# Untrained BMQ Candidate Alleges Abuse by Directing Staff Sergeant



## RedcapCrusader

Link to article



> *Military veteran alleges abuse by drill sergeant*
> 
> By Shirlee Engel
> Global National Ottawa Correspondent
> Global News
> 
> James Robichaud went from promising military recruit to injured veteran *before he could even complete basic training.*
> 
> The former Canadian Forces private alleges the abuse he endured at the hands of a drill sergeant was so traumatizing, it left him with long term physical and mental injuries, and sabotaged his budding career.
> 
> Nearly five years later, he is on 17 different medications and said he still has nightmares.
> 
> “Everybody was scared of him. He was very aggressive,” Robichaud told Global News from his home in Trenton, Ont. “We knew we would be in hell when he was in charge of us.”
> 
> Robichaud joined the army in 2009, at age 43, after working in the lumber business. He was looking forward to a second career as an intelligence officer, but that all came to an end when he arrived for training at CFB Saint Jean, in Quebec.
> 
> He believes the drill sergeant had it in for him right from the start – when he made recruits do push-ups on their knuckles on gravel.
> 
> “At one point there was a rock that went into my hand and it was bleeding and I was making noises and I was grunting,” Robichaud said. “He grabbed me and he hit me on the shoulders. I went flat on my belly and he grabbed me by the shoulders and said stop whining like a little girl.”
> 
> Robichaud said it escalated from there. When he ripped his Achilles tendon in a fall on black ice, he alleges the drill sergeant made him run the course despite a doctor’s order to stay off his feet.
> 
> “I tried to run and I fell again. He told me if I didn’t run he would kill me 21 ways with his hands. And I believed him,” said Robichaud. “He said each time you fall I’m going to have people behind you and each time you do it I’m going to put a charge in your file for disobedience.”
> 
> He said he was initially denied medical care or a wheelchair. He complained to chain of command, only to be threatened by his superior yet again.
> 
> “He stated that he could do whatever to us and nobody would believe us.”
> 
> Robichaud’s physical injuries were so severe, he could not complete the training course and meet the requirements to begin his career as a soldier. His dream was shattered for good when he was medically discharged in 2012.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Canada covers his expenses – a recognition his injuries were caused in the military.
> 
> “I feel cheated. I feel he took away my career. He took away my health,” says the retired private.
> 
> The Department of National Defence refused to discuss Robichaud’s allegations, but did confirm military police conducted an investigation and recommended charges. The Director of Military Prosecutions has yet to decide whether charges will actually be laid so the drill sergeant could face a court martial.
> 
> Robichaud’s lawyer Michel Drapeau said the investigation only began after he took on the case in 2012 and wrote a letter to the vice-chief of defence. He still can’t get any answers from the military.
> 
> “We as Canadians need to know when a young person goes in and is recruited in the forces he is treated with not only dignity but also safety,” Drapeau said “And when this fails because somebody gets out of hand, the military will take that and do something. Particularly, when they’ve been warned and given evidence – un-contradicted so far – that he has suffered violence at the hands of this superior officer.”
> 
> Global News has learned the drill sergeant has since been reassigned to CFB Petawawa. He didn’t respond to an interview request through his commanding officer.
> 
> Robichaud’s allegations haven’t been proven, but he said he won’t rest until his alleged abuser is punished. He won’t let his own sons join the military because he’s concerned about the message his story sends to young recruits who may be too afraid to complain.
> 
> “I don’t believe in the Canadian system anymore… That that kid could be exposed to same bad dream that I was.”
> 
> © Shaw Media, 2014



recceguy - I had to edit the title as there was so much wrong with the original


----------



## MilEME09

veteran? i didnt know you could be called that by dropping out of BMQ


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

In this case, We made two mistakes:

1.  Recruiting this sack of hammers; and

2.  Not booting him sooner.


----------



## Edward Campbell

A few years ago (in response to a Human Rights complaint?) it _appeared, to me, _ that the CF developed a _fetish_ of sorts for recruiting 40 and even 50 year olds. While I can understand the _bureaucratic_ response to _political_ pressure I would have thought hoped that military _leaders_ might have seen things differently.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A few years ago (in response to a Human Rights complaint?) it _appeared, to me, _ that the CF developed a _fetish_ of sorts for recruiting 40 and even 50 year olds. While I can understand the _bureaucratic_ response to _political_ pressure I would have thought hoped that military _leaders_ might have seen things differently.



Yep and we recruit them when they are well past their best before date.  There are always exceptions to the rule; however, the vast majority of 40+ year old's have no business being anywhere near a military recruiting center, let alone basic training and the field force for that matter.  The military, regardless of occupation or trade, is a young man's game and every 40+ year old we take into the service takes the place of a fresh 19 year old who is almost always going to be more physically capable than that 40 year old.  

If you join the military at age 40+ you have very little time to amass the necessary experience to rise above the rank of Corporal/Captain which now affects succession planning and undermines the strength of the Snr NCO/Officer ranks, this is particularly dangerous for the Snr NCO's as they are the backbone of our army.  

The only 40+ years old that should be serving in the forces are Snr NCO's and Officers that have had 15-20+ years of soldiering under their belt, at that point we are paying them for their experience and knowledge anyways.


----------



## expwor

He believes the drill sergeant had it in for him right from the start – when he made recruits do push-ups on their knuckles on gravel.

Hmmm....had it in for *him* because the Sgt made *recruits*(plural) do push ups...
Just from a quick read sounds like this guy feels centred out (and special) although it appears all recruits...if we even believe the allegations, were treated the same.
And how can you be a promising military recruit if you didn't complete basic?
I think he is just leveraging for a lawsuit
A civilian's opinion

Tom


----------



## George Wallace

expwor has some valid points.  The Lawyer, whom many of us know, will grasp at any straw to win his clients case.

soccerplayer131

It is a common mistake of many in the Media to write Intelligence officer when referring to anyone who may be in that Trade (entering that Trade in this case).  They can not differentiate the subtleties between Intelligence "officer" and Intelligence "Operator", equating it to civilian Police officers and Intelligence officers as found in CSIS, having no concepts as to what it means to hold the Queen's Commission.


[EDIT:   Opps.....left out the "not"]


----------



## The Bread Guy

Let's also remember that we only have _his_ side of the story.


----------



## chrisf

What is it with you people? The media never gets their facts straight about the military, unless it supports your circle jerk, them it must be taken as gospel.

Before you all dog-pile of this fellow, based solely on another sensationalist article from the same media that has great difficulty getting any story right when it comes to the military, maybe consider the fact that it wouldn't be the first time we've had issues of abuses in the training system? Its not common, it fact I like to think its very rare, but don't stick your heads in the sand and pretend its impossible.

To be honest, I'm of the opinion that this is probably nothing, but, according to the article, the military police have investigated and recommended that charges be laid, so at very least, someone with more details than we have thinks there's a real issue, and if that's true, it needs to be dealt with.


----------



## Brasidas

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> What is it with you people? The media never gets their facts straight about the military, unless it supports your circle jerk, them it must be taken as gospel.
> 
> Before you all dog-pile of this fellow, based solely on another sensationalist article from the same media that has great difficulty getting any story right when it comes to the military, maybe consider the fact that it wouldn't be the first time we've had issues of abuses in the training system? Its not common, it fact I like to think its very rare, but don't stick your heads in the sand and pretend its impossible.
> 
> To be honest, I'm of the opinion that this is probably nothing, but, according to the article, the military police have investigated and recommended that charges be laid, so at very least, someone with more details than we have thinks there's a real issue, and if that's true, it needs to be dealt with.



Agreed. I've come across staff who should have and in some cases were charged and disciplined for their actions. 

The media sensationalizing and the possible exagerrations do not mean that significant wrongdoing did not occur. Anybody else know someone who's longterm health was directly compromised by staff?


----------



## Gunner98

No one else had commented on the 'facts' that he joined in 2009 and was medically released in 2012; thereby earning 3 years wages as an untrained recruit who no doubt faced continued belittlement by the CF system.


----------



## brihard

Sounds like a weak recruit whose hiring was a mistake to begin with, but then was not quickly and mercifully cut loose in an expeditious manner when he failed to cut the mustard, developing a victim complex in the process.


----------



## NSDreamer

Shitty reporting sure, but I'm impressed by the hate coming from this thread for this individual who I'm sure no one here has met... If the reporting is poor, it's not the individual lodging the complaint's fault, it's the reporters. 
We're constantly reminded innocent until proven guilty on charge threads, but in complaint threads the complaintent is always just a big whinger...

 I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the actual case being questioned, but it's attitudes like this that has made it so damn hard for people to come forward with real complaints when abuse IS occurring.


----------



## Stoker

I have seen a lot of CF members condemn the person in question. He was vetted by recruiting staff so they thought he was fit. If the member was injured while doing basic, then the military has the responsibility to look after him. If he was abused by his instructors then they should be held accountable. I see from his facebook page he was in a wheelchair and VA paid for it, so they must of thought he was injured by the military.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> No one else had commented on the 'facts' that he joined in 2009 and was medically released in 2012; thereby earning 3 years wages as an untrained recruit who no doubt faced continued belittlement by the CF system.



I read the story and I watched the video.  It appears we have a person who came for the pay cheque and got more than he bargained for.  Is it really his fault though?  

If the military recruits him we need to share some of the blame.  It was a mistake getting rid of age limits and it's a mistake holding onto people even after they have proven that they can't hack it.  This guy never had any business putting on a uniform in the first place and it's partially our fault for making him believe he actually could.

To quote Einstein, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,"

I know it's cliché but the CAF seems to never learn.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> What is it with you people? The media never gets their facts straight about the military, unless it supports your circle jerk, them it must be taken as gospel.
> 
> Before you all dog-pile of this fellow, based solely on another sensationalist article from the same media that has great difficulty getting any story right when it comes to the military, maybe consider the fact that it wouldn't be the first time we've had issues of abuses in the training system? Its not common, it fact I like to think its very rare, but don't stick your heads in the sand and pretend its impossible.
> 
> To be honest, I'm of the opinion that this is probably nothing, but, according to the article, the military police have investigated and recommended that charges be laid, so at very least, someone with more details than we have thinks there's a real issue, and if that's true, it needs to be dealt with.



We've all been "abused" at some point during our military training.  My Infantry DP 1.1 had 138 start the course and 45 finish, yes that's a 32% success rate.  If a normal person was to observe our course I'm sure they would of said we were abused as well OR.... maybe if they knew better they would realize the training was hard for a reason.

As for the MP's investigating and recommending charges, this happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that recommendation will be taken by the JAG.  Nowhere in this article is there any mention on whether the JAG followed through with the recommendation.


----------



## ModlrMike

A few observations:

1. We only have one side of the story;

2. This can not have happened without witnesses;

3. Now that it's in the press there's sure to be an investigation; and

4. We can argue all day about his age, but there's been many 40 year old recruits make it through just fine; so it's not germane to the conversation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> A few observations:
> 
> 1. We only have one side of the story;
> 
> 2. This can not have happened without witnesses;
> 
> 3. Now that it's in the press there's sure to be an investigation; and
> 
> 4. We can argue all day about his age, but there's been many 40 year old recruits make it through just fine; so it's not germane to the conversation.



I agree with all your points except #4... it's very germane to the discussion as it ties into numerous other issues facing the CAF at the moment such as, readiness, physical/mental fitness, resilience, recruitment practices, etc....


----------



## ModlrMike

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I agree with all your points except #4... it's very germane to the discussion as it ties into numerous other issues facing the CAF at the moment such as, readiness, physical/mental fitness, resilience, recruitment practices, etc....


To counter: one case does not prove the rule.


----------



## dapaterson

Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms.  

Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?


----------



## Sig_Des

I don't often post anymore, but this one gets me going a bit.

I'm going to try to not judge either the complainant or the Instructor, but the institution and the system.

1. The Complainant has an injury attributed to military service. I think we can all agree to that point. He's getting a VAC pension, he was medically released. The article doesn't specify WHAT injury his release was attributed to. He was NOT injured BY the military, he was injured during military service.

2. MP Investigation and charge recommendation: We do not know what the recommended charges were. And honestly, I'm pretty hesitant to use this as a proof of abuse. I've heard the horror stories from friends who are there of how recruits are coddled, and instructors at CFLRS are vilified. Swear in front of recruits, extras. Cross your arms in front of recruits, you're being threatening, extras.

