Problem

Although ADRP 1 offers a definition and framework, it does not fully describe the Army Ethic so that it is accessible, commonly understood, and universally applicable. This does not mean that the Army Profession lacks an ethic. However, the moral principles underlying our oaths, creeds, values, and virtues, are not integrated within a concise, holistic expression. 

Today, we remain without doctrine that clearly expresses why and how the Army Ethic motivates and inspires Honorable Service as reflected in our decisions and actions.⁸

This omission causes inconsistent understanding among Army Professionals and must be redressed.

Risk

Failure to publish and promulgate the Army Ethic in doctrine:

• Neglects the explicit inclusion of moral and ethical reasoning informing Army Values-based decisions and actions under Mission Command;

• Fails to inspire our shared identity as Trustworthy Army Professionals and our Duty to uphold ethical standards;

• Compromises our ability to develop and certify the Character of Army Professionals, essential to Trust;

• Continues misunderstanding among the Army Profession cohorts concerning the vital role that each plays in the ethical conduct of Mission Command;

• Concedes that legalistic, rules-based, and consequential reasoning dominate Soldier and Army Civilian decisions and actions; and

• Permits the continuation of dissonance between our professed ethic and nonconforming institutional policies and practices.