- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Okay, so it sounds like their is a double standard of sorts with regards to recruiters saying yes or no based on your credit history. After reading the whole thread it's clear that some who have a larger debt than I with a bad payments are being accepted in some cases. On the other side of the cube, Some with less debt problems then I do are being denied and told they have to clear up absolutely every cent they owe.
To make a long story short, I have about 10k in debt, mostly student loans along with 400 dollars on a cell phone bill and a couple other small things. My student loans were sent to collections and a few months ago I started making payments (while going to college) after arranging a plan to payback the money owe. My cell phone bill comes from the end of the summer when I went back to college and I don't have the money. I'm flat broke till I graduate in April.
I applied for the reserves last week and I've been reading quite a bit of (confusing) information due to the fact some get in with bad debt, even if they havent made arrangements with creditors or if they have and some are not getting in if they have ANY unpaid debts.
My debt is no laughing matter, but at the same time 10k of debt at 31 is considerably less than most my age. I mean, my debt won't affect my ability to fire a gun or run through the woods or work your butt off doing some heavy labor.
It sounds to me like it's luck of the draw. Some recruiters don't believe your credit rating will affect your duties in the CF and some believe it's the be all-end all with regards to fighting for your country. If it's the case of the ones who say they got in with debt issues being full of crap okay, but otherwise,
I find it puzzling since it's doubtful that the CF considered the debt loads of the many members who fought hard in WW1 and WW2 and won medals of honor and did their jobs.
If there was a WW3, would they accept all who have debt issues? I'm guessing a definite, resounding, YES. So If a recruiter could clear up how a soldier is capable during times of war to serve their country and not during peace time (doing a less complicated job than during war times) ?
I say this for all those out there (possibly myself if I don't get lucky) who are being denied an opportunity to represent their country when their is a worker shortage as it is and being an infantry soldier for example and putting yourself in harms way has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with debt. Perhaps psychological testing of what's in a persons heart, etc and how they deal with pressure when it hits would be a more accurate way of testing reliability considering it states these things are the skills that are important for being able to do your job.
Not too long ago it was a choice, jail or military. Considering how much we kicked ass with our much smaller numbers in military engagements throughout history, would it not be accurate to say that many of those guys who chose military over jail would have never passed the reliability testing? Answer is again, a yes. Criminals were doing their jobs in a reliable manner, but now they question if someone who owes a few k's can do the job. Just doesn't sound right. I'd understand reliability as an issue with regards to money owed if I was applying to be a banker or financial advice professional, but I'm not. I'm joining a physically demanding, thinking under pressure job that demands clear thinking. It doesn't say, ability to pay back your debts as a requirement for being an artillery gunner is my point. It says the ladder.
Haha, bit of a rant cause I'll be pissed if I don't get into the reserves while owing just 10k when it has in my mind and anyone thinking logically, nothing to do with doing the job. In fact, that debt was mostly attained by better myself as a person by going to school which in turn helps the army cause they have a more educated soldier.
It sounds to me from what I've read that it depends on the individual recruiter and not a standard by which the CF says,, you owe certain amount and if ur over that limit or missed a certain amount of payments and your out.
So I ask, is it more luck of the draw in dealing with one of the more "understanding" recruiters who adhere to the ladder statement when accepting recruits rather than considering you to have bad (coordination) because you owe money?
To make a long story short, I have about 10k in debt, mostly student loans along with 400 dollars on a cell phone bill and a couple other small things. My student loans were sent to collections and a few months ago I started making payments (while going to college) after arranging a plan to payback the money owe. My cell phone bill comes from the end of the summer when I went back to college and I don't have the money. I'm flat broke till I graduate in April.
I applied for the reserves last week and I've been reading quite a bit of (confusing) information due to the fact some get in with bad debt, even if they havent made arrangements with creditors or if they have and some are not getting in if they have ANY unpaid debts.
My debt is no laughing matter, but at the same time 10k of debt at 31 is considerably less than most my age. I mean, my debt won't affect my ability to fire a gun or run through the woods or work your butt off doing some heavy labor.
It sounds to me like it's luck of the draw. Some recruiters don't believe your credit rating will affect your duties in the CF and some believe it's the be all-end all with regards to fighting for your country. If it's the case of the ones who say they got in with debt issues being full of crap okay, but otherwise,
I find it puzzling since it's doubtful that the CF considered the debt loads of the many members who fought hard in WW1 and WW2 and won medals of honor and did their jobs.
If there was a WW3, would they accept all who have debt issues? I'm guessing a definite, resounding, YES. So If a recruiter could clear up how a soldier is capable during times of war to serve their country and not during peace time (doing a less complicated job than during war times) ?
I say this for all those out there (possibly myself if I don't get lucky) who are being denied an opportunity to represent their country when their is a worker shortage as it is and being an infantry soldier for example and putting yourself in harms way has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with debt. Perhaps psychological testing of what's in a persons heart, etc and how they deal with pressure when it hits would be a more accurate way of testing reliability considering it states these things are the skills that are important for being able to do your job.
Not too long ago it was a choice, jail or military. Considering how much we kicked ass with our much smaller numbers in military engagements throughout history, would it not be accurate to say that many of those guys who chose military over jail would have never passed the reliability testing? Answer is again, a yes. Criminals were doing their jobs in a reliable manner, but now they question if someone who owes a few k's can do the job. Just doesn't sound right. I'd understand reliability as an issue with regards to money owed if I was applying to be a banker or financial advice professional, but I'm not. I'm joining a physically demanding, thinking under pressure job that demands clear thinking. It doesn't say, ability to pay back your debts as a requirement for being an artillery gunner is my point. It says the ladder.
Haha, bit of a rant cause I'll be pissed if I don't get into the reserves while owing just 10k when it has in my mind and anyone thinking logically, nothing to do with doing the job. In fact, that debt was mostly attained by better myself as a person by going to school which in turn helps the army cause they have a more educated soldier.
It sounds to me from what I've read that it depends on the individual recruiter and not a standard by which the CF says,, you owe certain amount and if ur over that limit or missed a certain amount of payments and your out.
So I ask, is it more luck of the draw in dealing with one of the more "understanding" recruiters who adhere to the ladder statement when accepting recruits rather than considering you to have bad (coordination) because you owe money?
