# Changes to service medals announced



## Halifax Tar (8 Jan 2020)

As part of Strong, Secure, Engaged, (SSE 7), the Government of Canada is modernizing the Canadian Armed Forces Honours and Awards system to ensure military members’ service to Canada is recognized in a more timely and appropriate manner.

See link for info:

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2020/01/36817?fbclid=IwAR3Z8Nzkfvesno5fG0fJzX-J6tVW56lIl_zHl1UrngU6WO6W51X8QJFFErQ


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jan 2020)

And as follow-up/additional info...

CANFORGEN 001/20 CMP 001/20 061924Z JAN 20

MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SERVICE MEDALS UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 021/18 
B. PC 2019-1220 TO PC 2019-1222 27AUG 2019 
C. PC 2019-1392 TO PC 2019-1402 19DEC 2019 
D. CANFORGEN 003/09 CMP 002/09 081950Z JAN 09 
E. CANFORGEN 096/09 CMP 042/09 201315Z MAY 09 

1.	AS PART OF CANADA S NEW DEFENCE POLICY QUOTE STRONG, SECURE, ENGAGED UNQUOTE, THERE IS AN INITIATIVE TO MODERNIZE THE OUVERSEAS SVC RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK TO MAKE SVC MEDALS MORE ACCESSIBLE AND FLEXIBLE TO ENSURE THE APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY RECOGNITION OF CAF MBRS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN AND SP TO OPS

2.	THE MEASURES ANNOUNCED IN THIS MSG ARE FURTHER TO REF A AND CONSTITUTE THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS INITIATIVE

3.	ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CDS IN CONSULTATION WITH AFC, THE GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL HAS APPROVED A MODIFICATION OF THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR CAMPAIGN AND SERVICE MEDALS AS FOLLOWS: 

(A) THE TIME CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN CAMPAIGN AND SERVICE MEDALS IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS FROM THE RESPECTIVE EFF DATE INDICATED. ALL TIME IS CUMULATIVE: 

(1) GCS - SOUTH WEST ASIA FROM 30 DAYS TO 14 DAYS EFF 13 MAR 14 

(2) GCS - EXPEDITION FROM 30 DAYS TO 14 DAYS EFF 5 OCT 14 

(3) GSM - SOUTH WEST ASIA FOR CDN CIVILIANS THAT SERVE IN THE THEATRE OF OPS IN SP OF THE CAF FROM 30 DAYS TO 14 DAYS EFF 13 MAR 14 

(4) GSM - SOUTH WEST ASIA FOR OP SP PROVIDED BY MIL PERS AND CDN CIVILIANS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF OPS FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 13 MAR 14 

(5) GSM - EXPEDITION FOR CDN CIVILIANS THAT SERVE IN THE THEATRE OF OPS IN SP OF THE CAF FROM 30 DAYS TO 14 DAYS EFF 5 OCT 14 

(6) GSM - EXPEDITION FOR OP SP PROVIDED BY MIL PERS AND CDN CIVILIANS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF OPS FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 5 OCT 14 

(7) OSM - SOUTH WEST ASIA FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 13 MAR 14 

(8 ) OSM - SIERRA LEONE FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 17 FEB 13 

(9) OSM - HAITI FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 1 JUL 17 

(10) OSM - SUDAN FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 30 JUL 16 

(11) OSM - HUMANITAS FROM 30 DAYS TO 14 DAYS EFF 28 APR 15 

(12) OSM - EXPEDITION FROM 30 DAYS TO 21 DAYS EFF 15 MAY 14 

(B) PERS WHO HAVE ELIGIBLE SVC UNDER THE OLD CRITERIA BUT DID NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, AND ALSO HAVE ELIGIBLE SVC UNDER THE NEW ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, SHALL BE ALLOWED TO COMBINE ALL THE ELIGIBLE DAYS OF SERVICE TOWARDS THE NEW CRITERIA. ESSENTIALLY, ONE HAS TO SERVE AT LEAST ONE ELIGIBLE DAY UNDER THE NEW ELIGIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO CUMULATE ALL PAST ELIGIBLE SVC TOWARD THE SHORTER CRITERIA 

(C) CRITERIA FOR THE FIRST ROTO BAR IS AMENDED FROM 180 DAYS AFTER ELIGIBILITY FOR THE INITIAL MEDAL TO A STANDARD TOTAL OF 210 DAYS OF ACCUMULATED ELIGIBLE SERVICE INCLUDING THE TIME USED TO EARN THE INITIAL MEDAL. ALL SUBSEQUENT ROTATION BARS WILL REQUIRE A FURTHER 180 DAYS ACCUMULATED ELIGIBLE SERVICE SINCE THE LAST BAR 

(D) MBRS OF ALLIED FORCES AND CDN CITIZENS WHO ARE UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE CAF WILL NOW BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SSM FROM 29 APR 14 ONWARDS IF THEY OTHERWISE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE MEDAL AND RELATED BAR 

(E) STAFF ASSISTANCE VISITS (SAVS), STAFF INSPECTION VISITS (SIVS), AND SPECIALIST VISITS WILL NOW QUALIFY FOR THE GCS, GSM, OSM, SSM AND CPSM. VISITS FOR THE CONDUCT OF LEADERSHIP, COMMAND, MORALE, ACADEMIC STUDIES, SURVEYS OR OTHER SIMILAR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES REMAIN EXCLUDED FROM QUALIFICATION

4.	FULL CRITERIA AS WELL AS COMPLETE ELIGIBILITY LISTS MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH AND R WEB SITE AT https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index.html

5.	APPLICATIONS FOR ELIGIBLE PERS SHALL BE MADE IAW REFS D AND E


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jan 2020)

So, someone with two flying deployments for Op IMPAt as long as one is 21 days or longer and the other one includes 14 or more days over days flying over Iraq/Syria should get both?


----------



## Brasidas (9 Jan 2020)

Last time that I looked into this to see which of my troops qualified for what, the big reference was     

From CANFORGEN 201/18: “THE GSM, OR BAR TO THE GSM, MAY ONLY BE AWARDED TO AN ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS IN AN ELIGIBLE LOCATION 180 DAYS OR MORE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE DAY THEY QUALIFIED FOR THE GCS OR THEIR LATEST BAR TO THE GCS”   

My understanding is that this will still be in effect, such that if a mbr spends anywhere up to 179 days after qualifying for a GSM-EXP, then qualifies for a GCS-EXP, they can't qualify for a GSM-EXP for at least another 180 days after that.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jan 2020)

Do you have the full CANFORGEN 201/18?  In my example, it’s the GSM first then the GCS.

Edit: I read the CANFORGEN and I have a hard time making full sense of it.  We have guys who went over twice to IMPACT.  Let’s say:

A person deploys to Op IMPACT (Kuwait or Qatar) and meets eligibility criteria for GSM.  On a second tour, starting more than 180 days after returning from the first deployment, he flies over Iraq for more than 14 missions.  Could that person get both?

If not, could that person exchange his GSM for a GCS?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jan 2020)

I dont see why we needed this change, or why the rotation bar wasn't changed as well. We already had an existing mechanism that the RCN used all the time, multiplicative service (each day counts for 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 days) so that they'd get a medal even though they spent 5 months transitting but only 30 days in the ops box.

If we're going to overhaul the system,  do it properly. Remove an arbitrary days requirement and tie it to a " honourably completed attach posting message". Finish your tour? Get a medal. Get sent home for drinking/bad performance/frat? No medal. Medical/compassionate considered honorable completion. Then there's no appendage waving about days in theatre, or people watching the calendar to try to squeak out a medal because they finished their TAV a week ago but are 5 random days short of the medal.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If we're going to overhaul the system,  do it properly. Remove an arbitrary days requirement and tie it to a " honourably completed attach posting message". Finish your tour? Get a medal. Get sent home for drinking/bad performance/frat? No medal. Medical/compassionate considered honorable completion. Then there's no appendage waving about days in theatre, or people watching the calendar to try to squeak out a medal because they finished their TAV a week ago but are 5 random days short of the medal.



Great idea  :nod:


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Jan 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you have the full CANFORGEN 201/18?  In my example, it’s the GSM first then the GCS.
> 
> Edit: I read the CANFORGEN and I have a hard time making full sense of it.  We have guys who went over twice to IMPACT.  Let’s say:
> 
> ...



Based on an email exchange with the DH&R folks, the answer to both of your questions is yes.

