What is the difference between holding someone accountable for wrong choices, and being a "blue falcon?"

About 90% of the time, I want issues and infractions addressed at the lowest level, AND I want to be informed about it. I embrace the opportunity to guide the person making the correction, and listen to how he/she handled it. I also want to know if this is something I need to keep an eye on.

The remaining 10% are the issues that need to come to me or the commander immediately, because of the seriousness of the offense, detrimental to the mission, or violates one of the big AR 600-20 issues.

Having said that, I always reserve the right to handle a situation myself. There are times that the First Sergeant just needs to get in there and unscrew a bubba for the good of everyone.

PO2 (Join to see), TSgt (Join to see), MCPO (Join to see), PO2 William Allen Crowder

Here's what I've always believed (and witnessed) a "Blue Falcon" is (this is my very specific definition - others may believe differently):

A "Blue Falcon" is someone who makes a mistake that causes someone else to either get in trouble, or that causes a problem for someone else, and who (and this is important) doesn't own up to it! LTC (Join to see) is also correct. The bottom line is that the Blue Falcon does nothing to help, only contributes to the problem, and does not take ownership of the problem. An example of a classic "Blue Falcon" is when you jump out of an airplane. As you float down, a Blue Falcon will either get to close to a fellow jumper, or "steal his air"/cut him off by dumping his own air and passing underneath him. Blue Falcons CAN be a danger to others.

A snitch, is not a Blue Falcon. A snitch is someone who lets law enforcement, or a supervisor, know that his buddies have committed a crime - usually one that would not have been discovered. Being a snitch does not involve any reward for the snitch. Note: A CRIME must be involved for a someone to be a "snitch" - otherwise, they are a back stabber - see below... An example of a snitch, is someone who hangs out with a group of E-4s on a regular basis. Upon finding out the group is into drugs, he continues to hang out with the group, but when the group pisses him off, goes and tells a supervisor, which results in the other E-4s getting busted. Note: A snitch does not necessarily snitch to gain. Some snitches snitch because their morals are higher than those of the group, and they don't believe in the crime.

A back stabber, is someone who deliberately sabotages someones good work, to make himself look better, or someone who deliberately rats someone out for a mistake in front of that person's superiors. A snitch can belong to this category, but a back stabber is not a snitch. In every case of back stabbing, no crime has been committed. A back stabber USUALLY does not rat out the perpetrator, until the offense is discovered, and upon discovery of the offense, the back stabber is quick to lay the blame on anyone but him/herself regardless of whether they had any involvement in the crime. NOTE: Back stabbing can be "unintentional" as in: The back stabber accidentally blabs the info out, without intending to do so. An example of a back stabber, is someone accidentally spills soda on their keyboard. Whether or not the perpetrator makes amends, the backstabber goes and calls out the perpetrator for the mistake.

A c*ck blocker, is someone who intentionally or unintentionally, makes a friend/buddy look bad to someone of the opposite (or even same) sex. This is usually a result of drinking too much, but can be the accidental asking a simple question (such as "Hey, how's your girlfriend doing" when someone is trying to go out with a new girl").

A buddy f*cker falls into either the blue falcon or back stabber categories.

A rat is the same as a snitch, except the rat is usually in tight with the group, and is only ratting out his buddies to save his own hide.

The biggest question is WHY is the person being a "snitch"? Is it to maintain standards and good order and discipline, or is it for PERSONAL GAIN?? If it's the latter, then they are a BF. If not, the person is just looking out for the unit/command/service. If the person is a back-stabber, they are a BF, and they are not to be trusted with anything. If they do it to do the ethical thing, they are doing exactly what they SHOULD be doing.

BF causes or contributes to problem or makes a bigger deal of the problem without offering to help or give the offender a warning or chance to correct the problem.

I think through these negative responses in which you speak of will only continue to prevent followers from saying anything this causing them to accept lowet standards.

True leaders will continue to stand up and enforce the standards and regulations prescribed in which they are charged to uphold.

Your scenario describes why they are more followers than leaders and as we lose leaders who choose to give up and lose hope that we can restore standards and discipline within our ranks though consistancy and by example are ranks will continue to degrade.

I was the blue falcon snitch when it was needed. I almost always talked to the individual first. When that did nothing, I ran it up the chain. Typically, it was big items that needed to be addressed anyways and they were people intentionally doing wrong. Not the "oh, I didn't know" or the "oops. I forgot". And the people who called me names, were usually the people that were in trouble and doing wrong intentionally. As MP, it was "kinda" my job to report wrongdoing. (And now, as probation, I address the probationer directly, then if they don't heed my advise and direction, we take it to the Court). I'm not perfect by any means, and although i hate being called out when I'm wrong, I'm glad it happens from my coworker before my commander/supervisor/boss. I am usually the first to admit when I I screw up. And that is hard to do. But I work to hard to have it ruined by covering something up when owning up can fix the problem immediately. So, I feel others should do the same. Don't intentionally do wrong. Admit wrongdoing. Should be good to go.

To me, a "Blue Falcon" is someone who is either a snitch, or someone who will take an incident that can/should stay at the lowest level and escalate it to a higher echelon, "just because."

Most foolishness can be handled and corrected at the squad or even platoon level, and it should. Getting people higher-up involved means more pain (and paperwork) for everyone involved, and harsher punishments necessarily ensue. Now if it's something serious (assault, sex crime, theft, etc.) then yes, escalate it up the chain as required by regs and SOP.

Snitches... well, I have no time for them. They prove that they have no loyalty to their peers and are probably trying to score points with superiors by turning-in their peers. Most of the time we're talking about stuff that does not rise to UCMJ violations, and are usually handled within the squad and are forgotten about. Police-up your peers and set them straight. Don't snitch on them for minor stuff.

I like to address the offense at the lowest level starting with the offender first. I don't ever like to go up the chain unless its an emergency.

Unsure of the Navy, but the Amry chain of command, unless it's a major infraction, would ask the individual leader what has he or she done to correct (counseling, extra training, etc.) the solider before bringing the matter to the attention of the chain of command. I'm thankful that's what my NCO's did when I was a lower enlisted soldier.