Corrective Training vs Punishment

[Anthony Hoh]

I read the article and agree with other comments that it is well written and researched.
That said IMO the article itself is misguided. I got the impression that the author felt NCO's run smoke sessions on a whim outside thier inherent authority or justification. Looking at the time he spent in service (listed in the notes on the article, I think it was a four year enlistment) I doubt he got that far in the ranks, I dont say that as a slight, I say that to highlight the limited perspective one Soldier gets in one unit for four years. Is the line between on the spot corrections/ additional training blurry... sure. But I have never run a smoke session because I was bored or though it was funny, or out of an obligation to generations of Soldiers before me. I do it to maintain discipline and ultimately because I care for the troops in my charge. (sorry ,if that sounds dramatic but from my foxhole it is true). Giving a physical challenge to my Soldiers in lieu of UCMJ is a lot like correcting my own children. I don’t want to do it, I love and care for them both, but it is necessary for their development, and in my mind looks out more for their welfare in both cases.

For example:

You have a young Soldier E-1/E-4 who leaves his weapon at a training site. Should I recommend UCMJ punishment? Okay, he is 21 married with two kids, what am I signing him up for? He loses pay, so he can’t meet financial obligations without the embarrassing process of AER and ACS loans and grants. Not to mention the time lost by his Squad Leader and PSG in Trial Defense Service appt's., loan application forms, and “special time" with the Commander and 1SG. The Soldier also loses time with his family as he performs extra duty.

Or, should I disassemble his weapon, giving one piece to each NCO in the platoon. The Soldier accepts a physical challenge from each NCO as he reassembles his weapon piece by piece, painful...yes, but he won’t forget his weapon again, plus it still serves as a reminder to other Soldiers who witness that proper accountability for equipment is important.

If I received UCMJ every time I stepped on my own crank while growing up in the Army I would probably still have not received a pay check (16 years later), and might find the need to extend my term of service to complete my extra duty! I needed discipline.

Thankfully I had NCO's who smoked the ever living crap out of me, when I screwed up. As I went to the promotion board for SSG I had no blemishes on my records of recorded UCMJ proceedings.

Soon technology will not be able to overcome the soft underbelly of the Nintendo generation

Somebody needs to give responsible tough love, if you don’t have the cajones to do it, or that hurts your sense of morality/justice then kindly step aside.

[Uboat509]

This article does a pretty good job of highlighting a significant problem the Army has. Unfortunately, it is not the one the author was trying to highlight. It is the annoying tendency of the Army to misidentify a problem or to overreact to a problem. In this article it is an issue of,there are individuals abusing a given system so therefore the solution must be to change the system. That way the few individuals who are abusing the system can no longer abuse it nor can the majority who were not abusing it use it either. This is a particular pet peeve of mine. This is why we have clearing barrels outside of all of out buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it is easier to to simply take the bullets away then to ensure that our soldiers can safely carry a weapon (warrior ethos my @#$).

This article may be well argued from a legal stand-point, as far as what reg says what but it does little to deal with the realities of day to day operations. First, "smoke sessions" work. They can be an extremely effective tool. The author never even addresses that fact, preferring to reference a few egregious examples of abuse of the system in a transparent attempt to paint the whole system as corrupt. Is this tool appropriate for every situation? Of course not. There are no one size fits all solutions out there, and we all know that but there are plenty of situations out there where it is appropriate, such as the example Anthony pointed out. There is also what I take to be an elitist undertone throughout this article. There is an implication that NCOs are either too prone to abuse to be able use this system effectively or are too uneducated (I found this statement to be particularly offensive, If smoke sessions are to be prohibited, they should be prohibited explicitly, using the vernacular of the enlisted Soldiers to whom these issues are relevant. "You gots to dumb it down for them enlisted guys or they won't git it.") Bottom line, NCOs are expected to keep order and discipline but they need effective tools to do so and "you do what I tell you or I'm going to go run and get an officer," is not one of those tools.

