A Sikh-American Soldier Won the Right to Serve with His Beard, Long Hair and Turban

I don't drink beer, but I like the rest of that stuff. I even understand the icing rule.

 

Yes, I have. Persian Gulf War, 1st Infantry Division.

When accommodating _____ clashes with the maintenance of good order and maintaining unit cohesiveness/morale, then it's crossed the line into a distraction, which can have disastrous consequences.

 

Thanks for that. I wanted to assume it, but I thought I should ask.

Obviously, we differ on that. It is a similar argument to the one used against integrating the armed forces. Against women in combat roles. Against gays serving (first at all, then openly). It's never actually shown to be true. Oh, sure, individual military members have felt these things, believing them with great conviction. So have many military leaders. Fortunately, they've been proven wrong every single time. Same here. Except this isn't speculation; military members with specific religious garb and/or grooming have been accommodated for decades without any disruption to speak of, including many Sikhs. (Having seen Sikhs serve, I was a little surprised this case was even noteworthy. I still am.)

I appreciate the individual's point of view, and it should be considered. But it cannot be allowed to preponderate when considering the whole. Command experience gives you that perspective.

 

Troop morale is an issue. While most units of the Navy don't see combat, we did live together in incredibly close quarters for extended periods of time. A loss of morale or a breakdown in good order and discipline can have dire, and often violent, consequences. You can't pack people into a metal can like sardines, piss them off with impunity, and then act surprised when suicides, assaults, DUIs and other issues begin to rise.

But, as Rich says, most of the accommodations that were allegedly going to create distractions and have an adverse impact on good order and discipline simply didn't turn out that way. There was resistance to allowing women to serve on ships. Men would be distracted. At least one Admiral at the time of the debate was under the impression that putting a woman on a ship would result in a 6 month long gang rape until the ship returned to port. Sexual assault is an issue. Then again, sexual assault was an issue even without women on board. Then again with gays in the military. I know senior enlisted folks while I was in threw an absolute hissy fit saying how it would demoralize sailors to have to shower with gays. Well, fact is, it didn't distract anyone in any appreciable manner.

Frankly, if the guy next to you wearing a special hat distracts you to the point of being unable to carry out your duties you probably lack either the emotional maturity or intellectual capacity to be serving in such a vital role anyway.

 

Neuhaus is right. Sometimes there are issues attendant to change. Fine.

As for having to shower with gays, military members in communal living conditions have always showered with gays. Nothing's changed.

I couldn't agree more.

 

Not really; in spite of what the administration and the media want you to believe, the integration of gays in the military has hardly been seamless or a success. It's still very much resisted at the soldier level (I have many friends still serving), while the commanders do what they do best; toe the company line, and parrot whatever talking points are necessary to keep them in their command.

My attitudes and opinions have changed over the years, but the fact remains that America's warriors, the testosterone-fueled young men ages 18-25, are NOT going to accept these alternative lifestyles forced upon them. Their main job is to kill people and destroy things, and there's no room for social experiments, they serve as a distraction that could compromise their missions and get them killed.

Academics can do all the research and publish all the papers they want; until you've been in a foxhole, you don't understand the dynamics at work.

 

What the general public gets from the media, what the politicians tell them (including O6 and above), and what is really happening in the Military are different things.

 

I would expect this perspective from an enlisted troop. I was an NCO myself. Commanders see things from a different perspective, as do civilian leaders. These aren't universally exclusive, of course.

It doesn't make me right. It doesn't make you wrong. It does, however, point out the complexity of the situation as you change perspectives.

 

In allowing several days’ latitude for Rich to amend his commander /commanding officer (CO) assertion … clearly by this date, he has chosen to let his claim stand as being accurate.

In that there are veterans and current active and reserve duty service members (officers and enlisted) that read and participate in these discussion forums … why Rich would assume that he could peddle as factual the notion that he was a commanding officer (commander) of 600 and 900 personnel size units as an O-3 Capt. without the fabrication (I’m euphemizing) being challenged is is incredible? Recall that Rich has many times made it known that he's a Capt. (O-3), USAF (Ret).

By military Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE /TO&E), no Captain (O-3) commands (CO) ANY unit of 600 or 900 personnel in any U.S. military service—including the Air Force. Such personnel numbers would generally parallel an Army/Marine battalion (500-600 soldiers/marines) Operational Unit Diagrams or a fewer personnel number squadron size unit (USAF (e.g., 100-300 personnel)—see Air forces; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_organization and a Group (commanded by an O-6 Colonel) / Wing (commanded by an O-7 General officer /BG), e.g., 300-1000 personnel)) U.S. Air Force Officer Military Ranks | USAF, Army Cav or aviation unit command levels (e.g., AF, Army, Naval/MC aviation units)—e.g., a squadron /battalion … the lowest level of command configuration with a headquarters element, e.g., HQ /HHC /HHB)). The commanding officer would be, by command structure (command and control)—a Lieutenant Colonel (LtCol /LTC (O-5)) in rank to serve as the CO for a Battalion or Squadron; or at minimum a senior Maj (O-4 /Promotable)—NOT a Capt. /CPT (O-3). So his claims to be a former CO (commander) of units with personnel numbers of 600 and 900 as an O-3 (Captain) are fabricated nonsense...

For those who might be unfamiliar with US military command and structure:

There’s a [BIG] difference (in fact) to serve as a commanding officer (CO)—e.g., the individual who commands an entire unit (entrusted with full command and control authority) vs let’s say … an officer in charge (OIC) assignment billet, e.g., being the commanding officer’s designee, such as a department /section head (e.g., education /training officer wasn’t it Rich; not a commander /commanding officer)—or serving on a commander's staff (e.g., a staff officer)—again, not a commander) within the unit CO’s organizational chain of command and responsibility.

Bottom-line by TO&E … Rich could NOT have been a commanding officer (CO) /commander of a 600 or 900 personnel size units in either Korea (Osan Air Base) or Nevada (Nevis AFB) as he claims—or anywhere else for that matter. Those personnel numbers (600 and 900) and their corresponding unit sizes … are well above a Captain’s (O-3) USAF TO&E rank/pay grade, authorized command duty position, command authorization level, leadership experience level, or to even be TO&E eligible for such. In that he’d post this embellishment (again, euphemizing) is disturbing. I can suppose he considered the commander (CO) fabrication would somehow strengthen and/or add weight to his condescending opinions via his posting as truth … purely embellished command statuses. The assertion is easily refuted by referencing US military TO&E command structure manning table figures /organization structure…

Let’s see if any veteran or current service member (familiar with US military command structures) can offer an example of an O-3 Captain assignment as a commanding officer of a Battalion (500-600 soldiers /marines) or USAF Squadron (both being O-5 LtCol /LTC command authorized positions of authority), short of a temporary command succession as a result of combat attritions /casualties. And as Rich has already acknowledged, e.g., "... no one shooting at us in S. Korea or at Nellis AFB … " … therefore, removing any leeway to suggest combat attritions to at all substantiate Rich’s guise as a commanding officer to a 600 and 900 personnel size units as a USAF Captain (O-3).

Note: The Air Force does have some small unit designated Squadrons that may possibly be commanded by a Captain (O-3) or even a 1stLt /1LT (O-2); however, a 600-900 personnel size unit (full USAF TOE Squadron (100-300) or even Group /Wing (300-1000) would not fall within Rich's claimed command category whatsoever. It’s conceivable that he may have commanded the smallest organizational grouping of personnel in the Air Force (e.g. a Flight), typically commanded by a Captain (O-3). A flight is comparable to an Army or Marine company or battery (around 100-200 soldiers /marines with an O-3 Capt as commanding officer (CO) or battery commander (BC))—although Air Force flights (ground) routinely consists of far fewer personnel (e.g., 20-100).

 

In the Marine Corps we had nothing higher than a Capt at the Commanding Officer level, and that was a the Company level within an infantry Battalion. So these Commanders (Capt or often times Maj) would have been in charge of about 200 Marines. Our Battalion Commanders were never less than 0-5's, LtCol, and that would put them in charge of (at full strength) possibly up to 900 Marines.


While serving in the Army the same standards were about the same.


Lastly, my time in the Air Force was limited to the Guard and as such we were in a smaller refueling wing, but I've never seen an O-3 Command much higher than a flight or squadron and often times if it was a larger squadron they would have been O-4's but never more than at most a hundred or more.


I

 

No facts, but I'm somehow a liar. About something that absolutely doesn't matter. No amending. A-series orders and an A-prefix command position in both positions. (Actually, three; there was a third in between the two I mentioned.) There are things you do not know about, obviously. Figure it out for yourself. (Seriously, there's an aspect to this you simply don't seem to know. But I've posted about it in the past.)

 

I purposely have not weighed in on the CO thing for a few reasons:

1. I don't care. Whether Rich is telling the truth about his particular duty assignment or whether any embellishment was added does not impact the point he was making.

