# Wearing Uniforms Post-Release/Retirement (merged)



## wildman0101 (19 Jun 2009)

to whom it may concern... 
when i was released 3-b medical 1986 that i was told i was  allowed to wear a cf uniform on nov 11...  and that i was entitled to said as long as i complied with cf regulations ect as to wearing said.. i also had a letter authourizing approval... lost to many moves ect ... my next question is would is if i was allowed to wear a uniform regards said would i wear my last like say lahr w-germany rcd with appropriate rcd and brigade ect...
was just curious or could i display /wear the ssf as i wore 1977  anyway ... i know this sounds like a really dumbass
question but id really like to know...
thanks in advance
                   scoty b


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Jun 2009)

From the CF Dress Regulations:



> 50.      Commanders of commands may grant limited, revocable authority for former members and civilians to wear CF uniforms and clothing items in public displays and performances, and special events, if they are satisfied that no harm to the CF reputation will result (see also QR&O 17.06). In particular:
> 
> a. *by custom, veterans and other ex-service members may wear undress caps (e.g., berets, wedge caps), with badges, on remembrance and memorial occasions, subject to agreement of the branch/regiment concerned;*


----------



## harv1rcr (8 Nov 2009)

Hi all, i just recently got out of the CF and was wondering what the deal is for wearing DEU's once you have released. I would like to wear them for the Remembrance Day events this year. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Mike


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2009)

*CANADIAN FORCES DRESS INSTRUCTIONS*



> *Commanders of commands may grant limited, revocable authority for former members and civilians to wear CF uniforms and clothing items in public displays and performances, and special events*, if they are satisfied that no harm to the CF reputation will result (see also QR&O 17.06). In particular:
> 
> a. *by custom, veterans and other ex-service members may wear undress caps (e.g., berets, wedge caps), with badges, on remembrance and memorial occasions, subject to agreement of the branch/regiment concerned;*
> 
> ...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Nov 2009)

Did you transfer to the Supplementary Reserve? If so . . .

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5002-4-eng.asp


> Wearing of Uniform
> A Supp Res member is authorized to wear a uniform when on service or attending military entertainment or a ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate.


----------



## harv1rcr (8 Nov 2009)

I have not transfered to the reserves so that one is not applicable to me. And from what i gather from the above posts i would have to contact either my old unit (1 RCR) or the reserve unit in town to get permission to wear full DEUs or i can wear my old beret in civilian attire?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Nov 2009)

QR&O 17.06 – WEARING OF UNIFORM – RESTRICTION

(1) Except that an officer or non-commissioned member may wear a military uniform of obsolete pattern that is not likely to be confused with current dress, no member shall wear any part of military uniform at a fancy dress ball.

(2) No member of the Reserve Force shall wear uniform except when:
(a) on service; or
(b) attending a military entertainment or a ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate.

(3) A former member of the Regular Force or Reserve Force, who was released for a reason other than misconduct may wear uniform:
(a) with the permission of an officer commanding a command or his designated authority and such other officers as may be designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff, when attending a military entertainment or ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate; and
(b) on other occasions with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2009)

harv1rcr said:
			
		

> I have not transfered to the reserves so that one is not applicable to me. And from what i gather from the above posts i would have to contact either my old unit (1 RCR) or the reserve unit in town to get permission to wear full DEUs or i can wear my old beret in civilian attire?



Not quite.  You would need the Army Commander's permission, not a unit Commanding Officer's.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Not quite.  You would need the Army Commander's permission, not a unit Commanding Officer's.



Wouldn't a CO of a CBG be considered as an "officer commanding a command"?


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2009)

No, that would be a Formation Commander.

(Unless definitions in QR&O have been recently rewritten, and someone can post an update.)


----------



## harv1rcr (8 Nov 2009)

Hmmm, looks like i'll be going in civies this year. Alright thanks for the help guys.

Mike


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Nov 2009)

Unless the authority has been delegated downward i.e. from the Chief of Land Staff to Comd LFWA. It may have been delegated to the Comd of a CMBG or CBG, but I doubt it. Get a hold of the GI at the closest CBG or at the LFA. Too late for 11 Nov 09.

I believe you already have received the answer, so its headdress, medals and poppy with neat, appropriate civilian attire.


----------



## Greywolf (11 Nov 2009)

I used to be in the Regular Forces, but left 3 years ago for the civilian world.  I attended a memorial for Remembrance Day this morning and I was wondering if I can still wear my DEUs or I've heard I can still wear my beret.  Is that true?


----------



## harry8422 (11 Nov 2009)

Correct me if i am wrong but i believe you are only allowed to wear the beret , maby use of the search function might help.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Nov 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> QR&O 17.06 – WEARING OF UNIFORM – RESTRICTION
> (1) Except that an officer or non-commissioned member may wear a military uniform of obsolete pattern that is not likely to be confused with current dress, *no member shall wear any part of military uniform at a fancy dress ball.*



Always wondered where Mess Kit came in on that one?  It's sort of military uniform in that it's tradition and regimental in nature (colour theme and specialized accoutrements), but it is not issued and we pay for it.

I think one would have a strong legal case that they could wear Mess Kit wherever the heck they wanted (assuming they weren't obviously bringing discredit to the forces).  

Any thoughts / references covering Mess Kit?


----------



## Journeyman (11 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Any thoughts / references covering Mess Kit?


I'm too afraid of the thought police to even imagine posting opinions, which may potentially conflict with QR&Os!! 

Gutsy move, even suggesting that army.ca members do so


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Nov 2009)

I know where you're going with that, and I never once said you could not post opinions.

What I was saying is that you shouldn't (ie are ordered not to by our employer) give opinions on things that are outside your arcs of understanding.

In fact I stressed all sorts of examples where it would be 100% okay to give your opinion, which all come down to something that you have been in control of and can comment in an informed manner.

Owning and wearing mess kit gives you the right to comment on it.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Always wondered where Mess Kit came in on that one?  It's sort of military uniform in that it's tradition and regimental in nature (colour theme and specialized accoutrements), but it is not issued and we pay for it.
> 
> I think one would have a strong legal case that they could wear Mess Kit wherever the heck they wanted (assuming they weren't obviously bringing discredit to the forces).
> 
> Any thoughts / references covering Mess Kit?



My non-lawyer thoughts are that whether it was issued or not, and who paid for it, don't affect its status as a uniform.  It's not so long since everybody in the regular force had to buy all of their uniform parts (after an initial kitting out when they joined).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Always wondered where Mess Kit came in on that one?  It's sort of military uniform in that it's tradition and regimental in nature (colour theme and specialized accoutrements), but it is not issued and we pay for it.
> 
> I think one would have a strong legal case that they could wear Mess Kit wherever the heck they wanted (assuming they weren't obviously bringing discredit to the forces).
> 
> Any thoughts / references covering Mess Kit?



The most important part of that paragraph of QR&O 17.06 that you highlighted is "*fancy dress ball*".  Such a function is by definition a ball "at which the attendees wear *costumes* and masks".  Uniforms of current design and issue are not "costumes" and the use of them as such could would bring discredit to the CF.

Mess dress is not a "sort of" uniform - it is a uniform, regardless that a member paid for it with his own money.  The same holds true for other full dress and undress uniforms authorized for wear by CF members and which are not paid for by the Crown.  Most ceremonial full dress uniforms (scarlets, highland doublets and similar) are acquired using non-public funds and many undress uniforms (patrols/blues and especially in the Navy, the white high collar tunic) are acquired by individuals using personal funds.  Regardless of the method of purchase or issue, the wear of CF uniforms are still subject to regulation.

The mandatory acquisition of mess kit by Reg Force officers is (IMO) one of those hold-overs from an age when it was expected serving officers would "play the game".  Though I've meet the rare strange bird who has objected to paying for mess kit,  I believe most would still purchase it even if it was not required by regulation; you only have to notice the number of NCOs, WOs and reserve officers (none of whom are required "by regulation") that have purchased mess kit.  Mandatory acquisition of mess kit and abidance of regulations governing its wear is (from a legalistic standpoint according to my non-legally trained mind) not much different from an employee of a fast-food chain (or other civilian business) who is required to buy the company uniforms (or clothing items suitable to the workplace) and wear them while working.  The CF just has more elaborate uniforms and greater regulation about its wear.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Nov 2009)

Black,

You make some good points, but I did not at all take "fancy dress ball" to mean a costume party.

I understood it to mean something akin to a black-tie affair, but yes now it completely makes sense why you wouldn't be allowed to if it's a costume party.

I saw it as Mess Kit being equivalent to a Tuxedo so if there was some ultra-formal event to go to, I couldn't understand why not.  Now the regulation becomes obvious not confusing, thank you for the clarification.


----------



## gcclarke (12 Nov 2009)

The term "Fancy dress ball" meaning a costume party is a Brit term that has somehow wormed its way into our regulations. Probably because we just copied their regulations. I guess they like to have them year round, whereas we'll pretty much limit it to Halloween. And perhaps the occasional Sci-Fi convention. 

From wikipedia:


> A costume party (American English) or a fancy dress party (British English), mainly in contemporary Western culture, is a type of party where guests dress up in a costume.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Nov 2009)

Yes absolutely, as I was saying I used to see that reference every once in a while and think "why on earth would they make a regulation against wearing a uniform at a formal civilian function?" (Assuming you are being responsible).  But yeah, knowing that they mean a costume party makes far more sense than a black-tie formal dinner, as I had originally interpreted it.


----------



## Pieman (14 Oct 2010)

I was speaking to a clerk the other day. He mentioned that retired members of the CF are allowed to keep and wear their DEU to functions like remembrance day and Legion events.

1) Is this accurate?

2) If so, is it normal to do this? I can't imaging putting on my DEU uniform if I am no longer serving. Does not seem right to me. Isn't that why they have the legion jackets?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Oct 2010)

From the Dress Instructions:



> Commanders of commands may grant limited, revocable authority for former members and civilians to wear CF uniforms and clothing items in public displays and performances, and special events, if they are satisfied that no harm to the CF reputation will result (see also QR&O 17.06). In particular:
> 
> a. by custom, veterans and other ex-service members may wear undress caps (e.g., berets, wedge caps), with badges, on remembrance and memorial occasions,  subject to agreement of the branch/regiment concerned


----------



## Pieman (14 Oct 2010)

> a. by custom, veterans and other ex-service members may wear undress caps (e.g., berets, wedge caps), with badges, on remembrance and memorial occasions,  subject to agreement of the branch/regiment concerned



Okay, this makes more sense. I have always seen our veterans with the beret, cap badge and veteran jackets with medals etc. I was picturing people who were not currently serving walking around in full DEU, which did not seem right.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2010)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I was picturing people who were not currently serving walking around in full DEU, which did not seem right.



That I've never seen, but IMO it ain't on.


----------



## Privateer (14 Oct 2010)

Members who transfer to the Supplementary Reserve are permitted to wear DEU on certain occasions.  From DAOD 5002-4:



> A Supp Res member is authorized to wear a uniform when on service or attending military entertainment or a ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate.



This sounds more like what the clerk was talking about.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Oct 2010)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Members who transfer to the Supplementary Reserve are permitted to wear DEU on certain occasions.  From DAOD 5002-4:
> 
> This sounds more like what the clerk was talking about.



Except that someone on the Supp Reserve is not a retired member of the CF.


----------



## Privateer (14 Oct 2010)

Right, but probably a distinction that most people overlook in a casual conversation.


----------



## Pieman (15 Oct 2010)

I did go into the supplementary reserves. (In my mind that is not currently serving)  

So, it appears I can still wear DEU if I wanted. 

Any one here in the supplementary reserves do this?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Oct 2010)

During my ten years on the SupRes I have worn my uniform to the ceremonies held for Remembrance Day and Battle of the Atlantic Sunday and also when attending mess diners.

As I am now retired (as of this past August) and got my release letter, I will be attending those ceremonies in civilian attire from now on.


----------



## Pusser (15 Oct 2010)

I have seen folks who are long past SupRes age attending functions in full uniform.  As alluded to above, there are provisions for it.  You just need to ask for an receive permission.  As long as folks are only wearing the things they've earned, i don't have a problem with it.  Not everybody wants a Legion jacket.

