# Afghan Medals Process (merged)



## John Nayduk (25 Nov 2002)

Medals slow in coming for veterans of Afghanistan

Michael Smith  
National Post 


Monday, November 25, 2002

OTTAWA - Canadian soldiers have been recommended for more than 20 medals of bravery for outstanding service during their six-month tour in Afghanistan, the National Post has learned, but it could take as long as a year until they receive them.

Sources in the Department of National Defence say some of the military‘s highest decorations will be handed out to members of the Canadian battle group, which included the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry, the Lord Strathcona‘s Horse, Royal Canadian Engineers and support personnel.

Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran, the commander of the 850-member battle group, confirmed that at least 20 of the troops under his command have been recommended for medals.

But the lengthy approval process means the soldiers will not receive the awards for up to a year, and Lt.-Col. Stogran said it was unfortunate that the decorations take such a long time to approve.

"Our system should be a little more timely. It‘s almost anti-climactic by the time we get our medals. So much for positive reinforcement," he told the Post.

"For the Americans, they‘re decorated in theatre: Strike when the metal is hot -- so to speak -- for positive reinforcement." Sources say Lt.-Col. Stogran has himself been recommended for a decoration, one of the highest awards for officers in the Canadian Forces.

Defence sources say his troops have been recommended for decorations such as the Medal for Bravery, Mention in Dispatches and the Meritorious Service Cross for actions above and beyond the regular call of duty.

Sources say some of those medals will be given to the Canadian snipers whose performance during Operation Anaconda so impressed their U.S allies they were nominated for Bronze Stars.

Other awards will be handed out for the actions of soldiers during the aftermath of the friendly fire incident that left four Canadian soldiers dead and eight wounded, and for troops on the Canadian offensive operations Harpoon and Khost.

Major-General Steve Lucas, the chief of staff of administration and human resources for the Canadian Forces, would not say whether medals or decorations are being considered for Afghan veterans. "We have not had a session concerning these type of awards yet," said Maj.-Gen. Lucas, who is the chairman of the committee that decides on honours and awards.

Maj.-Gen. Lucas was one of those who decided on awarding the South West Asia Service Medal (SWASM) for all the personnel involved in Operation Apollo. To date, only a handful of the SWASM medals have been given out: the Governor-General awarded them to a token 29 soldiers who recently returned from the region this summer. Around 7,000 of the service medals will eventually be given out.

© Copyright  2002 National Post


----------



## combat_medic (25 Nov 2002)

Is this a surprise to ANYONE?!?!

In my unit, we just handed out the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medals last spring, and they should‘ve been sent 2 years before. Also, how many people here can say that they got their CD on time? Anyone? Maybe it‘s just in the reserves, but usually they‘re between 6 months to 3 years late, even if they‘re ordered a year early.


----------



## Gunner (25 Nov 2002)

To a certain extent, I prefer the CF way of awarding medals.  In essence, units make their recommendation and it is  supported/not supported through the chain of command.  The CF Honours and Awards committee judges the merits of each application against a standard criteria.  This does take time, but, hopefully those who deserve it will get it and the award isn‘t watered down.

I‘m sure LCol Stogran thinks that 20 of his officers/soldiers deserve the MSC, MB, MiD, etc, but according to the CF definition that the honours and awards committee will use, they may not get it. 

Perhaps I‘m a traditionalist and I don‘t like to see the current climate of tossing honours and awards at soldiers just so they feel good about themselves. I use as an example teh Commander in Chief Unit Commendation.  How many ships/units are going to get it for Op APOLLO...any wagers?


----------



## aa (25 Nov 2002)

Generally speaking, I agree with you. The question is whether or not the delay is a reasonable one caused by making an appropriate review, or an unreasonable one caused by administrative inefficiency or politics (as in the case of the Somalia medal). I‘m sure there are cases of both.

The awards systems does seem to have been watered down somewhat over the years (I mean, come on, they gave me a medal for serving in GERMANY???). The British equivalent (near as I can tell) of the SSM is the General Service Medal which was awarded for such operations as Northern Ireland, Malaya, Borneo, etc. Hardly a reasonable comparison to Germany and Alert. There will also always be the debates about who is eligible for medals (the old stories of people flying in on an "inspection" for just long enough to qualify, or of NDHQ staff being given the MSC for doing the staff work for an operation)

Of course, just like the "battle school was harder in MY day" argument, I‘m sure people have been saying this forever..........and I‘ve heard the same thing from friends in a number of other armies too


----------



## combat_medic (25 Nov 2002)

What about people who got the Former Yugoslavia medal who served in a headquarters in Italy and never set foot in Former Yugoslavia? Do they deserve a medal?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Nov 2002)

This is nothing new, and if anyone has any constructive advice to give those responsible for issuing the medals, do so now.  You would think rewarding troops in a timely manner would be a priority, but sadly, it isn‘t.  So where does the problem lie, and how do we fix it?

I did get a kick out of the photo of the Navy NCM on the cover of Maple Leaf with her new medal.  My CSM here in the Highlanders commented that it must have been rough for her, humping a Carl G up and down those hills in Afghanistan, with 100 pound loads and 40 degree heat.

I think he was being sarcastic.


----------



## Gunner (25 Nov 2002)

Hey, listen guys, there are three topics here.

First, most of the SWA Medals will be issued by Xmas.  That isn‘t bad for a Roto 0 inwhich a medal must be designed, approved, produced and distributed.  In our environment of consultation, I don‘t view this as that bad.

Secondly, the SWA Medal is issued to everyone involved in Op APOLLO.  Those in the actual theatre of operations (3 PPCLI BG, SLOC, Navy, Air Force) get an "Afghanistan" Bar.   We all signed the dotted line when we joined.  Some have easier jobs than otehrs, but in the end we all should be focussed on the same mission.  Who‘s come back to base camp after a ****ty patrol in the middle of the night and the the cooks have stayed up preparing coffee and a late meal.  They don‘t stick their ***  out on the line, but they have a very important role.  Moreover, ask 3 PPCLI (less snipers) how many Al Queda or Taliban they killed or captured?  How many for the Navy?  Guess who has a higher "body" count and making the world safe for our kids?  I hope that navy NCM wears his/her medal with as much pride as a soldier from 3 PPCLI and the staff officer in Tampa.  They were all members of the same team trying to accomplish the same mission.  

Third, other medals/awards/citations for bravery, service, etc.  I don‘t disagree that they should be presented in a timelier manner, but what steps do you take out to increase teh speed of presentation?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2002)

Gunner - you are right of course; as a clerk in an infantry company I have pulled my share of easy duty while the grunts have been freezing/sweating/miserable.  I think it just speaks for the need for something comparable to the US Combat Infantry Badge or German Infanteriesturmabzeichen.  Even a WW II vet will tell you that the guys who landed at Dieppe, stormed the Hitler Line at point of bayonet, or charged German MG positions in the Scheldt got the same rack of medals as the dude at CMHQ who ordered paper clips.

How‘s that for constructive?    

I don‘t doubt the Navy chick missed her family while on deployment in the Gulf, and certainly she earned her medal.  Still, it‘s just seems to downgrade the achievements of those who were in mortal danger (not to mention doing their bodies serious harm by carrying heavy loads in severe climate conditions...when these guys are pensioners, I wonder how many will be feeling the effects on their bodies?) rather than eating ice cream in the galley.  This too is nothing new.  Not that a CIB will help them with their arthritis when they are pensioners, either, but it would be nice to see them get their due - as has been/is the custom in other armies.

Those Bronze Star medals might have helped redress the imbalance a little...what ever became of that?  I would hate to think that because one of them yelled at a chaplain, that the Canadian awards that were going to replace the Bronze Stars were also abandoned?


----------



## John Nayduk (26 Nov 2002)

Interesting idea of a C.I.B. but how would you define the criteria for it?  Take the Former Yugoslavia.  During UNPROFOR lots of guys got shot at regularly.  Would they get the badge?  Now with IFOR, the guys patrol but rarely is there a shot fired in angry.  Does getting shot at during UNPROFOR qualify equally to the guy getting shot at in Afghanistan?  I don’t mind the idea of giving a little extra to the guys on the pointy end but how would we do it?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Nov 2002)

I think rather than a combat badge, why not a modification to the trades badge?

To qualify, you would have had to serve in a combat arms subunit (meaning that drivers, medics, clerks, etc. would qualify, but only if they were directly employed in, or attached to, an infantry company, pioneer platoon, armoured squadron, engineer squadron, armoured or recce squadron, or artillery/air defence battery that was employed "in the field").

The trades badges already identify what trade a member is employed in currently.  Why not modify the badge as follows:

If employed on a peacekeeping mission for one month (or if wounded/injured during before that qualifying time elapses), your trades badge gets a UN blue surround (ie piping around the edge of the badge).

If employed on a peacemaking operation (Somalia, IFOR - ie not peacekeeping but an operation short of full blown combat), you get a maroon surround.

If employed in a war fighting operation (Gulf War, Afghanistan) for at least one month (or are wounded during the qualifying period), a scarlet surround.

You would only get one trades badge so altered - if you did two tours in Cyprus then fought in Afghanistan, you would get the scarlet edged badge.  The tours in Cyprus are already noted by your campaign medals.

The trades badge would be for the trade the soldier was employed in during these duties. 

What this would signal, then, is employment as a, say, infantryman in a hostile enviroment.

At the risk of looking like the boyscouts, if you changed trades after serving in an infantry company in combat, and say remustered to supply tech.  You would keep the unpiped supply tech badge in the position normally worn as a "current trade" and on the opposite arm, you would get to keep the piped badge showing the trade you "saw action" in.

You would only be entitled to two badges maximum - one to reflect your current trade, and one to reflect past peacekeeping or combat service.

This would only be useful for ranks of Private to Sergeant, but perhaps WO and up could wear a miniature of the piped badge above the ribbon bar?

What this does is show at  a glance that a guy has been in combat, or actual operations, as an infantryman, say.  Currently, a soldier wearing the infantry trades badge and the UNPROFOR medal could likely have earned his medal as a clerk in Italy, or a cook in a Yugoslavian headquarters, and remustered to the infantry afterwards.

Just a dumb suggestion, but surely something could be done.  The Americans had a big problem with introducing the Combat Infantry Badge because initially the combat medics -attached directly to rifle companies in WW II - were not eligible for them, despite putting their lives at risk as much as, or more, than the infantrymen.

There is still the problem of criteria, I realize - ie how do you quantify how much a person has been shot at, etc., but I don‘t suppose that matters much.  The difference between the infantryman in Afghanistan - carrying his rucksack up and down the hills - and the seaman doing equally important work for 8 hours a day in a climate controlled ship - isn‘t recognized currently by the medal or even the trades badge.

Thrown out for discussion knowning full well some may hate it.  That‘s ok, but let‘s hear some other suggestions in that case.


----------



## Capt Whammo (10 Sep 2004)

Hey all,

Just a few questions about our troops deployed for OP Athena:

Are OP Athena members eligible for the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal?

Are the OP Athena members deployed to Camp Mirage eligible for the General Campaign Star? 

There seems to be very little info regarding this, cheers.

B.R. Jacobs


----------



## Armymedic (10 Sep 2004)

If you are military, there are CANFORGENs able to answer these exact questions.

If your not military, google search CANFORGENs and it'll give you th page for them. ( I am currently on a din computer so I can't link them to you)

look under:

CANFORGEN 092/04 ADM(HR-MIL) 050 071956Z JUL 04
GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR AND GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Sep 2004)

To answer the question.

1.  No

2.  No


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2004)

FWIW,

Here in Kabul - we were told troops who did not have the CPSM woudl be elligible - for ISAF is a PSO not warfighting.

The people in support missions (Mirage etc.) get the General Service Medal.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2004)

Capt Whammo said:
			
		

> Are OP Athena members eligible for the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal?
> 
> Are the OP Athena members deployed to Camp Mirage eligible for the General Campaign Star?
> 
> There seems to be very little info regarding this, cheers.



1. Currently, Op Apollo is not listed as an eligable mission. However, as the GCS is awarded for "Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy." One might think that neither peace keeping nor peace making are being carried out. As the CPSM is awarded for Chapter VI missions, and Afghanistan is a Chapter VII mission, it probably does not qualify. Ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/engraph/faqs_e.asp?category=cpsm&FaqID=3#answer

2. No, they are to be awarded the General Service Medal, along with those civilians employed in Afganistan. Ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/engraph/faqs_e.asp?category=gcsgsm&FaqID=97#answer

3. There's plenty of info if you look hard enough for it.


----------



## Gunner (21 Sep 2004)

Someone asked the question awhile back if you were entitled to a GCS and a CPSM if you deployed on Op ATHENA.  It seemed that most of the answers were positive however I had heard that you would not.  I finally found the CANFORGEN that states that you are NOT eligible.

CANFORGEN 094/04 ADMHRMIL 052 071711Z JUL 04
ISAF+FIAS BAR TO THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR AND GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. CANFORGEN 106/00 ADMHRMIL 064 081930Z SEP 00 
B. CANFORGEN 092/04 ADMHRMIL 050 071956Z JUL 04 
C. CANFORGEN 153/03 ADMHRMIL 073 221755Z DEC 03 



HER EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL HAS ANNOUNCED THE APPROVAL OF THE ISAF+FIAS BAR TO THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR (GCS) AND GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL (GSM) 


THE ISAF+FIAS BAR TO THE GCS IS AWARDED TO CF MBRS AND MBRS OF ALLIED ARMED FORCES WORKING WITH THE CF WHO SERVED WITH ISAF FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS BETWEEN 24 APR 03 AND A TERMINATION DATE TO BE DETERMINED, IN THE THEATRE OF OPS WHICH CONSISTS OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND AIRSPACE OF AFGHANISTAN 


AIRCREW FLYING INTO THE AREA OF OPS WILL ACCUMULATE ONE DAY S SVC FOR THE FIRST SORTIE FLOWN ON ANY GIVEN DAY, ADDITIONAL SORTIES FLOWN ON THE SAME DAY RECEIVE NO FURTHER CREDIT. HOWEVER, EACH DAY OR PARTS THEREOF SPENT IN OR OVER THE AREA OF OPS WILL BE COUNTED AS ONE FULL DAY 


THE ISAF+FIAS BAR TO THE GSM IS AWARDED TO THE FOL PERS: 


CDN CITIZENS OTHER THAN CF MBRS WHO WORKED WITH THE CF AND SERVED WITH ISAF FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS BETWEEN 24 APR 03 AND A DATE TO BE DETERMINED, IN THE THEATRE OF OPS WHICH CONSISTED OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND AIRSPACE OF AFGHANISTAN 


CF MBRS, OTHER CDN CITIZENS AND MBRS OF ALLIED ARMED FORCES WORKING WITH THE CF WHO SERVED IN THE FOL LOCATIONS FOR AT LEAST 90 DAYS IN DIRECT SP, ON A FULL-TIME BASIS, OF ISAF: 

(1) LOGISTICAL SUPPORT IN TARANTO, ITALY FROM 1 MAY 03 

(2) INTERIM STAGING BASE (ISB) IN ISTANBUL, TURKEY FROM 2 JUN 03 

(3) NATIONAL SUPPORT ELEMENT (NSE) IN CAMP MIRAGE FROM 17 AUG 03 


THE BAR WILL BEAR THE INSCRIPTIONS QUOTE ISAF UNQUOTE AND QUOTE FIAS UNQUOTE SEPARATED BY A NATO STAR 


APPLICATIONS SHALL BE MADE IAW THE REFS A AND B 


CF PERS SERVING IN SWA IN OTHER OPS THAN ISAF DO NOT QUAL FOR THIS BAR BUT MAY QUAL FOR THE SWASM, REF C REFERS 


[size=10pt]ISAF SVC DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR AWARD OF EITHER THE SSM (NATO) OR THE CPSM   [/size] 


FURTHER INFO, INCL FAQ S, APPLICATION FORM ETC, IS AVAL ON THE DHH DIN WEBSITE (HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHH) UNDER HONOURS AND AWARDS SECTION


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Sep 2004)

I am vindicated! ;D


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2004)

Oh Well such is life
anyway, I earned my CPSM the hard way - In Cyprus  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (23 Sep 2004)

Mine was even harder; the Cafe Alhambra in downtown Bihac...


----------



## c4th (24 Sep 2004)

I thought we were going to campaign medals because everyone who is going to get them already has the other tour medals.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2004)

Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd just bump this one. It really doesn't have to do with the CPSM, we know the status there. 

What I'd like to know is, has anyone heard when we're being awarded the General Campaign Star? The paperwork was supposed to have been submitted months ago and the last we were told was "You'll get them in the fall". Maybe I should have asked "Fall of what year?"

Anyone heard anything? I don't normally stand by it, but I'll even take heresay at this point. After spending the weekend at LFCA HQ and not getting answers, I'm beginning to wonder. It's not that I need another one, but it's something we're entitled to and it seems to have been shuffled off, or at the least no one knows any answers.


----------



## bossi (30 Nov 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd just bump this one.



Hot off the press ... from today's National Post
(i.e. we've only been waiting for the inaugural presentation, and now it's happened - it's pathetic your chain of command didn't keep you better informed, ESPECIALLY since "one of us" was at the inaugural presentation ceremony ... but we both know the inside scoop on major priorities ...)



> *Canadian soldiers' widows presented with General Campaign Stars for Afghanistan service*
> The widows of three men killed during peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan each accepted medals yesterday from Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson on behalf of their fallen soldier husbands. Tina Beerenfenger, Susan Short and Candace McCauley were presented General Campaign Stars (International Security Assistance Force) for their husbands' roles in Afghan operations in the face of an armed enemy. Corporal Robbie Beerenfenger and Sergeant Robert Short were killed when their jeep struck a mine last October. Corporal Jamie Brendan Murphy was killed by a suicide bomber in January. The ceremony was the inaugural presentation of the General Campaign Star and the General Service Medal, which acknowledges civilian and military service in support of those facing an armed enemy.



Official Press Release, with recipients listed


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2004)

Apparently those of us from 1VP who are now home (a PL sized element) and will be at work (maybe 10 or so) are to get them next week at the Men's Christmas Diner


----------



## Parasoldier (30 Nov 2004)

There is nothing scheduled for 3 RCR this year.  Rumour has us getting our medals in the the new year.  The medals parade will be difficult for a Bn, since they all have our names on the back.


----------



## Big Foot (30 Nov 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do the regulations not state that you cannot be awarded more then 1 medal for a single tour? When I read the medal regarding the GCS, it seemed to suggest that you would be awarded it, or the tour medal, but not both. I suppose they don't want us accumulating too many medals, at the risk of looking military.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Nov 2004)

The GSC and the GSM ARE the tour medals for Op Athena, in Afghanistan. Try reading from the beginning of the thread and you'll understand your confusion.


----------



## buzgo (1 Dec 2004)

I was posted out of Pet this APS, when I got my new unit I looked into the status of my GCS, I was told: "Your losing unit will apply for you." So I didn't think anything of it until the CANFORGENs came out, at which point I checked into it again, and was told that I had to fill out the form myself. 

About 2 months or so ago I filled out the Excel spreadsheet that was released by DHH, and submitted it to the OR. Hopefully it will show up sometime soon!

Hmm. Maybe it will be at the Xmas dinner... They say that the medal will only be awarded on a formal parade...


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2004)

Parasoldier, 
 I'd have thought you guys would have been getting them by now - I heard thru the gravevine that the Vandoos got theirs (anyone confirm)
I woudl nto doubt that they told us about the parade so everyone stayed on leave till after X-Mas (no-one wants a parade or worse to be called at the X-Mas dinner).


----------



## Parasoldier (1 Dec 2004)

Only two soldiers received their medal from the Governor General.  You would think that they would have been presented already, that would make things easier.  I guess the hold up is the individual names on the back.


----------



## reccecrewman (29 Aug 2005)

Goodday all.  I am seeking some sort of explanation as to why I cannot mount my Non-Article 5 NATO medal.  I went to Afghanistan in Feb. 05 as part of Op. Athena Roto 3 and returned home this August.  At the end of tour, we were awarded our General Campaign Star w/ ISAF bar and a NATO Non Article 5 medal for the tour.  Both medals were awarded to us with the certicficate that accompanies them, however, we were told we could only mount the GCS, and not the NATO medal.  I don't understand this at all.  By the book, you're not allowed to have 2 medals awarded for the same tour, but, what about all the tours that went into Bosnia and they got their NATO SFOR medal and their Canadian CPSM medal????  One of the decorations are from NATO, but the second is Canadian.  The same thing goes for the guys that went to Afghanistan.  We got a Canadian medal (GCS) and the NATO medal.  So, I am seeking an answer as to why we cannot mount this medal.  As an added note to that, is there any way we can bring this about so we can mount this medal and if there is, what are the proper channels?  I know some of the guys that I did my tour with are writing letters to their respective MP's in their home districts, but, before I do anything, I'd like to know the proper way to do it.  Thanks alot for taking your time people.


----------



## KevinB (29 Aug 2005)

The CPSM is a gimme for any Peacekeeping tour (UN or NATO)


The GCS is an tour medal - Some of the later SFOR tours where Non Article 5 - was not aware the ISAF tour was NA5 (has it gotten that bad? ) None of the previous tours got the NA5


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Aug 2005)

NATO awards the Non Article 5 medal for ISAF.   Some countries, including Canada and the UK, have chosen not to accept the medal as they believe it is not sufficient recognition for the mission.   It is too easily confused with Bosnia and doesn't reflect the reality of the operation.   Hence, Canada awards the GCS with ISAF bar for ATHENA.

You cannot receive two medals for the same mission.   On Roto 2, we were specifically banned from attending NATO awards ceremonies and from being awarded the Non-Article 5 medal.   I was attached to KMNB for that rotation and both myself and the Canadians at HQ ISAF were directed not to accept the medal.   This policy (and it is a policy, as we confirmed in theatre) has been in place since Roto 0.

As for the CPSM, Canada, for a variety of reasons (all good in my book) does not regard ATHENA as a "peacekeeping" mission (see the DHH website for clarification), hence no "peacekeeping" medal.

IMHO, as someone who was there and had to tell a German General that I could not accept his awarding me a medal, people should suck it up and stop whining.   The GCS is more than sufficient recognition for this tour.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Aug 2005)

I had a nice reply wrote up, but couldn't get it thru... :crybaby:

here is a couple references:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/med1_e.asp?cat=3

Basically cause the two medals you were awarded were for the same service on the same mission. The one issued by the Gov't of Canada takes precedence over any NATO or UN medal. Hence you can't wear the NA5.

and from the booklet:



> The Canadian medals have a minimum period of service requirement,
> usually a number of days, but they have no maximum meaning that all service with
> this particular operation is recognized by one medal and/or bar. CF members, depending on
> the mission, may also receive United Nations, NATO and other international mission medals
> ...


----------



## devil39 (29 Aug 2005)

Bottom line is... if the government says that you cannot wear the medal...guess what?.....

You can't wear it.    

Anything other than the authorized Canadian medals, must be approved by the GG and published in the Canada Gazette...ie Gazzette'd.


----------



## Fdtrucker (30 Aug 2005)

There were Air Force personnel that work at KAIA (Nov 04 - Feb 05) who rx'ed both the GCS and the NATO medal with all intentions going to DHH and attempting to apply to wear both medal for the same tour. They passed this on to the trucker and movers who worked at KAIA as well. When told about the 1 medal per tour they said it did not apply to them and they would ask Ottawa for clarification. As of today they have not ( I know they will not ) Rx permission to wear both GCS and the NATO medal. Different elements have different intropersation


----------



## devil39 (30 Aug 2005)

Oh, undoubtedly they must deserve it.   ???   A really rough tour of duty no doubt.

Pathetic!  

It is really all about the medals... isn't it?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Aug 2005)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Bottom line is... if the government says that you cannot wear the medal...guess what?.....
> 
> You can't wear it.



Until you get out....then you just throw whatever you want on the Legion blazer.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 Aug 2005)

From my understanding the CPSM was awarded as recognition for "service to peace" or something like that.  I would think that it is more of a general medal than the mission specific awards, that is why it can be "paired up" with another (UNPROFOR) medal?  

My 2 cents


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Aug 2005)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> From my understanding the CPSM was awarded as recognition for "service to peace" or something like that.  I would think that it is more of a general medal than the mission specific awards, that is why it can be "paired up" with another (UNPROFOR) medal?
> 
> My 2 cents



It is a general service medal, just like the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal (CVSM) denoted someone in the Canadian forces in WW II, while theatre specific medals were for specific actions (France-Germany Star, Atlantic Star, Italy Star, etc.)


----------



## Navalsnpr (30 Aug 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The CPSM is a gimme for any Peacekeeping tour (UN or NATO)



Is there a reference for the NATO portion of this?  Been on two NATO's (STANAVFORLANT & STANAVFORMED) and we weren't entitled to the CPSM. We did do 28 days under the UN flag on the STANAVFORMED in the Adriatic, in which we were told that we needed at least 30 days on station to qualify for the FY and CPSM.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Aug 2005)

From DHH (DIN link:  http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=36 ):



> ELIGIBILITY & CRITERIA
> Awarded for a minimum of 30 days cumulative service in a UN or international peacekeeping mission.



STANAVFORLANT & STANAVFORMED wouldn't be "peacekeeping" missions _per se_, but rather are NATO tasks.  It looks like your UN time just missed qualification.  There's a list of eligible and non-eligible missions on the DHH site (look for the link).

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2005)

Is it because NATO took over ISAF that the GCS (and concurrent NA5) were awarded, as opposed to the SWASM when Devil39 and co. were in theatre?    I would assume that folks on ARCHER will also be back to the SWASM, wouldn't they...given CoC relationships?   

Personally, I think I'd rather have a GCS and Bar than an NA5 medal anyway...that is if I really cared about having anything at all.   Rather have a bunch of good stories shared with the guys and a knowing, "yup, yup....uhn hunh...oh yeah...*nudge*" than a "wow, that's a neat one, mister, what'd you get that for?"....

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Aug 2005)

Well, I'll give this a shot:

SWASM was created specifically for combat operations against "terrorism" - for which OP APOLLO and OP ARCHER qualify, as does service training the Afghan Army.  Combat is defined as actively seeking and destroying the enemy. It is thus a "war" medal.

GCS is awarded for operations (not peacekeeping, but peace _enforcement_, stablization, etc.) _in the presence of an armed enemy_, for which OP ATHENA and OP ALLIED FORCE qualify.  There could easily be future bars to the GCS should we get involved in similar missions in other places.  There is a fine line between the GCS and "war" medals, but it is there...

Non-Article 5 is the NATO generic medal for non-article five operations (gee...).  NATO awards it for Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.  It was widely felt by ATHENA Roto 0 that such a non-descript generic gong didn't do ATHENA (and perhaps future missions) justice, given the nature of the operation (non peacekeeping).  The UK felt the same way. 

CPSM is awarded for 30 days on a traditional peacekeeping mission (UN, NATO, etc.).  This is a mission in which two (or more) warring parties agree on a truce (or something similar) and agree that a Canadian or multinational presence is required to implement the agreement.  Thus Bosnia and the horde of UN missions qualify.  CPSM is a Canadian service medal - as was pointed out previously - and is awarded alongside the international peacekeeping gongs.

DHH has put out a snazzy booklet (that can be downloaded from their website) setting all this out.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2005)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Goodday all.  I am seeking some sort of explanation as to why I cannot mount my Non-Article 5 NATO medal.



Well well...good to see the "B" team made it home safe and sound.   

As for your medal and not being allowed to wear it...blame it on the gov't. They don't want to recognise it, it wasn't issued by them, so be it. One mission...one medal period.

As for not getting a CPSM...guess what? Not a peacekeeping mission.

You got one medal for one mission....live with it. All the writing to all the MPs will not change a thing.

At least you didn't have to wait over 2 years to get it....like the troops from Roto 0.

As for the troops over here right now we've been informed that we will be recieving the GCS and the SWASM for *two seperate missions.*

Luck of the draw I guess.

Wear your medal with pride...you've earned  it.

Regards


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Aug 2005)

I might be wrong, but I see the GCS as a "war medal", since you have an armed enemy.  I would certainly consider the pilots dropping bombs in 1999 as "at war", and they (finally) have the GCS.  Some may snicker, but I consider ISAF part of the war on terror.  

Regardless, welcome back reccecrewman!  

Franko, best of luck!

2B


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Aug 2005)

As I said, it's a fine (and blurry) line...  DHH appears to agree with you (and me, for that matter).  The GCS and CSM come before the CPSM in the order of precedence - as "war" medals.


----------



## Acorn (30 Aug 2005)

Franko said:
			
		

> As for the troops over here right now we've been informed that we will be recieving the GCS and the SWASM for *two seperate missions.*



Actually, I was wondering about that: the troops in TF Kabul are moving from ISAF to OEF, and the troops of TF 1-06 will be going over as OEF, and then transitioning to ISAF (I think). Has there been anything official on the gongs to be awarded (SWASM and/or GCS)? (Official being "in writing")

Acorn


----------



## PhilB (30 Aug 2005)

Heres another question, the troops part of TF 1-06 deploying to Camp Mirage will be entitled to the GSM. If they spend 30days or more in Afghanistan in Khandahar they would be eligibale for the SWASM or the GCS?? I know that in the past people only received either the GSM or the GCS depending, however with if a SWASM was awarded would the troop get to wear both? Thanks


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

If you move around within the same OP, say OP Athena, then no.   You would get the appropriate medal (Probably the highest).

If you move around between two different OPs then you would probably get both if one OP was SWASM and the other GCS.   Or perhaps you would get different bars for the ribbon if the two OPs were both the same, SWASM or GCS.

Trying to collect medals are we?   ;D


----------



## Acorn (30 Aug 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Trying to collect medals are we?   ;D



It's all about the gongs George. All about the gongs.  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Aug 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you move around within the same OP, say OP Athena, then no.  You would get the appropriate medal (Probably the highest).
> 
> If you move around between two different OPs then you would probably get both if one OP was SWASM and the other GCS.  Or perhaps you would get different bars for the ribbon if the two OPs were both the same, SWASM or GCS.



Or nothing at all, if you don't spend long enough in theatre under any one particular mandate to qualify.

I knew one Transport Offcier who worked with movement sections, he'd deploy on a mission at the outset, spend 2-3 weeks setting up the movement section, and then return to Canada. He was all over the world, and accumulated no specific tour medals.


----------



## Franko (31 Aug 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Actually, I was wondering about that: the troops in TF Kabul are moving from ISAF to OEF, and the troops of TF 1-06 will be going over as OEF, and then transitioning to ISAF (I think). Has there been anything official on the gongs to be awarded (SWASM and/or GCS)? (Official being "in writing")
> 
> Acorn



For that Roto....IIRC Op Archer will already be transformed to ISAF from OEF by the time you hit the ground. Therefore you'll recieve the GCS and not the SWASM.

The SWASM is for Op Enduring Freedom or any other non ISAF Mission. The troops in Qtown will get both as well, again 2 different Ops...2 different medals.

For the troops in CM they'll recieve the GSM and not the GCS or SWASM.

Ohhh my head hurts......    ;D

Regards


----------



## Fdtrucker (31 Aug 2005)

Member of 1 Svc Bn that   close out Unprofor in 95/95 worked at getting our vehs and equipment into Bosnia for Roto 0 IFOR did rx'ed both their UN and Nato medals because of of the change over from UN to Nato. Mbrs of Ett Roto 2 and those working for CFC-A received their SWASM while the rest of us on Roto 2 rx'ed the GCS due to their different Missions. The CO of Roto 2 TSE was awarded the GCS vice the GCM because he spent 30 days or more in Afghanistan at the dislike of his troops in Mirage because of the time spent there. Some of the D&S Platoon from TSE accumulated more then the 30 days required so should have been issued with this as well. A Cpl coming back from Op Archer TAT will be receiving the SWASM for his 40 odd days spent in Kandahar. For the troops currently in Camp Julien (Roto 4) i wouldn't guess if they are going to rx'ed two medal.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2005)

There are a couple of CANFORGENs out on the SWASM and ARCHER/ARGUS...can't recall the number but within the last month or so...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (31 Aug 2005)

Fdtrucker said:
			
		

> Member of 1 Svc Bn that   close out Unprofor in 95/95 worked at getting our vehs and equipment into Bosnia for Roto 0 IFOR did rx'ed both their UN and Nato medals because of of the change over from UN to Nato. Mbrs of Ett Roto 2 and those working for CFC-A received their SWASM while the rest of us on Roto 2 rx'ed the GCS due to their different Missions. The CO of Roto 2 TSE was awarded the GCS vice the GCM because he spent 30 days or more in Afghanistan at the dislike of his troops in Mirage because of the time spent there. Some of the D&S Platoon from TSE accumulated more then the 30 days required so should have been issued with this as well. A Cpl coming back from Op Archer TAT will be receiving the SWASM for his 40 odd days spent in Kandahar. For the troops currently in Camp Julien (Roto 4) i wouldn't guess if they are going to rx'ed two medal.



Exactly right.  Moreover, there's one other example of a "two for one" mission.  Roto 15 transitioned from NATO to EUFOR (Op BRONZE to Op BOREAS) last year.  Pers serving with SFOR received the NATO Non-Article 5 Medal because they filled the minimum time required, then received the new EUFOR medal because they fulfilled the time requirements for that medal as well.  I didn't agree with the concept, particularly as many jobs (particularly in the admin unit) didn't change at all, but there it is.


----------



## reccecrewman (31 Aug 2005)

Oh, undoubtedly they must deserve it.      A really rough tour of duty no doubt.

Pathetic!  

It is really all about the medals... isn't it?

This above is from Devil39...................  I have to say that for each soldier who does a tour overseas, they all have their own take on a tour of duty.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking a question WRT a decoration that was given as to why it can't be worn.  I recieved many answers that gave me a much clearer understanding on the topic, but this comment kinda took me by surprise.  Any medal that any soldier recieves, whether it's classified as a "gimme" medal or not, still is something that you should be proud of.  It really is all about the medals Devil 39????  Are you honestly going to say that it's about something else????  Like what I wonder???  A genuine heartfelt interest in the cause to help the people of a wartorn nation pick up the pieces and rebuild? Please!  How about the money we pick up to be overseas????  BINGO!  If we recieved the exact same pay overseas that we earn in garrison, then guess what?  We'd have a whole slew of troops dagging RED!!!!!! Because very few guys (or girls) are going to go spend 6 months away from their wife (or husband) and children for the same pay we take home in Canada.  Its all about the money, and if you take a swipe at somebody asking about a medal, how about coming down on all the troops whose only reason for going is extra cash?  Unless cash is an honourable justification to you...........................  I was merely asking a question, not looking for a talking down to.


----------



## Franko (31 Aug 2005)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> It is really all about the medals... isn't it?



Obviously it is to you and the troops who are writing to their MPs   :



> I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking a question WRT a decoration that was given as to why it can't be worn.   I recieved many answers that gave me a much clearer understanding on the topic, but this comment kinda took me by surprise.   Any medal that any soldier recieves, whether it's classified as a "gimme" medal or not, still is something that you should be proud of.



Yes....by all means be proud of your gong. You've earned it.



> If we recieved the exact same pay overseas that we earn in garrison, then guess what?   We'd have a whole slew of troops dagging RED!!!!!! Because very few guys (or girls) are going to go spend 6 months away from their wife (or husband) and children for the same pay we take home in Canada.



Seems to me I remember you mouthing off about all the cash you were going to make and what you were going to spend it on PRIOR to B Sqn's departure. 

Pot meet kettle    :



> Its all about the money, and if you take a swipe at somebody asking about a medal, how about coming down on all the troops whose only reason for going is extra cash?   Unless cash is an honourable justification to you...........................   I was merely asking a question, not looking for a talking down to.



Question answered in spades. As for the troops going just for the cash...they have their reasons, so be it. Nothing anyone can do about it.

Regards

BTW...welcome to Army.ca   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2005)

How about just sticking a handful of Afghani poo-dirt in your DEU pocket - that should get the point across, shouldn't it?


----------



## reccecrewman (31 Aug 2005)

Touche! Point taken.  Anyhow, thanks to all who responded, I got the vaild answers I was looking for.


----------



## Franko (31 Aug 2005)

Glad to help you out reccecrewman.    

We Dragoons have to stick together   ;D

Regards


----------



## mover1 (31 Aug 2005)

Story of a Medal

 1999 I was with the AF during Op Allied Force.
 We received the NATO FRY Medal
 six months later it was taken away and we received the NATO medal with Kosovo Bar and our CPSM
 a couple of years after theat the Kosovo Gang was repealed and I got the FRY medal again and the GSM pilots got the GCS. 

Three Medals (well four really) for one tour which had changed missions three times. 

It was a fun tour. And a very busy 78 Days. Best time of my life.


----------



## Gunner (31 Aug 2005)

> And a very busy 78 Days.



I am not singling out mover1 but if there is one thing I would like to see, it is the requirement to spent 90 days in theatre before getting a medal.  There are way too many tour tourist out there collecting great racks without putting in the requisite amount of time.  30 days is not enough time to even unpack your barrack box!

My 2 cents.


----------



## KevinB (31 Aug 2005)

IIRC back in the day    We had to have 90 days - a lot of guys did not get the UNFICYP or early UNPROFOR's do to that -- however IIRC 95'ish it changed to 30days.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I am not singling out mover1 but if there is one thing I would like to see, it is the requirement to spent 90 days in theatre before getting a medal.   There are way too many tour tourist out there collecting great racks without putting in the requisite amount of time.   30 days is not enough time to even unpack your barrack box!
> 
> My 2 cents.



Gunner, how about the infamous "24 hours" to get a bar (leaf) for the Gulf medal....many a 412 Sqn aricrew got that one for dropping off VIPs and sitting on the ramp overnight in Qatar...

*_edit_* for horrible spelling of Gunner's handle....


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Aug 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Gennuer, how about *the infamous "24 hours"* to get a bar (leaf) for the Gulf medal....many a 412 Sqn aricrew got that one for dropping off VIPs and sitting on the ramp overnight in Qatar...




http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group04



> Africa Star
> Awarded for a minimum *one day* service in an operational area of North Africa between 10 June 1940 and 12 May 1943.*
> 
> Pacific Star
> ...


----------



## KevinB (31 Aug 2005)

Something tells me once you got to those theatres - you got stuck for more than one day...


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Aug 2005)

Thoiugh perhaps the occasional transport or aircraft ferry pilot never spent more than a day or two on the ground because of the nature of his duties, and after one such visit earned his star.


----------



## Gunner (1 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IIRC back in the day      We had to have 90 days - a lot of guys did not get the UNFICYP or early UNPROFOR's do to that -- however IIRC 95'ish it changed to 30days.



It's still 90 days for UN missions.  All NATO ones are 30 days.


----------



## mover1 (1 Sep 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I am not singling out mover1 but if there is one thing I would like to see, it is the requirement to spent 90 days in theatre before getting a medal.   There are way too many tour tourist out there collecting great racks without putting in the requisite amount of time.   30 days is not enough time to even unpack your barrack box!
> 
> My 2 cents.



Well I am going have to charge you Stupidity TAX on your two cents.  

The 78 days I was refering to was only the days of hostilities that made up Operation Allied Force. Its hard to do a six month tour when the shooting war lasts only a couple of months. Then AFTER the bombing. We reverted back to the original mission of enforcing no fly zones and power projection. 
I spent from March until October on that tour. 
Army guys can slam the airforce for whatever reasons they want. However just remember that how we live and how we fight are just natures of the beast. 
If it makes you feel any better. The base golf couse in aviano was closed during hostilites because we had too much ordinance in the immediate area making it an usafe environment.  ;D


----------



## Gunner (1 Sep 2005)

What part of "I'm not singling out mover1" didn't you understand.  Secondly, tone down your retoric or you will go through the warning system.  That was your freebie.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Something tells me once you got to those theatres - you got stuck for more than one day...



Quite right, Kevin.  My grandfather-in-law has all of those stars (and then some) except the Pacific Star.  He was in the 7th BEF, started as a Bren gunner in 36 in India and moved West, Southwest, South, West, Northeast, North, Northwest and Northeast and didn't stop until Holland in '45.  That's 9 years!  Holy schisse!  

And to think some of us complain about 6 months... :-\


Cheers,
Duey


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2005)

OK...now I'm confused. I'm a girl deploying on Op Argus Feb 06-Aug 06. I can't seem to find anything out about it though. I'm confused about the medals though due to some of these posts. I was deployed on Op Apollo from 02 Jan 03 to Aug 03. I received the SWASM. BUT...in May we officially became Op Athena roto Zero instead of Op Apollo Roto 2. We only recd the 1 medal (the one we earned FIRST) as it was explained to us that you could not receive 2 medals for 1 deployment (this despite the fact that the Op and the mandate changed). But it seems to me that other tours are receiving 2 medals for 1 deployment (despite the fact that the Op and the mandate changed). We were there when the  boys came in on the TAT and when they left. They recd the GCS/GCM (depending upon where they bunked) and still we sat for another 3 months getting neither. Just one medal....so I don't understand why others would be getting 2 medals for one deployment. No I don't need another gong....I have 7....the CPSM and the CD being presented automatically...the others are for tours. I don't care, I just find it interesting that pers are now getting 2 for one deployment. My big wish is that I could get them to pay for me to get a proper sized chest to pin them on. So really, if anybody out there can fill me in on Op Argus details...I would appreciate it. I can't find their kitlist on the deployed ops website....nothing....


----------



## Armymedic (18 Sep 2005)

PM me, I know a bit about it.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2005)

Found it interesting...according to DHH those mbrs now entitled to wear the GCS/GCM (ie Air Ops over Macedonia, Yugo etc) have to turn in their NATO medals to receive this one according to DHH...I guess this is to avoid the 2 medals for 1 deployment deal???

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=112

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=113


----------



## MSE_OP18 (18 Sep 2005)

Interesting Forum here. I would like to know why the GCS was created so that if you have completed two tours under the same Op that you do not receive a numeral. I have done Roto 0 and Roto 3 and find it ridiculous that I receive nothing for doing two tours in the same place. The only recognition that we received was a lousy computer generated scroll with the two tour dates on it. And to that I might add the dates are completely wrong , although it was signed by the commander. A few of us thought it might be a good Idea that if Canada does not want to award numerals for tours then maybe another bar or a different coloured ISAF bar. It is disrespectful I think to spend over 12 months in one place(yes not consecutively) and not got anything for it. It is in my eyes about the medals but it is also Pride, Honor and respect!!!!!! Thats all I have to say about that.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Found it interesting...according to DHH those mbrs now entitled to wear the GCS/GCM (ie Air Ops over Macedonia, Yugo etc) have to turn in their NATO medals to receive this one according to DHH...I guess this is to avoid the 2 medals for 1 deployment deal???
> 
> http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=112
> 
> http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/honour_awards_e.asp?cat=3&Q_ID=113



Interesting statement...This is the first I have heard of one having to turn in/exchange a medal awarded for another.   I did not notice any such statement in any of your links.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Sep 2005)

MSE_OP18 said:
			
		

> It is disrespectful I think to spend over 12 months in one place(yes not consecutively) and not got anything for it. It is in my eyes about the medals but it is also Pride, Honor and respect!!!!!! Thats all I have to say about that.



Hmmm, the campaign stars issued during the Second World War were issued with no cross.  Look at a typical Italian vet and they probably spent eighteen months in Sicily and Italy without getting bars or stars or rosettes.  Don't hear them complaining about not getting any respect.  Get wounded, or sent somewhere else, then back to Italy, well nothing extra then for doing "two tours in the same place". 

If it's about the medals to you then go here, http://www.foxfall.com/ and get them to make some up for you...And if you need a piece of metal to give you pride, honor and respect, well, I'm sorry.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Sep 2005)

George,

It's under the Bars section for Allied Force:

Some recipients may have to exchange their previously presented NATO Medal to receive this award.

D


----------



## Grunt_031 (18 Sep 2005)

> A few of us thought it might be a good Idea that if Canada does not want to award numerals for tours then maybe another bar or a different coloured ISAF bar


Maybe you should join the boy scouts and collect merit badges. If your going on tour to receive the gongs your priorities are screwed up. The job is about being the quiet professional and hopefully someone will notice. I have taken more pride in the locals saying "thank you" than the pieces of tin that the government gives me.



> I have done Roto 0 and Roto 3 and find it ridiculous that I receive nothing for doing two tours in the same place


Nothing. where you sitting in a hole for 6 months, What about a chance to do your job, receive valuable experience, Pay bonuses and of course Tax Free pay.



> respect!!!!!!


Respect comes from action not from symbols on your chest. I have seen many people with many medals that did nothing.



> The only recognition that we received was a lousy computer generated scroll with the two tour dates on it


Did you address this through the chain of command? or did you just whine about it and say the system screwed me again. Once this is sorted out you can add it to your resume and then pin it to your chest for the added recognition you want.

The new roto for Afghanistan in the spring will be receiving the SWASM and if you where there before guess what no numeral.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2005)

> Re: Seeking Answers WRT Medals.......... Serious answers only please
> « Reply #48 on: Today at 11:56:20  »
> AmmoTech90
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




OK...tucked away neatly under "ALLIED FORCE: Awarded to fighter pilots and AWACS crew members  who flew at least 5 sorties during Operation ALLIED FORCE from 24 March to 10 June 1999" over Kosovo and other territories of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Adriatic and Ionian seas.

In a case where the medal has been instituted, I can agree; but for instances prior to the institution of the award, I can not see it happening.   Too easy.


----------



## Bill Smy (18 Sep 2005)

Since we've reached this stage, perhaps we should consider the poor sailor of WW2. Numerous crossings of the Atlantic on different warships. Should he get a numeral for each crossing (tour) and different bars with the ship's name?


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2005)

For the guy that did Roto Zero and Roto 3:
Perhaps you are like me and were Roto2 Op Apollo for 2.5 months then switched over to Op Athena Roto Zero for 5 months and received the SWASM..therefore not being entitled to the GCS/GCM (they made the eligibility date for the GCM co-incide with the departure date for those of us who originally deployed as Op Apollo - not the date that we officially became Op Athena).
If you did come into Theatre only for Op Athena then you would be entitled to one of the honours and Awards as follows (from the DHH Web-site) 
For service within the geographical boundaries of Afghanistan:
"The General Campaign Star (GCS) with bar ISAF+FIAS: Awarded to Canadian Forces members and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who served with the Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan for at least 30 days cumulative between 24 April 2003 and a termination date to be determined, in the theatre of operations which consisted of the political boundaries and airspace of Afghanistan. Aircrew flying into the theatre accumulate one day of service for the first sortie flown on any day, additional sorties flown on the same day receive no further credit." 
Or, if you served your time at Camp Mirage...
"The General Campaign Medal (GCM) with bar ISAF+FIAS: Awarded to: 
Canadian citizens other than Canadian Forces members who worked with the Canadian Forces and served with the Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan for at least 30 days cumulative between 24 April 2003 and a termination date to be determined, in the theatre of operations which consisted of the political boundaries and airspace of Afghanistan. 
Members of the Canadian Forces, other Canadian citizens and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who served in the following locations for at least 90 days cumulative in direct support, on a full-time basis, of the Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): 
Logistic support in Taranto, Italy from 1 May 2003; 
Interim Staging Base (ISB) in Istanbul, Turkey from 2 June 2003; and 
National Support Element (NSE) in Camp Mirage from 17 August 2003."

Perhaps that is why you got the scroll presented. Our boys (& girls) that deployed on the TAT prepping for Roto Zero only just got their GC Stars presented at the NB Legislature in July...surely yours must be on it's way. I suggest that you confirm with your Unit orderly room.


----------



## MSE_OP18 (18 Sep 2005)

Well I posted my concerns, opinions, thoughts, complaints or what have you just as that! To Mr. Grunt_031  you do not need to pick apart my message. It is not about collecting "merit badges" it is about being recognized for accomplishments. I agree that the Vets did not receive more medals, or bars for the same circumstances does this make it right. You say " The job is about being the quiet professional and hopefully someone will notice." Thats what we do on a regular basis. I have been in this job long enough to know. Money is not what I was there for. Yes experience, however in my "Trade" I get my experience everyday not just overseas. Enough is enough. Obviously I will have to take my little scroll and go and get it mounted down at the trophy shop. So I guess I get to start a whole new row. Thanks again!


----------



## KevinB (18 Sep 2005)

:

Dude, suck it up.


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2005)

KevinB..you crack me up! How bout getting posted to the Infantry School so that I can call on your humour to brighten our days at Clothing? Beware though...as an Official trg Base...some disgruntled Sup Tech may make you turn in your Gucci gear by lying to you and telling you that you're no longer allowed to have it...then they would wear it!!


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

ACK!!!!

 Sorry I think those CO's and RSM leave little latitude for individual kit   

As far as shinies go -- I appreciate that people like a little pat on the back, but they really dont mean much other than you where there.  I've seen a lot of people in my trade I would not trust (and don't) with a weapon who have a "soldierly rack".


 You are who you are - no wearing of a medal/decoration or badge makes you less or more...


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2005)

Well every trades gotta have at least one. But still, I'm pretty sure he's entitled to one or the other...need more details though...tour dates (and specific place) etc etc. Like I said before, I really don't care about getting more...need the chest to pin them on first....nor the money...as all of my tours so far have not been tax free. A question...does 6 months in Alert count as a tour in your books...it was really really chilly there....I think I'll stick with the nice hot climates like my others Namibia, Golan, Gulf.... My kids are really not impressed by the fact I'm going away again but hey that's why I joined....


----------



## TheNomad (19 Sep 2005)

People should not get too worked up about medals.

Unless they are individual awards for gallentry, all medals are just gimmes.  You only have to turn up to get them, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland, etc.  It makes no difference, if you were running about being shot at, frying eggs in a cookhouse or sorting mail.  All of these functions are equally valuable in their own way and all are about doing the job that you are paid for.

I think all medals are pretty much worthless unless they are awarded for specific acts of bravery etc.  That said I have my three and I think they looked great on the uniform, but in reality they are nothing more than a souvenir of a tour or in terms of long service a medal for doing what you have been paid to do.

Medals do not make you a better or more professional soldier.  It is the man who makes the medals, not medals that make a man.


----------



## MSE_OP18 (19 Sep 2005)

Well put "Nomad"


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ACK!!!!
> 
> Sorry I think those CO's and RSM leave little latitude for individual kit
> 
> ...



Kevin, time for remedial-SHARP class???  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (17 Oct 2005)

I'll have you know I have NEVER had a SHARP class.

 I find them harrassing  ;D  So I opt out.


----------



## armyvern (17 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'll have you know I have NEVER had a SHARP class.
> 
> I find them harrassing   ;D   So I opt out.



Seen!

Her a** meant nothing to me either!!


----------



## Berenguei (16 Jul 2006)

I was going through the National Defence document '' Canadian Honours and Awards''. According to this document, when you are deployed to Afghanistan for 90 days or more, you are entitled to four (4) awards:

1) The Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal
2) The South-West Asia Service Medal
3) The General Campaign Star
4) The General Service Medal

Question 1: is that accurate ?
Question 2: do you get those automatically ?

I'm welcoming all comments.

Thanks.


----------



## Echo9 (16 Jul 2006)

I'm going by memory here, but it depends on which mission to Afghanistan you're on.  If it's a current one, you get the GCS, that's it, that's all.  If you're supporting Op APOLLO, ATHENA, ARCHER, but not actually in Afghanistan, then you get the SWASM.  Not sure about the GSM.

The current mission is not defined as peacekeeping, so that rules out the CPSM.  

The rule is that you only get one medal for each operation.  The CPSM is sometimes viewed as anathema to the honours and awards system because it breaks that cardinal rule.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jul 2006)

For Op ATHENA, the award was the General Campaign Star.  For those supporting ATHENA, but not in Afghanistan, it was the General Campaign Medal.  For APOLLO, it was the SWASM, with bar (I believe) that said "Afghanistan".  I don't know what the current mission will receive.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2006)

Apollo/OEF/OIF -- SWASM - w. Afghan Bar

Athena - GCS

Athena not in theatre - GSM

Archer/Orion/OEF/OIF - SWASM w/ afghan bar


GCS and SWASM have no bars or numbers for multiple awards


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> GCS and SWASM have no bars or numbers for multiple awards



Imagine this: A guy who's been to Cyprus 4 times has the numeral "4" on his ribbon.  A guy who's been on Apollo and now Archer has but one medal with the "Afghanistan" bar.  Do we need to resurrect a War Medal?
Much in the vein of the World Wars and Korea, a War Medal, a series of Campaign Stars (Not General, but specific to various theatres) a voluntary service medal and so forth?  Not to make us look like a bunch of extras from a really poor war movie, but to properly acknowledge those who have served?


Just my opinion and thoughts, they were free and you get exactly your money's worth ;D


----------



## Franko (16 Jul 2006)

Seems to me that there was an idea kicked around of getting additional bars or maple leafs for more than one tour.

Anyone know what became of this?

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2006)

Wasn't there a CANFORGEN nixing that?


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a CANFORGEN nixing that?



YUP 

However I think something like the US CIB would be a nice touch...


----------



## MikeM (16 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> YUP
> 
> However I think something like the US CIB would be a nice touch...



+1


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Jul 2006)

The CIB's already been done to death here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43829.0.html and I've expressed my opinion on that thread.

IIRC, there was an initiative - from LFWA - to address multiple tours in the same theatre by using DEU stripes, but I don't know what happened with it.

Tour numbers on medals are a UN/NATO thing, which is why you don't see them on Canadian-only (or British, for that matter) medals.  The GCS was designed to have bars representing different "combat"-type operations.  The problem is that it came in after the SWASM was initiated; since the SWASM was already earmarked for OEF-type operations, the GCS was limited to ISAF.

The GCS may well be awarded for operations in a different theatre (as it was designed to be), although my guess is (and it's only a guess) that any _major_ operation in a completely different theatre may well result in "political" pressure for a separate tour medal.


----------



## Gunner (16 Jul 2006)

The overseas stripes were an attempt by DHH to solve the multiple tour dilemma with the GCS and SWASM.  It is entirely possible, as it stands now, for someone to spend 30 years in the military, go overseas a multitude of times, and retire with only 2 medals (GCS and CD).  Tour numbers are only used by the UN and it carried over the FRY NATO medal until it was discontinued around ~Dec 2003 with the non-article 5 medal.


----------



## armyboytncoy (22 Jul 2006)

well i herd for the group that im going with gets 3 of them i leave im feb


----------



## Long in the tooth (22 Jul 2006)

Sounds like a quest for the elusive 'fruit salad'.  Now if they'll only issue medals for the hellish TDs to Shilo and Wainwright I'll be happy!  How about the RV and bar awards?


----------



## Franko (22 Jul 2006)

armyboytncoy said:
			
		

> well i herd for the group that im going with gets 3 of them i leave im feb



You "herd" wrong.      :

Drop the MSN speak and get familiar with the Guidelines located here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Regards


----------



## captjtq (22 Jul 2006)

As I understand it, because the current Op Archer Roto is operating under the auspices of Operation Enduring Freedom, their tour will receive the SWASM. 

When NATO takes over, Canadians serving in Afg will receive the Campaign Star with ISAF bar. Since there may be some overlap at the end of Roto 1 (NATO is sched to take over at the end of this month) there will likely be some Roto 1 folks who spend at least thirty days in both 'systems' and will receive both the SWASM and GCS, much like what happened when Apollo Roto 4 moved from Kabul and became Archer Roto 0 - those folks came home with both gongs.... (for what its worth)


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Jul 2006)

The soldiers in my regiment who went over for Roto 4 (Athena) recieved the GCS and the SWASM when they moved down to K-Har. 



			
				captjtq said:
			
		

> As I understand it, because the current Op Archer Roto is operating under the auspices of Operation Enduring Freedom, their tour will receive the SWASM.
> 
> When NATO takes over, Canadians serving in Afg will receive the Campaign Star with ISAF bar. Since there may be some overlap at the end of Roto 1 (NATO is sched to take over at the end of this month) there will likely be some Roto 1 folks who spend at least thirty days in both 'systems' and will receive both the SWASM and GCS, much like what happened when Apollo Roto 4 moved from Kabul and became Archer Roto 0 - those folks came home with both gongs.... (for what its worth)



You meant Athena Roto 4 I am assuming, not Apollo.


----------



## captjtq (22 Jul 2006)

Yup. Thanks. Too many 'A's to remember.


----------



## Franko (22 Jul 2006)

Yes we got both.....however 3 gongs, I can't see it unless you earned it through bravery or through your actions.

Those are the only 2 up for grabs in the sandbox.

Regards


----------



## warrickdll (25 Jul 2006)

The GCS/GSM combination succeeds, as advertised, in providing a timely method of service recognition, especially for operations involving few CF participants. And, I would hope, it would finally replace our use of non-Canadian medals.

However, some CF operations are of a size, duration, and intensity for which the GCS/GSM should be replaced by a separate form of recognition - and Afghanistan easily falls into that category.

Why the SWASM (or some sort of revised SWACS/SWASM combination) isn't being extended for this is somewhat mystifying. I know that some will immediately state that the operations fall under different mandates - but that seems less important than indicating that someone has served in Afghanistan (or in support of the mission in Afghanistan). The basis of the bars could be the separate missions (ISAF, etc), and if a mission goes on long enough then separate bars where appropriate, perhaps something like ISAF 03-04, ISAF 05-06, rather than just counting off the number of deployments.

I would hate to return to the mess (my opinion) that the use of non-Canadian medals was for the CF in the former Yugoslavia, where there were a myriad of orgnaizations and missions, each with separate medals: 
	- UNPROFOR
	- UNPREDEP
	- UNMIBH
	- UNMOP
	- UNMIK
	- NATO-FY
	- NATO-Kosovo
	- NATO-FYROM
	- NATO-(Non Article 5) Balkans
	- ECMMY
	- ESDP
	- Did I miss any?

And then, the GCS/GSM (Allied Force). A much better solution would be to replace the whole lot with a CS/SM combination with appropriate bars. 

But that would be another topic. For Afghanistan, a separate CS/SM seems more than appropriate and would be be a much better solution than separate medals based on what mandate (or HQ) the mission was run by.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (26 Jul 2006)

Few soldiers on TFA Roto 1 will get both medals (SWASM and GCS), and they will be the "nine-monthers" in the Bde HQ.  I do feel for the Roto 2 guys coming in who already have a GCS from ISAF Roto 0 or 3. 

The whole SWASM/GCS distinction made in 2003 made a tricky issue even trickier, while the yearly changing mission medals for FRY make comparisons silly.  

Medals are funny.  We say they don't mean anything to us while we are really quite passionate about them.  

What are you going to do?  At least you save on the miniatures.  Eight bucks is eight bucks!


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2006)

From an Australian prospective.

For deployment say to Iraq, one gets the AASM (Australian Active Service Medal with Iraq clasp), and the Iraq campaign medal. Thats it medal wise. Then, you get the ICB for Infantry (Infantry Combat badge), and Corps other than Infantry, say Armoured for example, you get the ACB (Army Combat Badge). The ICB and ACB look similar, and are given for the same 'close combat' conditions. They are only worn on the Army service dress uniform (Polys and and with tunic), and I do beileve a Mess Kit version is also available.

AASM - after being on the ground for 1 day or more; and
the ICM - after being on the ground for a mininum of 30 days, or total aggrigate of 30 days.

One also is presented an Active Service lapel pin which can be worn with the appropiate civvy attire.

With Australian medals, comes extra ribbon for court mounting, and a miniture medal too, all neatly in the same presentation box. So you do not purchase minitures.

Most standard tours are now a mininum of 6 months or more.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## CFSW (2 Aug 2006)

I am reading all of your post on the medals that you will get when you go on a mission.  Not sure how it all works, but reading everythings so far, it seems that most of you are very proud and look forward to having these medals.

My husband was on Roto 0, he received three medals when he arrived back home.  He also got bars, and mini's.  I will have to take a look back and see which ones they were, if anyone is interested.  I am not sure on what guys are getting now, but interested in knowing if anyone knows.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2006)

I'd be interested. I was on Roto 0, (are we talking Athena?) and got one.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Aug 2006)

Three would be very unusual indeed, so I'd certainly be interested in hearing what he's wearing; the rules for Afghan medals are quite clear.  SWASM for service with the "coalition", GCS for service with ISAF.  Some got both because of the transition in command of the mission, some have both because of multiple tours.

Then again, as Iterator aludes to, those without previous tours moving from SFOR to EUFOR as part of Op Bronze in 2004 received three gongs for a single mission:  CPSM, NATO Non-Article 5, and EUFOR.  I know someone who went from one (a CD) to four in one shot...  Listening to the gloating while I was in the sandbox was a bit much.  :


----------



## CFSW (2 Aug 2006)

Ok, so looking at his medals, he got the Peacekeeping, South-West Asia with a silver bar across the ribbon that say's Afghanistan, and don't know what the other one is called, but it is a gold star with a gold bar that say's ISAF.  

Lisa


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Aug 2006)

Sounds like he has both medals for Afghanistan, but I'm confused as to why he'd have the Peacekeeping medal unless he has a tour somewhere else for which he hasn't received a medal.  I do know that some Navy personnel have the CPSM for service on missions in the Mediterranean...but no one gets the CPSM for Afghanistan as it isn't a "peacekeeping" mission.


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Aug 2006)

You know it's funny I was talking to Gen Leslie (no it was not a meeting it was more of a Hey how are you soldier I remember you from Afghanistan) and he asked if I saw any issues with the next Roto going to Kandahar. My reply was the mission is fine sir but those of us from Roto 0-3 already had the GCS and since no bars had thus far been authorized to go with the medal some of us would not be receiving any medals at all for Op Archer as it has now moved again from American control (SWASM) to ISAF (GCS).

He seemed honestly intrested in this saying " Finally I have something I think I should really fix". Guess we'll see what happens with it. Me I'm all for just keeping the SWASM for service in Kandahar.


----------



## armyvern (2 Aug 2006)

CFSOW said:
			
		

> Ok, so looking at his medals, he got the Peacekeeping, South-West Asia with a silver bar across the ribbon that say's Afghanistan, and don't know what the other one is called, but it is a gold star with a gold bar that say's ISAF.
> 
> Lisa



I'm also unsure as to why he was presented the CPSM (Peacekeeping) medal for Op Apollo/Athena. Clearly, both these Ops are noted on the DHH web-site (attached below) as inelligable for awarding of CPSM. So if indeed he was presented it due to either of the above Ops, he is still, by regulation, unentitled to wear it.  ???

http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/honours/cpsm_noneligible.pdf


----------



## CFSW (2 Aug 2006)

Hi Teddy,

Your right, he got the peacekeeping one from when he was in Bosnia, in total he has five and I had to take a look and figure it out.  Two from Bosnia, one is his CD, and two from Afghanistan. 

Hmmm.....speaking of Gen Leslie, How is he doing? I met him when my husband worked for him in Toronto.....he is a really great guy!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Aug 2006)

CFSOW said:
			
		

> Your right, he got the peacekeeping one from when he was in Bosnia, in total he has five and I had to take a look and figure it out.  Two from Bosnia, one is his CD, and two from Afghanistan.



Thought so...  ;D


----------



## Zoomie (2 Aug 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> At least you save on the miniatures.  Eight bucks is eight bucks!



Miniatures only cost $8 - the tailor shop out here is selling them for $21.75 (court mounted).

Someone pick me up a mounted CD miniature for under $10 and I will pay for the shipping.


----------



## Gunner (2 Aug 2006)

http://www.rcakitshop.net/catalog/index.php?cPath=30_33

RCA Kit shop.  Mini CD is $6.50 and probably already comes court mounted.


----------



## shadow (28 Sep 2006)

Off-Topic, but about the miniatures:
I was quoted a price for each medal which ranged from $14 to $22, then was told $8 each to mount.
Grand total for 4 miniature medals: $107

I'll have to check your link
Shadow


----------



## subfighter (6 Oct 2006)

swasm, cd, gcs...  got'em..couple times over.  No new medals, but got new stories and friends.  Easy to make due.  I personally don't care much about medals, but those that inadvertently make even more of a sacrifice (injured) certainly deserve more than a stripe.  Aside from my respect and admiration.  ..and a beer anytime.


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Nov 2006)

The "issues" with the GCS are found here

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47547.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25911.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34051.0.html


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2006)

nadeau.jms said:
			
		

> What about soldiers having already served in Kabul and who return to Afghanistan in the Kandahar region?  They won’t receive any other decoration!


Well it is the same mission (Op ATHENA).  What of the soldiers that did Op APOLLO and OP ARCHER with only one medal to show for the both of them?  

Regardless, I do not think spamming the Ombudsman's office is a helpfull idea.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Nov 2006)

+1

How is this a legitimate complaint that the Ombudsman can address?

Honours and awards are within the purview of the Governor General's office, not DND.  The Ombudsman isn't going to help your cause.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2006)

Here we go.  : Keep it clean and fair, or the lock comes out.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2006)

nadeau.jms said:
			
		

> Good point. By the way, my letter concerns anybody who has served more than one ROTO in a region and has gotten no distinction for it. e.i; OP APOLLO/ARCHER.  But I still believe the Canadian decoration system is inapropriate.  I respect the ones who don't care about medals they receive.  But I really think they should support and try to change things for the ones who do care.



I find what you are doing very inappropriate.  It makes you, if not your husband also, out to be a 'glory hound' or someone who needs a large collection of trinkets to prove who they are.  To ask, or insinuate, that others who do not feel the same way as you come out to support your cause is also very distasteful in my eyes.  I would also say that your interpretation of the Awards System is not accurate.  There were numerous medals awarded for those who served in WW II in the various theatres.  They did not receive more than one medal for their time in that theatre in the way that you are alluding to.  Your motives seem very vain to me.  It seems quite selfish, self-centered to be so covetous of these awards.


----------



## McG (14 Nov 2006)

nadeau.jms said:
			
		

> Well, ask these soldiers if they would be willing to bear the cost of a decoration honouring their efforts.  Their answer would be a resonning YES!


No thanks.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Nov 2006)

Me neither.


----------



## Korus (14 Nov 2006)

My medal broke on rememberance day. Not sure if I'm really motivated to pay to get it fixed any time soon.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (14 Nov 2006)

x


----------



## armyvern (14 Nov 2006)

What utter tripe this whining about "lack of recognition" is.

My grandfather spent 3 years in Europe, without an HLTA...imagine that!! He was awarded the European Star. He did not get a new medal for each different mission or location. Whether in France, Germany, or Holland....just one medal. For 3 years, some men were there longer. They do not wear numerals to denote each 6 months of service in that particular theatre; If so, my grandfathers medal would be adorned with the numeral 6.

Recognize this, your husband has a medal on his chest. He has been recognized. Get over it.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Nov 2006)

Hey Librarian
WWII was different from now.  Whereas I have two medals for one op (UNFICYP and CPSM), in WWII, there were a hockey sock of them.  Defence Medal (for service in the UK), CVSM (aka "everybody got one"), the Volunteer Service Medal.  Clasp for serving overseas.  Then, following the war, the 39-45 star to denote service in an operational theatre during that time.  Then, various theatres of operations got stars as well.  Your grandfather likely got the France and Germany star.  Members of 1 Can Div god the Italy star.  I also believe there was a "victory" medal.
My great uncle received three medals for service in World War One:
War Medal
Victory Medal
Military Medal (for his actions in 1918 during an attack).  I have these medals.  I have never shot my rifle in anger, and I have five.  My great uncle was fatally wounded in a gas attack in 1918 and died some three years later.
Medals are nice and all, but in the words of Sgt Rolf Steiner "(they are) just a hunk of worthless metal"


----------



## PhilB (14 Nov 2006)

Who cares? A medal is a medal! The numerals would'nt be a bad idea in my book but again, as long as you know where you were and what you did what does it matter?

Now all I have to do is try and get my SWASM mounted backwards with the hydra showing!


----------



## Korus (14 Nov 2006)

> Now all I have to do is try and get my SWASM mounted backwards with the hydra showing!



Brilliant. I've got to admit, the back of the SWASM is really well done, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Nov 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> > Now all I have to do is try and get my SWASM mounted backwards with the hydra showing!
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant. I've got to admit, the back of the SWASM is really well done, In my humble opinion.



Roko, I tried that...came back with "Auntie Liz" facing out... *sigh*  The reverse of the SWASM is very well done indeed!

G2G


----------



## paracowboy (14 Nov 2006)

y'know what my medals mean to me? 
Every one is a dead friend. 
3 tours, 3 dead friends. 
I don't look at them unless I have to. 
I don't want any more, if that's the price I have to pay.

This discussion is stupid.


----------



## APOLLOVet (16 Nov 2006)

As one of the people who have supposedly been "cheated" out of a gong (Op APOLLO, ARCHER R0, both under the auspices of Op ENDURING FREEDOM - thus 1x SWASM), I have to say that it is not that big of a deal. While it is always nice to get another gong for your rack, what is more important is that we are in a small army. You and your peers know what you have done, and the word of what you have done will precede you to every other posting that you go to.

We all want to have the three-four row rack for formal parades, but in the end, your reputation is more important. You will receive that from your tour efforts regardless of whether you get another gong or not.


----------



## John Nayduk (18 Nov 2009)

The Canadian Press 
  
Updated: Tue. Aug. 11 2009 6:49 AM ET 

OTTAWA — The military is recommending an overhaul of its medal system to address a growing number of complaints that have overshadowed the glittering honours awarded to troops who serve overseas. 

National Defence has conducted a "sweeping review" and put forward recommendations for the federal cabinet which are expected to include the creation of a single medal to recognize all overseas service, The Canadian Press has learned. 

The military's senior policy adviser on medals and citations said the proposals are meant to simplify a system that has become "complicated" by different deployments, under different mandates. 

The confusion and lack of recognition for some soldiers has led to bitterness and the occasional letter of protest from members and their families. 

"We've done a major review that will have significant consequences in the way we recognize our people," said Maj. Carl Gauthier, who is in charge of creating new medals and modifying the rules for existing ones. 

"We're going to make some recommendations to try (to) simplify the recognition framework for Afghanistan." 

Defence sources say one of the key proposals is the creation of an overseas service medal, similar to the Volunteer Service Medal given out to Canadian soldiers who served at least 18 months away from home during the Second World War. 

Gauthier would not talk about specific recommendations, but said the Defence Department has heard the complaints of soldiers, sailors and aircrew whose missions are not covered by the existing set of awards, such as the General Campaign Star and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. 

Some troops also want recognition of multiple tours -- an important acknowledgment for men and women who have been faced with up to four six-month stint in Kandahar in less than 10 years. 

"There are still gaps in the way we recognize service overseas that we are trying to address," said Gauthier. 

Who gets recognized and under what circumstances is often the subject of intense, emotional debate among those uniform, who sometimes complain the regulations governing awards arbitrary and political. 

Hundreds of soldiers who were part of the first battle group into Kandahar at the beginning of the latest mission in 2006 were denied a long-promised campaign star medal because they did not serve enough time under NATO command. 

Instead, members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group -- who spent most of their tour under U.S. command in Operation Enduring Freedom -- were awarded the Southwest Asia Service Medal. 

An outside observer may not see much difference between the two medals, but front-line soldiers tend to covet the campaign star, which with its International Security Force (ISAF) bar. 

It is recognition that they've been in Afghanistan facing a hostile enemy, unlike the Southwest Asia medal which is also awarded to shipboard crews and headquarters staff who've served at posts as far removed as the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla. 

Unlike the United States and Britain, Canada has no specific service recognition for combat soldiers. There are bravery medals for specific acts of heroism, including the newly minted Canadian Victoria Cross. 

Former chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier aimed to change that with the creation of a combat infantry badge, but the plan was quietly dropped last spring. 

It is not the first controversy over military medals. 

The Conservative government launched, with much fanfare, the Sacrifice Medal, which was meant to recognize those wounded and killed in combat. But the first ceremony was postponed indefinitely because the award only recognized soldiers who'd fought in Afghanistan and not on sometimes perilous peacekeeping missions. 

Gauthier was not swayed on the question of awarding Princess Patricia's troops a campaign star. 

"When we're in the business of medal design and medals criteria, we're in the business of drawing lines. You either qualify or you don't. We have to balance recognition for recognition for people and also the respect and integrity for the honour system. For the medals to be worth something, we have to make sure the criteria is clear, that is applied consistently and fairly for everyone." 

The changes to be considered by cabinet and eventually the Governor General would not be retroactive, nor affect medals already handed out. 

"We will not rewrite history. We are not going to try to untangle the past. We're going to try to make the future simpler,"Gauthier said.


----------



## McG (19 Nov 2009)

I've seen a simplified version of the proposal.  I like it, and it should satisfy most.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 Nov 2009)

My father and most other overseas WWII veterans received 4 medals for essentially the same thing while many received 5 and those who were also in Italy often received 6.  In WWI they received 2 (or 3 if they joined in 1914 or 1915.)  In Korea they received 2 and whined and got 3.  I think lots of medals are appropriate for wars.  1 campaign medal would be the least for a war in about 107 years.

What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.

The CD is a good medal.  A Special Service Medal with an Alert bar - we're not too sure.  At least we don't give one for excelling in basic training unlike our neighbor.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Nov 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I've seen a simplified version of the proposal.  I like it, and it should satisfy most.



Care to elaborate?Is there a different medal for combat troops or one simple medal across the board with a bunch of bars?

very interested.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.
> 
> The CD is a good medal.  A Special Service Medal with an Alert bar - we're not too sure.  At least we don't give one for excelling in basic training unlike our neighbor.



Obviously you haven't done any research.  There are criteria for all of the above medals.  Just because you may not know about them, or disagree with them, doesn't mean that some sort of criteria wasn't set.

Here are some of the points you may have missed:

Canadian Honours System

Canadian Orders, Medals and Decorations


----------



## McG (20 Nov 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?Is there a different medal for combat troops or one simple medal across the board with a bunch of bars?


Don't want to elaborate too much.  Mostly because I don't want to misrepresent the plan based on the simplified version I saw.  GSM & GCS will still exist, but imagine a system more like UN tours where there was only one medal but unique campaign ribbons.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> My father and most other overseas WWII veterans received 4 medals for essentially the same thing while many received 5 and those who were also in Italy often received 6.  In WWI they received 2 (or 3 if they joined in 1914 or 1915.)  In Korea they received 2 and whined and got 3.  I think lots of medals are appropriate for wars.  1 campaign medal would be the least for a war in about 107 years.
> 
> What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.
> 
> The CD is a good medal.  A Special Service Medal with an Alert bar - we're not too sure.  At least we don't give one for excelling in basic training unlike our neighbor.



In addition to George's comments about each medal having established criteria and that your perception of medals awarded for "essentially the same thing" is misleading, you are also incorrect about the United States awarding a medal for basic training.

The US has a very different award structure to our own, which includes both medal awards and "ribbon only" recognition.  The Army Service Ribbon is awarded for completing of basic training - it does not have an associated medal.


*Edited to add, for reference on Second World War medals:*

Canadian Army Routine Orders, 16th August, 1946
6719 --- CAMPAIGN STARS, CLASPS, THE DEFENCE MEDAL AND THE WAR MEDAL 1939-45 

Of specific note:



> Service qualifying for one of the Stars cannot run concurrently with service qualifying for another of the Stars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> My father and most other overseas WWII veterans received 4 medals for essentially the same thing while many received 5 and those who were also in Italy often received 6.  In WWI they received 2 (or 3 if they joined in 1914 or 1915.)  In Korea they received 2 and whined and got 3.  I think lots of medals are appropriate for wars.  1 campaign medal would be the least for a war in about 107 years.
> 
> What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.
> 
> The CD is a good medal.  A Special Service Medal with an Alert bar - we're not too sure.  At least we don't give one for excelling in basic training unlike our neighbor.


And I'm guessing these opinions of yours are based on your long years of service and personal experience?  By the bye, how does one retire as a 2Lt?  I thought 23 years as Cpl was bad, but that's the epitome of under achievement.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And I'm guessing these opinions of yours are based on your long years of service and personal experience?  By the bye, how does one retire as a 2Lt?  *I thought 23 years as Cpl was bad,* but that's the epitome of under achievement.


Actually, I'll disagree on the one point of the 23 year Cpl ("Career Corporal", or "CFL-Corporal for Life").  I have a minimum of 4 CFLs in my company.  Without them and their extensive knowledge and strong work ethic, the company would have a very difficult time to recover.  Their PERs reflect strong grades in performance, although their potential for promotion is low.  

Having said that, 2Lts do not receive PERs, it being a probationary rank and all.

_Edited to fix spelling error_


----------



## Jammer (20 Nov 2009)

"Retired" 2Lt in Armoured Reserve = EPIC FAIL.


----------



## McG (20 Nov 2009)

All right, lets move on from the ad hominem.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> "Retired" 2Lt in Armoured Reserve = EPIC FAIL.



