Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

Not a true corpsman

I was discussing with my fellow corpsman their feelings on the faker that almost got away, and I wish to give all my brothers and sisters some words of encouragement [“Hero to zero,” Feb. 4].

Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class (FMF) Dontae Lee Tazewell was quoted as saying “I feel like I brought shame to the Hospital Corps, to the Navy, to myself and my family.”

Almost [all the corpsmen I spoke with] felt the same way about his bringing shame to our community; I didn’t. I just don’t feel like he is representing our community at all.

The Navy and the Hospital Corps have a long tradition of honor, courage and commitment, and, yes, this sailor violated that tradition, but he does not represent us.

The Hospital Corps has served the Navy and Marine Corps with great honor for more than 109 years. That honor has been carried on through the years by the men and women who serve it proudly and honorably, in the past and present. We have corpsmen who raised the flag of our nation at Iwo Jima, on top of Mount Suribachi, 22 Medal of Honor recipients, more than 170 Navy Cross recipients, more than 940 Silver Star recipients, 1,580 Bronze Star with “V” recipients and 14 naval ships that have been named after corpsmen.

That is the Hospital Corps that all of us serve on a daily basis. That’s the community in which we all take pride in representing. Don’t let the failings of one man damage the rest of us. Carry your heads high and walk with pride.

Tazewell says his guilty verdict makes him feel ashamed for discrediting himself, his family, and the Navy Hospital Corps. It’s not the guilty verdict, though, that brings that shame — it’s his selfish, foolish actions.

If he had felt shame when he went to the exchange and bought medals he was not authorized to wear, he wouldn’t be in the situation he is in today.

I felt desecrated by Tazewell’s actions. As I read the article, my blood was boiling. He has [subjected] our reputation to ridicule, and [placed] our fellow docs’ safety in jeopardy. Perhaps those corpsmen who go beyond the call of duty will be overlooked and not properly rewarded.

This individual is nothing more than a dirt bag, and the Navy failed to punished him properly. He stole the valor of those service members wounded or killed who actually were involved in combat.

How did the chain of command approve such awards? Why were they not brought to military justice as well?

Tazewell’s mental condition does not validate his actions. He deserves nothing.

The Navy medical community has been hurt by Tazewell’s actions. I hope Taz never comes to the Veterans Affairs system, as he deserves nothing.

Crackdown consequences

So a thousand sailors had to suffer for what one did, huh? [“Sasebo-based junior sailors restricted to base,” Feb 4]. I thought that kind of weird justice went out in the 1940s and ’50s.

In 1950, there was a fight in the barracks at Yokosuka, Japan. An overzealous commanding officer restricted the whole department for two weeks. It didn’t matter whether you were on watch, on liberty or what — we lost some good sailors over that, and I almost left because of it. Shame on that kind of leadership.

Monkey mischief

I sailed around the world in a 27-foot sailboat. In March 2002, I sailed up the Gulf of Aden and through Bab el Mandab into the Red Sea. While sailing at night off the south coast of Yemen, I would hear on VHF Channel 16 a strange voice saying, over and over, “Filipino Monkeeeey.” Other cruising yachts heard it, too.

A few times I was irritated enough to key in and tell the idiot to “shut the hell up.” That only egged him on: “Ohhhh, we have a monkeeeey, … monkey want a bananaaa? Come get my bananaaaaa,” so I turned the VHF down and tried to ignore him.

Those incidents took place during the Afghanistan war; there were coalition ships everywhere. One night, I saw and passed a large, dark shape. It looked like an aircraft carrier, at least from what I could tell against the stars on the horizon. It had no lights. It was sitting still and dark. My radar went buggy and did not show it on my screen.

What I would like to know is, if the Navy seems to have such advanced jamming equipment — and, I was told, could pinpoint any radio transmission — and this guy has been transmitting for years, why hasn’t the Navy located and silenced him?

Workweek worries

I am not happy with the idea of a four-day workweek. I thought that we had better thinkers in charge [“Will work for perks,” Jan. 28].

Is it fair to ask that personnel with stateside duty have a four-day workweek when others in other parts of the world cannot use a similar program? I hope that there will be many discussions before this can be put into action.

Creditor responds

A Navy Times article about Military Financial has given certain readers the impression that the financial services offered to U.S. military personnel are undesirable [“A 584 percent loophole in loan regs,” Dec. 31].

The revolving line of credit that we offer is structured with a minimum payment schedule that pays down the outstanding balance over four pay periods. This component of the credit line is designed to prevent the accumulation of debt.

A short-term extension of credit is preferable to suffering the consequences of a missed mortgage installment, having utility services terminated, a late rent payment or missing a court-ordered child support payment, all of which can carry penalty fees and may lower a person’s credit scores. Also, because reimbursement for permanent changes of station and temporary-duty transfers often arrives after the duty-station change has occurred, we provide relief to those individuals in that time of need.

The article in your newspaper makes no mention of the numerous people this service has helped. One respondent in the article criticized Military Financial for complying with the Defense Department protocols by characterizing our compliance as having found a “loophole,” as though conforming to regulations is disingenuous.

The article’s portrayal that these loans invariably become an insurmountable trap is also not factual. Military Financial endeavors to prevent these loans from exceeding a borrower’s ability to pay by limiting the credit line to a percentage of after-tax monthly income.

The vast majority of our customers are responsible people who use our product wisely. The article portrayed a sailor as an example of someone overburdened by debt. Apparently, this individual took multiple loans from several lenders, which is imprudent. No one goes bankrupt from taking a small, short-term extension of credit.

Our servicemen and women are competent individuals. They employ sophisticated equipment and technology and are entrusted with life-and-death decisions. Clearly, they possess the intelligence necessary to determine whether it is in their interest to borrow a small percentage of their monthly income for a short period of time.

Not everyone has a rich uncle who will send money at a moment’s notice anywhere in the world. Limiting service members’ access to our company by disallowing our advertisements is a disservice to your readers because it prevents their opportunity to choose among the financial services available.

Repeal ‘don’t ask’

Army Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich is absolutely correct in concluding that “don’t ask, don’t tell,” has not worked [“‘Don’t ask’ has failed,’ Letters, Jan. 28]. It is one point of agreement for the pro and con sides when it comes to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

For the military, the discharge of some 12,000 individuals as homosexuals has been detrimental to the primary mission of the armed forces, to say nothing of the time-consuming, nonmission-related administrative and legal burdens required to cope with the problem of gays and lesbians who duplicitously volunteer. Conversely, gays and lesbians believe that the law violates military values of trust, respect and integrity, which is reinforced by a sense of hypocrisy in the wide disparity in enforcement, whereby gays are permitted to serve openly in some commands while other commands enforce the law properly. There is a solution to this unsatisfactory and divisive situation.

When Congress passed the law that led to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” it recognized that it was a compromise that might be counterproductive — as it has been for both the military and the gay and lesbian community. Therefore, it included in the legislation the provision that “the suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the armed forces under the interim policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but the secretary of defense may reinstate that questioning as he considers appropriate ... if necessary.”

The fact that both sides on the law agree that DADT has failed is more than enough justification for the secretary of defense to return to the policy of denying accession to the armed forces for homosexuals. That would remove all ambiguity about the law and make any subsequent discharges a simple matter of charging fraudulent entry. Proponents of scrapping or changing DADT should be careful what they wish for.