It sounds like a journalist getting second hand information from someone (sailor’s wife) who got her information from someone else (sailor) who doesn’t know what he’s talking about to begin with.
One might infer that what is actually going on is (a) George Washington was unexpectedly or prematurely drawn off station in the western Pacific to relieve Lincoln and (2) the US military hierarchy in the Pacific still believes a carrier is needed in the western Pacific to respond to contingencies, and (3) that carrier has to be Lincoln until whatever ship was actually due to relieve Lincoln arrives, whether to take up station in the western Pacific itself or in transit to relieve George Washington, which will then return to station in the Pacific.
Or the sailor really really doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is just making shit up to tell his wife as she reaches out to him for answers.
My mom made it for us when we were little. We didn’t care for it much, so when we started making meals it was off the menu. I mostly remember it for being very salty.
I remember when there was a frozen Stouffer’s version that came in a bag. This would have been in the ‘80s. You could put the bag into boiling water, or microwave it.
When I was home alone as an adolescent, I would eat it for lunch over toast. (Another option was canned Chicken à la King.) It was ok. A little bland.
That’s it exactly! I’m surprised they’re still making it. I haven’t seen it in a grocery store in years (though to be fair, I haven’t exactly been looking for it, either).
I doubt it’s still in the plastic bag to be prepared by boiling. I had forgotten about those meals. I used to like the fettuccini. They were a thing when microwave ovens were expensive and not as ubiquitous.
I understand that black marks are the kiss of death for officers, who are in a kind of slow ‘up or out’ death match.
Is the same true for enlisted? If you have no desire to be an NCO (that’s various types of petty officer AIUI?), just get a pension and see the world, is this that big a deal (after the initial punishment, of course)?
It doesn’t have to be. A good chance they’ll be busted down one rank, but if you’re a lifer, you can recover from this and still do your 20+ years for retirement. It does make, making Chief a lot harder, but not as much of an affect on Petty Officer 3rd class to 1st class. I did know some 1st classes that were at or near 20 years of service. First Class Petty Officer is an E6, so Staff Sgt in the Army & Marines, Tech Sgt in Air Force.
ETA: though I am 35 years out of date, so I might be wrong. Navy is still not at full numbers though, so if you’re trained and otherwise have a clean record, they won’t be quick to lose you.
When I was in, the Air Force often did not allow reenlistment for small reasons in a lot of rates as these rates were fully manned.
More on making Chief, only about 1 in 4 1st Class PO make Chief. So a prior demotion will reduce your chance in such a competitive advancement. But some rates are over filled for CPOs anyway and often takes 20 years with 8+ years as a first class to make Chief.
We had 1st classes make the transfer to E-Div, as it was much easier to make Chief as an EM or IC. So if you made 1st fairly fast and were planning to put in at least 20, it made sense. One of my favorites Chiefs was a Ship’s Barber through PO2 and made PO1 and then Chief as an EM (electrician).
Yup, that is totally true. The era where a young Ensign Chester Nimitz could run his first ship aground and not be cashiered is long gone. The USN now operates on a zero-tolerance mindset for any mistakes whatsoever for officers. (Which of course selects for officers who refuse to take any risks.)
My understanding is that it’s not usually so extreme for enlisted sailors. As @What_Exit says, it may make it harder to get selected for Chief Petty Officer (E-7). But unlike with officers, who have an “up-or-out” promotion structure, you can usually still get your 20 years in and retire.
That tracks with my experience. I had a bit of a similar (and probably worse because it involved the IDF) incident on liberty in Haifa as an E-4. Result was basically cancelled liberty privileges and extra duty. I still made E-6 in 6 years and turned down a hefty reenlistment bonus when I got out. The only lasting effect would have been red stripes instead of gold had I stayed in. E-7 might have been a bit harder too but I was in a undermanned rating.
ETA: now that I think about it, one of my buddies involved in the same incident recently retired as a warrant officer, so he clearly didn’t suffer.
It looks like they changed this in 2019. Now all enlisted service members with twelve years of service can wear gold stripes.
I think this is a good change. If getting gold stripes is unusual, then it is a plus. But once virtually everyone gets them, then still having red stripes at 12 years of service becomes pejorative. Which means affected Sailors are less likely to stay in the service.
Right. And he’ll never believe it, but his interference in such a manner is 100% detrimental to morale.
Twelve years of continuous naval service. Prior service in other branches is not included for gold stripes.
The two geniuses who decided to FAFO in Pattaya will likely face either Article 15 punishment or a summary court-martial, most likely Article 15 (“Captain’s Mast”)*. Since they’re attached to and deployed on a ship, they do not have the right to decline that procedure, nor can they appeal the decision of the conducting officer, only the severity of the punishment. Regardless of which venue is chosen by the captain, there must be an Enlisted Evaluation Report for each of them completed after that. Lower marks are the usual thing in this situation. And lower marks make one less competitive for advancement, assuming the rating and reviewing officer do not indicate “do not promote” on said evaluation.
Last I checked (and this was some years ago), the Navy’s HYT (High Year Tenure) for E6 (Petty Officer First Class) was 20 years. Lower rates had shorter HYT. That’s the “up or out” system in place: if one has not advanced above a particular rate by that rate’s HYT, then one is not eligible for further service and will be separated.
Given all of that and the high visibility, I can see those two sailors no longer having a naval career now. This was neither the time nor the place to FAFO.
*I believe some years ago, the Article 15 authority aboard ships was delegated to department heads. The range/severity of punishment available under Article 15 depends on the conducting officer’s rank–higher rank, more severe punishment available. Such delegation also reduced the administrative burden on a carrier commanding officer.
I worked with two different people who were former enlisted a few years apart but similar circumstances. They were in for something like twelve to fourteen years and worked in some sort of technical capacity in the Navy. They both failed some sort of written or practical test and were granted at least one retry so they were separated. This was over twenty years ago and my memory could be faulty. Does this make sense?
In addition to HYT, there is also what we used to call Perform To Serve (PTS). I don’t know if it’s still called PTS, but I suspect the concept is still in place.
PTS was basically a job-specific quota system that could prevent even high-performers from reenlisting where, for example, their particular rating was over-manned in a given pay grade. So someone in an undermanned rating might survive a disciplinary action and even a reduction in rate, where someone in an overmanned rating might not even survive being the number one ranked petty officer on the ship. Or so the math could work out, back in the day.
HYT could be a killer if the resulting reduction in rate put someone at or over HYT. I had a first class petty officer who was well on his way to Chief get in trouble during a port visit to Australia. He got busted down to E-6 at a summary court-martial, which put him close enough to HYT that it was questionable whether he’d even make it back to E-6 before it kicked in. But then it ended up being moot, as our CO (who it turned out was already on the take from a defense contractor and would be criminally convicted himself) decided to pursue administrative separation as well.
So a lot can vary based on how the CO choses to handle things too. I think any other CO I had ever served with (none of whom turned out to be criminals, so far) would have at least given him the chance to try and make back E-6 and continue his career, but not this one.
ETA:
Yes. The Navy has advancement exams for E-4 to E-7. Although I think E-4 is now automatic (no exam) provided otherwise qualified? Anyway, along with PTS (not retained or allowed to reenlist even if qualified) or failing the exam (not qualified to advance), there was/is also the concept of “Passed but Not Advanced” (PNA). Similar to PTS, some ratings would have more people pass the advancement exam than the Navy was authorized or needed to promote. So they’d be PNA’d.
Sorry if this topic has already been discussed but I’m not reading the 700 post thread.
Have the conditions on the Abraham Lincoln been uniquely bad? Or are there other ships and crews undergoing similar problems in a similar situation without the public attention because they’re not aircraft carriers?
My take from upthread? Don’t know, but so far everything that has come out in the news sounds like about par for the course. It could very well be worse than normal, but it’s at least within an order of magnitude (or a standard deviation from the mean?) from what I have experienced in the past.
Life on a US Navy warship, and especially at sea, sucks. Doubtless it sucks more after 9 months.