Article 15 - how would you respond if PVT Snuffy made a good argument for a partially suspended punishment?

MAJ Jeffrey Frankart — Sun, 21 May 2017 22:46:52 -0400

Response by MAJ Jeffrey Frankart made May 21 at 2017 10:53 PM

MAJ Jeffrey Frankart — Sun, 21 May 2017 22:53:13 -0400

Officers and NCOs - let's say you're conducting or participating in PVT Snuffy's Article 15 hearing. He's an overall good soldier, he's owned his mistake, he's taken steps to prevent it from happening again. He then requests part of the punishment be suspended. Is this too presumptuous on his part?
I've seen suspended punishment used very effectively - you don't drop the hammer on a soldier who makes one mistake, but you have that option to vacate the suspension if he does screw up again. I don't think I've ever seen a soldier ASK for it though. What would be your recommendation to the commander if this happened? What would you do if you were the commander based on varying inputs from the squad leader, PSG, 1SG, PL?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2017 11:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 May 2017 23:05:59 -0400

If there is a good reason to suspend part of the punishment then it should be suspended. Just don't suspend it for to long don't want to hold it over there head for that long.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 22 at 2017 6:43 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 22 May 2017 06:43:29 -0400

The proceeding allow him to defend himself. As such, that includes punitive actions against him (like a suspended sentence). He may agree there was a transgression, but disagree regarding the level of punishment. They're two sides of the same coin.

That said, after an NJP, he ALREADY can appeal the punishment based on it being "disproportionate" therefore, why shouldn't he argue it before hand. He is actually making the system better, because "of" you agree, there is less chance of him appealing, extending the process.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made May 22 at 2017 9:10 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 22 May 2017 09:10:36 -0400

If its professional, fact based, devoid of emotion based reasons, accepts the act that got them there but articulates why lessor or no punishment would result in the same modified behavior (which is the goal of NJP)
Why not.....yes, though Id say less of an "argument" and more of a statement of mitigation.
By definitions it is an "argument I get that, but argument implies a back and forth, point, counterpoint..and I would find that inappropriate..
Following "do you have anything to say for your self?
I concise statement fact based, devoid of emotion based reasons, accepts the act that got them there but articulates why lessor or no punishment would result in the same modified behavior would be fine...IMHO

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made May 22 at 2017 9:16 AM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Mon, 22 May 2017 09:16:54 -0400

If it is good then it is worth taking under advisement. Also depends on if sniffy is a repeat art 15 offender. But if it's a first offense then why not.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2017 10:40 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 May 2017 10:40:36 -0400

It's been a very long time, but I seem to remember that after a soldier is found guilty by the CDR the CDR then must ask the soldier if he has any matters of extenuation or mitigation that the CDR should consider prior to deciding the punishment. So that's the spot where a soldier would present a case for reduced or suspended sentence. It's also a time for the CDR to seek input on punishment from the chain of command. So I certainly wouldn't hold it against a soldier who presented matters that supported a suspended sentence. Of course, it's one thing to present thoughtful matters to be considered. It's another to say "come on, sir, do me a solid and I promise not to get in trouble again". ;)

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made May 22 at 2017 10:51 AM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Mon, 22 May 2017 10:51:45 -0400

MAJ Jeffrey Frankart - I would say if this were the first time PVT Snuffy has been in serious trouble, depending on the infraction, a suspended punishment may be appropriate. I've seen heavy punishments destroy otherwise good troops. Everyone gets stupid at least once in their career. Also, I assume here that the PVT is presenting himself/herself in a professional manner, uniform squared away, presenting solid statements devoid of excessive emotion supporting lighter punishment, impeccable customs & courtesies, etc, etc. (The blubbering, crying, and slinging snot everywhere always pissed me off for some reason)

I would also think if the 1SG and/or SGM are on-board with not crucifying the PVT at sunrise, then the suspension is probably the most appropriate route anyway. I would have to see all the facts in evidence to know for sure how I would respond. SGM Erik Marquez and Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS have some excellent points as always.

Also, I hear PVT Snuffy's name a lot in conversation. S/he's either doing some really great things or something is terribly wrong...... ;)

Response by COL John McClellan made May 22 at 2017 2:36 PM

COL John McClellan — Mon, 22 May 2017 14:36:59 -0400

Hear him out, then have him exit and keep the chain-of-command. Then say "What do you think, First Sergeant?" And on down the line. Did it many times.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made May 22 at 2017 4:34 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Mon, 22 May 2017 16:34:33 -0400

What type of Article 15? When I first joined the Army, and Article 15 was a badge of honor, just verified that people make mistakes. The issue is, can you recover from it? In the 70's an Article 15 was given the punishment served and it never left the Post where you received it. That was a good system. I can tell you that if you use NJP as it appears to be now, and you basically ruin a troops career for one mistake, you are making the mistake. Go back 40 years or so, and ask the current Colonels, CSM's and Seniors if they received an article 15, and if they learned from it? I got mine on the 1st day of Basic, After waking up at 0345 leaving the Reception Station, we went to our Company and ran and worked for the remainder of the day and the majority of the night. At 2200, we were given Fire Guard assignments, mine was at 2300 to 2400. I decided not to go to sleep, so I was on Fire Guard, a Turtle Head (Potential Drill Sergeant, who had not gone to school, but was assigned to the Company, but wore a Black Helmet Liner), climbed up the Fire Escape, came up behind me while I was sitting on a Footlocker, and asked me what I was doing, I said, Sitting. I guess that was the wrong answer (As there was no "Sergeant" attached to the statement. He tore into me, said I was sleeping, I was not, he said Sitting was the same as sleeping (I had never heard that before, but hey, I was new). Got an Article 15, $25 fine Extra duty and 2 weeks restriction (We were in Basic and restricted for the 1st 2 weeks). Should that have killed my career? No. Funny in the 70's giving an Article 15 proved the Commander had a grip on the things in his command (I used his because I was in the Infantry, and at that time they were all he's). In the 80's the dialog changed somehow and Article 15's somehow were a measure that you didn't have control. How times change. The Commander asks if there are mitigating circumstances, you should be able to present them

Response by TSgt Tommy Amparano made May 22 at 2017 5:08 PM

TSgt Tommy Amparano — Mon, 22 May 2017 17:08:14 -0400

Don't get hung up on the word argue. Pehaps the word refute would be a better choice of words.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2017 7:46 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 May 2017 07:46:26 -0400

Iv'e always taken an Article 15 with a grain of salt. Growing up in the Army, I saw plenty of 15's get slung at guys, only for them to buckle down with the realization that they did indeed screw the pooch. A lot of them pushed past it and became senior leaders with amazing skills at handling soldier issues. Not to say that an Arty 15 is a prerequisite to being a good leader by any means.

Today, soldiers getting 15's can face the end of a career due to something that probably could have been mitigated with a bit of wall to wall counseling. That is my preferred method, because everyone is young and stupid at some point, and NJP can follow them to sometimes career ending effect later on. Why would I hold something against an excellent 30yr old leader for something he did when he was 18/19?

If he is sincere, presents a logical statement based on facts and reason that a suspended punishment would result in the same behavioral outcome, I believe it would be appropriate. Not to mention that that suspension has the possible effect of being the deciding factor of wether or not a potentially excellent soldier stays in the Army, or pops smoke after his time is done.