Request to Visit Command Chief

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Should it be required that members route a request to see the Group/Sector/Activities Silver Badge? Should they have to inform their chain of command that they will be visiting the Silver Badge?

Example...You are assigned to the ANT and you want to go see the Silver Badge at the Sector. Should you have to inform your chain of command of that visit?

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

I never knew that you had to route a chit to see your Command Chief....thats why the person is there! Some may not like it, but anyone that doesn't feel they got a fair chance, always will have that option.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

If you can't solve it through your COC then it's off to see the Silver Badge, If it is legitimate. I would think that if a member doesn't get resolution and is conptemplating going to the Silver Badge they would have let their command know at the time a solution was not achieved and that was their intention. On the Same token a members COC should inform this member that they have the right to see the Silver Badge if no resolution is reached. If both parties are doing their part( I know that doesn't always happen) then there should be no need to route a chit. There are instances where a member feels that the Silver Badge is the only route top go even before using the COC, in that instance there are bigger issues than the chit that need to be addressed, and they may be issues from the member or the COC, but they need to be addressed, and maybe the Silver Badge is the only one the member trusts.

But back to the original question, No, but the Silver Badge should address this issue and find out why either way.

My .02

Todd

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Todd...in your scenario, the chain of command was involved and then the Silver Badge got involved. I'm good with that.

The command should have the first crack at a problem or be informed by the member that they wish to speak to the Silver Badge.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

I say no also. Some people may not be comfortable with going to their immediate Supervisor or COC. On the other hand the CC's first question should be who has the person talked to in trying to resolve a problem. If the COC was not brought into the resolution a good reason needs to be had.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Should a member route a chit, no not in my view. But at the least they should let the Command know they want to visit the Silver or Glod Badge.
As an OIC if a member wants to see "the badge" I first ask why. If the person says I can't solve the problem or maybe the problem is me, then its off he/she goes. If I can solve it then, its exaclty that...problem solved.
I have also contacted the Gold Badge for a member because I knew by myself I could not get the solution the member wanted.
Additionally, once the member goes to "the badge" the first question should be "have you talked to your command?".

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm with Nick in his post, though I don't know how he voted. The member HAS to inform the Command that they want to talk to ANYONE outside of the Command. I don't think that you neccessarily need a written "chit", but the person needs to request to see the Silver or Gold Badge.
The chain of Command needs to be followed, always. If not where does it end ? Can the member skip the Silver Badge and go straight to the Sector Commander ? Can they skip the Sector and take their problems straight to District ? How about skipping the District ?
They should have to inform the Command first. If they don't feel comfortable discussing an issue that involves the Command to the Command, they should still state that. The Command can't prevent them from talking to the Silver Badge, but the Command must be informed first. And one of the first questions that a Silver or Gold Badge should be asking , is "Didn't you talk about this with your Chain of Command first ?".

Just for the sake of arguement...for those nay sayers.......What do you do when you're searching the base looking for one of your subordinates and they show up hours later saying that they were over talking to the Silver Badge ?

Chain of Command.......one of the first things that is taught in basic training......for a reason.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Easy one, no chit but the command should be informed. The reason for routing a chit is to get permission for something. Permission cannot (or should not) be denied to visid the CMC/CSC. As Nick said the CMC should first ask if the Command was informed. If they were not he should ask why not. There may be a valid reason. Just for personnel accountability the Command should be informed.

Ken

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I'm in the No Chit category.

The badhes are there to maintain an open door policy for me and and my people.

The badges should be asking the questions, Who have you talked to, How, When, Why, What?

My understanding is that the badge's are there to have that open door policy.

I don't expect all of my people to be able to approach me with all of their issues, maybe I am part of the issue, maybe it is a level of being uncomfortable.

When they do approach me on various issues, I also recognize that I do not have every answer, I may have to approach the badge myself in order to get clarification or guidance to pass back to the member.

I don't expect to be notified everytime my people talk to the badges, but if the issue is significant, I would like to be informed

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Most of my opinion has already been expressed, but I want to add mine also.

The poll question was "Do members have to inform their command that they are visiting the Command Chief?"

The word request was not mentioned but inform. I voted yes to this question. The member should always let his/her supervisor know what he/she is doing. The member doesn't have to say why, just inform that a visit to the CMC is needed.

As a CMC (Silver), I would always encourage the techs to come see me whenever they wanted for whatever they wanted. I would always follow this with "just make sure your direct supervisor knows that you are coming over, calling, emailing etc." I would also add that exceptions can be made if the problem is with the supervisor, but it is just good management to have a supervisor know where his/her people are at all times.

Of course my first question when I had a visit was to enquire whether or not they had done all they could inside the COC to correct the problem.

Sometimes I was just needed to get the COC working again. I would let the member know what he/she had to do to work through the issue.

Every issue/problem is different. Being flexible is the best way to solve problems.

my .02.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I agree with Stu, the member must inform the command. I might require a chit if I was at a larger command. Chits may help locate the problem, say several chits from one duty section or department. Since OINC are mandated to maintain godd order and discipline at our uinits, we must know when anyone has gone outside the COC.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Very good point Joseph,
I wonder if the people who voted no are voting for not routing a chit, or are they saying that that they don't have to inform their Command first.

[ITC Joe Creager]

I have been taught, and have passed along to those I supervise, that you deal with an issue at the lowest possible level, but if I am the issue, at the very minimum inform me that you are going over my head...

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

I voted no. The question wasn’t in your opinion, it was Do members have to inform their command that they are visiting the Command Chief? No they do not.. Should you have to? Yes. It doesn’t matter what our opinion is. It is a right and we ARE NOT required to submit a chit. Having said that I do however agree that the command SHOULD be informed but until the policy changes we can only let our people know what the policy is and what our opinion is. It would be nice to know before hand so that it can be handled at the lowest level but I’m not the commandant so I can only go by what he or she tells me and cannot make up my own rules/policy without his or her signature. There are reason why policy is made and I believe that their have been problems in the past and that is why it is an open door policy. In short Should they? Absolutely but is it required NO. I believe what many have said. What I do when that member walks in the office is, does your command know? And if not why, and if its not a good reason they are sent back down the chain, and informed that if they still can not resolve the issue they are more then welcome back but first must try to resolve the issues at the lowest level possible.
The answer is no. If you said yes it’s your opinion and not the policy.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I voted no. The question wasn’t in your opinion, it was Do members have to inform their command that they are visiting the Command Chief? No they do not.. Should you have to? Yes. It doesn’t matter what our opinion is. It is a right and we ARE NOT required to submit a chit. Having said that I do however agree that the command SHOULD be informed but until the policy changes we can only let our people know what the policy is and what our opinion is. The answer is no. If you said yes it’s your opinion and not the policy.

Art...what policy? I've looked around and can't find a policy that says no. I have found some district specific instructions. Example#1...D8 policy says the following..."While meeting these duties and responsibilities, the collateral duty CC, CSC and CMC strongly supports and emphasizes the advantages of proper use of the chain of command." Example#2...D9 policy says the following..."The collateral duty command chief should have an open door policy or regular request/complaint mast to ensure enlisted personnel are provided easy access. Commanding Officers or Officers in Charge may require the requesting member to route a special request chit through their chain of command. Request chits to see the command chief should not be denied."

So, it's up to the individual command unless there is CLEAR policy on this. If anyone has a CG Policy that they can post here or share...please do so. Until then, I'm going to require my people to inform me prior to a visit.

Art...Please share the policy that you're reading.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yeah, I'm going to need to see that policy. I want to see where the COMDT wrote that you don't need to use your Chain of Command to solve your issues. Your Command becomes your first and last stop on all issues. Even issues that are sent to higher authority are returned to your Command to resolve. That's not my opinion, that's fact.
I'm going to need to see that policy, before I change my policy or opinion.

Waiting patiently...........

Edited to Add:
By the way Joe, just my opinion.....but you're absolutely right.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Well said Deane and Stu. I await it as well!

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

I might have pointed a gun without a bullet in it but I'm still trying to find one. I guess its kind of one of those things like open brow for the chiefs. It’s not in writing it’s just how it has always been. But then again I haven’t found it in writing either where it says you can not go directly to the CMC either. I agree that you should use your chain of command but If a member doesn’t, would you be able to punish them for not following the chain of command and keeping you informed when the CMC’s have an open door policy? I apologize for speaking without a loaded gun. One of those knee jerk reactions but I still stick by my vote. Its not required but recommended.

