View Full Version : General: Army has a discipline problem
BMT (RIP)
10-05-2011, 09:46
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9Q67DI00&show_article=1
BMT
1stindoor
10-05-2011, 09:57
Interesting article...wonder if he feels the same way about sub-par company grade officers? I've been saying it for years...we're a Profession of Arms, not a retirement club.
His logic makes sense, however, I hope that they don't start another witch hunt like they did in the early 90's. When I had D-3-1 SWTG (Language School) in 90 to 92, big Army was going after soldiers that had incidents from 5 to 10 years prior and giving or attempting to give them the boot. In the mean time they had spent all of this time and money getting them trained. If there offenses were small enough to select them for training, why boot them when the only thing they had remaining then was to learn a language? Some were now excellent soldiers and my First Sergeant and I fought to keep them in. Others just quit trying after getting the notification and we helped expedite them leaving the service. I started seeing these cycles of downsizing in 72 when I was at OCS. I didn't like it then and still don't. I also remember that starting January 1st 1983, the Army policy was that if you were an officer or an NCO and got a DWI, they would kick you out of the Army. And that New Years eve I had my last drink of alcohol in Huntsville, AL enroute to Fort Bragg. Probably just as well as I was a 2 beer drunk. I hope with this drawdown the can finally use some common sense.
Team Sergeant
10-05-2011, 10:58
Too bad a DUI, a sexual affair, etc does not get a politician booted from his/her profession......
Let's just hold soldiers to a much higher standard.
I have a better idea, let's end the hypocrisy.......
Too bad a DUI, a sexual affair, etc does not get a politician booted from his/her profession......
Let's just hold soldiers to a much higher standard.
I have a better idea, let's end the hypocrisy.......
I agree totally, 'back in the day' if you didn't have a few art 15's you weren't sojerin hard....one DUI should not be a carreer ender etc...patterns yes, one aw shit...no.
I agree totally, 'back in the day' if you didn't have a few art 15's you weren't sojerin hard....one DUI should not be a carreer ender etc...patterns yes, one aw shit...no.
Yeah, Just ask 'ol GEN Guest, Freddy Sample, and a slew of others, seems for awhile, DUI's were a prerequisite...:eek:
My idea of discipline is people marching until their feet bleed who don't quit and never violate "field rules" like noise light and litter discipline. In garrison, sharp uniform, lock to attention in formation etc., (OK not a QP was Airborne Infantry).
When we came in from teh field, usally a Bataan style roadmarch where if junior enlisted walked until they passed out, they would be spared an AR15 but get remedial PT and an NCO would lose a stripe, we always had trashcans of cold beer waiting.
There were strippers in the clubs on post, 3 beer lunches and it was a much more battle focused, apolitical force. As a previous poster said, it the '90s they started to breed the Career soldier rather than the professional soldier at least in the regular army. Don't swear, drink or for gods sake rock the boat and be very careful about making a decision.
My first lesson as a PFC in leadership when the NCOs killed off the squad leadership and put me in charge of a lane so to speak, during the AAR was "make a decision" its almost always better than not making one.
And breaking rules to accomplish the mission if they got in the way (as long as they were clearly inappropriate) was a sign of initiative and mission first attitude. Today I see NCOs who are so emasculated they cant' drop soldiers for push ups or raise their voice to them.
END RANT
The solution is to nip the problem in the bud by eliminating the Officer corps.
Utah Bob
10-05-2011, 15:30
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling told a group of reporters over breakfast that only a small percentage of soldiers lack proper discipline
And that's different from any army at any time in history how??
Paragrouper
10-05-2011, 15:46
The solution is to nip the problem in the bud by eliminating the Officer corps.
:D
I have to agree with the General (for reasons other than rank!).
The hardest part of basic training was the lack of discipline - soldiers got away with everything but murder. One $#!@bag that graduated applauded the announcement of the death of 7 service members in Afghanistan the day before graduation. He did so in front of the entire company, and the duty drill sergeant. The DS asked why, and he said because it was his job security. To my disgust, he graduated the next day along with everybody else.
There were soldiers who slept through every fireguard shift after the first week, caught with contraband, etc etc, and had no consequences. This general lack of discipline IMHO is what leads to greater problems down the road.
