The thing that you seem to be conveniently ommiting in your anticedote is that this is not between two squadron mates on equal footing. This is not 'locker room banter'. This is between a subordinate and his commanding officer. As Lance has said repeatedly, the superior in the relationship has the burden and responsibility of decorum. His behavior clearly worked contrary to unit cohesion.

Meaning I have been around the very community that this case involves, so know how it operates, far more than someone not exposed to it.

Clearly, you don't know how it operates. I'm not trying to be hostile or anything, Bubble, I can see your point. But unless you've worked within an honest-to-god military "Unit" in every sense of the word, you're lacking context.

A good unit is just that. It is a difficult thing to describe. Members of the unit live work together, live together, and fight together. They are individuals, but every individual knows everything about every other individual. At any given time, whether in peace or in combat, any given member can account for every other memeber to a reasonable degree. They can tell you what the others are likely doing, or what they will do in a given circumstance.

Worried there are targets to the right? There is no worry, "PFC. X" has always been good about covering that flank. Hearing curses from "Lcpl Y" to your left again? That ****ty old rifle of his has probably froze up. He'll have it fixed in about four seconds. In the meantime, you need to assume responsibility for his sector. "Cpl. Z" saw the trouble at the same time you did and he'll cover your sector of fire. No visible targets in Lcpl Y's sector, shift fire to PFC X's sector so he can reload, which he does automatically because he knows you're firing. All of this takes place in the space of barely more than a second. That's what a good unit is. That's how it operates.

Throw just one monkey wrench into the works in the form of a team-member or a crappy officer and you ruin the whole thing. Suddenly, you have a major fracking problem. Either the team doesn't trust the judgement of the officer, in which case they are fighting under the assumption that they might be screwed, or they don't trust a squad member who is the focus of mistrust and belittlement as per the attitude imparted by the leader of the unit, so now everyone is second-guessing that guy and checking their backs when they should be focusing on their own sectors of fire and proper employment of their weapons. No amount of training will fix that when you're being shot at. There is no time for rational thought, only time for honed behaviour.

I'm speaking from the perspective of a naval infantryman, but I imagine that the situation is much the same aboard a ship. The crew has to know that their crewmembers will put out fires or man systems or whatever the hell it is that squids do to make a vessel combat-effective. Their trust in their captain is only as good as his trust in them. There's probably other stuff, too.

So, are we on the same page now or what?

This is the crux of the whole matter. The superior officer is not facing punishment for calling the junior officer "fagmeister". The junior officer complained about it, but from reading the article, that case is still pending. The result of that case is not important, anyway.

The superior officer is facing discipline because, after that complaint was filed, he took it out on the junior officer. Even if the Ensign is later found to have been unjustified in his claim, the Commander still lashed out at him due only to his complaint.

Have you been round the system more or less than the officers of US navy legal branch?
As it seems obvious those amatuers know much less about how their community works and the laws and regulations than you do.
Have you thought of skipping law school entirely and going straight into teaching the navy how to run its advocate generals office based on your superior knowledge derived from living near a naval base.