Would you counsel or reprimand a soldier for something they posted on RallyPoint?

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:57:53 -0500

Can you cross the line as disrespectful or insubordinate on Rally Point in some comments/discussions?  I think it's important to promote an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and candidness.  Do you think the line can be crossed?  <div>If so can a soldier be baited into a hot topic thats starts out as a discussion until it becomes a strong disagreement of opinions.</div><div>I think you may also get into issues of "proving" the soldier posted it and what not.  Also things can be taken out of context a lot of times in online forums.</div><div>What do you think?</div>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2013 6:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:01:18 -0500

I've already started to see to many hurt feelings on here because of comments. So I've stop commenting on so many comments. 

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2013 6:22 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:22:15 -0500

Good question... First, comments made on social media can be used against you, and you can be counseled, or worse. Second, I agree, it is important to promote a positive atmosphere, and yes, lines can be crossed. Baiting people is wrong. Anything outside of a face-to-face conversation (and even those aren't safe) can be taken out of context. Everyone should bear in mind that we're supposed to be professional at all times... even online. 

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2013 8:58 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:58:53 -0500

I've seen article 15s given for Facebook posts so why would Rally Point be any different. Rally point is more of a professional network rather than Facebook being a social network. You are representing your service/unit on this site and your actions should be professional in nature.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 9 at 2013 9:48 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 09:48:07 -0500

SSG Burns, Talking to people in person is same as text, e-mail, writing letters and even on social media like Facebook and even Rally Point. One must be mindful of what they say however, the how they say it part is really perception of the receiver. With that said I would have to carefully evaluate the evidence before me fore I take any measures to discipline a soldier.

Response by CDR Richard Tucker made Nov 9 at 2013 11:00 AM

CDR Richard Tucker — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:00:51 -0500

Right or wrong, the age of social media is upon us and Servicemen and women have been taken to NJP and higher for post on Facebook.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Nov 9 at 2013 8:24 PM

CMC Robert Young — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 20:24:49 -0500

Rally Point offers an opportunity to engaged in some spirited debate and thought provoking interaction; however, military members are required to adhere to regulations regarding their behavior at all times regardless of forum. That said, any effort to "bait" a service member demonstrates a significant lack of leadership and core values.

Response by CPT Mike M. made Nov 9 at 2013 10:22 PM

CPT Mike M. — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 22:22:10 -0500

I think there are limits.  This isn't just another social network where we represent ourselves.  Here it's a purely military, professional network where we represent ourselves, our pay grade peers, our branch, etc.  With that said, yeah, I think if someone gets out of line and posts something either completely out of line or disrespectful they should hear about it.  If you and I got into it on here, because of what we represent, it's not Robert Burns vs. Mike Miller.  It's a US Army SSG vs a US Army CPT.  As such, we should both show each other the appropriate level of mutual respect.  It's what I try to do and expect to see from others.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2013 8:52 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:52:21 -0500

Honestly, you should! The reason being that you are making an honest effort to help that soldier keep their security clearance or keep them eligible for one. Security clearance investigators are taking a close look at a soldier's social media account(s) prior to granting a clearance. I've seen an investigator want to question a soldier over his "friend" on Facebook. So, it really is up to that first line leader to keep in touch with that soldier (especially their social media habits) to avert potential problems. You really owe it to them!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2013 11:11 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:11:24 -0500

Absolutely, I think the Soldier should be counseled, but not by me.<div><br></div><div>Their NCO should do the counseling.  Fix the problem at the lowest level possible.</div>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2013 2:01 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:01:13 -0500

There are some great entries in this discussion already.  A few of my thoughts ...<div><br></div><div>We can have frank, open, and honest conversations among members of various ranks in person or online.  Our organizations are better if this is true and it requires leaders who set the correct climate and servicemen and women who are willing to participate.<div><br></div><div>Whether in person or online, if we keep in mind that we are professionals and conduct ourselves as such, the danger of "crossing a line" is greatly reduced.  If we are afraid of saying anything because it may be misconstrued we are doing ourselves and our service a disservice.  </div><div><br></div><div>If I say or write something out of line, inappropriate, or unprofessional I should be corrected.  Correction doe not always have to be in the form of a written counseling or necessitate punishment.  In many cases it can be a comment to the individual.  If I realize I've said something that should not have been said, I can apologize for it and if possible delete it.  If it is flagrant unprofessionalism or violates the UCMJ then appropriate action must be taken but I can think of very few instances, especially here on RallyPoint, where this would be the case.</div><div><br></div><div>A "strong disagreement of opinions" does not equate to something to counsel someone about.  The only time this would be a problem is in an organization after a decision has been made and people are still arguing about it.  At that point it's time to accept the decision.  But in online forums such as this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with differing opinions ... as long as they are presented professionally and do not violate regulations.</div></div>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2013 5:27 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:27:09 -0500

