Molon Labe
12-13-08, 01:11 PM
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/12/navy_squadronvideo_121208w/
Hornet CO punished over video
By Andrew Scutro (ascutro@airforcetimes.com?subject=Question%20from %20NavyTimes.com%20reader) - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Dec 13, 2008 6:56:51 EST
NORFOLK, Va. — The commander of an F/A-18 Hornet squadron underway on the carrier Theodore Roosevelt has been punished after three of his junior officers were involved in secretly shooting footage of an unsuspecting female officer that was “edited to appear sexually suggestive” for a shipboard variety show in late November, according to Navy sources.
Cmdr. Daniel Buckon, commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 31, based at Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., went to mast before the strike group’s commander, Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe, days after the incident and received a career-damaging punitive letter of reprimand. A source — who was not authorized to speak on the matter — provided Navy Times the information on the proceedings but not the name of the commanding officer. Several sources verified that the CO is Buckon.
In addition, the three unnamed junior officers from VFA-31 received non-punitive letters of reprimand, according to a Nov. 30 “situation report.” A version of the SitRep, with the name of the ship and other unit information removed, was first posted by popular Navy blogger “CDR Salamander” on Dec. 11. Navy Times later obtained an original version of the message.
Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said a female officer was videotaped on the ship in a “public setting without her knowledge” and then the footage was “edited to appear sexually suggestive.”
According to the SitRep, on the evening of Nov. 28, the ship, which is in the Gulf of Oman, conducted an event called the “foc’s’le follies,” which typically includes humorous skits and videos.
“Toward the end of the ‘follies,’ VFA-31 showed an inappropriate video that included a scene wherein a female officer, who had been surreptitiously filmed in the wardroom eating dinner, was edited to seem sexually suggestive,” the message said. “This occurred despite clear and repeated direction from the strike group commander and air wing commander to keep the content of the videos clean and decent. Squadron commanding officers were directed to review and approve all videos before being shown.” That would have included Buckon.
The message did not spell out what the video actually showed, and Robertson would not give the female officer’s rank, but he did say she was not part of the air wing.
Immediately after the follies, the message said, the strike group commander directed the air wing commander to “investigate the matter and take corrective action.” The next day, several leaders within the strike group and squadron told the female officer — who was not at the follies — about the video, Robertson said. They apologized, and she requested to see it.
On Nov. 30, after the air wing commander held mast for the three junior officers, the senior member of the three was sent back to the U.S. “on the first available” C-2 Greyhound delivery aircraft.
Pandolfe also notified 5th Fleet and requested an “outside representative” to review the actions and “prescribe any further steps needed.”
In addition, the squadron was counseled on “inappropriateness,” a maintenance and safety survey was requested for the squadron and “all future fo’c’sle follies have been canceled.”
The TR strike group left Norfolk on Sept. 8.
A redacted version of the message caused a high number of comments on Salamander’s blog. While some believed the strike group’s leadership overreacted, others pointed out the need for officers to be sensitive to such issues.
Also: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2008/12/diversity-thursday_11.html
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/12/11/sitrep/
A few questions:
Is there a rule that required the CCSG to make a ****ing SITREP over this instead of handling it within the unit?
My take on this is that the CCSG did not articulate a standard regarding what is "clean and decent" and what is not, but left this up to the COs of the squadrons and other commands. Does anyone know differently? Because if he gave them that power and then reneged when he disagreed with the call they made, he really is a C^2CO of the highest order.
Hornet CO punished over video
By Andrew Scutro (ascutro@airforcetimes.com?subject=Question%20from %20NavyTimes.com%20reader) - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Dec 13, 2008 6:56:51 EST
NORFOLK, Va. — The commander of an F/A-18 Hornet squadron underway on the carrier Theodore Roosevelt has been punished after three of his junior officers were involved in secretly shooting footage of an unsuspecting female officer that was “edited to appear sexually suggestive” for a shipboard variety show in late November, according to Navy sources.
Cmdr. Daniel Buckon, commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 31, based at Naval Air Station Oceana, Va., went to mast before the strike group’s commander, Rear Adm. Frank Pandolfe, days after the incident and received a career-damaging punitive letter of reprimand. A source — who was not authorized to speak on the matter — provided Navy Times the information on the proceedings but not the name of the commanding officer. Several sources verified that the CO is Buckon.
In addition, the three unnamed junior officers from VFA-31 received non-punitive letters of reprimand, according to a Nov. 30 “situation report.” A version of the SitRep, with the name of the ship and other unit information removed, was first posted by popular Navy blogger “CDR Salamander” on Dec. 11. Navy Times later obtained an original version of the message.
Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said a female officer was videotaped on the ship in a “public setting without her knowledge” and then the footage was “edited to appear sexually suggestive.”
According to the SitRep, on the evening of Nov. 28, the ship, which is in the Gulf of Oman, conducted an event called the “foc’s’le follies,” which typically includes humorous skits and videos.
“Toward the end of the ‘follies,’ VFA-31 showed an inappropriate video that included a scene wherein a female officer, who had been surreptitiously filmed in the wardroom eating dinner, was edited to seem sexually suggestive,” the message said. “This occurred despite clear and repeated direction from the strike group commander and air wing commander to keep the content of the videos clean and decent. Squadron commanding officers were directed to review and approve all videos before being shown.” That would have included Buckon.
The message did not spell out what the video actually showed, and Robertson would not give the female officer’s rank, but he did say she was not part of the air wing.
Immediately after the follies, the message said, the strike group commander directed the air wing commander to “investigate the matter and take corrective action.” The next day, several leaders within the strike group and squadron told the female officer — who was not at the follies — about the video, Robertson said. They apologized, and she requested to see it.
On Nov. 30, after the air wing commander held mast for the three junior officers, the senior member of the three was sent back to the U.S. “on the first available” C-2 Greyhound delivery aircraft.
Pandolfe also notified 5th Fleet and requested an “outside representative” to review the actions and “prescribe any further steps needed.”
In addition, the squadron was counseled on “inappropriateness,” a maintenance and safety survey was requested for the squadron and “all future fo’c’sle follies have been canceled.”
The TR strike group left Norfolk on Sept. 8.
A redacted version of the message caused a high number of comments on Salamander’s blog. While some believed the strike group’s leadership overreacted, others pointed out the need for officers to be sensitive to such issues.
Also: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2008/12/diversity-thursday_11.html
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/12/11/sitrep/
A few questions:
Is there a rule that required the CCSG to make a ****ing SITREP over this instead of handling it within the unit?
My take on this is that the CCSG did not articulate a standard regarding what is "clean and decent" and what is not, but left this up to the COs of the squadrons and other commands. Does anyone know differently? Because if he gave them that power and then reneged when he disagreed with the call they made, he really is a C^2CO of the highest order.