Harvey Delivers the "XO Movie Night" Hammer

Admiral Harvey released his final decision today in regards to the recommended punishments related to the USS Enteprise (CVN 65) XO Movie Night videos. In total, 40 people were punished.

I HAVE FORWARDED TO THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ISSUE SECRETARIAL LETTERS OF CENSURE TO THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS:


- CAPTAIN OWEN HONORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 2007;

- CAPTAIN JOHN DIXON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 2007 TO JUNE 2009;

- REAR ADMIRAL LAWRENCE RICE, COMMANDING OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2005 TO MAY 2007;

- REAR ADMIRAL RON HORTON, COMMANDING OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD MAY 2007 TO MAY 2010


I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED THAT A COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION, ALONG WITH A COPY OF MY ENDORSEMENT, BE PLACED IN EACH OF THESE OFFICERS’ PERMANENT MILITARY RECORD.

I HAVE ISSUED NON-PUNITIVE LETTERS OF CAUTION TO REAR ADMIRAL RAYMOND SPICER AND VICE ADMIRAL DANIEL HOLLOWAY, THE STRIKE GROUP COMMANDERS EMBARKED IN ENTERPRISE DURING THE SHIP’S 2006 AND 2007 DEPLOYMENTS, AND I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED THAT A COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION, ALONG WITH A COPY OF MY ENDORSEMENT, BE PLACED IN EACH OFFICER’S PERMANENT MILITARY RECORD.

I HAVE COUNSELED REAR ADMIRAL GREGORY NOSAL AND REAR ADMIRAL CLIFFORD SHARPE, THE CARRIER AIR WING COMMANDER AND DESTROYER SQUADRON COMMODORE EMBARKED IN ENTERPRISE DURING THE SHIP’S 2006 DEPLOYMENT

I HAVE ISSUED NON-PUNITIVE LETTERS OF CAUTION TO 32 OFFICERS AND SAILORS WHO DEMONSTRATED DEFICIENCIES IN PERSONAL BEHAVIOR OR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION AND BROADCAST OF THESE VIDEOS.

You can find the official definition of a Secretarial Letter of Censure under Jagman 0114 Punitive Censure. (PDF)

b. Secretarial letter of censure. The Secretary of the Navy may administratively censure members in writing without reference to article 15, UCMJ. The member to whom a Secretarial letter of censure is addressed has no right of appeal. Unless otherwise directed, a copy of the letter will be filed in the official record of the person censured. If a copy of the letter is filed in the official record of the member, the individual may submit a rebuttal. Any such reply shall be temperate in language and confined to pertinent facts. Opinions shall not be expressed nor the motives of others impugned. Replies shall not contain countercharges. The issuance of a Secretarial letter of censure and the underlying facts may be mentioned in a fitness report and used to support a detachment for cause proceeding, relief of command, or negative endorsement, or any other administrative action on the part of the service concerned.

Navy Times seems to have some additional information that must have come from the Q&A with reporters at the press conference.

Harvey’s disciplinary options were limited. He revealed that he’d asked Roughead to be made the Consolidated Disposition Authority over the case, which would have allowed him to convene Article 32 investigations which could in turn lead to court-martials. But his investigating officer, Rear Adm. Gerald R. Beaman, told Harvey he felt none of the activity merited such a step, and Harvey said he agreed.

Nor could Harvey employ nonjudicial punishment, since the statute of limitations for such punishment is two years from the alleged infraction. Together, it limited Harvey to recommending the punitive secretarial letters, non-punitive letters and counselings.

I highly recommend reading the Fleet Forces Command Blog for Admiral Harvey's full statement and brief thoughts. The Navy Times article is also informative.

It looks to me like Admiral Harvey did everything right from start to finish here. He also said everything right.

NAVY LEADERS ARE NOT POPULAR ENTERTAINERS, BUT PROFESSIONALS VESTED WITH EXTRAORDINARY MILITARY AUTHORITY WHO MUST BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD AND MAINTAIN THEIR CREDIBILITY IN THE EYES OF THEIR SUBORDINATES UNDER THE MOST DIFFICULT, EVEN POSSIBLY LIFE-THREATENING, CIRCUMSTANCES.

POOR JUDGMENT AND BEHAVIOR THAT UNDERMINES THAT CREDIBILITY THREATENS GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE AND, OVER TIME, JEOPARDIZES THE CREW’S FAITH IN ITS LEADERSHIP. THAT MEANS WE CANNOT SIMPLY IGNORE ACTIONS SUCH AS THE PRODUCTION OF THESE VIDEOS THAT CLEARLY CALL INTO QUESTION A NAVY LEADER’S JUDGMENT, CHARACTER, AND FITNESS TO COMMAND.

TO BE TRUE TO OUR NAVY’S CORE VALUES OF HONOR, COURAGE AND COMMITMENT, OUR LEADERS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE WELL-BEING OF OUR PEOPLE, SHOW RESPECT TOWARD ALL, AND TREAT EACH INDIVIDUAL WITH DIGNITY.

No one else was relieved, but a rather large number of careers just hit a brick wall. Many of the people punished in this case will serve out the remaining of their term at their present rank and probably be discharged at their next selection board. In other words, the Navy didn't fire anyone else, but sending a clear message their career in the Navy is winding down. Given how ugly this was, I think that was the right approach.