Help support TMP

"Adm in charge of USN intel not allowed ..." Topic

10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ranting Plus Board

394 hits since 27 Jan 2016
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2016 5:34 p.m. PST

…to see military secrets


Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2016 7:28 p.m. PST

That does seem to be a slight problem.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2016 7:36 p.m. PST

The inmates are in charge of the asylum! It is no wonder the US is being humiliated by ISIS and Iran.

Zargon Inactive Member28 Jan 2016 6:11 a.m. PST

Perhaps they need a Capo di tutti capi, to take over otherwise known as the Don :)

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP28 Jan 2016 6:14 a.m. PST

ADM Branch is a Pentagon policy/administrative person.

ADM Train runs the Office of Naval Intelligence.

If you want to get incensed about something, why not worry about why we are still paying him and increasing his potential retirement while he is in a billet.

It's pretty much an effect of the legal system; right now BUPERS is in a position where they can't get fire him (pending litigation), they can't use him (lack of access inhibits work), and they can't move him around somewhere else (lack of access prevents his qualification for another job).

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP28 Jan 2016 7:52 a.m. PST

Hard to accept that this has been dragging on since 2013 without the ability to have taken sufficient action to resolve the problem at least to a point this was no longer the case.

No different IMHO than administratively relieving a CO of command by virtue of loss of confidence in their capability to continue to carry on their assignment. Guilty or not, if there is sufficient information to embroil him in the legal issue, I would think the same thing could be done here, he fills an admin position until it is resolved, and if cleared, he is then plugged into an appropriate billet following the resolution.

But then with twenty four years in, I know how totally convoluted and nonsensical things can be at times in the military, including the ignoring of the guilty, the punishment of the innocent and the awards given to those not involved in matters.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP28 Jan 2016 4:44 p.m. PST

Does an officer have a RIGHT to a command?
It takes due process to assign him to a different task, and put someone else in his job?

Terrement Supporting Member of TMP29 Jan 2016 3:14 p.m. PST

Does an officer have a RIGHT to a command?


It takes due process to assign him to a different task, and put someone else in his job?

Yes but "due process" can be as simple as an officer commanding him issuing a letter to so do. There are actions that follow that, but "unplugging" someone from a job, or a command is actually quite simple.

COs of ships get relieved by a letter. There may or may not be disciplinary hearings depending on the nature of the perceived "offence." Back in the day, COMNAVSURFLANT had the CO relief letter stored as a standard for so all his yeoman had to do was fill in the name and date it. Two most common reasons was starting a deployment with CASREPs on equipment, or failing an OUTCHOP OPPE.

CASREP (casualty report) means a piece of equipment is at less than full capability C-2, operating with severe degradations C-3 or is inop C-4 OOUTCHOP is CHange of OPerational command as you go OUT of a command area say from 6th fleet in the MED to 2nd Fleet in the Atlantic. OPPE is OPerational Propulsion Examination. The idea being that while on deployment, you will have had a captive audience onboard, been running the plant nearly continuously, had the opportunity to train your folks and had one or two repair availabilities in port where you can do repairs and get tech reps if needed.

Neither of those would typically lead to any charges, the exception being if there was a clear indication of lack of effort / derelection of duty. But if you just didn't make the passing grade, as the Donald would say "You're Fired." They would then drive a desk until their tour was due for rotation and with a blemish like that on their record, you know they'll get some real important high profile job like being XO or OPS of an arctic weather station, but with a career that was doomed.

At a lower level, a CO can relieve any of his officers of their duties. This can range from a simple case of essentially getting fired as a division officer onboard and being assigned as an assistant to the XO, or being relieved for cause. The problems are for the person who gets relieved for cause is that they are playing against the house with the deck stacked against them. They are immediately precluded from any of the spaces that they used to "own." They no longer have access to their people for the purpose of getting statements. They don't get to make copies of logs. And as soon as in port or transportation off the ship is available, they go to the Group Commander (the person in charge of a cruiser destroyer group, or an amphibious force group for examples). The presumption by the Group Commander is that the CO, in whom he has placed his trust, has made a valid decision, and this is essentially a process by which another career is consigned to the dustbins of non-promotion. May even get orders to go be a department head at that arctic weather station!

Want to bet that the person getting the axe was always at fault and the CO wasn't just doing a pre-emptive strike to cover their ass and save their own career? I mean, would a CO actually duck responsibility like that and screw someone's career and life royally just to cover their own six?

That's a rhetorical question. I'm sure we all know the answer to that.

Going back to the CASREP issue, what do you think happened as ships were getting ready to deploy? Something breaks. It isn't immediately noticeable to an outside observer – gun mount loading mechanism broke a cog on a gear wheel – unlikely you'll be shooting in the first several days of deployment. If there would be a shootex, many ships have a second gun mount they could use. Want to bet whether a CO would risk not filing a CASREP with the idea that he can report it as happening a few days out of port, and likely have a part and tech rep waiting for their first port call on INCHOP, or, better to tell the truth and risk the very likely prospect of getting relieved for CASREP equipment just prior to deployment?

That's a rhetorical question. I'm sure we all know the answer to that.

Did most of them get away with it? Yep. But if they needed that gear they would have been screwed, all because a well intentioned program by the admiral made "CO survival" via appearances more important than knowing the actual conditions of readiness of his ships.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP29 Jan 2016 5:39 p.m. PST

ADM Branch is in an administrative position at OPNAV in the Pentagon, not in a command billet.

At a lower level, a CO can relieve any of his officers of their duties.

Anybody can be relieved of duties. The due process is fairly simple. However, there are potential legal repercussions. If you relieve someone of duty, you are liable for that as an official action and could be sued for loss of potential future earnings and other damages.

The more senior you are, the more likely you are to have the resources to carry out that type of action (though the ACLU and like groups have stood up for very junior people when it aligned with issues on their published agenda). Also, the more senior you are, the more likely you are to have a long documented history of good service. Also, the more senior you are, the less likely courts, arbiters, and juries are to be able to really understand what is a big enough deal to relieve someone of duties (that they are also less likely to understand).

The much less risky (for the individual, and for the government at large which is functionally for the taxpayers' dollars) thing to do is "shelf" someone. Not officially relieve them of duties, just limit their assigned responsibilities.

The real dysfuction is that DOJ was in a position to identify the risks associated with his activities but not to bring charges yet.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.