# Former Canadian Soldier Wants to be a Reservist despite PTSD



## Strike (11 Apr 2017)

My view - He has a pre-existing condition that has the potential to re-emerge given the right circumstances.  What if someone with Type 2 diabetes, who required no medication because they could control it through diet and exercise, wanted to apply?  We would say the same thing.  This pre-existing condition precludes you from serving.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-canadian-soldier-wants-to-be-a-reservist-despite-ptsd/article34661133/



> Former Canadian soldier wants to be a reservist despite PTSD
> 
> Gloria Galloway
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2017)

Completely agree. I appreciate his service, and his wounds received because of it, but that ship has sailed in his life. We reject people every day because of per-existing conditions, and IMHO we should be doing a more thorough mental health screening at enrollment.


----------



## Altair (11 Apr 2017)

Would this make people who have PTSD less likely to get it diagnosed for fear that they could never join/rejoin the forces?


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Apr 2017)

On the other side, there are many positions within the CAF that will never deploy.  Perhaps it would be wise to post medically unfit personnel in those positions and let medically fit people work the line units.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (11 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Would this make people who have PTSD less likely to get it diagnosed for fear that they could never join/rejoin the forces?



Eventually someone is going to catch on and a lot worse will happen because it has gone undiagnosed/untreated.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On the other side, there are many positions within the CAF that will never deploy.  Perhaps it would be wise to post medically unfit personnel in those positions and let medically fit people work the line units.



Except then you're burning out the deployable people.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On the other side, there are many positions within the CAF that will never deploy.  Perhaps it would be wise to post medically unfit personnel in those positions and let medically fit people work the line units.


If you've got a list then we can use it to start making those people civilians and putting the PYs into line units. If you cannot/will not deploy, you shouldn't be in uniform, unless we're leveraging that individuals previous CAF experience to help train others for a time until a comfortable transition to civilian life.

You also have to be careful with tying an individual as not deployable simply because they're in a non-line unit but fully capable and willing to go.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> Would this make people who have PTSD less likely to get it diagnosed for fear that they could never join/rejoin the forces?



It is already is a concern.  It is not only affecting pers in the CF, but when they leave the CF as well.  I know of at least one case where a former CF member is fighting for their job as a Commissionaire, as it has been affected by his diagnosis of PTSD.  People are already covering up the fact that they may be suffering due to cases like these.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On the other side, there are many positions within the CAF that will never deploy.  Perhaps it would be wise to post medically unfit personnel in those positions and let medically fit people work the line units.



So?  Should we bring back a "Home Guard" organization, as was found in Great Britain and Canada in the Second World War; made up of former soldiers ineligible for military service and secondary to the Regular Force?


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Apr 2017)

I don't know about a Home Guard, what with soldiers, with guns, on the street traumatizing our recent arrivals and the meek yet politically powerful....

How about a deployable Peace Corps funded by GA?  With a strong emphasis on construction, engineering, telecoms, infrastructure, health care.... A way to contribute and serve wearing the flag without the higher military standards for enrolment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2017)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I don't know about a Home Guard, what with soldiers, with guns, on the street traumatizing our recent arrivals and the meek yet politically powerful....
> 
> How about a deployable Peace Corps funded by GA?  With a strong emphasis on construction, engineering, telecoms, infrastructure, health care.... A way to contribute and serve wearing the flag without the higher military standards for enrolment.




That is a good idea that I know, for a fact, was raised, by some pretty well connected Canadian business execs, in the 1990s ... and ignored by successive governments.

The notion was the "peacemakers" should be followed by baby-blue beret type "peacekeepers" and para-military "nation builders/ peace builders," followed, later, by (Canadian) government and corporate interests who would invest and build institutions and infrastructure in the host nation.


----------



## Eland2 (11 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Should we bring back a "Home Guard" organization, as was found in Great Britain and Canada in the Second World War; made up of former soldiers ineligible for military service and secondary to the Regular Force?



Interesting idea. But it raises a whole bunch of questions: how and where will we employ Home Guard/Territorial Army members? How will we stand up and fund such an organization, given that the Liberals have decided to defer $8.5 billion in badly needed military spending for the next 20 years, and cuts are likely on the way for some of the more peripheral parts of the military? Is there a need for such an organization? Even with the Russian bear seemingly grunting and groaning, not even Sweden maintain much of a Home Guard these days.

In wartime, with full-scale mobilization and every fit person the military can get their hands on (including those in the Primary Reserve and on the supplemental list)  being deployed overseas or elsewhere, a home guard might be useful as a backstop to manage support and other in-garrison taskings that can't be managed by regular units because they're deployed.

My maternal grandfather and a great uncle on my father's side were involved in the 'home guard' organization that existed during the Second World War. Neither relative was deployed to the front lines. My grandfather was deployed to a searchlight station on Cape Breton Island and his job was to detect enemy ships and submarines attempting to enter Canadian waters. 

What my great uncle did, I've no idea, but relatives have told me that he frequently went to Camp Ipperwash for training-related duties. 

I have also heard from other relatives that my grandfather was supposedly a member of the Canadian Corps of Infantry (my reading of which is that it was a generic, catch-all organization that formed the support structure for the home guard system.)
I've never heard of such a unit and haven't been able to get any real information on it.


----------



## medicineman (12 Apr 2017)

I seem to recall this dude from my tour in '94.  He was a Reserve Medic with us and IIRC, was tasked as the Padres' driver.  We had a messed up tour with a lot of tooling around in minefields, with the resultant casualties that comes from those activities, as well as unwanted baggage (I'm no better off).

My take on things - at risk of getting flamed - is that they've got a chronic condition that can be, and often is, exacerbated by conditions of service, especially on deployment.  From an occupational medicine standpoint, why would/should we risk the possibility of losing someone to a pre-existing condition that can be exacerbated by what they're supposed to   to do for a living AND exposing the organization to potential further liability in forms of sick leave, time lost, having to replace, pensions, outside medical costs, etc, when someone else can be hired that has a lower potential risk?

This is an unfortunate thing I used to see a lot in the Recruiting realm - folks thinking that we owed them a job, physically/mentally fit or not.  There are limited number of positions and the people that are going to get hired should be the ones that are (hopefully) healthy and the right fit for the job.  There always has to be a line drawn in the sand as to what is and isn't permissible, and the Supreme Court has upheld many challenges in this regard.  These lines get revised often, sometimes as the moon phases shift, in keeping with current therapy guidelines and research into disease progression.  Things don't always seem fair when you're on the receiving end, but at the end of the day, it's not personal, it's business.

As much as I thought Josh was a good guy and hope he continues to succeed, fact is, just because someone goes to the press, doesn't always mean they should get a pass...there are always three sides to a story - his side, her side, and the what really happened side.  We're not really hearing the whole thing I think.  

 :2c:

MM


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is not only affecting pers in the CF, but when they leave the CF as well.



Performance in a high-stress setting is a regular part of certain workplaces former members may have an interest in applying to join.


----------



## McG (12 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Should we bring back a "Home Guard" organization, as was found in Great Britain and Canada in the Second World War; made up of former soldiers ineligible for military service and secondary to the Regular Force?


Why would we do that?  For the sake of the people who want to join?  So that it can become an answer looking for its question?

If you create such an organization, the resources (money) will have to come from somewhere.  Would anyone here be ready to cut the defence budget so we can field an armed forces for the disabled?



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On the other side, there are many positions within the CAF that will never deploy.  Perhaps it would be wise to post medically unfit personnel in those positions and let medically fit people work the line units.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except then you're burning out the deployable people.


... and ensuring, where such sheltered pers are uniformed decision makers, that they become out of touch with the operational forces they represent but can never serve in.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Apr 2017)

If the guy wants to contribute to a reserve unit I would welcome him with open arms into mine.. as an active member of the association or one of the messes, or even the museum or band.

There is a cr#pton of work that needs to be done to keep these important institutions going in units, and not always enough people to do them.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Apr 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If the guy wants to contribute to a reserve unit I would welcome him with open arms into mine.. as an active member of the association or one of the messes, or even the museum or band.
> 
> There is a cr#pton of work that needs to be done to keep these important institutions going in units, and not always enough people to do them.



Give him a civilian contract to manage the RQ? plenty of things could be done at the armoury level that don't require the gentlemen to be in uniform, go out to the field and such.


----------



## Lightguns (12 Apr 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If the guy wants to contribute to a reserve unit I would welcome him with open arms into mine.. as an active member of the association or one of the messes, or even the museum or band.
> 
> There is a cr#pton of work that needs to be done to keep these important institutions going in units, and not always enough people to do them.



What part of unit training do you give up to fund your museum and messes improvement because that would be the decision?


----------



## Lightguns (12 Apr 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Give him a civilian contract to manage the RQ? plenty of things could be done at the armoury level that don't require the gentlemen to be in uniform, go out to the field and such.



Leaving aside employment suitability, whose budget does that come under?  During my armouries day, some units would shut down in January until April because the money was not there to train.  I doubt it has changed much and I doubt the reserve units and garrisons are flush with cash.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> What part of unit training do you give up to fund your museum and messes improvement because that would be the decision?



Museums and messes are NPF not public funds, the $ donated and raised are handled through Regimental Associations.  So no Reserve pay or unit training funds are used.

Example: https://www.theregiment.ca/museum/


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you've got a list then we can use it to start making those people civilians and putting the PYs into line units. If you cannot/will not deploy, you shouldn't be in uniform, unless we're leveraging that individuals previous CAF experience to help train others for a time until a comfortable transition to civilian life.
> 
> You also have to be careful with tying an individual as not deployable simply because they're in a non-line unit but fully capable and willing to go.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk



In the end, you still spend more money by doing this.  Money isn't suddenly produced out of thin air because you make a position civilian.  

Many staff positions, most training positons do not require deployments.  The CAF has to take into account thr investment in people before they make a decision wrt medical release especially when that person can still effectively do the work.

