CO firings have roots in flawed screening process - Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

CO firings have roots in flawed screening process

Some 133 commanding officers have been fired since 1999 — a skipper or more a month, every month for a decade.

Even after six years of drawing down the force, the number of fired COs has remained eerily constant.

One out of 50 commanders gets fired — a rate that’s better than most civilian outfits. But those civilians aren’t defending the nation from foreign threats, nor are they responsible for the lives of their subordinates, nor are they tasked with caring for billions’ worth of taxpayer-funded equipment.

Still, what’s disturbing about the firing of Navy skippers isn’t so much the sheer volume — it’s the reasons they get fired.

More than 1 in 3 are sacked because of their own poor behavior: drinking, carousing, adultery, abuse and more.

These firings raise questions about the screening process for command and the too-brief length of command tours, a practice that boosts the number of officers who get command experience.

For years, chiefs of naval operations and Navy secretaries have insisted the data show no systemic problems in the selection process, and that each case is an isolated individual incident.

While it’s understandable that some who are given these commands aren’t up to the task, and while external factors can invade, and derail, a career, the fact that so many firings are for behavior suggests the screening process could be refined to weed these people out earlier.

Adultery, drunkenness, harassment and lying aren’t failings that rear their head only late in life; they are more typically habits forged early on, during the rise through the ranks.

In short, these people should not have made it through to command.

The Navy can do three things to try to solve this problem:

å Use shame as a deterrent. A 2007 Fleet Forces Command Inspector General report on command firings recommended wider public release of basic facts relating to these cases, so that examples could be made of officers who flouted the rules or made egregious errors. The idea was dismissed at the time as “not warranted.” It should be implemented today.

å Show the total officer to command screening boards. The officers who select future COs get plenty of official information, including fitness reports and assignment histories, on every candidate. What they don’t get to see is how this officer is viewed by his peers and subordinates. Full 360-degree peer reviews would provide a clearer picture than anything else as to how an officer will be viewed by subordinates if given the chance to command.

å Lengthen command tours. The opportunity to take command is a privilege, reserved for the most capable officers. Longer tours would reduce the number of commanding officers needed, raising the bar for getting selected, and allowing boards to more thoroughly scrutinize candidates.

The Navy’s record on commanding officers isn’t bad. But it could be better. It’s time to reassess and improve the commanding officer selection process, to ensure only those most worthy get the opportunity.