# What does "decorated" mean?



## Pusser (1 Aug 2018)

I was originally going to post this on another thread about a specific individual, but figured my comments would somehow be construed as denigrating that man's service, which was far from what I'm trying to do.  I just want to clear up some common misconceptions.

News articles often seem to refer to members or veterans as "decorated;" however, that's often not the case.  Being "decorated" does not mean the same thing as having a bunch of medals.  It means having a decoration, which comes from a short (yet distinguished) list.  I suppose one could technically claim to be "decorated" if one has been awarded the Canadian Forces Decoration (CD); however, that's a bit of a stretch.  Although technically a decoration because King George VI made it so, it actually fits the definition of a medal (in a nutshell, everyone gets it simply for being around long enough) and is treated as a medal in the Order of Precedence.  In order to be "decorated" (in the Canadian Honours System), one really needs to be a recipient of at least one of:

Victoria Cross (VC)
Cross of Valour (CV)
Star or Military Valour (SMV)
Star of Courage (SC)
Meritorious Service Cross (MSC)
Medal of Military Valour (MMV)
Medal of Bravery (MB)
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)
Royal Victorian Medal (RVM)

These are the only "decorations" in the Canadian Honours System.

Another point worth noting is that ONLY orders and decorations (including the CD) carry "post-nominal letters" (i.e. the letters you write after your name in formal signature blocks).  Not every honour we wear on our uniforms has a post-nominal to go with it.  I've seen folks put "QSJM" (Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal), "CDSC" (Chief of Defence Staff Commendation), etc. after their names (even in official programs!) and of course, none of this is correct.  Only orders (Order of Canada, Order of Military Merit, etc.) and decorations (including the CD) carry post-nominals.

Another common error is the use of "CD1," "CD2," etc. (I've even seen it on tombstones).  This is incorrect.  The post-nominal is "CD," regardless of how many bars you have.  The same goes for all post-nominals.  Don't confuse a code used on an MPRR (which is no doubt where, "CD#" comes from) with correct post-nominal.


----------



## mariomike (1 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Another point worth noting is that ONLY orders and decorations (including the CD) carry "post-nominal letters" (i.e. the letters you write after your name in formal signature blocks).  Not every honour we wear on our uniforms has a post-nominal to go with it.  I've seen folks put "QSJM" (Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal), "CDSC" (Chief of Defence Staff Commendation), etc. after their names (even in official programs!) and of course, none of this is correct.  Only orders (Order of Canada, Order of Military Merit, etc.) and decorations (including the CD) carry post-nominals.
> 
> Another common error is the use of "CD1," "CD2," etc. (I've even seen it on tombstones).  This is incorrect.  The post-nominal is "CD," regardless of how many bars you have.  The same goes for all post-nominals.  Don't confuse a code used on an MPRR (which is no doubt where, "CD#" comes from) with correct post-nominal.



See also,

Proper Use of Post-Nominals  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/113923.0


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2018)

Totally thought this was gonna be about glitter. Not about glitter at all. I'm deeply disappointed.


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Totally thought this was gonna be about glitter. Not about glitter at all. I'm deeply disappointed.



https://glitterhaven.com.au/product-category/types-of-glitter/

Fill your boots.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I was originally going to post this on another thread  . . .
> 
> News articles often seem to refer to members or veterans as "decorated;"  . . .



I probably had the same fleeting thought when I read, what I assume, is the same thread.  However, the one award that you didn't mention (and no pun intended) is "Mention in Dispatches".  It falls outside the standard descriptions of orders, decorations and medals though it "recognizes valiant conduct, devotion to duty or other distinguished service in combat or near-combat conditions".  I specifically bring it to your attention because (according to a search of the GG's list of honours) the subject of the other thread was so cited.

But , again probably like you, it pains me when the proper use of language is not followed - especially by the media.  Pedantic to the end.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2018)

Why would considering the Canadian Forces Decoration be a stretch when it comes to decorations?


----------



## medicineman (1 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why would considering the Canadian Forces Decoration be a stretch when it comes to decorations?



Other than not being all that decorative compared to some of our other gongs?   :stirpot:

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2018)

But decoration is in the name  ;D


----------



## medicineman (1 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But decoration is in the name  ;D



True. but, as I said, I have far more decorative gongs on my rack...including another that allows me to use post nominals (that many people who have said Order use inappropriately) and can double as a weapon if need be  ;D.

