Checklist: Necessary or Extra Work to Discourage?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:04:42 -0400

I have seen over the years more and more things being required in order to process most personnel actions. Checklists are developed and implemented at a moment's notice and if your packet does not have a checklist it is sent back, regardless if it was sitting there for a minute or two years. Is it really necessary to have checklists and ask for additional information?

Example for discussion: S1 requires everyone submit the following for an award (depending on the rank and status of Soldier their requirements change to match the proper forms): checklist, ORB, ERB, 2-1, 2-A, 705, 5500 for those over weight, rubric to demonstrate if the individual qualifies for AAM, ARCOM, or MSM, letter of lateness if it is submitted not within the timeframe laid out by the higher headquarters.

Is there not a place on the 638 that is there for someone who is not the recommender or commanders to sign to state that the individual is not flagged? Then why the extra work? If a person is going to lie on the 638 then would they not also be willing to lie on the other forms or pencil whip an APFT or height/weight? Is there not a place that says previous awards? Then why the extra work? Is there not a place to put the recommend award level? Then why require additional paperwork that anyone can check off to ensure that it appears that the individual deserves that level award? If they truly want anyone to put anyone in for an award do not discourage the junior Soldiers and officers from putting them in due to the "necessity" of paperwork to put someone in to be recognized. And it is this paperwork that created a backlog and then may require a letter of lateness.

Another example: awarding an MOS, why ask for paperwork to demonstrate that the person is not flagged? If they are flagged they should not have been able to go to school, BUT they did and completed the course so they should be given the MOS.

Just my thought that a person should not have to jump through hoops to get something processed if it is not in the regulations.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 17 at 2014 11:09 PM

SGT Richard H. — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:09:40 -0400

I would say that most of these things, especially those developed over time, are the result of someone either screwing it up, or just plain screwing the system in the past. For that, everyone downstream pays the price.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 11:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:18:56 -0400

I think that the checklist was probably implemented because so many people were screwing it up that they needed a black and white guide to get things done properly... which they still screw up...

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Sep 17 at 2014 11:47 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:47:22 -0400

Like everything used in moderation there are ok... However, usually there's a checklist... checklist... for the checklist to ensure that the checklist has everything listed to be checked... and checklist to ensure its been listed.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 8:50 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:50:38 -0400

I think a lot of it is to give the person reviewing the award a snapshot of the Soldier. The 638 only talks about the actions that warranted the award, however if the Soldier has had disciplinary action or has failed a mandatory test of some sort (APFT, Weapons Qual., etc.) then it's necessary. I think your unit's S1 has more requirements than normal as my unit only wants a Soldier's ERB, Weapons Scorecard, and APFT card in addition to the 638.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Sep 18 at 2014 9:24 AM

SFC Stephen P. — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:24:19 -0400

Other: It is intended to compensate for the ineptitude of those processing the actions, but normally fails to do so.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why I would need to submit an E/ORB to my S-1 when they have access to IWS?

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Sep 18 at 2014 11:49 AM

SPC Christopher Smith — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:49:31 -0400

I believe if the regulation does not state that the information is required, no one should be requesting the additional information.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 7:06 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:06:21 -0400

For some tasks, a checklist is very helpful.

Response by Sgt Jennifer Mohler made Sep 19 at 2014 1:44 PM

Sgt Jennifer Mohler — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:44:48 -0400

OK, I voted before I read your post. That sounds like checklist run-a-muck. I much appreciated checklists because they give you a quick look at everything needed and you can check yourself to do your part to ensure your package doesn't get sent back. I would be lost if my S1s didn't give me a checklist.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2014 7:30 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:30:39 -0400

With everything we are asked to do in the Military, maintain checklist ensure we can accomplish all of our tasks without forgetting anything.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Oct 27 at 2014 10:56 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:56:01 -0400

I felt the same sense of frustration and dismay over the years that I served as I watched the "requirements" for a leave packet grow. When I first joined I submitted a DA-31 with a copy of my LES showing my leave days and it went up as is; when I retired, a typical leave packet included: Cover sheet/checklist, DA-31, TRIPs, "Oak Tree Counseling", DUI Contract, map of route if driving, etc. Had become such a pain in the ass to exercise the leave time I had earned...SMFH....