By Marguerite Cleveland

Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper recently announced the winners of the 20202 Commander in Chief’s Annual Award for Installation Excellence. The program recognizes the people who work to utilize limited resources to operate and maintain U.S. military installations. There are five awards, one for each branch of service and one for the Defense Logistic Agency.

The program was established in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan who said at the time, ““I am confident that this search for excellence and innovations will yield many new and better ways of accomplishing our mission and at the same time honor those whose dedication has produced the best Defense organization in the world.” Each branch holds its own intra-service competition. Installations are evaluated on mission support, energy conservation, quality of life, unit morale, environmental stewardship, real property management, safety, health and security, communications, and public relations.

The Recipients of the 2020 Commander In Chief’s Annual Award for Installation Excellence are:

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum, New York (USAG-FD)
Senior Commander: Major General Brian J. Mennes, U.S. Army
Garrison Commander:  Colonel Jeffery P. Lucas, U.S. Army

Highlights for USAG-FD include great success with energy conservation with 100% renewable-energy sustainability. They saved $1.9 million by repurposing a furniture store and food court into a After-Action Review Facilty using Public Works personnel. Other highlights include the installation of solar walls in 53 buildings which will save a projected $32,000.

Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia
Commanding Officer: Captain Bradley N. Rosen, U.S. Navy

Highlights for Naval Station Norfolk include reducing energy use by 15.1% since the baseline year, Fiscal Year 2015. A new heat and power plant began operations supplying 74% of the stations steam requirements saving $6.5 million in utility costs. They reduced spills which effect the environment 66% since the baseline year. The base’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation was recognized as a 5-star accredited program.

Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, California (MCGACC)
Base Commander: Brigadier General Roger Turner, U.S. Marine Corps

MCGACC highlights included $23 million investments in infrastructure to repair major facilities. The photovoltaic system and tri-generation plants provided 83% of the bases daily energy requirements saving over $9.8 million. An environmental program saw the MCGACC partnered with a California University to rear 475 desert tortoise hatchlings, release 234 into the wild and relocate 1300 to safer locations.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska (JBER)
Commanding Officer: Colonel Patricia A. Csànk, U.S. Air Force

JBER had a tough year surviving a 7.1 magniture earthquake and the worst fire season in Alaska’s history.  Highlights include hosting the USAF’s first base-level innovation summit. They also established an innovation lab which resulted in securing over $260K to fund 22 projects. The lab provides a place for airmen to congregate and access cutting edge technology such as using 3D printing to create prototypes. When Hurricane Michael struck Tyndall AFB, 112 Airmen and families relocated to JBER where they received support from the Military and Family Readiness Center, in coordination with seven other base agencies.

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California
Commanding Officer: Colonel Tiffany. N. Harris, U.S. Marine Corps

The Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin highlights include reducing per-fixture energy consumption by 54% by changing over 6,100 fluorescent light fixtures to LED. More than 600 employees took part in the Employer Trip Reduction Program which reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 242 metric tons. The Depot saw a 60% drop in lost-time injuries, and a 23% reduction in total injuries reported due to their vigilant safety program.

Marguerite Cleveland is a freelance writer who specializes in human interest and travel stories. She is a military brat, a veteran and now a military spouse.  Her military experience is vast as the daughter of a Navy man who served as an enlisted sailor and then Naval Officer. She served as an enlisted soldier in the reserves and on active duty, then as an Army Officer. She currently serves as a military spouse. She lives in the Pacific Northwest with her husband and two sons. Visit her website www.PeggyWhereShouldIGo.com

Troops are returning to business as usual, but their children are largely left in limbo due to a patchwork approach to K-12 education and child care options. As a result, military spouses are feeling the stress as many must also return to work or college this fall.

Military Spouses Adapt, Overcome Pandemic Related K-12 Education Obstacles

Military spouses are concerned about how much they are shouldering and the sacrifices they are making due to the evolving pandemic crisis.

“I just had to make the tough decision to leave my job teaching preschool,” Becky, located on the East Coast, shared. “I love my job, but taking care of the needs of my (kids) in this uncertain time is more important.”

While military spouses are used to career and education fluctuations due to PCSing and the needs of the military, balancing their professional pursuits while also existing in a crisis state has compounded the impact. Several military spouses shared that they needed to make hard decisions about their careers and small businesses.

Katie S., a military spouse with a deployed husband, has also seen her small business change in radical ways due to the pandemic.

“I have had to take a giant step back from my business and allow my team to take over some areas I wasn’t planning on stepping away from for a few more years,” she said. “There is simply not enough time in the day, so something had to give. This is a business that I have built from the ground up over the past 3 years. It has grown beyond my wildest dreams and it is incredibly sad to step back and slow such massive growth, but my family comes first.”

Sam, who is stationed OCONUS, needs to take a step back from pursuing her college degree due to uncertainty of child care and K-12 education this fall.

“I’m in college and have switched to only online courses this fall,” she explained. “I will only be able to do 9 credits so I am not considered full time and will most likely take me longer to obtain my degree in accounting. I may end up dropping a class because there’s not enough time in the day.”