MM


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Aug 2018)

...and CDs result in a post-nominal. :nod:

I’d consider Pusser’s list, add CD and MID.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Aug 2018)

I suppose the argument (for some) hinges on how they define "decoration".  In Pusser's OP the list he provides are those that are listed and identified as "decorations" on the GG's honours site.  None other are so identified as such.  It then becomes easy to equate "decorated" solely with "received a decoration".  But it is not so simple.  Language changes and sometimes that includes the meaning.  Prior to a unique Canadian honours system, would not someone who received, for example, the Military Medal (MM) for actions in either of the world wars or Korea not have been considered to have been "decorated"?  Yet in the terminology of that time the MM was not a decoration but rather a "MEDAL FOR GALLANTRY AND DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT".  The "decorations" in the order of wear which preceded the medals for similar actions were:
Royal Red Cross (Class I).
Distinguished Service Cross.
Military Cross.
Distinguished Flying Cross.
Air Force Cross.
Royal Red Cross (Class II).

If one was to restrict the discussion to those awards applicable solely to the military and naval services, in the good old days of class hierarchy (sarcasm intended), officers received decorations, lesser mortals received medals (of course, the VC and GC, though both being decorations were however treated differently).  So it was whether for gallantry and distinguished actions or long service and good conduct.

As to the CD being a decoration or a medal, that argument has been here before.  While it might be a stretch to say that Pusser has changed his tune, he did once think it was in a different category.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Sometimes the CD doesn't get the respect it deserves.  Twelve years of one's life is no small accomplishment and for some, behaving oneself for 12 years is a HUGE accomplishment. ;D  Despite the fact that one doesn't really have to do anything to receive a CD (other than behave - or at least not get caught for 12 years), it does represent a level of commitment that should be lauded.  Just because someone was never called to task doesn't mean they couldn't have been.
> 
> It's also worth noting that the CD is not a medal, it's a decoration, which means you get a postnominal letters and the right to put it on your personal coat of arms, should you so choose.  No other Canadian long service medal has this distinction.  It really is a step above the others.



And of course, my response to his complaint that the CD did not get the respect it deserved was a repeat of a post that I had made more than a decade ago.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> One of my lasting memories of someone talking about the decorations and medals that he was wearing occurred in 1994.  I had the good luck of having a COS date out of Lahr that permitted me to arrange my passage home on the Queen Elizabeth 2 sailing out of Southampton on 8 June.  I was able therefore to drive to Normandy and spend 6 June 94 (50th Anniversary of D-Day) visiting some of the memorials and events there; take the ferry across to England; turn my car over to Cunard for loading onto the ship and then relax for several days on the North Atlantic.  The voyage was billed as a “D-Day Memorial” cruise.  Many of the passengers were WW II veterans, mostly American, some Brits, and at least one Canadian.
> 
> One of the events that occurred on the ship was the Captain’s Welcome Party.  Dressed in finest bib and tucker, you go through the receiving line, have your photo taken and then proceed to the most important part of the soiree… getting a drink.  Some of the other passengers were wearing medals, ribbons or devices that showed that they had served.  I was in mess kit as were a few of the other passengers including a Van Doo LCol and a husband & wife who were both pilots in the USAF.   It was particularly easy for the Van Doo and me to be noticed in the scarlet monkey jackets.
> 
> ...


----------



## RocketRichard (1 Aug 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I suppose the argument (for some) hinges on how they define "decoration".  In Pusser's OP the list he provides are those that are listed and identified as "decorations" on the GG's honours site.  None other are so identified as such.  It then becomes easy to equate "decorated" solely with "received a decoration".  But it is not so simple.  Language changes and sometimes that includes the meaning.  Prior to a unique Canadian honours system, would not someone who received, for example, the Military Medal (MM) for actions in either of the world wars or Korea not have been considered to have been "decorated"?  Yet in the terminology of that time the MM was not a decoration but rather a "MEDAL FOR GALLANTRY AND DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT".  The "decorations" in the order of wear which preceded the medals for similar actions were:
> Royal Red Cross (Class I).
> Distinguished Service Cross.
> Military Cross.
> ...


Blackadder: misread that at first and thought you participated in D-Day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Furniture (1 Aug 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And of course, my response to his complaint that the CD did not get the respect it deserved was a repeat of a post that I had made more than a decade ago.



I read that post way back and it helped change my opinion of the CD, not that I'll admit that in front on anyone when they ask about mine. It's still for 12 years of undetected crime when anyone askes me about it!


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It's still for 12 years of undetected crime when anyone askes me about it!