SFC W

[JAG Major]

I read the article and agree with other comments that it is well written and researched.
That said IMO the article itself is misguided. I got the impression that the author felt NCO's run smoke sessions on a whim outside thier inherent authority or justification. Looking at the time he spent in service (listed in the notes on the article, I think it was a four year enlistment) I doubt he got that far in the ranks, I dont say that as a slight, I say that to highlight the limited perspective one Soldier gets in one unit for four years. Is the line between on the spot corrections/ additional training blurry... sure. But I have never run a smoke session because I was bored or though it was funny, or out of an obligation to generations of Soldiers before me. I do it to maintain discipline and ultimately because I care for the troops in my charge. (sorry ,if that sounds dramatic but from my foxhole it is true). Giving a physical challenge to my Soldiers in lieu of UCMJ is a lot like correcting my own children. I don’t want to do it, I love and care for them both, but it is necessary for their development, and in my mind looks out more for their welfare in both cases.

For example:

You have a young Soldier E-1/E-4 who leaves his weapon at a training site. Should I recommend UCMJ punishment? Okay, he is 21 married with two kids, what am I signing him up for? He loses pay, so he can’t meet financial obligations without the embarrassing process of AER and ACS loans and grants. Not to mention the time lost by his Squad Leader and PSG in Trial Defense Service appt's., loan application forms, and “special time" with the Commander and 1SG. The Soldier also loses time with his family as he performs extra duty.

Or, should I disassemble his weapon, giving one piece to each NCO in the platoon. The Soldier accepts a physical challenge from each NCO as he reassembles his weapon piece by piece, painful...yes, but he won’t forget his weapon again, plus it still serves as a reminder to other Soldiers who witness that proper accountability for equipment is important.

If I received UCMJ every time I stepped on my own crank while growing up in the Army I would probably still have not received a pay check (16 years later), and might find the need to extend my term of service to complete my extra duty! I needed discipline.

Thankfully I had NCO's who smoked the ever living crap out of me, when I screwed up. As I went to the promotion board for SSG I had no blemishes on my records of recorded UCMJ proceedings.

Soon technology will not be able to overcome the soft underbelly of the Nintendo generation

Somebody needs to give responsible tough love, if you don’t have the cajones to do it, or that hurts your sense of morality/justice then kindly step aside.

The Military Justice system, when properly applied, gives a great deal of latitude to the commander in determining the proper punishment, without depriving the Soldier of his due process. In the example about the Soldier who leaves his weapon at a training site, the commander could come up with a form of corrective training that is genuinely intended to improve the Soldier’s performance without appearing punitive.

An example of corrective training versus punishment is: you have a Soldier who is continually late to formation. Having him pitch a tent in front of the orderly room for a month so that he is accounted for is punishment. Having him report to the 1SG’s office 15 minutes before formation is corrective training. Having him do push-ups is pretty much worthless. If you were the Soldier, which would get your attention without souring your view towards the unit?

I had a 1SG in Saudi who needed to have his vehicles cleaned. Whenever Soldiers committed misconduct of any type, he would punish them by having them clean the vehicles all day. When I explained the whole punishment/corrective training distinction to him, he explained that the Soldier, by committing an alleged offense, showed inattention to detail. “That’s why I’m correctively training him by having him detail the trucks.”

In addition or instead of corrective training, the commander could issue a local letter of reprimand. It would stay in the Soldier’s file until he PCS’s, and might effectively get his attention without affecting his permanent record. If he decides to administer an Article 15, he could suspend the punishment, so that the Soldier does not lose pay or rank until/unless he steps on it again. Or he could impose an Article 15 with no punishment (except the Article 15 itself). If the Soldier is an E4 with no previous Article 15’s, he can get one freebie that no board will ever see.

Although I am sympathetic to Soldiers whose minor misconduct causes financial problems due to being married with kids, I don’t like to see two Soldiers commit the same offense only to have the married one get a break because of the second order effects. I would not want to be the commander who “correctively trains” the first Soldier who leaves a weapon at a training site, then has to punish another Soldier who leaves his weapon at a training site after the Brigade commander locks down the unit trying to track down the weapon.

