# Sailor Derek de Jong and Other Ship  Misconducts?



## ModlrMike (29 Apr 2014)

*Sailor Derek de Jong charged with desertion was harassed, wife claims*

CBC News

The wife of a Royal Canadian Navy officer accused of leaving his post during a military operation is speaking out ahead of his court martial, and says her husband left his ship because of an intolerable atmosphere of harassment on board.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Apr 2014)

The usual reminders .....
-- *Under   Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "any person charged with an offence has the right .... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal."*
-- This case may attract attention from the media and public, which can lead to them showing up here looking for quotes etc. Be very careful of what you post - even though this isn't an official military site, people pay different attention to what those who self-identify as military have to say.  

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Apr 2014)

A very interesting case.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ......wife claims


Well I'm sure we have the whole, unbiased story here.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Apr 2014)

> One incident involved a drunk female officer who allegedly urinated on the floor of de Jong's cabin.
> _
> Maria de Jong said her husband became the butt of jokes after that incident. One superior officer, according to de Jong, told him, "Some men have to pay for that kind of service._"



Talk about spending money on wasteful things  >


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2014)

> One incident involved a drunk female officer who allegedly urinated on the floor of de Jong's cabin.



This raises some VERY interesting questions (most of which aren't for public consumption).

Hmmm. >


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Apr 2014)

I don't know why, but it drives me crazy that newspapers are incapable of getting the navy ranks correct.  CBC and other nationals I can see, but always irks me when the Chronicle Herald puts LtCdr, Lt or some other made up shorthand.

Curious to see how this comes out in court.  Have read a number of the court martial findings over the last few years and the findings themselves seem pretty fair and reasonable

As an aside, for those unfamiliar with the Navy, he would have been the A/HOD (assistant Head of Department) doing his year long OJT on the ship to become qualified to be the HOD (a LCdr position on the PTR class).  They do all their basic logistic officer training (in Borden or Trenton?) prior to showing up to the ship as a Lt(N) so they are trade qualified, just not qualified to be the supply officer (SYO) on a ship.  They are a bit of an oddball, as all the other naval officer trades spend time on ships as SLts first.

No comment on the various harassment allegations, but I'm sure this will start the whole 'dry' vs 'wet' navy.  Pretty simplistic argument, but history has shown repeatedly that prohibition doesn't work.  Any time I've been on joint exercises with other navies, the USN sailors are usually the ones found passed out all over the place in foreign ports.  Some of the RN guys are right b&stards, but they aren't much better sober either..  

On the plus side, the german JSS design comes with beer taps as fitted equipment! :cheers: Go away good idea fairies and your silly changes!


----------



## Tibbson (29 Apr 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I don't know why, but it drives me crazy that newspapers are incapable of getting the navy ranks correct.  CBC and other nationals I can see, but always irks me when the Chronicle Herald puts LtCdr, Lt or some other made up shorthand.



I asked a couple of PAffO about that once and was informed most media outlets use a standard writing guide for such things and since its US centric we often get saddled with LtCols, 2nd Lts, Cptns and the odd (no pun intended) Pvt.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 May 2014)

Thanks, that's an interesting tidbit.  I find it especially frustrating when the correct rank is provided in a media release which they quote, then later on they use the American version anyway (or something else they've just made up altogether).  To me, points to poor proof reading and lack of fact checking, which generally gets me shot whenever I submit any kind of paperwork/emails etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I asked a couple of PAffO about that once and was informed most media outlets use a standard writing guide for such things and since its US centric we often get saddled with LtCols, 2nd Lts, Cptns and the odd (no pun intended) Pvt.


Not so on the bit in orange (unless they're using a different guide) - here's the Canadian Press Style Guide's guide to military rank (highlights mine):


> ....Note: *For clarity for a non-military audience, The Canadian Press does not use abbreviations used by the Forces.*
> 
> Use these titles for army and air force personnel:
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2014)

No word on sentence yet ....


> A Royal Canadian Navy officer accused of leaving his post during a military operation pleaded guilty today to desertion when he appeared at his court martial in Halifax.
> 
> Lt. Derek de Jong's sentencing is scheduled for 1 p.m. AT Monday.
> 
> ...



More here:


> An officer in the Royal Canadian Navy who pleaded guilty to desertion testified Monday that he left his post on a ship after he was subjected to deplorable behaviour that included a colleague urinating on his cabin floor.
> 
> Lt. Derek De Jong, 43, told a court martial that while he was wrong to leave his post aboard HMCS Preserver, he was harassed and his commanding officer failed to properly investigate his concerns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tibbson (5 May 2014)

I find it funny how he waits for his trial to bring these allegations forward.  To his credit though he does admit his actions were wrong...although he initially plead not guilty.


----------



## chrisf (5 May 2014)

Side note, what the hell is it with folks pissing on the floor?

I've woken up to/walked in on roommates, as well as folks who don't live on the damned room and will never return to clean it up, pissing on the floor, and/or in the closet.... A good friend of mine woke up one evening to someone he'd never seen before pissing in his closet, when he shouted at them the reply was "sorry I thought this was my room"

Despite having consumed excessive amounts of alcohol many many times I've never confused the floor or a closet for a toilet... I don't get why the hell it's such a common thing....


----------



## Tibbson (5 May 2014)

Good point.  Even my 3 year old knows the difference.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 May 2014)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Side note, what the hell is it with folks pissing on the floor?
> 
> I've woken up to/walked in on roommates, as well as folks who don't live on the damned room and will never return to clean it up, pissing on the floor, and/or in the closet.... A good friend of mine woke up one evening to someone he'd never seen before pissing in his closet, when he shouted at them the reply was "sorry I thought this was my room"



Sorry, had a little chuckle over that one.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 May 2014)

Wait, did it say he was recommended for promotion? ???  Do you suppose they just meant his PER was a ready?

No comment on the case itself one way or another, but I would have thought a charge like that might decrease your chance of getting recommended for promotion.  Is it because he hasn't been convicted of anything during the reporting period that it doesn't count against him on his PER?

Should I try taking a swing at someone tomorrow and see if I get promoted out of the deal? Wow.  And we were joking today about various COs '"reassigned" from their commands that got promoted anyway. :facepalm:


----------



## medicineman (6 May 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Should I try taking a swing at someone tomorrow and see if I get promoted out of the deal? Wow.  And we were joking today about various COs '"reassigned" from their commands that got promoted anyway. :facepalm:



Buddy of mine wrote of 3 5/4 ton ambulances and was charged with drinking prior to duty earlier that same year...and promptly got advanced promoted to Cpl not long after.  I'd say you've got some odds in your favour, if you're a Vegas kinda guy  >.

MM


----------



## FJAG (6 May 2014)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Side note, what the hell is it with folks pissing on the floor?
> 
> I've woken up to/walked in on roommates, as well as folks who don't live on the damned room and will never return to clean it up, pissing on the floor, and/or in the closet.... A good friend of mine woke up one evening to someone he'd never seen before pissing in his closet, when he shouted at them the reply was "sorry I thought this was my room"
> 
> Despite having consumed excessive amounts of alcohol many many times I've never confused the floor or a closet for a toilet... I don't get why the hell it's such a common thing....



In my day this was why all the shacks had windows with ledges outside just wide enough to stand on.

 ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I find it funny how he waits for his trial to bring these allegations forward.


I don't know what was said in the proceedings, but this is from this story posted above .....


> .... De Jong said he reported the incident to the supply officer and the ship's commanding officer but no formal inquiry resulted ....


Don't know if the underlined means what happened didn't satisfy the defendant, or that nothing at all happened, but it sounds like he did tell SOMEONE in authority "hey, this isn't on".


----------



## Tibbson (6 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I don't know what was said in the proceedings, but this is from this story posted above .....Don't know if the underlined means what happened didn't satisfy the defendant, or that nothing at all happened, but it sounds like he did tell SOMEONE in authority "hey, this isn't on".



Exactly but he also said he travelled back to Canada in order to report it to the MPs however he admitted he never did report it.  Since he reported it to his Capt who reportedly (by him)  did nothing then he had grounds in his mind to report neglegent performance of a military duty in regards to the ship's Capt.  He didnt but now brings it up at trial.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 May 2014)

> Lt. Derek de Jong won't be demoted after desertion guilty plea
> 
> Lieutenant fined $5K for leaving HMCS Preserver
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (7 May 2014)

If half of what he says is true, I would gather that this ships company will be investigated .....,


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> If half of what he says is true, I would gather that this ships company will be investigated .....,



Something in me says it won't Jim. Some polite inquiries from the top perchance and maybe a quiet purge of a few lower ranking individuals to other pastures.

A formal inquiry might be announced, but it'll probably be PR window dressing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> If half of what he says is true, I would gather that this ships company will be investigated .....,



Why?

