Letters to the Editor - Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters to the Editor

HONOR ENFORCERS

In response to “Seasoning new officers” [July 4], I have often asked myself the same thing, “Why do we as a military continue to put our young college graduates in charge of battle-hardened veterans who have vastly more tactical and combat experience than a 20-something-year-old Reserve Officer Training Corps grad could ever have?”

Somebody smarter than me understood a long time ago that there are worse things than losing a battle, or even a war, [like] losing our humanity, honor and dignity. That’s why we have lieutenants in charge of our platoons. This is not to say that our noncommissioned officers are lacking in morality, quite the contrary, but today we are an Army that has been at war for more than a decade; that takes a toll.

We place a heavy burden on our soldiers every time they leave the wire to complete a mission and sometimes that intense focus can lead to bad decisions made in the heat of the moment. The task of the young officer is to lead his soldiers in combat, but it is also and, perhaps most importantly, to temper the combat fatigue and numbness that our multiple-tour combat veterans can develop and ensure that everyone in his or her unit returns with the honor that embodies our armed forces.

— Capt. David Dennett, Ewa Beach, Hawaii

PROMO POINT BLUES

I must say I’m not at all happy with the new promotion system.

I joined the Army on Oct. 2, 2002, made specialist Nov. 1, 2004. I’ve been a specialist since that day and never had an adverse action taken against me. I’ve been promotable for quite a while now, though my cutoff has generally been stagnant at 798. Well, thanks to the new system, points dropped to 588, under where I was sitting before they dropped everyone’s points. I understand that the point drop was also because of the new system. However, it was just a shot to the heart, seeing that had my points not been dropped, I would have made it, finally.

I am starting to rework my points, so I can get them back up.

— Spc. Jay Reiniger, Fort Campbell, Ky.

3 BUDGET CUTTERS

I would like to add to the government-spending comments. The following three policy changes could save millions of dollars:

• If all services were obligated to a three-year overseas tour like Army members and their families, the government could save millions of dollars in moving expenses alone.

• Defense Department teachers and administrators living overseas receive government-funded personal travel to the U.S. every other year. On the other hand, Army service members and their families are entitled to government-funded personal travel every three years in conjunction with a consecutive overseas tour. Again, millions of dollars could be saved by authorizing DoD teachers and administrators travel similar to Army service members and their families.

• We have service members and government civilians who move overseas and choose to remain overseas for decades. Upon their return to the states, they receive their storage items and immediately throw away their televisions, microwaves, etc., because the electronics have become obsolete. During those decades, our government has been paying storage costs for no apparent reason. Denying nontemporary storage of all electronics would also reduce electronics pilferage, thereby reducing lost and damaged goods claims.

— Kathleen V. McDonald, Stuttgart, Germany

VANISHING INCENTIVES

It’s amazing to believe that quality service members are leaving the military only due to toxic leadership and deployment rotations. The fact of the matter is many service members are losing faith in the military institution and government as a whole. In the past six months, many of the articles in Army Times have gone over how the government may run out of money, retirement benefits may be cut, and how retirees are paying higher co-pays for services.

Why build a foundation on earthquake-prone territory? No one with other options would commit 20-plus years to an unstable profession without much guarantee at the end. Even “duty, honor, country” cannot be totally outweighed by common sense. If a service member makes it to 20 years and decides to retire, they shouldn’t have any co-pays. They shouldn’t have hassles with the Veterans Affairs Department. They should not have to wonder if their check will come at 70 when the government defaults on its international loans.

Congress as a whole has got the wrong idea; the veteran should be the most protected member of society. After 20 years of have-nots, the selfless-suffering in countries not always our own and the missed birthdays, anniversaries and special occasions, the government still invokes a measure of stress upon these people? Every soldier, all the way down to the newest 18-year-old private, hears the news. They hear what is happening, the proposed changes and how the budget ax is swinging through Congress, looking for pork to trim. The GI bill is even coming up on the chopping block.

Unless you have no other option, where’s the incentive to re-enlist?

— Sgt. Kevin Nunes, Camp Humphreys, South Korea

WHAT’S RISK WORTH?

I am writing to express my opposition to both the Senate’s plan to reduce hostile fire and imminent danger pay and your support of this proposed legislation.

Are there abuses of the current system? Of course there are. Are our service members’ lives worth more than $7.50 per day — about the same price as two cups of coffee from Starbucks? You better believe they are.

How do we resolve this issue? Perhaps through command oversight — you know, integrity, honor — all that stuff.

Do I sound naive? Perhaps. But I pity the politician or soldier who stands up in front of a battalion that just returned from the sandbox and tells them that their lives are only worth two cups of coffee a day. The Senate expects to save a whopping $30 million a year by this measure. In the big picture of the overall defense budget, that is literally chump change.

We could eliminate some of the bloat at the White House alone and realize greater savings — and not cheapen the sacrifice our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines make.

I’ve already written to my senator to express my opposition to this proposal. I urge everyone else to do the same.

— Sgt. 1st Class Terry Nichols (ret.), Camp Casey, Korea

BADGES GO ON LEFT

It’s about time we had some common sense prevail on beret and Army Combat Uniform issues. Now before everyone spends all that money to finally start sewing on name tapes and skill badges again, we need to make sure everyone is on the same sheet of music. I see Regulation 670-1 violations everyday by senior leaders in relation to the wear of their special skill badges.

Every All Army Activities message and AR 670-1 update I’ve seen since the ACU came about says that badges are to be worn in order of precedence from the wearer’s left.

I fully understand that this is opposite of the way we wear them on Class As and Army Service Uniforms, but regardless, that’s what 670-1 says. So basically anyone with four special skills badges should be wearing their Combat Infantryman Badge, Combat Medical Badge or Combat Action Badge to their left, not the right.

I’ve seen command sergeant majors, senior field-grade officers and general officers from battalion through regional-command levels wearing their skills badges wrong. I’ve even had a command sergeant major pull me aside to “mentor me” on how my badges were improperly worn when he was wrong and had to eat a little crow when I showed him the regulation.

So before we start sewing things on, make sure you know the regulation and the sewing companies know the regulation.

— Maj. Brad Rather, Vicenza, Italy