Wow, AFA Losing Cadets!

[fencersmother]

As a mom whose sons have been basics, 4*s, and cadre (one was cadre twice), and both of whom were in long term positions of authority, I find Freda'sMom's assertions to be on pretty shaky ground. Yes, over the many years of the long blue line, there have undoubtedly been abuses, but to have such blatant disregard for rules, standards, and protocols in the last ten or so years, I find, well, unbelievable. To my ears (and eyes), she seems to have some type of axe to grind, and I for one, am not buying it.

I just refuse to believe that some current cadre (or recent) would say to anyone that they acted inappropriately. There MAY have been some slight infractions; hey, they're human and given a small amount of power. Large infractions - sorry. nope.

 

[84grad19dad]

As to point one-

Thus, what would be the point of my speaking up when no one at the Academy cares or wants to listen to a parent?

I do not quit--EVER-- when it comes to the needs of my children. Your speed at giving up is incomprehensible to me.

point 2- Still waiting for evidence. In 35 years I have seen many many scandals. The difference is they were all addressed not just whined about. I certainly recognize it is USAFA and not utopia.

Point 3- Asking for actionable evidence does not negate the presence of empathy.

point 4- I do not imply anything. I say it. I am not PC. I say what I mean Period.

point 5- I still have seen nothing supporting your position. Simply outrage that I have the audacity to ask for support.

 

[AlexT]

As a mom whose sons have been basics, 4*s, and cadre (one was cadre twice), and both of whom were in long term positions of authority, I find Freda'sMom's assertions to be on pretty shaky ground. Yes, over the many years of the long blue line, there have undoubtedly been abuses, but to have such blatant disregard for rules, standards, and protocols in the last ten or so years, I find, well, unbelievable. To my ears (and eyes), she seems to have some type of axe to grind, and I for one, am not buying it.

I just refuse to believe that some current cadre (or recent) would say to anyone that they acted inappropriately. There MAY have been some slight infractions; hey, they're human and given a small amount of power. Large infractions - sorry. nope.

I respect what you say, but Christcorp's technique of building strawmen and demolishing them seems to work. Freda's Mom's only assertion was the there are cadre that will do anything in their power to make an unwanted cadet quit. Period. You may be responding to things attributed to Freda's Mom but were never actually said. Certainly, many words have been put into her mouth to make her look uncredible. I even cited one instance a few minutes ago. She never claimed cadre lied, broke rules and covered things up. I took her meaning to be that cadre can act unscrupulously and stay completely within the "text of the rules" while completely violating their spirit. This being done in the context of being "gatekeepers". I found her assertions to be credible because I was aware of similar activities. If you've read this thread, you probably saw my account. I recounted a litany of actions taken by cadre to drive a few cadets out. I noted that I did not believe any of the actions were technically out of bounds. Again the issue wasn't about cadre breaking rules. It was about cadre having personal agendas using their position to make conditions miserable not for training or corrective purposes but with the deliberate intention of driving the new trainee out.

Just a quick edit here....just to clarify, I didn't identify the institutions where these incidents took place. I wasn't my intent to criticize any particular institution. I think safeguards are in place at all of them. Clever people, however, can always find ways around them.

 

[MombaBomba]

As to point one-

Thus, what would be the point of my speaking up when no one at the Academy cares or wants to listen to a parent?

I do not quit--EVER-- when it comes to the needs of my children. Your speed at giving up is incomprehensible to me.

point 2- Still waiting for evidence. In 35 years I have seen many many scandals. The difference is they were all addressed not just whined about. I certainly recognize it is USAFA and not utopia.

Point 3- Asking for actionable evidence does not negate the absence of empathy.

point 4- I do not imply anything. I say it. I am not PC. I say what I mean Period.

point 5- I still seen nothing supporting your position. Simply outrage that I have the audacity to ask for support.

1) As you have no clue what life experiences I or any other poster has or what we have done or attempted to do, assuming that we give up so quickly on our children is surprising. Also, at some point, as a parent, I let go and let my kid handle things on his own. At some point I stop just taking action and I ask, "do you want me to do anything?" or "Is there anything I can do?" or "What do you need from me?" As much as I have wanted to get involved, I make myself sit on my hands and stuff a gag in my mouth because part of raising a child is letting them grow into and take on the mantle of being an adult.

2) Evidence? Really? What would constitute reliable "you can take it to the bank" evidence or proof for you? Also, do you really believe that everything negative gets reported and/or acted upon? I am genuinely curious here.

3) Actually, if there was any empathy in that post, I missed it. This statement does not imply empathy to me:

I would be spending more time talking to people at the Academy than stroking my ego here if I had any proof of misconduct.

If that was meant to be empathetic, I apologize.

4) Actually the imply was via the tone and overall theme of both posts. I didn't say it was a hidden meaning. In my post, the term "imply" was used because there was no one "statement" that could be used to sum it up. Perhaps I should have used the word theme instead of imply. I apologize for the use of the "imply." I did not mean to suggest that you weren't someone who spoke your mind. I will attempt to use the phrase "over all theme" in the future.

5) Support my position? Which position? That the opinion, thoughts and ideas of civilian non-military parents don't matter and are suspect? That there has been bullying at the academy? Or that there has been bullying that has gone unreported to and thus unpunished by the Academy? Please note, I did not say that the Academy wouldn't punish someone out of line. I do believe the Academy does care and will punish those who are caught "red-handed".

I am not outraged at your point of view. It really isn't much different than that presented by others. It was the delivery as opposed to the idea that caught my attention.

I respect your opinion and your right to doubt and question. But I also have that same right, and I hope I have done so in a reasonable way.

 

[84grad19dad]

1. I did not assume--you stated that there would be no point, which I read as I quit because it was hard.

2. Evidence means names dates and actions. Certainly for opsec in general and protection of your DS in particular these facts should not be openly listed. However, claims to have this info have been made. Indications this info was used or attempted to be given to the system has not been indicated.

3. I have empathy and you are correct, I was not and am not now coming from that direction.

4. My post was intentionally sparse. I am not politically correct. I am sorry you consider my directness as being mean.

5. Since you ask--all. But, you just stated that it has gone unreported and unpunished. That is the entire premise of my posts. Do something. Don't just whine. Apparently we agree more than it seems from our communication styles.

I have never stated that you should shut up or that you do not have the right to say anything. I have stated that you should do more than talk.

 

[Christcorp]

Freda'smom wrote: And my information did not come from any separated cadet or mid, but from the cadre who admitted their actions.

Well, the question begs then: Are the actions these cadre did illegal, against the rules, or in some other manner prohibited?

AlexT. You just said, that there are cadre (According to Freda'smom) who said that they will do anything in their power to make an unwanted cadet quit. Well, unfortunately, if we want to play "Arm-Chair" lawyer, like so many here do, we have to then ask: "Does ANYTHING in their POWER", mean they STAYED within the confines of what was permissible? If yes, then what the hell are we arguing about. The cadre performed within the boundaries, the trainee couldn't or didn't want to take it any more, and they quit.

Or, is Freda'smom implying, that the cadre's admission, was an admission that they performed "OUTSIDE" of the rules. That their conduct was NOT permissible. Hence, the reason I said previously that I find it hard to believe, that a cadre would openly admit, especially to a parent, that they intentionally and willingly broke rules and policies in such actions. Such an admission of guilt would carry heavy disciplinary actions if brought up to the chain.

So, we're back to the basic questions that have been either asked, or eluded to:

1. Were actions by cadre, WITHIN the confines of what is permissible; or, did they break rules and policies and their conduct is not condoned by the academy.
2. If the actions WERE within "Their Power" which were within guidelines, then this debate is moot. They didn't do anything wrong. On the other hand, if their conduct was not permissible or within policy, why didn't the trainee bring it to anyone's attention. And as others have asked, if a parent "Knows for a Fact", that a cadre acted and conducted training outside of permissible standards, why the hell hasn't that parent said anything to the academy?

Nothing I say is meant to build straw men arguments. But I have to base my opinions and decisions on the "PREGNANCY THEORY". "You Are..... or You're Not....." There is no kind of, sort of pregnant. Well, the same goes here. There are standards by which the cadre train new cadets. There are guidelines and parameters. They are taught what lines not to cross. They are taught that different trainees respond differently. But again, the goal in BCT, is to break ALL the trainees down, and build them back as ONE TEAM, ONE GOAL, and ONE DIRECTION. So now, we have to disregard totally whether the cadre "Wanted" to get a trainee to quit or not. That is not important. What is important, is if the training, methods, discipline, etc. done by the cadre, was done WITHIN STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, PARAMETERS, and POLICY........ or THEY WEREN'T.

