Posted on May 9, 2016
If a solder's room is dirty and he's on leave, can the chain of command box his personal items up as punishment?
42K
335
147
13
13
0
Leave
Barracks
Responses: 63
1: The chain of command does not "punish' The chain of command may decide that for an observed violation of UCMJ or established (meaning written and common to all) policy that actions under NJP are warranted. The commander conveniing the ART15 or court martial hearing after deciding the guilt of the SM, may then elect to impose punishment.
2: If there is personal property left unsecured not IAW an established policy (say for SM on leave), then sure the CDR can direct a team conduct an inventory, and secure the property. That is not punishment (well maybe on the team tasked it would be) Supply Sgt, PSG and PL, would commonly be tasked with that duty. More so as it was thier job to inspect the SM and his room before he departed on leave.
But that is Not "punishment", though it may come later in response to the SM not cleaning the space and securing property before going on leave IAW established policy.
3: What would the desired outcome and or goal be of this "boxing up" the Sm's property... How will that correct the issue observed?
if it is a single SM room, no common shared space and I did not need the room for another SM. I would have the platoon leadership document the concern, lock up and await the SM's return. Where there would be some discussion, retraining and or NJP to correct the issue.. and the platoon NCO's would get to enjoy the bulk of the work to facilitate that planning, training and execution as they FAILED to supervise and enforce the policy and procedures.
2: If there is personal property left unsecured not IAW an established policy (say for SM on leave), then sure the CDR can direct a team conduct an inventory, and secure the property. That is not punishment (well maybe on the team tasked it would be) Supply Sgt, PSG and PL, would commonly be tasked with that duty. More so as it was thier job to inspect the SM and his room before he departed on leave.
But that is Not "punishment", though it may come later in response to the SM not cleaning the space and securing property before going on leave IAW established policy.
3: What would the desired outcome and or goal be of this "boxing up" the Sm's property... How will that correct the issue observed?
if it is a single SM room, no common shared space and I did not need the room for another SM. I would have the platoon leadership document the concern, lock up and await the SM's return. Where there would be some discussion, retraining and or NJP to correct the issue.. and the platoon NCO's would get to enjoy the bulk of the work to facilitate that planning, training and execution as they FAILED to supervise and enforce the policy and procedures.
(56)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Well written response SGM, I agree with you 100%. That is as much a leader failure as a Soldier failure. If I were the Company 1SG, I would ensure the NCO's got a little love to for allowing Soldiers to live like slobs in my barracks.
(3)
(0)
SPC Scott Verdin
From what I remember the soldiers room was inspected before going on leave which happened to me more than once. So how can this even be an issue.
(0)
(0)
32
32
0
SSgt Jamie Ritter LeBlanc
My aunt left a note saying Rusk county has shut down my room for health violations, haha
(1)
(0)
28
28
0
SGT (Join to see)
I think it depends on how dirty and how many times the soldier has been counceled either by verbal or paper... I would say it could be hazing without no counceling and warning to the soldier... It is just my opinion, I have been in the TRADOC for 4 years, DS would get in trouble just flip soldiers' mattesses because their beds were not made and we just flipped them to make them learn...
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Hazing? This would not be considered hazing, you have to enforce standards at all times. If you do you integration counseling properly it will cover all regulations and policies. I was an AIT Platoon Sergeant in TRADOC and the problem is based on the NCO's ability to ensure the Soldiers understand all the policies. NCO's need to be relevant and able to convey information and a deliberate manner. All these terms being thrown around like "Hazing" in taking the power away from the NCO and making them scared to do their job, which is to "Enforce the Standard" governed by the military...
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
22
22
0
Why in hell would you do that? This is the kind of shit that takes good Marines or soldiers and forces them out. Where is the senior enlisted leadership?
(22)
(0)
CPL(P) (Join to see)
We can't have it both ways? So if you roll sleeves and wear out-of-regulation headgear, you're a terrible soldier? Tell that to the 75th. If you don't shave, you're a terrible soldier? Tell that to ODAs. If you don't wear a uniform at all, you aren't a soldier? Tell that to black SOF.
Obviously conventional units can't do certain things like not wearing uniforms, and we have rules for a reason, but the mindset that following rules makes a good soldier and that breaking them makes a bad soldier is demonstrably incorrect.
Obviously conventional units can't do certain things like not wearing uniforms, and we have rules for a reason, but the mindset that following rules makes a good soldier and that breaking them makes a bad soldier is demonstrably incorrect.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
CPL(P) (Join to see), your disdain for the rules is even more demonstrably incorrect. The vast majority of cleanliness and appearance standards trace back to resolving historical problems with issues such as sanitation, disease, and personal gear left in a state of severe disrepair. The standards evolved to ensure a safety margin so that minor lapses from the traditional standard(s) would not create a problem, and lapses which did create problems could be corrected via disciplinary measures.
The majority of competent snake-eaters compensate for their disdain for external discipline with a self-discipline which is probably at the 80th or 90th percentile compared to Army-wide self-discipline. You would do well to keep that distinction in mind.
The majority of competent snake-eaters compensate for their disdain for external discipline with a self-discipline which is probably at the 80th or 90th percentile compared to Army-wide self-discipline. You would do well to keep that distinction in mind.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Nick Burke
SGT Mark Shortt How about corrective training for his chain of command? They let him leave with an unsatisfactory room.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
First off, I would think the only people that would do that are either a brand new power hungry E-5 or toxic leadership. Secondly, it would open it up to accusations of thievery if the soldier was not present. Besides, a little messy is one thing. A pigstye is a whole different ballgame. Without being there is a little hard to judge the level of corrective action needed, if any.
(11)
(0)
10
10
0
Seriously? How would you feel if someone boxed up all of your personal items because they thought your quarters were dirty. To me, this seems like stepping over the line. Tell him to clean up his quarters, counsel him, call him back from leave if it is just that important, but leave his personal property alone.
(10)
(0)
7
7
0
For security, you can inventory, with a witness, items unsecured and secure them in the Supply Room or wherever your unit would lock it up. That's not punishment. UCMJ may be appropriate for violating orders. Other than that, I would leave his stuff alone.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
No due to the fact that the soldier could see, he had personal items stolen and it would start a hearsay.
(6)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SFC (Join to see) I think you will find your incorrect on your position...
"No due to the fact that the soldier could see, he had personal items stolen and it would start a hearsay.."
Not positive I know what you're trying to say here as it's not clear.. But I'll guess you're claiming the SM in question could claim items were missing when he returned?
If that is what you were trying to say.. NO, not an issue at all. It is covered well in regulations. There are established personal property accountability procedures in place.
The commander simply directs the appropriate personal to secure the SM's property, and it is inventoried, accounted for, recorded and stored securely. With the proper witnesses and documentation.
The Sm upon return can make any claims he wants,, so long as property accountability procedures were followed the SM has not standing to make a claim.
"No due to the fact that the soldier could see, he had personal items stolen and it would start a hearsay.."
Not positive I know what you're trying to say here as it's not clear.. But I'll guess you're claiming the SM in question could claim items were missing when he returned?
If that is what you were trying to say.. NO, not an issue at all. It is covered well in regulations. There are established personal property accountability procedures in place.
The commander simply directs the appropriate personal to secure the SM's property, and it is inventoried, accounted for, recorded and stored securely. With the proper witnesses and documentation.
The Sm upon return can make any claims he wants,, so long as property accountability procedures were followed the SM has not standing to make a claim.
(4)
(0)
5
5
0
I always tell my soldiers I expect their room to look lived in. That is thier home. I'm not going to expect inspection ready quality every day. If it's in complete disarray or a health issue then you have to do something.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I question this command for not having done an inspection of said soldier's room before he left. And why are you trying to make issues now, when the horse has left the barn? If you let someone leave without inspecting their quarters before hand, that's your bad. Boxing his property would be tacky, spiteful and create a glaring spotlight on the command's lack of forethought.
The command needs to get its act together, not the soldier.
The command needs to get its act together, not the soldier.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google