However, all military spouses shared that they were making personal and professional sacrifices to better support their families during an uncertain time.

Through a PCS, Amanda, who moved from Germany to Colorado this summer, has had to make major decisions without knowing exactly what her options would be.

“We started the Pandemic at Ramstein, Germany,” she said. “We are now in Colorado. We are learning by the day how the pandemic will impact the school year. It is very uncomfortable to return to a new school under these conditions.”

Varied Education Decisions Lead to Uncertainty for Parents

Military spouses who responded were located around the US and the world. Sam, who is living OCONUS, is relying on local day care options combined with DODEA. Katie has children enrolled in DODEA schools stateside, but must look to state-level education decisions to drive her planning for the fall. Becky also lives in the US in a region where many school districts are beginning the school year remotely, with future plans to consider returning in-person. Amanda, who recently moved back to the US, has four children with three in elementary school and one is middle school.

Sam has two children in DODEA schools, ranging from first grade to middle school, with her third child attending a local preschool. Right now, she is torn between the needs of her children in K-12 schools that conflict with her own college education and her preschooler. Sam also has a two-year-old child who is receiving services from EDIS.

“(W)e do not know how it will affect our morning routine and if I will need my four-year-old to not return to Youchien,” she said. “If my 6-year-old needs to be on the computer at 8am, I won’t be able to take my four-year-old to school for an 8:30 drop off.”

Right now, neither of her children have a firm schedule of classes and expectations. Instead, they have a general outline of their school day, which falls between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm. However, she does not know when her children will need to be “live” online or when they can work independently.

Becky knows that her older child will be attending high school online through winter break, but her younger children in elementary and middle school may return to in-person or hybrid learning sometime after October.

“The uncertainty of the kid’s schedules–virtual school for the older two until after winter break, virtual start for the elementary school child with a possibility to attend with a hybrid plan after October, a delayed start to preschool, no update to the IEP for services yet or what those schedules will look like–was too much to try to coordinate with a to-be-determined preschool schedule.”

Katie opted to pull both of her children from traditional classrooms in order to homeschool this year.

“After our experience this spring we have decided homeschool would be the best fit for our son out of the options given so I will be homeschooling him and our PreK daughter while working from home,” she shared.

Due to her PCS, Amanda has made the decision for in-person schooling if and when it’s available.

If we stayed in-place, we would have chosen virtual learning,” she explained. “My kids thrived learning at home. They were able to work at their own pace and take breaks when needed. We have no connections here. My kids will need school to help build those connections. Then maybe we will choose to return to virtual learning. But only after they’ve made connections to their teachers and built a friendship base.”

IEPs Major Driver of Education Uncertainty, Decisions for Parents

Two of the four military spouses we spoke with have children with IEPs. None are certain that their IEPs will be implemented correctly or effectively this fall. In part, their feelings are driven by their experiences with virtual learning in spring 2020.

Becky, as of mid-August, had not hear about how IEPs would be implemented. Her concern is compounded due to the fact that her child is also making the transition between middle school and high school.

“My oldest child has an emotional disability and many of his services were postponed” Becky said. “I worry about him starting high school without that last quarter of middle school to help him grow and prepare. I also worry about how overwhelming online high school will be.”

Katie’s decision to homeschool was largely influenced by her experiences of IEP assessments and services during virtual learning this spring.

“My first grade son is autistic and virtual school this spring was a disaster for us. The lack of structure and routine made it extremely hard for him to focus on his school work.”

Many children with ASD, or autism spectrum disorders, thrive with a steady routine and schedule.

In addition to receiving a disability diagnosis, Katie’s son was also stuck in IEP no-man’s-land as assessments were requested just before COVID-19 forced her child’s school to close. This paused his testing and left him without a clear education plan in place.

“He not only did not make forward progress in his education, but we noticed a drastic decrease in previously mastered skills,” Katie explained. “His autism diagnosis was made in February, we requested his IEP evaluation within a week or two of diagnosis but due to COVID we did not even begin the evaluation process prior to school closures. Due to this he had no additional help or accommodations to help him through the virtual learning process. This was all on our plates as parents to sort out on our own.”

Making the Best with the Hand They are Dealt

While Katie is powering through homeschooling and running her how business while her husband is deployed, she also acknowledges that schools are in a tough spot.

“I feel they did the best with the hand they were dealt,” she explained. “The schools are forced to work with the guidelines set by the state and had to wait until those guidelines were decided before they could make their game plan.”

As a teacher, Becky is in a unique position to understand pandemic education decisions as a parent and as an educator.

“I have significant concerns about the quality of the content that will be taught and the accountability, not because of a lack of faith in the teachers, but because this is new for everyone,” she explained. “Teachers are in a unique and challenging position planning new content and delivery and I hope we are able to support them on our end for a successful first semester!”

Amanda, also an educator and co-author of Seasons of My Military Student, is hopeful and excited about possible innovations that improve learning for the future.

“While the pandemic is a horrible reason to cause schools to shut down, I hope leadership really takes advantage of the amazing new opportunities available to schools,” she explained. “The new access to technology, learning platforms, virtual field trips, hybrid or virtual options. Let’s embrace the positive aspects of this crisis and use it to build amazing programs for kids.”

