AR 25-50 Preparing and Managing Correspondence

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Dec 2013 10:24:51 -0500

I was once almost slapped on the face by a superior with a copy of
AR 25-50 Preparing and Managing Correspondence.
Ever since I keep a copy of it and actually enforce it in the
environment I operate but I have been surprised by how much ARs are sometimes dismissed
as mere guidance for commanders. Do you
think this one should be enforced at all levels or should the military draft a “Military
Regulation” shadowing this matter? I
understand written communication will vary, context dependent, but I still
believe it is worth to raise this question.

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 12 at 2013 9:37 PM

SFC James Baber — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:37:02 -0500

This is the bible that many commanders and CSMs use for evaluations, so it is an important AR, I know I had it ingrained into my brain by an old CSM when I was an E5.

Response by CSM Mike Maynard made Dec 14 at 2013 7:08 AM

CSM Mike Maynard — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 07:08:51 -0500

ARs are not "guidance", they are regulations. Now within the regulation, there may be some flexibility for commanders.

Absolutely enforced. I know for me, when reviewing documents, if the formatting/style/organization is standardized, it makes Q/C'ing a document very easy - very similar to how we use the "5-Paragraph OPORD" format for communicating missions.

In addition to AR 25-50, everyone should take the "Action Officer Development Course" - it is actually useful and enhances your "written" communication skills.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2013 4:54 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:54:59 -0500

I am one of those people who will beat someone with AR 25-50. It's a very simple standard, it was updated for clarity this year, and it creates the much talked about uniformity in correspondence.

A lot of command's look at it as simple guidance as evidenced by the nonstandard letterheads (city state 12345-6789); the policy letters with missing headers, page numbers, and dates on pages two and higher; and the indented paragraphs IAW with the standard MS Word uses.
The moment I look at correspondence that wouldn't pass in high school and which ignores AR 25-50, I look at the signature block and lose respect for that person and possibly their organization. If the work you show everyone does not meet intrinsic and Army quality control standards, what about the work you don't show around freely?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2014 12:02 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:02:16 -0500

Witten communication in the military is as important as verbal and is in my opinion an indicator of professionalism.

If I ask someone to write an appointment order, memorandum for record, op-ord, frago or any other form of written communication meant for distribution to senior or subordinate levels within the ranks, it should be done correctly and look sharp.

My former Commander asked me to write a memorandum to attach to a completed sensitive item inventory for submission to the property book office. After reviewing my work he launched the packet across his desk and into my lap saying, "AR 25-50 is the key to (expletive intentionally left out) this mess." Read it, learn it and love it. It will serve you well.

I am now capable of writing pretty much anything for/to anyone and I have never had it launched back at me so I must be doing something right.

Response by SPC Dan Goforth made Feb 26 at 2014 12:57 AM

SPC Dan Goforth — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:57:49 -0500

Really, we need uniformity in communications. We have enough problems with civilians and bad communication. Let's keep that out of the military.