Home » women in combat

Category Archives: women in combat


US Navy Surface Warfare Officer Pin

What did it mean to have a Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) qualification that was issued from a non-combatant (no weapons systems) navy ship? Answer: nothing. It meant nothing to 99% of the surface ship navy.

Starting in the 1980s and beyond, approximately 40 of these so-called designated non-combatants issued SWO pins soon after Congress changed a law which previously prevented women from being assigned to navy ships. All of these ships had very limited underway schedules. It’s hard to believe that officers who received qualifications from any non-combatant ship were actually qualified to move up to combatant ships as their careers progressed and the navy was opening up more ships to women in the 1990s. There were very few exceptional women, depending on the quality of the training they received, and the type of ships they were later assigned to.

One example was the USS Point Loma (AGDS-2), which had no installed weapons systems, no underway fueling ability, and no flight deck/air operations ability. The Point Loma was originally called the Point Barrow, a civilian ship built to civilian standards before the navy purchased it in the 1970s and changed its name. Before the navy bought it, the ship was used on the east coast to haul Saturn rocket boosters to Cape Canaveral. After the navy purchase, it’s mission was to haul the submarine force’s deep submergence vehicles, such as Trieste, wherever needed. Unlike most warships, the Point Loma never operated in formation with other vessels, the only exception: a garbage scout called the Egabrag (read it backwards). The Egabrag was used to pull/tow a transducer to test the Point Loma’s contractor owned/operated sonar equipment. Compared to a warship, the Point Loma was not required go out on extended (6+ months) deployments. A typical week was going out on Monday morning, and returning Friday afternoon.

The USS Point Loma’s mission, at the time I was assigned to it, was to provide support to the submarine navy’s Trident missile testing program in the Pacific. The specially installed equipment was owned and operated by private contractors to track missile flight trajectory, and sonar equipment to detect a Trident sub’s position. The ship merely provided the platform for the contractors’ use. Other than that, SUBPAC (US Submarine Force Pacific Fleet) and the surface ship navy didn’t give a flying s#!t about the Point Loma, for a number of reasons as I’ll explain.

Until recently, the navy allowed each ship to set their own standards and criteria for warfare qualifications. It was claimed that because many ships have different capabilities and designs, it wouldn’t be fair or practical to have one standard for all ships currently in service. After the well-publicized 2017 fatal collisions that occurred in the Pacific, the navy is now re-evaluating its training and education for SWO officers, and is reportedly struggling with identifying adequate navy-wide standards and criteria for bridge watchstanders. In my opinion, the surface navy has more problems than it wants to admit and resolve. After the 2017 collisions, the surface navy had to be shamed into changing its long standing attitude about crew sleep deprivation. After all this time, leadership is finally taking into account sleep cycles when developing watchbill assignments.

In the case of the USS Point Loma, the SWO qualification process was fake and corrupt, in a large part because no one in the chain of command cared to monitor program quality. Assigned to a submarine squadron, the Point Loma was viewed as stepchild, frequently escaping standards that were held for other vessels. Without proper oversight, it was easy to grant qualifications based on politics rather than merit. On the Point Loma, the process was also used punitively to punish and ruin some officers’ careers without just cause. The ship’s captain (CO) and executive officer (XO) were both submarine officers. Senior submarine officers were allowed to award SWO pins automatically to each other without testing knowledge. Some of them didn’t even bother to wear the pin, keeping it in a box in their desk drawer. Unless there was a collision or a ship ran aground, SWO officers could get away with a lot, depending on how well they played the political game. The Point Loma’s Captain O’Shea, who did not bother to attend SWO oral boards, placed more emphasis on style (i.e., confidence) rather than substance and knowledge. Style and confidence are nebulous, unmeasurable qualities that can only come with good training and a lot of experience which cannot be learned in one tour at sea on a ship with a limited underway schedule. Confidence on the bridge was not enough to stop a collision in Port Hueneme harbor in 1983 between the Point Loma and a moored fishing vessel and pier, which resulted in $75,000 in damage claims against the government. Captain O’Shea was later held accountable with a punitive letter for negligent hazarding of a vessel.

Surface ship commanders need to get wise about human behavior in a shipboard environment. Turning a blind eye to toxic work climates, allowing sexual misconduct, assault and harassment to go undisciplined, abusing and persecuting subordinates, allowing competitive peers to target each other for destruction, favoritism, scapegoating, and high drug abuse rates are no way to build crew morale, mutual trust and performance. Why would anyone want to harass and persecute bridge watchstanders, for example? How does messing with the minds of these people enhance ship and crew safety while underway? In the military, there is good abuse and bad abuse. Good abuse is a training method intended to help people to survive in combat. Bad abuse is used to destroy and eliminate competitors and people that one doesn’t like, especially if they have less power.

So, they called themselves “warriors”, when the only enemies were each other. At SWO school, which I attended in Coronado, CA, we were taught naval warfare, but that was the last time it was ever mentioned or tested. On the Point Loma, the SWO oral boards I participated in asked me no questions about warfare. All the emphasis was on engineering and Officer of the Deck (for bridge watchstanding). I will bet that these same SWO officers don’t have the courage to use their own names on social media. Did these officers really think they were great shipdrivers? How would they have managed to develop that in one tour of duty on a ship with a limited underway schedule and no organized training, the program being managed by a female lieutenant with a conflict of interest against the peers she was allowed to evaluate? Even O’Shea received a Punitive Letter of Admonition for negligent hazarding of a vessel after the Port Hueneme collision. One female officer went on to the USS Cape Cod, and was Officer of the Deck (OOD) when the ship collided with a pier in Vancouver, BC., according to a social media exchange between two former crew members. Her career didn’t last much longer.


The Point Loma was not the only ship with silly, inconsistent standards and criteria for SWO qualification. In 1983, the USS McKee (AD-43) issued a SWO pin to a female lieutenant who was legally blind, by her own admission. This officer had to have a waiver just to get in the navy to serve on shore duty. She wore glasses as thick as coke bottles, which could not correct her vision to 20/20. I was acquainted with her while we attended SWO school in Coronado. I once sat about six feet away from her at a meeting, and she couldn’t recognize me until I moved up into her face.

When SWO officers are assigned to the watchbill as OOD underway, they are in charge of a bridge watch team. In addition to checking the radar screen, the OOD is expected to be able to see out the window in case of anything big coming at them. Except in the case of the USS McKee, where it must have been OK to squint a lot and sort of feel their way around. Again, how does allowing these exceptions enhance ship and crew safety?


Chief Slanderer and Paperwork Lyncher

I knew Capt. O’Shea while he commanded the USS Point Loma, a non-combatant (no weapons systems) surface ship in the 1980s. Since 1981, I served as the Communications division officer under the previous CO, who then moved me up to Operations Officer in 1982. I was one of several female officers here, most of us Lieutenants serving our first tour at sea (approx. 50% of this ship). The navy’s women at sea program was still a new concept, since the Women at Sea program began in 1979.

According to Ancestry.com family tree records, O’Shea’s triple whammy cause of death at age 70 was identified as: hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, and pancreatic cancer. This could have been attributed to a lifetime of cigarette smoking, too many tattoos with dirty needles, and alcohol abuse. Seems like it could have been preventable. He had five biological children that he never spoke to us about, and two adopted children from his most recent marriage. One of his granddaughters said she only met him once, and her mother only saw him a handful of times.

Whatever good works O’Shea may have done in past assignments, it seemed to all fall apart for him on the USS Point Loma. He came to the ship as a burnout, after serving virtually all of his career in the submarine navy on diesel boats that the navy was phasing out of service. He had little experience on surface ships and working with women prior to this tour. In my opinion, the submarine navy had no respect for the surface navy, because senior submarine officers were allowed to award Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) qualification pins automatically to each other. This meant that their knowledge was not tested prior to award, because it was assumed that they knew it all. These senior officers were of no help to junior officers attempting to qualify SWO.

It was rumored that O’Shea made a deal with his seniors to give him command of the Point Loma (knowing that women were part of the crew) if he would agree to get married to erase his previous reputation as a “womanizer” and “party guy”. In May/June 1982, O’Shea arrived with his new fiancée, whom he met about 6 weeks before while enroute from his previous assignment. All of the ship’s officers attended his wedding soon after the change of command ceremony. Approximately three months after the wedding, O’Shea announced he was filing for divorce. Coincidence? Maybe the wife was in on the deal. Considering how he used and discarded women and subordinates at such a dizzying pace, I’m sure his honor and integrity was boundless. Leave it to the navy to make a mockery of marriage for the sake of a job.

Who was the moron who taught O’Shea that it was OK to make enemies out of subordinates? Or did he think of that one all by himself? Good leaders will teach, motivate and provide encouragement, and O’Shea did none of this. Any leader who believes they need to fire someone needs to have good cause, and it does not need to be done with malice. No one ”deserves” to be abused and slandered to achieve that end. Most people want to believe that the workplace is always just, and if someone is abused, they must have done something to bring it on. If anyone reading this believes that, I’d like to hear from you, and so would every sexual assault/harassment/workplace bullying targets out there. I’m sure it will go over great with the MeToo crowd. So go ahead, give it your best shot.

The facts below are from my personal, first hand observations and experiences. Written evidence is available and much of it has already been made public record. Remember, it’s not slander if it’s true.


A TOXIC WORK CLIMATE: misogynistic, rampant, undisciplined sexual misconduct and harassment abounded. Slander, backstabbing, mob-like behavior among officers who viewed each other as competitors to be eliminated. Extremely low morale and trust. This climate began under the previous CO, and became progressively worse under O’Shea.

SURFACE WARFARE (SWO) QUALIFICATIONS WERE FAKE AND THE PROCESS WAS CORRUPT: No organized training, no consistent standards. O’Shea and XO were apathetic and uninvolved, delegated too much to an inexperienced lieutenant with conflicts of interest against the peers she was allowed to evaluate. Oral boards consisted only of peers evaluating peers. These boards were used punitively to ruin competitors’ careers. Seniors provided no oversight to ensure integrity. O’Shea and XO did not attend qualification boards as a rule. Politics generated awards.

INCOMPETENCE: accidents, collisions, loss of classified material, loss of ship’s anchor and chain at sea, loss of ship’s store funds & inventory. Either no accountability, or the wrong people were scapegoated with removal. O’Shea himself was awarded a Punitive Letter of Admonition for negligent hazarding of a vessel after a collision that occurred in 1983 at Port Hueneme harbor.

LACK OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE: Serious improper fraternizations, known by O’Shea. In one case, the Command Master Chief was removed. Other guilty subordinates were rewarded with warfare qualifications and promotions. Numerous pregnancies, high drug abuse rates and numerous firings resulted in high crew turnover, and contributed to a lack of unit cohesion

HIGHEST DRUG ABUSE RATES IN SUBPAC (SUBMARINE FORCE PACIFIC FLEET) 1983: Random urinalysis drug tests identified USS Point Loma with highest “positive” drug test results of all vessels/commands in SUBPAC. SUBPAC initiated an unofficial investigation, discovering that the ship’s non-combatant mission and limited underway schedule contributed to crew boredom and increased opportunity for misconduct and drug abuse. About 40 naval ships were designated “non-combatant” with similar limited missions & underway schedules, yet none achieved this dubious distinction.

