17
17
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
SGT (Join to see), I served as a detailed inspector general for four years! We learned all about this guy! He’s the founder of the IG business!
LTC Charles Blake SSG Robert Mark Odom LTC Wayne Brandon
LTC Charles Blake SSG Robert Mark Odom LTC Wayne Brandon
(3)
(0)
LTC Wayne Brandon
LTC Stephen C. - Sounds like a cool job. At the time I was a Major I was focused on two MOS's (IN & MP) in order to stay qualified for an 06 slot regardless of which MACOM had an opening and paid little to no attention to any other MOS. Had I known that the I.G. was more than an element to either be feared or revered, depending upon what sort of problem one had, I may have looked closer at that type of opportunity.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
LTC Wayne Brandon, I was trying to get two things done as a detailed IG. Firstly, I wanted to continue to serve without changing branches. Since I was detailed, and the position was branch immaterial, I got my wish. I was also hopeful of getting to know the guys in the head shed better to improve my chances for O-5 command, with O-6 being the ultimate goal. That didn’t work out!
Being an IG definitely had many drawbacks. Everyone thinks you’re out to get them. You’re not! Who’s got time?! Many think it’s a power usurpation position. It’s not. An IG is the eyes, ears, voice and conscience of the commander. The IG simply reports and recommends to the commander. However, the commander doesn’t have to follow those recommendations (unless something’s illegal and the JAG gets involved).
It’s a tenured position (your term is three years). I got special approval to serve four years because I served in two different units. Many think the tenure is because of the supposed power usurpation possibility. I always thought otherwise.
Quite simply, you see the worst of the Army day after day after day. One becomes almost inured to the issues that are presented. The IG must always present a finding, showing the root cause, the Army wanting such a finding to be systemic (like a programming error). In my experience, it was almost ALWAYS people! Here’s a rotten company commander. There’s a rotten platoon sergeant. It never seemed to really change. To me, the reason the position is tenured is for the well being of the detailed IG! It’s simply not healthy to see all those bad things on an indefinite basis!
SGT (Join to see)
Being an IG definitely had many drawbacks. Everyone thinks you’re out to get them. You’re not! Who’s got time?! Many think it’s a power usurpation position. It’s not. An IG is the eyes, ears, voice and conscience of the commander. The IG simply reports and recommends to the commander. However, the commander doesn’t have to follow those recommendations (unless something’s illegal and the JAG gets involved).
It’s a tenured position (your term is three years). I got special approval to serve four years because I served in two different units. Many think the tenure is because of the supposed power usurpation possibility. I always thought otherwise.
Quite simply, you see the worst of the Army day after day after day. One becomes almost inured to the issues that are presented. The IG must always present a finding, showing the root cause, the Army wanting such a finding to be systemic (like a programming error). In my experience, it was almost ALWAYS people! Here’s a rotten company commander. There’s a rotten platoon sergeant. It never seemed to really change. To me, the reason the position is tenured is for the well being of the detailed IG! It’s simply not healthy to see all those bad things on an indefinite basis!
SGT (Join to see)
(2)
(0)
LTC Wayne Brandon
LTC Stephen C. - I can imagine that it could be discouraging because people are nearly always going to be at the center of a problem. From my perspective, the system, while flawed in certain aspects, it is rarely if ever fatally flawed as tactical, doctrinal or administrative issues are normally discovered and corrected quickly.
Personalities and attitudes are a great catalyst for friction in the unit to include petty issues and the fait accompli are problems created by integrating genders into traditionally all-male units. Nothing will screw up a unit faster than fraternization issues and the perception of favoritism or discrimination fostering accusations of wrong-doing either real or perceived with sexual harassment being at the top of the list.
Is that even close to your observation or experience?
Personalities and attitudes are a great catalyst for friction in the unit to include petty issues and the fait accompli are problems created by integrating genders into traditionally all-male units. Nothing will screw up a unit faster than fraternization issues and the perception of favoritism or discrimination fostering accusations of wrong-doing either real or perceived with sexual harassment being at the top of the list.
Is that even close to your observation or experience?
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
Ironically, LTC Wayne Brandon, the issues that I faced as an IG (and even as a company commander) were rarely fraternization issues. The issues I most generally faced revolved around a soldier in a leadership position that wouldn't do their job (getting troops paid, promoted, counseled, etc.). Many times the issue became exacerbated because the bad egg would be left in place and continue bad practices.
With respect to fraternization (and sexual harassment) issues, as I think back, I'm sure they occurred, but were simply brought not before the IG. I think this may be because of when they occurred. I was a detailed IG from JAN89 to SEP94. Much fell by the wayside back then because it not brought before the IG. I had much the same experience as a company commander from NOV82 to NOV85 and 50% of the soldiers in my company were female. I remember no fraternization nor sexual harassment issues being brought before the command or the IG. Again, I think that was very likely a function of timing. Who knows?!
With respect to fraternization (and sexual harassment) issues, as I think back, I'm sure they occurred, but were simply brought not before the IG. I think this may be because of when they occurred. I was a detailed IG from JAN89 to SEP94. Much fell by the wayside back then because it not brought before the IG. I had much the same experience as a company commander from NOV82 to NOV85 and 50% of the soldiers in my company were female. I remember no fraternization nor sexual harassment issues being brought before the command or the IG. Again, I think that was very likely a function of timing. Who knows?!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next