[woodpusher]

[frog in a pot #16] That is interesting. As Paul Harvey would have said...

[gcparent #22] Hopefully no promotion ever for Baker. He had a bad relationship with Crozier. Probably why he wrote the email.

As I opined previously on 4/16, I believe the email may have originally been drafted as a naval letter, submitted via RADM Baker, and Crozier sent his email after Baker did not forward the letter. This is why I believe Baker was in trouble, and why the acting SECNAV took a private jet to Guam.

The PDF of the letter is mostly in naval letter format on command letterhead. Metadata indicates creation on a XeroxWorkcentre 7830 on March 29, 2020, at 10:35:36 pm. The PDF letter (email attachment) is dated 30 Mar 20.

The transmitted PDF appears to be a cut and paste of the text of an actual naval letter, or draft of a naval letter, with the BLUF (bottom line up front) paragraph inserted before numbered paragraph (1). The heading was stripped, and the text beginning with paragraph (1) was cut and pasted.

If it were there, the heading would tell you where the letter either went, or was intended to go. It could only have been addressed UP the chain of command. The heading should have looked something like this:

From: Commanding Officer, USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)

To: ?

Via: Commander, Carrier Strike Group Nine

There could have been multiple via addressees, depending on how high up the chain it was intended to go. The first "Via" addressee would have been the Rear Admiral onboard the USS Roosevelt, RADM Stu Baker. That would have been the first place it went, for endorsement and forwarding.

Capt. Crozier was NOT the senior officer on the ship. That officer was RADM Baker who must have approved the port visit to Vietnam.

The "To" addressee would be however high up the chain it was meant to go. It could have been the next senior admiral to RADM Baker, or anyone up the chain.

If the letter was actually submitted to RADM Baker, it does not appear to have been endorsed and forwarded by RADM Baker.

The ship was in port at Guam on March 27th. Capt. Crozier pushed his email send button on March 30th. His crew had still not been evacuated.

When all are onboard:

Ship's Company 3,200
Air Wing 2,480
Admiral's Staff
Marine Detachment

Undoubtedly, the email blast went around RADM Baker. That may, or may not, have occurred after a possible submission of the letter to RADM Baker went unforwarded.

[gcparent]

The visit to Viet nam was approved way up i think someone named Davidson.

[gcparent]

Now reading he was blamed for not doing enough faster and getting crew off ship. That he put crews comfort first. Also medical officer and wing commander are being disciplined administratively. The announcement stated Crozier did not leak the email.

[frog in a pot]

Undoubtedly, the email blast went around RADM Baker. That may, or may not, have occurred after a possible submission of the letter to RADM Baker went unforwarded.

Agree with your analysis.

It seemed possible from the earliest of the public reports that RADM Baker played a silent, if not passive hand in the scenario; if so, some were concerned that involvement might offer the substance of an effective defense for Crozier.

As it turns out, based on the Chief of Naval Operation's finding, it was not that difficult.
“Capt. Crozier and Adm. Baker fell well short of what we expect of those in command”.