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?
CHANGE TO U.S. NAVY EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM …
January 18th, 2011 | Facebook Humor Navy Personnel | Posted by Bill McMichael
… but not really.
Had to add the disclaimer … retirement benefits are a mighty touchy topic. But while it’s got some age on it now, this is a priceless spoof we found on Facebook:
- CHANGE TO U.S. NAVY EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM
-
SUBJ: CHANGE TO U.S. NAVY EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM
A. PERSONNEL MANUAL, COMNAVINST M1000.6(SERIES)
1. AS A RESULT OF SENATE PROPOSED FORCE REDUCTIONS AND BUDGET CUTS THE U.S. NAVY HAS DEVELOPED A PROGRAM TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL.
THIS PROGRAM IS UNDER TEST PHASE AND WILL BE EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2009. UNDER THIS NEW PROGRAM, OLDER SAILORS WILL BE ASKED TO GO ON EARLY RETIREMENT, THUS PERMITTING THE RETENTION OF THE YOUNGER SAILORS WHO REPRESENT THE FUTURE. THEREFORE, THIS PROGRAM WILL PHASE OUT OLDER SAILORS BY THE END OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. THIS INITIAL PHASE OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE KNOWN AS SLAP (SAILORS LATE-AGED PROGRAM). SAILORS WHO ARE SLAPPED WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK FOR JOBS OUTSIDE THE U.S. NAVY. SLAPPED SAILORS CAN REQUEST A REVIEW OF THEIR PERSONNEL RECORDS BEFORE ACTUAL RETIREMENT TAKES PLACE.2. THIS PHASE OF THE PROGRAM IS CALLED SCREW (SURVEY OF CAPABILITIES OF RETIRED EARLY WORKERS). ALL SAILORS WHO HAVE BEEN SLAPPED OR SCREWED MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITH THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND WITH FINAL AUTHORITY AT THE AREA LEVEL.
3. THIS IS CALLED SHAFT (STUDY BY HIGHER AUTHORITY FOLLOWING TERMINATION). UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NEW POLICY, A SAILOR MAY BE SLAPPED ONCE, SCREWED TWICE, BUT MAY BE SHAFTED AS MANY TIMES AS THE U.S. NAVY DEEMS APPROPRIATE. IF A SAILOR FOLLOWS THE ABOVE PROCEDURES, HE/SHE WILL BE ENTITLED TO GET HERPES (HALF EARNINGS FOR RETIRED PERSONNEL’S EARLY SEVERANCE) OR CLAP (COMBINED LUMP-SUM ASSISTANCE PAYMENT), UNLESS HE/SHE ALREADY HAS AIDS (ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM DEPENDENTS OR SPOUSE).
4. AS HERPES AND CLAP ARE CONSIDERED BENEFIT PLANS, ANY SAILOR WHO HAS RECEIVED HERPES OR CLAP WILL NO LONGER BE SLAPPED OR SCREWED BY THE U.S. NAVY. THE U.S. NAVY WISHES TO ASSURE THE YOUNGER SAILORS WHO REMAIN ON BOARD, THAT THE U.S. NAVY WILL CONTINUE ITS POLICY OF TRAINING SAILORS THROUGH OUR SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING (****). THE U.S. NAVY TAKES PRIDE IN THE AMOUNT OF **** OUR SAILORS RECEIVE. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR SAILORS MORE **** THAN ANY OTHER SERVICE. IF ANY SAILOR FEELS THEY DO NOT RECEIVE ENOUGH **** AT THEIR CURRENT DUTY STATION, SEE YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR. YOUR SUPERVISOR IS SPECIALLY TRAINED TO MAKE SURE YOU RECEIVE ALL THE **** YOU CAN STAND.
5. THIS CHANGE WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO A FUTURE CHANGE TO REF A.
6. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED. (read less)
Linked from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62018641907
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.
Gobsmacked
December 6th, 2010 | Blogs Fleet Forces Command Navy Personnel Ships | Posted by Bill McMichael
Those with a particularly British cultural literacy know the meaning of this great slang term, but for the rest of us (including yours truly), “gobsmacked” means “utterly astounded.” It also describes the reaction of Yeoman 2nd Class (SW) Lucien Gauthier, whose post to a U.S. Naval Institute blog recounts his amazement that a four-star fleet commander ended up attending his Nov. 30 re-enlistment ceremony.
It started when Gauthier filled in a standard re-enlistment ceremony form’s question about “re-enlisting officer” with “Adm. Harvey.” As in, Adm. John Harvey, commander of Fleet Forces Command. Gauthier didn’t know Harvey but had posted to his blog — anonymously — while he was stationed in Afghanistan. His chain of command on the San Antonio, however, wasn’t swayed by Gauthier’s admiration of the admiral and said, “No way.” Gauthier said he understood, and opted instead for his former supply officer from the ship.
The morning of his re-enlistment, Gauthier was passed a surprise note and message from a YN3: “Dude, I think Admiral Harvey is going to come to your re-enlistment!” Gauthier doesn’t recount precisely how this came to be, and he probably doesn’t know, but to make a long story shorter, it happened. Gauthier recalled his remarks during the ceremony: “I didn’t think I would be saying this in front of such auspicious company.” He told members of the crew who were present “that they were the ones from who I learned what it means to be a Shipmate. It had been a long, strange trip aboard SAN ANTONIO. But, I’d gladly do it all over again.”
And of Harvey’s visit? Said Gauthier, “I can’t believe this happened. I just really can’t.”
The cyber-troops of tomorrow
October 4th, 2010 | Personnel Science and technology | Posted by Phil Ewing
A new cadre of Navy "cyber warrants" could be for computer-warfare what pilots such as Chief Warrant Officer 2 Fredrick Torres, seen here with his UH 60, are for Army aviation. // Sgt. Beth Gorenc / Army
Here’s a challenge for today’s high-tech, super-joint Navy: How do you attract a cadre of — let’s be honest here — nerdy, perhaps less-martial computer experts that will stick around to pay back the time and money required to train them in the arcane cyber-disciplines that none of us understand? A 1980s-style movie montage immediately springs to mind: Glasses ground under boot heels at Recruit Training Command; graphing calculators used as fodder for games of keep-away; shaved heads dunked into toilet bowls in special rigged-for-sea, high-reg swirlies…. and so on.
The top brass has evidently had these same visions, which is why 10th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told House lawmakers not long ago that the Navy is developing new cyber-specific career fields, including what he called “cyber warrants” and “cyber engineers.” Not many details yet on what that actually means, but the idea seems to be that a cyber warrant, for example, could spend a career like many Army aviators, who get to fly their beloved helicopters safe from being promoted to a desk job, or staff assignment, or the other parts of a career that take you outside your area of specialization.
Moreover, these cyber-warrants might have duty that didn’t look much like ordinary Navy service: Hanging out up at Fort Meade, Md., or at other shore installations that serve as major network nodes, and potentially going to sea much less often than Joe or Jane Deckplate. In fact, could this present a way for the Navy to entice people already in the force today to lat-move into the cyber world? That might be a quick way to solve part of the cadre-building problem… Would you do it?
The Navy suffers its latest cyber attack
July 19th, 2010 | Personnel Science and technology | Posted by Phil Ewing
"Vampire, vampire, vampire! Attack inbound! A magazine says NPC's website uses an outmoded, early 2000s-era user interface! Brace for imact!" // Navy
The threat-warning receivers at 10th Fleet have got to be wailing this morning after the Navy endured its latest computer-network attack: Information Week has included Navy Personnel Command’s website on a list of 12 government pages that it calls “shocking examples of bad user experience.”
(So, wait, does that also mean that Naval Administration Messages — DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE TELETYPE MACHINES THAT COULD NOT PRODUCE BOTH UPPER AND LOWER-CASE CHARACTERS — are no longer a state-of-the-art communications medium?)
The net’s Special Duty Crypto Captain made his displeasure known:
As a member of the information dominance corps, I find this both appalling and somewhat embarrassing. In an organization that says “People are our number 1 priority” and “we are the most dominant information force in the U.S. military,” this site does not reflect either of those statements. We owe our sailors more. I hope this is not a contractor-maintained website.
It’s the most serious strike against a Navy computer system since those tense few hours during which Navy-Marine Corps Intranet users couldn’t bring up Fox News, which led Fox News to ask whether the Navy’s computer network had been compromised by hackers. What do you think? Is NPC’s site simple but usable? Or is it just a step above the pony express?
Pilot wash-down links
July 8th, 2010 | Personnel Royal Navy Submarines The Pacific | Posted by Phil Ewing
"Keep it comin', shipmates!" // Navy
It’s a brutally hot week here in the National Capital Region. Cars are getting trapped in the asphalt as it liquefies; birds are bursting into flames in mid-air; and on Wednesday we had to turn off all the lights here at the Center of Excellence in order to forestall a blackout. Y”know what would be nice? Landing a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier, climbing out of the cockpit and getting drenched by a fire hose. That, and looking at some links:
- Our senior colleague Bill McMichael obtained a copy of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell survey making its way to service members across the military, and you can check out his exclusive report here.
- Time Magazine says the presence of all four SSGNs in the Pacific — you can remember them because they’re two pairs of football rivals, Ohio v Michigan and Florida v Georgia — should sound “alarm bells” in Beijing.
- The U.K.’s top navy man, First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Mark Stanhope, is going on the defensive: The Royal Navy is not a luxury, he says — it’s a necessity.
- The U.S. Navy’s cruiser-mod program continues apace, but it doesn’t seem to be following the ships’ class order: The next patient to undergo the treatment is Chosin, which is CG 65, after the first one to finish was Bunker Hill, CG 52.
- Strikegroupsploitation continues on the periphery of the web! Now the senior naval correspondent of Workers World is breaking the story those stooges in the lamestream media don’t want you to see: “The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Force included an aircraft carrier, a guided missile cruiser and nearly a dozen Aegis-class destroyers. Also included were the German frigate GGS Hessen and at least one Israeli vessel. Three nuclear-powered carriers with their complements of destroyers and cruisers, amphibious assault ships, and 10,000 combat personnel are now arrayed off Iran’s coasts.” Pow! Shazam! Gee whiz!
- Military Times’ senior sportswriter Mike Hoffman has all the details on the Naval Academy’s incoming class of football players over at our siblog After Action.
Seven in Seven
May 21st, 2010 | Aviation Carriers Coast Guard Congress Foreign navies Maritime operations Mishaps Naval Academy Navy Personnel Ships Sports Submarines The Pacific Washington | Posted by Lance Bacon
Sailors aboard the carrier Ronald Reagan conduct a test of the aqueous film forming foam firefighting system during a planned incremental availability maintenance period. Ronald Reagan is completing its first underway period since October 2009. (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Alexander Tidd)
It’s been another busy week for the Navy. Here are seven stories in seven minutes from the past seven days that are worthy of notice:
1. Defense Bill passes HASC. This bill has tons of important stuff – far too much to put in this blog. You can check Monday’s edition of Navy Times for the complete scoop. But among the highlights is this news that lawmakers bucked the Pentagon’s 1.4 percent pay raise request, and looks to instead give service members a 1.9 percent boost.
In addition, the bill aligns the 30-year shipbuilding plan with the QDR, which bodes well for the 313-ship Navy. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and the Seapower committee he chairs, put the following in the bill:
Gates claims sanity
May 20th, 2010 | Aviation Carriers Congress leadership Navy Personnel Washington | Posted by Lance Bacon
For the second time in as many weeks, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has publicly proclaimed his own sanity. Or at least that he is “not crazy.”
The first happened May 7 when he told reporters:
I may want to change things, but I’m not crazy. I’m not going to cut a carrier, OK?”
The comment was in response to headlines Gates made on May 3 when he questioned the need for 11 carrier strike groups.
Today, Gates conceded a fiscal fight when the House Armed Services Committee decided the Pentagon’s basic pay raise from 1.4 to 1.9 percent. As first reported by Military Times’ own Bill McMichael in this story, the SecDef wanted to spend the $500 million difference on procurement. Congress wanted to spend it on the troops. Gates withdrew from the fight, telling Pentagon reporters (you guessed it):
I want change. But I’m not crazy.”
But Gates is sticking to his guns on the issue of JSF engines. He has warned that he would recommend a presidential veto if the HASC kept $485 million in funding for a second F-35 engine in the defense bill. It did. Gates, who says the second engine is a waste of money, said Thursday that he will “strongly recommend” the bill be vetoed, as promised.
Clearly he doesn’t think that’s crazy.
Reporter’s Notebook: CNO @ Heritage Foundation
May 14th, 2010 | Aviation Ballistic missile defense Carriers China Environment Foreign navies leadership Maritime operations Navy Personnel The Middle East The Pacific Washington | Posted by Lance Bacon
Adm. Gary Roughead speaks at the Heritage Foundation's annual series of events aimed at highlighting key national defense and homeland security issues. (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist First Class Tiffini Jones Vanderwyst)
Date: May 13, 2010
Location: Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.
Subj: CNO comments
In a speech and response to questions offered at the Heritage Foundation Thursday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead urged fiscal responsibility yet downplayed talk of further cuts to Navy ships and programs.
He agreed with Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ call for greater scrutiny in procurement, and said he is a “proponent” for considering revisions to decades-old laws governing personnel issues. (You can read more about that in Monday’s edition of Navy Times).
Other highlights: Read the rest of this entry »