<p>This is precisely the reason why I have a private, secured facebook that does not use my name. On that page, I can chat with friends, post up hot rods, tattoos, music, and relax. Although it's private, and I don't make friends with anyone in my unit on there, I still don't violate my values, or the Army's values there - but I can "cut loose" a bit more there, since it's an outside of work endeavor.</p><p> </p><p>Rally Point, however, is an area where we use our rank, name, location, etc. and is a professional networking tool, thus, the standards and expectations of behavior are justifiably much higher.</p>

Response by SSG Ronald Limbaugh made Nov 19 at 2013 2:31 AM

SSG Ronald Limbaugh — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:31:04 -0500

RallyPoint is a great source of open and candid conversations between professionals. However, as professionals, we should maintain common courtesy and decorum when using this forum. I think this forum allows us a bit more freedom than we might have in a one-on-one or group conversation session, in terms of being able to voice our opinions and views, but we also need to ensure that the respect and common courtesy that is due to others is maintained, whether it is respect of the rank or the person as an individual. This forum is different than many other networks, in that many of us are representing ourselves as Service members. Our Service Branch, Unit, and Ranks are all being represented by how we conduct ourselves. As a Service member, I am held responsible for the things I say or do while representing the Army, so, yes I would have to say that anything said in this forum could/should be used as a basis for a counseling session, if brought to the attention of the SM's chain of command. I don't think that the issue of baiting, using hot topic issues, should matter, no matter how strong a disagreement becomes. If you can remain calm and collected during a heated discussion, in person, then it should be possible to reply to online discussions with even more thought and tact, as you are not required to reply immediately. It is much easier to walk away from a conversation online, than it is in person. Remember to maintain your professionalism and treat folks in the manner that you would wish to be treated.
My two cents...

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 19 at 2013 7:44 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:44:52 -0500

<p>I do think it's important to ensure that there was actual disrespect involved though, and not just someone being offended because the person who disagreed with them was "only a PVT-SPC-ETC...".</p><p> </p><p>Unfortuneatly, I've already seen one or two examples of "when you don't have facts, flex your rank".</p>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 19 at 2013 9:57 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:57:27 -0500

Just becasue we have freedom of speech doesnt mean we have freedom from the consequences of that speech.

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Nov 22 at 2013 7:02 AM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:02:20 -0500

SSG B, I agree, there is no emotions in a post or text that
is sent. I believe that we should have open, honest and respectful debates here
on RP. We should not try and "bait" someone into a disrespectful or
insubordinate situation. We are all adults on here and should respect each
other and others options. I feel as long as we are not totally belittling or
calling names that we can get the points across and have some great mind
provoking conversations, learning and growing from each other.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2013 9:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 21:07:17 -0500

maybe not on RP but definitely on Facebook or myspace or whatever these young soldiers are on these days.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2013 2:24 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:24:05 -0500

Not only can you be punished its easier to punish because of the evidence still posted on line.

The only thing the command has to prove is that you own the account.

My advice if it ever comes up: You fought for your rights, invoke your rights and don't make any statements or consent to searches.

Response by CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2013 3:00 PM

CW3(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:00:52 -0500

Absolutely! RallyPoint has been created to get others to connect and discuss in an positive and open environment, and lines could be crossed. Hopefully we would not be putting ourselves into hot water and creating such topics that would otherwise not be discussed in the work place and could potentially put others at risk.

Response by SFC Stephen Hester made Dec 4 at 2013 6:57 PM

SFC Stephen Hester — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:57:52 -0500

Be professional. If you wouldn't say it to a senior NCO/Officer in person then why would you want to say it here? The fact is that disrespect is just that and if you post disrespectful comments here then you obviously need to have your sights adjusted.

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Dec 6 at 2013 1:50 AM

SFC A.M. Drake — Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:50:58 -0500

We have all seen the repercussions from higher ranking officials in all branches getting caught up in the emails, blogs, posts, etc. My advice would be do not say anything at all about your service, your servicemen/women while you are a member of the Armed Forces on active or reserve status. I follow these two rules.

1. Do what your rank can afford, (your words and actions can and will be used against you)

2. You came in the Armed Forces with an Honorable, leave with the same.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 12:45 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:45:54 -0500

I guess it depends on the context of the discussion. I can see that many of these discussions are opinionated and if an officer opens a "speak freely" context then no I would not reprimand the soldier. It has to go both ways. Especially if you can edit these comments later.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 12:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:51:45 -0500

Aslong as the Service Member is expressing his opinion on a subject they should not be repremanded. This is a professional networking site and should be treated as such, so as long as the SM isnt being disrepectful and still respecting the general military authority of those that are higher rank on here, then i say, let them have their opinion, it may open up some of our eyes to have the bottoms perspective.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 6:46 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:46:26 -0500

I am curious to how one would actually go about doing this.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 6:47 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:47:15 -0500

Are people going to start calling peoples Commanders and say their soldier hurt their feelings on a website?

Response by 1SG Johnny Carter made Dec 17 at 2013 6:53 PM

1SG Johnny Carter — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:53:23 -0500

We are all professionals and I agree that yes Soldiers can be punished even on here if they get out of line and start to get UNPROFESSIONAL......BUT as we all know we handle all issues at the LOWEST level first. Not everything is a UCMJ action. Soldiers should have an open minded conversation ( regardless of rank )but when it starts to turn south it is up to US to calm the situation and keep the peace so to speak. Everyone can easily get emotional charged especially if it is a topic that hit close to heart. So I say cooler head will prevail if individuals work the issue through clear dialect and let the individual(s) know that up front. This is a place to get answers and fix issues, not bash and degrade Soldiers or organizations. We all have learned from mistakes or seen things that were wrong and I would hope that this is a place to share knowledge and lessons learned.  

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 9:57 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:57:59 -0500

I think we have bigger fish to fry and more important things to worry about than what someone says on a social media site that may have offended someone.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Dec 17 at 2013 10:35 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:35:07 -0500

Yea I agree. I think now that you can edit comments this would be tough to do. Unless you are taking screen shots every day.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Dec 23 at 2013 5:25 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 05:25:23 -0500

I wouldn't reprimand a Soldier's post on RP unless the post was disrespectful to that Service Member's chain of command, to include the POTUS. Depending on the post, I might message that Soldier to tone down the comments, but if it's an honest expression of free speech, and this site is dedicated to creating a positive atmosphere, I'm not sure we can do much about it. That's more of a facts-and-circumstances thing requiring address on a case-by-case basis.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2014 2:03 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:03:38 -0500

I would argue that IF the Jr. Soldier is "baited" in to a controversial exchange of opinions, the thread(s) in question should be brought in to the mix. Additionally, if it is the Sr. Individual doing the counseling, I would strongly advise against it.

I have always seen respect as a 2 way street. YES, you must present "due respect" to a rank, in regards to subordination, following orders, etc. However when a senior ranking individual CHOOSES to engage a junior individual, it is (in my opinion) incumbent upon the senior person to maintain civility, and respect. IF that senior person breaks that rapport, then it is to be expected that the junior person will act in the same manner.

I have learned through the years, that the military creates a strong sense of self importance in people. Unfortunately, we have a large amount of what used to be considered fraternization between senior and junior personnel thanks to social media. Conversations that would have generally not taken place 20 years ago between senior and junior personnel are now commonplace.

Just like in personal interaction between senior and junior personnel, the senior person sets the tone for the conversation. If that senior person breaks protocol, it should (as I said before) be expected that the behavior will be reciprocated.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Feb 1 at 2014 10:45 PM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 22:45:42 -0500

My thoughts are yes we should be mindful and professional of how we converse to each other.

I like to provide grace, and allow interaction on a positive note. I believe in promoting a safe environment where growth can take place.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Feb 1 at 2014 11:13 PM

CH (CPT) Heather Davis — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 23:13:48 -0500

<p>SSG Burns:</p><p><br></p><p>I would not counsel, I would in-box them and provide feedback. I think it is imperative that we encourage and model openness and genuineness regardless if we agree. This should be a place where we can create acceptance and promote growth for our junior soldiers.</p>

Response by SSG Alleria Stanley made Feb 1 at 2014 11:24 PM

SSG Alleria Stanley — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 23:24:25 -0500

I have failed to see the difficulty here or the issues. How is a social media forum online any different from a social forum offline?

Are these not my words? Are we not gathered together? How is our conduct expected to be any different because it's being conducted electronically?

"Oh, but it's Facebook, or Rallypoint, or ...., so it's not real... you're not REALLY going to give Private Wii an Article 15 for what he said on there, are you!?"

Why not?

Do our actions ONLY count in person?