As an interesting side observation, I have only seen folks either wearing an old RCN/Canadian Army/RCAF uniform or current DEU in this capacity. I have never seen anyone wearing an old "traditional" CF green uniform (not to be confused with current army DEU - there are some differences).


----------



## John Nayduk (17 Oct 2010)

Interesting, I didn't know that we could wear the DEU while on the Sup list.  Not that I will but it's interestiing.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Oct 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I have never seen anyone wearing an old "traditional" CF green uniform



Presumably nobody wanted to wear it one single day after DEUs were issued!


----------



## Pusser (18 Oct 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Presumably nobody wanted to wear it one single day after DEUs were issued!



Yet Hellyer is still convinced that this concept was "cutting edge" and that all the world would follow our lead. :nod:  I'm convinced that his mother used to watch him on parade and say, "oh look, everyone is out of step except Paul!"


----------



## Vuhlkansu (28 Jan 2011)

Uniform regulations: Wearing Old Uniforms question.

I tried doing some searches on the forums and other places, but I didn’t come up anything relating to this.  I came across this question when viewing the ‘CADPAT conflict’ that people have about wanting to wear it.
And in the criminal code it says…

419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,

(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,

(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or

(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction

How would wearing old uniforms come into this? Like, wearing ww1-ww2  uniforms for remembrance day and for airshow/military days?  Generally for those you wear rank/awards that you have not earned but are APPROPRIATE for the era of uniform you are wearing.
I guess I ask, is because I have a few old cadet uniforms and wear them to promote cadet history, the badges/medals I have on them are era accurate.   I have gotten mixed views from it being a great thing, and to something I should not do from civilians and military members.  I just want to make sure I am not really doing something that will get me thrown in jail.  I also ask is because the 1980’s AIR CADET uniform is almost Identical to the current issue uniform except that the uniform is GREEN instead of BLUE.   I know that military members SHOULD know that it is not the current issue air cadet uniform, but some civies may not know.  ((I get odd looks from the cadets, cause they see the air cadet badges, but its all green!))

I am open when people 	question/ask me about myself, and I state that I wear them to promote cadet history.
Where it comes to being confused as a member of the military, to whom would we be confused by? The general public which don’t know any better and would even think the ww2 uniform is current issue, or current military members who DO know the difference in the old uniforms to the new uniforms.

If this has already been discussed at length… then just send me to the link… but I did some searches and found nothing.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jan 2011)

I don't think you're going to be getting trouble from the Police if you're wearing the uniform properly, and in a respectful manner for the purpose of remembrance or history.

If you're wearing medals/awards and using them fraudulently for personal gain, that's a whole other ballgame.


----------



## Vuhlkansu (28 Jan 2011)

I wear the uniform as properly as possible.  I get a haircut, shave.  I make sure the uniform is clean, pressed and I polish the boots… I look good =)

I do sometimes come up with issues on placing badges correctly.  I don’t have much for reference material on old regs, but I follow pictures the best I can, and they seem to follow things differently from picture to picture. 

I do go a bit ‘superstar’ a bit, to show off some of the different badges/medals they had back in a day.   My research shows it was MEGA RARE for a cadet to have a medal back in the days, as a cadet having a medal and now having MULTIPLE medals is becoming more and more common in the cadet corps.

I am just curious on how wearing old uniforms fit in, so I can have a little bit of a defense should i come up across someone who just wants to make trouble out of nothing.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jan 2011)

Vuhlkansu said:
			
		

> I do go a bit ‘superstar’ a bit, to show off some of the different badges/medals they had back in a day.   My research shows it was MEGA RARE for a cadet to have a medal back in the days, as a cadet having a medal and now having MULTIPLE medals is becoming more and more common in the cadet corps.
> 
> I am just curious on how wearing old uniforms fit in, so I can have a little bit of a defense should i come up across someone who just wants to make trouble out of nothing.



You may find this topic of interest:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/25589/post-152803.html#msg152803


----------



## 57Chevy (28 Jan 2011)

419.(a) refers to the current uniform.

Sometimes I wear my jump smock when I go out fishing  ;D  no one has ever gotten confused.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> 419.(a) refers to the current uniform.
> 
> Sometimes I wear my jump smock when I go out fishing  ;D  no one has ever gotten confused.



Maybe they thought you just "dropped in" for the fishing............

 ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Jan 2011)

Vuhlkansu said:
			
		

> And in the criminal code it says…
> 
> 419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,
> 
> ...



The Criminal Code article you quoted deals with the wear of "Canadian Forces" uniforms (or the wear of other military and naval uniforms).  While the cadet movement in Canada is a youth organization sponsored by the Canadian Forces, it is not part of the CF and as such its distinctive uniforms (though supplied by the CF) are not "military" uniforms.  Similarly, the badges worn on cadet uniforms are not CF insignia, nor are the "medals" given to cadets considered honours as would be worn by military members or any other person who has been awarded an order, decoration or medal IAW Canada's honours and awards policy.  

So it is unlikely that you would be "thrown in jail".  However, I am in agreement with the negative comments you've received for this practice.  While I do not believe that it is a criminal offence (under the section you quoted), I am unable to comment on whether you are violating other legislation or regulation.  I  think it likely that the wear of a cadet uniform is sanctioned only for members of said cadet organization.  What does strike me as odd is an adult (I'm assuming that you are an adult, at least in age) wearing a costume normally associated with children, particularly if you have no nexus with a cadet organization when you wear these children’s clothes in public.


----------



## Infanteer90 (5 Mar 2011)

I think the regulations are clear... wear of uniforms that are not otherwise authorized are permitted for theatrical performances... don't wear insignia and awards that you are not entitled to... it's really that simple. Why does this crap continue to come up every year? Don't wear stuff that you haven't earned or are not legally entitled to wear. Why is this so hard to grasp?????


----------



## Vuhlkansu (21 Aug 2012)

I guess they should arrest all the people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who wear WW1/WW2 uniforms for remembrance day ceremonies.  They clearly were not alive 100yrs/70yrs ago.... your obviously not grasping the point of this conversation.

Last year i got nothing but compliments by wearing my ww2 uniform.  I dont claim to have served during WW2, i wear it to help bring to life how it was for the men that served.




			
				Infanteer90 said:
			
		

> I think the regulations are clear... wear of uniforms that are not otherwise authorized are permitted for theatrical performances... don't wear insignia and awards that you are not entitled to... it's really that simple. Why does this crap continue to come up every year? Don't wear stuff that you haven't earned or are not legally entitled to wear. Why is this so hard to grasp?????


----------



## Tyson Fox (21 Aug 2012)

Vuhlkansu said:
			
		

> Where it comes to being confused as a member of the military, to whom would we be confused by? The general public which don’t know any better and would even think the ww2 uniform is current issue, or current military members who DO know the difference in the old uniforms to the new uniforms.



Well, I'm assuming that your poorly worded question really means: Who would mistake ME, not we, unless many people you know also have 80's Air Cadet uniforms and you wear them together, for a member of the military? The denotation of what you said seems to ask that when members of the military are confused, who is confusing us? The answer to that question being, civvies, obviously. Then you appear somehow answer your previous question, while simultaneously asking another.  You ask who would be confused by you wearing the uniform, then discount the civilians as not getting confused because they might think you're wearing a WWII uniform, which you are not, at all, and it makes no sense to bring that up, but then you say they aren't getting confused because they might think that your uniform is current issue which is...good? Then you ask if military members would confuse you for a soldier when they know the difference?

So this is what I interpret you as asking:

"Who would confuse me as a member of the military, the general public who would think that I'm wearing a current issue uniform, or military members who know I'm not wearing a current uniform?"

 :facepalm: I can't get into that any deeper to save my sanity.

Anyway, my two cents are that you likely won't get in trouble for wearing something that isn't even a military uniform, but I doubt that you wear it just to promote "cadet history".


----------



## Towards_the_gap (21 Aug 2012)

Vuhlkansu said:
			
		

> I guess they should arrest all the people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who wear WW1/WW2 uniforms for remembrance day ceremonies.  They clearly were not alive 100yrs/70yrs ago.... your obviously not grasping the point of this conversation.
> 
> *Last year i got nothing but compliments by wearing my ww2 uniform. *   I dont claim to have served during WW2, i wear it to help bring to life how it was for the men that served.



Are you sure this isn't the real reason you wear WWII uniforms?

Re-enactors and the like are no doubt doing what they do with the best of intentions, at least outwardly, but I cannot help but think that if in 20 years time, I am at a cenotaph on Nov 11 and I see a 20yr old walking around in AR Cadpat, Tacvest, Body armour and helmet, I would immediately think 'attention seeker', not compliment him on his dress.


----------



## Vuhlkansu (22 Aug 2012)

I wore my authentic and dated WW1 Seaforth Highlander uniform (I even have pictures of the gentleman wearing it, dated 1914) to Folklorama for the Scottish Pavilion.  Partially to promote Scottish Heritage but for me to justify spending hundreds of dollars on finishing the outfit off and not just have it as a wallhanger in my basement.  That, and putting it on lets me check all the stuff to make sure moths have not gotten to it!
As for why I wear it, the primary reason is to promote military history, and to a smaller extend cause I look good in the uniform.  The same thing could be said as to why people join the military.  I would bet almost everyone who is serving would say its because they want to serve our country but other smaller reasons they would have would be that most positions in the military pay well, great job security in these uncertain times, GREAT BENEFITS and pension, you get to fire guns,  and because you get to look good in uniform.
Every reason I just stated are reasons I wanted to serve.  As my asthma had let me down I shake my head at people who smoke or do other activities to damage their lungs on purpose.
Anyways… this conversation is seeming to go off on tangents here so ill just wrap things up.  As I didn’t come on here to defend myself from what verbal attacks in what seems like an interrogation, but to rather to get a better understanding of the Canadian Law on wearing OLD military uniforms.


Conclusion:


It seems to be ‘ok’ to wear military uniforms that are not current issue or be mistaken by serving members of the military as being current issue.
So I will continue to enjoy wearing old military uniforms to the events I go to (just not my cadet ones anymore) and I will look forward to finishing putting together my WW2 Army battledress uniform to use for airsoft.
If you don’t like me wearing ww2 uniforms that’s fine, your entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Bigdigs (22 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Are you sure this isn't the real reason you wear WWII uniforms?
> 
> Re-enactors and the like are no doubt doing what they do with the best of intentions, at least outwardly, but I cannot help but think that if in 20 years time, I am at a cenotaph on Nov 11 and I see a 20yr old walking around in AR Cadpat, Tacvest, Body armour and helmet, I would immediately think 'attention seeker', not compliment him on his dress.




Well 20 years is a bit too soon.   By far, the last people offended by someone kitted out in a full WW2 uniform to salute and pay homage to those old folks in wheel chairs, are the people sitting in those very same chairs.

The general public (under 40yrs old) by and large knows absolutely nothing about Canada's military history pre WW1, little about WW1, some about WW2, probably hasn't even heard about Korea, Cyprus what's Cyprus?, Gulf War 1??? huh?  everything about peacekeeping in the '90's and Afghanistan,... time will tell.


----------



## kratz (17 Jun 2013)

Thanks to Occam posting about this week's message, all I can say is wow! 

Thank you for your long term service but button up and you no longer represent the RCN once you retire.
Your knowledge, experience and comments are no longer worth anything to the RCN, you are cut off 100%
with no connection to current sailors.

Why would anyone buy mess kit or a sword knowing this when they join?

Loyalty to the service has been so high due to the nature of the service, but this message cuts 
members adrift on release.

I do not know enough, but based on the sentence, this move is based more on corporate image than reminding Canadians we 
have a RCN.

We complain about "Martime blindness" WRT average Canadian and then this is issued. It's a fact the RCN already holds a smaller presence than the other elements, but to make Walts of previous serving members?

Well thought out. That will ensure more milk men and women sell ice cream on their way to and from work. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2013)

I think I'm missing something.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2013)

Not yet posted on the DIN (that I can find, at least).  From the comment above, it sounds like a blanket prohibition on retired sailors wearing uniforms.


