Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Letters

HARD TO PREDICT BAD COs

Your editorial on commanding officer firings [“CO firings have roots in flawed screening process,” Sept. 14] is off the mark in a number of ways.

First, while the civilian community uses 360-degree reviews, they are poorly matched to the military. A military leader need not be popular to be effective, and there is no way a 360-degree review will not turn into a popularity contest. In college I was voted in the bottom two by my peers. How many of them made captain? My peers in the submarine force have no idea what I was like inside the hull of the ship. How could they? The boss might know and the crew would certainly have an opinion.

That said, Adm. Hyman Rickover was famously disliked by just about everyone, yet he was tremendously effective. Likewise, the 360 will not prevent occurrences like [the groundings] of the submarine San Francisco or cruiser Port Royal.

Second, on the subject of personal misconduct, it is very doubtful that any superior has ever observed or suspected the behavior. The bottom line for requiring boards to look only at fitness reports is a sound one: Speculation and hearsay are bunk. If it isn’t investigated and substantiated, it should not have a bearing on a career.

Third, the tour length idea is unfounded. Aviators have some of the shortest command tours after the “fleet up” from executive officer to commanding officer, yet they have the lowest percentage of firings.

Being a CO is a very demanding job, and there is simply no way to predict how people are going to respond. As one admiral said to a room of COs in January 2007, “Who is going to solve this problem? You are. You are the experts. You are the best there is. There is no one else to do your job.”

Capt. Scott Minium

Newport, R.I.

BABY BOOM?

I think all theories as to the cause in pregnancy spikes were valid in the article [“More moms-to-be,” Aug. 31]. However, another that might be considered is what I’ll call the baby-boomer effect.

With our military committed to fighting two wars and the Navy’s efforts to support the Army through individual augmentee deployments, you have sailors separated from their spouses for seven to 15 months. There was a spike in pregnancies following World War II, and today’s circumstances are similar. In instances where absence makes the heart grow fonder, love is in the air when spouses or significant others reunite.

HM1 (SW/FMF) Stephen Bedell

Omaha, Neb.

———

I’m writing in response to retired Chief Aviation Structural Mechanic Aileen Koke’s letter regarding the 12-month postpartum delay in returning to sea duty [“Planned pregnancies,” Sept. 21].

After giving birth, almost all women encounter emotional and hormonal changes, but some suffer from mild to severe postpartum depression. I’m not sure I want a baby-minded, severely depressed sailor manning a vital watch station on a ship at sea. A new mother’s brain is — and should be — focused entirely on protecting and bonding with her infant.

Furthermore, the American Association of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding for at least the first 12 months. Lab-designed formula cannot replace nature’s individual blend of nutrients and immunities a baby receives from the mother’s milk.

Yes, it’s very unfortunate, and wrong, that some women have babies for the express purpose of avoiding sea duty. However, do you really want such irresponsible sailors out at sea? Ultimately, the sailor will perform some function on shore that benefits the Navy.

It’s not fair to deprive a child of essential bonding with his mother and breast feeding. The child doesn’t know what sea duty is; only that he needs his mother.

IS2 Mary Bellomo

Marysville, Wash.

‘MAKEUP’ JUST LIKE TATtOOS

It is amazing that the Navy has decided to allow females to get “permanent makeup.” [“New rules for pins, makeup,” Sept. 14] NavAdmin 021-03 specifically states “no tattoos/body art/brands on the head, face, neck, or scalp.” Unless your definition of a tattoo is something other than permanently staining the skin with needles, this represents an obvious double standard.

Permanent makeup is by no means a requirement for these sailors to do their jobs effectively. How many potential recruits are we really losing out on based on this rule when the Navy’s rules allow for waivers for existing tattoos?

In 15 years in the Navy, this is the worst example of a double standard we have seen. We all want fair treatment throughout the ranks, and when the Navy endorses two sets of rules, it simply reinforces the “us versus them” attitude that so many sailors still have.

Lt. j.g. Timothy Marinelli

Monica Marinelli

Port Hueneme, Calif.

BE A CHIEF, NOT AN E-7

As a retired chief who spent 22 years in the Navy, I find Chief Yeoman Dwayne Travis’ comments insulting [“Don’t blame chiefs,” Letters, Sept. 14].

Yes, every sailor is responsible for his appearance and uniform, but it is up to the chain of command and the chiefs’ mess to ensure our sailors are doing the right thing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t the chiefs run things at commands? Don’t chiefs ensure that their sailors understand and comply with Navy regulations and uniform regs? Are chiefs not responsible for their sailors?

They were when I was a chief, and as far as I can tell, those responsibilities have not changed. Chiefs do not make excuses; chiefs have the answers. E-7s make excuses, pass the buck and blame their sailors for their inadequacies. So decide if you are an E-7 or a chief — make sure our sailors know the rules and abide by them.

FCC(SW) Dan Bienko (ret.)

San Diego

SMOKING BAN MAKES SENSE

This reply is to the letter submitted by Equipment Operator 1st Class (SCW) David Charles [“Smoking ban ‘ridiculous,’” Sept. 14]:

I believe that it would be beneficial for there to be a smoking ban in the military because smoking does take time away from productivity and makes our forces less medically ready. Also, service members would be able to save the money [spent] for a pack of smokes. And in response to us “pen-pushing, desk warriors of the medical corps,” I do believe we have a high number of Medal of Honor [recipients] and countless other awards in our favor. Not too bad for “pen-pushers.”

HM3 (FMF) Terrence Crossley

Camp Pendleton, Calif.