The preponderance of the evidence accumulated in this investigation did no substantiate a reprisal. However, three distinctive issues led to Col Siegfried relieving Col Poplin from command. First, Col Siegfried and Col Poplins 20 plus years of personnel relationship. Second, Col Siegfried’ inexperience as a leader. Finally, the lack of effective communication between the Wing and Operations Group.
The personal and professional relationship between Col Siegfried and Col Poplin relentlessly affected both parties ability to make professional and sound decision. Col Poplin routinely took advantage of his personnel relationship with Col Siegfried to undermine and question his authority. Col Poplin had a hard time delineating the difference between personnel and professional relationship with Col Siegfried. Even though Col Poplin thought he was being candid by voicing his opinions on how the Wing should run, his openness and continual questions every decision Col…show more content… Col Poplin continues to pressure Col Siegfried on numerous occasions about the Air Command/Vice Wing Commander cannot be non-rated. This was a critical juncture in superior to subordinate relationship where Col Siegfried should have immediately issued a LOC to demonstrate to Col Poplin who is the boss and who is the subordinate, but fails to insert his authority. Col Siegfried inexperience’s are brought to tuition again by his poorly written memorandums (LOC’s,, 1 Feb 16 & 2 Jul 16 memo’s) to correct inappropriate behavior of Col Poplin. He consulted his wing SJA; however, the memorandums were procedurally incorrect which added uncertainty to the intent of the memorandums. In addition, the Relief of Command memorandum was flawed and not procedurally correct in accordance with the current AFI. Col Siegfried lack of experience along with have a non-rated Vice Commander compounds the
