Posted on Nov 6, 2021
Is a SSG authorized to make an order revoking on/off post POV privileges?
4.77K
18
16
2
2
0
When I arrived at the Detachment, I was informed we were allowed to ride a motorcycle so long as we passed a military-approved MSF course, got proper riding gear, and rode within traffic laws.
6 weeks after I got my bike, I was counseled by the same SSG that told us we were allowed to before, revoking my motorcycle privileges due to an “inherent risk of safety” without a reference to policy or regulation. He told me that it was due to a new policy from the Captain. That policy was never put on the board, never sent out, and nobody ever saw it.
The SSG and CPT left on PCS, a new captain came in and copy/pasted the same policy that was in effect when I arrived. 20 days later I was seen riding my bike, and I’m now serving extra duty (I’m fine with the extra duty, please don’t think this is a PFC trying to get out of work). Based on what I can tell, AR190-5 (2-4 & 2.6b) states local government is in charge of off-base rights, and only the installation commander or their designee can revoke installation POV rights, and are required to give 14 days after a written memo is produced to the soldier. Unless I’m mistaken, this makes my Sergeant’s order unlawful, and my actions completely within regulations. I’ve only got 23 months time in service, so I’d love some more seasoned opinions.
Thank you for your time.
6 weeks after I got my bike, I was counseled by the same SSG that told us we were allowed to before, revoking my motorcycle privileges due to an “inherent risk of safety” without a reference to policy or regulation. He told me that it was due to a new policy from the Captain. That policy was never put on the board, never sent out, and nobody ever saw it.
The SSG and CPT left on PCS, a new captain came in and copy/pasted the same policy that was in effect when I arrived. 20 days later I was seen riding my bike, and I’m now serving extra duty (I’m fine with the extra duty, please don’t think this is a PFC trying to get out of work). Based on what I can tell, AR190-5 (2-4 & 2.6b) states local government is in charge of off-base rights, and only the installation commander or their designee can revoke installation POV rights, and are required to give 14 days after a written memo is produced to the soldier. Unless I’m mistaken, this makes my Sergeant’s order unlawful, and my actions completely within regulations. I’ve only got 23 months time in service, so I’d love some more seasoned opinions.
Thank you for your time.
Policy
Army Regulations
POV
Motorcycles
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
Motorcycle riding is viewed as a priviledge in the military. It is separate from POV policy. The company commander has the power to say who can and cannot ride motorcycles. AR 385-10 is the reg and I'll bet your installation has a regulation that mirrors it very closely.
(3)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
AR385-10 does not say the Commander has the authority to restrict a properly train and licensed motorcyclist. It states the training requirements and the type of PPE required to ride on post. Driving privileges are generally an installation level policy and I have not been anywhere that allowed the CO to restrict that outside of the policy.
(1)
(0)
Let's break it down:
Policy In Effect under Old Commander: The SSG did not revoke your riding privileges. The SSG relayed the policy, in counseling, from the old Commander. Now, the policy should have been posted, and should have been referenced in the counseling. Since it wasn't, you could have used that.
Policy in Effect under New Commander: If you know for a fact that the new Commander copy/pasted and signed the policy that no one can ride motorcycles due to inherent high risk, then the policy did, in fact, exist. Therefore, that policy is Company Policy.
Now, being that pretty much all Company Policies are mirrored from BN, which are mirrored from BDE, which are mirrored all the way up....there should be a base wide policy. Should be. Not always the case, but the majority of the time there is a parent policy created that tenant units will use. Oh, and the Company Commander IS a designee of the Installation Commander
As for your Article 15: You violated the policy, hence your Article 15. What is done is done. We cannot go back and change it. Does the policy and its creation/implementation sound a little hinky? Sure. But is it illegal? Since I'm not there, I can't say for sure. Here are my recommendations: Go to your Orderly Room and ask to see the policy. See if there is a reference in there for a higher level policy dictating the same thing. If there is....see if you can get your hands on it. Also, watch to see if there are others from other units riding motorcycles on base. If you are NOT seeing a single rider anywhere....that would be a great indicator that the policy is a base wide policy.
Policy In Effect under Old Commander: The SSG did not revoke your riding privileges. The SSG relayed the policy, in counseling, from the old Commander. Now, the policy should have been posted, and should have been referenced in the counseling. Since it wasn't, you could have used that.
Policy in Effect under New Commander: If you know for a fact that the new Commander copy/pasted and signed the policy that no one can ride motorcycles due to inherent high risk, then the policy did, in fact, exist. Therefore, that policy is Company Policy.
Now, being that pretty much all Company Policies are mirrored from BN, which are mirrored from BDE, which are mirrored all the way up....there should be a base wide policy. Should be. Not always the case, but the majority of the time there is a parent policy created that tenant units will use. Oh, and the Company Commander IS a designee of the Installation Commander
As for your Article 15: You violated the policy, hence your Article 15. What is done is done. We cannot go back and change it. Does the policy and its creation/implementation sound a little hinky? Sure. But is it illegal? Since I'm not there, I can't say for sure. Here are my recommendations: Go to your Orderly Room and ask to see the policy. See if there is a reference in there for a higher level policy dictating the same thing. If there is....see if you can get your hands on it. Also, watch to see if there are others from other units riding motorcycles on base. If you are NOT seeing a single rider anywhere....that would be a great indicator that the policy is a base wide policy.
