Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
23. Three million out of a 17 million pool is a high rate of rejection
Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:59 PM
Apr 2012

During WWII, out of 17 Million pool of Draft age men, 3 million were ruled not physical fit to be drafted (please Note the 3 million did NOT include the "limited service personnel," who did not fully meet the Army's specifications but could be used for some duties, that was a different class of draftees):

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/PreventiveMedicine/Chap1.html

I like the following paragraphs is that report:

The examiner's rigid or liberal interpretation of existing standards, shifting with the need to fill a quota, in effect caused these to fluctuate. The most drastic changes in the regulations themselves were those relating to visual acuity and dental requirements. The first MR 1-9 in August 1940 set the minimum dental requirements at a total of 6 masticating teeth and 6 incisor teeth properly opposed. As soon as the first statistics were available, it was discovered that failure to meet these requirements had resulted in rejection of approximately 9 percent of those examined. If that standard had been maintained, it has been estimated that by the end of 1943 nearly 1,000,000 men who were inducted under the liberalized dental standards would have been lost to the service.11 Dental requirements were revised downward, and an extensive reparative program by the Dental Corps initiated, until in October 1942 a man completely edentulous could be inducted if his condition was corrected or correctable by dentures.12

In 1940 minimum visual acuity for general service was set at 20/100 in each eye without glasses, if correctable to 20/40 bilaterally. This was the second most important cause for rejection, and these requirements were progressively lowered. The lowest visual acuity requirements were reached in April 1944,13 when 20/200 in each eye, or 20/100 in one eye and 20/400 in the second eye (if correctable to 20/40 in each eye, 20/30 in the right and 20/70 in the left, or 20/20 in the right and 20/400 in the left), was sufficient for general


Remember we are talking of 18-28 year olds 9% did not have more then 12 teeth!!!!!!!

20/200!!!! that makes you legally BLIND, unless correctable. 20/40 is still the lowest limit you can have and GET A DRIVER"S LICENSE In all the states that I know of.

Remember this is the FIRST LINE TROOPS NOT the Second line nor the 4f draftees

While going through the US Army Medical Department, Office of Medical history I found the following interesting facts:

During WWI 27% of draftees were rejected for Physical problems (Please remember until August 1918, you had to be over age 21 to be drafted, in August the US Congress reduced it to age 18):

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/US_Army_1917_Draft_Information

8.8% of all Draftees during WWII was rejected for Dental reason (Lack of at least 12 teeth).
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/dental/ch6.htm

Total medical rejects was 18-20% from 1958-1961:
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/AnnualReportoftheSG1961/table8.pdf

Part of the original reason for funding a surplus food program was.. oilpro2 Apr 2012 #1
What days are those? DocMac Apr 2012 #7
1939 Google "history of food stamps" oilpro2 Apr 2012 #14
Same with the Federal Hot Lunch program in schools Lifelong Protester Apr 2012 #19
Thanks for that link. DocMac Apr 2012 #20
Not exactly. 16, 18, 20 years of malnourshment can't be fixed jtuck004 Apr 2012 #24
Three million out of a 17 million pool is a high rate of rejection happyslug Apr 2012 #23
My God how I loathe this pox on America. AllyCat Apr 2012 #2
Many of the military's families are on food stamps...... AnneD Apr 2012 #3
That is right burrowowl Apr 2012 #8
The defense budget doesn't even feed the soldiers usrname Apr 2012 #18
My first thought at well... Javaman Apr 2012 #12
It isn't the military they're trying to save atreides1 Apr 2012 #4
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. raouldukelives Apr 2012 #5
Couldn't Obama come out a political winner in this? shawn703 Apr 2012 #6
I would like to see the war on drugs end. DocMac Apr 2012 #9
I so TA.... AnneD Apr 2012 #22
I'm waiting for rethugs to DocMac Apr 2012 #31
Either that or a "Centrist." It's too soon to tell. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2012 #21
I think we should be shouting from the roof tops about the complete sinkingfeeling Apr 2012 #10
Leave it to repugs to cut something the government actually louis-t Apr 2012 #11
So, are we going to stop criticizing North Korea for funding its bloated military nobodyspecial Apr 2012 #13
Songun, the North Koreans call it. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #17
We have drones to kill people now. Why do we need healthy solders on our side to do that. RC Apr 2012 #15
There's a book called "War and the Rise of the modern state" 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #25
so military families that are on food stamps are shit out of luck? madrchsod Apr 2012 #16
Just what I was thinking. nt nanabugg Apr 2012 #27
Just what I was thinking also - but we don't hear about that unless a Dem is in the White House underpants Apr 2012 #33
War good, feeding people bad. I will never understand the Republican mind. sarcasmo Apr 2012 #26
Republican War against women and children continues lovuian Apr 2012 #28
I stopped trying to figure this out a long time ago. tabasco Apr 2012 #29
Bankers & multinational corporations that control our government do not want us to have ANY form... stillwaiting Apr 2012 #30
The military IS welfare for the Southern states underpants Apr 2012 #32
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Food Stamps In Crosshairs...»Reply #23