Does the "scope of responsibility" criteria for awards make it easier or harder for junior Soldiers to get higher awards?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:16:38 -0500

I have encountered two basic arguments. The argument against usually references the Soldiers' scope of responsibility as a reason to not consider such a high award. The argument for usually references the disparity between what you might expect a Soldier of that grade to be able to accomplish and what he or she did accomplish. For the same work, should a SPC be awarded a higher award than a MSG?

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 29 at 2016 2:20 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:20:09 -0500

"scope of responsibility" is but one part of the reason for an award.
And I for one never sided with "A PVT can never have the requite responsibility to be considered for that award" kind of thinking.
If a truck crosses a water crossing and slides off, over turning and a SPC takes action, blocks the road so no further vehicles can cross, gathers manpower and sets teams down stream to look for survivors, assigning each team a specific location so manpower is not wasted, has the presence of mind to send a 2 man team back up the road radio comm last worked...

I don't care is minutes before his "scope of responsibility" was his personal weapon and to be clean shaved and have a good haircut weekly.
His award would be based on the responsibility he took on, and his actions.

That said, when it comes to a time period award if justified... "scope of responsibility" does come in to play ... the SGT E/5 supply sergeant who came to work each day, complied with local and army Regs most times without redress, listened to the XO's guidance and performed his duties well over all..Likely did not have the same level and significant responsibilities as the SGT/ E5 company Master gunner who kept the company on track with Bradley gun maintenance and training. Who planned with only minimal initial guidance from the commander the companies Bradley training plans, requested, resourced the company BATS and than live fire range week... Tracked Gun maintenance correctly, then trained and led gun crews to service the weapons system ensuring the company supply room always had the required materials and supplies, tools needed to complete operator maintenance.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2016 2:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:43:51 -0500

In two deployments I've never seen anyone under the rank of SFC get anything higher than an ARCOM and anyone over the rank of SFC get anything lower than a MSM. Prior to my first deployment I always thought the GCM was the Army's way of saying "Hey, thanks for coming and doing your job without being a scrub." The whole blanket award thing needs to go away in my opinion. You've got people doing nothing but their job and getting the same award, if not a higher one, than a person who went above and beyond and covered down where there were shortages just because of rank. Higher awards should be based off of merit, not rank.

I'm a SGT with 10 years TiS and 2 deployments to 2 theaters yet the size of my rack is almost comparable to someone like CSM Plumley just because I showed up and I don't think that's right.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2016 2:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:59:37 -0500

It would be hard to imagine a SPC having the same responsibility level, work load, and expectations of performance as a MSG during the conduct of normal duties. If such a situation occurred, I think it would be harder to push for an award like an MSM because of the skepticism that would be placed on it. Commanders who do not have personal knowledge of the SPC's actions and performance would most likely demand more information and an extremely good write up (beyond the normal expectations) before pushing it to the next level to ensure that the award was legitimate and deserved.

For a single event, I think it would be easier. I knew a PFC and a SPC who received Bronze Stars for Meritorious Service from a unit outside of their command (and presented mid tour). They exercised quick thinking and judgement well beyond the expectations of their pay grade, and because they were so young, their initial awards were actually upgraded during the approval process from ARCOMs. Had the incident involved a pair of MSGs, then I think it would have been looked at as just them doing their job and responding exactly as they are expected to based on their rank and experience.

Forgot to mention. The incident involved the two soldiers seeing an Afghan soldier running from a range where they heard shooting. They initially shrugged it off, then decided to check out the range just in case because they thought it was unusual to see an Afghan soldier running and found one US soldier KIA, and one bleeding out whom they were able to save. They also initiated the base alert plan.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2016 3:37 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:37:06 -0500

Well, in my units case when we were deployed, it worked against someone. We had a SSG as our Detachment NCOIC and she walked out of the deployment with a Bronze Star. Our SPC, who was a mechanic but was unauthorized to work as a mechanic, worded as our Supply SGT, our Movement NCO, Mail Handler, and was responsible for ensuring the entire unit and all locations that different elements of the unit were located, were supplied and lifelines maintained. He also found, accounted for, maintained, and turned in over $3 million dollars of excess equipment and materials that the unit we replaced had sitting around in various locations. He also coordinated all of our TMRs while moving into Iraq, throughout Iraq, and out of Iraq. Basically, there wasn't anything this SPC didn't do. He was submitted for a BS, but downgraded all the way down to an ARCOM.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Dec 29 at 2016 4:54 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:54:33 -0500

I have seen this come full circle. It's going to go back to what it was when I came on AD. People will have like three awards. You won't even be considered for anything but the bare minimum, and only at PCS time. I think it's headed back that way. Hope people like AAMs and COAs

