Posted on Oct 13, 2020
Where is the line drawn when an NCO is involved, invested or invasive considering soldiers needs?
2.91K
10
12
2
2
0
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?
Suicide
Sexual Assault
Sexual Harassment
NCOs
Leadership
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 5
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SPC Mara Stevenson
I ask this on the basis of some research and on another side of things. My husband is active, I am a veteran and now a spouse. I've seen it from both sides. My husband has been involved invested and e en too close to some soldiers. It is something he has struggled with. From a spouse side, it is a difficult thing to go through and witness. As a soldier it felt too invasive, I've seen good soldiers commit suicide due to lack of attentiveness to a situation after a good NCO leaves a unit out if his own control, this growing problem needs a fix and sadly those within ranks can only do so much or maybe even too much. Sexual harassment and assault cases can end up to have to much attention and ve too invasive as well as not enough attention to detail. Where can you say who did the right thing and who was in the wrong. When does it become dangerous for an NCO to be involved without being suspected of fraternization becuase soldiers go to them for support. Only because their own NCOs don't give them what they need. Ive seen this over and over again. Its just a huge problem for soldiers, for NCOs and everyone involved.
(0)
(0)
SPC Mara Stevenson
What are thoughts on a legitimate code of ethics and not JUST regulations being established.
(0)
(0)
SGM Bill Frazer
1. I have seen very few ethics codes having any enforcement teeth. Military Regs , when list as part of UCMJ have real teeth, and to a minor level all -regs due.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SPC Mara Stevenson
See this makes sense, but many (in my own experience and from what I have witnessed) COs and even senior enlisted tend to not want to be involved as well as details of a SM situation do not always stay private enough. This leads to stigma and shame once again. Most if not all of these SM only want one or two people to know of their situations, they believe that the most trusted individual is the only one that CAN help. Putting the pressure on that one individual. How can the narrative be changed? We are taught that we are a family. Brothers ans Sisters in arms. But why can't we actively work like one to handle these problems, why are we not comfortable with accepting help from as many as possible? Does this start within the ranks?
(1)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
SPC Mara Stevenson - As an NCO you must report any material or personnel problems for which you are responsible. Put the problem in writing and if it is ignored, readdress it to the next higher command via your CO. Such communications, since they involve personnel are privileged and should be handled as such. So far as the serviceman is concerned, if his performance or fitness for duty is involved it is again your responsibility to report the situation. Unless you are a clinical psychologist, you are not qualified to handle the situation or even make the determination that the person will not accept appropriate treatment or other actions that would address the problem. I am an advocate of personal involvement in your people's problems, but this problem exceeds what could normally be expected of an NCO, or even most line officers. You've got to recognize your limits and cause qualified personnel to be involved. At this moment, the serviceman is an operational liability to the unit and potentially a danger to himself and other members of the unit.
(0)
(0)
SPC Mara Stevenson
LtCol Robert Quinter so, to clarify, situations and conversations regarding SM sensitive, personal issues and concerns are privileged and should be treated as such on all levels, and by every party involved. Once the SM becomes a liability or danger to themselves or the unit, that is when elevation is needed no matter the soldiers wishes. But even at this point conversations regarding, must remain privileged and continues to be kept private. Reckognize limitations of yourself as an NCO, in not taking on something you are not qualified to handle no matter your feelings for you soldier.
For the record I absolutely 100 percent agree with this and all the statements ok this thread. I am trying tk find the right way to communicate this to certain service members with these issues. I appreciate all of these responses on the greatest way.
For the record I absolutely 100 percent agree with this and all the statements ok this thread. I am trying tk find the right way to communicate this to certain service members with these issues. I appreciate all of these responses on the greatest way.
(1)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
SPC Mara Stevenson - Yes and liability includes an adverse impact upon unit operational capability.
In communicating with the individuals concerned, although all of the augmenting staff (chaplin, medical personnel, legal personnel) have been stuck with some negative labels because they often become involved in actions with a negative outcome for servicemen, those negative actions are not their primary responsibility. They are all hired and paid by DOD to assist servicemen with working through the situations they face to bring them back to their full capability to serve. The military has no desire to cut anyone's term of service short and will go to what civilians might consider extraordinary lengths to take care of our people.
In communicating with the individuals concerned, although all of the augmenting staff (chaplin, medical personnel, legal personnel) have been stuck with some negative labels because they often become involved in actions with a negative outcome for servicemen, those negative actions are not their primary responsibility. They are all hired and paid by DOD to assist servicemen with working through the situations they face to bring them back to their full capability to serve. The military has no desire to cut anyone's term of service short and will go to what civilians might consider extraordinary lengths to take care of our people.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google