|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Point-CounterPoint Here we go again.....CO Relieved of Command|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Experienced Member |
SF - Actually, you made a significant error there, but the truth actually bolsters your comment. A Cutter CO is a CO. A Sec Commander is a Commander, which IS A HIGHER ECHELON. That is why one is a CO (responsibility for one unit and one unit only) and the other is a COMMANDER, responsible for one unit as a CO, but also several other COs and their subordinate units. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I totally respect your position and wish you the best of luck. I am sure you know that most likely in this environment you will need to look ahead and make other plans...and CG should not be part of it as they will treated as "damaged goods". And this is a very well known and used term by the assignment officers here at CGHQ. CG is that one animal that unfortunately will not hesitate to eat its own.
Best of luck! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
You may think it a trivial bit of semantics, but your statement looses a LOT of credibility since the AOs are NOT and have NOT been at HQ for about 6 years. |
|||
|
|
Member |
They might not be physically located at this building but we all know they are under the watchful eye of HQ. I am surprised that you see it that way considering that CG-1, CG-4, CG-9 and others are not located PHYSICALLY at the CGHQ building. Come on, man!!!!! Give me a break.
BTW, in case you haven't heard, there is anothe casualty of ADM Papp's action. The CO of the USCGC GALLATIN was reassigned over "LOSS OF CONFIDENCE" issues. |
|||
|
|
CG Forums Lead Moderator Something Wicked This Way Comes  |
Not sure this hyperlink is authorized shipmate. T This message has been edited. Last edited by: militia1, |
|||
|
|
Hoof Hearted Ice Melted  |
T - altered the original link in the first post to comply.
Just a wild assed stab, but I would wonder if the material condition of that ancient cutter, the releases about other hull/engineering problems with the WHEC fleet, might not have something to do with the relief. Is the physical condition of the cutters getting to the point that they cannot perform the mission, crews cannot keep them running, and the "loss of confidence" falls to inability to keep those ships running/operating safely. |
|||
|
|
CG Forums Lead Moderator Something Wicked This Way Comes |
I appreciate it. Now onto the discussion, I think we all know of the OINC who CASREPed the entire unit a few years ago over training and readiness. Why could every CO do the exact same thing if he or she thought it was needed? T |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I know VADM Papp fairly well, and I would be willing to bet my Harley that the person you mention was a casualty of their OWN ACTIONs and INACTIONs. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Don't forget the other side of that. Let's call it 'the Area Commander's New Clothes' issue. Hypothetically, there may be a point where the boss expects you to say NO. There may be a point where a 'non-standard' material condition discrepancy exists that is so bad that there is an implied expectation that the Command is expected to do as suggested above and simply CASREP the entire unit. That condition may or may not relate directly to the condition of the rest of the fleet. |
|||
|
|
CG Forums Moderator Aude et Effice!  |
I understand your point and did consider that as well, but here is where your counter-arguement is not exactly correct in my opinion: both work for the next higher echelon in the chain, a flag officer. Furthermore, both O6 levels of Command are considered for an officer's career path/progression equivelent "major commands". And while not having to deal with the (somewhat arguably mundane) ADCON requirements the way a Sector Commander has to over his/her small boat stations and near-shore patrol boat forces, WHEC Commanding Officers do indeed have a very long and distinguished history of having subordinate afloat commands (USN/USCG O5 and below) assigned under their TACON. E.g., MIO Commander/XJ, BALTOPS, UNITAS, MEF Deployments, SAG Commander, SUW Commander, ASW screen (when the CG still had the capability), etc. However, if we accept your apparent arguement that a Sector Commander is indeed a cut above in the echelon "pecking order" and not at essentially an equivalent level with his peer who Commands a WHEC as I argue, then that makes my question of wondering the rationale for the organization's silence regarding the shoreside element, but not for the cutter fleet even more valid. Best, SF No good deed goes unpunished. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
...that was my primary intent of my point/post. I would bet that since neither of the two relieved in this case are in the same chain until the chain gathers together at the Vice Comdt level, it is a matter of leadership styles. There is something to be thought of in HQ issuing a policy statement to their subordinate commands (ie AREA COMMANDERS) saying do it one way or the other. (By that I mean HQ dictating yes or no) |
|||
|
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch |
I have a problem with the phrase "implied expectation". Unless the boss has made that expectation known any C.O. will now need to be clairvoyant. The CG has always been the "make do" service, with that culture instilled in everyone from E-1 on up. At what point is a C.O. expected to do just the opposite and say "no can do"? I would imagine the vast majority are trained to make it happen and would expect that reorting they could not make it happen would fly in the face of everything they have learned, experienced and been taught over the years. I was on a ship that had returned from Nam and was in horrible shape. My ship was decommed and we crossdecked to the ship from Nam. We continued to run that ship in its current condition. X months later we had a fire and explosion in Alaska. Had to medevac three crew members with severe burns. They were flown to the San Antonio burn center. Years later one of the MIO (I think MIO) inspectors confided in me that they had not reported just what poor shape the ship was in because they felt the NEW C.O. had not had a chance to correct the problems and they did not want it to reflect badly on him. As a result, all written reports showed the ship was in good shape. So, should the C.O. have raised the flag about the ship's condition, or just carried on in the typical CG manner? If he had raised the flag he could easily have been percieved as crying wolf. He didn't, three men were seriously injured.... |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Stan;
Yeah, a lot has changed. Thanks to Nancy Reagan and some other, most notable one who used to talk about the 'curse of Semper Paratus,' there is a slight attitude shift. Not a major one, or a bad one, but a shift non the less. OK, that said, let me try to give an example. I thought the reference to the Emporors New Clothes fabel was a good one, but I guess not. Let's say that everybody knows that the entire WXYZ fleet has a problem with their widget. WXYZ-123 has those problems, but their finapalooza is quite dilapitated. Their finapalooza hasn't been maintained to standards, which is part of the problem. Their finapalooza isn't on the standard list of normal status reports, but can severely impair the mission. The CO knows it is a problem. He knows it can degrade the mission. He knows that the problem can be traced back to his a maintainance issue. It has gotten worse every week. It could have been repaired a while ago. It is so broken, they have stopped all maintaince of any kind on it, even though the upkeep is SIMPLE. Someone visiting the unit sees the finapalooza is much, much worse shape than any other WXYZs finapalooza. They mention it to the superior officer, who had never heard of it. The CO never mentioned to his boss "My finapalooza is on the fritz. I need (blank) to fix it." It is now severely affecting not only the mission, but the health, welfare and morale at the unit. (Those finapaloozas are important to all of those areas) My point - nothing says to report your finapalooza status. In part, that is becuse EVERYONE (even landlubbers) KNOWS that having a properly maintained finapalooza is is vital to health, morale and welfare. It IS NOT wartime. Many, many oppurtunities to address the problem have gone by without action or report. Many chances to address it, without interfeering with the mission have gone by. Now what happens? |
|||
|
|
Hoof Hearted Ice Melted |
Mightyz, Thanx for the explanation and example. It was eloquenly presented and was somewhere along the lines that I was wondering about.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mastersmate, |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Maybe, just maybe, if the circumstances of all RFCs where published kinda like the Good Order an Discipline messages we MAY have fewer people getting RFC. Now I'm not saying that EPO/EO's, XPO/XO's and OinC/CO's do not know what kind of things can get them RFC, but it may help. By the way I CAT 4'd (last year) our pier due to it being underwater and and crumbling in places especially where our mooring lines attach. Because that is what it took to finally get some action and a higher priority on the POP Board, a SSMR was submitted and never heard anything about it until the CASREP went out and then the issue received the attention it deserved.
MKC Chad L. Royer |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Chad - If the CG published the 'circumstances' of RFCs, then ONLY the CG's version of the RFC would be published (ie: you would only get one side of the story). In just about every RFC I am aware of there is more than one version of the story.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
DI;
I am not sure I can see your point. I would believe that the appropriate release would publish the CORRECT side of the story each time. I guess it is a level of detail issue. RFCs are much simpler I think than a lot of people make them out to be. Now, the RFC may be only PART of the story. There may be other administrative matters that follow on, but are seperate to the RFC. The RFC story is usually fairly simple. The person in command no longer has the extremely high level of trust and confidence from their boss required of the position and authority of command. Not one single person in any paygrade, with any career background should be ever assumed to have the ability or 'right' to be in command. The simple act of falling asleep each night should start the slate clean and when the alarm goes off, the person in command should re-earn that privelage of being in command. Now, when the story starts to move beyond the RFC and into the specific circumstances that may or may not be addressed in another administrative or punitive proceeding, there is where I see your point. |
|||
|
Does begging and pleading count as foreplay? |
Wasn't that the drink at the Clevelander? |
|||
|
|
CG Forums Lead Moderator Something Wicked This Way Comes |
Ok, this was funny. "finapalozza"??  T |
|||
|
|
New Member |
 |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Point-CounterPoint Here we go again.....CO Relieved of Command
