Tossing skippers overboard

As the incident of the recently canned US Army General has been making big
news, I was quite surprised to see how routinely Navy captains get "relieved
of their command" for various offences. "Zipper control" issues ... heheheh
...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100627.aspx
Another Skipper Gets Tossed

June 27, 2010: The U.S. Navy has relieved the captain of a frigate (USS John
L. Hall), because, two months ago, his ship bumped into a pier as it was
docking in the Black Sea port of Batumi, Georgia. There was no damage to the
pier, but the Hall suffered damage costing $160,000 to repair. After the
investigation was over, the navy concluded that the captain should be
relieved for "loss of confidence in his ability to command."

That makes seven ship captains relieved so far this year, more than twice
the rate that it has been relieving them in the last few years. That, in
turn, is an increase over the rate for the 1990s. Other strange things are
happening. One of the most recent dismissals was unusual for two reasons.
First, the dismissed captain was a woman, and, secondly, the navy gave the
reason (abusive treatment of the crew, and the captains demeanor and
temperament). Complaints from the crew had been coming in for some time, and
the captain was relieved as she was at the end of her tour of duty on the
USS Cowpens, and in the process of turning over command to another officer.
The dismissed captain went off to her next assignment, as a staff officer,
but her career prospects are now rather dim.

The navy rarely releases details of why the officers are relieved. But the
usual reasons are character flaws of one kind or another. Running the ship
aground is seen as a rather obvious failing, but it is not the most common
one. Those would be cases involving "zipper control" (adultery with another
officer's wife, or a subordinate). The British also relieve a lot of
commanders, and are more forthcoming with the reasons. One British skipper
got the sack recently for "bullying." That is similar to what happened on
the Cowpens.

In the last decade, the U.S. Navy has been relieving more commanders (of
ships and units). In the first few years of the 21st century, the navy
relieved 6-8 commanders a year. In 2003, that went up to seventeen, and the
number has remained high every since. At the end of the Cold War, in the
late 1980s, the rate was about a third less, and after the Cold War ended,
it declined further.

So why has the relief rate more than doubled in the last few years? With
more women aboard warships, there have been more reliefs for, as sailors
like to put it, "zipper failure." There may have been more than are
indicated, as sexual misconduct is often difficult to prove, and a captain
who is having zipper control problems often has other shortcomings as well.
Senior commanders traditionally act prudently and relieve a ship commander
who demonstrates a pattern of minor problems and who they "lack confidence
in."

Many naval officers see the problem not of too many captains being relieved,
but too many unqualified officers getting command of ships and units in the
first place. Not every naval officer qualified for ship command. Only a
small percentage of the 53,000 commissioned officers gets one. The
competition for ship commands is pretty intense. This, despite the fact that
officers know that, whatever goes wrong on the ship, the captain is
responsible.

It's a hard slog for a new ensign (officer rank O-1) to make it to a ship
command. For every hundred ensigns entering service, about 90 will stay and
make it to O-4 (Lieutenant Commander), usually after about nine years of
service. About 67 of those ensigns will eventually get to serve as XO
(executive officer, the number two officer on a ship) after 10-12 years of
service. Some 69 of those ensigns will make it to O-5 (Commander), where it
first becomes possible to command a ship (a frigate or destroyer.) About 38
of those hundred ensigns will get such a command, usually after 18-20 years
of service, and for about 18 months. About 22 of those ensigns will make it
to O-6 (Captain) after 20-21 years of service. But only 11 of those ensigns
(now captains) will get a major seagoing command (cruiser, destroyer
squadron). Officers who do well commanding a ship will often get to do it
two or three times before they retire after about 30 years of service.

