Place your bets!

[nittany03]

The big thing I'll say on this is that it takes more than just the CO's buy in. If we let it get to the CO level it's too far. You need DH buy in, you need Sr JOPA buy in. You need guys who won't tell their low time -2 when they get a terrible call as they're walking to flight, "Suck it up and compartmentalize, you'll have to do it while deployed."

Culture is a huge piece of the puzzle here. One of the reasons I stay in SELRES land is to keep being around aviators. And I don’t want to lose being able to give people funny callsigns, bust on them, and have fun as a ready room. Naval Aviation at its best rocks to be a part of. But I don’t think that, as a community, we always do as good as we could at screening out folks who weaponize the culture, whether on purpose or accidentally. There's people that use "we're aviators; we say it how it is" as an excuse to just be shit leaders or assholes in general.

I think we have a bias as a Navy for assuming that great players will make good coaches. But I’m not sure we systematically do enough to make sure that our rockstars understand that succeeding in a stack-ranked system like ours can introduce certain biases in one’s thinking. Not for all or even most, but some. Off the top of my head:

• Coupling someone’s motivation to their results. I have a suspicion that some folks have a hard time with this. It’s like the thought process goes “I busted my ass and succeeded, so if you don’t, it means you didn't bust your ass, thus you don’t care. Thus, you’re a no-load, and I can crap all over you.”
• For the really, really talented, misconstruing what "average" performance really is, because they're so far above it. Said people aren't always the best at teaching stuff either, because when it doesn't come naturally, "don't suck" isn't really a strategy.
• Losing patience because I WANT THAT CHECKLIST ITEM DONE NOW! When realistically it could get done between now and like three minutes from now, so calm down. No one's necessarily behind the jet.

We're all type A personalities and want to succeed, and "compartmentalize" is great until it doesn't work. Or a kid never gets taught to. Or never de-compartmentalizes. At some point, we need to drop the "we're aviators; we're a bunch of assholes" act and make sure we take care of the rockstars and the, well, other folks. Having been the ace of the base and the anchor man at various points in my career . . . struggling in Naval Aviation sucks. Heck, being on the boat can suck. So let's look around, take care of each other, and maybe try to make it suck less.

 

[nittany03]

If a servicemember is seen by an MTF, or referred by one, that MTF must notify the command. If that servicemember freelances their own care, then all bets are off. There's a conflict between getting servicemembers the care they need (which I support) and COs having full knowledge of potentially serious issues that affect those under their command - issues which could have an impact of the safety of others. While I respect people's desire for privacy, the CO also needs to be able to make informed decisions on that person's fitness to work on or fly in aircraft/handle classified materials/employ deadly force/etc.

It's a conundrum and there's no easy answer. Curious as to what others have seen/experienced on this issue.

The ‘freelance’ aspect, or more accurately helping sailors avoid it, is why I’m a big fan of MilitaryOneSource. It’s actually a DoD funded program and can get the sailor mental health care without requiring them to just point to a random dr in the yellowpages. It also helps avoid the MTF stigma.

As a CO, you also had a vested interest that, if one of your Sailors was sexually assaulted, that you nailed the bastard rapist to the wall. But there's a reason Big Navy has restricted reporting for SAPR. Because it's better that a Sailor get care even if the assaulter goes unpunished than for that to happen AND a Sailor get no care. Similarly, OneSource and PHOP are there because it's better for someone to get care before they suck-start their sidearm. Even if it's confidential from the command.

Believe me when I say I understand the seriousness of the CO's knowing about serious issues. I contemplated ejection twice in my career. Long story with the details best not posted in public, but the second time was when my pilot came unglued behind the boat at night. "He's so binary on the controls I don't know if he can tank if we bolter again" was NOT a fun thought to be entertaining.

