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

Sorry, but every successful officer is a leader foremost and a problem solver second most. Sure, competent officers who lack solid leadership skills can work on staffs as MAJs and still make LTC. I suspect the senior staff officers for whom those MAJ/LTC’s work is leadership gifted and either going to or coming from a leadership intensive assignment, such as command but also XO/S3. That said, an Army officer relieved of command has exercised poor judgment that demands the civilian equivalent of being fired and therefore unemployed. A tough call but one that was risked knowing the penalty .

Leading, team building, mentoring along with integrity and expertise in knowing how to use the knowledge and skills of subordinates to accomplish a task/mission should be developed at the 1st and 2nd Lutenant. If there is no evidence of the development of most of these attributes then there is no need to proceed to O3 Or any command whatsoever. This type of officer is a dangerous thing to have around in a combat situation. The command of a desk in a undesirable Duty station would encourage a hasty separation.

Humans on general are either leaders or followers. Part of the problem is the word follower. It seems to say that a follower is less important. We forget that many followers will follow leaders through the gates of hell. I guess it should be a case by case basis.

It is true not all can be a leader. That is what specialist ranks were for. Bring them back and use them.

I tend to agree. Either they need to go, or step down into a role for which they are more qualified. I've seen too many good techs promoted into positions they are not suited for, and they fail miserably. The "move up, not out" mentality doesn't always allow us to maintain the best people for the job, but we don't let the perfect private remain a private forever.

If everyone is a leader, nothing gets done
Not everyone should be in charge; not everyone wants to be in charge.

Just get a desk job some where else to get his time in.

It depends on what he or she was relieved for. If the individual was relieved because they could not lead Soldiers and subordinates, then they should be separated. Officers and NCOs are leaders first and it is always part of the job.

Isn’t that what Warrants are for? In the enlisted ranks, a sp 5 can be converted to buck sgt. if cimmand structure is required.

Or, here is a novel idea- stop having an officer class and enlisted class !!!

If your allegations against him are substantiated, I would think that he should just be fired. Don’t you have a way to get rid of bad officers? Bad leadership was one of my number one problems with the military and a key reason I chose not to re-enlist.

Kind of depends. I would suggest he get a new line of work.

The Navy has a system where they have a command track or staff track. Works well for them maybe other branches should consider.

Most of the poor leaders are eliminated by the promotion board. Twice passed over and you are gone. Most of the guys I knew that were relieved were not poor leaders overall but made a big mistake they probably would not make again.

Not everyone is cut out to be a leader, but in the military everyone gets an opportunity to lead. Those who are relieved often have other talents and if history is any judge, sometimes they can come back to successfully command. There were numerous instances of that in WWII.

Definitely not everyone can be a leader. There should be other positions that soldiers can stay at at the rank they're already at. They are good at their technical job so keep them at their place. There's no reason for new Joe's to take their place because they are excelling at their job. In my field we are so short on NCOs every E4 is going to the board whether they are a good leader or not. There's so many that shouldn't go to the board at all.

Hex

The problem isn't "Big Army" wanting people to strive to be leaders. The problem is people in leadership positions promoting or recommending for promotion those that aren't good leaders into leadership ranks and positions. I the Army had a fix for this that should be brought back, the Technical Specialist ranks. This woild allow the Army to keep good Soldiers that may not make good leaders.

My Army service is long in the past, but can tell you candidly in hindsight that I was a mediocre leader but was a very competent staff officer and worked hard at it.

Well, some of those officers are not yet eligible to retire, and get such positions so they can get to retirement. Partly, that's not fucking over people like happened to McCabe (not intending to discuss the validity of that firing, just an example). But it also means bad PR fades before they go. After that astronaut drove from Texas to Florida in a diaper and committed assault, NASA sent her back to the navy, where she flew a desk until retirement. By the time she got out, the press no longer cared about her story. Had the navy said "bye, don't bother to write", she'd have had no pension, and might have cashed in with a tell-all memoir trashing NASA and the navy.
Is it worthwhile to keep a lid on bad PR to keep them around? I say no, but I never had stars on my collar. I'd rather ask congress to authorize a special pension rule: if the officer is being court-martialed for an incident that gets them cashiered, the board can recommend early vesting, subject to the secretary's approval. An 18 year officer could then get a 45% pension, instead of being kept until they hit 20, still subject to the paygrade being determined based on the last paygrade they served honorably in (as in the general who had an affair in Italy, and got a colonel's pension).
If it's a case of the Peter Principle, I would support moving them to a new job and keeping them around. They can still contribute.
As for toxic leadership, I saw a lot of it, and have long wanted to see the investigative services go undercover at commands to look into it. For example, a ship gets a reputation on the waterfront, and soon, a new E-5 checks aboard. He may be a chief, senior chief, or even junior officer, but his paperwork from BUPERS show him to be the 2nd class the ship needed. After a couple of months, he can tell NCIS if the complaints about the ship are valid or not, and who is to blame. This would go a long way towards fixing tje hundred hour work weeks that contributed to the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions.
I think that toxic leadership is one issue, that really needs to be addressed, and that up or out is another. Line officers should have up or out, with the possibility of getting off that road into a staff or other support track where there's no pressure to advance, merely to continue performing. If you want to make admiral, or have a command, you have to accept up or out. If you just love your job, and don't care so much about making rank and being the big kahuna, you can escape it and keep doing your job.
Of course, I will probably never be in a position to implement this, just as I will not be able to make the services adopt tje 360 fitrep program they bandied about briefly.

Yes