Navy Officers face punishment in seal trainee’s death

That is really sad. The training is designed to push you to the limits. At the end of the day if its you vs them, you want to be more prepared, but if it where my son, it would really hurt.
 
If they go to non-judicial punishment, that will be Admiral’s Mast. Administrative in nature. Rules of evidence and other things found in punitive proceedings don’t pertain. They could be referred to a board of inquiry for officer misconduct, the officer equivalent of administrative separation proceedings. None of this is the punitive, court-martial, potential punitive discharge route (Bad Conduct Discharge, Dishonorable Discharge). However, administratively, they could be separated with a general-other than honorable characterization to a discharge, if awarded, which means no federal veterans’ benefits, as I recall. They might or might not be allowed to retire with pay - these don’t happen that often, so I’d have to refresh on potential outcomes.

No matter what, their careers are derailed and they are essentially unpromotable, if they have been relieved for cause, now documented in their personnel file. They will be “stashed” somewhere, probably out of their SEAL community, doing an admin job at a shore command somewhere. At a couple of the big shore commands I was at, we had a few of these types, finishing up the time until they separated or retired. When women first went to combatant Navy ships, there was a CO (male), who, when doing a joint exercise with South Korean Navy ships, was queried over the radio by a Korean ship captain on an open net, whether he indeed had women aboard. The CO responded jokingly, “Yes, do you want some, I’ll give you a good price.” He also did some other things that created a horrible ship’s culture. He was relieved for cause, removed from sea duty, got his hands whacked at Admiral’s Mast, and sent to shore duty as an extra officer working for me, until he could retire in 6 months. He tried to explain to me it was only a joke, and I told him I didn’t want to hear another word, just do the tasks and projects I had set him. Sorry. Hadn’t thought about that for years. I did have to rip him a new one when a visitor to the staff assumed he was the N3 (Operations Officer), and he did not disabuse them of that notion. My enlisted folks let me know, and I had a one-way conversation. As I look back, I think the choice to have him come work for me was quite deliberate. The Navy has all kinds of ways to punish people.

Back to the original case. There is a saying, “All instructions and policies are written in sailors’ blood.” I hope the lessons learned from this have sparked appropriate and lasting changes.
 
These comments have nothing to do with this case in any way.

SEALs that use PEDS to at least go thru training. No one who knows anything about SEAL training, like our future USNA SEALs would be surprised by this.

A bad lung issue requiring medical Rx and maybe hospital I bet happens regularly at USNA SEAL screeners,

Also after any significant problem like this it’s almost impossible not to find lack of oversight. Someone is going to pay the price.

Instead of throwing some capt s under the bus maybe they need to look at a BUDs program with such a high drop out rate where those successful often had to resort to PEDs.
 
This USNI article is quite detailed and includes a copy of the investigative report.


As an aside, for any SA or ROTC applicant or current cadet or midshipman who doesn’t think being able to write analytical prose in high-level, correct English prose, do critical thinking, draw conclusions, make recommendations and express it all in a coherent, logical, professional form, are important, should take note of documents like this. It’s not all about STEM and weapons. Junior officers do JAGMAN investigations, memos, letters, reports, performance evaluations, etc., and graduate to more complex investigations, issue papers, point papers, etc
 
This is really directed at CaptMJ as she is our navy Gurvis.
"However, administratively, they could be separated with a general-other than honorable characterization to a discharge, if awarded, which means no federal veterans’ benefits, as I recall. They might or might not be allowed to retire with pay - these don’t happen that often, so I’d have to refresh on potential outcomes."
Sadly, I've been involved as a commander with more than a couple of Article 15's (Navy Mast)...I don't ever recall this as an option. Is this common to the Navy, especially among commissioned officers? I ask because we (AF types) always said that the Navy was quicker to promote talent but quicker to take stripes and "mast" people.

A question to give us all a better perspective.
 
flieger83 said:
This is really directed at CaptMJ as she is our navy Gurvis.
"However, administratively, they could be separated with a general-other than honorable characterization to a discharge, if awarded, which means no federal veterans’ benefits, as I recall. They might or might not be allowed to retire with pay - these don’t happen that often, so I’d have to refresh on potential outcomes."
Sadly, I've been involved as a commander with more than a couple of Article 15's (Navy Mast)...I don't ever recall this as an option. Is this common to the Navy, especially among commissioned officers? I ask because we (AF types) always said that the Navy was quicker to promote talent but quicker to take stripes and "mast" people.

A question to give us all a better perspective.
Click to expand...
No, definitely not common, the mast option for officers. Interestingly, at sea, enlisted personnel are not entitled to request court-martial, as they are ashore. This grew out of the need inherited from RN customs, for swift discipline at sea at the discretion of the Captain and return to good order and discipline. An officer usually has more at stake and will refuse non-judicial Article 13 proceedings - if offered - and elect court-martial, with its rules of evidence, Article 32 hearings, right to representations, trial by jury of peers, etc.

Up close, I saw it happen to 1 officer on shore duty, an O-4 who popped positive for amphetamines, but his wife swore she put it in his coffee to keep him alert for his commute. 🙄 I think he knew he was circling the drain for other reasons as NCIS was sniffing around other activities. I heard he made loans to enlisted personnel at exorbitant rates, rumor mill. He accepted Flag Mast, went to a Board of Inquiry and was separated, probably a Gen-OTH or just Gen, but not Honorable. Of course, this was all administrative, so no criminal records followed. He just went on into the civilian sector and got on with his life. He had not reached 20 years.

Sometimes it suits the needs of the Navy to take action this way, not as long and drawn out as a court-martial process, trade-offs for both sides, but a swifter parting of the ways.

Here’s a good write-up, though not official, on an officer board of inquiry. I won’t put you through the reading of the actual Pers-83 detailed Navy instruction on options to handle officer misconduct outside of the court-martial process. Note the precursor activity to the convening of the board. I would assume other services have something similar for Officer misconduct and administrative separation.

militarylawfirm.com

⚖ What to Expect When Facing a Board of Inquiry (BOI)

If facing a board of inquiry, the first thing to do is always to seek legal guidance. From there, you will be advised on your next steps in the process.
militarylawfirm.com militarylawfirm.com
 
flieger83 said:
Sadly, I've been involved as a commander with more than a couple of Article 15's (Navy Mast)...I don't ever recall this as an option. Is this common to the Navy, especially among commissioned officers?
Click to expand...

I think I understand your question to be whether or not separation without retirement pay occurs often through the Article 15 construct. As I used to teach the Mids during their intro to naval law, Article 15 is a separate administrative process from a separation board or board of inquiry. In fact, I recall several JAGs reminding me to ensure I formally closed out the NJP and that I did not make a statement to a Sailor in front of me that I would be recommending separation as part of the NJP.

The critical difference is that the punishment for the NJP offense is (or should be) focused on that snapshot in time. The decision to separate a person and NOT give them retirement pay, however, should take into consideration the entirety of that person's naval service.

I know most folks know this already but just for the newer people who drive by the fora and peruse without commenting.
 
GWU PNS (emeritus) said:
I think I understand your question to be whether or not separation without retirement pay occurs often through the Article 15 construct. As I used to teach the Mids during their intro to naval law, Article 15 is a separate administrative process from a separation board or board of inquiry. In fact, I recall several JAGs reminding me to ensure I formally closed out the NJP and that I did not make a statement to a Sailor in front of me that I would be recommending separation as part of the NJP.

The critical difference is that the punishment for the NJP offense is (or should be) focused on that snapshot in time. The decision to separate a person and NOT give them retirement pay, however, should take into consideration the entirety of that person's naval service.

I know most folks know this already but just for the newer people who drive by the fora and peruse without commenting.
Click to expand...
Of course, superb clarification. I too was well-trained by JAGs to not mix language and consequences between NJP and any subsequent separation proceedings separated by time, space and rules.
 
This will be interesting to see. If they refuse NJP/article 15, then the convening authority can send it to a court martial or refer to a BOI. The Navy does not have a good track record at either…specifically with the two ship collisions in the western pacific and with the BHR fire trial. While there is responsibility and accountability that lies with the chain of command, BUDS is high risk training…I’m not sure you’d find a panel of court martial members who would find the chain of command culpable beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not sure a BOI would be willing to find an OTH (maybe GEN or HON) for potential stellar careers outside this tragedy and the decision of a BOI cannot be downgraded, at least by the separation authority…not sure if the SECNAV can upgrade.

Yes two separate processes…I believe the requirement to BOI/ADSEP is either based on mandatory processing, pattern of misconduct, or for commission of a serious offense - a UCMJ offense that would include one or more years of confinement and/or BCD/DD/dismissal (which is most!).
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
These comments have nothing to do with this case in any way.

SEALs that use PEDS to at least go thru training. No one who knows anything about SEAL training, like our future USNA SEALs would be surprised by this.

A bad lung issue requiring medical Rx and maybe hospital I bet happens regularly at USNA SEAL screeners,

Also after any significant problem like this it’s almost impossible not to find lack of oversight. Someone is going to pay the price.

Instead of throwing some capt s under the bus maybe they need to look at a BUDs program with such a high drop out rate where those successful often had to resort to PEDs.
Click to expand...
You are correct to presume that PED's played no part in this Sailor's senseless death.

However, the Performance Enhancement Culture runs thick in the SOF community, beyond the Navy. It's not just guys hanging out at the gym. There is an entire infrastructure of gyms, MD's, nutritionists, physical therapists, and grizzled NCOs who keep it alive. There is a blurred line between what is legal, acceptable and advised under certain circumstances, and what is illegal and stupid.

Those who aspire to "make the team" and are getting advice from their buddies who have "made the team". Often times they only want to know what it takes to succeed.
 
GWU PNS (emeritus) said:
I think I understand your question to be whether or not separation without retirement pay occurs often through the Article 15 construct. As I used to teach the Mids during their intro to naval law, Article 15 is a separate administrative process from a separation board or board of inquiry. In fact, I recall several JAGs reminding me to ensure I formally closed out the NJP and that I did not make a statement to a Sailor in front of me that I would be recommending separation as part of the NJP.

The critical difference is that the punishment for the NJP offense is (or should be) focused on that snapshot in time. The decision to separate a person and NOT give them retirement pay, however, should take into consideration the entirety of that person's naval service.

I know most folks know this already but just for the newer people who drive by the fora and peruse without commenting.
Click to expand...
Exactly! You and CaptMJ answered it perfectly.

I, too, well remember my "JAG" training when I became a commander: "Words mean things sir..."

Thank you both!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top