Posted on Jan 3, 2015
The discussion of dwindling Standards; are senior ranks the worst offenders?
3.79K
39
13
3
3
0
I keep hearing about how we need to step up and make more corrections and to enforce our standards. Especially we NCOs. However, the ones I hear crying loudest about standards are also the ones who cry when corrected and seem to be the Senior NCOs and Officers. Case in point: As a range OIC not long ago, I had a SFC walk onto my range with his fleece jacket unzipped to his belly button. Since this is a training environment, we don't want to send the wrong message to Joe the student so I am very particular about how they view me as their primary instructor and my support staff and SMEs. That being said, I went to the SFC's peer on the range (not a student) and asked him if he would be so kind as to request the SFC zip up his jacket. An hour later, upon returning to my range, the SFC was still out of regs. This time I waited for all the students to leave the vicinity, brought the SFC to the side and respectfully asked him to zip his jacket past the name tape. At which point SFC "went ape shit" tried staring me down, getting in my face, berating me in front of my civilian role players and started in on how he had joined the army in 1975, wasn't going to be corrected by some piss ant little SSG and that I don't know anything about cold weather environments and on and on and on going so far as to dismiss me on my own range. On a separate occasion (school house environment) I again expressed to a different SFC that he unroll the cuffs on his blouse (this habit of turning the cuffs in on themselves still baffles me even after 4 deployments). He looked at me and asked me where in the reg it said it was unauthorized and if I could show him he would correct it. EVENTHOUGH he knew for a fact it was against Regs and rather than correct it he was a d-bag and refused to correct. These are just two examples. Don't get me started with shower shoes/flip flops (I've had an Officer actually tell me he didn't know this was a rule), tank tops and underclothes showing in the chow halls. So I ask... Is this indicative of the senior ranks now? Does rank make you exempt from the rules? Why bother with courtesy patrols (usually populated with e4s-e6s so far in my experience) if SMs will just hide behind their rank? Where did we get this idea that only junior enlisted is subject to correction?
Standards
Uniforms
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 4
11
11
0
I will not minimize your direct observation or experiences but I am going to make a broad statement here that I'd one of the two is what's happening:
1. This is not typical performance across the spectrum of the military
2. I am seeing standards held and enforced in my presence and leaders are doing their own thing when they are not being supervised.
I try to remain positive and optimistic in every situation however, a unit where the senior leadership is not present/involved creates an environment where the mid-level leadership can start to go rogue. There was a great book written on a subject that is worth a read "Black Hearts". This is where there was leadership failure which led to a platoon basically going rogue - this is the Platoon PFC Green was assigned to, he was one of the Soldier that was found guilty of raping and killing the 14 year-old girl in Mahmudiyah, Iraq...not to be morbid but the book is a good read to exhibit how a lack of leadership presence (and standards) sets the conditions where some mid/senior leadership stop living by/enforcing standards....so my point is this: either this is an anomaly (these leaders don't maintain presence/don't care) or these leaders are showing standards in front of seniors and doing their own thing when the senior leaders are not around.
1. This is not typical performance across the spectrum of the military
2. I am seeing standards held and enforced in my presence and leaders are doing their own thing when they are not being supervised.
I try to remain positive and optimistic in every situation however, a unit where the senior leadership is not present/involved creates an environment where the mid-level leadership can start to go rogue. There was a great book written on a subject that is worth a read "Black Hearts". This is where there was leadership failure which led to a platoon basically going rogue - this is the Platoon PFC Green was assigned to, he was one of the Soldier that was found guilty of raping and killing the 14 year-old girl in Mahmudiyah, Iraq...not to be morbid but the book is a good read to exhibit how a lack of leadership presence (and standards) sets the conditions where some mid/senior leadership stop living by/enforcing standards....so my point is this: either this is an anomaly (these leaders don't maintain presence/don't care) or these leaders are showing standards in front of seniors and doing their own thing when the senior leaders are not around.
(11)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
MSG(P) (Join to see) I upvoted all your comments, and I commend you for being the bearer of the standard and for enforcing it.
I just want to also add a note regarding your last comment that "small concessions we are making are contributing to huge disparities in discipline." That would imply that the same individual who wears the wrong socks to PT is more likely to be the same individual who will lose discipline in combat, or that it would be the same individual that can't be counted on by his peers to properly pack/prepare or in general do the key parts of their job right.
I would just add that there are many who may not tuck their shirts in all the time, but are still some of the best Soldiers in the Army when it comes to performing their MOS, their bravery under fire, and their selfless service. To clarify, I am NOT saying that the standards are not important... I just hope you don't assume that because somebody's boots are unbloused that it means they are a poor performing Soldier or contributing to a "huge disparity in discipline." By itself, it only means that their boots are unbloused.
I'm just recommending a more balanced view to consider, not to change anything you are already doing.
I just want to also add a note regarding your last comment that "small concessions we are making are contributing to huge disparities in discipline." That would imply that the same individual who wears the wrong socks to PT is more likely to be the same individual who will lose discipline in combat, or that it would be the same individual that can't be counted on by his peers to properly pack/prepare or in general do the key parts of their job right.
I would just add that there are many who may not tuck their shirts in all the time, but are still some of the best Soldiers in the Army when it comes to performing their MOS, their bravery under fire, and their selfless service. To clarify, I am NOT saying that the standards are not important... I just hope you don't assume that because somebody's boots are unbloused that it means they are a poor performing Soldier or contributing to a "huge disparity in discipline." By itself, it only means that their boots are unbloused.
