Posted on Aug 6, 2015
Why do some leaders not follow guidance that has been established?
6.36K
68
40
7
7
0
This is a great example of a leader trying to make their own rules and not following established guidance. Also, why is this CSM wearing an airborne tab over his First Army SSI-FWTS (combat patch)? Calling bullshit on that one.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/08/05/csm-contradicts-camo-roll-out-policy-fuels-confusion/31177599/#
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/08/05/csm-contradicts-camo-roll-out-policy-fuels-confusion/31177599/#
Uniforms
Leadership
RallyPoint
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
7
7
0
Number one for all of those talking about the CSM's tab on his combat SSI; it is NOT an Airborne tab, it IS a Mountain tab. Either some of you need new glasses as I do, or you need to take a closer look and not be confused.
Next, before spouting off about what is authorized, etc. learn about the individual, in this case the CSM. And if they have a published biography, check it out first before opening mouth and inserting foot. The CSM while an E-8 and while assigned to A Co 3/187th IN (MTN) in 2003 and 2004.
Next check the history of the unit that said individual was assigned or attached to when they earned their combat recognition. The 86th IBCT (MTN) SSI was only reauthorized in 2006. The authorized SSI of the unit in 2003 and 2004 was the First Army SSI w/Mountain tab.
Finally the question about the Mountain tab has been heavily discussed ever since the 10th Mountain Division was reactivated. Most individuals just do not remember about the VT Army NG and their Mountain Warfare School and unit. This is not the first time that the question has been raised since 2002.
Next, before spouting off about what is authorized, etc. learn about the individual, in this case the CSM. And if they have a published biography, check it out first before opening mouth and inserting foot. The CSM while an E-8 and while assigned to A Co 3/187th IN (MTN) in 2003 and 2004.
Next check the history of the unit that said individual was assigned or attached to when they earned their combat recognition. The 86th IBCT (MTN) SSI was only reauthorized in 2006. The authorized SSI of the unit in 2003 and 2004 was the First Army SSI w/Mountain tab.
Finally the question about the Mountain tab has been heavily discussed ever since the 10th Mountain Division was reactivated. Most individuals just do not remember about the VT Army NG and their Mountain Warfare School and unit. This is not the first time that the question has been raised since 2002.
(7)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
SSG Robert Webster Brother I magnified my screen as far as it can go and cannot tell if it is an Airborne or Mountain Tab. Now as for them to be able to wear it on their uniforms, I do not know if they are authorized or not. I know there is a specific list of units that can wear the Airborne Tab and the last time I checked, the BCT in Alaska, which is Airborne wasn't on it, but they wear it. And thank you for your reply.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Without seeing the actual video, I can only make limited assessments, however there were some key phrases that were quoted:
"A reader watched the video and flagged Army Times, commenting: “The CSM of the Vermont National Guard has outlawed soldiers from wearing the OCP until January, which seems to be in defiance of the SMA's policy and intent.”
A READER said that, not the CSM. The Army Times didn't even say it. They didn't cite their source, they just provided E4 Mafia scuttlebutt info.
When we get deeper, we find:
“I really do not want to see my E1s through E5s rushing out and spending two months drill pay to get this uniform,” Quick told Army Times, saying soldiers might feel compelled to buy them if others did. “I 110 percent support [the SMA]. He said it’s going to take time, we’re going to have mixing and matching of UCP and OCP, and it’s ok. And I agree with him.”
This seems more accurate, and actually goes straight to the horse's mouth so to speak. This actually seems reasonable, and based on my limited interaction with SGM Steve Wettstein, I could see him saying something along the same lines. Or something to the effect of (not to put words in his mouth):
"Guys, don't waste money if you're uniforms are still servicable. You've got plenty of time until the wear out date. Don't rush out and feel you have to swap to the new pattern."
All that said, this seems like the Senior Enlisted Adviser providing clarification, and actually trying to take care of his guys. He's in a drill unit, and he's trying to save his folks money. I have a feeling a handful of troops got the message garbled, and it went from "Don't worry about getting the new pattern immediately" (which is exactly within guidance) to "Don't get the new pattern until next year" (which is outside guidance).
"A reader watched the video and flagged Army Times, commenting: “The CSM of the Vermont National Guard has outlawed soldiers from wearing the OCP until January, which seems to be in defiance of the SMA's policy and intent.”
A READER said that, not the CSM. The Army Times didn't even say it. They didn't cite their source, they just provided E4 Mafia scuttlebutt info.
When we get deeper, we find:
“I really do not want to see my E1s through E5s rushing out and spending two months drill pay to get this uniform,” Quick told Army Times, saying soldiers might feel compelled to buy them if others did. “I 110 percent support [the SMA]. He said it’s going to take time, we’re going to have mixing and matching of UCP and OCP, and it’s ok. And I agree with him.”
This seems more accurate, and actually goes straight to the horse's mouth so to speak. This actually seems reasonable, and based on my limited interaction with SGM Steve Wettstein, I could see him saying something along the same lines. Or something to the effect of (not to put words in his mouth):
"Guys, don't waste money if you're uniforms are still servicable. You've got plenty of time until the wear out date. Don't rush out and feel you have to swap to the new pattern."
All that said, this seems like the Senior Enlisted Adviser providing clarification, and actually trying to take care of his guys. He's in a drill unit, and he's trying to save his folks money. I have a feeling a handful of troops got the message garbled, and it went from "Don't worry about getting the new pattern immediately" (which is exactly within guidance) to "Don't get the new pattern until next year" (which is outside guidance).
(6)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I hear where you are coming from but it was established by Army leadership that unit Chains of Command will not dictate what cammo pattern Soldiers wear. This CSM in the video said that they will refrain from wearing the new pattern. The last time I checked a CSM doesn't make policy they enforce it (or are at least supposed to). And thank you for your reply.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGM Steve Wettstein Right! But did he actually "tell" anyone to refrain, or did he "ask" folks? It's a line that leaders can skirt.
As an example, if I were a Base SGM, and I said the following, would I be breaking guidance?
"Guys, the new pattern is out. I know everyone wants to wear it. We've got other things on our plate right now, and I don't want you burning your drill money on it. I'm not saying you can't go out and get it. Not even saying don't wear it. Just remember that the new folks aren't going to be issued it until 1 Jan, 2016, and the supply chain is going to be better able to support you after that point."
Based on HIS actual quotes, as opposed to what they IMPLIED he said, it's far more likely he "set priorities" than contradicted guidance (if that makes sense).
Edit: Rewarded video, caught the "Will Refrain" as opposed to "Should Refrain" (which is what I thought I heard the first time)
As an example, if I were a Base SGM, and I said the following, would I be breaking guidance?
"Guys, the new pattern is out. I know everyone wants to wear it. We've got other things on our plate right now, and I don't want you burning your drill money on it. I'm not saying you can't go out and get it. Not even saying don't wear it. Just remember that the new folks aren't going to be issued it until 1 Jan, 2016, and the supply chain is going to be better able to support you after that point."
Based on HIS actual quotes, as opposed to what they IMPLIED he said, it's far more likely he "set priorities" than contradicted guidance (if that makes sense).
Edit: Rewarded video, caught the "Will Refrain" as opposed to "Should Refrain" (which is what I thought I heard the first time)
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SCPO David Lockwood nah, I just hate bad reporting, and I have a general distrust for Media & Governments. Notice I don't get into the Airborne patch part, because I just can't speak to that. I don't know enough about it. But all the information is in the article, which I speak to in my own post... But there is some "creative" writing going on there, which borders on lying. The Army Times never says he did this... but they cite "readers" rather than actual sources. It's a trick the media developed with the advent of Social Media to adjust the narrative.
(3)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - You need to watch the video Brother. He said that they will refrain from wearing the new pattern until 1 Jan 2016. That is not his call.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGM Steve Wettstein rewatched it. Heard "should" the first time, caught the "Will Refrain" the second time. Completely changes the message. Concur on all points.
However, still need to know who actually made the call. He's the messenger, not the "originator." Outside his authority as far as I know. That would be the Adj. Gen for Vermont (for the Governor).
However, still need to know who actually made the call. He's the messenger, not the "originator." Outside his authority as far as I know. That would be the Adj. Gen for Vermont (for the Governor).
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google