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, November 03, 2010

Submariner And Non-Submariner In The News

A retired Navy submarine Captain has pled guilty to a conflict-of-interest violation for his dealings with a defense contractor before his retirement:
Patrick Seidel, 51, a veteran submariner, was negotiating with the defense firm about a job while also helping the firm potentially receive a contract with the Navy to provide technology enhancing the service's anti-submarine program, according to the U.S. attorney's office.
At the time, Seidel was major-program manager for maritime surveillance at Naval Sea Systems Command in San Diego, involved with contracts for ocean surveillance systems.
After negotiating with the unnamed firm for several months, Seidel retired in late 2005 and took a job with the firm, receiving a $25,000 "signing bonus," according to documents.
Seidel had invited the defense firm to send employees to inquire about Navy contracts, sent Navy personnel to the firm to discuss possible contracts, and talked with Navy officials about the firm, according to documents in the case.
Magistrate Judge Bernard Skomal on Friday sentenced Seidel to one year of probation and a $15,000 fine.
Also, an Ensign at Sub School who will never be a Submariner is asking the ACLU for help getting a discharge:
(ENS Michael) Izbicki, 24 and based at the Naval Submarine School in Groton, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Hartford on Wednesday asking for an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector, a request the Navy has turned down twice in the past year.
According to the lawsuit, the Navy's investigations of the legitimacy of Izbicki's beliefs were deeply flawed and, in one case, "showed extreme religious bias" against his Christian beliefs, especially when it came to his increasing interest in Quakerism.
"My Christian convictions preclude the use of violence; I cannot take someone else's life, nor can I aid others in doing so," Izbicki wrote in his application. "Therefore, I cannot participate in war in any form."...
...He had to take a psychological exam when he started training to serve on a submarine. He was asked if he could launch a nuclear missile and he realized he could not.
I remember another case of some goober officer asking to get out back in the early 90s, but I think it was because he'd hooked up with some group of politically-oriented peace activists instead of Quakers. I discussed the "psychological test" Submariners have to take back when I first started this blog, so I guess it's a good time to bring it up again to get people's thoughts on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of same.


Anonymous Sub LT said...

My favorites were the questions like "I sometimes lie"...the morally ambiguous questions.

11/03/2010 11:07 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What psych test? I've got CRS but my class in BESS in 85 had no such thing.
Courts Martial him for failure to obey, and give him a BCD.

psych test? MY @SS.

11/03/2010 11:34 PM

Blogger bigsoxfan said...

SPAWAR loses another. I think the best thing they ever accomplished was selling a nearly obsolete one-armed launcher from the gunner mate building at Great Lakes to Taiwan. This is not the first SPAWAR villian to appear in the local SD news.

11/03/2010 11:41 PM

Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

"I sometimes lie"
I remember that question being asked 3 or 4 times in as many different ways.

If that were a fill in the blank question, I'd like to answer it like this: To lie?...No Sir, lying is bad. Ummm well okay Sir, the only time I really lie is when addressing the ORSE team and when talking to girls. But that's all. I promise Sir.

11/04/2010 1:26 AM

Blogger Old Salt said...

Reminds me of the reservists in the first gulf conflict that got called up. Boo Hoo, we didn't join the Army to fight, we just wanted college money. I'm with Hagar, except make him pay back all the money we spent on his college education as well.

11/04/2010 1:40 AM

Blogger Alexander said...

I took the "psychological test" five years ago. What a joke. You knew what the "right" answers were immediately. I still get asked about it by non-submariners, they think it is an actual test or screening by a psrink.

I have a hart time believing that after 4 years of ROTC, or wherever this ENS came from, it never occured to him that the job of the military, including the submarine force, is to kill people and break their toys.

Maybe he should have thought about it more and gone to medical school instead...

11/04/2010 3:56 AM

Blogger John said...

Izbicki graduated from the Academy in 2008. My first thought was 'tough'. On the other hand I do see how people's religous beliefs can change over the years and will grant that is what seems to have happened in this case.

From the article: "Izbicki says he is willing to pay the Navy for his education. He also says he is willing to go to prison."

Make him pay the navy in full for his education and then, and only then, discharge him. We don't need him.

11/04/2010 5:55 AM

Anonymous submarines once... said...

Submarine volunteers-crazy to join, insane to stay. But in all my years submerged and undetected I only saw one submariner "lose it" and that was a seasoned A-ganger while on duty in our homeport. Whatever filters used were dang effective!

11/04/2010 6:01 AM

Anonymous Ex ANAV/COB said...

WRT to the Ens that wants out...
Violence? WTF, that's what a submarine brings to the fight and a lot of it. Now that he got his all expence college education, he wants out. I agree w/the 1134 poster, give him a Big Chicken Dinner via Courts Martial and send him packing. How could he not know, after 4 years of college and pipeline training he might be involved with ruffeling a few bad guys feathers. Just reading this pisses me off.

Anyway, back to the psych test, my favorite question from the circa 1979 era test was "Does the smell of sweat offend you?"

11/04/2010 6:20 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

BCD costs the navy too much money. I am sure that they will just administratively separate him. Less bad publicity that way.

I think many of you are taking this the wrong way. I don't think Izbicki is a goober or is trying to get a free education. If that was his intent, there are much easier ways to get adsep after graduation, without having sufferred through 12 months of NPS/NPTU "fun".

I suspect that he is telling the truth about his religious convictions. Cut him some slack. He is a smart guy.

11/04/2010 6:32 AM

Blogger SJV said...

I recall an interview in boot camp with a female officer (I assume a psychologist type) who asked that we draw a picture of a person, with only the stipulation that it not be a stick figure. Later I had to take the MMPI for a nuclear industry job. Not sure which was the best at finding flakes, but the drawing was much quicker.

11/04/2010 6:42 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as the retired CO goes, NGSS has been hiring retired officers for years. How else do you think they got away with that pitiful LPD program. There is no other way the Navy could have looked the other way at the problems with those ships.

11/04/2010 6:55 AM

Blogger SJV said...

The Ensign in this case is more honorable than the Captain. He realized he wasn't fit for service and is willing to accept whatever the consequences are. The captain has been a dishonest snake for his 20 year career (leopards don't lose their spots) and it's only coming to light because he got caught.

Set the ensign up in some sort of four year community service program. Bust the captain down to E-4 and put him back aft on an SSN for the next four years. Have him clean the battery well and the bilge every week.

11/04/2010 6:59 AM

Blogger DDM said...

We had a guy who put in a request to be discharged due to being a conscientious objector. The command acknowledged it, submitted the paperwork, and the request was denied. Later this guy secured important equipment while under the ice. Turns out he was an incompetent objector as well.

11/04/2010 7:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt the Ensign is "willing to accept whatever the consequences are." That's easy to say, hard to do.

Throw him in the brig and see if his "beliefs" are still holding up after 30 days or so.

11/04/2010 7:34 AM

Blogger ChaseKB said...

Don't laud this kid for his convictions. 9 times out of 10, this kid is trying to get out of the sub community because of the suck factor, not because he suddenly decided, after 4+ years, that war is wrong. Which is the more likely scenario? That sad thing about conscientious objectors is that they hide behind those that have no such qualms.

11/04/2010 8:21 AM

Blogger John Byron said...

There are easier ways to get off the hook. One of my Officer Sub School classmates was arrested for breaking into Vality and stealing audio equipment. It worked - no sea duty.

11/04/2010 8:37 AM

Blogger Don the Baptist said...

Funny, I took the same kind of test to qualify for Seminary. Go figure.

11/04/2010 8:42 AM

Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

When I was CO on an SSBN I had one of my non nuc WEPS decide he could not launch missiles. After the usual red tape and a year on hold at SUBASE NLON, he was discharged as a CO. I understand that he became a minister. There was no questioning of the young man's belief change and sincerity.

11/04/2010 9:05 AM

Blogger Dave in St. Louis said...

I was an enlisted nuc ET serving from 1980 through 1988. I don't recall any psych testing.

We had an EO on the boat who told everyone that he would open the TG and Battery breakers if we got a valid launch order. He was kept around, but was carefully excluded from being on watch during Battle Stations Missile and the EOOWs and ROs were told to watch him closely in the time period between calling BSM away and his relief.

11/04/2010 9:24 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't rcall taking a true "psych test" in the mid 80s. I did have to draw a picture. From statements above, it sounds as though the Navy is now giving the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) which commercial nukes give to operators on a near annual basis now.

11/04/2010 9:37 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think many of you are taking this the wrong way. I don't think Izbicki is a goober or is trying to get a free education. If that was his intent, there are much easier ways to get adsep after graduation, without having sufferred through 12 months of NPS/NPTU "fun".

I don't have a problem with the Navy letting him out - as long as he repays the full taxpayer cost of his education including time at the academy, NPS and sub-school. Let him out and lien him until all is repaid.

11/04/2010 9:42 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems a bit odd it took 5 years to resolve the conflict of issue case for the 06. Must have created an enemy or two along the way and someone hotlined him. $15K seems like a pretty small slap on the wrist for the compenstion he received.

11/04/2010 9:44 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was no psyc test/eval for nukes in the '70s, other than the normal abuse at nuke school and prototype, and we had some real winners make it to the boat.

I took the MMPI when I joined the civilian nuclear industry in '86. From all the questions about poop, it seem that they were only concerned about fecal fetishes.


11/04/2010 10:30 AM

Anonymous bullnav said...

Maybe the real issue is with USNA and what they are producing. In this case, it was clearly not a "Steely-eyed Killer of the Deep." I understand folks learn new things about their feelings, but the point about potentially having to kill folks in defense of the nation should have come up a time or two at USNA. Pay the Navy back for the education? How long will that take? Decades...what a bunch of crap.

11/04/2010 10:35 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regardless of this ENS' motives, his request should work out such that he won't be put on a submarine. (I wouldn't want to have to rely on him, would you?) One really wonders what the hell this guy was doing at USNA other than getting a free education though, with this set of beliefs? At the least, make him pay it back somehow (one wonders what the USNA applicant who was turned down so that this schmoe could waste a bunch of time and money, taking up space in a USNA class, would think of this situation)

I found Dave-in_StLouis' story about the EO interesting. We had a TM who said similar things about what he was going to do if we got the order to shoot. That fellow left the ship in handcuffs, and rightfully so.

11/04/2010 10:52 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Psychological test? Mine was getting underway for a WestPac the day after I reported onboard.

11/04/2010 11:12 AM

Blogger Vigilis said...

"Make him pay the navy in full for his education [about $300,000 per graduate] and then, and only then, discharge him. We don't need him."

By the time an Ensign could possibly pay back USNA tuition the Navy will have supported him well beyond his original 5-1/2-year commitment.

This is another example of taxpayers being gamed by non-career minded applicants to our military academies.

Commissioned officers are theoretically educated and paid to make decisions not entrusted to enlisteds. ENS Izbicki is another example of how poorly some applicants to the USNA have been selected and, how poor their decision-making can get.

@ Hagar
Submariner screening tests not being used enough? Here is what may result.

11/04/2010 12:25 PM

Anonymous Pops said...

I took the psych test in the late 50s and then when I retired in the early 80s I went to work work the sheriff I had to take it again. fter taking the exam, the shrink asked how I liked the exam. I told him that I had taken it before in the Navy. He then wanted to know how I did with it. I told him I had to see the Navy shrink. (I had him hooked(.

I told him that the Navy shrink wanted to ask me a couple questions about the results. OK

The shrink said, on page two, it asked if you liked girls and you said yes. Yes sir, that is what I answered.

