Is it the right thing to do to follow every single regulation and admin process?

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:31:37 -0500

I feel like too often shortcuts are taken to "execute the mission," and as a result, people are reprimanded, smoked, or counseled for disobeying a direct order from a superior ranking. For example Pvt Snuffy (feel sorry for whoever he is, being made an example out of in the worst situations, ha ha ha) is given his military driver's license and told to drive an LMTV in a convoy. He is not licensed on the vehicle, but "it's ok because there's an NCO as his TC." Another example is when Pvt Snuffy is performing a thorough PMCS (testing the attachments for the IHMEE, unreeling the winch for the Dozer, etc) and is told by his SL to stop what he's doing and just get the 5988 verified because everyone is waiting on him to go to lunch.

What should (s)he do in situations like these? My second example might not be as good as the first, but hopefully you get the point.

Response by SSG Lyle O'Rorke made Dec 22 at 2019 11:56 AM

SSG Lyle O'Rorke — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:56:40 -0500

Private snuffy should have raised the point that he is not licensed to drive that LMTV, regardless of their being an NCO TC. Unless they are using that as his test drive for licensing him on it or it is part of a drivers training session. This puts not only the driver but the NCO and command at risk. Plus the lives of those in and around that LMTV

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 22 at 2019 12:33 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:33:00 -0500

As a commander sometimes I weighed the needs of the army vs the needs of the soldier. Of course I followed all the regulations, but one time I protected an E-7 with 18 years of AD due to her inability to be deployed. My mind said chapter her, my heart said otherwise.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2019 1:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:00:26 -0500

You can ignore regs and policy when you feel like the circumstances (and your rank) can support assuming the risk.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2019 2:34 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:34:18 -0500

You must obey laws but regulations and processes are optional. Regulations and processes establish a standard method for meeting peacetime requirements. However, a commander has the flexibility to violate regulations and processes, if the mission/circumstances dictate. They also assume the risk for violating them. Usually, with a successful mission, there is no punishment. But, when the mission is less than successful, it will force everyone to defend the decision for violating regulations.

As to your examples: PVT Snuffy has a duty to inform his NCO that he is not licensed driving the LMTV but is willing to be licensed. If the NCO is licensed, then the NCO should conduct training on PMCS, vehicle operation and a driver's test prior to assigning the duty of driving. The main reason for this is 'safety.' However, if the mission dictates that this training is abbreviated and 'on the job,' then the NCO must inform his leadership and enable them to assume the risk.

For your second point, the horses are fed and watered before the rider! PMCS is performed for a reason, it is preventative. When a driver is told to stop performing PMCS by the SL, because everyone is waiting to go to lunch, then the driver can advise the SL that the TC and driver will 'catch-up' to everyone after completing PMCS. If the SL complains, then ask the SL to assist in the PMCS. However, my guess is that too many in the squad failed to perform a complete PMCS before going to lunch. This may come to bite in the form of a breakdown or accident.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Dec 22 at 2019 2:38 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:38:12 -0500

Learn how to read regulations and other directive documents. There’s a difference between “shall” and “should “ or “must” and “may”. Early in his career, PVT Snuffy should focus on learning and doing the essentials. The shalls. After he gets more training and experience he can learn the difference between what must be done exactly as directed and what can be handled with some flexibility. In your first example Snuffy should ask to not be required to operate a vehicle he isn’t qualified to handle.
In the second case he might have asked for help in completing the required checks while bypassing the nice to do ones.

Here's an example: A C-130 flight engineer normally pre-flights the aircraft including climbing on to of the aircraft and walking out on the wings and up a down the fuselage to check access panels for security and other things. In the winter in Alaska this can be a very dangerous undertaking if the top of the aircraft is slick because of deicing. Usually the Engineer will ask the Pilot if it's okay to skip the top-of-aircraft inspection if the aircraft has been deiced. I always told him "yes." I was willing to accept the risk of minor damage to the aircraft from a lose fastener or panel, but not willing to risk the Engineer's body or life to go on top the aircraft under those conditions.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Dec 22 at 2019 3:19 PM

MAJ Javier Rivera — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:19:37 -0500

SPC Private RallyPoint Member,

Based on your example: PVT Snuffy needs to respectfully raise a flag and let his supervisor that he either not trained or improperly trained. If he was given a DA Form 348 without been properly trained it is his responsibility to bring it to his leadership attention. Like others has stated, he’s on the hook for any mischief that could potentially happen.