ABUSE OF POWER AND PERSECUTION OF SUBORDINATES: O’Shea preferred to delegate counseling of subordinates to the Executive Officer, who was frequently derelict and ineffective. O’Shea acted on the slander of subordinates, failing to recognize their agendas to eliminate peer competition. He removed the targets of this slander, believing that the targets were the problem. SWO oral boards were used punitively to reprimand those who allegedly did not achieve arbitrary and changing criteria for qualification. He targeted subordinates in “paperwork lynchings”, such as Removal for Cause, Revocation of Officer of the Deck qualification, and denial of SWO qualification. He relied on female evaluations of female targets to keep his hands clean of gender discrimination complaints, while ignoring clear conflicts of interest. Peers have no business evaluating peers because the competitiveness of evaluations corrupts the process. Documents that O’Shea submitted to SUBPAC included slanderous accusations and opinions, unsupported by fact, laced with profanities and irrational emotional statements. When O’Shea didn’t have evidence, he simply made it up with deliberate misstatements of fact. Reviewers were unimpressed, and returned them for “reconsideration”. O’Shea had no intention of reconsidering and found other ways to remove the target with the aid of the Commodore’s staff.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS WERE DISMISSED WITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATIONS: In 1984, a written complaint of quid pro quo sexual harassment and discrimination was submitted against one of the ship’s male officers, and one male officer on the Commodore’s staff. O’Shea assigned the ship’s XO to do the investigation. Incomplete results prompted the accuser to insist on a fair and proper investigation. After a non-Point Loma officer was assigned, another sham investigation resulted. The investigator never contacted the accuser. Other female officers provided unsworn statements, but no one knows what questions were asked. Female officers were allowed to say anything they wanted, taking cheap shots at the accuser’s job performance, designed to discredit. These officers knew about the ship’s history of undisciplined sexual misconduct, harassment, and negative work climate, yet said nothing about it. Two unsworn statements from the accused officer were obtained, and each statement told a different story. The complaint was then dismissed as “uncorroborated”.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT CONTINUED DESPITE COMPLAINTS: O’Shea himself was reported to have made sexual advances (allegedly) to two female subordinates between 1984-1985, one officer and one enlisted. No known complaints were filed, but the females in question allegedly told other crew members.

Military Veterans Without Rights






Military Veterans, Don’t Count On Federal Civil Courts For Justice





On The Death of Donald J. O’Shea, Capt, US Navy (1936-2006)

This man stood out as the most dishonest man  I have ever known in my life.  The details can be found in my lawsuit, Collins v. United States, filed in US Federal Claims Court in 1987, which makes it public record.  May justice find him in the afterlife.  

Is this what I get for wearing the (military) uniform?

I am appalled and disgusted with the recent scandal about the Veterans Administration, and its dereliction of duty in taking care of veterans’ health care. I support the whistleblowers who are speaking out about the problem and the coverup. I’ve gotten whistleblower treatment myself, so I can relate. This is a time when veterans need to stick together.

Regarding my previous post about the USS Point Loma (Naval Institute Article Distorts Truth About Women at Sea History): With abuse of authority and sabotage, dereliction of duty, sexual harassment and discrimination, sham investigations and a coverup into these complaints, the U.S. Federal Claims Court was unwilling to allow an independent investigation and hearing into my complaints, and dismissed case without depositions, hearing or trial: so I ask –
Is this what military people deserve? The civil courts have a history of treating military plaintiffs like dirt, and I believe it is because the judges are elitist, and look down their noses at military people as savages who get whatever they deserve. They have no incentive or interest in holding the military accountable for injustice, and in most cases, it is because they do not understand military culture. That may be understandable, but what makes it worse is that they don’t WANT to understand the cases that come before them. Their job is to administer justice to all Americans. Just because they weren’t raised in a particular culture, why should that absolve them from doing their due diligence?
Just how much are military veterans supposed to take? Anyone who speaks out about wrongdoing within the Dept of Defense or Veterans Administration is treated like an enemy that needs to be discredited. There is no accountability for the people who actually harm others, but plenty of “accountability” for those who expose the truth about incompetence and dereliction of duty. Veterans need to stand up and speak out about all abuses against veterans.

Naval Institute Article Distorts Truth About Women at Sea History







































*Fictitous name





















[2] Id.





%d bloggers like this: