Found Deceased TX - PFC Vanessa Guillen, 20, Fort Hood military base, items left behind, 22 Apr 2020 *arrests* #3

[MsBetsy]

Is CA still in jail? There's a SM meme going around daying she was released. Sigh..


I believe AR stated that he went back in the evening to use the computer to sign up for online classes. That was his excuse for going back.

Yes, he did say that. It's still not clear if he had to sign in with anyone or if he had his own key. The armory room was apparently under his control, so I don't know if it would be typical for him to have a key and be free to come and go indepenently or not.

 

[Boxer]

Army launches broad review of Fort Hood after Vanessa Guillen's death

The secretary of the Army has ordered a broad independent review of the command climate and culture at Fort Hood, Texas, in the wake of the murder of Spc. Vanessa Guillen. Meanwhile, an official said Army investigators have found information that Guillen was harassed, but that it was not sexual harassment, as Guillen's family has claimed, and that it did not involve her alleged killer, Spc. Aaron Robinson.

The new Army review was announced following Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy's meeting on Friday with members of the League of United Latin American Citizens and two members of Congress to discuss the issues surrounding the investigation into Guillen's death.

"He shared with the group that he has directed an independent, comprehensive review of the command climate and culture at Fort Hood, as well as the surrounding military community," said an Army statement released following their meeting.
.....
The Army review will be carried out by four civilian consultants who will be hired as “highly qualified experts” to form a panel that will spend an estimated five to 10 days at Fort Hood.

They will review historical data from the base, including command climate surveys, inspector general reports, criminal and military justice reports and sexual harassment and sexual assault response program statistics. They will also conduct interviews with soldiers and members of the Fort Hood community.
.....

At this time, there is no Congressional investigation pending (MOO) that I can find, but that has been initiated. I expect it will happen.
This is a high profile case, and it will get attention. (MOO)

Boxer - please post an internet link that says: "there is a congressional investigation going on".

To respond. You as correct, the investigaton currently going on is an independent review by consultants contracted by the Army after meeting with members of Congress and a citizen group. A congressional expected to follow.

 

[m00c0w]

This is going to get unwieldy, but I want to respond point by point:

First, Vanessa’s ID is left behind in her Arms room. AR’s Arms Room is in a neighboring building. Wouldn’t she have needed her ID to get access to the building AR’s Arms Room is in? Either she would have to swipe her ID to open doors or show it to a guard. I can’t imagine a soldier wandering around in secure buildings without an ID and I can’t imagine doors are left unlocked for anyone to go in and out. I also can't imagine she carries a set of keys for various doors. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but it seems like an ID should be required. When I worked corporate jobs with far less important stuff going on, our IDs were either hanging around our necks or clipped to our waists. And we had to use them to open doors into office spaces and to get off elevators.

Most buildings on military installations are not necessarily access-controlled unless they have a specific reason to be. You've already controlled access to the base by only allowing people to enter with proper credentials or background checks. She would not need her ID in most cases unless she left post and needed to come back on.

How did AR access the Arms Room at 8:30pm to get Vanessa’s body? Is a low-level soldier allowed to hold onto the key outside opening hours or is there a place keys are kept and a check out/check in process. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think there must be a check out/check in process. AR went home, then returned later. Did no one wonder why that key hadn’t been checked back in on time?

He was a small arms maintainer. He likely had unaccompanied access to the arms room, which requires a background check and the commander to approve. No key is necessary to open the main door, and if the cage door was shut, he likely had a key assigned to him permanently. The only odd thing that would become apparent at some point is if someone checked the alarm system logs and saw that he came in and disabled the alarm at 2030, but that was unlikely to happen until a physical security inspection.

Why were there no supervisors making sure people were where they were supposed to be? No one ever stopped by and wondered why Vanessa wasn’t at her work station? Did no one try to call her or text her to see where she was? The person who worked with her that day noticed her stuff was there when they locked up. He/she never wondered why she hadn’t been there all day? Again, this is supposed to be a highly secure environment. How could someone go missing like that and go unnoticed?

This was during the self-isolation period of COVID on Ft. Hood. Most soldiers were confined to their barracks during this; there would not be a lot of people out and about doing things. She was out because she needed to complete an inventory.

I'm not sure why you think no one was looking for her - just because they didn't start a massive formal CID investigation in the first few hours she was missing doesn't mean people weren't actually out there trying to figure out where she's at. If an adult you knew didn't show up to an appointment and you can't get in touch with them for a few hours and called the police... What would the police normally do? Do they immediately start an all-hands search for someone missing for a few hours?

Were there no guards patrolling that evening who saw AR pulling a heavy box out of the Arms Room and along the corridor? If it was well after working hours and a lot of things weren’t happening because of Coronavirus, shouldn’t that have seemed suspicious to someone? Do they even have guards?

I'm not sure what impression you have of military bases. There aren't roving guards throughout all buildings all the time. There are MPs that respond to alarm signals and emergency calls and patrol the post in general. That's about it. It's not prison...

I have this image of these supposedly secure areas of Fort Hood as being a kind of free for all with no guards or supervision of any kind. A bunch of twenty-somethings can wander off without their IDs and not come back, and no one bats an eyelid. Heck, they’ll even check them in as present when they have no clue where they are. They can go home with keys to highly secure areas and come back after dark, and no one thinks anything of it. They can pull heavy boxes out of highly secure rooms and through hallways at night and no one wonders what they’re doing. And there isn’t a surveillance camera in sight.

These are gross mischaracterizations. Do you have guards roving throughout the halls of your workplaces at all times? Oppressive presence of force that sees everything all the time? I'm also not sure why you say "no one bats an eyelid". People were looking for her, locally. They were trying to figure out what happened. It's easy to say after the fact, "You should have known she was murdered!" but realistically, how likely is that? After several hours passed (less than 24), and they could not find her, they immediately reported it to CID and an investigation and full search was started. That's incredibly more than you'd normally get in the civilian world.

Vanessa disappeared on April 22nd, yet the witnesses who saw AR pulling the heavy box to his car came forward on May 18. Why did that take so long? Surely, they couldn’t have been unaware of the disappearance for almost a month.

Didn't think it was relevant, or thought it would be silly to report until it bothered them enough to report it "just in case". (MOO)

Edited to ask one more question. If Vanessa and AR were in different units, why was she even over in his arms room in the first place? Do units share weapons? Do they transfer weapons between units? Does anyone who has knowledge of how things are done on bases have an insight into this?

It's possible her arms room did not have a storage rack for the .50cal weapons being referenced, so they were stored in AR's arms room. This is common. It appears he worked in the headquarters company/troop for the battalion/squadron, so this would be a common arrangement. Her being in her headquarters' arms room isn't weird or suspicious on its face.

None of this makes any sense to me at all. It seems like there were a lot of security lapses and a complete lack of oversight from people in supervisory roles. Is this normal on military bases in areas where weapons are stored?

Not trying to be rude, but it doesn't make sense to you because it appears you're unaware of or have little experience with daily life on a military installation. Not much here that you have highlighted is actually strange.

ETA: There is also a weird tone with your post. You act as if soldiers are supposed to be babied or constantly monitored or supervised. They need constant guards, and why aren't supervisors constantly around monitoring them? "Twenty somethings" are just allowed to do whatever they want...

Soldiers have an immense amount of responsibility, and are generally expected to be fairly autonomous. You're cool with handing that same twenty-something a rifle and telling them to go kill bad guys for you (not "you", personally, but "you" in general), but heaven forbid they not have constant supervision in garrison because they're all of a sudden not responsible adults anymore for some reason.

 

[m00c0w]

Who is 'he', because I thought 'he' was AR, but I think I'm mistaken.

"He" is the guy that was trying to get a prostitution ring started in 2015.

 

[Boxer]

Yes, he did say that. It's still not clear if he had to sign in with anyone or if he had his own key. The armory room was apparently under his control, so I don't know if it would be typical for him to have a key and be free to come and go indepenently or not.

Here is Ft Bragg's arms room standards and procedures.
MOO it is a bit unclear if a single key holder can enter the arms room, it appears that there is two person security, the authorized armorer and a building duty soldier (key control holder)

The document specifically sites how to secure hammers and other tools with the armory.
The key procedures are outlined around slide 55.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2GWzx034q0bBLQpPRGr93t&cshid=1594661951219

 

[socalgrl]

This is going to get unwieldy, but I want to respond point by point:

Thanks for your responses. It clears up a lot of things. However, if this is how things are, it shouldn’t be. So what if someone had to prove their identity before accessing the base. That doesn’t mean they should have open access to go anywhere they please. My husband works in city government. He needs his ID to access the parking garage, and the main door to the building, and his department. Just because he has been let into one area doesn’t mean he can go wherever he wants. The fact that military bases don’t have that is astounding.

Someone accessing an area during unauthorized hours seems like something that should trip an alarm that someone comes to check immediately. This is pretty standard practice in a lot of businesses. Alarms get tripped when people aren’t supposed to be there and someone comes to check it out.

Vanessa’s family 3 hours away became concerned about her whereabouts around noon. Yet when her sister called at 9pm no one seemed to be aware Vanessa was missing even though there is supposed to be a process in place to account for someone’s whereabouts at different points during the day.

I wouldn’t expect roving guards. I would expect guards at doorways in facilities where weapons are stored. I’ve worked in corporate offices where there were guards in the lobby looking out for anything suspicious. I think someone pulling out a large box late at night would count. Depending on the company, receptionists may also play that role, asking for information on large items employees are bringing into or out of the building.

I’ve been in workplaces with employees ranging in age from mid twenties to mid fifties, educated professionals. Yet there were always managers there paying attention to what was going on. Managers were always located close to employees. More than a few times at one of my jobs, my boss came out wondering where someone was when they were away from their desks for too long. If older, more mature employees are monitored to make sure they are where they’re supposed to be why aren’t people who still in many cases aren’t old enough to legally drink monitored? Since military bases often have high crime rates, taking basic precautions to keep people safe isn’t asking too much.

Based on your explanations of how things are done, I can see how it was so easy for AR to do what he did, and if he hadn't been so incompetent with the burial, he could have got away with it.

 

[Boxer]

This is going to get unwieldy, but I want to respond point by point:


Most buildings on military installations are not necessarily access-controlled unless they have a specific reason to be. You've already controlled access to the base by only allowing people to enter with proper credentials or background checks. She would not need her ID in most cases unless she left post and needed to come back on.


He was a small arms maintainer. He likely had unaccompanied access to the arms room, which requires a background check and the commander to approve. No key is necessary to open the main door, and if the cage door was shut, he likely had a key assigned to him permanently. The only odd thing that would become apparent at some point is if someone checked the alarm system logs and saw that he came in and disabled the alarm at 2030, but that was unlikely to happen until a physical security inspection.


