# Ottawa soldier alleges he faced reprisals from military



## stellarpanther (15 Nov 2019)

ottawa-soldier-alleges-he-faced-reprisals-from-military-for-supporting-female-colleague-who-reported-sex-assault

This is a long detailed article so I'm only posting the link but it's quite interesting in my opinion.



_Link to article removed based on Site policy, re: reporter. _

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## MJP (15 Nov 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> ottawa-soldier-alleges-he-faced-reprisals-from-military-for-supporting-female-colleague-who-reported-sex-assault
> 
> This is a long detailed article so I'm only posting the link but it's quite interesting in my opinion.



Even if it is half true then it certainly does not play well at a number of levels.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Nov 2019)

MJP said:
			
		

> Even if it is half true then it certainly does not play well at a number of levels.



If his allegations, which are pretty damning are proven in court, which would be public and likely reported on by the media, the CAF will have to take action, and the CDS will also be forced to act if the court of public opinion, along with the legal system turns against the CAF for sweeping the much touted OP Honour under the rug and stone walling someones career for speaking up. Either way this will not be good PR and will get worse the longer it drags on.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Nov 2019)

That reads like a massive sh!t show.


----------



## ballz (15 Nov 2019)

Big surprise. We can't even get the simplest shit right. What an embarrassment...  :facepalm:


----------



## Quirky (15 Nov 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Big surprise. We can't even get the simplest crap right. What an embarrassment...  :facepalm:



<<Inappropriate comment removed by Directing Staff>> How do you change culture through good leadership when your top soldier doesn’t give a crap. Military culture will never change until until leadership stops putting themselves first instead of helping the members. It is so sad that senior officers are screwing over a reserve corporal for helping out his fellow soldier. At this point I’m very cautious to trust anyone in senior leadership positions, they clearly don’t give a crap.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That reads like a massive sh!t show.



Classic CAF.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2019)

Quirky said:
			
		

> At this point I’m very cautious to trust anyone in senior leadership positions, they clearly don’t give a shit.


Whereas I'm very cautious to assume any story written solely from the perspective of 'the aggrieved' is 100% gospel.


As an aside...


			
				Quirky said:
			
		

> Vance is an embarrassment, he is a puppet who pretends to be a good guy.


I once had a post deleted for referring to Fox 'news' reporters as "sock puppets," yet it's acceptable for Canada's top soldier.  op:


----------



## Burrows (15 Nov 2019)

> As an aside...I once had a post deleted for referring to Fox 'news' reporters as "sock puppets," yet it's acceptable for Canada's top soldier.  op:


  Nope.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Nov 2019)

This story reads weirdly. Bad things seem to happen to the subject, for no apparent reason, or for reasons tenuously attributed to him testifying at a Court Martial.

I would be interested in seeing ALL of the information- not just what was provided to the reporter. I am not saying this soldier wasn't mistreated. Equally, without all of the facts (several of which are clearly missing), it is difficult to conclude what actually did happen.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Nov 2019)

Quirky said:
			
		

> <<Inappropriate comment removed by Directing Staff>> How do you change culture through good leadership when your top soldier doesn’t give a crap. Military culture will never change until until leadership stops putting themselves first instead of helping the members. It is so sad that senior officers are screwing over a reserve corporal for helping out his fellow soldier. At this point I’m very cautious to trust anyone in senior leadership positions, they clearly don’t give a crap.



You mean helping to railroad another member through a court martial where the victim's credibility and story was found to be untruthful. That sort of help? :dunno:

I just wish NIS would actually charge some of these goofs with public mischief.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2019)

The good old one side of the story reporting.....welcome to the world of Corrections, well any LE agency actually.

  Media need to say anything to make folks scream "outrageous, where's my social media account?".


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... Bad things seem to happen to the subject, for no apparent reason ...


Zackly -- like the gap between the supportive grievance finding and the non-supportive grievance finding.   "Good stufff - Yadda-yadda-yadda - about turn" could mask a WHOLE lot of other things we're not seeing.

#EverythingHasSomethingButNothingHasEverything


----------



## Caesar Augustus (15 Nov 2019)

Very interesting how an independent reviewer could come with totally different conclusion from the chain of command.

Also the same CDS who was involved in the Adm. Norman case and received pay increase shortly after...

People may wonder who is credible or not here...


----------



## gryphonv (15 Nov 2019)

I have a lot of issues digesting this event as it's presented. There seems to have been omissions to pad one side of the story. 

We have all served with someone who has selective memory, both peers and superiors. 

Couple questions I ask myself, why would the Corporal be provided with a car when he returned back to his home unit's area, even for a short period of time. Ottawa has a great public transit system and cabs, etc. I can understand a senior NCO or officer being provided a vehicle in some cases, but how often realistically is such a benefit provided to a junior NCO when other more economical options exist. 

Another thing I ask myself, why his testimony would of had much weight, as he admitted he didn't witness anything, and was only going off he was told by the complainant. I personally would think such a statement would of been able to entered in as evidence on it's own, without the corporal having to be present. 

