Posted on Jan 28, 2022
Can award recommendation (ACH) for ARCOM/AAM be one single bullet?
10.4K
28
13
3
3
0
I've always had an idea that award recommendation for ARCOM always need to have strong 4 award bullets with impact on BN or BDE if SM is assigned to CO level.
Then I've seen people submitting recommendation for award with achievement (ACH) for ARCOM with just single bullet (Strong one). My inner thought is telling me to kickback the award due to lack of award bullets but I just want to be sure on this. Of course, approving authority of ARCOM goes all the way to BDE CDR and it's his/her authority but I am trying to minimize workload for CMD Teams and to better understand on these award bullets.
Thank you all.
Then I've seen people submitting recommendation for award with achievement (ACH) for ARCOM with just single bullet (Strong one). My inner thought is telling me to kickback the award due to lack of award bullets but I just want to be sure on this. Of course, approving authority of ARCOM goes all the way to BDE CDR and it's his/her authority but I am trying to minimize workload for CMD Teams and to better understand on these award bullets.
Thank you all.
Posted in these groups: 
Awards
Awards
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 6
7
7
0
If you achieve something significant, why do you need four bullets to explain it?
Let's say a person wins the NCO of the Quarter board and is awarded an ARCOM, why would it take four paragraphs to explain that?
Awards for service usually take four paragraphs because you're trying to capture many smaller achievements over a length of time that cumulatively rate an award.
Let's say a person wins the NCO of the Quarter board and is awarded an ARCOM, why would it take four paragraphs to explain that?
Awards for service usually take four paragraphs because you're trying to capture many smaller achievements over a length of time that cumulatively rate an award.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Thank you SFC Boyd! This summarizes all. This was the type of answers I've been looking for. It's not the quantity that matters, it's the quality!
(1)
(0)
If you can justify with quantifiable and qualitative information in just one bullet, then that's all you need for an AAM or ARCOM. It's all going to boil down to what the approving authority will say/want.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
I have in my files a ARCOM with one two-word bullet. "Division SOY."
The only requirement is that the approving authority will sign it.
The only requirement is that the approving authority will sign it.
(4)
(0)
SGM William Everroad
I have one that just says "IMPACT". Given out pre-signed with order number by the BC on the spot.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
An award of any level can be any amount of bullets. The point is to give enough information to get the approval authority to have an understanding of the accomplishment, to make a decision on approval/disapproval/upgrade/downgrade.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is probably going to come off harsher than intended, but the way the awards process is handled is piss poor quite frankly, I would say unit depending but it's a force wide issue.
Multiple bullets are not needed and is just administrative fluff 9 out 10, fluff on a 638 is akin to a lie as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure I pissed off officers and NCO's when I told them that and I will still tell them that. There's what the Soldier actually did, and there's what the chain in between wants to see. Don't get me wrong, a 638 shouldn't look like a window licking hillbilly wrote it, but it should be accurate and to the point.
That said I know the game that is awards, so if it takes fluff to get your guy something they deserve. Fluff it up. If that's what it takes for some obstinate stripe wearer or brass polisher to be happy, do what you have to do to push it through. I have seen the inconsistency and its hilarious that some people try to pretend that there's a standard to awards when it only depends on the approval authority, especially after most units violate the awards reg on a regular basis (rank vs award regardless of merit).
It's good that you want to try and set a 638 up for success, and that's all the intermediate chain should be doing. Not enough bullets or bullet length is not a good reason for a kick back. Are the bullets strong? Is the spelling correct? Does it read well / make sense?
Another thing to consider, is the award for an impactful event or for service. That right there is the biggest tell on how many bullets there should be. If it's for service it will have more because you're going over a length of time and multiple achievements, like an EOT award or PCS award for example. An impact would be one significant event, so only one strong bullet or two good ones should be sufficient.
Additionally, an award recommendation can only be kicked back so much before it can get forced through via open door policy. Which I have seen done where company staff tried to hold it from going to the CO. 1SG got involved and took it to the CO who signed it and it hit battalion the same day, signed off by the BDE CO a week later. I can tell you that NCO caught hell from within the unit, but his troop received the award with no downgrade.
An NCO shouldn't catch any measure of crap for stepping up for their troop over an award. The way awards are looked at in my opinion is wrong. They shouldn't be handed out like candy, but they do not belong to the chain trying to play at bureaucracy, they don't belong to the command that issues them, and they in some measure don't even belong to the Soldier being recognized, they belong to their family who years from now will go through grandads things or look at the shadowbox on the wall and be proud of them, their family member, their Soldier.
No, awards shouldn't be handed out frivolously; but if they are earned whether by service, by merit, or by valor then they should be awarded as expeditiously as possible and rank be damned.
So that's my hefty two-bits on the subject, I hope it works out for you and your guys SGT.
Multiple bullets are not needed and is just administrative fluff 9 out 10, fluff on a 638 is akin to a lie as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure I pissed off officers and NCO's when I told them that and I will still tell them that. There's what the Soldier actually did, and there's what the chain in between wants to see. Don't get me wrong, a 638 shouldn't look like a window licking hillbilly wrote it, but it should be accurate and to the point.
That said I know the game that is awards, so if it takes fluff to get your guy something they deserve. Fluff it up. If that's what it takes for some obstinate stripe wearer or brass polisher to be happy, do what you have to do to push it through. I have seen the inconsistency and its hilarious that some people try to pretend that there's a standard to awards when it only depends on the approval authority, especially after most units violate the awards reg on a regular basis (rank vs award regardless of merit).
It's good that you want to try and set a 638 up for success, and that's all the intermediate chain should be doing. Not enough bullets or bullet length is not a good reason for a kick back. Are the bullets strong? Is the spelling correct? Does it read well / make sense?
Another thing to consider, is the award for an impactful event or for service. That right there is the biggest tell on how many bullets there should be. If it's for service it will have more because you're going over a length of time and multiple achievements, like an EOT award or PCS award for example. An impact would be one significant event, so only one strong bullet or two good ones should be sufficient.
Additionally, an award recommendation can only be kicked back so much before it can get forced through via open door policy. Which I have seen done where company staff tried to hold it from going to the CO. 1SG got involved and took it to the CO who signed it and it hit battalion the same day, signed off by the BDE CO a week later. I can tell you that NCO caught hell from within the unit, but his troop received the award with no downgrade.
An NCO shouldn't catch any measure of crap for stepping up for their troop over an award. The way awards are looked at in my opinion is wrong. They shouldn't be handed out like candy, but they do not belong to the chain trying to play at bureaucracy, they don't belong to the command that issues them, and they in some measure don't even belong to the Soldier being recognized, they belong to their family who years from now will go through grandads things or look at the shadowbox on the wall and be proud of them, their family member, their Soldier.
No, awards shouldn't be handed out frivolously; but if they are earned whether by service, by merit, or by valor then they should be awarded as expeditiously as possible and rank be damned.
So that's my hefty two-bits on the subject, I hope it works out for you and your guys SGT.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
This is a great comment! I agree with majority of things you input here. I just think the award process is in a grey area. I've seen many times when someone puts in for ARCOM then get kick backed with a comment "the bullets doesn't merit ARCOM" but for me those bullets were good. I know there are no right/wrong answers to awards. The purpose is to recognize anyone for their hard work, dedications and services. Those recognizing procedures can end at challenge coins from CDR to Soldiers, 1SG to Soldiers, CSM to Soldiers but they don't give you a promotion point. You even get a promotion point for COA but coins don't. It's painful for me to see an award to get kick backed but I always believe those awards can be downgraded. It's hard to tell NCO/Officers who submitted these awards that it got kick backed but I always recommend rather downgrading. I just want to give a little to hard workers instead of them leaving with "nothing". COA is still better than "nothing".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The standard is in the eye of the approving authority. Some Commanders want content, others will take your word for it. I’d call the S1 OIC and ask what the trend is. From there, you can tailor the award to the content the approving authority is asking for.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google