Posted on 02/11/2005 9:19:28 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The captain of a U.S. submarine that hit an undersea mountain last month in the western Pacific, killing one sailor and injuring 23 others, will be relieved of command, Pentagon officials said Friday.
Navy Cmdr. Kevin Mooney will not be charged with any crime and will not be court-martialed.
He received a nonjudicial punishment, most likely in the form of a letter of reprimand from his commander, this week, officials said. Such punishment typically ends an officer's career.
Mooney was reassigned pending an investigation after the severely damaged the USS San Francisco returned to its home port in Guam. Details of the investigation were not available.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Come on, Smith. I liked the windows idea. :)
I know. Too much pressure.
I want to be on the record. Commander Mooney is one of the good guys, and I would proudly go to sea with him. This is an outrageous injustice, and I have absolutely no sense of humor about this.
It's not quite windows, but I did get a little periscope liberty from time-to-time.
"I want to be on the record. Commander Mooney is one of the good guys, and I would proudly go to sea with him. This is an outrageous injustice, and I have absolutely no sense of humor about this."
You are right in what has been published, however, there may be reasons we may never know why the Navy decided to do this.
But this commander did a heck of a job when crunch time came. He deserves a medal for that.
But like I said, there may be some unexpained reasons why he is being relieved.
Since you are a member of the submariner's community, I take your evaluation at face value. It is perhaps unjust that the Commander's record has been thus marked, and his promising career cut short, but we do not live in a perfect world, and the actions of our military are under scrutiny such as they have rarely faced before, given the totality of our current situation. I am reminded of the injustice perpetrated on Admiral Kimmel, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.
Perhaps, in time, Commander Mooney's reputation, like that of Admiral Kimmel, will be restored, although I am acutely aware that provides little solace at the moment...
the infowarrior
:)
Updated Info
A first sergeant I knew broke his neck on a jump. Didn't know til AFTER the 1 month field problem was over. The docs put him in one of those "Darth Vader" rigs & on serious profile. Then, he got booted cause he was over weight- never mind that he couldn't exercise.
A sergeant I knew broke his ankle, so bad they had to fuse it together. Did he get a medical? Oh no. Lets boot him 'cause he failed the 2 mile run (by less than 30 seconds 3 times).
Ping again
This is a shame, but this is probably the best outcome CDR Mooney could hope for.
At least they did not try and charge him with anything.
I thank him for his service. I don't know a lot about subs...so I give him the benefit of the trust.
Any man that can go down in one of those subs and not go nuts......is OK in my book.
Just Damn!!!
From what I recall of my time in there, it's pretty much a given. If there's a collision or a boat runs aground the CO is relieved. Doesn't seem fair but that's the way the Navy does things. A sad way for an otherwide distinguished career to end.
I have no doubt that Capt. Mooney is one of the "Good Guys". After the Admiral's Mast and the sure to ensue Court Martial, (remember that a Court Martial can clear as well as convict, more than one officer has requested one to clear his name.) Capt. Mooney may come off rather well. From all accounts he displayed all the Highest Traditions of the Naval Service that they do go on about at awards ceremonies. He may have lost a man, but it seems his quick actions saved his boat and the rest of his crew. But, whatever happens Capt Mooney will never again stand on the bridge of a boat again and call it "his". In the end he may have just been unlucky.
Adm. Charles W. Lockwood, COMSUBPAC in WWII may have the final word on the matter, when he told one of his very highly thought of, but unsuccessful captains, "I can't use you if you're not lucky."
(Nota Bene) Throughout this post I've referred to Cdr Mooney as Captain. In theory, as he no longer commands a ship he no longer rates that honorific. I've read the accounts of the accident. Capt. Mooney, It would be an honor to serve with you, Sir. (I was never very good at theory.)
I said this would happen when it ran aground and I got called a moron. The Navy is the Navy.
One can be a moron, and still be right from time-to-time.
; )
BTDT
message to Captain McVay. all clear and no reason to zig zag with the Indianapolis
Navigation by Braille is rarely considered career-enhancing.
there may be reasons we may never know why the Navy decided to do this.
Yeah, there's always reasons. However, a lot of them are just plain assinine. This skipper should be commended for his handling of the situation but that is not the Navy's way. There way is, an accident you are history. End of story.
Perhaps the Navy brass just don't like skippers who happen to be unlucky.
As I pointed out on the other thread, CDR Mooney understood the rules of the game when he accepted command. I don't have to like it, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Sad to see it happen to a good man. Hope he doesn't think he's lost our respect.
Our military is the best ever. Possibly the core of a new greatest generation.
Perhaps the Navy brass just don't like skippers who happen to be unlucky.
No. For every action there is a reaction and in the case of the Navy it had better be very obvious and again, in this case, it is. Think Captain Bucher, USS Pueblo.
Captain Mooney brought his boat home under their own power, and most of the crew survived after an accident that should have sent them down to join the likes of the Thresher and the Scorpion. That makes Mooney one of the good guys in my book, or ANY book, IMHO.
I was on the USS Dubuque and we were unrepping the USS Vincennes back in the 80's off the coast of South Korea.
