JAMES P. writes:

The former male Commanding Officer of the USS Cowpens has been removed from duty for “fraternizing” with a female subordinate and then letting her take over the Navy guided missile cruiser when he got sick.

From The Navy Times:

The cruiser Cowpens was halfway through its Western Pacific cruise earlier this year when the commanding officer got sick.

Capt. Greg Gombert came down with flu-like symptoms in January that confined him to his cabin for about a week.

As he was recovering, he contracted something more unusual: temporary facial paralysis. The non-life threatening disorder makes it difficult to move certain facial muscles and initially can feel like a minor stroke.

Gombert holed up in his cabin to recuperate and began to push responsibilities down to the next most senior officer, a department head with 11 years in uniform with whom the Navy alleges Gombert carried on an “unduly familiar relationship,” according to a report obtained by Navy Times.

Lt. Cmdr. Destiny Savage, the ship’s chief engineer and temporary XO, became the “acting CO,” officials now say, and essentially ran the ship — taking contact reports, leading junior officer qualification boards, and chairing department head meetings in the CO’s place.

Savage, a junior officer who was not fully qualified to be a permanent XO, even led at least two replenishments at sea, where the cruiser took on fuel from an oiler as little as 150 feet away in heavy seas, while the captain was in his cabin, according to the Navy’s investigation and interviews with current and former crew members.

[….]

Gombert was fired in June, two months after the ship returned from its seven-month deployment, becoming the third Cowpens CO canned since 2010. Command Master Chief Gabriel Keeton also was removed. Officials at the time said the reliefs were due to a “loss of confidence” in their “ability to effectively lead.”

The startling new details, which come from a Naval Surface Force Pacific investigation and interviews with five current and former Cowpens crew members and spouses, raise questions about Gombert’s judgment and the fleet’s oversight of his command on the independent deployment.

The report concluded this amounted to fraternization and Copeman found Gombert and Savage guilty of this offense at mast. There is no evidence that the relationship was physical, but this is not needed to establish their bonds had been unduly familiar and thus in violation of Navy rules.

The head of the surface Navy said the so-called command triad of CO, XO and CMC had suffered “a complete breakdown,” according to the July 11 report, which Navy Times obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The violations revealed by the investigation, especially the blatant abdication of command responsibility on the part of the CO, are among the most egregious I have encountered in my 32-year career,” Vice Adm. Tom Copeman wrote in his letter closing the report.

Reached via phone, Gombert declined repeated requests for comment for this story. Savage and Keeton also declined to comment for this story, citing the ongoing legal process.

At the July 25 mast, Copeman found Savage guilty of two violations of failure to obey a lawful order and one of conduct unbecoming, and Keeton was disciplined for two counts of failing to obey a lawful order, SURFPAC said in a statement.

A SURFPAC spokesman refused to specify that disciplinary actions were taken against them, citing privacy concerns.

The report also uncovered evidence that Gombert and Savage had formed a questionable relationship between a senior and junior officer. They hung out in his in-port cabin in civvies. She made his bed and cooked his meals in his private galley. They stayed in hotel rooms together and, in at least one instance, were seen on liberty holding hands.

 

 

 

— Comments —

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

The name “Destiny Savage” is reminiscent of the “noms-de-pied” of the “dancers” at Troy’s Topless Towers, a palace of Terpsichore on the Sunset Strip in Hollywood, where my college buddies and I occasionally drank overpriced stale beer between 1974 and 1977 or so, relaxing on the weekends from the rigors of undergraduate matriculation at UCLA, when we couldn’t get dates.

The photograph of Ms. Savage in naval camouflage uniform makes me think of the girl from my high school graduating class who was endowed with the title of “Perkiest” in the senior section of the 1972 yearbook.  Naval camouflage uniforms look like pajamas.

The photograph of Ms. Savage in dress whites saluting looks like a scene from a Hollywood movie about a brave young female Annapolis graduate who fights male chauvinism to prove herself in the Navy, starring a perky Melanie Griffith in her early twenties.

This is what stands between us and our enemies?

Laura writes:

Destiny Savage is exactly the sort of name that a manufacturer of action figures would give to a toy female soldier or Amazon. Is this a joke? Think of elfin Destiny Savage at the command of a ship that can launch some of the world’s  most destructive weapons, her pony tail peaking out from beneath her cap, and the whole thing seems like a send-up of the egalitarian Navy. It could be a musical comedy that ends when she and the commander get married after he recovers and they together blow up an enemy destroyer and he saves her from a raging fire on board (after she launches the missile that ends the whole conflict).

Dr. Bertonneau writes:

On Captain Gombert’s “flu-like” symptoms:  Seven years ago on a Thursday afternoon I had cataract surgery on my left eye.  The next morning at eight o’clock I was back in the classroom teaching with one eye.  The bandage came off on Saturday morning.  In fourteen years of teaching at my present institution I have taken exactly three sick-days.  On two occasions my wife called me in sick and more or less condemned me to home-bound convalescence for twenty-four hours.  On the third occasion, after my first class in the morning, I collapsed in the departmental commons, rose up like a zombie, and insisted that I could teach my two remaining classes, and was sternly lectured by two colleagues before I reluctantly went home to recuperate.

On another occasion, early in the morning before classes, I had dental surgery with anesthetic, and half of my face looked droopy and bestroked because of the Novocain.  So what!  I explained the situation and discharged my duties.

In World War I , whose centenary we acknowledge, something like one-third of casualties were non-combat related.  That is, men died of sickness in the trenches, many expiring where they stood, with their weapon in hand.

My father, a captain and later a battalion chief on the Los Angeles City Fire Department, was once blown through a glass window by the  explosion of a propane tank.  He dusted himself off and went back to direct his men in fighting the fire.

But Captain Gombert had to confine himself to his cabin.

This is what stands between us and our enemies.

Laura writes:

A person can be completely incapacitated by a flu. But then wouldn’t he have been removed from the ship?

James P. writes:

You wrote,

“Destiny Savage is exactly the sort of name that a manufacturer of action figures would give to a toy female soldier or Amazon. Is this a joke?”

I was thinking more along the lines of the heroine of a bodice-ripper:

“Sub-lieutenant Destiny Savage reporting for duty, sir!”

Her heart quickened as she beheld the dashing figure of Lord Randy Stoker, captain of His Majesty’s Ship Priapus….

Laura writes:

The plot continues:

Stoker: “Savage, I see potential in you.”

Destinée*: “Sir?”

Stoker: “Yes. I’m planning to go on a little holiday — strictly in my cabin, you see. I was wondering if you would join me, er, um, I was wondering if you would …. take command of the Priapus while I am sick!”

Destinée: “But, Commander, sir!”

Destinée looks off into the distance and then continues: “Would that mean I would have to be in constant contact with you from the bridge, Sir?”

Stoker: “Absolutely! We will be in contact every minute of the day. And we will not let the fact of your inexperience stand in the way. The whole world is waiting for a woman to  …. to take the Priapus into Chinese waters.”

Destinée: “But, sir, would I have to report to your cabin with the latest in foreign movements and our … um… coordinates?”

Stoker: “Savage, you must keep me fully informed!”

Destinée: “Oh, darling.”

(*I have changed the spelling of “Destiny” to make it clear beyond any doubt that there is no connection, absolutely no connection, to the real Destiny Savage, who may be innocent of the public allegations of improper fraternizing with the commander of a major naval vessel.)

Mike Savage writes:

As the husband of LCDR Destiny Savage, I wonder if her given name is of such great importance right now.  Apparently, you seem to have missed the part that she carried out her full time job as the chief engineer, plus the jobs of her executive officer as well as the job the commanding officer when he choose to handle his illness as he saw fit. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but they seem to forget this woman was also an integral part of avoiding near disaster with the Chinese navy, coordinated relief to typhoon victims, let alone successfully conducted numerous dangerous missions at sea while bring home safely the 330+ sailors onboard.

