All Things Negligent Discharge (merged)

[Towards_the_gap]

I, knock on wood repeatedly, have never YET had an ND. I put this down to a number of factors:

A) Keeping a healthy respect for weapons (and being brought up amongst them helped too);
B) Professional pride - having an ND would be a huge slight on my basic soldiering skills, and I would die of embarrassment;

and finally, and perhaps most importantly:

C) Being thrashed within an inch of my life, repeatedly, for fellow coursemates ND'ing, in both basic training and in the field army. Bearing in mind this was in the British Army, so the calibre of beasting would probably be illegal here in Canada. And yet was nothing cruel, just HARD HARD HARD PT, the kind where you bleed from your eyeballs. I can honestly say I had never seen anyone charged for an ND in the brits, they just sweated profusely, burned a TON of calories, and most likely threw up once or twice.

Is there a place for this style of punishment in lieu of charging/administrative discipline?  Would it work? More importantly, would it be allowed?

 

[2 Cdo]

I, knock on wood repeatedly, have never YET had an ND. I put this down to a number of factors:

A) Keeping a healthy respect for weapons (and being brought up amongst them helped too);
B) Professional pride - having an ND would be a huge slight on my basic soldiering skills, and I would die of embarrassment;

Unfortunately a good number of troops who have ND's either have no respect for the weapons or are afraid of the weapons!
The other thing I find lacking in some troops is professional pride. It seems a number of folks are in the Forces for a paycheck only and couldn't give a rats ass about professionalism!

 

[TCBF]

- The issuing, on tour, of pistols to ranks who, ten years ago, would never have been issued a pistol is a factor as well.  Few of those pers have the expertise or experience one would hope they should have, as the 'gravy train' of pistols often only occurs on tour.

- The issuing of pistols for convenience has it's risks.

 

[George Wallace]

- The issuing, on tour, of pistols to ranks who, ten years ago, would never have been issued a pistol is a factor as well.  Few of those pers have the expertise or experience one would hope they should have, as the 'gravy train' of pistols often only occurs on tour.

To a certain extent that may have some truth.  On the other hand, issuing pistols to ranks who ten years ago may have been entitled to one, but have no proficiency in their use is just as damning. 

When a Troop Officer is issued a pistol and can't assemble it; that usually is a bad sign indicating that he shouldn't have one.

Let statistics show us who the guilty parties are, and what proficiency they held in their pers wpn before we damn anyone.

 

[chris_log]

When a Troop Officer is issued a pistol and can't assemble it; that usually is a bad sign indicating that he shouldn't have one.

I'd argue that it indicates instead that said member needs more training on it. Do you know much training officers generally get on pistols before they hit a unit?

One day learning how to assemble it do the IA's and one day on the range.

If someone can't use a pistol properly before they get one for a tour then the unit has failed to ensure the member has been properly trained on it. Due to limited training time/range time for some units pistol training falls by the wayside in favour of the other 'more used' personal weapons.

 

[dapaterson]

So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?

Whole big can of worms...

 

[Towards_the_gap]

The other thing I find lacking in some troops is professional pride. It seems a number of folks are in the Forces for a paycheck only and couldn't give a rats ass about professionalism!

**EDITED** for pre-posting

Indeed, the way I was 'brought up' in the army was that the higher you went in rank, the following applied:

1.The fitter you had to be
2.The better your weapon handling drills had to be
3.The sharper your all-round tactical drills and skills had to be
4.And god help you if you ND'd, for then how much of a prize c**k would you look to your troops?

#4 has been a personal nightmare for me ever since I gained any rank.

But how do we instill that ethos into troops?

And for the question above, if someone has an ND with a wpn their CofC did not ensure they were familiar with..

Why on earth would they not A) make it known they are not proficient and B) refuse to carry said weapon until they were proficient. Professional pride should also go hand in hand with professional humility - know what you don't know, admit it, and correct it!

 

[Gunner98]

I can honestly say I had never seen anyone charged for an ND in the brits, they just sweated profusely, burned a TON of calories, and most likely threw up once or twice.

Is there a place for this style of punishment in lieu of charging/administrative discipline?  Would it work? More importantly, would it be allowed?

There was at least one MedEvac during my tour where a Brit Commando Sgt had an "ND" into the guts of one of his section members.  Well, perhaps it was not an ND after all.  More PT might not be the answer, more training and familiarization is.  Deterent and punitive punishment will seldom overcome a lack of training and comfort with a weapon, it is more likely to lead to incidents being buried or being reported inaccurately.

If a clearing barrel or pit is in place isn't that for the safety of everyone and not to make poor weapons drills into a spectator sport?  I've witnessed C7 and 25mm weapons being cleared into a barrel/pit that went bang.

