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.)

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

NNPTC In The News

Against my better judgment, and only because so many people have written in asking me to post it, here are links to several stories (here, here, and here) about a student at Navy Nuclear Power Training Command who is apparently being processed for separation for a violation of barracks rules. Excerpt:
"My friend just came over to watch some shows. It was a long week at school cause we put in a lot of study hours and on top of going to school and he came over to watch some shows on my computer and we passed out," said Jones.
Jones' roommate walked in to find Jones and the other male sailor asleep in the same bed. According to Jones he and the other man were wearing clothing. Just days later, the Navy charged Jones with unprofessional conduct...
..."Two sailors, regardless of gender, sleeping in the same bed together is considered unacceptable," said Thomas Dougan, a spokesman for the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. Dougan added sexual orientation played no role in this case. The sailor found asleep with Jones remains in the Navy after accepting his punishment and having his pay docked.
I'm not hopeful, but is there any chance we can have a discussion on barracks privacy rights or how the Navy sometimes trumps up charges when they want to boot someone, and not have this devolve into the umpty-squadrillionth "the world is going to end when gays and women get on submarines" discussion?


Blogger Curt said...

Given the remarkable scope that NR has on Nucs
(see:, later set forth in Public Laws 98-525 [1984] and 106-65 [1999]), my guess is that they will simply remove his 9901 NEC and send him packing to the Fleet...

He can't win.

3/09/2011 4:24 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neal: Del... Why did you kiss my ear?
Del: Why are you holding my hand?
Neal: [frowns] Where's your other hand?
Del: Between two pillows...
Neal: Those aren't pillows!

3/09/2011 5:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 1989 as an E-5 in the Point Loma E5/E-6 BEQ, I had my girlfriend over one evening. At the time the rule was no member of the opposite sex was allowed in the BEQ - period. Some nub BEQ watch saw me bring her in and promptly ratted me out. WIthin a few minutes there was a knock at the door, I was told in no uncertain terms to escort her out of the building or I would be written up. I was furious, but those were the rules.

If the guy in the referenced case wasn't following the rules, he wasn't following the rules. If he wanted to stay in the Navy rather than make this into an "orientation" issue, he should have taken the NJP. If this guy does stay in, I can only imagine the "treatment" once he gets to the fleet - regardless of DADT training.

3/09/2011 6:06 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

1983-84 in Point Loma we had an officer's daughter hanging out at the barracks (bldg 500). She would always find a room to spend the night depending on who had duty and cycle between the different boat floors. This chick was used and abused!

3/09/2011 6:13 AM

Anonymous Stsc said...

What a bunch of crap. After we are all trained up on DADT this would be a non-issue. The command is going out of their way to get this kid and playing sea lawyer tricks to crucify him. I was caught in the barracks with a girl on more than one occasion and it never amounted to crap except an ass chewing and a recommendation to buy a room & save everyone the hassle. The staff Chiefs ought to be ashamed they let it get this far out of control so that now it is a national news. I DO agree they are out to hammer this kid for what is basically a minor infraction. No proof of blue on blue sex - handle it at the lowest level possible.

Give the 2 cuddly kids EMI and the rest of the students a quick refresher on barracks rules at Quarters and get on with training them for the fleet. I guarantee that command is spending a ton of time & resources on this that could have been spent on furthering their primary mission.

3/09/2011 6:22 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I DO agree they are out to hammer this kid for what is basically a minor infraction.

You'd be wrong. Jones was offered Captain's Mast - at which his "friend" received two months reduction in pay. Jones refused NJP. Time to face that thing called consequences.

3/09/2011 6:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

EMI and a Counseling sheet would have taken care of this. As an LPO that's how I would have handled it, but maybe they wanted to make an example out of someone.

We can only assume that this was the "first" time this had happened. There could have been other instances in the past with this particular sailor and this was the breaking point.

3/09/2011 6:55 AM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Wait a minute! You mean I could've jaywalked/DUId/done-something-else-stupid in NPS and refused NJP, and all they would've done is discharge me?

WOW! How come I never heard of that!

Oh yeah, you can't refuse NJP on a shore command. That's why.

3/09/2011 7:11 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait...two nukes cuddling in the same bunk? Nothing new here!

At least they were not playing D&D or WOW...just a couple of dorks looking for love. Who cares? Let them be, get them trained and get them out to the boats for field day.

