Publishing Relief for Cause information

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well it has started to happen. The latest BM Force notes list three recent RFCs. The names and some of the facts surrounding the cases are still missing, but it has started. Sometime interesting to note, as Dennis has stated, the people relieved were not doing their first OinC tour. I for one am all for making this information know. Knowledge is power. Showing people that the CG holds people accountable for their actions will always be a good thing in my book.

[PSCS Frank Gorman]

I'm with Stu 100% on this issue. It is important to send a strong message CG wide that all mbrs, regardless of rank, are accountable for their actions and to all, up and down the COC.

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

I agree that we all need to know why someone was relieved, but not the names. As an OIC, I feel it benefits all OIC's knowing why someone was removed, I do not need to know who just why.

Also, by publishing the reasons CG wide, it shows everyone that all OIC's are actually being held to higher standards and they are accountable for their and their crews actions.

[BMCS Scott Hooley]

I believe that if this information is going to be sent out, it needs to be universal. If it is published when an enlisted OIC is relieved that should also apply to commisioned officer side as well. Use it all to demonstrate accountability and make it known that we are all held to a higher standard.

[BMC Kerry Wagoner]

Scott, very good point. Either no commisioned officer has been relieved in recent memory or they hide it pretty well.

What's good for one side is good for the other. :cool:

[BMCS Burt Ford]

As I stated before in a previous thread, I am all for it. If we can take away the rumors sorrounding ALL RFCs, maybe people wont be so scared to take thses wonderful jobs!!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Kerry, check out
http://cgweb.uscg.mil/legal/practice_areas/Military_Justice/MiljusticeLinks/index_cmdtnote.html
that's the Good and Discipline files. This past Quarter an O-5, and O-4 have been RFC and an O-3 was Relieved as EO. It's not that they are "hiding" the Relieves. The just don't talk about them. And they don't actually tell you what they did. Prohibited relationships cover a lot of things. Downward trend in performance sounds kinda flowery. Mistreatments of subordinates ? I want to know what actually happened. I don't need the names. I'm with Burt. Tell us why these people were relieved. I don't need to be frightened by the rumors. I don't want to hear that there was a "Loss of Confidence" based on nothing. If they are willing to take someone out of a position of authority, they should be willing to tell us why. We should be given the oportunity to learn from the mistakes of others.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Publish ALL of the information. I don't really care if the names are published...people find that out anyway and it doesn't add to the reason for publishing the facts. ALL of the facts/details should be published, not a watered-down version.

[BMCS Scott Hooley]

Publishing the facts of the RFC would also (hopefully) alleviate the speculation and scuttlebutt that closely follows the announcement of a relief for cause. I agree with Deane, air the laundry and let us learn from it.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu, Did you notice the E8 taken to Court Martial? He was an OINC too. I learned more about that from the news paper than the CG.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Burt...good point. Minor details (including name and picture of the OINC) of the relief were in the local paper!

Even this board deleted his name from the related thread.

I understand if there are privacy act considerations...but lets get the RFC info out there for others to learn from.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

The new BM Force Notes has info on recent RFC's in it. Its a step in the right direction. What does everyone think?

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

Can someone direct me to the new BM Force Notes? The latest one I can find is from July 2005. Thanks :)

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Burt...I agree, I think it's a step (one of many needed in my opinion) in the right direction.

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Bill I'll email it to ya.

Ralph

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

Ralph,

Thanks, I'm standing by... :)

Bill

[BMCS Bill Gheen]

Thanks to all who sent the force notes...Bill

[BMC John Phillips III]

I believe that if this information is going to be sent out, it needs to be universal. If it is published when an enlisted OIC is relieved that should also apply to commisioned officer side as well. Use it all to demonstrate accountability and make it known that we are all held to a higher standard.

Excellent point and likely the reason why we don't get all of the facts, just generic info. That would be an awful double standard now wouldn't it?

All the facts might embarrass, but I think it's better than the rumors that you ultimately end up hearing.

I also find it very interesting, with all this talk of "juniority" that the most recent force notes states that several were 2nd or 3rd term OIC's.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The other interesting thing to me is that one of the had already been to Mast. How do you take someone to Mast and not give them at least one three in the marks that accompany a Mast ? How do you not, relief someone for cause after you've given them a three ? If you have a three in your Marks you can't even get an XPO billet for two years. I think someone should be asking that CO why they didn't take action sooner.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, bringing the latest (temporary) RFC over to this thread for you.
To answer your question on whether publishing the information would help curb the amount of RFCs ?.........it couldn't hurt. The Good Order and Discipline is only available on a quarterly basis, and some of the important details are omitted. Not everyone bothers to read them either.
The case in Mass. will just become a blip on the radar. THe allegations and outcome of the case could quell all the rumors and possiblily even prevent something similar from happening again. This case is one that we will definitely have to wait for all of the facts to come out. But I still feel that as members of the CG, and more importantly, members of Enlisted Commands, we have a right to know.

Edited to add
Steve, how many of us actually could have gotten the official CG Press Release if you hadn't provided us with a link ?

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Stu: How do you not relieve someone for cause after giving them a three? As you know there are some strict guidelines for marking people. If someone is convicted in civilian court, no matter what the circumstances, they get a three. Does that mean they should get relieved, no matter what the circumstances are?

At my last Station (I was OIC) I had an altercation with a 16-year old girl (my daughter's friend) in my house. She involved herself in an argument between my wife and my daughter, so I told her to leave. She refused. I told her several times to leave, then told her I was going to throw her ass out. At that point she threw a chair, and I threw her out.

She pressed charges, and the local assist D.A. (who had made a name for herself as a womens rights activist) decided to persue the charges. According to Maine state law I was well within my right to use reasonable force (which I did) to throw her out, but the assist D.A. wanted to prosecute. My lawyer managed to get it thrown out, but I'll tell you I was sweating bullets.

If I HAD been prosecuted and convicted (this was from a very small town where everyone knew the little tramp, which might have worked for me or against me), then by the Persman I would have lost my good conduct and received a three.

Are you saying, if convicted in those circumstances, I should have been relieved?

The regs say you can't be assigned an OIC job with a 3 within 2 years, it doesn't say a 3 is grounds for relief.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yes, Shawn, you should have.....2+2=4. It's simple logic. If you can't be sent to an OinC billet for 2 years after recieving a 3, you shouldn't be able to serve in one the day after you recieve one. A 3 means you can't have one. A 3 denotes sub-standard performance. I didn't make that policy, and I don't think that I'm making a leap joining the two together. As you said, you were within the Law for the state of Maine. If you hadn't been, and were convicted, I think that you should have been removed.
Regardless of how much of a tramp the girl in your story was, you should have followed the same advice that you would have given to one of your subordinates who faced a similar situation. She throws a chair at you....call the police. What would you, as a father, have done, if some middle aged man forceably throw your sixteen year old daughter out of his house ? A zealous feminist prosecutor would have been the least of his problems if he put his hands on mine.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Stu,

All Coast Guard press releases are available on www.uscg.mil, click on the NEWS link, then pick the appropriate AOR you are in. In this case, the New England link.

All CG PA Offices use a program to electronically distribute press releases via e-mail, etc. If you want to get them, particularly if your unit is involved in a case, follow these instructions:

Go to www.uscg.mil
Click on News
Select your AOR
Click on Questions or Comments
Click Join Mailing LIst

You will have to fill out a form and specifically request to receive certain press releases and then you will start getting them in your e-mail.

Using the above instructions, you can also request information from the PA Staff in your AOR, speakers, requests, training, etc.

The PA Shops are good about checking the inquiries everyday.

[BMC JIM HINES]

I think Kerry is right, we should all know why, but I really don't think who is necessary.
You can always find out by the press releases if you really want to know who. Just read todays D1 press releases about an E9 OIC...

P.S. can someone email me the latest BM Force notes? Thanks, Jim

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

Well, in your opinion I should have. In my Gru Comms opinion I shouldn't have. He told me he wasn't going to fire me, but I would have had problems getting another one.

It is obvious you see things very black and white. The regs say if you have a 3 you can't get the job. You interpret them to also mean if you have the job you cant keep it with a 3. I don't read it that way, and I don't know anyone else who does.

I also saw things very black and white on that day. I had someone in my house who was posing a threat to my family, and I responded by protecting my family.

I think you and I have had disagreements in the past about how much you have to follow the rules. You advocate following the rules all the time. I see rules as a guide to follow, because you can't possibly write a rule for every situation which may arise.

The rule for relief for cause doesn't say anything about receiving a 3 or an unsat. It is about loss of confidence. If I had been found guilty of breaking a law, my Gru Com still had confidence in me to do my job. Maybe that had something to do with me walking in his office the next day, telling himwhat happened, and saying I would do the same thing if it happened again today!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I do see things as black and white. What I saw in the force notes amazed me. I can't imagine a person going to Mast and recieving NJP while in an OinC billet, and being allowed to remain there. I also know of two other people that were getting 3's in their marks and not being relieved for cause. One of them was getting it in Judgement, Responsibility, and Loyalty. I might be slow, but I wouldn't let one of my coxswains retain their certifications if I was giving them 3's in those areas. That same person was not being recommended for advancement or re-enlistment. I just don't see how you could think that someone is performing at a sub-standard level, and allow them to remain in a position of authority.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

With the marking system we have, you can have someone who is an outstanding performer all around, yet still receive a 3 in one category. Had I been prosecuted and convicted, I would have fit into that category.

Black and white is great...on paper!

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I posted in the good order thread but shouldve read this first.

Stu, If an OINC got a three in weight you think he/she should be relieved? What if he is over weight but still passes the fitness? I think Shawn is right, there are a few marks of three that should not get you RFC.

[BMC JIM HINES]

Thanks all for the BM Force Notes!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

This is an interesting policy.

The policy states that if you receive a 3 on your EER, you can't be assigned to an OINC billet for 2 years. I think everyone gets that.

The question is...Should an OINC that receives a 3 (or lower) on an EER while assigned as an OINC remain in that billet? Here's where it gets interesting...

I think it (somewhat) sends a mixed message. The policy (or lack there of) is saying that you can have a 3 on your EER and remain an OINC, but you can't get another OINC job after you leave...if it's within that 2 year window. Isn't that a bit of a mixed message? Are we saying that you aren't qualified to be an OINC after you depart your current OINC job?????

I'm not going to go to the RFC for a 3 quite yet...But, the policy is definetely making me scratch my head.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Did anyone else see this. read them both.
Read this one first

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=15263

Read me second.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=15339

Next
http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2006/01/19/news/news2.txt

AND
http://www.cheboygannews.com/articles/2006/01/16/news/opinion/opinion2.txt

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Okay.........first of all Burt, I didn't see your question from back on 11-17, but, yeah, I think that if the OinC gets put on the weight program, he/she should get relieved. I think that if you can't make weight, can't retain your quals, can't avoid DUIs, can't figure out who you can sleep with, can't manage your personal finances............can't stay in command. But that's just me.

With the MACKINAW........and I think Smackinaw is funny, but that's probably because I'm not stationed on her. I gotta go with WTF ? I don't know what happened. I don't know what the other 26 people who were interviewed said. I don't know what ADM Papp heard. But I gotta go with WTF ?
Situation......you're the CO of the newest CG Cutter, and she was just involved in a well publized collision. You've been temporarily relieved from your command while the CG conducts an investigation. Within how many miles of an event involving your crew and alcohol should you wander ? Again, it might just be me.....but when mom and dad are watching my every move, I become quite angelic. Again I don't know anything that ADM Papp does, but just take it at face value and look at it from his point of view.
Analog.......you are the OinC of a unit and tell your XPO that you are unhappy about some of the events that have recently transpired at the unit and are beginning to quetion his ability to lead. You tell him that you want to talk to him about his future on Monday. Monday morning everyone is talking about the bash that the XPO had with the crew over the weekend. Are you now more or less concerned with his future ? Would you think that he is not taking his position seriously enough for you ? I don't know what happened....but it doesn't look good on paper.

On a side note.....it's nice to see that the Editor at SooNews, admires the work of the enlisted folks, and wishes the officers would set better examples.........

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I agree with you Stu. I just posted it for viewing. I can tell you I worked for Captain Kahler, great O!
Thanks for aswering my question.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Speaking of posting it for viewing.......does anyone have a copy of that 9th district Memo ? That might be able to shed some light on the reasoning .

[BMCS John Brady - Ret.]

I have been "lurking" for some time but I had to jump in on this one.......

Stuart, your hardline is a fairly rigid standard. So if a OIC is relieved for being put on the weight program he/she would have to back to the board to regain certs??? As it stands now that is how it works.

The weight program is a JOKE, just stop by CG HQ some day.

I say this with intimate familiarity, you see I am a butterball, always flirting with my MAW. I have tried everything, Atkins, grapefruit, zone, starvation diets, etc etc.... What some people don't want to accept is that people inherit genes from their parents. Why is it clearly understood that if your parents are tall that their children are going to be tall but when it comes to weight some of us struggle mightly against nature.

I was measured at the CPOA several years ago and I was UNDER my MAW but over the body fat %, so I was good to go..... The big difference is that I am extremely fit, run 3-5 miles a day. I have never struggled with the boatcrew/L/E physical fitness requirements. So if they come down and weigh me and I am found to be one LB over I should be relieved????

A far better measurement is physical fitness standards.

With all that said I totally agree that OIC's have to be held to a higher standard but please, how about some common sense.

Hey Burt, Great "O" is a stretch, don't you remeber his barrel of monkeys deal, seemed like he did not want to handle our issues.....

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John if someone is on the weight program, they could be relieved of their career. You could be one pound over, be placed on the program, take a dump, be removed from the program, and if you get put back on it within a year, get discharged.
You're right, the weight program is a joke.....I've seen people who's max weight was well over 300 lbs. There are so many steps before someone is finally put on the weight program, that I feel, when someone finally is, they haven't tried hard enough not to be. And I don't just mean by losing weight.
But the fitness standards are a joke also. There are people who were never good at running, or doing sit-ups. I would rather see someone who was given every opportunity not to be put on the weight program relieved, before I saw someone taken out who could only do 27 sit-ups in a minute.
The CG discharges people who can't make weight all the time. No one, outside of boot camp, has ever been discharged from the CG for failing to meet their fitness standard. The fitness standard only applies to a small fraction of our enlisted force and a smaller fraction of the O folks. The wieght standard is (equal????) across the board. Common sense says the CG views one as being much more important, than the other.
I get the genetics thing. I am my father's son. What some people don't want to except, is that, in addition to their parents genes, some people have inherited their parents eating habits. Some people diet before their weigh in and celebrate afterwards. One of the criteria that has to be met before someone is put on the program, is that medical screening. The other is that dietcian. If there is a genetic reason that someone can't make weight, then they wouldn't have been on the program in the first place.

Something to remember, it's not "my" hardline that I'm enforcing, it's the CG's. That's my job as an OinC. Personally, I don't care if you're as big as the largest PFD that you can fit into. As long as you can run to the boat without stopping, and help the rest of the crew pull the biggest person we come across out of the water, I'd be happy. I don't care if you're an anorexic, diabetic, alcoholic, with a heart murmer, lisp, and a four pack a day smoking habit who is a compulsive gambler. As long as you show up on time and do the work I require of you, I'd be happy. But the CG doesn't leave these thing up to me. So I follow the standards that they set down for me.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

Hey look, who says that common sense, (something I see repeated over and over in this thread), is something that the Coast Guard and the gov-mint embraces? ;)

Common sense would dictate that if someone was found to be over their weight by 1 pound, to give them a chance to lose it........and keep it off. That last point is important. If someone has a history of being overweight and doing just enough to get by the weigh in, not exercising any other muscles in the body except the muscles that control the movement of the beer bottle or the fork to the mouth, then that person should be evaluated. On the other hand if it is proven that a member has struggled with their weight and is truly doing something about it, than that person should be given some slack.

Quoting from COMDTINST M1020.8E “Basic Fitness Plan. A basic fitness plan consists, at a minimum, of two parts: (1) vigorous cardio-respiratory endurance training three times per week for thirty minutes each time, and (2) vigorous strength training one to three times per week. All Coast Guard members within MAW standards are required to complete a basic fitness plan. (Emphasis added.) Members may use the Personal Fitness Plan form contained within Enclosure (7).”

I don’t know of any unit that is enforcing this requirement, I think that it is important, if nothing else, to have a plan.

The other thing I am seeing in this thread is that standards are not being uniformly enforced. To make it fair everyone should be treated the same way, from the SA to the Admiral. The only way standards would be enforced would for the senior leadership to make it happen and stick to it. There are too many ways to fudge the results, unless the weigh ins occur right in front of the CO or OIC. Not gonna happen, because its sort of like asking congress to police itself.

We live in a society where it has become fashionable to look for excuses instead of accepting the consequences for our actions. "I'm fat because my mom/dad/aunt/uncle/grandma/grandma/cousin/sister/brother/neighbor/friend/is fat. Of course laying on the couch eating potato chips, sucking down a two liter bottle of soda has nothing to do with it. After all I was born this way and I may as well accept the fact that I cannot change." Remember all of the lawsuits being filed against McDonalds, Burger King, etc? This is exactly what I am talking about.

My wife is constantly telling me she is afraid that I will look like my father because I exercise so much. My father was little guy, about five foot tall, I don't think in his whole life he weighed more than 140 pounds. There is no way that I will look like him, I am taller, handsomer, (yeah right :) ) and have more muscle mass than he ever did. Plus, I never saw him exercise with any sort of weight training equipment and he only started walking regularly when he was in his 60s. I exercise 5 - 6 days a week, usually combining walking with running and using the weights in my garage for something other than to hang wiping rags on. My mom is quite a bit bigger, but that does not mean that I have to be that way. Digressing here, something that always makes me laugh is seeing a little guy (maybe 140 pounds) married or dating someone that is at least twice his size. Life is about choices and if you make a bad one, just accept the consequences. I guess I'm too darned old and out of date.

IMHO the one muscle that can determine how successful we are at losing weight is enclosed in bone and is located on top of the shoulder blades. Our attitude will control how successful we are, the center of our attitude is in our brain.

I discovered one more benefit to exercise……Regular exercise improves erectile function, according to a Harvard study of about 32,000 men over age 52. Those who stayed physically active (the equivalent of running 4 hours a week) had a 30% lower risk of impotence compared with inactive men. A subsequent clinical trial showed obese men with erectile dysfunction who lost weight through exercise and diet were more than 5 times as likely to achieve normal sexual function as a less-active group that lost no weight. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2003

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I discovered one more benefit to exercise……Regular exercise improves erectile function, according to a Harvard study of about 32,000 men over age 52. Those who stayed physically active (the equivalent of running 4 hours a week) had a 30% lower risk of impotence compared with inactive men. A subsequent clinical trial showed obese men with erectile dysfunction who lost weight through exercise and diet were more than 5 times as likely to achieve normal sexual function as a less-active group that lost no weight. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2003

Come on man. I see enough commercials for ED on television every 5 minutes. Now I have to hear about it here????

[BMCS Burt Ford]

John you know Capt Kahler did a very thorough job, that makes him a good O!

Since I know John, I will agrre with him. I could never keep up with him physically. And, until I met John, I had never met anyone with his problem.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

First of all, I have no idea what ED has to do with RFC.
Second, like it or not, genetics does have something to do with "frame size" and "body mass". The simple fact that the powers that be put much more emphisis on "looking good in uniform" as opposed to being in good enough shape to accomplish the mission says alot to me personally. However, like Stu said, it is not my decision. It is one that comes from above.
Third, if I were RFC for being one pound overweight and nothing else, I think there would be some looking into the individual that did the relieving. Common sense.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

First of all, I have no idea what ED has to do with RFC.

Seems to me the only way that would happen is if someone under your command complained :D And at that point I don't think the ED would be the primary reason for the RFC...

"Smackinaw" - funny

The press hearing about the unproven shady accounts of the alcohol being part of the reason for the RFC - Disturbing.

If the Skipper didn't get a DUI on the way back to the boat, get arrested for public intox, or tell his XO the next day "you've got the con, I'm hung over..." there is no reason for it to be included in a press release. That's more embarassing than one of your JO's hitting the breakwall.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

...You could be one pound over, be placed on the program, take a dump, be removed from the program, and if you get put back on it within a year, get discharged...

If you read the instruction carefully it is either written wrong or being misunderstood by almost everybody.

I don't have the actual quote with me right now, but it says something like "you will be processed for discharged instead of being put on the program for the third time in a 365 day period."

Hypothetical Situation - Say a member was weighed on Oct 1, 2005 and was lets say 5 lbs and 1% over. Lost the weight in 4 weeks, then on April 1st, was oh, 3 lbs and 1% over and lost that in 2 weeks, then Oct 1, 2006 comes along and no matter what they weigh in at it will be 366 days. The instruction is wrong and that isn't the only mistake, inconsistency.

BTW, the MCPOCG's office was the one who re-wrote this instruction. Can that go in the other thread as a positive?

Check it out.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Here is the actual text from COMDTINST M1020.8E 2.F.13

Any member who has been in two probationary weight or body fat loss periods in any 365-day period will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard in lieu of being placed in a third probationary period during the same 365-day period. In these cases, requests for separation will be submitted to Commander (CGPC-epm), (CGPC-opm), or (CGPC-rpm) as appropriate.

Emphasis mine.

Even if you disregard the 365 day part, it says you get processed at the third instance, not the second.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Am I the only one that reads it as this....if within the calendar year or fiscal year, doesn't matter, if you are over the standard in 2 consecutive weigh-ins, you will be processed? That's how I read the instruction as you quoted. It only mentions the 3rd time as a something that was used in the past.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Here is the actual text from COMDTINST M1020.8E 2.F.13

Any member who has been in two probationary weight or body fat loss periods in any 365-day period will be processed for separation from the Coast Guard in lieu of being placed in a third probationary period during the same 365-day period. In these cases, requests for separation will be submitted to Commander (CGPC-epm), (CGPC-opm), or (CGPC-rpm) as appropriate.

Emphasis mine.

Even if you disregard the 365 day part, it says you get processed at the third instance, not the second.

If I'm reading and understanding correctly, which is not guaranteed. The third time is within a 365 day period, now when does that 365 day period start and end (in reference to the 3rd time), after the 2nd weigh in or does it still go from the first weigh in?


If a member happens to make it to day 366, can a member start all over? If so then everyone can be put on the weight program two times every 365 days and then the clock starts again, as long as they avoid that third time? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Todd

[BMC Ken Gouge]

No, it says that after the second you will not be placed on a 3rd.

During any probationary period the goal is to get OFF the probation by losing X amount of weight. Gain it back and you go on the 2nd probation.

The main problem with the "policy" is that you only get weighed once a year. If during that annual weigh-in you are placed on probation you have regular weigh-ins until you are under the limit. there is nothing that specifies HOW you will be placed on the program the second time.

There is no mandated follow-up weigh-in to make sure you are keeping it off. It leaves it up to the command to say "hey, you're looking a little heavy again, why don't you hop on the scale..." That's pretty much harassment waiting to happen. Suppose the command makes it a regular thing for someone they don't like?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I'll make this very simple.

Look at the SSIC for the weight program. It's administrative driven, not medically driven.

The weight program is about looking good in uniform, not about health or fitness.

I've seen skinny, pencil neck O's have too much body fat, according to the instruction.

I've seen redwood forest necked people who were well under the regulations as per that instruction.

For you black and white, crossed t's, dotted i's types, that skinny, pencil necked O should have been relieved. He wasn't, but it did illustrate how ridiculous some instructions can be.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

The main problem with the "policy" is that you only get weighed once a year.

Ken,

Your wrong. You are to be weighed twice a year, by the end of April and the end of Oct. Their is a CAPT at each Area (or district) that sets a deadline to have the unit meet the weigh-ins in time. They don't care about compliance (of people being within the standard), they are responsible to ensure that everyone has been weighed.

So, with that change, and change in policy, you are not afforded a 3rd chance within a 12 month policy. If you are not within the standards, you go on probation and must loose the weight. If you succeed and loose the weight within the timeframe, you come off probation. You weigh in again and your over....let the process begin. Not sure where your located, but the policy is clear and if your only being weighed once a year, their should be a CAPT somewhere calling your unit asking why there isn't a report of everyone being weighed within the timeframe.

And I believe that Stu and I are reading this instruction correctly.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Ken,

...If you are not within the standards, you go on probation and must loose the weight. If you succeed and loose the weight within the timeframe, you come off probation. You weigh in again and your over....let the process begin. ...
And I believe that Stu and I are reading this instruction correctly.

I don't agree. It clearly says you won't be processed until the third overweight/overfat weigh-in.

Anyone out there experience this? I had some members go on the program, but all were good to go six months later after losing the weight.

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

.....Any member who has been in two probationary weight or body fat loss periods in any 365-day period will be processed for separation....

Forget what it says after "separation"....that was the past. Commands had some leeway in the past, but not anymore, and that is where the 3rd probationary policy is from.

Joe, I was on the program, and for lack of a better explaination, I wasn't measured correctly when I first went on the program (placed on the program, and remeasured after I didn't complete the "program" successfully, and was within the standard the whole time. But it was explained to me, the same way I'm reading it now, that I needed to stay within the standard for at least a year, or stay within my body fat percentage). I have, what was described as a "Redwood forest" neck. My neck is around 19"...I'm 5'8" and about 200 lbs. In my world and most other peoples, I'm not an over weight person, but I also have thin wrists (according to the standard). So do I have a problem with the policy, YES.

If I was 6" taller and 40lbs heavier, I would be the guy that no one would even consider messing with (and not in the CG, because I would be on the tail end of my career in the NFL). Because I'm vertically challenged (Less than 5' 10", because that is the standard for the CG Honor Guard) and have a solid interior....I'm border line. Not that I need to mention, I have passed the PT tests everytime (BO/BTM standard).

Needless to say, I believe that I understand the policy.

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

Here at ISC Kodiak we are weighed in every quarter. That's 4 times a year. I know the Apr & Oct weigh ins are CG wide but I wonder about those other 2 quarters when we are weighed in here at the ISC. Are those official or unofficial in regards to the if you pop overweight for a 3rd time in that 365 day period?
I guess I will have to check with the YN's in charge of the weight program to find out about that.

Jayare

[BMC John Phillips III]

Did anyone else see this. read them both.
Read this one first

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=15263

Read me second.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=15339


Forgive me for falling so far behind, underway and all, but while I am catching up, I was reading that second article (that's where I am at right now, so there may be more to come). Anyway, that 2nd article is a doozy! I also wonder if this was worded as such on purpose, "SooToday.com News greatly appreciates the fine work of the enlisted men and women of the USCG in helping to protect the public and our adjoining lakes and waterways."

[BMC John Phillips III]

OK, I consider myself a pretty good helmsman, so please allow me to get this thread back on course. I had to skim thru the last few pages to see that I wasn't too far behind thanks to the ever-loving MAWS!

Anyway, reading the next few articles and posts, I wanted to quote this, "We always strive for full disclosure to make our articles the most accurate possible, and the more details we can get on the decision-making process, the better we can serve the community in our reporting." It was from the third link I believe. So, if the media is saying and doing this, why shouldn't we?? Wouldn't it behoove us to know all the facts before the sometimes "less honorable, respectful and devoted media do?"

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Forget what it says after "separation"....that was the past. Commands had some leeway in the past, but not anymore, and that is where the 3rd probationary policy is from.

How can I disregard part of the instruction when it could mean the end of someone's career? That just doesn't make sense. What I quoted is what the instruction says now, not in the past. As I said in my first post, this instruction has a lot of problems/mistakes. This is one of them. I think it needs to be clarified or corrected. I can see some major problems if a member is being processed when they weigh in overweight & over fat for the second time in a row. If it's two strikes and you are out, it should say so.

The leeway was mentioned in a different paragraph of the old instruction and has been removed. The instruction needs to be followed to the letter. This is one of those cases where the instruction must be followed exactly and not left up to interpretation.

I have had problems with this instruction since it came out. When I heard at a Mess meeting that the MCPOCG office was working on this new instruction, I asked for a draft copy to review, but was told no because they didn't want to freak anyone out before it was time. Huh???? Maybe I could have offered some constructive criticism, but was denied the chance.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Many years ago, MLCA had a compliance newsletter that pointed out the previously quarter's inspection summary. It listed mostly what units were not doing, not by name, but by issue. It was generic in nature, like x units didn't do this as per y instruction.

Even the Good order and Discipline is generic in nature.

Granted, the RFCs are few, but they too need to be sumarized. Get to the meat of the RFC. Loss of confidence is very generic.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

Good morning- We are doing our D1 OIC College next week in preparation for the upcoming Spring Review Boards and we have a block discussing RFCs (no case studies, just discussion on what an RFC is and it's impact on your life). I have only heard of a couple of RFCs so far this year and I hope that that is a good sign. I know it is still early in the year, but I am curious if we are in a better trend this year than last in regards to the amount of RFCs and the reasons for them. We have been fortunate to not have any yet this year in D1 (and hope it stays that way). I know this was a "touchy" subject on this forum last year with several differing opinions. I really don't want to "scare" our candidates with horror stories about RFCs, but I do feel it is important that they understand that RFCs do happen and that, in some cases, it does not have to mean the end of the road for them. My perspective is that we have a lot of newly, board certified OIC candidates (based on the numbers from last year) and that we will probably have another good year this year with getting more folks thru the board. A lot of these great performers will be taking command jobs for the first time this summer and next. While this post is generally meant for the folks that are in command positions, what type of information regarding RFCs do you feel is important to share with up and coming OIC candidates? How much, how little? The purpose of our college is to prepare the candidates for the review board, but we are fortunate to have a forum for 2 days to discuss with them everything we feel will help them be successful Officers in Charge as well.
Steve

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Steve, I don't want to scare anyone else away from the certification board or this discussion...........but.....well.......I am what I am.
I would focus on the issue from the point of view, that very rarely, these RFCs come as a shock to the people closest to the event. In many cases these people have been warned. In many cases, the things that they were doing, were so obviously wrong, that people were just waiting for the right person to find out about it.
I would take some of the points from this board and the BM force notes, and mention, that many of these come from people on subsequent OinC tours who may have started to believe that the rules no longer applied to them.
I would point out that some people have learned and recovered from their RFC and recertified and were given command again.
I would tell they that I've never seen or heard of someone getting relieved through NO fault of their own.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I will second Popeye's remarks by saying some of the reasons are pretty astonishing! I just completed the OIC XPO ashore class in New London and we spent some time reading over the RFCs and did a presentation on a few as well. We got to pick the one we wanted to do our presentation on I have to tell you, it was tough choosing a juicy one. Primarily because they were all pretty juicy.

BMCM, the instructor of that class might have some good info for you, since he sees almost all the cases.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I agree with Stu that the RFC typically is the end of a series of events, not the begining.

I think it would be interesting to summarize all the RFCs as to the total time as OinC/CO up to the time of relief. That would dispell the assumption that newly minted OinC's/CO's are relieved more.

Stu, I can think of one RFC about 89 or 90 that wasn't the fault of the OinC. It seems there was a disagreement in enforcing the policy in effect at the time and the politico didn't want to hear that excuse. If I'm not mistaken, the soon to be retired, if not already retired, BMCM JD was the one sent out to assume command of that SAR unit.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe we can play with the words, but even if it wasn't his fault, it was his responsibility to straighten it out. I've seen people relieved for their unwillingness or inability to act on a situation. Those are when we hear about "Loss of Confidence" and and aren't given any of the details.

And speaking of details, being relieved by BMCM JD only tells me that it happened in D1. He's made a career out of straightening out other people's messes. We used to joke about the fact that if he showed up at your unit without calling first, it meant that your should pack your bags, because you've just been fired.

And I'm under the assumption that the newly minted guys are relieved less. I think that it's the guys doing muliple tours that start thinking that the rules no longer apply to them. The two cases that we have been discussing the most, revolved around someone's RFC during his second OinC tour and the other was relieved from his first, but it was from things that had happened at his previous unit while assigned as the XPO.

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Well with two more RFC's this week it's clear that somethings never change, even though they need to in order to save the enlisted command opportunities. I will agree that there is a small percentage of OinC's who are overcome by events at their units that lead to their reliefs, even if they have knowledge of those events or not. But the vast majority are guilty of the god complex, thinking that they are above the law and untouchable.

I have always argued that the new manning levels of our units would be a leaduing cause of more and more of those units having their command position changed to either a CWO or an O. Call that the legecy of our current Commandant and possibly the MCPO-CG. But with so many other OinC's doing stupid things (to earn their reliefs) it's tough to agrue against the numerous changes that the O-6 and flag level would like to see with regards to the enlisted command legacy.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Two more this week, and we'll probably never know why they were relieved.......

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Well one of them attempted to gun-deck records for a STAN visit. Just had to have the Kimball. Hope it was worth it.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

And both (I believe) are members of this board...

Here's an idea. Post the RFC information on CGCentral and only give access to sitting CO/OINC's. I'm sure that it could be done, it's just a matter of the powers to be doing it.

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

For those who haven't heard, I'm one of them. Once my relief is complete, I'll tell you the story. Bottom line is I failed to make a tough decision and hold someone accountable for not doing their job. Instead I made a horrible decision and tried to help them "fix" the documentation. It was my decision to make, I made it, I take responsibility for it, and I'm getting fired for it.

There is another half to the relief that is completely B.S., but I'm going to have to wait to tell you that part.

Bruce: It had nothing to do with earning another Kimball award. My crews have already earned three of them while I was the OIC. Kimball awards don't bring you extra funding, people, or pay; they are just nice plaques to put on the Station wall....but it's all over the relief package as the "cause" of me making that mistake.

Don't be so quick to judge. The relief package, and therefore the story you are hearing, is only one very biased side of the story.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Shawn...thanks for posting. I look forward to hearing the whole story.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I also have to applaud you for posting, and am looking forward to hearing what happened. I may just be reading into what you wrote, but I believe that your post is the true testimony of your character. You write alot about "I" and very little about "they". Well, "I" think that "they" and "we" should consider those facts as well.........Best of Luck Shawn. I hope that you land on your feet.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I, too applaud you Shawn. It takes great courage to come here and post after this. Is also takes a strong person not be restrained in a response. Best of luck and i look forward to hearing it.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

This may be a good conversation to take into the "mess".

[BMCS Burt Ford]

There was another "relief pending" last week. I saw it on Fredsplace. A second tour as OINC for the man. Anyone hear about it?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I haven't heard, but I'm kind of out of the loop due to PCS. Any info that you can post here?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Check fredsplace Deane. Also there under the bulletin board for 28 Apr. D5.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I read the posts on Fred's Place. I had not heard of this one. Not sure where it is or the type of unit. I know the name from the posts, but don't know what unit.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

We have one in D5 right now -- not sure if it is the one being mention at Fred's Place

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Steve,
It's the same one.

Ralph

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Roger that -- it's in the local papers here:

Coast Guard chief petty officer loses command
By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
© May 3, 2006

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=103862&ran=148502

[BMCS Curtis Dewey]

wow...20 out of 23 years on the eastern shore of Virginia!

i know of 5 rfc's in fy 2006 on the enlisted side of the house.
as far as publishing results/reasons etc., could there be a lesson learned? I doubt it. Kinda like all the MISHAPS i read, one of the reasons they are sent out is hopefully you can learn from them. Ex. "Member was going to fast for visibilty/depth etc." did i learn anything? nope. 85% of mishaps are no-brainers.
Most Rfc's are no-brainers. judging by the poll results my thinking is wayyy off than most, then again it usually is :)

[BMCM Deane Smith]

That's quite the article. I guess when you spend your whole career in the same area and your entire family has spent time in the CG, that's how people think of you.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

And reading between the lines, my "gut feeling" is perhaps Chief **** became another victum of homesteading and being in an area for so long of time and apparently he knew the whole town, he became complacent in his actions.
But then again, there was a boat becoming a hazard in navigable waters needing assistance...

Edited to remove name

[BMC John Phillips III]

It would still be nice to get the full story.

[MKC Art Bailly (ret)]

There has to be a whole lot more to the story. An OINC having his crew respond to a SAR case (a Barge drifting towards a bridge is a pretty serious) is not the only reason, if the reason at all. If the weather conditions were out side the operating parameters of the 47 and he decided to send the boat anyways then OK. What about the cox’n? He was the one on scene not the OINC and the one in charge of making the decision to tow the barge or stand by until another tug arrived. I’m just not buying that it was the cause for the relief. Like the Art (LT) said maybe homesteading had a part in it, maybe not. I have made good friends in a short time that would go to bat for me if something like this happened and thought I was in the right. If the cause for the relief was published then it would be a lot clearer to us all what happened. But even then we will never know the whole story. I have and never will be an OINC but if I were in a rate that I could be, it would be nice to be able to look at some of the mistakes or poor judgment that others have made so I don’t make them myself. Tough decisions that have to be made during tough times are easier to make if you have more knowledge about what others have done in the past. Maybe your thoughts are the same as there’s and you know that whatever that thought was got someone else in trouble. Maybe you might need to make a different decision so you don’t get you’re self in the same boat as the other guy. There is a shortage of OINC’s mainly because they just don’t sit for the board. Maybe there is a lot of fear about being relieved. Maybe if we had the info about the WHY’s then maybe more people would sit for the board.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Art, with your spelling I would hope you never did become an OIC.
Friggen MK. Making us look like a bunch of knuckle draggers. ;)

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Art,

I agree there's more to the story than the tidbits we are reading and whatever is in the scuttlebutt.

I thought one of the reasons they moved the OIC board for BM's to E-8 was because of the merger. One would hope they move it back to E-7 in a short time, to alleviate the shortages of board certified OICs.

I'm sure those at the palace thought more would want to be OIC with the merger, but that doesn't look like it's panned out. The message from March of last year, changing the coxswain qual to any boat 25 foot or greater is a symptom of the problem. Needs of the service still rules the roost. One bad thing, if there aren't enough to fill the OIC ranks, a stroke of the pen will make those OIC billets ... Commanding Officer billets. That statement is not to start an arguement concerning the lack of experience for the JO selected for CO; that's easily overcome by making the BMC the XPO. The CG want's to throw the best body in there for the job ... but when push comes to shove, you get what you get, a body. If they run out of board certified OICs, they can change the billet.

This is not the first time something like this has been said. It won't the be last time either.

Back on topic. If mishaps have lessons learned, so should RFCs. Granted, when I was still reading the Commandant Notice, Good Order and Discipline, there was alot of repeat offenders doing stupid $hit. A lot of XO / OPS inappropriate relationships and such. Apparently not all read those things since there was alot of repeats. The same could be said for released RFCs. Those interested would read them, just like those interested in the CN did. Others would blow it off and someday, they could headline a CN, Good Order and Discipline.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Shawn,

Sorry to hear about your RFC.

Does anyone know why they don't release RFCs? Privacy concerns?

I tend to think if Privacy concerns were the driving force, the subject of the RFC could decide on releasing any/all information, alleviating any concerns with privacy. Personally, I would scan the documents in as pictures and blacken the information that need not be released ... like SSANs and signatures, just as I did with my DD-2(CG) to show Dennis I was who I reported myself to be.

[BMCS Curtis Dewey]

as soon as i see a relieved OiC fighting their tail off, using every public "podium" (like this site), to clear their innocent name...i dont think anyone needs to know why. 4 out of 5 people want "details" on RFC's cause its good scuttlebutt. If an OiC gets relieved due to Chap 8 or 20 issues, will i learn anything? Shouldnt i already know it? Chap 8(entire chap) and 20 are hard on RFC's OiC's.
Can anyone think of an OiC whose "loss of confidence" was not just a way of saying in a short/sweet political correct term "someone screwed up seriously and you dont need to know why". fair enough for me.

Or can any of you give me a RFC that anyone can learn from? I bet there is one or 2 out there but i cant think of any. Leave names/dates/places out.
EVERY RFC that i've heard/seen/been close too etc. I've always scratched my head and said "what were they thinking?" the RFC OiC that is.

If you are sitting as an OiC or preparing for a board, i'd venture to guess most situations that you could ever be possibly placed in, you know right from wrong. may not be able to point to the manual or ref which states THIS IS WRONG, but most people guts are great indicators, too bad people dont listen to their gut more often.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I do believe that Curtis is right. We do want details. Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe a simple "X number of OIC's were relieved for violations of Chapter X", then if there is something different that lead to a RFC, a more detailed (and properly cleaned) report could be published. I am not really interested in who "screwed the pooch" (or anyone else for that matter).

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well I don't need to know what they did. I want to know what the CG relieved them for though. It isn't so I have good scuttlebutt, it's so I can stop the rumors that are flying. I've heard too many people claiming that they did nothing wrong. Too many people who claimed they were the ones that were screwed.
This story is the perfect example. It's already in the paper that the member in question was making an effect response to an emergency call. That can't be what happened. There has to be something more. What's next, an OinC gets relieved for correcting an extinguished Aid ? Someone gets relieved for submitting EERs on time ? There has to be something more. I realize that his relief is only temporary, but if that's all they got, someone else should be looking at being relieved permenantly. And where the CG tries defending their actions by saying that a totality of events over two immediate supervisors......? That sounds like a cop out. I don't think we know any of this story.

[BMC John Phillips III]

In an ironic twist of fate, I totally agree with BMCS Slesh.

I don't want good gossip or the dirt on anyone. What I want are the facts (no my name is not Friday). Having the facts ahould alleviate or eliminate the scuttlebutt. If you don't want your dirty laundry aired before your peers, keep your skivvies clean! It's that simple.

Our service and to a greater extent pool of OIC's is very small, so we all know someone that knows somebody. People don't get relieved for the things we hear about from our friends and former shipmates and they don't get screwed over either; I would hope not anyway. So lets not white-wash the facts to protect the guilty and on the same note, lets not be so secretive that you can only speculate as to why.

I believe one of the first things they teach you in Public Affairs is to never say no comment and with the explanations of RFC's that we are seeing, they might as well be say just that....."No comment."

LT, I am usually the first to give an MK a hard time but in this case, Art makes perfect sense.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Actually the CG stance is due to "performance patterns over the past two years under two seperate supervisors."
It appears it's the towns folks saying this is due to Chief Tarr assisting the disabled boat. And this is the only thing they have to hang their hat on, other than he's a great guy and the town loves him.
Obviously the CG [limited] statement involves more than this one incident and they may have had an eye on this guy all along, and this was icing on the cake.
The other question is, if Chief Tarr did indeed call a supervisor, or even the duty OS1/2 in the OPCEN ahead of responding and got permission, anything happening to him? [notice I didn't do the he/she thing I hate.]
Disclaimer - I am totally speculating and truly hope whaterver the cause[s] brought this on, they will come to light and approporiate action either negative or positive will come of it...

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Or can any of you give me a RFC that anyone can learn from?

Don't try to explain to a sitting member of the legislative body of these United States the Commandant's non-emergency towing policy.

Scuttlebutt has it there was a politically induced RFC in the late 80s for not responding to a non-emergency assist.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Scuttlebutt has it...

my point exactly.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It appears it's the towns folks saying this is due to Chief Tarr assisting the disabled boat. And this is the only thing they have to hang their hat on, other than he's a great guy and the town loves him.
Obviously the CG [limited] statement involves more than this one incident and they may have had an eye on this guy all along, and this was icing on the cake.
And here in lies the problem. This is what is published. This is what we have to go on. The public's impression has been made. This article has changed the way some people intend to interact with the CG in that area. Local business people intend to bring it to the attention of the Governor. Other have notified Congress. And the CG 's response is "This has been going on for awhile." And what icing on the cake ? According to the article, this was emergency SAR. I'll speculate.........because again, that's all we have.......He contacted the Opcenter and was told to contact a Commercial Towing Company, but decided to respond himself anyway. The Commercial Salvers in the area protested because this action affects their livelyhood. I don't know. The CG doesn't want to tell me. Right now their are people who are saying, "See, this is why I don't want to sit before the OinC Review Board. They're just waiting for the chance to screw you."

Somebody HAD to do something WRONG. I don't see what he did that was wrong. It's been a long time since I've been at a small boat station, but I never contacted the OinC or the Opcenter before getting underway to respond to SAR call. We launched and then notified them. Something else had to happen, and all we have is scuttlebutt.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if as OIC I deem that a barge drifting towards a bridge warrants a CG SAR response why am I calling the OPCEN other than to give them a heads up that one of their assets is gainfully employed and not available for another mission.

The point mentioned in the story was that jimbob and his brother had ANCHORED the barge. If it was holding, it wasn't going to hit the bridge, hence no SAR.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But according to the story I don't think that it was holding. It says that they "lost control". Everyone was concerned that it would hit the bridge. The people asked saw this as emergency response. Speculation, speculation, speculation............

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Letter to the Editor from the District Commander on this RFC


http://www.delmarvanow.com/easternshore/stories/20060503/2280554.html

[BMC John Phillips III]

The Coast Guard has a fair and equitable administrative process through which command is relieved. This process ensures complete fairness should the relief for cause be made permanent. I can buy off on this.

Also, this process gives ****** the assistance of an independent military lawyer to advise him during the process and the opportunity to submit additional information to ensure that all of the information is available to make a decision. Lt. Cmdr. Reid and the Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District understand the seriousness of this process and have taken this course as a last resort.

The Coast Guard will continue to respect *******'s right to privacy during the course of this process and therefore will not comment on specific details of the events surrounding his relief. The italicized comments would lead you to believe that after the process we will get the full story, which is still not the case. Or if we do, it seems that we might have to get the story from the local news paper.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

JPM3,

I chose the word scuttlebutt because I didn't get it first hand, but I got it real close to the party relieved. It was a very sudden RFC [within days of him enforcing the CI's as he knew them] and the relieved CPO didn't have any comments in his record concerning the RFC as being negative. Of course the CPO that relieved him probably retired this year and I don't know if that Chief, now retired MCPO, ever was assigned outside of 100 miles of that area.

Sometimes $hit happens.

At least D5 answered my question concerning privacy. :)

[BMC John Phillips III]

Joe,

Not sure what the M is for but hey at least there's not an F next to it! :p

Seriously, I don't doubt that you have pretty good information, but just not good enough to state as fact, hence the "scuttlebutt" disclaimer. You got the info from a party real close to the source but not from an official document or in writing. That's all I was trying to say.

[ETCS John Johnson]

Messing with a "****" on the Eastern Shore of VA is like messing with a "Midgette" on the Outer Banks of NC. Of course the town is in an uproar. The **** Family is a part of the history of Chincoteague. I've had the priviledge of serving with most of the **** brothers on the Eastern Shore. They are fine people and very respected Boatswain Mates in the USCG. I know the Commander of the sector thought very seriously about what she had to do and had to know the fall-out that her actions would cause in Chincoteague. Sometimes being in charge at a station in your hometown is not the best career move.

Edted to remove the name.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

If anyone really wants the juicy details of WHY someone was relieved, might I suggest a FOIA request? The investigation should be a public document that could be accessed that way. I guess if the powers that be felt that we had a "need to know", then the info would be published for all to see.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jim and Joe, I know that I keep coming back to the same issue, but I don't need to know the juicy details.....I just want to know why. Look at some of the post from all of the different threads that we have about RFC and the OinC boards. There are people that think think that this can happen to anyone. There are people that think think that people get relieved through no fault of their own. I still say that you had to do something wrong. You either did something that you shouldn't have done or didn't do something that you were supposed to have had done. We deserve to know what happened.

If you need another example, go back a couple of pages. There was BMCM who was relieved from his current unit and had the orders to his next OinC job (?) canceled (?). He was arrested and put in jail. They had his picture, name, and charges in the paper. What ever happened with that ? Do you want the scuttlebutt ? Nothing. I heard that he did nothing wrong. I heard that the charges were fabricated. Is any of that true ? I don't know. But anyone with acces to a rumor mill and the internet could look up this guys arrest. Where is the CG with his vindication ? Someone with twenty years of service to us, and where is our service to him ? What happened ? I don't want the juicy details, I just want to know what happened.

As for the Admirals rebuttal to the editor..........I don't think that he should have listed anyone else's name. I also think that he should have said that the incident with the tow had nothing to do with the relief. If they want to go with the totality of the events, stick with that. But they should distance the case from the event being reported.

And for the record, people should be judged by what they have accomplished, not by the contributions of their families. Suggesting that care be taken because of a family's history in any given area, is really biased. And not to keep throwing out someone's name, but they weren't all BMs. I believe 1 of the two that retired as Master Chiefs was a well respected FS.

[ETCS John Johnson]

I give a a lot of credit to the sector Commander for making a decision that she knew would cause a very negative reaction in the community. Chincoteague is a very Coast Guard oriented island. Many (if not most) of the residents have some ties to the USCG. Its a very small, tight knit community and "family politics" come into play in many everyday situations. Even minor things that happen with USCG personnel on or off the base have a tendancy to ripple through the community. The policy of not releasing information on RFC's is just fueling the fire with the townspeople. I personally think that the reaction of the community is going to have more of a negative impact on the RFC than a positive one.

So to get this thread back on the subject of USCG policy on RFC's, this situation just shows that the reasons behind a RFC should be published so both active duty and civilians can see the Command justification for the relief. No "juicy details" are needed, just let everyone know the regulations that were allegedly violated and are currently under investigation.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

John,

I don't know why I put that M after your initials. My error and I apologize for that error.

Back on topic ...

I don't think all the details of a RFC need to be released, but I also believe if the subject of the RFC wanted to release, the CG shouldn't have any privacy concerns with them releasing it.

I agree with the poster who wanted to know more information to squelch the runaway scuttlebutt.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Joe, no need for apologies, I thought it was funny.

Anyway, I think I was one of those guys with the squelching idea.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I agree with Stu!

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Former Coast Guard station commander faces court-martial
By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
© May 11, 2006

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=104257&ran=233055

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well, at least the charges are starting to come into focus. We now know a little bit of the CG's side of what happened.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Trying to move a 100ton vessel with a pontoon boat.
BRILLIANT!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But the brilliance doesn't stop there......
I'm not a lawyer, though I have dreamed of playing one on T.V., but riddle me this Batman. You have an 80ft boat tied up at your dock and the owner refuses to pay you for docking fees. You decide to tow the boat out to an anchorage. Do you think the owner is going to pay you now that the boat is no longer on your property ? And more importantly, who exactly becomes liable for any damage that happens to that boat while its at anchor and if for some reason, it drifts away ?

You see, I see, why the CG didn't want to get involved in this debackle in the first place. Oh, yeah, and we towed it to an anchorage. How many of you out there is the SAR community do that ? Don't you like turning it back over to the owner to relieve yourself of the responsibility of the vessel ?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I could be reading the press release incorrectly, but, the CG didn't become involved until the property owner attempted to tow the vessel and lost control, causing the need for CG action.

I'm sure there are some who remember when the CG went out when the boat owner failed to keep enough petrol on board to complete the trip, causing the policy of non-emergency SAR.

Was it failure to obey an order when stupidity caused a hazzard to navigation requiring CG intervention? Was the CO aware of the change or was there loss of situational awareness on the CO's part? It seems to me, once the situation changed, by whatever cause, the CG was obligated to respond. The Chief would have been relieved whether he took action or waited for the vessel to hit the bridge. How do you think the CO would have reacted if the Chief waited? It was a lose-lose situation for the Chief.

There has to be more to this than what we are reading.

The absolute cynical side of me thinks if the Chief, or a member of his crew, advised the property owner on what circumstances the CG would respond, making this a conspiracy, demands CG sanctions, against the the responsible party.

There's not one OIC out there who, before this incident, who would have dispatched resources to secure a hazzard to navigation such as this vessel. It seems the double edge sword of community relations and official duties has ugly sides as well.

I just don't think we are getting the full story.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

The rest of the story can be summed up in two words and I know it is availible there.....SEA TOW!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

This is what I'm reading into the story. The OinC was told not to get involved, twice. I'm imagining that wasn't from the same phone conversation or they wouldn't have said twice. I'm imagining it went down like, Friend calls for assistance, OinC asks permission. Permission denied, OinC notifies friend. Friend comes up with alternate plan. OinC makes second phone call and again asks to get involved, again told no and not to get involved unless situation becomes SAR. Phone call made to advise what it would take for station to respond. This is what happens when we don't get the whole story. We peice together what we hear with what's logical.

Here's what I know....The CG people that have the facts, relieved him and are taking this to CM. At some point, cynical or not, we have to agree that he did something wrong. This case has shown me nothing that would have me change the way I do business. Anytime something came up where I felt the need to ask for permission prior to doing something, I'd wait for that permission to be granted. If I was told that I couldn't do something by someone senior to me, twice, I'd think twice before doing it.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Why do we have to agree he did something wrong? What ever happened to "inocent until PROVEN guilty?" I will choose to "trust the process" and if he is convicted at court martial, then I will agree that he did something wrong.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I just don't think we are getting the full story.

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not to split hairs Jim....but the innocent until proven guilty is a civilian thing. At the CM you have to prove yourself innocent. Justify why he did what he did. You see, they charged him with an offense and investigated it. It was determined during that investigation that he had met the elements of the offense, or it would have been dismissed. In this case Art 90. Four clear cut and easy to understand elements which boil down to....he was given a lawful order from someone he knew to be his senior, and failed to obey it. Someone who doesn't have NJP authority has investigated the incident(S) and determined he was guilty, and recommended that it go to CM for sentencing. Now you don't "have to" admit that he did something wrong........but logic tells you otherwise. He was relieved for cause, and an Admiral has made several statements, some of those to the press, justifying the validity of that relief. Do you really think that he did nothing wrong ?

[BMCS Scott Hooley]

I left Wachapreague (station south of Chincoteague) last year and there was no SEA TOW close to us or Chincoteague. The closest available was Ocean City to the north and Hampton Roads to the south. Definately outside the reasonable time window for a response.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Stu, I am doing two things here.
1. I am stirring the pot for Dennis' sake.
2. I agree that an investigation has determined that an offense in all likelyhood did take place. Sort of like a grand jury investigation. The court martial will be the trial to see if an "offense" actually did take place, or if there were mitigating circumstances that justified taking immediate action without waiting for "permission". Isn't that what makes the Coast Guard so much more effective than other government agencies? Could be that a LCDR just got bent out of shape because the Chief did something that needed to be done when he was told not to do it under a different circumstance. If there was a "conspiracy" to change the "circumstance" of the vessel in question, then of course the LCDR has every right to be pissed. As I said before, I will trust the process and ask questions about "what happened" once the process is complete.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

People don't get relieved or courts-martialed because some LCDR got bent out of shape. That LCDR has to convince an Admiral first and I'm sure that they are not flying off without justification.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

That is what everyone is already second guessing! We have to let the process play itself out before "wanting" to know the details. This is called "Scuttlebutt".

[BMC John Phillips III]

I will trust the process and ask questions about "what happened" once the process is complete.

and you won't get any answers and we are right back where we started :confused:

funny, I was looking for the appropriate icon and the ??? was the best to match what I was getting at and it's labeled "confused."

BMC JP3, big fan of irony

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yeah, just to echo JP3.....we will never know. All the CG allows us to have is the scuttlebutt. And I'm not trying to pick on you Jim, but I've heard what you're saying for years now. People don't go to Courts Martial because they made someone mad. They don't get relieved because someone else is having a bad day. I don't think there is a secret society of people out there waitng for their chance to strike.
When we are given information, we have to read it. Then, sometimes, we have to read into it. Take what the CG has released in those two newspaper articles. He was relieved for a variety of issues over the past two years. He is being CM'd for a violation of a single event.
Now re-read some of the posts in this thread. People posting still think that he is being relieved for the tow. That's second guessing. People still think that he maybe right and the LCDR may have been wrong. That's second guessing. The only people who are privy to the facts, all the facts, said this was done as a last resort. That's where the process has taken us.

And Jim, you're a very vocal guy. I see you going toe to toe with anyone on this board. How many people think that you're right, but aren't willing to post ? How many people reading this case are thinking that they don't want to go through the OinC process because they might tow someone someday and it will end their career ? How many people still think that this guy is being railroaded ?
I'll be interested to see how this turns out. Unfortunately all that we will probably get is two lines in next quarters Good Order and Discipline, and that is only for us that choose to read it.
The only thing that kills scuttlebutt is vocal people with the truth. We're not going to get that. So we go with what we've got. We work with the tools that we are given.
And Jim, the LCDR has every right to be pissed regardless. An order was given twice, and ignored. Down grade the situation. You're home on a saturday and one of your coxswain calls and asks to get one of your boats u/w. You say no, for whatever reason. They call back later and ask again. You still say no, for whatever reason. You find out later that the coxswain got u/w and did whatever it was that they wanted to do. Would you pull their quals ? I would. I don't care why they got u/w with my boat and with my people. That was my call to make. They did something I told them not to do. I don't want them operating my equipment again until they are willing to run it the manner I agree with. I wouldn't need to wait for the outcome of any investigation before I became pissed. I would have been pissed as soon as I heard that someone used one of my assests after I told them not to, twice.

[BMC John Phillips III]

The only people who are privy to the facts, all the facts, said this was done as a last resort. That's where the process has taken us.

In a rare instance I am going to make a statement that might be offensive to some. There are people out there in positions of power that believe they do not owe anyone an explanation. There are also people out there in positions of power that believe that knowledge is power and that if they keep the knowledge, they keep the power. Now I am not saying either of these two instances are why we are always fed the "privacy" excuse, but I am not saying it's not.

As far as the first instance goes, I use that one from time to time, but that's when I want things done now. Don't question me sort of approach, but I almost always go back and give my unnecessary, but deserved reasoning.

I think that if we were given specifics we could actually make it a lot easier for people to not get relieved, but then again if we keep things the way they are, we are giving our people more leeway to hang themselves.

I can easily relate this to training on the Construction tender, my guys think that I know everything there is to know about running the deck, but I have explained to them the reason I know when something will work or if something's gonna go wrong is because I have either done it or seen someone else do it.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

I'm really having a hard time with this... I can clearly see where those of you who want to read & know the actual events/faults causing the person to be reileved, and believe, this in turn will help ensure [you] do not make the same mistake, or... just because you want to know why....

Reading actual results causing RFC's whether it be CO, EO, OIC, XPO, EPO... how will that help you in your job and career?
Anyone in a position of command cadre and leadership position best know the do's and dont's already.

I just can't see how "knowing all the facts" will help [you] to ensure you don't do the same screw-up.

Question to all you OIC's:
Example of the case currently pending question:

If the end results leading into the case were published in detail, [pro or con] how would that help you; how can it?

Each incidence's and cases however similiar, are different and require different actions.

I feel the current way Relief for Cause's are published are suitable and accurate enough. They say XXXX screwed up and was relieved - period.
I don't care about the details, because as a person in a responsible position, I know my limits, and when to ask higher up.

Again - how will releasing details help you to ensure you you don't make the same mistakes; when you already know the person screwed up?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Well, someone is publishing it. This was on the Navy Times web-site, and it sounds like it is completely about the SAR/Non-SAR of a particular incident.

Coast Guardsman charged with disobeying CO

By Patricia Kime
Times staff writer

The officer in charge of Coast Guard Station Chincoteague, Va., has been charged with disobeying his commanding officer.

Boatswain’s Mate Chief ***** ****, a 23-year veteran of the service, faces a special court-martial for a possible violation of Article 90 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, “assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer.”

The charges stem from an incident March 24 and/or 25, in which **** and a Coast Guard crew assisted Chincoteague fisherman and restaurant owner Raymond Britton Jr. in moving an abandoned boat near his property.

“Chief **** … having received a lawful command from Lt. Cmdr. Dana Reid ... to not become involved with or move the vessel Elvie B with a Coast Guard asset unless a distress situation occurred ... did, at or near Chincoteague, Va., on or about 24 March, 2006, willfully disobey the same,” one charge specification states.

The second charge specification is the same, except the date, which is changed to “25 March, 2006.”

No date has been set for the special court-martial, said Lt. Gene Maestas, Atlantic Area spokesman.

If found guilty, **** could face a maximum of one year of confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds of his basic pay per month for a year, a bad conduct discharge and “certain lesser punishments,” Maestas said.

Edited to remove the name. Remember that person's name doesn't need to be listed on this site in regards to pending situations. Think about the Google possiblities. Regardless of the fact that you could get the name from posted links, let's clean this thread clean. Remember we started asking if you wanted the facts surrounding the RFC listed, we never needed to know the people's names.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Art, knowing why someone was relieved will ease some people's minds. You have to go back and read through all the post from all the different threads on this topic. There is a group of people out there that believe that some people are relieved through no fault of their own. They have stated things to the effect that some Officer can simply say, Loss of Confidence, and your tour is over. If we had the facts surrounding ANY case, we could show those people that that's not what happened. Re-read these last three or four pages. There are people that don't see what he did wrong. There are people that think that he made a judgement call about responding to SAR.

Ken, that's not why he was relieved. That's why he's going to CM. He was relieved,not by the LCDR, but by the Admiral, for a pattern of behavior going back of the past two years under two different immediate supervisors. What that pattern of behavior was, we will probably never know. But without those reasons listed, people will continue to think that it's about this tow.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

The Admiral temporarily relieved the Chief ... I doubt, in the history of the Coast Guard and the precedessors, that someone remained in command pending a courts martial result.

It's interesting that “Chief **** … having received a lawful command from Lt. Cmdr. Dana Reid ... to not become involved with or move the vessel Elvie B with a Coast Guard asset unless a distress situation occurred ... did, at or near Chincoteague, Va., on or about 24 March, 2006, willfully disobey the same,” one charge specification states.

The second charge specification is the same, except the date, which is changed to “25 March, 2006.” finally had the distress qualifier, something the other press releases failed to mention.

Art, for years, those associated with Loran-C have catagorized every minute of unusable time. What always irked the hell out of me, and has since been changed ... they finally seen the light ... was the technicans and operators who erred had two choices ... lacking operations training and lacking technical training, while the visiting engineers had calculated risk and blunders. It was like an experienced technican was incapable of a calculated risk. Everyone who read the reports could identify what caused an unusuable time period.

Also, years ago, MLCA would publish quarterly compliance summariers. In it were the top discrepancies they noted over the last quarter's visit. There were many people who learned from those gentle reminders.

The CN concerning Good Order and Discipline also carried alot of RFCs, catagorized by other than Loss of Confidence.

We all hope that a Loss of Confidence has more behind it than some trivial thing, but that catch all phrase doesn't squelch the scuttlebutt. Yes, the Chief is going to CM for violation of an article of the UCMJ. The press is reporting this one incident as the driving factor in the relief and CM, and without rebuttal from the CG it will remain the public view of the relief. I know the Area spokesperson said it was a pattern of behavior over the last few years under two different COs ... but it seems the public isn't buying it, or specifically, the press isn't. In a free society where the government say's trust us, doesn't exactly inspire confidence when history is replete with examples where the public has lost faith and confidence in the government solutions.

Of course Hampton Roads (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=104229&ran=69802) opens with PORTSMOUTH — The Coast Guard will court martial Chief Petty Officer ******** on two counts of disobeying a lawful order after the former commander of the Chincoteague Coast Guard Station towed a disabled vessel off private property.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Anyone in a position of command cadre and leadership position best know the do's and dont's already.

I just can't see how "knowing all the facts" will help [you] to ensure you don't do the same screw-up.

Question to all you OIC's:
Example of the case currently pending question:

If the end results leading into the case were published in detail, [pro or con] how would that help you; how can it?

Each incidence's and cases however similiar, are different and require different actions.

I feel the current way Relief for Cause's are published are suitable and accurate enough. They say XXXX screwed up and was relieved - period.
I don't care about the details, because as a person in a responsible position, I know my limits, and when to ask higher up.

Again - how will releasing details help you to ensure you you don't make the same mistakes; when you already know the person screwed up?

OK, I don't think your post was given the response it deserves or the one you were looking for. Let me try, keep in mind, I have only been an XPO(x2) but have orders as an OIC.

"do's and don'ts" - This is the reason we have certification boards and processes in place to determine if a person has the ability to perform as an OIC. If everything were as cut and dry as "do and don't" we could have YN as OIC's. There is a certain aspect of decision making and leadership that goes into recognizing hazy situations or "gray areas" that need to be decided or even reacted upon without calling your superior officer every 5 minutes. Otherwise we wouldn't be Officer in Charge, we'd be Supervisors.

"knowing all the facts" - eliminates scuttlebutt and does educate. My primary reasoning would be eliminating the scuttlebutt. (JP3 not a big fan of rumors). But this would also make up and coming OIC candidates a little more comfortable in knowing you don't get relieved on a whim.

"end results" - I think this is self explanatory or falls into the last category.

"each case different" - no two snow flakes are alike, well that was until recently, scientists say there are. Anyway, I could say that no two piles drive the same way but I still learn something from each one I punch.

"Current way of RFC" - and I feel differently. "Feel" being an indication of opinion and that's what makes these discussions so much fun!

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Can anyone honestly say the knowing all the facts will keep the scuttlebutt down? Or better yet, will it stop the second guessing? I for one don't believe that RFC's ever happen on a whim. Apparently it took 2 years of effort on behalf of the Chief in question and the incident in question is probably the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak. I can read into this alot and come to my own conclusions, but either way, I am no better off. True, I am vocal. Am I wrong? Sometimes. However, I am one that believes that sometimes, even a wrong decision is better than in-decision, or no decision. Doing something is often better than doing nothing. As an OIC we are charged with doing something. Use our experience and judgement to make the best of whatever situation we may find ourselves in. Even if I make a wrong decision, at least I will be able to articulate my reasoning for making said decision.
Stu, to answer your question... If my OOD calls and asks, "can we take the boat and go fishing?" NO, "Can we take the boat on an area fam to the fishing grounds?" NO, then they get underway and tow in a disabled boat from the fishing grounds, what am I supposed to say? You screwed up? Give me your letter? Your fired? Now if the Coast Guard boat has fish blood and scales all over it, then that is a horse of a different color.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

I am a current OIC and going to my second OIC position. I do not feel I need to know all the facts. I know what is right, what is wrong, and I also know what is gray. If in the gray and time permits I will ask, if time does not permit I will make a decision and live with it.

I also believe that if you make a decision and it is the wrong one, yet you do the right thing more times than not then you will learn from it and your bosses should not be in your knickers. If you wrong decision gets people hurt or worst or equipment is seriously damaged or destroyed that may be another story.

As far as the BMs that are afraid of being OICs because of decision they may make may get them relief probably should not be OICs or would not go through the process anyway.

[BMC James M. Clark]

(JP3 not a big fan of rumors).

Wow, John, that's neat how you refer to yourself in the third person...

Along with what Jim is saying, keep in mind that there are always 2 or more sides to the story. Whose side gets published? And once it is published, what is the likelyhood of somebody piping up with "I have it on good authority that that's not what happened at all..." Publishing the cause may or may not reduce scuttlebutt!

As far as the fear of being relieved grounds for not appearing before the review board and pursuing an OIC job, I'm not sure I buy into that one. Sitting here dredging through my memory, I don't know that I've heard a prospective candidate cite that as a reason for not appearing. I've heard a lot of "Well, O's and W's don't have to appear, so why should I?" (with the appropriate whining inflection of course). Mostly, though, the prospective candidates I've studied with and discussed the board process with seem to feel too inexperienced and inknowledgable, which is a product of rapid advancement (I'll spare us the "J-word".) Have you all actually heard someone espousing that they don't want to be an OIC because they don't want to get in trouble? It just sounds to me like a cop out not to strive for another certification (which I equate with laziness). Like a BM3 that once told me he didn't want to break in coxn because he just wasn't ready for the responsibility of holding three other lives in his hands...

An OIC's duties & responsibilities are well defined. Step outside the guidelines, and you should expect to be on your own. I can't believe that digging through someone else's dirty laundry isn't the best way to avoid your CO's loss of confidence. A loss of confidence is personal, and unquantifiable in nature. In other words, it will change from person to person. I think it is much more important to communicate with your supervisor, and preferably not by email. Personal interaction and involvement will help nurture a professional relationship, and theoretically professional respect. That way, in the middle of some evolution, your supervisor isn't left wondering "does this guy know what to do?", which is a loss of confidence.

I'm sure this can be loudly argued from both sides, but to some extent I think it is better to know what to do than what not to do. I don't have much experience in the ATON field (okay, I don't have any) but I'll bet that the Buoy Deck Supervisor's directions for working a buoy are more inclusive than "don't stand under a suspended load." Certainly part of the instructions, but just as certainly not all inclusive. Knowing what not to do will only take you so far.

Bottom line, while some good would come from it, publishing an OICs relief for cause will mostly only satisfy a morbid sense of curiosity.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Wow, John, that's neat how you refer to yourself in the third person...


I am sorry I didn't even read the rest of your post and I am still laughing about this! You know the 3 is for third :p

[BMC John Phillips III]

but to some extent I think it is better to know what to do than what not to do. I don't have much experience in the ATON field (okay, I don't have any) but I'll bet that the Buoy Deck Supervisor's directions for working a buoy are more inclusive than "don't stand under a suspended load." Certainly part of the instructions, but just as certainly not all inclusive. Knowing what not to do will only take you so far.

ok here comes the otherside of the arguement that you mentioned. What to do is written down, without a doubt. I preach this to my guys all the time. It goes something like this, if the entire CG were to die tomorrow, we'd all be replaced and they would know exactly what to do by opening a manual. However, they wouldn't do it nearly as well and would certainly make tons of mistakes. So in your analogy, as far as I know, when someone does something really heinous on the bouy deck we get a pretty good run down on exactly what happened in the mishap. A "what not to do" if you will.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

James, I often find myself repeating what I have already said........but here goes. Go back on re-read some of the posts on other threads and you will see that there are sitting OinCs who think that this can happen to anyone, at anytime. There are people who have written that they know people who got relieved, trying to do the RIGHT thing.

Jim, re-read the post that you're answering. I didn't say that he got underway for something else, I said he got underway for what he wanted to do in the first place.

Will hearing the facts stop the scuttlebutt ? Obviously not. We have all been given the same set of facts. Few of us are willing to except that. If they released all of the facts, the rest of you might be able to admit that you're wrong.
Let me recap the one important fact that some of you seem to be overlooking. The Admiral said that he relieved the OinC for a variety of reason going back over the past two years. It was not because of the tow mentioned. It was not because of a bad decision. It was because of many bad decisions over the past two years.

Now if they released examples of those bad decision maybe some of us could move on from this being about a tow. Do we all remember Pt. Judith from a couple of months ago ? That wasn't about a tow either. Information enlights. It isn't about my morbid sense of curiosity. I know alot of people, I could start making phone calls. I can read the article and look for the logical conclusion. I want the facts released so I can stop the scuttlebutt when I hear it. I want to be able to direct those naysayers to what the CG said that they did. I want to be able to say, that's not what happened, and have the proof.
Has anyone of us hear one of these RFCs go down and said, "Well I guess I should stop doing that."?
You want the bottom line ? Without the facts, more people question the relief process, than question the actions of the person being relieved.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Stu - stop it already. You keep saying "re-read-it; re-read-it!!" The ONLY person pressing this issue is YOU; period. Yes, earlier there were a couple of other OICs who mentioned they they may be concerned about knowing the facts. Since then, nobody but YOU keep keep saying "we" need to know the details leading to the relief for cause.
Bottom line is; whether, or not, making detailed postings of RFC's influence's a Chief/S/M/ decision to go for OIC or EPO, then there are more things to worry about.
Additionally in many past posts you always take the stand as "I enforce the standards as are written; period; "nothing more, nothing less.""
Well, you know what; the results are being posted as current standards are established; period.
BTW - I bet you read the National Enquirer.
Enough said.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Art, never end a statement saying enough said. The next time you talk, it makes you a liar. If you bet I read the National Enquirer don't bet more than you're willing to lose. And some basic math skills....53 people have voted, 45 of them are with me. That hardly paints me as a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
Well, you know what; the results are being posted as current standards are established; period.
I don't even know what that means.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Stu - I ment to say was --- "the results of RFC's are being posted per COMDT standards."

Oh come'on, how many of those 45 "yes" votes are those of non OIC/EPO voters? A fair amount to be sure.
At first I voted yes, but since changed my mind, because I feel I really don't need to know the details.
To you yes voters - if this was such a concern to the OIC community, how come there aren't more of your OIC brethren chiming in...
Has anyone taken this cause to the Gold Badge and up to the MCPOCG?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I had left the names in the artical, simply because they were posted in the Navy Times. Seems we are doing a little censorship here as well.

If we don't publish releif for cause info, but we publish what the Times had, it leaves me to wonder, if he is found innocent, will he be re-instated. I know he won't because it is for a "pattern of behavior", but does the person reading the article know that? Reading the articles posted here, which is all the general population has to go on, makes it sound like a collar device "I'll flip you for it" and the person at HQ saying "I told him not to, so now I have no choice"

It appears as if he launched a response because he wanted good community relations, and there was enough gray area with the "anchor not holding" that he thought it was justified. As Coxswains I beleive most of us have made choices like that. We are taught that if we can articulate why, then it's OK.

I have towed a floating dock off a guys property after a storm because the next high tide would have created a hazard to navigation. We have all looked for gray areas to circumvent a MARB case because it would be quicker to just "get 'er done" than stay on scene and wait for Sea Tow. I have also stayed on scene for a few hours waiting on Commercial response because the boat owner kept saying everything was OK and he was comfortable that his anchor was holding.

I only hope that some of the younger viewers aren't getting "it's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission" out of this whole thing.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Art, I get that the current way we are doing things is the COMDT standard, and I follow that, I'm not publishing things that I know about the cases. I repeat what the CG has released and ask that they release the rest of it.

As for the yes votes ? By and Large the most vocal people on this board are sitting OinCs. The repeat posters on this thread are sitting OinCs.

At least one of the previous poster on this thread was a CMC. I have taken this issue to my Gold Badge on numerous occasions. I've brought it up with my Command. I've talked about it with the Detailers. Almost everyone I talk to thinks that the facts should be released.

Ken, we have always done a little bit of censorship here. The name of the person isn't important. I believe knowing the facts of the case are. And I've heard of people running into issues with the group/sector and retaining their position, but I've never heard of someone getting relieved by the District and going back to that same job. I think the District makes sure there is justification prior to taking action. That being said, I know of people who have been relieved, waited their time, re-certified, and were given OinC tours again.

If we could get someone to answer my question from several pages ago, we might see that exception to the rule. To again repeat myself, there was a case where someone was relieved by the District after his arrest, and..........The perfect time for the CG to release the rest of the story.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Paul Harvey is in the Coast Guard? :p

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Stu - stop it already. You keep saying "re-read-it; re-read-it!!" The ONLY person pressing this issue is YOU; period. Yes, earlier there were a couple of other OICs who mentioned they they may be concerned about knowing the facts. Since then, nobody but YOU keep keep saying "we" need to know the details leading to the relief for cause.
Bottom line is; whether, or not, making detailed postings of RFC's influence's a Chief/S/M/ decision to go for OIC or EPO, then there are more things to worry about.
Additionally in many past posts you always take the stand as "I enforce the standards as are written; period; "nothing more, nothing less.""
Well, you know what; the results are being posted as current standards are established; period.
BTW - I bet you read the National Enquirer.
Enough said.

Settle down LT -

I agree with Stu on this issue. I haven't had the time to devote to the board because I'm in the middle of my PCS and my campground doesn't have the internet.

I have always (and will always) thought that detailed reports should be sent to all sitting CO/OINC's with the RFC information. We all learn from our mistakes. They send out mishaps for all to read...why not RFC's? I don't think that they should go out via an ALCOAST...but at least to sitting CO/OINC's. The same should be done for XPO/EPO's. Command cadre should review these reports together in an informal setting. Maybe some new EPO/XPO/OINC will learn something in the process and pass it down to those up-and-coming EPO/XPO/OINC's.

Enough said...we'll for me.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Settle down LT -

I agree with Stu on this issue. I haven't had the time to devote to the board because I'm in the mid