Laura writes:

Her name is not of importance, and it is not the issue here. We got off on a silly sidetrack. The real concern is the outrageous effort to integrate the Navy, a project which is not motivated by military preparedness but by a political agenda. It is this ludicrous and insane project that we are making fun of, not your wife. The egalitarian makeover of the Navy, which we are all paying for even though we never voted on the issue, is ludicrous because, for one, it places men and women at close quarters while away at sea and far from home, expecting they will not act like normal men and women and causing at the very least suspicious scenarios. The Navy leadership is every bit as much to blame for the outcome. There are many other reasons why this project is doomed and will in the meantime ruin lives. It potentially undermines male military cohesiveness, especially since men have an innate tendency to want to protect women, and it certainly undermines the cultural institution of motherhood and family life. Women are not as suited to warfare as men, however well individual women may perform at their assigned tasks now and however high-tech it all becomes. The idea of a woman in a military uniform is — except in rare cases — an affront to the dignity of women. There are many women who have served their country well, but that doesn’t make equality a good idea.

Lt.Cmdr. Savage may indeed have executed her mission well. However, according to The Navy Times she also violated orders:

The head of the surface Navy said the so-called command triad of CO, XO and CMC had suffered “a complete breakdown,” according to the July 11 report, which Navy Times obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The violations revealed by the investigation, especially the blatant abdication of command responsibility on the part of the CO, are among the most egregious I have encountered in my 32-year career,” Vice Adm. Tom Copeman wrote in his letter closing the report.

Reached via phone, Gombert declined repeated requests for comment for this story. Savage and Keeton also declined to comment for this story, citing the ongoing legal process.

At the July 25 mast, Copeman found Savage guilty of two violations of failure to obey a lawful order and one of conduct unbecoming, and Keeton was disciplined for two counts of failing to obey a lawful order, SURFPAC said in a statement.

A SURFPAC spokesman refused to specify that disciplinary actions were taken against them, citing privacy concerns. [emphases add]

Dr. Bertonneau writes:

First of all, Mike Savage is to be commended for coming to the defense of his wife.

Otherwise: From its Traditionalist perspective, The Thinking Housewife covers the ever-deepening cultural crisis of the Western world.  This crisis is extraordinarily complex, consisting of a myriad of sub-crises that become more densely intertwined on a daily basis.  Everything is significant because everything is critical, even the names we either endow on ourselves or validate by bearing them.  At the very least, somewhere along the line of Destiny Savage’s naval officer training, someone should have suggested to her that she drop the embarrassing pop-star personal moniker and begin identifying herself by an adult name.  My father gave my brother and me the same middle name, Felix, his own middle name and his father’s before him.  My brother found it incompatible with his professional ambition and changed it – to Francis.  I reduced it to an initial.  It was that simple.  It is a certainty that insofar as the acting commander’s name became an issue in the present discussion, it was an issue for discussion (sailor discussion) among the crew of the Naval Vessel Cowpens, which undoubtedly contributed to the lapse of command hierarchy and demorale aboard ship, as cited by the official inquiry.

Of course, in a society where sensitivity and feminism trump common-sense, the supervisor who made such a suggestion would likely be out of a job the next day.  And who would be defending him or her?

Laura writes:

Thank you. Okay, I am going to contradict myself. I said her name wasn’t really important, but as Dr. Bertonneau argues, it is.

Here’s the deal. If a woman wants to be a sailor, she should act the part.

She should get rid of a vanity, celebrity name like Destiny.

She should stop wearing lipstick and eye makeup. (See Lt.Cmdr. Savage in the headshot above.)

She should get a crewcut.

In short, she should make herself unattractive to men. She should strip herself (not literally) of her femininity precisely so these temptations won’t arise and we do not face national embarrassments like this.

Or better yet, heaven forgive me for saying it, and this is a general comment not aimed at the Savages, she should marry a sailor, instead of becoming one, and stay home to take care of him and have lots of little sailors so this God-forsaken country might defeat its enemies of the future.

