Replies

I read the (very) extensive USNI original report in its entirety. Benson had only had command of that ship for a month, and by all accounts, was an improvement over his predecessor in terms of tighter training, discipline, etc.. One month was not nearly enough time to remedy long-standing training deficiencies, and the short-staffing made that even more of a problem. The crew was so undermanned that there weren't enough watchstanders to have eyes on each side of the bridge wing.

The Navy has had a real problem with undermanned surface ships for years, and given the tempo at which they have been operating, it makes proper training almost impossible.

Commander Benson may have only had command for one month, but he reported to FITZ as the Executive Officer in November, 2015. The XO is responsible for all training and is traditionally the disciplinarian - he had 18 months to fix ‘issues’.

Your claim that one month ‘was not nearly enough time to remedy long-standing training deficiencies’ actually ignores the fact that HE WAS RESPONSIBLE for ALL those deficiencies as the XO.

Yes, I’ve been an XO on a DDG and yes, I was always on the Bridge during this type of transit. So was the CO.

Regarding the ‘not enough watch-standers’ comment - that’s pure BS. Everybody stood watch on our DDG - Supply Dept., Command Career Counselor, Command Master Chief - every single person attached to our ship was on a watch bill. If there weren’t enough lookouts, then the Ship’s Bosun and all the BM1’s would be standing the watch. That’s a command decision, so it’s unfortunate the FITZ didn’t actually have anybody who could make a tough decision. They failed and Sailors died.