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.)

Friday, September 17, 2010

The Second Shoe Drops

The second firing of a Bangor-area CO occurred today, when the Commanding Officer of USS Ohio (SSGN 726)(Blue) was fired for "inappropriate personal behavior". Excerpts:
Capt. Ronald Gero was relieved by Rear Adm. James Caldwell, commander of Submarine Group Nine, because Caldwell lost confidence in Gero’s ability to command.
The relief occurred after an investigation into allegations of inappropriate personal behavior that eroded good order and discipline, the Navy said.
Gero, who took command of the submarine in November 2008, has been temporarily assigned to administrative duties on the staff of Submarine Group Nine...
...Gero’s profile on LinkedIn.com states that he was the ninth commanding officer of the USS Buffalo, from July 2002 to May 2005. He was the executive officer of the USS Narwhal, and served on the USS Nebraska Gold Crew and the USS Houston.
Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/17/second-bangor-commander-relieved-week/#ixzz0zqm8yG5h
A Navy Times story of this firing (and others) can be found here. At this rate, I'm almost looking back with fondness towards the old-fashioned firing for a failed TRE or ORSE or something rather than these "inappropriate personal behavior" RFCs, although I'm sure this type of CO early relief is a lot easier on the crew.

116 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Soooooo, was TTF pokin' Ohio or was Ohio pokin' TTF? Anyhoo . . .

9/17/2010 10:26 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Solms (Colorado) and Gero (Catholic U.) were two more, non-USNA COs to be fired. Sure, they committed the infractions with which they had been charged. Were the infractions so grievous that reductions in rank are fitting?

The decks are being cleared to facilitate women's entry into the all-male submarine force.

Are behavioral standards actually being maintained, or is political correctness being hardwired? The pace of firings will not only chill crew behavior, it will chill frank and open discussions of women's performance issues by those in command.

Can we guess the pedigrees of Solm's and Gero's eventual relacements? USNA grads without a doubt.

Some will scoff that this is all happenstance. Go ahead, but time will certainly tell. Male submarine officers in nuc school were asked to switch to SWO.

Please, tell us why if there was really a shortage of them?

9/17/2010 11:10 PM

 
Blogger Curt said...

"...not only chill crew behavior,,,"

I don't think so. The 'crew' will be just fine, regardless of who is in the CO's stateroom.

9/18/2010 2:54 AM

 
Anonymous T said...

When were they asked to switch to nuke swo? I would've done that if given the chance :-)

9/18/2010 3:45 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GODDAMMIT MURRAY!

9/18/2010 7:19 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the Major Commanders in Bangor need to keep their cocks inside their own wives instead of using it to poke other people's wives. Way to set the example guys!

9/18/2010 7:31 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

T @ 3:45 AM

"When were they asked to switch to nuke swo?"see link to NUPOC (Monday, May 17, 2010)Too late for you?

9/18/2010 7:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The USNA comments are BS, you can take off your tin hat now, the mind control ray has been secured.

The submarine force leadership has many other (and more important) things to worry about than who is banging who (or whom, I can never get that right)

We are supposed to be warriors, and anyone who truly studies Naval history knows the John Paul Jones never said that quote about officers being gentleman. He was a huge womanizer.

I am not saying adultery is a good thing, but it needs to be lower on the list of things we give a crap about, how about combat readiness, prevention of collisions and groundings, and good old fashioned submarine driving ( which we suck at now).

9/18/2010 7:57 AM

 
Blogger ETCS(SS/SW) said...

I am simply at a loss to express how I feel about what is happening to our navy. I want to say more but need to process my thoughts further. John

9/18/2010 8:07 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

"The USNA comments are BS, you can take off your tin hat now, the mind control ray has been secured."

Got any facts to back that opinion up, Anon?

Read some actual facts before cozying up to an opinion I, too, would prefer, were it no so suspect.

9/18/2010 8:19 AM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

Well worth repeating:

These aren't "behavior" firings.

They're "getting caught" firings.

I'd wager that every single CO would be fired on the spot if every single action of theirs was known publicly.

So...what's FUBAR, the skippers, or the so-called standard?

9/18/2010 8:28 AM

 
Anonymous T said...

Vigilis:

Waaaay too late for me. But I originally wanted to go SWO-N (more ports), unfortunately the billets were all full. I'm not 100% sure it's a better choice now, though I believe they do make more money with their 50K signing bonus.

The reasoning for women on submarines IS bullshit, that much is for sure. It's very clearly political in nature and has nothing to do with needs of the Navy.

9/18/2010 9:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...what's FUBAR, the skippers, or the so-called standard?"

Let me guess, you are one of those binary thinkers working in an IT field, right?

Well, the possibilities of what might be FUBAR must include any subjective applications of standards, too, no?

9/18/2010 9:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can we guess the pedigrees of Solm's and Gero's eventual replacements? USNA grads without a doubt."

WTF are you talking about? No one at the Bureau or in the submarine force leadership looks at where these guys went to school to make the determination about who is going to relieve who. They look for the best qualified person based on their active duty record, who cares where they went to school? Whether the guy went to OCS or USNA has no bearing on whether or not the guy will be a successful replacement. News flash: All 1120 Major Commanders are NOT USNA grads. Get over yourself.

"Male submarine officers in nuc school were asked to switch to SWO."

Take a look at the dates separating the posts you linked a few posts below this one. The one talking about manning shortfalls was from October 2009, while the other one referring to asking them to switch was from this year. All signs point to two different year groups, meaning that the number of volunteers from one year to the next, big shocker, things change, people's desires change.

9/18/2010 10:57 AM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

Well, the possibilities of what might be FUBAR must include any subjective applications of standards, too, no?

I don't see you arguing with my main point...just a side-lobe. Do you disagree that ALL submarine CO's would be fired on the spot if ALL of their actions were publicly known...?

Be that as it may, let's exlore the concept of subjective standards a bit.

For instance: it is without _honest_ refutation that women on submarines is actually a political ploy, rather than out of needs of the service. If we can't agree on that, we can't agree on much.

And yet: remember the honor code? That thing about being true to your word? Isn't the honor code being violated almost daily by the Navy's leaders as regards the reason for women on subs?

Talk about subjective standards...and this is a major change in submarine operations, no less...one fraught with no small amount of drama or, at the extreme, peril.

Were today's leaders to be up front about this, rather than manipulative, they'd earn credibility.

Who could argue with these honestly-stated facts if they were actually stated as such: "Yes, this is a political decision, but our national defense rests ultimately on the judgment of its political leaders. Civilians run the U.S. military and always will. Get over it...or go back to grade-school where you belong."

I'd disagree with the politics, but I could agree with the logic. But we don't have that. Instead, we have all sorts of mealy-mouthed bullshit and outright lies.

Circular run: a fish rots from the head down. How are these fired skippers being any more dishonest - if there is such a thing - than their leaders?

9/18/2010 11:38 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Anon @ 10:57 AM

"The one talking about manning shortfalls was from October 2009, while the other one referring to asking them to switch was from this year."

Did you fail to read the Navy's stats on sub volunteers from the academy since 2006 (3rd paragraph from bottom of my post, last sentence)? Has male submarine volunteerism trended up or down, contrary to the impression conveyed in the Oct 2009 link?


"...things change, people's desires change."

Are you implying men can be as fickle as women? The facts are otherwise. Look up how many women in proportion to their total numbers have turned their backs on navy careers after graduating from the aceademy. Not only are women fickle, sending them to military colleges is wasteful and expensive for taxpayers!

9/18/2010 1:35 PM

 
Blogger Old Man from the Sea said...

I knew CAPT Gero as both CO of Buffalo and Ohio. In both cases, he ran a tight ship and I enjoyed working with him and his crews. Never would have guessed this was coming.

9/18/2010 3:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have any factual information on either this case or Solms? What did these guys do? Any connection between their situations?

9/18/2010 4:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vigilis,

You have forced our hand by repeatedly highlighting the strange coincidence of so many non-USNA graduates being fired. The time has come to show ourselves. A secret society of USNA alumni and invisible time-travelling aliens from the future have been working for decades on a master plan to fill the ranks of Naval Officers with only USNA grads. I cannot reveal the ultimate plan, but I assure you it will be epic.

As you probably already suspected, we have a slush fund that we use to target non-USNA officers that climb too high in the ranks, threatening our master plan. We actually train females from their infancy to be masters of seduction, sleeper agents that wait until a particularly threatening non-USNA becomes too successful. They then go active, seduce their target, and then allow the affair to be revealed, thus ending the non-USNA officer's career. We may have been sloppy by allowing two of our sleeper agents to go active within such a short period of time, but being able to take down two USNA major commanders was too high a strategic value to pass up. Time will tell whether our gambit was worth the cost of us being identified.

Truth is, our rings are two-way comms devices that we use to communicate with the alien mother ship in the year 3321, providing status updates on those who would challenge our master plan for USNA domination. Why do you think the rings are so big? Try finding a smaller comms device that can reach over 1000 years into the future. You think we like wearing them? Not one bit, but it is part of our duty to serve.

We've tried to hide in the shadows for years, Vigilis, but we underestimated your keen skills of deduction. Bravo, Sir. You may think you have bested us by bringing us into the light, but we actually thank you for your work. It has reminded us that we must redouble our efforts, and we will not be so easily identified in the future.

By the way... the random people you see on the street that don't seem to be paying attention to you? USNA-funded moles. The little kids playing in your neighborhood? They're ours too. And the dogs that crap in your lawn? That's right. USNA funded dog spies, leaving cleverly disguised monitoring devices provided by our futuristic alien partners. If you take a comms device and squeeze it through your bare hands, you may notice the gritty feel of billions of nano-devices. Taste one, and you may detect the slightly metallic taste of future technology. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I can neither confirm nor deny whether there are invisible time travelling aliens sitting next to you right now... or maybe not. I've said too much already.

And to Anonymous at 7:57- yes, the mind control ray has been turned off. It blew a fuse on the mid-watch, and the green book is in routing.

