(Credit: Stillfx - stock.adobe.com)
People First, People Always
By Sergeant First Class Crystal Young-Coates
Winning matters, and [p]eople are my number one priority. People are
our Soldiers— Regular Army, National Guard and Reserve—their Families,
Civilians, and Soldiers for Life—Retirees and Veterans. We win through
our people, and people will drive success in our Readiness,
Modernization and Reform priorities. We must take care of our
people.1
Over the past several years, the Army has been working to implement the Army People Strategy, which, as expected, acknowledges people as the Army’s biggest asset.2 General James C. McConville said it perfectly in the above quote that we win through our people. In recognition of that, the strategy provides a framework to demonstrate that we value all members within our organizations and emphasizes building cohesive teams by exercising four lines of effort: acquire talent, develop talent, employ talent, and retain talent.3
To achieve these lines of effort, the strategy identifies four “critical enablers,” including “quality of life.”4
Within quality of life, the Army recognizes that it must provide “the
best workforce support services possible” to care for, support, and
enrich its people.5 The Army People Strategy also lists “Army culture” as a critical enabler, which “consists of the foundational values,6
beliefs, and behaviors that drive an organization’s social
environment.”7 The strategy emphasizes that if the Army does not continue to build its culture upon the “rock-solid foundation” of its values, team trust and cohesion will break down and cripple the mission.8
To prevent this, we must “[a]mplify the positive behaviors that align
with our vision of cohesive teams: civility and positive relationships;
diversity, equity and inclusion; honor and respect; empathy; and care
for Soldier and Civilian well-being.”9
(Credit: Yury Zap - stock.adobe.com)
Taking on our roles as individuals who can and should outwardly practice
the Army People Strategy seems easy enough, until we each start to
personally consider every individual we ordinarily interact with through
work, either as a supervisor, a subordinate, or a peer. Inevitably,
readily coming to mind are individual names and faces with whom, in our
professional capacities, we connect better. Then, for a variety of
reasons, there are others with whom we share a more distant connection.
Even more complicated is the navigation of circumstances involving
Service members facing allegations of misconduct. How do we strike the
right balance of allowing the required processes to timely occur while
we ensure the Army People Strategy stays relevant and applicable to
all our people?
The Army People Strategy aims to build ready, diverse, professional, and integrated members of the Army. But the accused at a court-martial,10 the respondent during administrative proceedings,11 and the individual who is “flagged” or suspended pending the outcome of an investigation12 are members that are often precluded from involvement in certain lines of effort that promote integration. Ensuring that these members are still a part of the team will help alleviate lasting negative consequences that may fall on both the individual Soldier and the greater Army and help ease reintegration if that Soldier, once cleared, is returned to duty.
When a Soldier, noncommissioned officer, or officer within the Army is alleged to have committed some sort of misconduct, they are sometimes removed from their position until guilt or innocence is determined.13 Removing an individual from a position is also often warranted to thoroughly review the circumstances surrounding the misconduct or potential misconduct.14 The idea behind this removal is to promote good order. For example, removing affected Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps personnel, who are directly responsible for the administration of justice across the Army, promotes accountability and preserves the system’s integrity.
While the individual’s removal may be both required and appropriate, the impact on the individual is immediate and strong. First, the individual is likely already worried about the next steps in the process, the outcome, and what their future will look like. Second, these individuals may feel ostracized from their units and those with whom they interact on a daily basis when they are removed from their normal duties. Removing an individual from a team can cause the Soldier great stress, heartbreak, or feel life-shattering.15
The secondary effect to this removal is that these Soldiers can be
susceptible to depression, suicidal thoughts, worry, anxiety,
alcoholism, and other mental, emotional, and physical challenges.16
Outside of the worry about their future and the ostracization that the
individual goes through, waiting for the outcome of an uncertain future
is taxing on their mental state. Uncertainty regarding stressful changes
may impede the exercise of effective resilience to properly deal with
the effects of such changes.17 This uncertainty is further compounded by the time required for investigations and other processes. Careers are halted in many ways until the outcome of the investigation or action.18 While the individual may have been accused of misconduct, they are still Soldiers and members of the Army Family. We must always take care of our people, no matter the situation, and remember that they are People First, and People Always.
