Charges In USS Columbus Hazing Incident
The "Military Life" blog for the Kitsap Sun is reporting that several Sailors from USS Columbus (SSN 762) have been brought up on charges stemming from an alleged case of continual hazing directed against other crewmen:
"Seven sailors from the submarine USS Columbus face special courts martial in connection with alleged hazing of two fellow crew members.
"One victim allegedly was attacked over a seven-month period ending in March, when he reported the incidents to Naval Base Kitsap security and Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
"The alleged assailants, including a senior chief petty officer, are charged with various offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The charges include assault, hazing and dereliction of duty, according to Lt. Herlinda Rojas, a Navy spokeswoman."
As I mentioned earlier, I'm really not in a position to add any specifics, but if the hazing was as prolonged as reported, I really wonder if the senior leadership of the boat will, or should, keep their jobs.
Update 0855 15 April: The journalist who wrote the blog post linked above also has a story out in "hard-copy" (the actual print edition of her paper; annoying free registration required) as well as another blog entry:
"The five sailors range in rank from third to first class petty officer. A sixth sailor, a senior chief petty officer, allegedly failed to report the abuse, Rojas said.
"All of the sailors involved are electronics technicians or machinists mates who shared a workspace at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton. Columbus, a fast-attack submarine based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, has been at PSNS for maintenance since September 2004...
"...The original NCIS investigation focused on the first victim, a petty officer third class, Rojas said.
"During that investigation, NCIS officers uncovered a separate alleged assault involving a second victim, she said. A seventh sailor, a petty officer third class, is charged in that case."
Reading into this, and knowing that Columbus was in DMP, one can try to figure out what flavor of ETs and MMs would share a workspace in the shipyard. Since you normally wouldn't see torpedomen and A-gangers sharing a space with coner ETs, this could lead one to assume that the alleged perps were nukes.
Update 1716 15 April: Welcome Free Republic readers. From what I've heard via back channels, this is not a case of the "sissification of the Navy"; this was a really bad case of continual inappropriate "picking on" a new guy that showed a complete lack of military discipline by all involved. I'm not going to put out any specifics until the Navy does, but this is more than "tacking on a crow" or "drinking your dolphins".
And for those who might say I'm a hypocrite for welcoming Free Republic readers after all the times I've called that site the "Democratic Underground of the Right", I'd also welcome DUmmies if they showed up after I was linked in a thread there. I'd probably be much snarkier to them, though...
Update 2109 15 April: The reporter for the Kitsap Sun that's been working on the story got the charge sheets from the Navy; the specifics she provides pretty much match what I've heard. Excerpts:
"Kidder allegedly poured alcohol on the victim’s clothes and set fire to them, put the victim in a headlock, held his hands behind his back and hit him in the groin with his hand.
"The fourth accused conspirator, Bruce, allegedly hit the victim in the face and groin with his hand.
"Petty Officer 1st Class Charles Isham, a 27-year-old machinist’s mate, is charged with dereliction of duties, aggravated assault and communicating a threat. Isham is accused of pointing a loaded gun at the victim multiple times and threatening to shoot him if he didn’t show Isham a specific photo.
"In the case of the second victim, only one sailor faces charges. Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Tibbs, 21, allegedly pointed a loaded gun at the victim multiple times between October 2005 and December 2005.
"Tibbs lied to an investigator about the incidents, according to Navy documents. He said he had pointed a toy gun at the victim during sentry duty as a joke. Tibbs also is accused of faking evidence by giving the investigator a toy gun he supposedly used."
I'm sorry, but "ball-checking", playing with fire, and misuse of firearms aren't "good-natured ribbing" -- they're examples of criminal behavior, if the accusations are true. The shipyard is a tough place to build or maintain unit cohesion, so it's imperative that the ship's leadership step up to the plate and head off incidents like this as soon as they start. (I had almost 4 years in the shipyard as Eng under my belt, so I know whereof I speak.) It looks to me like the leadership on Columbus either wasn't willing to do what they needed to do as soon as they started hearing rumors about it, or didn't spend enough time on the boat to find out what was really going on.
Update 0048 18 April: A commenter points out, and the reporter at the Kitsap Sun who's been breaking the story allows, that there's more than one side to the story. That's true, but those who've been reading my blog for a while know that I'm willing to call out Big Navy if I think they're trying to selectively release information about something that might make them look bad, as I think they did during the San Francisco grounding investigation. In this case, however, since the story wasn't going to be made public unless the Navy released it, I'm not sure why they'd want to "frame" the alleged attackers. It would be in the Navy's best interest not to release information about the case unless they were pretty sure it was true; therefore, I would guess that there's more here than circumstantial evidence or a "he said, he said" situation. I would certainly hope that submariners wouldn't do the things that are alleged, but all the information I'm getting indicates that something bad did happen on that boat.
Update 2256 18 April: Someone claiming to be the cousin of one of the alleged victims is posting over at The Knot Boards with some background information, and there's another story in the Kitsap Sun.


37 Comments:
I am not going to get into any specifics but if they did what I have heard they did, and I have reliable sources, they should go to jail for a very long time. It discusts me that any of these men call themselves submariners.
4/14/2006 10:26 PM
As is to be expected following something like this, hazing was the subject of our GMT just a few weeks ago. . .horrible Navy video and all. We were told a few more details about the specifics of this incident, and it's much, much worse than duct-taping, crawling through muck as a shellback, or even tacking. When even us jaded sailors are taken aback at these men's actions, you know what they've done is reprehensible. I concur with Rusty. Everyone involved needs to go down HARD. Not only as an example to others to show that this is intolerable, which seems to generally be the Navy's purpose in administering punishment, but for the simple reason that--in this case--their actions are incontrovertibly CRIMINAL. There is absolutely no gray area here.
4/15/2006 1:44 PM
Just remember, these are CHARGES, not CONVICTIONS. These guys are innocent until proven guilty. I agree that anyone proven guilty should be prosecuted to the furthest extent, but perhaps things weren't as bad a guy trying to get off the boat made them seem. We have all known guys who will blow things out of proportion to get out of doing their jobs. I'm not saying the guy did that, but let's give those charged the benefit of the doubt until we know for sure.
4/17/2006 11:17 AM
OK, I read the names of those accused on Elaine Helm's Military Life blog. Everyone charged is an enlisted man. Now I know from spending 3 years on a boomer that the Senior Chief could be the Division Officer, but not likely. This stuff can't go on for 14 months without some of the officers knowing. It's just too close knit on a sub. I just hope this is not a similar case like the Iraqi prison abuse where the Army investigation literally "got to the bottom of it" and no senior officers were charged.
4/18/2006 8:18 PM
I'm a former Columbus sailor, and I know every man involved. The senior chief was the nuke ET LCPO, and he is a friend. He would never condone or cover up such behavior. Unfortunately, they wanted a knaki to throw into the fire, and he was chosen because most of the accused were his sailors. Sadly, he was one of the best chiefs aboard... The others, well, I think they're going to get what they deserve.
4/19/2006 6:38 AM
I'm the father of the Senior Chief involved in this, and you will expect me to be prejudice solely on that count. I am not. I am a former twenty year Marine First Sergeant, and I have standards that I would not cross even for my own son.
However, I know my son, and I know his integrity. This incident, as being reported here, and as related to the press by the Navy, is an attempt to make it look like the Navy really cares, stands politcally correct, and would not allow such actions to continue.
I know much about this incident, adn it woudl take way too long to rpesent all the story. But let me relate this as it applies to at least one of teh alleged "Victims". This Nuke PO is deficient in meeting his rating requirements though he certainly has the GCT to comply. He has made no bones about the fact that he wants out of the Navy. Because of his not meeting training and rating requirements, he was requried by the Captains orders to attend EMI on saturdays, giving him a sixth day of duty.This did not sit well with him, and it wasn't until he was UA from reporting to the extra duty that he made any allegations of hazing. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure that out.
Further, my son and his wife are so carign for the men, that last Thanksgfiving this PO was one of those who sailors who attended Thanksgiving at my son's house, an offer he made to all who did nto have anyplace to go. At other social affiars he has sat with my son and his wife for the entire evening chatting, and not once did any of the hazing stories come up, and as far as we can determien he never made any such claim to any superior. Now my son is being charged with allowing hazing to happen, and is being court-martialed.