YES or NO. No kind of, sort of. Just like the appointment process isn't 100% fair. Some cadets with higher scores don't receive an appointment over others with lower scores. But even the lower scored appointees, met the standards required to receive an appointment. Well, BCT, just like life, has variables too. Some trainees probably are treated better than others. Some keep under the radar and the Cadre don't even remember their name after 5 weeks. That's life everywhere. The academy, your job, even as a customer at a store. But that doesn't matter. What matters is; is the trainee who isn't being treated "As nicely", are they being treated within standards? EXAMPLE: If a shop owner sells an item for $5.00 normally to EVERYONE, are those customers being ripped off if he sells me the item for $4.00 because I'm a good friend? NO. But if he sells the item to everyone normally for $5.00 , but a customer he doesn't like, he sells for $6.00, then that is discrimination. That IS Wrong.

So again, this who track of this thread, revolves around the 2 questions I asked above:
1. Were actions by cadre, WITHIN the confines of what is permissible; or, did they break rules and policies and their conduct is not condoned by the academy.
2. If the actions WERE within "Their Power" which were within guidelines, then this debate is moot. They didn't do anything wrong. On the other hand, if their conduct was not permissible or within policy, why didn't the trainee bring it to anyone's attention. And as others have asked, if a parent "Knows for a Fact", that a cadre acted and conducted training outside of permissible standards, why the hell hasn't that parent said anything to the academy.

That's what matters to me. I don't care in the least, if a trainee has their feelings hurt. When you're trying to turn 1200 individuals into 1 team, you know for a fact that some individuals will be able to handle it better than others. They either handle it and move on to being part of the Cadet Wing, or they quit. BCT is not the place to try and cultivate individual qualities and potential. It's a place for the individual to test themselves to see what they can take and what they are willing to take to be part of the academy and military.

 

[MombaBomba]

1. I did not assume--you stated that there would be no point, which I read as I quit because it was hard.

2. Evidence means names dates and actions. Certainly for opsec in general and protection of your DS in particular these facts should not be openly listed. However, claims to have this info have been made. Indications this info was used or attempted to be given to the system has not been indicated.

3. I have empathy and you are correct, I was not and am not now coming from that direction.

4. My post was intentionally sparse. I am not politically correct. I am sorry you consider my directness as being mean.

5. Since you ask--all. But, you just stated that it has gone unreported and unpunished. That is the entire premise of my posts. Do something. Don't just whine. Apparently we agree more than it seems from our communication styles.

I have never stated that you should shut up or that you do not have the right to say anything. I have stated that you should do more than talk.

You do realize I am not Fredasmom, and the one who stated that cadre had admitted to purposefully targeting a cadet?

I was addressing your questions from a civilian non-military parent's point of view, not from the personal point of view of Fredasmom who may think that the Academy cares what parents think. I don't know Fredasmom.

As to proof of back off parents. Really? You really need me to prove that the Academy doesn't care what parents think? Which "don't be a helicopter parent and let your kids handle it speech" should I have recorded? Have you read other threads from AOLs and other academy grads besides yourself on the whole "parental involvement" issue? Or the blatantly stated "you should not be calling your cadet's AMT or AOC unless it is a dire emergency" by PP during parent's weekend? But then I have no proof this was stated. It is only my word which doesn't mean anything here.

As to bullying that has occurred, has not been reported and that I know about. Uh huh. It's not my place nor my story to share. I certainly have trust issues, and others have trust issues with me. This is only normal and natural as we really don't know each other. (By we, I mean all posters in this forum, not just you and I) I will have to live with the fact that you and other's don't believe me because I won't provide sufficient evidence as defined by you. So be it.

One more thing, how does anyone do more than "talk" here? It is all sharing ideas, knowledge and information via texting. The fact is even if I presented dates, times, actual names and detailed events, why should anyone believe me? I could be making the story up. I could be exaggerating or leaving facts out. I wouldn't blame someone for not believing me. After all, I am a complete and utter stranger! I could be a monkey who after typing at the keyboard for centuries, finally came up with this.

 

[84grad19dad]

Well said Christcorp. Unfortunately, I tend to be the burr under the saddle and less the statesman you are.

