Should an officer be allowed to continue to serve on Active Duty after being relieved from command?

Unfortunately I've been around my fair share. I had the displeasure of having to "mentor" an ex Trident SSBN skipper that was relieved for "loss of confidence". That's code speak for a major character flaw that somehow made it through all the hurdles to Command. It's usually a massive ego such that they're OK with themselves doing bribery, womanizing, bypass safety protocols and come up under a research ship with a bunch of kids on board.... Oh, the list goes on. I had to work the Ehime Maru recovery out in Hawaii. Not a good period in my life. Every one of these cases I was around in the Seattle area were immediately transferred to TPU pending completion of their exit process. And every time, I wondered how on earth they made it to the point they did. So this ex Nuke was drafting a resume to job hunt on the outside. Regarding his last job it ran along the line of "CO of a nuclear missile submarine. Able to destroy cities." He just couldn't connect the dots on how poorly he was depicting himself and what he thought was important. There was always this toxic nature to this group. My experience is relief for cause means separation soonest is best for the good of the service.

Saw a comment about staying 20. DOPMA doesn't allow that say for an O-4 FOS to O-5 unless a Continuation Board OKs it. Won't happen in these cases. BTW all officers serve at the pleasure of the President. You don't have to encourage anything. You can just put them out. There's a process for that. Retaining someone usually means there's more to the story outside the individual. Saw that too, along with the Gag Order that came with it.

Unless there is a valid reason for him NOT to continue to serve he should be allowed to remain. Because an individual is relieved of command means there is no confidence in his ability to command...not to serve.

We need the technical ranks back. A lot E4s don't want the leadership responsibility but are great team members and very technical. Is combat support MOSs this is just fine ie Signal. Many signaliers are techies but clare not good leaders yet we force them to NCO ranks where they fail. As for Officers, well, ya kinda have to lead and sadly many couldn't lead a horse to water.

This is why the Air Force needs Warrant Officers and the Army needs the specialist ranks as high as is practical. Everyone needs the opportunity for advancement but not all for leadership.

Why were they relived? Was it because one of their Soldiers did something stupid, because that happens too much.

Being relieved of Command is an authoritarian act devoid of due process. Commanders are given the authority to relieve subordinate commanders for any reason. Being forcibly discharged from the Service REQUIRES due process and a formal determination of the character of service.

So my answer is no, simply being relieved of command should not, in and of itself, prevent an officer from "being allowed" to serve.

I think it depends on what happened. If they were relieved just because they were seen as unfit not any negative action then yes let them serve. If for instance their leadership was something like intimidation on the unit then I don't think they should still be able to serve.

Once that OER hits, it should work itself out in the next promotion board. What the real question is, what were they relieved for? If it was lack of integrity, criminal conduct, ethical misconduct, abuse of subordinates etc then the appropriate action should follow. Depending on circumstances they may get a show cause OER that will force them out. By ousted, I assume relieved. If they were changed early as an expedient, that is s way different. The blah OER will hit but take longer.

If it was because they rose to their level of incompetence; vice illegal, unethical, immoral; then there is a tough senior rater conversation that needs to happen to talk potential. The senior rater is in the best position to have this discussion. Command is almost exclusively one and done at each level. If we are talking an O3 relieved as a company commander, they are unlikely to get another shot under that same Brigade leadership. If they are O5/O6 then das ist alles. I can't imagine a relief for cause that wouldn't result in follow on action. Perhaps the other shoe hasn't dropped yet and he requires temporary warehousing commensurate with his rank.

People will hang on for a variety of reasons. Understanding their inner motivation may shed light on their persistence. The "one more year" to go with 22 or 24; they hang around until they chase them out because the gig is good $; lingering until the leadership rotates, hoping for another shot; waiting on one more board (counter productive in this case); or refusing to retire due to impending divorce have been reasons people cite for hanging on when they are clearly done.

MAJ Frank Polzin it really depends on how the relief was made. Some Officers don't get all the counseling and paperwork together the way it should be in order to get the potentially substandard officer out of the service. A lack of technical competence may or may not be indicative of said officers abilities without further details but I'm not gonna try to go down that route. I'm aware of some interesting cases and some instances where officers survived what other never would. In the ideal world that Officer that you mentioned should be strongly urged if not forced to leave and start another line of work.

An O-4 has "tenure" for lack of a better word. Short of legal proceedings, an O-4 is allowed to continue on active duty until they reach 20 years. Officers who have lost command or had other similar problems are usually passed over. Second pass over forces one out, making room for juniors to move up.
Not all passed-over officers have done anything wrong. Most are forces out due to lack of billets in higher ranks. The pyramid gets smaller. Someone has got to go.