CAPT Holly Graf gets ‘honorable’ retirement

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gi_dan2987

By the way Sailor Steve, were you a Navy man?

Sorry, you couldn't know. You're new, but those who have been through all this before are going to hate me for this.

[gi_dan2987]

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1829818]

Sorry, you couldn't know. You're new, but those who have been through all this before are going to hate me for this.

HAHA. Naw that's cool. Yeah I was well acquainted with the M2 .50 BMG. All of our humvees ran with the ma deuce on the turret. What was your ship and your job? I would guess you were on some kind of cruiser? Forgive me if I'm wrong, I wasn't a Navy man, but I do seem to have quite the interest in the Navy. Maybe I would have fared better there, but then again maybe not. I'm 6'2" and 270 pounds. I got into weight lifting after the Army, so now I'm well nourished unlike the Army days lol. Do you think I would ever fit inside a submarine? BTW, I don't know if you got this before but, why is Subsim all written in German? Is that something in my settings?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gi_dan2987

What was your ship and your job? I would guess you were on some kind of cruiser? Forgive me if I'm wrong, I wasn't a Navy man, but I do seem to have quite the interest in the Navy.

I was a radioman, and the ship was a destroyer, USS Brinkley Bass, DD-887, a Gearing class built in 1945, and rebuilt and still in service in 1970, when those pictures were taken. Quite a bit smaller than a cruiser.

Here are some more I took way back then.








Too much too fast.

[gi_dan2987]

Yeah DD's look considerably smaller than the larger vessels. So regarding realism..... could a DD turn fast enough to avoid a torpedo fired within 1000 yards? I like to try attacking DD's sometimes in SH4, but they turn on a dime at moments notice, then the chase is on.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kraznyi.

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.

Tribesman, that site's name is MilitaryCorruption.com not reasonsforreliefofcommand.com. It talks about cases which, at least in their opinion, are unjust not every single case of relief of command in United States Armed Forces.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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,

True.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

she however was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up.

So we should be nice and just dismiss every screw up? Choking, violence, insults (one resulting order to write formal apology), running ship a ground... should we dismiss all these and just say that "she was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up"? Sorry but I think this is matter where we strongly disagree.

EDIT: Rewrote latter part of response as I somehow managed to miss important part of Tribesman response.

Tribesman, that site's name is MilitaryCorruption.com not reasonsforreliefofcommand.com. It talks about cases which, at least in their opinion, are unjust not every single case of relief of command in United States Armed Forces.

Yes, and they argue about those cases they think are unfair, like..... people being fired for being a woman, people being fired for not being a woman, people not being fired for being a woman and people not being fired for not being a woman.
Like I said two of your links are shared sources and both use a third source(in addition to the two military sources which all three dispute).
I do like MacDonalds take on the child sex one...come on give the chaplain a break, he has a drink problem and had been in afghanistan, he was only jerking off on camera to a supposed 14 year old its not like they had real sex, what is it with these wild dog JAGs? who among us can cast the first stone? what about his poor wife and kids while he is in prison?
nice opinions eh, do you agree with their take on "unjust" cases?

but you seem to miss one difference

I see you picked up on the difference after you wrote your piece, quite a coincidence really as "doctor" was going to be the example I used if you tried to defend his performance as a lawyer.

Tribesman, have you actually read any of those articles I have linked here?

No when someone links to a site like two of those four that I absolutely refuse to read any of it as it may make me laugh too much, instead I prefer to guess at what they say and guess at any links between Keating MacDonald and Syneeda then simply make stuff up about what I think they write as no-one would be posting a link to their writings to prove me wrong
It does raise the question though, did you actually read those links you are posting?
I mean seriously didn't the truther and other conspiracy nut links set the alarms ringing?

Aaaarrggghhhh you edited again.

OK I see your point, which goes all the way back to ....

Now thats a question.

As there are two proceses both of which are correct even though they are different.
The way that was chosen is quicker simpler and final, the other could be drawn out even further, made far more complicated and still be open for a revisit.
Think of it this way, it is just a typical everyday case of "early retirement" like you find anywhere in the public sector(in the private sector it wouldn't even get a mention even though it is just as common).

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

First my apology that I missed this part of your response: "as he never fitted the bill". I reviewed my post but you were fast enough to respond to my flawed response.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes, and they argue about those cases they think are unfair, like..... people being fired for being a woman, people being fired for not being a woman, people not being fired for being a woman and people not being fired for not being a woman.

I have not read most articles by Mr. MacDonald and his colleagues. I have read only that one in first post and with less extensively that one from where that picture is from. Most of information what I have about Ms. Graf is from other sources. I don't agree with all they write I only linked them there as I thought it being best to give people as many sources as possible to let them make their own conclusions.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Like I said two of your links are shared sources and both use a third source(in addition to the two military sources which all three dispute).

I originally posted four links. Did you forget one of them or am I misunderstanding you?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I do like MacDonalds take on the child sex one...come on give the chaplain a break, he has a drink problem and had been in afghanistan, he was only jerking off on camera to a supposed 14 year old its not like they had real sex, what is it with these wild dog JAGs? who among us can cast the first stone? what about his poor wife and kids while he is in prison?
nice opinions eh, do you agree with their take on "unjust" cases?

I'm not familiar with those cases nor have I read those articles so I don't start arguing about them.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I see you picked up on the difference after you wrote your piece, quite a coincidence really as "doctor" was going to be the example I used if you tried to defend his performance as a lawyer.

That part was based on my quite impressively massive misreading of your response.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No when someone links to a site like two of those four that I absolutely refuse to read any of it as it may make me laugh too much, instead I prefer to guess at what they say and guess at any links between Keating MacDonald and Syneeda then simply make stuff up about what I think they write as no-one would be posting a link to their writings to prove me wrong
It does raise the question though, did you actually read those links you are posting?
I mean seriously didn't the truther and other conspiracy nut links set the alarms ringing?

...and that question where you answered here was more directed toward that article about Col. Murphy which I assumed you hadn't read due my misreading of your response. My apologies for that. But about your response... Thank you for your opinion. I personally favour to not comment at all if I don't read articles, in my opinion guessing is not very good way to go in discussion on sources.

That "truther" and "nutter" thing... that would set alarm bells ringing would they be only ones publishing this kind of opinion. However they are not (feel free to Google if you are ready to really read) though they tend to express their opinion in more restrained manner.

EDIT: Tribesman, we should propably figure out somekind responding/editing turn order system...

I originally posted four links. Did you forget one of them or am I misunderstanding you?

four links, two are reporting the story, two are taking "serious" issue with it, both of the latter two are linked to each other and have a third common source doing its take on the story.

As an aside on the links, a long time ago the fourth link you used was pretty much the only newspaper I could get at work.

I personally favour to not comment at all if I don't read articles, in my opinion guessing is not very good way to go in discussion on sources.

Indeed.

However they are not (feel free to Google if you are ready to really read) though they tend to express their opinion in more restrained manner.

At a quick glance it appears many of them are taking their "facts" on the story straight from the loony site, unless of course they are providing the link to MacDonalds story just as a laugh.

[danny60]

I'm curious as to how long this "abuse of command" has gone on for?
Sure, I could understand yelling at a crewman for not doing their job, but physical abuse? I didn't realise the US navy operated in the 18th century.
Just out of curisoty, I wounder which DD won the dragrace?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I continued searching for information about Captain Holly Graf and I found this blog which analyzes Inspector General's report. I strongly recommend reading it as it gives very different view on her. Here are few things I felt to be important.

1. There have been several allegations on Captain Graf's ability to command safely, some of which I have included in my posts. However according to blog linked above Inspector General's report contains following detail.

[redacted], has 19+ years in the Navy and previously served as a [redacted]. He is a qualified [redacted] that served on Cowpens for the entire length of Graf’s Command tour stated, “I never seen her put the ship in an unsafe environment; I can honestly say that.”

This of course does not invalidate allegations regarding Captain Graf's performance when in command of USS Winston S. Churchill but casts doubt on them.

2. On allegations of her ordering junior officer to play piano in her christmas party.

The IG found this allegation was substantiated by the evidence.
I think this allegation demonstrates just what a fine line CO’s have to walk with their JOs. Unlike the recent situation onboard the USS Wasp, this is far less clear cut. However as I’ve repeatedly said we have to hold our officers to the highest standards, the great control they have over their subordinates means that the risk of abuse is great. The JO in question felt that she couldn’t say no to the Graf’s request which makes me wonder if the overall environment on the Cowpens would have been better would this particular allegation been resolved differently.

Finally, make sure you don't miss blog's conlusion of Captain Holly Graf.

I will continue digging and see if I'm able to obtain that Inspector General's report from somewhere. It would certainly be interesting read.

[Oberon]

It depends on what you class as physical abuse I guess. If I were in the armed forces I'd expect to get the odd hazing, I've read reports of tank commanders giving the driver a boot in the back of the head if he fouled up, or using an implement to give him a quick jab. Likewise they found ways to get their own back from time to time.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by danny60

I didn't realise the US navy operated in the 18th century.

Of a fashion, they did. But only just.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

Of a fashion, they did. But only just.

Too bloody well...

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Too bloody well...

Too be honest it wasn't really a fair fight. They were both considered "frigates" but there the comparisons ended.

Guerriere
1092 tons
Crew 272
30ea 18lb guns
16ea 32lb carronades
526lb broadside

Constitution
1576 tons
Crew 450
30ea 24lb guns
20ea 32lb carronades
950lb broadside

It'd be like me picking a fight with Mike Tyson.