July 18, 2005
In the Backwards World of Recruiting, Promotions are Discipline
"Turns out even though he violated the Army’s strict recruitment guidelines -- and officials promised swift corrective action – Kelt has instead been transferred to another recruiting office where he has been promoted to supervisor.
The Army says he’s the perfect person to be in charge of other recruiters since he experienced first hand what happens when ethics rules are broken.
The Army says it prosecuted 325 cases of recruiter fraud last year. Thirty-five of those were relieved of duty, hundreds more were given reprimands."
Kelt was accused of threatening recruits with arrest if they didn't enlist. One of these potential recruits was 20-year old Chris Monarch, who called a Houston recruiting office and spoke with Kelt about joining the military. After making an appointment with Kelt, Monarch changed his mind and cancelled the meeting.
"I said I'm a volunteer firefighter and eventually gonna try to go career with it and I'm just not interested anymore and I hung up the phone," Monarch said.
But the recruiter wouldn't take no for an answer -- with a phone message threatening Monarch with arrest if he didn't show.
"By federal law you got an appointment with me at two o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall." said Kelt. "OK, you fail to appear and we'll have a warrant, OK? So give me a call back."
In fear, Monarch called the recruiter back.
"He said, 'Oh Chris, don't worry about that. That's just a marketing technique I use,"' Monarch recounted."
The CBS story also notes that the Army needs over 101,000 new soldiers this year. And this is putting pressure on recruiters, who face declining enthusiam for the military, along with a continuing decrease in new recruits.
"It's very stressful," said former recruiter Jeffery Bacon.
Bacon says he's been busted from Sergeant to Specialist for not meeting his quota of 24 soldiers a year.
"I'm losing my house because I'm losing my job, you know. I'm in financial debt," Bacon said.
Posted by Kat Aaron on July 18, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In the Backwards World of Recruiting, Promotions are Discipline:
» The Army Takes A Page From Cardinal Law from The Command T.O.C.
It appears the Army has taken a page right from Cardinal Law's handbook. He was the Cardinal who, upon discovering that priests were abusing boys, decided to reassign those priests to other parishes to abuse again. Well, the Army has decided that those... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 30, 2005 11:09:28 AM
SSG Kelt is a shithead, liar and coward. He is a career recruiter (as per his AKO "white page" listing) who left his former career field (medical) to spend the rest of his career conning, deceiving and pressuring kids to enlist. He will never again have to fear deploying, going to war or being placed in harms way ... he is safe in a strip-mall recruiting office, not so for his applicants and enlistees.
Perhaps the most telling thing about SSG Kelt is the absence of a "combat patch" on his right shoulder. In a time of war, while recruiting young Americans to face a virtual certainty of seeing combat in Iraq, A'stan or both, SSG Kelt has never seen war and never will. He is more contemptable than the civilian chickenhawks!
SSG Thomas kelt should hang his head in shame. Like Judas accepting 30 pieces of silver, Kelt has traded in the risks and rewards of soldiering for a guaranteed non-deployable stateside assignment for the REST OF HIS CAREER, not to mention his monthly $450 SDAP and minimum of $75 REA (both tax free of course).
My punishment for SSG Chickenshit? 1. Immediate removal from Recruiting Duty; 2) Reversion to his former PMOS and 3) Immediate assignment in his former specialty to a one-year combat tour with a line unit in Iraq. Only then will he realize the deadly seriousness of what he is luring youngsters to commit to.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 18, 2005 5:47:14 PM
SSG Kelt's contact info:
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 18, 2005 5:56:16 PM
There are many different punishments that could have been done to this obviously bad recruiter. I am NOT saying what he did was right... it was wrong and I feel that he should be (and could have been) punished. They could have given him an Article 15 - assigning him to extra duty for a period of time, taking pay away for a period of time, confinement to quarters for a period of time or a combination of the 3. They also could have taken his Special Duty pay away from him. $450 a month out of your pocket kind of hurts. How about a bad bullet comment on his NCOER? That would ruin his chances of being promoted for potentially a long time. That bad bullet comment on his NCOER could have a serious effect on his career from now on.
