Rank has its privileges means what precisely?

I like your example Scott; Captains are glorified Privates indeed.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana that seems like a different issue. Courage is not something that only exists on a battlefield. There are many ways that one can show it. It is guaranteed that if this "leader" uses his power inappropriately once, he'll use it again similarly. I suggest capturing his lawlessness on a recording device and using the IG. If he tries to punish you, request a trial by court martial. It will bring spotlight on everything.

SGT Tony Clifford I used to say it to my joes all the time. I phrased it a little differently, though. “Shit rolls downhill. BUT..the higher up the hill you are, the bigger the shitball is when it runs you over. By the time it gets to the bottom for you barbarians, it barely smells.”

Of course rank has its privileges. Higher ranks often have better privileges. Frankly, I’d find it a little weird if at the end of the duty day, a bunch of privates went home to their nice on-post homes with their names on placards on the front yards while all the colonels piled into the barracks to get ready for a madden tournament.

Lower ranks sometimes have the better privileges. I saw a lot of wild stuff in the Army, and I can remember just as many awful leaders as great ones. What I can honestly say I NEVER saw was, in a group setting, officers or NCOs eating first. Privates first, always. Without exception. Then junior NCOs, etc etc. Sometimes, it just pays to be a PVT.

Rank, as they say (sometimes High, sometimes Low), indeed has its privileges.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - Then they should have neither. If you don't stand up to that kind of abuse of Rank, then you are complaisant in the problem.

Never be complacent with abuse of power, position or authority, and never allow waste. Thanks

Yes Sir; I was told my CXO that if I ever complained about his highly unusual activities that he would use his rank, power, position to make me face his wrath until the end of my service; he claimed I would face extreme hardship. He said this in the face of subordinates to invoke fear in them too. Although nothing happened in my case, the subordinates were truly scared of that CXO and work got twice as hard. However, his unusual activities were eventually brought to light.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - With rank comes power. Some leaders will use that power to threaten others. While that's bad leadership in my book, it isn't really against the rules. If I have tasking authority over you, then I can task you with any lawful duty that I want so that you "feel my wrath". That's a bad place for you to be in for sure but it doesn't really constitute violating policies and rules. Plus, "unusual activities" is pretty vague. Are the activities themselves breaking the rules or just unusual? Hard to answer without more specifics.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - I agree fully. Honestly, the entire question seems a bit off to be coming from a CPT. We (those who have been in a while) should know that no one has a license to violate rules and policies regardless of their rank. His comments seem to indicate that there is something major going on but he has provided no details. So it leads me to believe (rightly or wrongly) that there's more smoke than actual fire. But it doesn't matter what I think. He's already talked to IG. If they don't see a problem, RP can't help him.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - I don't know what a CXO is. I assume it is some sort of Executive Officer.

If your CXO was involved in some sort of unusual activity (immoral, unethical, or illegal); it was your moral obligation to shine the light of day on that activity, REGARDLESS of the personal consequences.

In your comment to MAJ (Join to see) "I spoke to the IG MAJ Jaren Glover Sir and, I was advised that perhaps the CO was ignorant of the law, rules and regulations." I don't know to whom you spoke, but ignorance of the law, rules and regulations is no excuse. If the CXO was in violation of the law, rules and regulations for ANY reason, including ignorance, the IG was duty bound to investigate and address the unusual activity. If the CXO was not in violation of the law, rules and regulations, the IG was duty bound to give you a clear explanation and understanding why they felt your complaint had no merit. Furthermore, they are duty bound to maintain confidentiality.

If the IG failed to investigate and address, failed to explain, or failed to maintain confidentiality; you recourse does not end there. I suggest a letter to your Senator, Congressional Representative. Furthermore, if there is even a hint of repercussions, you need a lawyer. If you tolerate illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct by your seniors you are essentially complicit in the questionable activity. You and you alone must look into the eyes of someone junior who pays the price you would not. As a Captain, I paid the price when two field grade officers would not step up. It affected how I saw them for the remaining time I had in the Marine Corps.

The crime that has been reported as a non-chargeable offense, Ma'am.

Precisely LCDR (Join to see); a soldier complains about his Command to the Service IG and in reprisal, the XO reported the soldier AWOL when the soldier was sick in quarters, the XO suggested that the soldier altered his own quarters slip when the Head Nurse was responsible, the CO ordered the soldier to an EMHE without affording him due process. The Command IG submitted the PAI on the EMHE claiming it was not done in reprisal. The CO eventually told the soldier on his discharge "Remember, RHIP son."

Meh...the situation you describe Gene is considerably more ambiguous in my opinion. I'd want to know what the Soldier took to the IG, what instigated that, and what the specific details were regarding "suggested that the solider altered his own quarters slip when the Head Nurse was responsible..." What exactly does that mean-did the Solider have/not have authorization for SIQ?

