Exclusive: Green Berets Targeted After Anonymous Email Exposed Lowered Standards
MARK HUMPHREY/AP PHOTO
15 Jan 2019, Female soldiers train on a firing range while wearing new body armor in September in Fort Campbell, Ky.
By: Kristina Wong
Two Army Green Berets are fighting for their military careers after being associated with an anonymous email that accused their commanders of lowering standards to enable more soldiers — particularly female — to graduate from its prestigious Q-course.
The anonymous email, signed, “A concerned Green Beret,” accused the leaders of the school of “moral cowardice” for lowering the standards, and weakening instructors’ ability to discipline students as they look to get further through the pipeline.“[The school] has devolved into a cesspool of toxic, exploitive, biased and self-serving senior officers who are bolstered by submissive, sycophantic, and just-as-culpable enlisted leaders,” the email said. “They have doggedly succeeded in two things; furthering their careers, and ensuring that Special Forces [are] more prolific but dangerously less capable than ever before.”
One of the specific complaints was that the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC), commonly referred to as “Q-course,” was restructured so that there were “no physical barriers to earning the coveted Green Beret.”
The email, which was blasted out to the entire U.S. Army Green Beret force in November 2017, became known as the “letter heard around the world.” It was then published by a news site started by former special operations forces, and it generated stories from the Associated Press, NPR, and other major news outlets.
Maj. Gen. Kurt L. Sonntag, the commander of John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, which runs the course, responded at the time that the selection process before the Q-course, known as Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS), has evolved into a “proven, challenging process” that allows the training regiment to predict whether a Green Beret candidate will be successful operationally.
“If SFAS is correct, and we believe it is, the SFQC is not a place where high attrition rates should occur. Instead, the mission of the SFQC cadre is to train to standards,” he said at the time. Sonntag also said no “fundamental SF standard” has been “removed,” but that some comments in the email “warrant further evaluation.”
But in the months since, soldiers have been quietly punished for the email, according to the two Green Berets.
The commander of the company of instructors was relieved around April, and later given a 15/15 on his Officer Evaluation Report, the lowest score one can get, affecting his chances for promotion, and thus, staying in the military.
The author of the email was given an Article 15 around June for disrespecting a general grade officer. An Article 15 is an administrative, non-judicial punishment, according to the United States Code of Military Justice, which hurts one’s ability to be promoted and to stay in the military.
Now, the two additional Green Beret instructors, Sergeant First Class Micah J. Robertson, 33, and Sergeant First Class Michael Squires, 31, say they are being punished by association.
The rest of the article may be viewed here: Breitbart.com
Out of my swim lane to comment, so I’ll take this opportunity to STFU and let those with knowledge express themselves.
Category: Army
FFS.
It’s beginning to look like a firing squad with everyone pointing towards the center.
Except for that GO.
F*ck that guy.
Yay affirmative action. Sacrifice to the alter of political correctness.
Anybody got a shocked face I can borrow? Somebody? Get some help here? Anybody at all not using theirs?
Who didn’t see this one coming? Did we not discuss this same subject on several occasions?
Maybe we should start up a TAH Physic Reading Service. The accuracy of the predictions around here would have us operating in the black for years to come.
““[The school] has devolved into a cesspool of toxic,”
There is that word again.
The entire article needs to be read. It has some interesting info in it. It is sympathetic to the plight of the two instructors and tells us that they turned over the bullshit card and requested a trial. It worked and the Article 15s were withdrawn—but replaced with a death memo. As I re-read the article, I was struck by what I began see as a cabal within the organization. A few soldiers decided that they didn’t like what was happening and took matters into their own hands, sending anonymous emails that undermined leadership. Maybe they should be canned. Maybe they got a tad too smart for their own good. One works from within to change things. Sniping and fomenting dissension is pure poison to unit morale and cohesion. On the other hand, I can see why they may have felt forced to take the actions that they did. That they opposed what they saw as a lowering of standards that included male candidates who would have failed in the past is another way of saying that they rejected the decisions of leadership. “His guts and our blood” is nothing new. Thinking you’re smarter than your superiors is nothing new either. I am firmly on the fence on this one.