I think Comd RCN is exercising his authority under QR&O 17.06 (3) (a):

(3) A former member of the Regular Force or Reserve Force, who was released for a reason other than misconduct may wear uniform:
(a) with the permission of an officer commanding a command or his designated authority and such other officers as may be designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff, when attending a military entertainment or ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate; and
(b) on other occasions with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff.


Of course, communicating this via a message to currently serving sailors might not hit your target audience...


----------



## Occam (17 Jun 2013)

I've changed my mind - I'll bite my tongue and post the message while refraining from any personal comment - and that takes a lot for me.



R 141937Z JUN 13
FM NDHQ C NAVY OTTAWA
TO NAVGEN
BT
UNCLAS RCN 026/13 NAVGEN 022/13
SIC WAK
SUBJ: WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. QR AND O 17.06 WEARING OF UNIFORM RESTRICTION
B. QR AND O 15.09 USE OF RANK AND WEARING OF UNIFORM AFTER RELEASE
C. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 CF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS CHAPT 2
D. CF MIL PERS INST 20/04 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR CLASS A B AND C
RESERVES
E. QR AND O 3.06 HONORARY APPOINTMENTS
F. QR AND O 2.034 RESERVE SUB COMPONENTS
G. QR AND O 1.02 DEFINITIONS
H. QR AND O 3.13 USE OF RANK BY MEMBERS OF THE SUPP RESERVE
I. DAOD 5002-4 SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE
J. QR AND O 15.01  RELEASE OF NCM AND OFFICERS
K. CHANCELLERY OF HONOURS: WEARING OF ORDERS DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
1.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS NAVGEN IS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO RCN
MEMBERS, UNITS AND INSTITUTIONS FOR WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY RCN
MEMBERS AFTER  RELEASE.
2.  THE NAVY IS A PROUD AND HISTORICAL INSTITUTION THAT CULTIVATES
AN ETHOS FOR SERVICE, LOYALTY AND PRIDE WITHIN ITS MEMBERS. FOR
MANY, THIS ETHOS DOES NOT DIMINISH ONCE A MEMBER RETIRES OR LEAVES
THE NAVY.  INDEED, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SOME FORMER SERVICE
MEMBERS WISH TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED CONNECTION TO THE NAVY,
AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE RCN PUBLIC MESSAGES, BY
WEARING THEIR UNIFORMS ON CEREMONIAL AND COMMEMORATIVE OCCASIONS.
HAVING SAID THIS, THE IRREGULAR APPLICATION OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO WEARING OF UNIFORMS AFTER RELEASE
REQUIRES CLARIFICATION.
3. WHILE THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS WHEN NO LONGER A SERVING MEMBER OF
THE CAF IS, IAW REFERENCE C, QUOTE CONDITIONALLY UNQUOTE PERMITTED,
THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA IS, BY CUSTOM, GOVERNED BY AND
SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE BRANCH/REGIMENT CONCERNED.  FOR THE
RCN, THAT AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS FOR NON-ACTIVE
MEMBERS LIES SOLELY WITH THE COMMANDER OF THE RCN.
4.  IAW REF C, PERMISSION FOR FORMER SERVICE MEMBERS TO WEAR
UNIFORMS IS LIMITED AND REVOCABLE. ACCORDINGLY ALL STANDING
AUTHORITIES AS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED AT THE FORMATION, UNIT AND
INSTITUTION LEVEL FOR FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS TO WEAR UNIFORMS
ARE REVOKED. THIS ORDER SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED IN THEIR PLACE.
5.  IAW REF C, MESS DRESS IS A UNIFORM.  THEREFORE MESS DRESS IS NOT
AN ACCEPTABLE ORDER OF DRESS FOR RETIRED MEMBERS UNLESS PERMISSION
HAS BEEN GRANTED IAW QR AND O 17.06(3). SIMILAR TO OTHER ORDERS OF
DRESS, THE AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE WEARING OF MESS DRESS FOR FORMER
SERVICE MEMBERS LIES SOLELY WITH THE COMMANDER OF THE RCN.
6. THIS NAVGEN DOES NOT AFFECT HONORARY APPOINTMENTS WHICH ARE
GOVERNED AT REF E AND DOES NOT APPLY TO RCN MEMBERS WHO HAD SERVED
PREVIOUSLY AND ARE NOW ON TERMS OF SERVICE WITHIN THE PRIMARY
RESERVE.  SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE MEMBERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SERVING
MEMBERS AND ARE NOT, THEREFORE, AUTHORIZED TO WEAR UNIFORMS UNLESS
PERMISSION IS GRANTED IAW QR AND O 17.06(3).
7.  REQUESTS BY FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS TO WEAR UNIFORMS,
INCLUDING MESS DRESS, WILL BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
SUCH APPROVAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM IS NECESSARY AND WILL FAVORABLY
CONTRIBUTE TO THE RCN.  THESE OCCASIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED
CAREFULLY.  THERE ARE TOO MANY POSSIBLE SCENARIOS TO LIST ALL OF THE
EVENTS THAT MAY WARRANT WEARING OF A UNIFORM AFTER SERVICE.  EVENTS
SUCH AS SIGNIFICANT MILITARY ANNIVERSARIES CELEBRATED BY MESS DINNER
AND  AWARD PRESENTATIONS TO FORMER SERVICE  MEMBERS WHO ARE VERY
RECENTLY RETIRED MAY WARRANT, IF SUBSTANTIATED PROPERLY, THE WEARING
OF UNIFORMS. HOWEVER, MESS DINNERS, IN GENERAL, DO NOT WARRANT THE
WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY FORMER RCN MEMBERS.
8. ALL REQUESTS TO WEAR UNIFORMS (INCLUDING MESS DRESS) BY FORMER
RCN MEMBERS SHALL BE SENT, VIA LOCAL AND REGIONAL MESSES AND EVENT
ORGANIZERS, TO DIRECTOR NAVAL PERSONNEL AT DGNP.  A REQUEST SHOULD
BE SUBMITTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF EVENTS SO AS TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT
TIME TO PROCESS AND PROVIDE RESPONSES. SENDING A REQUEST DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE RECEIVING  PERMISSION.
9.  RCN INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS MESSES, SHALL ENSURE THAT THEIR
CONSTITUTIONS CLEARLY REFLECT THIS POLICY ON THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS
AND ARTICULATE THE PROCESS FOR  REQUESTING PERMISSION SHOULD THERE
BE AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT THAT WOULD WARRANT THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS
VICE EQUIVALENT CIVILIAN ATTIRE. BLANKET REQUESTS FOR EVENTS WILL
NOT BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT IN THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER RCN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENCOURAGED
TO INCLUDE THIS NAVGEN IN THEIR LIST OF REFERENCES AND ARE ASKED TO
MAKE SPECIFIC COMMENT IN INVITATIONS ABOUT WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY
RETIRED RCN MEMBERS.
10. AS COMMANDER RCN, I PRAISE AND THANK ALL WHO HAVE SERVED
PREVIOUSLY: I AM MOST REASSURED BY THE NUMBERS WHO WISH TO
DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED LOVE FOR AND LOYALTY TO THEIR NAVY.
HOWEVER, AS COMMANDER I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS
OF THE DAY AND THAT THEY, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, REMAIN SWORN TO
UNLIMITED LIABILITY IF ORDERED INTO HARM S WAY, AND THEREFORE MUST
BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH IN THE MANY EVENTS ATTENDED BY BOTH
CURRENT AND FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS.
11. CRCN SENDS


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2013)

Wow.  That's even more colossally stupid that I expected from the teasers.

From the last few paras, sounds like a retired individual at a mess dinner or other function was given an order, said "I'm retired", and someone senior got their knickers in a knot as a result.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wow.  That's even more colossally stupid that I expected from the teasers.
> 
> From the last few paras, sounds like a retired individual at a mess dinner or other function was given an order, said "I'm retired", and someone senior got their knickers in a knot as a result.


Or, based on this bit ....


> .... I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS OF THE DAY AND THAT THEY, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, REMAIN SWORN TO UNLIMITED LIABILITY IF ORDERED INTO HARM S WAY, AND THEREFORE MUST BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH IN THE MANY EVENTS ATTENDED BY BOTH CURRENT AND FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS ....


.... maybe some spiffily-dressed former sailor did something so bad, they wanted to make sure nobody thought s/he was a serving sailor?

Wonder how much energy this ate up?  Not to mention the energy yet to be expended on everyone who thinks their exception is the one to make.


----------



## Jed (17 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wow.  That's even more colossally stupid that I expected from the teasers.
> 
> From the last few paras, sounds like a retired individual at a mess dinner or other function was given an order, said "I'm retired", and someone senior got their knickers in a knot as a result.



So what is the recrimination to those Retired Members who choose to 'cover their blind eye' ala Nelson and wear their old mess kit to the local policemen's ball without properly completing the paperwork?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or, based on this bit ........ maybe some spiffily-dressed former sailor did something so bad, they wanted to make sure nobody thought s/he was a serving sailor?



No, he was still serving.

And pictures don't show him to be all that spiffy...


----------



## Privateer (17 Jun 2013)

I do not see how para. 6 (in regards to SUPP RES), can be squared with DAOD 5002-4, which reads:

"A Supp Res member *is authorized* to wear a uniform when on service or attending military entertainment or a ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate."

Note:  "IS authorized"; not "may be authorized".  Can CRCN overrule DAOD's on his own authority?  (And I do not think that one could end run the DAOD by trying to rewrite the DAOD to add "and no event is appropriate unless sanctioned in advance by command".)

Edit to add:  As DAODs are promulgated on the authority of CDS, the authorization in DAOD 5002-4 would seem to meet the requirement of QR&O 17.06(3)(b), and therefore be beyond the fiat of CRCN.


----------



## kratz (17 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, he was still serving.
> 
> And pictures don't show him to be all that spiffy...



With the current CDS, you are trying to tell me the RCAF did not put out an AIRGEN first for the same reason? (AKA R Williams),
Blaming this change on one sailor means the RCN would have made the change centuries ago.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2013)

kratz said:
			
		

> With the current CDS, you are trying to tell me the RCAF did not put out an AIRGEN first for the same reason? (AKA R Williams),
> Blaming this change on one sailor means the RCN would have made the change centuries ago.



Next time I'll add a  >


----------



## Monsoon (17 Jun 2013)

As you can see, the RCN is such a high-visibility institution that we really need to work to reduce the number of people wearing our uniform to society events. I'm certainly looking forward to going around mess dinners browbeating grey-hairs with copies of ss.130 and 419 of the Criminal Code for wearing their 50-year-old mess dress. "But thanks for coming to our dinner!"


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2013)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As you can see, the RCN is such a high-visibility institution that we really need to work to reduce the number of people wearing our uniform to society events. I'm certainly looking forward to going around mess dinners browbeating grey-hairs with copies of ss.130 and 419 of the Criminal Code for wearing their 50-year-old mess dress. "But thanks for coming to our dinner!"



Make sure they pay cash.


In advance.


----------



## Nostix (17 Jun 2013)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As you can see, the RCN is such a high-visibility institution that we really need to work to reduce the number of people wearing our uniform to society events. I'm certainly looking forward to going around mess dinners browbeating grey-hairs with copies of ss.130 and 419 of the Criminal Code for wearing their 50-year-old mess dress. "But thanks for coming to our dinner!"



This is totally in line with our policy of trying to kill mess user-ship completely.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, he was still serving.
> 
> *And pictures don't show him to be all that spiffy...*


.... anymore.

As usual, the many suffer for the few....


----------



## kratz (17 Jun 2013)

I've heard allot of Orwellian double speak, but the final para, after reading the context of the entire message plunged a 
plug into the heart of support for the RCN for years to come. With direction like this from the CRCN, 



> 10. AS COMMANDER RCN, I PRAISE AND THANK ALL WHO HAVE SERVED
> PREVIOUSLY: I AM MOST REASSURED BY THE NUMBERS WHO WISH TO
> DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED LOVE FOR AND LOYALTY TO THEIR NAVY.
> HOWEVER, AS COMMANDER I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS
> ...



What is the end state? Ending support for the service all together?
This message means no matter if you have 2 years or 30 years, your RCN service 
is worth crap compared to the sailor who just finished basic and is still serving.