Awesome. I'll keep that in mind. Let me text my CSM what I *really* think of him. As long as use txtspeak and it's in a txt message, I'm off the hook, right? Anyone want to take a wager on how that would go for me?

If you post a threat about the President on Facebook, why does the Secret Service show up? It's on Facebook after all. It's not real. Don't they have better things to do?

These forums and websites are just another media and another representation of meeting places that have existed for decades and decades. Our expectations of behavior and decorum haven't changed.

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Feb 1 at 2014 11:51 PM

SSG Oliver Mathews — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 23:51:46 -0500

At the end of it all, it all depends on what is said.

"I have trust issues with my NCO support channel"

Vs.

My NCO's are all lying bast@rds...

One is politely stating an opinion the other is blatant disrespect.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2014 9:15 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:15:56 -0500

SSG,

This is a great topic. I believe that anyone can and should be able to come to rally point or any other social media site and be able to express themselves in a professional manner that doesn't invoke repercussions. Just because a junior enlisted disagrees with a senior enlisted or officer doesn't call for a counseling. If there is a line that is crossed, I believe that it should be left at the door.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2014 9:35 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:35:31 -0500

I would counsel the Soldier first and if that did not work then I would lean towards a more harsh measure like counseling or a reprimand if needed.

Baiting someone only works when that person loses their professionalism and tact. As long as you keep those 2 thoughts when talking and responding you will not have to worry about counseling or a reprimand.

I have to say if the case was warranted proving it would be easy. People tend to think because it is online they can have excuses that excuse their behavior but they fail to realize everything on the internet is permanent. Even by erasing or editing a bad post there is still a history of the original and it can be used if needed.

The easiest way to not have that happen is going back to being professional and tactful.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2014 10:29 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:29:21 -0500

I think the golden rule applies here and if you treat everyone with deference and good manners the whole atmosphere is relatively free of toxic types. I wanted to go off on a Petty Officer recently because he was blatantly disrespectful.

Senior and junior officers alike can be the role model in that sense and of course I am flattered being around senior NCO's. What enormous responsibility leadership has, but even rank-and-file individuals can make a case for respect by respecting others, regardless of their rank or political proclivities.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2014 5:56 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 05:56:03 -0500

I wouldn't necessarily counsel a soldier... but counseling an airman for something they said on RallyPoint? Absolutely!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2014 8:13 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:13:10 -0400

Short answer: YES! That being said I feel you can have frank and open conversation without acting unprofessional. Keep it clean people!

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 19 at 2014 1:01 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:01:13 -0400

SSG Burns,

I will answer this way: I would never go on a fishing trip on RallyPoint, or Facebook, or whatever other social media site. That said, if it were a "plain view" instance, or was actively brought to my attention and crossed a UCMJ or decency line, I would either counsel/reprimand or forward to the appropriate chain of command for action.

It is for this reason, and the additional murkiness of the regs where RC personnel are concerned, that I am not Facebook friends with my subordinates (actually, I am with two...for different reasons), superiors, or immediate peers. I believe in free expression and the right to hold & share opinions. However, I do have a duty to ensure standards are maintained...

My unit does have both an official and FRG page. I don't post to either, but follow both to check on the temperature of the unit. I don't read any soldier's posts on their walls, but would if required.

For me, a big question would be whether there was a nexus between military status and presence on the social media platform. I am obviously affiliated with the military here. Likewise, on LinkedIn, I clearly identify as military-affiliated. On Slashdot, where I used to hang out years ago, I just had a screen name, and was anonymous other than the info I chose to share. I never had an issue sharing strong political opinions on slashdot, as I was doing it in civilian status & there was no nexus to the military. I was "just some guy." Facebook is really grey - and that's dangerous.

An analogy I internalized a long time ago was that there are some conversations appropriate for your living room, a friend's living room, a coffee shop/pub, the public square, and in formal settings. There are decreasing levels of acceptable speech in each and greater need for tact/discretion.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 1 at 2014 12:47 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:47:25 -0400

