Shack. We, as officers, need to be able to exercise judgment and not just blindly follow the regs. That's one difference between an officer and an NCO, supposedly. The problem is that some NCO's don't understand that there's a difference. It is an NCO's place to ADVISE an officer on a COA. If the officer chooses to ignore the NCO's ADVICE then it's his ass.
Napoleon, I'm not trying to take a shot at you or start a flame war, but just illustrate a point: Have you ever walked up to an intersection late a night, with no traffic, and crossed against the signal? Was it against the law? Yes. Was it good judgment? I would argue, also, yes. You could have stood there for 10 minutes waiting for the light to change, obeyed the law, and been safe. But, to what end. We as officers are paid to THINK.
I'm not saying we should ignore AFIs, but there's a difference between not wearing your reflective belt and not following -1 guidance that could be dangerous. This bullshit of "if you can't follow the simple regs. how can I trust you to do the important stuff" is the same as a bullshit moral equivalency argument.
Then you have the people that say, "well, you're setting a bad example for the troops". Sorry, I've got to throw the bullshit flag on that one too. A good NCO can explain to the troops that an officer is paid to exercise judgment. An A1C is not paid to do so, or is to a lesser degree. That's why the consequences for failure are higher for officers. Furthermore, I learned from my maintenance days, that a lot of the troops recognize and appreciate it when you take a stand against bullshit queep. The inability to think critically on the part of SOME NCOs is not a good reason to relieve me of my ability to exercise judgment as an officer.