# CBC News Story about Discipline Problems in the CF



## dangerboy (30 Jul 2008)

Disciplinary charges soar since the push into Afghanistan
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | 5:56 AM ET By Brian Kemp, CBC News 

Military charges against Canadian Forces members have risen dramatically in the years since Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, a CBC investigation has found. In fact, the charges have risen by as much as 62 per cent over an eight-year period.

All military forces face discipline and morale issues resulting from soldiers serving in war zones — and from the latest numbers uncovered by the CBC, it seems Canada is no exception.

In 1998-99, just over 1,300 so-called summary charges were laid against Canadian Armed Forces members, for everything from drunkenness to charges of a sexual nature and drug dealing. But that number rose sharply to 2,001 in 2002-03, the year Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan and stood at 2,100 in 2006-07, the latest year in which stats are available.

Absent without leave charges are leading the way in the Canadian military, rising from 394 in 1998-99 to a peak of 716 in 2003-04 and subsiding only slightly since, according to Judge Advocate General (JAG) numbers submitted in annual reports to the Defence Department and examined by the CBC.

From the reports, it is not clear whether this spike is the result of deployment-related problems or a more zealous application of the JAG rules — stemming from new leadership or other internal reasons, for example. The size of the Canadian military has remained relatively constant over the last 10 years, roughly 62,000 regular force members and 25,000 reserve force members, so the rise in charges is not directly tied to any big increase in personnel.

CBC News repeatedly asked the public affairs office at the Department of National Defence to supply someone for an interview to help explain the phenomenon. Instead, DND provided e-mail responses to specific questions on the AWOL figures and other numbers. Weeks later, an interview was declined.

Annual reports

Links were provided to JAG annual reports — with the earliest dating from 1998-99 — and these do shed some light on internal concerns about the increase in the number of charges.

For example, the 2003-04 annual report from JAG notes that the 40 per cent increase in summary trials from the previous year had levelled off. Summary trials, which are disciplinary actions dealt with by the unit's commanding officer or a delegate, are generally less serious than courts martials, which have remained fairly stable over the period. 

The sharp increase in summary trials, the JAG report said, "is consistent with the conclusion that [Canadian Forces] members who have been given disciplinary responsibilities are developing proficiency with the summary trial process and are becoming more confident in their ability to use it as a disciplinary tool."

The previous year's JAG report had noted an influx of new recruits and a willingness of commanding officers to turn to the disciplinary system for what may have been handled in a more informal way in another era.

But the JAG reports also show that at least some of the more serious charges are up as well. Courts martials for sexual assault, for example, increased from one incident in 2000-01 to 10 in 2006-07. There have also been charges for possessing and accessing child pornography, sexual exploitation, kidnapping, forcible confinement and hostage taking, which is not explained in any detail.

'To maintain the Canadian Forces in a state of readiness, the military chain of command must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently.'
—JAG Annual Report 2006-07The chief military judge posts final decisions online, but it appears that those dealing with sexual assault are excluded. The DND would not offer an explanation why that is the case.

The decisions outline a number of cases that have been dealt with, including one soldier who lit another soldier's bed on fire at a base after first pouring glue on it. Others referred to military personnel caught selling cocaine.

Intoxication and sexual assault

Over the eight-year period ending in 2006-07, disobedience charges have doubled, drunkenness charges have almost tripled and those relating to good order and discipline shot up to 1,011 in 2006-07 from 550 in 1998-99. Charges of theft are among the few that went down.

The e-mail response to questions about sexual charges in the military referred to 10 charges in 2006-07 at the summary trial stage, which involve "accessing pornography on a DND computer to engaging in (consensual) sexual activity in unauthorized circumstances," according to the department.

No mention was made of the details of 10 sexual assault charges in 2006-07 at the courts martial stage. Fifty-two cases of sexual assault went to the most serious courts martial stage between 2000-01 and 2006-07, as did 53 cases of drug trafficking.