Bottom line...yes. Imagine the following scenario. Commander sits you down, and reads you the following statement...."The POTUS is a @#$%%^ whose policies in the Middle East circle the toilet like a flushed !@#$ and only!@@#$% Americans elected him. This !@@#$%^&&** country !@#$%"........
The boss then says that "SGT Servicemember" is actually Major General !@#$%^, the Division Commander and you both are going to see him in 10 minutes. BTW, those comments came from YOUR troop. What to do??.......
We all took an oath. We all cast aside freedom of speech so we could wear the uniform proudly. "The PAO gives you the following options to use as a response"....remember? From the movie JARHEAD...."There is no speech that is free (while serving). You must pay for everything that comes out of your mouth"(paraphrased due to CRS).
If someone is "baited" into a conversation, I ask the following....."Why do you give power to others by allowing them to get you so angry? You DON'T have to answer questions just because they have been posed to you. The retired members, veterans, and civilian supporters aren't subject to UCMJ or the scrutiny that our dedicated active brothers and sisters are. Some of us that are "in the clear"have been holding our tongues so long that it has affected our giggle glands and we go too far.
However,we are ALL human beings and we are supposed to afford EVERYONE the right to their opinion. We all deserve to be treated with the degree of respect and courtesy that we deserve as human beings, regardless of rank, status, political affiliations, branch of service,etc. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that you turn into a child and attack them personally or insult their intelligence. You can be right WITHOUT shoving your views and opinions in someone's face. "I disagree for the following reasons..." vs. " How dare you say....." Just my .02

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2014 4:06 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:06:26 -0400

So this is an interesting question! As an Element Leader (similar to an XO) I supervised around 110 enlisted and officer personnel. We were having attitude issues with one of the junior enlisted techs (medic) as she went to FaceBook and posted derogatory and slandering information regarding the NCOIC. I spoke with one of the NCOs about it and he said that he called JAG and they told him there was nothing we could do due to freedom of speech. However, is it unprofessional and in bad taste? Most definitely. This was a few years ago, and I suspect (and hope) that folks are now held more accountable for their online actions.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2014 7:24 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 19:24:21 -0400

Not a chance. This is in no way a formally sanctioned military network nor is it a governed by such rules/regulations. This is not a civilian employment; those posting answers showing people getting terminated for their posts to facebook and such, are off the mark. Does anyone actually know what has happened to someone that posted something on a social network site and was in the military? First hand, actual knowledge? Near next to nothing. Some extra duty; not for what was typed, but for violating UCMJ directly. Not through grossly distorting an article in UCMJ to fit a presumptive violation. Prime example; the young female that hid in her car and took a selfie instead of rendering salute during retreat. Does anyone know what actually happened to her? Or are your ideas of what happened, based upon second and third hand accounts of punishment?
If I don’t like what someone says/types on here, I don’t respond and keep going. If someone doesn’t like what I say/type, keep going. There is no chain of command, nco support channel on here, posted rating schemes, etc. This is a social networking site. If you want to call me by my first name on here, that’s fine. If you want to say a derogatory remark on here, that’s fine. Too many people seem to hide behind their rank and this imaginary idea that they are better than the next guy based upon what they wear on their chest or placement with the governmental hierarchy. We are not developing COA’s, ASCOPE, MDMP, etc; there are no positions of influence on here.
People will say/type what they want, that is what makes this a great country. We can do it without the fear of reprisal. If someone wants to turn me in to my command because they do not like what I say/type on here, then go ahead. I have read too many comments on here that are veiled threats. It is ridiculous and shows how far we have sunk as a dignified organization.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Sep 1 at 2014 8:30 PM

PO1 Michael G. — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:30:32 -0400

SSG Robert Burns Absolutely, a service member ought to be counselled for crossing the line on Rally Point. To me, this is no different a forum than being quoted in the newspaper or having a discussion in a public place, like a bar. Absolutely, someone can be baited in those situation, but that doesn't excuse certain behavior. Additionally, I don't think that "proof" would be that big of an issue; just like the newspaper, the words are pretty plain here. The only thing that may be taken out of context sometimes would be tone of voice; sometimes things come across as sarcastic and rude when they aren't meant to be. However, that's the same concern anyone may have in social media, so it's a hazard that is real. I think that it's up to the person posting to phrase their response in such a manner that is is clear that disrespect isn't intended.

Long story short, if what a service member says in the "real" world would get them into hot water, the same standard ought to apply in social media.

Response by PO3 Shaun Taylor made Sep 25 at 2014 12:27 AM

PO3 Shaun Taylor — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:27:42 -0400

Unfortunately you have some people that will use their rank to silence you when you don't agree with them or if you said something that made them feel not so smart. One of the reasons why a few people on here won't post their pics or full names.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2014 12:37 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:37:42 -0400

I would say that it is important not to go to boundaries you would not do in the open public. I believe as long conversations are not vectored toward one particular person or divulging issues at a particular unit by outing them then they should be fine. I suppose if you questioning about your actual leadership and say I belong the "74th Does Stuff Unit," would be an ex party approach to usurp the COC. But if you question it in hypothetical or you are at least vague looking for advice, "how does one handle a unit that has X issue going on?" Then that is you not exposing the problem before it can be handled properly.

