Should a Leader ever Deviate from Policy?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

In another thread BMCS Slesh insisted that one can never go wrong if you simply follow COMDT instructions. BMCS Vredenburg then countered with the suggestion that leaders are people that know when to deviate from policy.
Seems to be completely contradictory perceptions here, from two individuals that are comparable in experience, paygrade, and job description. How could this be? And should you, as a leader, ever deviate from COMDT policy?

[BMC John Anders]

This question has been asked during past OinC boards. One example was a SAR case not too long ago.

I'm not sure on the exact specifics, but a Coxswain apparently had to run his RHI onto the beach due to a medical sitiuation with one of his crewmembers. There was an ambulance waiting near shore and was the quickest means of attaining medical attention, rather than making the longer transit back to the station.

[BMC Mark Spillane]

Well givin those few pieces of the puzzle I may agree. Being a Intermediate-EMT if one of my crew was showing signs of, say, an acute appendicitis and the beach only had 2-3 foot waves on it I too may have considered running the small boat onto the beach to get my crewman the needed medical attention. Now if my crewman had signs of say a broken arm I would not. Sounds like a classic case of "you had to be there...." to me. It doesn't take much for a 41 or a 47 to refloat a RHI or a safe boat from a sandy beach. I would need the rest of the puzzle to put myself in the coxn's shoes a little farther.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Not sure that the SAR example is a good one for this argument. CG Regulations state that the first thing the coxswain is responsible for is the safety of crew & passengers. Having said that, I don't think that the beaching of a small boat is going away from a specific policy. In this example, safety of the crewman warranted the beaching of a small boat.

Can anyone think of a time, as leaders, we should deviate from CG Policy? I can't off the top of my head. I do know that as an OINC if I deviate from policy/regs, I'll have to lie in the rack I made.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

We as Chiefs should NEVER deviate from policies. We are the ones that are suppose to set the example and support are commands decisions. The time to speak up is when the policies are being made if you want to put your 2 cents in but once its made we all need to follow cmdts instruction. After all they were made for a reason and if we don’t follow them we are disobeying a direct order. What does this say to our junior people if we choose which orders we think we should or should not follow? The ONLY time when I would agree to not follow cmdts instruction would be if it involved safety and off the top of my head I cant think of any that put our people at risk of being injured due to following a policy. I do not claim to know it all so I am challenging all for input to prove me wrong.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Chief Bailly, Im not here to prove you wrong, just to show another view. I agree in part with your comments. But here is the part I disagree with. Yes we are Chief's and we "Set the Example" and nobody should deviate from Comdt Policy. But...can you honestly say that you never have. Im not sure were you're stationed but I would venture to say you would deviate from the Policy on ODU's. Here's my example would you require your crew to wear the Blouse in 100 deg wx, in Grand Isle, LA? If you say no then are you looking out for the best interest of your Crew? If you say yes then you would be one of the rule breakers. Another example have you ever used unit funds to purchase a "going away" plaque for a outgoing member of your crew? I have and thats against Comdt Policy.
My point is, you make the statement that you would NEVER deviate from Comdt policy.
I believe it was pointed out in an earlier post, that as Cheif's we sometimes have to deviate from the exact wording of the policy. I will admit it, I do sometimes deviate from policy. But I also try to understand the intent of the policy as written.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I know a lot of leaders who have:

Ignored the weight policy (before you were actually allowed to do so) to keep a high-performing performer,

Not documented infractions specifically called for in COMDT policy because they knew that it would hurt or end the career of an individual that they felt had much to contribute,

Exceeded boat limitations and crew endurance to save lives,

Ignored uniform regs and allowed the use of unit sweat shirts, t-shirts, etc. to promote morale,

etc, etc, etc..

Although, I don't believe it should be your first consideration, I have ignored policy myself from time to time. When I do, I consider the potential disciplinary action and general impact, against what I'm trying to accomplish. When it works out, I'm a hero. When it doesn't, I'm the guy that everybody uses as the example of what not to do.

If all it took was reading and following a book, anybody could lead. Life and the Coast Guard just aren't that simple.

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

"If all it took was reading and following a book, anybody could lead. Life and the Coast Guard just aren't that simple."

That just about sums it up, Dennis hit the nail right on the head with that statement. I have seen CO's and OIC's who, no matter what it is, pull out the manual and goes right down the checklist.

I agree with Dennis, a CO/OIC should know the regs, use the manual as a guide, but the final decision is a human decision and we should all be willing to accept the outcome of our decisions.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

Dennis I have to agree with you on this one. If you read the policies you can probably find loop holes to work around not that I look. The Cg SAR policy on fighting fires on boats, we do not do it unless it is the beginning of the fire. What is considerd the beginning of a fire, the match getting dropped on deck or a compartment starting to light up pretty good. SAR policy says life first then property. We may just have to do some fire fighting to save the life and in doing so save the property at the same time. But in doing so we do not needlessly endanger our personnel at the same time.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I just want to be very clear that I am not advocating ignoring policy. I just believe there are times when the intent of policy doesn't fit the facts of the situation. However, when you do make that decision, you should be very clear/honest about your motives and your objective. And, you should be willing to accept the consequences should things go badly.

"I had the best of intentions" is not a good defense at a courts-martial.

