# Help Leading Seaman Guevremont



## tomahawk6 (11 Nov 2013)

I like to think that army.ca is viewed widely within the CF and perhaps a viewer will have the clout to get an award initiated for this brave sailor before he leaves the service.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/story.html?id=9149241



> Soldier's disarming of live Taliban suicide bomber forgotten by DND
> 
> OTTAWA - The would-be Taliban suicide bomber let loose a deep, audible sigh when Leading Seaman Bruno Guevremont lifted the explosive vest from his shoulders.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Nov 2013)

There is something wrong that this act would have gone unrecognized in some manner all this time.  Worse still that there is a time limit on nominations.  
If an act was deserving then, it's deserving now or 20 years from now were it to come to light.  It is an injustice to say the least.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Nov 2013)

Agreed that someone dropped the ball and the oversight is compounded by the time limit.There shouldn't be a time limit on valor ! I hope some MP's will come to the rescue.


----------



## pbi (12 Nov 2013)

Seeing that he is a Leading Seaman. I'm guessing he's a Clearance Diver (they frequently handle EOD issues in the RCN). Even though he was working for an Army-led organization at the time of the incident, this would mean that the chasing of this issue would now probably lie between the N1 shop at RCN HQ and Military Personnel Command. CJOC would have reviewed and staffed up the recommendation from the LS' chain of command in Afgh, so their CJ1 shop probably has perspective as well.

Good luck trying to decipher the deliberation process behind this decision (or lack of decision). Honours and awards can be turned down for a bunch of reasons, which might not be made public.

LCdr Kelly Williamson is a Public Affairs Officer at CJOC HQ: she is not, as far as I can tell, in the CJ1 shop.


----------



## 392 (12 Nov 2013)

While it's great to see that the MSM is trying to get him what they feel is deserved, I think there is far more to this that what is presented here. I had a detailed conversation with his Det Comd over this incident and any potential H&A, and in short, there was no nomination. My understanding is that his CoC has some very good reasons.


The more unfortunate part is this is one incident, for one operator. There are thousands more incidents that deserve recognition that unfortunately won't ever see the light of day.

Edit to add that this conversation was in Feb / Mar 2010 just after TF 1-09 returned home, not since the article came out.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2013)

Either the incident in the article didn't happen or it did.If it didn't then I can see why no award.If the article is correct then he deserves an award.The comment that other EOD personnel did similar acts and did not receive an award is pure crap and is proof that your award system is broken.In my own Army even an outspoken Captain eventually received the decoration that he earned[Swenson's Medal of Honor].Act's of courage are not a job requirement but when they happen a decoration MUST be awarded as an example to others.


----------



## Stoker (13 Nov 2013)

Member is releasing in Jan after 15 years in for whatever reason. He is doing interviews as a military member which I personally have a problem with, did he approach the media? There must be some reason why the member wasn't recognized, but in a war there are many heroic acts that don't get recognized, is there not?


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2013)

You are correct.You would think the CF would take every opportunity to publicize the good work done by its personnel.Surely it wouldnt hurt to give the man a decoration on his way out the door ?


----------



## Teager (13 Nov 2013)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Member is releasing in Jan after 15 years in for whatever reason. He is doing interviews as a military member which I personally have a problem with, did he approach the media? There must be some reason why the member wasn't recognized, but in a war there are many heroic acts that don't get recognized, is there not?



If he had approval from CoC for the interview than what is the problem? If he did not have approval than thats a different story. As Capt. Happy has stated there is more to this story. IMO any EOD member is crazy as hell for what they do and they all deserve a medal for what they have done and the amount of lives they have saved. (not trying to take away from any other trades and the work they do)


----------



## Stoker (13 Nov 2013)

Teager said:
			
		

> If he had approval from CoC for the interview than what is the problem? If he did not have approval than thats a different story. As Capt. Happy has stated there is more to this story. IMO any EOD member is crazy as hell for what they do and they all deserve a medal for what they have done and the amount of lives they have saved. (not trying to take away from any other trades and the work they do)



Absolutely, the problem I have is if he doesn't have permission and since he's out the door in Jan he figures he has nothing to lose and I hope that's not the case. Like you said there is more to this story and I think there probably a good reason why he wasn't recognized.