Many are saying that they "promoted" him. Did they increase his rank? Doesn't appear so because he is only a SSG - station commanders are pretty much always SFC or MSG. The article says that he's a "supervisor" now. Well a SSG out ranks a SGT so I guess you could consider him a "supervisor". But lets pretend that they made him a station comander. As a station commander you don't actually have a recruiting mission. Your job is to make sure the other people are doing their job; and provide assistance if needed. So now he's not going to have direct contact with potential recruits. Isn't that what you people wanted - to get him away from recruits?
Do I think he was promoted? Nope, not at all. I think it's the reporter distorting the facts on that one. The situation is probably what I said - there is an E-5 SGT that works in that new office and he out ranks him, so he must be his "supervisor".
Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 19, 2005 4:16:31 PM
The $450 a month special duty pay is NOT tax free. And his $75 REA is his REIMBURSEABLE. That money is for extra costs that recruiters incure every month and get reimbursed for it. Why would it be taxed? It's not income! As a matter of fact you're authorized UP TO $75 a month. If he doesn't spend $75, he doesn't get $75. If he only spends $20, then he gets $20. When he pays for stuff that's allowed to be reimbursed he PAYS TAXES ON IT! So there - shut your "tax free" mouth!
Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 19, 2005 4:20:48 PM
There are bad soldiers everywhere in the Army, and a lot of them get promoted despite their shortcomings. But the Army could never hire recruiters based, for example, on their charisma or popularity. They have to make it available to anyone, I guess. So, you end up with some bad apples. Pressure tactics are the inevitable result of taking someone so indoctrinated in the organization and trying to pass them off as a peer or role model. What a setup. I'd rather go to Iraq than be a recruiter.
So, I'm in Iraq now. For the second time with the good ol' Marne Division. It's worth mentioning that a substantial number of us who are stop-lossed will create an enormous vacuum within the unit immidiately upon our return. Even more so than units we replaced because of this being our second year of three in combat.
Potential recruits understand that deployment into combat is inevitable, but I wonder how many fully understand the implications protracted and repeated deployments have on mental health. If each were to speak to me before signing, many would reconsider their options.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 19, 2005 8:55:43 PM
You once again display your binary thinking. Kelt was made a station commander in the Houston North Army Recruiting Company.
BTW, you would be surprised how many E-6 station commanders the Army has.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 19, 2005 9:25:53 PM
Where in the article does it say that he was promoted to Station Commander? I have read the whole article and see only that he was promoted to a "supervisor". I've never seen a position called "supervisor" in USAREC before. Where are you getting your info from that says he's a Station Commander. I clearly see no indication of him being a station commander. Of course I'm using "binary thinking" so maybe I'm wrong.
IRR Soldier, every time you post you lose more credibility in my eyes. You're a former recruiter (so you claim) but didn't know that Special Duty pay wasn't tax free. You act like every recruiter is just handed $75 cash every month when in fact that's the maximum ammount they're allowed to be reimbursed for extra costs recruiters have to put up with. Were you really a recruiter? I don't think so. Maybe YOU should know what you're talking about before you come on this website and try to debate things.
Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 20, 2005 11:47:25 AM
Please forgive me for not looking at LESs from 2002 before posting.
The REA is a "freebie" and with a signature from the BLT, you can get more than $75. In fact, in NYC, I can't remember a month where my REA was less than $100.
There was a lot of fraud with the REAs in NY. Since ypou didn't need receipts for reimbursement, a lot of folks claimed $11.95 for "parking" that never "parked" anywhere.
Your parsing of language is like trying to find out what "is" is. You're too smart to be that dumb. I'll make it real simple ... 1) SSG Kelt is a 79R. 2) He was moved to another station to become a "supervisor" - read: station commander.
In fact, you can e-mail him via AKO or look him up on the USAREC global and ask him yourself.
Better yet, if you read the linked article you would have found the following quote:
"The Army says he’s the perfect person to be in charge of other recruiters since he experienced first hand what happens when ethics rules are broken"
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 20, 2005 11:55:55 AM
Forgive me for not trusting a quote by "The Army". You really expect me to believe a quote like that? Put a REAL NAME in front of that quote and I'll believe it. I don't believe for one minute that he is a station commander.
