Case Study Of Caadidate Gibbs

Candidate Davis delivered his 5 paragraph order covering most of the key points associated with the order. SNC’s orientation was confusing; SNC briefed that the current location was where the cache was located, then proceeded to state that the fire team needed to advance to the second set of grid points to complete the objective. This information is confusing and is proof that the fire team leader did not fully comprehend the order briefed to him. SNC stuttered consistently, displaying his uncertainty of the information that he was relaying. SNC improperly stated his TCM’s and informed his team they would utilize a column formation from the “assault to attack” and a column from the “attack to assault”. Upon reaching the objective, the fire

SSG Clark continuously exceeds the performance standards for his position as a Survey Team Chief. SSG Clark willingly accepts new assignments and offers to help whenever and wherever he can. SSG Clark remains steadfast making good decisions with his experience while performing demanding additional duties as assigned. Possessing these skills granted SSG Clark to effectively lead and conduct missions with local HAZMAT Teams in the surrounding areas of incidents. The extensive knowledge that SSG Clark possesses of HAZMAT operations allowed him to inform First Responders of developing situations as they accrued insuring there was no lack of

Candidate Martinez began the SULE I evaluation with a standard five paragraph order. Although it was a standard brief, SNC failed to give an adequate mission and execution paragraphs. The statements were disjointed and confusing and were briefed without confidence. SNC was briefed that the mission was to get the map found at the weapons cache and brought back to MA2A IOT have S2 Intel look at it. Candidate Martinez was given the map and reminded that it was part of the mission and not to forget it. SNC started the execution without the map, ultimately failing the mission. During execution Candidate had little regard for the tactical situation as demonstrated with little to no communication for formations at danger areas or dispersion.

Candidate Merritt briefed all the necessary requirements for his five paragraph order. While briefing, SNC had his entire fire team take a knee conducting security looking away from him and the obstacle while he briefed. Because of this, his fire team was not truly oriented to the problem. SNC did not conduct any type of leader's recon and came up with a plan that was severely lacking in detail and was more of a check in the box. While executing the mission, SNC got stumped and could not figure out how to adapt his plan. He paused for a minute while he tried to figure out a new plan, losing crucial time. While SNC addressed security, he did not enforce it. The candidate on security spent more time watching the problem be executed as

SNC failed to accurately calculate the azimuth with in standard. SNC confidently issued a well-organized five paragraph order in a clear, authoritative tone void of filler words. SNC’s Scheme of Maneuver was clear, concise, and illustrated SNC’s use of sound tactical judgment and ability to consider future requirements. SNC issued tasks to each fire team which were consistent with the mission and addressed potential casualties. SNC moved his squad with a sense of urgency and displayed the ability to rapidly make decisions when faced with enemy contact and maneuver as required. However, SNC’s decision to assault through a lone enemy’s fighting position was inconsistent with the mission; the mission was to resupply a desperate squad with

Candidate Kautz briefed a detailed orientation with confidence and clarity. His five paragraph order was complete and briefed thoroughly to his fire team. Candidate Kautz was not the first one on the platform and stood in the back attempting to control his fire team. This caused him to lose control of members and not fully understand the points of friction. Candidate Kautz failed to display a sense of urgency and make decisions quickly when asked by his fire team. Though he maintained confident, his decision making ability lacked. Once he identified his solution would not work, there was a pause of over two minutes in which he stopped to create another solution to the problem. His fire team appeared to respect SNC and he was clearly

Candidate Goff immediately addressed security before briefing his order. SNC briefed in a rushed manner using many “ums” and “uhs,” showing he lacked confidence in his plan. When briefing, he referred to the scenario as an obstacle instead of treating it as a tactical situation. His fast brief was difficult for his fire team to follow, evident by their confusion at the beginning of the mission even though the initial plan was well developed. SNC had to direct his fire team’s actions he had just briefed in order for them to execute. This candidate lost his tactical and situational awareness, evident by his loud instructions throughout the task and the fire team dragging their weapons through the sewer tunnel making the execution extremely loud.