But with all this screening and winnowing, why are more unqualified officers
getting to command ships, and then getting relieved because they can't hack
it? Navy captains point to the growing popularity of "mentoring" by senior
officers (that smaller percentage that makes it to admiral.) While the navy
uses a board of officers to decide which officers get ship commands, the
enthusiastic recommendation of one or more admirals does count. Perhaps it
counts too much. While the navy is still quick to relieve any ship commander
that screws up (one naval "tradition" that should never be tampered with),
up until that point, it is prudent not to offend any admirals by implying
that their judgment of "up and coming talent" is faulty. In the aftermath of
these reliefs, it often becomes known that the relieved captain had a long
record of problems. But because he was "blessed" by one or more admirals,
these infractions were overlooked. The golden boys tend to be very
personable and, well, look good. The navy promotion system is organized to
rise above such superficial characteristics, but apparently the power, and
misuse, of mentoring, has increasingly corrupted the process.

On Jun 30, 5:140pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As the incident of the recently canned US Army General has been making bi=
g
news, I was quite surprised to see how routinely Navy captains get "relie=
ved
of their command" for various offences. 0"Zipper control" issues ... he=
heheh
...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100627.aspx
Another Skipper Gets Tossed

June 27, 2010: The U.S. Navy has relieved the captain of a frigate (USS J=
ohn
L. Hall), because, two months ago, his ship bumped into a pier as it was
docking in the Black Sea port of Batumi, Georgia. There was no damage to =
the
pier, but the Hall suffered damage costing $160,000 to repair. After the
investigation was over, the navy concluded that the captain should be
relieved for "loss of confidence in his ability to command."

That makes seven ship captains relieved so far this year, more than twice
the rate that it has been relieving them in the last few years. That, in
turn, is an increase over the rate for the 1990s. Other strange things ar=
e
happening. One of the most recent dismissals was unusual for two reasons.
First, the dismissed captain was a woman, and, secondly, the navy gave th=
e
reason (abusive treatment of the crew, and the captains demeanor and
temperament). Complaints from the crew had been coming in for some time, =
and
the captain was relieved as she was at the end of her tour of duty on the
USS Cowpens, and in the process of turning over command to another office=
r.
The dismissed captain went off to her next assignment, as a staff officer=
,
but her career prospects are now rather dim.

The navy rarely releases details of why the officers are relieved. But th=
e
usual reasons are character flaws of one kind or another. Running the shi=
p
aground is seen as a rather obvious failing, but it is not the most commo=
n
one. Those would be cases involving "zipper control" (adultery with anoth=
er
officer's wife, or a subordinate). The British also relieve a lot of
commanders, and are more forthcoming with the reasons. One British skippe=
r
got the sack recently for "bullying." That is similar to what happened on
the Cowpens.

In the last decade, the U.S. Navy has been relieving more commanders (of
ships and units). In the first few years of the 21st century, the navy
relieved 6-8 commanders a year. In 2003, that went up to seventeen, and t=
he
number has remained high every since. At the end of the Cold War, in the
late 1980s, the rate was about a third less, and after the Cold War ended=
,
it declined further.

So why has the relief rate more than doubled in the last few years? With
more women aboard warships, there have been more reliefs for, as sailors
like to put it, "zipper failure." There may have been more than are
indicated, as sexual misconduct is often difficult to prove, and a captai=
n
who is having zipper control problems often has other shortcomings as wel=
l.
Senior commanders traditionally act prudently and relieve a ship commande=
r
who demonstrates a pattern of minor problems and who they "lack confidenc=
e
in."

Many naval officers see the problem not of too many captains being reliev=
ed,
but too many unqualified officers getting command of ships and units in t=
he
first place. Not every naval officer qualified for ship command. Only a
small percentage of the 53,000 commissioned officers gets one. The
competition for ship commands is pretty intense. This, despite the fact t=
hat
officers know that, whatever goes wrong on the ship, the captain is
responsible.

