How do you feel about the Army directing units to place new female Armor and Infantry officers in leadership positions ahead of males?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Sep 2016 22:44:05 -0400

Units are being told to select new female armor and infantry officers for platoon leader positions ahead of their male counterparts who have been waiting for the position.

Not sure if this guidance has extended to the NCO side.

Response by SGT Tim Soyars made Sep 2 at 2016 10:49 PM

SGT Tim Soyars — Fri, 02 Sep 2016 22:49:21 -0400

Sounds like they are being set up for failure.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2016 10:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Sep 2016 22:54:12 -0400

I thought the whole purpose of this was to allow women to have an EQUAL chance as their male peers. Instead this looks like a bad case of "Promote Ahead of Peers".

Response by PFC Teresa Walker made Sep 3 at 2016 12:42 AM

PFC Teresa Walker — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 00:42:51 -0400

I feel like that is morally wrong. It does not shock me though. It's right up there with affirmative action. It seems everybody wants equality and that's a good thing. But what makes one equal if the receive an action to fill a quota and not because they deserve it. That is NOT equality that is privileged. If my society had the moral fiber I think it once had, those women would find out it it was their qualifications, or if they were filling s quota. And TURN DOWN the position. How could their be any honor in your leadership decisions KNOWING that ANYONE who deserved it got bumped to the side to appease a quota?????? I could not take it. It saddens and hurts me to even hear of this!!!

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 12:48 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 00:48:22 -0400

To be totally expected, don't cha know???

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Sep 3 at 2016 1:28 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 01:28:19 -0400

It's normal for this type of action in that priming the pump gets the system through the pain in shorter time. Same happens when they want to find homes for designators who become instantly obsolete (A-6 Bombardiers), overstrength on line officers, etc. So you wind up with some spectacular failures, some getting people needlessly killed, most so-so but life goes on, and spectacular successes. In other words, a new bell curve imposed off center on the old one to create a new normal. So the real question is do you slow go it, fast track, or paced? They tend to go north of paced so the implementing brass can take credit for following orders and stroking the system for their next promotion.

Response by PO2 Kristy Williams made Sep 3 at 2016 1:36 AM

PO2 Kristy Williams — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 01:36:20 -0400

I feel like most of the rest of you. It should be merit based. It should be earned. If I was put in charge knowing I didn't deserve it and someone else could do the job better than me I'd like to think in my heart of hearts if turn the job down and push for the person I knew to be the best leader.

Being too politically correct is as bad as racism. It's creates an unjust system.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 3 at 2016 1:54 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 01:54:46 -0400

PC is a corrosive and corrupting influence. There is no good reason to select leaders on any other than performance basis.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 2:41 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 02:41:52 -0400

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member - Interesting!!! I am reminded of an old Chinese Curse "MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES" . . . Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Sep 3 at 2016 5:54 AM

Capt Michael Greene — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 05:54:54 -0400

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member Source, please? I can't find anything on the 'net about this.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Sep 3 at 2016 11:41 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:41:34 -0400

This article popped up on Google does not say anything about giving women priority placement in leadership positions ahead males. Maybe there is something more out there on just how they are going to place the women.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/276498-army-approves-first-22-women-to-be-ground-combat-officers

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Sep 3 at 2016 1:50 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:39 -0400

I think they should be mentored by the platoon leaders first, than when the platoon leader moves up the ranks, let them move into the slot. Only my opinion.

Response by SFC George Smith made Sep 3 at 2016 2:03 PM

SFC George Smith — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:03:01 -0400

Interesting... How about they go through every phase of training Like every one else and work their way UP... Like every one else...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 3:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:51:31 -0400

If this is true, we will have Women who need more experience being put in Leadership postions because of Female Affirmative Action yet even if they beat the 'good ole boy network' (which does exist) it may endanger both the PL and the platoon's lives.

I am not misogynist being that I am MP enlisted and Officer so seeing females is normal even before the changes. I just think they need to be selected by their experience and potiential not just because they are breathing and female.

There are kick ass females out there and I have worked with them in the past. I just feel sorry for them because if they are in another Desert Shield situation where they have no bath for 2 months and they are at the FLOT wearing the same 2 or 3 uniforms in 120 degree weather, they will have the worst yeast infection and hopefully be mission capable.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 4:00 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 16:00:56 -0400

I would like to see the documentation.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Sep 3 at 2016 4:18 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 16:18:57 -0400

Mr. Verlin, where is the DA Pam from FORSCOM directly this? Just because NBC reports it doesn't mean its so.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 4:25 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 16:25:33 -0400

When our leadership starts viewing us as "Soldiers" and not "Male/Female Soldiers" this crap will stop. Yes, perhaps we can take a more direct look at the gear requirements for both women AND men, as our body structures are different and have changed over the decades. However, placing someone AHEAD of anyone based solely on their gender is ridiculous and the exact opposite of Equal Opportunity. It was like what the Navy was doing in 2012. They were accepting females over males because of the "need". Let's get something straight - there is no NEED for any specific gender in the military - there is only a NEED to fulfill certain billet requirements.. The military should NEVER be about gender - rather about a qualified person fulfilling the role and meeting the requirements for that role..

Response by COL William Oseles made Sep 3 at 2016 4:51 PM

COL William Oseles — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 16:51:05 -0400

The First Female Combat Arms Officers in the Army were in Air Defense back in 1979.
There were two Female LTs in ADAOBC in January that year and a Female Capitan in the ADAOAC later that year. One of the LTs made COL on active duty and another Major in the reserves. The Branch Transfer Capitan ended up as a General.

It is a case where we will see what we see down the road, all the currently serving people can do is /salute and carry on.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 6:52 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:52:50 -0400

It will all be ok. The Sergeants run the military anyway.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Sep 3 at 2016 7:18 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 19:18:09 -0400

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member In my opinion leadership should positions should be based on an Order of Merit list of the best and brightest qualified individuals (not based on female, male, or transgender). The best and brightest that have earned the right to lead through merit, time in grade, time in service, and past accomplishments - my opinion!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2016 8:18 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:18:19 -0400

Who is telling units to do this? And while maybe things are much different today, but way back when LTs didn't wait in other jobs to get a platoon in the combat arms. Platoon leader was the initial job for brand new 2LTs. Then after that the good ones were considered for a second platoon like mortars or recon. And then the 1LTs were made company XOs and asst S3-air and stuff like that.

So this whole story sounds like BS. Especially since the number of female officers who have made it through the pipeline in combat arms is tiny, so what unit would be getting an infux so great that they would need guidance about their jobs? Of course maybe LT assignments in infantry and armor are much different now, but that would seem odd anyway.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Sep 3 at 2016 8:25 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:25:56 -0400

Why am I not surprised. If they were put on the list in order, then no problem. There's nothing equal about this. Just like the story of the Idaho ARNG SFC who just qualified as a M1 tank crew member. No way would she be qualified to take the true SFC position directly from a 16 week qualification course: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/28/boise-woman-is-nation-first-female-tank-crew-member.html

Boise Woman is Nation's First Female Tank Crew Member

A member of the Idaho Army National Guard last week became the nation's first female enlisted soldier to graduate from the U.S. Army's M1 Armor Crewman School.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Sep 3 at 2016 9:34 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Sat, 03 Sep 2016 21:34:31 -0400

I think if the soldier has proven themself as competent,and physically fit,gender doesn't pertain.

Response by SPC Jenna Bisenius made Sep 4 at 2016 3:00 AM

SPC Jenna Bisenius — Sun, 04 Sep 2016 03:00:41 -0400

Reading all your posts, it seems like the majority of us agree -- that this is not the right way to address this. So how did our military come to this brilliant conclusion?? I just don't get it. Makes me wonder if our leadership does not really represent us.

Response by SPC Jenna Bisenius made Sep 4 at 2016 3:23 AM

SPC Jenna Bisenius — Sun, 04 Sep 2016 03:23:39 -0400

But I will say one thing -- Maybe females have a harder time in combat due to not having the same body structures. I was in a co-ed platoon in basic and the men ALWAYS could outrun the females and do push-ups better. But we did better sit-ups. Always. So it may be VERY few women who can come to the physical level of you guys in combat. BUT -- If they so prove worthy, give them a chance. Am soooooooo bloody sick of hearing the "you can't keep yourselves clean" argument. Yeah, we have "innies" and you have "outies" so it is a bit more difficult...yes...but not a show stopper. Yes we CAN go for a couple of weeks without a shower. Or even wet wipes. Will we like it? No. But a damned yeast infection ain't gonna kill us, boys. It's itchy and annoying, but not a damned show stopper. I can still fucking shoot, operate, and be a good battle buddy!

