Proceedings Takes a Look at the Culture of Naval Aviation

[Pags]

Let's flip/flop the argument and see that you're proving MB's point. You're arguing that getting fired from a civilian job is the same as not making Capt/Admiral.....your story.....So instead of a military full of warfighters who can learn from their mistakes, you end up with a group of guys who don't rock the boat, don't think outside the box, and are unwilling to take risk if the rules tell them not to.

Whether you agree with it or not, in Big Navy's mind JOs are always striking for Command until proven otherwise. We all know that the party line is that command is the ultimate goal. So, with that Big Navy's thought process of every JO being a striker for FO/GO and that they don't want FO/GOs or O-5 level COs with a DUI on their record, then it makes perfect sense to cull them from the herd. Is this what Pags actually believes should happen? No, but it's the world that I live in.

It's fantastic that your CO stuck his neck out for you and it's good that you learned from your mistakes and didn't fuck him for backing you. For every guy like you there's another guy who thinks he just proved that the rules don't apply to him and he can do whatever he wants. Like I said in my post above, taking discretion on the matter away from COs ensures a uniform policy. You'd be singing a different tune if your CO had been a teetotaler who had made it his personal mission to deglamorize alcohol.

As far as I can tell, there are three jobs left in this world where you can party, booze, wreck hotels, and run your mouth in public with no ramifications:
1. rock/movie star
2. pro athlete
3. politician
Jobs where you'll get fired for DUI:
-law enforcement
-teacher
-any job that might require you to operate a vehicle; bus driver, trashman, cabbie, etc
-since it's considered a misdemeanor and is required to be reported on a job application, the presence of a misdemeanor on your record could make you less competitive. Basically, it's used as a screening tool by employers. Also, failure to report a misdemeanor and then have it come up in a background check is also bad.

In the civilian world, you might not get fired as a lawyer/doctor/businessman for a DUI, but your chances of ever getting past middle management just got a whole lot slimmer. For better or worse, the civilian world doesn't play by our "up or out" rules. Unfortunately, like I said above, as far as Big Navy is concerned, we're all striking for Admiral.

Will DUIs get you fired in all civilian jobs? No. But we also don't work in the civilian world.

 

[C420sailor]

This is beyond the deglamorization of alcohol. It's become the glamorization of the deglamorization of alcohol.

It's not just a DUI that'll get you booted, it's an ARI (Alcohol Related Incident). Something that would normally result in a stern talking to becomes a potential career ender should they find out that you'd been drinking at the time. I've seen guys get raked over the coals after being sucker punched and jumped leaving a bar, simply because they'd had a few drinks.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Ok, maybe we've clubbed the DUI pup to death. Insert any screw up and you're likely to find yourself scratching your head wondering where your chain of command and support structure went.

 

[Brett327]

This is beyond the deglamorization of alcohol. It's become the glamorization of the deglamorization of alcohol.

It's not just a DUI that'll get you booted, it's an ARI (Alcohol Related Incident). Something that would normally result in a stern talking to becomes a potential career ender should they find out that you'd been drinking at the time. I've seen guys get raked over the coals after being sucker punched and jumped leaving a bar, simply because they'd had a few drinks.

The only Officers I've ever seen tread into ARI territory were guys who were completely out of control drunk and disorderly, fighting, breaking shit, spewing hatred, etc. That is not OK and consequences ought to follow.

Brett

 

[Gatordev]

How do you define "good number?" Outside of Police/Fire/Ambulance/job that requires a security clearance, name one.

There is no "blotter" in the civilian world. If I show up to work on Monday, and do the same work I've always done, use leave that I've built up for court dates and meetings with a lawyer, how does a civilian employer even KNOW I've gotten a DUI? The answer is, they don't.

So far you've had a guy who's worked as an engineer in the civilian world pre-Navy, and a guy that's worked in the civilian world post-Marine Corps telling you that it's really not that big of a deal (the only big deal is if it impacts your work/clearance), and guys that have spent their entire adult lives in the military telling us we're "inaccurate".

So a sample size of 2 is the definitive answer? You've already named 3 (plus the security clearance angle) jobs that "care." There are others, especially ones that have licenses that are monitored by a government entity (be it Federal or state). And just like you can give an example of jobs where it does NOT matter, I can give anecdotal evidence where it does. And you of all people should know that my background doesn't mean I only deal with people who are solely military members, day to day.

And let's not forget the occassional exceptions. I had an E-3 who worked for me that was given a second (well, really a third) chance, and so far he's been toeing the line (as of when I left). So it's not ALL zero-defect out there.

Regardless of all this, you may notice that I specifically said that my comment wasn't to negate what has already been said (to include it's been beaten to death). Just to add some perspective.

 

[phrogdriver]

The only Officers I've ever seen tread into ARI territory were guys who were completely out of control drunk and disorderly, fighting, breaking shit, spewing hatred, etc. That is not OK and consequences ought to follow.

Brett

If they were that bad, then it shouldn't matter if it was "alcohol related." They were breaking shit, or fighting, or whatever. I think C420 was talking about incidents that would normally be non-events, but because a drink was in a 50 meter radius, it was an ARI....gasp! Granted, that stuff normally is barracks fodder, but I've seen some officers go astray on that count on libbo, and not for fighting or anything like that.

As for the DUIs, we can say that there are four guys to take anyone's place but is it really true? You can say that about any negative event until the only guy left standing is the guy who never does anything and so has never made any mistakes. Yes DUIs are illegal, but there are worse things than DUIs that don't get automatic adverse fitreps.

If we are serious about shaping the force via quality measures, then just ADSEP everyone below a certain RV on fitreps--THAT system is flawless.

 

[scoolbubba]

words words words, taking discretion on the matter away from COs ensures a uniform policy...words words words

And that is a part of the broader death of Naval culture, in general, not just Naval Aviation. People who think like that are the ones who don't appreciate people who can make decisions on their own.

The discretion of a Naval CO, ie his word is the LAW, goes back to even before some colonial Americans decided to get all pissy and duke it out with the Motherland. Taking that away from Skippers does the entire Navy a disservice.

 

[Brett327]

If they were that bad, then it shouldn't matter if it was "alcohol related." They were breaking shit, or fighting, or whatever. I thing C420 was talking about incidents that would normally be non-events, but because a drink was in a 50 meter radius, it was an ARI....gasp! Granted, that stuff normally is barracks fodder, but I've seen some officers go astray on that count on libbo, and not for fighting or anything like that.

As for the DUIs, we can say that there are four guys to take anyone's place would haven't had one but is it really true? You can say that about any negative event until the only guy left standing is the guy who never does anything and so has never made any mistakes. Yes DUIs are illegal, but there are worse things than DUIs that don't get automatic adverse fitreps.

If we are serious about shaping the force via quality measures, then just ADSEP everyone below a certain RV on fitreps--THAT system is flawless.

That was my point, I.E., I've never seen ARIs in those tangential circumstances for officers (or troops for that matter) - YMMV. I don't think it's fair (or logical) to just lump DUIs in with all the other "negative" things one can do. There are varying degrees, and DUI crosses the threshold. I'm curious as to what you've seen that you think is worse but isn't given equal weight to a DUI. Either way, people know the score when it comes to DUIs. It's a 100% preventable occurrance. Only your own bad judgment leads you down that path. It drives me crazy when people get popped (including a recent/former RAG CO here), then try to sea lawyer, equivocate and mince words in an effort to wiggle out of culpability for their own bad decisions.

Brett

 

[Recovering LSO]

I had an E-3 who worked for me that was given a second (well, really a third) chance, and so far he's been toeing the line (as of when I left). So it's not ALL zero-defect out there.

To be fair though, this guys stands no chance if he comes up for PTS.

 

[Brett327]

To be fair though, this guys stands no chance if he comes up for PTS.

Depends on the manning in his rate.

Brett

 

[Pags]

And that is a part of the broader death of Naval culture, in general, not just Naval Aviation. People who think like that are the ones who don't appreciate people who can make decisions on their own.

The discretion of a Naval CO, ie his word is the LAW, goes back to even before some colonial Americans decided to get all pissy and duke it out with the Motherland. Taking that away from Skippers does the entire Navy a disservice.

If you give discretion to the COs you assume that they're going to use it ensure nothing bad happens to people. What happens when that discretion is abused? Maybe a CO defends a "golden child" who you think doesn't deserve it? Or, like I said earlier, maybe the CO hates drinkers and uses his discretion to crush anyone who gets a DUI? If that were the case VP-89 might be party central with a CO who doesn't care about DUIs and VP-13 might be the Evil Empire. One whiff of an ARI or DUI and you're sent packing. At least this way it doesn't matter who's in charge, you know your fate.

 

[scoolbubba]

And I would counter that it is a uniquely Naval tradition, for lack of a better word, that that is exactly how it should be. Each CO ought to have the discretion to run his squadron, boat, ship etc as he thinks best. If he's doing a shitty job, then his boss has the discretion to replace him. If things change too drastically for you, then you should have joined the Army or Air Force.

 

[insanebikerboy]

If you give discretion to the COs you assume that they're going to use it ensure nothing bad happens to people. What happens when that discretion is abused? Maybe a CO defends a "golden child" who you think doesn't deserve it? Or, like I said earlier, maybe the CO hates drinkers and uses his discretion to crush anyone who gets a DUI? If that were the case VP-89 might be party central with a CO who doesn't care about DUIs and VP-13 might be the Evil Empire. One whiff of an ARI or DUI and you're sent packing. At least this way it doesn't matter who's in charge, you know your fate.

In my mind, that's the whole point of being the Skipper. You have the power to run the squadron as you see fit and you have the obligation to fulfill the Navy's needs. How the squadron does the day to day business to fulfill that endstate is up to the impetus of the Skipper. The point of the CO selection process is that it chooses men and women who are capable of making those decisions. The argument can obviously be made about the whole CO selection process these days, which is a whole different can of worms, but when they take these decisions away from the Skipper level, it just pushes the decisions further and further up the chain, which is the way it should not go.

 

[jollygreen07]

Depends on the manning in his rate.

Brett

Really?

One of my guys had his second. AWF type (a rate in which we are very under-manned). Skipper practically begged to keep him. BUPERS is sending him home.

Have you seen different in recent days?

 

[Brett327]

Every situation is different. My point is that NJP won't automatically result in a PTS rejection. Depends on the individual's record, manning in their rate and other factors.

Brett