http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/navy-female-submarine-fraud-investigation-030212w/
This is ironic & sad and so very stupid. And they're SUPPLY CORPS !!!
This is ironic & sad and so very stupid. And they're SUPPLY CORPS !!!
-
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
Supply Corps SNAFU
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
These ladies were basically given the keys to the kingdom career wise. All these "First Female Submariners" have untouchable water walking careers up to O-6 for finishing these tours as long as they don't do anything dumb. Way to throw that away over a freaking bad travel claim. I'm pretty sure somewhere there is a literal female JO crossdeck war over who gets those hot fills.
How f'd up were the travel claims? They would have to be pretty bad I suppose for someone to blow the whistle. Either that or I'm gonna start taking my travel claims to my CPA before signing 'em.
Basically
I just heard the scuttlebutt on how screwed the situation really is, and yes it seems it was indeed THAT bad. I prefer to wait until the official results of the investigation are posted before spreading rumors (innocent until proven guilty).
I offer a warning to future JOs in the training pipelines. Second hand advice on how to do anything because "everyone does it that way" is NOT the way an Officer should do business. It can and will bite you in the butt. Some more or less than others, but in this case, their careers are in jeopardy over a very routine process. Treat a signed document with the respect and integrity it deserves.
I offer a warning to future JOs in the training pipelines. Second hand advice on how to do anything because "everyone does it that way" is NOT the way an Officer should do business. It can and will bite you in the butt. Some more or less than others, but in this case, their careers are in jeopardy over a very routine process. Treat a signed document with the respect and integrity it deserves.
I admit to being a bit (and pleasantly) surprised that they were held accountable and the process works. Wouldn't have always been the case.
Apparently they picked the WRONG PSD. I've heard that this specific PSD in question was the most anal in CONUS.
Well, it depends on why they're fucked up. Is this,"You need a receipt if you're going to claim parking fees," or "Uhh, you're claiming reimbursement for a flight on a trip I know you didn't go on."
Well, yeah. Of course.
I'm just saying that kicking something back because it sucks for documentation is okay. On the other hand, if an RO or AO sees outright duplicity, as in claiming reimbursement for something that obviously didn't happen, or faking a trip, then the right course isn't kicking it back and saying "better luck with your attempts at fraud next time," it's reporting it appropriately.
I'm just saying that kicking something back because it sucks for documentation is okay. On the other hand, if an RO or AO sees outright duplicity, as in claiming reimbursement for something that obviously didn't happen, or faking a trip, then the right course isn't kicking it back and saying "better luck with your attempts at fraud next time," it's reporting it appropriately.
I think $Trader$ is envisioning a closed door "would you young ladies care to explain" situation where the rope to do the right or wrong thing is there to either hang themselves or escape the hole. I'm thinking that happened, but they fell for a simple open ended question that a innocent person wouldn't mess up.
Several of you MAY have misinterpreted my original remark, which I admit I worded "somewhat vaguely" for reasons which will remain so. I never meant to imply that "in the good old days, you'd get a wink and a nod from the travel clerk and maybe get told to fix it..." What I kinda sorta meant to say was that "back in the BAD old days", [to take a riff from Animal Farm] "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Y'all can go talk amongst yourselves as to which animals I may be referring to...but here's a clue: It isn't Submariners, nor officers, nor members of the Supply Corps (Don't leave home without 'em!).
It appears my source was fairly accurate. Two have been charged.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/05/ap-navy-2-submarine-officers-charged-fraud-probe-051412/
I didn't want to say too much before the verdict was official, but this is pretty freaking embrassing honestly.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/05/ap-navy-2-submarine-officers-charged-fraud-probe-051412/
I didn't want to say too much before the verdict was official, but this is pretty freaking embrassing honestly.
Gotta love the PAO 'spin' by Sub Force spokeswoman..."The integration of females on submarines continues to progress nicely"! Uh, er...well, if you say so, Commander.
BzB
Gotta love the PAO 'spin' by Sub Force spokeswoman..."The integration of females on submarines continues to progress nicely"! Uh, er...well, if you say so, Commander.
BzB
I guess that is what pisses me off the most. The fact that there are indeed excellent female supply officers that I happen to know personally who's professionalism will be placed under extra scrutiny for no fault of their own.
Never get in the way of an aircraft in the groove, or of a program that's "going to succeed". Actually, I think the whole "women on subs" thing is fine...just can't believe that some early pioneers f#cked it up by the numbers like this.Gotta love the PAO 'spin' by Sub Force spokeswoman..."The integration of females on submarines continues to progress nicely"! Uh, er...well, if you say so, Commander.
BzB