Leadership Failure in a Troubled MP Unit

[thedrifter]

11-05-2003

Leadership Failure in a Troubled MP Unit



By Raymond Perry



Col. David H. Hackworth recently exposed an apparent abuse of power in a U.S. Army Reserve Military Police unit called to active duty (?The Return of Captain Queeg,? DefenseWatch, Oct. 13, 2003), where a soldier who had posted copies of two Hackworth columns on unit bulletin boards came under fire from a lieutenant in his unit.



From a leadership perspective, this story is troubling for several reasons: First, it appears that the lieutenant vastly overstepped his authority to impose punishment. Second, the unit?s first sergeant was nowhere to be seen in dealing with the unit?s morale problem and the lieutenant?s reaction to the soldier. Finally, no senior unit commander was apparently paying attention to the developing leadership death spiral.



The Hackworth columns apparently hit too close to home for this lieutenant, who then searched out the ?offending man? and promptly ordered his restriction and extra duties in punishment for the infraction.



The first tip-off that this unit is in real trouble was the reference to the soldier having to do pushups as punishment. This is not Camp Swampy, what?s wrong with this picture?



First, and foremost, the lieutenant responded in the wrong manner to a leadership problem: He did not hold himself accountable first. If his people perceive a leadership problem, then there is one. But some problems are significant and some are whims.



Once clear as to the issue, the leader should have directly addressed it, big, little, or petty. If the leader is the issue, then he must face this squarely. A sense of humor always helps.



Searching out the offending man who posted the embarrassing article merely shoots the messenger. Further, it sustains and enlarges the leadership failure that caused the posting in the first place.



Lastly, the lieutenant?s behavior apparently cut out the first sergeant, making an end-run around the unit?s chain of leadership. The first sergeant is the primary protection any enlisted man has when his or her leadership goes awry. But it also appears that the first sergeant allowed himself to be cut out in this case.



This first sergeant?s presence is notably lacking in Col. Hackworth?s account. It raises a number of further questions about the unit and its leadership. Why was the first sergeant not talking to this offending lieutenant? He should have been counseling this lieutenant that imposing the punishment he did was illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Second, he should have been saying something to the effect of, ?This is my man, stay out of this, I?ll ask your help when I need it.?



In my observation, officers with good, solid first sergeants become better leaders and come up to speed faster. First sergeants are links in the chain that are absolutely vital to the service.



Second, and of great legal significance, this lieutenant, without authority, appears to have individually assigned punishment to the reservist ? boot camp-style physical punishments, arbitrary restriction to base and forfeiture of leave, and a punitive transfer to menial duties ? that are appropriate to the sentence of a special court-martial.



It does not appear from Col. Hackworth?s account that this lieutenant is a designated commanding officer. Only a commanding officer can impose punishment and then only under the authority of an Article 15 hearing.



The UCMJ provides three critical protections under Article 15 for the service member:



* The authority to impose punishment rests with a designated commanding officer;



* The punishment can be imposed only through the service?s Article 15 venue, and,



* The service member has the right to demand Court-Martial instead of an Article 15 hearing.



None of these protections appeared to be present in the handling of this case.



This lieutenant assigned a level of punishment reserved to a special court-martial. Not even a general officer has the authority to award 90 days of restriction with extra duties as the lieutenant imposed on this man.



As a result, the lieutenant may now be subject to charges himself.



The unit?s commanding officer has a responsibility to know that this lieutenant did this. The next level of the chain of command is equally responsible. There is an obligation to stop what appears to be usurpation of Article 15 authority and to correct the unit?s serious leadership problems.



The senior enlisted chain has a responsibility to care for the troops when the unit commander does not. Further they must advise commissioned officers to stop such abuse and if unsuccessful to raise this as an issue within their chain of command to the next higher unit-level senior enlisted.



At best, the MP unit suffered from an out-of-control leader, coupled with an ineffective first sergeant chain. At worst, the lieutenant?s retaliation constituted a knowing violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.



This is a case that cries out for intervention by the U.S. Army Inspector General.



Lt. Raymond Perry USN (Ret.) is a DefenseWatch Contributing Editor. He can be reached at cos1stlt@yahoo.com.


The Return of Capt. Queeg

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...8.242558313479

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...85041802568537


Sempers,

Roger