Undetected, or unconvicted?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Another point worth noting is that ONLY orders and decorations (including the CD) carry "post-nominal letters" (i.e. the letters you write after your name in formal signature blocks).  Not every honour we wear on our uniforms has a post-nominal to go with it.  I've seen folks put "QSJM" (Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal), "CDSC" (Chief of Defence Staff Commendation), etc. after their names (even in official programs!) and of course, none of this is correct.  Only orders (Order of Canada, Order of Military Merit, etc.) and decorations (including the CD) carry post-nominals.
> 
> Another common error is the use of "CD1," "CD2," etc. (I've even seen it on tombstones).  This is incorrect.  The post-nominal is "CD," regardless of how many bars you have.  The same goes for all post-nominals.  Don't confuse a code used on an MPRR (which is no doubt where, "CD#" comes from) with correct post-nominal.



Someone seriously put QSJM on their signature block?  I don't know whether to  :rofl: or  :.

Some folks have put some time into making the Canadian Honours Chart that makes this really easy;  click the applic order/decoration/medal and voila!  There is the info you need.

http://forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medal-silverjubilee.page   Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal

*Postnominals

The use of a post-nominal is not authorized for this medal.
*

Not...not sure how much easier it could be?  People are lazy and lack good old fashioned military bearing and attention to detail in this day and age it seems.


----------



## Furniture (1 Aug 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Undetected, or unconvicted?



Unconvicted   I also tell people my GCS is a gold star for attendance. 

EITS,
Likely has far more to do with wanting to feel special/more special than with an actual lack of understanding the rules. Though I've never seen the QDJM or anything of the like, I have seen many CD1's floating around on outlook.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I also tell people my GCS is a gold star for attendance.



To be fair, for some people it was.


----------



## da1root (1 Aug 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And of course, my response to his complaint that the CD did not get the respect it deserved was a repeat of a post that I had made more than a decade ago.



I wasn't active the first time you posted that, so I'm glad you posted it again.
I've been Class B since 2003; and the majority of that time was as a Naval Reservist, so the only medal I have is the CD - I've always called it the "12 years of not getting caught" medal, so I appreciate seeing that man's take on the CD.  Glad you took those notes!


----------



## Pusser (2 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not...not sure how much easier it could be?  People are lazy and lack good old fashioned military bearing and attention to detail in this day and age it seems.



BINGO!

When I was in a job where I had to review (and correct) honours files, I was amazed at what some folks came up with...


----------



## Pusser (2 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But decoration is in the name  ;D



And the MEDAL of Military Valour is not a medal, but rather a decoration.  Names can be deceiving.


----------



## Pusser (2 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and CDs result in a post-nominal. :nod:
> 
> I’d consider Pusser’s list, add CD and MID.



The CD is a decoration.  MiD is not and post-nominal are not authorized.

The MiD is more like a commendation (albeit at the top of the list of commendations).  Before the dogpile starts, I'm well aware of the things that folks have done to get MiDs, but the fact remains, they are considered below that which would warrant a decoration.  In fact, many MiDs start with recommendations for decorations, but upon closer investigation and comparison to other similar actions are deemed to not be at the same level.  It's actually quite an involved process and recommendations are investigated and considered seriously.


----------



## Pusser (2 Aug 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I suppose the argument (for some) hinges on how they define "decoration".  In Pusser's OP the list he provides are those that are listed and identified as "decorations" on the GG's honours site.  None other are so identified as such.  It then becomes easy to equate "decorated" solely with "received a decoration".  But it is not so simple.  Language changes and sometimes that includes the meaning.  Prior to a unique Canadian honours system, would not someone who received, for example, the Military Medal (MM) for actions in either of the world wars or Korea not have been considered to have been "decorated"?  Yet in the terminology of that time the MM was not a decoration but rather a "MEDAL FOR GALLANTRY AND DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT".  The "decorations" in the order of wear which preceded the medals for similar actions were:
> Royal Red Cross (Class I).
> Distinguished Service Cross.
> Military Cross.
> ...



You're absolutely right, decorations were once strictly for officers and medals were for the men.  The VC was the one that broke that mold, but even then it took over a century for it to be completely smashed.  Even the British no longer restrict decorations to officers.  The modern definition of a decoration is that it is for a more or less individual act of particularly meritorious service or valour/bravery.  In other words, someone has to do something particularly noteworthy, especially in comparison to one's peers.  Medals on the other hand are largely awarded for just showing up - everybody who meets a defined criteria in terms of time, location, etc. gets one.

The Canadian Forces Decoration is a decoration.  I have not changed my tune on that.  I also still believe it does not get the respect it deserves.  I love your story of the older gentleman you met on the ship and I repeat it to others.  However, that doesn't alter the fact that the CD is really only a decoration because the King decreed (he was the King - he was allowed to do that).  The reason, the King made it a decoration was because it actually replace five other awards, two of which were decorations.  Each of the services had their own long service and good conduct medals.  The LS and GC medals were awarded to both Regular and Reserve members, but not to officers (their good conduct was expected - that class thing again).  Reserve officers could receive either the Volunteer Decoration (VD - yes, that's right) or the Efficiency Decoration, depending on their service.  Regular officers received nothing.  In replacing three medals and two decorations with one award, it was decided that despite the fact that it would be awarded to "men" as well officers, it would be classed as a decoration (it having replaced two others).  There was actually a lot of discussion about this point and some of the folks involved were shocked at the concept and were convinced that the King would never go for it.  Turns out the King was much more liberal than some folks thought and he had absolutely no problem with it.  The rest is history.

Having said all this, the fact remains that despite it being a decoration (complete with post-nominal) it is otherwise treated as a medal in that it is essentially awarded to everyone who gets all the ticks in the box.  You don't have to do anything special to get it (other than 12 years of your life).  It also sits in the Order of Precedence as if it were a medal, at the end with all the long service medals.  In fact, despite being a decoration, it sits below the RCMP Long Service *Medal* in the Order of Precedence (the RCMP Long Service Medal sits higher because it's older).


----------



## medicineman (2 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Someone seriously put QSJM on their signature block?  I don't know whether to  :rofl: or  :.
> 
> Some folks have put some time into making the Canadian Honours Chart that makes this really easy;  click the applic order/decoration/medal and voila!  There is the info you need.
> 
> ...



I see it used quite frequently by very insecure people on their LinkedIn profiles...which usually translates into their resume/CV as well.  My profile has my CD and professional designation on it - my other post nominals of SBStJ are not, as they're not permitted for use outside of The Order of St John, a fact noted on the GG chart, but also frequently violated I've noted over the years.  Most people also use the wrong postnominal of that when they do use it external to the Order - I see Lord knows how many "OSJ" out there that are actually "SB/SS/SMStJ".  

Suffice to say, people use things for LCF or insecurty reasons - however they need to be talked at about them and corrected.  

MM


----------



## Pusser (3 Aug 2018)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I see it used quite frequently by very insecure people on their LinkedIn profiles...which usually translates into their resume/CV as well.  My profile has my CD and professional designation on it - my other post nominals of SBStJ are not, as they're not permitted for use outside of The Order of St John, a fact noted on the GG chart, but also frequently violated I've noted over the years.  Most people also use the wrong postnominal of that when they do use it external to the Order - I see Lord knows how many "OSJ" out there that are actually "SB/SS/SMStJ".
> 
> Suffice to say, people use things for LCF or insecurty reasons - however they need to be talked at about them and corrected.
> 
> MM



Absolutely!

Folks often get post-nominals wrong.  I think it may have something to do with them confusing post-nominal with abbreviations.  Although post-nominals  can often do double duty, as both an abbreviation, that is not always the case.  "CD" is a good example.  I once saw a poster on this very forum ask a question about what "CD" meant after the names of a bunch of military people he'd read about.  One of the DS (this was years ago, so it was a different crowd then) said, "Canadian Decoration," and promptly locked the thread with a rather terse comment to the effect that we weren't going to waste our time discussing that silly question.  I thought that this actually rather rude considering he gave no one a chance to actually give a correct answer and in fact, bluntly gave a wrong one.  The name of the decoration in question is the "Canadian Forces Decoration."  The post-nominals  are "CD."

There are a few other examples.  "OMM" are the post-nominals for an "Officer of the Order of Military Merit, but the abbreviation for the Order is, "OrMM."  The post-nominals for a Member of the Order of Canada are, "CM," likely because, "MC" was already taken by the Military Cross. 

Finally, the only authorized post-nominals  are for orders and decorations, not for medals, commendations, MID, etc.  And, I'll say it again, it's just, "CD" no matter how many bars you have on it, NOT, "CD1," "CD2," etc.  Those are *abbreviations*, used on MPRRs.


----------



## Navy_Wannabe (3 Aug 2018)

Wikipedia and post-nominals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-nominal_letters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-nominal_letters_in_Canada


----------

