of the Warrior Transition Command (WTC) is to develop, coordinate and integrate the Army's Warrior Care and Transition Program (WCTP) for wounded, ill and injured Soldiers, Veterans and their Families or Caregivers. What Soldiers should know about the Qualitative Management Program . It could happen to you. You get a negative Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report, or NCOER, but you think it will not have a long- term effect on your career. After all, each of your previous NCOERs has been pristine. However, some time later you get a notification memorandum advising you will be considered by the Qualitative Management Program, or QMP, board for denial of continued service, and you begin to worry about your future in the Army. The following article provides an overview of the QMP process, explains why the Army has such a program, to whom it applies and to whom not, and provides a few tips on how to respond to notifications. Why does the Army employ QMP? The purpose of QMP is to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers while denying continued service to nonproductive members, and to encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. Any soldiers join an ASAP program? 1 Questions & Answers Place. More questions about Politics & Government. Negative information that prevents promotion in a Soldier's file directly conflicts with the Army's philosophy that Soldiers acquire a successful military status. Acquiring a successful status shows a commitment to the United States, to the Army, to the American people and to fellow Soldiers. The idea is, those who cannot meet that standard should leave the Army. To whom does the QMP process apply? QMP boards are normally held in conjunction with senior NCO selection boards and consider Regular Army and U. S. Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve, or AGR, Soldiers in the ranks of staff sergeant through command sergeant major (E6- E9) for possible involuntary separation. NCOs are considered for denial of continued service under one of three circumstances. Army Human Resources Command, or HRC, receives negative material for inclusion in a Soldier's Army Military Human Resource Record, or AMHRR. That material can include a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, or GOMOR, a court- martial, an Article 1. NCOER, or Service School Academic Evaluation Report indicating Noncommissioned Officer Education System, or NCOES, failure. To whom does the QMP process not apply? NCOs in the rank of staff sergeant and sergeant major or command sergeant major (E6- E9) are not subject to QMP if. HOW TO RESPOND TO NOTIFICATIONSSoldiers subject to denial of continued service under QMP will be notified of their status through their chain of command. The notification memorandum will identify the basis for referral and inform the NCO of his or her right to submit mitigating matters to the president of the QMP selection board within 3. Once notified, the Soldier has several options. Documentation may include letters of support from the Soldier's peers or chain of command. The Soldier must note that he or she cannot appear personally before the QMP board. Once a rebuttal option is selected and a rebuttal packet submitted - and for those Soldiers who choose not to submit matters to negotiation - the board will review the file and consider several factors. These may include the Soldier's moral and ethical failures; his or her future potential for performance of duties; declining efficiency and performance over a continued period of time; discipline problems; or other derogatory factors such as a failure to meet height or weight standards or the Army Physical Fitness Test, or the imposition of a field commander's bar to re- enlistment. The QMP board will then consider the Soldier's overall AMHRR and any matters of mitigation submitted to the board and render a decision. Physical readiness is the ability to meet the physical demands of any combat or duty. Soldiers must meet the physical fitness standards set forth in AR 350-1 and in the Army Physical. Where To Send: (Please FIRSTread'. They pay particular attention to soldiers who have little or no support from family or friends at home. A Note from a Chaplain on our Any Solder Program. The Israel Defense Forces. Haredi soldiers are permitted to. The program consists. If a board decides the Soldier will be denied continued service, the Soldier can appeal. However, appeal matters are limited to newly discovered evidence, the subsequent removal of documents from the Soldier's AMHRR, or material errors in the Soldier's record that were reviewed by the QMP screening board. The Soldier must then send a notice of intent to appeal to HRC within seven days of receipt of the QMP board results, and must submit the appeal itself to his or her immediate commander within 3. Soldiers with questions about QMP boards and their response options can turn to their installation staff judge advocate or Legal Services Office for information and guidance. Child Soldiers and Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Programs: The Universalism of Children’s Rights vs. Cultural Relativism Debate. Since the early 1. First, the signing of the international Convention of the Rights of the Child in 1. Fernando, Jude, 2. United Nations (UN). Second, the end of the Cold War in 1. UN peacekeeping missions along with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs (DDR) over the course of the following two decades. The combination of global attention on children’s rights and to international intervention in civil conflicts led to the third event, which was the 1. UN report by Gra. The report estimated that there were approximately 3. Rachel Brett and Margaret Mc. Callin (Hart, Jason, 2. These three events brought the issue of child soldiering to the forefront, and as a result both the international community and academics have been interested in understanding who child soldiers are, what they do and how they are demobilized and reintegrated into civilian life. In an effort to help practitioners develop and implement better DDR programs, this article identifies the problems and “best practices” of DDR programs put forward in the literature and contextualizes them within the on- going philosophical debate between the proponents of the universalism of children’s rights and the proponents of the cultural relativity of childhood and children’s rights. By contextualizing the practical within the philosophical, we can see how the current impasse of the philosophical debate and its framing of the practical issues leads to important gaps and blind spots in the research and evaluation of DDR programming. As the notion of child soldiering and the participation in armed conflict is in direct contradiction to the post- modern Western definition and understanding of childhood (Hart, Jason, 2. CAUCS, n. d.). Consequently, the broader issue of child soldiering and the more specific issue of their demobilization and reintegration into civilian life are part of the on- going debate between the proponents of the universalism of children’s rights and the proponents of a culturally sensitive understanding of children’s rights. The universalist perspective of children’s rights believes that “childhood constitutes a coherent group or a state defined by identical needs and desires, regardless of class, ethnic, or racial differences . Since children across the world are deemed to have the same needs universalists believe that the