-out
I have to agree with the General (for reasons other than rank!).
The hardest part of basic training was the lack of discipline - soldiers got away with everything but murder. One $#!@bag that graduated applauded the announcement of the death of 7 service members in Afghanistan the day before graduation. He did so in front of the entire company, and the duty drill sergeant. The DS asked why, and he said because it was his job security. To my disgust, he graduated the next day along with everybody else.
There were soldiers who slept through every fireguard shift after the first week, caught with contraband, etc etc, and had no consequences. This general lack of discipline IMHO is what leads to greater problems down the road.
-out
What happened to good old blanket parties?:confused:
What happened to good old blanket parties?:confused:
That was seriously discussed. Should have happened. Too many snitches though - although I wish I had gone for it anyway.
-out
We really do have to go back to basics. No Co Ed BT, you will get yelled at etc.
A proud mother was talking about her son in basic at Leonard Wood who had a condo style room with maid service. I put on my poker face as I was choking inside and said "you must be proud."
Right before I retired, I was counseled for jacking up a PV2 who enlisted with a Vicodin addiction and could not pass the PT test at the age of 19. He failed the test, (Natl Guard and they kept him on orders with all this crap) and was walking up and down the hallway of an Infantry Unit crying like a baby.
I lit his ass on fire, ordered him to stop acting like a pussy and knock of the pleas for attention. So, I get in trouble as an NCO.
However, that type of climate is Command driven. The difference between Professional Soldier and Career soldier.
But, just because somebody got hammered off duty and performs on duty to me is not real discipline, its political correctness which is a crime.
RndTblKnght
10-06-2011, 07:42
His logic makes sense, however, I hope that they don't start another witch hunt like they did in the early 90's. When I had D-3-1 SWTG (Language School) in 90 to 92, big Army was going after soldiers that had incidents from 5 to 10 years prior and giving or attempting to give them the boot. In the mean time they had spent all of this time and money getting them trained. If there offenses were small enough to select them for training, why boot them when the only thing they had remaining then was to learn a language? Some were now excellent soldiers and my First Sergeant and I fought to keep them in. Others just quit trying after getting the notification and we helped expedite them leaving the service. I started seeing these cycles of downsizing in 72 when I was at OCS. I didn't like it then and still don't. I also remember that starting January 1st 1983, the Army policy was that if you were an officer or an NCO and got a DWI, they would kick you out of the Army. And that New Years eve I had my last drink of alcohol in Huntsville, AL enroute to Fort Bragg. Probably just as well as I was a 2 beer drunk. I hope with this drawdown the can finally use some common sense.
We just got a TRADOC Tasking just two days ago with a suspense of today for any E7's and above to admit to any "criminal convictions" that we have had since 2008. Here go the first round of drawdowns!! See TRADOC TASKORD below.
SUBJECT: TRADOC TASKORD EX1271- 218: Army Directive 2011-17 - Self Reporting by Officers and Senior Enlisted Members of Criminal Convictions
1. Situation. Secretary of the Army Directive, memorandum dated 21 Sep 2011, requires all commissioned officers, warrant officers and enlisted (E7 and above) Soldiers (members) to report all criminal convictions announced after Mar 1, 2008 and before 21 Sep 2011, to their unit commander NLT 6 Oct 2011. This is a local suspense; at this time there is no requirement to report status or suspense data to HQ TRADOC.
2. Mission. Reporting Past Convictions: For convictions announced after March 1, 2008 and before 21 Sep 2011, for all United States Army commissioned officers, warrant officers and enlisted members (E7 and above) on active duty or in an active duty status in the Reserve component shall report in writing via DA Form 4187 or memorandum, any conviction for violation of a criminal law of the United States. Status of the members at the time of the conviction, active duty or not, during the effective time periods is irrelevant. Soldiers will report these convictions to their unit commander NLT 6 Oct 2011.
2.A. Requirement to report future convictions: For convictions announced after 21 Sep 2011, the report shall be made to the Soldiers commander within 15 days of the date the conviction is announced, even if sentence has not be imposed or the Soldier intends to appeal the conviction.
