SurfaceForce - I don't think so; e-mail @ timhecht@sbcglobal.net and tell me about it...

Let me approach this from a different angle.

Suppose CAPT Sullivan is fully acquitted and exonerated for whatever reason.

Would he ever be selected for flag? Or for a choice upward mobility, high-visibility assignment?

The answer is clearly "no", and we all know it. His CG career is over. Period.

I submit that *that* is why he's already been tried and convicted in the public's eye, and he's not even yet seen an Article 32 hearing. He's been judged before even getting to defend himself. And it all stems from the horrific press release that PACAREA sent. I agree with navyflea: This is shameful and disgusting procedural politicking.

Quick sidenote to Wray: yes, it was on a random urinalysis.

Quick sidenote to Jeff: thank you for your kind compliment about the SEA HAWK (what a fine ship)--great hearing from you again, shipmate--let's connect on that page.

He'll leave with his retirement. He's lucky to have something.

Had he been a civilian mariner, the CG would have suspended or pulled his license or document and he'd be left as unemployable in his chosen profession.

Well, I guess now that we've heard from the previous post, we can all call JAG and tell them to stand down. We already have a decision and resolution. Should save everyone a lot of time and trouble.

You won't mind terribly if we let the process work, do you?

quote:

Suppose CAPT Sullivan is fully acquitted and exonerated for whatever reason.

Would he ever be selected for flag? Or for a choice upward mobility, high-visibility assignment?

Mark, let's get real.... just how many people that post here do YOU think will be on his selection board? If there was no such thing as the internet, do you think he would still get selected?

quote:

Well, I guess now that we've heard from the previous post, we can all call JAG and tell them to stand down. We already have a decision and resolution. Should save everyone a lot of time and trouble.

406 --> I think you, mark and perhaps some others need to look at this from a "different angle"... This web site is a place for debates, opinions, discussions and a general sharing of information. In todays world I suspect if some people 'throw up', it would be posted on the internet. Some people may actually want to read or see about those things... (not me) but, the fact remains, and the point I was trying to make is in today's world information is instantly spread on the net. Good, bad , or indifferent, that is a fact.

This like most web sites is one used for discussions.. like I said earlier, I doubt any that post here will be sitting in on anything...Do others read here.. sure.that can not be avoided. They can read sevceral other places as well... booking chits, newspapers, etc... we can't prevent that either. Do they formulate an opinion? Perhaps... but, that is human nature, and can not be stopped.

The only way to avoid these things is to not bring notice to yourself. Failing a random urinalysis is not one of those ways...

Welcome to the 21st century.

Wray...

Wray, point taken. It's just that he didn't present it as an opinion. He stated it as fact. Unlike your post...

If I may ask for one small favor? Please don't EVERY lump me in with Mark!

Oh, edited: I thought you were lumping me in with Mark Wood....

406 ---_ As you noted, I was talking about the post made by markdietrich two above yours...

Wray...

P.S. I looked at the last two posts by Mark Wood... they look like opinions to me... just like what you and I post.

No.. It appeared to me that MastersMate was the one who was stating opinion as fact.

I view Master Mate's post an an opinion as well... one which I happen to agree with. Could it be incorrect.. sure.. but .. it's a reasonable opinion.

Wray....

An opinion based on knowledge of what happened to two individuals, one documented, one licensed, that I have worked with over the last 10 years.

Last years articles about your unbiased ?? Administrative Law Judges and Mariners with whiz quiz problems kind of illustrates how it works against those in the maritime community. Your "settlement agreements" due process at its best

He popped on a random, no sympathy, would expect the same treatment to a CG regulator we've grown to expect. He's got a retirement check at least.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mastersmate,

quote:

Originally posted by Mastersmate:
An opinion based on knowledge of what happened to two individuals, one documented, one licensed, that I have worked with over the last 10 years.

Last years articles about your unbiased ?? Administrative Law Judges and Mariners with whiz quiz problems kind of illustrates how it works against those in the maritime community. Your "settlement agreements" due process at its best

He popped on a random, no sympathy, would expect the same treatment to a CG regulator we've grown to expect. He's got a retirement check at least.

And a Merchant Mariner has an avenue to show "Proof af Cure" and regain thier license. Ability to actually find work is the Mariners problem, just as further employment by the USCG Captain will be his. The Mariners access to "retirement" pay would depend on thier contract. JMHO

Has anyone heard any more about this?

Wray...

I understand the court martial is occuring on Coast Guard Island in Alameda CA.

quote:

He's got a retirement check at least.

If the above post is true - that is not a guarantee! If he used, I would hope that he is discharged, regardless of past service.

Tim, Keep us posted on this.. I would think it would be in the local papers there.

Wray...

I don't know the Capt, but this is something I have personally seen.
I had a friend pop positive for cocaine. We were room mates and worked the same schedule, 2 on 2 off. We did almost everything together and I knew, and everyone that knew him knew there was no way. They took him out of rotation and began to process him for discharge. Approx 3 weeks later, it was discovered that they had the wrong person, his SS# and another PO's SS# were 1 number off. The guy that ATCUALLY popped positive got off scot free, they couldn't do squat to him for legal purposes I don't understand, not being a lawyer. My friend, never even recieved an INFORMAL apology for the incident. Less that a year later his enlistment was up and because of the treatment he received, got out. I couldn't blame him.

Someone already has mentioned, even if acquited, the Capt's career is probably ruined.

quote:

Originally posted by FS1willis:My friend, never even recieved an INFORMAL apology for the incident. Less that a year later his enlistment was up and because of the treatment he received, got out. I couldn't blame him.

If his only issue was this, then that was a failure of leadership to not make it right.

John I agree... and, the problem I have seen over the years,(during my career), many "senior officers" no matter what the circumstances are/were, they will not admit they were wrong, or for some unknown reason refuse to apologize.

The old "I'm senior" therefore "I'm right"...

Maybe in "today's" CG that is not true. I can only hope...

Wray...

Unfortunately Wray, I believe it's actually gotten worse.

In the past year since this first surfaced, there seems to be an increase of RFCs, including "ELC leadership relief." They were all highly publicized, while other incidents go unreported in public and are quietly retired and swept under the rug.

CG Damage Control . . .make a big deal out of some issues of "lessor degree," send out press releases, do interviews outside the military to show how "we police our own," to keep the focus diverted from others retiring without charges. (I DO NOT diminish the severity of any of the issues, because the upper leadership ranks should be setting the example.)

By the way, I believe there may be a requirement of sorts to publish Article 32 Hearings, because it is a Public Hearing. How that is handled may have some leeway, but anything negative happening to the military is fodder for the AP and sells papers.

As noted above, the past years have shown serious disregard for military standards further up the ranks, which is a double edged sword for those who are thinning the herd. It makes them "the bad guys" for doing their job, but also questions their motives when picking and choosing who is sent out quietly and who to hang out as an example. The inequality doesn't teach anyone at all, except it is still "all who you know . . ." Not publishing apologizes or admitting wrong is another failure of leadership. It takes a bigger person to admit they are wrong.

My question is who will be left after this thinning of upper leadership that wasn't a result of natural attrition? Because the "strategic thinning" of the Viet Nam era Coasties, and "last of the Old Guard," created the openings for this group of leaders to move up from both the Enlisted and Officer ranks.

The panel started to deliberate yesterday.