Posted on Feb 21, 2017
Is an updated assumption of command required after Commander is promoted to a new rank but still the company commander or is it still valid?
7.2K
4
10
0
0
0
Posted in these groups: 
Company Commander
Company Commander
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
The commander stays in command until a new commander is appointed. It depends on the division, brigade and/or battalion commander's policy. In 2003 we had an O-6 battalion commander because the brigade commander (now GEN Milley) had a policy of no battalion change of commands while being deployed. We also had a Major as a company commander because his company was a cross fill from another MACOM. All that said there is a responsibility when possible the higher command needs replace a company commander upon being promotion to Major. This sometime takes time I stayed in command 4 months till a new commander was available.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. Unless he just wants the assumption of command orders changed. The delegation of authority form with signatures only changed when delegation changes
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I can't speak to today's regs, but in my time the answer was no. The orders read "the undersigned assumes command..." That means the person who signed the order, i.e. The incoming commander. The rest, like CPT, IN Commanding is simply the signature block. Plus, you can't assume command of the same unit twice unless you relinquished command. Think of the admn nightmare it would create if assumption of command orders changed.
I remember seeing memos from S1 coming out saying something like "the signature block of the commanding officer is changed from Joe Blow, LTC(P), IN, Commanding to Joe Blow, COL, IN, Commanding, effective 1 May 1982. But never did I see a new Assumption of Command Order. Afterall, the date the officer assumed command did not change. Simply an administrative detail did.
I remember seeing memos from S1 coming out saying something like "the signature block of the commanding officer is changed from Joe Blow, LTC(P), IN, Commanding to Joe Blow, COL, IN, Commanding, effective 1 May 1982. But never did I see a new Assumption of Command Order. Afterall, the date the officer assumed command did not change. Simply an administrative detail did.
(0)
(0)
"Is an updated assumption of command required after Commander is promoted to a new rank but still the company commander or is it still valid?"
It is as valid as the service or resource requiring it says.
I can see a defense lawyer in a Drug trial CM case making hay of it. (some guy named Maj Marquez authorized a search of my clients property, as defense exhibit 1 clearly shows, the only person with authority in Bronco 2,2,2 company to authorize a search was CAPTAIN Marquez, thus the search was invalid)
I can also see a trial Judge stifling his anger, and telling the defense attorney to (sit down, thanks for a nice try, is your client ready for his convicti..........err, Trial or not?)
So while id guess, and it is a guess, no legal experience to say its true.. Id guess the assumption of command is still valid, Id likely ask the commander to sign a new one and distribute it as required to those agencies that require it.
Property book, MP, Drug lab, NET facilitators, ect.
It is as valid as the service or resource requiring it says.
I can see a defense lawyer in a Drug trial CM case making hay of it. (some guy named Maj Marquez authorized a search of my clients property, as defense exhibit 1 clearly shows, the only person with authority in Bronco 2,2,2 company to authorize a search was CAPTAIN Marquez, thus the search was invalid)
I can also see a trial Judge stifling his anger, and telling the defense attorney to (sit down, thanks for a nice try, is your client ready for his convicti..........err, Trial or not?)
So while id guess, and it is a guess, no legal experience to say its true.. Id guess the assumption of command is still valid, Id likely ask the commander to sign a new one and distribute it as required to those agencies that require it.
Property book, MP, Drug lab, NET facilitators, ect.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
MSG (Join to see) - They kind of have a point.
AOC orders are only valid if they are accurate, and many service providers require them to be no older than 12 month.. As that is a common way to ensure only current ones are on hand. I dealt with Depot level shops that required a copy of AOC orders be turned in with every work order. We were dealing with high value , items that were traceable, and inventoried monthly. It made sense, if you were turning it in for maintained at a shop you rarely sent to, the likelihood a file copy of the AOC might be out of date or otherwise invalid.
Honestly I would not even bother pushing the issue.
Its a single sheet of paper, templateed for ease of use. It needs a few lines entered, printed and the CDR signs it. Distribute electronically to most needed users, copy and PDF it to distant users ,,,and hard copy it to those that require that (although thats nuts in todays ability to print, sign, scan and save as a PDF)
In the time it took ME to type that above, i could have printed a AOC order for a CDR, and had them sign it.
AOC orders are only valid if they are accurate, and many service providers require them to be no older than 12 month.. As that is a common way to ensure only current ones are on hand. I dealt with Depot level shops that required a copy of AOC orders be turned in with every work order. We were dealing with high value , items that were traceable, and inventoried monthly. It made sense, if you were turning it in for maintained at a shop you rarely sent to, the likelihood a file copy of the AOC might be out of date or otherwise invalid.
Honestly I would not even bother pushing the issue.
Its a single sheet of paper, templateed for ease of use. It needs a few lines entered, printed and the CDR signs it. Distribute electronically to most needed users, copy and PDF it to distant users ,,,and hard copy it to those that require that (although thats nuts in todays ability to print, sign, scan and save as a PDF)
In the time it took ME to type that above, i could have printed a AOC order for a CDR, and had them sign it.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
I see what your saying. The delegation of authority part of it should not have to change. once upon a time AR25-50 allowed pen and ink changes as long as the meaning wasn't obscured.
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
LTC Jason Mackay - Delegation of Authority (DOA) is different than assumption of command orders (AOC) (Sir I say that for the readers, I know you know that)
And Id still say, the service provider with a vested interest in only issuing or allowing service to an "authorized" user or authority is not over the line in requesting an AOC or DOA that is completely accurate unless a regulation specifically states "IAW AR 123-23 the AOC remains valid if when the signatory changes rank subsequent to the original date of execution" Much like the reg said "allowed pen and ink changes as long as the meaning wasn't obscured." Had it not said that, Id guess service providers would be right to refuse pen and ink changes.
And Id still say, the service provider with a vested interest in only issuing or allowing service to an "authorized" user or authority is not over the line in requesting an AOC or DOA that is completely accurate unless a regulation specifically states "IAW AR 123-23 the AOC remains valid if when the signatory changes rank subsequent to the original date of execution" Much like the reg said "allowed pen and ink changes as long as the meaning wasn't obscured." Had it not said that, Id guess service providers would be right to refuse pen and ink changes.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SGM Erik Marquez - I mention the DOA because that is the gruesome two-some to open any Army account.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google