Military Justice Manual, Army Command Policy, and FM 6-22?
Question: Okay. Its kind of a long story, and sounds a bit like how a Private would sound, but I have a feeling that my NCO's and my Soldiers in my squad are being treated a bit more unruly than they should be. Here goes. One the day of the range the formation prior to departure the soldiers in the squad had quite a few deficiencies on thier gear. Some were missing gear due to CIF issue problems, some had gear in the incorrect position, some had the wrong gear. Obviously a mis-communication in the NCO support channel. The SOP for battle rattle had be put out amongst the platoon a few months prior, however , had been changed, then changed again, then never reiterated. The SOP was not delivered to the junior NCO's to ensure that they were enforcing the standard. Needless to say, our e-6 was counseled on failure to follow instructions. That e-6 then proceeded to counsel his e-5's giving the failure to conduct PCC/PCI's with a corrective training of a full CIF layout the day of the counselling (1700) then they are required to wear their full battle rattle for 18 days as their duty uniform. The e-6 then proceeded to have the e-5's counsel the junior enlisted with the same corrective training. That brings me to my next point. in violation of AR 600-20 Ch4 para6 - army command policy corrective training may only be given until the standard is met, you should not impose a timeline. corrective training cannot be punative, such as excessive. must be fair so I decided to argue this issue with the timeline. all the slodiers in question are meeting the standard, at this point, but correctve training continues. I was then told by my PSG that it was that or give me an article 15, reduction in rank, based on just his own sworn statement, no witnesses or counselings on file. I was under the impression that NCO's per FM 6-22 Army Leadership, NCO's non-judicial punishment or corrective training should only be supervisory, not the same punishment as the junior enlisted. Basically I want to ensure that my soldiers are being treated fairly as well as my NCO's. I am not so much concerned about myself, but if Army Regulations are being violated, I don't want my name on the 4856 as the counselor. Please help...
Best Answers: Military Justice Manual, Army Command Policy, and FM 6-22?
the command structure is allowed to modify the daily uniform as it see's fit in order to MAINTAIN ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE. If CIF failure to issue proper gear was part of the issue, then I am sure it could be supported/proved with the proper paperwork. (What exactly did the soldiers gin for? IF they were never issued the equipment, they are and will never be responsible for possessing it.) Moreover, if an SOP has changes and continues to be changed IT IS NOT an SOP. (From what you've written, there has not been a STANDARD, nor has there been an OPERATING PROCEDURE established.) What you've described to me is a failure of leadership and "wishy-washy" officer corps. As far as writing up the private's, go ahead. However, in the wording, the NCO should write that the PLT SGT/ PLT LDR is requireing that the privates be counseled. This way the NCO becomes "the messenger."
I think it's an awful policy. The claim about not wanting to be checked out in the showers or hit on is ridiculous, as the policy does not keep homosexuals out of the military -- it just keeps them quiet. Just as we assume heterosexual males will not harass heterosexual females with unwanted attention, we should assume homosexuals can and will give the same courtesy to heterosexuals. Further, in what other policy does the military consider what the troops are comfortable with? Or do the troops get to give their opinions on? To those who say that homosexuals destroy unit cohesion-- unit cohesion is built on similar tasks, not similar backgrounds, and not affected by sexual orientation. We don't abide racism or discrimination on the basis of religion or gender, why should we allow this? Any officer who can't maintain order in his unit isn't worth his salt as an officer. Those who say it will hurt recruiting and retention are likely wrong as well. Servicemen in the 40’s were opposed to integration of the services, but when they were told to accept it, they did. West Point students pledged to leave the service if women were admitted in the 70’s. They didn’t. Approximately half of British and Canadian troops said they would not serve with gays, but when their respective bans were lifted, they didn’t. Many of our allies--including Israel, the UK, and Australia--allow homosexuals to serve openly and have not suffered for it. To all the people who say "Why do I have to know?", you don't understand the policy. The policy prohibits homosexuals from even being seen with their significant other or talking about a date. Imagine if you couldn't ever talk about your wife or family life with your coworkers, couldn't move your family with you when you PCS'd, couldn't get benefits for your significant other, couldn't bring your spouse with you to events. Imagine if you were told that just being in your unit is harmful to the conduct of the unit (which has repeatedly been proven false, by the way). These people are risking their lives for their country, just like heterosexuals, and yet are being told at the same time that they're second class citizens. I don't like any of Obama's other politics, but I hope he follows through on his promise to repeal this policy. ---------- EDIT: Dennis, it would appear you are the one that does not understand Military Law. Article 125 is against sodomy and applies to heterosexuals as well, not specifically homosexuals. Additionally, the Manual for Court Martial can be--and frequently is-- changed with an Executive Order and the UCMJ is part of the United States Code, which can be changed with a regular Congressional vote -- just like it was when DADT was implemented (yes, DADT did amend the UCMJ -- parts of 10 USC 654 to be exact). It does not require a 2/3 vote.
Whew, 10 hour shift finally finished :) CISN 7 Then 7:15 markets BBFF Folsom reformatory Blues worked 9 You seem stable In My shirt WW cabbie worked 10:15 credit 12 Alan Jackson 2 Who does no longer Wanna Be Me 2:15 line 4:15 contemporary 5 Down on the Farm CCMW Kiss a woman 8:15 view JOE Maureen's final be conscious - Waldo Cool holiday #6 codes: 8 am in demand 10 am studio 12 pm Venice 4 pm Lakers Songs: 9 devil interior 11 superb right here, superb now 2 Beds Are Burning 6 Nothin' yet a stable time 8 no person Is in charge CHED Bob Layton - 212 Sleuth - tall video games 'n eCards minutiae - one thousand Mentos minutiae - get inspired Paradise RV minutiae - over 10 years
http://odenton.patch.com/articles/milita... For those who haven't kept up, this has been in the works for about 5 years now. The Air Force has been in the process of doing away with the decal since 9-11 because in actuality, the decal present a force protection issue. Any car with that sticker has access to any installation. That means someone who is watching can know from the color and what level the vehicles owner is and where they may be stationed. It presents a danger to those living off base or driving off base. For example, in Europe, vehicles with base stickers have been vandalized or broken into and sensitive information or even uniforms have been taken. These items could be used to infiltrate an installation. The new policy is based on the force protection level of a particular installation and how certain key resources on those bases are protected. First, you can't just drive on exactly. Your license or ID is scanned at the gate (the bar code on the back) and that info is databased and checked. Yes, I know it doesn't help with security, but neither did the decals either. There is no way for the gate folks to know if the driver of that vehicle with a decal is the owner or authorized user. That means someone can steal a car with a base sticker and get on anyway. If someone wanted to get you or make an installation less secure, they could already do it anyway. Hell, people could just jump the fence between patrols....especially at locations that have lots of wildlife that cause false alarms. However, they still cannot shop in the commissary or PX unless authorized. What I have noticed are even better checks for IDs in these areas than in the past. Personally, I do not agree with it....especially for someone not with someone with a military or dependent ID. Funny thing, the above link is in reference to Ft. Meade and they JUST made me get a sticker and I am retired Air Force. I had been going on that installation for months with no problem just using my ID. Now they made me get a sticker. Kind of contradictory. Do they even tell them what's going on?
I am in the Army. That is all the details I will give. The Army has been fcuked up and will continue to be. There is so much bull siht that goes on, it's not even funny. My suggestion? Get out of the Army and become a civilian again, it's too easy.
Maybe this will help http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/flags/manual-of-the-guidon.shtml
If you have your own answer to the question Military Justice Manual, Army Command Policy, and FM 6-22?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.