new development in military music

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:33 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 25, 2016, 06:27PMharrison,
I think you've misread the language.

If you believe that, could you offer up an alternative interpretation? Specifically of:

Quote None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for performances by a military musical unit (as defined in section 974 of title 10, United States Code) described in paragraph (2)(B) or (3) of subsection (a) of such section.

ttf_Eastcheap · Post by **ttf_Eastcheap** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:05 am

Quote from: schlitzbeer on Jun 25, 2016, 01:42PMShe's an idiot that got airtime in a slow news cycle.

I'm sure the idiocy (incompetence, really) is solidly attributable to some anonymous McSally staffer.

Still, she's not exactly averse to publicity. If you'll recall, Rep. McSally is the Maj. McSally who got loads of press for suing Donald Rumsfeld in 2001.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:30 pm

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 25, 2016, 07:04AM

I'll get the exact ammendment later on but here is the section from Title 10, and what will become illegal is (2)(B) and everything listed in (a)(3)

Section 3 is the exceptions. These are not illegal and really represent business as usual for military units.

This is an attempt to define more clearly what the official mission is and what are seen by congress as perks going to high rank. Congress is sometimes pretty suspicious about how the funds are spent.

And remember, this is not about actions, but about funding. Appropriated funds (AF) can only be spent exactly how they are programmed.

We take that very seriously, and by we I mean engineers (because we spend most of a garrison's budget), Resource Managers (budget types), JAG, and occasionally CID.

It is interesting that they are using whether an event is funded in whole or in part by AF as one of the determining factors for whether it is official or not. That's probably because there is substantial case law about when it is improper to support an event with appropriated funds, so most of the time that is going to be done correctly.

Thinking out loud. If I played for a general's birthday party after duty hours, it would not involve AF. I am paid by the hour. If I did it during duty hours, it would involve AF, unless I took leave, and it was supported by two auditable documents (OPM-71 and ATAAPS). However a military musician is on a monthly salary. If they are playing in uniform as scheduled by their commander, it is AF, regardless of time of day etc. If I played for a promotion or awards ceremony during duty hours, I would not be violating the amendment (which apparently doesn't apply to me anyway, which is strange.)

Note also that this amendment applies only to the NDAA of 15/16. FY16 ends on September 30, 2016. I don't know what happens next.

AFM policy is "no freebies," if I remember correctly, it's been a long time since I paid dues and got green sheet money.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:45 pm

Timothy,

Section 3 is indeed the exceptions, but the ammendment makes everything in it illegal to use government funds for. Take another look at the ammendment -- Section 2B and everything described in 3. In other words, something we already can't do, and everything that we can do.

Does that include our salary and the 1/70th of a tank of gas it takes to drive across post? I don't know. I would like to know what a lawyer would make of it.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 26, 2016, 04:30PMNote also that this amendment applies only to the NDAA of 15/16. FY16 ends on September 30, 2016.
I think that this ammendment is for FY 2017.

QuoteAmends Bill: H.R.5293 — Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017
It looks like to me that it was an ammendment proposed during the 15-16 congress, and applies to the upcoming 2017 FY.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:44 am

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/06/27/military-bands-cuts-pushback/86435350/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation+Report

Not sure where they get a cost of over $450 million for travel, instruments and uniforms for military bands. Seems high? Half a billion dollars? That is a lot of new trombones per year.

ttf_schlitzbeer · Post by **ttf_schlitzbeer** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:28 am

Quote from: Kelly on Jun 28, 2016, 07:44AM
Not sure where they get a cost of over $450 million for travel, instruments and uniforms for military bands. Seems high? Half a billion dollars? That is a lot of new trombones per year.

They're mainly buying boutique level instruments. One branch in particular, has a reputation for having a lot of instruments stolen. Aside from sound reinforcement and parade instruments, I expect instrument purchases to face increased scrutiny. $450 million is a drop in the bucket, but spending it on careless people just rubs the public the wrong way.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:59 am

I will be the first to say that I don't have insight into the nuances that our military bands and their musicians have to navigate daily. Nor do I fully understand the ramifications that this amendment will have on our military's professional musicians. What I do understand is how a budget works and that in the end game-right-or wrong-decisions are made and compromises are reached. As a 28 year former Navy Pilot I can speak to the compromises our Navy has made and continues to make on training, readiness, flight hours, etc... You don't need to look further than the ever increasing mishap rate and loss of life to see the effects from repeated budget cuts.. So, if the choice I have to make is between funding military bands or increasing or even just maintaining funding for training, readiness and keeping military end strength from further reductions, I have to say that the choice is a simple one for me to make. Again this is not to diminish the importance of what our military bands bring to the fight.