same support and protection mechanisms can and should be applied to children world- wide. On the other hand, cultural relativists argue that childhood is “a social construction; its meaning is negotiated between different individuals and groups, often with conflicting interests. Thus, childhood is relative” (Fernando, Jude, 2. Cultural relativists therefore critique the universalist perspective for ignoring the “social, cultural, and political diversity of the meaning of childhood and hence of children’s rights in different cultures” (Fernando, Jude, 2. They advocate for a better understanding of the local conditions and dynamics that define and shape the experience of the child soldier as well as his/her perception of these experiences. Indeed, one of the biggest critiques advanced by the cultural relativists is the fact that the “advocacy agenda has been articulated and pursued not only with little attention to what their humanitarian colleagues in the field know, but also without sufficient analysis of the political, social, economical, and military dynamics of particular conflicts” (Cohn, Ilene, 2. Consequently, concerning the issue of child soldiers, Alexandre Vautravers (2. International Community must . These contrasting perspectives not only influence the theoretical framing of this issue but also greatly influence the development and implementation of the DDR programs that are intended to meet the needs of child soldiers. The universalist vs. The author strongly advocates for a more culturally sensitive and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon of child soldiers in order for the international community to appropriately and effectively deal with this issue. This publication is indicative of the type of research dominating the discussion of child soldiers and their reintegration. While the literature on international conventions that regulate the use of child soldiers and the literature on the community level implementation of DDR programs from the international organizations’ perspective are thick and rich, the literature presenting the communities’ perspective is more limited, while the literature presenting the child soldiers’ perspective barely exists. In an effort to contribute to this debate, the following questions need to be asked: What do the universalists identify as being the main problems and difficulties of current DDR programs for child soldiers? What do the cultural relativists identify as being the main problems and difficulties? What are the common concerns and points of contention? In order to answer these questions, the international definition of a child soldier and a description of DDR programs for child soldiers will be presented, followed by the problems and difficulties of DDR programs identified by the universalists and the cultural relativists, an analysis of these issues, a general critique of the literature, and suggestions for further research. International Definition of a Child Soldier. The post- modern Western notion of childhood defines children as weak, vulnerable, irresponsible, and innocent in comparison to adults who are said to be strong, mature, intelligent and responsible for their actions (Rosen, David, 2. Shepler, Susan, 2. It is therefore generally agreed upon (from this perspective) that children should not engage in armed conflict. As a result, the debate over the definition of a child soldier at the international level has revolved primarily around the issue of age, that is, what age distinguishes a child from an adult? The implications of this debate pertain to responsibility and accountability for one’s actions, that is, at what age can one demonstrate agency of thought and action and therefore be responsible for those thoughts and actions? By seeking to distinguish children from adults based on agency and responsibility it is assumed that children are not responsible for their thoughts and actions while adults are in full control of the latter and can therefore be held accountable. Consequently, the post- modern Western notion of childhood as a time of innocence, inexperience and vulnerability is transposed to the issue of child soldiers through the development and implementation of international tools that define and regulate the use of child soldiers. The main organizations involved in the development and adoption of these international tools are the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Office of the Special Representative of Children and Armed Conflict (OSRCAC), International non- governmental organizations (INGO), such as Save the Children, and human rights groups, such as the Coalition Against the Use of Child Soldiers (CAUCS). As these organizations are all Western based and apply a rights- based approach to the problem, the post- modern Western notion of a child and of childhood guides the definition and regulation of child soldiers. Although the 1. 94. Geneva Conventions were the first international conventions to “specifically provide for children in situations of armed conflict” (Kuper, Jenny, 2. Additional Protocols I and II that specifically deal with the issue of child soldiers. Protocol Additional I applies to interstate wars and sets the minimum age of participation in armed conflict at fifteen. Although it encourages state parties to prioritize the recruitment of older children first (1. Kuper, Jenny, 2. 00. Rosen, David, 2. 00. As for Protocol Additional II, it applies to intrastate wars and presents a “comprehensive ban on the use of any person under 1. Rosen, David, 2. 00. In other words, children under the age of 1. According to David Rosen (2. Protocols which, at the time, included governments that had benefited from the use of child soldiers in their own anti- colonial and national liberation struggles and sought to protect their access to this resource while denying it to potential future insurgencies or civil wars against their own governments. Twelve years later, the 1. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) became the most comprehensive international convention on children’s rights and defined a child as being a person under the age of eighteen. However, for child soldiers, the cut off age of 1. CRC 1. 98. 9 . Although the CRC is internationally lauded as being the most comprehensive tool for the recognition and respect of children’s rights and is the most ratified convention in history, many parties involved in the drafting of the Convention, such as UNICEF and a variety of human rights and children’s rights groups, strongly advocated for a comprehensive ban of any person under the age of 1. Lee, Ah- Jung, 2. Rosen, David, 2. 00. As a result, the 1. Cape Town Principles, led by UNICEF, the 1. African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the 1. International Labour Organisation’s Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour (which defines child soldiering as one of the worst forms of child labour) and the 2. Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict set the age of 1. Francis, David, 2. Rosen, David, 2. 00. However, it is important to note that the 1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which defines the recruitment and use of child soldiers as a war crime in both interstate and intrastate wars, uses the age of 1. Cohn, Ilene, 2. 00. Francis, David, 2. Kargbo, Franklyn, 2. Rosen, David, 2. 00. Singer, Peter, 2. As we can see from these international tools, children under the age of 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |