CSAF and SA Asked to Resign

[mikeylikey]

^ ha.....If I could, I would have before I spent the better part of this decade in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Plus this is purely an internal Air Force matter......not being in the AF relieves me of any worry.  They jacked up, and have shown they can not be trusted with weapons.  I say remove the weapons to a service that does not make mistakes like this.   

[Duke Dillio]

^ What's the Coast Guard gonna do with B-52's and nuclear weapons?   

[Flying Pig]

Its a load of crap that fuses accidentally got sent to a foreign country.  I spent 2 years guarding and providing convoys for Special Weapons and their components.  No way in H@## you get that confused.

[Short Field]

I would love to be forced to resign as a 4-Star.   But I have to be hired first.  Which means I have to want to go back to work.

[afgeo4]

Its a load of crap that fuses accidentally got sent to a foreign country.  I spent 2 years guarding and providing convoys for Special Weapons and their components.  No way in H@## you get that confused.

I agree. I think this was an under the table deal that got discovered by someone and the Depts of State and Defense had to quickly find an alternate story and scapegoats.

[flyerthom]

^ What's the Coast Guard gonna do with B-52's and nuclear weapons?   

So Mr. Smuggler, you thought that cigarette boat could out run our cutters...

[Eagle400]

Wynne I can understand.

But General Moseley? 


Gen Moseley is the most recent CSAF who has succeded in having the vigor and tenacity of Gen Curtis LeMay, but also the courageous patience and tact of Gen Michael E. Ryan.

I am sad to see him go.


I sincerely hope this is not a sign that the JCS is starting to become like CAP South East Region Headquarters.     

[lordmonar]

Oh....just a few things off hand....

Trading people for planes in the middle of a war.

Performing end arounds on the SECDEF over budget issuses.

Slow Boating ISR assets to support combat operations

CSAR-X fiasco

The new tanker deal

and IIRC the Rent-a-taker deal were all part of the current CSAF and SECAF's tenure.

Not saying I am glad to see them go...or that it not a bum deal....but there are a lot of little reasons why the SECDEF may want them to go.

[mikeylikey]

^ OR the SECDEF just doesn't like them and can fire them at will.  However, I thought Secretaries of the different services having been confirmed by the Senate could only be fired by the President, after a senate review.  That is how it has worked in the past. 

[Cecil DP]

The SECDEF doesn't ask for resignations without informing the President. Both serve at the pleasure of the President and the alternative was to tell General Mosely he was being reassigned to a Major General's slot effective immediately, with the resultant drop in grade.

[Short Field]

IIRC all Four-Star assignments have to be confirmed by the Senate as well.  

[Short Field]

I was told by one General that the day he pinned on his first star, he lost all job security since he now served "at the pleasure of" whomever his boss was.  The conversation had to do with how hard it was to get rid of poor performing Colonels.  You could reassign O6s, but you couldn't force them to resign.  All it took was a phone call to force a General (any type) to resign.

[mikeylikey]

I was told by one General that the day he pinned on his first star, he lost all job security since he now served "at the pleasure of" whomever his boss was. 

"This Commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America under the provisions of those public laws relating realting to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America"

Word for word off DD 1 (Officers Commission Certificate). 

So all Military Officers serve at the pleasure of the Civilian Leadership, and can be fired for no cause.  It is like working in a state with an Employment at will statue or law.  Meaning they can resign at anytime, be fired at anytime or reassigned to something else. 

[Short Field]

Actually, a commissioned officer in the grade of Col or below does have legal protections beyond just "serving at the pleasure".   Sorry but I can not find the sources.  But basically, a regular officer can serve until they hit the up or out point (Colonels - 30 years, Lt Cols - 28 years, etc), barring judicial action.  There are "force shaping" acts that can take place - but that is not what we are discussing here. 

A NAF/CC can not just decide one day that he doesn't like a O4 with 18 years in and tell him to resign tomorrow.  If legal actions are pending, the commander can give him the option of resigning.  But there needs to be "cause" to force a regular officer out before he reaches his mandatory separation point.  Granted there is nothing to prevent the NAF/CC from working an assignment for the officer to someplace so unpleasant that the officer resigns in lieu of taking the assignment.  (Shades of the "Year of the Chicken Colonel" back in the '60s.)

Back in the day in SAC, it was not unheard of for a Wing/CC Colonel to be fired for failing an inspection and ordered OFF the base by the end of the day.  However, the Colonel was NOT dismissed from the service but simply reassigned - normally someplace where the General would never see or hear from him again.

A one-star can simply be told, "Your replacement arrives next week and I don't have another job for you, please put in your papers for retirement now".  That is it.  Period, end of story.  No appeal unless the one-star had another sponsor looking out for him that was willing to give him a job.

[Short Field]

By the way, DD 1 is not a legal document, it is a certificate - you know better than that    .

[Cecil DP]

IIRC all Four-Star assignments have to be confirmed by the Senate as well.  

The 3 and 4 star grades are as long as they're in a slot rated as 3 or 4 star. When reassigned they automatically  revert to their permenant grade.

[mikeylikey]

By the way, DD 1 is not a legal document, it is a certificate - you know better than that   ;) .

Never said it was (but 100 years ago it was the legal document, for you history buffs).  I suggest you take a quick look over Army Regulation 600–8–24

Here it is laid out for you:

Chapter 4
Eliminations
Section I
Scope
4–1. Overview
a. An officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the
nation have placed in the officer's patriotism, valor, fidelity, and competence. An officer is expected to display
responsibility commensurate to this special trust and confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times.
However, an officer who will not or can not maintain those standards will be separated.
b. Every officer deserves a fair chance to demonstrate their capabilities. When an officer shows ineffective
tendencies (especially if the officer is inexperienced) when practicable, they will be given another chance under another
commander. The officer's ineffectiveness will be systematically recorded in documents that specify each period
covered, duties observed, and defects noted. Recommendations for elimination action will not be based on generalities
and vague impressions. It is necessary to document, in writing, the precise reasons an officer is considered ineffective.


4–2. Reasons for elimination
While not all inclusive, when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be
initiated as indicated below for—
a. Substandard performance of duty.
(1) A downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency, or a consistent
record of mediocre service.
(2) Failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries, as demonstrated by a low record of efficiency when
compared with other officers of the same grade and competitive category.
(3) Failure to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of their grade.
(4) Failure of an officer to absorb technical proficiency required for grade and competitive category.
(5) Failure to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer's grade and experience.
(6) Apathy, defective attitudes, or other characteristic disorders to include inability or unwillingness to expend
effort.
(7) Failure to respond to alcohol or drug problem rehabilitation efforts in a reasonable length of time. (See AR 600–
85 for further explanation.) Elimination action will be initiated. Care should be taken to avoid the inclusion of limiteduse
evidence, as defined in AR 600–85, chapter 6.
(8) Failure to conform to prescribed standards of dress, personal appearance, or military deportment.
(9) Failure to achieve satisfactory progress after enrollment in the Army weight control program or failure to
maintain the weight/body fat standards established under the provisions of AR 600–9 after removal from an established
weight control program. Elimination action will be initiated. This provision does not include those judge advocates and
AMEDD officers who have incurred a statutory ADSO for participating in Army sponsored education and training
programs such as the Funded Legal Education Program (10 USC 2004), Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship
Program, or the Uniform Services University of the Health Sciences (10 USC, chapters 104, 105).
(10) When no medical problems exist, and an officer has two consecutive failures of the APFT, elimination action
will be initiated. This provision does not include those judge advocates and AMEDD officers who have incurred a
statutory ADSO for participating in Army sponsored education and training programs such as the Funded Legal
Education Program (10 USC 2004), Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship, or the Uniform Services University
of the Health Sciences (10 USC, chapters 104, 105).
(11) Failure of a course at a service school for academic reasons by a probationary or nonprobationary RA officer.
For failure by an RC officer, see paragraph 2–33.
(12) Failure of a probationary officer to resign under paragraph 3–9 when their commander determines the best
interest of the Government and the individual can be served by the officer's discharge.
(13) The discovery of other conditions concerning a probationary officer that, had they been known at the time of
appointment, would have precluded appointment.
(14) The discovery of any other condition concerning a probationary officer that indicates the officer's retention in
the Army would not be in the best interest of the United States.
( 1 5 ) P r o b a t i o n a r y R A c o m m i s s i o n e d a n d w a r r a n t o f f i c e r s e n t e r i n g A D w h o a r e c o n f i r m e d H u m a n I m -
munodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive within 180 calendar days of their original appointment or probationary USAR,
ARNG commission and warrant officers who report for initial entry training in an AD (other than ADT) status and are
confirmed HIV positive within 180 calendar days of reporting to AD will be processed for elimination.
(16) Failure to establish an adequate Family Care Plan in accordance with AR 600-20, paragraph 5-5.
b. Misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security.
(1) Discreditable or intentional failure to meet personal financial obligations.
(2) Mismanagement of personal affairs that are unfavorably affecting an officer's performance of duty.
(3) Mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the Army.
( 4 ) I n t e n t i o n a l o m i s s i o n o r m i s s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t i n o f f i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s o r r e c o r d s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f
misrepresentation.
(5) Acts of personal misconduct (including but not limited to acts committed while in a drunken or drug intoxicated
state).
(6) Homosexual conduct (see para 4–22).
(7) Intentional neglect of or failure to perform duties.
(8) Conduct unbecoming an officer.
(9) Conduct or actions that result in the loss of a professional status, such as withdrawal, suspension or abandonment
of professional license, endorsement, or certification that is directly or indirectly connected with or is necessary
for the performance of one's military duties. (For AMEDD officers, this includes the partial or complete suspension,
limitations, withdrawal, or denial of clinical practice privileges.)
(10) The final denial or revocation of an officer's Secret security clearance by appropriate authorities acting
pursuant to DODD 5200.2-R and AR 380-67.
(11) Unless precluded by paragraph 4–18d(4), elimination action will be initiated against an officer who is medically
diagnosed as drug dependent or identified as having committed an act of personal misconduct involving drugs.
(12) Conduct or actions by a warrant officer resulting in a loss of special qualifications (such as withdrawal/
revocation of CID accreditation, revocation of marine qualification license, removal from the PRP, withdrawal of
clinical privileges or loss of flying status) that directly or indirectly precludes a warrant officer from performing in
MOS and is necessary for the performance of those duties. Eliminations based on these reasons may not be utilized if
reclassification action is feasible and in the best interest of the Service or if the loss of special qualifications was due to
medical reasons beyond the control of the warrant officer.
(13) Failure to respond in a reasonable length of time to rehabilitation efforts regarding repeated acts of child/spouse
maltreatment or abuse and/or other acts of family violence.
(14) Failure of a course at a service school by an RA officer because of misconduct, moral or professional
dereliction. For failure by an RC officer, see paragraph 2–33.
(15) Conviction by court martial that did not impose a punitive discharge for a sexually violent offense listed in AR
27-10, chapter 24.
c. Derogatory information. The following reasons (or ones similar) require an officer's record to be reviewed for
consideration of terminating appointment. Standing alone, one of these conditions may not support elimination,
however, this derogatory information combined with other known deficiencies form a pattern that, when reviewed in
conjunction with the officer's overall record, requires elimination.
(1) Punishment under UCMJ, article 15.
(2) Conviction by court-martial.
(3) The final denial or revocation of an officer's Secret security clearance by appropriate authorities acting pursuant
to DODD 5200.2-R and AR 380-67.
(4) A relief for cause officer evaluation report (OER) (DA Form 67–9, (Officer Evaluation Report)) under AR
623–105, paragraph 3–32.
(5) Adverse information filed in the OMPF in accordance with AR 600–37.
(6) Failure of a course at a service school.

Disabled smileys - MIKE

[Short Field]

All my time is USMC and USAF, not USA - despite serviing under many outstanding and some otherwise Army Officers.  I am not familiar with USA Regs - however, your list is all about "for cause", as in not meeting standards.  It also seems aimed at junior officers (references to probationary officers).    It looks like it would take a series of documented screw-ups on the job to get eliminated.   A General Officer just needs to lose the faith of his boss to be gone.   

[Short Field]

Looks like all the eliminations in Army Reg 600-8-24 require a Board of Inquiry to meet and review the charges.  Again - a General Officer just needs to be told to resign by his boss.  No review by peers or superiors required.

[SAR-EMT1]

I really thought that a G-O could appeal to someone (Congress?)

I know I've heard of one or two being reinstated.