"Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-star"

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby Mjölnir » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:58 am

Part of the delay for RADM Train is likely that with the new Congress being seated, she was not able to make the traditional calls on members of the Senate that a nominee for O-9 makes ... it would have made no sense to meet with the Chair of the SASC in DEC since he won't be the Chair in JAN and in many cases the 'likely new Chair' doesn't like to seem presumtive and take those meetings before being seated. The nominations that have been made so far in the 114th Congress are for 'low level' flags who don't make those same rounds of calls.

yoshi wrote:No, I don't think anyone other than a Flag Officer would receive the benefit of the doubt. It does have the potential to affect the level of trust in senior leadership, and for good reason. However fair or unfair things may be to VADM Branch, I'm not sure how senior leadership maintains continued confidence in his ability to lead (?). The stigma and perception of the role as unnecessary would require several more years to repair, certainly more years than he likely would remain in the position.


I have seen several non-flag officers get the benefit of the doubt after having their clearance suspended, albeit never for this long ... which invites second guessing amongst personnel. Now, since most everyone here is a leader in one form or another, we should be careful to suggest that VADM Branch not be affoarded his due process (not really in our control) ... no more or less than SN Timmy should be affoarded his due process (we all have SN Timmys). Now, at some point should/could VADM Branch have retired to avoid the perception issue for the Navy about the situation ... sure. But if he is innocent I could also see the personal desire to ride it out and not have his name in a black cloud either.

I do like to think that VADM Branch was selected for VADM and chosen to be N2/N6 because he is a good & capable officer -- one of the best to make it that far. Removing him from his position as N2/N6 would mean that unless he was put in another O-9 position and confirmed within 90 days he would revert to his highest permanent rank (RADM). Maybe keeping him as N2/N6 was based on the decision that he could still function absent a clearance; maybe part of the equation was to keep him from reverting and keeping such a capabale officer from going backwards in his career which is bad for him & bad for the Navy. Is it worse for the Navy to keep him as a 3-star, without a clearance while filling the N2/N6 job than it would have been to remove him and likely revert him? That was a decision for the CNO and SECNAV, and based on events I think we know how they felt about it.
  • 0

User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: Annapolis MD
Reputation: 21

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby COMEVIL » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:31 am

Stalwart wrote:...we should be careful to suggest that VADM Branch not be affoarded his due process (not really in our control) ... no more or less than SN Timmy should be affoarded his due process (we all have SN Timmys). Now, at some point should/could VADM Branch have retired to avoid the perception issue for the Navy about the situation ... sure. But if he is innocent I could also see the personal desire to ride it out and not have his name in a black cloud either.


Never said he shouldn't be afforded due process. But being moved to a different position has nothing to do with that. He will get/is getting his due process. But at the same time he gets to keep his job. What about other officers caught up in the same investigation? Not so much...

Stalwart wrote:...maybe part of the equation was to keep him from reverting and keeping such a capabale officer from going backwards in his career which is bad for him & bad for the Navy.


No, it is just bad for him. It is the right thing for the Navy to do at this point. Or, we could continue to look like idiots by allowing the Navy's Senior Intelligence Officer to serve in this role without a clearance!

Stalwart wrote:Is it worse for the Navy to keep him as a 3-star, without a clearance while filling the N2/N6 job than it would have been to remove him and likely revert him?


No, it is better the Navy to do that! It is unfortunate for the good VADM. Then again, keeping him around smacks of cronyism!
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby COMEVIL » Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:06 am

More nominations.

None for RADM Train to VADM.

Still waiting for those office visits?

Code: Select all
2015-02-05 PN183 Navy

Nomination for Budd E. Bergloff, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2015.

Committee on Armed Services

2015-02-05 PN182 Navy

Nomination for Shawn D. Wilkerson, Jr., which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2015.

2015-02-05 PN181 Navy

Nomination for Melissa C. Austin, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2015.

2015-02-05 PN180 Navy

Nomination for Fabio O. Austria, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2015.

2015-02-05 PN179 Navy

Nomination for Donna L. Smoak, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2015.

2015-02-05 PN178 Navy

Nomination for Benigno T. Razon, Jr., which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2015.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby LIVINGIW » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:33 am

I hope DoN did not make this nomination in hopes of pushing DoJ to a decision faster.... Bad game of chicken. Time to cut losses and move on from Admiral Branch....
  • 0

LIVINGIW
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm
Location: CA
Reputation: 12

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby 12345qwert » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:02 am

This very informative article (posted by the IDC Self-Sync Team) highlights one of the reasons for the holdup: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /22978631/.

Of note, there are "an estimated three dozen flag officers under federal investigation for potential wrongdoing in the Glenn Defense Marine Asia (GDMA) case" - but the KEY is that "Until investigations by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Navy are concluded, however, none of the officers under scrutiny can move on — either to resume their jobs or take up new ones. Their replacements can't take over, either."

Later in the article: "They understood there would be some delay — some weeks or a few months. But now we're here more than a year later… we're unable to put a lot of this behind us. We're at the mercy of the investigation's timeline... One way or the other... it affects most of the 219 folks in the flag wardroom."

Think that helps us better understand the situation... and the reason for the lack of movement for some of our flag officers (while others are moving)
  • 0

12345qwert
Registered Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:34 pm
Reputation: 9

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby Mjölnir » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:33 am

COMEVIL wrote:More nominations.

None for RADM Train to VADM.

Still waiting for those office visits?



I got nothin' ... it is odd
  • 0

User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: Annapolis MD
Reputation: 21

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby COMEVIL » Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:30 pm

Stalwart wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:More nominations.

None for RADM Train to VADM.

Still waiting for those office visits?



I got nothin' ... it is odd


You know, if it turns out VADM Branch is indited by DOJ the entire team of Naval leadership...SECNAV, CNO, etc....is going to look pretty f*cking stupid.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby HH-60H » Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:43 pm

When this "announcement" came out, all of NAVINTEL leadership stressed that it was completely unofficial. There has been no discernible movement since then.

With the freeze on flags involved in the scandal still in place I don't think it makes sense to start making a lot of personnel moves because you'll just end up with holes with the statutory limits on flag officers.
  • 0

User avatar
HH-60H
Administrator
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:37 am
Location: Maryland
Reputation: 51

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby Mjölnir » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Stalwart wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:More nominations.

None for RADM Train to VADM.

Still waiting for those office visits?



I got nothin' ... it is odd


You know, if it turns out VADM Branch is indited by DOJ the entire team of Naval leadership...SECNAV, CNO, etc....is going to look pretty f*cking stupid.


It won't look good for sure.

I will say that I think that the DoJ doing the investigation is better than if NCIS was doing it ... since if VADM Branch or any others who are investigated are not indicted there will be less of the conspiracy theorists saying the Navy covered something up.
  • 0

User avatar
Mjölnir
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:07 am
Location: Annapolis MD
Reputation: 21

Re: "Navy nominates officer to take over for hamstrung 3-sta

Postby COMEVIL » Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:27 pm

HH-60H wrote:With the freeze on flags involved in the scandal still in place I don't think it makes sense to start making a lot of personnel moves because you'll just end up with holes with the statutory limits on flag officers.


Again, I think this is ridiculous. So it is better to keep a hamstrung Officer around serving in a position he can't fully execute than to nudge him out and let someone else move in?

Needs of the Navy versus needs of one specifically individual. In this case, the needs of the Navy are far greater.

Thank for your 35+ years of service, VADM Branch. Assuming you are innocent, it is too bad that you got caught up in this investigation. However, for the greater good it is time to move on.

Pretty f*cking simple.
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 36

PreviousNext

Return to Information Dominance Corps

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron