Coast Guard Food Service Manual: Fill & Download for Free

Both the “It takes years of experience” and the “you can just provision a boat and go” answers are correct within their own spaces. It takes much knowledge, experience, and wisdom to plan a maximally safe trip and to be prepared for setbacks. However many an ignorant fool has been lucky enough to make a major crossing successful. I know because I made a Pacific crossing with a lucky fool.During the years I spent as a sailing bum, I at one point noticed somebody advertising for crew to sail from Australia to Croatia. I did not apply since I already had a berth though his departure date. But a while later saw the same person advertising urgently for crew from New Zealand to Croatia, with immediate departure. I inquired and found that both his crew had left the boat at his first stop. I foolishly accepted and hopped on a plane for NZ. We left a few days later for Panama. It ended up being 84 days without sight of land or another ship.It was a very nice boat. It was well maintained. Everything worked at the start and nothing critical broke. We had plenty of food, water, and fuel. The weather was fine the entire time, and we had no significant problems. We were so lucky.First, note that he was sailing from Australia to Croatia via the Panama Canal. Which is to say, the plan was to sail 3/4 of the way around the world against the wind. Because he was not particularly interested the 1/4 of the world between Australia and Croatia traveling West, and because he wanted to see the Caribbean, and because when we went so far south that the prevailing winds were to the east, it was so chilly he decided to go back north into the warmer temperatures.So all of that is 100% totally and completely valid decision making. If you have a sloop rigged sailboat, and you are not in any particular hurry, and you want to see the Caribbean, and you want to be warm, there is absolutely no reason in the world not to spend 84 days sailing against the wind. The wave action is just a little bit lumpy is all. For 84 days.The reason this trip was not an unmitigated disaster is that nothing critical broke. If your plan is to be 1000 miles from nowhere, you and your crew have to be confident that you can handle any disaster and have the ability to keep minor inconveniences from turning into disasters. Problems with the plumbing? You need to be able to fix it, or start shitting into a bucket. Electrical problems? You need to be able to fix it or go without electricity. Diesel problems? Fix it or go without. Same with every other system on the boat. Fortunately the only system that you truly can’t do without long-term is the sails and rigging. Even that you can do without if you happen to be within motoring range of a marina.My first Atlantic crossing, the owner had spares for just about everything. When the autopilot broke, he had several spares for the part that broke, which is good because the same part broke twice. He inspected the rigging daily and replaced a worn stay mid-journey. He sketched out for me what he would do if he lost his mast.I have never seen a boat less prepared for a Pacific crossing that that boat I left NZ upon. Except for having enough food, I have been on boats that were not planning on crossing the Pacific that were better prepared for the crossing than this boat. Of course it took me a while to twig to that fact. There was plenty of food. There were no spare parts for anything.His lack of preparation was epic. We had no paper charts. None at all. We had a chart plotter. He had gone into a supply store and described the journey to the clerk, who sold him map chips for the chart plotter. He ended up with 3 copies of the Caribbean (it was on the North American chart chip, the Atlantic chart chip, plus he was sold the Caribbean chart separately), But had no electronic chart for the Pacific side of Panama. In fact we had no electronic charts for anything in the Pacific except Australia and NZ. The clerk had tried to sell him a Pacific chip, but he was not planning on stopping anywhere between NZ and Panama, so saw no reason to buy charts for the Pacific. About 60 or so days out, we passed within 200 nm of Easter Island, but did not stop, among other reasons was that we had no charts for anything in the pacific. If we zoomed out to the world map we could see Easter Island as a small blob, but it disappeared when you zoomed into the local maps. There were no pilot books covering anything other than Australia.The chart plotter was the only GPS on board. Hand held GPS’s are cheap. We had no backup GPS. Of course since we had no paper charts, if we lost the chart plotter the lat/long from a handheld GPS would be hard to use, but still, it is not smart to rely only upon one electronic system. Any problems with the chart plotter, or with the electrical system, or our ability to recharge our batteries, would have left us without any form of navigation.Trip planning normally entails looking at prevailing currents and winds. The quickest route is not necessarily the shortest route. This guy did none of that. We pointed our head as close to East as we could get (bearing in mind the prevailing wind was from the east), and sailed. Not only was no thought given to the prevailing winds or forecast weather, we did not have that information on board, nor any any way to get it (once we sailed out of the area that was covered by the Australian weather stations he had pre-programmed into his radio). Though the weather was perfect the entire time, I later found out that this was the heart of the Cyclone season, and like I explain later, he had not bothered to obtain any weather frequencies other than for Australia.He did not know how his equipment worked. He had a satellite phone. It stopped working after a few weeks. I asked him for the manual, so I could try to diagnose what went wrong. He said that he knew what was wrong, he said the phone company were idiots, and once before had cut his service until he called (using a landline) to do some paperwork. He refused to let me even see the manual. When we finally arrived in Panama, he called the satellite company to let them have a piece of his mind about cutting his service again. They said his account was active. He finally, with bad grace gave me the manual. 5 minutes later I said, “they have three satellites, and you have to manually tell the phone which to use. I just switched us from the Asia satellite to the North American satellite, and when we leave the Caribbean we ought to switch to the European satellite. It took only 5 minutes to fix a piece of equipment that had been not working for months.He had not bothered to look up any radio frequencies. He had a very expensive shortwave radio transmitter that could reach thousands of miles. it had an attached fax machine that could print out weather maps. The radio had 50 programmable channels, all pre-programmed years before to various Australian frequencies. We had the international hailing channels and the international emergency channels, but that was it. So it would have been useful in an emergency, but for picking up weather reports we were reduced to just fiddling with it and hoping to pick up an English speaking weather report that covered our area. I am sure Easter Island was broadcasting one, and weather maps also. We never found them.Considering that we had both a satellite phone and a shortwave radio transmitter, There is no reason that we should have been totally cutoff from communication for 84 days straight, without being able to send a message to our loved ones, nor receive a weather report or storm warning. Many a skipper will subscribe to a shore station service, where the skipper can contact them daily and update them on the boats current position. Several days without contact can lead to a coast-guard notification. He not only had not subscribed, he did not have a list of shore stations and the frequencies they monitor. Nor a list of coast-guard stations, weather stations, NOTHING!But the short answer is that we were lucky. We had perfect weather the entire time I was aboard, which is great, because without weather reports we could not have avoided any storms. If anything had gone wrong, he would certainly have not been able to fix it, and without ether tools or spare parts, I probably would not have been able to fix it ether. If the mast had gone down, it would have taken our radio antenna with it. With the satellite phone mis-configured for our location, we would have been unable to call for help. And like I said, in 84 days, except for the first day and the last day, we did not see another ship or land.I could have died setting sail on that boat that was not prepared for any setbacks whatsoever. But nothing went wrong and it was a very pleasant trip.

Contra several other answers to this question: The United States Marine Corps is not “technically a part of the Navy”, nor is it a “branch”, nor a “department” of the Navy.The United States Marine Corps is NOT the Marine Corps of the Navy (as is for example are the Navy Supply Corps, or Navy Civil Engineer Corps, or similarly for the Army and Air Force, the Army Signal Corps, or the Air Force Biomedical Sciences Corps), but rather is the Marine Corps of the United States (Just the same as the U.S. Air Force, which was formerly the U.S. Army Air Service, cum U.S. Army Air Corps, cum U.S. Army Air Forces, has been, since 1947, the United States Air Force). The U.S. Marine Corps is a separate, co-equal service with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. (The Coast Guard is currently serving under the Department of Homeland Security, formerly under the Department of Transportation, and before that, the Department of the Treasury, except for during both World Wars when it was under the Department of the Navy.) The Department of Defense contains three sub-cabinet level service branch departments. The Departments of the Army and Air Force are single-service departments, while The Department of the Navy is a dual-service department. The Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps both report directly to the Secretary of the Navy and the two services maintain separate internal organizations and chains of command.This relationship is specified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Law, Department of Defense Instructions, Navy Regulations, the Marine Corps Manual, and various Marine Corps Orders. The Navy and the Corps have separate and distinct official seals, emblems, and flags, wear service distinctive uniforms and insignia, have completely different enlisted grade of rank insignia and titles and different officer grade of rank titles, and Marine Corps officers do not wear either Navy officer-style cuff stripes or shoulder boards. The Navy and Marine Corps maintain separate recruiting and initial entry training programs for both officers and enlisted members. Even U.S. Naval Academy and Naval ROTC midshipmen who desire to be commissioned as Marine Corps officers must apply for, and be accepted into, the “Marine Corps Option” program and receive unique Marine Corps officer training prior to, and post-commissioning. The Navy and Marine Corps have completely separate administrative record keeping, payroll, promotion, and separation and retirement agencies.Yes, the Navy does provide health care services, including ALL enlisted hospital corpsmen, to the Marine Corps through the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and religious program services through the Navy Chaplain Corps and enlisted religious program specialists. (Just as, for example, the Army Veterinary Corps provides all animal health care, vector control, food service inspection, and some biological research services to ALL branches of the U.S. military as well as many federal agencies. So, I suppose since by the faulty logic that the Navy and Air Force MUST receive some support from the Army, neither one of them is truly a “separate” service either, how absurd!)The Marine Corps also has its own Judge Advocate Division (whose personnel do work with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, but are not controlled by it) officered by Marine Corps lawyers who are fully-qualified as “naval officers of the unrestricted line” just as are their Marine ground and aviation brothers and sisters are (except for Marine Corps Limited Duty Officers and Warrant Officers/Chief Warrant Officers, who are “naval line officers of the restricted line.”) Yes, even though designated as “naval unrestricted line officers,” Marine Corps officers are prohibited from command