Posted on 09/01/2020 7:41:48 PM PDT by robowombat
Fort Hood commander loses position following string of deadly incidents BY ELLEN MITCHELL - 09/01/20 05:40 PM EDT
Fort Hood commander loses position following string of deadly incidents Army leadership on Tuesday removed the commander of Fort Hood from his role and barred him from a planned position at another Texas base following multiple high-profile deaths under his tenure.
Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt, who had been set to take over as commander for the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, will instead remain at Fort Hood to serve as deputy commanding general for support.
“The Army will announce the name of a new commander for the 1st Armored Division, which Efflandt had previously been designated to lead. That announcement is expected in the coming days,” according to a service statement.
The announcement comes after three Fort Hood soldiers went missing in the last year before later being found dead.
Sgt. Elder Fernandes, 23, was found hanging in a tree last week in Temple, Texas, about 28 miles from the base. His family attorney has said he was “humiliated” after reporting sexual abuse, and his death is under investigation.
Pfc. Vanessa Guillen, 20, went missing in April before her body was discovered in July. Army officials suspect another soldier, Aaron David Robinson, was involved in her disappearance before he took his own life.
And Pfc. Gregory Morales, 24, went missing exactly one year before Fernandes. His remains were discovered in June in Killeen, Texas, and his death remains under investigation.
In addition, three members of the military, including soldiers stationed at Fort Hood, were among a group of men arrested in August in a prostitution sting in central Texas.
In Efflandt's place, U.S. Army Forces Command head Gen. Michael Garrett directed Maj. Gen. John Richardson IV to assume command at Fort Hood on Wednesday.
Overnight Defense: China aims to double nuclear arsenal | Fort Hood... Democrats release key interview in Pompeo probe Garrett also intends to appoint Gen. John Murray, commanding general of U.S. Futures Command, “to lead an in-depth investigation into the chain of command actions related to Spc. Vanessa Guillen,” according to the statement.
The new investigation adds to the several other open inquiries at Fort Hood, including one directed by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy in July to independently review the command climate at the installation.
Murray “will roll those efforts into a more complete and comprehensive investigation” that take a larger look at base activities and leadership.
Half dozens [reported] incidents ...
One reported occurrence, with maximum penalty, such as death penalty or life imprisonment, might have deterred the remainder of the incidents.
Military brass is far too packed with PC/AA commie appointees from the Odinga, Bush, Clinton, Bush administrations. They need to go away.
My stepson joined the Marines a few years ago. He was a complete screw up and I warned him they would be onto every game or scam he tried to pull. But he decided to mouth off to his Sr. DI . About 6 weeks into boot camp, I got a phone call from his Captain who explained what he did.
My first response was is he still alive and my next response was why are you calling me followed by he’s an adult and don’t call me to speak to him about his behavior.
They kicked him out 6 weeks later.
I think you, BatGuano’s #9, and especially meadsjn’s #21 are on to something.
It’s even worse. My Commanding Officer came extremely close to losing his job due to 3 Sailors receiving DUIs over a weekend (all separate incidents). It’s like the military thinks these CO’s demand that members due something stupid. It used to be that if a military member got in trouble, they had to explain themselves why this happened. Now it’s the chain of command who gets the blame and asked how did you let this happen. I’m so glad I retired.
There’s certainly been a lot of messed up stuff going on there.
The Commander is ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE...whether he/she is or not.
When a higher up loses confidence it’s SAYONARA, BABY.
Putting aside whether he deserved the “punishment” or not- why on earth keep him in the same command in a subordinate role. Am I missing something? That makes less than no sense. It’s basically arranging things to get worse no matter who takes over command. Personally, if offered I would pull any strings I could to be assigned somewhere else.
Never keeping a former commander on the same base as a subordinate is the leadership management course equivalent of C. A. T. spells cat.
Is he only staying on for a short while to help transition? Still a terrible idea- but minimizes the the screwup......ever so slightly.
My first act as the new commander (if I couldn’t get out of it) would be to send the former commander on an all expense fact finding mission to some remote outpost soon to experience a complete communications failure. My second would be to put some old testament wrath/fear into any loyal subordinates who are no doubt looking to stab me in the back out of loyalty to their patron. Then try to rebuild from the ground up.
Of course it probably wouldn’t work because the bureaucracy at that level would throw up so many roadblocks it would be sure to fail.
Better for the newly assigned commander to retire instead of taking the assignment, but I’m sure someone will be prideful/crazy enough to think they can do it. God bless and help them, it will take a miracle.
Actually, if every action conducted by a senior officer to correct bad behavior is a guide, the Commander was responsible for punishing everyone in the enlisted ranks who didn't commit a crime after the second crime was committed. It's the only way to make sure the person's responsible for the next crime were punished. Diaper directive: one kid craps his pants, put the whole school in diapers.
Thanks FP.
It seems that Christ is being removed from the chaplaincy too?
Putting aside whether he deserved the “punishment” or not- why on earth keep him in the same command in a subordinate role. Am I missing something?
———-
My 5¢ guess would be that they’re in the process of figuring out how the former commander is going to retire—voluntarily, told to retire, busted a rank, maybe with UCMJ action, etc., with a steaming helping of humiliation served up until that happens. For the time being, the most responsibility he’ll be having is showing up to work, sitting at a desk all day doing nothing and then going home at the end of the duty day.
To shore up unemployment figures, 0bama hired much of Government’s anarchic “Deep State”.
He is responsible for what happens to his troops
Many of the deaths were of people who had made sexual harassment claims
Was this the SAME Commander when the Ft. Hood MASSACRE happened??
Those at Forces Command and at the Department of the Army certainly don’t want the finger to be pointed at them. Find a scapegoat and blame it all on him. He may have mentioned some Army wide systemic issues that exist today. I think that something like this is going on, but the Army leadership doesn’t want to recognize it.
The Post Commander in the Army is usually a Colonel also. The Post or Garrison Commander is responsible for making sure the post itself runs smoothly and is not responsible for the troop units stationed there. However, Ft Hood is so large that it’s possible they have a different command structure.
Army post commander will usually be a Major General (two star). Lots more people on Army posts than Air Force bases.
Seems like herding cats.....
Inventorying canteens and mess kits until his retirement can be quietly processed? In any event, his career is over.
Moving from being the boss at Fort Hood to commanding an infantry division doesn’t sound like much of a promotion, now that I think of it, although appropriate for the rank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.