Ens. Cameron Kinley

Somewhat OT . . . Does anyone know how it is decided that one's football "career" is over? Per the "ultimate source":p Wikipedia, Keenan Reynolds hasn't played since the XFL collapsed in the spring of 2020 due to COVID. No doubt he'd like to continue playing -- I would venture that almost everyone who's played pro football would love to be able to play again (even when they're 50 years old). But, right now, it doesn't appear he's playing anywhere. Does he say, "hey, my football career is now over and I'm ready to commence my payback?" Or does the USN / USMC say that, if a certain amount of time goes by without active playing, the career is considered over? Does anyone know of any SA grad in the last 20 years who was allowed to play pro sports who then served on AD? Just curious.
 
emwvmi01 said:
Just to clarify ENS Kinley didn't bypass the chain of command as much as the SECDEF exercised prerogative to intercede. That isn't going around your chain of command. As a commander I often review and modify decisions of subordinate commanders to align with my overall intent for the organization. I trust that SECDEF who has significant operational time has the right judgement to determine what is in the best interest of DOD and felt that the SECNAV decision needed another look.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you on SECDEF's prerogative to intercede - if Cameron had wrote/communicated with the SECDEF asking for a review of the SECNAV's decision (albeit, the current policy gives the Service Secretaries the sole authority to nominate candidates) AND did not go to the press to air his story. We know the SECDEF had not reviewed the case because SECNAV did not forward it (was not required to by current policy; see below) and there was no press release from OSD mentioning a decision was made by the SECDEF or that the issue was even being looked into (I would expect with the amount of media exposure some type of release would have been made) in the immediate days after Cameron was notified of the SECNAV's decision not to nominate. What did happen is Cameron, with his agent/firm, went to multiple press outlets and conducted multiple interviews on multiple occasions, thereby undermining the SECNAV's decision in the hopes of gaining favorable press coverage to force the issue higher. I think Cameron's own words in his most recent statement say enough about intent - "...I'd like to extend my gratitude to all the media outlets who reached out to help share my story." It was about utilizing the media to share his story to help influence this outcome. The SECDEF's prerogative to intercede, if at all, should have been done quietly, not in or as a result of the press.

The current policy, as written, leaves the decision to nominate exceptional athletes to the Service Secretaries with approval of nominations with the SECDEF.

a. When the Secretary of the Military Department concerned determines there is a strong expectation that a Military Service Academy cadet or midshipman’s future professional sports employment will provide the DoD with significant favorable media exposure likely to enhance national level recruiting or public affairs missions, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may nominate this cadet or midshipmen to the Secretary of Defense requesting a delay in the tendering of an appointment as a commissioned officer to facilitate employment as a professional sports athlete.

b. The Secretaries of the Military Departments may submit nominations for exceptionally talented Military Service Academy cadet or midshipman athletes to the Office of the USD(P&R) for consideration of a delay in tendering an appointment as a commissioned officer in accordance with this DTM. This authority may not be further delegated. Nominations should be submitted at least 120 days before the approved date of graduation from the Military Service Academy concerned.

Click to expand...

Regardless, the policy needs to be updated to address this SECDEF's intent. If the intent is to let the Service Secretary determine who is "qualified" then policy wasn't followed this time. If OSD is going to make this determination, the language needs to be modified that all requests are to be forwarded for disposition to OSD. Bottom line, is the next SECNAV likely to take a hard look at who is "qualified" or just nominate, knowing if the story airs in the press, his/her decision won't really matter.
 
emwvmi01 said:
Just to clarify ENS Kinley didn't bypass the chain of command as much as the SECDEF exercised prerogative to intercede. That isn't going around your chain of command. As a commander I often review and modify decisions of subordinate commanders to align with my overall intent for the organization. I trust that SECDEF who has significant operational time has the right judgement to determine what is in the best interest of DOD and felt that the SECNAV decision needed another look.
Click to expand...
Not speaking on anyones behalf, but I believe what people mean by this, was after SECNAV said ‘no’ and ‘no appeal’. Then he talked to the VP. And Rubio. And all the sports show. Media. Anyone who would listen or give him a stage Dad started up with us letters (granted not Kinley, but son could have stopped it ). All the social media blasting.

That is not the chain of command. Imo. If SECDEF thought SECNAV decision needed another look? It should have happened outside of all that we have so pubically seen. And also for the baseball player. Imo. The chain of command shouldn’t be public opinion.

edit* posted before reading @usnabgo08, who said it much better than I
 
This thread has seemingly gone on forever, with good points on all sides. I am personally, and only personally astonished that no one either wants to, or can write a policy that would address this. I am afraid that if things continue like present, it will eventually effect the academies and disipline. Whenever you have a "group" of young people who think they can "derive some advantage" by trying to get out of a contract, and some are allowed while others are not, you run the distinct possibility of having disipline or respect issues between groups. That and you also get people who may not be able to do as well in a different sports conference going to the academies for the education with the "plan" to not serve or maybe never serve. JMHO, and I have no idea if parents or students go this route, but there is already a culture in the academies that athletes somehow "get out of duties other students have to fill" which causes possible resentment to those people who truly take service to heart, and not use the opportunity to "scam" the system by attending, making the formal committment, then bailing before commissioning. If the services allow a "pick and choose" mentality to continue, at what point does it become an issue internally with the staff and students, and maybe legally for those NOT allowed to leave?

JMHO, but once you "affirm" and agree to the 5 for 7, then any other options other than a medical or academic separation before graduation should be off the table. When you sign a contract and commit yourself, YOU should honor that contract and commitment, whether or not you can be a "star" in another field. You made the choice, live with it and don't play politics trying to get out of it. Is the same consideration given to the brillant cyber student who gets offered a $300,000 a year job doing gaming or coding? Or the student whose parents are connected and want him/her to go into the family business for maybe health reasons?
 
Impulsive said:
This thread has seemingly gone on forever, with good points on all sides. I am personally, and only personally astonished that no one either wants to, or can write a policy that would address this.
Click to expand...

What astonishes me is this vvvv, if true.

NJROTC-CC said:
I heard that a Senator from FL wrote a letter to POTUS asking him to intervene and apparently he did. Good for Ensign Kinley. Let him pursue his dream for three or four years (and most likely, even less.) The Navy will still be there when he finishes with football and he will be even more mature and perhaps will make an even better officer.
Click to expand...

It's one thing for a bunch of us to waste our time on Ens. Kinley, but for a Senator, the SECDEF or POTUS to spend 1 nanosecond on this if FUBAR. Don't they have anything else to do?

Look at the Defense/Nat's Security landscape in front of us.
  • Closing the books on Afghanistan. Only, those books will never be closed.
  • The South China Sea
  • Russia in Central Europe
  • Russia, China, DPRK, non-state Criminal actors in Cyberspace
  • The US Southern Border
All of this after 20 years of gearing up for battles which we are longer fighting.

I would think the the rationalization of force strength across Service Branches with all those budget implications is mind-numbingly complicated. I don't know if there is even a strategy in place for a framework for that rationalization to take place.

As I wrote earlier, I don't think this society can handle anymore special dispensations, carve outs, and exceptions.

Sweet J****! STFU and report for duty. That includes you, Senator Whoever.
 
No matter what happens with this mid or any other SA grad in the future I can live with the uncertainty and the confusion that might occur every year or every few years.

what I would not want to see is a document or policy that codifies a policy for all SAs and all sports.

First you would have to list which sports would be covered and which would not be. Then you would have to determine exactly where the student fell on the future pro list ie drafted high, drafted low, not drafted at all.

will lax or soccer etc for men or woman be treated the same as football and basketball? If not why not?

what about boxing where no one needs to be drafted.

then there is the whole needs of the service for that particular year.

trying to eliminate future controversy by getting a one size fits all policy would IMO be worse than the confusion now.

and I don’t think for a moment the taxpayer supported SAs should ever have a written policy suggesting that future pro stars is a part of their mission.

SAs that have someone somewhere writing a paper showing that the SA model is not needed and ROTC is the way to go.

the fix could be a whole lot worse than the problem as it is today.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
No matter what happens with this mid or any other SA grad in the future I can live with the uncertainty and the confusion that might occur every year or every few years.

what I would not want to see is a document or policy that codifies a policy for all SAs and all sports.

First you would have to list which sports would be covered and which would not be. Then you would have to determine exactly where the student fell on the future pro list ie drafted high, drafted low, not drafted at all.

will lax or soccer etc for men or woman be treated the same as football and basketball? If not why not?

what about boxing where no one needs to be drafted.

then there is the whole needs of the service for that particular year.

trying to eliminate future controversy by getting a one size fits all policy would IMO be worse than the confusion now.

and I don’t think for a moment the taxpayer supported SAs should ever have a written policy suggesting that future pro stars is a part of their mission.

SAs that have someone somewhere writing a paper showing that the SA model is not needed and ROTC is the way to go.

the fix could be a whole lot worse than the problem as it is today.
Click to expand...
Well said Doc.
 
Because it's easy and low hanging fruit. The complicated issues keep getting rearranged on the desks of the powers that be. And by the time they make a decision its too late or wrong.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
No matter what happens with this mid or any other SA grad in the future I can live with the uncertainty and the confusion that might occur every year or every few years.

what I would not want to see is a document or policy that codifies a policy for all SAs and all sports.
Click to expand...
I agree ..there is only one way to write a policy that covers all circumstances , except for JUST SAY NO !
 
Capt MJ said:
I personally feel the policy in place when a mid or cadet signs their obligation papers at the start of their 2/c year should be the policy that applies at their graduation.
Click to expand...
One thing that is slightly unfair about midshipmen having to commit to the Navy at the start of their 2/C year is that the Navy has not committed to them as far as what they will do in the Navy. If somebody has dreams of flying above the clouds at the speed of sound in their Super Hornet, it is no small matter that they are told that they have to lumber beneath the ocean in submarine or stand OOD on a destroyer. Yet, there really is no good solution to this. Imagine if midshipmen were only required to commit to the Navy after service selection.
 
Memphis9489 said:
One thing that is slightly unfair about midshipmen having to commit to the Navy at the start of their 2/C year is that the Navy has not committed to them as far as what they will do in the Navy. If somebody has dreams of flying above the clouds at the speed of sound in their Super Hornet, it is no small matter that they are told that they have to lumber beneath the ocean in submarine or stand OOD on a destroyer. Yet, there really is no good solution to this. Imagine if midshipmen were only required to commit to the Navy after service selection.
Click to expand...
My son is about to start his 2/C year, and he will definitely sign.

So far he has experienced 6 days on a submarine this summer. Period. That is it for professional training for him. I know Covid is the huge cause, but I pray every day that he will end up having enough knowledge/training/experience to make the best career choice.
 
brewmeist said:
My son is about to start his 2/C year, and he will definitely sign.

So far he has experienced 6 days on a submarine this summer. Period. That is it for professional training for him. I know Covid is the huge cause, but I pray every day that he will end up having enough knowledge/training/experience to make the best career choice.
Click to expand...

Brewmeist brings up a very, very real issue facing the current Class of '23 (rising 2/C's) that not all may be aware of.

Covid cancelled all summer trainings last summer and beginning this current summer, USNA retargeted/scheduled PROTRAMID to happen after Plebe year (versus summer before 2/C; meaning no '23 MID experienced PROTRAMID.)

So what Brewmeist is describing vis-a-vis his son (total fleet experience = a 6 day sub cruise this summer) is not uncommon at all.

In no way a complaint -- just wanting to echo and amplify Brewmeist's very on-target observation that through a myraid of circumstances beyond anyone's liking or control (ie the pandemic) along with a major, programmatic schedule change taking effect for the first time this summer (PROTRAMID being switched to summer after Plebe Year) -- '23 will, as a whole, likely have the least amount of fleet experience of any class in recent memory before 2-for-7. Unclear what impact, if any, this will ultimately have.

And to get this thread back on topic, Go Bucs. Go Navy! Beat Army.
 
Last edited:
Class of 2022 did not have PROTRAMID either. They too signed 2/7 with limited exposure to sea and/or field. Covid wreaked havoc on many. There are other ways to learn about the warfare communities, starting with the AD officers and enlisted on the Yard. In fact, they can be much more informative and persuasive about choices than time off the Yard. When life gives you lemons…
 
Memphis9489 said:
One thing that is slightly unfair about midshipmen having to commit to the Navy at the start of their 2/C year is that the Navy has not committed to them as far as what they will do in the Navy. If somebody has dreams of flying above the clouds at the speed of sound in their Super Hornet, it is no small matter that they are told that they have to lumber beneath the ocean in submarine or stand OOD on a destroyer. Yet, there really is no good solution to this. Imagine if midshipmen were only required to commit to the Navy after service selection.
Click to expand...
Hopefully without offending anyone, I would respectfully disagree. IMHO, the supposed basis behind attending an academy is that you have a desire to serve your country, and picking the academy you want (if you get it) should indicate YOUR commitment to serve in whatever capacity the service sees fit and needs you to be in. EVERYONE has dreams and desires, but when you enter military service it should be with the understanding that the "needs of the service come first". The fact that you equate serving on a vessel in a sea service after graduating to "lumbering" in something you never wanted, indicates that maybe the type of thinking you are putting forth (don't need to commit until you get what you want) seems a little self centered. JMHO, but if you attend a Sea Service School, you should maybe have plans to have to do some "Sea Service", if everything does not pan out. Otherwise maybe attend USAFA or AFROTC, or an Aeronautical University. I don't know of too many people who were guaranteed an end result before starting something. JMHO, but if you decide after getting four years of education and a potential career to not serve in the service, did you REALLY want to serve in the first place? Or were you just looking for a free education, training, and an opportunity elsewhere? AFTER having a good time of course..:)
 
Memphis9489 said:
Yet, there really is no good solution to this. Imagine if midshipmen were only required to commit to the Navy after service selection.
Click to expand...

if you want certainty about the warfare community you are going to be in, there is a solution - pay for your own education then go to OCS. you sign a contract to be a pilot/nfo/swo/seal etc. if you graduate and commission, you go to that community. if you wash out or DOR, no commitment.

on the other hand, if you want a free education then there are going to be some strings attached
 
MidCakePa said:
Class of 2022 did not have PROTRAMID either. They too signed 2/7 with limited exposure to sea and/or field. Covid wreaked havoc on many. There are other ways to learn about the warfare communities, starting with the AD officers and enlisted on the Yard. In fact, they can be much more informative and persuasive about choices than time off the Yard. When life gives you lemons…
Click to expand...

Agreed for sure, but to be clear, '22 had summer trainings and cruises after their Plebe Year -- '23 has had little or neither.

100% agree with you that there are multiple other avenues, including mentors on the yard (and in ROTC programs) from the various service communities to turn to for insights and counsel -- that all USNA and NROTC Mids should absolutely being taking advantage of.

To be clear, I think we may all be conflating two different hypotheses at play here: (1) Prospective MIDS not signing their 2-for-7 because of limited fleet exposure and the far more (imho) important one (2) Prospective MIDS making service selections without the "benefit" of said fleet exposure.

To be sure, when I swore my oath on I-Day, I did so knowing full well that Big Navy's needs would always take precendence over my own. Full stop. But that also doesn't mean we should all relinguish total agency over the trajectory or arc of our careers.

MidCakePA -- I was just trying to echo and empathize with brewmeist's son's experience which is now commonplace amongst '23ers. I am of course, completely empathetic to my '22 shipmates.

To be clear, not trying to turn this into a "who has suffered most" thread; everyone has had their lives disrupted (or far, far worse) because of Covid. The entire world is treading water in lemonade.
 
20USNA23 said:
Agreed for sure, but to be clear, '22 had summer trainings and cruises after their Plebe Year -- '23 has had little or neither.

100% agree with you that there are multiple other avenues, including mentors on the yard (and in ROTC programs) from the various service communities to turn to for insights and counsel -- that all USNA and NROTC Mids should absolutely being taking advantage of.

To be clear, I think we may all be conflating two different hypotheses at play here: (1) Prospective MIDS not signing their 2-for-7 because of limited fleet exposure and the far more (imho) important one (2) Prospective MIDS making service selections without the "benefit" of said fleet exposure.

To be sure, when I swore my oath on I-Day, I did so knowing full well that Big Navy's needs would always take precendence over my own. Full stop. But that also doesn't mean we should all relinguish total agency over the trajectory or arc of our careers.

MidCakePA -- I was just trying to echo and empathize with brewmeist's son's experience which is now commonplace amongst '23ers. I am of course, completely empathetic to my '22 shipmates.

To be clear, not trying to turn this into a "who has suffered most" thread; everyone has had their lives disrupted (or far, far worse) because of Covid. The entire world is treading water in lemonade.
Click to expand...
‘23 will have another summer to cruise. Their Firstie summer. So that’s good. Stuff is still getting cancelled this summer. My Firsties was. Both of his trainings this summer were cancelled. He picked up one, but has two leaves. He will graduate with a total of 3 summer trainings. More than NROTC, I know. Not what he expected though. Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top