Posted on Jul 20, 2014
Drinking responsibility: Is it individual? Battle Buddies? Command?
15.4K
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 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)
2
2
0
You have some great input here already ma'am. I have a story to share regarding this topic. A few years back, I was in a unit where an alcohol related incident happened along with all the fallout that normally accompanies those things. A group of NCOs, SSGs and SFCs were out drinking one Saturday evening. All received their standard Friday afternoon Safety Brief from the 1SG. One of these SSGs got drunk beyond explanation. The others, feeling like they need to take care of their buddy, secured him, took him to his house, and put him to bed. They kept his keys. About an hour or so later, said SSG shows back up at the bar. Apparently, he found his spare set of keys. The SSG in question then says he is going to the latrine and will be right back. Instead, he drove away and was eventually arrested for DUI. In the course of the 1SG and CDR finding piecing together the timeline for that evening, the NCOs who were with that SSG were berated for not doing enough to take care of their buddy. They should have stayed with him, they should have tackled him, etc, etc. The SSG who received the DUI did receive an ART15.
Anyway, I occasionally refer to that story when I was a 1SG. My point is that while the Command provides briefings and training on responsible drinking, and your Battle Buddies keep an eye out as much as they can, at the end of the day it is the individual who makes the decision to either do the right thing or not. Leaders and Battle Buddies cannot be there 24/7 to validate every decision a Soldier makes.
Anyway, I occasionally refer to that story when I was a 1SG. My point is that while the Command provides briefings and training on responsible drinking, and your Battle Buddies keep an eye out as much as they can, at the end of the day it is the individual who makes the decision to either do the right thing or not. Leaders and Battle Buddies cannot be there 24/7 to validate every decision a Soldier makes.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
What is troubling to me is that if this person was a SGG, I would assume that he was in the Army for at least 4-5 years, has heard at least 200 safety briefs, was probably more than 25 years old...but yet, his buddies were berated for not doing enough. What is enough? If the DUI never happened, and the SSG had gone back to his leadership to complain that his buddies let him get too drunk and didn't do enough for him, would they agree? I really don't think so. I would hope they would tell him that *he* did the wrong thing by getting that drunk.
(1)
(0)
1SG Steven Stankovich
Tracking on all ma'am. In the long run, it all came out in the wash. Myself and a few other seniors who learned about the incident after the fact pulled the NCOs who were there in and talked to them. We made sure that they understood where responsibility lied. I am a big fan of individual responsibility. Leaders and Battles are important, but at the end of the day, it is the individual that will choose with path to follow...
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Great question CPT Wolfer. IMHO, you the individual has primary responsibility. You know the rules, SHOULD know your consumption limit and most of all, you know yourself. Peer pressure plays a big part in any over indulgence, at any age, so some responsibility does fall on the others present especially if any hazing is involved or they know you the individual are susceptible to influence. We all are raised differently mature differently and have different core values. If the others allowed this situation to happen, then you have to ask yourself if these folks are truly "friends" and whether or not this is the crowd you want to run with.
My wife and I have been instilling "making good choices" and choosing friends who make good choices into our children since they started elementary school. We hope they will carry these lessons through with them in life so if they find themselves approaching this type situation, they can avoid it.
Any organization has the propensity to allow peer groups to form and grow so the military is not unique in fostering the forming of bonds over casual, after work drinking, especially where mutual stress and sound boarding are the basis for the socialization. How do you blame organizations as a whole like the military services where the rules and regs regarding drinking are spelled out in writing and re-emphasized at every command level.
My wife and I have been instilling "making good choices" and choosing friends who make good choices into our children since they started elementary school. We hope they will carry these lessons through with them in life so if they find themselves approaching this type situation, they can avoid it.
Any organization has the propensity to allow peer groups to form and grow so the military is not unique in fostering the forming of bonds over casual, after work drinking, especially where mutual stress and sound boarding are the basis for the socialization. How do you blame organizations as a whole like the military services where the rules and regs regarding drinking are spelled out in writing and re-emphasized at every command level.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
For those over the drinking age (and assuming that GO#1 is not in effect and/or you have not been given a direct order not to drink), it is absolutely an individual responsibility.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, what if something bad happened and there was a 15-6? Would the finding still be that only the individual would be held responsible? Why should whether or not something went wrong drive who should be held responsible? Just thinking...
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Unless there was overt foul play (ie forcing soldier to drink, spiking his drinks, etc) or disobeying a direct order, it still boils down to individual responsibility.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CPT (Join to see), Yes, No ... it depends. That is the usual answer to "what if" scenarios.
In your response to SFC A.M. Drake, you stated that in some respects we are our brother's keeper. I agree, but as SFC Drake stated, the extent we are his keeper depends.
Clear cut cases where I have a responsibility to be involved as my brother's/sister's keeper - any dangerous situation to themselves or others (sexual assault, impaired driving, etc).
The clear cut cases where you don't have a responsibility are harder, especially since you keep throwing "what if" at them :) Do I have a responsibility to be your keeper to save you from a hangover? Not at all. Well, what if you were going to be involved in the mission tomorrow? Different situation.
Basically, my view is you do have a responsibility to play brother's/sister's keeper if their actions are going to place them or others in potential danger or cause a situation that is harmful to the organization (bad PR, mission impact, etc).
If we're talking about situations that are going to negatively impact that individual only (bad hangover, humiliation, etc) - well, then you're not talking about what my responsibilities are, you're talking about how good of a friend am I. As a friend, I might care about how bad your hangover is going to be, but I wouldn't have any responsibility as 'your keeper'.
In your response to SFC A.M. Drake, you stated that in some respects we are our brother's keeper. I agree, but as SFC Drake stated, the extent we are his keeper depends.
Clear cut cases where I have a responsibility to be involved as my brother's/sister's keeper - any dangerous situation to themselves or others (sexual assault, impaired driving, etc).
The clear cut cases where you don't have a responsibility are harder, especially since you keep throwing "what if" at them :) Do I have a responsibility to be your keeper to save you from a hangover? Not at all. Well, what if you were going to be involved in the mission tomorrow? Different situation.
Basically, my view is you do have a responsibility to play brother's/sister's keeper if their actions are going to place them or others in potential danger or cause a situation that is harmful to the organization (bad PR, mission impact, etc).
If we're talking about situations that are going to negatively impact that individual only (bad hangover, humiliation, etc) - well, then you're not talking about what my responsibilities are, you're talking about how good of a friend am I. As a friend, I might care about how bad your hangover is going to be, but I wouldn't have any responsibility as 'your keeper'.
(2)
(0)
I would say this is a one team one fight issue. I recall going out with some buddies after we got back from Iraq. We met up at my buddies place and one of my buddies decided that I need more shots. I lost count to be honest. I had no intention to getting that drunk. My other buddy, he was my team leader, got me home safe and sound. Sometimes battle buddies are not always your buddies.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
The mentally that someone else is at fault for what I willingly put into my body is lost on me. As officers, it is more important to set aside personal pride to do what's right. I would never let someone try to shame me into excessive alcohol consumption because I would be *way* more ashamed of becoming overly intoxicated.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
On a side note. I was not in the military at the time. I was out of the service. When I was at dining out I will make arrangement to ensure that this will not happen.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Am I my brothers keeper? If over 21? Can you make a grown adult do anything? If this soldier/airmen/sailor/marine/coast guard/merchant marine has problems then it did not manifest itself as of this drinking binge. There must be some form of accountability.....but in your story thank God there was no driving involved by the servicember. just my 2 cents
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
This is my question SFC A.M. Drake...in some respects we absolutely *are* our brothers' keepers. The Soldier made it home safe and unharmed. I think if you go out as a group, you are responsible to bring everyone back. But are you also responsible to monitor what each other are doing as long as no one is breaking the law? Is one person in the group more responsible (the highest rank - assuming no fraternization, the oldest, the one who is a parent, the one who has been on the installation the longest)?
(1)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
Maam,
I think to a certain extent you should be, drinking and military service has been hand In hand since BC, however at what point does/should that end as it has to get old after awhile. Tough question and no easy answer, that's why I don't drink had to many alkees in the family!
I think to a certain extent you should be, drinking and military service has been hand In hand since BC, however at what point does/should that end as it has to get old after awhile. Tough question and no easy answer, that's why I don't drink had to many alkees in the family!
(2)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) "But are you also responsible to monitor what each other are doing as long as no one is breaking the law?"
I think right here is an answer. If an individual is not breaking a law, then what can you do if they are lawfully drinking. Anything else is anticipatory and what if. If we made our decisions on what-if I think we would get no-where. I know that when I go hit it up to have a good time, I pound a few to get in the zone and have a good time, then shut it off and let the affects wear off as time dictates. Understanding this, if you saw me pound a few would you berate me for drinking a few beers quickly? In context perhaps you say no, but in reality, with regards to others we should take a stand back and observe stance until the legality of the issue is concrete. In your scenario, I think everything was handled correctly. Someone incapacitated themselves, lawfully. And the friends they were with handled the issue. I think that when you do not have standards/orders/laws to back you up then you are just interfering in my personal life and should maintain respectful silence and distance until, as previously described, when lawful turns to unlawful it is time for buddies to join in. Making Commands and Battle buddies accountable for others during off-hours can be convoluted; as where does the accountability end? How much should the command monitor, how much does the battle buddy have to do and when? I think this would become a very slippery slope. Let the individual enjoy their personal freedom and remind them of the consequences when needed. Otherwise no growth or learning can be attained. The command and the Battle buddy then essentially become baby sitters.
I think right here is an answer. If an individual is not breaking a law, then what can you do if they are lawfully drinking. Anything else is anticipatory and what if. If we made our decisions on what-if I think we would get no-where. I know that when I go hit it up to have a good time, I pound a few to get in the zone and have a good time, then shut it off and let the affects wear off as time dictates. Understanding this, if you saw me pound a few would you berate me for drinking a few beers quickly? In context perhaps you say no, but in reality, with regards to others we should take a stand back and observe stance until the legality of the issue is concrete. In your scenario, I think everything was handled correctly. Someone incapacitated themselves, lawfully. And the friends they were with handled the issue. I think that when you do not have standards/orders/laws to back you up then you are just interfering in my personal life and should maintain respectful silence and distance until, as previously described, when lawful turns to unlawful it is time for buddies to join in. Making Commands and Battle buddies accountable for others during off-hours can be convoluted; as where does the accountability end? How much should the command monitor, how much does the battle buddy have to do and when? I think this would become a very slippery slope. Let the individual enjoy their personal freedom and remind them of the consequences when needed. Otherwise no growth or learning can be attained. The command and the Battle buddy then essentially become baby sitters.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Your questions are exactly my question...where does it all end for the battle buddies, and personal responsibility take over? I feel like every time we expand the circle of blame beyond what is generally reasonable, we allow people to believe that others really are/should be responsible.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Its an individual responsibility on how much to drink. Seen far too many people get stupid drunk just because they could.
Drinking is something that we have to control ourselves, no one can force you to drink more than you want to.
Drinking is something that we have to control ourselves, no one can force you to drink more than you want to.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google