Wednesday, October 5, 2022

Retired Vice Admiral Warns Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan

 

                                                                         


COVID Vaccine Mandates Weakening US Military, Retired Vice Admiral Warns

By Jack Phillips
 
October 4, 2022 Updated: October 4, 2022

A retired U.S. Coast Guard rear admiral warned that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are weakening the military and driving down recruitment efforts.

In a letter published Monday, retired Coast Guard Vice Admiral William “Dean” Lee criticized the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate. The rule, implemented in 2021 through the Department of Defense (DOD), has allowed for few religious exemptions.

Lee noted that he is vaccinated himself and isn’t against COVID-19 vaccines, but argued that removing every single service member who refuses the shot violates their constitutional rights and hinders military preparedness. It comes as U.S. Army officials confirmed on Sept. 30 that they failed to meet recruiting goals.

“Reports of recruiting struggles across the services indicate that the vaccine mandates are an impediment to recruiting, exacerbating the current recruiting and retention problems that are already impacting force strength in some DOD components,” the three-star vice admiral wrote in an open letter to members of the Coast Guard. “Enforcement of the blanket mandate is also resulting in separations of thousands of personnel and therefore is exacerbating force strength issues, and thus readiness concerns.”

Across all military branches, hundreds of service members have been discharged for not receiving the vaccines under Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin’s directive. A number of them have applied for religious exemptions but were almost exclusively denied.

Lee told the Washington Examiner in an interview that top officials in the armed service are “patting themselves on the back” because they push “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or a left-wing training protocol that some say is based on Marxist critical race theory.

However, the vaccine mandate, he said “is neither diverse … neither equitable [nor] inclusive—because up to seven people that they’re discharging, five of them are members of minority status,” he added. “So that’s not inclusive. So what they’re doing is they’re excluding men and women of faith.”

In response to the seven Coast Guard members being discharged, a spokesman told The Day publication in August that each request was evaluated by authorities in the Coast Guard headquarters and their legal counsel on a case-by-case basis.

“None of the requests was approved. Four cadets chose to become vaccinated after their requests for exemptions were denied and four cadets chose to resign from the Academy,” spokesman David Santos said.

Three Christian members of the Coast Guard in September filed a lawsuit against the military branch’s vaccine mandate, saying it only approved 1 percent of religious exemptions to the shot.

Notably, a member of the Coast Guard who was thanked by President Joe Biden for his recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian faces discharge because he’s not vaccinated. Aviation Survival Technician Second Class Zach Loesch told Breitbart News that he is one of several Coast Guard members who will be discharged in 30 to 60 days.

Recruitment Down

Current and former military and DOD officials have warned in recent days that the armed service is currently seeing shortfalls in recruitment efforts.

“In the Army’s most challenging recruiting year since the start of the all-volunteer force, we will only achieve 75 percent of our fiscal year 22 recruiting goal,” Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said in a statement on Sept. 30. “The Army will maintain its readiness and meet all our national security requirements. If recruiting challenges persist, we will draw on the Guard and Reserve to augment active-duty forces, and may need to trim our force structure.”

Army Maj. Charles Spears previously told The Epoch Times that a variety of problems have contributed to the recruiting struggles, including more than three-quarters of American youth being unable to serve without a waiver because of issues such as obesity and addiction.

Warning

Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper in September issued a warning that the U.S. military is “slowly dying” due to poor recruitment, which puts Americans “in danger.”

“The armed services are struggling to meet their recruiting goals like rarely before,” Esper wrote in an article published Sept. 19. “The Army is the most affected, projected to fall short by up to 15,000 soldiers, with a larger deficit expected next year. Experts point to a variety of reasons, such as insufficient pay and benefits, a difficult work-life environment, ‘culture war’ issues, COVID-19, and a strong job market.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the Coast Guard for comment on Lee’s letter.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

Jack Phillips 
BREAKING NEWS REPORTER
Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

True Believers Stand Up and Stand Out


 I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLIEGENCE TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION.