My gut feeling in this, is the Corporal had admiration's for the complainant in question, and/or disliked his peer who ended up being charged. I know this is the wrong way to feel, but I still can't shake that feeling. 

In the end, the Corporals statement that he wouldn't be able to work with the accused if they ended up being found not guilty definitely feels like an ultimatum to me. No matter how accurate it is. And it really places an unfair circumstance on the accused and their rights. I agree with the options he was presented with to resolve that complaint.

All in all, it is a shit show, even more so with how it is presented to the media.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2019)

[quote author=gryphonv] . 

In the end, the Corporals statement that he wouldn't be able to work with the accused if they ended up being found not guilty definitely feels like an ultimatum to me. 
[/quote]

Definitely seems like that to me. 

Just an observation but sometimes there's no good guy and bad guy in a story. Sometimes both sides do stupid shady shit.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (15 Nov 2019)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I have a lot of issues digesting this event as it's presented. There seems to have been omissions to pad one side of the story.
> 
> We have all served with someone who has selective memory, both peers and superiors.
> 
> ...



I read it simply as the Cpl not wanting to share an environment with an individual who would openly know the Cpl was part of the process of raising a complaint against that individual. Understandably, a circumstance such as that can create an insurmountable volume of toxicity depending on all pers involved, especially once word and opinions begin to circulate.

I was recently informed of a CAF situation where a female complainant raised an issue against a male colleague. After all was said and done, the accused was found guilty and dismissed from the CAF. Even though the individual was found guilty, the victim was still blacklisted and has since left the unit where the incidences took place. The accused had a posse of supporters. If that type of bass ackwards, 'circling the wagon' behaviour still occurs wrt an individual who is found guilty, then what can happen if it's an individual who's found not guilty (keeping in mind that examples absolutely exist where the party was found not guilty, but they indeed engaged in unacceptable behaviour) and is the more popular of the parties? As much as people hate to admit it, this stuff still goes on. (And all facts of the situation I just described have been verified.)

I have no clue if the article is accurate. I have no clue what pieces of the situation are missing. There are certainly a few things that give me pause (both in favour of the Cpl and against) when weighing the whole of the facts as they were presented. But the reality is that there's still a lot of work which needs to be done in terms of the fallout once formal complaints are raised. All parties involved can face unnecessary backlash...again, it all comes down to the motives/maturity/agendas/perspective of everyone involved.


----------



## gryphonv (15 Nov 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> But the reality is that there's still a lot of work which needs to be done in terms of the fallout once formal complaints are raised. All parties involved can face unnecessary backlash...again, it all comes down to the motives/maturity/agendas/perspective of everyone involved.



I agree, I only served a short time in the forces, just over 8 years, but have seen both rightfully and wrongfully of someone being black balled and/or 'held back' in multiple examples. 

I have seen people not getting a fair shake with one posting, to go to another and exceed the requirements. I have also seen people who really just make more work for everyone around them, and you wonder how they even made it this far. 

No matter what, there will always be bias or popularity contests, and people not getting fair shakes. 

I agree with the Cpl feeling he wouldn't be able to work with the accused, but that shouldn't come at a consequence for the accused should he be found not guilty. Unfortunatly in this situation, if the accused maintains a professional deportment and the Cpl still refuses to work with, I feel the only options for the Cpl is to either resign or request another posting. It isn't pretty, but these situations rarely are.

One thing is certain, I feel this Cpls career path is all but doomed now. He used the grievance process, and it didn't come back with a suitable response many times, then he made it public. Even if he has a favorable outcome from the public process, I highly doubt he will be offered any great advancement opportunities for the rest of his career. And that is a shame, if he just was a guy trying to do what is right.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Nov 2019)

It becomes very difficult to discuss this topic because, eventually, an analysis of the original article would have to be made and that is not possible due to it being contrary to site guidelines.

Looking for some background to this story, there is the CM decision.
https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/item/100332/index.do

While the action is registered at the Federal Court as "T-1057-19", there are no documents accessible for public review.

Likewise, while (some) grievance decisions are on-line, the anonymous manner that they are on-line makes it difficult to find what may be the applicable ones.


----------



## medicineman (15 Nov 2019)

So I read this article when it came up on my news feed...I've found over the years that there are 3 sides to every story - the "he said", the "she said" and the "what actually happened".  I think we're only hearing the "he said" and MAYBE a little of the "she said" sides, since rightfully, as this is going before the courts, cards are being held tight.  My opinion is split currently...all I can do is op:

MM


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Nov 2019)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I agree, I only served a short time in the forces, just over 8 years, but have seen both rightfully and wrongfully of someone being black balled and/or 'held back' in multiple examples.
> 
> I have seen people not getting a fair shake with one posting, to go to another and exceed the requirements. I have also seen people who really just make more work for everyone around them, and you wonder how they even made it this far.
> 
> ...



This isn't unique to the CAF though is it?  It's called the Court of Co-Worker Opinion.  Piss off enough of the people  you bake your bread with and eventually the knife will come for you.  

Clearly this guy wasn't well liked by many and that in and of itself says something.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (15 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This isn't unique to the CAF though is it?  It's called the Court of Co-Worker Opinion.  Piss off enough of the people  you bake your bread with and eventually the knife will come for you.
> 
> Clearly this guy wasn't well liked by many and that in and of itself says something.



Without going and searching up the article and reading it again, it said (or heavily implied) something along the lines of everything was fine with the mbr until this stuff started...as in he had no issues and there were none with him where performance and such were concerned.

And yes, unfortunately it’s especially prevalent in many public service-related positions. But that’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be, the point. Sadly, popularity does indeed factor into situations where it has no business playing a role. But, yeah, he’s now elevated himself to beyond an administrative burden and that certainly ticks people off. 

gryphonv:



> ...One thing is certain, I feel this Cpls career path is all but doomed now. He used the grievance process, and it didn't come back with a suitable response many times, then he made it public. Even if he has a favorable outcome from the public process, I highly doubt he will be offered any great advancement opportunities for the rest of his career. And that is a shame, if he just was a guy trying to do what is right.



Agreed. And it seems the stance of this Cpl’s principles is extremely concrete...or he’s extremely stubborn, or maybe both...if he’s willing to keep proceeding this strongly. The majority of the times I’ve come across a situation (not all of them, of course) where an individual is willing to risk destroying their entire life (financially, possibly personally AND professionally) based on moral principle alone generally means there’s a crucial underlying cause worth fighting for. I suppose there’s a possibility that this person just has a highly over-inflated sense of pride and ego, but at the lengths he’s gone to now, I have trouble settling on the fact that he’s fighting this hard simply due to some mundane feeling of wanting to be...right? Of course, anything’s a possibility...

I dunno. It certainly appears to be one giant mess though.


----------



## garb811 (15 Nov 2019)

If anyone is interested in reading the transcript of the CM referenced, it is here:  Lloyd-Trinque M.G.C. (Corporal), R. v.

Here is what the Military Judge said about the subject of the news story's testimony:


> ...
> [91]           Concerning the testimony of Corporal Brunelle, it appears that he had an interest in the way the complainant would be believed by the court.  First, he saw and heard anything concerning both incidents.  He told the court that the accused tried to ensure his dominance over the complainant by grappling with her and tickling her.
> 
> [92]           Second, it appears that the complainant told him her story many times in different contexts: alone, with course staff and in writing when he reviewed her complaint.  He was also her confident and they spent the remaining of the course together, practically isolated from other classmates.  He was close to her and did not appear to the court as having the necessary perspective to testify without trying to influence the outcome of the trial.  His testimony gave the court the impression that he had some bias in favour of the complainant’s story.  For these reasons, the court comes to the conclusion that his testimony is not credible and reliable.
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Nov 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested in reading the transcript of the CM referenced, it is here:  Lloyd-Trinque M.G.C. (Corporal), R. v.
> 
> Here is what the Military Judge said about the subject of the news story's testimony:



The old honeypot manoeuvre!


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2019)

> Because of the course’s policy, female candidates were located at a different building than the male candidates.



Policy is working like a charm I see.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (15 Nov 2019)

<Sigh> So in reading the course of events as laid out in the transcript, I don’t get how Cpl Brunelle was permitted to be involved to any degree beyond accompanying the complainant as a friend (or whatever) during her complaint in the first place. Who okay’d _that_? Is that strictly an investigating MP call?

I personally don’t think the transcript lends much insight to the situation where the Cpl finds himself now, other than he should’ve just stayed out of it. But that’s moot for him at this point. 

To me, there should be clear separation between his involvement in placing a complaint against the accused and everything that’s happened since with respect to the claims issue, PER, etc. 

In terms of the complainant, I’m not thrilled with her behaviour as it’s written there, nor am I thrilled with the behaviour of the accused. Period. Personally, none of it adds up. There’s clear inconsistencies on both ends, and multiple plain ole’ “wtf?” questions come to mind. 

Moral? How about just staying in your own damn rooms.  :not-again:


----------



## BeyondTheNow (15 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Policy is working like a charm I see.



Meh, the policy’s there but we all know it’s often useless regardless of the course and/or location.


----------



## meni0n (15 Nov 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> <Sigh> So in reading the course of events as laid out in the transcript, I don’t get how Cpl Brunelle was permitted to be involved to any degree beyond accompanying the complainant as a friend (or whatever) during her complaint in the first place. Who okay’d _that_? Is that strictly an investigating MP call?
> 
> I personally don’t think the transcript lends much insight to the situation where the Cpl finds himself now, other than he should’ve just stayed out of it. But that’s moot for him at this point.
> 
> ...



Not sure what's so confusing. He drove complainant to the MPs who decided to take his statement and the prosecutor decided to call him on to the stand. I don't understand how there are people on the site that are slamming what he did. This is what happen during a normal investigation and what a decent human being would do. If someone approaches you and tells you they are a victim of a crime, your first instinct would be to stay out of it? It's not like he can refuse to give a statement or not show up to court.


----------



## garb811 (15 Nov 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> <Sigh> So in reading the course of events as laid out in the transcript, I don’t get how Cpl Brunelle was permitted to be involved to any degree beyond accompanying the complainant as a friend (or whatever) during her complaint in the first place. Who okay’d _that_? Is that strictly an investigating MP call?
> ...


I think the judge is referring to her "formal complaint" to course staff. 


> ...
> [39]           The next day, the complainant had a discussion with Private Brunelle at the mess where he told her that the accused was talking behind her back.  She told her version of both incidents to him and he told her that she should make a complaint to the chain of command.
> 
> [40]           Three days later, she told her story to some members of the course staff.  On 28 June 2013, she made a formal complaint.  Later, she had an argument at the cafeteria with the accused in front of all their classmates where she confronted him because of his derogatory comments about some officer cadet’s demeanour.  He had made violent comments towards the complainant.
> ...


It's pretty common, unfortunately, for complainants to show up at their first interview with MP after already having been interviewed by at least one of their staff/Chain of Command, and many times with a pre-written statement in hand that their staff/Chain of Command, has asked them to write.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (15 Nov 2019)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Not sure what's so confusing. He drove complainant to the MPs who decided to take his statement and the prosecutor decided to call him on to the stand. I don't understand how there are people on the site that are slamming what he did. This is what happen during a normal investigation and what a decent human being would do. If someone approaches you and tells you they are a victim of a crime, your first instinct would be to stay out of it? It's not like he can refuse to give a statement or not show up to court.



Because he didn’t witness the main issues first-hand. Be there for support as much as possible? Sure. Absolutely. No issues there. But there have been a few CAF situations I’ve been personally involved in over time where instances relayed to me via a complainant directly ref an incident still weren’t admissible to any degree at any point in an investigation because I didn't see it personally and/or wasn’t involved...much less ever even remotely getting to the point where I’d be called to the stand. That’s why I’m confused.


----------



## meni0n (15 Nov 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Because he didn’t witness the main issues first-hand. Be there for support as much as possible? Sure. Absolutely. No issues there. But there have been a few situations I’ve been personally involved in over time where instances relayed to me via a complainant directly still weren’t admissible to any degree at any point in an investigation because I didn't see it personally and/or wasn’t involved. That’s why I’m confused.



Then maybe take it up with the investigator or the prosecutor. It wasn't the member who made these decisions and a regular person would not think twice if a investigator asked them to relay what the complainant told them.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (15 Nov 2019)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Then maybe take it up with the investigator or the prosecutor. It wasn't the member who made these decisions and a regular person would not think twice if a investigator asked them to relay what the complainant told them.



And that’s why I asked who made the call...who makes the call about whether a statement/report of that nature moves forward to the point/level that the Cpl’s did. Because it clearly appears to be case-by-case and not a strict practice across the board. 

And let me be very, very clear—I am an advocate for having all inappropriate behaviour dealt with appropriately and swiftly. But as I mentioned, that transcript called many things into question against the article...which as has also been mentioned, can’t be dissected appropriately on this venue.


----------



## garb811 (15 Nov 2019)

It can be helpful to have a statement/testimony from someone the victim has disclosed the abuse/assault to, especially in incidents where there is no physical evidence or eyewitnesses. The problem in this case is that the judge decided the Cpl was not simply acting as a witness and describing what he had been told by the victim, he had adopted the role of advocating for her.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (16 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You mean helping to railroad another member through a court martial where the victim's credibility and story was found to be untruthful. That sort of help? :dunno:
> 
> I just wish NIS would actually charge some of these goofs with public mischief.



What a disgusting comment. The charges were found 'not guilty' because the acts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because the acts didn't happen. Very distinct difference. 

The CAF (and Canadian society in general) has a massive issue with people not reporting when incidents happen to them, and then there is people like you who want them charged when the case fails due to the high standard of proof that is needed to be obtained in court. The VICTIMS are made to repeat and go though these incidents over and over again by the court process. First the initial compliant, then the interview(s), then getting ripped apart on the stand. If you think people do this because they enjoy it, you are wrong and need to give your head a shake.


----------



## sidemount (16 Nov 2019)

I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the Capt who absolutely 180ed on the grievance, and then the CDS who basically ignored the external review panel.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2019)

sidemount said:
			
		

> I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the Capt who absolutely 180ed on the grievance, and then the CDS who basically ignored the external review panel.



Did they provide the paperwork for our viewing pleasure to support those accusations??  If not then it's not worth commenting on....


----------



## BeyondTheNow (16 Nov 2019)

sidemount said:
			
		

> I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the Capt who absolutely 180ed on the grievance, and then the CDS who basically ignored the external review panel.



The beginning of the thread mentioned thoughts towards CDS, and comments of a general nature have been expressed towards the situation as a whole. So those two points have indeed been mentioned, although more indirectly. 

Again, many are wading lightly on the subject matter because of site policies regarding the source of the original article mentioned.


----------



## sidemount (16 Nov 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Did they provide the paperwork for our viewing pleasure to support those accusations??  If not then it's not worth commenting on....