 

[magnetfreezer]

If a servicemember is seen by an MTF, or referred by one, that MTF must notify the command. If that servicemember freelances their own care, then all bets are off. There's a conflict between getting servicemembers the care they need (which I support) and COs having full knowledge of potentially serious issues that affect those under their command - issues which could have an impact of the safety of others. While I respect people's desire for privacy, the CO also needs to be able to make informed decisions on that person's fitness to work on or fly in aircraft/handle classified materials/employ deadly force/etc.

It's a conundrum and there's no easy answer. Curious as to what others have seen/experienced on this issue.

Last year's AF suicide statistics showed a higher rate among aircraft maintenance and security forces. While these career fields have higher ops tempo,. etc. driving stress, another is the intense support structure/identity from work/peers. When an airman seeks help, and gets pulled off the flightline or patrol (or clearance suspended for intel airmen, etc.), and put on snack bar or halls and walls it removes them from their work and can make them more socially isolated/perception of being "in trouble" which exacerbates the issue. The statistics frequently put out that "only x% of mental health takes away your clearance" is true, but misleading, since higher levels of clearance/access often result in access being suspended for months while the issue is reviewed (and the damage is done) although the clearance itself is technically restored. Mental health visits can often block other things like PCS to Korea/Japan, special duty/instructor jobs, etc. which also creates the disincentive to seek help.

I've known several folks who had personal issues, nothing to impact the fly/classified/deadly force areas but didn't want to jeopardize work stuff visit the chaplains and get the help they needed. Chaplains do have absolute confidentiality, but if there's an imminent situation (guy comes in telling them he's going to kill someone) will do everything in their power to push him to open up to someone himself & stop it. OneSource type counselors don't have to report to military medical records in the traditional sense, but do have a legal obligation to report actual / threatened harm to self or others.

 

[Farva01]

Mental health support has been one of the more challenging aspects during my XO/CO tour (but don't even get me started on NCIS and Legal).
The real challenge is balancing the good of the squadron with the good of the individual. I keep telling my command I have no problem with someone taking a knee if they are having problems. But if they start taking a knee too often, it becomes detrimental to the mission we might need to find another place for them (and ensure that is not viewed as punitive). We work really hard to get people the appropriate treatment using all available means (chaps, base mental health, Fleet and Family, DAPA). Once they have headed that way, it really is out of my hands until I get a recommendation from a mental health professional. If someone needs to go LIMDU, I have no problem with it, they need to secure themselves before they can help others and I tell them that before they leave the squadron to go LIMDU.
I think where some COs get themselves in trouble is they try to fight the professionals because most likely they think someone is trying to skate out of deployment (i.e. saltwater allergies). My opinion is it isn't worth the fight. First, it is damn near impossible to prove malingering with regards to mental health. A Sailor just needs to read straight from Web MD. Second, if that person wants to abuse the system to get out of a deployment or duty, they aren't someone I want in the squadron anyways. I am not going to waste my energy on those. I would rather spend my energy on the ones that a little extra attention to their problems can make them a productive member of the Navy.
For aircrew, a CO has one chance to set the tone in the squadron. As soon as someone ducks out of a flight for any reason (mental or physical) the CO needs to nod their head and say no problem. We are fighting the flu and double dragon on deployment and I told the aircrew that if they even think they can't fly to cancel the event. Again if they need to take a knee for a while, then a harder discussion needs to happen. It is not punitive, but I need to know if this person is capable of doing their job safely.
Bottom line, Lemoore needs more mental health professionals. They are constantly busy and it is a fight to get Sailors to see the correct people.

 

[Brett327]

As a CO, you also had a vested interest that, if one of your Sailors was sexually assaulted, that you nailed the bastard rapist to the wall. But there's a reason Big Navy has restricted reporting for SAPR. Because it's better that a Sailor get care even if the assaulter goes unpunished than for that to happen AND a Sailor get no care. Similarly, OneSource and PHOP are there because it's better for someone to get care before they suck-start their sidearm. Even if it's confidential from the command.

