This is an interesting change. I apologize, I will probably get off-topic, but it is what it is.

I think the SFRG will still likely be inspected during OIP inspections, as there is a lot of risk involved when you talk about money.

About two years ago, the installation I was stationed at took a major look at (then) FRGs and fundraising. The issue we were facing was that the primary fundraising source was selling T-shirts to Families of trainees who were graduating BCT/OSUT/AIT. This was causing an issue as trainees were not allowed to be a part of the FRG, so they were fundraising for something they could not be a part of. While I would think that most fundraisers have this issue, maybe the issue was that the trainees were specifically prohibited from participating. Understood, the money piece of it is not supposed to be the… main effort? However, it seems like it’s an enabler to get people to want to participate.

My company did not have funds nor an active SFRG. We kept an alert roster and had a SFRG Leader, but with the OPTEMPO of training it was hard to justify or get interest in meetings. I also did not have “available” personnel to task to assist in planning and executing SFRG events. However, I would question whether “ordering” a subordinate to plan and execute SFRG fundraisers/events is in line with the spirit of the SFRG and the guidance currently available. I’m sure that most of us here have had our hand in an event like this.

I suppose one thing that should be done is help delineate where funds can be used. For instance, can SFRG funds be used in support of a battalion ball? Or only for specific things concerning the ball? Or when fundraising for a ball, do you have to deliberately delineate that this is not an SFRG function?

That said, I don’t think this change will really impact (good or bad) the overall SFRG. The guidance seems very close to what was already being executed (minus the name change).