Is it legal for a CSM to refuse to sign a packet for warrant aviation for no reason other than it isn’t what they want?

2020-02-26T22:39:29-05:00

I’m submitting a packet for warrant aviation. My command doesn’t want me to do it bc they want me to PCS to another duty station where we have a segment of our unit. My battalion CSM is refusing to sign my packet (his is the final signature needed) for no reason, other than that it’s inconvenient for them to lose me and they want me to do what they want. Is this legal?

Response by WO1(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2020 10:41 PM

2020-02-26T22:41:48-05:00

Not sure about the legal aspect, but I would probably get in contact with your local Warrant Officer recruiter. I’m sure they’ve dealt with similar situations before.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2020 5:34 AM

2020-02-27T05:34:18-05:00

When faced with similar circumstances, we often wrote "refused to sign" and date. It's up to the Commander to forward your package in accordance with the controlling orders, and it should be forwarded to higher HG for decision. CSM can make things difficult undoubtedly, but not stop the process. When I sat for my WO screening board the SgtMaj asked me why I wanted to leave the SNCO ranks. I noticed his waistline, but told him it was an opportunity. His tactic was to shake me, but I laughed it off. The rest of the board was the BN CO and many LDOs and CWOs. They enjoyed the levity. Army may be different. Good luck.

Response by SFC David Rohe made Feb 27 at 2020 6:26 AM

2020-02-27T06:26:49-05:00

First question; your command doesnt want you to go or just the csm? If it's the latter and your Bn. Co already signed off on it, you dont keed the csm. But how I normally seen it work is the csm makes a recommendation then it goes to the Bn Co. So your csm cannot be the final signature like you stated.

Response by MSG Gary Eckert made Feb 27 at 2020 8:18 AM

2020-02-27T08:18:44-05:00

So there are two places the CSM could insert himself into the application process. The first is the routing of your letter of recommendation to the Bn Commander for signature. Most actions pertaining to enlisted Soldiers require a chop from the CSM. If this is where your packet is, you may be SOL for the near future because that chop is an opinion can he can simply say, he wants to talk to the Cdr before making a recommendation. Interesting though, the packet is required to be administratively reviewed by the CSM and he is required to sign the packet (this is a bit unusual for personal action requests). Since the action is strictly his to make, if he hasn't notified you that there is an administrative error and it has been more than a couple of days since the S1 completed the previous section, using the Bn Commanders open door policy may move your packet along.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Feb 27 at 2020 11:33 AM

2020-02-27T11:33:40-05:00

I was a CSM for years and I can't think of any document that I was the final signature on. I reviewed and commented on all documents that were for the Commanders signature but Commanders are the approval authorities.
One statement you make "it’s inconvenient for them to lose me" that could be a valid reason to make a negative comment as the document passed through the office would be if you held a low density MOS with the unit in, or close to the stop loss window for deployment and no inbound troops. The packet still has to go to the Commander.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2020 1:29 PM

2020-02-27T13:29:50-05:00

The only thing that needs to be signed by the CSM is that cover sheet on your packet. Contact the WO recruiter to see if you can submit without. Him signing the packet is just him saying he verifies all the documents needed to submit the packet are present. The CSM has no say and you do not need his blessing. I would contact IG as a last resort.

Response by CPO Lou Oliver made Feb 27 at 2020 7:01 PM

2020-02-27T19:01:28-05:00

The UCMJ allows for the readdress of wrongs, and what they are doing is wrong.