Posted on Apr 3, 2020
Veterans denounce "unforgivable" decision to remove U.S. Navy Capt. Brett Crozier, who asked for...
2.08K
45
22
12
12
0
Posted in these groups: Capt
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 9
8
8
0
3
3
0
Yep it's pathetic an officer is concerned about his men and women and wants to mitigate the risk to the rest of the crew. Horrible horrible! There needs to be more mission first, lives last types of officers in the military! I mean come on, 150 infected today, 300 infected in a week. The CPT is a disgrace! Screw NBC threats, it's full steam ahead CPT!
(3)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Instead of walking down the corridor and talking to the Rear Admiral he sent letters out and one found it's way to his home town.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ Ken Landgren - he didn’t bypass the chain of command.
“The fact that he wrote the letter up to his chain of command to express his concerns would absolutely not result in any type of retaliation”. Secretary Modly
Additionally, days before the memo was written, Modly actually personally instructed Capt Crozier to bypass the CoC.
“I think sort of most disappointing to me is that I had set up a direct line to him that if he felt that anything, way before his letter was written, that if he felt anything wasn’t going well and he needed help, that he could reach out to me directly. And he did not do that.“
—Secretary Modly, April 3
Instead of committing what he knew would have been career suicide by jumping his chain of command by doing exactly the Modly instructed him to, Crozier instead sent an unclassified memo up the chain of command. Modly has acknowledged this. But they crucified him for it anyway.
“The fact that he wrote the letter up to his chain of command to express his concerns would absolutely not result in any type of retaliation”. Secretary Modly
Additionally, days before the memo was written, Modly actually personally instructed Capt Crozier to bypass the CoC.
“I think sort of most disappointing to me is that I had set up a direct line to him that if he felt that anything, way before his letter was written, that if he felt anything wasn’t going well and he needed help, that he could reach out to me directly. And he did not do that.“
—Secretary Modly, April 3
Instead of committing what he knew would have been career suicide by jumping his chain of command by doing exactly the Modly instructed him to, Crozier instead sent an unclassified memo up the chain of command. Modly has acknowledged this. But they crucified him for it anyway.
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
BS. Most veterans understand the chain of command and that letting out sensitive information about a capital asset's readiness or lack thereof such as an aircraft carrier will get you relieved. Read the letter from SECNAV. It is clear this guy was way out of his lane and did things that earned his command being taken.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SGT (Join to see) -
From the article. Unless he is being misquoted, here is what he said. Crozier shared the letter with people outside the chain of command.
__________________________________________________________________
The secretary insisted that he was not accusing Crozier of leaking the letter himself.
But he did say that the people Crozier shared the letter with included ones 'outside the chain of command'.
Modly said the decision to send the letter 'raised alarm bells unnecessarily' and accused Crozier of 'extremely poor judgment' and creating a 'little bit of a panic' on the ship.
He also accused Crozier of undermining the effectiveness of one of the United States' most important strategic assets in the Pacific.
The Roosevelt is nuclear-powered but it is not known if nuclear weapons are aboard. It is operating in the Pacific where China are the primary naval threats to the US.
Modly said: 'It [sending the letter] raised concerns about the operational capabilities of that ship... that could have emboldened our adversaries to seek advantage.
'For these reasons I lost confidence in his ability to lead that warship.
From the article. Unless he is being misquoted, here is what he said. Crozier shared the letter with people outside the chain of command.
__________________________________________________________________
The secretary insisted that he was not accusing Crozier of leaking the letter himself.
But he did say that the people Crozier shared the letter with included ones 'outside the chain of command'.
Modly said the decision to send the letter 'raised alarm bells unnecessarily' and accused Crozier of 'extremely poor judgment' and creating a 'little bit of a panic' on the ship.
He also accused Crozier of undermining the effectiveness of one of the United States' most important strategic assets in the Pacific.
The Roosevelt is nuclear-powered but it is not known if nuclear weapons are aboard. It is operating in the Pacific where China are the primary naval threats to the US.
Modly said: 'It [sending the letter] raised concerns about the operational capabilities of that ship... that could have emboldened our adversaries to seek advantage.
'For these reasons I lost confidence in his ability to lead that warship.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Cpl Jeff N. - “ The fact that he wrote the letter up to his chain of command to express his concerns would absolutely not result in any type of retaliation.” — Secretary Modly
“I think sort of most disappointing to me is that I had set up a direct line to him that if he felt that anything, way before his letter was written, that if he felt anything wasn’t going well and he needed help, that he could reach out to me directly. And he did not do that.“
—Secretary Modly,
The Secretary INSTRUCTED the Captain the bypass the chain of command, several days prior. Instead of doing that, Crozier actually used the chain of command, as indicated by the Secretary in the announcement of Crozier’s relief. (See above quote)
From Modly, The biggest damnation in regards to the CoC was, “Crozier shared the letter with people outside the chain of command”. The CMPO of the ship isn’t in the Captains chain of command. I’m willing to bet he was CCd on the email. And as the Navy as acknowledged that Crozier didn’t leak the memo to the press...well thats hard pressed to considered a violation of the chain of command.
Particularly considering that the Secretary INSTRUCTED Crozier to violate the chain of command, and then acknowledged that he utilized the chain of command.
If you disagree, please explain.
All the rest of Modly’s statement is essentially CYA-talk.