However, after reading the latest CANFORGEN I can see folks (at all levels) getting confused about having to serve at least one day with the new criteria to count cumulative days.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I dont see why we needed this change, or why the rotation bar wasn't changed as well. We already had an existing mechanism that the RCN used all the time, multiplicative service (each day counts for 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 days) so that they'd get a medal even though they spent 5 months transitting but only 30 days in the ops box.
> 
> *If we're going to overhaul the system,  do it properly. Remove an arbitrary days requirement and tie it to a " honourably completed attach posting message". Finish your tour? Get a medal. Get sent home for drinking/bad performance/frat? No medal. Medical/compassionate considered honorable completion. Then there's no appendage waving about days in theatre, or people watching the calendar to try to squeak out a medal because they finished their TAV a week ago but are 5 random days short of the medal.*



There are hundreds of Reservists who were on Exercise Orien Special etc for FALLEX in the late 60s/70s who were in Europe with NATO who are not eligible for the SSM re days. Most were 100 days or so. Also in 1968 we received reinforcements from QOR of C and Cdn Guards to 2PPCLI as it was thought the balloon was going up.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jan 2020)

My first thought about this was: 'Great idea. Good campaign service should be recognized in the right way.'

My next thought was: 'Good Lord. How many more 'war tourists' will the front line units have to suffer?'

That is all


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jan 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My first thought about this was: 'Great idea. Good campaign service should be recognized in the right way.'
> 
> My next thought was: 'Good Lord. How many more 'war tourists' will the front line units have to suffer?'
> 
> That is all



Yeah, no kidding, the staff visits we had from CJOC had zero value added, and they conveniently planned it for one of the nicer port visits we had scheduled (Barcelona?) with a bit of overlap on each end. The FLS folks also got the same tour medal, but at least they were working while jumping around each port.

Not sure how it works in the army/air force, but this is great for the folks that rotate through covering others off for their trip back home. It's all staggered, so over a 7 month trip there will be people gone for 4 or 5 months of it in drips and drabs, so a lot of the replacements came in for a few months to cover off a whole bunch of people with the same ticket/qual. Know a few people in shore postings that are gone 6+ months a year backfilling like this, but kind of a necessary evil when you leave the wall with usually the bare min of people required to cover the various positions with very little redundancy to fill the holes yourselves.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you have the full CANFORGEN 201/18?



I don't see an amendment to 201/18 in 001/20 above, re: the yellow text...

CANFORGEN 201/18 CMP 099/18 281537Z NOV 18

ADDITION AND AMENDMENT OF QUALIFYING SERVICE - SERVICE MEDALS UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 003/09 CMP 002/09 081950Z JAN 09 
B. CANFORGEN 096/09 CMP 042/09 201315Z MAY 09 
C. CANFORGEN 072/10 CMP 033/10 261730Z MAR 10, PARA 1.F 
D. CANFORGEN 079/17 CMP 042/17 241851Z APR 17, PARA 3.A 
E. CANFORGEN 005/17 CMP 005/17 121754Z JAN 17, PARA 2.A (1) 

1.	THE REGULATION FOR THE GCS AND GSM STATE QUOTE WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH THE STAR OR ITS ROTATION BAR AND THE MEDAL OR ITS ROTATION BAR IN RESPECT OF THE SAME TYPE OF SVC OR IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE STAR OR ITS ROTATION BAR UNQUOTE. THIS WAS ALSO EXPRESSED IN SIMPLER WORDS AT REF C. THE AIM OF THIS RULE, IAW THE CANADIAN HONOURS POLICY WHICH PRECLUDES DUAL RECOGNITION, IS TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT RECEIVE MORE THAN ONE AWARD WITHIN A 6 MONTH PERIOD. IN LIGHT OF NEW PATERNS OF DEPLOYMENTS, THE FOL INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CF HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE AS IT APPLIES TO PERSONS WHO CREDIT TIME TOWARDS BOTH THE GCS AND GSM WITH THE SAME THEATRE RIBBON (EG. SOUTH-WEST ASIA OR EXPEDITION) QUOTE THE GSM, OR BAR TO THE GSM, MAY ONLY BE AWARDED TO AN ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS IN AN ELIGIBLE LOCATION 180 DAYS OR MORE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE DAY THEY QUALIFIED FOR THE GCS OR THEIR LATEST BAR TO THE GCS UNQUOTE

2.	AFC HAS APPROVED THE ADDITION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FOL SVC TO THE ELIGIBILITY LISTS FOR CERTAIN SERVICE MEDALS AS FOLLOWS: 

A.	OPERATIONAL SERVICE MEDAL-EXPEDITION(OSM-EXP): 

(1) SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF THE DEFENCE TEAM DEPLOYED TO MALI IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF OP PRESENCE SINCE 1 JUN 18 (PROVIDED THE SERVICE IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE MINUSMA MEDAL, THEREFORE EXCLUDING UN AND NSE PERSONNEL) 

(2) SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF THE DEFENCE TEAM DEPLOYED TO BURKINA FASO IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF OP PRESENCE SINCE 1 JUN 18

B.	SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL-NATO(SSM-NATO) 

(1) REF D IS AMENDED TO ADD: MULTI NATIONAL DIVISION - NORTH EAST (MND-NE), ELBLAG, POLAND 

(2) REF E IS AMENDED AS FOL: SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO EASTERN OR CENTRAL EUROPE OR IN ICELAND, AS PART OF THE AIR TASK FORCE (ATF) OF OPERATION REASSURANCE, SINCE 29 APR 14

C.	SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL-EXPEDITION(SSM-EXP): 

(1) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO ROYAL AIR FORCE WYTON, UK, AS FULL MOTION VIDEO (FMV) ANALYSTS IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF OP IMPACT, SINCE 15 JUN 17 

(2) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO SENEGAL IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF OP PRESENCE SINCE 1 JUN 18

3.	FULL CRITERIA AS WELL AS COMPLETE ELIGIBILITY LISTS MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://FORCES.GC.CA/EN/HONOURS-HISTORY-MEDALS-CHART/MEDALS-CHART-INDEX.PAGE


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> However, after reading the latest CANFORGEN I can see folks (at all levels) getting confused about having to serve at least one day with the new criteria to count cumulative days.



001/20 only refers to cumulative days for the same medal/star though, there's no mention of the stuff detailed in 201/18...


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Jan 2020)

I spoke with the H&A Chief at MARLANT yesterday about this - he and I both did an OP CARIBE on MON a few years ago - we both got 22 days of service towards what was then a 30 day medal.  Looks like it's been dropped to 21 days....so...maybe I get an OSM-EXP?  So does he?   Interesting!

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Yeah, no kidding, the staff visits we had from CJOC had zero value added, and they conveniently planned it for one of the nicer port visits we had scheduled (Barcelona?) with a bit of overlap on each end. The FLS folks also got the same tour medal, but at least they were working while jumping around each port.



The FLS folks work pretty hard to keep the ships supplied.  I have never been on FLS but I have done a few deployments at sea and I know they work long hours dealing local customs and chandlers to  keep your supply lines open and flowing. 

CJOC on the other hand, I am convinced that they exist to employ GO/FOs and thier follow on supporting staff.  From a logistics standpoint all they do is complicate things.  I am not convinced the RCN requires CJOC to deploy.  IMHO is another level of bureaucracy forced upon us because. 




			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not sure how it works in the army/air force, but this is great for the folks that rotate through covering others off for their trip back home. It's all staggered, so over a 7 month trip there will be people gone for 4 or 5 months of it in drips and drabs, so a lot of the replacements came in for a few months to cover off a whole bunch of people with the same ticket/qual. Know a few people in shore postings that are gone 6+ months a year backfilling like this, but kind of a necessary evil when you leave the wall with usually the bare min of people required to cover the various positions with very little redundancy to fill the holes yourselves.



People were already able to qualify for these medals with accumulated days over time.  Having said that the last few ships to go, and us now;  HLTA will only be done during RAMP for the vast majority with smatterings else where for various reasons.  As well CJOC wont fund backfills anymore.  

As for the medals we are going to start looking like North Korean generals soon.  Nothing wrong with people earning medals but when the awarding far out weighs the experience gained I start to worry about the methodology behind it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> As for the medals we are going to start looking like North Korean generals soon.  Nothing wrong with people earning medals but when the awarding far out weighs the experience gained I start to worry about the methodology behind it.



I assume that this is part of the H&A 'me too' movement. Anyone who joined after 2014, when we pulled out of AFG, will have few opportunities to amass any chest bling, so they look at their longer service comrades, point, and say 'me too!'


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jan 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume that this is part of the H&A 'me too' movement. Anyone who joined after 2014, when we pulled out of AFG, will have few opportunities to amass any chest bling, so they look at their longer service comrades, point, and say 'me too!'



I would agree that I suspect this stems from SPS when one must wear ribbons or medals.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jan 2020)

How about instead of lowering days required for medals we work to adjust the financial benifits of deployments to work on favor of the Sailors and troops.  