Just as, "I was only following orders" will do nothing to settle your conscience.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well seeing as how my comments seem to have started this let me chime in. Dennis, I have to disagree with your take on leadership. Anyone can lead......very few actually take up the call. You can be the most well-read, learned member of the CG who can quote chapter and verse of any COMDT policy or manual, but if you are unwilling or unable to put those policies in place and enforce them universally, you will never be a true leader. If you think that I have never strayed from COMDT policy I am sure we have never met. Let me introduce myself, I am Stuart Slesh, BMCS, OinC, human. I have bent or creatively re-interpretted several policies over the past 18 years, always doing what I believed was best for the unit, the people, and the Guard and will stand by my decisions, both good and bad to this day. This whole thing started with my take on the arrogance thread and again I stand by words. I agree with Deane Smith, the coxswain was justified in beaching a small boat to save a crewmember because......the COMDT.... tells us to place CG lives above CG property, that is his policy. I don't know anything about the case at hand, but I would find it hard to believe that the coxswain was disciplined as the result of his/her action, please let me know if that was not the case.
We as leaders need to set the example as good followers. If you are not willing to follow the policies sent down from above, how can you expect others to follow yours. When you go home at night do you want your watchstander to do what he/she thinks is best or what you have written down. Let's be honest here, we all do what we believe is the best course of action for the given situation, and as Dennis stated, stray from the policy and be successful in the mission and you're a hero, fail to follow policy and someone gets hurt, and you're making heros at the Qwiki-mart with APU.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stuart,

"I have bent or creatively re-interpretted several policies over the past 18 years..."

Sounds to me like your simply rationalizing breaking COMDT policy.

Wanna bet that if your re-interpretation had led to a bad outcome, your CO would have replaced the word "re-interpreted" with "ignored?"

As they say here in the South, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Should a leader ever deviate from policy? NO!

Do we sometimes? YES!

I agree with Stu. I think he is simply stating that you can never go wrong by enforcing/not deviating from COMDT policy. End of thread.

I don't think anyone is saying that they have never deviated from a policy. The second that you do, however, you are opening yourself up to whatever the consequences of those actions might be. Obviously, there are varying degrees of what that might be. (i.e buying plaques with unit funds -vs- choosing to overlook an inappropraite relationship at your unit)


Dennis...I'm not a geography major, but is Tennessee really in the South???

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

If all that unit commanders ever did was enforce policy...we wouldn't need unit commanders. Instead we could all just do what the book said, and everything would be hunky dory.

We need unit commanders to define those gray area's between policies. To decide whether a situation should be handled by Policy "A" or by Policy "B".

We need unit commander's to make decisions when there is a lack of policy (seems like those situations are getting less and less!).

And we need unit commander's to make decisions that are contrary to policy, when those are the right decisions to be made. Of course, if you go outside of policy, you are certainly inviting sharp eyed criticism of your decision.

How often should this happen? Very infrequently, and you should do it with the concurrence of your boss. And if/when I do it without (or before) my boss's blessing, I call my boss ASAP and tell him when/where/how/why I did what I did.

Just my opinions!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, up north we say "be wary of parrots", you see, given the proper environment and conditioning they can be trained to mimic just about anything. Anytime that a situation goes bad you can expect someone to swoop in with 20/20 hidesight to show you the errors of your ways, which leads me back to my origin statement. Follow the policy and you will always be right. Maybe instead of right I could insert justified or covered but regardless, that is what the CG is looking for in their leaders.
Shawn, I don't know how many OinC review boards you have either sat on or sat before but, in my experience, that is exactly what the board, and then the COMDT is looking for. The CG wants unit commanders that do just that, carry out COMDT policy at the unit level. You can tailor COMDT policy to meet the needs of your unit but you need to leave the spirit of what was written entact. I have never heard of anyone appearing before the OinC review board saying that they would alter or revise COMDT policy as they saw fit and achieve certification. I travel in small circles so let me know if other people are seeing different things out there. I have witnessed many who were either unaware of policies or unwilling to adhere to them in given situations that were declined certification. Many board members will ask questions with that in mind. I have seen many people tripped up when asked when they would exceed COMDT policies on limitations or fatique, or ignore them on alcohol, or interpersonnal relationships. The answer they are looking for is very simply......you always follow COMDT policy. Once a person is certified and in that position of authority, and in those situations, it goes as Dennis said, hero or villian.
I'm with Deane, as leaders we need to enforce the policy, period. I could go on for days with examples of the policies and procedures that I was allowed to ignore throughout the various commands in my career, and I'm very happy that I don't have the BM2 that I was, working for me today. I would not have tolerated his actions, even though he always got the job done, never hurt anyone but himself, and never brought any discredit to the CG. The world that we are living in is not the world that we were. As leaders we need to follow and enforce both the policies that are passed down to us and the ones that we pass down to others. And as Chiefs, we need to support the policies and decisions of those appointed above us. Just my opinion, take it for what its worth.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Stuart (Stu?): I completely agree with everything you said. You stick to the written policy, and you're covered (most of the time). You should stick to the policy (almost all of the time).

Yes, for the review boards you better know the policies, and stick to them.

However, if the policy is wrong for the situation at hand, then we have unit commanders to make the right decisions.

I think we're both saying the same thing, just semantics. I don't like to say that I would NEVER do something...because I don't know what situations I'll be placed in in the future.

[MKC Jo Ledbetter]

Gentlemen;

This is a very sticky, very "CHIEFLY" issue to be debating, and it's invigorating to see debates like this on the board. There are probably as many points of view on this topic, as there are Chief Petty Officers.

I came across a quote recently that is worth sharing:
"Managers are people who do things right, while leaders are people who do the right thing." - Warren Bennis, Ph.D.

Food for thought...If we follow policy to the letter, out of "blind obedience", are we leaders or merely managers???

Incidently, this type of discussion is covered very well at the Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer Academy on the subject of ethics. AKA: Right vs. Right.

I personally agree with most of the previous posts. Particularly: "Deviation from policy should occur VERY infrequently", and "If being a leader was easy anyone could do it."

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Shawn said...if the policy is wrong for the situation at hand, then we have unit commanders to make the right decisions

Shawn,

Can you give an example of this? I'm having trouble understanding what exactly your saying. If you can give me a real scenario, maybe I can understand.

Thanks.

[MSS2 Harry March (MSTC)]

As a Chief I hope to have my Petty Officers trust me to be a leader and support them. I have been reading this discussion and even though this hasn't happened to me yet, I expect someday something similar will.

