129 BN Commanders got fired since 2003? What do you say as leaders?

SFC A.M. Drake — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:31:07 -0500

The Army has relieved 129 battalion and brigade commanders since 2003 and implemented several initiatives in its ongoing effort to hold leaders and commanders accountable for their actions, senior leaders told Army Times.

"I think the narrative comes out of many soldiers who rightfully or wrongfully believe that the Army doesn't hold senior leaders, senior military officers accountable in the same fashion they hold junior officers or enlisted," Army Secretary John McHugh said. "I view it as a multilevel challenge, and we're trying to respond in a number of different ways."

Since 2003, the Army has relieved 98 battalion commanders and four lieutenant colonel staff officers, according to information provided by the Army. Twenty-four of those reliefs were conducted in combat.

In that same time period, 31 brigade commanders and four colonel staff officers were relieved; one of those was conducted in combat.

In addition, according to Army data:

• The Army has administered non-judicial punishment (Article 15s) to 1,472 officers since 2008.

• It has court-martialed 41 lieutenant colonels or higher, including two general officers, in the last six years.

• Seven general officers have been relieved from their positions since 2008.

• Since 2010, 29 general officers were referred to Army Grade Determination Review Boards.

• Since 2001, the Army vice chief of staff has issued 100 memoranda of reprimand, 147 memoranda of concern and conducted 45 verbal counselings of general officers.

"You've got to convince soldiers by your actions," McHugh said during a wide-ranging interview with Army Times. "While I understand that the narrative is that we don't act against leaders who may have strayed from our standards, I think the record's a little bit different."

The Army is "absolutely committed to leaders of character at every echelon," and the "vast majority" of Army leaders are doing a good job, said Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Daniel Allyn.

"The rate of misconduct is actually a little bit lower than the historical average, but that doesn't make you feel any better," Allyn said. "Every case is a disappointment, it's frustrating, but it is the exception. The vast majority of our leaders are absolutely living up to our values, providing the inspiring leadership that's required to lead our formations through this period of very high optempo and critical missions in support of the nation."

In addition to rooting out toxic leaders, the Army also is focused on picking the best leaders, McHugh said.

"You've got to convince soldiers that you're picking the best leaders," he said.

The Army has taken steps to improve its leader development program, and it has initiated new evaluation systems for officers and commanders, including 360-degree assessments that include input from not only superiors but peers and subordinates as well, he said.

"Those kinds of things don't happen overnight, and soldiers don't respond to them overnight," McHugh said. "But I think it's absolutely essential. We're doing everything we can to rid our ranks of so-called toxic leaders, moving those out, and acting on credible cases where they exist."

When a leader is found to be deficient or if there is cause for relief or punishment, the Army has several tools and options to properly adjudicate those cases, McHugh said.

"[There have been] several recent high profile cases where I've pretty dramatically downgraded the conditions of retirement, the rate of retirement, for general officers," he said. "We just need to continue to do that."

In June, former Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair was stripped of two grades and forced to retire as a lieutenant colonel after he pleaded guilty to having a three-year affair with a female subordinate. Sinclair, who originally had been charged with sexual assault and whose court-martial drew national media attention, had already received a judge's reprimand and a $20,000 fine.

Brig. Gen. Bryan Roberts was relieved of his command at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, in July 2013 after it was discovered that he had allegedly gotten into a physical altercation with his mistress from an extramarital affair.

Roberts was given an Article 15 for assault, adultery and conduct unbecoming an officer. He also received a written reprimand and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine.

McHugh later reduced his rank to colonel.

In another recent case, Maj. Gen. Michael Harrison, former commander of U.S. Army Japan, was demoted to brigadier general after he was punished for failing to properly address a sexual assault claim in his command.

Each incident is handled on a case-by-case basis, Allyn said.

"The accountability is there, the actions available to senior leadership to make those decisions are commensurate with both the level of responsibility and potential actions for which they're being held accountable," Allyn said.

Allyn said he's "confident that there is not a double standard."

"We have a standard by which every allegation brought against an officer is investigated," McHugh said. "But we do have to be reasonable and make appropriate judgments based on the evidence that's placed before us, and that's a human endeavor and there's no formula by which you can perfectly construct it."

The Army must strike a balance between holding leaders accountable and being careful that it is not creating a "zero tolerance Army," McHugh said.

"Leading soldiers is a science, but it's also art, and even a good leader can make a mistake," he said. "The best way to go about that is just use common sense in how we judge leaders who may have strayed."

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 2 at 2015 10:34 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:34:36 -0500

Thank you for posting this interesting set of facts.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2015 1:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 13:20:33 -0500

Here's the link.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/officer/2015/02/02/129-army-battalion-brigade-commanders-fired-since-2003/22531897/

I appreciate the Army's efforts at transparency. As we seem to be returning to a zero-defect Army, what with the unmasking of OERs and etc, it is important for the force to know that its leaders are also being held accountable.

129 Army battalion, brigade commanders fired since 2003

The Army has relieved 129 commanders since 2003 and implemented several initiatives in its effort to hold leaders accountable for their actions.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 2 at 2015 1:32 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 13:32:56 -0500

"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"

Anytime I see raw data like this, that phrase pops into my head.

In the article we see this phrase:

"The rate of misconduct is actually a little bit lower than the historical average, but that doesn't make you feel any better,"

But, it does sound like it is refining the process for relieving folks instead of just the assumption of guilt and removal.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 5 at 2015 8:01 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:01:25 -0500

Wow, that's a pretty crazy stat! I can't believe it's that high. My first reaction is to ask how this time period between 2003-today compares with other past time periods of the same length of time. Do you have any stats on that? Thanks!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 4:12 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 04:12:07 -0500

I say, Do the right thing at all times and you will have nothing to worry about. Try sneaking around and you will wear yourself out looking around to see if anyone is catching on to your mess.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Feb 7 at 2015 8:40 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:40:22 -0500

129 BN/BDE Commanders fired since 2003. A few thoughts:
- Everyone gets promoted to a level of incompetence. Some just reach that level sooner than others.
- Any person at any rank can do something illegal, immoral, and/or unethical. If that happens then they must be held accountable just like anyone else and arguably must be held more accountable.
- Firing a senior leader is never done lightly so I can only assume that all 129 received due process.
- Firing commanders is not enough. Company commanders post the results of UCMJ so as to deter others in the company from doing the same behaviors. Publishing names, details, and macro data such as in this article is a necessary action for several reasons (deter others from same behavior, show subordinates and the public that the military holds ALL ranks accountable, etc). Publishing the information should only occur, however, at the end of the process. The presumption of innocence applies to senior leaders just as it applies to juniors.
- Most of the senior leader misconduct that I am aware of boils down to two main issues: zipper problems and alcohol.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Feb 8 at 2015 12:29 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 00:29:36 -0500

Considering the high profile nature that some of these issues had taken, I tend to think there was no choice but for the good of the services that these 129 individuals be publicly brought down. That said, I believe that in the same time frame, they easily could have found double that number if they were truly interested in transparency and the whistleblowers had been treated equitably according to the espoused values of the DoD rather than the enacted values most of us see and deal with on a regular basis.

Classic reading such as Clausewitz, Machiavelli, and Plato all indicate that leaders be beyond reproach if they are to retain the loyalty necessary to lead. "The Republic" requires that our defenders be the best of the best.

While some may see this as a trend towards a "zero tolerance", none of the mistakes made here were minor, most were intentionally concealed, and all of them affected the command climate by creating a false sense of entitlement within the commands and among their peers. "Zero tolerance" is when a Commander is relieved for the actions of a subordinate for which there is plausible deniability. When a Commander uses an illegal interrogation technique, uses his position to carry on illegal relationships with subordinates, or willfully ignores safety and communication protocols that results in a fratricide incident, his relief is not due to a zero tolerance policy, but due to gross misconduct and/or negligence.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 8:49 AM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 08:49:29 -0500

It firmly asserts that toxic, incompetent, or immoral leaders are not tolerated in today's Army. A very sound message.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Feb 8 at 2015 9:32 AM

CMC Robert Young — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:32:26 -0500

SFC Drake, Thank you for bringing this topic up for discussion.

While I don't have the level of statistical data that you have, I can offer that I don't think this is problem which exist solely in the Army. Watching The Navy Times, and Coast Guard UCMJ messages, the seagoing services seem to have experienced similar circumstances over the last decade. Every month there is new information published about senior leaders (both officer & enlisted) being relieved for cause, and while I understand the necessity for progressive discipline, I do have several concerns with regard to the issue.

First, are we truly transparent. I know of a recent situation where an O6 was relieved - literally here today & gone tomorrow - with no thorough explanation to the subordinate commands. He was by all accounts popular among his subordinates and exceptional in the execution of his duties. While I'm appreciative of respect for the privacy of the member relieved, some explanation to the crew is important or it leads to speculation about the circumstances and that's never a good thing. Was this political? Was it really something bad, and if so what & why? And if we're unwilling to disclose the facts about a case of somebody is relieved for cause, how likely is it that other bad circumstances aren't being disclosed at all?

Second, does the op tempo which we have endured over the last decade have any impact on the numbers? Are the stress and strain of our situation driving the numbers up? With the expansion of the military, are people rising too far, too fast? (case in point, when I entered the Coast Guard, it typically took 15 years time in service to make CPO/E7. Today, it is not uncommon to see members make it in half that time). Do these things have some influence on the rate of relief? COL Smallfield's point about promotion through the level of incompetence holds true in almost all environments. Have we because of the need to fill uniforms allowed this problem to multiply?

Next, are we really focusing on the things that should get people fired as COL Smallfield points out; ethical/legal/moral failures; or are we returning to a zero defect mentality of the 80s & 90s where any perceived shortcoming is grounds for dismissal? When I attended the Boat Force Command Cadre Course, we had a mix of senior enlisted and mid grade officers. The message from the instructors was clear, doing your job isn't going get you relieved even if you make a mistake unless (and here's the point I think the colonel is making) you violate a core value of the service. We were told that the big ones were alcohol violations, inappropriate relationships, hostile/abusive command environment and the government's money. Are we concentrating on those things because they matter or are we by default now depriving our leaders from the opportunity to learn through failure?

And finally, how many of these were small problems that should have corrected early at lower levels? Is there a cultural practice of saying "It's only a 'insert your choice here' incident, don't sweat the small stuff. It's not that bad."? Those problems never go away, and in most cases become the catalyst for bigger and more pronounced failures. I worked for an OIC who told me once "Bad news doesn't get better with age." His point was deal with it now because it won't be easier or better later. If we hold ourselves accountable at the lower levels, doesn't it reduce the risk that as we achieve higher positions that we'll be prone to color outside the lines?

Just food for thought.

Response by COL William Hoppe made Feb 12 at 2015 9:11 AM

COL William Hoppe — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:11:45 -0500

I remember when the Sinclair incident went public; the press was all over it. I don't ever recall seeing the final adjudication. It was in this article that I found out his final status. I don't think the Army does a good enough job getting the word down the chain of command about senior leader accountability. There 'appears' to be a double standard because the message on final outcomes doesn't appear to make it into the lower echelon units. I think this article should have been front page news.