Comments on: Good. http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:20:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: craig mclaughlin http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/comment-page-1/#comment-414187 craig mclaughlin Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:42:27 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/#comment-414187 Bingo Bingo

]]> By: Former EPO http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/comment-page-1/#comment-414188 Former EPO Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:41:05 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/#comment-414188 What Mr. McLaughlin left out was that the discrimination is most often at the expense of males. Especially white males. And no one at CNRC (or in Congress, where these policies ultimately originate) is going to bat an eye at something like that. What Mr. McLaughlin left out was that the discrimination is most often at the expense of males. Especially white males. And no one at CNRC (or in Congress, where these policies ultimately originate) is going to bat an eye at something like that.

]]> By: craig mclaughlin http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/comment-page-1/#comment-414191 craig mclaughlin Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:07:57 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/#comment-414191 "If it’s wrong, though, it’s wrong and needs fixed." Take a job in the Recruiting Command and fix it, then. Good luck. “If it’s wrong, though, it’s wrong and needs fixed.”

Take a job in the Recruiting Command and fix it, then.

Good luck.

]]> By: Chap http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/comment-page-1/#comment-414194 Chap Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:10:03 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/#comment-414194 General point: Whistleblowers are never perfect. That lack of perfection is no reason to discount the facts of what they're whistleblowing about. In this case as I understand it the man was wronged entirely disproportionately for any imperfection in going up his proper chain of command and he had a reprisal against him that would have sent him home as a civilian this year with a 2xFOS. Mr. McLaughlin--your conclusion does bother me. Is perhaps the other answer to shine light on the practices and get them out in the open outside the small group? Relegating a job with potential wrongness to people who are comfortable with the wrongness isn't good. If something needs explained, sure; we take the time to explain it. If it's wrong, though, it's wrong and needs fixed. General point: Whistleblowers are never perfect. That lack of perfection is no reason to discount the facts of what they’re whistleblowing about.

In this case as I understand it the man was wronged entirely disproportionately for any imperfection in going up his proper chain of command and he had a reprisal against him that would have sent him home as a civilian this year with a 2xFOS.

Mr. McLaughlin–your conclusion does bother me. Is perhaps the other answer to shine light on the practices and get them out in the open outside the small group? Relegating a job with potential wrongness to people who are comfortable with the wrongness isn’t good. If something needs explained, sure; we take the time to explain it. If it’s wrong, though, it’s wrong and needs fixed.

]]> By: craig mclaughlin http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/comment-page-1/#comment-414190 craig mclaughlin Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:56:16 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/#comment-414190 I'm also a former EPO. I express no opinion on the above case. I will say that recruiting is like making sausage, you don't want to see it. When I was in recruiting, for instance, we gave something called the OAR, officer aptitude rating, a passing score-- for one group of candidates was 40, though to have any chance of being selected they needed a score in the mid 50's-- another group of candidates could score a 28 (If you answered very question wrong you scored a 20) and the Navy had established a prep school in Newport to boost this groups scores up to a 40, whereupon they would be welcomed to OCS. And another group of candidates had a officer designator just for them!On the enlisted side, one group of applicants was welcomed into the navy if they had a score at level IIIb, another group was ineligble with that score. also our recruiter incentive system (QIS) could give maximum points for one applicant and minmum for another even though they scored the same on the ASVAB. Not to mention that certain ratings were always, never, or only sometimes open to certain groups of candidates. This is not a defense of the above policy which the Navy was forced, correctly, to abandon. It is merely a note: if quotas and discrimination offend you, avoid recruiting duty. I’m also a former EPO. I express no opinion on the above case. I will say that recruiting is like making sausage, you don’t want to see it. When I was in recruiting, for instance, we gave something called the OAR, officer aptitude rating, a passing score– for one group of candidates was 40, though to have any chance of being selected they needed a score in the mid 50′s– another group of candidates could score a 28 (If you answered very question wrong you scored a 20) and the Navy had established a prep school in Newport to boost this groups scores up to a 40, whereupon they would be welcomed to OCS. And another group of candidates had a officer designator just for them!On the enlisted side, one group of applicants was welcomed into the navy if they had a score at level IIIb, another group was ineligble with that score. also our recruiter incentive system (QIS) could give maximum points for one applicant and minmum for another even though they scored the same on the ASVAB. Not to mention that certain ratings were always, never, or only sometimes open to certain groups of candidates. This is not a defense of the above policy which the Navy was forced, correctly, to abandon. It is merely a note: if quotas and discrimination offend you, avoid recruiting duty.

]]> By: Former EPO http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/comment-page-1/#comment-414192 Former EPO Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:12:53 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/09/25/good/#comment-414192 As someone who's been in the job that this guy was in, I have to raise a flag on this. What the original story doesn't tell the reader is that there are several alternate paths up the chain of command this LT had, and yet he apparently only brought his concerns to his CO's attention. CO's in recruiting are generally working outside their professional expertise (Aviator, SWO, etc.) and prefer not to make waves. There are professional recruiting officers at the Region and National level, not to mention CNRC Legal Officers, to whom he should have addressed his concerns before just deciding he was going to disobey a written order. I'm not saying he wasn't ultimately right; it just sounds like he reacted foolishly. As someone who’s been in the job that this guy was in, I have to raise a flag on this. What the original story doesn’t tell the reader is that there are several alternate paths up the chain of command this LT had, and yet he apparently only brought his concerns to his CO’s attention. CO’s in recruiting are generally working outside their professional expertise (Aviator, SWO, etc.) and prefer not to make waves. There are professional recruiting officers at the Region and National level, not to mention CNRC Legal Officers, to whom he should have addressed his concerns before just deciding he was going to disobey a written order. I’m not saying he wasn’t ultimately right; it just sounds like he reacted foolishly.

]]>