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Dec 29 at 2016 7:48 PM

1SG Al Brown — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:48:44 -0500

Let me break it down for you. I've written and edited dozens of Bronze Star and MSMs for NCOs and Officers from E5 on up. The SMs duty or scope of responsibility should have little to do with the level of a non-valor award. The level of unit impact is the key to award hierarchy. The person receiving the award, receives the award based on the effect of the action. An easy way to think of it, is if the SMs actions effect (benefit) a BN, the award should be a AAM. Effects that benefit a BDE result in an ARCOM, Division is MSM, and so on. The difficulty lies in a lower enlisted SM to be in a position (non-valor) to impact and truly benefit a higher command. Example: One of my E-5s reconned the ground, designed, and developed in ACAD the plan for "all" the Afghan police and border agencies in 2004. His actions effected (benefited) an entire country. He received a Bronze Star, signed by an 09.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2016 9:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:35:49 -0500

Well I have not seen a SPC get a Bronze Star as a end of tour award or a MSM for a PCS award. However I have seen a MSG get that a few of them.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2016 8:00 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:00:06 -0500

Rank can not be a consideration for an award. The achievement itself is the only thing that should be considered. The administrative data on the DA 638 is for the purposes of writing the citation, making sure the Service Member (as those from other branches can also receive Army awards, so long as their branch approves of the Service Member receiving an "outside of branch" award) and properly filing the DA 638 and award certificate. It is not the basis for the award or recommendation for the award.

I have seen commanders award ARCOMs to NCOs and AAMs to junior enlisted for the same action or achievement. Doing so does one of three things: 1) devalues the level of the higher level award, 2) improperly gives accolades and higher value to the achievements of the NCO, or 3) devalues the achievements or contribution to the unit mission of the award to the junior enlisted. All three of these things can have the propensity to degrade the morale of the unit.

There must be expectation management. It is the commander's job to enforce the standard. What is the standard? The standard is that we do our best and not "expect" an award. In one of my tours we had an officer who was awarded an ARCOM. The officer was in theater for about 90 days and did nothing spectacular... unless being on time to the DFAC for every meal was an accomplishment. He said to me after he received the EOT award, "I am an Officer. I only get MSMs". I thought he was joking at first, but he was serious. I asked him if he was refusing this award, and he said, "I cannot accept this award. Like I said, I am an Officer. I only get MSMs". Expectation management now comes into play.

This officer was not taught expectation management in his younger years. He expected to get a certain award. My thought is that he may have been one of those children who received participation trophies. So, I told him I would look into it.

I took the ARCOM, Recommendation for Award (DA 638), Certificate (DA Form 4980-14) back to the commander and told him of the conversation. I was then instructed to contact HRC and have the ARCOM removed from the officer's iPERMS file. We did not process another award for that officer. The Commander told me, "If he doesn't want the award, he doesn't get the award".

Many commanders are only replicating what they have been taught over the years as to what deserves an award and what does not. The classic line, "They were only doing their job" is not one I subscribe to at all. My argument regarding this is, then nobody should ever receive an award simply because we are all doing our jobs.

The standard is the standard. It is up to the commanders to make sure the standards are enforced equivocally. I believe every awards board should have the name and rank of the Service Member removed from what the board, or the commander, sees and only have a set of bullet points by which to assess the achievement. This helps to eliminate the "good ol' boy" system from being used. I've seen BSMs awarded to Soldiers who have not positively contributed to the mission and AAMs awarded to Soldiers who were the glue to mission success. Rank should never be a deciding factor.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2016 8:34 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:34:26 -0500

Certain ranks regularly get certain level awards. I believe this is because of what you described about the level of responsibility of rank. The times when I've seen Soldiers get awards above what the average Soldier of the same rank get for that time period is when the Soldier either had an incident or two that showed exemplary performance or the Soldier always had above average performance.
That being said, there are also units that regularly give lower awards, and some that give higher awards, than the average unit. In some units, Soldiers are lucky to get any award. That is unfortunate, unless the Soldier's performance negatively influenced the unit.

Response by SGT Jason Keefer made Dec 31 at 2016 9:34 AM

SGT Jason Keefer — Sat, 31 Dec 2016 09:34:31 -0500

Because leaders like to add criteria to awards that's not in the actual award qualification criteria?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 1:31 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 01:31:25 -0500

I think it can make it harder, especially for the part-time Soldier. You don't often see the event that leads to the award until after some exercise or AT. Then the approving officer falls back on the "responsibility" thing.

I recently submitted 4 Soldiers that where on my Weapons Qualification Ex detail. The SPC's award's went through easily. The SGT who took charge during my absences (when I had to leave early to go to the site and fix an issue, and when I was in the daily safety briefs) was absolutely instrumental to the success. My CO did not recommend the award because she was just 'Being a good NCO". She was being that, and more and luckily the final approving official (BDE CO) saw differently and signed off on it. I was prepared to fight for the award, but did not end up having to.