The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States Naval Academy, Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. No part of this blog may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior consent of the author.

I want to stress that the criticism in the evidence presented is not meant to paint all Navy leaders and judge advocates as unprofessional or unethical. The fact is for nearly 30 years on active duty, I know and I have worked with many professional and ethical leaders and judge advocates in the United States Navy.

I am proud of my association with the men and women who serve the world's finest Navy, but it is now time that Department of Defense and Department of the Navy officials cease behaving politically as leaders in the United States Navy and begin behaving patriotically - dutifully following established policies regarding matters of national security which, as written, are based on integrity, collaboration, public service, professional excellence and individual accountability.

Although I am now retired from the Navy, there is no intent to show contempt toward senior Department of Defense and Department of Navy officials by drawing attention to these truths. The objective is to rebuild respect for the promotion process of this United States Navy and ensure that leaders of the United States Navy are truly serving the needs and aspirations of all service members.


MONDAY, JULY 4, 2011

U.S. Senate Holds the Key to Senior Level Accountability - or Lack Thereof

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C.  20301-1000
Honorable Ray Mabus
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC  20350-1000
  
The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
United States Senate Armed Services Committee
Room SR-228, Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6050

Dear Secretaries Panetta, Mabus, Chairman Levin, and Ranking Member McCain:

As the United States Senate prepares to consider President Obama's nomination, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, United States Navy, for a full-time, four-year term of office as the top military leadership position of the United States Navy as the 30th Chief of Naval Operations, and a member of Joint Chiefs of Staff, I respectfully recommend that the Armed Services Committee address matters regarding the nominee's conflicts of interest in regard to his impartiality in safeguarding the United States Navy most precious asset – the men and women serving in uniform.


It is estimated that during each two-year term of a Congress approximately 4,000 civilian and 65,000 military nominations are submitted to the Senate.  While most nominations are routinely approved (sometimes involving hundreds of nominations being approved en bloc), there are still a few hundred nominations each year that are subject to Senate investigations and hearings.


To the general public, a swift acceptance of a Presidential nominee may appear as an illustrious vote of confidence, but to those who have lived with, or have sacrificed their lives as a consequence of, such expedient decision-making, know that such haste breeds contempt and undermines confidence in the process.  Imagine how demoralizing it is to witness, time after time for decades, the highest ranks being inherited by cronies rather than by critical evaluation and well-earned selection per established policies and procedures.  A simple "passing of the torch" from the current leader to another who securely maintained his high-ranking position simply by failing to present opposing ideas will effectively communicate to the troops that they can expect more of the usual scandalous, unlawful and self-serving decision-making from the top ranks.


Although systems are in place for the oversight and enforcement of policies and procedures, it is outwardly apparent that these systems are far less than adequate.  There have been numerous significant and high-level newsworthy events involving high-ranking Department of the Navy (DoN) officials under the leadership of the current nominee and presumptive Chief of Naval Operations in last several years in regard to the unfair and unconstitutional promotional practices within its purview regarding criminal, unethical and illegal behavior by senior Flag officers who have not received the attention and scrutiny of elected officials of the United States Congress nor the American public – to date, no one in Navy leadership (flag officers) has been held publicly accountable for a series of high-level failures of substantial impact.


Recently, on June 9, 2011, the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings to consider President Obama's nomination, Leon E. Panetta, to be Secretary of Defense, and on June 21, 2011, in a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate unanimously approved (100 – 0) Panetta to succeed the Honorable Dr. Robert M. Gates.  Noticeably absent was that the hearing failed mightily to exercise its congressional oversight and focus on rights of American citizens and the men and women who are privileged to serve and wear the cloth of this great Nation in regard to the unfair, unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful discrimination, and unethical application of its promotional practices within the DoN.


The Tailhook '91 fallout resulted in significant changes in both the Navy and its military justice system, highlighted to the American public a sense of accountability, organizational structure, and mission, resulting in the resignations of the 65th Secretary of the Navy, the 32nd Navy Judge Advocate General, Chief of Naval Investigative Service and Chief of Naval Operations.  The Acting Secretary of the Navy concluded that the initial investigation had been a cover-up more concerned with protecting the reputation of the United States Navy than with discovering the role of high-ranking officers in the scandal, and vowed that in the future the Navy would have an improved capability to investigate allegations of misconduct.