[MECS Scott Pugh]

I agree with the majority of the posts so far. I should know that someone that works for me has gone over to speak with the CSC. I don't need to see a piece of paper or e-mail asking; but I would like to have SN/PO Smith let me know (through the chain) that he or she wishes to speak with the CSC.

[MCPOCG Charles Bowen]

I'm a five time OIC, two time Gold Badge CMC, currently in an OIC assignment and I have a little bit of experience in this...from both sides.

As a general rule commands should be informed if a member is going to speak to a Command Master Chief....though a request chit is not a requirement. The first question that I used to ask when someone called with an issue was, who had been notified in the chain of command and did they have a chance to work on the member's problem? In most cases I would let the member know that the first person I was going to call after the conversation would be the member's CO/OIC.

Having said that...Command Master Chiefs have unrestricted access to all enlisted members in the regional command for a reason. They serve as a communication outlet when all else fails, either for the member or the command itself. I once received an anonomous call from a member at a unit in my purview. He had a long story to tell concerning multiple problems including alcohol abuse, innapropriate relationships, and drug use that included distribution within and without the command, etc. I asked if he had talked with his OIC, he said no that he felt the OIC was part of it. I asked if he had called the Group Command Chief, he said no that he felt like he wouldn't be believed. He would not give his name. Frankly I didn't believe him either but couldn't ignore it. I took the issue to the District Chief of Staff who phoned the Group Commander who also did not believe it. The District Chief of Staff told him to check into the situation. Bottom line... an immediate pop urinalysis was followed by a full blown CGIS investigation. Eventually many of the members allegations were born out and the OIC, XPO, and EPO were all relieved for cause.

The above is just one example....Command Master Chiefs serve an important function as a communication outlet. Most of the time they are successful in redirecting issues back into the chain of command or help the chain solve the issue. However when required they need unrestricted access to function as that outlet. No member should get into trouble for contacting their CMC.

I'm currently OIC at a 38 member shore station. I make it known to my members that I prefer them to talk to myself or the XPO first before they utilize the Command Chief network to give us a chance to solve the issue. The bottom line is...If communications within the chain are flowing properly this whole subject is generally not an issue.

BMCM Skip Bowen
Station Marathon

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

A member should never go to the CMC without notifying his command. I don't care if the policy states otherwise or not.

If there is an issue within the unit, even involving the CO/OIC, the member has an obligation to attempt to resolve it at its lowest level. In other words, good manners and common decency dictate that you give the offending party a chance at an explanation/resolution before you rat them out to higher-ups (yes, I used the word "rat").

If a solution is not reached to the member's satisfaction, he/she should then inform the offending party as such and tell them point blank that the CMC is going to get a phone call. Will that be an uncomfortable moment? Absolutely! But, that's what real adults do.

If this line-of-action doesn't occur, the CMC should turn the individual around and head them right back to their unit command.

And, I'll go one step further. If the allegations and/or complaints are unfounded, the individual should be held accountable. It is not OK to go over my head, make false accusations about anyone in my crew, and then expect to go about your business as if nothing has happened. If you are going to take that step, you need to be right.

Don't argue with me on this one. I'll go to the CMC.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, it's good to have you back, and you're right.
I have just been authorized to one up you......I know a BMCM who, as a BMCS and OINC was given a page 7 for going directly to the Gold Badge on an issue that he felt his CO wasn't taking seriously. The page 7 was for not porly utilizing his Chain of Command. Not for seeing the CMC, for not properly utilizing his chain of command.

Skip said
Command Master Chiefs have unrestricted access to all enlisted members in the regional command for a reason.
And you're right. The CMC can come down and talk to my people anytime he/she wants. But my people should inform me before they go talk to the CMC. And the CMC should inform me anytime they don't.

Art, I'll find you something in writing about open gangway. D9 policy already says that the ones voting yes are right.

Every command I have ever been a part of has had an open door policy. Every CO or OinC I have ever worked for or worked near has always told their people that they can come to them with anything. Everyone of them has also said to use the Chain of Command first.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

As OINCs all we have to do is clearly state the requirements for going outside the COC in out ORGMAN or Standing orders. Then there is no question what your crew may or may not do. I have been attached to a cutter this was required. It works and no one above the cutter level had any issues with it.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I voted NO, and Master Chief Bowen's example is a perfect reason why I voted no. There is a time and place for everything. I agree that 99.9% of the time, the member should inform their command. In whatever way the command prefer's (verbal, chit, e-mail, note under the door). Personally, as an OIC, I think it is incumbent upon the command to foster a culture that makes the members feel welcome to bring problems to the command. If I can't fix the problem, I will go with the member to the CMC, and see if we can fix it together. However, that is not the case with everyone. What would have happened in Master Chief's example it the person went to the command. Would we still have dope smokers, dealers, pimps... in the Coast Guard because they had time to cover their tracks? (I assume they lost more then their command positions) I don't know all the details of that incident but have heard plenty where a member of a command was playing "hide the weenie" with someone else's wife, or a subordinate and was eventually caught. I don't know if it was the command, or through the CMC network, but there is no place for that kind of activity in MY Coast Guard and if the command is involved, then by all means, the member should visit the CMC. :eek: Now if the issue is less serious or does not involve a member of the command, then that is a different story. The command should be given first crack at fixing the issue.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

And, I disagree. If the OIC/CO is acting illegally or violating policy, the member in question should contact the next person in the chain-of-command (OPS, Deputy, etc.) to report the infraction. Then, the member should inform his CO/OIC of the action taken.

There is absolutely no reason why everyone in the CG cannot do "the right thing" in an open and forthright manner. The CMC network was never intended to foster an environment of secret phone calls and closed door meetings.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I hear you Dennis, but I can only speak from my experience. I have never found the CMC network to be that way at all. I have found CMC's to be great sounding boards for issues and very helpful at times in getting things done (usually stuff I want). As far as junior personnel with problems, I have found the CMC net to generally be supportive of the commands. As was said earlier, usually the first thing out of the CMC's mouth is "have you talked to your command". This is how it should be.
If someone in the command is doing something "wrong", then maybe SN Gooblatz at Station Humpalot does not know who to go to at Sector Boonyville. They are told in bootcamp that the CMC is person that they can go to who they can trust. I don't have a problem with someone "ratting" a "rat". But then again, I use a dog to hunt Pheasant. The best thing to do, is just keep things above board and don't worry about secret phone calls or closed door meetings.

[MCPOCG Charles Bowen]

Hmmm...I guess that female E3 who once reported a sexual assault to me (after her chain of command did not take her seriously) was a "rat."

Dennis, In most cases I agree with you and frankly would be upset if someone took something outside the chain without giving me a chance to work on it, but what I mean when I speak of the CMC as an "outlet," is for extreme cases... and believe me they do happen. The situations are rare but they are out there. As for me I was always able to redirect efforts back into the chain. The CMC should not be the "back door" person to circumvent the chain of command.

In fact, knowing only the facts as stated in a previous post, as far as that Chief and his CO, I'd say he was wrong to do what he did. As far as exact policy, I went back and looked at the Personnel Manual regarding communication with CMCs and I agree that you could read it either way.

Personally, I think that if we all use good sense we won't have any problems anyway. CMCs should think long and hard before they take a step that will be perceived as interfering with a command ...for any reason.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

A lot of you who are saying no...seem to be saying yes (with an asterick). It seems that most (not all) of you agree that members should inform their chain of command prior to visiting the silver/gold badge...But, it's OK if they don't. I don't agree with that. We need to get back to the time when the chain of command meant something. I'm not saying that we should have scared crews that won't bring things up when bad stuff is about to happen, but let's instill in our people that proper use of the chain of command is critical to accomplishing unit missions/goals.

The more we tell our people that it's OK to bypass the chain of command...the more they will!!!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't care how extreme the case is. I don't care who is involved. A person needs to notify their chain of command about anything, prior to going outside the chain. A person doesn't have to get into details, but they do have to inform their command. They don't have to list a reason, but they do have to inform the command. The CMC and CSC are an outlet for our people. But they are our people. They are in our chain of command. They have an obligation to inform us first.
And since no one who is voting no wants to answer my previous questions, I'll refrain them. Why have CSCs at all ? Why not just run everything straight to the District CMC ? Why not just call the District Commander when you have a problem ?
The chain of command has to start somewhere.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

The Master Chief can correct me if I'm wrong, but most complaints going to the CSC/CMC network are about the CO/OIC. If for no other reason, then they refused to take action against another individual.

