Sailor’s Combat Death Leads to Navy-Wide Policy Changes – But should they?
There is something about this whole thing that makes me take pause.
Navy officials are changing what a top admiral called “fundamental flaws” in its waiver and appeal process for commissioning programs after a sailor who was denied a chance to pursue a career as an officer was sent to Syria, where she was killed in a suicide bombing.
Adm. William Moran, vice chief of naval operations, sent a letter detailing the changes to the family of Chief Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) Shannon Kent, Stars and Stripes reported Wednesday.
The action follows a call from seven lawmakers demanding that Navy leaders explain how they planned to update the policies that left Kent deployed to the war zone after rejecting a plan that would have allowed her to pursue a doctorate degree as part of a commissioning program.
The Navy denied Kent’s plans to attend a clinical psychology program, Stripes reported, because the 35-year-old mother of two had previously been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Despite that, the service considered her fit to deploy, and the linguist landed on her fifth combat tour in November when she was sent to Syria where she — along with 18 other people — was killed by a suicide bomberon Jan. 16.
The loss of Chief Kent was tragic, as is the loss of any American who is serving this nation.
However, since when is seeking to become a Commissioned Officer considered to be a valid reason to get out of a deployment? What most of the articles I have read seem to imply is that the Navy has “fundamental flaws” that resulted in the death of Chief Kent. Had she been selected or her appeal granted they she would not have died. That very well may be true.
Who was supposed to die in her place? Is it somehow more acceptable to send a Chief Petty Officer who has no intention of becoming an officer to their death? Her death and her being denied a chance to pursue a career as an officer are mutually exclusive.
If you are deployed into harm’s way, or about to be, you simply apply for a Degree Completion Program to get out of it all.
Filling the Officer Ranks with individuals that want to avoid combat deployments is hardly the way to make our military more lethal.
There may very well have been problems with the selection process and even the appeal process. Creating a situation where people who apply are now plucked from deployment is unacceptable.
I am sorry for her loss, I am disappointed that others lack the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing in the wake of her death.
Source: Sailor’s Combat Death Leads to Navy-Wide Policy Changes | Military.com
Category: Government Incompetence, Professional Development, Reality Check, Terror War
The news folks seemed to forget all about the other Americans killed that day.
That’s true. But for this issue regarding the regulation, they probably would have overlooked her, too. I’m still wincing over the account of Chris Kyle’s death and reports that simply referred to another man being murdered along with him. He had a name.
Chad Littlefield. I won’t mention the killer’s name. He’s waste of oxygen, still walking the Earth.
This has me contemplating what 2/17 AirCav said the other day about fair process VS fair outcome. Not that it’s provided me any answers. I only hope the situation is not made worse by the “feel gooders”.
As I understand the issue presented by her family, at least, the objection to the regulation was that her medical condition precluded her attending a graduate program while not precluding her deployment. Sure, other considerations flow from that, and you raised them. No question. Had she been permitted to attend the program, she might still have been deployed, no?
Exactly, too broken to go to school, but med up to deploy for real-deal intel work in Syria…makes no sense…but Dave needs something to old guy gripe about. He unfortunately is missing the point on this one. I’m sure the mods won’t post this, but I know they’ll read it…
You might be surprised.
Needs of the Service.
Her skills were needed in a combat zone worse than they were needed sitting in a school desk.
That’s kinda what we get paid for.
Also, since she was 35 years old, how many more years of service could the Navy get from her after additional schooling and the commissioning process? Needs of the Navy always trumps individual desires.
Then the service should say that, instead of claiming conflicting medical guidance.
I’m always amused by that mealy-mouthed “you(or the mods or whatever entity the child wants to dare) won’t post this”
very grade school playground
There are those who believe that their time of death is predetermined. A notable example of this was Thomas Jonathan Jackson. If that were the case, then CPO Kent would have possibly been run over by a bus or whatever on that date. We will never know.
Again, as tragic as her death was, we still need to think about the 18 others who lost their life that day. They had family and friends who mourned their passing every bit as much as CPO Kent. If we were not bogged down in that senseless war this question would not have risen. I still believe that if you are fit enough to be deployed, then you should be fit enough to go to school.
We’ve been needing Arabic speakers/interpreters for decades now. Train more, or better yet; GTFO!
or better yet; GTFO!
If only we’d never bothered to go there in the first place. Syria is just another failed foreign policy initiative that our lying sacks of shit in government are now trying to paint as something of value.
You can paint a turd a nice creamy white color, but it’s still a piece of shit at the end of the day. Which is exactly what’s going on in Syria.