Roughly 10 per cent of those charged by the military each year are officers. In its e-mail response, the department noted that there were 2,100 charges laid involving 1,660 summary cases (or individuals) in 2006-07 and that the number was within the five-year average. In 1998-99, there were 1,300 charges involving 1,053 cases so the 2006-07 numbers represent a 52 per cent increase over the longer period.

In 2006-07, 54 per cent of all charges laid were under the category 'Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.' 
—JAG Annual reportDrug and alcohol charges rose slightly in 2003-04, that year's report noted, but that figure masks an increase in the number of incidents that took place during overseas deployment. On deployed operations, 31 per cent of charges laid in 2003-04 were of a drug and alcohol nature, compared to 26 per cent the previous year — numbers the report said are "significantly higher than the overall average for the [Canadian Forces]."

Afghanistan

The military went into Afghanistan in February 2002, when a battle group from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was sent to Kandahar for six months.

From August 2003 to December 2005, Canadians were largely based in the capital Kabul, but that role changed in the summer of 2006 with the movement to the volatile southern province of Kandahar, where 2,500 Canadian soldiers are now located.

To date, 88 members of the Armed Forces have been killed in Afghanistan since 2002.

In February 2008, Canadian Press that the number of former soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder has tripled over a five-year period beginning in 2002, from 1,802 to 6,504. As well, 1,300 Forces members who served in Afghanistan were screened after deployment, with results showing that almost one-third had symptoms that suggested one or more mental health problems.

It is not known whether AWOL numbers and post-traumatic stress disorder are linked, but each category has increased at a similarly high rate.

In 1998-99, there were 394 absent without leave charges levied, according to yearly JAG summary trials documents. That number ebbed and rose a bit over the next two years but then jumped to 684 in the year beginning April 2002, when the deployment to Afghanistan began.

The following year, AWOL charges climbed even higher — to a peak of 716 by March 31, 2004. Of those charged, 656 pleaded guilty, 53 not guilty, two charges were stayed and five were found guilty after a special finding. In 2004-05, it was 668. The number of AWOL cases fell to 617 by the end of March 2006.

The Defence Department said that to provide details of AWOL charges would require staff to look at over 200 pages of documents for each charge. So it is not known how long each person charged had been away from a unit or how serious the incident was. At least one soldier who faced a court martial in 2005 was away from his unit a number of times, including one time for more than 30 days.

What is clear is that only a small number of the AWOL cases in the Canadian military are sent to most serious stage, the court martial, which is similar to being tried in a civilian criminal court with counsel, witnesses and testimony. The punishments can be more severe than a summary charge and range from fines to reduction in rank and imprisonment.

The military, in its e-mail responses to CBC, said that of the 16 AWOL charges that went to the court martial stage in 2006-07, the absences ranged from missing a parade to nine days away from a unit. No other details were provided.

Punishment

Every reporting year, some of the charges are dropped, some members are found not guilty, but most are guilty and are fined (fines account for 60 per cent of the punishments). Others are cautioned, have their rank reduced, are confined to ship or barracks or are sent to military jail, among other punishments.

Summary trials by rank  2006-07 
Private, corporal, master-corporal 1,449 
Sergeant to chief warrant officer 74 
Officer 137 
  
Percentage who pleaded or found guilty 90.8 % 
Overall, court martial numbers have remained fairly steady over the period examined by CBC. In 2000-01, for example, 63 cases reached the court martial stage, which can involve members charged for incidents such as flying recklessly or disobeying an order to submit to a vaccination, compared to 67 in 2006-07.

Desertion

In 2006-07, 16 AWOL cases went to court martial. That year, there was one charge of desertion dealt with by court martial. Desertion is based on the intent of the soldier not to return, and is the more serious charge, carrying a possible penalty of life in prison. A person who is AWOL is authorized to be absent from his place of duty, but fails to return.