Subj: OPEN LETTER TO MY FELLOW U.S. COAST GUARD FLAG OFFICERS
October 3, 2022
As many of you know, I have advocated publicly for seven cadets who were recently discharged from the USCGA for failing to comply with DOD’s vaccine mandate. Each had applied for, and had been denied, a religious exemption. I have been publicly rebuked, harshly, for doing so. This letter will explain the facts and circumstances underlying my actions.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, anti-vaccine. I took both shots and advised a number of officers and enlisted members who sought my counsel to do the same. I find no fault in the decisions made by operational commanders at the height of the pandemic who judged it necessary to make the vaccine mandatory. I would have done likewise. But, as with any new disease, with time, scientific understanding has markedly increased, treatments for those infected have been developed, and the effects on both the general population and specific cohorts of the population are better known and predictable. Unquestionably, the risks of prolonged and severe disease, and of adverse outcomes, are now reduced, particularly for those of military age and who are otherwise healthy.
The American people have moved on. The President himself has declared “the Pandemic is over.” Yet, we continue holding fast to an outdated mandate, purging hundreds of dedicated sailors, even though we struggle to meet our recruiting goals. The legality of the order itself is under significant scrutiny, with at least three federal injunctions in place. The CDC just issued new guidance that advises that the vaccinated and the unvaccinated need not be treated differently.
It’s time to pause and reevaluate whether, for some demographics at least, the cure has become worse than the (diminishing) disease, and, in the case of the military’s mandate, whether material violations of law have occurred. Science has rapidly moved forward, but DOD inexplicably is not keeping up. Vaccine protocols, in practice, require demographic stratification in order to keep up with the science, particularly where the risk-benefit analysis necessarily depends on demographic considerations.
Bringing this issue into the public domain is not easy for me, for I’m keenly aware that I may appear to some to be the dissident in a club that expects blind loyalty and whose rules require that retired Flag Officers go home and shut up, leaving the service in the capable hands of those behind us. That was my plan. But I am not blind, and there comes a time when prior leaders should question, and seek accountability of, those responsible for maintaining the core values and culture put in place by the chiefs and officers who preceded them. I believe now is such a time.
The men and women in the bowels of the ship are becoming uncomfortable. Trust is eroding as our sailors question the motives and judgment of those who, despite the evidence, are sticking to a mandate that is no longer necessary; who have resorted to apparently unlawful measures to continue enforcing it; who have embraced a culture with ideologies antithetical to unit cohesion; that divides people into identity groups; and that promotes the acceptance – without question - of flags and symbols that may be offensive to men and women of faith. They have no voice. There is shoal water ahead, and the ship’s bridge isn’t listening to the lookouts on the fo'c'sle.
Herein lies the challenge to my fellow flags: Who, if not we, will question a military institution when it has gone, perhaps unwittingly, awry? Are we to be “good men [who] do nothing”? When the course deviation transgresses our Constitution, it is our obligation to adhere to our oath to support and defend the Constitution by seeking to enforce its principles.
A former Army officer and lawyer put it best:
“The military officer’s oath includes the words “… that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” (referring to the Constitution). Those unqualified words are in our oath to emphasize the point that our highest obligation as officers is to our Constitution, superior to any obligation that we may owe to the military service in which we serve, owe to any group, to any individual, to our peers, to ourselves (including our careers and approval from our peers), and to any supposed (but nowhere codified) obligation of retired flag officers to refrain from speaking publicly about any “political” issue. “
After investigating the circumstances and conferring with counsel, it appears that DOD and the CG have violated the rights of USCGA cadets under the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act by dismissing them for not taking the vaccine despite their sincere religious objections.
Our Constitution requires that the President (and by extension, his subordinate officers) "shall take Care to ensure that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It appears that relevant laws have not been faithfully executed with regard to the cadets’ (and others’) religious exemption requests to the vaccine mandate.
The DoD vaccine mandate’s propriety, even if lawful when first issued, has since been called into question by no less an authority than the Department of Defense Inspector General. The DOD IG Report found that the services materially deviated from their own, required procedures, codified in regulations, for handling of religious exemption requests. Individual review of all of the facts and circumstances relevant to each specific request is required, but, according to the Report’s findings, appears not to have occurred. The Report also notes that the means least disruptive to the requesting member’s religious beliefs and that do not impede a compelling government interest are to be employed; yet, according to the Report those criteria have not been properly applied.