Once again there is no one in the government or the nation at large for that matter who can convince me that anything in Syria was worth the life of a single American household pet, never mind a human life.
“better yet; GTFO!”
And don’t bring half the population back with you as “refugees”. Seems we do it every freakin time.
^This^^That^ AND the two things down there! HTs to VoV 26LB and CCR
Especially the bringing refugees back. Again; How dahell did we go from watching airplanes fly onto buildings, to spending billions of $ on “protecting them” and electing them to positions that they could call for the impeachment of the “MF”?
How much money and stuff did we send to the Soviet Union, to defeat the Nazi reich?
War is an obscenity at best.
“If CPO Kent was fit to deploy to a war zone, we believe she was fit to serve her country as a clinical psychologist.”
I’m not certain anyone is suggesting someone should have died in her place, I took the commentary to mean that if she wasn’t fit enough to attend school how the hell did she end up fit enough to be put in a war zone that cost her her life?
I’m not a fan of people being excused from deployment for attending schools, but my understanding is that it’s not necessarily a unique situation. Things happen all the time and people are non-deployable or they are off on some other TDY assignment that makes them unavailable.
Hell the Navy could have approved her waiver but told her they would send her to school after her next deployment and she’d still be dead.
In any event if she’s unfit to advance her education perhaps she’s unfit for duty period. If the military finds you unfit for the rigors of school but perfectly fine for the soft work in a Syrian war zone it might be time for a proper review of the current system.
The cynic in me suggests there’s a simpler Occam’s Razor approach to what happened here…the military didn’t want to waste money educating someone who might have cancer again and die thus wasting military education monies on a potentially short term candidate. Cheaper to send her to Syria (where no one should be in the first place) and if she dies just kick the payout to the family and move on.
Not sure that’s really the issue, VOV – or even true.
In general, as I recall entry standards =/= retention standards =/= fitness for deployment.
I’m also reasonably sure that physical standards for commissioning don’t allow someone to be commissioned with a PULHES containing a 3 for any category – but if I recall correctly, by the reg someone can be retained with PULHES 3 in many MOS. And the excerpt above indicates it was the commissioning program that required the waiver due to her past medical history.
Bottom line: her death – like all others who die in a war zone – was tragic. But it’s no more tragic than anyone else’s because she applied for a program that might have prevented her deployment, but needed a waiver and didn’t get one.
Damn you Hondo, you know acronyms trigger my OCD.
PULHES- Physical capacity/stamina, Upper extremities, Lower extremities, Hearing/ear, Eyes, Psychiatric
“We aim to please.” (smile)
Or is it, “We aim to PULHES.”
*grin*
I was a mustang officer in both the active Air Force and the Army Reserve, from which I retired. As a “double mustang” I generally support any personnel policies which help more enlisted members become commissioned or warrant officers.
However, commissioning is a highly competitive selection process, especially the physical examination. I spent an entire duty day at Fort Drum, NY being medically evaluated by an Army physician (O-6) while bouncing between multiple labs and clinics. Not all are going to wear gold bars. In general, there are far more applicants than officer slots available.
In my experience, neither the Air Force or the Army made the commissioning process easy simply because I was educated, healthy, experienced, and desired to be an officer. Rather, I was told the “needs of the service will control.” Being a good sergeant, I saluted crisply and departed to await further instruction.
“Exception to policy” is a slippery slope that opens the door to favoritism at the expense of fairness in any competitive selection process. Exceptions should be rarely granted and then only when the needs of the service are best served.
While I agree that the commissioning process is tough and painful and needs of the service are a worthwhile expectation for anyone, in this case it seems the only reason she didn’t get into a commissioning program was because of her prior cancer.
There might be more to it, but that seems to be the only sticking point here. We were preparing to accept transgender service members who would most likely not be deployable for 6-18 months because of their procedure. Well, not only does someone else have to go in their place, someone else has to do their job back in the real world because they’ll be below 100% functional. So why should former cancer diagnosis be a restriction for attending a commissioning program?
MSG I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I wish some Navy HR type (yeoman?) or recruiter would weigh-in on the requirements for both the doctorate psychology program and the commissioning track.
Chief Kent’s age (35) seems too old for initial commissioning although maybe the Navy medical service corps allows a higher age. In both my Air Force and Army experience, 35 was the usual maximum age allowable for a mustang to pin-on butter bars. During the OIF\OEF early years and surge I think the age was waivered by the Army to 41 temporarily.
My step-daughter holds a doctorate in psychology and is a practicing clinical psychologist. At her doctoral graduation ceremony a classmate took the Oath of Office and was directly commissioned as a Navy LT (O-3) to serve as an active duty psychologist.