According to the military's public affairs office, only two charges of desertion have been laid since 2000. In 2002, a desertion charge against a soldier was withdrawn by the prosecutor.

A second member charged with desertion four years later was found guilty and sentenced to 15 days imprisonment and fined $1,000 in 2006. No specific details were provided about the incidents. Online reports from the chief military judge gave no narrative of the events involved.

Since 1988, only nine charges of desertion have been laid against Canadian forces members. If just desertion charges are considered, Canada appears to be fairing quite well compared to other militaries.

According to the U.S. Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007 (which ended Sept. 30), compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted, compared to 3,301 the previous year, of a combined force of just over one million.

There has been an 80 per cent increase in desertions since our American neighbours invaded Iraq in 2003.

As for the British Army, another one of our allies in Afghanistan, the Telegraph newspaper reported in late 2007 that almost 1,000 soldiers were absent without leave in a total force of 196,000. The paper also reported that since the fighting in Iraq began in 2003 there have been more than 11,000 cases of absence without leave.

Negligent discharge of a weapon

Recent JAG summary trial reports available online don't make reference to individual bases or exact locations where the charges originated. However, earlier ones from the late 1990s and early 2000 did.

JAG's 2006-07 report does not break down what charges relate to Afghanistan, but it does refer to a concern about one trend emerging in what is called an operational setting, presumably Afghanistan, regarding the negligent discharge of a weapon. (Earlier this month, the Canadian military announced it was going ahead with the court martial of a soldier from Nova Scotia who is facing charges manslaughter and negligence over the shooting death last year of a fellow soldier in their sleeping quarters in Afghanistan.)

"The statistics also show an increase in the number of summary trials held in an operational theatre for this offence during the 2006/2007 period — 62 trials as compared to 28 in the 2005-2006 reporting period.

"It is important to note that the percentage of the summary trials held for this offence in an operational setting has also been increasing — 4.4 per cent in 2004-2005, 12.2 per cent in 2005-2006 and 16.2 per cent in the current reporting period," according to the report.

In its e-mail response, the military notes that in Afghanistan in 2006-07, there were no court martial proceedings dealing with AWOL, but there were eight summary trials. No other details were provided, so there is no clear picture of how much discipline is being used against soldiers in that theatre.

Article Link


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Jul 2008)

More slanting of the facts. Whatever  :


----------



## Franko (30 Jul 2008)

Obviously these people don't realize that the bulk of AWOL charges these days are concerning troops who are repeatedly late.

They are given chances time and again, along with extras, to sort themselves out. Charges are leveled when the CoC has no other choice.

Some troops respond best when their wallet is hit hard and get the hint.

As for PTSD and AWOL...I'm sure there is the isolated case here and there, but not as much as what is being reported here.

Since 2001 we've been getting in more and more new recruits, especially since Gen Hillier put the recruiting push on. Some of these recruits have literally been pushed through the system and are the bulk of the problem children mentioned here in the article. 

Hell, we have our fair share and I've never seen so many charges in such a short time frame. One fella has been AWOL a few times and he's never been deployed except to Wainwright and Texas. There must be something there....too much stress thus resulting in the moron not showing up for work.

The MSM has to start realizing that the CF is literally a cross section of society as a whole, not some "holier than thee" organization where every member is a saint. 

The CSD is there to sort those jackasses out. Stop reading too much into a non-issue.

Wait a tick...forgot that this is the CBC. I'm sure Jack will be along later on TV with a statement.       :

Regards


----------



## Teeps74 (30 Jul 2008)

Ok, I am gonna say it, and piss a few people off. Hopefully enough that they will take a look in the mirror.

We, the CF, apparently failed in this article. And this is a typical failure on the part of a specific branch. An email response?! Give me a break. Any village idiot can see the spin on the line of questioning from a mile away. There should have been a CSM or a Maj with experience in Mil Law standing in front of the mic setting the record straight on this.

AWOL charges, we all know that chances are, most of those are for being 30 mins (sometimes much less) late for work. Hell, some of those are probably AWOL charges I wrote the RDP for. In the military, theoretically, we can hit you with a 129 for not shining your boots, in fact, it has been done (how recently, I do not know). We charge and send to summery trial all sorts of soldiers for the smallest of things, and for our system it is bloody necessary and not going to change.

The sexual assault charges. Our records of trial proceedings are verbatim. Read some of the damn transcripts. We can not publish them on line because more then 75% of the document would have to be severed out of respect for the Privacy Act (this should have been a no brain-er for the CBC, as civil cases are no different. Sometimes we hear about the accused in a limited fashion, but then civil court records have the means to sever the vast volumes of paperwork generated, we do not... It can be done, but at special request with reasons.). Yes, for us, it is a very serious offence to look at consenting adults in various levels of undress on DND computers. When we get our DIN accounts, we all acknowledge the rules we are expected to abide by. Does not matter if it is hard core or soft core, no porno on our machines... Period.

Our charges for the smaller disciplinary matters are up, because there is no other recourse now. The rules in place, we can no longer simply CB someone because they were bad, not without a summery trial... The list of things that were done in the past to prevent a smaller case from going to summery trial is now gone. You can counsel, but when that fails, there is only the DI, the RDP, then the hatless dance.

We failed to explain our necessities on this.

The CBC also failed dramatically on this. They had nothing, but they ran the story anyways. I agree with the other thread, that the CBC is tragically biased. Articles like this one do not help. It is an article that is plainly poorly researched. Filler for a slow news day. A CROWN agency should bloody well know better, and frankly, I would like to see a head on a platter.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2008)

I wonder how many cases of PTSD were pre-existing and people only started coming forward after we went to A'stan?


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2008)

I suspect a significant reason for the increase is the recent recuriting drive over the past few years.  Go figure:  the young & inexperienced are more likely to find themselves in positions where they may be charged.  As the bubble of new folks flow through the system and have a better understanding of what they are (and are not) to do, rates will drop.

It would be interesting to map this information against the average age of the CF.


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Jul 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect a significant reason for the increase is the recent recuriting drive over the past few years.  Go figure:  the young & inexperienced are more likely to find themselves in positions where they may be charged.  As the bubble of new folks flow through the system and have a better understanding of what they are (and are not) to do, rates will drop.
> 
> It would be interesting to map this information against the average age of the CF.



I think if we were to go back when I first joined and look at the stats for all summary trials in the CF at that time, people today would have a fit! I know in my first two years I was charged 3 times and given extra duties so often that I thought our work week was 6 days!


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I think if we were to go back when I first joined and look at the stats for all summary trials in the CF at that time, people today would have a fit! I know in my first two years I was charged 3 times and given extra duties so often that I thought our work week was 6 days!



It's 7 days is it not?......or was that just me and my big mouth?   ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Jul 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> It's 7 days is it not?......or was that just me and my big mouth?   ;D



I too had my share of 7 day work weeks, but did manage to get some Sundays off!


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I think if we were to go back when I first joined and look at the stats for all summary trials in the CF at that time, people today would have a fit!



So, you're saying that your retirement should lower the stats a fair bit ? >


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jul 2008)

:warstory:

Dangerboy will like this one. True story.

Many years ago I decided, on my own that I needed the afternoon off. So I took it off, without permission from the Pl WO.  I decided that an afternoon at the local Legion was better than work.
The next morning the Pl WO asked me where I was, so I told him the truth. He stuck his big ham fist in my face and asked:
"my punishment or the OC's?"
I blinked twice, and said "Yours Warrant", fully expecting to get a good one upside the head.

I got three extra duties for it.


----------



## Teeps74 (30 Jul 2008)

I'm still hot under the collar after reading this "Investigative Report". It is tabloid journalism at it's worst. 

We should have acted differently to the request, yes. But that does not excuse them from running with this tabloid garbage like they did. I was wrong yesterday... It would seem that there are reporters out there at the CBC that will take any cheapshot possible to make themselves a name.


----------



## North Star (30 Jul 2008)

I agree with Teeps...the CF should have released this stuff in a formal press conference, and had a senior NCO/officer add some context to the numbers. 

We're sometimes doing the lefties in the MSM favours...


----------



## exgunnertdo (30 Jul 2008)

While not explained fully in the article, there was a statement in there about commanders learning how to use the military justice system as a discipline tool.  There has been learning curve for a few years.  Some posters have already commented about the "old days" when they used to charge people left right and centre.  Friday afternoon charge parades and the whole bit.  Then, sometime in the mid 90s (I think) things started to get more complicated.  Lots of cries of human rights and so on.  Word of mouth was that you couldn't get charges to stick any more, don't bother, won't work.  People became a bit skittish about laying charges.  Then the learning curve kicked in and I think people are understanding the system again.

I also think the "average age" thing is an explanation - we were an older force, on average, in the late 90's.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I'm still hot under the collar after reading this "Investigative Report".



If any of the guests reading this happen to be reporters interested in their own view of the stats, here's where you, too, can "investigate".  Enjoy!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Jul 2008)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> While not explained fully in the article, there was a statement in there about commanders learning how to use the military justice system as a discipline tool.  There has been learning curve for a few years.  Some posters have already commented about the "old days" when they used to charge people left right and centre.  Friday afternoon charge parades and the whole bit.  Then, sometime in the mid 90s (I think) things started to get more complicated.  Lots of cries of human rights and so on.  Word of mouth was that you couldn't get charges to stick any more, don't bother, won't work.  *People became a bit skittish about laying charges.  Then the learning curve kicked in and I think people are understanding the system again*.
> 
> I also think the "average age" thing is an explanation - we were an older force, on average, in the late 90's.



As someone from the "old days" who participated in disciplinary proceedings in all roles (in front of table hat off, sitting behind table hat on, assisting officer, adjt, escort, and even once marched the guilty bastard in) your comments are probably close to the mark.  After reading the article and closely looking at the numbers, my reaction was - "*that few*".

No significant change in the courts martial statistics.  The CFs quota for truly "criminal" types hasn't changed.  Of course a true indication of the truly criminal would be the numbers of CF members charged in civilian criminal court.

1660 separate summary trials. Spread that out across the army (15 major cbt arms units, 3 maj svc units, minor units, 10 reserve bdes), navy (21 major surface vessels, minor vessels and shore estb), air force (13 wings, the air force thinks they are more couth that the rest, but some of the more memorable STs of my experience were on air bases) and then add the training establishments, assorted other units and the various headquarters; on average a CO is not seeing very many miscreants a month.  Also consider a portion of those charged are likely repeat offenders; there was always a tendency to see the same soldiers doing the same stupid things before they realized they were too stupid to get away with it.

What the media may not grasp is that many summary charges are attempts to correct workplace misbehaviour that also exists in the civilian world, except that in the civilian sector these same antics are dealt with differently.  Instead of regarding the increase in military disciplinary proceedings as a bad thing, I view it as a return to a proven effective tool of workplace management.  Sometimes I wished I still had the same powers of punishment when dealing with some of my (civilian) employees.


----------



## tank recce (30 Jul 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I think if we were to go back when I first joined and look at the stats for all summary trials in the CF at that time, people today would have a fit! I know in my first two years I was charged 3 times and given extra duties so often that I thought our work week was 6 days!



