Capt Honors situation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
IgD

IgD

The Lorax
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
1,897
Reaction score
6
I know one of the JOs in the shower scene. The only opinion that matters is below (but I totally agree, imagine trying to lead sailors after they and 5000 of their friends saw you featured in a same-gender sex scene).

USFF Relieves USS Enterprise Commanding Officer


NORFOLK, Va., January 4, 2011 – Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., Commander, United States Fleet Forces Command (USFFC), has permanently relieved Capt. Owen Honors of his duties as commanding officer of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) for demonstrating poor judgment while serving as executive officer of that ship.

"The responsibility of the Commanding Officer for his or her command is absolute. While Capt. Honors' performance as commanding officer of USS Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command.

The foundation of our success in the Navy lies in our ability to gain and hold the trust of our Sailors, including through personal example. This responsibility is so important that it is written into Navy Regulations. When confidence and trust are lost in those who lead, we fail. After personally reviewing the videos created while serving as executive officer, I have lost confidence in Capt. Honors' ability to lead effectively, and he is being held accountable for poor judgment and the inappropriate actions demonstrated in the videos that were created while he served as executive officer on Enterprise," said Harvey.

"It is fact that as naval officers we are held to a higher standard. Those in command must exemplify the Navy's core values of honor, courage and commitment which we expect our Sailors to follow. Our leaders must be above reproach and our Sailors deserve nothing less," said Harvey. Capt. Dee Mewbourne will be permanently assigned as the commanding officer of Enterprise. Captain Mewbourne most recently commanded USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and while in command he completed two successful combat deployments supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Capt Mewbourne is currently serving as the Chief of Staff for Navy Cyber Forces and will assume command of USS Enterprise this afternoon.

"We will support and work with Capt. Mewbourne and the crew of Enterprise to keep them forward focused on their upcoming combat deployment. This is a difficult situation but the men and women of Enterprise are outstanding Sailors who have completed a very challenging and comprehensive predeployment work-up period in a thoroughly professional manner. They are well-trained and I have full confidence in their readiness to execute all missions during their deployment," said Harvey.

The relief of Capt. Honors occurs as the investigation continues into the inappropriate videos that Honors made while serving as Enterprise's executive officer from 2006-2007. The investigation will continue to look at all aspects of the production of the videos, to include the actions of other senior officers who knew of the videos and the actions they took in response.

Capt. Honors has been reassigned to administrative duties at Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic.
 
Last edited:
IgD said:
What do you guys think of this Capt Honors situation?

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/enterprise-captain-out-former-ike-skipper-replace-him

Justified firing or witch hunt?? The Navy likes to pounce on weakness and rip people apart.

The press is having a frenzy about it. I saw the videos I didn't think they were that bad. Certainly have seen much worse while in the Navy. Guy should have his own reality show or go on Saturday Night Live.
Click to expand...

I was expecting to cringe at the liberal witch hunt when I saw this. I figured it was about him overlooking some inappropriate behavior in between E-3s, or maybe even some old academy/junior officer stunt that suddenly came back to haunt him. The 'higher standard' thing is nice and all but I agree that young men can't and shouldn't be entirely restrained from doing stupid things in the name of fun. I was ready to like him and hate those who persecuted him.

Then I saw that he did this as the XO of a carrier. A grown, OLD man in charge of the most famous name in Navy history. WTF? Imagine a VP of a corporation making videos like these. And not just making them, but emailing them out to every employee in the company. He wouldn't even make it to the end of the day. It boggles the mind. Best of luck to him in his next career but I'm not exactly shocked at the Navy's reaction.
 
Last edited:
bold text said:
Are the videos posted online somewhere?
Click to expand...

He will be forced to retire quickly and quietly. That is the way of those relieved of command.

On one hand, command is a rare privilege for which there is no entitlement, your right to serve in a major command position is only as good as the opinions of those who place you there, and you serve only as long as you enjoy their pleasure. That means you go whenever you displease your superiors, no due process.