It's a hard slog for a new ensign (officer rank O-1) to make it to a ship
command. For every hundred ensigns entering service, about 90 will stay a=
nd
make it to O-4 (Lieutenant Commander), usually after about nine years of
service. About 67 of those ensigns will eventually get to serve as XO
(executive officer, the number two officer on a ship) after 10-12 years o=
f
service. Some 69 of those ensigns will make it to O-5 (Commander), where =
it
first becomes possible to command a ship (a frigate or destroyer.) About =
38
of those hundred ensigns will get such a command, usually after 18-20 yea=
rs
of service, and for about 18 months. About 22 of those ensigns will make =
it
to O-6 (Captain) after 20-21 years of service. But only 11 of those ensig=
ns
(now captains) will get a major seagoing command (cruiser, destroyer
squadron). Officers who do well commanding a ship will often get to do it
two or three times before they retire after about 30 years of service.

But with all this screening and winnowing, why are more unqualified offic=
ers
getting to command ships, and then getting relieved because they can't ha=
ck
it? Navy captains point to the growing popularity of "mentoring" by senio=
r
officers (that smaller percentage that makes it to admiral.) While the na=
vy
uses a board of officers to decide which officers get ship commands, the
enthusiastic recommendation of one or more admirals does count. Perhaps i=
t
counts too much. While the navy is still quick to relieve any ship comman=
der
that screws up (one naval "tradition" that should never be tampered with)=
,
up until that point, it is prudent not to offend any admirals by implying
that their judgment of "up and coming talent" is faulty. In the aftermath=
of
these reliefs, it often becomes known that the relieved captain had a lon=
g
record of problems. But because he was "blessed" by one or more admirals,
these infractions were overlooked. The golden boys tend to be very
personable and, well, look good. The navy promotion system is organized t=
o
rise above such superficial characteristics, but apparently the power, an=
d
misuse, of mentoring, has increasingly corrupted the process.

Sometime read Barney Greenwald's speech at the party after the court
martial in The Caine Mutiny Court Martial about some officers keeping
the Navy going. That is what is on the line now, one mistake and your
out, unless your already destined for greatness.

In article <2tOWn.8161$Z6.3772@edtnps82>, nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com (La
N) wrote:

it is prudent not to offend any admirals by implying
that their judgment of "up and coming talent" is faulty.

The system in the wooden RN was a lot like this. Getting the support of
an Admiral was important for any Lieutenant that wanted further
promotion. Especially as Admirals on foreign stations could make
promotions up to Captain. However in the Wooden Navy the performance of
proteges had important affects on how an Admiral was regarded. One of
the reasons Rodney ended up with such a doubtful reputation was his
misuse of the system.

Ken Young

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ffcb3b7f-9671-48d1-ae1f-38acd301aed7@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...

Sometime read Barney Greenwald's speech at the party after the court
martial in The Caine Mutiny Court Martial about some officers keeping
the Navy going. That is what is on the line now, one mistake and your
out, unless your already destined for greatness.

That does appear to be what is happening. But is it due to
the Navy not needing as many senior officers as before?

"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:


But with all this screening and winnowing, why are more unqualified officers
getting to command ships, and then getting relieved because they can't hack
it? Navy captains point to the growing popularity of "mentoring" by senior
officers (that smaller percentage that makes it to admiral.) While the navy
uses a board of officers to decide which officers get ship commands, the
enthusiastic recommendation of one or more admirals does count. Perhaps it
counts too much. While the navy is still quick to relieve any ship commander
that screws up (one naval "tradition" that should never be tampered with),
up until that point, it is prudent not to offend any admirals by implying
that their judgment of "up and coming talent" is faulty. In the aftermath of
these reliefs, it often becomes known that the relieved captain had a long
record of problems. But because he was "blessed" by one or more admirals,
these infractions were overlooked. The golden boys tend to be very
personable and, well, look good. The navy promotion system is organized to
rise above such superficial characteristics, but apparently the power, and
misuse, of mentoring, has increasingly corrupted the process.


This isn't new. It's always been the case that people at high levels
had 'sponsors'. The job is as much about politics as it is about
military command at those levels.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson