The USS Flier: Death and Survival on a World War II Submarine

20. Inquiry

139 20 Inquiry Even at the time, the terms and objectives of Daubin’s inquiry were a matter of some confusion. In hindsight, Christie’s chief of staff, Philip “P. G.” Nichols, was unsure whether it had been a board of investigation or a court of inquiry. Christie described it as the latter, but Herb Andrews remembered it as the former.1 A court of inquiry was the normal means of looking into the loss of a ship, but Daubin’s activities could more accurately be described under navy regulations as an investigation by one officer. Naval discipline and penalties were set out in the colorfully phrased Articles for the Government of the United States Navy, popularly known as the “Rocks and Shoals.” There was no independent naval judiciary, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice did not exist until 1951. Under the Articles, courts of inquiry could summon witnesses and punish contempt in the same way as a court-martial. However, they were empowered only to determine the facts; they did not render an opinion unless instructed to do so in the order convening the inquiry.2 Like McCann’s investigation of the submarines lost under Fife at Brisbane, Daubin’s findings would remain strictly confidential. John Crowley found his command of the Flier under close scrutiny for the second time. Whereas Crowley had declined representation during the investigation into the Flier’s grounding at Midway, this time he availed himself of the right to counsel. He 140 The USS Flier chose Herb Andrews, skipper of the Gurnard, as his adviser. Andrews had graduated from the Naval Academy with the class of 1930, making him a contemporary of such luminaries as Dudley “Mush” Morton, Wreford “Moon” Chapple, and Sam Dealey. Finding duty on surface ships fairly unexciting, Andrews turned to submarines. He married his high school sweetheart and settled down at New London, not far from his parents’ home in New Haven, Connecticut. Earlier in the war, Andrews had worked on Daubin’s staff in the Atlantic theater. He did not care much for Daubin, characterizing him as “old school.” Andrews conspired to get back to sea as soon as possible, and in 1942 he was given command of the USS Gurnard. Andrews proved to be an aggressive skipper. On a patrol out of Pearl Harbor during April–June 1943, the Gurnard attacked a seven-ship convoy, firing six torpedoes for clean hits. The submarine received credit for sinking five of the ships and earned a Presidential Unit Citation. They later sank a large tanker on the same patrol.3 The Gurnard had originally been ordered to pick up the Flier survivors from Palawan Island, but for reasons that were unclear to Andrews, these orders were countermanded, and the Redfin was sent on the mission instead.4 It is likely that the Redfin’s recent experience landing coast watchers in the region—negotiating the shallow water of North Balabac Strait without incident in June 1944—was considered advantageous.5 As previously noted, the Redfin also had a pair of Australian commandos on board to help with the evacuation. Crowley first approached Andrews about representing him on a late Sunday afternoon. Andrews recalled being seated in the bathtub at the time (it was not uncommon for submariners returning from patrols to spend much of their recovery time in a bathtub or shower). He agreed to assist Crowley as counsel, but there was little time for preparation, since the inquiry was scheduled to begin the next morning. Andrews asked to see Daubin’s precept for 141 Inquiry the inquiry. He believed that it was important to know whether Daubin’s purpose was to simply find out what had happened or to establish guilt. He did not find Daubin’s response comforting. According to Andrews, Daubin stated that he had been sent by Admiral King and did not have to disclose the precept. Furthermore , since Crowley had lost his ship, he was a defendant in the inquiry.6 Christie would later describe Daubin’s interrogation of the surviving Flier officers as “brutal,” and he “objected strongly” to the manner of questioning.7 Christie also saw himself as a defendant in the inquiry, or at least an “interested party.”8 He was extremely keen to get his thoughts on the record and to defend the procedures used in framing the operational orders of submarines under his command. In a letter to...