Moral Dilemma: Fighting between two soldiers in your unit

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:15:46 -0400

Here is the situation...what would you do?
I was a freshly commissioned 2LT preparing for deployment. I had been assigned to a NG unit to fill a PL spot...I didn't know anyone.
I had only been with the group about 3 weeks (Pre-mobilization training) when I was walking past my barracks and my PSG was standing outside with 2 of our soldiers; one of whom was roughed up and bloodied.
I asked him what was going on and he said "NCO business sir, we got it."
A little while later I see both of the soldiers performing extra cleaning duty. I assumed that they had fought and were being punished, which I was ok with.
Later that evening another one of our soldiers approached me. He didn't think that the situation had been handled fairly.
He told me the details of the conflict:
Soldier 1 was a well liked guy, E4, been with the unit since basic (about 2 years). Had recently found himself in a little hot water because he pissed hot after coming back from emergency leave.
Soldier 2 was a decent soldier, PFC, but was cocky and didn't know when to shut up. He pissed off a lot of his peers. Had only been with the unit a few months, he had just completed basic.
The scene: Whole platoon is milling about in platoon bay. Most are loading magazines with blanks.
Soldier 1 had been discussing the finer points of rap music with some peers. Soldier 2 was sitting on the floor of the bay loading magazines with blanks for the coming exercise. Soldier 2 made a smart-assed remark to soldier 1.
Soldier 1 told him to shut his uneducated mouth (paraphrasing).
Soldier 2 suggested that soldier 1 go attempt self-procreation.
Soldier 1 walked up to soldier 2 and kicked him in the face.
Then soldier 1 jumped on him.
The other soldiers intervened to break it up, but not before soldier 1 took advantage of the situation and did some damage.
I addressed my concerns to me PSG and 1SG. They told me that it was just a fight. I suggested that being kicked in the face and sucker punched was more like being mugged than being in a fight.
They told me that soldier 2 had it coming.
I addressed my concerns to my commander.
He told me to stay out of it.

I'll leave the story there and get input.
To me, this wasn't a fight. This was an assault that potentially COULD have resulted in bodily injury.
I felt like punishing the 2 soldiers equally (which is exactly what the NCO decision was) was uncalled for.
I felt like it sent a bad message to the unit about who could get away with what.

What would you do? NCO and officer.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 1:23 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:23:02 -0400

Quite the dilemna. This scenario would make a great story/lesson for a leadership class. Bottom line, both were wrong and their mouths wrote checks that their butts couldn't cash. IMHO I think some of it had to happen to establish the natural pecking order of the platoon, but on the flip side, it was totally wrong and set a bad example of team cohesion and integrity. The time may come when they are both in a combat zone getting shot at, and have to save each other's life. Another aspect that you didn't mention or address is the fact that there were other troops in the vicinity of the altercation who did nothing to stop it, and instead allowed it to happen and became an audience. As an officer, I would respect how the NCO handled it and not address the situation itself any further. But as a PL, I would hold a mandatory formation and explain with them the importance of team cohesion and integrity at all times! They will need each other during the deployment, and will need to focus on the fact that everyone has a strength and they may need that strength to survive. Events like this destroy team cohesion and pull each other apart. They don't have to like each other, but they darn well better learn how to fight/live together.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 22 at 2014 1:51 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:51:13 -0400

One of my tenants of being an officer is to know what "Sir/Ma'am, I got this" means. Took a while for me because I care about people but again, you are the manager, your NCOs are the supervisors. They are the first line of soldier defense and "nannying" (which would appear to be the case here)

I have always had, well, a not great feeling about the 2 chains of command - O & E working separately but together, but they are there for a reason and your example shows the reason. Sometimes you have to let soldiers be soldiers and your NCOs know that and give them the "observed" latitude to do that. It sounds like the NCOs were aware of and insuring the issue didn't get out of hand while allowing the drama to reach its supervised conclusion You as the manager care about having a productive and functioning platoon and this is your NCO's way of making it happen - sometimes you need to turn away.

Had this happen to me while deployed. One of my NCOs was detailed to stay in Kuwait for 2 months with our rear det, while we moved to Baghdad. The guy was a golden glove boxer with an attitude and during a disagreement in the barracks with a soldier from another unit, one thing led to another and you can guess what happened. My SNCO was on the case taking care of the issue through our 1SG and I was given the "Sir, I got it". Having been with my SNCO for several years, I knew business was being taken care of. An Article 15 was avoided, my NCO apologized to me and our commander when he did make it up to Baghdad - the NCOs arranged an extra 2 months of duty in Kuwait to cool him off.

Does this excuse you from keeping tabs on things, no. Should you know the status of your troops and your platoon overall at all times, yes. Do you need to know all the details - as in your case it sounds like your NCOs are doing their job - no. Walk softly on this one so long as your commander and NCOs are doing their job and your 6 is covered. Its one of those officer life lessons.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 2:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:27:32 -0400

Sir,

I feel that the NCO handled the situation properly. Sometimes peers have to police each other up because the NCOs are only allowed to do so much. If Soldier 2 isn't taught early on not to be "that guy", the platoon's resentment toward him could grow to be a distraction and stressor when they go downrange. By punishing both Soldiers equally, the NCO neither condones nor condemns Soldier 1's actions.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jun 22 at 2014 3:15 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:15:45 -0400

For those of you who are weighing in - thank you by the way - my main concern was the precedent set.

Equal punishment says that running your mouth = kicking a defenseless man in the face. If each sin gets you equal punishment...

Thoughts?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 4:27 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 16:27:40 -0400

Sir, I believe the situation was handled appropriately but I can admit I'm seeing from the perspective of an NCO. Both Soldiers were in the wrong. Soldier 2 for initially instigating and continuing the instigation after the retort. Soldier 1 for retorting back and physically assaulting the other Soldier.

I agree with both MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca and Col Private RallyPoint Member assessments. Trust the NCOs to do their jobs so you can do yours as an officer. MAJ Petrarca said it well: "It sounds like the NCOs were aware of and insuring the issue didn't get out of hand while allowing the drama to reach its supervised conclusion."

We had a similar situation last year in Korea where two soldiers were involved in an altercation which involved alcohol. The first Soldier was the clear instigator and physical one but the second one could have disengaged too. There was video evidence (which I saw) of the incident. Both were punished.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 4:34 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 16:34:08 -0400

Well, as enlisted...gotta say...with the fact that soldier #1 pissed hot - pretty well means he was on his way out, unless the Army has different rules than the Navy for illegal drug use. Or unless your comment about "pissing hot" doesn't mean what I assumed.

As for the "thug" behaviour and sucker punching, etc...gotta tell all of you - this happens more than you imagine. It used to happen even more often before we became an all volunteer military. Some of the perfectionist and PC types are going to go ape-s*(& over the fact it even happened. All I can say is: get over yourself.

In general, I don't approve of bullying. I also don't approve of smart mouthed jerks who get by with making snide comments and then hide behind officers skirts when it comes to getting protected from the ass beating they (snide comment makers) so richly deserve. Don't try to tell me about the UCMJ - sometimes there are people that deserve an ass beating, just like there are people in this world that just need to be killed.

When I was in the Navy we used to have what was called "wall-to-wall counseling" - basically if you reached the status of needing a serious ass beating you were put into a locked room with the command's "enforcer". If you were a bad enough hombre you might actually kick the "enforcer's" ass - but the command just sent in another "enforcer" - and kept doing it until you were worn down and got the beat down you deserved. The more enlightened commands had what was called "smokers" - if you and your worst enemy couldn't find a way to get the bad blood smoothed over through whatever method, then you were put into a ring with boxing gloves and the bell didn't ring until both of you were exhausted.

In real life things like this don't happen - the guy you got a beef with just buys a Mac-10 off some thug on the street and does a drive-by. Problem solved.

NCO business may seem brutal - but we (the enlisted) don't live in the higher levels of life. The grunts do the majority of the fighting and the majority of the dying - it's never pretty. People handle stress differently and sometimes a good rumble is what's needed to get the juices flowing and the reality check back in it's place. If you're fighting fair - you're not fighting.

