Changing our Alcohol Policy

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There is alot of talk going on around the CG about our alcohol policy and the abuses that we are seeing. It's been awhile since I spread a bunch of hate and discontent, so I figured I'd start a new pole. I saw some of the "they're going to drink anyway" attitudes pop up in other recent threads, and I've read some comments coming in from around the field. If you look at the good order and discipline findings, we continually lose too many people to alcohol abuses every quarter. How much of that should fall back on us as leaders ? What are our actions really telling those in our cherge ?

[BMC John Phillips III]

I will fire in.

Today I sat through four hours of Sexual Harrassment, Suicide, and Work Place Violence (also had CISM training). The recurring theme involved in each (minus the CISM) was alcohol. To which I commented to my crew, that it is funny that you never hear how alcohol made something better. But in most cases when something goes wrong, there's alcohol rearing it's ugly head. By the way, it was the "alcohol being involved in 85% of sexual assaults" that made me think of it. Anyway, I just want to reiterate that alcohol can be consumed responsibly, but people (especially young people) need to be taught or dare I say "shown" how to do this. And frankly, there are still some pretty senior leaders out there that are doing the opposite. Just pick up any good order and discipline.

As far as the poll goes, I would say the first one is closest to my best choice but I would say it is serious enough to, but should not be an automatic.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

JP3, so where's your vote ?

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

I voted no.

I believe our current policy works. A DUI in itself should not be a go/no-go test.

One reason I don't believe it should be is that local governments are following a trend to lower the BAC that qualifies for a DUI. For example in DC you could have been charged with a DUI if you had any BAC above 0.0. This was fixed a year or two ago, and I think they use the standard .08 now.

I guess my point is that if we say one DUI and out, we could end up discharging members in one area, when in another they are just sent on their way.

If we did end up going to one DUI and out, I believe we would need to adopt a Coast Guard standard of say .08 (or whatever) and process them only if they have a BAC over that amount. This is the same way we do other drugs. But then we are back to the problem of discharging one members for a DUI, and keeping another that also had a DUI. Sounds like a mess to me.

Be Safe,

Brett

[AMTCM John Long]

I went with the second one. My rational was (from past experience) that when someone hurts or kills another and it was a DUI, the member will likely face civil charges. The one I seen was involuntary manslaughter (convicted). I think that takes the seriousness of the DUI to a different level.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

I voted no - not on the first offense. I voted this way because I can think of 6 people right off the top of my head that have had a DUI and are still in the CG - they all are great people and great performers. They made a one time mistake - luckily they were not involved in a serious accident.

Now the second time we have a problem.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Brett, don't you think that we hold certain people accountable in some parts of the country, and other people are given the walk already? If you look at the data for those people processed after their second AI, it's rarely their second AI. They have been given many second chances from various commands, before they finally landed in the command that said enough.
I believe our current policy "could" work...... all we would need is the people to enforce it. And don't we already have a mess. You could probably find out faster than any of us.......How many people were discharged for alcohol abuse in the past year ? past quarter ? On average, how many people are given and AI quarterly?

Dave,..........a little bit of honesty here. Do you really want me to buy into the "good people who made one mistake" theory. They have to be the unluckiest people on the planet. The only time they ever were drinking and driving, and that's the day they got pulled over. What are the odds ? Two questions for you.....
1. Would you be willing to apply that same tolerance to people who used illegal drugs?
2. How many of those six people would have drove their vehicle after drinking if they knew the CG was going to discharge them if they got pulled over?

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Stuart,

Your right, but it's not because of the policy, it's because of poor and inconsistent leadership. The same can be said of evaluations, awards, or **place thread here**. We will never get everyone to enforce every policy the same (I know you know that already).

I just don’t think we should institutionalize a policy that insures people will be treated differently because of their location.

No policy is a perfect fit for every situation, but our current policy seems to me to be a good balance. You can already discharge someone if they kill or injure someone while intoxicated, no need to wait for a second DUI. On the other hand, people make mistakes, if they are a good performer and no one has been injured, the one DUI may be the wake up call they needed to get back on the right path. Getting knocked off the advancement list, some community service, and public transportation for a year or so might be all that needs to happen.

I run the numbers every month, and we do continue to discharge members for alcohol at an alarming rate. What I can’t tell you is whether we are having more alcohol problems or are the commands are taking the ones we have more seriously?

Brett

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I would hope that it's the commands taking things more serious answer. And under our current policy you "could" process someone for that first DUI, if you wanted to. And I don't see why implementing a requirement to discharge would ensure differnet standards for different areas. The overall CG stance would still be don't drink and drive. The people getting DUI's would still have broken the local law, which is the problem I have. Drinking and driving is stupid, but that's not why I have an issue with it. My issue is that it's against the law.

[BMC John Phillips III]

You know this is a bit off topic only due to the fact that it would include more than just the Coast Guard, but I have had this idea for a long time.

You get one DUI, you get exactly what you get now (not gonna list everything cause it would make for a really long thread). 2nd time, same as now. 3rd time and this is where my idea comes in, you lose your right to buy or drink alcohol.

How could we do this? Well there is no fool proof way, as a good alcoholic will always find a way to get his fix. But here's my idea. First off, everyone would get carded for alcohol (this would help with underage drinkers a little too) then if you fell into my "three strikes your out deal" you would have a mark on your license or ID that said you were not able to buy or consume alcohol. Again, it's not fool proof but it's a major inconvenience for people who didn't learn the 1st or 2nd time. It probably wouldn't keep a hardcore alcoholic from the alcohol like I said, but it would be a major inconvenience to them and it might actually keep them out of the bars and cars.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Dave,..........a little bit of honesty here. Do you really want me to buy into the "good people who made one mistake" theory. They have to be the unluckiest people on the planet. The only time they ever were drinking and driving, and that's the day they got pulled over. What are the odds ? Two questions for you.....
1. Would you be willing to apply that same tolerance to people who used illegal drugs?]

Apples to oranges here, until they make alcohol an illegal drug, I can't compare these two things. I have zero tolerance for illegal drugs.

2. How many of those six people would have drove their vehicle after drinking if they knew the CG was going to discharge them if they got pulled over?