My experience has been that those complaints rarely draw much action. They are usually a result of a dissatisfied individual or crew that is/are experiencing a crackdown of the rules and/or change in routine. There is nothing that the CSC/CMC can do (if he chooses to do anything) except report to the parent command that morale is low.

So, does the ability of that crewman or crew to complain to the CSC/CMC create any benefit to the organization? None that I can see.

What it does do, is suggest that it is OK to circumvent the chain-of-command, question lawful orders by that c-o-c, and maybe create some discomfort for a boss that you really don't like.

In regards to the example of the sexual assault-- how far up the chain-of-command did she go? Did she talk to someone at the parent unit? If not, why not? Why was she more comfortable with a CMC than the deputy commander? She shouldn't be. She and everyone else should be willing to report an infraction from within the system. Going outside the system, into the CMC network, should be a last resort-- not the first step.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu is right! The CofC does have to start somewhere. So WHY do we have Silver Bages, and Gold Badges? Why do we have Civil Rights Officers and all the "go between's" there? I believe (doctrine according to Jim), that sometimes (hopefully rarely) there are breakdowns in commands, and maybe from time to time there is a bad apple or two that get placed in the right (or wrong) environment to foster things that should not be. For those individuals that circumvent the CofC to complain that thier collateral duty of MAA means they have to clean the toilet and they think that is unfair, I say "cry me a river". Then I will allow them the opportunity to provide unit training on the importance of the CofC. I believe that the "badges" can also be a great system of checks and balances for the use of the commands. It sounds to me like most OIC's are almost afraid of the "influence" of the CMC. The "badges" are there for the support of the command as much as the member. If the member circumvents the command for a stupid reason, as an OIC, I would not worry about it to much, if, and when, I found out about it I would use it as a training tool. If I were doing somehting that I shouldn't be doing, or if something was going on in my command that shouldn't be and I was aware of it an not taking action and someone circumvented the CofC, then I would have cause to worry. It is simply a system of checks and balances, or an "outlet" for extreme cases as it has been so well put.
As I recall from my Chief's initiation, I should not get all wound up in my "anchor", and I think the same thing about my OIC pin. The pin does not mean I walk on water at my unit. Of course I want the opportunity to fix somehting that is wrong, but I also want those members that have the bad apple wearing the pin to have some place to go.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I think that you're missing my point altogether. A OinC/CO can't prevent someone from visiting the CSC/CMC. The CSC/CMC are there for everyone, including the Command to use. But there are checks and balances in place to ensure that that visit is done correctly. You have to inform your Command before you go. You don't have to tell them why, just that you are going. My pin doesn't allow me to walk on water, but it does make me ultimately responsible for everything that goes on at my unit. I'm not concerned about anyones influence over my people, I'm concerned that people aren't using the most basic of military principles to resolve their issues. If I was looking for someone that worked for me and found out that they just wandered off to talk to the CSC/CMC without informing anyone at my unit, they would have just compounded their problem. If the CSC/CMC didn't redirect them back in my direction we would have issues as well.
I could give you an extreme condition to counter any extreme condition that you give me. Circumventing the chain of command creates more problem children than it catches. Making rotten apples to catch rotten apples isn't the answer.
The chain of command has it's own checks and balances built in to it.

I am comfortable in both my command and my policies. I stand by my decision and my vote. I wonder how many of the no votes will change their stance after they can't find that person who wandered off to file a report during the workday. Will you still feel the same after one of your people circumvents your chain of command.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The Chain of Comand has to be utilized. We can't have people in this organization that circumvent the chain of command. We can't have people in this organization who challenge our authority. It doesn't work on the front lines and it doesn't work on the high seas (or western rivers, or wherever). If our superiors don't support that notion, then shame on them. Afterall, this is a military organization...not Walmart!

Here's what I signed back in 1987 and many times since..."I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of those officers appointed over me, according to the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

It still means something to me...

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Maybe I am missing the point. It would be a 3-1/2 hour drive for a member of my command to visit either the silver or gold badge, so I think not being able to find them is not a current issue for me. I agree that I would be aggitated if I were looking for them and heard that they had left the unit or area to go see the CMC/CSC if that were realistic. I just recieved a holiday e-mail from my Sector Commander who stated that we (as his subordinates) do not need to route a chit to see the silver badge, CDAR, CRO.... but it would be a "good idea" to notify the chain of command. I agree with that. I am not FOR circumventing any chain of command. I think the chain of command is important and agree with that. I also think that there may be "extreme" circumstances that may justify a phone call, e-mail, or visit to a "badge". I also agree that I would have issues with the person that wears the "badge" if he/she did not notify me of issues brought before him/her by a member of my command. By "extreme", I mean something that would get me relieved. Going back to my original post, I think it is incumbent on the OIC to foster an environment where the chain is respected, used, and not feared. If that is the case, then this should never be an issue.

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

I think the question should be reworded. I have not seen one post where anyone has said that you shouldn’t follow the chain of command. I think everyone agrees that you should. But the question was is it required and so far I haven’t seen it in writing that you are required to. On the other hand all silver and gold badges have open door policies. Again I agree that you should at least inform your chain of command that you are going to the CMC, but is it required at this point in time NO and I stand by my vote also. Why is you so set against it? Yes you are responsible for you unit and I agree that every Coastie should have the courage to confront anyone if they have a problem with them but reality is that not everyone does including many Chiefs I know, So to expect that a new member or junior member has those traits instilled into them is just ridiculous. Some people are intimidated by those that they work for and feel more comfortable talking to someone outside the immediate chain of command. Some fear what will happen when they do take it to the command and the command doesn’t like what their hearing. Now before you get all worked up just think back to when you were a non-rate and how we feared the Chief’s Mess because you knew if you were called into the mess you were in trouble. You can’t blame anyone but you’re self if one of your people go outside the COC. If you foster good working relation, let everyone know how you stand on the issue and follow thru with what you say (actions speak louder then words) then this would be a non issue. If you are feared weather you see it founded or not that is how you are perceived and I now I would rather seek help from someone I didn’t fear then who I did regardless if they in they chain or not. Just like everything there is a reason why it is done the why it is and in most cases something happen in they past that had a negative result so it was changed so it wouldn’t happen again. Not everyone has common sense or perfect judgment.
So how do we change this? We all agree that we should inform the COC prior to seeking help from the CMC right, now how do we make it required?? Couldn’t it be as simple as the CMC’s (silver and gold badges) getting together and changing it to until you notify your command I can not help you but after you notify your coc and get their approval or do not get the situation resolved satisfactorily then you can come to me. Or something to that effect. What do ya think?

[GMCS Shane Jones]

I voted no.

What does it matter? If we, as individuals are doing the right thing right, even when no one is looking, what does it matter?

If the chain of command gets broke, a junior member member might not want to talk about it with the chain. Is it wrong for that member to go see the CMC? I don't think so, in fact I think its great that enlisted folks have this option. Officers DON'T.

The CMCs are/should be smart enough to weed out the folks who don't believe in the system (rats). They normally ask... have you addressed this with your chain of command? If not... go talk to your supervisor.

If the vote is, should a member use the chain of command, then yes.
If the vote is, is it required for a member to notify the chain of command before talking with the CMC, then no.
If the vote is, should a member notify the chain of command before talking to the CMC, then yes.

This is common courtesy.

If I'm doing everything as a leader and mentor that I should be doing and my folks don't feel comfortable talking to me, then maybe I'm not doing as well as I think I am.

r/
GMCS Shane Jones

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Art, I think that you and Jim are missing the point. The CSC/CMC are NOT in the Chain of Command. Suggesting someone use the Chain of Command is NOT a good idea. We are taught in basic that it is a requirement. I'm quite sure that the person that wrote the suggestion that Jim is referring to doesn't want anyone going over his head or behind his back. Art, re-read some of these responses. Not everyone thinks that you need to inform the COC first. And you under estimate me. I can blame people like you and the others for teaching people that it's sometimes okay to ignore my position and authority. It's not. I have a boss. I answer to him/her. If you don't feel satisfied with my performance you can talk to them. If you aren't satisfied with that, talk to their boss. If you want to talk to someone outside the Chain you still need to request permission from someone inside the Chain. That's what I remember when I think back to my time as a Non-rate. It's not ridiculous to think that that can be instilled into our junior members, it was instilled in me. 24 years later it's still there. I can be held accountable for the actions of anyone in my charge, but to think that I can prevent everyone from doing things the wrong way, regardless of the work environment that I create is ridiculous. There will always be people who seek out any loophloe to make their life easier. I can't stop them all. And I live a clean life. I'm not worried about what someone might say to someone else about the way I conduct business. I'm worried what's happened to us when we've gotten to the point where someone is willing to chuck two hundred plus years of tradition and listen to it. I'm worried about how we've gotten to the point where our weakest links are being given a free hand.
"It's okay cupcake, you don't have to listen to your Command, you can bring all of your problems straight to me. Middle of the workday, no problem, no need to tell anyone, my door is always open."
"What's that, you're not satisfied with your unit's training policy for new people. Well we'll just see about that."
"Yes COMDT I have a question, why do I have to get PQS qualified before I can move off of the Cutter and get my own apartment ?"
"What's that, having a rough time of it, Let's just see what I can do to help you get transferred to some place more of your liking."