Believe me when I say I understand the seriousness of the CO's knowing about serious issues. I contemplated ejection twice in my career. Long story with the details best not posted in public, but the second time was when my pilot came unglued behind the boat at night. "He's so binary on the controls I don't know if he can tank if we bolter again" was NOT a fun thought to be entertaining.

SA is definitely a special case - mostly because it has a dubious history of getting fucked away in some instances. I agree that people should absolutely get the care they need, and that in rare cases doing so anonymously might prevent greater harm. That principle is in tension with a CO's responsibility for making informed decisions about the members of their command - which in some cases can also prevent greater harm - hence the conundrum.

What I can do, as a CO, is to be approachable, build trust with my Sailors and foster a command climate where people feel more comfortable coming to me when they have issues like this. Knowing that I'll handle their issue with respect, compassion and discretion is the best way for me to tip the balance of the aforementioned dilemma in the command's favor.

 

[nittany03]

Last year's AF suicide statistics showed a higher rate among aircraft maintenance and security forces. While these career fields have higher ops tempo,. etc. driving stress, another is the intense support structure/identity from work/peers. When an airman seeks help, and gets pulled off the flightline or patrol (or clearance suspended for intel airmen, etc.), and put on snack bar or halls and walls it removes them from their work and can make them more socially isolated/perception of being "in trouble" which exacerbates the issue. The statistics frequently put out that "only x% of mental health takes away your clearance" is true, but misleading, since higher levels of clearance/access often result in access being suspended for months while the issue is reviewed (and the damage is done) although the clearance itself is technically restored.

This is not just a mental health thing, it’s a medical thing. Your career clock never stops, so the minute you have to take a knee for anything, physical or mental, you’re disadvantaged because that’s a qual you didn’t get or a tour you couldn’t do, so it compounds. It’s not medical’s fault; they have to treat you responsibly. But in the end, you may be “better,” but you’re now potentially off-track compared to your peers. This is a HUGE disincentive to report anything that can’t be proven or that isn’t actively interfering with work.

It’s unjust, but unfortunately some smart lawyer hasn’t come with an explanation yet why it should be illegal/unconstitutional. There needs to be a mechanism to adjust people’s wickets so if they come back up, it’s as close to as if it never happened as we can make it.

 

[Spekkio]

There needs to be a mechanism to adjust people’s wickets so if they come back up, it’s as close to as if it never happened as we can make it.

The policy and mechanism is already there, it just needs refinement. Women can take a year off for child care and get rolled back a YG. I know of a man who used the same program to take a sabbatical during his divorce. The down side, iirc, is it involves a dramatic pay cut during the time off.

I don't know any of the details or resources to point officers in the right direction to use this program or what the limitations are, but seems reasonable that 'I busted my shoulder and need 6 mo to rehab' should be added to the list of reasons to push an officer's gates back a year.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

You can also request a deferral for certain boards (this year's ACSB is one for sure) if you feel that something beyond your control has put you at a disadvantage. It's up to the board president whether or not to approve it.

 

[SynixMan]

You can also request a deferral for certain boards (this year's ACSB is one for sure) if you feel that something beyond your control has put you at a disadvantage. It's up to the board president whether or not to approve it.

Seriously? Requesting a delay on the Command Screen board is wildly different than being a first tour JO and asking for some time off, possibly being sidelined on quals and setback. I’m willing to allow some TMS differences, but life as a helo JO was never letting anything let you miss an upgrading flight. A multi-month sidelining that early on would essentially derail a career.

BT

This isn’t a simple issue, but we have to take the long view. I know two folks who had to decide between psych meds that are approved by the FAA and their navy medical clearance. Both made the right choice, but will never have their dream job again. That sucks, but I’ve also been to funerals that are worse. Take care of your shipmates.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Seriously? Requesting a delay on the Command Screen board is wildly different than being a first tour JO and asking for some time off, possibly being sidelined on quals and setback. I’m willing to allow some TMS differences, but life as a helo JO was never letting anything let you miss an upgrading flight. A multi-month sidelining that early on would essentially derail a career.

