I come here, because well, I respect the opinions of those serving the military. And this does concern you, more than you know. I cannot divulge everything, so certain names of places will be edited to protect myself until I feel I am ready to undertake this motion... "The employees of XXXXXXXX Security should be issued aprons with “How can I help you today?” printed on them. Although contracted with the United States Army to protect and secure the military bases located in XXXXXXXX, in all respects that seems to be its secondary mission. First of all, since when does an armed security guard refer to those attempting to access their guarded installation as customers? I understand the need to be courteous and professional, but all of that aside, our customer is the United States Army. I understood that XXXXXXXX was contracted by the United States Army, not by those working for it. We are there to keep these installations secured and to provide the necessary armed security and presence. Second, the security of equipment and personnel vital to the military installation seem to shadow the need to get people onto the installation as quickly as possible. Although not stated in the open, actions seem to speak louder than words. When you pull security guards from their assigned posts for the sake of the “rush” you are compromising the security of the entire installation. An example which I find to be disturbing is the reassignment of an armed security guard to participate in the “rush.” Now this armed security guard’s position is one of vital importance I would think. In fact, he/she is charged with maintaining and safekeeping the security of the perimeter to one of the ASPs(Ammo Supply Points) located on XXXXXXXX. When removed from their assigned duties, that position is no longer secure because that armed guard is no longer present to fulfill the duties of that station. Does the United States Army know that this is occurring? More than likely they do not. After all, how could they and allow for it to continue? This brings me to my third point. Mischarging is an illegal action. It is printed on the timesheets we fill out and sign at the end of our two-week periods. We are told that the reasons for specific charge codes for where we work are on the timesheet because the military has specific accounts that the funds are pulled from to pay for these posts. Are the timesheets adjusted for the 5 hours that the position is now empty because that person is now reporting to a new post to expedite the entry of personnel onto the installation? Does the person’s timesheet reflect them no longer assigned and actually working at that other post, or does it say they worked the entire twelve hours at that post? You figure out what I am trying to say. Now, anyone from the outside who looked at them would think all systems were go and that things were going as required if they weren’t in my or many of my fellow employee’s positions. To think that all the posts are being filled, and an armed security guard is actually present at that vital post would be a mistake that can easily be taken advantage of. All this talk of presenting a show of force to deter terrorists is great to hear, but to see it would be much more impressive. I for one, as an employee of XXXXXXXX and as a supporter of our Armed Forces am not impressed. In fact I am completely shocked and dismayed at this lack of responsibility. I am sure fear of reprisal and retaliation are key reasons for no one saying anything at all. But I don’t feel this is an issue that can or should be ignored any longer, especially with the escalating and continuing conflicts in the Middle East. The men and women of the Armed Forces and those here in supporting roles should be given the staunchest and highest amount of security that can be given because they are the military’s most important resource. You may have to wait an extra thirty minutes to gain access, but I think it is a fair trade for peace of mind, don’t you?" Give me some honest opinions, very interested in hearing them... Thanks for reading.