This was during the self-isolation period of COVID on Ft. Hood. Most soldiers were confined to their barracks during this; there would not be a lot of people out and about doing things. She was out because she needed to complete an inventory.

I'm not sure why you think no one was looking for her - just because they didn't start a massive formal CID investigation in the first few hours she was missing doesn't mean people weren't actually out there trying to figure out where she's at. If an adult you knew didn't show up to an appointment and you can't get in touch with them for a few hours and called the police... What would the police normally do? Do they immediately start an all-hands search for someone missing for a few hours?


I'm not sure what impression you have of military bases. There aren't roving guards throughout all buildings all the time. There are MPs that respond to alarm signals and emergency calls and patrol the post in general. That's about it. It's not prison...


These are gross mischaracterizations. Do you have guards roving throughout the halls of your workplaces at all times? Oppressive presence of force that sees everything all the time? I'm also not sure why you say "no one bats an eyelid". People were looking for her, locally. They were trying to figure out what happened. It's easy to say after the fact, "You should have known she was murdered!" but realistically, how likely is that? After several hours passed (less than 24), and they could not find her, they immediately reported it to CID and an investigation and full search was started. That's incredibly more than you'd normally get in the civilian world.


Didn't think it was relevant, or thought it would be silly to report until it bothered them enough to report it "just in case". (MOO)


It's possible her arms room did not have a storage rack for the .50cal weapons being referenced, so they were stored in AR's arms room. This is common. It appears he worked in the headquarters company/troop for the battalion/squadron, so this would be a common arrangement. Her being in her headquarters' arms room isn't weird or suspicious on its face.


Not trying to be rude, but it doesn't make sense to you because it appears you're unaware of or have little experience with daily life on a military installation. Not much here that you have highlighted is actually strange.

ETA: There is also a weird tone with your post. You act as if soldiers are supposed to be babied or constantly monitored or supervised. They need constant guards, and why aren't supervisors constantly around monitoring them? "Twenty somethings" are just allowed to do whatever they want...

Soldiers have an immense amount of responsibility, and are generally expected to be fairly autonomous. You're cool with handing that same twenty-something a rifle and telling them to go kill bad guys for you (not "you", personally, but "you" in general), but heaven forbid they not have constant supervision in garrison because they're all of a sudden not responsible adults anymore for some reason.

Constant supervision is the Army's middle name.
Uniform wear and appearance standards, fitness tests, promotion boards, technical MOs procedures are all followed in every MOs and rank.
ARs are written for every aspect, including how to account for readiness and troops.

MOO Is your CO aware that you count soldiers present and accounted for that are not present and not accounted for in roll calls?

 

[Boxer]

Thanks for your responses. It clears up a lot of things. However, if this is how things are, it shouldn’t be. So what if someone had to prove their identity before accessing the base. That doesn’t mean they should have open access to go anywhere they please. My husband works in city government. He needs his ID to access the parking garage, and the main door to the building, and his department. Just because he has been let into one area doesn’t mean he can go wherever he wants. The fact that military bases don’t have that is astounding.

Someone accessing an area during unauthorized hours seems like something that should trip an alarm that someone comes to check immediately. This is pretty standard practice in a lot of businesses. Alarms get tripped when people aren’t supposed to be there and someone comes to check it out.

Vanessa’s family 3 hours away became concerned about her whereabouts around noon. Yet when her sister called at 9pm no one seemed to be aware Vanessa was missing even though there is supposed to be a process in place to account for someone’s whereabouts at different points during the day.

I wouldn’t expect roving guards. I would expect guards at doorways in facilities where weapons are stored. I’ve worked in corporate offices where there were guards in the lobby looking out for anything suspicious. I think someone pulling out a large box late at night would count. Depending on the company, receptionists may also play that role, asking for information on large items employees are bringing into or out of the building.

I’ve been in workplaces with employees ranging in age from mid twenties to mid fifties, educated professionals. Yet there were always managers there paying attention to what was going on. Managers were always located close to employees. More than a few times at one of my jobs, my boss came out wondering where someone was when they were away from their desks for too long. If older, more mature employees are monitored to make sure they are where they’re supposed to be why aren’t people who still in many cases aren’t old enough to legally drink monitored? Since military bases often have high crime rates, taking basic precautions to keep people safe isn’t asking too much.

Based on your explanations of how things are done, I can see how it was so easy for AR to do what he did, and if he hadn't been so incompetent with the burial, he could have got away with it.

Totally agree.

 

[m00c0w]

Constant supervision is the Army's middle name.
Uniform wear and appearance standards, fitness tests, promotion boards, technical MOs procedures are all followed in every MOs and rank.
ARs are written for every aspect, including how to account for readiness and troops.

MOO Is your CO aware that you count soldiers present and accounted for that are not present and not accounted for in roll calls?

Guidance, guidelines, and regulations are not "constant supervision". What was being described is micromanaging. That is toxic leadership. There is a lot not covered in the doctrine, and there is a reason that good leaders often refer to the art of leadership in conjunction to the science of leadership.

Given that you consistently do things like refer to MOSes as "MOs", and my commander as a "CO", I question whether you have any actual military experience. It's not like the movies. Soldiers are people. Leaders should be human, as well. I could not fathom serving in a military you're trying to enforce. Retention rates are already abysmal, largely from leaders doing exactly what you're suggesting.

As far as my troops - if I say my troops are accounted for, all of my troops are accounted for.