How is your military family adapting to K-12 education during the COVID-19 pandemic? Share your experiences in the comments!

By Marguerite Cleveland

The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have key roles in Operation Warp Speed (OWS) which is a partnership among the two to engage private firms with other federal agencies to accelerate the production of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. This will enhance HHS’s current efforts. There are many promising actions taking place.

The DoD recently awarded a $42 million contract to Curative Inc to manufacture 250,000 of their oral fluid swab test kits which are for 100 military treatment facilities. This will increase the testing capability across the DoD and provide a less invasive method of testing for COVID-19. The test is an oral swab of the mouth versus the painful nose swab. “This is an important capability that will strengthen our medical professionals’ ability to detect, isolate and defeat the spread of COVID-19 across the military,” said Maj. Gen. Lee Payne, the DOD’s COVID-19 Lab Testing Task Force lead. “The ability to reliably test service members and their families is critical towards securing our forces’ health and readiness.”

“It’s no coincidence we had the right innovation network in place to source and scale this test at battlefield speeds,” said Dr. Will Roper, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. “Evolving national security challenges require new and enduring partnerships with commercial innovators. We had the right people and mechanisms in place to move out on this exceptional testing capability for the Department of Defense.”

Also, in the works are ramping up the purchase of necessary supplies needed to administer a future vaccine for COVID-19. On August 4, 2020, the DoD and HHS awarded a $104 million contract to procure syringes and safety needles for the HHS Strategic National Stockpile. This will provide a total of 500 million safety syringes in a 12 month period with 134 million scheduled to be delivered by the end of the year.

“This effort demonstrates skillful collaboration between the interagency and our industry partners, and moves the nation farther forward in its fight against COVID-19,” said Joint Program Executive Officer for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense, Douglas Bryce. “Immediate procurement and prepositioning of syringes will enable rapid vaccination of the U.S. population once an FDA-approved vaccine becomes available. We are pleased to be part of this unprecedented and critical undertaking.”

HHS and the DoD recently announced an agreement with the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson for the manufacturing and delivery of the company’s COVID-19 candidate. Under the agreement the U.S. government will own the 100 million doses of the vaccine which will be used in clinical trials or distributed as part of a COVID-19 vaccination campaign if approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“With the portfolio of vaccines being assembled for OWS, the Trump Administration is increasing the likelihood that the United States will have at least one safe, effective vaccine by 2021,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “Today’s investment represents the next step in supporting Janssen’s vaccine candidate all the way through manufacturing, with the potential to bring hundreds of millions of safe and effective doses to the American people.”

While the clinical trials are underway, the company will be working on a manufacturing demonstration project which by working parallel will help speed up the traditional vaccine development timeline. This will help the federal government’s goal with OWS to be able to deliver millions of doses of a safe vaccine to the American People by the end of the year.

There are many promising vaccines and therapeutics on the horizon which hopefully will bring an end to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Marguerite Cleveland is a freelance writer who specializes in human interest and travel stories. She is a military brat, a veteran and now a military spouse.  Her military experience is vast as the daughter of a Navy man who served as an enlisted sailor and then Naval Officer. She served as an enlisted soldier in the reserves and on active duty, then as an Army Officer. She currently serves as a military spouse. She lives in the Pacific Northwest with her husband and two sons. Visit her website www.PeggyWhereShouldIGo.com

PFC Vanessa Guillen, age 20, was last seen alive on April 22. On July 5, her remains were identified. What happened in the weeks and months in between are shining a light on the military’s process of reporting and investigating sexual harassment and assault in the ranks.

Vanessa Guillen’s Disappearance & Death Sheds Light on DOD Sexual Harassment Reporting Flaws

According to reports from Guillen’s family and friends, she had confided in them about several instances of sexual harassment in the months leading up to her disappearance. ABC News reported that Guillen had experienced repeated harassment, including a supervisor watching her shower. However, she had not reported anything to her chain of command out of a fear of reprisals.

Since then, female troops and veterans have flooded social media using the hashtag #IamVanessaGuillen, sharing their own experiences with sexual assault and harassment in the military.

Flawed Reporting Practices Exposed?

From across the services, women are coming forward to share their experiences – and retaliation for reporting.

I was a brand new 2LT when I was sexually assaulted by my OIC. I spoke out; my CMD team took it seriously. Evidence has been found of past instances for this OIC and he’s now facing multiple charges. Despite a “good” outcome for me, reform is needed #IAmVanessaGuillen pic.twitter.com/vbLLA8FVsA

— Mary (@mjolly36) July 14, 2020

Military Times shared the story of former Army Spc. Ashley Martinez, who said that her chain of command actively worked to discredit her after reporting a rape. Ultimately, Martinez left the Army as a result of this process.

https://twitter.com/ashtayluh/status/1278423464718880768

Martinez is one among hundred of sexual assault survivors who are coming forward in the wake of Guillen’s disappearance and death. Many survivors report that their cases were ignored or that their were attempts to discredit their accounts. Some shared that they ultimately left the military while their attackers continue to progress through the ranks.

