Military Community, Navy Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, - Navy Times

Letters

Sailors lack training

While the accountability for the inspection failures [of the destroyer Stout and cruiser Chosin] ultimately rests with the commanding officers, there is a root cause as to why two ships of different classes have the same basic problems: the complete degeneration of Navy training [“Double Trouble,” April 28].

Up to the mid-1980s, Navy technical training was the best in the world. Navy technicians were taught how to troubleshoot a problem down to the component on a circuit board. It was not uncommon to see a pair of techs leaning over a set of “long line” schematics to determine where a fault most likely occurred.

Due to constant cutting back on training dollars, today’s so-called technicians receive just enough training to swap a couple of boxes and then call a tech. Neither of these ships lacked repair money, but there is no amount of repair money that will fix broken gear if the technicians don’t know how to troubleshoot the systems.

When I read about the extensive corrosion on these two ships, it really didn’t surprise me. When I was attached to my first surface ship, I would not let my techs ignore any corrosion. They didn’t like all of the time spent wire-brushing various fittings, but we did not have a corrosion problem. Simply slapping a coat of gray paint over a hull will not keep corrosion in check.

The item in the article that got under my skin is a quote from a retired captain that places the blame on the chiefs’ mess. He may very well be correct, but pointing down the chain of command to place blame isn’t how leadership works.

MNCM John E. Babcock (ret.)

League City, Texas

Wrong targets of ban

The thought of banning certain magazines from exchange or commissary shelves sounds very similar to the ban on beards imposed in the 1980s by then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Frank Kelso [“Bill would boot Penthouse, Playboy out of exchanges,” May 5]. It had a derogatory effect on morale then, and it will have the same effect now.

I have a different suggestion as to what kind of magazine to look at when it comes to morale and good discipline of sailors, Marines, soldiers, airmen and Coast Guardsmen. I’d look at taking magazines like Rolling Stone and Mad off shelves. Has anyone seen these magazines lately? Immature, dark, anti-American, strongly anti-military and with references to drug abuse, I think it would behoove Rep. Paul Broun Jr. to go after these magazines first instead of Penthouse, Playboy or other men’s magazines that have been around for decades.

America is a nation built on personal freedom and liberty, not micromanaging the pocketbook.

HM2 Michael F. Vaughn (ret.)

Jacksonville, Fla.

Each role important

This is in response to the comment from Senior Chief Aviation Warfare Systems Technician Steven Slagoski [“Chiefs do more than ever,” Letters, April 28]. I’m well aware that there are ongoing misunderstandings by officers about what chiefs really do, and by chiefs about what officers really do, but it bothers me to see a senior enlisted man use the tired “go back to your coffee” line.

In three years on my last submarine, I only had one chief who could write any sort of communiqué, eval or award on his own; I wrote hundreds of messages, and entire departments worth of awards, and I never worried about it. I’m the one who went to college, and they were the ones who had been up to their armpits in machinery their entire careers.

We all come from different backgrounds, and not every chief — or officer — is as stellar as their respective communities might tell them they are.

Lt. Tyler Cameron

Boise, Idaho

I would like to respond to Chief Warrant Officer 3 Raymond T. Salmons’ letter [“Chiefs, do your job,” April 14].

I have to say, this retired warrant officer sounds like he knows a lot about the ROAD program — retired on active duty. I have to guess it is because he was a member prior to retiring.

In today’s Navy, there is no room for chiefs on the ROAD program. Today’s chiefs know what their job is, and we do our job very well.

NCCS (SW/AW) Chuck Wright

Yokosuka, Japan

Your choice, not mine

I have read several letters to the editor concerning what people perceive as the travesty of single service members receiving housing allowance comparable to their married comrades [“Fair play,” April 7]. Their angst over this idea is totally unfounded and borders on selfish, especially since the idea is not to reduce their benefits, but to increase those of others.

As a single service member, I see no reason why my married shipmates should get more money without doing any more work. Military pay and benefits are compensation for the work the government receives, and being married does not mean that person’s time is more valuable to the Navy than mine.

Getting married or having children is a personal choice, one that should be made after weighing the financial and time burdens it will place on your family. Sometimes that may mean a lifestyle change and a lot more penny-pinching, but that is the trade for embarking on the journey of marriage and parenthood.

If one of the realities of having a wife and/or children is moving out to the suburbs to buy your four-bedroom house with a lawn and swing set, you should not begrudge me spending allowances I am given for the same amount of work on a downtown one-bedroom condo for the same price because you disagree with my lifestyle.

Having children is not a reimbursable government expense.

Lt. Ryan Cullinan

Charleston, S.C.