This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Should we rid the Navy of the “family separation” excuse?
It has been my experience, when counseling my shipmates, that “family separation” is the most common reason given for leaving the Navy. It is time to face the problem of family separation and stop treating it as an uncontrollable, unspecified virus.
Over the past 30 years I have come to believe that family separation is a catalyst—not a cause—of people “going over the side.” It is an excuse readily accepted by us seniors, a factor over which we feel we have no control, and therefore one for which we do not assume responsibility. Really, it is an umbrella under which lie a myriad of hidden reasons. It is time to explore those reasons, and stop washing our hands like Pontius Pilate.
Sticking to my own community, I know that if an aviator is flying his posterior off—flying enough hours to be both safe and proficient—he is as happy as a pig in slop. His family shares his happiness and puts up with the usual hassles and disruptions of military life. Conversely, if the aviator is desk-bound, paper-burdened, and not within the sound of airborne freedom or smell of kerosene, he is not happy. His family shares his discontent and is less tolerant of hassles and disruptions. Does he cite the bureaucracy as his reason for leaving? No, he says it is too much family separation.
Or, a young aviator comes ashore for duty at the Naval War College or the Pentagon. This is his chance to learn how the National Command Authorities really work. But he learns their limitations as well as their capabilities. He witnesses the decision-making process in crisis management, homeporting decisions, selection of ports of call, location of overhauls, and procurement matters. When he does go back to sea, he is less tolerant of schedule changes, parts shortages, rules of engagement more protective of the enemy than himself, standdowns because of lack of money or national will, or insufficient
86 kerosene and black oil—all of which make him less proficient and his job less safe. He does his job and does it well, but finds no relief from his nagging doubt: “Do they really know what they are doing?” When he leaves, he does not disloyally say that the fleet commander or the Chief of Naval Operations did not meet his high expectations. Separation from his family is the reason he gives.
While ashore he may be happy in his work, but his wife may be unhappy as a move disrupts her career or education, uproots her high school children, and gives her a set of orders—or change of orders—at the last minute. Is the aviator going to say, “I’m happy but my wife is not”? No, he loyally states his reason for going—family separation.
The young man looks at his cost of living and the projected cost of his child’s education. (I’m paying $14,000 per year just for one child—room, board, tuition, books, transportation, and incidentals.) He tries to buy a home, but must sell and move on before he earns any return on his investment. And now that he faces an uncertain bonus system, he realizes that the starting salary of an airline pilot is not so great, but it offers a guaranteed lifetime career path with increasing pay, and he still has time to begin a second career. Does he say that he’s sick of being treated as a hired hand in the marketplace after earning, but not receiving, a lifetime of bonuses in any single night catapult shot? No, he lists family separation or low pay as his reason for leaving.
His family waits in line at the hospital like welfare recipients. They find empty shelves at the crowded commissary and every size but their own at the exchange, and he starts to wonder if a military career is worth it. His club’s package store does not offer better prices than an outside store, and he practically has to file an SF-171 to cash a check. And now, everyone wants to tinker with his retirement potential.
He sees a bureaucracy more con
cerned with social work and manage ment than with being good warriors and leaders. (The 1970’s Project 100,000 is a prime example.) Yet, does not complain that he is tired o being treated as a second-class citize or aspiring only to become a secon class bureaucrat. Of course not. He complains that he is always separate from his family. .
I have counseled officers coming F for lieutenant commander who have never been briefed on their fitness re ports, or even counseled during a ^ ne porting period—their detailer is the who finally tells them they are not competitive. I have counseled atconlt manding officer who received his ne set of orders one month after his change of command. I have counse an officer who failed twice to be lected for a school essential to his fare specialty, and who was only s® lected after he had already been to ^ switch designators or go home. He going home. I have lost superb fern officers who realize the limited fuW ^ for women in a warrior Navy. ” e tried to solve these problems, they would say, “No thanks, I’ve been s^ arated from my family for too \on&- Well, if it is so bad why did I s I stayed because of a sense of corn nity. This is not just a list of my c plaints—it is an aggregate of ini°r tion gleaned from ten years of counseling. So how do we deal W1 p these problems? First, we need a g of retired, respected warriors to g° the homes of a statistically valid sa pie of those who have left, and aS. n_ them to fill out a resignation 9ues^_ naire—to determine all the many ^ ferent reasons for leaving that are ing under the “family separation umbrella. Avja-
We also need a cadre of Nava ^ tion cadets, and we need to keep flying. These men do not want to the Chief of Naval Operations som day. Their greatest desire is to beC^[)ey a squadron’s commanding a
don’t need a college degree to f'g weapons platform; they just have
/ Apr'1t9S6
rainable and love to fly. We need fly- *ng time for the deskbound so they can e Proficient and safe. Contract civilian roreraft locally, if need be. A true avia- or will fly anything that has enough P°wer to get airborne.
