Like I mentioned WRT the sexual assault post over at USNIBlog, I am a believer that the simpler the system, the more efficient and effective. Treat adults like adults, and more often than not you'll get what you expect.
When you make things too bureaucratic and "exquisite" - they are more prone to failure from external shocks or changes in environment that require judgment vice diktat.
On the enlisted side of the house, I think that there are few problems that cannot be solved with a CMDCM backed up by a solid Chiefs Mess. For officers, your word and a short face-to-face with your ISIC should be all it takes. No paperwork required per se ... but that isn't the Navy we have in many cases.
For our problem children, no, you need a very thick counseling/training jacket. You need the "Ref. A through NN" as it isn't the word of a CMDCM or Commanding Officer that is important, you see, it is the paper.
For over two decades, I rolled my eyes at a "Page 13." The older I got, the more important I knew they were - but that didn't mean I liked the whole undercurrent that came with them.
For those who don't know, a "Page 13" is an "Administrative Remarks" entry (really a no kidding page) in to a service record. It is usually done to have someone sign after reading saying they understand what they have been told, i.e. "Don't Drink & Drive - Show Up on Time - Don't Beat Your Spouse" - in many respects it is used as a legalism so people can't say "No one told me that, I didn't know that was required ... " etc. Essential for a system that has moved from honor towards legalism. Any JAG can explain how critical they are. What ever.
More often than not, they are either patronizing and insulting to the professional. In matters of behavior such as this, it is an implicit understanding that neither side's word is of value, that we don't trust each other, so everything must be in writing.
In that light - I'm not getting that warm fuzzy about this.
UNCLAS PERSONAL FOR ALL FLAG OFFICERS AND COMMANDERS FROM ADMIRAL GREENERT//N05370// NAVADMIN 188/11// MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N1/JUN// SUBJ/CHARGE OF COMMAND// REF/A/MEMORANDUM/CNO/09JUN11/NOTAL//Admiral Roughead's letter in a nice summary and full of good advice - but having them SIGN IT? Really? Admiral "let's classify everything that might make me look bad" Greenert, who sent out the message above, will be the next CNO. Consider this I&W.
AMPN/CNO MEMORANDUM FOR PROSPECTIVE COMMANDING OFFICERS CONCERNING THE CHARGE OF COMMAND, WHICH CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT HTTP://WWW.PUBLIC.NAVY.MIL/BUPERS-NPC/OFFICER/DETAILING//
RMKS/1. ACCOUNTABILITY HAS LONG BEEN THE FOUNDATION FOR COMMAND IN OUR NAVY. THE ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE CHARGE OF COMMAND IS THAT WE HOLD OUR COMMANDERS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THIS PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUILDS THE TRUST NECESSARY FOR OUR NAVY'S COMMAND AND CONTROL STRUCTURE AND IS AS CRITICAL AS OUR STANDARDS OF MATERIAL, PERSONNEL AND OPERATIONAL READINESS.
2. TO CODIFY THE CHARGE OF COMMAND, THE COMPACT BETWEEN NAVY LEADERSHIP AND OUR COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS, CNO HAS SIGNED REF A. THIS DOCUMENT IS A COUNSELING AND MENTORING TOOL AND APPLIES TO ALL OFFICERS IN COMMAND, TO INCLUDE FLAG OFFICERS. IT IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE AND LEADERSHIP TRAINING, IN PERSON, TO THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH THE MOST DEMANDING RESPONSIBILITIES IN OUR NAVY.
3. NLT 1 AUG 2011, ALL COMMANDERS WITH IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR IN COMMAND (ISIC) RESPONSIBILITY ARE DIRECTED TO REVIEW REF A WITH THEIR SUBORDINATE COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS DURING TRAINING, COUNSELING OR MENTORING SESSIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THOSE COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THEIR ISIC WITH A COUNTERSIGNED COPY OF REF A. NLT
1 AUG 2011, ALL COMMANDERS WITH ISIC RESPONSIBILITY FOR FLAG OFFICERS ARE DIRECTED TO REVIEW REF A WITH THEIR SUBORDINATE FLAGS DURING MENTORING AND TRAINING SESSIONS; FLAG OFFICERS WILL PROVIDE THEIR ISIC WITH A COUNTERSIGNED COPY OF REF A.
4. BEGINNING 1 AUG 2011, ALL ISICS WILL REVIEW REF A WITH PROSPECTIVE COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS PRIOR TO THEIR ASSUMPTION OF COMMAND. UPON ASSUMPTION OF COMMAND, COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS WILL PROVIDE THEIR ISIC A COUNTERSIGNED COPY OF REF A.
5. EACH ISIC IS DIRECTED TO RECEIVE AND RETAIN THE COUNTERSIGNED COPIES UNTIL THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE COMMAND TOUR BY THE COMMANDER OR COMMANDING OFFICER. THE COUNTERSIGNED COPIES OF REF A WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE ISIC'S RELIEF AS A COMMAND TURNOVER ITEM.
6. REF A WILL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF TRAINING RECEIVED BY ALL PROSPECTIVE COMMANDING OFFICERS AT THE COMMAND LEADERSHIP SCHOOL BEGINNING 1 AUG 2011.
7. THIS DIRECTIVE WILL BE CODIFIED BY AN UPDATE TO MILPERSMAN ARTICLE 1301-802.
8. VICE CHIEF SENDS.//
This action, basically, treats a Commanding Officer who has the better part of two decades of commissioned service behind him, the lives of hundreds of Sailor as his responsibility, and billions of dollars of material at his disposal - like a 19-yr old E-2 that needs to be told that he needs to obey liberty restrictions when ashore in Japan and is responsible for the content of his seabag.
Subordinates often respect their superiors as a reflection of the respect and confidence those leaders receive from their superiors. This isn't exactly a rousing voice of respect and confidence, so, there you go.
Based on the fact that we just fired our 14th CO this year - well - I guess some can defend this. But ... this is just more of the same. Continuing to do more of the same and expecting a different result is ....
The CO pipeline is long, detailed, and expected behavior is covered in detail multiple times anyway. Why people can reach their late 30s to early 40s and not handle their alcohol in public and/or behave themselves .... and still be promoted to such high levels remains a mystery to me. Well, no - it doesn't. We are all imperfect human beings.
Whatever the cause, having COs sign what is really a Page 13 isn't going to do anything but make people up the chain of command feel that they are doing something about it. Potemkin posturing, in a fashion.
A pathetic response to the real problem we have with COs being fired. Only a fonctionaire thinks that a bit of paper can substitute for solid leadership and a culture of honor and integrity - but that is the decision that has been made.
My answer? Look to root causes. More paper is just that - more paper.
Hat tip Squidly.
108 comments:
YGTBSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Screw that.. I wouldnt sign it...
<span>Smells like a Flag (over) reaction to the OP Honors issue. </span>
<span> </span>
<span>"All we need is a larger cudgel and those rascally Non-Flags in Command will fear us and act appropriately."</span>
<span> </span>
<span>I am even less confident in Big Navy now. These guys have serious prioritization issues. The FLAGS need a page 13 in THEIR record..."Cannot adequately prioritize the competing needs of the service".</span>
On a #'d fleet staff we all signed P13s agreeing not to expose ourselves to each other. If I can find it, I will send it along.
This was my first reaction... it leaves a paper trail as to who knew what and when so that the next time a 5-year-old counselling/advisement blows up, they can chase down all superiors and can them too.
I guess it also coincides with the repeal of DADT so that any incidents that require "counselling" have a signature to prove "discrimination" or something.
Sorry to be warped. Seems there's always a sinister reason for everything nowadays.
This whole Page 13 thing reminds me of one of the guys I worked for as an XO. He was terrified of operating around carriers and required me to be on the bridge any time we were in planeguard. He would then retire to his cabin for the duration as if that somehow absolved him of the responsibility. These flag officers should be smart enough to realize that a signed paper in someone's service record won't protect them if something really bad happens.
