Letters - Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

LACK OF REAL TRAINING

I was surprised to read your article concerning computerized training [“Computer-based failure,” June 15]. I’m disheartened to see that it took an inspector general’s report to focus attention on what sailors have known for years.

I joined the Navy in 2004. I was one of the first students to go through a computerized apprentice technical training and the accelerated “A” and “C” schools. I hate to say it, but when I first joined my squadron, I had absolutely no idea how to function as an electrician. The people joining us today are similarly unprepared; the system has not improved over time.

Computerized, depersonalized training just does not work. That I have any idea how to do my job is due solely to the fact that I met good people who were willing to train me when I first joined my squadron. But I’m not sure how I actually compare to them, and I am concerned about what will happen when my replacements train theirs; knowledge gets diluted over time.

I talked it over with my co-workers. Some did see some value in their training but agreed that it was inadequate. All agreed that quality sailors take time and effort to develop. And it’s a great deal more than the Navy is investing.

If Naval Education and Training Command wants to depersonalize or skimp on initial training, it would be better off doing away with it altogether.

AE2 Jeremy Branstad

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay

SUPPORT ALL FAMILIES

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” hurts military families [“Don’t change ‘don’t ask,’” Letters, June 22]. It is disingenuous to believe that a straight family is more important than the family of a gay person.

How many retirement ceremonies have you been to? Isn’t the spouse acknowledged with appreciation and approval? Is that appreciation a lie? Or is it only reserved for your spouse? Imagine being deployed and your spouse not being in the command support structure. When gay service members give their lives, their spouses don’t even get a chaplain at their door.

Gay people exist. Gay people have families. Gay people are dying for us. At least give their families the same support available for the rest of the military.

AK1 (AW) Kelly Lape (ret.)

Portland, Ore.

RATING MERGERS

I see that the brass in the Navy is at it again [“Mergers stall; 40,000 sailors wait for career paths to clear,” June 22]. Damage controlmen and hull maintenance technicians have merged and separated more times than I was advanced in 21 years of service. Leave the rates alone, and let the shipmates do their jobs.

MS1 (SW) Robert Branyan II (ret.)

Virginia Beach, Va.

MOVE ’EM UP

The only fair and honorable solution to the situation [in which 134 sailors were put on the E-6 list by mistake] is to advance the ones who were affected on the next exam cycle — no test, etc. [“Promotions pulled back,” June 8] Put them at the head of the line, so to speak.

YNCM (SW) K.D. Austin (ret.)

Nederland, Texas

MERCHANT MARINER PAY?

I have mixed emotions about payments to World War II Merchant Mariners [“Merchant Mariners may get payments,” Fast Track, May 25].

Many deserve more than we could ever give them, while others should not get a cent. The difference? The Merchant Marine pay was good in World War II, while the Navy pay started out at $21 a month, which I received in January 1942. I had been chopping trees in the Civilian Conservation Corps at $30, and took the $9-a-month cut to hunt German subs on the North Atlantic.

During the war, I had many occasions to interact with merchant sailors, and most were dedicated, patriotic men. Many failed the military physical, yet still wanted in the fight.

My bone of contention is those who chose to sail on ships that paid a hefty bonus in addition to their regular pay. Those who made the dangerous trip to Murmansk, Russia, received a bonus of $500, a lot of money in those days, while the Navy armed guards who manned the guns received Navy pay; most got $100 a month or less. There also was additional pay for merchant sailors who sailed on tankers or ammunition ships.

I favor making payments to those who sailed and lived on their merchant pay. Do not pay anyone who received a bonus.

QMCM Albert Crawford (ret.)

Coraopolis, Pa.

NONSTOP FROCKING DEBATE

This is in regard to the letter submitted by Chief Religious Programs Specialist (SW/SCW) Patrick Mondragon on getting frocked but not paid [“Why wait on pay?” May 25].

I read the remarks left by Lt. Cmdr. Terry Rhodes and retired Master Chief Machinist’s Mate (SW) Michael Corriveau [“Frocking to chief,” Letters, June 8] and I thought, “This is what’s wrong with the Navy.” All of the other military branches get paid within a month of being frocked. Why not the Navy?

I’m sure if you would have asked Rhodes or Corriveau if they wanted to be paid now or later — over the pure honor of wearing the uniform — both would have happily accepted getting paid sooner. Both of them should understand how disheartening [it] is when the only answer is, “Because that’s the way it is.” There is no excuse for waiting as long as sailors do to get paid.

I recently put on second class and had to wait nine months for it to reflect that. I could have taken Corriveau’s advice and just not have worn it until I got paid, but that really wasn’t a choice — everyone knew I made second and expected me to take on the workload. I also would have looked pretty stupid trying to make that point.

So instead of being narrow minded, maybe good advice should be given out, like the chiefs’ mess putting out a point paper on the issue or bringing it up to the master chief petty officer of the Navy.

HM2 (FMF) Jason Fachorn

Honolulu