Although commanders and NCO’s often think that they are doing a Soldier a favor by punishing him “off the record,” this creates a potential for a lot of abuse. Before a Soldier can receive a company grade Article 15 or greater, he receives the benefit of counsel. If the charges cannot be substantiated, the TDS attorney can likely prevent the Soldier from receiving the punishment. Also, before receiving an Article 15, a Soldier can present witnesses on his behalf, make a statement, or turn down the Article 15. Additionally, he can appeal whatever punishment is given. If a first line supervisor decides to mete out punishment as he sees fit, he really isn’t doing anyone a favor.
MAJ White, ILE student, Fort Belvoir

[jmm99]

You'll be soooo-rrrr-ry.

[Ken White]

had gotta be okay. I like your name, too...

Welcome aboard -- good post BTW. As you say, it only takes a little thought to do it right. Thanks also for pointing out that breaks for married guys are not a good thing (We do not need to tell my wife I said that... ).

JMM only says you'll be sorry 'cause he's also frequently admitted to a bar (or something like that) being another Counsellor type -- and I pick on Lawyers. However, not to worry, only once a week...

[Uboat509]

An example of corrective training versus punishment is: you have a Soldier who is continually late to formation. Having him pitch a tent in front of the orderly room for a month so that he is accounted for is punishment. Having him report to the 1SG’s office 15 minutes before formation is corrective training. Having him do push-ups is pretty much worthless. If you were the Soldier, which would get your attention without souring your view towards the unit?

Which would be why we try things like having the soldier report early before we had him move into the yard.

In addition or instead of corrective training, the commander could issue a local letter of reprimand. It would stay in the Soldier’s file until he PCS’s, and might effectively get his attention without affecting his permanent record. If he decides to administer an Article 15, he could suspend the punishment, so that the Soldier does not lose pay or rank until/unless he steps on it again. Or he could impose an Article 15 with no punishment (except the Article 15 itself). If the Soldier is an E4 with no previous Article 15’s, he can get one freebie that no board will ever see.

So you can spend hours generating steaming piles of paperwork in order to punish somebody for something that could have been handled in a few minutes? Letter of Reprimand for a Joe? Really? LOIs mean a lot to NCOs. It could be a career killer. To Joe it is just a piece paper. The Joes who do care about such things, aren't typically the ones who need to be punished.

Although I am sympathetic to Soldiers whose minor misconduct causes financial problems due to being married with kids, I don’t like to see two Soldiers commit the same offense only to have the married one get a break because of the second order effects. I would not want to be the commander who “correctively trains” the first Soldier who leaves a weapon at a training site, then has to punish another Soldier who leaves his weapon at a training site after the Brigade commander locks down the unit trying to track down the weapon.

Except that while you are trying to adhere to some kind of standard of fairness you can potentially create a situations that is patently unfair. Let's take the hypothetical case you mentioned. Take two soldiers, same rank, same TIS same past record and the same offense. Both get the same Article 15 and lose money. Now the unmarried still has a place to live and food. For the month that he lost money he had to be a barracks rat but now that is over and he is back to being the same soldier he was before. The married guy still has to pay rent and buy food for himself and his family. Since he he didn't get his full paycheck he has to let something else slip to get those things. Now he gets behind which turns into a downward spiral of debt and a few months later he is back in front of the commander's desk, this time for debt problems. Now, was the punishment equal and fair?

Of course I am not saying that you should never give an article 15 to a married soldier. That would be ridiculous, like saying that you always need to treat married and unmarried soldiers the same regardless of the second order effects. Every case is unique and has to be dealt with according to the facts as they exist with that case at that time.

Although commanders and NCO’s often think that they are doing a Soldier a favor by punishing him “off the record,” this creates a potential for a lot of abuse.

I can't think of a system that can't be abused. I have always detested the concept of denying something that is proven to be effective because a few might abuse it. This is effectively telling NCOs that they cannot be trusted and the power to punish must only reside with the officers.

