MC,

OK, thanks. Your example clarifies things.

Cool, I almost came out of it more confused!

quote:

Originally posted by Disinherited:
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.

The same could be said about the Good Order and Discipline message. The YN3 who gets Court-Martialled for identity theft may have "his side" of the story where he's got a wife and two kids and they're drowning in credit card debt from her side before they got married and...

And yet, we still publish it. There is another side to the RFC, for sure. But by the time it's happened and been enforced, there's still going to be a reason for it. I believe the rest of the fleet is owed an explanation; it can be used as a learning tool, but also it would reinforce that these reliefs ARE happening with cause, and what that cause is, so it doesn't come across as being completely random.

Phil: And what would the 'correct' side of the story be? You have a great point that, at the basic level, every RFC is because the CO/OIC has lost the trust of his/her boss. That is what most 'press releases' basically say. But if you are going to start releasing more detailed information then it will either A) be a completely one sided story, or B) turn into a ****ing match.

GromitCU: The standard of evidence is much different for RFCs (where there is no standard of evidence) and for CM/NJP (where it varies). If you're found guilty (or to have committed the offense), then you have been found guilty. That can be publicly posted.

Example: SN Jones was accused of stealing cans of tuna from the galley. OIC takes him to mast and, after a full and open finding of facts where SN Jones has the full ability to defend himself, finds him to have committed the offense. That can be released. Of course, the release won't say SN Jones DID steal the cans of tuna, the release will say SN Jones was found to have committed the offense.

Very few RFCs lead to charges. While relief investigations often find points where someone could be charged with something, charges are rarely filed, and there is rarely a trial/NJP. So what can be released? Nothing, except for a brief statement that someone had lost confidence.

When I was fired I challenged my boss to book me for one of my alleged violations because I wanted to have the chance to publicly defend myself. I wasn't booked, so I never got that chance.

RFCs are not 'completely random.' They don't always make sense, especially when comparing some RFC stories with the actions of other CO/OICs who don't get fired. There is a great deal of subjectivity to it. I knew I my job was in danger for about a year before I got fired (several people on the Group staff had called me on different occasions with stories of how the Group Commander was looking for my head). I finally made a mistake and gave the GC the excuse needed to fire me.

All that being said, our RFC process works the way it is supposed to. It's not perfect (no system/process is). Some folks get fired who shouldn't. I would argue many more should get fired but don't. But bottom line it is the responsibility of the chain of command to initiate, investigate, and decide who does and doesn't get fired.

Disinherited; I would argue its our responsibility to not put the Chain of Command in the position that they have to initiate let alone think about a RFC.

quote:

Phil: And what would the 'correct' side of the story be? You have a great point that, at the basic level, every RFC is because the CO/OIC has lost the trust of his/her boss. That is what most 'press releases' basically say. But if you are going to start releasing more detailed information then it will either A) be a completely one sided story, or B) turn into a ****ing match.

GromitCU: The standard of evidence is much different for RFCs (where there is no standard of evidence) and for CM/NJP (where it varies). If you're found guilty (or to have committed the offense), then you have been found guilty. That can be publicly posted.

Dis;
Good points. I think some people need to be reminded of the differences between a RFC and potential OTHER underlying Administrative of Punitive matters.

Now , one very small point about your second para. NJP is an Admin function and generally the details are much less 'releasable' than a PUNITIVE function.

Nick - of course...but personalities are still going to play a role because we are all human. Trust me, if you **** off the GruCom/Sector Commander to the point where they are looking for a reason to fire you, you're cooked.

Phil - good point, however the rest of my argument still applies.

quote:

Originally posted by stormer73:
When did the Coast Guard get so PC?

Are you kidding me, it gets worse every year.

quote:

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.

Phil,

The Coast Guard expects all BMs at the top two grades to have the ability to be in command as it is a part of their PQS.

There was a time when the SORTS messages delivered the news concerning resources, staffing, and training as it pertains to Operational Units. Of course some of the rules were made for much larger units and did not apply to the smaller units, but the principles were specific enough. For instance, if I lost one person to leave, I would have fell into the requirement of degrading my operational capability. Well, that wasn't the case and I've argued with my OPCON over that rule, stating I would use my best judgement in all cases for the SORTS message.