3/09/2011 8:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, you can't refuse NJP at a SEA command. Makes sense if you think about it for a second.

3/09/2011 9:06 AM

Anonymous Politically Correct said...

"...But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever."

- George Orwell, 1984

3/09/2011 9:07 AM

Blogger Buck said...

Will the fleet ever focus on ship driving and fighting or will it be social issues ruling the waves forever?

3/09/2011 9:25 AM

Anonymous Sane Asylum said...

Two more years, tops, Buck.

3/09/2011 9:45 AM

Anonymous MentalJim said...

I disliked the short time I lived in the BEQ and hated it more the times I had to partake in room inspections as a JO. I thought is was a terrible way to treat people. My house was never open for inspection and I thought it was poor treatment of our sailors that we send senior 'leadership' into their homes to critique their cleanliness and stowage. So what two dudes were sleeping in the same bed. This sounds like a trumped up charge against a guy that the chain of command wanted out to me. Maybe they were just practicing for hot racking?

3/09/2011 9:45 AM

Anonymous Horsecock for lunch said...

Nice standards, mentaljim. Stay classy (like me).

3/09/2011 9:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice standards, mentaljim.

Based on many posts here and among the PC crowd in general, there should be no standard other than don't do it while on watch. Everything else is fair game. This entire experiment will not play out well. Expect to see squids in full uniform hanging out on Folsom Street in the very near future.

3/09/2011 10:07 AM

Anonymous STS2 said...

This kid must not have been very good in class, or a real dickhead. Instances like these only snowball if there's a reason, else it could have been as simple as a chief or lpo saying "dumbass, don't do that again".

When seawolf barracks opened in pearl, there were girls from subbase galley who practically lived there.

3/09/2011 10:07 AM

Anonymous EM2/ss said...

I had a lot of sympathy for the kids until I came across the part in the article where they both admitted to being only in boxers, and their stories on exactly how much each person was wearing didn't match.

So answer me this. Who would ever walk into their buddies room to watch TV, and promptly decide to strip to their boxers and lay in the same bed with them (gay or straight) if there was no sexual conduct (intended or actual)? Nobody.

Their stories don't match, and sexual conduct in the barracks, especially at NNPTC is a big no-no regardless of gender or orientation.

This kid should have taken the mast. Instead he chose to fight the issue even though he violated the page 13 he signed. I still have a copy of my page 13 on the issue I signed the day i reported aboard NNPTC. It clearly states that sexual conduct in the barracks is a violation of the CO's standing orders and will be punished under article 92. Homeboy deserves to get his pee-pee hammered flat for trying to call the commands bluff.

3/09/2011 10:24 AM

Blogger Vigilis said...

"processed for separation" says it all. Either the guy had demonstrated indiscretions already, or post DADT rules reinforce "zero tolerance.

In a current post (It's Either All About Power and Position, or the Implication of Being Gay) Galrahn tries to make a troublesome comparison between the Department's handling of petty officer Jones's indiscretion and General Cartwright's. Very interesting stuff, but with stark differences.

3/09/2011 10:46 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gig For Bean!

3/09/2011 11:06 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, let's all go over to Joel's house, strip to our boxers and T shirts, and climb in his bed to watch movies all night long and see what happens when morning comes.

3/09/2011 11:36 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Morning" or "Mourning"...?

Joel's gone over to the dark side. Just sayin'.

3/09/2011 11:48 AM

Anonymous STS2 said...

"This kid should have taken the mast."

Sounds like he did....HEYOOOOOOOOOOO

3/09/2011 11:51 AM

Blogger hughmon said...

Most damning of all - they were watching "Vampire Diaries". That cannot be tolerated - shows a serious lack of good judgment and critical thinking skills.

3/09/2011 12:55 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

bravo sts2!

3/09/2011 1:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

{You'd be wrong. Jones was offered Captain's Mast - at which his "friend" received two months reduction in pay. Jones refused NJP. Time to face that thing called consequences.}

BS. Penalty should have been getting yelled at and a bunch of EMI. Mast is a ridiculous penalty - have Chiefs totally abrogated their leadership role?!

3/09/2011 3:02 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

{I still have a copy of my page 13 on the issue I signed the day i reported aboard NNPTC. It clearly states that sexual conduct in the barracks is a violation of the CO's standing orders and will be punished under article 92. }

Hmm. Most of us never had to sign that - it does change the situation somewhat. However, why wasn't he charged with violation of a lawful order?

3/09/2011 3:04 PM

Blogger DDM said...

This is like watching Fox and MSNBC cover the same story: You can spin it any way you want. If you reported that somebody went to mast for violating a rule they signed to obey, you'd say, "Sucks to be him." or "TSSBP". But no, we are told that NNPTC is trying to circumvent DADT changes. I'd like to see NR give the rest of the Navy and press the middle finger and say: "This is a simple case of breaking the rules. TSNC (tough shit, next case)".

Like Judge Smails said: "I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."

Now the real debate should be on whether or not it's reasonable to think teenagers and twenty-somethings can be thrown together in a high stress environment and expect that they will behave like monks and nuns after hours.

3/09/2011 3:14 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If DADT is going to be rescinded and open homosexuals allowed to serve, why exactly is the Navy jumping through their ass to reconfigure boat birthing to allow females onboard? The ONLY reason separate birthing is an issue is because heterosexuals have a sexual preference for those of opposite the sex. If open homosexuals are onboard, why is there not to be separate birthing for homosexuals? In fact, based on the policy instituted, logic would dicate that there be separate birthing areas for male homosexuals,female homosexuals, male heterosexuals and female heterosexuals OR no separate birthing at all. But then again, none of this invovles logic - it's all a bunch of PC panty-wastes run amok.

3/09/2011 3:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a former staff member of NNPTC I am familiar with some of the Barracks rules there. I know that females are not allowed to "break the plane" of a male Sailor's barracks room. Additionally, Sailors are prohibitted from sharing a bed reguardless of gender. In my oppinion, this is the Command actually holding students accountable. I know some have said that this is the fault of Chiefs, but this isn't a subbase somewhere but a training command where the rules are strongly enforced.

3/09/2011 3:25 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

And before we get into the discussion of whether or not this is action that should be limited to the two consenting adults, consider the location in which it takes place.

Good order and discipline, and all that--which is why Page 13's are signed. Even when I was in NPS in Orlando (I stayed over X-Mas) a kid was caught bringing a girl into the barracks. He did go to mast, and did get a $50 fine. BFD.

Not for any of us to say whether or not kid was being a dick by not taking the mast or if the command was trying to use him as an example. Sexual misconduct is still serious stuff and needs to be dealt with.

Plan on seeing a lot more of this kind of story in the next couple of years. If the kid didn't like it, they should have done what every NNPTC student, male or female, has done since the days of stone reactors--go get a freakin hotel room.

3/09/2011 3:58 PM

Anonymous MT1WidgetHead said...

No, It's more like go get an actual fucking property nowadays. Trust me, intrusive leadership can easily get a warrant signed by a magistrate in a matter of hours if anyone thinks for half a second that you're fucking off in anyway.

Keep that in mind Gents before you move out of BEQ and pay $600.00 a month for rent and $200.00 more for jackoff channels.

3/09/2011 4:57 PM

Anonymous 4-Stop said...

Gee Nukes micromanaging such mundane issues as “females are not allowed to break the plane of a males room.” Doesn’t seem possible to me…….. It has nothing to do with this guy’s sexual orientation, religion, or race. If the Navy wants you gone, you are gone. Ever hear of the infamous ART 92. There are too many assclown khaki-pants worrying about when to enforce the rules and who they apply to. I file this one under who gives a shit.

3/09/2011 5:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute everyone! Many seem to be focused on the specific situation not the bigger picture!

The issue here has nothing to do with this specific incident it has everything to do with what the NNPTC people can do related to attrition!

What were their grades? Were they the guys that gave every effort and then some yet were struggling? Were they the right personality to mesh with the instructors?

Since there has been a tightening of how many academic attrites there can be, there are other avenues to remove undesirables for the NUC program that hierarchy cant honestly rebut. "Integrity Violations", conduct, etc are just a reason to remove undesirables.

For full disclosure I am "NUC Waste" didn’t have the study skills to succeed in the pipeline in the mid-80s was academically dropped and thankfully found my real calling in the Weapons world which allowed me to be initiated as a CPO and the commissioned as an LDO. So I am not bitter and the NUCs should get every penny of pro-pay the Navy will pay!!!

Have many stories of guys that were dropped for pissy little integrity violations that if the guy was given a true day in court would be DESTROYED by a defense attorney that just barely passed the bar...

This is how NUCs cull the heard... I'm sorry for all the good NUCs!