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Jun 22 at 2014 4:59 PM

MSG Floyd Williams — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 16:59:36 -0400

1LT McCarthy....Soldier1 definitely should have been charge for assault on Soldier2 regardless if he made a comment that Soldier1 didn't like. Although Soldier2 was making provoking words, but it still wasn't a reason to fight. As a Senior NCO I would have push for Soldier1 for a Article 15, and Soldier2 would receive some kind of punishment probably extra duty for a week or two. I would have my subordinate NCO's come up with classroom training on "Conflict Resolution It is Okay To Agree To Disagree." It should make everyone more responsible to defuse a situation that is escalating, if they don't it is a strong possibility everybody will suffer the consequences. Something need to done about the NCO's attitude, the phrase "NCO's Business" isn't good enough action brings results.

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Jun 22 at 2014 5:16 PM

SFC Randy Purham — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:16:51 -0400

In that situation, both would have been counseled and recommended for UCMJ action. Regardless of previous disposition of the Soldiers they were both wrong. Now, Soldier 1 would have gotten a more sever end of the punishment because he attacked first. The NCO was trying to keep it at the lowest level and handle it in house, no wrong in that, but in light of multiple witnesses; I agree should have been done differently, rather than just that way. From a Officer perspective, I would have counseled the NCO on appropriate actions to take in circumstances like that to alleviate the perception of favoritism. All in all, it is a delicate situation. NG units tend to take care of their own because of the tenure ship and longevity they have with each other. I would take that COA and hope it plays out for the best.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 22 at 2014 5:20 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:20:21 -0400

Sir, the attacker sounds like a street thug and should not be in the military. I would recommend UCMJ at a company level well as have a sit down with the platoon to discuss how we are a team and a family and conduct like that will not be tolerated.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 6:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:25 -0400

Sir, this best thing to do is to stay out of it. You reported your concerns to the commander which is the length of what you should do. Fights are not uncommon in the military and should not ruin a career over one incident. Plus if this thing goes further you don't want to be caught in the middle. Right now you have plausible deniability you told the commander which is all you are required to do.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 22 at 2014 7:00 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:00:40 -0400

I was TAD onboard Arkansas Fiery Vigil/Desert Storm and since I was just a Rider they put me up in the 1st Div Birthing. 1st Div is more "Colorful" Sailors not the usual "Technicians" that I am used to dealing with. I was tired after 4 days of dealing with Mt Pinatubo, I had been drinking that night and damn if a Fight doesn't break out in the Head with only a door separating me from the fight. I don't like to be woke up. I don't remember much other than running in there pushing people out of my way and screaming like a lunatic at the two idiots. I really have no Idea what I said or did but for some reason had nothing but respect from the 1st Div guys the rest of the trip. Always very polite in dealing with me. I suspect word got around and I was always treated very well by the Deck Division on both ships.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 7:07 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:07:55 -0400

Clearly this was handled incorrectly by the NCO. While it was admirable that he attempted to contain the situation, due to the facts (as you stated them) this was an event that should have been elevated to the commander for further punishment. No matter how much provocation #2 was giving, #1 is never entitled to assault anyone for what they SPEAK. Again, using the info you have relayed, it appears the "good ole boy" network is alive and well in the NG. As an NCO, I would have taken #1 to the CDR and recommend separation due to a pattern of misconduct (substance abuse and now assault). #2 needs to have some serious counseling/mentoring or he might also find his way on the path to getting separated as well.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 8:31 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:31:12 -0400

This was assault and battery. Soldier 1 should have been held more accountable.

I do agree with holding things at the lowest level possible, but this in not one of those cases. It's not like this was a fight where Soldier 1 came up and pushed Soldier 2 and gave him an opportunity to defend himself. He came up and kicked him and sucker punched him. That is a blatant assault and can not be tolerated. It was not a fight. If they would have fought, I would agree with the action of the NCO.

I would have continued to push this with the commander to seek further action. If I felt that it was being handled egregiously, I might consider IG. There are times to protect your troops and there are times to hold them fully accountable.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 9:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:03:10 -0400

I was a junior NCO (SGT E-5) before becoming an officer, and I haven't seen the NCO->Officer opinion on here yet so I will give mine.
What I would do is communicate with your PSG. You have good questions about this situation and he is there to field them and advise/instruct you on his decision making and how your Platoon works. After you pepper him with your questions and concerns he will get a much better feel for who you are and how you want your Platoon lead. Do this with humility and a true desire to learn -- learn who your PSG is, how he makes decisions, how things work in your Platoon, etc etc. While you are learning he will be reading you, getting a feel for how you're likely to want the Platoon lead, and will likely adjust (somewhat) to your style.
In this situation, what is done is done. I don't have all the information I would like to have to make a decision (because you haven't revealed how discussions with Soldiers 1, 2 or the PSG went) but based on what you have said I would respect the decision that the PSG made and commend him for handling it well (assuming he successfully sold both Soldiers on both the punishment and the mercy they received from him.)
I believe that if you continue to press this issue outside of a one-on-one dialog with the PSG you are going to undermine him. That should be avoided. You should want a PSG who is every bit as strong of a leader as you are; if you undermine him he will either rise up to challenge you or withdraw.
Just talk to your PSG about your concerns directly. He will respect that; he will read you and react accordingly; and he will likely get the message to your Platoon (without you present or ever knowing) that you have every intent of making future fights into UCMJ / Assault issues. That will bring about the end goal you want -- no more fights.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Jun 22 at 2014 9:08 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:08:57 -0400

LT McCarthy, unless I am mistaken an E-4 in the Army is a Corporal and a NCo. Now I realize he may be a Specialist, but he is still an E-4. In Navy a Petty Officer 3rd Class Attacking a Seaman (E-3) is the same as your Soldier attacking a PFC. No matter the provocation, I would never think that they reacted EQUALLY and consider equal punishment for both.

Either an E-4 is a leader (maybe just a fairly new leader) or he is not. No matter the provocation, this Corporal/Specialist was not acting his paygrade. The senior NCOs were not doing their job by protecting him either. Yes, the PFC had some problems with his mouth. He was viciously assaulted by one of his leaders and not protected by more senior leaders.

At the least the E-4 should have gone to MAST/Article 15 for assault. If your NCOs wanted to do more than counsel the E-3 for his mouth, they would have proven to me their favoritorism. Even great E-4s sometimes fall on their swords. If he is really good then the time to help is at UCMJ when his NCOs speak up of him, but this should not have been swept under the rug.

Response by SFC Michael W. made Jun 22 at 2014 11:03 PM

SFC Michael W. — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:03:33 -0400

For starters, Soldier 1 is already looking at an Art. 15 for pissing hot, now he's gonna get slammed by me for not just assault, but Aggravated Assault for kicking the soldier in the face. He'd also looking at the exit door ( boot out of the military) because if he did that while handling blank rounds imagine what would he have done if he had "live rounds"? I don't care how well-liked he was, there's no place for that in the military...period.

Soldier 2 should have been properly counseled when he arrived at the unit and during his monthly counseling his cockiness should've been addressed had been followed-up. The PSG and 1SG should have done more than just extra-duty. I agree that it is NCO business, but I would've informed the PL about the incident and my recommendation for corrective action, but there's no way all they would've gotten was extra cleaning duty...I leave that for things like FTR, room inspections failures and minor situations. This was not minor...

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jun 22 at 2014 11:41 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:41:30 -0400

What you have is the beginning of fun there Sir.

#1 is in a little hot water because of a "leave" hot piss test is (or at least should be) a pretty major understatement. He is mad because he has a drug problem, so when a known smart a$$ opens his suck, he can't take it. Fortunately he has friends who support him. He should be on his way to being able to do whatever he wants, as a civilian (where kicking someone in the face will land him in the Hooskow).

#2 is a identified smart a$$. He needs some extra attention, and perhaps getting beaten on (while not necessarily the correct answer) may cure up some of the smart a$$edness.

If I were guessing, # 1 has a remarkably colorful history with local law enforcement, acts like a thug fairly regularly but is liked as a deployer. # 2 is close to the same age as #1, but younger and went farther in school and thinks he is smarter and better, but because new to unit has no respect and is acting out because that is what he sees as acceptable.

The two cannot be punished equally, they did not do the same thing. Thug life #1 should be getting jammed for the dope on emergency leave. Dependent on what transpires with that, will dictate if he needs another case put on him. #2 should be given a talking to about his mouth, disrespect and the probability of violence when telling people things that he should not.

Without knowing who for sure started with the mouth, it would be hard to rain down charges on #2. Of course that is all at face value. We don't know what exactly was said by who.

**There is a lot of back and forth about NCO vs Officers i.e. chain of command. There needs to be latitude given to NCOs to deal with things in what is commonly known as their LANE. The problem with Management by Wandering Around (MWA) is that you wind up seeing things that you really did not want to, such as what you described above. Now, because someone came to you with information that is perhaps different than what you had expected, you are now as "command" in a position that you have to deal with. Subject # 3 needs to realize a separate rule of the street "snitches get stitches".

Long way around the block to say Good Luck Sir. Were it me, in your shoes, prior to #3, I would probably have allowed for NCO lane to run. Now that I am aware of it, that means that the troops got stupid and it is my lane. I would find out from my NCO what happened. Then both of my dummies. Compare all the stories and decide for myself.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 7:04 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:04:56 -0400

Empower the NCOs to handle business but also express your concerns to the Commander. If you think it may send a bad message to the unit, let the Commander know and if he/she agrees, let him/her talk to the 1SG.

In my opinion there is no such thing as NCO business. It is all leader business. Things should be handled at the lowest level. If that platoon sergeant has it covered and 1SG is good with how it was handled, I would just follow up with the Commander and move on.

I would take measures to protect yourself though to show you have taken action or have followed up with the altercation.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 23 at 2014 10:48 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:48:25 -0400

While I totally support handling things at the lowest level, I would always make sure how it was handled was appropriate. Sometimes, letting NCOs handle it is not sufficient. In this case, you did what you were supposed to do. You brought it up to the company commnader. He (who is ultimately responsible) thought that the NCOs did what was appropriate.

Response by SSG Robin Rushlo made Jun 23 at 2014 11:11 AM

SSG Robin Rushlo — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:11:05 -0400

If an PSG or 1SGT says the got it or NCO business STAY THE #$%^&*&^% out of it. Sir period

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 11:26 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:26:15 -0400

My response is not to the situation at hand but more that there are leaders that support the toxic leaders involved in this incident, I have a read a few of the responses and am quite appalled that so many support you ignoring the situation.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 12:14 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:14:42 -0400

Translating my Navy priority lingoes of defending Mission first, Ship second, Shipmate, then Self, you need to translate it into first, what long term Mission impact have you caused by intervening/standing by, how is your Platoon impacted overall, how are those who conduct close interaction with the two see it, following by what should you do about it.

What's in the past is in the past, a water under the bridge. Closely monitor your unit morale and see how it's doing along with how aligned are they with platoon's Mission.

In a police jargon it's also known as totality of circumstances. Best wishes and blessings!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2014 1:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:21:13 -0400

Not handled correctly at all. If the solder 1 had already pissed hot, he should be in the process of being chaptered out. If not chaptered out, then he gets whatever punitive action his unit comes down with. Now here is where the problems lies right here. I think it should have been made clear to soldier 1 that he's on thin ice and the next incident involving him will be his last. That's how you make an example out of someone. Start that chapter paperwork and BOOT him/her out

Response by PO1 G. Leslie /Stiltner made Jun 23 at 2014 3:15 PM

PO1 G. Leslie /Stiltner — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:15:17 -0400

I would have written them both up and sent it up the chain of command. You are not and should not feel you are a referee or babysitter and you should never show favoritism. I agree there was favoritism and soldier 2 may have needed to get his but kicked by soldier one but not by kicking him then jumping on him because then soldier number 2 was put in the defensive and was protecting himself. The person in charge should have stopped it and they both should have been written up and a proper investigation done. Fighting is not "NCO Business" this is a breakdown of the troops and can have an adverse reaction to moral!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2014 1:30 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:30:12 -0400

