Category: U.S. Army

Here is an interesting retirement out of 2ID:

CAMP RED CLOUD, South Korea– As the cold wind blows on a crisp and calm morning in South Korea, a voice echoes, Get Ready! Get Set! Begin!

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Ralph E. Rigby executes the commands as he prepares for his final Army
Physical Fitness Test, a test which he has devotedly taken for the last 42 years.

Rigby, a native of Auburn, New York, began his military service when he was drafted, in 1972,
during the Vietnam era. Today, he is known as the last continuously serving draftee on active duty in the U.S. Army.

Where it all began
As a young boy, Rigby always had a love for vehicles. He would walk around carrying any tool he thought could assist someone who was having car issues. Rigby had just started his own mechanic shop when he received a draft notice.

At the young age of 19, joining the Army was far from his life plans. He was clueless as to what
would be in store for him. His first response to the notice was, “I don’t have to put up with this! I can just move to Canada like everyone else, and avoid all of this.” he said jokingly.

On the other hand, his mom, Dorothy Rigby, wasn’t going to allow this to happen. Her exact words to him were, “No Way! You are not a quitter,” she said. “We do not quit in this family.”
She was scared that her son had to serve, but her daily prayers reassured her that he would come back home safely. With his mother’s advice, Rigby set out on his military journey. “I took my mother’s words and kept on going,” said Rigby. “After all, being drafted was the closest I have come to winning the lottery.”

Throughout the years
Upon processing through his local Military Entry Processing Station, he was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for basic training. After training, he attended the United States Army Engineer School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, as a power generation equipment repairman. Although he was drafted during the Vietnam era, he did not end up deploying there. Instead, his first assignment was to Kwachon, South Korea.

Rigby recalled a message the president of the United States at the time, President Richard M. Nixon, ordered to all draftees. It read, “All draftees would be out of the Army and be home by Thanksgiving,” said Rigby. In his mind, he had other plans. Instead, he signed a waiver electing to remain on active service. He enjoyed his first assignment so much that he decided to extend his tour. After being promoted to sergeant first class, with less than 10 years in service, Rigby joined the ranks of the Warrant Officer Corps.

Throughout his military career, Rigby has served in numerous positions to include Power Generator Equipment Repairman, Platoon Sergeant, Engineer Equipment Maintenance Supervisor, Maintenance Technician and Ground Support Maintenance Technician. Rigby, who now serves as the senior ordnance logistics officer in the 2nd Infantry Division, on Camp Red Cloud, South Korea, is responsible for making sure the division’s equipment is fully functional, as well as ensuring all vehicles assigned to the division are ready to “Fight Tonight”.

“I love what I do,” said Rigby. “Knowing that I am able to work with all the brigades while still getting the opportunity to mentor officers and junior enlisted Soldiers.”
Rigby believes he has made a positive impact on the lives of the Soldiers who have worked for him. He has a lot to offer, and he ensures he uses his vast knowledge and extensive experience when helping Soldiers. (Army.mil)

You can read more at the link, but what I find more amazing than him being a draftee is that he served 42 years in the Army. Talk about a well deserved retirement.

I am not sure how big Army can claim they are trying to weed out toxic leaders when they accept this as appropriate conduct for a battalion commander:

The commander of a Fort Carson helicopter battalion objected when subordinates talked about a toxic command climate, according to documents obtained by The Gazette.

“You want toxic? I’ll show you toxic,” Lt. Col. Tammy Baugh allegedly told soldiers in the 1st Battalion of the 25th Aviation Regiment, documents said.

A 263-page Army investigation report released under the Freedom of Information Act portrays Baugh as a foul-mouthed boss who belittled soldiers, threw things during a meeting and sometimes stormed out of battalion gatherings.

Baugh and the battalion’s command sergeant major were temporarily relieved in July, but later placed back in command despite the scathing report.

“Too many soldiers and leaders in the battalion, across all ranks, have been negatively impacted by her belittling, disrespectful and caustic interaction, and the results of that interaction have been detrimental to morale, effectiveness and climate of the organization and the morale and well-being of soldiers,” the report says.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read much more at the link, but this commander would throw flight schedules at people, cursing them out, and storming out of meetings.  It was so bad that the colonel that conducted the investigation recommended that she should be removed which the 4ID commanding general decided not to do for whatever reason.

So does anyone think that LTC Baugh would tone her act down a bit during a high profile investigation?  If you did you would be wrong:

In her statement, Baugh said her critics are slackers.

“It seems that those who cannot meet the standard have the loudest voice,” she wrote.

And the colonel denies that she belittled troops.

“I have made spot corrections,” she wrote.