<span>Wow. I was about to say "Words fail me" -- until I figured out that this memo is roughly the USN equivalent of the accountability video Gen Fogleman produced and ordered USAF officers, senior civilians, and senior NCO's to watch susbequent to the Blackhawk shootdown. Seems to me that if mid- to senior-level officers and civilians haven't grasped and internalized these concepts by that point in their careers, signing a piece of paper or watching a video isn't going to repair that character defect very well.</span>
Heinl's "Special Trust and Confidence", circa 1954 still relevant.
If you think your subordinate commanders have to sign something like this, one or both of two things are true:
1) Those people should not be given the responsibilities of command,
or
2) You are the wrong guy to lead them.
LMAO unexposed of course...
next we will be signing special request chits for special liberty....
Just for the Lance-Captains and below.
Actually I suspect it's probably like "anon's" experience above - last war-itis.
Wouldn't it just be easier in a lot of ways to just start making Admirals ship COs?
That's the way the Soviet-bloc navies, especially the smaller ones, did it. A guy would have the title of CO but would essentially function as an over-paid OOD for his embarked flag officer.
Early 90's on return from the gulf, CCG7 had EVERY battle group sailor sign a pg13 stating they would practice Safe sex on liberty. This was in (over) reaction to a Time magazine article about a new strain of HIV in Thailand and the high incidence of Sailors contracting STDs in 7Fleet AOR. We were heading to Pattaya the week after the story broke. The CVN Chaplain, full CDR if memory serves, absolutely refused to sign the pg 13 as a priest who not only had a vow of celibacy, but could not condone the use of birth control. The rumor amoung the embarked staffs was that Chaps was heading for mast until the 7th Fleet Chaplain stepped in to provide top cover. At least there was some semblance of leadership then. Now? Not so much...
Ok...
How manyof you young'ins don't know why CDR put up that pic of Kirk Dougals?
Or who Kirk Douglas is...?
I know who Kirk Douglas is but the ulterior reason you are hi ting at escapes me...
I had to sign a piece of paper promising to "immediately inform my supervisor if I were to become pregnant so I could be removed from the potentially harmful effects if ionizing radiation..."
The fact that as a male I am highly unlikely to become pregnant had not bearing on the issue...sign the damn piece of paper!
It just proves that I cannot be President as I have already demonstrated that I will sign anything, not matter how farcically stupid!
Sean, that is still from "In Harm's Way" one of the all time best navy flicks...
Kirk Douglas's character -started the movie as John Wayne's cruiser XO- was the Flawed One whose clay feet centered around sexual betrayal.
No spoiler alerts...
Gotta watch the movie 8-)
And would the John Wayne and Patricia Neal characters be canned today for engaging in "improper relationships?"
Perhaps not until 1946?
I wouldn't call it "betrayal"....
It is a good thing I signed this because before this, I was TOTALLY going to ignore the UCMJ Articles governing zipper control. Now my respect for the rule of law has been reinvigorated.
Byron...Yah gotta remember the beach scene with Hugh Obrien and Barbara Bouchet...
And the morgue scene.
The duality of man. The great professional and the horrible person. Paper can neither make nor prevent either. They can be one in the same. Unforeseen things can trigger one or both - but they cannot be predicted or mitigated without excessively negative second and third order effects - if ever.
It is as it is as it always was and will be.
Or sup'n like that.
+1 Sid.
I liked the bar fight with the Army Air Corps bubbas. Reminds me of the O-club in Subic one Friday when .....
Like most movies of the era, this was based on an exisiting novel...
Realized I never read it, so I just ordered the James Bassett work.
I don't know...I liked the part where the CO "held reveille" on his hung over XO.
BTW, in the book while CAPT Torrey is getting dressed he decides not to pin on his naval aviator's wings.
