Jeffrey Adams (Ret)

Name: Jeffrey Adams (Ret)


Indvidiual Rating:  5.5/10
Overall Standing: #3/155

Service Branches: U.S. Air Force U.S. Air Force

Units: None

Base: None

Rank: O4 - Major

Users Rating (1)

  • overall
    5.4
  • tactical competence: how effectively does the commander make operational decisions during missions or exercises? are they tactically sound and capable of leading during high-pressure situations?
    5.5
  • decisiveness: does the commander make timely and effective decisions? are they able to assess situations quickly and act without hesitation when necessary?
    7.5
  • judgment and foresight: does the commander demonstrate good judgment and the ability to foresee potential issues or opportunities in strategic planning?
    3.5
  • clarity of communication: how well does the commander communicate orders, goals, and expectations? are they clear and concise in their instructions?
    5
  • openness to feedback: does the commander listen to subordinates, take feedback into consideration, and foster open communication within the unit?
    5
  • transparency and honesty: are they transparent in their communication with the team and honest about challenges and changes?
    3
  • motivational ability: can the commander inspire and motivate their troops, especially in challenging times? do they foster a positive environment and uphold unit morale?
    3
  • cohesion and teamwork: does the commander promote teamwork and unity within the unit? are they effective in managing diverse personalities and ensuring that everyone works together toward common goals?
    6.5
  • conflict resolution: how effectively does the commander manage conflicts or disputes within the unit? are they fair and impartial when resolving issues?
    5.5
  • ethical conduct: does the commander uphold military ethics and adhere to the code of conduct? are they known for fairness, respect, and accountability in their leadership?
    1.5
  • responsibility and accountability: do they take responsibility for their actions, including mistakes, and hold themselves accountable for the outcomes of their decisions?
    5
  • respect for others: do they treat subordinates, peers, and superiors with respect? are they inclusive and mindful of diversity within the ranks?
    7.5
  • mission execution: how successful is the commander in executing missions and operations? are their strategies effective, and do they achieve objectives efficiently?
    7
  • adaptability under pressure: how well does the commander adapt to changing or unexpected circumstances during operations? are they flexible and capable of recalibrating plans when necessary?
    5.5
  • resource management: is the commander effective in managing resources (personnel, equipment, time) during both training and operations? are they efficient in utilizing what’s available to maximize effectiveness?
    6
  • mentorship: does the commander invest in the growth and development of their subordinates? are they approachable and proactive in mentoring future leaders?
    6.5
  • skill development: does the commander focus on the ongoing development of skills within the team? do they provide opportunities for training and improvement?
    5
  • readiness and preparedness: does the commander maintain a high level of readiness within the unit? are they proactive in preparing the team for future challenges and missions?
    6
  • risk assessment: how well does the commander evaluate and manage risks? are they able to balance mission success with the safety of their personnel?
    6
  • courage under fire: does the commander demonstrate courage and composure under direct threat or in dangerous situations? are they known for leading by example in high-stakes moments?
    6
  • long-term planning: is the commander skilled at creating long-term strategies and aligning their unit with broader military goals and objectives?
    6
  • innovation and creativity: do they bring innovative approaches to problem-solving and mission planning? are they open to new ideas and methods to improve unit performance?
    2.5
  • physical fitness: is the commander fit for duty, setting an example for their troops with their physical condition and endurance?
    3
  • stress management: can the commander handle stress effectively without letting it impact their decision-making or interactions with the team?
    8.5
  • fairness in discipline: how fairly does the commander apply rules and discipline within the unit? are they known for treating everyone equally, regardless of rank or personal bias?
    5.5
  • enforcing standards: does the commander maintain high standards of professionalism, conduct, and performance within their unit?
    3
  • recognition of achievements: does the commander acknowledge and reward good performance within their unit? do they provide recognition for accomplishments?
    8
  • work-life balance: is the commander mindful of the well-being of their subordinates in terms of work-life balance, particularly in non-combat settings?
    8

User Reviews

GMilly
So-So Commander

Mr. Adams was an effective commander, but he wasn't a great one. A number of issues made me question his integrity and leadership ability and, ultimately, I think It's a good thing that he is no longer active. As a Security Forces commander, he is ultimately charged with ensuring law and order on the installation, but in my opinion he failed this. During a somewhat shocking move, he ordered police patrols not to issue citations for traffic violations on installation. This is a problem, because we were having a speeding epidemic on base at the time. He openly told us that he was getting angry responses from other unit commanders, and it was making him unliked and unpopular with the other units. Instead of holding to integrity, he ordered us to issue fake citations that essentially stated "if you were to have recieved a citation today, here are the points and/or fine that would be imposed". His order was ultimately determined to be illegal, as a commander cannot order personnel to conduct their required duties. In another instance, Mr. Adams was leading the push to have all QC tests digitized to remove any potential bias from evaluators. This was a good idea, and I fully supported it. On one occasion, Mr. Adams came to the QC office to review the progress of this task. One of our tests was completed, and Mr. Adams opted to take a test to see how it functioned. The test he took was for Installation Access Controller; a test meant to test A1C's on their job knowlegde of basic Security Forces concepts. Mr. Adams' score upon completion was a 13% - a far cry from the required 80% standard set for his airmen. This shook my confidence in his leadership. If he can't pass a simple, basic test meant for his most unexperienced airmen, why is his in a position of command over them? There was also the issue of his abuse of his position to allow his english girlfriend to enter the base without any escort ot base access privledges. Mr. Adams made our personnel let a person without base access credentials onto our base multiple times, and would frequently leave her alone in his on-base residence, which is an escort violation and an arrestable offense. Airmen repeatedly voiced thier concerns about this practice, but they were ignored. In the end, Mr. Adams lacked the integrity he expected from his personnel, and unit morale suffered as a result.

REPLY
Cancel