# Discipline



## winchable (15 Feb 2004)

Another thread was leaning towards this discussion already, it is also something that comes up in my family quite a bit (It being a military family)
It is that of discipline;
What are everyones thoughts on disciplinary actions within the military, both from a historical perspective as well as its place in the new army?
How has it changed changed over the years?
Does harsher action breed a more disciplined soldier or unit? If so, why has physical discipline been discontinued?


Thoughts anyone?


----------



## dano (15 Feb 2004)

I think disciplinary action are to be harsh, yet just.

"Don‘t make a man do push-ups in the snow in his t-shirt and pants because he can‘t properly clean the parade square" ..... Though.. it is temping..

It‘s importent to have discipline swift and regularly. I‘ve all seen to much slack from Cadets, and all they would need is some physical disciplinary action.
Having them pick up garbage or clean the toilets with a tooth brush does not work on to well with these Cadets.

I think, you can‘t live with it, but you can‘t live with-out it.


----------



## winchable (15 Feb 2004)

The punishment has to match the infraction that goes without saying.

...I don‘t know about introducing corporal punishment into the cadet program...thats almost sick.


----------



## Franko (15 Feb 2004)

Corporal punishment shouldn‘t be involved in the cadet movement whatsoever.

As for punishment here‘s a good one....

We had some jokers from the Engineers who are part of the battle group do something pretty stupid things recently. One night they decided to spray their units name on the wall with a fire extinguisher with the added point that they "ruled". The camp SSM did some looking and poking and prodding...found out who they were. 

They were put on defaulters for a couple of weeks before their charge parade.

The duty? Fire picket from 1700 to 2400 every night with a fire extinguisher attached to a harness that they HAD to wear during the course of their picket.   

They also had a dozen sheets stragically placed around the camp that had to be signed during the course of their rounds...and the SSM checked them EVERY morning.

Quite creative I think...any thoughts?

Regards


----------



## Pikache (15 Feb 2004)

It certainly gets the point across.


----------



## pte anthony (15 Feb 2004)

For punishment to work the solider must understand why he or is being punished he must accept his mistake but above all he must feel a loyality or trust to the one that is enforcing the punishment, because if he does not the punishment will not help to right the wrong in the future but instead it will create feelings of resentment and the it will be the source of problems in the future.Punishment is meant to correct bad habits and make a better solider I believe that more dicipline is needed in the forces right now at least with what I see on the reserve side anyway. I hope its not like that when I go reg    :soldier:


----------



## patt (15 Feb 2004)

its getting bad, people who do bad things dont really get what they deserve, i dont know if this applies to all bases but over here They arnt allowed to be punished by workin in the Kitches on weekends cuz its ‘too hard‘ on them


----------



## winchable (15 Feb 2004)

That kind of punishment suits the crime perfectly.

Has anyone (most likely the older members) experienced corporal punishment  *first hand* and seen the results either positive or negative in their time in?

I‘m not advocating it, mind you, I‘m just curious.


----------



## dwild40 (15 Feb 2004)

Che
We had a rather large rotund individual in our unit whom we called "earth" in reference to his body shape.  Also our RSM at the time was ordered to lose some weight unbeknownst to me.  Any way we had a trg weekend at Ipperwash and I went into the stores bldg to use the washroom I saw this round individual at the urinal and I slapped his back and said "how‘s it going earth?" When I started my business it was then I realized it was the RSM and not earth.  I felt 2 inches tall and I could not apologize enough to him.  He accepted my apologies.  However I used to have a big mouth and I told A buddy "You‘ll never believe what I just did".  I told him, and of course it went up the chain of command in no time.  Now it wasn‘t corporal punishment I was subjected to.  It was Master Corporal punishment.  For 6 months I was assigned Orderly Corporal duties for every Trg weekend.  No relaxation for me with my buddies in the mess.  I had to stay in the orderly room should anything arise.  However it was easier to sleep there than in the barracks as there was no one else snoring within a 100m radius.  Also during the days I‘d get assigned sentry duty at the beach while the ranges were in use.  Not so bad in the Spring but in the winter it sure sucked.


