Awards
Awards
Posted on Dec 29, 2016
Does the "scope of responsibility" criteria for awards make it easier or harder for junior Soldiers to get higher awards?
9.4K
53
38
3
3
0
I have encountered two basic arguments. The argument against usually references the Soldiers' scope of responsibility as a reason to not consider such a high award. The argument for usually references the disparity between what you might expect a Soldier of that grade to be able to accomplish and what he or she did accomplish. For the same work, should a SPC be awarded a higher award than a MSG?
Posted in these groups: 
Awards
Recognition
Awards Recognition
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
"scope of responsibility" is but one part of the reason for an award.
And I for one never sided with "A PVT can never have the requite responsibility to be considered for that award" kind of thinking.
If a truck crosses a water crossing and slides off, over turning and a SPC takes action, blocks the road so no further vehicles can cross, gathers manpower and sets teams down stream to look for survivors, assigning each team a specific location so manpower is not wasted, has the presence of mind to send a 2 man team back up the road radio comm last worked...
I don't care is minutes before his "scope of responsibility" was his personal weapon and to be clean shaved and have a good haircut weekly.
His award would be based on the responsibility he took on, and his actions.
That said, when it comes to a time period award if justified... "scope of responsibility" does come in to play ... the SGT E/5 supply sergeant who came to work each day, complied with local and army Regs most times without redress, listened to the XO's guidance and performed his duties well over all..Likely did not have the same level and significant responsibilities as the SGT/ E5 company Master gunner who kept the company on track with Bradley gun maintenance and training. Who planned with only minimal initial guidance from the commander the companies Bradley training plans, requested, resourced the company BATS and than live fire range week... Tracked Gun maintenance correctly, then trained and led gun crews to service the weapons system ensuring the company supply room always had the required materials and supplies, tools needed to complete operator maintenance.
And I for one never sided with "A PVT can never have the requite responsibility to be considered for that award" kind of thinking.
If a truck crosses a water crossing and slides off, over turning and a SPC takes action, blocks the road so no further vehicles can cross, gathers manpower and sets teams down stream to look for survivors, assigning each team a specific location so manpower is not wasted, has the presence of mind to send a 2 man team back up the road radio comm last worked...
I don't care is minutes before his "scope of responsibility" was his personal weapon and to be clean shaved and have a good haircut weekly.
His award would be based on the responsibility he took on, and his actions.
That said, when it comes to a time period award if justified... "scope of responsibility" does come in to play ... the SGT E/5 supply sergeant who came to work each day, complied with local and army Regs most times without redress, listened to the XO's guidance and performed his duties well over all..Likely did not have the same level and significant responsibilities as the SGT/ E5 company Master gunner who kept the company on track with Bradley gun maintenance and training. Who planned with only minimal initial guidance from the commander the companies Bradley training plans, requested, resourced the company BATS and than live fire range week... Tracked Gun maintenance correctly, then trained and led gun crews to service the weapons system ensuring the company supply room always had the required materials and supplies, tools needed to complete operator maintenance.
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
Let me break it down for you. I've written and edited dozens of Bronze Star and MSMs for NCOs and Officers from E5 on up. The SMs duty or scope of responsibility should have little to do with the level of a non-valor award. The level of unit impact is the key to award hierarchy. The person receiving the award, receives the award based on the effect of the action. An easy way to think of it, is if the SMs actions effect (benefit) a BN, the award should be a AAM. Effects that benefit a BDE result in an ARCOM, Division is MSM, and so on. The difficulty lies in a lower enlisted SM to be in a position (non-valor) to impact and truly benefit a higher command. Example: One of my E-5s reconned the ground, designed, and developed in ACAD the plan for "all" the Afghan police and border agencies in 2004. His actions effected (benefited) an entire country. He received a Bronze Star, signed by an 09.
(7)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
1SG, I agree, the E5 should have received the BSM. I am glad he did. Your thought process is also in line with AR 600-8-22. How about someone who, in a combat theater, effectively plans, manages, and coordinates the entire reduction of forces for their branch (Infantry, MI, ARTY, AMEDD, etc.) of Army service? This is at Echelons Above Division level. This was the goal of the mission of that unit in theater. What would you have recommended to the commander?