 

[84grad19dad]

It isn't your place? Then who's place is it? Certainly the kid should step up first. But go ahead, stand by and watch, Both my grandfathers, my father, myself, all 3 of my son's on ad with 2 cb tours among them will stand up for you.

 

[AlexT]

Freda'smom wrote: And my information did not come from any separated cadet or mid, but from the cadre who admitted their actions.

Well, the question begs then: Are the actions these cadre did illegal, against the rules, or in some other manner prohibited?

AlexT. You just said, that there are cadre (According to Freda'smom) who said that they will do anything in their power to make an unwanted cadet quit. Well, unfortunately, if we want to play "Arm-Chair" lawyer, like so many here do, we have to then ask: "Does ANYTHING in their POWER", mean they STAYED within the confines of what was permissible? If yes, then what the hell are we arguing about. The cadre performed within the boundaries, the trainee couldn't or didn't want to take it any more, and they quit.

Hopefully, this will be my last post in this thread, but here goes. Let's do this by analogy.

In a previous post, you conveyed this statement, attributed to a cadre (apparently one who had communicated with Freda's mom): "we intentionally broke rules, intentionally lied, and intentionally covered up our actions of forcing kids to quit, where they had no recourse but to quit" I didn't recall anybody every saying this. Yet there the statement is in quotes no less, with the explicit implication that such a statement was made. Otherwise why use quotes? I asked you for the source of the quote. At this point you have declined to provide it. I think you and I both know where this quote really came from.

Now, here's the analogy. Was using this quote against some technical rule? Was it illegal? No. Was something stretched? Maybe a little? Do you believe this to be honest or reasonable? See here's where we aren't seeing eye to eye. Just because something is technically not out of bounds, does not make it right. It was my impression that the purpose of cadre were to instruct and indoctrinate. All corrective actions were to be taken with these goals in mind. Now, once again here's where we're likely to have a disagreement. While I believe that tough discipline to correct and teach is highly appropriate, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so to force a cadet out. That is not a cadre's role. Can cadre accomplish this task without breaking rules. Absolutely. Is it correct and honorable behavior? I think you know where I stand. You apparently either a) deny such activity occurs or b)believe it's OK as long as no rules are broken. Tough luck to the kid that gets targeted. But again, I don't want to put words in your mouth (as I put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

For the record, there was nothing in Freda's Mom's post to indicate that anything illegal was done. I interpret "anything within their power" to mean just that. Cadre are given a certain amount of authority or power. They can certainly use that to accomplish goals which are less than honorable.

 

[Dad]

Let it go, let it go
Can't hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door!

I don't care
What they're going to say
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway!

It's funny how some distance
Makes everything seem small
And the fears that once controlled me
Can't get to me at all!

It's time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me I'm free!

Let it go, let it go
I am one with the wind and sky
Let it go, let it go
You'll never see me cry!

Here I stand
And here I'll stay
Let the storm rage on!


Carry on.

 

[MombaBomba]

AlexT. You just said, that there are cadre (According to Freda'smom) who said that they will do anything in their power to make an unwanted cadet quit. Well, unfortunately, if we want to play "Arm-Chair" lawyer, like so many here do, we have to then ask: "Does ANYTHING in their POWER", mean they STAYED within the confines of what was permissible? If yes, then what the hell are we arguing about. The cadre performed within the boundaries, the trainee couldn't or didn't want to take it any more, and they quit.

I think this comes down to the difference between moral, ethical and legal.
Cadre decides they don't like a basic, they target him and they do everything they can to get him to quit. For sake of discussion, use the example provided by AlexT earlier. Everything they did was within the bounds of allowed.

Is it legal? I would say yes, as they stayed within the given parameters.
Is it ethical? Tough one here, not so sure. But if it didn't violate the code of conduct/honor (and by no means am I an expert in that), then it would be technically ethical.
Is it moral? I would say no. Now others may say it depends on what the basic did to garner attention. But if the basic did not do anything to violate the code of conduct/honor once at the academy, I am at a loss as to what would justify specific targeting to get a basic to leave. These basics were already vetted by the admission process, so I can't imagine that a highly flawed individual wasn't noted until the cadre laid eyes on him.

In a court of law, it is all about legalities. Was it legal? Yes or No? Case closed.
Was it moral?.....That is the $100,000 question.