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Sep 4 at 2016 12:47 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:47:08 -0400

Well I certainly feel safer knowing that our leadership cares enough to promote based on a cause and not performance. (SARCASAM)

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Sep 4 at 2016 2:01 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Sun, 04 Sep 2016 14:01:27 -0400

I am against any type of directed discrimination.

Response by PO3 James Carter made Sep 4 at 2016 9:41 PM

PO3 James Carter — Sun, 04 Sep 2016 21:41:30 -0400

Why not do something along the lines of the Starship Troopers military life style..where everyone trains together....just my opinion of course instead of being pc all the time...

Response by SSG Steven Smith made Sep 5 at 2016 10:45 AM

SSG Steven Smith — Mon, 05 Sep 2016 10:45:34 -0400

Without going into great detail and having actual lived into or next to my tank for years I am against female crew members. Additionally nobody should be placed ahead of another person based on their gender. It is absurd.

Response by COL David Turk made Sep 8 at 2016 1:03 PM

COL David Turk — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:03:24 -0400

This is nothing new. Was in Germany in late 70's. Went to an Engineer social function in Hanau. In the process of mingling, meeting my peers in the other EN BDE, met a 1LT (woman) EN officer who commanded a ribbon bridge company. Turns out she received a direct commission to 1LT on entry, and was given the Command one year in service. At that time, it took 2 years to 1LT and then 2.5 years to CPT. If you were good, you could get a company command towards the end of your three year tour (about 2.5 years).
While I understood the need to get woman in EN leadership positions, this did not sit well with me, particularly as a highly rated Regular Army EN officer having to bide my time.
Direct commissioning woman into the service was a popular tool back then. They seemed to get quality individuals.

Response by PVT Mark Brown made Sep 8 at 2016 1:31 PM

PVT Mark Brown — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:31:39 -0400

"....ahead of their male counterparts...." The question, as presented, contains a statement the completely changes the premis being offered. It is one question to be placed ahead of more experience leaders rather than being place in a position of command, even down to the platoon leader. Keep in mind I ETS'd i 1971 and thoday's army bears little if any resembelence to the old army. However, having said all that, if all things were equal I would have no problem with a female office leading if she were truly qualified. It would be a travesty to lower physical qualfcation in order to allow a female squad, platoon or company commander in direct compat. I know when have acted in position of exposure to hostile fire in positions of non-infantry. Properly trained, just as men should be makes this a winner idea. I saw too manny butter bars in Vietnam that had no business in an infantry leadership position - lack of training.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Sep 8 at 2016 1:33 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:33:38 -0400

Not to thrilled to be honest and it has nothing to do with gender. The BC ran an OML for PL slots and the officers had to do their time in staff purgatory (er..developmental positions) until it was their turn. Talk about creating animosity towards someone that may not already exist. Who advises these people nowadays?

Response by PFC Don Palumbo made Sep 8 at 2016 3:07 PM

PFC Don Palumbo — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 15:07:38 -0400

No one should be stepped up unless qualified. Not male, female, color or otherwise. We are running an army not a liberal college campus. The military is the most important thing we have to protect our country. We need the best, certainly not political correctness.

Response by SMSgt Ken Plummer made Sep 8 at 2016 5:18 PM

SMSgt Ken Plummer — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 17:18:09 -0400

If the female officer has filled the required check for that position including the physical fitness requirements they should be considered for position in the same way as their male counterparts. If they want to consider placing them in to that position based only because she is a female, and all things being equal as far as the basic requirements, then no they should not be considered just because of her gender.

Response by PO3 Nichalas Enser made Sep 8 at 2016 6:36 PM

PO3 Nichalas Enser — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 18:36:37 -0400

Not saying that it does not exist, but what entity or who is providing this 'guidance'?

Have not seen or heard anything of the sort.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2016 9:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 21:42:11 -0400

Sounds like a solid EO issue to me. Reversing the discrimination is not the same as providing equal opportunity for all. It does the opposite and creates a hostile environment with the wrong kind of competitiveness.

Response by CWO3 Warren Gaudreau made Sep 9 at 2016 1:33 PM

CWO3 Warren Gaudreau — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 13:33:26 -0400

Just another move to make the POTUS happy. A very bad idea.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 9:43 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:43:30 -0400

If they meet the qualifications, they should be able to lead. Leading troops is one of the greatest honors, I feel only the best should lead regardless of gender.

Response by LTC Robert McKenna made Sep 15 at 2016 12:19 PM

LTC Robert McKenna — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:19:39 -0400

I highly doubt the authenticity of the guidance, as these women haven't completed their BOLC and follow on schools and won't show up at units until spring of 2017. If the Army is putting them in units with such an overage of LT's that there is a significant wait for PL positions, then its HRC and the local units management issue.

Response by LTC Robin P. made Sep 15 at 2016 12:24 PM

LTC Robin P. — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:24:59 -0400

I want an equal opportunity in job competition, and I want my skills to be equally valued with my peers. I DO NOT want to be arbitrarily promoted or placed in a key position just because of my anatomy. That does nothing to garner respect or to affirm my actual qualifications or performance. I would always be the one who "just got the job because she's female." There would always be that doubt.

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Sep 15 at 2016 2:09 PM

CW2 Michael Mullikin — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:09:34 -0400

The same way I feel about selecting members of various minority groups ahead of their colleagues based on anything other than merit—an idea close to insanity. You may recall that at the start of the Civil War many officers were appointed because of their political connections; this produced what some have"50 of the worst military leaders in the history of warfare. This will cause ongoing doubts about whether the new female platoon leader was selected because she finished at the top of her class at the officers' basic course or because she belongs to a poliitically favored sex. Even if she did finish at the top of her class, there will always be the question of whether there was another reason why she was sekected as a leader.

Response by SGM(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2016 4:49 PM

SGM(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:49:38 -0400

Actually it doesn't really matter. No Armor "Louie" I have ever had knows his (no potentially her) ass from a hole in the ground. I only say this on the subject, and it's what I've said about every issue of this nature since it raised it's ugly head. THIS IS ONLY AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN MADE ONE. Throw her ass in the fire, if she walks out she can be "The Mother of Dragons" if she doesn't it'll eat her alive.
Armor Corps is not for everyone, man or woman. Not everyone can do the job, physically or mentally. I have NO PROBLEM with ANY SOLDIER, man or woman, gay straight bi trans, black white yellow or brown, as long as you're in the RIGHT PLACE, at the RIGHT TIME, with the RIGHT ATTITUDE, you DO YOUR DAMN JOB!!!! to the standard and carry your weight, we're good.
You fail at any of that and I'll be on your ass with the thunder and I won't care about your gender race or orientation then either. The 1SG's an Equal Opportunity ass chewer and I will expect nothing less than the excellence demanded in our profession, because that 70 Tons of Death and Mayhem doesn't care who it kills, their gender, race, or orientation.
So wanna command the tank, lead the armored cavalry to glory, come get some. but do what every Lou should, dont' come in to prove yourself, come in to learn, absorb everything, listen, perfect your skills in Armor and Leadership, then you can "PROVE" everyone who doubted you wrong by succeeding where you were told you could not!

"Treat em' Rough!"
1SG Joseph R Lee III
"Thunder 9" (Armor)
HHC, 155th ABCT

Response by LTC Michael Hastings made Sep 16 at 2016 10:57 AM

LTC Michael Hastings — Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:57:06 -0400

It doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks. THIS IS THE AGENDA; get on board or get run over.

What is the 'Agenda'? To 'prove' that XX is better/superior to XY... This is why we're being force-fed a president that is wholly unfit (morally/physically/mentally) to lead our country. It's not about qualifications! It's about ascending to the highest plateau regardless of consequences. The main stream media propaganda machine is completely in the tank for her, and the electoral college has already decided that your vote doesn't count and we WILL have a female president.

Gender barriers in the military were an incredibly easy obstacle to overcome and are simply an irreversible stepping stone to achieving this objective. Shut up and color, DoD; logic, statistics, readiness, and lethality be damned.

