Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Remember, "Buddy" Is Only Half A Word

Interesting story in Navy Times about an amphib CO and XO getting fired. The CO was fired for fraternization, but it looks like SURFLANT raised the bar on what they expect the XO to do. Excerpts:
The commanding officer of the dock landing ship Fort McHenry was fired Thursday for fraternizing with a sailor on his ship, according to a Navy statement.
The executive officer also was fired for knowing about the relationship and not taking action, the statement said.
This is interesting. I can see this if the XO actively lies to investigators, but it's looking like the Navy is now expecting XOs to report on the CO up the chain of command. This is especially interesting because it appears that the amphib had been deployed since the CO took command, and just got back from deployment on Tuesday. Did they expect him to drop the dime on the CO in the middle of the deployment?

I'm not really sure what I think about this. Obviously, the XO's responsibility is more to the ship and the Navy than it is to the CO personally, but what other faults do they expect the XO to start reporting on? What if the CO is a screamer? Or just a general jerk? I think Big Navy needs to tread carefully into this water.

What do you think? And how far down the chain of command do you think this should go?

70 Comments:

Anonymous squidboy said...

Is it a cheap shot to say that this is less likely to happen with male only crews?

12/12/2009 9:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not in the least bit.

12/12/2009 9:29 AM

 
Anonymous laughter in manslaughter said...

It's hard to say because realistically Fraternization is such a broad charge. Was he banging a newly reported Yeoman in his state room? Or did he just go and have too much fun with the jr. enlisted at the bars inport? Overall though, the XO's screwed if its one of those many "gray areas" because maybe he talked to the CO on his own, but according to big navy that's not enough. Who knows though, makes me glad to be a lowly EM2

12/12/2009 9:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What should one make of the fact that the Strike Group Commander who fired the CO is female?

12/12/2009 9:48 AM

 
Blogger Bill Howell said...

As an XO who "dropped a dime" on his CO, I can tell you that this is always going to be a tough call. From my perspective, your job as XO is to do your best to make your CO (and therefore the command), successful. If the CO is breaking the rules (whatever the rules in question are; see the discussion about nuke chem logs a few weeks ago) and you as XO are aware of it (and you damn well should be if you're a good XO) then you've got a couple of decisions to make.
1. To you agree with the CO, i.e. you think the rule in question is BS and you'd do the same in his place. If that's the case, then you do nothing. If the matter comes to light, you can tell the Powers That Be that you too think the rule was BS and they can fire you both.
2. You think the rule in question is right and the CO is wrong. Now you've got to do something. We all know the drill. You start with trying to talk to the Captain privately, do whatever you can to fix the matter in house. If that doesn't work, now it's really gut check time. If you have the courage of your convictions, you do what must be done. In my case, it was a letter (via the chain of command) addressed to the Chief of Naval Personnel. The letter never made it past the Group, as the admiral decided to relieve my CO for cause.
Doing something like that is not a great career move, but if the situation warrants it, that's what your supposed to do as XO. It's one of the reasons you're there. If you don't and things blow up, well, you've got no one to blame but yourself, right?
As for the timing, on a sub you sorta have to wait until you come into port. Given the connectivity of a skimmer, especially a big one like an amphib that is probably getting regular mail runs, I can see the Powers That Be expecting the XO not to use deployment as an excuse for delay.
Just my two cents...

12/12/2009 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stopyra’s firing marks the 14th commanding officer relived [sic] this year, the most since 2003, when Navy leaders fired 26 skippers."

So Stopyra's XO was also weak? How did each make it to CO and/or XO? How many of those 40 (26 +14)relieved skippers also been USNA grads?

Those privileged to know may wish to reflect on current selection criteria in light of any undue influences.

A taxpayer

12/12/2009 1:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

XO narcs on CO; M-Div chief rats out CMC; cook tells on SK; YN writes it all u. Sounds like a great start to more back stabbing, loss of trust, morale-busting life haze gray and underway.

I can't wait to see what happens when a ship full of tattle-tales can't get underway b/c they ratted each other out and there was a massive fight.

12/12/2009 2:26 PM

 
Blogger DDM said...

Once had a CO who was tapping the wife of a shipyard worker. Turns out a junior A-ganger was tapping her as well. The A-ganger caught the CO and reported to the COC via LPO/EDMC/COB/XO. A week later we got a new CO. XO never got selected for command. Hmmmm.

12/12/2009 2:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Totally off-topic, but I'm watching the Navy-Army game and as USNA finally starts to play well, I notice that the "Global Force for Good" commercial has been re-edited to add a submarine. Wonder if CHINFO got a NR 4-star phone call?

12/12/2009 2:59 PM

 
Blogger Jack said...

That A-ganger certainly could have used his leverage in a way more beneficial to himself...unless of course his CO was a total flamer and then he did the crew a big favor.

12/12/2009 3:03 PM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

And all this in the wake of the James E. Williams (DDG-95) firings...7 (CO, CMC, etc) at the moment with another 9 waiting in the wings. This one smells like the XO blew the whistle on the whole thing. He kept his job, albeit on another ship...which makes perfect sense under the current XO-CO Fleet-Up policy.

12/12/2009 3:22 PM

 
Blogger Squidward said...

If the CO is nailing a junior enlisted sailor OR the wife of one of his people, the XO must drop the hammer. There's no way that this was "Or did he just go and have too much fun with the jr. enlisted at the bars inport?" - not a chance.

There's certain stuff that will absolutely rip a team apart. The CO with a malfunctioning zipper is one of them, especially once word gets out. The CO is the buddy-fucker here - he put the XO in an impossible position, now his career is probably over, too.

12/12/2009 4:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the female Electric Boat worker banging a CO and a sailor on the same boat - Truth is that the CO was married (not to the EB ho though), but EB was good enough for him to threaten his sailor to keep his hands off of her.

I'd guess that he didn't know her "Spread" through the crew, and each sailor wanted to keep his piece, so they threw him overboard...

Morale is - don't screw your crew (figuratively or literaly). If you're doing the dance, be prepared to be cut in on.

Ask CDR Bawden (USN Ret). Got him busted from CSS-17 to be retired as a CDR in disgrace.

12/12/2009 4:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My old CO always had his zipper down. He was divorced a couple times and whenever we pulled into port he would go on the rampage at the titty bars. In this case he actually got to know the crew a little better and I definitely think this was a one in a million case of where fraternization worked.

12/12/2009 6:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a distinct difference between hang'in with the crew and screw'in the crew.

The first gets a knowing look in the pway, the latter gets the early promote and NAM....which is the UCMJ issue.

12/12/2009 6:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last time I checked, the UCMJ still applies to the CO also!

If the XO doesn't have the situational awareness to know that the CO is "Counseling", "Working Out with", "Getting a Wake Up", etc behind closed doors with a female sailor (male also I guess for those types...) probably should be fired.

Yes, probably much less likely to happen with a male only crew, but not a good reason for gender separation.

It takes leadership and maturity. There are still 30-50 year old guys that still think they are Frat Fags that can do no wrong regarding sexual relations in the Naval workplace. See recent Navy Times articles on USS WILLIAMS and MCPON thoughts on CPO leadership ....

12/12/2009 9:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if the CO is committing adultery but not with someone directly related to the crew?

The crew knows and jokes about it.

He is paranoid and threatens to retaliate if anyone tells.

Tough situation for the XO. You are the XO ... you can't win either way ... you privately tell the CO to wave off or be more discrete. He just gets more paranoid and continues.

What do you do?

12/12/2009 9:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do the right thing and fire the fucker that's what you do. You the XO might have a better chance of your career not getting blown to bits if you atleast do the right thing. Plus the rest of the crew will know if the CO is banging someone. What does that do to crew's moral? Fix it XO! now!

12/12/2009 10:53 PM

 
Anonymous Chesty McFirstie said...

Back in the day on the USTAFISH we were in the PI for fifty seven days.
Long story behind the "57" anyhow.

So far as I know, the entire crew fucked every woman they could get their hands on. One of my guys caught the clap four times with the same woman.

Later on, word came down from on high that whoring around by senior personnel would be akin to conduct unbecoming. Then came the drinking police, NDSAP, drydock, alcohol rehab. No more getting off the boat at noon Friday with the wardroom and relaxing at the bar in Lockwood Hall.

I guess you had to be there.

12/12/2009 11:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This would also be awkward if it was aboard one if the "fleet up" ships where the tattling XO becomes the new CO. Uneasy is the head that wears the crown. Your own people may be looking to usurp you.

12/13/2009 6:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, but it's difficult to be usurped if you're not VIOLATING THE UCMJ!

12/13/2009 6:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HONOR..COURAGE..COMMITMENT..I don't think there is much else to say.

12/13/2009 9:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (12/12/2009 6:09 PM)

"My old CO always had his zipper down. He was divorced a couple times and whenever we pulled into port..."

Please, what type vessel was it, and how long ago was that? Viet era was a whole other story.

Chesty McFirstie, your tale sounds older, too.

Frank Bella

12/13/2009 10:20 AM

 
Anonymous SJV said...

Any of these guys go by the name..."Tiger"?

12/13/2009 2:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't buy that the surface standard of XO fleeting up to CO means XOs will be more or less likely to drop a dime on the CO. Even if he does get the CO fired, there's nothing that guarantees he takes command. He is the programmed relief at the CO's PRD - not any time the CO gets fired. The boss will still make a logical decision - move the XO up now? Bring in a served CO? Bring in a new CO and keep the XO? Bring in a new CO and move the XO to another ship as XO? or CO? Smart Commodores can figure it out.

12/13/2009 2:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that the Navy is, all of a sudden, cracking down on fraternization issues immediately prior to the integration of the submarine fleet.

12/13/2009 3:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was my first thought. But then, they've always frowned on this sort of thing..... My second GUESS is that the CO was in "Tiger" mode, Not thinking with the right head. So other head rolls. Feel bad for XO, not a good spot to be in. Have to be fast on your feet, so's not
get cut off at the knees. As they say in Paris, Texas: "C'est la goddam vis."

12/13/2009 4:32 PM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

The Navy is not 'cracking down' so much as dealing with what comes up. Frat is just like any other crime, no need to go looking for it.

I recall another story where the CO brought a woman back to his stateroom, then the XO saw her leave in the morning. XO asked the CO to self report, then reported him. CO gone, XO survived. As for XOs 'dropping dime' to fleet up...never happen. Unless it is CO conduct the XO stands to lose just as much. If the CO wasn't off the res there wouldn't be anything to worry about.

It does, however, make you wonder about the XO responsibility for command climate firings.

As for USNA percentages...stick in your ear. ROTC/NUPOC are no better or worse.

12/13/2009 4:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As for USNA percentages...stick in your ear. ROTC/NUPOC are no better or worse."

I gather you would be willing to stake your reputation on that inflammatory assurance? Do not think so.

12/13/2009 4:52 PM

 
Blogger Mark said...

@ anon 4:52 - I could never be accused of fondness for khakis, but for cryin out loud - what's your friggin problem?

12/13/2009 9:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gents, it's real fucking simple. The CO has YOUR career in his hands. Now, if he's too busy counciling/mentoring (fucking) a female JO on a habitual basis, then it's time to drop a dime on his ass. He made it to CO, yet my captain has decided to find a little JO to eat, spank and fuck at his convenience. I realize we all have a similar fantasy of having a cute little piece of ass at the ready. But, in the real world it doesn't work that way.

If he's fucking around, and you have positive confirmation, then drop the damn dime. XO, you have no choice. Big Navy is looking at you too. So don't turn a trained eye away from the situation. You WILL have to address it in one way or another. Stay in front of this whole thing and don't let someone else screw up your career.

Any lesser individual will call you a tattle tale. But hey, are you going to let someone else drag you down with him as both of your careers are sunk? He fucked a hot female JO, and you knew about it. You knew there was a fair chance of said individuals getting caught, yet YOU XO decided to try and sweep it under the wardroom rug.

XO, that makes you just as guilty. Are you really going to allow someone elses horny dick to completely fuck up your own career??? XO, don't let that happen. Do your job accordingly. Yeah, it's gonna suck, but you have to follow through. If you don't then put in for a permanent tour to CIVLANT.

12/13/2009 11:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy was XO on my last ship. I didn't like him but I have to admit I was surprised to see him relieved for this reason. For being a screamer or an asshole-yes. But not for fucking the help.

-skimmer

12/13/2009 11:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

"what's your friggin problem?"

Pure logic:

When both the culpable CO and XO are USNA grads the two may be tempted to adopt the allegiance of college fraternity brothers, where one feels compelled not to squeal on another despite honor codes or navy regs (as in the recent Fort McHenry case).

While such lapses could happen when a CO and XO were both in the same fraternity at any other college, USNA grads comprise a rather unique fraternity, and chances of a CO and XO on one ship being USNA grads is considerably more probable, we will agree, than being ROTC grads from the same college, or brothers from another fraternity.

Removing the potential would be as simple as not pairing certain COs and XOs on the same ship. It may also be in the Navy's best interest to check even without admitting doing so, however.

Just a constructive solution to a few of the more egregious lapses.

Frank Bella

12/14/2009 10:18 AM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

Methinks the only contribution I can lend to this line of "Logic" is a very pronounced rolling of the eyes.

12/14/2009 10:34 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ret Anav,

What part of human tendencies do you feel Bell's logic got wrong?

If you have no answer, feel free to roll your eyes again.

12/14/2009 11:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A general question- if both are either O or E, single, and not in each other's chain, is it still a UCMJ violation?

-3383

12/14/2009 12:10 PM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

As a grad of USNA let me tell you there is no way in hell I would cover for a 'frat brother.' Nor do I know anyone, except football players and AV8Rs, that would do so.

For my $.02, close the place down.

That said, as for whether or not one commissioning source is better...define better and then do your math. You won't find data saying USNA is worse.

12/14/2009 12:11 PM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

3383, the answer to your question is yes. Techically, any relationship between persons of different rank could be seen as 'prejudicial to good order and discipline.'

The services enforce this very differently. USMC essentially says if you are not the same rank, watch out. USN says Officer/CPO with enlisted is out. Any supervisor/ subordinate is bad. USAF really does not care unless they have their nose rubbed in it.

I have met USN E7/O4 couples...makes you wonder how that happened without breaking the rules. There is NO ONE on a ship that the CO or XO could have a relationship with and not be grossly violating the frat rules. I suppose DHs could date each other, as could CPOs, if you really wanted to bring that to the work place.

12/14/2009 12:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Srvd_SSN_CO,

The vast majority of USNA grads are honorable officers who, like yourself must have had better than average records to have graduated.

The problem with people in general is that all of us make mistakes about 2% of the time, even unusual without stress or temptation.

I have suggested a relatively easy solution to eliminate one situation that may promote fraternization in a few individuals. It would apply only when pairing prospective XOs, whether ROTC/NUPOC or USNA within a particular CO's command.

The model set for JOs and chiefs must be stellar and firm to remind them to set their own, right? Such trite cliches are never as trivial to everyone as we would like them to always seem.

Frank B.

12/14/2009 2:00 PM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

anon @11:49: What part of human tendencies do you feel Bell's logic got wrong?

Human tendancies? Well, on THAT aspect, he is probably spot-on, but I would be VERY careful painting with such a broad brush. Now lets look at practicality. By his logic, a CO SELBD (or XO, for that matter) now has to consider old-school-ties? Gimmie a break! The implication here is that two brothers from the same fraternity would place the fraternity brotherhood over Doing What's Right. While that may be true, I'll wager to say the instances of such cases are few and far between. Obviously, I'm not an 1110 or 1120, but I think Frank's implications and "Logic" are somewhat misguided.

12/14/2009 2:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing you may not be considering - Frank's recommendation is much more appropriate for surface ships than subs, because their fleet-up scheme results in the CO and XO being separated only by two years or so in age. On a sub, the post-XO shore tour results in about a 4 to 5 year gap. This means that if both CO and XO on a surface ship are from USNA, there is a high probability they knew each other. Much less so on a sub.

That said, I still don't think it's worth inserting into the detailing process (which is where it would be, not on a selection board).

12/14/2009 3:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trusting detailers to prevent Fraternization is a really tall order.

Detailers can't even dress themselves without help, and generally screw up anything they touch!

Good luck on that plan guys!

12/14/2009 4:04 PM

 
Anonymous Not Convinced said...

For the USNA bashers out there - a couple of observations from a serving USNA grad:

1. Fraternization at USNA is rampant, and only punished when a couple gets caught in the act on campus. Midshipmen learn that it's okay if you don't get caught.

2. Serious lack of judgement to do #1 above, and worse, a tripwire for a Lazy Midshipman. Too lazy to beat off, so he shags a fat ugly female. That lack of work ethic will carry him far enough for his NJP proceedings. Unless it's stopped at the source, it will continue unchecked.

3. Thinking that USNA grads would cover for each other, when one is clearly violating the UCMJ is a huge stretch. Maybe someone who was a really good friend or classmate, but that person will never be in a CO/XO relationship due to the year group differences. Personally, there are some USNA grads that I wouldn't hire to mow my lawn, much less ruin my career for!

12/14/2009 4:13 PM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

I understood the intent of the recommendation just fine....it's the logic behind it that I think is crap. Age ain't got nuthin to do with it. School ain't got nuthin to do with it. Designator ain't got nuthin to do with it. It's about integrity...either ya got it or ya don't. Maybe you carry it to your new command by the truckload.....Maybe one didn't have much of it and hid that fact very well. Either way, it's a test of integrity and not about who knows what secret handshake.

12/14/2009 4:20 PM

 
Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

Frat is not "rampant" at USNA--at least not any more so than in any ROTC unit. No one is supposed to date 4th class MIDN, at least when I was there. As far as upper class, that is non-4th class, it was perfectly ok provided they were not in your CoC. Even then, the system could accommodate. If you wanted to date someone in your CoC, or if it happened, you could be transferred out.

This is fundamentally different than the fleet, since USNA is still college!

I could name a number of sub COs that have been fired in recent memory, and a disproportionate number are NOT USNA grads. I still don't believe that matters.

12/14/2009 5:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Too lazy to beat off, so he shags a fat ugly female"

First, it is ok to say women, girl, chick, bimbo, etc. when you are not in uniform. Pergra.

Second, fat chicks need love too so don't break their rice bowl.

Last, this type of stuff has been going on forever. CO's are men, first and foremost. It used to be ok to have a woman in every port, a wife at home and the Navy still performed the mission.

12/14/2009 6:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WESTPAC: Where we leave our wives and kids at home and go to see our loved ones!!

panamared

12/14/2009 6:40 PM

 
Blogger Squidward said...

{I have met USN E7/O4 couples...makes you wonder how that happened without breaking the rules.}

Two easy ways - one is a reservist plus active duty relationship. For another example - I work with a guy who married a fellow student in power school then later went ECP. Officer/enlisted relationship - just add water.

I can't imagine too many people in these situations remain on active duty.

As far as Frank B - dude, you need to relax. I haven't seen that sort of blind loyalty based on commissioning source.

12/14/2009 8:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am really surprised to see of all this talk about officers "covering" for each other. With these two guys, they are skimmers. I always heard that the swords on that warfare pin were for stabbing your shipmate in the back...far from covering for anyone up to know good.

At least I am glad I wear fish...that way when you get called out for doing something wrong, you'll see it coming straight at you. No sudden sharp pains in the back. More like a well-deserved, swift kick to the nuts. (Well, at least it used to be that way...and I hope it never goes to that.)

12/15/2009 4:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And after looking at the post I just posted, let me save you guys the trouble...I'll kick myself for poor grammar.

Ok, I need to go burn a pot fast.

12/15/2009 4:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Relax Prevot, most COB's are fired (twice) nearly everyday, not.

N6 suffered for your incompetence. Rob Melton covered your drunkenness and racial fraternization. Now at last, you can finally act the same fool-ass as your SR black Sailors you so loved and protected.

12/15/2009 8:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" ...all this talk about officers "covering" for each other ..."

Well that line makes me think of Tailhook where no doubt officerrs "did" cover for each other. So I would have to agree that in the end it is a queston of integrity, nothing else.

12/15/2009 11:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So a married CO of a sub could get fired for having an affair with another woman (non-USN)? Seriously? Would the XO (or whoever) need to know that there was an actual affair? or is "hanging out" with another woman enough? Do other people on the sub (the COB, or whatever) have a responsibility to tell on the CO too?

12/15/2009 3:26 PM

 
Blogger SJV said...

The XO and every other officer onboard who knew of the relationship should be ashamed of themselves. This is about power relationships and what value you attach to women. "I can see this if the XO actively lies to investigators"....?????

This isn't too far from:

"Would it be okay if the gal was passed out? Yea, she was drunk and deserved it."

It surprises me that you put this up.

It's one thing for the CO to run around in port with various "girls of every port". For the CO to be banging a member of his crew underway is something that absolutely shouldn't be tolerated. If the XO knows the CO is in a personal situation at home, and/or if the female in the relationship is obviously self serving, then some guidance would be approprate. "CO, you've got to stop this, and if you don't I've got to report it". Otherwise he gets hit with both barrels.

This ain't college.

12/15/2009 3:41 PM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12/15/2009 4:33 PM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

It's one thing for the CO to run around in port with various "girls of every port".

Uh...just a thought here, but this line would read a little better if preceded with: "For an unmarried CO...". Otherwise, as alluded to earlier, the "Conduct Unbecoming" can of worms just got kicked over.

12/15/2009 4:35 PM

 
Blogger SJV said...

I don't think it's conduct unbecoming, to the extent that the XO would need to report it. To me it's quite different for a CO to knock boots with some gal on a port call than with a crewmember.

I just think this circumstance is a pretty poor one to use to question what things/CO faults the XO and other officers should report to the COC. I don't know what it says about our officers when a fairly religious former officer questions if such behavior should be reported by an XO.