Nope no paperwork to check but the 180 decision change sends up red flags to me.
I agree there are 3 sides to every story, but I'm curious to know what would cause a complete decision reversal.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Nov 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> What a disgusting comment. The charges were found 'not guilty' because the acts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because the acts didn't happen. Very distinct difference.
> 
> The CAF (and Canadian society in general) has a massive issue with people not reporting when incidents happen to them, and then there is people like you who want them charged when the case fails due to the high standard of proof that is needed to be obtained in court. The VICTIMS are made to repeat and go though these incidents over and over again by the court process. First the initial compliant, then the interview(s), then getting ripped apart on the stand. If you think people do this because they enjoy it, you are wrong and need to give your head a shake.



Yes, I'm disgusting for thinking when someone makes a false accusation against you for something you didn't do, they should be held accountable.   :rofl:

You've clearly made up your mind already that they are guilty.  Even with holes wider than the Grand Canyon in the accusers story.  How dare we only accept a high standard of proof, we should really only aim for low standards of proof, like the National Socialist Party and Politburo.  

It's crooked logic like yours that makes me strongly fear for our future.  

Edit:

I'll add that the ONLY reason they don't investigate for false allegations is because of OPTICS.  The old "Not in the public interest" cop out.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (16 Nov 2019)

I think it’s crucially important to be aware that these types of issues can be painful triggers for some coming from all sides of the spectrum—assaulted, accused & falsely accused. Perspective and empathy are greatly needed here. We don’t know much, if any, about people’s backgrounds on these boards unless they’ve decided to share experiences which have lead them to feeling the way they do about topics which have the potential to become emotionally charged. And many aren’t comfortable doing that.

As evidenced a bit through my later posts in this thread, I’m frustrated and highly skeptical of all parties involved now, especially after reading the transcript. That being said, I want to explain a few things from my own perspective & experiences (which I’ve decided to do based off a few of the comments made).

The reason I’m frustrated is because when situations like this occur where the complainant and/or accused don’t (appear) to be telling the whole truth—and let’s be clear...while the complainant’s version of facts are questionable, the accused’s are just as much...then it’s harder for every single person coming after them to navigate their own situation. Again, that applies to both the complainant and the accused in any situation. 

I’ve mentioned I was sexually assaulted outside CAF in another thread. (Personally, I hate the term “sexually assaulted.” It’s unclear because it now encompasses everything from inappropriate touching/fondling to full-out penetration.) So let’s be clear—I was raped. I was a teenager. I attempted to tell one person who I deeply, deeply trusted. Do you know what happened? That person told me they didn’t believe me. Do you know what happened next? I didn’t tell another individual for well over 20 years. 

As I look back now, after maturing, therapy, coming to peace with the event and moving on with my life, I can recall every vivid, scary, painful detail through a calm mind. But then? Being young, as well as being scared, confused, angry, feeling alone, feeling violated and having my worst fear come true on top of it all?—which was not being believed? I absolutely know that details changed and I left things out or put them back in as I tried to recall things through a racing mind and lack of full comprehension of my emotional state. So, my point is that a victim’s story having inconsistencies isn’t necessarily indicative of the incident not having occurred and falsely accusing another. Furthermore, increased trauma is absolutely added to the entire situation when the victim is facing skepticism, coldness and a lack of understanding and/or pressure to recall everything. 

On the flip side, while I’ve never been in the situation, I can absolutely empathize with an individual who’s being accused of an assault which never took place. And when the repercussion is the loss of everything the individual has worked hard for, then it’s even more devastating. I don’t to have personally gone through the situation to understand how difficult it could be for another. 

I don’t think anyone is “disgusting” (or their comments) for expressing their POV, nor do I think it was necessary to scoff at another person’s equally-as-passionate feelings towards words expressed. As I said, circulation of these types of situations can be triggers for different people for different reasons.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Nov 2019)

Beyond the Now, thanks for sharing your history and your perspective with a number of very valid points.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Nov 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I think it’s crucially important to be aware that these types of issues can be painful triggers for some coming from all sides of the spectrum—assaulted, accused & falsely accused. Perspective and empathy are greatly needed here. We don’t know much, if any, about people’s backgrounds on these boards unless they’ve decided to share experiences which have lead them to feeling the way they do about topics which have the potential to become emotionally charged. And many aren’t comfortable doing that.
> 
> As evidenced a bit through my later posts in this thread, I’m frustrated and highly skeptical of all parties involved now, especially after reading the transcript. That being said, I want to explain a few things from my own perspective & experiences (which I’ve decided to do based off a few of the comments made).
> 
> ...



I personally think this is a great post and a very balanced one. I don't think for a second that people who commit crimes shouldn't be brought to justice but false accusations are not a harmless crime.

If you are going to accuse someone of something as serious as sexual assault, you better be prepared to have your accusation intensely scrutinized and if your story is found out to be false you should be held accountable.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...if your story is found out to be false you should be held accountable.



An important point.  Not just ‘accusations unproven’ but confirmation of fabrication of accusation, should be dealt with appropriately.  We (society writ large) do not do this in any measure. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## stellarpanther (16 Nov 2019)

If someone intentionally falsifies something there should most definitely be consequences but just because a judge throws out the charges or finds the accused not guilty, that isn't the same as if the accused lied about everything.

