Kerry Fitness Reports in Vietnam Show Him Unfit for Command (Explodes Central Kerry Campaign Lie)

John Kerry's campaign representatives quote a few words from one of his best Navy fitness reports to support their misleading claim that Kerry's military evaluations were those of a top-flight officer. They carefully ignore the existence of several other reports that range from mediocre to substandard, thereby presenting an inaccurate picture of Kerry's service record.

There are also gaps in the documentations made public to date by the Kerry campaign, where no fitness reports are provided at all. Here we present an analysis of the available record.

Navy officer fitness reports ("FITREPs") are of vital importance. Selection boards use them to promote the officer. Assignment officers use them to “sell” the officer into his or her next assignment. Only truly outstanding officers get the best jobs (or “billets”). Officers with adverse or spotty records are unsalable for anything but the most backwater assignments.

To read and understand FITREPs correctly, there are several crucial things to understand.

First and foremost, a FITREP is a relative picture. You are not reading absolutes. If an officer is graded, say, as “outstanding,” it is meaningful only if he is ranked ahead of his contemporaries and the rest of the FITREP contains no glaring negatives.

Second, what matters most are marks or grades above and especially below the norm. Marks below the norm may fall under a very positive word (e.g., “excellent”) and appear positive to the casual reader, but no matter: any mark to the right of the norm is a strong, clear sign to both promotion boards and assignment officers (e.g., “detailers”) that there is a performance shortfall. A mark to the right is a “ding.” You don’t want a ding in your FITREP.

Third, what is not said in the narrative section is just as important as what is said. The truly superlative officer should be “RAPped,” meaning "Recommended for accelerated promotion." If Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the officer should be considered for promotion along with the rest of his year group (all those commissioned in a given fiscal year constitute a “year group”). In the context of other marks and remarks, a “Recommended for promotion” mark means that the officer may just be average, called a “pack player.”

NOTE: An officer “Not Recommended for Promotion” is an officer in deep trouble. In a combat zone, failure to recommend for promotion may be indicative of problems in conduct, not just performance.

Fourth, if the officer is an Unrestricted Line Officer, he or she is in line for operational command (of a ship, an aviation squadron, etc.). Thus, one the most important marks on a FITREP for a line officer is “desirability for command,” referred to in the shorthand of selection boards and detailers as “command.” Thus, for a seagoing officer, a “ding in command” is big trouble. Likewise with the skill of “seamanship and ship handling”: a ship-driver “dinged in ship handling” is in big trouble.

As a footnote, line officers must win qualification as a Officer of the Deck for formation steaming [“OOD(F)”] that officer who stands watch on the bridge and is responsible for ship movement (and, frankly, everything that happens on that ship) while “formation steaming” or steaming in company with other ships. Officers must first qualify as OOD while in port [OOD(P) and subsequently for independent steaming [OOD(I)]. The quicker the climb to OOD(F) the better.

Also, Unrestricted Line Officers aboard ships (now called “Surface Warfare Officers”) must strive to be recommended for Navy Destroyer School which prepares the junior officer for his pivotal tour as a Lieutenant or Lieutenant (j.g.) -- a department head tour aboard a destroyer. A recommendation in a FITREP for Destroyer School is meaningful, however, if and only if the officer has qualified as OOD(F). The CO must qualify the officer as OOD for in-formation steaming; otherwise a Destroyer School recommendation is empty.

Thus, for the junior officer aboard ship, the number one performance goal is: qualify as OOD(F) and get recommended for Destroyer School. The unwritten rule is, don’t leave your first ship without the OOD(F) qualification.

Fifth, FITREP language tends to be positive for officers who perform at a reasonably satisfactory level. That way, the FITREP tends to be a motivational tool to keep the officer on the right performance track. Thus, when COs feel the need to convey a signal to selection boards and detailers about performance that is lackluster, they will use code words. “Potential” is one of the key negative code words. Genuinely excellent officers should be performing; if they merely demonstrate “potential,” even “great potential,” this is read as a clear signal from the Commanding Officer that they are not performing.

Another signal is “trend of performance.” Unless it’s a “first report,” all good officers should be marked as “improving,” never “consistent” and certainly not “declining.”

Still another signal, particularly for line officers, is the broad categories of content in the narrative. A line officer’s FITREP should be glowing in praise of his or her ship handling and leadership abilities. Selection boards want to know how this officer performs on the bridge, not in some significantly less important collateral duty (e.g., public affairs officer). A CO who emphasizes performance in collateral duties is signaling that there is something lacking on the bridge.

Sixth, there can be no gaps. There must be one continuous thread of fitness reports in an officer’s jacket.

Seventh, it’s the operational tours that count. As long as the officer passes the school and stays out trouble, FITREPs from school commands don’t matter much.

Eighth, selection boards and detailers will examine the way the Commanding Officer grades his or her officers. Some of their considerations:

o They are looking for “good break-outs,” reports that clearly identify top-performers (called “water-walkers”) and distinguish them from “pack-plus” officers (above average performers) or “pack” officers (average). When a CO writes a “gift” FITREP (ranks everyone as top performers), boards and detailers tend to discount such “easy graders” and will look to a subsequent report for a clearer performance picture from another CO.

o Glowing, end-of-tour FITREPs are often viewed as “swan song” FITREPs (the officer is usually ranked 1 of 1) and don’t matter nearly as much as in-tour FITREPs when the officer is ranked with his or her peers. (Of course, if an officer is smacked in an end-of-tour report, you can be assured that boards sit up and pay close attention.)

Knowing the above, what do the FITREPs selectively released by the Kerry campaign say about John Kerry as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy?

Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.

In what would customarily be an opportunity for a glowing “swan song” FITREP, the Commanding Officer of USS Gridley (DLG-21) tacitly blasts Kerry on his departure for Swift Boat duty by ranking him significantly below the norm in desirability for virtually every Navy assignment possible -– command, staff, whatever. He is a ship handler who is dinged in ship handling. He is in line for command, but his CO doesn’t want him near the bridge. He is slammed in all performance areas –- most notably and significantly in initiative and reliability. The “nice” narrative emphasizes performance in collateral duties, but in the grades and marks, the CO is telling the selection board and detailer loud and clear that this officer is lazy, unreliable and not suited for command. 3 SEP 68 (W.E. HARPER).

Another “swan song” opportunity is lost when Kerry departs a brief tour of duty as an Aide. Kerry is dinged in staff desirability, management and military bearing by Rear Admiral Walter Schlech (2 MAR 70 Schlech) while Kerry served as Schlech’s Aide. The Admiral makes considerable mention in the narrative section about Kerry’s ambition to run for Congress, and no doubt the glowing words were meant as a parting gift to someone who might become a member of Congress. The narrative notwithstanding, any detailer or selection board would consider the FITREP a bad one. Had Kerry remained in the Navy, it would be difficult to “sell” him to a new Aide assignment when his last boss, an Admiral, had dinged him in precisely those attributes indispensable for Aides.

The real performance problems are evidenced in FITREPs for his operational tours.

Because it is a FITREP that only covers about a month, LCDR Grant Hibbard’s first FITREP on Kerry should simply be marked “not observed” all the way down the line -– no grades, marks or narrative. Significantly, LCDR Hibbard chooses otherwise. Hibbard detects a personal behavior problem – a conduct problem – and smacks him for it in the report. He also dings Kerry on initiative and cooperation, just like his last CO in Gridley. 17 DEC 68 (HIBBARD).

In his FITREP for his combat tour as Officer in Charge of a SWIFT Boat -– arguably the most important FITREP among those released by the Kerry campaign –- Kerry is not dinged but slammed in command, seamanship and ship handling and in all major leadership traits (28 JAN 69 ELLIOTT). To Kerry and perhaps to other junior officers, it is an okay FITREP. To detailers and selection boards, it is a negative fitness report that borders on the adverse. LCDR Elliott ranks him well below the norm in traits essential for command: force, industry, analytical ability, judgment and more.

The PCF squadron commander, LCDR Elliott has 15 officers in his command, and his report (28 JAN 69) offers an excellent breakout. Elliott ranks his officers in two groups, the top and the bottom, and Elliott ranks Kerry among the top group. Or does he? Just like Hibbard, Elliott “red flags” Kerry in conduct by downgrading him significantly in judgment and personal behavior. When viewed in the context of the total FITREP, it is very clear to a detailer or selection board that Kerry probably ranks 7 of 15. He’s a “pack player” at best, but this is a worrisome FITREP to detailers and selection boards, because the significant flaws Elliott finds are in two critical areas: leadership traits and personal conduct. Moreover, because personal conduct issues have been raised by past commanders, detailers and selection boards would certainly conclude that the officer has exhibited major flaws in leadership and conduct over a sustained period of time that limit both his promotability and his salability to positions of responsibility.

---------- The fitness reports for John Kerry released to date by the Kerry campaign are available here.

Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.
In what would customarily be an opportunity for a glowing “swan song” FITREP, the Commanding Officer of USS Gridley (DLG-21) tacitly blasts Kerry on his departure for Swift Boat duty by ranking him significantly below the norm in desirability for virtually every Navy assignment possible -– command, staff, whatever. He is a ship handler who is dinged in ship handling. He is in line for command, but his CO doesn’t want him near the bridge. He is slammed in all performance areas –- most notably and significantly in initiative and reliability. The “nice” narrative emphasizes performance in collateral duties, but in the grades and marks, the CO is telling the selection board and detailer loud and clear that this officer is lazy, unreliable and not suited for command. 3 SEP 68 (W.E. HARPER).

This analysis is exactly on the mark. In reading the article and noting the described marks, the subject of these fitreps was definitely highly unlikely to have had a long military career (not that he sought one). It is common in the Navy, and I assume other services, to glowingly damn the ordinary officer performer with faint praise, as opposed to noting a really stellar performance with key (code) remarks. Thus to the casual observer, everyone looks really swell--only the codebreakers (ie NAVPERS) and senior leadership are aware of the actual tenor of the report.

That these reports have been released suggests to me that the Kerry camp may not have realized the negative tenor that they impart. Hopefully, (dream on) the media will insist that all reports be released (fat chance) a la the incessant demands for all the Presidents Guard records.

http://www.i-served.com/v-v-a-r.org/Bush-Kerry_POLL.html

LATEST PRESIDENTIAL POLL RESULTS, VIETNAM VETS

This is an ongoing poll. Please send any data to Magruder44@aol.com.

Results as of July 10, 2004:

GROUPS WITH DATA

6 Vietnam vets this weekend at HS reunion, all oppose Kerry. Dan Haney - 602nd Air Commando Sq. A1 pilot ’67

Out of 45 Vietnam veterans... all say pooh on JFK...100%. powmiavets

Our heli-vets pol shows 160 against and 6 for Kerry. Ron Leonard, 25th Aviation Battalion

I know about 650 Vietnam vets and their attitude toward about Kerry is 100% negative. Dan Decker, TSgt. USAF (ret.)

I know thousands of vets .I would say the opinion is about 98% against Kerry. Tony Cartlidge-Vietnam Combat Marine, 1968

Of 27 Vietnam Veterans I know, including myself, not one is willing to vote for John Kerry. Charles Banto, USMC 1958-1974

100,000 e-mails, almost all veterans, around 100 to 1 against Kerry. Don Bendell, Special Forces, Vietnam, 1968-69, noted author

Out of 25 guys, 90% against Kerry. Mike- mleonardos

240 vets, mostly Vietnam, 85% against Kerry. Tony Newcomb, Cpt.U.S.Army (ret.)

Of the more than 2500 veterans of all ranks who responded, 59 took umbrage with what I had to say (against Kerry). Mark A. Smith, former POW, Vietnam

An ongoing poll, with names and comments at 11thcavnam.com is running 16 for Bush, 4 for Kerry (80% for Bush.)

12 Vietnam vets, all of whom are against John Kerry. Vietnam vet, Tom Taylor

I’d make the numbers 80 to 20 against Kerry. Philip Topps, Cpt. Inf.(ret), 1st Inf. Div. 69-70

100 against Kerry - 0 for him. Storrs Warinner- Vietnam veteran

Bush 2115 (88%) - Kerry 275 (12%) - viperaqsh50

A summary of individual votes sent in to V.V.A.R. is running 16 for Bush, 3 for Kerry.

GROUPS WITH NO DATA

Every vet we know is opposed to Kerry. Chuck and Mary Schantag, P.O.W. Network

Rangers are 100% against Kerry. NOATLMUS44 - President

Every veteran I’ve talked to is against Kerry. Major General Carl Schneider (ret.), Air Force, Korea and Vietnam

I am anti-Kerry, as are most of my friends who are Vietnam veterans. Stud 369

I share the distrust I hear from my veteran colleagues. Peter McHugh, CW4 USA, ’67-’68 ,’71-’72

I would say 90% of the military here (power plant) are against Kerry. P.Rein

99.5% against Kerry - at www.paltalk.com

This article may be reproduced in any form.

Leonard Magruder

Founder/President, V.V.A.R.

Phone: 785-312-9303

Magruder44@aol.com

My proud vanity post:

This just got published (very surprisingly) in the grossly misnamed Springfield (MA) Sunday Republican in response to an unsigned editorial on 7/18/04 attempting to revive the President's National Guard record debacle.

Kerry's military records

I read with some dismay your editorial resurrection of the old National Guard service story about President Bush ("Questions rightly linger about Bush's service," July 18).

Would that such attention was paid to Sen. John F. Kerry's military record. Where are the missing military medical records of Kerry's, that the Boston Globe and others have been unable to obtain? The circumstances surrounding the award of some of the medals you refer to are a topic of hot debate in some quarters. Clearly, some questions still rightly linger about Kerry's service as well.

Unlike Bush, where a handful of people have hazy recollections (at best) of his service, there are literally hundreds of Kerry's contemporaries comprising both the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Vietnam Veterans for Truth that remember Kerry's military service all too well, and receive no attention from The Republican. These qualified and experienced individuals (including Kerry's immediate commanders) have firmly and publicly stated that Kerry's record, both during Vietnam and after, renders him, in their opinion, unfit to serve as commander in chief.

And the questions continue long after his military service, right to this day. Where is the reporting on Teresa Heinz-Kerry's finances, and how they are buoying Kerry's run for the presidency? Where is the outrage about Kerry's lack of participation in nearly all of his Senate responsibilities since his candidacy took off?

But no, The Republican sees fit to remind us that the president, who did a virtual document dump of his service record to the press, should continue to be questioned by an arguably hostile press about his 30-plus-year- old National Guard service.

For the record, Brig. Gen. William R. Turnipseed (ret.) has since said that the press and "Bush-haters" have constantly misrepresented what he said to make Bush look bad. Perhaps The Republican could take the time to actually interview Turnipseed. As for witnesses, at least two have come forward: Retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun told The Associated Press he saw Bush on the post on at least six occasions, and Joe LeFevers, another member of the Alabama squadron where Bush pulled Guard drills, remembers seeing him. Apparently, only the people that didn't see him have credibility with The Republican.

The editorial staff is right, the press should ask for the pertinent records. But they should ask for all of the pertinent records of BOTH candidates.

SpinyNorman

I was just thinking about being in one of the seats when called on by a reporter expecting some lib pre-prepared talking point (like the pony-tail flake from Bush 41/Clinton's debate) and ask Senator Kohn Kerry a question (with a few parts, hehe....)

"Sentator Kerry, you say that you honorably served your country in Vietnam and that your service illustrated leadership. I have one, 10-part question:"

1. How do old medals on an empty suit lead this nation? I have yet to see inanimate object take leadership roles. This sums up your military and public service.

2. What does leaving your buddies behind after serving 4 months show about your character to be a "proven leader"? Does the same "3-scratch rule" apply to War on Terror?

3. How is it that you were only able to find two of your "band of brothers" (useful idiots) out of many that you served with to stump for your campaign? Ever heard of Swiftboat Vets Against Kerry?

4. How did you manage to appear in uniform at protests while still in the Navy and not be court-martialed?

5. How can you fly the flag of the enemy in protest against war and expect to be able to pick up the banner again that you just pi$$ed on?

6. Why did you meet with the enemy in Paris when not serving in the U.S. Goverment?

7. Have you ever accepted (or declined) the endorsement of the Communist party?

8. Although you served on committees responsible to citizens on POW/MIA issue, you declined to pursue any results that would locate the POW's or their remiains?

9. How is it that you have not put forth any legislation on veterans issues?

10. Why is it that you would question the President's service when you did everything possible to avoid service (with band-aid wounds) that you volunteered for?

That about sums it up for me on military service. Next, Mr. Absentee Senator, shall we delve into "public service" record? Or we could discuss the Clintonites who serve the campaign and resort to stealing documents to cover up for their "proven leader"?

Unfit for duty....unfit to be a senator, and most certainly unfit to be Commander-In-Chief and President.

"That these reports have been released suggests to me that the Kerry camp may not have realized the negative tenor that they impart."

Possibly, but I believe they know the average American has no idea of the hyper-inflated evaluation system of the time. Joe Schmoe will see "superior" and some "outstanding" checks and read the (faintly) glowing praise in the narrative and have no idea they are looking at a marginalized officer.

The same situation for enlisted, especially if you wanted to make E-7 (CPO). Unfortunately, because there are so many more enlisted than commissioned, many enlisted were promoted to E-5 or E-6, just to fill the vacancies in their particular rate (specialty), with less than a 4.0 (top) eval. I have no idea how the eval system now works for enlisted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.