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

The Army has an inherent problem of just moving not only Officers but also enlisted to other units just to get rid of them. The practice of providing a mediocre evaluation and moving them on can be a cancer and doesn't break the chain of incompetence. I experienced a situation of a LTC that had been assigned to a unit as a 1LT and was relieved and transferred, years later that 1LT returned to the HQ of the previous subordinate unit as an LTC. This LTC was a text book example of a failed system that allowed an incompetent individual to surpass other more qualified soldiers to advance. You guessed it and this LTC was relieved again, I made it my mission to ensure that said LTC was forced to retired and the CG agreed. Just a humorous incident that occurred with this LTC and her first meeting with the Commanding General. The CG asked the LTC how long she had been in the military, her reply, "Since I was a 2LT" He looked at me, I swear, I started laughing so hard, he rolled his eyes and never spoke to her again that day. He later asked me if the response to his question was typical of the way she responded to everyday mission issues, unfortunately it was. This example shouldn't be downer, this is just a small example and after 34 years of service my experience has shown me that those that choose to serve are the most inspired and driven people in any profession. I am only unset that I don't have another 50 years to serve with America's best.

Whether to be allowed to serve after being relieved of duties should depend on the severity of the officer’s conduct. Nevertheless f*^kup and moveup shouldn’t never be allowed.

At the risk of perpetuating a "zero-defects" culture in DoD, I'd argue that in your specific case, sir, the officer probably needs to take early retirement for the good of all, particularly himself. Everybody messes up; it's part of the growing process. I concede that and I'm certainly no exception to that stumble-and-get-back-up syndrome. That said, though, when one is screened for COMMAND (or SEA/SEL/CMDCM/CSM, et al) he or she had better have their act together and be, at the very least qualified, if not overqualified for the position. If not, particularly if they have a tendency to make unwise decisions, that person needs to be relegated to whatever staff positions are available or encouraged to seek greener pastures outside DoD. I realize I'm oversimplifying that, but there you have it.

I have had some relieved, one went on the be General. For those that didn't know about it, he was a good commander. For most of us that did know, we could only scratch our head and chalk it up to "FK up move up" that seems to be recurring theme in the officer corps. I could not tell you how many times I have witnessed this and heard numerous officers comment on it. I first figured it was impatience on behalf of those that were not promoted when they thought they should be but I have seen it too often in both active and Reserve components.

We have an over abundance of officers that’s really not needed. To much excess everywhere. Time to go back to the SPC 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 and definitely cut back on officers as well. So many have commanded and done a crappy job but leave with the best OER in the world. To much buddy system going on in the officer world.

The short answer is yes and the long answer is yes. Up or out has produced a metric ton of headaches for the military as a whole by forcing NCO's/Officers into leadership roles when they aren't suited for them. Prior to the Eisenhower Administration it was the norm for officers not suited for leadership roles to be fired and place elsewhere. Back then we policed ourselves by the general's firing other general's and officers who weren't suited for command leadership roles. Now we don't have that, instead we're left with toxic leadership.

I think it would depend on the reason why he was relieved. I've had three commanders relieved for cause. My first Company Commander as a new LT was literally one of the smartest men I have every meet, did advanced math problems for fun, but couldn't lead a horse to water. I don't know what happened to him after, but it would have been a shame for the Army to lose someone that smart just because he sucked as a company commander. (The other two got what they had coming to them).

As Lauren listed I've seen people who are outstanding in their technical field who knew how to get things done who knew how to keep equipment running who knew what techniques to get a job done but they were lousy leaders they were lousy at being ncos they were lousy at being officers what the military needs to do is split it to technical skills and Leadership skills they also need to keep those people and retain them so they can train the next generation of operators or next generation of leaders I say bring back spec 5 and 6 and it after spec six they go warrant officer if you can lead you become an NCO or you get selected for officer candidacy School if you have technical skill you stay on the technical side as a warrant officer or a specialist

The fix is Specialist ranks for enlisted, Warrant Officers, Limited Duty Officers like the Navy has. Leading is a skill set all do not have just as technical expertise is another skill set. Some have both, but not often.

Ok spent my career in Aviation. We had commissioned officers who could not lead you to a bar in Vegas. But he was a helluva pilot. I think he would have made a great CWO. Army lost a good man.