Response by SSgt Isidro Galguera made Sep 16 at 2016 6:54 PM

SSgt Isidro Galguera — Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:54:24 -0400

Situations like this one happen in law enforcement too. People that do not deserve a promotion or are paced in a position that they do not deserve (or haven't paid their dues). This sends a wrong message to the young troops that want to promote and go into special details; Why work and study hard if it doesn't make a difference since THEY will pick who they want anyways.....Semper Fi!

Response by CW2 Carl Swanson made Sep 17 at 2016 12:49 PM

CW2 Carl Swanson — Sat, 17 Sep 2016 12:49:58 -0400

I don't really see any difference from puting some young inexperienced 2LT in a platoon leader slot. He doesn't know what he is doing either. How else are they going to learn? Now just throwing an officer into a BN or higher command position without understanding what is going on based on their experience or lack thereof is borderline criminal. If they can do the job, they can do the job.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2016 3:23 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:23:07 -0400

The Army is training Soldiers(men and women) to be infantry and armor leaders. Of course some of the will be platoon leaders. If a woman has performed better than some of their male peers, shouldn't they be selected for leader positions? That's what we a training them to be. For heaven's sake why would we train them to be leaders if we don't let them lead?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2016 3:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Sep 2016 15:28:52 -0400

I won't play the down vote game. But I am calling BS. No female Lieutenants have even graduated from initial infantry or armor basic courses yet.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2016 4:08 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:08:08 -0400

As I've always felt, may the best person lead.

Religion, sex, race is irrelevant.

But forcing the matter is a political statement and morally wrong.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2016 9:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:28:19 -0400

If you want superiors, peers and subordinates to question your abilities have the Army provide special rules for you and rules for others. Each person must earn their position. All leadership positions are a privilege and should be viewed as such. It is not a "right" to lead, you have to earn it every day. HOWEVER, the Army should protect the system from abuse by the "old guard" to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to compete for these coveted leadership positions. I feel that it is unfair to the females that skip over platoon leader positions to become Company Commanders. Each position is a developmental position for the next level of command. To skip a level will lead to having your subordinates and superiors questioning your decisions. Why stop at Company Command and jump right up to Battalion or Brigade command? Because of experience. I wish everyone that wears the green tab the best of luck in their assignment and that they enjoy the challenges of leadership and the joys of command for as long as they can, whatever gender they are.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2016 7:20 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:20:40 -0400

Back in the day, a newly minted armor 2LT's first assignment was as a platoon leader ... with very little, if any, wait time. I can't imagine that it is much different now. There aren't all that many, if any, 2LT non-platoon leader positions in armor ... and none in an armor company. Platoon leader positions weren't "earned" ... they were where a 2LT earned one's spurs ... or washed out. Have things changed that much since I retired?

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 23 at 2016 7:32 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:32:46 -0400

Anytime we move away from our meritocracy, (performance-based promotion) it will cause dissention in the ranks. And it should. Move the best forward. Nothing else matters.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Sep 29 at 2016 8:10 PM

SGT Mary G. — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:10:56 -0400

Ideally, to qualify for the position of armor and infantry platoon leader, gender should be irrelevant.

Dunno how it works, currently, but why not fit new candidates who qualify to be in line for leadership positions (in this case females) into infantry units in the way it is already done?

If I was making the decision it would be performance based first (which includes experience in an infantry unit). . . but when there are a number of individuals who qualify, which makes prioritization by performance difficult, then, all things being equal, seniority would apply.

Perhaps the first issue to consider regarding gender equality for woman who qualify to be in infantry units, would be for women to first have the opportunity to gain experience in infantry units. Then they would have an equal opportunity to vie for performance based selection.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2018 10:15 AM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 May 2018 10:15:18 -0400

I think this is a terrible idea and the Army is breaking it's promise to uphold standards. This lacks integrity and is an insult to the hard work or soldiers and young leaders put in. It's bad for morale and also damages the credibility of the females that are now under scrutiny for unfair advancement. Policies like this are against the Army core values.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2018 9:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 May 2018 21:58:14 -0400

And when we said this would happen we were laughed at..

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2019 7:58 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 19:58:28 -0500

This is against everything we shove down our own throats every quarter. This is a direct violation of EO. This is the vile belly I hate about the Army; we ay one thing and do another for some civilian who doesn’t know what it’s like to deal with these kinds of issues nor do they care as long as they get votes for doing it. This makes me sick.