Are there regulations against driving on public roads with a tactical vehicle and only a military permit?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:48:14 -0500

My friend's NG company is insisting and has forced them to drive a tactical vehicle on a public freeway in the rain with a trailer. They had a TC, but they weren't licensed for the trailer. The driver (my friend) just had a regular mil learners permit. Besides the obvious safety concerns that would have any Commander worried for their position, is there a regulation that strictly states that a SM should not drive off post/off training area with only a permit? The unit keeps insisting they drive on the freeway for hours to gain experience...

The closest I could find is AR 600-55 6-3 section C only pertains to a RESTRICTED permit (what is that? Between standard permit and restricted): "The vehicle or equipment is operated within a controlled driving route (no other vehicle traffic) or training area under the supervision of a licensed driver or operator"

Their motorpool sgt is asking where in the regulations it says this is prohibited. Many people keep saying this is a no-go, but can't find the documentation.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 3 at 2020 8:01 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:01:10 -0500

I don't know the answer, but it seems state regulations apply.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2020 8:24 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:24:04 -0500

Only Limited Permits are restricted to post by my understanding.

d. Limited permits.
(1) Limited vehicle driver or equipment operator permits will be issued only to otherwise qualified drivers or
operators who, because of physical deficiency, occupational status, training limitations, or other reasons, should be
limited to the operation of specific vehicles or equipment, under specific conditions, or within a specific area. Limited
permits will be issued only when necessary. They make limited use of otherwise qualified individuals whose status or
condition precludes issuance of a standard permit. Amputees, combat wounded personnel, prisoners, and prisoners of
war are in this category.
(2) Limited permits will not be issued to cover minor restrictions. For example, they will not be issued to drivers or
operators who have been qualified to drive only one or a few vehicles. They will not be issued to civilian personnel for
the sole reason that they are restricted to administrative or nontactical driving alone, nor will they be issued to
physically handicapped persons when the nature of the handicap is such that it can be corrected or compensated for by
usual means.
(3) The expiration date for Army Limited permits will not exceed one year from the date of issue.
(4) The OF 346 will be stamped or legibly marked on the face of the form with the words “ARMY LIMITED,” and,
in each case, the specific limitation will be stated. Sample remarks for limited permits include—
(a) “Valid only under guard.”
(b) “Limited to post or installation.”

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2020 9:14 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:14:34 -0500

AR 600-55
2–3.Army drivers
The following minimum licensing requirements apply to military operators of AMVs:
a. Driving off the installation. Within the United States or U.S. possessions, operators must have—
(1) A valid OF 346 or DA Form 5984–E.
(2) A valid civilian driver’s license issued by a State (not necessarily the State in which the activity is located), the District of Columbia, or a U.S. possession (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or Guam).

Limited permit is restricted to a military installation.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2020 10:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:32:39 -0500

It's an unlawful order, and he doesn't have to follow it.
Suggest he request to see commander using the open door policy. If someone tries to dissuade him from doing so, he should insist. This takes away commander's plausible deniability. If commander doesn't take action, suggest the IG, and inform commander after the IG contact.
Also encourage the Soldier to get a driver's license as soon as possible.
Soldier should be advised this course of action isn't necessarily retaliation free, even though it should be.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Mar 4 at 2020 12:55 AM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:55:31 -0500

They need a state license.
I additionally qualify that statement for vehicles like Tanks, Goer Fuel Trucks, Cargo Carriers, Strykers, MRAPs etc etc for which only the Army has available for use and for there is no civilian classification but they must be annotated on their OF 346/DA Form 5984–E.
.
I had a commander once refuse to promote an otherwise promotable PFC to SP4 because he refused to take the licensing test. Soldier went to IG and the CO was supported. When the soldier wrote his congressman the JAG informed the Post Commander (congressman's office contacted him per protocol) that my commander was absolutely correct in his denial of the soldier's promotion. That his refusal to qualify himself in a critical skill for his next level of performance was adequate grounds for my COs refusal to promote.
That being said the CO also had the option for UCMJ action. It never got that far once the JAG informed the soldier (with an assistant of the congressman present) that a Bad Conduct Discharge could also be put on the table.
The soldier served his 3 years and ETSed with an Honorable Discharge. I was gone by then but he never made SGT, only SP4.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 4 at 2020 9:24 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 09:24:04 -0500

Ummmm... yeah. Driving on public roads off post require a civilian license... It's not OUR roads to grant someone permission to drive on. It's the states. Driving without a license is a crime.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Mar 4 at 2020 9:30 PM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 21:30:48 -0500

That seems like it would violate the approved risk assessment, assuming a risk assessment was done, and assuming it was submitted for approval. That doesn't sound like something I'd want to be responsible for.