The Virginian-Pilot
©
Better leadership aboard the Norfolk-based destroyer Stout could have prevented a string of drunken misdeeds by a group of sailors during port visits this winter, according to a Navy investigation report.
Ten Stout sailors, including the commanding officer and command master chief, were removed from the ship last month in the middle of a deployment. The report, made public Wednesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, provides details about what the Navy called "a pervasive pattern of unprofessional behavior in overseas ports and a substandard command climate."
The report says the misconduct took place between December and February during port visits in Souda Bay, Greece; Haifa, Israel; and Palermo, Italy. In Greece, several officers and enlisted sailors visited a strip of bars called American Alley, where "inappropriate dancing and other unduly familiar conduct occurred," the report says. Later the same night, someone in the group hit another sailor.
In Israel, while several crew members were on their way back to the Stout from a downtown bar, two chief petty officers got in a fistfight. And at a bar in Italy, several crew members saw a chief petty officer and a junior enlisted sailor kissing and touching each other, the report says.
It doesn't disclose exactly how many officers and sailors were involved, and their names were redacted. Ultimately, the Navy removed seven crew members March 1 after nonjudicial punishment proceedings. They included one officer, five chief petty officers and one petty officer.
Another chief was removed from the ship to face legal proceedings. The report doesn't say why.
Cmdr. Nathan Borchers and the relieved command master chief, Susan Bruce-Ross, were not involved in the misconduct. They bear blame for leadership failures that fueled the problems, investigators concluded.
Bruce-Ross knew about some of the misconduct and didn't report it to her superiors, according to the report. When Borchers found out about it, he didn't respond appropriately, Vice Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of U.S. 6th Fleet, said in his endorsement of the investigation.
"By repeatedly failing to thoroughly investigate suspected liberty incidents and by not holding junior officers and chief petty officers accountable, the commanding officer directly contributed to a lack of good order and discipline on Stout and created a perception that standards for conduct ashore did not apply to officers or chief petty officers," Harris said.
About Bruce-Ross, Harris wrote, "The lack of professionalism of chiefs under her charge, her inability to lead the chief's mess, and her failure to inform the C.O. when misconduct occurred indicated to me that she should not hold this position of special trust."
Bruce-Ross's inability to lead the ship's chief petty officers left a void at a critical level of leadership, the main investigator concluded. The report says several Stout chiefs essentially acted as a gang that bullied and demeaned other sailors, including officers. That created a hostile climate and ineffective work environment.
"Sailors are fearful of reporting misconduct due to a fear of retaliation by the chiefs," the report says. "This group's lack of integrity, ethical and professional behavior is appalling."
Their actions, which Bruce-Ross failed to control, led to wider morale problems, the report adds.
The investigation also found that programs and policies meant to prevent misconduct during port visits weren't effectively implemented aboard the Stout.
Soon after the investigation was finished, Bruce-Ross and Borchers were reassigned to administrative duties at Naval Surface Force Atlantic in Norfolk. Bruce-Ross could not be reached Wednesday. Through a Navy spokesman, Borchers declined to comment.
In his endorsement, Harris recommended that the Navy conduct an additional investigation into the performance of Borchers' predecessor, Cmdr. Mark Oberley; Borchers took over for Oberley in December, though he served as the ship's second-in-command before that.
The Stout, with a crew of about 300, is now under the command of Cmdr. Sylvester Steele, previously the executive officer of the destroyer Ramage. Bruce-Ross was replaced by Command Master Chief Anthony Cole, who last served at Naval Surface Force Atlantic.
The Stout is deployed in the Mediterranean Sea. It played a major role in the early stages of the U.S. intervention in Libya, launching roughly 50 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan targets.
Corinne Reilly, (757) 446-2949, corinne.reilly@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo


REALITY
The reality is that military leaders ARE responsible for the actions of their subordinate ALL THE TIME!
Another reality is the CMC serves at the pleasure of the CO. The CO doesn't need a reason to fire the CMC other than a lack of confidence in the CMC's abilities. Likewise, the CO serves at the pleasure of his admiral.
