Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

Frustrating force cuts

After reading the force cuts article, I can only shake my head and wonder exactly who signed us up for this manning atrocity [“Force cuts hit fleet,” Sept. 17]. Did anyone take into account, before it was way too late, the shameful consequences of a well-intentioned but poorly thought-out plan being shoved down the throats of fine sailors all over the Navy in the name of “cost effectiveness”? These are not all-inclusive items, but consider:

• Ever had a pay or service record problem while aboard a deployed ship? Guess what — your problems are now compounded because the folks who used to fix those issues, personnel specialists, have been yanked from ships’ offices. What’s your option now? Scan or e-mail your problem to a shore station, pray that the scanned documents don’t fall victim to bandwidth restrictions, and impatiently wait and hope for a response. Now get back to work and try not to let your “paper” issue distract you from the task at hand. Sure was more efficient and comforting when the onboard PS was able to take care of your issue on the spot, wasn’t it?

• Ever had a PS in your duty section or damage-control team? Guess what — your team is now shorthanded and the workload didn’t change. As a former duty section leader aboard a frigate, I can tell you from hard-learned experience that the loss of even one body often means the difference between sailors standing four- or six-hour armed watches and, worse yet, fire parties not being fully manned. What a novel morale-building effort.

• Ever dealt with the typical civilian personnel handler to fix a problem? Guess what — that pain just got much worse. Without the military-to-military connection, your chances of getting a quick resolution to any given problem just took a nose dive. Not much recourse afforded the sailor, regardless of paygrade, when the 8-to-4 civilian doesn’t quite get the “customer service urgency concept,” is there?

I consider myself among the Navy’s biggest advocates for working smarter with ever-shrinking resources, but this has to be the dumbest concept I can remember. Personnel specialists, rest in peace.

YNC (SW) Tommy Stephens

Naval Station Mayport, Fla.

I was disgusted by Rear Adm. Michael LeFever’s remarks in your article. Let me give a brief rundown of my experience with the Navy’s restructuring efforts.

In 1997, the molder rating was disestablished. We were kept in career re-enlistment objectives group one until the official announcement so there would not be a mass exodus. Then we were offered direct conversion, without training in most cases, to hull maintenance technician or machinery repairman. Both were overmanned rates at the time, and now they are being cut — brutally! Did I mention my sea duty was extended six months because I advanced to E-6, and my shore duty was cut a year recently?

I had always been told, “What your orders say is what you serve!” Seems that’s only when it’s in the Navy’s best interest. I certainly hope this is the last time the Navy restructures my career. But with all the rumors of changes in engineering, I doubt it will be.

HT1 (SW) Henry Davis

Jacksonville, Fla.

Send a message on finances

Perhaps until leadership begins to proactively evaluate sailors in the area of financial responsibility and document it accordingly, sailors will continue to mismanage their finances on a large scale [“Reclaiming clearance requires patience, payments,” Sept. 3].

When is the last time anyone remembers a sailor who was discharged for failure to pay just debts? Already this year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen has issued two administrative messages on the subject of personal financial responsibility. I am a proponent of all the programs we have in today’s Navy to educate our sailors on financial responsibility (and just about everything else), but, quite frankly, they should know basic budgeting before entering the service.

Granted, some financial woes are the result of medical bills and the like, but most are self-inflicted. The Navy had a severe drug problem many years ago until leadership finally said, “Not in my Navy,” and started discharging sailors for illegal drug use. As a result, morale and performance drastically improved, and the Navy could hold its head much higher, investing caring leadership in the remaining 90 percent of the fleet that was teachable.

It is now time for leaders to dust off the Navy’s policy on personal financial responsibility and begin showing the door to sailors — the bottom 10 percent — who bring dishonor to themselves and the Navy by not paying just debts. Effective leaders invest in those who are teachable, not the ones who refuse to get the message.

PN3 J.R. Derrow (ret.)

Chesapeake, Va.

Forgotten wives

Like Maggie Haas, I too am an individual augmentee wife alone, and I would like to echo her statements [“IA Wife Alone,” September 17]. My family enjoyed six refreshing months on shore duty after coming from an exhausting sea tour on a fast-attack submarine. Not only do IAs receive none of the “promised benefits” the Navy is espousing, but we were informally notified Dec. 7 that my husband would report on Jan. 2 to begin heading to Iraq for “temporary orders” that would take up almost half of what had been our shore duty tour.

The Navy claims IAs get an average of 60 days’ notice, but we were given 25 days. The Navy may be proud of how it is treating the “average IA,” but we did not receive those benefits.