It's called a career move.  If I lived anywhere other than Northern Alberta with its 3 armouries  in 2 cities for 1 3/4 million people there probably would have been a militia unit to parade with.  I simply state that I was a 2Lt because it is a fact not because I equate it to being a general.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you haven't done any research.  There are criteria for all of the above medals.  Just because you may not know about them, or disagree with them, doesn't mean that some sort of criteria wasn't set.
> 
> Here are some of the points you may have missed:
> 
> ...



The commemorative medals were all political and nothing more.  The most generous criteria was "The Medal was awarded to Canadians who have made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole."  Hardly objective criteria.  A lot of political hacks and grandmothers that did good knitting got them.
"


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> In addition to George's comments about each medal having established criteria and that your perception of medals awarded for "essentially the same thing" is misleading,



He got 4 medals for going to war.

They all have separate criteria but with only odd exceptions, everyone who went to war got 4, 5, or 6 medals.  Those who did not go to war but spent over 30 days in the military got at least one.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> He got 4 medals for going to war.
> 
> They all have separate criteria but with only odd exceptions, everyone who went to war got 4, 5, or 6 medals.  Those who did not go to war but spent over 30 days in the military got at least one.



 ???

Your point?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The commemorative medals were all political and nothing more.  The most generous criteria was "The Medal was awarded to Canadians who have made outstanding and exemplary contributions to their communities or to Canada as a whole."  Hardly objective criteria.  A lot of political hacks and grandmothers that did good knitting got them.
> "



Even though many of our "Honours and Awards" may seem to have been cheapened by such practices of 'weak' criteria, they still have criteria.  The people who nominate and approve the awards should be responsible for seeing that they do not cheapen an Award/Honour by not meeting the intent of the criteria for the Awards.

Perhaps you can remember the controversy on this site with the new Sacrifice Medal.

People must be held responsible for the proper administration of Honours and Awards, and criteria have been set into place to assist in that.  (Please note the highlighted words.)


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Your point?



Replying to Michael, attempting to be less misleading.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.



Gimme medals? That sure cheaps them Dennis, and thats wrong. Bad choice of words. 

I refer to them more like peace-time medals, and yes there is plenty of criteria for peace-time medals, they just don't hand them out like speeding tickets on the 401. All medals are earned or deserved through specific work accomplished for them. Your above post on grannies who 'got them for knitting' is rather offensive to say the least.

Example for warlike service: Australia for war like operations has the AASM (Australian Active Service Medal) , which is awarded with clasps such as ICAT, Iraq, Timor, etc, and this is followed up by a general campaign medal, such as for Afghanistan or Iraq. Simple, although certain criteria for time in country must be met. 

I don't see what all the back-biting is about WRT soldiers/medals in Canada, as here the medal culture is 180 degree different in attitude, the problems you are having are literally non-existant here. 

Perhaps Canada should look to some of its BCW friends and learn from them. Look at the Combat Badge disaster, that speaks for itself. Something turned from simple to outragously complicated, hence scrapped. We have the two combat badges here, and they work fine for over many decades of being in use. 

Off the air for 10 days, going away. Hope all have a good wknd and week coming up.

Regards,

OWDU

EDITed for spelling.


----------



## Occam (20 Nov 2009)

In all fairness, the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal was a classic example of a "gimme" medal.

According to this press release, the criteria for it was as follows:

_A range of selection proposals were considered, and it has been determined that the Canadian Forces will distribute the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to the Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Cadet Instructor Cadre, Rangers and honorary appointments on a proportional basis by naval, land and air environment. Within each environment, distribution will be proportional by rank and military occupation. Seniority, based on years of service, will be the final criteria. This impartial selection process will ensure an equitable distribution of the medals._

What did a recipient of the QGJ medal do to specifically earn the medal, aside from have a pulse, breathe, and swear an oath?  Nothing.  Even conduct which would have delayed the awarding of the CD didn't affect eligibility for the QGJ.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> He got 4 medals for going to war.
> 
> They all have separate criteria but with only odd exceptions, everyone who went to war got 4, 5, or 6 medals.  Those who did not go to war but spent over 30 days in the military got at least one.



Sadly, your lack of respect or appreciation for what each of those medals represents and the commitment of time and service to earn them shows through your offhand remarks to dismiss them as merely repetitive awards. Did you bother to read the referenced award criteria from 1946?  Or is it your intent to simply denigrate any methods of which you don't personally approve?

For those considering the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and the way the Canadian Forces awarded it _(those awarded by politicians are not a subject of this thread and should not be referred to gratuitously to cheapen the CF approach)_, you would only have had to be in the right offices to know of the medals returned by COs who refused to award them to people who had remained at particular rank levels for less than commendable reasons.  Many commanders did their best to ensure the intent of the system was met as well as the letter of the award criteria.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Nov 2009)

Yeah, it's not like our medals are like a Nobel Peace prize, which seems to be the latest example of a significant honour which has been recently cheapened through the application of a 'fuzzy' set of criteria. Cough... Obama... Cough

Count down to Happy Hour.....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sadly, your lack of respect or appreciation for what each of those medals represents and the commitment of time and service to earn them shows through your offhand remarks to dismiss them as merely repetitive awards. Did you bother to read the referenced award criteria from 1946?  Or is it your intent to simply denigrate any methods of which you don't personally approve?
> 
> For those considering the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and the way the Canadian Forces awarded it _(those awarded by politicians are not a subject of this thread and should not be referred to gratuitously to cheapen the CF approach)_, you would only have had to be in the right offices to know of the medals returned by COs who refused to award them to people who had remained at particular rank levels for less than commendable reasons.  Many commanders did their best to ensure the intent of the system was met as well as the letter of the award criteria.



I denigrate nothing.  Going to war in WWI earned 2 medals, WWII earned at least 4 medals, Korea earned 3 medals.  I'm just saying that giving a soldier lots of medals for fighting a war is good, while giving them for other reasons is less good.  Is this an unreasonable viewpoint?

I remember officers with a bit more rank than me putting in their digs on another officer who got the 1977 Silver Jubilee Medal while they didn't.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I denigrate nothing.  Going to war in WWI earned 2 medals, WWII earned at least 4 medals, Korea earned 3 medals.  I'm just saying that giving a soldier lots of medals for fighting a war is good, while giving them for other reasons is less good.  Is this an unreasonable viewpoint?



Forgetting about the 1914-15 Star? Might as well just say soldiers who attested early for the First World War got en extra medal for the "same work" as later soldiers.

Your viewpoint is unreasonable because it fails to recognize that each of those medals do have different criteria, and there are many different combinations awarded for service in the Second World War.  There wasn't just a standard package of "welcome home, here's your set of gongs".

In my opinion, you cheapen their service with your generalizations.  Is that an unreasonable viewpoint?



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I remember officers with a bit more rank than me putting in their digs on another officer who got the 1977 Silver Jubilee Medal while they didn't.



And that justifies what, exactly?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2009)

As a CF member who was awarded the QGJM, I wear it with pride.  Especially consider the following:


> you would only have had to be in the right offices to know of the medals returned by COs who refused to award them to people who had remained at particular rank levels for less than commendable reasons.  Many commanders did their best to ensure the intent of the system was met as well as the letter of the award criteria.


Few were awarded to members of my unit.  Yes, maybe my name initially appeared on "the list" when it criteria were set; however, someone up my chain of command said "Yes, I've seen his dancing video. He deserves the medal."  So, yeah, I don't feel cheapened wearing it.


----------



## Sonnyjim (20 Nov 2009)

I'm sorry...I know this has nothing to do with the topic but instead of sending a PM of comendation to Technoviking I just wanted to thank you for posting that link. Adult Diapers may need to be purchased in my next outing to the drug store.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Nov 2009)

I have  the QGJM.  It is not (yet) attached to my rack of "gimmes".  I retired as a Corporal with 23 years of (mostly) undetected crime.  No, I did not zoom up the ranks, but that was more due to my lack of political savvy than my soldiering ability.  In short, I was fucking good at what I did, day in and day out at the coal face doing the heavy lifting, and was invited back to my regiment two years after retirement to be awarded it on parade.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> In all fairness, the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal was a classic example of a "gimme" medal.
> 
> According to this press release, the criteria for it was as follows:
> 
> ...



Really!  You just insulted the many who did receive this Honour.  I know many fine soldiers, whose performance and rise through the ranks failed to get them this honour, due to a blemish on their Charge Sheets from their early years in the Service.  My Regt followed the criteria, giving a proportional amount out to members of the Regt who had long unblemished Service Records, who had performed dedicated roles in the unit that in many cases would not garner much "glory" but were for the most part the necessary duties involved in Regimental life and contributed significantly to the Regimental "Family".  

So...OCCAM......Your attitude on this matter is biased by a less than accurate picture of how the intent of the award was set out.  What you may have witnessed, is not necessarily how others conducted the awarding of this Honour.  Once again, it seems to boil down to the people who have made, or not made, a responsible and fair decision in how to meet the intent of the award.


----------



## Occam (20 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really!  You just insulted the many who did receive this Honour.



No, I did not.  I knew as soon as the medal was referred to as a "gimme" medal, that there would be a slew of members coming forward with tales of how they wear it with pride.

My point wasn't about how it's worn, it's about the criteria under which it was awarded.  Even the backgrounder I posted the link to stated "The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal is a commemorative medal, and is not intended to be an award of merit. There are other CF honours and awards programs that recognize meritorious service."



> I know many fine soldiers, whose performance and rise through the ranks failed to get them this honour, due to a blemish on their Charge Sheets from their early years in the Service.  My Regt followed the criteria, giving a proportional amount out to members of the Regt who had long unblemished Service Records, who had performed dedicated roles in the unit that in many cases would not garner much "glory" but were for the most part the necessary duties involved in Regimental life and contributed significantly to the Regimental "Family".



Tell me where in the criteria for the QGJM it states anything about unblemished service records.  Oh sure, at the higher levels there was most certainly picking and choosing based on their conduct sheets, but that wasn't done in accordance with the official, published intent of the medal.



> So...OCCAM......Your attitude on this matter is biased by a less than accurate picture of how the intent of the award was set out.  What you may have witnessed, is not necessarily how others conducted the awarding of this Honour.  Once again, it seems to boil down to the people who have made, or not made, a responsible and fair decision in how to meet the intent of the award.



What I do know is that I was told I was to be a recipient of the QGJM.  I didn't get one....not because of any shortcoming in conduct, nor anything like that.  Want to take a guess why?    (Before you claim I'm bitter, I'll tell you flat out that it didn't and still doesn't bother me a bit - all it would have meant was that I would've had to get the other five gongs remounted.)

What I do know is that the most common reaction I personally saw after members were made aware that they were to be recipients was "So what am I getting this for again?".  Not all of them had pristine service records, and that means the criteria under which all the medals were issued were not applied uniformly.  The vast majority of members I know who got the QGJM view them as gimmes - and those are their words, not mine.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> The vast majority of members I know who got the QGJM view them as gimmes - and those are their words, not mine.


I know of one person who got the QGJM.  I know words too.  Want to hear them?


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> "Retired" 2Lt in Armoured Reserve = EPIC FAIL.



1/2 of me thinks you are being a bit too mean there.

1/2 of me thinks that you are pretty much bang on.


----------



## Occam (20 Nov 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I know of one person who got the QGJM.  I know words too.  Want to hear them?



If you're happy with how yours got awarded, more power to you.

All I'm saying is that there are people out there, both recipients and non-recipients, who were equally puzzled with the process.  That's all.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Tell me where in the criteria for the QGJM it states anything about unblemished service records.  Oh sure, at the higher levels there was most certainly picking and choosing based on their conduct sheets, but that wasn't done in accordance with the official, published intent of the medal.



I remember a CANFORGEN (CANFORGEN 024/02 CDS 017 ) on this.  Do I have a copy now, or know where to find that copy?  No.   I do remember something to the effect of the member was to have had a clean record and ideally long service.  If someone digs up the whole CANFORGEN, I am sure they will find that it laid out a more detailed criteria.




			
				Occam said:
			
		

> What I do know is that the most common reaction I personally saw after members were made aware that they were to be recipients was "So what am I getting this for again?".  Not all of them had pristine service records, and that means the criteria under which all the medals were issued were not applied uniformly.  The vast majority of members I know who got the QGJM view them as gimmes - and those are their words, not mine.



As I have already said twice:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> .........   Once again, it seems to boil down to the people who have made, or not made, a responsible and fair decision in how to meet the intent of the award.



It behoves the Commanding Officers, or superior officers/supervisors to follow the intent of the award and ensure that they meet the criteria.  If they don't then they cheapen the award and make it a "gimme" in some instances.  For some the CD is a "gimme".  For others, who have had good Commanding Officers, who have been conscientious enough to explain, even pontificate on, the significance of the award to the parade/gathering/recipient and guests, then it is a more significant award.  It is "criminal" to not accord the presentation of an award the proper dignity.  To literally mail an award to a recipient should be a crime, and you know this has happened.


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Nov 2009)

If the intent was for the Jubilee was the proportionate distribution according to rank, I must say that I did not witness this in an Infantry Battalion.

I am fairly certain that there are more Privates than Senior Officers in the CF, but I didn't see that many soldiers walking around with one, regardless of how perfect their record was or how many courses they topped.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> My father and most other overseas WWII veterans received 4 medals for essentially the same thing while many received 5 and those who were also in Italy often received 6.  In WWI they received 2 (or 3 if they joined in 1914 or 1915.)  In Korea they received 2 and whined and got 3.  I think lots of medals are appropriate for wars.  1 campaign medal would be the least for a war in about 107 years.
> 
> What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.
> 
> The CD is a good medal.  A Special Service Medal with an Alert bar - we're not too sure.  At least we don't give one for excelling in basic training unlike our neighbor.



I hear there's a town looking for it's CPA ...

 :


----------



## Occam (20 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I remember a CANFORGEN (CANFORGEN 024/02 CDS 017 ) on this.  Do I have a copy now, or know where to find that copy?  No.   I do remember something to the effect of the member was to have had a clean record and ideally long service.  If someone digs up the whole CANFORGEN, I am sure they will find that it laid out a more detailed criteria.



I don't recall the CANFORGEN mentioning conduct but I'll take your word for it until the doc can get dug up.



> It behoves the Commanding Officers, or superior officers/supervisors to follow the intent of the award and ensure that they meet the criteria.  If they don't then they cheapen the award and make it a "gimme" in some instances.  For some the CD is a "gimme".  For others, who have had good Commanding Officers, who have been conscientious enough to explain, even pontificate on, the significance of the award to the parade/gathering/recipient and guests, then it is a more significant award.  It is "criminal" to not accord the presentation of an award the proper dignity.  To literally mail an award to a recipient should be a crime, and you know this has happened.



I think we're on the same page with this, and yes I do personally know people who have received decorations in the mail - the Canadian Korea Medal was sent out to many via those means, and it pissed some veterans off so badly that they sent them back.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> If the intent was for the Jubilee was the proportionate distribution according to rank, I must say that I did not witness this in an Infantry Battalion.
> 
> I am fairly certain that there are more Privates than Senior Officers in the CF, but I didn't see that many soldiers walking around with one, regardless of how perfect their record was or how many courses they topped.


The Jubilee medal was awarded circa 2002-2004.  Those who were Pte in that time frame are now Cpl or higher (or even higher: civilian, those whom we serve).  It was proportionate according to time served in rank, not just according to rank.  Since Ptes has fewer than four years service at that time, most went to higher ranking individuals.


----------



## Occam (20 Nov 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The Jubilee medal was awarded circa 2002-2004.  Those who were Pte in that time frame are now Cpl or higher (or even higher: civilian, those whom we serve).  It was proportionate according to time served in rank, not just according to rank.  Since Ptes has fewer than four years service at that time, most went to higher ranking individuals.



That's not how it was explained in various different sources...

Given:



> A range of selection proposals were considered, and it has been determined that the Canadian Forces will distribute the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to the Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Cadet Instructor Cadre, Rangers and honorary appointments on a proportional basis by naval, land and air environment. Within each environment, distribution will be proportional by rank and military occupation. Seniority, based on years of service, will be the final criteria. This impartial selection process will ensure an equitable distribution of the medals.



Would that not mean that the medals were first apportioned by environment, then within each environment by rank and MOC, and then finally by seniority within those ranks?

Put another way, only the most X senior Pte Infantrymen got it, only the most Y senior LS NCIOPs got it, only the most Z senior Capt CELE and so on, and so on...?

I seem to recall seeing many sources saying that the largest group of recipients was (supposed to be) Corporals.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> I seem to recall seeing many sources saying that the largest group of recipients was (supposed to be) Corporals.



Yes.......And where are those "Corporals" today  --  five to seven years later?










Hopefully not all are still Corporals.   :camo:


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> That's not how it was explained in various different sources...
> 
> Given:
> 
> ...



Oh my.

How quickly we forget.

In 03 when we finally got some Ptes back into our trade after the preceeding _Decade of Darkness_ - the year that the medals were 'awarded' --- the CF had a whole heck of a lot more Cpls than it did Ptes ... some of us purple trades waited a whole lot longer than the zero trades to get "PTES" too due to the (finally!!) increase in recruiting post 911 having the bulk of new enrollees headed to those zero trades.

Of course Cpls got more QGJMs medals --- we had relatively few Ptes then.


----------



## Occam (20 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.......And where are those "Corporals" today  --  five to seven years later?
> 
> Hopefully not all are still Corporals.   :camo:



Hopefully not.  That's not what I was addressing, though - it was the statement "Since Ptes has fewer than four years service at that time, most went to higher ranking individuals".

To me, that didn't really make a lot of sense, as the seniority of Ptes at the time had no bearing on how many went to higher ranking individuals.  To use simple numbers, if 10 members of a 100 member trade were privates, and there were 5 medals available to Ptes in that trade, then the 5 most senior Ptes got them - that has nothing to do with the number of Cpls that got them.

Anyhow, I think we're getting tunnel vision here.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.......And where are those "Corporals" today  --  five to seven years later?



Actually, I think you may find that a surprising number have retired by now because they were long serving Corporals at the time of the awards.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Nov 2009)

I enjoyed watching my CO award himself (who had never done a tour anywhere) and the Cadet Corps RSM Canada 125 medals after I'd suggested we give them to soldiers who had just returned from Yugo. 

AFAIC you can keep those particular types of medals, with absurd and wishy washy criteria, and melt them down for more ammo...


----------



## Pusser (21 Nov 2009)

The really interesting thing about the QGJM was that the original recommendation from the CF was that all serving members who were occupation qualified should receive it.  This was similar to the British approach which was to give it to all serving members who had at least five years in and in contrast to the Australian approach, which was to issue none.  I don't remember what New Zealand did.  Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's Office disagreed and limited the CF to a much smaller number.

Faced with a much smaller number than desired, the CF did everything it could to make it as fair as possible.  There was no merit involved and CF members were not nominated by the Chain of Command (although civilian employees could be, but theirs were from a separate allocation).  Master lists were drawn up of all serving members and  those with the most years of service at each rank level received them.  Seniority in rank was not used to determine the award.  This meant that a newly promoted sergeant with many years of service would receive it before the sergeant who had been promoted years earlier, but who had less overall service.

In addition to the CF, other organizations were given the opportunity to nominate individuals for the QGJM and to set their own criteria.  Some CF members could and did receive medals this way.  For example, a CF member who also volunteered for the Monarchist League of Canada (which did in fact receive an allocation), could receive a QGJM.  Because it's part of the Canadian Honours System, he/she would still wear it on his/her uniform along with any other medals received.

Although I would have preferred it if the CF had been allowed to follow its first recommendation, I have to say I think this medal was handled as fairly as possible and certainly better than previous ones.  Some folks received the 125 medal by writing their MPs and asking for it?  The next question is what will happen for the Diamond Jubilee in 2012 or the sesqui-centennial in 2017?


----------



## SeanNewman (21 Nov 2009)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...The next question is what will happen for the Diamond Jubilee in 2012...



*Show me the medal!!*


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> you are also incorrect about the United States awarding a medal for basic training.
> 
> The US has a very different award structure to our own, which includes both medal awards and "ribbon only" recognition.  The Army Service Ribbon is awarded for completing of basic training - it does not have an associated medal.



I remembered something in a random publication about 25 years ago about a USAF medal for excelling in basic.  It was, in fact, a ribbon.

The only basic training medal I could find was the Alabama Guard.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I remembered something in a random publication about 25 years ago about a USAF medal for excelling in basic.  It was, in fact, a ribbon.
> 
> The only basic training medal I could find was the Alabama Guard.



And once again some simple research shows that your arguments lack a basis in fact. Please do the research first next time, it will save the rest of us work in disproving your posts based on what you think is right or what you think you remember.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And once again some simple research shows that your arguments lack a basis in fact. Please do the research first next time, it will save the rest of us work in disproving your posts based on what you think is right or what you think you remember.



You're right ......... but

Every service member on completing basic training receives a ribbon for graduating, possibly a ribbon for course honours (if they duplicate) AND a National Defence Service Medal, as much fruit salad as Canadian RSMs back in the day.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforcejoin/a/afbmtribbon.htm

It is for service in time of national emergency, not training.  I admit it was not the basis of my point.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> You're right ......... but


After "you're right," stop.....just stop.   :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Nov 2009)

Pusser is correct re the criteria. I have the list with the names/units/enrolment date of the longest serving members (10/12 members) of the CF at that time. Unit and CBGs had to verify the computer lists that were sent from NDHQ.


----------



## John Nayduk (22 Nov 2009)

At the risk of opening a can of worms but since this topic started out talking about a revamp of the honours we receive for serving Canada, I have a suggestion about the SWASM and the GCS.
Historically, we (Britain) issued campaign stars which were worn before war medals.  Examples of this are the 1914 or 1914/15 Star which were worn before the 1914-1918 War Medal and the Victory Medal.   For World War 2 service, there were 8 campaign stars (with their order of precedence) which are worn before the Defence Medals, Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and the 1939-45 War Medal.
Could we/should we change the order of precedence of the South-West Asia Service medal and the General Campaign Star?  I know that the SWASM was issued to the soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel who served with the U.S. military during Operation Enduring Freedom.  Could we use the SWASM to recognize service all in South-West Asia regardless of the name of the operation (with the AFGHANISTAN bar for service in the country) and issue a bar for the General Campaign Star that reads “O.E.F.” to recognize service in the U.S. lead campaign during Operation Enduring Freedom?  So if a person was there for the invasion and did another tour with ISAF, they would were a General Campaign Star with the O.E.F. and the ISAF bars and the SWASM with AFGHANISTAN bar.  This would bring us into line with the historical use of campaign stars and war medals.  I know that the South-West Asia Service medal is a “service” medal and not a “war” medal but let’s be honest and call this a war and elevate the SWASM to the status of a war medal.
We have changed the order of precedence and criteria for established honours in the past (the Order of Canada as an example) so it can be done.


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Nov 2009)

ARG,

There is a lot of water cooler talk in the CF about that sort of thing, but obviously it's not a democracy.  The general consensus of the rumour mill has all sorts of ideas about what should happen with the GCS / SWASM fiasco, but right from the (Comd CEFCOM) it's coming down that we aren't going to re-invent the past.

If we can make things clearer in the future then that's one thing, but I understood his intent quite clear about not going six years into the past and changing regulations for things that were already given out.

Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that's where it is.


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2009)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The general consensus of the rumour mill has all sorts of ideas about what should happen with the GCS / SWASM fiasco, but right from the (Comd CEFCOM) it's coming down that we aren't going to re-invent the past.


While what I have seen also suggests we will not "re-invent the past" on the SWASM/GCS divide, there may be some administrative re-vision within the GCS itself (those campaign specific ribbons being retroactively introduced).  This would mostly effect guys with a GCS for ALLIED FORCE (Kosovo air campaign) or Iraq tours attached to the US.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (17 Mar 2010)

DND News Release:

Changes to Recognition for Overseas Service
NR - 10.015 - March 17, 2010

OTTAWA – The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced changes to the South-West Asia Service Medal (SWASM), the General Campaign Star (GCS) and the General Service Medal (GSM). These changes were introduced following a major review of all recognition provided for overseas service in order to simplify and standardize overseas recognition for Canadian Forces (CF) personnel. The creation of a formal device to recognize those who serve multiple rotations in missions eligible for the SWASM, the GCS and the GSM was key in this review.

“We are grateful to all of our Canadian Forces personnel for their bravery and dedication,” said Minister MacKay. “The changes announced today allow the Government of Canada to acknowledge the individual experience of men and women who deploy on operations with the recognition they so richly deserve.” 

Rotation bars have been created to mark multiple rotations in missions eligible for the three medals. Personnel will earn a rotation bar emblazoned with a maple leaf for each period of 180 days of eligible service accumulated after the initial qualifying period of 30 days. With the addition of rotation bars, mission bars will no longer be worn on the GCS and GSM. Instead, the medals will be displayed on ribbons that indicate the theatre or service for which the medal was awarded. This ensures that all service in a defined theatre of operations is accorded the same recognition, regardless of the mission. 

Additional changes include an adjustment in the criteria to receive the GSM for a support function, from 90 to 30 days, and the establishment of three distinct ribbons for the GCS and GSM.  The South-West Asia ribbon, the Allied Force ribbon to replace the Allied Force bar and the Expedition ribbon to recognize smaller operations conducted in the presence of an armed enemy.  

The General Campaign Star is awarded to CF personnel, and members of allied forces working with the CF, who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy.

The General Service Medal is awarded to CF personnel, members of allied forces and Canadian citizens other than CF personnel serving with the CF who deploy outside of Canada - but not necessarily into a theatre of operations - to provide direct support to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.

The South-West Asia Service Medal recognizes the participation of CF personnel deployed or in direct support of the operations against terrorism in South-West Asia. Eligibility for the SWASM ends as of 31 July 2009 and all service in theatre from 1 August 2009 onwards is eligible for either the General Campaign Star or General Service Medal with South-West Asia ribbon.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Mar 2010)

Judging from the phrase "mission bars will no longer be worn on the GCS and GSM", I'm guessing there will not be a grandfather clause for those already wearing it. 