Most of these people probably thought they were under the legal limit. None of them probably felt they were impaired - one of the problems with alcohol. People do make mistakes, to lose a top performer for one bad decision seems like a bad decision

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dave, it's apples and oranges because you want it to be. There are laws against drinking under age, and drinking and driving. You choose to be more tolerate of the people that ignore those laws. Alcohol is an illegal drug for people under the age of consumption. Would you be willing to discharge anyone who is caught drinking underage ? If not, why?
Go back and read your "non-answer" to the second question. Another problem with alcohol is that too many people are willing to make excuses for the people that abuse it. The Coast Guard's offical stance is "Don't drive and drive." You're defending peoples' violation of our policy and the law, by saying they probably thought they were under the legal limit. I'm saying they were in no position to make those judgement calls. I'd be interested to see what the BAC was on some of those people you think, thought they were safe. And you have a death grip on that one mistake theory. I'll also have to point out the obvious problem with the top performer defense. If they were truely top performers don't you think they would adhere to this policy in particular? Look at the results of the survey so far, and you can see why we continue to have issues with alcohol in the Coast Guard.
Now, find me another law, where you would be willing to give someone else another chance if they were arrested for it. Give me something comparable to drinking and driving. I'm only asking for one. If no one can come up with one, maybe you should be asking yourselves why we make the exceptions with alcohol.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

I too voted no - not on the first offense. Yeah, I know all about the how about those that never get caught? deal. The only solution to that is to make alcohol illegal and we all know that is not going to happen.

Alcohol is a legal substance for people that are at least 21 years old. It is up to the users to police themselves to ensure that they do not break any laws. If they continually choose to abuse it, (the alcohol and the Coast Guard’s investment in them), the military has every right to discharge them.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ray, making alcohol illegal isn't the only solution. Holding people accountable for their illegal activities is the only solution. Chapter 20 pretty much sums that up. The Coast guard isn't looking to remove alcohol from the CG environment.....just the ill effects that it causes. Responsible people drink responsibily everyday. You can't possibly think that everyone who drinks, ends up driving under the influence. Alcohol use is legal. But that doesn't make everything you do while drinking acceptable.
I'm willing to argue that people who get caught with a DUI, even that first time, have already continually choosen to abuse it.
They might be good people. They might be good performers. But we send mixed messages when we retain them.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

Dave, it's apples and oranges because you want it to be. There are laws against drinking under age, and drinking and driving. You choose to be more tolerate of the people that ignore those laws. Alcohol is an illegal drug for people under the age of consumption. Would you be willing to discharge anyone who is caught drinking underage ? If not, why?

Every situation is different. You can make scenarios for many different situations. I notice one of my members pass me on the highway coming to work. He is obviously going over the speed limit. THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW, and according to your argument I should begin the discharge proceedings as soon as I get to work.

Go back and read your "non-answer" to the second question. Another problem with alcohol is that too many people are willing to make excuses for the people that abuse it. The Coast Guard's offical stance is "Don't drive and drive." You're defending peoples' violation of our policy and the law, by saying they probably thought they were under the legal limit. I'm saying they were in no position to make those judgement calls.

It is not illegal to drink and drive, it is illegal to drink and drive if you're impaired. I recently had a BUI case here where our Boarding Officers felt the operator was intoxicated, the local PD came down, ran him through there FST's - said he was fine. Without a blood test to confirm, even the Alco-Sensors can be off a certain percentage and aren't allowed in most states to be used as anything other than an FST.

I guess the only answer is to outlaw drinking and alcohol all together. That will eliminate your gray area.

I'd be interested to see what the BAC was on some of those people you think, thought they were safe. And you have a death grip on that one mistake theory. I'll also have to point out the obvious problem with the top performer defense. If they were truely top performers don't you think they would adhere to this policy in particular?

I guess because I myself do drink there is no possibility of me being a top performer if I decide to have a couple beers at the CCTI dinner and drive home. If I am impaired - I don't drive. If I feel I am not impaired I will drive home. I know plenty of top performers that drink, albeit responsibly. These people I refered to also were not falling down drunk, they were not involved in an accident. My cousin was hit by a drunk driver when he was 18. He was in a coma for 42 days, has no short term memory now and requires constant supervision. The guy that hit him went to jail. If a Coast Guard Member does this he will go to jail, I know a non-rate in NH State Prison right now. I salute your choosing to lead a sober life, and I am sure there are reasons for it.

Look at the results of the survey so far, and you can see why we continue to have issues with alcohol in the Coast Guard.
Now, find me another law, where you would be willing to give someone else another chance if they were arrested for it.

Speeding - speeding drivers kill people all the time, it is an arrestable offense for driving over the speed limit by 25 miles. The Highway on the Cape here the speed limit is 50, the average speed is 75.

Give me something comparable to drinking and driving. I'm only asking for one. If no one can come up with one, maybe you should be asking yourselves why we make the exceptions with alcohol.

Again MC - no disrepect intended, we are adults. We make decisions that affect our own lives daily. I take responsibility for my actions. Until they make it illegal to drive with anything over 0.00 BAC. people will have a few beers and drive home.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dave, your twisting the story. First of all experts will tell you that the first alcoholic beverage can already impair your judgement and decrease your reaction time. Again the Coast Guards's stance is "Don't drink and Drive." I'm not asking that everyone who drinks and drives gets discharged. But if they get arrested, there is no grey area. I also didn't say that top performers couldn't drink. But I will continue to argue that people arrested for DUI are not the performers that you are claiming they are. Alcohol is not the enemy here. But you can't possibly argue that when someone gets a DUI, they somehow bring credit to the Coast Guard.
Are you really going to equate speeding with drinking and driving. Maybe if you had that person doing 75 in a school zone, I 'd be able to see your point. But you have to look at the statistics on the number of people killed by drunk drivers every year. Speeding isn't safe. But it still doesn't compare to the effects of drinking.
Dave, you're the one creating the grey area here. My stance is simple. If the CG wants to get serious about alcohol abuse, start with our DUI violators. If you are arrested for DUI, you should be discharged. If you want to have a couple of beers and drive home, you're playing with your future. Back to you......if the Coast Guard implemented that policy,...would you get behind the wheel the next time you went to a CCTI dinner ?

Dave, don't sing my praises for living a sober life, I didn't have many other options. And I'm not trying to get people to stop drinking. I only want them to do it responsibily. I want them to be adults.
Look at the Good Order and Discipline statements. Look at the numbers. Ask yourself why we have so few discharges over drugs, and so many over alcohol. People aren't getting those mixed signals with our drug policy. People aren't following our alcohol policy. That isn't helping some people make the right adult decisions.

And Dave, just a glimpse into the future..... once this thread had run its course, I'm going to start another topic on forcing anyone into retirement if they get an AI after they have twenty years in.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu, Why does "holding someone accountable" for DUI have to mean discharge? How about loosing a command position? How about going to mast and getting NJP, along with all the "holding up of ones career" that goes along with it? I agree with Dave that the Coast Guard would loose a great deal of great performing people if they were discharged for the first DUI. I don't drink either, and I have zero tolerance for AI's, but I think discharge without taking a good long look at the individual involved is a bit extreme. I recently sat on the good side (if you can call it that) of the green table for just such an incident. Discharge was the furthest thing from my mind. I witnessed and outstanding performer (at work) put his career on hold for at least 2 years. He was held to account and the Coast Guard will be better for keeping him on board. At least that is what I believe. Time will tell.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim, I agree with you. I just think that it's time we started to up the ante. The message isn't being heard. Check the books, we're losing good people to alcohol every year. Some of them are being discharged for their "second" AI, which in all actuality is probably their fourth. And some of those people are taking other good people down with them. How many of you have had a person show up at your unit who already had an AI for underage drinking ? A couple of months go by and he turns out to be the one providing your underage crew members with alcohol. Instead of becoming the advocate, he becomes a facilitator.
These problems aren't going away on their own. Something has to be done. Do you think your guy would have been drinking and driving if the CG had the same stance it has with drug use? And Jim, you took your guy to mast. How many people have you heard from that wouldn't have? How many people have tried to brush these incidents under the rug? How many people do you know who have more than two AIs? How many people do you know who got an AI and was still sent to a Command Cadre or Special Assignment Billet? How many people have you seen who weren't held accountable?
How many of you had one of your people pick up an AI at "A" School?

It may be extreme, but we are discharging and extremely high number of people for alcohol issues every year right now? What should we do about it?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu, those being discharged are being discharged because they have a problem that they are not dealing with. Help is there and is all but forced upon the member. However, one can only lead a horse to water... If we have a high number of people being discharged, it is also because we have leaders that are stepping up and doing their job. I would be more concerned if there was an increase in AI's and NOT an increase in the number of discharges. I think you have made your own point with your last comments. The fact is, good people sometimes make bad choices when they are sober. Add a couple drinks and a good person might be more inclined to make a bad choice. If an AI and a two strike policy is not enough of a wake up call for that member, they maybe they should seek other employment. I would rather hinder an individual that got caught sweeping an AI under the rug or not dealing with it in a responsible manner than discharge someone for a first time offense if they are worthy of remaining in the service.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

I voted yes for several reasons. Though I think Stu is very persuasive in his arguement for the change, I wasn't convinced it was that big of a problem (I'm an MK and not a big fan of fixing something that isn't broke :D ). Then I came across Master Chiefs Isherwoods website and a link labled "Alcohol Report". It's a spreadsheet with all of the AI's in just PACAREA for FY05 and 06. It is so mind boggling that we have so many AI's in one Area, it's hard to believe. I lost count of the DUI's listed. Since January of 2006, 80 people have been discharged from PACAREA alone for AI's.
For years we've been telling folks to call a cab, a friend or the command center and we'd get you home safe, no reprisals. I even received a personal BAC device from the previous PACAREA MC along with everyone else at our command. Maybe it's time to take a tougher stance. Don't think so or don't agree, go to the PACAREA Master Chief's website and look at the report, but before you do write down how many AI's and DUI's you think you'll see reported. Quite an eye opener...

Craig

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Craig, you and I seem to be shopping at the same store.......
Jim, look at the PACAREA site, it's hard not to imagine that more AIs aren't taking place, and only some of them are being held against the member. Again, when most of these people are being processed their second AI, only means the second time they were held accountable for it. And but that I don't mean the second time they were caught, just the second time a command held them accountable.
PACAREA again is leading the way in compiling this data. There is going to be a report to follow where they went to the field looking for solutions. That should be eye opening as well.

I think that if we folowed our current policy that would have been enough. But it's not working. So time to up the ante, and I think that discharging people who are arrested for DUI is the easier way to start. They are being arrested. That eliminates those grey areas people want to see. They violated the local law for their area. Their arrest goes against our core values. Preventing that arrest was totally within their control. They never had to drink and drive. Eliminate the opportunity for the commands to implement a double standard. If you're arrested for DUI, you're gone.

Jim, I know I keep going back to the same analogy, but don't you see the connection between this and a one time drug incident? Say that you had a guy who was out at a party and hooked up with the girl of his dreams. All she wanted him to do was smoke a little pot, or do a little coke, or drop a little exstacy. How many people would fight to retain him, even if he was the best performer at your unit? He pops positive and he's gone. That's all in house. These people with DUIs are arrested. There is a reflection of the Coast Guard cast in the community. Again, beating the dead horse, but why are so many people willing to defend their actions ?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

They are being arrested. That eliminates those grey areas people want to see. They violated the local law for their area. Their arrest goes against our core values. Preventing that arrest was totally within their control.

Stu...Using this logic, Shouldn't all arrests lead to discharge? All arrests violate the law. All arrests go against our core values. All arrests are within their control.

It's a slippery slope...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'll say no just on face value. Not all arrests lead to convictions. Just take domestic violence calls. In some states if the police are called, some is getting arrested, whether actual violence occured or not. We had a recent occurence of a high profile case involving a member who was arrested for rape charges that turned out to be unfounded. And not all arrests have the potential for causing the death and bodily injury to innocent people that someone getting behind the wheel does.
We see the potential seriousness of DUIs. We just don't seem to want to take them seriously enough.
And not all arrests could lead to discrediting the service. Some people might get arrested for being involved in an authorized demonstration.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I'll say no just on face value. Not all arrests lead to convictions. Just take domestic violence calls. In some states if the police are called, some is getting arrested, whether actual violence occured or not. We had a recent occurence of a high profile case involving a member who was arrested for rape charges that turned out to be unfounded. And not all arrests have the potential for causing the death and bodily injury to innocent people that someone getting behind the wheel does.
We see the potential seriousness of DUIs. We just don't seem to want to take them seriously enough.
And not all arrests could lead to discrediting the service. Some people might get arrested for being involved in an authorized demonstration.