(3)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Thank you for your response Sergeant,
To clear it up a bit: the policy from the last commander was posted 14 Aug 20. The new policy from the new commander was posted 26 Aug 21. Those were the only two policies that've been on the board, or that anyone has seen, at least since I got here 17 Nov 20. I have copies of both, they have the exact same wording, just different dates and signatures. It states the following:
“Soldier must remain acutely aware of the dangers and risks associated with the operation of any type of personal or recreational vehicle”
“Be uncompromising on the use of seatbelts and motorcycle safety equipment.”
The argument from the SSG was that I violated Article 92 using a paragraph from the policy.
“Use risk management. identify hazards associated with POV operations; assess the hazards; make decisions to control them; implement the controls; and supervise execution.”
While this doesn’t affect my article, as the charge changed from failure to obey an order to insubordinate conduct via disobeying a direct order from an NCO (Article 92 to 91) between the last time I heard of it, and the article I received.
The point of the MSF course requirement as an overarching regulation in the Army is to ensure adequate training and proper understanding of the risks. Motorcycles are rather common here, as the policy is just to ensure risks are understood and proper gear is worn.
To clear it up a bit: the policy from the last commander was posted 14 Aug 20. The new policy from the new commander was posted 26 Aug 21. Those were the only two policies that've been on the board, or that anyone has seen, at least since I got here 17 Nov 20. I have copies of both, they have the exact same wording, just different dates and signatures. It states the following:
“Soldier must remain acutely aware of the dangers and risks associated with the operation of any type of personal or recreational vehicle”
“Be uncompromising on the use of seatbelts and motorcycle safety equipment.”
The argument from the SSG was that I violated Article 92 using a paragraph from the policy.
“Use risk management. identify hazards associated with POV operations; assess the hazards; make decisions to control them; implement the controls; and supervise execution.”
While this doesn’t affect my article, as the charge changed from failure to obey an order to insubordinate conduct via disobeying a direct order from an NCO (Article 92 to 91) between the last time I heard of it, and the article I received.
The point of the MSF course requirement as an overarching regulation in the Army is to ensure adequate training and proper understanding of the risks. Motorcycles are rather common here, as the policy is just to ensure risks are understood and proper gear is worn.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
PFC (Join to see) - Commanders will copy/paste policies all the time and just change the dates and signatures. Keeps from having to reinvent the wheel. But, based on what you just said, I'm not sure how you violated the policy by riding your motorcycle as your quoted sections don't tell me you CAN'T ride on base. Now....if you rode your bike WITHOUT having taken the Riders Safety Course and also riding without proper PPE...then I can see why you got popped.....otherwise, I am not seeing it. Not without having seen the exact wording of your Article 15 and policy.
Again, the fact you are in the punishment phase of the Article 15, nothing can be done about that. The other problem is that Article 15s are usually ran by JAG to make sure everything is legally square. Nothing stating you can't take the policy and article 15 to TDS and see what they think/feel. I still say you need to get your hands on base policy for riding motorcycles to see what it says.
Again, the fact you are in the punishment phase of the Article 15, nothing can be done about that. The other problem is that Article 15s are usually ran by JAG to make sure everything is legally square. Nothing stating you can't take the policy and article 15 to TDS and see what they think/feel. I still say you need to get your hands on base policy for riding motorcycles to see what it says.
(1)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
PFC (Join to see) - I still don't know how they gave you an Art 15 for that because you didn't violate any policy. Not the CO's policy. Not the installation policy. If that was me and I got counseled for this, I'd have gone straight over to JAG.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
You've got a lot of feelings mixed in with facts, so let's break this down into the most pertinent points.
Your SSG didn't issue an order, they passed along a policy and policy change. The new commander, as every commander does, signed the exact version of the old policy message with their name on it, calling it their own.
In the Army we use the term UCMJ and Article 15, but other services use the term NJP - non judicial punishment.
Non- JUDICIAL Punishment.
That means not dealing with law. An Article 15 is a regulatory punishment, not a legal procedure. There is no proof, or even burden of proof, as required by law. When you agreed to proceedings under Article 15, you agreed to allow the commander to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Whatever you thought was right or wrong or authorized, you gave up the right to argue that in a court of law by opting for a NON-judicial processing. As Trial Defense Services would have pointed out to you, you can argue the finer points of the law, but if you fail, you will be convicted of a felony
Your SSG didn't issue an order, they passed along a policy and policy change. The new commander, as every commander does, signed the exact version of the old policy message with their name on it, calling it their own.
In the Army we use the term UCMJ and Article 15, but other services use the term NJP - non judicial punishment.
Non- JUDICIAL Punishment.
That means not dealing with law. An Article 15 is a regulatory punishment, not a legal procedure. There is no proof, or even burden of proof, as required by law. When you agreed to proceedings under Article 15, you agreed to allow the commander to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Whatever you thought was right or wrong or authorized, you gave up the right to argue that in a court of law by opting for a NON-judicial processing. As Trial Defense Services would have pointed out to you, you can argue the finer points of the law, but if you fail, you will be convicted of a felony
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google