So I am sitting at the PX at MacGregor Range NM

CSM Michael Poll — Mon, 26 May 2014 10:29:40 -0400

I overhear an Alabama National Guard Soldier talking with an Active Component Soldier about how in her unit they call eachother by their first names, up to the Company Commander... Then I hear the NCO of the AC tell this Soldier that the reserves and NG have "Thier own Rules" I had to step in and ask what he meant and he advised me that he made a correction on a NG Soldier and was repriminded for making the correction. I was livid to say the least, we ar ONE Army.. No special considerations... It is NG units like this one that make a bad name for ALL NG and USAR units. We as NG and USAR alway complain about the AC treating us as substandard. With Units like this, acting the fool, it gives all of us a bad reputation. If you are a NG or Reserve unit, and this is your Standard, please fix yourselves. If you want to be treated as equals, you need to act like a Soldier, and your Unit needs to have discipline!

Response by CPL Charles Gale made May 26 at 2014 11:04 AM

CPL Charles Gale — Mon, 26 May 2014 11:04:56 -0400

Last time I checked the National Guard followed big Army's regulations.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 26 at 2014 11:08 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 26 May 2014 11:08:24 -0400

I agree with your thoughts, CSM. Doing these types of things is a very easy way to get looked down on by other units, especially those on Active Duty. This attitude is also dangerous -- because it creates a culture that looks at standards and regs as open to interpretation. And that can cost lives when you least expect it.

Response by CPL Charles Gale made May 26 at 2014 11:10 AM

CPL Charles Gale — Mon, 26 May 2014 11:10:28 -0400

To take it a step further I know for a fact that the Enlistment Oath for the National Guard and the Army are the same "I will obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Response by CPL Charles Gale made May 26 at 2014 11:22 AM

CPL Charles Gale — Mon, 26 May 2014 11:22:42 -0400

Risking reprimand or not I would always make on the spot corrections. Rank or component does not matter when it comes to following regulations. Please bear in mind that there is always a tactful and respectful way to correct personnel that out rank you.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 12:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 00:35:54 -0400

Completely agree! Don't set your standards low and then wonder why you're not treated as an equal!

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 27 at 2014 1:07 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 27 May 2014 01:07:45 -0400

CSM Poll, You are absolutely correct %110.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 9:19 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 09:19:08 -0400

When I was doing my IMA (Reserves) duty at Fort Sam a few years back, my supervisor, an active duty Major, called those under her by their first names. When she called me by my first name, I politely told her that my first name was "Sergeant First Class". I also told her that my impression of her calling me by my given name, made it appear that we were establishing a relationship that we did not have-that of a personal friendship. I really liked the major, but we were not friends. All I could think about was what would happen when she told someone to do something that they did not want to do it, and how that professional relationship would be damaged as soon as the Major used the term 'insubordination' when the relationship is not extablished upfront. So, no, the first name deal is not limited to the Reserves/National Guard, and in my opinion, it is not professional.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 11:29 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 11:29:53 -0400

This apparent lack of good standards and discipline should likely be faulted to this soldier's chain of command. With experience in all three, I see what good order and discipline can do, and I see when it goes to the wayside. The ARNG tends to draw unit members all from a local community where most grew up with one another from birth. While its easy to say that's the reason to use first names, I challenge all ARNG, USAR and AC troops to correct this when appropriate. While easy in peace time to rationalize around this issue, wait until you ask "Bobby", your 1st squad leader, that you knew from 3rd grade to take that building and he tells you "tom", the platoon sergeant/leader, to go screw. Personal relationships are what makes the guard and reserve unique, but it can lead to a breakdown of the chain of command in combat. Guard against it everyday, correct it every time you witness such behavior and pray you never have to send anyone in harm's way. rltw

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 12:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 12:10:47 -0400

CSM-
I agree with you, not only do they make the USAR and NG look bad but they make they AGR look bad (not saying AGRs don't make themselves look bad). However, I hate going to a new location and my AD counterparts saying stuff to me about using first names and such because it's not what I do. I actually have to constantly remind an AGR counterpart to stop using his first name and calling other by theirs. The only times you will hear me use first names in uniforms is to civilians and it tends to sound like "Mr. Dave or Ms. Cindy".

Response by SFC Stephen P. made May 27 at 2014 7:32 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Tue, 27 May 2014 19:32:14 -0400

While I certainly endorse the the idea of a single standard, the truth is that different rules apply to different components. RA and NG are not bound to abide by USAR regulations, nor USAR and RA to NGRs. Even Army Regulations exhibit selective applicability on the very first page.