Before a Soldier can receive a company grade Article 15 or greater, he receives the benefit of counsel. If the charges cannot be substantiated, the TDS attorney can likely prevent the Soldier from receiving the punishment. Also, before receiving an Article 15, a Soldier can present witnesses on his behalf, make a statement, or turn down the Article 15. Additionally, he can appeal whatever punishment is given.

Exactly. It is a long slow difficult process that is inappropriate for most of the minor offenses that would have been handled internally.

If a first line supervisor decides to mete out punishment as he sees fit, he really isn’t doing anyone a favor.
MAJ White, ILE student, Fort Belvoir

Now that really is in the eye of the beholder.

SFC W

[selil]

Although commanders and NCO’s often think that they are doing a Soldier a favor by punishing him “off the record,” this creates a potential for a lot of abuse. Before a Soldier can receive a company grade Article 15 or greater, he receives the benefit of counsel. If the charges cannot be substantiated, the TDS attorney can likely prevent the Soldier from receiving the punishment. Also, before receiving an Article 15, a Soldier can present witnesses on his behalf, make a statement, or turn down the Article 15. Additionally, he can appeal whatever punishment is given. If a first line supervisor decides to mete out punishment as he sees fit, he really isn’t doing anyone a favor.
MAJ White, ILE student, Fort Belvoir

A great example of the continued divergence between social responsibility (group dynamics and social cohesion) and legal construction (extraneous rule set and arbitrary decisions).

In polarity of cases (likely neither reality):

Case 1: NCO engages in off the books punishment to build unit cohesion, resulting in an effective disciplined fighting force, that sustains soldiers and saves lives. Some soldiers kicked to the curb as unfit.

Case 2: Soldier engages in legal posturing to escape punishment eroding unit cohesion and as a direct result impacts the effectiveness of training and unit camaraderie engendering distrust and likeliness of discipline break down in combat. Some soldiers remain regardless of suitability.

I'm not a fan of lawyer in the loop.

Lawfare is as much a social, moral, ambiguous, construction and inherently flawed as the insatiable monster of Wall Street. Lawfare is not part of the social or moral fabric of conflict and does not reflect the necessities of that conflict. As a conflict construction it really seems to have gotten legs during World War 1 & 2, but only recently has infected the command level since the Vietnam War.

I have a tendency to reject the tenets of "War Crimes" as only the victor has the ability to inflict the will of criminal prosecution. As such prosecution under duress will always be suspect (aka Saddam Hussein or if you will Nuremberg). Most military investigations of combat incidents involve disenfranchised suspects who are rarely given the resources of defense as much as told the results of investigations and requisite punishments. Not unlike the public defense or indigent criminal suspects in the civilian world.

Given the arbitrage of restricted punishment meted out by the worst NCO in the honest pursuit of unit discipline and cohesion versus the form filled fantasies of human resource application lawyers I will back the NCO every time.

It's always about making war not paper work.

[William F. Owen]

A great example of the continued divergence between social responsibility (group dynamics and social cohesion) and legal construction (extraneous rule set and arbitrary decisions).

In polarity of cases (likely neither reality):

Case 1: NCO engages in off the books punishment to build unit cohesion, resulting in an effective disciplined fighting force, that sustains soldiers and saves lives. Some soldiers kicked to the curb as unfit.

Case 2: Soldier engages in legal posturing to escape punishment eroding unit cohesion and as a direct result impacts the effectiveness of training and unit camaraderie engendering distrust and likeliness of discipline break down in combat. Some soldiers remain regardless of suitability.

I'm not a fan of lawyer in the loop.

Lawfare is as much a social, moral, ambiguous, construction and inherently flawed as the insatiable monster of Wall Street. Lawfare is not part of the social or moral fabric of conflict and does not reflect the necessities of that conflict. As a conflict construction it really seems to have gotten legs during World War 1 & 2, but only recently has infected the command level since the Vietnam War.

I have a tendency to reject the tenets of "War Crimes" as only the victor has the ability to inflict the will of criminal prosecution. As such prosecution under duress will always be suspect (aka Saddam Hussein or if you will Nuremberg). Most military investigations of combat incidents involve disenfranchised suspects who are rarely given the resources of defense as much as told the results of investigations and requisite punishments. Not unlike the public defense or indigent criminal suspects in the civilian world.