Regarding as following regulation... it is based on how much heat you can tolerate if all hell breaks lose. You don’t want to end on the loosing end.

Response by SPC Stewart Smith made Dec 22 at 2019 5:40 PM

SPC Stewart Smith — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:40:05 -0500

I feel bad for private snuffy.
I've read a lot of the responses blaming private snuffy. In reality you all need to be blaming his leadership. Private Snuffys leadership is setting him up for failure. He's given two shitty choices. Either "go against what the NCO says" or "break the rules". Either way, the leadership is to blame for private snuffy being put in a lose lose situation.
If you are seeing this happen to a private, you should go to your first line and let them know what's happening.
There is never a time when an NCO should give an order to a private that puts him in a lose lose scenario. It's 100% the leaderships fault, not the privates.
All of you NCOs and senior officers on here saying 'well private snuffy should read regulations blah blah' should take a hard look at yourselves. Understand how little private snuffy can actually do. Understand that the leadership needs to be corrected to better lead.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Dec 22 at 2019 6:22 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 18:22:39 -0500

We place our juniors, both officers and enlisted alike, in a lot of wrong situations like this where they have to decided risk/cost v. benefit. As a field grade, I would like to say I never do this but I am sure it has happened. In this case, if the PVT was not licensed and to be a TC you must be licensed, I would make the NCO drive. I have the rank to do that, not everyone does. Company commander does and should be leading from the front as should the 1SG but that is a perfect world.

Response by CPL Gary Pifer made Dec 22 at 2019 7:28 PM

CPL Gary Pifer — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:28:14 -0500

Poor Pvt Snuffy... Least he's not missing limbs or has huge scars on his head... like so many others... they have problems.. count your blessings... I've driven many types of Army vehicles without licenses...

Response by SSG Brian G. made Dec 22 at 2019 8:08 PM

SSG Brian G. — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 20:08:31 -0500

First situation, it is not Pvt Snuffy's fault as he was ordered to drive the vehicle. It falls to the NCO or officer that gave the order as they not only outrank him but gave a reason that might seem valid to the PvT. At most said Pvt should get counseled.

With the second it falls to the same thing. It was an order by NCO or Officer.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Dec 22 at 2019 8:18 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 20:18:39 -0500

All rega and policies have sound reasoning behind them, and years caring them out. You have the right to refuse illegal immoral orders by law. If anybody tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, then both of you are wrong! What you should do is quietly and personally tell just the person in charge that you CAN'T do it, and if forced will they write the order out and give it to you.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Dec 22 at 2019 8:36 PM

SSG Brian G. — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 20:36:23 -0500

Sooo... to take your example into the real world.

1990 Dessert Shield. There I was a SPC out in the sandbox. At the time my unit was still using the old trucks, I forget the designation now, with the newer HMMV. The order from command was simple. Everyone that was not on duty that could drive was to drive a truck in convoy to the replacement depot and turn it in and pick up a HMMV. I was rated on the truck, but not the HMMV. These orders came from not just the NCOes but the XO, the 1SG and Company Commander.

Luckily nothing more serious than a bit too much speed and a rough landing but still.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2019 8:37 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 20:37:06 -0500

The Soldier should do the right thing.
Sometimes a higher ranking person will use their authority to bypass such things, assuming risk in order to accomplish the mission. Pvt Snuffy lacks such authority, so he should do the right thing AND follow orders if a competent authority says so.
Driving an unlicensed vehicle is a commander's call. He/she assumes the (ample) risk.
Hurrying through PMCS to go to chow is UNSAT; the right answer is for some help to show up and get it done to standard.

Response by SSG George Holtje made Dec 22 at 2019 8:54 PM

SSG George Holtje — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 20:54:37 -0500

I would like to share a few quotes that contributed to this ethical dilemma.

‘We don’t pick and choose what standards we follow!’

