Good for the Goose, Not Good for the Gander

14th

Good for the Goose, Not Good for the Gander

January 2011

Navy Times is reporting that Admiral Larry Rice, current Director of Strategy and Policy at Joint Forces Command and erstwhile CO of USS Enterprise (CVN-65), has had his 1 February 2011 retirement date put on hold over the Capt Honors video incident which led to Honors’ relief as CO of Enterprise earlier this month. There may be others among Capt Honors’ seniors against whom administrative and/or disciplinary action is taken.

As most know, Capt Honors was relieved by Admiral J C Harvey, CFFC, who made the following remarks regarding that relief:

(Capt Honors’) profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer in ENTERPRISE calls into question his character and undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command.

After personally reviewing the videos Capt. Honors created while serving as executive officer, I have lost confidence in his ability to lead effectively, and he is being held accountable for the poor judgment and inappropriate actions repeatedly demonstrated in those videos.

Admiral Harvey promised further investigation as to the actions of Capt Honors’ seniors in counseling or reprimanding Capt Honors, then Executive Officer of Enterprise, at the time the 2006 videos were made and shown.

A precedent has now been set. The actions and decisions of senior officers in handling disciplinary matters are now open for review many years after the fact, and discipline meted out ex post facto if the review process gleans a result that the current senior officers disagree with. Despite being a highly questionable precept and a slippery slope regarding possible additional punishment for any Sailor who may have committed a transgression and received administrative action or punishment, the precedent is nonetheless set.

Which bring the obvious though uncomfortable and seemingly verboten issue to the fore.

Almost a year to the day before the revelation of Captain Honors’ videos was made public, (though shown to 5,000 sailors in 2006), Captain Holly Graf was relieved as CO of USS Cowpens by Admiral Donegan, CSG-5. Captain Graf was a very high-profile female officer in command of a United States Warship. However, her relief was for a long record of cruelty and maltreatment of her Officers and crew, during which there were myriad complaints made by crew members, over the course of her nearly two years in command.

As light was shone on Captain Graf’s story, it was revealed that she had had a very similar track record while in command of destroyer USS Winston Churchill (DDG-81). Issues aboard THAT ship included much the same as those on Cowpens that led to Graf’s relief. Tantrums, physical abuse (grabbing and in one instance choking), extreme profanity, threats, spitting in the direction of crew members, throwing objects toward crew members, and creating a command climate of “fear and hostility” marked her tenure commanding Churchill, drawing the concern even of a Navy Chaplain over the morale of the crew. Further, Captain Graf’s history of misbehavior and abuse went back to her earliest days in the Navy. In addition to problems with her crew (and, apparently, the Royal Navy), she was the cause of an embarrassing diplomatic incident in Australia for which she was forced to submit a written apology.

So the question becomes this: Where is the investigation into why Captain Holly Graf was given a second command at sea after her dismal and abusive performance as CO of Churchill? And where is the investigation regarding whether complaints from Graf’s time as CO of Churchill and CO of Cowpens were heard and acted upon?

Do the performance and actions in at least TWO commands on the part of Captain Graf not constitute enough to lose “confidence in (her) ability to lead effectively”? Why was Captain Graf not “held accountable for the poor judgment and inappropriate actions” repeatedly demonstrated until the last days of her SECOND command? Did Captain Graf not display “profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving” as CO of Churchill? Did not the many, many complaints “call into question (her) character and undermines (her) credibility to continue to serve effectively in command”?

Does the US Navy senior leadership consider Captain Honors’ making and showing of some tasteless videos to be a more serious offense than Captain Graf’s rampaging conduct as CO aboard two different US Navy Warships? Is the use in an intended comic video of a derogatory term for homosexuals by Captain Honors, the poking of fun at female sailors and officers, and crude allusions to masturbation such egregious acts of malice as to trump several years of (non-comedic) threats, physical and verbal abuse, spitting, humiliation, diplomatic embarrassment, and destruction of the morale and combat effectiveness of TWO warship crews?