3/09/2011 5:12 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Washington Post did these kids no favors. I'm all for the FOIA, but the names of all involved are circling through-out these gentlemen's follow-on command (assuming they make it through NPS -the distractions don't lead to attrition, academic or otherwise). Prototype is hard enough without every rightwing A-hole gunning for you...

3/09/2011 5:22 PM

Anonymous Mr. Heyman said...

Prior anon: TSSBP. The Washington Post is reporting a public event, just like Captain Honors' dickheadery.

If they hadn't been down to their jockey shorts in the same bed together - at a training command - they'd probably have avoided the atomic wedgie they just gave themselves.

3/09/2011 5:43 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Yeah, because if you don't choose "rightwing" on your political preference sheet when you check into your new command, the COB is going to make your life a living hell...

Asshat. I don't think I gave a rat's ass what party ANYONE belonged to until after I was out. Nobody to my knowledge ever asked, either. Come to think of it, I was a registered independent until I changed residency after I got out as well.

Bravo for seeing EVERYTHING through the prism of partisan politics rather than what it is--a couple of kids who couldn't follow the rules as set forth. Again, if they didn't like the rules, there were other alternatives than spooning in a BEQ room. Not a very smart move on their part.

3/09/2011 5:45 PM

Anonymous SUBCPO said...

At NNPTC students are sent to mast on a weekly basis for not following the rules. PERIOD.
Students are told over and over what rules exist and what will happen if they break them. I agree that in a normal situation on a boat or ship, the CPO would have just kicked the guy in the ass and it would have been done. At this training command where 2000+ students are filtered through a year, punishments must be quick and to the point.
If not we would have more issues than we already have. This is not an issue of gender, sexual preference, race, or anything else. Its a perfect example of students not following the rules, and having to pay the consequences. The same consequences that any other sailor at NNPTC face for the same violation.
Lets ask a couple questions to this situation...
If this was a sexual preference issue, why is the other guy still at the command in class?
If the command is singling this guy out, why do we send 100's of others to mast each year, and ADSEP a fairly normal amount of those?

Point blank, what happened here, was the guy tried to be a smartass. The CO doesnt play games, and said I have no use for you in the nuclear navy, have a nice day. The kid got his undies in a wad, and decided "I'll show them" by taking it to the press, while hes still legally in the Navy. This kid messed up on so many levels its unreal. He deserves what was handed to him.

3/09/2011 5:50 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

And that pretty much summarizes the whole issue right there. Thanks, Chief.

3/09/2011 5:54 PM

Anonymous SUBCPO said...

And that pretty much summarizes the whole issue right there. Thanks, Chief.

No Problem.

3/09/2011 6:00 PM

Blogger FastAttackChief said...

He really must have been a shit head. I remember getting busted for cheating on my 3's and 2's in A-School by the Lead Instructor. He posted us in front of the Master Chief, scared the shit out of us and told us to do them over.

3/09/2011 6:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bottom line is that most nukes are geeks and dorks and need these types of rules.

That said, if it was just a matter of "breaking the rules" then why did the command let the roommate move out? If rules are followed and swift action is taken on those who break, why didn't the command make the roommate stay put?

Obviously there is something more to this story.

3/09/2011 6:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"nukes are geeks and dorks"

Spoken like a true sonar girl.

3/09/2011 7:26 PM

Anonymous subcpo said...

Only the CNN article says anything about the roommate moving out. If you re-read that part of the article it doesnt even make sense, or jive with the other information that was provided in the original Wash. Post story.

3/09/2011 7:38 PM

Anonymous Ross Kline said...

So far, the comments seem to be reasonable, Joel.

For the record, I agree with the Chief. He broke the rules....and then wanted to play games. I wouldn't want him working for me at test depth...

3/09/2011 7:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree there is more to this story. The Washington Post story quoted the Navy:

"Dougan, the Navy spokesman, acknowledged that no regulation specifically prohibits sailors from falling asleep in the same bed."

So they had to go after another BS charge:

"He said rules do require them to "behave professionally in the barracks" and that Capt. Thomas W. Bailey, the commanding officer, concluded that Jones and McGee had not done so. "The determination was that two sailors sharing the same rack was unprofessional."

Are these guys peter puffers? Probably. Can't we just give a Sailor a break and let him relax in his room, watch Vampire Diaries and maybe get a little bottom on the side?

The Navy has some big problems to deal with and this ain't it!

3/09/2011 8:05 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Anon--yes and no. While there might not be anything SPECIFIC in the UCMJ or Navy Regs saying only "one to a bunk", remember there ARE others who have signed Pg 13's acknowledging expected conduct in the barracks, and likely this gentleman got the same piece of paper. IOW, he was given a lawful order not to do that. Doesn't matter if it's male-male, male-female, or female-female.

This is a TRAINING command--the chickenshit is more considerable than a sea command, for good reason. Much like boot camp, it's an evaluation of how the student can handle not only the major portion of their job (being a nuke) but how well they handle the bullshit minutae/attention to detail aspects of the job--only instead of EDOM/SORM/NAVOSH requirements on the boat, they hammer on basic military bearing and professionalism aspects.

And as anyone who has done the maintenance, shuffled the paperwork, or kept the rock hot will tell you, it's the little shit that'll get you. Every. Single. TIME. We hammer kids in the pipeline for seeming minor bullshit like drinking underage, shorting study hours, etc. There's nothing in the UCMJ about any of those either, last time I checked, outside Art. 92, Disobeying a Lawful Order.

So when THIS kid can't follow the rules as set forth, and as earlier stated gets his panties in a bunch and runs to the media, what does that say about his potential future performance when the shit REALLY hits the fan?

3/09/2011 8:23 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

BS. Penalty should have been getting yelled at and a bunch of EMI. Mast is a ridiculous penalty - have Chiefs totally abrogated their leadership role?!

A lot of them have been doing it for years. I'm getting out of the navy partially because of CPOs. We have some great chiefs out there, but as they keep getting younger, fewer and fewer actually know how to be a chief. I realize that I am just adding to the problem by getting out, but then again, I'm too short to care anymore.

P.S. I hope my html tags work. It's been awhile since I used them.

3/09/2011 9:24 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This had nothing to do with homosexual conduct. There's been students separated from the Navy even after accepting NJP due to (grossly) breaking male/female rules, and the same rules on "good order and discipline" apply to two guys in the same room as well.

One student accepted NJP, didn't even lose a stripe and is on the way to NPTU. One tried to be a sea lawyer and refuse NJP and forgot that his enlistment was conditional.

Literally every student I have seen try to pull that stunt has been kicked out of the Navy, so I don't know why this guy thought he was special. He not only screwed himself, but he screwed his "buddy" and his roommate by releasing the investigation documents unredacted.

This is the kind of "buddy f----r" dirtbag you want with you in the fleet?

3/09/2011 9:27 PM

Anonymous Thesaurus said...

Hmmm. With gays joining the military (not that there's anything wrong with that (BLECCH!)), will the word "buddy f----r" take on a whole new meaning...?

Might it simply mean "Democrat," for instance...?

The options are endless.

3/09/2011 10:17 PM

Anonymous 3383 said...

mt1widgethead @1657-

Single surface sailors do not get BEQs nor BHA/ VHA; one's pit is home. So I got a place by myself (no roommates for me; bad experience in Idaho Falls) in El Cajon and drove to 32nd St every day, satisfied.

Since DoD wasn't contributing, I saw no need to share this information, my address, and my phone number, with anyone in authority. Whenever someone was wanted off hours, they had to check the next bunk in Berthing.

3/09/2011 11:13 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They broke the rules."

Really? Which one?

Serious question, guys. Was it the rule against watching a stupid show on a tiny laptop screen? Or the rule against falling asleep?

I'd be interested to see what this mythical page 13 you guys assume they signed actually says. Until then, it's instructive that no staff member at the nuc farm has ever told this kid exactly how what he did on a weekend evening was "unprofessional."

About a quarter of the commenters here have opined that this is symptomatic of bad leadership by Chiefs. Gotta agree, guys. I used to buy into the myth that Chiefs were way better leaders than civilian managers - until I started to work with civilians. The Chiefs can't even stand on the same plane. Maybe things were different BITD, but nowadays they suck. Until they un-suck themselves, we'll see more crap like this.

3/10/2011 6:36 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

We actually got 4 guys into a bunk on the boat. No biggie (excuse the pun).

(I normally sign as "Rackburn," but I'm not sure that's a good handle for this posting.)

3/10/2011 7:35 AM

Anonymous NNPTC dad said...

You guys may have done things differently back in the day 20 or 30 years ago. Well this is 2011 not 1982. I have a son at NNPTC right now. There is no laying in the rack with another sailor, period. No sex in the barracks, period. No females in BEQ, period. His first week of orientation all new students were marched to a public mast where 6 sailors were masted. Six at a time.

All I can say is most of you guys do not know what the training command is like this year the students have all been briefed, repeatedly, on what you can and cannot do at NNTPC. This is not you back in the day.

3/10/2011 7:40 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So far, the comments seem to be reasonable, Joel.

For the record, I agree with the Chief. He broke the rules....and then wanted to play games. I wouldn't want him working for me at test depth..

Hell, I wouldn't want him as my mid-watch SRW.

3/10/2011 8:24 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've seen people shoved out of NNPS for lesser things. Even really smart and talented people. It doesn't matter. If you get caught breaking the rules, then you are out and are off to the fleet. Get your paintbrush ready.

3/10/2011 8:40 AM

Anonymous You Got It, I('ve) Had It said...

@NNPTC dad: easy, pardner...back in the day ('80s), gayness was certainly NOT the social experiment fashion statement that it is under today's administration.

Any condoning statements you see here are from flaming liberals of 2011.

Any braggadocio from morons talking about shagging girls in the BEQ are talking about submarine bases...not training commands.

A little clarity works wonders.

3/10/2011 8:44 AM

Anonymous Mentaljim said...

What about a bunch of guys going out having a few too many beers at a local strip club? Is that unprofessional? Seems to me there is much greater potential harm to the Navy then these two dudes watching some lame movie in a BEQ bunk. The dude should've just taken his lumps and moved on and not have taken it to the press. He doesn't seem like the sort of stand up guy I'd want on my boat. Not because of his choice of activities, but based on how he dealt with the consequences of his actions.

My prior point that we should treat our sailors with more respect and give them more privacy in their barracks rooms stands.

3/10/2011 9:27 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I can say is most of you guys do not know what the training command is like this year the students have all been briefed, repeatedly, on what you can and cannot do at NNTPC. This is not you back in the day.

With all due respect, none due mind you, "back in the day" (mid 80's) we didn't have two dudes playing hide the weenie in the BEQ, then spooning afterwards only to be discovered by a disgusted roomie.

3/10/2011 10:19 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I reported to NPS Orlando as a smurf, I had a roommate who refused to bathe. I yelled and screamed at the little D&D freak, but it did no good. I even stuffed his bedding in the shower and soaked it. He didn't care. I finally went to the CMC. They put the guy on daily "personal hygiene" inspections. He failed one and was gone to the fleet. So long Funk Bunk. So, people have and continue to get booted for, wait for it, not following the rules.

3/10/2011 11:13 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a feeling here that he should just have taken his lumps and moved on.


Seriously, the man has never been told what, exactly, he did wrong. He's never been told what rule he broke. That's because he's being punished for doing something that sorta, maybe, could sorta be gay. THAT'S the truth of this. If he had been porking this other guy, sure - different story. They weren't doing anything of the sort.

Kudos to him for standing up to the Chiefs and other instructors there who feel entitled to shit on junior guys for whatever made-up reason they can pull out of their asses. Senior guys have to follow the rules, too - or does nuc accountability only go one way? Some jackasses tried to send a message that Teh Ghey isn't welcome at nuc school, and they didn't cover temselves well enough with the regs - so now it's in the papers and we all look like morons. Good job, nucs.

3/10/2011 11:21 AM

Anonymous Yawn said...

Safer bet that the twinks who were cuddling in a training command's BEQ look like the morons here...especially with that self-inflicted atomic wedgie jammed in their cracks.


3/10/2011 12:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Safer bet that the twinks who were cuddling in a training command's BEQ look like the morons here...especially with that self-inflicted atomic wedgie jammed in their cracks.



3/10/2011 12:18 PM

Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

I cannot wait to ask about this at the DADT repeal training. Are you seriously telling me that if it was a girl and a guy (or the other possibility) that we would be kicking them out of the Navy? If they did something wrong, take them to mast. Oh, they might insist on Courts-Martial that would probably fail.

Very see-thru and totally ridiculous.

3/10/2011 3:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

svrd_ssn_co: Please read the comment from 3/09/2011 9:27 PM. (I am that anon. coward)

But to recap, practically the only way the sailor could have made it worse for himself would be to get caught with a female in his barracks instead of with a male "friend". Two students of different sexes are never allowed to be in the same BEQ room. Students have been administratively separated for gross violations of that order even after accepting NJP.