I wonder if the medals need to be remounted when the bar is removed and, if so, is the CF paying for it?


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Mar 2010)

Here is the link:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3302


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Mar 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I wonder if the medals need to be remounted when the bar is removed and, if so, is the CF paying for it?



If the medal was mounted properly, it should have wire holding the bar on requiring a remount to make it look proper without holes. I see this as being "awarded" a new medal, which you're entitled to reimbursement. Money's tight, so nobody probably even thought about remounting.


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Judging from the phrase "mission bars will no longer be worn on the GCS and GSM", I'm guessing there will not be a grandfather clause for those already wearing it.
> 
> I wonder if the medals need to be remounted when the bar is removed and, if so, is the CF paying for it?



Yes; the CF would pay for it.

Each time that you are awarded a *medal*, a *numeral*, or *a bar* (IE: not 'just' a new medal) that you had not previously been entitled to --- the medals are required to be remounted. You are entitled to costs up to $8.00 per medal, bar, and numeral.

A change in the regulations regarding such wear (as we are now seeing) would deem that the remounting *is necessary* in order to comply with regs and will thus have to reimburseable.

You will either require to have your medals remounted to add the *new numeral* or to *remove the bar* which would be deemed 'unauthorized'. 

The entitlement to reimbursement (of 8 bucks per) is applicable to each medal that will have to be remounted to comply --- ie: your whole rack.

IE: A pers wearing a CD with bar, a SWASM with bar and a GCS with bar would be entitled to:

(If more than one tour in Afg): 8 X 6 = 48 bucks (3 X medals, 2 X bars, 1 X numeral);

(If only one tour in Afg): 8 X 5 = 40 bucks (3 X medals, 2 X bars, 0 numerals) for reimbursement.


----------



## MikeL (17 Mar 2010)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> The South-West Asia Service Medal recognizes the participation of CF personnel deployed or in direct support of the operations against terrorism in South-West Asia.



Aren't all CF pers deployed to Kandahar part of the operations agains terrorism in South West Asia?  And to clarify, the last Kandahar roto to get the SWASM was TF 1-06 and I think the Navy gets it now or am I mistaken?


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Aren't all CF pers deployed to Kandahar part of the operations agains terrorism in South West Asia?  And to clarify, the last Kandahar roto to get the SWASM was TF 1-06 and I think the Navy gets it now or am I mistaken?



Wrong. There are still plenty of CF pers in Afg (Kabul etc) who are part of the different mandate and who are awarded the SWASM vice the GCS.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Mar 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading about the GCS and noted the fact that it was to be the same medal ribbon, with different mission bars. Therefore, soldier X does a tour to Afghan, awarded GCS w/ ISAF clasp. He then, in the future, deploys on another mission that merits the GCS, he would then only get another clasp for his GCS? That, at least, is how I understood it, and not many people at work seemed to realise that. Conceivably, you could do 6 different tours to 6 different crapholes, and only have one gong (with 6 bars), like the old brit General Service Medal. 

If that is true, then I guess this announcement corrects that, and now there are afghan-specific gongs.


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading about the GCS and noted the fact that it was to be the same medal ribbon, with different mission bars. Therefore, soldier X does a tour to Afghan, awarded GCS w/ ISAF clasp. He then, in the future, deploys on another mission that merits the GCS, he would then only get another clasp for his GCS? That, at least, is how I understood it, and not many people at work seemed to realise that. Conceivably, you could do 6 different tours to 6 different crapholes, and only have one gong (with 6 bars), like the old brit General Service Medal.
> 
> If that is true, then I guess this announcement corrects that, and now there are afghan-specific gongs.



Theatre-specific ribbons on the medals now (the GCS, the GCM and the GSM) with the possibility of tour numerals (if more than one tour to same) instead of theatre-specific bars. That's how I read it.


----------



## Grunt_031 (17 Mar 2010)

The Honours and Awards page has been updated.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/index-eng.asp


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Mar 2010)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading about the GCS and noted the fact that it was to be the same medal ribbon, with different mission bars. Therefore, soldier X does a tour to Afghan, awarded GCS w/ ISAF clasp. He then, in the future, deploys on another mission that merits the GCS, he would then only get another clasp for his GCS? That, at least, is how I understood it, and not many people at work seemed to realise that. Conceivably, you could do 6 different tours to 6 different crapholes, and only have one gong (with 6 bars), like the old brit General Service Medal.
> 
> If that is true, then I guess this announcement corrects that, and now there are afghan-specific gongs.


It is NOT true.  Read the release again:


> ...medals will be displayed on ribbons that indicate the theatre or service for which the medal was awarded...





> Additional changes include an adjustment in the criteria to receive the GSM for a support function, from 90 to 30 days, and the establishment of three distinct ribbons for the GCS and GSM.  The South-West Asia ribbon, the Allied Force ribbon to replace the Allied Force bar and the Expedition ribbon to recognize smaller operations conducted in the presence of an armed enemy.


As of 16 Mar 2010 (eg: yesterday), one could have conceivably deployed to Kabul in 2003 as part of ISAF, and then Kandahar again as part of ISAF in 2008, and would receive no further decorations, ribbons, bars, etc after that initial deployment.  What this announcement means that you get Medal and the South-West Asia ribbon for your initial 30 day service.  Once you accumulate a further 180 days of eligible service you will earn a rotation bar emblazoned with a maple leaf.  So, not one medal, one ribbon with multiple bars indicating multiple missions.

Edit to add: There won't be numerals, Vern, but "rotation bars".


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Mar 2010)

General Campaign Star with South West Asia ribbon:







General Campaign Star with Allied Force ribbon:


----------



## medicineman (17 Mar 2010)

I see OP HALO isn't a qualifying service for any of the new ribbons as yet, though I did notice a ribbon for those flying in Iraqi airspace...:stirpot:

MM


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Edit to add: There won't be numerals, Vern, but "rotation bars".



Seen.

Re-imbursement would still work out the same. 1st tour = no roto bar = no 8 bucks for that.

The roto bar would be equal to the UN/NATO tour numerals, other bars for re-imbursemet. When one is added, the entitlement to 8 bucks per to have the medals remounted to incorporate it as I laid out in my original still kicks in.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Mar 2010)

Sorry technoviking, I wasn't as clear as I should've been. What I should have said was that previously, the ribbon and medal would've been the same for multiple tours to different missions, only the clasp would be different. Now the medal is the same but the ribbon is different for each theatre.


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I see OP HALO isn't a qualifying service for any of the new ribbons as yet... :stirpot:
> 
> MM



I was thinking about that too --- you'd think someone _up there _ would be looking after those pers who STILL haven't been recognized for their service yet as a priority of work ... 

Really does go towards reinforcing that 'new' (and absolutely irritating) stereotype that "If it ain't Afghanistan - you it ain't worth shit".


----------



## Journeyman (17 Mar 2010)

Maybe the Facebook Governor General medal will have an Op HALO bar.    ;D


----------



## medicineman (17 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe the Facebook Governor General medal will have an Op HALO bar.    ;D



Chuck You Farley  ... you think there will be room for all the GG's you served under on your ribbon  ;D?

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Mar 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Re-imbursement would still work out the same. 1st tour = no roto bar = no 8 bucks for that.



If I have to have my ISAF bar taken off, I should be getting reimbursed for that, should I not?


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If I have to have my ISAF bar taken off, I should be getting reimbursed for that, should I not?



Yes.

See the third and fourth sentences of this previous post:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92653/post-917278.html#msg917278

A change in Honours & Awards, or Dress Regulations which necessitates a change in your medals ... would make the costs associated with the required remounting to comply with the new regulations reimburseable at Crown expense.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Mar 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If I have to have my ISAF bar taken off, I should be getting reimbursed for that, should I not?


What I'm getting from this is that I'll still be entitled to wear the ISAF bar.  Just no rotation bars.


----------



## LineJumper (17 Mar 2010)

Why not the little numbers we used to get for multiples? Or was that just a UN thing.


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2010)

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Why not the little numbers we used to get for multiples? Or was that just a UN thing.



It's a UN and NATO thing (silver numerals indicate multiple tours on UN missions, bronze numerals indicate multiple tours on NATO missions); Canadians are _still_ earning medals and/or numerals today in various active theatres of operations, other than Afghanistan, in which CF personnel are still doing time.

http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/index-eng.asp


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Mar 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What I'm getting from this is that I'll still be entitled to wear the ISAF bar.  Just no rotation bars.


No.  The revision date of that web page was 26 October 2007.  From the MND's news release:


> With the addition of rotation bars, *mission bars will no longer be worn on the GCS and GSM*


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Mar 2010)

At least with the elimination of the ISAF bar, I'll just have to remove it. Something I can probably do myself.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No.  The revision date of that web page was 26 October 2007.


Well crap.  Just got the miniatures done and they were expensive.  Oh well, the bars were screwed up anyway.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Mar 2010)

CANFORGEN 066/10 has been released with further details.

Of interest:



> THE CF AND THE GOVT OF CANADA ARE COMMITTED TO HONOURING AND RECOGNIZING THE VALUED CONTRIBUTION OF SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIR MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CF. MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO OVERSEAS RECOGNITION ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND *ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING RECOGNITION OF OPS SCULPTURE, HALO, AUGURAL, PROTEUS AND HESTIA WILL BE FORTHCOMING *


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 066/10 has been released with further details.
> 
> Of interest:



Hell hath frozen over; it only took 7 years!!


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2010)

Vern: 6 years, but hey, who's counting?  After all, look at these three little words:
"WILL BE FORTHCOMING"

No timeline given.  Not even a word such as "SHORTLY', or whatever.  Hell, my great great great grandkids may get the decoration


Sorry, Six years has taught me to not believe it until it's pinned to my spoon-like chest.


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Vern: 6 years, but hey, who's counting?  After all, look at these three little words:
> "WILL BE FORTHCOMING"
> 
> No timeline given.  Not even a word such as "SHORTLY', or whatever.  Hell, my great great great grandkids may get the decoration
> ...



Actually, my 7 years didn't refer to Op Halo.

But, I'm going to revise my timeline anyway ... being that the first personnel who participated on On Sculpture deployed in 2000!!

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=3132

Make 'er 10 frickin' years ... that's pretty sad if I say so myself.



> Canada’s military contribution to this British-led international military advisory and training initiative and CF members began serving with IMATT in Sierra Leone in *November 2000*


----------



## medicineman (18 Mar 2010)

All I can say is - Thousands wouldn't, but we will...perhaps".

MM


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Actually, my 7 years didn't refer to Op Halo.


 :-[

My bad.  I forgot that for a moment...


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :-[
> 
> My bad.  I forgot that for a moment...



That's OK; I realize that the world rotates around the Technoviking.  Perhaps where you went wrong was in not "demanding the compliance of DHH" years ago; so, it's all your fault.  >


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's OK; I realize that the world rotates around the Technoviking.  Perhaps where you went wrong was in not "demanding the compliance of DHH" years ago; so, it's all your fault.  >


Fault...Credit.  All I know is this:

TECHNOVIKING IS PLEASED! ;D


----------



## c4th (18 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No timeline given.  Not even a word such as "SHORTLY', or whatever.  Hell, my great great great grandkids may get the decoration



Hyperbole!  Look, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea was established in 1991, only forty-one years after the first deployment.  It probably seemed like only yesterday for those who got it.  Grand-kids, or Great Grand-kids but really, I think you'll get it before the fifth generation.  Maybe.


----------



## tristismilitis (19 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No.  The revision date of that web page was 26 October 2007.  From the MND's news release:


Quote
"With the addition of rotation bars, mission bars will no longer be worn on the GCS and GSM"

I am putting together a shadow box with medals from TF 1-06 and didn't realize the regs changed. Currently there is a SWASM with Afg bar and a GCS-SWA with the ISAF bar and a couple other medals that will be mounted (all from the same tour).
From reading through the honours and awards site and this thread I think all I need to do to comply with the new regs is have the ISAF bar removed, but seeing as these are not my medals (and they are for a memorial shadow box, not for wear in uniform) I want to be really sure I have it right before I change anything. 
Thanks in advance for confirmation/help!

tm


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Vern: 6 years, but hey, who's counting?  After all, look at these three little words:
> "WILL BE FORTHCOMING"
> 
> No timeline given.  Not even a word such as "SHORTLY', or whatever.  Hell, my great great great grandkids may get the decoration
> ...



The Canada General Service Medal, covering the Fenian Raids in *1866* and *1870*, and Red River *1870*, wasn't authorized until *1899*. And soldiers had to be around to apply for their medals.

You're not even close to being in the complaint zone yet.


----------



## CanForceOfficer (19 Mar 2010)

I am a bit confused about the new policy. 

Does this mean that, for example, if a soldier deployed to Kandahar he would get the General Campaign Star with the ribbon for ISAF, then 4 years later, deployed to another combat zone similar to Afghanistan in that we are actually fighting again, would he then get another General Campaign Star with a new coloured ribbon, i.e. he now has two medals?  Or would he just get a new bar for his existing medal?


----------



## Swingline1984 (19 Mar 2010)

CanForceOfficer said:
			
		

> I am a bit confused about the new policy.
> 
> Does this mean that, for example, if a soldier deployed to Kandahar he would get the General Campaign Star with the ribbon for ISAF, then 4 years later, deployed to another combat zone similar to Afghanistan in that we are actually fighting again, would he then get another General Campaign Star with a new coloured ribbon, i.e. he now has two medals?  Or would he just get a new bar for his existing medal?



New mission = new ribbon w/ new star/medal (AOR dependant)


----------



## medicineman (19 Mar 2010)

Trust No One said:
			
		

> Hyperbole!  Look, the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea was established in 1991, only forty-one years after the first deployment.  It probably seemed like only yesterday for those who got it.  Grand-kids, or Great Grand-kids but really, I think you'll get it before the fifth generation.  Maybe.



They at least got their United Nations medal for Korea long before the CVSMK was established, where OP HALO personnel weren't given anything save a CPSM if they didn't already have it, even the ones that were there under the MINUSTAH mandate.

The Fenian Raid/Red River CGSM is probably a better comparison  .

MM


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Mar 2010)

Here is the CANFORGEN.  I find it actually makes more sense than the press release.  ie: medals will be issued as UN medals are and the 180  days gets explained clearer here.

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 066/10 CMP 030/10
SIC WAK
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK
REF:  CANFORGEN 166/07 CMP 071/07 161430Z NOV 07
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE

1. IN RECENT YEARS, SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FRAMEWORK TO HONOUR AND RECOGNIZE THE SERVICE OF CF PERSONNEL. THESE CHANGES ARE THE FOLLOWING:

A. THE MODERNIZATION OF THE MEMORIAL CROSS AND THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE MEMORIAL SCROLL AND MEMORIAL BAR

B. THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE NOMINATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUAL HONOURS WHICH HAS RESULTED IN MORE TIMELY RECOGNITION 

C. THE CREATION OF NEW MEDALS SUCH AS THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL (SWASM), THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR (GCS), AND THE GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL (GSM) TO RECOGNIZE SERVICE PERFORMED AS PART OF THE ONGOING CAMPAIGN AGAINST TERRORISM

D. THE CREATION OF THE SACRIFICE MEDAL TO HONOUR PERSONNEL WOUNDED IN ACTION IN THE SERVICE OF CANADA AND TO RECOGNIZE ALL SERVICE-RELATED DEATHS


2. IN ADDITION TO THESE NEW INITIATIVES, A MAJOR REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO SIMPLIFY AND STANDARDIZE OVERSEAS SERVICE RECOGNITION FOR CF MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE DEFENCE TEAM. IN CONDUCTING THIS
REVIEW, TIME WAS TAKEN TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEGRITY OF THE CANADIAN HONOURS SYSTEM AND MAINTAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE OF THE ASSSOCIATED MEDALS. SPECIFIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED BY THE CHAIN OF
COMMAND AND FROM SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIR MEN AND WOMEN, INDICATED THAT THERE WERE GAPS IN THE RECOGNITION SYSTEM FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE


3. THE GOVERNMENT HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THIS PROCESS, AND I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS APPROVED A NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION
FRAMEWORK. THIS FRAMEWORK REPRESENTS A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN HOW PERSONNEL WILL BE RECOGNIZED AND CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

A. RECOGNITION WILL NOW BE THEATRE BASED RATHER THAN MISSION SPECIFIC. THIS MEANS THAT ALL SERVICE IN A DESIGNATED THEATRE WHICH IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANOTHER MEDAL (SUCH AS UN OR NATO) WILL BE
ELIGIBLE FOR RECOGNITION 

B. OVERSEAS SERVICE WILL NOW BE RECOGNIZED WITH A DISTINCT RIBBON FOR EACH SEPARATE THEATRE ON THE GCS AND GSM RATHER THAN WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF BARS INDICATING MISSIONS (SUCH AS QUOTE ALLIED
FORCE UNQUOTE AND QUOTE ISAF UNQUOTE). THIS APPROACH IS SIMILAR TO THE UN SYSTEM WHICH UTILIZES A GENERIC MEDAL WITH VARIOUS DISTINTIVE RIBBONS. THIS MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE A RE-ALIGNMENT AND CHANGES IN THE CURRENT RIBBONS AND INSIGNIA UTILIZED WITH THE SWASM, GCS AND GSM. THE CHANGES WILL REFLECT A QUOTE ONE-MEDAL DIFFERENT-RIBBON UNQUOTE APPROACH

C. THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED FOR SOMEONE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SWASM, GCS, AND GSM HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A COMMON 30 DAYS, APPLICABLE TO BOTH MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CIVILIAN MEMBERS OF THE
DEFENCE TEAM

D. MULTIPLE TOURS TO THE SAME THEATRE WILL BE RECOGNIZED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, THE GCS AND THE GSM MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF
ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING MEDAL QUALIFICATION. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER 30 DAYS SERVICE, AN INDIVIDUAL
WILL HAVED EARNED A MEDAL (SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, GCS OR GSM) WITH THE FIRST ROTATION BAR AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, AND SO ON. ALL THEATRE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY


4. THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF CANFORGENS DESCRIBING THE NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK. SUBSEQUENT CANFORGENS WILL PROVIDE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE SWASM, THE GSC, AND THE GSM


5. THE CF AND THE GOVT OF CANADA ARE COMMITTED TO HONOURING AND RECOGNIZING THE VALUED CONTRIBUTION OF SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIR MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CF. MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO OVERSEAS RECOGNITION ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING RECOGNITION OF OPS
SCULPTURE, HALO, AUGURAL, PROTEUS AND HESTIA WILL BE FORTHCOMING 


6. FURTHER INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME_E.ASP 7. SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP

END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT


----------



## Chanada (19 Mar 2010)

www.forces.gc.ca/.../Medals_NEWS_Mar_NR3302.pdf

Here is a link to the "Medals News" that relates to this item...It doesn't show up on the DH&R site but it is the latest in the series of "Medal News" letters they started to publish last year...


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Mar 2010)

The new way is better than what it has been for the last few years.  The possibility of only one medal and multiple bars for different tours to different theatres was wrong and I am happy it has been fixed.

Now, it is like the WW2 theatre medals like the France & Germany, Italy, or Africa Star (other than the word not actually being on the medal itself).  The "rack" of a current soldier doing multiple tours over his life will resemble the WW2 vet's rack though.  Who knows what the next one will be...the GCS with Eastern Europe ribbon or GCS with India/Pakistan ribbon...

Anyway, the part that is still left up for debate is the SWASM part, because before it was OEF = SWASM and ISAF = GCS.  Some lucky tours like the four-month one in fall 05 that moved the camp from Kabul to Kandahar got both.

What is now open is that they have stated it is now theatre-based instead of command based, so logically the giant bulk of the bell curve who have been in Afghanistan (not counting the stange positions) would get both.  It's an operation in SWA against terrorism in the defined dates, and no longer involves OEF or ISAF command, so the way I read it all (conventional) tours get both, which begs the question why have two?

The way the new criteria is written up, just about everyone would qualify for the GCS or GSM, so why even have the SWASM?  If it exists for a very small amount of people who didn't otherwise qualify for the GCS/GSM, then what do you do with the people who have already been awarded the SWASM for doing basically the same thing as people who got the GCS? (Thinking deployed battlegroup-types here).

I can't see how you can look at a guy who did a tour in 2003 and got the SWASM and give him a GCS now without looking at the guys who did the bulk of the fighting in 2006-2010 and having them only get one medal.

It's not a matter of being a medal hunter, but now that it is mixed up the way it is, I just can't see how they can possibly do it fairly without giving both to everyone who had a conventional tour.


----------



## Chanada (19 Mar 2010)

Take a look at the link...and the DHR sit "Medal Chart"...What actually happened is...
What you got up to 31 Jul 09 ...You got...You can add "tour bars" to either as they apply and for that reason they have changed the "Afghanistan" bar undress ribbon device to a shield with three leaves and deleted the ISAF bar (and the others) for the GCS and GCM.

From 1 Aug 09 on ONLY the GCS SWA is issued to any CF member in theatre (in or out of the ISAF framework).

The two medals thing that everybody heard as Gen Rick made his way through SWA and town halls  died...This is the new system...One theatre and one medal...multiple tours recognized.  You are right about the one group that ended up with two medals for one tour but I guess they just decided it was too big a mountain to climb without looking at options that would only cause more problems.  

At the end of the day...despite what some may think the medals are designed to reward you and when you look at them they have to mean something to you more than a display of your UER on your chest...Worrying about whether somebody else got just doesn't get you anywhere...Pro Patria


----------



## brihard (19 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The new way is better than what it has been for the last few years.  The possibility of only one medal and multiple bars for different tours to different theatres was wrong and I am happy it has been fixed.
> 
> Now, it is like the WW2 theatre medals like the France & Germany, Italy, or Africa Star (other than the word not actually being on the medal itself).  The "rack" of a current soldier doing multiple tours over his life will resemble the WW2 vet's rack though.  Who knows what the next one will be...the GCS with Eastern Europe ribbon or GCS with India/Pakistan ribbon...
> 
> ...



Potentially just take back the SWASMs for 'boots in the sand', to be replaced with a GCS?


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Anyway, the part that is still left up for debate is the SWASM part, because before it was OEF = SWASM and ISAF = GCS.  Some lucky tours like the four-month one in fall 05 that moved the camp from Kabul to Kandahar got both.


Minor correction.  It was only a four month tour for some people.  Those people did *not* go to Kandahar and did *not* receive the SWASM.


----------



## 392 (19 Mar 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Minor correction.  It was only a four month tour for some people.  Those people did *not* go to Kandahar and did *not* receive the SWASM.



That's not entirely correct either. Roto 4/0 transitioned from ISAF to OEF somewhere around 26 Oct 05 (the exact date escapes me at the moment), and Julien didn't close until mid / end Nov 05, so there were people who went home after 4 months who did in fact receive the SWASM, but never went to KAF. The criteria at the time was 30 days for both GCS and SWASM, so as long as one was in theatre from mid-Sept to mid-Nov (i.e. 60 days total), they would have received both.


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Mar 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Potentially just take back the SWASMs for 'boots in the sand', to be replaced with a GCS?



That's what I'm saying is the problem.  I agree with the above post that it lays out the guidelines in a "from now on..." perspective, but there are still 1,000+ people who are not the same.

If they don't give out both, then you have 1,000 people (I'm not one of them, so I'm defending them, not me) who did some ground pounding in search of the enemy in 2003 wearing a medal that _could _ be interpreted as "not the real one".  That's not fair to them, especially since most of them did more than I did for my GCS.

So to answer your question, I don't know if those pers will have to trade their medals but perhaps it would be the right thing to do.  If they did, then that fall 05 tour would have to give back their SWASM and just have the GCS, but that's kind of a rip off too, which is why I thought the answer may that now that this mess exists, the only "fair" way to fix it would be to give (most) soldiers both, and the ones who did something but not enough for the GCS would be the only ones with just one.

If not, you are orphaning and under-awarding that first BG.

As for the Kabul-Kandahar tour, I know dozens of people who were there for four months and got both.


----------



## 392 (19 Mar 2010)

DH&R Site said:
			
		

> The medal with bar is awarded for 30 days cumulative service after 11 September 2001 in the theatre of operations, which is a subset of the United States Central Command Area of Operation Responsibility (USCENTCOM AOR). The theatre of operations is defined as the land, sea, or air spaces of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Suez Canal and those parts of the Indian Ocean north of 5° South Latitude and west of 68° East Longitude.
> 
> CF exchange personnel posted to foreign units or organizations in direct support of operations as described above are eligible for this medal.
> 
> All service under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is not eligible for the SWASM but qualifies for the ISAF+FIAS bar to either the General Campaign Star or General Service Medal. See the pages for these medals for details.



I only quoted the bit that concerns the boots on the ground - not the bit about 90 days for the outside theatre support guys. To me, the last sentence seems to sum it up pretty air-tight. ISAF = GCS (I realize they didn't update the ISAF bar part), OEF / Non-ISAF = SWASM. 

As far as I understand it, there has been no change in prerequisites for either medal, just a change in date eligibility and the whole rotation bar thing  :2c:


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> wearing a medal that _could _ be interpreted as "not the real one".  That's not fair to them, especially since most of them did more than I did for my GCS.



And the above comment highlights a very shitty attitude that is rampant in the CF these days that needs to be kicked to the curb.

"Not the real one".

Everyone in this outfit is a volunteer who does their fucking jobs. Period. End of story.

Let's pull out all the kaffites now (seems that would make a whole bunch of "the real ones" happy); let me know how you all make out.

