# Remedial measures question.



## Navigate (20 Dec 2011)

Well I'm just looking for inputs as I have a situation where I had CBRN training, received a email which was pretty long stating that the CBRN has been moved to my unit the day before the training in the low portion of the email, last sentence. On there website there is information of the location and timings for the training, which is where I went and two other members went as well at the same place. When I arrived there, it was the range here, there was nobody there but us, we called training which didn't call us back and was told that there was no CBRN booked for that day from range staff, not having read the whole email and there was no mention of it from my Sgt which sent me the email that day I thought that it was cancelled.
This training was on my normal time off so I just went back home.
I was then questioned as to the reasons why I miss training but was found that there was a problem with the way the message for the change of location has been sent. 
I then received an IC because of this, indicating that I had a deficiency because they are stating that I did not used all the available resources to make sure I didn't miss the training. Also to correct the deficiency I have to take care of training and making sure that everyone knows the location and timing of there training, pretty much doing what training should have done in the first place. 
Not sure what I should do with this or just looking into input as to what you guys would do in this situation. An IC or any remedial measures goes on your record permanently.
My apologies if this is in the wrong section. I'm new here on the forum.


CN: I received a long email with a change of location for CBRN training at the end of it, there website indicates a different location, I didn't read the email completely, went to the wrong place, called training with no answers. Was told by range staff that there was no CBRN booked that day. Went back home and received an IC for not using all available resources.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Dec 2011)

Wow, that's a hard read.  What I'm getting is that you didn't read the email thoroughly.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Dec 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Wow, that's a hard read.  What I'm getting is that you didn't read the email thoroughly.



You did better than me, i gave up at the second line......


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You did better than me, i gave up at the second line......



Well, the bit about the CBRN trg being moved was in the first line.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Dec 2011)

Hence why giving orders via e-mail is the wrong method IMO - can the sect commander not pick up a phone and call?

No matter what folks on here think the IC is wrong - wrong wrong -


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (20 Dec 2011)

Navigate said:
			
		

> ....... they are stating that I did not used all the available resources to make sure I didn't miss the training.......





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ...can the sect commander not pick up a phone and call?...



I agree with Jim....it sounds to me like they didn't use "all available resources" to make sure you didn't miss the training.

Maybe you should put them on IC!

 >


----------



## Navigate (20 Dec 2011)

Just wondering what you guys would do if you received an IC for that situation. I think its wrong to, I'm not sure if I understand the purpose of it.
I'll put a short version at the end.


----------



## MedCorps (20 Dec 2011)

There is not much you can do with an IC issued under DADO 5019-4, even if you believe that the reasons for issuing it are out out to lunch. 

The options are: 

1) Be pissed off and suck up do what you need to do to for the "remediation of the deficiency" 

2) Mitigate the damage done by the IC. Turn a bad situation into a good situation.  Show your CoC that you have accepted thier constructive criticism (even if they are out to lunch) and become the model.  The goal here it to prevent per DAOD 5019-4: 

----
A reporting officer may comment on a CF member’s conduct or performance deficiency in accordance with the policy as set out in DAOD 5059-0, Performance Assessment of Canadian Forces Members.
----

We do not want this little perceived deficiency to end up as a negative on the PER, but rather as a "leads change" "accepts responsibility" "dedication" positive comments / bubbles on the old PER.  

3) Say, screw it I am have been wronged and grieve the situation IAW DAOD 5019-4:

---
CF members who believe they have been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission under this DAOD may submit a grievance in accordance with QR&O Chapter 7, Grievances.
----

Good luck, 

MC


----------



## chrisf (20 Dec 2011)

Information like this should be a "push" action from the chain of command, not a "pull" action from the troops...

It's a safe assumption the original poster is from a reserve unit... if there's changes to planned activities mid week between parade nights, open ended means of communications like a website do NOT work, e-mail ONLY works if it can be confirmed to be recieved...


----------



## aesop081 (20 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Hence why giving orders via e-mail is the wrong method IMO - can the sect commander not pick up a phone and call?
> 
> No matter what folks on here think the IC is wrong - wrong wrong -



Jim, let's not be hasty. We always get the full and accurate story from people who post here, right ?


----------



## Navigate (20 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Jim, let's not be hasty. We always get the full and accurate story from people who post here, right ?



I understand what your saying, but thats pretty much the whole truth about it. Anyways just looking for input as to what you guys would do in that situation, would you write a grievance or pretty much just take the remedial measures given that situation or maybe other things you guys would do.
Just looking for input on how you would deal with the situation pretty much.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Dec 2011)

I wouldn't have given you an IC but you didn't read the email completely so ......


----------



## Remius (20 Dec 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Information like this should be a "push" action from the chain of command, not a "pull" action from the troops...
> 
> It's a safe assumption the original poster is from a reserve unit... if there's changes to planned activities mid week between parade nights, open ended means of communications like a website do NOT work, e-mail ONLY works if it can be confirmed to be recieved...



Why would it be a safe assumption?


----------



## Navigate (20 Dec 2011)

I'm not in a reserve unit, I'm reg force, been 12 years now


----------



## Pusser (20 Dec 2011)

To paraphrase an old saying, "poor leadership on your part does not constitute a deficiency on my part."

I would never give an IC to someone who missed something that had only been promulgated by email.  How does the Chain of Command know for sure that the email was even received/read?  The fact that it was apparently confusing and even contradictory needs to be taken into account as well.  It would seem to me that if the story is as the OP is telling it, then there is indeed grounds for a winnable greivance here.

On another note, if the OP has been specifically informed that he is now being assigned a task because of his "deficiency,"  one can make the argument that he is in fact being "punished."  No one can be "punished" without at least a Summary Trial.  WARNING - pointing this out could end up starting the process to conduct a Summary Trial (i.e. someone could decide to charge you for AWOA), so one needs to proceed with caution.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Dec 2011)

An IC does stay on your pers file but after your monitoring period (usually 3 months) there should be a letter attached stating that you over came the deficiency for why you where place on IC and then the IC becomes a mute point and should not be held against you.


----------



## chrisf (20 Dec 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Why would it be a safe assumption?



Because this is the sort of nonsense pulled regularly by reserve units... it was a reasonable assumption, maybe not completely safe.

"Didn't you get my text message" is also becoming irritatingly familiar.


----------



## Pusser (20 Dec 2011)

Email has become a great way to pass the buck and avoid responsibility.

"I sent you an email.  Now it's your problem..."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2011)

Navigate,

Are you a French first speaker? If so, perhaps if you posted in the French forum in your first language? Maybe something is being lost in the translation.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Navigate (20 Dec 2011)

Yeah, I'm french, but I worked in a English unit for all my career  Although I'm not sure if its the right place to post it in ''The Canadian Military'' forum.
Thanks guys for the feedback, its appreciated.


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2011)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> An IC does stay on your pers file but after your monitoring period (usually 3 months) there should be a letter attached stating that you over came the deficiency for why you where place on IC and then the IC becomes a mute point and should not be held against you.



LMAO.

It's strike one of three. It'll count against him next time too, regardless of whether or not this one is successfully completed.



Navigate,
Send me a PM with civ email addy.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> LMAO.
> 
> It's strike one of three. It'll count against him next time too, regardless of whether or not this one is successfully completed.
> 
> ...



It absolutly is strike one.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It absolutly is strike one.



It is but its not overly dramatic, no need to make it sound as such. I have one IC and 4 RWs on my file along with ink on my conduct sheet. Has not hurt me too much...........


----------



## GAP (21 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is but its not overly dramatic, no need to make it sound as such. I have one IC and 4 RWs on my file along with ink on my conduct sheet. Has not hurt me too much...........



Well.....weren't you up for consideration as CDS?  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well.....weren't you up for consideration as CDS?  ;D



Had to politely turn it down...i didn't like the working hours  ;D


----------



## Remius (21 Dec 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Because this is the sort of nonsense pulled regularly by reserve units... it was a reasonable assumption, maybe not completely safe.
> 
> "Didn't you get my text message" is also becoming irritatingly familiar.



Really?  I actually thought he was fulltime or on class B somewhere.  This was far more common when I was working at CFRC where everyone had access to DWAN than at any reserve unit I`ve been with.  But I have not been with too many so "assuming" may not be reasonable in this case either  ;D


----------



## Pusser (21 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is but its not overly dramatic, no need to make it sound as such. I have one IC and 4 RWs on my file along with ink on my conduct sheet. Has not hurt me too much...........



I, on the other hand, took the illegal punishment and kept my record squeaky clean.  The XO did offer to charge me though if I preferred.

SLts sometimes do stupid things...


----------



## chrisf (21 Dec 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Really?  I actually thought he was fulltime or on class B somewhere.  This was far more common when I was working at CFRC where everyone had access to DWAN than at any reserve unit I`ve been with.  But I have not been with too many so "assuming" may not be reasonable in this case either  ;D



I'm not sure if it makes me feel better or worse to know it's the sort of nonsense that's everywhere....


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2011)

Navigate said:
			
		

> I understand what your saying, but thats pretty much the whole truth about it.


Were you charged under the NDA?  Where I am at, we would encourage use of the NDA as opposed to a remedial measure for a minor first-time trip on one's self.  The IC (while it may seem less painful) is actually a much bigger stick than a non-electable charge.


----------



## Navigate (21 Dec 2011)

No they couldn't charge me under the NDA on this, that was there initial intent, then they switch it to an IC because they weren't able to lay a charge.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is but its not overly dramatic, no need to make it sound as such. I have one IC and 4 RWs on my file along with ink on my conduct sheet. Has not hurt me too much...........


ystme
I am guessing that many ICs/RWs are innappropriate but far easier to steer through the system than oh .....a charge?

Charging someone requires work on a step by step procedural basis that ensures fairness to the accused and the system.

The IC route can  be manipulated by those unwilling to charge. Administrative procedures should be used for repeat patterns, and not single instances of minor transgressions.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2011)

Jim, i 100% agree with you. All i am saying is that remedial measures are not the end of the world.


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ystme
> I am guessing that many ICs/RWs are innappropriate but far easier to steer through the system than oh .....a charge?
> 
> Charging someone requires work on a step by step procedural basis that ensures fairness to the accused and the system.
> ...



You'd have trouble these days getting the Legal Officer to agree to support any charge where you couldn't clearly demonstrate that you issued a legal and clear order inclusive of location/timing etc to hold someone to account for either AWOA or disobeying of such order. Thus, the IC makes it the member's shortfall with no redress (which is not true either). ICs can and have been successfully reversed when facts and circumstances deem them to be inappropriately issued or issued without full knowledge of all petinent info and events. There's always two sides to the story - - - and they should both be heard before a career action is considered or taken. I really, no _really_, hope there are no COs out there who just arbitrarily sign-off on these things for issuing.


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Jim, i 100% agree with you. All i am saying is that remedial measures are not the end of the world.



I don't think Jim inferred they were the end of the world ... the postings were follow up to a post that made them look as if they were "done and over with, never to be heard of again" after their successful completion. That's only true until "the next time".


----------