Also OPSEC and other operational considerations should be maintained. If the discussions seem to broach an official policy then that could be an issue. Making assumptions or opinions on operational matters probably need to be tread with caution. This is an open forum you do not want turn third party hearsay into an official record. Last thing you would want to do is be responsible a CNN or FOX news blurp that X amount of US military personnel have commented on X situation.

Lastly I would advise anyone in an active status to not say anything disparaging about any superior or senior government official. It is a chargeable offence to make any disparaging remark towards any member of our governing bodies.

Response by MGySgt Jose Capellan made Sep 25 at 2014 2:36 PM

MGySgt Jose Capellan — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:36:51 -0400

If the comment is inflammatory to the unit or to particular person and you know the person who posted it , bring the information to higher authority discus the problem with the unit commander or your next in the chain of command get their input and then confront the service person and give him or her an opportunity to explain his/her self and then you act officially or informally.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 30 at 2014 4:35 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 04:35:25 -0500

I heard of a young Soldier being disciplined for using profanity on FB but that opens that leader to be held to that same standard. We are in an open forum. A private should be respectful to another private as he or she is respectful to general. Also, in the past, I have had the displeasure of working with insecure senior leaders who saw disagreeing was a sign of disrepect as if they were looking for "yes men".

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 10:03 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:03:37 -0500

I might, if I thought it'd get me an ARCOM... (Too soon?)

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Jan 13 at 2015 10:09 AM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:09:31 -0500

I think that is part of the reason why you don't see lot of SM who are E-4 and below on here. It like they are afraid to speak their opinions, due to the fact, that if it disagrees with what the falls within line with what Military collective thinking, even if no one from their immediate COC is on here, they will find out, and they will hear about eventually. With that said, it they do need a place to be heard, and in some cases to vent, and to explain their point of view, without the fear of someone coming down on them for their point of view. At the same time, it has to be explained to them in calm manner why certain things are done in the Military, with more than it is how we have always done it, or it is an order. Sometimes, if people know why something is done this way for, they are more willing to do it that way, then trying to do it their way which to them seems quicker and easier to them. Everyone is human, and they aren't always trying to be thick in head, sometimes something called logic gets in the way of them rationalizing why military way is so much 'better', 'safer', and 'faster'. Especially when some of these people have done these things in the civilian world where they know how they to do it better, faster, and safer.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 1:48 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:48:47 -0500

I don't think I'd "formally" correct my subordinates for something here (or on FB, or Twitter). I may, however, pull them aside and quietly mentor them about the importance of appearance and representing the Air Force at all times. If they're just typing swear words or calling someone names...meh. If they are clearly outside the bounds of Air Force policy (i.e., using the uniform to support a political candidate, sharing FOUO or other OPSEC sensitive information, potential SAPR/SHARP issues, or bullying of co-workers/subordinates), then we may have a bigger issue.

Overall, I'm not a fan of the trend to police every service member 24/7/365. While there are some issues that require intervention, most shouldn't rise above "hey, man, you need to be careful about what you post if you're in uniform in the pictures".

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2015 2:56 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:56:55 -0500

Absolutely!! This goes hand in hand with maintaining good order and discipline. I see Soldiers of all ranks and genders that have the mindset that they are "only Soldiers" while at work and wearing the uniform, instead of understanding that they are Soldiers 24/7.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 23 at 2015 11:10 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:10:57 -0500

"Also things can be taken out of context a lot of times in online forums."

I think this is one of the biggest points.

The written word does not convey emotion, or any of the other cues we humans usually use in normal communication.

The classic, "It's not what he said, it's how he said it!"

Two people can be in near agreement on a subject, however because this is a 'toneless' environment, it will sound like a complete argument, to others and themselves.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jan 23 at 2015 11:39 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:39:35 -0500

If I was still in, I'd counsel you for not posting new baby pictures.....slacker.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2015 1:07 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:07:23 -0500

Let me ask you this question. Would you counsel or reprimand a warrior for something they posted on an electronical Inspector General feedback? I was a man before I was an AIRMAN or MARINE and I've had my own opinion ever since I could remember. You're free to have yours and I'm free to have mine. There has to be a vector for warriors to express themselves and if you can't handle how they feel as a supervisor or as a leader then maybe you should go work at WalMart or Target. Our warriors have concerns and its important that we listen to them. You will find that you as a leader may learn something from that. When you feel like you're the smartest guy/gal in the room then maybe it's time that you seriously think about retiring.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 24 at 2015 1:39 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:39:04 -0500

