Can anyone help me clarify about the MOVSM time requirement (the AR and the DOD Manual contradict)?

.

I would say that you should include any prep time for leadership roles like a den leader. Also, anything quantifiable will work, maybe you didn't do 500 hours, but maybe you raised 25,000 towards a children's hospital by coordinating a race or other event.

SSG (Join to see) - if you’re looking for a troll, find the nearest mirror. Insert face, open eyes.
If you’re not a big fan of insults, I’d recommend not hurling them. Sometimes though, like you’re currently experiencing, you may get them hurled back. Only more cleverly, and in the case of a disagreement (also just as you’re currently experiencing), more correctly.

Moving right along. You write, “Did I mention my attention to detail?” You have, repeatedly. Again, though, while you may be disgusted to point things out, I’m just as bemused at your lack of comprehension. (And that’s not an insult. Not understanding words and the their nuanced use is a lack of comprehension. An insult would be calling you stupid, which I haven’t done. If I have, please cite me. Don’t forget MLA format).

Allow me to explain. We both quoted 1348.33v2. To save space, I won’t do so again. (Unless it becomes necessary). You wrote about the two awarding mandates in that document between the POW and MOVSM,
“e. Procedures.
(1) Each Military Department will prescribe appropriate regulations for administrative processing, awarding, and wearing of the POW Medal, ribbon, and appurtenances, which comply with pertinent laws, E.O.s, federal regulations, and the policies and procedures outlined in this volume.“

Because it almost exactly matches this portion of the MOVSM order:

1348.33v2 4.13.e (1):
e. Procedures.
(1) Each award authority will establish procedures to ensure compliance with MOVSM
policy as required. Such procedures will comply with pertinent laws, E.O.s, federal regulations, and the policies and procedures outlined in this volume.”

The controlling word there is ‘almost’. Attention to detail. It’ll get you every time. The difference is that they DO NOT match for a reason. If you look back to the post I stuck the pages together, about the POW medal, I also added the part about each services specific regulations. The important detail in these two clauses not matching, though, is as follows. The MOVSM, 1348.33v2, just like you cited, only authorizes the services to establish procedures to ensure compliance with MOVSM policy (as written in 1348.33v2). In other words, Commanders discretion in accordance with official policy of, it does NOT have to meet minimum of 3 years/500hours.

For the POW, it actually authorizes additional regulations.
“Each Military Department will prescribe appropriate regulations for administrative processing, awarding, and wearing of the POW Medal, ribbon, and appurtenances, which comply with pertinent laws, E.O.s, federal regulations, and the policies and procedures outlined in this volume

Almost is not the same. It’s not the close to the same. It’s not the same league. It’s not the same sport. I’m not disgusted at having to repeatedly point this out. Dismayed, maybe. Disappointed, even. Certainly, a little bewildered, at this point. But, as you’re a self repudiated stickler for details, please let that detail sink. If 1348.33 wanted the MOVSM to be further regulated (more than commander discretion), it would have authorized further regulation by the services...just like it did for the POW medal.

Moving along still. I do remember when you wrote that if someone approved my award wasn’t an LTC or higher, it was invalid. You obviously forgot that I responded,
“But allow me to correct you on how a 638 works. It’s going to require no less than three signatures. The first will be the recommender, in Part II. (Mine was recommended by my platoon sergeant). Part IV will have Recomendations/approvals/disapprovals from intermediate authorities. In this case, my Company Commander. It will also have, in block 26, approval authority. In this case, ultimately signed by the LTC.”
You never addressed it further. And my dignity is intact. Your ‘out’ is neither required nor requested. I haven’t found it yet, but I will. I have a lot of tuff boxes of paperwork to sift through. But the Battalion commanders policy at the time (as it was his discretion), was that recommendations were at Company Commanders discretion. (Not the exact wording; as I just stated, I don’t have it in front of me currently. Fret not, just like I got a hold of the DoD, I’ll find this piece of paper.

And even though this award wasn’t handed out like candy, I’m afraid my medal-getting days are over. As I’ve stated previously, I’m quite retired. Those previous statements, along with the little green “R” beside my name should have been a dead give away of my retired status, especially to a detail hound like yourself. But again, if you ever want to compare ERBs, let me know. While my chest is far from filled, I just have hunch that I might have a few medals that, despite your lengthy career, are higher in precedence than anything you’ve earned.

Ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the correct, controlling and superseding policy does not justify contradiction of that policy (1348.33v2.). So if you’re an NCO advising the officers in your unit, the guidance should be, “I know the wording in the AR is a little off, but, there has been issued clearer, superseding guidance from DoD that applies to even the Army. Sir, if you really want to follow the AR, you can still refer to the first sentence of ch.2 in 600-8-22, ‘This chapter explains DOD policies and procedures..’. However, the controlling guidance is clear. Sir, I’d recommend we be correct on this issue, even before big Army gets around to updating the AR, because who knows how long that will take. Sir, right is right, and sometimes the AR can just look a little wrong.”

