By Are Changes On the Way?
The new 2nd Infantry Division commander Major General Michael Tucker is going to be quite a popular guy if he gets this passed:
The curfew would be lifted, the drinking age would be lowered to 19, and rules on blood-alcohol limitations would be eliminated for servicemembers in South Korea under a sweeping proposal the new commander of the 2nd Infantry Division says he is considering.
Maj. Gen. Michael Tucker stressed that while “no decisions have been made,” a team of military officials has been putting together a plan that would give individual servicemembers more freedom — but also more responsibility — for their off-base actions.
For example, he said, they would be subject to a “three strikes” policy of escalating punishment for any transgressions.
The proposed policy changes first would have to be approved by U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Walter Sharp and 8th Army Commander Lt. Gen. Joseph Fil before they could be implemented, he said.
“We’re changing a culture” that has existed for years in Korea, Tucker said, where soldiers routinely “go downtown and get pickled” before “stumbling back to the barracks.”
By relying on rules to regulate that behavior, he said, “we’re reinforcing failure every day.”
“What we’re doing right now is not working,” Tucker continued.
Policy changes under discussion would force soldiers to be responsible for their actions, he said. “We have to educate them,” he said. “We want them to think.” [Stars & Stripes]
Make sure to read the whole Stars & Stripes article for more background on the proposed changes, but I am all for reevaluating the curfew and drinking policy.
The Drinking Policy
Let’s start with the drinking policy, which is the easiest nut to crack. If the drinking age is dropped to match Korean law then 2ID will greatly reduce the amount of soldiers charged with underage drinking. The same goes for the outrageous .10 BAC policy that was implemented on 2ID soldiers two years ago. Just these two changes would reduce the amount of UCMJ handed out to soldiers. Will it increase incidents in the ville? Probably, but would it be greater then the number of soldiers brought up on UCMJ for underage drinking? I doubt it.
Plus the strict alcohol policies have created an environment in 2ID where unit commanders would rather have no alcohol related incidents than have over half their guys fire expert on the M-16 and wearing a PT excellence badge for example. Fat and can’t shoot, no problem as long as you don’t make the blotter.
Senior leadership over the years has created a ville culture that promotes alcohol by allowing underage drinkers to go into establishments that push booze and prostitutes on them and then they are surprised when there are so many underage drinkers? The ville culture isn’t going to change any time soon, but the drinking age can and should. (Changing the ville culture is a whole separate issue you can read more about here.)
The Curfew Policy
As far as the curfew policy I still like my Warrior Pass idea. In my opinion USFK should keep the curfew, but bring back the Warrior Pass system that was in effect before 9/11 happened. The curfew hours would be from 1-5AM on the weekends and 12-5AM on weekdays, but each unit would have a pre-determined number of Warrior Passes, like maybe 50%, that could be handed out by the unit First Sergeant to servicemembers he/she felt were doing a good job. This allows the First Sergeant to only give passes to those he/she feels is deserving of one and not people likely to get in trouble out in the ville, particularly younger servicemembers who are brand new to Korea and the ville environment.
The Warrior Pass also has the added benefit of creating competition within the ranks to get one of the passes for the weekend from the First Sergeant, which ultimately means increased performance. If and when the USFK consolidation at Camp Humphreys happens I would be more pre-disposed to getting rid of the curfew all together. The way things are right now, I believe the Warrior Pass is the best way to go, and it wouldn’t require bed checks. 
Privledges & Accountability
General Tucker also talks about three strikes policy as well to keep servicemembers in line. I think two strikes is more like it. I believe if you get in trouble two times in the ville that is a sign of a problem right there, not three. If you get in trouble one time non-judicial punishment (Article 15) should be taken, but the second time put them through a court martial. If soldiers are be given increased privledges they should also be given increased accountability.
Soldiers understand privledges and accountability if leaders are willing to spend the time counseling soldiers on what is expected of them and holding them accountable when they don’t. Absent and uninvolved leadership is what leads to wayward and unaccountable soldiers. That is why I think three strikes is too little accountability, make it two and hold leadership to an even higher standard to set the example.
3:39 am on November 26th, 2009 1
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
"With too many soldier ID cards going missing, 2nd Infantry Division troops soon will be sporting a new piece of equipment — a plastic card holder and string they will be required to wear around their necks, or in their pockets but attached to their belts."
It seems like this kind of thing was used on elementary school field trips in the first few grades… but was fazed out by 4th or 5th grade when we were expected to be… uh… what was that thing… ah, yes… "responsible".
I realize that GIs are inherently stupid, uneducated and poorly disciplined… so I guess this is necessary.
…actually, I didn't think so until I saw how "leadership" babies them and, since they are in a better position to know the true nature of GIs than I am, I guess it must be so.
