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

Situational

No they shouldn't serve, once they do something to lose a command they should be kicked out. Give them the same treatment they give to lower enlisted.

I've always thought up or out was counterproductive. Some people are better for example E5 rather than E6 and up. Some don't want to be LPO or LCPO or CMC

It has never ceased to amaze me how many commissioned officers continually reveal their total lack of fitness to lead and command. Usually these folks are weeded out by the time they would be promoted to captain, but there are still a few field-grade officers who have squeaked through multiple bad OERs. The incompetent technical officer is an embarrassment. The incompetent commanding officer is dangerous. Both need to become civilians.

As for the original question, too complex to answer. Grant, Patton, Billy Mitchell and others have been relieved of command, but turned out to be some of our finest combat officers

My observation in the Army was that we needed to take a more British approach to service. There you can (could) retire as a corporal. Some people are great soldiers, seamen, airmen, highly competent but not leaders. The civilian world recognizes this, but the military does not. We used to have spec7 ranks and wider use of warrant officers. This would be appropriate to return to so that long time field experts can remain without the difficulty of leadership for those who are not good at it or disinclined to lead

That is very true, the officer shouldn't be put in a role if they cant lead or lack those skills. A couple of things they could do strengthen Officer Canidate School (OCS) when they first come in. Even though they have a degree, I've heard that it is kind of weak. Or a mix of both Non-Commissioners courses and Officer courses, to again strengthen leadership capacity. Then finally, if they do fail or fall short instread of forcing retirement, build specialized training program for officers for "That" general realtive area that they failed at, why they failed and overhaul of what to do to fix the problem. If it still is a problem, no more leadership positions and more filling the gaps of what the Army needs until retirement or descisions to get out.

Hard call as a officer I have worked for some great commanders and some real weasels. S pattern of good technical ability and ok leadership..... ok not a big picture person. What about a terrible technical person but a good motivator.....? Or terrible all the way around.????

If relieved from command because of incompetences. Then yes but, if allowed to stay, strip the commission from him, if the incompetence was reason for personnel failures.

As an example: I would rather see an E-4 mechanic stay as a professional soldier mechanic with increasing pay, stay as an E-4 if he/she is happy with that. Not every technician is leadership material. I had a friend ETS because the 1SG wanted him to go back to SGT Promotion Board. This soldier intentionally blew the board because didn’t want the responsibility. The Army lost an exceptional mechanic!

Ps: he operates a profitable garage with his wife and daughter doing the business end.