I think this is a very difficult line to walk. On one hand, we want there to be consistency; on the other hand, USNA is a leadership laboratory and part of the MIDN experience should be making SOME decisions (where delegated to), accountability/responsibility, and ability to reward/"punish." The question then becomes WHAT gets delegated (and not). The whole decision making process CANNOT be so centralized to not allow MIDN to make decisions or to make them at a mundane level; they should have the opportunity to understand the ramifications of their decisions, etc. I agree that there should be some oversight...but if a company commander wants to suspend chopping for a few days to reward some type of good behavior, then why should only one person (i.e. Brigade Commander or Commandant) get to make the call -- besides that they have rank? It takes away the opportunity for other MIDN to make "leadership" decisions. As CaptMJ said...I think if "Commander's Intent" is properly pushed down from the Dant to BattO and CompanyOs, then they can command by negation. If those officers think that MIDN decisions are "way overboard" then they could step in, block it, and do some mentoring.
If I was a company officer (which I am not), I would want MIDN to experience all the factors that come with decision making; I would want them to have the opportunity to "fail" (just not fall on their face) at making some decisions...that is sometimes the BEST way to learn. They can't have this opportunity if it is TOO centralized. I think there is a way it could be done through a hybrid approach (i.e. Company Commanders are limited to suspension of one plebe privilege for up to 3 days...Battalion Commander 4 days, etc.).
I am not sure if this along the lines of what CaptMJ was implying with ADM Roughead? was Dant.