The scenario:
One of your non rates/ PO's call you to inform you they are drunk and need a ride home (which we all want them to do vs, driving). You take them home but they are underage and should not have been drinking in the first place. Now do you report it as alcohol incident according to policy? Do you deviate from policy and have a one on one and stick them on the paint float for a week?

I don't know the answer. I want to be a leader that they can trust, but the fear of repercussions if they call me in a jam, because of COMDT policy will always have a wedge in the relationship.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Here's one: SAR policy says before we medevac someone we have to get flight surgeon approval. Several times I've either personally conducted, or directed, a medevac before the information was passed to Group (and passed to District, to the flight surgeon, back to district, back to Group, and back to me).

Hell, one time a flight surgeon directed me to medevac and I told him to pack sand!

Just one example. I'm sure there are others.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jo not to rain on your parade but I think your quote is way off the mark. Ethical people do what is right and moral people do the right thing. Managers maintain the status quo and leaders get people to do the unsavory tasks. It doesn't take a leader to get the fat guy to eat ice cream or to help anyone do any task that they wanted to do anyway. Leaders get people to do the harder tasks, the right way, because it is the right thing to do.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The thread is...Should a leader ever deviate from policy?

The only examples I've seen posted are SAR related, which I believe fall under a different umbrella.

Can anyone give an example that is not SAR related? If not, I'll have to assume that the answer to this question is no.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

OK, how about this?

You have an E-6 that has been working for you for a number of years. Great performer, more potential than a stick of dynamite, and a great leader in his own right.

He goes thru a divorce, and a subsequent drinking binge. He gets pulled over for DUI. Only you and the police know about this. For the sake of argument, the crew and your command have no way of finding out unless you tell them. Do you write him up, or do you mentor him thru it?

Both he and you are required to report the incident. What does are the implications if you don't? What are the implications if he doesn't?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

OK , I'll bite. I'd report it.....for his sake. If he is still drinking and driving in this day and age his problems with alcohol are bigger than the both of us. And before you label me as holy roller, there but for the grace........what if he had only done a little bit of cocaine....DUI, drugs...both illegal. I'm sorry, I don't think Drinking and Driving "just happen". Do you stop "mentoring" him after he runs over the nun in the crosswalk. His problems have grown bigger than his value to the service and unchecked, will destroy more than just his career. If he can't contain the problems in his personal life without committing a felony, how can I justify letting him in on the decision making process of others.
As for implications? You'll be Relieved for cause one day....and without PROFESSIONAL help, his career and life won't get back on track until someone gets hurts.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

You report it, as required.

If this E-6 is such a great performer/leader as you portray him/her to be, they’ll understand that you’re doing your job.

As far as implications...OINC will be relieved for cause. Member will receive professional help for his/her problem.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

I cannot answer the DUI scenario from a leadership aspect. I have to go with past experiences for it. My brother almost killed himself after a night of drinking and rolling his vehicle. My mother was hit head on by a drunk driver which peeled the driver side of her car like a banana. She survived and so did he. My brother got help for his problem which happened to be after his second divorce. The person who hit my mom should of been required to get help but went to jail three years later after eventually killing somebody while driving drunk. As a supervisor I would do the required paperwork. For any person you may have delayed an advancement and they may be punished but you may just have saved his/her life or the life of some innocent bystander.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Man! Never let it be said that you guys aren't quick and decisive!

It's interesting that all three of you seemed to assume that he was a habitual drinker. The scenario was vague enough to assume that it was a one-time occurence just as easily.

If it was a one-time occurence, professional help would have been better focused in helping deal with his divorce issues. I"ve had crewmen arrested for DUI and sent to the appropriate counseling. Rarely does the counselor diagnose a reliance or addiction to alcohol. They generally recognize it for what it is- a one time deal.

Also interesting that Deane and Stu's only implication to the OIC was an eventual relief-for-cause. They could also have said that they would have saved this BM1's career from a major set-back (not eligible for command cadre for a long while), and shown definable loyalty to a subordinate (never more clear when you risk something of your own).

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I tend to follow the natural course for the scenarios givens. I look for the negative implications for doing negative things, i.e. not reporting an incident that you are required to. I guess the BM1 could have used the incident to turn his life around, gone back to college, re-entered the CG, been promoted thru the ranks, become the first prior enlisted COMDT and closed the academy as his first official act and diverted the money into alcohol awareness and marriage counsel for all members but my mind doesn't work that way. As far as how much and how long he drank........doesn't factor into my equations. When you kill someone it doesn't matter what else you did with the rest of your day. The world that we are living in is not the world that we were......if you live in this country and haven't be bombarded with "Don't Drink and Drive" no amount of mentoring is going to penetrate the gray matter. In my opinion, people who continue to drink and drive, be it your first time or fiftith, have demonstrated extremely poor judgement and decision making abilities, a complete disregard for their career, and the safety of thoses that they encounter. Ten years ago when you sent someone to alcohol screening they almost always returned to the unit deemed "alcohol dependant". Today they rarely do. I have sent people to screening and subsequently removed them from my unit only to have someone spend thirty minutes with the member and say they had no problem. Not once has the problem ended with their first screening. Your scenario was vague, but grave enough for me to render my decision. Defending a friend is something to be admired and even more so when there is great risk to things that you hold dear. But keep in mind, they are not going to relieve for for covering for your friend, they are going to relieve you for failing to report an incident when it was your responsibilty to do so. You're not being relieved for the things you did right, but because your actions or in this case inactions were wrong. Go to the mat for your BM1, defend his actions and situation with your last breathe.........after you submit your report, thats the message that you should send to everyone.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis, I never assumed that he was a habitual drinker. In your scenario, he was on a drinking binge...that's a problem whether it's your first binge or your 20th binge. You still need (some type of) professional help. The help can be in the form of alcohol counseling or personal (dealing with the divorce) counseling. It all starts by reporting it, as required.