2. While I never served in the Air Force, I found that every interaction I ever had with them made me realize how little I know about the USAF. I saw some relatively low ranking individuals with, what appeared to be, relatively high responsibility billets. I don't know the rhyme or reason. Also, see reason (1).

3. The Navy has its own quirks that I've constantly had to explain to others. The most obvious being that Warrant Officers, while of junior paygrade, are not considered "Junior Officers." As such, it happens on some occasions that a Chief Warrant Officer can be appointed over an O-1 through O-3. Though, in practice, I've only ever seen a Warrant with positional authority over an O-1 or an O-2. This little quirk used to be featured fairly prominently on the Navy website where it was explained that this was due to the time in service requirements for a Warrant and how, quite often, they are simply better equipped for certain (typically small) command positions moreso than an O-1 who may be fresh out of college and have little more Naval experience than a Seaman Recruit. Here's the policy, just in case anyone is curious. The fact that a Warrant can serve as an OIC, Department Head or division officer is the piece of the puzzle, just in case we want to start that fight today as well.

4. The Air Force seems to routinely select Captains as Squadron Commanders, alongside officers up to Lieutenant Colonel (O-5). So, allow me to be the first veteran to point out that I don't know or care if Rich's assertions are true or accurate but they do at least appear to follow what the USAF might, or might not, do.

Because your premise seems incredibly flawed, ill-researched and dripping with personal malice rather than any objective desire for truth I think that your musings can be ignored without much further consideration. And, as I've pointed out before, I think we can now see, yet again, why we're talking to major56 and not LtCol56. Assuming, of course, you actually were a major and didn't just promote yourself on these boards. But for me to publicly accuse you of lying about your service with absolutely no evidence, as you just did to Rich, would be a wholly inappropriate dick move.

 

I was going to suggest that, instead of expending so much energy trying to show my simple assertion is false, try instead to show how it could be true. Of course, as Neuhaus implies, starting with that premise also assumes I'm not a liar. And where's the fun (for some) in that?

Neuhaus' assertions are correct, but do not apply in my case. There is another way. Oh, and I wasn't a "squadron commander" yet I still had command over a squadron. Three times at two duty stations over a continuous period of almost 4 years.

I've posted an awful lot and for a very long time. Lots of people have disagreed with me, but I haven't been shown to be a liar. And again, I've posted about this experience in the past. Perhaps that's where it should be left.

 

I'm not at all surprised that there is "another way." I'd be foolish to say that I knew all of the ways in which quirky things in the military can work. All the more reason why it is absurd to call someone a liar simply because the thing being asserted doesn't jive with what we have personally witnessed. This is especially the case when we are dealing with issues that took place outside of the branch of our personal experience.

There are certainly cases where it is apparent that someone is lying. This is not one of those cases. Is it possible Rich is embellishing his service? Of course it is. It's possible that anyone here has done the same. But there is no reason to believe Rich has done so in this situation. Stomping our feet and saying that a Squadron = a Battalion (not true) and that it should only have someone O-5 or higher commanding it is factually incorrect. The USAF has O-3 Squadron Commanders. So it isn't really important how, exactly, Rich came to command others or in what precise capacity. What's important is that major56 just launched a tirade based on a completely false assertion.

I'd say that either more tangible evidence than "I've never seen it before" is warranted. Or, preferably, folks could move on. Launching personal attacks from behind an anonymous screen name is, in my opinion, worse than lying; it's cowardice.

 

This is quite telling as to your own measure of standards Neuhaus (e.g., as long as it does not impact the point he was making). Did you really intend to author that? Nevertheless, such overture could also indicate that there is the likelihood you may, as well, not believe Rich’s command claims. The information I provided exposes his embellishments. To date … Rich cannot /has not offered even generic information to contradict my conclusions. And in that you’ve jumped aboard the indefensible Rich as commander bandwagon … both of you are simply unable to explain away that O-3 Captains, or in Navy language, O-3 Lieutenants Senior Grade as well—do NOT command ANY military units incorporating 600 or 900 personnel ... be they soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen. Of course per Rich’s beliefs … your sentiments (if they conflicted with his) would be fundamentally discounted in that they are coming from a former enlisted man’s perspective vs that of the officer perspective (re his earlier responses to Bruce Tait’s arguments).

 

Nor will I. Your conclusions, not mine. I really don't care. Why you is a mystery that, again, I don't care about. Anonymous trolling is a sport enjoyed by some, so please, have a good time.