Let's assume everything he said is true ... an officer behaved badly; Lt(N) de Jong reported it to the captain; he (Lt(N) d Jong) was not satisfied with whatever actions the captain took or did not take. So what? What actions did the captain take? Do you know? I certainly don't. Maybe the captain spoke to the officer who behaved badly and suggested that, at some appropriate time, she should apologize to Lt(N) de Jong; maybe the captain just just shook his head in dismay and said to himself "Lt(N) ______ will get an adverse performance report based on reported _disgraceful conduct_ which does not rise to the standard requiring formal disciplinary action, but Lt(N) de Jong has got to grow up."

It seems to me that this is well within a commanding officer's _discretion_. Lt(N) de Jong _may_ be an excellent logistics officer but, it appears, to me, that he may be just a wee, tiny bit too _delicate_ to be a seagoing officer. (Having said that if someone of about the rank peed in my room I would have taken swift, physical, retaliatory action, including a forced scrubbing of my floor.)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that this is well within a commanding officer's _discretion_. Lt(N) de Jong _may_ be an excellent logistics officer but, it appears, to me, that he may be just a wee, tiny bit too _delicate_ to be a seagoing officer. (Having said that if someone of about the rank peed in my room I would have taken swift, physical, retaliatory action, including a forced scrubbing of my floor.)



Amen!  I would use their face as the bloody mop!


----------



## captloadie (9 May 2014)

Except for the fact, according to the story, it was a senior female officer. Are we now advocating violence against women?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2014)

Does being female excuse one from the normal, generally accepted rules of good conduct? Not in the army in which I served ... all members, all sexes, all races, all creeds were held to one, common standard of conduct.

I fully, and confidently, expect that the captain and the XO, both, _corrected_ that officer and that her misconduct will be reflected on her PER and it will impact her career.

Not every act of misconduct rises to a level that requires formal disciplinary action, and, sometimes, even when it does, the misconduct, especially amongst officers and senior NCOs, will not be easy to prove (at the required level) at a court martial.

If female officers want to _fly with the eagles_ they had better be prepared to coexist in the same nest; if supply officers are too _delicate_ to correct a mess mate then maybe they need to try Canadian Tire instead of the Canadian Forces.


----------



## captloadie (9 May 2014)

I was replying to the notion that one would "use their face as a bloody mop" and "swift, physical, retaliatory action."  

I am in no way endorsing the individuals actions, but I do believe in cases like this there does need to be open disciplinary measures taken. Even if securing a conviction was not possible, it would at least demonstrate, publicly, that these behaviors are not tolerated. Comments on a PER do not do anything for general deterrence.


----------



## George Wallace (9 May 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I was replying to the notion that one would "use their face as a bloody mop" and "swift, physical, retaliatory action."



I took that statement to be gender neutral.


----------



## cupper (9 May 2014)

I suspect that in today's politically correct society and military service we would be expected to all come together in a circle, discuss our feelings about  the member urinating on the floor, have a group hug and the sing "Kumbaya".

Mr. de Jong may well be outstanding at doing his JOB. 

But in my opinion sorely lacks sufficient understanding of his chosen CAREER.


----------



## NavyHopeful (11 May 2014)

As a VERY Jr member of the RCN (with only 3 years under my belt), I am at a loss for words to describe the feelings of confusion I have for this whole situation.  I was under the impression that something of this situation was to be dealt with internally, through the proper channels.  Is this not why all of our units have personnel dedicated as harassment advisers?  The CF puts people through courses to act as harassment advisers, and I have been offered it once or twice already (and would take it, if training and departmental work wasn't a priority at the moment), so that we (anyone within the unit) can approach a member of the Unit Harassment Committee (or whatever the hell they're called) to report the feelings of hurt, neglect, or harassment they are receiving from another member in the unit.

I can attest to the majority of my unit's ability to "deal with it at the lowest level", having had a mess mate sleeping in a rack above mine during a port visit become ill, and accidentally missing the bucket.  Thank the lord for the little curtain, or I would've worn it.  Sure I was upset about it, but the member and the Senior hand of the mess looked after it, and after the young lad apologized profusely and exchanged my linens, everything was okie-dokie.

That said, I cannot relate to the whole "urinating on the floor, and posting a sign on the door that reads Female Heads" scenario.  I CAN tell you that the difference between harassment and fooling around (or being a schmuck) is directly related to intent and perception.  If I cried "HARRASSMENT" every time someone made a fat joke, I'd have to ensure that I was the primary person getting the crap-stick.  Yeah, I'm a big dude.  And yeah, I pick on myself for it (I'm probably the one person who harasses myself WAY too much).  I do it as a defense mechanism.  I learned long ago that if you make fun of yourself a lot, it takes the gas out of bullies when they try to do it to you.  And I've done it for so long, that it actually has become somewhat of a habit.  People have come to expect that no one knows what I'm going to say next, but it'll either be smart, funny, or stupid (heavy emphasis on the last one... see?  I'm doing it AGAIN).

Basically, my whole thoughts on Lt(N) De Jong's scenario, from a dopey AB's perspective are this:  Who was his harassment adviser?  I believe it is either another Lt(N), or possibly the XO.  That being the case, if he reported the event as harassment, it is essential that it is investigated and responded to in a timely manner.  And, to be clear and fair, a couple of days during a foreign port visit is probably not an effective amount of time for something as intricate as harassment to be investigated and dealt with, owing to the fact that one, or both of the members involved may be floating around in town, doing whatever it is that they have planned.  So, once the ship is back to sea, and all members are present and accounted for, the matter can be dealt with swiftly and, hopefully, justly.  I have seen that any sort of possible harassment at sea is dealt with in a swift manner and usually has a tone of finality to it (from the experience of a departmental coworker).

So, in my opinion, had this event happened to me, I would have utilized my proper procedures by advising my proper Chain of Command, and my Harassment Adviser, about the events that had taking place.  If I felt that it was being dealt with flippantly, or not at all, my next step would be to submit a Personnel Request and memo to have the incident investigated properly.  I have always been told by supervisors and instructors that if I am every in doubt, get it in writing.  If you cry to someone about a colleague peeing in your living space, and they tell you to suck it up and deal with it, well that's one thing, and it's one person's word against the other.  If you fill out a statement/memo, well then, you have documentation to back up your claim, and in my experience, a story can be told, and told, and told again, and it never remains the same, but if you have it in writing, well, my friend, that's called EVIDENCE.

If you need to leave a unit during a deployment, use your proper channels.  I'm certain that if Lt(N) De Jong had informed the ship's doc or padre, and informed them that he was suffering from undue stress due to workplace harassment, they would have moved mountains to ensure that he would not remain in such a "toxic" environment.  I have seen people get landed from sails because they just couldn't handle being at sea.  It isn't a weakness thing; sailing isn't for everyone.  I will never look down on someone who went to sea, and couldn't handle it.  I know of people who have LOADS of sea time, and still have trouble going to sea.  It's all about the PERCEPTION.

Basically, Lt(N) De Jong should never have felt the need to abandon his post because of harassment.  He should have felt that, even though that situation may have needed a few extra days to resolve, that a resolution would've been in place before too long, and that his "toxic work environment" would have either been rectified, or he would have been permitted to return to Halifax, without the need to turn himself in to the MPs and go through all of this hullabaloo.

As for his sentence...  Well, a $5,000 fine and a severe reprimand may seem just in the light of the harassment claims, the scenario of the events, and the location of the ship when he left; however, I have done the same deployment, and I can tell you that the ship needs its LogO for this deployment.  Without that position being filled, the ship would have no food, fuel, replacement parts for repairs, mail, jetties at foreign ports, or anything else that you can think of that is coordinated by the LogO.  Basically everything a ship needs for it's sailors to be able to function well as a whole will, in some way, be connected to the Log Dept.  I think that the people who think his sentence was too heavy or just right need to think of the bigger picture here.  Not only did he leave his unit, but he held a very important position within that unit that could have potentially prevented that unit from participating in their mission.  If this had been someone on the ground in Afghanistan, how would his/her court martial play out?  Would it have the same results?  I think not.


----------



## observor 69 (11 May 2014)

Thanks for the well written post. Some good thinking on how to respond to these situations.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 May 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I was replying to the notion that one would "use their face as a bloody mop" and "swift, physical, retaliatory action."



Don't be a wanker, maybe I will come drop a big coiler in your shoes and see how you like it?  I don't know how the Navy works but I have seen similar situations in the army where the offender has had their ass kicked at the mess.

That being said, Lt(N) de Jong went about this the complete wrong way and should of probably grown a set instead of picking up all his toys and running home.


