Fantastic post. What an asinine policy; yet another reason I'm glad I PCS'ed to the Civ Div.

Defense secretary Panetta's message to the military in Kabul this week: Happy and honored to see you. Just leave your weapons outside the room.

I almost couldn't believe this. Absolutely great post from a guest writer. I guess we're starting the post-war phase of "let's implement stupid policies that ensure the best officers depart at the first opportunity."

How about Beta testing this in the Secretary's and CNO's offices, uniformed and civilians both? Then if it looks to be a good deal, propagate it down through the major command headquarters. Spend a few bucks and have their IGs evaluate the procedures, hardware, impacts on operational outcomes and costs, and then put it to the fleet if it passes muster. Maybe the Secretary could follow the lead of modern managers who "don't do good ideas" unless they're data driven.

Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of," etc., etc.

So much for the idea of fidelity in an officer's commission document. . .along with what we expect our NCO's to aspire toward. . .Oh well, on to more important things like will the chief boatswain trade in his/her bosun's whistle for a breathalyzer hung from the neck, tied off with fancy knot work?

I can't believe the two service chiefs, the CNO, and CMC would go along with SecNav's idea set forth here. . .it is simply antithesis to small unit leadership.

Besides, who wants to put their lips around something that the company gunny's had his lips around prior, knowing who his girl friend is?

Just install alcohol ignition interlocks on ships, planes, tanks, and weapons. If you are under the influence, you can't start the ship, fly the plane, drive the tank, or shoot the Taliban. Problem solved. Now, where were we?

It's just another example of the "cover your ass" mentality that seems so prevalent in the echelons way above reality - they have to do something big and public (because demonstrating leadership and actually solving the problem as you suggest isn't immediate and public enough) so they look good to their bosses (and score a sweet OER bullet!!!). This is the reason why you have things like people wearing roadguard belts in combat zones or curfew reinstated in Korea.

The article that the author refers to in the title:

Special Trust and Confidence by Lt. Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr. USMC
Proceedings Vol. No. 82, No.5 May 1956 Whole No. 639

If interested, the original piece can be read here: http://blog.usni.org/2009/10/29/from-our-archive-special-trust-and-confidence-by-lt-col-robert-d-heinl-jr-usmc/

While the author clearly sees the mandatory breathalyzers as a bridge too far, I see this as the logical extension of a paternalistic campaign that's already been working the lower ranks for some time now. I spent some time as an NCO with the Third Marines and that attitude isn't just confined to the shinies. Our cutting scores, which determined our promotion up to Sergeant/E-5, were determined by: PFT score, Rifle score, and Marine Corps Institute (MCI) classes completed, with bonuses for reenlisting and recruiting.

Instead of leaving it up to those individual Marines to complete their MCIs on their own, push for PFTs or range time, I saw commands repeatedly push one-size-fits-all policies on them. I can understand group PFTs, and even some range time (because of scheduling difficulties); but the paternalistic attitude came out in full-force when I saw them order their Marines to do MCIs. I've also seen this attitude extended towards Corporals/Sergeants Course and MCMAP training. What is the point in claiming that these things demonstate a Marine's initiative and dedication when a command simply orders all the eligible Marines to participate in them?

...when reading this was that it's really about laying the groundwork for expected/feared reductions-in-force. Catching personnel with any level of alcohol in their system could be noted, and then be considered when the RIF committee tallies up scores. The 300 ship Navy and 2 division Marine Corps will be staffed with tee totalers and the like.

I also remember my high school history teacher remarking that his uncle had sought to enlist in the Marine Corps during the Great Depression, but was rejected because he had cavities. Story is that back then the Marines could be that picky, at least when it came to dental hygeine.

This whole thing is a a ridiculous example of the nanny state at its worst, but I have to admit that it would be interesting to see if the military could get (closer) to a volunteer force that's free(er) of the various kinds of riff-raff who get in. I guess even Heinlein's mobile infantry had its problem cases....