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Shane I was up on my soap box while you posted and I think that you deserve a response.
People going outside the Chain IS what breaks it. That's what's the matter with it. It breaks down the very structure that our organization is built on.

I would never deny anyone their RIGHT to talk to the CSC/CMC. That's why those billets were created. And I know Officers that have used their services as well. They are there for all of us. But they were created outside of the Chain of Command for a reason.

The vote should be
Should people have to ask for permission before talking to the CSC/CMC ?
The answer is YES, it is required.
Do they have to tell you why they want to talk to them ?
The answer is NO, they do not.
Can you deny them access to the CSC/CMC ?
The answer is NO, you can not.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Maybe I am missing the point. It would be a 3-1/2 hour drive for a member of my command to visit either the silver or gold badge, so I think not being able to find them is not a current issue for me. I agree that I would be aggitated if I were looking for them and heard that they had left the unit or area to go see the CMC/CSC if that were realistic. I just recieved a holiday e-mail from my Sector Commander who stated that we (as his subordinates) do not need to route a chit to see the silver badge, CDAR, CRO.... but it would be a "good idea" to notify the chain of command. I agree with that. I am not FOR circumventing any chain of command. I think the chain of command is important and agree with that. I also think that there may be "extreme" circumstances that may justify a phone call, e-mail, or visit to a "badge". I also agree that I would have issues with the person that wears the "badge" if he/she did not notify me of issues brought before him/her by a member of my command. By "extreme", I mean something that would get me relieved. Going back to my original post, I think it is incumbent on the OIC to foster an environment where the chain is respected, used, and not feared. If that is the case, then this should never be an issue.

Jim...I think the heat and isolation has finally taken its toll on you.

Here's the problem (or potential problem). When a member is told that they don't have to use their chain of command to deal with issues...that gives them the option as to whether they use it or not. There shouldn't be an option. There is always someone in the chain of command to talk to first. I realize we can always come up with an extreme scenario that disprooves my logic, but just work with me. I'm not talking about the extreme case where there is illegal activity or worse happening. I'm talking about the MK3 who doesn't like the MK1 and he goes to the CSC about it instead of the XPO/OINC. Then, the CSC doesn't re-direct them and tells them that next time they should run this up their chain. Six days later, it happens again. You can have the best run unit in the CG, but if you have one member that refuses to use the chain of command and then their told it's OK...your unit will suffer. A command needs support from both sides of the chain.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And you take that same case, where the OinC and XPO are trying to explain to the member that he/she needs to use the chain of command, and in walks the CO telling them that they do not. Oh, it's a "good idea", just not a requirement. That person has now been given carte blanche to ignore every decision you make. They will start telling everyone else at the unit that they should be doing the same thing. Don't like what you're being told, take it to the CSC. That CO has just cut you off at the knees.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

The vote should be
Should people have to ask for permission before talking to the CSC/CMC ?
The answer is YES, it is required.
Do they have to tell you why they want to talk to them ?
The answer is NO, they do not.
Can you deny them access to the CSC/CMC ?
The answer is NO, you can not.

If you can't deny them access, which I agree with, than isn't it more like them giving notice instead of asking permission? Which is also how I voted and explained way back in the beginning of this thread.

I have enjoyed the back and forth of this thread, but none of it has affected my standing.

Rest assured a CMC worth his/her salt will look at any situation objectively and most likely do the right thing, whether it be sending the member back to make the COC work, point the member in the right direction to help him/her fix the problem or get involved directly to fix it. These are not the only options, just a sample.

We are paid the big bucks to make hard decisions and take action when it is required. This takes more than just spouting paragraphs from some COMDTINST. It takes experience, knowledge, leadership and hopefully wisdom.

A CMC "balances workforce needs with Command goals." Never an easy job and never plain black and white. (woops, sorry for spouting something from a COMDTINST)

I'm done. Thanks for reading.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

No they're still asking permission because it's not a matter of IF they can go, but WHEN they can go. They're asking for the time to visit the CSC/CMC.

I'm not worried about the CSC/CMCs who are worth their salt, I'm worried about the ones who aren't. I'm not worried about the people trying to do the right thing, I'm worried about the ones who aren't. Doing the right things right, even when people aren't looking, means holding other people accountable to standards as well. I'm not a give people an inch kinda person. Allowing people to "sometimes" do things, allows some people to always do them.
I understand that you don't see my point, and I hope that nothing happens in your career that shows you just how right I can be.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

No they're still asking permission because it's not a matter of IF they can go, but WHEN they can go. They're asking for the time to visit the CSC/CMC.

I'm not worried about the CSC/CMCs who are worth their salt, I'm worried about the ones who aren't. I'm not worried about the people trying to do the right thing, I'm worried about the ones who aren't. Doing the right things right, even when people aren't looking, means holding other people accountable to standards as well. I'm not a give people an inch kinda person. Allowing people to "sometimes" do things, allows some people to always do them.
I understand that you don't see my point, and I hope that nothing happens in your career that shows you just how right I can be.

Senior,

I was basically agreeing with you. I accept your point that it is requesting permission on WHEN to visit the CMC. Your original post didn't point that out.

I don't understand your other comments. When did I ever say that anything that you referred to in the rest of your post?

I think you just like to banter. You don't need to worry about my career. It is doing just fine. I have always and will continue to hold myself and others accountable.

There will always be people who do the right thing because it is the right thing. There are also lots of people who don't know how to or don't want to do the right thing. Our job is to detect who is who.

R,

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Am I the only one who thinks that the command cadre and the "mess" see this differently? Stu and Deane, great posts!

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

A member of my crew is required to inform me that he/she wishes to speak to the CMC. It is up to the member to either tell me what the issue is or not. At my unit, I foster open and frank communications both up and down the chain of command. This type of communications has had very good results by the crew feeling able to inform me of the issues in which they were speaking to the CMC.

The CMC is a great tool for both the member and the command. We can not put a lock on the door with only the OIC/CO having the key, but the command needs to know when the member is knocking on that door.

The command can not refuse anyone the right to speak to the CMC. However, they must inform the command they are going to the CMC. The CMC is outside the chain of command and for that very reason, to keep "good order and discipline" at the unit, they must inform the command of the visit.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

My appologies for not knowing how to use the "quote" thingy.

Stu said: "I'm worried what's happened to us when we've gotten to the point where someone is willing to chuck two hundred plus years of tradition and listen to it. I'm worried about how we've gotten to the point where our weakest links are being given a free hand. When and why were the CMC/CEA positions formed?"It's okay cupcake, you don't have to listen to your Command, you can bring all of your problems straight to me. Middle of the workday, no problem, no need to tell anyone, my door is always open."
"What's that, you're not satisfied with your unit's training policy for new people. Well we'll just see about that."
"Yes COMDT I have a question, why do I have to get PQS qualified before I can move off of the Cutter and get my own apartment ?"
"What's that, having a rough time of it, Let's just see what I can do to help you get transferred to some place more of your liking." Prime examples of what I have said earlier. That individual should be re-directed to their respective CofC for "training".