2.B. Upon receipt of a report of civil conviction by a Soldier, the receiving commander will document receipt of the submission in the manner detailed in the attached memorandum. The commander will then forward the report through the Summary Court Martial Convening Authority (SCMCA) to the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority (SPCMCA). When the SPCMCA is not within the Soldier’s TRADOC chain-of-command, the receiving commander will provided a courtesy copy of the report through the Soldier’s TRADOC Battalion Commander to the Soldier’s TRADOC Brigade Commander.
2.C. See attached memorandum dated 21 September 2011 for definitions and examples.
UNCLASSIFIED
ATJA
SUBJECT: TRADOC TASKORD EX1271- 218: Army Directive 2011-17 - Self
Reporting by Officers and Senior Enlisted Members of Criminal Convictions
UNCLASSIFIED
3. Execution.
3.A. Suspense: Local Suspense of 06 OCT 2011.
3.B. Concept of Operations. Soldiers will report data to their commanders. Commander will comply with attached memorandum.
3.C. Tasks. TRADOC Unit commanders will ensure that all assigned members comply with this requirement.
3.C.1. Acknowledge. N/A
3.D. Coordinating Instructions. N/A
4. Admin and Log. Enclosures:
4.A. Memorandum from Secretary of the Army, 21 September 2011 – signed by the Honorable John M. McHugh Secretary of the Army.
4.B. Sample DA Form 4187.
5. Command and Signal.
5.A. Lead. Unit Commanders have the lead for their respective units.
5.B. Assist. The local administrative specialist and Office of the Staff Judge Advocate are available to assist commanders in fulfilling this requirement.
5.C. Originator. POC for HQ TRADOC is Office of Staff Judge Advocate (ATJA) ATTN:
//s//
Chief, Tasking Division
HQ TRADOC G-33
Encls
DISTRIBUTION:
All TRADOC Agencies for dissemination to Unit Commander and SJA Office
mojaveman
10-06-2011, 12:05
I agree totally, 'back in the day' if you didn't have a few art 15's you weren't sojerin hard....one DUI should not be a carreer ender etc...patterns yes, one aw shit...no.
But that was the 'Old Army'. Knew plenty of folks who had at least one DUI. Sometimes if you were lucky the MPs would let you park your car and then give you a ride back to the barracks. Times have sure changed...
While I agree in principal the problem is we need to start evaluation of soldiers on FIELD performance and knowledge not this check box bullshit the Army has turned into. Give me an 11B with a DUI and article 15 that knows his shit in combat over some pansy ass that looks pretty in uniform and knows the book but cant do shit in the field.
Sorry if I offend anyone here but I got off work at 0800 and havent slept in close to 2 hours. Throw in a couple glasses of vino and well..............
The "check the box" attitude pervades far more than the military, in my field we call it "rubber stamp security" :rolleyes:
Sorry if I offend anyone here but I got off work at 0800 and havent slept in close to 2 hours. Throw in a couple glasses of vino and well..............
Well, hey, no sleep for 2 whole hours and a sip of Pinot Grigio would knock any real cop off his feet. :D
The Reaper
10-06-2011, 16:15
Hey, four years ago, the war was hot and they needed people.
Now, not so much.
This is the third or fourth RIF that I have seen coming. Happens after every war.
The cops used to ignore drunk drivers as well, unless they hit something. News flash. Times have changed and everyone knows the rules and the consequences before they take the wheel.
Big boy rules include paying the piper if you get caught.
Who should they be putting out, people without criminal records?
TR
Texas_Shooter
10-09-2011, 12:13
I just got finished with 9 weeks here at Ft. Benning. It was not what I expected. I honestly expected worse. As in getting smoked 24/7. Not sleeping at all. It's battalion rule that we get at least four hours of sleep. WEAK! The other Privates I went through basic with, it was just an extension of high school for them. The DS are awesome though. My shark attack was mediocre at best. I did not get yelled at a once. Basic is where the shitbags need to be taken care of. And you can definitely tell which ones are that way. My only hope is that when those select individuals get to their duty station, that their team lead takes "care" of them.
Who should they be putting out, people without criminal records?
First and foremost, they should be putting out those soldiers who cannot pass a PT test, or are overweight. I would say after we get those types out, then move on to the guys who have had run-ins with the law.
