Logo uploaded by: SSG Andres Redondo
O-7 - BG
O-7 - BG
15
15
0
Suffice to say the concept of a 'PCS Award' is foreign to me as I still am unable to find what Army Regulation (Retired 1993) states an award is an automatic entitlement @tour's end.
Not complaining but a PCS Award used to mean you got a plaque commemorating your time with the unit. Myself and the other NCOs would hand-make them and present them at a platoon going away party. If you had done anything good then you would have already received your AAM, ACM, etc. If the commander and the unit had relied on the person then another but higher level medal was submitted. We tried hard to present them in formation prior to (sometimes unable) the soldier's departure.
Generally if the medal required a higher than Battalion/Squadron level authorization it was hand-passed from commander to commander until it was authorized then returned by the same method. The NCOs were responsible to ensure the actions were true and the write-ups were complete BUT the Officer Corps was expected to make sure the awards were presented. Included in the 'presented' were the signature phase I mentioned. Commanders actively discussed what awards were recommended and which were earned with their NCO's and higher Commanders.
It was middling rare that anyone was given (if that's the word) an award on leaving the unit. Please make your thoughts known.
Not complaining but a PCS Award used to mean you got a plaque commemorating your time with the unit. Myself and the other NCOs would hand-make them and present them at a platoon going away party. If you had done anything good then you would have already received your AAM, ACM, etc. If the commander and the unit had relied on the person then another but higher level medal was submitted. We tried hard to present them in formation prior to (sometimes unable) the soldier's departure.
Generally if the medal required a higher than Battalion/Squadron level authorization it was hand-passed from commander to commander until it was authorized then returned by the same method. The NCOs were responsible to ensure the actions were true and the write-ups were complete BUT the Officer Corps was expected to make sure the awards were presented. Included in the 'presented' were the signature phase I mentioned. Commanders actively discussed what awards were recommended and which were earned with their NCO's and higher Commanders.
It was middling rare that anyone was given (if that's the word) an award on leaving the unit. Please make your thoughts known.
SGT
CSM
CPT
COL
BG
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 19
7
7
0
recognition of Soldiers for their service has come to the point where an award for a duty assignment is the norm. The idea took root about 20 years ago where receiving an award for a specific event became rarer and rarer. "Had to save the President twice on Sunday" to get an impact AAM. The level of that award was determined by the chain of command starting at the first line Leader level based on level of responsibility, performance, and in the case of combat awards degree of personal risk.
Here is what has gone sideways on awards. It takes too long to process one. You are right that the role of the NCO support channel is to make sure the accomplishments are true and correct. You are right, the officers need to review this award and make sure it Is written so it is readable, the accomplishments are bridged to the approval authority's level of mission. The problem becomes recommenders try and use important sounding awards they aren't familiar with and simple bullets become gibberish. The STAR format helps with this: Situation, Task, Action, and result....especially if this gets after the higher unit's mission or combat readiness. This has to be related To the approval authority's level of command or one of their goals. As result....award packets float through company orderly rooms, then to BN, then back down in red ink, then back up without ever fixing the underlying issues. As a commander, XO, and a BDE DCO I tried to make this developmental rather than an exercise in futility. I tried to write meaningful comments/edits/separate hand written notes on how to fix it. I would call Company Commanders and explain returned awards. So all this back and forth made awards late.
Process isn't broken, but the people in it need help. The PCS award is not an "entitlement" but care should be taken to reflect on a soldier's particular contribution (or lack there of). If their contribution came up short, the command owes them feedback before hand as to why they would not be recommended for something. If they are being chaptered that conversation is superfluous.
Some ways to fix this:
- BN and BDE commanders explaining their award philosophy to key leaders and S1s including their NCOICs. This will ensure endorsable awards go to the right level.
- First line leaders being able to articulate the actions/results of their soldiers in plain English and provide the 'so what' to it. Their officers, like Platoon Leaders, proof reading things to ensure it makes sense, is written clearly, and generally error free. Initiating the award needs to follow the 30-60-90-120 for AAM, ARCOM, MSM, and LOM (general rule of thumb).
- Company Command teams are reviewing awards for proper award level, executing his commander's award intent, and general readability. The Company Commander's write-in comments are the "fifth bullet", his endorsement tells the Battalion and above that the person is deserving. On AM and above, the BN CDR endorsement is critical.
