Is a standard black and white?

Let the soldiers eat! A little morale goes a long way!

SSG V. Michelle Woods I think part of that mission was to eat and since it is not actually war then eating should be a priority. :)

Having faced this same situation on more than one occasion, some "standards" need to be flexible, others cannot be. Leaders, not managers can make the difference in determining what is needed under different situations.

Food and morale is much more important than enforcing an arbitrary rule set for "normal" day-to-day enforcement. Let the Soldiers go eat!

Food first shave later, it's better to have a full stomach than going postal

Standards are there for a reason, but health of the service member comes first, and although that is part of the reason for this particular standard i would still ensure they eat first.

I feel it is their leaders responsibility to ensure they do, and head up whom ever confronts them, if they are destine to be denied food then other arrangements should be made by the command to care for them.

In that scenario and I'm NCOIC of the chow hall, they eat. The hell with regulations and if someone must be reprimanded where do I sign. Yes standards are pretty much black and white but their also must be common sense.

SSG V. Michelle Woods I would say this: God help the personnel at the chow hall who denied my troops a meal under those circumstances. It would be a bad and ugly day for the entire area.

Now, turn it a little, and let me find out that my people were a bunch of hogs that had plenty of time and opportunity to clean up ahead of time and went in just to be a pain in the ass....different story.

When deployed, we should all recognize that some folks worked very difficult missions/jobs and some do not. Some miss many meals, some do not. We need to as leaders do everything possible to ensure that as few meals as possible are missed-whatever it takes.

End of rant.

My CET rolled into Bucca and had a chilly reception due to our appearance from having been on mission for more than 24 hours, and still had a return trip back to Talil. I laughed when the chow NCO tried to deny us access, I didn't think they were serious. We explained the situation and were allowed in, being polite can go a long ways, but in the end my guys would get their food regardless of who tried to tell them no. Mission first.

The regs and standards have a place, but there is a huge difference between garrison and war. Soldiers can't perform their duties if they aren't fed or rested and no good NCO or officer would put this particular reg over the welfare of soldiers.

Having spent our last deployment escorting convoys all over Iraq, we came across this very scenario countless times. Quickly and politely updating the DFAC NCOIC on our situation was normally the best approach, and we were either let in or allowed to get to go plates. I'm also pretty sure the NCOIC didn't want to be the one turning away soldiers who just came off mission, and the high holy hell I would have personally raised had my soldiers been denied chow.

But that's in theater, what about garrison? For the sake of further discussion, can anyone speak on an instance when they choose not to enforce a standard, or relax a standard for any particular situation?

While I agree with most of the responses to this particular scenario, I also feel that a leader's responsibility for the welfare of his or her Soldiers inherently requires good planning and coordination whenever possible. If you know when the DFAC is closing, radio ahead and have them prepare to-go boxes or request that they remain open long enough to accommodate your unit. I did that routinely in Afghanistan as a PL when our patrol would start or end at the wrong time (or if we came back later than anticipated).

Of course the other great option was to plan in advance for a cookout in sector by getting money approved to buy a goat or sheep. That had the added benefit of creating a community event in the village where the locals, ANSF, and my Soldiers could break bread together.