Mismanaged projects and funds? The boss wants to know — through channels
February 23rd, 2012 | Blogs Fleet Forces Command Inspector General Investigation Maintenance Navy Software | Posted by Bill McMichael
Fleet Forces Command chief Adm. John Harvey sure raised eyebrows with his Thursday post on the command blog when he chastised those posting comments about “potential mismanagement of Navy projects and funds.”
Harvey said he wants to know about potential problems — and he’s been one to solicit feedback in the past — but a blog, he said, is not the place to voice serious allegations that, if unresolvable by the chain of command, might be better directed to an inspector general.
Harvey appears to be referring specifically to five comments posted at the tail of Feb. 9 post providing an update on his comprehensive review of all software being used in the fleet, dubbed the “Fleet FAM effort”. The initiative aims “to reverse the damage caused by so many years of undisciplined software management in the Fleet and by the many entities who were able to deliver software applications to the Fleet,” Harvey wrote.
The comments begin with a critical post about Automated Work Notification, a replacement for Organizational Maintenance Management System-Next Generation (asleep yet?), a program used to manage and document surface ship maintenance actions that provides an interface for requesting material and spare parts support for a ship’s installed systems.
The problem, the writer, an officer, complains, is that more than $100 million has been spent on development since 2007, yet AWN “does nothing to ease the burden on the Fleet and help Sailors do their jobs” and, in fact, “increases the burden.” At the same time, the Navy has simultaneously developed a “95 percent solution in-house” that does the job, the writer claims.
A follow-on commenter corrected the first writer, saying more than $175 million has been spent on OMMS-NG since 2005. The writer provided an equally negative assessment, saying the money bought the Navy “pretty much nothing, just a bunch of software that is riddled with security vulnerabilities.” The root of the problem, the writer said, lies with Harvey’s own N43, Fleet Maintenance.
Two additional writers poured it on, with a fifth arguing that both AWN and the in-house solution should be skipped over in favor of the existing Fleet Assessment Support Tool, which with some tweaks could do the job. The money would be better spent hiring more subject matter experts at Regional Maintenance Facilities, the writer said.
To Fleet Forces Command’s credit, the comments weren’t deleted — testament to Harvey’s stated desire to hear about problems. But he’d obviously much prefer to air the dirty laundry out of the public eye.
“I want to be clear that I am still very interested in feedback regarding the various topics we routinely discuss on this blog,” Harvey concluded. “As I said in my last post, deckplate feedback has been absolutely critical for me to identify and address some of the biggest issues in the Fleet. But I want to strongly reiterate that when the issues involve matters such as fraud, waste, abuse and the mismanagement of projects and funds, we need to ensure we’re reporting those matters through the proper channels.”
And the problems already aired? Said Harvey, “My staff has been gathering the facts on the issues identified and will determine whether an official investigation is warranted.”
A new Old Salt
December 15th, 2011 | Chief of naval operations Fleet Forces Command Navy Norfolk Naval Station Officers Photos The Old Salt | Posted by Bill McMichael
By custom, the surface warfare officer with the earliest Officer of the Deck qualification is recognized as the Navy’s “Old Salt” — an award initiated in 1988 by the Surface Navy Association.
On Friday, that distinction will be bestowed on Adm. John Harvey, commander of Fleet Forces Command, in a ceremony aboard the amphibious transport dock ship San Antonio at Naval Station Norfolk.
The current Old Salt is the recently retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who stepped back into civilian life Sept. 30 following four years as the nation’s top military officer and 43 years of service. There was no interim Old Salt, according to Ted Brown, a Fleet Forces Command spokesman.
Harvey, who graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1973, earned his OOD qual on Oct. 11, 1977, aboard the nuclear-powered cruiser Bainbridge. He assumed command of Fleet Forces in July 2009.
Dec. 20 CLARIFICATION: According to Brown, Harvey earned his surface warfare officer or SWO pin in October 1977. He earned his OOD qual in the spring of that year.
Here’s the Old Salt and the Old Salt-to-be back in 2005, when Mullen, then the chief of naval operations, promoted Harvey to vice admiral.
Rear Adm. John Harvey, left, is promoted to vice admiral by then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen on Nov. 22, 2005. Harvey assumed the duties as Chief of Naval Personnel/Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education. Harvey is now a full admiral and commander of Fleet Forces Command. // U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer's Mate Johnny Bivera
Recognition for “above and beyond” IAs
August 9th, 2011 | Afghanistan Awards Fleet Forces Command individual augmentees Iraq Navy Personnel | Posted by Bill McMichael
More than 90,000 sailors have served in individual augmentee assignments — largely in Iraq, Afghanistan and environs — and Tuesday, Fleet Forces Command launched a web site honoring those who’ve “performed above and beyond the call of duty.”
The site pays tribute to the 1,416 IAs awarded the Bronze Star, the 10 given the Bronze Star with Combat “V” device, the 48 awarded Purple Hearts, the one sailor awarded the Silver Star and the 14 killed in the line of duty as of Aug. 9. The page also lists the totals, but not the IA recipients, for every meritorious service medal awarded.
“We are proud to launch this webpage to collectively thank our IA Sailors for their distinguished service,” said Adm. John Harvey, Fleet Forces commander. “And it is fitting that we honor the service members who paid the ultimate price during overseas contingency operations. Their service and sacrifice will not be forgotten.”
Navy IAs have worked in a wide variety of combat service and combat service support roles in the fields of logistics and contracting, engineering, security assistance, detainee operations, headquarters staff, medical support, military training, Provincial Reconstruction Teams and many other roles.
Names in the Navy IA Hall of Honor were pulled from the official Navy Awards database, Defense.gov and the Defense Manpower Data Center. Unintended omissions from the site may be addressed via the “contact us” link on the webpage, Fleet Forces says.
(WORK SPACE AMBIENCE WARNING: If you haven’t gone to the site already, turn your speakers down first unless you want to stir your co-workers with a loud, brassy patriotic fanfare, the old bugle call “To the Color.”) Clicking on any of the links on the left mutes the music in mid-riff.
2nd Fleet … fading from view
June 28th, 2011 | Admirals Disestablishment Fleet Forces Command Navy Second Fleet Training | Posted by Bill McMichael
The path toward the Sept. 30 disestablishment of 2nd Fleet, the command that oversees all Atlantic-based naval operations and the training and certification of fleet battle groups, and its merger with Fleet Forces Command, runs this week through a “merged staff functional assessment” — a four-day exercise that aims to evaluate the soon-to-be merged command’s ability to react to a crisis event.
It would be interesting to see that evaluation. Concerns about the merged staff’s ability to do so were raised internally by senior officials involved in the planning of the move, according to an internal Fleet Forces Command report and subsequent independent study reported on by Navy Times May 22. As noted by a former 2nd Fleet commander, retired Vice Adm. Marty Chanik, the consolidated staff, minus a total of 460 active-duty and reserve billets being lost at 2nd Fleet, could be overstretched to the extent of possibly “losing either [Area of Responsibility]-wide situational awareness or local fleet focus,” Chanik wrote.
This strain could increase, Chanik said, during out-of-area deployments or unexpected events, such as a hurricane evacuation.
In fact, high-demand situations could force significant internal staff shifts, wrote Vice Adm. Gerald Beaman in the internal staff report. At the time, Beaman was Fleet Forces’ former deputy chief of staff for Global Force Management, Joint Operations and Fleet/Joint Training; he now serves as the 3rd Fleet commander. “Obviously, from an operational perspective, we’d need to maintain our ability to pull personnel throughout the command to support crisis operations,” Beaman wrote.
Despite such concerns, Fleet Forces, in a June 27 press release, says the restructured and merged Fleet Forces staff will be able to “execute its mission without risk to operational forces.”
“The ability to assume no risk to the execution of current operations and all operational functions of C2F is fundamental to the merger of the USFF/C2F staffs,” said Rear Adm. Scott Craig, Fleet Forces’ deputy chief of staff for fleet capabilities requirements, concepts, and experimentation.
In the exercise, which began Monday, about 125 personnel were moved to an unidentified alternate operating facility outside of the Norfolk area in response to a notional hurricane scenario, “testing the command’s ability to execute a Continuity of Operations Plan.” The exercise will “help identify gaps and seams across elements of the staff in a simulated crisis; ensure staff capability to operate across strategic, operational and tactical levels of responsibility; demonstrate the ability to exercise Command & Control of the Fleet from an alternate operating facility; and enable directorates and special assistants to prepare for the upcoming hurricane season.”
