R 14XXXXZ NOV 70
FM USS SEATTLE
TO NAVCOMMSTA WASHDC
DEAR MOM AND DAD, I HOPE I HAVE A LAWYER NOW! I BELIEVE I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GIVE THE LAWYER FULL CONTROL OVER ALL THIS MESS. I SENT YOU A STATEMENT FOR HIM. I NOW HAVE ANOTHER ONE WHICH I’LL SEND, I CAN NOT TALK OR REASON WITH THIS COMMAND WHAT SO EVER. WIRE BACK THE LAWYER’S ADDRESS, I’LL ALSO WRITE HIM. STAN. USS SEATTLE
USS Seattle (AOE-3)
15 November 1970
Taranto, Italy
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Radcliffe,
I am the two-headed ogre that I’m sure your son Stan has described with vivid clarity in his letters to you. I am taking the somewhat unusual step of writing to you personally for two reasons. One is to reassure you that I am not (I hope) a half-witted, brass-bound martinet, but rather am the father of a 20-year-old son of my own and have been working with that age group the entire 23 years of my commissioned service. The other reason is to tell you that, in my considered opinion, your son doesn’t need a lawyer, a doctor, or a psychiatrist, but just a good case of growing up.
The immediate cause of the telegram he sent you yesterday (and which, incidently, I had to authorize his sending, since it was transmitted by the ship’s radios) was a captain’s mast yesterday morning at which he received punishment. Briefly, the circumstances were as follows:
Through a builder’s defect, fuel oil backed up through a drain line and flooded a bomb magazine to a depth of 6 inches. Obviously, the magazine had to be cleaned up, and even after pumping out everything we could, it meant a dirty, unpleasant chore of wiping up the residue by hand with rags. A large percentage of the non-rated men in the ship were assigned to the chore,
including your son Stan. However, he never showed up. Further, the word was passed for him over the ship’s announcing system, but he refused to answer that call. All told, he hid out somewhere aboard ship for more than 4 hours, evading such duty.
In view of his deliberate evasion of a duty which others—who liked it no better than he did—were performing, I awarded him punishment at captain’s mast. And make no mistake about it, I awarded a fairly stiff jolt. For the four separate offenses involved, one of which was minor, he received 30 days’ restriction to the ship, forfeiture of $50, and reduction from seaman to seaman apprentice. That is no more, and no less, than I would award anyone else in the same circumstances.
And there, I think, is one crux of the matter. Stan seems to feel that he shouldn’t be treated like everyone else. Thus while it was all right for them to work in the hold cleaning up oil, he shouldn’t have to. I would hope that somewhere, somehow, he will learn in the near future that privileges and status are not a birthright, but are earned, often at considerable effort and sacrifice. I think that, if he stays in the Navy through the full term of his enlistment, he just might. He’s fairly intelligent, though no more so than many others in the same status, and should learn rapidly once his attitude toward responsibility matures.
However, at present he is more interested in finding an easy way out than in growing up. Thus the request for a lawyer, I presume to take on "the system.” And an earlier medical consultation for vague and non-specific "nervous disorders.” If he keeps at it, and most particularly if he is encouraged to keep at it, I expect that I and/or my cohorts in the Navy will give up and give him some sort of administrative discharge for one or another reason of unsuitability. However, I believe that if such a thing should happen, the "easy” way out would—for the rest of his life—leave him with the bitter knowledge that he had only succeeded in cheating himself.
I am not saying that life in the Navy is easy. It damned well isn’t, and only men can survive it. Neither am I saying that it is, or should be, popular. It never will be, and certainly not now. However, it is very necessary that our country have a Navy, and if it is not manned by your son and people like him, then who?
There is no way I can counsel you in any specific courses of action. You have raised him, and in the final analysis you will do what you think best for him, which is as it should be. However, I would urge that you discount about 99% of the more lurid tales he reports about me, his officers, his petty officers, and the ship. Believe me, it is a fine ship with a great crew, as evidenced by the enclosed message we recently received. However, we have all the stresses and tensions common to the American people today, including race, drugs, alcohol and the generation gap. That isn’t surprising, because the ship is after all just a cross-section of the society we represent. But here in the military we can do something about them, and we are doing it. In the case of your son, you can help, by helping him face—and accept—the first real responsibility in his life.
Right now, that responsibility is minor. Just to be where he’s supposed to be and do what he is supposed to do. However, as he grows—if he grows—so will that responsibility. I personally hope he makes it, as I do with every young man who has similar problems adjusting to life. Unfortunately, only about 50% of them do. In my view, one of the best things you could do for Stan now would be to stop subsidizing his immaturity, which would mean refusing to foot lawyer’s bills for a kid’s crusade against the Navy. However, again, that is a decision that must remain in your hands, and if a lawyer is retained, I’ll be happy to discuss the matter with him at any time.
Heaven knows why I’ve rambled on this long about someone whom I know as slightly as I do Stan. If I did the same for the other 599 people on board, I’d never get anything else done. However, in many, many cases, the advice would be the same. It just boils down to the
fact that I hate to see young men "cop out;” I guess because, in the long run, they find they’ve only cheated themselves.
If you have any questions, thoughts or ideas, please do not hesitate to write me personally at any time. And please rest assured that your son’s welfare is always of concern, even though he may not appreciate it.
Sincerely,
/s/Bruce Keener, III
R 17XXXXZ NOV 70
FM USS SEATTLE
TO NAVCOMMSTA WASHDC
DEAR MOM AND DAD, I HAVE TALKED TO THE CAPTAIN AND THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A MIX UP. I BELIEVE I DO NOT NEED A LAWYER AS OF THIS TIME, BUT PLEASE SEND ME HIS ADDRESS JUST FOR REFERENCE. I THINK EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE! I’M SENDING A LETTER TO EXPLAIN. STAN. USS SEATTLE.
R 18XXXXZ NOV 70
FM CHNAVPERS
TO USS SEATTLE
SN STANLEY LANE RADCLIFFE, USN, G55 29 19 BASED ON PHONECON FROM SNM’S MOTHER WHO RECD TELEGRAM FROM SNM RE CIVILIAN COUNSEL REQ BACKGROUND INFO RE CURRENT STATUS OF SNM’S CASE
SNM—subject named man;
SEREC—service record Ed.
R 20XXXXZ NOV 70
FM USS SEATTLE
TO CHNAVPERS
A. YOUR 18XXXXZ NOV 70
1. INSOFAR AS KNOWN THIS COMMAND, SUBJ HAS NOT INSTITUTED ANY LEGAL ACTION NOR IS ANY CONSIDERED LIKELY, HENCE NO "CASE” AS SUCH PRESENTLY EXISTS. BRIEF SUMMARY AND CURRENT STATUS FOLLOWS.
2. SUBJ DROPPED FM POLARIS ELECTRONICS "A” SCOL, DAM NECK, VA, ON 8 JUL 70 BY REASON OF "LACK OF MOTIVATION.” SUBJ CONSIDERS CITED CAUSE INACCURATE AND UNFAIR, AND STATES SEREC DOCUMENTATION HIS CLASS SCORES AND STANDING ARE INCORRECT. AT SOME PREV TIME, WROTE PARENTS REQUESTING THEY RETAIN LAWYER TO GET WHAT HE CONSIDERS UNWARRANTED INFERENCES AND INACCURACIES EXPUNGED FM HIS SEREC. PARENTS VETOED IDEA AT THAT TIME.
3. IN TOTALLY UNRELATED MATTER, SUBJ APPEARED AT C.O.’S NJP 14 NOV CONCERNING FOUR SEPARATE INFRACTIONS, MOST SERIOUS OF WHICH WAS WILFUL EVASION OF ASSIGNED DUTIES ONBD FOR PERIOD OF MORE THAN FOUR HOURS, INCL HIDING AND REFUSING TO RESPOND TO 1MC PAGING. APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT WAS AWARDED, WHICH LED SUBJ TO FIRE OFF IMPETUOUS TELEGRAM CITED REF A (WHICH INCIDENTLY WAS RELEASED BY C.O.).
4. SAME EVENING, C.O. WROTE LENGTHY HOLOGRAPHIC LETTER TO PARENTS, ESSENCE OF WHICH WAS PERSONAL CONVICTION THAT SUBJ DOES NOT NEED LAWYER, PSYCHIATRIST, OR DOCTOR, BUT MERELY GOOD CASE OF GROWING UP AND ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, IN WHICH TRANSITION C.O. AND NAVY SHARE COMMON INTEREST WITH PARENTS.
5. SUBSEQUENTLY HEARD SUBJ AT PRIVATE REQUEST MAST IN CABIN ON 16 NOV, OFFERED OFFICIAL ASSIST IN RECTIFYING ANY INACCURACIES IN HIS SEREC, AND REITERATED BOTH PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CONCERN FOR HIS DEVELOPMENT INTO RESPONSIBLE ADULT. AS RESULT SUCH DIALOGUE, SUBJ SENT PARENTS SECOND TELEGRAM 17 NOV STATING LAWYER NOT BELIEVED NECESSARY AT THIS TIME BUT DESIRED NAME FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE REF.
6. LONG-TERM PROGNOSIS UNCERTAIN. SUBJ EXTREMELY SELF-CENTERED AND ENGAGES IN GREAT DEAL OF CIRCULAR RATIONALIZATION. NONETHELESS, HE IS REASONABLY INTELLIGENT AND QUICK TO LEARN, AND COULD ADVANCE RAPIDLY IF ADEQUATELY MOTIVATED TOWARD MATURE GOALS. PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT ULTIMATE OUTCOME WILL BE DEPENDENT ON PARENTAL INFLUENCE. SWIFT, EMOTIONAL MATERNAL APPEAL CITED REF A EXPLAINS MUCH OF PRESENT SITUATION AND DOES NOTHING TO ESTABLISH CONFIDENCE IN SATISFACTORY LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, FIRM JUDGEMENT MUST BE SUSPENDED UNTIL MATTERS NOW IN TRAIN RESOLVED.
Mrs. Radcliffe
593 Poplar St.
Sandusky, Ohio
Nov. 23, 1970
Dear Captain Keener,
I received your kind letter this morning and feel I owe you a thank you for the time and the thought it took you to write us. As you can imagine we have been very upset and worried about Stanley. But right this minute I feel very much a failure as a mother, for I realize I have not managed to raise him to face life and to accept things as they are. When Stanley enlisted in the Navy I so hoped he would become a man and be happy doing it, but instead it has caused us and him too a lot of pain. We have been living a hell since we received his first letter in Oct. of what was going on. I want you to know we never considered getting a lawyer, only help. And this was what is so confusing, we just don’t know how to help him. You see, sir, Stanley means the world to me and I have already lost two small sons, so making the two I have twice as precious.
We do not agree with him about a discharge, for we too feel that the easy way out will do him a lot of harm. I have talked myself senseless to him, trying to make him understand. I felt such pride for him in the Navy and now I have lost that, for now all we feel is worry and fear of what will come of him. How do we live with this feeling for three more years? So I just hope and pray that he accepts and makes the best of things. Thank you again for your letter and as for us feeling badly about you, just remember we know Stanley pretty
well. If only some one can just convince him that he is not always right in what he thinks and how he feels. We do love him and miss him terribly.
Sincerely,
/s/Mrs. Maurice Radcliffe
U. S. Naval Guided Missile School
Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia
Dear Bruce,
Enclosed is a chronology in answer to young Radcliffe. For your own information I have included copies of essentially all the records we retain for disenrollees. Even disregarding the records, from his later activities it would appear that lack of motivation is a more accurate descriptor than lack of aptitude, but I don’t really care if he wants to make sure both appear in his record. My predecessor felt that aptitude was always a factor in motivation and that motivation alone was seldom proper. Probably were SA RADCLIFFE to be in school now, he would be dropped for lack of motivation without comment on his aptitude; I try to differentiate.
But I find rationalizing failures and rehashing last Saturday’s refereeing to be an unproductive way of life. I regret sending you a sailor in such an early stage of adolescence.
My best regards for a happy and prosperous new year.
Sincerely,
/s/Bill C.
January 8, 1971
Mrs. Maurice Radcliffe
593 Poplar St.
Sandusky, Ohio
Dear Captain Keener,
I am writing to that two-headed ogre that my son has described to me so many times, to ask for his help and advice on a matter that could destroy Stanley. Sir, I know that you are not a wet nurse, but this is a delicate matter and we are at a loss as how to handle it. But you are there with him and I trust that maybe you will know what to do. Before I go into the details of my problem, I would like to talk to you about this old problem. I know that Stanley has been a lot of trouble to you, your ship and your officers. But do you deny that you have to respect him for his determination and his belief that he is right and to fight for this? I truly believe that when the day comes that he learns the difference between what to fight for or against, he will really be an asset to whatever he chooses to set his goal for. Sir, for my own sanity, I have to believe that all this trouble and upset will turn out for his best interest. I know he has done a lot of drastic things these past few months, but you have to give him credit for his determination. At least I hope you can look at it this way. I know he hasn’t given up yet and that he will continue to fight, and that I as his Mother may help him when I feel the need, but he does get his fighting spirit from his Mother, and his father is quite a fighter if he believes he is right also. I want to admit to you that I don’t agree with you in all that you have done to him, for I don’t believe you can fight fire with fire, and sir, there is a good chance he will outlast you. All I ask of you is to leave him some reason that he can respect you and all you represent.
Now back to the reason for this letter. I doubt that you are aware that Stanley has a girl here at home that he plans to marry March 27. Now, sir, just keep in mind that his feelings for this girl are just as strong as his feelings for his rights. He never goes at anything half way. We are very fond of this girl he has chosen, but we have also believed that she has been responsible for a lot of his feelings about being in the Navy. She did not want him in Dam Neck and she has never been proud of his uniform. We believe she has encouraged him a lot of times to do a lot of the things he has done, just so she could have him home with her, and she would not have to leave her home to be with him. Now she comes to us and informs us she has cancelled the wedding, for she does not know her true feelings. Now this is the third time she has given him a wedding date, then changed her mind. The first time she did this was the day before his big test at Dam Neck, and of course you know what happened there. He didn’t pass the test and that is when they dropped him from the program. Now she wants to write this to him in a letter, that she has cancelled the wedding, that she isn’t sure of her feelings and maybe they had better wait till he is out of the Navy before they make any real plans. If only we could wait till he got home before he hears this news, but how do you do that when he keeps writing asking about the plans and making some of his own? After what you have taken away from him and now what she plans to take from him, can you imagine what may happen to him? I do believe one thing: When this is once done and he accepts it all, that he will have an easier time in the Navy, if he has anything left to stay in the Navy for.
Now where do I go to from here in this letter, so that I am sure that you understand me as his Mother and Stanley as he is, right or wrong. Sir, I just don’t know. I just know one thing for sure, these past months have nearly killed me and the worry I couldn’t begin to tell you. I know that Stanley does not deserve any special privileges, but what do we do now? And that you are doing what you feel is necessary, but please have some compassion and feelings for what he is about to go thru. For I believe he has been punished enough, but what you have done to him is nothing compared to what she plans to do.
Well, I have gone on and on hoping to make you understand and begging for your help. Please if you have any ideas on this matter let me know, for I am at a loss at what to do.
Sincerely,
/s/Mrs. Maurice Radcliffe
P.S. I have just reread this letter and I feel it is poorly written, but please try to understand how I must feel. Thank you.
USS Seattle (AOE-3)
16 January 1971
Augusta, Sicily
Dear Mrs. Radcliffe,
I have received your letter of 8 January, and hardly know how to begin a reply, one of my problems being that I am also replying to an inquiry from Congressman John Doe based on a letter you wrote him in December. I am rather caught in a box trying to answer the allegations of one and still provide the help and advice you asked for in the other. It’s virtually an impossible task, but I shall try.
In your letter to me, you asked if I denied that I had to respect Stan for his determination and his belief that he is right and to fight for this. Mrs. Radcliffe, I admire those qualities tremendously when the belief is founded in responsible standards, ideals and goals. However, I do not admire those who cannot differentiate between adolescent, selfish interests and more meaningful and purposeful goals, and I do not admire those who seek only to gratify their own desires regardless of the consequences to others. And much as I hate to say it, Stan is still pretty much in the latter category.
Nevertheless, your very next sentence was, "I truly believe that when the day comes that he learns the difference between what to fight for or against, he really will be an asset to whatever he chooses to set his goal for.” With that I completely and wholeheartedly agree, and all my efforts to date have been devoted toward the
goal of guiding him in learning that difference. It would be easy for me to give up, to wash my hands of the whole affair and let him be discharged in accordance with the psychiatrist’s recommendation. And on some days I have been tempted to do just that.
However, I have not done so because I do not think it would be in Stan’s interests in any way, shape or form. The psychiatrist recommended that Stan be discharged under Article 3420180 of the BuPers Manual, which is an unsuitability discharge for one of the following reasons:
a. Alcoholism
b. Financial irresponsibility
c. Character and behavior disorders
d. Enuresis (bed-wetting)
e. Homosexual or other aberrant tendencies
I have thus far refused to recommend your son for discharge under the above articles because I am personally convinced that none of the reasons applies to him, and that to let him accept such a discharge would be doing him a grave harm.
If you will forgive me for being blunt, Stan’s biggest problem is that he seeks to get his own way by manipulating people, rather than by earning whatever consideration he seeks. Right now he is trying to manipulate the Navy, and has been successful (if you can call it that) in the case of one psychiatrist, one Congressman, and to a certain degree yourself. He has found that he cannot manipulate me directly, and so fires off a continuing series of allegations, dramatizations and half-truths in an effort to enlist the sympathies of those who can force the gratification of his personal desires.
It may seem perhaps odd, and maybe even cruel, to you when I say that I will not be manipulated, because I have too much respect for Stan’s inherent capabilities to let him get by with adolescent shirking of his obligations, particularly his obligation to himself. He has all the potential to enjoy outstanding success in whatever field he chooses. He’s alert, intelligent, learns rapidly and well, and adapts readily to the demands of any given situation. His only problem is immaturity, the same sort of immaturity that causes a child to value his own pleasures above another’s needs. I do not think it would be in Stan’s interest to discharge him for this trait, particularly when I am in a position to influence his realization and acceptance of maturity. There is, of course, the possibility that I am wrong; however, I do not think so.
The most recent crisis he has generated is the matter of leave. I am sure that he has written you at great length, and in damning detail, that I am now denying him his "right” to take leave. The facts are as follows:
He quite naturally wanted to take emergency leave when his grandfather died. However, since the government pays the cost of all overseas travel for persons taking emergency leave, it naturally establishes specific criteria which must be met before such leave can be granted. The death of a grandparent is not sufficient to support emergency leave unless the child was actually raised by the grandparent due to the parents’ death, divorce, etc. Therefore, Stan quite clearly did not qualify for emergency leave.
He then asked for and was granted permission to see me, and asked me if he could take leave at his own expense. I asked what he expected to accomplish, since the funeral was over and he had no responsibilities in settling the estate. He replied that it was not connected with his grandfather’s death; he just wanted to go home.
Mrs. Radcliffe, there are more than 600 people on board SEATTLE, and every one of us wants to g° home. Furthermore, about 99% of the people have contributed far more to the ship’s performance and effectiveness than Stan has, and as such are far more deserving of what few special considerations I can give than Stan is. If anyone takes leave while the ship is over here, it means someone else must stand his watches and perform his duties, and the circumstances therefore must be exceptional before I can grant routine leave to anyone. The only exceptional circumstance in Stan s case is that, "he wants it,” which just isn’t justification enough.
All of which I personally explained to Stan, as patiently as I have explained it to you. His reply was, "I see. Is this just another way the Navy has found to shaft me out of my rights?” I terminated the conversation by telling him that he had the right to 30 days’ leave pet year, and that I would see that he got it. But it would be granted in consideration of the ship’s requirements and the desires of more deserving persons, who might be given preference if a conflict were involved. This is the only fair and equitable arrangement I can make; however, I expect Stan will try to buck it any way he can, including some spectacular grievances poured out to you in piteous detail, and I may well be called upon to answer in the same manner to yet another Congressional inquiry. I would hope, and expect, though that once Stan is finally convinced that it is a firm policy> and a fair policy, he will work to whatever extent is necessary to ensure that he is among those who receive the special consideration. And if he learns that, he will have learned a very important lesson about life itself That is my goal.
Concerning the girl who is cancelling the wedding, I am afraid I am going to be a big disappointment to you. In my personal opinion, it’s the best and wisest thing she could do, and all concerned should thank God for her common sense. Stan is in no way mature or responsible enough for marriage yet. He is still in the early stages of discovering himself, and having a hard time of it. He has absolutely nothing yet to offer a family, or a woman, as a husband and father. It will be a wrench, yes, and there’s not much you can do to make it enjoyable. But after all, he’s still only 20, with all the resilience and optimism of youth, and the "tragedy” of this March will be forgotten in the interests of next March.
If he and the girl are truly suited, the marriage will eventually come to pass and it will mean more to both of them for having waited. But if it does not come to pass, I think she has spared you the further heartache of marital problems ending in divorce, probably with one or more children involved, because Stan is just not ready for the responsibilities and adjustments of marriage yet. As far as your attitude toward Stan, I think it should be one of, "It’s better that you found out now than after you got married,” and let it go at that. I well remember that I, too, had an "undying” love at the age of 18. We’re both married to other people, and still good friends, but devoutly thankful we didn’t marry each other. Don’t fret about it.
This has been a long, and from your standpoint probably unsatisfactory, reply. However, I think you should realize that I am sincere in believing that Stan can be an exceedingly capable person if he learns the meaning of personal responsibility and consideration of others. I am doing my best to teach him those things, by precept and example when possible, but also by discipline and justice when necessary. As a measure of my interest in this task, I estimate that I have spent the equivalent of 2 full working days on matters solely concerning him. That may not sound like much, but when you remember that there are more than 600 men on board—80% of them Stan’s age or younger—you can see that if I spent an equivalent amount of time on every individual, I could do a full 2-year tour and still only cover about half the men. I will not begrudge the rime if Stan lives up to what he can be. If he drops out, it will have been an utter waste.
In closing, I would like to say that Stan is 20 years old. He is trying to earn a man’s way in a man’s world. This will involve disappointment and hurt. You cannot and should not continue to try to shield him from those disappointments and hurts as if he were a child in grade school. Instead, I urge you to praise his accomplishments, encourage him to do his best in whatever task he’s assigned, and ignore his complaints and pleadings as being unworthy of an adult. If all of us do that, you will find a real man coming home to take up a real part in life when he takes off his uniform, not just another kid who "beat the system.”
Finally, I would urge that—if at all possible—you and Mr. Radcliffe come down to Norfolk after the ship gets back, to meet me, the Executive Officer, Stan’s department head, and his division officers and petty officers, and to see the ship. You can see anything you like, ask any questions you like, and see at first hand what the ship and the crew are like. There is no other Way to understand it, because it defies any written description.
Again, this has been longer that I had intended, but I wanted to be sure that you received as much information and reassurance as possible. As I said before, whether Stan appreciates it or not, we are doing our best to develop the capable, responsible individual he can be. Your steadfast adherence to the same goal will be critical in determining whether he reaches it or not. I truly hope he does, but cannot promise that it will ever be done without some pains and adjustments in the process of growing up.
Sincerely,
/s/Bruce Keener, III
No further communication or correspondence was ever received from any member of the Radcliffe family. Seaman Apprentice Stanley L. Radcliffe performed at a minimally acceptable level, and without further disciplinary involvement, throughout the remaining six weeks of the deployment. No member of the family visited the ship after her return to home port on 1 March 1971, but Radcliffe was granted home leave in the post-deployment leave and upkeep period.
In April, after a period of unauthorized absence returning from leave and further defiant behavior in missing musters and failing to carry out orders, Seaman Apprentice Radcliffe was administratively discharged from the U. S. Navy by reason of unsuitability.
The $64 question is: Could more have been done? If so, what? And how? The answers are not only important to the futures of all the Seaman Apprentice Radcliffes who are now serving or have yet to serve with us, they are also very important—perhaps even fundamental—to the future of the Navy itself.