CommunityEditor
04-13-2009, 09:03 PM
The number of soldiers in drug rehab has risen 25 percent since 2003, and Army Secretary Pete Geren is weighing whether to make it easier for soldiers to volunteer for treatment — by letting them go without their commanders’ knowledge.
Some 10,262 soldiers received clinical counseling for alcohol or drug abuse in the Army Substance Abuse Program in fiscal 2008 — 1.8 percent of the active duty force. That’s an average of more than one soldier per company.
But some experts think the rate of drug abuse is much higher, and that if soldiers could commit themselves to ASAP without risk of retribution or concern about damaging their reputations with their commanders, the numbers would be much higher.
Geren is proposing that the Army suspend “commander notification for soldier self-referrals to ASAP treatment if the soldier prefers anonymity.”
Commanders don’t like that idea.
Several company commanders interviewed for this article — all captains — said they need to know what’s happening with their soldiers so that they can plan deployments, watch out for the safety of the unit and help troops with substance abuse problems.
Thomas Marquez, chief of the prevention and training branch at the Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs, said the Army is reviewing “whether or not there is a commander climate that really does foster a stigma to substance abuse counseling.”
“We’re trying to be very conscientious that we do not disturb the authority of the commander with his individual soldiers assigned underneath him,” Marquez said.
That’s just what concerns commanders.
“You can’t deploy a soldier in an ASAP program,” said Capt. James Pradke, a student at the Army Logistics Management College at Fort Lee, Va. “I have to be aware of who’s deployable and who’s not.”
“Do you want a guy driving ammunition or operating machinery around soldiers in the motor pool or holding a weapon and pulling security when he could be abusing a substance? I don’t,” said Capt. David Guida, also a student at the college and the former commander of E Company, 2-3 General Support Aviation Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division.
The officers said most soldiers enter treatment programs involuntarily through a “command-referral,” as opposed to a voluntary “self-referral.”
During his previous experience as a company commander, Pradke said one of his soldiers repeatedly missed formation and job duties due to an alcohol problem. The soldier twice was demoted and referred to counseling. But Pradke said it wasn’t until he escorted the soldier to the program office, sat down with his counselors and arranged for treatment off-site that the young man began to cope with his addition.
“The soldier is now thriving in his unit. That would have been impossible if I was left in the dark,” Pradke said. “It just doesn’t make sense from a command perspective to not be aware of the problem. How can I as a commander really help to facilitate treatment if I don’t know what they’re doing?”
In a letter last year to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Geren said the Army Substance Abuse Program is not disciplinary, though “soldiers who continue to abuse, engage in misconduct, or fail to cooperate with rehabilitation may be subject to administrative and/or disciplinary action.”
McCaskill, who in February introduced legislation to improve the military’s drug rehabilitation programs after raising questions about the Army Substance Abuse Program at Fort Leonard Wood, said the lack of confidentiality is a deterrent to soldiers seeking treatment.
“This has always been a notify-the-commander [process] and so the culture has been, ‘Don’t come forward and ask for help,’” she said during a Jan. 27 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The number of soldiers who were recommended for separation from the service due to failing rehabilitation or drug-related misconduct was 1,254 in 2008, down from 1,464 in 2003, according to the Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs.
Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/04/army_drug_abuse_041209w/
Some 10,262 soldiers received clinical counseling for alcohol or drug abuse in the Army Substance Abuse Program in fiscal 2008 — 1.8 percent of the active duty force. That’s an average of more than one soldier per company.
But some experts think the rate of drug abuse is much higher, and that if soldiers could commit themselves to ASAP without risk of retribution or concern about damaging their reputations with their commanders, the numbers would be much higher.
Geren is proposing that the Army suspend “commander notification for soldier self-referrals to ASAP treatment if the soldier prefers anonymity.”
Commanders don’t like that idea.
Several company commanders interviewed for this article — all captains — said they need to know what’s happening with their soldiers so that they can plan deployments, watch out for the safety of the unit and help troops with substance abuse problems.
Thomas Marquez, chief of the prevention and training branch at the Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs, said the Army is reviewing “whether or not there is a commander climate that really does foster a stigma to substance abuse counseling.”
“We’re trying to be very conscientious that we do not disturb the authority of the commander with his individual soldiers assigned underneath him,” Marquez said.
That’s just what concerns commanders.
“You can’t deploy a soldier in an ASAP program,” said Capt. James Pradke, a student at the Army Logistics Management College at Fort Lee, Va. “I have to be aware of who’s deployable and who’s not.”
“Do you want a guy driving ammunition or operating machinery around soldiers in the motor pool or holding a weapon and pulling security when he could be abusing a substance? I don’t,” said Capt. David Guida, also a student at the college and the former commander of E Company, 2-3 General Support Aviation Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division.
The officers said most soldiers enter treatment programs involuntarily through a “command-referral,” as opposed to a voluntary “self-referral.”
During his previous experience as a company commander, Pradke said one of his soldiers repeatedly missed formation and job duties due to an alcohol problem. The soldier twice was demoted and referred to counseling. But Pradke said it wasn’t until he escorted the soldier to the program office, sat down with his counselors and arranged for treatment off-site that the young man began to cope with his addition.
“The soldier is now thriving in his unit. That would have been impossible if I was left in the dark,” Pradke said. “It just doesn’t make sense from a command perspective to not be aware of the problem. How can I as a commander really help to facilitate treatment if I don’t know what they’re doing?”
In a letter last year to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Geren said the Army Substance Abuse Program is not disciplinary, though “soldiers who continue to abuse, engage in misconduct, or fail to cooperate with rehabilitation may be subject to administrative and/or disciplinary action.”
McCaskill, who in February introduced legislation to improve the military’s drug rehabilitation programs after raising questions about the Army Substance Abuse Program at Fort Leonard Wood, said the lack of confidentiality is a deterrent to soldiers seeking treatment.
“This has always been a notify-the-commander [process] and so the culture has been, ‘Don’t come forward and ask for help,’” she said during a Jan. 27 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The number of soldiers who were recommended for separation from the service due to failing rehabilitation or drug-related misconduct was 1,254 in 2008, down from 1,464 in 2003, according to the Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs.
Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/04/army_drug_abuse_041209w/