First and foremost, they should be putting out those soldiers who cannot pass a PT test, or are overweight. I would say after we get those types out, then move on to the guys who have had run-ins with the law.
Alternate viewpoint, although I've heard from many who cite the PT test as an important factor, and I respect that viewpoint. I see great logic in having different PT tests to qualify for the different MOS's. I doubt that a good mess sergeant will ever need to ruck 100 pounds or toss a grenade with accuracy. And, a tough PT test for combat arms, perhaps an even tougher one for SpecOps sounds reasonable, screening out those who yell about opportunity instead of the needs of the unit.
But I also wonder if his brothers are trying to help him make the grade.
I'm one who experienced a couple of good SF Colonels, one who brought me into the 1st Group to rebuild and learn, because he knew how much I wanted that flash and a second one who told me I could work out any time during the day that I could spare me from my duties.
Heck. I had a B-team leader who taught me to dive and harrassed me appropriately under water. He was even trying to figure out how to get me out of an aircraft HALO style without getting his butt badly burned, when we were booted off the island.
And there was the S-3 who tossed down the gauntlet for 3 on 3 volleyball during lunch, to help rebuild my endurance as well as muscle. That was Dick Meadows, THE Dick Meadows. His greatness wasn't limited to his military skills.
And, those last 3 paragraphs aren't directly on topic, but close enough I think. They have gone thru my mind often when I see questions from support troops who want to be a QP. If you're busting your butt, help comes to you from all over. Every QP I met seemed to go out of their way to make those who weren't feel like a full part of the team.
Never got the body back to what it was, but the "us" approach in the group was constant, and I never saw a hint of "not one of us". Turned what could have been the most bitter years of my life into memories I'll never give up. :)
Especially to the FOGs, I just needed to say that.:)
Utah Bob
10-15-2011, 06:51
lol 24 hours not 2 my typing skills are a bit suspect at best.
I thought maybe you had joined the Air Force.:D
We just got a TRADOC Tasking just two days ago with a suspense of today for any E7's and above to admit to any "criminal convictions" that we have had since 2008. Here go the first round of drawdowns!!
Army wide my good man. That message just got passed down to my MCCC class. One of my classmates got a drunk and disorderly a couple months ago, and said it goes into a file with the JAG folks.
greenberetTFS
10-15-2011, 14:47
The solution is to nip the problem in the bud by eliminating the Officer corps.
:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
You talking about the same PT test the Army has finally realized some people pass with flying colors but they can not keep up in combat because it does not relate.
Are you also talking about the body fat chart that if a guy has 10% body fat, but is a body builder and can PT till the cows come home but is over his weight for height can get booted?
IMHO it should be about how well a solder does their job not the check box
What. They don't do the pinch-test?
Originally Posted by goon175
First and foremost, they should be putting out those soldiers who cannot pass a PT test, or are overweight. I would say after we get those types out, then move on to the guys who have had run-ins with the law.
You talking about the same PT test the Army has finally realized some people pass with flying colors but they can not keep up in combat because it does not relate.
Are you also talking about the body fat chart that if a guy has 10% body fat, but is a body builder and can PT till the cows come home but is over his weight for height can get booted?
IMHO it should be about how well a solder does their job not the check box
How effective the current APFT is, is a whole different conversation in itself. I agree, just because you meet the minimum requirements on the APFT does not mean you can keep up in combat situations. But, I can guarantee that the soldiers who cannot pass a PT test, will not be able to keep up in combat either (or atleast the majority of them anyway). And if a guy has 10% body fat, he is in no way close to getting booted, as the Army allows males to have up to 24% body fat, and females up to 30%. Bottom line, if you cannot meet the bare minimum standards for the organization you voluntarily choose to be in, you should be first to get the boot when that organization is downsizing.
Peregrino
10-15-2011, 22:13
How effective the current APFT is, is a whole different conversation in itself. I agree, just because you meet the minimum requirements on the APFT does not mean you can keep up in combat situations. But, I can guarantee that the soldiers who cannot pass a PT test, will not be able to keep up in combat either (or atleast the majority of them anyway). And if a guy has 10% body fat, he is in no way close to getting booted, as the Army allows males to have up to 24% body fat, and females up to 30%. Bottom line, if you cannot meet the bare minimum standards for the organization you voluntarily choose to be in, you should be first to get the boot when that organization is downsizing.