3. There is a fine line between abuse, and let's call it _enthusiastic_ method of instruction. If I tell people who have had nothing to do with the military some of the (now) amusing or tougher things that staff along my career have performed, said to me, made me do, implied, described, threatened upon me, they are horrified. Because to them it's something that is so far out of their comfort zone, that they don't recognize the requirement for it. Which is fine, they don't need to deal with what we do. My issue is that now, as an institution with more corporate interest in not looking bad and protecting the feelings of new members, we are taking away from the training value that prepares military members for the exigencies of service that nobody else will ever have to deal with.

This is from Ranger Up, a company founded and operated by Veterans (the real kind, not the kind that doesn't finish Basic), and I feel it's appropriate to share.



> In Short, people have no idea what sacrifice looks like anymore, then when they're given the tiniest window into the military world and they see kids reaching physical exhaustion, getting yelled at, getting emotionally brought down, they just see cruelty. They don't see the value, because they don't know what we know.
> 
> That toughness is earned.
> It has to be earned.



(Full poster is attached)

Now, this instructor may very well have pushed the envelope, he could have broken rules, he could have been a hard-ass. But my personal opinion, based off of what's presented, and my personal experience, I'm leaning towards the belief that this guy just couldn't hack it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> To counter: one case does not prove the rule.



No but this isn't the only case, it's only logical that if your military average age is higher fitness levels across the force will drop as will the overall health of the force.  As people age their physical abilities tend to dwindle and they become more susceptible to illness, this is something we cannot control.  This does have an impact on readiness and you're putting your head in the sand if it doesn't.  Age limits are a control measure that could be enacted to counter this.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms.
> 
> Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?



I agree completely that many of them do bring valuable skills that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF and this would be something that would need to be weighted against other factors.  I personally like the idea but we would also need a cultural shift within CFRG and the Ottawa Bureaucracy for it to work.  

Right now CFRG uses a system heavily weighted towards quantitative recruiting practices, perhaps a paradigm shift to a system with heavier weight given to qualitative analysis of potential recruits would be more appropriate?  

For the record, I am not against recruiting 40 year olds entirely but until the recruiting system changes from a spreadsheet based system of number punching to one with far more qualitative analysis, I cannot support it and I view age limits as a viable "control measure" for keeping unfit folk out of the military.



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> 3. There is a fine line between abuse, and let's call it _enthusiastic_ method of instruction. If I tell people who have had nothing to do with the military some of the (now) amusing or tougher things that staff along my career have performed, said to me, made me do, implied, described, threatened upon me, they are horrified. Because to them it's something that is so far out of their comfort zone, that they don't recognize the requirement for it. Which is fine, they don't need to deal with what we do. My issue is that now, as an institution with more corporate interest in not looking bad and protecting the feelings of new members, we are taking away from the training value that prepares military members for the exigencies of service that nobody else will ever have to deal with.



Couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## The_Falcon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms.
> 
> Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?



I am willing to submit another FOI, but from what I saw (in albeit my brief time) in recruiting, is that very very few of the 35+ age group in the application process had that kind of experience to offer


----------



## The_Falcon

A simpler fix.....bring back mandatory fitness testing prior to shipping people off to St. Jean.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> A simpler fix.....bring back mandatory fitness testing prior to shipping people off to St. Jean.



What time period would that be?  I'm sure that I did not do one way back in 1978.....


----------



## Jed

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms.
> 
> Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?



It all depends on the individual's abilities.

Speaking as someone who went Reg force at age of 37 (when 35 was the unofficial cut off age) it is a very, very tough go to swim against the stream. The issue is not only physical, your peers are from a different generation, you relate better to your DS or your DS's superior.

I also went through a period when the CF was downsizing and the washout % from the Basic courses were high. If a recruit's skin and self confidence is not at peak level the recruit will not survive.

Maybe it is a generational thing,(in my opinion) but what is now considered abuse by society and the system is essential in developing first class personnel in the CAF. 

I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve my country and fellow man in the CF. I would never have had the opportunity to do so if some recruiting Doctor had not altered my medical birth date year on his own accord.

All that being said, unless the stuff really hits the fan, there is no way the CAF should be recruiting *untrained* personnel over the age of 35. The system gets tied up in political fur balls and is made lesser because of it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What time period would that be?  I'm sure that I did not do one way back in 1978.....



And here is where the problem lies Bruce, we have tonnes of policy written on paper but very little of it is actually applied.  For the record I also didn't do a fitness test, I did what is called a self-fitness evaluation i.e. I said I could run 2 miles in X # of min and do X # of pushups and X # of situps but that's as far as it ever went, the recruiters took my word for it   :nod:

Luckily, I actually was fit otherwise the CF never would have known.  



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> It all depends on the individual's abilities.
> 
> Speaking as someone who went Reg force at age of 37 (when 35 was the unofficial cut off age) it is a very, very tough go to swim against the stream. The issue is not only physical, your peers are from a different generation, you relate better to your DS or your DS's superior.
> 
> I also went through a period when the CF was downsizing and the washout % from the Basic courses were high. If a recruit's skin and self confidence is not at peak level the recruit will not survive.
> 
> Maybe it is a generational thing,(in my opinion) but what is now considered abuse by society and the system is essential in developing first class personnel in the CAF.
> 
> I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve my country and fellow man in the CF. I would never have had the opportunity to do so if some recruiting Doctor had not altered my medical birth date year on his own accord.
> 
> All that being said, unless the stuff really hits the fan, there is no way the CAF should be recruiting *untrained* personnel over the age of 35. The system gets tied up in political fur balls and is made lesser because of it.



I agree completely, especially if we wish to call ourselves a professional military.


----------



## George Wallace

Jed said:
			
		

> All that being said, unless the stuff really hits the fan, there is no way the CAF should be recruiting *untrained* personnel over the age of 35. The system gets tied up in political fur balls and is made lesser because of it.



I am not sure that the matter is really recruiting untrained, but more of recruiting "skilled" prospects.  As mentioned, there are folk with skills that they have acquired outside of the CAF, that are beneficial to the CAF and exceptions are made to bring them in.  Again, the question has arisen as to what level/rank you are willing to bring them in as.  I suppose an extreme example would be the recruiting of a Fifty something Chaplain as a Capt or Major.  There are exceptions to the rule in all cases, so it is not so Black and White/Cut and dried.


----------



## Monsoon

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> 1. The Complainant has an injury attributed to military service. I think we can all agree to that point. He's getting a VAC pension, he was medically released. The article doesn't specify WHAT injury his release was attributed to. He was NOT injured BY the military, he was injured during military service.


Actually, we DO know what the injury was: he slipped on the ice and damaged his Achilles tendon in some way. Obviously the injury was not (as he claims) that his Achilles tendon was "ripped": I know about that injury and if he'd suffered it, there's no way he could have stood let alone be forced to continue running.


----------



## Jed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am not sure that the matter is really recruiting untrained, but more of recruiting "skilled" prospects.  As mentioned, there are folk with skills that they have acquired outside of the CAF, that are beneficial to the CAF and exceptions are made to bring them in.  Again, the question has arisen as to what level/rank you are willing to bring them in as.  I suppose an extreme example would be the recruiting of a Fifty something Chaplain as a Capt or Major.  There are exceptions to the rule in all cases, so it is not so Black and White/Cut and dried.



It is true that making it a cookie cutter approach to recruiting by establishing age determined entrance gates, will screen out some necessary, essential candidates; but too me, it is a small price to pay to create a far better CAF. The very few mentally and physically suitable specialist positions gained in no way make up for the loss of efficiency and effectiveness of the CAF recruiting system.

Of course, I would be the first one to adjust the age recruitment gate if we needed to rapidly expand the personnel numbers.


----------



## The_Falcon

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What time period would that be?  I'm sure that I did not do one way back in 1978.....



 ??? 2006, there was tons of bitching about it here (still is) about warrior/fat camp platoon etc.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> ??? 2006, there was tons of bitching about it here (still is) about warrior/fat camp platoon etc.



Bruce is alluding to the fact that nothing changes in the CAF and that not completely a fitness test to enter the CAF is "business as usual"


----------



## Tibbson

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> As for the MP's investigating and recommending charges, this happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that recommendation will be taken by the JAG.  The MP's can get it wrong as well and they regularly do.  Nowhere in this article is there any mention on whether the JAG followed through with the recommendation.



I'm no fan of this guys lawyer and once I saw his name I realized that it doesn't matter what the facts of the case are, Drapeau won't let them stand in the way of a good story as he sees it and a chance to lob grenades at the military justice system.  

<off topic>

As for your comment quoted above, I can't sit by and let that one go either.  I'm not saying that MPs get it right all the time, no police department does, but to say they do so regularly is both simply quite wrong and actually quite inflammatory in the course of this, or any discussion.  

People assume that when the MPs (or any police) lay a charge but the person either gets off or the charges are not proceeded with it's because the police got it wrong.  What people don't realize (or for some people they refuse to realize) is that the legal and charging system is progressive.  Police investigate and when they lay a charge they do so based on a the legal standard of their having "reasonable and probable grounds" which means they feel they have met the elements of what constitutes an offence.   An RMP (or in civilian court, a Crown) then looks at the case file and confirms there were reasonable and probable grounds for the charge and then they decide to proceed based upon whether they feel they have a likelihood of successful prosecution and that the matter is in the public interest to be proceeded with.  This is a higher standard then the one applied by the police.   Of course, after that the matter goes to court and the court then applies the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" when they assess whether the accused is guilty or not.   If someone is found not guilty then many people, such as yourself it seems, automatically assume that "the MPs screwed up".  

I realise none of this is going to change a mind that is firmly set in the negative on the topic but the fact that the MPs recommended charges in this case, or any case, only means that there is suitable evidence or doubt to support the laying of a charge, not an eventual finding of guilt.   That is the job of the Court.  I've had plenty of cases that have gone to court where the accused was found guilty and I've had plenty where they have been found not guilty.  Regardless of the case I can honestly say I've never won or lost any of those cases.  That is the job of the lawyer and I've never had one of them come back and say the person got off the charge because of something I've done wrong or one of my subordinates has done wrong.  Those are the only cases the police actually lose.  

<back on topic>


----------



## Remius

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am not sure that the matter is really recruiting untrained, but more of recruiting "skilled" prospects.  As mentioned, there are folk with skills that they have acquired outside of the CAF, that are beneficial to the CAF and exceptions are made to bring them in.  Again, the question has arisen as to what level/rank you are willing to bring them in as.  I suppose an extreme example would be the recruiting of a Fifty something Chaplain as a Capt or Major.  There are exceptions to the rule in all cases, so it is not so Black and White/Cut and dried.



+1 to this. 

We'd be in a far worse situation in the CF if we hadn't gone out and recruited some of those "over 35" types in some very specific trades.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I'm no fan of this guys lawyer and once I saw his name I realized that it doesn't matter what the facts of the case are, Drapeau won't let them stand in the way of a good story as he sees it and a chance to lob grenades at the military justice system.
> 
> <off topic>
> 
> As for your comment quoted above, I can't sit by and let that one go either.  I'm not saying that MPs get it right all the time, no police department does, but to say they do so regularly is both simply quite wrong and actually quite inflammatory in the course of this, or any discussion.
> 
> People assume that when the MPs (or any police) lay a charge but the person either gets off or the charges are not proceeded with it's because the police got it wrong.  What people don't realize (or for some people they refuse to realize) is that the legal and charging system is progressive.  Police investigate and when they lay a charge they do so based on a the legal standard of their having "reasonable and probable grounds" which means they feel they have met the elements of what constitutes an offence.   An RMP (or in civilian court, a Crown) then looks at the case file and confirms there were reasonable and probable grounds for the charge and then they decide to proceed based upon whether they feel they have a likelihood of successful prosecution and that the matter is in the public interest to be proceeded with.  This is a higher standard then the one applied by the police.   Of course, after that the matter goes to court and the court then applies the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" when they assess whether the accused is guilty or not.   If someone is found not guilty then many people, such as yourself it seems, automatically assume that "the MPs screwed up".
> 
> I realise none of this is going to change a mind that is firmly set in the negative on the topic but the fact that the MPs recommended charges in this case, or any case, only means that there is suitable evidence or doubt to support the laying of a charge, not an eventual finding of guilt.   That is the job of the Court.  I've had plenty of cases that have gone to court where the accused was found guilty and I've had plenty where they have been found not guilty.  Regardless of the case I can honestly say I've never won or lost any of those cases.  That is the job of the lawyer and I've never had one of them come back and say the person got off the charge because of something I've done wrong or one of my subordinates has done wrong.  Those are the only cases the police actually lose.
> 
> <back on topic>



I re-read what I wrote and I agree with you that it was an inflammatory comment and didn't help advance the debate.  Apologies for that and I will edit my comment accordingly.


