# Remedial Measures DAOD 4019-4 [merged]



## murrdawg (15 Oct 2009)

Interesting dilemma... I'd be curious to see what people's takes would be on it. I had a Major's inspection last week, pants were long (I thought they were the right size) but nobody said anything from the end of last year up until this inspection, and the Major said something to me about it. Then a week later, I find out that he said to my CoC that my dress and deportment were poor (something about poor drill) which, again, nobody has ever come up to me about. He wants me punished for it. Now, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but for something like that, don't they have to point it out, then give a period of time for me to improve it, then re-evaluate and if it's not fixed, then pass down the punishment?


----------



## FDO (15 Oct 2009)

Nope! When you went through BMQ you were told the proper way to wear your uniform. You also have access to CFP 265, the Dress manual. Chapter 6 has very clear pictures of how the pants are supposed to hang. No one should have to tell you you should be able to look it up and see for yourself. If you chose not to then its your butt in the sling. You are an adult and should not have to be told how to dress. The base Tailor is there to fix any problems you have with kit as far as alterations are concerned. And the best part is it's free! 

Bottom line is you are responsible for you and your kit. There are no excuses!

http://halifax.mil.ca/N4MAT/BCOMD/english/bcpo/CF%20Manuals/CFP%20265%20Dress%20Manual.pdf


----------



## gcclarke (15 Oct 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Interesting dilemma... I'd be curious to see what people's takes would be on it. I had a Major's inspection last week, pants were long (I thought they were the right size) but nobody said anything from the end of last year up until this inspection, and the Major said something to me about it. Then a week later, I find out that he said to my CoC that my dress and deportment were poor (something about poor drill) which, again, nobody has ever come up to me about. He wants me punished for it. Now, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but for something like that, don't they have to point it out, then give a period of time for me to improve it, then re-evaluate and if it's not fixed, then pass down the punishment?



For administrative action, to correct a deficiency in performance or conduct, one has to go through a series of remedial measures designed to correct the deficiency.

From DAOD 5019-4 Remedial Measures:



> Remedial measures are part of the range of administrative actions that can be imposed in respect of a CF member and are intended to:
> 
> make the CF member aware of any conduct or performance deficiency;
> 
> ...



From what you described, it appears to me that the Major has noted what he believes to be a deficiency, made you aware of this deficiency, and has instructed your superiors that he expects them to assist you in overcoming this deficiency. This may indeed be viewed as a punishment.

Now, should he, say, wish for you to be forced to release from the Forces, then indeed you would have to go through all the steps of the process, and be given ample opportunity to correct the deficiencies that he noted. I rather doubt that it will get to that.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2009)

Note that the writer is at MilCol; QR&O vol IV may be applicable in this case; the college has "The Code of College Conduct" which provides for pseudo-disciplinary measures: Loss of Cadet appointments; Restriction of privileges; or a Warning. Note that proceedings under the College Code of Conduct do not appear on an RDP and are not conducted under the Code of Servie Dsicipline.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2009)

I think what you might be referring to is found in DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures.

DAOD 5019-4

From my perspective...you do NOT want to go down that road.  Its formal and can be progressive and if  you think about it, your CoC will ALWAYS find something wrong if they want to (usually because you give them a reason to, IMO).  Also, I am not aware of any order, regulation or directive that says your CoC SHALL initiate formal actions IAW the DAOD.  Who would want to lock the CoC into this type of action for something as minor as pant legs??

More importantly, as stated, you SHOULD know the standards for dress, deportment and drill.  I didn't look at your profile, but you indicated you are past the BMQ point in your career.  Therefore, you ought to have known better.  The fact that your NCOs/CoC never picked up on it before is irrelevant to me, as 2 wrongs never make a right.

Back in the day, a few exrtras for having a poor turnout was the starting point for disciplinary actions, and rightfully so IMO.  Take whatever minor (and, hopefully *unofficial*) punishment your CoC gives you, sort your "3Ds" out and carry on.  Someone else will be along shortly with their shortcomings to take the spotlight off you most likely.

To sum up, be careful what you wish/ask for.  You just might get it.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Oct 2009)

Fix your damned pants.

Stop whining.

Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Oct 2009)

Bottom line is that you are responsible for your dress and deportment. 
Guidance should come from your CoC....ie your section commander or Platoon Warrant Officer.

Failing that, ask questions about dress and deportment and drill.

There is only ONE WAY to improve your drill. PRACTICE under the supervision of a competent authority.


----------



## ajp (15 Oct 2009)

I agree with EITS.  Having done my share of Official Disciplinary Paperwork - you don't want to go there for pants.  The more they put on paper...the more they have for future ref, and if they get enough you will be a civilian before you know it.  All this over pants... sort yourself out and get back to it.


----------



## FDO (15 Oct 2009)

Punisment comes in many forms. From advising on the deficiencies to formal charges. You have to narrow down what your definition of  "punishment" is. I would expect you will not have any questions on military dress and deportment when the punisment is done! 

Suck it up buttercup your not in the Boy Scouts anymore!!


----------



## dapaterson (15 Oct 2009)

ajp said:
			
		

> Having done my share of Official Disciplinary Paperwork - you don't want to go there for pants.



On the other hand, I know of one course that stood by their beds for inspection in highly shone combat boots, webbing, helmet and boxer shorts.  No pants.

The directing staff ripped into one candidate for a hair on his uniform, yanked it out (ouch), but found no other flaws...


----------



## ajp (15 Oct 2009)

I remember as an NCM having an inspection where our list included underwear to be placed in the butt pack.  The 8 ladies on the course all placed GString s in their pack....shortest inspection ever as the MCpl doing the inspection could not hold himself together after that.  He started in their room.  Hey--- they didn't specify what type of underwear....and the guys didn't follow the ladies lead on that one.


----------



## murrdawg (15 Oct 2009)

Isn't it normally a case of they point it out, then you have to have it fixed for the next inspection, then if it's still not right, then the massive amount of remedial inspections?


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Oct 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Isn't it normally a case of they point it out, then you have to have it fixed for the next inspection, then if it's still not right, then the massive amount of remedial inspections?



What part of "fix your pants" and "stop whining" didn't you understand?

Don't you have better things to do than whine about a bad inspection?  Like, I don't know, CONCENTRATING on your field of study?

If you're going to make such tremendous mountains out of such little mole hills, you're in for one hell of a miserable career.

Get over it.  Your pants are too long (Barbara Streisand sings a nice song about this very subject).  Make them shorter.

The energy and time you've put into this thread would have (if properly directed) enabled you to have your whole wardrobe fixed properly.

Stop looking for silly things to bitch about - get on with your studies.


----------



## murrdawg (15 Oct 2009)

I'm asking about how the CF does the punishment thing, not whining about my own. I want to know how to apply it correctly to my subordinates.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Oct 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> I'm asking about how the CF does the punishment thing, not whining about my own. I want to know how to apply it correctly to my subordinates.



According to your profile, you are an OCDT still at RMC.

By the time you have subordinates, you will have figured it out (hopefully).  By the time you are CDS, you will have figured out the big picture, too (hopefully).

Right now, however, you just need to get your act together, concentrate on your studies, and toe the line when it comes to kit and drill.


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

ajp said:
			
		

> I remember as an NCM having an inspection where our list included underwear to be placed in the butt pack.  The 8 ladies on the course all placed GString s in their pack....shortest inspection ever as the MCpl doing the inspection could not hold himself together after that.  He started in their room.  Hey--- they didn't specify what type of underwear....and the guys didn't follow the ladies lead on that one.



You don't want to know what we ladies placed in our top drawers in lieu of our toothbrushs on our QL5s ...

Also recall an inspection during basic trg in Cornwallis where we all formed up in our boots, rubber clumsey; green mil-issued swimsuits and berets. We all got nailed for not having nametags on the chest areas of our swimsuits (not that the guys on our course even had chest areas on their swimsuits ...  :-X).

Seems that this type of "morale" inspection is a common occurance on some courses ...


----------



## medicineman (15 Oct 2009)

To answer the original question - there are administative measures - ie verbal and recorded warnings and counselling and probation.  They are administrative ways of correcting behaviour.  There are also disciplinary ones - ie NDA/QR&O violations, some of which are pretty broad sweeping.  If they wanted to go the administrative route, yeah, they should give you a verbal or recorded warning, however they don't have to.  They could just charge you or they could say you looked like a (add your own epithet) and you're getting extras.  If you want to be charged, I think something could be arranged - not hard to write up in this day of copy and paste.

Incidentally - you can receive both administrative correction AND disciplinary correction for the same thing if it's deemed to be heinous enough.

Suggestion - take you licks and get on with it and make sure you look better next time around.

Cheers.

MM


----------



## Jungle (15 Oct 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> I'm asking about how the CF does the punishment thing, not whining about my own. I want to know how to apply it correctly to my subordinates.



The best way to learn is to go through the process... the day they issue you subordinates, they will also put a WO in charge of your education; pay attention to everything he says.


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Isn't it normally a case of they point it out, then you have to have it fixed for the next inspection, then if it's still not right, then the massive amount of remedial inspections?



Technically, they have already taught you how to do drill (on BMQ!), and they've taught you how to properly care for/maintain/wear your uniforms too (and, as already stated - the 265 is avail to you) ...

Now, they are having to correct you for something you should already know and have already been taught. 

That means an IC (an "Initial Counselling" - formerly known as "a Verbal Warning") could be applied. This is an Admin action (not a disciplinary action) - yet it is an Admin action that will remain on your file for the duration of your career. That means, next time you get picked up for something wrong with your uniform or drill could see you issued a "RW" (Recorded Warning - Strike 2), third time sees you being placed on C&P (Counselling and Probation - Strike 3) ... next step after that is release --- ADMIN action = Career long retention on your file ...

Disciplinary actions = Remedial Drill, Change Parade, Extras, etc etc ... but no retention on file for duration of your career ...

As someone already stated: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

I personally would be fixing the pants forthwith, taking the extras - the Change Parade (or whatever) ... and carrying on with the job.


----------



## medicineman (15 Oct 2009)

I swear someone in Ottawa keeps their job alive by changing how things are referred to - IC vs VW, etc.  Too bad said person doesn't always ensure promolgation to some of us folks locked away in school for a couple of years 

BTW, my 5's did a formal RSM's inspection in Males: boxers, boots, dogtags and appropriate head dress and Females: same but with isolation gowns - he almost had the big one.  

MM


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I swear someone in Ottawa keeps their job alive by changing how things are referred to - IC vs VW, etc.  Too bad said person doesn't always ensure promolgation to some of us folks locked away in school for a couple of years
> 
> BTW, my 5's did a formal RSM's inspection in Males: boxers, boots, dogtags and appropriate head dress and Females: same but with isolation gowns - he almost had the big one.
> 
> MM



Having written up enough ICs, RWs and a few C&Ps in the past few years ... I`m getting used to the terminology now.  

You should have seen the Comdt face during ours on our 5s ... again, the females were inspected first .... first room, first locker = BIG eyes; moves on to the 2nd locker = BIGGER eyes; moves to the 2nd room | 1st locker = BULGING eyes ...

Immediately beats hastey retreat from edifice and can been seen literally moving at 60km/hour while tripping over his feet accross the parking lot on the way back into the school ...

The guys on the course knew something was up when they could hear our course staff and the girls howling in the hallway of the shacks. It was a fine day --- and a very short inspection.


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2009)

Doesn`t the verbal stay on your file for a year and then  gets tossed into the garbage?


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Doesn`t the verbal stay on your file for a year and then  gets tossed into the garbage?



A verbal is now an "IC" - actual "Official Admin Action" paperwork that is issued by the OC, signed and dated by the member etc and placed one one's file. There is an actual form to fill out for this "verbal". It serves as the "proof" that an IC (formerly known as a 'verbal') was 'officially' given for a "shortcoming in Area XXX" on date "XXX" --- and serves as the precusser to the "validity" of issuing of an RW should a file review upon another "incident" of same type of shortcoming occuring in members career.

It's not supposed to be removed.

One may sleep in one day and be issued an "IC" instead of being charged with AWOA for example ... two years later and the member sleeps in again & is thus AWOA again ... you're back to step 1 (the IC) if you've removed this from the member's file. Else you charge their butt - remembering of course that you can indeed do both - an ADMIN action does not preclude the ability to also take disciplinary action. But, if you want to move up the ADMIn steps ... the first step must be there and identifiable upon the member's file ... unless the shortcoming causing the Admin action is particularily heinous/grave ... then you can immediately go to RW or C&P if the CO deems it warranted/grave enough to do so.

ADMIN actions (which an IC is) are (supposed to be) retained for career.


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2009)

So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.



I could very well be wrong. 

Perhaps it's that my pers have always managed to step on their dicks the 2nd time before a single year has passed ...  >

Yet, I had ICs done up for BFT and Xpress test failures too (as sayeth the DAOD) ... and I'm quite sure that should remain on the members' files ... for obvious reasons. That testing is only done once per year ... how would you  move them up the Admin ladder if the IC from the failure the year before is removed from their file and they fail it again the 2nd year? They ceratinly shouldn't be getting an "IC" year after year after year for the same failure/shortcoming.


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2009)

Vern, correction to my last, mine was for a year because I was leaving on tour when I got it so they extended it for a year. But I think the normal timeframe was 6 months.


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.



As far as I'm aware --- the rules have *always* stated that Admin actions remained on file for career. Ergo the advice to "take the extras & not the Admin."


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Vern, correction to my last, mine was for a year because I was leaving on tour when I got it so they extended it for a year. But I think the normal timeframe was 6 months.



Ahhhhaaa!!

Your period of observation to correct your shortcoming noted on your Initial Counselling was 6 months (extended to one year because you would miss 6 months while on tour) ... but that paperwork is retained on your file for career ... at least it _should_ be. next time, if it's the same shortcoming ... that's an RW.

Count yourself lucky if you watched your supervisor remove your ADMIN action from your file ... he wasn't supposed to.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Oct 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.



Nope.

RW and C&P were SUPPOSED to be on your file for "life", for all the reasons Armyvern outlined.

Some folks (me included - on a couple of occasions) took it upon themselves to "expunge" the record.  They (probably mostly without knowledge) and I (with FULL knowledge) decided that they (I) "knew better".

In truth - on one occasion I was right, I DID know better regarding that individual.  On the other - I was WRONG, and ended up saddling the CF with a thud-f**k longer than it would have been otherwise.

Regardless - ADMINISTRATIVE actions (RW, C&P, etcetera) are SUPPOSED to remain on your file FOREVER.  DISCIPLINARY actions are sometimes removed, and sometimes not - depends upon the severity.


----------



## meni0n (15 Oct 2009)

When I signed the paper in memo format. It stated I was verbally councilled for .... and that it will remain on my file for a year and if the action repeats then it will go to recorded. At the end of the one year it went to the garbage in front of my eyes. Either it was more informal or there is a photocopy somewhere but when I looked at my pers file after I didn`t see it there.


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> When I signed the paper in memo format. It stated I was verbally councilled for .... and that it will remain on my file for a year and if the action repeats then it will go to recorded. At the end of the one year it went to the garbage in front of my eyes. Either it was more informal or there is a photocopy somewhere but when I looked at my pers file after I didn`t see it there.



Sits like this are exactly why we now have "IC" ... an "Official Verbal warning - an Official ADMIN action" given on "Official Government forms" signed off "Officially by the CO and the member" ... so that these verbals don't just "disappear" and meanwhile buddy gets passed on from Unit to Unit who all have to start from scratch to fix things and cross Ts and dot Is.

No more memo's ...


----------



## dangerboy (15 Oct 2009)

It is all laid out in DAOA 5019-4, Remedial Measures



> It is important that a CF member’s personnel record accurately reflect a complete history of the CF member’s service, conduct and performance.
> 
> All forms referred to in this DAOD and all correspondence indicating successful conclusion of a monitoring period shall be kept permanently on the CF member’s UPF.


----------



## Occam (15 Oct 2009)

Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.

Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded.  

I mean, call it something - anything - other than "Recorded", as that name suggests that the the step below it is something less than being Recorded or retained on record.


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.
> 
> Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded.
> 
> I mean, call it something - anything - other than "Recorded", as that name suggests that the the step below it is something less than being Recorded or retained on record.



Hmmm, I think "Initial" (meaning first) pretty much gives it away for what it is.

It's better than the days where it was called the "Verbal Warning" ... and some mistook it as "strictly verbal" or didn't make note of it in the member's file because it was "verbal" (vice 'written') ... thus, some members were given verbals multitudes of times for the very same infractions ...

This way (and with that DAOD) - that wee little problem is, itself, corrected.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.
> 
> Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded.  documented.



 :


There!  Fixed that for you.  Make sense now?


----------



## Occam (15 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 
> There!  Fixed that for you.  Make sense now?



Oh, thanks.  That's SO much better now.   :


----------



## Occam (15 Oct 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I think "Initial" (meaning first) pretty much gives it away for what it is.
> 
> It's better than the days where it was called the "Verbal Warning" ... and some mistook it as "strictly verbal" or didn't make note of it in the member's file because it was "verbal" (vice 'written') ... thus, some members were given verbals multitudes of times for the very same infractions ...
> 
> This way (and with that DAOD) - that wee little problem is, itself, corrected.



It's actually worse than when it was called VW.  Now you have to explain to someone why they're getting a Recorded Warning, when they've already been given an Initial Counselling which was...wait for it..._recorded_ for posterity on their UPR.

If people were given verbals multiple times for the same infractions, that's a failure of the CoC, not the Remedial Measures policy.  Someone needs a verbal?  March him in front of the RSM (or someone else in the member's direct CoC), give the verbal, and it's witnessed by two different people in the CoC.  The member can't claim he wasn't previously counselled at a later date.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> It's actually worse than when it was called VW.  Now you have to explain to someone why they're getting a Recorded Warning, when they've already been given an Initial Counselling which was...wait for it..._recorded_ for posterity on their UPR.
> 
> If people were given verbals multiple times for the same infractions, that's a failure of the CoC, not the Remedial Measures policy.  Someone needs a verbal?  March him in front of the RSM (or someone else in the member's direct CoC), give the verbal, and it's witnessed by two different people in the CoC.  The member can't claim he wasn't previously counselled at a later date.



Just having an ___________ savant moment here.

I guess you never picked up on the fact that has been posted several times in this thread already, that people get "POSTED".  The member may get posted.  His/her Chain of Command will all get Posted or rotated to other positions. 

Unless a WARNING is DOCUMENTED, it will in all likelihood be forgotten, thus the offence could have a probability of reoccurring and not be given the appropriate "punishment".


----------



## Occam (15 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just having an ___________ savant moment here.
> 
> I guess you never picked up on the fact that has been posted several times in this thread already, that people get "POSTED".  The member may get posted.  His/her Chain of Command will all get Posted or rotated to other positions.



Then maybe the rest of the CF could take a lesson from the Navy, with Div Notes.  Destroyed after five years, not to form a part of the UPR.  If the problem reoccurs beyond 5 years down the road, then it's a safe bet it's not occurring frequently enough to escalate.



> Unless a WARNING is DOCUMENTED, it will in all likelihood be forgotten, thus the offence could have a probability of reoccurring and not be given the appropriate "punishment".



My problem is with the term "Recorded" Warning.  You can't call it a Recorded Warning when the measure it escalates from is also recorded, and carries exactly the same ramifications to the member.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2009)

I think you shouldn't get hung up on, and get over the use of, the term "recorded" for a item that is "documented"; in that "Recorded" and "recorded" are two completely different things.  It may seem like semantics, but there are vast differences in terminology between the two.


----------



## Occam (15 Oct 2009)

Let me put it to you a different way.

Is there an "Unrecorded Warning"?

Then let's just call it "Initial Counselling", "Warning", and "C&P".


----------



## armyvern (16 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Let me put it to you a different way.
> 
> Is there an "Unrecorded Warning"?
> 
> Then let's just call it "Initial Counselling", "Warning", and "C&P".



Absolutely; for me it goes something like this:

(During Inspection) ... "Get the lint off your uniform & your boots are not acceptable; Do not let it happen again."

That means: Do not let it happen again ... <--- that is a verbal. No??

I have indeed also gone straight to the IC (and skipped that _verbal_ verbal) or higher when someone showed up improperly turned out for a parade. Do I feel bad? No. That is what happens when one turns up for a DEU 1a medals parade ... wearing their combat boots on their feet vice their parade boots. A corporal too - someone who definitely knew better.  :


----------



## armyvern (16 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> It's actually worse than when it was called VW.  Now you have to explain to someone why they're getting a Recorded Warning, when they've already been given an Initial Counselling which was...wait for it..._recorded_ for posterity on their UPR.



Really?? No, it is not worse now than when it was a "Verbal" - in my experience. Experience that has seen me issue out environ 20 over the past couple years.

That is because it is fully laid out on the form, and explained to them by the OC when signing, that:

You are in front of me today to formally receive this "Initial Counselling"; Please read it carefully; then (pointing) - "these are your shortcomings which have been noted and this is what you have to do to overcome them". "If there should be no improvement, or if the behaviour/shortcoming should re-occur in the future - you will move up a step on the ADMIN cycle to a Recorded Warning or higher, based upon the severity of a future shortcoming falling within the same area as this initial infraction."

Is the first transgression actually found in "writing" on one's file? Absolutely it is, but it's called the "Initial Counselling" ... a step which is then followed by a 2nd Admin Step called a "Recorded Warning"; the recorded Warning has always been strike two ... exactly as it remains today.

If you want to take it's name and say "oh it's recorded too", then what, exactly, did you do to ensure a written record of a "verbal" warning was placed on the members file before? Oh, that's right - you must should have placed something "in writing" on their file to note that the verbal occured ... a memo perhaps? Or nothing because it was "verbal" (which was exactly what some people did and why it was changed to this way in the first place). 

No more of that with the new way. Less problems too - at least for me there has been far fewer less problems and explanations required.

Before I used to get "well if it's a "_verbal _ warning" - why are you putting it in my file?  :

Now, it's not a "verbal". It's an INITIAL Counselling. Again - *Initial* means first (according to the dictionary). A Recorded is 2nd.

I can see the difference. Apparently those I've been privvy to writing up for IC, then being present as well when it was "issued" by the OC/CO understood the concept of "initial" meaning first too. No more queries as to why a "verbal" is being placed on their file.


----------



## armyvern (16 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> If people were given verbals multiple times for the same infractions, that's a failure of the CoC, not the Remedial Measures policy.  Someone needs a verbal?  March him in front of the RSM (or someone else in the member's direct CoC), give the verbal, and it's witnessed by two different people in the CoC.  The member can't claim he wasn't previously counselled at a later date.



Do you happen to work in a CFRC?? You are the FIRST - in my experience (that's around 20 of the "new type IC" issued out) to come up with this line of _reasoning_. In my experience - there is NO confusion anymore from those "receiving" the IC.

So, in your sit above - just exactly how did you "record" that verbal onto the member's file (as, IAW regulations - that "verbal" WAS supposed to be noted onto their file)? Or did you just have two witness' to it being given verbally and not make a note of it onto the file (in contravention of regulations)?

Now, if the latter, did the CSM etc move to the next Unit with the indiv when they were posted so that same said witness' could stand up and say "we gave him a verbal in my office on "date XX" for the very same infraction?" 

Did the troop then say: "Prove it?"

Most supervisors give multiple "verbal" unofficial warnings prior to issuing an IC. I am one of them. If they're getting an IC ... it's because they've already been given their chances and failed to produce or correct. That first formal step is now called the "Initial" counselling. It works. And, it works a lot better than the old way - and with far fewer 'questions". <--- My considerable experience under both the old and new way certainly bears that out for me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2009)

So have we wasted enough time stating the obvious, to anyone with half a brain? 
Or do we waste another two pages, while Occam trolls, and jerks your chain? :

I should go on 'final warning' for my cheap, unintended foray into the world of cheesy poetry ;D


----------



## armyvern (16 Oct 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So have we wasted enough time stating the obvious, to anyone with half a brain?
> Or do we waste another two pages, while Occam trolls, and jerks your chain? :
> 
> I should go on 'final warning' for my cheap, unintended foray into the world of cheesy poetry ;D



I'm an insomniac - I'm certainly not losing any sleep over this.   And, my french homework is done!! 

Now, as for you - feel free to bust out the haiku anytime there baaabbbbby.  ;D


----------



## Occam (16 Oct 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So have we wasted enough time stating the obvious, to anyone with half a brain?
> Or do we waste another two pages, while Occam trolls, and jerks your chain? :



WTF?

If we can't have a discussion about how to improve the system without you launching accusations of trolling, then there's something wrong here.

I bring it up because it's an issue.  The question has been asked by subordinates when faced with administrative actions.  Nobody is questioning the Initial Counselling/RW (or Warning, or whatever you want to call it)/C&P process.  What I'm telling you is that it makes no sense to be giving someone a "Recorded Warning", when the previous action (IC) did exactly the same thing - placed a permanent recorded warning on the member's UPR.  Call it something different and end the confusion.  I suggested Initial Counselling/*Warning*/Counselling & Probation, which I think demonstrates an escalating level of seriousness.

ArmyVern:  You missed the quotes around "Unrecorded Warning".  You gave an unrecorded warning to the sod with lint on his uniform.  I asked if there was such a thing as an "Unrecorded Warning" (in the context of the DAOD on Remedial Measures - which I had hoped would be implied, but I guess not).

While we're at it, you will not find a single QR&O, CFAO or DAOD which stated that a VW was to be documented in any way, shape or form.  Oh, you may have seen a document called a Verbal Warning, which had places for the supervisor and the member to sign, and a place for the shortcoming to be written - but it was not an official document under any CF regulation.  That's the whole reason VW became IC - one can't very well issue a verbal warning that is documented, as the whole idea of the VW was that it wasn't to be recorded.


----------



## armyvern (16 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> ArmyVern:  You missed the quotes around "Unrecorded Warning".  You gave an unrecorded warning to the sod with lint on his uniform.  I asked if there was such a thing as an "Unrecorded Warning" (in the context of the DAOD on Remedial Measures - which I had hoped would be implied, but I guess not).
> 
> While we're at it, you will not find a single QR&O, CFAO or DAOD which stated that a VW was to be documented in any way, shape or form.  Oh, you may have seen a document called a Verbal Warning, which had places for the supervisor and the member to sign, and a place for the shortcoming to be written - but it was not an official document under any CF regulation.  *That's the whole reason VW became IC * - one can't very well issue a verbal warning that is documented, as the whole idea of the VW was that it wasn't to be recorded.



Initial

You are getting queries why?

We don't get queries about it. Then again, we have them read it, sign it, point out the next ADMIN steps to them and have them actually read the DAODs etc (and provide copies of them too to the mbrs in question). You are having "problems", yet our Unit is not. We are actually having far fewer than the old way.

Verbal Warnings were Admin actions - the rules have, again, ALWAYS stated that "ADMIN actions were to be retained on file for career" (that would include some note of a 'verbal issuance' in a formal setting. That is why some Units did up local forms, some Units did up Memos etc to place on members file so that the ADMIN action first step (the "Verbal warning") WAS documented on the file as having been issued IAW regulations staing that all ADMIN actions WILL be documented. Some, such as yourself, were of the belief that a "verbal" didn't HAVE to be documented onto the file (even though it was/always has been "an official ADMIN action and was to be recorded onto file just as the rules stated all ADMIN actions were to be).

Even a Verbal Warning *was* an ADMIN action and thus should have been noted "someway" onto the members file.  

That's now fixed for those who just couldn't grasp the concept that ADMIN actions included (always have) Verbals.


----------



## Occam (16 Oct 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Initial
> 
> You are getting queries why?



See reply #32 in this thread.  I hate repeating myself.



> We don't get queries about it. Then again, we have them read it, sign it, point out the next ADMIN steps to them and have them actually read the DAODs etc (and provide copies of them too to the mbrs in question). You are having "problems", yet our Unit is not. We are actually having far fewer than the old way.



Nobody has questioned the process you just described (although I'll bring up a point later on about sanctions against the member).  What I said was that members were questioning why a "Recorded Warning" follows an "Initial Counselling", which just so happens to be recorded permanently on the member's UPR.  If the member is to be subjected to increasing levels of sanctions (which they should), the name should reflect it.

Supervisor: We're giving you an IC for being a screwup at your job.  We'll counsel you and put a DAOD 5019-4A on your file permanently.  Straighten up and fly right.
Member:  Career ramifications?
Supervisor: None.

(three months later)

Supervisor:  You're still screwing up.  We're giving you a Recorded Warning.  We'll continue to counsel you and put a DAOD 5019-4A on your file permanently. Straighten up and fly right.
Member:  Wasn't my IC recorded permanently?
Supervisor:  Yes.
Member:  Career ramifications?
Supervisor:  None.
Member:  Well, now I'm motivated. (/sarcasm)



> Verbal Warnings were Admin actions - the rules have, again, ALWAYS stated that "ADMIN actions were to be retained on file for career" (that would include some note of a 'verbal issuance' in a formal setting. That is why some Units did up local forms, some Units did up Memos etc to place on members file so that the ADMIN action first step (the "Verbal warning") WAS documented on the file as having been issued IAW regulations staing that all ADMIN actions WILL be documented. Some, such as yourself, were of the belief that a "verbal" didn't HAVE to be documented onto the file (even though it was/always has been "an official ADMIN action and was to be recorded onto file just as the rules stated all ADMIN actions were to be).
> 
> Even a Verbal Warning *was* an ADMIN action and thus should have been noted "someway" onto the members file.



I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect.

I have a copy of CFAO 26-17 in front of me, titled "Recorded Warning and Counselling and Probation".  *(For any of you young pups following along, this CFAO is now obsolete and replaced by DAOD 5019-4) *

Nowhere within it does it identify a verbal warning as an administrative action.  It is very clear in identifying RW and C&P as administrative actions.

There were only two vague references to verbal warnings within CFAO 26-17;



> 5.  RW and C&P are administrative actions designed to raise a member's inadequate performance or conduct to an acceptable standard which must be established by the commanding officer (CO) or higher authority.  These actions are serious steps toward the correction of a member's deficiencies.  Therefore, prior to taking these steps, it is imperative that supervisors and COs ensure that all other applicable avenues have been explored.  For example, it might be appropriate in some cases to issue a verbal warning or to solve a minor deficiency by counselling.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



There were no instructions directing that a verbal warning was an administrative action, no instructions that it was to be placed in writing on the member's UPF, no instructions dealing with how it was to be removed or annotated as having been rectified, no nothing.  That was the problem with the verbal warning.  Units were making up their own policies to deal with the lack of policy in CFAOs.

That's been fixed in the DAOD, except that the verbal warning is now an "Initial Counselling", which just happens to be recorded just like a RW would be.  Effectively, we have two levels of RW now, with identical implications to the member.  No perceived escalation for not complying with the counselling, other than to say "Next time it's C&P".  IMHO, it would have been wiser to have ICs recorded for a set period of time (3 years, perhaps?) with no sanctions (and then removed if there is no further reoccurrence), a Warning (not a RW) recorded permanently with the imposition of sanctions, and then C&P recorded permanently with the full range of sanctions brought against the member as in the past.


----------



## ajp (16 Oct 2009)

In my experience the RW and IC's may not have immediate ramifications, but when you compile a number of them in a file for Admin Review with the goal of release, the stack of Admin usually wins over any version of Verbal Warnings.  If an individual has been councelled on a few diff matters, and still the pile of Admin rises, it is easier to gain a relase with the proof of matters on paper.  Certainly lint on a uniform is not severe, but routinely failing to follow direction and correct the matter might raise a few flags.

IMO

AJP


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Oct 2009)

First of all, members need to be informally "counselled" by the Pl WO or the CSM.

There is nothing wrong with a good old fashioned "counselling" session, when conducted properly. If more MCpls and above would do this, then the ICs, RWs etc would be minimal.
Don't be scared to stand a troop to attention behind closed doors and "counsel" them. No doubt others will hear it and remember it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Then maybe the rest of the CF could take a lesson from the Navy, with Div Notes.  Destroyed after five years, not to form a part of the UPR.  If the problem reoccurs beyond 5 years down the road, then it's a safe bet it's not occurring frequently enough to escalate.



Div Notes as a solution?

See, now to me, I thought the OTHER things the rest of the CF does covers that (PDRs, PERs, PXRs, etc).  For performance issues of the GSK type, I/we usually used the catch-all statements in the PDR that covered things like conduct, GSK type stuff such as dress and deportment, drill and all those other "common-to-all" things anyone is the CF is expected to know and follow.   

IMO, *if* CFPAS is properly employed, these things can be documented in the mbr's PDR Section 1 (Critical Tasks and Expected Results).  You review the Initial PDR, and the member signs it, no?  So, Bloggins has a bad inspection turnout.  There is your document to work with.  All you have to do is a PDR review and properly document Sections 5b and 5c, based on your Initial PDR reviews' Section 1 info.  Seems simple to me and that is what I used with a special-needs Cpl I had in the past.

From the CFPAS Help File, on the Contents tab, Chap 4, Art 405:

405. PDR Feedback Sessions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of the process involves two feedback sessions: one at the mid-point of the reporting period and the second at the end of the reporting period, concurrent with the PER interview. When you, as a supervisor give feedback, you are acting as a steering mechanism, sending signals to your subordinates to ensure they stay on course. To be effective, you must be giving subordinates feedback on a continual basis; providing feedback only once a year rarely changes behaviour. Feedback has maximum impact when it is given as close as possible to the action. If a subordinate does something well, tell her/him immediately. Similarly, if the subordinate behaves ineffectively, also ensure he/she is made aware of it immediately. “Saving up” performance-related information, especially if it is negative, may result in feelings of resentment and frustration, and if it is positive, may be forgotten by the time a formal session is held. To complement the daily feedback that supervisors should routinely give to personnel, formal feedback sessions have been built into the CFPAS. Their purpose is to summarize performance-related information, and to provide a tool for documenting performance throughout the year. There should be a minimum of one feedback session during the reporting period with a final feedback session being the PER interview. Ideally, feedback interviews should occur approximately every four months. The frequency of these interviews will depend on how a subordinate is performing, the unit’s schedule and workload.


Feedback sessions serve several functions:

- provide information to subordinates on how well they are doing with respect to the Critical Tasks you have assigned them;
- provide guidance on how they can perform better;
- motivate subordinates, resulting in greater effort on their part; and
- recognize the achievements of subordinates, giving them a sense of satisfaction and inspiring them to try harder. 

IMO, the Navy has a system that duplicates something that is already in place.  Maybe they should just use CFPAS properly.

OldSoldier,

Agree with your post...those are the ones I remember the most fondly (both sending & receiving )


----------



## armyvern (16 Oct 2009)

Except that a PDR is only retained on the mebrs file for the FY ... until the PER is written. It is not forwarded to the next unit when the member is posted ... 

That is why we have IC, RW & C&P Admin actions in place ... because they are kept for career (IAW policy) no matter how long after, where or when a meber happens to be.