However, very little has changed in the past 20 years – the Navy continues to expend resources on internal conflict and publicly humiliating scandal which not only diminishes morale but also distracts from important matters of national security.  It is important to note that behind every incidence of wrong-doing there is a legal advisor who must make a conscious decision to either take the morally correct course of action in the best interest of the Navy or to furtively provide counsel based on personal or professional objectives.  While the latter may serve to keep their superior out of trouble, such loyalty ultimately leads to a corrupt organization with a focus on personal gain rather than the greater good of the U.S. Navy.  A simple litmus test can determine the outward intentions of an officer:  whether he or she selects legal counsel based on ethical decency or dogmatic loyalty.  Look for a rising official that is among and maintains a wake of faithful supporters throughout his or her career and you can expect very little improvement in conduct, accountability or public perception for the foreseeable future.


Given the current political atmosphere in our nation, the authority of the United States Senate must be executed in seeking the genuinely best qualified individual for this vital military leadership position in the United States Navy.  A hurried endorsement of the nominee communicates that the Committee is satisfied with his stance on the lack of accountability of high-ranking Department of Defense (DoD) and DoN officials, particularly, admirals regarding DoN's Military Personnel Policy and Cases, Equal Opportunity Policy, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Policy, Personnel Promotional Practices (officers and senior non-commissioned officers), evaluating alleged adverse information pertaining to flag officers within DoN, and whistle-blowers protection rights is not enough.  Members throughout the Navy and the nation would hail the Senate Armed Services Committee if they took a stance that would, as entrusted, put the United States Senate in the forefront of protecting the constitutional rights for those who are serving in uniform.


This hearing for the President's nomination, Admiral Greenert, is absolutely necessary to create a historical record for provisions for future hearings.  It is customary to pose advance questions regarding what actions a nominee would take under a certain set of circumstances or what their understanding is of a particular situation. However, it is abundantly necessary to evaluate a candidate based on actual experience and actions taken and glean a response regarding the perceived objective, ultimate benefit of the decision and/or any lessons learned. It is the Senate Armed Services Committee who must ask not whether the nominee comes highly recommended by his cohorts, but whether the Navy can afford to condone a continued disregard for established policies and procedures, and to allow disreputable conduct to thrive at every level of the DoN's chain of command and high-ranking DoN officials within the Navy JAG Corps.


If a military leader is to expect allegiance from their subordinates, he or she has to remain trustworthy to the institutions of our government and laws that are the basis of his or her authority.  Over the last several years, the DoN lost a great deal of credibility due to its interpretation and implementation of its promotional policies.  There are some military leaders within the DoN's Flag Officer ranks who mistakenly believe that their staff must be unquestioningly dedicated to them personally.  Available legal counsel, having experienced the rewards of such loyalty themselves, do nothing to objectify the practice as it would be perceived as "biting the hand that feeds them."  However, a steadfastly objective professional relationship was established and is supposed to be maintained by the legal structure governing the U.S. military, which requires dedication only to the U.S. Constitution.  In order to disrupt the systemic and pervasive cronyism that lends to corruption and jeopardizes our nation's safety and reputation, the Senate Armed Services Committee must thoroughly and critically evaluate the nominee’s past performance.


I respectfully urge the Senate Armed Services Committee to consider the true principles of our American Democracy in connection with the nomination of Admiral Greenert.  There is still time to act on the president's nomination.  I am calling on both Secretaries, the Ranking and Minority Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the execution of your constitutional duty, particularly derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  This section requires Congress to raise and maintain the military and exercise appropriate oversight, for an independent review of DoD Inspector General's numerous formal investigations pertaining to the conduct of senior DoN officials, including the role of the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps.


I also respectfully urge the Senate Armed Services Committee to scrutinize how the DoN has functioned over the past 20 years; in particular to evaluate the nominee in his role and involvement with these incidents and any attempts made to correct the status quo.  Inquiry into his past performance can shed light on the true culture of the United States Navy, and for consideration of appointment of the 30th Chief of Naval Operations, to provide the context and a mandate for leadership, both in terms of changes, practices and accountability for those who have grossly abused their authority and public office.


America cannot afford to be apathetic – particularly in matters of import to the United States Military.  Service members are all fully aware that their future hangs in the balance with this upcoming appointment. Due diligence in defending the principles of our democracy and in our constitution demonstrates commitment to the service members who risk their lives to defend our country.  When meticulous consideration is applied, a full vote by the senate effectively empowers the president's nominee to assume the top military leadership position in the United States Navy.  When expediency is applied, however, the weakest link is at the top of the chain of command, leaving those below disheartened and vulnerable.  Americans who have ever or continue to serve in uniform are looking to the Senate Armed Services Committee to make a historically significant choice on their behalf.

/s/
Tyrone Burnett, Sr.
Master Chief Petty Officer (Legalman)
Seabee Combat Warfare Specialist
United States Navy (Ret.)
July 4, 2011
Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)