Finding the Right Chemistry

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I've had some personnel issues in the past, where I felt that my subordinate wasn't meeting my expectations and needed to make adjustments. My superiors, however, viewed it as a personality/chemistry problem that I, as the senior man, should attempt to resolve. In other words, it became my responsibility to either adjust my expectations or somehow motivate the individual in some creative way.

Recently, I was contacted to provide input for an Admistrative Discharge Board being convened for one of those previous subordinates. The admin discharge is being based on unsuitability, and without going into specifics, addresses many of the same shortcomings with which I took issue, earlier.

The problem is, this inidivual now has 17 years of service. He had 14 years when I worked with him. I provided the input, but I also recommended that he not be discharged. I reasoned that after 17 years of the same low level performance (well documented), this individual has a reasonable expectation to finish out his career despite his performance level.

I stated that the service, including me, bears some responsibility for him remaining in the CG all this time. If we didn't see fit to discharge him when he didn't have such an investment in time, then what could possibly give us the right to do so now!?

I do believe that the Coast Guard's tendency to bend over backwards for its people is at fault here. Rather than tell an individual that he/she must meet the expectations on their current boss regardless of personal chemistry, we try to find them a better fit someplace else. This is a bad approach and results in the kind of situation that this 17 year veteran and his current command now face.

It has been often said that the first responsibility of a Chief is to take care of his/her people. But, I wonder if we've corrputed that directive to mean "protect them no matter what." We didn't do anyone any favors by shuffling this individual from unit to unit in search of better chemistry. In fact, it looks like we ended up screwing him and the service.

What do you think?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Dennis, I too had this issue come up at my previous unit. My respose to the group was that my expectations were what was written in the Manuals and Commadant Instructions, no less. I told the group personalty conflicts continue as long as someone is holding someone else acountable especailly if your the first guy to do so, as was my case.

Yes we Cheifs do bare some of the blame. When we blurr the line between taking care of our people at all cost and utilizing basic leadership principles to hold low performers accountable and to mentor them BEFORE they become low/below average performers we can only look to ourselves for help and blame. As chiefs we are suppose to take care of our people, but must also remember that taking care of all our people may mean not being their friend.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well, as I'm sure you can all guess, I'm for personal accountability. Low performer should be held accountable, and supervisors should be held accountable to hold them accountable. I too, have had subordinates that I have started the process to discharge, only to have someone higher up the chain, stop the process, to give someone a second chance. The problem is you should only get ONE second chance. Some people are on their tenth "second" chance. That's how a low performer gets to the 17 year mark. And I agree with you Dennis, after seventeen years of service, give the person their pension. Reduce them in rate if you want, but putting them out after serving so long isn't making things right. Start fresh. The next time someone comes to you and says that we need to consider discharging someone for unsuitablity, don't be so quick to judge the messenger. Few people take discharging someone lightly. Deane had a story in one of the other threads about the young JO who thought that he could turn anyone into model Coast Guardsmen. The people that think that it's a chemistry issue should take that person under "their" wing and prove their point. Let that substandard performer fill a billet in their PAL, instead on allowing them to continue to be a burden in someone elses.
As for taking care of our people ? I like to think that I'm taking care of "MY" people, by protecting them from "those" people, that shouldn't be in the CG.
Almost everyone that I've ever recommended for discharge is out now. Some managed to find a comfortable place to disappear and may get to that 17 year mark before they're heard from again. Not one has stayed out of trouble after leaving my unit. They just keep getting pasted around until they find that comfortable niche and blend in.
So if you're asking me who should be held responsible for the person you mentioned, I'd blame the CG. The person is the person, but the CG allowed them to become that way and remain that way for seventeen years. How many people were blamed for bad chemistry before he fell into your lap ? How many people tried to turn him around or put him out before he showed up at your doorstep ?
That person met the standard that we set for him for the past 17 years. Granted, the bar was lower than it was for others, and we kept lowering it. But I think that we now owe him the other three.

[CWO Frank Johnston (MKC)]

I have had a couple of these type cases over the last several years. They ended very differently. The first one was an E-4 with three years in when I got him. Their are just some people that just don’t belong in the Coast Guard and he was one of them. The amazing thing was he made it through boot camp, a tour on a WMEC and then A-School before he came to me at my small boat station. He only lasted a few months before we sent him off to the group. He finished his time at the group and then joined the reserves. I still don’t know how he pulled that off. I will say he refused to drill at my unit.
The second case was a rated E-3 that had been place on report numerous times for various reasons before I arrived at the unit. During my CO in brief I was informed that this E-3’s discharged package was on the CO’s desk waiting to be signed. I decided to give this young lad a chance. This was 5 years ago and he is still in the service and moving up through the ranks.
We as chiefs have to give our people the chance but we also must make sure that they don’t slip through the cracks and continue on to burden other along the way.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I think the burden that our minimally manned service has placed on all of us, is the fact that we always have a job to do, new guys to qualify etc.

Most of you have seen it before. If you show that you can do your job well, we'll reward you by tacking on a particularly important collateral duty (that we cant trust to "that other guy")

Conversely, the member whose performance is sub-standard usually has someone picking up their slack, as well as doing their own job. And of course since the person is having trouble getting their own work done they won't be assigned collateral duties.

Rewards and Punishment should both be easier.

We can use liberty as a reward/punishment, but that only goes so far. When you give it to those deserving it's great, but when you withhold liberty you must sacrifice your own as well.

We can raise and lower their marks, but in these days of making 1st class without having taken a SWE not many care about that.

I want the ability to dock someones pay, or give someone a bonus purely based on performance. Bet that would change the workforce a little :D

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I guess what I was getting at, is that it shouldn't take a week out of the operational schedule to do booking chits, investigations masts etc. just to give a deserved punishment.

If someone is gumming up the works it shouldn't take reams of paperwork and a 6 month probationary period to remove an unsuitable person from the service unless there is the posibility that it's a personality thing.

Since it must first be documented to show a "pattern" of performance, that in itself should count as "time served" on any probation, at least from the first documented incident. I think some just assume that "if they made it through boot camp, we have to give 'em more chances"

Some other prior service can back me up on this one, our boot camp is NOT anything to be feared. Our CC's have muzzles and leashes, and cannot send troops to the field in the same shape that they could years ago. Not their fault, the-times-they-are-a-changin'...

We can't blame the recruiter, or boot camp for everyone, I know that they weed out quite a few. But when THEY see a reason to boot someone, it gets DONE.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, I'm not putting this back as a boot camp issue. I'm not looking at CCs or recruiters either. I'm looking at the OinCs and COs who are being leashed and muzzled and being told that they should have tried harder and invested more into these lost causes. I'm looking at the OinCs and COs who didn't document enough earlier on and allowed these people to become someone else's burden. I'm looking at the COs who still think that anyone can be saved, but want someone else to do the saving. We can see people who show up at our units with 17 or 18 years of life experience who shouldn't be in the CG. Dennis' case has a person with 17 years of CG experience, who has been allowed to stick around and advance, well beyond their capabilities. That person didn't advance himself. He didn't continue to re-enlist himself. Someone else allowed it to happen. When he was brought forward to be held accountable, someone else prevented that from happening. It's not the CC, it's not the recruiter,....it's the CG. Through our actions or inactions, WE created the mess that this person has become. We allowed them to swim more than 3/4 of the way across a lake, and now when they're close to reaching the other shore, we're telling them that they've been doing it wrong.
We should have enforced a higher standard sooner.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

As a boot-third, I reported into a detached unit with a BM1 in charge. My FIRST day, I heard him talking to some reservists about him being on the R.O.A.D. program (Retired On Active Duty). Problem? He only had 14 years in!!

We ended up with a new LT supervisor that tried to hold him to standards, but our parent command kept stepping on the LT, throwing out the 4910s, taking him off probation, ignoring the issue.

My desk was outside the LT's door when our Captain came over to advance me to second. I heard the Captain tell the LT to leave the BM alone and let the next command deal with him - which just about pushed the LT over the edge.

Long story short: It was up to the next unit. The BM went from the detached unit to the parent command his next SPEAR cycle. I still laugh about that one.

What I don't laugh about is that I have to put money into the retirement pot to pay for this loser's retirement pay. All because we didn't have command support or a Chief Cadre that would stand up and make this guy accountable.

I have sworn that I would never let that happen when I one day received my Anchors. Luckily, I only have one questionable performer right now... and I don't think it will end up anywhere near discharge.

Or at least that is what I am hoping... but if push comes to shove, I will just remember my old boss, grit my teeth and do what needs to be done.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

in reading Dennis', Mine and Gerald's post, is this merely a difference in how the "Mess" deals with people in relation to the "Officer Corp"? Negativity on an OER is not good, but our marks don't have places for us to put things like booting someone out, holding our crew to standards and member not upholding the Core values so we placed him on performance probation. Yes it has plaes for those types of itmes, but we do not have to write them out. Is the disconnect at our level or above? DO former OINC's and CPOs get tried of being told "Your a Chief, fix it"? I know i heard that when my OINC and I tried to relieve an EPO. I will say this, he was relieved but not without pounds and acres of paper and dead trees. We were told try this and try that but as a good command, we already had. So maybe we are more responsible for not standing firm when we do regonize a problem. Just a thought, what do you think?

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

The admin discharge is being based on unsuitability, and without going into specifics, addresses many of the same shortcomings with which I took issue, earlier.


Going back to the unsuitability issue, regardless of what has happened in the past, and depending on the circumstances, we as an organization may not have any leeway.

I had an individual that we were trying to kick out! Before we started the process, he was sent to have a psyc eval, which came back saying that he was unsuitable for the military and was discharged. My CO/XO at the time had no intensions of keeping this kid in the CG, or even transferring him to another command. The easy part for this kid was he pretty much did all of the documenting for us! See, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Not knowing the details of the original post, maybe there was something that could have been done. I'm not trying to second guess anyone, but I guess I agree with some of the other replies.....the Coast Guard failed. Do we owe this guy 3 more years? I would say no! Why? You don't all of the sudden develop an unsuitability tag. There has to be a pattern or a psyc issue. Does it suck that the Coast Guard wasted 17 years on this person? Yes! Does it suck for this person? YES, but the lines have been drawn and we have to live with it and hopefully learn from it.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

My superiors, however, viewed it as a personality/chemistry problem that I, as the senior man, should attempt to resolve. In other words, it became my responsibility to either adjust my expectations or somehow motivate the individual in some creative way.