----------



## Jed

Crantor said:
			
		

> +1 to this.
> 
> We'd be in a far worse situation in the CF if we hadn't gone out and recruited some of those "over 35" types in some very specific trades.



Crantor, is this your personal opinion or do you have knowledge to back this up? I personally would like to think you are correct, but my, somewhat dated personal experience led me to think otherwise. (albeit, experience from the 1993 -1996 cut and slash, decade of darkness era)


----------



## Brasidas

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Actually, we DO know what the injury was: he slipped on the ice and damaged his Achilles tendon in some way. Obviously the injury was not (as he claims) that his Achilles tendon was "ripped": I know about that injury and if he'd suffered it, there's no way he could have stood let alone be forced to continue running.



Could have been like mine; there were a couple rounds of being declared fit and subsequent reinjury. It doesn't take a huge stretch for a serious initial injury and being hounded to perform by enthusiastic staff to finish it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I agree with all your points except #4... it's very germane to the discussion as it ties into numerous other issues facing the CAF at the moment such as, readiness, physical/mental fitness, resilience, recruitment practices, etc....



We could limit people to age 30-something as applicants, except for Para 15 of this little document.  I know I'm being obvious, but we can't pick and choose what parts of our laws we follow and what ones we don't.

However, we do have things like fitness/medical standard, Occupation Specifications, and a whole slew of policy that can be applied when a mbr doesn't perform to the required, identified standards.  Can't dig a trench fast/deep enough?  I bet I can find something in the Inf Occ Spec's about that.  The course QS and TP.  Don't know your Emergencies and AC Gen as aircrew?  I bet I can find something in your Occ Specs, QSs and TPs about that.

The tools are there for us to use, the standards are set in countless QSs, TPs, Orders, Occ Specs, you name it and we can do ours jobs as NCOs and Officers to maintain those standards...while adhering to things like our own Charter.

Bringing back the PT test into the Reg Force Recruiting process;  IMO, it never should have been removed.  I was staff at CFLRS around the time it was and the first wave of 'untested' recruits arrived.  I can say that we had people go to the MIR Day 1 of their course, because they weren't fit enough to carry their civy kit to the 6th floor without getting hurt.  That's no shit either.

A few mentioned "I didn't do a PT test to get in".  In 1988, neither did I _BUT_ my generation did things that are foreign to kids today;  we played outside, climbed trees, ran, biked, swan.  I mean, in real life.  Not an App, or a Xbox game.  We were fit kids and had fallen out of trees, wiped out on our bikes, fought other kids for whatever reason.  Mentally and physically, we grew up differently than the Xbox generations of today, who think 'toughing it out' is waiting for the next version of iPhone to be available in stores.

As for this particular guy, who knows.  None of us were there and I don't believe in making hard opinions on half of a story.  The instructor might have gone outside their lanes.  That is not a CF centric issue; it happens in _any_ workplace so why would anyone be surprised if it did at CFLRS?  People are human and therefore imperfect (not to excuse or justify, just making a point).  We (CAF) just have better ways and means to sort out those who get carried away.  RMs, ST and CMs, ARs for really serious offenders if and when it happens.  Corrective training, mentoring, etc for the less serious cases.  Many civie jobs, people have no recourse.  For all we know, the instructor could have received C & P or faced an AR.  If so, he/she should expect the same as any other Canadian WRT Privacy Act protections.

I agree with some other points though, that if the mbr would have 'ripped his tendon' he wouldn't have been walking to start with.  The wording and catch phases might get a  :'( from Joe and Jane Taxpayer, but it causes me to question credibility of facts allegations presented.

 :2c:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We could limit people to age 30-something as applicants, except for Para 15 of this little document.  I know I'm being obvious, but we can't pick and choose what parts of our laws we follow and what ones we don't.



I understand the legal reasons behind this, or at least how the laws are interpreted.  I tend to take Rick Hillier's stance with reference to his comment, "we protect democracy, we don't practice it"

If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everything we do in the military, than why even have a separate court and police force?  Is the fact we do, not a tacit enough acknowledgement that military service should be governed by a different set of rules?

Also if we aren't allowed to discriminate based on age than how are we allowed to have a compulsory retirement age of 60? 

I'm not asking rhetorical questions btw, I'd actually like to hear an answer from someone in the know, preferably a lawyer.


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I understand the legal reasons behind this, or at least how the laws are interpreted.  I tend to take Rick Hillier's stance with reference to his comment, "we protect democracy, we don't practice it"
> 
> If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everything we do in the military, than why even have a separate court and police force?  Is the fact we do, not a tacit enough acknowledgement that military service should be governed by a different set of rules?
> 
> Also if we aren't allowed to discriminate based on age than how are we allowed to have a compulsory retirement age of 60?
> 
> I'm not asking rhetorical questions btw, I'd actually like to hear an answer from someone in the know, preferably a lawyer.



Actually, we have gone over all of this in the past.  [I am by no means a Lawyer, nor a student of Law.]  As I understand it: the CAF have been exempted some parts of the Charter through clauses that reflect Universality of Service.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Also if we aren't allowed to discriminate based on age than how are we allowed to have a compulsory retirement age of 60?



Here is one challenge to CRA.  http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/rec/014-eng.html


----------



## Sig_Des

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, we have gone over all of this in the past.  [I am by no means a Lawyer, nor a student of Law.]  As I understand it: the CAF have been exempted some parts of the Charter through clauses that reflect Universality of Service.



Absolutely we have, and there have been challenges based on it where DND was found to be discriminatory, but it was permitted as a bona fide occupational requirement.

http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/1994/1994fca0286.html

Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant) v. Canadian Armed Forces (Respondent)

I think you'd be hard-pressed for universality of service to be applied to age as opposed to a physical disability which prevents meeting of the standards.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, we have gone over all of this in the past.  [I am by no means a Lawyer, nor a student of Law.]  As I understand it: the CAF have been exempted some parts of the Charter through clauses that reflect Universality of Service.



Thank you George; however, this still doesn't answer part of my question?  How are we allowed to have a CRA if we can't discriminate based on age?  How can we tell someone that you need to retire right now because your to bloody old but not set a maximum age for enrollment into the service?

Also how can we set a minimum age limit on enrollment and not a maximum?

Hypothetically if I was a 14 year old, would I be able to challenge the CF in court for not allowing me to enroll?  Would I be able to challenge them in court for not allowing me to work past my CRA.  Would I be allowed to cite Para 15 of the Charter as part of my challenge?



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Here is one challenge to CRA.  http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/rec/014-eng.html



Interesting, thanks.



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Absolutely we have, and there have been challenges based on it where DND was found to be discriminatory, but it was permitted discrimination because of universality of service:
> 
> http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/1994/1994fca0286.html
> 
> Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant) v. Canadian Armed Forces (Respondent)
> 
> I think you'd be hard-pressed for universality of service to be applied to age as opposed to a physical disability which prevents meeting of the standards.



I don't think it would be impossible but it would require significant work.  One of the unstated reasons behind the FORCE Test is to prevent disabled people from enrolling onto the CAF, the whole idea behind it was it was a scientifically validated test designed to be applicable to Universality of Service.  Perhaps the program could be expanded further to include scientific studies based around the "effective age limit" for potential military applicants?  

I agree with certain comments above though, that a theoretically easier road would be to simply apply our policies more liberally; however, if this is the easier road, than why haven't we been doing it?


----------



## George Wallace

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Absolutely we have, and there have been challenges based on it where DND was found to be discriminatory, but it was permitted as a bona fide occupational requirement.
> 
> http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/1994/1994fca0286.html
> 
> Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant) v. Canadian Armed Forces (Respondent)
> 
> I think you'd be hard-pressed for universality of service to be applied to age as opposed to a physical disability which prevents meeting of the standards.



Wait until you are sixty, in good health (in that 'the army has not broken your body') and ask again, especially if you are in a non-Combat Arms Trade flying a desk for the most part.  

At the same time, look at the position you are holding that prevents the recruiting of a younger soldier whose bones will heal faster than yours.   ;D


Of course, if the excrement makes physical contact with the powered oscillating air current distribution device, then I am sure that there CRA rule will be tossed as in past history, and a "Home Guard" may be formed.


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Hypothetically if I was a 14 year old, would I be able to challenge the CF in court for not allowing me to enroll?  Would I be able to challenge them in court for not allowing me to work past my CRA.  Would I be allowed to cite Para 15 of the Charter as part of my challenge?



The 14 year old would place Canada in a position contrary to us being a signatory to Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC).


----------



## Remius

Jed said:
			
		

> Crantor, is this your personal opinion or do you have knowledge to back this up? I personally would like to think you are correct, but my, somewhat dated personal experience led me to think otherwise. (albeit, experience from the 1993 -1996 cut and slash, decade of darkness era)



I do. I was involved in the recruiting system.  Doctors is the first trade group that comes to mind.  There aren't many aged 19-25.  Many were 35+ (but late 40s was rare), fit and motivated (signing bonus helped) but we had a critical shortage back then.  using MOTP was hard enough because most med students have grand dreams and it isn't until they realise the time and money it takes to pursue specialist training that MOTP would have been a good choice but meh. 

As George mentioned, it applied mostly to skilled applicants looking for change but also that had skill sets we could use.  Many were older types (not 60) but 35-45 was not uncommon.


----------



## Sig_Des

Before we dive too deep into the Age/discrimination/CRA rabbit hole:

The question would be, was the instructor abusive, either of the individual or the group?

I'm curious as to what others who were on the course would say. Was the complainant the course magnet? Was the instructor a dick, and was he one to everyone, or just the individual.

Did the instructor actually contribute to the injury, or is the complainant targeting.

Like everyone's said, there's only one-side to the story here.


----------



## George Wallace

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Did the instructor actually contribute to the injury, or is the complainant targeting.



Slipped on ice.  Tore Achilles tendon.  Sounds like an accident to me.   Now, also remember, in that time frame, there was the problem with the soles CWW Boots in cold weather ( Which could be a Red Herring, as we do not know what the member was wearing at the time ).  All of this would be covered in his CF 98 and the Witness Statements that would accompany it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The 14 year old would place Canada in a position contrary to us being a signatory to Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC).



Which we are bound by, except if it was found to violate our Constitution.  If someone successfully argued that setting a minimum age restriction violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we would have to find someway around it or the laws would need to change and we would be in non-compliance with the treaty.  I know, it's a completely ridiculous notion to even think about but the law can be ridiculous sometimes.

Perhaps this would act as a catalyst for exempting the military from being bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?  

OK I'll stop with the What if's now  ;D


----------



## DAA

Look at the basics before judging.  The guy went through the established recruiting process of the day and was fortunate enough to have been offered a job with the CF.  He went to basic, was injured and medically released.  It's not the first time something like this has ever happened.    :facepalm:  

Now think about your own subordinates, who have gone away on some sort of course, only to be RTU'd early due to a training failure.  I don't think any of them would up and say "I wasn't prepared for the training, etc, etc" but more along the lines of "The course staff had it in for me and that's why I failed!"  Heard the later of the two far too many times.......

Did the particular course staff in question go to far?  We don't know, we weren't there.  Did the Health Care Providers fail?  Again, we don't know.

Is this news?  Hell yes, today it is!  Is DND and the CF really concerned about it?  Probably not, because within a few days, it will be a thing of the past.  For something like this to be of a big concern to the machine, would require several other people to come out of the wood work and make the same type of allegations.

My impression of the whole thing, "Buds, you're over 40, did you really fully truly understand just what you were getting yourself into?"  Obviously not......


----------



## Harris

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A few years ago (in response to a Human Rights complaint?) it _appeared, to me, _ that the CF developed a _fetish_ of sorts for recruiting 40 and even 50 year olds. While I can understand the _bureaucratic_ response to _political_ pressure I would have thought hoped that military _leaders_ might have seen things differently.



Last year I had a 53 year old on my Infantry Unit run BMQ.  She passed, barely, but has already released.  A huge waste of my staffs time.


----------



## Halifax Tar

This highlighted part scares me:



> When he ripped his Achilles tendon in a fall on black ice, he alleges the drill sergeant made him run the course despite a doctor’s order to stay off his feet



This part scares me because I have seen this happen in the past both inside the training system and operationally.  I understand we as leaders may have a feeling a troop is malingering but we cannot decide that if the medical system has endorsed the validity of the injury/sickness and prescribed a resolution for it. 

Many leaders don't get that when a sick chit is prescribed it is hard stone gospel and to be obeyed to a T.  Those of us non-medical professionals have neither the training nor the knowledge necessary to countermand a diagnosis. 

I hope this allegation is not true, but it would not surprise me if it was and that right there is the trump card in the whole article. 



Footnote:  I feel for the Med people.  I know they can probably tell when a member is just a malingerer but they have to err on the side of caution and take the members word for it.  I am in no way implicating them for the existence of malingerers in the CAF.


----------



## DAA

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I hope this allegation is not true, but it would not surprise me if it was and that right there is the trump card in the whole article.
> 
> Footnote:  I feel for the Med people.  I know they can probably tell when a member is just a malingerer but they have to err on the side of caution and take the members word for it.  I am in no way implicating them for the existence of malingerers in the CAF.



On the med side, I've been privi to a few things/discussions in my career and also personally subjected to examination as we all have been from time to time.  But I would be inclined to say, based soley on my experience, that Health Services, can't tell the difference.

And they definitely don't err on the side of caution.


----------



## Tibbson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Many leaders don't get that when a sick chit is prescribed it is hard stone gospel and to be obeyed to a T.



I'm not questioning the validity of what you are saying and I ask this only for clarification but just where does it say that a sick chit is to be "obeyed to a T"?  It has always been my understanding that a sick chit or even advice from a Doctor is just that, advice.  If the Dr tells someone to stop smoking or to take a certain medication that certainly isn't an order.  It is the Doctors advice that the member take the meds, quit smoking, lose weight, stay off an injured limb......is it not?  

Now, as a supervisor, if one of my subordinates comes to me with a sick chit saying "PT at own pace"..."No running"..."5 days light duties"...."requires an orthopedic office chair"....whatever, you can bet I'll ensure I do all within my power to make sure the conditions are met and that the member abide by those conditions as much as possible but that is because I have no suitable medical training to countermand that recommendation.  At the end of the day though, it's just that, their professional recommendation and a supervisor would be a fool not to listen to it.  

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

You dont have the authority to go against any medically imposed restrictions or limitations.  It is not advice.  

If the MIR gives one of your people "no running x 7 days" and you order them to run, and they go back to the MIR in worse shape, I think your CO will get a phone call.   

If I get a no running x 7 days chit and run anyways and make it worse, thats disobeying a lawful command.

The actual written in ink rules will come from a CF Health Svcs type for this I hope.


----------



## Tibbson

I'm with you 100% but because I agree with you it's common sense.  I just don't see where it can be considered a "lawful command".    I see it more as medical advice, advice any supervisor would be a fool to disregard or act counter to, but that doesn't make it a lawful command.  Hopefully, as you say, someone from the medical field will provide a reference making it so.  We're both on the same side on this one but more because it's the right stance, not perhaps because it's in legislation or regulations.


----------



## ModlrMike

Medical limitations have historically been advice provided to the CO, to be tempered by operational needs. It would, however be a brave CO who chose to ignore this advice.

The Medical Branch lays out the members' restrictions, the unit/branch etc figures out how to employ the member IAW those restrictions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Hmmm.  Not exactly what the BSurg briefed to us early 90s.  Where I am now, if I go grounded only a Flt Surg can unground me.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Not exactly what the BSurg briefed to us early 90s.  Where I am now, if I go grounded only a Flt Surg can unground me.



Functionally, ie day to day, correct, but not entirely complete.

The basis of Command and Control is the NDA, as amplified by QR&Os.  However, the reference document is Canadian Forces Concept Of Operations, Chapter 1.

In there it lists the types of Command and Control:
Full Command
Operational Command
Operational Control
Tactical Command
Tactical Control
Administrative Control
Technical Control

Without having reference to the document, from memory I believe you'll find the medical aystem exercises Administrative Control of members.  However, the basic tenet is only Commanders can accept risk, and the type of Command or Control you have lays out what type of risk you can accept.

Therefore, an appropriate Commander could accept risk and order you to go flying, but they would be accepting the risk.  Therefore they would never do it except in extremis.

A "Drill Sgt" wouldn't be an appropriate Commander, and to complete BMQ wouldn't be an appropriate reason to accept medical risk.

By the way, the Technical Authority exerts Technical Control, and (I have this one almost memorized, sic) "this type of control can be overidden any time its application is seen to jeapordize the completion of the mission."  So an appropriate Commander can accept the risk and order you to take an unservicable or otherwise unsuitable aircraft flying, but by doing so he accepts the risk.

This is very important to is in MH who are Crew Commanders, as we serve two chains, the Navy and the Air Force.  We need to understand what risk the CO of the ship is allowed to order us to assume.

And there's one other one: NDA chargable offences: "failure of a Commander to engage the enemy when at all capable of doing so..."  Which means in the face of the enemy Commanders can and must assume all risk as appropriate.


Editted to add: if people within a Commanders responsibility assume risk that they are not authorized to do, such as ordering people to run when they are injured, the Commander at the appriate level, in this case the Unit CO, would still be responsible, as he is responsible for Command and Control within his Command (ie unit), which includes knowing what is going on and correcting problems, which he exercises through the Chain of Command, and is why he has powers of investigation and punishment.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Exactly. _* If*_ the allegation(s) are true and this Drill Sgt (DS) did so have a member go against the medical limitations laid out by the MIR then he may be in a whole heap of trouble.  

On a side note I did my PLQ at St Jean not long after this occurrence if the reporting dates are correct.  I will tell you we, as a course, had weekly closed door "chats" with the school commandant and CWO for the expressed purpose that they wanted to be sure their staff were functioning accordingly.  

From what I gathered the PLQ staff before my course had some issues with the treatment of PLQ students.  Admittedly this was secondhand scuttlebutt but it is interesting.


----------



## Tibbson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Exactly. _* If*_ the allegation(s) are true and this Drill Sgt (DS) did so have a member go against the medical limitations laid out by the MIR then he may be in a whole heap of trouble.



yes, but only because he did not have the authority to make the decision, not because the decision of the MO was cast in stone and beyond question and the Sgt "disobeyed a lawful command".

(Assuming of course it happened as alleged in the article which I think we can all agree is suspect on the face of it at this time).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Learn something new everyday.  The briefings we went to as a bullpen with the BSurg were at the Crse O/Crse WO level and down so...in that context I guess it was correct 'as it applied to us'.  I (SNCO) didn't have the authority to tell Bloggins to run if his chit said "no running".

But, back on track...


----------



## vincent.escanlar

This CANFORGEN was one of the references on my CDU team's regular visits with units, and helped to reinforce dialogue between Medical (ie the Care Delivery Unit team) and the unit with regards to MELs - "any questions, please call us directly as it's quicker and more useful than sending the mbr back to Sick Parade". Being accessible to the units helped us provide clearer and more relevant MELs for the mbr's and the unit's needs.

CANFORGEN 128/03 ADMHRMIL 061 241824Z OCT 03

(Edited to add reference link and brevity)


----------



## Baz

And I too have learned something today... it seems the CDS has indicated it does not fall under Administrative Control and that it is specifically dealt with.

So much for Commander's being allowed to assume risk in order to accomplish the mission... it would be nice if someone published it in a current Command and Control document instead of an eleven year old CANFORGEN; although it may well be in the documents I mentioned as I don't have them for reference.

Rant on: I'm curious as to how Commander's can be held responsible to complete the mission when more and more of their ability to assume risk is being taken from them; rant off.

In any case, the "Drill Sgt" in question would not have the authority; but the more important question is whether he overstepped his lanes, or the member in question misrepresented the situation.  Which I don't have an insight on...


----------



## cryco

As a civie, I have a question for you following this discussion:
If the recruit/soldier or anyone else that is injured is ordered to continue physical training (not combat situation) which would exacerbate the injury and risk serious or long term damage, can the subordinate simply refuse to participate? 
I would rather suffer a reprimand than risk a tear to a ligament or tendon or whatever else it may be.


----------



## Baz

Baz said:
			
		

> Rant on: I'm curious as to how Commander's can be held responsible to complete the mission when more and more of their ability to assume risk is being taken from them; rant off



This really belongs in a separate thread, and probably in a separate area...

In order to explain my rant, I propose and open for discussion the following thought experiment, albeit unlikely, with the statement that I believe the rules have to allow for the worst case, which is for us failure in combat.

 We find ourselves in open combat with a near peer force.  A reinforced Joint unit is indepently deployed and ordered to hold a strategically vital strongpoint.  That unit is "infected" with a dibilitating disease, for which the only real cure is bed rest.  Therefore, the medical odficer orders same for all those affected.  By doing so, the unit is no longer capable of completing its mission.  Therefore, the CO is faced with two conflicting orders, the one from the CDS saying he has no option than to follow the MOs direction, and his order to hold, which implicitly tells him to accept a lot of risk.  What does he do?

Again, highly unlikely, but I think illustrates my point.


----------



## ModlrMike

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> This CANFORGEN was one of the references on my CDU team's regular visits with units, and helped to reinforce dialogue between Medical (ie the Care Delivery Unit team) and the unit with regards to MELs - "any questions, please call us directly as it's quicker and more useful than sending the mbr back to Sick Parade". Being accessible to the units helped us provide clearer and more relevant MELs for the mbr's and the unit's needs.
> 
> CANFORGEN 128/03 ADMHRMIL 061 241824Z OCT 03



That's why I said historically. I sensed there had been a change, but I've been out the the mainstream for so long I couldn't remember the exact reference.


----------



## ballz

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This highlighted part scares me:
> 
> This part scares me because I have seen this happen in the past both inside the training system and operationally.  I understand we as leaders may have a feeling a troop is malingering but we cannot decide that if the medical system has endorsed the validity of the injury/sickness and prescribed a resolution for it.
> 
> Many leaders don't get that when a sick chit is prescribed it is hard stone gospel and to be obeyed to a T.  Those of us non-medical professionals have neither the training nor the knowledge necessary to countermand a diagnosis medical employment limitation.
> 
> I hope this allegation is not true, but it would not surprise me if it was and that right there is the trump card in the whole article.



Just me nitpicking... Just because the medical staff have ordered MELs does not mean they have provided a resolution or a diagnosis. In my experience as both a patient and in a command role, they've usually just provided ibuprofen and/or foot powder along with the MEL chit. But there is another thread on that discussion...


----------



## Tibbson

ballz said:
			
		

> Just me nitpicking... Just because the medical staff have ordered MELs does not mean they have provided a resolution or a diagnosis. In my experience as both a patient and in a command role, they've usually just provided ibuprofen and/or foot powder along with the MEL chit. But there is another thread on that discussion...



Don't forget the Cipicol.  lol  The cure for whatever ails ya.


----------



## OldSolduer

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Don't forget the Cipicol.  lol  The cure for whatever ails ya.



It's Cepacol......


----------



## Jed

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It's Cepacol......


.. Coughs, Colds, Sore Holes, Pimples on your Ding Dong ... Cepacol


----------



## dapaterson

Harris said:
			
		

> Last year I had a 53 year old on my Infantry Unit run BMQ.  She passed, barely, but has already released.  A huge waste of my staffs time.



And how many 18 year olds released?  And how many 18 year olds didn't release, but just stopped showing up (creating even more admin burden)?

Don't confuse anecdotes with statistically significant moments.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Hmmm.  03 CANFORGEN.  Nice.

I'm still happy with Comd common sense, and in no way, as a commander, feeling bound by the *advice* of yet another specialist, albeit a Doctor.


----------



## Haggis

cryco said:
			
		

> As a civie, I have a question for you following this discussion:
> If the recruit/soldier or anyone else that is injured is ordered to continue physical training (not combat situation) which would exacerbate the injury and risk serious or long term damage, can the subordinate simply refuse to participate?



If that soldier was treated for an injury and given specific instructions, in writing, by the medical staff (i.e. no running for 14 days) then yes, s/he can refuse.


----------



## Harris

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And how many 18 year olds released?  And how many 18 year olds didn't release, but just stopped showing up (creating even more admin burden)?
> 
> Don't confuse anecdotes with statistically significant moments.