Stu...Not all DUI arrests lead to conviction either. I'm just not ready to discharge everyone for a single DUI. There are good people out there that make bad decisions, they deserve a second chance.

[BMC John Phillips III]

one can only lead a horse to water...

This is probably going to come off as a little smart ass, but I am not sure the leading the horse to water is the best analogy when trying to get people not to drink. Or here's a good one if you still wanted to use it, just add a little twist: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't get him to drink responsibly!"

That eliminates those grey areas people want to see. They violated the local law for their area. Their arrest goes against our core values. Preventing that arrest was totally within their control. They never had to drink and drive. Eliminate the opportunity for the commands to implement a double standard. If you're arrested for DUI, you're gone.

Master Chief, I voted YES the first choice, but I take it as more of, an arrest for DUI should be serious enough to be considered for discharge. Again, I don't think it should be automatic. Another thing to consider is retention and remaining uniform to what the other services are doing. Anyone know the Navy, Marines, Army or Air Force standards? If I had to venture a guess, I would say the Air Forces' is the most harsh and the Coast Guard would probably more closely shadow them than the others. That's a retention and quality of life issue if you ask me.

I do agree that we need to start taking the issue a little more seriously than we have in the past. How many people do you know or have heard of that got out of a DUI because they flashed their military ID's? Sure this isn't happening nearly as much as it used to, but it's a bad precedence for that member because now they are willing to take that chance again on the basis that the cop may go easy on them. When we "sweep" these sort of things under the rug, or turn the blind eye to someone that is having issues with alcohol, then we are only setting them up for bigger failure in the end.

And Dave, if one of my guys goes flying by me on my way to work. I would talk to them about it, as almost everyone in my crew drives the GV at some time or the other. It would also affect thier safety marks. I actually had some lawn service truck go flying by me >50mph in a 30 zone. When I reached the light, I called the number on the back of the truck to ask if they did emergency tree service or lawn care because that was the only logical reason for the driver to be going that fast in a 30mph zone. You could imagine my surprise when I watched that same truck arrive at the sector and 3 coasties hoped out of it. None of them worked for me. Oh and I wouldn't recommend any of them for discharge unless of course I found out that they were drunk.

[CMC Isherwood]

I did not vote for obvious reasons.

However, for me, there is a HUGE difference between someone E6 and below and a CHIEF or above being convicted of DUI. One CERTAINLY knows better and realizes the consequences of their poor decisions.

In my job, the 2nd documented AI is NEVER the members 2nd AI. In the vast majority of cases the commands have enabled their behavior due to them being, "A good guy" or "she is such a hard worker".

A large university (I can't remember which) conducted a study several years ago regarding DUIs. The results were sobering :D "On average, those convicted of DUI had driven while impaired more than 50 times, prior to their first DUI".

I don't claim to have the silver bullet, but it appears as current practices are not ebbing the AI flow.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

In my job, the 2nd documented AI is NEVER the members 2nd AI. In the vast majority of cases the commands have enabled their behavior due to them being, "A good guy" or "she is such a hard worker".

I don't claim to have the silver bullet, but it appears as current practices are not ebbing the AI flow.

Kevin...Is anything being done at these commands to correct this problem? Are we holding the commands accountable once we find out that they are not holding their people accountable? It seems to me that we should be looking at this problem also.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Deane,

How would you propose holding the commands accountable?

I am in total agreement that there needs to be something done to stem the flow of the AIs.

[CMC Isherwood]

Deane, all I can say is, "when discovered, a spot light is shinned on the command's potential blind spot and appropriate attention is applied to the situation".

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Stu...Using this logic, Shouldn't all arrests lead to discharge? All arrests violate the law. All arrests go against our core values. All arrests are within their control.

It's a slippery slope...

Deane,
I don't think it's a slippery slope because as an organization we decide what gets a person discharged or not. Look at marijuana in California. You can legally posess and smoke it in small quantities for a medical reason. Would we retain some one who went to an outside doctor for a second opinion and was given a prescription for pot then popped positive on a urinalysis? They weren't convicted of using pot, they broke our standards of no illegal drug use.
How many other federal (or state/local) law enforcement agencies would allow one of their officers to remain with them if popped for DUI?? Some maybe, most would say "see ya"...
Another little tid bit... Master Chiefs "Alcohol Report" also lists those that were popped for illegal drug use. Comparitavely speaking, there are very few of those folks compared to the DUI folks. Why is this?? Could it be that everyone knows, if you pop positive during a whiz quiz, you are gone, toast, history?? But get popped for a DUI (and no one is injured in an accident), and if your a hard worker, and have a skill set that's desparately needed, and it may get swept under the rug... What's the message that were sending?
Don't think for a minute that commands now a days aren't still sweeping these things under the rug or not fully documenting them when they happen. It's happening, My CO and I are dealing with a member that has orders here that probably shouldn't have received them because his current command didn't document everything. EVERYONE loses when we don't follow our own instructions in documenting these cases.

Craig

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Deane, I'll take "Movies starring Al Pacino " for a thousand......... Change my comments on being arrested for DUI to convicted for DUI, though I've never heard of someone arrested who wasn't actually drinking. The case might may be thrown out for other reasons. Do you know anyone who was wrongly arrested?

JP3, as the self appointed Grammar police, you should have seen that Jim's use of the cliche' was directed at getting people help, and not at their drinking. His use of that cliche' was on the money. There's an example of wrongful arrest, we may have to look at pulling your license.

Steve, shining that spotlight may be enough to get those commands to do their job. If they're still unwilling, I'd say get someone in there who isn't.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Steve...It sounds like it's being taken care of (see Kevin's response). I'm fine with that. There's always someones eval or CG-3307 or LOR or no more commands...the options are out there.

Stu...I have never heard of anyone wrongfully arrested for any reason, not just DUI.

Craig...I agree that commands should be holding everyone accountable the same. I'm not going to buy into your marijauna comparisons, it's just not the same.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

If someone gets caught sweeping an AI under the rug, they should kiss their job goodbye. That is lack of leadership issue. I don't think we need to kick everyone out that gets a DUI (once). If that is the case lets kick everyone out that gets an AI. What is the difference? Someone does something really stupid after drinking. They obviously have a problem. Either an alcohol problem or a responsibility problem. We have the means to provide help if they choose to accept help. If they do, I don't see where discharging them will accomplish anything. We have policies and programs in place to provide whatever help they need. Meanwhile, you can go into any exchange and buy all kinds of booze cheaper than anywhere. Is this not enabling and possibly even encouraging use of a substance that we know leads to problems? What if the policy were changed? How many more AI's would get swept under the rug? I think we need to look at leadership issues with regards to AI's before we change the discharge policy.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Jim...Very well said! I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I agree with most of what you said, but you can still get an AI without breaking the law. Say someone misses movement, or is late for work, and you find out it was because they were hung over. Are you really raising that to the level of a DUI. And Jim, I can walk past the alcohol in the exchange just as easily as I can walk past the cigarettes. Now if the exchange put a drive-thru next to the cold beer, I'd start seeing the problem. But again why should we punish the responsible drinkers because someone else won't adhere to the law?
Jim, we can revisit other threads, but I can just point out, that some people have AIs in their record that should never have been entered. I really bothers me that other don't have them when they really should have had them entered.

Deane, I know two people who were arrested for domestic violence when they did nothing wrong. And you'll have to go back to last year and another thread to read about the person arrested for five (?) counts of rape, went thru the RFC, and the charges turned out to be bogus.

But while I'm at it, I'd recommend anyone convicted of domestic violence for discharge,............whether they actually did it or not.

[BMC John Phillips III]

JP3, as the self appointed Grammar police, you should have seen that Jim's use of the cliche'

Master Chief, it's cliché, consider yourself warned! :p

[AMTCM John Long]

But while I'm at it, I'd recommend anyone convicted of domestic violence for discharge,............whether they actually did it or not.


Huh???? If they got convicted, don't you think there is a high likely hood they're guilty?

For Kieth,

I've had two tours at North Bend 87-91 and 04-06. I know within the Group and Airsta during both tours we had folks get into problems with drinking. On first glance it seems the single folks (mostly males) have the highest incidence of problems. Could be geographic factors playing into it. Small towns, nothing to do, nowhere to go, etc.

I know that single folks on the islands had adaptability problems. That is the main reason why the CG went to shorter tour lengths for single folks overseas. Is it realistic to consider shorter tour lengths for single folks at the NW units? Maybe do 3 years vs 4 years. If you have access to the stats, look at when the CG implemented the shorter overseas tour lengths (circa 96-97ish???) and see if the overseas rate of incidences/problems decreased as a result. If the desired results where achieved, maybe we should try a pilot program in the NW and see if that works. Thoughts????

John

[CMC Isherwood]

John-
I am going to guess that you meant Kevin vise Keith, since I am the only K in this thread.

Interesting idea, do you think there is any way of reducing the year from the front end of the tour? :D My point is, "most folks are getting into trouble with AIs at the beginning of their tours not 3 years into them". Yes, I am sure there are anomalies, but the numbers show more often than not, AIs happen in the beginning.

Consider the above, with the combination of the already existing concern for workforce churn and reduced annual budgets, I don't see this readily getting off the ground. That being said, I am almost willing to try anything.

As for reduced tour lengths, they were around long before 96 - 97. Over the past several years the CG has been slowly equalizing CONUS/OCONUS tours in some areas. The last one that I personally recall was bringing Guam from a 2 year to a 3 year tour.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

JP3, you're still not getting it, look for the context, not the punchline.

John, innocent people can get convicted. The two cases I know about with domestic violence both happened in Fl. Once the police were called out, someone was going to get arrested. Once they were arrested, that arrest was going to stick. Once you're convicted for domestic violence you can no longer carry a weapon. Once you can no longer carry a weapon....... I don't think that we should retain you.

I don't think it works the same for DUIs. I think if you get caught, you're caught. Not much hope of a mistake being made on the part of the person who arrested you.

John, shortening tour lengths puts the burden back on the service. Why not just make examples out of the people who violate the law?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

...Meanwhile, you can go into any exchange and buy all kinds of booze cheaper than anywhere. Is this not enabling and possibly even encouraging use of a substance that we know leads to problems?

I will have to double check, but I was told that the exchanges cannot sell "sin" items at anything more than 5% (?) of the going rate in the surrounding community.

In North Carolina, the liquor stores are run by the state, and taxed like crazy. Is that not enabling?

I'm on board with you Jim, but I think like alot of things, it does fall upon personal accountability. As long as the rules are being followed, alcohol consumption is a choice and if someone chooses wisely they probably will not have any problems.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

John, innocent people can get convicted. The two cases I know about with domestic violence both happened in Fl. Once the police were called out, someone was going to get arrested. Once they were arrested, that arrest was going to stick. Once you're convicted for domestic violence you can no longer carry a weapon. Once you can no longer carry a weapon....... I don't think that we should retain you.

I don't think it works the same for DUIs. I think if you get caught, you're caught. Not much hope of a mistake being made on the part of the person who arrested you.

John, shortening tour lengths puts the burden back on the service. Why not just make examples out of the people who violate the law?

There's that slippery slope again. Things aren't necessarily black and white when dealing with discipline problems. Not every case is the same. Not every person deserves a second chance, but many do.

I'm sure that many of us on this board did something stupid when we were younger and are glad that we are still around to have this talk. I think the current policy is sound and we don't need to go to the extreme of discharge for DUI. We do need to crack down on these commands that aren't doing their jobs.

[AMTCM John Long]

Kevin,

You're correct. For some reason I had Keith (an old CMC from days gone by) on my mind.....sorry about that.

The overseas ones didn't happen too long ago...somewhere in the 1990's. I remember calling up HQ and speaking with a LCDR about why couldn't an unnaccompanied member get the same tour length as the single member. This is where she explained to me about the adaptability problems that single folks have at isolated/small units. I still don't agree with her (HQ) but that's for another thread.

I remember some units getting longer tour lengths. Barbers Point (3 to 4)comes to mind. Someone with a PersMan in front of them can correct me if I'm off.

If the first year is the target problem area then maybe first year folks should get several alchohol training days spread out to keep the awareness level on the radar screen. Nothing long, maybe a short 1 hour block of meaningful discussion. We might get some great feedback going back up the chain. If the member makes it thru the first year "probation" then they should be good to go. Thoughts???


Stu,

If a truly innocent person gets convicted then the system failed him/her. The CG should intervene at that point.

Also about carrying a weapon....if that is a state law does it apply to federal employees? I don't think it does but the CG won't circumvent state folks. I knew of some BP folks (in PR) who still kept their weapons after suspect charges.

I don't think shortening tour lengths puts any more of a burden on the CG than what is already there. I think retaining the member's training dollars already invested outweighs the cost of a $6-$10K PCS move.....don't you agree??

IMO there is a difference between violating a policy and commiting a crime. Both are wrong but the level of wrongdoing is different. As such, the level of punishment should also be commensurate to the offense. If we do blanket discharges there will be some empty stations out there. ARI's seem like "catch all's". Maybe that policy needs to be reviewed again for applicability of certain situations. If it's not working, then lets fix it.

John

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Master Chief, one problem might be the politically correct wording we tend to assign to things in our policies. You keep referring to an ARI, (alcohol related incident?). This actually combines the 2 possible infractions, either an Alcohol Incident or an Alcohol Related Situation.

Confusion up and down the chain could cause fluxuations in the punishment doled out based simply on what the investigating officer bases his investigation on. An alcohol related situation doesn't even mandate a screening, much less punishment. Throwing the word "related" in may create confusion on what YOU as the OIC want on the 4910.

[AMTCM John Long]

Ken,

Good point. Maybe the wording is that way to act as catch-alls.

Thanks....John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, you can't really put a price on what shorter tours is going to cost us. By the time we finally get someone fully qualified, we would need to give them time off to set up their household goods as they transfer out.
It's a federal law that prevents those people from carrying a weapon, and regardless of the fault, that's the system that we live in.

Deane, doing something stupid and being caught and for doing something stupid are two different animals. Also, the system is only as sound as the people who enforce it. Looking at those numbers, I can't say the system is working as it is designed to. I agree that some people do deserve a second chance. I just don't like that people who get arrested for DUI do. Would you say that everyone arrested for DUI deserves a second chance ?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I agree that some people do deserve a second chance. I just don't like that people who get arrested for DUI do. Would you say that everyone arrested for DUI deserves a second chance ?

Stu...No, not everyone that gets a DUI deserves a second chance. But, for those that do deserve a second chance, I don't want a policy that doesn't allow me to give them that chance. I'm not ready for an "All or Nothing" policy on DUI's.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Stu...No, not everyone that gets a DUI deserves a second chance. But, for those that do deserve a second chance, I don't want a policy that doesn't allow me to give them that chance. I'm not ready for an "All or Nothing" policy on DUI's.

Deane,
How do we decide who gets a second chance and who doesn't?? Base it on paygrade, time in service etc... I'm not being argumentative, but as Master Chief stated he's looking for any ideas that might help curb this problem.
What do you (the Mess) think about changing our policy so that if you do get an AI (and your screening comes back as no diagnosis) that your not allowed to consume alcohol for say four years (or any number for that matter). I chose four years simply because as Master Chief put it, the biggest problem seems to be in the first year at a new unit. This would in most cases cover someone going to a new unit, maybe even two units if they are coming out of A-school. I would definetely change the regs so that someone who is found to be abusive has to abstain for at least four years (currently it's one year). Thoughts/idea's/modifications??

Craig

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'd be willing to compromise. I'd go with E-5 and below, not in a Command Cadre position, in DUIs that didn't result in an accident which caused serious bodily injury or loss of life. And that person agrees to refrain from drinking for the same year long time frame that the can't drive on military installations, or they opt for the discharge. If the can't keep from drinking for a year (?) ...we see where their loyalties lay............

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Deane,
How do we decide who gets a second chance and who doesn't?? Base it on paygrade, time in service etc... I'm not being argumentative, but as Master Chief stated he's looking for any ideas that might help curb this problem.

Craig...the persons command would recommend (or not) a second chance based on their performance, etc. Who else would recommend it?

I'm fully aware of what Master Chief is looking for. I just don't agree with the extreme that you're suggesting. I'm not saying that we don't need to do something, I'm just not ready to make the leap from the current policy...to DUI and discharge. If this ever did become the policy, I would be the first in line to support it...but until then...

[BMC John Phillips III]

I have to go back to what some people have already stated. Often the second offense is not actually the second offense. It may not even be the second time they've been caught. I am for one offense DUI, with the option of a recommendation for retention.

Master Chief, are you saying E5 and below would be eligible for the 2nd chance?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

No I'm saying fry them all. But if I were forced to compromise, I'd go back to the days of my youth and split the difference. When I was in the Army, E-4 and below could pop positive for drugs "one" time and still be retained. An NCO could expect to be discharged for their first offense. I split the difference between that and the E-7 and above reference made earlier. I agree that by the time you're E-7 and above you should know better. I also think that the way "Don't drive and Drink" is engrained in our culture, you should know better long before you put on the anchors.

Going from your non-policy of 1st strike but allowing for recommendations,... thats where we're at now. We have all kind of agreed that too many people aren't willing to give a not recommended for advancement. Do you really think more people would be willing to end a career?

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Actually I kind of like John's idea with a twist. If a DUI is your first documented AI, your recommended for discharge, but your command can recommend retention (like what's suppose[I] to happen after a second AI). Think of it as a point system, an AI=1, DUI=2. Two points your processed for discharge, but again your command can recommend (or not...) retention, three points and your discharged no questions asked.

Craig

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Actually I kind of like John's idea with a twist. If a DUI is your first documented AI, your recommended for discharge, but your command can recommend retention (like what's suppose[I] to happen after a second AI). Think of it as a point system, an AI=1, DUI=2. Two points your processed for discharge, but again your command can recommend (or not...) retention, three points and your discharged no questions asked.

Craig

Would this apply to playing darts while intoxicated?

Not trying to be funny, we have all seen things as bad if not worse than DWI. Most people I know that have received DWIs really thought they were safe to drive, and most people would not have stopped them from driving because they seemed fine.

I have seen people do some pretty dumb things while drunk and DWI is only one. I do not see DWI as any worse than most other types of AIs.

Be Safe,

Brett

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Brett,
I guess we see things differently (funny how some things change over the years and some don't... :D ). I see a minor getting an AI for drinking as a much less serious crime than someone getting popped for DUI...

Craig

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Brett, you have to look at one as always breaking the law.