Hundreds Share Stories of Survival Online

Survivors are coming forward and sharing their stories online and with media outlets. News organizations like ABC, PBS, The Guardian and Military Times are all sharing stories of sexual assault, harassment and retaliation. Popular true crime podcast, The Murder Squad, dedicated two separate episodes to Guillen’s case exploring additional unsolved murders and discussing the military sexual assault reporting process as well.

Across the different outlets, the theme of retaliation for reporting was consistent.

Army veteran Tiffany Summa told PBS News Hour that she was raped in 2009. She waited 6 years for the results of her rape kit. When she summoned up the courage to report it to her command, she was told to bury it and ignore it. Summa shared that she was further threatened that this high ranking officer would “bury” her if she did not comply.

Legislation was proposed in 2013 to remove the chain of command, including officers like the one Summa encountered, and place investigations in the hands of independent prosecutors. However, this bill was countered with proposal to keep investigations centered around the chain of command. Ultimately, the chain of command remains central to investigations of sexual assault and harassment.

In addition, military members are prohibited from suing the military for damages over injuries that occur while they are in the service.

Options for Reporting Sexual Assault & Harassment in Ranks

There are two types of reports that victims can make, restricted and unrestricted. Restricted reporting limits options in terms of pursuing prosecution while also offering supports like therapy or medical care. Unrestricted reporting essentially makes the report public, allowing for military prosecution.

Victims may report sexual assault to:

• medical professional
• chain of command
• military law enforcement
• civilian law enforcement
• SARC/SHARP representative
• therapist or other mental health care provider

Victims wishing to remain anonymous or receive assistance without triggering an investigation can file restricted reports with SARC/SHARP, a medical professional.

Once an unrestricted report has been made it cannot be converted to a restricted report. However, survivors may elect to change their restricted report to an unrestricted report in order to trigger an investigation.

DOD Stats Show Troubling Trend

For fiscal year 2018, the most recent data available, 24.2% of female troops indicated that they had experienced sexual harassment. In addition, 6.2% indicated that they had been sexually assaulted.

Of those who reported sexual assault, 21% of those cases met the criteria of retaliation or retaliatory behavior.

The report also noted that experiencing sexual harassment statistically increased the odds of sexual assault. Approximately 1 in 5 victims of sexual harassment would be sexually assaulted.

There was also a statistically significant increase of women reporting sexual assault across all service branches.

It should be noted that these numbers indicate sexual harassment and assault that was reported to the service member’s chain of command. It does not account for cases that were not reported.

Have you experienced sexual assault or harassment while serving in the military? Did you report it? Were you retaliated against?

The deaths of three Marine Reservists on April 8, 2019 are now at center stage in the controversy over whether Russia paid operatives in Afghanistan bounties for US troop deaths.

US Investigates Claim that Russia Placed Bounties on Troops

In late June, news broke that Russia had secretly been paying bounties to the Taliban for killing Americans in Afghanistan. Officials, speaking off the record to The New York Times, said that the intelligence community had come to this assessment in early 2020, with President Donald Trump being briefed in February or March at the latest. Despite the White House’s National Security Council creating a plan to combat and end this practice, Trump has yet to authorize any action as of July 1.

American officials reported large financial transfers between Russian accounts and Taliban accounts, based on digital records. They have also identified a possible middleman between Russia and the Taliban.

Both Russian and Taliban spokespeople have denied these allegations on the record. However, some Russian lawmakers have also spoken about such agreements in hypotheticals. Russian Parliament Member Aleksei Zhuravlyov estimated that if bounties were paid, at most 22 American troops would have been killed as targets, according to reporting by The New York Times.

Why Russia Might Be Willing to Pay

Russia and the US have long stood on opposite sides. At the end of World War II and the division of Europe among the Allies, the two nations engaged in a decades long stand-off. Known as the Cold War, the US and former USSR, now Russia, built stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, maneuvered for alliances and raced into space – all in an effort to top each other. The Cold War largely ended with the fall of the USSR in the early 1990s.

A large part of the eventual downfall of communism in Russia was connected to a nominally separate battle being waged in Afghanistan during the 1970s and 1980s. Russia was attempting to consolidate and dominate Afghans, a people who primarily identify with local or tribal leadership. The CIA covertly supplied the Afghan fighters with weapons and other war materiel. Eventually, Russian forces were depleted and withdrew at a great loss.

In recent years, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative and Communist Party leader in the USSR, Russia has been exerting its influence and strength in Eastern Europe. In 2014, Russian troops occupied areas of the Ukraine, claiming them as traditionally and culturally Russian. The US opposed such a move and, under President Trump, sent Javelin missiles with the condition they not be used in the conflict with Russia. In addition, US troops reportedly killed many Russian mercenaries during fighting in Syria in 2018.

Throughout his first term, Trump has largely been complimentary toward Putin and about Russia. He frequently upholds Putin as a role model and praises the Russian government. Most recently, Trump has been angling to include Putin and Russia in the G7 conferences.

Were US Troops Killed for Cash?

