FoxNews and others are reporting that Fleet Forces Commander ADM John Harvey, Jr. recommended censures for former USS ENTERPRISE CO, CAPT Owen Honors, Honors’ former bosses on Big E, who are now both admirals, RADM Larry Rice and RADM Ron Horton, and Honors’ successor as XO, CAPT Larry Dixon. The report says ADM Harvey also recommended that CAPT Honors show cause for retention.

Fleet Forces Blog has the full story:

  • 1 Recommendation to show cause for retention (Honors)
  • 4 Recommended for Secretarial Letters of Censure (Honors, Rice, Horton, and Dixon)
  • 2 Non-punitive letters of caution (former BATGRU commanders VADM Holloway and RADM Spicer)
  • 2 Counseling (Air Wing Commander and DESRON Commodore, RADM Nosal and RADM Sharpe)
  • 32 more NPLOC to unnamed officers and enlisted members involved in the case.

UPDATE:  RADM Horton was relieved of command by the PACFLT Commander, see PACFLT announcement here.  After reviewing the investigative report, it is my opinion that the report likely implicates 4 Navy judge advocates.  Presumably those 4 are on the list of 32 officers/sailors that received non-punitive letters of caution.

Here is a quote from ADM Harvey’s message, that you can disagree with on the outcome, but you have to appreciate the argument and logic with which it is presented:

Vulgar language, insensitive and sexually-tinged attempts at humor such as that displayed in the ENTERPRISE videos is now an everyday part of our popular culture and endless examples can be found on cable television and in the movies.

Recognizing this fact of life, some have questioned the actions I have taken thus far and have also characterized the videos as harmless attempts to raise crew morale during a period of demanding operations.

I cannot disagree more strongly!

Navy leaders are not popular entertainers, but professionals vested with extraordinary military authority who must be held to a higher standard and maintain their credibility in the eyes of their subordinates under the most difficult, even possibly life-threatening, circumstances. Poor judgment and behavior that undermines that credibility threatens good order and discipline and, over time, jeopardizes the crew’s faith in its leadership.

The entire investigation and all 25 of the videos that ADM Harvey found to be inappropriate are available here on the US Fleet Forces FOIA page.

9 Responses to “ENTERPRISE CO and 3 Others To Be Censured; 36 (!) Others Receive Non-Punitive Measures After XO Movie Night Investigation”

  1. k fischer says:

    So, they are going to try to kick CAPT Honors out of the Navy? If so, seriously?

    I get the logic that Naval leaders are not entertainers, and my opinion would be different if his ship did not perform well during the deployment because he was too busy filming XO movie night.

    But, that is not what happened. Where is the harm? Did this behavior have the consequences ADM Harvey listed? Doesn’t sound like it on his ship.

    If the goal is to send a message, then the Navy has certainly killed a fly with a sledgehammer. If the goal is to punish CAPT Honors for the harm he caused, then a retention board is a little much.

  2. John O'Connor says:

    I wouldn’t have necessarily agreed with ADM Harvey’s reasoning until I saw that he used an exclamation point. Who can be wrong under such circumstances!

  3. Mike No Man Navarre says:

    JO\’C–The exclamation point is under-utilized in Naval messages. I applaud him for revitalizing its use.

  4. John O'Connor says:

    To be clear, I watched one of the videos and I don’t think the content was necessarily appropriate. But it struck me more like something where you’d say “hey dummy, don’t do that anymore.” Of course, no one did that and now they’re turning what I think is a fairly minor case of bad judgment (that could have been nipped in the bud at the outset) into a hanging offense.

  5. Mike No Man Navarre says:

    Actually the report says that someone, in fact several people, did say hey dummy . . . and he either ignored the advice or was oblivious to the concept of appropriateness. The problem with the chain of command, at least as I see it, was failure to then monitor compliance with their own advice.

  6. Christopher Mathews says:

    I’m still not sure I’d toss him from the Navy — perhaps placing him charge of the coastal defense of Wyoming would suffice. But even a “fairly minor case of bad judgment” perpetuated across the course of several years seems to me to be grounds enough to determine an officer should not command a carrier.

  7. Dew_Process says:

    The ghost of Tailhook lives on….

  8. k fischer says:

    No Man,

    He did kind of admit that people were complaining about the videos in one of his videos, didn’t he…..I forgot about that minor detail.

    So, maybe I don’t feel so sorry, now…….(taking a swig of the defense kool-aid stashed in my desk drawer)…..

    Naaaaahhhhhh! CAPT Honors is getting railroaded!!!!

  9. Rob M says:

    After reading this, it does seem less like an overreaction to some poor decisionmaking and more like punishment for willfully disregarding a superior officer. Any time you’re “counseled,” even if it’s phrased really gently, it should serve as a serious wake up call to stay between the lines. Seems like he chose to ignore the message.