Personally I can defend this policy 100% based on 14+ CO's every year that don't get it or think that the standards apply to everyone but them. The standards are the standards...you don't have to agree with them just abide by them. If you can't abide by them then do the rest of the Navy a favor and don't accept command.
I hope what this really means is that the Sea Hags of the Navy and others that don't get it that simple dismissal from command is only the first step to dismissal from the Navy with no retirement pay. I'm not talking about running ships aground or collisions or professional mistakes/errors of judgment. I'm talking about personal choices where we know right from wrong as as ensign much less than a commanding officer with the Navy's finest under your command...abuse of crew, DWI, fraternization, or the worst slimeball behavior repeated at least once a year...fraternization with spouses of officers/crew under your command.
Signed page 13 + behavior mentioned above = No retirement benefits. I won't shed a tear the first time this is enacted!
It's a good'un. Enjoy.
Thank God, I'm gone. I'm sick of the moralizing from superiors who were not held to the same standard and grew up in a Navy that was a lot more permissive than now. What these page 13's mean is this: In command-never leave the ship. If you do, go somewhere your Sailors are not. If you do go ashore -hole up in your hotel room on the beach and for God's sake don't leave it. Don't be seen having a drink, ever. Don't talk to any of the women in your command ashore-they will f*ck you at the drive through.
Then go back to the ship and be surprised and shocked that none of wardroom has any good memories of the past port visit, you have a whole bunch of liberty incidents because your chiefs were no where around your Sailors when all hell broke loose ( No fools they-they know they will be screwed if they are with the junior rates), and then-be shocked when people have no enthusiasm for going on det or going to sea.
Yes, I like to drink and raise hell on liberty. The leaders I respected all did. They also knew how to show up on time the next day-and more importantly they could discern between what need to be dealt with by the chief's mess and what was really serious, This kind of BS ensures you will have nothing but milque toast CO's and accordingly even more will get fired.
Imagine the idea of having the whole air wing at AFSOUTH with an open bar till midnight. They would shoot the whole bunch. In the old days-that was where learning occurred. No wonder we suck.
Sid,
I found a first edition of the book in a used book store years ago and read it along with another great leadership book "Away All Boats" (again another 1st Edition found in a used book store and for under ten bucks on both of them) while on a deployment. A rant for another day is why some of these books aren't part of the current listing of Classics of Naval Lit nor are they on the Navy Reading List.
Now as to Kirk Douglas's Character, he was probably already borderline as a person only to be forced over the edge after his spouse was killed during the raid on Pearl. That is what threw him over the edge to become the evil that he was. That isn't to excuse his actions, rather he broke when his wife died and the steadying influence of a good friend like Torrey wasn't there to help correct him back on to PIM to being a decent person. I have seen that plenty of times in todays world as well. The minute a person gets away from thier comfort zone or thier rock (like a spousal unit or a good friend who is willing to help them bury the bodies) they become thier own worst nightmare. Then one spends the day looking at the mirror in a stateroom or head wondering who that is looking back at themselves.
"<span>Signed page 13 + behavior mentioned above = No retirement benefits. I won't shed a tear the first time this is enacted!"</span>
Absolutely not. No way, shape, or form.
Retirement benefits can only be lost as the result of a conviction at a Special or General Court Martial. And that is the way it should be. Period. Even true of the estimable Captain Graf. Unless she is convicted at a SPCM/GCM, she is entitled to the benefits of the highest rank which she served honorably. If she is eligible for retirement, then she receives those benefits.
Relief? Yep. Career over? Yep. But take away retirement benefits earned through a lifetime of service? Without any trial or conviction? Never, ever. Due process. Always.
Is this all it takes? Does this mean we can simply have Flag Officers now sign a Page 13 affirming that they won't waste time, money and other resources on their transformational and other "run it like a business" crap?
What a bunch of chicken shit.
Maybe one day we can get back to building a traditional Navy culture that actually promotes strong leadership.
We do suck.