Pathetic.
What kind of pisss-poor wannabe shoe clerk of a manager solves the lost ID card problem by making trained-to-kill adults wear a plastic card holder around their necks like a window-licking nine year-old in a special needs class?
This is the laziest, babiest, most knee-jerk possible semi-solution that could possibly have been conceived of by a bunch of drunken kindergarten teachers.
I'm sure Korea is where they send senior officers who are so incompetent and incapable that they will wind up getting fragged if they are sent to a real war zone where their random petty reactionary decisions would be a matter of life and death for true warriors.
4:08 am on November 26th, 2009 2
I have too much I would like to say here, BUT I will only say this.
Most of my time in korea was at the Hump and few ID cards went missing that I recall. NONE went missing while I was at stateside units. HUMM—
At Camp Stanley in 2002, I had ONE troop lose his ID. This looser lost it the day he was to fly out—with his new korean wife—at the Dragon Hill. It wasn't the first ID card he had lost at Stanley.
Nobody loses an id card more than once without me thinking it is being sold.
I wasn't in a position to KNOW, but.
As to your last, about incompetent and incapable officers being sent to korea.
Hell, CH that has been going on for YEARS!
2003 there was an INFANTRY OFFICER in charge of an AVIATION BATTALION. He didn't even know where the Hanger was.
He had us doing a road march with our TK 105 toolbox strapped to our rucksacks.
What a numbnut.
His theory was that we were a MOBILE aviation support unit. I always wanted to ask him who was going to hump the hanger.
7:10 am on November 26th, 2009 3
I NEVER lost an ID card and never received an article-15 in my 20 years. I remember when people said "smarter soldiers" are walking in the door. I have yet to see one of these "smarter soldiers".
What I saw when I was in Korea is that the place truly is a dumping ground for the incompetent all around. The ones who request to stay in Korea are by far the worst and the ones to be feared the most.
Why are people even listening to the crap spewing from this article. Surly MG Tucker knows this has all been tried before. For God's sake the US Army has been in Korea for 60 years and this road has been traveled before.
Don't try to compare Korea to Germany either. In Germany the Police won't think twice about killing you or beating the crap out of you when you violate their laws plus Germany isn't a dumping ground for the incompetent.
9:34 am on November 26th, 2009 4
General Tucker was late in arriving in Korea because he was undergoing surgery, which he had deferred while he was deployed to Afghanistan. It's a good mark of honor for someone to walk around in constant pain, in combat, because he doesn't want to leave without the rest of his team.
He's a good officer.
10:38 am on November 26th, 2009 5
His story is not unique in that respect. I had a first Sergeant that did the same in Iraq in 2004 with the CAV.
I had a shoulder operation prior to deployment that could have gotten me out of it, but chose to deploy rather than "ride" the system.
I'll give him a nod for being a smart Soldier rather than the typical bureucrat wearing a uniform. Or maby there was another reason for it to be in his career's best interest to wait? Either way, the assignment to korea was of less importance.
I don't see it as a "mark of honor". A good career decision for sure.
I don't believe a "General" does alot of walkin around "in combat", in "constant pain". Even in "combat" a General has an Office. It might be a Tent, but—
If he did walk around in combat, in constant pain, it was not a smart move for him to do so. He would hinder the mission and endanger other soldiers, as he would not be combat effective.
10:49 am on November 26th, 2009 6
Unless someone has their wallet stolen, I can't imagine how they could lose their military ID. I still have the social insurance card I got when I was 16 and my CDND (Canadian Department of National Defense) "Applicant" card (like the ID card, but with just my name and ID number. I had to return my ID card when I left). Heck, I still have the house key and key chain I got when my family moved to our new home when I was 7.
Good decision on the drinking age. I brought this issue up a few months back. I really don't think it's logical to have your soldiers bound to the relatively high drinking age of 21, even more so while they are in Korea where the legal drinking age is 19. If you're old enough to defend your country (and possibly die for it), your old enough to handle your liquor.
11:17 am on November 26th, 2009 7
Back to the 80's
Sounds good to me. At the Hump there was no curfew. Drinkin age was "you can".
I think the General is onto something here.
If you have a curfew, no matter the hours, someone will get stuck outside. Don't have em. Just another way to get on the blotter.
Warrior pass? Please— Top in charge of the warrior pass?
Like the 1st Sergeant knows his soldiers. He doesn't.
The Squad Leader and Platoon Sergeant know their soldiers.
Another problem with the pass system is called favoritism. The squad leader knows who does the work for him, not Top.
I like the three strikes idea also.
Chain of command out in the ville in "civilian clothes". Show an interest in the troops for crying out load. Get to know the ville and the bars and the owners of the bars. Show a fringing interest.