 

[m00c0w]

Thanks for your responses. It clears up a lot of things. However, if this is how things are, it shouldn’t be. So what if someone had to prove their identity before accessing the base. That doesn’t mean they should have open access to go anywhere they please. My husband works in city government. He needs his ID to access the parking garage, and the main door to the building, and his department. Just because he has been let into one area doesn’t mean he can go wherever he wants. The fact that military bases don’t have that is astounding.

This is what you're missing. Everyone doesn't have access to "anywhere they please". They have access to select common-use buildings that aren't sensitive in nature. As much as you think it should be, a squadron headquarters is going to be sitting there unlocked 90% of the time. The only people allowed on base are military, retirees, dependents, or contractors that have a specific purpose (as well as local first responders if necessary). You have already passed that "ID to access the parking garage" point if you are on the base. You've provided some sort of proof you need access to that base to even get on the base. Your husband's building is largely locked down to prevent access from the general public. That has already been mitigated by armed guards scanning ID cards at the entry control points.

Some buildings do have controlled access, but it's not all that common in a garrison area that might have thousands of soldiers needing fairly consistent access.

Someone accessing an area during unauthorized hours seems like something that should trip an alarm that someone comes to check immediately. This is pretty standard practice in a lot of businesses. Alarms get tripped when people aren’t supposed to be there and someone comes to check it out.

This is what will happen if someone was unauthorized to access the arms room, for instance. You're making the big assumption that AR was unauthorized. By all accounts, it appears he had unaccompanied access to the arms room. That makes his presence there authorized.

Vanessa’s family 3 hours away became concerned about her whereabouts around noon. Yet when her sister called at 9pm no one seemed to be aware Vanessa was missing even though there is supposed to be a process in place to account for someone’s whereabouts at different points during the day.

I haven't seen this myself, so I don't have anything to add.

I wouldn’t expect roving guards. I would expect guards at doorways in facilities where weapons are stored. I’ve worked in corporate offices where there were guards in the lobby looking out for anything suspicious. I think someone pulling out a large box late at night would count. Depending on the company, receptionists may also play that role, asking for information on large items employees are bringing into or out of the building.

Again, those guards at your office are typically protecting from an outsider threat. We have those guards - they're at the front gate. Weapons are stored in an alarmed vault inside of buildings. The alarm replaces the necessity for a guard. If there is no alarm, or if the alarm is non-functional, you are required to have guards posted.

I’ve been in workplaces with employees ranging in age from mid twenties to mid fifties, educated professionals. Yet there were always managers there paying attention to what was going on. Managers were always located close to employees. More than a few times at one of my jobs, my boss came out wondering where someone was when they were away from their desks for too long. If older, more mature employees are monitored to make sure they are where they’re supposed to be why aren’t people who still in many cases aren’t old enough to legally drink monitored? Since military bases often have high crime rates, taking basic precautions to keep people safe isn’t asking too much.

Your managers noticed someone was missing or that people weren't where they were supposed to be, I would suspect, from the size of your office. Make the size of your office the literal size of New York City (actually, a slight bit bigger) and see how feasible it is for managers to spend a ton of time keeping constant personal (in-person) accountability of staff. They have things they're required to do, as well. It is not uncommon for soldiers to be spread out across a base doing various activities. Supervisors should be aware of what they're doing and where they're doing it, but it is impractical to expect this level of micromanagement you're advocating for.

I also keep seeing comments like this:

If older, more mature employees are monitored to make sure they are where they’re supposed to be why aren’t people who still in many cases aren’t old enough to legally drink monitored?

That is also a perpetuation of toxic leadership. "I was micromanaged, so you should be, too!"

Based on your explanations of how things are done, I can see how it was so easy for AR to do what he did, and if he hadn't been so incompetent with the burial, he could have got away with it.

It was no easier than if he were off post in a house with a pelican case. I'm not sure why people think that a military base should be immune from random acts of violence. How many other people are killed every day, in which a killer is never charged even with a body immediately available? This isn't some weird, peculiar thing that only happens because someone marked a soldier as present or there weren't guards in front of an arms room.

 

[m00c0w]

Here is Ft Bragg's arms room standards and procedures.
MOO it is a bit unclear if a single key holder can enter the arms room, it appears that there is two person security, the authorized armorer and a building duty soldier (key control holder)

The document specifically sites how to secure hammers and other tools with the armory.
The key procedures are outlined around slide 55.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2GWzx034q0bBLQpPRGr93t&cshid=1594661951219

There are two people - the armorer and the key custodian. The armorer is able to unlock/open the arms room and disarm the IDS. They can be in there all day long alone, as long as they want. They do not have keys to the racks that store the weapons. The key custodian, however, does. They cannot be in the arms room alone because they can unlock the weapons racks and take weapons. Keys to the weapons racks, if they're issued out, have to follow the same two-person accountability rule.

Hope that clarifies things a little bit. This is all found in AR 190-11.

 

[socalgrl]

This is what you're missing. Everyone doesn't have access to "anywhere they please". They have access to select common-use buildings that aren't sensitive in nature. As much as you think it should be, a squadron headquarters is going to be sitting there unlocked 90% of the time. The only people allowed on base are military, retirees, dependents, or contractors that have a specific purpose (as well as local first responders if necessary). You have already passed that "ID to access the parking garage" point if you are on the base. You've provided some sort of proof you need access to that base to even get on the base. Your husband's building is largely locked down to prevent access from the general public. That has already been mitigated by armed guards scanning ID cards at the entry control points.

Some buildings do have controlled access, but it's not all that common in a garrison area that might have thousands of soldiers needing fairly consistent access.

This is what will happen if someone was unauthorized to access the arms room, for instance. You're making the big assumption that AR was unauthorized. By all accounts, it appears he had unaccompanied access to the arms room. That makes his presence there authorized.

I haven't seen this myself, so I don't have anything to add.

Again, those guards at your office are typically protecting from an outsider threat. We have those guards - they're at the front gate. Weapons are stored in an alarmed vault inside of buildings. The alarm replaces the necessity for a guard. If there is no alarm, or if the alarm is non-functional, you are required to have guards posted.

Your managers noticed someone was missing or that people weren't where they were supposed to be, I would suspect, from the size of your office. Make the size of your office the literal size of New York City (actually, a slight bit bigger) and see how feasible it is for managers to spend a ton of time keeping constant personal (in-person) accountability of staff. They have things they're required to do, as well. It is not uncommon for soldiers to be spread out across a base doing various activities. Supervisors should be aware of what they're doing and where they're doing it, but it is impractical to expect this level of micromanagement you're advocating for.

I also keep seeing comments like this:

If older, more mature employees are monitored to make sure they are where they’re supposed to be why aren’t people who still in many cases aren’t old enough to legally drink monitored?

That is also a perpetuation of toxic leadership. "I was micromanaged, so you should be, too!"

It was no easier than if he were off post in a house with a pelican case. I'm not sure why people think that a military base should be immune from random acts of violence. How many other people are killed every day, in which a killer is never charged even with a body immediately available? This isn't some weird, peculiar thing that only happens because someone marked a soldier as present or there weren't guards in front of an arms room.

It's not micro-managing to notice someone hasn't been at their desk for a long time and to wonder where they are. That's kind of the whole point of managers. If someone left their desk for 15-20 minutes, no one would care. But if they were gone for an hour or more? That would be noticed, as it should be.

This morning, I talked to a relative of mine who was in the Navy during the Gulf War. I asked him about this case. His first question was something along the lines of "where the **** was the oversight?" You may think there was adequate oversight in this situation. He doesn't agree. He said if Fort Hood had put more emphasis on oversight, this tragedy could have been avoided. No one is saying a CO should be managing a group of people the size of New York City. They should be overseeing teams that can reasonably be managed.

His other point was that Vanessa should never have been allowed to go to that room alone if there weren't many people around. A buddy system should have been in place. He said she would have walked out of that room alive if there had been a buddy waiting outside the door for her. He also said in 2020 cameras should be in wider use.

As he put it, when designing systems always ask what can go wrong and what can I do to prevent it? He said you can't prevent everything but Fort Hood and too many other military installations aren't putting enough emphasis on security and the well being of troops. He said something as simple as fobs could keep men out of female-only areas and allow women to sleep and shower in safety. He also thinks that when the independent report on this case comes out Fort Hood is going to be ripped to shreds for how they operate.

He told me he wouldn't want his own daughter joining the military because taking care of soldiers and looking out for their safety isn't the high priority it needs to be. He works on military IT contracts now, and he told me his big concern is the high profile nature of this case will cause recruitment to plummet and that the best way to increase recruitment is to make bases safer places, especially for women. He finished with an ounce of prevention is better than the cure.

By the way, guards in office buildings don't just keep unauthorized people from getting in. They also serve the purpose of preventing employees taking things they aren't supposed to take. They can serve both roles. Protect company property from leaving and preventing someone with bad intentions getting inside.

 

[m00c0w]

It's not micro-managing to notice someone hasn't been at their desk for a long time and to wonder where they are. That's kind of the whole point of managers. If someone left their desk for 15-20 minutes, no one would care. But if they were gone for an hour or more? That would be noticed, as it should be.

It certainly seems like micromanaging if they're being sure to hover around their subordinates to make sure they're getting work done all day.

This morning, I talked to a relative of mine who was in the Navy during the Gulf War. I asked him about this case. His first question was something along the lines of "where the **** was the oversight?" You may think there was adequate oversight in this situation. He doesn't agree. He said if Fort Hood had put more emphasis on oversight, this tragedy could have been avoided.

What oversight? That word keeps being used, but oversight over what? Supervisors monitoring subordinates? It still sounds like you are advocating for nannying soldiers instead of treating them like grown, responsible adults. You make references in previous posts to managers keeping constant oversight over work, and always being located near their subordinates. That sounds like management that doesn't trust their people, if they find a need to hover around to make sure everyone is doing work. That, by definition, is micromanaging.

No one is saying a CO should be managing a group of people the size of New York City. They should be overseeing teams that can reasonably be managed

No one said anything about a group of people the size of NYC. The base is the size of NYC. You have soldiers going all over the base to perform various duties. One soldier may be in the motor pool doing vehicle inspections, one soldier may be at the wash racks washing vehicles, one soldier may be in the arms room doing inspections, one soldier may be taking an RSO class out at the range, and all of these activities are spread out over a 350 square mile installation. It is not feasible to expect the same level of "supervision" you would get in an office where a manager can look out and see Joe hasn't been at his desk for two hours. Furthermore, multiple sources reported that this was not a work day for her, and she just happened to go in to wrap up an inventory real quick (hence her not even being in uniform). Does your manager also actively involve themselves in your personal time and what you're doing and where you are?

His other point was that Vanessa should never have been allowed to go to that room alone if there weren't many people around. A buddy system should have been in place. He said she would have walked out of that room alive if there had been a buddy waiting outside the door for her. He also said in 2020 cameras should be in wider use.