Still, the cause for his dismissal was behavior over three years previously, when he wasn't in command, behavior that was as public as possible--recorded and broadcast--and seen by everyone aboard, including the captain
for whom Capt. Honors served as XO. If what he did then was not objectionable to his superiors then, then why is is being treated differently now? If what he did then was possibly tasteless (and lets set aside the notion of letting the public judge the humor of servicemen deployed at war--another issue here) clearly it was not seen as something that should have prevented him from assuming command, which he did. There is something truly unseemly about the very obvious double standard the Navy is now applying to Capt. Honors. There is something about this coming up now and in the way that it has that looks an awful lot like someone trying to end another officer's career.

ADM Harvey is playing to the braying public, the Obama administration and its receptive politic and to hand-wringing newspeople who have very little understanding of or much interest in military life. Admiral Harvey's justifications about command judgment are transparently self-justifying. The time to have done anything at all about Capt. Honors video was three years ago, and it was no secret then. All this sacrosanct talk about how important leadership is to the benefit of the enlisted is hollow and not believable.

ADM Harvey is throwing Capt Honors under the bus to serve his White House masters: the Secretary of Defense, President Obama and anyone else whose opinion mattered not three years ago, when any of this was relevant.

If the judgment of Capt Honors is so suspect now, what then of the judgment of his CO? What then of the judgment of every officer who endorsed his promotion to major command? Surely their judgment is no less questionable.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
If the judgment of Capt Honors is so suspect now, what then of the judgment of his CO? What then of the judgment of every officer who endorsed his promotion to major command? Surely their judgment is no less questionable.
Click to expand...

The test will be seeing what consequences those folks will face in the coming weeks. This ain't over.

Admiral Harvey is a rare leader that I really respect. Maybe you should read his blog and hear him speak before you assess his character.

I'm a little to close to this to be objective but it did hurt people and there were consequences. If you can, read the SITREP before passing judgement here.
 
Gastrapathy said:
The test will be seeing what consequences those folks will face in the coming weeks. This ain't over.

Admiral Harvey is a rare leader that I really respect. Maybe you should read his blog and hear him speak before you assess his character.

I'm a little to close to this to be objective but it did hurt people and there were consequences. If you can, read the SITREP before passing judgement here.
Click to expand...

The dismissal is without a doubt being done very much in the hope that it is over. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. This is standard Navy ass-covering in play: they have their scapegoat and they sacrificed him publicly and now all must be right again.

You may have your reasons to respect ADM Harvey. But there is very little that is respectable about being the hatchet man in the service of one's political masters. I am sure he has the skin that can take that, whatever his "character."
 
orbitsurgMD said:
The dismissal is without a doubt being done very much in the hope that it is over. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. This is standard Navy ass-covering in play: they have their scapegoat and they sacrificed him publicly and now all must be right again.

You may have your reasons to respect ADM Harvey. But there is very little that is respectable about being the hatchet man in the service of one's political masters. I am sure he has the skin that can take that, whatever his "character."
Click to expand...

The above blog article made some great points. Not my service branch, but this could so easily happen in the Army or AF too; the Navy does not hold a patent on ass-covering.

In all the articles I've read on the subject though, none have mentioned how the heck this came up 4 years after the fact. Anyone seen this?
 
orbitsurgMD said:
The dismissal is without a doubt being done very much in the hope that it is over. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. This is standard Navy ass-covering in play: they have their scapegoat and they sacrificed him publicly and now all must be right again.

You may have your reasons to respect ADM Harvey. But there is very little that is respectable about being the hatchet man in the service of one's political masters. I am sure he has the skin that can take that, whatever his "character."
Click to expand...

Again, unlike the general public, you have the opportunity to be better informed about the circumstances. Get someone to send you the SITREP.

Do you really think that a dude who is currently seen on al jazeera simulating masturbation with mayo is an effective ambassador to Middle Eastern governments? WTF do you think a carrier CO does? He's an international incident all by himself and he gets credit for that all by himself.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/01/201114202946311701.html
(they changed the picture after I typed this, now its women in the shower...so much better)

This isn't simple. The timing is suspicious. The fault is entirely his. Watch the last video. Listen to what he says about why its the last XO Movie Night and you might get some insight about why this is so bad.

Oh, and anyone else who wants me to pm the sitrep...no.
 
Last edited:
The public has this notion of the captain of USS Enterprise as having the same moral standing as James T. Kirk in Star Trek.

That's the problem. The public has high expectations of our military when they really should be much lower.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
The dismissal is without a doubt being done very much in the hope that it is over. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. This is standard Navy ass-covering in play: they have their scapegoat and they sacrificed him publicly and now all must be right again.

You may have your reasons to respect ADM Harvey. But there is very little that is respectable about being the hatchet man in the service of one's political masters. I am sure he has the skin that can take that, whatever his "character."
Click to expand...

Article 89.
 
Oscar Mike said:
Article 89.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your cryptic reference is supposed to mean. You are somewhat new here, so I guess you can be excused. I no longer either enjoy, or suffer, the requirements of the UCMJ.

If you are expecting I should be deferential and "respectful" to ADM Harvey because he is a senior general officer, you should know I am under no obligation to do so.
 
Perrotfish said:
Then I saw that he did this as the XO of a carrier. A grown, OLD man in charge of the most famous name in Navy history. WTF? Imagine a VP of a corporation making videos like these. And not just making them, but emailing them out to every employee in the company. He wouldn't even make it to the end of the day. It boggles the mind. Best of luck to him in his next career but I'm not exactly shocked at the Navy's reaction.
Click to expand...
I'm with Perrotfish on this one. It's a shame, but he displayed not a moment of bad judgment but a series of episodes of bad judgment (okaying the idea, letting it be filmed, broadcasting it to thousands, etc.). Folks have lost commands of smaller ships for literally single moments of bad judgment.

The fact is that there are people very qualified to command the USS Enterprise who have unblemished careers with no significant demonstrations of bad judgment. Why would you allow someone whose demonstrated such bad judgment to continue control of an aircraft carrier.

I wish him the best, and have no doubt that he's a great guy, but careers (civilian and military) have been lost over smaller things.
 
I don't think we can disparage ADM Harvey for relieving the good CAPT. There was really no choice in the matter. I have worked with ADM Harvey in the past and he is a stand up guy. Those of us who have spent time on Active Duty have seen this kind of thing on multiple occasions. Humor in the operational arena does tend to be more juvenile than many would be comfortable with. CAPT Honors made a critical error in filming this and the general public will accept nothing less than his removal.
 
NavyFP said:
I don't think we can disparage ADM Harvey for relieving the good CAPT. There was really no choice in the matter. I have worked with ADM Harvey in the past and he is a stand up guy. Those of us who have spent time on Active Duty have seen this kind of thing on multiple occasions. Humor in the operational arena does tend to be more juvenile than many would be comfortable with. CAPT Honors made a critical error in filming this and the general public will accept nothing less than his removal.
Click to expand...

That might be more acceptable had the decision been taken three or four years ago and Capt. Honors was denied promotion to CO. Obviously that did not happen despite the full knowledge of thousands of people who were able to see these ship broadcasts and the CO of the ship who must have written the XO's fitrep with no objections then. Even then, the decision to fire would have been similarly severe to firing a senior executive for telling off-color jokes at the company Christmas party.

To raise this now, and to release these recordings and present them as if they were made last week is a dishonest representation of these acts. If ADM Harvey is the person you believe him to be, I cannot think he is not aware of how he is treating this matter and the double standard he is holding up: O.K. to do then, but now with a new administration, not O.K. now. Sorry, he might be someone you like, but in this matter he is the White House hatchet man, no matter what he says, or how he justifies this action. I would also say that the comments above that a ship's CO is somehow equivalent to a U.S. envoy or diplomatic officer is just laughable. Junior FSOs are more important in that respect, by an order of magnitude.
 
NavyFP said:
I don't think we can disparage ADM Harvey for relieving the good CAPT. There was really no choice in the matter. I have worked with ADM Harvey in the past and he is a stand up guy. Those of us who have spent time on Active Duty have seen this kind of thing on multiple occasions. Humor in the operational arena does tend to be more juvenile than many would be comfortable with. CAPT Honors made a critical error in filming this and the general public will accept nothing less than his removal.
Click to expand...

I think the presumption of high rank or office demanding greater than the average amount of rectitude of its holder only opens one to further accusation of hypocrisy: the shenanigans of more than a few presidents, trysts, DUIs and of Senators (a Klansman, for Pete's sake!) all of whom were worthy of the public's cherished votes even after the facts were known makes this look all the more ridiculous. Remember, this issue was at a non-official social event, "movie night," and was not one bit worse in content than what is found on any night on the Comedy Channel.

