A letter from a Navy Wife to the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy.

[BaadVR4]

I served 21 1/2 years in the Navy from May 1964 to Nov 1985. Clearly my service was LONG ago. But the more things change, the more they remain the same. Some well intentioned bureaucrat some where (who probably makes more in a month than the dead sailor did in a year) decides we need to save money or improve force "readiness" and creates a "program" to achieve the lofty goal he has in mind. It is then VERY SELECTIVELY applied, and most often to the detriment of a large group of otherwise well qualified, dedicated servicemen and women. It takes several years to find/fix the "glitches" in the program, but in the meantime many hundreds (if not thousands) of lives and families are irreparably damaged, if not utterly destroyed. "Up or Out" blatantly discriminated against minorities as it was initially implemented. And the "fat boy" programs of the 1970's and 80's cost many thousands of sailors their careers because the could not meet height/weight standards that didn't exist when they were making career choices to remain in the service.

The problem is NOT fair and impartial enforcement of rules and policy. The problem is the rules and policies are changed AFTER the fact.

And, no, Vantage, military retirement is NOT welfare. If you added up just the HOURS I spent deployed in Submarines and Aircraft Carriers, my 21 1/2 years of service more accurately reflect a 40-45 year career. I EARNED every damned penny of every paycheck I have EVER received, both while Active Duty and during my retirement. And EVERY Sailor, Soldier, Airman or Marine who takes his or her own life as a result of the ignorance and lack of caring of the self serving bean counters might as well have been executed by them.

And, no, Vantage, I lack neither intelligence (member of the triple one club) nor employable skills (I have been General Manager of two companies during my retirement). I enlisted in the Navy. I advanced in rate through E-9. I won selection to Warrant Officer and held rank from W-1 through W-4. I won selection to Limited Duty Officer and held rank from O-1 through O-3. My entire Naval career was spent as a Nuclear Propulsion Systems specialist. I never lacked for promotion. I never faced losing my career. But I watched many who did, through no fault of their own.

All that Navy wife is asking is the MCPON uphold the oath he took. The oath to protect those men and women entrusted to his care when they are unable to protect themselves. Whether in battle with an armed enemy or in battle with the demons of war or in battle with the self imposed demons of hopelessness, our servicemen and women DESERVE to be protected with every last ounce of our power. And that applies to every link in the Chain of Command from the bottom all the way to the Commander-In-Chief. And ANY one who doubts that is welcome, in my opinion, to stand between those service members and the enemy with real bullets in real guns. If you are willing to do that, I accede you the right to complain about our whining. If you are not, then kindly refrain from denigrating those who ARE willing to do so.

[Vantage]

And, no, Vantage, military retirement is NOT welfare. If you added up just the HOURS I spent deployed in Submarines and Aircraft Carriers, my 21 1/2 years of service more accurately reflect a 40-45 year career. I EARNED every damned penny of every paycheck I have EVER received, both while Active Duty and during my retirement. And EVERY Sailor, Soldier, Airman or Marine who takes his or her own life as a result of the ignorance and lack of caring of the self serving bean counters might as well have been executed by them.

Being on my phone when I initially responded to this thread, I couldn't elaborate as well as I would have liked. The context in which I made my welfare comment is not how I truly wanted it come off. While in my opinion I still think it's true, there's undoubtedly a great many number of servicemen and women who, as you pointed out, earned every penny they make. As I said, I can't speak to the Navy, but over the course of the GWOT, the burden on the Army became such that all forms of admittance standards went out the window. You could be the biggest scum bag in the world, but hey, if you wanted, the Army had a bunk with your name on it.
Now after 10 years on conflict, PTSD has finally been recognized as a legitimate issue, but at the same time, it can be extremely difficult to tell if someone truly has it or is just making it up. Because of this, I have openly heard and had discussions with NCOs, to include Senior NCOs, who have come out and said they will claim PTSD regardless if they actually do or not, simply to receive the disability. Clearing PAX are told what tests to go take at the health clinic in hopes of maybe catching a break, and getting some sort of disability claim. Who cares if your fine or not, lets see if we can take Uncle Sam for every dime he's got! It's absolutely deplorable. The phrase 'Fraud, Waste, and Abuse' comes to mind. To me, I liken it to government sponsored welfare. Take offense to the connection, get upset about it, I don't really care. The military has become, for far to many, an easy paycheck for doing usually close to nothing.

