From the "OIF Alphabet"Originally Posted by Tom Odom
And the reflective safety belt...
Don't forget the safety belt!
And the reflective safety belt...Army Times:
Wait for the rocket that sees everyone having to wear full body armor whilst conducting an in-theatre counselling session. And don't forget the armed MP detachment that will have to be present, just to be sure that everything is (legally and procedurally) kopacetic.
Don't forget the safety belt!
From the "OIF Alphabet"And the reflective safety belt...
Don't forget the safety belt!
What??? No link???
LINKS AWAY!!!
More
Even better
Last edited by Jedburgh; 09-26-2008 at 12:31 AM.
Reed,
This one got me. I hate to say it, but is unfortunately more reflective (pun) of the CSM's I've had (with a few exceptions).
Good stuff. The army is crazy on reflectiveness.
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.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.
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
Welcome, MAJ White, to the shop ....
You'll be soooo-rrrr-ry.
Jag Major, anyone who agrees with me that pushups are dumb
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...
Which would be why we try things like having the soldier report early before we had him move into the yard.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. It is a long slow difficult process that is inappropriate for most of the minor offenses that would have been handled internally.
Now that really is in the eye of the beholder.
SFC W
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.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
That's hard-biting sense I can sign up to. Good job!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The hard part
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.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
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.
The NCOs had you from "The Military Justice system..."
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
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.
A couple of quick questions...
1. How is the punishment that I have decided not able to improve that Soldiers performance in regards to accounting for his weapon?
2. Exactly when should I go to my Commander to decide when I need to do some form of corrective training, i.e. should I bother the boss when Joe doesn’t shave?
3. Finally why would a Commander not want to appear punitive for a Soldier forgetting his weapon?
I dont see where we diverge on this, my corrective training is formed around that Soldier retaining his weapon by earning each piece back. If the Soldier was late I would not send him to each NCO in the platoon to come up with some form of physical challenge. His corrective training would be time oriented. Again, I dont think it would require the 1SG or Commander to make this happen.
Okay this is exactly where we diverge! I am with the 1SG on this. I had a PSG that could turn any offense into a 12 mile road march. i.e. You forget to shave...Okay, you shave at the start point the 6 mile point and the finish point. No this was not for first time offenders but if failing to shave became a habit this was what was in store. Additionally form my side of this professional Army, dont underestimate the power of corrective training on display, it helps the unit as a whole.
Sir I am familiar with the flexibility the commander has with UCMJ, but I think you are missing the thrust of my post. I can handle corrective training in a responsible manner that IMO is better for the Soldier, and the unit. LOR's dont get posted on the Company billboard, an LOR for a junior Soldier is the reverse of the BDE Commander having his BC do push-ups when he is late to a meeting.
I dont see me taking the Soldier marital status in to consideration as something wrong, second and third order effects could actually lead to more punishment for the Soldier than was intended. Additionally, I also factor in the overall hooah vis a vie the dirt baggyness of the troop in question. Similar to the Commanders discretion on dealing out different punishments for the same offense. There is obviously no cookie cutter solutions. And getting the Unit locked down would obviously incur more wrath than someone else in the Company finding the Soldier weapon and returning it to me.
I think I see the point you are trying to make, but I respectfully disagree. If I involved my Commander for every punishable offense under the UCMJ we would not be able to conduct any other business. Their are certain things that I do for my Commander in a responsible manner that help maintain good order and discipline in the unit, and he is happy for it.
You guys are a tough audience!
I agree with ODB that an effective NCO/Officer knows what is going to work with the particular Soldier in the particular situation and deals with it accordingly. Most of the NCOs and Officers that I have worked with over the years are very good at fixing fixable misconduct.
I think that we all agree that the ideal end is that the Soldier stops the misconduct, he learns his lesson, he suffers for it if the misconduct warrants it, or he can recover without negative paperwork or other longterm effects if the situation warrants that.
The key point that I am trying to make is that corrective training is fine and necessary, while punishment without due process is not. Although some of the posters believe that JAG involvement just muddies the waters, I give the commanders the full range of options available, my idea of the pros and cons of each, and then execute what they think is the best COA. There are certainly situations where a Soldier can be brought into line without UCMJ action. If the first line supervisor uses the right amount of corrective training, he can make sure that the Soldier learns his lesson, does not want to mess up again, and stays the course.
When I was in basic training, Drill Sergeants were able to use many highly effective techniques to ensure that we wanted to do whatever it took to make them happy. With few exceptions, they did it without passing the corrective training/punishment line.
The argument, as I understand it, is that if NCOs are given the power to punish then Joe will not have the chance for legal counsel before the punishment is administered. Of course, the types of infractions that we are generally talking about don't rate an article 15 so the concept of corrective training is invented. Corrective training is administered as a consequence of something Joe did or failed to do. Punishment is administered as a consequence of something that Joe did or failed to do. The difference seems to be in how you word it.
I'm confused, what due process are you talking about? Are you suggesting that every time an NCO needs to administer corrective training he has to consult with JAG?The key point that I am trying to make is that corrective training is fine and necessary, while punishment without due process is not.
Which would be the overwhelming majority of situations. Every good commander I have ever had had essentially the same philosophy. If you come before him for Non-Judicial punishment he will max you out because either you have done something so bad (ie DUI) that you are brought directly to his desk or you have been dealt with repeatedly by his NCOs and are still bound and determined to do the wrong thing. The point was that bringing a soldier before the commander was the last resort. He depended on his NCOs to maintain order and discipline within the unit.Although some of the posters believe that JAG involvement just muddies the waters, I give the commanders the full range of options available, my idea of the pros and cons of each, and then execute what they think is the best COA. There are certainly situations where a Soldier can be brought into line without UCMJ action.
SFC W
And this is a very important point. "Punishment" is a specific legal term and can only be generated from nonjudicial or judicial process. If you do something as corrective training that would meet the criteria for "punishment", you will create a much larger issue should you proceed with judicial/nonjudicial punishement later.
The classic example is that if you put restrictions on liberty as corrective training, it may count as time served in a Court Martial.
I think the point is that NCOs (and all leaders) need to know and understand what the rules are. Knowing that if you do X, you won't be able to do Y later is the difference between ignorance and assuming risk.I'm confused, what due process are you talking about? Are you suggesting that every time an NCO needs to administer corrective training he has to consult with JAG?
You can't decide to have the Soldier take half a month's pay out of the ATM and give it to you as corrective training. That's a punishment under UCMJ. Likewise there are other things that are punishments that you can't just decide to do without going through the process. Knowing what those are and how to get the results you want without violating them is what he's talking about.
As you mentioned, a lot of it is wording and how you go about doing things.
I have a small packet I give to all my new NCOs that breaks down the different kinds of UCMJ (Summarized, Company Grade, Field Grade), how to do a sworn statement, and a few other things. Part of that is how to word counseling statements and do corrective training as not to run afoul of TDS or JAG.
This isn't in any way preventing them from executing their duties - its helping them refine what they do in a way that doesn't voilate laws or regulations AND will allow us to take care of business.
Last edited by Courtney Massengale; 03-31-2009 at 02:37 PM.
Not tough, just well opinionated!
I learned very early on in my SWJ postings that even the most innocuous statement will ruffle someone feathers. But I like the fact that it forces me to validate my views and rationalize them out to myself and others. I think you feel Soldiers rights are sometimes violated when NCO’s mete out a form of corrective training/ spot corrections or that it usurps the Commander authority. In some cases I am sure you are right, and I appreciate you making me walk the dog on this. I guess to capsulate I would say NCO’s doing corrective training does way more good than harm, and I hope you can appreciate that.
Last edited by Anthony Hoh; 03-31-2009 at 04:53 PM. Reason: I kant spell,
Posting Permissions
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, 
Bookmarks