CDR Jackson, IGs, & Primary Sources

There will be reading required on your part. Use the head, get a cup of coffee, and then come back. This is serious. It is about a man's reputation of over two-decades in the making, and a wardroom ignored.

Instead of a lot of lengthy commentary on my part, after a short introduction and some pull quotes - I want you to open your mind and come to your own conclusions. Most of you are aware of the following;

The commanding officer of a Navy jet squadron was fired for using sexual language in front of his pilots, especially when drinking, in a case that may stir debate about where the line is drawn for acceptable behavior in a U.S. military that is increasingly intolerant of missteps.

Details of accusations against Cmdr. Jonathan L. Jackson, 43, have emerged in a Navy Inspector General report that led to the EA-6B Prowler squadron leader being relieved of command in December.

I haven't posted on this so far for two reasons - generally speaking I don't like to comment on every CO relief, and second - I thought Lex and his Ready Room did a fine enough job.

Here is what prompted me to weigh in; most people will just read the article, which is in my opinion unbalanced. A smaller cohort will read CDR Jackson's appeal - but - what is not provided are Encl. (1)-(29) in the appeal. That is what interests me.

In his appeal, CDR Jackson refers to them, but without the primary sources to read - they don't have the same impact.

Here is the first thing to do - I want you to read them all. If you want a full PDF for yourself, let me know and I'll email them to you. However ... head on over to Lex's place to read them in full.

For those of you feeling lazy - here are some pull quotes that hopefully will motivate you to read them.

"I was present at the Tahoe Admin on the Fallon NAS detachment in October 2010. ... CDR Jackson's statement (nor any portion of the conversation) was not directed at me, the VAQ-134 female officers, or females in general. His statement was directed at the culture of the Navy; while harsh, it is true."
...
"I believe that some of my interview statements could have been misunderstood or interpreted incorrectly. ... I did not leave the conversation feeling or thinking that CDR Jackson was harassing me or actually believing the females in his squadron were "whores/sluts." ... I feel naive, I trusted the IG Complaint process and suspect now that I was possibly manipulated by a trusted mentor into this situation. Please let me know if there is more I can do. If I need to elaborate or give more info, I will do so. I do not believe that CDR Jackson created a hostile work environment or condoned sexual harassment. I do not wish my opinions of conversations we had outside of work to define or stain CDR Jackson's reputation as the Commanding Officer of VAQ-134."
...
"... I believe that a comment I made in my statement to the EO Investigator has been taken out of context."
...
"As one of the only female officer's under Commander Jackson's command, I have spent countless flight hours, port calls, and detachments in the company of mostly male group. In all my time spent with these men, I have never felt excluded, discriminated against, or disrespected among them."
...
"As a female in the Command I never felt as though I was being singled out because I was a female. He treated me like any other Officer in the Ready Room. As a Hispanic in the command I never felt like I was being singled out due to my race."
...
"A quality to be revered in CDR Jackson's leadership style and personality is his impartiality to members of different sex and race."
...
"... in no way do I feel I was assaulted or sodomized. I don't feel like CDR Jackson was trying to hurt or demean me in any way. ... Throughout cruise XXXXXXX and XXXXXX would talk about how CDR Jackson should go and not be able to lead troops again. XXXXX certainly has had a grudge against CDR Jackson her whole time in the squadron and would have meetings in the Wardroom with XXXXXX documenting everything he did and discussing how they would contact the Inspector General."
...
"While I am not in a position to officially classify or judge the document, it is quite clear that there was a personal agenda, based on a perception of personal performance and relationship with the unit's Commanding Officer as compared to his peers, that prompted the origination of this log. The second item is even more telling in that the complainant did not bring his issues directly before the accused officer in question during the time of the writing the log."
...
"Of the few female officers in the squadron, I know of only one who had an unfavorable opinion of him. This particular individual also openly disliked most of the other officers in the squadron and could be characterized as judgmental, spiteful, and generally unpleasant.

There is a lot more. Read it all.

Second, I want to to read the IG report here. Don't skip - read it all down to the last line of the last page. Finally - read Captain Stephen McInerney, USN (the CAG), statement here - especially paras 4, 7, & 12. The conclusion is the pull quote:

Of any senior Officer in CDR Jackson's immediate or peripheral chains of command, I am uniquely qualified to evaluate, investigate and substantiate the validity of charged made against CDR Jackson. I have belonged to three aircraft communities, including the EA-6B community. I was the commanding officer of the EA-6B/EA-18G FRS for 28 months. I known all the officers involved. I was in constant contact with the VAQ Wing and knew of personnel issues associated with this squadron. I worked closely with CDR Jackson for over 18 months. In addition, I am known for being an exceptionally liberal advocate for diversity in the Navy and for having little patience for "Frat-boy" buffoonery. The Inspector General did not interview me during this investigation. I was not allowed to adjudicate this matter. This lack of trust by my chain of command puzzles me.

That sealed the deal for me. If you have spend a decade or more on active duty, we have all seen good IGs ... and IGs gone wrong. If you have two decades or more in service - especially on certain Staffs - you know that all is not well with the IG process. Is that the case here? Make that decision yourself - read the above as ask, "Is this the Navy we want? Is this the standard? Is this what we have wrought?"

---

UPDATE: Lex reminded me I have a Scribd account too. Heh.
Encl 1-29 Redacted