Its not necessarily what a person says but how they say it.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 11 at 2015 10:36 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:36:56 -0400

It's nice to see this is still a valid question a year later.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 10:45 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:45:01 -0400

You mean they havent kicked you out yet?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 10:52 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:52:16 -0400

That the purpose of this forum which I enjoy and admire. Where leaders of all levels and branches can come together and discuss issues like professionals.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 10:54 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:54:52 -0400

If anything, I would believe this being a professional networking site accessible exclusively to members of Armed Services, their Veterans, and Retirees, there would be less tolerance for words or posts left here because everyone here is largely presumed to know where the line is, when it's been crossed, and the consequences for that transgression. It's one thing to have your Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, or Marines acting like idiots on FB where the public can see them. Good, bad, or indifferent, however, the vast majority of the American public is blissfully ignorant of our rules and regulations. Here on RP however, the entire viewing audience is informed and well-versed in the UCMJ and will be watching and listening intently for the outcome. Indeed, professional reputations of the leaders charged with determining the outcomes of these cases could easily be at stake. I don't think it's a matter of if, it's a question of when.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 11:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:07:59 -0400

I think that with rally point being military and knowing what the rank is if someone who is posting soldiers should know to keep it professional. This goes for nco's and officers as well. This should be a professional forum and all comments and posts should be kept as so.

Response by SGT Joseph Jones made Mar 11 at 2015 11:28 PM

SGT Joseph Jones — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:28:49 -0400

I think with Military bearing we should all police each other a little but still give that openess that we expect. A line can be crossed but the line should be a little different than what it is in person. If an officer does something unacceptable on here I feel anyone should be able to say sir that's not right and it not come back to hurt us in life. But if you go to cursing or calling names then it should be addressed. I wouldn't do a formal counsel either on any occasion maybe pull the soldier aside and speak with them but don't embarrass them in front of peers or put it on paper unless it becomes a habit of that soldiers to do and say things online they shouldn't disrespecting leaders is a good example.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Mar 11 at 2015 11:33 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:33:31 -0400

Being one who has walked that thin line a time or two I will say I personally accept what could come of it. That being said this is a great forum to learn from puerile of various ranks, and their unique backgrounds that on a normal basis we are unprevy to. Yes, I believe many things can be solved with a personal message, or a verbal warning.
I believe counseling and UCMJ is a bit over used because of the draw down. We must remember that we are adult men and women no matter how much big military likes to treat us otherwise. Treating people like adults and giving them a chance to fix things at a low level can quickly and effectively fix most issues.

Response by SGT Joseph Jones made Mar 11 at 2015 11:43 PM

SGT Joseph Jones — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:43:07 -0400

This is a great question SSG Robert Burns. You look familiar you didn't work at Lundstuhl or Ft. Gordon in 04-06 time frame did you?

Response by SPC Thomas Hobbs made Mar 11 at 2015 11:50 PM

SPC Thomas Hobbs — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:50:14 -0400

The answer is simple, and the way to handle it is even simpler. All this can be answered here: DoD Directive 1344.10. Every service member should know this. The problem is, most don't because they listen to their NCOs, who learned from their NCOs, and on down the line. I don't know of ANYONE that has actually read this. To be perfectly honest, this is the first time that I have seen it, and I'm quite upset with my former leadership giving me false information.
In a nutshell, a service member is permitted to state their opinion, provided that it does not claim or imply endorsement of the US Armed Forces, promote violence, use up duty time, take place on a military installation, take place in a foreign country, or appear to be unprofessional. Punishments for violating the aforementioned falls under "Conduct Unbecoming Military Personnel", plus any punishment for criminal activity, if applicable.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 12 at 2015 12:02 AM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:02:39 -0400

Depends... Most likely no... but some things that violate EO, EEO, etc need to be nipped in the bud...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 5:20 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:20:07 -0400

You would need to be logical about it. Is it something you'd give an undocumented corrective action for, if it was said in front of the PL/PSG? Is it something the CoC would expect to see on a 4856 or NCOER?

There is no cookie cutter answer to this. Social Media "existed" when I was in, but there wasn't much to it, other than picking your Top Eight followers. Given the change, leaders need to change also. Obviously not looking away at something that needs to be fixed, but not handing out Company Grades for something an RBI or some good ol' Front-Back-Go can fix.