We leaveing in the next week for 7 months. Our RA and HR are lower than my SDA.  Why not give the option to collector either or ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How about instead of lowering days required for medals we work to adjust the financial benifits of deployments to work on favor of the Sailors and troops.
> 
> We leaveing in the next week for 7 months. Our RA and HR are lower than my SDA.  Why not give the option to collector either or ?



Completely unrelated, have a safe trip buddy! Watch out for sirens (see what I did there?).


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jan 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Completely unrelated, have a safe trip buddy! Watch out for sirens (see what I did there?).



Lol well played.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The FLS folks work pretty hard to keep the ships supplied.  I have never been on FLS but I have done a few deployments at sea and I know they work long hours dealing local customs and chandlers to  keep your supply lines open and flowing.
> 
> CJOC on the other hand, I am convinced that they exist to employ GO/FOs and thier follow on supporting staff.  From a logistics standpoint all they do is complicate things.  I am not convinced the RCN requires CJOC to deploy.  IMHO is another level of bureaucracy forced upon us because.



Agree; we would have been hosed without FLS sorting out parts and whatnot getting through customs and sorting out other issues for us. We eventually had a pretty good working relationship with our FLS and made a huge difference. To be honest CJOC was just another layer of BS to get through, and mostly they were an additional complication adding extra lead time onto getting things sorted. They also added another layer onto the telephone game (two actually; there was also MCC) and our technical briefings to NATO got messed up everytime they tried to give it the 'strategic CJOC perspective'.

Can't believe they can simultaneously require HLTA and not fund backfills; does someone else run the RAMP now other than ship's staff? I had contracted a number of locals to get some repairs done, and we were also getting a major mission critical repair done with a big TAV. It was like a really busy SWP, and there were about 50 people working long days everyday we were there to get that sorted, on top of the normal foreign port duty watch. Without a backfill, there were a number of us that never would have been able to take HLTA.

Anyway, off topic, sorry.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Agree; we would have been hosed without FLS sorting out parts and whatnot getting through customs and sorting out other issues for us. We eventually had a pretty good working relationship with our FLS and made a huge difference. To be honest CJOC was just another layer of BS to get through, and mostly they were an additional complication adding extra lead time onto getting things sorted. They also added another layer onto the telephone game (two actually; there was also MCC) and our technical briefings to NATO got messed up everytime they tried to give it the 'strategic CJOC perspective'.
> 
> Can't believe they can simultaneously require HLTA and not fund backfills; does someone else run the RAMP now other than ship's staff? I had contracted a number of locals to get some repairs done, and we were also getting a major mission critical repair done with a big TAV. It was like a really busy SWP, and there were about 50 people working long days everyday we were there to get that sorted, on top of the normal foreign port duty watch. Without a backfill, there were a number of us that never would have been able to take HLTA.
> 
> Anyway, off topic, sorry.



I will PM you to try and lessen the derail I am also at fault for lol.  At my daughter's dance class.  Will send soon.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> CJOC on the other hand, I am convinced that they exist to employ GO/FOs and thier follow on supporting staff.  From a logistics standpoint all they do is complicate things.  I am not convinced the RCN requires CJOC to deploy.  IMHO is another level of bureaucracy forced upon us because.



Agreed.  Luckily for us, we'd normally deploy under comd of one of our own Majors as the ATF Comd and they would be direct link to CJOC...meaning the skipper and crew could ignore the BS and focus on the mission(s).  I'd rather see the level of C2 they (tried) to do be left at the Air Div level.



> As for the medals we are going to start looking like North Korean generals soon.  Nothing wrong with people earning medals but when the awarding far out weighs the experience gained I start to worry about the methodology behind it.



When a fighter pilot can fly 28 mission dropping ordinance on targets in Iraq and Syria, and get the same medal as the dude driving the bus back of forth to the DFAC for 31 days in Kuwait...that, to me, better demonstrates the methodology is flawed.   Same goes for assessing/applying RA.   :2c:


----------



## Quirky (12 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not sure how it works in the army/air force, but this is great for the folks that rotate through covering others off for their trip back home.



I covered off for OP in 2011 for 15 days, not that this BLINGFORGEN backdates as far, but I don't deserve the same medal that folks got that were there for 6-8 months. Maybe this is a way appease those who have been in for 15 years and only have a CD - this is entirely due to posting circumstance at the time of deployments and nothing to do with individual performance. I could care less with how many pieces of flair I have when I retire and that doesn't reflect ones contribution during service.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> When a fighter pilot can fly 28 mission dropping ordinance on targets in Iraq and Syria, and get the same medal as the dude driving the bus back of forth to the DFAC for 31 days in Kuwait...that, to me, better demonstrates the methodology is flawed.   Same goes for assessing/applying RA.   :2c:



With no disrespect to the fighter pilots you mention but this isnt/wasnt exactly flying  Hawker Typhoons across France, bombing Nazis a tree top level, getting raked with AAA and all the while watching for Messerschmidt's and Focke Wolf's to come screaming out of the sun.  Lets just try to keep some perspective.  I wonder do those on the ground begrudge the air crew and ground crews ?  

It seems to me we, the CAF, have been infected with a sort of "my service was more important than yours" affliction depending on your medals and what stories one can tell.  

We have always given the same campaign medals for all those partaking.  Just like those driving trucks far behind lines in WW2.  Someone has to fight and someone has to enable that fight. 

During one of my first Remembrance days in uniform I met a vet and we shared a beer.  I asked about his service and he told me his job was to ferry/move/drive trucks around Ontario.  I didn't think his service less valuable.  Someone had to do that job.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Jan 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I covered off for OP in 2011 for 15 days, not that this BLINGFORGEN backdates as far, but I don't deserve the same medal that folks got that were there for 6-8 months. Maybe this is a way appease those who have been in for 15 years and only have a CD - this is entirely due to posting circumstance at the time of deployments and nothing to do with individual performance. I could care less with how many pieces of flair I have when I retire and that doesn't reflect ones contribution during service.



I whole heatedly agree.  

I tell the sailors under my leadership the same thing.  Do you job honestly and with pride.  But dont forget your family, they will be with you longer than the CAF.  Someday we take off the uniform for the last time and none of it matters anymore; and you will only wear your medals on Remembrance day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> With no disrespect to the fighter pilots you mention but this isnt/wasnt exactly flying  Hawker Typhoons across France, bombing Nazis a tree top level, getting raked with AAA and all the while watching for Messerschmidt's and Focke Wolf's to come screaming out of the sun.  Lets just try to keep some perspective.  I wonder do those on the ground begrudge the air crew and ground crews ?
> 
> It seems to me we, the CAF, have been infected with a sort of "my service was more important than yours" affliction depending on your medals and what stories one can tell.
> 
> ...



What does any of that have to do with what I said?


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What does any of that have to do with what I said?



I believe I was attempting to counter/temper your assertations.  Do I need to draw connecting lines ?


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> With no disrespect to the fighter pilots you mention but this isnt/wasnt exactly flying  Hawker Typhoons across France, bombing Nazis a tree top level, getting raked with AAA and all the while watching for Messerschmidt's and Focke Wolf's to come screaming out of the sun.  Lets just try to keep some perspective.  I wonder do those on the ground begrudge the air crew and ground crews ?



Are you implying our Hornet drivers were under no threat on Impact?  ISIS had and utilized AA.  Was it effective? Not really, however the threat was there, ask Jordan.

I keep mentioning it, but for the GCS-Allied Force aircrews only needed 5 sorties.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Jan 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Are you implying our Hornet drivers were under no threat on Impact?  ISIS had and utilized AA.  Was it effective? Not really, however the threat was there, ask Jordan.
> 
> I keep mentioning it, but for the GCS-Allied Force aircrews only needed 5 sorties.



Not at all, but there are levels of threat.  Hence our HA and RA levels.  

As well I was asserting that it there is more to "dropping ordinance" on a target than the actions implied simply with EITS's that statement.  Frankly, having supported  Air Crews, I can imagine their outrageous howls if they weren’t chauffeured around for lunch would be great and deafening.  <There is tongue in cheek humor here>

Again everyone has a job to do. No one is more important than anyone else.


----------



## CountDC (14 Jan 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Maybe this is a way appease those who have been in for 15 years and only have a CD - this is entirely due to posting circumstance at the time of deployments and nothing to do with individual performance. I could care less with how many pieces of flair I have when I retire and that doesn't reflect ones contribution during service.



This I agree with.  Maybe it is because I have a lot more years than that with only a CD to wear due to going where the military wanted me.  I recall at one time that a clerk in Florida for a year would get a medal for being on a Small Op in the middle east as they were support staff for the op. Joked about it at the time as I have no idea what the clerk actually did there as I dealt directly with the mbrs on the Op in the middle east and never dealt with that clerk.  I was taking care of their pay and claims at the time.  Didn't even know the clerk existed for at least the first 6 months. 