If we are to hold all soldiers to the same standard, we need to first have one standard.

Response by SFC Erin Barnett made May 28 at 2014 3:29 PM

SFC Erin Barnett — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:29:59 -0400

Yes and no. This one for me is complicated. The big issue in the National Guard, even more than the Reserve is familiarity. Rank is slow for combat arms and must direct support troops, unless you want to drive hundreds of miles for drill. In my unit we always enforced rank with commissioned officers and senior NCO's, but it was lax from the squad level down.

As for being the same as an AD unit, give the Guard the same equipment and funding before you expect the same quality. We might have been more relaxed in military discipline, but we out preformed every unit we worked with in our mission. With only a few days a month you have to make a choice on what you want to teach and enforce. For my unit it was the mission.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 28 at 2014 3:40 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:40:50 -0400

This is why I dislike the "add to, but not take away" statement. Everyone defines and interprets that phrase differently.

This statement is why our Army is really composed of several hundred different little Armies, each with their own standards. Because they all get to "add to".

It's hard to enforce "the standard" when it only MIGHT be the standard, depending on the whims of local Commanders. Local standards may bear little resemblance to "the standard".

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Jun 5 at 2014 6:40 PM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:40:34 -0400

CSM Poll:

I am in agreement with you, and I will share with you that it amazes me how it is not Chain of Command but networking and connections. I had a SSG utilize her position of authority as a UA talk down to Officers, and Soldiers and she justified this my the command authority that the CDR gave her.

It took me an entire year to adjust this situation.

V/R

CH (CPT) Davis

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 5 at 2014 7:12 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 19:12:09 -0400

CSM Poll, with all due respect, from what I observed in Iraq (05-06) I feel that the NG/USAR stigmatism has pretty much been eliminated, I'm not going to say completely because there are some instances around. I agree, we all wear the same uniform and bleed red, white and blue and abide by one standard - one for all for one.

There are ate up units from all 3 components so its hard for me to accept the premise that the actions of one NG/USAR unit makes the rest of us, "look bad". I've seen some AC units and individuals that needed some tough love, but you won't here me saying that they make all AC units look bad.

If ANY unit is derelict in discipline and leadership, agreed, its up to that CoC to fix it, and quickly. To paraphrase, "We should not be judged by the color of our component, but by the content of our character"

Response by 1SG Robert Branch made Jun 5 at 2014 7:23 PM

1SG Robert Branch — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 19:23:30 -0400

Every person in every unit I was in knew what my last name was(Branch) and my first name was on my sleeve and I would except no less! Of corse I retired in 1970, things was a little different when I went in back in the 40's

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2014 5:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:21:38 -0400

Thank you CSM Poll. I spent 9 years Active, and I had noticed that numerous times. When I would make that correction to other NCOs, they would tell me to worry about my own unit, or check down, not up if they were higher rank than I was. I simply reminded them that customs and courtesies is an AR (law) and not an FM (guideline) and that I was checking down from DA level. When I crossed over into the NG, a soldier asked what my first name was, and got a quite a bit upset when I told him that my first name is Sergeant. His first line approached me later and told me that I was not in Active duty anymore. He got his feeling hurt when, as NCO to NCO, I told him that allowing his subordinates to call him by first name could instill a "buddy buddy" mentality and severely undermine his authority at times. Regardless of component, or branch, the rank structure is there for a reason, and I completely agree that it's posterity should be maintained at all levels. Thank you again.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2014 8:45 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:45:40 -0400

CSM, you caught me with, "I am sitting at the PX at MacGregor Range NM" as I spent 6 months on TDY/TDS at Ft. Bliss/White Sands training two National Guard BCTs train prior to their deployments to Iraq. We used Biggs, Donna Anna, and MacGregor as FOBs and I drove 1,100 miles weekly between them and the training sites as these units prepared for combat.
Addressing your question, for the four years I lived and worked hand in glove with the IDARNG (specifically the 116th CAV BDE) I saw much familiarity, but no unprofessionalism. I learned that sometimes the CPT works for the SSG in their civilian jobs and sometimes there are other connections not visible when in uniform.
Overall I was extremely impressed with the unity and comradre across the several companies and the battalion and brigade staffs I worked with. Occasionally there might be more excessive familiarity than I was comfortable with, specifically with names, but I did not see it impact training. During their mobilization and pre-deployment training, the instances of first names across ranks drastically reduced and I would have been proud to have joined them downrange.

Response by Nicole Thomas made Feb 3 at 2018 2:02 AM

Nicole Thomas — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 02:02:49 -0500

who do I call about a militant grp launchung bimbs in Roswell NM