Im shocked at how many people are satisfied with the outcome as it sits.
If you are assaulted, by being kicked in the face and then sucker punched while others are hindering your ability to defend yourself, you are not deserving of the same punishment as the person who assaulted you. This is not a complicated issue, it is common sense. Further, if you have a troop in your formation who has NO QUALMS about kicking another human being in the face over a simple "go F yourself", that troop needs to be dealt with immediately. He is a threat, and will eventually create a severe discipline problem, and it will spread like a virus throughout your ranks. His method of attack suggests that he is a bully, and conducts himself with common street thug behavior.

Soldier 1 needs to be separated, Soldier 2 needs to be counseled and given conflict resolution training. Honestly though...its hard to peacefully resolve an issue once youve been kicked in the face.

The "good old boy" system is dangerous, as it encourages other troops to compete for acceptance into the clique rather than striving for excellence as a way to gain respect. The "NCO business" piece has its time and place, but if an officer is asking about an altercation between two troops in his formation, he has every right to know and be consulted on the matter. Had the issue come down from the commander and the LT had been unaware of the incident, it could have appeared as though the LT was not doing his job as a platoon leader.

In this case, the quick response of "NCO Business, Roger that. As soon as I understand whats happening here, you can get back to it." or " I want a back brief after youre done here". Allowing people to be dismissive is allowing them to strip you of your credibility.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jun 24 at 2014 4:27 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:27:23 -0400

Yeah that situation was grossly mishandled by just about everyone there. No one "has it coming" to be kicked in the face. Do Soldiers fight, sure; always have always will. Is there always a Soldier that talks to much or puts his/her neck out where it doesn't belong, yes. But this does not mean he/she deserves to be assaulted in such a manner.

As an outsider looking in, I see it like this. If this were to hit the general public a lot of people will have to answer to why this was allowed to happen and why was the corrective action a police call around the area rather than the police being called to report an assault. This is a unit preparing for a deployment. The last thing it needs is a toxic environment where something like this is seen just as "NCO business". The NCOs should have stepped, taken control, and then took the actions of both Soldiers more seriously.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jun 24 at 2014 7:22 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:22:08 -0400

A couple of facts about the situation to help people calibrate...
Soldier 1 was in the process of facing a company grade article 15 for pissing hot. It was being reluctantly pursued by the 'good ole boys.'
There was no brewing conflict between soldiers 1 and 2 that I was aware of before or after this event.
The PSG was a brand new E7 whose MOS had something to do with the DFAC...he had no real leadership experience. As a prior service 2LT, I had actually joined the military before him.
We did NOT have a good relationship. To him, my role was paperwork and briefings. ANY effort to be in front of troops or dealing directly with them was resisted.

I'll give the conclusion soon.
Thanks for all the input.
I WISH this was available in 2008. I could have reached out when it was relevant.

Thanks again.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made Jun 24 at 2014 11:47 PM

Cpl Brett Wagner — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:47:47 -0400

Some very interesting comments on this story. I just may be too old school but IMHO soldier 1 cannot be a good soldier if he was popped on a piss. He has already done something wrong and he knew the rules if he was there 2 years and an E-4. You want to smoke dope get out of the army and move to Colorado and smoke away. If you want a clearance and some places a job you will have to take piss tests as a civilian too. Then soldier 1 kicks another soldier from his own unit in the head while the guy is sitting? Soldier 2 may have a wise ass mouth but kicking him in the head while he is sitting is dishonorable and chicken shit. I had plenty of fights in the Corps and with guys from my own unit but never something despicable like what has been described here. I would not trust anyone in a unit where a guy uses illegal substances is a "well liked" guy. We do not need someone high in combat or working on equipment or driving a vehicle etc. in our military. IMHO soldier 2 is young stupid & needs to mature but soldier 1 has dishonored himself, his unit and the title soldier. Again IMHO this was/is not worthy of NPJ. If anyone read my post on my SgtMaj's form of punishment and straightening out a Marine I think that is what is needed here.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2014 11:56 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:56:38 -0400

That is a bad situation. As being another NG lieutenant I understand where you would be coming from. First off I see this as an issue of toxic leadership. It seems like the NCO condones such behavior. If he did not he would punish them in the correct manner. He is also keeping the officer out of the picture. As the PL you are responsible for everything your platoon does and fails to do.

I would have recommended UCMJ on the two soldiers that were fighting and at the very least counsel the NCO that let such an act occur as it is not in like with the Army values or with keeping a profession atmosphere with soldiers on all levels.

Response by 1SG Charles Lyons made Jun 25 at 2014 4:33 AM

1SG Charles Lyons — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:33:27 -0400

Having read all the comments here ... I will just stick my two cents in. Firstly, an assault took place! When that occurred ... it went from the realm of NCO business to Commander business. Secondly, I am wondering what assurances the NCOs had that the situation was "under control." So, we have a unit where "mugging" a Soldier is fine and appropriate. Sorry, from the old school ... Soldier 1 referred to UCMJ ... Soldier 2 counseled to keep his comments to himself ... and those NCOs getting a refresher course and counseling on their duties and responsibilities. Right now, seems like all the leadership in that unit is shirking their responsibilities to include the Commander. Lastly, matters not if they are NG or not! JMO!

Response by SSgt Jeff Cody made Jun 25 at 2014 10:04 AM

SSgt Jeff Cody — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:04:30 -0400

If the PFC deserved any punishment for his disrespectful remarks to his CPL he got it when he was kicked in the face. There should absolutely be no further punishment. The CPL could have easily warned the PFC of his tone of voice and if it continued what the consequences would be. The PFC needed to be reminded that even in casual situations respect of rank is a military constant. The CPL losing his military bearing and physically assaulting the PFC demonstrates his inability to properly lead and should result in a loss of rank. That PFC and others in the command may fear their CPL but they will never respect him.

Response by SFC Matthew Parker made Jun 25 at 2014 11:50 AM

SFC Matthew Parker — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:50:11 -0400

Sir,
NCO business was a stupid reply when I was an NCO and stupid here in this scenario. NCO's have responsibilities and duties as do officers but there isn't NCO only business. Yes, the daily operations of the platoon do fall to the NCOs but A good PSG works with his PL and in a case where the cohesion and discipline of the platoon are concerned that is the PL's business.

Your PSG and 1SG were wrong with how they dealt with this incident. Soldier A pissed hot and should be pending UCMJ and separation, his character is already in question.
But soldier A also responded to a verbal comment with a violent assault on a subordinate. He should have been detained and turned over to the MPs for assault.

You say the whole platoon was milling around, where were the NCOs when this took place? Oh that's right doing NCO business.

Your commander is flat wrong not to pursue charges against this soldier. Your 1SG and PSG have watched to many WW2 movies and think this is 1941. Had it coming was a stupid thing to say. What would they say if the kick hit the throat of the soldier and killed him?

One soldier can destroy a platoon and this is soldier A.

You are well within your rights as the PL to demand accountability and expect the PSG to uphold those standards of conduct you establish. Your the PL, the PSG works for you and with you but your responsible for those soldiers.

Get soldier A out of the platoon, have the NCO for soldier B counsel him for his "cocky" attitude and develop him properly.

Tell the 1SG and commander they can have soldier A for their driver.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jun 26 at 2014 3:22 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:22:25 -0400

All of this input is great. Thank you for weighing in.
Again, I wish I had this resource when the situation was going on.

One more piece of the story...
I pursued a course of action similar to what many of you suggested...I went back to my commander and insisted that we reconsider the punishment. The NCOs were having both soldiers perform a number of extra duties...a few days later...

(My commander was a card-carrying member of the good-ole-boys club. Hand picked for his command by the company 1SG, who actually served OVER the CO when he was a private and 1SG was a PSG.)

I told my commander that solder 1 assaulted soldier 2 and showed him the definition of assault in the MCM.

He told me that i was being selfish. Said that it would be unfair to battalion to bring this up, with all the things they have going on.
He mocked me...suggested that I carry my copy of MCM around and call the MPs whenever someone violates any article or regulation.

Then he told me we were done and dismissed me.

Let it go or take it to BN? That was my struggle now...
What would you do? I am particularly curious what the folks who felt like the punishment wan injustice and something should be done...which was how I felt...would you keep pushing it or back down now?

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 5 at 2014 12:42 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 12:42:10 -0400

A big thanks to everyone who weighed in.

Here is how it ended.

My commander made it clear that he was not a fan of my opinion.
He told me that Soldier 2 had it coming and that I should let the NCOs handle it.
He mocked me when I showed him the MCM definition of 'assault' and started making sarcastic recommendations that we "call the MPs" anytime we saw a minor uniform violation.
Then, he jumped the shark.
We were running 24 hours ops. All of the other officers were working the dayside and having their NCO counterparts work nights. My PSG didn't handle the night thing very well, and I saw value to having at least one officer in the battalion awake so I let my PSG work the dayside and I took the nightside.
One morning, only a few hours after I had gone to sleep, I was woken up by one of my soldiers. He said the commander was looking for me.
I got my stuff on and headed to his office.
He had a counseling form typed up for 'missing movement.'
He said, since i wanted to be a hardass about the rules, he had no choice but to punish me for missing the exercise they had just returned from.
He told me to take it to Battalion, they were waiting for me.
This guy had gotten the entire company up and mounted and moved them to a training area, had them drive around for a few minutes and come back.
This 'training' was unplanned and unscheduled.
No one made an effort to wake me up.
I was never informed of it in any way.
One of the other LTs told me that he was instructed to be quiet when waking his PSG, who slept in the same bay as me.
I reported to BN and asked the XO what this was all about.
I opened the MCM to the part where it said that the first requirement for a "Missing Movement" charge was that the soldier should have reasonably known about the movement.
I was told that it didn't matter. I was being reassigned to BN as an excess officer. When I brought up the incident between the soldiers I was told that pursuing the matter at this point would just look like retaliation.
They put my old PSG in position as a platoon leader.
That was the consequence for insisting on justice in a corrupt organization.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 5 at 2014 12:57 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 12:57:09 -0400

Things worked out well enough overall though...

Soldier 1 and Soldier 2 actually ended up becoming friends.
(Which makes soldier 2 FAR MORE forgiving that I would have been).

The PSG turned platoon leader made an ass out of himself.
The commander was exposed for having sexual relations with at least one of his female lower enlisted. Another one or two couldn't be proven.
(Because of the good-ole-boy network, he wasn't punished. He agreed to resign his commission at the end of the deployment and they left it at that).

A couple of Majors on BN staff saw my background and recruiting me to work for the S7 and S9. I had a great time working in small groups, operating with minimal oversight and coming and going basically as I pleased.
I got to improve the lives of individuals and groups in the community, and impact our overall mission far more than I would have been able to as a Platoon Leader.

I found out later, by having some beers with the XO at the airport on our way home for leave, that they saw the conflict between me and my CO and decided not to 'pick sides.' It was easiest to move me because they didn't have any other eligible captains to take command if they would have moved him, and because the 1SG and CSM were big fans of the CO and I was a new guy.

Things worked out for the better, and I learned several important lessons.

But I still get heartburn from time to time thinking about the way it went down.

Again, thanks for everyone's opinion. It was interesting to see the spread.
I wish this tool had been available when the situation was really going on.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2014 9:20 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:20:11 -0400

This is a really touchy situation. Soldier 1 should definitely be getting the boot. That is assault. If soldiers can't handle other soldiers making smart remarks and letting it bounce off their chest, they are in the wrong profession. Having said that, the NCOs should have handled it better. Punishing the soldiers equally was not equal to to action of the soldiers. A stronger message should have been sent, because now other soldiers in the unit will think they can virtually get away with anything. Situations like this need to be handled appropriately and swiftly because it is possible for events like this to create a toxic atmosphere in a unit. I think the way it is being handled degrades the climate of the unit and downplays the authority of the chain of command.