I won't go into what I have witnessed at a dining-in. They were certainly "worse" than this video nonsense, but I would not take back nor want to see changed one bit of it. Those experiences and the people who were part of them made my unit the good organization it was.

Are we going to pillory Bohemian Clubbers and Bonesman for their well-known behaviors?
 
orbitsurgMD said:
That might be more acceptable had the decision been taken three or four years ago and Capt. Honors was denied promotion to CO. Obviously that did not happen despite the full knowledge of thousands of people who were able to see these ship broadcasts and the CO of the ship who must have written the XO's fitrep with no objections then. Even then, the decision to fire would have been similarly severe to firing a senior executive for telling off-color jokes at the company Christmas party.

To raise this now, and to release these recordings and present them as if they were made last week is a dishonest representation of these acts. If ADM Harvey is the person you believe him to be, I cannot think he is not aware of how he is treating this matter and the double standard he is holding up: O.K. to do then, but now with a new administration, not O.K. now. Sorry, he might be someone you like, but in this matter he is the White House hatchet man, no matter what he says, or how he justifies this action. I would also say that the comments above that a ship's CO is somehow equivalent to a U.S. envoy or diplomatic officer is just laughable. Junior FSOs are more important in that respect, by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Not to pull out the ol' Line Officer Card, but it feels appropriate here. I was TAD to a carrier staff in the Gulf as the Air Defense liaison and the carrier CO (under the aegis of the strike group commander - a RDML) is a very big fish and party to discussions with foreign military and civilian leaders. In fact, much of a staff and carrier CO's time is accommodating foreign civilian and military DV's. I was personally involved in an exercise in the western pacific which involved 3 carriers and their associated strike groups, and the carrier CO was the host to a full contingent of military and civilian leaders from a eastern hemisphere power that is rapidly expanding their naval reach. Oh, and PACCOM was there as well, along with associated big wigs (Aussie minister of defense, UK ambassadors, etc, etc). There is no way that the Navy is sending that man on deployment, as good of a captain and as nice of a guy as he is (from what I have heard).

The real story here is that this is a cultural difference that dominates a lot of personnel decisions in the Navy. Surface Warfare culture vs. Aviation culture (it is even mentioned in the video's, where he calls SWO's f_gs). Surface Warfare is very regulation and appearance oriented and risk averse, while Aviation culture is less risk averse (although still very safety oriented) and what many would call "cooler." This behavior is pretty acceptable in squadrons, but totally unacceptable on ships (for those who don't know, carriers the only ships that only have aviator co's - these CO's must command amphibs before they command a carrier).

He may or may not have have been counseled during the event, but either way it stayed within the lifelines of the ship. Unfortunately for him, his behavior is totally unacceptable to the wider culture of the Navy which includes tightwads like SWO's and Sub officers. I know a lot of SWO's who are pissed like nothing else about being insulted in that video.

As a SWO, or former SWO, I have no problem with him getting fired, because you just have to be smarter than that - my friends and I made plenty of videos on deployment of us doing stupid ****, we did not broadcast them. On the other hand, as someone has gone through a Captain being relieved for cause I feel for the crew and especially the wardroom because it is very traumatic operationally and organizationally and can really tear a tight crew apart.
 
Last edited:
grotto said:
Wrong. Not to pull out the ol' Line Officer Card, but it feels appropriate here. I was TAD to a carrier staff in the Gulf as the Air Defense liaison and the carrier CO (under the aegis of the strike group commander - a RDML) is a very big fish and party to discussions with foreign military and civilian leaders. In fact, much of a staff and carrier CO's time is accommodating foreign civilian and military DV's. I was personally involved in an exercise in the western pacific which involved 3 carriers and their associated strike groups, and the carrier CO was the host to a full contingent of military and civilian leaders from a eastern hemisphere power that is rapidly expanding their naval reach. Oh, and PACCOM was there as well, along with associated big wigs (Aussie minister of defense, UK ambassadors, etc, etc). There is no way that the Navy is sending that man on deployment, as good of a captain and as nice of a guy as he is (from what I have heard).