Yours,

Zaargh
USNA 2912 (the last class with a real plebe year)

9/18/2010 5:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/18/2010 5:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/18/2010 5:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zaargh -

You will certainly be recalled to the mothership for disclosing such important information. At least you didn't divulge the part of the plot that sets up West Point solely as a foil for USNA domination. Now that Vigilis knows so much he will be even more annoying than before - if that is at all possible.

9/18/2010 5:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zaargh has been disintegrated for failing to allow for the time lag from the future, resulting in multiple posts. The society apologizes on his behalf.

Zvuul
USNA 2932 (the last class with a real plebe year)

9/18/2010 5:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Facts - both Solms and Gero were found to have engaged in inappropriate personal behavior. In Solms's case, it was the wife of another Naval officer. In Gero's, another active duty officer (female). Prejudicial to good order and discipline. End of story.

9/18/2010 5:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joel,

The high emperor will not be offended if you remove Zaarghs repeated posts. We have also disintegrated his entire class of USNA 2912, which didn't have a real plebe year anyway.

Zwark
USNA 2981 (The last class with a real plebe year)

9/18/2010 5:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems retarded to fire a CO just for cheating on his wife, but if it's with another officer's wife it makes a lot more sense. As far as cheating with a female officer, it shouldn't matter unless they're in the same command.

9/18/2010 6:26 PM

 
Blogger ETCS(SS/SW) said...

@ Zaargh: I can't stop laughing! BZ.

9/18/2010 7:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought having a relationship with a female officer was fine as long as there were no chain of command issues or did the rules change?

As far as adultery goes not sure where some of you guys have been but the military, not just the Navy, has been cracking down on that for over a decade. of course they may be ramping up the crack down only on on non-Service Academy grads

9/18/2010 8:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as adultery goes not sure where some of you guys have been but the military, not just the Navy, has been cracking down on that for over a decade. of course they may be ramping up the crack down only on on non-Service Academy grads

It will be interesting to see how some homo CO married in Kalifornia is treated when he is outed as having committed adultery at some glory hole in the Hillcrest San Diego area.

9/18/2010 9:57 PM

 
Anonymous The Royal "We" said...

@Vigilis: we must not take this attack from YG 2981 lying down. I now order we counter-strike with a full-spread of phasers into the future, and that now, NOW, is the time to release our male sex slave sleepers in order to accomplish total DADT annihilation with every single male ring knocker academy grad...and of course sound the attack with the female YTB deckhand sleepers for the female officers in kind.

Tora, Tora, Tora...!

Lastly, I repeat: "wage unrestricted DADT-sleeper warfare...!"

9/18/2010 10:04 PM

 
Blogger Lisa Staples said...

There certainly have been... a lot of firings recently.

9/18/2010 10:19 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

When women nuclear officers are eventually
"housed"
on submarines, what gender will be doing their laundry?

The junior female officer will do the women's laundry (wrong); they'll each do their own (wrong); a male steward will until female enlisted are recruited to these submersible "housing" projects (correct). You don't say?

I bet the search is on for a female steward, as I write.

9/19/2010 7:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a NROTC input who is serving as an SSN CO I had no idea what danger I was in--thank you Vigilis for alerting me . I will immediately take action to ruin the lives of the USNA grads onboard to prevent their cancer from spreading.

As for the recent firings it is clear to me that our Navy has lost its moral compass. We can not use our Judeo-Christian guidelines and reconcile military service for women or broad acceptance of homosexual behavior. Then our leaders expect that we will stand aghast at extramarital affairs even when the nation can't even agree on a definition or sanctity of marriage. Our leaders want to use the litmus test of "contrary to good order and discipline" but the selective use of the UCMJ just makes us all look like hypocrites.

I wish there was a clear path to our future, but until we can truly find a common, legitimate basis for our moral and ethical behavior we are truly doomed....at least until the USNA takeover of 3312.

9/19/2010 7:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In view of the recent disparity in sexually related incidents between Academy and non-Academy graduates, the Navy needs to formally acknowledge the well known disparity in testosterone levels and equipment size between these two groups and take affirmative steps to ensure Academy graduates have the same career ending opportunities.

9/19/2010 9:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, snap!

9/19/2010 9:33 AM

 
Anonymous "He who laughs last" said...

These are no small points here:

(1) "It will be interesting to see how some homo CO married in Kalifornia is treated when he is outed as having committed adultery at some glory hole in the Hillcrest San Diego area."

(2) "...until we can truly find a common, legitimate basis for our moral and ethical behavior we are truly doomed....at least until the USNA takeover of 3312."

(3) "When women nuclear officers are eventually "housed" on submarines, what gender will be doing their laundry?

I, for one, am glad to see that the rubber is starting to meet the road as regards both DADT recission and women on submarines.

These sorts of real-world matters - along with any number of things recently jammed down the U.S. citizenry's throats with neither concern nor attempt at uniting the people - will eventually get SO ugly that the backlash is going to likely END one of the political parties in the U.S. forever. Thank GOD...!

Remember, you read it here first...!

9/19/2010 9:45 AM

 
Anonymous knownukes said...

So is this a new take on the old saying "When in Rome...?" When in Bangor, bang her?

9/19/2010 9:46 AM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

"I'd wager that every single CO would be fired on the spot if every single action of theirs was known publicly."

You may quote me on this.

9/19/2010 10:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of moral compasses. Whatever happened to the good old days when guys, from the CO on down, just went on WESTPAC and banged little girls unitl their hearts were content and then returned home to the little woman? 1980's WESTPAC's are the stuff of legends.

Still remember 1984 WESTPAC, upkeep in Subic, and the CO comes into control early one morning and asks "QM3, would you please escort these two young ladies to the main gate?" "Aye, Aye, sir". Did one of the girls sister the next night.

Floor shows at Tom Toms, Island Girls. Girls sitting on the XO and ENG's face. We had a squirter that hosed down the CO while he was tied to a chair.

Then there was Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Thailand. Oh, and Australia for the white meat.

Moral compass? Just when did the Navy aquire that piece of newfangled equipment?

9/19/2010 10:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I once knew an old, cigarette-stanky, retired YNCS whose right hand was withered and brown from decades of holding a butt with the lit-end cupped in it.

His alleged words of wisdom to me, always said with an evil grin:

"Remember, LT...it's only an indiscretion if you get caught."

9/19/2010 10:48 AM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

"They must do something to you when you become a submarine major commander...."

Yes, indeed. They put you behind a desk on shore-duty...where you show up every single day...until you get caught.

9/19/2010 10:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A commanding Officer must follow Naval Regulations, and instill discipline and good order by example. If not, he should be rightfully removed from command at sea. If you cannot follow Naval Regulations, then you should not be in command...plain and simple. Moreover, you should not be a Naval Officer, or senior enlisted in charge of anyone.

9/19/2010 12:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amendment:

"It will be interesting to see how some homo CO married in Kalifornia is treated when he is outed as having committed adultery at some glory hole in the Hillcrest San Diego area...none of which will violate Naval Regulations."

9/19/2010 1:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amendment:

"It will be interesting to see how some homo CO married in Kalifornia is treated when he is outed as having committed adultery at some glory hole in the Hillcrest San Diego area...none of which will violate Naval Regulations."


Except for the adultery part . . .

9/19/2010 2:34 PM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

Deleted a comment. I know we get on sketchy ground when I allow comments to stand that speculate on the specific reasons for a RFC for "inappropriate personal behavior", but in these cases the fact that the guy did something bad is out in the public domain. Posting allegations of sexual indiscretions about identifiable people who aren't in the news goes beyond the arbitrary line I've established, so I delete such comments when I become aware of them. Please don't post such items.

9/19/2010 4:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was always surprised Gero got picked up for SSGN command tour. His SSN CO tour was nearly entirely in the shipyard.

9/19/2010 5:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cannot reveal the ultimate plan, but I assure you it will be epic.

Epic lulz AMIRITE?!

9/19/2010 5:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joel,

I love your blog. When did it become a forum for people to post their idiotic anti-USNA, anti-female, anti-gay ramblings? And don't forget my new favorite: the pro-polygamy guy.

This is a heartfelt request to everyone to keep their posts on-topic and related to the current submarine force, not your idealized or ancient impression of it.

9/19/2010 8:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@8:24 Anon:

Let me take a wild guess: you're a Democrat who thinks that anyone who says something that they don't agree with should be BANNED...the sure cure for all ills?

Drop dead.

9/19/2010 8:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a heartfelt request to everyone to keep their posts on-topic and related to the current submarine force, not your idealized or ancient impression of it.

They are on topic, jackwagon. Save your peter puffing for the stateroom.

9/19/2010 8:44 PM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

"When did it become a forum for people to post their idiotic anti-USNA, anti-female, anti-gay ramblings? And don't forget my new favorite: the pro-polygamy guy."

Let me get this straight...so to speak.

It's perfectly OK in your peabrained little PC world for a guy to suck on another guy's dick, and put his dick in another guy's ass...but a guy having two, beloved and loving (yes, female) wives is a very, very, very bad thing?

Oh...and sexual frustration and misbehavior amongst single-wived senior submarine officers - who will soon have women onboard their subs at sea - are all somehow off-topic?

Sorry dude-ette...but you're truly living in your own little PC "smack" world.

9/19/2010 8:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy shit are we really going to get into this polygamy argument again? WE GET IT YOU WANT MORE THAN ONE WOMAN SPENDING ALL YOUR MONEY!

9/19/2010 9:11 PM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

Actually, I didn't see anyone arguing against having more than one wife...which is a natural freedom currently denied by federal law.

Sorry to hear that you married so badly. Losing money sucks, eh?

9/19/2010 9:20 PM

 
Blogger bigsoxfan said...

Polygamy = wanting more than one women to spend all your money. That is a classic. Can't debate that one on biblical grounds, WESTPAC rules only. Ha. Laughing my ass off and discounting a few bad investments.

9/19/2010 10:29 PM

 
Anonymous Squidward said...

{wish there was a clear path to our future, but until we can truly find a common, legitimate basis for our moral and ethical behavior we are truly doomed}

Well, one place we could find it is in the BIBLE. Yes, you read it here first. Of course, we'd have to make some changes. Women shouldn't be working outside the home - we all agree on that. And no voting or making decisions for them. Homos - well, they should be stoned to death, just as the good book says.

Non-Christians? Well, we should be open minded, so they can convert or leave. If not, well, they should be punished, right? After all, we're all trying to help them. Democracy is not a biblically sanctioned method of government, so we need rule by a council of morally upstanding, wise, Christian men, like some of the people posting here, demanding an end to immorality. The kind of immorality that used to be pretty much universal and accepted in the US Navy, back when it was a real fighting force.

Yeah, kind of sounds like Iran, doesn't it? Except, this would be BETTER, because it would be Christian.

Joel - bad news. I think they're not big fans of LDS...

(This is a long way of saying, saving your moral BS for someone else and concentrate on doing your freaking jobs, like driving boats or boiling water, or killing the enemy. I suspect the problem here is insufficient "killing the enemy". Damn peacetime Navy...)

9/19/2010 10:57 PM

 
Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

Polygamy = Having to continuously deal with multiple women and their needs, IE: emotionally, financially, physically and more. Now the physical part would be perfectly fine. But how in the hell do you find the time to proactively deal with more than one woman's set of emotions on a consistent basis?

9/19/2010 11:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, all the submarine COs are from the west coast. I wonder who, if anyone, is minding the store on the east coast....

9/20/2010 12:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is clearly a double standard on the East Coast compared to the West Coast. There is at LEAST on major commander on the East Coast that has been commiting adultery for years. Caused his first wife to leave him, and now he is doing the same to his second wife. Uses his staff to cover for him, did it to his crew when he was in command of an SSN. The post Joel deleted had the commanders name, guess that is TABOO.

9/20/2010 5:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To get back to women on submarines for a moment, the comment about having a steward do the female officers laundry...I though the Navy got rid of the steward rate in the '70s. Did they bring it back?

ex-EM1(SS)

9/20/2010 6:32 AM

 
Blogger SJV said...

It sounds like O gang has a mess crank wash their skivvies. Might as well call them a steward. Probably they make the racks before field day too. No wonder we have issues with CO's thinking they are above the rules. Can anyone post a response that justifies having mess cranks wash officer's laundry, or tell me I'm wrong about it?

9/20/2010 6:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hiyah Folk
I just wanted to invite a few of you pole smoking non USNA type to come on my show with the ring bearers to talk about this and Get Reaallll. Facts are facts.. there are more USNA types than non.
Sinc
Dr Phil

9/20/2010 7:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Squidward, Maybe you should read the second half of that book.

9/20/2010 7:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I read about these firings, I keep hearing this dreaded phrase (one that I heard many times when one of my enlisted sailors would get caught doing something stupid) rolling around my head: "Intrusive leadership".

Sounds like it is time for SUBFOR to practice what it preaches when it comes to "intrusive leadership" given that their choices for command positions are not meeting their expectations.

LCDR DILLIGAF

9/20/2010 8:33 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes...but, since this is all about *integrity*, who would do the "intrusive leadership" for SUBFOR as regards speaking the truth behind the reason for putting women on subs? (Answer: politics, and only politics, but 'dem politicians run the show).

9/20/2010 8:54 AM

 
Anonymous LT L said...

Can anyone post a response that justifies having mess cranks wash officer's laundry, or tell me I'm wrong about it?

Do you really want an officer operating a vital and non-redundant piece of equipment that has a propensity to catch fire? That's just asking for trouble.

-LT L

9/20/2010 11:12 AM

 
Anonymous YNC(SS), USN, Retired said...

Could it be that it is time to add an additional Rating to the sailing list?

"Ship's servicemen (SH) are responsible for managing and operating all shipboard retail and service activities. These include the ship's store, vending machines, video games, barber shops, laundry and tailor shops. They play a large role in the morale of the ship."

9/20/2010 12:40 PM

 
Blogger Do You Think I G.A.F. said...

WOW. You mean a CO can get fired for screwing? Hell I spent 26 years in the Navy and submarines and I got screwed all the time by COs, XO, COBs and various department heads and chiefs.

I remember the WESTPACs of the 1980s. Seems like the PC crap started infusing into WESTPACS in the 90s.

As for the CO firings....WTF??? As for the comment of when the Navy started affording a moral compass..that is probably why we can't get a decent pay raise. The dipshits in Washington DC have no moral compass, why should we?

As for polygamy..bring it on..that's all I need is another woman to tell me NO all the time!

STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET

9/20/2010 1:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The dipshits in Washington DC have no moral compass, why should we?"

Wow. Are you saying that it was wrong for Democrat President Clinton to go 'splort' on his subordinate White House intern's blue dress...?

Or...that he got caught at it via DNA testing?

9/20/2010 1:36 PM

 
Anonymous below decks watch said...

as was told to me at an IT company after i left the submarine service, 'perception will get you in trouble. getting caught will get you fired.'

9/20/2010 2:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WOW. You mean a CO can get fired for screwing? Hell I spent 26 years in the Navy and submarines and I got screwed all the time by COs, XO, COBs and various department heads and chiefs.

STSCS(SS/SW) USN RET"

""Wow"" STSCS!
Seems like you either had incredible bad luck or deserved all the screwing you got! What a fucking ignorant comment Moron!

9/20/2010 2:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@rabid 9:20 PM

"Sorry to hear that you married so badly. Losing money sucks, eh?"

Actually I'm about as happy as one can be in a monogamous marriage, oh wait let me rephrase. I'm abouty as happy as I can be in a monogamous relationship, pretty damn happy.

Oh and don't you dare say "eh" to me you Canadian hippy f*ck

9/20/2010 4:00 PM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

Wow, you are just one dumb monkey, aren't ya little fella...eh?

9/20/2010 5:58 PM

 
Anonymous Rabid Anti-Dentite said...

P.S. You don't sound too happy in your monofilament what-ever, either.

9/20/2010 5:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wow"" STSCS!
Seems like you either had incredible bad luck or deserved all the screwing you got! What a fucking ignorant comment Moron!

And stuck around for 26 years hating it so badly he decided to "suck it up" for another 15%.

CAPT Gero was picked up to command the Ohio following a very successful PCO instructor tour not due to his CO tour being in or out of the shipyard. Many COs spend a great deal of time in the shipyard and in some ways it is much more difficult then cutting the lines and heading out to sea.

9/20/2010 6:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well then perhaps another wife would fix the problem?

9/20/2010 6:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rumor is Murray wouldn't have gone down if it wasn't for the XO dropping dime on his ass, because his something on the side wasn't in the same geographic location as the boat's homeport.

Not sure how Solms got caught.

Wrong is wrong but these types of things are rarely investigated unless someone rubs the IG's or Admiral's face in it.


I liked Gero as a PCOI, but heard not so great comments from those who served under him. /shrug

9/20/2010 7:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cry me a freaking river. These two numb nuts will retire with more money per month then I make on active duty. Good riddence. I have always been true to Honor, Courage and Commitment and think that idiot's like this deserve every thing they get and then some. It's a sad day when an O-6 can't be the example for others to follow. Any one in charge, that can't uphold a standard of behavior should be reduced to E-1 or O-1 and given the appropriate retirement for said paygrade. The example that they set should be rewarded. That will stop indiscriminate screwing around. I garantee it.

9/20/2010 7:35 PM

 
Anonymous Behavior Standard-Bearer said...

"Any one in charge, that can't uphold a standard of behavior should be reduced to E-1 or O-1 and given the appropriate retirement for said paygrade."

So, when DADT gets rescinded by the Democrats, what exactly would you call the "standard of behavior"...? Swallowing = good...spitting = bad? Gay marrieds blowing someone not their "spouse" are to be prosecuted for...uh...something?

9/20/2010 7:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm perhaps, I never thought of that, another dumb little monkey wife could be the answer to my dumb little monkey problems. And with that, I quite.

9/20/2010 7:55 PM

 
Anonymous Squidward said...

When DADT is repealed, the standard will be the same - adultery will be ignored unless you are screwing a brother's wife, or screwing your boss/subordinate. Or, if they need to crucify you for something else, and its more convenient, or they just want the cherry on top.

So, the CO can visit the glory hole, no problem, but if the XO is a "contestant", then its Mast for both.

I have mixed feelings about CO's being relieved like this. I can see the logic, but the public humiliation factor seems really messed up, especially in the age of Google. Of course, you would think it would make other CO's more humble. LOL.

9/20/2010 8:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, the CO can visit the glory hole, no problem, but if the XO is a "contestant", then its Mast for both."

I see. And yet: what if gay-CO gets back to the boat late the next morning, a little drunkie-poo...and is drooling more than saliva from his chin? Good, bad, indifferent...?

And when he gets back to port from deployment and is tonguing his favorite butt-boy on the pier while the other sailors are kissing their (one or more) wives...good enough to print on the front page of the local newspaper, or does he have to hold back on public displays of so-called affection...?

9/20/2010 8:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the Navy really needs is an exposé on the lifestyles of its leaders...say in The New York Times, or The Wall Street Journal. The National Enquirer would do just fine as well.

That'd get things going in the right direction.

9/20/2010 9:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, the comments have just gotten weirdly descriptive around here.

9/20/2010 9:05 PM

 
Anonymous YNC(SS), USN, Retired said...

Some of you guys seem to know a lot about "Glory Holes." Whatever that is. Just sayin'... All I ever knew about was bar girls and WESTPAC widows. Times have changed I guess.

9/20/2010 9:40 PM

 
Anonymous t said...

sjw:

I think the biggest argument I can think of for not having officers do their own laundry is that they would by default get their own laundry day which would kind of screw over everybody else. On my ship one or two officers did do their own laundry because some night bakers didn't exactly do the best job at it, especially if it just so happened if said officer was a prick.

9/20/2010 11:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 9/20/2010:52 PM

WOW dumbshit..didn't you get the joke of STSCS comments??? You must be a fucking ignorant moron who has no sense of humor!
Hell, I ever got his humorus comments! What a tool you are! Does your wife let you wear the pants or do you use her tampons for that dripping hole of yours?

9/21/2010 8:19 AM

 
Anonymous Laundry day said...

The ladies' laundry 'problem' is just nonsense as it is a non-problem.

All that's required is some very minor coordination between the folks who currently do the officers' laundry and the very few women onboard.

To-wit: as "t" points out, some officers may do their own laundry during their collective window of time via the messcooks. That will almost certainly include the ladies when they eventually report for duty.

9/21/2010 8:23 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

And while I may get flamed for it, you just KNOW that some horndog E-3 crank/MSSN is gonna get caught doing something bad with the undies when he thinks nobody is looking. Oh, joy. Reminds me of my first boat when the Halfway Night auction featured 1 pair of "SPIP"...(use your imagination).

9/21/2010 10:36 AM

 
Anonymous Just sayin' said...

Which is exactly why the ladies will do their own laundry. End of story.

Else: they'd better bring about 120 extra pairs of undies each...one for every male crewman aboard.

9/21/2010 10:53 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You Non-Qual Laundry Queens are all missing the point.....

The first time I get a hold of a 24 year old cute or ugly JO’s dirty panties, with that dried up crusty yellow pee pee and sweat in the sweet spot crotch area, the rightful owner of those panties is now the ex-owner. Those drawers will become “my girl” until the crust wears off, at which time the JO is apt to lose a second, third, forth, etc pair.
As long as junior enlisted are doing "everyone's" laundry, those sweet JOs had better bring aboard an extra sea bag of undies.

9/21/2010 11:40 AM

 
Anonymous Barnacle Bill said...

Something to think about: when low-brow, moronic, misbehaving sailors were keel-hauled back in the day, they weren't just cut by the no-doubt many, many barnacles...their bodies were almost certainly gouged by them.

Man, that had to hurt. But...it did feed the barnacles, so the circle of life did not go unbroken.

9/21/2010 12:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that "the crew will be fine regardless of who's in the CO's stateroom" didn't serve on the two boats I did. One with an intelligent, personable and stern CO--with a top notch battle E crew to match--and one with a no-personality prick who never went aft of the the RC--and had a fragmented and careless crew (and stateroom) with no morale. It wasn't about where they graduated from. It was simply about their character and common sense.

9/21/2010 7:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW dumbshit..didn't you get the joke of STSCS comments???

No, I didn't get the joke of your comments. READ... GRAMMAR CHECK!

9/21/2010 7:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the talk about what will happen to the underwear is actually on track. One of the reasons given by the female J.O's on surface ships for early exit is the lack of respect. They already have to bring extra pairs of panties, because their clothes don't come back from the laundry. That and other stories I have heard from our surface brothers lead me to believe that we are in for a rocky way ahead.

9/21/2010 11:13 PM

 
Blogger ETCS(SS/SW) said...

I am definitely with Anon @ 9/21/2010 11:40 AM. All of these naive people that think this kind of thing will not happen are not living in the real world. Sad.

9/22/2010 4:17 AM

 
Blogger Curt said...

"Anyone who thinks that "the crew will be fine regardless of who's in the CO's stateroom" didn't serve on the two boats I did."

I sered on: http://www.cdhaggard.com/boats.html

The point I was trying to make was, that MM2 cares more about the MLCPO and the Eng, than he does the CO...

If the Wardroom and the GoatLocker are engaged, and not just "Yes Men," then the professional and personal lives of the crew will be taken care of, regardless of who the CO happens to be.

9/22/2010 4:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...One of the reasons given by the female J.O's on surface ships for early exit is the lack of respect

That reminds me of one of the first underways on Frank Cable (AS40) back in 1980 when we only had 4 females (all officers) on board. The MAA force was directed to randomly search sea bags and suitcases being brought on board prior to getting underway.

LT(jg) Miss Piggy stated that she was an officer and her bag was not going to be searched. Period. Somehow a tug of war over the bag started and yep, you guessed it, Her big ol' vibrator feel out on the deck for all to see.

9/22/2010 5:58 AM

 
Anonymous Lovin' the rear-view mirror said...

"Welcome aboard the submarine force, ladies...be sure to bring your lack of self-respect."

9/22/2010 9:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see it now. Watch relief in control rigged for black. DOOW to offgoing planesmen, "OK men, what's the color of the day?" Green!!! They are all refering to the OOD's panties.

Will it be harassment for saying "Don't get your panties in a knot!"?

Panamared

9/22/2010 12:24 PM

 
Anonymous Goodbye sock puppet...hello Victoria's Secret said...

Comment #100:

There are no planesman on the Virginia class boats...the future of the submarine force.

Similarly, say in 20 years time, there will be no more too-gay 'humor' on the boats because the guys that *used* to do that shit will have been run out of the submarine force.

Why? Two reasons: (1) semi-gay humor isn't funny in the first place, and (2) mainly because it's anything but cool when the ladies are around.

So bring on the XX DNA submariners. It's high time that the U.S. submarine force grew the fuck up...and dropped the gay crap.

9/22/2010 12:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To comment # 100:

What brought on your gay crap? I was talking about the cute newly qualified blonde female OOD's panties. Women on boats.

I hope you "grown-up, serious, uptight pricks enjoy your long watches together and enjoy your adult PC conversations. You don't know a lot about joking around, easing the tension or team building.

I know Virginia class boats don't have planesmen. You're so grown up I bet you call them ships.

Rant done!
Panamared

9/22/2010 3:46 PM

 
Anonymous #100 Is Gay! said...

Comment #100's comments are gay! My guess is that he is a nuc, probably an ET.

---------------

On a Trident, there is a hole in the deck for some cabling behind the plotter. At night when the rigged for dark, you can pull the insulation out of the hole and see into the officers head. Great place to get a peak when there are women riders onboard!

9/22/2010 5:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, if you are into watching people take a crap!

9/22/2010 5:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and willing to go to the brig for it.


(Sounds like 99% of gay-curious submariners I know.)

9/22/2010 6:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, what you may not know is that surface ships integrated "with little incident" in the 90's. And the submarine sailors are very professinal THEREFORE, there will be a minimum amount of growing pains and in 10 years we will go "Why didn't we do this in 1972?" because it is SO GREAT for the submarine force.

I know some of you don't believe me, but I heard it straight from Admrial Bruner, so I know that it is true.

9/23/2010 6:41 AM

 
Blogger ETCS(SS/SW) said...

Anon @ 9/23/2010 6:41 AM:
For historical purposes for others that may come across this thread in the future here is the link to documentation supporting the legitimate concerns about mixed- gender US submarines:
http://tinyurl.com/2wjfzjl
ETCS

9/24/2010 10:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regards to the following Post I have a couple of questions

Facts - both Solms and Gero were found to have engaged in inappropriate personal behavior. In Solms's case, it was the wife of another Naval officer. In Gero's, another active duty officer (female). Prejudicial to good order and discipline. End of story.

9/18/2010 5:43 PM

1. Where did you get your factuall information?
2. Was the female officer also punished by any chance?

It always takes 2 as they say.

I am saddened by this as I know the man personally beyond most people's knowledge of him and no matter who the situation would pertain to we are so easy to jump on the band wagon and persecute another without knowing the whole story. Everyone at this point is just speculating. We all have some kind of demons in our closet's and I am sure many of us would not want them to be seen.

If you say is true he should have been a lot smarter which I know he is capable of being.

Again I am saddened as this may sound vain but he has in part gotten to where he is with my help many years ago.

Thanks

9/24/2010 12:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The information is based on word getting around. Once it gets to three separate sources I tend to believe it.

If you are as close to him as you say, then you should be talking to him anyway - not to find out what happened, but to support him as a friend should. If he chooses to tell you what happened then you will know for sure.

I have no information on whether or not the female officer was punished, but I agree with you - she is just as culpable.

9/26/2010 7:40 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

"...she is just as culpable"

In a legal sense, no. For an officer/officer situation, if there's a disparity in rank and the relationship impinges on good order and discipline, the charge is 'unprofessional relationship' under USMJ Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer.

9/27/2010 3:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who said there was a disparity in rank? Who said it was impinging on good order and discipline? Maybe it was just plain old adultery. Still against the UCMJ and still requires two guilty parties - otherwise it's a different violation.

9/27/2010 9:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Cry me a freaking river. These two numb nuts will retire with more money per month then I make on active duty. Good riddence. I have always been true to Honor, Courage and Commitment and think that idiot's like this deserve every thing they get and then some. It's a sad day when an O-6 can't be the example for others to follow."

And they will retire despite a blatant violation of the UCMJ (Art. 134). That's the true injustice here. Dishonorable Discharges should result, but just like the child molester CMCs (plural) they will be the beneficiaries of good fortune, while kids who bust their ass but rope in at 23% body-fat 3 times get a swift kick in the ass, or dedicated servicemen and women who happen to be homosexuals get shown the true colors of our great nation.

Discriminatory injustice aka the good old boys club.

10/11/2010 10:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Navy Times out with a story today, not yet on the website for some reason.

10/12/2010 7:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's talking dishonor? Ok, they shot a slug for an article 134 and vacated their careers for a few rounds of hokey-pokey. We can breakout the Clinton dictionary and argue definitions all day, but this is about a brief moment when bad choices were made, not dishonor. These guys made a lifetime of good choices and they are heroes. To them now, they just lost it all. But I’m content to know they will retire honorably regardless, take a much deserved snooze, and move on to something else remarkable. Eventiually, they will resurface and reflect proudly on their careers - as we all eventually do.

STS2(SS) NDOS



I look forward to hearing from them on blogs like this. I wish them all the best.

10/13/2010 2:27 PM

 
Blogger frank said...

as a former sub CO and squad deputy, I have mixed feelings. 1st I applaud the officer that turned the Capt on his integrity. Although I wonder about the command climate that led to that event.
Lastly, I am disturbed that Navy Times would publish an article like this. I doubt that it happened as the account in Navy Times describes, and if it really happened as described, then why would we publish this? Being relieved from Command is bad enough, why do we need to drag his name through the mud once again? What is to be gained?
I certainly hope that actual proof is had by someone in the chain, and that we have not sacrificed someone based on supposition.
Contrary to the San Fran grounding or Houston tug sinking, what is the lesson learned here? I would say no new lesson learned.

10/15/2010 10:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hear hear! What Frank said!

10/16/2010 2:23 PM

 
Anonymous apad 2 said...

Well, I do not really believe this will have success.

10/06/2011 10:59 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home