Given the arbitrage of restricted punishment meted out by the worst NCO in the honest pursuit of unit discipline and cohesion versus the form filled fantasies of human resource application lawyers I will back the NCO every time.

It's always about making war not paper work.

That's hard-biting sense I can sign up to. Good job!

[ODB]

is figuring out the dynamics of your soldiers. You just have to figure out what works for those soldiers under you. Some soldiers a stern whisper get's their attention. Some need it on paper. Some learn through muscle memory. Some learn through corrective action. There is no end all be all answer. That is the part not covered. Everyone reacts differently to outside motivators. The important part is realizing what method works for those under you to correct soldiers individually. Sometimes it takes peer pressure. Personally my number one rule is how can I punish someone for something if I did not train him and show him how to do it properly, what my expectations are. For most this knowing how to handle individuals comes with maturity and experience. Unfortunately in the days of automatic promotions and increasingly younger leaders some feel the effects.

[tankersteve]

JAG Major,

Sorry, your answer is part of the problem, not the solution.

The UCMJ process has gone overboard in its attempts to protect the miscreant from what he deserves. We are not in a draft army, where every congressman needs to react whenever a constituent complains that his nephew or granddaughter was abused by the all-powerful draft-based army. Our Soldiers are volunteers and they are (or need to be) prepared to be treated like adults.

We have created a system where (yes, here it comes... wait for it) the 5% of Soldiers, the undisciplined, don't care, Mommy didn't wipe their noses enough bunch, take up 90% of the time of the unit leadership. Paperwork, escorts, appointments, etc.

Leaders, NCOs and officers alike, need to ensure the punishments going to their Soldiers, are appropriate (perhaps not fitting the regulation but deserved and fair). Even as the unit commander, I had a feel for who was getting some extra time doing 'corrective' training, related to his offense or not. And I knew which of my junior leaders needed more watching to ensure it wasn't going to get outside of the 'appropriate' limitation.

The real issue is our legal system. Who is the proponent of the legal system? The lawyers! Who ensures the lawyers are doing what is right and is the primary disciplining force for the lawyers? The Bar! What does this lead to? The answer is 'more laws/codes/regulations/restrictions to cover more situations'. I smell a self-licking ice cream cone.

As was previously stated, there isn't a system that can't be abused, but we could probably try and make one. However, it would be totally ineffective in ensuring good order and discipline in a military formation because you will have taken authority away from everyone in the formation who needs to have it and it would no longer be of any use in a military sense.

Anyone truly abusing his power is bound to be found out in this day and time. Joe isn't going to take it and knows how to get the word out, through official and backdoor channels. The idea that we can remove more power from our junior leaders, demonstrate less trust in their judgment and leadership, and expect them to then lead effectively in combat is silly.

War has brought the military back to focusing on what is important - winning the war. The resistance to allowing common sense and trust of subordinates to come back into our daily operations is the fight we all face.

Tankersteve

[Schmedlap]

Although I am sympathetic to Soldiers whose minor misconduct causes financial problems due to being married with kids, I don’t like to see two Soldiers commit the same offense only to have the married one get a break because of the second order effects.

When dealing with complaints from within the ranks about "fairness," I am generally one of those who thinks the proper response is, "STFU and quit whining." In this case, I think JAG Major has a good point. It just depends upon when one uses the advice.

If I were to punish single Soldier A with 14 days loss of pay and then a week later married Soldier B commits the same offense and I'm concerned about the financial hardship upon his family, then I'm thinking about this too late in the game. The correct course of action would be, when I was mulling over the punishment for Soldier A, to have asked myself, "if this Soldier were married and had kids, would I be willing to dole out this punishment?" If the answer is no, then I should have thought of a different punishment for Soldier A. Then, when Soldier B commits the same offense, I can dole out the same punishment for the same offense without reservation.