Deane Said: "Here's the problem (or potential problem). When a member is told that they don't have to use their chain of command to deal with issues...that gives them the option as to whether they use it or not. There shouldn't be an option. Not what I said. The CofC should always be the first option for dealing with "problems".
There is always someone in the chain of command to talk to first. I realize we can always come up with an extreme scenario that disprooves my logic, but just work with me. I'm not talking about the extreme case where there is illegal activity or worse happening. Which is where we differ. I am talking about those extreme circumstances. I'm talking about the MK3 who doesn't like the MK1 and he goes to the CSC about it instead of the XPO/OINC. Then, the CSC doesn't re-direct them and tells them that next time they should run this up their chain. Six days later, it happens again. You can have the best run unit in the CG, but if you have one member that refuses to use the chain of command and then their told it's OK...your unit will suffer. [I] Then you should have a problem with the CMC/CSC that does not re-direct the person to the CofC. A command needs support from both sides of the chain. [B] Exactly!!!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joseph, I love to banter, babble and bu!!$4i+. I wasn't aiming the last part of my last post at you, just repeat what some people are failing to hear.

You said
There will always be people who do the right thing because it is the right thing. There are also lots of people who don't know how to or don't want to do the right thing. Our job is to detect who is who.

You're absolutely right. Using the Chain of Command is the right thing to do. The people that don't know how to use it or don't want to use it are doing the wrong thing.

Jim, you just don't get it. If you were co-located with the CSC and one of your problem children kept going directly to them. you would see our point. Trust me, you would be more upset with the person that worked for you than you would be with the CSC.
If you honestly think that the COC should always be the first option when dealing with a problem, then you're right, but you voted the wrong way.

This is an all or nothing arguement. If exceptions are made people will look for any excuse to further blur the line. The Chain of Command must remain the one constant in Military Life.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Joseph, I love to banter, babble and bu!!$4i+. I wasn't aiming the last part of my last post at you, just repeat what some people are failing to hear.


Roger that Stuart. I thought it was directed at me and was confused. As with email, discussion groups and most electronic media, sometimes it is hard to convey emotions, eye contact, humor etc. I think we are on the same page on this subject.

One last comment and then I am done with this thread. Each and every person is an individual, with constant input that requires processing, thought and decision making. We can't put every person and situation into nice little cubby holes. One thing that makes us what we are is our flexibility and intelligence. Using those tools will hopefully help us to make the right decisions for each situation.

Oh, this is a general comment to the thread and not to any individual person.

Peace out.

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

As long as the CMC community has an open door policy which the actively support by telling everyone come see me anytime you like and you don’t even need your commands approval to come see me, this debate will never go away. Stuart, I agree we do need to follow the chain of command and I agree with you, I’m just being the devils advocate. I’m sure you’re well aware that no matter how much effort we put in our people sometimes they just don’t listen. Like I was trying to say is that I agree but this will always be a issue regardless of our beliefs until the open door is closed and to get in you need your chain of your command to open it and the only ones that can close that door is the CMC’s. A lot of problems would be solved at the lowest level without the CMC getting involved if this were the case. We are smart men and woman and if given the opportunity we would solve the issue ourselves or with help from our fellow brother and sister’s, right?
The CMC should be a tool in the tool box and to open the tool box you need to get the key from your supervisor first, even if he/she is the problem. Who knows most likely if this happen you might not even need the key.
As the way things are today are they required? No but should they be? Yes

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Art, I have an open door policy....and I have an XPO. If something is brought to me that should have been brought to him first, I re-direct it. If it should have been brought to someone else before that I trust that he will re-direct it. We support that COMDT policy at my unit. I also have some insight as to why this thread was started in the first place.

Here's a hypothetical scenerio for you. You are the OinC of a unit and have a written policy that anyone wanting to visit the CSC has to notify your command first. Everyone who reports on board your unit has to sign your unit's organizational manual stating that they understand your unit's policies. Someone violates that policy and goes straight to the CSC with an issue. They are gone from their appointed place of duty for several hours in the middle of a duty day and your command has no idea where they are. When the CSC approaches you to discuss the issue, you ask why the person wasn't re-directed back to your command. The CSC tells you that he has no obligation to re-direct your people back to you, he has no obligation to inform you of their visits, and your people have no obligation to inform you before they visit. Which one of you is right ?

Using your chain of command IS required today, as it WAS yesterday , and SHOULD BE tomorrow, as it should be.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu,
In your scenerio, I agree 100%. Where I disagree is in those "extreme" cases. In your scenerio I would say that the CSC is wrong and should have re-directed the member to the COC. I would be just as pissed about the member leaving during the work day as not notifying the COC. That is 2 strikes against that member. Now the question becomes "what is the members" issue? Is it something that can be dealt with at the unit level or does the member need outside assistance? I would first be inclined to see what the members issue is before giving him/her more "issues". If their issue is a complaint about a shipmate or something stupid, then I will give them something else to worry about. I DO think it is imcumbent however for the CSC/CMC to use discrecion when determining what is a CSC/CMC issue and what is actually a COC issue and direct the member accordingly.

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

Amen brother;
I agree with Jim 100%. I can see where Stu or any OINC/CO/supervisor would be upset to say the least. If the cmc’s would change there verb age to something along the lines of my previous post we would most likely be talking about another issue. Questions I’m not sure of. What would you book them on? Not following a Direct order. Is it a lawful order to require someone to use the chain of command in regards to the CMC? How far would a 4910 fly? Especially if the member appealed the decision and took it all the way to the E-10 or higher. We need to have this down in black and white and not in a very light shade of gray. Is there anymore input on this from the gold badges? I guess this would be a good topic at the CO/OINC conference.
Stu I’m with you I get your point. But discussions like this, I think will help change the outlook on the CMC roll and hopefully enough CMC’s are viewing this thread and will bring our concerns to all the other CMC’s and change the way they do business as CMC’s. If it were me and a Silver or gold badge responded in they way you described in your scenario I would have contact the E-10 an let him know how one of his CMC’s were handling issues. Kind of sounds like a power trip to me.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But you see Art......you're still not with me. If I had a problem with the CSC, I wouldn't take it up with his COC, I'd take it up with mine. And the CSC's first line supervisor is going to be the Command he/she serves under. Most CSC are collateral duty jobs and they weren't appointed, they were selected. If I'm not going to allow anyone else to skip steps, I shouldn't either.

Jim, I can't envision any extreme cases. I'm narrow (closed) minded, I'll give you that. But let me share my reasoning with you.

"Do not bypass anyone in the chain of command, this is a violation of a basic military principle. You are permitted to make requests; just make them through channels."

Now I wish that I had made that up, but I didn't. I copied that out of the lastest edition of the Blue Jackets Mannual. A VIOLATION of a basic military principle. Seems fairly cut and dry to me.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

I copied that out of the lastest edition of the Blue Jackets Mannual. A VIOLATION of a basic military principle. Seems fairly cut and dry to me.

Stu, only to play devil's advocate, the Blue Jackets isn't UCMJ? I'll admit that its been a while since I last reviewed all of the articles, but I don't remember seeing jumping the COC as a punishable offense. And I know that if you have a standing order that the COC is notified for everything, then I would challenge you to be able to back that up if someone violates that? Because if someone violates that standing order, is a violation of a "lawful" order?

And I'm asking this only because I'm not, nor will I ever be an OINC....Is there any teeth to giving a standing order to someone that isn't a violation of the UCMJ?

And I'll throw this out there, using your same situation, SN Goblotz is on leave and has an issue, and goes to the CSC/CMC? It's on his time, not yours.

I'm going to go back to the original question, does someone need to route a chit to see the CSC/CMC? I voted no, I don't feel they need to route a chit, now SHOULD they notify their command? Yes. And being a (former) supervisor, I told my people that if they have an issue that they don't feel comfortable coming to me with, I only asked that they tell me that they are going to see the CSC/CMC. If the issue was something that I needed to know about, I knew the CSC/CMC would notify me!

But you have to remember that not every unit is set up the same as a STA or ANT, I work right along side the CSC, and I don't see a problem with myself going straight to the CSC, and I don't see any reason why I would have to go to my CO/XO first, or even my direct supervisor! Granted I'm in the "M" community (can I still say that), but I don't see it much different for the airdales.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Michael, where to start where to start........

The origin question didn't ask if you had to route a chit. It asked if you have to request permission to see the CSC/CMC.

Your first step in correcting someone who violates your standing orders doesn't have to be booking them. And yes violating a standing order is punishable by the UCMJ. For the scenario I gave, Art 86 leaps to mind. Absence without leave- "Going from appointed place of duty.", "Absence from unit, organization , or place of duty.", "Abandoning Watch or Guard."

(1) In general. This article is designed to cover every case not elsewhere provided for in which any member of the armed forces is through the member's own fault not at the place where the member is required to be at a prescribed time. It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jursisdiction and control.............

