Remember those recent allegations that the military records of the outgoing Commandant of the Marine Corps – Gen James Amos – were not exactly 100% “kosher”? You know, that little “oopsie” where somehow a signed official bio submitted for Senate confirmation seemed to claim that Gen Amos went to USMC’s “The Basic School” in 1972 when in truth he actually received credit for completing it via correspondence in 1977?
Well, you’ll be pleased to hear that – in the words of Gertrude Stein – “there is no there there”. The SECDEF has determined that the error in Gen Amos’ bio was due to a “data entry error” on the part of the person preparing the resume, and that claims Gen Amos padded his resume were “not . . . credible.” He also further determined that Gen Amos did not engage in misconduct in terms of unlawful command influence two other matters – the famous “urination video” and “Heritage Brief” incidents.
Bottom line: “Nothing to see here, folks; move along.” Gen Amos will retire with 4 stars.
Well – isn’t that special. “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”
Frankly, the fact that Gen Amos will retire as a 4-star isn’t the part that bothers me the most. I indeed have a hard time believing that Gen Amos didn’t adequately and thoroughly review the bio submitted to Congress over his signature. However, since someone else actually prepared the bio that claim is at least plausible (if IMO pretty damned unlikely).
And while I have my own personal opinions about the other two incidents, I wasn’t there – so I don’t really know the “real deal” on those, either. The DoD IG apparently did clear him of outright misconduct in the “urination video” case. Regarding the “Heritage Brief” issue, precisely when a public statement does and does not constitute improper command influence in a Court-Martial is IMO a fairly murky area. And besides, even if Gen Amos “fornicated Fido”* in one or both of those cases I’m not sure that rises to the level of misconduct invalidating “successful service”.
What bothers me more is the way this was handled by the SECNAV and SECDEF. The SECNAV could have handled this himself. He didn’t; he punted it to the SECDEF. And the SECDEF’s statement here IMO gives the distinct impression of obfuscating through dwelling on irrelevant trivia – perhaps in order to bolster a predetermined conclusion – vice making a decision based on his own evaluation of the pertinent facts.
I mean really, Secretary Mabus: you couldn’t review the facts and make the determination yourself whether Gen Amos was truthful when he submitted a signed bio to Congress that was incorrect? And really, Secretary Hagel: blaming the submission of a clearly erroneous but signed document on a “data entry error”? Really?
Bottom line: I’d expect a SECNAV to be more decisive than that. And I’d expect both a SECNAV and SECDEF to actually, you know, face and make hard decisions head-on – particularly since the each is a member of the chain-of-command (administrative in the case of the SECNAV; both administrative and operational in the case of the SECDEF).
One day, perhaps we’ll see that kind of decisive leadership again at senior levels. But based on this, I guess we won’t see it any time soon.
* – PC-speak for “screwed the pooch”. Used here for the benefit of any of our sheltered-from-reality “liberal brethren” who might chance across this article and be offended by non-PC language.