Response by SSG Eddye Royal made Mar 12 at 2015 5:22 AM

SSG Eddye Royal — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 05:22:52 -0400

SSG BURN, good morning, the wether NCO or OCS academy, the difference between a good and s great leader would be to spot the weakeness in that soldier, give him or her a guidining hand. Some will be greatful, and thank you privately it you let them others just lost in shuffle. I hope that help. BTW, I was that way in the being mine home sick, never been out of home town so, let the squad leader of your 1st, and commander agrees. Just monitor others also.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 11:15 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:15:09 -0400

Great question SSG, and I completely agree with you that this site should promote openness and honesty, how else can a soldier get any honest feedback or advice.

So to answer your question, no I wouldnt counsel them or reprimand them. If for some reason, they cross the line and start openly be disrespectful, then that might be another issue. The soldier may be simply corrected, not necessarily counseled.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Apr 3 at 2015 1:53 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:53:59 -0400

20 to 1 says there's a POG somewhere that's already done it

Response by SPC Don Wynn made Sep 21 at 2016 2:15 PM

SPC Don Wynn — Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:15:20 -0400

I would say it depends. As this is a social media outlet, and not an official one, it does fall a bit outside the military structure, and as such, rank should not be a factor. That said, respect, by all parties, should be expected regardless. Just because you are a superior officer/NCO, does not mean you are always right, especially in this setting. However, officers and senior NCOs should be given the respect their rank deserves, even by those no longer on active duty. I've been out 35 years, but still address by rank and sir - they've earned that! If it was something derogatory to a specific person, then they should be counseled in general, as respect is expected regardless - and I would say a junior could counsel a senior also! Golden Rule; treat those as you would want to be treated!

Response by SGT Mark Grier made May 2 at 2017 9:44 AM

SGT Mark Grier — Tue, 02 May 2017 09:44:48 -0400

Sure if I got a hard-on for a particular person I can use it as ammo but momma raised me right and that's why I sucked at the NCO gig because I am compassionate in nature and I understand that humans need a place to discuss things so He or she can understand their situation better. Remember a bitching soldier is a happy soldier. If you can't ask leadership an honest question then that person shouldn't be in a leadership position.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2017 10:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 May 2017 22:44:38 -0400

I would go by the train of thought that if you wouldn't say it to someone if you were face to face, it wouldn't be wise to say it on social media. The Army is small and you may end up working with that person one day. You have have a disagreement with someone without arguing or getting nasty.

Response by CPL Greg Fiory made Jun 18 at 2017 11:20 AM

CPL Greg Fiory — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:20:47 -0400

I think you should really be cautious what you post on any site. Civilian or active duty.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jun 26 at 2017 3:34 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:34:57 -0400

While actively in uniform I would just caution others to watch what you say or what you post. Your information shows that you are active duty or reserve etc (not like facebook or instagram or something like that) and you are subject to things others aren't. When you post or respond on RP, whether or not off duty or on, your ideas essentially become what your branch of service believes and if someone outside of RP sees or hears what you have posted (I have seen clips posted from RP on Military Times page) you can get in serious trouble. My advice is to be honest and open but keep it professional and courteous. That way others will see your points and even if you don't agree you can agree to disagree and move on to the next topic and it will keep you out of trouble. I really think RP is a great forum that provides a place for all ranks, active and retired or separated to mentor and provide advice and support to each other. I would encourage military members to join just for that. Just my two pennies and now I am broke!! LOL.

Response by SPC Mike Davis made Aug 29 at 2018 5:25 PM

SPC Mike Davis — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:25:20 -0400

Remember vets are also invited to join and become involved in RallyPoint. Please be respectful the ucmj has no power over vets. We are accustomed to very personal greetings. We can and do make many irrelevant (culture gap) remarks. The military and its concern over rank is generally a humorous parade to watch. A citizen finds his social standing to be determined by many different factors. None of which demands said citizen have or not have an academic degree. My career was made up entirely of the information technology industry. (started before silicon Valley was called Silicon Valley.) The industry was a very egalitarian society from the very beginning. The CEO searched for the same parking as housekeeping. After fifty some years it is clear. Such a society works very well for a very, very demanding organization (we changed the world during that time!) So, any and all comments this vet has made or will make can be and probably will be an offence to the ucmj. Not to mention anyone who believes his entire human worth is contained in his rank. So if someone is offended by one of my comments. One has the option of reading it, deleting it, or going to another site or post. That's it. Comment complete.

Response by PO1 Richard Nyberg made Jan 6 at 2019 7:44 PM

PO1 Richard Nyberg — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 19:44:25 -0500

Don't know, when I was in the Army and Navy we didn't have the internet.