We had three weeks in which to update our wills, powers of attorney, prepare our 3-year-old daughter and enjoy the holidays. Like Haas, I received no command letter, no ombudsman information, no deployment support packet or any kind of information. My family had three weeks in which to prepare for my husband to leave for a ground deployment to a war zone — something we never thought we would experience in our Navy career.

My family is proud of the job my husband is doing in Iraq, and he is proud to do his job ensuring the safety and the lives of the men and women he is serving, even though his IA job has nothing to do with his Navy career. However, that does not excuse the poor job the Navy is doing in handling the individuals that are sent on these deployments.

I happen to be blessed with family and friends and a church that support us and help any way they can. We are lucky to have this kind of support, but others may not. The Navy may “own” my husband, but that does not mean it should treat his family with such disrespect and make promises about his career that it does not intend to keep.

Kate Feist

Annapolis, Md.

Disrespectful cartoon

I think the R.J. Matson cartoon, which showed President Bush secretly delivering to Army Gen. David Petraeus the report he was to give back to Bush and Congress, was political and disrespectful to our president and Petraeus [Different Views, Frontlines, Sept. 17]. I don’t think I have ever seen an article (or cartoon) in the Navy Times so blatantly political and disrespectful to our leaders.

I am not subscribing to Navy Times to read about politics. I get too much of that in the so-called “newspaper” here in San Diego. If I see any more of it in Navy Times, I will cancel my subscription and tell everyone in my address book why. Those good, loyal Americans in my address book have a lot of friends in their books, also. Most, like me, have a couple of wars for this country under their belt and do not take kindly to anyone showing disrespect to our president and Gen. Petraeus.

SKC Harvey C. Swinford (ret.)

San Diego

It is disgusting that you would even consider putting a cartoon like this in Navy Times. You have been taken in by the left-wing radicals. Stop it now and think more of our military. Shame on you.

FTC Stanford L. Ladner (ret.)

Gulfport, Miss.

The view from outside

My hat is on to retired Gunner’s Mate (Mounts) 1st Class Jerry S. York for sharing his insights into the chiefs’ initiation process [“Changing chiefs,” Letters, Sept. 3]. As a retired E-6 with no warfare qualification, I suspect his lack of experience with the chiefs’ initiation process had more to do with his lack of motivation and professionalism than his stated refusal to take the chiefs’ test.

Having gone through this process that York knows absolutely nothing about from his own experiences, I can assure you the initiation was in no way degrading, abusive or insulting. I have always been thankful to the chiefs’ mess of the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower for the effort they put into my initiation, and I look back on it as an accomplishment, not any type of punishment. York also failed to mention that initiation was never a requirement, but rather was voluntary, the same as the shellback and bluenose initiation traditions that were part of my career. He could have become a chief and not enjoyed the camaraderie of the initiation.

I’m sorry to hear of the further demise of this rite, and I’m proud to be a member of the fellowship of initiated.

MMC (SW/AW) K.D. Jones (ret.)

Greensburg, Pa.

I think retired Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Frederick Miller was upset that he never made chief [“Improving chiefs,” Letters, Sept. 10]. If he had, he would have seen it was all just fun. I went to several initiations and I never got drunk. If you went to the first class club and the chiefs’ club, you would see the ones who got drunk there every night.

I am a shellback. I went across the equator in 1963. I was on the tanker AO-64 off Johnson Atoll and Christmas Island when the U.S. was testing atomic bombs. When you are stuck down there for four months with no mail, no liberty, no water, no TV and no radio, with nothing to do but pump oil, crossing the equator was like two days of liberty, with a lot of fun. I don’t think they should do away with initiations.

I think the Navy should go back to some of the old ways of running the Navy. The chiefs should get hard on the young petty officers and make men out of them.

DCC Robert A. Witt (ret.)

Summerdale, Ala.

I take issue with PH1 Miller’s comments on improving chiefs. First off, I doubt that sailors who didn’t go through an initiation could really understand what they’re like. A chiefs’ initiation is a rite of passage designed to teach valuable lessons, build character and, yes, even humble when necessary.

I don’t think you can find a chief who does not think he or she gained something from the experience. I know that I am a better sailor today because some shipmates took the time to initiate me. It’s the same for the shellback ceremony or anything else. Rites of passage are important to make us feel a part of a unique culture and keep our identity alive. Rites of passage can be found in any organization and are important to build esprit de corps and better sailors.

CWO3 Bill Worley

Ingleside, Texas