Agreed, except that since she was going the Officer route, even if she did manage to get qualified (only has limited time over the sumer avail), I would get no significant work out of her as an Infantry Pl Commander, and likely none at any higher rank/posn.  At least I or the CF, if they OT/CT/trans will likely get some work back from the 18 year old and there is the likelihood they will progress through the ranks.


----------



## Monsoon

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  03 CANFORGEN.  Nice.
> 
> I'm still happy with Comd common sense, and in no way, as a commander, feeling bound by the *advice* of yet another specialist, albeit a Doctor.


Not just an 03 CANFORGEN, a 03 CANFORGEN entirely predicated on ad hoc comments made by a CDS in 1998 during a weekly staff meeting with uncirculated minutes, and which promises amplification in a subsequent publication that was never forthcoming. I'm with you.


----------



## Gunner98

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?



Using your line of logic where should a Maj Arty Officer with several operational tours go in the RCMP to leverage his skills - through Recruit Training and become a Constable or a Sgt?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  03 CANFORGEN.  Nice.
> 
> I'm still happy with Comd common sense, and in no way, as a commander, feeling bound by the *advice* of yet another specialist, albeit a Doctor.





			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not just an 03 CANFORGEN, a 03 CANFORGEN entirely predicated on ad hoc comments made by a CDS in 1998 during a weekly staff meeting with uncirculated minutes, and which promises amplification in a subsequent publication that was never forthcoming. I'm with you.



A CANFORGEN with direction by the CDS that hasn't been cancelled or superseded is still direction that is in effect and lawful, is it not?

Odd to see comments that boil down to "I don't care what the CDS said/says.  I'll do what I see fit".  Seems to go against this to me.  

Not flinging shit, but I suspect if you issued directives to your subordinates, you'd expect them followed.

 :2c:


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A CANFORGEN with direction by the CDS that hasn't been cancelled or superseded is still direction that is in effect and lawful, is it not?



To me it constitutes a lawful order, and not be disobeyed unless in conflict with another lawful order.

To be clear, I think its a logical order for the majority of the time.  My concern is there is no caveat for special circumstances.

As you know, very near the front of the CF Flying Orders are the occasions you can break them, for good reason.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Copy that.

Just for clarity sake, my posts are in the context of "ops normal/day-to-day" stuff, similar to the thread topic.  

Example - Sgt Bloggins, a Widget Tech, is medically excused from duty with bedrest X 2 days by the MO.  However, the Widget DA muster is scheduled for the next day and needs to be completed for the BOI for the unit change of command.  Does Sgt Bloggins CO or Base/Wing Commander have the authority to order him/her to work to complete the DA verification?  Example may not be perfect (I don't know DA musters are required for change of command BOIs), but you get the idea.

Is the bedrest "advice" or a "shall happen"?  There seems to be some varying thoughts, and from some people with more rank and TI than I have.  I was always briefed "you cannot ignore chits/MELs, they shall be adhered to".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Copy that.
> 
> Just for clarity sake, my posts are in the context of "ops normal/day-to-day" stuff, similar to the thread topic.
> 
> Example - Sgt Bloggins, a Widget Tech, is medically excused from duty with bedrest X 2 days by the MO.  However, the Widget DA muster is scheduled for the next day and needs to be completed for the BOI for the unit change of command.  Does Sgt Bloggins CO or Base/Wing Commander have the authority to order him/her to work to complete the DA verification?  Example may not be perfect (I don't know DA musters are required for change of command BOIs), but you get the idea.
> 
> Is the bedrest "advice" or a "shall happen"?  There seems to be some varying thoughts, and from some people with more rank and TI than I have.  I was always briefed "you cannot ignore chits/MELs, they shall be adhered to".



DAs don't exist anymore EITS its now a SLOC/SCA ;D Just poking you, I think we all know what you meant.  And yes a SLOC/SCA verification is required for a Change of Command BOI. 

I will tell you I don't countermand a sick chit.  I am a PO2 Sup Tech who has barely passed first aid trg, I am no SME on anything medical.  If pers on this forum feel they have the where with all and or education to do so then go ahead,  but not this guy.


----------



## Monsoon

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Odd to see comments that boil down to "I don't care what the CDS said/says.  I'll do what I see fit".  Seems to go against this to me.


Not at all what I'm saying. It's the job of commanders to analyze and seek out command intent in interpreting orders, particularly when one order or policy appears to significantly deviate from other orders and policies, as this one seems to. At some point long stale-dated messages cease to properly reflect current command intent; I would say that goes double when the commander being referenced changed over a decade ago, and no subsequent commander was willing to sign off on official doctrine to back up what he said in one particular meeting. Contrary to what you may think, it's actually quite easy to get a CANFORGEN released; the much harder part is developing sound policy.

Now that being said, my only command experience has been in force generating units and I can't conceive of when such a unit would not closely adhere to medical recommendations. But I suspect a deployed TF commander wouldn't get too hung up on them _in extremis_.


----------



## trustnoone73

Jed said:
			
		

> .. Coughs, Colds, Sore Holes, Pimples on your Ding Dong ... Cepacol



Cepacol and foot powder is so '90's.

In the 21st Century a "No Shave Chit" is the cure all.


----------



## George Wallace

trustnoone73 said:
			
		

> Cepacol and foot powder is so '90's.
> 
> In the 21st Century a "No Shave Chit" is the cure all.



Gosh!  We have gone full circle.  "No Shave Chit" is so '80's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not at all what I'm saying. It's the job of commanders to analyze and seek out command intent in interpreting orders, particularly when one order or policy appears to significantly deviate from other orders and policies, as this one seems to. At some point long stale-dated messages cease to properly reflect current command intent; I would say that goes double when the commander being referenced changed over a decade ago, and no subsequent commander was willing to sign off on official doctrine to back up what he said in one particular meeting. Contrary to what you may think, it's actually quite easy to get a CANFORGEN released; the much harder part is developing sound policy.
> 
> Now that being said, my only command experience has been in force generating units and I can't conceive of when such a unit would not closely adhere to medical recommendations. But I suspect a deployed TF commander wouldn't get too hung up on them _in extremis_.



The intent of the CANFORGEN, though, was pretty clear.  "Medical Staff chit/MELs shall be adhered to".  That seems pretty cut and dry.

I see what you are saying, but will also note that no CDS since then has seen fit to supersede or cancel the CANFORGEN;  therefore it is still 'in play'. 

Where things go off the rails sometimes is the "I don't agree with/I am going to interpret/ignore" it stuff that happens (at all ranks levels).  Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen need only go look at the MGERC case files to find where it has, and at times the CDS as FA has overturned wrongful decisions.  But that's a different thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The intent of the CANFORGEN, though, was pretty clear.  "Medical Staff chit/MELs shall be adhered to".  That seems pretty cut and dry.
> 
> I see what you are saying, but will also note that no CDS since then has seen fit to supersede or cancel the CANFORGEN;  therefore it is still 'in play'.
> 
> Where things go off the rails sometimes is the "I don't agree with/I am going to interpret/ignore" it stuff that happens (at all ranks levels).  Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen need only go look at the MGERC case files to find where it has, and at times the CDS as FA has overturned wrongful decisions.  But that's a different thread.



 :goodpost: 

I stand by my statement if you feel like you know what is best for an injured/sick subordinate then go ahead and paddle down that stream but I don't advise any to follow your lead. 

My whole career I have been taught that sick chits are gospel and rock solid.  And I understand why.  They are there to promote the recovery of the member and protect them from an over zealous chain of command who will in all likelihood just make things worse if allowed to run a muck of members recovery.


----------



## Baz

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> I stand by my statement if you feel like you know what is best for an injured/sick subordinate then go ahead and paddle down that stream but I don't advise any to follow your lead.
> 
> My whole career I have been taught that sick chits are gospel and rock solid.  And I understand why.  They are there to promote the recovery of the member and protect them from an over zealous chain of command who will in all likelihood just make things worse if allowed to run a muck of members recovery.



Again, to be clear, most of the time I agree completely.

However, there has to (and is) an out for Commanders when absolutely necessary.  This means Commanders, not supervisors, and the out is when order to complete a MISSION they are allowed to assume risk.

A problem with this is (using your term) overzealous  Commanders using this incorrectly.  My feeling to address that is that, because with given them the authority to assess and accept risk, if they deliberately screw up, then they are dealt with harsely.  Which the NDA allows. Like immediately being removed from Command, since we can't trust them.


----------



## George Wallace

Here we go again.  This really has the possibilities of opening a convoluted can of worms:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> What is a veteran?
> By Staff   Global News
> 
> Global News has received many comments, emails, calls and tweets from veterans responding to our story about James Robichaud’s allegations of abuse during military training.
> 
> We thank everyone for taking the time to provide their feedback and express their views. We value input from our audience – positive or otherwise – in order to improve our service to the community.
> 
> The vast majority of veterans who reached out took issue with Robichaud being referred to as a “veteran” in the story.
> 
> Robichaud began basic training in late 2009 and was unable to complete the course – he says not because he didn’t want to, but because of his injuries. He was medically discharged in 2012. He now receives benefits through Veterans Affairs Canada, which recognized his injuries were caused by his time in the military.
> 
> Global News contacted Veterans Affairs for more information about how the department defines a veteran. The response?
> 
> “In general, any individual who is injured while serving their country in uniform may be eligible for benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). However, for confidentiality reasons, we are unable to comment on this story or provide information on individuals that may or may not be in receipt of benefits or services from VAC.”
> 
> That didn’t answer the question. So we asked The Veterans Ombudsman’s Office. We were referred to a report from October 2012 on A National Veterans Identification Card. The following is an excerpt from that report:
> 
> “In 2001, the then Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that henceforth all former members of the Canadian Forces, including those who served in the Reserve Force, special duty areas and on domestic duty, would be recognized as Veterans provided they had met their occupational classification training requirements and had been honourably released. The definition was adopted in recognition of “…the potential risk that all Canadian Forces members are exposed to when they swear the Oath of Allegiance and don a Canadian uniform.” The definition was revised in 2008, replacing the requirement for completion of occupational training to that of simply basic training, and, to this day, stands as the official Government of Canada definition of a veteran for commemoration purposes.”
> 
> Note, it says “for commemoration purposes.”
> 
> Michel Drapeau, Robichaud’s lawyer and a retired military colonel and veteran himself, defines “veteran” in legal terms as follows:
> 
> “Generally speaking, a veteran (from Latin vetus meaning “old”) is a person who has had long service or experience in a particular occupation of field. (military, hockey, teaching, astronaut)
> 
> Using everyday language, military veterans are considered those persons who have served or are serving in the armed forces, particularly but not exclusively those who have had direct exposure to acts of military conflict who may also be referred to as “war veterans”. Using the dictionary definition, one would be a military veteran with just one day of military service, even with a dishonorable release.
> 
> However, in real legal terms, at present, whether or not one is considered a “veteran” depends entirely upon which veteran program or benefit one is applying for at Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> The Veterans Bill of Rights applies to all clients of Veterans Affairs including: a “Former and, in certain cases, current members of the Canadian Forces.”
> 
> Hence, Mr. Robichaud is absolutely a veteran.”
> 
> Global News presented Robichaud’s story as allegations that have yet to be proven. The Department of National Defence refused to discuss the matter.
> 
> We look forward to following this story as it unfolds, and welcome any further feedback from our viewers.
> 
> © Shaw News, 2014



More on LINK.


That would mean that one becomes a Veteran as soon as they take the Oath of Allegiance or Solemn Oath and will be a Veteran even if they turned around within the next hour and said that they had changed their minds and did not want to be a member of the CAF.


----------



## cryco

well, it seems that definition was revised in 2008. Has it led to many decisions like this one? Has it been a problem? It does seems peculiar to be considered a veteran after only basic training.


----------



## PMedMoe

Global News tagged that story with CFB Saint *John*.   :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Global News tagged that story with CFB Saint *John*.   :facepalm:



Well....Historically, it once was called Saint John, Quebec.  (I remember seeing an old photo of the Train Station in Saint-Jean with the Anglicised signage.  When my father joined the RCAF, his basic was in Saint John, Quebec.)


----------



## expwor

So I was a reservist.  Completed GMT (General Military Training) and TQ1 (Trade Qualification) Infantryman.  Two years in.  That included a couple months in W Germany with 3RCR.  Never called myself or considered myself a Veteran. Thought it would be insulting in comparison to those who's service to Canada involved operational tours, personal sacrifice etc. I find this ex recruit getting called a Veteran an insult to all who served.
Just this civilian's point of view, hope worded right

Tom


----------



## kratz

I agree with George, this is a can of worms.