Like many other commenters have mentioned, there’s much we don’t know about this particular case so we can only specualte.
Seems to me that the facts are being manipulated. The key is that this was a college program leading to being commissioned as an active duty officer; this was NOT a simple college program. Can someone find out if prior cancer is disqualifying for an officer candidate? Dollars to doughnuts it is. (Might also point out that other versions of this story have stated the bombing occurred in what was “previously considered a safe city”. It’s as if San Diego was considered unsafe, and someone was sent to Sacramento…is that death foreseeable?
In general, all regs and policies should be reviewed occasionally to determine if they still make sense. Maintain them if they do, replace them if they don’t.
On the face of it, this situation raises a lot of questions which begs that every reg she faced be reviewed. That’s a good thing.
Meanwhile, assuming that she was not the primary target with all the other victims being collateral, the killers would have taken out some number of folks that day in that restaurant whether she was there or not. (No, we have no idea who was the primary target – she may well have been for all we know. Seems unlikely, maybe, but the point is that we don’t know if somebody deployed in her place would have died that day had she not been there.)
Meanwhile, investigate what led to the decision that she was healthy enough to remain in the Navy and be sent to Syria but not healthy enough to get the PhD on the Navy dime and continue to serve the Navy in some capacity. That doesn’t seem to make much sense.
The only part of the deployment that I see as a factor is her being in shape and capable of deployment (her 5th deployment mind you, hardly someone looking for excuses to not deploy), but not to get a commission.
Yes, there are more than a handful of people who find any and every excuse to avoid deployments, but I don’t think the Chief is one of those.
Out of all 18, how many were there because someone else didn’t go and/or found a way to not deploy?
There are some in the 5-sided puzzle palace that have no problem with transgenders joining, getting the gummint to pay for their surgery, recovery, rehab, don’t care that someone else will have to cover the time they are in recovery and unable to deploy (for 6-18 months). But, they won’t break a sweat to change a reg about being able to deploy, but not do a commissioning program because someone had cancer at one point.
If a commissioned officer gets cancer and then it goes into remission with no issues, should they resign their commission and be enlisted if they want to stay in? Should they be separated because they got cancer? Should they get deployed after they are healed up and through their treatments?
If a commissioned officer gets cancer and then it goes into remission with no issues, should they resign their commission and be enlisted if they want to stay in? Should they be separated because they got cancer? Should they get deployed after they are healed up and through their treatments?
Interesting that you mention that because when I was on active duty, stationed in Korea, we got a “new” captain in who was the same age as most of the O-5’s and O-6’s in the division (2nd ID.) I think he must have been in his late 30’s or early 40’s at a time when most captains were in their mid- to late-20’s.
Turns out, he had gotten cancer in the early 1980’s when he was a captain, the Army medically retired him so he could get treatment. He got the treatment, got on with his life, started a civilian career and then, some 10 years after he’d been medically retired, he got a physical that showed his cancer was in remission – so the Army recalled him to active duty!
And we weren’t even at war then (well, sort if, this was AFTER Desert Shield/Storm but long BEFORE 9/11.)
Presumably he could have resigned his commission, but of course if he had done that he would have lost any retirement benefits he could have gotten.
I had testicular cancer in 1992. It medically disqualified me from certain assignments for a couple of years, mainly because a I required blood tests every 3 months as follow-up. I was scheduled to PCS to Ismir, Turkey, doc said hell no, they’d have to fly you to Landstuhl every 90 days, we’re changing that PCS to Germany. That’s the ONLY thing it kept me out of. I’m not understanding why her cancer was disqualifying for school, but I think we’re not getting all the pieces to the puzzle.
Yeah, if that were the case with her, she definitely wouldn’t be deploying to Syria. Seems to me the only thing is “well, you had cancer once, so you can’t be an officer now.”
The physical standards for commissioning or enlistment are not “fundamentally flawed” or “archaic”. They are guidelines based on years of military medicine dealing with these kinds of issues. Why is cancer a disqualifying condition for commissioning? Because it can reoccur years later even after your doc states you are clear. Can the standard be waived? Absolutely. Did the people making that decision make the right decision? Who knows? But, the decision was, should we approve a waiver of the standards for a Service Member applying for a commission? Not whether they should continue Naval Service or whether they can deploy to Syria. That wasn’t their task. As said by other folks, even had the waiver been approved would she have been selected for the program or not deployed? Cancer is a medical condition that requires an approved medical waiver to deploy to the CENTCOM AOR. Who knows if a waiver was even submitted before she deployed.