Epic post.
I can only speak for myself, but programs like this initiative make the opportunity to command more and more unattractive. The author is absolutely correct in pointing out that this program is a high visibility replacement for the more demanding task of challenging leadership at all levels to "step up." So, instead of insisting that CPOs and JOs get involved in the lives of their Sailors, we will instead burden them with taskers like producing a tracker reflecting who's been breathalyzed and has completed their annual drug/alcohol abuse training.
We shouldn't expect every Officer or Chief to be James Stockdale, but as a group we should be insulted that so little faith is placed in our ability to exercise some deckplate leadership and correct problematic behavior by Sailors and Officers. Of course, until we answer this insult with some real world success, we can likely only expect more of the same.

My back ground- 14 years of service, First Class Petty Officer, currently on shore duty for the first time in Singapore (gotta love it!)

I've dragged sailors to medical to do a "fit for duty" screening for being drunk, and being the leader I am I got them to the appropriate counseling and care programs. If today's First Classes and Chiefs are too busy drumming up Power Points and spreadsheets to get out and talk to their sailors, then it's time for me to go!

To hear this policy from Sec Nav the day after SEC Def and CJCS were joking around about making a Capitol Hill combat badge with Dempsey suggesting it be a bottle of scotch.

If they are going to take up more of our precious work day and weekend duty days by having everyone blow, they might as well make everyone coming onto any military installation submit to a breathalyzer and "stop the problem" right at the front gate.

People have been sneaking contraband onto ship's forever. Taking a breathalyzer at morning quarters isn't going to stop the CO or Chief, or even a seaman from taking a sip out of a flask in the middle of the day. One late night post 9/11 harbor security watch in Norfolk, my Chief at the time told me how to bring Captain Morgan on board in a Listerine bottle for a night cap during long underways.

It irks me that I have 6 more years to go, and every year they seem to dream up a new policy that treats all service members like preschoolers. Too bad I'm too far past the hump to give up on the dream of my retirement check, before I go sailing commercially.

-Boats out

my classmate's half-sister makes $83 hourly on the computer. She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her check was $7298 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more...... m a k e c a s h 4 . c o m

A base commander in Korea just issued a memo to halt alcohol sales at the PX after 9 pm. Never mind that the fools getting into trouble by breaking curfew and assaulting Korean nationals are doing that "outside" the gates. How a rule like this is preventative is beyond me.

Who do these type of procedures really look out for anyway - The guys with actual problems or the chain of command?

Amazing how the indignation needle pegs when it is the use of your drug of choice that becomes the object of scrutiny, isn't it? Did the author ever utter a single word about how someone who smoked a joint two weeks ago can get disciplined? Or about the indignity of pissing in a bottle at the whim of your superior, for no reason, with no suspicion of actual marijuana use needed? Oh, pardon me - yes he did. He said its fine, because its the only way to catch someone smoking marijuana on their off duty time. His hypocrisy is amazing. Not a word about why disciplining someone for what they do on their own time is necessary.

Alcohol, though legal, is a drug like all the rest. If you can discipline someone for a minute trace of marijuana in his blood from a joint he smoked weeks ago, then I don't understand the indignation about testing if someone is under the influence of alcohol while actually on duty.
I would think some type of hand/eye coordination test could be developed to test anyone suspected of not being fit for duty. Such a test would be equally fair no matter what your drug of choice - alcohol or marijuana. In the meantime, suck it up and blow in the tube. Marijuana smokers are disciplined for getting high the previous week, yet drinkers can get drunk the night before, then report for duty with a hangover, and no one bats an eye.
Oh BTW, what drug was it that the American soldier was using last week when he slaughtered all the Afghan civilians in their beds? Hint - it wasn't marijuana.

Since Obama has the toughest job, let give him a test 4 times a day and see how he likes. You'd want to know that when the world leader has his finger on the button, he is not half in the bag. Of course Biden is too far gone for that test. Idiots!

before or after the daily ration of rum? Will they be instituting bed checks next to combat cannibalism on long journeys?

