Bonhomme Richard fire

[Griz882]

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?

Crime? Probably not, but surely a “code violation” that will prevent the business owner (commander) from getting a business loan or insurance (in effect unable to command a business) is guaranteed. On the other side of your question…the business owner (commander) might not be chargeable under criminal law, but if that business owner (commander) was to toss some low-paid employees (sailors) to the arson unit to cover his (command) failures then that guy is guilty of being a magnificent turd.

Now, I know that this was more or less the outcome as @Brett327 has noted, (https://news.usni.org/2022/07/15/na...-richard-fire-secnav-censures-former-swo-boss) but the public view (something that is not always accurate) is that the Navy protects the bosses at the expense of the masses - not a good look. Navy PAO would have done better by playing up the potentially career-damaging nature of these letters.

 

[insanebikerboy]

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.

I’m actually not reacting to the social media/echo chamber comments.

The officers who received disciplinary actions should be permitted to retire at the rank which they last honorably served. That would mean VADM Brown retires as a two star. The same applies to the officers junior to him as well. And yes, losing a rank is justifiable in this situation.

I believe senior enlisted can only be reduced in grade via a court martial, so for them, NJP and allowed to retire.

As for the officers, I’ve personally seen an O-5 OIC who was held accountable for a class A mishap that occurred on his det, who then was able to retire as an O-4. The SecNav is the one who has approval or denial for such a situation and it could’ve been put into use here as well.

 

[Brett327]

I’m actually not reacting to the social media/echo chamber comments.

The officers who received disciplinary actions should be permitted to retire at the rank which they last honorably served. That would mean VADM Brown retires as a two star. The same applies to the officers junior to him as well. And yes, losing a rank is justifiable in this situation.

I believe senior enlisted can only be reduced in grade via a court martial, so for them, NJP and allowed to retire.

As for the officers, I’ve personally seen an O-5 OIC who was held accountable for a class A mishap that occurred on his det, who then was able to retire as an O-4. The SecNav is the one who has approval or denial for such a situation and it could’ve been put into use here as well.

That’s not how that aspect of flag officer retirement works, which I’ve already covered. That requires serious misconduct.

For senior enlisted, you’ve already agreed that their conduct didn’t amount to criminal conduct, yet you seem to want them to go to a CM now? You’re not making a consistent or coherent argument.

Perhaps some details about the O5 that was forced to retire as an O4 would be helpful. Did he go to a CM? Perhaps it a TIG issue? Did SECNAV weigh in on this individual’s misconduct?

 

[BigFO]

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.

The Navy did eventually get around to sorting the Oriskany fire and accountability established - to their credit. That’s on the mishap investigation side which tends to be a pretty straight up process. It was on the criminal side where charging the two sailors was dicey. Two unqualified guys were putting flares back into the flare locker (not actually a magazine BTW). They wound up tossing the flares from one guy to the other. It that process one flare got ignited and the guy panicked and threw it into the locker with many hundreds of other flares and dogged the hatch. They reported the fire right away but it still tragically turned into a conflagration. Due to the lack of training and established SOP’s, they were acquitted. Definitely a different case on the facts but I found the court martial aspect similar.

Interestingly, my MH-60 pilot stepson was on Kearsarge which had just completed a major availability in Norfolk before the BHR incident. Happily Kearsarge had an uneventful mod period.

 

[insanebikerboy]

That’s not how that aspect of flag officer retirement works, which I’ve already covered. That requires serious misconduct.

For senior enlisted, you’ve already agreed that their conduct didn’t amount to criminal conduct, yet you seem to want them to go to a CM now? You’re not making a consistent or coherent argument.

Perhaps some details about the O5 that was forced to retire as an O4 would be helpful. Did he go to a CM? Perhaps it a TIG issue? Did SECNAV weigh in on this individual’s misconduct?

10 USC 1370 permits the secretary of the Navy or SecDef to determine satisfactory service and grade for retirement purposes. At some point in the flag ranks that authority switches from SevNav to SecDef. In this case it would be totally within the scope of authority of either of those offices to decide the senior leadership in this case did not perform satisfactorily in their rank. Hence they retire at a lower rank.

I’m not advocating CM for the enlisted, I just said I ‘think’ CM is the only way for senior enlisted to be reduced in rate. I could be wrong on that though.

In the anecdotal example I gave, the O-5 was determined to not have performed satisfactorily as an O-5 OIC, which was the result of a class A mishap. It wasn’t due to direct actions on his part but that he was determined to have allowed it to happen as a result of lack of guidance/oversight. He was trying to retire and the SecNav said he could retire as an O-4. On appeal the SecNav said he had to pull his retirement and serve additional years if he did want to retire as an O-5.

So, again, in this case I argue that getting a LOI and being allowed to retire at current rank and grade was insufficient punishment for the officers involved.

 

[Brett327]

Let me summarize the discussion thus far:

Red: I think the outcome of the BHR CDA was unfair.
Brett: Here’s why the outcome followed the law and established norms.
Red: I still don’t like it.
Brett: OK

Is there anything more to cover?

 

[SynixMan]

I feel there's some sentiment of dissatisfaction with Flag Level senior leadership over the (mis)management of Navy through the last few decades of GWOT. A lot of hard work, years, lives, marriages, sacrifice, etc without much of anything to show for it. I certainly feel that way after living through the lean sequester years in the NAE.

In the BHR we have an example of leadership failures up and down the chain, with some punishments meted out, but the only criminal charges brought against a junior sailor, ultimately unsuccessfully. And all that feels unsatisfying, as if the sea service cosmic karma would smite down bad leaders and lead to reforms. But this isn't a movie.

As for objective, concrete steps, it seems the prosecution didn't make the case and the defense did their job, and senior leaders were reprimanded.

 

[wink]

Not withstanding the facts in play in the BHR discipline, I think many people (and most of the civ public) would have a problem with the characterization that a letter in a personnel file is "career ending" when that individual has over twenty years service, made flag rank and is allowed to retire with that rank and privilege's. Clearly, that person has HAD a career already. Promotion is not even very likely for most guys at the Flag level. Their post Navy employment options will not be damaged. Cry me a river. Contrast that with a newly minted O-4 or an E-6 getting "career ending" punishment. Not even in the same league.

 

[number9]

Not withstanding the facts in play in the BHR discipline, I think many people (and most of the civ public) would have a problem with the characterization that a letter in a personnel file is "career ending" when that individual has over twenty years service, made flag rank and is allowed to retire with that rank and privilege's. Clearly, that person has HAD a career already. Promotion is not even very likely for most guys at the Flag level. Their post Navy employment options will not be damaged. Cry me a river. Contrast that with a newly minted O-4 or an E-6 getting "career ending" punishment. Not even in the same league.

I would also add that those punishments (and the nuances therein) were not widely reported in the popular media, whereas the trial of Ryan Mays was covered widely. I think that adds to the disconnect.

 

[Brett327]

Not withstanding the facts in play in the BHR discipline, I think many people (and most of the civ public) would have a problem with the characterization that a letter in a personnel file is "career ending" when that individual has over twenty years service, made flag rank and is allowed to retire with that rank and privilege's. Clearly, that person has HAD a career already. Promotion is not even very likely for most guys at the Flag level. Their post Navy employment options will not be damaged. Cry me a river. Contrast that with a newly minted O-4 or an E-6 getting "career ending" punishment. Not even in the same league.

Just because you’re an O6, or O9 doesn’t mean you don’t have continuing career goals and ambitions. I’m guessing most flag officers would like to end their careers as 4 star COCOMs or service chiefs. That the public, or the deck plates don’t get or understand that is normal, but it’s our job as senior officers to communicate that. Some people will get it, others won’t, still others will angrily hold it up as evidence of a culture of rot within our leadership. What else is new? All I can do is explain it the best way I know how. Story of my life on this site.

 

[Spekkio]

I would also add that those punishments (and the nuances therein) were not widely reported in the popular media, whereas the trial of Ryan Mays was covered widely. I think that adds to the disconnect.

I'm not sure what people think VADM Brown is guilty of doing or not doing other than being a flag officer. Yeah, he was a twat post casualty, but that's not a crime.

The unit CO is responsible for the ship and its crew. I can buy for a dollar going after the CO for UCMJ violations, particularly if he sat in on planning meetings that disabled so many safety systems simultaneously, but VADM Brown is so far removed from what happened that it's the epitome of taking everyone's head for the sake of it.

I would have liked to see more accountability at the maintenance project sup level.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I'm not sure what people think VADM Brown is guilty of doing or not doing other than being a flag officer. Yeah, he was a twat post casualty, but that's not a crime.

The unit CO is responsible for the ship and its crew. I can buy for a dollar going after the CO for UCMJ violations, particularly if he sat in on planning meetings that disabled so many safety systems simultaneously, but VADM Brown is so far removed from what happened that it's the epitome of taking everyone's head for the sake of it.

I would have liked to see more accountability at the maintenance project sup level.

How much power does a CO lose when their ship is in the yard? Not arguing, just asking, as I was thankfully never on a ship’s company. I also wonder whether disabling so many safety systems was deliberately planned, or something that was overlooked and crept up on them over time (normalization of deviance). Like a squadron that has a bad mishap and then fails it’s AMI, maybe they found themselves in a bad place after months or years of normalized- or, rationalized- behavior that no sane person would consciously think is smart. Man is not a rational animal. Man is a rationalizing animal.

That’s part of why I think blame went up to the flag level in this case. As for the sailor, he had probably never experienced anything different than the weird environment he was in, so his Navy compass was likely not calibrated properly.

But if he intentionally set the fire, fuck him.

 

[VMO4]

I have no opinion on the pissing match going on here about who was responsible for the failure to control the fire, and how far up the chain it should go, but I see parallels between this instance and the IOWA turret explosion.

You remember in the IOWA, the Navy conducted an investigation that determined a young homosexual sailor tried to commit suicide by some unknown ignition source and blew up a powder bag. I remember the retirement speech of the IOWA CO a short time later which cast doubt on the integrity of the investigation. The Navy then set about a course to destroy the young sailor's reputation. Other investigations followed and came to the opinion inherent instability in the decade old powder is what caused the initial ignition of a powder bag. The Navy refused to acknowledge that investigation, and eventually just said "we don't know what happened". It appears here with the BR a group of officers sitting at the court martial seemed to not completely follow the logic of Big Navy's investigation.

One thing my decades of experience in both law enforcement and as a private criminal defense lawyer have taught me is never believe something happened, just because some entity, often an entity with a vested interest in the outcome said it happened. For me , that would include the investigation about what happened after the fire began.

 

[Spekkio]

How much power does a CO lose when their ship is in the yard? Not arguing, just asking, as I was thankfully never on a ship’s company.

COs retain veto power for any plan since they are always responsible for the safety and security of the ship. They have to sign documents on a regular basis approving maintenance conditions that impact ship safety.

There is schedule pressure, real or perceived, that can cause a CO to waiver on standards or accept more risk. This pressure can get worse if there are delays or personalities in ISIC aren't supportive. It would be unusual for VADM Brown to personally get involved. The investigation didn't detail any instances of him applying undue pressure to execute or compress the avail schedule, nor were there any findings that ISIC was pushing too hard to keep schedule.

 

[nittany03]

My own crazy theory on this matter is that we need to go back to the Age of Sail for inspiration. When a ship goes into the yards, she gets decommissioned. They used to do that. No commissioned CO needed, no military crew. Just hand her over to the yardbirds as a hulk of metal and say "see ya."

Then, when the maintenance contract is complete, including all inspections for quality, recommission her and reassign a crew. In the interim, she's the responsibility of the DoD contractor who operates the yard. If they hose up the yard period, DoD has a checklist of inspectable items that will prove it. If they burn her to the waterline in the process, well, that sucks, but the contractor and their insurers are now on the hook to pay DoD to build a replacement.

All we have to lose is liability we could be offloading and a crew and officer corps wasting their time and promotion prospects fucking around dealing with yardbirds instead of studying how to fight wars. And yet we're still not doing this because . . . ¯\_(ツ)_/¯??