It absolutely sucks that we lost a Sailor. But anytime the boys and girls from Dysfunction Junction stick their nose into something we end up with ambiguity, confusion or downright stupidity.
concur: according to psychologydegrees.org website, a Clinical Psychology Doctorate (PsyD) can take between 4 and 6 years to complete. Add service obligation upon completion, and we are seeing a commitment of 8 – 12 years (subjective: I do not know the Navy’s guideline for service obligation for advance education / commissioning) Acceptance guidelines are written based on historical data suggesting that a person who had been diagnosed with cancer (though current tests showed she was clean of the disease) will re-occur. Long term investment is part of the approval process.
I do not want to sound I have apathy for what has happen, but the only reason this has been brought up is because sadly she was killed during her deployment in Syria. Sad also, I do not know the names of the others who were killed.
Cancer in ’92, Afghanistan in ’02, Iraq in ’03, ’06, and ’08. What is this waiver thing of which you speak? All I got was orders to get on the plane.
If this were a man, there would not be this level of fuss.
Mods are okay with this one eh? Fucking typical.
Read the TAH FAQs lately, if ever?
Fucking typical of what?
Ignore him, just a troll. Same ISP as notthepointdave, who commented earlier.
I could delete his bullshit, but I’ve got better things to do.
You can’t handle the truth!
It’s also instructive as to what sort of person you are that you would like to have my speech censored.
Fucking nailed it.
Trigger warning!
I just see it as an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The standards for a commissioning program are what they are, and I have to assume that if they have certain medical requirements or disqualifications, those requirements or disqualifications are there for a reason.
Similarly, the standards for being qualified to deploy to a war zone are what they are and, again, they are there for a reason.
I can understand the family of CPO Kent are torn by her loss but if you really look at the argument they are making it comes out to “It should have been SOMEBODY ELSE’s son or daughter getting blown up in that café, not ours.”
I can’t help but wonder what CPO Kent herself would have thought of that – by all accounts she was an outstanding sailor who enthusiastically went where her country needed her.
As I said in my earlier post on this subject, every American soldier, sailor, marine, airman or coast guardsman who has given his life for this country had plans and hopes and dreams for the future that they never got to achieve. And every one of them had a family back home that would do anything to get them back.
But this whole episode leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it seems that the lawmakers and the press are treating CPO Kent’s death differently because she had been “on track” to get a PhD and a commission.
it I thought sending wahmens to war zones to die was empowering and feminist victory? Now it’s bad if the wahmen could have been saved by being an officer so somebody else would have died?
What a circus. Why are we still in Syria….
This story is so damn tragic.
I have stopped thinking of policy issues.
Chief Kent was well within the the top 1% of brain power in the USN enlisted community.
She was at the top of her game as a CT and interpretive linguist. Both jobs require bigs smarts and natural intellect.
Her specialty and GRU required that she deploy, and she did, with a gaggle of basassess (typically Tier 1, special purpose, the agency, NSW and Spec Ops).
Operating in one of the most dangerous environments on the face of the earth … our savage and cowardly enemies executed an entire room of souls perhaps just to send a message or for a specific tactical purpose.
Although all the deaths are tragic, this is the price of war. We send the best so we can win.
She was married to a retired Green Beeet had 2 children.
A true military family.
So a month from now, a year, five years … we will hear “Today in Syria, a Cruise Missle, Fired from the USS MICHAEL MONSOOR Staioned in Mediterranean Sea, Killed the Terrorists Responsible for the Death of Chief Petty Officer Shannon Kent”.
We have a very long memory … once you get put on that list … there is only one way to come off.
A bit late to comment…then CTI2 Smith (maiden name) worked for me. She was, as I recall, sitting in a shore billet (as most were who were detailed out of DLI to learn/burnish their dialect/technical skills before getting into a deploying UIC) but was absolutely chomping at the bit to go forward and help rain fire and steel on our adversaries. Those were the sailors I coveted. After I retired, She obviously screened and deployed with the “bad asses”. I couldn’t be more proud. And, if she hadn’t been stellar, she wouldn’t have received another invite (NSW nortoriously preferred fit and “cute” but you better be damned, damned good at your job). A number of her peers sat in shore billets, gobbled up the re-enlistment bonuses and rocketed to CPO or took a tempting lucrative no-risk GS or contractor position. I have no comment on the waiver issue but will insist from what I recollect of her, she was one to swallow disappointments and accomplish or exceed what was demanded. Sorry it had to end with a posthumous Purple Heart…and I could positively shove a copy of the citation down the gullets of those pussy officers and sailors who somehow managed to find an easier way…they know who they are…and they probably know who I am
Much thanks Master Chief and 1610desig. Never too late to comment with add ons like this. “Today in Syria……” “small as a case of beer….” “shove a copy of the citation….”
