Thirty-Six Hours Before the Inspection
You are course senior for a five-day leadership camp. In 36 hours the deputy commandant will inspect the contingent, and your squad's drill is the weakest of the four. Cadet A, the squad's drill commander, has led the last two rehearsals badly - wrong timings, a muddled fall-in, and one shouting match with a section commander. His roommate tells you, in confidence, that A's mother has been in hospital in another city since Monday, that A has been on the phone until 0300 for three nights, and that he has asked the camp adjutant for leave and heard nothing back. Cadet B is a stronger drill commander and is available. Camp rules require any change of appointed cadet leader to be reported to the adjutant in writing. Your squad's readiness report is due to the adjutant tomorrow morning, and the inspection ranking will be published to the whole camp.
1. Set out what you do in the next 36 hours, in order, and the reasoning behind each step.
Read the worked answer
Hour 0–2 - verify, then speak to A directly. A confidential roommate account is a lead, not a fact. Ask A privately, without mentioning the roommate: 'I've noticed the last two rehearsals went badly and I've heard there's something at home. Tell me.' Confirm the leave request and whether he wants the leave.
Hour 2–3 - chase the leave, in writing. Take the pending request to the adjutant myself and ask for a decision today. Most of the problem is an unanswered application, not a failing cadet; resolving it may resolve the drill.
Hour 3–8 - decide the appointment openly with A, not behind him. Options: A stays as commander with B as his deputy running rehearsals; or A steps down temporarily and B takes over, with A briefed and given a defined role (standards, turnout) so it reads as re-tasking, not demotion.
Hour 8–30 - rehearse with the new arrangement, twice. Change costs a rehearsal; introduce it with time to absorb it.
Hour 30–36 - write the report and the appointment change together, so the adjutant reads one story, not two.
Constant: nothing about A's mother leaves the two of us.
2. What do you write in the readiness report, and what do you deliberately leave out?
Read the worked answer
Write:
- The facts of readiness - current standard of drill, the two weak serials, timings achieved, and the specific deficiencies (fall-in sequence, timing on the march-past).
- The action taken - change of drill appointment, effective from a stated time, B in command, A re-tasked, reported per camp rules.
- The residual risk in one honest line: 'Squad drill is assessed as third of four at the time of writing; the change of commander leaves one rehearsal to consolidate.'
Leave out:
- The mother's illness, the hospital, the 0300 phone calls. That is A's private medical and family information; it is not the adjutant's need-to-know, and it is not a mitigating plea that can be traded for a ranking.
- Any suggestion that A was removed for his family circumstances. He was re-tasked because the standard was not being met - which is true and sufficient.
- Excuses about leave processing, unless the adjutant himself asks why a decision was late.
The rule: report performance and decisions fully; report a subordinate's private life not at all, unless safety requires it. Honesty about the squad's weakness and discretion about the man are not in tension - they are two different columns of the same page.
3. The interview board later asks: 'You moved your drill commander 36 hours before an inspection. Was that leadership, or were you protecting a friend?' Answer the board.
Read the worked answer
Model answer:
'Sir, the test I applied was whether A could deliver the standard in the time available, not whether I liked him. He could not, and I said so to his face before I said it to anyone else. The change was reported in writing the same night, under my name, with the weakness stated in the readiness report - I did not hide the squad's position to protect either of us.
Where I would accept the charge of friendship is this: I did not use his family situation as the reason in the report, because it was not the reason, and I did not pass it on to anyone who did not need it. If the board reads that as protecting a friend, I would rather be accused of that than of putting a cadet's private distress into a document to make my own decision look compassionate.
What I would do differently: I would have chased his pending leave request three days earlier. Most of that problem was an unanswered application, and I noticed the effect before I noticed the cause.'
Note the structure: concede the strongest counter-argument, then draw a clear line between discretion and favouritism, then name one genuine improvement. Boards are testing self-awareness, not perfection.