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:12 pm

The problem is that our country doesn't value the kind of music military bands perform. We like Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, etc. There are plenty of places to save money in the $600 billion military budget. But it is EASY to cut band spending. Why cut money on items that will be hotly debated when you can save $400 million without the country batting an eye?

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:24 pm

Quote from: Dan Hine on Jun 28, 2016, 12:12PMThe problem is that our country doesn't value the kind of music military bands perform.
That is one of the problems, I agree.

The country as a whole has moved far beyond the town band tradition of Gilmore and Sousa in the 1800s, and this includes the average 19 year old entry level soldier. And, 22 year old band musician.

Quote We like Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, etc.
Yes. The full wind ensemble concert band music that a military band is designed and instrumented to play is not what the Army wants to hear either, other than at change of commands and large formal ceremonies. What has evolved is the full military band as a resource from which to draw small ensembles that play most of the performances. Even these have changed in character. Where they used to be mostly brass quintets and woodwind quartets playing semi-classical music, now they are jazz combos playing contemporary music.

I don't think that is the issue for Congress though. Congress is highly sensitive to any perception that high ranking people are getting away with perks they aren't entitled to. I think that is what really drives these efforts.

Is the full 44 person military wind ensemble viable, long term? I'm not sure. I like listening, but you need a certain critical mass to make it worthwhile, and time is passing.

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:57 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2016, 12:24PM

I don't think that is the issue for Congress though. Congress is highly sensitive to any perception that high ranking people are getting away with perks they aren't entitled to. I think that is what really drives these efforts.

You think so? I mean, retirement ceremonies and change of commands/responsibility are slated to stay around and all the stuff that lower ranks (and the public) MIGHT enjoy are going away. Seems like they are ONLY worried about the high ranking people. And all of Congress knows that they can look good if they can cut spending, and that John Q Public won't care if the bands are gone.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:37 pm

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 28, 2016, 12:24PMI like listening...
So do I.

Somehow your post reminded me of a time I was headed in for a holiday evening shift about this time of year, and heard Vladimir Horowitz play a piano reduction of The Stars and Stripes Forever. The piano may have been grand, but the car speakers were small and tinny.

I remember thinking that ten fingers being run by a single nervous system were no match for four or five dozen musicians, each adding an independent voice to the mix.

(I should probably spare you the story of the fellow on public radio who could whistle and hum in counterpoint, demonstrating with the trio section of that march. Oops, too late, beans spilled. Susan Stamberg asked him to marry her right then on the air, but he was already taken.)

ttf_Eastcheap · Post by **ttf_Eastcheap** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:30 pm

Quote from: Dan Hine on Jun 28, 2016, 12:57PMI mean, retirement ceremonies and change of commands/responsibility are slated to stay around

I'm not so sure about that. It kind of looks like Paragraph 3 enumerates everything the bands are allowed to do.

At least within the US. Subsection a doesn't apply to foreign performances, and whether or not the defunding applies to those as well will be a moot point should the appropriation pass as amended.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:55 pm

The regular Army military bands are not doing concert band gigs any more. Those are extremely rare. The TRADOC and FORSCOM bands (which were considered to be cream of the crop in the Army) tried doing mostly concert band engagements and FORSCOM was deactivated last year, while TRADOC slated to deactivate in about a year. Coincidence?

Now, for official ceremonies, the standard is still to do three military marches or even a circus march as pre-music, and then marches for all the movement that takes place on the parade field. It's traditional on purpose.

But to those who are saying that the Army bands (I don't know about the other branches) are just playing Sousa -- you haven't seen an Army band in about a decade, then.

Typical missions for the public are either a rock band, playing tunes from whatever is most popular on the radio to local popular tunes, a brass band doing instrumental covers of popular songs as well as brass band standards, or a small jazz combo playing music at an Army ball or in the chow hall on a big holiday -- we don't even do big band any longer. Big band is not what people like. Brass quintets and woodwind groups cover down on smaller ceremonies that do not require a full marching element, as well as to assist with music for chaplain events.

By far the most impact comes from people getting to see a rock band and see a vocalist in uniform sing songs that they know and can sing along with. It's great to play in a horn line on shows like that. But if you get a rowdy brass band playing tunes that people can sing along with and get people charged up, that's even better.

The Army has long ago left the concert band /sousa concept and done it's best to keep up with the times.