----------



## Stoker (11 May 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Don't be a wanker, maybe I will come drop a big coiler in your shoes and see how you like it?  I don't know how the Navy works but I have seen similar situations in the army where the offender has had their *** kicked at the mess.
> 
> That being said, Lt(N) de Jong went about this the complete wrong way and should of probably grown a set instead of picking up all his toys and running home.



I know for a fact there is more to the story that was published. I tried to put myself in his shoes, on what I would do. Most likely I would of went to the HA and tried to have it ADR'd I guess. I have no idea of his mental state when he left the ship, obviously it wasn't good as the medic wanted to repat him home.  Perhaps he seen no way out, people have done harm to themselves for less.  In my career I met all types of personalities and some do not respond well to be being razzed, they usually do not do well in a military environment where it happens often. Lt(N) de jong should had toughed it out until they got back. At least the ship was on the way back to HFX.
As for the female urinating on the floor, hopefully she got run for that failure of leadership. With the amount of booze on the go on that weekend in question, I'm surprised more stuff didn't happen or most likely did.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> With the amount of booze on the go on that weekend in question, I'm surprised more stuff didn't happen or most likely did.



Then here's the question: Why is apparent alcohol abuse tolerated in ports of call? I've heard of people shipped back to Mirage/KAF from Cyprus for their summary trials for doing stupid stuff on decompression, and they didn't have daily access to alcohol (which is probably why most went way over normal tolerance).

This isn't 1750, press ganging people onto ships and keeping them drunk so they don't desert.


----------



## Stoker (11 May 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Then here's the question: Why is apparent alcohol abuse tolerated in ports of call? I've heard of people shipped back to Mirage/KAF from Cyprus for their summary trials for doing stupid stuff on decompression, and they didn't have daily access to alcohol (which is probably why most went way over normal tolerance).
> 
> This isn't 1750, press ganging people onto ships and keeping them drunk so they don't desert.



It was in the media that de Jong was upset at the amount of alcohol that was supplied to the crew as a reward for the end the OP. The attitude has changed a lot towards excess drinking in the last few years, several fairly high placed members of ship companies have been relieved due to excess drinking so it doesn't get swept under the carpet. Even the all you can drink cocktail parties are pretty much gone, hell  some ships last Christmas didn't even have the customary Moosemilk because of fears of over drinking. I can think of a number of personnel that have been killed due to excess drinking. If it happens on the ship or ashore people will drink, the key is to change people attitudes towards excess drinking.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Then here's the question: Why is apparent alcohol abuse tolerated in ports of call? I've heard of people shipped back to Mirage/KAF from Cyprus for their summary trials for doing stupid stuff on decompression, and they didn't have daily access to alcohol (which is probably why most went way over normal tolerance).
> 
> This isn't 1750, press ganging people onto ships and keeping them drunk so they don't desert.



The short answer is, alcohol abuse is not tolerated.  The longer answer is much more complicated.

A ship is, in a very real sense, the home for sailor for months at a time.  It is not necessarily a comfortable home. The thinking is that providing alcohol for sale onboard a ship (in very real contrast to the USN) treats sailors as adults; keeps problems onboard instead of downtown and prevents the inevitable bootlegging that would happen if booze was banned (again, see the USN for the multitude of problems they suffer as a result of their fairly Puritan attitude towards alcohol).

Having served on a multitude of ships, the trick to healthy attitude towards alcohol seems to be leadership. The CO, XO, Coxn, HODS and CHODs must constantly send the message that while it is ok to drink, you must always look after and police your wingers.  I will not pretend that I have never gotten completely obiterated on a ship in port, but I do not drink at sea because the nature of my job makes it unwise for me to ever even have one drink.  That may not apply to others.

My 2 cents.


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> It was in the media that de Jong was upset at the amount of alcohol that was supplied to the crew as a reward for the end the OP. .......




Sometimes people for various reasons, "REFORMED Alcoholic" or even religion, may have an overly extreme opinion of the 'alcohol policies' and any use of alcohol, no matter the occasion or amounts consumed.   This could poison a work environment if dealt with incorrectly.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 May 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The short answer is, alcohol abuse is not tolerated.  The longer answer is much more complicated.
> 
> A ship is, in a very real sense, the home for sailor for months at a time.  It is not necessarily a comfortable home. The thinking is that providing alcohol for sale onboard a ship (in very real contrast to the USN) treats sailors as adults; keeps problems onboard instead of downtown and prevents the inevitable bootlegging that would happen if booze was banned (again, see the USN for the multitude of problems they suffer as a result of their fairly Puritan attitude towards alcohol).
> 
> ...



I agree; I think most folks don't drink at all while the ship is underway for similar reasons.  Doesn't take much to go to emergency stations or otherwise have something come up, so folks are a bit cautious.  Then you normally get into port a bit sleep foxed and jittery, so it's not unusual for the folks on duty to keep people from going across the brow and send them to their racks (with regular checks) after having a few too many.  If they had a banyan or something similar as well I'm sure there are a number of folks that didn't make it ashore.  Normally people self police and look after their wingers though, but you do sometimes get people that go rogue and do stupid things.  I'd be pretty pissed off (no pun intended) at whoever the idiot girl was that dropped trousers in my running shoes but would pretty much expect the follow on jokes.  I think the best way to deal with that is to roll with it and get ahead of the curve by initiating the jokes; as soon as you show it bothers you it'll ramp up.

I'm sure there is a lot more to this story, but I think he'll probably always be 'that guy'.  Not sure if he ended up getting his HOD qualitication (he would have been the A/SyO, aka baby LogO) but I think he may have a tough time getting taken seriously as the HOD.  A/HOD training can be stressful, but packing your bags doesn't really instill confidence.  I think as much as you'd try giving someone the benefit of the doubt, kind of hard to ignore.  Could be wrong, don't know anyone involved, but doesn't really seem like the best way to handle things, and I'd be nervous if that was the person supposed to be getting my parts.


----------



## cupper (11 May 2014)

What is the likelyhood that Mr. de Jong gets released in the short to midterm future?

I'm surprised that release was not part of the final sentencing.

He obviously won't be gong to sea again. You could never trust him not to pack it in when the going gets rough.

And the same would hold on any sort of deployment. So what do you do with him?


----------



## ModlrMike (11 May 2014)

It will be interesting to see the trial transcript. I can't say that I will ever understand nor agree with his actions.

I would think that the female officer in question has brought her career to an abrupt end, regardless of what Lt(N) de Jong thinks. An adverse PER comment regarding conduct will be difficult to recover from. Particularly if she's MARS and had hoped to Captain a ship some day.


----------



## Stoker (11 May 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> What is the likelyhood that Mr. de Jong gets released in the short to midterm future?
> 
> I'm surprised that release was not part of the final sentencing.
> 
> ...



Hard to say, he most likely will continue to be a LT(N) until he retires. He has already been punished and unless he does something again he won't be released. Apparently he's a real scholar ashore.


----------



## Stoker (11 May 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see the trial transcript. I can't say that I will ever understand nor agree with his actions.
> 
> I would think that the female officer in question has brought her career to an abrupt end, regardless of what Lt(N) de Jong thinks. An adverse PER comment regarding conduct will be difficult to recover from. Particularly if she's MARS and had hoped to Captain a ship some day.



The female officer in question was loaded when she did the deed, as was many people that night. I doubt if she'll have any action taken against her as things like that happen much too often. I have seen NCO's come back from similar and worse situations and senior officers commit assault while drunk, get relieved and come back as a few years later as a CO, so anythings possible. The common denominator here is excess drinking and a culture that supports it. I enjoy a few beer, but not at the risk of my career or my life.


----------



## donaldk (12 May 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> <snipped>
> 
> I'm sure there is a lot more to this story, but I think he'll probably always be 'that guy'.  Not sure if he ended up getting his HOD qualitication (he would have been the A/SyO, aka baby LogO) but I think he may have a tough time getting taken seriously as the HOD.  A/HOD training can be stressful, but packing your bags doesn't really instill confidence.  I think as much as you'd try giving someone the benefit of the doubt, kind of hard to ignore.  Could be wrong, don't know anyone involved, but doesn't really seem like the best way to handle things, and I'd be nervous if that was the person supposed to be getting my parts.



Regardless of how A/HOD training is stressful or not, the conduct that this officer showed at the brow of his ship was downright inexcusable, and this was brought up in sentencing closing statement by the CM judge.  As was said in the CM, he did not wait the extra hour for the PA to secure a medical repat to Halifax.  Had he waited, this mess wouldn't have happened.

On another note, ignoring the whole alcohol bit, the only good thing about this CM is that there were other pretty damning issues brought up in the CM  that the prosecution blew open that once the transcripts are out will cause the media (face of the general public) to question how the biggest institution of the Canadian government handles internal affairs.