Craig, whereas drinking underage is illegal, which has the higher probability of killing or injuring an innocent bystander ?

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Stu,
I agree, DUI is much more serious than someone drinking underage, and as such the penalties should be more severe. That was the point I was trying to make with the point system.

Craig

[BMC John Phillips III]

Would this apply to playing darts while intoxicated?

Not trying to be funny


Only if it's Lawn Darts and you kill or maim your opponent.

I am trying to be funny :D

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Brett,
I guess we see things differently (funny how some things change over the years and some don't... :D ). I see a minor getting an AI for drinking as a much less serious crime than someone getting popped for DUI...

Craig

Craig,

You know how I feel about people that drink irresponsibly. I still don’t cut anyone slack for what they do when they have been drinking. I was just pointing out that I don’t see a DUI as any worse (or better) than some of the other AIs I have seen. I was just trying to put things in perspective.

I am in no way saying drinking and driving is no big deal, and anybody that knows me knows I see it as a very big deal. A DUI is serious, so are other types of AIs. I just don’t think we should create a class system of AIs

One thing I do think we can do better is the way we handle members that get AIs. Giving someone an AI is seen as punishment, it's not, it's documentation. I have seen over and over again someone do something to earn themselves an AI, and the command gave the page 7, had them screened, sent them to level 1 and went on their way. They never addressed the action that led to the AI.

I see 3 things that should happen. Document the AI. Screen the member and provide treatment as necessary. Hold member accountable for their actions. Almost everything that gets you an AI is also a violation of the UCMJ.

I still say I see our current policy as working. I see much less alcohol abuse than I did 15 years ago. I see much less drinking and driving, and I see much less acceptance of inappropriate behavior after drinking.

Be Safe,

Brett

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Only if it's Lawn Darts and you kill or maim your opponent.

I am trying to be funny :D

John,
I believe Brett was referring to a little incident we had out here with darts...

Craig

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Brett, I see a different attitude towards alcohol than I saw fifeteen years again also, but I think that has changed in society as well.
You have a much clearer view of the overall picture than most of us do. Don't you think that 80 people in PACAREA over the past year is way too many for us not to do something?
I'll back your three prong approach, but what do we do to the people that aren't following suit. Not every command is willing to do that. What would you want to see happen to the commands that didn't?

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

One thing I find interesting is as a policy, we do not pursue NJP for DUI if the civilian side of the house is prosecuting for that. All we have left is AI documentation unless there is something else there as well. To discharge someone for DUI is a BIG reversal of course.
If I have a good car and the timing belt breaks, I may have to spend some money on a top end job to get my car running again, but if it is a good car, I will do that. If the car is a "POS", I might not spend the money. Likewise, if I have a good performer, I will make every effort to fix the problem. If I can't fix it, well.... I am not going to thow the baby out with the bathwater.
Enough cliche' already. (like that word JP3?)

[BMC John Phillips III]

yes, I also like touché

but with your cliché, I have to add the possibility that you can keep throwing more and more money into that good car, when sometimes you should just cut your losses. Just playing that bad guys advocate.

[AMTCM John Long]

This is from the Military.com news site. This directly relates to what were talking about. This is the Army and Marines view on accepting folks with criminal backgrounds/offenses.



Military Accepting More Ex-Cons
Associated Press | February 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, as the armed services cope with a dwindling pool of volunteers during wartime.

The military routinely grants waivers to take in recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Most are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses.

Defense Department statistics show that the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver.

The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than in 2003.

The number of felony waivers granted by the Army grew from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon, or about one in 10 of the moral waivers approved that year. Other misdemeanors - from petty theft or writing a bad check to some assaults - jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006, representing more than three-quarters of moral waivers granted by the Army.

Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who had made a mistake but overcome past behavior.

Lawmakers and other observers said they were concerned that the struggle to fill military ranks in this time of war had caused standards to fall.

"Our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. "By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country."

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Tuesday he was concerned that the Pentagon data differed from Army numbers, but said that "anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review."

"Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies," Boyce said.

The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues.

"The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center.

The military also does not have programs that help convicted felons adjust to military life, according to a new study commissioned by the center, Belkin said.

As the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have dragged on, the military also has relaxed some standards in order to meet recruitment demands. The Army, for example, increased its age limit for recruits from 35 to 42, and is accepting more people with lower scores on a standardized aptitude test.

The Pentagon said in its report that "the waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military."

The military in its report divides moral waivers into six categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses.

According to the Pentagon, nearly a quarter of military recruits in 2006 needed some type of waiver, up from 20 percent in 2003. Roughly 30,000 moral waivers were approved each year between 2003 and 2006.

About one in five Army recruits needed a waiver in 2006, up from 12.7 percent in 2003.

More than half of the Marine recruits needed a waiver in 2006, a bit higher than in 2003, and largely due to their more strict drug requirements.

About 18 percent of Navy recruits required a waiver, up slightly from 2003.

Just 8 percent of Air Force recruits had waivers, down a bit from 2003.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Policies are fluid. They will change to attract or retain people as necessary.

When times are good, meaning with ultra high retentions, policies can be very selective. When times are bad, they are very liberal. Those are the facts of life.

You see it all the time. There is a SWE policy, yet in times when not enough people compete for the open billets, they don't hold a SWE. When there are more people than billets, they hold a SWE. It's a fluid policy. Same with HYT. HYT is on the back burner these days, but can be drugged out in a heartbeat if it's required, and it will be required after 2008 depending on which party wins the election.

Every policy is fluid. Make no mistake about it.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Just makes me wonder where we fall in those percentages.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Ken,

I would venture to say it depends on how the public perceives the CG. It would be less than the Air Force if they perceive the CG as not being overseas, and I've not seen too many things outside the military circles saying we're overseas.