I have been in units where senior leaders felt like they had to come in hard to change the culture.  Cursing I think people can live with, but if it is meant to belittle others that is where it becomes a problem.  I once saw a first sergeant in 2ID replaced due to cursing soldiers out in front of others much less throwing things at them.  In my experience it seems like senior NCOs get less the benefit of the doubt compared to a battalion commander or higher.  Also the storming out of meetings seems childish to me unless it was a one time thing to make a point.  However, it is her meeting so if she wants to storm out than so be it, but it does not set a healthy command climate.  I do have to wonder though that if she felt her staff was letting her down what had she done to properly train them to meet her standards?  I seriously doubt everyone in her unit, but her was incompetent.  For the most part if you tell people exactly how you want things done they will usually do it.

Anyway it takes something pretty big to remove a battalion commander like committing a crime or making inappropriate comments about women or gays.  She did nothing like this just demonstrated the toxic leader traits the Army has claimed it is trying to weed out. The 4ID commander may have felt since she did nothing criminal it may cause a bad precedent to remove her because of an investigation that began due to a poor command climate survey.  He may not want to send the message that soldiers can get rid of leaders they don’t like by giving poor ratings on a command climate survey.

In my experience I have never seen a battalion commander removed for toxic leadership if like this if everything claimed is true?  Than again I have never served under a commander who regularly cursed people out, stormed out of meetings, and threw things at people.  Has anyone else?

This has to be the fastest revision of AR 670-1 ever:

The Army dialed back some controversial rules on tattoos and women’s hairstyles in an update on Tuesday to the regulation governing appearance and uniform wear.

In March, the Army issued a heavily revised Army Regulation 670-1, a move that spurred grumbling in the ranks and a protest on Capitol Hill with newly restrictive language about a number of appearance issues.

The more stringent tattoo policy issued in March remains largely unchanged, retaining the limits on the size, number and location of tattoos. Full sleeve tattoos are still banned, for instance, and no more than four small tattoos can be visible on lower arms and legs. The rules were meant, the Army said in press release Tuesday, “to maintain the professional appearance of the force.”

While tattoos in violation of rules issued in March could be grandfathered, soldiers with grandfathered tattoos couldn’t seek a commission or appointment without receiving a special exception. That changed Tuesday.

“The updated regulation takes into account that previously authorized tattoos should not prevent a soldier from becoming an officer, but that candidates are to be evaluated based on the whole soldier concept, or all characteristics of a soldier,” the Army said. [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more about the changes to hairstyles as well at the link.

There is a lot of race baiting in the media now a days in order to drive ratings and page views and now the Army Times has resorted to this tactic as well with the below article about the low number of black officers in the infantry, armor, and field artillery branches:

Command of the Army’s main combat units — its pipeline to top leadership — is virtually devoid of black officers, according to interviews, documents and data obtained by USA TODAY.

The lack of black officers who lead infantry, armor and field artillery battalions and brigades — there are no black colonels at the brigade level this year — threatens the Army’s effectiveness, disconnects it from American society and deprives black officers of the principal route to top Army posts, according to officers and military sociologists. Fewer than 10 percent of the active-duty Army’s officers are black compared with 18 percent of its enlisted men, according to the Army.

The problem is most acute in its main combat units: infantry, armor and artillery. In 2014, there was not a single black colonel among those 25 brigades, the Army’s main fighting unit of about 4,000 soldiers. Brigades consist of three to four battalions of 800 to 1,000 soldiers led by lieutenant colonels. Just one of those 78 battalions is scheduled to be led by a black officer in 2015. [Army Times]

You can read the rest at the link, but don’t bother because you can easily predict the way it is going to go.  I expect the race baiting from a major newspaper, but you would think that the Army Times would try and provide more context about why the numbers are the way they are.  To be fair the Army Times did try to provide some context on why black servicemembers tend to flock to combat service support positions because of the job training opportunities.  However, the Army Times makes it appear like the Army was specifically picking on black officers to separate as part of the recent force draw down:

The downsizing of the Army is having a disproportional effect on African-American officers. From the pool of officers screened, almost 10 percent of eligible black majors are being dismissed from the Army compared with 5.6 percent of eligible white majors, USA TODAY reported in early August. The Army is cutting 550 majors and about 1,000 captains as the Army seeks to reduce its force to 490,000 soldiers by the end of 2015.

The reason the black officers were disproportionately separated has nothing to do with the narrative of the big, bad racist Army, but instead the fact that black officers tend to join combat support branches.  The areas that were selected for the highest number of officer separations was in the combat support branches.  You can see the statistics on Slide 10 of this presentation. Remember the logistics support tail is much larger than the number of the trigger pullers that it supports; so of course they were going to see a larger number of separations.  There is nothing stopping anyone (other than females which will soon change) from joining the infantry.  If a black officer wants to join combat support jobs there is nothing wrong with that and they should feel encourage to do so instead of people pushing them to join the infantry which may not be something they want to do.

Instead of taking the race baiting angle the Army Times should have asked the question why higher level command positions are dominated by infantry, armor, and field artillery officers?  Why can’t a division be commanded by officers from other branches to include service support?  Does anyone want to make the argument that someone like General Ann Dunwoody was not competent enough to lead a division despite her logistics background?  Opening up division command positions to more candidates other than mostly from infantry, armor, and field artillery would allow more minorities and women to compete for higher level general officer positions.

y

You can read more at the Army Times.

I do not have a problem with this as long as the women trainees are treated exactly like how the male trainees have been treated over the years:

The Army is looking for female soldiers who want to volunteer to attend Ranger school.

The call-out is part of the Army’s ongoing effort to determine whether and how to open combat arms military occupational specialties to women.

Senior Army leaders are expected to decide in January if they want to move forward with this one-time, integrated Ranger school assessment. If the assessment moves forward, it likely will take place in the spring, and the Army will need volunteers already in place and ready to go, officials said Friday.  [Army Times]

You can read the rest at the link, but the Army claims the women trainees will have to meet the same fitness requirements as the males.  However, will the fitness requirements remain the same as they have been?  You can see the current fitness requirements here.  Before someone says that those fitness requirements are not so bad make sure to also look at the recommended fitness requirements as well on that site.  This is because on the physical fitness test the graders mess with you and do not count a lot of pushups, situps, and pullups.  So if they did that to a female trainee would they be called sexist by the special interests even though they do the same thing to male trainees?

I wonder if people stationed on Ft. Polk will riot, loot, and burn the post down?

A soldier who fled law enforcement officials investigating a reported break-in at on-base housing at Fort Polk, Louisiana, died after he was apprehended, according to a Tuesday news release from the base.

The soldier, who has not been identified, reportedly matched the description given to military police of an individual “allegedly trying to illegally enter a home that was not his residence,” according to the release. The suspect fled when MPs approached him, then resisted arrest and finally was apprehended after law enforcement officials reportedly used both pepper spray and a stun gun.

After handcuffing the soldier, MPs saw that the individual was “in medical distress,” per the release, and emergency medical personnel who were on scene “began attempting life-saving measures.” The soldier was taken to a medical facility, where he was later pronounced dead.  [Army Times]

You can read more at the link, but on the Army Times Facebook page someone claiming to live near where the incident happened said that the soldier was drunk and went to the wrong house.  The article claims there were multiple MPs at the scene so how come they could not wrestle this guy down and handcuff without using a taser?

If you are someone who is borderline on the tape test the Army is currently focusing on getting rid of you regardless of how fit you are:

Faced with a $37 billion budget shortfall and a significant reduction in troops, the Army is “trimming the fat” by reinstating a program that sends home soldiers who fail to meet body-fat standards, Fort Gordon officials said this week.
The Pentagon revised its body-fat regulations last month in an attempt to “return to the basics” and build a “leaner and meaner force” that includes only soldiers in peak physical condition, said Master Sgt. Christopher Wallace, the training coordinator for the Sig­nal Corps’ Regimental Noncommissioned Officer Academy.
Though height and weight requirements remain unchanged, the Body Composition Program gives commanders the power to flag overweight soldiers and require them to see a dietician, develop an action plan and go through monthly assessments.
The Army was more lenient when soldiers were needed in Afghanistan and Iraq, Wallace said, and overseas command stations did not provide adequate space for troops to exercise.
Now, the Army wants “top-notch recruits who meet and beat the standard, instead of just barely making it,” Wallace said.
First Sgt. Roberto Berry, the head of the NCO Academy at Fort Gordon, said the Army began phasing in changes in Novem­ber. Looming ahead were sequestration, which left a $37 billion hole in the De­fense Department’s budget, and news that troop levels would be cut by 80,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2017. [The Augusta Chronicle]

You can read more at the link.

If you are someone who is borderline on the tape test the Army is currently focusing on getting rid of you regardless of how fit you are:

Faced with a $37 billion budget shortfall and a significant reduction in troops, the Army is “trimming the fat” by reinstating a program that sends home soldiers who fail to meet body-fat standards, Fort Gordon officials said this week.
The Pentagon revised its body-fat regulations last month in an attempt to “return to the basics” and build a “leaner and meaner force” that includes only soldiers in peak physical condition, said Master Sgt. Christopher Wallace, the training coordinator for the Sig­nal Corps’ Regimental Noncommissioned Officer Academy.
Though height and weight requirements remain unchanged, the Body Composition Program gives commanders the power to flag overweight soldiers and require them to see a dietician, develop an action plan and go through monthly assessments.
The Army was more lenient when soldiers were needed in Afghanistan and Iraq, Wallace said, and overseas command stations did not provide adequate space for troops to exercise.
Now, the Army wants “top-notch recruits who meet and beat the standard, instead of just barely making it,” Wallace said.
First Sgt. Roberto Berry, the head of the NCO Academy at Fort Gordon, said the Army began phasing in changes in Novem­ber. Looming ahead were sequestration, which left a $37 billion hole in the De­fense Department’s budget, and news that troop levels would be cut by 80,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2017. [The Augusta Chronicle]

You can read more at the link.