Busting the Myths About Recruiting Improprieties
By William Spadie, USAREC
May 13, 2014
There are many myths and misperceptions in the world. Some are downright entertaining. Unfortunately, not all myths and misperceptions are entertaining, and some are simply destructive. I want to quash such myths in U.S. Army Recruiting Command about investigations concerning recruiting improprieties (RIs).
Some within USAREC are so fearful of an implication in a RI that the fear becomes an inhibitor to production. There are recruiters who believe the command’s Recruiting Standards Division (RSD) wants to preclude them from certain positions or assignments. The belief creates an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between Soldiers and certain leadership.
Leaders must take an active role to stop the rumor mill that perpetuates the notion that USAREC is a zero defect environment and that it is only a matter of time before someone is caught and punished for a recruiting impropriety.
My division wants to educate the field at all levels to understand the recruiting irregularity and impropriety oversight requirements placed upon the Army and USAREC, by Office of Secretary of Defense.
Facts
--- Enclosure 6 of DODI 1304.32, dated March 26, 2013 dictates “The military services shall track and report instances of recruiter irregularities. These data shall be collected based on the terms found in this enclosure. Adherence to the guidance is critical to ensuring consistent data.”
--- The DODI defines recruiter irregularities as “Those intentional or unintentional acts of omission and improprieties that are perpetrated by a recruiter, or alleged to be perpetrated by a recruiter, to facilitate the recruiting process for an applicant.”
The DODI describes the categories of recruiter irregularities and improprieties:
--- Concealment or Falsification - Knowingly directing the fabrication, withholding or altering of applicant or enlistment information. Advising an applicant not to disclose pertinent information. Includes withholding medical information, utilizing false diplomas or other similar actions.
--- Testing Irregularity - Cheating, ringers, providing test questions or items, test compromise (excludes drug testing).
--- False Promise or Coercion - Knowingly misrepresenting benefits, entitlements, or other aspects of service. Threatening the applicant if an enlistment is not executed.
Twelve RI categories:
The RSD breaks down the RI into 12 categories in order to clarify DODI language:
· Concealed medical information (CMI)
· Concealed police record (CPR)
· Falsification of a document (FOD)
· Concealed dependents (COD)
· Concealed prior service (CPS)
· Coercion (COER)
· Not qualified for enlistment (NQFE)
· Testing irregularity/ringer (IT/RI)
· False promise (FP)
· Improper parental consent (PC)
· Elopement (ELO)
· Other (OTH)
The DODI directs that we report the number of allegations, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated. If substantiated, USAREC will conduct an informal investigation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-6 and USAREC Regulation 27-65 in order to determine if RI is unsubstantiated or substantiated. In addition, Army Regulation 600-8-2 requires all Soldiers flagged who are under investigation.
Actions taken categorized as:
· “Court-martial or civil conviction
· Separated from service
· Removed from recruiting duty
· Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP)
· Adverse administrative actions
· Other punitive actions
· No action taken
Substantiated RIs
In order to separate unintentional acts or omissions from those that are intentional, USAREC breaks substantiated RIs into two sub-categories: Substantiated unintentional (recruiter error) and substantiated intentional.
USAREC is subject to audit/inspection by outside agencies to ensure adequate self-policing and compliance with appropriate laws, policies, and regulations.
There are misperceptions about substantiated improprieties. Based on all closed RI cases from Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2013, less than 0.02 percent of recruiters were relieved from recruiting duty because of a substantiated RI investigation. The term “substantiated” simply means that an impropriety occurred. In the case of substantiated-unintentional, something occurred that should not have occurred, and someone or several people made a simple mistake. Only substantiated-intentional acts indicate a purposeful or negligent intent to allow something to occur that someone, or several people, have an obligation to prevent or stop. Most RI investigations result in a finding of unsubstantiated or substantiated-unintentional.
Zero defect environment
During a government accountability office (GAO) audit in 2008, the command was criticized for using a determination outside those specified by the DODI, and for not reporting them in accordance with the directive. In response to the audit, between January 2010 and April 2012, USAREC made only a substantiated or unsubstantiated determination in RI cases. However, as the finding “substantiated” alone had a negative connotation, a further designation of unintentional was used to differentiate between incidents that occurred because of simple error.
Perceived “zero defect environments,” with regard to RIs may also contribute to the fear that Soldiers indicate. Soldiers do not need to fear investigation for simple mistakes. Every year, RSD receives numerous reports of administrative errors made during the enlistment process. In addition, the inspector general and RSD inspection teams find errors in over 80 percent of all enlistment packets we inspect. Examples of common errors are misspellings and transposed numbers. These common errors do not result in a RI investigation.
Only an allegation or documentary proof from one of the 12 categories results in an RI investigation. There are no assignment positions within USAREC where an unintentional RI automatically disqualifies you from that position. Only two offices require an RI screening: The IG and the RSD.
Flagged Soldiers
Soldiers are losing benefits because of a flag for an RI investigation. Sometimes due to the length of time to complete investigations, or just bad timing, Soldiers have lost significant benefits, including tuition assistance. Oftentimes, the Soldiers are unable to recoup the lost benefits once the flag is lifted. Further exasperating the issue are those incidents where the final determination was that the individual had made a simple error. This scenario is unfortunate and shows the necessity to complete investigations quickly.
The scenario dictates that the Army should relook at flagging policies with regard to RIs. USAREC continues to work this issue with the Army G-1, the proponent for flags, and Human Resources Command.
Currently, AR 600-8-2 specifically states, “The suspension of favorable actions on a Soldier is mandatory when military or civilian authorities initiate any investigation or inquiry that may potentially result in disciplinary action, financial loss, or other loss to the Soldier's rank, pay, or privileges.”
Examples of investigations include, but are not limited to, commander's inquiry, financial liability investigation of property loss, and Army Regulation 15-6 investigations. If the investigating officer finds reason to suspect a Soldier who was not originally identified as a suspect, subject, or respondent, the commander must be notified and must flag that Soldier as well. Effective date of the flag is the date of offense, the date the commander directs the investigation, the date the commander appoints an investigation officer, or the date the investigating officer suspects the Soldier may be subject to disciplinary action.
Admittedly, recruiting is a complex process with exacting rules and regulations, much like many other disciplines within the Army. Rules and regulations are a part of life, so instead of fearing them, we need to master our craft, do things correctly to the best of our abilities and constantly strive to improve our processes and ourselves.
Break out box:
Total Recruiters with RI allegations between FY09-FY13 -- 6452
Recruiters' cases determined as unsubstantiated -- 3686
Recruiters with substantiated RI -- 2389, (most as unintentional)
Cases closed as Recruiter Error -- 372 (NOTE: Recruiter error determination no longer used as of 13 Jul 2009)
Recruiters relieved due solely to RI -- 127
Number substantiated that received Article 15 -- 142 (5.9%)
Number substantiated the received LOR/GOMR -- 771 (32.2%)
Number substantiated that rec'd other -- 1237 (51.7%) (training/counseling)
Number substantiated where no action was taken -- 239 (10.0%)
By William Spadie, USAREC
May 13, 2014
There are many myths and misperceptions in the world. Some are downright entertaining. Unfortunately, not all myths and misperceptions are entertaining, and some are simply destructive. I want to quash such myths in U.S. Army Recruiting Command about investigations concerning recruiting improprieties (RIs).
Some within USAREC are so fearful of an implication in a RI that the fear becomes an inhibitor to production. There are recruiters who believe the command’s Recruiting Standards Division (RSD) wants to preclude them from certain positions or assignments. The belief creates an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between Soldiers and certain leadership.
Leaders must take an active role to stop the rumor mill that perpetuates the notion that USAREC is a zero defect environment and that it is only a matter of time before someone is caught and punished for a recruiting impropriety.
My division wants to educate the field at all levels to understand the recruiting irregularity and impropriety oversight requirements placed upon the Army and USAREC, by Office of Secretary of Defense.
Facts
--- Enclosure 6 of DODI 1304.32, dated March 26, 2013 dictates “The military services shall track and report instances of recruiter irregularities. These data shall be collected based on the terms found in this enclosure. Adherence to the guidance is critical to ensuring consistent data.”
--- The DODI defines recruiter irregularities as “Those intentional or unintentional acts of omission and improprieties that are perpetrated by a recruiter, or alleged to be perpetrated by a recruiter, to facilitate the recruiting process for an applicant.”
The DODI describes the categories of recruiter irregularities and improprieties:
--- Concealment or Falsification - Knowingly directing the fabrication, withholding or altering of applicant or enlistment information. Advising an applicant not to disclose pertinent information. Includes withholding medical information, utilizing false diplomas or other similar actions.
--- Testing Irregularity - Cheating, ringers, providing test questions or items, test compromise (excludes drug testing).
--- False Promise or Coercion - Knowingly misrepresenting benefits, entitlements, or other aspects of service. Threatening the applicant if an enlistment is not executed.
Twelve RI categories:
The RSD breaks down the RI into 12 categories in order to clarify DODI language:
· Concealed medical information (CMI)
· Concealed police record (CPR)
· Falsification of a document (FOD)
· Concealed dependents (COD)
· Concealed prior service (CPS)
· Coercion (COER)
· Not qualified for enlistment (NQFE)
· Testing irregularity/ringer (IT/RI)
· False promise (FP)
· Improper parental consent (PC)
· Elopement (ELO)
· Other (OTH)
The DODI directs that we report the number of allegations, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated. If substantiated, USAREC will conduct an informal investigation in accordance with Army Regulation 15-6 and USAREC Regulation 27-65 in order to determine if RI is unsubstantiated or substantiated. In addition, Army Regulation 600-8-2 requires all Soldiers flagged who are under investigation.
Actions taken categorized as:
· “Court-martial or civil conviction
· Separated from service
· Removed from recruiting duty
· Article 15 Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP)
· Adverse administrative actions
· Other punitive actions
· No action taken
Substantiated RIs
In order to separate unintentional acts or omissions from those that are intentional, USAREC breaks substantiated RIs into two sub-categories: Substantiated unintentional (recruiter error) and substantiated intentional.
USAREC is subject to audit/inspection by outside agencies to ensure adequate self-policing and compliance with appropriate laws, policies, and regulations.
There are misperceptions about substantiated improprieties. Based on all closed RI cases from Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2013, less than 0.02 percent of recruiters were relieved from recruiting duty because of a substantiated RI investigation. The term “substantiated” simply means that an impropriety occurred. In the case of substantiated-unintentional, something occurred that should not have occurred, and someone or several people made a simple mistake. Only substantiated-intentional acts indicate a purposeful or negligent intent to allow something to occur that someone, or several people, have an obligation to prevent or stop. Most RI investigations result in a finding of unsubstantiated or substantiated-unintentional.
Zero defect environment
During a government accountability office (GAO) audit in 2008, the command was criticized for using a determination outside those specified by the DODI, and for not reporting them in accordance with the directive. In response to the audit, between January 2010 and April 2012, USAREC made only a substantiated or unsubstantiated determination in RI cases. However, as the finding “substantiated” alone had a negative connotation, a further designation of unintentional was used to differentiate between incidents that occurred because of simple error.
Perceived “zero defect environments,” with regard to RIs may also contribute to the fear that Soldiers indicate. Soldiers do not need to fear investigation for simple mistakes. Every year, RSD receives numerous reports of administrative errors made during the enlistment process. In addition, the inspector general and RSD inspection teams find errors in over 80 percent of all enlistment packets we inspect. Examples of common errors are misspellings and transposed numbers. These common errors do not result in a RI investigation.
Only an allegation or documentary proof from one of the 12 categories results in an RI investigation. There are no assignment positions within USAREC where an unintentional RI automatically disqualifies you from that position. Only two offices require an RI screening: The IG and the RSD.
Flagged Soldiers
Soldiers are losing benefits because of a flag for an RI investigation. Sometimes due to the length of time to complete investigations, or just bad timing, Soldiers have lost significant benefits, including tuition assistance. Oftentimes, the Soldiers are unable to recoup the lost benefits once the flag is lifted. Further exasperating the issue are those incidents where the final determination was that the individual had made a simple error. This scenario is unfortunate and shows the necessity to complete investigations quickly.
The scenario dictates that the Army should relook at flagging policies with regard to RIs. USAREC continues to work this issue with the Army G-1, the proponent for flags, and Human Resources Command.
Currently, AR 600-8-2 specifically states, “The suspension of favorable actions on a Soldier is mandatory when military or civilian authorities initiate any investigation or inquiry that may potentially result in disciplinary action, financial loss, or other loss to the Soldier's rank, pay, or privileges.”
Examples of investigations include, but are not limited to, commander's inquiry, financial liability investigation of property loss, and Army Regulation 15-6 investigations. If the investigating officer finds reason to suspect a Soldier who was not originally identified as a suspect, subject, or respondent, the commander must be notified and must flag that Soldier as well. Effective date of the flag is the date of offense, the date the commander directs the investigation, the date the commander appoints an investigation officer, or the date the investigating officer suspects the Soldier may be subject to disciplinary action.
Admittedly, recruiting is a complex process with exacting rules and regulations, much like many other disciplines within the Army. Rules and regulations are a part of life, so instead of fearing them, we need to master our craft, do things correctly to the best of our abilities and constantly strive to improve our processes and ourselves.
Break out box:
Total Recruiters with RI allegations between FY09-FY13 -- 6452
Recruiters' cases determined as unsubstantiated -- 3686
Recruiters with substantiated RI -- 2389, (most as unintentional)
Cases closed as Recruiter Error -- 372 (NOTE: Recruiter error determination no longer used as of 13 Jul 2009)
Recruiters relieved due solely to RI -- 127
Number substantiated that received Article 15 -- 142 (5.9%)
Number substantiated the received LOR/GOMR -- 771 (32.2%)
Number substantiated that rec'd other -- 1237 (51.7%) (training/counseling)
Number substantiated where no action was taken -- 239 (10.0%)