I'm not a navy man, but I believe this is a made-up grade. If I'm not mistaken, the correct term is "lieutenant." The grade below is called "lieutenant, junior grade," but a lieutenant isn't called a "lieutenant, senior grade." Unless we're speaking about the Philippine navy, of course. Perhaps "major56" is a major in their army. In Tagalog that's a Komandante. Hey, commander! How cool is that?

Of course, I don't think you're lying about it.

 

If I say "I literally ate at every hot dog stand in NYC and this one is the best" it is quite possibly an embellishment. That would not necessarily negate the fact that the hot dogs at that particular stand are, in fact, very good.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have no reason to believe Rich is lying. At the same time, if you put me on a witness stand and asked me if Rich's claims were true I would have to give my honest position: "This is what Rich told me, he has given me no reason to suspect he is lying but I have not independently verified his claims."

That isn't a dig at Rich. That's just me being aware that there is a difference between what I know and what I believe to be true.

Sure I did. I found a list indicating that the Air Force had made Squadron Commander selections while noting that the officers selected ranged in grade from O-3 to O-5. So there are clearly Squadron Commanders at that grade. What you have not done is offer definitive proof that ALL O-3 Squadron Commanders are only ever assigned to very small squadrons.

Firstly, I find it very odd that a supposed officer thinks that there is a rank called "Lieutenant Senior Grade." An O-2 is a Lieutenant Junior Grade and an O-3 is a Lieutenant. Informally we sometimes refer to them as "Full Lieutenants" (we might also say a "full commander" for an O-5).

However, Navy commands are not dished out based on manning they are assigned based upon asset class. Aircraft carriers are commanded by an O-6 or above. Smaller crafts can be handled by lower ranking officers. A Personnel Support Detachment is overseen by an O-3 (typically, occasionally you get a CWO).

Things get very weird when it comes to medical units, however, and I know of at least one small Naval Hospital which had a staff of over 100 and an O-3 OIC (who exercises CO authority with some limitations). But I cannot definitively state that an O-3 has never had command over 600 sailors. I can only state that the types of vessels that would normally house that many persons is typically commanded by a person no lower than O-4.

However, I've also seen an O-4 only commanding two people and a CWO commanding 150. So an O-3 commanding over 600? Possibly not in the Navy but it certainly wouldn't shock my system if I found out there was some exceptional case where such occurred.

Yes, and Rich and I publicly disagreed over OCS selection and I laid out how our perspectives differ.

 

As Rich has stated in the past, he was not a squadron commander. He was a squadron section commander. Since I don't know of anybody who presently has that duty title (doesn't mean there isn't currently one), here is what I think it is: Some large squadrons (ie. maintenance) divided up the squadron into sections and placed more junior officers on g-series orders (a-series back in Rich's day) to handle admin functions as a delegation of authority/management tool by the squadron commander.

Captain squadron commanders - Personally, I have never had one with all of my commanders being a Major (very briefly at the beginning of my career) or Lt Col (every assignment in the last 20+ years) to include both home station and deployed squadrons. I have seen very junior Captains in detachment commander positions on g-series orders in a training environment and could argue that they are in charge of a ridiculously large number of personnel when considering the student population. It would be interesting to see what assignments the handful of Captains on the list were being considered for.

 

Yes.

Almost. Nothing "divided up." The squadron commander and the squadron section commander held "concurrent jurisdiction" over the entire squadron. They were both in command and had command authority. Airtorn is right about "g-series orders." My typo. My control AFSC (the classification of the position) was an A-prefix (command), but the orders were g-series. Just want to get it right and not be accused of lying!

My three command assignments were all operational, not training. All three were concurrent jurisdictions. However, when the commander was away--like when he/she took mid-tour 30-day leave--I was left in command, not the maintenance officer (who out-ranked me). For example, I would have to do non-judicial punishment or sign orders as the commander, not the major or lieutenant colonel who out-ranked me.

I don't believe the Air Force does this anymore, and it's been 20 years since I held such a position.

Ironically, when I led a training detachment earlier in my career, it was not a command position on g-series orders. This despite the fact that the next level up was on another base. Go figure.

Thanks, "airtorn" (not her real name!). You nailed it. Now I can go back to being a lying scum in peace.

 

His, not her...

On a side note, I know that you and a few others knock people for not using their real name on this forum but there are many reasons for staying semi-anonymous on the internet (ie. the recent frivolous lawsuit headache that you had to deal with). A little personal security goes a long way.