LT R'mori
Counselor, DS13
SUBJECT’S NAME: Detuggo, Gerree
INTERVIEW STARDATE: 100662.3
PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF EVALUATION
Basic Profile Assessment
CONCLUSION
Authority finds subject to be fit for active duty, with reservations: Counseling Routine Exam biannually to maintain duty status.
DISCUSSION
Subject is a career tactical officer, promoted into the command track, who has served as commanding officer for the past 2.5 years. Despite subject’s generalist role, he still strongly identifies as a tactical officer and has built a great deal of his personality – or at least his presentation of same – around that identity. Subject is plainly a product of the Federation’s recent conflicts and authority believes his sequence of assignments has utterly failed to sufficiently expose him to Starfleet’s non-military aspects.
Subject is unusually blunt about the violent and ethically muddied aspects of the tactical officer role, particularly around the concept of “killing people” through his actions at the control of starship weaponry. Subject readily identifies the seriousness of the subject and regards his actions as a solemn and necessary responsibility. There is no levity or rationalizing present in his reflections on his past actions or in his consideration of potential future actions. While authority recognizes the importance of such a viewpoint, and its value in objectivity and use-of-force decision-making, subject appears to hyperfocus on this aspect of his role. Like many tactical and security officers, subject was drawn to the field by the instinct to protect others. Being forced to “kill people” in order to provide that protection is something that subject may be unable to reconcile internally. Authority suspects that the conflict between practical necessity and innate morality has created a significant accumulation of guilt or shame, conscious or otherwise, which subject actively represses through justification and duty.
Subject’s worldview and outlook on the motivations of others displayed an uncommon divergence, with worldview trending slightly pessimistic and outlook on motivations trending strongly optimistic. Authority believes this dichotomy to be the root of subject’s psychological trauma: the universe is full of good people doomed to suffer at the hands of negative circumstances. Subject’s poor self-esteem and external-leaning locus of control support that supposition when considering that subject views his own role with a similar dichotomy: saving/protecting some from suffering harm and death, but doing so by visiting harm and death upon others. Subject’s emotional support network has taken an expected hit as a result of his recent transfer, though authority expects it to grow to be moderately robust in time - with the caveat that it makes no provision for professional psychological care.
On objective testing, subject rated extraordinarily highly in conscientiousness, well above average in organization, productiveness, and responsibility. Extraversion rated nearly as high, driven by uncommonly strong assertiveness and energy level. Sociability rated moderately high, correlating with a moderately high openness to experience. Agreeableness was middling, propped up primarily by trust and respectfulness, rather than compassion - though authority notes that subject’s low compassion scores are most likely a reflection of subject’s self-esteem, rather than an actual deficiency in empathy. Negative emotionality rated low-to-moderate, with otherwise healthy doses of emotional volatility and anxiety.
All else being equal, subject’s ratings predict an extremely reliable and uncommonly resilient officer. Authority believes subject is likely capable of maintaining effectiveness and composure through enormous strain without displaying duty-related stress indicators. Unfortunately, this is a case where the subject’s best interests and the organization’s do not align perfectly at first glance. Authority is deeply concerned for subject’s long-term mental health, and suspects that either cumulative effect or short-term stress is likely to eventually result in a breakdown. Subject is likely to place his duty far ahead of his own needs such that typical duty/performance reviews are not likely to detect problems in advance of such a breakdown. Subject’s admitted disdain for the counseling field is likely to prevent subject-prompted professional intervention, and authority suggests a strong possibility that subject will take deliberate steps to avoid being flagged for counseling exams in the future.
Authority believes subject would benefit from therapy, though his probable unwillingness to engage with mandatory sessions make such an order likely to do more harm than good. As a result, in addition to standard profile assessments, authority strongly recommends subject receive a focused counseling assessment (File: Counseling Routine Exam, to include PTSD, Anxiety, and Burnout screenings) every six months at minimum. These exams will monitor subject’s progress and may detect precipitous conditions and facilitate timely interventions.
LENGTH OF INTERVIEW: 1.5 hrs
END OF EVALUATION.