----------



## gate_guard (16 Feb 2004)

Discipline is part and parcel of the military. Without discipline our military would not function, we would be a band of armed roving thugs. There is a difference, however, between useless and effective discipline. Useless discipline involves tasks that only make the soldier hate his job. Effective discipline corrects the problem and makes that troop a better soldier. Now what constitutes either is a fine line. No punishment should be too easy yet... There are no bad troops, just bad leaders and discipline is a tool for leaders to use. It most cases, disciplinary actions would be prevented if leaders were doing there job.


----------



## winchable (16 Feb 2004)

I suppose what I should ask is:
Does anyone think that "old school" discipline had its merits?And is the new army at a loss without it?


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Che:
> [qb] I suppose what I should ask is:
> Does anyone think that "old school" discipline had its merits?And is the new army at a loss without it? [/qb]


Yes to both question‘s!
Just one case in point:When preinspecting troop‘s and you find a fault you must inform that person that you are going touch them and correct thier uniform!!
If you follow the rule‘s.

Give me a break!!!

If they are trained they should know better and I should be allowed to dress them down on thier failing!!

All suger and spice corrective measure‘s don‘t work because the offender‘s know that they can get away with anything just short of murder because of the Official Policies!!

It‘s so easy to be called up on charge‘s of harasment,racism or sexism etc these day‘s that one has to be very carefull what one say‘s or does because of the broad rule‘s inplace today.

Where does it stop?


----------



## winchable (17 Feb 2004)

Does anyone think that physical punishment has no place in the army whatsoever, and that the new rules are fine, if not better then the old way of doing things?


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2004)

I have a better question.  Why is collective punishment now offically outlawed for individual mistakes.  I personally feel that nothing reinforces the value of failure or success as a team than having the whole unit suffer for some shitbirds failure.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] I have a better question.  Why is collective punishment now offically outlawed for individual mistakes.  I personally feel that nothing reinforces the value of failure or success as a team than having the whole unit suffer for some shitbirds failure. [/qb]


Very true, i know myself personally would take alot more care in what im doing if i knew the rest of the guys in my unit were going to suffer. I can take punishment, but not when others are punished on my behalf.

My favourite is on Full Metal Jacket when he makes the guy eat the doughnut while his buddies do push-ups. That alone would motivate me to never screw up again.


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] I have a better question.  Why is collective punishment now offically outlawed for individual mistakes.  I personally feel that nothing reinforces the value of failure or success as a team than having the whole unit suffer for some shitbirds failure. [/qb]


Well that‘s a new one on me and it suck‘s!!


Collective remiedial training teach‘s.What I mean is after a section has been given remiedal training as whole for one man/women‘s action‘s they all get together to correct that person‘s failing‘s and learn how to work as a team and if not the corrective measure‘s will continue untill the team learn‘s how to help and work together.
Yet is no fun for instructer‘s either as it take‘s away from thier free time aslo.

That was how I was taught and has worked for my self and many other‘s with in this forum.
But vicious remiedial training I do go against and in the past it did happen (have seen it and been abused )and this is why we have the new broad policies which suck.

Higher should let common sense reign and remove the present policies and let those being trained know what is expected of them that if they do not meet the grade they will recieve collective or individual remiedial training and if they agree they sign the paper if not they don‘t sign up.

TEAM WORK WIN‘S WAR‘S!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Feb 2004)

Infanteer, let me get this straight. Are you telling me if I was instructing a course and during a run someone started to lag behind that I could‘nt do the infamous "doublerightwheel" and go back with the troops to pick him/her up? This was basic team building back in my day. It just gets weirder all the time.   CHEERS


----------



## Infanteer (18 Feb 2004)

No that is still possible.  Don‘t get me wrong, the instructors still think of good methods of collective punishment to motivate the group.

However, things such as group PT is forbidden if given for someone‘s less then satisfactory effort on an inspection.  This, I feel, eliminates an important method for reinforcing proper behaviour.


----------



## gate_guard (18 Feb 2004)

While collective punishment can be and is an effective tool for team building it has it‘s place. You have to keep in mind why you are using it. Are you making everyone do pushups because one person screwed up? That fails in its intent because it only creates a rift between the troops. The individual who screwed up becomes alienated and the rest of the troops pin their discomfort on that one troop. Full Metal Jacket is a prime example. What happened? Buddy ended up going psycho cause the rest of the course felt he was dragging them all down. If you‘re going to use collective punishment, it has to be for a collective crime, ie a few troops screw up as opposed to one. This is especially pertinent with todays diversity of individuals joining the army. 

