My two cents. A relatively impartial view point of the current situation with recommendations.

[Cpl (Ret) Eagas]

I retired from the 13th MEU and am currently an active member of another realism unit. As a member of another realism unit, I have nothing to gain or lose if this unit fails.  However, I do not want to see it fail. The reason for my leaving was my preference for conventional warfare over special operations.

Having retired from the 13th MEU and never having served actively in the 3d MRB, I hope to provide an impartial perspective of the current situation and recommendations which I believe will be in the best interest of the unit.  

Being a retired member, I have no chain of command to pass my recommendations though so I am making this post.  It is not my not intention to challenge any authority or provide criticism to any individuals.  

1. Command Staff is currently in crises and must be in place for the unit to move forward

a. Until SgtMaj De Leo and GySgt Whitacre actually retire, they are still active members of Command Staff.  If they withdraw their request to retire, they will remain in their positions.

b. Filling vacancies in Command Staff requires a unanimous vote of all active members.  This can not take place unless SgtMaj De Leo and GySgt Whitacre vote or three days pass from their request to retire.

c. While the unit has the goal of having five active members of Command Staff, this is not a requirement for the Command Staff to make decisions providing all active members participate.

d. In the event that SgtMaj De Leo and GySgt Whitacre formally retire, Maj Irwin will by himself appoint a new member to Command Staff.  The Command Staff should in turn vote on the appointment of new members until a suitable number is reached.  This is ideally five, but not required.

2. Adjudication of the issues at hand by Command Staff.

a. Does the Battalion/Company Leadership team have the authority to remove a member from an active billet without concurrence of Command Staff? (each of the following should be considered)

1) Junior Enlisted

2) Senior Enlisted

3) Junior Officer

4) Senior Officer

5) Member of Command Staff

b. Any corrective action from action taken in response to uncertainty of policy regarding the above issue.

b. Any discipline issues that have occurred in response to uncertainty of policy regarding the above issue.

3. I truly believe the issues the unit is suffering is due to leadership burn out, likely masked from leadership due to their sense of service to the unit and personal pride. My personal recommendations moving forward to prevent such burn out are as follows:

a. Command Staff should be a primary billeted assignment.  No one may be a member of Command Staff and serve in another primary billet.

b. Command Staff appointments should be for a fixed period of time.  I recommend one year

c. Battalion/Company leadership positions should be for a fixed period of time.  I recommend one year for officers and 18 months for enlisted.

4. Members are leaving in part due to an emotional response to a situation without giving the situation time to develop.  My recommendation is for the unit to establish periods of enlistment.  I would recommend periods of no less than six months and no more than one year.

a. No one leaves the unit until their current enlistment period is complete.

b. A member receiving punishment resulting in a discharge will be in inactive reserve status thru the remainder of their current enlistment period ie The Brig.

c. All exceptions will be adjudicated by Command Staff.

5. The Command Staff serves three functions:

a. It is a legislative body. All legislative meetings of the Command Staff should be open to members of the unit in order to provide transparency.

b. It is a judicial body.  Judicial proceedings of the Command Staff should be open to the members of the unit at the request of the accused.  

C. It serves as command oversight.  This provides the Battalion Leadership team with direction and guidance.

Once again, I truly hope this unit succeeds.  I wish you all well.

[SSgt (Ret) Truscott]

Quote

Filling vacancies in Command Staff requires a unanimous vote of all active members.  This can not take place unless SgtMaj De Leo and GySgt Whitacre vote or three days pass from their request to retire.

 

Maybe in theory, but that hasn't been the case in practice. I won't name names, despite that most people here know who I'm talking about, but one person has already been promoted to Command Staff without any votes by the unit.

[Sgt (Ret) Potter]

While the effort is nice, how the situation was handled can only by rectified by the offending parties to step down.

 

I do agree that members are leaving due to an emotional response, but the response is warranted this time due to the situation happening twice in a year. You will not stop people from leaving, but should damage control have been enacted, it was possible to stem the tide.

 

Several previous members asked for change, none was given.

 

Between snakes in the grass and children pretending to be men, It was inevitable it would have led to this sooner or later. 

 

It could have been prevented.

[Capt (Ret) Bazarnicki]

I agree with some of your points for sure Eagas, and the idea that CS role as an elected role that has a term limit is interesting and could work. Same with Battalion/Company leadership, its an interesting thought.

However some of the rest of it, for junior members, feels too harsh. Leadership positions make sense to have more and sometimes even a real heft to the responsibility and billet, but no way we could get new members to Milsim to "enlist" for a committed term of 6 months - 1 year. Pvt Doe joins up, trys it out, decides a MARSOC unit isn't his thing, decides to go to the 15th to drive tanks.

So he would get sent to "The Brig",  Inactive Reserves. I'm not sure what purpose this would serve, except add more overhead for S-1. The process him into IR, then months later reprocess him to discharge. The only purpose I could see this setup having would be us saying "Hey 15th, he's still a member here, don't allow him in." which would be shitty to do to any new blood in the milsim community testing the waters. I guess this could be a way to avoid people rubberbanding with discharge, leave for a week, come back - type issues.

Enlistment terms work in real life because you sign your life away. They own your ass for multiple year commitments, lawfully. Can't enforce that kind of thing in a milsim unit.

Aside from that, some good thoughts. Having a rotating leadership above would provide constant challenge, and hopefully improvement. Although you sacrifice stability.

I dunno, it would be interesting to see a unit try that setup. Other established units aren't that nimble so it could work as an advantage. 

[Maj (Ret) LaPrade]

I agree with the system you outlined, with the exception of enlistment terms, and have heard similar ideas from others. Only thing I can think of is how finances are handled, because without a doubt the people who pay the most for shit are probably gonna want a say. Primarily, judicial should be retained by the commanders unto their subordinates, but obviously command staff could act as a "court martial" if requested.

[GySgt (Ret) Whitacre]

For the record, there are 3 new CS members who were never voted into CS.

But I suppose in a couple days that will be none of my business.

Does say volumes though, doesn't it. 

[LCpl (Ret) McKnight]

It's a game. If I wanted to be enlisted then I'd go to an irl recruiter. The thought of paying to play in a group is hilarious

Edited May 10, 2017 by LCpl McKnight

[HM2 (Ret) Boardman]

15 hours ago, GySgt Whitacre said:

For the record, there are 3 new CS members who were never voted into CS.

But I suppose in a couple days that will be none of my business.

Does say volumes though, doesn't it. 

Who says the remaining members are actually going to accept those appointments, though? I know I don't speak for everyone, but I know at least 5 people who aren't. I believe all of the members left have a say in this unit and we can't rebuild it on false principles.

[1stLt (Ret) Hopp]

On 5/9/2017 at 3:37 PM, HM2 (FMF) Truscott said:

 

Maybe in theory, but that hasn't been the case in practice. I won't name names, despite that most people here know who I'm talking about, but one person has already been promoted to Command Staff without any votes by the unit.

He didn't mean by vote of the entire membership of the unit. He said members implying Irwin, De Leo, and Whitacre. We as a body have never voted on Command Staff items. 

[MSgt (Ret) Wolfe]

50 minutes ago, 1stLt Hopp said:

He didn't mean by vote of the entire membership of the unit. He said members implying Irwin, De Leo, and Whitacre. We as a body have never voted on Command Staff items. 

The current NEW CS body is literally only in play to bring the unit back to together. We have not voted on a single thing and we will not until the 2 final people that are leaving from the old CS are retired... If no one was brought in that would have left Maj irwin with the Only effective vote. And for brevity's Sake. None of the Current/past Command staff members have yet to Post Anything about any kind of policy to be discussed. So you gentleman let me know what is more absurd. Current People In CS That refused to Vote to Overturn what has been done and instead Quit you and everybody else in the unit. Or the Maj trying to find people to Create light in the current situation.   

[MSgt (Ret) Wolfe]

More to Come im late for work.  And again most of this Will be addressed in the All hands meeting