[Courtney Massengale]

Although commanders and NCO’s often think that they are doing a Soldier a favor by punishing him “off the record,” this creates a potential for a lot of abuse. Before a Soldier can receive a company grade Article 15 or greater, he receives the benefit of counsel. If the charges cannot be substantiated, the TDS attorney can likely prevent the Soldier from receiving the punishment. Also, before receiving an Article 15, a Soldier can present witnesses on his behalf, make a statement, or turn down the Article 15. Additionally, he can appeal whatever punishment is given. If a first line supervisor decides to mete out punishment as he sees fit, he really isn’t doing anyone a favor.

This goes beyond Squad Leaders using pushups instead of counseling; we're creating Commanders and CSMs who use Administrative Action in lieu of Non-Judicial Punishment. Why? Because its faster, has less oversight and does more damage in many cases.

For example, I had a scenario where a male E-4 (P) and a female E-4 went out and did some things they shouldn't have. As a result of those actions, prior to UCMJ, the male E-4 was withdrawn from the promotion list. While effectively a reduction in rank, it was an administrative action which the Soldier was not entitled to the benefits of TDS; only Legal Assistance.

Likewise, when we have to relieve an individual from a position, regardless of the circumstances, we're arguably doing more to damage their career than an Article 15 with no reduction in rank. Once again, the Soldier isn't entitled to the benefit of TDS or other aspects of due process since Relief For Cause is an Administrative Action.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there aren't cases where this is warranted and fully believe in the need for due process. But to echo many of the other comments, the UCMJ system has become so cumbersome and toothless that perfectly sanctioned – but still irresponsible – actions are becoming favored when its time to send a message.

To tie it all in to warfighting, it helps develop a mentality that addresses the short term issue "How do I get rid of this problem" rather than looking at the long term consequences of decisions. It trains leaders to do the most convenient thing rather than think about what the right thing really is.

[Shek]

But to echo many of the other comments, the UCMJ system has become so cumbersome and toothless that perfectly sanctioned – but still irresponsible – actions are becoming favored when its time to send a message.

To tie it all in to warfighting, it helps develop a mentality that addresses the short term issue "How do I get rid of this problem" rather than looking at the long term consequences of decisions. It trains leaders to do the most convenient thing rather than think about what the right thing really is.

I've seen a lot of comments about how difficult it is to pursue something under UCMJ, and yet there's been no mention of summarized Article 15s. These are so easy to do. Almost any offense can be categorized as an offense under Article 92. My training room had a summarized Article 15 form with the generic Article 92 offense ready to go. Admin time at the company level - 5 minutes to complete the form and 10 minutes to conduct the Article 15. Of course, there was team/squad leader time involved in writing the counselings that would both demonstrate that the soldier had been corrected before and given an opportunity to improve their performance. So we're talking 15 minutes of company HQ time and maybe 30-60 minutes of TL/SL time per summarized Article 15.

I probably did about 15 or so of these during my 18 months in command, and the beauty of these was that when it came time for a 14-12b? chapter (pattern of misconduct), all I needed was a summarized and a company grade Article 15 to demonstrate a pattern (I'm sure the bar has shifted higher given the retention problems and wanting bodies to fill spaces for deployment, but that additional UCMJ action is an easy way to meet whatever requirement). The pattern of misconduct discharge warrants a general under honorable conditions discharge, which means a loss of veterans benefits, and so during the summarized proceeding, I would let the soldier know that continued substandard behavior would result in company grade Article 15 and the adminstrative separation that would include losing their GI Bill.

Both the swiftness of the punishment - if the offense were committed Friday morning, we could complete the process by Friday afternoon no matter what we were doing and the soldier would be edging sidewalks or painting or whatever by the time the company was released for their long weekend of fun - and the potential loss of GI Bill was enough of an eye opener for all but those that Darwin would have gotten anyways. I can't state a definitive claim that the summarized Article 15s helped give more teeth to the SLs and PSGs when they did their informal/formal counseling to substandard soldiers, but I can't help but believe that it did since the possibility of punishment became much more real (but also not a disincentive to future performance since the summarized Article 15s did NOT become part of the permanent record).