(0)
(0)
1SG Al Brown
I remember building seemingly endless slides on how we were going to restructure the Engineer Brigades, while deployed, and wondering why someone getting paid to do it was sitting in Ft Leonard Wood. It was ludicrous. But it was one of many staff functions to "work in during down time". I would have to know a lot more than is stated above, but I would assume that who ever could accomplish a coherent new branch planning structure for final approval, would be enough for an MSM in itself. However, when deployed, an award can cover a lot of ground and Supervisors (especially senior CSMs) can be difficult gate keepers when reviewing awards for signature. Lastly, I haven't seen many non-valor Bronze Star medals that were awarded to below 05, without the addition of some dangerous conditions that brought great risk to the SM.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I wish that everyone in decision-making positions thought of this in such clear terms. I was most recently told to "imagine awarding an E-5 the same as you would an E-9" as if that was supposed to dissuade me in my thinking because of the ridiculousness of such a thought. Suffice to say, it did not.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
In two deployments I've never seen anyone under the rank of SFC get anything higher than an ARCOM and anyone over the rank of SFC get anything lower than a MSM. Prior to my first deployment I always thought the GCM was the Army's way of saying "Hey, thanks for coming and doing your job without being a scrub." The whole blanket award thing needs to go away in my opinion. You've got people doing nothing but their job and getting the same award, if not a higher one, than a person who went above and beyond and covered down where there were shortages just because of rank. Higher awards should be based off of merit, not rank.
I'm a SGT with 10 years TiS and 2 deployments to 2 theaters yet the size of my rack is almost comparable to someone like CSM Plumley just because I showed up and I don't think that's right.
I'm a SGT with 10 years TiS and 2 deployments to 2 theaters yet the size of my rack is almost comparable to someone like CSM Plumley just because I showed up and I don't think that's right.
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I had a supply nco that was a SSG. He did get a Bronze Star for "running" supply... All he really did was hoard things so they didn't get "lost or broken". His SPC subordinates deserved that award more than he did. They were the real MVPs.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I've done two deployments. The entire outgoing brigade staff (including the Deputy Staff positions) received BSMs on their way out the door on my second deployment. At the end of our deployment, the politics started to fly and people who did nothing received BSMs because of the politics and not because of what they accomplished. Only about 8 people in our entire Brigade Command received BSMs, the Staff OICs received MSMs (along with the company commander and 1SG), and the majority of the rest received ARCOMs. The highest ARCOM award rank was a MAJ. The lowest BSM rank was a SSG. My OIC and I received MSMs. Our counterparts in subordinate units and those we replaced received BSMs. The system is broke and needs to be fixed. I'm not saying I deserved a BSM. Not as a Deputy S1, but there was a HUGE discrepancy between those we replaced vs those we received.
(3)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden
MAJ (Join to see) - Thank you for the detailed explanation of how the Army awards system has become so inflated.
Your story reflects on the constant worry over OERs and EERs.
Responsibility waits to be shouldered!
Diogenes continues to shudder!
Your story reflects on the constant worry over OERs and EERs.
Responsibility waits to be shouldered!
Diogenes continues to shudder!
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CSM Charles Hayden - It has become inflated or deflated, depending on your point of view. Regardless, it is inconsistent, at best. AR 600-8-22 is inconsistent and I believe 1SG Al Brown's statement is more in line with the intent of the AR, but is so difficult to enforce, as approving commanders have their own ideas, based on their experience and how they were mentored, as to what level of award is deserving.
The best the AR can do the way the criteria for the award is currently stated is graduate the awards to certain approval authorities (AAM approval authority is first O5 in command, ARCOM is first O6, etc.) per Table 3-1 of AR 600-8-22.
The best the AR can do the way the criteria for the award is currently stated is graduate the awards to certain approval authorities (AAM approval authority is first O5 in command, ARCOM is first O6, etc.) per Table 3-1 of AR 600-8-22.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google