Accountability is one of the most important aspects of leadership, a cornerstone of military doctrine and culture, and every service member must demonstrate it.

While widely enforced at lower command echelons, accountability becomes nuanced the higher up the chain of command. This leads to a perception that there are varying standards of accountability, depending on rank, and if left unchecked, it can impact the health of the armed services.

Financial responsibility, career attrition and external contracting pressures contribute to the erosion of a consistent accountability culture.

For clarity, I define second lieutenant through captain and sergeant through first sergeant as lower-

echelon leaders. Field-grade officers (major and above) and sergeants major are upper-echelon leaders. Accountability for all service members is a requirement—not an option. Yet, the expectations and consequences associated with breakdowns in accountability are not applied consistently across echelons.

Lower-echelon leaders routinely are held to rather high standards. Failure to account for personnel, equipment or mission execution often leads to swift administrative or legal action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I have seen this as a platoon leader and as an interim company commander.

For upper-echelon leaders, accountability is more complex and time consuming. Imagine the time, resources, decision-making and backlash that comes with relieving an upper-echelon leader. Those decisions are not made lightly, and, therefore, sometimes not at all. Whether real or perceived, this kind of double standard chips away at trust and morale.

Balancing the Books

Financial accountability is a critical aspect of military leadership, particularly for junior officers and NCOs. Strict enforcement reinforces discipline and builds operational integrity, but it also places a considerable burden on lower-echelon leaders who may feel isolated or unsupported in their roles. In many cases, the margin for error is virtually nonexistent. Meanwhile, the processes for identifying and addressing financial mismanagement at higher levels often occur with more discretion, and in some instances, fewer transparent consequences.

When lower-echelon leaders observe a lack of alignment between the expectations placed upon them and leniency afforded to upper-echelon leaders, it may result in disillusionment and attrition. These lower-echelon leaders are charged with oversight of valuable assets, ranging from sensitive equipment to high-value vehicles. The systems in place for maintaining equipment are thorough; failure to follow these systems can result in harsh punishments that can even end careers.

Losing Lower-Echelon Leaders

One thing the armed services can’t afford to ignore is the growing number of talented lower-echelon leaders choosing to leave. Some are separating because of family, career goals or the relentless pace of operations—but there’s another issue that comes up repeatedly: accountability doesn’t feel equal. When it looks like enforcement depends on your rank or who you know, it’s easy to wonder if it’s worth staying.

Removing a lieutenant or first sergeant can happen quickly. A battalion or brigade commander makes the decision, and it’s done.

But removing someone higher up—a major, colonel, sergeant major—is a different situation. That process can involve months of paperwork, reviews, possibly a board of inquiry, and final decisions made by general officers. It’s neither quick nor easy. But the process is there to protect leaders from rash or emotional decisions, which makes sense.

However, to a lower-echelon leader, it can look like upper-echelon leadership is being protected, not being held accountable. When that perception takes root, it can lead to good lower-echelon leaders leaving the service.

Another factor that complicates accountability within the defense enterprise is the long-standing relationship between senior military leadership and the defense contracting industry—often referred to as the “military-industrial complex.” This relationship is complicated; the work between defense leaders and industry partners has led to innovation and capability development. However, concerns arise when retired upper-echelon leaders transition into influential roles within defense corporations shortly after their service, particularly when those companies have secured government contracts tied to decisions made during the leaders’ time in uniform.

When upper-echelon leaders transition into roles with defense contractors or industry partners, while legal and regulated, the optics matter. Even if all rules are followed, the transition can still create doubt about the fairness of procurement decisions or whether accountability is being applied evenly. If it looks like some leaders are protected from consequences while creating a post-service career, it naturally raises questions about where their priorities lie.

Perception goes a long way in shaping trust. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest—without any wrongdoing—can erode confidence in the system. That’s why transparency during these transitions, and clear ethical guardrails, are critical. Without them, the integrity of the institution can come into question.

Rebuilding a Culture of Accountability

If the military wants to keep top talent and sustain trust across the ranks, it must improve accountability enforcement—uniformly and visibly. That means not just holding lower-echelon leaders to a high standard, but making sure upper-

echelon leaders also are held to high standards through streamlined, fair processes. It also means protecting lower-echelon leaders who report issues they see as questionable.

Mentorship, ethical leadership training and reforms that prioritize transparency can help move the needle toward a more consistent culture of accountability. But more than anything, the perception of accountability must match reality. Lower-echelon leaders must see that doing the right thing matters—that integrity is recognized, and misconduct, regardless of rank, gets addressed.

DoD also must look closer at the career-development pipeline. Talented leaders shouldn’t have to choose between their values and their future. If the military wants to stay competitive and continue developing strong leaders, building a clear, fair and values-driven accountability system must remain at the forefront.

Consistent Application

Accountability remains a vital element of military leadership, but it must be applied consistently across ranks to preserve established trust. Enforcement gaps, along with complex external pressures, threaten the integrity of that principle. To retain capable leaders and strengthen the armed services, improvements must aim to ensure transparent, fair and universal standards of responsibility. A culture of accountability should not depend on rank—it should define it. Only by reaffirming this commitment can the profession of arms maintain credibility and honor.

* * *

Capt. Tanner Swanner is the intelligence officer for 2nd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia. Previously, he was a student in the Military Intelligence Captains Career Course, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He also has been a platoon leader, company executive officer and company commander for a Stryker brigade combat team.