MIdshipman Fails Drug Test

[phrogpilot73]

I guess I misunderstood the story. It sounded like they were both stripped of their chance to play in the NFL (and forced instead to become Officers) because of this incident. I'm still not sure what kind of sense that makes, but I'll go with it.
I'll answer that with another question. "Was I ever specifically ordered not to hook up with an underclassman?" - No. Let's compare apples to apples. It doesn't matter who I hooked up with. I hadn't taken the grand oath. As the saying goes, where much is given...
What I was referring to with your anecdote is the irony that the Navy was willing to let these guys go and be civilians until their "indiscretions" came to light. Then they deemed them unworthy of civilian status and forced them to take commissions. That still makes no sense to me.
I have no idea what a Black N is. Again, my gripe with your story was not that those guys were forgiven for their transgressions and commissioned. It was that your story is almost the polar opposite of what is currently happening. The current situation, as I understand it, is about not kicking someone out with multiple offenses and allowing him to remain a mid. I understood that your story was about not allowing the guys (I'm not sure why both of them are mentioned if only one screwed up) to voluntarily turn down a commission - because they screwed up.
I agree whole-heartedly with you. That is a long way of saying what I just said - Warfighters and Leaders. My "beef" is that I don't feel, reading the current stories, that the current guy has shown any of those qualities or any potential to develop them. So what is the justification for keeping him around with the afore-mentioned mission of the Academy?

I think now you're just trying to piss me off. The anecdote was offered for this:

For those experienced with crap like this from the boat school, do you think that this media attention and outcry from fellow students will have this overturned?

I offered an example of something that the Supe had decided upon, but changed his mind after media attention. You're trying to turn it into an example of why should the guy be commissioned? Following simple logic (something you had to have picked up at a state school, or at flight school in the least), the Supe changed his mind - those guys were commissioned. The Supe could change his mind, and the guy in the OP could get kicked out. Does that make enough sense?

Again I apologize. In my zeal to offend Academy grads and rile one up, I have offended Academy grads and riled one up. My intentions were nothing less than treacherous, I assure you. I never said that the Academy does not produce fine officers. What I'm asking is this: At a normal college, they can let their athletes get away with pretty much anything because the worst that can happen, really, is that they give some undeserving guy a BA in Physical Education or some such nonsense. For the Academy, who's specific mission is to produce Warfighters and Leaders - or all those other words you used to say the same thing - what is the justification of keeping a guy like the current one around? I mean, it seems to me that giving him a commission in 2 1/2 years - which if I'm not mistaken is the only alternative to kicking him out - is much worse than just giving him a degree.

Hopefully that clarifies my position somewhat.

I've never said keep the guy around. I said get rid of him, and offered an example of when the Supe changed his mind under media pressure. In case you didn't notice, his entire CoC wants him gone, and I already said I don't agree with the current Supe.

Actually, the worse that can happen from a state school is that they can get a shitty degree, play in the NFL and be implicated in a murder, dog fighting, drugs, etc...

 

[Sly1978]

I think now you're just trying to piss me off. The anecdote was offered for this...

I understand why you presented the anecdote. It was an appropriate example of the media influencing the outcome of USNA disciplinary proceedings. My questions about it are not meant as an attack on you personally, just what the conclusion that's brought about from the anecdote seems to be - that someone back in the day decided that playing in the NFL requires a higher moral standard than being a Naval Officer, which is why your classmates were not allowed to turn down their commissions to play professional football. I'm sure that there is more to it than that, but on the surface that's what I read and I take extreme objection to anyone being "punished" by getting "commissioned and [having] to serve the full 5 years". That's where my question is: Where is the sense in that "punishment"?

I also never implied that you didn't agree with me on the current guy needing to be shown the door. I'm just looking for someone who might have some explanation - any explanation - on what the current Supe's justification may be for ignoring the CoC's recommendations and keeping the guy in uniform.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I understand why you presented the anecdote. It was an appropriate example of the media influencing the outcome of USNA disciplinary proceedings. My questions about it are not meant as an attack on you personally, just what the conclusion that's brought about from the anecdote seems to be - that someone back in the day decided that playing in the NFL requires a higher moral standard than being a Naval Officer, which is why your classmates were not allowed to turn down their commissions to play professional football. I'm sure that there is more to it than that, but on the surface that's what I read and I take extreme objection to anyone being "punished" by getting "commissioned and [having] to serve the full 5 years". That's where my question is: Where is the sense in that "punishment"?

No one back in the day decided that the NFL required a higher moral standard. They were given an opportunity that was taken away after the media (and the alumni) reacted negatively. They served the full five years because that is the commitment that they were obligated to, not unlike your commitment. The statement about "full five years" was more in regards to other Academy graduates that didn't fulfill their five years. Some because of being NPQ'd (David Robinson - who, even though he was a varsity athlete and could have played in the NBA immediately, FOUGHT to stay in the Reserves), some because it was good for recruiting (Napoleon McCallum).

For what it's worth - you can still turn down a commission. It happened recently. A football player got a buzz in his ear that if he turned down his commission, he'd be drafted, and could pay USNA back. There's a pesky detail there - it's the SecNav's choice whether you pay it back or serve. This guy didn't get drafted, and went to become a deck seaman. Bet he feels like a complete moron now.

Why is it punishment to be commissioned? Neither one of them ever thought they were NFL-caliber athletes. I'm sure they dreamed of it, but NFL-caliber athletes don't go to USNA. Every kid who ever plays football dreams of the NFL (as does every kid who ever plays baseball dreams of the MLB, I did), and they were handed a lottery ticket that had already been scratched off saying they won a million dollars. It was a dream they had as a young kid that had been replaced with the dream of being an officer, and now it was back. And then it was yanked out of their hands.

For what it's worth, I don't know what happened to either of them - although I heard one was successful in his life and one was not. I'll let you guess which one...

I also never implied that you didn't agree with me on the current guy needing to be shown the door. I'm just looking for someone who might have some explanation - any explanation - on what the current Supe's justification may be for ignoring the CoC's recommendations and keeping the guy in uniform.

This one I just don't know... Maybe because he's a youngster? Even then, I know classmates that were youngsters that kicked out for less than this. I personally think that he just needs to go - and if he doesn't, I'll stop defending the present day Naval Academy, and only defend the Naval Academy circa 1998 and earlier.

 

[NYYanks]

NFL-caliber athletes don't go to USNA.

Roger Staubach? Ok, couldn't resist and I do realize he is one in a million. Thanks for the feedback to my question, I hope this gets overturned. While I did not attend the Academy, I do hold it in high regards (though I would prefer to work for a Mustang then any reg college grad... whole other discussion thread). This guy gives the Navy as a whole a black eye and I hope it is properly resolved. People do make mistakes, but this fella has obviously made a multitude of mistakes since attending the Academy.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Roger Staubach?

Roger Staubauch, Napoleon McCallum, Kyle Eckle... I guess I should have been more clear. NFL-caliber athletes don't go to USNA with the intent of playing in the NFL. Generally, their work ethic (which is realized at USNA) is what elevates them to NFL-caliber.

though I would prefer to work for a Mustang then any reg college grad

Why? I see from your profile you're an AO2, so that means you've had the privilege of working with officers from all backgrounds? Or, is it becuase you're enlisted and want to work for someone who "remembers where he came from"?!? I doubt you've had the exposure to every officer in the Navy/Marine Corps. I can tell you this, the WORST officer I ever worked for was an LDO, and the BEST officer I ever worked for didn't spend one day as an enlisted man. Your view on the world is narrow now, but it will expand.

 

[NYYanks]

Why? I see from your profile you're an AO2, so that means you've had the privilege of working with officers from all backgrounds? Or, is it becuase you're enlisted and want to work for someone who "remembers where he came from"?!? I doubt you've had the exposure to every officer in the Navy/Marine Corps. I can tell you this, the WORST officer I ever worked for was an LDO, and the BEST officer I ever worked for didn't spend one day as an enlisted man. Your view on the world is narrow now, but it will expand.

I have had the privilege of working with officers from all commissioning sources. Yes, there is a small bit of me that feels that way about the "Been there done that" aspect, I imagine it is similar to one ring knocker trusting another one without knowing them: similar base experiences. The honest primary answer for my preference is experience. The majority of JO's I have met (O-1 & 2 types) are still trying to find their way, which is understandable and in no way a knock, vice an LDO, or STA-21 person (most, not all of them) who has had more hands on experience with the fleet.
The second aspect with experience is dealing with personal issues. As an example, how often can the average JO offer some solid advice to someone going through a divorce, childcare issues, finances, etc? I'm not trying to use a wide brush to paint all JO's in the same color, but realistically, most are still trying to figure out about life in general, not just their professions.
Last, I won't deny that I have worked for some dirt bag LDO's who I wouldn't piss on to put out a fire, likewise I have met some arrogant SOB's that thought the source of their commission meant their shit didn't stink and it reflected in their work.

 

[Mumbles]

Kyle Eckel is/was a choad par excellance.

 

[Short]

It sounds like the leadership at Annapolis, at least until it reached the Supe, was thinking (and recommending) that this kid was going to get his walking papers. I'll rip on the Academy when it deserves it as a non canoe alumnus, but the fact that the Mids are raising a stink about this speaks volumes in favor of USNA. And just to attempt a thread-jack, as someone who isn't looking forward to the repeal of DADT, I would much rather serve with open homosexuals than people who clearly have no integrity.

 

[Sly1978]

Or to be crass, them that would smoke pole over then that would smoke weed.

I can't wait to see where the enlightened bloggers on this forum take that statement, but I've gotta give you credit for saying it. I'm not sure that I 100% agree with you, but I understand what you're getting at. Of all "officer-like" qualities, that is certainly the most vital.

 

[HeyJoe]

For what it's worth - my Dad got a Black N. He retired as a Captain. You're off base.

I have no idea what a Black N is.

A dubious underground honor for achieving at 100 demerits and still graduating. The USNA front office hardly acknowledges or promotes the notion, but media found out about it and ran an article in the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, SEN McCain is likely the poster child as he amassed demerits right and left for his rebellious ways while a Mid.

 

[RadicalDude]

A dubious underground honor for achieving at 100 demerits and still graduating. The USNA front office hardly acknoeldges or promotes the notion, but media found out about it. SEN McCain is likely the poster child as he amassed demerits right and left for his rebellious ways while a Mid.

Not to nitpick, but it's 60 consecutive days of restriction and at least 100 demerits for a single offense/incident. there are those of us who amassed over 100 demerits and 60 days, but failed to achieve Black N infamy, because we decided to space out our indiscretions.

 

[phrogpilot73]

And they only wear their sweaters one night a year... Halloween...

http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1487671241056725400HbpCtK

 

[DanMa1156]

This new post from USNI provides some insight in what's going on here; factual or not, it is a good represenation of the Brigade's general frustration.

 

[MAKE VAPES]

Wow, that write up sounds like a SNA we tried to attrite... mountain of paperwork, recockulouslly non-existant headwork, very lackluster stick skills.. a chick............ commo retained, citing S-3 RAG instructor experience (from 13 years prior) and "having a feeling that she might succeed at the FRS".

SHE WAS FNEABed out of FRS.

This turd will get what he has coming, regardless of the agregious failing of senior leadership. Sentiments here will carry on.

 

[A4sForever]

At the risk of being repetitious ... as a Naval Officer: it's all about STANDARDS ... you either have 'em --- or you really need to go elsewhere.

That's the way it used to be -- so where is the 'leadership' today .... ??? Where are the 'standards' now ... ???

I weep for the future of Naval Aviation ....