- the BN S1, since the Company provided a reasonably good award, is focused on routing, tracking, and getting packets on to their next stop.
- the XO and CSM should be the he final check before the boss gets the packet. They need to be prepared to intervene if time, level of award, or another intangible is a problem. When they recommend approval, it should sail through the boss.
- not a fan of an Awards Board, especially BCT and below. I am a fan of the S1 doing a dedicated weekly signing time with the BN and BDE Commanders to ensure the cogs turn on time.
- between the XO and the S1 they need to recognize the ones that need to Ben hand walked to higher due to time/urgency.
- if all this goes the way it should, presentations are too easy.
The personal momentos from your squad/section/Platoon can be a valued thing. It does not take the place of formally awarded decorations. Another recognition tool are the branch recognition awards for more senior NCOs and Officers like: Saint Barbara Medal, Order of Samuel Sharpe, Saint Michael's medal etc.
Here is what has gone sideways on awards. It takes too long to process one. You are right that the role of the NCO support channel is to make sure the accomplishments are true and correct. You are right, the officers need to review this award and make sure it Is written so it is readable, the accomplishments are bridged to the approval authority's level of mission. The problem becomes recommenders try and use important sounding awards they aren't familiar with and simple bullets become gibberish. The STAR format helps with this: Situation, Task, Action, and result....especially if this gets after the higher unit's mission or combat readiness. This has to be related To the approval authority's level of command or one of their goals. As result....award packets float through company orderly rooms, then to BN, then back down in red ink, then back up without ever fixing the underlying issues. As a commander, XO, and a BDE DCO I tried to make this developmental rather than an exercise in futility. I tried to write meaningful comments/edits/separate hand written notes on how to fix it. I would call Company Commanders and explain returned awards. So all this back and forth made awards late.
Process isn't broken, but the people in it need help. The PCS award is not an "entitlement" but care should be taken to reflect on a soldier's particular contribution (or lack there of). If their contribution came up short, the command owes them feedback before hand as to why they would not be recommended for something. If they are being chaptered that conversation is superfluous.
Some ways to fix this:
- BN and BDE commanders explaining their award philosophy to key leaders and S1s including their NCOICs. This will ensure endorsable awards go to the right level.
- First line leaders being able to articulate the actions/results of their soldiers in plain English and provide the 'so what' to it. Their officers, like Platoon Leaders, proof reading things to ensure it makes sense, is written clearly, and generally error free. Initiating the award needs to follow the 30-60-90-120 for AAM, ARCOM, MSM, and LOM (general rule of thumb).
- Company Command teams are reviewing awards for proper award level, executing his commander's award intent, and general readability. The Company Commander's write-in comments are the "fifth bullet", his endorsement tells the Battalion and above that the person is deserving. On AM and above, the BN CDR endorsement is critical.
- the BN S1, since the Company provided a reasonably good award, is focused on routing, tracking, and getting packets on to their next stop.
- the XO and CSM should be the he final check before the boss gets the packet. They need to be prepared to intervene if time, level of award, or another intangible is a problem. When they recommend approval, it should sail through the boss.
- not a fan of an Awards Board, especially BCT and below. I am a fan of the S1 doing a dedicated weekly signing time with the BN and BDE Commanders to ensure the cogs turn on time.
- between the XO and the S1 they need to recognize the ones that need to Ben hand walked to higher due to time/urgency.
- if all this goes the way it should, presentations are too easy.
The personal momentos from your squad/section/Platoon can be a valued thing. It does not take the place of formally awarded decorations. Another recognition tool are the branch recognition awards for more senior NCOs and Officers like: Saint Barbara Medal, Order of Samuel Sharpe, Saint Michael's medal etc.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LTC Jason Mackay respectfully,
“You are right, the officers need to review this award and make sure it I should written so it is readable, the accomplishments are bridged to the approval authority's level of mission. The problem becomes recommenders try and use important sounding awards they aren't familiar with and simple bullets become gibberish”
I understand that there are probably some autocorrect or typo issues involved, but for a post that emphasized clarity and simplicity of writing, I found this direct quote from your post to be particularly interesting.