‘If we stopped to enforce every standard, nothing will get done’

‘How come we don’t pick and choose our standards until it’s a standard that is for the soldiers’

‘Why do you compromise integrity and moral courage about someone who might affect your NCOER’

‘I risk 4 article 15s a day just to get my job done’

‘I read AR670-1 and your unauthorized lacing of your boots is just as much an issue’

‘The CSM had white spandex under his PT shorts’

‘Spit and starch just so we can go to the motorpool?’

‘Access to Endust is far more dangerous than tobacco’

If it’s stupid but it works means its not stupid also means a simple explanation when time permits also works. Soldiers understand if you don’t have time to explain currently. But because I said so doesn’t develope a good mentoring relationship.
Regs like AR 670-1 exist for a reason. Unauthorized gloves can potentially cause frostbite. A lack of understanding why the regs exist leads to NCOs picking their standards in the future.
1700 release exists for the same reasons as wearing authorized socks or following the exercises outlined in 21-20.(or whatever you kids are calling it now)

Response by SSG George Holtje made Dec 22 at 2019 9:08 PM

SSG George Holtje — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 21:08:27 -0500

I have to drop a second comment more specific to your circumstances. Guidance regarding a proper PMCS so as to get off to lunch(AKA paperwork time for NCOs and nap time for Joe) falls on your first line supes and E-4 mafia. There is never enough time but there are ways to strategize getting the job done. Anyone stating ‘I always got it done in 45 minutes’ took shortcuts and got lucky.
As for example 1. There is supposed to be a learners permit that gives soldiers that authorization to drive provided they are rolling with a licensed VC

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2019 11:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Dec 2019 23:27:34 -0500

You already know the right and wrong in these situations. Just be a man and own up to and defend your decision, keep learning, keep growing.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Dec 23 at 2019 9:31 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:31:16 -0500

People ignore regulations at their own peril.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2019 9:13 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Dec 2019 09:13:24 -0500

I learned a long time ago, the Phrase. Good initiative, but bad Judgement.. Something like this, takes a few mistakes before something nad happened. First aforementioned, if A Pvt isnt licensed to operate, repair, etc. Any piece of equipment, he is the first solider to make this known, it starts with him. Why is that important? Because if the PVT dosen't convey this pertinent information, From the Grass To the Brass will standing tall in front of someone trying to explain why there was a Injury, or casualty. So please. Take a second to think about that. It is understood that a pvt is motivated, and what's to help, but that Pvt has to understand good initiative, isnt always good judgment. Merry Xmas Carry on.

Response by SGT Lawrence Gibson made Dec 25 at 2019 10:58 AM

SGT Lawrence Gibson — Wed, 25 Dec 2019 10:58:44 -0500

As far as driving a vehicle your not qualified on. If Pvt Snuffy is given an order and it’s known that he’s not qualified then the responsibility falls on the person giving the order. It’s not like the Pvt can disobey an order. Is it extreme enough to be considered an unlawful order? Probably not. As far as the PMCS he should finish the task properly. You’ll never see an Army pilot stop in the middle of his preflight because someone is in a hurry. In my current job, of 30 years, I will comeplete my Locomotive inspections before I move them. I don’t care what anybody else wants.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Feb 23 at 2020 8:34 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:34:35 -0500

Taking a short cut to get everyone to lunch sooner isn't the right answer. As a 2LT, my Company XO called me unexpectedly one afternoon at 1500 and told me that he and his senior supply NCOIC would be conducting an inventory of my property that same afternoon. This was in the winter in Germany (late November) and I was then on crutches with a broken foot. I agreed to start the inventory, but when darkness fell, I insisted we stop, because three of us could not see everything at the same time in several truck-mounted huts. The XO got pissed and ordered me to continue the inventory so he could return home that night. I refused, and the senior supply NCO agreed with me, thankfully. So we resumed the inventory the next day and it ended in a good result.

My point is that pushing on people to shortcut SOP to make things more convenient for others is not the right thing to do. If PVT Snuffy had gotten into an accident while driving a vehicle he wasn't licensed to drive after illegally ordered to do so, his boss would have been in deep poo-doo as well.