Posted on 02/11/2005 9:13:07 PM PST by SmithL
The skipper of the nuclear-powered submarine that crashed into the side of an undersea mountain is quietly being sent before an “admiral’s mast” in Japan this weekend to face charges of endangering his ship, according to several active-duty and retired Navy sources familiar with the case.
Cmdr. Kevin Mooney was slated to appear before 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert in Yokosuka on Saturday morning, the sources said.
The Navy’s highest form of nonjudicial punishment, admiral’s mast falls short of the criminal proceedings of a court martial, but can result in anything from full exoneration to fines, reprimands, and loss of qualifications.
Publicly, Navy officials decline to comment on Mooney’s case.
“It would be inappropriate to discuss any nonjudicial punishment proceedings at this time,” said Greenert’s spokesman, Cmdr. Ike Skelton.
On Jan. 18, the San Francisco, a Los Angeles-class, fast-attack submarine, is believed to have rammed into an undersea mountain 350 nautical miles south of its homeport at Guam. One sailor was killed and another 23 injured in the incident.
The sub suffered massive damage to its sonar dome and bow structure, but was able to limp back to Guam where it is now in dry dock. Navy officials are still unsure if the sub can be salvaged.
Mooney’s mast, however, comes before the detailed investigation into the accident is complete. And unlike most nonjudicial punishment throughout the rest of the military, sailors from sea-going commands cannot refuse mast and demand a court- martial.
At issue, say officials, is whether charts supplied to Mooney provided any clue of dangerous waters. Officials at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in Bethesda, told reporters after the accident that the main maps used by the U.S. Navy did not reveal any obstacle anywhere near the sight of the crash.
Officials familiar with case, however, say another, much older chart was believed to be aboard the San Francisco indicating discolored water several miles away.
Early findings of the Navy’s investigation appear to indicate some level of “questionable” practices by Mooney, according to a Feb. 7 letter obtained by Stars and Stripes to Greenert from the commander of Pacific submarine forces Rear Adm. P.F. Sullivan.
Preliminary findings of the grounding, reads the letter, “highlights the questionable Voyage Planning processes and navigation practices Cdr. Kevin Mooney implemented and maintained while in command. He was responsible for the safe surfaced and submerged navigation of the ship, and should be held accountable.”
Still, the vast majority of the three-page letter outlines Mooney’s many accomplishments while in command of the San Francisco.
Sullivan said he had personally selected Mooney “to correct significant command climate and performance issues” aboard the ship.
Since taking command in late 2003, Sullivan said Mooney was directly responsible for transforming a down-in-the-dumps crew into one of the best in the fleet.
The ship, he wrote, got the highest marks of any Pacific submarine in a grueling Tactical Readiness Evaluation, among other top line certifications of its nuclear propulsion system and engineering departments.
Mooney’s “operational planning skill and command presence ensured the ship’s success in dynamic operations of vital importance to national security,” adds Sullivan.
“In the face of huge quality-of-life challenges faced by his ship, including a five-month deployment to San Diego for material repairs and transforming Guam into a viable submarine homeport, retention and reenlistment rates significantly exceed fleet norms” under Mooney, writes Sullivan.
“Despite the intense scrutiny under which he has been placed as a result of this tragedy, Cmdr. Mooney has conducted himself with honor and dignity. I ask that you consider his positive contributions to the U.S. Navy during your deliberations at Admiral’s Mast.”
Sacrificial Lamb I believe it is called.
Put me on the USS San Francisco ping list...
I have heard that a type of sonar has been invented that uses ambient sound to visualize objects underwater, much as one can visualize objects on the surface with indirect, ambient light that comes neither from the observer nor the target. Apparently, this new type of sonar is not yet used on submarines.
You can bet they won't let us know what those "procedures" are either. The Navy has to cover its arse for not having updated or correct mapping available.
Unlike Mister, you aren't even capable of understanding why you can sleep safely at night. Bring on your claptrap, I wouldn't trade you for those sailors aboard the U. S. S. San Francisco. Shove off junior
I do not know the circumstance of his disaster, but I know what he did and has to do now. Take it in the teeth and salute.
Makes you respect what the military does for us even more huh?
One drives a nuclear submarine in the blind all of the time.
His only defense: "I'm sorry I didn't see the underwater mountain that no-one knew about."
Lighten up, Francis.
Getsmart64,
That is not a true statement?
Perhaps for peacetime flying around the world, but in a hostile environment I believe it is true, particularly (perhaps only) if they a) expect to encounter enemy aircraft or b) need to remain stealthy. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. The way I understand it, modern fighter aircraft are vectored to a threat by AWACS or ground unless they are actively engaged with known enemies. In that case, they use everything at their disposal.
Over Iraq and Afghanistan, our pilots may be free to use onboard active radar systems because they are not only not expecting any air-to-air combat, but they do not expect to be engaged from the ground by anything other than AAA or MANPAD types of missles. In these situations, there may be no reason for our aircraft to refrain from using their onboard radar systems.
I could be wrong, and if so, explain to me how it works. You may have more experience and knowledge in these things than I do.
More info -- "The official report on PT-109'S loss was co-written by the flotilla's intelligence officer, Lieutenant (j.g.) Byron R. White, a 1962 appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court by President John F. Kennedy."
Source--World War II Almanac, 1931-1945, by Robert Goralski, page 275.
What do you do, type it in word and paste in the box?
Ah, but it the one at the top rarely has to face the consequences of their failure in government or business.
I think what AII is saying is you leave yourself some margin of error between no accident and plowing into a mountain at 30 kts. Mistakes happen. Mistakes that result in someone dying and the ruination of a billion dollar boat aren't forgiven.
It's the same in the Army - at least Army Aviation anyway. If your company has a Class A incident (greater than $1,000,000 in damage or loss of life limb or eyesight) no matter the reason, the company commander is toast. Maybe not a court martial, but a sufficiently bad OER (Officer Evaluation Report) that you might as well hang it up. As a UH-60 company commander, this sometimes keeps you awake at night.
I'm not sure that there is a USS San Francisco list. Doohickey maintains a submarine list, so I pinged him, and he pinged everyone else.
Sorry about that, didn't mean to insult. Some people really don't know.
Yes, it does. Very much. They are superior human beings.
The bottom line is that if a skipper runs his boat aground, they find something he did that was wrong.
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.