If Captain Honors’ actions are considered more serious than those of Captain Graf, senior Navy leadership needs to do some very deep soul-searching as to why they believe this is so. (And perhaps get the perspective of someone, Officer or Bluejacket, who had invectives, saliva or a coffee cup hurled in their direction).

If Captain Honors’ transgressions are not more serious than those of Captain Graf, then I expect soon to hear about the investigation into why Holly Graf was not relieved of her first command, and another as to why she was given a second command. After all, the precedent for such investigations has already been established by Admiral Harvey and Navy leadership.

I am not going to hold my breath on any investigation as to why Captain Graf stayed in command of Churchill, or was given command (and stayed far too long in command) of Cowpens. I suspect we will hear more about Admiral Rice, and Admiral Spicer, and Admiral Holloway. But I don’t really think we will hear any more about Captain Graf’s seniors who advanced her into command, kept her there despite her performance, and then gave her ANOTHER one, and allowed that command to continue until an IG investigation mercifully ended things.

When you are a high-profile female Captain in command of a US Navy warship, it seems you get certain considerations that a male officer who has stupidly violated political correctness does not get. And so do your bosses who put you there and kept you there.

What is good for the Goose apparently is not good for the Gander.

********************************************************

Update, courtesy of Neptunus Lex.

Against the recommendations of a great deal of people involved in this sordid affair for a General under honorable conditions, Holly Graf will receive an Honorable Discharge.

Virtually nothing about her situation, the tolerance of her pattern of abusive behavior, selection for command despite her record, nor the handling of the investigation of just who knew about her abusive antics, rings of honesty on the part of the Navy. Why should her discharge?

Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Navy, Uncategorized

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Derrick

Off topic, but diversity assumes that abilities and talents are equitably distributed across racial lines. It also assumes skin color is a good determination for ethnicity. It also assumes that a good distribution of skills and talents in all ethnicities will apply to the open position with the diversity quota. All are bad assumptions.

Back on topic, if relieving Captain Graf of her command is enough punishment for her, then the same should hold true for Captain Honor. There should be no double standard.

Finally, I hope this post doesn’t warrant further investigation into Captain Graf’s situation. As already stated above, she has been caught and disciplined. She should not be punished more than once for her offences. Double jeaopardy is unconstitutional. And wrong.
UltimaRatioReg

“She should not be punished more than once for her offences. Double jeaopardy is unconstitutional. And wrong.”

Not really the discussion. The discussion is why there is a very public “who knew what and when?” investigation on the one hand, and virtually nothing on the other. Because you are correct, further punishment once action has been taken by an Officer’s seniors is indeed a dicey business, and a shaky concept under the UCMJ.

From the 3 March 2010 TIME article:

Paul Coco, a 2002 Naval Academy graduate, served as a gunnery officer under Graf aboard the destroyer U.S.S. Winston S. Churchill from 2002 to 2004. “She would throw coffee cups at officers — ceramic, not foam,” he recalls, “spit in one officer’s face, throw binders and paperwork at people, slam doors.” The hostile work environment led to a gallows humor among the crew. “We all would joke that after Bush liberated Iraq, he would next liberate Churchill,” he says.

and

“I’m more upset that the Navy let this go on so long,” says Kirk Benson, who retired from the Navy as a commander three years ago after a 20-year career. Many complaints up the chain fell on “deaf ears,” he says.”

Sounds a lot more like eyewitness than “hearsay” to me. If the complaints fell on deaf ears, the ears were intentionally plugged.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969602-2,00.html#ixzz1BJm8hwnz
Mittleschmerz

Then CDR Benson, who is now retired and has no career to protect, should name those “deaf ears”.

Have you asked him?

It’s “hearsay” because even the “eyewitnesses” can’t attest to who was told and when. The closest we get to an admission that the chain of command was informed during her tenure in Churchill is the chaplain who says he talked to her commodore.

Regardless – the situation of a commodore not embarked in a ship and hearing stories, even from a chaplain, is wholly different from a commanding officer and strike group commander who are serving in the same ship as the executive officer who’s performance is in question.
UltimaRatioReg

“Have you asked him?”