I'm just recommending a more balanced view to consider, not to change anything you are already doing.
(5)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
Roger Sir. I do hear and agree with you. What I meant more specifically is that if we as LEADERS make these small concessions in standards it leads to larger disciplinary issues with our troops plural. This is meant toward the leaders not the soldiers. If we start allowing soldiers these small infractions without corrections, when it comes time to enforce larger ones, we haven't established the necessary discipline across the board and so are unheeded or seen as non-mandatory. Other soldiers have seen we don't enforce those standards so why should they follow other expected standards. The soldier who makes the mistake of wearing black socks in PTs may be a great soldier and just made a mistake, but if I don't address that then different soldiers may see that as a permissive environment to not follow some other standard and so on! It starts as PT socks. Then unbloused pants or cuffed sleeves. Then it's showing up unshaven. Next thing you know we are getting attitude because we are trying to order someone to shave when we have no pattern of behavior establishing credibility or consistency. That attitude problem just festers and gets worse etc. each time we try correcting a problem.... See where I am going with this? The LARGE and nearly SOLE reason for traditions of drill and ceremony (other than movement during battle), uniform standards and polishing boots is to instill SELF DISCIPLINE. This in turn facilitated accepting discipline by leadership. Basically what I am getting at here is small concessions by leadership leads to disparities in discipline in the ranks. Not necessarily the soldier corrected.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSG(P) (Join to see) hey rock on for enforcing the standard, but my observation is that in the GP forces way too much time is wasted on zipped fleece jackets, properly worn head gear and reflective PT belts. Yet not enough time on actual capability development. Do I really care that everyone has the same boots, and sets up their gear the same and looks nice in formation? Hell no, I just want combat power when and where it is needed. However dudes accomplish that goal is up to them.
(1)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
Agreed Sir. I am using one or two examples of what I consider a larger disciplinary issue when it comes to standards. It's not just the uniform but physical readiness. Attitude. Esprit d'corps. Etc. While accomplishing the mission is paramount, we learned in Afghanistan early on about Joe running around with beards and no blouses and sleeveless t-shirts. How many more insurgents did we create by just the simplest infractions? As I said, what may seem trivial at first causes larger issues further on.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
MSG(P) (Join to see) Keep fighting the good fight NCO. I never minded being corrected as a Soldier, NCO, or SNCO. It is what we do. We (you now as I am retired) are the standard bearer. You did the right thing. The only way to create change is to do what is right, as you have done.
That said, the Army I retired from did not have many occurrences, in my experience, of blatant acts of this nature. There are always exceptions. But from where I sit, an NCO or SNCO who is corrected in a professional manner should be grateful. I spot corrected a Colonel pertaining to his nametape and his US Army being reversed. He made the change and thanked me, relating he dressed quickly and made an error and was glad it was caught before he met with the Division Commander.
The NCO Creed starts with "No one is more professional than I..." Keep being professional and bearing our standard.
That said, the Army I retired from did not have many occurrences, in my experience, of blatant acts of this nature. There are always exceptions. But from where I sit, an NCO or SNCO who is corrected in a professional manner should be grateful. I spot corrected a Colonel pertaining to his nametape and his US Army being reversed. He made the change and thanked me, relating he dressed quickly and made an error and was glad it was caught before he met with the Division Commander.
The NCO Creed starts with "No one is more professional than I..." Keep being professional and bearing our standard.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Excellent post, MSG(P) (Join to see). I can't add much (or anything) to what CSM Michael J. Uhlig and SFC John Gates wrote. I will say that you're absolutely right. Standards are standards and they're for everyone, not just the lower ranks.
There's a story (I assume it's true) about a young Army guard at a check point somewhere in CONUS. His instructions were to allow ONLY the personnel on a list he was provided to enter the area he was guarding. Up pulled a GO's car, and the guard stopped it. The GO was not on the list, so the guard refused the GO entry into the area. The GO protested, but the guard stood his ground. The end of the story was that the guard was commended (by the GO, I think) once all the facts were known and the GO understood that the guard was following orders and had the intestinal fortitude to refuse a GO entry into the area.
It may be an urban legend, but it's a good story even if it is. Standards are for everyone, all ranks.
There's a story (I assume it's true) about a young Army guard at a check point somewhere in CONUS. His instructions were to allow ONLY the personnel on a list he was provided to enter the area he was guarding. Up pulled a GO's car, and the guard stopped it. The GO was not on the list, so the guard refused the GO entry into the area. The GO protested, but the guard stood his ground. The end of the story was that the guard was commended (by the GO, I think) once all the facts were known and the GO understood that the guard was following orders and had the intestinal fortitude to refuse a GO entry into the area.
It may be an urban legend, but it's a good story even if it is. Standards are for everyone, all ranks.
(3)
(0)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
Sir, that scenario sounds very familiar - specifically Lifeline 1996 where we drove from Fort Hood to Beaumont, TX to practice loading the ships in preparation for deploying....while in the Beaumont area, we went to the field and that exact scenario played out. The rest of the story was that one of our guys was in an LP/OP and was stung repeatedly by scorpions and started going into shock...an ambulance was called and the guard also refused entry because the SOG did not communicate the emergency. The (injured) Soldier recovered and our SOG/guard force and entire unit learned a lesson in understanding the Common Operating Picture and maintaining situational awareness.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google