They could have sent the email to a Senator using their true identity without official repercussion.
But we all know what happened when a soldier tried that in the Viet of the Nam.
Tough call for the very reasons you stated.
Indeed a tough call. 26 could you refresh my memory about the Vietnam thing? My memory isn’t so great some times. Tks
Sure, it was when a service member wrote home to his Senator with a complaint.
It usually resulted in grief for higher ups and came down on the service member in various ways.
Service members have the right to petition their members of Congress just as a civilian does. I would not reccommend it though. Working the chain of command is best for all.
Otherwise you risk becoming a BF.
Tks for the follow up. I remember this but thought there was one standout example I was missing. Some things I remember vividly from back then, other events, people etc not so much.
Yeah, it’s the names I have lost over the years but the movie can be replayed at any time.
There were some very public examples that escape me but I do recall one guy that got “taken away” by el CID.
Seems he married a local against orders and got his Senator involved.
Wasn’t it LTC David Hackworth who was essentially cashiered for going on national TV and saying we were losing in Vietnam? Someone correct me if wrong.
Sending correspondence to members of Congress does about jack and shit. I’ve even had to engage my Congressman and nothing came of it.
These days the army is desensitized to Congressionals. And members of Congress are also desensitized to military issues. Basically all that happens is the military gets the issue, it goes to the chain of command, and they have to respond within a certain amount of time. Once that response is sent back to the Congressman, “boom” everything is complete.
The response doesn’t even have to be truthful. It just has to be a response. (Yes, really) So they can lie their asses off to a member of Congress and it doesn’t matter. (Yes, really)
“members of Congress are also desensitized to military issues”
Yep.
MSG Eric, Yes, but most of the time it is simply reassuring the Congressman that something is being done, but the Soldier has not taken enough time to let it happen.
In this case Congress would have been a better place to start. Especially if there is one who has prior service to also write to (if he is not your representative).
I say this as a former Company Commander who had to respond to 15 Congressionals while in Iraq, 14 of which were “Johnny should come home because he is in danger”. It got to be where I wrote a standard response saying how much statistically safer “Johnny” was there at Camp Victory over Fayetteville. Most of my MI Soldiers did not go outside the wire, so minus the occasional rocket or mortar, they had little chance of hurting themselves, and stood more chance at home in their off time of getting injured. I did have one brave young lady that volunteered for the Protection Detail and had a .50cal misfire after not setting the timing correctly.
She is fine and has a good war story to tell.
When I was in AETC the threat of getting Congress involved was enough to stir the pot. After Desert Storm the USAF was paying people to get out. Our Group Commander was elated; this was his chance to get rid of the folks he didn’t think belonged in his Air Force. Several people were granted early discharge or retirement; however, right before they left Wing and Group staff tried to delay their leaving. The early get-outs were all of a sudden too important to let go. Soon a bunch of the early get-outs were in my face because they heard I had a list of every member of Congress and their addresses (this was before the algorewebz). The Captain asked me why I was suddenly so popular, so I told him about the list. The troops got out early, the Group Commander lowered my performance rating, I got passed over for promotion, and not a single letter was written to the Congress.
The truth is that weak leaders committed to bad policy or bad faith goals are never swayed by competence or by better arguments. The are only swayed by bad press or force from above.
What does the subordinate leader do in the face of such a situation? What if that situation goes all the way to the office of the President and to the Senate? What if all senior leaders are players in a bad faith system?
This is the dilemma of the Sr NCO today. Bad policy, bad systems, and bad faith leaders leaving a bag of manure for the NCOs to deal with and punishing them if they can’t or won’t.
Every soldier deserves good leadership and sometimes good leadership is to fall on the grenade to make the message heard.
I would bet they exhausted all other options..
**I also hit report comment by accident…My apooigies…
It seems rather petty that MG Sonntag gave two SF instructors GOMORs after they refused Article 15 non-judicial punishment. The general couldn’t win at a court martial so instead he made the GOMOR permanent in each Green Beret’s personnel records and so effectively ended their chances for advancement. Now both men are being administratively discharged after multiple deployments and more than 10 years of service.
I’m sure there’s someplace else in the Army for both of these warriors. OK so end their SF careers if you must but allow them to serve in another career field, if the Soldier is agreeable. What a shame to weaken both the Regiment and the Army. On this battlefield no one wins.
More chickenshit from Big Army. Not surprising.
They did what they saw as the right thing and now they’re facing the wrath of the Big Army political mafia!
Recon Team Leader Rules include:
The squeaky wheel gets relieved.
I have heard these rumors, and other rumors, including some Ranger rumors, many drill rumors, and some other rumors.
It seems to me, we are still harvesting the seeds the community organizer in chief planted in our military by promoting sycophants politically minded officers.
It is gonma take time to clean this mess. Just because we elected Trump by a hair doesn’t mean all the leftist in the military magically disappeared.
As i have commented before, even in an infantry battalion a majority of officers lean left and absolutely believe in man-made climate change.
I’m not 100% sure that president mom-jeans sowed the seeds that caused this, they were there before him. But there is no doubt that he damn sure fertilized and watered the resultant crop. Very high yields.
I was being inflicted, fomented and festered during what I call “The Clinton Curse” and it was the main reason I ETS’ed when my first AD Enlistment expired. My favorite marching cadence was “Re-up, you’re crazy, Re-up, you’re out of your mind…”.
“IT was being inflicted,…”
I need to proofread before hitting “Post”!
As my career is an example (what not to do), being a sycophant will get you promoted faster than being good to your troops and getting the job done. Saw lots of fast trackers promoted before they were ready, and my whole year group devastated because they wanted the fast trackers and not those with experience who got the job done.
Just another example of some appointees from the last administration’s way of promoting their “progressive” agenda, and a big f-u on their way out the door.
The have been doing it for years, progressively. Many non GB/NSW types inserted into key positions to further the agenda. Libby propaganda inserted into the troops daily lives…it’s a stomach churner.
Still many good troops in the mix and I’ve heard their complaints and questions about why the shitbags seem to be the focus these days.
The good ones work their asses off and the rest just draft along behind them.
ive never much understood the philosophy behind ideas that there should be “no physical barriers to earning XXX” whether it’s a specifically colored beret, an MOS billet, the EGA, the right to be known as a Soldier, Sailor, or Marine. (Airmen…..well, y’all had the bike test, so there really weren’t physical barriers to begin with…I kid)
the more you adopt that mentality, the more it seems like you remove the physical reminder of warrior aptitude. if we are supposed to be raising and training the next generation of America’s best, how in the blue fuck can *anybody* think taking the physical reality away is good?
so the bottom line is: is the CG more ashamed that he was drug through the mud, that process and seemingly good discipline was breached, or that his command philosophy has been loudly questioned and rejected?
Well when you raise little pussies to believe that trying your best and failing is just as good as working your ass off and winning you end up with a system where everyone is “special”…the problem is they all end up being short bus special. I want my Special Forces guys to be smart, strong, steely eyed killers not a bunch of equal opportunity pass throughs who can’t get the job done like they could in previous iterations. Women serve a great many important combat roles, being big, strong, and physical is not however their strong suit. We can all argue about the one or two elite female athletes who do a bunch of really tough stuff, but the military doesn’t recruit from the elite athlete ranks of males or females. Consequently we are left to deal with the biological realities between average males and average females. Every single test that matters regarding strength has consistently shown that the average male tests out where those elite females usually test out. We all know the average male isn’t going to hack the “Q” course. So if we suddenly find a shit ton of females succeeding the numbers have been altered to fit the agenda because we all know there isn’t a sudden batch of male equivalent females being born and joining the military. Pound for pound men are stronger than women in every way that matters for a Special Forces unit to operate for long periods of time in harsh environments. The only way to get more women through is to alter the numbers so women can succeed as these men are pointing out. The General’s attitude and actions will get people killed for no reason than to suit a political agenda that has no merit in a combat unit devoted to the best of the best physically and mentally. Don’t misunderstand my words for any denigration of women, women make excellent members of the military in a variety of roles. They deserve every opportunity to succeed in every field of the military. What they don’t deserve is a special set… Read more »
^Testify^ Now VOV, you know if you continue to put known facts into this discussion you will not be given the “plays nice with others” participation trophy.
You will also not be allowed to sit around the camp fire, making MRE s’mores and singing kumbaya.
And everyone said AMEN!
AMEN, VOV!!
Totally agree V-O-V!
I myself was a victim of my own over eagerness. As a result, when I switched to MI I chose to stay in the regular Army instead of going back to the SOF community. I could play high speed, but only for short periods of time. While they should let them compete, they should not lower the standard. Do the Israelis?
Had a nice career, and I can still walk upright now that I am retired (took my doctors advice and stopped jumping out of perfectly good airplanes), so I can’t complain.
Damn, VOV, you addressed the issue and thoroughly nailed it. Damn, just damn.
Your last paragraph absolutely nailed it. But … given the increasing PC, SJW mentality that is so pervasive in all realms of society, I believe standards will be lowered in the belief that everyone gets a trophy. It’s a damn shame that the military is in lockstep with the PC crowd. A damn shame …
I was in the US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (SWCS) when 9/11 happened. I also recall that when the “stop loss” on 18-series (Special Forces) was ended in 2003 or 04, 750 SF NCOs dropped their retirement paperwork, which is an entire SF Regiment’s worth of SF. That was around the same time they came up with the SF-Baby program to rebuild what was lost. I also know that during those early years they also had a couple of training challenges that had to be swept under the rug. So, this isn’t a new thing. It is based on graduation numbers. At the same time, the Army is still facing serious recruiting issues, let alone people who want to join to be in Special Operations. (SF, Ranger, Aviation, Civil Affairs, PSYOP) Retention isn’t doing so well either, a big part of that being constant deployment, being treated like shit (especially during the last regime’s time), and feeling like we should be honored to be in the Army and serve only because of that. I also had students that just weren’t cut out for Civil Affairs and we as instructors tried to push for options to push some out or to other MOSs. We were shut down by our chain of command. Why? Because graduation numbers are all that matters. “Well, they’re just privates anyway, they don’t need to be smart on this, they’ll learn it at their unit!” (Yes, we were really told that) Along with, “they don’t need to know this shit, they’re just going to go back to their unit and make coffee and copies.” And “you privates don’t need to know this shit, you’re just here to do PT!” (Yes, really) I have a good friend who was an instructor in SWCS as well. He was brought in to assess the courses and tell the chain of command what needed to be fixed in the courses. He gave them a truthful and detailed account of what needed to be fixed and what was wrong with the courses. After he provided the report… Read more »
A couple of things. When I said SF Regiment, I meant SF Group.
And, MG Sonntag is not in my chain of command, so good luck giving me a GOMOR.
Fukker was in mine and I got tired of his fukking emails…lib speak
people there eating his shit like they were getting cotton fukking candy
It is truly amazing how much email you get from the chain of command, you’d think they did nothing else but send out emails all day.
I enjoy labeling those emails for distribution right to the junk folder. Further relabeled all my folders “porn”, i.e. Inbox porn, junk porn, archive porn etc just for added fun. 🙂
That’s a good one. I’ll have to remember that.
The fun thing is, the S-6 types really do enjoy the fun stuff we do, as long as it doesn’t cause them too much work. They laugh as much as we do at that kind of thing. And that’s not just because I spent way too much time playing S-6 for my unit once.
Its disgusting. Army is cutting it’s own throat like this, much like surface Navy is pumping out sub-standard SWO who cant navigate to save their lives.