Now, I haven’t whined about anything. All I’ve done (quite happily, actually) is line by line by line, explain to you what correct looks like. And I’ve gotten back nothing but rations of insults, and incorrect shit. And then you get befuddled when you get smacked down. Seriously though, please don’t drop the BUDs/MIT thing. You wrote that you did, then you wrote that you didn’t. Do I need to get Don Shipley involved?

As I can’t clearly state it any more than I have, I won’t address the MOVSM or the related policies again. That does not mean, though, that I want you to stop responding. I would love to hear more about this attention to detail thing you’ve developed in your substantial career. You don’t need to worry about embarrassing the Guard or the Marines (you AGAIN didn’t answer, are you the Jessop or Lovell III type?) as they usually take care of that themselves. But honestly, you sure are doing a bang up job on yourself right now. (Although at this point, I really don’t think you even realize it, or have have the wherewithal for that level of self reflection.). What were the words I used earlier? Oh yes.. clown show. Again, I’m glad we never deployed together because you’re the type of liability that walks away unscathed but manages to get other people hurt. And before you respond, “well nuh-uh you are!”, I gave you just about every opportunity to compare resumes offline. You didn’t seem interested, and I’m pretty sure i know why. (Hint, it’s not because you were too busy writing an MIT dissertation about your time at BUD/s)

Again, I’m finished with the MOVSM. As I explained it thoroughly, and your replies really don’t logically make sense, I don’t care if you respond or not. That said, as unchallenging as find you, this is entertaining. I genuinely await a response.

SGT (Join to see) -
LOL Anon, does the need for affirmation never stop? I’m willing to say that you have all the highest awards, the exact number to not quite fill your chest and be too gaudy, but they are all very prestigious, whereas I am still waiting for my first certificate.

I guess you’re correct that the MOVSM wasn’t handed out like candy, but only because more MOVSMs were awarded than candy. Also, I've never once mentioned my attention to detail. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the only time I've even used the word “detail” on rallypoint was when I pretended to be you in the last post. Have some self-awareness, man.

If you’re done with the MOVSM I don’t think we have much more to talk about. You’ve already said that 1348.33v2 gives local commands the authority to set a minimum time, so I could point out that whenever 1348.33v2 references an approving authority it isn’t talking about LtCols because 1348.33v2 doesn’t even know if LtCols will be allowed to give this award. I’d then point out that it is instead referring to the Chief of Staff of the Army (or a handful of other people), whom it requires to set MOVSM policy and ensure that the standards are upheld. It doesn’t even give them an option. I’m willing to let this one go, though, because I feel that anyone reading this can discern my incredibly simple argument while being turned off by your attitude. (If you're reading this and you've been confused, just let me know).

I also don’t feel the need to sit here while you scream insults. Am I a Jessop or Lovell III type? Really? I’m the one who is arguing for a higher award standard. Hell, I don’t even wear half the awards I’m given, and you’re comparing me to someone who is accused of faking awards? You’re not even discriminating in your insults, it’s like anything that squirts into your hand gets thrown.
I try and drop as many subjects as possible that don't deal with the MOVSM because they’re all the same pattern: I’ll say something, you won’t understand it, I’ll explain it. You’ll spend the next 4 posts not believing my explanation and repeatedly asking about it. Like how you’re now saying that I went to BUD/S. I already explained that I didn’t. Here, can you find the difference between these two statements?

I went to DLI and graduated.
MIT doctoral work didn’t challenge me.

Do you see the difference? They're both really simple statements, but because I'm talking to someone with comprehension challenges I make sure to spell them out in the following paragraph: Both are statements of fact. The second compares my lack of study at MIT to your lack of challenge with Rallypoint, as both are due to lack of effort.

Other times I'll drop them because you’ll accidentally agree with me while you’re proving me wrong, so I’ll just let it go For example: you’ll say that the Bn Commander just left it up to the Company Commanders discretion. I’ll respond that there better be a LtCols signature on your MOVSM award, or it isn’t valid. You will then give a helpful class on the 638 before responding that there is a LtCols signature as the approving authority. I’ll drop it because what else is there to say? The LtCol didn’t just leave it up to the Company Commander, which is why his signature is on the award. You came to the right conclusion and there was nothing more to add. In the past when I've pointed out that you agreed with me, you generally try and find a way to say that you totally didn't agree with me, so pointing it out destroys common ground rather than creating it. It is best just to drop it and keep that agreement going. I guess I could give you a gold star every time you finally adjust to the correct position, it might speed the process along, but I try and treat you like a grown man.

That’s really where I feel I went wrong in this, I treated you as an equal when you showed you didn't deserve it. It might be because of the whole anonymous thing on the internet, or it may have been because I was new here and I didn’t understand the environment. I should have responded to your insults and fallacies by ignoring you rather than providing you attention. I just always feel that I can improve people. I also like challenges, so I persisted.

In return for you helpfully recommending some classes to me, which I will take at the next convenient opportunity, I will leave you with advice as well: In the future, when you argue, try and cut out some of the fallacies. There are a plethora, but your top two are:

When you state “MOVSM policy is X and I should know, I spent time outside the wire” that’s called an appeal to authority. It is semi-acceptable if the MOVSM is related to time outside the wire, but that isn’t the case here. I can see through this, but it takes time to dig through the trash contained in your argument to discover the point of contention. That is why I just give you this authority and tell you that you spent all the time outside the wire, it simply isn’t pertinent to the discussion and I’m trying to move things along.

The next fallacy you make is the ad hominem. I don’t just mean insults, though there were plenty of those. I mean where you incorporate the insult into your argument, such as saying: “You said that MOVSM policy means Y but your unit is below average and this just shows that.” Again, this shouldn’t convince anyone (sadly, it does work sometimes) but it takes time to overcome this distraction.

So that’s it. I’m fine being done here, and I’ll happily give you the last word.

SSG (Join to see) - “I’ll respond that there better be a LtCols signature on your MOVSM award, or it isn’t valid“. Seriously?

For the third time now, “But allow me to correct you on how a 638 works. It’s going to require no less than three signatures. The first will be the recommender, in Part II. (Mine was recommended by my platoon sergeant). Part IV will have Recomendations/approvals/disapprovals from intermediate authorities. In this case, my Company Commander. It will also have, in block 26, approval authority. In this case, ultimately SIGNED by the LTC.”

As the minimum standard is Commanders discretion, and there is no ‘minimum standard’, I assure you, everything is all well and good.

And I’m not really comparing you to anyone. Again, this is where your glaring lack of reading comprehension is showing. Allow me to explain. A few posts back, you wrote, “I also came from a different background than you, this means I have different values. In this case I’m referring to Marine Corps leadership traits.” And I replied, “I see where you get your values from.” And then made some clever quips about a fake Shitty Marine (Jessop) and a real shitty Marine (Lovell III).
You now complain though, “Hell, I don’t even wear half the awards I’m given, and you’re comparing me to someone who is accused of faking awards?”. You brought up Marine leadership. I brought up two cases (one fictional, one nonfictional) of awful Marine leadership. If anything, I’m saying you’ve displayed awful leadership. I’m not comparing you to a stolen valor type, or a murder cover up type, for that matter. Just an overall poor leadership type. Reading comprehension. I’ll go lighter on the inferences from now.

I’m glad I challenge you. As I’ve stated many times, I find you and this topic less than challenging. Regardless of what you now write, you ratcheted up the condescension. And you got it back better than you gave it. You treated me exactly how I’d expect a 20ish yr E6 to treat someone when he see ‘E5’. It’s ok. I can handle myself.

As for your unit. I said in my experience, it was average yet serviceable. You said you would put it up against any in the military. Until you said there were units you wouldn’t put it up against. And as for anonymity. You imply it’s a bad thing, or I’m somehow hiding from something? My view on RP is that the information speaks for itself. I’m not here to network, or promote my nonprofit, or get a job, etc. The information is more important than you, or me or all of us. If you’re an MI guy, and you really know what my job is, you’ll understand that we tend stick to the shadows. That said, I’ve offered to you multiple times to touch base privately and figure this out. You have declined every time.
Unfortunate. Because the leadership background I come from (which was instilled long before I joined the Army), I DO mean what I say. I’m a straight shooter, if anything.

If this is the last word, and I absolutely hope it isn’t, I’ll end with this. Please explain, as you definitely have not adequately done to this point.
And you previously wrote, “I was surprised because you’re talking to someone who didn’t find BUD/S at all challenging. The PhD program in Mathematics at MIT also didn’t push my limits...”
And yet about BUD/s and MIT, you now write, “Hard to be challenged when you don’t participate.”

Why would you write that BUD/s and MIT weren't challenging if you never participated. That just doesn’t make sense. To write that you didn’t find them challenging implies that you went through them. Writing comprehension goes hand in hand with your reading comprehension.

Seriously? Clown show.

Very best of luck to you.

SSG Duke Allen -
Excellent points, all of them. Generally speaking, if they don't hit that 3 years/500 hour minimum, they should probably be directed to keep at it, they'll get there. I do think the Army award order should state that they can get a letter stating that they have already done 1 year/200 hours of service to take to their next command and continue working toward the award. The Army has the VMIS system, and this may cover that need, I'm not familiar with the system.
The only time when I would try and push it up to higher levels in order to get it approved would be if I was going for a posthumous award and I would do it through my 0-5 Commander, as him and his Sgt Maj would have to do most of the work to get it approved. You are right, you don't want to skip the chain of command.