Leadership at the 'Deid

[Guest REMF]

Shack Again and Again!!!!!!!!!! You guys are on fire tonight. That's 3 PI's in a row from 40,000 AGL.

Sir,

I'll add this one to the laundry list of crap we have to put up with while at AUAB......EXERCISES in a delpoyed environment!!!!!!!!!! And every person on the base being told to go inventory a chem bag for the LRS when it's their DAMN job to ensure that we're taken care of properly. Please tell me why the LRS who is in charge of inventoring those bags can't do their own job???

I think I covered the exercises in a different post, so I won't bother repeating here.

No one is going over to ELRS to inventory a bag for the hell of it. My understanding is that sometime next year, we will all go over to ELRS and receive a chem bag...not sure that has been finalized yet. As with anytime you get gear like that, it is a requirement for you to do an inventory because you are signing for everything in the bag.

REMF

[Guest REMF]

Sir,

Sorry, but I have to disagree. At least from the operator's perspective, the mission does NOT come first at AUAB. The mission happens very much IN SPITE of the efforts of many people who are at AUAB and have lost sight of what is really going on and at stake there. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew would not be denied use of the restroom or dining facilities for lack of a reflective belt. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, finance wouldn't only be open 9-5 when the majority of the people at AUAB actually performing the mission are either flying, working on shift or in crew rest during that time. If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew wouldn't be pulled out of crew rest (and thus off of combat sorties) because they needed to go to a right start briefing (the same briefing they attended 4 months prior when they were deployed to AUAB a previous trip). If the mission truly came first at AUAB, aircrew and maintainers just getting off of 12-18hr shifts could walk to the chow hall without being harassed by someone who works 9-5 about the PT shirt they put on after peeling off a sweat soaked flight suit or set of ABUs is "not tucked in enough". If the mission truly came first at AUAB, wear of the ONLY other authorized clothing other than a flight suit or ABUs (the PTU) would be as least restrictive as possible (for example, why were crocs and other comfortable shoes banned?) If the mission truly came first at AUAB, commanders of ops squadrons wouldn't be forced to pull additional duties on top of their 12-18hr work days launching combat missions to go run a reflective belt RAM in front of the chow hall denying the aforementioned airmen performing The Mission access to food because they don't have a reflective belt.

EVERY one of the above examples has happened to either myself or a member of one of my crews or sq when deployed to AUAB... they're not some abstract thing, they're concrete examples of the kind of things that go on at AUAB that create the kind of strife you see there.

Sir I realize that a lot of this can be boiled down to a bunch of boo-hooing by a bunch of spoiled pilots, but when you spend literally half of any given year (if not more) deployed to AUAB as many of us do, these things add up. How many times have we all been told that "perception is reality"? Well, the perception among many operators is that leadership as a whole is completely out of touch with the actual goings on at AUAB, and their efforts are a direct and significant detriment to morale, good order and discipline, and mission accomplishment.

AUAB SHOULD be a shining beacon of high morale in the AF. It is one of the few places where airmen go to do their actual combat job. They're not training, they're doing their real, no-kidding, this-is-why-i-joined-the-Air-Force AFSC. I am EXTREMELY proud of the things I do at AUAB supporting combat operations on the ground, and I'm sure that it would be very difficult to find too many people at AUAB who didn't feel the same way about their actual duties at AUAB. It's the additional queep that wears down on people. Instead of accommodating airmen to the best extent possible to try to make their stay away from their home and family as pleasant as possible, there is a real perception that the opposite is true-- that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible through pointless queep rules and half hearted, limp wristed explanations for the logic behind them (if the response isn't just "shut up and color").

We could go back and forth as to who is doing more damage to good order and discipline; however, my position is that I can't think of too many examples where people blatantly and willfully disregarded the rules and orders of AUAB. They may bitch piss and moan about it, but they do comply. Those who do not deserve to be corrected accordingly, but not in a manner that is just as prejudicial to good order and discipline as breaking the rules of AUAB in the first place (for example an E physically ripping a chow tray out of an LT's hand because he didn't have a reflective belt).

My final point in this long and rambling post is regarding the lack of recourse. It seems that rules at AUAB are a one way street-- they come down from above, and any feedback from the people effected by them is greeted by responses that range from deafening silence to an extended digit that rests between the index finger and ring finger of any given hand. AUAB is the only base I've ever been at that doesn't have some sort of "climate survey" every other week, and I'm sure it's because leadership just doesn't want to hear how bad things really are there. Beneficial change can be affected from the top, and the first step is to actually listen to the airmen and CGOs who are out there doing The Mission. They're doing more than just bitching-- usually they have a good solution that we have yet to find a willing ear to tell.

I think I've addressed a lot of your concerns above in other posts...if not, let me know.

As you think through your climate survey answers, I hope you remember a couple of things. Kid Rock, Carlos Mencia, Jessie James, Harlem Globetrotters, 3 drinks a night, free internet, ITT trips downtown, relaxed restrictions on downtown travel, building new, larger trailers, renovating the cadillacs, etc. Not trying to convince you that everything is perfect over here but I think a lot of folks focus on the couple of things that upset them and forget that there is a lot going on with constant push towards big improvements vice "that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible." With all that we have and all that is constantly being done, I find it hard to square your statement with the objective reality.

Again, I know this is an issue that pisses you and many others off...I just try to look around and see how the whole environment balances out.

[skinny]

Honestly, I don't know what evidence is out there but apparently a New Zealand study isn't enough for you.

Sir, the problem with using that study is that it has absolutely nothing to do with reflective belts being worn by pedestrians. As an avid motorcycle enthusiast, I 100% agree with the study. As a member of the AF trying to relate that study to RB's, I find it 100% not applicable.

The visibility issues for a motocycle traveling along a public road at 55+ mph is quite different than those of someone walking at a brisk 2.5 mph in an area where there is zero traffic i.e. the Bra, DEL, chow hall, cadillacs etc.

So no Sir, that study isn't enough for us.

[Guest ReflectivityRules]

REMF,

thank you for the answers. We do disagree on much.

