CAPT Holly Graf gets ‘honorable’ retirement

BTW what you think about this picture?....

Kraznyi, you ain't doing yourself any favours linking to those loonies.
The actual story speaks for itself, once you introduce those crazy rants from that site you actually start to make the officer look better.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kraznyi, you ain't doing yourself any favours linking to those loonies.

Do you mean that I'm looking loony too?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The actual story speaks for itself,

I agree that articles' tone is quite harsh and many of their sources are anonymous which makes them not reliable as sole source. Thats reason why I have opted to quote other sources as well.

In case of that article I linked last (one containing picture of ships moving close of each other) I wanted to hear navy people/mariner opinion of that picture. I quoted their text to make it clear what picture is supposed to represent.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

once you introduce those crazy rants from that site you actually start to make the officer look better.

Could you explain how? Other sources still give quite similar picture of captain Graf.

Could you explain how?
Other sources still give quite similar picture of captain Graf.

It is in their explaination
Is it the old boys network, poofs in the pentagon, preference for officers over enlisted, dykes at sea, modern political correctness gone mad, simple nepotism, typical old school navy.....that site its claims its all of them ...so how does that work? Its like saying its a capitalist communist martian from venus who is a sunni jewish bhuddist atheist

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is in their explaination
Is it the old boys network, poofs in the pentagon, preference for officers over enlisted, dykes at sea, modern political correctness gone mad, simple nepotism, typical old school navy.....that site its claims its all of them ...

Agreed. Thats their explanation. I don't know their sources so I'm not qualified to comment whether its correct or not. May I ask what is your explanation?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

so how does that work? Its like saying its a capitalist communist martian from venus who is a sunni jewish bhuddist atheist

I'm absolutely convinced that their editors would like to discuss with you about this intepretation...


This "Graf Case" is strange one and I don't have explanation for it. There are several questions which I need reliable answers before I can even dream of explaining this:
- Why it took so long to anyone to take action?
- At my understanding in U.S. military officer/enlistee retires on that rank where he/she last performed satisfactorily. If that is case then why Ms. Graf retires at rank of captain (O-6)?
- Why board of inquiry recommendation of 'general discharge' was dismissed?
- Why whole process took so long?

Agreed. Thats their explanation. I don't know their sources so I'm not qualified to comment whether its correct or not.

It couldn't be correct as it is plainly self contradictory, as for their sources two you used appear very intertwined and both have the same third source which not only goes through the same self contradictory explanations but also takes her own case and as well as doing the selfcontradictory arguements manages to argue that exactly the opposite is the case....ie the navy is a miscogenistic racist unpolitcally correct dinosaur from the dark ages.

May I ask what is your explanation?

she screwed up and was dealt with in the normal manner.





I would say its probably just the way its done and the way its always been done.

Why it took so long to anyone to take action?

Process, it makes a long drawn out affair.

If that is case then why Ms. Graf retires at rank of captain (O-6)?

She was removed from her position, not demoted.

Why board of inquiry recommendation of 'general discharge' was dismissed

Now thats a question.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

she screwed up and was dealt with in the normal manner.


I would say its probably just the way its done and the way its always been done.

Really? From 20 March 2008 to 13 January 2010 she was the commanding officer of the USS Cowpens and before that, from 20 April 2002 to 6 February 2004 she was the commanding officer of USS Winston S. Churchill. Those incidents for which she was finally relieved of command range from 2002 to 2010 and during that time she was also promoted from commander (O-5) to captain (O-6). Grounding a ship, choking a visiting foreign naval officer, insulting your subordinates, using them as "practice targets"... Are you really seriously telling to me that that this is "business as usual"? If so then evidence please.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Process, it makes a long drawn out affair.

If you mean process after relieving her from command then I agree that its possible (check case below). Otherwise, no.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

She was removed from her position, not demoted.

Demotion and determination of retirement rank are not same thing. Retirement rank is (as said before) determined by what was the last rank where person performed satisfactorily. Here is example: Air Force Colonel (O-6) Michael D. Murphy, a lawyer, was forced to retire after it was revealed that when he joined military in 1980's he didn't tell that his law license in Texas was suspended and propably going to be revoked. When he retired he retired in rank where he last performed satisfactorily. In his case that meant day when his license was revoked by Texas authorities. Guess what was his retirement rank (and rank by which he gets pension)? First Lieutenant (O-2). Full story is available here.

I will return to this in morning when I'm awake again. Good night (or day).

Kraznyi.

Are you really seriously telling to me that that this is "business as usual"? If so then evidence please.

Look at the pile of cases in your provided links(OK avoid the real crazy link as people are getting the same treatment because of who they are and who thay are not and what they did and what they didn't and because the people are this that and the other or all three at once while being neither while the other people are this that and the other too )...which means you have already provided all the "business as usual" evidence you could possibly require.

If you mean process after relieving her from command then I agree that its possible (check case below). Otherwise, no.

As I said check out any of the others, or as you "check below" provide one that is even more drawn out and goes on for decades then I must ask how you can possibly say "Otherwise, no" at all?

Demotion and determination of retirement rank are not same thing. Retirement rank is (as said before) determined by what was the last rank where person performed satisfactorily. Here is example:

Look at your examples, he was never able to perform satisfactorily in the job he was assigned as he never fitted the bill so he goes out with the same rank he had when he got the job he couldn't perform, she however was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up.