Sure, I hate it when higher ups get different results, positive or negative...but I also hate it when "Sea Lawyers" use the system to bone the COC.

I understand SFC Stephen Atchley, but then, do soldiers trust IGs to investigate their complaints fairly, properly and carefully or; are IGs in the pockets of errant leaders, who see complainants are whistleblowers?

I did a tour as a detailed IG and we never viewed ourselves as being in the pocket of any commander. The Inspector General of a given command is accountable only to the actual commander of that element. Our IG in Korea worked for, and represented the Commander USFK and Eighth U.S. Army.

What we quickly learned as IGs is that we had absolutely no authority to direct anyone to do anything. Investigations that revealed any possibility of criminal activity were immediately suspended and referred to the MPs or CID for further action. Our reports were non-attributable and named no units or persons directly in connection with any finding or recommendations. Assistance requests were handled with the same level of confidentiality to the extent that was possible. Sometimes this wasn't possible when investigating an individual complaint, but our policy was to tell the soldier in advance if violating their anonymity was going to be required.

Any IG that sees a complainant as a 'whistle blower', or that has an issue with whistle blowers, is one that should be removed from the position. Did you speak to the actual IG, or to a deputy? Also, there are IG's that occupy the position as an additional duty and my experience showed that these officers typically were not trained on how to actually do the job, (Detailed IG's are trained and certified at Fort Belvoir and IG is their primary duty.)

http://www.cadetcommand.army.mil/res/files/AR20_1.pdf

I love your answer Donnie; does it mean I can do as I please, even outside the rules and irrespective of whether others get hurt?

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana - that may be stretching it a bit, Gene.

I agree; the elastic has stretched and most likely the IG officer I spoke with was overstretching my leg Donnie.

Does rank have it's privileges to destroy subordinates and their lives based on beliefs?

The IG tells me today that rank has its privileges and the CO pleaded ignorance of the law, which makes an EMHE in reprisal an administrative error. Would you buy into such IG stories SFC Kelly Fuerhoff ??

Thanks Kelly.

It matters little who the person making bad decisions is, if the decision is so bad as to endanger lives , then you go up the chain until someone does something to fix it. I once had to write a letter to the President because of as rule change in our Rules of Engagement, that if followed would have resulted in MANY lives lost. All because the person wanted to show compassion to the civilians in areas where "Charlie" ambushed us , at the expense of the men under his command.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana It's less the salute (I tossed that in due to your rank) and more the door opening. I held doors for SNCOs. It is partially respect, but also discipline because that is what you did as the lower rank. There are other examples, but that always struck me as the best one for the question; a lower rank person sropping those few seconds to hold the door for the higher rank.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana Also, I just want to say so the intention of my comment is crystal clear ro anyone reading, and to you (though judging from your reply, you took it in the spirit it was meant). I don't feel any ill-will toward any of the RHIP-type customs, courtesies, or niceties. Never did. Discipline is a core tenent of wearing the uniform, and any act of RHIP is part of that discipline. What I would never tolerate is abuse of rank, and thankfully I have very few instances I can ever recall that having been done. If it was, a trip to the Shirt sorted it out right quick, if it even needed to go there. The shoe could be on the other foot, too, as I had a serious authority as a young airman. If I had abused that authority, I would have expected my OIC to correct me. Rank and positional authority both carry weight, and the only thing that makes them worth a damned is the respect placed in them... from others, and from the person holding that rank/authority.

SSgt Ryan Sylvester, agreed. I have had three occasions in my Army journey to observe abuse of power and position that concluded in a perfectly sane junior officer's being reported as mental, and enlisted troops being eliminated from service. Although complaints were filed against those notorious seniors, the OTIG never investigated these cases because no case was actually registered against them. Instead, under congressional inquiry, the OTIG claimed that the accused Commander and senior staff officers pleaded ignorance of the law and arbitrarily closed these complaints. This is what I call RHIP Ryan.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana Maybe it's the "cop's son" in me, but where my head goes in that experience you relayed, "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." Back in my early days, I got the ball rolling and wound up burning a SSgt out of the service. On a damned hunch, let alone having a full blown investigation file in front of me. Maybe the outcome would have been different if it had been a senior O rank, but I would have still gotten that ball rolling. That was my job. Burns my 6 when an investigative authority sweeps something under the rug because, "Gee, I didn't know, my bad."

So I thought CPT Nicholas D. and wanted to clear misinformation from spreading. Thanks.

CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana For sure! There is no regulation that absolves someone from being compliant due to pay grade. Increased rank creates a demand for purer leadership. Leadership should be servant minded. Anyone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t deserve their special parking space in front of the PX.

CPT Nicholas D. I agree with that.