Posted on Jan 22, 2015
Is the Active Component of the military becoming a less forgiving place?
3.78K
36
23
2
2
0
This question is open ended on purpose.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
9
9
0
Less forgiving? I don't think so. Depends on the situation. You obviously have an opinion but did not state it. So let me delve into the subtext beyond the broad intro. The Army is moving to a peacetime training mission. The same one that created an Army capable of adapting and kicking the hell out of two or more insurgencies simultaneously while maintaining multiple other requirements throughout the globe. That kind of training requires discipline and rigor that has been lost in the ARFORGEN - fill you up when you need to be - Army where resources and time were unconstrained. We flew loose and low, buying everything off of the shelf to create equipment solutions to training problems. Now we have to create training solutions to training problems. That requires us to knuckle up and be honest with ourselves. Are we ready? Tonight? The draw down (not self imposed) during this period also places a requirement to identify our best for retention. Not everyone gets to stay because they just squeak by. Waiting for a "better deal" on your reenlistment may mean that it closes and you never get to reenlist at all. We now have to maintain an Army without the benefit of billions of dollars and unconstrained resources. In order to do this, we have to transition...wisely...with the right people and the right training. Less forgiving? No. Better manned and better trained. That means average is now below average.
(9)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir, I do have an opinion but I find listening to others is sometimes better than talking. I decided to voluntarily separate after the wars began to draw down; so I don't feel qualified to speak on the Active Component. I keep in touch with some of those who motor on but I am hearing about increased stress levels.
I am not one of the disgruntled guys who got a pink slip. This post is for those forced out and for those staying. My primary goal is to get a pulse of moral of those who will continue in the Active Component. Since, I like volunteering during times of war, I want to know the disposition of those I might see on the battlefield.
As for saying that the Army kept it's best that is a self-gratifying and narcissistic comment. It implies that everyone that left was inferior. I don't think you meant it that way, as it is one of the Army's talking points to sell poorly timed downsizing.
I do agree there is mediocrity that needs to be culled. I also notice toward the end of my Active Service that competency across the service had declined. I agree rigor is needed to restore the Army.
Respect for command and discipline had also declined. For example, we would get an order there was always a couple of officer (peers) who would stand around in a circle and question that order if they didn't like it. I had no problem with questioning the reasoning behind something because critical thinking is a skill. However, when criticism comes in the way of execution that is disobedience for disobedience sake. Worse is when subordinate officers do not voice concern to their superior but instead voice those concerns behind the leaders back sowing discontent. I feared these individuals would become future toxic leaders. In a hierarchical system if you can't follow, you can't lead. So cutting people will hopefully get everyones attention and remind them that their superiors can hold them accountable. Sir
I am not one of the disgruntled guys who got a pink slip. This post is for those forced out and for those staying. My primary goal is to get a pulse of moral of those who will continue in the Active Component. Since, I like volunteering during times of war, I want to know the disposition of those I might see on the battlefield.
As for saying that the Army kept it's best that is a self-gratifying and narcissistic comment. It implies that everyone that left was inferior. I don't think you meant it that way, as it is one of the Army's talking points to sell poorly timed downsizing.
I do agree there is mediocrity that needs to be culled. I also notice toward the end of my Active Service that competency across the service had declined. I agree rigor is needed to restore the Army.
Respect for command and discipline had also declined. For example, we would get an order there was always a couple of officer (peers) who would stand around in a circle and question that order if they didn't like it. I had no problem with questioning the reasoning behind something because critical thinking is a skill. However, when criticism comes in the way of execution that is disobedience for disobedience sake. Worse is when subordinate officers do not voice concern to their superior but instead voice those concerns behind the leaders back sowing discontent. I feared these individuals would become future toxic leaders. In a hierarchical system if you can't follow, you can't lead. So cutting people will hopefully get everyones attention and remind them that their superiors can hold them accountable. Sir
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
You are correct sir. The regulations have not changed, they are being rediscovered, brushed off, and are being enforced more than during the last 14 years. For example, the regulation about failing two consecutive record APFTs-- many new Soldiers are thinking this is a new rule, but it has been in the regs for years. Fail two record APFTs and you can be chaptered. Same thing with not taking a record APFT within a year without good reason-- you can be chaptered. I was tasked to look that one up personally when it was discovered that some personnel had not taken required APFTs in some cases two or three years.