I know I sometimes have to take a step back and remind myself that ethical and moral is not legal. I believe some of what has driven this discussion is the entire legal vs. moral view of things. Some of us are looking at it from the moral point of view and other from the strictly legal point of view.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I can think of a number of cadets that lead other cadets down a bad road. These were cadets that should have been kicked out. Did they get extra attention as swabs? Yep. Should they have had more attention? Probably. There are bad seeds in every class that admissions can't filter out. Eventually they leave…. the question is how much damage do they do before they're shown the door.

So, there are times you would certainly want a cadet kicked out. I don't think 2/c cadets the the folks to make that final decision, but they certainly have a role in flagging the individual for the powers that be.

 

[Christcorp]

Alex, I appreciate your candor. When you ask if just because something technically isn't out of bounds, does it make it right? That's the straw man question. Reason being, is because "Sometimes" it CAN be right. You're now going into questioning at an almost "moral" level. We can't go there. Especially when talking about academy/military basic training. This isn't standard training where we're trying to teach an individual a task or a skill. In those environments, we build on an individual's experiences and knowledge and enhance them. If they don't get what we're teaching them, we give them extra instruction. If our training methods are effective, we try and find a way that works best for that person. (Yes, I've been involved in the training world a lot of my life).

But basic training is different. We're not trying to teach them ANY SKILLS. Do you think the academy or the military really gives a crap if you can fold your t-shirts or underwear a certain way? No, they don't. Do you think the academy actually cares if you make you're bed a certain way? No, they don't. They aren't teaching cadets "Tasks". They're breaking down the "Individual", so that they can be built back up as a "Team Member". They provide tasks that are basically impossible to do as an individual. And even then, it isn't as important that you perform the task, as it is that you are DOING IT AT A TEAM. And the academy KNOWS that their C4C cadets, sleep on the floor and similar things, so as to not mess up their beds. No cadet is doing anything at the academy that the academy hasn't seen before or know about.

The Instructing and Indoctrinating that the cadre do, is not intended to "Teach a Task or skill". The academy doesn't care if you memorize contrails or facts that they throw in front of the cadets. They know those will not be important to them in the future. But they do know if ALL 1200 cadets have to do the SAME TASKS. And if ALL the cadets in a flight or squadron will be held accountable for the success or failure of the other flight/squadron members; the the flight or squadron will work as a team to make sure that EVERYONE PASSES.

That is what many people don't understand. Doesn't matter if it's Academy or Enlisted basic training. The actual tasks, mean absolutely nothing. Once I completed basic training, I NEVER had my underwear looked at or measured again. I was simple being taught discipline, (To do what I was told and follow direction), trust (to follow the orders of those over me), and teamwork (To help others in the team that need help; and to ask for help from my team).
So no, there is no "Right or Wrong" in your question. It's not a moral issue to be questioned.

If I am training a flight, and I get into one person's face, and I realize that it's not really affecting the individual, I move on. If I notice that the individual whose face I am in is getting emotional, I'll stay there and push harder. Your question is: Is that right? I didn't push harder on the other person. The answer is YES, it's right. For THAT trainee.... and THAT situation...... pressing harder and trying to make them break, IS RIGHT. But in the same breath; later that day, when doing pushups, maybe that trainee who got emotional when I was in their face, was exceptional when doing pushups. Maybe their concentration maintained when I spoke "Smack" to them. And as such, I move on to the next trainee. And the individual who had no problem when I was in his face earl;ier, is having difficulty doing pushups, so I stay in his face now and tell him how terrible he's doing pushups. Trying to see if he'll break. Do you really think I care at all if they can do the pushups? (Other than being physically fit, I don't really care at all). Mind you, I was enlisted. I was an instructor. I was an NCOIC (Non- Commissioned Officer in Charge). I was a First Sergeant. I've seen a lot of airmen going through various stages of training. Training for all different purposes. I've been an ALO and/or working with ALOs and the admissions process for the academy, for about 10 years. I've seen a lot of applicants become appointees. and those appointees become cadets, and those cadet become officers. I've also seen some who didn't make it from all stages of the process.

You can not have "Blanket Beliefs" that are black and white, questioning whether training is "Right or Wrong" even though it's not technically out of bounds. It's more complicated than that.