Thinking the right idea is to tie the medal to the operation/deployment rather than time in theatre .


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Jan 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> This I agree with.  Maybe it is because I have a lot more years than that with only a CD to wear due to going where the military wanted me.  I recall at one time that a clerk in Florida for a year would get a medal for being on a Small Op in the middle east as they were support staff for the op. Joked about it at the time as I have no idea what the clerk actually did there as I dealt directly with the mbrs on the Op in the middle east and never dealt with that clerk.  I was taking care of their pay and claims at the time.  Didn't even know the clerk existed for at least the first 6 months.
> 
> Thinking the right idea is to tie the medal to the operation/deployment rather than time in theatre .



Well done and thank you for your service.  With that said, I'll repeat (as I have done on a few occasions previously) a post that I wrote many years ago.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> One of my lasting memories of someone talking about the decorations and medals that he was wearing occurred in 1994.  I had the good luck of having a COS date out of Lahr that permitted me to arrange my passage home on the Queen Elizabeth 2 sailing out of Southampton on 8 June.  . . . .
> 
> 
> A few people had approached me with the inevitable questions about who we were and what were we doing.  I was chatting with a lady when we were approached by a gentleman in a maroon jacket that included Cdn para wings and several medals.  He introduced himself and joined in the conversation which naturally turned to where had you been.  He had served with the 1 Cdn Para Bn as a private during the war and had made the jump into Normandy and over the Rhine.
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I believe I was attempting to counter/temper your assertations.  Do I need to draw connecting lines ?



Not at all, but you're the one who used the words "importance" or "value".  They're not my words.

In your WWII example of someone driving trucks, etc...that still happens.  If the truck being driven is inside the boundaries of Iraq, they get the GCS.  Same as the CF18 pilot.  The distinction isn't made at the 'what your job was', it is in the "where did you do it?" question.

General Campaign Star - Expedition

The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy.

5 October 2014 to present
Awarded to military personnel who served 14 days cumulative:
within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq from 5 October 2014 onward; and/or
within the political boundaries of Syria, its airspace and territorial waters from 20 April 2015 onward. 

And that's not really any different than WWII, is it?

France and Germany Star

The star was awarded for one day or more of service in France, Belgium, Holland or Germany between 06 June 1944 (D-Day) and 08 May 1945.

Like the GSM is now given to people who support ops but from say, Kuwait, in WWII you didn't get Stars if you weren't in the required locations at the required times.

Defence Medal

Although the medal was usually awarded to Canadians for six months service in Britain between 03 September 1939 and 08 May 1945, the exact terms were: Service in the forces in non-operational areas subjected to air attack or closely threatened, providing such service lasted for three or more years. Service overseas or outside the country of residence, providing that such service lasted for one year, except in territories threatened by the enemy or subject to bomb attacks, in which case it was six months prior to 02 September 1945. 

So, looking back to the Stars and Medals from WWII, it doesn't seem to be a "new thing" to distinguish between 'conducting operations in a defined area" and "supporting ops from outside theatre".

And, like my post, the websites don't use words like 'importance' or 'value'.  Have another read;  my message wasn't the one you got out of my post.


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> When a fighter pilot can fly 28 mission dropping ordinance on targets in Iraq and Syria, and get the same medal as the dude driving the bus back of forth to the DFAC for 31 days in Kuwait...that, to me, better demonstrates the methodology is flawed.   Same goes for assessing/applying RA.   :2c:



I'll change the post and use a different example...



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> When a fighter pilot can fly 28 mission dropping ordinance on targets in Iraq and Syria, and get the same medal as the dude driving CF18 pilot who's doing a staff job as the ATF-I HQ in Kuwait and rides the bus back of forth to the DFAC for 31 days in Kuwait...that, to me, better demonstrates the methodology is flawed.   Same goes for assessing/applying RA.   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Not at all, but there are levels of threat.  Hence our HA and RA levels.



That is actually a bad example to use for IMPACT.  Despite how many days and nights aircrew spent in/over Iraq or Syria, our HA and RA was the exact same as the folks who never left the B & Bs in Kuwait.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That is actually a bad example to use for IMPACT.  Despite how many days and nights aircrew spent in/over Iraq or Syria, our HA and RA was the exact same as the folks who never left the B & Bs in Kuwait.


Did Aircrew on Op Impact get ACRA?


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2020)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Did Aircrew on Op Impact get ACRA?



Yes we did.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jan 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Yes we did.



ACRA = "Flight Pay" like Sea and Land pay ?  How did you guys manage to collect that while being in receipt of FSP, HA and RA ?  We have all been told we arent allowed to collect environmental allowances and deployment benefits.  



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> When a fighter pilot can fly 28 mission dropping ordinance on targets in Iraq and Syria, and get the same medal as the dude driving CF18 pilot who's doing a staff job as the ATF-I HQ in Kuwait and rides the bus back of forth to the DFAC for 31 days in Kuwait...that, to me, better demonstrates the methodology is flawed.   Same goes for assessing/applying RA.   :2c:



For most of your post I don’t disagree with you.  I think the GCS has been diluted and its original intent has be lost.  You should see the sailors who walk around with it.  They haven’t been in a bar fight in a foreign port let alone be "in the presence of the enemy" yet they manage to justify its issue.  Meah... 

The quoted portion I still don’t understand.  Are you upset that the REMF is making the same as the fighter pilot , getting the same medal ?   Or are you ok with what the REMF is getting and you think the fighter pilot deserves better recognition by way of pay and medals ?  

*I am a REMF, I am allowed to use that term at my pleasure*


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ACRA = "Flight Pay" like Sea and Land pay ?  How did you guys manage to collect that while being in receipt of FSP, HA and RA ?  We have all been told we arent allowed to collect environmental allowances and deployment benefits.



Yes, we get to keep it and it's legal (*I don't think it is fair). I do recall from my Navy days that I did indeed lose my environmental allowance while collecting FSP/HA/RA.

The reference is - CBI 10.3.08(1) (Allowances for designated positions) A member who is entitled to an allowance under MFSI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance), *unless the member is in a specific position on the operation designated by the CDS*, is not entitled to an allowance under the following instructions:

                    (a) CBI 205.30 (Paratroop Allowance);

                    (b) CBI 205.31 (Rescue Specialist Allowance);

                    (c) CBI 205.32 (Aircrew Allowance)

The next para in the reference informs all others that they can't receive LDA, SDA, SUB, etc.. while in receipt of HA.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ACRA = "Flight Pay" like Sea and Land pay ?  How did you guys manage to collect that while being in receipt of FSP, HA and RA ?  We have all been told we arent allowed to collect environmental allowances and deployment benefits.
> 
> For most of your post I don’t disagree with you.  I think the GCS has been diluted and its original intent has be lost.  You should see the sailors who walk around with it.  They haven’t been in a bar fight in a foreign port let alone be "in the presence of the enemy" yet they manage to justify its issue.  Meah...
> 
> ...



The issue in EITS’ post is that under the previous rules, both would get the GSM-EXP when clearly the one dropping weapons and facing the occasional AAA in Iraq/Syria should have been recognized for a bit more...  Both jobs are indeed important but one is in direct contact with the enemy, the other not.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jan 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The issue in EITS’ post is that under the previous rules, both would get the GSM-EXP when clearly the one dropping weapons and facing the occasional AAA in Iraq/Syria should have been recognized for a bit more...  Both jobs are indeed important but one is in direct contact with the enemy, the other not.


You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jan 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The issue in EITS’ post is that under the previous rules, both would get the GSM-EXP when clearly the one dropping weapons and facing the occasional AAA in Iraq/Syria should have been recognized for a bit more...  Both jobs are indeed important but one is in direct contact with the enemy, the other not.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?



These two posts articulate my point exactly.  Stop looking at the other guy an begrudging them and take pride in your service.  We all have a roll to play.  

SSM, you wouldnt have been able to drop ordiance with out someone paying you, loading your bombs, ordering your bombs, selecting yout target(s), feeding you, housing you ect ect ect.  We all have a role to play.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?



They get 1.  He isn't looking for two medals.  It is the recognition that's all.  Everyone in Kuwait can get the GSM-EXP.  To qualify for the GCS-EXP aircrew needed 30 sorties over Iraq (and later Syria).  The CF-18 folks (and AAR) needed at least two rotations to get their 30 flights.

He would qualify for two medals if the rotations were 6 months apart..

It really isn't a big deal anymore, now that they've dropped it to 14 days, which is a victory for aircrew (IMHO).


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?



