Ex-Halsey CO fires back

[CommunityEditor]

In nearly two hours of interviews with Navy Times the week of Oct. 21, Pinckney tried to explain what went wrong with his command and how that ended an otherwise remarkable career, one that took him from seaman to commander of one of the world’s most modern warships.

The trouble might have started when he arrived in San Diego in May, but it got out of control six months later in Kagoshima, Japan. On the night of Nov. 2, after hosting Japanese VIPs and, according to the Navy’s official investigation, allowing sailors to drink alcohol to excess, fire broke out near one of the ship’s main reduction gears in the engineering spaces.

During this time, it wasn’t what Pinckney did, but what he failed to do that sparked his downfall: He stayed in his stateroom during and after the fire, leaving the situation to his crew. “I never go to the scene of a casualty,” he explained.

While Pinckney stayed put, the Navy investigation concluded, the efforts to fight the fire got off to a poor start. Some sailors were too drunk to get into their firefighting gear. A few months later, the same area caught fire after the ship returned home to San Diego. The cause of that fire is still under investigation.

Pinckney acknowledged a simmering “discord” between him and his wardroom. He said the other officers didn’t support what he wanted to do. But one chief saw a CO who prized keeping junior sailors happy, a priority not wholly shared by his wardroom and mess.

One petty officer, who served under Pinckney and who asked not to be named, said the command environment declined rapidly during Pinckney’s tenure. “Halsey is home to some fine sailors, and I say that having served on three other ships,” he wrote in an e-mail to Navy Times. “What we lived through on the 2006 deployment was as close to a ‘Caine Mutiny’ style experience as you can get.”

The ship completed its Western Pacific deployment and returned to San Diego on Dec. 24. The second fire, in January, damaged the main reduction gear so badly it had to be replaced — at a cost of $8.5 million.

Vice Adm. Terrance Etnyre, commander of Naval Surface Forces, fired Pinckney on Feb. 2 for loss of confidence.

A preliminary investigation, which was obtained by Navy Times and served as the basis of an Oct. 22 cover story, focused on the night of the first fire. It revealed that during and after the reception for Japanese dignitaries on Nov. 2, Pinckney repeatedly encouraged on-duty sailors to drink alcohol.

One on-duty officer told the executive officer she was just holding a beer “to placate the CO,” according to the executive officer’s statement to investigators. The XO told investigators, “I took alcohol away from one duty section member ... who got upset and indicated that the CO said it was OK.”

Another crew member reportedly accepted a beer from the skipper, but poured the contents overboard.

Pinckney, in his interview with Navy Times, disputed nearly every assertion made by other crew members in the investigation. But he didn’t dispute staying in his cabin while the crew reacted to the emergency. Asked to respond to accusations by the crew that he ignored repeated calls and knocks on his cabin hatch, Pinckney said he could not hear the alarm bells, or the knocking on his door from the passageway. Besides, he added, it was his policy to leave casualty response to others.

“I never go to the scene of a casualty. That’s why we have all these people who are trained. I let them do their job, I get the report, then I act,” Pinckney said.

Similarly, Pinckney denied hearing alarms and said he only learned of the fire when his executive officer called him in his cabin to tell him it was extinguished.

“When they rung for the fire they only rung that on enlisted circuits,” he said. “They did not ring that throughout the ship. I live in officers’ country. I did not hear any bells.”

However, the investigation report quotes an officer who told investigators that Pinckney called down to tell that officer to stop using the 1MC to provide updates as the crew fought the fire.

Pinckney concedes that he delayed sending a report on the fire up his chain of command until the next day, but he disagreed with the investigation report’s contention that the commander failed to mention that the fire affected the critical MRG in his official communications to the destroyer squadron and strike group commanders.

“The [chief engineer] and I sat there on the computer and we sent off that e-mail. And I got a reply back. I directed that the same verbiage be used for the Kitty Hawk,” he said. “It said we had a fire in the dehumidifier, a flashover in the MRG and that we’re investigating and we’ll send a further report.”

According to the investigation report, however, “When the SITREP was sent on 3 November 2006, mention of the MRG was specifically excluded by the CO.”

Pinckney said he was not fully aware of the extent of the drinking aboard his ship. Although he was present on the ship throughout the event, he said his chiefs and officers failed to report the problems to him. In fact, he said, it wasn’t until he was back in San Diego two months later that he learned on-duty sailors had been drinking at all.