My questions about Marines, kids, and off-duty habits were to lead to the overall point that reflective belts are completely unnecessary when we all acknowledge, from E-1 all the way up to O-10, that we can manage just fine, day or night, off duty, and that if they were really THAT helpful to our safety, then we would all wear them all the time. If Marines can get the job done without belts on, then so can we. If kids can walk to the bus stop without reflective belts, then so can a bunch of Airmen. If your kids can play around in the back yard at night without belts, then a grown man should be able to walk to the urinal from his hooch without a reflective belt. All those questions were meant to point out just out out of control and ridiculous the use of belts is. It's also to point out how hypocritical leadership is. As others have pointed out, the mere fact that it's okay to walk around base at night in civilian clothes without a reflective belt shows that the whole policy has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with a way to prove authority. Well, congratulations, you can get us to wear reflective belts to take a shit, and you could force us to wear pink snuggies and hop around on one foot when in the BX. Good job leaders, you can force your subordinates to do what you order, very impressive leadership.

I'd argue that the wing commander can make a perfectly uniform and easily enforced policy by requiring reflective belts at night only, when on roads or flightline only.

You stretch reasoning to imply that it's okay to be unsafe (without reflective belts on) off base because of some kind of blending in, force protection measure. If that's the case, maybe the student airmen down at Lackland can get a break...they're now apparently being forced to wear reflective belts off base in civilian clothes. This is the Kool-Aid I'm talking about. Somehow, you've rationalized to yourself that wearing reflective belts is for our own safety on base in uniform, but that not wearing belts off base (or when in civilian clothes on base) is for our...own safety. Huh?

We should blend in off base, you say? Then why is it perfectly acceptable for Airmen to go eat off base in uniform every day at lunch for an hour? You don't see many Marines doing that. It seems to me that Marine Corps and Air Force policies are opposites with regard to reflective belt wear and with regard to wearing uniforms off base. Both services can't be right, no matter how you rationalize it. You have tens of thousands of airman right now saying that it's our own service that is backwards. Go to the facebook reflective page and read the comments. They are funny, but disturbing at the same time, because of how important reflective belt usage has become during inspections and exercises, and because of the no-holds-barred tactics SNCOs and top leadership use to enforcing the policy. How about they focus that energy towards improving the base, towards ensuring airmen are better skilled in their primary duties? I think we all can agree those are better places to put our energy.

I think the way you approach your position is healthy, in not worrying about those things you cannot control, and in not falling on your sword over reflective belts. What I disagree with you on most is your position that it's acceptable to not have a reason for things we are ordered to do. Except for secrets of the state, there should never be a single question from a subordinate that is answered with "because that's what the rules are." That answer is a leadership cop-out and unacceptable. Rules should make sense and improve the mission. If they don't make sense, if they ruin morale, if they detract from the mission, if no one knows why the rule is there, if they are enforced by commanders standing outside the chow hall, then it's time to eliminate, or seriously reconsider, the rule. Reflective belt policy needs major revision. Better yet, how about you stick to the AFIs and not invent a bunch of localized nonsense just because you can? One of the smartest commanders I ever had disposed of an entire AFI supplement, saying that the Air Force's standards are plenty good enough, that there is no reason to create "higher standards" just because. It made so much sense.

Once again, thank you for joining the forum and I hope you stick around even after leaving the 'deid. Having experienced officers, and especially non-flyers (which it sounds like you are) and commanders, really adds perspective.

[Guest REMF]

Sir, the problem with using that study is that it has absolutely nothing to do with reflective belts being worn by pedestrians. As an avid motorcycle enthusiast, I 100% agree with the study. As a member of the AF trying to relate that study to RB's, I find it 100% not applicable.

The visibility issues for a motocycle traveling along a public road at 55+ mph is quite different than those of someone walking at a brisk 2.5 mph in an area where there is zero traffic i.e. the Bra, DEL, chow hall, cadillacs etc.

So no Sir, that study isn't enough for us.

Ok...good point. Doesn't have anything in there about pedestrians. However, I think I can extrapolate the findings from that. Again, and I could be 100% wrong here (like it'd be the first time), I think there is applicability if your overall concern is visibility from a drivers perspective. Wearing a reflective vest does nothing for the motorcyclist. It does everything for the drivers around him/her. Same goes for folks walking/running around base. It's about the driver, not the person wearing the belt.

REMF

[Disco_Nav963]

I can confirm what BBB said, or at least that I've overheard the CV say that it was as BBB said.

[Guest REMF]

REMF,

thank you for the answers. We do disagree on much.

My questions about Marines, kids, and off-duty habits were to lead to the overall point that reflective belts are completely unnecessary when we all acknowledge, from E-1 all the way up to O-10, that we can manage just fine, day or night, off duty, and that if they were really THAT helpful to our safety, then we would all wear them all the time. If Marines can get the job done without belts on, then so can we. If kids can walk to the bus stop without reflective belts, then so can a bunch of Airmen. If your kids can play around in the back yard at night without belts, then a grown man should be able to walk to the urinal from his hooch without a reflective belt. All those questions were meant to point out just out out of control and ridiculous the use of belts is. It's also to point out how hypocritical leadership is. As others have pointed out, the mere fact that it's okay to walk around base at night in civilian clothes without a reflective belt shows that the whole policy has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with a way to prove authority. Well, congratulations, you can get us to wear reflective belts to take a shit, and you could force us to wear pink snuggies and hop around on one foot when in the BX. Good job leaders, you can force your subordinates to do what you order, very impressive leadership.

I'd argue that the wing commander can make a perfectly uniform and easily enforced policy by requiring reflective belts at night only, when on roads or flightline only.

You stretch reasoning to imply that it's okay to be unsafe (without reflective belts on) off base because of some kind of blending in, force protection measure. If that's the case, maybe the student airmen down at Lackland can get a break...they're now apparently being forced to wear reflective belts off base in civilian clothes. This is the Kool-Aid I'm talking about. Somehow, you've rationalized to yourself that wearing reflective belts is for our own safety on base in uniform, but that not wearing belts off base (or when in civilian clothes on base) is for our...own safety. Huh?

We should blend in off base, you say? Then why is it perfectly acceptable for Airmen to go eat off base in uniform every day at lunch for an hour? You don't see many Marines doing that. It seems to me that Marine Corps and Air Force policies are opposites with regard to reflective belt wear and with regard to wearing uniforms off base. Both services can't be right, no matter how you rationalize it. You have tens of thousands of airman right now saying that it's our own service that is backwards. Go to the facebook reflective page and read the comments. They are funny, but disturbing at the same time, because of how important reflective belt usage has become during inspections and exercises, and because of the no-holds-barred tactics SNCOs and top leadership use to enforcing the policy. How about they focus that energy towards improving the base, towards ensuring airmen are better skilled in their primary duties? I think we all can agree those are better places to put our energy.

I think the way you approach your position is healthy, in not worrying about those things you cannot control, and in not falling on your sword over reflective belts. What I disagree with you on most is your position that it's acceptable to not have a reason for things we are ordered to do. Except for secrets of the state, there should never be a single question from a subordinate that is answered with "because that's what the rules are." That answer is a leadership cop-out and unacceptable. Rules should make sense and improve the mission. If they don't make sense, if they ruin morale, if they detract from the mission, if no one knows why the rule is there, if they are enforced by commanders standing outside the chow hall, then it's time to eliminate, or seriously reconsider, the rule. Reflective belt policy needs major revision. Better yet, how about you stick to the AFIs and not invent a bunch of localized nonsense just because you can? One of the smartest commanders I ever had disposed of an entire AFI supplement, saying that the Air Force's standards are plenty good enough, that there is no reason to create "higher standards" just because. It made so much sense.

Once again, thank you for joining the forum and I hope you stick around even after leaving the 'deid. Having experienced officers, and especially non-flyers (which it sounds like you are) and commanders, really adds perspective.

Boy, I think you and I argued past one another on this one.

I fully agree that people shouldn't be wearing reflective belts during daylight hours. Even I cannot stretch my brain enough to find the logic in that one...well, maybe if an eclipse happened suddenly, we could protect everyone...nope still can't do it. So, the guys at Lackland and other places, I have a tough time with that.

The way I understood your question regarding off base was here at Al Udeid. That's what I meant by not wearing downtown to Doha and how we try to blend in. As if we really could. My thoughts on the not one-size-fits-all mentality is that if it truly was that way, we'd be wearing the things regardless of where we at (an extension of your argument about not being able to go to the caddy). The fact that we do not shows some common sense application of the rules.

Regarding the needing a reason behind the rule. I concur and unless I'm giving orders to getting crap done in a hurry I always try to explain my logic and the thought behind my orders. That has happened here as well. I know I've explained it ad nauseum in the few posts I've done. However, the other 99.99999% of the board members do not agree or argue other valid points about it being a personal responsibility and what not. Again, all valid points that have been considered by the leadership and a decision made regarding wear.

Not sure how long everyone has been here, but this policy is not new. The current leadership team inherited it from the previous one. Along with the 25KPH rule in the entire CC/BPC area. One of the first things the new regime did was instruct the wing agencies to look at raising the speed limit. I will tell you that raising the speed limits to where they are now was not met with universal agreement. And, one of the considerations (for the proposal) was the reflective belt policy. So, the Wing CC decided to keep the belts in place and raise the speed limits. Acceptable risk accepted on his part.

Can this be re-engaged so that different policies are put into place regarding wear around the Bra, in CC compound, etc.? I would think so. As you point out above, that is a logically defensible stand easy to take. Notice I didn't say it would change...I just think a good, non-emotional case could be built. Of course, your detractors will immediately tell you that if we can't get them to wear the things now, how are going to enforce it when you don't have to wear the belts in some places and do in others. I have to tell you that as infuriating as it is, it is easier to just say wear one all the time. Again, I know you don't agree and I'm not really trying to change your mind...just explain some of this and attempt as best I can to answer your questions.

REMF

[nsplayr]

Of course, your detractors will immediately tell you that if we can't get them to wear the things now, how are going to enforce it when you don't have to wear the belts in some places and do in others. I have to tell you that as infuriating as it is, it is easier to just say wear one all the time. Again, I know you don't agree and I'm not really trying to change your mind...just explain some of this and attempt as best I can to answer your questions.

Sir,

If the rules made sense and everyone was on board, then they would be much easier to enforce. As an officer, I will enforce the rules as written, but I'm sure not gonna go out of my way to bust someone's balls for a rules that makes no sense (i.e. belts in well-lit areas away from cars).

In terms of the rules being easier to enforce when there's a universal, one-size-fits-all-on-base policy, that is frankly a problem for the leadership and not for the troops. If such a policy makes things easier for the leadership but harder for the troops, that's back-asswards. The troops are rising up against this policy because of the epic fail in logic and reason and because it truly detracts from morale; no one will give a crap about free internet or new facilities or any of those other things when they believe their leadership is out to get them over a policy that should be about #25 in importance.

Now I've never been to the Deid so I can't argue specifics, but it seems to me, from an outsider's view, that the harder the push is from the top to enforce this policy, the more resentment will build up with Airmen and CGOs. Getting everyone on board with a policy that makes sense is the only way to solve the problem, and for that to happen you either need a very charismatic leader with proven results that can enforce whatever he wants b/c his men respect him (i.e. Patton w/ his uniform policy), or you need a policy that actually makes sense and that can be enforced by any Gen. Joe Blow out there.

[GearMonkey]

Since we have a local expert now (and there are surely more on the prowl) I'll post a few simple ideas and hope they percolate to the top. The General can take credit if he likes. . .

How about we build well lit pedestrian-activated stoplights at the two or three places in the CC/BPC where you actually need to cross an active road. That'll increase safety above and beyond what the RBs provide for 95% of the traffic danger situations we're all so scared of. Once this is done RBs should no longer be required outside of OPS Town. I'm sure this will cost some money but it can't possibly be more than the 1000s of pounds of fuel I've burned double-blocking to the DV terminal to drop off dudes who are too important for a 300 yard car ride.

Here is another one. . . How about some of those fancy new trailers (or even some of the shitty ones they are tearing down!) be set aside for transient aircrew. That way during our 16 hours off between 24 hour flying days (-4 hours for customs/in-processing, -1 hour for puting on RBs and walking 15 miles to the DFAC, -1 hour of trying to use the internet during peak WOW hours, -1 hour of trying to recharge an Eagle Cash Card because it expired in the 31 days between visits, -1 hour of turning the AC on/off multiple times as the tent gets stifling/freezing, etc.) we could get some quality sleep. I think that would be better for safety than linking all the RBs on base together and wrapping them around the outter fence line.

Anyone else have realistic ideas that a true leader could devote some brainbytes (that others are wasting on RBs) to?

Edited December 10, 2009 by GearMonkey

[HoHum]

renovating the cadillacs

Does this mean that they finally fired the five TCNs they had building all of the caddies and hired a construction company? And that at least one of them is operational (without black mold all around you?)

Edited December 10, 2009 by The_Ginger

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I think I've addressed a lot of your concerns above in other posts...if not, let me know.

As you think through your climate survey answers, I hope you remember a couple of things. Kid Rock, Carlos Mencia, Jessie James, Harlem Globetrotters, 3 drinks a night, free internet, ITT trips downtown, relaxed restrictions on downtown travel, building new, larger trailers, renovating the cadillacs, etc. Not trying to convince you that everything is perfect over here but I think a lot of folks focus on the couple of things that upset them and forget that there is a lot going on with constant push towards big improvements vice "that leadership genuinely tries to make being deployed to AUAB as miserable as possible." With all that we have and all that is constantly being done, I find it hard to square your statement with the objective reality.

Again, I know this is an issue that pisses you and many others off...I just try to look around and see how the whole environment balances out.

Ok sir, I probably did exaggerate a bit with my comment. The USO shows and base improvements/niceties certainly do go a long way, and shame on anyone who doesn't appreciate that fact.

As for the belts and other "queep" that has been highlighted in this thread and elsewhere-- I realize that leadership is very keen on one-size-fits-all approaches to problem solving, and I certainly understand their position on that. I know leaders hate griping about problems without good solutions in hand, so with that in mind, here are a few, in my opinion, good one-size-fits-all policies that are as easy to enforce as the current ones, while at the same time addressing and releiving some of the major "queep" concerns that many have.

1. The reflective belts. My easy fix to this is to simply say that you MUST have 360 reflectivity if you are traversing ANYWHERE that is readily accessible to vehicles. I understand that the RB is the AF's (not just AUAB) chosen means for making pedestrians more visible to vehicles, so employ the threat mitigation in a more targeted manner. The reality is that the MAJORITY of areas around AUAB are not accessible to vehicles, period. If you're not traversing on or across a road (for example a trip from your trailer to the cadillac or the bra) there should be no need for you to have a reflective belt. If your planned trip includes crossing a road, you need to have a belt with you to at least put on as you cross the roadway. This policy is enforceable just as easily as the current policy. If someone is seen on a road with a belt they should be stopped and corrected on the spot (well, not ON the spot-- clear the road first). It is 100% in line with the stated goal of RB wear and removes the ridiculousness of the current policy. If a vehicle is traversing areas not normally accessible to vehicles (i.e. CE servicing an air conditioner at a trailer) that vehicle is limited to idle speed with its emergency lights on.

2. The BPC and CC should be declared "residential areas" and have special, relaxed rules within the declared residential areas. You still have to wear your PT or duty uniform within the residential areas; however, you can wear crocs or closed toe sandals with back straps (same shoes that were allowed for years under the old policy). Furthermore you do not have to have your shirt tucked in within residential areas. Residential areas should also be declared "hat optional, no salute" areas. The CC and BPC are our homes when we're at AUAB and it would be nice to feel like we're "at home" at least a little bit.

3. The rest of the base is declared a "duty area". When in a duty area you must be in either your duty uniform or PTU up to the fullest standard of wear for that applicable uniform. If your duty section exists within a residential area (for example finance) personnel working in those areas must adhere to "duty area" standards. This includes airmen receiving service from such facilities. For example, if you're in the CC and going to finance, you must be up to duty area standards to receive service from finance.

I think the above three changes would go a LONG way to improving morale on the base while at the same time having no negative effect on good order and discipline. In fact, it might actually improve GO&D due to the reduced conflicts between people breaking what they see as queep rules and someone confronting them over breaking those queep rules.

I'm sure the concern then becomes "well, with as many people transit the base, how can we expect them to know the special rules at AUAB?" That solution is simple as well. EVERYONE has to transit customs and persco, correct? How hard is it to create a one page briefing pamphlet to be distributed with the rest of the welcome material? I see it as a 0% increase on the burden of ANYONE, while at the same time greatly improving the climate and morale at AUAB.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Napoleon_Tanerite

[Mephisto]

1. WHAT USEFUL PURPOSE DO REFLECTIVE BELTS SERVE?

As someone who drives tactical vehicles occasionally up to BAF it is absolutely necessary for people to have reflective belts there. The base is simply has far too many people moving around for it to be safe for everyone to walk around at night without a reflective belt. Driving at BAF is a nightmare during the day with pedestrians darting out in front of traffic, at night its 100 times worse. Tactical vehicles have many blind spots to begin with so enforcing a policy that mandates people wear reflective belts when out and about is worth it. I know its irritating, I hate having to wear one as well, but it really does reduce the risk of pedestrians getting hit because the driver doesnt see them.

[old crow]

Best way to improve morale? Go back to Camp Andy. Tent City with no PT gear, no disco belts, no saluting, no Pride Patrol, no BS. Focus was the mission.

[Herk Driver]

Concur...mission is #1. Which is why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday. The times we don't is almost always because of reasons out of our control for the most part.

And, as a BASE commander, the Wing CC has to deal with all the services across the entire range of Combatant Commands. We no kidding have the CAOC, CENTOCM Fwd HQ, SOCCENT HQ, a Patriot Brigade, a Patriot Battalion, a Navy EP3 squadron, and a USMC DV flight sq all working on this base...and I'm sure I missed someone. All with different thoughts on this entire thing.

REMF

REMF,

Interesting to note that several years ago, the Wing Commander, at least got rid of wearing reflective belts in Coalition Compound or whatever the he!! it's called these days. He also allowed some common sense to prevail when an idea made sense. Reflective belts inside the chow hall do not make sense.

Funny, how you argue for a policy that doesn't say wear RB's in Ops Town and not other places, because you claim that it is unenforceable. Well, ASAB does exactly that. The flightline and areas around it wear reflective belts and other places don't. Oh, and before you say they must be well lit; I can tell you they are not any better lit than the Deid. So, it is enforceable and I think you would spend no more time enforcing it than you do now. My god, you guys are spending more of your day worrying about this shit than any other place in the AOR.

Also, funny that you say earlier that all these great things (USO shows, wi-fi, etc) at the Deid should make everyone think how great AUAB is. Most other places in the AOR right now are saying, "wow, this place isn't nearly as bad as the Deid. I'm glad I'm here with my (name your good deal here) and not there, even if they have beer."

Herk Driver

Edited December 10, 2009 by Herk Driver

[Prosuper]

I have been trolling here for months and could no longer stay silent. As a old Crew Chief/Expeditor/Pro Super MSgt now retired since 03 I hope all the CGO's here who bite the bullet and become career officers, that when you pass over to the field grade that you remember what went on at AUAB and not repeat this buffoonry. Having served in that part of the world since 1981 Elf One,Desert Shield/Storm,Op Provide Comfort, ONW/OSW,OEF I see that the gents who never deployed in my day who stayed at home station and made my life horrible are now deploying in vast numbers. Which in my 23 years I stayed deployed just to stay from those REMF's. As a interested observer who finds civilian life just G*& D*&% boring my suggestion is to get everyone on the same page, like take your non op CGO to work day, give them a taste of what your life is like from mission planning,execution to op/mx debrief, make them a duty pax. Now in turn work the schedule and find out what it takes to run a air base(remember when you get up the food chain your going to have to know that shit).

Don't be that guy who is too cool for school when a Crew Chief is trying to teach you how to take care of your jet when you divert into a place with zero support and no flying Crew Chief. Many of you I probably know your faces if you ever had to deal with KTIK TA during your UPT/AETC days. I was the one wearing a blue shirt and pants.

Remember you guys are doing what most of us dreamed about when we were kids to be a military pilot, I'm pissed they did not invent lasik back in the early 70's since I lost the DNA lottery with being nearsighted and all.

[Guest REMF]

Ok sir, I probably did exaggerate a bit with my comment. The USO shows and base improvements/niceties certainly do go a long way, and shame on anyone who doesn't appreciate that fact.

As for the belts and other "queep" that has been highlighted in this thread and elsewhere-- I realize that leadership is very keen on one-size-fits-all approaches to problem solving, and I certainly understand their position on that. I know leaders hate griping about problems without good solutions in hand, so with that in mind, here are a few, in my opinion, good one-size-fits-all policies that are as easy to enforce as the current ones, while at the same time addressing and releiving some of the major "queep" concerns that many have.

1. The reflective belts. My easy fix to this is to simply say that you MUST have 360 reflectivity if you are traversing ANYWHERE that is readily accessible to vehicles. I understand that the RB is the AF's (not just AUAB) chosen means for making pedestrians more visible to vehicles, so employ the threat mitigation in a more targeted manner. The reality is that the MAJORITY of areas around AUAB are not accessible to vehicles, period. If you're not traversing on or across a road (for example a trip from your trailer to the cadillac or the bra) there should be no need for you to have a reflective belt. If your planned trip includes crossing a road, you need to have a belt with you to at least put on as you cross the roadway. This policy is enforceable just as easily as the current policy. If someone is seen on a road with a belt they should be stopped and corrected on the spot (well, not ON the spot-- clear the road first). It is 100% in line with the stated goal of RB wear and removes the ridiculousness of the current policy. If a vehicle is traversing areas not normally accessible to vehicles (i.e. CE servicing an air conditioner at a trailer) that vehicle is limited to idle speed with its emergency lights on.

2. The BPC and CC should be declared "residential areas" and have special, relaxed rules within the declared residential areas. You still have to wear your PT or duty uniform within the residential areas; however, you can wear crocs or closed toe sandals with back straps (same shoes that were allowed for years under the old policy). Furthermore you do not have to have your shirt tucked in within residential areas. Residential areas should also be declared "hat optional, no salute" areas. The CC and BPC are our homes when we're at AUAB and it would be nice to feel like we're "at home" at least a little bit.

3. The rest of the base is declared a "duty area". When in a duty area you must be in either your duty uniform or PTU up to the fullest standard of wear for that applicable uniform. If your duty section exists within a residential area (for example finance) personnel working in those areas must adhere to "duty area" standards. This includes airmen receiving service from such facilities. For example, if you're in the CC and going to finance, you must be up to duty area standards to receive service from finance.

I think the above three changes would go a LONG way to improving morale on the base while at the same time having no negative effect on good order and discipline. In fact, it might actually improve GO&D due to the reduced conflicts between people breaking what they see as queep rules and someone confronting them over breaking those queep rules.

I'm sure the concern then becomes "well, with as many people transit the base, how can we expect them to know the special rules at AUAB?" That solution is simple as well. EVERYONE has to transit customs and persco, correct? How hard is it to create a one page briefing pamphlet to be distributed with the rest of the welcome material? I see it as a 0% increase on the burden of ANYONE, while at the same time greatly improving the climate and morale at AUAB.

All excellent points and builds on the theme brought up by Reflectivity. All I can do is see if I can find a way to work it into a conversation and plant the seed. I don't know if you have noticed but there is rather large lighting project beginning in the BPC parking lots and also along the MOAS. Once that gets done, it may become an opportune time to bring this up and have it be considered. It is arguments like these that have traction with leadership...not the emotional rants.

[Guest REMF]

REMF,

Interesting to note that several years ago, the Wing Commander, at least got rid of wearing reflective belts in Coalition Compound or whatever the he!! it's called these days. He also allowed some common sense to prevail when an idea made sense. Reflective belts inside the chow hall do not make sense.

Funny, how you argue for a policy that doesn't say wear RB's in Ops Town and not other places, because you claim that it is unenforceable. Well, ASAB does exactly that. The flightline and areas around it wear reflective belts and other places don't. Oh, and before you say they must be well lit; I can tell you they are not any better lit than the Deid. So, it is enforceable and I think you would spend no more time enforcing it than you do now. My god, you guys are spending more of your day worrying about this shit than any other place in the AOR.

Also, funny that you say earlier that all these great things (USO shows, wi-fi, etc) at the Deid should make everyone think how great AUAB is. Most other places in the AOR right now are saying, "wow, this place isn't nearly as bad as the Deid. I'm glad I'm here with my (name your good deal here) and not there, even if they have beer."

Herk Driver

First, several years ago? Really? How many folks where here then? A lot less, let me tell you. Also, there are several organizations and rather senior leaders here today than several years ago. You can scream all you want that that shouldn't make a difference and has nothing to do with anything but I can only tell you that it does. This has become an HQ base not unlike a lot of other high-profile bases. The expectations placed upon the wing are much greater than at Camp ### in a forward area. Again, none of us has to like it...we just have to do it.