My retirement papers went in last week. Sadly, it was a great feeling
How about making them retirees? Not all of them. Just the ones with a PERFECT record, then the ones with the little hobo marks on their record at the Bureau, then at random until half of the current crop are gone. Next have all the records at all flag promotion boards shuffled like a blackjack deck before the board and after every pick...
Then throw away all the photos and remove all surnames and have the board sign a "p13" that they don't know any of the candidates.
If we are going to be untrusting, let's be systematic about it.
Beat me. Glad you did. Well said.
Thankfully, with all the oversight and guidance from the Flags, we are getting an Navy that is really, really good at C.Y.A. and Diversity, and letting gays and lesbos cavort while being the "Global Forcer for Good."
However, we really are not doing too well at getting new ships built on time or on budget, or ships ready to deploy, or better prepared to fight and win at sea, or even enough ships to meet our missions.
They have obivously overlooked a major shotcoming of this latest directive. In their kneejerk reaction (posturing as leadership) they failed to react adequately to the CAPT Honors incident. They have not (yet!) come up with a demand that all Executive Officers sign a page 13, like their bosses.
Somehow, I doubt if General Patton's leadership style would pass muster today. But, wining wars seems to have gone out of favor too.
When you've got CO's soliciting people to sign statements saying they were popular, and it's tolerated.... this is what you get. Everyone's too afraid to correct people or fire people, until things blow up and then it's too late.
Yeah, it's important to let people that break the law retire comfortably.
I remember the "I wasn't at Tail Hook" page 13. What a joke. Vaguely remember that we were underway at the time of the event and our transporter was Casreped.
I would suggest that you're on a slippery slope, Guest, if the lawbreaking that can yank your retirement benefits is all retroactively enforced years after the fact.
Since Navy chooses to go down that road, beware the unintended consequences of your position.
What is the difference between the United States Navy and Cub Scouts?
Adult leaders.
Hey Guest,
Next time you get a speeding ticket, maybe they will lock you up with a serial rapist and two drug trigger men in Pelican Bay. Since you have no regard for due process, what would stop them?
You could get popped in the a** every night for six months for going 42 in a 35 zone. But hey, you're a lawbreaker, same as them.
I thought it was the Cub Scouts' uniforms looked better. But I suppose your point is valid, too!
Agreed...well said!
All true...except that Patton's leadership style barely passed muster in 1944. The results he delivered were considered more important.
In retrospect I 100% agree with the need for the SPCM/GCM. A single DWI doesn't fall into that category. However if properly documented a Sea Hag situation or fraternization with spouses of crew members sure ought to be.
Reminds me of when I was told, as an O-5, that I needed a liberty buddy...in SINGAPORE!
That page 13 entry would have been real effective. Prove it tahat someone didn't practice safe sex. Reminds me of the 6th fleet pre-port visit maps telling sailors what areas of town to avoid. YGTBFKM...those maps only served as an easy guide to anyone already planning to partake in that activity.
Well, if Holly Graf had not been in a protected class, she likely would never have been selected for one command, let alone two.
Relief for cause does not need to rise to the level of a felony conviction. If it is fraternization, that may be enough to be relieved without ever being charged with a crime. To be convicted, someone has to be found guilty of a crime in a court martial proceeding. Which is likely well above the threshold for lost confidence in a commander.
However, to your original point of loss of retirement benefits, there should be that burden of proof, trial, and conviction. Title 10 specifies a right to those benefits, but does not specify a right to command.
Another gone today - NRD Nashville.
Wonder how many will stand on principle and refuse to sign, instead accepting the consequences of that action? Prolly not a one. Seem to recall that refusal to sign a page 13 led the way to UCMJ charges and subsequent other legal action (ad sep for enlisted, etc.), depending on how much of an example they needed to make.
What a chicken-s#%t-sandwich.
I got the same thing in New York City. We were practicing for deployment.
A Navy lost with leadership permanently ashore. And asleep. Saddened describes it...
I can't speak for "In Harm's Way", but "Away All Boats" was published as a USNI Classics of Naval Literature volume at some time. It's on my book shelf.