Loose confidence of the crew as an officer, might as well kiss your career good bye.  One may not always be on the crew's good side (and I have my fair share of angry feedback in my cabin from my guys), but having their confidence in the ability to lead them on the path to get business done is absolutely vital.

Did I go packing my bags as the EOOW when I had a family member call the MCR during flash up telling me she was going to kill herself? Nope, continued directing flash up, got a quick 5 min relief, made a couple calls, took the watch back from the other EOOW and proceeded to sea.   My brother couldn't take the BS that goes beyond this tip of the iceberg and had stress issues twice in his career causing the need for short fuse landings, and it took NMT 2 hours to sort it out properly and he was repat'd without lasting career issues.  BTW, said family mbr is still alive and somewhat well, although she ought to drop the 25+ year habit of Valium/Lorazepam and alcohol combo.


----------



## Tibbson (12 May 2014)

There is no need for the press to wait for transcripts, there were two journalists sitting there throughout.  One CBC and the other an independent.


----------



## Griffon (12 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> There is no need for the press to wait for transcripts, there were two journalists sitting there throughout.  One CBC and the other an independent.



Great...there's an unbiased source of information!  :sarcasm:
I'd wait for the transcript and read it myself if I really wanted to know what happened.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 May 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I have seen NCO's come back from similar and worse situations and senior officers commit assault while drunk, get relieved and come back as a few years later as a CO, so anythings possible. The common denominator here is excess drinking and a culture that supports it. I enjoy a few beer, but not at the risk of my career or my life.



Too many comments above that I agree with to quote them all (SKTacco had a great post), but I feel this hits it the nail on the head. "Responsible" alcohol consumption needs to be encouraged, not either giving everyone free will or banning it altogether. The fact that in your career you've seen multiple instances of alcohol-related misconducts end up (with a minor speedbump) rewarded, shows to me the starting of a pattern that the top-down needs to crush. Someone needs to be made an example of: "Have some beers, but if you get drunk and punch a subordinate, your career is over." Only after the first few individuals are back on shore completing the requirements of their C&P will something change.

Personally I've seen alcohol go from the norm, to being looked upon as worse than doing pills/smoking dope. How often do you have a drug test done (save for deployment) that's not blind? If that same person shows up hungover twice but still able to work hard they're thrown to the wolves.


----------



## FJAG (12 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Great...there's an unbiased source of information!  :sarcasm:
> I'd wait for the transcript and read it myself if I really wanted to know what happened.



You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not sure what the current policy is (in days of old all CMs were transcribed while civilian trials were only transcribed if a party appealed and paid for the transcription service). Either way the transcript was/is not a document generally or easily or quickly available to the public.

What is much easier to obtain is the Reasons for Decision that are given by the judge at the end of trial. These are published both on the Chief Military Judge's website as well as on CANLII. Unfortunately I note that only one has been published so far for cases completed in 2014 and there are still a very large number unpublished for 2013. I'm not sure why that is so. They are usually fairly short and could and should be available much more quickly.

Looks like your stuck with the crap that comes from the media.

 :cheers:


----------



## Tibbson (12 May 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Great...there's an unbiased source of information!  :sarcasm:
> I'd wait for the transcript and read it myself if I really wanted to know what happened.



Agreed but what I was refering to was the comment the press would be reading transcripts.  I remember sitting in on an inquiry going on in Ottawa while an Ottawa Sun reporter was live tweeting from the inquiry. As I read what he was treeting from 7-8 seats away from me  I couldnt help but wonder if he was sitting in the same room I was.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 May 2014)

donaldk said:
			
		

> Regardless of how A/HOD training is stressful or not, the conduct that this officer showed at the brow of his ship was downright inexcusable, and this was brought up in sentencing closing statement by the CM judge.  As was said in the CM, he did not wait the extra hour for the PA to secure a medical repat to Halifax.  Had he waited, this mess wouldn't have happened.
> ...



I don't disagree; but trying to keep a semi open mind and put it in perspective for the non-navy types.  I personally wouldn't trust the guy, and there are plenty of competent LogOs waiting to go back to sea.  'When the going gets tough....run away!" doesn't really impress. A/HOD isn't super hard, but for both logs and NTOs it's trial by fire, and if you don't have a half decent mentor in your HOD and/or good support from the sailors it's pretty difficult to do your job while doing all your OJT work as well.  Having said that, finding out someone is going to crack under pressure as a trainee on a ship at peacetime is probably not a bad thing (vice during a real crisis when they are in charge).

It will be interesting to read the judgement when it's posted; I'm curious to see why the judge decided not to demote him.  Being a Lt(N) should go along with a certain assumption of being able to handle a reasonable level of responsibility and demonstrate some basic competencies, and there's probably already a few too many folks with that rank that can't meet one or the other (or both).  Kind of embarrassing really, but does make you wonder what you actually have to do to get fired.  I would personally say this is more serious then someone who smoked a joint or did something stupid while drinking and is looking at a reasonable chance of getting punted.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jul 2014)

As this is a similar theme and rather than start a new thread...


Canadian naval ship ordered home for 'sailor misconduct'


CTVNews.ca Staff 
 Published Monday, July 14, 2014 10:56PM EDT  
 Last Updated Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:57AM EDT 

In a rare move by the Royal Canadian Navy, a ship has been ordered home from a training exercise because of "sailor misconduct," CTV News has confirmed.

HMCS Whitehorse returned to Esquimalt, B.C., Monday, after Vice-Admiral Mark Norman of the RCN ordered it home from an international naval exercise called RIMPAC.

According to the U.S. Navy website, RIMPAC is the world’s largest international maritime exercise with forces from 22 nations across the world participating in this year’s exercises near Hawaii and Southern California. HMCS Whitehorse was one of two Canadian ships involved in operations off of Southern California.

A copy of an internal message sent by Norman was obtained by CTVNews.ca.

In it, Norman writes, it was "with great disappointment" that he ordered the return of HMCS Whitehorse following "three incidents of personal misconduct ashore."

At least one of the incidents involved the arrest of a Canadian sailor by police in San Diego, Calif., CTVNews.ca has confirmed.

"While the actions of a few sailors in Whitehorse was the trigger for my decision, I recalled her home because I am troubled that across the RCN a small number of our personnel have fallen short of the timeless expectations of naval service and have failed in their roles as ambassadors of their navy and country – no matter where they serve," Norman said in the message.

Cmdr. Hubert Genest told CTVNews.ca that Norman has appointed a senior officer to conduct a review of the RCN's policies and procedures regarding sailor conduct, both while aboard RCN ships and while onshore.



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/warship-ordered-home-for-sailor-misconduct-1.1914087#ixzz37YRHHmUj

_- mod edit to provide update, remove ref to other media - _


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Jul 2014)

I was watching the CBC interview with Evan Solomon and a Cmdr.   The RCN is hinting at a 'bold decision' to be taken wrt consumption of alcohol while on ex and in foreign ports. It seems logical to conclude that at least one consideration might be that RCN ships may now become dry ships [alcohol free with some exceptions for officers], and rules concerning leave ashore, good conduct, etc are about to be tightened up.  It is my understanding that morale in the Navy is very low, so perhaps this will be taken as a positive opportunity to shake things up and try a new course.


----------



## NavalMoose (15 Jul 2014)

I don't think taking Jack's beer away will somehow raise his morale.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jul 2014)

Yeah I get that, but don't you think Jack Ashore needs to dry out a little, unless you are referring to Jack Sparrow in which case, feel free to "party on", (but please change the flag the skull and crossbones eh?). I'm pretty certain that while the RCN is outgunned by most of its peers, I can think of no other navy that has as much access to alcohol aboard ship and actually makes it as much of a priority that the RCN does.  Something has to change....


----------



## NavalMoose (16 Jul 2014)

Jack getting pissed ashore will never change, what has changed is that it's somehow become newsworthy. Any opportunity to make the mob look bad is taken by the media. If Jack is big enough and ugly enough to get into trouble then he is big and ugly enough to take his lumps...this is not news.  What is news however is a ship being ordered home by politicians who haven't got a clue and usually devote most of their time to fudging expense accounts.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2014)

Without presupposing what issues the RCN is going to delve into, I have to pose this question:

To what extent should we treat people like adults?

Sure, the RCN can remove alcohol (officially) from ships.  It can even order sailors not to drink down town while in foreign port. But, to what extent is that a good idea? And will it actually solve the root issues? It has not seemed to work for the USN, who still seem to have the full range of disciplinary issues alongside that our Navy does.

Full disclosure: I do not drink at sea. I learned that lesson the hard way. That said, I do enjoy a drink while alongside and would (generally) rather do my drinking in the Wardroom rather than downtown. I am not certain that the Government of Canada treating me like a child and ordering me not to drink, while simultaneously entrusting me with aircraft, people and weapons really makes much sense.

