34 Kicked Out For Cheating at Prototype

| August 21, 2014

Today we learned from Fox News that 34 people have been separated from the Navy for cheating on qualification tests at the Charleston, South Carolina prototype training site:

The number of accused and the duration of cheating are greater than was known when the Navy announced in February that it had discovered cheating on qualification exams by an estimated 20 to 30 sailors seeking to be certified as instructors at the nuclear training unit at Charleston, South Carolina.

At least 10 more are currently under investigation, and their status at this time is unclear.

Social media pages involving Navy nukes are obviously talking about this. While all are glad that this cheating ring was busted, many were unsurprised by the fact that it occurred.

Prototype is the third stage in the training of prospective nuclear plant operators. After graduation from Basic Training at Great Lakes, “baby nukes” are sent to Charleston to attend Nuclear Field “A” School as either Machinist Mates, Electricians Mates, or Electronics Technicians. Then they attend 24 weeks of Nuclear Power School, where they are taught everything from math and Physics to metallurgy, reactor dynamics, Chemistry, and further in-rate and cross-rate knowledge. Prototype also starts with more classroom training before students move “in-hull”, as we called it back in the day. There, students stand “under instruction” watches and learn about all systems within the plant.

Qualifications are closely monitored, with students required to make continuous progress and stay “ahead of the curve”. Written exams are given, and when the qualification card (book) is complete, the student is given an oral qualification board with 3-4 staff members quizzing the student on any and all plant systems. At this point, the student is then considered ready for assignment to a carrier or submarine, although qualification on the ship/submarine they are assigned to may take up to another year after they arrive at their ultimate duty station.

(Admiral) Richardson (Head of Naval Reactors) said he met individually with each of the accused and heard at least two common themes: a belief that there was little risk of getting caught, and a work environment at the nuclear training site that created stresses and pressures on the approximately 300 sailors who serve as instructors.

IMHO, there are several reasons why this culture came about. This is not the first cheating scandal to occur in the Nuclear Navy–there have been cases aboard the USS Memphis and USS Eisenhower, but this is the first notable cheating scandal to occur at a training command, and involving staff members.

The prototypes in question are what were referred to as “floatotypes”–reconverted ballistic missile submarines whose engine rooms serve as the training platforms for the students assigned there after Nuclear Power School. These plants are now 50 years old. Simply keeping them running is proving to be a challenge, to the point the staff doesn’t have enough time to qualify themselves, let alone perform their primary function of qualifying students.

Next, for about 15-20 years now, the mentality in training for nuclear power seems to have shifted from a “filter” to a “pump” mentality. The attrition rate 25+ years ago in Nuclear Power School alone could be as high as 30-40 percent. My class was lucky–we lost “only” 25 percent. Although most of the losses occurred in “A” school and NPS, by no means was a student guaranteed to graduate prototype, and a number did fail out. But the need for instructors and staff became so acute, after around 2000, the Top 50/Top 50 (top 50 percent in both NPS and Prototype) requirement was set aside. Talking to some folks who were instructors, this was a mistake. Folks who should never have been able to screen for instructor duty did so, and their lack of knowledge was glaring.

Most of the folks who were cheating were “sea-returnees”, people who had at least one tour under their belts, and some more. These were not people fresh out of the pipeline. Many were First Class Petty Officers or even Chief Petty Officers, who SHOULD have had at least the “big picture” knowledge on how to run a plant safely and maximize propulsion–the two key goals of any ship or submarine. The senior enlisted watch on board a submarine is Engineering Watch Supervisor (EWS). These watchstanders are the eyes and ears of the Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW), and in fact underway they relieve the EOOW as required or during emergency. Most of the people caught cheating had EWS qualifications at their underway commands. The fact that the prototype was a different type of plant is really less concern than one might think–pumps are pumps, valves are valves, etc., and it’s just a matter of how they’re put together that makes plants different.

Finally, Naval Reactors is, to put it nicely, assholes when it comes to training, particularly testing. Scores must fit in a certain range–too high, the test was too easy. Too low, the test is too hard, but you can’t have a test with NO failures, and Rickover’s ghost help you if you’re the “designated failure”. Some of it makes sense, some of it you just kind of shrug and accept, and some is just jaw-dropping fucktardery.

