I, SPC Marlon Hatcher, a certified Traffic Collision Investigator within the Law Enforcement Activity (LEA), am submitting this formal grievance to document and expose a pattern of unjust treatment, retaliation, and racialized leadership behavior that has deeply affected my career and well-being. This grievance reflects not only my personal experience, but broader command climate failures that demand higher-level accountability. I served over a year in the Traffic Investigations section after completing Q9, a specialized crash investigation school not afforded to regular patrol Soldiers. I maintained a clean record: no negative counseling, no adverse actions, and a strong commitment to mission performance. I was on track for continued growth until my first promotion board on May 13, 2025.
I was dismissed from the board by CSM (Command Sergeant Major) due to the length of my beard—despite being within AR 670-1 and my shaving profile grooming standards. No measurement or verification was conducted. I subsequently filed a protected complaint with my Battalion Commander regarding this action. On May 19, 2025, I was removed from the Traffic Investigations section under the justification that I needed "mentorship" from another NCO—who has a beard. This decision came days after my protected complaint. I received no prior warning, no counseling, and no performance-based justification. Opportunities like Q9, advanced training, and investigative experience are unique to Traffic. Even my own 1SG (1st Sergeant), 1SG 1, stated, "Patrols want Traffic very badly... it is a privilege to be in Traffic." Stripping me of that privilege with no cause or plan for development is inherently adverse and without a doubt, unfavorable. This violates DoD Directive 7050.06 – Military Whistleblower Protection, UCMJ Article 132, Army Regulation 600-20 – Army Command Policy. The IG (Inspector General) response that my removal "doesn't seem too bad" ignores the career implications of being pulled from a coveted and selective section. I was removed with a clean record, yet others with repeated misconduct remain in Traffic. One coworker received multiple counselings and numerous ICE complaints, including an unjustified firearm draw. Another has a documented SHARP incident. Neither was reassigned or removed and remained in Traffic to this day.
SPC 1, a former Traffic Collision Investigator, was assaulted in her sleep by a male Soldier and suffered a concussion. Rather than help her move from shared barracks with her attacker, leadership moved her out of the section and fabricated justifications through false statements. This is a pattern: when Soldiers report trauma or misconduct, retaliation follows.
As a Black Soldier, I witnessed the use of the N-word (with the -ER) by two white coworkers on three separate occasions. One of them used it directly toward me in a joking manner. When asked if I wanted to report it, I declined—knowing that, as one of the only Black Soldiers in the section, I’d likely face the consequences instead. The emotional toll of being silenced and racially minimized is real and unaddressed. The Traffic section knows who used those racial slurs and yet they remain in the section as well.
1SG 1 admitted he received a call from CSM 1 in regards to the board and the complaint I made, confirming that this decision was influenced by a superior I filed a complaint against. 1SG 1 was not present at the board—he was on leave—and acted based solely on hearsay. He told me I was “lost” after the complaint, and needed to “play the game.” He downplayed a comment I made to the BC (Battalion Commander) about being inspired by Black leadership, suggesting it was inappropriate. This is unacceptable. There is a viral TikTok by an MSG that shows senior leaders openly mocking shaving profiles, religious exemptions, and new Army policy. The mindset on display mirrors what I experienced: a rigid, outdated view of leadership that punishes nonconformity and silences challenge. It is a cultural cancer infecting environments like ours.
As a result of this experience, I began seeking Behavioral Health services. I’ve also decided to use my platform to tell these stories and will invite other soldiers to allow me to tell their stories as well. I will legally and professionally publish my grievance this Sunday, 8 June 2025, and begin producing video content that shares my experience and uplifts others in silence. I will follow all Army regulations regarding public content. This is not about vengeance. This is about visibility, reform, and courage. Furthermore, out of caution for my safety and career, I will be distributing copies of this grievance to trusted individuals in my life. These individuals have been instructed to share my story should I face further retaliation or harm as a result of speaking out. I fear that leadership—specifically my 1SG or CPT—may attempt to remove me entirely from the Law Enforcement Activity or use the narrative that I no longer want to be here in order to cover up their actions. I reject that narrative. I want my voice to be heard, regardless of where I go. I will not be silenced.
Formal Grievance Memo
Chapter 1
“Carry The Corps”
This page serves as a continuation of my original grievance submitted regarding retaliatory actions, leadership misconduct, and racial hostility within my unit. Since that submission and my official meeting with LTC (Lieutenant Colonel) on 04JUN25, additional actions have occurred that I believe reinforce and escalate the original concerns. This follow-up report outlines those events, the shift in command behavior, and the targeted pressure I am now experiencing.
Following my formal meeting with LTC 1, I was issued one backdated counseling form that I had not received during my original reassignment. This form was provided in an attempt to create retroactive justification for my removal from the Traffic Investigations section. They do not reflect any actual developmental feedback I received at the time of the transition. Instead, they appear to serve as a reactive attempt to paper over prior administrative failures now that my concerns are on record. LTC 1 asked my current PSG, SFC 1, about the first backdated counseling that had the date 2025MAY19, the day I was removed from my section. SFC 1 said he didn’t know about that counseling. LTC 1asked SFC 1 if he issued an initial counseling saying that I was transferring from the Traffic section to his platoon and SFC 1 said no and the reason because I was on leave for the past few days and he didn’t get the chance to. This is a false statement as I was removed from Traffic May 19, 2025 and didn’t go on my 4 Day pass until May 30th and returned June 1st and received this backdated counseling on June 2nd. Between the dates of May 19 and May 29, I was working a SGT 1’s shift for him as delegated by SFC 1and worked with SFC 1on one of those days. LTC 1 instructed SFC 1 that the backdated counseling was null and void and that I would receive counselings with appropriate time and date to reflect actual accuracy. This backdated counseling not only undermines transparency, it directly supports my previous claim that I was reassigned without cause or performance-based reasoning. The sudden need to document what should have occurred over two weeks ago raises serious questions about the integrity of my chain of command.
Additionally, it is worth noting the behavior of 1SG 1 upon receiving the grievance memo. On Tuesday, June 2nd, I handed him the memo directly. Rather than keeping the document—as would be expected with any formal grievance—he read it and handed it back to me. This action suggests a lack of seriousness or an attempt to avoid official documentation. When I asked if the Company Commander was in, he told me no. I then asked if I could leave her copy on her desk, and he permitted me to do so.
After meeting with LTC 1, I was brought into a follow-up discussion with my Platoon Sergeant, Company Commander, and 1SG. Unlike the measured tone of the BC, this meeting was defensive, accusatory, and hostile in tone. Rather than addressing the concerns outlined in my grievance, leadership attempted to reframe the issues as personal failings on my part. Of note, I was aggressively questioned about the SHARP incident involving two other Soldiers—an event I understood to be documented and closed. I was challenged on why I did not personally report it, despite having been informed that it had already been addressed by leadership. This line of questioning was not only inappropriate but clearly designed to discredit my character and deflect responsibility. When I stated that I found it hard to believe they were not tracking the incident, the tone in the room shifted. 1SG 1, in particular, became visibly irritated. His demeanor suggested that my willingness to speak plainly and defend my position was being interpreted as insubordination or disrespect, which it was not. Throughout the discussion, I felt that my emotional response to a hostile environment was being used against me. There appeared to be an effort to frame me as volatile or unstable for simply expressing frustration over being mistreated and silenced. This is a form of cultural gaslighting often experienced by Soldiers of color—where emotional responses to real injustices are viewed as unprofessional, rather than understood in context. I conducted myself respectfully throughout, but I refuse to apologize for advocating for myself when others refuse to.
Without my knowledge, consent, or a direct order, I was informed that I am required to meet with the SARC (Sexual Assault Response Coordinator) today at 1500 regarding the SHARP incident involving two other Soldiers. I was not a victim, witness, nor the reporting party in that case. Rather than investigate the individuals and leadership within the Traffic Section who failed to handle the matter appropriately, I am now being funneled into an unrelated meeting—seemingly to entangle me in the situation or deflect attention away from command negligence. This maneuver only reinforces the retaliatory nature of the command’s response to my grievance and further erodes my trust in their willingness to conduct unbiased investigations.
During the company meeting, I attempted to share specific facts and examples supporting my claim that retaliation is actively occurring. Rather than allowing me to speak freely, leadership repeatedly redirected the conversation back to the contents of the grievance—ignoring the very information I was prepared to provide. This behavior indicates an unwillingness to hear firsthand truth in favor of controlling the narrative. It was not a discussion—it was an attempt to invalidate the foundation of my report.
This second grievance exists as a separate document to ensure clarity in the timeline of events and the escalation of leadership misconduct. It will be published alongside the original grievance. I continue to operate within Army regulation and professional boundaries. However, I reserve my right to document and share my lived experiences when proper accountability is denied. I respectfully request that these ongoing developments be treated with the seriousness they warrant.
In light of these new developments, I am requesting the following:
That I be formally removed from any association with the SHARP incident I was neither party to nor witness of, and that any record of a SARC referral tied to me be withdrawn from my file.
That a third-party investigation, independent of my current chain of command, be conducted regarding my reassignment, the SHARP incident mishandling, and the handling of ICE complaints and negative counselings in Traffic Investigations.
That no adverse administrative actions (to include punitive or rehabilitative counselings or reassignment narratives) be taken or manufactured against me in relation to this grievance or its public visibility.
That I be given the choice to continue my professional development within the LEA or be transitioned to a role with greater responsibility that acknowledges my Traffic Collision Investigator certification (I.E, a Team Leader of Traffic Collision Investigations).
That command climate surveys be conducted within the Traffic section anonymously to assess the cultural and racial dynamics currently affecting morale and safety.
More to follow.
Chapter 2
Accountability