Good order and DISCIPLINE ????

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I was going through some of the offenses in
http://cgweb.uscg.mil/legal/practice_areas/Military_Justice/MiljusticeLinks/index_cmdtnote.html
I started to wonder if the CG looks at some things an inevitable. Some of the things that I found to be most "offensive" seemed to go relatively unpunished. It's like the "just say no to drug" but let's teach people about safe sex arguement all over again.
I think that any Officer who engages in sexual relations with an enlisted member should be discharged. Any Command Cadre engaging in sexual relations with a member of their command or one of their spouse should be discharged. An E-7 or above engaging in sexual relations with a non-rate should be discharged. If you have that little of control over your libido, I don't see where we need you.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Well said. 8H and Chapter 20 are being bent a little at too many CO's/OIC's discretion.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I attended the Academy's Ethics Synopsis some years ago and I am not surprised by what some of the JOs feel is appropriate(Spelling) behavior. Until the CG quits treating the academy as just another college, we will always see that.

And I agree well said Stu!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The scariest thing for me is that you know that the exerpts were cleaned up before they printed them. The rumors are closer to the truth than the actual charges. I've heard things that aren't fit to print here, and no one would believe me anyway. I see where they remove someone from command for having sexual relations with a subordinate and I think, that's a good start, now what are you going to do to them ? Some people are committing criminal acts. How many other careers do they have to destroy before we end theirs ?They should change the heading from Good Order and Discipline to Whazz UPPP ?

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Did that O-6 actually believe he could use the office computer to surf porn sites? Probably because he thought he could get away with it because he was a Captain and above the law (so to speak.)

I agree that anyone in command that has a sexual relationship with a subordinate or a spouse of a subordinate should be discharged, not good for morale (except maybe the morale of the offender(s).)

Does any of this really suprise anyone anyways? After all we have an epidemic of female teachers having sex with their underage students. When this happens the teachers are brought up on charges AND fired from the school system. What's the difference between that and the Coast Guard?

Raymond

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

With the surfing for porn thing........I saw where someone had downloaded and printed stuff out at work. It was left on the printer with his name proudly displayed at the top of the page along with the date and time. At mast he explained that he must have left his work station unattended and someone else did it. And they bought his story. Even if that was the case, which I doubt, he was still responsible for what happened while he was logged on. He had to sign a paper acknowledging that prior to getting access. Too many people think that they are above the law....and too many people are right.

Maybe we should start say Please more often. Sir, Please don't download porn at work. Sir, Please don't force me to write a nasty ole letter of reprimand, I don't want us both to feel uncomfortable. Come now guys, Please stop sleeping with the people that we give yo that you're supposed to be mentors for. Come on now fellas, Please quit using drugs. Pretty Please.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

You mean it is wrong to get some "face" in your office from a subordinate? :eek: Seems I remember something like this happening from "all of our boss" several years ago. <tongue in cheek>
Really, it is nice to know that there are at least a few people that are willing to step up and say enough is enough. I don't recall ANY changes to 8H in as long as I can remember. Just in the enforcement. I was the PIO several years ago at my unit during the "summer of love". Later, we had a change of command and a whole new philosophy (long story). I put in a dream sheet and got the hell out of dodge. The CO was later invited to retire for other reasons. I am a bit bothered when "rules" stand in the way of a true relationship though. However, there are ways to deal with that as well. I.e tell someone and get a local transfer. In the case of a relationship between command and subordinate, that is another issue all together. And the whole adultry issue is simply a crime and the person guilty of that is lucky if the "other spouse" does not take up the issue in other ways.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The case that your referring to with our boss really p1$$ed me off. The media had everyone saying "it's just sex" and "adultry is a private issue between the spouses. If she can forgive him......"
It's not the sex. It's who you're having with, where, and when. A good rule of thumb is that if both of you have to take off at least part of a CG uniform to engage in sexual relations, you're probably violating all three.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Let me get this straight, if a CO has sex with a subordinate in his or her's office it's a private thing? Since when?

It has been jammed down my throat ever since I joined this fine service 26 years ago that we as members of the military are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. I guess I never got the memo that said that we could do what we want to now, that we no longer represent the Coast Guard when we are off duty.

Having the wild thing with a subordinate goes well beyond just the act itself, there's alot more to it than that and effects more than a few people. How many lives are put in danger because a unit can't function because of a problem with leadership due to the simple fact that the XO or CO is a horny toad?

Guess what? This is what you get when you have 8 years with a president that refused to behave himself in the oral, er, oval office. Don't tell me our standards have not been lowered because of this sort of thing. They have and will continue until the powers that be, (HQ), says enough is enough and begin forcing people to pay the consequences of their actions.

I don't care if the spouse is willing to forgive and move on, the toad still has to face the consequences of his or her actions and should be man (or woman)enough to accept them. To believe otherwise would be to allow them to keep getting away with it.

Raymond "I ain't pure but I'm pretty damn close" Kurtz

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And the effecting other people is my point. How many other people have had to live with witnessing these inappropriate actions ? How many other people were disciplined for saying something that offended that CO's/OinC's or supervisor's "special" friend ? What actually happened ? What's the message that we're sending when we say, "If you violate the UCMJ as an E-7, we won't let you make Warrant. If you already are a Warrant and commit a similar act we're going to fine you."
Did you know that if an E-3 and an E-7 commit an offense punishable by the UCMJ, the E-3 should have no favorable consideration for six months while the E-7's period is three years ? That's because the E-7 should know better. The E-7 should care more.
Once these offenses become public knowledge we start to find out how many people really knew about them already. The actions of these supervisors have altered careers. Their punishment should reflect that.
It's comical to me that the CG is so quick to take action against a Coxswain that accidently runs aground, yet is apprehension to take action against someone whose intentional actions have run a unit into the ground.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

And then there is the assignment issues that sometimes arise. For example, lets say you are at a unit with several males (only), then in the infinite wisdom of the non-rate detailer, a female is sent to your unit. Good idea? To me it is akin to "putting a hen in a rooster house". It is not that there aren't plenty of "hens" to to be had out in town, but when you tend to get close to the people that you work with.... Then there is the "away from home for the first time, and needing someone to rely on..." Presents to many opportunities for someone to take advantage of. With young people and hormones, things are likely to always happen. It just seems to me that if we build in a support group for people, we are less likely to have problems. I think the longer you are in, the more you should know. The more you should know, the more you should be accountable for. The bigger you are, the harder you fall kind of thing. It is not just an HQ thing either. It is the command of the people involved.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Maybe it's because the powers that be are doing the same thing and don't want to look like hypocrites by nailing someone for doing something they themselves are doing.

Sort of like the judge that gives a light sentence to a drunk driver because he can sympathize with him or her.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Here's a "Good Order & Discipline" issue that really leaves my head spinning.

There is at least one (i've heard of another also) OINC that was Relieved for Cause and was then sent to a Command Senior Chief job. Why in the world would we be relieving an OINC for cause and then putting them in a position as a CSC? That makes no sense to me at all. Is this some kind of twisted rehabilitation?

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

Deane- One of the OINCs that you mentioned happens to be a friend of mine and while I am sure you do not know the whole story, I'm sure you can appreciate that it is not twisted rehab for a OIC to be assigned to a Command Chief job after being relieved for cause. I would hope that you or any other OIC on this board never finds themselves on the receiving end of an investigation that costs you your command, so try not to pass your judgement on about other members in the Mess. In both of the cases I am aware of when this happened, the command receiving the relieved OIC got a highly motivated Chief Petty Officer that had a lot to offer and never felt like they were getting a second rate Command Chief. Both of them have done exceptionally well in these positions and I can assure you that they don't feel like they were placed in these jobs on a rehab assignment. As a fellow BM and a fellow CPO, we should opt to offer support to those that have fallen and not try to figure out the system that put them in a Command Chief billet. I have had 5 commands in my career thus far and have been fortunate to never have had to go thru an investigation, but since I have been in my current job, I can certainly appreciate the MONUMENTAL stress that an investigation puts on an OIC, an XPO and a crew. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Steve...I'm not passing judgement on these OINC's, I don't need to. The CG has already passed judgement on their leadership abilites and decided to relieve them for cause. That's all I need to know. What I'm passing judgement on is the process that says that they are not fit to command then turns around and sends them to a CSC billet. A CSC billet that should be filled with someone who carries out the core values and supports the policies of the CG. I'm sorry, but if your getting relieved for cause I don't see how you fit this desciption. I'm concerned about the message that this sends to the rest of the CG.

The situations that got these people relieved were not youthful indiscretions. These were incidents that happened while in a command position...as OINC's. They should have to earn the trust that was lost prior to being placed back into a leadership position. That's just how I feel.

Steve said...As a fellow BM and a fellow CPO, we should opt to offer support to those that have fallen and not try to figure out the system that put them in a Command Chief billet.

This statement doesn't sit well with me, maybe I'm taking it out of context. This isn't an issue of whether I would support a fellow Chief. Part of our job as Chiefs is to understand what's going on in the system. How can we recommend changes if we don't know the process?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Grab a cup of coffee and pull up a chair, it's going to be a long one.
I joined this board after reading a thread about a foam blanket decision. 500+ posts later and I 've come back full circle.
Steve is right....we don't know what happened with these people. We never will, because no one wants to talk about it. No one wants to publish what ACTUALLY happened. And in the absence of facts we are left with the rumors.
We're left with the polished excerpts from the good order and discipline. I don't know what happened, but I'll tell you what I was told. Not the specifics, just the generalizations.
CASE#1 A SCPO in an OinC position is involved in hazing a NON-RATE in his command. He is subsequently Relieved for Cause for lying about his involvement to both the investigators and his Commanding Officer.
CASE#2 A CPO in an XPO position is involved in a PROHIBITED sexual relationship with a NON-RATE in his command. He is advanced to SCPO, transferred, and given his own command,...... AFTER.......his PROHIBITED relationship is brought to the attention of his Command. After the next higher level Command is made award of the situation, he is subsequently Relieved for Cause.
Can anyone tell me that this is NOT what happened ?
If this were all that they did, I wouldn't care how motivated they were, they shouldn't be allowed to be Silver Badges. These two people have no concept of how to handled personnel with personal issues. They may have advanced to E-8, but their actions are not those of Chiefs.
I also am not judging them, the CG did that for me. They were guilty. Steve, I understand that you don't want people like me judging your friend, but please understand, I don't want their friends justifing their inappropriate or prohibited actions, and telling me, that I should do the same. As a fellow BM and a SCPO my first concern is with the safety and well being of the abused, then I'll try and muster up some sympathy for the abusers.
I would venture to guess that you weren't investigated during your five commands BECAUSE you DIDN'T engage in similar actions.
One simple rule to live by for a successful Command tour would be "Don't FV@< your people, figuratively or literally."
Make your work space, a place where you work. Bully people on your own time. Seek out new sex partners on your own time.
Now I'm not claiming to be perfect. I'm so far from perfect that I've never even gotten a good look at it. I have needs, desires, wants, and eyes. I've seen women in the CG that were beautiful. Lots of them. I've worked for, with, and over people who had wives, sisters and daughters that were stunning. But in my 24 year career I have never seen a women worth throwing away my marriage or my career over. Lots of beautiful women, and not one that looks better than my retirement check will.
I don't expect our Silver and Gold Badges to be perfect either. But I do want them to be better than me. They're suppose to be there as advocates for our people. They're supposed to be helping our people.
And believe me, as an OinC, I understand the monumently stress that can be brought on with an investigation. I understand how it can affect the careers of the innocent by-standers. Maybe if that XPO thought about how his illegal actions could affect his CO's career he wouldn't have commited them. If he had thought about how the perceptions could change the careers of the other people at the unit, he might have refrained. Had the OinC thought about the fact that if people believed his lies, then the people telling the truth would be percieved as being the liars. What would having "Made false Official Statements" on their records, have done to their careers. Had either one thought of anyone or anything, other than himself and that moment, I wouldn't be typing right now. It's that fact that as Command Cadre our actions have such an impact, that the discipline, should reflect that.
I still don't see where people are being relieved for cause for making a mistake. These people are being relieved for inappropriate and prohibited actions. Actions for which they knew they were wrong for committing in the first place. Actions for which they either thought they could get away with, or didn't care if they got caught. Either way, I don't care enough about them to care. The person doing the inappropriate actions should have been disciplined,........actually disciplined. And the person doing that particular prohibited action should have discharged. I don't care whose friend, nephew or son he is. I say all of this, as a fellow Chief, BM and OinC. I may be a bad person and a bad Chief, but I owe them no loyalty. They owe us, and everyone involved an apology.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

SSS
Well said, and I concur. We all have a dark side, at least in our past. Some darker than others.

The ammount of punishment we receive for an infraction should be at least proportional to the rank and position we have achieved when that infraction occurs.

I am not going to hold a SN to the same standards or expectations I would an E-6. (even if they do have the same time in service :D ) I would reward niether, but would probably be more lenient punishing the SN.

I would NOT give a CSC or CMC job to someone that had any of the personnel related infractions mentioned anytime in the recent past. If it happened a long time ago in a unit far, far away I would still address it even if it's just to state in no uncertain terms that "we know you did a no-no in the past, and hope you know that this position will require that you hold yourself to a higher standard" of discipline, morales or whatever.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, I'll be honest with you, I'd be on the darker side. I've said and done things that would drop jaws and slap foreheads......as a Petty Officer. Sometimes I was held accountable, sometimes I wasn't. I, like Popeye, am what I am. If I intended to continue saying and doing the things I had done in the past, I would have never sought or accepted an OinC billet.
We must accept the fact, that certain things don't "just happen." They are allowed to happen.
Those of us in leadership positions have a responsiblity to those that we lead, to try harder, REACH HIGHER, if you will. We should be held to a higher standard, because our indescretions effect more people.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Since we are on the subject, why does the CG not publish or at least tell how many and for what people are relieved? I asked this question to MC Wolfe and I am still wondering why we do not let people know what happened. The Navy does, every month. Wouldn't this help new OINC, XPOs and our officer's? We don't have to use names but reasons would stop rumors. I agree, I have never heard of a person being relieved that did know before hand that they were committing an offense that would get them relieved. It is not news to that OINC! I also agree we should not let them be Command Chiefs. I am still baffled.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I know that there is somewhat of a vetting process for gold badges, but apparently there is none of that for a silver badge. Why not? Is it just a matter of the billet? You get the job and along comes the silver badge? You are the only Senior Chief at the Group, Sector, Office... so you get the silver badge? I don't think anyone here intends to "black ball" someone from the mess becuase they do something dumb, but we all know that there is a price to be paid for those decisions. If we hold someone in our command responsible for doing something wrong, it is for a reason. We need to apply that same logic to OIC's that use questionable judgement that they need to be held accountable for.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Burt, just to let you know how bad it is......I was attending ANT OinC School...there was a recent RFC involving an ANT OinC......there was a guest speaker who was involved in relieving the OinC......and when asked, he told us nothing. "Well there was a variety of reasons, some current, some going back over the past five years."
In a room full of ANT OinCs and ANT XPOs sent to learn what they would need for successful tours at an ANT........and we couldn't even get some insight into why the most recent RFC took place. A variety of reasons......could you be a little more vague please.
Imagine if you will, taking over a unit where your predecessor was RFC and no one wanted to tell you what actually happened.
Maybe....just maybe.......if they started to publish a list on why people were being relieved, the number and frequency might start going down.
What are we afraid of ? The lack of information and abundance of rumors helps to create the fear that some people have for seeking OinC jobs in the first place. We need to put those fears to rest. People need to see that the people relieved had serious violations of established policy. They were not removed on a whim. Many were given opportunities to change, make ammends, or correct their deficiencies, and refused. They were relieved for the good of the unit and the Guard. What are we afraid of ?
We're a small service, and the OinC community is even smaller. How many RFCs happen that you don't hear about from at least one friend within a week of them happening ? I'm like an old lady at the clothes line, I get all the rumors. I want the facts. The rumors have to be worse than what actually happened. Why can't we get the facts ? What are we afraid of ?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Amen Stu! That is exactly what I told the Force Manager. Part of my arguement to him was the lack of people going before the OINC board. According to his last force 73 people qualified so I guess maybe it was mute but I still think we ought to put it out there. Rumors cause more damage than just telling people the reason up front. If I ever get relieved, I will tell everyone how to avoid the stupid mistake I made to have the CO show up and ask for my pin. You can say it again, what are we afraid of? Wouldn't the truth fall in line with our core values?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Amen to that. I'll join your pact. If I am ever relieved or investigated, I will let everyone know exactly what I did, or didn't do. I've put myself in a position to be held accountable, and I will hold myself to that standard. I will remain accountable for my own actions, and the actions of the people in my command. I should probably write that in my standing orders, it has a nice ring to it.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

In almost every instance, a CO hand picks their Command Chief. It's not a job that just gets doled out to anyone. There has to be a relationship between that Command Chief and the CO or the process just doesn't work. With that being said, I would like to address Stu and Deane's response to my previous posting: I still maintain that you don't know the whole story and until you do, you have no business talking about it. The 2 RFCs that you mentioned involved 2 Chief Petty Officers and whether you know the story or not, you should support your fellow Chiefs. Isn't that something that we teach our new Chiefs during the CCTI process? I know I learned that. And I am a shipmate to my friends, first and foremost. Guilty or innocent, they have my support because they are my friends. And you said that you don't pass judgement on them...the CG already did that. I'll say that is exactly what you have been doing on this thread. How do you think those members would feel if they read these posts? And if you feel it is that important to know the WHOLE story, pick up the phone and call the people directly and ask them about it and don't hide behind a computer screen. If they want you to know, they'll tell you or they'll tell you where to get off (it is,afterall, their cross to bear). Some of you know who those people are. Don't try to figure out the system, because in each of these cases, it doesn't concern you and has no bearing on you and how you do your job. Yes it may be nice for you to see what exactly people got relieved for, but I personally, do not enjoy hearing about the misery of others. Particularly when it's none of my business. I just don't feel there is a learning lesson in there anywhere.

We all make mistakes and no one is perfect. We will always have RFCs and some will be justified and some will not. 3 little words...LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. If your boss says those words, whether they are misguided or justified....you lose, end of story, long break! Does that mean you are no longer a productive member of the CG and should be discharged? What would be your solution? And I will leave you with this...just because someone is relieved for cause, it in NO WAY indicates that they have not upheld our core values. In some cases, yes it does, but unless you know the WHOLE STORY, you just can't make that determination.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I don't think the point is anything near that. Yes we should stand behind them and support them. But that doesn't mean they should then be a Silver Badge or Gold Badge, especially not directly from the billet where they were RFC.

The point about spreading the word about the specifics is not out of morbid curiosity. How many times in your career have you been told (or even said to others) "It is better to learn from someone else's mistakes than to have to make the same mistake yourself before you learn." This is why we have mishap reporting. This is why they have a whole website dedicated to good order and discipline.

By keeping it a secret you help nothing, except for the anonymity of the parties involved. RFC should be placed in the good order and discipline messages, and given enough specifics for people to learn from them. If it only says "due to loss of confidence" so be it, but that better be the reason the CO listed as the reason the person was releived.

BT
NNNNN

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Here on Kodiak, the CO's share with their command and the other commands results OF ALL NJP. Now, since my arrival i see were this has great benefits. Inevitably, we know someone who knew someone etc.........Do most OINC/CO's not hold open mast? Why do they/we ensure they are open? To squash the rumors, to ensure our people learn from the mistakes of others, to help educate people that there is reason for the UCMJ and to hold people accountable for their actions. The same holds true in all reliefs. You especially do not want to see this happen to your friend. I too, have had a good friend recenlty RFC. I too could not believe it would happen. I now know the whole story. That person was not surprised when they came and relieved them. And i agree with you Ken, if it says Loss of Confidence so be it. But why not put reason there ie. not maintaining qualification, inppropraite relationship, ethics etc etc......If we can do this for people who go to mast, then we should be able to do this for people entrusted with the day-to-day running of the CG.

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

"What's said in the Mess, stays in the Mess". I seem to remember seeing that (numerous times) reading that (numerous times) and having it instilled in me during my CCTI and helping to do the same at all I have attended since. Too bad this is not a Mess that we can close the door and lay it all out in, lest others who have no business in it would get it "out of the Mess".

Why don't we have enough OinC's. Oh yeah that was another thread but might be a small part of this discussion. Why are people relieved for cause? Yeah we can read the PERSMAN and see the generic reasons, but that's not good enough. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. And isn't that what appears to be true in the cases of numerous RFC's. Yes, many are Chiefs and many are friends and it's a sad state of affairs for all envolved, but get it on the table so that everyone can learn from it and we can ALL get on with life.

Steve, I hear what your saying, I don't agree with it but I hear you. Regretfully a few of my friends have been on the wrong side of an RFC, some will talk but others or most will not. In light of that silence the only story on the deck plates most times is from someone who was stationed there. And they in most cases don't know the whole story or have a "slanted" view of it. Is that the story that we want to have out there? A few assignments back I get sent in to clean up the mess at a unit following an RFC. My Group Commander refused to allow me to see the investigation, said it didn't concern me and wasn't any of my business and all I needed to do was completed the task at hand.

As an OinC I believe that we all have the right to know what happened otherwise someone tell all the Captains and Admirals to stop bringing it up to us when they start on about there being too many RFC's occuring their watch or the message putting everyone on notice hits the boards the day after Christmas.

And as a side note if you haven't read the latest BM Force Notes check it out. Phil Wolf touches on this for a paragraph or two and makes an interesting point about failure to remove the OinC qual codes from those that are relieved as required by the PERSMAN.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Steve...This site is devoted to honest, open, and frank discussions among Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers (as the homepage says) and you should know that better than anyone as one of the first board members. This issue has very little to do about support...it has to do with what message we (as an organization) are sending. It has to do with good order & discipline. I didn't learn anything during my CCTI about supporting my fellow Chiefs and turning a blind eye on the issue at hand. No one is asking you to throw your friend under the bus, but I think your friendship is tainting your opinion on this issue...you haven't really addressed the issue that I brought up, which is "Someone that gets RFC shouldn't be put into a CSC position immediately following a RFC".

Until someone can give me an example, I will ALWAYS assume that those that are RFC were not living up to the core values...plain and simple. If you sold a piece of government property to your friend...not living up to the core values. If you were involved in hazing your crew...not living up to the core values. Having sex with a non-rate in your chain of command...not living up to the core values. Don't want to qualify...not living up to the core values.

The comment that bothers me the most is "Don't try and figure out the system, because in each of these cases, it doesn't concern you and has no bearing on you and how you do your job" What??? I get paid to figure out the system, I get paid to worry about the process, I get paid to be concerned about how the actions of others affect me and my people. Steve...Is this really the advice that someone in your position wants to give out?

There are lessons to be learned from RFC's. If there aren't lessons from this type of thing, why do we publish the Good Order & Discipline every quarter? Why not just add at the end of the GO&D a section for RFC? No names, just details similiar to those details already in the publication. What is my solution? Those people that are RFC must fill a generic BM billet for their next assignement...or get out. Go be an RFO evaluator, CFVE, opcen watchstander, training team member or whatever.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Hey Deane.... :mad: Take it easy on the TRATEAM member thing!!! ;) I was not RFC, I was a boot BMC and somebody had to do it. :eek:

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

We've covered a lot of this ground before in the Foam Blanket Decision thread. But, I'll restate a few points.

Steve Cantrell and I are both friends with one of the RFC'd OICs. Could our opinion be skewed by that friendship? Absolutely. But, as I've said before, my friends are my friends because they have honor, respect, and devotion to duty. You know the individual by this one act- we know him by years of stellar service.

Let's say, for the sake of argument that the RFC was warranted. Why does that preclude him from being a silver/gold badge or even getting another OIC job?

If Charles Manson saved two prison guards and a nun in a prison riot, would you expect the parole board to let him out? Of course not! That one single good act does not wipe out a lifetime of evil doing.

So, then why does one bad act wipe out a lifetime of good?

I'll grant you that OICs are held to a higher standard than anyone else, including silver and gold badge command chiefs. And if your CO and District Commander make the call to relieve you, relieve you they will.

But, we have to remember that by stepping up and taking an OIC job (which not many want to do these days) they knowingly placed themselves in a position to be scrutinized and criticized. Give them credit for that. My friend was on his second OIC tour when relieved.

He had the opportunity to slink away and take one of those less visible jobs with less responsibility that Deane Smith mentioned earlier. He chose not to. He chose to step up and take a billet that would allow him the opportunity to make a positive impact on the service. He chose to put himself, once again, in the position to be scrutinized and criticized. He did so because he has something to offer, and he's the kind of Chief that won't hide in the shadows.

I disagree with Steve, though, that we shouldn't discuss these incidents. These types of discussions are crucial in understanding how an RFC could happen. I don't believe that the decision making process is as cut-and-dry as many of you believe. There is a lot of subjectivity involved that could easily sway the RFC decision in either direction.

For those of you that don't really value my opinion to begin with, nothing I've said is going to make a dent. But, for those of you on the fence- let me finish by this statement-

I would be proud and content to turn my boat and crew over to the friend that we've been discussing. There is no one in the CG that could do the job better.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

[QUOTE=BMCS Dennis Endicott]

"But, we have to remember that by stepping up and taking an OIC job (which not many want to do these days) they knowingly placed themselves in a position to be scrutinized and criticized. Give them credit for that. My friend was on his second OIC tour when relieved.

He had the opportunity to slink away and take one of those less visible jobs with less responsibility that Deane Smith mentioned earlier. He chose not to. He chose to step up and take a billet that would allow him the opportunity to make a positive impact on the service. He chose to put himself, once again, in the position to be scrutinized and criticized. He did so because he has something to offer, and he's the kind of Chief that won't hide in the shadows." :confused:

Positional Power, Responsibility and Accountability.
I don't know the person, situation or anything, but from what I have read on here this member apparently done something that this member should have known was not proper, especially as a Chief (OIC, XPO, EPO).

Senoir Chief, Yes this member didn't slink away (maybe they should have), but now looking back did the member really have a positive impact.

I'm just a snipe that really doesn't know a lot about being OIC at a Station or a Cutter, but after trapsing around the world for the last 3 years with junior members under my charge at TACLET South and working with the NAVY and other DOD assets I do have a vague knowledge of responsibility as a senior enlisted member of the Coast Guard.

Bottom line to me is you were put in a position of command and you should know, going in what is expected, if you don't know and accept the job then shame on you.

"they knowingly placed themselves in a position to be scrutinized and criticized " Your words Senior Chief,
Therefore they should know better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My.02
Todd

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis said...Let's say, for the sake of argument that the RFC was warranted. Why does that preclude him from being a silver/gold badge or even getting another OIC job?

If Charles Manson saved two prison guards and a nun in a prison riot, would you expect the parole board to let him out? Of course not! That one single good act does not wipe out a lifetime of evil doing.

So, then why does one bad act wipe out a lifetime of good?

It doesn't & I don't think anyone has said it does. What I'm saying is...you shouldn't be put into such a high leadership position immediately following a RFC. A tour removed...different story.


For Dennis & Steve...I get that your supporting your friend...I get that! But, are you saying that every RFC OINC should be given the opportunity to assume a CSC billet immediately upon relief if they so desire...or just your friend? Is your friends RFC the norm or the exception? How should follow-on assignments after a RFC be handled?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I don't believe that you can write a blanket policy for post-RFC billets. Every situation is different and not all them indicate a poor Chief or leader.

I think that the follow up tours should be handled just as they have been. The individual, his command, his detailer, and his next prospective CO should make that decision.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve.......
Hiding?????,,,,,Hiding??????, Well either I really suck at this game or I was doing something else altogether. You were able to refer to me by name, because my name precedes my posts. I wasn't hiding in this forum, I was seeking. I was looking for the answers. If we have no business talking about things we know nothing about, how are we supposed to learn ? If you gave me a FRACTION of the credit that you've given your friend, maybe you could see that. You're right, I don't know the whole story, but neither do you. I know the rumors, and you know your friends version. I want the CG's version, the one that came out in the investigation, the one that got him relieved. That's the closest thing that we will ever get to the truth.
Your 3 little words aren't the end of the story. Let me give you 3 bigger ones, "Commandant Appointed Position" People don't get Relieved for Cause because their boss has a bad cup of coffee and needs to take it out on somebody. The CO needs to be able to justify their decision to THEIR boss. I have yet to see an innocent person relieved. If this has happened, someone please, clue me in.
I want to figure out the system because I am still a part of it. The Good Order and Discipline is post for anyone to read. I have the authority to impose NJP at my unit. Where do I look for guidance when awarding that punishment? What should I do to the Non-rates at my unit who are involved in hazing if the CG isn't taking action on a BMCS doing the same ? Whart is the appropriate course of action for that E-3 downloading porn when an O-6 just did the same thing ? What is my response to INAPPROPRIATE Relationships after I've seen the CG's response to a PROHIBITED one ?
How would those two guys feel if they read my comments ?........I would hope that they felt bad. They commited crimes. They can take solace in the fact that you still support them and are telling others that they have a responsibility to do the same. Not this BMCS. And I don't like the Jenny Jones defense " whether they're guilty or innocent", they guilty.
Four BMCSs on two sides of an issue. Two viloated the UCMJ, and you're saying that they're good and just men who deserve our support and respect. Two who support the UCMJ and the CG's decision to Relieve them for Cause, and you infer that they are back stabbers and cowards.
Had it not been for Dennis' comments, I would have thought that your friend was the coward, hiding behind his rank, his position and his friends. As Dennis says he is not, I will yield to the opinion of the one with personal insight.
We went throught two different CCTIs. Mine never mentioned aiding and abatting.
Based on your statements, I take it that you've never casted a no vote during the OinC Review Board of an BMC or above.

Dennis, again I admire your continued commitment to your friend. It's not that your opinion COULD be skewed, it is skewed. There are better people in the CG for your job. Better people have already applied for it. People still qualified to take it. The removal of your friends certification is what precludes him from seeking another OinC position. He can reapply for the board and look at regaining that qualification, and if he is everything that you say he is, I hope he does.
As for the one bad act....? You only have to rape once to become a Rapist. No one care how many times or with how many people, you had consensual sex before or after the rape. You only need to molest one child, before someone like me is willing to discard your life's work and bar you from my son's daycare facility. If someone was married for eight years, and cheat only once....most spouses could look past the 2921 faithful nights and hone in on that one night.
You see what your friend was trying to do, as opposed to what he did. If what actually took place was common knowledge, there would be more people on my side of the fence. As it stands, no one is refuting the basics of what I heard happened. I don't need the WHOLE story, which is forunate, because I'm never going to get it. But just from the basics, neither member should have been allowed to stay in a Command Cadre position, or recieve a follow-up Silver Badge Job. That my uninformed, uneducated opinion. BMCS Stuart S. Slesh, in case someone missed it at the top of my statement. And I'm on the Global, not hiding from anyone there either. That's Slesh, with and S.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Not to add more fuel to this firey debate butthis is in the news:

NARRAGANSETT, R.I. (AP) -- The top official at the Point Judith Coast Guard station has been demoted.

W-J-A-R reports that The OinC of Sta PT Judith was relieved of his command on June 27th after being the subject of a a summary court martial. He was charged with improper use of the station’s rescue boat, maltreatment of subordinates and making false official statements.

He led Station Point Judith for two years. He was demoted in rank from senior captain to captain, and was also temporarily assigned to a unit in Maine.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

Stu- You said " They commited crimes". How on this earth did you come to that conclusion that they committed a crime? They were not arrested (at least the 2 I am referring to). And the last time I looked, an RFC was not a crime. I still can't figure out what it is that you think you can learn by knowing all the facts of either case. Let's agree to disagree on the subject and move on.

And just for the record, I never inferred that anyone was a backstabber and coward. Where did you get that conclusion from? Grow up

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Do you want to move on or continue to insult me ? Telling me to grow up would infer that I'm a child. Not a good way to sign off if you're looking to establish peace.
They violated the UCMJ, ergo, commited a crime. You said we should be supporting our fellow Chiefs, not judging them, and made comments about things I must not have learned during the CCTI, inferring what ? And I took the hiding behind the computer screen crack, to infer cowardness. Regardless of what you intended to say with your comments towards me, those were the results.
Knowing all the facts about something will always help. It's the same logic that goes into reporting MISHAPS. Trying to prevent things from happening again, to your friends, or the enemies you're creating along the way.
You can't see any of this because you're too busy defending your friend. I can agree that we will never agree on this issue. Perhaps you will begin to see my side after the next RFC that goes down without explanation, when it doesn't involve someone you know.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Steve Cantrell first said...And if you feel it is that important to know the WHOLE story, pick up the phone and call the people directly and ask them about it and don't hide behind a computer screen.

Steve Cantrell then said...And just for the record, I never inferred that anyone was a backstabber and coward.


Steve - I think that you can agree that if you accuse someone of hiding behind a computer screen...they might infere that you are calling them a coward.

Stu - I understood your "Crime" analogy.

Steve Carleton - I believe it was a Senior Chief that was reduced to Chief.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Steve: You asked what can we learn from knowing the facts of the RFC cases.

The OinC of Pt Judith was relieved (and reduced by summary CM) for, among other things, "improper use of a rescue boat." This phrase, "improper use of a rescue boat" could cover a wide range of things. Did they have a morale day and take the boat fishing? Were they skiing behind the RBS? Or was the Senior Chief having the duty boat crew pick him up at his house instead of driving through rush-hour traffic?

I wanted to know, not out of a morbid curiosity (although I knew him many years ago), but so I could use that knowledge as a tool to measure my own decision making, performance, and behavior.

Here's another reason. When I hear the straight scoop about RFC's, and hear about the types of things that people are getting relieved for, I typically breathe a little easier. I've made a bunch of mistakes as an OIC, but never anything that comes close to the stories I've heard.

Bottom line: Knowledge is empowering, and that's a good thing.

Edited by Admin to remove the members name. Though we can discuss the circumstances surrounding an incident, let's refrain from naming the people involved.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Shawn, my point exactly. Some of these statements, raise more questions than they answer. What was he doing that got him relieved ? What should I avoid doing ? What was the maltreatment of subordinates ? What was the extent of the false statements ? What actually happened ?

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Stu: All very valid questions. Why not just call and ask the circumstance behind their RFC and get those questions answered.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I think this discussion started over what we see in the messages and what actually happens in these cases. Am I wrong? I do believe that the stories we get are sugared up to make them easier to swallow. Maybe it's a case of protecting the guilty or to avoid embarrassment for the mbr being relieved. I don't know if I fully agree with that, I do believe however that acting OINC's should have access to all the facts, just to keep them honest and on the right path. I am not an OINC yet so maybe I have a different perspective than I will when I am. Regardless, as a Chief, as a man, I know that I am responsible for my actions, I know of my short-comings (however few they may be) and I know that if I do something wrong, I will be held accountable for my actions. If I do something terribly wrong or just make a mistake that causes me to lose my command, should I be afforded the warm and fuzzy version in the good order and discipline message or should they just lay out all of the facts, however disgusting or embarrassing they may be? I say put it all out there, I rather not have anyone I don't know speculating or leaving it out there for the Active duty spouses club to gossip about.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Nick, who am I supposed to call ? As I've stated before, the person being relieved is probably going to give me their version. The person who relieved them will probably give me their version. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Do we really need anyone who wants the answers making phone calls ? Isn't that how rumors are started in the first place ? Why can't we have these things published somewhere ? If the CG has the conviction to relieve someone, can't they stand by their decision long enough to explain why ? Why does this seem to be the only thing that we don't discuss to death ? Where are the RFC safety stand downs ?
If they don't want to air the laundry to everyone, fine. But as JP3 said, sitting OinCs should be informed. The leadership schools should be openly discussing them to POinCs and PXPOs. Omit the names, units, and dates, but release the facts of the investigation. If more people talked about these RFCs, maybe less people would have to go through them. What are we afraid of ?

[BMC John Phillips III]

BMCS, I have never been one to talk bad about the powers that be or higher ups if you will, but I think the problem lies in the warm and fuzzy politically correct times and mentalities we have there. Of course if we air the dirty laundry as you so eloquently alluded to, then we would have to do that across the board, would we not? I am not sure of the ratio of O to E RFC's but the answer of what we are afraid of may lie somewhere within that realm.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I'll take the hit for posting the individual's name, I should have edited it.

I took it straight from the Associated Press, and at least two Providence, RI television stations.

Much of the debate, as I read into it was whether we should have information beyond the sanitized versions released by the CG.

Apparently, someone in the CG, felt that it was appropriate to release the individual's name into the public via the press. Since I did not locate a Press Release from the 1st District, I will assume that the press got wind of the proceedings, and simply asked the name, which under the Privacy Act is releaseable.

Does this action violate the privacy of this individual? Maybe, but let's also look at the fact that there is a Army 4-Star that has been relieved in recent days. A 3 or 4 Star Deputy Chief of Naval Operations was also "reassigned" on the first day the new CNO eneterd the office for various "lack of confidence" type issues.

Will we ever know the details of each of these actions? No. Will publicizing the details dissuade a hard core offender change the behavior? I don't think so, I think that publicizing the details will most likely dissuade those one or two people who are on the fence about whether they will cross the line to the dark side, ie: succumb to hormones, purchase something inappropriate, etc.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And Steve, I realize that I keep going back to the same points, but having the CG's versions of the events can stop some rumors and end some fears. There is a very real fear that some people have, that someone could get RFC thru no fault of their own. We've seen two arguements that good people can be removed for simple infractions. I don't believe that is the case. Where is the truth that will set us free ?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I would absolutely agree that there are probably next to no RFC's that didn't have some reason for happening.

A wise old Coastie once told me,

"There are three sides to every story, Side A, Side B and somewhere in the middle is the truth."

Having never held a Command Position, I cannot relate to that level of responsibility entrusted to you guys that have filled them.

That said, is it really that hard to know what the right things to do are and execute them?

Last time I looked, Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty still applied to all Coast Guardsmen.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

People are going to break the rules. In the Point Judith RFC from what I know, we all know not to do and if we do not we should not be where we are at.

I was at a unit where the OIC was RFC. He knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway. He did not care about how what he was doing was affecting his unit.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Steve, the SCPO's(now CPO) picture is in the paper too and it was picked up by a local TV station.

I still agree that the CG needs to do something to stop the rumors and help educate OINCs. I do wonder if the same people who do not find value in publishing the reasons of RFCs were/are against publishing MISHAP info as well. I seem to remember people who were dead set against the new MISHAP system years back.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I think that we should keep in mind too, that "lack of confidence" can be a cause for relief that has absolutely nothing to do with an infraction.

For example, an OIC may put himself/herself in the position as being perceived as in an inappropriate relationship. Even though the allegation is untrue, the perception would be enough to reach that "lack of confidence" point. And, I'm here to tell you, that a lot of RFC's are done without follow-up NJP or CM. That's not because the higher ups are being soft, its because NJP or CM wasn't warranted.

The kind of questionable behavior that rates a RFC for an OIC will usually result in an undocumented counseling session for any other Chief.

OICs are held to a higher standard, and perception is as important as reality in those jobs, but an RFC does not equate to a bad Chief.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...your example is a little vague. Give me an example of a perceived inappropriate relationship that might get someone relieved for cause even though it's not an actual inappropriate relationship.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, you and I are seriously traveling in different circles. I have never heard of someone getting relieved for cause who didn't do anything wrong. Is it possible..........sure. But I'm not seeing that. Every case I have heard of, involved people failing to meet the expectations of the billet that they were filling. They were being bad leaders, setting bad examples, and Yes, being bad Chiefs. Some were lucky enough to serve under those soft superiors who decided not to pursue admistrative actions. I am not alone in this belief, read the latest BM force notes. Some weren't in "percieved" inappropraite relationships, they admitted that they had prohibited ones. And I'm not limiting this to OinCs. There are EPOs and XPOs who have walked away relatively unscathed.
I understand that you can overlook a momentary lapse of judgement and look at the person's overall career before making a judgement. I can't. I can't see it as a simple mistake. I see the loss of confidence. If any of my OODs had done any of the things the two (now three and counting ) guys, did, they wouldn't be standing OOD duty and my unit again.
Look, I'll try and be the bigger person here.......if you are relieved for cause for shortcomings in your administrative responsibilities, failing to maintain your own qualifications, poor math and financial management skills, or problems in you PERSONAL life, you have my sympathy and support. But when you're relieved for inappropriate or prohibited relationships with the people in your care or you're making sexist or racist comments within the CG environment, YOU'RE A BAD CHIEF. And if you're not willing to set a proper example, someone with a spine should make a proper example out of you.

My opinion, Stuart S. Slesh, available for private rebutals for anyone not wanting to disagree with me in a public forum.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And still it continues.......from the lastest "Good order and Discipline ?"

A CWO2 retired in lieu of special board action to separate from the Service for engaging in a prohibited relationship with a nonrate.

I hope they weren't to hard on the person.......letting them retire. Let this be a lesson to all of us. If you're retirement eligible and are engaging in PROHIBITED relationships, you're going to be allowed to retire. That ought to send the message that we're not going to stand for that kind of conduct from our senior people.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu,
You would actually let this guy retire without slaming him? You wouldn't pull him out of retirement? What if he retired and then porked a non-rate? Would you want him to come back and face music? Ohhh, I digress. I was thinking of another thread where you would whack a retired guy for making a stupid decision in a subsequent job. BTW, my XPO is looking over my shoulder and we are having a ball at your expense. Sorry, but thanks. ;)
Jim

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But Jabs thinks everything I say is funny. You can't even mention my name without him smiling. The other thread isn't about a stupid decision, it's about a stupid decision that threatens National Security, but I digress. This person could have retired and started poking someone of the same sex for all I cared. I just think that we should change the wording in "Prohibited Relationships" to "Inevitible Interactions that are looked about in a less than favorable light." Let's not try to hurt anyones feelings.
I mean, people of a lesser pay grade are getting hit harder for downloading Porn, than this person was for their "Prohibited" relationship.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Well, maybe if they had a nice CWO around they wouldn't NEED to download so much porn... :rolleyes:

[PACS Steve Carleton]

**News Flash**

Just got word of an OinC arrested [CHARGES DELETED -- See next post for links to News Stories and Press Releases] being held by local authorities -- Here we go again.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

I just read the new Good Order msg to my crew. One of my BM's summed it up best by asking this question.
"Why do Coasties feel they need to be Rock Stars".

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not knowing any of the facts from Steve's News Flash, I don't know how someone could recover from even the allegations of those crimes. How could someone return to a Command position after being released by the local authorities for those charges ? How is their crew going to react after he/she comes back ? I think that we will be seeing an emergency fill message being sent very soon. I really hope that this is just a mistake/misunderstanding. But even if it is, I don't think that the OinC will be staying at that unit. We'll have to wait and see. I think that we'll get some indication from the media long before we here anything from the CG.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Off the Associated Press Boston site:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/16/coast_guard_chief_petty_officer_arrested_on_rape_c harges?mode=PF

The Official CG Press Release can be found here:

http://www.uscgnewengland.com/go/doc/778/89076/

I have seen the Police Department's Press Release and they have included his photo. I would like to hope that this case isn't true, but sadly it could be.

Maybe this should bleed back over to the release information on the RFC discussion.

I have not chimmed in on that issue, but I would like to pose this question; if we publish the details of an RFC, will it reduce the number of cases for RFC? CG JAG publishes the quarterly report on Good Order and Discipline, yet, I don't see any reduction in the numbers of cases, so is it an effective means of deterring people from commiting the offense?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Thanks for the information Steve, still hoping it's not true...................

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

I know him, and I'm shocked. I would be even more surprised if the allegations were true. Nothing in the news about murder charges...was that just scuttlebutt? Hopefully this is a crazy local on a vendetta.

On a side note, why the HELL did they have to put a stinking warrant in there! Yeah I know it's only temporary for now, but I wonder if this will change it. Why not just let the BMC/XPO run it. It's not going to be too long before the OIC is extinct.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

If the OinCs do become extinct it's because we are not breeding enough of our own. We have Warrants waiting in the wings to step into any opening we make available to them. The Warrant that replaced him was probably sitting at a desk somewhere and available to fill in. There probably wasn't a Certified enlisted person available to fill this vacancy. And I wouldn't have put an XPO in the seat in the wake of what happened there. That Station is probably being flooded with phone calls. We still don't know who the alledged victim is.

I don't know the guy, and I hope it isn't true. But if it is, who do we as OinCs blame for the extinction of Enlisted Commands. We have to stop blaming the Os. We are doing this to ourselves.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Stu: Read more about the culture wars within the RCS, and then the culture variances between the USLSS and RCS (and the USLHS). It is this cultural difference which allows for enlisted OICs to exist, but the cultures are continuing to meld. Historically, ANYTIME cultures have melded the one with the more power has emerged as the dominate one.

Since 1915, the Officer culture from the RCS has been slowly eroding the USLSS culture. At first it may have been imperceptable. Keepers suddenly became Chiefs, but were left alone to do what they did best: run their stations. They even had different designators than the RCS Chiefs, and they didn't regularly transfer around like the RCS crews.

WWII changed the transfer policies, and I think the first O's were put at Stations. Two big culture changes for the USLSS branch. Stations looked a lot different post WWII than before.

Do you know most of the "base" or "group" CO's were Warrants. Yup, most Group Commanders were Warrant Officers, because the commissioned officers were still on the ships (and were taking over the rest of the flying jobs). The O's promotion path at the time was UNDERWAY! Not sitting around micro-managing a bunch of enlisted guys ashore.

Even into the 60's when "Groups" were standardized they had warrants as CO's, and Chiefs running the stations, small cutters, and lighthouses. Now most groups had O-6's running them (even before the switch to sectors).

Since then the sheer size of the Officer corps has exploded, and we have drastically reduced the # of afloat opportunities for them. Weather and Ocean Station patrols went away, along with the hulls to complete them. This has pushed the O's to the last two operational holdouts: Stations and ATON.

There is no money in ATON, but the O's have pushed Stations to chase the congressional money trail several times. When we engaged in the "war on drugs" many Stations were converted to O's...because that's where the money was at. Remember the FCI's? Then came Exxon Valdez. Were you at a Station after that? Remember someone showing up with a pollution trailer?? We followed the money on that for a while to, until it dried up.

Now it's HLS. That's where the money is at. And where you find the money, you find politicians and Officers. Many stations are growing quite large with an influx of HLS billets, this is going to push more of them to become CWO or LT commands.

No, the days of enlisted OIC's are waning, and I don't think it is anyone's "fault" per say. The culture from which the enlisted OIC comes from is quickly fading away. And when that culture is gone, these jobs will be too!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Less than 10% of BMCs currently possess the certifications required to advance to BMCS. That has nothing to do with the RCS or the USLSS. You can't blame our past or the Os for our BMs refusing to seek out these certifications and positions. It's not our increased HLS needs or lack of funding that keeps these people from refusing positions of authority. They don't want them and the Os do. It's not big brother out to get us.
As for there not being any money in AtoN.........you might want to look at a budget pie chart to see how much money the CG still puts into AtoN.

We have people filling billets that they never certified for. We have people recalled from retirement to fill OinC vacancies. We have people filling OinC jobs not in line with their paygrade. We have certified people who have never requested or recieved an OinC position. And we have people who have never read the books that you have, don't know anything about the USLSS culture, and have never even visited a lighthouse, refusing to sit before an OinC review board. Everything, is always somebody's fault.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

I think you have some great points. I have suggested HQ conduct a survey to find out why so many people don't want this job. My feeling is HQ doesn't really want to know why, or at least they don't want it in paper.

However even if we did consistently have the 300% screening ratio, the enlisted OIC positions are slowly going away.

Maybe we'll meet in 30 years over a beer and talk about whether I was right or wrong.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Great responses Stu and Shawn!
I think I want to take a shot at Steves Question

"I have not chimmed in on that issue, but I would like to pose this question; if we publish the details of an RFC, will it reduce the number of cases for RFC? CG JAG publishes the quarterly report on Good Order and Discipline, yet, I don't see any reduction in the numbers of cases, so is it an effective means of deterring people from commiting the offense?"

Two differnet animals Steve. Most of the offenses in Good Order are Criminal. Most RFC's are not. We OICs, are held to a much higher standard, higher than yours and much higher than Officers. If Officers had to go through what we did, Shawn and Stu's debate would not matter. Ask an O that has sat on one of our boards. They dont want and usually can not pass it. SO posting RFC info should help. It will dispell rumors quickly. Good exmaple is Shawns comment he knows the guy and can't believe it. Within this OIC culture, one of us always knows the guy who got relieved. We will tell people, both senior and junior we cant believe it, he was a mentor or we are not surprised(that one very rarely). These types of responses are very upsetting to the crew especially if the OIC relieved was well liked and admired by his crew. Then, those impressionable BM1s, 2s, and 3s dont want these jobs because the "best OINC ever got rail roaded". Fact is, there is not an OINC out there thats been rail roaded(some one prove me wrong here!) But these young BMs may never know the truth. So, get the info out, dispell the rumors, answer questions without divulging names(almost impossible) and keep future OINCs from becoming frustrated and afraid to sit before that board.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

Senior C
There is a lot more going on in this case then most people know.

We all need to remember innocent until proven guilty.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Mark,

You are absolutely right that there is more to the case, and I definitly believe in the innocent until proven guilty premise.

I hope, that I have chosen my words carefully enough so as to not insert my opinion as to anyone's guilt or innocence. I also would not want to post anything here that could cause difficulties for any on-going investigation.

I stand by the idea that there are always 3 sides to every story, Side A, Side B and somewhere in between those two lies the truth. -- I have gone back and edited my initial post on this one incident.

I posed the question about publishing the cause of RFCs because I have not held a position as an OinC, and did not realize that the range of reasoning for RFC was so diverse.

That said, it seems that a good many of the RFCs I have read or heard about come down to an individual making some bad decisions while in the position of command. From my perspective, alot of those bad decisions, seem that they could have easily been avoided. Particularly in cases of fraternization, inappropriate relationships, alcohol use, and so on.

I realize that there have been RFCs for loss of confidence, and those, I hope, were properly documented properly prior to pulling the RFC trigger.

So the idea of publishing them would be what.. to dispell the rumor mill, or discourage others from making the same bad decisions?

[BMCS Scott Hooley]

Steve, I believe that both of those reasons are good for publishing the fact of an RFC. I have been around for 16 years and have seen a few OICs loose their jobs. As soon as someone is relieved the rumor mill starts it's daily rounds. There is always someone who knows someone who heard this or that. Most of the time it is BS and the ones who know the facts rarely come forward with them, even if they can. If it became policy to publish the facts, not neccessarily where or who, but the honest facts, then that would be of benefit to not only the ones sitting in the OIC chair, but to the junior members who we are supposed to mentor and develop into the OICs of the future. And as I stated in the RFC thread, this should apply to the BM1 OIC of an ANT to the 0-6 in charge of Sector somewhere. Provide this as a uniform standard across the board. As for the learning curve on RFCs, I can honestly tell you that I have learned from RFCs I have seen. Every time I face a difficult or controversial decision, believe me I think long and hard on the decision I am making. I have learned that rash decision and bad judements can cost you your job and believe me I do not want to loose mine.