There was much nashing of teeth from older veterans when the definition was changed in 2001. 
I agreed that having a minimum of three years service and being occupationally trained is a valid minimum benchmark.
I also recognize the distinction between war veteran vice veteran.
Sadly, with the current situation this person's example mocks the service of anyone who has accepted, lived and dealt with
"the terms of unlimited liability".


----------



## Jarnhamar

If you go by a lot of dictionary definitions than this former member can be called a veteran.
Merriam-Webster for example defines a veteran as, among other things;


> b :  a former member of the armed forces


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veteran

In the most basic sense this guy can be a veteran but the word has taken on a bit of a modified meaning and most people don't accept a military "veteran" as someone who didn't pass basic.


There are ways to interpret a sick chit or medical restriction to the letter.  No walking on uneven ground? You can walk up and down the road following your section doing section attacks in full gear. Not saying it's right but it happens.   This guys story sounds really messed up but I'll wait to see what types of charges, if any, are laid against the instructor.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I must say that, having served honourably in the Navy from 1975 to 2010, according to my service record, but never deployed ""in theatre" unless you count serving on warships involved in the cold war, I am happy to refer to myself as "retired". I, however, never considered myself a "veteran". 

There may be a legal distinction out there in various rules and regulation, but I am pretty sure that most civilians consider that a member or ex-member of the CF that refers to him/her self as a veteran must have taken part in some form of "combat" operation. I have no doubt that Mr. Drapeau is fully aware of this view of the term and is using it on purpose when referring to his client for the sole purpose of creating outrage in the population (of the type: "How dare they do this to a vet…"). It disgusts me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://globalnews.ca/news/1619464/what-is-a-veteran/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Global News declaring him a veteran because he tried to do BMQ is as valid as Global News declaring me an Astronaut because I've flown WestJet.  

I've got 25 years and change in the Mob and I am not a "veteran".  And, for the record, I am in receipt of a monthly disability pension for life for a service-related injury...that happened in peacetime.  In Canada.

Still...not a veteran.


----------



## Occam

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Global News declaring him a veteran because he tried to do BMQ is as valid as Global News declaring me an Astronaut because I've flown WestJet.
> 
> I've got 25 years and change in the Mob and I am not a "veteran".  And, for the record, I am in receipt of a monthly disability pension for life for a service-related injury...that happened in peacetime.  In Canada.
> 
> Still...not a veteran.



I know the thought you're trying to convey, and I am in no way trying to condone what Global did (let's make that clear) - but you're a veteran, whether you choose to identify with that term or not.

This notion of "newer" veterans not wanting to identify themselves as such is how we ended up with two classes of veteran - one under the Pension Act, and one under the NVC.  Until we stop segmenting ourselves into different classes of veterans, we have no hope whatsoever of ever getting VAC (through legislation) to stop treating us as two different classes of veteran.


----------



## The_Falcon

Maybe a solution is to structure basic training, in a similar fashion to how the RCMP and CBSA structure their recruit training.  You are informally part of the organization, in that you signed up to go through training, but you aren't a full 100% member until you actually get through that initial basic training.  The only contract you sign is for the duration of this training, no contract for further service until you have satisfactorily completed the training.  You are paid a modest stiped/allowance, and if you are injured to the point you can't complete training, you are released immediately.

Thoughts?


----------



## Occam

Makes sense to me.

I keep pretty close tabs on veterans-related issues in the media, and I knew that at some point VAC defined a veteran as anyone who successfully basic occupation training.  I was also aware that at some point after that, they changed the definition to include anyone who successfully completed basic training.  I'm not aware of any change in the definition since then.  Given the most recent definition, I have no idea why VAC is even giving this individual the time of day.


----------



## ModlrMike

I would think that if a member were injured on basic such that they had to be released, they might still qualify for a pension from VAC. That would still not make them a veteran under VAC's own definition though.


----------



## George Wallace

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would think that if a member were injured on basic such that they had to be released, they might still qualify for a pension from VAC. That would still not make them a veteran under VAC's own definition though.


Agreed


----------



## The_Falcon

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would think that if a member were injured on basic such that they had to be released, they might still qualify for a pension from VAC. That would still not make them a veteran under VAC's own definition though.



Does anyone know if that is case for the RCMP as well, since they are also covered by VAC?

Basically my line of thought stems from this

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/depot/ctp-pfc/index-eng.htm



> The Cadet Training Program is an extensive 24-week basic training course, offered in both official languages. The cadet is part of a 32-member troop which is diverse in composition.* Upon successfully completing the Cadet Training Program, cadets may be offered employment as members of the RCMP and given peace officer status. *



Now anyone who has gone through Depot, and knows how it actually works feel free to correct me, but as I am reading this, since Cadets are not paid a salary at Depot (they get a small allowance which only happened in the last few years) and there is no guarantee of employment at the end (at least according to that statement above), it appears to me Cadets are not "members" of the RCMP, and therefore aren't entitled to any VAC benefits if they get hurt.  If I am correct in my thinking....why can't the CAF do this (or something similar)?


----------



## Nudibranch

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if that is case for the RCMP as well, since they are also covered by VAC?
> 
> Basically my line of thought stems from this
> 
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/depot/ctp-pfc/index-eng.htm
> 
> Now anyone who has gone through Depot, and knows how it actually works feel free to correct me, but as I am reading this, since Cadets are not paid a salary at Depot (they get a small allowance which only happened in the last few years) and there is no guarantee of employment at the end (at least according to that statement above), it appears to me Cadets are not "members" of the RCMP, and therefore aren't entitled to any VAC benefits if they get hurt.  If I am correct in my thinking....why can't the CAF do this (or something similar)?



It should, IMO. A training contract essentially, before successful completion of which the member is not actually a CAF member, but on a sort of try-out.
Would avoid the issue of untrained Pte recruit/Officer Cadet languishing and drawing a salary for 3 years after failing training, for whatever reason; if reason was medical injury then it would be appropriate for VAC to step in as the WSIB equivalent, but the system could otherwise immediately cut the trg failure loose without any onerous release processes reserved for actual CAF members.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The negative publicity this case is garnering is probably putting a lot of undue (unfair?) attention on recruits with legitimate injuries suffered in basic training.


That said we all know some people join the forces with the intention of getting injured and reaping the benefits, same happens with civilian jobs and the workers-comp crowd.  Guys and girls who aim for the first pot hole they see and have an epic wipe out.

Maybe it's time we start vetting our applicants a bit more thoroughly. Maybe raise the fitness standard up a bit to try and deter people looking for a free ride.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Maybe raise the fitness standard up a bit to try and deter people looking for a free ride.




How can you raise something that doesn't exist?


----------



## PuckChaser

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Maybe raise the fitness standard up a bit to try and deter people looking for a free ride.



You mean like, making people do the FORCE test (not that its a real fitness test) as a condition of receiving an offer? That's blasphemy.


----------



## Spimx

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean like, making people do the FORCE test (not that its a real fitness test) as a condition of receiving an offer? That's blasphemy.



That could be a pretty good idea.


----------



## PuckChaser

The cost of fitness testing people has to be less than running fat camp at St Jean.


----------



## dapaterson

Actually, that's already done.  You must pass a fitness test to joint the Reserves.

It's only the Regular Fore that has no standard for enrolment.


----------



## DAA

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Maybe raise the fitness standard up a bit to try and deter people looking for a free ride.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean like, making people do the FORCE test (not that its a real fitness test) as a condition of receiving an offer? That's blasphemy.



The "expectation" is already there ----->  http://www.forces.ca/en/page/training-90#tab3

What's the point, in spending more time, more resources and more money just to "validate" someone's level of physical fitness?  They already know that by seeking employment with the CF, fitness is part of the job, always will be and they already know at what level they need to be at, should a job offer be made.  It's not much different than most jobs in the private sector that list actual job "requirements" should you be hired.

I think the CF already does a pretty good job in outlining these requirements.  It's a matter of whether or not the information is getting through to the people who are actually applying!  And I'm not talking about information being provided but rather, applicants understanding just what will be "expected" of them, which is where the problem may lie.

Seems to be a pretty simple solution, "Here's your job offer.  This is the expected fitness level you need to be at when you arrive at Basic.  If you don't meet this level, bye bye....."  And far as I know, the CF no longer pays for "return" travel if you are RTU'd (ie; trg failure or voluntary) out of St Jean.  Unless things have changed yet again......



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The cost of fitness testing people has to be less than running fat camp at St Jean.



Don't quote me on this but I'm thinking $100+ and then you have to think about just how many of these tests will need to be done and just when.


----------



## Jarnhamar

DAA said:
			
		

> What's the point, in spending more time, more resources and more money just to "validate" someone's level of physical fitness?  They already know that by seeking employment with the CF, fitness is part of the job, always will be and they already know at what level they need to be at, should a job offer be made.  It's not much different than most jobs in the private sector that list actual job "requirements" should you be hired.



What I mean though is someone who has no real intention of a career in the CF but rather is looking to join the CF for as long as it takes for them to "hurt themselves" and ride benefits train can join with abysmal fitness and still get their foot in the door.  They don't need to pass a fitness test to start getting paid at St-Jean, if they fail the fitness test then they're on warrior platoon for X weeks or months. They know that during their remedial training they can hurt themselves (since their foot is already in the door) then they can get money and benefits.

I think by reimplementing a fitness standard to join we would deter some people looking for freebies.   Not everyone would be detered but at least we would make them work a little harder for their epic shin-splits payout.


----------



## The_Falcon

Why not implement a system (in conjuction with what I already mentioned) where an applicant has to pay for the fitness test themselves, and maintain it's validity until they are at St. Jean, same as how, every police, fire dept in the country works.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I think that could be a great idea Hatchet Man.


----------



## X Royal

I've stayed out of this thread until now.
And what would happen if those applying had to pay for fitness/medical testing?
Our past history has shown that quite a few recruits come out of area's which have the poorer economies within our country.
When I joined I wouldn't be surprised if over 50% of our recruits came out of the east coast area due to lack of other options.
Many became quite good service members.
Making new potential recruits to pay for this would hamper recruiting some potentially good prospects.
As per: the RCMP system (far less pay during training) it also makes it far more easier for those who have a better financial history to become recruits.
I for one don't believe those with a better financial situation should be given an easier route or that they will necessarily be better members in the long run.
Without some sort of family support how would anyone short of a young person with family support let alone one with family commitments be able to join?
As for the OP's original post (and we are only getting one side of the story) if he was injured during basic VAC benefits should be paid.
If (big if) his instructor ignored a medical chit that instructor should be held responsible.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Those are very valid points X-Royal.

To counter what you're saying a bit you mentioned how many service members may hypothetically have been turned away by having to pay for a fitness test.  How many possibly stellar service members have we lost because our recruiting system is so bogged down?  Our system is full of people putting in half-effort to recruit or get most of the way through the recruiting process then just decide to quit. Never return the recruiters calls or really just went through the system because they thought it's what they wanted but pull out.  There's enough examples on army.ca. Wouldn't a fitness test to join, that applicants have to pay for, also weed out people who are less than serious about the whole thing?

Pros and cons for both options for sure.


----------



## MAJONES

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Why not implement a system (in conjuction with what I already mentioned) where an applicant has to pay for the fitness test themselves, and maintain it's validity until they are at St. Jean, same as how, every police, fire dept in the country works.



Apples and oranges.  Police and fire departments have far more applicants than they have positions.  The CF doesn't.  We have a hard enough time attracting people for the tech trades as it is.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges.  Police and fire departments have far more applicants than they have positions.  The CF doesn't.  We have a hard enough time attracting people for the tech trades as it is.



Nope.  300,00 applicants per year for an annual output of less than 5K Reg F and slightly more than 5K Reserves.


----------



## X Royal

But do the forces want the best or only those who can afford to be the best?


----------



## PuckChaser

That's why we make it free,  as part of a conditional offer of employment. That way you're only testing a relative few, with probably 10% extra to cover off any failures. Then we're also reducing the time needed to test at CFLRS, no more fat camp, etc. We don't have to nickle and dime recruits, but if they fail FORCE, application is shredded and they start all over again 6 months later. FORCE is supposed to be able to stand up to legal challenge against UoS, so there's no reason not to withhold offers based on failures.


