With great authority comes great accountability

  • Published
  • By Maj. Theodore Richard
  • 71st Flying Training Wing Staff Judge Advocate
VANCE AIR FORCE BASE, Okla. --  The sexual misconduct committed by instructors in Air Force basic military training at Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland, Texas, shocked the Air Force.

The ramifications of the incidents have extended well beyond the specific culprits. According to the Air Education and Training Command commander's report, one group commander and one squadron commander were relieved from command. Six additional commanders received administrative actions which will likely have severe consequences on their careers.

Some may ask why a leader could possibly be penalized for the illegal actions of a follower. Perhaps the answer can be found in a turn of the popular phrase: "With great authority comes great accountability."

Everyone is familiar with leaders, supervisors and commanders who take credit for all the good things that happen in their units. Witness the end-of-tour medal presentation to any supervisor for an example. When organizational failures occur, leaders also own these shortcomings.

Accountability increases with authority. A supervisor may have authority to run an area, but not have complete authority. Low-level supervisors may not be able to reassign poor performers or reallocate resources. Even higher level supervisors may have limited capacity to discipline or "fire" poor performers.

In the military, commanders have significant authority over their personnel and their assigned mission. Commanders have the ability to initiate investigations. They are the only ones with authority to discipline subordinates under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

They are the only ones with the ability to initiate administrative discharge proceedings to fire or separate those who cannot perform. They are the ones who set the climate for mission accomplishment. Thus, commanders are ultimately accountable for mission outcomes.

When things go very wrong, the military holds its leaders accountable. Accountability is not the same as discipline. A leader does not need to be criminally derelict in performing duties to be held accountable for mission failure.

In 2008 the Air Force sent nuclear-weapon triggers to Taiwan. This happened shortly after a B-52 Stratofortress bomber crew flew six nuclear warheads from Minot AFB, N.D., to Barksdale AFB, La.

As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates simultaneously requested resignations of Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne.

Secretary Gates explained that he attributed these failures to "declining standards" reflecting a widespread cultural problem. Leadership should have recognized this and taken the necessary corrective action. Accountability demanded these leaders be removed.

Today the cultural crisis in the military is sexual assaults. While crimes are committed by criminals, commanders are responsible for good order and discipline as well as the climate in their organizations. The only acceptable culture which can be tolerated is one in which sexual assaults are deterred and detected.

In my experience as a prosecutor, sexual assaults, like other crimes, don't spontaneously happen. Major crimes happen most frequently in environments where alcohol abuse, sexual harassment and other violations of standards are tolerated.

Commanders are ultimately accountable for good order and discipline within their units. They have no responsibility that is more fundamental.

While senior leaders and commanders set the climate, all supervisors and subordinates have the obligation to support them. We all must stop sexual harassment, a precursor to sexual assault, in our workplaces.

All officers and NCOs must uphold standards. No one should be a passive bystander and allow a Wingman to be a victim.

Some observers with little understanding of the military believe the way to change the climate of sexual assaults is to remove the authority to handle these problems from commanders.
The opposite is true.

Commanders have the authority to investigate and they have the ability to discipline those who fail to meet standards. With this authority, commanders have the tools to change the climate and to dissuade, deter and detect sexual assaults. With this authority, these commanders can and should be held accountable for changing the climates in their units.

Limiting the authority of commanders reduces their ability to handle their missions. It would also allow blame for failure to be shifted elsewhere. Authority and accountability go hand in hand.