Liberty Risk program

[HSC Chris Fly]

Good Morning all,
I have a question that an UW Chief asked me, apparently on one of the PACAREA cutters the CO has instituted a pretty strict liberty risk policy. He is requireing all the crew to go out in groups of at least 3, from the XO down to the lowest SA. I applaud the CO for enforcing it across the board, but do you really need to restrict senior E6/CPOs/department heads? I would hope that we have learned to behave ourselves by this point. I read through the PACAREA liberty risk policy and assume the CO is using the caveat of the "Buddy System" in Sec. 9, paragraph c. I tried to copy the blurb but Adobe wasn't cooperating with me. It basically says the CO can dictate the crew go out in at least groups of 2 but could be any number and can require certain ranks or ages in each group. BTW- this was being instituted in San Diego, not some obscure foreign port.

Thoughts?

Chris

[MKCM Bob Brayman]

think of it as a safety thing as the other services do. Increases you chances of not getting hurt or hassled when on liberty. Looking out for one another is what us Chiefs are all about.

[ETC Brian Strattard]

Reaaallllyyyy...

Maybe it's time for the CO's presence to be requested in the CPO Mess...I for one would like to hear the reasoning for a three person buddy system in a US port...

Strat sends...

[SKC Raymond Kurtz]

BTW- this was being instituted in San Diego, not some obscure foreign port.

Maybe the CO knows something about anti-war and anti-military sentiments that are not known to the rest of the crew. Maybe he is doing this to protect his crew from anti-war wackos that would attack members of the military.

After all, it IS California we are talking about.

[HSC Chris Fly]

as far as the Anti-war thing, I'm stationed in San Diego and while there are a few protests nothing violent.

[BMC John Phillips III]

as far as the Anti-war thing, I'm stationed in San Diego and while there are a few protests nothing violent.

talk about your oxymorons, a war protest turned violent...:rolleyes:

Seriously, I think if the CO see's a need for a 3 man buddy system then there must be one. I would support it.

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

Well I have been to San Diego many times during my 12 years of West Coast Sea Time (Reftra & TSTA) and every time we pulled in there we always got those inbriefs about the gang activity and where to go and not to go and I think it is a great idea to use the buddy system there. Everyone wants to go down to TJ and get liquored up and or buy a bunch of trinkets and such to bring back. They are often taking the trolly down and back and there are always some very shady characters on those trollys.

I always preferred to pull into the Broadway Pier rather than down on the Navy Base. That base isn't in the greatest neighborhood.

Jayare

[BMCS Dave Considine]

The CO is probably trying to avoid situations in large cities like the Navy PO3 that was found dead in Boston Harbor after a night out not too long ago.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=121503&ran=2589&tref=po

Understandable, but not sure why the senior enlisted. Then again I do remember a few Chiefs in my early career stumbling back on the ship and having to be escorted down to the Chief's Mess!

[BMC John Phillips III]

I was just reading the TQC thread and I noticed CMC Isherwood's sign off, I think it applies here:

"Shipmates rarely fail alone…. Unless left alone"

[HSC Chris Fly]

I just don't see it. I don't go out and drink, I'm rarely out in a portcall past 2300. Why should I (or anyone) get punished for the actions of others? If someone has shown themselves to be a risk then fine, put restrictions on THEM! I can see even see it if the boat was in someplace that is questionable, but trust me San Diego is not one of those places.

Let us be adults until we prove otherwise and THEN punish us, give us the benefit of the doubt.

Chris

[CMC Isherwood]

HSC Fly,
A couple of things to consider.
1. The PACAREA Liberty Risk instruction was promulgated in Aug05. If a CO is increasing the requirements of that instruction, there may be more to the story than the folks are sharing with you.
2. The intent of the Liberty Risk instruction is to ensure the safety of are shipmates..Period.
3. LANTAREA has a VERY similiar Liberty Risk instruction

On a side note, from my perspective, there is more than enough evidence to take a closer look at some of the "adults" (ship and shore) you refer to. Since arriving in this job last May, seventeen E7s, E8s or E9s have come across my desk for serious failures in leadership and/or judgement related issues. MOST if not ALL CG members would think these situations would never happen in the Chiefs Mess. I can tell you, "nothing surprises me anymore"!

BMC Phillips,
That sign off is not just a catchy phrase, I truly believe in it. More often than not, when bad things happen, shipmates could have helped prevent it, instead of standing by watching and ignoring it.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

As the old saying goes...

"Safety in Numbers"...

Most of my crew did that anyhow...

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

Sorry, I just won't agree with punishing people when there is no valid reason even if Lant Area has a similar policy. The E7 and above you talk about showing a lack of leadership, then fine put the hammer down and punish them. In fact I think we need more of that in the CG, when someone screws up PUT THE HAMMER DOWN! Obviously this touchy-feeley way we've been handling disciplinary problems is not working. :mad:

I just can't support a policy that punishes the innocent along with the trouble makers, I will abide by it if I'm on that vessel but I won't support it. As far as the unit that this thread is about, I'm pretty close to it and while they had a few issues (with non-rates I might add) I don't there is cause to go this far.

I forgot to say I support and think the overall liberty risk program is fine, just don't agree with how this one CO is using it.

Again, this is just my .02
Chris

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Chris, fair enough you disagree with the policy. But going back to your original post that started this thread. Other than the fact that an U/W Chief told you about this policy on their cutter, what else did they say? I would hope that the Chiefs Mess was given a little more insight into the CO's thought process then a written policy. I for one would like to know the other side of it. Otherwise then it's just sailors bitchin.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Bruce,
I didn't want to say too much as I don't want to point any fingers at any one command. Basically the CO set this part of the policy down as the ship was getting ready for liberty at their last portcall on the way home. The XO had just come back from attending the CO conference, not sure if this had anything to do with it. At the time I talked to the Cheifs Mess (and I talked to just about every one of them), all they knew was that if you wanted to go off the base you had to have 3 people. They had no further guidence past that, not even the Command Chief.
So I hope that clears it up a little,
Chris

[CMC Isherwood]

HSC Fly,
The folks in HAMILTON know all the details, they may not like them, but they know 'em! Remember, a CO can always make the lawful regulations MORE stringent, never less than CG policy. And, this is for foreign ports not home port. By the way, most of these liberty ports have ATFP requirements that are beyond the CG's sphere of influence.

Please re-read the Liberty Risk policy again and describe to me where everyone is being punished? It seems to me that those that color outside of the lines are called to account for their actions not the entire crew. Crew safety is first and foremost for the buddy system. As Wray said, "Safety in numbers".

I have read the policy at least a 100 times and as written I don't see anything in it that I could not live with. And yes, I have been stationed on a few 378s in my career.

Finally, you can rest assured that if you get off the page and your name shows up in PACAREA appropriate corrective measures will take place regardless of rate or rank.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Master Chief,
Just so you know, the cutter I'm talking about is not a San Diego Cutter. I'm not going to divulge the name of the unit as it's not my place. I simply wanted to post the circumstance and see what people's opinion's are. And trust me, from what I got from several of the crew's mouth's all came out to the same as I've stated already. As I also said, this was in San Diego liberty port, not a foreign port.

As I said above, I see no reason to post the Cutter's name on here as this is a public forum and it's not my place to make a specific cutter's business everyone else's. I let their Chief's Mess take care that if they feel the need.
Chris

BTW- I'm not sure what you meant by that last line, was that directed at me in particular or a general statement?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

They had no further guidence past that, not even the Command Chief.Chris

Chris...has the Command Chief talked to the CO about why the policy was put in place for this portcall or are you saying that the CO wouldn't talk to the CC?

[HSC Chris Fly]

Deane,
I can't for sure if the CC has talked to the Co yet or not. I went to meet some friends for dinner a hour or so after they pulled in and was told about this, I didn't talk to the CC in particular I was just told he didn't know either (and I guess I assumed if the rest of the CPO mess didn't know, the CC didn't either). I did get the same story from 5 of the other Chiefs and several of the enlisted though.
Chris

[CMC Bruce Bradley]

Chris, like I said and asked above, whats the rest of this story. If it is truely the case and the Chiefs Mess on this cutter doesn't know what the reasoning is, either because the CO or the Command Chief (CSC/CMC) didn't tell them or they can't find out the reasons, they they need to take the next logical step in this process. Have them contact the Area CMC, who has already posted on this thread. Have they done any of that or are they still in the denial and bitchin phase of it?

Other tha the fact that it was sprung on them suddenly with no notice in their opinion, what are the problems with this program or orders they have been given? Unless you are willing to share more of what little you say you know about this, then it's a done deal, lest we start to jump to conclusions with only half truths or perceptions.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't see why you consider this punishing innocent people either. I see it as a CO setting a standard, and enforcing it from the XO on down. Just on the face of it, ....it looks like he's forcing shipmates to look out for each other.
I'm not seeing what the issue is. If you can't find two other people who want to go to the same places you do.....ask yourself why you still want to go ....... then wait until you take leave, and go on your own.
Until I hear otherwise I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the CO. I think he probably had reasons to realize that all of the adults in his command weren't being the adults they claimed to be, and wanted to ensure they always had another adult with them in their decision making processes.

[CMC Isherwood]

HSC Fly,
The last line was not directed at you. It was/is a statement that if a CG member (any) does not follow the rules and their transgressions reach the AREA level the situation will be resolved appropriately.

HAMILTON came to mind because they just returned and during their deployment the were following the Liberty Risk program. Heck, replace HAMILTON and insert ANY/EVERY PACAREA cutter's name, they ALL know the deal.

As far as using the "buddy system" while in a domestic port, that's just good seamanship. And I applaud the command for looking out for our shipmate's safety.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

As far as using the "buddy system" while in a domestic port, that's just good seamanship. And I applaud the command for looking out for our shipmate's safety.

Not a bad policy in some places, for some cutters.. but obviously not for all.. and for various reasons.. WLR's on the Western Rivers comes to my mind...

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

[QUOTE=BMCM Stuart S. Slesh;18483] If you can't find two other people who want to go to the same places you do.....ask yourself why you still want to go QUOTE]


As I said before, when I pull into a liberty port my first desire (or any desire) is not to go to a bar. I enjoy going looking at the local hobby/train shops, motorcycle shops, etc. How hard do you think it is to find 1, let alone 2 people who want to go to these places with me. One of the Chiefs that had a problem with the policy wanted to go geocaching and only had one other person who wanted to go with him, he couldn't find a 3rd person who wanted to spend their liberty time geocaching so he couldn't do what he wanted to do on liberty. I don't see geocaching as some deviant thing that one sholdn't be doing because it's not popular. When I was on the Tampa my passion was hitting all the toy stores in the caribbean looking for Hot Wheels I couldn't find in the states, there was only 1 other person who wanted to do this.

So you can't use the blanket phrase "if you can't get two other people that want to do it, you probably shouldn't". It's not a one size fits all.

Chris

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, I didn't use that blanket statement. I also didn't imply that what the person wanted to do had to be deviant in nature.
But we're back to the individuals now aren't we. I know if I really wanted to go Geocaching or searching toy stores,...I could have found two people who would have gone with me. I would have sold them on it. I would have found two people who had my back, and I would have done something they wanted to do after dark or once the toy store closed. Where there's a will, there's a way.......... if someone gives up before they get what they want....how much did they really want it?

[ETC Brian Strattard]

From what I've gathered so far...

Established the "3 person buddy system" on the final port call of the patrol...

It is in a US port with a large Navy and CG presence...

The Cutter's Mess does not know the specific threat...

Sounds fishy to me...that being said...

Where is the new line for looking out for the safety of our people? I have a few ideas like safety belts for motorcycles...scratch that...no motorcycles at all...you could not make a mistake and still have some tool take you out...and maybe our safety observers could have safety observers...alcohol impairs judgement so that is on the no-no list...smoking kills so that is banned as well...mandatory PT so people don't get overweight and have health issues...I'm not sure if PFD's are enough so I'd like to issue water wings to all personnel near water...:D

Sometimes a decision that has all the justification in the world is still a wrong decision...just ask my wife...she's got stories to back that one:rolleyes: ...that and maybe we could finally prove if three drunks are smarter than one drunk out of this evolution...

Strat sends...

[HSC Chris Fly]

Chris, I didn't use that blanket statement. I also didn't imply that what the person wanted to do had to be deviant in nature.
But we're back to the individuals now aren't we. I know if I really wanted to go Geocaching or searching toy stores,...I could have found two people who would have gone with me. I would have sold them on it. I would have found two people who had my back, and I would have done something they wanted to do after dark or once the toy store closed. Where there's a will, there's a way.......... if someone gives up before they get what they want....how much did they really want it?


Stu,
By your account above you are still punishing people for doing nothing wrong. How are you punishing them? By making them go around the ship and find two other people who want to do what they want to do. Maybe I don't want to do anything after the toy stores close except go home and call my wife. It was very rare that I was ever out past 2200 on a port call.
I just think we need treat grown adults like grown adults. If I go out, get drink and cause a ruckus then give me an alcohol incident.....but I know that won't happen because I'm responsible and adult enough to not let that happen.

I think as a Coast Guard we are losing the idea of holding individuals accountable for thier OWN actions. We are leaning on thier SHIPMATES to keep them out of trouble. While I personally always do what I can to keep my shipmates out of trouble, that shouldn't be my job and sole expectation while on liberty. When I was an idependant duty HS on the '210, I felt it was my job to not go out and get sh*tfaced on a portcall because who are these guys going to look to when they cut their chin doing "the worm" while enjoying a port call a little too much (don't laugh, it happened)? Me, that's who. That's why I was responsible enough in my job to NOT go out and get drunk or be places I shouldn't have. Now because some of these other "shipmates" have screwed up and not lived up to the expectation of being an adult, I have restrictions put on my liberty time.... NOT APPROPRIATE!

As I said, I will abide by any order the CO would put down but I cannot support it in good conscious.

Chris, sticking to my guns! ;)

[HSC Chris Fly]

Stu,
I apoligize, your statement was:
"If you can't find two other people who want to go to the same places you do.....ask yourself why you still want to go " I guess I doing a little parapharsing, sorry. I still hold true to my original response to that statement.
Chris

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I don't know how many of you have been to San Diego, but Tijuana is just a short train ride away. I'm just speculating, but this might be another reason that the CO wanted a buddy system. Last time I was in Tijuana, it was a good idea to have some people with you for safety reasons.

I've read the policy and it's a good policy to keep our people safe. There must be a good reason for this CO to put in in place for everyone.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, you have a fairly broad definition of punishment. Do you think that the Coast Guard punishes people by putting certain establishments off limits?
I would argue that your liberty has always been restricted. Your actions are restricted to remain in compliance with Coast Guard standards.
I would argue that looking out for your shipmates is part of your job, and the higher up you go, the great that responsiblity.
I think you're off point on the responsiblity also. This CO is reminding people that they're personally responsible for each other. He isn't telling people do what you want and I'll hold the other two people responsible. Each person is responsible for their own actions.

Brian, it isn't about how many drunks are smarter. It's about making people smarter before the leave the ship. The policy has commands screening people that have had incidents in the past. They try and identify the people who are more likely to have an incident before they grant liberty. I see it as all about safety. This CO took an additional step. I still say he was doing it with the best of intentions, and I'm sticking by my guns, unless someone can show me where the CO had alterior motives.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

While I agree that there is "safety in numbers" I do not agree that it should be mandatory to go in pairs or numbers. As Chris said, people have different interests & desires.

The military does put a few places "off limits" due to their past history. Crews should be made aware of these.

While companionship is good, it should not be an 'adult' requirement.

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

While I agree that there is "safety in numbers" I do not agree that it should be mandatory to go in pairs or numbers. As Chris said, people have different interests & desires.

The military does put a few places "off limits" due to their past history. Crews should be made aware of these.

While companionship is good, it should not be an 'adult' requirement.

Wray... :cool:

I agree. Having spent a lot of time in San Diego it is a pretty safe city. The immediate area around 32nd st is not that nice but you walk across the footbridge to the trolley stop and it's a five minute (free) trolley ride to the gaslamp district or a little longer and you are at the big malls in Mission Valley/Fashion Valley. I'm wondering, if my parents were to drive down for an afternoon/evening to visit the ship and then a dinner would I have to find two people to go out to dinner with my folks? That would suck.
I think that making the off limits areas known to the crew and then a buddy system for people who want to go to TJ should be fine. San Diego is a far cry from the city I pulled into for my first liberty port in 87. I think requiring 3 people to go anywhere is extreme.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

As with many Coast Guard policies, the over-reaction pendulum often swings too far...

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

Just so eveyone knows, I think Tiajuna was off limits regardless of how many people you have.