"The findings of fact show that San Francisco, while transiting at flank (maximum) speed and submerged to 525 feet, hit a seamount that did not appear on the chart being used for navigation," the 124-page report said of the incident in the vicinity of the Caroline Islands.
"Other charts in San Francisco’s possession did, however, clearly display a navigation hazard in the vicinity of the grounding," it said.
"San Francisco’s navigation team failed to review those charts adequately and transfer pertinent data to the chart being used for navigation, as relevant directives and the ship’s own procedures required. "If San Francisco’s leaders and watch teams had complied with requisite procedures and exercised prudent navigation practices, the grounding would most likely have been avoided. Even if not wholly avoided, however, the grounding would not have been as severe and loss of life may have been prevented."
I do not see the correlation you are trying to make between the report and the Admiral's remarks on why he disciplined the skipper. The report mentions preventing the loss of life, whereas the Admiral didn't make a single reference to the loss of life as being a factor in his decision to hold NJP and relieve the CO of his command.
I think it's a stretch to conclude that the admiral has failed to appropriately consider the accompanying death and injury just because he abreviates his reference to the incident as a gounding incident.
Maybe you have knowledge of other things that leads you to believe Vice Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert has a lack of concern for personnel, but simply refering to the incident as a "collision" or a "grounding" is pretty slim evidence of that.
What's the reason for your criticism of Greenert?
....whereas the Admiral didn't make a single reference to the loss of life as being a factor in his decision to hold NJP and relieve the CO of his command.