Where is the line drawn when an NCO is involved, invested or invasive considering soldiers needs?

SPC Mara Stevenson — Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:27:09 -0400

Soldiers that struggle with suicidal ideology, sexual assault or harassment, or even mentorship? Where is too close from an NCO perspective, spouse perspective, soldier perspective?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Oct 13 at 2020 8:38 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:38:57 -0400

Judgment call on the party of both parties. NCO are required to train, monitor, mentor their troops all the time. Keep in mind many with the problems are either not interested in getting help or afraid of being stigmatized for seeking help. Also keep in mind since neither of us and most in RP are not shrinks, it hard to define the definitions involved. NO good NCO wants to see their troops beset by problems or eat a bullet.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2020 9:03 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:03:48 -0400

That’s gonna come down to METT-TC. How badly does the soldier need attention, mentorship, or counseling? Extremely hard question to answer without proper insight.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Oct 14 at 2020 9:01 AM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:01:36 -0400

None of the mentioned situations are something an NCO should be expected to handle on their own. The CO should cause a team to be formed to analyse the situation and create a plan to handle treatment or monitoring. The team could include a psychologist, legal, the CO, the serviceman, possibly the chaplain, and everyone from the CO down in the soldier's chain of command. Questions that need answering include the fitness for further service and an admin discharge if appropriate; a leadership/psychiatric plan if appropriate; and the serviceman's consent, cooperation and agreement with any plan.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2020 1:45 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:45:19 -0400

If it doesn't feel right, reconsider. Misconduct or even the appearance of it can do harm. Any issues involving Women Marines, very few, I always had a senior enlisted WM alongside with SNCOIC. One on ones can be dangerous. The same scrutiny should apply to non service personnel.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2020 3:08 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:08:55 -0400

Most of the topics you point out are very dangerous to meddle in. Also, they are equally dangerous to ignore. That's why the system (the Army) has resources in place to fall back on.

So while on the surface leaders are supposed to be warm and fuzzy to these needs, when these instances arise they need to be dealt with in accordance with our training and passed on to the designated professionals for the care the soldier needs. Anything outside of passing the problem off to professionals places astronomical professional risk on the leader(s).

I had a potential domestic situation happen to a soldier. The soldier missed battle assembly because of it. I literally went to the police department (in uniform) during battle assembly and made a report with the details I had. The soldier was also given resources to reach out to. I don't think it went any further.

Selfishly, my ass was covered. What is expected more of leaders?

We are the maintainers of the equipment needed to execute our mission tasks. This includes soldiers. So while we are trained in minimal maintenance of equipment (oil change) some things we cannot address with unit resources (transmission replacement), and those need to be sent out for higher skilled repair.

If a soldier gives the signs of needed help as identified by our training I expect my NCO's and myself to act upon it and get the soldier help (maintenance).

At the end of the day, my NCO's and myself are individual people too, and we just want to make it through the day without crap blowing back on us.