I had an E7 that would drop by my room on the weekend, smiling and talking. Ask how I was and what the weekend plan was. You know—being a person?
My "good" Commanders were seen down town, from time to time. Saw some blotters that were avoided in this manner, as the CO was sober and would take troops under their arms (rather than an MP's arm).
As an NCO, I took payday weekends off from my usual goings on and remained sober, to watch out for my troops. Saved a few blotters myself that way.
It isn't difficult!
7:25 pm on November 26th, 2009 8
Unsatisfied LG DACOM Victim,
"He's a good officer."
O.K. I'll bite.
What kind of good officer solves the lost ID card problem by making trained-to-kill adults wear a plastic card holder around their necks like a window-licking nine year-old in a special needs class?
I only ask this because there are about 17000 people in 2ID. They lose 70 cards per month… .4%… POINT 4%.
That means that every month 2ID leadership says that 16930 average soldiers are probable screw-up that can't take care of little things like not losing their ID card. They don't let these jerkoffs have rifles, do they?
This seems like a very uninspired, box-checking, look-something-is-being-done paperwork-generating show at giving the impression that the problem is being solved… not to mention the expense of 17,000 plastic card holders times a dollar or two… or 5.
How about real leadership that says… if you lose your ID card, you will wear the replacement around your neck in a blaze pink camo plastic holder for the rest of your tour to serve as a warning not to be a funk-up.
Problem solved. Instantly.
1:44 am on November 27th, 2009 9
If the bad guys were looking to steal ID cards, it might be useful for them to know that they can easily obtain one by cutting and pulling on that string around the neck of, or coming out of the pocket of, that drunk kid passed out at the end of the bar.
Before this topic was posted here, I commented about this curfew and drinking policy change article on a related topic.
http://rokdrop.com/2009/04/25/so-how-did-usfk-cri…
I offered the minor compliment that USFK leadership might be maturing.
Now, after reading the ID card on a string article, I take that compliment back.
3:25 am on November 27th, 2009 10
I LIKE IT
But someone would file an EO complaint for sure.
3:44 am on November 27th, 2009 11
Hey everyone I will have a posting on the ID card policy here later on today. It should be a good read.
8:05 pm on November 27th, 2009 12
So now GI Korea wants to make the pass system even more strict? And you have said many times you also want to ban soldiers from juicy bars. Why do you hate soldiers so much? Why not just be honest and say you want to lock down soldiers on base 24 hours a day?
Thank goodness General Tucker is willing to treat soldiers a little more like adults again (the ID holder idea not withstanding).
Anyway, you can't go back to the old Warrior Pass system even if you wanted to. Korea is undergoing a major change at "normalization", as more and more soldiers bring their families here now, with the goal of Korea becoming a standard overseas tour, like Germany is now. You can't have a basic-training/AIT type of pass policy in that kind of environment.
As a matter of fact, as a part of this change, starting Dec 1, the PT hours have been changed to 0630 to be more in line with the rest of the Army.
11:03 pm on November 27th, 2009 13
What a list of unfounded attacks.
I didn't say ban soldiers from juicy bars, I said put juicy bars off limits that employ TCN's. Big difference.
When did I say I hate soldiers? When did I say I wanted to lock down soldiers 24 hours a day. Get a grip or at least better reading comprehension.
I also clearly said that when the USFK transformation happens that the curfew policy could be done away with because by then tour normalization should be complete. As of right now a tour in 2ID is not normal.
5:21 am on November 29th, 2009 14
These aren't unfounded attacks. There are no bars in the Villes that don't emply TCN's.
So you want to impose a higher curfew policy, but just until transformation is complete. Come again?
6:50 am on November 29th, 2009 15
If you're not in Korea right now, then you're too far removed from what is happening here to provide useful commentary on transformation and tour normalization.
Tour normalization won't be complete until more families have been brought into Korea. The curfew is seen as a quality-of-life issue which contributes to service members opting to leave their families at home, in the US. It is believed that the drunken Ville ecology will wane as more family members come over, thereby making the curfew unneeded.
And yes, the curfew is in place to stem alcohol-related misconduct, and not to protect service members from terrorists and civil disturbances. I know that that is differs from what was stated in 2001 when the curfew was implemented after 9/11, and in 2002 when it was reimplemented following the Hgwy 56 incident. So what, get over it.
10:23 am on November 29th, 2009 16
Untrue on all points.
MANY of my soldiers would have brought the little woman to the ROK if they could have been Command Sponsored. They could not.
Even with the changes, you will STILL have single soldiers! They will STILL go down town.
The "leadership" will not care if they do. They will be at home with the wife and kids.
They don't care where single troops go in the states. Leadership is home.
The curfew never has and never will "stem" alcohol-related misconduct.
That was never what it was designed to do.