The real story here is that this is a cultural difference that dominates a lot of personnel decisions in the Navy. Surface Warfare culture vs. Aviation culture (it is even mentioned in the video's, where he calls SWO's f_gs). Surface Warfare is very regulation and appearance oriented and risk averse, while Aviation culture is less risk averse (although still very safety oriented) and what many would call "cooler." This behavior is pretty acceptable in squadrons, but totally unacceptable on ships (for those who don't know, carriers the only ships that only have aviator co's - these CO's must command amphibs before they command a carrier).

He may or may not have have been counseled during the event, but either way it stayed within the lifelines of the ship. Unfortunately for him, his behavior is totally unacceptable to the wider culture of the Navy which includes tightwads like SWO's and Sub officers. I know a lot of SWO's who are pissed like nothing else about being insulted in that video.

As a SWO, or former SWO, I have no problem with him getting fired, because you just have to be smarter than that - my friends and I made plenty of videos on deployment of us doing stupid ****, we did not broadcast them. On the other hand, as someone has gone through a Captain being relieved for cause I feel for the crew and especially the wardroom because it is very traumatic to go through and can really tear a tight crew apart.
Click to expand...

So it seems to me that this is a shiv in the back from some line SWO types. Nice. I find that very believable.
 
grotto said:
Wrong. Not to pull out the ol' Line Officer Card, but it feels appropriate here. I was TAD to a carrier staff in the Gulf as the Air Defense liaison and the carrier CO (under the aegis of the strike group commander - a RDML) is a very big fish and party to discussions with foreign military and civilian leaders. In fact, much of a staff and carrier CO's time is accommodating foreign civilian and military DV's. I was personally involved in an exercise in the western pacific which involved 3 carriers and their associated strike groups, and the carrier CO was the host to a full contingent of military and civilian leaders from a eastern hemisphere power that is rapidly expanding their naval reach. Oh, and PACCOM was there as well, along with associated big wigs (Aussie minister of defense, UK ambassadors, etc, etc). There is no way that the Navy is sending that man on deployment, as good of a captain and as nice of a guy as he is (from what I have heard).
Click to expand...

As important as all that might have seemed to you at the time, the truth is it isn't all that. Yes, senior officers have important and useful introductions and even friendships with their corresponding officers in other forces, but as for making policy, much of that occurs at a level well above this, even above the defense department.

The fact remains that he has been deployed many times before and since those videos were made, four years ago. Have there been any problems?

Someone used media channels to present this material as news and the media were only too happy to oblige. In response to that, the craven Navy brass is trying to pretend that they have fixed the "problem" when it is not altogether clear what the problem was.

This really stinks of SWO skullduggery, and a particularly nasty example of that. They will have to live with this for a long time. There will be a lot of private, personal, damaging bitterness, no doubt. And payback.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
I think the presumption of high rank or office demanding greater than the average amount of rectitude of its holder only opens one to further accusation of hypocrisy: the shenanigans of more than a few presidents, trysts, DUIs and of Senators (a Klansman, for Pete's sake!) all of whom were worthy of the public's cherished votes even after the facts were known makes this look all the more ridiculous. Remember, this issue was at a non-official social event, "movie night," and was not one bit worse in content than what is found on any night on the Comedy Channel.

I won't go into what I have witnessed at a dining-in. They were certainly "worse" than this video nonsense, but I would not take back nor want to see changed one bit of it. Those experiences and the people who were part of them made my unit the good organization it was.

Are we going to pillory Bohemian Clubbers and Bonesman for their well-known behaviors?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but its apples and oranges. The fact is that CAPT Honors no longer has the credibility to represent the U.S. Navy. He embarrassed the Navy at a time when we are fighting for dollars to keep building ships and planes, and also made a lot of senior officers who have massaged his career look incredibly bad. There are consequences for that, fair or politically correct or not.

Are there exceptions? Hypocrisy? Is stuff swept under the rug? Of course. The old-boy network is still in effect, but all bets are off when it gets exposed to the media.

I don't think anyone thinks he is a bad man, and everything I have heard about him from friends points to him being both an excellent aviator and leader. But how can he stand in front of a sailor and and pass judgement at Mast after this? He does not have the moral credibility to represent his ship or the country, just like a CO who runs his ship aground no longer has technical credibility to operate it.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
So it seems to me that this is a shiv in the back from some line SWO types. Nice. I find that very believable.
Click to expand...