[AMTCS Terry Cowart]

This will fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but I will share it anyway. I would like to see changes made to the Coast Guards Alcohol Policy. I agree with what I read somewhere on this board that after 10 years of keeping your nose clean (so to speak), a policy should exist for a member to have an Alcohol Incident removed from their record. Doesn’t seem right for someone to pay for something forever, we all change over time, some for the better.
However, I think a member of the Armed Forces who is under 21 years of age should be allowed to drink alcohol, at the least they should be allowed to drink on base. I think it is a federal law and I know MADD would have an absolute cow if it was changed, but I think if a person joins the military, they should be allowed to drink a beer at the club.
Maybe it would do some good? Military members are more accountable than the general population and if SA Smith was allowed to toss a few back in the club on base (where he will be held accountable) for a couple years prior to being allowed to do the same in a local watering hole – he may realize that you don’t have to have 12 beers on a single visit and you are responsible for your behavior.
My experience in country’s where alcohol didn’t seem like a big deal was that it wasn’t a big deal. We seem to have more problems now, maybe it’s our approach.
TDC

[BMCS Eric Guerette]

OK, first I want to say that I didn't read all of the posts because I just don't have the time, but I did want to give some input.
I can't see how a DUI with out getting someone hurt should be any different than a DUI with death or injury. "Because you got lucky and didn't kill anyone we will let you stay in the CG. Good Job." Is that how it works?

How about this:
1. Pulled over, BAC .07 or less= the know your limit ribbon, 7 in health and well being.
2. DUI, BAC .08-.12= Mandatory Know your limit training, 4 in health and well being (hey, you were trying)
3. DUI, BAC .12-.19= AI, loss of rank, mast etc..., 2 in health in well being
3. DUI, BAC over .2= Discharge

I say this with a bit of humor, I'm not claiming to be a saint.
Yes, there are degrees to breaking the law. Ever download a copy written song? We do need to fix the culture of drinking, in the CG and in this country. There will be no one fix. How about we stop buying rounds at the bar. That way if your out with 9 of your shipmates you don't end up drinking 9 beers. seems that would go a long way towards responsible drinking.

I'll come back and read the rest of the posts when I have time, and amend my statments as needed.
Just my .02 (cents that is)
Eric

[AMTCM John Long]

[QUOTE=BMC Eric Guerette]OK, first I want to say that I didn't read all of the posts because I just don't have the time, but I did want to give some input.
I can't see how a DUI with out getting someone hurt should be any different than a DUI with death or injury. "Because you got lucky and didn't kill anyone we will let you stay in the CG. Good Job." Is that how it works?

My rational for the variable of someone getting hurt was not so much the difference between DUI with/without injury. It was more for the high likelyhood that if the member gets in an accident w/serious injuries or death, the member will be going to civil court. If the member gets convicted with vehicular manslaughter (which I seen happen) or any other serious felony he/she will be processed out to serve the prison sentence.

John

[PACS Steve Carleton]

This was e-mailed out from the LANT Gold Badge earlier.

Good Info to pass to the crew.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The results of that focus group are out. I tried posting them but its an XL file and won't upload. E-mail me if you want a copy and haven't recieved one from someone in your chain. I think it calls for change in the way we conduct training, and the message that senior leaders are really sending to the troops. Here is an exerpt from the e-mail that discusses it.....

Attached you will find the Alcohol Abuse Prevention Focus Group data that was collected throughout the Pacific Theater. Each of the gold badge CMCs met with a group of 18 – 25 year old officer and enlisted members that reflected the general behavioral populace of their AORs.

The CMCs presented 5 questions to the assembled groups in a non attributable open forum manner. The objective was for the CMCs to be mostly in the receive mode and to only interject to stimulate free flowing dialogue. Having the CMCs avoid sharing their 20 plus years of experience with alcohol, enabled these young men and women to express their true 25 year old opinions without fear of perceived judgment.

Although not scientific, this data indicates that our current alcohol abuse prevention training is not resonating with our targeted audience. Another factor that was clearly highlighted within the data, positive leadership intervention was a key factor in responsible use of alcohol. While many would say “of course”, I would offer that for being so obvious, there is ample feedback that demonstrates that this practice is not followed as often as we believe it to be. This is not an indictment; it is an attempt to shine a spotlight on a potential alcohol abuse prevention blind spot for the leadership of the Coast Guard.

There was no attempt to slice and dice this raw data, it is more powerful as is. Use it as you wish and share it shamelessly. The COMDT often opines, “Transparency of information breeds self correcting behavior”. Simply collecting this information will not prevent alcohol abuse. The more information that we have, the better prepared we will be to positively align our alcohol abuse prevention training programs with today’s work force needs.

This is not a “one and done” project! The next step is to engage with both MLC (k) and the Program Manager at HQs. You will be kept informed of progress made, stumbling blocks encountered, or additional assistance needed. Together, we can make a difference and take a stand against alcohol abuse amongst our young men and women.

......and I wonder if you would get similar answers if you asked your people the same five questions.......

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The PACAREA CMC site now has the CDAR report out. Look at the findings from it and compare them to what that focus group study said. Then try and make the determination on the importance of Command involvement in preventing these things from happening. That CDAR report breaks things down from almost ever possible angle.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I'm not claiming to be a saint.
Yes, there are degrees to breaking the law. Ever download a copy written song? We do need to fix the culture of drinking, in the CG and in this country. There will be no one fix. How about we stop buying rounds at the bar. That way if your out with 9 of your shipmates you don't end up drinking 9 beers. seems that would go a long way towards responsible drinking.
Eric

Eric, it seems that boot camp and ATON OIC aren't the only thing we have in common. Well I am not sure about you, but you might be able to add the downloaded songs to that list as well :p

Seriously though, I totally agree that we need to fix the culture of drinking in the CG. I feel as though I am doing my part, but it's tough. Especially when there are still those that encourage the buying another round, the drinking to get drunk mentality and alcohol being the common bond between shipmates.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I apologize for the double post, but I am kind of switching gears here and I didn't want to add it to the last post.

My Sector has recently had a surge in alcohol related incidents among other disciplinary issues that are clear Core Value violations. An email went out describing some of the incidents and charging the CO's/OIC's to get a round turn on our people. It was also brought up at the last Chief's Call (same day the email went out). The email talked about "the senior person present" which I am sure we have all heard before. And in what seems to be a refreshing turn or perhaps a return to the old way of doing business, they are going to start investigating further and hold the senior person accountable. That's where it all starts folks. I have to tell you, I would hate to go down for something stupid someone junior to me did, but at the same time, they work for me, I should be aware of what they are doing, especially when I am "present."

[BMCS Burt Ford]

John,
You are for holding the senior person accounable at a party with alcohol, but not for looking at my space and holding them accountable? I did read that over on the other thread didnt I? You said we need to fix the culture, but we cant fix it if we see it on My space? Please tell me that am just having a senior moment.