Readiness
Readiness
Posted on Dec 22, 2019
Is it the right thing to do to follow every single regulation and admin process?
5.14K
48
29
6
6
0
I feel like too often shortcuts are taken to "execute the mission," and as a result, people are reprimanded, smoked, or counseled for disobeying a direct order from a superior ranking. For example Pvt Snuffy (feel sorry for whoever he is, being made an example out of in the worst situations, ha ha ha) is given his military driver's license and told to drive an LMTV in a convoy. He is not licensed on the vehicle, but "it's ok because there's an NCO as his TC." Another example is when Pvt Snuffy is performing a thorough PMCS (testing the attachments for the IHMEE, unreeling the winch for the Dozer, etc) and is told by his SL to stop what he's doing and just get the 5988 verified because everyone is waiting on him to go to lunch.
What should (s)he do in situations like these? My second example might not be as good as the first, but hopefully you get the point.
What should (s)he do in situations like these? My second example might not be as good as the first, but hopefully you get the point.
Enlisted
Mission
Readiness
Army Regulations
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
8
8
0
Private snuffy should have raised the point that he is not licensed to drive that LMTV, regardless of their being an NCO TC. Unless they are using that as his test drive for licensing him on it or it is part of a drivers training session. This puts not only the driver but the NCO and command at risk. Plus the lives of those in and around that LMTV
(8)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Let's say your conditions don't apply and he does bring it up, yet his CoC tells Snuffy to drive it anyway or he will receive a counseling for disobeying a direct order? Personally, I would've taken the counseling and explained in the "Comments" section that I wasn't licensed on it.
How much of that "behavior" [being a stickler to the rules when '...some can be bent' ] until Snuffy is regarded as being a smartass?
How much of that "behavior" [being a stickler to the rules when '...some can be bent' ] until Snuffy is regarded as being a smartass?
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
SPC (Join to see) - I would point out that in case of an accident, that NCO won't be held responsible, PVT. Snuff will. You solution would be correct, take the counseling and explain why in the comments.
Of course, if he has an accident, his entire chain of command it going to be in Deep Poo also.
Of course, if he has an accident, his entire chain of command it going to be in Deep Poo also.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
You can ignore regs and policy when you feel like the circumstances (and your rank) can support assuming the risk.
(7)
(0)
SSG Terry Cummings
ADR I dont think that complete statement should be made for reading for all Ranks.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
First situation, it is not Pvt Snuffy's fault as he was ordered to drive the vehicle. It falls to the NCO or officer that gave the order as they not only outrank him but gave a reason that might seem valid to the PvT. At most said Pvt should get counseled.
With the second it falls to the same thing. It was an order by NCO or Officer.
With the second it falls to the same thing. It was an order by NCO or Officer.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google