The former executive officer of the carrier Enterprise can remain on active duty despite a finding that his job performance aboard the carrier fell short of standards, a Navy board of inquiry decided Wednesday.I know a two of the Admirals on that board. Anyone passing judgment on their integrity, morals, perspective, motivations, or professionalism on this issue - frankly - does not know what they are talking about.
Capt. Owen Honors was brought to the board of inquiry for co-producing dozens of controversial and sometimes bawdy video vignettes shown aboard the ship in 2006 and 2007.
The three-admiral board unanimously agreed Honors committed misconduct, failed to demonstrate acceptable qualities of leadership required of an officer in his grade and failed to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment. But it also voted 3-0 that Honors “be retained in the naval service.”
I defer to the board's judgment on the task they were given, and will leave it at that.
UPDATE: As a TACAIR guy - Lex has a very mature, well thought out, and spot on observation at this place. Check it out.
19 comments:
No problem with the board or their decision.
Seems like justice was served at this level, even though his detachment for cause nearly five years after his "offense" was a gross overreaction in my opinion.
I still think there is a serious cancer in the ranks in the form of whoever initiated this witch hunt, rumored to have been after someone on board was on the verge of being punished for their own misconduct. Now, that is an area where we need to investigate and clean house!
How does this square with his fitreps? Seems as if somebody is going to have to account for those glowing reviews while he was XO. I am happy to see that he was retained, but it just raises a host of other issues.
When last I checked, findings by a BOI were binding on the "Bureau Against Naval Personnel" while recommendations regarding retention on active duty were just that - recommendations. So, the Board's findings of misconduct are binding but their recommendation that he be retained on active duty is not. The Bureau could still discharge him..... A very common tactic by Counsel for Respondent (the term for the "defendant" at a BOI) is to help the Board understand this techincal point and urge them to find "no misconduct" if they want to retain the respondent. A finding of "no misconduct" ties the Bureau's hands - they can't discharge him. but a finding of misconduct leaves the Bureau free to discharge regardless of what the Board recommends.
+1. Staff Weenies rule!
Given all the factors this is about the best that could be anticipated. Maybe this fine officer will now have a chance to polish his golf game or perhaps write a book :)
I want to see him produce an evening Sitcom. They've generally sucked since Seinfeld.
See post re: same at informationdissemination.net -- harsh critique on CAPT Owens. However, it rings true. This is a bad situation, all around, for the Navy. I hope current & future COs/XOs, and all JOs learn from this.
Link leads to USNI site, books, history, Agents of Innovation - should be required reading.
Dammit. Wrong link. Anyway Salamander has it now, too.
Alternatively, they could just ignore that fact.
The baby, however, remains dismembered and dead.
<span>Let's see someone like CWO Gilbert deliver similar testimony on behalf of the complainer, or on behalf of Admiral Harvey, for that matter.</span>
<p><span>OP is my classmate from the boat school.<span> </span>Probably would never have received my Aero degree without his tutelage.<span> </span>Great guy. </span>
</p><p><span>The problem with “inquiries”, the Honors variety, the Tailhook variety, or the Salem variety, is that once that genie is out of the bottle there is no way to make the accused whole again if the inquiry overreaches.<span> </span>OP lost his CVN command.<span> </span>Whether you felt his behavior as Enterprise XO rose to the level of misconduct or not, losing his command addressed the issue.<span> </span>Everything from the point of his CVN CO relief on has not been about OP’s conduct but has been about the Flags keeping THEIR jobs</span>
</p><p><span>When I saw Prindle was on the Board I got a bit nervous.<span> </span>Anyone care to start a VP overseas misconduct thread?<span> </span>That ought to keep the witch hunters busy for a few decades.</span>
</p>
Sweet. Petitions do work. That's a data point I never thought I'd see.
Which is what will probably happen.
Saturday Night Live for sure in due time.
I'd rather have sister in whorehouse than a brother in VP. Prindle was nurtured by some truly reprehensible in the VP community.
Don't agree with you 'Phib about the integrity of the board. Certainly would not agree with anyone that seriously thinks Harvey has any integrity.
This board is not about justice, or anything like it. It's all about CYA for the flags, and even a little about covering for Harvey's idiocy on the matter.
The Navy is still woefully screwed up, and this board is just another data point in support of my conclusion.
QM,
I think that you can disagree with someone's decision without calling their integrity in to question. Like I said before, Harvey made the best of a series of bad options he had - as he saw it. He had to make the call, and he did. I don't think he lost any integrity by it.
Disagree with his decision if you wish - but unless you have something to base it on, I don't think you can bring his integrity in to question.
Post a Comment