Did you know the EUCOM's senior enlisted leader was fired? Is the reason "a loss of faith and confidence" good enough?

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:38:56 -0400

Sometimes Leaders do not agree with each other, does that mean they should lose faith and confidence in someone? Do you think Adams got a fair deal here?

I had the opportunity to spend some time with Chief Master Sergeant Craig Adams and he seemed like a common sense, approachable Leader. He was moved to Ohio and will retire. Do you think he got a fair shake on this or are we becoming a zero defect organization that if you do not fall in line that you have to get out of line?

STUTTGART, Germany -- The senior enlisted leader in Europe, Chief Master Sgt. Craig A. Adams, was relieved of duty due to loss of confidence in his abilities, U.S. European Command said.
EUCOM commander Gen. Philip Breedlove fired his longtime enlisted assistant on Sept. 15 and informed the command's enlisted force at a subsequent meeting. No replacement has yet been announced, EUCOM said.
Adams was removed "due to a loss of faith and confidence in his ability to perform his duties," said Lt. Col. Dave Westover, a EUCOM spokesman.
EUCOM declined to elaborate on the reasons for Breedlove's decision, saying it was a private personnel matter.
Adams has been reassigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, EUCOM stated.
An attorney for Adams told the Air Force Times, which first reported the story, that Adams will retire with his current rank. But he declined to provide details on the reason Adams was removed from his EUCOM position.
"I am honored to have served my country for 28 years in the United States Air Force," Adams said in a prepared statement provided to the Air Force Times. "Without question, I would never have chosen another career. These years of service have been the most rewarding times for me personally and professionally."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/30/eucom-enlisted-leader-relieved-for-loss-of-confidence.html

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/29/eucoms-senior-enlisted-leader-fired/74802140/

EUCOM's senior enlisted leader fired

The senior enlisted leader for U.S. European Command has been relieved and plans to retire.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 2:11 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:11:58 -0400

CSM, it must have been good enough to the point of the terminating of him from that position and the CMSgt stating he will immediately and quietly retire.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Oct 31 at 2015 3:04 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:04:13 -0400

Since folk ask about the terminology, that's the standard for public consumption "reason" reserved for senior leadership. What's involved is a persistent bad behavior or characteristic, a significant screw up, or bad fit with the position that's counterproductive to the organization. Many times it's also the result of an agreement to go gracefully or face the consequences. You agree to retire knowing nobody else is going to want you. Remember consequences can be imposed post retirement if you want them that bad.

These actions are never the result of the boss in a vacuum. Rest assured, the usual players including JAG, IG, bosses up line, and given this prominence, briefing at the Secretariat level to manage the PAO piece occurs. Part of the up line weigh in ensures the Skipper isn't being an Alpha Hotel about it. That has happened before, typically resulting in early transfer of one or both.

I'm a supporter of not knowing the "whys" as that just satisfies the voyeuristic piece we all have but don't need to know to live our own lives. I fired a couple senior officers in my time, much to the relief of the command as a whole. Was it totally 100% on their plate? No. But the real decision you make is what's in the best interest of the command.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Oct 31 at 2015 3:06 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:06:39 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig You are spot on with that. Disagreement and "loss of confidence" are not the same thing. Sometimes when we are looking at situations from the outside, we 2nd guess, because we know/have met one party. There are always 3 sides to a story: A, B and the truth. Often times we never get the entire picture.
And truly, at that level, it often boils down to politics. A game that I have no intention of entering...

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 3:12 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:12:52 -0400

Article only states "personal problems". I am not going to read into it.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 31 at 2015 3:30 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:30:17 -0400

I'm sure there was a gap in the leadership that wasn't needed to be seen down the line. If the boss isn't happy with the way things are then it's his right to change. I also am glad dirty laundry isn't hung out in the wind. I'm sure CMSgt Adams remained professional as expected from a SNCO. Let it go, if we needed to know the facts would have been listed.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Oct 31 at 2015 3:52 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:52:20 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig Wow...is it just me or does it seem like that was timed specifically to keep him from the new SEAC coming up?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 5:45 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:45:40 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig no I was not aware this occurred. And no, I don't think this statement is enough. Of course that is my personal opinion. Professionally, if he didn't do anything illegal or immoral, then this reason should suffice. If he did do something illegal or immoral, then we should know. For now, without any additional facts, I suppose this will have to do.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Oct 31 at 2015 5:46 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:46:11 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig We have to admit the statement was professional. That professionalism would be for naught if CMSgt Adams bared any angst to RP!

Response by MSgt John Taylor made Oct 31 at 2015 6:03 PM

MSgt John Taylor — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:03:51 -0400

His attorney commented for him? I'm thinking that he did something a little hinky that got him removed. My guess only.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2015 2:41 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 02:41:55 -0500

A lack of transparency simply fuels speculation. For example, I've seen threads on this outside of RP that question if he was retired instead of being charged under UCMJ; that the fact he had an attorney make statements in his behalf suggests bad behavior. As this firing is a fairly big deal, full transparency would be a good choice, especially as the real reasons behind such actions tend to be found out in short time in today's atmosphere. A senior enlisted advisor to a COCOM CDR isn't generally fired for a minor issue; but this is an Air Force thing, and given the Air Force approach to firing people without cause, he may have bad mouthed the F35 or sent a pop-culture inspired text message.

Response by Lt Col Richard Neel made Nov 1 at 2015 7:07 PM

Lt Col Richard Neel — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:07:14 -0500

Standard terminology for an unscheduled change of leadership, and really can be THE reason the commander makes the change. In his case, being eligible to retire as an E-9, receiving a PCS, and actually retiring as such really leaves very little room for complaint. I don't know. I served with Chief Adams when he was a TSgt. He always was a top-notch NCO.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 11 at 2015 7:50 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 07:50:38 -0500

When I first read your post I mistook EUCOM for USAREUR CSM Michael J. Uhlig. The USAREUR Commander is a classmate of mine and very honorable man.
It seems that Chief Master Sgt. Craig A. Adams is an honorable man and I expect he will not reveal what the issue(s) were that caused the loss of "faith and confidence" in his ability to serve.
I expect the disagreement may have been in regard to the social changes foisted on the military over the past couple of years. As the senior enlisted man in the command he cares about the health and welfare of the men and women of the command and I fully expect he spoke his mind about what he believed to be best.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Dec 11 at 2015 8:08 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:08:02 -0500

I think, without all the facts, none of us are in a position to guess what is really going on here? Chief Master Sergeant already had a lawyer, so there was something going on. Maybe returning to the States and being able to retire at his current rank is more than good enough, but we don't know and probably will never know?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 11 at 2015 10:49 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:49:14 -0500

Could be wrong, but I see the issue as the senior enlisted person appointed by a group, being assigned to a function without the input of the CO, at the time or later. When these two people do not mesh on many levels, they find a reason to get rid of them. And I don't mean the CO. The old lack of confidence comment ends a career abruptly. And when there is no substantiating narrative, I become suspicious.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Dec 11 at 2015 1:27 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 13:27:19 -0500

CSM Michael J. Uhlig It seems to be a common practice recently with Commanders and CSMs getting relieved for voicing their opinions, disagreeing with the leadership and taking a stand, or doing something wrong that we may never know took place by the individual. It has to be something pretty bad for a this type of thing to happen in my opinion. Just an opinion.