As I said in my response earlier, your great leader/performer E-6 will understand (maybe not immediately) that you are helping him/her by reporting it. Your taking care of your E-6 & yourself.

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

Should a leader ever deviate from policy? I guess that depends. The ole "morale/ethical delima".

One of Websters definitions for policy, "prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs".

If you use wisdom and/or you are indeed prudent in the management of your affairs, then I say yes.

[BMC Dan Certa]

I agree with Stuart. A couple of years ago my decision would likely have been to cover for the good worker. Some of my decisions to cover for good workers have come back to haunt me in a bad way. One instance I remember had the BM1 'using' my 'good nature' against me in the end. No, for me anyway, I believe that the CPO is above poor decisions with good intentions. I have found that very few (if any) matters are worth turning ones back on the Commandant in the long run. I try to develop my subordinates into Coasties who take pride in doing what is the right thing to do. Having been convicted of DUI myself, I know that if I had gotten away with it I would have done it again. In the case of the BM1 or the under-age drinker asking for the ride, do you really beleive that this would remain a secret? No way. In the end the crew would know. They always know. Then you are compromised and your position power all but gone. The BM1 should respect the BMC for doing what was right and reporting the incident and ensuring he received the good counsel he needs. Sure he'll lose advancement recommendation and conduct/health & wellness marks will be in the crapper, but this is a choice that the member made. The CG will forgive him. It's not the end of the world, just a bump in the road.
I am not familiar with the beaching of the boat for the medivac. Did the cox'n recieve authorization to do this? Seems strange. Was the crew bleeding from the jugular or somthing?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Looking at the dates, I am a little late chiming in on this one. Thanks Deane for hooking me up with this website. Now, are we leaders or enforcers? Is there a difference when it comes to this question? Maybe that should be a follow up thread. Hmmm. At my unit it is physically impossible to follow some "policies". NAVSTANDARDS in particular. Therefore, in my unit instructions, I do the best I can to follow policy and then use my discrecion and the experience that I have to create my own policy that I feel best suits our needs. THEN, I forward that to the Group Commander for his information. I have nothing to hide. I think as Leaders, we are expected to interpret policy and apply it equally accross the board. Like a judge interprets the law. Different situations may require a different interpretation. Just as I expect my coxswains to use their best judgement in whatever situation they may come into. You cannot "policy" every situation that may occur. Therefore you must be able to artuculate your decision and then be willing to stand by it. Be it right or wrong.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'm really confused. What unit are you at that doesn't allow NAVSTANDARDS to be followed ? Even if it's not the COMDT or Area standard, there should be one designed or tailored to meet the unit's needs. That's one of the things that gets checked during RFOs. And even if you can't "policy" every situation, you can make it "policy" that your people contact you anytime a situation occurs that falls outside the realm or your written "policy". Your unit instructions though created by you, are still based on the policies coming down from above. Your unit policies can't contradict COMDT, Area, or your OPCON's policies..that's policy, for policies.
You verify your coxswains ability to make sound judgements and follow your policies prior to certifying them. Or at least you should have.
My questions back to you....Do you want your coxswains to do what they think is right for the situation at hand, or what you think is right ? Do you continue to allow someone who follows their own interpretation of your policies to run your boats ? Do you want the people under you, to lead as they see fit, or enforce the policies that you set down at your unit ?

And even judges are held to a standard and answer to a higher court.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I am at ANT Kennewick. We are up the Columbia River and maintain the Snake River to Lewiston Idaho. Additionally, we maintain ATON on Lake Roosevelt (Near Spokane) and Lake Ft Peck (eastern Montana). For starters, we are 3.5 hours by car to anything Coast Guard. We have sketchy at best comms on the Columbia River and no comms on the Snake. 30 minute comms schedule? I think NOT. We operate a TANB and UTL with a compass. That is about all the navigation equipment that we have. Of course we have charts and keep an eye on them. No radar, DGPS is ineffective in most of the canyons that we operate in. Many of our aids (all fixed) that we maintain don't even have an APR. Ranges were surveyed but lights are put where they work best. I have put survival kits on the boats in case there is a casualty and a crew has to spend the night outdoors but it is a different kind of operating out here. Personally, I love it, but there are definate risks that must be mitigated as best one can. As far as coxswain discresion goes... I want my people to use their good judgment. If they run into a situation where they cannot contact me, then they need to act. As long as they can artuculate why they did what they did, I am ok with that. I follow policy the best I can with what we have here. However, policy does not cover every situation.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

So if I'm reading you right...you follow the policies that apply to your unit, adapt the ones that don't to comply as best as you can, and create standard operating procedures for the others, which in turn become the policy. When possible the people under your command contact you for guidance, when unable they use their best judgement. Their judgement has already met your approval as evidenced by you certifying them to run your boats. If all this is true I would say that you meet the spirit of any written policy. You've weighed the risks, developed a plan, and sought and gained the permission from your Commanding Officer. You're golden.

[MCPO Bob Brayman]

I'm weighing in on this thread from a historical perspective. Military history is full of examples of deviating from policy or regulation--good and bad. Back in the Cold War days and even today the Soviets and now Russian armies had the numbers to kick our butts in a strategic sense but feared our forces in the tactical sense. Specifically was the "freedom" that U.S. forces had in regards to following policy or regulation. Our unit commanders; from the highest admiral to the lowest squad leader had the option to do whatever they needed to do for the mission. Sometimes that meant going outside established policy. Whereas their forces were STRICTLY guided by policy and doctrine therefore very predictable and all one had to do is lob a shell or two and generally be certain of a hit.

