Posted on Apr 9, 2017
Should an officer be allowed to continue to serve on Active Duty after being relieved from command?
109K
1.39K
385
139
139
0
Some officers are meant to command and lead, and others probably should never be allowed the opportunity. I'm a witness to the case of an ousted ex-commander now working as a staff-O "leading" a highly technical department - his lack of technical competence and inability to mentor and lead others is obvious. Should such an officer be "encouraged" to separate or retire early to make room?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 267
Some folks are just not cut out for command or ascending the ranks but are good at something and useful somewhere. This is why specialist ranks should be reinstated spec4 through spec 6 but in their absence, a lot of mostly unqualified folks make it to SSG. I do agree that many officers should be Warrants.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see) My gut tells me, if you are relieved, you should go... But, I suspect the regulations allow for it. If you are relieved, you are finished as far as future advancement. But, I am sure you are allowed to serve until retirement or MRD.
(2)
(0)
Agree with concept of a career staff officer or NCO vs line officer. But at what rank should they become stabilized? Perhaps bring back senior specialist positions for NCO's? Good dialog.
(2)
(0)
The biggest mistake the military as a whole makes is assuming that the only way to become an officer is getting a college degree. Why does a piece of paper automatically make you a leader of men? Personally I think everyone should be enlisted before they are chosen to become an officer.
(2)
(0)
The biggest mistake the military makes is the must command and be promoted or must leave. There are lots of officers and EM that are happy and excellent in certain jobs and woild love to do them for their entire term of servicebut are forced out because they are made to do something they cannot handle for various reasons.lots of money could be saved by putting them where they shine and enjoy what they are doing.
(2)
(0)
Yes. They should be allowed to continue to serve. Just because they failed once as a commander doesn't mean they won't be great staff, training or other special jobs in the military.
This zero defect always perfect mentality is not a reality.
This zero defect always perfect mentality is not a reality.
(2)
(0)
I think this is a difficult question to answer without a complete file review of the officer in all assignments they have held. My reasoning is that I have observed officers that were deficient in leadership ability and the inherent requirements of a commander to motivate and develop their subordinate staff that were absolutely brilliant staff officers because of superior technical expertise and analytical ability. I think this is usually the road taken by the Army in reaching a decision on an officer's fitness to continue to serve. Case in point is an aviator that is a master of his aircraft that is not necessarily attuned to the needs of other troops. His ineffectiveness at being a good Aviation Company Commander has no bearing on his ability to pilot an Apache helicopter in a brilliant manner in combat situations.
(2)
(0)
That is a very broad subject!There are skill sets required for a field command which are unique, everyone does not have them and they not essential for leading and managing and organization in garrison environment. Of course some skill sets are required in all situations and good managers can succeed though they are not particularly good leaders. So it all depends is not what you are looking for but that is the answer. We hope the fitness reporting system will get rid of the truly incompetent and a senior will recognize when an officer is ill suited for their assignment and take action.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I knew a guy that was a great unit commander and could get his unit to excel above the others. The bad news was he was a terrible staff officer and you can command only so long. He could out "John Wayned" about anyone else if the war had gone on. He was eliminated by a Law and Order commander.
(2)
(0)
I served in the early 1980s. We had two officers in our BN Relieved for Cause; onebwas just incompetent, the other was caught in a lie .
A 3rd Officer was relieved from the Armored BN in our Bde as he did notproperly supervise the crew of his own tank when the order was given to remove some track pads from his tank. During an ARTEP his platoon was moving up a steep hill on a hardball road. His tank lost traction and slip backwards into a large Oak Tree. The Tortion bars on one side were literally ripped out of the hull of his tank.
As I recall his tank, an M-60A1, had to be sent back to the states for repair.
Of the 3 officers I described above I would only trust Armor Officer to serve on Active duty to fulfill his obligation. The other 2 were pond scrum in my opinion
A 3rd Officer was relieved from the Armored BN in our Bde as he did notproperly supervise the crew of his own tank when the order was given to remove some track pads from his tank. During an ARTEP his platoon was moving up a steep hill on a hardball road. His tank lost traction and slip backwards into a large Oak Tree. The Tortion bars on one side were literally ripped out of the hull of his tank.
As I recall his tank, an M-60A1, had to be sent back to the states for repair.
Of the 3 officers I described above I would only trust Armor Officer to serve on Active duty to fulfill his obligation. The other 2 were pond scrum in my opinion
(2)
(0)
You are assuming that the person relieved is 100% at fault. That frequently is not the case. Military commanders have discretionary authority to relieve anyone for any reason. If they don’t like someone, or they have reached their max level of competence and are poor commanders themselves, they can & will relieve someone unjustifiably. I knew a guy once who got relieved for a variety of small mistakes, because the commander was an asshole that everyone hated, and because there was zero chemistry between the two. The consensus across the division was that the guy was a good leader who got screwed. BTW, the commander was later passed over for his star. In the old days, being relieved was not the end of the world. Second chances were common because it was understood that sometimes things just don’t work out. Today, a zero defects mentality rules.
(2)
(0)
I have seen fine soldiers who would've been happy to be a Spec 5 or Spec 6 and do their job until retirement. Making some very qualified people take the roll of leadership doesn't always work for some folks. I have served under several Sergeants (they were not NCO's) who couldn't lead a dog to the kennel, but were darn good at their MOS. Once in Germany we were working with Canadians and I met a Corporal who had been in the Canadian Army for 18 years. He did his job well and cared nothing about becoming a sergeant. Not all MOS's/AFSC's need a butt load of sergeants, especially when there isn't any real leadership position for them.
As far as allowing someone to continue in the military after they have been relieved of duty should be case by case. Think of how many times General Patton got into trouble? I imagine that Eisenhower was glad that he didn't send Patton back to states when the Germans counter attacked in the Ardennes Forrest. Patton knew something was going to happen with the Germans and he had already started to work up plans for elements of 3rd Army to make a 90 degree turn and head north to attack the German flank. Yes, some officers should be removed if they are unfit, but it should be case by case. As my dad used to say; "don't cut off your nose just to spite your face."
FILO!
As far as allowing someone to continue in the military after they have been relieved of duty should be case by case. Think of how many times General Patton got into trouble? I imagine that Eisenhower was glad that he didn't send Patton back to states when the Germans counter attacked in the Ardennes Forrest. Patton knew something was going to happen with the Germans and he had already started to work up plans for elements of 3rd Army to make a 90 degree turn and head north to attack the German flank. Yes, some officers should be removed if they are unfit, but it should be case by case. As my dad used to say; "don't cut off your nose just to spite your face."
FILO!
(2)
(0)
If that officer or NCO has a record of success and makes an error in judgement on one situation then that needs to be taken into account. Too many fine people are let go and the military suffers for it. Not all are leaders and not all are followers. Sometimes leaders are advanced to a position that they will fail. Not because they are not good soldiers but because they reached their level of competence.
(2)
(0)
Should an officer be allowed to continue to serve on Active Duty after being relieved from command?
Based on this example, I would think his superiors would force him out by poor OERs.
If he/she cannot command an organization, that should not be sufficient to force him/her out. All of my reasoning goes out the door if they did something illegal.
Based on this example, I would think his superiors would force him out by poor OERs.
If he/she cannot command an organization, that should not be sufficient to force him/her out. All of my reasoning goes out the door if they did something illegal.
(1)
(0)
I would argue that it is case/situation dependent. Some commanders are relieved due to personal or professional failings. There is usually a show for cause board following any action above a GOMAR for these officers. We have to trust that the board reviews the case and makes a decision based upon the best interests of the service. There are some officers relieved to make a statement and not because of any failings directly attributed to action or inaction of the officer. These officers should not see their careers ended due to a systemic appetite for a scape goat. Then, there are those who are relieved but didn’t do enough to merit any further administrative action so they continue serving and advancing while performing as poor leaders (whether in command or a staff section OIC) and failing to develop their subordinates or leading well. Truth be told, poor leaders rise within every branch of the military and sector of civilian service. While it stinks working for a poor leader, we still learn from even the negative examples and are better leaders because of it.
(1)
(0)
The military in one respect is the same as a civilian employer: They follow the "Peter Principle" where one advances to his/her level of incompetence. Separation isn't necessary if you just move that individual back to the last level of competence!
(1)
(0)
Anyone can be useful just need to find out where. Not everyone can be a leader.
(1)
(0)

Suspended Profile
Not if they get people killed!!
In order to maintain discipline the commissioned officer positions are an absolute necessity. Maybe commissioned officers should get "busted down" like enlisted members do. That way they maintain their respect within the community without being transitioned to another command position they aren't ready to handle. No one is perfect. Sometimes commissioned officers get promoted and immediately thrown into command positions they aren't ready for. Instead of "relieving them of command" and then thrown into command of something else, maybe they should demoted and put into a less responsible position. They get to stay in and keep their respect if they want to retire. Being in charge of large military units is one of the hardest jobs in the world, if not THE hardest. Let them continue to serve without destroying their reputation due to the "relieved of command" scar. Relieve their rank and responsibility vs. their reputation and dedication to serving their country.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The supporting description to this question outlined the situation where the semi-hypothetical officer in question *was* a staff officer who exhibited telling signs of dysfunction. Are you implying that staff sections must necessarily bear the burden of a dysfunctional leader just because they are "staff" and are, as a consequence, less worthy of having a good leader at the helm? Going to a staff position does not necessarily alleviate an officer of the requirement to lead effectively; the only thing that changes is the scope of the leader's influence. Relegating staff positions to the collective leper colony where all the ash and trash goes can negatively impact the unit to coordinate its operations and function well under adverse condition.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next