August 9, 2014

Cassidy A. writes:

I am not sure if you are still processing comments for this particular post, but as a female Naval officer it struck a special nerve with me, as you can imagine. I have served on warships in a similar capacity as LCDR Savage for the past eight years.

I am not rushing to her defense for her actions on the COWPENS. The official report reveals that many leaders onboard, including LCDR Savage, made some bad decisions. Very strange things happened on that ship, indeed. I think it is wrong, however, to reduce the analysis of the situation to, “She should have changed her name, worn less makeup, or not joined the Navy at all.” What happened was a complete loss of leadership and communication in the wake of a commanding officer’s mental breakdown, not that Destiny Savage wore too much lipstick. Three things:

 1) Her name. Maybe you feel as if she if she was the victim of baby boomers’ tastes in naming their children. Maybe you feel that she should have taken responsibility as an adult and changed her name to something more “professional” (Elizabeth? Catherine?) Both of these comments bother me . . . because it is her name.  I hesitated to change my name upon marriage because my maiden surname is very distinctive and I had achieved a little bit of brilliance in my career with that name – my married name is almost generic and I was worried my professional network would suffer a little bit. It sounds selfish – it was – and it hurt my husband’s feelings, so I changed it. I am not sure yet if my fears were founded, but I trust that I did the right thing and so things will . . . work out. In LCDR Savage’s case – her name is her identity. Naval officers start building their professional networks in college while they are in commissioning programs like USNA or ROTC. “Destiny” is certainly a memorable name – perhaps that was the point in her parents selecting it in the first place. I have known many female military officers with “unusual” or creatively spelled first names.  Even if they were not the consummate professionals I know them to be, I would attribute their career progressions to their personal accomplishments, not their names. Fortunately we are mostly known by our ranks and surnames in the military, so I do not see how it matters that much at all.

2) Her makeup.  The official photograph of her in uniform drew comments about her lipstick and eye makeup, and how it seems out of place and unprofessional. First, I want to point out that she was posing for an official photo, and of course wanted to look “nice.” Many professionals have head shots – lawyers, real estate agents, business executives, etc – they always look put-together and well-coiffed.  An officer’s official photo is an important part of her military performance record – it is reviewed every time she is considered for an award, promotion, or competitive assignment. I give my makeup and hair special attention for these photographs, as well.  I am certain that she does not look like that every day on the ship. When underway, I rarely had time to shower regularly, let alone put anything on my face besides sunscreen. My daily outfit consisted of a shapeless blue set of stained coveralls, steel toed boots, and a ball cap under which I tucked my stringy, unwashed hair. I had to stand watch, shuffle endless admin, oversee maintenance, brief my boss, and council my Sailors . . . the last thing on my mind was looking attractive and feminine for my male shipmates. No female – officer or enlisted — who I have served with has had fantasies about being the bright-eyed ingénue in a ponytail calling out orders to the helmsman. If such fantasies existed, they were quickly snuffed in the fast-paced, high stress shipboard environment. As the ship’s Chief Engineer (and it sounds like she was a good one, before the events of this deployment), she was climbing into oil-filled bilges, inspecting sooty engine compartments and sewage tanks, and standing endless watches in 100+ degree machinery rooms.  The fresh-faced blonde in your posted picture is not LCDR Savage at work.

3) Her career choice. I understand the nature of this blog and so will not argue for the merits of female military service. I believe in them, you do not, fine – we have both invested ourselves personally in our beliefs and are currently living them the best we can, so I hope we can respect each other mutually on that point. I still want to say this:

 Women have served on naval ships officially since 1978. We are approaching 40 years of women in the sea services – there is not a person serving on active duty today who remembers a time when women were not on ships. Women on ships are not sirens out to get the left-behind wives’ well-meaning men (see my previous description of my daily appearance). We’re there to work and serve the public according to a deeply felt personal calling.