And as much as I hate all the "self serving bean counters," it's hard to believe that termination from the service would bring one to kill themselves. Do I agree for many, it probably is devastating? Of course, but there's always more than one issue at hand. In this case, this sailor had gambling problems, and once he found out he would be terminated at the end of the year, he began gambling again. The military is not a day care. We do not have time to constantly rehab service members over and over again, or beg them get in shape so if God forbid the time ever came, they could help face the enemy without being a handicap to the men and women next to them.

So for discussions sake, how would you change the system? How would you create a program to reduce service levels, while still remaining feasible at the size and scope it needs to be accomplished at?

And, no, Vantage, I lack neither intelligence (member of the triple one club) nor employable skills

I never came close to making that claim. Quite the opposite in fact, but well done I guess, it looks like you had a great career.

And ANY one who doubts that is welcome, in my opinion, to stand between those service members and the enemy with real bullets in real guns. If you are willing to do that, I accede you the right to complain about our whining.

And that's where I have been for just about the better part of a decade. Maybe it's the reason I'm rather unsympathetic to these types of things. Anyways, thanks for your service BaadVR4.

[BaadVR4]

Vantage, I think you gild the lily. There are cheats/slimeballs/scumbags and even career criminals in every branch of the service. Their numbers are extremely small. And they should be investigated, prosecuted and punished to the extent the law allows. But that is not the purpose of the current programs, nor are they even the primary target of the new programs. But even that is not the biggest problem.

Here's an analogy. Your team is leading the football game 35-7 at halftime. During the halftime intermission, the league has a meeting. The second half revenues will be reduced; people will leave without consuming more beer, they'll change the TV channel, missing all the high dollar commercials. Something simply MUST be done!! So the rules are changed. If your team scores a touchdown, it will be worth nothing. But if the other team scores a touchdown, it is worth 77 points, field goals 35. For the other team, a first down is worth 7 points and a pass completion 3. Oh, and your team will only be allowed nine players on the field. And your opposition gets to pick which two are banned.

Absurd? Certainly. Unfair? Absolutely. But very much like how we deal with force reductions? All too unfortunately, it is also just like the way we reduce our end levels.

It is common for the "bean counters" to authorize manning levels at 60-70% of documented absolute "NEED" levels. And that is for programs that are in the classification "highly required/vital to national security", like Nuclear Power. Then when the overall force reduction programs begin, they are applied like a "one size fits all" glove. So we just "weed 'um out" at the right percentages until we get to our target numbers. Then we pat ourselves on the back for having protected our vital military needs while simultaneously defeating the rabid dogs of fiscal irresponsibility from gutting our military mission. Well done, Mr. Beancounter!! Well done, indeed!!!!!!!! In the meantime our enemies laugh at us all the way to victory. It's ancient history, but Vietnam comes to mind.

If there is a problem of over-manning, it has been created by the same idiotic beancounters who are behind our draw down policy debacle. When they needed bodies, they changed the rules to allow all those scumbags/thieves/slime balls to enlist so the force end strength would reach the goals, ensuring our military was the best, most well trained fighting force in the world. That didn't work too well, either. So now the rest of the folks not only have to perform their own jobs but take up the slack for all the dead weight the beancounters used to fill out the force. So just cut out the dead weight and get capable recruits, you say? The same policy makers who change/modify/bend or re-write the rules for their own ends have made it so hard to legitimately cleanse even one scuzbag that it is easier to just send them home and not recommend them for re-enlistment. Now THAT is military welfare. But back to the current issue. We needed a TON of service members to go fight for our country's interests. Our extraordinarily gifted and visionary beancounters got them by relaxing rules for both recruitment and retention. Now, 10 years on, the country has financial problems and we need to downsize our military. Them folks with 10-19 years make a LOT more money than a new recruit. So let's set up a program that has all the APPEARANCES of being fair and impartial, but which, in fact, will allow us to be very selective about who we separate. Since the current economy sucks, recruiting any required replacements will be dead easy. After all, a body is a body.