These personal posts from people who knew these Warriors just give us a better idea of who they are. Thank God that such Warriors lived. Male or female they deserve our gratitude and remembering for their sacrifice.
It is a shame that the news media will focus on the “sexy parts” and air brush out the others. I’m sure, after reading more on CPO Kent, that she would have given accolades to her entire team.
YOu enlist, you do the job. Now that womyns are equals, they get to go do the job or they can get out. No policy change needed. If someone does not like the level of risk involved in their MOS they can get out. Period. The womens lib lesbians and SJW types made this possible, they can count her as one of their kills.
But WAHMENS!!!
It’s ridiculous. First it’s discrimination they aren’t dying now it’s discrimination they are because there was a chance she could have not died. Fucking indentity politics.
I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Should she have stayed Stateside and another gone in her place? Or is that even the issue? Is the issue that the regulation is flawed and requires a rewrite? I don’t think it does. Would we be having this conversation if, instead of being an obviously beautiful lady, she was a Chief with a beer gut? If that has not entered into the conversation, it has now. Her loss saddens me, but no more so the loss of any other Chief or (fill in the blank) who had gone in her stead. Sadness
She spoke 7 languages … with several Middle Eastern dialects … this was her job!
She was there to listen and report on EVERYTHING she heard.
In a community of CT’s that is a small as a case of beer … this was her job … the most important task perhaps of her career.
Very sad, but true!
I think Chief Kent, with her 4 previous combat tours, would have been a plus as a clinical psychologist. She would have a better perspective than clinical psychologists who had never experienced deployment to a combat zone.
The Ophthalmologist who saved my eyesight, after two (2) residents couldn’t find the problem and were sending me home, was an Afghanistan combat tested Ranger / Sapper tab wearing former Combat Engineer Platoon Leader. I am grateful the Army gave him a chance to attend medical school.
He was in ACU’s walking back to his office after a late afternoon meeting and saw the three of us in the exam room and asked what was going on and then asked to take a quick look. A couple minutes later he showed the residents what he had found and five minutes later he was firing up the laser to stitch my retina back together.
He’s since seen me through one additional retinal tear in the other eye and a partial detachment requiring full surgery.
(It wasn’t excessive porn, honest!)
If you are unwilling or unable to deploy, I want you gone.
Many of us would actually agree with that sentiment, but, like some of the other comments has nothing to do with the questions this raises. Many of those answers are ones we will never know about and could very easily have legitimate reasons for the scenario being what it was. Or not.
All of that is why raising the questions is not the problem. Requesting a careful review is the right thing to propose just in case there is something which can be improved about the process. I am not advocating that anything be changed – but reviewing things should be done for sure. Only then can a decision be made whether changes should or need not be made.
You missed the whole fucking point, and if you don’t understand which point you missed, get another fucking job where your opinion isn’t spread like fresh cow shit.
Actually, you’re the one that appears to have missed the entire point of the above article.
This case has the very strong appearance of the Navy changing policy due to little more than “bad optics” and family complaints because a loved one died. And the policy in question that is being changed appears related to the invidiual’s death at best by coincidence.
Changing existing policy for those reasons, amigo, is a “bad thing”. Policy review and changes should not be driven by circumstances only coincidentally related to the policy in question, or by bad PR. Doing so opens a truly messy can of worms. That same can of worms in general is also the reason the Feres doctrine exists.
That is my take on the point of the above article – one which you apparently missed.
It might help understand the point of your comment if you added a clause relative to the verb in the opening of your sentance.
What point was missed? One in the OP or a point in one of your comments?? Perhaps the point missed was something else entirely. As you constructed your comment it is impossible to do anything but guess. Of course it is also possible that babbling obscenities is your sole purpose. It is much easier than making the effort to be coherent.
“Navy Linguist Killed In Syria Posthumously Promoted”:
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-linguist-killed-in-syria-posthumously-promoted-1.567989
“Shannon Kent, the Navy linguist killed in Syria last month in a suicide bomb blast, was posthumously promoted Friday, the service announced.”
“Kent, a 35-year-old mother of two, has been advanced to senior chief petty officer. She was a chief petty officer when she was killed Jan. 16 at a restaurant in the Syrian city of Manbij. It was her fifth combat tour.”
“The Navy approved a request for Kent’s posthumous advancement effective the date of her death,” the service said Friday in a statement.”
“Kent is slated to be interred at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia in the coming weeks. The announcement of her promotion was made during a memorial service Friday at the U.S. Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Md., said Army Staff Sgt. Ali Hassoon, a longtime Kent family friend who attended the memorial.”