Posted on Dec 29, 2013
4
4
0
One of the most stupid decisions I saw was made by my BDE CSM. A female Soldier in one of our BNs was sexually assaulted in her room at the barracks by a civilian who drove her home from a bar on a Friday night.
The CSM blamed the E-7s in the BDE for the event taking place. He accused them of not walking around the barracks enough at all hours of the night to ensure all was well. He stated if the E-7s had been doing their job, the sexual assault would have not taken place. Let me note at this point there was always a CQ on duty who was required to make rounds of the barracks area (consisted of six large buildings each three floors high).
The CSM then created a duty roster for "roving patrol" of the barracks area that would consist of one E-7, one E-5 or E-6, and junior enlisted. There was also the CQ and two runners. Those on the roving patrol were required to be in full battle rattle minus weapon as well as their PT belt so the CSM could identify them as the roving patrol.
One weeknights, the roving patrol had to report for their duty after their duty day at 1700 hrs. Roving patrol was until 0500 and the E-7s were required to make work call at 0800. The others to include the CQ and runners were off duty once relieved until the following day's morning PT formation.
I had known this CSM for a long time. I served as a First Sergeant prior and he was my mentor. I took it upon myself to discuss this decision with him. He told me every First Sergeant, each of the BN CSMs, and himself never saw an E-7 in the barracks area when they walked through. I told him that didn't mean they didn't walk through and check things. He then stated if he never saw any of them, it meant they were not making their presence known. I told him I don't ever recall seeing him or any of the CSMs or 1SGs walking the area while I did, but that didn't mean they didn't.
I also told him I thought his decision on creating these roving patrols was an unnecessary knee jerk reaction to punish E-7s and making them wear full battle rattle was to humiliate them. He said it was to identify them as roving patrol members. I told him that could be accomplished by wearing PCs and PT belt. He said he'd take that under advisement and a few days later changed the duty uniform to my suggestion.
I also told him he was risking a lot by requiring the E-7 to report to 0800 work call after being awake and on duty for more than 24 hours, while allowing everyone else to have the remainder of the day off. I asked him who would be responsible if an E-7 having been required to work for more than 24 hours without sleep was to get in an accident by falling asleep at the wheel while driving home? On that issue he would not relent.
The roving patrol duty lasted for three months before he announced he was ending it because he now felt the E-7s had learned their lesson.
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
1
1
0
SFC Fox,<br><br>What is considered not walking around the barracks "enough"? Can "enough" truly be defined without having an established policy of some sort? Enough seems subjective to me, unless there was a policy of some sort that stated, "E-7s will walk around the barracks between XX time to XX time".<br><br>Additionally, I don't agree with the statement of, "if the E-7s had been doing their job, the sexual assault would have not taken place". How is he 100% sure of that? I won't even began to elaborate on anything else, too much to fathom as I continue to read your post. SMH and glad you were able to address your concerns during that time. You may have encouraged the CSM to rethink his TTPs on future matters.<br><br>Thanks for sharing SFC Fox.<br>
(1)
(0)
SFC Gary Fox
Chief, there was no SOP or any directive stating when E-7's had to walk through the barracks area; only they should walk through occasionally. There was a CQ with two runners on duty at all times as well as NCOs who were assigned as Barracks NCOs. What were their responsibilities?
You could have all the E-7's in a BDE constantly walking around the barracks, but would they know what was happening in the rooms? No. It's no different if a police officer was patrolling around the same residential block continuously all night long. He wouldn't know what crimes were being committed in any home until it was reported.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Raymond Hickey
In Viet Nam in 1970, our Commander, a LTC, decided to have an unannounced "Broken Arrow" exercise, (nuclear accident/AC crash). This was initiated by the popping of colored smoke. Now, we had no nuclear weapons in 'Nam wo this was at best a useless exercise, but as it was progressing, the ROK's were involved in a firefight off base and were using Dust Off to transport wounded back to the dispensary. The Dust Off pilots were confused by the smoke used for the exercise and the smoke used to designate the LZ for the dispensary...needless to say, the exercise was terminated at once! Our relationship with the ROK's was strained for a while after this incident...
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
That's just stupid. I actually addressed what you are talking about (blaming the wrong person) in this thread:
A comment in another thread sparked this discussion question. Since when did we lose focus on accountability?Some things are a leader responsibility. But the Army has become much like the rest of...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google