Posted on Apr 9, 2017
Should an officer be allowed to continue to serve on Active Duty after being relieved from command?
108K
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 8 y ago
Responses: 267
No, he should not be “encouraged” to separate or retire early, he should not be given an option! If you have been relieved of command, your case should be immediately reviewed by an impartial panel of officers. If it is determined that the removal was justified then you should be retired, or separated.
(0)
(0)
No! If an officer is too incompetent to lead, maybe they shouldn't be in the service! Officers, for far too long, have been exempt from punishments, often meted out to the enlisted... they don't hesitate to burn a nonrate, for even the least egregious offences! No, it's time they face the same punishments, the enlisted do... this'll piss off a few, but it needed to be said!
(0)
(0)
People have different temperaments and leadership skills. Running an organization where “one size fits all” has often lead to disaster. Evals can be written to reaveal strengths and weaknesses, or they are “walk-on-water” reports which reveal essentially nothing of value. Evals which would honestly hover between 3.4 and 3.8 should not be destructive to a career, but it is. ‘Had an ET SCPO who was an ace technician, but was promoted from CPO, which he loved. The promotion removed him from the hands-on aspect of his rating, and he hated being SCPO. He had little patience with paperwork tedium.
So, no. Officers in higher positions need to do their jobs and do some honest and effective evaluating.. there are many officers who have no talent in being assigned Line Officers.
So, no. Officers in higher positions need to do their jobs and do some honest and effective evaluating.. there are many officers who have no talent in being assigned Line Officers.
(0)
(0)
Had 1 that was harmful to his enlisted 3 injury by him for being stupid
(0)
(0)
I think everyone in every branch of service has known someone on the career path that they were convinced couldn't hack it anywhere else. It's not only common now, but so common throughout history that it's become a trope. Rare are the military sagas that don't have a Lt. Dike or a "Captain America" somewhere. But getting rid of them is always going to be a function of the higher chain of command, based on their observations of said individual's performance, and the performance of the unit. I don't think ANYONE in a leadership position could survive if their career depended on a handful of highly subjective opinions of subordinates.
(0)
(0)
No they shouldn’t the Army is real fast to kill an NCOs career but love to protect their officer core.
(0)
(0)
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 .
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
It is true not all can be a leader. That is what specialist ranks were for. Bring them back and use them.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
If everyone is a leader, nothing gets done
Not everyone should be in charge; not everyone wants to be in charge.
Not everyone should be in charge; not everyone wants to be in charge.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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 !!!
Or, here is a novel idea- stop having an officer class and enlisted class !!!
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next