Sailors Deserve Better!

People join the military for many reasons. Some join for a sense of family; others, for a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. They have said they wanted experience, while some hoped to travel. Expectant young fathers have wrestled for years over which is most important: marriage vows or military oaths. Years ago, the military was an option for troubled young men told by families or authorities they needed discipline. For generations, people have run to the service to get away from something, searching for something.

My father was drafted into service at the height of World War II and served a single four-year term. He had no interest in making the Army Air Corps his career. Fortunate that he never had to serve in the trenches, he felt he could provide for his family better as a civilian.

A little more than twenty years later, the United States Marine Corps drafted my oldest brother, who went from Parris Island to Vietnam. He finished his second term in North Carolina, then decided he didn't want to reenlist.

My youngest brother, who was born nineteen years after the Marine * yes, my parents populated the entire boomer generation* enlisted into the National Guard before deciding to make the military his way of life. He joined the Navy full time and retired after twenty years. My sister's husband also retired from the Navy. Numerous cousins also retired from military careers.

The next generation in my family has its share of military personnel, covering nearly every branch. Enlisting into service, they swore oaths and signed documents promising and expecting certain things from the contract. Sailors, as all military personnel, make many sacrifices and their families sacrifice much, to support their sailors. In November, more than 15,000 sailors and their families are outraged when they learned from the Enlisted Retention Board that they are being "involuntarily separated from the United States Navy."

Emily Anelli, a Proud Navy Wife insists It's not over for her sailor. She asks,

Why is it 2,947 sailors serving more than 7 and less than 15 years are suddenly being pushed out?

She's not the first Navy Wife to complain that her husband, halfway to retirement, is being denied that for which he has dutifully and faithfully sacrificed and proudly served.

I agree with Mrs. Anelli when she pleads:

It is only fair to let the 2,947 sailors finish their contracts. Honor the benefits they have worked so hard for, respect the work they have done and uphold the contract between the government and these sailors.

Mrs. Anelli states that her husband was approved for reenlistment December 2010 with a ceremony in January 2011. A year later, he learned that his service is no longer required. What changed? Why is it that the government suddenly finds him redundant? Why not allow him to complete his contract? If he had decided to opt out of his end of the contract he might be considered AWOL.

Can't we hold the government to the same standards to which it expects its personnel?  If the military chooses to dismiss members in the same way a corporation might dismiss employees during a downsize, what recourse do those members have when a contract is broken?

Our sailors deserve better. Let those who want to retire, do so. Give them their benefits, not a severance slip.

Let's be fair

I've been called a blogger in ways that make the word sound disgusting. One commenter called me over-protective. Another used the term overbearing and several have called my son anything from a brat to a little whiner or a mommy's boy. One even said members of the airwing were like rockstars in hotels. Why all the name calling?

I've read comments from strangers who suggested that I tossed out an incorrect number of years my son has served. Yeah, yeah. I know he's a grown man, pointed out in one blog as a 30-something Petty Officer who should know better than to cry to mommy when things aren't pristine and perfect. That blogger also suggested I should have kept quiet, rather than detract from the ship's true mission while on deployment.

I will admit I don't understand military life, especially ship life. That doesn't mean I can't become righteously outraged as a taxpayer and patriotic American when I believe our deployed military deserve to be able to relieve themselves without having to search for a head, only to find it locked.

I never intended to detract from the mission of the USS George HW Bush or to minimize its military might or position in the fleet. My only intention was to voice my concern as a taxpayer - more than my opinion as a mother - that there is something inherently wrong with a $6.2 Billion aircraft carrier that did not have a back up plan for the most basic of human needs. I don't mind for one minute, spending the taxpayers' money on ships as technologically advanced and powerful as the USS George HW Bush. I know the need for a show of force in the world.

My son's first deployment was on one of the older carriers, so why not end his career on the newest? When I started hearing about the toilets - and not just from my son - but from other Navy Moms, Navy Wives, Navy Dads and Navy Husbands - even from friends of sailors on the ship - I became annoyed, then upset, then angry. When our loved ones are suffering, we suffer at home, too.

Maybe starting my blog wasn't the wisest decision I have ever made. Perhaps, I shouldn't have sent the link to my blog to quite so many media outlets, but when I found out about the locks, I think it unlocked my rational thinking. I couldn't imagine there would be something so barbaric happening in the 21st century. What blows my mind is how many people have visited my site and have linked it to their own blogs or news stories - people I did not contact.

Samuel Johnson said, "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned... a man in a jail has more room, better food, and commonly better company."

Born at the beginning of the 18th century, Mr. Johnson had no clue about aircraft carriers. The Wright brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk would come nearly a century later.

My point is that with strict instructions to relieve themselves only in working heads - and for a short time, those heads being locked - the men and women on board the USS George HW Bush may as well have been prisoners confined to POW cells.

It's unfortunate that people have resorted to blame, name calling and finger pointing. Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda....

Still, here are some amusing and some poignant comments I found.

On Old Salt Blog:
Bill Whalen says: November 16, 2011 at 11:57 pm
NCIS is investigating this but they have nothing to go on.

Steven Toby says: November 18, 2011 at 9:56 am
I’m remembering similar reports on the vac-u-flush system first installed in Spruance class destroyers in 1977. By the time I did sea trials in 2 different CG 47 class cruisers (same basic design as the Spruances, in the 1980′s) the system worked perfectly. But carriers of that time had an older system with gravity drainage. Is the Bush system the first installation of vacuum flushing on a carrier? Maybe the equipment can’t handle the larger extent of piping? Whatever the problem, 6 months is plenty of time to fix it. Crewpeople shouldn’t have to relieve themselves over the lee rail.

Comments on the report on Neptunus Lex led me to research Dr. Samuel Johnson's full quote.

MikeD November 15, 2011 at 8:15 am
Unless they’ve taken to flushing cloth towels down the commode, any toilet that is rendered inoperable by what those sailors are flushing is too damn delicate to be on a warship.

SK1 November 15, 2011 at 8:16 am
This issue was a key one in AFGHN. IF you found working toilets, it was a miracle of sorts and also IF they were usable. PORT-A-POTTIES were the norm, and imagine what those were like after sitting in the 120 degree heat for a few hours/ days…..They had a firm there to take care of it but no amount of effort ever made it adequate…..I can imagine the same issue on a ship would be intolerable….

This may be my favorite:

Busbob November 15, 2011 at 8:13 am
“When used properly, the system works as designed,” the Navy said. “Ongoing education is a key part of the solution, ensuring that all hands understand the appropriate use of the system.”
Bulls***. Put the design engineers on the ship. Feed them well. Water them well. The “Ongoing education” they get will get whilst searching for a suitable relief station should lead to action, not words.

Good News, Bad News, Worse News - Better news

The good news is the locks on doors to all operable heads have been changed to 1-2-3, so now every sailor on board the USS G.W. Bush can access when nature calls.

The bad news is the sailors must still unlock the doors to heads in the first place. At home, we take for granted that if we need to use a toilet, we simply open the door and take care of business. When you have to unlock a door, even with only three digits, you must anticipate and prepare.

The worse news is the head to my son's berthing has been out of order more than 24 hours. He and his shipmates must continue their daily search for a john they can use. If you have ever needed to "go" while in public and every store or restaurant had signs posted that declared Restrooms for employees only or Restrooms are for our paying customers only then, you know the indignity and frustration our sailors at sea must endure.

Better news is a reporter from The Virginian Times has started interviewing him for a possible story.

Please visit the website that's not yet a Google trend, but is fast growing in popularity among searches and is being linked to other sites. There I have more details about the logic behind the locks.