To me, it shows a lack of RESPECT for the woman or women involved. Don't know if it's reality or not, but it did surprise me that BH framed it the way he did.

12/15/2009 5:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Recently at CO leadership school in Newport RI, the Navy Inspector General, VADM Winns, stated that his office does not chase down any allegations of infidelity outside the chain of command, unless they are .."Prejudicial to good order and discipline.."

That means that a disgruntled shipmate who tries to drop a dime on his CPO, Div-O, XO, CO, etc. with a convenient cell phone picture of said shipmate talking, having dinner with...a chick or dude, will not be given a second thought.

On the other hand, if the relationship is between shipmates (or with one of the wives / or hubbys, to give fair play to our Women Officers and Crew), Stand The Fuck By!!! Same thing for superiors trying for the same piece of ass as a subordinate and threaten retalation.

NCIS will hunt down all the details, which most guilty folks are plain too dumb to realize...Thinking with the wrong head. Just ask tiger woods - notice the lack of respect with no caps for him....

It ain't rocket science guys and gals, it's just plain integrity and do'in the right thing. Don't do it, and if you're the XO - you're not stabbing the CO by turning him / her in...They are stabbing themselves.

12/15/2009 5:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 0804 15 Dec 09 said

"Relax Prevot, most COB's are fired (twice) nearly everyday, not."

Is this the same Prevot that was fired for having sex with Thai boys on West Pac as COB on CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTY, then managed to screw HARTFORD as a second tour COB(and a few DALLAS wives too..)

What a fuk'in disgrace for the Master Chief Mofia. And prevot is still in uniform with cmdcm and 2 stars.

MCPON talk's about Chief's Mess lack of personal standards - How about holding your guilty bastards accountable before they can CAUSE a class A mishap on their second COB tour.

Hope I don't see any retirement ceremony messages for prevot. Guam and Groton waterfront will lineup with rotten eggs for this slug who should retire as an E-1.

12/15/2009 5:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As of the middle of April 2009, Prevot was still ETCM. I find it hard to believe that he would have picked up CMDCM after getting DFC'd. But two stars, yeah...

12/15/2009 7:30 PM

 
Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Ok, so you fall to temptation and risk full behavior, there should be a path for self disclosure and some kind of penitence or atonement...where the officer can demonstrate he had a huge change of heart and he should be able to carry on with his career.

Is there a escape path?

12/15/2009 7:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh thank God! I was starting to wonder if Mikey was hit by a bus...

12/15/2009 8:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is this the same Prevot that was fired for having sex with Thai boys on West Pac as COB on CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTY, then managed to screw HARTFORD as a second tour COB(and a few DALLAS wives too..)"


I want to party with this guy!!

Oh, sorry. I meant Honor, Courage and Commitment...and I want to paint orphanages in Subic Bay...and where is the nearest gym?

12/15/2009 8:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey,

"Is there a escape path?"

Were you off in the cloke room jackin off when the 3rd grade grammer teacher was talking about when to use an "a" and when to use an "an"?

If you're not jackin off now, pay attention. In almost all cases use "an" when the next word in the sentence begins with a vowel (a,e,i,o,u), and use an "a" when the next word in the sentence begins with a non vowel.

If you're still not sure, read the sentence aloud, Is there a escape path just doesn't sound right. (Is there an escape path sounds much better.)

Now go back to the cloak room and thump it some more you moron.

12/16/2009 1:36 PM

 
Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Hey Todd

12/16/2009 2:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prevot is still on active duty with years to go until he hits 30 -as a CMDCM he got a free pass on the non-continuation board.
Whoopsie.

12/16/2009 7:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction, as a COB asset he didn't get looked at - he isn't a CMDCM...

12/16/2009 7:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always heard that the swords on that warfare pin were for stabbing your shipmate in the back.

As a former SWO, I have to admit that there was a fair amount of truth in that crack.

12/18/2009 11:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The DFC'd CO was forced to retire, why not E-1 (sel) prevot?

Maybe the MCPON will hire him into his front office as the poster child of "How to be an ASSHAT"

Naw, the mafia is protecting him....so he can mentor our sailors (and their wives).

Any Master Chiefs out there on active duty have a spine left?

12/21/2009 6:36 PM

 
Anonymous wifey said...

Anon 636PM:

Wow, you're posting number "69". fat bastard prevot tried that with me while my hubby was at sea. He was too drunk, as usual, and limp.

No penetration ('cause he couldn't), so no foul (except for his smell).

Wifey

12/21/2009 6:42 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home