REAs can be adjusted do to cost of living. Obviously things in NYC cost more than in Greenbo AL. Is there some abuse of the REAs? Yep. Is there abuse in EVERY organization? Yep. Should we get rid of all coporate CEOs because they abuse their "REA System"?
You still won't admit that you were WRONG about the SDAP being "tax free".
You still won't talk about your supposed military career.
Are you afraid of something?
Posted by: Recuiter | Jul 20, 2005 3:16:07 PM
You don't have to trust the article. But, like I suggested, you could very easily contact SSG Kelt by AKO e-mail, USAREC e-mail or even by telephone.
Kelt is a 79R, a very understength CMF. He wouldn't be wasted by replicating a detailed recruiters job ... he got his own station. Don't believe me? Call him.
I never said we should "do way" with REAs or SDAP. I commented on the fact that with them, those on recruiting duty can "get over." You in fact are "getting over." Active Duty Pay, BAH, BAS, possibly CONUS COLA and SDAP and whatever you claim in your REA - real or imagined. Toss in the fact that you won't deploy and youv'e got a pretty good deal.
Again, sorry about misspeaking about SDAP .. its no biggy. Since you volunteered for USAREC duty, I have know doubt that you very craefully considered what was in it for YOU by accepting such an assignment. I know your type! Forgetting whether SDAP was in the "pay" or "allowances" column on an LES is no biggie.
Regarding my "career", what's there to talk about? I mean you know I was in the Army, you know I was on recruiting duty and I even told you where. You have never even said which branch of service you are in, let alone where you are assigned. Suffice to say that I probably outrank you and have 10 years TIS for pay purposes in all 3 components - RA, USAR and ARNG.
Again, I don't know what I would be "afraid" of since you are doing all the challenging to me and are pretty far off. You have accused me of being 1) a former E-3; 2) being a 92G; 3) being a Conscientious Objector and 4) having an RE-3 code. Wrong on all three counts.
You attack, attack and spin while not having a very good grasp of what is going on. I have provided you with some pretty good responses on how missioning works, why FY 05 is different than the past and other matters. What do you come back with? Oh yeah, the fact that SDAP is taxed.
Now I'm going to educate you a bit on the IRR, because you are clueless on the current recall situation...
1) Did you know that over 300 11Bs and 11Cs have been recalled from the IRR in the last two months?
2) Do you know that we have recalled over 1,200 88Ms, and over 500 (each) of 92A10s, 63B10s and 42Ls?
3) We have also recalled several hundred 21Bs and almost our entire inventory of IRR Engineer LTs and CPTs.
4) You are way, way off on you assertion that Medical, MI and MP are the largest pools of IRR recalls. In fact, in FY 04 and FY 05, none of these CMFs had a single MOS?AOC on the "top ten" list of recalls by numbers or as a % of inventory.
5) Everyone who leaves AD before the end of their 8 year MSO goes to the IRR. Included in that number are countless men I served with in the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division. I'm sure the 11B2Vs that pinned on their stripes in under 4 years and the Infantry Captains who graduated from USMA that I served with and are now in the IRR would disagree with your assessment. I think thay would take offense at being called "quitters."
Leaving the RA after completing your term of service is not "quitting." In fact, I gave the RA 1 more year than I initially signed up for. I'll be sure to tell my rommate, Dave, who served for 3.5 years in 1/75 Rangers at Hunter AAF that he is a "quitter." Funny, he never "quit" on his way to making rank or graduating from Ranger, Scuba or RIP.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 20, 2005 4:47:41 PM
I'm going to quote you ONCE MORE!
"Again, I don't know what I would be "afraid" of since you are doing all the challenging to me and are pretty far off. You have accused me of being 1) a former E-3; 2) being a 92G; 3) being a Conscientious Objector and 4) having an RE-3 code. Wrong on all three counts."