I would think the that the high pay-off for the RCN would be to examine with some care both how COs, XOs and Coxns are selected for their positions and the (short) length of time they are in their positions. It always comes down to leadership.

That might shed some light on how the RCN has arrived where they are today.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Without presupposing what issues the RCN is going to delve into, I have to pose this question:
> 
> To what extent should we treat people like adults?
> 
> ...



We have already witnessed how these NO ALCOHOL policies have failed miserably in the past with Commanders treating their soldiers like 'children' in 4 CMBG; over three decades ago.   Once they are off that leash, they throw all caution to the wind.  I saw more problems when there were NO ALCOHOL policies, than before when adults were treated as adults and help responsible for their actions.   More recent examples can be seen in the problems that were occurring at the Decompression Center set up in Cyprus.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2014)

Perhaps using simple guidelines can keep casual drinks after a hard day without going completely dry. I know of a unit recently that had a wet canteen in the field, and troops were authorized one drink per hour while it was open after training. Seemed like a rational way to moderate consumption but allow some people to unwind if they so chose to do it that way.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I was watching the CBC interview with Evan Solomon and a Cmdr.   The RCN is hinting at a 'bold decision' to be taken wrt consumption of alcohol while on ex and in foreign ports. It seems logical to conclude that at least one consideration might be that RCN ships may now become dry ships [alcohol free with some exceptions for officers], and rules concerning leave ashore, good conduct, etc are about to be tightened up.  It is my understanding that morale in the Navy is very low, so perhaps this will be taken as a positive opportunity to shake things up and try a new course.



Officers can drink but 'below decks' can't. Yeah, that should solve the discipline problem  :sarcasm:


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2014)

I think they are over reacting.

San Diego is a port town and you expect the guys to go out and not drink?

The sexual assault is an issue, but don't make everyone pay the price because of one dude.

There may be discipline problems but this sounds like a political correctness solution.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> San Diego is a port town and you expect the guys to go out and not drink?



Go out and drink, but don't get arrested doing it. There's plenty of fun being had without making an ass of yourself. Perhaps recalling the ship will have the intended consequence of letting everyone know this conduct is not acceptable, as that message hasn't seemed to hit home yet.

For all those saying: "Why is this newsworthy?" Because the CAF is held to a higher standard than joe-blow civilian, and like it or not the RCN is now basically doing the bulk of our international operations. You can't say, "Look at all these drug busts we're doing, look at us!" and not expect the media to want to report misconduct either.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Go out and drink, but don't get arrested doing it. There's plenty of fun being had without making an *** of yourself. Perhaps recalling the ship will have the intended consequence of letting everyone know this conduct is not acceptable, as that message hasn't seemed to hit home yet.
> 
> For all those saying: "Why is this newsworthy?" Because the CAF is held to a higher standard than joe-blow civilian, and like it or not the RCN is now basically doing the bulk of our international operations. You can't say, "Look at all these drug busts we're doing, look at us!" and not expect the media to want to report misconduct either.



Army perspective here  - about 20 years ago we lost a regiment due to misconduct and a lot of it involved alcohol.
Since then, as far as I know, we are dry on ops and on most exercises. There was a lot of crying and moaning at first but that has gone by the wayside.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jul 2014)

And the navy has changed things too already with making it drier.  When I was on OP CARIBBE for example we were dry when we were in the box.  They went further with other ships with 2 drink limits in foreign ports as well.  And I also don't get gooned at sea either, and prefer to do my drinking on ship.  Cheaper and safer.

And cutting them off entirely won't solve jack and most definitely will make jack a very un-jolly tar.  Our neighbors down south have plenty of trouble when the kids get ashore trying to make up for all the dry times.  Saw the same behavior in decompression in Cyprus and UAE as well.  The Army doesn't have all the answers to these issues.

Both soldiers and sailors have for eons got into the sauce and got into trouble and will I believe for eons to come.  It's the nature of the beast.  I read the war diaries for the LDSH from WW1, the boys were getting themselves into antics just as they do today.  This is the MSM taking any and every chance to fling poo as they do.  But of course there will be I expect a knee jerk reaction to this latest scandal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would think the that the high pay-off for the RCN would be to examine with some care both how COs, XOs and Coxns are selected for their positions and the (short) length of time they are in their positions. It always comes down to leadership.


That right there.

Unfortunately, that is a longer-term fix.  Once it's in the media, "they" (media?  politicians?) want a fast fix.

"Problem + reaction" doesn't always equal "problem solved".


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And the navy has changed things too already with making it drier.  When I was on OP CARIBBE for example we were dry when we were in the box.  They went further with other ships with 2 drink limits in foreign ports as well.  And I also don't get gooned at sea either, and prefer to do my drinking on ship.  Cheaper and safer.
> 
> And cutting them off entirely won't solve jack and most definitely will make jack a very un-jolly tar.  Our neighbors down south have plenty of trouble when the kids get ashore trying to make up for all the dry times.  Saw the same behavior in decompression in Cyprus and UAE as well.  The Army doesn't have all the answers to these issues.
> 
> Both soldiers and sailors have for eons got into the sauce and got into trouble and will I believe for eons to come.  It's the nature of the beast.  I read the war diaries for the LDSH from WW1, the boys were getting themselves into antics just as they do today.  This is the MSM taking any and every chance to fling poo as they do.  But of course there will be I expect a knee jerk reaction to this latest scandal.



You are correct in saying that the Army doesn't have all the answers. Many have said its leadership issues, but it's more than just  that. 
Education and discipline is the key. There will always be those that step over the boundaries and you have to deal with them...not ban everything that troops get in trouble over.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jul 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> For all those saying: "Why is this newsworthy?" Because the CAF is held to a higher standard than joe-blow civilian, and like it or not the RCN is now basically doing the bulk of our international operations. You can't say, "Look at all these drug busts we're doing, look at us!" and not expect the media to want to report misconduct either.



Actually, I believe it is newsworthy because the admiral chose to use it to launch his "bold" initiative on drinking with it.

An internal communiqué hinting at this RCN wide review of alcohol policies that somehow finds its way into the press !!! Come on.

While recalling ships from Ops/deployments/foreign harbour visits is a rare thing, it is not unprecedented. However, you usually do it by sending the ship a classified recall message and dealing discretely, at least until the investigating of the circumstances is done and the facts ascertained, with whatever issue caused the recall when the ship is back. A good captain coming home under those circumstances will sometimes come back into harbour at night. Since MSM don't usually monitor the to-ing and fro-ing of naval vessels, that works.

As for the present case, i'll say this (personal opinion here): Sailors have gotten in trouble in foreign harbour before, and will find ways to do so in the future - and, yes, drinking will be involved at times. 

This said, our crew are a subset of Canadian society, so crimes will happen from time to time, but we all know that all proportions kept the CF has a much lower rate of crimes than the civilian population. Dealing with the "shoplifting" event: Crimes in foreign ports have happened before and we have procedures for dealing with this, especially with the Americans, that satisfy both parties. It is a simple disciplinary matter, not a reason to to recall a ship.

Similarly, we have had harassment problems before and we have procedures in place. Again not a reason in itself to recall a ship.

Finally , the drinking incident (which I gather was onboard): Difficult to say without particulars, so I won't comment except to say that again, by itself it might not justify a recall.

So why recall then?

I suggest that the main reason is that those three events occurred out of the same small crew of an MCDV. It is then important for command to determine if this is just a statistical "blip" - a coincidence, or if there is an underlying problem, then likely to be found in the ship's command team. The admiral may have already lost trust in that team.

BTW, I have sailed with the French and Belgian navies, where the messes have wine and beer "on tap" for free. Their seaman drink that instead of water or milk or juices with their meal and casually when off watch. With the Brits, I found their way of handling drinking on ships to be close to ours. Finally, anyone who has sailed with the US Navy knows that sailors find a way to get alcohol onboard and drink themselves stupid even with  the consequences of such act, and that they go a lot crazier with their drinking/disciplinary problems ashore. It's not availability of alcohol onboard that is the problem, but the systems in place to prevent or control abuses (and I don't mean rationing). I'm with SKT here: I don't drink at sea but don't mind a few stiff ones in the mess when back in harbour. Funny enough, my experience is that the very large majority of sailors are very reasonable in their drinking at sea.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2014)

Pardon my ignorance but how many people crew an MCDV?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jul 2014)

Thirty-five.


----------



## MARS (16 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance but how many people crew an MCDV?



Max bunking capability is 47. That includes the upper bunk In the Captain's cabin which is reserved for senior officers.  It also includes the accommodations pod (6 bunks) which was likely filled as well.  The REMAR (core crew absolutely required to operate the ship) is 31.  The additional 15 bunks are 'owned' by the coastal Personnel Coordination Centres and are generally 'reserved' for trainees.  The amount of trainees embarked is subject to the operational requirements of the ship (I.e. Embarking a law enforcement detachment for Op Carribe, embarking a med tech/physicians assistant or public affairs/combat camera folks)


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2014)

Well we don't have a bigger picture here as to why they were recalled.  Maybe someone important (police chief, mayor, foreign commander etc) complained and they felt the need to reassure them by recalling the whole ship.  

It may have been knee jerk but maybe it was to maintain good relations by taking decisive action.

 :dunno:

In time I'm sure details will emerge.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2014)

According to last nights news, it probably wasn't just a matter of being drunk in a foreign port.

One of the sailors in question, according to the news, was arrested for shoplifting.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .... our crew are a subset of Canadian society ....


If this is the case (and I believe it is), then ....


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW, I have sailed with the French and Belgian navies, where the messes have wine and beer "on tap" for free. Their seaman drink that instead of water or milk or juices with their meal and casually when off watch ....


.... these crews are a subset of their own populations, which (if one would consider them more like Italians than North Americans in approach) have very different ways of dealing with alcohol in general.  For example, I remember as a youth being offered a bit of wine with pop or water at the table.  This means we also have to change Canadian attitudes/practices to drinking in general, something that would take even longer than ensuring better leadership.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If this is the case (and I believe it is), then ........ these crews are a subset of their own populations, which (if one would consider them more like Italians than North Americans in approach) have very different ways of dealing with alcohol in general.  For example, I remember as a youth being offered a bit of wine with pop or water at the table.  This means we also have to change Canadian attitudes/practices to drinking in general, something that would take even longer than ensuring better leadership.



Unfortunately, if you go back to the starts of North American History, you will find it all starts with the first immigrants......the Puritans and similar like minded Sects..... >

Attitudes towards alcohol are also changing in Europe, with more stringent legislation being brought into effect on 'impaired charges'.


----------



## 392 (16 Jul 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> .... Saw the same behavior in decompression in Cyprus and UAE as well.  The Army doesn't have all the answers to these issues.



This is the second ref in this thread comparing decompression in Cyprus to this incident. I don't think the two can be compared apples to apples - the vast majority of those on decompression in Cyprus, myself included, expunged a lot of demons there while finally getting a chance to relax after, in some cases, being stuck out in the wild west for many months. Yes, a lot of people had too much to drink, but I can attest first-hand that some of those who partook in too much alcohol did so to numb a lot of pain / finally unwind and in the process got into some trouble. Some of it was due to being dry in theatre, but I would say the majority of it was as mentioned.

Not looking to start an inside the wire / outside the wire or CA vs RCN slinging match, just pointing out that the two cannot be compared straight across  :2c:

And for the record, I drank a lot there, but I was smart enough to go to ground when I had a hard time seeing straight.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, if you go back to the starts of North American History, you will find it all starts with the first immigrants......the Puritans and similar like minded Sects..... >


Good point.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Attitudes towards alcohol are also changing in Europe, with more stringent legislation being brought into effect on 'impaired charges'.


While Europe seems generally more relaxed about drinking, you're right there as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jul 2014)

You don't even have to go that far.

If you look at it collectively (not on individual basis where exceptions can always be found), I think most of you may have noted that the Quebecers in the CF have a different approach to alcohol consumption for that very same reason of more relaxed societal view of consumption.

When I grew up, at home, wine cut with water at meal time during the week-end was normal and I was introduced to it from age 10 on.

I have done the same with my two boys - introducing them early, letting them taste things and educating them about alcohol. They are both young adult now and feel no compulsion to go out every week-end on drinking parties or pub crawls.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2014)

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> This is the second ref in this thread comparing decompression in Cyprus to this incident. I don't think the two can be compared apples to apples - the vast majority of those on decompression in Cyprus, myself included, expunged a lot of demons there while finally getting a chance to relax after, in some cases, being stuck out in the wild west for many months. Yes, a lot of people had too much to drink, but I can attest first-hand that some of those who partook in too much alcohol did so to numb a lot of pain / finally unwind and in the process got into some trouble. Some of it was due to being dry in theatre, but I would say the majority of it was as mentioned.
> 
> Not looking to start an inside the wire / outside the wire or CA vs RCN slinging match, just pointing out that the two cannot be compared straight across  :2c:
> 
> And for the record, I drank a lot there, but I was smart enough to go to ground when I had a hard time seeing straight.



Out of curiosity, as Capt Happy has come on to say that these are NOT comparing apples to apples, does anyone know of any problems faced by other Allied nations troops,  who had less stringent alcohol regulations in theatre, on when they were on 'Decompression'?

I am a believer that since the Mid '80's, the PC treatment of Canadian Service personnel as 'children' with overly restrictive alcohol regulations, has been the cause of more problems when those Regulations were lifted than previously without those PC policies.  I saw it in Germany where a whole Sqn, from the lowest Cpl to the CO all went hog wild on a weekend during Reforger when they were allowed alcohol and there was a Beerfest on in the town they were leaguered outside of on the Czech Border.  Before there were these PC 'Alcohol Policies', the majority had handled their liquor like responsible adults, but when they fell under the 'No Alcohol' policy, once it was lifted they acted like kids in a candy store.

Stress may be a factor, but I think the treatment of the members as mindless, irresponsible children was more likely the larger cause.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jul 2014)

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> Not looking to start an inside the wire / outside the wire or CA vs RCN slinging match, just pointing out that the two cannot be compared straight across  :2c:



Nor am I.  The point I was wishing to make is that if you have groups of troops who have been cut off from the goodies so to speak that they will hit it harder when given the opportunity, which can result in incidents occurring.  As has been pointed out by those of us who have seen it, just look at almost any USN ship in foreign port for liberty after several months at sea.

I know that decompression was an opportunity to exorcise some demons that were justly haunting them and I'm not decrying that as I truly do understand.  But, perhaps if there had been a mechanism to let them exorcise them bit by bit during their time there it might make the amount of exorcism a little smaller.  Prohibition of any sort generally tends to make a person hit it that much harder when the smoking lamp is lit, does it not?  

There's a reason why pressure cookers have safety valves installed if you want to look at it another way.


----------



## 392 (16 Jul 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But, perhaps if there had been a mechanism to let them exorcise them bit by bit during their time there it might make the amount of exorcism a little smaller.  Prohibition of any sort generally tends to make a person hit it that much harder when the smoking lamp is lit, does it not?



I do agree with you there, but in the case of allowing pers to drink in theatre, I am not sure of the correct answer. I do know that 2 beer were allowed on special occasions such as Christmas, but the coordination and tracking of that vs force protection was quite involved. To be able to do that on a more regular basis could potentially be problematic when it comes to being ready to react to incoming threats that can pop up unannounced; area dependant of course.

To be honest, I don't know of a "better way" to deal with this for CA units in the field, but I do agree with George that treating our pers like kids is counterproductive. Even after knowing how we got to this point  - I think we should be selective in our targetting of the bad apples vice applying blanket policies of prohibition across the board. 

In the case of this ship, do they not have access to alcohol while underway? Again, I don't think that you can compare this incident to the ones in Cyprus, except for the similar knock-on effects (negative publicity, lack of trust in the leadership, blanket prohibition, etc).


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2014)

I think this was said earlier, but as one of the resident "dinosaurs" pleases allow me to give some background.

In the 90s I found the message coming from higher HQ was that soldiers were not to be trusted, nor should they be allowed to be given tasks then allowed to do them unsupervised. If a Pte was given a task, he had to have maximum supervision at all times so he could not make mistakes and learn. He had to have a MCpl or Sergeant peering over his shoulder at all times.
This was in reality the "decade of darkness" that plagues our military to this day.


----------



## Mike5 (16 Jul 2014)

Dumb question here -- but it must be a pain to carry beer on board an MCDV?  There must be an expense to transporting / storing / cooling -- I would think that space would be needed for more important stores like food, fuel and ammo?  On the basis of cost alone -- control issues aside -- wouldn't it be more economical to carry hard liquor?


----------



## DAA (16 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think this was said earlier, but as one of the resident "dinosaurs" pleases allow me to give some background.
> 
> In the 90s I found the message coming from higher HQ was that soldiers were not to be trusted, nor should they be allowed to be given tasks then allowed to do them unsupervised. If a Pte was given a task, he had to have maximum supervision at all times so he could not make mistakes and learn. He had to have a MCpl or Sergeant peering over his shoulder at all times.
> This was in reality the "decade of darkness" that plagues our military to this day.



It's the "pendulum" effect coming back around.  A Jr NCM is assigned a task by their supervisor.  The task get's completed but not to the level of satisfaction of higher and the supervisor gets drilled for not ensuring a higher standard of completion.

