Was this situation fair or was the SM unfairly treated?

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:16:43 -0400

In context: SM is seeking training on equipment they are already certified for (5~6yrs). Others who are not certified have been using, driving and operating this equipment with the leadership who are in control of this equipment. The leadership and non-certified operators are buddy-buddy. When leadership within the chain of command were confronted about the situation, the certified SM was ignored for 2 years. When an important mission arose, the SM was the only one certified to run the equipment and asked if they were able to recover a vehicle. The SM explained they could, but didn't feel comfortable because the lack of training they have received and the A-driver must be certified as well. All other operators were unavailable at the time. Days pass and the SM was approached and spoken to the their section leader. SM explained the situation, the embarrassment of not knowing their job well enough and the unfairness of the leadership which lead to their current situation.

The information reached the senior leadership and swiftly came back to the SM. The SM was called down to the office where they were spoken (loudly) at, not to, and not listened to as they were causing a commotion among the equipment operators. The leadership exclaimed about the MTOE and slots (not that a lower enlisted would know this as common knowledge unless they researched it or learned from others, nor does it explain the training issues or the non-certified solder issue) didn't want to hear or understand the SM's issues, they also made it clear they will "Never" operate that equipment while they are in charge and that if the SM wants to do so, they need to find another unit...

The SM was then pulled into a meeting with their leadership and one of the leading operators of the equipment. On the way, they stopped by their MRNCO's desk about something else and was asked if all was OK as the RNCO and others were questioning the SM's profile. The profile does not have any restrictions or limitations other than for the APFT. When this second meeting commenced, the breakdown was the SM was "burning bridges, causing issues and breaking the chain of command." The profile was then brought up and they told the choice to not allow the SM to train, use or operate the equipment was based off of the profile which was never explained to them. The SM clarified the profile was set up to allow for the operation of all equipment and vehicles as the unit prior helped clear it years ago for the certifying school. They then said "well, i need people that want to learn and are willing to work" degrading the SM's work ethic and constant curiosity to learn.

As the SM believes they are dealing with toxic leadership and the favoritism or the good ol' boy system is in play, is there a violation of any regulation/rules? Does seniority and qualification supersede a leadership choice like this? As the opportunity to learn, gain experience and better themselves is being put on the back burner and the pursuit of the SM's profile to create a justification are included in this situation, would this be a form of discrimination or EEO issue? Does the side effects on the soldier life, mental health and confidence matter?

Please keep in mind, this unit is already under fire for many other issues and others are dealing with similar situations.

Thank you in advance for reading, I appreciate all guidance.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2020 11:59 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:59:45 -0400

Time to run this issue up the Flag Pole and take it to BN with the Open Door Policy

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2020 12:04 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 12:04:07 -0400

This needs to do the the CSM. Use the open door policy, but make sure your chain of command knows you intend to go there.

I can guarantee that the CSM will ask what has been done at the lower levels to resolve the issues

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2020 12:13 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 12:13:57 -0400

Doesn't sound like there are any EO issues.
The lack of trained personnel should have been addressed prior to the mission. I don't understand why this has been going on for years. Mission requirements and training of personnel should be addressed routinely. I agree with the others, since it is not being correctly addressed at the unit level it needs to be take to the next higher command. Be prepared with regulations, policies, etc that support requirements for use of the equipment and training.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2020 12:18 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 12:18:51 -0400

It's all fun and games until JAG shows up. Silence is consent, if you know about it. Maybe the COC is not aware. Duty.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Jul 1 at 2020 5:06 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 17:06:43 -0400

Unit success is all about leadership - or the lack thereof. The CO is the one to bite the bullet and if his grade is enough to let him ride it out then so be it. Likewise someone, the SM? went 2 years without training on the equipment, without any one renewing their equipment license? That requires tracking of re-certs and training time with the solder in the equipment. All it takes is one date and time where the SM can prove he was elsewhere rather than at training.
Most paper-fudgers mess themselves up by being lazy and doing things like "everyone qualified on the range (including scorecards)" when Privates X, Y and Z were in fact deployed. I mentioned because somewhere, somehow the players had to whip out documents indicating the SM performed his duties in the position. It might even be in his counselings where they (or not - being neglectful) sang his praises, and noted (or not) his accomplishments.
Finally - if the SM enjoyed his paid ride and all the trimmings without complaining to the chain of command at any time? - Well that's a chock full of shit - use a large spoon when eating.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jul 1 at 2020 5:19 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Wed, 01 Jul 2020 17:19:49 -0400

First, I have said it before, I will say it again, until I am blue in the face. The Commander COMMANDS. If the SM was given a mission, and stated he was uncomfortable because he felt unqualified (despite certification) and also because the assistant was not qualified / certified, but the Commander said to do it anyway.... Well. Go do it. Unless there are regulations (not just unit SOP, which the Commander of unit holding SOP can override) which specifically prohibit the operation of the equipment by uncertified personnel. Not "untrained" but "uncertified." According to the story, multiple people have been operating the equipment (I.e. on the job training). AR 380-55 (or whatever Army Safety Program is these days) may be helpful here. But if it ain't illegal, you go do it. Period.

That is if the Commander said to do it. If not, fall back on the unit SOP, and inform whoever is giving that mission that it would violate CPT X's (or LTC X or COL X, etc.) written SOP. Then if they still insist, refuse. Take any and all reactions (counseling statements, ass-chewings, Art 15s, etc.) directly to whoever wrote the SOP's enlisted counterpart (1SG or CSM). Inform said person of violations of their procedures.

HOWEVER, SM needs to remain completely respectful and tactful throughout. My first Art 15 was for disrespecting an NCO. My 1SG told me that what I said was 100% in the right, and the NCO was 100% in the wrong. However *how* I said it, and then storming away and ignoring the NCO... Well, I was q00% in the wrong for that, so.... Company Grade Art 15 ensued.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jul 2 at 2020 12:28 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 02 Jul 2020 12:28:45 -0400

Look, go higher up- use Open Door talk to the Senior NCO and the Commander. Explain problems- explain that if un qual folks operate equipment, lives can be lost, units fried by IG/JAG/CG's. SM just wants the thing fixed IAW Army and safety reqs.