# Navy Acronym/Title



## Dennis Ruhl (4 Mar 2011)

This Korean fatal casualty:

Quinn, John Louis, MiD, Lt.-Cdr, HMCS Iroquois

MiD must mean mentioned in dispatches.  Was this commonly used as a title?  One wounded sailor was listed with DSM after his name.

The old Iroquois must have taken some hits.  While a few ships lost sailors at sea, the Iroquois was the only one to have killed in action or wounded in the Korean War.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Mar 2011)

MiD is Mentioned in Dispatches. 
I wouldn't call it a "title," so much as acknowledging that the recipient has been awarded a 'mention in dispatches' for particularly meritorious service -- it's used the same as your cited DSM, or the ever-popular CD, after a person's name.

The award is recognizable as a bronze oak leaf affixed to the campaign ribbon in which the MiD was awarded.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Mar 2011)

I always thought the Navy Acronym was: 

N-ever
A-gain
V-olunteer
Y-ourself


----------



## kkwd (4 Mar 2011)

If this MiD was anything official it would follow the rank and not precede it. I suspect it was somebody's intention to show he was Mentioned In Dispatches. 

 Link



> QUINN, John Louis, Lieutenant-Commander (Posthumous) - Mention in Despatches
> - RCN / HMCS Iroquois - Awarded as per Canada Gazette of 13 June 1953.
> QUINN. John Louis, 0-60710,
> S/Lt(Temp) 25.6.42] RCNVR,
> ...


----------



## medicineman (4 Mar 2011)

DSM = Distinguished Service Medal.

MM=Medicineman, not to be confused with Military Medal - NCO version of the Miitary Cross before it was decided to have the MC for both officers and NCO's.

MM


----------



## Pusser (4 Mar 2011)

Although MiD clearly means "Mention in Dispatches," in this case, it is not (at least not now) an official set of "post-nominal letters."   When it comes to awards to CF members, post-nominals only apply to orders and decorations and not every single thing a member has ever been awarded.  There are post-nominals that go with academic degrees and professional designations as well, but I won't discuss those here.  I have seen people put things like QSJM (Queen's Silver Jubilee Medal) and CDSC (Chief of Defence Staff Commendation) after their names, but this is  not correct.  Frankly, the only one most of us usually get is "CD" (note that it is simply "CD," regardless of the number of clasps awarded).

The only post-nominals authorized for use in the Canadian Honours System are the following honours from the Crown (in this order):

VC, CV, OM, CC, OC, CM,  CMM, COM, CVO, OMM, OOM, LVO, MMM, MOM, MVO, GOQ, OQ, CQ, SOM, OOnt, OBC, AOE, OPEI, OM, ONB/ON-B, ONS, ONL, SMV/EVM, SC/EC, MSC/CSM, MMV/MVM, MB, MSM, RVM, CD.

It's interesting to note that only five of them change when used in French or English (ONB/ON-B, SMV/EVM, SC/EC, MSC/CSM, MMV/MVM).

Academic degrees and professional designations follow honours from the Crown.


----------



## JMesh (4 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The only post-nominals authorized for use in the Canadian Honours System are the following honours from the Crown (in this order):
> 
> VC, CV, OM, CC, OC, CM,  CMM, COM, CVO, OMM, OOM, LVO, MMM, MOM, MVO, GOQ, OQ, CQ, SOM, OOnt, OBC, AOE, OPEI, OM, ONB/ON-B, ONS, ONL, SMV/EVM, SC/EC, MSC/CSM, MMV/MVM, MB, MSM, RVM, CD.
> 
> ...



Actually, there are two more following the CD: OMC and SVM (both are the same in English and French).

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71


----------



## Occam (12 Mar 2011)

Most of the post-nominals mentioned previously are incorrect, at least by the letter of the law.

The proper post-nominals (in most cases, but I didn't check all of them) include periods, such as "C.D.", not "CD".

And while I'm on the subject, there appears to be a recent increase in the number of personnel who think you can denote the C.D. with one clasp as "CD1", which would be incorrect.  It's just "C.D.", regardless of the number of clasps.  Sorry, pet peeve of mine.   ;D


----------



## JMesh (12 Mar 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> And while I'm on the subject, there appears to be a recent increase in the number of personnel who think you can denote the C.D. with one clasp as "CD1", which would be incorrect.  It's just "C.D.", regardless of the number of clasps.  Sorry, pet peeve of mine.   ;D



Since we're on the subject, one further to that. Post-nominals for the Order of St. John are not supposed to be used in the CF as they are only authorized for use within the order itself.

Edit to fix spelling error


----------



## medicineman (12 Mar 2011)

JMesh said:
			
		

> Since we're on the subject, one further to that. Post-nominals for the Order of St. John are no supposed to be used in the CF as they are only authorized for use within the order itself.



I second that one...

MM


----------



## Monsoon (12 Mar 2011)

JMesh said:
			
		

> Since we're on the subject, one further to that. Post-nominals for the Order of St. John are no supposed to be used in the CF as they are only authorized for use within the order itself.