Candidate Huff did not brief the admin/logistics and command/signal paragraphs of his order. The rest of his order was briefed with shaky confidence involving heavy use of "ums." SNC did not establish security during his brief or during execution. SNC demonstrated inefficient use of his time by spending nearly sixty seconds re-slinging the teams rifles in the beginning of execution. Due to a lack of an initial plan following the brief, the team had to begin execution whileconducting reconnaissance and orienting to the problem. Once oriented, SNC was hesitant in deciding how to engage the problem. Once a scheme of maneuver was developed, he was able to communicate his guidance to the team members and begin driving his team toward mission

* "The command team at Rampart during most of this five-year period lacked cohesive direction."

SNC conducted an incomplete 5 paragraph order which did not cover all of the information pertaining to the mission. For example, the mission was to locate, close with and destroy the enemy preventing them from setting up a hide sight. SNC did not cover the administration and logistics paragraph also; SNC failed to inform the fire team of the chow plan. SNC did not seem to understand the measure of his brief . During the brief SNC used an extended amount of time by repeating the situation multiple times causing confusion within the fire team. SNC did develop an initial plan prior to starting the execution; however SNC was not able to make adjustments to the initial plan. SNC ’s failure of future planning was evident during the enemy contact

Candidate Rabideau while briefing his order stumbled a few instances but was able to regain composure after moments of difficulty. However, he did brief most portions necessary to execute the mission and his plan reflected coherent thoughts. Prior to the execution phase, SNC posted security. SNC oriented security in the correct direction, assigned sectors of fire, and ensured he was not stagnant. SNC did not look at the obstacle prior to his initial plan. As a result, over two minutes passed after the brief; the fire team stood around, did not progress towards mission accomplishment, and waited for orders. Nonetheless, once the fire team focused on their mission, Candidate Rabideau constantly ordered them to remain focused and reminded

Candidate Futch showed he had a basic understanding of the five paragraph order; however, SNC briefed incorrect information during the Situation paragraph of the order. SNC stated that the enemy was currently seen blowing up the bridge and that they were equipped with small arms and IED’s. When really the enemy was known to be in route to blow up the rest of the bridge with no information given about their capabilities. SNC took five minutes to brief his order thus leaving little time to execute. SNC briefed a good initial plan and had candidates start to execute. SNC was the third candidate to get on the wall but was unable to, thus had a candidate from on top of the wall come all the way back down to assist him from the ground. This

SNC spoke at a normal volume and had a calm demeanor during his brief. He provided a good, thorough initial plan, pointing things out and explaining what he wanted to have happen during execution. However, his tasking statements did not adequate explain what he wanted each team member to do. He maintained tactical awareness by posting security and stressing in his brief that the enemy is inbound and the team must maintain a low profile and volume as they maneuver across the obstacle. His transition to execution was slow, and he did not inspire a sense of urgency in his team-members. During execution, his communication was not direct and assertive, but rather slow and contemplative. Throughout execution, SNC moved slowly, which reflected

Candidate Watson briefed an order that had adequate information to carry out SNC’s plan, but was missing several important pieces and had incorrect information. The Orientation only had the current location. SNC did not brief an accurate enemy situation. Instead of stating the enemy passes by every ten minutes, SNC brief every two minutes. SNC’s tasks were merely assignments for team members to utilize a piece of equipment. SNC only briefed one of the several coordinating instructions provided by the evaluator. SNC briefed items in the Admin and Logistics paragraph that were not available in the scenario. Because the enemy situation was incorrect, SNC would halt all actions as if an enemy guard was walking by. This occurred two times throughout

SSG Canada is a dedicated and professional Noncommissioned Officer who achieved course standards. He demonstrated his writing skills by passing all Army Writing Style assignments. SSG Canada expressed his ideas in a well organized and deliberate manner. He presented his Battle Analysis with poise and self-confidence that was very informative to the class. SSG Canada did an outstanding job keeping class members informed and made effective use of both time and subordinates to accomplish all missions. He displayed a remarkable attitude and ensured that standards and discipline were enforced at all times. In the field environment, he was a valuable asset to his team. His input and mentorship on tactics was a multiplier to his peers. SSG