Posted on Feb 10, 2020
A retaliatory act may not fire a complaining employee in reprisal. What exactly does this mean?
2.27K
13
9
2
2
0
How is this employed under the regulations in our uniformed services?
Posted in these groups: 
Regulation
Law
Regulation Law
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 6
1
1
0
Flag Officers are constantly relieving Officers under their command for lack of confidence because the relieved officer does not meet their standards for filling the position in question. O-6s and below, if they cannot convince their senior to remove an individual from a billet will normally reassign the individual to some nondescript position where they feel the individual can do no harm. If you are referring to Vindman, he has just been reassigned. Everyone on the President's staff other than lower GS people hold their position at the pleasure of the President and were I in Trump's position I would have done the same thing. Why any Lieutenant Colonel feels the President somehow erred because the President didn't feel limited to using the LtCol's specific talking points has a greatly exaggerated ego.
(1)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
I wasn't actually referring to LTC Vindman, yet I comprehend what you stated LtCol Robert Quinter, Sir. Much-appreciated.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
During my career I was told very powerful people can be vindictive and to tread lightly.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If this is in reference to LTC Vindman, he wasn't exactly fired. He's still employed by the US Army. However, he also lost the trust of those within the NSC and the President. Why keep him there? Why would he want to be there? Time for him to move on.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Well within his power and yes, reassigned. Just like when other Presidents have done it MANY times over. My point is to note the emphasis people are trying to use by equating Trump's decision to some kind of reprisal resulting in a loss of employment. Like with Mattis, that didn't happen. Obama's removal of Gen Mattis from CENTCOM was a decision he is absolutely allowed to make, but it doesn't stop one from criticizing Obama's decision. Also many could and would argue that in the end, Obama made a bad decision.
Comparing this with Vindman is apples to oranges. Vindman is not an integral cog in the NSC, whereas Gen Mattis was the commander of CENTCOM. Had Vindman been removed before the hoopla of the phone call, no one would have noticed or cared. Again I ask, why stay there? He's already lost the confidence of the people around him and the President (regardless of what you think the President did or did not do wrong).
Comparing this with Vindman is apples to oranges. Vindman is not an integral cog in the NSC, whereas Gen Mattis was the commander of CENTCOM. Had Vindman been removed before the hoopla of the phone call, no one would have noticed or cared. Again I ask, why stay there? He's already lost the confidence of the people around him and the President (regardless of what you think the President did or did not do wrong).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google