How would you handle a double standard or disregard for Army Regulation?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:56:35 -0400

I was approached by Soldier in my office with the question, “ Are we allowed to used tobacco products inside the building?” I told the no not at all for any reason. He then stated “ Well how come everyone dips inside the motorpool, inside the offices, even the LTC and CSM dip in the building and in meetings in front of everyone?” I was speechless for a moment because I also knew this to be true and the regulation: Army Regulation (AR) 600-63, Army Health Promotion, paragraph 7-3a, 20 SEP 2009, states: "Tobacco use is prohibited in all DA-occupied workplaces except for designated smoking areas, as authorized by Department of Defense Instruction 1010.15. What could I tell him if the leadership doesn’t follow the regulation. So I told him two wrongs don’t make a right and to follow the regulation and make an on the spot correction to whomever violates the regulation. Sounds like good sound advice right? Well the Soldier took it to heart and was spot checking anyone in violation and when he did this to a senior leader, he was told to “check down, not up” and walked away with his dip cup on hand. So seeing that there is a disregard for the regulation the soldier started vaping in the office. When told he could not do it he answered saying “ Command uses tobacco in the building and doesn’t care about the regulation so I won’t either.” What are your takes on this seeing that the regulation is posted on the doors of all DOD buildings and getting this double standard corrected?

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jun 27 at 2019 9:20 AM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:20:43 -0400

Ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy.

Thay Soldier is out of line and needs to be corrected ASAP before he gets hemmed up BAD.

Now... to the real question. Unfortunately, there is not a lot you can do. If the LTC and CSM have already been adressed regarding their double standard, and still choose to persist, then you simply have to enforce what you can.

We had a sensing session where the CSM was dipping at the sensing session, and I asked him pretty much this exact question. I asked him how he expected me to enforce smoking rules when he was dipping, and he basically told me to shut up and do my job.

The only other option is to go up to BDE CSM or BDE CDR for enforcement, but I do not recommend that. There is no situation I can envision in which this can be portrayed to BDE in a "proper" light. Every scenario I see ends up with no change and you in trouble (or at least on the shit list) - at both BN and BDE.

Response by Cpl John Cogswell made Jun 27 at 2019 9:36 AM

Cpl John Cogswell — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:36:05 -0400

In the days when when I worked (briefly) in our Battalion head shed, sometimes junior Marines would come in and see one of our officers (or the old man himself) partaking.

Leadership by example, boys. I won't give you guff about it if they're smoking in the GP tent. Just hold on to your dip can and don't knock it over.

I guess the leadership by example memo didn't make it in the Army.

Response by SGT Javier Silva made Jun 27 at 2019 10:05 AM

SGT Javier Silva — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:05:24 -0400

This is honestly were IG can do a lot of help with a problem. Yes, everyone says "don't go to IG." But I say, why not? Isn't that what they are there for? Soldier has legitimate gripe. If the leadership won't fix themselves, they have other avenues of approach, to include, in very rare circumstances, his/her Senator.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2019 10:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:36:42 -0400

How? You get to know your operating environment. You don't honestly believe that every single regulation is followed in its entirety. Not all of the mandated annual training is completed every year. One captain wrote a paper tallying the required training showing that if we "actually" completed all the requirements for mandatory training, company commanders would have two weeks of training days available to them. Nor is every rule within every regulation followed. Not every rule carries the same weight or value. Wearing your seat belt or ground guiding a vehicle are rules that have a heavy weight because of the impact on the operating environment. They are safety rules that can cause immediate death if not followed. While putting your hands in your pockets, or having unbloused boots are less weighted and given different priorities depending on the operating environment. In the garrison walking around the battalion HQ they could make you a target. In the field they could be perfectly acceptable. Before we go off about how NCOs jobs are tk support standards, remember that the standards are there to support us, no the other way around. Standards are set to enable us to meet a goal based on the mission or operating environment. Our job is not to enforce standards, our job is to accomplish missions, train, coach and mentor, and standards are a tool designed to those ends.

Alcohol and tobacco are part of the combat arms culture. Dipping is especially important for combat arms because smoking is so discouraged in the field. So, combat arms dip while doing other tasks and it helps stay awake. The support soldiers are able to take breaks and go out and smoke. So, you get this cultural divide where combat arms look at smokers as lazy people taking breaks constantly, and the support soldiers seeing the combat arms as rule breakers because they refuse to stand around doing nothing while they are dipping.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Jun 27 at 2019 11:40 AM

CSM Richard StCyr — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:40:52 -0400

First, good on the troop for asking a senior NCO about the standard and pointing out a discrepancy that can cause issues with perception and enforcement of standards .

Discretion is the better part of valor sometimes though and if senior leaders are doing stupid crap that impact perceptions, I found engaging them in a public forum for anything that isn't a threat to life and limb often results in the reaction you mentioned. Infractions like you mentioned are better handled with an office call and a private discussion. It does two things, it allows the offender to consider your points in a neutral environment without ruffling egos and provides for discussion either heated or rational. You'll find your success rate on subordinate to senior leader corrections will vastly increase.

Since the troop approached you for guidance and you did the research in my humble opinion you own the correction now. Get on the 1SGs calendar or open door and involve them. Then follow through as needed up through the NCO support channel.

In any case the troop needs to follow the regulation and orders and on the spot corrections regardless of what anyone else is doing, as you pursue the correction and work to make changes in the senior leaders actions.

This is a great example of the indiscipline being like a crack in the windshield analogy. If you let it go it spiders out to all aspects of the unit until the whole thing is broken.

Response by SPC John Decker made Jun 27 at 2019 11:48 AM

SPC John Decker — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:48:54 -0400

Some regulations are harder to enforce than others. That being said, you should kick it up the chain. A soldier brought it to your attention. You know his complaint is valid. When you know that links, in the chain-of-command, are weakened, you go past them to a link you believe to be strong. JMO.

Response by SPC William Biles made Jun 27 at 2019 12:34 PM

SPC William Biles — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:34:27 -0400

That Soldier is definitely E4 Mafia bbn and will no doubt receive the Iron Balls Award from his fellow E4's.
If it is a serious battle the Soldier wants to take on though, he'll want to do it by the book, and run it up the chain of command until he finds an allie.
This is one of those times you really need to take a step back and think if it's a battle worth fighting.

Response by COL Gary Gresh made Jun 27 at 2019 1:48 PM

COL Gary Gresh — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:48:42 -0400

Interesting. I agree with CSM STCYR. You own the problem now. You need to take it directly to the COC. If you fail to follow up then it makes you part of the problem. The COC May blow you off but they need to know that they are letting down everyone. You either have standards or not. You don’t get to choose which regulations you want to enforce. Your unit and it’s leaders are in trouble.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Jun 27 at 2019 1:59 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:59:59 -0400

This is going to be an ongoing issue when some NCO's and Officers believe they are above the regs. You can follow a few different avenues of approach with this.
1) Decide what you are willing to do and pay for by pursuing justice and just go head to head with obvious repercussions.
2) Work on keeping your peers and subordinates following the regs and worry about your small piece of the puzzle.
3) Choose your battles wisely, for not all battles are wise to choose.
4) Continue to enforce the regs but keep your eyes and ears open for a troop getting jammed up for violating that reg and step in and point out the "Do as I say, not as I do attitude" from folks who should know better, which may end you like #1
5) Multiple other approaches that can end your career or make it very difficult when you have toxic leaders.

There is no simple answer when leaders forget they are the keepers of the standards and regulations. As a SRNCO I have slipped up and been corrected by someone junior to me and I took a breath, looked at what I did and thanked the NCO for being true to their duties. I usually got a strange look then a smile. But then again I am not stranger to multiple dates of rank either :)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2019 3:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:21:38 -0400

Something a lot of people do really bad at is watching their own lane. By that I mean, "well so and so is doing xyz, why cant I?" They base all of their problems and happiness on someone else's actions. Just because someone else is in the wrong doesnt mean you intentionally break the rules. That will get you no where but in trouble. While the Soldiers chain of command is wrong, they still hold UCMJ authority. Would it be hypocritical to administer punishment for a violation of the no tabacoo use rule? Hell yes. Is that going to stop them? Probably not. Will the Soldier still be guilty and have punishment imposed? Yes. You need to have a tough talk with your Soldier. Especially if they are yours, you're the NCO, you set the standard. Who gives a shit what everyone else is doing? You run the show.

Response by SFC Marc W. made Jun 27 at 2019 4:11 PM

SFC Marc W. — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:11:41 -0400

Apart from all other comments, which a lot of people have said some great things, I'd just like to say any senior that tells a younger soldier to "check down, not up" is a piece of shit. Personally, this is not a hill that I would die on, but that phrase is garbage and used by garbage 'leaders'. If the lower ranking corrector had said it disrespectfully then there is a need for the correction of disrespect, but enforcing a standard is not disrespectful and still not a reason to use that phrase.

Response by SGT Chris Stephens made Jun 27 at 2019 4:34 PM

SGT Chris Stephens — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:34:17 -0400

You mean there are different standards in the military based on your rank? Say it a'int so.

Response by SGM Billy Herrington made Jun 27 at 2019 8:26 PM

SGM Billy Herrington — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 20:26:46 -0400

I’d write him for an AAM. Kid has guts. We need troops with guts.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Jun 27 at 2019 10:49 PM

SSG Brian G. — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:49:07 -0400

Wow. Ok. Ballsy but stupid. The SM needs to checked and quickly.
Ok, as to the problem. This is one of those really fucked up situations of 'do as I say, not as I do.' The answer is fairly simple, if not totally fucked up.

You advise where you have no power to enforce. IE if the person or persons are above your rank, out of your command then you advise by politely pointing out the reg and the prescribed posting of AR 600-63. Side note, update your reg as the latest one is April 2015. No real material changes there, just clarification. Tobacco use is still a no-go.

Second, where you can command you do so. Anyone, such as this SM, that is under your direct supervision you simply tell them that AR 600-63 is the regulation that they are to follow. Failure to follow can and likely will result in UCMJ disciplinary action. If the SM's are smart they will not balk further.

Unfortunately tobacco use is a culture that is not easy to break, much like drinking. Perhaps one day it will be better under control and not be the issue it is today but for now you can only do what you can. As many have said before, this is not the hill you want to die on, even if you are in the right, you are not in the right.

Make an anonymous complaint to the IG but be wary of that as people do have memories and if you were memorable in pointing out the regs, and then the IG comes down, blowback could and likely will happen to you. You might just wait til you PCS that station and then lodge the complaint with the IG about the station.

Good luck.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2019 11:00 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:00:25 -0400

Lol your soldier is absolutely in the right to point out double standards. If the attitude is to check down, go above them in the chain.

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Jun 28 at 2019 10:08 AM

MSG Danny Mathers — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:08:55 -0400

Some things are best unsaid. There will always be some kind of double standard. The problem with taking on a chain of command for "do as I say, not what I do" can put you under the 'Gun" as a trouble maker. Every one makes mistakes which if you screw up in the military, you can be hammered or overlooked. Usually, good Soldiers that make mistakes are ignored. Back in my day we used to have these gripe sessions which I came to realize were "incrimanate me" sessions. Soldiers that brought issues to the chain of command that became personal attacks became target of command influence. Life is not fair and people hold grudges for reasons. Like I said every one crews up; Don't put your self in a situation where you will screw yourself. This is old school Army advise. Opinions vary.......

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 28 at 2019 12:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:11:49 -0400

I would allow the soldier if he is discrete as his higher leaders are setting the example.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Jun 29 at 2019 2:33 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 02:33:50 -0400

People tend to follow the example that is set for them by those in charge. Its pretty hard to enforce rules against others that You don't follow Yourself, lead by example. If, as a leader, Your not going to enforce the regulations You are charged with being responsible for then don't expect compliance ! If You poor example backfires on You, well that could have been prevented and the responsibility is yours as a leader !

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2019 7:01 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 07:01:22 -0400

I honestly respect the hell out of your Soldier, and if he were mine, I would back him up all the way to wherever it needed to go, as you are doing.

It's sad that there has to be a differentiation in responses to capture the reality of the double-standard trouble he could find himself in, while acknowledging he did the right thing and is now intentionally behaving in a way that highlights the blatant double standard enjoyed by the unit leadership.

Maybe you could try accompanying your Soldier to a couple of the violation hot spots, and when he makes an on-the-spot correction, you are there to back him up if he gets resistance, or if it's a leader, you can highlight the double-standard right there on the spot. Of course, if you are present, then you should probably be the one to make the correction instead. Something like, "well you know sir/1SG/CSM, that is the rule, and just the other day I saw a junior Soldier smoking inside the building. When I approached him about it, he cited seeing you violating the same policy, so he figured you had approved it and he was ok to follow that example." I don't think it requires a nuclear response on your part, just one that forces them into cognitive dissonance.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Jun 29 at 2019 7:15 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 07:15:38 -0400

There is a back door here. It's called Social Actions. At least it was in the AF.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 29 at 2019 1:13 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:13:18 -0400

Of course there is a double standard. My advice is convince a large number of troops that are bothered by this and openly use the tobacco products. Point will be made, and if the possible disciplinary action is taken. The matter will be openly displayed to higher levels. The old saying, No balls, no blue chips is applicable. However, don’t stop at a Summary Courts Martial or you are screwed. This from a guy that got a Summary two years into my career for smoking in an unauthorized area

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Jul 2 at 2019 9:20 AM

SFC Robert Walton — Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:20:22 -0400

This sounds like a time for a good NCO to ask to teach a class on the subject of AR 600-63 Paragraph 7-3a at the Bn. Level on the BN. Training SCH. make it fun, make it truthful, and don't mention names directly or rank. Worst you can do is get told not happening and don't mention it again. That would pretty much let you and Command know how this will be playout moving forward.
This is a little like Seat belt laws not everyone agreeds with it in the begining so it is hard to enforce and will have many up and down battles. I personally do not agree with the regulation howerver i don't write regulations i educate Soldiers on the regulation and enforce them. I really can't say how i would handle this situation because i don't have a dog in the fight right now, but would take the teaching a class approch 1st.

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2019 4:19 PM

CAPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 16:19:47 -0400

Was either the LTC or CSM made aware of the soldier’s inquiry regarding the apparent double standard with regard to tobacco use inside working spaces? Did they realize the “standard” that they were setting for their troops?

There is usually a fairly logical reason for those regulations being in place and acting counter to them should not be taken lightly, regardless of how insignificant they may seem. Once personnel start disregarding the “minor” policies and regulations they will eventually transfer that behavior to the more significant ones. If a service member doesn’t understand or disagrees with a regulation or policy, they should feel free to express that in a professional and respectful manner. I’m okay with people asking “why?,” as long as they continue to follow the regulation/policy until the appropriate entity determines that it should be changed.

The double standard set by the LTC and CSM is troubling. Hopefully, it was just a case of them not realizing that their behavior could be perceived as setting a double standard. If they are aware of the perception and continue on with the behavior then I would suggest kicking the problem up the chain in one form or another. I don’t know if the Army does command climate surveys like the Navy does, but if so that might be a way to inform the upper echelon of the issue with some level of anonymity. Or when a senior leader visits, they usually give Soldiers/Sailors/Marines an opportunity to ask questions and the regulation regarding tobacco use in the work spaces and the associated double standard seems like a reasonable topic to bring up.

Response by SSG Gregg Mourizen made Dec 9 at 2020 2:40 PM

SSG Gregg Mourizen — Wed, 09 Dec 2020 14:40:04 -0500

While appalled at the poor examples of leadership, I have to say, choose your battles. This is is a bad path to go on. The vaping, "in you face", violation at the, is just begging for action. Is the soldier wrong? Yes. He knows he is in violation, but is doing it anyways. He has clearly crossed the line of "Insubordination".
There are better ways to get your point across. Bring it up in In-service training, or NCO development classes. You know "Some" or "A lot of" individuals seem to be violating this policy. Not "CSM" and the "LTC" are violating, so why should I?
It was mentioned by CSM Richard StCyr , to talk to them privately, about the issue. It is amazing how well this can work, if done properly/diplomatically. By bringing the contradiction to them privately, you have an opportunity to make them aware of the "confusing" policy standards they are presenting, by not following the policy themselves.
A good leader, will remember the next time they are out and about. A simple nod might remind them again in the future, should they slip.
Unfortunately, we all know that not all military leaders are "good leaders". Some can be, plain and simply, vindictive. Especially when being called out. This is where "choosing your battles" comes in. Is it worth your career? Is it worth the misery, that can be produced? and is it worth the potential non-judicial punishment, in the case of the openly vaping just because the leadership is violating the policy.
It's kind of like calling out the half pushups the PT studs get counted, while the not so popular soldiers are don't get counted, no matter how low they go. What's the point if nobody is listening?