Likewise, the command *did* try to take him to Mast. Since NNPTC is a shore command the student was allowed to refuse Mast, and the student did so. So, the Command administratively separated him instead, as they did to *every prior student* who had refused NJP.

Likewise, the "friend" in the room with him did get Masted (for unprofessional conduct IIRC), got fined, kept his rate and is now at NPTU. (The punishment was very light as such things go at NNPTC by the way, typically NJP results in an RIR).

This was not related to supposed homosexuality and if it were, the other student would have been kicked out on "trumped-up" charges as well.

3/10/2011 3:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But, but, but(t)...this is "Very see-thru and totally ridiculous."

Srvd_SSN_CO says so. Jeepers, it just must be true.

3/10/2011 4:19 PM

Anonymous STSC said...

"There is no laying in the rack with another sailor, period. No sex in the barracks, period. No females in BEQ, period."

If you truly believe that, you are sadly mistaken. THE RULES might say all of the above. Reality is a different story. The difference between training command BEQ and boat barracks only changes the severity of the repercussions (NJP vice EMI) if caught. The offenses are still actually occurring in both locations (training & fleet barracks).

The nuc students that get caught arrive at the fleet with a mast in their jacket. The ones that don't tell 'shore stories' about their antics at NNPTC. Much the same as a fleet Sailor telling a story about getting caught by his Chief and NOT getting busted (but doing EMI or his ass chewed) compared to the guys who brag about getting away with it until they finally put a ring on it (and were never caught).

I seem to recall not so long ago a post here about how nucs could get away with virtually anything and that despite the instructors' desires to boot non-performers that they were still getting pumped to the fleet.

Now it seems there are all these other people coming out of the woodwork saying if you fart wrong at NNPTC they will kick you out. I don't believe it. The Fleet's manning needs don't support it either, which is why NNPTC became more of a pump than the filter of old.

Still think this kid is getting railroaded. Once again, a better CPO mess there could have handled it. If the kid deserves the boot, there are better (and more legally sound) ways to give it to them then some BS 'unprofessionalism' charge at a court martial proceeding. Someone w/ anchors should have explained all that to the brass.

3/10/2011 5:17 PM

Anonymous Yeesh said...

JUST the tip o' the proverbial iceberg in the post-DADT world.

You (and I) ain't seen nothin' yet. The festering management sore of 90% of time being spent on 10% of the people is about to get much worse. Bank on it.

Me-thinks the "unintentional consequences" bucket is about to overflow. And this latest event isn't even a drop in it.

Us humans do some seriously stupid shit sometimes. Thank God for a sense of humor...and time/distance/shielding!

(P.S. Word verification for this post: "puddi." You couldn't make this shit up if you tried.)

3/10/2011 5:59 PM

Anonymous 3383 said...

Thinking back, I don't recall any chiefs at Orlando. I dimly recall a first class that would assign extra hours, but that's it. Is it different now, or is my recollection at fault?

3/10/2011 10:20 PM

Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

It's not often I agree with Srvd_SSN_CO, but I agree with him here. (+1)

I've refused EMI that the EDEA tried to assign me once. Told the CRA that he could tell the EDEA to send me to XOI and we'd get to the bottom of the problem. Situation resolved-- the XOI never happened because the EMCM decided that it wasn't worth the hassle.

On the same note, the sailor at NNPTC could bring a discrimination charge against the CO, and his section adviser. Let the big Navy, including the SECDEF decide whats what.

The point of refusing NJP isn't to get an early out, it's to discuss the problems in an alternate forum. But I suppose that's why there are ADSEP boards that try to decide these things.

In all fairness, I'm surprised the ET3/SU (let's be frank, he was probably a future RC-div'er) didn't just call his congressman, or Feinstein, or Pelosi, or Reid. That may have been more prudent and expeditious to stop getting out of the program if that was his actual intent.

3/11/2011 7:24 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the barracks at MINSY, where heat was controlled by opening and closing the window, I generally slept clothing free. My roomates wife was visiting, and I had the room to myself. Got up one fine morning, saw my roomie had returned during the night, and trundled off to the head. Returned and put on my glasses, ans discovered my roomie had returned with his wife. Ran out of money to stay at the hotel...

He didn't get in trouble because the only people who knew were me, him, and his wife. And I didn't care, just told to warn me the next time so I could at least get some skivvies on.

3/12/2011 5:35 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Things are handle differently in the fleet than in training commands.

Heard the story- can't vouch for it- of a sub CO doing a surprise barracks inspection while in drydock. Got to one room, there were items hanging in the head to dry- bras, panties, nylons, etc. "COB! Whose room is this?" "ET2 Smith, sir." "Get him up here. Now!"

All stop for the few minutes needed to fetch him. Upon arrival, the CO blares out, "Explain this!" "Uh, well, sir, my girlfriend came to visit, and we can't afford a hotel. I know it's against the rules, but she's been staying here with me the last couple of days." "You snuck your girlfriend in here?" "Yes,sir." "This stuff is all hers?" Yes, sir." "Oh, thank god! I thought I had a queer in here. COB, next room."

The story teller left it unclear as to whether or not anyone actually made her move out... but there was no punishment.

3/12/2011 11:53 AM

Anonymous billyjoebuttfuck said...

Typical submariners...they were buttfucking and one had chocolate on the purple helmet.

3/12/2011 11:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This old Marine has to ask:

"Barracks Privacy;" What is that?

Nothing I ever heard of during the course of my service. Privacy was one of those rights you parted company with for the duration of your service, by virtue of "U Signed the Mo_______king Contract."

The concept of an enlisted man asserting a right to "Barracks Privacy" would have gotten as hard an oxymoronic guffaw 'back in the day' as trying to claim a 'right' to liberty on the weekend.

3/14/2011 12:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those of you making comments about how you didn't get into trouble for having girls in your barracks should consider yourselves lucky. People were masted for having females in their barracks while I was there. Some people get a warning, others get punished. So many things play a role in that decision. Who caught you, who that person tells, and how they are feeling at the time. Removing the DADT policy is going to make it much more difficult to control inappropriate sexual relationships that were resolved by not allowing the opposite sex into one's barracks. Two people, no matter what their sex, sharing a TWIN SIZED mattress, not as a chair but LYING down is inappropriate in a military setting. Gay people want fair and equal treatment. They deserve that! But along with that comes CONSEQUENCES. Pick your battles. This was inappropriate and punishable. Nobody was set out to get this kid. He wouldn't take responsibility for his actions, therefore he doesn't deserve to be in the Navy. Not because of his sexual orientation, but because of the way he handled all of this.

3/19/2011 9:25 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am keeping this anonymous because I am dealing directly with this issue. First, there are conflicting stories as to whether they were clothed or not. Regardless, two sailors in the same bunk, it's unprofessional no matter how you look at it. The command decided to treat this just as if it was a male-female. The CO is the one who decided they were to be put on report. One took the mast, the other refused. The refusal got himself a liberal ACLU type lawyer and they went public. The other kid took his lumps and has moved on. Everything was suspended anyway. He's doing great. It was never about forcing the kid out, but what choice was left when he basically said FU to the CO? I do not condone the behavior nor do I believe in it, but regardless, the command handled it well and did what they should have. I am the second kids' direct supervisor now, and he is no worse for the wear and is doing great. The other kid should have done the same.

4/04/2011 8:07 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was sepped by NJP from NNPTC. That place really is ridiculous on rules. Every Thursday, 5-8 mastings occur, and of those, I would say 2 or 3 each time result in separation.

There is no leadership from the Chiefs; they are merely instructors. EMI is only given for BEQ inspection failures. All other infractions usually go to mast and the highest allowable punishment is administered (reduction in rank, extra duty, half months pay for 2 months). The system there is really screwed up.

10/03/2011 9:09 AM

Anonymous cornerofhope said...

This will not work as a matter of fact, that is what I believe.

4/24/2012 10:01 AM

Anonymous theguildedpage said...

Quite useful piece of writing, thanks for this post.

6/21/2012 5:19 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The kid was uncomfortable, Captains mast doesn't happen overnight, takes about a week after all the procedings there. The kid broke a rule he signed his name to follow and it was a bad idea from the beginning getting in the bed. One thing they stress hard there is have a plan, this wasn't planned or else it never would have happened. He forced the Captain's hand the moment he laid in the bed with another person, regardless of gender.

9/23/2012 12:22 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seeing as how I signed this 'mythical' piece of paper just like this kid, it definitely states no one in bed with you, same sex or not.

9/23/2012 12:32 AM

Anonymous mamada said...

Pretty helpful info, lots of thanks for this article.

1/17/2013 6:56 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home