----------



## 392 (13 Nov 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Either the incident in the article didn't happen or it did.If it didn't then I can see why no award.If the article is correct then he deserves an award.The comment that other EOD personnel did similar acts and did not receive an award is pure crap and is proof that your award system is broken.In my own Army even an outspoken Captain eventually received the decoration that he earned[Swenson's Medal of Honor].Act's of courage are not a job requirement but when they happen a decoration MUST be awarded as an example to others.



The incident did happen - however what we have here is solely one person's story which the reporter is taking as a 100% factual account from that day. You're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. The only difference is that I was given details of this particular instance from the LS's boss who was on site, which explains why he was apparently not nominated. I never said I agreed or disagreed with any of it, only that the story was missing some key details as it was explained by the EOD Team Comd. For opsec reasons, I am not going to detail any of it. Let's just leave it at there is a bit more to this story than what was presented in the article. 

I have no dog in this fight one way or another - however I do know there are omitted facts that will never be told in an open forum and it will continue to be debated over and over again. 

For CSNI users - if you really want to see what happened that day, all of the EOD reports are archived there. It's as simple as finding it from that day and reading it. I am not about to use any more time on this, however I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the releasing comments will probably shed some light on the subject.

As for my comment, that was not the context I wrote it in, but thanks for putting words into my mouth. My point was that there are A LOT of bombtechs that did a lot of courageous stuff over there (including your own US techs), and it is unfortunate that they could not all be awarded something...that's it.


----------



## Pusser (13 Nov 2013)

There are a few problems with this story:

1)  the author has made a few factual errors.  The Star of Courage is not a military award and it is not the third highest. It is actually the second highest bravery award.  The author has also made a few other errors with respect to the relative rankings of awards.  This detracts from the credibility of the whole article.

2)  the reason there is a time limit on nominations is to ensure that events are judged in accordance with the standards of the day.  Over time, values change and so things can be looked at differently in the future and not necessarily for the better.  By some reckonings, past acts of courage that won a Victoria Cross would almost be considered war crimes by some observers today.  Furthermore, since it appears that his actions were considered by the Chain of Command, any arguments about time limits are moot.  It sounds to me that he was considered, but not found deserving.  We will never know why, because the deliberations of the various steps in the process will never be revealed.

3)  Any insinuations that this is an example of bureacratic oversight are unfair.  Although detailed and meticulous, the process of considering and awarding decorations is extremely fair.  Nominations are considered and investigated in detail.  Anyone who makes it through the process is truly deserving.  Keep in mind that the CDS himself chairs the CF Decorations Advisory Committee.  Every file receives due consideration.  However, the standards are very high.  Don't rely on the citations on the Governor General's website for a full description of what actually happened.  They capture the gist of it, but the real stories are much more detailed.  To read one of those citations and think, "I know somebody else who did that!  He should get a medal too." is not really a fair comparison.

There are two important things to remember about decorations:

1)  No nomination = no award.  Full stop.  If you think someone is deserving, nominate them.  There's a form and anyone can do it.  Although anyone can do it, it is also a leadership responsibility to recognize this sort of thing, so folks in leadership positions really have to take an interest in it.  However, no one should ever assume that it will just happen.  If you're a private who witnesses something, don't just say, "Wow!  He should get a medal for that!"  Mention it to the Chain of Command.

2)  Take nominations seriously!  The staff process must be done well.  The more detail, the better.  Back it up with evidence, including witness statements.  A well-written letter from the CO goes a long way.  This is not something you can scribble out during a coffee break.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 Nov 2013)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 3)  Nominations are considered and investigated in detail.
> 
> 1)  No nomination = no award.  Full stop.




Bit of a tangent here, but I've isolated your two points above to add my 2c. It's all well and good to say the system is fair, but when nominations don't go above the sub-unit level, then it's pointless writing them . For example, you could jump on a grenade, saving a orphanage in the process, but if your OC/SSM don't like you then you NADA! And to say it doesn't happen and that leadership at all levels are objective and fair is to completely ignore human nature. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, just refuting the claim that the H&A process is perfect and people getting gongs deserve them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2013)

Fair points made by all.


----------



## Pusser (14 Nov 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Bit of a tangent here, but I've isolated your two points above to add my 2c. It's all well and good to say the system is fair, but when nominations don't go above the sub-unit level, then it's pointless writing them . For example, you could jump on a grenade, saving a orphanage in the process, but if your OC/SSM don't like you then you NADA! And to say it doesn't happen and that leadership at all levels are objective and fair is to completely ignore human nature. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, just refuting the claim that the H&A process is perfect and people getting gongs deserve them.



I never said the system was perfect  ;D, but I'll concede the rest of what you've said.  The Chain of Command does screw this up sometimes.*  However, once the file makes it to the CF Decorations Advisory Committee, it is fair.  Of that, I can assure you.

*I heard of one case where a member was not nominated for an award because he had already received a "Commander's Coin," and some idiot in the Chain of Command decided that anything beyond that would be "dual recognition."  Let me assure everyone that a "Commander's Coin" (even from the CDS himself) is NOT an award in the H&R sense.  Furthermore, the H&R system does allow the faster award of a lesser award pending approval of an higher award (e.g. there are a number of examples of personnel being awarded a CDS Commendation and then later awarded a Meritorious Service Decoration.  What happens in this case is that they have to stop wearing the CDSC pin (they get to keep it though) once they've been awarded the medal.


----------



## Scoobs (15 Nov 2013)

So I have to throw my two cents in here since I did H&A in theatre, but BEFORE the time period in question below.  However, I know for a fact that during this time period they were using the procedures/SOPs that I had drafted while I was there.

Nominations in theatre originated from the mbr's unit.  If the unit didn't bring it to at least my attention via discussion with the Adjutant of the unit, then frankly it didn't go anywhere.  It was the unit's responsibility to do so.  How could you expect a HQ to know about it without the unit letting us know?  I could write a book here on the process afterwards, but long story short is that I got quite good after just speaking with the unit's Adj on what to nominate the mbr for.  After I was back home I watched with interest the H&A announcement CANFORGENS coming out and the vast majority of the nominations we passed up to CEFCOM (as this was the next step after the JTF-Afg H&A Committee and Comd JTF-Afg approved the nomination) were successful.  General rule is (as some have already stated) that if you don't nominate someone, then nothing happens.  Also, when in doubt, nominate them.  If in doubt about what to nominate them for, nominate them for the higher honour.  Also, as stated above, the quality of the nomination itself has a strong bearing on whether or not it is successful.  The writing must be very good and detailed.  Mistakes in grammar/spelling will not help the mbr's cause.  Get someone to write the nomination that has very good writing skills.  Trust me, it makes a big difference.

Meritorious Service Decorations (medal or cross) are NOT the same as "single" event type honours.  MSDs are used to cover off a period of prolonged time, usually reserved for careers or a long time period (much longer than a tour).  If the details of the newspaper story were correct (which I have my doubts about as well), then definitely a MSD is not the correct avenue as this event was a "single" event type as I mentioned above.  See below about the categories, but if this story accurately reflects the true events of what happened, then my recommendation to the unit Adj would have been to nominate for a "valour" award.  However, read my entire post prior to coming to conclusions.

It is important to note that you do not nominate someone for a specific medal or honour in Canada, you nominate for a category.    The categories were and probably still are:

1. Valour (important fact is that valour awards are ONLY given if the act/deed/etc. was performed in the presence of an armed enemy, which, Afg clearly qualified);
2. Bravery (this involved a second step outside of what is described below.  This was an additional board that consisted of non-DND affiliated civies reviewing files for any Canadian, etc. nominated for a Cdn bravery award.  Thus, we preferred not to go this route since the valour one usually took care of most of the nominations (that fell into the "Bravery" category) coming out of theatre and the bravery one took a lot longer to actually get awarded to the mbr.  While I was in theatre, there was a huge push from the CDS to make the awarding of the honour in a very timely manner, i.e. at least less than six months after the member returned home from that tour).
3. Mention-in-dispatches;
4. CDS Commendation;
5. Then called the CEFCOM Commendation (basically is a Command Commendation.  Today this would be a CJOC Commendation if this was a deployment.  Similar ones also exist for the Army, RCN, and RCAF); and
6. Comd JTF-Afg Commendation (basically was a certificate with a coin).