I concour, Although it has been 2-1/2 years since the CPOA I remember one of the things that was pushed was if you had a member that was screwing up it was up to us to find out and fix whatever was wrong. " what can I or we as the CG do to make things work for you" :eek: (CAPITOL)BS, I say! I'm one of the prior service mentioned and I'll say this; the military as a whole has a PUB, Directive, or Regulation that spells out everything from alphabet soup to Zylophones (get it, a-z). We have become so disposed on training and touchy feely that everyone is "innocent" until proven guilty. BS< again, we are told what to wear, how to wear it, if we don't pay our bills we will be punished , it seems to me( I have had a few members go to admin discharge boards and others just kicked out ) that for some members no matter how bad they screw up they continue to get "second chances".

I firmly believe that in the military everything is spelled out for you; expectations, pay, work hours, consequences and etc. the problem I have seen is the P/C of the process of getting rid of the deadwood. "Document, Document, Document" is what we are told but for some it doesn't seem to matter have much documentation we have the process seems to go on and on. I do agree that the problem children are passed on from unit to unit. We are leashed and muzzled at times but as Chiefs we need to stand our ground and do the right thing for our commands, the CG and the member. If someone should be on the street, and not in our great CG, then let's get them there. Our commands (for those who read this board) also have to trust us and believe we are trying to do what is best for the CG. :) :) :)
Ok I'm off my high horse, it's just my .02
Todd

[BMC Ken Gouge]

SSS,
I think you mis-read me. I'm not blaming boot camp or recruiters. I am wishing it was as easy for us to get rid of non-hackers as it is for the recruiter to say "sorry" or the CC to say "you're out".

As a 1st class, (the station I was at had 4) we had a non-rate that was a constant issue. Always tried hard, but the results were mostly sub-standard. This member also had a hygiene problem... which was a lagre burden on the duty section and boat crews.

She completed the practical factors and tests for BM3, and submitted a chit to be placed on the list. It was denied all the way up to the XO, who BTW did regular "sniff" tests on the individual because of her issues. The XO placed her on the list, even after the chit was followed up by every 1st class at the station (MK's as well) stating that she didn't have the leadership qualities to be a PO, and should not receive Command Approval.

The XO said she was tired of dealing with the girl, and was advancing her so she could leave :eek: She advance, got orders to a polar roller, and commenced her dental and physical exams which she failed miserably. As I was transferring they were trying to figure out what to do with her since she would be there for another year and a half :D

Samer unit, a SN that was having suitability issues, not getting qualified etc. went AWOL by forging leave papers and hopping a MAC flight to Hawii (home). After 30 days they sent CGI looking for her. She was returned and processed for discharge. While awaiting discharge, she was sent to Group who placed her in the COM CTR and qualified her as a radio watchstander. Since WE were obviously wrong about her, they sent her BACK to our unit and told us to keep her :confused: About a month later she popped positive and got kicked out.

Sorryfor the length of the post, just 2 incidents I witnessed where second chances and bad command decisions cost the Coast Guard and made more work for the rest of us.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, I must have read you wrong. Don't take it personally, my reading comprehension is as poor as my listening skills.

We had a FN who could do no right (as opposed to do no wrong). Our Command made the decision to ignore, ignore, ignore, and wait for him to go to A school. After all, as large as our service is, what are the odds on running into this kid again later on down the road ?
We never had the chance to find out. Four days before he was scheduled to depart, he felt as though it was his duty to contact the Captain (O-6) in charge of Military Personnel at the Academy. You see our hero had to quit his part time job when this Captain placed the bar he was working at off-limits to military personnel. Our brave young warrior was chewing this Captain out for about five minutes when the Captain stopped him long enough to find out that he was an E-3 in the Coast Guard. At his mast two days later he used the defense that he hadn't be written up for anything in the past six months.
Our O-3 then had to explain to the E-3 in front of the O-6 how he had made the decision to let everything slide in an attempt to flush the toilet. The O-6 was none to happy. Our hero started getting written up for everything that he did and eventually found his way back on to the street.

[BMC John Phillips III]

A recurring theme on this thread is 2nd chances. I find that pretty silly, I feel the same way as DCC, we are governed by rules, pubs, directives, etc.. Boot camp is the indoctrination to the most basic of rules, yes there are a few cases where someone finds out they were breaking a rule after the fact but this is where a little common sense comes in handy. Anyway, back to the 2nd chances issue, I have been to a few formal ceremonies where some pretty senior people have expressed, "if it were not for my 2nd chance...", and again I don't necessarily agree with 2nd chances, especially not more than one of them. I may have a biased opinion however, as I have been able to keep my nose clean throughout my 11 1/2 year career and I have yet to use my first 2nd chance.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And the saddest thing is that if you are given a second chance this late in the game, it's going to cost you. I seen it a thousand times.......the constant screw-up is allowed to constantly screw-up. The stellar performer makes a mistake, and someone wants to make an example out of them.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

On the issue of whether the CG should discharge someone with 17 years of service for unsuitability...I say YES.

