In 2018, when the U.S. Navy walked back the practice of announcing the names of commanders relieved for poor performance or misconduct, the change was decried as a blow to public transparency. In the wake of probably the worst bribery scandal in Pentagon history, it was largely viewed as a face-saving measure intended to avoid continued public embarrassment. The “Fat Leonard” scandal was the gift that keeps giving: three years later, senior leaders are still falling as a result. As the Navy retreated from the precipice of public transparency, the Chief of Naval Operations underscored that “the Navy values its relationship of trust and confidence with sailors and the American people.”
Soft Relief Erodes Trust and Confidence
Trust and confidence.
Those are two significant terms, especially in the context of what is often referred to as soft relief. When a leader is relieved of command due to the “loss of trust and confidence” it might signal the end of a career. It might not. More often than not, it simply prevents that leader from commanding again and allows them to continue serving until they can retire from service, with all the benefits and privileges that entails.
In the past decade, soft relief has become so common that if you run a basic Google search of the term, the results spread across multiple pages. Row after row of the faces of former commanders smiling back at you as if to say, “Well, it’s not as if I was actually held responsible for anything.” Because in most cases, they weren’t. They lost their jobs, their careers hit a hard stop, but very few actually faced consequences of any significance.
The practice of soft relief so frustrated Marine Corps Commandant David Berger that he issued a Corps-wide moratorium in October, writing, “The practice of ‘soft relief’ for wrongdoing or poor performance is not authorized.” He further added, “Failure to hold these individual Marines accountable has detrimental effects on our Corps, erodes trust and confidence, and undermines our ability to accomplish our mission.”
Trust and confidence.
Then, on March 23, Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, announced the relief of the commander of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit for “a loss of trust and confidence.” His relief followed an eight-month investigation following the deadliest accident involving an amphibious assault vehicle in Corps history. If the nature of the relief raised eyebrows, the timing generated skepticism: the “loss of trust and confidence” came toward the end of a successful deployment of the MEU—no small accomplishment by any measure—and five months after the relief (also for loss of trust and confidence) of the commander of the unit involved in the accident. Enough trust and confidence to allow him to deploy the MEU and operate far from our shores, but not enough for him to bring it home.
Soft Relief is the Easy Button
The practice of soft relief—especially when invoking “loss of trust and confidence”—is a cop out. It’s the Easy Button for relief. It laughs in the face of accountability. It turns a blind eye to justice. And it denies the institution the opportunity to use it as a learning experience for others.
The practice only makes matters worse when a leader stands accused of serious misconduct, which typically involves preemptive public statements from senior leaders and public affairs. I recently read through the results of an investigation for a commander accused of such misconduct. While the investigating officer absolved the officer of any wrongdoing, he still recommended soft relief for egregious crimes such as requiring the staff to channel reports through the executive officer, allowing the command sergeant major to make on-the-spot corrections, and failing to personally supervise soldier-level training. Frankly, when someone is charged with serious wrongdoing, the evidence either supports hard relief or it doesn’t. And, when it doesn’t, the senior leadership is morally obligated to exonerate the accused, not follow through with vindictive soft relief.
Justice and Accountability – the Right Goal
The British Army recently demonstrated “what right looks like.” A major general accused of serious misconduct resigned in 2018 to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. Not so fast. Rather than allow him to evade accountability, he was brought before a court martial, the most senior officer to face trial since 1815. After a four-week court martial, he was found guilty of fraud and now awaits sentencing. No soft relief. No loss of trust and confidence. Justice and accountability, clear and unambiguous.
A parting thought: if you think a Google search for “loss of trust and confidence” can be informative, try “different spanks for different ranks.” I made the mistake of doing that and almost didn’t finish writing this short piece. If you don’t see a few familiar faces, you’ll certainly find stories that bring back some memories. A lot of them. And good luck getting back to whatever you were doing before you clicked the search button.