----------



## George Wallace

X Royal said:
			
		

> But do the forces want the best or only those who can afford to be the best?



Young High School graduates can fill both those criteria.  They are educated, and have as they are just entering the work force, any reasonable wage is welcome income.  As they will have all their basics covered; housing, food, clothing, etc. they would be facing no real financial hardships.


----------



## X Royal

As a further statement when I joined it was $500 a month before deductions.
I was making $650 a month in a lower level factory type job. Not uncommon in my area.
I and many made sacrifices to join. 
On top of that some are asking someone in an equivalent position to pay up front to qualify for a position that may or may not be offered??
Sure would limit your applicants and only make it more viable to those who already have financial backing and/or savings. 
I feel we want the best recruits not just those who can afford to be the best choices.


----------



## X Royal

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Young High School graduates can fill both those criteria.  They are educated, and have as they are just entering the work force, any reasonable wage is welcome income.  As they will have all their basics covered; housing, food, clothing, etc. they would be facing no real financial hardships.


So George your suggesting we give preference for recruiting those people who are only "Young High School graduates".
First off it wouldn't meet any legal challenge and secondly would limit the Forces from many potential great recruits.
BTW: When I joined I was a recent High School graduate. Not completely common but also far from unheard of at the time.


----------



## George Wallace

X Royal said:
			
		

> So George your suggesting we give preference for recruiting those people who are only "Young High School graduates".
> First off it wouldn't meet any legal challenge and secondly would limit the Forces from many potential great recruits.
> BTW: When I joined I was a recent High School graduate. Not completely common but also far from unheard of at the time.



No, I am not, but that is the largest target audience.


----------



## X Royal

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No, I am not, but that is the largest target audience.


Agreed it is a large target group but to set up any system that would put up barriers to bring in new members from out side this group could be very well counterproductive.
Any married person would be less likely to apply.
Also anyone that is a older with responsibilities may not apply.
And many new high school graduates may not be the best recruits due to lack of maturity and experiences.
Some have never drifted far from mommy's teat.


----------



## daftandbarmy

X Royal said:
			
		

> Agreed it is a large target group but to set up any system that would put up barriers to bring in new members from out side this group could be very well counterproductive.
> Any married person would be less likely to apply.
> Also anyone that is a older with responsibilities may not apply.
> And many new high school graduates may not be the best recruits due to lack of maturity and experiences.
> Some have never drifted far from mommy's teat.



The British Army, and Royal Marines, run short selection courses for potential recruits to see if they like the military, and vice versa. If we don't already, we should copy this program.

Here's a link to a documentary being aired in the UK right now about the Parachute Regiment's version. It makes sure the 'numptees' don't get through:

http://bcove.me/ws8d56lh


----------



## X Royal

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The British Army, and Royal Marines, run short selection courses for potential recruits to see if they like the military, and vice versa. _*If we don't already, we should copy this program.*_


No *we* don't and I don't ever see it happening. I watched the video. It was basically a physical fitness assessment.
Each unit running their own assessments due to the vast size of the country would either limit those who could attend or would depend on those who could afford to attend. I can't see our recruiting system floating the bill to send people across the country for a 3 day assessment of each regiment applied for. 
That being said this thread sure has went off line in respect to the original topic and has spun off to a recruiting changes theme.


----------



## vonGarvin

X Royal said:
			
		

> I can't see our recruiting system floating the bill to send people across the country for a 3 day assessment of each regiment applied for.



If it were shown to save on flying fat crybabies to Saint-Jean who then draw rations, quarters and a salary for months or years on end, I could see it happening.


----------



## daftandbarmy

General Disorder said:
			
		

> If it were shown to save on flying fat crybabies to Saint-Jean who then draw rations, quarters and a salary for months or years on end, I could see it happening.



I know a NCO training recruits at St Jean right now. He can't believe how 'weak' the recruits are in general these days: both physically and character-wise, and estimated at least 20-30% shouldn't even be there. He trembles at the thought of what will happen when they reach their units. I ran the 'Pre-course cull' idea by him and he thought it was a great idea.

I'm putting that in my resume right now  8)


----------



## Sig_Des

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know a NCO training recruits at St Jean right now. He can't believe how 'weak' the recruits are in general these days: both physically and character-wise, and estimated at least 20-30% shouldn't even be there. He trembles at the thought of what will happen when they reach their units. I ran the 'Pre-course cull' idea by him and he thought it was a great idea.
> 
> I'm putting that in my resume right now  8)



I've heard the same thing. And the fact that staff who want to do anything about it are cut off at the knees by the school administration/leadership.

On a side note, on the idea of pre-culling. It's not necessarily required to bring people to a central location for unit run screening. What about something similar to the USMC's Delayed Entry Program?

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/116235/marine-recruiters-utilize-delayed-entry-program-reduce-attrition#.VEeWwqb3bCR


----------



## X Royal

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> It's not necessarily required to bring people to a central location for unit run screening. What about something similar to the USMC's Delayed Entry Program?


Another option I don't see working in Canada.
The problem with this program is that the potential recruit has to report to a central area (recruiting center?) weekly or monthly for physical training & mentoring. May work for some who live near the recruiting center but not practical for those who live a great distance from the center. 
What if these sessions conflict with the recruits work?
The thing with Canada compared to these other places is our population density is far lower and spread out.
If the physical fitness of recruits is a problem a simple fitness test ran through the recruiting center can solve the problem.
Pass the test and the potential recruit moves on in the process. Fail test and they have to retest and pass before moving on.
Problem with this is it's still an added cost to the recruiting system. 
It very well be money well spent but convincing the bean counters may be the biggest problem.


----------



## MAJONES

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Nope.  300,00 applicants per year for an annual output of less than 5K Reg F and slightly more than 5K Reserves.



Of which 275000 want to be pilots, 20000 want to be MPs, and 4000 want to be RMS Clerks.  I know this because I spent enough time wading through the influx.


----------



## cryco

really?  I know you're probably ball parking, but do most really want to be pilots or mp? How small a percentage  are the combat arms applicants?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know a NCO training recruits at St Jean right now. He can't believe how 'weak' the recruits are in general these days: both physically and character-wise, and estimated at least 20-30% shouldn't even be there. He trembles at the thought of what will happen when they reach their units.



I've heard similar reports about new British Army recruits.


----------



## expwor

I just wonder, and thinking out loud here, but if the state of affairs of recruits is due to the long time it takes processing an application from start to arrival at St Jean.  Maybe many of the better applicants have found other employment during the time it takes to process their CF application
I know when applying for the Militia back in the '70s the hiring for SRTP (Summer Recruit Training Program) took place end of May/June where we had our aptitude test/interview/PT test and swearing in.
Recruit training started in July
I also noticed in Corrections when I joined, my application and interview was in January and come April I was on CORP (Corrections equivalent of basic training) Training.  But now the application process is so long that I've observed a lot of the new Correctional Officers starting have more a sense of entitlement but don't want to do the job.  Probably the good applicants found other employment while waiting for their application to be processed
Just a thought

Tom


----------



## Nudibranch

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know a NCO training recruits at St Jean right now. He can't believe how 'weak' the recruits are in general these days: both physically and character-wise, and estimated at least 20-30% shouldn't even be there. He trembles at the thought of what will happen when they reach their units. I ran the 'Pre-course cull' idea by him and he thought it was a great idea.
> 
> I'm putting that in my resume right now  8)



Military population reflects the Canadian population in terms of overall fitness, obesity, and makes sense, strength of character. The first two are attested by tools like the HLIS surveys; with the exception of specific units (combat arms, who do regular unit PT etc) the CAF population is sedentary and overweight. CAF medical system pays for bariatric surgery, for ex. We have no body fat standards like the US, and when was the last time anyone saw a physically unfit soldier administratively released for that reason?

So it makes sense that in keeping with that, the "character weakness" is also on the increase. Again, there will be some trades/units where those people won't make it, but many in which they will.


----------



## DAA

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know a NCO training recruits at St Jean right now. He can't believe how 'weak' the recruits are in general these days: both physically and character-wise, and estimated at least 20-30% shouldn't even be there. He trembles at the thought of what will happen when they reach their units. I ran the 'Pre-course cull' idea by him and he thought it was a great idea.



It's funny how the wheel goes round and lands on something different.  I remember back in the 80's when they "cut" the medical screenings back to cursory exams only and then visiting CFRS Cornwallis on an RTV and being blasted by the Instructors for all the "medical" issues with the recruits.

The onus is now on the applicants.  Your joining the military, you need to be "reasonably fit" before you arrive.  If they don't understand that, show them the door.....


----------



## George Wallace

DAA said:
			
		

> It's funny how the wheel goes round and lands on something different.  I remember back in the 80's when they "cut" the medical screenings back to cursory exams only and then visiting CFRS Cornwallis on an RTV and being blasted by the Instructors for all the "medical" issues with the recruits.
> 
> The onus is now on the applicants.  Your joining the military, you need to be "reasonably fit" before you arrive.  If they don't understand that, show them the door.....



I read your post and agree.  Then I read this and your words came to mind again: http://army.ca/forums/threads/116686/post-1334044.html#msg1334044


----------



## PhoenixWright

http://globalnews.ca/news/1634446/canadian-forces-training-instructor-now-facing-assault-charges-for-mistreating-military-recruits/

Well, of course, we can't know the truth until after the courts have made their verdict, but I am glad to see Pte Robichaud getting some justice after years of trying to sweep him under the rug. Took alot of courage to stand up for what was right and try to get a vile person who would treat new recruits in that fashion punished. I'd be happy to call that man a veteran any day, It's a shame his chances of joining were scuttled.


----------



## George Wallace

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/1634446/canadian-forces-training-instructor-now-facing-assault-charges-for-mistreating-military-recruits/
> 
> Well, of course, we can't know the truth until after the courts have made their verdict, but I am glad to see Pte Robichaud getting some justice after years of trying to sweep him under the rug. Took alot of courage to stand up for what was right and try to get a vile person who would treat new recruits in that fashion punished. I'd be happy to call that man a veteran any day, It's a shame his chances of joining were scuttled.



It is obvious that you have already passed judgement.

If you think not, then re-read what you posted.


----------



## PhoenixWright

Ah, you are correct. So be it. I guess that just makes me more like everyone else in this thread, passing judgement on someone without waiting for official judgement. I just happen to be on the other side.


----------



## George Wallace

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> Ah, you are correct. So be it. I guess that just makes me more like everyone else in this thread, passing judgement on someone without waiting for official judgement. I just happen to be on the other side.



Or perhaps you are mistaking the knowledge of the people who have posted, who have actually been Instructors at various Schools, including Recruit School, and their suspicions of what the 'defendant' is claiming and what the 'accused' may have done; having known the system, "_been there and got the T-shirt_" and know what is expected of all CAF Instructors, for something else.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> Ah, you are correct. So be it. I guess that just makes me more like everyone else in this thread, passing judgement on someone without waiting for official judgement. I just happen to be on the other side.



I just reread the first 2 pages of this thread and it's about 50/50 so you are full of shit............just sayin.
Unless of course you're talking about whether he's a veteran or not, then you'd be pretty lonely 'on the other side.'


----------



## PhoenixWright

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Or perhaps you are mistaking the knowledge of the people who have posted, who have actually been Instructors at various Schools, including Recruit School, and their suspicions of what the 'defendant' is claiming and what the 'accused' may have done; having known the system, "_been there and got the T-shirt_" and know what is expected of all CAF Instructors, for something else.



Hmm. Changed tacts pretty quickly there. Anyway, if you are implying that you or others here have firsthand knowledge of the case at hand it would be very unwise to be discussing them in this forum, especially with the now looming legal proceedings. But I don't think that's what you meant. Merely having been at the school at one point in time gives you no insight into the current case, and you yourself just said it was important not to pass judgement. 

And why did you put defendant and accused in quotation marks? There isn't any ambiguity there, they are in fact, an accused and a defendant. Shame I don't have a T-shirt, then I would know it's not okay to cripple people. 




			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I just reread the first 2 pages of this thread and it's about 50/50 so you are full of crap............just sayin.
> Unless of course you're talking about whether he's a veteran or not, then you'd be pretty lonely 'on the other side.'



Hm. So you even admit that your count is a rough estimate of not even the entire thread. But anyway, it's not just here the Robichaud is vilified.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> But anyway, it's not just here the Robichaud is vilified.





			
				PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> in this thread,



Get a grip on yourself lad.   We try hard to keep things here on an even keel which isn't easy considering this is the internet with all it's anonymity.

Carry on..........


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> Hmm. Changed tacts pretty quickly there. Anyway, if you are implying that you or others here have firsthand knowledge of the case at hand it would be very unwise to be discussing them in this forum, especially with the now looming legal proceedings. But I don't think that's what you meant. Merely having been at the school at one point in time gives you no insight into the current case, and you yourself just said it was important not to pass judgement.



Pot, meet fuckin' kettle.   :

I wasn't at the school.   That doesn't matter, because it has NOTHING to do, ZERO relevance with the established FACT that the Pte did not...read it...NOT...pass BMQ.

I don't care what happens with the case.  I have no iron in that fire and only hope that facts are determined and there is no bias, on either party.

HOWEVER...you could put a gun to my head or a hot rusty BBQ fork up my ass and I still will not consider that person...a veteran.  Don't bother showing me a link to this or that definition.

Most (real) veterans I know don't go around calling themselves veterans.  They are silently proud of the service they gave to their country, they ask for nothing in return and certainly don't hire lawyers to make sure the words sticks at the end of their names in news stories.

I have 2 decades plus change in uniform.  I think that gives me the right to my opinion on it.  I don't have a veteran plate on my card, because I walk what I talk.

Fuck me senseless.  Couldn't complete BASIC military training and a veteran.   :


----------



## George Wallace

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> Hmm. Changed tacts pretty quickly there. Anyway, if you are implying that you or others here have firsthand knowledge of the case at hand it would be very unwise to be discussing them in this forum, especially with the now looming legal proceedings. But I don't think that's what you meant. Merely having been at the school at one point in time gives you no insight into the current case, and you yourself just said it was important not to pass judgement.



Now you are just being a smart ass.  Many of the posters do have full knowledge of CAF references to instruction, harassment, etc. and what is expected of all instructors.  Being intimately involved with this case is not the question.



			
				PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> And why did you put defendant and accused in quotation marks? There isn't any ambiguity there, they are in fact, an accused and a defendant. Shame I don't have a T-shirt, then I would know it's not okay to cripple people.



Again, you are just being a smart ass.  Perhaps we should end this here, as arguing with you is a waste of time.  You have made an uninformed judgement and are sticking to it.  Others here are looking for answers and what actually transpired, not just a claim of an accuser.


----------



## rinoakes

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Others here are looking for answers and what actually transpired, not just a claim of an accuser.



Really? All I see is people bitching about how recruits are 'weak' these days and we don't train them well enough. 
Maybe the guy just found bmq too hard and is blaming the instructor. Maybe he has a legitimate case. Who knows. But, he is still technically in the military and was injured mentally and physically because of his job, and he deserves benefits and compensation for that. Whether you choose to give him the title of veteran or not is irrelevant.


----------



## PhoenixWright

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Pot, meet ******' kettle.   :
> 
> I wasn't at the school.   That doesn't matter, because it has NOTHING to do, ZERO relevance with the established FACT that the Pte did not...read it...NOT...pass BMQ.
> 
> I don't care what happens with the case.  I have no iron in that fire and only hope that facts are determined and there is no bias, on either party.
> 
> HOWEVER...you could put a gun to my head or a hot rusty BBQ fork up my *** and I still will not consider that person...a veteran.  Don't bother showing me a link to this or that definition.
> 
> Most (real) veterans I know don't go around calling themselves veterans.  They are silently proud of the service they gave to their country, they ask for nothing in return and certainly don't hire lawyers to make sure the words sticks at the end of their names in news stories.
> 
> I have 2 decades plus change in uniform.  I think that gives me the right to my opinion on it.  I don't have a veteran plate on my card, because I walk what I talk.
> 
> frig me senseless.  Couldn't complete BASIC military training and a veteran.   :



I see you used a black pot/kettle comparison to compare me to myself. That's interesting.

You are correct, he did not pass basic training. He was however, in the service of the military when he got injured. His claims of his injured achilles tendon and PTSD, I believe, were obviously true because Veterans Affairs believes him and he now has the care he needs. 

The world isn't just black and white, sometimes there are exceptions.

But yeah, a veteran is a state of being whether you walk around telling people or not. A person who goes to afghanistan and has veteran plates isn't any less real than you and your self imposed restriction on what you call yourself. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now you are just being a smart ***.  Many of the posters do have full knowledge of CAF references to instruction, harassment, etc. and what is expected of all instructors.  Being intimately involved with this case is not the question.
> 
> Again, you are just being a smart ***.  Perhaps we should end this here, as arguing with you is a waste of time.  You have made an uninformed judgement and are sticking to it.  Others here are looking for answers and what actually transpired, not just a claim of an accuser.



Yes but George, just because you know what is expected of instructors doesn't mean you can say this instructor acted appropriately or not. If anything it should be telling you he didn't act appropriately. If being intimately involved in the case isn't the question, what is the question?

If you're going to get mad at people for uninformed judgements, this whole website must infuriate you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

rinoakes said:
			
		

> was injured mentally and physically because of his job, and he deserves benefits and compensation for that.



Really??   Tell that to thousands and thousands who spend years at their jobs, get hurt, and get the door..........


----------



## rinoakes

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really??   Tell that to thousands and thousands who spend years at their jobs, get hurt, and get the door..........



This article is about the military. If someone is injured in military they get health care, medical pension, and benefits. What kind of job are you talking about?


----------



## PhoenixWright

Well, they should be getting benefits too. Sometimes you have to fight for them. Point in case


----------



## RedcapCrusader

From his lawyer's website:

http://mdlo.ca/uncategorized/dnd-charged-cfb-st-jean-recruit-instructor-for-assaulting-recruits/



> October 23, 2014.
> 
> Global Television has reported the case of retired Private James Robichaud alleging significant and repeated physical abuse during his recruit training in 2009-2010 at CFB Saint-Jean-sur-le-Richelieu,Quebec. Other recruits were also allegedly subject to abuse and were harassed by the same instructor who is now serving with 2 Service Battalion in Petawawa, Ontario.
> 
> Robichaud alleged that the physical abuse endured at the hands of his recruit instructor was so traumatizing that it left him with long term physical and mental injuries, and sabotaged his military career.  His allegations were investigated by the National Investigation Service (NIS) only after Michel Drapeau Law Office (MDLO) in April 2012 wrote to the the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, the Judge Advocate General and the Provost Marshall.  The NIS first laid charges in January 2014. However, it took nine months for the Director of Military Prosecution to prefer the charges.
> 
> The Director of Military Prosecutions, Office of the Judge Advocate General, has now preferred charges against Master-Corporal J. Franco Guarrnaccia, 2 Service Battalion, CFB Petawawa with a total of five charges
> 
> First charge.  Section 95 of the National Defence Act. Abuse of subordinates. (Victim: Private James Robichaud)
> Second charge. Section  266 of the Criminal Code. Assault (Victim: Private James Robichaud)
> Third charge. Section 95 of the National Defence Act. Abuse of subordinates. (Victim: Another private recruit on the same course)
> Fourth charge. Section  266 of the Criminal Code. Assault. (Victim: Another private recruit on the same course)
> Fifth charge. Section 129 of the National Defence Act. Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for intimidating and harassing recruits.
> See link
> 
> 
> A copy of the Charge Sheet is attached here: Charge Sheet Guarnaccia (French only)
> 
> It is anticipated that the trial will take place in Base des forces canadiennes Saint-Jean-sur-le Richelieu. The trial is not expected to take place until late summer or fall 2015.


----------



## cryco

When something like this occurs, don't the colleagues of the 'abusive' instructor say something to him/her?


----------



## George Wallace

cryco said:
			
		

> When something like this occurs, don't the colleagues of the 'abusive' instructor say something to him/her?



Yes they do; and so do their superiors.


----------



## George Wallace

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> From his lawyer's website:
> 
> http://mdlo.ca/uncategorized/dnd-charged-cfb-st-jean-recruit-instructor-for-assaulting-recruits/



Interesting to note that the person here being charged is not a Sergeant, but a MCpl.  So where did the "Sergeant" come from in these accusations?  Was the Pte so uneducated in the military to not know the rank structure, or is this another case of the media not getting the facts right?


----------



## Brasidas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting to note that the person here being charged is not a Sergeant, but a MCpl.  So where did the "Sergeant" come from in these accusations?  Was the Pte so uneducated in the military to not know the rank structure, or is this another case of the media not getting the facts right?



I'm not seeing any quotes where he said the word. The rank could have been introduced by the media or the lawyer. "Instructor" doesn't roll of a reporter's tongue the same way that "drill sergeant" does.


----------



## X Royal

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting to note that the person here being charged is not a Sergeant, but a MCpl.  So where did the "Sergeant" come from in these accusations?  Was the Pte so uneducated in the military to not know the rank structure, or is this another case of the media not getting the facts right?


George I suspect the "drill sergeant" from the original story was phrase the reporter added on his own.
That being said I have known some Sgt's who later became MCpl's. Some after remusters and other for reasons that lead to charges.


----------



## George Wallace

Just adds to the fact that we, along with the majority of media, have no real insight into the facts of the case.  We only have the 'claims' of Robichaud.  Even Michel Drapeau's site gives only the barest of information as to what the charges are.  As it is now before the Military Legal System, we can only wait for the outcome of the case and the published transcripts of the proceedings (which will again take some time to be published).  Then we will know whether or not Mr James Robichaud's claims are factual or not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

rinoakes said:
			
		

> This article is about the military. If someone is injured in military they get health care, medical pension, and benefits. What kind of job are you talking about?



That statement shows the absolute ignorance of what you believe.

The fact is many (could easily be thousands) serving and retired veterans do not receive the proper health care, medical pensions and benefits they deserve. They have had to fight tooth and nail, all the way to the SCC, in an attempt to get what they are entitled to.


----------



## MAJONES

cryco said:
			
		

> really?  I know you're probably ball parking, but do most really want to be pilots or mp? How small a percentage  are the combat arms applicants?



I was just ball parking.  From what I remember from working at the CFRC there was always a huge surplus of applicants for Pilot, MP, RMS Clerk and MSE OP.  We usually had just enough good combat arms applicants to meet the SIP, (except in artillery; both officer and NCM.  For some reason nobody wanted to be a gunner).  Where we had problems was filling the tech trades.  A large number of the applicants for these positions didn't meet the minimum CFAT score for them.  We never made the SIP for these positions.
This brings me back to my original point;  We are too short handed in some trades to turn away potential candidates in an arbitrary manner.


----------



## JS2218

The Legion defines veterans  as:



> all Veterans of all ages including serving Canadian Armed Forces members, Regular and Reserve, and RCMP members.



and that is the standard required to get special privileges such as a veterans' licence plate (in Ontario as least).

I would suggest that's a more than reasonable starting point for the definition of veterans.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So the legion defines 'veterans' as...'veterans, including serving CAF and RCMP'.

Great.  Thanks for the input.  Cleared that right up!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If he never passed basic training he is not a soldier IMO and therefore not entitled to veteran status.


----------



## ModlrMike

JS2218 said:
			
		

> The Legion defines veterans  as:
> 
> and that is the standard required to get special privileges such as a veterans' licence plate (in Ontario as least).
> 
> I would suggest that's a more than reasonable starting point for the definition of veterans.



Well, yes. But the Legion's definition has no legal standing where the VAC definition does.

Would you still call him a veteran if he pulled the plug in week one?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

JS2218 said:
			
		

> The Legion defines veterans  as:
> 
> and that is the standard required to get special privileges such as a veterans' licence plate (in Ontario as least).
> 
> I would suggest that's a more than reasonable starting point for the definition of veterans.



Very few here care what the Legion thinks or directs. It has become an organization of mostly civies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Using the legion as a source is akin to using Wikipedia as an absolute.


----------



## George Wallace

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here we go again.  This really has the possibilities of opening a convoluted can of worms:
> 
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a veteran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More on LINK.
> 
> 
> That would mean that one becomes a Veteran as soon as they take the Oath of Allegiance or Solemn Oath and will be a Veteran even if they turned around within the next hour and said that they had changed their minds and did not want to be a member of the CAF.
Click to expand...


This post makes me wonder, once again, as to how far one wants to go to qualify who is "Veteran".  If these people actually 'Swore In' and then backed out, would we consider them "Veterans"?



			
				kweh said:
			
		

> 00063E here as well. Somebody at my swearing in dropped out, so we've already lost one.  :


----------