This gawdawful desire to "judge others based upon diddly squat except their (often misleading) chest bling" is utter bullshit.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Mar 2010)

Thank you, Vern for saying what I've been thinking for most of my career.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2010)

We are not allowed to just say +1 any more, Vern, but for saying what a lot of us were thinking ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
+1

                                                            +1

                                                                                                                        +1


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Mar 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And the above comment highlights a very shitty attitude that is rampant in the CF these days that needs to be kicked to the curb.
> 
> "Not the real one".
> 
> ...


Good job, Vern.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





With regards to Roto 4/0, my apologies.  I did get both medals, but I was there way longer than 4 months.  And I did both Kabul & KAF.  Of course, if you had relied on the media at the time, we weren't in KAF, only the PRT was.   :


----------



## PhilB (20 Mar 2010)

Hey guys, 

So quick question re: the rotation bars for the SWASM. So I spent about 270 days consecutively under OEF, thus I currently have a SWASM with Afghanistan bar. Under the new system I understand that I am entitled to a "1 maple leaf" rotation bar. My question is do I wear just the tour bar on the SWASM, or do I wear the  Afghanistan bar and the rotation bar?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Mar 2010)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Hey guys,
> 
> So quick question re: the rotation bars for the SWASM. So I spent about 270 days consecutively under OEF, thus I currently have a SWASM with Afghanistan bar. Under the new system I understand that I am entitled to a "1 maple leaf" rotation bar. My question is do I wear just the tour bar on the SWASM, or do I wear the  Afghanistan bar and the rotation bar?


Hi Phil
Here is the relevant paragraph:


> D. MULTIPLE TOURS TO THE SAME THEATRE WILL BE RECOGNIZED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, THE GCS AND THE GSM MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF
> ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING MEDAL QUALIFICATION. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER 30 DAYS SERVICE, AN INDIVIDUAL
> WILL HAVED EARNED A MEDAL (SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, GCS OR GSM) WITH THE FIRST ROTATION BAR AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, AND SO ON. ALL THEATRE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY


As I read it, you will have both AFGHANISTAN and the rotation bar device.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Mar 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> With regards to Roto 4/0, my apologies.  I did get both medals, but I was there way longer than 4 months.  And I did both Kabul & KAF.  Of course, if you had relied on the media at the time, we weren't in KAF, only the PRT was.   :



Meh - media.  We know what we accomplished.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Mar 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Meh - media.  We know what we accomplished.


True.  That move was a nightmare!    :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Mar 2010)

Nice blast of shit Vern.  Well said, and well done.


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Mar 2010)

Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything since I am not the target audience of what you are saying.

I don't make the call on what the CF as a whole believes is important or not or what is better than something else.

All my post stated is that I wanted those 1,000+ not to be viewed as lesser _*if*_ due to the new changes it ends up getting viewed as lesser.

Did I say *I* would view it as lesser?  Did I say you would?  No, but if the culture as a whole ends up seeing it as less, then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice.

Basically you were ranting at ths CF, not at me.  I accept your apology.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything since I am not the target audience of what you are saying.
> 
> I don't make the call on what the CF as a whole believes is important or not or what is better than something else.
> 
> ...



I bet you're the type that screws everyone out of happy hour because you have to make just one more insignifigant statement, of interest to only one person, then balloon it into a full scale briefing instead of a Friday afternoon, 15 minute O Gp.


----------



## helpup (22 Mar 2010)

I just knew there would be at least one interesting reply.  Thought it would be Vern's though


----------



## Journeyman (22 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything...
> ---------
> 
> ...then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice


Fine bureaucratic staff-officer form -- propounding solutions to problems that do not exist.   :

I am one of those 1,000+ with a SWASM. 
Let me start by accepting your apology for presumptuously assuming that I needed you to speak on my behalf.

I realize that there's a growing number of threads with the same theme -- "we need more bling."*
Perhaps I've been too subtle -- it's one of my flaws apparently -- but I disagree with creating/awarding more unnecessary medals. 

I'm all for acknowledging operational deployments with _one_ medal. Much like the logic of having a Canadian Peacekeeping Medal awarded on the basis of already having a tour medal awarded is retarded, giving out two medals for the same tour reeks of Walt'ism -- plain and simple.

I know what I, and the rest of the team, did; I feel absolutely no "disservice" in wearing the SWASM. As such, I believe the SWASM being potentially viewed "as lesser" speaks more about the intellect and mind-set of the one viewing. 

Would you wipe your boots on someone _merely_ having a medal from one of several Middle East deployments? Cyprus? Germany? While the Afghanistan campaign _is_ one of several seminal moments for the CF, it is not the end of history; get over yourself. 

And if one feels superior, based solely upon my not having a GCS, I'm perfectly OK with that.



* Not to be confused with the growing number of recruiting threads from civies saying, "I don't meet the minimal medical/education/etc standards....but the CF should be obligated to take me anyway."   :


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm all for acknowledging operational deployments with _one_ medal. Much like the logic of having a Canadian Peacekeeping Medal awarded on the basis of already having a tour medal awarded is retarded, giving out two medals for the same tour reeks of Walt'ism -- plain and simple.



I'd call it Rick'ism, not Walt'ism, since Rick was among the main proponents of bling; Walt has been relatively silent on that front...


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Mar 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'd call it Rick'ism, not Walt'ism, since Rick was among the main proponents of bling; Walt has been relatively silent on that front...



Walt as in Walter Mitty.....

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Mar 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Walt as in Walter Mitty.....
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess


This guy


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Mar 2010)

Journeyman,

First off, let us find common ground in that what we both agree on is that generally, one tour should = one medal (exceptions would be valour medals, etc).  I also agree that I don't need anyone else to look at what I wear on my chest and go "oooh" to be impressed for me to feel good about what I've done.

So we are saying a lot of things the same.

However, what the gentleman above me had asked was that now that we seem to be going Afghan tour = GCS (or GSM in a few cases), would those who got the SWASM have to trade it in for a GCS?

That's really the only thing being talked about here, and since I don't think that specific question has been answered yet the rest is just discussion.

What I said after that was just based on fairness.  It's not just about the SWASM wearer knowing what he's done, or the GCS wearer who may or may not have done anything significant, but I do disagree to some extent because medals are pro-rated on importance and significance.  That we have a list of medals and how they are prioritized speaks to this (which ironically to this discussion has the SWASM over the GCS).

Whether or not you (or Vern) cares about a medal's "value", there is a reason the Victoria Cross would be worn in front of all the others.  At the end of the day is someone from that first BG going to know that they did more than someone who never left KAF in 2010 and have six PXs to choose from and not need a medal to tell them that?  Of course.

However, if one were to follow your argument to its logical end, it would be to suggest that we should not have any medals at all.  Nobody should have any medals for anything, regardless of collective tour or indivividual act or accomplishment.

I'm not implying those were your words, just that it is the logic path that your argument leads to.  

I'm not saying one medal is better than the other or one tour is better than the other.  What I am saying is that the way the system is set up, it *does* put medals above the other.

Finally, if you think me trying to make things fair for everyone, it is quite sad that you have decided to use "officer" in a derogatory form on that one.  Would you rather me be a fine officer by being unfair or putting myself ahead of other people?  I think not.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2010)

Where's the icon for "I just made a little joke, that apparently no one else got, but what the heck, I'll keep doing it anyways, because I'm more or less incorrigible."


(And where's the icon for "I can't believe someone just compared the GCS to the VC?")


----------



## Swingline1984 (22 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> At the end of the day is someone from that first BG going to know that they did more than someone who never left KAF in 2010 and have six PXs to choose from and not need a medal to tell them that?  Of course.



I think this line of reasoning is everyone's real sticking point.  The fact that you are insinuating that some people did less based on occupation.  Those KAFites ensured you got into and out of the ATO, fed you, got you ammo, ensured your LAV, or whatever, actually got you to the objective, provided your Int, your Comms etc., etc., etc.  Expanding on Vern's "Rant"; how about a "what if"?  What if KAF and the support piece didn't exist?  Than you never would have been in the situation to get yourself all that shiny crap anyway.  I appreciate everything the layman Infanteer does for us, I recognize they do the bulk of the heavy lifting in wartime, but, I chose my job, you chose yours, stop the bitching and get on with it.


----------



## Fusaki (22 Mar 2010)

> Those KAFites ensured you got into and out of the ATO, fed you, got you ammo, ensured your LAV, or whatever, actually got you to the objective, provided your Int, your Comms etc., etc., etc.  Expanding on Vern's "Rant"; how about a "what if"?  What if KAF and the support piece didn't exist?



And if the Traffic Techs in Trenton didn't exist the gear wouldn't make it to KAF, and if I wasn't there to fill sandbags out in front of J-Tower, the BG wouldn't wouldn't have qualified LAV Gunners.

From the recruiter at CFRC Toronto who's keeping the ranks filled, to pilot who gets the gear to theatre, to the Lineman laying wire in KAF, to the 031 squeezing the trigger, we're all part of the same team and we all deserve medals and handjobs for our efforts.

My point is this:

We don't award medals based on "who contributes to the mission." EVERYONE wearing the uniform contributes to the mission, from the combat arms dude with sandy boots to the support trade reservist doing dog and pony shows at the fair.

We don't award medals based on hardship.  I'm pretty sure that there are jobs to do in Canada (probably in Gagetown or Wainwright) that make some air conditioned gigs in KAF look pretty good.

The way I see it, we award medals based solely on _tradition._  We've awarded medals for being _deployed_ to theatre since Jesus was a CPL.  That's it.  And simply being _deployed_ really isn't that great a feat.

Is something worth keeping around solely for the sake of tradition?  Medals will _always_ divide the haves and the have-nots.  It's just a question of where the line is drawn (the wire? the tarmac?).  Maybe the whole thing needs to be done away with.  To be honest, with the way I feel today, I would not be opposed to the idea.

I'm sure I've ruffled some feathers.  If I havn't, I'll add this:

COMMMMBATTTTT ACTION BADGE!!!!!!! >


----------



## Jammer (22 Mar 2010)

Yeah...lets resurrect THAT one again...it was the only reason some staff types went out for the "battlefield tour".
I'll be answering PMs on that one....


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Mar 2010)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> ...Those KAFites ensured you got into and out of the ATO, fed you, got you ammo, ensured your LAV, or whatever, actually got you to the objective, provided your Int, your Comms...stop the bitching and get on with it.



Did you read the rest of this thread?  Buds, I spent 90% of my tour in KAF.  This isn't about me.

If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.

I am all for the one-tour = one-medal motto, but that's not what it is now.  The new regs make the SWASM appear as lesser (you get the GCS unless you don't qualify, then you get the SWASM).


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Journeyman,
> First off, let us find common ground in that what we both agree on is that generally, one tour should = one medal (exceptions would be valour medals, etc).


Yes




			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> medals...are prioritized... (which ironically to this discussion has the SWASM over the GCS).


 Why is this "ironic"? (unless your understanding of irony is as flawed as Alanis Morrisette's)





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, if one were to follow your argument to its logical end, it would be to suggest that we should not have any medals at all.  I'm not implying those were your words, just that it is the logic path that your argument leads to.


Thank you for reaffirming that actually _reading_ posts before responding is not your strong suit.  I quite clearly stated:


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm all for acknowledging operational deployments with _one_ medal.






			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> ....it is quite sad that you have decided to use "officer" in a derogatory form on that one.


 Wow. Now there's a case study in clutching at straws.  :  To pretty much anyone else on the planet, in using the term "Fine bureaucratic staff-officer form," I was _obviously_ slagging "staff" -- ie, "bureaucracy" -- not you, or your commission.


----------



## Loachman (23 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.



I think that you're worrying too much.

I have the same SSM with NATO Bar for financially supporting numerous bars in NATO (and Gasthaeuse, breweries, wineries, and other fine institutions) during my three years in Germany as people did for Yugoslavia. It's not the same. I didn't get shot at, and they didn't get to see 250000-person exercises and huge armoured columns and helicopters and jets everywhere. So? I don't feel any better or worse than them. It is what it is.

Being in KAF for a whole tour doesn't mean that anybody did less than somebody outside, in terms of contribution to the overall effort. I am not shy about pointing out that the biggest danger to me throughout my tour was slipping in the shower (except perhaps for that rocket attack as I was heading to the BATs for final roll call on my way out), and I have enormous and absolute respect for those who spent their time exposed to real danger, but I do not undervalue what I did. I have quite reasonable confidence that I helped to prevent at least one ramp ceremony on one night alone (and had a pretty good time doing so), and I think that that is of at least average importance and value overall.

These are not bravery medals, they are recognition for being somewhere during some time, perhaps conversation-starters, but anybody using them for dick-measuring purposes one way or another has some issues that they should be working on.


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Did you read the rest of this thread?  Buds, I spent 90% of my tour in KAF.  This isn't about me.
> 
> If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.
> 
> I am all for the one-tour = one-medal motto, but that's not what it is now.  The new regs make the SWASM appear as lesser (you get the GCS unless you don't qualify, then you get the SWASM).



Please cease and desist attempting to throw a different spin onto your comments with the "I don't want them thinking of me ..." bit.

The new regs don't make the SWASM seem like less nor have they (or the CF ever done so). As a matter of fact, the only person or message in this entire thread that has made the SWASM out to be less .. is YOU.

I dare say that the "target audience" _is indeed _ people exactly like you.
___________________________



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes Vern, nice rant but it does not solve anything since I am not the target audience of what you are saying.
> 
> I don't make the call on what the CF as a whole believes is important or not or what is better than something else.
> 
> ...



Well, if you're waiting for an apology from me I really do recommend that you not hold your breath. You seemed to have missed the gist of my post; that being:

If 





> the culture as a whole ends up seeing it as less, then we have done those 1,000+ a disservice


, then that "culture", ie 'those' people, (and yes, I do place you into this category as well for reasons which I will discuss after) needs to sort itself the fuck out. It's their attitudes that are wrong. _That's_ where the fixin' need be doin'.

Now, despite your protestions and post here to the contrary, your own attitude in this area shines brightly through in your previous post. I'll quote the whole thing for you this time just in case you missed anything else that you stated in that post:



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> That's what I'm saying is the problem.  I agree with the above post that it lays out the guidelines in a "from now on..." perspective, but there are still 1,000+ people who are not the same.
> 
> If they don't give out both, then you have 1,000 people (I'm not one of them, so I'm defending them, not me) who did some ground pounding  in search of the enemy in 2003 wearing a medal that _could _ be interpreted as "not the real one".  That's not fair to them, especially since most of them did more than I did for my GCS.
> 
> ...



Now, to me (and to others apparently) your "but" in yellow above clearly indicates that you are speaking quite differently than you are now claiming in this latest post. You are not speaking of 


> All my post stated is that I wanted those 1,000+ not to be viewed as lesser _*if*_ due to the new changes it ends up getting viewed as lesser.


 but rather you are stating that if those 1000+ still only get to wear their SWASM (vice having 2 medals or the GCS) ... that we are somehow orphaning them. The CF has done *NO* such thing. And the CF didn't create the attitude of which we speak ... rather a select few who view themselves as superior have created and perpetuate that attitude and myth. Those SWASM pers served under OEF mandate and they earned the medal applicable to the operational mandate under which they served. They worked damned hard to earn it too ... despite those of the "culture of which you speak" who seem to believe (erroneously) that the GCS is "The only medal that counts". 

Now, those who earned both ... served under both mandates. Those BG who came later, earned the GCS as it is the applicable mandate under which they served. See the difference?

Yet, there are still pers earning their SWASMs over there right now as they are working under the other mandate even today.

Further, as for your last yellowed (my yellowing) spout of bullshit --- that "the only fair way to fix it would be to give (most) soldiers both and let those who didn`t do enough to earn the GCS wear just the SWASM." Let's not beat around the bush ... your (most) means: is the "outside the wire" folks and the "ones who didn't do enough to earn the GCS" is the "inside the wire folks". 

Didn't do enough!!?? Give your head a shake.

By the way, not that your utterly idiotic comparison of the VC to tour medals is any way relevant to shitty attitudes regarding us 'less worthy' people like me (I bow to your greatness and your narcissism) means anything ... but your use of the word "ironicly" in the below once again highlights your own "cultural shitty attitude".



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> ...  That we have a list of medals and how they are prioritized speaks to this (*which ironically to this discussion has the SWASM over the GCS).* ...
> 
> Whether or not you (or Vern) cares about a medal's "value", there is a reason the Victoria Cross would be worn in front of all the others.  At the end of the day is someone from that first BG going to know that they did more than someone who never left KAF in 2010 and have six PXs to choose from and not need a medal to tell them that?  Of course.



Full disclosure: I participated in Apollo II & Athena 0. I value all members of the CF and ALL of their contributions to Canadian Forces operations in whatever capacity they might serve. Wherever, whenever, and however.

They are firstly volunteers and all are professionals. Some of them, including yourself, had the good fortune of having their SNs slotted into 'Y posns' or 'Z posns' under a GCS mission, others slotted into 'Z posns' on other ongoing operations. They certainly didn't put themselves into 'whichever' position they 'happened' to deploy in. 

You should count yourself lucky that you happened to be posted to a Unit that deployed while you belonged to it; you very well could have been posted into a certain location full of schools where there are still instructors without either the GCS or the SWASM only because they can't get the fuck out of the training system to go on tour despite their best efforts to (due in part to all those refusing posns at those trg establishments where they find themselves stuck). I really hope that you don't honestly believe that their lack of either/or insinuates or somehow means you've got anything on them --- 'cause it don't mean diddly-squat. it means you were in the right place at the right time. No more, no less.


----------



## Swingline1984 (23 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Did you read the rest of this thread?  Buds, I spent 90% of my tour in KAF.  This isn't about me.
> 
> If anything, I am one of the one who doesn't want to be looked at and have people thinking "Hey, he has the "real" Afghan medal when people did more than I did.
> 
> I am all for the one-tour = one-medal motto, but that's not what it is now.  The new regs make the SWASM appear as lesser (you get the GCS unless you don't qualify, then you get the SWASM).



To the contrary.  You've done a very good job at making this "about you".  I run into people everyday with the attitude that they do more and someone else does less, it is a disturbing culture which should not be perpetuated (especially by our leaders), we all do our part; as Wonderbread said, "we are all part of the same team".  But to make you feel better I'll try not to feel "lesser" when I wear my SWASM.  I know a great place to rent a backhoe if you need some help digging your hole.

Cheers,


----------



## helpup (23 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Journeyman,
> However, if one were to follow your argument to its logical end, it would be to suggest that we should not have any medals at all.  Nobody should have any medals for anything, regardless of collective tour or indivividual act or accomplishment.
> 
> I'm not implying those were your words, just that it is the logic path that your argument leads to.



I have read Journeyman's post and believe I fully understand what he is talking about.  However, I am confused as to how you followed his comments to the " Logical end"  of nobody should have any medals for anything.  WOW, saying that is the "logic path" of his post reminds me of a scene in the "Princess Bride".  The one guy who keeps using the word "inconceivable" To the point that the guy who is helping him comments.  " You know I don't think that word means what you think it does."  Or to use a Trekkie'ism,  "Your Logic escapes me"

Peta,  I do see some of what your trying to say and think there is some points that I would agree on.  However as most are pointing out,  correctly, I might add.  Your arguments are leaning towards the us and them, outside/inside wire arguments.  



Despite my own thoughts and beliefs that there is a difference and it would be nice to acknowledge in some way shape or form. I fully acknowledge any implementation would be difficult and divisive.  I also agree that with out the people supporting us outside of the wire we would not be able to perform.  So I counter my own thoughts with the understanding that a Sword needs a sharp end, that sharp end needs the metal behind it to stay sharp.  The metal needs a handle to support it and the entire wpn needs a strong arm to control it.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Mar 2010)

helpup said:
			
		

> ...a Sword needs a sharp end, that sharp end needs the metal behind it to stay sharp.  The metal needs a handle to support it and the entire wpn needs a strong arm to control it.




One of the better analogies I've read here.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Mar 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> One of the better analogies I've read here.



"Victory is the beautiful, bright-colored flower. Transport is the stem without which it could never have blossomed." Winston Churchill     ;D


----------



## helpup (23 Mar 2010)

Supply is the ground that said flower grows from and of course there is a fertilizer comment in there but..... ;D


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2010)

helpup said:
			
		

> Supply is the ground that said flower grows from and of course there is a fertilizer comment in there but..... ;D



uhh.......so you're saying Supply is full of shit fertilizer ?  Good luck there..... ;D


----------



## Pusser (23 Mar 2010)

I think people sometimes read too much into the order of precedence of medals.  The simple fact is that two medals cannot occupy the same space, so somebody has to decide which ones come first.  For some of them, it is the obvious importance of the medal that determines its place.  For others, it's often a matter of when the medal was established.  Why does the Star of Military Valour follow all the provincial orders (i.e.  someone who risks his/her life for the greater good follows someone who ran a great charity campaign).  The answer is that it just does.  Stop worrying about it and you'll have a happier life.  As for the SWASM being a "lesser" medal than the GCS (which is nonsense), yet being placed before the GCS the answer is simple.  The SWASM was established first.  Has anybody noticed that the Gulf/Kuwait medal precedes all of them and that conflict had no casualties!  Why do all the UN medals precede the NATO medals?  Because the person empowered to make the decision decided that.


----------



## HItorMiss (23 Mar 2010)

I am confused...

The criteria for the SWASM reads 90 days in theater under non ISAF mandate (IE: OEF) and as of July 2009 no one is eligible for the SWASM how then does the SWASM become a lesser medal it in fact becomes a "Dead" medal as you can no longer earn it.


----------



## 2tall (23 Mar 2010)

Each of us who earned one or both know exactly what we have done. Civilians will never know what they mean. All they know is they are shiny. So if someone has a SWASM for sitting in Flordia, they know that plus they won't have an Afghanistan bar. We each know what we have done. No one can take away our stories...


----------



## mariomike (23 Mar 2010)

2tall said:
			
		

> Each of us who earned one or both know exactly what we have done. Civilians will never know what they mean. All they know is they are shiny.



I always ask - if it is the right time and place - about ribbons and medals and unit insignia. I got to know the World War medals pretty well. And of course immediately recognise the C.D. and some others. I look them up on the Honours and Awards website. There is also that excellent book mentioned by Mr. O'Leary.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2010)

2tall said:
			
		

> Each of us who earned one or both know exactly what we have done. Civilians will never know what they mean ...




There are many civilians, not in Tim Hortons or the PRT, who probably have more time _outside the wire_ than most CF members and who, day-in/day-out, back here in Canada, are at least as *operational* as anyone in the CF, including JTF2.

Broad generalizations are always wrong, including this one.


----------



## Grunt_031 (23 Mar 2010)

CANFORGEN 068/10 CMP 031/10 231425Z MAR 10
SWASM - QUALIFYING SERVICE AMENDMENTS
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS. A. CANFORGEN 085/02 ADMHRMIL 049 072044Z AUG 02 
B. CANFORGEN 066/10 CMP 030/10 171715Z MAR 10 
C. PC 2010-080 OF 14 JAN 2010 



FURTHER TO THE CANFORGEN AT REF B WHICH ANNOUNCED THE NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK, THIS CANFORGEN DESCRIBES CHANGES TO THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL (SWASM) AWARD: 


RECOGNITION IS NOW THEATRE BASED VICE MISSION BASED. THIS MEANS THAT ALL SERVICE IN THE THEATRE DESCRIBED AT REF A FROM 11 SEP 01 FORWARD WHICH IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANOTHER MEDAL (SUCH AS GCS, GSM, UNSSM OR CPSM) IS NOW ELIGIBLE FOR SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS INCLUDES SERVICE AS MILITARY SECURITY GUARD AT THE KABUL EMBASSY DURING THIS PERIOD 


ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOR SWASM ENDS 31 JUL 09. ALL PREVIOUSLY ELIGIBLE SWASM SERVICE WILL BE MADE ELIGIBLE FOR EITHER GCS OR GSM FROM 1 AUG 09 ONWARDS. A SEPARATE CANFORGEN WILL BE ISSUED WITH DETAILS 


RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS ARE AWARDED FOR EACH FURTHER PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION FOR SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR OR THE LAST ROTATION BAR THE PERSON HAS EARNED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR IS AWARDED AFTER 30 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE FIRST ROTATION BAR IS AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, ETC. ALL SWASM ELIGIBLE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY 


EACH ROTATION BAR IS SILVER IN COLOUR AND BEARS A CENTRAL MAPLE LEAF. A BAR BEARING FIVE MAPLE LEAVES SHALL BE WORN IN LIEU OF FIVE BARS WITH A SINGLE MAPLE LEAF. ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON, THE AWARD OF ROTATION BARS IS INDICATED BY THE WEAR OF A MAPLE LEAF DEVICE AS FOLLOWS: A SILVER LEAF FOR ONE BAR, A GOLD LEAF FOR 2 BARS, A RED LEAF FOR 3 BARS AND A COMBINATION OF THESE DEVICES FOR ADDITIONAL BARS 


AS THE MAPLE LEAF DEVICE ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON IS NOW RELATED TO ROTATION BARS, THE SILVER LEAF CURRENTLY WORN TO DENOTE THE AWARD OF THE AFGHANISTAN BAR SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW DEVICE IN THE FORM OF A SILVER SHIELD BEARING THREE MAPLE LEAVES JOINED ON ONE STEM. THE DEVICE WILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SUPPLY SYSTEM (NSN: 8455-20-004-4716) 


THE NEW ROTATION BARS ARE NOW READY FOR ISSUE AND UNITS MAY APPLY FOR THEIR ELIGIBLE MEMBERS USING THE ON LINE APPLICATION SYSTEM. THE BARS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE DROP DOWN MENU OF THE MEDALS APPLICATION PROCESSING SYSTEM (MAPS) AS WELL AS THE MPRR. IT IS A UNIT RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE THE HONOURS AND AWARDS BLOCK OF THE MPRR EACH TIME A MEMBER IS AWARDED A NEW HONOUR INCLUDING BARS 


THE DEFINITIVE ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR THE SWASM AND DETAILS ON THE ROTATION BARS AND THEIR WEARING MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME(UNDERSCORE)E.ASP 


SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2010)

HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME_E.ASP  

Here is the correct URL.  The underscore (_) cannot be sent via message.  Lovely system, that one.


----------



## MikeL (23 Mar 2010)

http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dhr-ddhr/chart/eng/chart_display_e.asp?cat=3&ref=GCS

Info on the GCS and how many days you need to get rotation bars, etc.

210 days in theatre for your first rotation bar, I'm 6 days short of extra bling    Kinda weird IMO that pers who were on the same tour but might have been there a few days longer get the bar. Would have thought a second roto would have gotten it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Mar 2010)

I think that this is a good thing, and I think that most of the arguments on this thread have had nothing to do with the changes but with other issues. 

A guy who served on ATHENA Roto 0, TF 3-06 and TF 1-10 will get some form of recognition for his multiple tours which he wouldn't have had before.  A guy who was on APOLLO, TF 1-06 and then TF 3-08 will also get each tour recognized with something.  This is a good thing.

The medal mounting folks will be happy.  I imagine that Adjutants and Chief Clerks will be busy as well, but its all for a good cause!


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Mar 2010)

All,

I certainly apologize if I have offended any of you, as that was not my intent whatsoever.  

Here is the crux of the matter and where I see the conflict of this discussion:

The criteria *used to be* SWASM = OEF, and GCS = ISAF.  Everyone understood what both medals meant, whether you got one or the other or got both in four months (fall 05).

So far we're good to go; never did I personally feel that one medal was higher or lower than the other.

However, now what we have is a regulation coming out that (to paraphrase) states everyone going over there will get the GCS (or GSM), but if you don't meet all the criteria you will get a SWASM.

If any of the side topics went off the rails then I am sorry for my part in that, but in looking at the above all I have been discussing is what may get done now.

Some have put words in my mouth to say that one was better than the other, when all I have done was state that since the new regs themselves place the GCS as higher up (nothing to do with the precedence of wearing them) than the SWASM, is that fair to the people who under the new regs would have gotten the GCS for their tour.

I don't really see what the sticking point is beyond that, and no I won't take it back that due to these new regs there are 1,000+ who will be under-awarded because it's fact.  I haven't said that anyone who has the SWASM will get depression, for pete's sake.

So, let us bring this back on track and answer the core question.  Now that the new regs exist and it is not as simple as OEF or ISAF anymore, what do you think will/should happen?


----------



## Chanada (24 Mar 2010)

Go back and read the new regulations again.  There is no more SWASM.  The last one of them has now been awarded effective last summer.  Award of it finished 31 Jul 09 and from that point everybody in theatre regardless of the command relationship gets the GCS-SWA.  The changes noted in the SWASM regulations cover the period from 1 Sep 01 to 31 Jul 09 ONLY and were designed to make sure that nobody ended up getting left out (and that is the reason for the ref to MSGs).  There just is nothing more to say on this. Pro Patria.


----------



## helpup (24 Mar 2010)

This just in.

CANFORGEN 066/10 CMP 030/10 171715Z MAR 10
NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK
UNCLASSIFIED


REF: CANFORGEN 166/07 CMP 071/07 161430Z NOV 07 
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE 



IN RECENT YEARS, SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FRAMEWORK TO HONOUR AND RECOGNIZE THE SERVICE OF CF PERSONNEL. THESE CHANGES ARE THE FOLLOWING: 


THE MODERNIZATION OF THE MEMORIAL CROSS AND THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE MEMORIAL SCROLL AND MEMORIAL BAR 


THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE NOMINATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUAL HONOURS WHICH HAS RESULTED IN MORE TIMELY RECOGNITION 


THE CREATION OF NEW MEDALS SUCH AS THE SOUTH-WEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL (SWASM), THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR (GCS), AND THE GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL (GSM) TO RECOGNIZE SERVICE PERFORMED AS PART OF THE ONGOING CAMPAIGN AGAINST TERRORISM 


THE CREATION OF THE SACRIFICE MEDAL TO HONOUR PERSONNEL WOUNDED IN ACTION IN THE SERVICE OF CANADA AND TO RECOGNIZE ALL SERVICE-RELATED DEATHS 


IN ADDITION TO THESE NEW INITIATIVES, A MAJOR REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO SIMPLIFY AND STANDARDIZE OVERSEAS SERVICE RECOGNITION FOR CF MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE DEFENCE TEAM. IN CONDUCTING THIS REVIEW, TIME WAS TAKEN TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEGRITY OF THE CANADIAN HONOURS SYSTEM AND MAINTAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE OF THE ASSSOCIATED MEDALS. SPECIFIC FEEDBACK RECEIVED BY THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND FROM SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIR MEN AND WOMEN, INDICATED THAT THERE WERE GAPS IN THE RECOGNITION SYSTEM FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE 


THE GOVERNMENT HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THIS PROCESS, AND I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS APPROVED A NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK. THIS FRAMEWORK REPRESENTS A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN HOW PERSONNEL WILL BE RECOGNIZED AND CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING GENERAL PRINCIPLES: 


RECOGNITION WILL NOW BE THEATRE BASED RATHER THAN MISSION SPECIFIC. THIS MEANS THAT ALL SERVICE IN A DESIGNATED THEATRE WHICH IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANOTHER MEDAL (SUCH AS UN OR NATO) WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOGNITION 


OVERSEAS SERVICE WILL NOW BE RECOGNIZED WITH A DISTINCT RIBBON FOR EACH SEPARATE THEATRE ON THE GCS AND GSM RATHER THAN WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF BARS INDICATING MISSIONS (SUCH AS QUOTE ALLIED FORCE UNQUOTE AND QUOTE ISAF UNQUOTE). THIS APPROACH IS SIMILAR TO THE UN SYSTEM WHICH UTILIZES A GENERIC MEDAL WITH VARIOUS DISTINTIVE RIBBONS. THIS MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE A RE-ALIGNMENT AND CHANGES IN THE CURRENT RIBBONS AND INSIGNIA UTILIZED WITH THE SWASM, GCS AND GSM. THE CHANGES WILL REFLECT A QUOTE ONE-MEDAL DIFFERENT-RIBBON UNQUOTE APPROACH 


THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED FOR SOMEONE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SWASM, GCS, AND GSM HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A COMMON 30 DAYS, APPLICABLE TO BOTH MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CIVILIAN MEMBERS OF THE DEFENCE TEAM 


MULTIPLE TOURS TO THE SAME THEATRE WILL BE RECOGNIZED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, THE GCS AND THE GSM MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING MEDAL QUALIFICATION. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER 30 DAYS SERVICE, AN INDIVIDUAL WILL HAVED EARNED A MEDAL (SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, GCS OR GSM) WITH THE FIRST ROTATION BAR AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, AND SO ON. ALL THEATRE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY 


THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF CANFORGENS DESCRIBING THE NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK. SUBSEQUENT CANFORGENS WILL PROVIDE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE SWASM, THE GSC, AND THE GSM 


THE CF AND THE GOVT OF CANADA ARE COMMITTED TO HONOURING AND RECOGNIZING THE VALUED CONTRIBUTION OF SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIR MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CF. MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO OVERSEAS RECOGNITION ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING RECOGNITION OF OPS SCULPTURE, HALO, AUGURAL, PROTEUS AND HESTIA WILL BE FORTHCOMING 


FURTHER INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME(UNDERSCORE)E.ASP 


SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Mar 2010)

Ummm, yes.

Thank you for posting that but that's what started this discussion several pages ago (around the date 17 Mar 10).


----------



## medicineman (24 Mar 2010)

Beat me to it.

MM


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Mar 2010)

> MULTIPLE TOURS TO THE SAME THEATRE WILL BE RECOGNIZED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, THE GCS AND THE GSM MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS WILL BE AWARDED FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING MEDAL QUALIFICATION. THIS MEANS THAT AFTER 30 DAYS SERVICE, AN INDIVIDUAL WILL HAVED EARNED A MEDAL (SWASM WITH AFGHANISTAN BAR, GCS OR GSM) WITH THE FIRST ROTATION BAR AWARDED AFTER 210 DAYS IN THEATRE, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, AND SO ON. ALL THEATRE TIME IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROTATION BAR ELIGIBILITY



Does this mean a person on a nine month rotation, gets a rotation bar after 210 days? Just asking. No argument.


----------



## SeanNewman (25 Mar 2010)

Rifleman62,

Yes, but not only a 9 month but 7 month tours as well (depending on the specific RIP dates).

I wish that there were some sort of disclaimer on this stating "seven month tours are not in the scope of this, as the intent is to recognize multiple tours.

For example, my MPRR has 217 days showing for my one seven-month tour to Afghanistan, so the rule of the law says I get it.  

I agree that they have to draw a line in the sane somewhere, but here are the two non-ideal parts:

1. Two guys can be fireteam partners for the same tour, but due to slightly different RIP dates one gets 209 days and the other 211.  
2. One guy goes on a seven month tour (217 days, for ex), and another guy went on two 6-month tours.

In the first case, even though the troops went on essentially the exact same tour, one appear to have gone on two tours.  In the second, it would appear that someone who went on one tour deployed the same as someone who went on two tours.

The problem is that a lot of people were on this seven month bubble for one tour, so this is going to be the rule more than the exception.

The reason this happened is that the RIP dates used to be winter-summer, but then 07-10 each tour was made a bit longer to eventually have the RIP dates shifted to spring-fall.

Long winded answer to your question, but yes 210 days = bar no matter what the cirsumstances.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> ...they have to draw a line in the sane somewhere


I wish.


----------



## helpup (25 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Ummm, yes.
> 
> Thank you for posting that but that's what started this discussion several pages ago (around the date 17 Mar 10).



Opps busy day here and brain fart on the dates.  I only re-read the last canforgen posted and had it stuck in my mind that it was dated 24 Mar ( yet I now clearly see it is the 17, I either need glasses or slow down multi tasking)  My bad


----------



## SeanNewman (25 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I wish.



Ha!  You got me there.

I'm not sure if that was a Freudian slip or just a keyboard one, but it's priceless.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Mar 2010)

Thanks for the answer. My son in law's tour was nine months. He is now serving out of Canada, with a different element and might not know of this.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Mar 2010)

This just in:

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 072/10 CMP 033/10
SIC WAK
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: GCS AND GSM - QUALIFYING SERVICE AMENDMENTS
REFS. A. CANFORGEN 092/04 ADMHRMIL 050 071956Z JUL 04
B. CANFORGEN 093/04 ADMHRMIL 051 071654Z JUL 04
C. CANFORGEN 094/04 ADMHRMIL 052 071711Z JUL 04
D. CANFORGEN 066/10 CMP 030/10 171715Z MAR 10
E. PC 2010-079 OF 14 JAN 2010
F. PC 2010-248 OF 10 MAR 2010
G. PC 2010-249 OF 10 MAR 2010
H. PC 2010-250 OF 10 MAR 2010
J. PC 2010-251 OF 10 MAR 2010
K. PC 2010-252 OF 10 MAR 2010
L. PC 2010-253 OF 10 MAR 2010
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE


1. FURTHER TO THE CANFORGEN AT REF D WHICH ANNOUNCED THE NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK, THIS CANFORGEN DESCRIBES CHANGES TO THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR AND GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL (GCS AND GSM) AWARDS. SPECIFIC CHANGES INCLUDE:

A. THE EXISTING ALLIED FORCE AND ISAF BARS ARE ABOLISHED AND ARE REPLACED WITH MISSION OR THEATRE SPECIFIC RIBBONS AS FOLLOWS:

(1) ALLIED FORCE RIBBONS TO THE GCS AND GSM. CRITERIA SHALL REMAIN AS OUTLINED AT REF B, BUT ALL RECIPIENTS ARE TO REMOVE THE ALLIED 
FORCE BAR AND HAVE THEIR MEDALS REMOUNTED WITH THE NEW ALLIED FORCE RIBBONS WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING GCS AND GSM RIBBONS, BUT 
WITH THE GREEN BEING REPLACED BY LIGHT BLUE
(2) SOUTH-WEST ASIA RIBBONS TO THE GCS AND GSM REPLACE THE ISAF BARS AND CRITERIA HAVE BEEN AMENDED ACCORDINGLY. MORE DETAILS WILL BE 
OUTLINED IN A SEPARATE CANFORGEN. THE ISAF BARS ARE TO BE REMOVED AND THE MEDALS REMOUNTED WITH THE SAME GCS AND GSM RIBBON (WHICH 
INCLUDES A GREEN STRIPE) WHICH WILL HENCEFORTH BE RESERVED FOR SOUTH-WEST ASIA SERVICE
(3) EXPEDITION RIBBONS TO THE GSC AND GSM ARE CREATED TO PROVIDE A FLEXIBLE FORM OF RECOGNITION FOR THOSE MISSIONS CONDUCTED IN THE 
PRESENCE OF AN ARMED ENEMY, OR SUPPORT PROVIDED TO SUCH MISSIONS, AND FOR WHICH SIZE OR SCOPE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF A 
SEPARATE RIBBON. THE EXPEDITION RIBBONS ARE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING GCS AND GSM RIBBONS WITH THE GREEN BEING REPLACED BY LIGHT GREY. TO 
DATE THE ONLY APPROVED ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOR THE GCS-EXP IS MILITARY SERVICE WITHIN THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND AIRSPACE OF IRAQ FROM 20 
JANUARY 2003 ONWARDS, PROVIDED THE SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED BY ANOTHER SERVICE MEDAL. THIS MEANS THAT CF EXCHANGE PERSONNEL WITH 
AMERICAN FORCES IN IRAQ ARE ELIGIBLE SINCE THE US DOES NOT AWARD ITS SERVICE MEDALS TO FOREIGNERS. OF NOTE, THOSE WHO SERVE WITH UNAMI 
(OP IOLAUS) OR PERSONNEL ON EXCHANGE WITH THE BRITISH FORCES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE GCS-EXP AS THEY RECEIVE A MEDAL FOR THEIR SERVICE 
EITHER FROM THE UN OR FROM THE UK. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOR THE GSM-EXP

B. THE CRITERIA FOR THE GSM ELIGIBILITY HAS BEEN CLARIFIED AS FOLLOWS: TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MEDAL, DIRECT SUPPORT MUST BE PERFORMED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PERSON MUST HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE THIS OPERATIONAL SUPPORT ON A FULL-TIME BASIS. ONLY WHEN THERE IS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF RISK, THREAT, 
HARDSHIP OR OPERATIONAL INTENSITY WILL RECOGNITION BE PROVIDED. ANY SUPPORT WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO NORMAL DUTY OR WHICH IS PERFORMED FROM THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF A LOCATION DISTANT FROM THE THEATRE SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBILE. ELIGIBILITY LISTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED IN LIGHT OF THIS CLARIFICATION 

C. RECIPIENTS OF THE GCS AND GSM MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEW MULTIPLE ROTATION RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF ROTATION BARS. ROTATION BARS ARE 
AWARDED FOR EACH FURTHER PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OF ELIGIBLE SERVICE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATION FOR THE GCS OR GSM, OR THE LAST ROTATION BAR 
THE PERSON HAS EARNED. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALLIED FORCE RIBBON RECIPIENTS BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED DURATION OF THAT OPERATION. THE 
SWA AND EXP RIBBONS TO THE GCS AND GSM BEING AWARDED AFTER 30 DAYS IN THEATRE OR SUPPORT, THE FIRST ROTATION BAR IS AWARDED AFTER 210 
DAYS IN THEATRE OR SUPPORT, THE SECOND BAR AFTER 390 DAYS, ETC. ALL ELIGIBLE TIME FOR THE SAME RIBBON IS CUMULATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF 
ELIGIBILITY TO ROTATION BARS BUT TIME IN THEATRE AND IN SUPPORT CANNOT BE COMBINED

D. THE ROTATION BARS ARE GOLD FOR THE GCS AND SILVER FOR THE GSM AND BEAR A CENTRAL MAPLE LEAF. A BAR BEARING FIVE MAPLE LEAVES IS WORN 
IN LIEU OF FIVE BARS EACH, WITH A SINGLE MAPLE LEAF. THE AWARD OF ROTATION BARS ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON IS INDICATED BY THE WEAR OF A MAPLE LEAF DEVICE AS FOLS: A SILVER LEAF FOR ONE BAR, A GOLD LEAF FOR 2 BARS, A RED LEAF FOR 3 BARS AND A COMBINATION OF THESE DEVICES FOR FURTHER BARS

E. THE ROTATION BARS ARE NOW READY FOR ISSUE AND UNITS MAY APPLY FOR THEIR ELIGIBLE MEMBERS USING THE ON-LINE APPLICATION SYSTEM. THE 
BARS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE DROP-DOWN MENU OF THE MEDALS APPLICATION PROCESSING SYSTEM (MAPS) AS WELL AS THE MEMBER PERSONNEL RECORD 
RESUME (MPRR). IT IS A UNIT RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE THE HONOURS AND AWARDS BLOCK OF THE MPRR EACH TIME A MEMBER IS AWARDED A NEW HONOUR, INCLUDING ROTATION BARS

F. WITH THE NEW PRINCIPLE OF ROTATION RECOGNITION, THE EXISTING PROVISION STATING THAT ONE CANNOT EARN BOTH THE GCS AND GSM IN 
RESPECT OF THE SAME OP IS AMENDED SO THAT IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO EARN AND WEAR BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE 
AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD. WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE 
GCS-SWA OR A BAR TO IT AND THE GSM-SWA OR A BAR TO IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE GCS OR A BAR TO IT

2. UNITS ARE TO ENSURE THAT ALL CURRENTLY WORN ALLIED FORCE AND ISAF BARS ARE COLLECTED AND RETURNED TO DH R UNDER DND 728

3. DH R HAS A STOCK OF THE NEW ALLIED FORCE AND EXPEDITION RIBBONS IN ROLLS AND IN CLIP-ON FORM WHICH CAN BE REQUESTED FROM UNITS UNTIL 
THE ITEMS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SUPPLY SYSTEM. THE COST OF COURT-MOUNTING FULL-SIZE MEDALS TO IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CROWN

4. DETAILS ON THE NEW RIBBONS, ROTATION BARS AND THEIR WEARING, AS WELL AS FULL ELIGIBILITY LISTS, MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT 
HTTP://OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME_E.ASP

5. 
SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT


----------



## Greymatters (30 Mar 2010)

At first look it seems a bit complicated but would probably be easier to understand if the medals were followed by a map and Op names/dates...


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Mar 2010)

I wonder if I can get my miniatures redone before the Army Ball? 
And if I can afford to do it right now.....   :-\


----------



## The lone gunmen (31 Mar 2010)

There seem to be still more confusion on the medal issue with the examples given in The Maple leaf article and the scenarios. I get the one mission one medal but there are people are still receiving two or 3 for the same time or mission. Turn in you allied bar and receive a new GCS or GSM with an allied ribbon this is still command specific no mater which way you cut it. And as for the SWASM ............ WTF .  So I pry off the bars from my medal and turn them in to DHR and get two medals with different ribbons? 

And now the CNAFORGEN 068/10 CMP 031/10 Qualifying service amendments  A. " all service in theater described at Ref A from 11 Sep 01 forward which is not recognized by another medal (such as GCS, GSM, UNSSM OR CPSM) is now eligible for SWASM with Afghanistan bar.  For Example, this includes service as military security guard at the Kabul embassy during this period." 

But they were awarding the GCS or GSM for that period, Oh that’s right it’s a command relationship thing that doesn’t apply now, or does it.

This is getting confusing.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6035
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/index-eng.asp


----------



## Globesmasher (2 Apr 2010)

Well I, for one, am glad to see the creation of the GCS-EXP for those who served in OIF in Iraq.  It was extremely disappointing to have our "then" Prime Minister actually, publicly deny the fact (in Parliament) that there were 35 of us (serving on exchange with our allies) who were engaged in the actual open days of the invasion.

Agree or disagree with the campaign itself, it is nice to see a little bit of Canadian recognition for the service rendered.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (6 Apr 2010)

Another update:

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 080/10 CMP 037/10
SIC WAK
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: GCS AND GSM WITH SOUTH-WEST ASIA RIBBON
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
REF. A. CANFORGEN 066/10 CMP 030/10 171715Z MAR 10
B. CANFORGEN 072/10 CMP 033/10 261730Z MAR 10
C. PC 2010-079 OF 14 JAN 2010
D. PC 2010-250 OF 10 MAR 2010
E. PC 2010-253 OF 10 MAR 2010

*1. * FURTHER TO THE CANFORGEN AT REF A WHICH ANNOUNCED THE NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK, THIS CANFORGEN DESCRIBES THE CHANGES MADE TO THE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR WITH SOUTH-WEST ASIA RIBBON (GCS-SWA) AND THE GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL WITH SOUTH-WEST ASIA RIBBON (GSM-SWA). SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE AS FOLS:


_A._ WITH THE END OF SOUTH-WEST ASIA SERVICE MEDAL (SWASM) QUALIFICATION AND THE CHANGE OF FOCUS FROM MISSION TO THEATRE-BASED RECOGNITION, THE GCS SWA IS NOW AWARDED TO RECOGNIZE:

(1) SERVICE WITH THE CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE (ISAF) IN AFGHANISTAN FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS BETWEEN 24 APRIL 2003 AND 31 JULY 2009, IN THE 
THEATRE OF OPERATIONS WHICH CONSISTED OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND AIRSPACE OF AFGHANISTAN AND/OR

(2) SERVICE IN THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES OF AFGHANISTAN, THE PERSIAN GULF, THE GULF OF OMAN, THE GULF OF ADEN, THE RED SEA, THE SUEZ CANAL AND THOSE PARTS OF THE 
INDIAN OCEAN AND THE ARABIAN SEA THAT ARE WEST OF SIXTY-EIGHT DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE AND NORTH OF FIVE DEGREES SOUTH LATITUDE, AS WELL AS THE AIRSPACE ABOVE THOSE AREAS FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE 
DAYS COMMENCING ON 01 AUGUST 2009, PROVIDED THAT THE SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED BY ANOTHER SERVICE MEDAL


_B._ ALL SERVICE IN THEATRE FROM 01 AUGUST 2009 ONWARDS, WHICH NOW INCLUDES THE NAVAL OPS THEATRE IN SWA (TO COVER OP ALTAIR BUT NOT OP ALLIED PROTECTOR WHICH WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY A NEW NATO MEDAL), IS RECOGNIZED WITH THE AWARD OF THE GCS REGARDLESS OF CHAIN OF COMMAND (THIS INCLUDES MIL PERS AT THE CANADIAN EMBASSY IN KABUL FOR EXAMPLE).  THOSE WHO SERVE WITH UNAMA (OP ACCIUS) OR PERSONNEL ON 
EXCHANGE WITH THE BRITISH FORCES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE AS THEY RECEIVE A MEDAL FOR THEIR SERVICE FROM EITHER THE UN OR THE UK. ALTHOUGH ONLY ISAF SERVICE BEFORE 01 AUGUST 2009 CAN BE CREDITED FOR THE GCS 
(OTHER SERVICE BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE SWASM), ELIGIBLE GCS SERVICE DURING BOTH PERIODS MAY BE CUMULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING ELIGIBILITY FOR ROTATION BARS 


_C._ WITH THE END OF SWASM QUALIFICATION, THE CHANGE OF FOCUS FROM MISSION TO THEATRE BASED RECOGNITION AND THE REDUCTION OF THE SUPPORT CRITERIA FROM 90 TO 30 DAYS, THE GSM-SWA IS NOW AWARDED TO:

(1) CANADIAN CITIZENS OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES (CF) WHO SERVED EITHER:

(A) IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE (ISAF) IN AFGHANISTAN WHILE DEPLOYED INSIDE THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES OF AFGHANISTAN AND ITS AIRSPACE FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS BETWEEN 24 APRIL 2003 AND 31 JULY 2009 AND/OR
(B) IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN MILITARY OPERATIONS WHILE DEPLOYED INSIDE THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES OF AFGHANISTAN, THE PERSIAN GULF, THE GULF OF OMAN, THE GULF OF ADEN, THE RED SEA, THE SUEZ CANAL AND THOSE PARTS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN AND THE ARABIAN SEA THAT ARE WEST OF SIXTY-EIGHT DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE AND NORTH OF FIVE DEGREES SOUTH LATITUDE, AS 
WELL AS THE AIRSPACE ABOVE THE AFORESAID AREAS FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS COMMENCING ON 01 AUGUST 2009

(2) MEMBERS OF THE CF, MEMBERS OF ALLIED FORCES AND CANADIAN CITIZENS OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE CF WHO SERVED WITH THE CF EITHER:

(A) IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE (ISAF) IN AFGHANISTAN FROM OUTSIDE THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES OF AFGHANISTAN AND ITS AIRSPACE FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS BETWEEN 24 APRIL 2003 AND 31 JULY 2009 AND/OR
(B) IN DIRECT SUPPORT, PROVIDED FROM OUTSIDE THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, OF THE CANADIAN MILITARY OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES OF 
AFGHANISTAN, THE PERSIAN GULF, THE GULF OF OMAN, THE GULF OF ADEN, THE RED SEA, THE SUEZ CANAL AND THOSE PARTS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN AND THE ARABIAN SEA THAT ARE WEST OF SIXTY-EIGHT DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE AND NORTH OF FIVE DEGREES SOUTH LATITUDE, AS WELL AS THE AIRSPACE ABOVE THOSE AREAS FOR AT LEAST 30 CUMULATIVE DAYS COMMENCING ON 01 AUGUST 2009

_D._ IAW PARA 1F OF REF B, SOME RECIPIENTS WHO HAD TO RELINQUISH THEIR GSM IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE GCS ON THE BASIS OF THE FORMER CRITERIA MAY BE ABLE TO CLAIM THEIR GSM BACK PROVIDED THEY DID NOT QUALIFY 
FOR BOTH AWARDS WITHIN THE SAME SIX-MONTH PERIOD

*2.* UPDATED ELIGIBILITY LISTS AND OTHER DETAILS MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/ENG/HOME_E.ASP


*3.* SIGNED BY MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CMP


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Apr 2010)

Good clarification for the GCS and GMS, but still nothing on the SWASM (in terms of having to hand it in or anything or trading it for a GCS).

This would lead me to believe that they're not going to change/undo anything they've given out.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Apr 2010)

Whoops, already posted as pointed out to me older member.   

If you go to the DH R website, the eligibility criteria is laid out.  I think what was confusing was the eligibility list for the SWASM, is the list for the medal _only_.  There is a separate list for the SWASM with Afghanistan bar.


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Good clarification for the GCS and GMS, but still nothing on the SWASM (in terms of having to hand it in or anything or trading it for a GCS).
> 
> This would lead me to believe that they're not going to change/undo anything they've given out.



If you scroll down to the bottom of _this link_, you'll see that the SWASM with Afghanistan bar remains authorized for wear along with the addition of roto bars for those who had qualified for roto bars. That's the change to it -- the addition of roto bars.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Apr 2010)

Vern,

So you are stating that for the PPCLI BG from 2002 will not get the GCS but have an Afghan bar added to their SWASM?

And that the Kabul Roto 5 tour in Fall 05 will keep both the SWASM and GCS?


----------



## Journeyman (6 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> So you are stating that for the PPCLI BG from 2002 will not get the GCS but have an Afghan bar added to their SWASM?
> 
> And that the Kabul Roto 5 tour in Fall 05 will keep both the SWASM and GCS?


    :deadhorse:

Yes to both repetitive questions.....notwithstanding it being "Walt" stating it, rather than "Vern" -- she merely _read the CANFORGENs_ before posting.

"Walt" being MGen Walter Semianiw; not to be confused with Walter Mitty, mentioned several pages back.  


Absolutely *no* respondant in the 11 pages (so far  : ) is siding with you on what you've referred to as "the CGS/SWASM fiasco." Since you continue to fail in convincing even one actual SWASM-wearer, let alone the other readers here, that there is remotely an issue.... perhaps you'd have more luck, and waste no more bandwidth, addressing your unsubstantiated concerns with the Chief of Military Personnel.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Apr 2010)

Who gives a toss?  If you don't have a SSM with Alert bar, or spent 4 years drinking beer and eating bratwurst in Germany, you're just a pale shade of a wannabe with inferiority issues, and a possible oedipal complex.


----------



## SeanNewman (7 Apr 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Since you continue to fail in convincing even one actual SWASM-wearer, let alone the other readers here, that there is remotely an issue...



Once again, you have demonstrated that you are a puppet who has easily pushable buttons.

What I wrote was not _really_ meant for Vern.

I will continue to enjoy you bashing all of my posts in the future.


----------



## GAP (7 Apr 2010)

You really don't have a clue that you have become the clown of the boards with an "I" problem, do you?  

Oh well, thanks for the chuckles....  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Once again, you have demonstrated that you are a puppet who has easily pushable buttons.



So you posted inflammatory material, on purpose to elicit a negative response? Admitting to being a troll are you? Thanks, and welcome to the warning system.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> What I wrote was not _really_ meant for Vern.


 ......and this just backs it up.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> I will continue to enjoy you bashing all of my posts in the future.



So do we.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2010)

Thread cleaned. Move on.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## dapaterson (7 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> A gang of 5-6 people with Scott Taylor-like military experience act like a mafia to stifle any opinion that is not their own.



Yes, there can be groupthink here, like any other place.

I can be argumentative and stubborn.  But I do try to know my audience.  There is ample information on this board about people and their experience; your ad hominem notwithstanding, many of the folks attempting to discuss this issue here (discuss - present positions, consider the positions of others and come to agreement or an understanding of differences) have more underwear with more TI than you, more knowledge of the CF than you have accumulated in your career to date, and are of significant rank and position within the CF.


All this to say: try reading and understanding, instead of petulant pontificating and posturing.


----------



## Danjanou (7 Apr 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Who gives a toss?  If you don't have a SSM with Alert bar, or spent 4 years drinking beer and eating bratwurst in Germany, you're just a pale shade of a wannabe with inferiority issues, and a possible oedipal complex.



Damn right skippy  8)

We now return you to your regular thread while Kat and I head back to the "home", it's jello night.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Apr 2010)

For those with DIN access, the following sites sum things up nicely:
SWASM
In short, awarded to those who meet the following criteria:
The South-West Asia Service Medal is awarded for a minimum of 90 days cumulative service in direct support of operations against terrorism in South West Asia from 11 September 2001 to 31 July 2009. Direct support occurs when a member is deployed to a unit or organization outside Canada but not into a specific theatre of operations, and where his or her primary duty is to provide direct assistance on a full-time basis to the operations against terrorism in South-West Asia.

The medal with AFGHANISTAN bar is awarded for 30 days cumulative service between 11 September 2001 and 31 Jul 2009 in the theatre of operations, which is a subset of the United States Central Command Area of Operation Responsibility (USCENTCOM AOR). The theatre of operations is defined as the land, sea, or air spaces of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Suez Canal and those parts of the Indian Ocean north of 5° South Latitude and west of 68° East Longitude.

Rotation Bars are awarded to recognize a further 180 days of eligible service following qualification for the Medal with AFGHANISTAN bar or the last Rotation Bar the person has earned. One bar bearing five maple leaves is worn in lieu of five bars bearing one maple leaf.

Note that those who received the SWASM without the AFGHANISTAN bar are not eligible for Rotation Bars

General Campaign Star - South West Asia
In short, awarded to those who meet the following criteria:
with the Canadian contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan for at least 30 days cumulative between 24 April 2003 and 31 July 2009, in the theatre of operations which consisted of the political boundaries and airspace of Afghanistan; and/or 
in the theatre of operations consisting of the political boundaries of Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and those parts of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea that are west of sixty-eight degrees East longitude and north of five degrees South latitude, as well as the airspace above those areas for at least 30 cumulative days commencing on August 1, 2009, provided that the service has not been recognized by another service medal.

So, up to and including 31 July 2009, there were two medals that service members could be awarded, depending on "stuff".
Those who serve from 01 Aug on, there is just the GCS-SWA.


----------



## Greymatters (8 Apr 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, there can be groupthink here, like any other place.



My opinion on some matters differs greatly at times from a lot of senior members here, and its true that many of those members have similiar opinions, but trying to insinuate that these senior members lack military experience is a bit much...


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Apr 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ...but trying to insinuate that these senior members lack military experience is a bit much...



Was only referring to a few.  

I know that some of the people steering this ship are incredibly qualified, experienced, and good people.

I apologize if my comment seemed like a broad brush aimed at all of them, as I am the first to admit that is not the case.


----------



## Sparkplugs (25 Apr 2010)

I'm really hoping not to open up a can of worms here, and I'm sorry if I do, but I can't make head nor tails of the Canforgens that have been posting as far as my situation.  I'm one of those 56-day roto people... I know, I know, but if you want to go on your hlta or home, you gotta put up with the herc techs.   ;D  Anyway, I've got 36 days in Kaf, and by the next tour, I'll have my 30+ days in the 'other place.'  This means that I'll qualify for both the GCS and the GSM, from what I've gotten out of the canforgens.  This has been the question from past 56 day roto guys.  You normally have to choose which one you wear.  Is that still going to be an option?  Or are they going to decide for us?  I know there was talk about ending up wearing both, because one is a 'theatre' medal and the other one is a 'support' medal, but I don't know what ever came down from that.  

If anyone can help me clear this up, it would be wonderful.  I'm sorry, but I'm new to all of this medal business, and I don't know about all this new business.  Thanks so much for any help provided.


----------



## 392 (25 Apr 2010)

According to the CANFORGENs, as long as you don't qualify for both medals during the same 6 month period, you'll get issued and be able to wear both.  :2c:


----------



## Sparkplugs (25 Apr 2010)

392 said:
			
		

> According to the CANFORGENs, as long as you don't qualify for both medals during the same 6 month period, you'll get issued and be able to wear both.  :2c:



Thanks so much, that's much clearer, hehe.   :nod:


----------



## Wolf117 (4 Jun 2011)

Hello

A buddy of mine and I were blathering the other day about the new training role for us all in Afghan.  A question came up that I was unable to answer and I was hoping someone on here might know better and be able to shed some light on this for me.

Since this new mission will no longer be under Operation Athena and instead called Operation Attention, will they still be issuing GCS's for troops serving under it?  Or will there be something else?

Thanks


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jun 2011)

I wager no change. I seem to recall that the GCS-SWA is theatre specific now.

Taken from here:


> The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy.
> 
> The GCS is always issued with a ribbon specific to the theatre or type of service being recognized, and each ribbon has its own criteria.
> 
> ...


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jun 2011)

Good question, however we have had people in Kabul for many years now who still get the GCS and work in IJC. Additionally, the NTM-A personnel have also received the GCS. The guys and gals in Kabul get a lower Risk/Hazard pay than the guys in Kandahar region.

An educated guess would be that they will get continue to be issued the GCS.


----------



## Jungle (5 Jun 2011)

The question is: are OP ATTENTION personnel going to be considered as people _"who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy."_

My educated guess is that OP ATTENTION will not involve going into operations against an armed enemy, so a case could be made to award the OSM-SWA.

I know pers in Kabul were not taking part in ops against an armed enemy, but they were serving under OP ATHENA, which had that mandate.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jun 2011)

Jungle said:
			
		

> The question is: are OP ATTENTION personnel going to be considered as people _"who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy."_
> 
> My educated guess is that OP ATTENTION will not involve going into operations against an armed enemy, so a case could be made to award the OSM-SWA.
> 
> I know pers in Kabul were not taking part in ops against an armed enemy, but they were serving under OP ATHENA, which had that mandate.



The key part is "operations _in the presence of _ an armed enemy", not "taking part in operations _against_ an armed enemy".  There are armed enemies in Kabul, so...


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There are armed enemies in Kabul, so...


  ???  I visited once and none of the Staff Officers or HQ personnel were armed.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jun 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???  I visited once and none of the Staff Officers or HQ personnel were armed.



I was talking about the enemy....oh....wait


----------



## Jungle (6 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The key part is "operations _in the presence of _ an armed enemy", not "taking part in operations _against_ an armed enemy".  There are armed enemies in Kabul, so...



The key part is "taking part in operations". Op Attention pers are not mandated, as far as I know, to do that. But hey... I'm sure someone will make a decision on this eventually and surprise us all.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2011)

Jungle said:
			
		

> The key part is "taking part in operations". Op Attention pers are not mandated, as far as I know, to do that. But hey... I'm sure someone will make a decision on this eventually and surprise us all.


Training is an operation, hence the term "Operation" in "Operation Attention".


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jun 2011)

Jungle said:
			
		

> The question is: are OP ATTENTION personnel going to be considered as people _"who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy."_



That's the key factor that got me thinking that Op ATTENTION would be awarded the new Operational Service Medal (SOUTHWEST ASIA).  The OSM is operations in hazardous conditions, which may better fit the overall mission profile.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2011)

I get your point; however, I work with a guy that was in the KMTC (?) in Kabul in 2006.  He got the GCS-SWA for his service there.  With regards to the OSM-SWA, from the site:



> This ribbon is mainly intended to recognize police and civilian service not under the authority of the CF in Afghanistan.



I know that info may be dated; however, given the precendence of the GCS-SWA being awarded for the training mission (previous) in Kabul, I would offer that it will likely be the GCS-SWA.


My  :2c:


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I know that info may be dated; however, given the precendence of the GCS-SWA being awarded for the training mission (previous) in Kabul, I would offer that it will likely be the GCS-SWA.



Makes sense.  The only overarching point is that everything under ATHENA was focused on a combat mission - regardless of whether one was training soldiers in Kabul or flying supplies into KAF, the overarching purpose was counter-insurgency operations in either Kabul (benign) or Kandahar (not benign).  This is not the case anymore, hence why we are moving to a completely new operation.

I think the issue may largely be a political one as you could make the case for either medal.  The CF may view a new medal as a good indication that we really have ceased combat missions.  I can see the same issue as when the SWASM/GCS flap broke out with ROTO 2; with an effort by DHR to distinguish between a mission focused on shooting and a mission focused on training.  As well, soldiers always like a new medal, so it may be a good morale thing.


----------



## Fdtrucker (7 Jun 2011)

Not sure what KMTC is, but the link  has everyone who was first issued GCS with ISAF Bar now the GCS-SWA. The ETT (Embedded Trg Team) was issued the SWASM from 01 Oct 03 - 30 Nov 07.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/eli-adm/gscswael-seecgaso-eng.asp;
SWASM - http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/eli-adm/swasmael-semsasoa-eng.asp


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jun 2011)

Fdtrucker said:
			
		

> Not sure what KMTC is,



Kabul Military Training Center


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jun 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???  I visited once and none of the Staff Officers or HQ personnel were armed.



That's ridiculous!  How could they drink champagne and eat canapes if they had no arms.


----------



## old fart (7 Jun 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???  I visited once and none of the Staff Officers or HQ personnel were armed.



ISAF HQ...true (generally no weapons carried by staff on the HQ)  CSTC-A as it was, weapons were carried, at all times.

Interesting point raised earlier on the pay difference...between Kabul and Kanadahar...will have to look into that....first I have heard of it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jun 2011)

It's true.  They were at a lower risk level than we were down south.  Can't comment on the fairness of it all as I never did see up north so I cannot compare.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jun 2011)

old fart said:
			
		

> Interesting point raised earlier on the pay difference...between Kabul and Kanadahar...will have to look into that....first I have heard of it.



Here is the latest message surrounding hardship and risk levels for various locations - higer levels for both mean higher allowances.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/fs-se/hra-idr/2011/400-eng.asp


----------



## old fart (7 Jun 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's true.  They were at a lower risk level than we were down south.  Can't comment on the fairness of it all as I never did see up north so I cannot compare.



Had the Coy Clerk check mine for the year I spent in 2008/9...I was level 5 (I presume Risk) and 4 (Hardship), I was told 5 and 4.... personally I was all over the country....so all looks well....although I have yet to see the print-out myself.

Not sure who called Kabul area benign....total bullshit...try telling that to the folks that died there....anything but benign.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jun 2011)

old fart said:
			
		

> Not sure who called Kabul area benign....total bullshit...try telling that to the folks that died there....anything but benign.



I called it benign.  Reread the post.  Kabul, in fact much of Afghanistan, was quite benign in 2003-2005.  Kabul today is relatively benign compared to Helmand and Kandahar.

People can die anywhere; don't use that to as an illogical appeal.


----------



## old fart (7 Jun 2011)

I was not comparing Kabul to any other area or province...just stating it is far from benign....Fact.


----------



## Scoobs (21 Jun 2011)

I took care of H&A in KAF for 9 and a half months in the NCE, along with other duties, but H&A was "supposed" to be my primary role.

Medals, boy do pers get worked up over these.  This includes the lowest to highest ranks.

SWASM doesn't come into play anymore.  Hasn't for a while.  Besides, the key for receiving this was what the chain of command was (had to be directly under the Americans, not ISAF) and the geographic location.

GCS-SWA is what the new trg mission in Kabul area, etc., will get.  Once a mil pers enters the airspace or land of Afg, the clock starts counting towards receiving the GCS.  This is for ALL of Afg, including Kandahar or Kabul, doesn't matter which location.


----------



## frank1515 (23 Jun 2011)

old fart said:
			
		

> Had the Coy Clerk check mine for the year I spent in 2008/9...I was level 5 (I presume Risk) and 4 (Hardship), I was told 5 and 4.... personally I was all over the country....so all looks well....although I have yet to see the print-out myself.
> 
> Not sure who called Kabul area benign....total bullshit...try telling that to the folks that died there....anything but benign.



IAW CEFCOM J1 Hardship and Risk Matrix @ http://cefcom.mil.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=7470 (Intranet, DWAN only)

Risk is 4 and Hardship is 5 for Op Athena FOBs, TSE NSE, BG, PRT and OMLT.

Camp Souter (Kabul) and ISAF HQ is Risk of 4 and Hardship of 4. (Subject to change, of course)

Edited for mistakes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2011)

Bump of an old thread to share this - the process for at least some of the more recent awards/medals (from the CEFCOM Info-Machine):


> November brings Remembrance Day — a good time for an inside look at how Canadian Forces members are nominated and selected for honours and awards ranging from commendations to decorations for valour and meritorious service.
> 
> When a soldier, sailor, airman, airwoman or civilian is nominated for an honour or award either while deployed on an international operation or while working at CEFCOM Headquarters in support of international operations, the Honours and Awards Section at Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM) Headquarters is responsible for shepherding the file through a complex process.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hurricane (26 Nov 2011)

My apologies for reviving an old thread. Just wondering if anyone can confirm what the Risk and Hardship levels are for the various camps, or are they all the same? If the same, could someone confirm if they are 4 and 4?


----------



## Mainz (28 Nov 2011)

I am on the ground here now in Kabul. I have received the GCS-SWA. It might not be Kandahar, but those of us deployed here know it is not without risk.


----------



## fireman1867 (28 Nov 2011)

Speaking to the Risk Allowance questions, we are currently 4 and 4. However, the board sat in early October and decided to downgrade to 3 and 3. Since that an extraordinary meeting was convened to reasses this decission. So as of right now us folks here on OP Attention are getting 4 but we have been told that the new decision will be retroactive to our start date. Suffice to say not a great situation! This also effects the CIVPOL folks here from DFAIT. To put this into perspective and this is what I've been told from the RCMP guys, Haiti gets 4 and 4 so they are up in arms about this.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2011)

Mainz said:
			
		

> I am on the ground here now in Kabul. I have received the GCS-SWA. It might not be Kandahar, but those of us deployed here know it is not without risk.


Just as I earned my GCS-SWA initially for service in Kabul in 2003.  I still wonder why people would think it would be anything else but.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Just as I earned my GCS-SWA initially for service in Kabul in 2003.  I still wonder why people would think it would be anything else but.



Indeed.  Everywhere there is risky.  I have no quibble about anyone in the sandbox with one.  I do however, disagree with the Navy now issuing this for Gulf tours as the SWASM is gone.  The Gulf is not the sandbox.  Period.  Call me a dick measuring snob, but I earned my star and bar on the ground, not the ocean.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Everywhere there is risky.  I have no quibble about anyone in the sandbox with one.  I do however, disagree with the Navy now issuing this for Gulf tours as the SWASM is gone.  The Gulf is not the sandbox.  Period.  Call me a dick measuring snob, but I earned my star and bar on the ground, not the ocean.


Does it meet the criteria of "in the presence of an armed enemy"?  I don't know.  (And I'm not trolling, I haven't a clue about navy operations in the Gulf)


----------



## Hurricane (29 Nov 2011)

fireman1867 said:
			
		

> Speaking to the Risk Allowance questions, we are currently 4 and 4. However, the board sat in early October and decided to downgrade to 3 and 3. Since that an extraordinary meeting was convened to re-asses this decision. So as of right now us folks here on OP Attention are getting 4 but we have been told that the new decision will be retroactive to our start date.



So, they will be downgrading it t 3 and 3 but they had another meeting to re-asses that decision? So its possible they could go back to 4 and 4 if I understand that correctly? Another question, not to pry into others financial but can anyone comment on what the 3 and 3 would amount to for someone going on their first tour?


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Nov 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> My apologies for reviving an old thread. Just wondering if anyone can confirm what the Risk and Hardship levels are for the various camps, or are they all the same? If the same, could someone confirm if they are 4 and 4?



Just got reassessed, its 4 and 4.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Does it meet the criteria of "in the presence of an armed enemy"?  I don't know.  (And I'm not trolling, I haven't a clue about navy operations in the Gulf)



I don't know, I have always been a bridesmaid never a bride for a Gulf trip (and that was when the SWASM was still being issued).  But what they have been issuing for the crews here from what I have seen is the GCS with SWA ribbon as of late.


----------



## Hurricane (8 Dec 2011)

So not meaning to throw a wrench into things, but our CO just informed us in a briefing that the Medal would be the GSM. Is something that is new for ROTO 1?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2011)

Was that something your CO got from the Tac Recce? Haven't heard anything about it in my sub-unit.


----------



## Hurricane (8 Dec 2011)

My apologies PuckChaser, I forgot to specify which CO. It was my home unit CO, not the Task Force CO. I don't believe anyone asked the Task Force CO during his brief.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Dec 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> So not meaning to throw a wrench into things, but our CO just informed us in a briefing that the Medal would be the GSM. Is something that is new for ROTO 1?


Of course, your CO knows the criteria for the GSM, right?


> The General Service Medal (GSM) is awarded to members of the CF and members of allied forces serving with the CF who deploy outside of Canada - but not necessarily into a theatre of operations - to provide direct support, on a full-time basis, to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.



The GCS, on the other hand:


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



Note that it doesn't say "...take part in operations against an armed enemy".  I deployed to Kabul in 03 (May to August).  I never fired my weapon once in anger.  I heard one hostile explosion my whole time there (though there were more, but just one within earshot of me personally).  And Op Attention does, as far as I can tell, meet the same criteria as the GCS.  

In the absence of any substantive direction otherwise:
 :2c:

Edit to add:

The following is specific to the GCS SWA:


> in the theatre of operations consisting of the political boundaries of Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and those parts of the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea that are west of sixty-eight degrees East longitude and north of five degrees South latitude, as well as the airspace above those areas for at least 30 cumulative days commencing on August 1, 2009, provided that the service has not been recognized by another service medal.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Sep 2017)

Afghanistan vets slam Canada’s military over failure to award service medal

https://globalnews.ca/news/3760685/afghanistan-vets-slam-canadas-military-failure-award-service-medal/

Canadian soldiers who served in Afghanistan were supposed to receive service medals for their part in combatting terrorism.

But more than four years after the mission ended, that promise still hasn’t been honoured.

The medal is the South-West Asia Service Medal (SWASM), awarded to those who serve 90 days in direct support of operations against terrorism in Southwest Asia from Sept. 11, 2001 to July 31, 2009.

More on link above.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Sep 2017)

Excellent.   :

Rather than sort out veterans' financial and health problems, the government is handed a golden opportunity to do what it does best -- focus on mindless photo ops while accomplishing virtually nothing.

A few thousand dollars can be spent ramping-up SWASM production, lots of politicians can get pictures taken shaking hands, and the government will repeatedly proclaim: "See? We support the vets; they asked for medals so we gave them more bling -- they must be perfectly content now!"

I'm actually surprised that those pushing for the gratuitous SWASM haven't mentioned the precedent of awarding the meaningless Peacekeeping medal... for having already received a peacekeeping deployment medal. 


Way to focus on what's important, self-proclaimed veterans' talking heads.   :brickwall:


----------



## medicineman (27 Sep 2017)

Funnily enough JM, the clown in the article has a CPSM along with his SFOR/IFOR NATO gong.  Someone did bring the CPSM up in the comments section about dual recognition.

So my real questions to this guy is this: Why is it your life's mission to inflate your already swollen head over something you're likely not entitled to?  If you did the time with OEF, so be it, you should get the gong; however, if you didn't, what makes you think you (or anyone else for that matter) should have another?  Do you wander around with your gongs on all the time hoping people will talk to you about them?  Does your GCS talk to you, saying it's lonely?  If you answer yes to either or both of the latter, you don't need a gong - you need therapy and meds...and to worry about something more important in life from our current excuse for a government.

MM


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Sep 2017)

The petitioner is quite wrong here. I was on the last OEF roto, and it was made quite clear to us that we would not qualify for the GCS. Likewise, it was no secret that the follow on missions would not qualify for the SWASM.


----------



## McG (27 Sep 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Afghanistan vets slam Canada’s military over failure to award service medal
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/3760685/afghanistan-vets-slam-canadas-military-failure-award-service-medal/
> 
> ...


The facts are all wrong.  At any given point in time, personnel earned credit toward either the SWASM or the GCS but never simultaneously to both.  There were several missions in Afghanistan, and each one earned recognition for one medal or the other.  There are a few cases (specifically in 2005 & 2006) were personnel transitioned from one mission to another mission during a single deployment and so earned two medals, but credit toward a rotation bar would have been reduced as compared to somebody who spent a full deployment on a GCS mission.

If the government retroactively awards a SWASM with Afghanistan bar to every individual who deployed in country that, then it will also owe a GCS, additional GCS rotation bars, or both to personnel who deployed on SWASM missions.

This proposal is ignorant and nonsensical.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Sep 2017)

Agreed but l would like my ISAF bar back.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The petitioner is quite wrong here. I was on the last OEF roto, and it was made quite clear to us that we would not qualify for the GCS. Likewise, it was no secret that the follow on missions would not qualify for the SWASM.



Me too; it was made very clear to all of us there at the time.  Those of us who went in for 10 months (quite a few Loggies) were a little pissed to not be getting a roto numeral (common at the time for all other mission rotos) for our SWASM ... which finally became a roto bar for the GCS etc.  Some of them were even more pissed, then, when guys who came in after and then left before ended up being awarded SWASM and GCS when  they couldn't even get a roto bar.  

So, JM has his comments correct below - there's also pers who were involved in both who got only the SWASM and not the GCS.  It's supposed to be all about receiving the award for the mission and mandate under which you originally served and your time in situ began.


----------