Another concern I have and everyone else should have is the matter of the claim.  As a previous RMS Clerk, I can't even remember how many times people tried to claim things they are not entitled to claim.  Not once was someone disciplined for it.  They either have items removed and told they can't claim them or if it gets through and later caught, the claim is amended and they need to pay back the things they shouldn't have been reimbursed for.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (16 Nov 2019)

Remember this event happened, that part wasn't what was argued. What was argued was whether or not it was consensual. They didn't prove it wasn't consensual which is why it failed in trial. However they also didn't prove it was consensual.

I can imagine nothing worse than someone going to trial against their assaulter and having that person being found not guilty even if you know they did it, all because you don't have the evidence to prove it. Afterwards they are accused of being a liar, being out to ruin someone's life, and that they should face charges for daring to attempt to find their attacker guilty.

This is also why many people don't come forward with their cases, or if they do its years after the fact once they have had time to deal with the trauma. Look at how many are coming out of the woodwork with OP Honour, its not like these people were just lying waiting to have these people charged for no reason.

I am not saying that standard of proof needs to be changed, but what I am saying is a lot of criminals don't get convicted due to that high standard required. Throwing in charges against someone who is basically being brutalized by first by the accused, then by the system is not a fair or reasonable act.


----------



## sidemount (16 Nov 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Another concern I have and everyone else should have is the matter of the claim.  As a previous RMS Clerk, I can't even remember how many times people tried to claim things they are not entitled to claim.  Not once was someone disciplined for it.  They either have items removed and told they can't claim them or if it gets through and later caught, the claim is amended and they need to pay back the things they shouldn't have been reimbursed for.



This.

Quite a few times Ive seen the CoC tell someone they are entitled, yet a simple check of policy would indicate otherwise. And unfortunately its the member that ends up paying back. However that being said, i think everyone should be checking CBIs and CFTDIs and be familiar with them. I see lots of issues with people not knowing every day.

This is where my first comment on this topic came from. Did the original grievance wrt claims get upheld and then reversed because "CoC said it was g2g" and then then the analyst did an "oh shit, it doesnt matter, we have to follow policy"
Maybe the same situation with the CDS. Outside review says the member was good, yet ignored policy and the CDS was just following it?
Tough to say without the finer details. But is a question worth asking.


----------



## gryphonv (16 Nov 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> its not like these people were just lying waiting to have these people charged for no reason.



I need to chime in on this part, 

I have the unenviable position of being both accused and having experienced sexual assault. 

In my teenage years I was accused of it, the person who I slept with only did it after their partner found out we did. It was totally a false accusation, it never really went anywhere and sort of just stopped being a thing. But it still poisoned me for life. The person lied, just to get out of an uncomfortable situation.

Years later, while in an off base 'coffee course', I was assaulted by one of the other course attendants. This person wasn't in the military, but what they did to me was very similar to what the accused was accused of doing in this case. I freaked at the time, but it was downplayed by the staff there and many others, while the 'accused' in this case managed to stay on the course with only repercussion of having to change their sleeping arrangements. While I downplay this, and it isn't as serious as someone who was raped, I still struggle with this to today, and I struggle with being accused of it in the past. 

So I can relate to both sides of the situation. Being assaulted and being falsely accused can and most likely will have life long consequences. People will and can do lie on both sides of the spectrum. With that said, I feel every accusation should be taken seriously and investigated fully. But if found to be malicious, or an outright falsehood, they should face their own punishment.

Simply saying to the falsely accused that they should be happy it's over, is the same as saying to a sexual assault victim to 'suck it up' and move on. 

These cases are all unique and there is no one size fits all for it. Right now the with current attitudes of the public, the accused is usually tried and found guilty by the court of public opinion long before they get a chance to defend themselves. And that gives more motive to people to do a false accusation. Like it or not, some people will always side with the accuser regardless (seems to be the norm today), and some will even side with the accused regardless.

I'll leave that there for now, but until we can publicly respect the accused and accusers rights in these situations, there will always be problems with how these things are dealt with.

These words were a lot harder to write than it seems.


----------



## stellarpanther (16 Nov 2019)

sidemount said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> Quite a few times Ive seen the CoC tell someone they are entitled, yet a simple check of policy would indicate otherwise. And unfortunately its the member that ends up paying back. However that being said, i think everyone should be checking CBIs and CFTDIs and be familiar with them. I see lots of issues with people not knowing every day.
> 
> ...



In the article, it mentions that the mbr could now possibly be CM's because of the claim issues which is something that I take issue with.  Trying to claim things they shouldn't be happens all the time with nothing more than a "you can't claim that".  Nobody gets charged for trying to claim something they shouldn't be.

The rest of it, since I'm not a legal expert of grievance expert, I'll keep my opinions of it to myself.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> In the article, it mentions that the mbr could now possibly be CM's because of the claim issues which is something that I take issue with.  Trying to claim things they shouldn't be happens all the time with nothing more than a "you can't claim that".  Nobody gets charged for trying to claim something they shouldn't be.
> 
> The rest of it, since I'm not a legal expert of grievance expert, I'll keep my opinions of it to myself.



