In Wake of Latest Incident, Hagel Pushes to Strengthen ‘Morale Character and Morale Courage’
Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
2/07/2014
Navy officials are now dealing with their own nuclear cheating scandal weeks after it was revealed that dozens of Air Force officers cheated on a nuclear proficiency exam. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert and Adm. John Richardson, the head of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, said this week that approximately 20 sailors are believed to be involved in cheating on an exam that may have involved classified information. The officials declined to disclose a specific number of sailors involved because of the fluid nature of an investigation into the incident, but reports that surfaced after the Navy press conference have suggested that at least 30 may be involved. “To say that I’m disappointed would be an understatement,” Greenert said in a Feb. 4 news conference. “Whenever I hear about integrity issues, it’s disruptive to our unit’s success and it’s definitely contrary to all of our core values, our Navy core values. And it affects the very basis of our ethos.”
In response, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is pushing to strengthen the “morale character and morale courage” of the Pentagon’s forces and is seeking a deeper understanding of the issues facing the Air Force and Navy nuclear missions. Hagel already directed two efforts to grapple with the problem: a command-level review of the problems and an independent review that Kirby said this week would be headed up by retired Air Force Gen. Larry Welch and retired Navy Adm. John Harvey. “He definitely sees this as a growing problem,” Kirby said. “And he’s concerned about the depth of it. I don’t think he could stand here and tell you that anybody has the full grasp here. And that’s what worries the secretary, is that maybe we don’t—maybe he doesn’t—have the full grasp of the depth of the issue. And he wants to better understand it.”
‘We Respond Aggressively and Forcefully’
The Navy cheating incident is slightly different from the Air Force incident in that the Navy sailors aren’t actually involved with nuclear weapons. Those involved are sailors who were training to be instructors at the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program in Charleston, S.C. The cheating was revealed when a Naval officer came forward and informed officials that it was taking place, Richardson said. He said the last cheating incident in the Navy occurred in 2010 and involved a submarine crew. “Integrity is a foundational element of our program, and when confronted with problems, we respond aggressively and forcefully,” he said. The Air Force incident involves 92 airmen that staff the ICBM silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana accused of involvement in cheating on a proficiency exam.
Richardson said the training reactors were shut down for routine maintenance when the incident was discovered, and all personnel involved have been removed from the site. “Their access has been revoked, and all current personnel on watch are those who have no element of implication,” he said. “As a precautionary measure, these personnel are also being re-tested to validate their knowledge.” A five-person team led by a senior Navy captain is assessing the command climate in other areas at the site and ensuring the investigation begins properly, Richardson said. “I will not reauthorize operation of the reactors until I am personally satisfied that appropriate corrective actions have been taken and additional conservative measures have been implemented,” he said.
Drive for Perfection Not a Factor, Navy Believes
Air Force officials said pressure for perfection on proficiency exams likely drove cheating among the ranks of its ICBM officers, but Richardson said that did not appear to be a factor in the Navy cheating scandal. He said the Navy’s exam process is different than the Air Force’s, which requires missileers to clear the 90 percent mark to remain nuclear certified. In many cases, however, commanders pushed airmen toward perfection on the tests because the proficiency standards are linked to promotions. “We don’t really see that being a dynamic here,” he said, adding: “My team is on board to make sure that we’ve properly bound this. We’re taking nothing for granted right now.”
