Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Navy Times)   I wonder what ever happened to the investigation of the USS Bonhomme Richard fire. Oh, my   (navytimes.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, United States Navy, Grand jury, Royal Navy, Jury, Amphibious assault ship, Military, San Diego, junior sailor  
•       •       •

6636 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2021 at 11:04 PM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



126 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-07-29 11:57:56 PM  

King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.


How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.
 
2021-07-30 12:02:23 AM  
They are lucky this firebug didn't start it while at sea.
 
2021-07-30 12:04:34 AM  

princhester: King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.

How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.


For military justice anyway, at this stage the prosecutor needs to be able to demonstrate probable cause to a military judge...so much lower than reasonable doubt required to convict later
 
2021-07-30 12:05:14 AM  
Is keel hauling still an acceptable form of punishment? If not it should be.
 
2021-07-30 12:05:40 AM  

Chromium_One: Have met a couple of 15+ year E-1 types before. It's possible to fark up hard enough to lose all rank and be thankful you've been given opportunity to avoid visiting Leavenworth.


dayum.  i knew a 18ish, 19ish year E-5.  He had skipped about the last 12ish or so years of advancement exams.  meaning, he was perfectly content to stay a PO2.  "I got no responsibility, I just show up and do my job, i don't need no management headaches.....My plan is to hit my 20 and retire.  I can live pretty dang good on $1700 a month."  (this was over 20 years ago, as post-9/11 they rightfully jacked the shiat out of armed forces pay.  I got out as an E-5 and making I think about, pre-tax, about $1600 a month).

he said he'd get written up every time he missed the test but it wasn't a dischargeable offense.  a finger wag, basically.  "hell, my last command, they made me take the test, so i just showed up and filled in the bubbles on the quiz sheet as quick as i could and left.  of course i didn't pass.  but they couldn't say i didn't take the damn thing!"

(he might have been an E-4, now that I think about it - I think I breifly outranked him.)
 
2021-07-30 12:08:04 AM  
johnny_vegas:Military lawyers will also seek to pile on charges to facilitate a plea deal but from the cheap seats here I don't see why they would for this case.

Seriously?  I can think of two, straight off.

Firstly, for exactly the reason you state - to facilitate a plea deal in circumstances where the negligence of the seaman involved might not be as clear-cut as the military brass are trying to suggest.

Secondly, for the reason stated in my Boobies - it would be damn embarrassing for the navy that their billion dollar vessel could get burnt to a crisp by the negligence of a junior seaman.  If they can get a headline saying "seaman charged with arson" that allows them to deflect some of the blame.

This isn't my first rodeo.  I'm a lawyer specializing in this sort of thing.  I've seen some shiat.  I was once involved in a case where the authorities charged a ship's master with failing to report an incident, and issued a press release accordingly, to take the heat off themselves for failing to respond to the incident appropriately.  It puzzled the hell out of us because we all knew that the incident had been reported in writing immediately.  When we pressed for details it turns out that the charge was based on the fact that the report contained a completely irrelevant typo and therefore was not strictly in the form required by relevant legislation.  People under political pressure behave like assholes.  Don't trust them for a minute.
 
2021-07-30 12:08:15 AM  

Loucifer: Deathfrogg: ... Or was it some dumbass 19 year old kid flicking a butt into a bad corner?


My eyesight is diminishing. I had to read that a few times before I saw the word "flicking" correctly.


Well, it is the Navy.
 
2021-07-30 12:12:12 AM  

johnny_vegas: princhester: King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.

How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.

For military justice anyway, at this stage the prosecutor needs to be able to demonstrate probable cause to a military judge...so much lower than reasonable doubt required to convict later


Also the jurors are O-6 and above, with some E-9 (and maybe also E-8? I dunno what the floor is) jurors for cases with enlisted defendants.
 
2021-07-30 12:13:04 AM  

princhester: johnny_vegas:Military lawyers will also seek to pile on charges to facilitate a plea deal but from the cheap seats here I don't see why they would for this case.