The purpose of discharges for unsuitability is to free the service of members considered unsuitable for further service. I understand that units might have been "Carrying" this member, but that shouldn't be a factor in discharging this member now. If we start basing our decisions on discharging members by how much time they have in, how long does a member have to do before they get the free ride to 20? Why should we pay this member a retirement for the rest of their life?

Unsuitability = Discharge

[PAC Darrell Wilson (Ret)]

I am straddling the fence on this one. We, the Coast Guard let the member ride this way for 17 years. Its hard to blame and punish the member, he has been lead to believe this is acceptable for the last 17 years. The correct approach (in my eyes) would be to call the member in and have a heart to heart talk about what he was allowed to do in the past and what I expected out of him for the next 3 years if he values his retirement. Throwing him out now after he was allowed to act that way for 17 years would be akin to me letting my son do something for 3 or 4 years and then just spanking him one day when he did that something again. He would be totally dumbfounded and confused and want to know why he got spanked for doing something I allowed him to do for so long. Many years ago I was a non-rate a small boat station in New York and we had a BM2 with something like 18 years in. He had lost his boat quals. The group had sent him to us to use as a watch stander, that was the only qualification he had. He barely regained his boat crewmember quals. This guy was allowed to stay till retirement when he should have been discharged many years earlier.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And Dennis will be glad to see that Deane and I finally disagree about something. Where I agree with Deane, (in theory) unsuitability = discharge, I agree with Darrell, that we've made this person unsuitable. When would have been the right time to discharge the person in question ? When Dennis first purposed it.....or the person before Dennis,....or the person before that. This person was allowed to become who he is. I don't want to pay him for the rest of his life or mine either, but someone should have thought about that before allowing a sub sub-standard perform get this far along.I would be willing to bet that if the discharge board allows him to stay in, he will use this "second" chance to do even less. After he is shown that he won't be held accountable for the past seventeen years, the next three are freebies. This is what we've taught him.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

The problem, Senior Chief, is that that attitude is asking his chain of command to be complicit in malfeasance. Just because the crew before "us" was unable to do the right thing, this does NOT mean that we should sit back and just let this guy slide through.

Was it right to let him go for seventeen years? Heck no!!
Is it right to let ANYONE slide for three years? Not on MY watch!!
Why is it right to let this guy slide for three years then?

Yes, it will be VERY painful to this guy. He will probably feel betrayed by us. However, in the end, are we here solely for the member, or for the entire guard? How should we justify this to our junior folks who will inevitably say, "C'mon, Chief! Just let me slide for three years like him!!"

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Like I stated before, I'm still in the same mindset as Jerald! If you have a guy that gets away with an "unsuitability" issue and then it comes to light that he has this issue, then he needs to be discharged!!!

If, as an OINC, you rcvd a E-3 that has had problems before, but the command before you sent him anyway.....continues with problems for you, you have to stop the trend of keeping the person in the Guard! Its our responsibility to act! If we don't then we are doing our service a brave injustice! Who cares that people for the last 17 years didn't do their job? I don't!! And someone had the guts to step up and make the decision! I applaude them for that! Its too easy for a command (or someone above an indiviual that brought this to light) to sweep things under the rug, like this guy....probley(???).

You can't compare a grown adult to a child when we talk about things that are right or wrong! My 12 yr daughter tries everyday to get thing over me, but she is a child, and thats what they do, test the waters. Now throw a person that is at least 35 years old (17yrs + 18 if they joined then)? They know what is right and wrong! They know that if they don't meet the weight, sobrietiy, drugs, you name it...requirements they should be discharged! Period!!!!!

Unsuitablity is just that, they are not suitable for the military!!! Not everyone is, and unfortunately, some people slip through the cracks and its 17 years later until this is brought to light! My hero that I had to deal with, well we were fortunate to find out early in his career....some people can fly below the radar, but they can't always stay below the radar in guys instance!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

First of all, I'm not saying that I'm right on this issue. I don't know this guy. I don't know his story. If he gets discharged, which I don't think will happen, I won't lose any sleep over it. But we made him the person he is today by not taking action earlier. He's probably not the only one out there either. We should be making sure that he is the last one though. I don't want to state the obvious here, but I'm just a tad bit close minded, and my mind is made up on this case. This person has spent 17 years living up to the standard that we required for him. If he were guilty of something new, then hold him accountable for the new stuff. We're trying to hold him accountable for the old stuff that by our actions or inactions, we have told him was fine up until this point. I hope someone posts what the results of this case turn out to be. Which ever way it goes, I won't like it. Predicitions ? He paid less than full fare for the ride he's taken so far, and we'll be picking up the tab for the rest of the trip.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

No one should get discharged at the 17 year mark for unsuitability. If he had commited a crime punishable by discharge then I'd be all for it. But, we cannot classify an individual as unsuitable so close to retirement when we have not done so earlier on. If his record indicates a consistent sub-standard performance level (it does) then there is no reason why the action could not have been taken earlier. Since it wasn't, we are obligated by decency and our own complicity to keep him until retirement.

I do like that Deane and Stuart disagreed. But, I haven't seen an argument between them. Are their no differences that you two can debate about passionately?

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

No one should get discharged at the 17 year mark for unsuitability.

Senior,

Please, because I'm posting from home, define what "unsuitablility" is? I have my few past experiences that had defined it....what comes to mind to me is, sobriety off the top of my head. Can you discharge a person that has this problem? Maybe...Did he violate a law? No, no law says that you can't indulge in an adult beverage. But what if you have a dependancy on alcohol? Can the service discharge you for a problem that you had before you joined? YUP!!!!

The case that I spoke of before, after clinical interviews, my hero had a problem with alcohol before he joined the service, which was part of the decision to have him removed from the service! Although that wasn't the only reason, it was a big part! He had no prior alcohol incidents....but it was determined that he had a dependancy to alcohol before joining the service.

Now this same kid floats through his career, and keep his nose clean and then after 17 years it comes to light....your still going to say that he shouldn't be discharged?

Now I'm going to say that I have no idea what the situations with the subject that started this thread, but I think that I have provided an instance that would show a different light!

But with the arguements that have arisen, I'm currious...outside of committing a crime or violating the UCMJ, when would someone have to be discharged after 17 years of service in your or anyones opinion? I think that the example is a perfect one! I would like to know of others.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis said...I do like that Deane and Stuart disagreed. But, I haven't seen an argument between them. Are their no differences that you two can debate about passionately?

Dennis - I spoke with Stu (on the phone) for at least an hour on this subject and I was too tired to post after that.

Honestly, I can see the argument for both sides...but, I lean on the discharge side. I say discharge because that's what's best for the CG and it's the right thing to do. If the CG decides not to discharge, I hope he/she doesn't end up at my unit "riding" out his/her time till the 20 year mark. This member isn't dumb, they know whats going on. Shame on us if we enable it a day longer!

Dennis said...No one should get discharged at the 17 year mark for unsuitability.

Dennis - You either have forgotten all of the things that fall under unsuitability or you've lost your mind. Alcohol abuse, personality disorders, and financial irresponsibility all fall under unsuitability. I assume that your comment is based on the inaptitude & apathy reasons for discharge? I hope so.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Bottom line is if you have 17 years in and your "suitability" comes into question, you better straighten up. It's a common sense thing, you have been able to slide/skate/squeak bye, well you have to be able to correct a deficiency long enough to finish off 3 even in you were slack the first 17. If you can't then there is the brow, don't trip or expect to get piped off.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Had to post again because I never actually put my opinion out there. I say let him stay in, for the same reasons already posted by those that agree he should. I beleive that the persons detailer should be talked to though, and his last three years should be at the most unpleasant place available. He should at least be able to keep a stellar performer from getting a miserable assignment.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Why make him go to a miserable assignment? Your argument is that this isn't the members fault, it's the CG's fault...so, why not reward him with his dream billet for all of the hardship that the CG has made him endure in his first 17 years???

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I bet if he was overweight he would be GONE. 17 years or not. Just my thought for Oct. Have a nice weigh-in. :D

Jim

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stay in, get out? Problem is when we hold some one accountable the PERSMAN does not distinquish TIS. With that said, Dennis what did you want to happen when you decided this member was not living up to CG standards? You had to have something in mind. Why not Reduction in rate? member is reduced to lesser pay-grade but still be allowed to retire. Why the discharge? Was that in your letter? If so why? If not, recommend it to the sector. Testify bfore the discharge board but please, keep him with you to finish out his 20. You said something in a previous post that also pertains here;

"Don't worry about the chief sitting in the corner grumbling. Worry about the PCPO standing by the door watching him. Get between them and offer that PCPO a better example."

Change Chief to PO1 and PCPO to MK2/BM2/ SN/FN and it still applies. Heck more so because we all know how much more influence the PO1 has over the FN in small units. Is this the guy you want leading your Cutter DCTT or buoy deck? :confused:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, I've never debated Deane because I usually agree with him. I even agree with him on this issue, up to a point. I completely disagree with you on the noone should be discharged for unsuitability after 17 years of service stance.
And here we go...........I think that THIS person should be allowed to retire. I don't know the whole story, but from what you described, he has always performed at this level. Previous attempt(s) to discharge him were thwarted, and the member was lead to believe that his level of performance was acceptable. It's the CG's fault.
Other people could begin to change their work habits after getting to a certain point and I don't think that they should be able to claim tenure. The point where retirement should be guaranteed should be at 20 years. The exception to that rule should go the people we have been making exceptions for, for their entire career. The slackers that we have created.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

OOOOH, Tough call.
I am kinda on the fence with this one. I do believe in accountability, but where has the accountability been for the last 17 years? I mean for the commands?

I do believe that leadership starts from the top down, so how did this past 17 years pass by for the member? What did his or her chain of command do to get this member on the correct path? If nothing, then I say the member has performed to the standards and expectations that were put before them. It's not their fault the CG didn't do it's job and put them on the street a long time ago.

Again, I fall back on my earlier post that the CG has a pub, directive or instruction that tells each and every one of us what is expected, so now the question is, did this member not do what was expected? and if not then I suggest that for the past 17 years neither has their command, because those same pubs, directives, and instructions apply to said commands as well.

So now we are back to the same question, stay or go? I do understand the unsuitability thing, but if the CG allowed unacceptable behavior to continue for 17 yrs, then shame on the CG.

Let him/her stay they have only done what has been expected and tolerated.
My .02,
Todd

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Todd, can I try to knock you off that fence for a moment?

Let's say that you take over as CPO at MY unit, where I have been for the past four years. My crew is all ate up - and it is very obvious that I haven't done a damned thing in the past four years - and nobody has been held accountable.

What do you do with my former crew?

Do you hold them accountable to the standards that I should have been holding them to for the past four years, or do you let them ride?

No matter what your decision is - in my opinion, it says a lot about your character.

There are times when I love being a leader - and then there are times that it blows goats. This is a time when it breaks the laws of physics and both sucks AND blows. I would feel bad all the way until I had this person's collar devices in my hands and he was a civilian - and then feel bad some more. But in the morning, I could at least look at myself in the mirror and be proud of what I did for the USCG.

As much as it hurts, one of the first duties of a Chief is to support the command (which includes the entire USCG)... THEN the people. If it were the other way around, there would be no 24 hour watches, no missions, no uniforms... cuz the huge majority of the people in the guard see them as at least "inconvenient". We owe it to the Commandant to do what is right. To do less is to put your own stamp of approval.

Is that the legacy you want to leave the Coast Guard?

"Hey, remember Master Chief Holcomb? He was that jerk that let Chief Gooblatz slide. I can't wait til _I_ have an anchor so I can get away with everything I want to."

(lemme know which side of the fence are you end up on!) :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Okay Jerald, then jump back over the fence. The CG stopped Dennis from discharging this guy three years ago. Dennis had to support that Command decision. The CG is who let him stay in to this point. Individuals have tried to hold him, and others like him accountable, and the CG said, "Lighten you on him and give him a break." He is where he is because the CG said it was okay. He is here with Command approval, where's your support ? What side of the fence are you on now?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Just to be clear, I never recommended that he be discharged. I did recommend that he be relieved of his responsibilities and assigned to a unit where he could be directly supervised. I also placed him on report at the very end of our working relationship. He was reassigned temporarily pending discliplinary action, and I transferred before it was resolved.

I don't know if he was disciplined, but he is a paygrade lower than when I worked with him.


And, perhaps I am losing my mind, but I have a difficult time cutting someone loose under any of the circumstances indicated under an unsuitability discharge when they are only a few years from retirement. At that point, we have either justified their behavior by not taking that type of action earlier, or the bad behavior is not indicative of their previous and normal habits. As such, I think we owe them some loyalty and should nurse them through those last couple of years.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

Senior Chief Slesh, The reason I brought up Chief Holcolm taking over for me was to (hopefully) show that no matter WHAT happened in the past, it is up to US to make things right NOW. Senior Chief E did what he could before - and was dissed. Now it is up to someone else to do the right thing. Just because others may have dropped the ball - or in this case just set it down carefully - it is no excuse for us to not pick it back up and run.

Granted, in my last post I was a bit more ascerbic than usual in my opinion, I am still firmly on the fence side that says, "Admin reductions as needed, followed by discharge as needed". I am (unfortunately) all too aware that no matter what the heck we recommend, that it is up to the person with the Eagle on their collar to make the final decision... but it is still in our court to do what we can to see to it that at least OUR little part of the equation balances out.

Imagine this person being brought up on federal charges in a couple of years. Through the course of the investigation, they see his record... and all the bad paper in there. There will end up being a lot of interest as to why the heck it lasted this long. That being said, if my name were in that personnel file, I would want to make it clear that I at least attempted to do the right thing. Let the inquiry look all crosseyed at the people that overlooked and ignored my recommendations.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

This is the dilemma good leaders get in when they act long after some one else should have. Then, you care what happens after. Dennis I would have done the same thing, have done the same thing. We need more people not afraid to hold others accountable. Then, and only then, will the sub-standard performers be young non-rates or PO3s and not 17 year veterans!

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Todd, can I try to knock you off that fence for a moment?

Let's say that you take over as CPO at MY unit, where I have been for the past four years. My crew is all ate up - and it is very obvious that I haven't done a damned thing in the past four years - and nobody has been held accountable.

What do you do with my former crew?

Do you hold them accountable to the standards that I should have been holding them to for the past four years, or do you let them ride?

(lemme know which side of the fence are you end up on!) :D

Jerald,
I stand by what I said. "your" unit you mentioned would be given direction and mentoring and told what was expected of them and the concept of "accountability" and then if they were still "all ate up" I would look at exercising some accountability.

Supporting the command-AMEN brother. Again it doesn't matter how much documentation we do if "our Commands" deem a person worthy of keeping then that's what we do.

Now on the other side of the coin, it is also up to our commands to support us, and as I said earlier in a post, to trust us and our judment (not a quote or exact words). so My question is when a fellow Chief trys to have a member discharged and the commands decide that although the Chief works with the member on a daily basis or at least has some contact and is a little closer to the whole situation but for some reason this member is retained, against the parent commands and the Chief's recomendation (we've all seen it), what do you do? you salute smartly and move out, you may disagree but you accept it move on and begin documenting all over again as needed.

So now we've had this above mentioned sailor who for some reason has been retained for 17 yrs, who knows why, but if his immediate COC has tried, unsuccessfully to discharge them, but somewhere further up the chain it is denied and they are kept, whose at fault?

I'm still on the same side of the fence I was before, just like the COC working both up and down so does support.

As far as your last comment, if Master Chief Holcomb :) and Chief Gooblatz are that "Ate Up" and fellow Chiefs don't take a round turn on that situation, then we have a lot mre problems than we can tackle on here :eek:

Again tough call but the member didn't make it this far on their own.

My .02, Todd

[BMC John Phillips III]

This is the dilemma good leaders get in when they act long after some one else should have. Then, you care what happens after. Dennis I would have done the same thing, have done the same thing. We need more people not afraid to hold others accountable. Then, and only then, will the sub-standard performers be young non-rates or PO3s and not 17 year veterans!

Well said. Strong Chiefs makes for a stronger Coast Guard.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I want to shift gears a bit and go back and talk about our 17 year unsuitable member. Let's say that (for sake of argument) the CG decides to retain this unsuitable member because they "owe" it to him/her to let them do their 20 years. Afterall, it isn't the members fault...it's the CG's fault...remember?

Let's say that this member reached the 20 year mark and wants to stay in longer? Why shouldn't he/she be able to? After all, we've granted them the mack-daddy of all waivers...the 20 year waiver. Why not 22 or 25 or 30 years?

When is enough...enough?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

In this case, the precedent was set years ago, when the decision to give more than one second chance was made.

If the commands had listened to the supervisor's input and recommendations, we would n't even be discussing this today.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

It doesn't matter what precedent was set. If it was wrong, it was wrong, and now it is up to US to fix it.

There used to be a precedent that Blacks were not allowed to integrate into military units, and women were only allowed to be admin types... we thought better of the precedent and made things right.

Just because THEY screwed up and didn't listen to the Chief does not let them off the hook. Now it is time to drive the point home and do what is right.

The perfect argument for a CO or XO is to offer to toss out the unit punishment log. When they scream, "WHY???" we can just tell them that if we don't uphold standards for this ONE guy, how can we do it for anyone? It would give anyone masted or court martialed the perfect appeal - unfair enforcement of the rules. What command would want to shoot themselves in the foot like that?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Jerald,

If you boot this guy now, so close to the 20, he screams to his Congressman.

Mr. Congressman, wants to find out what is going on. When the CG cannot produce documentation to show the "track record" of said individual, Mr. Congressman leans on CG to restore pay, allowances and benefits to compensate his fine constituent.

Besides, there is always a place at the ISC Gym as an equipment manager.

Here's your basketball!

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

According to the backstory, he DOES have a mess of bad paper in his record - and he is at least one grade below what he was at one time...

It just bothers the hell out of me that we could turn our back and accept bad conduct from this person - and still try to put on a brave face to our subordinates. Try to imagine explaining this to a young Third or non-rate - and not come off as being two-faced. I can't do it, maybe you can... so lemme know what I'm missing.

I know others accepted the actions - but I can't. To put this into analogies:

Imagine being on a fisheries patrol and going to enforce netting that is too small - and being told that all the OLD inspectors accepted it.

Imagine doing a 4100 boarding and being told that the OLD crew of Coasties used to accept one floating key-chain as adequate PFDs for the whole boat.

Imagine doing a FOD run of a landing pad/runway and being told that the OLD CO used to accept things smaller than his fist on the pad/runway.

Imagine inspecting a weld on a hull plate that looks like it was done by someone with palsy and a chocolate bar - and finding out that the OLD DCC used to accept it.

Imagine reviewing a press release that was rife with misspellings and horrible grammar - and being told that the OLD Chief let them be released that way.

I cannot imagine ANY of those things being accepted. So why this? Yes, it DOES blow for this loser - but it is not like he is innocent in this. Had he turned himself around, this whole thread would be moot... but he didn't. Now, we have to have the spine to either apply the standards as written - with NO wriggle room - or explain (with a straight face) to an incredulous crew as to why THEY have to live up to the standards and this guy doesn't.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Jerald-

We are not talking about issuing someone a civil fine, or bruising an individual's ego. We are talking about denying a 17 year veteran the opportunity to complete the last 10% of his required tenure for retirement benefits because suddenly we woke up to the fact that he wasn't going to change.

