Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
I have a question? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: I have a question?

    Hella never. Approval would decimate our numbers. End strength is a powerful force to be rekconed with. We are forever dancing the delicate dance of end strength and standards.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I have a question?

      Originally posted by Mongoose772 View Post
      Hella never. Approval would decimate our numbers. End strength is a powerful force to be rekconed with. We are forever dancing the delicate dance of end strength and standards.
      Yes thats true but people are trying to join in record numbers so wouldn't that not be an issue today?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I have a question?

        Originally posted by Mongoose772 View Post
        Hella never. Approval would decimate our numbers. End strength is a powerful force to be rekconed with. We are forever dancing the delicate dance of end strength and standards.
        Very true, but if it started being enforced, many MANY more would start passing APFTs. Too much money and benefits to be lost to continue being a slug if you knew they weren't afraid to send you packing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I have a question?

          The separation piece is complex in that many different regs could come into play depending on what info you were looking for and the status of the Soldier.
          This is what everone is missing.

          Commander's have a huge amount of authority and there's often multiple ways of spererating a SM or reducing them. This is why I cringe when someone throws out, "file an IG complaint".

          More often then not, the commander's intent is correct, it's proper application of the AR they are missing. For instance, when I was a PL, the commander reduced a Soldier for failing multiple APFT's. SM filed an IG complaint. IG stated the commander's intent was correct but he had used the wrong AR. Commander quoted correct AR and SM was reduced.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I have a question?

            Originally posted by RedLeg View Post
            This is what everone is missing.

            Commander's have a huge amount of authority and there's often multiple ways of spererating a SM or reducing them. This is why I cringe when someone throws out, "file an IG complaint".

            More often then not, the commander's intent is correct, it's proper application of the AR they are missing. For instance, when I was a PL, the commander reduced a Soldier for failing multiple APFT's. SM filed an IG complaint. IG stated the commander's intent was correct but he had used the wrong AR. Commander quoted correct AR and SM was reduced.
            Thats all fine and well, because there is more then one way to skin a cat as long as you can marry it to a regulation....but the original point of my discussion, was a reduction for misconduct doesn't exist outside of a civilian court conviction.

            While I see where you are going with your post, there usually is not more then one way to reduce a guy. Its either punitive (Article 15 or similar in your state) or its administrative. The reduction chapter is very clear.....commanders, moreover the J1 frequently chooses to ignore it.

            Your example of reduction for failing multiple APFT's is a proper reduction for inefficiency (mainly because it wasn't for a single incident).....however, the regulation is clear about a mandatory separation process being initiated for two or more consecutive APFT failures, however no one ever does it.

            There is no commander's discretion in "mandatory".
            Last edited by ParalegalNCO1; July 16th, 2012, 11:42 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X