Taking the court-martial as an example, the trial, be it one day or two weeks, is highly stressful. Emotions are raised during this time, as their judgment approaches. For some accused, it may be the last time they will see their Family members for an extended period. Occasionally, the accused will sit in the courtroom without a familial support system. Sometimes, Family members cannot travel for various reasons. Alternatively, accused often do not want their Family to attend because they are embarrassed or do not want to cause their Family additional pain by witnessing the trial.19 With or without Family present, no matter the outcome, lives are changed forever through the final proceeding.
Even within an adversarial structure, mindfulness that everyone is a human being, to include the accused, positively impacts every individual who touches the military justice system. All participants can uphold standards and justly apply due process while still considering in real ways the humanity of the accused through this difficult time. If convicted, the accused may lose hope for their future through presentencing and the announcement of their punishment. Hopelessness can be intolerable for any human being, regardless of how that situation came to be.20
Engaging everyone with the Army values and “People First” strategy and mission in mind can greatly counter the seemingly inevitable despondency accompanying a court-martial. This approach possibly encourages hope for an accused and offers support for them to prepare for life beyond the trial. This approach also promotes our collective focus on the Army’s number one priority: its people. An accused is still a person; they are our people, first and always. By exercising our ability to consistently implement the Army People Strategy across segments with deliberate, compassionate engagement with the accused, we make a difference.
While the Army created the idea of “People First” with the Army People Strategy to strengthen our commitment to innovation and thoughtful leadership in the realm of people management, “People First” goes beyond that; it is about caring for our people. Recognizing the humanity in every single member of our team, be it subordinates, peers, and seniors, no matter the circumstances, is how we achieve the Army’s goals. What a person is going through behind closed doors is not always recognized or understood. Regardless of the situation, every member of the team is always a member of the team. All people have value and deserve respect. No matter what, all members of the team are “People First.” TAL
SFC Young-Coates is the Senior Military Justice Operations Noncommissioned Officer, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), at Fort Drum, New York.
Notes
1. U.S. Army, The Army People Strategy 2 (2019) (quoting Gen. James C. McConville, 40th Chief of Staff, U.S. Army).
2. See id.
3. Id. para. III, at 4.
4. Id. paras. III(D)(2).
5. Id.
6. The Army values are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Id. para. III(D)(3).
7. Id.
8. See id.
9. Id. para. III(D)(3)(a).
10. See generally UCMJ ch. IV (2019) (establishing court-martial jurisdiction).
11. See generally U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 15-6, Procedures for Administrative
Investigations and Boards of Officers (1 Apr. 2016) (establishing procedures for investigations and boards).
12. See generally U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 600-8-2, Suspension of Favorable Personnel
Actions (Flag) (5 Apr. 2021) [hereinafter AR 600-8-2] (providing policies and
procedures governing flags).
13. See generally U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 600-20, Army Command Policy para. 4-7 (24 July 2020) (prescribing the “[d]isciplinary powers of the
commanding officer”).
14. Additionally, based on completed adverse actions for certain issues
or misconduct, The Judge Advocate General may withdraw certification of
legal administrators, paralegal Soldiers, and court reporters.
See U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-1, Judge Advocate Legal Services
para. 3-9(e)(2) (24 Jan. 2017). Moreover, supervisory lawyers are
responsible for receiving and reviewing any and all alleged or suspected
misconduct or violations of the Army
Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers,
U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for
Lawyers
(28 June 2018), the
Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and Appellate Judges,
U.S. Army Judiciary, Code of Judicial Conduct for Army Trial and
Appellate Judges
(16 May 2008), and other applicable ethical standards.
15. See Bob Acton, Mental Health (Illness), Allegations of Misconduct, and Workplace
Investigations, CPHR Alberta (Dec. 11, 2018), https://www.cphrab.ca/mental-health-illness-allegations-misconduct-and-workplace-investigations. This statement is based on the author’s professional experiences as a paralegal at various units and installations over a fifteen-year career [hereinafter Professional Experiences].
16. See Professional Experiences, supra note 15; see also Miguel Clemente & Dolores Padilla-Racero, The Effects of the Justice System on Mental Health, 27
Psychiatry, Psych. & L. 865 (2020).
17. See Eleonore Batteux, Resilience to Uncertainty, Brit. Psych. Soc’y (Sept. 30, 2021), https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/resilience-uncertainty.
18. See, e.g., AR 600-8-2, supra note 12, para. 3-1.
19. Professional Experiences, supra note 15.
20. See Richard S. Lazarus, Hope: An Emotion and a Vital Coping Resource Against Despair, 66 Soc. Rsch. 653 (1999).