The issue is not the breathalyzer per se. The issue is the intrusive leadership. As others have said, the Navy has the leadership tools in place to address these issues. If this is a reaction to the number of CO's being fired for issues related to alchohol, as likely, it seems remarkably short sighted. Look at those cases carefully. In each case, issues were identified years before, but no one was held accountable. Superiors were unwilling to be the "bad guy" that ruins another's career. Thus the problem gets kicked down the road until you have COs getting fired for things that should have been addressed years earlier.
This tool is a blunt instrument that hamstrings commanders and increases the administrative burden throughout the fleet. As someone also north of O-3 and south of FO, I can say that when I am asked more about the status of my Urinanalysis, DAPA and SAPR programs than my career counseling, mentoring and training programs, then we are in a bizarre situation. Yet, this is not isolated and my peers can tell similar stories.
Infidel is only partially right. That soldier was not taken care of by his leaders. The subsequent investigation is going to show a series of leadership failures on the part of this soldiers superiors, going all the way back to Ft. Lewis. I will bet a paycheck on that. The drug of choice does not matter, just as the breathalyzer does not matter. It is the intrusive nature of this that bugs me and others. For all the mandatory programs we have to administer, it becomes rather difficult to practice the kind of leadership that would make these programs irrelevant and redundant. It is a shame.
We worry about closed toe shoes in a DFAC, and powerpoint format in a war zone, but don't take care of our sailors. The

The readiness card has been misplayed in the roll-out of this new "health promotion" program. The logic appears to be that any vice or behavior that might decrease readiness is a legitimate target for an intrusive program to minimize the effect on readiness. There is not enough time in the day to do all the things that higher authority already wants done and they come up with another program that will require administration and followup? The issue for leaders is to identify those behaviors that put the command at risk and also have some hope of being controlled. By that standard, I have better things to do than worry about than maintaining breathalyzers.

The language used to describe the role of alcohol in last year's CO firings is incredibly weak, suggesting the SecNav is stretching to find data that he does not have. Where's the data on the role of intoxication as a contributing factor to mishaps? I wonder what the response would be if at the press conference, the SecNav had presented the results of a pilot study that showed data on how many sailors had elevated BAC levels detected on random screening and how many of them were found to have alcohol abuse or dependency problems.

Even with that data, there is the bigger issue of trust. Beyond insulting their ability to be responsible adults, our sailors do not trust the system to treat this information with confidentiality necessary to ensure they are not harmed by the program. This is a program with a huge downside and what benefits it may produce are pure speculation. The SecNav's press conference was an example of how to announce a program that is clearly not ready for primetime in a way that only inflames the lack of trust needed to make it a success.

It is true we have some very seriously flawed policies like, I was deploying to Africa thru Norfolk Naval Base leaving from the Navy terminal PAX shed. They have TSA screeners there and one asked me and the 6 soldiers traveling with me to take off our boots prior to passing thru the metal detector. I became very irate at this point and asked to talk to the TSA supervisor also preventing my soldiers to include one Army O-6 from complying with their request to remove our boots. The supervisor who was a fat and curt idiot told me that we had to remove our boots. I told her that we wouldn’t even have to remove them at the local civilian airport why should we have to remove them here. I was deploying to Africa with weapons, she said that it didn’t matter. I then told her that we would remove our boots only after we (her and I) went down to one of the piers and all sailors who were boarding their deployment vessels also had to remove their boots prior to boarding their vessel. In a very short instance after that a Navy CAPT appeared and said that we didn’t have to remove our boots. Some of this crap is out of control.

My other pet peeve is that I am required to attend a 2 day motorcycle safety course to bring my bike on base. 90% of all accidents involving motorcycles on military bases are the fault of a careless car driver, who is not required to take any course whatsoever to drive on base. Even visitors can get a visitors pass to drive on base without any safety course. In 100 degree weather I have to wear gloves long pants and long sleeves and boots or I can be denied access to base while on my motorcycle. Since we are a captive audience they feel they can regulate the heck out of us. Enough is enough!

agree with me, and it seems i've touched a nerve. so here's the question -- are people likely to comment on Tom's blog also likely to agree with a libertarian position such as that which I've outlined, or is this really representative of the attitude within the force? I'd wager most people aren't this fired up about it; rather, they are conditioned to be apathetic lemmings and believe that there's nothing that can be done, so why bother? I'd wager that many say "I've got nothing to hide, so what do I care" without thinking hard about...well, anything...but specifically without thinking hard about where the lines are between management and labor.

that our crack professionals in the DoN public affairs industry are going to read this post and thread and bring this to anyone's attention who has a responsibility to consider such things? I know some folks in the DoN public affairs industry, and they are the world's biggest company men. They will dismiss all 29 of us as ranting lunatics without ever giving a constructive though about whether this data point is a sample of the butterfly effect in chaos theory.