Democrats, who were briefed on this matter in late June, appear to believe the intelligence community.

“Nothing in the briefing that we have just received led me to believe it is a hoax,” said Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) following their classified briefing on June 30.

However, there is no publicly available evidence to link the deaths of Staff Sgt. Christopher K.A. Slutman, 43, Staff Sgt. Benjamin S. Hines, 31, and Robert A. Hendriks, 25, to any Russian bounty plot.

Intelligence officials are still investigating links to other US troops deaths in 2019. According to the LA Times, several associates of suspected Russian-paid Taliban operatives in the bounty scheme were arrested in March and are being held for questioning.

Bounty Scheme’s Impact on Troop Support for Trump

Friends and family of the Marines killed on April 8, 2019 described their feelings about these new allegations as “pouring salt on a wound,” according to reporting by The New York Times.

Other veterans have also spoken out against Trump’s reaction to intelligence briefings, though it remains unclear whether support for him among the military community will erode as a result. The news about Russian bounties for US troop deaths broke a month after General Jim Mattis, USMC (ret.), and Admiral Mike Mullen, USN (ret.), broke ranks to speak out against the president and his administration.

Do you think it’s plausible that Russia paid a bounty to Taliban operatives? Sound off in the comments.

Secretary of Defense issues guidance for diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity in the military

In a dramatic change to the promotion board process, Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper directed the removal of photographs from consideration on promotion boards and selection processes effective September 1, 2020.  In the Memorandum dated July 14, 2020, he asked for a review of policies and processes to ensure diverse selection panels as well as the removal of all references to race, ethnicity, and gender in the packets reviewed by promotion boards. The goal is to ensure that these processes are free from bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, or national origin.

This follows the Army’s initiative, Project Inclusion announced on June 25, 2020 which also call for the removal of photos from officer promotion boards beginning August 2020. “The Army is taking substantive actions to ensure that promotion and selection boards are as fair and impartial as possible,” said Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. “We’ll be initiating listening sessions to encourage the open dialogue that is critical to helping understand and support each other.”

“The Army must continue to put People First by fostering a culture of trust that accepts the experiences and backgrounds of every Soldier and civilian,” said Gen. James C. McConville, Army Chief of Staff. “Our diverse workforce is a competitive advantage and the Army must continue to offer fair treatment, access and opportunity across the force. The Project Inclusion reforms will complement ongoing efforts to modernize our talent-management processes and ensure equitable treatment for every member of our formation.”

Esper has addressed some additional actions which will take place to improve equal opportunity and diversity policies within the military:

• Update DoD’s military harassment policy to increase protections for Service Members facing harassing behaviors especially racial bias and prejudice
• Update the military equal opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy.
• Roles and responsibilities of leaders regarding equal opportunity will be defined and updated
• Prejudice and Bias that exist in the force is not always transparent so DoD will collect and analyze data to identify patterns and trends. The data will be used to improve DoD policies and programs.
• Increase the frequency of Equal Opportunity surveys in the workplace to determine what areas need improvement.
• Conduct a study to identify factors affecting the racial and ethnic minority officer retention and promotion.
• Develop a training program to educate the force on unconscious bias and how that can impact their decisions.
• Additional training for commanders on how have effective discussions on discrimination, bias, and prejudice with their units
• Update hairstyle and grooming policies to remove racial bias
• Determine how effective Military Service equal opportunity offices are and make recommendations for changes.

Esper wrote in the memorandum, the success of our military mission depends on a disciplined and lethal force prepared to defend our country and our Constitution. There is no greater mission and no greater calling. When our Nation’s young men and women volunteer to join the U.S. Armed Forces, they do so to be a part of this critical mission, but also to be a part of a military “family” that spans over 10 generations. It is a bond that is revered. enduring, and essential to our integrity and all we do. As a military, we succeed by working together, hand in hand, side by side. Diversity and inclusivity in the ranks are not merely aspirations. they are fundamental necessities to our readiness and our mission success. The actions I am directing are a necessary first step, but hard work remains, and we will continue to learn as we move forward. Shifting culture requires steadfast attention; these actions will maximize our efforts to ensure a diverse workforce at all levels, an inclusive environment. and equal opportunity for all who serve.

These are big changes which will hopefully lead to a fairer unbiased promotion process for all service members as well as improvements to current equal opportunity programs across the military branches.

“The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.”

Photo from: https://www.defense.gov/

Photo By: Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Lopez

Marguerite Cleveland is a freelance writer who specializes in human interest and travel stories. She is a military brat, a veteran and now a military spouse.  Her military experience is vast as the daughter of a Navy man who served as an enlisted sailor and then Naval Officer. She served as an enlisted soldier in the reserves and on active duty, then as an Army Officer. She currently serves as a military spouse. She lives in the Pacific Northwest with her husband and two sons. Visit her website www.PeggyWhereShouldIGo.com

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced on July 17 that all DOD installations would effectively ban divisive symbols, including the Confederate battle flag.

This news follows changes already made in the Marine Corps, Navy and on all installations in Japan and Korea.

DOD Drafts New Confederate Flag Policy

The new policy specifies which flags may be flown on DOD properties worldwide. The Confederate battle flag is not listed.

Flags displays are regulated on all military installations for both military and civilian personnel. They include workplaces and offices, public spaces and common access areas.

As of Friday, flags allowed to be flown on US military installations include: the US flag; POW/MIA flag; state flags; and flags of our allies. While the new policy does not specifically ban Confederate flags or other divisive flags, it does not include them on the list of approved symbols.

“I am committed to fielding the most powerful military force the world has known by strengthening the bonds of our most valuable resource — our people. That is why we honor the American flag, which is the principal flag we are authorized and encouraged to display,” Esper wrote in the memo, according to reporting by CNN and Politico.

In certain circumstances displays of non-authorized flags will still be allowed under several exemptions, including “museum exhibits, state-issued license plates, grave sites, memorial markers, monuments, educational displays, historical displays, or works of art, where the nature of the display or depiction cannot reasonably be viewed as endorsement of the flag by the Department of Defense.”

“The flags we fly must accord with the military imperatives of good order and discipline, treating all our people with dignity and respect, and rejecting divisive symbols,” wrote Esper.

According to Politico, Esper had also recently come under pressure from top defense leadership to enact this ban. Each branch of service remains free to enact their own ban on additional flags and symbols.

USMC Leads Charge for Change in DOD

Marines have proven to be the tip of the spear when it comes to banning displays of the Confederate battle flag.

In early June, USMC Commandant General David Berger issued a memo that required all Confederate flag images and items from all installation throughout the Corps.

The US Navy has also enacted a similar ban, with the Army and Air Force keeping such actions under consideration. US forces in Japan and Korea have also enacted similar bans on all installations within their sphere of influence.

New Policy Skirts Trump’s Opposition

Esper’s new policy is a revision from an earlier policy that named the Confederate flag outright as banned from all bases. Some see the changes as creating language that is more palatable to President Donald Trump.

Trump, as of July 1, promised to veto any defense spending bill should it include language banning Confederate symbols. He issued his opinion via Twitter.

The release of the DOD’s policy effectively circumvents Trump’s ability to veto the Defense Spending Authorization Bill. The president has vowed to veto any proposal that included renaming of Army bases to remove Confederate leaders.

Bases which had been considered for renaming include Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, among others.

Trump has also previously stated that flying the Confederate flag is a freedom of speech issue.

House Armed Services Committee Adds Language to NDAA Removing Confederate Symbols

In early July, the House Armed Services Committee agreed to include language removing such displays from all DOD properties as part of the defense spending authorization.

Iraq War veteran Representative Anthony Brown (D-MD) introduced the amendment to the bill which would “prohibit the public display of the Confederate battle flag at all Department of Defense property.”

The proposed language, according to NPR, has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Due to Trump’s public opposition to the renaming of military bases, the $704.6 billion defense spending authorization hangs in the balance. The bill includes funds for a 3% pay raise for troops.

Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY) expects the bill to pass in Congress even with a Trump veto.

“Let me make a prediction: First, that provision will not change in this bill as it moves through the House and Senate. Second, let me predict, President Trump will not veto a bill that contains pay raises for our troops and crucial support for our military,” Schumer said on July 1.

With the recent news about the DOD’s effective Confederate flag ban, there has not been word about possible changes to the House Armed Services Committee’s proposals.

How will this new policy impact installations and troops? Sound off in the comments.

As summer has progressed, coronavirus case have spiked across the US. Hot spots in July included several states with a heavy military presence.

While cases are on the rise in the US, coronavirus is also on the rise in the ranks.

COVID-19’s Impact on US Troops

As of July 15, there are 18,968 cumulative cases among active duty personnel. This data reflects an increase of 952 cases from numbers reported on July 13.

When you include all DOD employees, there are 27,088 cumulative cases, an increase of 1,266 from data reported on July 13.

According to data analysis by Military Times, more than 4,100 active duty troops have tested positive for COVID since between July 1 and July 10. This reflects a rate of growth that is more than twice the national rate during the same period. COVID-19 cases in the ranks increased by approximately 33% while total cases in the US rose by 16%.

When each service is considered separately, the cumulative cases reported, as of July 15, are:

• Air Force: 2,805
• Navy: 5,084
• Marines: 2,124
• Army: 6,104
• National Guard: 2,614

According to Air Force Magazine, the DOD switched to cumulative reporting of cases instead of current active cases in April to “more accurately reflects the effects of COVID-19 to our force.”

DOD COVID-19 Numbers Compared to Total US Cases

As of July 10, approximately 0.8% of the total US active duty force has, or had, tested positive for COVID-19. The US generally has an infection rate of 0.9%. Similar to the general US population, some cases may not have been accounted for due to asymptomatic carriers or those who did not seek treatment and testing.

Military Response to COVID-19

In March, the DOD implemented travel restrictions and emergency policies in efforts to control the spread of COVID-19.

Many troops were switched to telework as their roles allowed. Currently, many military personnel are still working from home or are on adjusted schedules to allow for social distancing.

During the spring and early summer, many troops were in limbo as PCS moves were paused indefinitely. However, those moves are back on and being scheduled, albeit on a sometimes adjusted schedule.

