Reason for age minimum

ParkerB · 02-16-2010, 09:50

Hello

I searched the forum for threads that answered my questions, but I could not find anything. 1) I am wondering why there is an age minimum of twenty to enlist under an 18X contract. I understand that the Army wants an ODA to be comprised of very mature people, however other SOF units such as the Navy SEALs or Rangers have no such age minimum. 2) Are there exceptions to the age minimum? In Dick Couch's book Chosen Soldier, he points out that there are a few people at the SFQC who are younger than twenty. I understand that the book documented a 2004 training class, so the age requirements could have changed since then. 3) Is a person's age not relevant if they are already in the Army? According to the Special Operations Recruiting Battalion's Special Forces page, the Army is accepting PFC's for SFAS. For instance, if I were to enlist as an infantryman with an airborne contract, would I be able to attend SFAS after completion of OSUT and airborne school as an eighteen year old?

Thanks, and I apologize if any of these questions have already been answered in other threads.

**PRB** · 02-16-2010, 10:56

20 is too young in my opinion. But that is to enter the pipeline so the soldier will be 22/23 upon grad in most cases.
The average in my Company in 1994 was 32 years old and I suspect that was pretty normal across the board.
Really don't care what Seals do and I could comment but wont about levels of maturity in other units.
Mature and seasoned is what SF is about as it comes down to decision making.

lksteve · 02-16-2010, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParkerB

II am wondering why there is an age minimum of twenty to enlist under an 18X contract. I understand that the Army wants an ODA to be comprised of very mature people, however other SOF units such as the Navy SEALs or Rangers have no such age minimum.

There is a difference in the nature of missions undertaken by SEALs, Rangers and SF...I would not want to be on an ODA as a twenty-year old...at least, not on the ODA I initially served on...

Utah Bob · 02-16-2010, 12:51

Like Steve said, there is a big difference in the mission. You should do some more reading on exactly what Special Forces does. The job requires a level of stability, professionalism, and maturity not required in other units.

greenberetTFS · 02-16-2010, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

Like Steve said, there is a big difference in the mission. You should do some more reading on exactly what Special Forces does. The job requires a level of stability, professionalism, and maturity not required in other units.

I completely agree with UB........

I was 17 when I got my wings,but 24 when I earned my beret.........

Big Teddy

LJ19 · 02-16-2010, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by lksteve

There is a difference in the nature of missions undertaken by SEALs, Rangers and SF...I would not want to be on an ODA as a twenty-year old...at least, not on the ODA I initially served on...

Could you expand upon why this is ?

**Peregrino** · 02-16-2010, 18:30

BLUF - Because experience has proven that soldiers younger than 21 have a lower success rate in every category from accession through to retention. Statistically, they're not worth the investment. We've tried accessing younger soldiers/recruits several times over the last 35 years and the results have been verified every time.

MN_student · 02-16-2010, 18:44

I was reading another thread about candidates that were too old, I thought the message coming across was that SF now is a young mans game - planning to start the pipeline for early twenty somethings and have plenty of team time, but from what you're saying those that start younger don't make it? /they don't stick around on a team?

Scimitar · 02-16-2010, 18:59

FYI - I'm trying to remember where I read that there was thoughts on actually raising the minimum age to 22. Other can confirm validity of this.

Natioanl Guard does not have a set upper age limit, I just helped a guy get in who was 34.

Scimitar

craigepo · 02-16-2010, 19:07

The reason for the age requirement in Special Forces is due, in large part, to the many different types of missions SF dudes are assigned. Many of SF's missions require specific skills, abilities, and a maturity level that, generally speaking, a guy doesn't have when he is 20 years old.

Conversely, Rangers and SEALS perform missions that usually are considered direct-action(shoot-em-up) missions. While both of these units are very well-trained, their mission requirements don't necessitate the same maturity level. It doesn't make any unit "better" than any other, just different.

Hope this helps clear the fog

**The Reaper** · 02-16-2010, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino

BLUF - Because experience has proven that soldiers younger than 21 have a lower success rate in every category from accession through to retention. Statistically, they're not worth the investment. We've tried accessing younger soldiers/recruits several times over the last 35 years and the results have been verified every time.

What he said.

Iddeally, we need guys in SF in their mid-20s to stick around on teams till their early to mid-40s, or as long as they are physically able. To early generally lacks maturity and tend to wash out. Too late, and the physical toll is already taken and the damage is done.

And LJ19, you need to self-motivate and do your own research. It isn't that hard to find.

TR

lksteve · 02-16-2010, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ19

Could you expand upon why this is ?

Is your google-fu that weak? Look up the missions of SEALs, Rangers and Special Forces...look especially at the difference between direct action and unconventional warfare missions...work a little...

LJ19 · 02-16-2010, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by lksteve

Is your google-fu that weak? Look up the missions of SEALs, Rangers and Special Forces...look especially at the difference between direct action and unconventional warfare missions...work a little...

I know the difference between the two. I was just hoping you would tell a little bit more about why you wouldn't want to have been younger on your first ODA.

lksteve · 02-16-2010, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ19

I know the difference between the two. I was just hoping you would tell a little bit more about why you wouldn't want to have been younger on your first ODA.

That's how you should have phrased the question...the truth be told, at 23, having been a junior NCO in the 82nd, I had a grasp for a bit of responsibility...I was never a junior engineer sergeant on a detachment...I was always the senior engineer....I had 20 year old candy stripers as junior engineers and my experience in the 82nd helped me with the fundamentals of training and supervising subordinates...and while at 23, I was still the kid on the team (in terms of QPs), I would have been much more of a boy among men at 20...this was in the post Vietnam era and my team sergeant was a WWII vet...shortly after getting to the team, I was awarded Master Parachutist wings...all but one of the NCOs on the team were master blasters, the detachment commaner was a senior parachutist...average age of the QPs was probably 30-35...the candy stripers were essentially raised by wolves...I needed the experience to hold my own in that environment, to be able to function effectively...if I had gone to a team as a junior engineer, with a senior NCO in place, it might have been a little different...I could have been "Peter-sahn"...that wasn't the world I lived in, though...

Snaquebite · 02-16-2010, 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ19

I know the difference between the two. I was just hoping you would tell a little bit more about why you wouldn't want to have been younger on your first ODA.

The first team I was on every single guy had a CIB, some had a Star. I was wishing I was older and been where they had been.

Go read and research more and report back what you discover.

Your assignment: "Why maturity is important as an SF soldier and how it relates to age in today's world"