For example, a fighter pilot costs north of a millions dollars to train to a basic level and several millions up to an advanced level.  Test pilots, none of whom are expected to deploy, have to go through a $1.5M course after they gained experience that is, in itself, worth millions.

All the experience an knowledge is lost after they are released.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Apr 2017)

There is significant public funding expended in support of messes and other, notionally NPP activities.  For example, CANEX pays no rent or utilities for its facilities; those costs are borne by the public.  Mess construction is a public expense.  Certain management costs associated with messes are borne by the public.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In the end, you still spend more money by doing this.  Money isn't suddenly produced out of thin air because you make a position civilian.
> 
> Many staff positions, most training positons do not require deployments.  The CAF has to take into account thr investment in people before they make a decision wrt medical release especially when that person can still effectively do the work.
> 
> ...



If we train a pilot, who then gets a medical condition that prevents them from flying, then they are useless as a pilot - useless for the job for which they have been trained; those costs have been sunk and are not recoverable, so stop thinking about them.

We are allocated 68K paid Reg F positions for the who of the CAF.  Including ill and injured, including those not yet occupationally trained, including those on advanced training... that's it, that's all.  Within NDHQ there are groups (civilian Defenc Scientists) that conduct analyses and attempt to ensure that there is a balance between the deployable / non-deployable positions so that people are not kept constantly on the deployable treadmill.  Clog the non-deployable positions, and you're burning out / breaking the remaining folks as well.

So the 68K is a limiting factor that can't be assumed away, or sprinkled with DS fairy dust to ignore it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Apr 2017)

A pilot can be fit to fly but unfit for universality of service.  Happenned in the recent past.  Member was medically released (irony is that he received his medical release decision while on deployment).

We lost this experience forever and he is now flying in the civilian sector.


----------



## Strike (12 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A pilot can be fit to fly but unfit for universality of service.  Happenned in the recent past.  Member was medically released (irony is that he received his medical release decision while on deployment).
> 
> We lost this experience forever and he is now flying in the civilian sector.



So, would you rather have that pilot then stuck in the training community for another 15-20 years with no exposure to any expeditionary ops or exercises?  What kind of instructor would that make?

I'll tell you, when I was in MJ, the best instructors were the ones that had just come from an operational unit and the worst were the ones who had just come from MJ themselves or who hadn't seen an operational Sqn in a dog's age, for the simple reason that they had either lost touch with what the rest of the CAF was doing or never had exposure to it in the first place and thought that MJ was the 'real' world.

People need to be deployable, whether they ever deploy or not.  And having a pre-existing condition, especially one that is likely to be exacerbated by a deployment, is grounds enough to refuse readmission AFAIK.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Apr 2017)

Post them to the OTU, let them teach fighter pilot courses and fighter weapons instructor courses.  Some of the best fighter IPs I had were reservists with tons of Hornet experience (and in some cases, no Op deployments)

They can keep up with times by participating in multi-national exercises.  A fighter op deployment is always a tiny fraction of what we do (for example, in Irak we only did Close Air Support.  We did Interdiction but that was a piece of cake compared to what we train for).  This is one of 10 mission sets we train for.  In that sense, operational experience is not necessarily the be all end all.  Where we gain valuable experience is when we participate in exercises such as Red Flag.  This is where we truly learn how to employ as a fighting force.  And these individuals could participate.

So yes, retain the experience and find ways to capitalize on the investment.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Apr 2017)

> has the condition under control and that his PTSD would not impede his performance as a nursing officer.


Impossible to say his PTSD wouldn't impede his performance or he wouldn't be exposed to a trigger and make his condition 100 times worse.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ... They can keep up with times by participating in multi-national exercises ...


I don't know if this is the right question, but if someone's medically unfit - for whatever reason - to deploy, or even remain in the employ of the CAF, would they medically fit to even go on ex?  Just askin' ...


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Apr 2017)

If they are fit to fly an aircraft, what difference does it make if they fly that aircraft in Cold Lake or in Eielson or Nellis?


----------



## Kokanee (12 Apr 2017)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'll tell you, when I was in MJ, the best instructors were the ones that had just come from an operational unit and the worst were the ones who had just come from MJ themselves or who hadn't seen an operational Sqn in a dog's age, for the simple reason that they had either lost touch with what the rest of the CAF was doing or never had exposure to it in the first place and thought that MJ was the 'real' world.



Ha! Reminds me of a Sgt I had my last year who had come to my Unit (operational) from a school where they had been for over ten years... Literal white glove inspections of field vehicles etc.....


----------



## Strike (12 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If they are fit to fly an aircraft, what difference does it make if they fly that aircraft in Cold Lake or in Eielson or Nellis?



But do the guys and gals posted to the fighter OT sqn even get to go on exercise beyond domestic tasks?  I know for my own fleet they very rarely (almost never) get sent outside their AOR because their primary task is to teach and they are damn busy doing that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Apr 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> What part of unit training do you give up to fund your museum and messes improvement because that would be the decision?



He volunteers, like all the others who do this work. He could likely add more value than a civilian volunteer in some areas because of his military background. And possibly, through networking, he can also find a civvie job locally.


----------