The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing disease and transmission has been less than the entire nation was led to believe. The young and generally healthy military personnel cohorts are at very low risk of developing serious illness. Adverse, sometimes serious, side effects are more frequent, varied, and prolonged than initially estimated. The mandate’s predicate, that a fully vaccinated military workforce is crucial to readiness, was, based on the limited information then available, an ostensibly reasonable basis for the blanket mandate. It is becoming ever more doubtful almost daily.
Reports of recruiting struggles across the services indicate that the vaccine mandates are an impediment to recruiting, exacerbating the current recruiting and retention problems that are already impacting force strength in some DoD components. Enforcement of the blanket mandate is also resulting in separations of thousands of personnel and therefore is exacerbating force strength issues, and thus readiness concerns.
I have concluded that the policies and practices about which I am speaking publicly likely involve Constitutional (First Amendment) and federal statute violations. Some, after thorough investigation, objective analysis, and legal consultation, may disagree; but surely all will agree that I have the right to reach my own, informed conclusion, and, consistent with my oath, to voice it on behalf of those who have no voice in an effort to end those violations.
To my esteemed colleague who made this missive necessary: Your words were no doubt sincere, but they are misguided. You are advocating for the continuation of a policy that is now causing enormous harm to the service you led. This track line is not good for the country, the Coast Guard, or the mariners we serve. My in-box has exploded with notes from many front-line operators who are incredulous that leadership cannot see the flawed logic that you, and others, so inexplicably cling to. Those dedicated men and women – vaxed and unvaxed -- have highlighted facts that they want brought to the public’s attention, not the least of which is actual risk to readiness, and the cost to the taxpayers, caused by DOD’s intransigence:
Let us just examine the rescue swimmer (AST) rating: The folks in the field, directly involved, have informed me that they are currently short 44 swimmers, for an overall rating strength of 89% (note: below 95% = critical). The number of ASTs seeking an accommodation to date is at least 26 confirmed. Of those 26 confirmed, five have retired and four have separated—all due to the mandates. Losing 19 more will drop the rating strength even lower. Not ideal for a school with a running attrition rate of 80%.
As your previous Atlantic Area Commander, I ask you, how do you expect to support surge operations for natural disasters if they can’t even cover their own duty schedules? Does anyone in their right mind think that a distressed fisherman treading water in the Gulf of Alaska really cares about the vax status of his rescuer? Certainly not. The only thing he cares about is whether there is someone on duty to rescue him. This, sir, is truly the more important matter.
And lastly, a prior AST schoolhouse instructor has told me that he fears the added pressure on maintaining readiness will lead to lower standards as they struggle to fill the ever -widening gaps created by this flawed leadership decision.
Which town(s), which cities, which coastlines, do you recommend we leave unprotected just to punish these devoted public servants? Police and Fire responders have seen the light – they have adjusted to changed circumstances --- why can’t others?
When I first raised this issue, it was about cadets. Nothing more. Having been ignored, it is now a campaign for ALL of them – the entire spectrum of unvaxed people who had the moral courage to stand by their religious convictions. These are good, dedicated, highly trained individuals that we have spent a ton of money to develop. People with up to 18 years of service, forced out, with no pension. Anyone willing to give up that, rather than break faith, is someone I admire.
You came at me hard in your public rebuke when you asked: “What part of the oath you raised your hand and swore to exempts you from failing to obey the orders of … the President?”
Good question … to my knowledge, I never did disobey the orders of the President. If I believed an order of the President was illegal, however, I would not obey and retire, instead. Most importantly, we swore allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President or other superiors, and keeping faith with the Constitution requires us to disobey any order that does not comport with the Constitution.
Even you, yourself, disobeyed the President in 2017 over the transgender issue. It was a stance that I frankly admired, because you made a statement that I supported wholeheartedly; i.e., “I will not turn my back. We have made an investment in you, and you have made an investment in the Coast Guard, and I will not break faith.”
The Constitution and federal law, not to mention the science, are on the side of many dedicated sailors and cadets. I am now involved because the service that they love has indeed broken that faith, ironically enough, because of their faith.
Perhaps in the heat of the moment, you accused me of being “an embarrassment to the service you led.” I must admit, it stung. Leadership can be lonely, but the many communications I have received leave no doubt that those I am supporting think otherwise. On the other hand, your having labeled many of them as “insubordinate wrong doers” is a badly misinformed mischaracterization deserving of reconsideration and, respectfully, an apology.
And for all of my fellow flags, if you think this is an important discussion, please research the treatment of these 7 cadets and other CG members who have been discharged or are threatened with discharge, such as the rescue swimmer that the President called this week to congratulate for rescue efforts during Hurricane Ian. Whatever conclusion you may come to, I fully support your right to speak about it.
Even the best of organizations can be slow to reverse course and correct their errors, often requiring external force to do so. I intend to be that external force.
Yours, most sincerely,
Wm. Dean Lee
VADM, USCG (ret)

