Army Sustainment VOLUME 46, ISSUE 5 | Page 54

fice and place him in a line company, and his learning curve is steep. Experience shows a staggering difference in leadership requirements for NCOs and officers at the platoon and company levels when compared to an S–1 or G–1 shop. S–1 shops are not required to run a comprehensive maintenance program, maintain a property book, or understand the nuances of supply discipline, and they are not required to manage more Soldiers than what amounts to a regular squad. The list of comparisons can go on, but the crux of our current dilemma is that AG Soldiers are not required to build unit-level training plans to support a mission essential task list (METL), and platoon leaders do not understand how to train to support the company METL. If our AG leaders do not fully understand how to train their formations, what can a sustainment brigade do? This highlights the need for AG leaders not only to read Field Manual 1–0, Human Resources, but also to learn to properly plan, execute, and evaluate HR training in accordance with Army Doctrine Publication 7–0, Training Units and Developing Leaders. In that vein, where is our mission training plan for an HR company, and what does an HR platoon or company training and evaluation program look like? Who within the battalion or brigade evaluates them? Is it the human resources operations branches? Perhaps, but have they been properly prepared to train HR leaders? Not likely, given the way they are currently filled and used in garrison. If we think about what we are asking our Soldiers and the sustainment community to do—certifying units for combat—it is a daunting task not required of any other branch in the Army. The danger is that HR becomes irrelevant in the sustainment community where higher commanders are willing to assume risk. Much like a catcher in baseball, it i