I was in Northern Ireland (not doing SAS tasks), at the same time as the SAS were in Northern Ireland (doing SAS tasks). I have the same GSM NI gong as the SAS guys who served there. So does the guy who was our clerk at Bn HQ.

This is a good thing IMHO as it recognizes campaign service, not apparent proximity to the enemy (FWIW, the stats show that me and the clerk were more likely to get nailed by the bad guys than the SAS, mainly as a result of sniper/mortar/IED attacks).

In the US they have the Combat Infantryman's Badge (CIB) to differentiate the 'front fighters' from those in the rear with the gear. As I understand, it they have a terrifically difficult time figuring out who should get that distinction versus who shouldn't, and suffer from excessive war tourism from those who are just trying to bling up their battledress. 

I've never been a fan of these types of awards as it officially ignores the fact that one of the key reasons that those at the sharp end can do their jobs at all is because the other arms and services support them. Also, in our new asymmetric warfare reality, almost everyone is more or less at risk as there are no safe zones anymore, as I described above with my NI example or as we've seen recently with Iran launching missiles at our bases in Iraq.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ACRA = "Flight Pay" like Sea and Land pay ?  How did you guys manage to collect that while being in receipt of FSP, HA and RA ?  We have all been told we arent allowed to collect environmental allowances and deployment benefits.



Yes, AIRCRA is aircrew allowance.  How did we keep it while receiving Ops FSP, HA and RA?  We were in *Designated Flying Positions* (which is included in the Remarks section of the CFTPO tasking msg), or we lost it.  Aircrew trades who were deployed and working in say, the DMSC (Deployed Mission Support Center) for the CP-140 Det would lose their AIRCRA because they weren't actually flying during that period, and collecting Ops FSP, RA and HA (and tax free status).  I've kept my AIRCRA on every deployment over a few different named ops, some of which did and some did not have associated HA and/or RA.

The only "extra" cash flyers took home was AIRCRA.  Most LRP folks were flying 100+ hours a month, so that works out to $3-$4 more an hour for flying around Iraq and Syria.  Should we have kept AIRCRA?  Certainly...why would I lose it just because I was receiving Ops FSP, HA and RA?  None of them are intended to compensate what AIRCRA is for:

205.32 - Aircrew Allowance (Monthly)
205.32(1) (Intent) Aircrew Allowance (Monthly) is financial compensation paid for the performance of assigned duties where there is continual and substantial exposure to the environmental conditions associated with flying operations.

10.3.04 - Operations Foreign Service Premium
10.3.04(1) (Intent) The Operations Foreign Service Premium (OPS FSP) is an allowance payable to a member:
in recognition of service on operations; and
to cover expenses not specifically covered by other allowances and benefits.

10.3.05 - Hardship Allowance
10.3.05(1) (Intent) The intent of the Hardship Allowance (HA) is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post.

10.3.07 - Risk Allowance
10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.

If all non-flyers at our location in Kuwait got Ops FSP, the same HA and same RA rates (which was the case), what compensation was there for flyers?  AIRCRA. At $3-$4 hour of flying.  Not really much of a financial advantage to going into the Badlands, more so when you consider the worst case scenario (i.e. - the Jordanian pilot they doused in gas and burned alive in the cage after he was captured).



> For most of your post I don’t disagree with you.  I think the GCS has been diluted and its original intent has be lost.  You should see the sailors who walk around with it.  They haven’t been in a bar fight in a foreign port let alone be "in the presence of the enemy" yet they manage to justify its issue.  Meah...



Maybe so, but if it's the case, then how would we define the criteria more effectively for the GCS-Exp, or for the GCS-SWA back in the Afghanistan days?  If you look at the criteria I posted for the WWII Star, it was defined by "inside a specific geo area, during and for a specified time".  In the WWII Star....it was only 1 day.  I am certain there are WWII vets wearing Stars who never 'closed with and destroyed the enemy'.  



> The quoted portion I still don’t understand.  Are you upset that the REMF is making the same as the fighter pilot , getting the same medal ?   Or are you ok with what the REMF is getting and you think the fighter pilot deserves better recognition by way of pay and medals ?
> 
> *I am a REMF, I am allowed to use that term at my pleasure*



I wouldn't actually use the word "upset".  Do I think there should be different H & As and RAs for the 2?  I do, and it's not because their service is less important, but it certainly is different.

I recall many discussions, some on here, back during the Afghanistan days where some people were not happy that KAFers got the same Star as those folks who were living in FOBs and out posts, away from Timmies and the DFAC for weeks and months at a time.  

Looking back on the info I posted from the WWII Stars and Medals info...I suspect this discussion took place many many times in many Legions after WWII as well.  Happened then...happened during Afghanistan...happening now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Both jobs are indeed important but one is in direct contact with the enemy, the other not.



Maybe the best word isn't "importance" or "value", but simply the word "different".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?



They got 1 if they were solely in Iraq.  Some of them might have received the GSM-Exp even though they were in the Badlands some too (speaking as a guy who conducted some missions IDS to the CANSOF TF, and had their LOs come with us on missions).  

2 medals for one tour....that doesn't happen!  Oh..wait…

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/08/14/liberal-lip-service-to-peacekeeping-didnt-live-up-to-election-pledge/211254

Everyone who wears a CPSM...do you give them the  rly: look;  they are all "2 for 1" types.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jan 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?



I want people who did two tours get the medals they deserve for different purposes (one tour supporting combat ops, one conducting ops against an armed enemy).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I want people who did two tours get the medals they deserve for different purposes (one tour supporting combat ops, one conducting ops against an armed enemy).



Just wanted to add here, the change doesn't apply only to Aircrew who flew IMPACT sorties.  All folks who deployed into Iraq when we were hitting ISIS, and the follow-on folks who went onto the training mission under IMPACT or the NMI and were in Iraq are also included in this.

If a Doctor deployed to IMPACT for say, less than 30 days before, and was at the Fd Hosp in Erbil...saved X amount of lives from IED injuries or something like that...he/she got...nadda.  Nothing.  

Doing their job, in a deployed Op location...but "for not enough days".  Saves lives.  But it was only for say 19 days. _ Sorry, your contribution isn't worthy of a Star_.

Does that really make sense to people?  Really?


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> These two posts articulate my point exactly.  Stop looking at the other guy an begrudging them and take pride in your service.  We all have a roll to play.
> 
> SSM, you wouldnt have been able to drop ordiance with out someone paying you, loading your bombs, ordering your bombs, selecting yout target(s), feeding you, housing you ect ect ect.  We all have a role to play.



I am pretty sure I said both jobs were important.  No job is more important but they are executed in massively different conditions.  If a pilot was only flying over Kuwait doing Maintenance Test Flight, he would not deserve the GCS.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yes, AIRCRA is aircrew allowance.  How did we keep it while receiving Ops FSP, HA and RA?....
> 
> Thats awesome I am glad you get to keep it.  I only wish I worked for an organization who realized, recently, that it could have been paying us SDA as well as FSP, HR and RA and began doing it.  Instead my leadership said NO!  Who knows what the future holds...
> 
> ...






			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure I said both jobs were important.  No job is more important but they are executed in massively different conditions.  If a pilot was only flying over Kuwait doing Maintenance Test Flight, he would not deserve the GCS.



I dont think you understand that Logistics and other support are just as necessary as you flying the plane.  But if you really feel like your supporting arms had no or different or lesser levels of contribution to the fight I suggest your create a service paper supporting your position and staff it up through RCAF channels.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I was in Northern Ireland (not doing SAS tasks), at the same time as the SAS were in Northern Ireland (doing SAS tasks). I have the same GSM NI gong as the SAS guys who served there. So does the guy who was our clerk at Bn HQ.
> 
> This is a good thing IMHO as it recognizes campaign service, not apparent proximity to the enemy (FWIW, the stats show that me and the clerk were more likely to get nailed by the bad guys than the SAS, mainly as a result of sniper/mortar/IED attacks).



So, not really any different than the GCS?  It doesn't matter if you are aircrew, SOF, a HR Admin, Supply, Veh Tech...inside the defined area for the defined amount of time...and you're eligible.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, not really any different than the GCS?  It doesn't matter if you are aircrew, SOF, a HR Admin, Supply, Veh Tech...inside the defined area for the defined amount of time...and you're eligible.



Doesn't the GCS require presence of the enemy ?

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations/details/118

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations/details/117


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dont think you understand that Logistics and other support are just as necessary as you flying the plane.  But if you really feel like your supporting arms had no or different or lesser levels of contribution to the fight I suggest your create a service paper supporting your position and staff it up through RCAF channels.



I don’t think you understand that I understand that, very well.  The guy cooking the food, the gal driving the bus, the tech fixing the aircraft, the fighter pilot dropping weapons, the AESOP working the sensors in the back of the Aurora, the ACSO calculating and dispensing fuel to aircraft, the SOF guy kicking doors down.  We all have an important role to play.  Every deployment deserves an award. The fact that the requirements for GCS and GSM are different however indicate that different operating conditions (in this case, one in the presence of an enemy and on to support operations against an enemy) show that leadership sees a distinction in the service of different individuals not based on WHAT they do but WHERE they do it and in WHAT conditions they do it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why do you/they need further compensation ?



Because of the reality of deployment and ops in a place that the enemy will burn you alive in a cage, make a video of it for your friends and family to watch (on that particular op)?  Seems like a legit reason to me.  None of us here are donating our bi-monthly pay to charity;  we all expect and receive compensation.

I'll use the MFSI to support my position:

*10.3.07(1) (Intent)* The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.

10.3.13 - Determination of Hardship and Risk Allowance Levels

*10.3.13(5) (Factors – Risk Level)*  Before determining an RA level for a post, the Chairperson of the Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee must consider all of the following:

a.  kinetic activities (e.g. threat posed by hostile forces, civil instability, and risk caused by other contingents and/or neighbouring national forces);

b.  the operational environment (e.g. geospatial hazards from: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear contamination, hazardous plants, animals, and unexploded ordnance, health and hygiene, and the physical geography and its effects on the task force);

c.  measures taken to mitigate the risk to members serving at the post; and

d. any representations made by interested commanders in accordance with instructions issued by or under the authority of the CDS concerning RA determinations.

Very simply put;  the kinetic activities, operational environment considerations were considerably different between aircrew in a killbox over Iraq or Syria and anyone in the secure Kuwait locations.

I could speak to 'measures to mitigate the risk', but I won't, not here at least.  There were some things that happened and decisions taken that were...irresponsible.   Nuff said on that for a public site.

Despite the MFSI, details above and theatre realities....aircrew who conducted missions over Iraq and Syria received the same RA as folks who never left Kuwait and, most of those people never left the air bases they were at.  They didn't even carry, let alone wear, any PPE, weapons etc.  

Didn't make us better, or more important...just facing a different level of actual risk.  To use SSMs words..."massively different conditions".

Does that sound reasonable in the assessment/assignment of RA?  What was the _risk_ in that op area?  Only this I guess, if aircrew had a really bad day.  That video is not a 'made up movie'; it happened to a real human being (graphic stuff starts at 18:20 or so.  Don't watch it if you're not prepared to see someone die a fairly horrible death and then get smashed into the ground with a front end loader).  That was the 'worst case scenario'.  Even GW1, the captured aircrew didn't have to worry about being BBQd...

How many people who deployed to and never left Kuwait had the potential to suffer this fate?  I'd say zero.  How many had the potential to suffer it on the aircrew side?  Anyone who operated over a piece of ground with ISIS in it. 

Kuwait compared to the Iraq/Syria battlespace, especially early on when ISIS had more territory south and along the ERV and TRV, etc..._significantly_ different.



> Are we in the business of trying to create a tiered level of deployment compensation ?  See Dafts post.  Hes more articulate than I can be.



Trying to create?  We're already in one.

- Ops FSP. Based on points and nothing else.  I could be on the same Op doing the same job as the mbr next to me and making alot of Ops FSP.

- HA bonus, tied to Ops FSP.  Again, I could (and do) make HA Bonus...person next to me doing the same job 3 feet away might not get any HA bonus.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jan 2020)

I will relent and say this, perhaps I don't get it because there is little to no separation of my work in the ship to that of operations at sea and I just see it differently because of that.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Because of the reality of deployment and ops in a place that the enemy will burn you alive in a cage, make a video of it for your friends and family to watch (on that particular op)?



So here we see the difference between the Air Force and the Infantry: I'd much rather be closer to the 'Red Force Enemy', at the tip of the spear, than the 'Blue Force Enemy', that lurks in the rear areas of any operational deployment. 

We should therefore probably issue the more coveted medals to those serving closer to the 'rock painting/ gate guarding/ VIP visit management platoon' lines


----------



## brihard (15 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I will relent and say this, perhaps I don't get it because there is little to no separation of my work in the ship to that of operations at sea and I just see it differently because of that.



When deployed you guys are literally all in the same boat... any of the tangible, physical risks are shared very, very equally. Less so in the army, very much less so in the Air Force given that they usually fly from safe places (though not always, as some British ground crew in Camp Bastion proved one night).


----------



## Furniture (15 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> When deployed you guys are literally all in the same boat... any of the tangible, physical risks are shared very, very equally. Less so in the army, very much less so in the Air Force given that they usually fly from safe places (though not always, as some British ground crew in Camp Bastion proved one night).



Except it's not so clean as you present it.  I'm Air DEU, but spent 7 month in Kandahar with D Bty 2 RCHA driving Bison, and doing 'army", "combat arms" things alongside gunners. Right beside us were Comms Research, Vehicle Techs, Med Techs, etc. We all got the same gold star for attendance. 

Like D&B said, we should award medals by theatre. Pretending your service is more important, more dangerous, etc. is just ego fluffing most times. 

I do find it amusing when an Army DEU guy looks down on my "KAF" time because I wear a blue suit though...


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jan 2020)

You mean the lessons learned guy who spent just enough time in KAF to qualify, then developed a compassionate reason to go home?


----------



## eliminator (16 Jan 2020)

While I do think the GCS and GSM "team" of awards is great, it does seems like the Op IMPACT experience has created alot of unnecessary _administivia_ and confusion. 

The Brits and Aussies award a single medal for all operations against ISIL in the region, irrespective of location (note: the Brits do add a "Iraq and Syria" bar if you actually serve in Iraq and/or Syria). Nevertheless, everyone gets the same medal. One team, one mission, one medal. Perhaps an "OSM-ISIL" would have been a better approach for Canada.  

https://www.defence.gov.au/Medals/Australian/Since-1975/AOSM-Greater-Middle-East-Operation.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Service_Medal_Iraq_and_Syria


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Except it's not so clean as you present it.  I'm Air DEU, but spent 7 month in Kandahar with D Bty 2 RCHA driving Bison, and doing 'army", "combat arms" things alongside gunners. Right beside us were Comms Research, Vehicle Techs, Med Techs, etc. We all got the same gold star for attendance.



Air DEU but purple trade so maybe not the best example.  What Brihard said is very true for Air Ops types;  AERE Os, AVS/AVN/ACS/AWS folks all stay back at HOMEPLATE.  They don't go off on the mission like you would did with the guns, and if you were deployed to IMPACT you wouldn't have flown with the fighter, LRP or AAR folks on their missions.



> Like D&B said, we should award medals by theatre.



We do already.   Examples:

General Campaign Star - SOUTH-WEST ASIA (GCS-SWA)

in the theatre of operations consisting of the political boundaries of Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and those parts of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea that are west of sixty-eight degrees East longitude and north of five degrees South latitude, as well as the airspace above those areas 

General Campaign Star - EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP)

- within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq; and/or
- within the political boundaries of Syria, its airspace and territorial waters 

Operational Service Medal – Sierra Leone (OSM-SL)

The OSM with SIERRA LEONE ribbon is awarded for 30 cumulative days of service in Sierra Leone...Primarily intended for CAF members who served with the British-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT) following the Lome Peace Agreement (Op SCULPTURE). 



> Pretending your service is more important, more dangerous, etc. is just ego fluffing most times.



Some trades in the CAF ARE more dangerous than others;  some deployments are more dangerous than others.  It has nothing to do with ego fluffing;  a cook doesn't face the same dangers as a SAR Tech or a Clearance Diver daily here in Canada.  Some deployed areas are more dangerous than others, and that's got nothing to do with MOSID specifically.

Nothing to do with ego, lots to do with 'reality and facts'. 



> I do find it amusing when an Army DEU guy looks down on my "KAF" time because I wear a blue suit though...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jan 2020)

Just give everyone the same bloody medal and be done with it.  "You helped fight ISIS? Here is a campaign medal"

WW2 and Korean Veterans don't sit around whinging about who did what and their entitlement to wear a specific campaign medal.  It's ridiculous and petty.

I'll  make it simple for yah:

West Asia Campaign Star.  Covers all ops within  the Levant and Surrounding regions. Everyone who served their gets one and we can take this thread and do the proper thing and bury it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Just give everyone the same bloody medal and be done with it.  "You helped fight ISIS? Here is a campaign medal"



See, now I remember exactly that happening with Afghanistan and the _opposite _arguments happening during that one;  people who deployed and never left KAF getting the GCS and those who lived outside the wire being pissed about it...the people who went outside the wire even called them KAFfers, remember?

