PDA

View Full Version : New ARTEP corrective action?



CraigTlumsden
08-24-2009, 04:15 PM
Recently did WLC and one of the instructors was saying that there was an ARTEP that came out a few months back stopping leaders from using PT as corrective action. Unfortunately the instructor could not produce the documentation and I am really eager to find out whether or not this is true. If so.....pathetic...too many softies...although controversial, I guarantee if you make somebody puke, they wont make the same mistake again. I am sure somebody will comment back with some liberal nonsense about it being over the top, but it works for certain things (some things require more thought for punishment).

4-20 of AR 600-20 has not been updated if this is all true.

dibblejr
08-24-2009, 08:17 PM
Yep- part of the Pepsi Generation, it's been changed for at least 5 years. I covered this in another thread here when someone asked a very similar question. I will try to dig it back up.

Actually "smoking" was taken out and replaced with "Corrective Training".

ajd2598
08-24-2009, 08:38 PM
Craig -

I did a skim through AR 600-20, AR 600-100, and FM 22-100, and couldn't find what your instructor was referring to. In 600-20, it did state something to the effect that local commanders could set policy regarding corrective actions, in accordance with the policies laid out, so perhaps his local commander banned PT as a corrective action? Good luck with your search.

- Adam

dibblejr
08-25-2009, 04:09 AM
Adam- Actually the Army put a stop to "smoking soldiers".

Here is where we discussed it previously

http://www.armyforums.com/showthread.php?t=562&highlight=corrective+training&page=1

ajd2598
08-25-2009, 04:12 AM
I saw that thread yesterday actually, but what that thread lacks, and what I've yet to see, is a written regulation, from any proponent Army authority that specifically outlines where that has ceased. I cannot find any regulation banning the use of reasonable physical exercise as a method of corrective action for counseling a soldier.

Know where we can find it?

- Adam

dibblejr
08-25-2009, 04:30 AM
For more info you have to read AR 600-20 Army Command Policy. Also FM 22-100. These AR's are way above your heads and you will not have to worry about dishing out Corrective Training for quite a while. As long as you follow instructions and are a fairly good soldier you will not have to worry about being on the receiving end of Corrective Training.

Everyone needs to just forget about the word "Smoking" and "Corrective Training" it is now called Corrective Action Physical Exercise (CAPES)

I will find the relative paragraphs later when I find some time.

ajd2598
08-25-2009, 04:39 AM
"way over my head"? spare me the holier than thou bullshit sir. I looked through those very documents myself yesterday, and could find no concrete reference to the banning of "Corrective Training" or any other euphemism for PT as a manner of corrective action/counseling for a soldier.

You proceeded to blow me off earlier by quoting yourself, where you failed to provide any concrete sources. Forgive me for not taking your advice simply upon merit, but with due respect, I do not know you. When I give advice to other members of this forum, where I have spoken with confidence, I have always listed the appropriate AR/FM where I located this information verbatim.

Should you like to provide an actual contribution to this discussion by providing appropriate references to official Army policy, then I'll hear you out. If you were simply stating the general attitude of the force, and a change of culture surrounding the use of PT as a corrective action, then so be it. But that's not what you've said. You said that any form of corrective training in the form of physical exersize was banned by a competent Army authority, and if so, then I expect you to back up such a claim.

Do not attempt to belittle my intelligence sir. I will not tolerate that attitude. If you have actual concrete information, then provide, otherwise you are no better than those on the forum whom you attack for giving out incorrect and outdated information.

- Adam

dibblejr
08-25-2009, 04:52 AM
You have taken this completely wrong.

I say way over your head because these AR's I refer to especially Command Policy are part of the 1SG Course and until you have some time in the Army to really understand the way they work and are set up it will be difficult for you to read and interpret them. reading is easy but until you live the life you will not be able to fully grasp the true meaning.

I did say I will provide the paragraphs later when I get the time.

It is not Corrective Training that has been banned- it is Smoking and until you can grasp the difference between the two you will have a problem.

Before you get your panties in a wad calm down. I would suguest that you get off this "high horse" and slow down on researching regulations before you even attend 1 day in BT. In this aspect going into BT with a swollen head thinking you are smarter than your superiors will cause you much "Corrective Training".

Just slow down and relax.




"way over my head"? spare me the holier than thou bullshit sir. I looked through those very documents myself yesterday, and could find no concrete reference to the banning of "Corrective Training" or any other euphemism for PT as a manner of corrective action/counseling for a soldier.

You proceeded to blow me off earlier by quoting yourself, where you failed to provide any concrete sources. Forgive me for not taking your advice simply upon merit, but with due respect, I do not know you. When I give advice to other members of this forum, where I have spoken with confidence, I have always listed the appropriate AR/FM where I located this information verbatim.

Should you like to provide an actual contribution to this discussion by providing appropriate references to official Army policy, then I'll hear you out. If you were simply stating the general attitude of the force, and a change of culture surrounding the use of PT as a corrective action, then so be it. But that's not what you've said. You said that any form of corrective training in the form of physical exersize was banned by a competent Army authority, and if so, then I expect you to back up such a claim.

Do not attempt to belittle my intelligence sir. I will not tolerate that attitude. If you have actual concrete information, then provide, otherwise you are no better than those on the forum whom you attack for giving out incorrect and outdated information.

- Adam

ajd2598
08-25-2009, 05:14 AM
Your arrogance, sir, is extraordinary. I am well aware of my status with the Army, my age, and my level of training, and I'm not in need of any reminders of the same. However, your suggestion that I am incapable of reading a plain english document, cross referencing available sources, and properly interpreting a document that was designed to be generally understood, is crap.

Nobody in this thread, had used the phrase "smoking" except you. The OP was not inquiring about it, and neither was I. "Smoking" per AR 600-20 "Army Command Policy" is generally viewed as a manner of hazing, and as such, is prohibited by Section 4-20, of that regulation. However, within this very regulation, it states the following:



[Exerpt from AR 600-20 part 4-20]
(2) When authorized by the chain of command and not unnecessarily cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful, the
following activities do not constitute hazing:
(a) The physical and mental hardships associated with operations or operational training.
(b) Administrative corrective measures, including verbal reprimands and a reasonable number of repetitions of
authorized physical exercises.
(c) Extra military instruction or training.
(d) Physical training or remedial physical training.
(e) Other similar activities.

Unless my understanding of the English language is flawed, this would seem to indicate, that as a manner of corrective measure by a commander to a subordinate, a reasonable number of repetitions of authorized physical exercises is allowed. This is exactly what I, and the OP was referencing. You have stated to us, that this regulation has somehow been rescinded, and that any use of physical exercise as a corrective action has been banned. Where?

Go ahead and continue to belittle me by suggesting I'm just a hot-headed private, or barracks lawyer that's setting himself up for a world of hurt by questioning things, because perhaps I am. But that doesn't excuse you from your charge. If you are going to insult me sir, by telling me to 'un-wad my panties' and 'un-swell' my head, then it would be prudent of you to provide the information I seek in the same breath. This is very simple. I'm not asking you to define the Army Posture statement, and give a dissertation on the inner workings of the Army at the 1st Sergeant level, I'm asking you to locate, and display for our viewing pleasure, what should be a short and sweet little paragraph that states that leaders in the Army are no longer allowed to use physical exercise as a method for counseling a soldier. This is what the OP asked us, and I answered it to the best of my ability. Do you have this information? If not, then concede that you don't, and shut-up. If so, then please post as such, and I will offer my apology publicly.

dibblejr
08-25-2009, 05:29 AM
You can start here:

AR 600-20

Chapter 4 Military Discipline and Conduct

para 4-1 (a) (b) (c)
4-2
4-4
4-6
4-7
4-17
4-20

FM 27-1, Legal Guide for Commanders: "Do not use extra training and instruction as punitive measures. You must distinguish extra training and instruction from punishment or even the appearance of punishment." (3) This passage exhorts a distancing of the definitions and practices of punishment vis-a-vis extra training.

Such a distinction is important because punishment is illegal when it is administered prior to an Article 15 or a court martial. (4) There is no provision anywhere in the Army that allows NCOs to preside over a court martial, and FM 27-1 explicitly states that NCOs are not authorized to impose non-judicial punishment on Soldiers "under any circumstances." (5) An NCO's summary decision to punish a Soldier is unauthorized. Smoke sessions, when punitive, are therefore unauthorized.

