Jump to content

So what is likely to happen?


Recommended Posts

Our Troop (of which I am SM) is hopefully about to see its first Eagle Scout. However, we (both myself and the committee) made the mistake of granting the Scout in question his Star rank (both SMC and BOR) one day short of the 4 months tenure required at First Class. He was at Star the full 6 months before receiving Life and has been at Life for over 23 months now.

The Council caught this discrepency when reviewing the application before sending it on to the District Advancement Committee to schedule an Eagle BOR. They requested from me (the SM) a letter stating that the dates were correct and that the Troop had made the mistake of granting Star a day too early. They said that is all that could be done and we would just have to see what happens.

I composed a letter to be signed by myself and the CC at the time in question stating that it was a Troop error. I added that during all this time, the Scout has been successfully serving in a qualifying POR and that his Scout Spirit has not been brought into question.

What is likely to happen? I hate to see this Scout's Eagle rank jeopordized by an error that only a small part in making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur. An oversight of 1 day that was made 2 years ago should not be made an issue for the boy. If everything else is in order, and he passes the BOR, the subject should be dismissed. But it should always be remembered so as it never happens again...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk to your District Advancement Chair about the situation. What you are talking about is a paperwork / recording error, and not a deficiency on the scout's part. They may need to re-enter dates of rank completion in the council computer so it does not throw a RAM chip fit when it calculates he is one day short of 4 months for Star. It it obvious (from his 23 months of Life tenure) that he has enough accumulated time to qualify.

 

BTW, the 4 months tenure that the handbook requires is a little inexact. Depending on the year (leap or not), and number of days in each of the months, 4 months can range from 120 to 123 days total (try it in Excel). I would bet he has already met the minimum for this.

 

Frank

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They may need to re-enter dates of rank completion ..."

 

Falsify the records? A good question for the board of review. "Son, there's a problem with the dates and we're thinking about 'adjusting' them. Do you think we should do that, or what should we do?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not falsifying records to correct the mistake that was made. The scout completed his service and the requirements; his BOR was just conducted too early. Just because it was caught late does not mean something was done falsely. It simply means that computers are better counters than humans. If you consider this falsifying records, I guess that means the rest of us posters cannot correct spelling or punctuation in our posts without "falsyfying" our messages. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW, the 4 months tenure that the handbook requires is a little inexact. Depending on the year (leap or not), and number of days in each of the months, 4 months can range from 120 to 123 days total (try it in Excel). I would bet he has already met the minimum for this.

Our council's Eagle Application instructions says: "It is BSA practice to assume that all months have 30 days for calculating rank advancement and leadership requirements." That may be true, the Advancement Guide does not say.

I doubt this will be an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem!

 

The OP said "... one day short of the 4 months tenure required..." That doesn't sound like a mistake. The boy was short, and it is now being suggested that that the dates be "adjusted" to fool the computer (and others?) that the boy did indeed complete a full 4 months when in fact he did not.

 

The ethical thing to do is as Eagle309 has done, explain the fact that the boy is one day short, and let the council advancement committee make a ruling. I'm failing to understand how intentionally reporting a different date for the purpose of fooling others that the boy has compeleted a full four months when in fact he has not, is "ethical". Refer to our Mission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm . . . isn't it often put forth on this forum that advancement, once the forms are signed, is a fait accompli? If so, can you make the kid go back and re-earn Star and Life? What happens to his project?

 

Of course, the argument could be made that the Scout should have known that he was a day shy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

309,

We just went over this last night at our District Roundtable. The DAC held his "Soon To Be Eagle" talk for the Star and above scouts.

If today, November 13th, 2008 is your scouts 18th birthday, your scout had to be First Class on or before July 13th, 2007. If he became First Class on July 14, 2007, he looses out by one day, and stays Life. If the committee were to then changed the date to make things fit, then there would be falsification of records.

Since your scout was Life for 23 months, he has the required time needed for all ranks and PORs regardless of dates. There should not be a problem. Yes the date may need to be switched by one day to keep the computers for glitching, and a letter added to the file to why it was switched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definately a question for the DAC and/or council AC. What will more than likely happen is that they will decide FOR the youth,especially if he has lots of supporting letters explaining why this happend and how the youth is a good example, etc, and they will decide to change it in the system at the council level. let's face it mistakes happen, and honestly it should have been caught earlier, liek when his STAR paperwork was turned in originally, it should have been kicked back then. So if you think about it, all parties: Scout, unit, and Council made an error.

 

We had something similar happen to a Scout. He didn't have his BOR early, but council was missing his Star and Life paperowrk. While he had his book, some of the items only had month and year, not the exact date as the computer requires. Long story short, council had to edit the records twice to make everything work withthe computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it now:

 

SM: Johnny, come in here and lets do your Board of Review

 

Johnny: Sorry, Mr. SM, but I'm one day short of the tenure requirement and it just wouldn't be right! I'll have to come back next month.

 

Yeah, right.

 

The SM/Committee screwed up 2 years ago...they owned up to it, so what's the problem? Move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...