I know enough PT studs who can't motivate anyone to follow them across the street or find their ass with both hands, and conversely, enough solid Soldiers who don't meet body fat standards but can lead, to question the motivations of anyone who makes PT tests their number one criteria for eliminating Soldiers from the ranks.
I'm also curious about the General's definition of discipline. Is it parade ground spit and polish and blind obedience because of his exhalted status? How about mindless drones that shout "Sir, Yes Sir, three bags full" every time he farts? Reality is - yes, there are some problems, but we've also got a lot of very intelligent, combat experienced junior Soldiers (E6 - O3 types) who understand duty, leadership, and responsibility. To counter that we've got a fair percentage of current senior leadership that is NOT deserving of their respect. Maybe the General needs to quit bitching about the messenger and listen when somebody tells him he isn't wearing any clothes.
And the pundits wonder why it's so hard to convince some of the best and brightest to stay in the Service.
Multiple DUI's??? :confused: Sayo-effin'-nara to that career, baby.
During the time I was in the service, drinking and getting drunk periodically was not uncommon - however, being drunk offered no excuse for not being held wholly responsible for your actions and a DUI was the proverbial career ending move...especially if you were an NCO or Officer. We all knew that.
We always had a policy of don't drink and drive - either use a designated driver or drinking and need a ride, call me, I'll come get you and then we'll discuss it in the morning.
In 7th SFGA we used to have the SDNCO and SOG on-call to give guys a ride home in the duty jeeps if they were leaving the NCO Club or Annex and too drunk to drive.
The nice thing about Tolz was it was a short walk from the Rod & Gun to wherever your quarters were - probably saved a lot of NCOs who might've attempted to drive otherwise.
DUIs in America today cost far more lives annually than we've suffered from a decade of war in OEF and OIF combined. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
And a relatively small percentage of soldiers being problem children? So, what else is new. :rolleyes:
I wasn't going to say anything, but when I looked at my wristwatch to check the time and saw the red dot in the middle of the glass crystal, it reminded me to 'Think Safety'... :p
Richard :munchin
I liked the comment by a previous poster regarding the above. Paratrooper vs. Garatrooper basically.
Alot of discussion about DUIs and the PT test. I remember the SQT Test and NCO boards which are 'check the box" type things, but I think the Army has been badly hurt by getting rid of them.
Doing well on the SQT on paper doesn't guarantee operational performance, but you certainly verifly a baseline of knowledge (as with the board). And ARTEPs which I hope they are still doing althought those can be subjective.
I remember getting dinged in Canada because our patrol didn't get in the prone in the snow (on snowshoes) or step out into a proper cigar shape perimeter. I respectlfully explained the tracking ramifications as well as sustainability (freezing) but that was not in the FM so we were dinged! LOL.
Seems like the Navy is not without its own issues when it comes to discipline...the 19 mentioned in the article are 0-5 and above officers.
Richard :munchin
Bahrain Logistics CO Is 19th Fired This Year
NavyTimes, 17 Oct 2011
The commanding officer of a Bahrain-based logistics task force was fired for alleged misconduct, 5th Fleet announced Monday.
Capt. David Geisler was relieved by Vice Adm. Mark Fox, 5th Fleet commander, “for a loss of confidence” in Geisler’s ability to command, 5th Fleet said in a press release that added: “an investigation into alleged inappropriate conduct continues.”
The nature of the investigation and the allegations against Geisler remain unclear.
When asked to characterize the alleged misconduct, 5th Fleet spokesman Lt. Frederick Martin replied: “That’s part of the investigation, and it won’t be releasable until the investigation is completed.”
Martin could not immediately say when the investigation began or who was conducting it.
Geisler, a surface warfare officer, had commanded Task Force 53 since January. Geisler also served as head of Military Sealift Command Central, one of MSC’s five operational commands worldwide. In both roles, Geisler oversaw the delivery, by air and sea, of personnel, food, cargo, fuel, ammunition and mail to ships and commands in 5th Fleet, according to a press release from his change of command in January.