That said, yes, there are the anecdotes of ill-behaved adults on ships, but adults act badly in doctors’ offices, high rise buildings, teachers’ lounges and other workplaces, too.  Also, my personal experience has given me a very low opinion of some of my male shipmates’ personal ethics – I witnessed even the most ardent “family man” succumb to peer pressure in a liberty port and wander off with the herd to strip clubs and whore houses. If I was a sailor’s wife, I’d be more worried about my husband’s male shipmates than the female ones.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. I hope I have contributed to the conversation in some meaningful way.

 Laura writes:

Thank you for writing. I appreciate your civil response.

You write:

Very strange things happened on that ship, indeed. I think it is wrong, however, to reduce the analysis of the situation to, “She should have changed her name, worn less makeup, or not joined the Navy at all.”

I’m sorry, but I did not reduce the events to those things. As I said, the most important concern here is the project to integrate the Navy. The breakdown in command on the Cowpens appeared to have something to do with that project and its inherent problems. As for her name, it is a big deal to change a name. In any event, it is a relatively minor issue.

You said:

My daily outfit consisted of a shapeless blue set of stained coveralls, steel toed boots, and a ball cap under which I tucked my stringy, unwashed hair. I had to stand watch, shuffle endless admin, oversee maintenance, brief my boss, and council my Sailors . . . the last thing on my mind was looking attractive and feminine for my male shipmates.

Yes, I imagine that most women in the Navy are focused on their jobs. However, this case involved charges of a romantic relationship and that’s why we were discussing the inevitability of some romantic attachments between men and women who are working in close quarters. Here’s another recent case, involving the first female commander of a British warship.

You write:

Women have served on naval ships officially since 1978. We are approaching 40 years of women in the sea services – there is not a person serving on active duty today who remembers a time when women were not on ships. Women on ships are not sirens out to get the left-behind wives’ well-meaning men (see my previous description of my daily appearance). We’re there to work and serve the public according to a deeply felt personal calling.

The integration of the Navy is a progressive phenomenon. By the very principles of equality, it calls for greater and greater numbers of women in the military. It also creates an atmosphere of progressive and growing grievance, as some women complain about their inevitable failure to advance in the ranks or the lack of true numerical equality in particular areas. Women have been serving on naval ships since 1978, but the culture is showing the greater effects of that innovation now.

There is only one reason to integrate the Navy, and that is that it improves military effectiveness. The primary purpose of the Navy is not to create fulfilling careers for Americans. It is to defend and protect the country. Given that women cannot meet the same physical standards of male recruits; given that men and women naturally form romantic attachments and that some men and women on ships will form attachments no matter how much it is prohibited; given that the military depends on male bonding, I do not see how integration enhances military preparedness. In fact, it seems to jeopardize it.

As for the personal calling, I do not doubt that some women in the military have a sincere love of their country. But women have always served their country in many ways. It’s simply not true that the only way to express one’s love and devotion to ones country is to join the military. The military needs the help and support of women. Military wives, for one, are an entire auxiliary force.

You write:

Also, my personal experience has given me a very low opinion of some of my male shipmates’ personal ethics – I witnessed even the most ardent “family man” succumb to peer pressure in a liberty port and wander off with the herd to strip clubs and whore houses. If I was a sailor’s wife, I’d be more worried about my husband’s male shipmates than the female ones.

If I were a sailor’s wife, I would be much more concerned about the possibility that my husband might form a true emotional attachment to a woman he was working with, and who shared his interests and might even love him and want him to divorce, than I would worry about him visiting a whorehouse.

Ken, USN retired, writes:

As a husband, I understand Mike’s attempt to cover for his wife.

As a retired Surface Warrior, I must point out that there is no covering for her behavior.

She did not perform her duties and return her crew safely; the crew returned safely despite her absence of leadership.  Regardless of what she lost during this escapade, and what she and Mike and their daughters can recover, she can never recover her respectability.  If she continues her career, and that would be a grave mistake for herself and the Navy, her reputation as the CO’s plaything will never fade from view.  This may seem a bit presumptuous but it is my opinion based on her and the Captain holding hands and sharing hotel rooms (as well as the Captain’s in-port cabin) in view of so many.

I’ve read the comments on here and and find the misdirection of focus on her having the name of an erotic performer, or the comment that she should have married a sailor rather than try and become one to be completely off-color.  I served on the first combatant vessel to go “co-ed” during Desert Storm and can say assigning women to full duty was a great way to lessen the undermanning that existed during my career.  This has nothing to do with her being female.  It is entirely about poor judgement, lack of concern for consequences (to her career and daughters) and behavior unbecoming an officer (in plain view of many).  She acted out of some motivator, hopefully trying to boost her career through improper behavior (it’s better than the alternative) and now is time to pay the consequences.

Shame on Destiny and shame on her at-sea partner for putting personal pleasure above concerns for your crew, ship and families.

Laura writes:

“This has nothing to do with her being female.”

Really? It seems to me this has everything to do with her being female, and with the commanding officer being male.

“Shame on Destiny and shame on her at-sea partner for putting personal pleasure above concerns for your crew, ship and families.”

And I say, shame on the Navy for putting men and women in this unnatural situation. Again, let me refer to the recent incident in Britain, in which the first female commander of a warship was sent home after allegedly having an affair with an officer. Think of how much she had hanging on her shoulders. She was the first woman ever in her position and she must have known that everyone was watching her. Maybe the millions of plays and novels about passion between men and women contain a gram of truth. Maybe silly bodice-rippers contain some truth. Maybe men and women can’t easily follow orders when it comes to attractions in close quarters. From The Daily Mail:

Commander Sarah West, 42, took charge of the frigate HMS Portland in May 2012, but has been sent home from duty after claims she was having a relationship with a male officer on the same ship.

This would breach the Armed Forces’ Code of Social Conduct, which prohibits personnel from having relationships with subordinates if they compromise ‘operational effectiveness’.

I have never heard it stated that women are needed on naval vessels because there are not enough male recruits. If that is so, all the more reason why we should do something about the low fertility rate. I think it’s pathetic when men want women to fight. It shouldn’t happen in anything but abnormal circumstances. Shame on this country. Shame on this government for sending women to war. It’s a shameful practice overall — and that is true even though women in the military work hard, often do their best and deserve respect for what they have given. The goal of integration is an affront to femininity and a threat to family life. It promotes aggression in women when society needs feminine strengths. And it must be unbelievably stressful for children when their mothers go off on naval ships in tense situations, a very, very different thing from seeing one’s father go away in the same situation.

To quote Henry McCulloch, a former Marine and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot, from a previous post:

The whole women-in-combat racket is dishonest, unseemly and utterly unnecessary.  Men create enough social and disciplinary problems in the armed forces all by themselves; why ask for trouble by inserting women into that world when there is no need whatever for them to be there and the readiness and social consequences are all too predictable?  The fact that they are far less likely than men to be fully qualified for their assignments because they are certain to have benefited from sexual affirmative action in selection, training and assignment only makes matters worse.  Whenever I see a puff piece about a GI-Jane who is supposed to have been some sort of ironman combat hero, my BS detector starts to ring.  When you see such almost certainly greatly embellished war stories, say “Jessica Lynch” to yourself 10 times: that will help return you to reality, as it will remind you that today’s military PR officers and senior commanders are serial liars about anything to do with women, minorities and homosexuals in the armed forces.  They have to be to keep their jobs.

And don’t tell me about how the Israelis do it.  In 1948, they put some women on the front lines in desperation; when that proved to be a complete failure, Israel still being a free country then, the Israelis withdrew them.  There are women in combat positions in the IDF today only because Leftist judges of Israel’s Supreme Court ordered them there.  Israelis are no more free of their black-robed, unelected masters than Americans are.

