So far this officer has not (to my knowledge) willfully disobeyed, nor has he refused to carry out his lawful orders. What he has done is to bring into question his willingness or suitability to fulfill his command obligations, which would clearly justify relief from command, as well as involuntary retirement.
Neither the statutes of the United States nor the Uniform Code of Military Justice require any soldier to like his superiors, to act as cheerleaders for his superiors, or to support any individual or party. What is required is obedience to lawful orders. Being in command carries another obligation, that of not undermining the execution of the mission.
I do not see this incident as a criminal act at this point. What I see is a crystal clear indication of the need to replace the commander of the Oregon National Guard with an officer who understands the performance of duty regardless of personal comfort or preferences. The gentleman has obviously called into public question his fitness for command.
The context and content of his statement can be interpreted as a direct challenge to the President's policy, they are also possibly contemptuous- a violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ.
I wouldn't want a jury of my peers deciding my fate on this one- also, his statements are close enough to a violation to call into question his ability to lead. By saying this words in public, he has encouraged his subordinates to question his decisions and policies.
correct me if i am wrong........
but since i did not know i did a quick search.....the head general of the National Guard in each State (except Vermont) is appointed by the governor of that State.
so this general was most likely pandering to politics to keep himself from being removed by the governor.....
and if removed, then the governor would most likely simply appoint another as general....and would be an appointment that reflects what the governor wants....
A state head of the state's NG is indeed appointed by the state's governor, however, they also have to meet federal standards for their service (since NG troops are dual state and federal).
Relevant to this position, the head of the ORNG has to have an appropriate rank to be in charge of state NG units (that is, they can't be outranked by a subordinate commander). Currently the head of the ORNG is a BG (either in actuality or just frocked as such) so to replace him, the governor would submit his name to the NG Bureau, and by approvial by SECWAR, that promotion would be submitted to congress for approval.
So while the governor could nominate COL <bootLicker> to head the ORNG, the SECWAR would have to submit that name to congress in order for that nominee to get promoted to BG. State's NG don't have a lot of spare one stars hanging around to just laterally slide into the position.
The first that comes to mind is conduct unbecoming an officer. Next, undermining the good order and discipline of the unit. Probably several others, but these are more than sufficient to justify relief from command as an immediate administrative action as well as a letter of reprimand placed into the officer's permanent record (which would weigh heavily in any future assignments, certainly in any promotion board decision).
When I was in on active duty (1968-1972) and active reserve (1972-1976) all promotions were basically temporary; we all had our rank as well as a "permanent rank" that could be reinstated in the event of a reduction in force or in the event of demonstrated inability to perform in the present position. My active duty rank was sergeant E-5 with a permanent rank of corporal E-4. In reserve service I was promoted to staff sergeant E-6, permanent rank sergeant E-5. I was later commissioned as first lieutenant O-2, permanent rank staff sergeant E-6, and finally captain O-3 with permanent rank of staff sergeant E-6.
Officer commissions are acts of congress enacted by the president. All promotions to flag rank require congressional approval. An officer may resign the commission which may result in leaving the service completely, or if any military service obligation remains it could result in remaining in service at enlisted rank and status. Involuntary cancellation of a commission typically requires proof of criminal behavior.
Additionally, commissions may be either "regular" or "reserve". Regular commissions routinely happen with graduation from military academies, and come with an obligation for a specified period of active duty service, and a regular commission usually carries a lifetime requirement of returning to active duty when ordered to do so. Reserve commissions typically come with graduation from a college ROTC program, usually with a specified period of active duty followed by transfer to inactive status (subject to recall in the emergencies). Some specialized service training schools may come with a contract for periods of active duty service (pilots, medical/dental schools, advanced degree programs, etc).
In the event of a reduction in forces, as we saw during the wind-down of Vietnam, lots of reserve officers were released. That included thousands who had years of service in enlisted positions prior to commissioning, and many of those wanted to stay and complete the time needed for retirement benefits. That was usually done by reverting to a permanent enlisted rank.
Drawn out response, but the point is that what may happen going forward depends on many factors, some in law, some in military regulations. If the gentleman has accumulated sufficient time and credits he may qualify for retirement (and may be encouraged to follow that course). Other options may be considered, such as distant and isolated posts perhaps with isolated or severe conditions, maybe an office boy position in a Pentagon basement working on boring and non-critical tasks.
I seriously doubt that this gentleman will ever be considered for another command position, and I suspect that any staff position he may be offered will make him well aware that his presence is on sufferance. Even that does not include any consideration of the political or public relations factors that will be in play.
Yes that is the way it used to work, but most of that has changed.
-If I remember correctly, the "permanent" rank nonsense went away about the same time as the higher level Specialist ranks disappeared (that is, before my time).
-In the mid 90s, the Army stopped giving academy grads and ROTC honor grads regular commissions- everyone got a reserve commission and if they were still on AD after 5 years they could apply for a regular commission after a board approved it.
-In 2005, DOD stopped allowing reserve commission for active duty officers and only regular commissions (in order to avoid having stupid review boards) so now all active duty army officers have USA commissions and reserve / NG officers have USAR commissions.
However, that has nothing to do with this guy, as a NG officer, his federal commission is USAR even though he is (I think) in an AGR position.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