That is probably the response of the fleet, especially in the Naval Air Forces. But I think if the CNO and the CJCS were both aviators instead of SWO's the outcome probably would have been the same.

By the way, SWO's aren't that bad. They just work 10 to 12 hour days in 6 section duty inport and 18 hour days at sea with 5 hours on watch, 10 hours off watch. Aviators hang out and make videos and might fly 1 or 2 hours a day, with no watch. SWO's have been trying to make due for years with no money and no shore support, while Aviators take all of the money for their carriers and airplanes and get to do all the cool stuff while SWO's stand watch and run the nuclear reactors.
 
grotto said:
Maybe, but its apples and oranges. The fact is that CAPT Honors no longer has the credibility to represent the U.S. Navy.
Click to expand...

He did that for the last four years and before that, presumably.

grotto said:
He embarrassed the Navy at a time when we are fighting for dollars to keep building ships and planes, and also made a lot of senior officers who have massaged his career look incredibly bad. There are consequences for that, fair or politically correct or not.
Click to expand...

You know, the Navy needs no help at all with that. And this response is not making them look any better. They are falling all over themselves to make it seem this is all about one officer. No one with a functioning brain will buy that explanation.

grotto said:
Are there exceptions? Hypocrisy? Is stuff swept under the rug? Of course. The old-boy network is still in effect, but all bets are off when it gets exposed to the media.
Click to expand...

No kidding.

grotto said:
I don't think anyone thinks he is a bad man, and everything I have heard about him from friends points to him being both an excellent aviator and leader. But how can he stand in front of a sailor and and pass judgement at Mast after this? He does not have the moral credibility to represent his ship or the country, just like a CO who runs his ship aground no longer has technical credibility to operate it.
Click to expand...

What do you think he has been doing these past three years, and since last year as CO?

This is a back-alley attack by officers, probably SWOs (not likely SUBs) who probably saw Capt. Honors as a prospect for flag rank (and as CO of a carrier, he would likely have been on a short list for a battle group or some other post) and someone thought it was time to thin the candidate field in the ugliest possible way.

This isn't Tailhook. This isn't a senior officer screwing a JO or an E. Treating this as if it were personal misconduct, which is exactly what they are doing, only makes the senior Naval leadership out to be craven and dishonest. All their high-minded bloviation about command responsibility and "accountability" doesn't change that one bit. I am sure quite a few senior officers enjoyed those clips when they were aired, and were only too happy to see what their creative colleague would do for the next XO sketch.

I am also sure someone somewhere knows who made this non-news event into what it has become. His name will become known as well, but possibly not the same way. There will be payback.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
This isn't Tailhook. This isn't a senior officer screwing a JO or an E. Treating this as if it were personal misconduct, which is exactly what they are doing, only makes the senior Naval leadership out to be craven and dishonest. All their high-minded bloviation about command responsibility and "accountability" doesn't change that one bit. I am sure quite a few senior officers enjoyed those clips when they were aired, and were only too happy to see what their creative colleague would do for the next XO sketch.
Click to expand...

Why would he screw a journalist?

Ohhh...I see. (No, honestly, I get it - just poor humor - junior, at that!)

But mondo props for the bloviation!
 
orbitsurgMD said:
He did that for the last four years and before that, presumably.



You know, the Navy needs no help at all with that. And this response is not making them look any better. They are falling all over themselves to make it seem this is all about one officer. No one with a functioning brain will buy that explanation.



No kidding.



What do you think he has been doing these past three years, and since last year as CO?

This is a back-alley attack by officers, probably SWOs (not likely SUBs) who probably saw Capt. Honors as a prospect for flag rank (and as CO of a carrier, he would likely have been on a short list for a battle group or some other post) and someone thought it was time to thin the candidate field in the ugliest possible way.

This isn't Tailhook. This isn't a senior officer screwing a JO or an E. Treating this as if it were personal misconduct, which is exactly what they are doing, only makes the senior Naval leadership out to be craven and dishonest. All their high-minded bloviation about command responsibility and "accountability" doesn't change that one bit. I am sure quite a few senior officers enjoyed those clips when they were aired, and were only too happy to see what their creative colleague would do for the next XO sketch.

I am also sure someone somewhere knows who made this non-news event into what it has become. His name will become known as well, but possibly not the same way. There will be payback.
Click to expand...


I agree, it's the sad display of politics of flag officership at play here, exploiting one man's one bad decision to its fullest. Might as well question if his U.S. birth certificate is legit while they're at it.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
That might be more acceptable had the decision been taken three or four years ago and Capt. Honors was denied promotion to CO. Obviously that did not happen despite the full knowledge of thousands of people who were able to see these ship broadcasts and the CO of the ship who must have written the XO's fitrep with no objections then. Even then, the decision to fire would have been similarly severe to firing a senior executive for telling off-color jokes at the company Christmas party.

To raise this now, and to release these recordings and present them as if they were made last week is a dishonest representation of these acts. If ADM Harvey is the person you believe him to be, I cannot think he is not aware of how he is treating this matter and the double standard he is holding up: O.K. to do then, but now with a new administration, not O.K. now. Sorry, he might be someone you like, but in this matter he is the White House hatchet man, no matter what he says, or how he justifies this action. I would also say that the comments above that a ship's CO is somehow equivalent to a U.S. envoy or diplomatic officer is just laughable. Junior FSOs are more important in that respect, by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else think that they would have handeled this pretty much the way that ADM Harvey did? On the one hand the videos are the definition of indefensible. They make the CO, who is supposed to be a US ambassador to the world, look like juvilile. They attack any number of sensitive and taxpaying groups that fund the ship he commands. They even open the chain of comman to all kinds of accusations. Honestly, how could Honors defend himself against someone alleging sexism after producing the 'two girls in the shower' scene? He might as well tattoo 'Women are walking holes' across his forehead.

Now if they wanted to fire him right away over the videos, that would have been appropriate, but if you were ADM Harvey and you thought that he was a good officer making an isolated bad decision I could see where he might try to say 'stop it', move on, and hope no one would notice. However that doesn't mean that ADM Harvey is obligated to stand by him in the event that someone else ultimately does notice and wants to make a federal case out of it. As I mentioned earlier the videos are, in fact, indefensible, which becomes a serious issue when someone forces him to defend his actions. Not throwing yourself under the bus to protect a colleague that deserves what he's getting is not the same as being a political hatchet man.

A hatchet man is someone who kills the career of someone who has not committed a real career ending offense. ADM Harvey, in my opinion, is someone who tried to put off punishing a real career ending offense, but was ultimately forced to admister an approriate punishment. There is a difference.
 
Last edited:
I saw a flag officer speak to a group of service members about relationships specifically domestic violence and off base incidents. He gave a John Wayne type speech and said a man doesn't hit a lady, etc. Also said it wasn't about the military wearing "pink panties" it was about being a man and getting help. Personally I thought it was very effective. At the time it struck me as something that could have been offensive. If someone would have video taped that I bet the press would have a field day.
 
Last edited:
IgD said:
I saw a flag officer speak to a group of service members about relationships specifically domestic violence and off base incidents. He gave a John Wayne type speech and said a man doesn't hit a lady, etc. Also said it wasn't about the military wearing "pink panties" it was about being a man and getting help. Personally I thought it was very effective. At the time it struck me as something that could have been offensive. If someone would have video taped that I bet the press would have a field day.
Click to expand...

Well maybe, but there's a difference between talking about pink panties and dancing around in them on camera. I thought the videos were hilarious btw, just unfortunate that things had to go down this way.
 
orbitsurgMD said:
This is a back-alley attack by officers, probably SWOs (not likely SUBs) who probably saw Capt. Honors as a prospect for flag rank (and as CO of a carrier, he would likely have been on a short list for a battle group or some other post) and someone thought it was time to thin the candidate field in the ugliest possible way.

I am also sure someone somewhere knows who made this non-news event into what it has become. His name will become known as well, but possibly not the same way.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I thought exactly the same thing when I first read this news. This officer has been serving for *years* since this video was made. A video that his superior officer was aware of at the time of circulation.

Serving as CO of the USS Eterprise left him on a short list of those poised to vault onto flag rank.

Some rival or other kept this nugget until the right time to release it.
 