The bottom line is that these people aren't in an office building somewhere selling widgets, they're running a warship! The chain of command has to have absolute confidence that it will perform its mission as ordered when the time comes. Leaders who drink to excess, fight and fraternize on liberty do nothing to inspire such confidence.
Kudos to Stout on performing her mission off Libya in spite of these jokers!
MCC...just more fish!
I did not think about it until one of my girlfriends pointed it out:
NAVYMCC- Navy Mass Communication Chief!
Read the pdf. The CO did not relieve anyone. This sister was singled out! Someone assigned her expected her to control the Boys Club while the boys were out on the town. Bet she was never even invited in the door.
We have noticed the ship's good news story fed to the same reporter, and the probability that some one senior sent a MCC to follow and comment on the posts just strengthens the smell of fish with this story.
Corinne Reilly whose side are you on?
The CO didn't relieve anyone...
That would be the reason the CO was relieved.
BTW
I'm retired and work in the private sector, for no luck for you on that fishing trip...
One more thing...
My interest in the story is the fact that it irritates the crap out of me when someone embarrasses my Navy and my Chief's Mess!
The offending parties - the half-dozen E7s who couldn't resist getting plastered, fighting in public and fraternizing with junior Sailors (all things they most definitely knew were wrong) - made everyone on that ship look bad, including the CO and CMC.
Yes, the CO and CMC paid for it too. That's the way the military works. If you're in charge, it doesn't matter if you were there or not - you're responsible for your subordinates' behavior.
Is it fair that they took the hit? Fair doesn't have anything to do with it. It's about responsibility and trust.
response
Spoken like a true NON-Seagoer... You have no idea what it takes to run a division, dept or work with real sea going CPO's. If you did then you would know there is 2 sides to this story and the navy Times and V pilot got only 10% of the story and documents. If you were privy to all of it you might re think your remarks and actually support these fellow CPO's who blatantly witch hunted and it will be proven in the up and coming weeks.
2 sides to story
It is amazing how there are so many people who believe everything they read. There are 2 sides to the story and I know for a fact there was little wrong doing. What was posted in this investigation is 100% false and all OPINION of an investigating officer who had a motive and made numerous accusations during this investigative process that were not professional. Is that posted? Of course not. This was a head hunt and the Navy and all involved in this head head should be ashamed of themselves. These sailors are being punished for 1 or 2 Sailors who cannot hold there liquor. The CPO's in this investigation should hold there heads up high because the Navy made an example out of you for the Officers wrong doing not CPO's!!!
Are you kidding me??
The investigation was done exactly as the Navy's regulations demand. There are findings of fact in this document that put the entire CPO mess in a bad light.
Agree
Yes it does put the CPO mess in a bad light. It is unfortunate that they did not post all 300 plus pages of this witch hunt. If they did all the band wagoners that say all these CPO's might rethink there thought process. Was there 1 wrong CPO who acted unprofessional on liberty? YES.... No denying that but the other CPO's did nothing wrong contrary to the 27 pages that was posted. Where is the rest of the supporting documents? It just happen to not be posted why because if it was posted then the Navy would let everyone know they actually conducted a witch hunt with no solid facts except for hear say and opinions. Was it ever mentioned in this report about all the OFFICERS on this ship sleeping with junior enlisted... Of course not!!
Corinne Reilly, where is your investigative journalism?
In my study of the investigation I found:
Sailors drink in bars (FF 36, 49, 50, 51, 59) Some FCC hit someone but no one was hurt (FF 55, 56, 60) An(officer) was upset with the chiefs (FF 51) There were about 11 officers and 10 chiefs involved, count the spaces (FF 4, 5) There was a cover-up (FF 65-69) and (71, 75, 96, 98) It appears the command was trying to clean house (FF 17, 18, 21, 70, 71, 72, 73, 97-101) The investigator was opinionated (FF 7-14). Assumption: CO and CMC were not present at the incidents, otherwise we would see CO to CMC in the FFs.
7 CPO + 1 officer of 21 involved were sent home. It sound like there was a feud between officers and chiefs, and the chiefs lost, CO and CMC got caught in the admiral’s big broom.