My C.O. ordered an emergency break away because of the way the OOD on the Vincennes was driving the ship. To make a long story short there was a collision, it was the fault of the Vincennes bridge team, neither C.O. was relieved. Don't know about the bridge team on the Vicennes though.
You could regain grace in the eyes of the community if you posted a real juicy crevo or Mary Mother of God post (or something). Come on man, where's your head (we don't have time for nonsense)?
Sorry, but this did not happen while engaged in combat with the enemy, so no purple heart or Navy Cross for the crew.
When I served on the CinCPacFlt staff, one common thread ran through the CO's punishment for a mishap. If he stood tall and knew that he was responsible for everything that happened on his ship, the punishment was generally fair. When he blamed it on the stupidity of his troops (which was generally the case), the book was thrown at him.
At USNA you are taught a telling phrase when you screw up. "No excuse, sir."
I have no idea what went on in both his message traffic or other correspondence, but he seems to be borderline, especially in view of the light punishment.
Bummer. But I knew it was coming. As others have said, it may not seem fair, but is the Navy way.
And we know there's 3 ways to do things:
The right way
The wrong way
The Navy way
The BQN-17! Man you make me feel old! I was the sonar officer who took the first BQN-17 to sea for trials. I bet you did'nt loose transmitter modules when someone pushed "lamp test" ;-)
As for taking CDR Mooney to Admirals mast. This was probably done to protect him from further, more serious charges because the Admiral liked him and thought he should be spared any further legal proceedings.
SEA STORY: One of our sailors did something really stupid, while drunk, in a shore patrol shack (involving one of those "penetration however slight ..." articles in the UCMJ). The shore patrol charged him, and he was going to face Courts Martial when we got back to the states. Real hard jail time could have resulted from that. Our Captain took him to mast on the way back, and protected him from further prosecution. Sure the sailor's career was ended, but he didn't have to face a public trial on what he had done, or go to jail.
One of the lessons I have taken from such incidents is that human screw-ups almost never seem to be random accident. After careful investigation you almost always end up with the conclusion that it was a deliberate premeditated conspiracy.
There are two reasons the CO got nailed. One, he should not have approached restricted water without having a look see in control. Two, he should have known that among that team there was no one with extrasensory common-sense. It is amazing how many officers you can put in one place, none of whom will step back and say this makes no sense.
I was a Boomer Rider: Roosevelt(600), Washington(598), & Vallejo(658)
The recent soundings in the area off Sumatra show that a massive ridge and canyon system in the area was created by the earthquake.
With the sea floor changing all the time due to geological upheavals, how can the Navy be sure that vast areas of the world's oceans remain as charted? My take is that this area wasn't even charted with any degree of accuracy.
Would forward sonar ranging have picked up the undersea mount? Is that SOP for subs when underway or are they supposed to maintain silence? Most of us non-Navy types would like to know something about standard procedures in subs and how they affected this accident for good or ill.
When I was 45 my pass time was less than an 18 year old female needed to max the run.
And that is the Navy way. Like they say, there is a right way, a wrong way and the Navy way. And that is the Navy way.
The phrasing of the release sounds like the procedures that were not being followed were NOT the cause of the incident. The seamount was probably not on the charts and the procedures in question were probably not utterly mandatory, and had they been followed there was no guarantee that they would have prevented the accident.
But.
He was the guy in charge when it happened. If he'd been following those procedures he might have gotten lucky and not hit the seamount. It's not about justice for him; it's about maintaining precedent that the commander is responsible for accidents in his command. If someone does not like this rule, they need not become a commander.
I'm ex Air Force. The equivalent event in the AF is refueling accidents. Every once in a long while an enlisted troop will splash himself with fuel and a static spark will fry him. The guy who is blamed for it is the commander of his squadron. Some rule or procedure will be found that was not included in training of the troops. That will be declared the commander's fault.
If you do not like this, then don't become a commander.
Going along with a boomer feeling your way with your sonar is like going on a commando raid into enemy territory with a strobe light strapped to your rear.
From another article it appears there was an older chart on board that showed a possible hazard in the area. I have no idea what scale the chart was, but my guess is it was a small area chart (local type) rather than a large area, usually used for transit. If it had been an older, outdated chart, it would have been deep-sixed and not on board.
So, as an ex-navigator, my guess is the small area chart was not checked and it was assumed the large area one was fine for the transit. That is a big no-no.
Also, from the other post on his punishment, he was assigned to a basket case to get it in order. Nav may have been low on the list.
I'm not sure this is so great, especially since there was no way to have known about the undersea mountain, according to some reporting.
Active sonar is rarely used while underway for obvious reasons. It's audible for at least twice the range that it can produce a useful return. Through sneaky techniques, a sub remaining silent can determine the exact range and bearing to the active boat, before the active boat even knows they're there. I'm not entirely sure that the BQQ-5 could even be used for hydro graphic mapping. The primary navigation sonar is the BQN-17 depth sounder, or fathometer. To be honest I really don't know if 688s still carry the -17. It looks straight down in a very tight beam. If it was an abrupt escarpment that they hit, they may have had little to no warning. I really thought that the hydrography in that area would have improved in the last 25 years.
But remember now, they are equally qualified to do any job
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.