They left without telling you where they were going, when they had an obligation to do so.....
I'm not making this stuff up.
And there is no such thing as their own time when it comes to the UCMJ. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks out of the year. Everybody answers to somebody.
Depending on who wrote the standing order it can be taken as violating a "lawful" order or a "direct" order. You can't write a standing order that violates COMDT policy or the UCMJ and expect it to stick. For failing to obey an order, go with Art 91, Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncomissioned officer, or petty officer.
I get that you're asking people to do something that I'm telling them that have to do. But when you say that things are different in the M field and with the Airdales, understand that it only because you allow it to be. You're giving them the option, I'm not. I'm an easy guy to work for. I have rules. Rules that were passed down to me and rules that I enforce, with everyone. I have never prevented someone for getting the help that they need. But there are channels that everyone must go through.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I'm going to go back to the original question, does someone need to route a chit to see the CSC/CMC? I voted no, I don't feel they need to route a chit, now SHOULD they notify their command? Yes.

Michael...Go back and re-read the original question. It doesn't say anything about a chit. The question asked if you had to "Inform" your chain of command. So, you answered NO, but really meant YES?????

Now I'm confused!

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Dean/Stu,

Not to engage in semantics here (I am a PA and wordsmith all day long), but look at the way the question and the answer choices are posed. The phrase required is in the answer, to simplify the question, perhaps a simple Yes or No would have been sufficient. Therefore, I voted No.

Do members have to inform their command that they are visiting the Command Chief?

Yes, it's required
No, it's not required

Now, I believe that the CSC/CMCs have an open door policy for a reason, and that is so that the junior members can have the feeling of being able to approach a senior person about an issue, or issues that are affecting them.

Perhaps I am spoiled by my assignments in Area and District Units where Gold Badges are easily approachable, something that can be difficult for operational units, I would rather create and foster a safe environment, where my people can approach the Badges without fear.

Depending on the situation, I would like to receive a courtesy call from the Gold Badge if one of my people approaches them or re-route them back to the COC about something that should have been discussed with me.

I encourage people to use the EAP program to obtain assistance, would you require them to inform the COC that they intend to access assistance through that channel?

No, but you should expect them to inform he COC that they will be off attending an appointment (medical, or otherwise).

I see that as the same as aproaching the Badges on an issue.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu,
Here is an example of an "extreme" case. I have heard that this actually happened. Say a member of the command is involved with "wife swapping" and a new member comes to the unit. His wife is approached... If I were that new member, going directly to the "badge" would be a good thing to do. If it were me I would probably visit that member of the command and violate numerous articles of the UCMJ. I will ask again... "Why do we have a "badge" position?" Also, are we asking permission "to" see the "badge" or for permission "when" to see the "badge". Seems to me that "permission" implies that it can be denied. Symantics again... Should the member inform the command that they "intend" to see the badge? Sure, especially if it is during the work day.
Deane,
I look forward to talking to you more about this offline. I will see you Friday. I think I may know where you are coming from and probably agree with you.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, I'm not trying to scare anyone away from getting whatever help they need from whatever source. There are channels to go thru though. My CO at the sector has an open door policy as well. That doesn't imply that people can ignore their chain of command and go to him whenever they feel like it. It means that they person is always there and open for them. They still have a chain of command to follow to get to that open door. Here's how it works, immediate supervisor, I want to go talk to the Sector CO about an issue I have. Would you like to talk to me about it first ? No. I want to talk to him. And so on and so on up the chain until ypou get to that open door.
And yes I require people to talk to me before they go to the EAP, FAR, CDAR, or anyone else outside of their COC. Always have. They don't have to tell me why, but they do have to tell me that they are going. These are more of the services that are set up for them, I'm the channel that was set up for them to go thru. Try this question on for size:
Does a member have to inform his supervisor before departing on liberty ?
Yes, it is required.
No, it is not required.

Jim, I'm blind, I don't see an "extreme" circumstance there. If I were the new member I'd race you to the Courts Martial. It's not about what you or I would do, it's about what should be done. The new member should use his chain to ask to speak with that member of the command's supervisor. He should use those avenues to explain that a hostile work environment has been created that he can no longer work in. One or both members needs to be transferred. If he doesn't like the response that he gets he should try the CSC, or the EPA, FAR, .....whoever to takes to get his case resolved to his satisfaction.

The "Badges" were created to resolve issues and support the command that they serve. They take issues that they see to the command that they serve. They provide the experienced enlisted point of view to the command that they serve. But they were created "outside" of the chain of command. The chain of command still needs to be utilized.

Permission needs to be requested because it can be denied based on the timing of the request. You can't prevent them from seeing the CSC, but you can make sure that you meet your operational commitments first. I'll be my own devil's advocate on this one.
The right way........Go clean the head. "I want to talk to the CSC." Fine, right after you clean the head.
The wrong way....."I want to talk to the CSC." Fine, but I want you to clean every head on this base before you go.

Both you and Steve think that I'm argueing over Symantics. I'll not, you both are. You're looking for some kind of feel good scenario that makes your justification palatable, but no matter how you sell it, going outside the chain of command goes against everything I have ever be taught, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Try and visualize the size of my mouth, and you'll realize that you're wasting your time trying to change my mind. This is engrained in the very fiber of my being. The COMDT could call me tomorrow, and tell he that he has read this thread, and that I'm wrong, and I would tell him, "No Admiral, you're wrong." If he comes out with a policy that states otherwise, I won't like it, but I will support it. Until then you two might want to try and win over Deane or one of the others. I'll be waiting by my phone.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu,
I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mine. We can argue symantics all day long but your scenerio about the toilets just made my "symantic point". You are scheduling a time for the member to do what he was going to do. If you said "NO", where do you think he would go as soon as liberty was granted? Moot point.
Q: Why are pee pee tests random and a suprize?
A's: To maintain good order and discipline. To keep everyone on an even playing field. To ferret out the bad apples that might otherwise find a way to cover their tracks.
That is exactly what I am talking about "extreme" cases. Unfortunatly, from time to time we may get a real dirt bag in the COC and that person needs to be ferreted out. The previous example that I gave was just such a case. If a member of a command is knowingly doing something very wrong, don't you think that a junior person saying "I want to visit the CSC and I can't tell you why" isn't going to "tell them why" and take action to cover their tracks? I am all about the COC, but I realize that occasionally there may be a "kink" in the chain that needs to be bypassed and removed. I also believe that whatever color badge the person wears, if they wear one, they must use good discretion when listening to people to determine whether they need to be re-directed to the COC.

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

Stu, I believe you’re very wrong on one point. If on my own time (not at work or on duty) I wish to call EAP it is no one business. It is a private matter that the member chooses who they want to know about it and not the commands. That is why EAP is there and if they don’t feel comfortable seeking advice on the topic from anyone in their chain. They are not required to let the COC know that they even called EAP to just talk or get help for what ever the situation might be. Now is their a possibility that you might be able to help me? Sure but it’s my choice on who I seek that personal help from and not anyone else’s. We are not trained as financial, psychological, marital, death in the family, emotional, depression, domestic violence counselors, ect. It’s the members choice and they do not need anyone’s permission to call or receive help from them, and depending on the situation you might not even have a say in the member receiving the help during the work/duty day and be required to give them that time off. Like it or not, sometimes things are just out of our control. If someone called EAP because they were thinking about committing suicide and were admitted to the hospital for observation you would reprimand them for not letting you know first before they called EAP? I doubt it, but there are extreme cases. What about a male coast guard member being abused by their non coast guard spouse and he contacts EAP after work? Here’s a question, I work in Alaska but my boss is in Seattle and I have an issue with the way duty is run (On the way its ran not on standing duty) here on the base in Alaska. Would you say I should call him before I walk down the hall and knock on the CMC’s door?
Convince me that I’m wrong

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Here’s a question, I work in Alaska but my boss is in Seattle and I have an issue with the way duty is run (On the way its ran not on standing duty) here on the base in Alaska. Would you say I should call him before I walk down the hall and knock on the CMC’s door?
Convince me that I’m wrong

Art...if I understand your question, YES you need to talk to your supervisor prior to walking down the passageway and talking to the CMC. If you have an issue with the duty rotation, you first MUST address it with the person who makes the duty list...and then work your way up the chain from there.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's something that might be worth a read to all...


The Chain of Command Concept


The chain of command is the basic organizing concept under which lines
of authority, supervisory relationships, and accountability are established
and implemented for all Coast Guard members.


A fundamental part of the Coast Guard’s military organization is the responsibility
and authority inherent in the chain of command, both in terms of a Commander’s
obligation to establish and enforce policies and standards, and the responsibility
of all personnel to adhere to those policies and standards.


In the field, the Commanding Officer (CO), or Officer in Charge (OINC), is the
senior individual in the chain of command. He/she is ultimately responsible for:

• Ensuring successful mission performance;
• Maintaining good order and discipline at the unit; and
• Promoting the morale, well-being, and professional development of
all personnel assigned to his/her command

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong.....your mind is made up. But in all of our ranting the vote is now even. The tide is turning. People are starting to agree with the yes votes. I'm also with Deane in thinking that some of the no votes really meant yes. I no longer think that you can't see my point, I'm thinking that you won't. And just so you know, people who break the chain of command ARE the bad apples. People in the chain that allow it ARE the weak links. I think I may have mentioned this before, but maybe you didn't see it. There are proper channels to go through to achieve your desired results. Those pee pee tests are designed to weed out bad apples. The COC is designed to run a military organization. People have resently been RFC because their subordinates properly utilized their COC. The system works. And again, not arguing symantics, stating the facts.

Art, you're going to have to wait a minute with I break out a chart and establish DATUM because I've completely lost you.
First of all let me put your doubts to rest. If someone in my command felt suicicidal and went outside out my COC without notifing us first, I would absolutely reprimand them when they came back. They have an obligation to notify us and that point is well understand in my workplace. When they contact me, I order them to contact the EPA and my next call is to the EPA also. They are the subject matter specialist and that is why they are there. But the COC has it's place and is there also.The EPA has an obligation to both the member and the command. The member has an obligation to the command.
Secondly.....there is no such thing as your own time for active duty personnel. You can't smoke dope on your own time, drink and drive on your own time, or go outside the COC on your own time. While on active duty you have swore an oath that didn't mention anything about while you were on liberty or leave.
Thirdly.......you're absolutely right, somethings are out of our control. Holding people accountable to military standards and protocol is not one of them.
Fourthly, Fifthly, and Sixthly.....the COC knows no geographical limitations. Why would you call the CSC/CMC to complain about a duty rotation that they have no control over. Your first call HAS to be to the person making the duty rotation. They may not even be aware of how the duty affects you. Do you honestly want a third party arguing your case. Let's take that up a notch....you're stationed at HQ and the COMDT's office is two doors closer than your supervisor's. Do you settle for convenience or do you do what's right ? Someone is making certain comments that you find inappropriate, do you have to notify them that it bothers you before you can claim harrassment? And before you jump on that one, re-read it. Some comments are way over the line, other are just inappropriate. If you doubt me on that one, contact your local FAR, EPA , CSC/CMC to verify the CG's stand on that one.
Lastly.....and I really wish that I had said this before.......regardless of the issue, the member HAS to notify their COC first. They don't have to give you a reason why they want to talk to the FAR, EPA, CSC/CMC, your immediater supervisor, the Chaplain, fill in the blank......But they have to let you know first. Before you start typing, if you want to go to the Chaplain to ask him to baptize your baby, discuss a purely personal issue, or see what time Catholic Services are on Sunday, you don't need to notify me first. But if you're going to talk to him about a personal issue or something work related you do. You don't have to tell me what it is.....but you have to let me know first. Personal issues are just that...personal. You can discuss them with whoever you want. But military personnel have made a personal obligation to notify their COC first.

You guys have become so touchy feely on this subject that you've lost touch with the real issue at hand, and I feel for you.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

If someone in my command felt suicicidal and went outside out my COC without notifing us first, I would absolutely reprimand them when they came back. :eek: :eek:

WOW!!! SeniorChief, Maybe you are the reason this member is comtemplating this, Maybe not. So if a member is sitting in His/Her apt. with a bottle of liquor and a handgun, thinking about mothballing it, you require them to notify your COC before they call EAP, I for one, find that apalling and am glad I don't work for you.


Let's say they call EAP and as soon as they hang up with them they call your COC----They still get reprimanded, after all they didn't notify your COC first???
Or better yet say they call 911 and say they are comtemplating cashing in(this has happened to me with a junior member once), do you still reprimand them?


I would ask the member if they got the help they needed and then verify as much as possible.


I'm stunned, I'm not touchy feely, ask anyone I have worked with in the past or work with now, but if a member feels that strongly that they feel they can't call me or the COC then the right thing to do is use the system the CG put in place to help said members, in this instance. I do feel the have an obligation to notify the COC as soon as possible after the fact, but for me to be the first call, again WOW.

Todd

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

I think my question was misunderstood. For clarification say my boss works in Seattle 850 miles away in a different district that has no control over the day to day operations on base in this district. Say I already brought this up with the watch coordinator and still wasn’t happy with the out come. So what I'm getting from you is that I should still call Seattle and let them know I’m going to the silver bagde about an issue that’s happening in another District? Heck they barely now our office exists up here let alone care what we do on a day to day basis. I could not show up for work for weeks and no one would even know. As for the Eap stuff I still disagree. Yes we are in the coast guard 24/7/365 but we still do have personal private lives. I didn’t say I was breaking a law like drunk driving just a personal issue. Your supervisors are not your father or Chaplin, consoler. If its work related your right I would be there at your door but like the CMC it was created for reasons and I feel sorry for the person that you would reprimand that has just tried to commit suicide. Just ads fuel to the fire in my humble opinion. Hmmm maybe this is why programs like this were started.

P.S I like your nautical reference about you losing me. Oh and just so you know I think this is a great debate and appreciate the opportunity to debate everyone that chimes in. this is a touchy topic but a good one to mull over. If it weren’t for CGCHIEFS.com a lot of our opinions and concerns would go unheard. BZ to all that participate. ;)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Todd if you think I may be the reason someone is considering suicide, you don't know me at all. I don't weild that type of power or influence.
If they call 911, I don't care. If they called their priest, I don't care. If they told their family about problems that they are having at work.....I don't care.
If they are going to someone else in the CG outside of their COC , I care, and I want to be notified first. The COC IS the system that the CG put into place to solve peoples problems at the lowest level.
You want a WOW. You want to think "MY God YOU ARE A PR!ck." I once reprimanded someone who worked for me who had suicidal thoughts and came to me first, for not coming to me sooner. I really wish I could give you their name so you could call them up and ask them about what it's like working for me. That person knew I cared more about them than they cared about themself. I would have bent over backwards to make sure that person got the help that they wanted. I know exactly what that person and their spouse think about me, so you can think anything that you want.
I've said this in another thread but I guess it bares repeating.......find me someone who has worked for me in the past, that wouldn't love to come and work for me again. The only people that I know that wouldn't want to work for me again have certified as OinCs themselves and only want OinC jobs.

Art, I didn't misunderstand your question, I just don't understand your reasoning. But yes, if you've already talked to the person who does the duty rotation and they don't want to listen to you, call your supervisor. Make them do their job. Get them involved in what's going on in an area that they have responsibility over. At a minimum let them know that you're going to the CMC about an issue, regardless of what district you or they are in.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu,
Humor me for a moment. Say you are a Gold Badge. (I know that this is a stretch for you, but just try to go along with me here). You get a call at 1600, just as you are trying to get out of the office and go home. It is SN Gooblatz from Station Boodocks. He tells you that his OIC has been making suggestions to your wife that are not appropriate and that if she does not comply, it may hurt your Coast Guard future. Do you say,
A: Did you talk with him about it yourself? And leave it at that.
B: Tell him to take it up his chain of command. And leave it at that. OR
C: Say, Hmmmm, that does not sound right, can you tell me any more amplifying information? Thinking to yourself that this may be something that needs to be looked into.

Touchy Feely Bad Apple. (First time being accused of that)

[MSTCM C Stevenson]

Should it be required that members route a request to see the Group/Sector/Activities Silver Badge?

No.

Should they have to inform their chain of command that they will be visiting the Silver Badge?

Short of some extreme circumstance, yes. A verbal with their immediate Supervisor should do. If for no other reasons than 1) it's good business and 2) professional courtesy calls for it. If the member doesn't understand what those things are, it is incumbent upon the Supervisor to use the request as an opporutunity to clue them in... educate them.

Seriously - Putting drama aside, it's likely a Group/Sector/Activities Silver Badge will have those questions answered for you. As in they'll have already have a policy. If you're not sure if they have one or what it is, ask.

