Navy officers faulted in fire
Disciplinary actions taken after arson blaze destroys ship
WASHINGTON — Navy leaders have disciplined more than 20 senior officers and sailors in connection with failures that contributed to the July 2020 arson fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard.
The most significant actions were taken against members of the ship’s leadership team, including letters of reprimand and pay cuts for the former commander and executive officer. And Navy Sec- retary Carlos Del Toro issued a letter of censure to retired Vice Adm. Richard Brown, who was the commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet at the time.
The ship was undergoing a two-year, $250 million upgrade pierside in San Diego when the fire broke out. About 115 sailors were on board, and nearly 60 were treated for heat exhaustion, smoke inhalation and minor injuries.
A Navy report last year concluded that the five-day blaze was preventable and unacceptable, and that there were lapses in training, coordination, communications, fire preparedness, equipment maintenance, and overall command and control. While Seaman Apprentice Ryan Mays has been charged with setting the fire, the report found that failings by about 36 officers and sailors either directly led to the ship’s loss or contributed to it.
The Navy on Friday laid out the disciplinary actions taken by Adm. Samuel Paparo, current commander of Pacific Fleet.
According to the Navy, Paparo gave punitive letters of reprimand and pay forfeitures to Capt. Gregory Thoroman, the ship’s former commanding officer, and Capt. Michael Ray, the former executive officer. Former Command Master Chief Jose Hernandez was given a punitive letter of reprimand.
Others who received letters in their files were Rear Adm. Scott Brown, who was director of fleet maintenance, and Rear Adm. Eric Ver Hage, commander of the Navy Regional Maintenance Center.
Mays is facing a court martial, and was charged with aggravated arson and the willful hazarding of a vessel. He has denied setting the fire.
Mays set the fire because he was disgruntled after dropping out of Navy SEAL training, prosecutors said. His defense lawyers said there was no physical evidence connecting him to the blaze.
The Navy report on the fire issued last year spread blame across a wide range of ranks and responsibilities, from Brown to senior commanders, lower ranking sailors and civilian program managers.
It cited 17 for failures that “directly” led to the loss of the ship, while 17 others “contributed” to the loss of the ship. Two other sailors were faulted for not effectively helping the fire response. Of the 36, nine were civilians.
The report described a ship with combustible materials stored improperly. It said maintenance reports were falsified and 87% of the fire stations on board had equipment problems or not been inspected.
It also found that crew members didn’t alert sailors of a fire until 10 minutes after it was discovered. Those crucial minutes, the report said, caused delays in crews donning fire gear, assembling hose teams and responding to the fire.
Sailors also failed to push the button and activate the firefighting foam system, even though it was accessible and could have slowed the fire’s progress.
More broadly, the crew was slammed for “a pattern of failed drills, minimal crew participation, an absence of basic knowledge on firefighting” and an inability to coordinate with civilian firefighters.