It keeps alcohol-related misconduct on post, as it was designed to do.
Ever been to Stanley at curfew? The curfew INCREASED A-R M.
Don't believe me?
Take a hundred semi-drunk troops from ten different bars, make them stand in a line for 30 mins waiting to get in BEFORE curfew, then let them all pile into the "on post club" shoulder to shoulder and drink some more. NOW with a mere handful of female soldiers (queen for a year).
In 2001 the "leadership" saw an excuse to lock the troops in gulag, where they could watch them and have the MPs close at hand. Same thing happened at the Hump.
The curfew might be SEEN as a quality of life issue.
But it isn't when your standing in that line to get on post.
It isn't if you miss the curfew and end up hiding in an alley till you can get back on post without troubles.
It isn't if your a couple a LT's that get caught outside the wire and try to scale over and are caught.
The curfew makes the base a gulag, and the troops see it that way.
In the 80-90s soldiers were soldiers.
After 2001, they were/are no longer treated as soldiers.
5:00 am on February 1st, 2010 17
MG Tucker, who I had a fairly high opinion of (except for the plastic CAC card holder stupidity) recently posted "…our command presence patrols will be conducting random blood alcohol content monitoring, not for the purpose of punishment, but to keep our Soldiers out of potential trouble with themselves and others."
Anyone experience this? Since CPs or MPs can't even legally ask for ID off post (they have to have KNPs ask), how do they accomplish BAC testing? I know these results by themselves can't be used for legal proceedings, but I presume the command can then send a SM to the TMC for an LBAT.
I'm on orders to go to 2ID again, I can't decide if MG Tucker is improving things or not.
5:35 am on February 1st, 2010 18
I suppose another question just as pertinent and probably easier to find an answer to would be, "Is that <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=2ID+blood+alcohol+limit" rel="nofollow">stupid .10 policy still in effect?"
6:47 am on February 1st, 2010 19
Yes it is.
7:09 am on February 1st, 2010 20
Where did he post this?
I've been drunk like a skunk once in Daegu and blew only a .06 on the KSG's breathalyzer, so the number .10 is pretty much arbitrary. CP's should be observing Soldiers' actions rather than breathalyzing them. Drunk and disorderly conduct should be readily apparent without a breathalyzer.
You hand some overzealous NCO or field grade a breathalyzer with guidance of "not for the purpose of punishment" and see how far that goes.
7:36 am on February 1st, 2010 21
http://www.2id.korea.army.mil/news/articles/2010/…
8:07 am on February 1st, 2010 22
"A good battle buddy keeps his teammates out of trouble, whether in the training area, the tank trail or the tavern."
There's only one tavern in TDC.
8:59 am on February 1st, 2010 23
Thanks for the link…very interesting. It's kinda hard for the company level green-tabbers to "implement effective control measures and encourage Soldiers to take care of each other" when you've got pricks with armbands and breathalyzers "taking care" of them.
I can somewhat agree with screening Soldiers before they leave the gate to ensure they're not making an ass of themselves. But if this comes down to CP's barging into Phrawgh's and zeroing in on some hapless SPC who happens to be acting the fool then the green-tabbers and battle buddies are already set up for failure because it's out of their hands.
Probably the best idea I've seen for preventing alcohol-related incidents was in Australia where it's against the law for bartenders to serve more alcohol to patrons who are obviously drunk. It seems too many establishments in Korea see drunkenness as a goal rather than a problem.
12:17 pm on February 1st, 2010 24
I agree on the favoritism part. I've experienced that first hand before, its not a pretty sight when TOP is always "taking care of" a SPC who happens to be in the same mason lodge as him. Same thing with the CSM.
@GI Korea
And WTF is up with UCMJ on the first offense? Art 15 can ruin careers now, are you that far separated from the military that you didn't know that? First offense is counseling statement / non-punitive punishment (cleaning barracks for two weeks or other crap detail, revocation of privileges). On second offense and above I agree that UCMJ should be used.
2:44 pm on February 1st, 2010 25
A counseling statement for causing trouble in the ville such as bashing a person with a beer bottle, underage drinking, busting curfew, assault MP's, etc.???
A summarized article 15 does not effect a soldier's career and puts them through the UCMJ process that gives them an indication of things to come if their indiscipline continues. When giving a counseling statement with punishment, the punishment has to fit the crime. How does sweeping the barracks equate to assaulting someone in the ville?
IMO leaders don't use judicial punishment enough, especially the summarized article 15. This is the very reason why I think some soldiers cause trouble in the ville in the first place when the little voice in their head tells them that they will just get a counseling statement for bashing someone in the ville. Plus the vast majority of soldiers do not cause problems and appreciate it when the trouble makers are held accountable for their actions.
By the way I am still very much in the military are you?