The end result is generally "micro-management" and or the supervisor completing the task themself.  As sad as that sounds........


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jul 2014)

First of all, Mike5, MCDV's carry both beer and hard liquor, and in the case at hand probably that alchoolized BC Cider since operating on the West Coast.

There is no storage problem. MCDV's have tons of storage room for everything, especially since there is whole compartment in each one dedicated to housing sonars which have yet to be installed on any of them. Instant huge beer store. But even without that its all factored in for storage.

We use to carry all that same stuff (beer, hard liquor, BC cider) for same size crew onboard the gate vessels with about 10% of the storage room available on a MCDV.


----------



## Cronicbny (16 Jul 2014)

Just so people dont think we're jamming booze into every crevice onboard... We have a beer and pop stores, properly locked and accounted for in each ship. As well, each mess generally has a beer fridge and a bar that are locked and controlled.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, as Capt Happy has come on to say that these are NOT comparing apples to apples, does anyone know of any problems faced by other Allied nations troops,  who had less stringent alcohol regulations in theatre, on when they were on 'Decompression'?
> 
> I am a believer that since the Mid '80's, the PC treatment of Canadian Service personnel as 'children' with overly restrictive alcohol regulations, has been the cause of more problems when those Regulations were lifted than previously without those PC policies.  I saw it in Germany where a whole Sqn, from the lowest Cpl to the CO all went hog wild on a weekend during Reforger when they were allowed alcohol and there was a Beerfest on in the town they were leaguered outside of on the Czech Border.  Before there were these PC 'Alcohol Policies', the majority had handled their liquor like responsible adults, but when they fell under the 'No Alcohol' policy, once it was lifted they acted like kids in a candy store.
> 
> Stress may be a factor, but I think the treatment of the members as mindless, irresponsible children was more likely the larger cause.



George, you remember what happened in Visoko, when the Command Team decided that three beers a day would be the solution?

The Padre implored them not to do it. He stated people would start hiding it, then drinking as much as possible, in nooks, crannies and sea containers, in order to get rid of it and get their buzz.

Truer words were never spoken. Alcohol related offences went through the roof creating a daily line up for charges, requiring the building of new cells and having to wait in line for three weeks after conviction, because there was such a line up to do your digger time. 

I never saw so much Molson XXX sold in one place. The Padre was also right about that also. Slamming three cans of that stuff was equal to drinking 9-12 beers at regular pace.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> George, you remember what happened in Visoko, when the Command Team decided that three beers a day would be the solution?
> 
> The Padre implored them not to do it. He stated people would start hiding it, then drinking as much as possible, in nooks, crannies and sea containers, in order to get rid of it and get their buzz.
> 
> ...




Ah, yes.  Charge Bat 2.  The worse offenders for breaking the rules were the officers and Snr NCO's, with the RSM leading the pack.  Funny how only MCpl's and below were charged and sent home.  The one Sgt that was charged, doesn't count, as he was cannon fodder being a MCpl who was Sgt WSE for that extended Tour.


----------



## PhoenixWright (16 Jul 2014)

Meh, It's pretty obvious what has occurred here. The way rumours go, I am certain everyone in the navy has heard about the looming cloud over our ability to drink at sea. One way or another it was coming, but if you had some big event to point to and say: "This is why booze went away." That sure would be nice, it would save some Admiral from being called a douchebag. 

" Commodore Craig Baines has been charged with the review, and Norman said he expects to have the preliminary findings by September.

Sources say Norman wanted to send a strong message that excessive drinking and bad behaviour will not be tolerated."



It is pretty much spelled out there that they already know what the results of the review will be. This is lifted from the article posted initially from ctv.  Just another way the navy is becoming a political machine, this will go well with us posting guards at he gates of the Halifax Dockyard to make sure not a single sailor leaves early.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2014)

PhoenixWright said:
			
		

> Just another way the navy is becoming a political machine, this will go well with us posting guards at he gates of the Halifax Dockyard to make sure not a single sailor leaves early.



They're not doing that crap with the Chiefs again are they?   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2014)

Oh, like the "Dress Police" that used to wander around Stad?  I laughed at that one.  Seriously.  

Sounds to me like the folks (who were supposed to be) in command of that MCDV failed that task.  Maybe the decision to bring her home was actually the right one, if anyone hasn't thought of that as possible.

This wasn't just 1 sailor who got his drunk-on and spent the night sleeping it off, compliments of the city.


----------



## JesseWZ (17 Jul 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Oh, like the "Dress Police" that used to wander around Stad?  I laughed at that one.  Seriously.
> 
> Sounds to me like the folks (who were supposed to be) in command of that MCDV failed that task.  Maybe the decision to bring her home was actually the right one, if anyone hasn't thought of that as possible.
> 
> This wasn't just 1 sailor who got his drunk-on and spent the night sleeping it off, compliments of the city.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Monsoon (17 Jul 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like the folks (who were supposed to be) in command of that MCDV failed that task.


Sounds to me like you can't possibly have enough information to have reached that conclusion. If you knew how these ships are crewed (i.e. with a nearly continual turnover of personnel, including key positions - something that's becoming more common in the rest of the fleet too), you too might be less quick to condemn the individuals trying to manage the situation. I'm not ruling out individual failings (neither can I conclude them), but I know for a fact that there's a systemic issue that contributes to the challenge of maintaining unit discipline and cohesion.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2014)

I don't need to have swanky executive curl ranks to see when there is a problem.  I'm in a pretty dynamic environment at work.  Different crew members, skippers, all that too.  Things don't fall to pieces if we get a new TacNav or L/AES Op or CO.   :2c:

The fact that she was brought home says lots about these "unknown realities" to me.  I know if a crew and airplane were 'recalled', I'd take that as a sign that REALLY bad shit was on the go.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jul 2014)

I am not convinced that one an compare a ship's crew on deployment and port visit with an aircrew's out of base stay over, but in any event that is not really at stake here.

If one reads my first post above on the subject, you will see that, taken in isolation, none of the incidents at issue amount to anything unusual or would warrant any special action. It is the unusual occurrence of three of them out of the same crew that flashes signal lights.

However, as I have indicated, while it may indicate a command problem, it could just as well be a sheer coincidence or have another explanation altogether. This is why it warrants investigation, but not condemnation before all the facts are known. BTW, such investigation in itself would justify a recall, since it would be difficult to carry out in the middle of an EX like RIMPAC and it's better undertaken sooner rather than later.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2014)

I just listened to Rick Howe interview a former Naval Officer, Mr. Hanson, on the controversy.  Rick tried unsucessfully to stir up garbage and was politely corrected.  It was a good interview.  Also it as mentioned that Commodore Auchterlonie has stated that he has lost confidence in the ability of command for the subject vessel and this is why it was being recalled home.

Mr. Hanson was of the opinion that all of this is being blown way out of proportion by the MSM, and that whatever went wrong is at the leadership level.  He also hoped that the Federal Govt wasn't going to have a political knee jerk reaction and do something rash.

I suppose we will be hearing about this for some time to come.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I just listened to Rick Howe interview a former Naval Officer, Mr. Hanson, on the controversy.  Rick tried unsucessfully to stir up garbage and was politely corrected.  It was a good interview.  Also it as mentioned that Commodore Auchterlonie has stated that he has lost confidence in the ability of command for the subject vessel and this is why it was being recalled home.
> 
> Mr. Hanson was of the opinion that all of this is being blown way out of proportion by the MSM, and that whatever went wrong is at the leadership level.  He also hoped that the Federal Govt wasn't going to have a political knee jerk reaction and do something rash.
> 
> I suppose we will be hearing about this for some time to come.



 >  A la Airborne Regiment.....Bring out the cutting torches, we are going to dismantle the Whitehorse.    :


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that one an compare a ship's crew on deployment and port visit with an aircrew's out of base stay over, but in any event that is not really at stake here.
> 
> If one reads my first post above on the subject, you will see that, taken in isolation, none of the incidents at issue amount to anything unusual or would warrant any special action. It is the unusual occurrence of three of them out of the same crew that flashes signal lights.
> 
> However, as I have indicated, while it may indicate a command problem, it could just as well be a sheer coincidence or have another explanation altogether. This is why it warrants investigation, but not condemnation before all the facts are known. BTW, such investigation in itself would justify a recall, since it would be difficult to carry out in the middle of an EX like RIMPAC and it's better undertaken sooner rather than later.



I have to agree with OGBD that the incidents appear to be taken as a whole and not in isolation. However I also suspect that the higher-ups may also be taking other highly publicized incidents (such as the deJong case) into account and lumping them in with this latest set and have decided that this will be the point where policy and procedures need to will be addressed through out the fleet.

