4
4
0
I was once almost slapped on the face by a superior with a copy of
AR 25-50 Preparing and Managing Correspondence.
Ever since I keep a copy of it and actually enforce it in the
environment I operate but I have been surprised by how much ARs are sometimes dismissed
as mere guidance for commanders. Do you
think this one should be enforced at all levels or should the military draft a “Military
Regulation” shadowing this matter? I
understand written communication will vary, context dependent, but I still
believe it is worth to raise this question.
Communications
Regulation
Command
Authority
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
ARs are not "guidance", they are regulations. Now within the regulation, there may be some flexibility for commanders.
Absolutely enforced. I know for me, when reviewing documents, if the formatting/style/organization is standardized, it makes Q/C'ing a document very easy - very similar to how we use the "5-Paragraph OPORD" format for communicating missions.
In addition to AR 25-50, everyone should take the "Action Officer Development Course" - it is actually useful and enhances your "written" communication skills.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
I am one of those people who will beat someone with AR 25-50. It's a very simple standard, it was updated for clarity this year, and it creates the much talked about uniformity in correspondence.
A lot of command's look at it as simple guidance as evidenced by the nonstandard letterheads (city state 12345-6789); the policy letters with missing headers, page numbers, and dates on pages two and higher; and the indented paragraphs IAW with the standard MS Word uses.
The moment I look at correspondence that wouldn't pass in high school and which ignores AR 25-50, I look at the signature block and lose respect for that person and possibly their organization. If the work you show everyone does not meet intrinsic and Army quality control standards, what about the work you don't show around freely?
A lot of command's look at it as simple guidance as evidenced by the nonstandard letterheads (city state 12345-6789); the policy letters with missing headers, page numbers, and dates on pages two and higher; and the indented paragraphs IAW with the standard MS Word uses.
The moment I look at correspondence that wouldn't pass in high school and which ignores AR 25-50, I look at the signature block and lose respect for that person and possibly their organization. If the work you show everyone does not meet intrinsic and Army quality control standards, what about the work you don't show around freely?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is the bible that many commanders and CSMs use for evaluations, so it is an important AR, I know I had it ingrained into my brain by an old CSM when I was an E5.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am always looking for good AR to read to further my knowledge of the Army.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google