Posted on May 5, 2015
Should SHARP be the #1 priority for the Army right now?
21K
166
55
0
0
0
So we are all very aware of SHARP, hence the 300 hours or more of training a year. However, What do you personally feel should be the Army's number one priority at this present time?
Take the survey below: If the response you wish to select is not there, then by all means place it in a comment. I am really interested as to what the masses think about this subject.
Take the survey below: If the response you wish to select is not there, then by all means place it in a comment. I am really interested as to what the masses think about this subject.
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 34
I picked 'pay & benefits' because I feel that, with such a rapid draw down, that certain processes may inherently be screwing over Soldiers. Separating Soldiers is already an unpleasant task; I believe we should at least treat Soldiers with at least some dignity and respect during that process.
I was fortunate to be involved with the logistics surrounding the draw down of Iraq.
The intent was for this draw down to be a "responsible draw down", as it related to moving equipment/supplies out of Iraq.
...I strongly believe that the draw down of PERSONNEL also needs to be a "responsible draw down".
There will be difference of opinions here, but, one case I came across recently revolved around an AF officer who, via 2 x Non-select for promotion, was forced to involuntarily separate from the service.
Before being involuntarily separated, he had agreed to serve an additional 4 years in order to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his spouse. With every intent for him to serve 20 years, his wife proceeded to start utilizing the benefits--she actually used upwards of $24,000+ dollars before he was non-select the 2nd time, and forced to involuntarily separate.
Likewise, because he was unable to serve those 4 years--even though it was due to his involuntary separation--it was decided that he would have to pay back that $24,000, as an "overpayment" in benefits.
(Now, one could argue that he 'should have seen it coming', but with selection rates dropping, I would argue that even great Soldiers--with no derogatory information/bad evaluations--are being separated, as well....making it increasingly difficult to actually predict whether one will be selected or not. As far as I understand that particular case, that officer had no derogatory information in his file.)
I can't say whether some things are being done, deliberately by design to incur a cost savings....but, I do think we need to be very careful. Soldiers just bore the burden of war for a decade+....I think we at least owe it to them to give treat them with dignity and respect during the separation process.
I was fortunate to be involved with the logistics surrounding the draw down of Iraq.
The intent was for this draw down to be a "responsible draw down", as it related to moving equipment/supplies out of Iraq.
...I strongly believe that the draw down of PERSONNEL also needs to be a "responsible draw down".
There will be difference of opinions here, but, one case I came across recently revolved around an AF officer who, via 2 x Non-select for promotion, was forced to involuntarily separate from the service.
Before being involuntarily separated, he had agreed to serve an additional 4 years in order to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his spouse. With every intent for him to serve 20 years, his wife proceeded to start utilizing the benefits--she actually used upwards of $24,000+ dollars before he was non-select the 2nd time, and forced to involuntarily separate.
Likewise, because he was unable to serve those 4 years--even though it was due to his involuntary separation--it was decided that he would have to pay back that $24,000, as an "overpayment" in benefits.
(Now, one could argue that he 'should have seen it coming', but with selection rates dropping, I would argue that even great Soldiers--with no derogatory information/bad evaluations--are being separated, as well....making it increasingly difficult to actually predict whether one will be selected or not. As far as I understand that particular case, that officer had no derogatory information in his file.)
I can't say whether some things are being done, deliberately by design to incur a cost savings....but, I do think we need to be very careful. Soldiers just bore the burden of war for a decade+....I think we at least owe it to them to give treat them with dignity and respect during the separation process.
(0)
(0)
It is important but there are other issues as well that shouldn't be supplanted by this.
Also in response to the sexual harassment/assault problem the army has gone back through recruiters, drill sergeants, sharp reps, victim advocates records and flagged many with type 1 and type 2 violations. Some of these violations existed prior to said soldier becoming recruiters, drill sergeants, etc and were waivered and or acknowledged that some issues existed.
Essentially resulting in soldiers that were allowed to pursue and serve honorably in these positions are now being told that they can't be trusted in those positions.
Also in response to the sexual harassment/assault problem the army has gone back through recruiters, drill sergeants, sharp reps, victim advocates records and flagged many with type 1 and type 2 violations. Some of these violations existed prior to said soldier becoming recruiters, drill sergeants, etc and were waivered and or acknowledged that some issues existed.
Essentially resulting in soldiers that were allowed to pursue and serve honorably in these positions are now being told that they can't be trusted in those positions.
(0)
(0)
If we are to follow our leaders intent then yes. Background: in October 2014, SECARMY published his priorities listing. Sexual assault was at the top of that list.
(0)
(0)
PFC Alex Rivers
It shouldn't be sergeant. There should be no need to hold a soldiers' hand and tell them that sexual harassment is not okay. It's a common sense thing, if you don't have the integrity to keep your hands to yourself, you really shouldn't be wearing the uniform.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next