View On USFK No Driving Policy
I came upon this Staff Sergeant’s take on the no driving policy implemented by USFK for E6’s and below due to the spike in drunk driving incidents:
Here at Yongsan Army Garrison in Seoul, most E5’s and above are required to live off post on the economy due to a lack of barracks space on post to house them in. Well, after one too many drunk driving incidents, the General decided to take away driving privileges from all Sergeants and Staff Sergeants, even though they are required to live off post. Now, these soldiers who live off post are supposed to either walk in to work every day rain or shine, or take a taxi at their own expense. Some live very far off post, and some are hurt physically and don’t have much choice but to take a taxi.
OK folks, now here is the part that pisses me off the most…..One of the reasons besides drinking and driving when taking away driving privileges away from these soldiers was immaturity, yet UNDERAGE DEPENDENTS here in Yongsan have cars and drivers licenses. Now if this isn’t a slap in the face to every NCO who is walking into work every day then I don’t know what else is. Well, now it should be evident that the driving policy is clearly self serving to our Senior Officers and NCO’s, as who else is crusty enough to have kids old enough to drive in country?? That’s right folks, the top brass and stripes themselves, while pulling driving privileges from those soldiers they should be looking out for kept the driving privileges in place for their own flesh and blood.
I did not know that many junior NCO’s lived off post at Yongsan much less the fact that underage dependents are allowed to drive on Yongsan as well. I can understand this staff sergeant’s frustration level every day seeing high school kids driving cars while junior NCOs can’t plus the fact they have to walk to work every day from off post. Does anyone in Yongsan know if this issue has been addressed yet?
I sure wouldn't recommend taking public transportion other than taxis.
You don't want to get caught on the subway in uniform – especially during one of the bad periods.
This is not a major issue to me, but it is one sign of a blind spot in thinking when it comes to GIs behaving badly.
Koreans always say USFK members go unpunished.
And expats are not infrequent in saying the book should be thrown at them as if they had little restraint.
But, if we step back a minute, the military has control over these individual lives that would choke a civilian to death.
Can you imagine if a factory boss tried to cancel driving privileges for all workers or a large section of workers because a few of them had run ins with the law or were caught drunk driving or something similar?
I'm not saying the military should not have more power over the civil liberties of its people at all. They should. The military is a unique profession. It comes with such strings attached, and that is basically known beforehand. So when you sign up, you should not be suprised when it happens.
Whether keeping these guys from driving is a good, bad, or so-so idea is beyond my guess.
But it just reenforced some thoughts I had watching the discussion of GI crimes over the last few weeks.
I'm not a soldier and I never was a soldier. (Well, I got discharged from the navy with a blood circulation problem shortly after basic training), but I am not out to protect my own no matter what.
It just strikes me who much we ask of these people.
When, what percentage…….6 out of 10? 8 out of 10?…..of us average Joe Citizen would go nuts if we had to put up with much of that stuff.
I'd like to see my boss tell me I could drive because a few coworkers of mine (out of some 32,000 others) did some stupid things.
32,000 people. Think about that. That is about the size of the town where I went to high school.
Imagine if the mayor suspended all the driving priviledges of, say, the 16 through 30 year old group because of speeding problems, wrecks, and some drunk driving incidents?
Unimaginable…..
Utterly……
But hardly as second thought when it comes to the military…..
In reference to a disgusting picture from the Korean military posted on the blogs this week, GIs might not have to literally eat shit, but methaphorically speaking, it seems to be true.
Curfews. No driving. Blamed for the bad acts of others. And so on.
Again, I'm not saying soldiers should be treated by the leadership like civilians. They should not.
It just seems to me a good bit of society doesn't understand the kinds of binds you put yourself under when you sign the contract and put on the uniform.
There is enough space on-post for housing. If people choose to live off-post, they have to deal with the consequences. But then again, housing loves putting people off-post because the corrupt realtors and housing office employees get big bucks (kickbacks) under the table from the OHA payments.
There are still quite a few E-6 and below driving because it is easy to get an exception to policy, especially if you live off-post. Usually they sit way back in the seat so you can't see them and recognize them as E-6 and below. But then again, the E-7s and above who take their junior enlisted girlfriends home also make them sit with the seat laid way back.
Command sponsored kids drive around on post because their parents want them to know how to drive when they get back to the States. The High School runs drivers' ed classes. Yes, most of these kids are spoiled punks and it isn't really fair. But then again, command sponsorship isn't fair.
I didn't know US personnel (one year tour, right?) were allowed to bring POV's to Korea! Are they allowed to own locally purchased ones? I'd be interested in the quick and dirty scoop on this (never having been to Korea).
Regardless, it's just as much wrong to overreact to a problem as it is to ignore it.
It's impossible to stop every last driving violation. If the command cannot provide adequate qtrs for its mid-level NC0's within easy walking distance, then it shouldn't forbid them from driving. Just make sure each of them gets a command briefing and then hold them accountable.
If the Korean police are deliberately choosing American drivers as "targets" for special attention due to politics, then the command needs to address that with the Korean government equally forcefully.
Paul,
Yes, if the military person is either a certain grade or command sponsored, then they're allowed to ship their POV to Korea, or they can easily buy one on the local economy or off another military/civilian member.
This is a pet peeve of mine, especially down here at Osan because here, most people live on base, and you can walk to anywhere on base withing 10-15 minutes. But there's absolutely no parking anywhere because everyone drives from their dorms to work or to the BX, post office etc instead of walking. In my opinion, anyone who's single and lives on base does NOT need a car here in Korea, period. There's plenty of cheap and readily available on and off base public transportation.
As for Korean police targeting American drivers – not true. I've been here this time since 97, and have encountered plenty of DUI stops/traps and every time the cops have seen that I'm a foreigner, they've waved me through without checking me.
Underaged dependents are allowed to drive on-post, only. They have to enroll in the ACS driving class. I don't understand the reasoning behind their being allowed while NCOs are not. Neither group should be driving, in my book. There are plenty of apartments that are available close enough to Yongsan that the NCOs shouldn't have to walk too far. Besides, it's quicker to walk to work than drive, in most cases. If you really want to stir things up, speak up over the fact that a higher percentage of licensed LTCs got stopped for DUIs than E-6s, back in 2003-2004. Those Seoul American High School brats should all go to hell. All they do is make out and smoke outside of the South Post Burger King, and vandalize Hannam Village. They're a damn embarrassment to all of USFK. So is Hannam Village. But, hey, so is every E-5 or E-6 that I've seen pulled over on the side of the road by the KNP. Katchikapshi-da, bruthas.
Just saw your post Nomad…
I don't know how they are over at Osan, but at Humphreys they will definitely stop you. I have personally been stopped four times in two years, and one pretty good friend of mine and two ex-coworkers have gotten DUI's since I arrived.
In Anjong-ri, I've seen checkpoints at every imaginable route out of that city, to include out the back way by the river. I got up to go golfing early one morning last summer and as I was on my way to pick up a friend in town I got stopped at 0500 and asked to blow. Who in the hell would be out driving drunk at 0500???
I don't think they are intentionally targeting Americans though. With all of the construction going on, Anjong-ri attracts a lot of riff raff, both foreign and domestic.
There is NOT enough housing in Yongsan to put everyone on base. The majority of the housing on S post is dedicated to long tour and embassy/Dept of State families. Believe me, I'd have lived on base if I had a choice when I was there. While it was nice to have an apartment on the economy, you can't beat the ammenities you get on an on post billet.
As far as driving, I think it was a knee jerk reaction. Most troops who live in the Yongsan area don't drive when they go out on the town. They tend to park on base and walk to Iteawon, then either walk or take taxis home (most of the folks who live off base live in and around Iteawon). NCO's are theoretically responsible enough to do the right thing all the time. They don't need to be NCO's if they can't. The same goes for officers.
The days of SOFA privilege when it comes to DUI checkpoints are now officially gone! Trust me, they will stop you and ask you to "blow," in plain English, in a New York minute these days.
Without incriminating anyone, I've heard stories about them being slightly more lenient with Americans in certain situations, but they "will" in fact stop you whereas they used to just wave you on through.
Reference SGT's and SSG's not being able to drive, I think it's a pity that grown adults, and more importantly, Noncommissioned Officers in the US military, can’t be trusted to drive POV’s here. You’ve got dependents and junior officers who are 10-15, maybe even 20 years younger than some of these guys sporting around in their POV’s. If I was an NCO I’d be pissed.
On the flip side I acknowledge that parking absolutely sucks and something needed to be done. Rank Has Its Privileges (RHIP) as they say….
Actually it has been an EUSA thinghs for at least the 8 months I been here. Not just 2ID.
Before soldiers involved with UFL could not drink but the soldiers not involved could. Now no one in the entire division can drink. This is a big change. This is the first time I have seen an order like this given outside of Iraq for an entire division.
In Aug 00, the USFK Commander, General Schwartz, directed a policy change in the USFK Vehicle Traffic Regulation allowing E-5’s to register and operate privately owned vehicles in Korea.
Since the exception to policy was granted a very distinct increase in DUI related incidents was noted.
At the time, USFK had 13,967 vehicles registered in the BIDS System.
1712 or 12% of these vehicles were owned or operated by E-5’s.
Of all FY03 accidents, the break down of USFK’s 764 enlisted members cited at fault for these accidents was:
E-1: 49
E-2: 24
E-3: 155
E-4: 232
E-5: 175
E-6: 74
E-7: 48
E-8: 5
E-9: 1
In FY 2003 the PM took a closer look at DUI offenses. This study revealed:
A significant spike in E-5 & E-6 DUI rates.
The majority of DUI incidents occurred off-post (72%).
The USFK DUI arrest rate hit an all-time high of 18 incidents in June 2003.
46% of DUI offenses involved traffic accidents, resulting in one death.
42% of all enlisted DUI’s were E-5’s.
58% of the E-5 DUI incidents were discovered after an accident.
Follow the money trail too.
When a drunken E-5 plows up Veggie Hill outside Gate 3 at 50MPH and hits an ajumma, [think Salinas, Onken, Kirby, etc. to name a few sitting in the foreigners prison right now] chanes are he not only has no brains, but also has no insurance.
That leaves Uncle Sam to pick up the tab of his stupidity.
During the past three years alone the US tax payer has shelled out several million dollars in damages in Korea just to foot the bill for these idiots' accidents.
The tax payer doesn't have to pay for the acts of dependent kids. The parent has to do that. There's the difference. And it's a meaningful difference.
I am sorry to open what has been closed for nearly a year, but every time I see the statistic posted above, I cringe at what to me is blatantly obvious. These are raw numbers. and involve all traffic citations. Note that E-1 through E-4 have not at any time within te last 12 years been able to drive POVs, but they are by far the highest rate of citations…so in other words, they are counting military vehicle accidents as well. The next consideration is that demographics are not taken into account.
If I stated that while that while there were 764 accidents charged to Soldiers in FY03, and then stated 250,000 (Just a made up number but not entirely unrealistic) accidents caused by Korean Nationals (in Korea). Would you think I am sane to accuse Koreans of being bad drivers. No! not after I tell you that the Soldier figure is actually almost 1% of the Soldier population, while the Korean figure is close to 0.5% of the Korean population.
while do not have any real figures, it is simple to understand that the higher ranks have less numbers. I would say the demographics actually show that all ranks (based on population) either have simular percentages to other ranks, or you might even find that the higher ranks get in more accidents. Unfortunately without hard fact on the rank demographics in Korea, that facts will be hard to prove.
But when you look at the parking situation on mot bases, its understandable why they might want to ristict POV ownership.
So I just got orders for Camp Humphreys and I'm a single E-6. Has anything changed? Will I be able to drive there? Do I have a curfew? Are most E-6's living on or off post?