This is entirely false. People can and do get charged all the time for improperly claiming things they are not entitled to. I have personally seen it happen. Ask the chief judge of the CAF about it: he is currently facing a court martial of his own for this very thing.

You, the member, are responsible for what you claim. Not the RMS clerk who processes the claim and not your CO who approves the claim. Pro tip: regardless of your rank and time in service, male an effort to understand CFTDIs and the CBIs. If you are not sure: ask. If you are really not sure: err on the safe side and don't claim it. Is your job worth a few bucks?


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is entirely false. People can and do get charged all the time for improperly claiming things they are not entitled to. I have personally seen it happen. Ask the chief judge of the CAF about it: he is currently facing a court martial of his own for this very thing.
> 
> You, the member, are responsible for what you claim. Not the RMS clerk who processes the claim and not your CO who approves the claim. Pro tip: regardless of your rank and time in service, male an effort to understand CFTDIs and the CBIs. If you are not sure: ask. If you are really not sure: err on the safe side and don't claim it. Is your job worth a few bucks?



If I had to guess, this Corporal, like most, did not know the process for "non-claimable days" which I don't actually believe is in any of those policies as it's about "how to administer/finalize a claim" which is, in fact, the area of expertise of the FSAs. I don't know how much support he would have gotten in the claims process at a PRes Int Coy, but I'd guess very little. I am familiar with one of the PRes Int Coys out here and they are a complete gongshow for all of these things due to the fact that they are PRes, completely geographically dispersed, etc. Chances are the clerks made an honest mistake and this guy continued to do as he was told and signed it. I find it a lot more probable that this was effed up through an innocent mistake than a malicious attempt to rob the government of $80 for a rental car that he didn't want in the first place. The military grievance committee also seems to agree, and that committee is one of the few remaining things in the CAF I still have any faith in.*

Regardless, I'd be pretty surprised see anyone punished / have this held against them in any normal circumstances unless there was pretty rock solid evidence that it wasn't a mistake, as the chance of being an honest mistake is so high.

*While I understand the article is one-sided, the fact that the grievance committee concluded in the manner that it did is what makes me lean heavily that way. I look forward to seeing all the facts come out but having to rely on the credibility of the various organizations/people involved, the grievance committee has more credibility than any of them in my eyes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

Ballz,

To be clear, I was reacting to stellarpanther's comment. I actually have no opinion about the Cpl in the article that started this thread, as I do not have enough information to form one.


----------



## stellarpanther (17 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is entirely false. People can and do get charged all the time for improperly claiming things they are not entitled to. I have personally seen it happen. Ask the chief judge of the CAF about it: he is currently facing a court martial of his own for this very thing.
> 
> You, the member, are responsible for what you claim. Not the RMS clerk who processes the claim and not your CO who approves the claim. Pro tip: regardless of your rank and time in service, male an effort to understand CFTDIs and the CBIs. If you are not sure: ask. If you are really not sure: err on the safe side and don't claim it. Is your job worth a few bucks?



Maybe it does happen but in over 16 years, I have never seen a person charged.  As an example, when a mbr is authorized a rental car, they are to get a intermediate sized car.  I've seen more than a few come back trying to claim a SUV and a separate charge for a GPS which is not claimable.  One of them was picked up by an audit.  The only thing that I've seen happen is they are told they can't claim it and only get to claim the amount that a intermediate car would have cost.  If it was already paid out they pay back the difference.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Maybe it does happen but in over 16 years, I have never seen a person charged.  As an example, when a mbr is authorized a rental car, they are to get a intermediate sized car.  I've seen more than a few come back trying to claim a SUV and a separate charge for a GPS which is not claimable.  One of them was picked up by an audit.  The only thing that I've seen happen is they are told they can't claim it and only get to claim the amount that a intermediate car would have cost.  If it was already paid out they pay back the difference.



Fine. You have never personally seen anyone charged for it.

I am telling you that I have personally seen people charged and found guilty for it.

Which is all to say that the Cpl in question cannot necessarily tie his disciplinary issues over a claim to his "whistleblower" status. Being a hero in one situation does not give you a shield in other situations.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Nov 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Maybe it does happen but in over 16 years, I have never seen a person charged.  As an example, when a mbr is authorized a rental car, they are to get a intermediate sized car.  I've seen more than a few come back trying to claim a SUV and a separate charge for a GPS which is not claimable.  One of them was picked up by an audit.  The only thing that I've seen happen is they are told they can't claim it and only get to claim the amount that a intermediate car would have cost.  If it was already paid out they pay back the difference.



Go on the Court Martial page, there are three Recent Decisions related to fraudulent expenses just from this year.


----------



## stellarpanther (17 Nov 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Fine. You have never personally seen anyone charged for it.
> 
> I am telling you that I have personally seen people charged and found guilty for it.
> 
> Which is all to say that the Cpl in question cannot necessarily tie his disciplinary issues over a claim to his "whistleblower" status. Being a hero in one situation does not give you a shield in other situations.