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 4:10 pm

Just because the music is "modern" doesn't mean it's good. People didn't go to military band concerts to hear a rock band. They went to hear patriotic music.

On that note, I'm out of here lest I get tagged by hire ups paid to monitor for grumpiness...

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 4:25 pm

Quote from: Dan Hine on Jun 28, 2016, 04:10PMJust because the music is "modern" doesn't mean it's good. People didn't go to military band concerts to hear a rock band. They went to hear patriotic music.

On that note, I'm out of here lest I get tagged by hire ups paid to monitor for grumpiness...

Dan, I've played very few jobs with the Army where anyone showed up specifically because they wanted to hear a military band. They certainly didn't specifically come to hear ceremonial music. That doesn't mean they weren't singing along by the end of the shows I've played. People show up because they heard about some event or another and they are out to have a fun day. Those are the easiest people in the world to play for. Adults, college students, high schoolers -- it doesn't matter. My MPTs are all entertaining. A musician should either try something new or hang up his hat if people leave his show disappointed, military or not. That's how music works.

Hopefully you are working as a positive catalyst in your music groups to get the best product you can get.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:15 pm

Quote from: Dan Hine on Jun 28, 2016, 12:57PMYou think so? I mean, retirement ceremonies and change of commands/responsibility are slated to stay around and all the stuff that lower ranks (and the public) MIGHT enjoy are going away. Seems like they are ONLY worried about the high ranking people. And all of Congress knows that they can look good if they can cut spending, and that John Q Public won't care if the bands are gone.

Obviously I didn't explain well, and part of that is my fault. I'm being circumspect for a reason, I'm part of the Army, and I'm subject to some oversight even if I'm typing from home.

But let me cautiously try to explain what I meant.

Yes, change of commands when one general enters, one general leaves (movie reference) will stay around and require (I hope) a formation and a band. Congress has no problem with that. But you're mistaken if you think that is taking care of high rank. That is really taking care of the tradition and esprit de corps of the Army, and it is necessary. Congress understands that, and has no perception that it is an unentitled perk for somebody important.

Harrison mentioned that most of the performances are not the full band, but small groups drawn from it, and that has been my experience too, gradually increasing over my 24 years with the Army.

That leaves an opportunity for some of those small groups to be ordered to support social events for important people, representing an abuse of power. I don't think that happens much. But I'm inclined by nature to think the best of people when I can. It seems the supporter of this amendment has witnessed something different, and it has affected her bias. I think she's wrong, but............. on the other hand if somebody didn't watch out for that stuff, it might become more prevalent, I dunno.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:53 am

There is more than one way to look at the economics of it.

An average post band of 44 people probably does about 300 performances a year. What would it cost to hire working professionals to do those 300 performances? It would probably be astronomical compared to the salaries and benefits of 44 people.

But wait. Some of those performances require 44 people able to march in formation and play marches in the hot sun with a high degree of skill and precision. There is no local competition. None of the bands I play with could come close. Military band members are highly proficient musicians, more so than the local talent most places.

Some of those performances are: provide a flute and keyboard for an office party background music. Okay, you can hire perfectly adequate talent anywhere in the country. There is competition. Or you can go with a dj.

Without having access to the records, but having been to many many ceremonies and events over the years, I would hazard a guess that ratio of full band to small elements is something like 4 to 296 per year. That might be vastly different depending on the location, but I'm not going to be off by an order of magnitude.

So when the bosses (that's not me) are doing the math, they have to decide what question to ask. Do we keep 44 people on staff when we need 300 performances? Sure, it's a no brainer. What about when the number is 4? I'm glad I don't have to be part of that negotiation.

ttf_TromboneMonkey · Post by **ttf_TromboneMonkey** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:11 am

Quote from: BGuttman on Jun 25, 2016, 06:48AMI realize the Military is under the gun to cut costs. They have been for a long time.

But this is making a bad Community Relations move to save the cost of a wing tank for an X-35 fighter.

Precisely. The ENTIRE BANDS PROGRAM costs 1/4 ONE B-2.

Congress are such a bunch of scheming punks. Our Military is unbelievably over funded and they want to cut a tiny program that actually matters.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:08 am

Tim: the problem is that the small units often require a wide variety of different instruments. The Military does not field a symphony orchestra but a string quartet will perform at a White House dinner. None of those instruments are Marching Band, so the performers must play something else as well. Same goes for a rock group. I've not seen people marching with gee-tars so they also have to play something else.

So a 44 piece Military Band will need to have a number of players who can double on other instruments. At a professional level.

Monkey: I have long said that if the Military wants to spend my tax dollars on anything, Military Music is high on the list. I like having the local Field Band play in the town's Fourth of July parade or Old Home Day parade. A lot of Military musicians (now ex-musicians) play in my symphony orchestra (as well as other orchestras in the area). They are a great asset; always great players, and always willing to help anybody else.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:34 am

Quote from: BGuttman on Jun 29, 2016, 06:08AMTim: the problem is that the small units often require a wide variety of different instruments.
Yes. The full band becomes a talent pool from which to draw talented musicians for other purposes.

When you reverse it, you realize the requirement is the other purposes, and the full band has become largely irrelevant.

I don't know the answer here.

I was at a ceremony this morning, ground breaking for a construction project. A brass quintet played the pre-music, they did Liberty Bell, Sabres and Spurs, and Washington Post. The arrangements were good and the performance was outstanding. This was an official function and nobody would think there was anything inappropriate about having the band do it, on duty and supported by funds.

At the same time, this particular ceremony did not actually require a band to complete the mission. It was a nice-to-have. There is a basic economic principle that says cost and demand are related, and when cost goes to zero demand will go to infinite. The band is free, so everybody requests it, and I'm sure they have way more requests than they can possibly accommodate.

When you really need a full band, there is no substitute.

ttf_robcat2075 · Post by **ttf_robcat2075** » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:17 am

Currently in the news. The optics of this just aren't good.

The $75,000 Cello: One Reason Military Bands Hit a Sour Note

One has to conclude that the military is very bad at shopping around and very bad at spending our money and not just for cellos.

I went to a cello festival in June and heard a lot of accomplished cello players play a lot of cellos and I can tell you that it is absolutely possible to get modern cello for $10,000 that performs as well as a $5 million Stradivari. $75,000 for what the military ensembles do is crazy.

ttf_schlitzbeer · Post by **ttf_schlitzbeer** » Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:01 pm

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 01, 2016, 11:17AMCurrently in the news. The optics of this just aren't good.

The $75,000 Cello: One Reason Military Bands Hit a Sour Note

One has to conclude that the military is very bad at shopping around and very bad at spending our money and not just for cellos.

I went to a cello festival in June and heard a lot of accomplished cello players play a lot of cellos and I can tell you that it is absolutely possible to get modern cello for $10,000 that performs as well as a $5 million Stradivari. $75,000 for what the military ensembles do is crazy.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-07-25/news/9407250022_1_instruments-stolen-band-san-antonio

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Armys-Band-Instruments-Stolen-Overnight-124733304.html

http://www.wsmv.com/story/16208998/soldier-charged-with-having-stolen-army-band-items

http://abc13.com/news/theft-thwarts-army-bands-veterans-day-performance-plan/394228/

Sometimes I really wonder if we do have too many bands, or if people just don't want the hassles involved with the job. Like taking care of the gear. When you've got one branch, having this much stuff stolen or lost, it's no wonder why people are critical of military band budgets.

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:53 pm

It has been mentioned earlier but there is no award in the military for not spending money. If you don't spend your budget this year you'll get less money next year when you might actually need it.

It never fails. Every August all units, not just the bands, get email traffic saying we have a ton of money to spend. Put in your requests now so we can buy it before the end of the fiscal year.

It may not be the case here but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a "how do we burn through $150k by next month?" issue.

And yes, I do have experience in procurement for military bands.

ttf_schlitzbeer · Post by **ttf_schlitzbeer** » Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:33 pm

Quote from: Dan Hine on Jul 01, 2016, 12:53PMIt has been mentioned earlier but there is no award in the military for not spending money. If you don't spend your budget this year you'll get less money next year when you might actually need it.

It never fails. Every August all units, not just the bands, get email traffic saying we have a ton of money to spend. Put in your requests now so we can buy it before the end of the fiscal year.

It may not be the case here but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a "how do we burn through $150k by next month?" issue.

And yes, I do have experience in procurement for military bands.

If you're authorized $150K for purchases of high end instruments, don't leave them in an unsecured location. It's a pity that there's no penalties for people not taking care of the gear. I wonder what the yearly costs are for lost/stolen gear. I'll bet that's a factor for shutting them down. Just makes it easier.

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:05 pm

Quote from: schlitzbeer on Jul 01, 2016, 02:33PMIf you're authorized $150K for purchases of high end instruments, don't leave them in an unsecured location.
No argument there.