I did have a great career. But I saw thousands who didn't and it wasn't their fault. But make NO MISTAKE: it was NOT the troops who created this problem. It wasn't even the dirtbags and scumbags. It was the policy makers/enforcers and beancounters. Defend the policy makers and bean counters if you wish. Just don't pretend to give a damn about the innocent they hurt while you are doing it.

[IPD]

i'm with milt 110%. if you want to reduce force strength (regardless of the merits of reduced forces), the way to do it is through natural attrition. reduce recruiting & kill off retention bonuses. hell, my own career field just saw a RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY (on a volunteer basis) for a lot of people with 15-20+ years of experience who had previously separated. why? because they gutted the force structure to the point they realized that there weren't enough bodies with sufficient seniority where they were needed. that's a problem caused by flagrant force-structure cuts, rather than relying on natural attrition.

and for those who believe there are still a lot of fat to be cut, i'll have you know that my unit is averaging a 1:1 dwell ratio right now. that means that for every month the member is at home (stateside), he/she will spend 1 month deployed. and i'm in the frickin air-force. previously we'd deploy, fly our tails off for 60 days at a feverish pitch, and then go home (limited based on regulations for maximum flight hours). they've decided to up that to 180 days at a stretch "just like the rest of the air force". problem is, if someone in finance screws up in month 5 of a deployment, the worst that usually happens is a chargeback against an overpaid member. if someone in maintenance or ops screws up 5 months in, someone usually dies, or a multi-million dollar aircraft is lost.

but yes, by all means, please continue to cut the force structure to the point where i'll have to be deployed 330 days out of every year while simultaneously praying that the strain (physically and mentally) doesn't cause me to seriously f-up and get dozens of people killed or worse. i don't need a personal life--and i apparently don't need a family either. volunteering for the military in the 21st century means that i've volunteered to forgo any semblance of self--and am merely to perform as a mindless automaton that's happy to be forever suck in the ass-cracks of the world on an indefinite basis while never enjoying the freedoms that i've sworn to defend with my very life. thank you so very much.

/sarcasm.

[Vantage]

BaadVR4, the Army currently has 90,000 non-deployable soldiers. Half of those are because of apparent combat related injuries. But how many of even those are just riding the wave, hiding out, and collecting their checks? I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen it. IPD, I understand that not everyones optempo has come down. Aviation and JSOC have had to step up their optempo tremendously to pick up the slack and fill the voids left by everyone else. I never said I was a fan of, or agreed with, 'random lets see who the dart hits next' troop reductions.

I'm honestly impressed and shocked that the Army is apparently the only service getting this right this time around. You can agree, disagree, moan, groan, bitch, cry or complain until the cows come home. Congress has mandated cuts, and we need to listen to the boss, like it or not, it's just the way it is. Aside from natural attrition and slowed recruiting, I've still seen no suggestions on how to reduce the force efficiently and fairly. The military is a pendulum, and it will forever swing from one extreme to the other.

Above all else, if you are that upset with the system and want to see it changed, stay in long enough, become that senior official, and mold the service to your liking. Make no mistake, I'm not defending the politicians or even supporting them, heck, if I could go pistol whip all of them into quitting, I'd do it, but when our boss gives us an end state, it's our job to meet that goal and accomplish the mission, whether we like it or not. Life's just not fair, and we need to accept that.

Run for Congress and see if the American people agree that the military deserves to be spared from these reductions and budget cuts. So far the vast majority do not believe so. But then again the public has never really had any sort of grasp on what the military does and accomplishes for this country.