----------



## ajp (16 Oct 2009)

When I was at the Armour School we tried to have the Years worth of PDR's in the UER until PER season passed, and this was supposed to travel when youo got posted.  So there should be some level of clarity on the discipline issues that were not listed on the members pers file, but Reality and Theory do not always march hand in hand now do they.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> See reply #32 in this thread.  I hate repeating myself.





			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.
> 
> Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded.
> 
> I mean, call it something - anything - other than "Recorded", as that name suggests that the the step below it is something less than being Recorded or retained on record.



I am sooooo glad that you aren't repeating yourself because you are tired.  The rest of what you have posted is pure crap.

Actually, I would say that you really don't have a grasp on what the heck you are talking about (just to be polite).  

You are just making an idiot of yourself.


----------



## Occam (16 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sooooo glad that you aren't repeating yourself because you are tired.  The rest of what you have posted is pure crap.
> 
> Actually, I would say that you really don't have a grasp on what the heck you are talking about (just to be polite).
> 
> You are just making an idiot of yourself.



Well, come on, George.  Tell us why you think I don't have a grasp on what the heck I'm talking about.  Don't just sit back and take potshots because I've disagreed with you.

Try responding to the message and not the messenger.  The messenger hasn't been around as long as you have, but he ain't far off.


----------



## Burrows (17 Oct 2009)

And we're done.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## grandin105 (20 Nov 2012)

Hey,

What measures are available to a supervisor to address a troop being AWOL? the DAODs, QR&Os, CFAOs, etc. are helpful in describing the charge procedure and the definition of AWOL, but what are the other corrective measures can be taken?

PS. I am not a supervisor looking for someone to do my job.

PPS. Not AWOL as in desertion, but being late for a duty by 30 minutes

Thank you,


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Nov 2012)

QR & O, Vol II, Chap 103 - Services Offences, Article 103.23 - Absence Without Leave  (may not be limited to a single charge, or even that one...that is the obvious on that came to mind and I won't speculate on others)

Corrective measures?  Depends on how the CofC proceeds.  Could be a summary trial, could be extras w/out an official charge (lower forms of punishment), could be Remedial Measures.   It could be resolved with a quick one sided conversation "don't let it happen again or...".    Many factors affect the outcome.

- what was the duty and circumstances around the duty?  
- rank, experience, history of the offender?
- recommendations of the CofC of the offender?

There could be administrative action _and_ disciplinary action taken (example, mbr could be placed on a Recorded Warning [administrative action] and be charged [disciplinary action]).


More info on Summary Proceeding, Court Martial, Service Offences, etc can be found in QR & O, Vol II - Disciplinary.

Aside from that, I'd suggest the best source of information if this goes forward in a formal manner would be your Assisting Officer.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2012)

grandin105 said:
			
		

> PPS. Not AWOL as in desertion, but being late for a duty by 30 minutes



Sorry.  AWOL is AWOL.  There is no stated time as to what constitutes AWOL.  We charged a Cpl with being AWOL for coming in ten (10) minutes late.  The CO, new to job, Charged him with AWOL and Released him from the CF.

We were expecting a slap on the wrist to smarten him up.  He, however, had been placed on C&P by a 2Lt for being AWOL in Germany during Fasching.  We did not know that.  The CO used that to Release him.......for being late for duty by 10 minutes at lunchtime.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2012)

Like answering a post 8 years late.  Just kidding.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Nov 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  AWOL is AWOL.  There is no stated time as to what constitutes AWOL.  We charged a Cpl with being AWOL for coming in ten (10) minutes late.  The CO, new to job, Charged him with AWOL and Released him from the CF.
> 
> We were expecting a slap on the wrist to smarten him up.  He, however, had been placed on C&P by a 2Lt for being AWOL in Germany during Fasching.  We did not know that.  The CO used that to Release him.......for being late for duty by 10 minutes at lunchtime.



Alot of people didn't realize (even pre-Remedial Measures DAOD) C & P stayed on your Pers File forever.

Now, ICs, RWs and C & P are all permanent doc's that can come back to haunt you years down the road...


----------



## Shamrock (20 Nov 2012)

It should be further noted that remedial measures are not punitive, but administrative and can therefore accompany a charge. And, unlike a disciplinary hearing, for a RM to be applied, a CO only requires the balance of probabilities the conduct or performance deficiency was present.


----------



## TCM621 (1 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  AWOL is AWOL.  There is no stated time as to what constitutes AWOL.  We charged a Cpl with being AWOL for coming in ten (10) minutes late.  The CO, new to job, Charged him with AWOL and Released him from the CF.
> 
> We were expecting a slap on the wrist to smarten him up.  He, however, had been placed on C&P by a 2Lt for being AWOL in Germany during Fasching.  We did not know that.  The CO used that to Release him.......for being late for duty by 10 minutes at lunchtime.



Wow. Just wow. I can think of guys that have never been on time in their career and are still advancing up the ranks. Wonder how many MWOs or Majs have been released for being late 10 minutes. 

I can understand what you are thinking, and it was probably a good idea. But that is crazy.


If I understand the original post, the poster was looking for some ideas on how to correct someone who is coming in late prior to going the charge route. Just some things I have seen over the years that seemed effective:

Have the mbr be "late man" for a period of time. This could be the person who has to do lock up or is on call for tasks that run late.
Or have the mbr show up early for a period of time. For example, the mbr could be require to show up at 0730 vice 0800 for 2 weeks.
Visibly log the time the mbr shows up for work each day. By having the mbr know you are logging his time in, presumably as evidence for a future charge, it may motivate him to show up on time.

Hope these help. Dealing with some one who is habitually a little bit late is tough particularly if the mbr is a good worker other wise.


----------



## FJAG (1 Dec 2012)

Regular or reserve force?

If its reserve force there needs to be a detailed analysis done as to whether or not the member was subject to the code of service discipline at the time of the offence.


----------



## MedCorps (1 Dec 2012)

One other thing that the CO can do, if they suspect that proximity of work is part of the causation of the soldiers lateness, is to order the member into quarters.  This includes married members.  

Now this occurs at Crown expense (out of the COs budget) so it is not taken lightly.  I have not seen it used for awhile, but there was a CO in Petawawa in early 2000's who used this technique with notable success.  

A two or three weeks stint of living in shacks, nice and close to unit lines, with periodic inspections and bed checks from the Duty Sgt, when your family is at home can really sort out this sort of tardiness.  Might just we worth the few hundred bucks from the ol' budget. 

MC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Dec 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Regular or reserve force?
> 
> If its reserve force there needs to be a detailed analysis done as to whether or not the member was subject to the code of service discipline at the time of the alleged offence.



Sorry, had to.   ;D


----------



## Haggis (1 Dec 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Regular or reserve force?



If Reserve Force, Class A or B/C?



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> If its reserve force there needs to be a detailed analysis done as to whether or not the member was subject to the code of service discipline at the time of the offence.



So true, particularly with Class A.
  
Regarding Class B's I recall a case a few years ago where a Class B member was two hours late for work.  Even though it was not required, to be prudent I sought pre-charge advice from the JAG.  His opinion was that the member was only subject to the CSD during his regularly scheduled working hours and, once dismissed for the day was not again subject to the CSD until he arrived for duty the next day, regardless of what time that was.  Therefore, he could not be charged with AWOL unless he showed up for work and subesquently left early without permission.  Also, since he had not been explicity ordred to arrive at a set time on the day of the alleged offence, a charge of "Disobedience of a Lawful Command" was not an option.  Clearly a "WTF??" moment for me.  So, I took the JAG's "advice", disregarded it and charged the soldier anyway.  It stuck.


----------



## X Royal (5 Dec 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, I took the JAG's "advice", disregarded it and charged the soldier anyway.  It stuck.


A few questions here.
Would it stand up on redress? ???
Was the charged individual given full disclosure of the JAG's opinion?
Was the presiding officer informed of the JAG's opinion?
Was the Jag informed of the charge? 
Once you went to the JAG to ignore his advice and failure to disclose that advice to the accused, JAG or presiding officer could open up problems.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2012)

X Royal said:
			
		

> A few questions here.
> Would it stand up on redress? ???
> Was the charged individual given full disclosure of the JAG's opinion?
> Was the presiding officer informed of the JAG's opinion?
> ...



At the same time, I could ask the questions: 

"Is the JAG always 100% correct?" - This in concert with next question and my experience.
"Did this JAG actually have the correct references to make the comments, or did they just offer 'their' opinions?" - On this point, I remember a Movement Claim on Posting, in which I was making a claim, and it had to go to the JAG for clarification.  I brought in my Mortgage docs to be sent to the JAG and was turned down because they found nothing in the docs to justify my claim.  I in turn took the doc, opened it to page 2, para 2 and pointed out the statement in my Mortgage that refered to my claim, and the answer back was "Oh!  We didn't see that."  So.  Yes.  The JAG is not always 'perfect' in making 'the call'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Dec 2012)

Unless I misunderstand the QR & O, a mbr cannot redress a charge.  QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 7, Art 7.01(2) refers:

2) There is no right to grieve in respect of a decision made under the Code of Service Discipline.


I'd also, were I the mbr's Assisting Member, point out content of Note (B).


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2012)

X Royal said:
			
		

> Once you went to the JAG to ignore his advice and failure to disclose that advice to the accused...



I don't think you have to disclose your dealings with the JAG to the accused. They should be considered privileged and not subject to examination.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Dec 2012)

While a solider (or sailor or airperson) cannot redress the decision of a summary trial, they may submit a request for review.

And, in exceptional cases, I believe the Court Martial Appeal Court has heard appeals of summary trials.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 Dec 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> While a solider (or sailor or airperson) cannot redress the decision of a summary trial, they may submit a request for review.
> 
> And, in exceptional cases, I believe the Court Martial Appeal Court has heard appeals of summary trials.



Fact.  I put in a request for review of the decision AND a request for review of the punisment of the results to my summary trial.  It went from a demotion of Sgt to Cpl to instead a $2500 charge and a reprimand.

Back on topic, there are LOTS of "outside the box" ideas you can use to correct a deficiency.  Make sure it's noted on file though if you ever plan on escalating.


----------



## Rheostatic (5 Dec 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Regarding Class B's I recall a case a few years ago where a Class B member was two hours late for work.  Even though it was not required, to be prudent I sought pre-charge advice from the JAG.  His opinion was that the member was only subject to the CSD during his regularly scheduled working hours and, once dismissed for the day was not again subject to the CSD until he arrived for duty the next day, regardless of what time that was.  Therefore, he could not be charged with AWOL unless he showed up for work and subesquently left early without permission.  Also, since he had not been explicity ordred to arrive at a set time on the day of the alleged offence, a charge of "Disobedience of a Lawful Command" was not an option.  Clearly a "WTF??" moment for me.  So, I took the JAG's "advice", disregarded it and charged the soldier anyway.  It stuck.



Something's not quite right there...



			
				http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/defence-defense/csdme-cdmmoi-eng.asp said:
			
		

> When am I subject to the CSD?
> ...
> *24 hours a day, 7 days a week during any period of full time service (Class "B" or "C" service) *
> ...


----------



## Maxadia (5 Dec 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Back on topic, there are LOTS of "outside the box" ideas you can use to correct a deficiency.  Make sure it's noted on file though if you ever plan on escalating.



Yes, there are.  Now, I'm still on BMQ, so feel free to toss whatever I say back at me, but as a high school teacher lateness is an issue that we run into quite often.

I'm going to assume that the member is "just late." As in, they are late for no reason at all.  I have some students that come to school on a daily basis because their parents are drug or alcohol addicts, the kid has been up since 5:30, and they just finished dropping their 5 younger siblings off to school/ dayhome and that is as quick as they can get everything together.  These kids have a ****** life, and they're simply not going to be on time.  I'm just happy to see them come in the door each morning.  My guess is this member is not in any kind of situation like that.

Then I have the slackers.  The ones who don't come on time because...they just don't come on time.  For the first class in the morning, nothing sucks more than getting up in the morning and going to a class that you really don't want to attend, showing up late, and having the teacher make you sit outside the class.  You have to be there, but you're not even participating.  A couple of those will fix things up in short order.

For the ones that are content to sit there and do nothing, extra duties are assigned.  Such as a two page paper on how to get themselves prepared in the morning so that they arrive on time, why it is important to arrive on time, etc.  

Basically, I make it MORE of a pain in the *** to arrive late than it is to motivate themselves to be there on time.  So if your member is coming in late frequently "just because"...things are too enjoyable for them.  

Just my  :2c:


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2012)

X Royal said:
			
		

> A few questions here.



1. Would it stand up on redress? ??? A. As pointed out above there is no redress of grievance available but a request for a review under QR&O 108.45 is available in lieu. (as an aside because of a previous comment - the Court Martial Appeal Court does not deal with issues arising from a matter heard by summary trial. On the other hand, the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of matters dealt with a government agency/tribunal however the costs involved are enormous and would make this a prohibitive remedy)

2. Was the charged individual given full disclosure of the JAG's opinion? A. AJAGs and DJAs are the legal advisors for the chain of command. Their opinions are privileged legal advice and are not required to be disclosed and quite frankly should never be disclosed.

3. Was the presiding officer informed of the JAG's opinion? A. An interesting question. While there is no specific requirement that the person laying the charge disclose the legal advice to the "presiding officer" I would find it very questionable conduct for the person laying the charge not to discuss the legal advice on such an important issue with a much more senior person in the chain of command. Ultimately the CO is responsible for discipline in the unit. He should be aware of the fact that the legal officer has given an opinion that restricts when he can charge a Class B and further should be aware of the fact that a person to whom he has delegated charge laying authority is acting contrary to legal advice.

4. Was the Jag informed of the charge? A In my opinion a member of the chain of command is receiving "advice" and while "advice" is not an "order" he should follow that advice and if he feels the "advice" is wrong, take it up with his senior chain of command and at least be upfront with the legal officer and advise him that he will not follow the advice. Legal officers do not provide advice to just one member of the chain of command. If their advice is not followed they have a responsibility for ensuring that the CO is aware of that.  Note as well: all units are required to submit their Records of Disciplinary Proceedings monthly to their legal advisors for review. In this case that should be the same legal advisor who gave the advice (although it is not unknown for members to go "lawyer shopping" for the advice they want) An RDP review of a conviction on these charges (based on the few facts given) would in my mind be indicative of a legal error which would cause the legal advisor to quash the findings and sentence.

5. Once you went to the JAG to ignore his advice and failure to disclose that advice to the accused, JAG or presiding officer could open up problems. A I think you can see that the above answers point out that there is a real problem here as between the charge layer and the legal officer that needs to be resolved as between the CO and the regional AJAG.

A side note. The issue of whether or not Class Bs could be charged for AWOL (considering the provisions of QR&O 102.01 (NDA 60(1) which limits when reservists are subject to the CSD) was a matter of debate within the branch and if I remember correctly now (this goes back to many years for my brain and the interpretations did change somewhat) was dependant on how the individual's Class B contract was written. One had to analyse if the individual came within the provisions of the QR&O at any given time. The problem here was not dumb lawyers, but supervisors who thought Class B's were liable just like regular force members when in fact the laws of Canada (NDA 60(1)) said otherwise. The NDA was never changed but I believe (but am not sure) that subsequent contracts were eventually standardized to provide greater certainty.

Cheers


----------



## Wonderwall1313 (21 Apr 2013)

What happens if someone is  AWOL, but their contract is now over?


----------



## Jammer (21 Apr 2013)

There can still be a charge preferred under the NDA if the offence occured while the soldier was still employed in the Queen's service. Not uncommon.


----------



## PAdm (21 Apr 2013)

grandin105 said:
			
		

> but what are the other corrective measures can be taken?



You have a guy who is late.  I am ok with the occasional 30 min late as life happens, but it must be stated in advance through a phone call (e.g. both kids sick and I have to clean up puke before I get in, will be 30 min late).  But even "life happens" is a rare event and if folks are late due to drama every week, there are other issues we need to address.  But so far the point is, in my books, an occasional late is fine as long as it is proceeded by a phone call.

WRT corrective measures, AWOL means you have someone who needs to have his movements more closely monitored and life more controlled.  To help this individual who has been struggling with timings, I would order him in to report to e.g. the unit OR every morning NLT XX hrs and a Clk would ack his arrival and make note.  You could do the same for reporting after lunch or even departures.  If he arrived at X+5 minutes, he is late and thus breaking an order, and thus liable for another charge or further admin action.  Eventually, the mbr will either get a grip and arrive on time, or you will have such a file on him that he will be an admin burden so we can start to talk about release.  Documentation is everything.  

The other benefit to this approach is that you get a sense of what the problem is.  Is he late because he just does not care?  Is there a more complex family issue that we need to investigate and throw resources at?  The reporting in approach let's the supervisor see trends and facilitates conversation.  Sometimes mbrs are late because of fixable issues.  Sometimes, however, they are just turds.

Good luck


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Apr 2013)

Too bad the reverse wasn't true.  Something in place that stops supervisors from coming up with arbitrary timings 30 minutes prior to the actual timing.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2013)

I have to admit that for the sake of 30 minutes late I would want to know why. If he's just a bag of hammers, then charge him. If there's something else, it's just good leadership to investigate further.

Anecdote: I had a troop who was habitually late following deployment to Croatia. My boss wanted him charged. After investigating I found that his family life was falling apart because was the "go to guy" and was given 1-2 day taskings every few days so he was never home. Fortunately, we didn't charge him in the end and sorted out his tasking tempo.


----------



## PAdm (21 Apr 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Anecdote: I had a troop who was habitually late following deployment to Croatia. My boss wanted him charged. After investigating I found that his family life was falling apart because was the "go to guy" and was given 1-2 day taskings every few days so he was never home. Fortunately, we didn't charge him in the end and sorted out his tasking tempo.



This is how it should be.  Well done.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (21 Apr 2013)

I concur, modlrmike you give me hope haha.

I have seen guys come in 20 - 30 minutes late after not having been late for the following two years. And were checked out guys and it just goes way over the top with some people and a n incident like that shouldn't be noted on a permanent basis. Good leadership will be creative and not take it too high. If he is a problem then obviously a different course of action will be necessary.


----------



## medicineman (21 Apr 2013)

I remember my CSM one crappy morning in Calgary after a deep freeze left my car unable to start and an hour long wait to get a cab to work made me miss an RSM's parade...(insert strong Newfie accent) "This is the first time this has happened, so I'll forget it - THIS TIME.  If it happens again, my memory will become very much clearer and this conversation won't go so well in your favour."  He never recovered from his Alzheimer's...and I never forgot that when I was a boss.  Of course, if the person was a habitual shytepump, well that's another story.

MM


----------



## Towards_the_gap (23 Apr 2013)

Or for a more creative solution.....the AEH challenge (anchorage earth holdfast).

Ingredients:
One tardy soldier.
9 AEH plates
72 AEH pins (2' long steel pins, look like needles for giants)
1 30t shackle
1 thumper (post-driver)
1 set, goggles, sun/wind/dust
1 pr, wiring gloves.

1. Ask your local combat engineer for a quick how-to on how to put it all together with said tardy soldier.
2. Find a nice piece of grass somewhere, 30m from hardpacked dirt (un-used gravel road, etc)
3. Lay out all ingredients above in an orderly fashion on grassy bit, lay out a 10mx10m square on the hard-pack.
4. Tardy Soldier (hereafter known as TS) dons goggles, wiring gloves
5. On command 'GO' start stopwatch.
6. TS must construct a full crowsfoot AEH set, in 20mins, moving 1 piece of equipment at a time from start area to dirt area 30m away, using solid end of thumper as your 'sledgehammer'.
7. If he is unsuccessful, strip it all out and try again.


One absolute legend of a royal engineer once did it all in 16mins. By 'did it all', I mean he built it AND stripped it out in 16 mins.


----------



## SentryMAn (27 Apr 2013)

We had a guy that was 1.5hrs late for duty once.  He was giving a drive to 2 other members from about 3 hrs away and one of them was a shytepump and "Didn't hear his alarm" after a hard night drink.

He got a $600 fine and extra duties.


----------



## 211RadOp (27 Apr 2013)

I am glad I am on Ex right now.  I am having no difficulty filling my Sqn's fire piquet sched with people who have a hard time meeting timings.


----------



## Wonderwall1313 (29 Apr 2013)

Thanks Jammer,

So if a member chose to go AWOL and didn't return until after their contract end date, they would most likely be held in custody on base until trial?


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2013)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Or for a more creative solution.....the AEH challenge (anchorage earth holdfast).
> 
> Ingredients:
> One tardy soldier.
> ...



You just described a typical day in the field for Veh Techs on recovery training, except the part about dry packed ground.  :nod:

We never allowed the candidates to do anything without moving through at least 3 feet of mud and water. Unless it is winter. Try doing the same thing in frozen ground.


----------



## garb811 (29 Apr 2013)

Wonderwall1313 said:
			
		

> So if a member chose to go AWOL and didn't return until after their contract end date, they would most likely be held in custody on base until trial?


Probably not.  Even if the CF decided it was in the public interest to actually try them for an offence where (baring unusual circumstances) pers are released in abstentia after 6 months, a person would not be held in pre-trial custody simply because they had been AWOL.


----------



## Wonderwall1313 (29 Apr 2013)

So, does that mean that if you were AWOL for 6 months, you could be automatically released? I didn't know about this...do you have any more info related to that? Thx


----------



## garb811 (29 Apr 2013)

Trying to figure out if the Warrant is still valid for you or not?  Wander down to your local police station, tell them you're AWOL and see what happens.  If they arrest you, guess you're still in.  If they let you walk away, probably a pretty good bet you've been released.


----------



## Wonderwall1313 (29 Apr 2013)

Not exactly, but definitely looking for information in that regard.


----------



## garb811 (29 Apr 2013)

Well, not much more to say about that.  It's not a sure thing by any means, each situation is looked at on its own merits.


----------



## 211RadOp (29 Apr 2013)

That is not AWOL, it is desertion.



> 88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
> (2) A person deserts who
> 
> ...
> ...


----------



## Towards_the_gap (29 Apr 2013)

Once upon a time there was a widely circulated urban myth about a National Service deserter, now aged about 70 yrs old, who turns up to Brompton Barracks in England (home of the Royal Engineers), the same place he absconded from in the late 40's, and tells the Provost Sgt that he wants to turn himself in, he's felt bad about the wrong-un he did so many years ago and wants to clear his debt, so to speak.

He was given a cup of tea, and a tour of the barracks in the duty vehicle, while the Gd Shift 2IC knocked up a powerpoint certificate stating that 'having surrendered himself to the rightful authority of Provost Sgt B***** G****, 2122903 Spr J Bloggins has rightfully served 1 hour at Her Majesties Pleasure, and is now released in accordance with the Army Act 1955. Signed blah blah blah' with loads of official looking stamps 'IE GUARDROOM 1 RSME REGT' and 'BROMPTON BARRACKS'


----------



## opcougar (30 Apr 2015)

Good day all,

Getting conflicting responses from different folks. If a mbr was given an IC, and then put on a probational period for 3 months which they met, how long does it stay on mbr's personal file, and how does this affect any chances of promotion? Some people are saying it stays on for 5yrs then you need to get a pardon for it to come off?????

Someone said it's not like a charge, and no pardon is needed, because many people have done worse things and got promoted. Your thoughts on this please


----------



## dangerboy (30 Apr 2015)

If you have access to the DWAN look up DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-4.page (DWAN Only).  

The IC stays on your file permanently the DAOD states:



> 7. Administration
> 
> Permanent Record
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Apr 2015)

There is a completion memo/letter that gets imitated and placed on the pers file immediately before the IC


----------



## opcougar (30 Apr 2015)

Thanks, but what about the part about career progression limitations because of this???



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> If you have access to the DWAN look up DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-4.page (DWAN Only).
> 
> The IC stays on your file permanently the DAOD states:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Apr 2015)

Career Implications
6.1 When C&P is initiated, a CAF member's eligibility for career opportunities is restricted. The following table sets out career consequences resulting from a remedial measure:

If the CAF member is on ...	is the CAF member still eligible for ...
                                                                                               Promotion?	career courses?	posting?	attached posting?
IC or RW,
                                                                                                Yes                Yes                  Yes              Yes

C&P,                                                                                          No                 No(1)               No, except if (2):

Note – (1) There is no restriction on remedial IT&E courses meant to assist a CAF member who is on C&P to overcome a conduct or performance deficiency.
       -   (2) the posting or attached posting is for an operational deployment; or the DGMC determines otherwise.


EDITED TO ADD:

Just read this link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-4.page


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Apr 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Thanks, but what about the part about career progression limitations because of this???



Many a member with an IC *on their file have been promoted.  Counselling that has been taken to heart to address shortcomings is not necessarily a bad thing.

G2G

*corrected for spelling


----------



## DAA (30 Apr 2015)

IC's are a "permanent" record of "initial counselling" that has taken place for performance or conduct deficiencies.  They are mainly used for local level personnel management and don't go beyond the Pers File and or Unit Level.

For those that have been around for awhile, IC's are similar to "Div Notes", "Troop Leaders Note Books", etc, etc.   They are used as a means to address and correct problems before they result in career implications.  Prior to issuing anyone with an IC, the Pers File needs to be reviewed, to determine whether or not the problem has been identified in the past.


----------



## mariomike (30 Apr 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Your thoughts on this please



Some here,

One IC on member's PERS are there serious career implications? can it be removed  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/114444.0;nowap

IC's and time  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/110314.0/nowap.html


----------



## PanaEng (30 Apr 2015)

Not bragging, far from it, but I got accepted in the UTPNCM program with a C&P on my pers file.
Some times is the kick in the ass some ppl need. (some times an a sect 129 of NDA may be preferred but that might have impacted the UTPNCM selection)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Apr 2015)

I also have been on RMs and been promoted.  It doesn't HELP your chances but it isn't a career stopper in most cases either.


----------



## Lumber (4 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Some people are saying it stays on for 5yrs then you need to get a pardon for it to come off?????



Whom ever is telling you this has no idea what they are talking about. All remedial measures (IC, RW and C&P) stay in your pers file forever. The remedial measure itself will not affect your promotion, but the underlying performance/conduct might.

Say you are place on initial counseling for a performance deficiency due to you frequently falling asleep while on sentry duty at the range. You might get a shitty PER at the end of the year not because you were placed on IC, but because you are a shitty sentry.

Cheers.


----------



## geo (7 May 2015)

Periods of being a good boy and obtaining a pardon relate to disciplinary measures not administrative ones.  Remedial measures are intended to help you overcome a problem - not punish you ( though you may not see it that way). If you get served with a remedial measure, you know what to do - improve, correct your shortcoming - and you'll be fine.


----------



## MB44 (13 Aug 2016)

I was recently put under Remedial Measures for alcohol misconduct. There was a unit investigation but my chain of command has decided to give me a Recorded Warning. I am wondering what effects it will have on my career. I'm in the Reserve Force and I know not to screw up again. My superiors keeps telling me "not to lose sleep over it."


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2016)

You can't drop a bomb like that and not tell us the story.

No it's not on your MPRR.
No it won't effect your career unless your chain of command is going out of their way not to promote you.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2016)

If there are future incidents, it may have an impact on your career.  A career review board will look at everything, and a history of misconduct would be a consideration of any decision to retain or release you.

The moral of the story?  Learn from it.  Don't do it again.  Don;t do other foolish things again.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Aug 2016)

May as well have a read of the official policies in the event you already haven't...unless you're a Pte/Spr/Gnr/Tpr, you are at the very least a Jnr NCO and should become conversant with the policies, and where to find them, so you can answer these types of questions your subordinates might have and be better able to advise superiors about CAF policy and stuff.  Free PD.

DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures

DAOD 5019-7, Alcohol Misconduct


----------



## MB44 (14 Aug 2016)

So seeing as how it is Protected B information, no one outside of the CF will ever know about it, would they? Who inside the CF will know?


----------



## dangerboy (14 Aug 2016)

MB44 said:
			
		

> So seeing as how it is Protected B information, no one outside of the CF will ever know about it, would they? Who inside the CF will know?



Your immediate chain of command for starters and after that anyone who accesses your personnel file as remedial measures stay in your file for the rest of your career. They are usually mentioned in PERs that you were placed on remedial measures, so anyone that sees this years PER.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Aug 2016)

Reporting on the Personnel Evaluation Report

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


7. Administration

see attached pic


----------



## ballz (14 Aug 2016)

MB44 said:
			
		

> I am wondering what effects it will have on my career.



Bottom line up front, if you don't screw up again, somewhere between "none" and "sweet fuck all." The purpose of the remedial measures is it remedy your conduct or performance deficiency. If you respond well to it and overcome the deficiency, good on ya.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Aug 2016)

Flip side of the coin...this will stay on your Pers File forever.  If you get into shyte again and alcohol is involved...it will come into play.  10, 20 years from now.   

In some ways, a ST with a small fine is better than a RM.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Flip side of the coin...this will stay on your Pers File forever.  If you get into shyte again and alcohol is involved...it will come into play.  10, 20 years from now.
> 
> In some ways, a ST with a small fine is better than a RM.


True, but you can get an RM following a ST, so not that much better.


----------



## Intantry (23 Aug 2017)

Scoured for hours couldn't find a thing on this and would rather not go through every CF legal doc when i can find out the information here: 
(Not trying to go on a witch hunt against my CoC just genuinely curious because this was a curve ball when it hit me)

So..long story short I managed to get some 'leave' under some untruthful circumstances, I got caught and was given a Recorded Warning with the outlined remedial and administrative measures within the document which I signed for with my 2IC, on my way out my SGM was like:

 "oh by the way those leave days are coming out of your remaining annual." 

...My question is; after understanding and acknowledging why the RW was given and signing for the remedial measures and courses of action that have been approved by the CO to rectify this conduct issue within the document, is my CoC able to give additional administrative or remedial actions that aren't outlined in the signed RW? (like take away my leave or dock pay or CB not additional duties or crappy taskings)

I have a couple colleagues that had the same thing happen to them where they received additional action against them outside of the signed IC, RW and C&P.

 Another example is a colleague being 10 minutes late for duty because of traffic and getting an AWOL charge with 25% of their pay docked after the Initial Counseling was signed.

Again not going after my CoC just genuinely curious if this is a thing within other units where additional actions are given out outside of what was understood and signed for. 

Thanks.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Aug 2017)

Considering that an IC is an administrative process and not a punishment, then the answer is yes. From what you've said I'm surprised you haven't been charged with being AWOL, uttering a false document, fraud etc. You should think yourself lucky that the you're only losing the leave days. I must say if I were the officer signing off on the IC I would be asking for a copy of the RDP.

You should bear in mind that the IC process is completely separate from the Discipline system. IC is not a punishment, it is intended to lay out corrective measures so the member can repair whatever defect needs work. It is quite normal for an IC to follow a charge parade. For example you're charged for being AWOL, and the IC lays out how you learn not to be AWOL again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2017)

It's not uncommon for people guilty of AWOL to be forced to pay those days back. They didn't work them and didn't have approved leave; why should they get paid for them?  It shouldn't come out of your annual leave it should come off your pay.


----------



## FJAG (23 Aug 2017)

You indicated that you "got some 'leave' under untruthful circumstances" which to me means that you were granted some time off without any entitlement and were caught at it. Assigning those days to "annual leave" is not a punishment at all. It is the system correcting the accounting for your time off from a fraudulent one to one you would have been entitled to take.

As MM said, consider yourself lucky not to have been charged.

The example re your colleague and his 10 minutes late is also quite proper. An AWOL charge comes under disciplinary action and was merited. A fine of 25% of monthly base pay is within the powers of punishment of a delegated officer under QR&O 108.25. There is absolutely no problem in adding an administrative action of an IC. The purpose for that is to provide corrective guidance and to lay a process for more serious corrective action - including release - if the behaviour does not improve.

 :cheers:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Aug 2017)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-4.page

Administrative Actions Versus Disciplinary Actions

3.13 Administrative actions are not punishments under the Code of Service Discipline.

3.14 Both disciplinary actions under the Code of Service Discipline and administrative actions are meant to address a CAF member's conduct or performance deficiency. They may operate independently or one may complement the other.

3.15 Disciplinary actions and administrative actions serve different purposes. Disciplinary actions possess a punitive aspect that administrative actions do not. Disciplinary action is initiated only if there are sufficient grounds to justify the laying of a charge under the Code of Service Discipline against a CAF member.


----------



## Mediman14 (27 Mar 2018)

This was a discussion I overheard at the gym one day. I thought it would be a good discussion!


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Mar 2018)

Notwithstanding the phrasing of your question, I think that any RM considered for a member undergoing treatment for a mental health issue would have to be very carefully constructed. It would be paramount that the issue that needs remediation is clear, and separate from their medical condition. Unfortunately, this would likely be very hard to accomplish, as there would always be a question of whether or not the member's medical issue influenced the behavior requiring improvement.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Mar 2018)

Remedial Measures are there to let someone know they are doing something, conduct or performance wise, that is unacceptable.  It shouldn't matter if they have mental health issues.  

If you don't give them Remedial Measures, you are reinforcing negative behaviour.  You then end up with toxic individuals who have been allowed to carry on screwing up, at the expense of their peers, subordinates, superiors and the organization.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2018)

... and often to their own detriment too.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and often to their own detriment too.



I think part of the problem is people treat Remedial Measures as a disciplinary tool when that is not their purpose.  If someone does have a Mental Health problem then that is where the Part 5 of the Remedial Measure comes in i.e. "What you need to do to overcome the deficiency" and the follow-up counselling sessions in Part 6, which are critical to the Remedial Measures process but are rarely ever done properly.


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and often to their own detriment too.



At the recent Wellness Training conducted by 3 Div, they had a Post-Traumatic Growth Panel. One of the questions that was asked was pretty much "how much should we let those suffering from mental health 'get away with' while they are suffering / recovering" or in other words what's the right amount of leeway, if any.

Sgt Lorne Ford was on the panel and expressed the sentiment that for him, being held accountable by his Pl WO was what helped him turn around and start taking active steps towards growth. One of the other panelist was Capt Ashley Collette formerly an Infantry Officer and currently working as a Social Work Officer. She echoed this sentiment and said, to my understanding and to the effect that, it is also the current clinical perspective.

I was faced with a particularly long period where a subordinate was escaping any form of accountability and had obstinate denial of their deficiencies (not my call on them escaping accountability... I was the a$$hole for recommending remedial measures), because the grown-ups decided that it was "because of their mental health." It was cancerous for everyone involved, and it definitely left the individual far worse off. A little accountability probably would have allowed them to at least maintain some sense of dignity / self-respect instead of going right off the rails.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Mar 2018)

I have had subordinates who struggled with PTSD and whose day to day behaviour was occasional quite antithetical to the standard we expect of CF members.

In those cases, I strongly supported the clinical efforts to heal them. I also made it crystal clear to those soldiers that I expected soldierly conduct and that PTSD was not an excuse for indiscipline. This included issuing remedial measures, when warranted.

Maybe I was just lucky, but in my experience, them knowing that I both had their back on treatment and that I expected soldierly conduct were not mutually exclusive things. I was rewarded by watching soldiers both heal and return to being productive members of my unit, instead of chronic disciplinary problems.


----------

