There is no excuse for this type of thing. It shows a lack of displine. I think the Navy made the right call.

(OK that was the Senior NCO coming out in me)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/31/blue.a ... index.html

Make love not war.......

Couldn't resist.

I can't imagine that the love between those two will have a negative effect on the Blue Angels' mission. Must be my liberal European view. I guess that's why we don't rule te world

I can't see what the problem is, but then again I'm another liberal European

It's bad just like an inter-office relationship. The reason it's more serious is because it is the military and they're supposed to be as "proffessional" as possible.

Relationships amongst military members IS allowed (my old roomate's parents were enlisted in the NYANG together, then when they divorced his stepdad was also in the NYANG). This most have been a highly innapropriate one to warrant such publicity and a hearing.

It is not that this would adversley affect the operations of the Blue's per se, but rather, this behavior between members of any organization in the US military is strictly against regulations, and is delt with harshly. The reasons are many and varied, with some debatable, however, the most important thing is that they have disobeyed lawful orders.

For another example, look at the recent outcome of the same behavior between two astronauts. It isn't strictly a military organization, however, the people were military assigned to the program, and the program was forced, by their behavior, to adopt, and announce yesterday that they have implemented new regulations similar to the military (as some astronauts are civilians - the military people are already subject to military action).

It is not civilian life, and never will be. Special circumstances - special rules. If you want to play in the game you have to follow the rules.

Ron

Edit: to address the comment from Jumpshot, the regulations address inappropriate behavior between persons not married to each other. Further, even if persons in separate organizations are of disparate ranks, ie officer and enlisted, senior to junior, the same prohibitions apply. It is possible, just barely, for service members to court and marry, but the process of doing so can easily run afoul of the regs.

The Guard may have some loosened up regs in this area due to their part time nature, but in the active service things are pretty tight.

Also, diddle with a married person, not married to you and that old fashioned word, adultery, raises its' ugly head, and the punishment can be swift and sure! ron

Jumpshot724 wrote:This most have been a highly innapropriate one to warrant such publicity and a hearing.

The problem -
1. It's a small unit with a narrow chain of command structure.
2. I would guess that it's a case of a senior-subordinate relationship.
3. In cases such as #2, the concern is "favortiisim" - whether actual or just from appearance due to the pschology of jealousy and ego running up against "emotonal control" assumed in situations and organizations operating under military discipline.
4. IF it involves a single-sex relationship, then there's a major PR issue given the current domestic American politics on that matter regardless of whether or not #2 applies.

Any such relationships, especially having become "public", would garner an investigation and, if there's anything turned up in the investigation that could "reflect poorly on the well-being and reputation of the service", a hearing would be normal procedure. How public that hearing would be is another matter.

Consider that "the Blues" are held up as "the best of the best", one of the most public faces of the US and the US Navy. Anything that screws up the desired PR image of "perfection" will be jumped on by the press as "news"/newsowrthy and because of that, gain more offical attention than any similar situation in any other unit.

Jumpshot724 wrote:It's bad just like an inter-office relationship. The reason it's more serious is because it is the military and they're supposed to be as "proffessional" as possible.

Relationships amongst military members IS allowed (my old roomate's parents were enlisted in the NYANG together, then when they divorced his stepdad was also in the NYANG). This most have been a highly innapropriate one to warrant such publicity and a hearing.

There are lots of dual military married. assignments usually suck for them tho. I even knew a girl when I was station at Kef who was AF but was married to a Navy guy, I think there was only like 5 bases they could go to.
The only thing that is frowned upon is Officers dating, or being married to and NCO and so forth, I wonder if this is the case with the Blue angels?

Of course, we are going to see them tomorrow at Lackland. What a bunch of crap!

djnocturnal wrote:The only thing that is frowned upon is Officers dating, or being married to and NCO and so forth, I wonder if this is the case with the Blue angels?

I am almost betting this is the case. There is only 1 female officer on the team but 33 enlisted females.

