Military Review English Edition March-April 2016 - Page 121

ARMY CIVILIANS The title “Department of the Army Civilian” no longer captures the requirements laid out by our profession. As this article has demonstrated, Army civilians are not members of the Army Profession by decree but by necessity. The aspects and essential characteristics of the Army Profession remain the same for all cohorts. All members of any profession must be certified. They must master specialized knowledge and use it in a moral and ethical manner as they apply their unique service. And, they must never abrogate through omission or commission the inherent trust afforded by the society the Army serves. We have demonstrated that the Army Civilian Corps meets those criteria. The current situation is not nirvana, nor is the Army Civilian Corps fully professionalized. There are gaps in current policies, strategies, and programs that produce friction in the process. But these inadequacies and gaps do not and will not dissuade the commitment of the Army to building the professional Army civilian. Col. Kim Summers, U.S. Army, retired, has earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in education. He is a graduate of the Army Senior Service College Fellowship, the Federal Executive Institute, the Brookings Institution, the George Washington University’s National Security Studies Program, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government’s Senior Executive Fellowship, Harvard University. He has held multiple command, staff, and leadership positions during his military and civilian careers, including director of the Army Management Staff College and garrison command, where he has observed the professionalism of the Army Civilian Corps firsthand. Notes 1. Robert Hynes, “Army Civilians and the Army Profession,” Military Review (May–June 2015): 72. 2. Ibid. 3. Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1, The Army Profession (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], June 2015), 1-1. 4. Ibid., 1-1–1-2 and 1-4–1-5. 5. Ibid., 1-1. 6. Hynes, “Army Civilians,” 72. 7. ADRP 1, Army Profession, 1-1. 8. Hynes, “Army Civilians,” 72. 9. ADRP 1, Army Profession, 1-1. 10. ADRP 3-0, Unified Land Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, May 2012), 1-7. 11. Army Doctrine Publication 1, The Army (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, September 2012), 2-2. 12. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet (TP) 525-3-1, The U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World (Fort Eustis, VA: TRADOC, 31 October 2014), i. 13. ADRP 3-0, Unified Land Operations, 1-7. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. ADRP 1, Army Profession, 1-2. MILITARY REVIEW  March-April 2016 18. Ibid., 3-1. 19. Louis Lasagna, “Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version,” Tufts University, 1964, as cited in “Bioethics,” Johns Hopkins University Sheridan Libraries and University Museums website, accessed 27 January 2016, http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c. php?g=202502&p=1335759. 20. TP 525-3-1, Army Operating Concept, iv. 21. ADRP 1, Army Profession, A-1. 22. Army Training and Leader Development Panel, Army Civilian Study, 30 January 2003, para. 127. See also “Army Training and Leader Development—Civilian Implementation Plan (ATLD-CIV),” Civilian Personnel Online website, 5 December 2006, accessed 27 January 2016, http://cpol.army.mil/library/permiss/75b.html. 23. ADRP 1, Army Profession, 1-1. 24. Ibid., 1-5 and 2-4. 25. Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 19 September 2014), 88, para. 3-64. 26. Ibid., 96, para. 3-80. 27. ADRP 1, Army Profession, 1-1. 28. ADRP 6-0, Mission Command (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, May 2012), 2-1. The distinction between commanders and civilian supervisors is moot due to the need for all to adopt the philosophy of mission command as unified action partners. 29. ADRP 1, Army Profession, 1-1. 119