Good explanation and fits with most cultures, but not in this one. To get to his current rank he had the training, he knew the line and he knew precisely which behaviors were over it. Commanders receive quite a bit of training, and some of it training by fire, before they are given postings. We're not privy to his file, but dollars to donuts this is just the final straw. The only other explanation is that he pissed off enough folks above him that now they're using this excuse to find him a nice posting in Greenland.
Training is only 50% of what's needed for any corrective action, if it's important to correct that is. If you just want to cover your own ass as a manager, sure, check boxes might work.
Well, he got training! I have the check box showing it right here! We did OUR job! see? Bull****.
Feedback/follow-up is also necessary in addition to training. Training is just step 1.
You get what you measure, not just what you train to. Management 101.
You can of course fire anyone who needed feedback and didn't get it, I'm sure there are people who either naturally don't need follow-up (some percentage of the population in all careers to be sure), and some who are fortunate enough to have people both aware and friendly enough to give them the feedback unofficially.
All I'm pointing out is that if a manger has training sessions, AND feedback is widely available for the need to correct, and they are not correct even once, they failed him*. That's their call, their business. I'm just saying it's usually bad practice. Being the command of such an expensive, dangerous piece of hardware and responsible for the lives of the crew, maybe they intentionally leave that bar really high because they can only afford to have the best of the best. I can understand that. If that's the way they do it, no warning, zero tolerance, sink/swim, OK. I suspect that wasn't it however, they just run loose with management, and then a hot-button issue bubbles up and they scapegoat, make the issue go away, whatever. Lazy.
That's all opinion, I haven't studied the situation, but I see similar things happen all the time in management (non-military).
However, I will note that certain things are just going to happen, a large number of males isolated for long periods from other females are going to "check" you out. This shouldn't be a problem unless they step over the line and actually do or say something. Because the military is full of aggressive type A personalities, they will check you out openly much more often than in civilian life.
By in large, that's what they reported though. Checking them out. You want to string him up, but then you say it's normal in the military and isn't that big of a deal.
because it's employee/employer, normal feedback like "stop leering at me, it's creeping me out", is ALSO not appropriate. You can't talk to management that way, and you also put yourself in some professional risk if you do. That's why it's OK for them to go behind his back and "report him", and it's not being a tattle tale or a nuisance. It's the appropriate feedback loop. Don't you think if his boss sat him down, with another professional on the issue, and they embarassed him with all the comments, and said it stops, zero tolerance, and here's how you stop it...that he'd keep doing it? I don't. Some would, sure, just seems really ****ing unlikely.