I do believe someone in Navy Leadership should do precisely that.
Mittleschmerz

And what if they have? Why do you think you, or anyone else, is entitled to a public disclosure?
UltimaRatioReg

“And what if they have? Why do you think you, or anyone else, is entitled to a public disclosure?”

Because, like it or not, it is now the standard.

“As I mentioned in my statement, there is an ongoing investigation into all aspects of the production and showing of the videos. I will review the facts and take further action where necessary, but, until the investigation is completed, it would be improper for me to comment further on the details of the situation.”

Unless there is more than one standard…
Elizabeth Martin

Let’s quit being politically correct-she wears a skirt so her sins are forgiven until they exceed all possible boundaries. Makes me so mad, as a female, to see this happen. I like to see women succeed in spite of the fact that they are female, not because they are female.
Matt Yankee

Mittleschmerz

“Extra points” are an insult to MLK and an insult to the idea of America. Having recently visited the Alamo I wish more military leaders would recognize their forefather’s unwavering commitment to ideals beyond merely saluting and following orders. As General Amos stood for truth I would expect all officers to hold the ground and push back against such bias which is dangerous to the volunteers who serve and the civilians they protect.

As far as “no evidence that Admiral Harvey (or Graff’s selection boards and reporting seniors) allowed the push for diversity or special interest groups to influence their decisions.”…UH… how about the mission statement alone: “diversity is our number one mission”. Yes, I do believe they were following their mission given to them by civilian imbeciles and this is the root reason why selective hearing was and is the new modus operandi.

Capt. Honor’s poked at the mission of “diversity” with his jabs at gays and thus threatened the mission. From this perspective the timing makes sense even if it was 4 yrs. ago. However the repeal of DADT was required for gays to become part of the legal “Diversity” required by the mission…once gays were declared “Diverse” instead of illegal, mission success requires culling the open “bigots”.
Mittleschmerz

Well, Matt. While I agree with you about the “extra points are an insult”, we’ll just have to disagree about what influenced the Admirals in question. It’s obvious to me that no information, facts, or revelations that do not fit within your belief paradigm will satisfy any of you in this matter.

But, I also believe each of you has as much direct impact on what the Navy does as those same special interest groups do. Which is reassuring.
Matt Yankee

Can you tell me where the Navy picked up the Diversity mission? If it is special interest groups from the far left would you admit special interest groups impact the Navy?

Are you really suggesting the Navy dreamed up this “Diversity” mission all by itself without any outside pressure from far left interests?
Anathema

No, Matt, I am not thinking that Navy “just dreamed this up”…what I do believe is that it’s a misapplication of some demographic trends that haven’t been fully thought through, or correctly looked at.

But, pray tell, what does that mission have to do with Captain Honors? Do you really think he was fired because he used the word “fag”? That would be a radical oversimplification if so.
UltimaRatioReg

“I do believe is that it’s a misapplication of some demographic trends that haven’t been fully thought through, or correctly looked at.”

That reminds one of the line from Dr Strangelove.

“I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but it looks like General Ripper may have exceeded his authority.”
Grandpa Bluewater

M-etc:

“Thems the rules of the game.”

It is not a game. And there are no rules, not any longer. Just power, influence, and favoritism. The Court of Byzantium was a least honest about it.

The situation is a fetid swamp of the worst kind of intra-middle age city state minor nobility back stabbing. Layer upon layer of injustice.

Holly Graf got cheated. Not because she didn’t have sponsors, mentors, “the Sisterhood” granting her the shield of nepotism by adoption and the effect of gender politics. Because she had them.

What she didn’t get is the tough, fair, hardnosed leadership of a professional DH, XO, and CO telling her to get control, act like a lady, buckle down and LEARN the ship and her people…or get gone. On her FIRST ship. While she was still teachable. She had potential. If she had gone into ballet instead of ships driving, she might have been a diva, but to survive, the old pros would have forced her to be GOOD AT IT. Not so the Navy. Shame.

Ruining a career is, or should be, a hard thing, done as a last resort, when nothing else will suffice. It must be done on the basis of intolerable acts, after complete investigation, or it will backfire on those who pull the plug. Call the thing by its right name, a harsh disciplinary measure. Provide a measure of due process, in every case.

Setting aside the specific case, there is something critical going on….
If the high higher don’t act justly, well, the good order and discipline of the service suffer, not to mention its good name, what little is left of it.

Just the code we thought we were all supposed to live by, long ago.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

More likely, the Iron Law of Bureau-ocracy at work.
Walt

While we have always known that our senior officers had to ‘work’ with politicians to get things done, they have recently crossed the line and are now charter members of the political class.

Removal of DADT policies were highly encouraged by CJCS …
Women in training to become submarine sailors …
Women to be allowed into combat arms MOS’s of Army & Marines …

Not one of the above three instances are being proposed/instituted because of necessity! NOT ONE! They have come about purely because of politics and (presumably) the brass wanting to feather their nest for ‘post military retirement’ positions. And they do this by sucking up to the proper Senators and Congress critters.

I really, really worry for my Navy!

What has happened to our warrior class? Where are our military leaders receiving their inspiration
NavyDave

The second-order effect and unintended long-term consequence that the Navy apparently doesn’t understand in this issue of diversity is that blindly pushing folks up the chain based on diversity vice character can ultimately make us even less diverse at the top. If a junior officer is anointed and groomed (as is apparently the case with Graf), promoted and pushed up as a way of helping equalize the demographic between our flag corps and society, and then crashes and burns on the very character issues which were overlooked in the name of diversity… We couldn’t make ourselves look any worse than this. If we lower the standards at the lower ranks, we find ourselves answering hard questions about why the Navy is biased in our promotion rates to the higher ranks. The sad fact is that we can’t even have an honest discussion about the causes of Navy not matching society’s demographic mix without worrying about accusations of sexism or, worse, racism. If this results in promoting individuals based on the diversity “mission” then combat effectiveness DOES suffer to some degree. What the threshold is for actual combat failure is has yet to be seen (I think) but perhaps only due to the fact the Navy hasn’t been challenged by a maritime peer.
http://blog.usni.org M. Ittleschmerz

Grandpa – “game” is a euphemism. Nothing more.

As for the rest of your post, while I read that you feel strongly I feel just as strongly that you are wrong. Holly Graf was advised and counseled along the way. And that advice and counsel was both “tone it down” and “good job”. With the right personality that latter advice can rapidly overcome the former.

I firmly believe, in both cases, that when leadership acted it was justly and correctly – and in both cases the actions was too late. If anything, favoritism is what kept Captain Honors from learning the error of his ways in a lasting manner.
Matt Yankee

I agree with Grandpa’s statement:

“Ruining a career is, or should be, a hard thing, done as a last resort, when nothing else will suffice. It must be done on the basis of intolerable acts, after complete investigation, or it will backfire on those who pull the plug. Call the thing by its right name, a harsh disciplinary measure. Provide a measure of due process, in every case.”

I do not believe Captain Honors should have been relieved because of a skit he made four yrs. prior. FOUR years and then this happens right after repeal of DADT…just too much of a coincidence for me to believe what he did four yrs. ago is all of a sudden an intolerable mistake. Relieving Captain Honors does serve a purpose of strongly warning the rest of the military against gay bashing or gay poking (no pun intended).

I can think of a few congressman in the highest of places that did actually break laws and are still congressman…Rangel is the purest example of such open hypocrisy. Turbo Tax Treasury Sec. Geitner is another one that got to “move on”. There is a double standard and the rule is basicly if you are on one side of the political spectrum you cannot win but if you are on the other you cannot lose.
Chief Torpedoman

This old tube shooter has a question. When the screw was damaged while the Churchill was exiting harbor at too fast a speed, was the log changged to indicate a lower speed? If that is the case, that alone is cause for an IG and relief for cause. I don’t know of any Chief or First Class quartermaster who would under any circumstances go along with that. Is not the ships log a legal document?
Grandpa Bluewater

Matt Y and TMC:

Thank you both for your attention and discernment.