Hell, even we did the hatless shuffle. There were a few of us who used to rotate on a regular basis - march in, march out, trade hats, march back in again. "Why are you two in front of me AGAIN?!" "It's Tuesday, sir."  ;D

Things have gotten silly the other way - I've been told in no uncertain terms that the JAG will NOT continue a charge of AWL against a Reservist, even if he's signed in. (The topic arose regarding poor turn-out for stables on the Tuesday after an Ex - knowing that the ev'g would consist of cleaning weapons and pots'n'pans, many troops would find a reason not to show, or simply not show at all. My proposed solution was to sign in, Friday ev'g, for the weekend PLUS the fol Tues. People with real reasons could be excused, people without could be pilloried, 'pour encourager les autres')


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Jul 2008)

> Combat, lack of respect for institutions reflected in military charges: MacKay
> Last Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | 4:34 PM ET Comments1Recommend2
> CBC News
> 
> ...



More on LINK


----------



## geo (30 Jul 2008)

Let's face it, when they put through all the changes to the military law some years back + the addition of administrative procedures - things got all sorts of complicated and disciplinary measures just stopped... 

The pendulum had to swing back at one time or another.

Also, now that we are an army that is involved in warfighting VS blue beret police action... discipline becomes an essential tool in out belt.


----------



## charlesm (30 Jul 2008)

When you take the new Presiding Officers Certification (POC) they explain why this is happening. After the Somalia affair the JAG had a good hard look at how discipline was done and administered. That is one of the reason it did get revamped in the late 90's. All this is is a reflection of is Officers and SNR NCO's being trained to use the system properly. It does not mention that the complete system was overhauled in 1999 and this is when the new system took effect.

Quoted from 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/training/publications/POCT_docs/military_justice_manualOLD_e.pdf

"48. Of particular concern for the Special Advisory Group was the need for additional training
for presiding officers, both to ensure that those officers properly fulfilled their duties and to
provide confidence to NCMs that presiding officers are familiar with the rights of accused
members. Therefore the Special Advisory Group recommended increased training and education
for presiding officers to ensure that they are knowledgeable about their roles in the military
justice system and competent to perform them and such officers should be certified by the JAG
to preside at summary trials.
49. In addition to the Special Advisory Group Report, the Report of the Somalia Commission
of Inquiry68 and other reports and studies69 have led to a review of the NDA and QR&O. The
resulting amendments to that legislation incorporated the recommendations contained in the
Special Advisory Group Report and responded to the recommendations of the Somalia
Commission."

my 2 cents worth


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I wonder how many cases of PTSD were pre-existing and people only started coming forward after we went to A'stan?



Excellent question.

However, considering the length of time we have been there, are you suggesting that the MSM has finally seen the results of the cases that they have ignored?  (They being the MSM, albeit the military is just as guilty).  As we should start to be seeing cases of ignored troops, IMO, from the sandbox finally reporting their pain.

Again, good point.

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Excellent question.
> 
> However, considering the length of time we have been there, are you suggesting that the MSM has finally seen the results of the cases that they have ignored?  (They being the MSM, albeit the military is just as guilty).



I was thinking along the lines of someone who may have had undiagnosed PTSD prior to even joining the military or before we deployed to A'stan.  The MSM spin is that these problems have only come to light since we've been in Afghanistan and are thereby *caused by the location of the tour itself*.  How many people are included in their results who have never deployed (there or anywhere) or who had a condition that was exacerbated by deployment (and not necessarily this one in particular)?


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I was thinking along the lines of someone who may have had undiagnosed PTSD prior to even joining the military or before we deployed to A'stan.   The MSM spin is that these problems have only come to light since we've been in Afghanistan and are thereby *caused by the location of the tour itself*.  How many people are included in their results who have never deployed (there or anywhere) or who had a condition that was exacerbated by deployment (and not necessarily this one in particular)?





That does not say much about the process of the recruiting, training and integration of people.

I thought you were talking about the stats, as compared to the troops who have suffered before hand, with regards to other operational tours.  I was with you until this post.   :-\

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I thought you were talking about the stats, as compared to the troops who have suffered before hand, with regards to other operational tours.  I was with you until this post.



Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about.  Maybe I just expanded a bit too much.  :-[



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That does not say much about the process of the recruiting, training and integration of people.