of individual U.S. Navy vessels, (Just as U.S. Navy officers may not command U.S. Marine Corps units.) However, Marine Corps officers may command task organizations that include even commissioned U.S. Navy warships. Yes, in operational commands Marine Corps units and personnel serve alongside and in some cases, are fully-integrated into joint Navy/Marine Corps command structures, such as in, for example, the Fleet Marine Forces, Pacific being a “type” command within the U.S. Pacific Fleet. However, there are units, such as Marine Corps Medical and Dental battalions, that are manned almost entirely by Navy personnel (they have a few Marines assigned for administrative, logistical, and security purposes) that are subordinate units of Marine Corps Logistics Groups and Marine Expeditionary Forces. Yes, Marine Corps officers who are qualified as aircraft pilots and airborne weapons and sensor system officers are designated as Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers, respectively, and are awarded the exact same “wings of gold” as their Navy counterparts. However, even though some Marine Corps aircraft squadrons (usually fighter/attack) are sometimes attached to an embarked carrier air wing, the overwhelming majority of Marine Corps aviation units remain under their respective Marine Aircraft Wing and Marine Aircraft Group unless deployed as part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). Yes, MEUs, and sometimes Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEB) embark aboard U.S. Navy amphibious warships of an amphibious warfare squadron, but a Marine Corps colonel commands the MEU, and a Navy captain (with the title of commodore) commands the squadron. (Either a Navy rear admiral (lower half) or a Marine Corps brigadier general may command the entire Expeditionary Strike Group.) It is amazing how many people, including many current and former Navy personnel, and even, incredibly, some current and former Marines do not understand the above!Now, as to control of nuclear weapons, formerly the Marine Corps did have possession and control of nuclear weapons, and the procedures and doctrine to employ them. In addition to the nuclear projectile capability of the 155mm howitzer, the Corps formerly had a nuclear delivery mission with the A-6E Intruder, all-weather attack aircraft. I know this from personal experience as I was one the very few Marine Corps officers who was certified in the Marine Corps’ nuclear weapons program. In addition to completing training conducted by the Naval Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Atlantic, I am a graduate of the Joint Interservice Nuclear Weapons School at Kirtland AFB, NM. While, I cannot go into specifics, suffice it to say that the Corps had nukes and we were trained (we actually had “nuclear” alerts and practiced the required procedures) and capable of using them. With the reduction of nuclear arsenals, new nuclear arms treaties, and changing national policy, the Corps was relieved of both its nuclear artillery and fixed-wing aircraft nuclear attack responsibilities. Likewise, the U.S. Army was subsequently relieved of both its nuclear field artillery howitzer and guided missile, as well as its land-based nuclear-armed anti-ballistic missile, responsibilities.The Marine still plays a role in securing and defending the Navy submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) nuclear submarine bases by providing infantry battalions, designated as Marine Security Force Battalions, at the SLBM bases located at Kings Bay, GA and Kitsap, WA. (The Army still operates the land-based anti-ballistic missile force, although they are no longer equipped with nuclear warheads.)The truth shall set you free, Semper Fidelis!

I believe that in 1981 the army had a prison deferment program. There were two individuals assigned to my company in basic who were on that program, but it was just by word of mouth that I heard that. I don’t know if it was true, but it seemed like it, and there were several more that fit the pattern. They were physical hazards. They made basic seem like prison. One of them even said prison food was better and the day was much easier, so he opted for a TDP (trainee discharge plan).Here's how the separate branches address the issue in 2019:The Army's Recruiting Regulation, 601-210, paragraph 4-8b: states that any "applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.The Air Force Recruiting Regulation, AETCI 36-2002, table 1-1, lines 7 and 8, makes an applicant ineligible for enlistment if they are "released from restraint, or civil suit, or charges on the condition of entering military service, if the restraint, civil suit, or criminal charges would be reinstated if the applicant does not enter military service."The Marine Corps Recruiting Regulation, MCO P1100.72B, Chapter 3, Section 2, Part H, Paragraph 12 states: "Applicants may not enlist as an alternative to criminal prosecution, indictment, incarceration, parole, probation, or another punitive sentence. They are ineligible for enlistment until the original assigned sentence would have been completed.This branch's enlistment prohibition is contained in the Coast Guard Recruiting Manual, M1100.2D, Table 2-A, and states "An application may be denied when, based on articulable facts, it is determined that accession would not be in the best interest of the Coast Guard."the Navy Recruiting Manual, COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8F, does not appear to contain specific provisions which would make such applicants ineligible for enlistment. But as a general protocol, the Navy will not accept applicants for service as an alternative to criminal prosecution or another punitive sentence.Military Recruiter Participation in Criminal ProceedingsAll of the military's recruiting regulations prohibit recruiters from becoming involved in criminal proceedings for any military applicant.Under no circumstances may recruiting personnel to intervene or appear on behalf of prospective applicants pending civil action with court authorities. A civil action is defined as awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, or on supervised conditional probation/parole. Waiver of this restriction is not authorized.Source:Can Military Service Actually Be an Alternative to Jail Time?