Posted on Jul 20, 2014
Drinking responsibility: Is it individual? Battle Buddies? Command?
13K
45
34
4
4
0
Assume that the command gives regular safety briefings regarding alcohol consumption and that your battle buddies are not force feeding you alcohol, consider this scenario:
You go out to a bar with friends and everyone is over 21. Everyone else manages to drink responsibly and have a good time. You, however, go too far. You have so much to drink that you have to be carried from the bar at the end of the evening. You end up throwing up all over yourself and the designated driver's car. Your buddies get you home safe and sound.
The next day, you are sick as a dog with a pounding headache. Who are you angry at? Does your age/rank matter (should a PVT/LT/a person newly 21 be better supervised)? Is it the Army's fault for some reason? Your buddies got you home safely, but should your buddies have been more responsible about supervising your drinking? Should they have attempted to prevent you from getting as drunk as you did?
You go out to a bar with friends and everyone is over 21. Everyone else manages to drink responsibly and have a good time. You, however, go too far. You have so much to drink that you have to be carried from the bar at the end of the evening. You end up throwing up all over yourself and the designated driver's car. Your buddies get you home safe and sound.
The next day, you are sick as a dog with a pounding headache. Who are you angry at? Does your age/rank matter (should a PVT/LT/a person newly 21 be better supervised)? Is it the Army's fault for some reason? Your buddies got you home safely, but should your buddies have been more responsible about supervising your drinking? Should they have attempted to prevent you from getting as drunk as you did?
Posted in these groups: 
Responsibility
Alcohol
Responsibility Alcohol
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 11
I'm with LTC Paul Labrador regarding your question - first and foremost, it's an individual responsibility. Can't handle the consequences, don't commit the action.
In your scenario, the Battle Buddies did exactly what they should have. They saw another in trouble (regardless if the trouble was or wasn't of that person's manufacture) and got them to safety.
The only way I could see the Command having any responsibility is if they were aware of that soldier's actions being detrimental to that soldier or unit and didn't take any action. Soldier gets drunk - soldier's business. Soldier gets drunk frequently - Command should have an interest in their welfare and try to find out why. Soldier gets drunk and impacts upon unit (late or doesn't show up, sub-par performance, etc) - Command business.
In your scenario, the Battle Buddies did exactly what they should have. They saw another in trouble (regardless if the trouble was or wasn't of that person's manufacture) and got them to safety.
The only way I could see the Command having any responsibility is if they were aware of that soldier's actions being detrimental to that soldier or unit and didn't take any action. Soldier gets drunk - soldier's business. Soldier gets drunk frequently - Command should have an interest in their welfare and try to find out why. Soldier gets drunk and impacts upon unit (late or doesn't show up, sub-par performance, etc) - Command business.
(5)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Should factors like age and rank matter? Sure. Should age and rank mean that you don't pay attention to red flags? Absolutely not.
If we were talking about 18 year old PFC Snuffy, absent of other indicators, I would actually be more inclined to think that there wasn't a problem and that it was due to a lack of maturity.
If we were talking about 35 year old MAJ Snuffy, then I would be more inclined to think that there might be another issue at play ... of course, I know MAJ Snuffys that are less mature than PFC Snuffys.
Regarding your specific situation, this is different from our discussion and I'm sure there is a 'rest of the story' there. His actions could be perfectly acceptable (verbal reprimand) elsewhere, but weren't there because of something else (policy that all alcohol counseling be written? Zero tolerance of impaired driving by the post commander? etc). The only person that knows the real reason (rather than the stated reason) is the commander that removed him. It may match the stated reason, but in this case, likely not.
If we were talking about 18 year old PFC Snuffy, absent of other indicators, I would actually be more inclined to think that there wasn't a problem and that it was due to a lack of maturity.
If we were talking about 35 year old MAJ Snuffy, then I would be more inclined to think that there might be another issue at play ... of course, I know MAJ Snuffys that are less mature than PFC Snuffys.
Regarding your specific situation, this is different from our discussion and I'm sure there is a 'rest of the story' there. His actions could be perfectly acceptable (verbal reprimand) elsewhere, but weren't there because of something else (policy that all alcohol counseling be written? Zero tolerance of impaired driving by the post commander? etc). The only person that knows the real reason (rather than the stated reason) is the commander that removed him. It may match the stated reason, but in this case, likely not.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Wow, sir, that's another whole thread about whether it is right to handle our leadership problems by trumping up thin charges against them. I cannot answer definitively. We all *think* he was a good CDR and a good guy, but there could have been something internal to the BN that I wouldn't have seen from BDE. My sense at the time was that the BN CDR was attempting to look tough on DUIs.