A big swat from Russia or China might clear this mess out, but absent that its P/C politics full speed ahead.
Out of my lane technically, but as one who helps pay the bills, this is of interest.
Were the standards lowered? I don’t know. Standards change all the time based upon a lot of factors. Legitimate changes are based upon such things as mission changes, technology advances, expanded knowledge base, and so forth. Having better measuring tools should impact training, and changes made accordingly. Did that happen in this instance? Not enough information available to me to form an intelligent opinion.
Were changes made simply to accommodate less physically qualified candidates? Again, I don’t know. If so, then that was wrong. But then, the way the instructors handled it was also wrong. That is/was provable. Even IF they were reporting factual information, it was put forward incorrectly and in a very emotional, inflammatory way. Not a good way to win an argument or gain support.
All to say that I want to support both sides of this but can not get there from here. Sitting astride a fence is not within my comfort zone but that seems to be where I am.
When you have standards and tasks etc which are approved by higher authority and in a closed room someone lower in the CoC tells you to lower the standard (whatever the verbiage)…yes, that’s lowering the standard. That’s just wrong.
If the standards need to change then there is a process for that which is transparent.
Yes, we agree completely.
What is not clear to me is whether that is what happened (and would clearly be wrong) or if somebody overreacted to legitimate adjustments which are made to the standards from time to time based upon new, and better, information which was not previously available.
I go round and round on this one. The soldiers may have done the right thing, but they did it in the wrong way. Their command responded by doing the wrong thing in the absolutely worst way possible, which makes them look like they have something to hide. What is largely missed in this, is the real nature of the shift of the Q-course, which is what should be looked at. In the late 1960’s the Army commissioned a study to determine what traits made for the best soldiers. Their conclusion was that 12K@4mph ruck (with combat load), shooting, 300y shuttle run times, pull-ups, and swim times were the top five predictors of a soldier’s longevity and overall performance. The study was criticized because the focus was largely on combat soldiers (MOS) from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and it used only tracked data points (ruck completion, weapons scores, raw scores for PT events, valor awards, etc), without including evaluations (201 file type stuff) and it used a high degree of inference between PT tasks (there were a lot of different PT tests/PT training across the three wars being looked at without there always been a 100% correlation between events). It was argued that by not including things such as non-valor awards, rates of promotion, and a bunch of other things I can’t remember off the top of my head, that at best it painted a picture of combat survivor and not the entire picture. That said, much of the principles were used to develop the initial “Q-course”. Or maybe develop is too strong of a word, maybe justify would be better. Which is the root of the issue. What should the Q-course do? Should it validate that soldiers are ready for SF or should it prepare/train them to be SF? The “old” Q-course was very good at doing the first. It weeded out those who didn’t already have the physical and mental strength and real world experience to do well in the SF. This lead to the development of an informal pipeline (Sapper/Ranger/Mountain Warfare + Sniper + the required Airborne).… Read more »
I was on such a roll there I forgot the most important part.
The soldiers should have used their chain of command to address their concerns. If that failed (and right now I’m not seeing anyone claim they tried), then they should have gone to the civilian leadership (which I get would have been rather pointless as many of the changes were being driven by the Obama administration), rather than “narcing out” like they did. All this really did was piss off their leadership, because it made them look bad on many levels. SO it was the right thing to try and raise the visibility of their concerns, just done the wrong way.
Their leadership though, completely lost its shit. Rather than trying to have reasoned discussion about it (including what the soldiers did wrong as well as listening to their concerns), they said fuck you eat a dick and die.
Absolutely the wrong answer executed in the absolutely the wrong way.
I’m not sure about that though, after re-reading the blurb above. the fact that the commander of the company of instructors was basically nuked would on the surface indicate that there is much more to this story than is readily visible.
what im wondering is if they DID go through channels, got told to sit down and shut up, and then went with “narcing out” after getting no help from civilian chain. after all, if everyone in the command environment felt the same (and I am including the civvies in this command environment) then it’s in everyone’s best interest that the concerns of the training cadre are not voiced too loudly.
I’m curious what other things we are not seeing that got squashed on the way to this report. does that sound too conspiracy theorist?
And what if chain of command is the problem, or says in effect STFU?
I suspect that is -exactly- why they went the non-standard route.
Because they valued their Regiment more.
My issue with that is that no one is saying they tried to raise it with the chain of command first. None of the articles mention it, and none of the soldiers being punished for it claim they raised their concerns and were told to STFU.
On the other hand command did respond with “Eat a bag of dicks assholes” right off the bat so they very well could have read the atmosphere and decided snitches might get stitches but they’d be worth it.
The Q-course is just that. You become SF qualified. If you can’t pass the course, you aren’t SF. That’s the whole purpose of the Q-course. To train Soldiers up to be SF and be sure they are qualified to be SF before they graduate.
See my previous about the overarching issue within SWCS.
Still a long way to go after SFQC(SFAS)….and each step has been getting whittled away at in the name of increased numbers/diversity.
To quote, “We used to make Cadillacs, but for awhile we’re gonna have to make some Chevys”
Yeah a friend of mine who spent a year as an instructor in 1st battalion after he graduated, then went to a group and was put on a team. He was treated like crap and constantly had to prove himself until after they did their first real mission. After that was successful and he did his part, he was treated like part of the team.
Which, is how it should be. Just because you graduated doesn’t mean you can hang until we see you in a real situation.
they have to grad an MOS school (18 series)language, SERE, Robin Sage all that happy crap before they get the beret at regimental 1st formation
same with the MARSOC corpsmen….all schools completed or no NEC granted
Yeah it’s been a while since I escaped the flaming pisspot, so I didn’t recall all of the particulars, but thanks for the reminder.
“The Q-course is just that. You become SF qualified.”
Not SF qualified…selected (qualified) for SF Training at the entry level. Must complete all phases of training that follow to BE Special Forces Qualified occupationally.
It’s not just SF that’s dealing with this issue.
Ask anyone with a 336x/339x NEC to do a compare/contrast of the nuke pipeline, and the phrase, “pump versus filter” will be guaranteed to be mentioned at least once.
I saw it in the PSYOP course.
Dropped the course requirements, dropped the selection, dropped airborne for USAR, dropped language school for USAR, and cut the course itself down to 14 weeks.
In response to “issues” we are bringing back the selection course and airborne requirements for USAR, but its slow going.
SSG K
There used to be only one Airborne designated company in each USAR PSYOP battalion. Does the new airborne requirement mean all USAR 37s will have to complete jump school? When I was in USAR PSYOP we had a lot of “mature” Soldiers who sometimes couldn’t pass the APFT or meet HT\WT standards. Earning their jump wings probably wouldn’t have happened either. You seem pretty clued in on what’s going on in the regiment – keep the updates coming. Thx.
Currently the return of Airborne is only for active duty folks. There are two USAR PSYOP companies that I know of that are on jump status and they first pick of Airborne slots, but they don’t go as part of the PSYOP course.
Things got really rough in PSYOP for a while, but they are getting better, although I feel like we are getting folks who’d rather go to college than to war, or those who’d rather be SF but couldn’t get an NG SF slot. Its a weird dichotomy right now.
If you want to see standards start flapping in the wind be in an old combat arms unite that is forced co-ed.
Like the one where the 1SG and a brand new Female Troop were romping in the hay with each other? I wonder how quickly said Females will suddenly get pregnant as soon as they get Deployment Orders thus leaving the Units short on Manpower?
I am not putting on my shocked face, because we have to keep in mind that the services are full of proggy 0bamabots in the upper ranks who are still serving. They are continuing to implement values of the eight years of commander 0’s admin. Standards that impede the competence of those trained for the tip of the spear have been lowered so that a few female officers can wear Ranger and Special Forces tabs because they think not having them impedes their career advancement. It is all about the proglodyte prime directive and value of equality uber alles. They believe that if you are, or claim to be, female you should be able to successfully complete these schools if that is what you want.
