The Latrine incident

[Gilhelmi]

OK, bear with me, cause this is a long set-up. I am putting it here because the issue is not religious, but would have also applied if I were a Doctor, or a Doctor's Secretary. Because it deals with confidentiality.

I was in the Army Reserves at Annual Training. Large real-world mission, many transportation units hauling cargo, coming and going all the time.

One day, there was an incident with the civilian cleaning staff that took care of the latrines. A male soldier walked in, saw the female cleaner, and went pee without giving it a second thought.

Needless to say, this upset the woman greatly. They started to have more cleaners present for safety. Which did cost the Army more money. So whoever did this was in deep S. They never did found out who it was.

I was a Chaplain Assistant, and many people felt more comfortable talking to a lower-enlisted PFC rather than an "Officer". So some people like to talk to me and I would listen. I would avoid "counseling" people because that gets into dangourous territory. I was only qualified to listen not give advice. That is the Chaplains job.

A soldier came to talk to me. He was rather upset about the incident because, it was him. According to him, he walked into the male latrines, and saw the cleaner, did his business, and left. But he was tired and it did not register that the cleaner might be female. All he saw was a person on the other side of the room and (because of it being the male latrine) assumed they were male.

He felt horrible when he realized what happened and wanted to apologize, but he worried that would only make things worse. He was also worried about being charged as a "sex offender".

I really did not know what to say, and recommended talking to the Chaplain. But he refused because "you cant trust Officers". So all I knew to do was reassure him that it was an accident.

Now for the tricky part, under US Army Regulation 165-1 (chapter 16-2. Sorry I do not know how to get it to link strait to that chapter) I had the same responsibility to maintain confidentiality as a Chaplain (translate to the non-religious world, same responsibility as a Doctor and their Secretary have not to discuss patients and what they say). Also, if I breached his confidence on this, no-one would come talk to me again (and what I do reflects onto the Chaplain and the Chaplains Core, so the ripple effects could be rather far and wide with people not trusting us and thus not getting the help they need.).

But, I also respected his wishes in not asking the advice of my Chaplain (who is bound by confidentiality also).

I do not regret never mentioning this, but part of me wonders if I should have asked for the Chaplains advice anyway. If maybe he had better advice then I could have given. After all my Chaplain had a Doctorate in Theology and significant training in counseling, far more than my couple of semesters. I do not know, but I do feel better getting this one off my chest.

[TheHuckster]

What I'm confused about is, and maybe this is different in the military, but whenever cleaning is being performed in a restroom, especially if said cleaners are of the opposite sex, then they close the restroom with big yellow cones and sometimes even a big barrier of sorts.

If what this soldier is saying is true, then I really don't understand what the big deal is. He didn't do it to be a pervert, and unless he inappropriately flashed the entire room, all the cleaner should have seen was someone approaching a urinal, and hearing him relieve himself. That's hardly a traumatic incident, unless I'm missing a part of the story.

But I do agree that confidentiality in this sort of matter is important. Otherwise if anyone else is met with a moral or ethical dilemma (which I imagine can happen quite often in the military) they need to have trust in talking to someone about it without fearing getting outed or having their anonymity compromised.

[wolfie]

From your description, somebody screwed up BADLY, but without additional information I can't tell who.

My understanding is that when someone is cleaning the "opposite" washroom they are supposed to:

- Announce cleaning and ask if anyone's in there
- If there's a response, wait for everyone to leave (and tell anyone trying to enter that it's closed).
- Put up a sign "closed for cleaning"
- Clean the washroom
- Take down the sign

If the cleaning company didn't put up the sign, they're the ones who screwed up. If they did, the soldier was the one who screwed up.

How I'd probably deal with it if I were in your shoes:

Bring up the possibility that someone might enter a latrine that isn't marked "closed for cleaning" and assume that in the absence of a sign that the cleaner is of the appropriate gender. Ask what the cleaning company's protocol is regarding cleaning the "opposite" latrine, and based on that make recommendations on how to mark things clearly so that nobody would inadvertently enter a latrine while it is in the process of being cleaned by someone of the opposite gender.

[s_stabeler]

To be honest, i'm also wondering what the big deal is, assuming the soldier is telling the truth about just going to the urinal. Presumably the soldier wasn't pissing where the cleaner was trying to clean, and it isn't exactly difficult not to look while someone is taking a piss. I can understand the women being surprised, but at no point is there a point at which she could really be traumatized- at least, not by any sane meaning of the term. ( if merely seeing someone pissing into a urinal traumatizes you, then you have bigger problems.)

[Gilhelmi]

He did not mention any signs or anything of the sort. In retrospect, I wish I had thought about that.

It is possible that there was one posted that he did not see. Sometimes, they post announcements in various places around the areas, and people get 'blind' to the 'same' paper on the doors. Of course, this was a few years ago now so there would be no way to know.

But I definitely believe him that there was nothing blocking the door.

To be honest, i'm also wondering what the big deal is, assuming the soldier is telling the truth about just going to the urinal. Presumably the soldier wasn't pissing where the cleaner was trying to clean, and it isn't exactly difficult not to look while someone is taking a piss. I can understand the women being surprised, but at no point is there a point at which she could really be traumatized- at least, not by any sane meaning of the term. ( if merely seeing someone pissing into a urinal traumatizes you, then you have bigger problems.)

I can understand it some if she was a survivor of something in the past. Or perhaps she thought it was obvious and he was just a really creepy pervert. I know people who do not like to be in the bathroom when their lover is going (the same person they have sex with and share bodily fluids, but are disgusted by other normal bodily functions ).

These were large latrines too. If I recall correctly, 12 stalls and 12 urinals, with showers in the back and a changing area.

[Canarr]

I'd say you did right by the guy. Seems to me like he didn't need a trained counsellor, he just needed to get this thing off his chest - he needed someone to talk to who'd listen, and not rat him out afterwards. From the way you tell it, it sounds like you did just the right thing.

Also, put me down with the others here who don't see the big deal. If seeing a guy peeing with her in the room is really so traumatizing, she might've requested to work in the ladies' facilities instead. Or, anywhere else than in the one room seeing the largest amount of dicks (right after the officers' mess, harharhar ).

[Greenday]

Some people wouldn't even find it a big deal if they were at opposite sides of the bathroom. In my freshman year of college, my floor of the dorm was nearly all women except me and three other guys. Instead of walking to the other wing of the hall, the women on my side would just use the guy's bathroom. You got used to taking a leak and having women in the bathroom near you. It's really not a big deal.

When you gotta go, you gotta go. And if the other person isn't close enough to see, is it REALLY that big a deal? No, no it's not.

[shadowmaster]

I do not regret never mentioning this, but part of me wonders if I should have asked for the Chaplains advice anyway. If maybe he had better advice then I could have given. After all my Chaplain had a Doctorate in Theology and significant training in counseling, far more than my couple of semesters. I do not know, but I do feel better getting this one off my chest.

Two things come to mind.

When I was in clinical rotations and in fellowship (initial post graduation) I had a fully licensed psychologist as a supervisor to go to with issues and co-sign off on all paperwork that required an "official signature." Within that relationship, I could legally discuss all cases with him/her in exact detail - full identification and all (in fact I was kind of required to on major issues) and it would not be considered a breach of confidentiality as they were "supervising" my work. It was as if any of my clients were also the "clients of my supervisor" so they were bound by the exact same privilege as if they were personally seeing the client. As a Chaplain's Assistant, would you have been in a similar situation where the Chaplain is technically a "supervisor of your theological work" (so to speak) and thus would be covered under that blanket privilege?

The second thing that comes to mind is while in training with my other trainees (and frequently in practice with colleges) we'd discuss cases all the time - but without identifying information - as a way of getting a second perspective, or a "second set of eyes" on the case, to help us work through formulation of the issue and how to approach it. Now, if I had sat down with a fellow trainee (or a college) and said, "Hey, so you know my client Gilhelmi? Well the other day we talked about this in session - how would you handle that?" Or approached that conversation in anyway that could potentially allow my associate to personally identify the client (the "girl with brown hair and blue eyes about 5'6"" or "the one [insert characteristic here] that I see" or "My 2 o'clock") - that would be a breach of confidentiality. But if I just talked about one of my many cases, then that's not a breach. I don't know how many people were in the "unit" (if that's the right word) but it sounds like talking about "the guy that urinated in front of the cleaner came to talk to me" wouldn't have led to the identification to the "individual guy" since that's all the information that anyone had about his identity. . . .unless of course, you didn't regularly have males talking to you in your official capacity at that time which might make this guy stick out. . . but that might have been a way to handle it if you wanted advice, but didn't want to breach confidentiality - if your type of confidentiality works in a similar way to that of a psychologist anyway.

[Gilhelmi]

Shadow, it is difficult to explain how it works in the military. The Dr./Secretary is the closest civilian example, even the Trainee/Teacher example you gave in not right because 99% of Chaplain Assistants are never going to go into the field (even if they stay Chaplain Assistants). There are Regulations (like AR 165-1) and Unwritten Regulations (like when we discuss things with them). There are also Chaplains who are not Christian, and even differences in methodology among Christian Chaplains

There are 3 main schools of thought on Chaplain Assistants and counseling.

1) The "Roman Catholic" method - Confidentiality is sacred, and should never be broken under any circumstances. I heard a story about one Priest who was "Fired" after reporting to the police a threat a man made while in Confession. The man had threatened the Priest. Took two years of work to get the Father reinstated. I know they are allowed to talk to each other in limited means (like you said, leaving out specifics), but even then you have to be careful.
2) Strict view on regulations - They believe that Chaplain Assistants are never to talk in confidence to someone without informing and discussing it with them. This is understandable, as 90%+ have never had any formal training. (I have limited training taking one course at college)
3) Loose view on regs - They believe that we are capable on knowing when we need to pass someone along to them. (All of my Chaplains were like that)

In short, a Chaplain Assistant is not an Assistant Chaplain. We are not suppose to be doing theological/counseling work, just aiding the Chaplain in his/hers. We help to ensure that all soldiers have an opportunity to worship (and by doing so, I show the love of Christ for all people). But that does also mean having an open ear and a free shoulder sometimes too.

There are some people have a problem with Chaplains, because they are Officers (in my experience, it is rarely because of their religion, solely the Bars and Oak Leafs). Officers are generally the people you avoid talking if you are a lower enlisted (E-6 and below), as there is a general sense of "distrust" and "Mysticism" that high ranking pins have. Officers, after all, are generally your bosses, bosses, boss. So, people can still come to talk to us and we can listen.

However, Chaplains are also "daywalkers", able to walk in many world and belong to none. While Officers, they can not give combat orders, can not (legally) train with a weapon, some even speculate that they some may not even be allowed to drive a vehicle because that could be used as a weapon if the need arises. Sometime, Officers take exception to Chaplains more "laid back" attitudes (in general, rarely do you meet an uptight one).