John A. Mason, ETCS (SS/SW) (USN Retired)
Comer, GA 30629
Phone: (706) ###-####
Email: john@johnmason.name
15 March, 2010
:Title
:Position
:Address
:City, State, Zip (i.e. Washington, D.C. 20315)
Subject: Assignment of Women to Submarine Crews: OPPOSED
Dear VIP:
I am writing to express my concerns about the Navy’s recent proposal to change the submarine all male crew assignment policy for reasons associated with certain socio-psychological effects that are likely to occur in the submarine environment as a result of the policy change.
I am a retired Senior Chief Petty Officer (E-8), Strategic Electronic Technician (ET), whose service included sea duty aboard four Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines (SSBN), two submarine tenders, USS Holland (AS 32), and USS Canopus (AS 34), and several shore duty assignments including the Trident Refit Facility (TRIREFFAC Kings Bay).
While serving aboard the USS Holland and USS Canopus, the crews were manned by sailors from both the surface and submarine communities. A substantial number of those crews were female sailors, which afforded me the opportunity to work with women on a range of technical, administrative, and management tasks, as well as in different levels of command relationships, i.e., as subordinates, peers, and superiors. Overall, my professional experience in working with women was most positive. However, there were times when I had observed difficulties caused by inappropriate male-female relationships characterized by instances of improper behavior that occurred at all levels of the enlisted chain-of-command.
To place my concerns in the proper context, particularly for those unfamiliar with the specifics of submarine duty, I will briefly outline the at-sea operational protocol for a strategic missile submarine. After refit, the submarine goes to sea and remains there for extended lengths of time, typically exceeding 70 days. During that time crewmembers have no active access to the outside world. The only personal communications a sailor receives is limited to ten ‘family grams’, each of which consists of 50 words, for a total of 500 words during the entire patrol, and with no opportunity to respond to their loved ones. This limited personal contact with family members and friends is typical of the isolation aspect that is a normal part of submarine duty. Submarine life has proven to be very difficult on family stability, as demonstrated by the high divorce rate among submariners. Spouses of submariners have voiced concern about the prospect of the addition of females to submarine crews, and many have expressed their disagreement with this upcoming policy shift.
Sexual attractions, tensions, jealousies, and frustrations comprise much of the emotional makeup of young men and women, and there is substantial evidence that these kinds of problems do impair cohesion, morale, and readiness in an organization that depends critically on teamwork. Likewise, hormones and inherent human desires and behaviors do not shut down just because you go out to sea and submerge for many months at a time.
Over the years, the male crews have had to develop ways to cope with the isolation, and to ease their tensions using a variety of ways that might be considered strange or inappropriate for mixed company. I see many, if not most, of these time-proven techniques inevitably coming to an end with the addition of women crew members. These behaviors are useful, if not indeed critical, in helping the crewmembers alleviate the stress and the lack of close family contact they lose when at sea and submerged for months at a time.
A change in the current policy is a shift in the wrong direction because hormones and natural male-female interactions cannot be thrown overboard. Indeed they will only become exasperated and frustrated once the hatch is shut and the ship submerges. This is not something that can be legislated against. You may make a rule and put it in the regulations with the best of intentions, but humans still remain human. It would be naive to expect a rule to put an end to what is, in effect, natural behavior. I used to shake my head in wonder that the Navy leadership expected, and legislated, that there was to be no fraternization, no sexual relations, nor any other male-female specific interactions within the service. Regardless of the rules, these things happened. I did not agree with the actions of those that chose to disobey official Navy policy. I certainly did not condone their actions. However I understood their actions as being a part of human nature.
In the close working environment inherent on a submarine, close physical contact between crewmembers is inevitable. No one can serve aboard a submarine if they have a large ‘personal bubble’. Indeed it is impossible to pass one another in most passageways or working areas without turning sideways to pass one-another. It is almost inevitably that some form of physical contact will occur. If you have a problem with this type of contact, then you have no place aboard a submarine. In a sense I would relate it to a sport where physical contact is inevitable and even encouraged. Aside from the fact that women and men have different physical statures there are other reasons why it is unacceptable for men and women to compete together in most close contact sports.
During emergencies the situation becomes even more critical. Crewmembers are rushing to casualty or battle stations, some going forward, some going aft, some climbing over one another to relieve a watch station. All of these actions are critical to ensure the safety of the mission, the ship, and the crew. And all of them result in physical contact of one form or another. There are valid concerns about the closeness of men and women in such a closed working and personal environment for extended lengths of time. Women and men just do not come into such close physical contact for such extended lengths of time in our society. It is not allowed and, perhaps, with good reason. Sexual harassment forms a major factor in the workplace environment whether military or civilian for very good reasons. You cannot close the hatch on a submarine, submerge, and tell the crewmembers ‘don’t act human’. We can have idealistic expectations but we must live in a realistic world.
I believe the mission comes first above and beyond anything. Everything else must be subjugated to ensure the mission is successful.
Note that I have made no mention of the ‘technical’ aspects of this proposed policy shift. I believe that despite whatever amount of space is, or isn’t, available the inevitable human factor still remains. To talk about solving the ‘technical’ problems is to miss the point. It is possible to solve the technical problems. What is not possible is to remove the human nature factor. I believe the main threat to the successful implementation of this policy remains the appropriate ‘control’ of human nature.
Before making the final decision, it would be highly advisable to review past studies performed to address these specific issues. It seems as if the results of these studies have been forgotten. Consideration of an extended ‘fast cruise’ operation is advisable and would prove invaluable in allowing effective evaluation of the results of mixing genders within the submarine environment.
It is my sincere desire that the viewpoints expressed in this letter will help you better form your opinion as you work to decide this difficult issue.
Very respectfully,
John A. Mason, ETCS (SS/SW) (Retired)
Cc: Chairman, SASC
Chairman, HASC
Enclosure: Decision to allow women to serve aboard U.S. Navy Submarines
Top Issues
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
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)(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
© 2009-2022 John A. Mason