You have to remember what the end goal is and teach accordingly. The goal is not to see how hard you can make it for the troops (the typical "When I went through I had to do 1000 pushups a day so I‘ll make these guys do 2000). The goal is to see every troop pass learning all the information required and prepared to join his respective unit. Obviously this becomes difficult with the weak standard in todays army. But nonetheless, if I‘m instructing a troop who will later join my unit, regardless of whether I like him or not, it is my duty to ensure he is as well trained as possible. This becomes inherently more difficult if he is isolated through methods such as collective punishment. As I stated earlier, collective punishment has its place, but instructing today is a science and a careful balance has to be struck for the benefit of all the troops, not just the keeners.

Everyone would love to see a high standard set for joining, to weed out the weak from the get go. Unfortunately this is not the case and one has to keep in mind that someday you may be on operations beside the troops you just trained.


----------



## combat_medic (18 Feb 2004)

I agree with collective punishment in certain cases. The whole jelly doughnut incident would certainly make me feel awful enough to never repeat a fault, but not everyone is the same way.

On my basic, we had a lot of collective pushups for doing things wrong (someone misses a timing, talking too much in class etc.), but there was one girl on my course who just didn‘t get it. She would miss a timing, and we‘d all be down doing pushups until she arrived. This happened several times, and when we confronted her about it, she said "why should I care? It‘s not like _I‘M_ getting punished for it." We continued to get group punishments for her infractions, and she continued to be apathetic about it. Eventually, the only way we could get her punished was to start blading her as a course. She ended up getting punished individually, and learned her lesson.

That girl is a perfect example of a time when collective punishment did not work, but I do think that it‘s a great idea, for the vast majority of the time. I think any punishment should be fair and appropriate, and teach them a lesson about what they did.

I don‘t think corporal punishment (as in hitting/beating a troop, NOT as in doing PT or something physical) is warranted, and I would have a hard time finding it justifiable in any given situation. Yes, there are times when I have seen someone screw up badly enough that you‘d like to smack them upside the head, but I think that to give in to that shows your failure as a leader.

My two cents.


----------



## meni0n (18 Feb 2004)

What we usually had was, if a troop screwed up and he was doing push ups, everyone just joined him in doing pushups. What kind of buddies just stand there and watch you do pushups ?


----------



## Pikache (18 Feb 2004)

I think this thread belongs more into the general discussion forum.    

I think effectiveness of disciplinary measures depend willingness of troops to accept discipline.

But because of measures to ‘protect‘ troops from abuse by instructors, it‘s gone so far that instructors have very few means to enforce discipline. (And have to be pretty creative for team disciplinary measures. C*** inspection for one)

New recruits these days come from a society of ‘Me, Myself and I‘ and supposedly army is suppose to teach them this mysterious thing called ‘Teamwork‘, but how can you teach recruits discipline and teamwork when an instructor cannot give push ups to entire course? (correct me if I‘m wrong)

If a troop gets little stressed out, he can run to the chaplain. (a troop got a pass from chaplain saying he can go back home on a weekend for a family BBQ) If an instructor gives a troop a bit of hard time and the troop decides to run to the chaplain, woe be to the instructor.
I‘m not badmouthing the chaplains, but they are being used to by pass and even undermine discipline.

It now takes a troop 3 failed PO checks per course to get recoursed. The amount of paperwork to RTU a troublesome troop is great that by the paperwork is done, the troop has graduated the course.

So, the way I see it, at the end of the course, there‘s three groups.
There‘s the average group, those who do what is asked and passes the course.
There‘s the above average group, those who want to be motivated and works hard.
Then there‘s the bags of junk who doesn‘t care and thinks army is some sort of joke and is undisciplined and don‘t care about teamwork.

These bags return to their units, and it becomes up to the unit to slowly drive these bags out. (never mind the hours and money wasted on these bags)

Frankly I am shocked at some troops talking back to sergeants and master corporals and are unfazed by someone with a leaf. Of course, good NCOs have their own ways and personality to sort these bags out, but not all NCOs have that.