I know a couple of places in Singapore where you can rent a liberty buddy. Epsecially on the maid;s day off. ;)
One of the themes, perhaps a little too subtle for some, was that both Eddington (Douglas in the movie) and Torrey (Wayne in the movie) were fla wed men damaged by their choice of wives and the failure of their marriages. Torrey maintained control and acted decently at considerable personal cost, while Eddington went "Asiatic" and became increasingly out of control and destructive to himself and others, despite Torrey's loyalty to his friend and subordinate. Hero and antihero in conflict with their own fallen nature, one succeeding at great personal cost, the other disgracing himself enroute to a rendezvous with fate while displaying flashes of brilliance which made him an even more tragic and reprehensible figure.
All in support of the key theme of duty, honor, country...not exactly "The Naked and the Dead".
Maybe someday somebody will write something on the same lines about DC in the twenty oughts rather than the war in the pacific in 41,2 and 3. Don't hold your breath.
Who would read it? "Payton Place" in khaki would be as true, and much more commercially successful.
UFB!
Cub Scout knives are sharp?
Patton would have never made Captain, he killed a Mexican er... a Hispanic / Latino and lashed him to his fender...
Rocko would have never made him Sign the Page 13.... well okay, maybe cautioning him NOT to fly a B-25 without a complete aircrew....
Thanks....missed that movie. Put in in the queue to watch.
I may be just a lowly JO, and a black sheep JO at that...but here's how I see it. Leadership requires integrity. It requires someone willing to stand up and take the heat for the mistakes of the people under them, and it takes the courage to look at the person who signs your FITREP and say "this is not a good idea".
Unfortunately, in today's zero tolerance Navy of cronyism, that person quickly finds him or herself a below reporting average non-competitive MP, while the person groomed for command is the one throwing his sailors under the bus to protect his own hide and then telling the brass whatever they want to hear so long as it keeps them #1 EP.
We've bred this culture and now we are stuck with the all too predictable outcome.
It's a sad day when you look at a Flag and immediately think "politician" not "warrior".
I attended CO Leadership school up in Newport a few years back. I remember one of the post command instructors asking us this question during a breakout session: "Are you going to lead by page 13's or lead by walking around?" The answer seemed simple at the time. I guess this point has been deleted from the syllabus. And OBTW, I never signed a page 13 in my navy career...........over the past 2 years I have signed at least a dozen!!!
Somebody had to keep you controlled on Bugis Street!
It's like Doc putting out the bowl of condoms on the Quarterdeck, and making every sailor going ashore take two. That night most of the bar girls on Magsaysay were playing with weird shaped balloons.
Also had a bowl at the Cubi BOQ outside the massage room...
And of course there's General Order #1 in Iraq & Afghanistan: thou shalt not have sex (although the thumb drive restriction as a Navy GO was even more rediculous). And yet condoms galore! I'm surprised they weren't part of NIACT issue.
Bugis street is a highbrow shopping mall now. No more parades of ladyboys at night.
The 4FOW however................
FYI Ms Graf is still on active duty-till September I think.
When I as MO in my squadron and we were deployed to Panama, we had the squadron corpsman put condoms in an ear protector box in the paraloft. One box of ear protectors, one box of condoms ( if you have ever been to Panama and seen the tuna down there-you will know why). Discrete-but available and we made sure every one knew where to get them.
Now that seems like simple prudence-but I guess not in the brave new world.
Yeah, frat totally equals speeding. So speed on over and make out with your enlisted women, then retire comfortably, as you evidently believe you're entitled to do. Yeah, there's clearly a leadership problem going on.
I remember it and that all Flag Officers were required to participate. At the time COMSIXTHFLT told me that he had to sign one before he was permitted to head for his next assignment.
I don't know Commander, that is a pretty good letter. Good writing is the sign of a sharp mind. If CO's lasted longer than a USMC Lt in combat, maybe we would not ask for a signature.
As Hemmingway might have said, "that's a damm fine letter."
