Posted on Mar 21, 2014
SFC Unit Supply Specialist
5.62K
13
7
2
2
0
Currently the Army MTOE is slotted for E5s in the Property Book Office. Good idea or bad share your experiences ???
Posted in these groups: Ea15e1cf Supply
Avatar feed
Responses: 4
MAJ Samuel Weber
4
4
0
I think they should. I also think they need to go back to having a Captain (LG or Quartermaster) as the BDE PBO with a Warrant Assistant (similar to the BDE S1). Why we ever went away from have an officer and Sr. NCO in the PBO section is a mystery to me. I think the PBO is one of the most critical positions in the BDE.  
(4)
Comment
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
>1 y
I believe that there should be more shared accountability of property down to the lowest level. As an inexperienced PL/MEDO, I was not too comfortable on the details of my property book, especially with all the different pieces and subcomponents of something like an Aid Station Set. An experienced NCO who has worked with the property over the years should have accountability of it as well. On NCOERs, you constantly see "was accountable for $ million of equipment"...from my experience, they did not actually sign for the equipment, but still had it on the report. I believe in making them earn that bullet point. I currently have me platoon set up to where my PSG, aid stain NCOIC, and I (MEDO/PL) all sign for the equipment have have a shared responsibility for the property. It is then had receipted equally down to the four SLs who hand receipt it down to TLs, then down to the lowest level. It is the best way to develop responsibility in subordinates. 
CW3 Property Book Officer (Pbo)
CW3 (Join to see)
7 y
I agree but with the caveat of both COs as well as WOs being authorized as PBOs at the BDE level. I've served at both BN and BDE as the PBO and I find that some QM Officers understand PB Logistics where others can be blinded by the light. If they brought back allowing them to serve as PBOs then I might not have to explain so much to LTCs that are PHRHs on the PB.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Jose Colon
3
3
0
I'm in favor of having SFCs as PBO NCOICs. Sometimes, with some HR holders, the rank and experience is needed to ensure proper accountability.
(3)
Comment
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
>1 y
I believe that there should be more shared accountability of property down to the lowest level. As an inexperienced PL/MEDO, I was not too comfortable on the details of my property book, especially with all the different pieces and subcomponents of something like an Aid Station Set. An experienced NCO who has worked with the property over the years should have accountability of it as well. On NCOERs, you constantly see "was accountable for $ million of equipment"...from my experience, they did not actually sign for the equipment, but still had it on the report. I believe in making them earn that bullet point. I currently have me platoon set up to where my PSG, aid stain NCOIC, and I (MEDO/PL) all sign for the equipment have have a shared responsibility for the property. It is then had receipted equally down to the four SLs who hand receipt it down to TLs, then down to the lowest level. It is the best way to develop responsibility in subordinates.
Avatar small
SGM Bill Frazer
0
0
0
1. The seniority damn sure helps with an E7. 2. E-7's are not as easily bamboozled or fobbed off. 3. A PO'd E5 is not scary, a PO'd E7 with ties to all the other senior NCO's can cause panic attacks among many.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close