Another career bites the dust due to stupidity

[Maximus]

The question has become who knew what and what did they do about it. Any one familiar with Navy accountability will appreciate the nuances of this chain of thought. It is definitely not the commander leaving the club after one drink with the attitude of “what I don’t know won’t hurt me“. A fairly reliable rumor has it that the CNO visited the Enterprise, witnessed an episode, and asked to see more. Any one familiar with a Navy ship knows that everyone on board, including the CO and everyone on the Flag staffs including the Admirals knew. Anyone familiar with the Navy is well aware of the secondary informal chain of command from the goat locker to the skipper via the command master chief. So, everyone knew about it. Now, was nothing done? Out of apathy? Or because at least three current and future flag officers thought there was nothing wrong with it? Third possibility is that it was noted and dealt with. Bottom line, each of the three possible scenarios demand that someone come forward and accept responsibility.

The second issue is how far back can a witch hunt go. One of the posters on this thread critical of Capt Honors expressed his opinion that the Forrest Gump spirit video was his favorite. Is it really proper for a future NavaL officer to poke fun at those less fortunate than himself. Will “Forrest” be sweating bullets when he is up for CO in a few years hoping that the video does not surface? Absurd? Probably. But maybe not. What if the First “Lady”, “Mrs” Barney Frank’s, cause de jour is social acceptance of the mentally challenged and it is on the front page of every paper and the subject of every forum such as this on the internet. OBTW, all you candidates who chuckled at “ the First “Lady”, “Mrs” Barney Frank”, withdraw your SA applications because you are not sensitive enough to lead in today’s military.

Mongo, after that long post, can I ask you a simple question...as I usually respect your view, and you usually have an inside track on what the upper brass do/does, any you seem to be condoning the actions of Captain Honors; is it OK (for anyone) to use politically incorrect language like: Fagot, N*****, S****, or H*** in the Navy today?

Yes or no, simple question.

If not, I don't care if the ship was 110 degrees 24/7, Captain Honors needs to go, and he needs to go in shame as an example of what the Navy doesn't want in their ranks. Remember, there are many people that look up to these leaders and they need to feel included or welcome in the Navy. I've heard the argument made many times that the Military needs to have "leadership faces" looking out to subordinates that are similar in: race, creed and religion, so....whom, does Honors represent?

In a million years, me, as one usually on the other side of the PC discussion, would never think it was acceptable for talk like that, on those videos. NEVER! I was a lowly enlisted man and I knew "right from wrong"

Now, if you want to tell me that he was using that language as a joke and moral booster, who the hell decides when it's a joke or moral booster?

The Navy has spoken on this issue, and he's (Honors) toast, and rightfully so! Now it's on to: who knew and what did they do. The old guard need to account for this or don't dare ask rank and file to simply sign on to new policy.

 

[Maximus]

To put this in perspective / context of the real world, and not just the Navy, this ESPN TV sports announcer was fired today for calling a colleague "sweet baby"

http://www.lostlettermen.com/current-news-ron-franklin-let-go-by-espn/

BTW, he's in his sixties and it looks like his career is over but I'm sure it'll make SNL.

 

[Mongo]

Navy times this morning with more on the story and more video. In the 2nd video, XO's movie night is the last half of the video:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-enterprise-more-xo-videos-surface-010411w/

 

[Mongo]

Mongo, after that long post, can I ask you a simple question...as I usually respect your view, and you usually have an inside track on what the upper brass do/does, any you seem to be condoning the actions of Captain Honors; is it OK (for anyone) to use politically incorrect language like: Fagot, N*****, S****, or H*** in the Navy today?

Not sure what a S**** or a H*** is but I think you answered your own question. Had you thought they were of equal offense, you would have expressed yourself; F****, N*****, S****, or H***, would you have not? Fag/fagot/gay is used in other contexts than homosexuality (see my previous "you're so gay" post) and, to me, when used in these other contexts is definitely not as offensive as the "n" word. Hard to take that one out of context. And yes, it depends on the setting which is what I keep getting back to, it was a humerous video, not formally standing in front of one's troops. Just as an aside, back when you were on the 'gator freighters', did you never hear a fellow Marine refer to a sailor as a 'fag', or worse? And when you heard the comment did you actually assume that the Marine was, with fact and conviction, stating that he blelieved that the sailor was sleeping two to a bunk?

The culture of the Navy. Lets discuss JO aviators which is what Capt Honors once was. Those in other services keep referring to going home, going to the club or hooch (whatever that is). There is absolutely none of this aboard a carrier. They are in close confines, on duty 24/7, and in the IO many months continuously. Another poster called it "sitting on a ship". Nothing could be further from the truth (or more disrespectful). Even if they want a drink after a particularly hairy mission or night trap, the stress of getting caught illegially drinking on a Navy ship makes it not so worthwhile. One of the most stressful jobs in the world, absolutely no privacy, no down time, being stuck in an eight man JO bunkroom, an 8 month cruise can become quite challenging. One thing is certain, they do not tolerate individuality. Anyone with any little peculair quirk whatsoever, especially one that irritates others, is not tolerated. Most squadrons have some type of kangaroo court system where these pecularities are aired. The Fo'c'sle Follies which I have mentioned before is nothing but an airwing kangaroo court where the follies of sister squadrons is exposed. Videos have become the standard method of presenting evidence. They have become quite elaborate. I have no doubt that the Army-Navy spirit videos have their origins back in some ready room kangaroo court. They are funny. They are often brutal. However, they are effective. I have coined my own phrase for them, "standardization through humiliation". This is Captain Honors' background. He took it to another level. They were probably overall very effective. I was not there to judge. Neither was the press nor any of the posters on this forum who seem so critical. When the investigation clears, we will find that he probably had full support of his commanding officer. Then what? After the smoke clears and all is forgotten, will he be given another command? Perhaps. For me, hopefully.

 

[Luigi59]

The Navy is better with this officer on the sideline.

His double standards are a failure of leadership, pure and simple.

A capable warrior uses all the tools at his disposal; including judgment, discretion and risk analysis. This guy knew what he was doing was wrong – and he did it anyway. He’s saying his CO did not know of his little film-making adventures.

Why not? If they were that funny, wouldn’t the CO have gotten a chuckle out of it as well?

So he either hid his actions, knowing they were wrong, or he’s a liar. Go to war with him in command? Pass.

He put his crew at risk by identifying specific crew members as “different”, as parts of the crew available to be scorned and to be set apart. Sailors know who is gay within their crew and they’ll tolerate that condition because the Navy said to do otherwise subjects you to Mast. When the XO can deliberately set that gay crew member up as a subject of scorn, he puts that member at risk. As you post, life at sea is not for the meek and it requires that the crew function as a crew; setting members apart violates that basic element of crew life.

I don’t know what’s sadder; that this guy violated every oath he took regarding his naval service or the number of folks who think it was ok to do so.

 

[Mongo]

The CO knew. Without a doubt. No one who has ever spent more than a day aboard a Naval vessel would doubt it. And the logical conclusion is he approved. His disclaimer before each and every episode was just a part of the humor.

I have not seen any episodes where he labelled anyone as 'different', singling them out. Did anyone notice the wedding band on one of the guys in the shower? Remember, this is before the repealing of DADT. If it was a gay marriage, he would be violating the 'DT' portion of DADT.

The support facebook page will go over 30,000 members today. I wonder if Holly Graf had a page and, if so, how many friends she had? The press tried and convicted one individual because she was unpopular with her crew and is now prosecuting another because he was too popular. What next?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

The Navy is better with this officer on the sideline.

His double standards are a failure of leadership, pure and simple.
Define successful leadership, please.

A capable warrior uses all the tools at his disposal; including judgment, discretion and risk analysis. This guy knew what he was doing was wrong – and he did it anyway. He’s saying his CO did not know of his little film-making adventures.
Don't you think that was part of the 'joke'? Fact is the CO did know.
Why not? If they were that funny, wouldn’t the CO have gotten a chuckle out of it as well?
He probably did.

So he either hid his actions, knowing they were wrong, or he’s a liar. Go to war with him in command? Pass.
He was ACTING. You do understand the difference between ACTING and real life - right. I know all the reality shows on MTV confuse this but.....

He put his crew at risk by identifying specific crew members as “different”, as parts of the crew available to be scorned and to be set apart. Sailors know who is gay within their crew and they’ll tolerate that condition because the Navy said to do otherwise subjects you to Mast. When the XO can deliberately set that gay crew member up as a subject of scorn, he puts that member at risk. As you post, life at sea is not for the meek and it requires that the crew function as a crew; setting members apart violates that basic element of crew life.
He never identified any specific person as gay. He never called a specific person 'fag'. Did you even watch the videos?
You do know he was the same person playing three CHARACTERS - right?

I don’t know what’s sadder; that this guy violated every oath he took regarding his naval service or the number of folks who think it was ok to do so.
EVERY oath??
Really?

Good discussion but it's healthy to be on the same page - with the facts and context.

 

[Pima]

The Navy has spoken on this issue, and he's (Honors) toast, and rightfully so! Now it's on to: who knew and what did they do. The old guard need to account for this or don't dare ask rank and file to simply sign on to new policy.

That is the new question...who exactly knew and when did they know.

Did they play the game of SGT Schultz....I see nothing when they actually saw everything.

Is the Navy IG now pouring over complaint made to see how it was handled...i.e. the one sailor who said they made a complaint, but was brushed off.

JAM,

A couple of things:

Don't you think that was part of the 'joke'? Fact is the CO did know.

~ No I didn't see it as being a part of the joke...I saw as covering his bosses arse. I do believe the CO knew, but now there would be no liability against his boss.

In the AF there is a lot of crap that DO's give a wink and a nod to for the younger officers that the CC has no idea about.

He was ACTING. You do understand the difference between ACTING and real life - right. I know all the reality shows on MTV confuse this but.....

Yes, he was acting, but that doesn't mean he should throw out his integrity to do a skit. In one of the WAPO stories his roommate from USNA stated, he could not understand his actions because the Navy has made it very clear that this was not something they would tolerate.

You seem to be forgetting that he had an option of how he would do this. You appear to be implying that because he was ACTING it is okay to OFFEND.

He never identified any specific person as gay. He never called a specific person 'fag'. Did you even watch the videos?

You are correct he never said Ensign Smith, yet he did say you gay SWO. He actually cut down the pile of contenders by saying SWO.

Even if you say he never intended to point to a specific SWO, the fact is he still slandered SWOs in the video when he was acting.

Also because we still had DADT, what if there was a gay SWO, do you not agree he/she might feel that they were in jeopardy of being outed due to that comment? Can you not agree that this would create issues for that military member? And if you disagree on my 1st two questions, can you not at least agree that it was offensive to the homosexual community? Afterall, the majority of military members openly admit they believe gays were serving under the DADT policy, if he believed that premise, than he knew it was offensive.

I am sure it was humorous, but be that SWO and ask yourself how you would feel if the 2nd in command used them as the butt of the joke.

Yes, they have think skin, but it still leaves them with the issue that they are 2nd class citizens compared to the aviators, and that issue always creates problems in any military environment.

I am sure the Navy is no different than the AF when it comes to the rivalry between rated and non-rated officers. Honors just rubbed salt into a wound.

EVERY oath??
Really?

Of course not every oath, it was a hyperbole, but you attached onto a small point. To me what Luigi was saying is the same many of us having been saying... that what is sadder him doing it or people giving him a pass for doing it.

It does beg the question about society.

Please don't give me the 13K supporters on FB crap. Seriously, that was laughable the 1st time it was mentioned. I don't know one O6 that has worked directly with 13K people. When I say directly, I mean directly, 13K people who he knew by face and their career field would be ludicrous.

 

[Mongo]

A few facts about the Enterprise.
-It is by far the oldest active ship in the Navy. Habitability has changed drastically in the past 50 years. It is not a comfortable ship.
-When it was built in the '50s, it was supposed to be the future of carrier aviation. However, construction difficulties and cost over runs caused only one ship of the original class of eight to be buiilt. Therefore, it is one of a kind. For example, it has eight powerplants. The Nimitz class has two. The difference is so great that those assigned to it must complete a special Nuclear Power School. The new CO is not qualified in that he has not attended this special 4 month school. Nearly every maintenance issue is unique.
-The ship was scheduled for extended overhall upon returning from the deployment for which Capt Honors was the XO. Due to the condition of the ship, both cost and time overruns were 50%. The ship is old. The conditions were so bad that Adm Roughead, the CNO, recommended to congress that we violate our international agreements and decommission the Enterprise rather than continuing with the overhall. A year late it rejoined the fleet. With a lot of issues due to improper maintenance. These issues were addressed and corrected in record time with Capt Honors as the skipper.

With the above scenario, morale is definitely an issue. Not in the shoes of that chain of command, I would never venture a guess as to what was proper morale enhancement and what was stupid and/or a failure of leadership. Nor is anyone else on this forum capable of making such a statement.

 

[Mongo]

Please don't give me the 13K supporters on FB crap. Seriously, that was laughable the 1st time it was mentioned. I don't know one O6 that has worked directly with 13K people. When I say directly, I mean directly, 13K people who he knew by face and their career field would be ludicrous.

Correct my math please. Three year tour as XO of a carrier with 6000 sailors on board, also with a three year or shorter tour. That would work out to over 12,000 in that tour alone. CO of the Mt Whitney with same parameters as above, another 1000 or so. Eight months as CO of Enterprise with a typically heavy turnover just prior to deployment, another approximate 8000. Not to mention his squadron XO/CO tour. So he has been the XO/CO for well over 20,000 individuals. And trust me, EVERYONE knows who the CO and XO are, what kind of leader they were, whether they were 'good' or 'bad', and how their lives have been affected.

 

[Luigi59]

I would never venture a guess as to what was proper morale enhancement and what was stupid and/or a failure of leadership. Nor is anyone else on this forum capable of making such a statement.

But Admiral Harvey IS CAPABLE of making that statement, and he did, quite clearly:

• "profound lack of judgment and professionalism"
• “calls into question his character"
• "completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command”
• "lost confidence in his ability to lead effectively"
• "demonstrating exceptionally poor judgment"

 

[luckymacy]

Wow, just checking in to this thread. After a couple days of absence on my part, I see there's no let up! You guys are pounding this one harder than the media! Did we solve anything here?

 

[Pima]

Yes if you do the math of course 13K people "officially" have reported to them, but the point I am saying is how many actually had direct interaction with him as a leader.

Not every 18 yo E2 could pick out the XO in a line up, because they do not have direct access to them. That is their boss's boss's boss's boss on a good day.

In the corporate world that would be like saying the CEO is a great leader and you are an administrative assistant to the quality control manager. You have no clue if they are really good, all you know is as far as your job is concerned they have not messed in your cheerios.

I recall way back 20 yrs ago and laughing because I was very close to the Wing King and his wife...I still talk to them, at Xmas time I bumped into them in the BX parking lot because we both had to park in BF Egypt. As we walked to the BX they explained that their WK spot was taken and lo and behold an older Airmen (probably a Chief) walks out to that spot. This general, not in uniform said hello, General and the guy said Hello back never realizing that was the General. Of course the 3 of us just LOAO.

5000 people on a ship, even with 1 yr out to sea, would be impossible for every member to know him truly as a leader.

Again, all the lower ranks care about when it comes to leadership is you don't pee in their cheerios.

Knowing who the XO/CO is; is different than knowing the XO/CO. You seem to be mixing apples with oranges.

If you as a retired officer can say with a straight face you knew every enlisted member by face, and they knew you by face over a course of 20 yrs, than G Bless.

That you as a field grade officer had direct impact and interaction with every O1 than I would say you were a rarity. XO's don't know every O1, and not every O1 reports to them, especially in the aviation world. I am willing to bet that the A & F JO on the E never had one minute of interaction with this guy. For them, again their support regarding him is he never rocked the boat in their world. He was just the guy who signed off on their OPR or PRF.

OBTW, please show me that every single one of those FB supporters worked under him, or knew him at all. That is why the 13K supporters is laughable. You are assuming they all know him and worked directly for him. You appear not to understand FB, because anyone can join without ever having any tie to that person in a professional manner.

 

[Pima]

From CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/05/preble.honors.videos/

In case you don't want to hit the link here is a snippet:

Yes, I thought to myself, Honors had failed to live up to the highest standards expected of military officers. But he wanted to establish a personal connection with his crew, something that is difficult to do on an aircraft carrier that is home to more people than the town where I grew up. He was trying to entertain. Military service is a special lifestyle with particular demands. What happens "in theater" ought to stay "in theater." Can't we just cut the guy some slack?

Actually, no. My initial reaction was to defend the captain, but conversations with a few former officers reminded me of an essential truth about leadership. Everyone who wears the uniform, but especially those entrusted to lead, has a special responsibility to uphold the very highest standards at all times.

This is precisely because a single officer's actions will be seized upon by the service's harshest critics as a sign of an institution run amok. The antics of a group of Navy and Marine Corps aviators at the infamous Tailhook convention in 1991 affected naval officers all through the service. I know. I was deployed half a world away at the time, and yet my promotion to lieutenant junior grade was held up until I could prove that I was not involved in the events in Las Vegas.

If Honors' punishment seems severe -- he was relieved of command of the Enterprise and his career is effectively over -- consider that officers can be processed out of the military for "conduct unbecoming" even when they commit offenses off base and in civilian clothes. Officers have been removed from the service, often with deep reductions in rank that result in severe cuts in their retirement income, for offenses ranging from driving under the influence of alcohol to solicitation of prostitution.
A single officer's actions will be seized upon by the service's harshest critics as a sign of an institution run amok.

By contrast, Honors was acting in an official capacity, using government equipment and the time of his staff. And always in the role of executive officer.

It is hard for those who have never served to understand that last point. An executive officer is more than a second in command, more than a senior vice president at the right hand of the commander. In many respects, an executive officer is a father figure for the troopers, oftentimes men and women just out of high school and away from mom and dad for the first time.

I confess: I laughed at the Honors video. I don't even really mind the SWO jokes. Foul language, including the F-bomb, is a seemingly permanent feature of my lexicon. As a society, we can be too quick to judge humor, even humor in poor taste. When it comes to off-color jokes, I'm generally inclined to let them pass. As Honors says at one point in the video, some of you are likely to be offended. Deal with it.

But it doesn't work that way at sea. In the comfort of my home, I can change the channel if I see something I don't like. Likewise with music on the radio, or the umpteenth cloying news report lamenting someone's misfortune. Although a sailor could choose not to watch the executive officer's videos on a closed-circuit television, he or she can't escape the ship -- a truly unique, and often quite isolated, environment that depends upon every man and women doing his or her job...

All that said, when a single person's actions create a hostile working environment for the entire crew, other officers and senior enlisted personnel -- including subordinates -- should step forward. Likewise, it will be worthwhile if the focus on Honors reminds all military leaders, officers and enlisted, of their duty. But if it becomes a servicewide witch hunt on the order of the Tailhook investigation, the Navy -- and the country -- will suffer.

Either way, one man, Capt. Owen P. Honors, deserves the blame.

 

[kp2001]

That you as a field grade officer had direct impact and interaction with every O1 than I would say you were a rarity. XO's don't know every O1, and not every O1 reports to them, especially in the aviation world. I am willing to bet that the A & F JO on the E never had one minute of interaction with this guy. For them, again their support regarding him is he never rocked the boat in their world. He was just the guy who signed off on their OPR or PRF.

This must be a cultural divide between the AF and the Navy then. The XO of my squadron knows (truly knows) every single sailor in my squadron, and DEFINITELY knows every JO. The CO as well. This really holds true in the Naval aviation world. Not sure if the AF has larger commands, but even on a ship the XO/CO will be well known and will know well all of the JO's, even down to the O1's.

 

[sprog]

This must be a cultural divide between the AF and the Navy then.

There isn't, at least on this point.

The Squadron CC and DO (Operations Officer-it's like an XO for an operations squadron) knew all the officers and enlisted guys in my Missile Squadron.

Everyone in the Ops Group knew who the Group Commander was, and everyone in the Wing knew who the Wing Commander was. Most everyone I ever spoke to had an opinion on the people in those positions.

 

[Bullet]

Ok folks. It seems we’ve hit that proverbial floor in a single circle dog fight: opposite sides of the circle, out of energy, neither with an advantage or weapons solution. Bottom Line: a stalemate in our arguments and points, with neither side willing to budge.

Let me attempt to bring this thread to a new vector, and provide those young men and women on these forums, the future leaders of our military, some lessons to learn from these events; focusing on what exactly this Commander did wrong, and why the Navy had no choice but to relieve him (and possibly expand the witch-hunt due to all the bad publicity it currently is dealing with):

So, what did this Commander do that was so bad? I mean, as it has been pointed out numerous times by some here, what this commander was doing was in jest and meant to boost morale for all on this ship. And let’s face it, just because we are (or were, or will be) officers in the military, it doesn’t mean we stop being humans, with all the standard human emotions, foibles, and flaws. Acting childish, playing the fool, being “one of the boys” happens all the time, even by those in the highest ranks, when we try to make each other laugh or relieve pressure; we’ve ALL been there.

But as professional officers, we should do this IN PRIVATE, either with our peers or with that small group of friends we interact with daily and can trust not to be offended by it. This Commander presented his humor IN PUBLIC, for ALL the Carrier personnel to see and enjoy (or be offended by). Nothing wrong with antics behind closed doors, but this Commander kicked those doors wide open and forced all to watch his foolishness. In this day of constant social media, constant judgment by the news, and examples of people humiliated by actions or speech caught on tape that they should have known better otherwise NOT to say publically, you need to know better. Mel Gibson ring a bell, anyone? Respected actor, director, and all around movie star now thrown to the trash heap because he got drunk and opened his mouth, and his words went viral. Same case here. Your military leadership EXPECTS you to hold a public image of professionalism at all times; this was not the case for this XO.

Was the XO’s video humorous? I’ll admit it, most of it was. Was it appropriate for a wide audience? No, it wasn’t. Let your sense of “would I want my Mom to see how I act when it’s only me and my friends” be your guide here. And that was this XO’s second mistake: his crew is NOT his friends; they are the people who look for him for leadership and judgment. Now, many of his crew and others familiar with him and “Navy ways” are rushing to his defense. But even with 99% of the people under him fully in support of his actions, what about the other 1% who found it offensive and inappropriate? Should they just “go hug themselves in a corner” as he suggests? Is this the way the Navy wants to foster inclusion and diversity? He WAS FULLY AWARE that some of his previous videos were offensive to a few, his own words prove this. But he not only ignored the complaints, he ridiculed them.

And that was his third mistake: he DID foster an environment of fear for some. For you parents out there with daughters considering a career in the Navy, would you want YOUR daughter to have to face the blatant and hostile sexism that this video displayed, where women were treated as sex objects (“and now, something we all want to see. Chicks in the shower”)? Again, some may consider it funny when they joke around with one or two guys they know won’t get offended by it. Not so funny if they perform this act in front of female crew members who may be offended (and rightfully so) by it. So, what could these femlaes who may have been offended do about it? They could complain, but it was pretty obvious to them that those complaints would not only fall on deaf ears, they would be ridiculed further. Nice work environment, huh? Full of fear that if you don’t accept “boys will be boys” you will just be treated worse.

Since Tailhook (another event where the justification that was attempted was “Well, you don’t understand. It’s just the way things are.”) the entire officer corps of the military has had it drilled into them that this type of behavior was UNACCEPTABLE for public consumption. I’ve personally seen several times where leaders failed to learn this lesson, and were shown the door because of it. Do almost anything you want in private, but take this type of behavior public, and you have no excuse for your stupidity. So, time for another lesson: watch what you say and act, to whom you say it to, and when you say it (especially if your going to RECORD it! It WILL get out to the public, and do you really want the world to see your YouTube video of the last time your friends and you were playing "boys will be boys"?)

The last lesson learned here: no one man or woman is bigger than the mission. Leaders are relived all the time, for a variety of reasons. Sure, it causes disruption. Sure, it causes loss of morale. Sure, it can be a pain as a leader to have to get your troops over this. But the mission MUST continue, and it will be YOUR job as a leader to ensure it does. No matter the environment, no matter the challenges. You get your troops to focus on the mission first, and don’t let side issues like these distract them from that. The Navy has taken the first steps to see that this occurs by immediately naming a replacement; it will be up those officers below him on the Big E to ensure it occurs.

Some good lessons overall as you prepare for careers of your own.

 

[Pima]

The Squadron CC and DO (Operations Officer-it's like an XO for an operations squadron) knew all the officers and enlisted guys in my Missile Squadron.

Apples and oranges Sprog.

This guy was not a CC or a DO, he was the OG/VW for the AF...in other words he was WING level, not squadron. He is Col. Christopher A. "BOOTS" Coffelt for Minot when it comes to comparing him to Honors. Not Lt Col XYZ of your squadron that has 200 AD members in his command. Instead, Honors would be Coffelt where 5K "report" to him.

My question to you is this... as an AF officer, when you were an O2/3/4 did the VW know you personally? Would you be able to recognize him out of uniform as the VW/OG if you were at Applebees or Lowes as an O1? Would he recognize you?

If those answers are in the negative than my point is proven.

OBTW, let's make this clear for lurkers and newbies...a squadron in the AF has maybe 200 people, an OG or VW has the entire base of 5K, and that is the position Honors held.

What rank was your DO...O5, O4 select? Honors was an O6.

Put apples with apples, this guy was an O6, can you honestly say your DO was an O6? In the AF O6 is a base commander, not squadron, and def. not DO of a squadron.


Again, we are not talking squadron of 200-300 people, we are talking #2 in command of 5K people...in AF terms we are talking WING/BASE level.

He was in essence the commander of the commander of every squadron on the E.

 

[sprog]

Apples and oranges Sprog.

This guy was not a CC or a DO, he was the OG for the AF...in other words he was WING level, not squadron.

A squadron in the AF has maybe 200 people, an OG or VW has the entire base of 5K, and that is the position Honors held.

What rank was your DO...O5, O4 select? He was O6.

Put apples with apples, this guy was an O6, can you honestly say your DO was an O6? In the AF O6 is a base commander, not squadron, and def. not DO of a squadron.


Again, we are not talking squadron of 200-300 people, we are talking #2 in command of 5K people...in AF terms we are talking WING/BASE level.

He was in essence the commander of the commander of every squadron on the E.

I was responding to KP2001's post. He said his Squadron XO knew all the sailors in his unit, and that even on a ship, the CO/XO were known to all the people on board. He also said the CO/XO of a ship would know the JOs, including Ensigns. He wondered if there was an institutional difference on that point. I told him there was not. I stated that in the USAF, the Squadron CC and DO would also know all the folks in the unit, and that people would know who the Group and Wing CC were.

I think it would also be safe to say that the O-6 Ops Group Commander would recognize all of the missileers in the Group (JOs), as he was present at virtually every pre-departure briefing before each alert tour.

 

[Pima]

I think it would also be safe to say that the O-6 Ops Group Commander would recognize all of the missileers in the Group (JOs), as he was present at virtually every pre-departure briefing before each alert tour.

Yet, you are still missing the point...would he know every military member of the 5k+ at your base?

This may be true for missileers that the OG would know by name and face every one, but how about the A & F officer, the JAG O1, the Comm O2, the MSS O3, CE E8 ...would the OG know all of them too?

Remember there are more players to the game than just the "golden" at any base. At Minot missileers are golden, just like at Vance fliers are golden...but for both bases one thing remains true CE, A & F, MSSQ are not golden.

You were the "golden child" at Minot, the bread and butter put the other shoe on.

He said his Squadron XO knew all the sailors in his unit, and that even on a ship, the CO/XO were known to all the people on board. He also said the CO/XO of a ship would know the JOs, including Ensigns.

Again it goes back to squadron XO which is a smaller category. How many are in a squadron, surely not 5K like Honors.

We also don't know the size of his ships...very easy to know every JO if it 1000 members, because traditionally the ratio is 20% officer to enlisted, that means it is 200. 5K with a 20% ratio means 1000 officers.

Can you say or can anyone say that they know 1000 people when it comes to putting a face and a name together with their position?

Seriously 1000 people...heck, let's go with the E has 500 officers, or even 300, how about 150 of those 1000 selected randomly, can you say if they were all lined up together in a row you would be able to identify each and every one?

Finally out of fear of this thread being locked, let's all agree we will not change any opinion and move onto the issue if Spicer should be in the hot seat.

It is important for cadets and AD members to see the big picture when it comes to the services, let's be leaders an discuss the bigger picture.

AGAIN, let's drop Honors since it is a done deal, you can kvetch all you want and it still will not change anything.

Now let's move on to the question of Spicer being held accountable. If you continue the fight about Honors the only thing you will get out of it is the thread being locked.

Sides have been drawn, nobody is going to be "converted"...move on.

Should Spicer be investigated?