Posted on Apr 9, 2017
MAJ Telecommunications Systems Engineer
108K
1.39K
385
139
139
0
Bb73918b
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 in these groups: 200210106b CommandGeneral of the army rank insignia OfficerDod color DoD
Avatar feed
Responses: 267
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
CW4 Michael LaGrave
0
0
0
Edited 7 y ago
One of the worst commanders I ever had was relieved; however he was a technical genius. He had no people skills whatsoever. He went on to serve in a technical position the rest of his career and was a contributor to the Army. On the other hand, the absolute worst commander I ever had left his soldiers both mentally and physically on the battlefield. He was relieved and asked to leave the Army, but he went on to serve on the ARNG, I knew a few folks who served with him in the ARNG and he went on to be a complete and total turd. So, to answer the question. If an officer has something else to offer, they should be allowed to continue to serve, provided they are actively contributing in a positive manner. On the other hand, if you have nothing to give, you should go and never be allowed to serve in any capacity.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Daniel Bellina
0
0
0
AATW Brother
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Dave Groom
0
0
0
Bring back SRB for all services
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Lee Goehl
0
0
0
Having spent alot of time in my career as a staff officer I can tell you, some of the best and brightest planners make terrible commanders.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Van Livingston
0
0
0
I don't think it is black or white. Depending on why they were relieved for, are they a true leader or just have rank and what was their track record before the incident. As Capt. Waddell said, some people get caught in a bad situation and it is no fault of their own where some people should never be put in a position of responsibility. I worked for a Capt. that thought you had to be working constantly, wether or not there was any thing to do, or he would be put in a bad light. No leadership ability whatsoever. Another was our company commander and the first time real pressure was put on him he resigned hi commission. On the other hand, had a chief that gave us time off for finishing stuff early. When I worked for this man we had won awards because we were treated so good which made us work harder and had a good time doing it.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Dan Collins
0
0
0
Depends on the offense. Sometimes it is just a personalty clash. Sometimes it is political. Had an Empty Uniform LTC ... came from Pentagon for Command Time ... screwed up really bad [17 points on ARTEP] rotated back to Pentagon for fast track promotion. Some officers could have enough experience to remain on active service as an NCO. I know one who did that. Major hard working ... great attitude ... for the troops ... BN Commander denied him two weeks command time for promotion to LTC. He was demoted to SFC. Had a MP platoon leader [female] constantly on the carpet for screwing up [male officer would have been tossed-out for first mistake]. She screwed up - got a fourteen year old girl killed [cover-up]. Kept her job.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW3 Kevin Storm
0
0
0
I have long been an advocate of getting rid of the up or out process we use. I worked with the German Army and they have a policy where a LT or Captain can refuse moving up and gets to stay at the company level. They make the best LT's and Captains I have ever worked with. They could teach us something about leadership.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Guy Compton
0
0
0
"Up or Out" is an outdated philosophy that defies logic. Many other armies throughout the world have proven this. If someone is competent and wishes to be, for instance, a career captain or career E5, good on them. Frankly, the US has too many pay grades especially in the enlisted realm. We would probably be better served with a structure like the British with few grades but actual pay based on tenure in grade. Yeah, I said it. Sacrilege.......maybe........will we ever even consider it..........probably not........for such an inovative culture, we sure hate change. Especially to our systems.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Chip Sahoy
0
0
0
If their previous supervisors had done their job when it came OER time..... This question would never need asking.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPL Joe Claridy
0
0
0
I don't see the issue here, this was a common practice during World War II. General Marshall fired generals left and right but he also reassigned them to duties where they could still be of use. Getting relieved during that period didn't automatically equate to being a bad officer nor was it a career killer. Marshall knew that there were generals and senior officers that weren't suited for command leadership roles so if one person couldn't cut it they'd be replaced. From the start of World War II until Korea generals policed themselves. Unfortunately this came to an end when MacArthur got canned by Truman.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.