QuoteIt's a pity that there's no penalties for people not taking care of the gear.
Sure there is. That's easily punishable under the UCMJ. Either no one has yet pushed the issue or it just hasn't been made public.

Quote I wonder what the yearly costs are for lost/stolen gear. I'll bet that's a factor for shutting them down. Just makes it easier.

My 11 years in two branches of service and three bands has resulted in a nice $0 of lost or stolen equipment. Equipment of any real value at least. I'm sure someone lost a flip folder or three ring binder at some point. Maybe a pencil.

ttf_BiggieSmalls · Post by **ttf_BiggieSmalls** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 10:19 am

Article on the topic in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/military-bands-budget.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-2&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0

ttf_GetzenBassPlayer · Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:15 pm

Quote from: BiggieSmalls on Jul 02, 2016, 10:19AMArticle on the topic in today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/military-bands-budget.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-2&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0

This all sounds like political bs. The same bs that has many of Americans frustrated with those in government. Complaining about a $12,000.00 tuba while talking about brining the F-22 platform out of retirement. I heard that it cost $43,000.00 dollars an hour to fly that plane. All the bands in the military would not exceed the cost of one of those birds.

ttf_harrison.t.reed · Post by **ttf_harrison.t.reed** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:16 pm

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/continue-military-bands-funding

Apparently 25,000 ish people disagree with the proposed ammendment.

ttf_GetzenBassPlayer · Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:47 pm

I went to one of the President's Own Marine Band concerts when they were in town a few years ago. At the end, the did a medley of service tunes and had people who were connected somehow to that particular service stand up. There young children standing as well as older people. I am sure that some of those young children have lost parents or brothers and sisters and this was a very respectful way to recognize their sacrifice for this country. Maybe that's what has me so irritated about this; Politicians who can't see the value in having music that is assessable to the troops and their families. In my perspective, to ask people to die for their country and being too cheap to ensure that there is a live musician to play taps at funerals makes me want to make sure I find out what side of this issue my representatives are on.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:15 pm

Quote from: schlitzbeer on Jul 01, 2016, 02:33PMIf you're authorized $150K for purchases of high end instruments, don't leave them in an unsecured location. It's a pity that there's no penalties for people not taking care of the gear. I wonder what the yearly costs are for lost/stolen gear. I'll bet that's a factor for shutting them down. Just makes it easier.

The military no longer accounts for paper clips. Yes, a few decades back, we actually had to count those every year.

But we do have something called a property book and a hand receipt, and we are accountable for anything over $500. (and for items considered pilferable, it can be less) Every time somebody leaves for a new duty station his hand receipt is checked and if there's something missing it comes out of his pay, up to some limit. For a soldier I think it's one month pay, for a civilian it is the actual value.

ttf_anonymous · Post by **ttf_anonymous** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:17 pm

Guys- Imagine going to the Armed forces culinary school and learning the craft of cooking.....and then as a cook in the military you are only allowed to cook eggs...scrambled......or, the USS Regan needs a reception combo for a state dinner at sea with foreign dignitaries.....why don't you see if you can get that combo from the union down the street (you know that dreary building that smells of smoke and past members?) Tell them to pack their seabags for the Indian ocean- they have a gig! black tie please.......! THE IGNORANCE OF THESE PEOPLE!!

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:33 pm

Quote from: timbone on Nov 04, 2016, 12:17PMGuys- Imagine going to the Armed forces culinary school and learning the craft of cooking.....and then as a cook in the military you are only allowed to cook eggs...scrambled......
That's not what was perceived to be happening, though. A closer equivalent is that you went through that cook school (and I've eaten their final exam multi-course dinner a few times, it's quite awesome) and then as a cook in the military you are required to come in after duty hours on your day off and cook for birthday parties, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, etc., for "important" people, with no compensation. That's why the prohibition of "social" events and the limitation to official functions, and the definition of official function is pretty broad. It would certainly include that shipboard state dinner.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:33 pm

Quote from: timbone on Nov 04, 2016, 12:17PMGuys- Imagine going to the Armed forces culinary school and learning the craft of cooking.....and then as a cook in the military you are only allowed to cook eggs...scrambled......
That's not what was perceived to be happening, though. A closer equivalent is that you went through that cook school (and I've eaten their final exam multi-course dinner a few times, it's quite awesome) and then as a cook in the military you are required to come in after duty hours on your day off and cook for birthday parties, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, etc., for "important" people, with no compensation. That's why the prohibition of "social" events and the limitation to official functions, and the definition of official function is pretty broad. It would certainly include that shipboard state dinner.