Posted on Sep 17, 2014
Checklist: Necessary or Extra Work to Discourage?
6.26K
53
24
3
3
0
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
Paperwork
Paperwork
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
3
3
0
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...
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) is that not why we have a form? Does the form not already tell you how to fill it out? I just do not see why we cannot just ask for help if we need it or do what I do....Google it!
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
How many times have you gone to someone thinking they'd have the answers only to be told "I don't know" without them even looking away from their cellphone or computer monitor?
It's just a sad reality that people need that structured guide to get things done.
It's just a sad reality that people need that structured guide to get things done.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
I would bet the check list started as "things to gather" document in order to properly fill out the form. Then someone wanted to see the original... that is how this stuff gets started.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I believe if the regulation does not state that the information is required, no one should be requesting the additional information.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SPC Smith….good point, however when there are numerous regulations out there for administrative actions, or military actions in general, a “Checklist” can help keep everyone straight about what the regulation requires, without having to memorize every regulations. The “Checklist” can simply be a consolidated document of the regulatory requirements. If there is something being added, the question needs to be asked why it is being added.
(0)
(0)
SPC Christopher Smith
Sir I do not know your experience in the military, but we as an organization is horrible at keep accountability of paperwork. The more we add to simple task as putting someone in for an award, or sumbitting leave, the more likely we are to have issues with late sumbittions because of lost or misplaced paperwork. If we want to add more to the process it should be added to the original forms and should be reviewed to make sure it does not increase the stress just so people can CTA (cover their ass).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
With everything we are asked to do in the Military, maintain checklist ensure we can accomplish all of our tasks without forgetting anything.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) I just wonder why we need a checklist if the form is only thing required by regulation and it comes with instructions on it.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
That is a good question....from rereading your original question and supporting comments, I would still argue that "Yes" checklists are essential, but there does need to be some common sense to it. Also, I think there is a difference between a checklist and everything you listed as being required.
When I was a BN XO, we had checklists for all of our admin actions, but mainly for keeping the S1 shop straight on what they were required to do. For Awards, ours was not nearly as in-depth as what you described. I think it was merely the 636, ORB/ERB and a cover sheet. Simple checklist, but still something for the Soldiers to use when processing this one personnel action. If you add awards to promotions, financial transactions, leave processing, flags, flag removals, DD93/SGLI updates, they and different requirements for each individual task can become overwhelming, thus requiring the checklist to complete the task. Again, I would say that the requirements you mentioned are far more excessive than what they need to be…..just my opinion.
When I was a BN XO, we had checklists for all of our admin actions, but mainly for keeping the S1 shop straight on what they were required to do. For Awards, ours was not nearly as in-depth as what you described. I think it was merely the 636, ORB/ERB and a cover sheet. Simple checklist, but still something for the Soldiers to use when processing this one personnel action. If you add awards to promotions, financial transactions, leave processing, flags, flag removals, DD93/SGLI updates, they and different requirements for each individual task can become overwhelming, thus requiring the checklist to complete the task. Again, I would say that the requirements you mentioned are far more excessive than what they need to be…..just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGM....agree completely….once it passes from a CDR / 1SG or CDR / CSM, then the “asking” if the award is deserving has been answered. But the eligibility of the award still has to be confirmed. Now, I think the CDR / 1SG should have already done this, but there does need to be a system of checks and balances so that when it comes to your level, your time is not wasted because the SM wasn’t eligible (Flagged, PT, WT, whatever), despite how deserving. If the PAX section is capable of making those checks without a “checklist,” more power to them, however if they can’t, then there needs to be a systems to verify. Make sense?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
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?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) good point....you need weapons scorecard in order to give someone an AAM for scoring a 300 on their APFT?
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Perhaps not for that specific reason but standardizing the requirement across the board is easier than having a different requirement based on the merit for every different award
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG Pete Fleming I lost the checklist to the checklist and you sent version 3.1 not version 3.2, whose only change was to have a new date in the lower lefthand corner.
(1)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
CPT Brian Maurelli, well sir, clearly I didn't check my checklist to see if I checked my message for errors before submission... So if I had, you would realize edition 3.2 is obsolete and 3.3 has not been DOD approved. However, 3.0 is still authorized for use until exhausted.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGT Richard H. then should we add these into the regulations to have the same checklist across the board?
(0)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
LTC (Join to see) My Personal opinion, Sir,....like most things in the Army, I think it could be streamlined and eliminate most screwups and several steps all at once. Maybe a "third option is in order by condensing those steps? Case in point: in a perfect world the checklist alone, signed by a Commander, SHOULD be evidence enough that all the other steps have been completed and/or verified as appropriate.
But then again...I live all alone in my perfect world.
But then again...I live all alone in my perfect world.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google