BT
NNNN

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I'm the good humor man......I take it that you meant the the comments were made to SN Gooblatz's wife and about his future, not mine. Either way I wouldn't need to be a Gold Badge to act on that information. As a Coastie, I have an obgligation to report any such activity to my supervisor. As a coastie, I would put his OinC on report, if I thought the story might be true. I would work with that SN and ensure that he and his wife were afforded all of the protections the CG has in place for them. I would do the right thing. What's your point ? My acting on information about violations of the UCMJ have nothing to do with the question at hand. SN Gooblatz still had an obligation to inform his command prior to visiting me. He's still wrong. That doesn't allow me to ignore my obligations to ensure that the case is investigated. You can't unring a bell. The case could uncover the largest wife swapping, kiddie porn ring in our nation's history, and my face could be on the cover of TIME as "Man of the Year". That still doesn't make SN Gooblatz's skipping the COC right.
Make up any scenario that you want. Make it as personal as you want. What's right is right, always. Using your COC is what's right. It's what's required, always. Your pee pee tests don't catch every CG member that does drugs. That doesn't mean that the ones that don't get caught, didn't do anything wrong. Not everyone that violates their COC will be held accountable for it. The doesn't mean that the ones who aren't, didn't do anything wrong. You are ART's analogies are getting further and further from DATUM.....I may have to lauch aircraft to track you two down. Let go of your pride Jim. You can't always be right. You're backing the wrong horse. And you don't have to tell me I'm right either. I know I'm right. Is that enough humor, 'cause I can go on for days.

[MKC John Shearouse]

This topic seems to be a hot one. I have read all the post here and it does seem to be split right down the middle. I have been in for 25 years and it was always past to me that before seeing one of the badges you had to inform your COC. But this did not require a chit. A verbal info was always sat. Now I do not know if this works for all the COC out there but it always did at the ones I have had till now. I do not know for sure if this command requires a chit or not. Since I have been a chief I have always informed my workers they have the right to see the folks that wear the badges. But I have always told them to let me know first and I would inform the higher ups. But I have also always told them that if the problem can be handle with out bothering the badges we needed to try that first but if it could not then off to see the badges the wonderful badges of the Guard.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Jim there is not a CMC, silver or gold, that has the authority to do anything about wife swapping or ANY other UCMJ violation that any CO/OINC commits. His first call would be to the OINCs COC. Period long break.

CMCs are there to help the CO with enlisted workforce issues. How would my CO, d17 Admiral, feel if I bypassed him and went straight to his CMC or better yet PACAREA CMC? Umm lets see......a quick trip to Juneau would most likely be the first outcome after a phone call from oh lets see my supervisor, Chief of Staff and him, most likely all three.

Art, I am in Alaska too my COC is 600 miles away but if the ISC told me my guys had to stand duty, after discussing this perssonally with what ever officer or chief that came up with that plan, I would ask to see the base CO and remind him he has NO operational or adminstrative control over me or any one else at my unit. Then my COC would be notified. It would take a direct order from D17 to get me to stand duty outside of my unit. Time of hieghtened terror status is about the only thing that would not take orders.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

If they call 911, I don't care. If they called their priest, I don't care. If they told their family about problems that they are having at work.....I don't care.
If they are going to someone else in the CG outside of their COC , I care, and I want to be notified first. The COC IS the system that the CG put into place to solve peoples problems at the lowest level.
You want a WOW. You want to think "MY God YOU ARE A PR!ck." I once reprimanded someone who worked for me who had suicidal thoughts and came to me first, for not coming to me sooner..


Senior Chief,
I thought "OUR" COC implemented the EAP for just these type of situations, anonomous counseling, help, whatever you want to call it. The EAP is not someone else in the CG and not part of any COC I have heard of.
What is the difference between the EAP, Their pastor, or 911 just that the CG pays the bill for EAP?

So if someone is suicidal and they call 911 vice EAP (instead of you) then they don't get reprimanded? HMMMMM

Are you a prick? I don't know, based on your comments I have my opinion but that's just my opinion.

The last part I have quoted plus what I quoted in an earlier post suggest to me, if someone (in your COC) is suicidal they better either call 911, their pastor or anyone not affiliated with the CG or tell you as soon as the thought enters their head or they will be reprimanded. Now back to the original thread none of those are the Gold or Silver badge. I do agree that when someone goes out of the COC they should notify the COC prior to doing so, it's just good buisness sense and the professional thing to do. Is it in writing? I guess that varies with different commands.

My .02,
Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Todd, if anyone who worked for me, ever had any of those thoughts, they should call ME. That's why I'm here. My people know that. They always have. We probably have two different ideas about what exactly "reprimand" means. Let's not confuse EAP with 911 or a priest. Neither 911 nor your priest have an obligation to the command. The EAP does. If someone reports that they are considering hurting themself or others, the EAP "HAS" to notify the command. Their visit comes back to the COC. They are part of the CG structure so, I tell everyone who works for me, that I want to be notified first. Again, they have a "right" to talk about their issues with anyone they want. They don't have tell me why they want to talk to someone else. But if you think that taking that extra step is going to prevent someone who wants help from getting it, you're sadly mistaken. If you think that all the talking and compassion in the world is going to prevent someone who really wants to end it all from doing so, you're in for a rude awakening. "Most" people who talk about suicide don't actually want to die. They want help. "Most" people who jump the COC, don't want help. They want to cause problems within the chain. They want to draw attention to problems that they perceive to exists, and don't want to go through the proper channels to do it.

This thread isn't about any of my keen insights into the minds of our people. It's about whether or not using the COC is required. It's not about routing chits. It's about whether or not using the COC is required. Two things that we both know, I am a prick, and using your COC is required.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Looks like we have a 7-10 split on this issue. As I bury the hatchet on this thing I would like to make two points.
1. Adjust your sea clutter Stu. I think we are much close on this issue than you realize.
2. I am personally glad that we have people in "badge" positions as well as EAP and other resources to help individuals that need help and be an outlet for them if they need it. (If it were only that easy to get a 2nd opinion through TRICARE). Not all commands are "perfect" or as "approachable" as we like to think we are, and thank goodness for outside people to help those that actually do need it. I hope that if an individual needs assistance of some sort that they come to me first but I will not "blow a gasket" if they don't, so long as they actually need some sort of help. WHEN, I find out about it, I will look inwardly to see what I can to to make myself more available or approachable.... First lets get their problem fixed, and I will work on mine. Now if the individual is as Stu say's, a "troublemaker", then we have other avenues to deal with that individual. COC.
BT
NNNN

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, just as a matter of proper etiquette, you can't take one last swipe, and then, bury the hatchet. I appreciate the nautical references as well......but I'm not the one with the sea clutter issues. My PPI is clear. I have unlimited visibility and an unobstructed view over the horizon. I am the stand on vessel. The rules of the road require me to mantain my course and speed.

I'm all for helping people with their problems. I'm all for getting them the help they need. I wouldn't deny someone assistance because they went about getting it in an improper fashion. But none of this has to do with the question at hand.
If we live by the motto, "The end justify the means" , we are "allowing" people to do whatever it takes, and "allowing" others to do whatever they want.
We are very close together on this issue. I can see that. We will be in total agreement once you "allow" yourself to admit that I'm right.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Your RIGHT Stu (99% of the time). There I said it. It IS about etiquette though isn't it? I will be the first to admit that I am not, nor ever have been, nor will ever be, a poster child for military bearing. I will however, stand by my "opinion". Right or wrong, and half of the folks think I am wrong. I am OK with that. To me it is not about "allowing or not allowing", giving "permission" or not. It is about taking action when necessary. My points are on a much different and narrow perspective of the subject as a whole. Sometimes homicide is "justifyable". Not very often, but sometimes.
I want to say "what is more important, the person or the rule", but we both know the answer to that and I have heard enough about you from those that know to NOT go there. It is a loaded question but one that bares thought. Maybe I am getting soft with age (and not just around the middle) but my head is as hard as ever and sometimes it gets me in trouble. :rolleyes:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I like you, u makea me laugh. The person is more important than any rule........but that doesn't mean that the rule isn't still there. And be careful when you listen to what people who know me say about me. A good rule of thumb to go by is, if they're saying nice things, I'm usually within earshot, or they're lying.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I think some of the confusion in this thread came from the difference in the poll question asked and the question posed in the first post. The poll question asks if the command should be informed, and the first post asks about routing a request.

I honestly think most of us are in agreement on this that the Command should be informed.

[admin]

And this gives you insight into what the MCPOCG thinks about the matter.