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

It is the responsibility of every leader to mentor and prepare their subordinates for leadership. It is also their responsibility to evaluate each subordinate as to their weakness's and strengths. This is not an easy task and for most is the hardest thing they do. We as leaders need to make sure we don't promote some one beyond their ability. As a leader we hold another's future in our hands some can't handle this part of leadership, we must remind our selves that the good of our Corps is our first obligation every thing else is secondary. It is and always has been about promotion based on merit than any other consideration. The mediocre and the timid cost lives and must be thanked for their service and separated rather than promoted into critical billets where they will fail. We as leaders bear that responsibility, we owe that to those we lead, I would much rather tell a man that he won't be promoted than write the letters as a result of a failure I could have prevented. Every appointment of a fire team leader, squad leader or Platoon Sgt has a direct effect on performance and the lives involved. We have to make solid evaluations and act on them.

There can be a lot of contributing factors to being relieved of duty. It's evident just reading the comments on this article. I agree the army made a mistake getting rid of the higher specialist ranks. I think I might have been interested in promotion as far as making SP5 rather than sergeant. Another thing to consider is retention. I may or may not have been a good leader. The up or out policy may be detrimental in another way. The military loses competent, trained personnel. There is the high cost of training people today.

A fellow lieutenant went arty where he failed big time. He was not leadership material, and he had no business leading Marines. Because he had a degree in computer science (this was while the Corps was all papers and files) they stuck him on some make-do project at New River where he could watch over the installation of a new computer system. He took issue with the civilian contractor and basically took over, revamping the system. I don't think he was ever in a leadership position during his entire career, but he retired as a lieutenant colonel, and I had a general tell me once that this guy probably did more for readiness than any other single officer he knew.

This is where the 1970s book "The Peter Principal" comes into effect. Leaders should only rise to their highest level of competence. There are limits to certain skill sets of management, problem solving, delegating and assigning critical missions and tasks to the appropriate personnel. Once those limitations are reached, finding a proper fit for those people should be part of the program, not an aberration. The concept of promoting less than qualified O-5+ and E7+ to higher ranks is doing them and the personnel they lead a disservice.

Many armies allow 20 plus year Captains and 30 year sergeants. Not everyone needs to get to general/ sergeant major. We lose skilled soldiers every day due to up-or-out policies.

I think they should be allowed to continue serving just not i a command positions. I also agree that not all are fit to lead, that said the Army should bring back the specialist ranks i.e. sp4, sp5, sp6 and so on and something for the O ranks.

It is very often the other way around. Everyone has uneven talent. Very often, an officer may possess unique skills, developed through work and circumstance, yet be denied the chance of command because he or she hasn't filled one of the required squares for command - often because of the same circumstances in which they excelled In such cases they are usually forced out of the Service, regardless of their skills or dedication.

I'm with SGM Dawson on this...one of the problems in the force that I have seen is the inability to think out of the box and come up with other options...leaders are just as ineffective when acting hasty or pondering of other options to b used as they are to ineffectively lead in any other way...it is lazy to just entirely give up on our ppl without considering other options

I've seen Officers who were prior enlisted have to revert back to being enlisted because they didn't make Major. Why can't regular Officers be reverted to enlisted if they are found to be incompetent as an officer. On the other side of the coin why can't enlisted that have demonstrated time and time again they are worthy of being an officer be commissioned and placed in leader positions. Audie Murphy did it. It's all about people management. If they are poor performers then you pay them what they are worth, not more.

I agree... not every soldier can lead or push troops.. be it officer or enlisted.....but they can be valuable assets within the military in some other profession....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

Relief for cause can be complicated. It could be for a very just reason, or sometimes just bad luck or that a scapegoat needed to be sacrificed. Some Commanders or NCOs that should be relieved never are.

Anyone can be useful just need to find out where. Not everyone can be a leader.

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.

Hey, the world needs staff officers and NCO's.

I have seen NCO's and Officers who were completely different people when not in a command situation. However when they are removed from command, they are outstanding in their jobs. They just don't know how to handle the pressure of leadership. I feel the military puts too much emphasis on everyone being a leader, and if they can't lead then they are no good. However there are thousands of military personnel that are outstanding in their job, and do it better than anyone else. The Marine Corp has a program for enlisted. After they become a Gunnery Sergeant they have the option of going command route, or staff route in their career. The Army is a little different where they are not restricted to one or the other. The answer to the initial question would be no.

In AT Leadership School, I won the debate on whether leaders were born or made. By the end of the debate, only one other Airman still believed they were made, not born. So I asked him if he thought Pee Wee Herman would make a fine wing commander.

Years ago there was a book that businessmen passed around that said that people will get promoted to one level higher than where they are competent and I have found personally that this is true quite often. I believe the book was called The Peter Principle. Leadership then frequently leaves them in that position and everybody suffers.

Officers removed from their command position, are often put somewhere out of sight. I had a squadron commander relived for conduct unbecoming an officer. He was send to a aircraft maintenance shop, where he was put under the supervisorary watch of a E9 Chief Master Sgt. This officer had no say about any of thhe day to day happenings of that shop.

I think they should be retained.We learn more from failure, than from self perceived glory!

As long as he has not done anything unlawfully, just not able to handle the commission,then he let him serve

NO

Yes, unless that officer is a detriment to their service or just not competent. Most have a lot of expertise to contribute to their services.

Line officers should be expected to lead. In a perfect world, a line officer who is relieved of command should be removed from the line. Whether that means the officer should be placed into a non-line position or reduced in rank depends on what rank structure exists in this perfect world.

i recall working for a very intelligent Captain. He didn't make the cut for Major, so he was forced out. I encouraged him to take an enlisted rank, because his knowledge was valuable He choose not to, Army's loss.