Monday, September 5, 2022

West Point Cadets Denied Religious Exemptions.


 


West Point Military Academy cadets were denied their Religious Accommodation Request appeals to the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate en masse on Wednesday but were not informed until Friday afternoon, when they were given 24 hours to respond, according to attorney R. Davis Younts. 

A Developmental Counseling Form that was given to a cadet notes that the religious objector's RAR appeal was denied on Wednesday and the date that cadet received counseling regarding the vaccine mandate was Friday. The form says that the objector has until 4 p.m. on Saturday to make a plan to receive the vaccine. 

"Failure to obey this order may result in punitive or adverse administrative action," the form warns. 

Continued refusal of the vaccine may result in "your separation from the service" states the form, explaining that involuntary separation could result in an Honorable discharge, a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge, or an Other than Honorable discharge. If you receive either of the last two, "you may be ineligible for many, if not all, veterans benefits, and you may face difficulty in obtaining civilian employment as employers may have a low regard for less than Honorable discharges," the cadet is notified.

"I am deeply troubled that they would hold these documents for two days and serve them on a Friday afternoon," Younts said. "Feels like another attempt to isolate and pressure cadets into getting the vaccine over a weekend where they will be limited in their ability to consult with attorneys or medical professionals."

West Point Military Academy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday. 

Denied Religious Exemptions, Coast Guard Academy Cadets Given 24 Hours To Vacate Premises.

 

Unvaxxed Coast Guard Cadets Given 24 Hours To Leave Campus


Coast Guard Academy cadets who have refused the Covid-19 vaccine on religious grounds were ordered to vacate the campus within 24 hours of receiving notification that their cases had undergone final military adjudication, after their religious accommodation requests (RAR) for exemptions were denied in May.

In June, the Coast Guard Academy gave notice that the unvaccinated cadets would be disenrolled, while the appeals were formally rejected on Aug. 15. They failed to notify the cadets for three days, after which they gave them just one day to vacate the campus, according to Just the News.

After being ordered to leave within 24 hours of being notified that their disenrollment appeals were denied, the seven unvaccinated Coast Guard cadets had to pack up everything and figure out how to get themselves and all their belongings home before the deadline, one cadet told Just the News on Monday.

The cadets are still enrolled in the academy and receive pay — which the cadet said is like "pennies," anyway — as they're on temporary duty at their home addresses. Thus, they are required to attend their military trainings online, despite being unable to attend classes that started on Aug. 22. -Just the News

What's more, because they're still technically enrolled, they can't leave the Coast Guard to seek other options for education or work. One cadet told JTN that it's too late to transfer to another college at this point in the semester, and that only part of their credits would transfer over to another institution anyway. 

Two of those told to leave are seniors, one is a junior and four are sophomores.

According to the cadet, the academy claims they aren't violating a protected stay order in a class action lawsuit against the vaccine mandate, Clements v. Austin, which allows the unvaccinated cadets to remain enrolled at the academy through Sept. 1, after which they can be disenrolled.

Attorneys for the cadets have requested a temporary restraining order against the vaccine mandate for the duration of litigation. The lawsuit claims that because the COVID-19 vaccine was ordered under emergency use authorization (EUA) - vs. full FDA approval - that the military can't force them to take it.

"The steps taken by the Coast Guard Academy are clear religious discrimination against Christians and reflect a total disdain for the faith and constitutional rights of cadets," Military attorney R. Davis Younts told Just the News on Tuesday. "The actions of the Coast Guard continue to have a devastating impact on morale and military readiness. Worse, these actions appear to be based on a lack of moral courage among the leaders of the Coast Guard. With the new CDC guidance, there is simply no medical or scientific justification for treating young men and women who have worked so hard to earn a commission like pariahs".

The CDC has abandoned some of its key prior COVID recommendations, including: testing and quarantine for asymptomatic COVID-19 infectees and close contacts; the six-foot rule; and preferential treatment for vaccinated people, especially those who are "up to date" on shots.

