Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Coast Guard Discussions  Hop To Forums  Point-CounterPoint    Willow and Monomoy COs Relieved for Cause
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
  Login/Join 
CG Forums
Lead Moderator

Something Wicked This Way Comes
Picture of militia1
Posted
quote:
Commanding Officer of CGC Relieved
U.S. Coast Guard | February 05, 2008
BOSTON - Rear Adm. Timothy Sullivan, Commander of the First Coast Guard District, has temporarily relieved the commanding officer of a Newport, Rhode Island-based cutter following reports of misconduct.

Commander Jeffrey Dow was temporarily relieved from his command of Coast Guard cutter Willow on February 1, 2008, following allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and subsequent loss of confidence by the operational commander.

The case remains under investigation.

"We take these types of allegations very seriously, and we will investigate this case fully," said Capt. Timothy Skuby, the chief of staff of the First Coast Guard District.


Another one??

T

This message has been edited. Last edited by: militia1,
 
Posts: 4977 | Registered: Sun 08 July 2001Edit or Delete Message
"going to talk and cause suspicion..."
Picture of asm3driscoll
Posted Hide Post
I'm sure its just a misunderstanding. Wink
 
Posts: 5800 | Registered: Wed 31 January 2007Edit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Picture of D13MK1
Posted Hide Post
Did no-one tell him about the three "B's"

Bummer!!!
 
Posts: 179 | Registered: Sun 06 August 2006Edit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Politions do it all the time, are they relieved from office?

On the other hand military men and women are held to a higher standard. He should have known better. Loss of a career isn't worth it.
 
Posts: 2037 | Registered: Sun 24 September 2000Edit or Delete Message
Member
Picture of seniorchiefbriansmit
Posted Hide Post
I've met him a couple of times at The Academy. Decent guy, let's give him a chance.
 
Posts: 779 | Registered: Tue 06 March 2001Edit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Give him a chance! Ok, lets allow for due process. But at the same time, be realistic. How many cases do you know where at the end of the day, after being relieved for cause, it boils down to be a "misunderstanding" like someone here already claimed? Comon, you give me a chance. I just hope she was that good because certainly, no one can be worth it!
 
Posts: 607 | Registered: Mon 22 July 2002Edit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Who said it was a she??
 
Posts: 1506 | Registered: Thu 13 June 2002Edit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Ouch!!! You are correct! Hmmmm.....
 
Posts: 607 | Registered: Mon 22 July 2002Edit or Delete Message
Straight and to the point!
Posted Hide Post
Thats right. Start making you typical assumptions and run peoples name thru the mud. What are you around 12 years old?
EM1
 
Posts: 743 | Registered: Thu 22 January 2004Edit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Hey, you are the one taking about his sexual orientation. I am only saying that like every other case, when a decision like this has been made, it's because there is sufficient evidence to relief him. And with this case, history will repeat again. Nevertheless, I don't feel sorry for him because perceptions are real, and WE are responsible for our own. But that's something a young inexperience PO1 can probably not understand. Go fly a kite!
 
Posts: 607 | Registered: Mon 22 July 2002Edit or Delete Message
Straight and to the point!
Posted Hide Post
At what point did I even remotly mention sexual orientation. And with 15 yrs in and a first for the last 4 I am far from inexperienced. And why would I wanna fly a kite?
 
Posts: 743 | Registered: Thu 22 January 2004Edit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Picture of Mightyz90_93
Posted Hide Post
I wouldn't suggest advertising that you were an E-5 at your 11 year mark when arguing anything remotely related to leadership or experience. The average time in service for people taking the E-7 SWE in your rating this year was less than that.
 
Posts: 4297 | Registered: Sun 15 June 2003Edit or Delete Message
Member
Picture of CHGuns
Posted Hide Post
Umm, yeah, so anyhow, some guy got relieved... Wink
 
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Mon 04 August 2003Edit or Delete Message
Member
Picture of d1b3
Posted Hide Post
Wow. This thread got super crappy in about 8 hours. Nice work everyone.
 
Posts: 277 | Registered: Thu 16 October 2003Edit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
I wouldn't suggest advertising that you were an E-5 at your 11 year mark when arguing anything remotely related to leadership or experience. The average time in service for people aking the E-7 SWE in your rating this year was less than that.


I was thinking about joining this thread, but I think I was still an E4 at the 11 year mark. Eek Red Face Confused
 
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Wed 27 September 2000Edit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
quote:
The average time in service for people taking the E-7 SWE in your rating this year was less than that.


AND THAT is part of the problem with the CG today. I know Chiefs that have been in less time, again, part of the problem....
 
Posts: 58 | Registered: Thu 12 April 2007Edit or Delete Message
Member
Picture of CgShipmate
Posted Hide Post
This is interesting information. It might explain some of the scuttlebutt I heard about that unit over the last year.
 
Posts: 1351 | Registered: Thu 31 January 2002Edit or Delete Message
CG Forums Moderator
Picture of tc1uscg
Posted Hide Post
So, was the charge for something that happened on the ship or off? Not that it matters but if he did cross the line and mixed the 2 sides of his life, professional with his personal life and was a problem onboard his ship, then maybe he did a wrong. But if it was a perceved problem, then again, the CG cans a good man and hurts the moral of the unit and creats a hostil work place.
 
Posts: 2674 | Registered: Wed 06 December 2000Edit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
15 years and just a PO1! That explains a lot about you and your comment. Ok I stand corrected, very experienced but not too smart.

Anyhow, yes, someone got relieved for cause for an inappropriate relation. Whether w/ a he or she, both are wrong. But my previous point was that I do not recall one case ever being overturned. This tells me that when this CO was relieved, it was because there is sufficient evidence to do so. The investigation and what comes after will simply provide those in the position to take corrective and disciplinary action w/ the information they need to proceed. But let’s be real, if there is smoke, there is fire.
 
Posts: 607 | Registered: Mon 22 July 2002Edit or Delete Message
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
Picture of Wray
Posted Hide Post
Hey Keko, what unit were you in charge of? I agree, I can't think of any that were overturned. Of course the CG wouldn't advertise that little fact.

Wray.. Cool
 
Posts: 13347 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Edit or Delete Message
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  

Closed Topic Closed

Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Coast Guard Discussions  Hop To Forums  Point-CounterPoint    Willow and Monomoy COs Relieved for Cause

© 2008 Military Advantage, Inc.