Umm...... I'm pretty sure I counted 4 there. Yep, 1, 2, 3, and 4. I learned how to count in pre-school; apparently you never even learned. YOU MUST HAVE BEEN A CAT IV AS WELL! You probably weren't ACTUALLY 11B in the 10th ID - you were probably a 92S (Shower/Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist lowest line scores of any MOS if I recall correctly)
Didn't I say that the IRR needed specific rank as well. I'll admit I was wrong on the current IRR callup. The mission has changed. Previous to that, the callups were medical, MI, and MP. My bad.
I never called anybody else a quitter, just you.
I never said I was USAREC
Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 21, 2005 2:11:23 AM
Well, since I was selected to receive a commission you know I got at least a 110 GT.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 21, 2005 10:53:19 AM
Quote IRR, "Well, since I was selected to receive a commission, you know I got at least a 110 GT."
IRR, the proper term is "I have at least a 110 GT."
Questions: Why undermine recruiting efforts? Why allow draftees into our ranks? Draftees will only be encouraged to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Besides, you will probably tell draftees how to get out of military service anyway. You don't live in Monroe, Wisconsin do you?
Posted by: David M. Davis | Jul 21, 2005 10:36:59 PM
Actually I live in NY.
Why undermine recruiting efforts?
In a time of war the way our nation is going about procuring soldiers and marines is unconscionable. If this is a fight worth having, it's worth a national conversation on it being everyone's responsibility to shoulder the load. That isn't happening.
A draft, or discussion of one, will force the issue. It needs to happen ... for the good of our nation and the stability of our Army.
I'd argue that you are pretty off on your assessment about draftees. Vietnam was the last "shooting war" in which we used draftees. Did you know that during Vietnam, draftees had a LOWER 1st term attrition rate than the volunteers? Draftees 1965-73 had about a 10% attrition pre ETS while the volunteers had nearly a 20% attrition rate. Contrast this with 2002, where the "better" volunteer Army had a 39% first-term attrition rate and white enlisted females had over a 55% attrition rate. (Source Charles Moskos, "Patriotism Lite Meets the Citizen Soldier" in United We Serve).
Again your anti-draft bigotry and defense of our current socio-economic conscription reflects your brain washing. There is no evidence that UCMJ rates would be higher among draftees. You see, just like in 'Nam, "cooperate and graduate" to survive your 24 months and get home is a pretty good motivation. It's the current system where we deploy an E-4 3x in a 4 year hitch that the "light at the end of the tunnel" gets hazy.
Shit, in Vietnam, if a junior enlisted serviceman survived a 12 month tour - draftee or volunteer - you NEVER, EVER had to go back unless you reupped or volunteered. Now we see the 3ed ID and 3rd ACR on their second 12 mo. tour and even the Florida Guard ramping up for a second swag at OIF!
BRING BACK THE DRAFT!!!!
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 21, 2005 11:34:01 PM
You are undermining the recruiting effort here, period. For that, it is in the highest disrespect to the military, our Nation, and our government.
And yes, if we are indeed a Nation at war, you actions of even remotely interefering with recruiting efforts constitutes a violation of 18 United States Code Section 2388 (a) Para. 2.
Additionally, for those of you who think a draft is inevitable. It is already here. Cleverly disguised in the name of The Selective Service Act of 1967. It has only been activated twice. The end of Vietnam, and in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. So, if you are an 18 year old male born after December 31, 1959, you are required to register. If not, no one will come hunt you down, but you are a lackluster citizen and it will catch up to you eventually.
And in closing, I don't mind anyone's opinion, its the right I bled for. I served with B Troop, 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq for 14 months. I was not allowed to return to duty because I was wounded, and got stuck reconnoitering for recruits in California. Even through our losses there and the losses they are suffering this very mintue, they will go back and keep going back, until the public-at-large gets it through their thick skulls, that we are in the business of fighting and winning wars, and it will never be Joe Taxpayer's business and his input on the operations of the military have absolutely nothing to do with it, and he needs to keep his yap shut. Because the civilian populace wouldn't know the "big picture" if they tripped over it.
For people who have never been in an operational environment, or worked with foreign governmental agencies, or served only to bad-mouth the service and Nation(read:scumbag), sure do know what we should do with foreign policy and military operational procedure.
But, as was said before in another thread. My opinion is automatically discredited because I'm in the service, I enjoy shooting the enemy, and will willingly bleed on the battlefield again, despite this site and it's ill-mannered attempt at disrupting the good order and discipline of the United States Armed Forces and Government. But thanks for at least hearing, not necessarily listening, but hearing me out.
Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 22, 2005 5:39:47 PM
You are so far gone I can't help you.
Last time I checked I too have a military ID in my pocket and, dare I say, as much a right to say when I want to say it.
Tell us "BIG SARGE" about the "big picture" ... please enlighten us all about what it is that "we are not getting." After all, folks of your pay grade have all the information and answers ... right. You are a joke and I'm not afraid to call you out on it.
Disrespect to our military? I have one response ... FUCK YOU! I've lost 6 friends already in OIF. You don't have a monopoly
on how people should feel and last I checked, don't have the authority to impose your twisted way of thinking on me.
The only thing the public will eventually "get through their thick skulls" are four things:
1) This war was a fraud
2) It diverted scarce resources from the real war on terror.
3) It has been a tremendous waste of life
4) It has destroyed the Army for at least a generation (and possibly the ARNG and USAR for longer).
Yeah, it sure sucks that the Brave Rifles are back again taking losses ... my old infantry battalion just returned their second OIF "go around."
BTW, what are you academic credentials? Who the hell are you to tell others they are wrong at foreign policy decisions.
You enjoy killing? You are a demented fuck and should be MEB'd for that alone. It is "volunteers" like yourself that strengthen my belief that we should reinstitute the draft. The draft will have a "leavening effect" and will keep a check on hotheads like you.
Get some help ... before you hurt yourself or someone you love (I mean it).
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 23, 2005 11:53:58 AM
What "leavening effect?" Allow draftees to make a decision as to whether or not to look for bin Laden?
I look at it this way. We should have removed Saddam back in 1991. With the talk of a draft, some parents are already sending their kids to Canada. I talk with parents everyday. Do you want to know the answers they give me. 1) Why don't I go down to the county jail and round up all the pedophiles and other criminals. 2) "My son is in college!" 3) My daughter isn't joining the Army.
And it goes on. Many of these kids want to serve, but mom and dad won't let them. They think military service is for other peoples kids. For the "bad" kids. For the "stupid" kids.
Having draftees will not improve the situation. The thing is there are people out there that want to join, but they can't. They have one too many DUI's, or they score low on the ASVAB, or they fail the physical (over dumb stuff).
Posted by: David M. Davis | Jul 24, 2005 2:37:19 PM
The "leavening effect" is having soldiers from every zip code imaginable involved in this fight. It will create an Army that once again reflects the ideaology and demographics of the nation it serves.
Great .. you meet with some misinformed idiots. Have you ever considered that this is largely been fueled by the 32 year fantasy called the "all volunteer force." We have, for three decades, reinforced the wrong-headed notion that noone has to "ruck up" unless they are a "volunteer" (usually motivated by money, MGIB or ACF).
Most people will NOT send their kids to Canada. Look ... my Dad was drafted in January of '69 out of a grad program at the New School in NYC. Fully 1/2 of his BCT platoon was college gradutes from places like Yale, Brown, Haverford, Williams and Wesleyan. These men I might add were PRIVATES serving their nation as Combat Engineers alongside HS dropouts, sons of steelworkers and sharecroppers. Even if only 1/2 of priviliged youth wind up serving via a draft it is a vast improvement over the .001% that currently serve.
Again, your remedy is to LOWER THE BAR ... LOWER STANDARDS ... LOWER LINE SCORES NEEDED TO ENLIST ... LOWER PHYSICAL STANDARDS or WAIVE DUIs.
I say ... BULLSHIT!!! If this war is so God Damn necessary than we really need our best and brightest picking up their load. Your call ... 22 year old college grad in peak mental and physical condition humping a ruck and a 240B in A'stan at 10,000 feet elevation or a DUI waivered 31 year old with a GED?