Also, through the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, the federal government instructed its agencies on Aug. 17 to stop requiring documentation of vaccination status as of Aug. 22, in keeping with the new CDC guidelines for COVID. In addition, on-site contractor employees or visitors at federal agencies can no longer be required to provide proof of a negative COVID test solely because of their vaccination status.

The Coast Guard Academy didn't respond to a request for comment.

Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, AUG 29, 2022 - 07:00 PM


Subj: OPEN LETTER TO MY FELLOW U.S. COAST GUARD FLAG OFFICERS
October 3, 2022
As many of you know, I have advocated publicly for seven cadets who were recently discharged from the USCGA for failing to comply with DOD’s vaccine mandate. Each had applied for, and had been denied, a religious exemption. I have been publicly rebuked, harshly, for doing so. This letter will explain the facts and circumstances underlying my actions.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, anti-vaccine. I took both shots and advised a number of officers and enlisted members who sought my counsel to do the same. I find no fault in the decisions made by operational commanders at the height of the pandemic who judged it necessary to make the vaccine mandatory. I would have done likewise. But, as with any new disease, with time, scientific understanding has markedly increased, treatments for those infected have been developed, and the effects on both the general population and specific cohorts of the population are better known and predictable. Unquestionably, the risks of prolonged and severe disease, and of adverse outcomes, are now reduced, particularly for those of military age and who are otherwise healthy.
The American people have moved on. The President himself has declared “the Pandemic is over.” Yet, we continue holding fast to an outdated mandate, purging hundreds of dedicated sailors, even though we struggle to meet our recruiting goals. The legality of the order itself is under significant scrutiny, with at least three federal injunctions in place. The CDC just issued new guidance that advises that the vaccinated and the unvaccinated need not be treated differently.
It’s time to pause and reevaluate whether, for some demographics at least, the cure has become worse than the (diminishing) disease, and, in the case of the military’s mandate, whether material violations of law have occurred. Science has rapidly moved forward, but DOD inexplicably is not keeping up. Vaccine protocols, in practice, require demographic stratification in order to keep up with the science, particularly where the risk-benefit analysis necessarily depends on demographic considerations.
Bringing this issue into the public domain is not easy for me, for I’m keenly aware that I may appear to some to be the dissident in a club that expects blind loyalty and whose rules require that retired Flag Officers go home and shut up, leaving the service in the capable hands of those behind us. That was my plan. But I am not blind, and there comes a time when prior leaders should question, and seek accountability of, those responsible for maintaining the core values and culture put in place by the chiefs and officers who preceded them. I believe now is such a time.
The men and women in the bowels of the ship are becoming uncomfortable. Trust is eroding as our sailors question the motives and judgment of those who, despite the evidence, are sticking to a mandate that is no longer necessary; who have resorted to apparently unlawful measures to continue enforcing it; who have embraced a culture with ideologies antithetical to unit cohesion; that divides people into identity groups; and that promotes the acceptance – without question - of flags and symbols that may be offensive to men and women of faith. They have no voice. There is shoal water ahead, and the ship’s bridge isn’t listening to the lookouts on the fo'c'sle.
Herein lies the challenge to my fellow flags: Who, if not we, will question a military institution when it has gone, perhaps unwittingly, awry? Are we to be “good men [who] do nothing”? When the course deviation transgresses our Constitution, it is our obligation to adhere to our oath to support and defend the Constitution by seeking to enforce its principles.
A former Army officer and lawyer put it best:
“The military officer’s oath includes the words “… that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” (referring to the Constitution). Those unqualified words are in our oath to emphasize the point that our highest obligation as officers is to our Constitution, superior to any obligation that we may owe to the military service in which we serve, owe to any group, to any individual, to our peers, to ourselves (including our careers and approval from our peers), and to any supposed (but nowhere codified) obligation of retired flag officers to refrain from speaking publicly about any “political” issue. “
After investigating the circumstances and conferring with counsel, it appears that DOD and the CG have violated the rights of USCGA cadets under the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act by dismissing them for not taking the vaccine despite their sincere religious objections.
Our Constitution requires that the President (and by extension, his subordinate officers) "shall take Care to ensure that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It appears that relevant laws have not been faithfully executed with regard to the cadets’ (and others’) religious exemption requests to the vaccine mandate.
The DoD vaccine mandate’s propriety, even if lawful when first issued, has since been called into question by no less an authority than the Department of Defense Inspector General. The DOD IG Report found that the services materially deviated from their own, required procedures, codified in regulations, for handling of religious exemption requests. Individual review of all of the facts and circumstances relevant to each specific request is required, but, according to the Report’s findings, appears not to have occurred. The Report also notes that the means least disruptive to the requesting member’s religious beliefs and that do not impede a compelling government interest are to be employed; yet, according to the Report those criteria have not been properly applied.
The efficacy of the vaccine in preventing disease and transmission has been less than the entire nation was led to believe. The young and generally healthy military personnel cohorts are at very low risk of developing serious illness. Adverse, sometimes serious, side effects are more frequent, varied, and prolonged than initially estimated. The mandate’s predicate, that a fully vaccinated military workforce is crucial to readiness, was, based on the limited information then available, an ostensibly reasonable basis for the blanket mandate. It is becoming ever more doubtful almost daily.
Reports of recruiting struggles across the services indicate that the vaccine mandates are an impediment to recruiting, exacerbating the current recruiting and retention problems that are already impacting force strength in some DoD components. Enforcement of the blanket mandate is also resulting in separations of thousands of personnel and therefore is exacerbating force strength issues, and thus readiness concerns.
I have concluded that the policies and practices about which I am speaking publicly likely involve Constitutional (First Amendment) and federal statute violations. Some, after thorough investigation, objective analysis, and legal consultation, may disagree; but surely all will agree that I have the right to reach my own, informed conclusion, and, consistent with my oath, to voice it on behalf of those who have no voice in an effort to end those violations.
To my esteemed colleague who made this missive necessary: Your words were no doubt sincere, but they are misguided. You are advocating for the continuation of a policy that is now causing enormous harm to the service you led. This track line is not good for the country, the Coast Guard, or the mariners we serve. My in-box has exploded with notes from many front-line operators who are incredulous that leadership cannot see the flawed logic that you, and others, so inexplicably cling to. Those dedicated men and women – vaxed and unvaxed -- have highlighted facts that they want brought to the public’s attention, not the least of which is actual risk to readiness, and the cost to the taxpayers, caused by DOD’s intransigence:
Let us just examine the rescue swimmer (AST) rating: The folks in the field, directly involved, have informed me that they are currently short 44 swimmers, for an overall rating strength of 89% (note: below 95% = critical). The number of ASTs seeking an accommodation to date is at least 26 confirmed. Of those 26 confirmed, five have retired and four have separated—all due to the mandates. Losing 19 more will drop the rating strength even lower. Not ideal for a school with a running attrition rate of 80%.
As your previous Atlantic Area Commander, I ask you, how do you expect to support surge operations for natural disasters if they can’t even cover their own duty schedules? Does anyone in their right mind think that a distressed fisherman treading water in the Gulf of Alaska really cares about the vax status of his rescuer? Certainly not. The only thing he cares about is whether there is someone on duty to rescue him. This, sir, is truly the more important matter.
And lastly, a prior AST schoolhouse instructor has told me that he fears the added pressure on maintaining readiness will lead to lower standards as they struggle to fill the ever -widening gaps created by this flawed leadership decision.
Which town(s), which cities, which coastlines, do you recommend we leave unprotected just to punish these devoted public servants? Police and Fire responders have seen the light – they have adjusted to changed circumstances --- why can’t others?
When I first raised this issue, it was about cadets. Nothing more. Having been ignored, it is now a campaign for ALL of them – the entire spectrum of unvaxed people who had the moral courage to stand by their religious convictions. These are good, dedicated, highly trained individuals that we have spent a ton of money to develop. People with up to 18 years of service, forced out, with no pension. Anyone willing to give up that, rather than break faith, is someone I admire.
You came at me hard in your public rebuke when you asked: “What part of the oath you raised your hand and swore to exempts you from failing to obey the orders of … the President?”
Good question … to my knowledge, I never did disobey the orders of the President. If I believed an order of the President was illegal, however, I would not obey and retire, instead. Most importantly, we swore allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President or other superiors, and keeping faith with the Constitution requires us to disobey any order that does not comport with the Constitution.
Even you, yourself, disobeyed the President in 2017 over the transgender issue. It was a stance that I frankly admired, because you made a statement that I supported wholeheartedly; i.e., “I will not turn my back. We have made an investment in you, and you have made an investment in the Coast Guard, and I will not break faith.”
The Constitution and federal law, not to mention the science, are on the side of many dedicated sailors and cadets. I am now involved because the service that they love has indeed broken that faith, ironically enough, because of their faith.
Perhaps in the heat of the moment, you accused me of being “an embarrassment to the service you led.” I must admit, it stung. Leadership can be lonely, but the many communications I have received leave no doubt that those I am supporting think otherwise. On the other hand, your having labeled many of them as “insubordinate wrong doers” is a badly misinformed mischaracterization deserving of reconsideration and, respectfully, an apology.
And for all of my fellow flags, if you think this is an important discussion, please research the treatment of these 7 cadets and other CG members who have been discharged or are threatened with discharge, such as the rescue swimmer that the President called this week to congratulate for rescue efforts during Hurricane Ian. Whatever conclusion you may come to, I fully support your right to speak about it.
Even the best of organizations can be slow to reverse course and correct their errors, often requiring external force to do so. I intend to be that external force.
Yours, most sincerely,
Wm. Dean Lee
VADM, USCG (ret)

