Monday, December 12, 2011

22nd Navy Commanding Officer Fired - Call on the Field is "under review"


Commander Jonathan Lee Jackson, commanding officer of VAQ-134 (based in Whidbey Island and embarked in USS CARL VINSON), was fired on 8 December for (1) conduct unbecoming an officer and (2) violation of the Navy’s sexual harassment policy.  Commander Jackson was accused of creating and supporting a hostile work environment in his EA-6B squadron.

According to the Navy's Naval Air Forces Command spokesperson, Commander Jackson had a pattern of making inappropriate and derogatory remarks toward subordinates.

He is the 22nd Navy commanding officer to be fired in 2011.

BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT THIS, YOU MUST READ THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY HERE. His subordinates, peers and superiors ALL disagree with the Navy IG's findings

Fortunately, the Commander, Air Wing SEVENTEEN, Captain Stephen McInerney, has tossed the challenge flag on the field of play. We are awaiting a 'booth' review of this call by Commander, THIRD Fleet. 

Thanks NEPTUNUS LEX.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Commander Gregory Byers, the squadron's executive officer, has assumed command of VAQ-134. Jackson is awaiting reassignment.

Disgusted Sailor said...

Unnecessary and completely avoidable. Come on gentlemen, get with the program. Set an example that I can follow.

Jim Murphy said...

I'm just curious, how many COs have to be fired before the rest of them get the point that the Navy is not going to tolerate their inappropriate behavior?

What is it that makes an experienced Naval officer believe they can get away with this type of conduct when so many others are being caught and fired - and in the process publicy humiliated?

A one time lack of judgment is almost understandable, but it's the pattern of inappropriate behavior displayed by many of the fired COs that really boggles the mind.

s said...

No to repeat Jim Murphy's comment, but "clears throat" ARE YOU F-ING KIDDING ME??!!

As far back as the late '80s the Navy had sexual harassment training on a nearly quarterly basis. How can a CO NOT know this conduct was unacceptable?? Or, knowing the conduct is forbidden, engage in it anyway and expect it to go unnoticed??

Some of these relief-for-cause stories make me want to pull out what remains of my hair.

VAQ Maintenance Team said...

I served with the skipper as XO and he was the best XO I have ever seen. I don't know what this is about but it does not seem right.

Anonymous said...

I guess he hid it well under you. Not just relieved but NJP action as well. Looking at when they deployed and the Times article it seems that action was swift. It had to be a clear cut case with multiple witnesses for it to go down this way and that fast.

I truly hope he played the game well with you. If not - and you condone his beleifs and the way he acts, then shame on you. Again - I hope he hid it well while with you.

Good Ole Boy Protection Society said...

I remember when Captain Reavey was relieved. Many said good things about him as well. Then the facts came out. He had a history ... but people overlooked that because he was 'a good guy'. Taking care of 'one of the boys' must stop if we are going to police ourselves.

Tired of your sh*t said...

Jammer ONE

Jam you !!

Anonymous said...

Those of you posting critical comments here with no clear picture of the facts are embarrassing yourselves. There are going to be a lot of eyes raised when the rest of this story comes out... Suffice it to say that many of the arm chair quarterbacks around here will be scrambling to remove some of the ignorant vitriol being posted around here.

This relief will serve as proof that the New Egalitarian Navy is here to stay - being led by spineless flag officers.

Do The Right Thing said...

How can the CO be like this and the XO not know or try to stop him?!? I hope the XO was the person who turned him in. If not, to do a full tour and then get relieved for having this type of a climate in the command means the XO was part of the problem.

Yes - the XO should be loyal to his CO but he should also be loyal to the Navy first. I truly hope in this case the XO did the right thing. If not, then this squadron still has a leadership problem.

This is going to hurt said...

I find it hard to believe that both CAG and the Battle Group Admiral would take this action if it was not warranted. The CO also accepted NJP. If he really had an issue he could have asked for a court martial. Although they are at sea, the NJP could have been forced on the CDR but I doubt they would have done that.

I agree ... the Navy is changing and either people will adopt the new order or suffer painful lessons like this former CO did. With a sexual harassment NJP on his record, he should pray he can stay in the Navy for retirement. His show cause hearing will be tough. His timing could not be at a worst time. His example will be clear to all regarding the severe consequences COs face now if they screw up.

Anonymous said...

I served with Commander Jackson in Afghanistan while he was the XO and as he prepared to take over as CO of VAQ-134. I have never met a finer man as a leader while I was in the Navy. We served in harsh conditions and he always and I mean ALWAYS took care of us making sure we were all in the right frame of mind. To see that someone took his tone wrong or the way that he spoke shows that the hardness of how he spoke at times hurt peoples feelings. It takes more than "political correctness" to run a command and at times you need to be harsh. For those civilians who have never served in combat or at sea on a deployment, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to bad mouth this man or any other soldier, sailor, or airman. We do things that would cause the ordinary man to get weak in the knees. I do believe the charges are trumped up and truly need to be dismissed.

Anonymous said...

The view from the ivory tower some of you live in must be terrific...

The Navy Inquirer is selling this as sexual harassment when in reality it was more of a command climate issue, and you'll all be very surprised when you eventually learn who made the initial accusations.

There are some soft players in that squadron (MAYBE even the ready room...) who MAY not have been able to thrive in the rough and tumble ready room environment. MAYBE some folks who didn't take kindly to being held to account for poor performance - particularly when the criticism came with colorful language.

Two things that are worth paying attention to here: first, this happened 8 days before normally scheduled CoC. WTF? Second, this squadron just took a massive hit to its E-5/6 through the train wreck that is the ERB and they were home approximately 90 days between deployments. This squadron is hurting and by many knowledgable accounts this act of CYA leadership just made the road ahead much tougher.

Enjoy the pure air up there....

Anonymous said...

This is absolute B.S. The XO should be ashamed to follow him in command. The XO was a complete enabler for the CO. CO never should have been fired !! But since he was, the Navy should have made a clean sweep - CO/XO/CMC all should have been fired. I am so pissed off I can't even talk about this without spitting nails.

Anonymous said...

WITCH HUNT! It's time for the Admirals in this Navy to grow,a sack before we don't have a Navy left. The experiment has failed! Time to keep women out of combat units. The politicians can say it's made a stronger force until they are blue in the face with political correctness but it will still be the POLITICALLY correct thing to do, not the RIGHT thing to do. We are a weaker force than we were in 1990.

Justin Rogers ENS, USN (1170) said...

Oh the "burden of leadership".... (CAPT Clark, USNA DANT). The previous comment unfortunately ignores all the other hundreds of wonderful commanding officers and commands out there.

I refuse to agree with the previous comment about how our Navy is politically correct all the time. Political correctness is being scared or fearful of saying how you truly feel. Commands should be wiling to hear out dissenters. Just because things go a certain way, doesn't equate to political correctness.

And what does the sentence-our flags need to grow some balls- what do you men? Discuss that thought further because it's unclear what exactly you mean.

Sexually Harassment Must Stop said...

"Time to keep women out of combat units. The politicians can say it's made a stronger force until they are blue in the face with political correctness but it will still be the POLITICALLY correct thing to do, not the RIGHT thing to do. We are a weaker force than we were in 1990."

WOW!!! Sounds like a CO crossed the line and was held accountable. But yet some on this blog desire to blame the victim(s) of the negative environment this CO created. Going back to all male wardrooms will not solve the problem. The 'boys clu'b of years ago is gone now. I am sure we will have people in the Navy who continue to try to bring them back. As long as they do then I am also sure Navy Times will be happy to print stories on how they were fired.

Anonymous said...

I've posted it here before and I'll post it again - all of you pious ivory tower dwellers are going to be very surprised to hear the FACTS of this case and who was actually behind the complaint(s). When you figure that out then we can have an actual conversation about failures of leadership and "un-officer like" conduct on the part of the coward behind the claims.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:52PM

Why don't you lay it out for us here if you are so certain of the facts. The Navy fired him. Case closed.

Captain - Special Duty Cryptology said...

For Anonymous trying to post about the CMC - we'll wait for the news.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous seem to think he has all the facts but truth be told, this former CO was judged and convicted by sound leaders. If he didn't do anything wrong then he wouldn't be in this situation. You may call the "whistle blower" a coward but I would call them a leader. Anaonymous, you speak as though you were there. Sounds like you need to consider your source of information.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who had this all figured out nearly two months ago- have you had the opportunity to read the IG's report? Is there no accountability for the completely unprofessional and just plain hack job those individuals performed? The IG system is a joke and everyone who has ever had the misfortune of being interviewed by them knows they pick sides.

Next, did you all have the chance to read the CO's letter of appeal? Some interesting facts brought out there.

Did you all have the opportunity to read CAG's endorsement of the CO?

So my question to all of you who view life through rose colored glasses is this: was the CO, XO, CMC, CAG and entire ready room failing? Or was this simply the case of two poor performing minority officers who, instead of accepting responsibility for their performance, took the cowardly route of blaming someone else and using the race/gender card in the process?

Anonymous said...

You can't be serious??? Three CO's fired in six months for arrogant, alcohol induced behavior.

Why didn't CVWP stand up for him? His former boss. Maye memories of JD in Japan reminded him. Maybe his rag skipper? Maybe the first growler CVW skipper? Who knows.

This community needs to shape up or we will find ourselves absorbed by the VFA community.

I