Was trying to think of any other examples. During officer's dining out in the Marines they make all kinds of stupid jokes. Does a CEO ever make stupid videos like that? The President has the press dinner where he makes all kinds of humiliating jokes.
 
He not only had poor judgment but he was arrogant. He taunted those who dared to be offended by the frat-boy humor in his previous skits. He called them gutless. He deserved what he got and I am not any type of bleeding heart.
 
jabreal00 said:
He not only had poor judgment but he was arrogant. He taunted those who dared to be offended by the frat-boy humor in his previous skits. He called them gutless. He deserved what he got and I am not any type of bleeding heart.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that. He said he was offended because the offended Sailors complained through official channels rather than confront him directly. Because, you know, what E3 wouldn't want to pick a fight with the XO of a Carrier?
 
Perrotfish said:
Yeah I saw that. He said he was offended because the offended Sailors complained through official channels rather than confront him directly. Because, you know, what E3 wouldn't want to pick a fight with the XO of a Carrier?
Click to expand...

The greatest military power in the history of the world gets quagmired in two wars during the same decade, and what do we fire our top military officials for? A Rolling Stone interview and a bad movie night skit. Love it.
 
Perrotfish said:
Yeah I saw that. He said he was offended because the offended Sailors complained through official channels rather than confront him directly. Because, you know, what E3 wouldn't want to pick a fight with the XO of a Carrier?
Click to expand...

The "offended sailors." That is just too funny.
 
IgD said:
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/video-1-carrier-enterprise-xo-movie-night?cid=omc

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/video-2-carrier-enterprise-xo-movie-night?cid=omc

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/video-3-carrier-enterprise-xo-movie-night?cid=omc
Click to expand...

LOL, (was wondering if anybody had posted about this, nice thread). It always amazes me how some officers can do everything so right in their careers (to become the XO of a carrier, not an easy feat!) . . . only to F it all up with an instance of poor judgement.

"Chicks in the Shower", "Masterbation" . . . hell, why didn't he just make a soft-core porn?!

Just one question: Who's the fat CHENG in the video? (in the cowboy hat). Guy looks like he hasn't done a situp since 1980, how's he still in this Navy!?
 
The investigation is complete. One Admiral fired. A bunch of others given career-ending letters of reprimand. Guess Admiral Harvey didn't sweep it under the rug after all. I'd never heard of a Secretarial Letter of Censure before. A little google-fu taught me that it is letter from SECNAV that goes in your record, is reflected in your subsequent FITREP and cannot be appealed. Get the feeling Admiral Harvey didn't want to let any of the other Admirals lawyer-up.

Oh, and if you are really bored on call, the first link below has all the videos (helpfully sorted into objectionable and non-objectionable categories)

http://usfleetforcesfoia.info/enterprise_investigation.htm
http://www.cpf.navy.mil/media/news/articles/2011/mar/mar3_CLWP.shtml
 
Last edited:
Tachyon said:
Lesson for all!
Click to expand...

No the real lesson here is, "Don't make a video of yourself doing questionable things (no matter how charismatic and funny you think you are) and broadcast it to a command of 3,000 members, in 2006, at the height of YouTube mania . . .knowing full well that all it takes is one disgruntled sailor to post said video, to derail your career."

I feel sorry for the guy too, I'm sure he's a good guy, a good leader, etc. But you have to admit, he made a clear error in judgement. Should the Navy have fired him, for that error in judgement alone? I think so. Should they have fired him 4 years after the fact, after succumbing to media pressure? No . . . they should've fired him 2 years ago (when this investigation first ensued, to my understanding). At the least, they shouldn't have promoted him to CO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
McConnell Situation
Replies
4
Views
2K
Gastrapathy
Gastrapathy
layman_3
What's going on with the OMO/GMO situation?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Trefoil
Trefoil
B
Army Captain's Career Course
Replies
31
Views
10K
TheEarDoc
TheEarDoc
CaliMedStudent16
Rare Situation, Rejected from HPSP after accepting... keep reading....
Replies
31
Views
10K
deleted707454
D
Mat the coolcat
  • Poll Poll
Question/Sticky Situation about joining the Guard
Replies
4
Views
1K
notdeadyet
notdeadyet
Top