----------



## Strike (17 Jun 2013)

So...what about those who are former members of the Canadian Navy and never members of the RCN?

I know.  Picking fly shit out of pepper but I am curious.


----------



## kratz (17 Jun 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> So...what about those who are former members of the Canadian Navy and never members of the RCN?
> 
> I know.  Picking fly crap out of pepper but I am curious.



Found all those pecks of fly in the pepper.... ;D

That big-a-boo announcement that no changes would cost money when changing
between the MARCOM to RCN title means that uniforms did not change.....except for
Elliot's Eye and as a retired member, if you have enough pride in the RCN to claim that,
then that tailoring is a small price to pay to maintain your pride IMO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jun 2013)

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3-a_eng.asp?id=861

Vice-Admiral Maddison was promoted to his present rank and assumed Command of the Royal Canadian Navy in July 2011. Since then he has been very active within his Command and across Canada promoting his “One Navy” vision along the key lines of:..yada, yada, yada...........being a complete stooge obviously is what he has done best.

You must be kidding me lad................


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jun 2013)

There's gonna be blow back on this. I wager the Honouraries are going to have something to say, as will the Association.


----------



## Haggis (17 Jun 2013)

Anyone catch the very distinct separation of the Regular Navy (the RCN) and the Primary Reserve Navy in para 6?



> 6. THIS NAVGEN DOES NOT AFFECT HONORARY APPOINTMENTS WHICH ARE
> GOVERNED AT REF E AND DOES NOT APPLY TO *RCN MEMBERS WHO HAD SERVED
> PREVIOUSLY AND ARE NOW ON TERMS OF SERVICE WITHIN THE PRIMARY
> RESERVE.*



There's that big black line again and, when you cross it, there be dragons!


----------



## Remius (17 Jun 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Anyone catch the very distinct separation of the Regular Navy (the RCN) and the Primary Reserve Navy in para 6?
> 
> There's that big black line again and, when you cross it, there be dragons!



How so?  it just states that one of the exceptions is retired RCN members on strength with the primary reserves.  they retired from the regular force but serve with the reserves ie are still serving.


----------



## DVC185 (17 Jun 2013)

Damn!!1  We should get a pool going for when this will be rescinded.

Any bets???   :


----------



## Occam (17 Jun 2013)

> 6. THIS NAVGEN DOES NOT AFFECT HONORARY APPOINTMENTS WHICH ARE
> GOVERNED AT REF E AND DOES NOT APPLY TO *RCN MEMBERS WHO HAD SERVED
> PREVIOUSLY AND ARE NOW ON TERMS OF SERVICE WITHIN THE PRIMARY
> RESERVE*.



And why stop at alienating one group of people (those who have hung up the uniform for good) when you can seemingly take a swipe at two.  Why wouldn't you say "...does not apply to Regular RCN members who had served previously and are now on terms of service within the Reserve RCN"?  Are Primary Reservists not in the RCN?

Dammit, so much for biting my tongue on this one.  Maybe next time.

edit:  Wooops...I now see that's exactly the point Haggis was trying to make in the post above.  Maybe I will sit this one out...   ;D


----------



## Strike (17 Jun 2013)

kratz said:
			
		

> Found all those pecks of fly in the pepper.... ;D
> 
> That big-a-boo announcement that no changes would cost money when changing
> between the MARCOM to RCN title means that uniforms did not change.....except for
> ...



But the mess kit always had the curl, didn't it?


----------



## kratz (18 Jun 2013)

Errr. nope.

Not in the pubs I am reading. Part of that whole lost Navy culture / amalgamation thing.

If this message is part of the revived RCN process, someone has not heard when 
to slow to 1/4 speed.  :nod:


----------



## cupper (18 Jun 2013)

He also didn't get the memo about sending messages in ALL CAPS. >


----------



## Occam (18 Jun 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> He also didn't get the memo about sending messages in ALL CAPS. >



Off-topic, but it's funny you mention that - http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130606/NEWS04/306060010/ALL-CAPS-MESSAGES-no-more.

The RCN will get around to doing the same when we buy new hardware and software, or we buy new ships - whichever happens first.  Probably the ships.   ;D


----------



## Danjanou (18 Jun 2013)

So who gets to tell this 90+ year old RCN WW2 vet who proudly wears his original uniform on Parade on Canada Day, Warriors Day Parade  and Nov 11th he can't anymore?  :


----------



## Haggis (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> How so?  it just states that one of the exceptions is retired RCN members on strength with the primary reserves.  they retired from the regular force but serve with the reserves ie are still serving.



The RCN is the RCN with two components, Regular and Primary Reserve.  If you retire from the Regular Force and join the Primary Reserve you are still a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Why make the distinction between the two if they will continue to serve together in complementary roles?


----------



## jpjohnsn (18 Jun 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The RCN is the RCN with two components, Regular and Primary Reserve.  If you retire from the Regular Force and join the Primary Reserve you are still a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Why make the distinction between the two if they will continue to serve together in complementary roles?


I guess this explicitly means that people who transfer from the Regular Force or PRes to COATS are now out of luck.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The RCN is the RCN with two components, Regular and Primary Reserve.  If you retire from the Regular Force and join the Primary Reserve you are still a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.  Why make the distinction between the two if they will continue to serve together in complementary roles?



Without that clarification, Para 5 would seem to indicate that retired members cannot wear mess dress, even if they were class A or B.  Para 6 clarifies that retired members who serve with the reserves can indeed still wear their mess kit at functions.  

As well, a retired RCN member may be be on class A or B outside of the RCN as well which is why it states Primary Reserves and not NAVRES.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2013)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> So who gets to tell this 90+ year old RCN WW2 vet who proudly wears his original uniform on Parade on Canada Day, Warriors Day Parade  and Nov 11th he can't anymore?  :



I think line 11 of the CANNAVYGEN should be the person to do it.... in front of a news camera.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think line 11 of the CANNAVYGEN should be the person to do it.... in front of a news camera.



Does the CF have any authority over who can wear those uniforms?  And would it be a criminal code offence to wear those specific antiquated uniforms?

none of them I am sure are in the dress regs.


----------



## Tank Troll (18 Jun 2013)

10. AS COMMANDER RCN, I PRAISE AND THANK ALL WHO HAVE SERVED
PREVIOUSLY: I AM MOST REASSURED BY THE NUMBERS WHO WISH TO
DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED LOVE FOR AND LOYALTY TO THEIR NAVY.
HOWEVER, AS COMMANDER I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS
OF THE DAY AND THAT THEY, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, REMAIN SWORN TO
UNLIMITED LIABILITY IF ORDERED INTO HARM S WAY, AND THEREFORE MUST
BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH IN THE MANY EVENTS ATTENDED BY BOTH
CURRENT AND FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS

Does he not now that he can't order PRes "INTO HARM S WAY"? Nor do they come under the "UNLIMITED LIABILITY " hence the 85% pay. Or are Navel Reserves Different  in that regard than Army Reserves? Is there a distinct difference in there dress? If not then how can they "BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH"


----------



## medicineman (18 Jun 2013)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> So who gets to tell this 90+ year old RCN WW2 vet who proudly wears his original uniform on Parade on Canada Day, Warriors Day Parade  and Nov 11th he can't anymore?  :



The Commander of the RCN...through some MP/RCMP flunkie so he doesn't get laid out  :nod:

MM


----------



## kratz (18 Jun 2013)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Does he not now that he can't order PRes "INTO HARM S WAY"? Nor do they come under the "UNLIMITED LIABILITY " hence the 85% pay. Or are Navel Reserves Different  in that regard than Army Reserves? Is there a distinct difference in there dress? If not then how can they "BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH"



See para 6 where PRes is no longer part of the "One Navy" concept.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> 10. AS COMMANDER RCN, I PRAISE AND THANK ALL WHO HAVE SERVED
> PREVIOUSLY: I AM MOST REASSURED BY THE NUMBERS WHO WISH TO
> DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED LOVE FOR AND LOYALTY TO THEIR NAVY.
> HOWEVER, AS COMMANDER I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS
> ...



That by far is the dumbest part of whole reasoning behind this.  I suppose he can for those on Class C service or if an order in council were declared but essentially you have a good point.  In the army it depends on the units and branches.  Most infantry and armoured units have distinct differences in their orders of dress and certainly in their mess kit with a few noatble exceptions (4 RCR comes to mind) but many have the same uniforms and have no real distinction.


----------



## jpjohnsn (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Does the CF have any authority over who can wear those uniforms?  And would it be a criminal code offence to wear those specific antiquated uniforms?
> 
> none of them I am sure are in the dress regs.


Don't have the most current dress regs in front of me but IIRC, there is a paragraph about the wearing of obsolete uniforms and that permission is required to wear them.

The RCAF has taken real ownership of the former uniforms and accoutrements since just before the renaming.   There is a living history group near me that does WW2 and "Golden Age" RCAF impressions and they had Winnipeg contact them to check them out about 6 months ahead of the name change.   They must have impressed someone because they got a thumbs-up and members who were also CF members got permission to wear the old uniforms during events providing they wore their equivalent former rank and insignia (i.e. no MCpls playing S/L with a set of pilot wings).


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Don't have the most current dress regs in front of me but IIRC, there is a paragraph about the wearing of obsolete uniforms and that permission is required to wear them.



From A-AD-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions:



> *UNLAWFUL AND LAWFUL USE OF MILITARY UNIFORMS *
> (Page 2-1-112)
> 
> 49. Under Section 419 of the Criminal Code of Canada, everyone who, without lawful authority, the proof of which lies upon him:
> ...


----------



## jpjohnsn (18 Jun 2013)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> From A-AD-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions:


That's the one, thanks.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2013)

Didn't think this would cut so deep.  Having not (1) been a member of the Navy and (2) retired, is there really a big passion with wearing a uniform once retired?

I've always said to myself that once I'm out, I'm out and I'll put my medals on my blazer.  I found it awkward when a civilian attended a mess dinner in his Mess Kit with the rank of LCol (which he retired at).  He wore the trappings of someone who could give a lawful command, but in reality had no such legal authority.


----------



## Strike (18 Jun 2013)

Perhaps, wrt mess kit, the answer is to include some type of accoutrement that identifies the wearer as retired?  Maybe a specific colour of stripe on the pant/skirt for example?


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

Thanks Michael O'Leary and jpjohnsn.

Answers my question.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Didn't think this would cut so deep.  Having not (1) been a member of the Navy and (2) retired, is there really a big passion with wearing a uniform once retired?
> 
> I've always said to myself that once I'm out, I'm out and I'll put my medals on my blazer.  I found it awkward when a civilian attended a mess dinner in his Mess Kit with the rank of LCol (which he retired at).  He wore the trappings of someone who could give a lawful command, but in reality had no such legal authority.



If anyone's in a state to give a lawful command after the first 30 minutes, it's not a very successful mess dinner.


----------



## kratz (18 Jun 2013)

NavGen 022/13 meets the spirit of Cf 265 WRT RCN dress:

As I posted earlier the NavGen effectively kills public support the the RCN after service.
The intent will be lost in the delivery of this message.

If there was not such a large issue of Maritime Blindness, and
the general public not knowing the RCN was present in most communities,
this would not be an issue. 

Reading previous posts on this site show that people who live in Halifax or Victoria did not even recognize
an RCN uniform, let alone asking people in Regina or Charlottetown if Canada has a Navy.

Instead, this order wants to make public awareness worse and alienate previous service. 
Hope nobody is bitter when the retire from the RCN.

I lament those past days when an order or law was passed that was well thought out and could stand the test of time.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

To be honest I'm on teh fence with this. I agree with Infanteer, I think I'd rather get to wear a snazzy tux or dinner jacket with my medals at mess functions.

But I think that message should have given local COs the delegated authority to make the call on an event by event basis.  So if HMCS Narnia has a special annual dinner commemorating the battle of skull pass, then I think he can make the call if tradition, and the Navy reputation won't be put in disrepute is the right call to make.  

Not saying that it should be abused but that he trusts hsi subordinte commanders to make that call as they will have a better feel for sub-unit traditions and dinner etc etc.

I'm looking at this from an army persepective where every unit has different traditions and I would like to think that the army trusts its COs to make those kinds of calls.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So if HMCS Narnia has a special annual dinner commemorating the battle of skull pass,


That is still covered under OPSEC, no talking about it!
However, if one were to hold a dinner in this most famous of battles I believe the dress is loin cloths with clubs as standard accoutrements.

In all seriousness I do find this to be somewhat disheartening, and I'm not even a member of the RCN.  As stated above how do they deal with the veterans that wish to show pride in the uniform they wore while serving during Rememberance Day and other notable events such as D-Day dinners?  I know they can request special permission on a case by case basis, but I highly doubt retired members that are living out their twilight years read or even care about recent NAVGEN's or even CANFORGEN's for that matter anymore.


----------



## Remius (18 Jun 2013)

kratz said:
			
		

> NavGen 022/13 meets the spirit of Cf 265 WRT RCN dress:
> 
> As I posted earlier the NavGen effectively kills public support the the RCN after service.
> The intent will be lost in the delivery of this message.
> ...



Kratz, I know thsi is something you have at heart but does allowing former and retired members really increase that public perception and awarness?  I'm willing to bet most or a lot of events are at night and you get out of a cab and go inside.  I think the Navy could do a lot better than that to raise awareness.  I don't think this will raise or lower awareness in the general public.  

But as you have proven, it will indeed tick off serving and retired members.

I'd really like to see what motivated this message.


----------



## Jed (18 Jun 2013)

Very interesting reading all the opinions on this NavGen. What really surprises me is not that a not very well thought out NavGen was sent out, but that there seems to be a number of experienced folks that are blind to the folly of it.

Of course this is just my opinion, but this is a dumb NavGen. No good can come of following this order to the letter. It is my hope that someone acknowledges the stupidity and corrects it shortly.

I have no dog in this fight, so other than to see a fault corrected, I personally am not fussed either way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2013)

I attended a dinner at The local Reserve Chiefs' and POs' Mess in Feb. The order was already in force for them even though the NAVGEN just came out.

They were, to say the least, a very pissed off bunch of serving and retired members. There was not one that was in any way, shape, or form, in agreement with this 'order'.

Those in attendance that were civies also thought it was an utter disgrace for retired members to be treated that way.

There was much respect lost that night for those that designed and implemented this ridiculous agenda.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

I really hope this doesn't count if you have tattoos of a naval symbol.  :crybaby:


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I really hope this doesn't count if you have tattoos of a naval symbol.  :crybaby:



I hear Health Services is investing in some industrial sanders for exit medical examinations...  >


----------



## kratz (18 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Kratz, I know this is something you have at heart but does allowing former and retired members really increase that public perception and awareness?  I'm willing to bet most or a lot of events are at night and you get out of a cab and go inside.  I think the Navy could do a lot better than that to raise awareness.  I don't think this will raise or lower awareness in the general public.
> 
> But as you have proven, it will indeed tick off serving and retired members.
> 
> I'd really like to see what motivated this message.



Crantor, 

Thank you for being sensitive to this bone I have. 

Your scenario is correct for official BOA, Remembrance Day or mess dinners.
In a main city such as Halifax or Victoria, a commander could miss those retired vets.
Oh! Wait!! He gave us SH!T this year and ordered us to attend BOA even if we are on leave,
even attempting to enforce class A to attend.

Yet if you wore the uniform and are retired, nope can't wear it now.

More importantly are the small rural towns Crantor. Someone retires to North Battlford SK, 
his RCN uniform might be the only one in the crowd. With this order, he can not normally  wear it.

This message also denies weddings, funerals and other important "life events"
that would celebrate a sailor's life.

Drunknsubmrmr, sumbit a claim to the crown for the laser removal.  >


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

I could submit a claim but I'm pretty sure all I'd get is a Chief with a cheese grater and a bottle of rum.


----------



## kratz (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I could submit a claim but I'm pretty sure all I'd get is a Chief with a cheese grater and a bottle of rum.



Free rum? It might be worth.....waaaaiiit a moment. Where in the NavGen did it say that?  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I could submit a claim but I'm pretty sure all I'd get is a Chief with a cheese grater and a bottle of rum.



You can't have free rum without the other two pillars of navy tradition. Although, prudent application of the lash may alleviate the tattoo problem. Now you just have to submit to that third one


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (18 Jun 2013)

Ok then...maybe declining the free rum. 

Just the Chief and a cheese grater. Owww....


----------



## Towards_the_gap (18 Jun 2013)

I NEVER comment on the Navy threads, simply because my experience with the senior service was limited to a couple of Chief Clerks.

However, I've read this thread with great interest, and join the throng in exclaiming that this message is ridiculous in the least.

What operational effect will this serve? What problem was evident in the first place that dictated the need for this order?

But what I would really like to see is if it is actually enforced. I.E. Will Constable Bloggins actually charge LCdr Jones, RCN (Retd) with the offence contrary to whatever criminal code section is it, and see it successfully prosecuted?

It brings to mind that old adage. A good leader does not issue orders he knows won't be followed. Methinks Comd RCN is perhaps a little out of touch.


----------



## McG (19 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> But what I would really like to see is if it is actually enforced. I.E. Will Constable Bloggins actually charge LCdr Jones, RCN (Retd) with the offence contrary to whatever criminal code section is it, and see it successfully prosecuted?


Enforcing the criminal code of Canada on civilians is outside the preview of the Comd RCN.  However, his ships captains now have their orders and civilians may find their access refused if they turn out to a CAF event in RCN uniform sans authorization.

Uniforms are usually a sign of on-going service, and military uniforms bear marks of authority in the rank insignia.  The significance of the military uniform even has specific recognition in international law.  It does not seem unreasonable that the RCN may only want currently serving members who are accountable under the NDA to be wearing the uniform.

Do most police forces in this country allow retired members to throw on the uniform and go for a public stroll?  Do the Boy Scouts allow past leaders to just show-up in uniform at the jamboree?  I really don't know the answer to these questions - does this message put the RCN on a different footing than most other uniformed groups responsible for some element of public trust?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jun 2013)

All good points, I guess it just seems petty. And I am curious as to what event or situation brought about the need for this message.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2013)

I hesitated to weigh in, but this policy seems, to me, to be part of a _revision_ of "customs of the service" to something akin to those that existed 50 years ago - when ALL the officers giving these orders were still in knee pants.

When I was a young, junior officer, a full half century ago, retired members did not wear uniforms: not to dinner nights, not to ceremonies, not ever. Of course there were exceptions: I recall a whole platoon - maybe just a large section - of vets in 1943 battle dress on a Remembrance Day parade. I have no idea if they were invited by the organizers but no one said or (as far as I could tell) cared anything - it was 11 Nov, after all.

But, formal dinner nights: _*a)*_ serving officers - mess kit; and _*b) *_all others (including just retired members, even those still on terminal leave) - white tie (black tie, later, when someone decreed that it was the equivalent of mess kit).*

But that was fifty years ago ~ many (most of you?) weren't even born! Do we really need to turn all the clocks back?

Personally, I never wore my mess kit after I retired ~ but that's probably an age thing. But it is, also, related to MCG's second point about uniforms being a sign of "on-going service." When I attend a Regimental dinner night I wear black tie with the appropriate, Regimental, shirt studs and my (few and undistinguished) medals to indicate my former service.

_____
* We used to draw a clear distinction between "formal," "semi-formal" and "informal." Formal was mess kit and the civilian/retired equivalent was white tie, semi-formal was patrol dress and the civilian/retired equivalent was black tie, informal was a lounge suit for all.








 = civilian equivalent = 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Formal wear: mess kit and white tie






 = civilian equivalent = 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Semi-formal wear: patrol dress and black tie


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Jun 2013)

I don't know what the initiating incident was that sparked this order, but it could be titled "3-Star Tries to Reiterate Existing Policy in a Ham-Fisted Confusing Manner That Alienates Veterans and Some Serving Members"

First, Supplementary Reservists are authorized to wear uniforms at appropriate occasions. And they are considered serving members. The four components of the Reserve Force are PRes, Supp Res, COATS and Rangers. That's OPME 101. Everyone should know that Supp Reservists are members of the CF.

Secondly, who is a "former RCN member"? Does this order apply to a retired Land Uniform Supply Tech that was once posted to HMCS Preserver? Because he's a former member of an RCN unit. Does it apply to a Navy Uniform Comm Researcher that joins, gets posted to 21 EW Regiment, then to CFIOG, then releases? He's never served in an RCN unit, or even a unit was on the distribution list of NAVGEN messages.

I  understand what the RCN is trying to do -- reiterate existing policy -- but this message should have been distributed under the CDS's authority as a CANFORGEN, and it could have used some serious editing.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jun 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I don't know what the initiating incident was that sparked this order, but it could be titled "3-Star Tries to Reiterate Existing Policy in a Ham-Fisted Confusing Manner That Alienates Veterans and Some Serving Members"



Milpoints for that.

I only commented on this thread as my late Step-dad, (late RCR), used to wear his mess dress on rare occasions, one of which was my wedding. He certainly didn't write the CDS to ask permission to do so, but neither was he subsequently pictured in a local paper drunk, urinating on a church door, with his buttons undone and shoes unpolished. Therefore there was no damage done to the corporate image of the RCR.

I suppose my point is that those who would still wear RCN mess dress post-retirement are A)of suitable rank to have purchased it, and B)therefore smart enough to know when to wear it in the appropriate circumstance and manner.

But I do get the point of 'official uniforms' as pointed out by MCG. I certainly won't be wearing my DEU's anytime soon, nor would I wear my OFS uniform for social events (outside of those times when authorised to by the Fire Chief).


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> Do most police forces in this country allow retired members to throw on the uniform and go for a public stroll?



I do not recall ever seeing retired members of the Emergency Services ( in Toronto, at least ) wearing uniforms. Not to say it never happened, but I never heard of it.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Milpoints for that.
> 
> I only commented on this thread as my late Step-dad, (late RCR), used to wear his mess dress on rare occasions, one of which was my wedding. He certainly didn't write the CDS to ask permission to do so, but neither was he subsequently pictured in a local paper drunk, urinating on a church door, with his buttons undone and shoes unpolished. Therefore there was no damage done to the corporate image of the RCR.
> 
> ...



[Anal Retentive, so wholly appropriate]

The damage only came when you referred to the RCR instead of The RCR.

[/Anal Retentive, so wholly appropriate]


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jun 2013)

I went and painted 21 rocks, alternating between black, gold and royal blue, then dressed them off in column of three's, all the while whistling 'St Catherines', in penance.


----------



## Monsoon (19 Jun 2013)

Just read a newspaper article about the change of command ceremony at "The" Second Battalion of The Royal Canadian Regiment. You people even have the media over-drilled.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Jun 2013)

Total tangent, but am I the only one surprised that Megamind ended up as a Royal Sigs officer?


----------



## chrisf (20 Jun 2013)

Of course you all realize none of this carries much legal weight with former members anyway...who are no longer subject to the qr&o's... So aside from attending mess dinners or unit events, if you're one of those folks who feels the need to "impress" people by wearing mess kit post retirement, you can probably go for it without much worry... A lot of money gets spent on those things, might as well get a bit if use out if it.

On the same subject, the old WWII vet wearing his uniform on Remembrance Day, you'd have to convince a *civillian* judge that the individual had violated section 419 of the criminal code, and that he had criminal intent in doing so... Good luck with that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Total tangent, but am I the only one surprised that Megamind ended up as a Royal Sigs officer?



Further on the tangent ...

Because I didn't "get" the _Megamind_ reference I _Googled_ it to find:






So I'm guessing that the reference is to the officers's bald head. That prompted me to find out more about him. His name was Mike Parke, he was a RSigs officer who died of cancer in 2011; something about him here.

I should have done that research before using that picture; had I done so I would, probably, have chosen a different one. My point was to remind members of the formal/mess kit/white tie vs. semi-formal/patrol dress/black tie distinction that was the norm and which still exists in some places.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jun 2013)

I would like to make an observation regarding veterans of the previous single service RCN wearing their old uniform at events such as Remembrance Day and Battle of the Atlantic Sunday. It seems to me that the head sailor prohibited ex-members from wearing current uniforms after retirement and "square rig" et al are no longer authorized items of dress, and hence not covered by the ban.


----------



## bigcletus (20 Jun 2013)

[quote author=
On the same subject, the old WWII vet wearing his uniform on Remembrance Day, you'd have to convince a *civillian* judge that the individual had violated section 419 of the criminal code, and that he had criminal intent in doing so... Good luck with that.
[/quote]

The resulting public and media storm would send any commander to duck and cover should any old vet be arrested/detained for attending a function in his former uniform...


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

Agreed.  And would likely lead to a costly exercise at revising the rules in an effort to save face.  Better to just leave things alone in cases like that.


----------



## bigcletus (20 Jun 2013)

I just checked with a buddy, retired 8 CH and RCMP...on his retirement card there is box that is checked that says " "Authorized to Wear Uniform"  ....

He said as an RCMP member he'd NEVER charge a vet with a uniform offence only for wearing it to functions..(unless he was trying to defraud someone etc)..


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2013)

bigcletus said:
			
		

> I just checked with a buddy, retired 8 CH and RCMP...on his retirement card there is box that is checked that says " "Authorized to Wear Uniform"  ....



"A questions ( sic ) has been raised about retired RCMP Veterans being permitted to wear their Red Serge for specific events."

http://www.rcmpveteransvancouver.com/veterans-wearing-red-serge/


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

So the Commissioner may authorise just like the head of the RCN may authorise.  In this case the RCN has revoked that permission.

But, the RCMP seems to have a more defined ruleset that gives the exact parameters.  In the U.S. most services have similar parameters that let's retired members know what they can and can't do.

This is what is bothersome about the RCNs decision.  It doesn't trust its former members to know when and where they can let alone delegate those powers to sub unit commanders for fear of the Navy being brought into disrepute (by members who have been released with honour and presumably with significant careers). 

I've found that if anyone brings the service into disrepute, it's normally serving members and at times they are in uniform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2013)

Even the _Globe and Mail_ says this is a silly decision in an editorial entitled: Navy should let veterans wear their uniforms without prior permission.

But I think Cantor is right: good, sensible, clear rules should/can put this to bed.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I do not recall ever seeing retired members of the Emergency Services ( in Toronto, at least ) wearing uniforms. Not to say it never happened, but I never heard of it.



Forgot to mention, and too late to add, that my former Department does allow retired members to join the Honour Guard. ( Now called Chief's Ceremonial Unit. )

They attend about 70 different functions each year. 

Even though retired, for liability reasons, they get paid by the City when on duty ( Paid Duty ). Because, when in uniform, they are expected by the public to respond if when there is a medical emergency at the location.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Forgot to mention, and too late to add, that my former Department does allow retired members to join the Honour Guard. ( Now called Chief's Ceremonial Unit. )
> 
> They attend about 70 different functions each year.
> 
> Even though retired, for liability reasons, they get paid by the City when on duty ( Paid Duty ). Because, when in uniform, they are expected by the public to respond if when there is a medical emergency at the location.



They get paid?!  Is this standard practice or something local?


----------



## chrisf (20 Jun 2013)

Crantor said:
			
		

> They get paid?!  Is this standard practice or something local?



It's not at all an odd sort of thing, if they're paid, they're insured by workmans comp.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

I guess.  I don't see it as an issue if they were doing actual EMS work but this seems more like a nice to have. 

In the CF, are associate band members in uniform paid or is it more of a volunteer thing?  I thought they were unpaid.

And they are retired, so workers comp? 

I'm pleading ignorance because I just don't know how it works.


----------



## chrisf (20 Jun 2013)

Associate band members are volunteers, and no, would not be covered by workmans comp, as they were volunteers, although if they were paid, they still wouldn't be covered by workmans comp, as the military is self insured/disabilities are covered by veterans affairs.

Actually, the whole band volunteer thing is weirder, I don't understand how they have volunteers parade with/travel with units, somone must have come up with somthing to cover any potential liability resulting from injuries... but that's outside the scope of retired members wearing uniforms.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Associate band members are volunteers, and no, would not be covered by workmans comp, as they were volunteers, although if they were paid, they still wouldn't be covered by workmans comp, as the military is self insured/disabilities are covered by veterans affairs.
> 
> Actually, the whole band volunteer thing is weirder, I don't understand how they have volunteers parade with/travel with units, somone must have come up with somthing to cover any potential liability resulting from injuries... but that's outside the scope of retired members wearing uniforms.



I looked at the EMS honour guard site for more info.  I have no issues with the concept put I have difficulty seeing why any city's EMS would need a paid drill team (with rifles no less) and why they would pay retired members to be part of it and need to travel around the continent putting on shows and competing.

I'll leave it at that since it's derailing this thread.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It's not at all an odd sort of thing, if they're paid, they're insured by workmans comp.



I hadn't considered WSIB ( although that may well be a part of it ). 

But, Paid Duty does allow the City to cover itself, and retired members, under the Insurance and Risk Management ( IRM ) policies from damages due to a "wrongful act".

"Wrongful act means any act, error, omission or beach of duty." 

They also need the insurance to drive their transport bus.


----------



## cupper (20 Jun 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> On the same subject, the old WWII vet wearing his uniform on Remembrance Day, you'd have to convince a *civillian* judge that the individual had violated section 419 of the criminal code, and that he had criminal intent in doing so... Good luck with that.



Never mind that, try and find a prosecutor who would move forward on this. It would be a case of either:

a) a complete waste of taxpayer's money and the systems's time, or 

b) he knows full well that he would get his butt handed to him by the judge for (a).


----------



## McG (20 Jun 2013)

I can think of several other threads where guys were ready to form a lynch mob after civvies wearing uniforms.  At those times, nobody questions the notion that a judge might have no difficulty enforcing the relevant section of the criminal code.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2013)

Locally, they've been told it's largely for mess and social functions. If a retired person appears at the mess for a dinner, in uniform, he's to be escorted out after being informed of the rule.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I can think of several other threads where guys were ready to form a lynch mob after civvies wearing uniforms.  At those times, nobody questions the notion that a judge might have no difficulty enforcing the relevant section of the criminal code.



There's also a huge difference between someone that served their country with honour and respectably retired, wearing their uniform and a fucking walt looking for attention.

Another red herring, like comparing a closed formal dinner to a boy scout jamboree. 

Apples and rocks.


----------



## Privateer (20 Jun 2013)

I find it strange that Vice Admiral Maddison chose to send out this message six days before he retired as CRCN.  This was so critical that he had to deal with it before turning over command?  His parting gift to the veterans he joins today?  Its strikes me as a weird way to go out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2013)

Privateer said:
			
		

> I find it strange that Vice Admiral Maddison chose to send out this message six days before he retired as CRCN.  This was so critical that he had to deal with it before turning over command?  His parting gift to the veterans he joins today?  Its strikes me as a weird way to go out.


Then again, if people complained, and he thought it was the right thing to do, he didn't leave it as "next guy's problem".  Especially considering he appears to be cutting himself off, too - but I'm sure _his_ request for permission to wear a uniform would be considered in the same long, slow, bureaucratic way retired PO Bloggins' request would be, right?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Locally, they've been told it's largely for mess and social functions. If a retired person appears at the mess for a dinner, in uniform, he's to be escorted out after being informed of the rule.


Even if you have to enforce the letter of the law, kicking a vet out of a function is pretty f***ing shabby.   :not-again:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Even if you have to enforce the letter of the law, kicking a vet out of a function is pretty f***ing shabby.   :not-again:



Just passing on what I was told. I'm army this is a navy thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just passing on what I was told. I'm army this is a navy thing.


Understood - just railing at the idea.

Meanwhile, if reported correctly here, a bit more behind the alleged "why" of the new way of doing things:


> .... The order was issued after senior naval officers complained that retired officers wore their formal uniforms, or mess kits, at a gala dinner held to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic at the Canadian War Museum in early May.
> 
> “The mess kit is a formal uniform of active service members and is not to be worn after retirement,” wrote a senior naval officer in an email to a Gala organizer.
> 
> “This is clearly against Queen’s Regulations and Orders and cannot be condoned,” he wrote in the email obtained by Torstar News Service ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2013)

> “The mess kit is a formal uniform of active service members and is not to be worn after retirement,” wrote a senior naval officer in an email to a Gala organizer.



I have no idea what QR&O says, nor am I especially interested, but this goes back to the very valid, in my opinion, points made by Infanteer and MCG: a uniform is worn by serving members, we retired members wear our blazers or dinner jackets and our medals.

The irate senior officer is trying to turn back the clock to a time when the "rules" didn't need to be written down, we learned them by example - and maybe he's succeeding.


----------



## McG (20 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's also a huge difference between someone that served their country with honour and respectably retired, wearing their uniform and a fucking walt looking for attention.


Emotionally maybe, but under the law both are civilians dressing as currently serving members.  Where do you draw the line?  Does the Pte(R) who completes his TOS without reaching OFP then get to wear the uniform?  What about the guy who was a multi-tour vet but released 5f?  The law does not make distinctions in this area.  If the law does not distinguish, why would we expect a judge to hammer one group while condoning another for the exact same act of dressing as a service member while not currently being one?

I know a number of retired senior officers who feel entitled to toss around the weight of their former rank - who controls this at a major event where pers do not all know each other but the civilians are dressed as service members?  Comd RCN has decided that he will exercise this control for the navy uniform.


----------



## Occam (20 Jun 2013)

Over the course of the last 28 years that I've had close contact in one way or another with the Reg F, I know several members who bought a mess kit with the express intent of wearing it for mess dinners post-retirement.  No intention of wearing their #1 order of dress on any occasion, or anything like that.  The mess kit was bought for a social function which has direct ties to their military service.  I don't see the harm in that.

Anyone that tries to toss their weight around during a mess dinner ought to be told to take up the matter the next working day...in the serving member's office, should there be a disagreement between a serving member and a retired member.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jun 2013)

I attended a mess dinner in Chatham where several ex-member wore their mess kit and medals... albeit with all the badges removed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Jun 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> Emotionally maybe, but under the law both are civilians dressing as currently serving members.  Where do you draw the line?  Does the Pte(R) who completes his TOS without reaching OFP then get to wear the uniform?  What about the guy who was a multi-tour vet but released 5f?  The law does not make distinctions in this area.  If the law does not distinguish, why would we expect a judge to hammer one group while condoning another for the exact same act of dressing as a service member while not currently being one?
> 
> I know a number of retired senior officers who feel entitled to toss around the weight of their former rank - who controls this at a major event where pers do not all know each other but the civilians are dressed as service members?  Comd RCN has decided that he will exercise this control for the navy uniform.



Hopefully the next step is to put a muzzle on wives who wear their husbands ranks?   >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2013)

If this were an army rule, I would simply have to remove my rank and collar dogs and there would be nothing anyone could say,

Mess kit is simply a military cut tuxedo and I paid for it.

It doesn't become a uniform until the rank and unit identifiers are applied.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (21 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hopefully the next step is to put a muzzle on wives who wear their husbands ranks?   >


Why would they wear their husband's rank? I always thought wives were atleast one rank higher than their spouse??!!


----------



## Jungle (21 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hopefully the next step is to put a muzzle on wives who wear their husbands ranks?   >



That reminds me of a story from a friend's wife who was working at the Petawawa CANEX video club in the late 80s/ early 90s:

- Video store clerk: "Oh, you have a movie that is 2 days late..."
- Customer: "Humm... do you know who I am" ?
- "No..."
- "I'm Mrs Major (husband's name)..."
- Ok, but you owe $6..."


----------



## Danjanou (21 Jun 2013)

Like other's I have the nice suit, blazers and/or tux hanging in the closet ready to go with appropriate bling. Any uniforms I still own probably don't fit and come out once a year along with some other moldy bits and pieces so the Youth Ed chair at our Legion can use them for displays at Legion Week in Sept. 

If I really wanted to go to a mess function and/or play dress up I could always join JM's favourite unit  8)

http://www.frontiersmenhistorian.info/canada.htm


That said I find the manner in which this appears to have been done. As a young and new M/cpl waay back when I was given excellent advice about giving idiotic orders that would not be obeyed and then stuck with the consequences of my immaturity.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (21 Jun 2013)

> “The mess kit is a formal uniform of active service members and is not to be worn after retirement,” wrote a senior naval officer in an email to a Gala organizer.
> 
> “This is clearly against Queen’s Regulations and Orders and cannot be condoned,” he wrote in the email obtained by Torstar News Service ....



I really hope that quote is taken out of context and the Admiral in question isn't really that pompous.

Maybe the worst thing about the Admiral Byng affair was that it wasn't regularly repeated. You'd probably see a bit different attitude if it had been.


----------



## Strike (21 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If this were an army rule, I would simply have to remove my rank and collar dogs and there would be nothing anyone could say,
> 
> Mess kit is simply a military cut tuxedo and I paid for it.
> 
> It doesn't become a uniform until the rank and unit identifiers are applied.



Funny you mention that.  I think I recall seeing a retired Navy officer who did just that (removed rank) on his mess kit but wore it at local functions in Kingston.  People asked why he had no rank on what was obviously mess kit and he answered that he was retired.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jun 2013)

Nice to see the RCN focusing on the important issues of operating a military force once again  > after handling the SSI and Executive Curl *conflicts*.  

 ;D

All the talk about RCN DEU issues, C Army Pips and Crowns, and RCAF Mess Kits, etc...we'll soon a need a CF version of "Fashion Now" or something to keep track of it all.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jun 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> People asked why he had no rank on what was obviously mess kit and he answered that he was retired.



Is that common?

"Mess Uniform use by Retired Members"  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108682/post-1195734.html#msg1195734

"Every year at one of our functions, past members show up in thier ( sic ) mess kit, minus any rank.  I plan to do the same."


----------



## Jed (21 Jun 2013)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Is that common?
> 
> "Mess Uniform use by Retired Members"
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108682/post-1195734.html#msg1195734
> ...


that is just plain strange.  the guy was still a retired whatever his rank was. each to his own I guess. 

_- mod edit to fix quote box -_


----------



## medicineman (21 Jun 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nice to see the RCN focusing on the important issues of operating a military force once again  > after handling the SSI and Executive Curl *conflicts*.
> 
> ;D
> 
> All the talk about RCN DEU issues, C Army Pips and Crowns, and RCAF Mess Kits, etc...we'll soon a need a CF version of "Fashion Now" or something to keep track of it all.



Maybe some of us should get together over some barley sandwiches and come up with a new "Idiot's Guide to Canadian Armed Forces Dress Policies"...and publish it as such.  Wonder how much we'd get for royaltiy cheques...

MM


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jun 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nice to see the RCN focusing on the important issues of operating a military force once again  > after handling the SSI and Executive Curl *conflicts*.
> 
> ;D
> 
> All the talk about RCN DEU issues, C Army Pips and Crowns, and RCAF Mess Kits, etc...we'll soon a need a CF version of "Fashion Now" or something to keep track of it all.



Here we have three classic examples of wasting time and effort on trivia while the real issues languish.  :nana:  

MM, the first rounds on me.   :cheers:


----------



## Danjanou (21 Jun 2013)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Maybe some of us should get together over some barley sandwiches and come up with a new "Idiot's Guide to Canadian Armed Forces Dress Policies"...and publish it as such.  Wonder how much we'd get for royaltiy cheques...
> 
> MM



I'm in  >


----------



## Haggis (21 Jun 2013)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Maybe some of us should get together over some barley sandwiches and come up with a new "Idiot's Guide to Canadian Armed Forces Dress Policies"...and publish it as such.  Wonder how much we'd get for royalty cheques...



You cannot have a Dress Committee without a CWO.

Sign me up - particularly if Old Sweat s buying.  :cheers:


----------



## MARS (21 Jun 2013)

You are, of course, going to require a naval officer to be a stick in the mud since, well, since it appears the navy started this whole ball rolling  

I know, I know, you guys were talking pips and crowns well before the navy got involved, but hey, we actually implemented stuff!  And we are releasing messages!  In all caps to boot.  ;D

I'm in


----------



## Towards_the_gap (21 Jun 2013)

If it is an 'active duty' uniform, should not the RCN provide it out of the pubic public purse?
                                                                                                         ^typo^ 


If no, then why should people keep shelling out shekels for something they won't ever be allowed to wear after they depart.

Also, the argument that 'it's an active uniform and we can't have people mistaking retired pers for those still in' falls a bit short when you consider the amount of times an officer would be required to exercise his lawful authority when in mess kit. Do you navy guys wear it when you're driving the boat or something? Is it some hellish way of keeping the duty officer awake? Standard dress for boarding parties after 1800hrs (one never wants to call oneself any sort of party in the wrong order of dress right?)? I'm trying to see where the confusion would lie.


----------



## MARS (22 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Do you navy guys wear it when you're driving the boat or something? Is it some hellish way of keeping the duty officer awake? Standard dress for boarding parties after 1800hrs


 :rofl:


----------



## dimsum (22 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> If it is an 'active duty' uniform, should not the RCN provide it out of the *pubic* purse?



I really hope not.   :-X


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> If it is an 'active duty' uniform, should not the RCN provide it out of the pubic purse?
> 
> If no, then why should people keep shelling out shekels for something they won't ever be allowed to wear after they depart.



That's my take, if I paid for it, I will wear it and do whatever I want in it.   Prior to the implementation of the points system one could have made a weak argument that the clothing upkeep allowance paid for it.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (22 Jun 2013)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I really hope not.   :-X



Was Freud at play there? I don't know!!! Corrected, thank you.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> If it is an 'active duty' uniform, should not the RCN provide it out of the pubic public purse?
> ^typo^



I know that in the 'Army' these 'active duty uniforms' do come out of the public purse when being done up for Honourary Colonels and Colonel in Chiefs.  

Now speaking of Honourary Colonels and Colonel in Chiefs; they ARE NOT SERVING members.  Would the logic of this topic therefore preclude them from wearing 'active duty uniforms'?     >


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jun 2013)

In view of the fact that their appointment is approved by the chain of command, that implies approval to wear uniform on appropriate occasions in the performance of their duties.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know that in the 'Army' these 'active duty uniforms' do come out of the public purse when being done up for Honourary Colonels and Colonel in Chiefs.
> 
> Now speaking of Honourary Colonels and Colonel in Chiefs; they ARE NOT SERVING members.  Would the logic of this topic therefore preclude them from wearing 'active duty uniforms'?     >


Good point, but already covered ....


			
				Occam said:
			
		

> (....)
> 
> 6. THIS NAVGEN DOES NOT AFFECT HONORARY APPOINTMENTS ....


<tangent> BTW, whazzup with the "no u" in Honorary???? </tangent>


----------



## Towards_the_gap (22 Jun 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good point, but already covered ....<tangent> BTW, whazzup with the "no u" in Honorary???? </tangent>



Maybe when you know your message is going to piss off a whole raft of people, what's the point in proofreading it?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2013)

It is the Anti-Christ Bill Gates and Microsoft Spell Check being 'Murican.     ;D


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jun 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know that in the 'Army' these 'active duty uniforms' do come out of the public purse when being done up for Honourary Colonels and Colonel in Chiefs.



Mess kit is not paid out of the public purse for honoraries. 


And Milnews.ca: Since you don't have enough money to donate to a unit that would appoint you, there will be no "U" in honorary.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Mess kit is not paid out of the public purse for honoraries.



I was thinking DEUs.


I imagine, any retired honoraries would have their own "grandfathered" mess kits.


----------



## OldTanker (22 Jun 2013)

From my perspective we have two issues here: First, the wearing of obsolete, historical uniforms in such a manner that there is no chance for confusion that the wearer is still a serving member. A good example is the oft-shown picture of the ex-RCN rating in his square rig. Nobody would confuse him with a serving member, nor does he pretend to be one. I see nothing at all wrong with this and any ham-fisted attempt by the CF to forbid this deserves the derision it is getting. If I could fit my expanded frame into my 1960's era kilt and battledress and wear it as part of some commemorative ceremony or parade, I might and so what? Who would be offended? On the other hand, I find the habit of retired members, mainly retired officers wearing contemporary uniforms such as mess dress in a manner and in a setting where confusion with serving officers is possible, odious. This is why we have blazers with regimental/corps badges, lounge suits and black tie with miniatures, etc. available to be worn when required. I still have my mess dress in storage, but foresee no time or reason to wear it.  In fact, if any serving member wants a Cavalry mess dress (44" chest, 5'9") at a very good price, just PM me   I WAS a soldier, I'm not anymore, I have no need to try to impress people or relive my past glories (or whatever) by playing dress-up. But the RCN certainly could have come up with a better worded policy. Just my :2c: worth.


----------



## bigcletus (22 Jun 2013)

Just read this in the TO Star this am...

Good on you Sir..

"Jack Aldred, an 89-year-old World War II Navy vet, plans to march in uniform on Canada Day without asking permission."


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Jun 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good point, but already covered ....<tangent> BTW, whazzup with the "no u" in Honorary???? </tangent>



That's the spelling used in Queen's Regulations and Orders.

QR&O 3.06 - HONORARY APPOINTMENTS

QR&O 3.07 - HONORARY RANK

So I guess that's the official spelling according to the Queen's English.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (22 Jun 2013)

On a side note, I googled the 'difference between honorary and honourary' and found a thread even drier than this one!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jun 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> That's the spelling used in Queen's Regulations and Orders.
> 
> QR&O 3.06 - HONORARY APPOINTMENTS
> 
> ...


Indeed, including where the Queen lives - this from page 8 of _"BR 3 NAVAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2013 EDITION"_ ....


> "Royal and Honorary Ranks and Appointments"



Meanwhile, a "clarification" via the Info-machine:


> To the Editor:
> 
> I regret that a lack of clarity and misreporting of a recently released internal order related to the wearing of uniforms after release from active service has resulted in avoidable confusion and insult to veterans.
> 
> ...


----------



## tango22a (24 Jun 2013)

Well... some kind soul better pass this on to a past RSM when he parades with the Naval Vet's Colour Party in fore and aft rig!!!


tango22a


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jun 2013)

On the subject of lack of clarity, methinks the Admiral needs to re-read the NDA to understand what "Active Service" is; here's a hint: the Primary Reserve, generally, is not on active service.  Thus the uniform does not distinguish those on active service.  One would hope that the senior leadership of the military is acquainted with the foundational legislative basis of the organization...


However, since he wants to avoid confusion, here's a simple solution: Serving sailors are wearing the War of 1812 pin.  So as long as a sailor isn't wearing it, that sailor isn't in the current uniform, so problem solved!  And as an added bonus, it actually makes the War of 1812 pin useful!


----------



## Tank Troll (24 Jun 2013)

:goodpost:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAryFIuRxmQ&feature=player_detailpage

milpoints in bound


----------



## cupper (24 Jun 2013)

Umm. I'm confused. The editorial is signed by VAdm Norman.

Previous posts attributed the NAVGEN to VAdm Maddison, as perhaps a last act prior to retirement.

I can only assume that if the above is correct, that VAdm Norman felt it was necessary to do a stoop and scoop to clarify the missive.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On the subject of lack of clarity, methinks the Admiral needs to re-read the NDA to understand what "Active Service" is; here's a hint: the Primary Reserve, generally, is not on active service.  Thus the uniform does not distinguish those on active service.  One would hope that the senior leadership of the military is acquainted with the foundational legislative basis of the organization...



Don't let facts undermine staff work.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, since he wants to avoid confusion, here's a simple solution: Serving sailors are wearing the War of 1812 pin.  So as long as a sailor isn't wearing it, that sailor isn't in the current uniform, so problem solved!  And as an added bonus, it actually makes the War of 1812 pin useful!



You, sir, are a genius.  Consider yourself invited to join the Army.CA Clothing and Dress Committee.


----------



## kratz (24 Jun 2013)

[quote author=Haggis]You, sir, are a genius.  Consider yourself invited to join the Army.CA Clothing and Dress Committee.
[/quote]

AKA the Pips, Crowns and Curls committee.  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Don't let facts undermine staff work.



Also, we must be careful not to confuse good staff duties with good staff work.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2013)

kratz said:
			
		

> AKA the Pips, Crowns and Curls committee.  ;D



Sure!  We can put that on the agenda for a future meeting.  But first we have to decide what honours and awards we will wear.


----------



## Bassil_Inf (19 Aug 2013)

Jeremy,

I found a post that may help answer your question.

Post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/84035.0


> Article 419 of the Criminal Code
> Quote
> Unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates
> 
> ...


----------



## JorgSlice (19 Aug 2013)

Would just like to rescind and apologize for my previous statement.


----------



## GI JANE (14 Nov 2014)

Really not sure where to post this.  But I retired from the military a a couple of years ago (med rel).  I served a total of 17 years.  15 years being with the army and the last 2 being with the airforce.  When I left, I was really pissed (to put it lightly) with the system.  I tossed my uniform and my UN baret.  What I'm wondering  now that a couple of years have passed and I'm a little less pissed with the way things ended, is how do I go about acquiring a uniform (to wear at Remembrance Day ceremonies and such).  But most of all, I want my kids to see me in my uniform and know that I actually did something the benefit society before I became a stay at home mom (BTW, I feel that I am very fortunate and my family is as well that I am able to do this).  Also, when I did retire I was Air Force - I want to wear an Army uniform, as this is what I spent most of my career wearing.  Any suggestions?


----------



## CombatDoc (15 Nov 2014)

My understanding is that as a retired member you are no longer authorized to wear a uniform. For Remembrance Day, Beret - yes. Medals - yes. But uniforms are for serving members or honoraries. 

As for retiring Air Force, despite serving most of your career with the Army, you are a retired RCAF member. You cannot wear the CA uniform.


----------



## Old EO Tech (15 Nov 2014)

It is possible to wear a uniform after retirement...but it's not an easy process.  You will have to write a letter to the Comd RCAF or Comd CA.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/faq/index-eng.asp?cat=dress&FaqID=124#ans-rep

Question

Can I wear my uniform after retiring/releasing from the Canadian Forces?
Answer
Current regulations regarding the wear of uniforms by retired personnel emanate from Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O), in particular QR&O 17.06 which states: A former member of the Regular Force or Reserve Force, who was released for a reason other than misconduct, may wear a uniform:

(a) with the permission of an officer commanding a command or his designated authority and such other officers as may be designated by the Chief of Defence Staff, when attending a military entertainment or ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate; and

(b) on other occasions with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

These instructions are expanded upon in the 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions Manual(AAD-265-000-AG-001)', which states: Commanders of commands may grant limited, revocable authority for former members and civilians to wear CF uniforms and clothing items in public displays and performances, and special events, if they are satisfied that no harm to the CF reputation will result. In particular: by custom, veterans and other ex-service members may wear undress caps (e.g., berets, wedge caps), with badges, on remembrance and memorial occasions, subject to agreement of the branch/regiment concerned.

Furthermore, all depending how long ago you have retired, you should have received a copy of the handbook entitled "Moving On" and paragraph 14.2 states all of the above.

The more common (and recommended) practice is for former CF personnel to wear proudly their medals, with appropriate civilian attire in accordance with the Governor General aide memoire entitled Wearing of orders, decorations and medals with undress cap (if appropriate).

Which is why most retired members just chose to wear a blazer with medals and a beret if wanted.

And since you don't have your uniform getting one becomes problematic as well.  You can't be issued with one anymore and it would be very hit and miss getting what you need at a war surplus store.


----------



## Occam (17 Nov 2014)

The exception being if you transfer to the Supp Res on release, in which case you're permitted to wear the uniform "when on service or attending military entertainment or a ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate".  See DAOD 5002-4.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5002-4.page


----------



## Comswim (11 Nov 2015)

Quick question about Tamoshanters and wearing them for Nov 11. I was in the CF Reserves (Calgary Highlanders) 24 years ago. And only have my Tamoshanter left from those days. Is it okay to wear it for Remembrance Day? And then the other question is. You cant put the Cap badge on a Beret, It would look odd. I am lost when it comes to this stuff. But really want to show my pride for those days. Thanks for the advice in advance.


----------



## McG (11 Nov 2015)

The regiment does not think its capbadge belongs on a beret:
http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/traditions/regimentaldress/capbadges.htm


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The regiment does not think its capbadge belongs on a beret:
> http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/traditions/regimentaldress/capbadges.htm



They also think (wrongly, of course) that Warrant Officers are Snr NCOs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They also think (wrongly, of course) that Warrant Officers are Snr NCOs.



 This


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Nov 2015)

It's a huge pet peeve of mine that irks me when I see it.  I find it mostly to be acceptable amongst _subordinate officer ranks_.  You know;  OCdts, 2Lts, Lts and Capts.   

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank.page

_*Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers*_


----------



## Ostrozac (11 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The regiment does not think its capbadge belongs on a beret:
> http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/traditions/regimentaldress/capbadges.htm



But they do think that their organic combat service support personnel should be wearing regimental hats with CSS cap badges, which bodes well for the future -- that gives many potential combinations of hat and badge. 

How many cap badges are in a regular infantry battalion? I'm tracking, in addition to the badge of the infantry regiment, that a battalion in garrison includes RCEME, Log, Int, and Sigs, but there may be one or two more that I'm missing. I don't think that the battalions have any MPs and Medics anymore.

I am all in favour of our reserve infantry battalions having identical establishments of CSS as regular battalions, in order to maximize the hat combinations. Jimmy on a Caubeen! Int Star of Balmoral! Glengarry mechanics!


----------



## Comswim (22 Nov 2015)

Okay, so its the TAM and the Glengarry with the Regimental Cap badge. And a Beret with the Standard CF Cap badge. Thanks


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Nov 2015)

Even if I wanted to wear my old uniform, my old uniform does not wish to wear all of me anymore. I swear there is something about closets that causes fabric to shrink!


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Nov 2015)

Shrink Moths.

Hard to get rid of.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Nov 2015)

They must be what inhabit the inside of my underwear.  That explains everything...   :nod:


----------



## Loch Sloy! (27 Nov 2015)

> Quick question about Tamoshanters and wearing them for Nov 11. I was in the CF Reserves (Calgary Highlanders) 24 years ago. And only have my Tamoshanter left from those days. Is it okay to wear it for Remembrance Day? And then the other question is. You cant put the Cap badge on a Beret, It would look odd. I am lost when it comes to this stuff. But really want to show my pride for those days. Thanks for the advice in advance.



A late reply but... It would be totally appropriate for a former serving member of the Regiment to wear their old headdress for Remembrance day, although the glengarry would be preferable to the TOS/ balmoral. In fact the unofficial order of dress for former members is; glengarry, blue blazer with regimental crest on the breast, regimental tie and grey slacks. Former members are often referred to as "old guard" and are invited to march with the regiment during the final portion of our annual freedom of the city parade every April. If you are not a member of our regimental association I would encourage you to join so you get a heads up on events.

What is not appropriate; is wearing your old uniform complete. Just last week the DCO (while going about his business in civilian attire downtown) encountered a gentleman, who subsequently claimed former service, wearing a TOS with our cap-badge and a more or less full set of OD combats + black jungle boots. This encounter was rather unfortunate for the individual... a very amusing photo was taken on someone's phone.  ;D


----------



## shootemup604 (27 Nov 2016)

I wouldn't mind seeing some identifier that retired members could wear (at no cost to the crown) on whatever form of dress/mess uniform they used at the time of retirement, to indicate the wearer is retired.  The British have a "R" Badge for retired officers.  We could adopt something similar, worn on the sleeve immediately under the "Canada" patch on both sides (if you are retired, no div, brigade, or command badge for you) of the DEU, or even on the member's mess kit - with written permission - revocable if worn incorrectly (ie - at a protest or?).  Personally, I think it is great to see the pre-unification uniforms of the old-timers worn for Nov 11th and it would be neat to keep the tradition alive.  Plus, if you buy mess kit, you can continue wearing it and get your money's worth.


----------



## mariomike (27 Nov 2016)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> Plus, if you buy mess kit, you can continue wearing it and get your money's worth.



See also,

Mess Uniform use by Retired Members  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/108682.0


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2016)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind seeing some identifier that retired members could wear (at no cost to the crown) on whatever form of dress/mess uniform they used at the time of retirement, to indicate the wearer is retired.



So Balding and Grey thinning hair don't clue you in; nor the stance and paunch?  Hmmmm?  Guess you aren't Recce.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So Balding and Grey thinning hair don't clue you in; nor the stance and paunch?  Hmmmm?  Guess you aren't Recce.



That describes many staff officers from NDHQ who are still "serving"....


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That describes many staff officers from NDHQ who are still "serving"....



 [


----------



## Loachman (27 Nov 2016)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind seeing some identifier that retired members could wear (at no cost to the crown) on whatever form of dress/mess uniform they used at the time of retirement, to indicate the wearer is retired.



Not in favour.


----------



## McG (27 Nov 2016)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind seeing some identifier that retired members could wear (at no cost to the crown) on whatever form of dress/mess uniform they used at the time of retirement, to indicate the wearer is retired.


http://army.ca/forums/threads/100399.0   ?


----------



## Pusser (28 Nov 2016)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> The British have a "R" Badge for retired officers.



I believe that "R" means "Reserve" and it's been discontinued, at least it has in the RNR.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Nov 2016)

Once you're out there is no need to don a uniform ever again. You're no longer a member of the CAF.

One of the generals I know has hung up the mess kit and purchased a tuxedo.


----------



## mariomike (28 Nov 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Once you're out there is no need to don a uniform ever again. You're no longer a member of the CAF.



Same applies in emergency services. It's a public safety / liability issue. 

What gets me is that e-bay allows the badges to be sold to "collectors". 

I am sure there are legitimate "buffs" out there, but...


----------



## Pusser (28 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Same applies in emergency services. It's a public safety / liability issue.
> 
> What gets me is that e-bay allows the badges to be sold to "collectors".
> 
> I am sure there are legitimate "buffs" out there, but...



Although there are certainly some horror stories out there about medal collecting, one of the counter-arguments is that collectors actually do a much better job of preserving these pieces of heritage than families do.  The best collectors go so far as to track down each actual medal that was awarded to an individual (groups are often broken up when sold or otherwise disposed of) and reassemble the group, so that they're not just medals, but actual pieces of someone's story.  Collectors often display their collections for others to see.  It needs to be pointed out that the reason the Imperial War Museum has such an outstanding collection of Victoria and George Crosses is because a private collector (Lord Ashcroft) has agreed to display his collection there.  Many of these medals would have been lost had he not tracked them down and assembled the collection.


----------



## mariomike (28 Nov 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Although there are certainly some horror stories out there about medal collecting,



I didn't mean buffs / hobbyists who like to collect medals, coins and stamps etc.

Or, those who like to wear medals ( right or left side ) and vintage military uniforms for "cosplay", or whatever re-enactors call it.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> What gets me is that e-bay allows the badges to be sold to "collectors".



http://www.ebay.com/itm/OBSOLETE-1900S-BADGE-MUNICIPAL-POLICE-NEW-YORK-Detective-/172327744989?hash=item281f88b5dd:g:YuAAAOSwMgdXyYAw
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FDNY-Officer-Uniform-Overcoat-Raincoat-Full-Fireman-Ems-Suit-Ny-/252573275532?hash=item3ace8a558c:g:nh4AAOSwTA9X9v9F

That includes the cloth shoulder patches sold on ebay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Obsolete-New-York-State-Ontario-County-City-Of-New-York-Police-Shoulder-Patch-/132015261701?hash=item1ebcb90805

This might also apply to CAF MP badges.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> This might also apply to CAF MP badges.



Yeah, but who would want to pose as a MP. If I want abuse, I'll go to the mess.  [


----------



## Fancyface921 (29 Sep 2019)

Hi.
Served some time in reserves as logistics and I would like to wear my beret at ceremonies, is that allowed ?
Also another question for my friend. He also served as infantry and he would like to wear head dress. Which one would he wear if allowed as a veteran. 
Thanks


----------



## mariomike (29 Sep 2019)

For reference to the discussion,

Remembrance Day Headdress  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/121057.0


----------