Imagine Naval Reactors or the ORSE team coming on and telling the E/RC Divisions that their test on Electrical Safety was too easy because they had no failures. Really? No shit? Hey, they had no failures because IT’S THEIR FREAKING JOB! If they did fail electrical safety CT Exams, should they really be sticking their asses in switchgear or energized equipment drawers? Frankly, it’s an archaic method of gauging knowledge, and not a very effective one.

It creates more knowledgeable operators, to be sure, but it gets to a point it becomes nearly impossible to complete the tests in the allotted timeframe. We’re talking 100-page EWS exams that had to be completed in 8 hours or less. No multiple choice, no fill-in-the-blank. Essay questions, every one. Failure to put down key words, phrases, or adequately explain detail down to incredibly silly detail in some cases would be enough to create a failure. Failure could be cause for getting booted out of instructor duty, an almost certain career-ending result.

So we have overworked instructors, who may or may not have been good choices for instructor duty, given exams that were wholly unrealistic tests of their knowledge. End result? See above.

Unfortunately, Naval Reactors (and Big Navy) have, to paraphrase Monty Python, found their witch, and they have burned them. But they won’t really address the issues that led up to this. Treat the symptom, not the disease.

Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Navy

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SJ

When I read about this on another site I said to myself that I’ll bet that NHSparky will splain all this on TAH in terms that an Army guy could understand.

I was not disappointed. Great writeup. BZ NHSparky.

Ex-PH2

I want to understand this correctly.

Certain people are set up to fail?

Then what was the point of sending them to this school in the first place?

This antiquated mindset – if all pass the tests, they’re too easy – needs to be examined more closely. Frankly, if the tests are as difficult as you describe them, you’d expect a certain number of people to fail. At no time would I want to ever see another gray lady down. EVER. But to set people up for failure means that the school itself is a political cesspool, just like Great Lakes, not a training ground. And don’t get me started on Great Mistakes.

MustangCryppie

Wow! That’s an accident waiting to happen. Admiral Rickover is probably spinning like a top in his grave.

When I joined in 1980, the recruiter pushed me HARD to go nuke cause I did well on the ASVAB. I am soooo glad I didn’t cave. I would have rocked out for sure.

BooRadley

Is it possible that the whole nuke program isn’t suitable for the “navy will train you in 60 days” mentality even if you are very smart. maybe the navy needs to consider other training avenues– ie: some college before enlistment, or training, then a work cycle and then more training etc…

NEC338x

I disagree. You recruit a sufficient number, filter out the slugs and scoop off the cream. Someone with sufficient math background and who is self-motivated can succeed. College drop outs generally lack the self motivation. If someone is successful in college I would encourage them to continue, and once they have their degree and are still interested in the Navy then look into NUPOC.

Bullnuke

BooRadley – You’re onto the current problem. To me it appears that the Navy currently is of the “60 days” mentality in this program, to train ’em enough to not be totally dangerous and send ’em out to find out how to really do it at sea. Not all of them, mind you, but to meet the numbers people are passed along without a real clue as to what is going on. The KOG (Admiral Rickover) made sure we were over-trained in crap we’d never see before allowing someone to move to each next step: “A” School were you learned your trade, Nuclear Power School where you learned a butt-ton of stuff in a very short 6-months, to Prototype where you were finally allowed to see and operate reactor plants. The vast (90%) of us were high-school grads. My class which started at Mare Island, CA, was reduced by 30+% at the end of the year of training during the weeding-out process for various reasons, few of which seem to apply today. Two moving violation in the civilian world could (in 1969) bar a person from even entering the program (it was called “demonstrated unreliablity”). There were damn few marginal folks who made it to serve at sea. The people who couldn’t do it at sea for whatever reason were gone quickly. The interesting thing I saw during my 21-years were the folks who struggled hardest through the entire process were my best operators, bar none. Today, it appears, meet the numbers, meet the metrics, wash your hands. Sad and somewhat a concern to me. The KOG has been rolling in his grave for years….

Nucsnipe

I was in one of the last classes before they started up NFAS in Orlando. Kinda seemed the quality degraded after that since it wasn’t as in depth as the conventional A schools

NEC338x

More importantly, the move away from conventional A School reduced the value of nuke waste going to the fleet. I too straddled the period that you refer to and saw the effect, especially when I was a reservist and worked more closely with the conventional side.

NEC338x

In conventional A School circa 1985, a nuke candidate that fell in the lower 25% of class standing was filtered out. It was a risk, but not a serious one because about half my class were conventionals. The real running against the conventionals were for the top 10%. They needed to reach it to go from FA to FN. Nukes were pushbutton PO3 upon graduation, didn’t need it, and naturally tended to fill the top slots. In my class there was one conventional that made it. He was a hot runner. Definitely had the smarts and motivation for the nuke program.

NEC338x

EM A in Great Lakes was a fixed ten weeks, as I recall, after self-paced BEEP school. I got out of boot in April and graduated A in the beginning of August. I believe that MM A was fixed length at the time too.

Nucsnipe

Had a couple of real characters in my section at Nuc school that eventually got booted. One would show up for night study in a suit and had a Teddy bear collection, went AWOL and when the Section Advisor spotted him out in town the guy took a swing at him. When they boxed up his stuff they found the sword and the Nazi uniform.
The other guy wasn’t quite as spectacular, but could sleep standing up in the back of the classroom without falling down.

MustangCryppie

“The other guy wasn’t quite as spectacular, but could sleep standing up in the back of the classroom without falling down.”

Awesome talent!

teddy996

I was the guy who could sleep standing in my class. Section advisor placed me on 35-5’s for all of power school, not due to GPA but because I had bought a motorcycle. He felt the extra study hours would keep me focused on school instead of riding. So I would ride at night until 0200 or so, sleep until 05 but inevitably fall asleep standing at the podium during math class because the instructor was a monotonous bore.

My class didn’t have a Nazi teddy bear collector get booted, but we did have a cape wearing vampire. This was 1996-7, before all those vampire chick flicks. We also had an honest to goodness split personality schizophrenic that looked like uncle Fester, who somehow made it 3 months in to power school before the navy booted him on psych.

Bullnuke

This has been coming home to roost for a long time, at least since January 31, 1982. After the departure of the KOG (i.e. “The Kindly Old Gentleman” Admiral Rickover) the nuclear propulsion training program transitioned from its true purpose of ensuring the safe and reliable operation of the many nuclear propulsion plants of the Navy, to training that met metrics and curves fitting modern Navy management systems. Modern Navy management began to evolve in the late ’70s in an attempt to match the management systems evolving outside in civilian industry. “Optimal Manning” as a cost-control is one of the results of this newthink. The KOG’s system was definitely not compatible with the newer management processes. The KOG’s system demanded excellence in safe and reliable operations of nuclear propulsion plants The new systems were put into place to allow nuclear propulsion training to fit someone’s SPC chart. These systems demand excellence in chartable data using “credible numbers” (test to ensure x% fail and almost almost no one passes with a 4.0). Never mind true knowledge for safe and reliable operations, just make sure testing results look good and chart well, The only losers are, of course, the “unwashed” enlisted personnel. No one wants to be the test failure (one of the x%), the anchor person whose career is jeopardized. These are the times of manpower-reduction boards created to thin the herd to save the almighty dollar. That these operators have excellent knowledge of the job is not as high a priority as falling correctly on the curve. O’Gang is covered by metrics, charts and curves (how many officers were fired in this incident?). This is the tip of the iceberg. The danger is that we may be breeding a bunch of Homer Simpsons with test knowledge (they were on the qualification/testing curve!) but not near the excellence demanded by the KOG, excellence which made the program operating hundreds of reactor plants by very young operators accident-free for the last 60 years.

Mike Kozlowski

….The idea of a ‘designated failure’ isn’t strange to anyone who served in Strategic Air Command. The idea there was that one wing per year would end up taking it hard on the ORI, MSET, or Nuclear Surety Inspection, no matter how good they actually were. If they were at the top of their game, they’d get a low Satisfactory on whatever inspection it was. Most wing commanders understood this, and the smart ones kept their mouths shut – a low Sat in SAC would have been a world-beating Outstanding anywhwere else, and it was nothing personal. You took your lumps, and moved on, and in most cases there was no permanent damage, except to some egos. On the other hand, I remember one instance at Pease AFB NH (would have been early 80s) where the wing commander discovered it was his turn in the barrel….and threw the IG team off the base.

CINCSAC personally flew in to relieve his backside, and the other wing commanders were briefed on an eternal truth: to err may be human, but to forgive was not Strategic Air Command policy.

Mike