I‘m all for using the full power of military justice (charge them until their tongues drop).

Perhaps a week trip to Club Ed (even if they are new recruits) will sort them out.


----------



## Jungle (18 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by gate_guard:
> [qb] There are no bad troops, just bad leaders and discipline is a tool for leaders to use. It most cases, disciplinary actions would be prevented if leaders were doing there job. [/qb]


Would you mind sharing your apparently wealthy experience in Leadership with us ??? 
So you don‘t think there are dumba&&es out there in the Junior Ranks ??? Well, let me tell you: there are dumba&&es at all levels.
The problem we have right now is that a large number of Leaders DO NOT use disciplinary (or administrative) action to correct deficiencies. Some people think Leadership is a popularity contest...
And then there are "followers" who always think they can do much better than their Leaders... but they have never been put in a situation where they have to make a decision.
Remember hindsight is always 20/20.



> There are no bad troops, just bad leaders


You talk like a union representative


----------



## winchable (18 Feb 2004)

Could anyone throw out a situation where corpporal punishment would be a viable means? Either where it has been used historically, or where they think it could be beneficial today.

I don‘t really advocate it, but with training for a violent profession such as the military, I could see where those who might advocate it are coming from.

Although I believe even historically, corporal punishment was limited to those in the field and on active service, not trainees or the like.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (18 Feb 2004)

If there was more ‘private‘ punishment then you would not have a need for much ‘corporal‘ punishment.   :warstory:  Learn early and learn well. I miss the good old days when soldiers were trained without being able to yap on about knowledge of their rights.    
You have offended me Mr. NCO and I am going to report you! WTF? This is the Army sunshine, everything is offensive and if you want to report me you had better be a fast runner ‘cause I don‘t give headstarts. Let‘s go for a little tab in the woods while you think about that.
Send them home to momma I say.  :crybaby:


----------



## max flinch (18 Feb 2004)

I think there are plenty of ways to apply consequences to undesirable behaviour in a group of troops without resorting to corporal punishment; ie, beating someone. Good old fashioned exercise works really well, within limits (of which there are plenty these days). I never read or heard of anyone dying from doing pushups, nor did I ever read of fatal injuries suffered whilst leopard crawling in the mud.

Gate Guard,
If an individual does something on course that merits remedial attention from staff, there‘s already a rift between that person and the rest of the troops. It falls into two sides of the same equation: The individual should have been working to ensure that they conformed with the rest of the team (polished boots, clean rifle, whatever). The rest of the troops should be working to ensure that they collectively take care of everyone - "Hey, need a hand with those boots?"
As for your delightful assertion that there are no bad troops (only bad leaders), that really seems like an effort to relieve each and every F**ckee of responsibility for any action they may or may not take. "Gee, corporal, I‘m sorry I shot my fireteam partner. It‘s your fault - you should have been right there to tell me not to point my weapon in an unsafe direction. Can you get me a glass of water?"


----------



## dwild40 (18 Feb 2004)

As for actual corporal punishment.  Well...an instructor or superior was never officially allowed to strike a subordinate, I cannot not say it did not happen.  I got into trouble for beaning a guy with a piece of chalk who was disrupting my class on M72‘s.  He received a scratch and it did draw a drop of blood.  
However that aside, corporal punishment by definition impies a physical aspect.  Therefore does saying to a subordinate for an infraction of some kind "drop and give me 50" costitute a part of corporal punishment?  Emphatically NO!!  It is to serve as a reminder to that subordinate never to forget.  Striking, hitting, or whipping does, and that would not be condusive to a team that functions and is built upon mutual respect.  It would only breed resentment and for the loose cannon, revenge.  
Most fiction is based on reality and W.E.B. Griffin‘s series of books "The Corps".  ( Great read BTW ) One of them, Book 3 I believe, is a story about recruits getting their training under a sadistic Corporal.  This Corporal would never be sent overseas with his subordinates because he would have been killed by them.  So when his abuse was revealed he was quietly transferred to an administrative position.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Feb 2004)

Gate Guard,

Remember "Possum"; he proves that statement is false.