Personally, I don't remember being interviewed by a psychiatrist or psychologist before getting in (and I wasn't, only interviewed by a Log Officer).  I hope that certain people are "weeded out" before they become a problem, but who's to say what gets by the recruiting process (and other processes)?

After all, some people have lived with conditions for a long time and are very adept at hiding them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Jul 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, that's exactly what I was talking about.  Maybe I just expanded a bit too much.  :-[
> 
> Personally, I don't remember being interviewed by a psychiatrist or psychologist before getting in (and I wasn't, only interviewed by a Log Officer).  I hope that certain people are "weeded out" before they become a problem, but who's to say what gets by the recruiting process (and other processes)?
> 
> After all, some people have lived with conditions for a long time and are very adept at hiding them.




hmm,

Good point.

So what you are suggesting is adding a category of those that have suffered post recruitment sufferers of PTSD to the list.

Maybe we need the MSM or the Government to quantify those that have suffered a traumatic experience, before hand, that have joined.  

dileas

tess


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jul 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> hmm,
> 
> Good point.
> 
> ...



Actually, Tess, maybe you're reading too much into my comments (although, I've had a few beer tonight).  What I was trying to say, in a nutshell, is that the article seems to be trying to blame many of the discipline problems and the cases of PTSD on the tour in Afghanistan.



> In February 2008, Canadian Press that the *number of former soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder has tripled over a five-year period beginning in 2002, from 1,802 to 6,504*. As well, 1,300 Forces members who served in Afghanistan were screened after deployment, with results showing that almost one-third had symptoms that suggested one or more mental health problems.



Maybe the discipline problems and the PTSD are not related to the tour at all or were pre-existing problems that only came to a head *after* the tour, but were always present.  The tour may be a catalyst for some and/or an excuse for others.

Edit to add:  Maybe some problems aren't post-recruitment but pre-recruitment.  Who knows?  Who has stats on that?


----------



## Garett (31 Jul 2008)

I think there is a spike in summary trials during the first few months after a unit redeploys, but its understandable because the young guys have more trouble adapting to the change in environment. I don't think its because of PTSD from what I've seen, just the boys going from being watched by a Sect Comd 24/7 to being home alone playing video games (or whatever else) too late into the night. If you'll read the article you'll also see where it says that 90.8% of people are found guilt at summary trial, that hasn't changed over the years.


----------



## North Star (31 Jul 2008)

Did anyone bother to track who was being charged? I mean, let's face it...it could be that the boredom of guys stuck in pat platoons is contributing to the increase in charges filed. To be blunt, the CBC never really did any homework on this...they saw "increase in charges", and then filled in the blanks with speculation and the "A" word. 

I also agree with the comment that increased training for Presiding Officers plays a part. I have taken the training myself and can say that after, I was no longer afraid of inadvertently "violating" someone's "rights".


----------



## Blackadder1916 (31 Jul 2008)

North Star said:
			
		

> Did anyone bother to track who was being charged? I mean, let's face it...it could be that the boredom of guys stuck in pat platoons is contributing to the increase in charges filed. To be blunt, *the CBC never really did any homework on this*...they saw "increase in charges", and then filled in the blanks with speculation and the "A" word.



On this I would disagree.  They may be lacking in some understanding about the nuances of summary charges, but so do some serving members (usually the guys who get repeatedly charged), however judging from the article, PA (and perhaps JAG) are the primary ones to blame for any misinterpretation in this article.



> CBC News repeatedly asked the public affairs office at the Department of National Defence to supply someone for an interview to help explain the phenomenon. Instead, DND provided e-mail responses to specific questions on the AWOL figures and other numbers. Weeks later, an interview was declined.
> 
> Links were provided to JAG annual reports — with the earliest dating from 1998-99 — and these do shed some light on internal concerns about the increase in the number of charges.
> 
> ...


----------

