Can a corporal in a team leader position have me do corrective action (“smoke” me)? And was I wrong to tell him to eat a bag of dicks?

2LT Ronald Reimer - What did it for me was hard work and dedication, demonstrated leadership abilities which others didn't. I wasn't afraid to face a challenge.

SFC Domingo M. - I’m sure that you were/did. Those who are successful, (like yourself), frequently are. I was trying to point out that those were different times. I wonder if anyone in the past 10 years has gone from E-1 or E-2 to E-5 in 1 year of service. Not in my original MOS, that’s for sure. The promotion points required for advancement were frozen at 998 for 5 years.

2LT Ronald Reimer - I respect your take on this, but just for the sake of it, I just checked and the cut-off score is 450, and I couldn't find any time frame when it was frozen at 998. At least not for 11B MOS.

Everyone keeps talking about RSOs. There were no RSOs in Vietnam, we were on our own and if we screwed up, innocent people died. A battery 4th battalion 42nd field artillery 4th Infantry Division.

1stSgt Michael Shafer - Sorry to disagree, your response shows you to be a hard nosed leader that needs some leadership training. You needed to pull both to the side and have a discussion about the problem and try to fix it, if that didn't work you could give less punishment than an Article 15. Sorry top, you don't have my support.

99 percent of getting someone to do something for you is the approach you take. once you mess that up, it's a lot harder to get them to respect you after that. Respect works both ways! The biggest impact came from a First Sargeant who told our unit : " You don't have to like someone, but you will respect the rank". There is a chain of command for a reason. An old saying that goes a long way and will save you many difficulties: Think before you act or speak.

Maybe I missed something but how can you say the NCO was wrong? All this arrogant SOB told us was a very vague one-sided opinion. New can be anywhere from a day to a year. All we know is what he told an NCO who IS IN CHARGE.

PO2 Mike Vignapiano - do you have any idea how serious it is to fire a mortar round outside the safety fan? I’m talking Article 34 hearings and possible criminal charges. He was wrong for telling the CPL to “eat a bag of dicks” but, he just might have saved everyone in his chain of command.

1SG(P) Dean Mcbride (MPER) (SPHR) - OK 1SG, you have a CPL who was going to fire a mortar round outside the safety fan and a SPC who told that CPL to eat a bag of dicks. Would it be better for the SPC to just shut up and fire that round? That would have resulted in an investigation. Maybe even an Article 34 Hearing and, a few members of the of the COC being relieved. If that round would have landed outside the safety fan, and the SPC stopped that, the CPL would be the one in the hot seat. I would need to see all the data to make that decision.

SFC Michael Peterson One would think that during a "Live Fire" Training Excercise a Safety Officer was present and responsible. Rather than tell the Corporal to "Eat a Bag of Dicks", the Specialist should have brought the problem to the attention of the Safety Officer.

1SG(P) Dean Mcbride (MPER) (SPHR) - Yes, there would be a RSO present. They mostly stick close to the FDC, where the firing data is computed, rather than on the gun line. A dispute on the gun line could be overlooked and, part of the Squad Leader’s job is to verify the correct data gets to the gun. That would be the CPL in this scenario. Otherwise, you would need an RSO at every position. One for the FDC and one for each of the guns.

Before I dropped a round, knowingly into a tube set with incorrect (and unsafe) data, I would walk away.... Straight to the FDC or RSO! I would not quibble with the Squad Leader or engage in a pissing contest. That round goes down range out of the Safety Fan and everyone from FDC to the RSO to the Gun Crew will be on the carpet defending their actions!

Exactly

Sgt (Join to see) I think we have "Beat this Dead Horse to Death" and given the idiot (SPC Gomez) his two minutes of fame! It's hard to understand how a question this stupid can generate the volumne of response it receives!

Some folks, and apparently I'm one of them, have too much time on their hands

Sgt Tim Horton - Immediate, intelligent obedience is not the same thing as blind obedience or instant obedience. Neither of those is desirable in any ground unit. And there is no less need for need for thinking in ground units either. I think the chaos level is much greater in ground combat that in aviation maintenance. And we don't have the luxury of getting all the information before we get about our mission.

There is a reason I chose the words I did. There is a reason I did not choose the words you did. Refusing an aircraft for a weep hole would count as intelligent under the concept of immediate, intelligent obedience. In specific, the pilot's order was most likely not a legal order. Were there extenuating circumstances that you have not revealed that would cause the pilot to reasonably believe the risk to pilot and aircraft would justify his order to violate the NATOPS manual?

