14 March 2010

Subject:             Decision to allow women to serve aboard U.S. Navy Submarines

Stance:              I am opposed to the decision.

From my review of official documentation (see links at bottom of paper), along with my experience and the experience of others, I believe these are the top three issues affecting the decision to lift the ban to allow women to serve on board US Navy Submarines:

1) Pregnancy, whether planned, unplanned, known, or unknown

2) Mixed Gender Social-Psychological Aspect

3) Difference in body structures between men and women and implications for duty on board submarines

Introduction

To summarize my point of view on the issue of lifting the ban to allow women to serve on board US Navy Submarines: Most of my opinions on this issue come from my own personal and professional experiences from serving on four FBM’s and two submarine tenders. I came into this discussion thinking the biggest issue was a ‘male-female human-nature’ aspect. My opinion is based on what I saw and experienced while in the navy, and what I have learned and seen concerning current (and past) fraternization and sexual harassment issues. Once I decided to look a bit deeper I found research that was done starting back in 1994. This research validated my impressions but also taught me about a lot of other issues that I had not really thought about or was only vaguely aware of. The event I can most authoritatively report on is a personal and professional event that had many consequences. This is a very difficult issue for me. I hope it may provide some clarity to my concerns as well as those of many others. Perhaps this experience will help everyone understand how things can things can play out.

Impact on Submarine Operations – My Real Life Experience

I had a kidney stone attack while underway on my last FBM strategic deterrent patrol. The first day I had some pretty bad pains in my back. Of course I did not want to become a burden so I kept my mouth shut and did my duty hoping that whatever it was would go away. It didn’t; the pain only got worse. After one watch it got to the point that I finally approached our corpsman. After the doc (HM1(SS)) spent a few hours evaluating me, he identified that I was having a kidney stone attack. Because of my condition and the seriousness of the situation he immediately recommended to the captain that I be medevacd. The CO had to evaluate the situation and determine how to best move forward. We were thousands of miles away from anywhere and hundreds of feet underwater. He decided to break EMCON and report the situation to TYCOM and await further instructions. There are serious implications in doing this. When you break EMCON you lose one of the biggest advantages a submarine has – stealth. To transmit is to potential give your position away. This is not good, particularly for a strategic asset on alert patrol. The ship had to come off mission and come off station. Because we came off mission, another boat had to take over our targeting package. Immediately my one small kidney stone had an effect on the fleet and our nation’s strategic command. I am not proud of this.

It took 36 hours before we got to a place where they could get me off the boat. During that whole 36 hour period I don’t think the doc slept more than a few hours. He had me on the deck tucked in between missile tubes right outside his office while I was full of Demerol and an IV.

When I came off duty, my watch station (Chief of the Watch) immediately went from 1 and 3 to port and starboard. My work center lost its LCPO (me) and an NEC. All of my collateral duties had to be shifted to an alternate who already had their own fair share of primary collateral duties. The most serious collateral duty to be affected was as primary CMS Custodian. That was a big deal. There is only one primary CMS custodian on a submarine. The secondary had to move to primary to replace me and the alternates were also affected. You can only go so far before you get to the point that you can’t open the safes anymore.

In the process of doing the medevac, the ship had to close in to port as much as possible and surface in order to perform the transfer. Neither of these two things are good for a submarine, especially for one that is supposed to be on an alert strategic patrol and undetectable. I am only talking about the effect the medevac had on the mission, not the physical process of taking me off the submarine. The original plan was to perform a helicopter transfer as to minimize the distance the ship would have to close in to port. However that didn’t pan out and a difficult and potentially dangerous small boat medevac took place. Submarines do not like being on the surface. The seas were rough since we were in the North Atlantic in December.

The medevac was only the beginning of the problem. As soon as I was off the ship, the ship promptly turned 180 degrees and headed back to patrol area to resume alert status as soon as was possible minus one crew member. The medevac took place in mid-patrol.  Since no replacement for a lost crew member is provided when a submarine does a medevac,  the ship went without one crew member for the rest of the patrol. In this case we were midway through patrol, so the ship went for another month or so with one less crew member. The loss of even one crewmember on a submarine is significant.

When the ship returned to port and off-crew, the problems continued. Because of the medical risk I became, I was disqualified from submarine duty. There were implications due to this as well. The submarine experienced an unplanned loss of manpower. BUPERS had to scramble to fill an open NEC slot. They don’t keep backup people in the pipeline just in case something like this happens. Hopefully they would be able to get a comparable match in alternate NEC’s, qualifications, training, and other collateral duties. That’s not always a given and certainly not a guarantee. Of course a reasonable turnover from one crew member to another was not possible and that presents another set of possible problems. By no means am I trying to make myself into more than I am. I’m just stating the situation as it was and what happened as a result.

None of this is to say that a ship sunk, or someone died, or that we ended up jeopardizing national security (at least as far as I know). But the possibility was there. A whole lower string of effects were more likely to happen, such as the personnel issues I mentioned. Could other things have happened? I don’t know. I’m not even sure any of us know what the true effect of what we are doing will be.

Why not minimize risks as much as possible? Isn’t that what we strive to do in the navy? I know I was always taught that. It is drilled into us from day one. We all understand this. Lifting the ban to allow women to become crew members on board submarines will only increase the risks of things like this occurring. The reports I studied confirmed my experiences.

Some Points Identified in Official Studies

The following points are some of the major, in my opinion, concerns identified in these studies and the letter I read.

The most critical issue, in my opinion, is the possibility of a woman developing a tubal pregnancy while the submarine is at sea, submerged, and on station. I did not even know what a tubal pregnancy was until I did some research. What I found out shocked me. You do not have to be a doctor to read and understand the simple, documented facts. A tubal pregnancy can go from zero symptoms to a dead woman and fetus in a matter of hours. A woman can be pregnant and not even know it. The risks of a tubal pregnancy are greatest while earliest in the pregnancy. That is scary. And it has huge implications on the submarine’s mission effectiveness. I thank God I am not a corpsman or a doctor that would have to handle such a critical life-threatening emergency. I would hate to lose a crew member because of something like this; we all would. It definitely affects the crew’s morale and performance.

The atmosphere in a submarine contains ‘several thousand organic trace contaminants in submarine air due to a number of known sources within the submarine.’ This despite all of the sophisticated atmosphere control equipment, policies, and procedures on board. The issue of atmosphere contamination was new to me. I thought I’d been breathing some of the cleanest air in the world when I was aboard a submarine. While these contaminants are not thought to be harmful to either gender (I’m just quoting), there are still valid concerns about the toxicological effects upon a fetus, especially during the first three months of pregnancy. Unless you can guarantee a women will not come on board while pregnant, or become pregnant while on board, then you are potentially risking the viability of the fetus. This has huge implications for the woman, the baby, and navy liability. Another atmospheric risk to a fetus is carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide can become a problem anytime the submarine has to come to periscope depth or surface and use the diesel. Inevitably diesel exhaust gets mixed into the air being brought on board the boat. The CO in the air is then circulated throughout the ship. For a normal adult, this is generally considered acceptable. For a fetus it can have important developmental affects.

I have brought up two issues specifically related to pregnancies and I know that’s a touchy subject. There are other issues as well, medical and otherwise. I found two reports and one letter that substantiated the findings in the studies. Links to the studies and letter are available in several earlier posts.

Summary

We are dealing with unknowns that have not been properly addressed and resolved as of yet. I have only pointed out one personal experience and two items of concern identified in the official studies. Some professional people must get together to review, address, and resolve these issues. Until these issues are resolved, as determined by the appropriate professionals, then it is my opinion that it will be unwise to move forward and lift the ban. Additionally the ongoing fraternization and sexual harassment incidents that continue to affect our navy must be resolved. Until then I am going to remain worried about our sailors, our submarines, and our navy.

With the greatest respect and admiration for everyone in our navy from the newest seaman recruit to our most senior military and civilian leadership.

John A. Mason, ETCS(SS/SW)(USN Ret.)

References

The following documents, among others, were used to substantiate the development of this document:

Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment dated February 1995

Letter from Rear Admiral Hugh P. Scott, MC, USN (Ret.) to Congressman Spence June 2000

NSMRL Technical Report #1219 dated 26 November 2001 “The Medical Implications of Women On Submarines”

or here:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA400035

© 2009-2022 John A. Mason