Strike that first “impede” and replace it with “warrant.” I can’t blame auto-correct for this brain fart.
Waay back in the olden days (1980s) I learned that the first person you meet after completing ANY military school is the guy who says “Oh, you just finished [name of school] huh? Yeah, I hear that’s a lot easier now than it was back when I went through.” It’s a subtle form of one-upmanship that is really just a way of saying “I’m more hard core than you.” My point is that as long as there have been military qualification schools there have been those who complain about the schools being “watered down” or lowering their standards in order to produce more results. As MSG Eric pointed out above, there is absolutely nothing new about this phenomenon and blaming it on this or that administration is missing the point because this is not, and never has been, about whose butt is polishing the chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It’s also very difficult to separate ones own individual experience from the needs of the battlefield and the needs of the military. A little objectivity is necessary when evaluating what the actual training needs are. To put it more bluntly, the fact that maybe I had to low-crawl through pig shit in order to earn my qualification doesn’t mean that eliminating the “low-crawl-through-pig-shit” requirement will produce “softer” or less capable soldiers. If one wants to level criticism about changes in training, they need to be specific. They need to say WHAT training was changed or eliminated and how the change or elimination is going to harm the units these soldiers are going through. Otherwise it looks like generalized bitching, the kind you always have (and always will) see when the topic of training standards comes up. Finally, there’s the issue of allocation of resources. SSG Barry Sadler sang that “one hundred men will test today but only three earn the Green Beret.” Well, that might make the Special Forces feel like a proud elite, but from a taxpayer’s standpoint, I’d say a school that fails 97% of the people who attend is doing something terribly wrong, and wasting a LOT of… Read more »
No military school I am aware of ever had a 97% attrition rate. But the idea of lowering standards to accommodate females is a relatively recent occurrence. It will continue as long as “progressive” bogus “equality” values rule the day in our frontline combat forces.
There were actually some classes taught in SWCS where if you had a 97% graduation rate, several members of the chain of command would come down and ask you why you failed so many students.
Well, then there were some serious shortcomings in the selection process for the soldiers getting orders to attend that school. Even in my Ranger school class back in 1968 where attendance for RA combat arms officers was mandatory attrition was only about 45%. But then we didn’t have general officers acting as lane graders to make sure certain soldiers passed their patrol leadership positions.
I miss-read your post. You said you had a 97% graduation rate, I thought you were saying you had a 97% failure rate. Your comment is that the powers that be would not tolerate a 3% failure rate. This anecdote proves the point that the Army has been infected with the everyone gets a trophy standard that is infecting our society at large. When I was about nine years old I tried out for Little League. I was told by the coach I didn’t play well enough to be on the team. It didn’t destroy my self esteem. I just realized I wasn’t going to be a baseball player.
If the armed forces are going down the “everybody who tries out gets a tab or a badge” road, we are doomed.
When I was a 1SG, I had several of my former students in my company as team leaders. So when I got a new graduate coming back, I used to have them give a briefing to my troops about what they learned at AIT. Pretty much every time, my former students’ responses were, “wait, you didn’t have to do this? you didn’t have to do that? Wait, you were allowed to do that????” Funny how that works.
When I went through the AIT myself, it was tougher than basic training and my friends in the Army would say, “that doesn’t make sense! Basic is supposed to be tougher! You must’ve been in a wussy Basic Training or something.” They didn’t comprehend that I went to AIT at Ft Bragg in the Special Warfare Center and School with instructors that were triple tabbed and all the trimmings who pushed us harder.
My students were lucky, I didn’t make them ruck uphill both ways barefoot, they got to wear boots in the snow! 😛
No surprise here.
I’m an officer and have written more than a few OERs in my time, field grade and company grade, and what the hell is a 15/15? Is that the rater’s rating scheme or something?