Navy recommends fired USS Theodore Roosevelt Captain's Reinstatement

Military life is not like public life. In the military, officers have a line of protocols they must follow, as do recruits. If anyone steps over any of those protocols or goes beyond their rank, they may face a board of inquiry that recommends any sanctions. It's not a one man show that makes the decision to dismiss any officer.

If you remember in the movie, "Behind Enemy Lines" Rear Admiral Leslie Reigart lost his command for not following protocol. As much as I thought the Navy did this man wrong based on what I saw in the movie, nonetheless, he did break protocol and was punished accordingly. He put his men's lives in harm's way, even though they volunteered for the mission, but it should have never got to that point. So, in this case, I had to agree with the Navy, no matter how much it hurt me to do so.

In this case, Capt. Crozier's case never made it to an inquiry board and one man, Acting Secretary, Thomas Modly took it upon himself to fire Crozier. This in of itself does not follow proper military protocol. Once the inquiry board recommends his rehiring, the Defense Secretary must sign off on it, however, from what I have read, the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose his rehiring, so it's not a done deal yet. If I had to wager on this, I would bet that he gets his job back, but being this is a military issue, one never knows what to expect. It could very well come down to the President giving his blessing to reinstate Crozier, but if that happens, we will never know about it. In the military and at this level, politics plays a big part in who gets what.
 
Last edited:
oldman said:
Military life is not like public life. In the military, officers have a line of protocols they must follow, as do recruits. If anyone steps over any of those protocols or goes beyond their rank, may face a board of inquiry that recommends any sanctions. It's not a one man show that makes the decision to dismiss any officer.

If you remember in the movie, "Behind Enemy Lines" Rear Admiral Leslie Reigart lost his command for not following protocol. As much as I thought the Navy did this man wrong based on what I saw in the movie, nonetheless, he did break protocol and was punished accordingly. He put his men's lives in harm's way, even though they volunteered for the mission, but it should have never got to that point. So, in this case, I had to agree with the Navy, no matter how much it hurt me to do so.

In this case, Capt. Crozier's case never made it to an inquiry board and one man, Acting Secretary, Thomas Modly took it upon himself to fire Crozier. This in of itself does not follow proper military protocol. Once the inquiry board recommends his rehiring, the Defense Secretary must sign off on it, however, from what I have read, the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose his rehiring, so it's not a done deal yet. If I had to wager on this, I would bet that he gets his job back, but being this is a military issue, one never knows what to expect. It could very well come down to the President giving his blessing to reinstate Crozier, but if that happens, we will never know about it. In the military and at this level, politics plays a big part in who gets what.
Click to expand...
Good information. I do understand the chain of command, but after reading the captain's memos in sequence, it seemed to me that he tried following it and was not getting a fast enough response. His crew stood behind him and to see so much respect for him was heart-warming and heart-breaking. Modly was totally out of line, in my opinion, and I am pleased to see him gone. True respect has to be earned. It doesn't come just because of someone's position of power, although on paper it may look that way. (Also, believe the President did say he would reinstate if it came to that.)
 
Empty——I agree. We all want the good guy to come out on top, or in this case, we would like to see a person that meant well not to be adjudicated wrongly. The fact that the “acting Secretary” did the firing really puzzles me. The military must have changed since I was in because in the Marines, which the Navy and Marines have a very close working relationship with one another, I never knew one man, other than a military judge or the Defense Secretary himself, has the power to dismiss. I learned something from this.

My dad was career Army and I remember him having to be a witness before a military tribunal during the Vietnam War. My dad was very strong in all ways, but the night before he was to testify, he paced the floor all night. My mom finally had to sit on him and tell him to sit down and try to relax. He told her that she didn’t understand. He was testifying against his Captain who did something against the rules of engagement. He told mom that if they don’t convict him, that he would probably be a Private again. Fortunately, there was so much evidence against the Captain that they never called my dad to the stand. This was in 1965 almost at the start of the war for the Americans
 
oldman said:
Empty——I agree. We all want the good guy to come out on top, or in this case, we would like to see a person that meant well not to be adjudicated wrongly. The fact that the “acting Secretary” did the firing really puzzles me. The military must have changed since I was in because in the Marines, which the Navy and Marines have a very close working relationship with one another, I never knew one man, other than a military judge or the Defense Secretary himself, has the power to dismiss. I learned something from this.

My dad was career Army and I remember him having to be a witness before a military tribunal during the Vietnam War. My dad was very strong in all ways, but the night before he was to testify, he paced the floor all night. My mom finally had to sit on him and tell him to sit down and try to relax. He told her that she didn’t understand. He was testifying against his Captain who did something against the rules of engagement. He told mom that if they don’t convict him, that he would probably be a Private again. Fortunately, there was so much evidence against the Captain that they never called my dad to the stand. This was in 1965 almost at the start of the war for the Americans
Click to expand...
I think the key word was 'acting' Secretary - makes me wonder if he was even qualified. Somehow, I doubt that he had the power to do what he did, but I don't know. My only connection to the military: my stepson was in the Navy and my daughter was in the Army. I knew the risks. But, I can't imagine being the parent of a child in a confined space with friends dying all around from a virus. That's a threat that I don't believe I was prepared to face. I just feel really sorry for all involved.
 
Empty said:
I think the key word was 'acting' Secretary - makes me wonder if he was even qualified. Somehow, I doubt that he had the power to do what he did, but I don't know. My only connection to the military: my stepson was in the Navy and my daughter was in the Army. I knew the risks. But, I can't imagine being the parent of a child in a confined space with friends dying all around from a virus. That's a threat that I don't believe I was prepared to face. I just feel really sorry for all involved.
Click to expand...
The ‘acting’ Secretary was probably the ‘Under Secretary’ to begin with. I don’t get too involved in politics or how those things work, but I do know how the military runs things. It’s a different world. A member on here, Pecks, retired from the Navy, so he would have a better understanding than me.

The issue with Crozier is not so much that he was trying to get help for his men, but how he went about it. In the military, a person must follow protocols and the chain of command. This is probably something that most people who were never in the military to understand. In public life, if you work for a company and that company has policies and you disregard a policy, there is always a chance that the worse won’t happen to you. However, in the military, if you disregard a policy or don’t follow protocols, you should expect the worse. If you are super lucky, there is a chance you’ll get cut a break, but that would be an oddity. At least, that’s the way it was.
 
Well justice has been served (or will be if he accepts to come back). Like you Empty, I was very upset when he got fired (for doing the right thing). I am so glad that idiot who took over was booted. After what he said, and the sailors' reactions, he probably realized he wouldn't have much of a chance of commanding that ship.
 
I understood why Crozier was relieved of command for not following protocol and communicating details of a compromised military force in such a way that the media picked up on it easily. And the infection rate was due to foolish shore leave in Vietnam in March ...sailors, port whores and global contagion are a bad mix.

But out of the whole debacle, I'm glad Thomas Modly is gone.
 
The military as an institution cannot work unless the underlings are brainwashed to blindly do as ordered and forget about doing 'the right thing.' And everyone is an underling to the Commander in Chief.
 
AnnieA said:
I understood why Crozier was relieved of command for not following protocol and communicating details of a compromised military force in such a way that the media picked up on it easily. And the infection rate was due to foolish shore leave in Vietnam in March ...sailors, port whores and global contagion are a bad mix.

But out of the whole debacle, I'm glad Thomas Modly is gone.
Click to expand...
The media didn't pick up on this story. It was leaked to them.
 
AnnieA said:
It was easily 'leaked' and therefore 'picked up on' because he sent an email instead of using P4 communication for sensitive info and also cc'd the email to seven other captains.
Click to expand...
What I should have wrote was that someone leaked the tape of Modly having his tirade over the PA system to Crozier, along with a copy of the e-mail to the Washington Post.
 
@auntbee: (Repost from earlier thread that I started and should have added to instead of new thread - sorry)

Sometimes there is a very fine line between being a hero or a loose cannon.

In the eyes of his crew, he is a hero and IMO that's what counts.

a images.jpgb 1586686153460.jpeg
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top