Had you followed the pilot's order you would have been in violation of the authority of the flag officer under whose authority the NATOPS manual was issued. You would have been subject to discipline. As far as the officer ordering you to greenlight his aircraft, in a ground unit, he would have been disciplined, first time, for issuing such an order whether you followed that order or not. Second time he'd be cashiered.

I'm not impressed by aviation officers who love to hang around the Marines entrusted to their authority or buying the beer. Ground combat officers are no different. But we are acutely aware that our legal and absolutely correct orders may still result in their death, injury or capture. The majority of pilots only share that relationship with enlisted personnel who are actually members of their crew. Unless things have changed, that pretty much limits it to rotary wing pilots, perhaps fixed wing transport who generally don't face as high a threat as rotary wing crew.

The assertion that "it's different in the wing," may be true, but is it necessary. The comment always carries the undercurrent that pilots have to treat their maintenance personnel better because they don't know what they'll do to the aircraft. If I was an aviation maintenance Marine the whole concept of the different ball game would piss me off. Regardless of whether or not I like and or respect my pilot, he would get the best maintenance I can possibly provide. I believe that is true of 99.999+% of the Marines in aviation maintenance. But redundancy in maintenance is there to catch the 0.001% that are nursing a grudge.

As far as my "not so subtle digs," I've given the same as I've received starting with "Meh," no more, no less. But it was not intended as a dig. During my career, I've been aware of three administrative reductions in rank, all three were Marines from the aviation community, NCO's who transferred to ground combat MOS's. Their repeated failures to demand immediate, intelligent obedience eventually resulted in one or more of the following: security breaches at a strategic weapons facility, damage to serialized government property or injury to personnel. They were reduced, but not the only ones who didn't initially adjust well. They were the ones that didn't learn even after repeated intervention by the SNCO chain to change their perspective.

Sgt (Join to see) little problem here with Cpl Madisons understanding of the RP terms of use.

RAH!

Interesting take. I was Marine Corps hen Air Force. My entire career was helicopter maintenance. The incident that I’m discussing occurred while I was in the Air Force and I was a SSgt (E-5). I had a dent in the side of a tail rotor blade that was out of limits, no repair allowed. I briefed my night guy on the discrepancy and asked him to get things going for a new blade. The next morning as I was crossing the hangar, I noticed a massive blob of bondo covering the dent. My blood pressure started going up, I mean WTF?!?! The night shift supervisor (MSgt E7) saw me looking at the blade and told me he miked the blade and said it was good to go. I uncorked on him. In a nutshell I told him it wasn’t safe and the blade was coming off. His response was a negative; sand it smooth and fly it. My response: if that blade doesn’t get removed, I was going to take a hammer and beat the shit out of it till there was no doubt it was unrepairable. The wasn’t flying and that was it. Period.
After cooling down I apologized. It was unprofessional of me to lose my shit. Apology accepted. He went home. I got a tool box and removed the blade. I removed all the bonds, hade metal shop Mike it and once again it was out of limits. By the end of my shift a new blade was installed and nothing more was said. I was right, he was wrong but I didn’t fall over the precipice and land on my sword, so to speak.

SPC (Join to see) oh, don't worry. If I gave an essay for corrective training, it totally covered what the infraction was, the impact on the unit and what legal ramifications the SM could face.

SFC William Linnell In my day, they always added: ‘One for the Tiger’. (See profile photo).

Sorry 1SG, but I fail to see anything funny about disrespect to an NCO. That kind of crap can get people killed under the right circumstances and should never be tolerated. If the CPL was wrong, take him aside offline with the pertinent references and make your case. No room at all for this kind of garbage. And corrective training in the realm of the physical should NEVER be removed as an on the spot option unless the offender has a valid physical profile in possession.

SSG Ted Strachan sorry SSG, never said disrespect was funny, I even said he could recieve UCMJ. Funny is the comment eat a bag of dicks don't read any further into that!

I agree with SPC Ford. You were in the wrong, and to be honest you're damn lucky you didn't get slapped under UCMJ. What you should have done, at least in my opinion, is talked to him in private and shown him on paper via TM, etc. It's far more professional that way, and you show him both what is right, and that you care enough to do so in a professional manner. That's my .02 on it.