The problem I have is that in my mind, it set the precedence that if I ever hear a Soldier tell a story like that, I need to counsel in writing. But is that really the right answer? Or is that a CYA? Do we really need that level of CYA?
The problem I have is that in my mind, it set the precedence that if I ever hear a Soldier tell a story like that, I need to counsel in writing. But is that really the right answer? Or is that a CYA? Do we really need that level of CYA?
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
As you stated, that's another whole thread.
Just like what I said about excessive drinking possibly indicating an underlying problem, I would apply that to this situation. If there was no other reason for removing the CPT from command, is there any indication that the LTC is a toxic leader in other aspects? If not, then I would be highly suspect there isn't something else underlying the removal.
Using the 'what if', what if the BN CDR had told all of his commanders that all negative counseling would be written and this is the third time that captain disregarded his order? What if the captain had other indications of this soldier having alcohol problems and the verbal counseling was the only thing he ever did? and so on...
Regarding your CYA question, again, it depends. For the Army as a whole, no, I don't think there is a precedence set. Verbal counseling is usually used for minor infractions and if one of your soldiers does something that is more than a minor infraction, but below the ART 15/UCMJ level, then it should be written.
Would this be such a situation? If the only consideration was that a soldier told a "I was so drunk that when I drove..." story, then others might give a verbal as well. Personally, I think it is a more serious situation than a 'minor infraction', but I'm a much harder case regarding any mixture of alcohol and driving.
Just like what I said about excessive drinking possibly indicating an underlying problem, I would apply that to this situation. If there was no other reason for removing the CPT from command, is there any indication that the LTC is a toxic leader in other aspects? If not, then I would be highly suspect there isn't something else underlying the removal.
Using the 'what if', what if the BN CDR had told all of his commanders that all negative counseling would be written and this is the third time that captain disregarded his order? What if the captain had other indications of this soldier having alcohol problems and the verbal counseling was the only thing he ever did? and so on...
Regarding your CYA question, again, it depends. For the Army as a whole, no, I don't think there is a precedence set. Verbal counseling is usually used for minor infractions and if one of your soldiers does something that is more than a minor infraction, but below the ART 15/UCMJ level, then it should be written.
Would this be such a situation? If the only consideration was that a soldier told a "I was so drunk that when I drove..." story, then others might give a verbal as well. Personally, I think it is a more serious situation than a 'minor infraction', but I'm a much harder case regarding any mixture of alcohol and driving.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Drinking is a personal choice, it should be in no shape or form anyone fault that let's say I decided to get "too drunk" for my own good. No Commander or 1SG should be hold accountable for my personal choices. The only time that I would even consider it to be right if is there is an ongoing problem with the Soldier, the command knows and choose to ignore it. The Army is big on shifting responsibilities to everyone else BUT the individual responsible and we have to seriously get away from that. If I can't trust my battle buddy to take care of himself/herself how can I trust them to take care of me when the time is needed?
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Exactly. If the chain of command was aware of a chronic problem and didn't take steps to address it, THEN they can be held accountable for not exercising due diligence. Otherwise, personal responsibilty.....
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) you make a great point! If Soldier's are not responsible to handle their own alcohol intake, can they be responsible to maintain a weapon?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Keep in mind this is just my opinion.
The only one responsible for one's drinking habits and the consequences there in are oneself. The person getting shitfaced (pardon my French) should know his/her limits and should know when to throw in the towel. If you can't handle it, don't even start. You will only make a fool of yourself.
The battle buddy's responsibility is to make sure the drunkard doesn't do something he/she will regret, like drunk driving, sexual assault, or fighting. In this case, they did their job.
The command's only responsibility, again in my opinion, is responsible for making sure laws and regulations are followed. They are also responsible for policing up and properly punishing when someone breaks those laws and regulations.
The only one responsible for one's drinking habits and the consequences there in are oneself. The person getting shitfaced (pardon my French) should know his/her limits and should know when to throw in the towel. If you can't handle it, don't even start. You will only make a fool of yourself.
The battle buddy's responsibility is to make sure the drunkard doesn't do something he/she will regret, like drunk driving, sexual assault, or fighting. In this case, they did their job.
The command's only responsibility, again in my opinion, is responsible for making sure laws and regulations are followed. They are also responsible for policing up and properly punishing when someone breaks those laws and regulations.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google