In my opinion, what we have here is a deficient sailor, who did not pull his weight, now accusing others as the cause for his own personal failures and commitment.
My question to you guys is how did you treat slackers in your sections, and further don't you think if these incidents were as serious as he now claims, that this PO should have gone to superiors, especially if he thought my son was allowing it to happen?
4/19/2006 9:28 AM
I have had close ties to hazing since I have been in the military; two incidents on separate tours on the L.A. resulted in suicides. These made submarine news back in 1992 and 2001. Although I did not participate (in these) incidents I am by no means an angel when it comes to nub calibration or welcoming a newly qualified brother to the submariner community. But I knew when to say when.
To the father of the E-8 involved, I can understand your loyalty to your son, hell even Jeffrey Dalmer's parents stood by him, but to attempt to brush off his alleged actions because the kid involved is a shitbag is inexcusable.
I have been in the Navy a long time and I remember getting taped up in the engine room on several occasions because of my smart mouth. I remember getting my dolphins tacked on and it was one of my fondest and proudest experiences as a submariner. But during both experiences there were guys that took it too far. I never got seriously hurt but there was potential- I got hit on the chest on the pier 5 seconds after the COB dismissed us and if it weren’t for the quick reflexes of another sonarman I would have ended up in the drink. Had it not been for the chain across the ladder from Nav Center to Crews Mess I would have fallen down after I got tagged in the chest. So much potential for things to go wrong.
In this instance things went too far. When I was on L.A. those guys hazed that newly appointed brother into the submarine force. He wasn’t a shitbag he just got hazed and the command went on a witch-hunt. He refused to give up names and ended up sucking on the end of a 45mm one night as took the watch.
The shitbag has always been and always will be a part of the military cadre. Looking at the people involved, they knew how to deal with this kid but chose the old school method. They didn’t cover their ass and they got busted. It isn’t about tape or grease guns or posting anymore. The shitbag will do just as this kid did and go crying to anyone who will listen and take anyone with him as his naval career goes down the shitter. The shitbag has no honor or the desire to do his job- his signature means nothing more to him than his own sense of self worth. He is dangerous to those who love the Navy and want people to do their jobs and work as a team.
The only way to safely and effectively get rid of these burdens is to paper trail them. Counsel them every time they are late, every time they fuck up. It is a chore and means that you will have to stay on the boat even longer because of this kid. The Navy just won’t transfer people off the boat because they don’t like it. They never have because it give the appearance that nobody on the boat could get through to this guy to they are shipping their problem off to someone else. Believe me when I tell you a 2-inch stack of papers looks really good at a Captain’s Mast.
It is frustrating when it appears that all lesser means have failed and cannot reasonably be employed. But this is the nature of the beast. If sailors take things into their own hands like the guys on the Columbus, and they aren’t smart about it, then bad things happen. The Navy image won’t tolerate it because there has been so much outcry from the people who pick up the tab for this behavior. So commands are admonished to screw the asses of those involved to send a message. Some guys just don’t get it.
4/19/2006 11:56 AM
I cannot disagree more. I served on the Columbus, in 3 shipyard availabilities, and I was a nuke. I fully agree that the shipyard periods were among the most miserable times in my entinre life. It was awful. The long hours of thankless, endless bullshit never ended. However, what these guys did is inexcusable. I assume from reading the news clips that they are more than likely A-gangers, sorry guys, but if the shoe fits.... Lighting someone on fire is reprehensible. Even more deplorable, pointing a loaded weapon at a shipmate cannot be forgiven.
Nubs that slack during their quals have frustrated everyone. We treated them like crap, but would any respectable submariner jeopardize their life? why not just leave them to burn in an onboard fire? I cannot imagine anything that, even the biggest piece of crap on the boat, can do to deserve this.
I think we all know what happened. the shipyard life is hard. Sailors got frustrated, wanted to blow off some steam, and things went way to far. Now things are spiraling out of control, leading to lies and cover-ups. What happened was not mild joking or taping someone up. It could have been deadly.
Submariners are supposed to be the elite of the Navy. Nukes are the elite of the submarine force. this demands a proffesional work ethic and behavior at all times. Anyone who has ever serves in the engine room an a fast attack boat knows what i am talking about. I think we have all gotten carried away on a spec-op or during a shipyard upkeep, but that doesn't mean it was right.
Being a nuke on a fast attack boat is the smartest decision I have ever made. I have alot of pride in what we did and I have alot of fond memories ( and some not so fond), but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. When it comes to endangering someone else, there should be no tolerance.
The atmosphere on that boat was poisonous 8 years ago, and it sounds like it is now. Everyone who fries for this had it coming, from the captain on down. I wouldn't lose any sleep over watching every goldbelt on board forced into retirement. They create the mood and setting of the boat, and whether you want to admitt it or not, they allowed it to happen.
-cheers
4/19/2006 2:04 PM
First of all, you need to come down to reality. You are reading way too much into the "lighting on fire incident". Apparently his mates lit his helmet on fire on a table, not on him. His coat got charred in another incident, but again not on the person. There are no life threatening charges here, and when my son learned of these two fire incidents he pulled the whole section together and told them to knock it of.
I agree, he probably should have documented it, but he cut the section a huss by letting them know he appreciated their work but not their horseplay.
Now here is some real scoop for you: My son turned over his section in Mid-December to his replacmeent. Some of these incidents being reported happened subsequent to that time under the new Chief. The CO, instead of releasing my son to transfer to Ballston Spa, decided to keep him on board as an extra hand. The new Chief is not being held accountable for anything.
Further, whiel this PO contends this has been going on for over a year, he seems to have never reported it up the chain. When confronted with another similar issue on another ship a few years ago, my son made the sailor go up chain and report it. He would have done the same here, if this PO ahd made such a claim.
In addition, the very PO spent a week on the road with the CO this year for an instructional trip on the refitting, and again he did not say a thing. Or did he, and if he did, why didn't the CO do anything?
4/19/2006 3:23 PM
whattever dude....believe what you want. I am sure your son is telling you the complete truth. I never told my father any lies, even when I was in a whole heap of trouble.
4/20/2006 4:35 PM
Senior Chief's Dad -- I got an E-mail from a reporter for a national news organization that would like to interview you about the story. If you're interested, drop me an E-mail at: joel(dot)bubblehead(at)gmail(dot)com
4/20/2006 6:41 PM
I am a former Columbus sailor, and a shipmate to all of the accused. I will vouch for the Senior Chief. I have stood many hours of watch with him, and I worked with him for over three years. I consider him to be a friend and a mentor. He is a perfect example of what a Navy chief should be.
Of all the accused, Senior Chief Howe is the only one who beyond a doubt was NOT involved. He is one of the best chiefs I have ever worked with. In fact, I worked with him even before he put on khakis. The accused that were under his command were problem children from a long way back. The only reason they didn't get in trouble earlier was because he kept them in line.
The idea that Senior Chief Howe did anything wrong is absurd. To his father: if Sean needs a character witness, you can contact me at capitalistpunk@gmail.com.
4/24/2006 7:19 PM
Hello,
I saw the update about you saying that there was a post on theknot.com from someone claiming to be the cousin. Well to tell you the truth that was my second post about this and my first one was: http://talk.theknot.com/boards/Main_frame.aspx?page=User/MyForums.aspx
It is a board for military brides/wives and I go there for support since my husband is also in the Navy. I was a little upset about the whole thing and needed to vent. Just to let you know that I am a cousin of one of the sailors on the Coulmbia that was being harrassed.
4/24/2006 10:28 PM
For whatever reason I cant get that link to show correctly.
4/24/2006 10:41 PM
Hazing is term that the Navy is trying to rid themselves of. For correct information the MM is a nuke, so please do not dishoner A-gangers just because you think you are better than them. The junior sailors involved are arogant and cocky. No one joins the Navy to fail. No one. If the ETCS actually performed his job and paid attention to what was going on, then maybe this wouldn't have gotten so out of hand. Just maybe.
4/25/2006 6:41 AM
To whoever said, "Nukes are the elite of the submarine force." Idiot. You're the reason there's a fwd-aft rift. Whoever said, "I assume from reading the news clips that they are more than likely A-gangers, sorry guys, but if the shoe fits....," you're an idiot too. You should at least get your facts straight before opening your stupid mouth. You and your "elite" buddy took this horrible incident and used it to stroke your own egos and put others down. It's sad. If you ask me the only person who did anything wrong was the guy who pointed his 9mm at the dirtbag. The rest of this stuff is pretty normal.
4/26/2006 7:54 PM
Sorry sir, but your son failed. If he knew what was happening and did nothing but tell the guys to knock it off, he failed the sailor. If he didn't know anything was going on, he failed the division. I don't know if that failure deserves court martial. We have all failed, many in much worse ways, but he failed. You cannot put this on the DivO, nuke DivOs are the most junior, lost individuals on the boat. As a Senior Chief he had a job to do, a job that few will ever understand, and he did not accomplish that job. I pray for him and all involved. I know I would get fed up with the dead weight sailor, probably before your son or anyone in his division did. But your son knew better, and now he has to do whatever is right for our Navy and the chiefs
4/27/2006 2:19 PM
As a former member of this command I can say that is is not the first time these types of events have occured. While on deployment another senior chief (Swarm) hit a first class in the head with a full paint can.
4/29/2006 3:49 PM
I'm a former Columbus sailor who personally knows most of the men who are being charged. While this entire situation is understandably becoming extremely ugly, I'd just like to point out a few things.
As veterans and citizens, the only slant that we are getting on this entire story is that of the media. While I am sure that Ms. Helm and all of the other reporters covering this story are competent, dedicated, and ethical professionals, the truth is that most (if not all) of them have never served on a submarine and don't know what fast attack life is like. To compound this, the only information that they are getting is from secondhand sources - not the individual sailors themselves. The only people who would truly know what is going on here are the accused sailors and their lawyers - not the media and the general populace.
While this may be pointing out the obvious, I think it's important because I know the accused sailors and there is WAY too much information in the media reports that just does not make sense. I'm sure that once these men have their day in court, things will be viewed differently.
5/01/2006 10:47 AM
If this is the same ET1 Howe that I worked w/ at Balston Spa between '97 and '00, then I hope he is eventually vindicated. I remember him as being the guy who always did things the right way, even when it was the hard way. Nice guy - real nice guy.
Former ET2, Super-SPU
5/01/2006 1:03 PM
I am a former Columbus sailor. Columbus was my 5th command and I was there when it went into the yards. I was also there for the two prior captains. I'm not sure if this is a sign of how things are changing in the Navy, but I have to say that the Columbus was the worst tour I had during my carreer. I saw more sailors go UA and get busted for drugs than I have anywhere I was before. Moral was always low. There was very little unit cohesion and in my opinion, the command was more concerned with time lines, operation and mission than they were about the sailors. I hate to say that I saw something like this coming, but I think everyone on board did.
Just so you do not think I am being all biased about this boat, let me give you some background. I was on a Med cruise where we lost the COB in the first port to a bogus PC incident. We had a QM3 die as we were pulling into La Mod. We later lost a kick ass XO to a bogus PC incident in Isreal.
I also made a Northern run on that same boat with both the trim AND drain pump OOC becuase the CO didn't want to loose the mission. Moral on that boat was 10 times better than what I saw on the Columbus.
I still do not condone what happened in this case. I got two cracked ribs with my dophins, but I felt it was just part of the experience. I know some guys can go too far and those guys need to be weeded out. I think that the best way for that to happen is to have a command that encourages the crew to come forward and report these incidents. If this went on for over a year with no report, that spells trouble for the command.
5/03/2006 5:31 AM
I aploigize for the comments I made about A-gangers....the gentleman who called me out has an excellent point.
5/05/2006 10:28 AM
I have to agree that morale there is definitely low. I agree that it seems like all the upper chain of command only care about their own careers. They've lost 18nukes, 5 coners, plus a CoB and XO since they've been in DMP. A big chunk was from the hazing incident but there's some serious issues that have yet to be addressed. I knew from the day they decided to give nukes a gun that it would turn out this way. Maybe it's that the environment on that specific boat is just unique, really. You'd know if you've been there recently. It's a big mistake to give a nuke a gun. All it takes is one disgruntled nuke w/ a gun to create an accident so severe it would make 3-Mile Island look like a joke. Out of all these losses, they keep getting speeches about how they will press on and meet deadlines. Well someone outside agency needs to sort those guys out because they are still heading in the wrong direction. I don't believe there is a group of individuals responsible. There are very few people on the boat w/ the right attitude and making certain people scapegoats seems like almost a tradition for the Columbus. They need some sort of serious calibration.
5/08/2006 10:58 PM
I'm not sure of the previous poster's background, but there are several points which need to be clarified.
I am a former Columbus sailor who served with several of the accused sailors in this story before the ship went into DMP. The previous poster cites that the ship lost 18 nukes, 5 non-nukes, a COB, and an XO since the ship began its DMP. I reported to the Columbus as a fresh prototype graduate just before its previous SRA availability. For qualifying sailors, shipyard availabilities are hell. In addition to supporting their divisions during the day by doing menial jobs, they try to get what knowledge checkouts they can from men who are constantly running on 1/2 of one nerve for months on end, and they almost inevitably fall behind on practical factor qualifications because the boat's systems are torn apart. Going a step beyond this, they try to help their department conduct infrequently performed evolutions and maintenance for which they have no experience and little background knowledge. And in the case of a DMP, this process goes on for about 2 years. Considering that kind of environment, it is extremely easy for a new sailor to feel worthless, depressed, and dejected.
Another factor that made things hell for us were chronic retention problems. Most sailors that I knew only reenlisted to separate from shore duty, and only a handful looked beyond that to a second sea tour or career. So this means that engineering departments consisting mostly of first-term sailors are expected to learn and perform duties normally performed by experienced senior petty officers to the same level during their first term. Needless to say, this creates one hell of a learning curve and a hell of a lot of stress on junior sailors.
As far as the nuclear accident comment goes, that is practically impossible from a technical standpoint. I also disagree with the gun comments. During my time on board, I saw many nuclear- and non-nuclear-trained shipmates do extremely stupid things both on and off duty, a few of which got them either severely injured or killed. Death doesn't discriminate based on rank or rating.
Lastly, please bear a previous poster's comment in mind - the only information that we are getting about this incident comes from the media. Four of the sailors are going to court-martial next month; let them decide who is guilty and who isn't.
5/09/2006 1:30 PM
I'm just saying that I don't think giving the most overworked and underappreciated workers on the submarine a gun would be a good idea. Nukes never get enough credit for their knowledge. In a HSBY condition, any fully qualified nuke is smart enough to be able initiate a LOCC or +dKC or if he's feeling angry enough a mix of the two; maybe even throw in some flooding into the mix. All it would've taken is one Bullion to do what he said he would do.
5/10/2006 8:08 AM
Awww! Poor nukes are overworked and underappreciated. Why don't we just call them a waaaaambulance?
5/10/2006 6:36 PM
i swear coners and officers are the most useless people in the world.. they couldn't find their own assholes with 2 hands and a map
5/12/2006 8:44 AM
I'm a PNW Trident sailor with some knowledge of the goings-on on the Columbus. The CO got canned yesterday. EDMC and ENG may or may not be next. Two or three JOs are also dusting off their resumes. Word on the street is that the accused have pleaded out to lesser charges and are providing evidence of a much larger problem on that boat. Looks like this may get A LOT uglier before its over. Don't have a lot of hard, solid facts but what's coming out so far looks a lot more severe and widespread than the wild imaginings of one lazy turd. And, for all you fwd/aft malcontents: we all breathe the same recycled farts at test depth, do the same stupid shit to stay alert and awake on the midwatch so we can all make it home safe, and work our asses off with very little acknowledgement or appreciation. Nuke, cone, twidget, flange-head, box-kicker, wire-biter, paper-pusher, rocket-ranger, 'tron jockey, hard-charger and dirtbag. We ALL earned our dolphins and wear them with pride. Don't forget that!
6/14/2006 10:17 PM
Not much of a Pink Poopy suit fan, but KUDO'S to the PNW Trident sailor! Everyone keeps coming on here an spilling their guts about being a former Clownbus sailor and saying how bad it was and is. I also am also a for bus guy and am very interested in the problem that has been going on. If anyone has anything to actually add that has something to do with the this, then put it up. Other than that shut the F*&K Up!!!!!
6/16/2006 12:58 AM
I have heard and read only one side of this Columbus incident. Doesn't anyone want the truth? Why did this sailor not report these incidents for 14 months? Where are the hospital records for the injury the supposed hit in the head with a wrench caused? I don't know about any of you but my head is not that hard. Why would the alleged victim eat Thanksgiving Dinner and have a real good time with the guys that were supposedly doing this to him?
6/22/2006 7:04 PM
I was involved in the first trial of this group, which finished up on 7 JUL and I'd like to remain anonymous. It was very apparent that through the course of the trial that the climate aboard the Columbus was way out of hand. Members of the crew at all levels were engaged in "nut-checking", wrestling, and gross unprofessionalism. Witnesses in the trial collaborated that all members across the boat, including Officers and Chiefs were engaged in this behavior. The jury laid the bulk of the culpability squarely on the shoulders of the Chief's mess and officers for the erosion of good order and dicipline. It's apparent that this culture didn't appear overnight. It escalated slowly over a long period of time, and for those who had been aboard the longest, they noticed it the least. ETCS Howe was aboard during the entire period of the incident. It was clear that he witnessed this behavior on a regular basis. This is obviously not his first command and frankly, I don't understand why his charges were dropped. Worse yet, a new Chief reported aboard around November, they completed their turnover on the first of the year and between Jan 1st and March 13th, that Chief didn't do anything either! For the bluejackets, this was their first command and so the abusive culture aboard the Columbus was percieved as "normal". This was a mitigating factor in the jury's sentence.
This is definately an eye opener to what can happen when Chief's fail to have the backbone to stand up for what's right, even if it's unpopular. Also, it goes to show you how it's important to have an effective training program to ensure that the command's culture stays in line with the Navy's culture!
7/08/2006 12:36 AM
Having also stood more than a few hours of watch with ETSC Howe, I've got to fall into the camp that maybe this should not serve as an eye opener, or merely an example. The guy DID have that backbone to stop me from passing out what I thought was appropriate "training" at the time. It didn't take long for him to show me that I was wrong a going where I didn't belong. I've seen him break up a fight, save a marriage and family, unswervingly back up his men, and it appears that several others who also know him have stumbled onto this site to show support. On the other hand, no one who knows him, or claim to know him have chosen to chuck a stone. It's over, the court martial and his career are a done deal. To the man involved with the trial (I haven't had this opportunity, and I've wanted it), I've got two questions. I'm asking just because I don't know, not because I think you don't, and really have not gotten a satisfying answer.
-In none of these courts martial was a submariner in the jury/board. Why not?
-Why were the charges specifying his name filed on a date prior to the investigation commencing?
These aren't meant to be hostile, but were actually pointed out in one of the press sources, but public record shows that facts to be true. There isn't any explanation why that may be.
Here, I'm off the question, and responding to the authors opinion. My experience with Navy courts (never on the business end, thank God)has indicated to me that there is often a quick trigger finger, but more often than not, it hits the mark dead-on. But not always. I doubt even the big-wigs thought they had hit this time, given the fact that charges were dropped. I think more distressing is the attempt to use this as a training tool, and implying that dropping the charges against a man to whom, apparently, the system in place exonerated, was somehow bad, because the next thing mentioned was "even worse." Perhaps a better lesson than the need to instill backbone into the goat locker, is how a hair-trigger in placing charges on the wrong people can waste the resources of the government in years of training, experience, not to mention the professional commitment and trust of a single man. I'm posting anonymous but, but I served with Sean Howe as EM2(SS) Julius Crocker. I'll back him up as a stand-up sailor, and stand-up man against anyone anonymously involed in the trial who wishes to manipulate an abortion of justice into a sermon about a need to change the culture of the Navy. The Navy admitted it's botch, in an inadaqute, but unfortunately it's maximum capacity. It seems that truely the previous blogger's opinion that the problem with the Navy can be found in it's sailors matches my own opinion. I just think that he/she might not be looking in the right place. That's why the Navy has a public affairs organization, with a many public affairs officers NAMED. That way, other people involved in the system at some level, who are unsatisfied with a result exploit it to pontificate whatever they feel is the root of all evil. Don't get me wrong, I think you've got every right in the world to do just that. But, it's my opinion that right is still there because men like Sean Howe have made sure of it.
9/19/2006 7:58 PM
Now that the Columbus is out of the "lime light" lets look how things have changed. Hmmm We have even less people to do the same job, no backup and they are going to be in 12 hour a day shift work for a month straight. So if you work 16 hours a day with no days, off short handed and pressured to get the submarine out of the ship yard, I don't care how the situation has been correct the stress is going to get to those men. How many men in the last year have gone "SAD" the last year? I am sure it is more then you think!
10/09/2006 2:17 PM
What have your very reliable sources said? Honestly? Think hard if you have ever done something to another person, that if seen from an outside perspective would seem Completely wrong? But you and your friends knew better? ever been in a wrestling match and lost? were you hazed? ever won? and someone came in while you were winning? and it looked like you were needlessly beating another human being?
Were you hazing then?
Were you a victim of hazing?
did any of your sources come from the engineroom of the USS Columbus? Then you dont know anything.
I was there, i have been in for only a few years, but the PO in question was treated no differently than any of the sailors that i have known. Are we all victims of hazing?
Or is it more likely that there is a "Locker-room" mentality because there are a bunch of 19-25 year olds trying to do anything to forget another long, painful day of waiting for no sense of accomplishment?
Any person that applies a navy training video to real life is destined to become a failure. and any person that believes another story from a person who was not involved... is lacking in reasoning ability.
If the investigators from NCIS, and the journalists from "Navy Times" could not get it right, is it reasonable to believe that anyone not directly involved can apply reasoning to this story?
I have visited many submarines on the shipyard in my 2.5 years of Shipyard, and each time people talked to me they had some "Great source" that told them an entirely wrong story.
I knew Senior Howe, and though we never really got along, upon meeting him you would immediately feel different about this entire issue.
11/24/2006 7:20 PM
I am a hazing victim. Three Navy chiefs decided they would attempt to drown me. I only spent three days in the hospital, however I am still living my nightmare and trauma. They ONLY received a letter of reprimand for their particpation in the HAZING incident. In my opinion, SHAME on the MCPON and NCIS! Bottom line...Hazing in any form is dangerous and SHOULD NOT be allowed even by good little boys of former twenty-year Marine First Sergeants. Own up to responsibility...should be a basic lesson a father can teach a son. Have a fine Navy day!
1/11/2007 8:19 AM
the sailors who were victims, do they have a case to prosecute the others on the grounds of personal injury? not only should the perpetrators go to prison they should be punished financially for causing these terrible acts too!
2/26/2008 3:43 AM
It has been a long time since I was on the Columbus. I can tell you that when I saw the Columbus Hazing Incident headline on the front page of the Navy Times it didn't surprise me at all. The climate on board the Columbus when I left was far from professional and even more so back aft. I had my life threatened on multiple occasions by certain members of the crew. Reporting such things can be a risky business on a submarine since you basically have to live with these guys for lengthy periods of time. The leadership has always been very lenient regarding such behavior simply because there are so few people willing to serve on a submarine. It is difficult to replace people, so you try to deal with it and move on. This is apparent in the sentencing of the crew members who took part in the incident. In some instances they simply take the victim away and move him to another command. Throwing away nuclear trained crewmen is very expensive. Is this just? Probably not. Submariners can get away with a great more than the average sailor. This is why they didn't want submariners serving on the jury. Their tainted view of "normal" behavior could sway the verdict in favor of the defendants. Some people may want to throw them in the brig. I say send them back out to sea! Serving time on a submarine underway is pretty much like serving time in prison. So these outcast of society have a place in this world underwater far away from the rest of us.
7/08/2009 12:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home