[IPD]

BaadVR4, the Army currently has 90,000 non-deployable soldiers. Half of those are because of apparent combat related injuries. But how many of even those are just riding the wave, hiding out, and collecting their checks? I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen it. IPD, I understand that not everyones optempo has come down. Aviation and JSOC have had to step up their optempo tremendously to pick up the slack and fill the voids left by everyone else. I never said I was a fan of, or agreed with, 'random lets see who the dart hits next' troop reductions.

I'm honestly impressed and shocked that the Army is apparently the only service getting this right this time around. You can agree, disagree, moan, groan, bitch, cry or complain until the cows come home. Congress has mandated cuts, and we need to listen to the boss, like it or not, it's just the way it is. Aside from natural attrition and slowed recruiting, I've still seen no suggestions on how to reduce the force efficiently and fairly. The military is a pendulum, and it will forever swing from one extreme to the other.

Above all else, if you are that upset with the system and want to see it changed, stay in long enough, become that senior official, and mold the service to your liking. Make no mistake, I'm not defending the politicians or even supporting them, heck, if I could go pistol whip all of them into quitting, I'd do it, but when our boss gives us an end state, it's our job to meet that goal and accomplish the mission, whether we like it or not. Life's just not fair, and we need to accept that.

Run for Congress and see if the American people agree that the military deserves to be spared from these reductions and budget cuts. So far the vast majority do not believe so. But then again the public has never really had any sort of grasp on what the military does and accomplishes for this country.

you've hit upon the #1 reason why i think military service should be a requirement to holding public office. all excuses of why that is a bad idea (usually unfounded ideas involving some BS about turning the USA into a totalitarian regime) are hogwash. in a representative democracy, it is our legislators who have a say in the direction our country takes. by handing them the keys to the nation--and without having any military experience to draw upon--we have charged them with steering the most important service our federal government provides...and without an iota of knowledge to do it with.

p.s.
one other aspect of force reduction that NO ONE EVER SEEMS TO THINK OF...is the cost and replace-ability factor. individuals who work in trades that have a 6-week (post-boot) course for training...are MUCH MUCH easier to replace than individuals who have 2-3 years of post-boot training--just to become initially CMR. to wit, a nuclear weapons technicians should be looked at much further down the list for force reductions than infantry or security forces.

additionally, how MUCH does that training cost? individuals in flying career fields usually cost exponentially more to train than those in non-flying fields. this is partially due to the length of the course, but also to the resources needed to train (jp-8, flight instructors, etc).

imho, the military should almost NEVER look at force shaping from career fields where the average time between service entry and CMR (barring casual status) is 2 years or greater.

p.p.s.

and don't get me started on the enron-style book-cooking being done with the 1A4/1A5 career fields. oh sure, on PAPER we have 80% manning. IRL (because we're forced to man separate platforms that don't have allotted manning billets) our manning is closer to 40-50%.

[BaadVR4]

Vantage, you REALLY miss the point. Your argument is "follow the order and damn the consequences". Would you follow an order that was unlawful? Based on your responses, I guess you would.

Let's try this one LAST time. This country has a legal system that is designed to protect the innocent.......to the extent that "it is better that 99 guilty go free than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted". But you have no compunction about whatever havoc is visited upon the "innocent" in the name of "listen to the boss...it's just the way it is". How wonderful to have no conscience. How marvelous to not give a damn about real tragedy in real people's lives. But, wait, I forget........"Life's just not fair, and we need to accept that." No, Vantage, life is NOT fair. But that doesn't mean we should ignore wrongs just because life isn't fair. If I apply that logic, then it should be perfectly okay if some one invades your home, wipes out your whole family and leaves you a quadriplegic. We should let whoever did that just get away with it. After all, whatever happens to you is "just life". And we all know that "Life just isn't fair". Injustice is injustice no matter who the victim might be. You seem to have decided that because SOME members deserve to be separated, ALL members should be subject to the same process. Except, of course, yourself and those YOU deem worthy. Just a touch of hypocrisy, don't you think?

BaadVR4, the Army currently has 90,000 non-deployable soldiers. Half of those are because of apparent combat related injuries. But how many of even those are just riding the wave, hiding out, and collecting their checks? I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen it. IPD, I understand that not everyones optempo has come down. Aviation and JSOC have had to step up their optempo tremendously to pick up the slack and fill the voids left by everyone else. I never said I was a fan of, or agreed with, 'random lets see who the dart hits next' troop reductions.

I'm honestly impressed and shocked that the Army is apparently the only service getting this right this time around. You can agree, disagree, moan, groan, bitch, cry or complain until the cows come home. Congress has mandated cuts, and we need to listen to the boss, like it or not, it's just the way it is. Aside from natural attrition and slowed recruiting, I've still seen no suggestions on how to reduce the force efficiently and fairly. The military is a pendulum, and it will forever swing from one extreme to the other.

Above all else, if you are that upset with the system and want to see it changed, stay in long enough, become that senior official, and mold the service to your liking. Make no mistake, I'm not defending the politicians or even supporting them, heck, if I could go pistol whip all of them into quitting, I'd do it, but when our boss gives us an end state, it's our job to meet that goal and accomplish the mission, whether we like it or not. Life's just not fair, and we need to accept that.

Run for Congress and see if the American people agree that the military deserves to be spared from these reductions and budget cuts. So far the vast majority do not believe so. But then again the public has never really had any sort of grasp on what the military does and accomplishes for this country.

[Vantage]

BaadVR4, you can’t be serious? That’s your rebuttal? What about my comments thus far are unlawful? Since we are apparently making this personal, I guess 20 years absent the military has dulled your mindset.

Try this one last time, try it a few more after that, hell don’t try at all, I could care less. Your likening the members of the military to those of a bunch of inmates at the state pen. Are your serious? No one here is guilty, and no one here is innocent. This isn’t a court room. You openly admit life is not fair, but yet you offer no suggestions on how to change the system to make it better, and allow every service member their due. Besides your gripes, what are YOU bringing to the table?
You talk as if Congress is out to sabotage the military and take down as many souls as possible. Even if it seems like that, open your eyes. They do what they must for votes, and as I said before, America does not believe we need an overly stout military. They don’t care how or why, they just want results. Politicians will stop at nothing to show them they are the ones accomplishing those tasks. You talk of injustice, and honestly I must agree. I think veterans are owed more than their country(OUR COUNTRY) could ever give, but like I said what would you have them due? YOU HAVE STILL NOT GIVEN AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO SERVICE REDcCTIONS.

You seem to have decided that because SOME members deserve to be separated, ALL members should be subject to the same process. Except, of course, yourself and those YOU deem worthy. Just a touch of hypocrisy, don't you think?

How fucking dare you. Who are you to fucking question me, and what the fuck I have done for this country? EVERY member is afforded the opportunity to make themselves untouchable, it is up to them to follow through. I thought we could have an apparently adult, and educated discussion on this topic and see where it took us, and with any luck, to the benefit of all. I guess that’s just not possible. I have done what it takes to make myself ‘untouchable’ in the eyes of the Army, and for PERSEC reasons, I won’t elaborate about myself beyond that.

It is YOU BaadVR4, that seems to keep missing MY point, that regardless of whether we agree with the powers at be(which I don’t), TROOP LEVELS MUST BE REDUCED. You and the rest of 3sgto & 3SI can keep thinking I’m a terrible person with an awful mindset, but keep in mind, we are the ones keeping you safe at night, letting you sleep peacefully in your beds. And just for your SA, as combat arms, I consider myself pretty mild mannered. Most people I work with would have told this lady to shut the fuck up and drink water.

I feel as though we are trying to fight the same battle, but from different sides. It seems like your trying to make me out to be some sort of government bandit with the sole intent of crushing our service members when that is simply not the case. I hope you reply, and we can maintain a healthy discussion on how to benefit all involved, both the American tax payer, and the American military.

[jbuhrman]

IMHO- There is no "good" way to go about troop reductions.. in the end people still will get put out... its what leads up to that time that matters. There was a comment in the letter than mentioned training and such. I can tell you that if you join, 75% of the jobs in the military won't get you a job in the civilian world as most require either licenses or certifications that the military does not require its member's to get. The only way to prepare a service member for transition is to start early. I haven't read too much up on ERB's as they do not at this time effect me. I guess I should as I am coming into that area pretty damn fast.

In the months prior(as they damn well better not ERB with a less than 90 day notice) once the member knows they are being processed they should start looking at what is required of them to continue that job in the civilian world.. but its up to the commands to afford the members the time to pursue the licenses/certificates and that is where the issues with Operational Commitment arise.

Again simply put, there is no easy answer to this. If they say people gotta go... there is no easy way to put out over 30,000 military members in a 12 month span and have everyone ready for whats awaiting them.

[BaadVR4]

Vantage, I was there on the Big E when helicopters were denied landing permission. I watched the refugees fleeing for their lives being gunned down by their own countrymen. I saw them executing their friends and neighbors in the name of "kill or be killed". Sometimes we shot them as an act of mercy. Sometimes we shot them for for sport, like target practice. These were people our government had PROMISED to protect. And we abandoned them to their fate. Life. Which can be unfair. If you align yourself with the right enemy. We promised them we would not desert them under any circumstances for any reason. And then we abandoned them. Left them to the "fairness of life" Oh, and as you might guess, the vast majority did not survive the night. But Washington achieved the boss's order. And a fine piece of military precision it was. In practically every aspect of the operation our beancounters declared great victory. And another thousand innocent Vietnamese died brutally in the street. Such a small price to pay. Just another faceless, anonymous one of "them".

I do agree with one point you make, though. Politicians certainly do whatever they must for votes. And, shit, if in getting elected/re-elected you accidentally do something beneficial to the American people, well, just damn the bad luck

BaadVR4, you can’t be serious? That’s your rebuttal? What about my comments thus far are unlawful? Since we are apparently making this personal, I guess 20 years absent the military has dulled your mindset.

Try this one last time, try it a few more after that, hell don’t try at all, I could care less. Your likening the members of the military to those of a bunch of inmates at the state pen. Are your serious? No one here is guilty, and no one here is innocent. This isn’t a court room. You openly admit life is not fair, but yet you offer no suggestions on how to change the system to make it better, and allow every service member their due. Besides your gripes, what are YOU bringing to the table?
You talk as if Congress is out to sabotage the military and take down as many souls as possible. Even if it seems like that, open your eyes. They do what they must for votes, and as I said before, America does not believe we need an overly stout military. They don’t care how or why, they just want results. Politicians will stop at nothing to show them they are the ones accomplishing those tasks. You talk of injustice, and honestly I must agree. I think veterans are owed more than their country(OUR COUNTRY) could ever give, but like I said what would you have them due? YOU HAVE STILL NOT GIVEN AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO SERVICE REDcCTIONS.



How fucking dare you. Who are you to fucking question me, and what the fuck I have done for this country? EVERY member is afforded the opportunity to make themselves untouchable, it is up to them to follow through. I thought we could have an apparently adult, and educated discussion on this topic and see where it took us, and with any luck, to the benefit of all. I guess that’s just not possible. I have done what it takes to make myself ‘untouchable’ in the eyes of the Army, and for PERSEC reasons, I won’t elaborate about myself beyond that.

It is YOU BaadVR4, that seems to keep missing MY point, that regardless of whether we agree with the powers at be(which I don’t), TROOP LEVELS MUST BE REDUCED. You and the rest of 3sgto & 3SI can keep thinking I’m a terrible person with an awful mindset, but keep in mind, we are the ones keeping you safe at night, letting you sleep peacefully in your beds. And just for your SA, as combat arms, I consider myself pretty mild mannered. Most people I work with would have told this lady to shut the fuck up and drink water.

I feel as though we are trying to fight the same battle, but from different sides. It seems like your trying to make me out to be some sort of government bandit with the sole intent of crushing our service members when that is simply not the case. I hope you reply, and we can maintain a healthy discussion on how to benefit all involved, both the American tax payer, and the American military.