Friday, March 18, 2022

Black Achievements Are Routinely Ignored In The Coast Guard

 


This was largest number of Black American 4/c cadets to ever enter the United States Coast Guard Academy (CGA) in a single class. (In the picture above)
Did anyone receive any Medals for that Historic Achievement? No! Not one. Not even a Coast Guard Achievement Medal was awarded to anyone.
Not before London Steverson; or, after London Steverson?
Black Officer contributions to the Coast Guard have been ignored!
Since 1876, the CGA had never seen so many Black Americans enter in one Class, until London Steverson started the Minority Recruiting Program.
He could still be awarded The Coast Guard Achievement Medal!
If anyone of the woke new-breed of Coast Guard Admirals is paying attention, now is the time to right an old wrong. These vintage Black American Trail Blazers are passing away. You can still do the right thing, for the right reason.
In 1964 the Coast Guard Officer Corps was 99.44 percent white. Less than one-half of one percent of the officer corps was Black Americans. It was comprised of Black enlisted men who had been promoted to chief warrant officers (CWO). They were men like CWO Oliver T Henry. A Coast Guard Cutter was recently named in his honor.
In 1973 the percentage of Black officers was still below one percent, but progress had been made, chiefly through the efforts of London Steverson and others.
In July 1972 LT London Steverson was reassigned from CCGD7(O) Juneau, Alaska to Washington, D.C. He became the Chief of G-PMR-3, Office of Personnel, Coast Guard Headquarters, 400 D Street, SW, Washington, D.C., 20591 in the John Volpe Building under the Department of Transportation. He was charged with working toward desegregating the nearly all-white US Coast Guard, starting with the United States Coast Guard Academy. He became the Chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section (G-PMR-3),
From 1876 until 1962 the Academy had not admitted any Black American cadets. One graduated in 1966 (Merle James Smith III), two graduated in 1968 (Kenny Boyd and London Steverson) and one graduated in 1970 (Willie Pickrum). Merle Smith has passed away. Willie Pickrum has passed away.
Steverson's efforts were rewarded in 1973 when 28 Black cadets were sworn into the Class of 1977, and again in 1974 when 20 Black cadets were admitted as part of the Class of 1978. It was from these cadets that the Coast Guard's first African-American officers of flag rank were to come in the 1990's; officers such as Admiral Errol Brown and Three Star Vice Admiral Manson K. Brown.
1973 Conference of Minority Recruiters
One of the first things that he did when he took over as Chief of the Minority Recruiting Branch (G-PMR-3) was to convene a conference of all of the Minority Recruiters from every district in the continental USA. It was important to see who they were and what they were doing. He wanted to make sure they were all marching to the beat of the same drum, that they all understood what the mandate was, and that they all knew who was running the show. He wanted their loyalty, and their dedication to the mission. Most of all, he wanted them to know that a new day had dawned and he would not be satisfied with business as usual. LTJG Milt Moore in St. Louis was assigned the task of organizing and hosting the Conference in St. Louis. They all came; Charles Harper from Detroit, Gil Montoya from Los Angeles, Chief Lee Leyba from Albuquerque, Victor Jernigan,LT Percy Norwood, LT Earl Martin from Headquarters, Vince Chavez, and others.