Yep. a leadership problem for sure. So let's not give them another means of arbitrary and capricious actions in the punishment of something alleged.
If an Officer is "making out with the enlisted women", then charge him (or her at this point), take him to a SPCM or GCM, and if you gain a conviction, you may go after retirement benefits. Because much as you might not like him/her, they are entitled to that protection of their rights. That is the law and the process. And for good reason.
The sailors spend their time ashore scouting for girls.
Guest,
<span> </span>Break the Law! Do you have any idea how complicated the law is? There are thousands of laws, millions of obscure rules and arcane regulations; administrative law, decisional law, state law, federal law, treaties, international law and the uniform code of military justice. I doubt a man can get through the day without breaking a law at least twice.
<span> </span>You want to strip a man of retirement he earned through his labor because he got caught in violating some minor regulation? What about an enlisted man with thirty years of service and two purple hearts. Strip him of his retirement and leave him to die pennyless because he drove drunk on base.
<span> </span>Leave thoughts like this to the Musslemen; Americans need to be more, dare I say it, Christian.
Hokey smoke. The apocalypse is nigh. I agree with Bubba Bob. =-O
GBS, I'm one up on you. I had to have a liberty buddy as an O-6 and a CARGRU COS.
The poet, Robert Graves, wrote a book about his service in WWII called Goodbye to all That. He told a few interesting stories. The R.C. Chaplins would go to the front to perform the last rights, the COE would stay with the REMFs.
There was a good full-bore story about a medical doctor who had been a former enlisted man, "private soldier" they called them, went to medical school and was assigned to his former unit. He was in the headquaters building when it was under attach. When the command staff was killed, he ripped off his red cross, took command and lead a counterattack repulsing the German break-through. Then, when relief came, he put on his mediacal insignia and went to the hospital. Even staff officers can, sometimes, go fullbore.
After thinking about this for awhile I've concluded that a CO who is going to sleep with subordinates, drive drunk, or misuse government funds will not be dissuaded from this behavior by anything as minor as a Page 13 entry.
BB,
Graves' masterpiece was of the Great War, not WWII.
I assume that is what you meant.
Now, why would you need condoms for a massage? O:-)
@ MTH, Unlikely, since Nelson would have been relieved for violating his.
I wrote that too, but it didn't show up. Basically, we have this UCMJ thingy, and there are some things that we may not know by wrote, but don't bang the help is a pretty easy one to know is messed up. EVEN if you are not certain which article thingy addresses it. But the "charge of command" thingy will not make the idiots stop following their reproductive organs around. But, I don't have enough rank on my collar to have fully lost my ration of common sense.
Exactly. A page 13 for this silliness is well... silly. If the officer is sneaking around, then he knows he is breaking thr rules. If he has made CO, he should have SOME passing idea of the UCMJ. If he is wondering about it, he or his ISIC have a JAG for counsel. Hell, it is probably posted on his bulkhead somewhere. This is some silly CYA, pseudo mental masturbation from DC. Hey, want to make some page 13s? I can draft a ton of those SOBs that will actually affect budgetary waste fraud and abuse.
Especially when URR thinks banging the help is equivalent to a speeding ticket.
Commodore,
That's the "king has no clothes" aspect of this whole thing. I can only imagine the leadership patting itself on the back for taking this issue head-on and decisively.
The Cub Scouts never embraced transformation.
Without due process, it is, Clarence Darrow.
Well, not completely true. You can be removed from the O-6 list which is almost a guarantee for a succesful command tour. The difference between a 20-year O-5 and a 23 year O-6 is a large punishment in terms of retirement pay...and it doesn't require a trial or conviction.
Andy,
The administrative measure of which you speak is not the difference between getting retirement benefits, and not getting them.
I read in an earlier post about HOOK '91. It is sad to say my CO "pg 13" will be framed and hang next to my HOOK '91 "pg 13" stating that neither I, MIDN 2/C, nor anyone under my command were at Tailhook. A sad bit of symmetry as I round the final turn and get close to 20.
