Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,181
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

@Marp wrote:

 

Week of March 24: First coronavirus cases detected on board

 

The Navy first reported on March 24 that three sailors aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt had tested positive and been airlifted to a hospital in the Pacific.

 

Cases of coronavirus multiplied rapidly and 15 more sailors tested positive a few days later, prompting testing for all of the approximately 5,000 sailors aboard, according to Navy and Defense officials. By March 26, as the ship docked in Guam for a scheduled visit, that number had jumped to 23 sailors.

 

Adm. Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, said at the time the Roosevelt remained capable of its missions.

 

March 30: Captain pleads with Navy to evacuate ship

 

A letter dated March 30 from Crozier, the ship's captain, asked Navy officials to do more to address the "accelerating" coronavirus outbreak on the ship, which had afflicted dozens of sailors by that point.

 

Crozier said that "decisive action" was required to prevent deaths from the coronavirus, and that the sailors on board were currently unable to comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines because of the ship's close quarters.

 

Crozier asked that about 90% of the ship's crew be taken ashore in Guam and isolated and 10% remain to operate the essential functions of the aircraft carrier.

 

March 31-April 1: Letter leaks, officials say they're working on it

Crozier's letter was first published by the San Francisco Chronicle March 31, and Navy officials were pressed to respond to concerns over the sailors' safety.

 

"I heard about the letter from Capt. Crozier this morning, I know that our command organization has been aware or this for about 24 hours and we have been working actually the last seven days to move those sailors off the ship and get them into accommodations in Guam," Modly said, noting that bed space was an issue.

 

Modly and others expressed concern that Crozier's letter had been leaked to the media and suggested there had been some sort of "communications breakdown."

 

April 2: Navy fires Crozier over loss of confidence

 

 

Days after he pleaded for help, Crozier was relieved of his duty for loss of confidence, Modly announced.


But this letter is the one that was sent to the world - not just the Navy - so who in the chain did he contact BEFORE that who refused to hlep him?

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,181
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

@pitdakota wrote:

Read an article where the Capt's family talked to the press.  According to them, the Capt. attempted 4 times to get help going through his chain of command and was not getting any response about what to specifically do or how to handle the situation.

 

  The one time he did get a specific response, they were considering having him leave port in Guam and sail to San Diego.  In the meantime, more and more sailors were getting sick and the ship's doctor was warning him that some of the sailor's could die if they didn't get treatment.  

 

After a period of time and with more sailors becoming ill, he wrote the letter and addressed it to multiple individuals with a specific plan of what he thought needed to be done.  I don't know if he thought it would be leaked or not, but he knew he would be in trouble because he was going outside of chain of command in order to try and get some help for his sailors.

 

So he sent the letter knowing he would probably be relieved of his command, but he knew his sailors needed help and they couldn't get any information about the virus, what to do, what needed to be done, etc.  So he fell on the sword so to speak in hope that someone on that distribution list would lend assistance.  

 

And it worked.

 

Most of the Navy vets we know here were convinced from the beginning that the Capt. had attempted normal standard operating procedure & wasn't getting help.  As they said, someone with his record and 20 years in the Navy doesn't get to where he is by doing something stupid right off the bat.  

 

I hope the Capt. is able to recuperate quickly and without complications.  Have to say, if I were him I would retire.  

 


So his family says he contacted his chain 4 times - anything in writing?  That would certainly help his case.  

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,163
Registered: ‎07-18-2010

Capt. Crozier's Instincts are absolutely correct. The commanding officer is FIRST responsible for the health and well-being of the people who report to them.  

 

 

Super Contributor
Posts: 255
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Those willing to be unconvinced - adhereing to "chain of command" process - sigh. I hope those sailors get the help they need so desperately. Sounds like Crozier's a hero.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,943
Registered: ‎03-16-2010

@Isobel Archer, I would imagine every communication is documented onboard a ship in the Navy.  Notice the OP contained information that the Capt. would not let his senior officers sign their names to the letter.  They very likely knew about their Capt's attempt to go through chain of command.  

My understanding is that the investigation is complete.  So they should have that information.  Don't know what will be released to the public, but it is reported to be complete.

 


* Freedom has a taste the protected will never know *
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,181
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

Re: Captain Crozier

[ Edited ]

@pitdakota wrote:

@Isobel Archer, I would imagine every communication is documented onboard a ship in the Navy.  Notice the OP contained information that the Capt. would not let his senior officers sign their names to the letter.  They very likely knew about their Capt's attempt to go through chain of command.  

My understanding is that the investigation is complete.  So they should have that information.  Don't know what will be released to the public, but it is reported to be complete.

 


Yes I would imagine you are correct concerning contacts.

 

My questiions arise because we are continually informed by the press that certain information is factually correct only to find out later that it is not - and clearly the press didn't like his firing.  So whenever I see implications and opinions rather than actual facts reported, I am skeptical.

As to the Captain not letting his junior officers (senior as they might have been, they were junior to him as he commanded the ship) sign the letter - even that confuses me.  The very use of "senior officers" implies they were senior to him and he was sacrificing himself for his superiors and yet that is not the case here.  There would be no need for junior officers to sign this letter - clearly his signature - and the fact that he sent it to the world - was sufficient to get the attention he wanted - and he surely knew that.  And since he was clearly calling out his superiors  there hardly any intention to protect them.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 49,667
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

There is not enough information known about this incident to know if he was justified in his actions and whether he is a hero or insubordinate.  All we know is that he wrote a letter that mysteriously got published.  What circumstances preceeded the letter are unknown, as are his orders.  Sometimes those higher in command are privy to information we, as observers, may not understand.

New Mexico☀️Land Of Enchantment
Super Contributor
Posts: 255
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Here's one thing we do know -- cz it's on video.

 

The moving response Crozier got from his subordinates.

 

That "backstage shot" of him walking through all of those people who held respectful silence as he passed by to leave the ship, only to errupt in those loud chants as he walked off.

 

It's truly something to behold. Brings tears to the eyes.

 

Seems like they believed he had their best interests at heart.