Today that bears out with every one in the CG. We all have the choice to do a "but sir" in the name of safety. We [the CG] has redefined the policy of always having to go out...explaining to the public that no where does the government explicitly order us to save folks. The same goes to each of the OIC's and CO's...they are given the huge responsibility to do what needs to be done which sometimes might include some unorthodox ways of doing things that run contrary to established policy. As long as one can explain their reasonings and that what they did accomplished the mission, did it with minimal risk and followed up afterwards with their superiors...they were good to go. Those who didn't follow-up were the ones fired because of the perception of being a rogue and hiding something.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stuart, Bob, I believe you are both right on the money. I think the term that is most used now is "thinking out of the box". I believe "Policy" is guidance. Some is pretty much black and white, while others may need to be adapted somewhat to fit the individual unit (like mine). Not to jump into the other thread, but as an OIC, I think that part of the board process is to see if an individual can "think" if they get into a situation that isn't necesarilly guided by a cut and dry policy, or if a policy does not fit the situation. What do you do then?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I still see policy as more than guidance. You just have to pick your policy. Many policies overlap, and when you're doing the right thing you can always find a policy to back you up. When you are doing the wrong thing some one else can always find a policy to show you where you went wrong.

[DCCS Terrence Hull]

This discussion is great; I just want to though this out there. The Commandant recognizes that there cannot be policy for every situation and that is why he states in the Machinery Space Firefighting Doctrine (MSFD) COMDTINST M9555.1 “this doctrine does not replace the use of good judgment”. I hope I quoted that correctly. So is this instruction a guide, policy or both?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I think you guys skipped over a better "scenario" for discussion than the XPO DUI thing. Harry gave the following:

The scenario:
One of your non rates/ PO's call you to inform you they are drunk and need a ride home (which we all want them to do vs, driving). You take them home but they are underage and should not have been drinking in the first place. Now do you report it as alcohol incident according to policy? Do you deviate from policy and have a one on one and stick them on the paint float for a week?

This is the ultimate catch 22. We all know that being under 21 does not mean they are not drinking. If your policy is "call me, don't drive" you're automatically put in the position to deviate from policy by not reporting a clearly defined incident OR lose the trust of your crew and never have anyone (under age or not) call you instead of driving.

In this instance a leader must be creative with the policies given. Hopefully something previously discussed with their boss, but maybe not. Policy be damned, if I report the guy then another underage person at my unit hurts himself or someone else while drunk driving, it's gonna leave a scar.

I still remember when a military ID superceded any locally imposed drinking age. Not sure that was a good thing or not, but at least it left room for the military to impose it's own standards.

Ken

[DCCS Terrence Hull]

I had this same situation and got burned for it. Lesson learned was never to be the one with a secret. The crew and command found out and ouch that stung. Chapter twenty spells out clearly the policy and our role in that. Through our actions, leadership and training maybe we can avoid this incident all together. If they have a clear understanding of the policy and chose to ignore it then they must be ready to suffer the consequences of their action. Abstinence never hurt or killed anybody.

My two cents

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

At the risk of incurring Dennis' wrath for talking about alcohol again...

Ken, it is the ultimate catch 22 because you making it so. Any policy that you create to cover someone in breaking COMDT policy is going to cost you. You've just created a lose-lose scenerio. Once you've covered for one members prohibited actions, the next person can hold that over your head when they stray. You're leaving yourself open for the "Oh, I have to shave, but Jimmy gets to drink at eighteen" or " I have to show up to work on time but Tina can stay out drinking all night at eighteen " defenses. You don't have to agree with the CG's drug/alcohol policies....you just have to enforce them.
Just because you're over 21 doesn't means you have to drink. Too many people look at drinking as a right. You need to start seeing that underage drinking is a violation of the law. Stick with "Don't drink and Drive" for everyone, and then hold the people that continue to do so accountable for their actions. Realize that you can't stop stupidity, and sleep well knowing you did what is right. Telling them to call you before they drive is noble, and they may all think that you're "Cool". How deep is the scar going to be when someone leaves the message on your answering machine, then gets in an accident and kills someone. Or the person you cover for once doesn't stop their actions and hurts someone down the road, pun intended.
The military already has set its own standard when it comes to underage drinking and/or operating a vehicle under the influence.....it can be found in the UCMJ......want to know what it says?

[BMCS Don Rogers]

OK I'll thow in my 2 cents worth;
Ken and Dennis, I agree with you on the scenarios you presented.
For those that posted the "if you do that you're busted" answers, I say if your first consideration is what the impact is to your career then you're thinking with the wrong priorities.
By all means follow COMDT'S policy BUT, and I reiterate BUT, NOBODY knows your people, or thier potential, better than you. If policy dictates an action that will be contrary to the good order and discipline of the service then go the other way.
We are not run by machines. If we were it would be easy. But, then again, you and I wouldn't be colecting those "big bucks" for SDAP.

Don ;)

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Thanks Don. Stu and Terrence, I think you missed my point.

The "call me don't drive" local policy I speak of works. It is not out there specifically for underage people, it is for your crew, PERIOD. If anyone uses a phone rather than a 300 horsepower projectile to get home, you win. If You don't have a sit down with that sailor the next day then you're wrong. But after the counselling session they should leave knowing that they did the right thing by calling, the wrong thing for underage drinking. If your next call isn't to give your boss a heads up...

Terrance, how well does preaching abstinence work? I've never seen it happen. I'm talking reality. I've had group commanders that backed a policy of everyone being able to call. It saves a lives. An alternative would be the cab fare in the safe routine, but people generally opt not to do that one because they have to go back to the unit for the cab fare and stay.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, I don't care how many commanders agree with you, you're allowing people to break the law, COMDT policy, and we all lose. If you don't want to enforce policy, don't put yourself in the position where you have to.
Just curious, if those same people asked you to remove some drugs from their barracks room prior to an inspection....would you ? How about if it was only alcohol and the group commander didn't agree with your take on a very clear cut policy ? Don't drink and Drive is for everybody....Don't drink under the legal age is for everyone. To allow someone to break one law to prevent them from breaking another, and claiming it works is..........yeah you're right...I am missing your point.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Ken,
You have a realistic and productive outlook on your responsibilities as a leader. You know that the world is not black and white. You know that we are responsible to navigate those gray areas with a judicial use of pragmatism and common sense. You are doing what a Chief is supposed to do.
Don't worry about the naysayers. If they haven't had to make a decision that contradicted policy for the best interest of their crew and the service, they eventually will. If they have evaded those type of decisions on purpose, you won't be able to change their views. I applaud your willingness to step up and give your people a realistic alternative to disciplinary action. Many a career has been saved by one Coastie risking his/her own reputation/job/career to save another's. Well done and keep it up.
I do get your point.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And here we are.....Ken,
You have a realistic and productive outlook on your responsibilities as a leader. or You are doing what a Chief is supposed to do.
Ken equates his allowing underage drinkers to call him before drinking and driving to his saving their life.....and you call that a realistic and productive outlook.....kinda returning to the days of the shined belt buckle theory.

Enlighten me on the responsibilities of a Chief. Since when has teaching people to completly ignore COMDT policy, and local laws, and avoiding any type of personal responsibility for their actions, become our province ? And ignoring a problem is never a realistic alternative to disciplinary action. Since Ken hasn't answered my questions, maybe you could give me your Chiefly wisdom on the drug scenario. How about rape ? Do you have a realistic alternative to disciplinary action for that one. Or do you only find a way, to look the other way when it comes to alcohol ? And if so why is that ?
Dennis, you've critisized me in the past for using generalizations, if Ken's actions are what a Chief is supposed to do , never refer to me as a Chief again, I'm obviously not one.

[BMC John Phillips III]

SSS, I have to say I agree with you. I have made it known to my crew that underage drinking is unacceptable. I have made a strong stand in supporting policy and law. Are there kids at my unit underage that drink? Without a doubt. I would like to think they do it way less than they used to and they may actually consider the repurcussions if something went wrong. I have also made it known that if anyone has been drinking and needs a ride that I would give them one or make arrangements. As well as letting them know that if they are underage there would be repurcussions. Do I think that an underage drinker would call me for that ride? Probably not, would he call one of his shipmates that he felt might not say anything? A little more likely. Is that right? Well a wise Senior Chief used to preach to me, "don't ever be the senior person with a secret". While I understand that concept completely, it doesn't mean that I don't have secrets or that junior members of the crew are not capable of keeping them (they can surprise you from time to time).

It seems as there is a difference of opinion on this subject and some feel more strongly than others. I think Ken and Dennis are a little more liberal (no offense in using that word) on the matter. I guess it's kind of like handing out clean needles to IV drug users to stop the spread of AIDS. You may be saving their lives, but you are helping them participate in illegal activities. There are gray or even grey areas, I just don't believe underage drinking is one of them. Perhaps it's because I didn't pick up a drink until I was 22, but we all have our own beliefs.

Edit add: Stu, yellow text is really hard to read.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Stu & John,

You guys have it right...you're doing the right things. Well done and keep it up!

Don't let the thoughts of these renegade chiefs that "give their people a realistic alternative to disciplinary action" effect your judgment. I've found that this type of thinking rarely leads to anything good. I've had people report to my unit from these type of commands...they have a warped sense of what their expectations are. Then, I get to spend the next several months/years trying to undo their negative attitudes/perceptions of the CG. If people don't have to be accountable...they won't be.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

First a "liberal" and then a "renegade." I'll remind you that liberal does not equate with evil and the root word for renegade means "to deny."

I reject the notion that we should never break a rule. As I said before, it should be a well-considered decision and we must be willing to face the consequences should it go badly. But, as Chiefs, we sometimes find ourselves in the unique position of being able to positively effect the careers of others by risking our own.

You seem to think that an occassional exception to a very large book of rules, will eventually lead to anarchy and piss poor Coasties. That has not been my experience.

Deane- your generalization of my type of command is unwarranted and quite frankly, beneath you. I'd stack my crew, past and present, up against yours (or anybody else's) any day.

Stuart- Comparing rape to underage drinking???? Please.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis - I'm not generalizing your type of command. I'm generalizing the type of command that doesn't hold people accountable. I'm generalizing the type of command that feel they know better than everyone else (regardless of what policy states). I'm generalizing the type of command that gives it's crew a false sense of what values are important to our Coast Guard - HONOR, RESPECT & DEVOTION TO DUTY.

If you don't fit that category...don't be offended. If you do...I'm generalizing your type of command.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Never compared rape to underage drinking.......just asked for your take on it.
But that and the drug scenario seems to be something that you'd rather not discuss. All three are if fact, against the law, why do you limit your defense to only one ?
And I'm not saying that I have never broken the "occassional" rule. But I'm not applauding someone who says "policy be damned" and makes up his own as he sees fit, and then tells others to respond in kind. You've back peddled into "occasional exceptions" after defended someone's blanket policy for disregarding a true "black and white" issue. If you feel that the policy is that bad, why don't you do something to change it, rather than just ignore it?
I remember reading someone's article in a leadership magazine telling us it was our responsibility to ensure people paid attention to the little things.
Please!!!! Who was the last Coastie who lost his life over a uniform violation ?
The holiday season is upon us and I'm seeing messages about alcohol use, and the dangers of drinking and driving, nothing about the ODUs.

And it doesn't matter how big the manuals get, if you get to pick the policies you want to ignore, and I get to pick ones I want to ignore...we're sending the wrong message to our people. Just answer the question......How can you possibly hold other people accountable to any standard, if you're not going to hold yourself accountable to all of them ?
And what standard will you be using to judge who has the better crew ? Let's not hide behind our people........let's use the standard that the CG has established for determinations who is better apt at making these determiniations.
We'll take out the marks and awards (too subjective), sea service ( unfair to you) and just leave the SWE. Next May.....let's see who actually is wise beyond our years.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Stuart, you got to break up those big blocks of text. It's like wading through a swamp.

So many questions...

1. You seem to think that if one exception is made, then the whole system collapses. It does not.

2. I would not condone drug use or rape. Again, when I make my exceptions, they are well-considered.

3. If you have broken the occassional rule, then I can't see why you are arguing with me.

4. Where did you get that "policy be damned" quote from?

5. I don't ignore policies. Again, an occassional exception does not negate the entire system.

6. Paying attention to the small things is important. Nothing I've written contradicts that philosophy.

7. I hold myself accountable for everything I do. That's no more an issue with me, than it is with you when you break your occasional rule.

8. You want to compete with me on the SWE? You win. I've never been the sharpest tack on the board, and in a room full of Chiefs and OICs, I'm always the guy wondering how in the hell I got there.

9. Hide behind our people? I stand with them. Where are you?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The Policy be Darmned quote came from Ken's #40 response which was the basis for and ingited this whole aurgument. He said it, and you commended him for his realistic alternatives........It is that quote that sticks with me, and its why I couldn't believe that you defended him the way you did. If you go back and put it all in context you might see why I refuse to accept Ken's actions as "what a Chief is suppose to do", and why I remain a naysayer.
The things that I have done it the past should not be confused with the actions I now take as an OinC. As a Junior PO I was not held to the same standard I now feel, that I need to hold myself and others to, as an OinC. I still see the role of the OinC as person who is held responsible for enforcing COMDT policy at the unit level. Maybe you people are reading a different version of CG Regs than I am ? I do things differently now than I did then, because, Wisdom is afterall, the ability to learn from one's mistakes.
As for my people, I have sailed with some of the best to have worn the CG uniform. I would put them up against anyone, anywhere, and proudly stand by their side. I just need the parameters of the competition defined prior to committing the reputation of others to the fray.
And I know I'm long winded.....have been all my life.......but when we throw up our hands and say, "People are always going to drink, underage....we can't stop them so why bother trying ?" accepting the drug issue isn't that far behind. I need to ask people where they are willing to draw the line.
And another "Quote from Ken" ...preaching abstenance doesn't work.....How many of us are willing to buy our thirteen year old daughters condoms, and tell them, Just remember to be safe out there. We all still preach abstenance to those we hold dear. My crew....my kids....same difference.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

"We all still preach abstenance to those we hold dear. My crew....my kids....same difference."

First, it's good that you hold your crew in such high regards. I gotta say, I like that.

However, we all don't preach abstenance to those we hold dear. That's another example of you projecting your view of the world on others. Had I saw the need to give my 13 year old daughter a condom, I would have. And, my daughter is as dear to me as yours is to you.

I bet Ken values his crew, too. He simply chooses to protect them in a different way. In the end, he may cause some underage crew to think it's ok to drink, just as you may prevent some of your crew from picking up the phone. Of course, your point is well taken- not encouraging them to call you is not going to get you into any trouble, whereas Ken's practice might.
But, I admire Ken's willingness to place himself at risk for his crew.

Me- I'll follow policy until I don't believe that it's working as intended. And then, I'll do what I think is best.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Stu, I seem to be rather quotable whether that is good or bad. It also seems the editing of my comments shows the parts you actually pick up on and those you chose to skip.

If You don't have a sit down with that sailor the next day then you're wrong. But after the counselling session they should leave knowing that they did the right thing by calling, the wrong thing for underage drinking. If your next call isn't to give your boss a heads up...

I have been in the unfortunate situation of having a shipmate (not underage) involved in a DUI accident where someone didn't survive. As usually happens it wasn't the drunk that didn't make it. Now that person has that to live with, as well as a criminal record and all the baggage that includes.

Would a call for a ride saved a life? In this case most definitely. Would I prefer that someone call a lower ranking shipmate able to keep a secret? Definitely! It is like the OIC board question regarding a UCMJ violation at a unit event. It is better to let your XPO deal with it because you may have to sit in judgement of that.

If the underage person calls me twice, they will most definitely get all the required paperwork, alcohol incident etc. They will still get a ride! All of this will have already been explained to them in the counselling session mentioned above. During that counselling session if I have the inkling that he/she may be a habitual offender I may insist that person either self refer or receive an alcohol incident. Again deviating from policy. I would confer with my XPO to get a second on that person prior to the counselling session.

I don't save a life. The call, to me or anyone else may. If you don't see that I am sorry.

Answer this Stu, Don, Deane: I am 20 years old, am drinking illegally but realize that I should not drive. You get the call "Senior, I need your help..."

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, I would give the guy the ride......then I would document his alcohol incident.....which is my job and responsibility to do. Is calling someone prior to drinking and driving the responsibile thing to do...absolutely. Can it save a live...absolutely. Do my people know that they can call me for help with any of life's problems.....absolutely. Do they know what standard I am going to hold them accountable to......absolutely.
Reporting an alcohol incident can also save their live and their career. You can go to bat for your people and risk your career and reputation after you do the required documentation. Go back and read this entire thread....people have already stated that doing the right thing has helped them or someone else staighten out their life.
Contrary to popular opinion......I have no problem with alcohol. Been around it my whole life. Tie the cutter up next to bars and afford my crew the opportunity to enjoy alcohol legally and responsibily all the time. Alcohol is like a loaded gun.....in the hands of mature, responsible adults, it's great fun for everybody.....just don't give it to kids. If the CG changed it's policy on drugs and alcohol I would follow suit........as it stands, I will continue to uphold the oath that I took when I entered the service. Underage drinking is always against the law.....almost always an alcohol incident. The COMDT has already made concessions for this and your scenario didn't fit in. Again, long winded. Do you want to answer my drug question ?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And Ken just a quick one.....it doesn't matter if they're a habitual drinker or not, the law is the law. And "may insist" self referral ? or recieve an alcohol incident ? Why are you so unwilling to hold someone accountable for their illegal activities ?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Ken asked...I am 20 years old, am drinking illegally but realize that I should not drive. You get the call "Senior, I need your help...