Even after 25 years of weapons handling I am not afraid to admit I have failed to properly clear my weapon at least once during convoy drill training with blanks.  Isn't that why it is called training?  Mistakes addressed in Canada saves lives in the sandbox.

 

[chris_log]

So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?

Whole big can of worms...

IMHO (and its just IMHO) all are at faut.

The member: for not speaking up about his/her lack of familiarity before using the weapon (if someone handed me something I wasn't familiar with and told me to 'just use it' I'd say no).

The supervisor: for not ensuring the member was properly trained before being issued the weapon.


The system: I'm sure we're all familiar with the issues with our training system post-basic training.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

To frostnipped elf:

Agreed about punitive measures increasing the likelihood of instances being swept under a carpet or hid. And as for not seeing someone charged with an ND, by this I mean an ND with blanks or on a range with the weapon pointed in a safe direction. I daresay should an incident have occured which you described, than no doubt the negligent discharger would have been charged.

Quite simply as you say the answer, whether achievable or not, is more training, but WITHOUT letting people become too comfortable with their weapons. The point I was trying to make about more PT is that it imbued me with a slight trepidation ever since whenever I had a weapon, to check chamber is clear, and when loaded, hands firmly away from cocking handle, and if made ready, safety on, finger off the trigger, pointed in safe direction (or at the enemy, which is in itself a safe direction!). I attribute this to the training and corrective discipline I received as a sprog.

That being said, I will come on here and freely admit the first time I ND, for I will be lucky if I never have one. Fingers crossed.....

 

[1feral1]

A few paragraphs.....

After the death of 3RAR's PTE Jake Kovko, with his Browning 9mm Vigilante pistol in Baghdad in Apr 06 (a very public inquiry -google this for literally thousands of entries), our tour had actually to justify its use for our pistols - or return them.

This was a typical knee jerk reaction from JTF 633 at Victory, which we were told came from useless civilian politicans back in Canberra. It caused our command unnecessary work, when they were already overtaxed with operational stuff, something I believe any politician cannot comprehend.

IMHO, Kovko was skylarking with his 'empty' pistol when it discharged in his room, fatally wounding him in the head. He was to die later that day at the US Army's 10 CSH, wrapped up in our nations's flag, with his mates surrounding him.

His loss, although tragic, was only his fault, and I realise no matter who anyone is, rules/regs must be adhered to. If you don't you or an innocent mate pays.

We had already adopted the buddy system, and within the FOB (US policy at the tme at all unload bays), all weapons were generally unloaded. Sure we all had our mags/frags all the time, and all rules/regs are only as good as we allow them to be, in that being its up to every person to maintain them, and anyone in a leadership role to police/inforce them.

As for T'sOET on our pistols, fortnightly we did load/unload, strip and assy, degrees of weapons readiness, IA's & stoppages, and safety precs. This was recorded on forms, and placed in files held at the PL level. Weekly trips to the ranges near the 14 July Bridge or FOB Prosperity were also conducted. This routine alos included carbine and Para Minimi. Drills were also conducted on MAG 58 and M242, along with daily maintenance. Again IMHO, all ranks, all trades were always up to speed on their pers wpns. Always.

To sum up, as primarily as LAV crew, the need for our pistols was justifed by our OC, and for my entire tour (3 days shy of 7 months), the only time I did not wear my pistol was when I was in the shower, or when I was asleep. It was loaded only outside the FOB, as was my carbine.

Weapons were not allowed to be cleaned in rooms, and only in designated areas. We did the best to maintain our level of readiness, with two UD/NDs on the entire tour. One Minimi and one MAG 58. One TPR and one SGT, both RAAC (black hats), not cooks or clerks. One UD is too many.

I never observed anyone on our tour 'doing a quickdraw' or acting foolish with any weapon.

I also never observed any shortfalls in personal weapons drills from any men in my platoon. As their PL SGT, it was my job to ensure all forms were completed by the CPLs on their pers and filed, and these 'rtns' were forwarded by email to the CSM for his action/info.

To sum up, we are only as good as our weakest link, IMHO anyways. Our 3RAR OC and CSM expected nothing but the best from their men, and got it overall. Our standard was set very high, and this is how it has to be.

Regards,

OWDU

EDITed for spelling

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When then does a soldier get to practice with his weapons? I must do hundreds of draw fires at home, just to maintin an average proficiency for IPSC. Do units on tour setup "safe areas" weapon drills can be carried out outside of the normal training routine?

 

[PMedMoe]

When then does a soldier get to practice with his weapons? I must do hundreds of draw fires at home, just to maintin an average proficiency for IPSC. Do units on tour setup "safe areas" weapon drills can be carried out outside of the normal training routine?

We went to the ranges quite often when I was on tour.  At the very least, if a soldier need to practice, perhaps they could approach their CoC and have it done (time permitting) in a safe manner.

 

[Haggis]

So here's a question:  if someone has an ND with a weapon their CoC did not ensure they were familiar with - where all does the fault lie?  The soldier who had the ND?  The supervisors who didn't ensure he was familiar with it?  The training system that didn't deliver the needed training?

And one which a addressed in my Regiment last Fall.  An RMS Clerk had an ND on the range during an "unload - prepare for inspection" on the firing point.  Investigation revealed said clerk had not handled the weapon since last PWT in 2007, had never done a refresher session in 2008 and the "handling test" was done as a group.  Ergo, the following points came to light:

- NCO conducting the handling test could not honestly say that said clerk had passed;
- OIC practise had not confirmed with the OIC handling test that said clerk was "good to go";
- Said clerk had voiced the opinion that she needed more practise;
- This opinion was ignored ("you'll be alright, it's only PWT1")

The C of C for the Pl/Coy tasked with the range insisted, almost demanded, that this clerk (from BHQ) be charged "as an example".  I refused.  The C of C had not done it's due diligence in preparing said clerk for the practise.

 

[dapaterson]

The C of C for the Pl/Coy tasked with the range insisted, almost demanded, that this clerk (from BHQ) be charged "as an example".  I refused.  The C of C had not done it's due diligence in preparing said clerk for the practise.

Here's where you and I differ:  Charges should have resulted.  Those who did not do their job to ensure the soldier was ready failed in military duties.  Or is that not quite the outcome the Pl was lookign for?

 

[OldSolduer]

And one which a addressed in my Regiment last Fall.  An RMS Clerk had an ND on the range during an "unload - prepare for inspection" on the firing point.  Investigation revealed said clerk had not handled the weapon since last PWT in 2007, had never done a refresher session in 2008 and the "handling test" was done as a group.  Ergo, the following points came to light:

- NCO conducting the handling test could not honestly say that said clerk had passed;
- OIC practise had not confirmed with the OIC handling test that said clerk was "good to go";
- Said clerk had voiced the opinion that she needed more practise;
- This opinion was ignored ("you'll be alright, it's only PWT1")

The C of C for the Pl/Coy tasked with the range insisted, almost demanded, that this clerk (from BHQ) be charged "as an example".  I refused.  The C of C had not done it's due diligence in preparing said clerk for the practise.

I would agree with this course of action. I don't know which regiment you are in, but if we see a troop that has difficulties, we sort them out quickly. We will either pull them off the range and give them more training, or have one of the safety staff supervise them a bit more diligently.
As for charging someone, the NCO that conducted the handling test should be charged as well as OIC of the practice.

 

[Haggis]

Here's where you and I differ:  Charges should have resulted.  Those who did not do their job to ensure the soldier was ready failed in military duties.

As for charging someone, the NCO that conducted the handling test should be charged as well as OIC of the practice.

My comments were regarding the firer only.  Other actions sorted out the C of C.

Or is that not quite the outcome the Pl was looking for?

Things did not go at all as the Pl/Coy expected.  Being held accountable for someone else's ND was not their desired outcome.

I don't know which regiment you are in, but if we see a troop that has difficulties, we sort them out quickly. We will either pull them off the range and give them more training, or have one of the safety staff supervise them a bit more diligently.

Luckily, the only difficulty this soldier experiended was during the "unload".  There was no apparent need for sorting her out until that point.

 

[Gunner98]

When then does a soldier get to practice with his weapons? I must do hundreds of draw fires at home, just to maintin an average proficiency for IPSC. Do units on tour setup "safe areas" weapon drills can be carried out outside of the normal training routine?

During the latter part of my tour during Nov 08, the KAF 25m range was closed due to "high lead levels in the butts".  So pers employed inside the wire but departing for tasks and new arrivals could not zero their weapons.  Many pers were walking around on KAF had not fired their weapons since pre-deployment training.  Many who came in before Oct 08 were allowed to fire 5 rounds from C7 and 9mm.

A summary investigation into a range practice that results in a ND will normally disclose several levels of poor drills by participants and conducting staff. Charging someone may be the answer, however, corrective action at all levels will minimize NDs on future range practices.

 

[OldSolduer]

During the latter part of my tour during Nov 08, the KAF 25m range was closed due to "high lead levels in the butts".  So pers employed inside the wire but departing for tasks and new arrivals could not zero their weapons.  Many pers were walking around on KAF had not fired their weapons since pre-deployment training.  Many who came in before Oct 08 were allowed to fire 5 rounds from C7 and 9mm.

One question: Who (which country) owns the 25 m range? I've never been to KAF.

IF it is a Canadian owned range, then sort it out. What's the problem? We are in theatre of operations....

 

[meni0n]

At KAF range 06, zeroing weapons. It went something like this " Target to your front, 25m, on your own time *BANG*..... " It was considered an ND and I believe the individual had to pay for it. Now, does anyone remember how much did the 105mm ND at MSG cost?