Case Study #1 Questions

1.  Should Ensign Fiske let the chief go, given that he knows that the chief was helping new people and that he is a “highly respected and hardworking” petty officer?  If he stops the chief, what should he say?

 

            By letting the senior chief go, ENS Fiske is undermining the ship’s standards, which no doubt the chief himself knows well.  But how should he confront the chief?  He should show proper respect for the chief’s well-known performance and be professional in his comments.  If he can reasonably move to a more discrete location to have the discussion, he could try to do so, but he is required to send the chief back even though the chief may miss liberty as a result.

 

2.  What if there were no bystanders, what if the only two people on deck were the senior chief and ENS Fiske?

 

            Why would this change the situation?  It’s still a question of moral courage, and just because no one will see the interaction with the chief, doesn’t mean they won’t know about it.  Who would get in trouble for not keeping the XO’s standards?  The chief certainly would, but so would ENS Fiske.  Yet this shouldn’t be a question of getting in trouble, it should be a question of duty and moral courage.

 

3.  Imagine that you and your classmates are leaving the deck for some much needed relaxation in town.  You notice that your roommate isn’t dressed in the proper civilian attire, and you know that if you all get stopped, each of you will be held accountable for your failing roommate, resulting in loss of liberty for everyone.  Would you say something?  What if your sponsor is picking all of you up on the Yard and dropping you all off later?  There is no way your classmate will get caught.  Would you say something then?

 

            Should it matter who will see you or where you’re going?  In either case, the rules are being broken.  Duty to self and to others demands that you say something to your roommate because he or she is breaking the rules.  It shouldn’t matter whether or not there is risk involved.  A good shipmate would abide by the rules and help others to abide by the rules because it is the honorable thing to do.  Without risk involved the honorable decision  may seem petty, afterall, no one will get in trouble, but the true test of moral courage and character is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

 

Case Study #2

In this case study, two junior officers circumvent security procedures by obtaining both of the combinations to a security container that was used to transport COMSEC (Communications Security) material.

     During a West-Pac deployment, two junior officers, Lieutenant Falk and Lieutenant (jg) Lawson, worked with classified information.  In fact, Lieutenant Falk was the new command security manager, and he had recently completed Communications Management Security School.

     Part of their job was to secure and transport classified material in a container.  The container had two different combination locks, requiring both to be present in order to retrieve the material inside.

     For the sake of convenience, Falk and Lawson gave each other their combinations, so that each of them could still get into the security container when the other person wasn't around to open the second lock.  Having both combinations gave them each access to material that was guarded by procedures meant to ensure two-person integrity.

     They reasoned that having both combinations made things easier and faster if the second person couldn't be found.  They didn't want to inconvenience other officers by making them wait for authorized access.

     Both Falk and Lawson were hardworking officers who spent more time on the job than most.  Neither had ever been in trouble before, nor did they intend to use the security information for any purpose other than what was intended.

     One day, a third junior officer came into the communications center just in time to see Lieutenant Falk opening both locks on the security container to retrieve classified material.

     What should the third party do?

from Ethics for the Junior Officer, 2nd ed., eds. Karel Montor et al.  (Annapolis:  Naval Institute Press, 2001), p. 52

Case Study #2 Questions

1.  What should the third junior officer do?

 

            The moral obligation of the third officer is to do something, but what?  Report eh incident?  Counsel the officers at fault?  The two-person rule is intended as a safeguard, and in the current situation security has been compromised.  Perhaps, if the third officer speaks directly to both Falk and Lawson, telling them that their procedures are obviously at fault and indicating that if they don't change the combinations and follow proper rules from that point on, he will report them, the situation might be rectified.  But the question of Falk's and Lawson's reliability is at issue too.  Having once broken the rules for their (and others') convenience, should they be trusted again?  To some degree, the answer depends on the third officer's assessment of the character of the other two.  Lastly, how can each officer be sure that the other does not intend to use the classified materials for other purposes?  Who would be at fault if one of them went AWOL with the contents of the safe?

 

2.  What if the safe contains only outdated, unclassified materials and the only reason for two-person integrity is an instruction dating back fifteen years?  Since there seems not to be any damage done by sharing the combinations, are Falk and Lawson justified?  Should the third officer take this into consideration?  Would only counseling the officers be justifiable?

 

            The Navy has rules on how business is conducted, and although the instruction is old, it still governs the way Falk and Lawson should do business.  Instead of disregarding the instruction, maybe Falk and Lawson can recommend a change to update the way their command handles the safe.  Also, just because the safe only contains unclassified materials now doesn't mean it won't sometime later.  The third officer is still obligated to do something here.

 

3.  Imagine that you're standing CMOD, and you witness your mentor, a 1/C CDO, marking people present without actually checking.  What would you do?  What if he asked you if you had seen people so he wouldn't have to check, knowing that he is responsible for seeing each person for TAPS?

 

            Although there is no question of classified materials, there is a question of following instructions and doing a job properly.  As an honest shipmate there is an obligation to mention the lapse to the mentor.  Just because the youngster had seen certain people, that doesn’t relieve the 1/C of his obligation.  The CDO is also putting the youngster in a compromising position, so this would be an opportunity for the youngster to make a difference for his mentor.  If the 1/C still chooses to do business his own way, maybe the youngster should rethink his choice of mentors.