Denied CIB due to weight and tape rules.

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:15:44 -0500

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/05/army-vet-from-gloucester-receives-long-awaited-award-had-been-denied-due-weight-rules/k3rHXyxkFWsd2mtXQLNWQI/story.html

Army vet from Gloucester receives long-awaited award; had been denied due to weight rules - The...

An Army veteran from Gloucester was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge Friday for his actions fighting enemy forces in Afghanistan in 2010 - an honor that he’s been waiting for years to receive.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 2:32 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:32:05 -0500

Was he not in uniform? So what was the problem. You didn't have a problem using his services when you needed him. Now your done with him and now he's to heavy. Asinine! Give him what he deserves.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 4:33 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:33:08 -0500

I guess it was the rule that he was flagged for not meeting body fat standards, but this is one occasion when I think the intent of the "law" (rule) should trump the letter of the law. This post reminds me of that other discussion thread on RallyPoint (and in life) ... Do you want a 98-pound weakling trying to carry you to safety if the feces hits the fan? Or would you prefer a six-foot 200+ pounder? I vote for the bigger guy. Just sayin'.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Dec 6 at 2014 4:35 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:35:05 -0500

I dont get it. He was in the Infantry and was in combat and was not authorized his CIB due to weight? How about every overweight soldier i saw with a CAB. He was in standards enough to deploy to Afghanistan and get shot at and return fire but not in standards enough to receive his CIB. This was a failure on leadership here

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Dec 6 at 2014 4:59 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:59:59 -0500

TSgt Joshua Copeland I have always been big too. I was fond of saying, "I was taped at birth and it just continued." I was never outside of the standard in AR 600-9 or flagged, but certainly understand this Soldiers plight. It saddens me to see a Soldier who served valiantly in combat being denied the award of the CIB due to such a petty issue. This Soldier deserves, earned this award, and I am glad this has been corrected.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 5:42 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:42:48 -0500

If he was depolyable (flagged with Wt. Control Program or not) and he did his job (as he obviously did), then he should have gotten his award along with his unit team mates. I understand the rules of being flagged and nonfavorable actions, however, organizational leadership has an inherent responsibility in which it failed as well.

The deployment took the Soldier out of the "AR600-9" (I think it still is) environment which provides Soldiers the mean to lose 3-5 lbs per month. (i.e. Regular PT, equipment, environment, proper meals, etc).

When these Soldiers were deployed, they flags should have been lifted and then upon return provided 90-180 days to meet the Standard...which I have never fully agreed with personally, but that was never my call, even though as a 1SG I did use what I felt was common sense leadeship in enforcing the the reg to the letter. And always advised the unit commander the when and why we were doing what we did and were not going to do.

If I had a Soldier who did not meet the Ht/Wt Standards, but scored 280 on his PT test and could out ruck me on our 12 and 20 mile ruck marches....I flat ass refused to put them on the program. I guess I was fortunate that I never had a CSM or Bn Cdr who over ruled me (and unit cdr) on it! You do that for Good Soldiers! It falls under accomplishing the mission and taking care of Soldiers.

Response by SPC Richard White made Dec 6 at 2014 5:52 PM

SPC Richard White — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:52:48 -0500

Glad this vet finally got the recognition he deserved.There are a lot of big guys out there and the whole weight and tape rules thing is ridiculous.I have a cousin who is a body builder and by their standards he would be obese yet he can lift and drag things that normal people can not do.I would rather have a husky guy on my side anytime.If you have worked on a tank there is nothing light about working on them.Back in the day it was about using a cheater bar and hammer.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 6 at 2014 6:28 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 18:28:34 -0500

HT/Wt and APFT can be waived while downrange. Command discretion. Honestly, I don't see denying an award due to Ht/WT in a combat zone. A bullet doesn't discriminate between a small person or a big person.

Response by CPL Rick Stasny made Dec 6 at 2014 8:23 PM

CPL Rick Stasny — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 20:23:16 -0500

He put his life on the line and earned it. While I was in, at 6' 1" and near the 200 lbs mark. I took a lot of flack, but whenever they needed a safe moved or placed on a pallet for deployment guess whose phone rang. I can still hear them yell, hey mighty back, have I got a job for you.

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Dec 7 at 2014 10:39 AM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:39:55 -0500

I'm happy for him receiving the award for his service rendered in combat in Afghanistan.

That being said, APFT and Height Weight Data was waived for awards when I was deployed.
I also think the article might of misstated his H/W. 6 ft tall and 200 lbs is not a big guy....that is probably close to average now a days with how much weight lifting some Soldiers do. So, I'm a little skeptical about the story and circumstances. I think there is more to the story.

Anyhow, if he earned it, I'm glad he got it. If he did not, that will weigh on his conscience.