M.I.: Behold, the main point. Quo et demonstratum. Thank you for a good joust. Perhaps we might break a lance or two again one day.
Mittleschmerz

Grandpa – forgive my lack of discernment…what did you find to be the main point?
Grandpa Bluewater

You are forgiven. Matt and the TMC embodied the main point in their most recent posts. The solution is left to the inquirer as an exercise. Just leave the copy of Candide and your assumptions at the door. It all revolves around what is the purpose of the main task of the Navy, and what is the best way to accomplish it.
Good luck, OUT.
Kirk Benson

Have they asked me?

They did.

By the way, the complaints were very valid.
UltimaRatioReg

Welcome, CDR Benson!

They asked you about Captain Graf? Or about who in the chain of command was made aware? Or both?
http://blog.usni.org M. Ittleschmerz

To add – when did they ask? As part of the recent IG, BOI, and new stories, or back when you were XO?
Kirk Benson

Before her recent administrative hearing, I spoke at length to the Navy JAG representing the Navy.

I was her senior department head when she was XO of CURTIS WILBUR (CDW).

The JAG asked me about my personal experiences with her aboard CDW. Individually and as a group of department heads, we complained about her behavior to the CO. He did nothing. I will not state his name here, but his name was provided to the JAG. We also had the DESRON chaplain onboard for a period, and I know what he told the Commodore (name also provided to JAG). Those were the deaf ears I was referring to.

The way I see it, she should have never made O5 or screened for any command. The stories you have heard are very plausible to me, because I lived with it for 18 months. It was Hell!!!!

It is my opinion that she did receive special treatment because of her gender. I don’t believe her behavior/personality was necessarily gender related.

My two cents.
http://blog.usni.org M. Ittleschmerz

Well, it was one of these three officers:

CDR Christopher Thayer Nichols Dec 7 1995 – Aug 1 1997
CDR Michael Jeffery Fischer Aug 1 1997 – Jan 11 1999
(from http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01054.htm)

And this commentary as well:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QXNJTWzzmrkJ:navycaptain-therealnavy.blogspot.com/2010/01/number-two-in-our-countdown-is-captain.html+Christopher+Nichols+%22curtis+wilbur%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

“Her COs on CDW were CDR Chris Nichols and CDR Mike Fischer. CDR Nichols departed about a month or so after she arrived, if I recall correctly. That was in 1997. As one of the department heads, we, as a group, went to the CO (Fischer) on more than one occasion to complain about her. His only response was, “I support the XO.” It does amaze me she got away with it. I don’t recall who the Commodore was, but I know he had personal insight into some of the incidents onboard. Perhaps I will share that story in a later post.”
Derrick

Just to double the comments number:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/fired-navy-commander-my-bosses-knew-about-raunchy-videos/

I think the URL communicates it all.
http://google Benjamin Doty

While serving in the Navy 68-72,there was the issue of USS Pueblo captured by N.korea in international waters. Some higher brass requested courtmartial for putting ship,and crew at risk,and failing to use all available means to protectship from capture. The late CMDR. lloyed Butcher went through a Navy inquirey,and w/testimony from crew members,and no proof of derelection of duty was cleared. Though he was allowed to retire w/honor,his reputation was forever scarred. Why has there not been the same inquirey of CAPTS.Graf&Honors? Has the UCMJ changed?
Jimmy R Brown

I serve as a Senior Chief Petty Office (GSCS) on USS Winston S. Churchill DDG 81 during Captain Graf’s tour. I was the Leading Chief Petty Office of the engineering department during the time the ship suffer failure to one of our shaft upon leaving port. Some of the things that have been written about captain Graf’s may be true but most or not. I know what everyone is saying but my duties afforded me to observe the captain on a daily basis and many times having to interface directly with her. She was not perfect but neither were the rest of us. I would serve with her again

Good for the Goose, Not Good for the Gander

Recent Posts

Pages

Guest Bloggers

Links

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

video title