Beyond PCSing, troops general movements were restricted for both leisure and official purposes.

Many deployed personnel were held in place for extended periods of time prior to returning to their home bases. Upon returning, troops were quarantined away from their families for an additional two weeks.

All military personnel had travel restrictions imposed for personal leave and travel. Many were restricted to their immediate vicinity or had a tight radius in which they must remain. This radius remains determined by by individual base leadership and is in part based on local coronavirus data. As a result, some troops have experienced greater travel liberties than others based upon location and the decisions of their base leadership.

Boot Camp & COVID-19

In early July, USMC boot camps reported hundreds of cases in new recruits, based on reporting by Military.com.

Maj. Gen. Bill Mullen reported that less than 2% of total Marine recruits have tested positive during the pandemic. Of those who did have COVID-19, Mullen said that many were either asymptomatic or experienced mild cases that did not disrupt training.

According to the DOD, the Army and the Air Force are reporting similar rates of coronavirus cases in their initial training facilities, with about 2% of recruits testing positive. Approximately 60% of those cases displayed no symptoms.

In response to COVID-19, the military services are testing all new recruits. Army and Air Force recruits who test positive are quarantined fo 14 days or until healthy. In addition, recruiting target numbers have been adjusted for 2020 to reflect the pandemic.

The Navy and Marines are quarantining all incoming recruits for 14 days. The sea services report that they are requiring personnel to wear face masks during all training. Each training cycle is also reduced in number and capacity to better ensure health and safety.

Cautious Reopening Driven by Local Data

Each military base has been authorized, per information released by the DOD.

As of July 15, 32% of all military installations have removed travel restrictions. However, 158 bases remain under some form of movement restriction. In part, some bases could have limits on personal travel due to restrictions imposed at the state level.

What do you think about the DOD’s response to the pandemic? Sound off in the comments.

Face masks are with us almost everywhere right now. We’re all covering up our faces in stores, restaurants and whenever we’re in crowded spaces. With lots of grey areas in our new face mask reality, there’s a few points of etiquette you might not think about.

Face Mask Etiquette You Might Not Think About

Based on current guidelines from the CDC and other medical experts, wearing a face mask is one of the best options to prevent the spread of germs right now. Yes, this is a change from the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is based on new information gained from our ongoing exposure to this virus.

However, the when and where to wear a mask is something that not everyone can agree on 100% of the time. To be fair, there are a lot of situations where the etiquette is not quite clear.

Is There a Need to Wear a Mask Whenever I’m Outside?

According to CDC guidelines, face masks should be worn outside if you cannot maintain at least six feet distance between yourself and others.

Basically, if you’re able to be far apart from others, you’ve got the green light to remove your mask. However, there are some situations where you should mask-up.

A prime example is passing others in close quarters, like on the sidewalk or other path. If you can move out of the way onto the grass or step onto the street, it might be wise to pull your mask on.

This was a prime concern, according to those interviewed by WBUR in Boston. Several parents were taken back by runners or other walkers who “zipped by” without wearing a mask.

Do I Need a Mask While Exercising?

Exercising while masked, or not, is a point of contention. If you’re running, you are likely passing walkers at a faster rate of speed, which means you’re not spending a ton of time sharing the same space.

However, you’re also sweating and breathing hard, leaving airborne droplets in your wake.

While outside spaces and solo exercise might mean you can pass on the mask, that’s not the case if you’re going to be within 6-12 feet of others at any time, according to an NPR article.

When you’re working out inside, such as in a gym, the calculations are different. Current data suggests that possibly infectious droplets linger longer indoors. Many gyms, and some states or counties, are also requiring patrons to be masked when not using cardio equipment.

Generally, carry your mask with you if you’re going to be exercising, inside or outdoors. Be prepared to mask-up if passing within 6 feet of others or as your fitness center requires.

Should I Wear a Mask When at a Socially Distant Gathering?

Probably? This gets tricky, depending on how your get together is set up. If you’re spaced properly and not sharing anything at all, you could possibly unmask and be okay.

However, if you’re planning in sharing food or using a shared bathroom, a mask is likely a good idea. Plan to mask up when you visit the potluck table or if you go inside to use the restroom.

Can I Call Out Someone for Not Wearing a Mask?

How well do you know this person? If it’s a close friend or family member, you could say something. Definitely say something if you see them doing risky behavior that could endanger others.

If you’re out in public and the person in question is a complete stranger, it’s more complicated. First, it’s awkward and can come off as judgmental. Plus, you don’t know if there are underlying health reasons behind their actions.

One step you can safely take is to approach a store employee and ask about their mask policy. This is a great way to handle your concerns, especially if you observe potentially unsafe behavior like frequent coughing.

What About On-Base Mask Wearing?

In early April the DOD issued a recommendation that all personnel wear face masks when unable to maintain 6 feet of space between others.

“The Department of Defense urges individuals on DOD property, installations and facilities to wear cloth face coverings when a 6-foot social distance cannot be maintained to help prevent the spread of COVID-19,” Navy Cmdr. (Dr.) Cameron J.L. Nelson, chief of DHA’s occupational medicine branch, said”

This guidance, issued on April 5, follows information published by the CDC. 

Each military service has issued guidance about the specific face masks troops are allowed to wear and when they must be worn. Generally, masks should be “conservative” on color and free of offensive slogans, non-military patterns and drug use. In addition, they should not be full-face covers, though balaclavas pulled up over the nose and mouth are generally allowed.

Overall the DOD recommends following the CDC guidelines for wearing face masks:

• Wear masks indoors
• Wear masks outdoors when unable to physically distance yourself from others
• Wear masks when exercising indoors or when passing within 10-12 feet of others while outside

What are your concerns or questions about mask etiquette? We’d love to help clear things up!

Yes, in my opinion the 10 Army bases named after Confederate Soldiers should be renamed. Our country is going through a lot of turmoil lately and this is a great way to start healing. Nine of the ten bases were established during World War I and World War II and were named after Confederate Soldiers. The 10^th was in Virginia, Fort Lee and was named after General Robert E. Lee during the Civil War. One way to look at this change would be to follow Army Regulation 1-33, The Administration of the Army Memorial Program which postdates the naming of these bases and review them based on that criteria.

Why?

Why were these bases named after Confederates? It was twofold, an effort for reconciliation between the north and the south and to gain Southern support for the bases which required lots of land. The “Lost Cause” a narrative of the southern gentleman fighting for states rights not slavery was becoming more widespread around the late 19^th early 20^th century and really peaked with the popularity of “Gone with the Wind” both the book and the movie in the 1930s and 40s. This also contributed.

Who?

The Federal Government with input from local leaders chose Confederate soldiers who were in most cases from the states the base would be established. These are the 10 bases and who they were named after (Wikipedia List of U.S. Army Installations Named After Confederate Soldiers):

• Camp Beauregard near Pineville, Louisiana, named for Louisiana native and Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard^[3]
• Fort Benning, near Columbus, Georgia, named after Henry L. Benning, a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army^[4][5]
• Fort Bragg in North Carolina, named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg
• Fort Gordon near Grovetown, Georgia, named in honor of John Brown Gordon, who was a major general in the Confederate army
• Fort A.P. Hill near Bowling Green, Virginia, named for Virginia native and Confederate Lieutenant General A. P. Hill^[6]
• Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, named after Confederate General John Bell Hood, who is best known for commanding the Texas Brigade during the American Civil War
• Fort Lee in Prince George County, Virginia, named for Confederate General Robert E. Lee^[7]
• Fort Pickett near Blackstone, Virginia, named for Confederate General George Pickett
• Fort Polk near Leesville, Louisiana, named in honor of the Right Reverend Leonidas Polk, an Episcopal Bishop and Confederate General
• Fort Rucker in Dale County, Alabama, named for Edmund Rucker, a colonel appointed acting brigadier general in November 1864, but whose promotion went unconfirmed by the Confederate Congress (disbanded March 18, 1865)

What is so egregious about this list is so many were just mediocre soldiers and Maj. Gen John Brown Gordon was the head of the Ku Klux Clan in Georgia. On the other hand, many Confederate officers were graduates of West Point and served honorably for the U.S. before joining the Confederate cause during the Civil War. Gen. Robert E. Lee had an outstanding career prior to the Civil War and had even served as the Commandant of West Point. Many of these officers are revered and studied during military history. Today we live in a more zero-defect world. When a general falls from grace such as in the Gen. David Petraeus scandal they resign and no one gives a thought to their military heroics. We need to relook the names of these Army bases and follow the criteria set in AR 1-33.

AR 1-33

According to AR 1-33, these is certain criteria that must be met before there can be a permanent memorialization of Army real property in honor of a distinguished deceased individual. This is the criteria:

• Only deceased individuals will be memorialized
• Memorializations will honor deceased heroes and other deceased distinguished individuals of all races in our society, and will present them as inspirations to their fellow Soldiers, employees, and other citizens.
• An installation set up for the use of a specific branch of Service or activity normally will be memorialized for a distinguished member of that branch or Service while serving there.
• Facilities should be memorialized for individuals with ranks or grades comparable to those of the main users.
• When possible, facilities will be memorialized for individuals whose careers or actions were important to, and well known in, the locality where memorialized.
•  Approval authorities who exercise authority under this regulation must establish and consider the advice and recommendations of the memorialization boards.
• The proponent of the committee will follow all the requirements of AR 15–1 for establishing and continuing the group as a committee. All decisions to memorialize personnel will be made with the understanding that the Army Memorial Program is designed to honor those who served with valor or distinction.

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) ASA (M&RA) is the approval authority. So, I say convene a memorialization board and reevaluate the 10 bases named after Confederate soldiers. So, my question is should a soldier who deserted the Army or rose up in arms against the United States be considered a hero or distinguished individual? I think not. The Army Memorial Program is supposed to honor those who served with valor or distinction. I can’t imagine how a black Soldier must feel stationed at Fort Gordon and is named after someone who was the head of the Ku Klux Klan. It is time for a change. What do you think?