Seriously?  I can think of two, straight off.

Firstly, for exactly the reason you state - to facilitate a plea deal in circumstances where the negligence of the seaman involved might not be as clear-cut as the military brass are trying to suggest.

Secondly, for the reason stated in my Boobies - it would be damn embarrassing for the navy that their billion dollar vessel could get burnt to a crisp by the negligence of a junior seaman.  If they can get a headline saying "seaman charged with arson" that allows them to deflect some of the blame.

This isn't my first rodeo.  I'm a lawyer specializing in this sort of thing.  I've seen some shiat.  I was once involved in a case where the authorities charged a ship's master with failing to report an incident, and issued a press release accordingly, to take the heat off themselves for failing to respond to the incident appropriately.  It puzzled the hell out of us because we all knew that the incident had been reported in writing immediately.  When we pressed for details it turns out that the charge was based on the fact that the report contained a completely irrelevant typo and therefore was not strictly in the form required by relevant legislation.  People under political pressure behave like assholes.  Don't trust them for a minute.


*shrug* not my first rodeo either and while you may be right, I think there is more to it than negligence being blown up to arson.
Speaking of embarrassing, this issue was put to bed and (mostly) forgotten so why bring it back up into the national consciousness again just to railroad an E-2?
 
2021-07-30 12:15:40 AM  

Sergeant Angle: They are lucky this firebug didn't start it while at sea.


Its been mentioned a few times up thread. But here's the gist.
Most the water tight hatches were open to facilitate welding cables, air and electrical lines, etc. When the fire broke out, there was no way to contain it.
On top of that, the ships internal fire suppression system was locked out during the maintenance.

This sailor is certainly going to experience a few sh*tty decades if convicted.
 
2021-07-30 12:29:07 AM  

King Something: johnny_vegas: princhester: King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.

How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.

For military justice anyway, at this stage the prosecutor needs to be able to demonstrate probable cause to a military judge...so much lower than reasonable doubt required to convict later

Also the jurors are O-6 and above, with some E-9 (and maybe also E-8? I dunno what the floor is) jurors for cases with enlisted defendants.


Not necessarily.  I served as a court member while an O-3 for an E-6 who was being tried.  He deferred the right to have at least half the court enlisted, as was his right.  Nobody lower in rank can try you, so if it is an E-3, then he has the right to have half enlisted.  Of course, all officers will outrank him, so it will likely be whoever is due on the base where he is being tried.  If you were a two-star being tried, all the panel members would have to be 3 or 4 stars, or 2 stars with a more senior date of rank.  (Note, this has happened recently or is happening right now.)
 
2021-07-30 12:34:13 AM  

kozlo: Before I clicked, I thought "was that the one McCain blew up?"

Wrong ship.


54 years to the day actually.
 
2021-07-30 12:35:22 AM  

Deathfrogg: Article doesn't say what the cause of the fire was. Was it deliberately set? Or was it some dumbass 19 year old kid flicking a butt into a bad corner?


Yeah, it's a real mystery when they say "The sailor has been charged with aggravated arson and..."

We may need Rick Romero to get to the bottom of this one.
 
2021-07-30 12:35:25 AM  
I was today years old that someone set the fire, I thought it was construction.  Holy farking shiat balls.  I mean I'm mad as hell, but I'm really questioning it.
 
2021-07-30 12:37:13 AM  
Maybe he did it to Stop the Steal.
Then it would be OK.
 
2021-07-30 12:37:46 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: How the hell could this happen? If the ship was this fragile to be destroyed at dock, what would happen in a battle? An older ship like the Hornet took multiple bombs, torpedoes, and kamikaze attacks before going down.


Armored outside of a ship vs the bowels of the ship.

If you can spot the difference you win.

Throw a molotov at an M1A1.  Not much will happen.

Throw a Molotov cocktail INSIDE and Abrams, you got a major problem.
 
2021-07-30 12:38:11 AM  
No GMs around to blame this on?

/Kind of a bad track record for placing catastrophic blame.
//Remember the Maine?
 