Geisler is the 19th commanding officer fired in 2011.
Geisler has been reassigned to duties at Naval Support Activity Bahrain. The No. 2 at CTF 53, Capt. Jesus Cantu, has taken command until a permanent replacement is named.
Geisler, a native of Kokomo, Ind., is a 1988 graduate of the University of Rochester. Geisler commanded frigate John L. Hall, taking it on a counter-drug deployment and also leading it through an “emergency homeport shift” to Mayport, Fla., after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, according to his official bio. Over his career, he has earned two Defense Meritorious Service Medals and three Meritorious Service Medals, in addition to other personal awards.
Geisler could not immediately be reached for comment.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/10/navy-bahrain-logistics-CO-19th-fired-this-year-101711w/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
ZonieDiver
10-17-2011, 16:13
As someone who had several years experience in the United States Army when it had serious discipline, drug, and attitude problems, I would gladly volunteer to undertake a 4 year study for 1.6 million dollars. Hell, I'll even round up some of my veteran buddies from my days at Arizona State University to do research. :D
greenberetTFS
10-17-2011, 17:08
I liked the comment by a previous poster regarding the above. Paratrooper vs. Garatrooper basically.
Confessions of a former garatrooper!.... When I first got to Ft.Bragg I was determined to be the best soldier in the 82nd....I arrived as an E-3(PFC),since I received the promotion after basic training because I was an honor graduate...... After jump school and being in the service about 5 months I was picked for the 505 PIR Honor Guard.... After about 5 or 6 months later I got promoted again to E-4(Corporal)...... They had the EIB testing program in effect and they approved my taking the test,I passed and after about a month later I was promoted to E-5(Staff Sgt.) and then the opportunity to join Special Forces came up and I re-uped for 6 years,and went to the 77th SFG.......... The rest of this story I've written before on another post,but I finally became a field soldier..............:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
pbr549xxx
10-18-2011, 11:32
Basic is where the shitbags need to be taken care of. And you can definitely tell which ones are that way. .
When I was a Drill Sergeant, we were told that we weren't the Army's gate keepers.
1stindoor
10-18-2011, 12:02
But, I can guarantee that the soldiers who cannot pass a PT test, will not be able to keep up in combat either (or atleast the majority of them anyway).
The problem with all encompassing statements is that they are always wrong (at least a majority of them anyway).
And if a guy has 10% body fat, he is in no way close to getting booted, as the Army allows males to have up to 24% body fat, and females up to 30%.
I have known people to get booted for being overweight by the Army's standard and have a three year record of having never failed a PT test. One, consistently scored 290 or above, but always "looked fat."
Bottom line, if you cannot meet the bare minimum standards for the organization you voluntarily choose to be in, you should be first to get the boot when that organization is downsizing.
Bottom line...those "standards" are only enforced and upheld when it's convienant to the organization.
When I was a Drill Sergeant, we were told that we weren't the Army's gate keepers.
I find this extremely depressing.
Bottom line...those "standards" are only enforced and upheld when it's convienant to the organization.
I agree. That is exactly what is happening, they let guys stick around the last 10 years that typically would have been let go, do to the war and needing more boots. Now, due to the budget, it is "conveniant" to the organization to let them go. I have a problem with all of that, I don't think leaders should look the other way just because a war is going on.
I have known people to get booted for being overweight by the Army's standard and have a three year record of having never failed a PT test. One, consistently scored 290 or above, but always "looked fat."
We could come up with examples of the 1% all day long, I am sure most of us here have known that soldier who looked fat but actually was in great shape and could smoke everyone around him. It's the other 99% that are the issue.
I've always taken issue with this mentality. Some people are/were "good enough to fight the war" but not "good enough to be in the Army"? Prehaps the services need to take a closer look at how they perceive themselves...
I'd say we're not far from returning to pressed and polished combat uniform and the emphasis of form over substance.
1stindoor
10-19-2011, 08:58
We could come up with examples of the 1% all day long, I am sure most of us here have known that soldier who looked fat but actually was in great shape and could smoke everyone around him. It's the other 99% that are the issue.
Fair enough.