I'm aware they're different things. I wasn't equating them to each other merely pointing out what I can personally confirm is available right now. Out of curiosity, in your opinion would a "multi-month sidelining" compare favorably to a multi-month platform transition syllabus at the FRS? Because that's something in my community someone may submit a deferral request for.

 

[SynixMan]

I'm aware they're different things. I wasn't equating them to each other merely pointing out what I can personally confirm is available right now. Out of curiosity, in your opinion would a "multi-month sidelining" compare favorably to a multi-month platform transition syllabus at the FRS? Because that's something in my community someone may submit a deferral request for.

Absolutely not. We’re talking about people’s mental health and you’re ruminating on platform transitions. Apples and oranges on a topic I feel strongly about.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Absolutely not. We’re talking about people’s mental health and you’re ruminating on platform transitions. Apples and oranges on a topic I feel strongly about.

You can be sidelined for a whole host of reasons during any tour. I was merely comparing the actual timelines of two events because statutory and admin boards aren't going to see the distinction. I'm assuming the result of said boards is the determination of whether a career is derailed or not. If not, and were talking about a medical discharge derailing a career then I really have nothing to offer since I have very no experience as someone who adjudicates such things.

 

[DanMa1156]

To which my responses would be:

1. Prorate reservists.
2. No one entitled retirees to every base having a commissary; they are entitled to base access. Aren't they kind of viewed, for lack of a better word, as "space-A" at the commissary? Isn't that why congress started making us scan the IDs a few years ago so they could start collecting the data because anecdotally, they had heard it was mostly retirees and retiree dependas? It's there for the servicemember, not the retiree, but if one is there, let the retiree use it, but don't keep one open just for retirees. Just remember: every time something is bought at the commissary, money is lost - it's an entirely losing proposition except to fund MWR. That, in and of itself would need to be solved by closing commissaries.

After reading that report posted elsewhere in the thread, I see the 5% surcharge is actually for commissary upkeep, not MWR. I once did an exact price by price comparison of our shopping list and I was surprised that over 50% of the items were actually less expensive at the commissary even after the 5% surcharge and I was willing to write it off as "eh, it's for MWR and going to support the base picnic or the gym or subsidize my kid's CDC," but turns out that's not the case.

 

[DanMa1156]

You can be sidelined for a whole host of reasons during any tour. I was merely comparing the actual timelines of two events because statutory and admin boards aren't going to see the distinction. I'm assuming the result of said boards is the determination of whether a career is derailed or not. If not, and were talking about a medical discharge derailing a career then I really have nothing to offer since I have very no experience as someone who adjudicates such things.

Re bold text: Correct, you can, but not without consequence. Guy going through a divorce falls behind his peers - will be punished for future quals and FITREPS. Woman gets pregnant in the first tour? She may not be met with sympathetic eyes by the front office. Someone takes a knee for mental health? Will also fall behind peers and won't make it out of his/her first tour. Totally different than asking: "pause my timeline and consider me for CO next year." In this case - these people will not get that lost time made up and the Navy has lost its investment in those people.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Re bold text: Correct, you can, but not without consequence. Guy going through a divorce falls behind his peers - will be punished for future quals and FITREPS. Woman gets pregnant in the first tour? She may not be met with sympathetic eyes by the front office. Someone takes a knee for mental health? Will also fall behind peers and won't make it out of his/her first tour. Totally different than asking: "pause my timeline and consider me for CO next year." In this case - these people will not get that lost time made up and the Navy has lost its investment in those people.

I specifically didn't add in O4 or ADHSB because I can't confirm if the deferral is available for those. For argument's sake, say they are. The extra year (or 2 in the case of a 1 x FOS) of paper for those who have fallen behind will objectively give them a better shot at making the next milestone regardless of what happened in their previous tour. Seeing that there is a path to redemption ideally changes the culture of people being afraid to call timeout.