For the record, I'm not advocating one way or the other for personal reasons; this change in time requirements, etc benefits me in no way at all.  But, I know some folks who put their meat on the line, 28 or 29 times in some cases, and will now be able to put the same Star up as their sqn mates.  And I think that is 'right'; they went into the same area to do the same job, assuming the same risks.  28 times, 30 times...what's the difference, really?


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean the lessons learned guy who spent just enough time in KAF to qualify, then developed a compassionate reason to go home?



 :rofl:

It's only sad/ funny because it's true.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> See, now I remember exactly that happening with Afghanistan and the _opposite _arguments happening during that one;  people who deployed and never left KAF getting the GCS and those who lived outside the wire being pissed about it...the people who went outside the wire even called them KAFfers, remember?
> 
> For the record, I'm not advocating one way or the other for personal reasons; this change in time requirements, etc benefits me in no way at all.  But, I know some folks who put their meat on the line, 28 or 29 times in some cases, and will now be able to put the same Star up as their sqn mates.  And I think that is 'right'; they went into the same area to do the same job, assuming the same risks.  28 times, 30 times...what's the difference, really?



I'm in violent agreement with you. The semantics of this are just plain stupid and annoying.  Imagine if one of your pals got shot down on their first flight and was put in to a cage and burned to a crisp.... would we be arguing about whether they should receive their campaign star or not?

This is the stupidity we find ourselves in today.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> See, now I remember exactly that happening with Afghanistan and the _opposite _arguments happening during that one;  people who deployed and never left KAF getting the GCS and those who lived outside the wire being pissed about it...the people who went outside the wire even called them KAFfers, remember?
> 
> For the record, I'm not advocating one way or the other for personal reasons; this change in time requirements, etc benefits me in no way at all.  But, I know some folks who put their meat on the line, 28 or 29 times in some cases, and will now be able to put the same Star up as their sqn mates.  And I think that is 'right'; they went into the same area to do the same job, assuming the same risks.  28 times, 30 times...what's the difference, really?



I dont think KAF is greatest example.  It was actually shelled hundreds if not thousands of times and it did produce casualties.  While not the Talibs brightest move they also tried to breach the walls numerous time.  

This as well:


			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So here we see the difference between the Air Force and the Infantry: I'd much rather be closer to the 'Red Force Enemy', at the tip of the spear, than the 'Blue Force Enemy', that lurks in the rear areas of any operational deployment.
> 
> We should therefore probably issue the more coveted medals to those serving closer to the 'rock painting/ gate guarding/ VIP visit management platoon' lines



I uesd to hear the troops bitch all the time about the KAFers while at the PDC.  Funny though none of those bitching actually wanted anything to do with being employed there when I would chat with them.   KAF sucked.  Most would claw and fight tooth and nail to sent to a FOB or DC.


----------



## brihard (16 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Except it's not so clean as you present it.  I'm Air DEU, but spent 7 month in Kandahar with D Bty 2 RCHA driving Bison, and doing 'army", "combat arms" things alongside gunners. Right beside us were Comms Research, Vehicle Techs, Med Techs, etc. We all got the same gold star for attendance.
> 
> Like D&B said, we should award medals by theatre. Pretending your service is more important, more dangerous, etc. is just ego fluffing most times.
> 
> I do find it amusing when an Army DEU guy looks down on my "KAF" time because I wear a blue suit though...



Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was not talking DEU broadly, but rather the difference between, a ship at sea, versus a deployed RCAF unit/det where aircraft are based in one (usually safer) country, with the aircrew alone being exposed to much greater risk. I was making a comparison about how each element goes into the fight; that’s all. I apologize if my lack of clarity caused any offense.

As a newly-minted MCpl on tour, one of my first tasks was to take a section or guys, and clean the transit coffins and set up a viewing at KAF for three of our members who had been killed by an IED. One of the berets I laid out was blue. I assure you I’m the last guy who will scorn genuinely scorn someone for being in a different element.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dont think KAF is greatest example.  It was actually shelled hundreds if not thousands of times and it did produce casualties.  While not the Talibs brightest move they also tried to breach the walls numerous time.



Then, it's a great example to demonstrate why Kuwait locations are GSM-assessed ones, and inside Iraq is assessed as a GCS area then.


----------



## Furniture (16 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Some trades in the CAF ARE more dangerous than others;  some deployments are more dangerous than others.  It has nothing to do with ego fluffing;  a cook doesn't face the same dangers as a SAR Tech or a Clearance Diver daily here in Canada.  Some deployed areas are more dangerous than others, and that's got nothing to do with MOSID specifically.
> 
> Nothing to do with ego, lots to do with 'reality and facts'.



Semantics, but some_ jobs_ are more dangerous, not _trades_. 

Flying over Syria, dangerous. Sitting at a desk in Ottawa, not so much. 

Driving a Bison to Spin Boldak, dangerous. Writing an inspection report in Ottawa, not so much. 

Same trades, different jobs. 

Is it fair to say that a SAR Tech will have more dangerous jobs more often than a cook? Yes. That's why they make more money. 

I firmly believe that campaign medals should be awarded for the theatre, and the hardship/risk allowances should be where the differences exist. We should drop the GSM, and issue GCS for anyone deployed to SW Asia/Expedition. Give the GSM to the people outside theatre who support the mission, people in Germany, Trenton, Halifax etc. 

In fairness 13 years ago I would have disagreed with my current position, then again I was 24, and much like Jon Snow.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Semantics, but some_ jobs_ are more dangerous, not _trades_.
> 
> Same trades, different jobs.



Fair point...



> Give the GSM to the people outside theatre who support the mission, people in Germany, Trenton, Halifax etc.



The GSM *is* given to people outside the theatre who support the mission;  the folks in Kuwait being among them.  Iraq/Syria is the theatre. Kuwait is not.  Remember folks who received the GSM-SWA for that 'place that did not exist' close to Afghanistan?  Not in theatre...GSM awarded.  So those folks in the place that starts with M should have gotten the GCS/the whole area should be deemed "in theatre"?  Why?  As mentioned, the criteria for a GCS is "..._*deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy*_".  That (armed enemy) doesn't exist in Kuwait;  that does exist in Iraq.  The 'presence of an armed enemy' is crucial difference.  

Re: yellow text...that is _really_ watering down the value of a medal.   

PS - There are people who are deployed to the UK ISO IMPACT who receive the SSM-Exp...so...there's that too.  I don't see anyone arguing they should be getting the GSC or GSM... op:


----------



## Furniture (16 Jan 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Fair point...
> 
> The GSM *is* given to people outside the theatre who support the mission;  the folks in Kuwait being among them.  Iraq/Syria is the theatre. Kuwait is not.  Remember folks who received the GSM-SWA for that 'place that did not exist' close to Afghanistan?  Not in theatre...GSM awarded.  So those folks in the place that starts with M should have gotten the GCS/the whole area should be deemed "in theatre"?  Why?  As mentioned, the criteria for a GCS is "..._*deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy*_".  That (armed enemy) doesn't exist in Kuwait;  that does exist in Iraq.  The 'presence of an armed enemy' is crucial difference.
> 
> ...



I understand how we award medals, I just don't agree that it is wise, or representative of anything. My biggest issue comes from how we delineate "theatre". In WWII being in Europe was enough to get you the star, they didn't differentiate between who was "in the presence of an armed enemy"  and who wasn't. I think the GSC/GSM, and "theatre" definitions were created with the best of intentions, but have turned into a game of who's service was more "important". 

Let's be honest, nobody would be fighting to get what they consider a "lesser" medal. So any argument about who deserves a gold star for attendance vs. a medallion for attendance comes down to wanting to be more special. I think what we often forget is that the campaign medals are attendance medals. Show up, don't get sent home for not following the rules, and you get a shiny bit of flair for your DEUs. 

Danger isn't the criteria for medals, service is.    

I have been in more danger during my service with the CAF far more often outside a "deployment",  than at any time during my time in Kandahar. We didn't get medals for fighting a fire 300 miles off the coast of Hawaii, without power, and in poor weather. Similarly there was no medal when I was measuring the amount of liquid precipitation(standing ankle deep in water, in a fenced compound) in the middle of a severe thunderstorm with continuous lightning when posted to Cold Lake. Lastly there was no medal for doing pressure comparisons in the AWOS compound in Alert while the station was in a Polar Bear lockdown. Each of those situations was far more likely to be fatal for me individually than showing up in a "theatre".


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Danger isn't the criteria for medals, service is.



Exactly.

Except for decorations for the various levels of valour, I agree.


----------



## eliminator (17 Jan 2020)

Did the existing GCS/GSM-SWA not cover the territory of the Op IMPACT AOR? Why award the "EXP" versions of medals when there already were medals in the system? Perhaps they felt the need to separate the recognition from the Afghanistan efforts? Originally the GCS-EXP was awarded to those Canadians that served in Iraq with the Americans...


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Jan 2020)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Did the existing GCS/GSM-SWA not cover the territory of the Op IMPACT AOR? Why award the "EXP" versions of medals when there already were medals in the system? Perhaps they felt the need to separate the recognition from the Afghanistan efforts? Originally the GCS-EXP was awarded to those Canadians that served in Iraq with the Americans...



I still feel they are misusing the GCS/GSM-EXP by issuing it for Op Impact. 

"This ribbon was created to provide a flexible form of recognition for those missions conducted in the presence of an armed enemy which size or scope does not justify the creation of a separate ribbon"

What defines "size or scope"?

Op Impact has been going on since 2014.  Yes I know it is not as "big" as the Afghanistan missions were...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I understand how we award medals, I just don't agree that it is wise, or representative of anything. My biggest issue comes from how we delineate "theatre". In WWII being in Europe was enough to get you the star, they didn't differentiate between who was "in the presence of an armed enemy"  and who wasn't. I think the GSC/GSM, and "theatre" definitions were created with the best of intentions, but have turned into a game of who's service was more "important".
> 
> Let's be honest, nobody would be fighting to get what they consider a "lesser" medal. So any argument about who deserves a gold star for attendance vs. a medallion for attendance comes down to wanting to be more special. I think what we often forget is that the campaign medals are attendance medals. Show up, don't get sent home for not following the rules, and you get a shiny bit of flair for your DEUs.
> 
> ...



Come on,  that whole PROTECTEUR fire thing was just a big, uncomfortable camping trip at sea....


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I still feel they are misusing the GCS/GSM-EXP by issuing it for Op Impact.
> 
> "This ribbon was created to provide a flexible form of recognition for those missions conducted in the presence of an armed enemy which size or scope does not justify the creation of a separate ribbon"
> 
> ...



Might be that the mission outgrew the medal. I probably would not be alone in suggesting a new ribbon be commissioned to recognize that particular theatre.


----------



## eliminator (17 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Might be that the mission outgrew the medal. I probably would not be alone in suggesting a new ribbon be commissioned to recognize that particular theatre.



Or perhaps even easier, just rename the GCS/GSM-SWA to "Afghanistan" and the GCS/GSM-EXP to "Iraq and Syria"?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2020)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Or perhaps even easier, just rename the GCS/GSM-SWA to "Afghanistan" and the GCS/GSM-EXP to "Iraq and Syria"?



Typical imperialist... 

....shoehorning rich, diverse, vibrant and complex Asian cultures into the Euro-centric geographical fabrications unfairly forced upon these peace loving peoples by greedy, exploitative, self-interested, colonial 19th century 'gunboat elitists'


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Typical imperialist...
> 
> ....shoehorning rich, diverse, vibrant and complex Asian cultures into the Euro-centric geographical fabrications unfairly forced upon these peace loving peoples by greedy, exploitative, self-interested, colonial 19th century 'gunboat elitists'



Well we need something more readily memorable than General Campaign Star-Sykes Picot"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Danger isn't the criteria for medals,



Agreed.

And, it's important to point out the words "danger" "dangerous" "important" and "importance" aren't found in the description/narrative for any of the GCSs or GSMs.   :nod:

(It is, however, found in the narrative for the OSM; "..._served under dangerous circumstances outside_...")

Some medals are awarded for a theatre/time criteria...like the SSM-Exp.  Op PROJECTION...LRP aircrew, groundcrew, and mission support crew; all eligible for the same gong.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jan 2020)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Did the existing GCS/GSM-SWA not cover the territory of the Op IMPACT AOR?



General Campaign Star - SOUTH-WEST ASIA (GCS-SWA)

in the theatre of operations consisting of the political boundaries of Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and those parts of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea that are west of sixty-eight degrees East longitude and north of five degrees South latitude, as well as the airspace above those areas 

General Campaign Star - EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP)

- within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq; and/or
- within the political boundaries of Syria, its airspace and territorial waters 



> Why award the "EXP" versions of medals when there already were medals in the system?



The GCS-Exp had already been identified for service inside Iraq before IMPACT;  it wasn't created because of it.  Before IMPACT, though, there was only a handful of them awarded; 6 or so IIRC.  Eligible service pre-IMPACT was from as early as 1 January 2003.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Well we need something more readily memorable than General Campaign Star-Sykes Picot"



I would like to see RA/HA be adjustable in a more timely manner than once a year (from my understanding) and by someone a bit more accessable than the mysterious treasury board. 


As for the medals I would guess most of us would say we don't care all that much about bling and I think most of us are honest about that. 

At an institutional level we really look down on anyone who doesn't have medals. 
Sgt/WO or Senior Captain/Major without some medals? Good luck getting respect. People will talk shit about you behind your back or even have the audacity to question your service to your face. 

I don't sympathise with people wearing medals they didn't warn but I certainly recognize the pressure. 

"Earning" them will always be a point of contention. 
30 days driving a bus back and forth from the kitchen (which practically anyone in the caf can do) vs aircrew and specialists risking getting shown down and star in a YouTube torture video. 
Almost being murdered on a daily basis seeing people mangled for 7 months vs a 14 day trip that's more sight seeing than anything (or whatever timeline).

We're never going to get away from tour tourists. 

The best I'd hope for is something that gets tourists in and out of theater as quick as possible to get their medal and keep out of the way of the rest of us.

If someone's only in theater for 2 or 3 weeks and does something meaningful then that's great they get a medal.


----------



## eliminator (17 Jan 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Danger isn't the criteria for medals, service is.



Found this quote from the official GSM-EXP page at https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index/general-service-medal-expedition-gsm-exp.html

"To be eligible to be awarded the Medal, direct support must be performed under Exceptional circumstances and the person must have been deployed specifically to provide this support on a full-time basis to the operations. *Only when there is a certain level of risk, threat, hardship, or operational intensity can recognition be provided.* Any support which is comparable in nature to normal duty or which is performed from the relative safety of a country distant from the theatre shall be excluded from eligibility."


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2020)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Found this quote from the official GSM-EXP page at https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index/general-service-medal-expedition-gsm-exp.html
> 
> "To be eligible to be awarded the Medal, direct support must be performed under Exceptional circumstances and the person must have been deployed specifically to provide this support on a full-time basis to the operations. *Only when there is a certain level of risk, threat, hardship, or operational intensity can recognition be provided.* Any support which is comparable in nature to normal duty or which is performed from the relative safety of a country distant from the theatre shall be excluded from eligibility."



Which is weird, because I assume this presumes that someone way back in the echelon will never deploy forward during the campaign. 

Not very 'agile' IMHO....


----------



## eliminator (17 Jan 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which is weird, because I assume this presumes that someone way back in the echelon will never deploy forward during the campaign.
> 
> Not very 'agile' IMHO....



I tend to agree; specifically it seems like the context of "aircrew" non-permanence over GCS-qualifying territory being one of the complicating factors. 

Personally, three of my medals are related to service in SWA (GCS-SWA, GSM-EXP, SSM-EXP) with each one of my tours experiencing various levels of "suck" and WiFi connectivity quality that seem to match the associated medal's order of precedence.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2020)

eliminator said:
			
		

> and WiFi connectivity quality that seem to match the associated medal's order of precedence.



Gold, Jerry!  :rofl:


----------



## Kilted (18 Jan 2020)

I think that it is unfortunate how medals can be treated now a days. I think that we could go on and create different medals for every different type or level of overseas duty you shake a stick at and people would still complain about someone getting the same medal as them. And it's not new, when the CD was introduced the RCN was very upset that the sailors would get the same medal (with post-nominals) as officers. I'm actually surprised that there aren't more people complaining about it going to everyone in the CAF. Medals are supposed to be something that you can have pride in, not something for other people to judge you (some times based on jealousy) over based on what medals you have, or don't have, or what rank you receive them at.


----------



## brihard (18 Jan 2020)

Kilted said:
			
		

> I think that it is unfortunate how medals can be treated now a days. I think that we could go on and create different medals for every different type or level of overseas duty you shake a stick at and people would still complain about someone getting the same medal as them. And it's not new, when the CD was introduced the RCN was very upset that the sailors would get the same medal (with post-nominals) as officers. I'm actually surprised that there aren't more people complaining about it going to everyone in the CAF. Medals are supposed to be something that you can have pride in, not something for other people to judge you (some times based on jealousy) over based on what medals you have, or don't have, or what rank you receive them at.



Troops have been dick measuring for as long as there have been dicks, or measuring.


----------