I don't know why my type of unit had SORTS while a neighboring SAR unit didn't, but I guess that was part of the unit's DOD requirements. You know how some administrative details hang on long after the actual requirement has long been relieved. It probably ended up as a dear filing cabinate document. One to be filed and never looked at again.

quote:

Phil,

The Coast Guard expects all BMs at the top two grades to have the ability to be in command as it is a part of their PQS.

Unfortunately, that is only part correct. We expect a member to certify BEFORE they compete for those grades.

But my point is just because your are a lets say BMCS, doesn't give you the RIGHT to a Command job or an inate ability to continue serving in Command. It SHOULD be a requirment to CONTINUALLY re-proove yourself. For those two rates you mentioned, if you fail to continue to proove yourself, there are personnel action properly fitting to execute.

From the CGHQ Website this morning. Almost like there is a quota system.

Commanding officer of Coast Guard Cutter temporarily relieved for cause

Portsmouth, Va. - Vice Adm. Robert J. Papp, Jr., commander of the Coast Guard’s Atlantic Area here, has temporarily relieved the commanding officer of a Boston-based cutter citing a loss in confidence in the officer’s ability to command.


Cmdr. Howard R. Shaw, the commanding officer of the 270-foot medium endurance cutter Escanaba that is currently on patrol in the Caribbean, has been temporarily reassigned to the Coast Guard’s First District staff in Boston pending the final results of the administrative investigation.

I wonder, just how many C.O.s this makes that Admiral Papp has relieved?

quote:

CONTINUALLY re-proove yourself

Ya mean "reprove" or "reproof"? 'Cause, ya know, if I was a BM, I'd reproof myself too ... continually.

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
I wonder, just how many C.O.s this makes that Admiral Papp has relieved?

At least 5. Must be a pride thing with him.

T

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:
I wonder, just how many C.O.s this makes that Admiral Papp has relieved?


At least 5. Must be a pride thing with him.

Or a power trip. Admiral Queeg?

I have never met the Admiral. And he is certainly capable of making his own fight without my assistance. However, I somehow doubt he has a collection of CO Afloat Pins in his desk drawer.

Might I suggest another option: That the Admiral is exacting and demanding and will accept nothing less. Does this mean that the CO's that where relieved where bad or engaged in evil or illegal behavior? Not at all. It is entirely possible to be a very good person and a great seaman, but have some disqualifying characteristic which renders one unsuitable for command at sea. After all, this would be one of the toughest, most demanding jobs in the world. I can't begin to imagine...

The number relieved by him may indicate he is OVER-exacting and OVER-demanding. Hence my Admiral Queeg comment.

He is ending these folks careers. I don't recall reading about any other Admirals that were bouncing so many.

I have had a chance to meet Admiral Papp, he made it a point to come by the Honor Guard and let us know that he appreciates the work we do there working for MDW. I have also run into him on several occasions at various ceremonies and functions, and my PERSONAL read on him is that he is a very sharp individual, highly charismatic, and a well-established code of values. He definately is one of the most eloquent speakers I have heard, a rare individual who has the power to captivate an audience with his bearing.

If he is pulling COs out of their commands, then I have complete confidence that there is a reason for it. I have interacted with enough officers to know that they aren't all worthy of the trust and respect of their position.

Not to say that this is the case in this instance, it is definately way too ambigious to make any accurate judgement calls. But I would bet that Admiral Papp is making the right call with his RFCs.

Being retired 16 years, I have no idea what is going on...But, there is nothing wrong with demanding and expecting the very best out of your people...We need more of that as far as I'm concerned...Not just in the Coast Guard, but all walks of life...

Gunk

I don't disagree, but one has to wonder about one Admiral that needs to relieve so many C.O.s when the other Admirals don't seem to have the same problem.

We've all worked for some folks that are just too nit picky....micro managers, my way or the highway types. I'm not saying that is the case here, but one has to wonder how all these folks made it to a point where they were placed in command and now suddenly fail.