Its been my experience that the general rule of thumb is that in the Army on average there will be:

10% of guys who are extrememly motivated and will do well without supervision.  These guys usually tend to congregate in the professional, high-speed organizations

and 

10% who are bags of **** who need constant supervision and take up 90% of the leadership‘s efforts.  In really good units these guys usually can‘t cut it and are sent off somewhere else where the damage they can cause is migitated.  

Finally

The other 80% will be squared away under the proper motivation and good leadership, or experience poor morale and less than satisfactory effort if they suffer under poor leadership.  I think this 80% is wehere the somewhat inaccurate dictum "There are no poor troops, only poor leaders" originates.

-----

As for my views on group punishment, I feel it is necessary in basic training to highlight to the rest who the non-hackers are before they end up on operations and go coo-coo.

As well, group punishment can act as a good stressor on courses that require it.


----------



## chriscalow (20 Feb 2004)

well said.


----------



## gate_guard (20 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 10% of guys who are extrememly motivated and will do well without supervision.  These guys usually tend to congregate in the professional, high-speed organizations
> 
> ...


I disagree, I think this statement arises from the other 20%. The middle group will do what you tell them regardless. It is challenging the switched on, piss and vinegar types and boot****ing the retards where a leader proves he can bring his section together. If he can‘t, no matter the level of competence in the section, they will underperform. Infanteer, prime example is a guy who didn‘t quite make it onto our tour (leader type). There was nothing wrong with his troops, he failed in his duties as a leader, plain and simple.

Obviously there are exceptions, there always is. Some troops are beyond help, they shouldn‘t be in in the first place.



> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> As for my views on group punishment, I feel it is necessary in basic training to highlight to the rest who the non-hackers are before they end up on operations and go coo-coo.
> 
> As well, group punishment can act as a good stressor on courses that require it. [/qb]


I think your confusing group training and group punishment (I include plain old cock in the group training category). I‘m referring to situations where the entire group is punished for the actions of one individual. Again, I‘m not completely against this, sometimes the rest of the group will sort out that individual. But if that is not working, at some point you have to address the individual. You can‘t keep punishing the group for that one individuals continual screw ups. Instead of bringing the group together, it will isolate that individual, who possibly just needed some extra training and was a slow learner. Again it all ties back to leadership qualities. A leader has to be aware of the needs of his troops, he has to punish when appropriate, but also find out the cause of the problem.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2004)

When I joined up in the reserves back in 76-77 I had a M/BDR from the Reg force who was definitely â Å“old schoolâ ? If you screwed and did something stupid, you could expect a smack on the back of the head in an instant. However if he felt that you were being unfairly abused, he would be the first to back you up and protect you, you were â Å“his troopsâ ? and no one screwed us around. Basically, hard discipline without care/love is useless. The troops would rather be a with a gruff trooper who they respected than a â Å“PC typeâ ? that would sell them out at a moments notice.

By the way I had some unofficial â Å“corporal punishmentâ ? applied to me with the help of the canvas belt from the 51 pattern webbing, shortly after I joined. I had been a mouthy little Pri*k until then. I actually became good buddies with the person who did it. He also didn't go to far overboard and made sure it was just enough to get my full and undivided attention.


----------



## gate_guard (20 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Max Flinch:
> [qb]
> Gate Guard,
> If an individual does something on course that merits remedial attention from staff, there‘s already a rift between that person and the rest of the troops. It falls into two sides of the same equation: The individual should have been working to ensure that they conformed with the rest of the team (polished boots, clean rifle, whatever). The rest of the troops should be working to ensure that they collectively take care of everyone - "Hey, need a hand with those boots?"[/qb]


Exactly, but if the situation does not rectify itself, at some point continually punishing the group for the continual failures of that individual is pointless. This is the time to address the individual instead of continually punishing the group.



> Originally posted by Max Flinch:
> [qb]
> As for your delightful assertion that there are no bad troops (only bad leaders), that really seems like an effort to relieve each and every F**ckee of responsibility for any action they may or may not take. "Gee, corporal, I‘m sorry I shot my fireteam partner. It‘s your fault - you should have been right there to tell me not to point my weapon in an unsafe direction. Can you get me a glass of water?" [/qb]


No, your referring to the few losers who shouldn‘t have even applied to the CF. But just to play along, name one time the aforementioned scenario occured? Better yet, just give me one example of a troop who went up to his section commander and asked for a glass of water. Try to keep your examples in the realm of reality and I‘ll be more than willing to discuss and debate them.