I'll be honest with you, and everyone else on this forum. The ONLY PART of this ENTIRE THREAD, that even concerns me at all, has nothing to do with the training at the academy. The thing that concerns me the most, is if the account that Freda'smom had with Cadre, who she said "ADMITTED THEIR ACTIONS". If their actions were outside the boundaries, then I am very concerned. But as I mentioned earlier, I'd find it hard to believe that the cadre would admit to a person, especially a parent, that their actions were illegal, against policies, or outside the boundaries. If they were just talking via ego to sound important or impressive, but their actions were "NOT" out of bounds, then I have no problem. Each trainee responds differently. You can tell pretty quickly, that some people will have absolutely no problem with the training. Certain others will be border line the entire time. It's the cadre's job to see if the cadet can stay on the POSITIVE SIDE of that border, or if they are going to crash. If they crash, will they pick themselves up, or with they quit? The decision is totally theirs. It's also important to see if the "TEAM" comes together and helps each other out. This is kind of hard in the first couple weeks. But by the later part of BCT, you can tell if they've become a team or not.

 

[MombaBomba]

It isn't your place? Then who's place is it? Certainly the kid should step up first. But go ahead, stand by and watch, Both my grandfathers, my father, myself, all 3 of my son's on ad with 2 cb tours among them will stand up for you.

What does past family military heritage have to do with this discussion? I am at a loss. What does our family service heritage have to do with letting our kids take on the mantle of adulthood and handle things themselves? Just because my husband and I haven't served in the military doesn't mean we don't have parents, and others in our family tree who haven't served. Does the fact my son is descended from an American Revolutionary War Captain have anything to do with this discussion? Maybe because his name was inspired by one of his American Revolutionary War great what have you grandparent is why he has decided to pursue the USAFA. Hmm, food for thought. But then you only have my word for this.....so it is suspect.

And by non military family in terms of my husband and myself. Both of our fathers served in the military. It was the draft. They just did so before we were ever born and they did not serve more than the one term required. Thus we do NOT consider ourselves from a military family.

 

[raimius]

Seriously? Parents are now arguing over their family heritage...
This means naught.

 

[Freda'sMom]

I have a difficult time believing that a cadre openly admitted and said, "we intentionally broke rules, intentionally lied, and intentionally covered up our actions of forcing kids to quit, where they had no recourse but to quit".

You heard them say that? I didn't.

Nor have I claimed they said that.

Go back and re-read what I posted, and stop making up things Mr. "Christcorp."

 

[Boozebin]

I'm with Hornet, Dad and Raimius. I thought this thread died yesterday with Hornets last post. And Dad you have won my hero post of the month award!

Sorry I digress Rage on everyone.

 

[Christcorp]

I will quote you again, if you wish. You said; (Unless I'm quoting someone who misquoted you), that:

'And my information did not come from any separated cadet or mid, but from the cadre who admitted their actions."

Sorry, but this implies that their "Actions" were questionable. As I said in the previous post, their actions are either within the boundaries, rules, standards, etc. or they aren't. I assume, which could be my fault, that made this comment in an attempt, to say that some cadre admitted trying to get individuals to quit the academy, through their actions. And again, I say, the only thing that matters, is if those actions were according to policy, rules, etc. or not.

I DOUBT that their actions were outside of the rules, policies, training, etc. That's why I said that I really doubt that these individuals would admit that they did anything that was against the rules, policies, training, etc. Therefor, their "Actions" are acceptable. It can't be both ways. Their actions can be within the rules, policies, training, etc. and yet you take the position that their actions were wrong. "Because they wanted someone to quit". Part of the training is to make individuals feel that they can't make it, to have them reach down inside and find a way to make it.

Now, based on the earlier posts, I will assume that your conversation with the cadre you spoke of, wasn't a 10 second conversation. And I'll assume that they either said directly or implied convincingly, that they could make life extremely difficult for an individual they wanted to see quit. Well, without going through and reposting myself over and over again, the only thing that matters, is if the actions of this/these cadre, were or were not within the rules, policies, training, etc? It doesn't matter if they wanted the individual to quit or not. They can't make a trainee quit who doesn't want to quit. And chances are, the cadre you were speaking to, were speaking more ego and embellishment, to sound important or impressive. But as long as their actions were within the rules, policies, training, etc. I have no problem with it.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I'm having so much trouble following this thread.