I'll just talk about USNA and MIDN since we're comparing.
There was a process at USNA (at least back in the day) to have properly justified and approved ITEs. Risk management (e.g. if a corpsman needed to be present, hydration plan, timed breaks, etc.) in a chit. It was annoying, but it also prevented the hazing accusations--Plebes that lodged complaints simply had no idea how much deliberate planning went into what they thought was a smoke session, or that an officer had actually approved their entire course of suffering.
I remember when they set red lines for what would constitute a chit. It seemed ridiculous to get O-5 approval for more than 4x25 pushups (and some other things). We thought it was a softening of the training program. It turned out to be not that bad, because it turned out the chits weren't that hard to route. What they really wanted to see was a deliberate plan and an actual training purpose, i.e. the line between training and hazing.
If there is no process, I can understand the frustration. If there is a process, and it's not being used, then I don't understand why not. How can you possibly be cited on an approved training event with a deliberate plan? At the same time the opportunity should be given to make a plan and properly execute it.
IIRC most if not all SELs at USNA were RDCs or DIs, so there was quite a bit of experience with entry-level training at MCRD or Great Lakes. That specific expertise added an additional level of necessary supervision and guidance for matters like this.
Things change all the time as Dants come and go, so I have no idea if this is even true anymore. But if upperclassmen can't even be bothered to correct uniforms on fellow upperclassmen, I get why the administration would hesitate to trust them with literally anything else.