Asked if he believes someone had it in for him, Pinckney said: “Me, personally, I do. These reports that are supposed to come up to the CO, I didn’t get any. My question is, ‘Did this stuff really happen?’ ... I hate to say this, but it was an authorized function in port and hey, it didn’t go absolutely right.”

He admits there were problems in the wardroom. “One of the issues that was brought out was that there wasn’t a harmonious relationship between the XO, the [assistant operations officer] and myself,” he said. “There were meetings where I’d walk out and the things I’d talked about would be harshly criticized. I would hear about that through a backloop,” he said. “There would be wardroom meetings and I’d talk about the things I wanted to do, and they would strongly question those things.”

A chief who served under Pinckney and asked not to be identified said he had concerns about Pinckney’s command style early on.

“He was very much concerned with the morale and well-being of the junior sailors, and that caused some problems in the upper levels,” he said. “He’d keep the blueshirts happy, but the chiefs and the officers were trying to get some work done.”

Standards loosened, the chief said, and the skipper emphasized recreation events such as bingo nights and extra liberty chits, which weakened duty sections. Civilian garb became more common aboard the ship.

“It kind of turned into a joke after a while,” he said, referring to the lax standards.

Pinckney faults the investigation for not going deeper into what happened that night, and he said the investigator never asked him to make a statement.



Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/1...alsey_071029w/
More: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/1...alsey_071022w/
Interview transcripts: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/1...ey_transcript/


Regarding the events of Nov. 2, 2006, and after, retired Cmdr. John Pinckney says : "There’s nothing I did that I feel bad about, like I put somebody in danger or anything like that." Do you think that he acted appropriately? Was his relief the appropriate response?

Nothing at a command happens in a vaccum. Although mistakes were made by the CO, there is not a doubt that various officers and senior enlisted personnel have made mistakes as well. It is the responsibility of the triad "CO, XO, and CMC" to ensure the tone is set throughout the command. Reading the articles I do think that more to the situation / incident is yet to de discovered.

The senior enlisted and officer in the command let thing got out of control. It is the responsibility of the khaki community to make sure the junior personnel adhere to navy regulation and core valuable. The CDO, EDO, Section Leader and Master at Arm had the responsibility to maintain shipboard safety while in there duty section. If they saw anyone drinking on duty, then a report should have been writing. Then muster the rest of the duty section not on watch. To inform them this will not be accepted. The duty section is here for the protection of the ship and crews. Bottom line there were no support in the khaki community onboard that ship. The entire khaki community should have been fire. The problem within the command was going on before deployment. Someone should have contacted or call 1-800 number, about the problem onboard ship. A command climate survey should have been done by an outside command. There are processes in place to prevent thing like this from happen. The khaki community let thing getting out of control.

It appears that "CDR Queeg" was never really in command to begin with!!

As a former HALSEY sailor, I will tell you that CDR Pinckney is lying about multiple incidents in the report. The CDR DID have someone in his room and that is why he didn't come out. The CDR DID hide the fact that there was a fire in the MRG in a delayed message to the DESRON. And the CDR is lying about who was drinking at the party. Most of the duty section did drink that night. Most of the duty section drank to excess that night. The fire party had no buisness going into the space in the condition everybody was in.
It's a shame that this type of incident is what has put HALSEY on everybody's radar. We PRECOM-ed the ship with alot of pride and a great deal of satisfaction because we accomplished things that had never been done by a DDG crew before. Our PRECOM C.O. was a tough, but fair CDR who took care of his crew and his ship. After he took command, CDR Pinckney used us as a toy. He thought he was the king of the world and could do what he wanted. Now that the truth is starting to surface, he is backtracking and cover is own rear. He SHOULD have been relieved because he digraced the crew, the ship, and the great namsake that is HALSEY. Good riddens CDR Pinckney!

[MWATERS]

Oh poor poor baby, GEEEEEZ come on Commanding Officer you are a stupid buck passing jerk who deserved to be fired. But as usual people like you are cowards who hide like scared rats when the rubber meets the road. You suck big time. I bet you were in your stateroom reading the latest copy of Ebony when the fire was ongoing. You lost command because you had no guts to face the realities of what really happened that fateful night in Japan! Master Chief Mike Watts retired

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by MWATERS

Oh poor poor baby, GEEEEEZ come on Commanding Officer you are a stupid buck passing jerk who deserved to be fired. Master Chief Mike Watts retired

Chief, I don't know any more about what actually happened then you do, BUT - the place of the Captain is NOT in his cabin when ANYTHING unusual is happening.