She wasn't alone. AR was there. They were literally exercising the buddy system. You're now asking soldiers to predict when their buddy might kill them or do them harm and take along another buddy just in case...

As he put it, when designing systems always ask what can go wrong and what can I do to prevent it? He said you can't prevent everything but Fort Hood and too many other military installations aren't putting enough emphasis on security and the well being of troops. He said something as simple as fobs could keep men out of female-only areas and allow women to sleep and shower in safety. He also thinks that when the independent report on this case comes out Fort Hood is going to be ripped to shreds for how they operate.

And he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. These are basically dorm rooms. They have individual rooms with locks and everything. You share a bathroom with your same-gender next-door neighbor. Fobs? What? Yeah, let's just RFID track soldiers everywhere to prevent crime. Do you not understand how silly this sounds?

He told me he wouldn't want his own daughter joining the military because taking care of soldiers and looking out for their safety isn't the high priority it needs to be. He works on military IT contracts now, and he told me his big concern is the high profile nature of this case will cause recruitment to plummet and that the best way to increase recruitment is to make bases safer places, especially for women. He finished with an ounce of prevention is better than the cure.

"Taking care of soldiers" is not wanting them monitored close to 24/7, even during their off-time, and suggesting they carry around some sort of tracker, I guess, to make sure they don't commit any crimes because they're so untrustworthy.

This is insane. You and others are advocating a complete deprivation of most autonomy and freedom of movement to... prevent some sort of potential crime from happening... even though the vast majority of folks never do anything wrong. Would you suggest an "ordinary" citizen be tracked around to make sure they're not doing anything untoward? Check-ins on days off by management to make sure you're not committing crimes or a crime hasn't been committed against you? Requiring only interactions between 3 or more people in case someone decides to go rogue?

By the way, guards in office buildings don't just keep unauthorized people from getting in. They also serve the purpose of preventing employees taking things they aren't supposed to take. They can serve both roles. Protect company property from leaving and preventing someone with bad intentions getting inside.

I never said they were only for external threats. I said they were predominately for external threats, which is true. Just the same as a gate guard on post.

ETA: I'm also not impressed by the "back in my day" mentality. Times are changing. Toxic leadership is not being tolerated anymore. Just because something was a way back in the day does not make it correct or proper. Subjecting troops to something just because you had to endure it does not make it right. I can "back in my day" to how things were different over a decade ago. But I want to make things better for my soldiers, not perpetuate the same old bad leadership mentalities.

 

[Boxer]

It's not micro-managing to notice someone hasn't been at their desk for a long time and to wonder where they are. That's kind of the whole point of managers. If someone left their desk for 15-20 minutes, no one would care. But if they were gone for an hour or more? That would be noticed, as it should be.

This morning, I talked to a relative of mine who was in the Navy during the Gulf War. I asked him about this case. His first question was something along the lines of "where the **** was the oversight?" You may think there was adequate oversight in this situation. He doesn't agree. He said if Fort Hood had put more emphasis on oversight, this tragedy could have been avoided. No one is saying a CO should be managing a group of people the size of New York City. They should be overseeing teams that can reasonably be managed.

His other point was that Vanessa should never have been allowed to go to that room alone if there weren't many people around. A buddy system should have been in place. He said she would have walked out of that room alive if there had been a buddy waiting outside the door for her. He also said in 2020 cameras should be in wider use.

As he put it, when designing systems always ask what can go wrong and what can I do to prevent it? He said you can't prevent everything but Fort Hood and too many other military installations aren't putting enough emphasis on security and the well being of troops. He said something as simple as fobs could keep men out of female-only areas and allow women to sleep and shower in safety. He also thinks that when the independent report on this case comes out Fort Hood is going to be ripped to shreds for how they operate.

He told me he wouldn't want his own daughter joining the military because taking care of soldiers and looking out for their safety isn't the high priority it needs to be. He works on military IT contracts now, and he told me his big concern is the high profile nature of this case will cause recruitment to plummet and that the best way to increase recruitment is to make bases safer places, especially for women. He finished with an ounce of prevention is better than the cure.

By the way, guards in office buildings don't just keep unauthorized people from getting in. They also serve the purpose of preventing employees taking things they aren't supposed to take. They can serve both roles. Protect company property from leaving and preventing someone with bad intentions getting inside.

MOO Your Navy relative us 100 correct.
Where was a an assertive and responsible leadership?

 

[crhedBngr]

MOO Your Navy relative us 100 correct.
Where was a an assertive and responsible leadership?

I agree.

 

[m00c0w]

MOO Your Navy relative us 100 correct.
Where was a an assertive and responsible leadership?

What would they have done? How would this have helped? Please be specific.

 

[socalgrl]

It certainly seems like micromanaging if they're being sure to hover around their subordinates to make sure they're getting work done all day.

What oversight? That word keeps being used, but oversight over what? Supervisors monitoring subordinates? It still sounds like you are advocating for nannying soldiers instead of treating them like grown, responsible adults. You make references in previous posts to managers keeping constant oversight over work, and always being located near their subordinates. That sounds like management that doesn't trust their people, if they find a need to hover around to make sure everyone is doing work. That, by definition, is micromanaging.

No one said anything about a group of people the size of NYC. The base is the size of NYC. You have soldiers going all over the base to perform various duties. One soldier may be in the motor pool doing vehicle inspections, one soldier may be at the wash racks washing vehicles, one soldier may be in the arms room doing inspections, one soldier may be taking an RSO class out at the range, and all of these activities are spread out over a 350 square mile installation. It is not feasible to expect the same level of "supervision" you would get in an office where a manager can look out and see Joe hasn't been at his desk for two hours. Furthermore, multiple sources reported that this was not a work day for her, and she just happened to go in to wrap up an inventory real quick (hence her not even being in uniform). Does your manager also actively involve themselves in your personal time and what you're doing and where you are?

She wasn't alone. AR was there. They were literally exercising the buddy system. You're now asking soldiers to predict when their buddy might kill them or do them harm and take along another buddy just in case...

And he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. These are basically dorm rooms. They have individual rooms with locks and everything. You share a bathroom with your same-gender next-door neighbor. Fobs? What? Yeah, let's just RFID track soldiers everywhere to prevent crime. Do you not understand how silly this sounds?

"Taking care of soldiers" is not wanting them monitored close to 24/7, even during their off-time, and suggesting they carry around some sort of tracker, I guess, to make sure they don't commit any crimes because they're so untrustworthy.

This is insane. You and others are advocating a complete deprivation of most autonomy and freedom of movement to... prevent some sort of potential crime from happening... even though the vast majority of folks never do anything wrong. Would you suggest an "ordinary" citizen be tracked around to make sure they're not doing anything untoward? Check-ins on days off by management to make sure you're not committing crimes or a crime hasn't been committed against you? Requiring only interactions between 3 or more people in case someone decides to go rogue?

I never said they were only for external threats. I said they were predominately for external threats, which is true. Just the same as a gate guard on post.

ETA: I'm also not impressed by the "back in my day" mentality. Times are changing. Toxic leadership is not being tolerated anymore. Just because something was a way back in the day does not make it correct or proper. Subjecting troops to something just because you had to endure it does not make it right. I can "back in my day" to how things were different over a decade ago. But I want to make things better for my soldiers, not perpetuate the same old bad leadership mentalities.

You're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I never once had a job where I was micromanaged. I did have jobs where people were expected to be where they were paid to be. And there were managers there to ensure no one shirked their responsibilities. I co-own a QSR. I expect my employees to be where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be, and doing what I pay them to do. If I took the hands off approach you advocate and left them to their own devices, they would be on the phones all day. My brother works for a company that sends electricians all over the city doing all kinds of different jobs, and two women in the office keep track of everyone using cellphones. It isn't hard to keep in touch with dispersed workers. I'm stunned that I'm actually arguing with someone who thinks there shouldn't be superiors making sure people are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you really believe that.

You're whole attitude appears to be that Fort Hood did just fine letting twenty year olds manage themselves, and there's violent crime outside of bases too, so why bother doing anything to make things safer. Women tell stories about being raped in their rooms when a roommate leaves the door unlocked. Women tell stories about guys trying the handle of doors to see if they can get into women's rooms. And your attitude is it's safe enough. Why should we do more? And the buddy system should involve two females. If males assaulting females is a problem, don't pair women with men. Pair them with each other. If a lot of people in military leadership think like you, that's exactly where the problem lies and why this independent investigation is needed. I won't discuss this with you anymore because it's absolutely pointless.

 

[socalgrl]

MOO Your Navy relative us 100 correct.
Where was a an assertive and responsible leadership?

Absolutely. I honestly didn't expect him to take such a tough stance. He's very pro-military and very proud of his service. But he was pretty angry about this story and thought there were a lot of lapses. Unfortunately, he's always busy. I wish I could have talked to him about it a bit longer.

 

[Beans]

I’m a few pages behind, but having read some posts from Thursday around the responsibility of the army as VG’s employer to keep her safe, I feel compelled to respond.

I can speak from an employers perspective (I work in Human Resources) and it IS an employers responsibility to protect the health, safety and well-being of all employees while they are at work. This isn’t just a “nice to have”, it’s a law (in the U.K. here certainly).

In the U.K. we have the HASAW (Health and Safety at Work Act) which requires employers to keep employees safe while on their premises and we aren’t just talking physical safety, but mental safety too. We also have the Equality Act which, among other requirements, makes it unlawful to discriminate or harass someone based on a protected characteristic (gender, for example). While I am not up to speed on US legislation, I know that you have similar laws.

While the Army could not have predicted that AR would bludgeon VG to death on their premises, they are responsible for his behaviour while at work and IF there were warning signs or red flags, these should have been dealt with. Perhaps they were, we haven’t seen his disciplinary record. I say IF, because he may have been a model employee, we just don’t know.

The main issue for me is that while they have the SHARP program in place, it means nothing if it’s just a tick box exercise. If employees do not feel that they are able to speak up and report harassment, then the SHARP program obviously isn’t working on their base. Fort Hood needs to take a look at their culture and shape up fast, because it is not acceptable for any employee to feel that they cannot speak up about harassment. Even with reporting mechanisms in place so that you could bypass your superior, VG still didn’t feel that she could report what had been happening. If other employees feel the same way, then SHARP clearly isn’t effective on that base and change is needed, fast!

At this point, I don’t feel comfortable blaming Fort Hood for VG’s death. Harassment is one thing, but a brutal murder is something else. I’m not downplaying harassment, I’m simply stating that no employer would reasonably expect that harassment would lead to murder. They are responsible for allowing the harassment to happen by not having an appropriate culture for reporting, but they shouldn’t be held responsible for allowing a murder to happen, even if it is a direct result of the harassment. If AR had been reported, disciplined and removed from base for harassment then yes, VG would likely still be alive. Still, that doesn’t make Fort Hood responsible for her murder. We also don’t know for sure that AR was even one of the people harassing her.

IF AR was knowingly violent and displayed violent outbursts at his workplace, then I would 100% be comfortable in blaming Fort Hood for VG’s death. As soon as any employee becomes physically violent at work, you discipline and remove them for many reasons but above all, to protect all other employees. However, we don’t know this to be the case.

Even if Fort Hood were knowingly condoning harassment or turning a blind eye, how were they to know that it would result in murder? We don’t know if AR’s motive to kill VG was to cover up sexual harassment or if he became enraged that VG turned down his advances, but it’s clear that no matter how many policies or procedures were in place, if AR was capable of murder in the manner in which he murdered VG, then no company policy or procedure could have stopped it.

To conclude my ramblings, I guess I just feel that while there needs to be a serious review of the SHARP program and culture on the base to prevent this from happening again, with charges brought against those who turned a blind eye, I don’t feel comfortable hearing people suggest that Fort Hood is response for VG’s death. Not unless they knew he was prone to violence. They could have had the best anti harassment program in the world, but AR was clearly a monster.

All great info but Equality Act doesn’t work with protected characteristic of gender - it concerns protected characteristic of sex. Really important distinction, especially when you’re dealing with sexism or sexual harassment and similar. The gender provision relates to gender reassignment.

otherwise I totally agree!

 

[m00c0w]

You're being deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I never once had a job where I was micromanaged. I did have jobs where people were expected to be where they were paid to be. And there were managers there to ensure no one shirked their responsibilities. I co-own a QSR. I expect my employees to be where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be, and doing what I pay them to do.

Of course that is expected. But there are effective ways of ensuring this stuff is getting done without having to be physically around and checking on employees all day long. If you have people less likely to work without supervision and people you have identified that are capable of accomplishing their tasks without constant oversight, which would you spend more time on? Why, if you have subordinates that demonstrate they can meet suspenses and accomplish their tasks routinely, would you feel it necessary to constantly check up on them?

If I took the hands off approach you advocate and left them to their own devices, they would be on the phones all day.

Isn't this literally what I said? You don't trust your employees to do work, so you have to micromanage them - hover around constantly to make sure work is getting done.

I'm stunned that I'm actually arguing with someone who thinks there shouldn't be superiors making sure people are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you really believe that.

I never said that. Talk about misinterpreting... I have said that supervisors do not need to be constantly hovering around their subordinates to be effective leaders. Of course you're going to check up on tasks and make sure they're being accomplished. Items not being accomplished leads to reprimands and repercussions. However, that doesn't mean I need to babysit soldiers all day.

You're whole attitude appears to be that Fort Hood did just fine letting twenty year olds manage themselves, and there's violent crime outside of bases too, so why bother doing anything to make things safer.

My whole attitude is that you're coming close to asking for basic civil liberties to be infringed upon in order to make things "safer", when the thing that we're talking about is an exceedingly rare occurrence. I would never expect a soldier that did not show up to a formation to be brutally murdered elsewhere. All of this is being talked about with perfect hindsight. In the moment, it does not seem like leaders did anything irrational or crazy or bizarre.

Women tell stories about being raped in their rooms when a roommate leaves the door unlocked. Women tell stories about guys trying the handle of doors to see if they can get into women's rooms. And your attitude is it's safe enough. Why should we do more?

What are you talking about? Your friend was talking about "fobs" to separate males from females. They're already separated and have their own lockable dorm-style rooms. How would an additional locking system prevent anything?

My attitude is not that it's "safe enough". I've said repeatedly in this thread that Ft. Hood has a ton of issues, and that sexual harassment is a massive issue in the army. The issue, though, is people like yourself come in with absolutely no military experience and seem to believe that there should be guards everywhere or have all of these great ideas that would probably do absolutely nothing to have prevented this murder, while also making life a nightmare for soldiers that are guilty of nothing. Or facts are greatly exaggerated and conspiracies about faulty leadership are created. Like, this kind of thing happens outside of the military and it's accepted as terrible, but a part of reality. The killer was a nutjob and it is a tragedy. When it's on a military base, effectively punish all other soldiers because a lunatic went off the rails and lashed out and killed a fellow soldier. Makes sense.

And the buddy system should involve two females. If males assaulting females is a problem, don't pair women with men. Pair them with each other. If a lot of people in military leadership think like you, that's exactly where the problem lies and why this independent investigation is needed. I won't discuss this with you anymore because it's absolutely pointless.

You're now obfuscating the murder with sexual assaults. You also have not responded to my valid questions about how you would feel about implementing these same measures on "ordinary" civilians in the name of preventing crime. Or if your manager checks up on you on your days off. Do you keep tabs on where your employees are when they're not working? Should employers be mandated to make sure they know where you are in your off-time? Should civilians be mandated to partner up to go anywhere?

The key concept that seems to be missing here is, and I cannot emphasize this enough: Soldiers are people, too. They're not captives in a prison or violent criminals that need constant supervision to prevent them from killing or assaulting each other. Soldiers are far more likely to kill themselves because of stupid ideas from toxic leadership that makes life a living hell and adds an immense amount of pressure on top of an already overtaxed and overdeployed force that suffers from PTSD and other issues as a result. You say I'm the problem, but I have had exactly zero problems with my soldiers. I'll let my leadership results and the skill-building I've fostered speak for itself. Again, soldiers are people.