Missing something? Smack the captain

Back in the heyday of the War of Terrorism, the Army was more concerned with taking out bad guys than good property accountability. However, with the Army facing budget problems and continuing resolutions, supply accountability is a huge issue these days.

Yet you wouldn't think that from the kind of training we captains get in this area, nor from the kind of property losses we've seen here in Korea. In my old battalion, one commander got a general officer memorandum or reprimand (GOMOR) for their losses. And in the transition from my predecessor to me, the company lost accountability on roughly $70,000 worth of property.

Even worse is the company that just closed down. Somewhere in the mix and shuffle, they lost accountability of over $300,000. In these kinds of cases, the company commander's follow-on assignment gets suspended until the investigation is completed and the financial liability is established. If simple negligence is determined, Army Regulation 735-5 §13-32 states that up to one month's base pay can be collected. If it's determined to be gross negligence, the full amount of the loss is due.

Historically, that money has come out of the commander's pocket, but who's *really* to blame in that kind of mess?

The one single person with the greatest influence on supply accountability is the supply sergeant. If they don't advise their commander on what's they have to do to get things right, it's essentially a professional betrayal of the one person who needs them the most.

Yet in Korea, with it's one-year tour option, a supply sergeant's neglect might not be noticed until long after they're gone. The commander might think that by "taking care of everything" that NCO is the best sergeant in the Army, only to find out after the annual evaluation is written and the plane's already left just how bad the guy really was.

The battalion staff also plays an important role in supply accountability. By conducting staff assistance visits and command inspections, staff personnel give commanders an outside perspective on their unit. Their findings can identify weaknesses in the company's supply systems early on so that problems can be remedied.

Yet if they're too busy with their own regular jobs and staff visits are not "prioritized" by the battalion commander, staff personnel will not go out of their way to help. Heaven help the commander who's geographically separated from the headquarters -- is there anyone who'd be willing to go visit that guy if it wasn't forced?

Then, even if they *do* visit, there's no guarantee a pre-command staff captain is going to know anything more than the company commander does. I know I didn't.

However, more than any other external factor, I think the Army's education system is the biggest problem. We sit in the "captain's career course" for 6 months to learn how to be a staff officer, with only one or two days spent explaining the supply system.

Then we spend one week in school learning about resources available to company commanders, with only one or two hours spent learning how to manage the supply staff. There's almost no examination of the regulations, and only a cursory discussion of how to conduct cyclic inventories.

It's such a shame. Even though battalion commanders these days have to sign a memo accepting responsibility for their supply situation, I have yet to hear of a battalion commander being held responsible for any losses. For 364 days of the year commanders get pushed to do X or Y or Z, with hardly a comment on supply. But on that 365th day, or when it's time to hand over the reins to a new guy, THEN people are worried about supply.

So who's to blame for all theses supply losses? Certainly it's the company commander, but if the Army expects us to do better, there has to be more help. We can't *all* be quartermasters with prior enlisted service, but what other branch has the expertise? It's one thing to say "You screwed up," but it's quite another to instruct commanders beforehand how to avoid common mistakes.

The way things are right now, we're setting commanders up for failure.