Just to make sure were on the same page here, are you referring to a person making up a fraudulent CF52 claim saying that they paid for something and then stealing their WO's stamp and forging the signature and making it look like the claim was section 32'd and 34'd because that I've seen happen a few times and they were caught and charged as they should be or are you talking about a person who tries to claim the wrong size car or a claim a car that wasn't approved in advance because that I've also seen happen but not get charged because of it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Nov 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Go on the Court Martial page, there are three Recent Decisions related to fraudulent expenses just from this year.



Sure wish we would get this serious about openly disobeying the local purchasing regulations. 

But I have seen that too.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (17 Nov 2019)

I’m inclined to lean towards a sentiment mentioned earlier where _rarely_, at least in my experience during my PRes posting, will one ever see a combat arms Cpl (purposely and/or with the intent to deceive) trying to take advantage and claim things he/she isn’t entitled to. (I’ve encountered a few Sgts and above here and there though, in which case, yeah, the clerk tells them ‘no, sorry’ and that’s the end of that—Mostly—Sometimes an issue will get escalated to CClk so that they can be told “no” again...)

But anyway, they only vaguely know what they’re entitled to in a narrow field of circumstances. Meals during travel over certain time-periods, boots up to certain cost after tax, some are aware of TAA (but many aren’t), and many are even clueless about CLDA...

If there’s extensive travel required for a course or something, we usually have to tell them exactly what will be reimbursed, explicitly tell them what receipts and other paperwork they’ll need to hold onto, etc. (The majority of them don’t keep their DWAN active, let alone take time to familiarize themselves with CFTDTIs, know what they should be entitled to and why, and so on.) I’m also struggling with accepting that this Cpl knew enough about how to work the system in order to try and pull a fast one—I think he simply would’ve done what he was told to do. I’m prone to benefit of the doubt though... :dunno:

Of course I wasn’t there...’just my thoughts on one element of the situation as it was presented in the article. 

WRT charges, I’ve also read about a few instances of pers getting charged related to claim entitlements/payouts. But the majority of the instances I’m aware of, again, involve those with the rank and/or knowledge/experience on how to proceed fraudulently. A Pte or Cpl? I’m sure examples exist somewhere, but they aren’t common.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Nov 2019)

In the context of this story it looks like the cpls coc was looking for reasons to charge him. Common tactic to punish someone in a round about way.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (17 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In the context of this story it looks like the cpls coc was looking for reasons to charge him. Common tactic to punish someone in a round about way.



Yes, good point for those who haven’t read it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Nov 2019)

Big difference between something being audited and found that something claimed wasn't allowed and the requirement for a CM.  I've been audited a few times, and sometimes it goes back and forth as to why you claimed something (ex they took off a meal because of a flight time but ignored the actual travel to the airport as per the itinerary, but spent a while sorting it out. In one case took an extra month for a fairly expensive claim to be paid out because I didn't claim the tip on a taxi)

The ones that I can remember from past court martials were things like people manufactured receipts for extra claims, or made up a different itinerary to get some extra meals. If there are flights, should be be straightforward to figure it out in this case (especially if booked through the CAF). But without proper oversight, pretty easy to screw people around and threaten them with all kinds of stuff, so not sure if the relatively niche isolation of some of these units makes it worse. Really strange that the CDS didn't go along with the analysts recommendations (as they sounded like they were based on some easily demonstrable facts) but have no idea what the facts are, so not really sure what the right decision is. Does seem like they are going out of their way to jerk him around, and the threat against his security clearance is a pretty big one to brow beat someone in the Int world with.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Just to make sure were on the same page here, are you referring to a person making up a fraudulent CF52 claim saying that they paid for something and then stealing their WO's stamp and forging the signature and making it look like the claim was section 32'd and 34'd because that I've seen happen a few times and they were caught and charged as they should be or are you talking about a person who tries to claim the wrong size car or a claim a car that wasn't approved in advance because that I've also seen happen but not get charged because of it.



Fair point. There are obviously gradations/levels of severity to inaccuracies in claims. I accept that in this circumstance, with this Cpl, Mens Rea, or a guilty mind might be difficult to prove, given what was provided in the news article. In that case, it is odd that the unit went the UDI route...unless there are facts not in evidence to us, the casual observer. 

All this to say...  :dunno:


----------



## ballz (18 Nov 2019)

To be fair when I read the article I see no mention of the claim being dealt with through the disciplinary system. Those they throw the word "accused" around, reading between the lines it appears that the claim incident was used to justify his low PER score... perhaps mentioned on a PDR or even a remedial measure, and perhaps part of the reason his security clearance might be reviewed... but not through a summary trial or court martial which obviously would not be dealt with through the grievance process.

There's a lot of "maybe's" and "perhaps" in there but it sounds like this claims thing was being dealt with on the administrative side of the house vice disciplinary.


----------



## hattrick72 (19 Nov 2019)

Why redress the PER if it has RM listed? My guess is no RM were given in this case. You don't spend $45,000 of your families money to fight something so stupid.


----------