----------



## Jungle (20 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by gate_guard:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gate_guard (20 Feb 2004)

Jungle,
You took my post out of context. Your post looks fine and dandy when you delete half of what I said. I did not say that incidents such as the one you mentioned don‘t happen. I did however object to Max Flinch‘s example where a guy has an nd (yes it happens) but then turns around to say "Sorry Corporal, but you should have been there to stop me. Can I have a drink of water?" Now I know you‘ve been around the proverbial block so maybe you can tell me if, in your experience, some guy popped off an nd, turned around and tried to pin it on the nearest higher rank, then asked them for a glass of water. If you think that is a good example to base ones argument on then I‘ve already talked myself out of this one.

As for leadership experience, not much, a mere 4 months as a section commander in the militia. I wouldn‘t count this nearly as valuable as the experience of serving under some outstanding NCOs who would prove at least one side of my argument in a heartbeat. Does this make me an expert? No, and I don‘t claim to be.


----------



## Jungle (20 Feb 2004)

Max flinch used that example to illustrate your statement about there being only good troops and bad Leaders. I don‘t think he meant for it to be a "real life" example.
Now what I‘ve seen happen is, a Trooper going down and he tries to draw one of his superiors with him (harassment complaint comes to mind)... same thing as someone drowning.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Feb 2004)

I‘ve lost track of what we are argueing about.


----------



## gate_guard (21 Feb 2004)

Infanteer‘s right, this thread has digressed. I‘ll make my final comments on it and then leave it for another thread. It seems that people are focusing on my comment that there are no bad troops, only bad leaders. Firstly though, don‘t make the mistake of equating this to there only being good troops and bad leaders, two completely different concepts. 

I realize now this statement is too general and perhaps a little outdated for todays army. It doesn‘t account for battalion politics, for the odd useless troop who‘s beyond motivation and common sense, as well as the responsibility of the troops to follow without hesitation the decisions of their commander. 

However, this statement is  *not*  meant to be used as an excuse for a troop who failed in his duties. It‘s a challenge for the leader to gauge how effective he is in performing his duties. This applies in garrison and in the field. When something goes wrong, ie a troop screws up, aside from immediately addressing the situation, the next step for a leader should be to ask himself, "Is there anything I could have done?" then further act on it. Sometimes there was something that could have been done, sometimes not. It can be a lonely place at the top but such is the burden of leadership.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Feb 2004)

The DFCE (Defence Force Correction Establishment) is the ADF‘s gaol locacted in the Holsworthy area of Greenhills, at the former School of Military Police, now known as the DPTC (Defence Police Training Centre), which teaches all services of police for the Army, RAN and RAAF in one location.

Australia has similar ways of inmate treatment as in Canada and the UK. Return rate is about 3%, and look at this compared to civvy gaols here in Australia, Canada and the UK.

If only they could run civvy gaols like the military ones, the crims here in Australia, would think twice about re-offending. 

Back in Canada in the late 1970‘s, when I got in a wee bit of strife for helping tear down some Valentine‘s Day decorations in an unruly manner, in an Air Force OR‘s boozer. I was fronted up with others at the local MP shack, and above in big bold writing over the door was the words "DISCIPLINE BY EXAMPLE". I was shtye sacred, and was lucky to get off with a warning. The OC however had other plans, and we brush painted cam patterns on Dueces for a few nights for punnishment.

I am a believer in the Defence Force system of punnishment.

Sadly its getting soft here too, and everyone has to be politically correct. In my view politically correctiveness is the language of cowards!

I think thats one thing we can all agree on here.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (21 Feb 2004)

Thanks for bringing topic back on track Wes.


----------



## Pikache (28 Feb 2004)

Just saw clearance diver selection course ep for Truth, Duty, Valour.

OMG they made candidates do push ups and sit ups if they messed up. Funny how it seemed their atmosphere of doing things seemed more army than army.


----------

