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.”
Perhaps for the same reason fighter aircraft do not generally use their onboard radar systems unless they are actively engaged with a enemy or prospective enemy. Using radar (or sonar) lets everyone know what you are, who you are, and where you are. In the submarine service, that is the worst thing you can do.
There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way. Like every other Captain before him, Commander Mooney understood the rules of the game when he took command. I don't have to like it, but I can't say that I'm surprised.
Yeah, I know that but this fact of blind and blanket responsibility doesn't sit well even though it is the way the Navy deals with this type of mishap.
Thanks for the ping.
I read in an article shortly after it happened (or maybe it was on tv or radio) another captain said the San Fran was going to fast for the area at the time. I don't know how he could know, but that's the closest I've come to hearing anything the captain may have done wrong.
I agree.
Well, they better let him retire at full rank and pay.
Well, that is something. However, his career is ruined. I can imagine how awful he feels. And, one of his men is dead.
you know what--you are on to something here!
A more sensitive ear could hear the lack of noise from the forward direction.
Let's apply for a DARPA grant.
It's really all very simple when you're the skipper the buck stops with you that's what all the fancy gold braid and extra rations are about. I imagine he has absolutely no problem with this he knew the deal when he signed on.
I remember a couple of years ago a British ship the HMS Norfolk grounded itself on a rock causing great embarassment she had to be towed backwards into port by the Aussies (you can imagine the ragging the British crew must have had to endure from their antipodean cousins). Anyway the captain who wasn't even in the bridge at the time was hauled up in front of the Admiralty board of enquiry. As he entered a journalist asked him if he felt he was being hard done by, he just smiled and said something to the effect that just as the sun rises in the morning so it is if you put a big hole in one of Her Majesty's ships you can expect to be in front of the Admiralty Board. He had the right spirit.
His career's over. Perhaps should be.
I don't understand your reasoning on this. I think he should be commended for his handling of the situation.
This is probably SOP for the Navy after a major incident like this occurs. I wouldn't read anything into it at this early date.
Facts will come out.
Admiral's Mast....whew! SF skipper should do ok.
While it is possible the commanding officer was at fault, this does not seem to fit the picture his other accomplishments paint. It may well be that the effective chart was defective.
From the article it appears there was an older chart on board that showed a possible hazard in the area. I have no idea what scale the chart was, but my guess is it was a small area chart (local type) rather than a large area, usually used for transit. If it had been an older, outdated chart, it would have been deep-sixed and not on board.
So, as an ex-navigator, my guess is the small area chart was not checked and it was assumed the large area one was fine for the transit. That is a big no-no.
Also, from the other post on his punishment, he was assigned to a basket case to get it in order. Nav may have been low on the list.
I was sent to such a ship, but as an XO. The CO put me to work on the admin part of my duties but left the navigator part to an old timer. We went aground (an LST but we were not supposed to go aground where we did) and I was immediately assigned as the investigator and also, Navigator. I found we ran aground on a not-charted sand bar. (It was probably more the wash from our screws as we tried to get off.) The CO (a Lt), took full responsibility. Nothing happened to him. He had a great career (including Presidential aid) and was a Captain on his way to Flag when he unexpectedly died of a heart attack.
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.