To address your second point, exactly where did I say 'how great AUAB is?' Nowhere have I said that. In the post you reference, I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of positive things, done under current leadership, to counter a claim that leadership is trying to make things miserable. I sit in on a lot of meetings with the Group and Wing leadership and everything is about making it better here...and I gave some examples. I have been deployed living in a tent with absolutely nothing except my MREs and maybe one hot a day, so I feel somewhat qualified to spell out that while the 'Deid might not be 'great', it really isn't all that bad either. And for every person you find that says what you write above, I can find another as they rotate back through here who cannot believe how 'great' we have it. I even bring up the reflective belt thing and they laugh at it...in a "I can live with that" manner...and yes, its both officers and enlisted alike whom I talk to about this. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything...all I'm trying to do is balance the discussion out and give a different perspective.

Finally, RBs in the chow hall is a myth that needs to die off if we will allow the truth to replace it. There was NEVER a requirement to have RBs on in the DFAC, DEL, or any other location. There was an enforcement push over a month ago and some folks had stationed themselves inside a couple of the buildings vice being on the outside. They would then ask the folks once they were inside whether or not they had an RB...logic being, you just came in through that door without a RB on, hence, you probably don't have an RB. Because of that and some very limited incidents where people in line were also asked about having an RB, we have this myth flying around that you have to wear RBs inside buildings. Simply not true and it never was.

Edited December 11, 2009 by REMF

[BQZip01]

Concur...mission is #1. Which is why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday. The times we don't is almost always because of reasons out of our control for the most part.

Now, you and I will probably enjoy having multiple beers discussing discipline and leadership. The one thing I can say is that as a commander you always strive to have fairness and equity. The rules remain the same, all the time. And, I beg you to remember, that the largest part of the AF is composed of enlisted troops. So, how do we have separate rules? Rules for the gear in the rear and different rules for the guys flying over Afghan every day? Simply, you cannot.

Having been corrected myself, I can tell you, it is not pleasant. And, it really isn't about how "nice" someone is. No one person I've ever met in the USAF enjoys being told they are not in compliance. Let's at least be honest on that. No matter how nice or not is irrelevant. Everyone takes being corrected as a "bad" thing.

Now, since I get to drive a vehicle around the base, I will tell you that the AF PT gear isn't nearly as reflective, uniformly, as you everyone espouses. I've seen AF members running around the base and the only piece of them I can see is the shirt. The shorts, for some reason, seem to lose reflectivity a lot quicker and the new shorts have no reflectivity. Guess what, the reflective belt makes you stand out. Not a bad thing IMHO.

And, as a BASE commander, the Wing CC has to deal with all the services across the entire range of Combatant Commands. We no kidding have the CAOC, CENTOCM Fwd HQ, SOCCENT HQ, a Patriot Brigade, a Patriot Battalion, a Navy EP3 squadron, and a USMC DV flight sq all working on this base...and I'm sure I missed someone. All with different thoughts on this entire thing.

So, he has to adopt a uniform policy that can easily be enforced. And, it's not for naught. No kidding, I almost ran over a guy running between BPC dorms and the hospital the other night...totally blacked out...black guy, black shirt, black shorts...only thing that keyed me in was the small reflective pieces of his shoes. As he ran in the road...

So, count me in on the whole "why we need to wear reflective belts all the time" crowd. It's the easiest way to make sure we can all be seen and avoid a pedestrian fatality. Notice I said 'avoid' not a 100% guarantee against. There is always the one that proves me wrong. But, again, as the guy driving around, I gain my SA on pedestrians by seeing the belts. If you aren't wearing one...well, guess what. I don't see you. Don't worry...we'll put your rant from here on your tombstone.

Insofar as the 'shoeclerkishness', you guys brought that on yourself. I believe that everyone in this forum believes in following orders. What some of us REMFs cannot understand is why some of you, at relatively junior ranks, have decided that you have the authority to decide which orders are to be obeyed and which ones are to be defied. We charge our Airmen, NCOs, and SNCOs to enforce the rules. Along with the officers. And so, we have this tension.

So, it settled into a battle of wills. And the Vice Wing CCs email. That was simply a response to make sure that the chow hall troops weren't being the only police on this entire thing. Honestly, I think the base has settled into an equilibrium. But, just my impression.

My final thought tonight...a lot of us REMFs (not necessarily me) have served forward multiple times. In multiple theaters. In many different combat conditions. So, I appreciate the "Sir" at the beginning as it denotes respect. Right back at you.

REMF

Sir,

I have to say I REALLY respect the way you've decided to address the problems and talk with the troops. I must say I'm not sure other commanders feel the same way. I truly feel that my commander in my current assignment understands our problems, issues with leadership,lets us blow off steam, his open door policy is truly an open door to talk about ANYTHING. I can also say that this hasn't been the case with every commander I've had, so props to you.

Let's give a little perspective on the subject from my point of view. I spent 2 tours at the Deid. Once, I worked in the J6 at an entity on base. The second time I served as the Exec for a Wing on Base. I've seen both the lower levels of leadership and the staff issues. Sometimes it is hard for those mid-level leaders to grasp the problems of their subordinates. However, you seem to grasp the issues better than most and I hope you can pass along our concerns...

...I also think that it is in poor taste for someone to bring a superior a problem without making a reasonable attempt to find a solution, so I will also attempt to address those subjects.

"...why we damn near hit the sortie requirement from the ATO everyday..."

The sortie requirement is EXTREMELY important. If you weren't hitting the sortie requirements, the 'deid would be a place where careers would go to die...however, my point was that safety isn't job #1 with the military and it never should be (apparently leadership above both of us feel otherwise). The mission comes first, but the morale killers are actively detracting from that rightly achieved success.

BTW, I will ALWAYS respect leadership and follow their orders. The creative resistance you see is an attempt to show leadership how poorly they've implemented their ideas...of course, some are also sophomoric/juvenile antics that aren't productive.

I agree you cannot have separate rules, but perhaps that point should be brought to leadership. When I was there, alcohol was permitted in the quarters of those there longer than 180 days. At the CAOC, they had an unlimited bar. This is simply one example of notable inequities. You don't need separate rules, but you do need to recognize different needs. Flyers wear flightsuits and ground troops wear ABUs. Women are allowed longer hair than men. Some religions are permitted extra time off to engage in religious ceremonies. We treat people unequally, but it is not always unreasonable.

I too have been corrected, but if it is done in an appropriate manner (even from a subordinate) it need not be unpleasant. I've corrected O-6s on uniform wear. I've been corrected by E-2s. I've also been corrected by peers, subordinates, and superiors in significantly inappropriate ways (such as in front of peers and in a condescending manner). While I certainly don't enjoy being corrected, I've come to appreciate an odd sort of philosophy: I don't mind being wrong as long as someone on my team is right. Why? Because, as a team, we have the right answer.

I also agree that the AF PT gear isn't completely reflective and, if you are going around dark places, being safe is appropriate. The problem is the all around use and its enforcement as being overbearing. It truly should be as simple as "I order you to do XYZ". If someone doesn't do it, politely reminding them would be appropriate. Next appropriately asking them to comply or face consequences. If they still don't, they should be appropriately reported to their chain of command and dealt with there. If we did things that way, commanders would be held accountable any subordinate's behavior that wasn't corrected. Instead, the appearance is that leadership is requiring people to go around and narc on their peers.

Some hasty decisions by the base commander (such as refusing food to those not wearing reflective belts...apparently including Marines who are required to not wear reflective belts) have left subordinates questioning their leadership abilities. I deployed to a joint unit and I am well aware of the varying kinds of thoughts from subordinates in different services; some are quite interesting...

The ease of enforcement is the problem. It should be something that benefits the safety of our troops, not because it is easy to enforce. Some genius running without any reflective gear? That kind of idiocy should be brought up to his commander, but you raise an interesting point. Why is the base so poorly lit? Adding more lighting could make things far safer.

"Shoeclerkishness"... glad I coined the term. It seems to be catching on! :-)

But what is a shoeclerk? I tried to explain it to someone today. A "shoeclerk" is someone who is more interested in enforcing the rules than getting the mission accomplished, a person more interested in keeping the shoes in their supply in perfect order than making sure people have proper footwear.

I will NEVER, EVER knowingly fail to follow a lawful order. However, if I can point out the absurdity of some orders while still following the orders, it can serve to let leadership understand the problem and at the same time boosting morale.

I also concur that the base has settled into an equilibrium, but it seems to be an uneasy peace; not a lasting one.

Respect is a street that runs both ways. Sir, I would be happy to buy you a beer anytime, any place. If you're ever up in Minot or we're going to be in the same locale, drop me a line and the first round is on me. This respect is not lost on myself nor many others on this board.

Regarding enlisted troops correcting officers. Again, I've been corrected...while in uniform. So, I know what you are talking about. And, all I can tell you is that I've absolutely instructed my Airmen to do what they need to do in a polite, courteous manner. I continously tell them that I never want to have thier unprofessional conduct become the issue. And, if I run across a situation where my troops are disrespectful while correcting someone, I consider that to be a seperate issue altogether. Just because someone is being unprofessional does not give my troops, or any of them for that matter, cause to lose their professionalism. What I would ask of everyone is if someone is being rude or disrespectful, get their name and unit. And then call their First Sgt or Sq CC. And, I will tell you that all the Sq CCs feel the same way. You guys are absolutely correct that customs and courtesies don't stop because you aren't wearing a reflective belt.

Shacked! First time I've heard a commander express that opinion. Glad to hear it. Please continue to enforce that policy.

[disgruntledemployee]

Good discussion Men. Great stuff. Now its my turn.

First, I was disgusted by that video of a joker cussing out an AF Col, whether he deserved it or not. So, shame on leadership for encouraging/recommending it. Did you all hear the cheering afterwards??? How the hell can anyone ever follow that man's orders from here on out. If a joker like that EVER did that shit in front of me and my men, I WOULD KICK HIS ASS ON THE SPOT!!!

Next, this one is for REMF. Like the name, ballsy. Seems like you've become the surrogate between leadership and the masses. I, we, all appreciate the reasoning for the way things are at the Deid. It shouldn't be that way. You should not have to defend silly policies or explain the why of base policies. Thats the job of the Leadership.

And finally, this whole RB thing has become the poster child for what is wrong in the AF. I was talking to my Marine buddy about this and he just shook his head and said, "You guys are all ed up. Just make sure we get the gear, OK." And that is what we do. But sadly, it has made many of us disgruntled; we all know it doesn't have to be this way.

Out

[capt4fans]

I think I covered the exercises in a different post, so I won't bother repeating here.

No one is going over to ELRS to inventory a bag for the hell of it. My understanding is that sometime next year, we will all go over to ELRS and receive a chem bag...not sure that has been finalized yet. As with anytime you get gear like that, it is a requirement for you to do an inventory because you are signing for everything in the bag.

REMF

Sir, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. I was there last year this same time frame, and we were sent over to ELRS to simply inventory a bag and hand it right back over to them. After that was done, we were released. And to top it off, you were required to keep the tag for "accountability" prior to the exercise. Now, I didn't throw mine away, but somewhere in my third dorm room move in less than a week at the Deid, it got misplaced. The unit CC's were required to submit everyone's "tag number" in order to ensure that everyone on base had processed, and you were supposed to be able to produce your tag if asked for. (Via CC call briefing).

No one ever asked me for the number, the tag, or nor did I play in the exercise. As aircrew, we were in crew rest.

Just my two cent's worth.

[Vertigo]

Finally, RBs in the chow hall is a myth that needs to die off if we will allow the truth to replace it. There was NEVER a requirement to have RBs on in the DFAC, DEL, or any other location. There was an enforcement push over a month ago and some folks had stationed themselves inside a couple of the buildings vice being on the outside. They would then ask the folks once they were inside whether or not they had an RB...logic being, you just came in through that door without a RB on, hence, you probably don't have an RB. Because of that and some very limited incidents where people in line were also asked about having an RB, we have this myth flying around that you have to wear RBs inside buildings. Simply not true and it never was.

Regardless of whether you have to be wearing one or have one on your person in the chow hall, denying someone a meal because they don't have it is outrageous. Being assaulted by a SNCO because you decide to serve yourself from the salad line is even more outrageous.

I refer you to to these posts:

[Guest REMF]

Sir, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. I was there last year this same time frame, and we were sent over to ELRS to simply inventory a bag and hand it right back over to them. After that was done, we were released. And to top it off, you were required to keep the tag for "accountability" prior to the exercise. Now, I didn't throw mine away, but somewhere in my third dorm room move in less than a week at the Deid, it got misplaced. The unit CC's were required to submit everyone's "tag number" in order to ensure that everyone on base had processed, and you were supposed to be able to produce your tag if asked for. (Via CC call briefing).

No one ever asked me for the number, the tag, or nor did I play in the exercise. As aircrew, we were in crew rest.

Just my two cent's worth.

Ok...now I understand the confusion. That was under the old regime and that was to demonstrate the ELRS could, in fact, issue out complete bags if we had to. It was part of the entire exercise process...I went through it as well. Because an inventory is a requirement when issuing chem gear, ELRS had to come up with a rapid system of getting people in, issuing them a bag, performing an inventory, and then getting them back out the door. One of the things we were able to do in order to lessen the pain on all involved is issue tags to show that you had been issued a bag vice carrying a bag around for a couple of days and then having to return it to ELRS. Now, that would have been some serious a$$ pain.

So, yes, you did an inventory as part of the issuing process and got issued a tag that you could throw away vice a bag you had to return at the end of the exercise. But, no, folks won't be going over to ELRS to do a bag inventory because ELRS can't/won't do their job. All of that stuff got into a bag somehow...it wasn't you or I that made that happen...it was ELRS. Same folks that just completed an over 1,000,000+ inventory of equipment in one of their warehouses when many long time SNCOs said it could not be done. They did it and did a great job.

Now, we can discuss the usefullness of doing the whole thing...seperate subject altogether. But, I will tell you that ELRS needed to do that process a couple of times in order to get their processes down in order to get it to where it is now. And, from what I'm hearing, it looks like we will be getting a bag issued to us for keeps sometime next year...maybe.

[Guest REMF]

Good discussion Men. Great stuff. Now its my turn.

First, I was disgusted by that video of a joker cussing out an AF Col, whether he deserved it or not. So, shame on leadership for encouraging/recommending it. Did you all hear the cheering afterwards??? How the hell can anyone ever follow that man's orders from here on out. If a joker like that EVER did that shit in front of me and my men, I WOULD KICK HIS ASS ON THE SPOT!!!

Next, this one is for REMF. Like the name, ballsy. Seems like you've become the surrogate between leadership and the masses. I, we, all appreciate the reasoning for the way things are at the Deid. It shouldn't be that way. You should not have to defend silly policies or explain the why of base policies. Thats the job of the Leadership.

And finally, this whole RB thing has become the poster child for what is wrong in the AF. I was talking to my Marine buddy about this and he just shook his head and said, "You guys are all ed up. Just make sure we get the gear, OK." And that is what we do. But sadly, it has made many of us disgruntled; we all know it doesn't have to be this way.

Out

This is my job...I'm part of the base leadership. I sit in the meetings, interact with the more senior leadership (sometimes on a daily if not more often basis) and I personally observe a lot of these decisions being made. I'm never going to violate the confidences of what I observe but I will try to communicate to you, the best way I can, the how and why.

And, again...you don't have to like the decision. But, once I (or anyone else in a leadership position) has attempted to explain the logic/thoughts behind the decision, we do expect folks to get behind the decision until someone can convince the Boss to move in a different direction (if we need to move that way). there are A LOT of rules that I think are absolutely ridiculous in the Air Force (and the military as a whole). But, you know what, I don't get to make those calls. I simply voice my objections when I can and try to figure out a way to make the best of it. I'll give you an example...

At my last sq, the vice-wing CC ordered all squadrons to purchase storm radios so we could be alerted if bad weather was moving through the area. Well, ok...think we have people at the CP to help us with that and many other ways of getting bad weather warnings out to folks. He wouldn't hear of it...we all got ordered to buy radios. There was a lot of whining and groaning about it. I went the other direction. One of the things that, believe it or not, can be hard to buy is radios for the workcenters. So, using the weather radio as an excuse, I was able to buy some radios for my troops (they were weather radios...just regular ones as well) and was not only able to comply with the Wing CV's direction but also provide something extra for the troops working in the warehouses and offices. I know lemonade out of lemons stories get old and some might argue that I shouldn't have to be that way to get things done but its been like this in every military history I've ever read. Innovative people figuring out how to make the best of whatever situation they are in and using the rules they have to get things done instead of looking at the rules as barriers.

Sorry...probably more insight then you really wanted.

REMF

[Guest REMF]

Regardless of whether you have to be wearing one or have one on your person in the chow hall, denying someone a meal because they don't have it is outrageous. Being assaulted by a SNCO because you decide to serve yourself from the salad line is even more outrageous.

I refer you to to these posts:

I heard the same stories. But again, that was during the last enforcement push and looking at those posts, they all appear to be in Oct when that whole thing was going on.

Believe a lot of what you are saying has already been addressed by leadership and in the other posts I've done. Again, it NEVER was a requirement, regardless of what anyone on this or any other board writes, a requirement by Wing, Group, or Squadron leadership (at least the squadrons I know) for anyone to wear a RB indoors or during daylight hours.

Insofar as turning people away, again, not unique here or anywhere else. If you leave your CAC in your computer and you are trying to cross through the ECP into the CC/BPC area you better hope the SFS trooper on duty knows you personally or you get turned around to go get it. Many places, the base gym will turn you away if you do not have your ID card as will some DFACs. If you are wearing inappropriate attire, you will get turned away at many places. The wing CC enjoys great latitude to deny entry if you are not in compliance. And, as a military (don't make this just about the AF...I've seen even more stuff like this on our sister service bases), denying someone because they don't have an ID card or are not in the proper uniform is something that happens. Seriously, as I'm about to pull out of my driveway on every PCS, I have to stop, get in uniform, go to my outprocessing appt which takes less than 30 mins, just for me to go back to the parking lot to change out of my uniform and start driving to whereever else the AF has sent my family and I. No uniform, no appt. That one is just as silly, IMHO, and does nothing for anyone. But, it is the rule and so, we do it. Doesn't make it or anything else 'right'...just means a lot of things here are not unique nor original...denying service/entry because you are not in compliance with the rules happens at a lot of places for varying reasons.

REMF

[Mike Honcho]

Doesn't make it or anything else 'right'...just means a lot of things here are not unique nor original...denying service/entry because you are not in compliance with the rules happens at a lot of places for varying reasons.

REMF

With all due respect, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. When is it ok for an NCO to physically rip a tray out of a commissioned officer's hands? If you're familiar with the case, what was done to "correct the behavior" of the NCO?