The last benefit here is that to take advantage of an Article 15, it gave the TLs and SLs an incentive to do proper counseling since I required it for any proceeding, and it helped us to make sure that we would have the goods when it came time to prevent the automatic promotion of soldiers that meet the TIG and TIS standards but weren't mature enough. It help promotes a healthy balance between corrective training and escalation (without harm to one's permanent record) when required.

[Blackhorse]

Spot on Shek. Good post.

[Ken White]

do in a busy war when no one had time for some of these things and there was great objection to administratively discharging a guy because he was a little rowdy or a pusher of envelopes. No matter, we're not in one. Yet.

[Stan]

do in a busy war when no one had time for some of these things and there was great objection to administratively discharging a guy because he was a little rowdy or a pusher of envelopes. No matter, we're not in one. Yet.

Ken, concur.
We could spend the same amount of time motivating and instilling spirit and using that rowdy soldier where best suited. Seems the Article 15 is just as overrated now as it was in 74.

[Courtney Massengale]

I've seen a lot of comments about how difficult it is to pursue something under UCMJ, and yet there's been no mention of summarized Article 15s.

Great post and totaly agree. It is one of the most underutilized actions. I love doing them for all the reasons you listed (not that I enjoy UCMJ, but you know).

I wish we had the same ability to turn around... where I'm at, JAG still gets to review and process the packet, not the orderly room. Which in many cases doesn't give a time advantage compared to a CO of FG. Thus, first lines get tempted into the same cycle with "corrective training" and no due process.

[Shek]

I wish we had the same ability to turn around... where I'm at, JAG still gets to review and process the packet, not the orderly room. Which in many cases doesn't give a time advantage compared to a CO of FG. Thus, first lines get tempted into the same cycle with "corrective training" and no due process.

Wow. I wonder if some commanders abused it and so a brigade commander required the processing through JAG. My brigade never had a problem with it since we made sure that the summarized was simply an escalation from formal counseling (i.e, the first your late to formation, verbal counseling/corrective training, the second time put it on paper, and the third time it was a summarized Article 15, provided there wasn't extenuating circumstances and that the offenses occured relatively close together). It might be something to rengage with your commander to see if there was some abuse that resulted in some knee jerk reaction or if that's just the way it always was and nobody thought to challenge it.

[ODB]

do in a busy war when no one had time for some of these things and there was great objection to administratively discharging a guy because he was a little rowdy or a pusher of envelopes. No matter, we're not in one. Yet.

Ken, concur.
We could spend the same amount of time motivating and instilling spirit and using that rowdy soldier where best suited. Seems the Article 15 is just as overrated now as it was in 74.

what kind of young soldier I was? Yes, I was the beer drinking, tail chasing, rowdy troop, who always ended up in 1SG's office Monday morning. I use to call them Grandpa speeches. The thing that kept me from being booted was my attitude. I was just as rowdy if not more so in the woods and 1SG loved it. He booted 50-60 people a year based on performance in the field. If you were no good in the woods, the slightest mistakes in the rear would have you doing the duffle bag drag to the house.

Chain of Command always wanted to keep me in a glass case with a sign "Break Only In Times Of War". Oh, the good old days in the Army, before we became a PC group of sissies!!!!!! Maybe someday I'll share the number and types of Article 15's and what for.....hint they all revolved around my abilities to drink beer and chase tail.

[Uboat509]

In nearly eighteen years that I have been on active duty I have seen one summarized Article 15 that I can recall. Virtually every commander that I had did not believe in them. In fact several felt that it was an indicator of weak NCOs in the platoon, that they were abrogating their responsibility to maintain discipline with in the platoon to the company commander. I tend to agree. The company commander should be the last resort. If I have a soldier in front of the commander it's because either he has committed a serious infraction or that I have done everything within my power and the soldier has refused to do the right thing. If I bring that soldier for anything less than that I am telling the commander that I have failed and that I need him to take care of discipline within my platoon for me.

SFC W