<p>Voluntarily.</p>
<p>Clearly Vice Adm. Jeffrey L. Fowler’s standards are lower than those of the football coach.</p>
<p>You may have misread this. As projected earlier, this is no doubt the Admiral’s edict to extricate a bad seed strategically. </p>
<p>Firing him from the football team, knowing surely and especially in light of his poor record, enables a sad and necessary ending that places the decision to depart with Curry, not the Academy, thus eliminating future controversy and potential allegations or damage to minority recruitment and retention.</p>
<p>I’d give Admiral Fowler an “A” on this. He took the heat in light of “needs of the Navy”, while resolving the situation with a whimper rather than an explosion. And that’s what the Admiral’s supposed to do.</p>
<p>Read it (the Navy Times) again, WP - Curry was kicked off the team for a RECENT violation (another one), not the pot-smoking or one of his other offenses that got him 300+ demerits. </p>
<p>“Academy football coach Ken Niumatalolo removed Curry from the team after Curry allegedly did not tell the truth about why he had missed a curfew the latest in what has been described as a series of honor or conduct offenses…”</p>
<p>Curry, knowing he would be facing yet ANOTHER conduct/honor hearing, informed the USNA that he was leaving the academy.</p>
<p>“Curry has told academy officials he plans to resign, presumably to escape another round of disciplinary action, Navy Times has learned.”</p>
<p>[USNA</a> football team boots controversial player - Navy Times](<a href=“http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/navy_curry_academy_football_050710w/]USNA”>http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/navy_curry_academy_football_050710w/)</p>
<p>I give Fowler an F in this matter. If not for the latest incident involving Midshipman Curry, he would still be listed as #1 on the depth chart for Navy football.</p>
<p>I know, I read the same. And you could be right. But as we see, the boot came for a very minor issue. The kind of issue anyone under watch can be found “guilty” of … </p>
<p>I continue to think this was the mandate. His next violation and he’s gone, confident he would commit, they would catch. As they could w/ virtually any, all Mids. And that was that. The proverbial …give him enough rope, and he’ll hang himself. And he did.</p>
<p>And if he didn’t? Well then he would have found Jesus. Seems Mr. Curry’ll have to find Him elsewhere.</p>
<p>And in the spirit of benevolence, I’m inclined to give this benefit to the retiring Supe.</p>
<p>WP: The problem with your theory is that you don’t address WHY the USNA and the politically correct Supe would need a “mandate” or need to “give this Mid enough rope”? If the Supe was “confident he would commit, they would catch” why not dismiss him for the pot smoking incident? I’m inclined to doubt the retiring Supe had anything in mind other than heading out to pasture and this latest incident is just more evidence that the Supe demonstrated poor judgment and needed to be replaced.</p>
<p>Because he’s not had to fire him. No political damage regarding the #1 need of the Navy. Genuine claim can be made to giving this individual every opportunity, every beneifit of doubt. His bad behavior at the edge of the cliff didn’t even get him fired from the Academy. Only the football team, which in turn, it was a 100% certainty that an unsigned 2-for-7 recruited football player chronically misbehaving and disregarding Academy protocol and now no longer allowed to participate in that venue would take the desired action. The Mid extricated himself. He would simply quit and move his antics elsewhere. And he apparently has.</p>
<p>And the Admiral, while taking the understandable heat from internal sources (which he knows well, comes with the job and rank), runs no risk of legal actions or cries of discrimination.</p>
<p>The essence here is that then and now, using this process assures that 100% of the actual and perceived responsibility and accountability for chronically unacceptable and dishonorable behavior belongs soley to the perpetrator. </p>
<p>This case is about the elephant in the china closet. And imo, the Supe played both the politics and end game perfectly. </p>
<p>Consider that there are several even on this site, USNA alum(s) and/or people claiming to be knowledgeable, proclaiming that the Supe had no other choice in ruling as he did initially. The Mid proclaiming “no knowledge” that stogie’d been reloaded w/ bad ammo. And so like the boss on “Law and Order” who has to make the tough calls, he knew the Mid was guilty as sin, but wanted no heat from the law nor any special interest groups prepared to scream discrimination.</p>
<p>Now, one other possibility that I think has no merit to my thinking? The Supe missed it the 1st time around. No, I think the Supe knew exactly what happened. As did Capt. K. And while the latter’s primary interest and concern needed to be doing what’s right for the Brigade, thus ruling “fire him,” the Supe’s principle concern must always be the Academy and ultimately “the face of the Navy.” </p>
<p>Nope, I give the Admiral an “A+” in gittin’ it dun. And for taking the heat. Unfortunately, he does not have the luxury of being able to exclude the political and practical realities from the concept of “honor.”</p>
<p>
And the honorable Supe would apply this same standard to ALL Mids in the USNA?
So “honor” is only a concept, and one that can be discarded or ignored when dealing with “political and practical realities”? I wonder if the Mids that are being trained to be officers under the Supe’s tutelage are aware that the “concept” of honor applies solely to them. Lead by example is evidently another “concept” that has been lost at the USNA.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that Marcus Curry may be a gifted football player, but he never had the attributes of a Navy or Marine Corps officer, and that’s been clear from the get-go because I personally know the firstie he was assigned to as a plebe for remediation! It’s unfortunate that he was allowed to suck up air, weed, and food at taxpayers’ expense in Annapolis for so long. Most of all, keeping this fool sends the wrong message to the Brigade of Midshipmen and greatly lowers morale. Let’s not forget that ADM Fowler was in charge of recruiting for USN before arriving at USNA. BTW, most graduate without any demerits…</p>
<p>usna09mom "…BTW, most graduate without any demerits… "</p>
<p>I agreed with your post up until the last line but I must respectfully disagree on one point. It’s common knowledge that some of the most outstanding and dynamic officers, both Navy and Marine Corps, left the Academy with huge numbers of demerits.</p>
<p>^^^^^^JAM, I agree with you totally and thought the same thing when I read usna09mom’s post. A pertinent portion of officer training has got to be learning to evaluate risk as compared to reward. This is as good a way as any.</p>
<p>Just because “SOME” left with huge numbers of demerits doesn’t mean that “MOST” graduate without any demerits.</p>
<p>Thanks Bill. A few notable anecdotes with many …is not …most with few and none.</p>
<p>It’s challenging for some to say what we mean, mean what we say.</p>
<p>Copied from Wikipedia:
A non sequitur (pronounced /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment which, due to its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing, as in the following exchange:</p>
<p>Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fish.[2]</p>
<p>I sh/ have finished my sentence correctly: . . . “MOST” graduate without any demerits is an incorrect statement.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many [as in not “most”] who post herein love to post non-sequiturs, i.e. posts that offer to disagree with the previous statement but that offer no support for their disagreement.
Thus, JAM can disagree with the statement previously made but all she want but all she offered to support her statement was that some graduates are “fish.” [As in the Wikipedia example.] SOME may, indeed, be fish but that doesn’t mean the majority are not sharks.</p>
<p>:confused:</p>
<p>Bill, thanks again, this time for twin, complementary lessons in vocab and logic. 
Damned lawyers! ;)</p>
<p>Who’s on 1st? 
That’s right, Zuzu! :eek:</p>
<p>I think that JAM was disagreeing with the apparent implication that fewer demerits equates to better officers, not attempting to get into a definition discussion of ‘most’, ‘more’, ‘fewer’, ‘less’, etc.</p>
<p>Now, were that really what she meant, and you may be correct, that’s simply a silly argument, suggesting because several anecdotal bad boys who may have eventually become stellar officers as a case for generating or condoning demerits …pure poppeycock. Let’s get real.</p>
<p>I think he thinks he is “real” and I tend to agree with him. Let’s see what he has to say about it.</p>
<p>The implication was not “apparent.” I suspect–but am not able to prove–that “most” readers would not reach that conclusion based on a “btw” [presumably “by the way”] comment that makes a statement that may or may not be true: most graduate without demerits. [I doubt it is “most” but, rather, should be “many.”]<br>
There is no implication to this statement on ly the inference that each reader cares to draw from a relatively simple statement of [possible] truth.</p>
<p>By the way, who are you referring to when you say “he” is real?</p>
<p>Just pointing out that many who are quick to criticize the posts of others seem to rarely read what is actually being said [WP agree?] and only are intent on furthering their own agenda.</p>
<p>He (M Curry) is leaving on his own volition. Yes he saw the writing on the wall and was going to be facing yet another honor board, but more to his thinking, no football = no staying. MC was at USNA to play football and if he can’t do that there is no reason to stay.</p>
<p>As for the whole demerit discussion, depends on the type, most do commission with few major offenses… now add in parking violations and such then most is not the best choice of words. </p>
<p>13 days and 328 hours!</p>