If the ship is underweigh, the place of the Captain is on the Bridge. If the ship is alongside, the place of the Captain is on the Bridge (or, once s/he has checked in there and let the OOD know where s/he is going to be, at Damage Control in a situation like this one).

I've seen a Captain turn out on the Bridge bareass naked when the claxons went off. He wasn't there to DO anything, he was there in case his people wanted/needed his advice/direction.

That's what they get paid the big bucks for.

On top of that, I find it completely unbelievable that the OOD would not have reported the fire to the Captain - and made sure that that report had been delivered. That's what OODs do in situations like that.

This CO is not forthcoming with facts. He sounded evasive, to the point that I started doubting his ability to command a ship. Am I calling him a "liar"? You make the call. I am a senior enlisted Sailor with 22 years in the Navy. Anything bad happens in my domain of leadership, you can bet your behind that I will be all over the scenario/issue. What is the most destructive threat on a ship? You guessed it, FIRE! That's why we, Sailors, are trained to fight it, regardless of our specialties. Reading the interview, this CO is happy it's done and he is happily retired, receiving his retirement pay. He knew he screwed up big time but he got away with it. Afterall, what can be done to him except be fired?

The CDR wants to portray himself as some type of victim concerning the first fire. I believe the only thing he is a victim of here is himself. He clearly is a victim of the "Peter Principle" where a person is promoted to his level of incompetence, but rarely ever demoted back to his most competent level.

I spent 20 years in the Navy and the last 10 years working for the Navy as a civilian, constantly interacting with young sailors primarily. One thing I try to press home with them is that the excuses of;

I didn't know..., Nobody told me..., I thought..., I forgot, or I must have miss read... will not fly. They are simply excuses made up in order to evade responsibility and accountability.

The CDR has failed his sailors again with his statements in the interview. He failed to show honor, courage, committment, and intergity with his excuses.

I suggest to him (and his defenders) that of the two values---responsibility and accountability---that the former is far more valuable than the latter. An irresponsible person will regularly attempt to avoid accountability and that is exactly what the CDR has done in his interview.

Forgetting about the alleged drinking (I believe it) or what was likely going on in his cabin (bet he was smiling) the simple fact that he was not on the bridge, or the quarterdeck, or in DC central monitoring the situation is derliction of duty in my book. Had he not been onboard ship and his CDO acted in this manner it is quite likely the CDO career would have been ended without the benefit of retirement. Instead of dereliction of duty charges the CDR was allowed to retire and save face and money.

Bottom line...he abandoned his crew that night, he abandoned honor, courage, committment, in his interview.

I'm retired but I still know a thing or two about the Navy. First off, not having been there, I know that officers and khaki's do not care to participate in fair treatment of junior personell. Secondly, when you have as many people in charge in key places a lot of the CO's responsibility is taken off of his/her back INDIRECTLY. Next, from the officers on down, sailors will lie and jump on whatever bandwagon they have to to save their own behinds. Most importantly, supply personell have been pilfering alcohol and passing it on to others (mostly for a favor or money) since the early 80's (when I first started out in the Navy). I've been witness to many a things in my Naval career and have always seen senior personell pass the buck and junior personell back them up for fear of reprisal. The Navy is very, very political and if you don't play ball you may not have a career. Whomever wrote this article really should interview Naval people behind closed doors and then they'll get a true and clear picture of how this organization is actually ran. Tell things if you want to, be prepared not to be around much longer or never make rank. Also, take into account that when junior people are treated fairly (the real people that run the ship), morale is high and your crew is totally awesome. This Co sounds like he is prior enlisted and a good many of those type of people don't forget where they come from. That's where all of the crap about how he treated the junior enlisted come from. For years E5's & E6's have been turning to the officer side of the house to make a change. You can't treat people like crap and expect them to have your back in emergency situations. More often than not, those of us who make rank at high levels tend to forget that. The young sailor whom was previously under the former CO's command sounds as if he didn't get his fair share of what he wanted and was probably reprimanded for his illtreatment of others. Most sailors that have negative things to say after their out of the Navy normally performed poor and never made rank. Does that mean to kiss up to others, NO, but you still have rules and regulations to follow. Believe you me, official reports are done all of the time but the submitted ones are always false. As an IT and former RM, I can wholeheartedly testify to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For those of you reading my post and planning on commenting, keep in mind most of you weren't there physically. Remember, if you're still actvie, you're fair game to the Navy. Your IP can be traced! I did this for a living for the Navy and was trained by some of the best. Just be careful of your comments and whom you say things to. May God bless each and everyone of you and a special message to my brothers/sisters still fighting the good fight on active duty.