Readers weighed in on the race to choose the next commander in chief, a proposal to limit dual military couples to a single housing allowance and a Navy plan to eliminate advancement exams.

Want to share your take on these and other issues? Send them to navylet@navytimes.com. Include your name, address, phone number, city, state and rank. Submissions may be published in print and online, and edited for content, clarity and space.

A PRESIDENT'S DUTY

Squarely on target! As readers will recall, Hillary Clinton ran a 2008 presidential campaign TV ad asking who they wanted answering the phone as commander-in-chief given a 3 a.m. crisis call. Based on her lack of command performance given the opportunity during the Benghazi attacks I think we know the answer is not a Clinton!

Army Col. John R. Baer (ret.)

Yorktown, Va.

___________________

Having served in the Air Force Security Service for 21 years I believe that the president's primary and most important job is that of commander in chief. Everything else is just politics.

When it is necessary to use military force, the president must make pragmatic decisions that will get the job done with minimum force.

Consequently, I do not plan to vote for any of the current front runners. If so, it will mark the first time that has been the case since I was old enough to vote – and I'm now 81 years of age.

Air Force Master Sgt. Don Peavy (ret.)

San Angelo, Texas

___________________

BAH CUTS FOR DUAL MILITARY

Regarding the letter in the July 11 issue by Senior Airman Kimber Rachuy criticizing the proposal to limit the basic housing allowance to one person in dual-military couples:

I completely agree with the E-4 who said this is a 'slap in the face' to consider giving a dual military couple a single BAH. My husband is also an E-3, and we barely make enough to survive and pay our bills while trying to start a family. He just left on deployment, and I'm about to go myself, and for them to say that we don't need that money is insane. The rest of the BAH after bills is only about $100 to $200 for myself and most of my friends and we use it to put food on the table or try to save it for our future.

To say that we deserve to be paid less than a McDonald's employee is beyond disrespectful and will cause many of us to get out of the military.

ACAN Shannon Green

Norfolk, Virginia

___________________

NO MORE TEST

Regarding the July 4 article, "Enlisted reforms would end Navy's advancement exams," on Navytimes.com:

Great idea. I just got out of the Navy and I took the QM2 test 9 times and always just a little off. I'm not a test taker and it doesn't measure my knowledge that I had in my rate.

Michelle Faulker

Via Navytimes.com

___________________

If it had actually been implemented, I probably would've reenlisted. I always thought of the test as a sham, you have people who took the test not knowing anything and making it, then you had people taking the test knowing everything and yet they couldn't make it due to the amount of openings. If it was a consistent system, we'd know where we all stand.

Bao Yang

Via Navytimes.com

___________________

After serving in the original riverine squadrons, I learned a tremendous amount, much of which was barely applicable to my rate, however my performance was enough to merit a CAP. Now, serving at the mobile communications teams, I am yet again faced with an exam that has no applicable information derived from that which I have made my specialty. … I understand ET's are a sea-going rate, and I'm not a ship skater. But I do wonder, how is there such a considerable need for my rate in programs that are continually not reflected upon which questions on exams are derived from?

Owlex Babbins

Via Navytimes.com

___________________

To add additional sailors from other rating increased the odds against promotion. As for the rating exam, it helps prevent the prima donna or captain's pet from gaining unfair advantage. Every senior sailor has witnessed this, especially in the aviation field.

Joe Aldridge

Via Navytimes.com

___________________

ENLISTED OVERHAUL

Regarding July 3 article, "Radical plan would allow sailors to hold multiple ratings," on Navytimes.com:

It sounds good on paper. The Navy should be downsizing here shortly and this is one way to work with less people. Also, good on them for trying to give us more training. The question I have is about pay. We all complain about doing other people's job and not getting paid for it. So now that there is the opportunity to get trained to do someone else's job, will we get the compensation associated with the added responsibility? If no, then personally I wouldn't want to do it. If yes, then tell me how it would work.

Gloria Haugabrook

Via Navytimes.com

___________________

The push should be to get Navy jobs in line with civilian counterparts. Using civilian credentialing while using "A" schools and "C" to teach Navy-specific job tasks based on those credentials. For instance, requiring HMs to earn National registry EMT or paramedic, and ABHs and DCs to earn national firefighter I/II, marine(ship) firefighter and airport firefighter.

Christopher Lee Arbeene

Via Navytimes.com

___________________

I feel like this is very similar to leveling different classes in a MMO... I'm an IT2(IDW/SW), also a QM2, GM3, FCFN. I feel like this can get confusing to determine how qualified sailors are in their rate.

Travis Miller

Via Navytimes.com

Share:
In Other News
Load More