2021-07-30 12:38:58 AM  

stray_capts: King Something: johnny_vegas: princhester: King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.

How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.

For military justice anyway, at this stage the prosecutor needs to be able to demonstrate probable cause to a military judge...so much lower than reasonable doubt required to convict later

Also the jurors are O-6 and above, with some E-9 (and maybe also E-8? I dunno what the floor is) jurors for cases with enlisted defendants.

Not necessarily.  I served as a court member while an O-3 for an E-6 who was being tried.  He deferred the right to have at least half the court enlisted, as was his right.  Nobody lower in rank can try you, so if it is an E-3, then he has the right to have half enlisted.  Of course, all officers will outrank him, so it will likely be whoever is due on the base where he is being tried.  If you were a two-star being tried, all the panel members would have to be 3 or 4 stars, or 2 stars with a more senior date of rank.  (Note, this has happened recently or is happening right now.)


So what happens if a four-star is on trial? Does the President have to name some five-stars?
 
2021-07-30 12:42:21 AM  

rickythepenguin: Chromium_One: Have met a couple of 15+ year E-1 types before. It's possible to fark up hard enough to lose all rank and be thankful you've been given opportunity to avoid visiting Leavenworth.

dayum.  i knew a 18ish, 19ish year E-5.  He had skipped about the last 12ish or so years of advancement exams.  meaning, he was perfectly content to stay a PO2.  "I got no responsibility, I just show up and do my job, i don't need no management headaches.....My plan is to hit my 20 and retire.  I can live pretty dang good on $1700 a month."  (this was over 20 years ago, as post-9/11 they rightfully jacked the shiat out of armed forces pay.  I got out as an E-5 and making I think about, pre-tax, about $1600 a month).

he said he'd get written up every time he missed the test but it wasn't a dischargeable offense.  a finger wag, basically.  "hell, my last command, they made me take the test, so i just showed up and filled in the bubbles on the quiz sheet as quick as i could and left.  of course i didn't pass.  but they couldn't say i didn't take the damn thing!"

(he might have been an E-4, now that I think about it - I think I breifly outranked him.)


They cut that shiat off in 2007ish.

If you didn't promote in x amount of time (depending on rank and MOS.  For example there aren't many slots for a 19k E8 so you could sit a E7 longer than a E1) you were kicked.
 
2021-07-30 12:46:06 AM  

The Reverend Sam Hill: stray_capts: King Something: johnny_vegas: princhester: King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.

How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.

For military justice anyway, at this stage the prosecutor needs to be able to demonstrate probable cause to a military judge...so much lower than reasonable doubt required to convict later

Also the jurors are O-6 and above, with some E-9 (and maybe also E-8? I dunno what the floor is) jurors for cases with enlisted defendants.

Not necessarily.  I served as a court member while an O-3 for an E-6 who was being tried.  He deferred the right to have at least half the court enlisted, as was his right.  Nobody lower in rank can try you, so if it is an E-3, then he has the right to have half enlisted.  Of course, all officers will outrank him, so it will likely be whoever is due on the base where he is being tried.  If you were a two-star being tried, all the panel members would have to be 3 or 4 stars, or 2 stars with a more senior date of rank.  (Note, this has happened recently or is happening right now.)

So what happens if a four-star is on trial? Does the President have to name some five-stars?


No idea, but out of the 43 of them, it would only be a problem for 9 of them.  I'm not a JAG, but I don't think the officers must come from the same service.  Perhaps they do, but you only need 9 for a court.
 
2021-07-30 12:59:08 AM  

BolloxReader: Pointy Tail of Satan: How the hell could this happen? If the ship was this fragile to be destroyed at dock, what would happen in a battle? An older ship like the Hornet took multiple bombs, torpedoes, and kamikaze attacks before going down.

At dock they shut down everything. No fire control, fire doors open wide, and lots of flammable stuff lying around on pallets as they refurbish the ship. And almost nobody on board to fight a fire if it breaks out. Going through maintenance is the most dangerous time for a ship


I understand, but I kind of feel like they should be using a more fire resistant paint, if such a thing exist, if it burned this easy even empty.
 
2021-07-30 1:04:09 AM  

erik-k: One of the things I never quite got my head around regarding the destruction of the Bomhomme...

One generally views navy ships as being, well, pretty much gigantic ass hunks of mostly steel.

Other than the fuel tanks, what was burning?


god damn did i just go into a bigass meme rabbithole
 
2021-07-30 1:04:44 AM  

gameshowhost: erik-k: One of the things I never quite got my head around regarding the destruction of the Bomhomme...

One generally views navy ships as being, well, pretty much gigantic ass hunks of mostly steel.

Other than the fuel tanks, what was burning?

god damn did i just go into a bigass meme rabbithole


... might help if i post the meme...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 1:07:52 AM  

erik-k: One of the things I never quite got my head around regarding the destruction of the Bomhomme...

One generally views navy ships as being, well, pretty much gigantic ass hunks of mostly steel.

Other than the fuel tanks, what was burning?


Rum and lashes
 
2021-07-30 1:16:44 AM  
What kind of sentence is this young seaman looking at if convicted?
Destroying what I guess is a multi-billion dollar ship...
 
2021-07-30 1:17:58 AM  

maddan: Carter Pewterschmidt: That could hurt his career prospects. The navy tens to be a bit funny about totally destroying one of their huge ships.

The last time someone burned navy ships, we dropped nuclear weapons on them..just sayin.


No we didn't:
https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-ca​s​es/uss-cole-bombing
 
2021-07-30 1:29:15 AM  

princhester: King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.

How specifically does that make a difference?  I'm not being rhetorical, I'd be genuinely interested.

I guess I've seen too much of this shiat to ever have confidence that headline charges have anything solid behind them.


Because everyone knows military courts can't handle the truth!
 
2021-07-30 2:08:09 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 2:11:11 AM  

Oreamnos: erik-k: They know that obviously an enlisted rando does not have four hundred million dollars lying round.

Just want to interject that I love the word "rando" has entered the English language. I forget when I heard it first, but it is a great word.


2003, I want to say. JFC I'm old.
 
2021-07-30 2:13:52 AM  

Trik: What kind of sentence is this young seaman looking at if convicted?
Destroying what I guess is a multi-billion dollar ship...


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


Life penal servitude in a fast food joint.
 
2021-07-30 2:20:50 AM  

auntedrie: Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: "Bonhomme"?

Isn't that French for pretty boy"?

I am to lazy to google "Bonhomme" but the ships nickname is (was) The Boney Dick.


According to the googles... it means "good-natured man" I looked it up bc it woulda driven me nuts to not know. So now we all know!

Shootingstar.gif
 
2021-07-30 2:29:33 AM  

King Something: princhester: johnny_vegas:

The primary charge is aggravated arson

I appreciate that but often the primary charge is trumped up nonsense designed just to pressure the defendant to plead to the secondary charges.

You're thinking of civilian courts. Seaman Apprentice Flatiron is being tried in a military court.


Is the flag fringed?
 
2021-07-30 2:48:33 AM  

rickythepenguin: *ouch*

a Seaman Apprentice?  That is, E-2.  the second lowest (E-1 being the lowest) paygrade.  He's probably under two years of service.  And even if he isn't, the *entire* Armed Forces tops out E-2 pay at $2,001 per month.  There aren't any (hopefully) 11yr, 15yr, 19yr E-2s in the service (but one never knows).

https://militarybenefits.info/2021-mil​itary-pay-charts/

gonna take a long, long, lllllllllongggggggg farking time to pay that off.


See? This is why we need to raise the minimum wage.
 
2021-07-30 3:08:57 AM  

Redh8t: This is reminiscent of the USS Miami fire, when a civilian sandblaster/painter set a bunch of rags on fire because he wanted to go home.
He received a 17 year prison sentence and was ordered to pay $400 million in restitution.
If that's what a civilian gets as punishment, can't imagine what the navy is going to do with an enlisted person.


Twenty years hard labor, and that's if they're feeling generous.
 
2021-07-30 3:31:16 AM  
An attempt by the Americans to board Serapis was repulsed, as was an attempt by the British to board Bonhomme Richard. Finally, after another of Jones's ships joined the fight, the British captain was forced to surrender at about 10:30 p.m. Bonhomme Richard - shattered, on fire, leaking badly - defied all efforts to save her and sank about 36 hours later at 11:00 a.m. on 25 September 1779.

///there you go
 
2021-07-30 4:25:45 AM  
I'm a little more interested in the charge of "hazarding a vessel."

10 U.S. Code § 910 - Art. 110. Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft

(a)Willful and Wrongful Hazarding.-
Any person subject to this chapter who, willfully and wrongfully, hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b)Negligent Hazarding.-
Any person subject to this chapter who negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
 
2021-07-30 5:05:51 AM  

rosekolodny: I'm a little more interested in the charge of "hazarding a vessel."

10 U.S. Code § 910 - Art. 110. Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft

(a)Willful and Wrongful Hazarding.-
Any person subject to this chapter who, willfully and wrongfully, hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b)Negligent Hazarding.-
Any person subject to this chapter who negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


I'm a former squid but not real familiar with the military justice side. Gonna go out on a limb and guess the death penalty option is applied more to wartime operations and especially so if results in loss of life.

"Hazarding a vessel" in maintenance, as postulated by someone above, is probably going to send the poor E2 to Leavenworth for 20 years of making big rocks into smaller rocks.
 
2021-07-30 5:21:39 AM  

princhester: johnny_vegas:Military lawyers will also seek to pile on charges to facilitate a plea deal but from the cheap seats here I don't see why they would for this case.

Seriously?  I can think of two, straight off.

Firstly, for exactly the reason you state - to facilitate a plea deal in circumstances where the negligence of the seaman involved might not be as clear-cut as the military brass are trying to suggest.

Secondly, for the reason stated in my Boobies - it would be damn embarrassing for the navy that their billion dollar vessel could get burnt to a crisp by the negligence of a junior seaman.  If they can get a headline saying "seaman charged with arson" that allows them to deflect some of the blame.

This isn't my first rodeo.  I'm a lawyer specializing in this sort of thing.  I've seen some shiat.  I was once involved in a case where the authorities charged a ship's master with failing to report an incident, and issued a press release accordingly, to take the heat off themselves for failing to respond to the incident appropriately.  It puzzled the hell out of us because we all knew that the incident had been reported in writing immediately.  When we pressed for details it turns out that the charge was based on the fact that the report contained a completely irrelevant typo and therefore was not strictly in the form required by relevant legislation.  People under political pressure behave like assholes.  Don't trust them for a minute.


Well put.  Some USN friends have also pointed out a couple of things:

*The USN disposed of the BHR with what could be considered unseemly haste (likely because they didn't like the idea of a half-billion dollar oh-shiat just lying about the San Diego waterfront for an indefinite amount of time), which means that the scene of the alleged crime has been out of USN control for months.  Any decent defense counsel should be able to do something with that.

*There had to have been positively Biblical amounts of pressure coming from the USN leadership to find an answer and hold SOMEONE responsible, and PDQ at that.  The last time something like that happened was the investigation into the explosion aboard USS Iowa in 1989 - they were going to find someone responsible, and by God and John Paul Jones, they did.  SPOILER ALERT:  it wasn't the CPO who was conducting sketchy experiments with the goddamn 16 in guns.
 
2021-07-30 5:49:45 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: How the hell could this happen? If the ship was this fragile to be destroyed at dock, what would happen in a battle? An older ship like the Hornet took multiple bombs, torpedoes, and kamikaze attacks before going down.


Hornet was in battle condition when she was hit, with all hatches closed, fuel lines not immediately in use purged with nitrogen, and crew at battle stations with damage control parties fully manned and equipped.

In this case, the ship was undergoing maintenance dockside with a skeleton crew. Hatches open, piles of construction material and debris about and no damage control parties.

See the difference?
 
2021-07-30 6:20:54 AM  

UNC_Samurai: erik-k: One of the things I never quite got my head around regarding the destruction of the Bomhomme...

One generally views navy ships as being, well, pretty much gigantic ass hunks of mostly steel.

Other than the fuel tanks, what was burning?

All sorts of wiring and pipes.  Plus you get enough heat and the steel can take serious damage.

[armytimes.com image 800x667]


DFM can't melt steel ships! Study it out!

Assuming he/she is guilty this Seaman has a long career of making small rocks out of big rocks to look forward to.
 
2021-07-30 6:22:11 AM  

erik-k: One of the things I never quite got my head around regarding the destruction of the Bomhomme...

One generally views navy ships as being, well, pretty much gigantic ass hunks of mostly steel.

Other than the fuel tanks, what was burning?


Ships are mostly fuel tanks. Military ships, fuel tanks and explosives.
 
2021-07-30 6:29:05 AM  
Gee, I'm glad that the Navy doesn't have a history of blaming random sailors for catastrophic things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_I​o​wa_turret_explosion

Oh, wait...
 
2021-07-30 7:00:23 AM  
On top of that, China paid him in Bitcoyne.
 
2021-07-30 7:08:30 AM  

Redh8t: This is reminiscent of the USS Miami fire, when a civilian sandblaster/painter set a bunch of rags on fire because he wanted to go home.
He received a 17 year prison sentence and was ordered to pay $400 million in restitution.
If that's what a civilian gets as punishment, can't imagine what the navy is going to do with an enlisted person.


Seems foolhardy.  I couldn't pay $400 million (or $40 million, or $10 million) restitution if I worked 7 days a week and lived to be 95 before dropping dead at work.
 
2021-07-30 7:23:13 AM  

Redh8t: This is reminiscent of the USS Miami fire, when a civilian sandblaster/painter set a bunch of rags on fire because he wanted to go home.
He received a 17 year prison sentence and was ordered to pay $400 million in restitution.
If that's what a civilian gets as punishment, can't imagine what the navy is going to do with an enlisted person.


There are limits on monetary damages that can hit enlisted (normally) if I recall correctly, but this is still going to end up a career/life killer.
 
2021-07-30 7:36:22 AM  

AirForceVet: Oh my. Someone's in deep shiat.


Be spending a lot of time on the poop deck.
 
2021-07-30 7:40:50 AM  

Chromium_One: rickythepenguin: *ouch*

a Seaman Apprentice?  That is, E-2.  the second lowest (E-1 being the lowest) paygrade.  He's probably under two years of service.  And even if he isn't, the *entire* Armed Forces tops out E-2 pay at $2,001 per month.  There aren't any (hopefully) 11yr, 15yr, 19yr E-2s in the service (but one never knows).

https://militarybenefits.info/2021-mil​itary-pay-charts/

gonna take a long, long, lllllllllongggggggg farking time to pay that off.

Have met a couple of 15+ year E-1 types before.  It's possible to fark up hard enough to lose all rank and be thankful you've been given opportunity to avoid visiting Leavenworth.


I never saw that, but I did meet a guy that was busted down to E-9.

I thought it was some BS story till I met him.  He was E-9, got his commission and farked that up so royally, they busted him back down to E-9.

He was also an idiot.
 
2021-07-30 7:42:54 AM  
Guy sounds like more of a Richard than a Bonhomme
 
2021-07-30 7:59:54 AM  

erik-k: One of the things I never quite got my head around regarding the destruction of the Bomhomme...

One generally views navy ships as being, well, pretty much gigantic ass hunks of mostly steel.

Other than the fuel tanks, what was burning?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-30 8:25:05 AM  

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: "Bonhomme"?

Isn't that French for pretty boy"?


No, the ship's name was a tribute reference to Bon "Homme" Scott's penis.

As "Top Gun" demonstrated, the US Navy loves loud rock music and homoeroticism.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.