The other example people like to bandy about is the Red Army of World War II.  There, similarly, some women were dragooned into front-line service when the Soviet Communist Party perceived itself to be in extremis against the Wehrmacht.  Once the crisis eased, the women were withdrawn.  Presumably, if they had really been highly effective — Bolshevik propaganda notwithstanding — they would not have been.  The only other explanation is that even Soviet Communists under Stalin had a more rational view of the roles of men and women in society than do American liberals and neocons (but I repeat myself) today.  And that would be saying something…

As for the joking about men and women on ships, I certainly don’t equate every interaction between men and women on a warship with a silly parody of a bodice-ripper. But obviously some of the interactions are not exactly what we expect on naval ships.

Cpt. Scott writes:

I am a female Officer in the U.S. Army, and stumbled upon this site while trying to find a photo of LCDR Savage. My interest was peaked not because of the story, but because we share the same first name. I’ve never ran into another female Officer with the name Destiny, moreover, one who was older than me.

When I began to scroll through the comments, I was a bid perturbed. I won’t say I felt angry or particularly saddened, because having thirty years experience of sporting the name of Destiny (my name, not a moniker in the sense you all describe), derogatory and lewd comments from small-minded people are all too-expected. But from this group of people, who are obviously well-written and driven by the exchange of logical debate, I was a bit surprised.

I hardly ever get ribbed about my first name from military peers, a group who often (but definitely not always), are also capable of logical and grounded thought. Maybe there are comments made behind my back, similar to those comments made by people behind their computer screens; however, to my peers, I am known simply as “CPT Scott” or “Scott,” and maybe sometimes an endearing “D. Scott.” Once in awhile, senior leaders will call me “Destiny,” just as they call the guy across the table “Matt.” I personally like it because it makes me feel like I’ve established a position of trust as the subordinate of that senior officer.

All which brings me to this: I would NEVER alter my identity by changing my first name. My mother gave it to me well before every pop-cultural reference of a stripper gave it her to her as stage name. To my mother in the early 80’s, it was pretty and original. And often when older people hear it, they in fact tell me it’s a pleasant name. Whereas, when those who are younger and more plugged into pop culture hear it, they hardly ever say it’s pleasant, and maybe sometimes they can’t help but say a “Destiny’s Child” joke (I’ve heard them all). Unfortunately, at the worst moments, people make a lewd comment similar to the “heroine of a bodice-ripper” thread you all were so entertained about.

My name is my name; it is my identity. And as much as I allow my daily appearance to be influenced by the popularity of the times, I will not so flippantly address my birth-given identity. Tomorrow, I can always decide to stop wearing skinny jeans if it becomes off-trend; however, tomorrow I cannot choose to change my name just because some bloggers say I should. My name is a non-negotiable, integral piece of me that I will not change to meet another’s self-constructed definition of a “professional.” As cliche as it may sound, I am a true professional because I wear the uniform of the United States Army. And for anyone who actually ever served, he or she understands that a uniform and a nametape are meant to mask the identity of our civilian self so that we may all act as a unified force. Here, the only reason LCDR Savage’s name is at issue, is because those behind the computer have made it one. She already has enough issues at hand to deal with–issues that were encountered because she chose to serve and was challenged in ways many of you will never be–and I’m sure, from one Destiny to another, that she would like you to keep her first name out of it.

Laura writes:

I am not on a crusade to rid the world of ‘Destiny’s.’

I wish you the best.

CMDCM (FMF) Ron Naida writes:

My kudos goes out to CPT Scott, Cassidy A, and Ken for being on-point in their assessment of the opinions.  Sorry to see the focus on a name and the fact that women serve in the military.  I have served 30 years and continue to serve through various changes that are difficult to accept at first but eventually realize how they add to our military’s diversity and to success of our mission.

While your assessment appears thorough and utilizes published details and opinions, it does not take in account numerous variables and facts that contribute to the decline of good order and discipline.  Nor does it any justice to the progress we have made, and continue to make in the advancement of equality and human rights.  Numerous statements and “facts” are taken out of context while others are ignored.  I can site several examples but will not as it is probably be a moot point.

Thomas F. Bertonneau’s comments, on the other hand, are completely off-mark and narrow-minded.  At first reading, my impression is that he is egocentric and thinks the world should act and be like him.  But that is my impression, and just like the opinions posted based on limited information that was put out regarding this issue, may be wrong.  His statement about changing his middle name from Felix is a perfect example of his ignorant contribution to the discussion.  And using his father’s experience as a FD BN Chief makes me wonder if he is using his father as a vessel to embellish his point.

On one hand, by rejecting his given name Mr Bertonneau doesn’t seem to respect his father; and on the other, he will use his father’s a tough guy experience (getting knocked down and brushing himself off…) to imply respect in order to make a point.  However, that story has no correlation to the Cowpens CO’s illness.  I have been blown off a ladder and to the ground at a fire scene (I am also a professional FF of 20 years) and got back up to continue the firefighting tasks.  Then during a recent sledding experience, missed the path and landed in deep, soft snow but the sled tether yanked my ankle and tore a hamstring taking me OOC from simple physical activities such as running.  The first example appears to be exciting and heroic while the later caused greater injury.  Should the story of the gentleman who slipped in his kitchen and bumping his head on the counter leading to a subdural hemorrhage and consequently dying be less serious than the Navy SEAL who was shot, fell off two cliffs, sustained numerous broken bones and multiple cuts and bruises yet lived?

Not sure what qualifies two bloggers (I believe there were only 7) contributions as being credible and experienced in U.S. Navy policies and procedures.  Nevertheless, it made for interesting reading and a bit entertaining.

I think you get my point.

 Laura writes:

Thank you for your comments, but, no, I don’t get your point. On the most important subject, which is the role of women in the military, you are vague.

You write:

I have served 30 years and continue to serve through various changes that are difficult to accept at first but eventually realize how they add to our military’s diversity and to success of our mission.

How do women enhance the success of the mission? How do whatever benefits they bring to a ship such as the Cowpens — benefits that male sailors could not possibly offer — offset the problems created by their presence?

Regarding the discussion of Gombert’s illness, I entirely agree we do not know the details. As moderator of this discussion, I noted that a person can be seriously incapacitated by the flu. Dr. Bertonneau made informal, personal observations in a conversation. And one of his points was that, as a mere teacher, he was able to return to work with a physical handicap. He was questioning why the commander of a ship could not do so. He made some other witty and astute observations in what is a conversation, not a thorough report on this incident. However, I agree, we don’t know how seriously ill Gombert may have been or many of the details about the breakdown in order on the ship. As for Dr. Betonneau being egocentric, other commenters you have praised dwelled at  greater length on their personal experiences. For instance., Cassiday A. wrote:

I hesitated to change my name upon marriage because my maiden surname is very distinctive and I had achieved a little bit of brilliance in my career with that name – my married name is almost generic and I was worried my professional network would suffer a little bit.

Scott A. Fitzpatrick writes:

I read with some interest about the facial paralysis that Captain Gombert suffered in the period following his “flu-like” symptoms. I have’t heard it mentioned, but he may have been suffering from Bell’s palsy. My Dad was an Air Force officer, and very early in his career he was training to fly the B-24 “Liberator” 4-engined bomber. As a part of this training they often flew at high altitudes, unpressurized and wearing heated flying suits. He suffered from exposure and followed by a bout of Bell’s palsy, which can be caused by trauma or a weakened immune system.

Anyway, the story should have ended there, but things were far more complicated than that obviously. Most unfortunate to say the least. And, a sad statement of our sad state of affairs in our Navy.

August 11, 2014

A reader writes:

I was under the impression that the chief engineer on a ship has to have engineering background in the form of a degree in mechanical, electrical or marine engineering which is a combination of electrical,mechanical engineering and marine architecture. But this chief engineer has a degree in public policy with some training in surface warfare and gunnery. I also did a Wikipedia search for the chief engineers position on a  merchant ship and what came up was that the chief engineers has technical/engineering background with certifications in power ratings for maintaining the power plants for propelling and running the systems on the vessel. Furthermore, the CE is on par in rank with the master of the vessel and carries a master mariners license on a merchant vessel. So, am I missing some information here?