Autistic Young Man Recruited by the U.S. Army
18-year-old Jared Guinther was signed up for a four-year tour in the U.S. Army by recruiters:
He was offered a $4,000 signing bonus, a college fund, “and more buddies than he could count.” But Jared didn’t understand he wouldn’t get the bonus until after basic training, that he was signing up for a four-year period, or just how dangerous this Army thing was going to be. His parents had to explain to him there was a war going on. (Injecting Sense, Does Uncle Sam Really Want Jared?)
Jared was diagnosed with “moderate to severe autism” as a child.
“‘Jared’s an 18 year-old man. He doesn’t need his mommy to make his decisions for him,’” was the response from the Army recruiter when Mrs. Guinther tried to explain.
- Read the original article about Jared Guinther, The Oregonian’s An Army of one wrong recruit.
- Read Injecting Sense’s post on Does Uncle Sam Really Want Jared?.
12 opinions for Autistic Young Man Recruited by the U.S. Army
Jemaleddin
May 9, 2006 at 8:18 am
Having spent 6 years in the military, I’m not surprised to hear about recruiters lying and deceiving recruits, nor about them trying to shoe-horn people into jobs that they’re unsuited for. Even the folks a the Medical Entry Processing Stations are guilty of pushing people into careers that they can’t handle. But covering up someone’s disabilities to make a quota is completely out of line.
At the same time, if there are jobs that are appropriate for an autistic recruit, I don’t see any problem with enlisting him or her. They aren’t set up to handle that sort of thing now, but I can think of lots of jobs that could be done by autistics.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 9, 2006 at 10:56 am
Thanks, Jemaladdin—I think Moi commented on Wade’s Injecting Sense post about this about possible jobs.
If we can get a bit historical, armies in the ancient world (as classical Greece) had to be made up of soldiers whose disabilities would surely have disqualified them today.
Jemaleddin
May 9, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Sure, sure - I seem to remember during the first Gulf War that people seemed shocked that the Iraqis, having come out of 8 years of war with Iran, were sending 50-year-old men and 14-year-old boys into combat. But if we were engaged in a real war (not a war of choice), we’d certainly be sending in Jared Guinther in some capacity. Cavalry scout seems a bit unlikely, from his description in the article, but I’m certain that there are countless ways that he could serve his country.
Kristina Chew, PhD
May 9, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Yes, and I’m hoping Charlie finds his way to serve, too.
Autism Vox » There’s more than one way to serve your country
May 10, 2006 at 5:58 am
[…] Saying that he does not meet enrollment criteria, the Army released 18-year old Jared Guinther, who is autistic, from his recruitment contract yesterday, two days after an Oregon newspaper reported about his parents’ objections. […]
Autism Vox » To disclose or not to disclose
May 12, 2006 at 7:16 am
[…] The recent army recruitment of autistic teenager Jared Guinther casts another angle on to “autism disclosure.” The 18-year-old did not inform an army recruiter about his being autistic and was signed up be a cavalry scout, “one of the Army’s more dangerous assignments,” according to Army Recruitment of Autistic Teen Raises Questions in ABCnews.com. Despite being autistic, Guinther scored higher than the minimum needed for the Army’s basic entrance exam and passed a physical with an Army doctor. […]
Richard Swayne
Feb 20, 2007 at 1:58 pm
The recruitment of an Autistic into the Army is bad enough, but Cavalry Scout, that is the worst place for an Autistic. Would you want someone who has great difficulty expressing himself to give you information when your life depends on it? No CO would want him. He would be a hugh burden.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Feb 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm
And unrightfully placed in such a position, I think—
basaltah
Dec 28, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Certain jobs, certain roles, could be ideal for high-functioning autistic, high-functioning Asperger’s Syndrome or high-functioning ADHD personell. Such people thrive in highly-structured environments.
One view of ADHD notes as “corporal punishment” has been criminalized in western society, the mantra has become, “Spare the rod, Spoil the child, then Drug them.”
Simply because someone has been labeled with a ‘diagnosis’ is not a certain indicator of poor military performance. If testing & training can match the occupation to the person, then you can still have a high-performing soldier.
Duriing WW2, soldiers were given medications to improve alertness. Allied troops received what is know today as Adderall, whereas Axis personnel were given what is know today as Ritalin. Today, those are the chief medications used to help ADHD individuals remain alert & focused.
People with these diagnosis’ often will seek to self-medicate, through adrenalin-producing, thrill-seeking activities. Notably, during the rush, their mind is calm, focused, rational & creative. They can hyperfocus, effortlessly.
Likely, the soldier will have opportunities to prove his ‘fit’ in the Scout role. The worst times may be times when his brain is under-stimulated.
Verbal communication skills can be learned. However, it is very possible he may not be Autistic, at all.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Dec 29, 2007 at 12:02 am
Very interesting basaltah—-my own husband has ADHD and some things can be incredibly frustrating for him. But the ADHD also can give him a hyper-focused attention to all around him, and to what is behind his back.
tiff
Feb 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I think autistics with a mild case of it. Should join the military if they choose to? Because, some of us are not as high functioning and capable of being regular people! If he was smart enough to pass the test than he should try out for a less threatening job, like a doctor. Instead of a Calavery Scout. And maybe have people to try and help him understand what is going on.
Regan
Feb 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I think one point is that in this situation, as in any informed consent, does this person understand what s/he is signing up for?
Regardless of diagnosis, if someone doesn’t understand the term of enlistment, or the conditions therein, they are not informed.
In Private Benjamin that was funny. In real life it might not be.
That said, if one did understand and give consent on an informed basis, it makes sense in a pragmatic and functional way to assign on the consideration of that which would work well for both the military and the enlistee.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: