Officer in call-sign slur case wants apology - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Officer in call-sign slur case wants apology

A junior officer whose allegations of an anti-gay environment at a Virginia Beach, Va., fighter squadron were substantiated by the naval inspector general wants an apology.

On Wednesday, Lt. j.g. Steve Crowston asked for an admiral’s mast hearing with Adm. John Harvey, commander of Fleet Forces Command, by way of an emailed request to Harvey’s lawyer.

“There’s nothing that says an apology can’t happen,” said Crowston, formerly of Strike Fighter Squadron 136 and now administrative officer for the Naval Ocean Processing Facility at Dam Neck Annex. “I think someone in this Navy chain of command does owe me an apology.”

Crowston’s command at Dam Neck falls under Pacific Fleet, but VFA 136 falls under Fleet Forces.

In addition to an apology, Crowston said he deserves to know the outcome of the IG’s current review of the original Naval Air Force Atlantic inspector general’s 2010 substantiation of just four of Crowston’s 19 allegations. Crowston said it has been nearly 15 months since he filed his initial complaint.

“I’m tired of waiting,” he said.

In February, the naval IG upheld Crowston’s allegation that his former commanding officer, Cmdr. Liam Bruen, gave him a poor fitness report after Crowston complained about a perceived anti-gay atmosphere at the unit.

Crowston told the IG that Bruen and the unit’s then-executive officer, Cmdr. Damien Christopher, were in the unit’s ready room during an August 2009 all-officer review of squadron call signs, when Crowston was offered choices such as “Fagmeister,” “Gay Boy” and the group’s final choice, “Romo’s Bitch” — a reference to the quarterback of Crowston’s favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys. Crowston was the squadron’s administrative/legal officer.

In his hotline complaint, Crowston said Christopher was a “willing” participant in the call sign meeting, along with Bruen.

Bruen was replaced last summer by Christopher, who is deployed with the Super Hornet unit aboard the carrier Enterprise, now operating in 5th Fleet. Christopher remains in command, but Bruen was removed earlier this year as operations officer of the Bremerton, Wash.-based carrier John C. Stennis and reassigned to the Naval Air Force Pacific staff pending the outcome of the naval IG’s investigation.

Navy officials have declined to say whether Bruen or Christopher could face further disciplinary action, citing the ongoing review. Christopher, it appears, could be facing something: The fleet judge advocate, Capt. Steve Barney, emailed Crowston on Wednesday to tell him that the naval IG has granted Fleet Forces an extension to May 16 “for completion of USFF actions” on Christopher.

After learning of the three-day extension, Crowston said he was fed up with waiting.

“Talk, talk, talk,” Crowston said. “They’re ruling quickly and properly on these other cases.”

He mentioned the recent firings of the commanding and executive officers of the amphibious transport dock Ponce and the penalties meted out in the “XO Movie Night” scandal on Enterprise as examples of expeditious disciplinary action.

Crowston said he was also motivated to request mast out of his frustration with an opinion from Barney that he needs to seek relief for fitness report-related issues elsewhere, although Fleet Forces would take the action required if directed to do so, and with the IG’s position that victims are not entitled to know the exact nature of disciplinary action taken on substantiated complaints because of privacy requirements.

“I’m going to be told by the naval IG that ‘accountability actions were taken’?” Crowston said. “Is aviation going to slap a few people on the wrist? I’m not OK with that.”

Barney recommended that Crowston wait until all administrative actions were completed before requesting an audience with Harvey, who in his July 2010 review of the AIRLANT IG findings expressed “significant concerns regarding the command climate at VFA 136.”

Harvey expressed concerns about call signs in his review, calling upon AIRLANT “to address the broader issue of call signs.”

In a Feb. 21 message with the subject, “Leadership – Character & Integrity,” Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. Allen Myers wrote, “It is the commanding officer’s responsibility to ensure call signs and patches are appropriate and consistent with Navy core values.”

It remains to be seen whether Harvey will grant Crowston’s request for mast, much less issue an apology on behalf of the Navy. Barney told Crowston that the command “has no authority to direct that the officers provide you an apology. An apology is a personal matter and a request for an apology is not a redress cognizable” under military law.

Crowston does not acknowledge his sexual preference, saying he feels it is irrelevant. His concern, he said, is over workplace harassment.