Also, these publicized incidents may only be one of several, those of which have not been reported in the media, but have come to the attention of those who make policy. I suspect that had the vessel not been recalled, there would have been little if any coverage of the individual incidents in Canadian media.


----------



## Privateer (17 Jul 2014)

From the Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/navy-to-investigate-allegations-against-hmcs-whitehorse-sailors/article19649341/

It is reported that the investigation ordered into the policies governing the conduct of RCN personnel ashore was triggered by more than just the recent WHITEHORSE incidents:



> One Canadian sailor was arrested by San Diego police but later released due to a lack of evidence, the navy said. A source outside the Canadian military said in that incident, the sailor arrested was suspected of shoplifting. In a second case, a sailor was allegedly intoxicated, spending the night in a drunk tank. Military police are also investigating a third case involving an allegation of what may be sexual assault or misconduct.
> 
> The move to draft a new policy for sailors in port was not based solely on the Whitehorse incidents, but part of a larger series of recent incidents that led its commander Vice-Admiral Mark Norman “to say enough is enough” this week, Cdr. Genest said.
> 
> Other cases of misconduct weighing on the navy, their spokesman says, include allegations of drunken sailors in Key West, Fla., in 2012, as well as the matter of Lt. Derek de Jong who was fined and reprimanded for deserting his post on HMCS Preserver, a supply vessel, in September, 2012. Lt. de Jong, who left his supply vessel in Key West, alleged he faced a “toxic working relationship” with a fellow officer.


----------



## NavyHopeful (17 Jul 2014)

This seems to me to be a growing case of "A few rotten apples spoil the bunch".  Pretty much all of the sailors (and air force) I have had the pleasure of working / sailing with tend to control themselves with regards to alcohol consumption, this entire debaucle seems to me like a brewing pot for something more.

Is it me, or does anyone else wonder what exactly is going on in the minds of some people when they are doing these things?  I can't understand why anyone would jeopardize their health, safety, career, reputation, or that of their fellow comrades when things like this occur.

To the ones who stay responsible for themselves and their wingers, I give a heartfelt  

To the ones who ruin it for the rest of us, I give you a well-deserved  :facepalm:

C'est tous, that is all.

Rev


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that one an compare a ship's crew on deployment and port visit with an aircrew's out of base stay over, but in any event that is not really at stake here.



Some out of base stay-overs last months, just like sailors are away from home.  Let's focus on the steak, not the peas.


----------



## upandatom (18 Jul 2014)

Whoa- Whoa- Whoa

Canadian drinking practices are fine, It isnt an issue. 
Have none of you seen  Campus PD and americans with their 21 year Age Limit. 
Forcing people dry, isnt going to be a solution. Its going to make larger problems. 

We drink, We drink hard. As Canadians many of us love our beer, our hockey our Camping parties and Backyard Bonfires.  

Navy drinks very hard, a few bad apples does not spoil the whole seasons crop. Yes we are always in the media eyes, most Canadians dont care that a few boys were liquored up in San Diego. 

Only reason why this spread so fast and the ship sent home- Media overplayed it, politically charged, looking for a scapegoat.  They made it worse then it is. 

3 people of 35, of how many Canadians are down there on Exercise right now? 

yep. 

How many times in the 80s/90s did you hear about a good ole drinking time by the navy in port? Rarely if ever, my dad has told me tonnes of stories that were way worse than this from his Navy days. The internet is an amazing tool, and weapon, depending on who is using it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jul 2014)

Eye in the Sky: PM inbound.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Whoa- Whoa- Whoa
> 
> Canadian drinking practices are fine, It isnt an issue.
> Have none of you seen  Campus PD and americans with their 21 year Age Limit.



Canadian drinking practices are an issue. That's pretty obvious. 

And we are talking about Canadian sailors, not American university students. Apples meet oranges.

I tell my WOs and Sgts - I don't care what other units do.....it's what we do that concerns me.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (18 Jul 2014)

> Drinking culture has long haunted navy, expert says
> 
> Andrew Nguyen, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jul 2014)

Me think they got their measures wrong: Sailors were issued a "Tot" of rum - which amounted las time I checked to three ounces, not a whole pint. The drunken haze he refers to sailors living in dates back to sailing ship and it was because as you ran out of water, you had to turn to beer for onboard drinking. This disappeared with the era of the Battleships in the early 1900. Already by that time, your seaman could not be people with "little education" anymore.

In fact, this difference in education requirement between the days of sail and the days of steam are the reason why, in seagoing people in the late 19th and early 20th century the term "sailor" (for those still in sailing ships) was considered an insult when applied to those operating steamships, who preferred to be called "seaman".


----------



## Mike5 (18 Jul 2014)

I'll second Jim Seggie's comment because it is worth repeating: Canadian drinking practices are an issue.  Canadian drinking practices at large are unhealthy and probably worthy of a seperate thread.  This is not a comment on the current story -- I am not in the RCN, was not on Whitehorse and was not in the Admiral's office so I am not going to comment on something I don't know anything about.

On a side note, it seems from the newspaper article quoted in this discussion that the press will take any benign comment and frame it as a condemnation or accusation in order to make the story sensational.  This is unfortunate as it limits constructive discussion.


----------



## JesseWZ (18 Jul 2014)

My responses to your points in yellow.



			
				upandatom said:
			
		

> Whoa- Whoa- Whoa
> 
> Canadian drinking practices are fine, It isnt an issue.  No, they aren't fine, and yes they are an issue. The vast majority of criminal files we deal with are alcohol related in one way or another.
> 
> ...


----------



## MARS (18 Jul 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Only reason why this spread so fast and the ship sent home- Media overplayed it, politically charged, looking for a scapegoat.  They made it worse then it is.



Incorrect.  The ship was recalled well before the media got a hold off this.  I knew about this last Friday morning - ADT.  When did you see/read the first report in the media? The ship was recalled by the Commander of the RCN.  The media received their initial info from the NAVGEN and the associated press releases.  This was a Navy-driven reaction and a Navy decision, not a media/politically driven one.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jul 2014)

I do not hear anyone talking about this, in fact it only made the news due to the ship being ordered back. Hell most young adults nowadays have a drinking issue, along with a recreational drug issue. Compared to the Brits and Finns we are mere amateurs in drinking. Also the westcoast generally drinks less than Prairies and East Coast.


----------



## Stoker (18 Jul 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First of all, Mike5, MCDV's carry both beer and hard liquor, and in the case at hand probably that alchoolized BC Cider since operating on the West Coast.
> 
> There is no storage problem. MCDV's have tons of storage room for everything, especially since there is whole compartment in each one dedicated to housing sonars which have yet to be installed on any of them. Instant huge beer store. But even without that its all factored in for storage.
> 
> We use to carry all that same stuff (beer, hard liquor, BC cider) for same size crew onboard the gate vessels with about 10% of the storage room available on a MCDV.



What compartment are you talking about that was supposed to house sonars?  Are you talking about Degaussing, can't store extra beer and pop there. The beer and pop stores on a MCDV actually is pretty small, with canteen supplies, beer and pop, booze there's not much space especially during a long deployment. The ships do not have the option to resupply during a trip either.


----------



## Shamrock (18 Jul 2014)

Never in the 90's did I hear anyone saying how it was done in the 60's.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jul 2014)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Never in the 90's did I hear anyone saying how it was done in the 60's.



Was that Sarcasm? 'Cause there were still quite a few Chiefs and PO's in 93/94 that served on the Bonnie, and they never shut up about the good old days in the 60's, especially when they were drinking.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Was that Sarcasm? 'Cause there were still quite a few Chiefs and PO's in 93/94 that served on the Bonnie, and they never shut up about the good old days in the 60's, especially when they were drinking.



It's true, I served with an old PO1 that sailed on the Bonnie. He was quoted miffed at having to don Air Force DEU because he wasn't Air Force.....he joined the Royal Canadian Navy in June 1957.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jul 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Media overplayed it, politically charged, looking for a scapegoat.  They made it worse then it is.


And now you're the Admiral's spokesman?  :not-again:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2016)

Privateer said:
			
		

> From the Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/navy-to-investigate-allegations-against-hmcs-whitehorse-sailors/article19649341/
> 
> It is reported that the investigation ordered into the policies governing the conduct of RCN personnel ashore was triggered by more than just the recent WHITEHORSE incidents ...


Bumped with the latest from an Access to Information Act disclosure, via the _Toronto Star_, with more details of the e-mail traffic ...


> “I don’t know what the heck is going on with my sailors.”
> 
> That sentiment — aired by the chief petty officer on HMCS Whitehorse — best sums up a port visit in 2014 that turned into a publicity nightmare for the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Mar 2016)

Reading that story just pisses me off all over again.  Can't wait to read about WIN.  (sarcasm)


----------