There should be a better GI Bill that Applies to wives and children. Low in- erest mortgage money should be made ^ailable for the active duty careerist.
ealth maintenance organization plans s ould be developed with local hospi- ga s ^or dependents. There should be if |^ngements to buy a careerist’s house he receives snap orders or cannot sell hhin 60 days. Give them some mea- Ure °f stability. Give a front runner a guaranteed cycle of career-enhancing r ers ten years out, instead of early Promotions. Cut all orders six months ead of time. Advertise deployments a worst case—say, twelve months r an eight month go—and cut them 0rt where you are able. We cannot keep promises of shortened cycles and guaranteed deployment lengths. They always change and always will. It is change that disrupts. Make change be for the better.
Get women who want to compete into warrior roles; obtain authority for the Secretary of the Navy to determine where he uses our personnel assets, male and female. Lead the nation in this respect as the Department of Defense has in areas of integration, equal pay, alcohol rehabilitation, etc. Take care of families. Put quality of life issues where they belong—co-equal to weapons, bullets, and fuel. Six hundred ships are no good without people to man them. Keep hands off our retirement pay—it is our light at the end of the tunnel. Finally, listen to our people and try to help before they decide to leave, not while they are going over the side.
I love this Navy. I have been away from my family ten out of 26 married years. I have served in war and peace.
I have flown both an airplane and a desk. I have seen others—like my salesman brother and my moving van driver—who have long-term family separations. Some—like police and firemen—have short-term separations that are fraught with stress and danger. Some—like upwardly mobile corporate executives—have frequent moves.
We all hang in there because we are happy in our work; because we get psychic income from a tough job well done; and because we receive family support.
I am a sailor who goes to sea. I do not apologize for it. I just want to turn a difficult situation into a happy one by removing irritants over which I have control. I want my shipmates to have 30 happy years in the Navy, as I have. It can be done.
Nobody asked me either, but . . .
% Lieutenant Janies P. Hodges, Jr., U. S. Naval Reserve
Sn 1 this a “Whale” of a problem?
pj?®c*'n>ng aviator retention is a big mill' 601 ^°r naval aviation. If the one av' 10n .t*°"ar cost t0 train a new jet „'ator's correct, I have a modest sug- liQS 10n Tat could save the Navy milas °f dollars over the next few years, a N recent newspaper article mentioned pil Teutenant commander fighter pa(liwho, despite an excellent career res' an(* some choice assignments, was i[ '®n,n§ because of the extended fam- eXcSeParati°ns, long at-sea periods, and ^essive paperwork. His case is by no efita- fnusual. Recent changes in ben- bon SUC^ aS t*le six-year aviator bard18' Trove that the Navy is working tp, ■ ,t0 retain experienced second- and m'rd-tour aviators.
shaT an EA'3B Skywarrior pilot, I vas.e a common denominator with the t°rs other “Whale” avia-
the “ Ur careers were determined by Wou] ,needs of the Navy,” although we tv)anrat^er dy another Navy jet. avia/ yearS llave lapsed since a jet his j°r P'aced the A-3 Whale first on on rearnsheet. (I did not even list it lne ) Once drafted into the com-
Pro<*edings / April 1986 munity, you hear whispers that if you are an outstanding performer, it may be possible to transfer to another aircraft later in your career. But ironically, second- and third-tour Skywarrior pilots are needed more than inexperienced first-tour “nuggets.” Hence, once in Whales, always in Whales!
Retention levels among EA-3B pilots, particularly the carrier-based versions flown by fleet air reconnaissance squadron (VQ)-l and VQ-2, are atrocious. When I left VQ-1, only one of eleven EA-3B pilots was in his second VQ tour, and no one was in his third VQ tour. Until we replace the more- than-25-year-old airframes, poor EA-3B pilot retention will remain a problem.
In the other communities—such as attack and fighter squadrons—dissatisfaction with the aircraft and the desire to fly another are not reasons for resigning. In the EA-3B community, many pilots who would normally leave would stay, if given the opportunity to fly the newer equipment.
When aviator retention levels are high, then detailing aviators according to the “needs of the Navy” is the best way to ensure at least a trickle of second- and third-tour EA-3B aviators. But when retention levels are poor, as they are today, this strategy backfires. Now, not only will the Navy have to replace the seasoned EA-3B pilot with an ensign, but the Navy must also replace the F-14A Tomcat or A-7E Corsair pilot with another ensign. If lateral transfers were possible, a carrier-experienced second-tour lieutenant could switch to an attack or fighter for the comparatively low cost of retraining in the fleet replacement squadron and only a six- to nine-month delay before he rejoins the Fleet. Under the current system, the Navy recruits another unproven ensign for two years and one million dollars worth of training, and he is still a “nugget” when he finally does reach an operational squadron.
I realize that once the Navy gives one EA-3B pilot an opportunity, everybody will clamor for the same arrangement. But I would bet my wings that most EA-3B pilots would remain on active duty, if only given the opportunity to fly the aircraft that the resigning fighter/attack pilots take for granted.
89