“I think sort of most disappointing to me is that I had set up a direct line to him that if he felt that anything, way before his letter was written, that if he felt anything wasn’t going well and he needed help, that he could reach out to me directly. And he did not do that.“
—Secretary Modly,
The Secretary INSTRUCTED the Captain the bypass the chain of command, several days prior. Instead of doing that, Crozier actually used the chain of command, as indicated by the Secretary in the announcement of Crozier’s relief. (See above quote)
From Modly, The biggest damnation in regards to the CoC was, “Crozier shared the letter with people outside the chain of command”. The CMPO of the ship isn’t in the Captains chain of command. I’m willing to bet he was CCd on the email. And as the Navy as acknowledged that Crozier didn’t leak the memo to the press...well thats hard pressed to considered a violation of the chain of command.
Particularly considering that the Secretary INSTRUCTED Crozier to violate the chain of command, and then acknowledged that he utilized the chain of command.
If you disagree, please explain.
All the rest of Modly’s statement is essentially CYA-talk.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Here is the relevant portion of the SECNAV's statement on releasing the Captain:
______________________________________________________________________
"The next day, I spoke with the CO of the THEODORE ROOSEVELT myself, and this morning, I have spoken to the TR’s Carrier Strike Group Commander, RDML Stuart Baker. RDML Baker did not know about the letter before it was sent to him via email by the CO. It is important to understand that the Strike Group Commander, the CO’s immediate boss, is embarked on the Theodore Roosevelt, right down the passageway from him. The letter was sent over non- secure, unclassified email even though that ship possesses some of the most sophisticated communications and encryption equipment in the Fleet.
It was sent outside the chain of command, at the same time the rest of the Navy was fully responding. Worse, the Captain’s actions made his Sailors, their families, and many in the public believe that his letter was the only reason help from our larger Navy family was forthcoming, which was hardly the case."
________________________________________________________________________
The SECNAV allowing the captain direct access to him is not a carte blanche for the captain to send emails outside of the chain of command on unsecured networks. The SECNAV IS in the chain of command. The captain was not removed for speaking with the SECNAV as he was encouraged to do. He was removed for going outside of the chain of command (sending an email to people that had no business seeing it). The captains boss, on board the TR, was unaware of the email being sent until after it was sent as well. Crozier panicked, over reached, created confusion and allowed it to become public knowledge that an aircraft carrier was in trouble. That is not a leader we need on an AC carrier.
The USS Teddy Roosevelt is a strategic US Naval asset. The captain exercised poor judgement. At the time of the letter, not one sailor had died, not one had been ill enough to be hospitalized and the Navy was already working to get the ship help. The carrier has Significant Naval healthcare assets on it to deal with more serious things than a virus.
Again, from the SECNAV's statement:
________________________________________________________________________
"Perhaps more so than in the recent past, we require commanders with the judgment, maturity, and leadership composure under pressure to understand the ramifications of their actions within that larger dynamic strategic context. We all understand and cherish our responsibilities, and frankly our love, for all of our people in uniform, but to allow those emotions to color our judgment when communicating the current operational picture can, at best, create unnecessary confusion, and at worst, provide an incomplete picture of American combat readiness to our adversaries."
_________________________________________________________________________The entire statement is hear as well:
https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=112537
______________________________________________________________________
"The next day, I spoke with the CO of the THEODORE ROOSEVELT myself, and this morning, I have spoken to the TR’s Carrier Strike Group Commander, RDML Stuart Baker. RDML Baker did not know about the letter before it was sent to him via email by the CO. It is important to understand that the Strike Group Commander, the CO’s immediate boss, is embarked on the Theodore Roosevelt, right down the passageway from him. The letter was sent over non- secure, unclassified email even though that ship possesses some of the most sophisticated communications and encryption equipment in the Fleet.
It was sent outside the chain of command, at the same time the rest of the Navy was fully responding. Worse, the Captain’s actions made his Sailors, their families, and many in the public believe that his letter was the only reason help from our larger Navy family was forthcoming, which was hardly the case."
________________________________________________________________________
The SECNAV allowing the captain direct access to him is not a carte blanche for the captain to send emails outside of the chain of command on unsecured networks. The SECNAV IS in the chain of command. The captain was not removed for speaking with the SECNAV as he was encouraged to do. He was removed for going outside of the chain of command (sending an email to people that had no business seeing it). The captains boss, on board the TR, was unaware of the email being sent until after it was sent as well. Crozier panicked, over reached, created confusion and allowed it to become public knowledge that an aircraft carrier was in trouble. That is not a leader we need on an AC carrier.
The USS Teddy Roosevelt is a strategic US Naval asset. The captain exercised poor judgement. At the time of the letter, not one sailor had died, not one had been ill enough to be hospitalized and the Navy was already working to get the ship help. The carrier has Significant Naval healthcare assets on it to deal with more serious things than a virus.
Again, from the SECNAV's statement:
________________________________________________________________________
"Perhaps more so than in the recent past, we require commanders with the judgment, maturity, and leadership composure under pressure to understand the ramifications of their actions within that larger dynamic strategic context. We all understand and cherish our responsibilities, and frankly our love, for all of our people in uniform, but to allow those emotions to color our judgment when communicating the current operational picture can, at best, create unnecessary confusion, and at worst, provide an incomplete picture of American combat readiness to our adversaries."
_________________________________________________________________________The entire statement is hear as well:
https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=112537
Statement From SECNAV on Relief of CO Aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)
Statement from the Acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas B. Modly, regarding the relief of the Commanding Officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google