Posted on Nov 4, 2013
DA 638's should have no administrative data on them. Take rank out of the awards process.
32K
72
30
18
18
0
Too often you hear of individuals awards being downgraded/upgraded/or not even approved because of what rank the person is, who recommended it, or simply who they are. Awards should be approved based solely on what is written in the bullets or the narrative for that individual. If I have a SPC who did the exact same thing as a SFC and submit them both for a BSM how does one get an ARCOM and the other a BSM? I'll tell you what was told me, because of their rank. I would argue if you are going to bring rank into it then that SPC deserves it more because he obviously did something that was considered above and beyond for a SFC.<div>The awards form should be 2 forms; the recommendation with justification and an administrative form for S-1. Once approved/disapproved it comes back to S-1 and matched up with the reference number on the admin form for action. S-1 can check for flags, etc.</div><div>The decision should have nothing to do with anything other than those bullets.</div>
Posted in these groups: 
Awards
Awards
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 16
1
1
0
Unfortunately, I've had these conversations over the years. Had one very recently as a matter of fact. I was told that things were being looked at differently and things were being tightened up on awards. Basically, it was being tied to scope of responsibility. This part I have no issue with. However when scope of responsibility is tied directly to a given rank eg. BDE leadership position and above I take issue. When an NCO ends up assigned to a General Staff position the whole scope of responsibility can become a bit blurry. I will not go into a great degree of specificity on this one, however, in today's garrison kind of Army these duties can easily match up or even exceed BDE responsibility. So my question becomes, is it really scope of responsibility or is is it just another way of saying it is directly tied to rank?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
S-1 already screws things up bad enough and you're talking about using TWO forms for ONE award?? Malarkey!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It could work, but the DA 638 is the form that gets counted to see breakdowns by Big Army. They just need to take that step later AFTER it is approved. The DA 638's are tracked by the Troop/Company and the SQDRN/BN EOR is supposed to track the entire enchilada. They are trying to do the right thing by making sure that unit is not biased in any way (Officer/NCO/Soldier, /M/F, race/ethnicity, even age. Somewhere along the line, the system broke.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I was put up for an award for saving my MRAP from rolling over after I hit a pothole that we thought was a rough spot in the road. Had it been any other driver the results may have been different. I never saw the award and I became upset when other drivers got awards for minor things. I was considered the the sh!t bag of the unit and was not very well liked. I suppose that was the main reason for not receiving any sort of recognition. I am glad that I was awarded the Combat Spurs from the Cav Unit we fell under.
(1)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
Gold spurs from the Cav SHOULD be coveted. Keep your certificate safe SPC Corbin Doades
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I completely agree, just put the DODID# on the form and write "this is what happened" without all the fluff and crap. It's insane how fluffed just a simple AAM needs to be.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google