See where I'm going with this. I served in the 10th Mountain and in Shatikot Valley, in shape troopers of 1/87 Infantry were SMOKED at that altitude. If our best were sucking (for good reason) fighting Al Qaeda even before we destroyed the Army w/ OIF ... why would you lower the standards further?
It makes ZERO sense. BRING BACK THE DRAFT!!!!
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 24, 2005 11:25:19 PM
That's right IRR Soldier, it is Big Sarge to you. You are a REMF. You can get your ass chapped and think you are so much better than everyone. So you lost 6 buddies in Iraq, big fucking deal. Everyone lost people you arrogant little shit. You are not special. I watched more than my fair share of bodies make their way home in bags.
And I prayed every day, that if I smoke one more laundry headed Arab trying to kill me, I would walk on the plane and go home, too.
My hothead is what kept me alive for 14 months in Husaybah, Iraq. I fought for my life on more than one occassion. My medals and awards speak for my record.
And I have two degrees, prick. I am a 19D with an Associates Degree in Computer Animation/Multimedia, from the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, and a Bachelor's in Business Marketing from Colorado State. So don't toot your education horn at me, clown.
And I don't care if the guy next to me is a 30+ year old DUI waiver. He watches my back, I watch his. Its called being a soldier. You forget that, I guess. We wear the same uniform, and I don't care what kind of person he was or is. I care how good a soldier he is, and his ability to do his job.
Maybe it's different in your unit, but I guess all the infantrymen and cavalrymen I served with all need help. It takes a certain moral flexibility to do our job. In this line of work, Sally, we don't have time to think about help. The mission needs to be accomplished.
Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 25, 2005 9:26:43 PM
It is because of attitudes like yours that the Army will continue to miss its rec ruiting mission.
Most Americans I know, young or old, don't aspire to be a wanton killer. Defense of Nation and self is one thing ... the blood lust you show is quite another.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 26, 2005 8:02:52 AM
It is because of attitudes like yours that the Army will continue to miss its rec ruiting mission.
Most Americans I know, young or old, don't aspire to be a wanton killer. Defense of Nation and self is one thing ... the blood lust you show is quite another.
Posted by: IRR Soldier... | Jul 26, 2005 8:05:28 AM
Once again, we should all be reminded that this whole problem wouldn't exist if we remembered that our armed forces are part of the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT not the Greater American Empire department. You cannot sustain imperial policies like the ones this country has had for sixty and more years by hoodwinking people into joining the military for whatever reason, and then sending them to defend the interests of a very few who make a fortune out of the imperial policy. Empire is a bad idea. Even our founders knew that (policies towards First Peoples not withstanding), and they also knew the dangers of a standing army. Our troops need to be here, and nowhere else, defending our easily defendable country. You'd have no recruiting problems whatsoever if that was the case, AND we'd still be a strong country, as well as much better loved, and honestly respected.
Posted by: RL | Jul 26, 2005 8:04:05 PM
Remember that the DoD used to be called the WAR DEPARTMENT.........
Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 28, 2005 11:37:52 PM
the best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE
Posted by: Recruiter | Jul 28, 2005 11:38:35 PM
I am a wanton killer now? Because I have killed the enemy? I killed a man that shot an RPG at me, grenaded me, destroyed my vehicle twice and injured my crew, so I am a wanton killer? And blood lust? If you don't want to send a message for your 6 friends to the insurgents, that popping a US soldier will get you and your insurgent buddies annihilated, you need to check your Warrior Ethos/Army Values.
All in all, you need to get neck deep in contact with the enemy everyday for 14 months. Then go get your PhD in psychology, then I'll still tell you to get bent when you say I need help...Hell, I might even tack on a Sir at the end just to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. I'm done with you IRR, you're dismissed.
In reference to RL's post: I disagree with the fact our troops need to be here in this so-called easily defendable country. Terror attacks is all the enemy can aspire to. The defense of this Nation against organized threats is summed up in two words: OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER. The international implications of pulling all overseas servicemembers back to the States would devastate the economies of the regions they are in. That is a fact.
And again, you tell 'em Recruiter!!
Posted by: Army Soldier 05 | Jul 29, 2005 3:14:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.