Other points:
-an important thing to note is that if a person is nominated for an H&A, then it is usually for something that they did which was not normal for that rank level, experience level, their normal duties, etc.  Basically, it had to be something exceptional.  I'm not trying to get into a debate here about whether or not the LS deserved a nomination, nor am I judging what he did was exceptional or not.  All I'm trying to say is that these factors ARE considered by the various H&A committees that look at the files as they progress up through the C of C.  However, one thing that I did personally observe was that there was sometimes a reluctance from some units to nominate mbrs as they felt that the mbr was just doing their job.  Again, if in doubt, nominate the mbr.  That was my motto;
-I could be wrong and my memory may be failing me as I get older, but I don't recall a MANDATORY time limit on nominations.  I believe that this was just a guideline.  I will look into this when I find a moment to do so and post back here with the results.  To be honest, this never came into play while I was in theatre as our nominations were all for what had occurred either on the previous tour or the two that I had covered off (the HQ "ripped" out of sequence with the BG on purpose and thus my tour went over two ROTOs);
-no nomination process is perfect.  It changed three times while I was over there and I agree with comments above.  The few lines that appear on someone's scroll don't do it justice for what the mbr did.  Our mbrs did some incredible things over there and this is what kept me going sometimes after we had just processed a death (was the main duty of the cell that I worked in);
-once a nomination was put in, it was taken very seriously and was processed very quickly.  I left theatre with every single one of the nominations that were put in while I was there processed (either stopped, awarded the Comd JTF-Afg Commendation, or passed to HHQ for further processing).  CEFCOM had specific people doing similar work to move the files along.  Believe me, this received CDS attention and this was made very clear to us.

My main points are:

Take care of our people.  They are what keeps the military running.  Sometimes we don't take the time to say "thanks" to our pers.  This doesn't always need an H&A.  Sometimes a simple thank you, job well done, pat on the back, etc. goes a long way.  When one of your mbrs does something exceptional, nominate them.  The worst that can happen is the nomination gets stopped.  Get a good writer to do the nomination.  

Hope this helps.


----------



## Pusser (15 Nov 2013)

:goodpost:

However, I would like to add a few things.

1)  I will reiterate the importance of good staffwork.  The better written the nomination, the better chance it has of being successful.  The key requirements are clarity and completeness.  Take it seriously and strive to do it well.  If somebody does something worthy of recognition, surely it's worth the staff effort to process it?

2)  Don't confuse the Meritorious Service Decorations (Cross and Medal) with the Order of Military Merit (OrMM).  The Meritorious Service Decorations (MSD) *can* be awarded for single events (e.g. member showed exceptional leadership during a firefight).  Although they are quite frequently awarded for leadership over a period of time, that time period is almost invariably limited to the length of the tour.  Also note that the MSDs are *not* limited to combat or even operational conditions.  They have been awarded for things like exceptional planning and implementation of training systems in schools.  One was recently awarded to the CIC Branch Advisor for leadership in the Cadet program.  HCols have been awarded them for community outreach projects.  The key point is that all decorations are for something exceptional.  

3)  The OrMM is a society of merit and nominations for that DO need to cover a member's entire career.  So, if you're writing an OrMM nomination, you need to include everything (e.g. community service), whereas for a MSD nomination, stick to the event itself.

4)  Rank, training and experience do factor into the deliberations.  If a member is doing something that is expected of him/her than his/her conduct may be considered less exceptional than if another person were doing it.  The gist of this is that we don't decorate folks for doing their jobs.  I've seen examples where both members of a fireteam were decorated for the same action, but the private received the Star of Military Valour and the MCpl received the Medal of Military Valour, simply because more is expected from a MCpl.


----------



## pbi (16 Nov 2013)

When I was a battalion Adjt, I thought that the G1 types at higher HQ levels were a bunch of bureaucratic f***tards, whose job was to stifle and delay anything worthwhile that came from unit level.

Having since worked at levels above battalion, and sat on several Regimental selection boards,  I came to realize how poorly served so many soldiers were by incompetent, negligent or just plain stupid staff work at unit level.


----------

