What really grinds your gears concerning double standard that exist in your branch of service or your MOS?

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:15:59 -0400

Standards are something that are written, and enforced however, I hear there are double standards across every branch and across most MOS's. What have you seen that is a double standard or lack of enforcing standards across your branch of service or across your MOS?

Here's a couple that I often hear:

- since combat arms branches will be open to females, why aren't the PT test requirements the same for males and females?

- Officers can give 49% top blocks for the OER but the new NCOER will only allow 24% of NCOs to receive the top block

- UCMJ punishment based on rank

ok.....just a couple examples of what I've heard lately, what grinds your gears concerning double standards?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 6:41 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:41:42 -0400

USAREC - weekly my center commanded sends to the BN a work hour spreadsheet of how many hours each soldier will work. This week we have an event all weekend so the work hours were lower throughout the week to appease the LTC (weds, thurs COB at 1500). However, we work until 1900 or 2000 still with the 1SG as well knowing that a complete lie was sent to a ranking officer. If your gonna work me everyday to the bone give me the credit don't lie!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 11 at 2015 8:26 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:26:19 -0400

E7 and above getting a DUI = slap on the wrist or swept under the rug (I've seen O-6's get DUI's and not get arrested, just turned back over to their command who elected to not do anything about it).

Same offense by E6 and below = NJP with loss of rank and pay plus restriction time, which equals said member most likely not able to reenlist.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 9:58 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:58:41 -0400

For me, it's the inherent nature of the beast that is the Military Police Corps. In most deployment scenarios, an MP Company has two separate and distinctive command chains that they must report and are accountable to.

You have your MP chain of command, who have oversight of your primary mission and responsible for providing you with the essential equipment and personnel support to accomplish this mission. Your proximity to your BN and BDE HQ is irrelevant.

Simultaneously, you are also dropped at a FOB or Base that is within the geographic area in which your Unit will execute it's mission. This is when your relationship with your Battlespace Landowner begins. A Landowner is typically a Combat Arms element (INF, AR, CAV) BDE or BN, contingent upon the geographic size and/or the population density of the given battlespace. Whereas you and your people will be living among these people for a full year, it behooves you to get along. Additionally, they are ultimately responsible and have final say over all activities occurring within their battlespace, so a toxic relationship could make accomplishing your mission a challenge! Just as you owe daily accountability and SI reports to your MP chain, you must also do so with your landowner, just in a different format.

I could go on and on, but ultimately, the Bible says a man is not to serve two masters, but the MP Corps says otherwise!

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 11 at 2015 10:10 AM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:10:21 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig just a few comments.

1. UCMJ first must be understand. As you know, Punishment limits are different for NJP CG and FG for E-1 to E-4, E-5 to E-6, and E-7 and above (all officers). Punishment should be based on the circumstances, the person, and matters of extenuation and mitigation. Even at Courts Martial different ranks are treated differently, as the rules for enlisted Soliders and Officers vary. Officers as an example are dismissed vs. discharged.

2. On the OER vs. NCOER, you are technically correct, but most good senior raters manage their profile at 33% or so ACOM. 49% is the limit, but hard to manage, and not 49% are better than average. Plus we have a new OER coming, to fix this 49% issue.

3. The awards I have heard before, but it is not just rank based... Many times it is unit based. Rank is probably the most noticeable one, however. I have seen many inequities here and perceived inequities, and heard if many more.

4. But, What always grinded my gears, was (as an example) an airman stating they were deployed 5 times (or more) when that meant 15 total months or less, compared to one Army deployment during the surge.... (When the Army was at 15 months, the Marines were at 9 - 12, and the USN was 6 - 9, the USAF had folks on 30, 60, 90 day rotatations.... And for the most the part the only ones who do things hard on a grand scale (ground combat operations) are the Army and Marines. I guess I am also a little jealous.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 10:25 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:25:26 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig Not my case but, getting Flagged for overweight or PT Failure from a 1SG that looks bigger than you and doesn't do PT oftenly, might have an impact in the person flagged. Doesn't justify at all being overweight or the APFT failure but, what would be the consequences of an E-4 and below being flagged against an E-6 and above? Just an example.

Response by SFC Walter Mack made Jun 11 at 2015 12:41 PM

SFC Walter Mack — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:41:32 -0400

The NCOER system will allow 49% top blocks as well, but it's just only one of the first four can be a top block, because otherwise, you'd be at 50%.

I understand many of the double standards, as I believe a certain level of immunity from prosecution should exist amongst senior ranks so that fear is less of an inhibitor to action. I can also see a disparity in general in awards as higher rank often indicates more responsibility and a heavier workload. I don't think we should just blow off a higher award due to rank when indicated by appropriate action though.

That said, the military takes the double standard too far in many cases. For example, if a CPT kills a Soldier while driving drunk at 0300, which actually happened, then there should be a public destruction of the individual. This CPT was also driving drunk on a suspended license as a result of a previous DUI. The officer should not be exempt from being demoted to PV1 and given a BCD or dishonorable discharge. I have heard the argument that the officer's career is over, yadda yadda yadda...

Not good enough. Senior leaders should not be exempt from prosecution in the face of serious criminal misconduct.

Here's what actually happened. There was a small news story, then no evidence of what ever happened to the individual in question. The result is that Soldiers noticed. They felt betrayed by their service and local law enforcement, and we had many good Soldiers leave the Army as a result, not to mention the one that was killed. I can't begin to fathom the reasoning behind this.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 12:58 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:58:50 -0400

Awards based on rank. Some people really don't deserve an msm not to discredit them as a leader or to show disrespect but it seems that once you hit a certain rank and pcs you will automatically get an msm.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 11:54 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:54:36 -0400

Having just returned from SLC, I have seen some truth to the old TRADOC standard vs "regular army" standard. It sure seems to me that TRADOC holds their soldiers and students to standards more consistently then non TRADOC units do. (not I did not say Higher Standards, because the standards are the same, just the way they are held).

Response by SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA made Jun 12 at 2015 12:00 AM

SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:45 -0400

- Reserved parking spots for higher ups. Why? They are no better or deserving than a lowly private.

- When an NCO or an Officer's family member has an issue, they can go take care of it easily. When its a regular joe with a family issue...you can grow old waiting for permission to leave work to take care of it.

- If a junior has some baggage that comes to light, it is considered good for the Army, removing the bad elements, etc. When a Senior does the same and they are punished/removed/separated...it is considered a purge...give me a break.

- When a 27 year old E7 can drive himself to his in-processing appointments because well...he is an E7, yet me a 45 year old E5 have to be driven in a bus because well...I'm an E5.

- We have an SF Group on post, and it grinds me to no end to see them in their half ass uniforms, mix and match gear, hands in pockets, longer hair, sunglasses on top of their headgear, etc. No one bats an eye but heaven forbids a SPC walks in to the shopette without removing headgear immediately, 10 people reminding him at once.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 1:06 AM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:06:55 -0400

The double standard (in a way), but moreso the regulation in the AF that angers me the most is the fact that we are authorized to get tattoos on our hands but are not authorized to get full sleeve tattoos because sleeves look "unprofessional" in uniform. I'd think that having hand tattoos, which can't be concealed in any uniform combination, look much more unprofessional than full sleeves which can easily be covered up by wearing long sleeve blues or not rolling the sleeves of ABUs.