We can't, as an organization, condone his behavior for so long, and then suddently decide at the 11th hour that it's time to fire him!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis & Steve...how long after 20 do we let them stay? Or, once they reach 20, can we can just throw them out? What if they want to stay longer? Afterall (according to Steve) there's always a basketball that needs to be handed out.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Try this one on for size.......

PO1 with almost 20 years in (I forget the exact figure but it was darn close to 20.)

His abuse of alcohol has been documented for his entire career. He has been sent to rehab numerous times, with the same result. Still a drunk. Never took the rehab seriously (I know for a fact on that one because he told me that he was just playing the game.)

Gets busted for drinking and driving, sent to rehab (see above) and Coast Guard begins to process him for discharge. Since I was his room mate and witnessed his drunkenness first hand I was called as a witness.

Wanna know what I told the board? Let him retire, he will undoubtedly keep on drinking his retirement away. They wanted my honest opinion and I gave it to them. You refused to deal with the problem earlier in his career, it's too late now.

The PO1 did retire at 20 years with full benefits. About 2 months after I arrived back in Tidewater, he called and left a message on my answering machine, I could tell he was still drunk.

If the Coast Guard refuses to deal with a problem they knew about for the majority of a members career and refused to do anything about it, the fault lies with the CG and the member. The CG had a chance to deal with the drunk, but chose to keep giving multiple chances.

BTW during my last physical the doctor asked me how in the heck I came into the Coast Guard. It seems my back was the worst he had ever seen and should have kept me out. I said, after 20 years it's kinda late to be worrying about it now.

Just my .02

[BMCM Deane Smith]

If the Coast Guard refuses to deal with a problem they knew about for the majority of a members career and refused to do anything about it, the fault lies with the CG and the member. The CG had a chance to deal with the drunk, but chose to keep giving multiple chances.



How did the CG refuse to do anything about it? It sounds like they sent him to treatment and documented his alcohol incidents. How is that refusing to do anything about it? Was he on his 3rd AI when they decided to keep him in?

Explain this one to me.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I'm sorry but the Coast Guard had to have known that this guy had a problem many years before and refused to do the right thing and show him the door.

However, (and it is a very large however), the ultimate responsibility lied (lies) with the member. It is up to him to change his attitude, if he refuses to, well, there isn't much you can do but to let them go.

The person in question was not your normal occassional drunk. I usually arrived home from work at about 1600. By that time he was on his way to being totally out of it. By the time he was totally out of it, he would sit and just act catatonic, one eye staring one way and the other eye the other way. One night he threatened to kill me because I took my stereo upstairs to my room. This is a guy that would go through a case of beer and a fifth of hard liquor in one night of drinking. That is not an exageration, I saw it happen.

This is not something that happened within a space of a couple of years. While I can't say for sure how many times he was documented for an AI, it had to have been more than two or three. We have all heard the horror stories of members falling through the cracks and remaining in the service.
Perhaps this was one of those times.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Deane,
Seems no one wants to tackle the after 20 question. The MAA thing was exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned a crappie assignment that the person could fill so a stellar performer didn't have to.

After 20, I think it should depend on what the members contract says. If he/she is on the "indefinite" program, there's not much you can do but seek a discharge. If the member isn't (are there any of those left?) then denying re-enlistment at the next oportunity would work.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet (which surprises me) is letting the member know where he/she stands. If a reduction in rate occurred great, look at the knowledge and capabilities required for the present paygrade and see if the member meets those standards, keep documenting to get the member situated where he/she belongs prior to retirement. That should make the member think about getting out while there are still crows involved and not retiring as a SN...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Deane, we should never have let it get this far.........but 20 and out. Once they are retirement eligible, retire them. Give them what we owe them after a lifetime of required service and nothing more.

Raymond, your guy who continued to drink should have been shown the door.
He's not a poor performer who's actions were allowed to remain in house, he was breaking laws and potentially bringing discredit "outside" the service.

Jerald, your analogies were way off base. Any one of the boarding situations would have been won by the plaintive if they took it to court. Once they showed their documentation of how the same gear was accepted by the CG in the past, the Judge would have agreed, told them what they needed to start carrying and they would have been allowed to start fresh. If the hull had failed after a CG inspector said it was fine, you could bet that they would win that multi-million dollar lawsuit. Nobody is asking you to accept shoddy work or allow poor performs to thrive at your unit. The question posed was that after allowing someone to perform at that level for 17 years, should they be entitiled to their retirement.

Analogy........You have a dog for ten years who you refused to house break. It $h1+$ in your house and climbs on your funiture. You now decide to enforce another standard that the dog cannot accept. It wants to continue to do what you trained it to do for the past ten years. Is it ok to stop feeding the dog ?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

"Raymond, your guy who continued to drink should have been shown the door. He's not a poor performer who's actions were allowed to remain in house, he was breaking laws and potentially bringing discredit "outside" the service."

Senior, in the words of my generation, right on and solid!

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I got an email from this individual a couple of weeks ago. He is being discharged- either by his own decision or by the Coast Guard's- I'm not sure.
Still irks me though, that an individual with 17 years would be shown the door.