We used to have this 20th century officer/NCO relationship crap, but we've moved into the 21st century. One of my best friends, as a Warrant Officer, married a Sqn Ldr in the RAF.

Now the major offence is inappropriate hierarchical relationships, most notably instructor/student. And rightly so.

Which is the same as any teaching role. Speaking as one that worked for a University many moons ago it was frowned upon if we were found to be having a relationship with student we were teaching. If weren't teaching them it was OK! BTW the students were all over 18 years old!!

I have to smile at the Royal Navy's no touching rule when aboard. Anything goes ashore apparently.

John

VulcanDriver wrote: I have to smile at the Royal Navy's no touching rule when aboard. Anything goes ashore apparently.

John

I'm on a Navy Sqn, so no comment!

Ford Friendly wrote:

Jumpshot724 wrote:This most have been a highly innapropriate one to warrant such publicity and a hearing.

The problem -
1. It's a small unit with a narrow chain of command structure.
2. I would guess that it's a case of a senior-subordinate relationship.
3. In cases such as #2, the concern is "favortiisim" - whether actual or just from appearance due to the pschology of jealousy and ego running up against "emotonal control" assumed in situations and organizations operating under military discipline.
4. IF it involves a single-sex relationship, then there's a major PR issue given the current domestic American politics on that matter regardless of whether or not #2 applies.

Any such relationships, especially having become "public", would garner an investigation and, if there's anything turned up in the investigation that could "reflect poorly on the well-being and reputation of the service", a hearing would be normal procedure. How public that hearing would be is another matter.

Consider that "the Blues" are held up as "the best of the best", one of the most public faces of the US and the US Navy. Anything that screws up the desired PR image of "perfection" will be jumped on by the press as "news"/newsowrthy and because of that, gain more offical attention than any similar situation in any other unit.

Excellent points, considering the nature of what they do, they need to be on top of their game all the time. Relationships among the team can be disruptive and dangerous especially if jealousy is involved.

There is an application and vetting process to get in and they know the rules before they accept the orders.

Yes, they are held to a higher standard and while it may seem unfair or ridiculous to some, that's the way it is.

Just watched them yesterday at Lackland AFB Air Fest 08, with no slot (#4 jet) in the line up.

You guys covered it pretty well on the real issue, seen this throughout my career in both the Navy and Army, and I doubt it will change when I retire.

Is it me or did they kind of...not do it for you? Maybe it was all the other great demos...F15E, F16, AV8B and F22.

wktjr wrote:Yes, they are held to a higher standard and while it may seem unfair or ridiculous to some, that's the way it is.

Actually, I disagree with this to an extent.

They are held accountable to the standard of the regulations themselves more often than others. That's it. That others are not held to that standard is a different issue. Behavioural standards in the Navy are what the regulations say they are, period. Inconsistent enforcement of those regulations across the various Navy units and commands are what make the "appearance of a higher standard" argument seem valid.

BadPvtDan wrote:Is it me or did they kind of...not do it for you? Maybe it was all the other great demos...F15E, F16, AV8B and F22.

It's been a few years since I was stationed at NAS Pensacola, watching the Blues once a week. Not having #4 seemed odd. The F-22 was impressive, my first live viewing, the "Wow" factor was pegged! I always love the Heritage Flight as well.

BadPvtDan wrote:
Is it me or did they kind of...not do it for you? Maybe it was all the other great demos...F15E, F16, AV8B and F22.


It's been a few years since I was stationed at NAS Pensacola, watching the Blues once a week. Not having #4 seemed odd. The F-22 was impressive, my first live viewing, the "Wow" factor was pegged! I always love the Heritage Flight as well.

I saw them at NAS Oceana this past September (or was it August I can't remember ). Anyway, the Blues were IMPRESSIVE, but it wasn't what I expected I guess?? My dad, an old F-14 RIO even agreed that at a US Navy airshow the US Air Force took the cake (with the F-22 and C-17 demos).