WWJD - What would Jim (Stockdale) do?
I see this as a way to ensure any 2 bit JAG can get an article 92 conviction for anyone relieved for cause. San Antonio XO's court martial obviously did not have the desired outcome
<span> If he is wondering about it, he or his ISIC have a JAG for counsel.</span>
Sometimes even the JAGs are unclear on the concept.
It's a little hard to shed a tear for someone forced to retire at O-6 vice O-8, though.
Sorry, thick fingers.
He just got to Oxford and I left the darn book on the bus. I'm waiting for my new copy in the mail, or as Graves would say, "the post."
War just pisses me off. We send our best and brightest to get smashed to bits. My grandfather was in France with Pershing; I really had no idea how bad it was.
I read I Claudius years ago; I had no idea how good this memoir was.
"Guest", since you don't know URR, you can't possibly know that this is the way he thinks. To the point, it's as good as saying that's what he'd do.
The Cub Scouts never got as far as DADT...they just said, "NO". ;)
Except, Bubba, sometimes the only thing worse than doing war is what happens if you don't do war.
<span>Seeing as how the 150th anniversary of the Battle of First Manassas is being commemorated not far from here even as I type, I think the following is in order as well:
<span>"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it."</span>
and
<span>"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less."</span>
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Notable%20Lee%20Quotes.htm</span>
Fo thoughtful comment from a "Philosophical Fighter Pilot," See:
http://www.usnwc.edu/NavalWarCollegeReviewArchives/1970s/1978%20Fall.pdf
@Stu, It's worse than that, although I'm sure some guys are congratulating themselves for being proactive here. It's more like the "Administrative Warning" that we made "Fireman Timmy" sign after Mast so you had a better case for discharging him with an OTH if he went to Mast again. "Cover your a55 with paper".
Somehow having to tell an O-5 (let alone an O-6) "You are hereby reminded to obey Navy Regulations" leads me to believe that the Navy's current command screening process leaves a bit to be desired.
I don't recall anyone saying that process should be skipped. You sure seem nervous about needing protections, I hope you at least didn't get her preggers.
<span>Guest, now you're just being a troll. Doubt you commanded anything more prestigious than your bathtub boats.
"<span>I don't recall anyone saying that process should be skipped." Yes you do.
</span>
"<span>Signed page 13 + behavior mentioned above = No retirement benefits."</span>
Due process. It keeps the kind of stupidity that you vomit forth from being consequential.</span>
Guest,
You are obviously new to the porch (as am I), so I really think I ought to warn yu in fairness - you are definitely fighting outside of your class.
Do yourself a favor and don't get into a battle of the wits when you are unarmed.
We haven't learned a thing...and worse there isn't an flag out there keeping the faith like VADM Stockdale.
Copy all regarding the lelgal/admin issues. If you serve honorably for twenty years, make one mistake and get fired, you will not promote to O-6. There is no official punishment. I was just pointing out that the difference in retirement pay, especially over 30+ years cannot be overlooked as a "punishment" for being fired. The board is supposed to consider the sum of your career, but we know that is not the case.
You know, even Stockdale had his flaws. His tenure as President of The Citadel was terrible. He needlessly antagonized the Alumni, supressed scholarship donations, and screwed over some very good men. Their is no memorial on Campus to him- and his picture is not even up in the Daniel Library. And it should be that way. General Grimsley saved the college and it took him 5 years to undo the damage Stockdale did in one. Courageous man- but in that role he failed miserably. The Board of Visitors should never have hired him.
As Herman Wouk wrote- either warvis finished or we are.
I believe we have just eviscerated our next generation of leadership. You know, the ones who relish the idea of the challenges and triumphs that come with THEIR command. The ones who are undeterred by a slow economy--because they'll know they'll be successful on the outside. The ones who have intelligence, creativity, courage and honor to such a high degree that they recognize where it isn't and wish to have no association with that. The ones who thrive on trust, which is obviously not to be given now. More sad than angry.
Post a Comment