The need for an alternate command and control facility outside of Norfolk — should, say, a natural disaster render Fleet Forces’ command capabilities inoperative — is required in part because of the imminent loss of 2nd Fleet’s Maritime Operations Center, also located in Norfolk, which is being merged with Fleet Forces’. Fleet Forces spokesman Capt. Chris Sims said in May that in the long term, the Navy “will gain savings by not maintaining and upgrading two Maritime Operations Centers less than two miles from each other.”
The disestablishment decision is the result of a 2010 Pentagon savings initiative that required the services to find ways to reduce spending by more than $150 billion over the next five years.
The Navy declined to provide an estimate of how much the 2nd Fleet disestablishment will save annually.
A success story, and a lesson learned
April 30th, 2011 | Board of Inspection and Survey Fleet Forces Command Gator Navy leadership Maintenance Navy Personnel Photos | Posted by Bill McMichael
A year ago, the dock landing ship Oak Hill was in poor shape — and that’s by the Fleet Forces Command chief’s reckoning. Beginning in 2005, five deployments in five years, no time for maintenance and inadequate manning had left the relatively young ship with a degraded power plant, endemic corrosion and a whole lot of systems that just didn’t work. A long-overdue yard period, money, lots of outside help and long hours produced a remarkable turnaround Apr. 4-8, when the ship passed its rigid underway material inspection by the Board of Inspection and Survey with flying colors. Oak Hill scored “green” in 16 of 18 functional areas, and “yellow” in the other two. Refurbishment and upgrade work continues, but the ship is just about back up to where officials want it to be. And it’s looking good:
The dock landing ship Oak Hill, on a recent afternoon at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story. // Photo by William H. McMichael
The lesson learned — or more accurately (over the past two years), reinforced — is that it’s far easier, and the Navy is better served, when ships are maintained on a more even keel. That means, officials say, ships accurately reporting problems, leaders honestly assessing and reporting how much money the Navy needs for ship maintenance, and fully manning ships so that commands can better perform everyday maintenance as well as prepare to fight.
For more detail, see our story in Monday’s Navy Times.
San Antonio: still pierside — but getting there
March 23rd, 2011 | Board of Inspection and Survey Fleet Forces Command Gator Navy LPD-17 Maintenance Navy Photos San Antonio class Ships Surface Force Atlantic | Posted by Bill McMichael
The amphibious transport dock Mesa Verde left its Naval Station Norfolk pier at 9:05 Wednesday morning as the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group began deploying to the Med and the Libya crisis.
As it pulled away, its wake gently lapped up against the starboard-side hull of San Antonio, moored at the next pier over, in what amounted to a love tap. Mesa Verde’s crew might have preferred delivering more of a kick in the rear. The third ship in the class, Mesa Verde had been home only eight months since its last overseas deployment, and it wasn’t supposed to deploy until late 2012. Instead, it was going to sea more than a year earlier than planned in the place of San Antonio — the class’s lead ship. Commissioned in 2006 and plagued by structural and systemic issues during its maiden and only deployment in 2008-2009, it is still getting undergoing repairs.
The amphibious transport dock San Antonio, Naval Station Norfolk, March 23, 2011. // Camera phone photo by William H. McMichael
But there’s light on the horizon. According to the ship’s executive officer, Cmdr. Neil Koprowski, San Antonio is rounding into shape and on April 25 will go to sea for three weeks of intensive sea trials. Koprowski said it’ll be a “full assessment — soup to nuts” — with high visibility. One visitor, he said, will be Adm. John Harvey, commander of Fleet Forces Command, who made the call to hold San Antonio back.
If the ship passes muster, it’ll begin a 20-week basic training phase in preparation for getting back into the fleet’s rotation. Then, in October, another test: a visit from the famously tough Board of Inspection and Survey.
Koprowski, nine months into the job, is optimistic. “We’re excited about getting back out there and showing the world … we’re gonna do good things,” he said.
‘XO Movie Night’ videos are out … all of them
March 4th, 2011 | Admirals Carriers Enterprise Fleet Forces Command Investigation JAGMAN leadership Navy Navy secretary Officers Personnel Video | Posted by Bill McMichael
As you probably know by now, Adm. John Harvey of Fleet Forces Command on Thursday unveiled the results of his investigation into the controversial “XO Movie Night” video skits aired on the carrier Enterprise from 2005 to 2007, recommending that secretarial letters of censure be issued to two admirals and two of the carrier’s former executive officers — including Capt. Owen Honors, who as XO played a primary role in most of the questionable productions.
If you haven’t read about the findings yet, here’s our short version. For those with a LOT of time on their hands, and perhaps curious about the 22 previously unleaked/unreleased videos containing what Harvey decided was objectionable material, go here. (Warning: Make sure you’re on a computer with a lot of juice and some volume control …)
Honors: Should he stay, or go?
February 2nd, 2011 | Board of Inquiry Carriers Detachment for Cause Fleet Forces Command Navy Navy Personnel Command Officers Personnel Retirement Show Cause | Posted by Bill McMichael
We reported in our print edition this week (dated Feb. 7) that Fleet Forces Command chief Adm. John Harvey has recommended Capt. Owen Honors be detached for cause. As those in the service know, that’s not separation from the Navy, but the formal completion of the administrative process of removing him from command of the carrier Enterprise, which was done Jan. 4 when he was fired by Harvey over his involvement in controversial shipboard video skits recorded several years earlier when he was the flattop’s XO. And Harvey can only recommend a DFC; approval is up to the chief of Navy Personnel Command, currently Rear Adm. Donald Quinn.
However, a DFC can lead to getting kicked out, and the formality of the DFC is required to continue the process. If the DFC request is approved, the official designated as the Show Cause Authority — either Quinn or the deputy chief of staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs — will review Honors’ entire record and decide whether he should be required to “show cause” why he should be retained on active duty. (Of note: under the regulation, either official could delegate the authority to an “Officer Exercising General Court-Martial Jurisdiction” — such as Harvey.)
If so inclined, the Show Cause Authority would order the convening of a Board of Inquiry, whose members would consider Honors’ overall record of service, including the DFC findings, in determining whether to recommend separation. If they did, members would also decide whether Honors, who with 27 years of service is retirement-eligible, should be retired as a captain or at a lesser grade. The final decision would be up to the secretary of the Navy.
While it remains to be seen what might be decided, granting the DFC would seem to be a foregone conclusion. The greater question: whether you agree with his being fired or not, does Honors deserve to get the DFC and the boot, or to remain in the Navy? What are your thoughts?
Firing Honors, pro and con, Week 2
January 10th, 2011 | Blogs Carriers Fleet Forces Command leadership Life at Sea Morale Navy Officers Personnel | Posted by Bill McMichael
Adm. John Harvey learned about the controversial, four-year-old shipboard videos co-produced by Capt. Owen Honors on Dec. 31 — the day before they were published for the first time outside the skin of the carrier Enterprise — and “immediately ordered an investigation,” he says in a Jan. 7 post on his command blog.
Harvey also says he reviewed the videotapes published online by Norfolk’s Virginian-Pilot newspaper that weekend and then made his controversial decision to fire Honors, who’d graduated from executive officer — his position when the sometimes-racy, meant-to-be-humorous short films were produced — to become the 49-year-old carrier’s commanding officer. Honors was canned barely a week before the carrier deploys Jan. 13, possibly for the final time.
“When I did view those videos, I took action – just as I would have had I seen them four years ago,” Harvey wrote.
Those weighing in on Harvey’s decision seem to fall into two distinct camps. 1: Honors was a great leader who motivated his hard-working, much-deployed crew with humor they could relate to, the content wasn’t any edgier than what is broadcast every day on cable TV and his dismissal is a gutless reaction to outside media pressure. 2: XOs and COs are supposed to behave like grown-ups; Honors created a poor command climate that denigrated at least some crew members; and like it or not, today’s naval leaders must be cognizant of the image they project, here and abroad.
One Honors supporter’s view: “How dare anyone act as if those silly videos compromise the Navy,” wrote a civilian identifying herself as Dani MarieBernadette D’Angelo. “They are what they are, a means of blowing off steam for our sons and daughters who are so far from home and in dangerous situations. … the only reason that they have become a problem now is because the Navy wants to bow to the politically correct agenda. Captain Honors lives by a set of core values that anyone would be proud of.”
Another: “Leaders lead by example,” Anonymous wrote. ” CAPT Honors produced a funny, over the top, and professional [sic] filmed movie which was not to be taken seriously. You talk to his sailors; CAPT Honors was all business, a role model, and one hell of a Navy Officer. He is the guy you want fighting your ship in battle.”
Others say Honors set a poor example for others to follow. “What those individuals have missed is, to my mind, the TRULY grievous act that CAPT Honors committed: setting a negative, hostile command environment for the crew of ENTERPRISE when he was XO,” wrote James. “He mocked anyone who objected to his unacceptable behavior. He erased ANY personal credibility that he had when it came to dealing with issues of sexual harassment. It was even implied that filing a grievance would do no good — he was `above’ their control. That, more than anything, is what makes his behavior so damaging and toxic.”
Added SubIconoclast: “The line between ‘bold’ and ‘reckless’ can shift depending on whether we are at war or in peace, and senior officers must recognize that even units employed in war WILL be evaluated against peacetime standards when they appear in the national media of a nation which is generally at peace.
“Today’s combat leaders simply have to meet both standards; complaining about it won’t change the fundamental facts of the situation. CAPT Honors knew that – he just made the mistake of assuming that he could get away with skipping the `Washington Post’ test before recording videos and broadcasting them to thousands. That doesn’t make him a bad American but it does diminish his ability to command effectively.”
Both camps generally express a common thread: Go after the senior leaders who knew of the videos and didn’t react decisively four years ago. Some of those leaders are the subject of our story in this week’s Navy Times.
Support for Capt. Honors
January 3rd, 2011 | Aviation Carriers Facebook Fleet Forces Command leadership Life at Sea Morale Movies Navy Officers Video | Posted by Bill McMichael
The Navy didn’t mince words in its official reaction to Capt. Owen Honors’ role in the creation of what are viewed by many as overly suggestive or inappropriate videos — meant to be humorous — that were broadcast aboard the carrier Enterprise during his run as XO back in 2006-2007. “Those in command … are held accountable for setting the proper tone and upholding the standards of honor, courage and commitment that we expect sailors to exemplify,” said Cmdr. Chris Sims, spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
You won’t find any such criticism on a Facebook page, “We Support Captain O.P. Honors!”, established on Jan. 1 — the same day the story was broken by Norfolk’s Virginian-Pilot newspaper — that describes itself as a “Support Group for a great Executive Officer and his extraordinarily funny XO Movie Night Skits.” It’s growing by the minute, with 1,230 members as of 12 noon EST Monday and nearly 600 posts, nearly all praising Honors, who now commands the ship as it prepares to deploy, and dismissing the videos as harmless fun meant to lighten the stress of shipboard life. Here are some examples:
“I used to be a sailor aboard the USS Enterprise and served while Capt Honors was both a XO and a CO,” one woman wrote. “I was aboard the ship while the videos under question were being filmed and watched them myself. The way the videos were reported to the world as `raunchy’ and `lewd’ is completely unrepresentative of the good-natured humor behind them. Capt Honors’ videos were always a highlight of the week.”
“I served with then-CDR Honors during the 2006 Deployment and know him to be an honorable man,” wrote one man. “The XO made the videos to address real shipboard issues in a comedic fashion. The crew always looked forward to them. Do not sacrifice this officer on the altar of political correctness.”
In the Tell Us What You Really Think Department, 0ne woman really let fly. “I pretty much hated EVERYTHING about being on the Enterprise EXCEPT for the people I worked with, and XO MOVIE NIGHT!,” she wrote. “Way to GO Capt. Honors! F*** EVERYONE ELSE that finds that s*** offensive….let them get back to their Lifetime Original Movies.”
The videos — you can see an edited version here — have generated national attention, with broadcast stories on every network. The videos include scenes of simulated same-sex showers and masturbation and a reference by one of Honors’ “alternate personalities” — a video trick — to another as “fag SWO boy,” leading some commentators to call the videos lewd, sexist and homophobic. Others raise questions about Honors’ leadership style. Sims said Fleet Forces has launched an investigation into the production of the videos.
What do you think?