Former USS Fitzgerald CO Outlines Defense in Rebuttal to SECNAV

USNI News ^ | April 26, 2019 8:52 PM • Updated: April 27, 2019 9:10 AM | Sam LaGrone

[robowombat]

Go to the URL for the texts of documents cited in this report.

[doorgunner69]

my crew’s heroic efforts to save a sinking ship while I was incapacitated by injury,

He fails to note that he and they were in that situation because of his failure to command.

[Steely Tom]

Too bad the laws of mechanics didn’t have access to the ex-Captain’s manifesto before the collision.

[Gay State Conservative]

I'm an old Army guy who was never been rebuked by a commander or court martialed...and I know absolutely nothing about the Navy.But one would think that in peacetime the main responsibilities of the senior command aboard any Naval vessel are 1) make sure your crew,and your vessel,don't come to any harm and 2) make sure your crew is well trained in their duties.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I read the (very) extensive USNI original report in its entirety. Benson had only had command of that ship for a month, and by all accounts, was an improvement over his predecessor in terms of tighter training, discipline, etc.. One month was not nearly enough time to remedy long-standing training deficiencies, and the short-staffing made that even more of a problem. The crew was so undermanned that there weren't enough watchstanders to have eyes on each side of the bridge wing.

The Navy has had a real problem with undermanned surface ships for years, and given the tempo at which they have been operating, it makes proper training almost impossible.

[zeestephen]

Re: “...a straight-line transit through unrestricted waters.”

As far as the criminal charges, seems like that fact should carry a lot of weight.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Should probably add that the three officers on duty that night in the critical ship-driving positions were all female.

[Chainmail]

I doubt that any naval officer could summarize the problem better.

This rebuttal by the former Captain is a new phenomenon: in all previous times, a Captain would own up to his culpability when his ship was involved in a disaster. This is a prime example of the weakness of this generation of leaders - and the navy’s command selection process.

It’s exactly as you said - if the equipment, or the training, or the competence of the ship’s personnel failed, it is the Captain’s fault.

Period.

[zeestephen]

Re: “...a straight-line transit through unrestricted waters.”

My post #6 might be confusing....

I meant it carries a lot of weight for “Not Guilty.”

[KC Burke]

Barry Soetoro.

[UCANSEE2]

There is a difference between ‘fault’ and ‘responsibility’. What ‘responsibility’ did the General who ordered him to take his ship out on a mission while the ship was still UNDER REPAIR ?

[Robert A Cook PE]

All female, but I understand two of the three were in private snit with other and were refusing to talk to other.

[NonValueAdded]

Overcharging? The Captain has a point but what he should say is “criminally negligent? Take my command; beach me if you must; but the one who is criminally negligent is the one who gave me no choice but to fill the watch bill with vagitarians.”

[dsc]

The first thing a ship must do is keep a proper lookout. Failure to keep a proper lookout is unacceptable.

Apparently, this ship was sent to sea without sufficient manning to keep a proper lookout. I’m not sure if that was a legal order.

I guess the captain could have resigned his commission in protest, but he decided to play the game, and obeyed his orders. That was his only chance at keeping his career on track.

I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t know about this, but I don’t think I could have left the bridge and gone to sleep knowing I didn’t have lookouts on the port and starboard bridge wings.

As for the captain’s “long-term” failures, he had only been in the job for a month. Accusing him of long-term failures is transparently malicious.

[Chainmail]

If I may, “Generals” don’t order ships out to sea...

But I would suppose you have little or no experience in military matters.

1. The ship’s Commanding Officer is responsible for all readiness for deployment, which includes equipment, supplies, crew training, the inspecting everything before things go wrong.

2. If the ship or its complement aren’t ready, he/she is responsible for reporting these problems while getting them rectified.

3. All ship’s Captains are fully aware of these responsibilities before they even take command.

You didn’t read the investigation did you? The three key watchstanders - all female were feuding with each other and apparently wouldn’t work with each other. There were no sailors posted to watch for traffic and the CIC was littered with trash and smelled of piss. The Officer of the Deck panicked and had the ship turn the wrong way, directly into the path of the Chrystal.

Now, even to your civilian non military perspective, does it sound like the Captain was doing his job?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Yeah, apparently the OOD and CIC watch officer weren’t speaking to each other....

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Think you mean Admiral instead General.

However you make a very valid point. The fleet commander that deployed a ship still under repair assumed the risk to complete the mission, they need to be held accountable as it appears they did nothing (e.g., add experienced crew) to mitigate that risk.

[Chainmail]

His gamble to maybe preserve his career instead of telling his superiors his ship and crew were not ready killed a bunch of young people for nothing.

How would you feel if one of those sailors who drowned in their compartment was your son?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

It was considered an important national security mission, and the only other ship capable of doing it had a critical equipment problem that made it nondeployable. The Fitz was assigned to that mission late because the other ship couldn't do it.

I'm not in favor of commanders refusing to execute missions because they don't believe their people are as ready as they should be. It's not a risk-free profession.

[Lou L]

1) make sure your crew,and your vessel,don't come to any harm and 2) make sure your crew is well trained in their duties.

Initially, I defended Captain Bryson. I thought sure, no commander could've ever committed such willful negligence.

Having read the subsequent reports, he was negligent in personnel training, and in the readiness of his ship. Therefore, by failing in #2 above, he placed his crew in harm.

I would also add that what I read of the OOD's actions (and inactions) leading up to this accident, she is also at fault, along with the Combat TAO and Surface Watch officers.