Don't assume the worst. "Inappropriate relationship" could be something as simple as going out for a few beers with a petty officer (going out with the entire crew would be a different matter), or it could be he sold his car to someone on the ship for less than the book value, or bought or rented a house (or sold to or rented to) a subordinate. "Inappropriate relationship" doesn't always mean sexual relationship. Give the case an opportunity to work itself out.

Ok, will do. But honestly, we very well know what the investigation is going to reflect. Unless, ranks are closed and something within the nature of what you explained is used.

I know for a fact of a CAPT in the 1st District back in the late 90s that sold his personal notebook to his YN before the YN transferred. Upon arriving to his new duty station, the YN discovered child pornography. He reported it, CGI investigated (the main agent was my neighbor in our geo-bachelor community) and he was offered a deal. He had to retired ASAP in exchange for a dismissal under the assumption that it could not be proven if he was who downloaded the pictures! He retired to the Newport News, VA area where he was going to work as a Naval Architect for a major contractor and sail is brand new sailboat. At the time the gender advisor to the Commandant told me personally that the CG had learned their lesson from the late CAPT Blanchard and if they could avoid dragging this guy thru the mud and cause another suicide, they would. Now this predator is hiding in the Haymarket, VA. A long way from Newport News and his sailboat. I wonder who he is running away from. Now, if this is not closing rank for one of your own, then I rest my case.

But let the case run its course....

PS: Wray, as much as I would love to come out and say who I am, I am way to close to home here in HQ. I truly believe perceptions and retaliations are real and are practiced here at HQ. Telling you which small boat station I was a CO as a LT would be saying who I am. As is, some of my very good close friends have already approached me to challenge me if I am Keko. I know how you feel about this, and that is ok. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to protect myself at all times…at least for the time being.

So, were is keko's warning. This thread got real crappy, as said above. Just because somebody is not as high as you were when you retired, doesn't mean they are not smart. I have been in almost 16 years now and I am an e-6. That doesn't mean $#!+ and I take personal offense at your ignorant comments. Sometimes people stay in rank for a reason, which I had one. When I decided I was ready to make first, I took the service wide and I made it. Quick advancement doesn't necesarily equal smart, good guessing, good @$$ kissing, can pass a test but can't actually do the work, this things are all real factors on why people advance quickly. I know Chiefs that got there quick, but don't know their head from a hole in the ground, and if it wasn't for the people under them being able to do their job correctly, the cheif would drown in their own fast advanced, little experienced, puddle of crap. So step off your damn, "I retired as an O-3e", which I am going to assume, since you retired as an O-3, I hope you were prior enlisted, I am even going to go out on a limb and give you the benefit of cpo, warrant, O, high horse. Yeah, the dude made some dumb comments, but the manure that is flying from your keyboard is that of a child.

Oh boy, here we go. Fine, I'm happy for you and glad you are happy w/ your paycheck.

Back to the thread....

I've been gone awhile - TDY and vacation...I don't like some of the "additional" comments made by some posters. Please stay on topic and discuss the message...everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by CgShipmate:
This is interesting information. It might explain some of the scuttlebutt I heard about that unit over the last year.

hey tom, if you have something to say then say it and dont leave out names and dates about what you heard. otherwise you posted something ignorant and werent man enough to back it up with fact or do your homework about it, you just felt like fanning the flames a bit. i think youre full of **** personally.

Im suspecting you know Tom and are just talking **** as I now him from my Reliance days and he was a pretty stand up guy.
EM1

quote:

Originally posted by CGSCOTTY:
Im suspecting you know Tom and are just talking **** as I now him from my Reliance days and he was a pretty stand up guy.
EM1

understable on your part, but if he says he has been hearing things over the past year, he could either share with the class or shut his mouth .

quote:

Originally posted by kekojones123:
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.

If the CO did not let his "fling" or whatever affect the unit's ability to do it's job, showed no favoritism or cause a moral problem, then it's a shame that he's been called out on just being human. I know.. the rules say blah blah blah.

KEKO, Oh yea.. talk about a duck out of water, seems when you put a zero in a place ran by enlisted (even if said zero was prior enlisted), things didn't go too well. Sta St. Clair Shores. Became a super station back in the 90's. Had a CWO for a while, then a LT in charge. They ended up with 2 LT's. It was a disaster. Seems the public felt the station had lost it's "public responsibility" under the LT's charge. Moral went to crap.. I got this strait from a local LEO and from a few visits when I was visiting the inlaws in that area. SO guess what? Someone wised up and put a BMCM bake at the helm. Moral improved and the public gained back it's respect for the station.

When I was there in the late 70's, it was a BMC as ONIC and the XPO (a 18 year BM1) pretty much ran the place. So people can find fault at any pay grade I guess if makes them feel better. And I always found that those who tried to belittle them (the ones who chose to retire at 20 as a E6 or at 26 as a E7) had some kind of inferior issue. For you (and those like you) I offer a suggestion and quick fix...

quote:

Originally posted by Daycko5150:
So step off your damn, "I retired as an O-3e", which I am going to assume, since you retired as an O-3, I hope you were prior enlisted, I am even going to go out on a limb and give you the benefit of cpo, warrant, O, high horse. Yeah, the dude made some dumb comments ...

Careful 'dude', in the pay grade O-3e, the e stands for Enlisted! Usually that is a result of either OCS or Warrant to Lieutenant (Mustang). I hope you have settled down by now. Keko's comments were not offensive to me. If you don't like his stuff you don't have to read it. If you have a complaint you should send an email of private message to a moderator. This is not the appropriate forum to complain.

--Jim
Life is good!

Somebody once told me that it is better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

Lots of folks here could benefit from that statement.

Thereis no excuse for misconduct of this type. We are a service that provides the highest standards. We pride ourselves in the fact we are observed by many sources, including our CG peers. It is a shame this occured, but to preserve the highest standards the CG needs, this was a wise choice by the powers to be. SEMPER PARATUS jdw3uscgretcombatvet

There is a problem with trying to guess at career moves or even reliefs of command. Inuendo can cause a relief because it causes a breakdown in the command structure. Rumor can ruin a person's career. It has happened and will again.

Until there is an official report/trial/whatever, he is considered innocent!

I don't know why this guy has taken it against me. But yes, I am a former Chief that went to OCS. But as directed by the moderator, back to the topic.

My point was that chances are that if he was relieved for cause, there is sufficient information to do so. We all know the routine. Now the investigation will determine among many other things if the unit and the crew was placed in harms way as a result of the CO's action; if someone else was involved, etc, etc, etc, and finally if any other disciplinary action is appropriate. Again, I don't recall a single case ever being reverted. If anyone knows of one, I honestly would like to know. As far as a "he" or "she", yes based on what I had been told of the CO, I assumed the other person was a "she". But someone did asked, who ever said it was a "she". To me that meant this person knew more about the facts and was saying that the other person is another "he". Never intended to offend anyone, but I can't help those that are immature and inexperienced!

Thanks
Keko

quote:

Until there is an official report/trial/whatever, he is considered innocent!

This discussion board is surely not a court of law.

A Relief for Cause is not a judicial process.

Sooo true, MC. Here, people are convicted and trashed with few or no facts at all.

From that vantage, how some in retirement seem to gleefully dig graves for the serving makes me wonder how they might have led while in uniform. Regardless of what did or didn't occur, everyone involved deserves to let the process take its course unimpedded by mob speculation and grandstanding. I'm sure the ordeal for those actually involved is hard enough... or don't we respect our brothers and sisters in blue that much?

Now, there may well a sensible debate about how some command incidents come about based on studies over time with contributing factors and what policies should be reviewed or changed accordingly, but lets not confound it with unsubstantiated rumors please.

Good day, gentlemen.

KC

Of course I realize that this board isn't a Court of Law. That is my point, however starting and feeding the "rumor mill" is a poor excuse for posting. There are many reasons that a CO can be relieved or that retirement might be suggested. Sometimes, it benefits the member and other times the service.

I have seen where retirement was used in lieu of courts martial. However, the article about this relief was vague at best and it doesn't take much to start rumors.

Well I see another thread went down very fast...

KC you're right to a degree; but it doesn't matter how someone may or may not have led in the past. Once something, anything is posted here opinions and assumptions are going to be posted. STAY ON TOPIC and reply to the message and not the messenger. Any issues with the messenger should be by e-mail...

I don't have time or interest to get into the kind of rediculous bashing games that have characterized some threads here. But if my non-specific comment gives some posters pause to ask themselves if their statements really reflect the finest values they espouse from their experience and perspective, then I think thats fair.

Don't get me wrong. Tony posted this piece as a factual matter of community interest and thats legitimate, but the press uses those little blurbs - which are normally pretty devoid of any useful information - to seed interest in later stories when they actually have something to report. I guess you don't really know what kind of story you're gonna get until you bury the seed in manure and watch what pops up... the nature of which is normally sad and rarely surprising in our age instant communication. Hence, the yet unproven details depress the spirit and obscure any lesson learned so I suggested elevating discussion to a higher level of military culturea and policy until the facts are in. Clearly thats not selling.

Have a great weekend everybody.

KC

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