So it's not that the Army is getting less forgiving, it's that more leaders are rediscovering existing regulations and enforcing the standard.
So it's not that the Army is getting less forgiving, it's that more leaders are rediscovering existing regulations and enforcing the standard.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG(P) (Join to see) I am glad to here APFT across the Army is now being enforced. I am preparing for APFT myself. I ran this morning. As Small Group Instructor, we would have several students in each of the Active Duty Captain's Career Course classes fail. Went I helped rewrite the Reserve Componenet Captain's Career Career Course I ensured the APFT was written back into the course requirements. I was at every APFT for the Guard/Reserve and not one RC student failed the final test. Which lead me to question what are some Active units doing? When on the rare occasion a Guard student failed the diagnostic test, they fixed themselves and passed the record test. However, many of the Active students that failed the diagnostic acted as we just made up this APFT requirement. We have standards for a reason.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
SPC Mayhew:
You are correct. Right before I went to WLC, I was told at 1530 that I would be taking a record APFT (for WLC attendance) the following morning at 0600. It wasn't my best showing, but I still scored in the 250+ range.
Soldiers should maintain that "fit to fight" standard, and not have to train for a APFT.
You are correct. Right before I went to WLC, I was told at 1530 that I would be taking a record APFT (for WLC attendance) the following morning at 0600. It wasn't my best showing, but I still scored in the 250+ range.
Soldiers should maintain that "fit to fight" standard, and not have to train for a APFT.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The military operates much in the same way as the rest of society. As missions and resources change, the requirements for the workforce changes with them. There has to be some system in pace for ramping up or downsizing, as the situation dictates. While some may see this as unfair, it is just a fact of life.
Typically, the method used to downsize is based on a review of personnel records to determine who best meets the standards and requirements of the organization. That may be based on qualifications and experience, disciplinary matters, and a whole multitude of other things. Once that criteria has been set, people are identified for retention and for discharge.
Is it fair or just to select an E-7 for discharge who had a DUI in his record from 10 years ago and that is the only derogatory thing in his record? That's very hard to answer, however, if, compared to everyone else he is being evaluated against, he is the only one that has a black mark in his record, that is what happens. Remember, the boards that make the selections deal with records, not people. They don't know SFC X from SFC Y. They don't know that SFC X with the DUI is overall a much better NCO than SFC Y without the DUI. That is particularly true when the NCOERs and OERs are so inflated as to make it difficult to use them to differentiate people, although changes over the past few years have made that situation better.
I have been in situations as a commander where I would have traded several NCOs for one who had been selected for discharge. Again, that goes back to the fact that I was dealing with real people and not just records.
I guess a solution could be that, if the Army needed to downsize by X number of NCOs and officers, they could allocate that number out to the field and allow local commanders to select who stays and who goes. For example, as a brigade commander, if I had 100 E-6 and had an allocation of 2 to discharge, I get to pick the 2. Would that make it fair? It would put the personal knowledge about the individual into it (if not a thorough knowledge of the individual's history). Or, maybe a combination of the two, where a commander is told to choose between several in his/her command (selected by a board) for discharge. I don't think that would ever happen, nor do I really think it should.
No system of downsizing is ever going to be completely fair or popular. The system we have is more fair, in my opinion, than a lottery system, for example, where folks are selected for discharge by simply pulling their names from a hat or letting a computer make random selections.
Downsizing sucks and, to respond to the original question, yes, because of downsizing and the necessity to cull the force, the Army is less forgiving. As someone stated, it is almost to the point of being a zero-defect situation. Not saying that is a good thing, but it is inevitable.
Typically, the method used to downsize is based on a review of personnel records to determine who best meets the standards and requirements of the organization. That may be based on qualifications and experience, disciplinary matters, and a whole multitude of other things. Once that criteria has been set, people are identified for retention and for discharge.
Is it fair or just to select an E-7 for discharge who had a DUI in his record from 10 years ago and that is the only derogatory thing in his record? That's very hard to answer, however, if, compared to everyone else he is being evaluated against, he is the only one that has a black mark in his record, that is what happens. Remember, the boards that make the selections deal with records, not people. They don't know SFC X from SFC Y. They don't know that SFC X with the DUI is overall a much better NCO than SFC Y without the DUI. That is particularly true when the NCOERs and OERs are so inflated as to make it difficult to use them to differentiate people, although changes over the past few years have made that situation better.
I have been in situations as a commander where I would have traded several NCOs for one who had been selected for discharge. Again, that goes back to the fact that I was dealing with real people and not just records.
I guess a solution could be that, if the Army needed to downsize by X number of NCOs and officers, they could allocate that number out to the field and allow local commanders to select who stays and who goes. For example, as a brigade commander, if I had 100 E-6 and had an allocation of 2 to discharge, I get to pick the 2. Would that make it fair? It would put the personal knowledge about the individual into it (if not a thorough knowledge of the individual's history). Or, maybe a combination of the two, where a commander is told to choose between several in his/her command (selected by a board) for discharge. I don't think that would ever happen, nor do I really think it should.
No system of downsizing is ever going to be completely fair or popular. The system we have is more fair, in my opinion, than a lottery system, for example, where folks are selected for discharge by simply pulling their names from a hat or letting a computer make random selections.
Downsizing sucks and, to respond to the original question, yes, because of downsizing and the necessity to cull the force, the Army is less forgiving. As someone stated, it is almost to the point of being a zero-defect situation. Not saying that is a good thing, but it is inevitable.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir,
While I agree with you on the way that we are downsizing some of the NCO corps I believe that issuing/allocating those cuts to local BN or BDE Commanders could then set up favoritism. There have been plenty of good and bad NCOs that I have known in my career so far, as well as officers. A lot of these bad NCOs were saddled up to the CSM or the Operations Sergeant Major, and thereby being the boy of the CSM or OPS SGM got people moved forward. I fear that if we went to your system that we could have that on a much larger scale, people fighting for their turds instead of looking at it holistically.
While I agree with you on the way that we are downsizing some of the NCO corps I believe that issuing/allocating those cuts to local BN or BDE Commanders could then set up favoritism. There have been plenty of good and bad NCOs that I have known in my career so far, as well as officers. A lot of these bad NCOs were saddled up to the CSM or the Operations Sergeant Major, and thereby being the boy of the CSM or OPS SGM got people moved forward. I fear that if we went to your system that we could have that on a much larger scale, people fighting for their turds instead of looking at it holistically.
(2)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ Guy, I agree with you. If you re-read my comments, you will see that I was just mentioning possible options, but clearly stated "I don't think that would ever happen, nor do I really think it should".
MAJ Guy, I agree with you. If you re-read my comments, you will see that I was just mentioning possible options, but clearly stated "I don't think that would ever happen, nor do I really think it should".
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir,
I was just trying to expand upon your original comment and put my perspective of why your never happen/never should idea shouldn't happen from my perspective.
I was just trying to expand upon your original comment and put my perspective of why your never happen/never should idea shouldn't happen from my perspective.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Isn't it right for all components to become less forgiving now that we are in the midst of a draw down?
For plenty of years we had to fight just to keep everyone in. Fail a drug test, ok. Fail multiple PT Test, ok. Get a DUI, ok. Have a domestic violence case, ok. Just show up as a warm body, ok. Etc, etc.
We need to get away from the mentality that the military owes us, or our soldiers, something because we volunteered, other than the ability to reach the end of our current commitment with faithful service from both the individual and the service and an award and handshake thanking people for their service.
In the end the problems that we have created moving forward with keeping the right people in are because we showed too much sympathy instead of empathy and the right people felt as if we were coddling those that had caused the problems. It is time to tell people the truth, point blank, and to their face.
For plenty of years we had to fight just to keep everyone in. Fail a drug test, ok. Fail multiple PT Test, ok. Get a DUI, ok. Have a domestic violence case, ok. Just show up as a warm body, ok. Etc, etc.
We need to get away from the mentality that the military owes us, or our soldiers, something because we volunteered, other than the ability to reach the end of our current commitment with faithful service from both the individual and the service and an award and handshake thanking people for their service.
In the end the problems that we have created moving forward with keeping the right people in are because we showed too much sympathy instead of empathy and the right people felt as if we were coddling those that had caused the problems. It is time to tell people the truth, point blank, and to their face.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google