The shrink then said, on page seven it asked if you would rather go out tonight with a boy or girl and you answered a girl. Yes sir, that is what I answered.

The shrink then said, OK, how do you explain your answer to the question on page forteen, do you go out with girls and you answered, NO?

I said, My wife won't let me.

That was the end of our session.

11/04/2010 1:23 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

this kid is trying to get out of the sub community because of the suck factor,

On the other hand after 4 years at the Academy and a year in the nuke pipeline, the 3 months at SOBC is possibly the least sucky time he's had.

11/04/2010 1:36 PM

Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

"My Christian convictions preclude the use of violence; I cannot take someone else's life, nor can I aid others in doing so," Izbicki wrote in his application."

It took him five years to come to this personal realization?...Wow, how convenient in timing. The BS indicator is in the red on so many levels in this case that it's almost funny.

Okay, if the Ensign wants to get out of Sub duty, that's fine. Send him back to the surface and lock him away in an office somewhere. He could do his time attached to Office of Naval Research or some other harmless entity where he could cause no trouble. Bottom line here is he needs to live up to his obligation and serve. Don't send him to mast or let him skip out on his commission. He's already proven that he doesn't belong on a boat. I sure as hell don't want to serve under a DIV-O like this man. Think of the poor DH who would deal with this shit as well. So have him do his six years stateside quietly and away from anything important.

Gotta admit it just kills me that it took him five years to reconfigure his religious convictions. Wow what perfect timing and his education is free. My education is free as well. I've not even tapped into my GI Bill yet and the Navy is paying for my Bachelors which I'm close to 3/4 of the way towards completion. I had to re-up for two more years in order to secure this whole thing, bu hey I'm just aching to go back out. The Navy gives me free uniforms, free eats, per diam out the ass and more...and all I have to do is help in a team effort when it's time to go out and track& kill bad guys in some distant part of the other side of the world?...and how am I supposed to have a problem with that concept exactly? Sound pretty simple to me and fun on some levels.

Last thought, don't punish the Ensign. But he needs to serve his time like the rest of us.

11/04/2010 2:20 PM

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

I bear him no malice, and understand that the years between 17 and 20/21 are very formative years for young adults. People change a lot during that time window; I know I did.

Sounds like a good candidate for the enlisted Religious Program Specialist (RP) rating, and assign him to a Navy hospital to serve his obligation. Let me see, he is a college graduate so let him start as an E4 or E5. Go ahead and let him keep his degree, but serve his entire obligation. At the end of which he receives an Honorable Discharge if his service supports it.

11/04/2010 3:55 PM

Anonymous DDM's DIV-O said...

We had a guy who put in a request to be discharged due to being a conscientious objector. The command acknowledged it, submitted the paperwork, and the request was denied. Later this guy secured important equipment while under the ice. Turns out he was an incompetent objector as well.

I don't remember that guy being a conscientious objector. I do remember him stripping naked in the WR and sitting in the CO's chair. Same guy?

11/04/2010 6:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

in 1982, all the submarine candidates in our boot camp class to a psych test. We had one guy who was really nervous about it but passed.

A couple of months later we take another one at sub school. The same guy is really nervous again but passes.

That night we take atour aboard he USS Whale. I am in the first group going down the hatch and we start our tour. The guy who was always nervous came down hatch, went to the control room and puked all over the deck. He was claustrophobic.

Tourns out his daddy was a SCPO in the sub service and he was afraid to tell anyone, just figuring it would go away.

He wasn't in class in more after that.

11/04/2010 7:28 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about the spelling errors in that last post, I am on my blackberry.

Anyway, I forgot to mention that same guy retired in 2006 about a month after I did as a OSCM.

11/04/2010 7:32 PM

Anonymous NHSparky said...

Did the stickman thing in boot in the mid-80's. Have done the MMPI a few times now since I went commercial nuke in 2006. Not really sure how I made it past either one.

And the pressure was more peer-induced than job induced, as evidenced by the topside watch that committed suicide on my first boat.

Finally, as far as the ENS goes? Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Repay the cost of Academy education (as a civilian with whatever type of shitty separation an officer can get.) I agree with the others--he's had five-plus years to realize he doesn't want to kill people. Only when it gets down to the short strokes does he realize he might be called on to do just that?

11/04/2010 7:47 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My best man when I got married went through A and C schools with me and hit the fleet as an E3. Passed the test for E4 and was involved in the strikes on Libya.

He declared himself a CO immediately afterward. He knew he'd never see that crow, knew he'd be sent to sea (he was shore based air crew), knew he'd be given every scut job on the planet and have to serve out his remaining 3 1/2 years as a mess cranking deck chipper.

He was the one of the most honorable people I know to this day.

So, perhaps the Ensign is the same. I like the suggestion that he become an enlisted RPO and serve out his time, or perhaps a corpsman in charge of bedpans and cleaning of decks. Make him an SN and see if he takes the job. If he doesn't go for it, then say howdy to the brig.

Sometimes people's views change. Whether or not they are honorable depends on if they are willing to foot the bill for it in the end.

11/05/2010 12:17 AM

Blogger Rob said...

You don't have to like it, you just have to do it.

11/05/2010 8:30 AM

Anonymous cupojoe said...

I also saw some officers come to Jesus after getting out of NPS (realizing the oncoming suck) and look for a way out. Shameful.

You raised your right hand and took the oath.

11/05/2010 9:10 AM

Anonymous STSC said...

My roommate (another STS3) in the barracks on the WHALE put in for CO status around 1991 or so. This was back when ST's received over a year of training enroute (frequently with months of delays in between) before hitting the fleet. He arrived w/ around 2 years of service.

Qualified small arms no sweat when shooting at paper targets shortly after reporting aboard and was making steady progress on SS quals. A month or so later (dink) he's at his Weapons Officer interviews for TSS/POOD. Fails all the scenario questions and categorically states he could never take another human's life, regardless of the circumstances.

We pulled him from the duty section and sent him cranking. He cranked for a few hundred days, doing all the long & drawn out paperwork for an administrative separation package as a CO, and again as the package went through all the right channels for review. Until the package actually left the ship he was forced to continue his SS quals. Once it left is when I think we pulled his SS qual requirements & he was on perma-crank duty (inport & underway). As I recall, he did finish his advanced DC portion of the card & had no problems participating in any drills or casualties (real or simulated) so long as he didn't have to point a gun at anyone.

Many of us were never sure whether he was gaming the system or truly a CO. He was very religious, and became more so throughout the whole process.

In the end, he was separated honorably, and was able to use his GI Bill to go college because he had more than 3yrs total service when separated. Alot of guys were pretty upset about that. He was a good roommate though, and could wash dishes like a mofo!

11/05/2010 12:14 PM

Blogger reddog said...

Going through enlisted sub school in '76, I took the psych test.

The only questions I took exception to were the ones about did you like to torture small animals or have sexual feelings for your mother.

It's unfair to have different standards for enlisted and officers.

11/05/2010 1:37 PM

Anonymous pc assclown said...

"It's unfair to have different standards for enlisted and officers."

What’s unfair? It’s understood that officers are clear-headed, straight thinking, rational, honest, smart folks who show respect for those sharing their strata. Enlisted, on the other hand, are all shiftless, cut throat, un-trustworthy, thieving, not to be trusted, dirt bag, cheaters and liars.

The psychology and mental makeup of the educated officer is vastly different from the typical scum enlisted who’s primary purpose in joining the Navy is to either avoid jail or gang murder. The fact that enlisted can successfully pass through their training pipelines only highlights their conniving street smarts.

And because they’re so different, they need to be psychologically measured against different standards.

A fair question on any officer psychological examination: Would seeing your younger sister kiss your best friend anger you? Yes or No?

A fair question on any enlisted psychological examination: Would seeing your younger sister being munched on your best friend anger you? Yes or No?
My answers are……….

11/05/2010 2:51 PM

Anonymous Hale mid-70s said...

No psych test in the mid-70s. Policy back then was to just find any way to fill the boat. Only one misbehaver that I remember - Nav-ET Chief racked-out after one shift and wouldn't budge. Give the ENS a BCD and stop wasting time and money.

11/05/2010 3:04 PM

Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

"have sexual feelings for your mother." That's another question I wish was fill in the blank. My answer would be...No sir, however, I do have sexual feelings towards other guy's mothers. That doesn't mean I'm abnormal does it sir?

When I the MMPI, I remember there was another question asking...Do you see ghosts or apparitions? If it were fill in the blank, I'd say, Well not usually sir. But it does depend how many Patron silver shots I've had followed along with a fair amount of Heineken as well.

Most of these psychological/personality tests are unbelievably simple to pass. That's why I find humor in some of the questions.

11/05/2010 3:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

{The fact that enlisted can successfully pass through their training pipelines only highlights their conniving street smarts. }

I have conniving street smarts?

Wow, I'm much cooler than I (or anyone else) had ever thought. Thanks - you just made my weekend! :)

11/05/2010 4:06 PM

Blogger reddog said...

I resent that crack about joining the NAV to escape jail. The cops never caught on to me, even one time. They still haven't.

See'ya on down the pike, mate.

11/05/2010 5:33 PM

Anonymous Veemann said...

Ens Izbicki didn't think this one through. Why not take the easy way and 1) say he was gay or 2) pop positive. I'm curious if his increased interest in Quakerism came to him while eating his morning Oatmeal.

11/05/2010 5:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My first boat. Scheduled to go on WestPac in four weeks.

Week 1: take over as Chemistry and Radiological Controls Officer.

Week 2: my Leading Engineering Laboratory Technician (LELT) tells me he's not going on WestPac and that he'll claim he's gay to prevent deploying.

Week 3: LELT "admits" he's gay and goes to mast. Off boat the same day and subsequently discharged from USN.

Week 4: boat deploys on WestPac.

Week 5: LELT marries high school sweetheart back in hometown and probably lives happily ever after.

It's easy if you want it to be easy. It's hard if you want to involve the ACLU so that you can get some attention.

We've got you coming and going.

11/05/2010 6:38 PM

Blogger SJV said...

Back in my day the joke was that if a nuke wanted to claim he was gay he had to have pictures and he had to be smiling. Not too many tried that.

11/05/2010 8:48 PM

Blogger John said...

@ pc_assclown, 1451 - Whole comment = ROFLMA. Good one.

11/06/2010 12:04 AM

Blogger DDM said...


Different Guy. Pretty sure different boat.

11/06/2010 2:25 AM

Anonymous Pump, not a filter! said...

Izbicki was on of my students last year. His status was well known at the command. We were told not to fuck with him about it and push him thru like all the other EOOW students. If he is smart enough to qualify, you think he would be smart enough to find a way out. I once casually explained to him that in 5 years on an ssn and 2 westpacs, the only violent thing we did, was get violently fucked up and party our balls off all over Asia. He didnt seem to really have his story together. I hope he gets what he wants. I am all for people getting over on the navy. I have seen the navy fuck its fair share of people. I always enjoy a good tale of someone getting to cram some dick back the other direction.

11/06/2010 10:30 AM

Blogger Vigilis said...

Fortunately, options for submariners to get out of the program are about to be expanded.

Not an officer, you say? Then, consider navy Lieutenant Frederica Spilman .

Perhaps volunteers for submarines may soon have to be short, fat or ugly to be admitted.

11/06/2010 12:06 PM

Anonymous Sub O-Ganger said...

I'm mostly with ETCS(SS/SW) on this. However, a couple of things on my mind that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned here:

First, he didn't JUST get a bachelor's degree out of USNA on the Navy's dime. He ALSO got a masters degree from Johns Hopkins (see Scoop Deck). Like ETCS wrote, I can also see how people's religious beliefs can change over the years, and I agree that it seems from the press that Izbicki seems honest and willing to repay his education.

That leads me to my second point. I think the biggest point of contention here (if the Navy agreed to let him go) would be the characterization of his service. He has already agreed that he will repay what he owes for his education. I think the big question is, IF the Navy allows him to get out, how will his service be characterized. It seems to me he's suing for it to be an "honorable" discharge.

If you want an "honorable" discharge then you have to have HONORABLY SERVED. I don't think he's actually done ANY service yet, much less HONORABLE service. What has he done so far? 1) Gone off to JHU to get a masters degree. What service was he providing there? Hmmm... none. The Navy pays for guys to go off and get advanced degrees like that in anticipation of receiving service in return / payback after you get the degree. 2) Gone to NNPS and Prototype and SOBC. What service was he providing there? Hmmm... none. He attended school. He hasn't actually DONE anything to SERVE our country yet, other than milk the Navy for his educational benefits.

Now he wants to get out and he is willing to repay those benefits. Okay, fine, let him out. I don't want him on my boat. I'll be darned if he's earned a characterization of "HONORABLE" service though.

I don't agree with some of the other comments that say give him a BCD. He hasn't really done anything criminal to earn the BCD. Just give him a general discharge and move on.

11/06/2010 2:08 PM

Blogger Vigilis said...

Sub O-Ganger ("I'll be darned if he's earned a characterization of 'HONORABLE' service though.")

Seems Izbicki's lawyers may think the issue has already been decided by the Navy without reference to "service".

Tell me, how can discharge before fulfillment of obligation be honorable in any instance which is voluntary?

"03 July, 1998

By Scott Hogenson
CNS Executive Editor

The U.S. Navy is faced with a situation some might consider unusual.

The United States Supreme Court last week upheld the Department of Defense position that it could ban the sale of sexually explicit magazines on navel vessels, and in Navy Exchanges and other military stores.

But earlier this spring, the Navy permitted a female aviator to resign her commission and receive an honorable discharge after having posed in Playboy magazine."

11/06/2010 3:07 PM

Blogger MT1(SS)WidgetHead said...

He's trying to get out of his contract. Don't let him do that regardless if he's able to pay the Navy back. Make him do his time locked away in an office somewhere as an analyst. He can be someone's bus-boy running about and retrieving stats and findings for some shore command for the next six years. He turned down a promotion to JG as well. Fine, he can be an Ensign for the next six years fetching coffee, paperwork and changing printer ink jets.

It's like an MT3 who makes it to the boat after a year to 18months in the pipeline. It can be scary as hell at first. Make a consistent effort and let us help you. Just don't go into your shell and give up. As long as you're putting out some effort you'll have no problems. You can have all the soda and garlic cheese bread at Mid-Rats you want, just show me some results when it's time to play 20 questions and conduct a walk through. Yes, that includes movies and video games too for a limited amount of time IF and ONLY IF you and your fellow Nubs are up to speed on the present material. Yes the punishment and reward system is most effective in this way.

Just don't lock up and give up on yourself. I can only speculate, but I suspect the Ensign here gave up and in short order, tried to find any excuse to get out of serving on a boat. Something spooked him in the last five years. I'd want to find out what that something is. There has to be more to this. Has NR really given this guy a full opportunity to explain himself regarding his present decision making? Or is he just going off half cocked on decisions based on religion (as an excuse) with no merit or substance?

11/06/2010 4:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am all for people getting over on the navy. I have seen the navy fuck its fair share of people. I always enjoy a good tale of someone getting to cram some dick back the other direction.

LOL Hadn't thought of it that way. Pretty funny.

11/06/2010 7:41 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat Seidel? Enjoyed reading about his misfortunes with the law. I got backstabbed by him when I was a CO and our SSN visited Bahrain when he was the submariner on 5th Fleet. Karma, baby!

11/06/2010 7:45 PM

Blogger John Byron said...

Axiom 3: Time wounds all heels.

11/06/2010 7:59 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as he doesn't have a dishonorable discharge (and to a lesser extent BCD), I don't think the characterization of his service matters as much as you lifer types think it does.

Having went through the process of moving to civilian life, nobody has ever asked me for a dd-214 nor what type of discharge I received. I'm pretty sure that only a very few of the people I've interviewed with (those that served prior) even knew what that was.

Sometimes we have much higher expectations of what normal people know about the military than the reality. A great number of people don't even know anybody who's in the military, and certainly don't know them well enough to get in the details. Think about the type of questions you field from people that have zero knowledge of the Navy... now imagine if you think those people know what an honorable vs a general discharge is.

If they did happen to know, a lot of people would take the explanation of "I was a Conscientious Objector, and it's just an administrative difference" (which is true!) at face value and move on.

11/06/2010 11:41 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think about the type of questions you field from people that have zero knowledge of the Navy... now imagine if you think those people know what an honorable vs a general discharge is.

Having only worked in commercial nuclear power since getting out after six 20 years ago, I can only speak to that specific industry - you will be asked to produce your DD-214 (for enlisted). And given the number of former Navy nukes in the biz, everyone knows what various discharge types mean.

11/07/2010 10:22 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think ENS Christ over here should be released from his oath and sent a hefty bill for undergrad and grad school. If he has to serve, he'll probably just be a drain on the command and his fellow JOs. Every wardroom has a turd or two, why have one more?

11/07/2010 6:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Every wardroom has a turd or two, why have one more?"

That's exactly why you force him to serve his six years. As it's been suggested, have this little jack ass do his years in a back office somewhere out of the horizon. If our Sec-Nav is smart he'll make it happen effectively.

11/07/2010 9:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

etcs (ss/sw),

What is ROFLMA?

11/08/2010 7:23 AM

Blogger Alexander said...

ROFLMAO: Rolling on the Floor, Laughing My @$$ Off.

11/08/2010 11:11 AM

Anonymous Below Decks Watch said...

To hell with both of these bastards.
One sold out the integrity of his rank and the Submarine Service to a contractor. The other had his man-card taken away by some stupid idea somewhere.

11/08/2010 12:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having only worked in commercial nuclear power since getting out after six 20 years ago, I can only speak to that specific industry - you will be asked to produce your DD-214 (for enlisted). And given the number of former Navy nukes in the biz, everyone knows what various discharge types mean.

I'm certain this is true in industries that have large numbers of ex-military, but in my experience it's definitely not universally true. I work about as far from the military as possible, (though I'm certainly not the only veteran.)

There is, in fact, another document you can use to document your service that does not include the characterization of your service(VMET or something like that). My gut says that most employers would reluctantly take it, because it is actually illegal to inquire about the characterization of your service outside of an industry where it has direct bearing on the job.

11/08/2010 7:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

. . . because it is actually illegal to inquire about the characterization of your service outside of an industry where it has direct bearing on the job.

Actually, it's not illegal to do so. It is just recommended that the separation type (unless it is dishonorable) not be used as the determining factor for hiring. Of course a potential employer can put down any reason they want for not hiring someone - happens all the time.

11/09/2010 8:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I can find, you are right that it is not illegal to "ask", but it is illegal to use that information as the basis for your hiring decision. (I believe there is a different distinction for dishonorable discharges, because in general, that's actually from a criminal conviction albeit in courts martial vs. civilian courts).

So, yes, I guess people CAN ask, but it's a great way to expose yourself to Title VII inquiries from the EEOC, so I suspect that many corporations do not. Lastly, I have seen very little evidence that most of the HR folks I've spoken with have any idea what a DD-214 or an honorable discharge is.

11/10/2010 2:51 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

i remember seidel. wouldn't let you watch a movie until 8 pm. screw you pat

5/06/2012 3:02 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home