The same is true about refusing to sign receipt of counseling, admonitions, and reprimands. If you refuse to sign receipt, if requested, then the issuer will simply write a statement, "Individual was ordered to sign receipt, and refused." That does not look good later if the document is used as part of an administrative demotion or administrative separation package.
Extra Training. (Extra Military Instruction). The term "extra military instruction" (EMI) is used to describe the practice of assigning extra tasks to a servicemember who is exhibiting behavioral or performance deficiencies for the purpose of correcting those deficiencies through the performance of the assigned tasks. Normally such tasks are performed in addition to normal duties. Because this kind of leadership technique is more severe than nonpunitive censure, the law has placed some significant restraints on the commander's discretion in this area.
All EMI involves an order from a superior to a subordinate to do the task assigned. However, it has long been a principle in military law that orders imposing punishment are unlawful and need not be obeyed unless issued pursuant to nonjudicial punishment or a court-martial sentence. Thus, the problem that must be resolved in every EMI situation is whether a valid training purpose is involved or whether the purpose of the EMI is punishment. This can be a tricky issue, and commanders will often receive advice from the JAG before imposing EMI.
The initial step in analyzing EMI in a given case is to properly identify the deficiency of the subordinate. Consider this example: Seaman Roberts is assigned the responsibility to secure the doors and windows in his office each night, but routinely forgets to secure some of the windows. Although at first glance it would appear that his deficiency is the failure to close windows, a more accurate perception of his deficiency is either a lack of knowledge or a lack of self-discipline -- depending upon the specific reason for the failure. In other words, the "deficiency" refers to shortcomings of character or personality as opposed to shortcomings of action. The act (the failure to close the windows) is an objective manifestation of an underlying character deficiency which may be overcome with EMI.
Once the deficiency has been identified correctly, the task assigned to correct that deficiency must logically be related to the deficiency noted or the courts will view the order to perform EMI as one imposing punishment. Appellate military courts have relied heavily on this analysis to determine the real purpose for giving an EMI order. It is this criterion that makes it absolutely essential that the superior properly identify the deficiency in terms of a character trait. Few tasks assigned as EMI will be logically related to a deficient act.
For example, what extra task could be assigned to correct one who inadvertently leaves windows unsecured? Perhaps an assignment to close all the windows in the command area each night for two weeks -- or is that task indicative of a punishment motive? How about close order drill? Close order drill logically has nothing to do with windows. On the other hand, if a failure to close windows is the result of lack of knowledge of one's duty (ignorance being the deficiency), it would not be illogical to require the subordinate to study the pertinent security orders for an hour or two each night until he learns his responsibility. Perhaps the delivery of a short lecture by the individual would demonstrate his new-found knowledge of this responsibility.
Where the military superior has analyzed the subordinate's deficiency as relating to some trait of character and assigned a task he determined to be correctionally or instructionally related to the deficiency, the military courts have readily accepted the superior's opinion that the task he assigned was logically related to the deficiency he noted in the subordinate. Where the facts show that the superior assigned a task because the subordinate did some unacceptable act, military courts see the assigned task as retaliatory and, hence, view the task as punishment. In the latter situation, the superior cannot help but appear to be reacting to a breach of discipline instead of undertaking valid training.
