I don't have a dog in the fight, but I thought it was a well-researched and thought-provoking article.
I'll re-read it and report back with respect to your comments.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Bonhomme Richard fire
- Thread starter Treetop Flyer
- Start date
I'll re-read it and report back with respect to your comments.
What's your problem? The government wasn't able to prove its case.
"'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
'No, no! said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'
'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
'I won't!' said Alice.
'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice."
NPR: A sailor has been acquitted of setting a fire that destroyed a massive ship.
www.npr.org
A sailor has been acquitted of setting a fire that destroyed a massive ship
A military judge on Friday acquitted a sailor of arson in a fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard, a blow to the Navy as it faces allegations of improper training and maintenance of the ship.
www.npr.org
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I guess his good conduct medal is back in play.NPR: A sailor has been acquitted of setting a fire that destroyed a massive ship.
A sailor has been acquitted of setting a fire that destroyed a massive ship
A military judge on Friday acquitted a sailor of arson in a fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard, a blow to the Navy as it faces allegations of improper training and maintenance of the ship.
Anybody else see something similar to the Oriskany fire aftermath way back in '66? As I recall, the Navy took a "The little ones must die" approach to assessing blame via courts martial. That came a cropper because the sailor responsible for doing a horribly stupid thing with a magnesium flare that he and his helper inadvertently ignited when stowing them was not only unqualified but absolutely dead on his feet after a particularly busy series of loads and unloads as strike tasking changed. The ordnance division was found to be manned below peacetime levels, as was typical at the time, and almost devoid of qualified ordnance handlers. Ultimately important lessons were learned which helped to mitigate the worst of what could have happened on Forrestal and Enterprise.
We always want to hold people accountable for their actions - whether that's on an individual level, or more broadly at the command or higher. The difference in these two cases, in my mind, is that you have the Oriskany Sailor, by all accounts, doing the best he could under the circumstances, vs the allegation of criminal misconduct. We'll probably never really know how the BHR fire started, but we do know that the Government was unable to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Seaman Mays did it.
Unfortunately, due to all the other fuck ups at various levels of the CoC that ultimately contributed to the loss of the ship, I think that tended to distract from the question the Court Martial was asked to consider. You wouldn't think this based on the media coverage, but plenty of very senior folks were held accountable, so I don't see this as a case where just the little guy gets punished. I'd hope we can all agree that an allegation of criminal misconduct is going to be handled differently than instances of professional malpractice or negligence by more senior folks. I think that nuance gets lost in the press, or in the Twitterverse.
Is a letter of censure against a three star who gets to retire as a three star sufficient punishment?
A bit rhetorical, and I know there were NJP cases for lower ranks, but I wonder if LOIs, MIF, and NJP are really enough? Or, should more tangible punishments be meted out?
Regardless of how the fire started, ultimately a massive warship was lost due to procedural and leadership failures. I would’ve hoped there would’ve been more significant consequences than a handful of ‘strongly worded letters’.
Are you suggesting a criminal prosecution? If so, for whom? If not, what do you think is more fitting? In VADM Brown's case, his censure was essentially for lack of proper oversight, which isn't a solid basis to recharacterize the rank at which he retired. That usually requires serious misconduct. Perhaps you disagree. In that case, exactly what should Brown have received?
I'd ask you to reread the list of punishments meted out by Paparo and tell me you would still use that phrase to paint an accurate picture of the accountability for senior personnel. Letters of reprimand, censures, etc are career ending, and IMO, the various LOIs were appropriate, given the tangential role those that received them played in the outcome. Add to that the sacking of the Triad, and other NJP punishments like loss of pay, etc, and I don't think "handful of strongly worded letters" is a fair assessment.
I agree that it’s not criminal, but where’s the line? Sure, it’s a career ender, but it’s a career ender for Fleet CMCs and Fleet Admirals. These guys got a scolding via a letter or a board of inquiry but were then allowed to go about their way.
I will caveat it with I don’t know all the details for the lower ranked NJP, etc, but then, why would the lower ranks receive a more severe punishment than the Admiral or Master Chief?
In my opinion, the leadership involved got off easy for having lost what is essentially an ESG flagship.
I do acknowledge that more severe punishment for those involved is not really likely or even permitted, and that’s the shitty catch-22 of the entire situation.
To be fair, for anyone over the two-star level, there is the potential sanction available of just recommending to Congress that they not be authorized to retire at their current rank, and be happy instead with being a RADM on the retired list with equivalent pension and retired ID. It's been awhile since I've read the postmortem docs on the BHR shitshow, so that's not aimed at any flag in particular, just an observation that it's an available thing.
Edit: I see Brett touched on this, and perhaps The Powers That Be (or Congress) may consider it as a tactic if they do decide the Admiralty ever needs a fire lit under its collective keister. Understanding that it hasn't been used that way to date. I'd bet it would take Congress getting pissed to change the norm.
Edit: I see Brett touched on this, and perhaps The Powers That Be (or Congress) may consider it as a tactic if they do decide the Admiralty ever needs a fire lit under its collective keister. Understanding that it hasn't been used that way to date. I'd bet it would take Congress getting pissed to change the norm.
Commission of a UCMJ violation that can stand up at a CM. There's your line.
I'm not clear whom you're talking about here. Everyone that got more than an LOI has career ending consequences, so when you say they were allowed to go about their way, what do you mean? Are you upset that some people just got LOIs? If so, please list the specific person and why you think they deserved a more severe outcome based on their actions/inactions.
Look, I think you're just reacting to a general sentiment, echoed in the press and social media, that senior people weren't held accountable, and that they blamed everything on an enlisted fall guy. I think if you take an honest, dispassionate look into the specifics of which senior officers received what punishments - firings, NJP, career-ending letters - you're likely to change your mind.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Because the Admiral sets fleet wide policy, which was violated at the unit level. Was there something criminal or wrong about fleet policy that warrants taking an Admiral to GCM? Is there an inspection report at the TYCOM level that went ignored?
At the unit level, the CO sets policy, which was violated at the duty section level.
The CO is ultimately responsible for what happens on his ship, and I'm sure there are several leading indicators of low standards that the command team ignored that led to the severity of the casualty. Thus the administrative action. But at the end of the day, the CO isn't the one who gundecked DC maintenance.
Nor is he the one who ignited the fire.
If you owned a small business and your building isn't up to code, and an arsonist burns it down, are you guilty of a crime?