Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

Chiefs: Eval delays cost us chance to advance

SAN DIEGO — A command investigation has found that the master chief in charge of sailors in the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing was derelict in his duties by failing to ensure evaluations of his sailors were forwarded to promotion boards on time, and that he publicly berated subordinates and contributed to a “negative command climate.”

Among those whose paperwork was late were 16 chiefs and senior chiefs, several of whom say the master chief’s inaction cost them their chance at promotion.

At the heart of the investigation was Master Chief Hospital Corpsman (FMF) Robin Foster, who had been accused of dereliction of duty and abuse of authority. The investigation did not substantiate the latter charge.

“The late fitness reports and the lack of accountability in fitness report procedures contradict the premise that [redacted] is taking care of ... sailors,” the investigator, a Marine officer, concluded in the May investigation, a copy of which was provided to Navy Times. The officer’s name was redacted from the report.

“Although it’s important to ensure fitness reports are accurately written and provide a competitive summary of the sailor’s performance, delays of six months or more have the potential to create situations in which a promotion board does not have a sailor’s complete record available for consideration,” the report said.

“The potential for negatively impacting numerous sailors’ and [redacted] careers reduces morale among Navy enlisted members in the command and contributes to a negative command climate,” according to the report.

The chiefs involved, who spoke to Navy Times on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said they repeatedly asked about the status of their evaluations, and over the course of six months, they were told the paperwork was being processed. Some who asked over and over again were told by Foster to quit asking.

But several chiefs said they later learned their evaluations were not completed and processed by the Sept. 15, 2008, deadline because of Foster.

Wing officials declined several requests for comment about the allegations and the investigation, and a request for comment from Foster went unanswered. None of the chiefs in that group who was eligible for consideration by the Navy’s fiscal 2010 promotion boards for senior chief and master chief this past spring was selected to advance. This summer, Navy Personnel Command rejected their requests to be reconsidered at the next special selection board because they failed to ensure their personnel records were up-to-date and complete.

“It was through no fault of our own,” said one of the affected chiefs. “It was in his hands to get it signed, and he never got it signed. Unbelievable.”

The investigator did not substantiate complaints that Foster abused his authority, or that he discriminated or showed favoritism to some subordinates. But the investigator found that Foster’s “leadership style appears to contribute to a negative command climate.”

While sailors interviewed told of Foster’s “excessive” use of public reprimands and counseling sessions — some viewed him “as an intimidator,” the investigator wrote — some were “reluctant to go into details out of fear of reprisal, even after I informed them that they are protected from reprisal.”

The investigating officer recommended that 3rd MAW counsel Foster, review or update the command’s administrative and personnel procedures — including the processing of Navy evaluations — and conduct a command climate and/or equal opportunity survey of Navy personnel assigned to the wing.

The investigator submitted his report to 3rd MAW’s then-commander, Maj. Gen. Terry Robling, who approved the recommendations in a May 27 endorsement. Robling later turned over the wing’s command to Maj. Gen. Thomas Conant.

Foster, who pinned on master chief last year, remained in the position as of last Friday.

A source at the command said Nov. 3 that no climate survey had yet been conducted.

Eval nightmare

The investigating officer, according to his report, could not determine whether Foster’s failure to handle the administrative paperwork properly was “malicious.”

But five senior sailors who know or worked with Foster don’t buy that. They told Navy Times that Foster has made threats against sailors who questioned him and ignored concerns that delays in getting their evals turned in on time could jeopardize their chances at advancement.

“He threatened to end chiefs’ careers,” one chief said. “He’s supposed to be the go-to guy. We just lost all confidence in him.

“He affected the careers of some of the sailors. He lost the trust of the sailors to lead them effectively. He just tore up the whole [chiefs’] mess,” the chief said.

A second chief said that through the months of complaints, “the priorities just weren’t focused on the fitreps.”

A third chief said the command turned a blind eye by not holding Foster accountable for what had been routine administrative procedures. “Everybody knew this was happening. It’s just amazing that nobody gives a damn,” the chief said.

“Months went by, and he would tell people, ‘I’m getting signatures,’ ” said a fourth chief. “As time went by, he tried to turn it around as a threat — ‘I’m a master chief.’ Basically, he was shifting blame.”

“We could have gone up the chain of command and, with this, it could have been a mess because he would have taken it personally,” the fourth chief added.

Several feared repercussions from Foster, who they said would sometimes go off on vulgar tirades.

They described his behavior at times to be intimidating and said he used vulgar phrases and mannerisms in front of chiefs and petty officers.

The fourth chief said that several peers were afraid to speak out because of Foster’s threats and knew he had supporters within the command and at higher commands. He and several others said Foster micromanaged subordinates even on personnel issues such as approving leave requests, an issue on which the investigator recommended the wing evaluate or revise existing orders and procedures.

“It’s awfully intimidating working for a master chief. He’s got a lot of power,” said the fourth chief. “Looking back at it, I should have filed an [equal employment opportunity]” complaint.

The delay in the completion and processing of evaluations wasn’t restricted just to chiefs. Several dozen evaluations for first-class petty officers that were supposed to have been turned in by Nov. 15, 2008, were not signed by the sailors until May and not submitted by 3rd MAW until early June, just two or three weeks before the E-7 board convened.

No special board

Mike McLellan, a Navy Personnel Command spokesman in Millington, Tenn., said the command was aware of the investigation when the special board requests were considered.

The board weighs requests for sailors who “were not properly considered through the normal selection process due to circumstances beyond their control,” McLellan said in an e-mail response to questions. The 3rd MAW sailors “were properly considered by the correct panel on the appropriate selection board and in the correct competitive category and do not meet criteria” for the special board.

McLellan said that sailors whose official military personnel file is missing important documents, including evals, should send a letter to the selection board president that explains why the paperwork is missing and lists the steps they have taken to fix the situation.

Among the measures recommended by the investigator was for the wing’s chaplain and surgeon, billets held by senior naval officers, to review existing orders dealing with Navy evaluations and leave and liberty issues, and revise any administrative procedures.

Prevent paperwork problems

If you want to make sure missing paperwork doesn’t cost you a chance at promotion, Navy Personnel Command recommends the following:

• Know the deadlines. Selection boards must compile and review thousands of records, so the earlier you can ensure your record is complete, the earlier you’ll know whether you need to submit missing documents or send other correspondence to your board.

• Close the gaps. If your latest evaluation is not in your official military personnel file, send a letter to the selection board president explaining why it is missing. Use that letter to tell the board what you have done to get that document, your accomplishments during that evaluation period and any other important facts. Until your official file is updated, submit copies of the missing evaluations or explanatory letters to the selection board.

• Use your online access. You should be able to access your files through the Web Enabled Record Review. You will see the same documents seen by the selection boards.

You can also order a CD of your records online through https://www.bol.navy.mil.

• Review your file. Make sure your permanent personnel record is complete. If anything is missing, consult Naval Military Personnel Manual 1070-150, which outlines the steps you need to request your record from Navy Personnel Command, and forward any missing paperwork. Submit copies of those documents to PERS-3 for inclusion to your record.

• Know your eligibility. Contact Navy Personnel Command (PERS-811/812) before the board convenes.

• Special board. Sailors who weren’t considered for promotion by their normal selection board “due to circumstances beyond their control” can ask to be considered for advancement by a special enlisted selection board. BuPersInst 1430.16F outlines the necessary steps to submit your request. You are eligible to apply for a special board only during the nine months after your regular board convened. The Navy holds two to five special boards a year.

• Passed over? You could petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records to consider any wrongs you believe prevented your selection.