I would help them out. I would make sure they know that calling someone was a good thing and thank them for that. Then, I would let them know that I was required to report this as an alcohol incident and hope that they would understand that...if not, over time they will.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken said...If the underage person calls me twice, they will most definitely get all the required paperwork, alcohol incident etc. They will still get a ride! All of this will have already been explained to them in the counselling session mentioned above. During that counselling session if I have the inkling that he/she may be a habitual offender I may insist that person either self refer or receive an alcohol incident. Again deviating from policy. I would confer with my XPO to get a second on that person prior to the counselling session.

I want to make sure that I understand what you're saying...Are you saying that any member of your crew that drinks underaged and calls you (or someone else) for a ride gets counseled in lieu of an AI? It won't be until their second call as an underaged drinker that you'll report it as an AI?

Ken, how is this helping the member? An AI isn't a career killer, it's possibly a wake-up call. It might slow up advancements,etc for 6 months or so, but I'm at a loss as to how you're helping by not reporting it.

I have also been at a unit where a shipmate drove while intoxicated and killed a motorcyclist. This shipmate served over a year in jail...obviously was discharged. He was an outstanding Coast Guardsman and would have done great things if not for this lapse in judgment due to alcohol. Now, I wonder...maybe he had a "cool" Chief like you Ken, that helped him out by not reporting an underaged drinking incident earlier in his career. Maybe he's been flying under the radar until this night. Maybe he has been given the benefit of the doubt until this night. Maybe this wouldn't have happened if his "cool" Chief would have done the right thing and reported it. We'll never know...makes you wonder, though.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Stu, you stated that underage drinking is ALMOST always an alcohol incident. When is it not to be considered one?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Recent change. In cases of rape, underage drinking is not considered an alcohol incident for the victim. The thought behind the change was that people might be more willing to report the rape if they were not going to implicate themselves in other charges.

[BMCS Don Rogers]

Ken,
In answer to your question. No doubt about it. They get the ride. They're told they made the right desicion in calling me and they get councelled about drinking alcohol when under age.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Don, you said "counsel" but not AI. I don't know if that means you are leaning towards my point of using your judgement as a Chief and an adult with experience at life in general that the AI should not be set in stone.

We are underway at this time, off the coast of a country where we may have a port call in the next few days. Should we in fact pull in, the local drinking age is 18. We have been u/w for a month, and will be for another. I am quite sure that the skipper will either :

a) mention the local drinking age and say something about being responsible, representative of the USCG etc.

b) say the drinking age for a Coastie is still 21, drink and you will hang, or

c) say nothing and hope for the best. (my guess)

What would your speel be at quarters before piping liberty?

If an 18 yr old comes back to the boat snockered, what would your response be?

Ken

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, the point is, regardless of your personal views, the Alcohol Incident is sent in stone. As a Chief you have the responsibility to enforce that.
There is no drinking age in the CG, we follow the local Law . I don't see how imposing a drinking age of 21 where none exists is any different from me imposing one of 42 where the legal age is 21. That would go along with imposing your ethics in the workplace (see associated threads).
If the guy came back snockered (not sure of the severity) I would want the watchstander to notify me, ensure that he slept on his stomach, and have someone keep an eye on him thru the night. If he was fully functional when liberty expired, then there would be no "ill effects of alcohol in the work place" and we would all just carry on. I would mention to him that alcohol may not be his best friend, but nothing in my scenario constitues an AI.
My speel as quarters would be "We are in a foreign port, representing the CG and America, obey all of the local laws, and make sure we don't do anything to embarass ourselves, or that would prevent us from being able to return here in the future. Lookout for your shipmates, and let's make sure everyone gets back to the boat safely."

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I just returned from the D13 CO/OINC conference and one of the biggest topics was the alcohol policy and in particular...underage drinking.

As everyone knows (or should know), this is a huge problem in the CG. In particular, alcohol is a factor in the majority of discipline issues/discharges.

Here's what the D13 Commander sent out to all of his unit's as his District Commanders Direction...I'm concerned about alcohol issues in general and the impact that alcohol has on a wide range of personnel and disciplinary problems including death and sexual misconduct. Underage drinking is of particular concern because it affects our most junior people and terminates careers almost before their launched. Even one incident of underage consumption is unacceptable. We have to convey this fact to our people. You can expect to see some refocusing of people programs in Pacific Area in the near future, and alcohol abuse prevention will have a prominent place. You know your people best and are in the right position to ensure our people understand Coast Guard policy and the serious consequences of underage consumption. It must be understood that we will neither condone nor tolerate underage consumption at any time. Your proactive efforts to educate and inform our shipmates are a crucial element of prevention. Your action is essential to ensuring that we live our core values of Honor, Respect, and Devotion to Duty.


You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Isn't it possible that we are dealing with underage drinking too harshly? In the gamut of disciplinary issues, why does this one rate discharge so quickly?

We've talked about the global 21 policy in another thread, and many of the contributing Chiefs seem to believe that there is a lack of logic to insisting on a drinking age of 21, and then allowing an 18 year-old to vote and serve in the military.

Underage drinking is really not the problem. Drinking to the point where you behave inappropriately or criminally is the real issue. That issue is pertinent and occurs at any age- not just at 18.

Even if we agree that we shouldn't change our age requirements, maybe we should change the requirement to discharge the indivdual breaking that rule. We can discipline an individual for drinking when he shouldn't, without throwing him/her out of the Coast Guard.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

"behave inappropriately or criminally is the real issue."

When drinking underage they actually are doing both. I would have no problem with removing the drinking age for all service members, and I think we should focus on removing problem drinkers as opposed to drinkers with a problem. I personally would fight to retain any member I saw as been worthy regardless of the number of alcohol incidents they may have received. I would do everything within my ability in the current policy to do that. I don't need to deviate from the policy, but I do see where the policy needs to be changed, when people are still discharged regardless of command imput.