“You are right, the officers need to review this award and make sure it I should written so it is readable, the accomplishments are bridged to the approval authority's level of mission. The problem becomes recommenders try and use important sounding awards they aren't familiar with and simple bullets become gibberish”
I understand that there are probably some autocorrect or typo issues involved, but for a post that emphasized clarity and simplicity of writing, I found this direct quote from your post to be particularly interesting.
(1)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SGT (Join to see) - thank you for pointing that out. I am working off an iPad typing with one finger and some times the autocorrect has a mind of its own. It changes after I am 3-5 words away. The intent of my comment stands.
Typos happen to the best of us, but what I am talking about is people copying award language from other awards and it just not making sense. Two different soldier's names listed in the bullets and the citation. Neither match the name at the top of the 638.
Typos happen to the best of us, but what I am talking about is people copying award language from other awards and it just not making sense. Two different soldier's names listed in the bullets and the citation. Neither match the name at the top of the 638.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
The system is broken by design.
The design is that everyone and their brother has to "see it" and recommend approval or downgrade or disapproval.
If a SGT recommends SPC Snuffy for an AAM, then a SSG, SFC, 1SG, LT, CPT, CSM, CPT (again) CSM, MAJ, and then finally the LTC who is the approving authority.
SGT (Team Leader) SSG (Squad Leader) SFC (PLT SGT) LT (PL) 1SG, Co Commander, CSM, Adjutant and PAC, XO, CDR.
If at any of these steps someone wants to be a jerk, they can kill the award by the stroke of a pen. There is so much politics involved in the awards process that the system simply does not work. Outstanding soldiers that go above and beyond their duty positions are often overlooked for an award, while subpar soldiers are recognized simply because of their proximity to the approving authority.
The design is that everyone and their brother has to "see it" and recommend approval or downgrade or disapproval.
If a SGT recommends SPC Snuffy for an AAM, then a SSG, SFC, 1SG, LT, CPT, CSM, CPT (again) CSM, MAJ, and then finally the LTC who is the approving authority.
SGT (Team Leader) SSG (Squad Leader) SFC (PLT SGT) LT (PL) 1SG, Co Commander, CSM, Adjutant and PAC, XO, CDR.
If at any of these steps someone wants to be a jerk, they can kill the award by the stroke of a pen. There is so much politics involved in the awards process that the system simply does not work. Outstanding soldiers that go above and beyond their duty positions are often overlooked for an award, while subpar soldiers are recognized simply because of their proximity to the approving authority.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
Yes and no. But this topic has been brought up multiple times on RP. And there are countless posts in older threads from vets of your era that write about how the awards system is indeed broken, but then go to rattle off all the stuff they did that warranted medals during their service. “Why didn’t I get a medal?”
Understandable. Which would raise another question. Was the system more broken back then (not enough awards given for deserving actions), and is now in the process of fixing itself?
Unfortunately, as long as there is discretion involved, the system will always be ‘broken’.
Understandable. Which would raise another question. Was the system more broken back then (not enough awards given for deserving actions), and is now in the process of fixing itself?
Unfortunately, as long as there is discretion involved, the system will always be ‘broken’.
(7)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
Good observations. I got those I earned and most of the time was surprised to get the 'extra' medals I did get. The two awards I am most proud of were the Unit Meritorious Awards (different units) that my units earned. Individual awards were an "We don't need no stinking badges" thing for me.
Again good comment. Thanks.
Again good comment. Thanks.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Ralph E Kelley - thanks. I agree, the awards system is flawed. However, as discretion will always be a part of the system, it will always be flawed.
I’m more proud of some of the coins and certificates I was presented than most of my individual awards.
I’m more proud of some of the coins and certificates I was presented than most of my individual awards.
(2)
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
SGT (Join to see) - I wanted to respond that it is broken but I was blocked. It is beyond broken. First block anyone who may disagree and then hold an opinion poll
DUH
DUH
(0)
(0)
SGT Scott M
Well congress mandated the military investigate the medals or lack there of for Iraq. The proportion of medals compared to other conflicts was waaay down. Seemed combat medals were based more on rank than heroism. Used to be the lowest award during combat was Commendation medal, that was promptly changed after Iraq war started because forbid a E-4 below served honorably in combat for an year and was given a Commendation medal. You know ole chain smoking E-7 who didn’t she his first Arcom until 8 years in and barely the rank of E-6. To see a junior enlisted get a Arcom probably made him seethe.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google