FM 7-22-7 The Army NCO Guide

CASCOM Reg 600-27

As you can see there are many regulations out there that all have something to do with Corrective Training. Even in the 1SG Course you may have 10 SFC(P) read and research the regs and get 10 different answers to the same question asked here.

dibblejr
08-25-2009, 05:46 AM
Adam- The OP is asking/ talking about "Corrective Action" AKA "Smoking" as I first stated it is out. It is now called "Corrective Training" and "Corrective Action Physical Excersize" which are permissible when following the guidelines set forth in the Regulations and Field Manuals stated above.

You have to remember I came up in 1981-2008 and have had to adapt to the different changes "Smoking", "Corrective Action", "Corrective Training" and " Corrective Action Physical Training". Depending on where you go you will still run into old farts like me who may call it "Smoking" but in our minds we know the new rules (standards and what we need to obide by) we sometimes make mistakes and say "smoking". As time goes by we will all be gone and eventually everyone will call it "CAPE".

You are getting all worked up over just a simple name change.

IMO- and it is my opinion that with teh attitude that you are showing this morning you will have a difficult time in training. You should tone down a bit. You are trying to do in days what takes many years to be able to do and still screw up. As you mature in the Army you will learn the regulations, you will attend training weekly, monthly, semi-annually that will include this very subject.

What you really need to focus on are things that you probably have down; Military Time, Phonetic Alphabet, Army Rank, some Land Navigation (compass the old fashioned way, no GPS in BT and AIT), Marching.

Dont get me wrong, it is never bad to familiarize yourself with AR's however when you get so deep into an area that you start bad mouthing the people that are trying to help you it may be time to stop, think and regroup.

Maybe you should go ask your recruiter about these regs and see what he/ she has to say. Your recruiter will probably tell you to not be concirned with them at this point. You have to crawl before you can walk and walk before you run. This is the Armys method of training; crawl, walk, run.

Take a deep breath and relax.

Good luck in BT/ AIT

ajd2598
08-25-2009, 06:28 AM
dibblejr --

There comes a point, where I guess I've got to realize, that it will be impossible to make any sort of headway on this argument. I cannot speak for the OP, and perhaps he was referencing "smoking" or "corrective training" or "CAPE" or any number of politically correct euphemisms for PT.

I however, was never inquiring about Smoking, I always have assumed that to be wrong. Even at 22, I can comprehend that using physical exercise as punitive measure, is inappropriate. 90% of the regulations that you have provided me, seem to state in summary that the action taken to counsel a soldier for a deficiency in performance needs to be designed in such a way, that the counseling serves as a training mechanism, so that the soldier does not feel he is being simply punished for not being able to do something correctly, but is doing extra work in order to ensure that he/she will eventually be able to perform that task correctly next time. This is important, because the value in all military training is decreased, if the soldier feels that the extra training done to fix the deficiency is punishment.

I hate to push the point, but your final regulation CASCOM 600-20 lists the following:


CASCOM 600-27
---------------
g. Physical Training (PT) As Punishments. PT will not be used as punishment. PT is designed primarily to enhance physical fitness, however physical exercises as listed in FM 21-20, such as push-ups, sit ups, etc., may be used as corrective instruction for those minor infractions of military behavior which are dealt with by an immediate leadership response. When PT is used for corrective instruction (such as talking in formation, being late, being inattentive, exhibiting substandard appearance, etc.) the following guidelines apply:

Corrective PT will be used for attitude deficiencies, never for a lack of ability.
Corrective PT will be used in moderation within the bounds of good judgment.
These prohibitions are not intended to preclude using PT to develop or enhance physical fitness.

Only drill sergeants, uniformed military instructors, and the IET soldier?s immediate chain of command are authorized to employ physical exercise for corrective action. IET soldier?s occupying training leadership positions are prohibited from administering physical exercise as corrective training.

I realize this is related to IET soldier training, and may not be applicable for Permanent Party soldiers, but it seems to emphasize the information I was looking for.

I'm rather upset with the manner in which you speak to me. Because no matter what you call it, I understand the distinction between PT for punishment, and PT as part of a reasonable manner of correcting a performance deficiency, in a method that is non-punitive. I am sorry if you feel I was attempting to bad-mouth you. I am not. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me, in this particular forum, to ask you to properly research and post sources for your claims, if you are to express a confident opinion on a topic. I know I do. If I am guessing at something, or relaying rumors, or things I think I remember reading, I indicate as such. But I've never make a statement of fact, without a means to back that statement up. I think that's the appropriate thing to do.

This escalation of emotions and attitudes started with yourself, when you suggested that a regulation was simply over my head. You don't know anything about me, except my username, and the little tidbits of my life that I've cared to share in my profile. I am college educated, and well-capable of understanding a concept, even one that doesn't yet apply to me. I'm asking for adult level discussion and communication, not to be treated as a child.

I don't subscribe to the theory that 'daddy knows best' and that I 'shouldn't be concerned' with the why's of a particular regulation or method. That does not mean that I will disregard, or be insubordinate to a person in my chain of command, just the opposite, I think it's vital that every soldier follows and carries out their given orders when instructed to the best of their ability, do not mistake me for a rebel. But this is not Basic Training, and you are not responsible for giving me an order. This is a public forum, and as a fellow soldier, even a young, inexperienced one, I expect to be treated with a reasonable amount of respect. I in turn, will provide the same, both out of a mutual respect among soldiers and as a manner of military respect to your rank. But it is not unreasonable for me to want to seek out answers for the forces that guide and control my life.

As you have provided me with regulations sufficient to meet my request, I apologize for calling you out, and questioning your competency on this forum. Please accept my apology, I hope we can continue to discuss and debate issues on this forum in the future.

Sincerely,
Adam

daddytattooed
08-25-2009, 09:39 AM
i appolagize, but i feel compeled to interject.
i may not speak in the same manner as either of you and i usually have poor spelling, but i am well aware of my flaws and pride is not one that has ever hindered me, yet even with my lack of knowledge on the subject i have noticed that pride seems to be the only thing driving this post and the OP obviously is not even interested any longer. that being said i have to ask, "where could this go, and what is the benifit of carrying on. Regardless of the regulations a recruit might find themselves in a situation where they feel they are being punished and they can go to the chain of command and i haven't even been in one day to know that there is a solution for every problem.

when i first joined this forum it was a great place to chat with people of simular interest/goals and people who have lived them. all the information might not be 100% but it was better than trying to interpret what you found online or hoping your recruiter gave you ALL the info. the forum had slown down for about a week or two then came back to life, but all that seems to be posted now are simple questions that give birth to epic arguments fueled by pride and benifiting none.

can we go back to agreeing to disagree and leave some info for the OP's to research and interpret a little on their own.

CraigTlumsden
08-25-2009, 10:04 PM
I have not lost interest, I simply do not have the time to be on here a lot. I appreciate everyone chiming in on this and in no way did I mean to cause tension. It is a very controversial topic. Being an NCO is not easy if you are a good NCO. Punishments turn better results when the punishment fits the deficiency, but for smaller offenses such as being a few minutes late to a formation can be handled by "caping". I hope that this is all untrue and the Army is not truly becoming this soft. I remember being in the Corps and having 3 Cpls gang up on me for forgetting to say their rank before addressing one of them. A little pain went a long way, I never made that mistake again. Although I do not agree with such treatment, it is effective. They taught me something that day, NCO's stick together, they were not looking for a fair fight, only to knock the hell out of me so I would conform. As an NCO I will not tolerate such punishment, nor will I ever strike a subordinate, but something as light duty as a little extra pt as corrective action is not that serious, and if done in accordance with AR 600-20, is not hazing and should not be changed.
i appolagize, but i feel compeled to interject.
i may not speak in the same manner as either of you and i usually have poor spelling, but i am well aware of my flaws and pride is not one that has ever hindered me, yet even with my lack of knowledge on the subject i have noticed that pride seems to be the only thing driving this post and the OP obviously is not even interested any longer. that being said i have to ask, "where could this go, and what is the benifit of carrying on. Regardless of the regulations a recruit might find themselves in a situation where they feel they are being punished and they can go to the chain of command and i haven't even been in one day to know that there is a solution for every problem.

when i first joined this forum it was a great place to chat with people of simular interest/goals and people who have lived them. all the information might not be 100% but it was better than trying to interpret what you found online or hoping your recruiter gave you ALL the info. the forum had slown down for about a week or two then came back to life, but all that seems to be posted now are simple questions that give birth to epic arguments fueled by pride and benifiting none.

can we go back to agreeing to disagree and leave some info for the OP's to research and interpret a little on their own.