I regard guys who use non-authorized post-nominals in their signature block (like university degrees - one you see a lot of in the public service) the same way you look at someone who shows up to Remembrance Day wearing a boatload of Legion medals to complement their CD: you'll never get them to stop, but it definitely communicates a lot about the person (just not what they intended).


----------



## Pusser (13 Mar 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> Most of the post-nominals mentioned previously are incorrect, at least by the letter of the law.
> 
> The proper post-nominals (in most cases, but I didn't check all of them) include periods, such as "C.D.", not "CD".



Not true at all.  All of the post-nominals I listed above are absolutely correct (the ones I missed, OMC and SVM, are a bit of a grey area).  The lack of periods is a matter of style and does not make the post-nominal incorrect.  The use of periods is largely a case of personal preference in most correspondence.  In fact, _Canadian Style_ (the official Canadian Government book on the subject - published by PWGSC) clearly states that periods are not to be used.  DND has actually made it official policy to not use periods.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I regard guys who use non-authorized post-nominals in their signature block (like university degrees - one you see a lot of in the public service) the same way you look at someone who shows up to Remembrance Day wearing a boatload of Legion medals to complement their CD: you'll never get them to stop, but it definitely communicates a lot about the person (just not what they intended).



Where did you get the idea that university degrees are not authorized post-nominals?  That assumption is completely false.  Furthermore, why shouldn't people use them?  They earned them, just the same as someone who is decorated or inducted into an order.  In fact, in using post-nominals, government policy recognizes the followingr:

1)  all honours from the Crown (list of decorations and orders given above)
2)  one academic degree (e.g. MSc)
3)  one fellowship (e.g. FRSC)
4)  one professional designation (e.g. CA)

It seems to me that anyone looking down on those who use their post-nominals in the appropriate context may just be a tad jealous.


----------



## JMesh (13 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Where did you get the idea that university degrees are not authorized post-nominals?  That assumption is completely false.  Furthermore, why shouldn't people use them?  They earned them, just the same as someone who is decorated or inducted into an order.  In fact, in using post-nominals, government policy recognizes the followingr:
> 
> 1)  all honours from the Crown (list of decorations and orders given above)
> 2)  one academic degree (e.g. MSc)
> ...



In addition to these, there are a few post-nominals for use within the CF. They are detailed here: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/01-10-eng.asp


----------



## Monsoon (13 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Where did you get the idea that university degrees are not authorized post-nominals?  That assumption is completely false.  Furthermore, why shouldn't people use them?  They earned them, just the same as someone who is decorated or inducted into an order.  In fact, in using post-nominals, government policy recognizes the followingr:
> 
> 1)  all honours from the Crown (list of decorations and orders given above)
> 2)  one academic degree (e.g. MSc)
> ...


I was talking post-nominals conferred under the Canadian Honours System: http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71

I don't know what policy you're referring too, but there's certainly nothing in the law to prevent people from putting whatever they like behind their names. Of course the use of professional fellowships and designations - _when used in the context of the profession_ - is actually required by many associations when working in the fields they regulate, but if you're employed as a Tactical Analyst at CEFCOM HQ then I don't need to read that you're a member of the New Brunswick Registered Barber's Association (yes, it exists), or even a CA, in your signature block. Likewise, the fact that you have a Bachelor of Arts in History isn't going to be especially relevant.

There's no basis in custom for employing university degrees as post-nominals outside of academic contexts (with the exception of "Dr" for PhDs). Likewise, I don't insist that my bank address mail to me as "LCdr hamiltongs". If the quality of thought and expression in your email doesn't itself communicate that you have an advanced degree, including it in your signature block will not only fail to impress anyone, but will also call the degree into general contempt. If Treasury Board says we can all put one degree after our name on our business card then fill your boots, especially if you're, say, a Mar Eng or JAG and have a related advanced professional degree like an MEng or LLM. But the worst culprits - and the ones I was really complaining about - are the ones who list _every_ degree after their name, as well as all of their medals, including those that don't come with authorized post-nominals (SSM, CPSM, etc).

To my mind, if you're putting letters before or after your name in your everyday life, they had better be the same ones that would appear on an invitation addressed to you from Buckingham Palace. And if you're not the sort of person to get mail from the Queen, then it may be best to just give it a rest.



> It seems to me that anyone looking down on those who use their post-nominals in the appropriate context may just be a tad jealous.


I remain, sir, &tc,

LCdr hamiltongs, CD, CPSM, UNMIS, LLM, PGDip Law, BCompSci, GFY


----------



## Occam (13 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not true at all.  All of the post-nominals I listed above are absolutely correct (the ones I missed, OMC and SVM, are a bit of a grey area).  The lack of periods is a matter of style and does not make the post-nominal incorrect.  The use of periods is largely a case of personal preference in most correspondence.  In fact, _Canadian Style_ (the official Canadian Government book on the subject - published by PWGSC) clearly states that periods are not to be used.  DND has actually made it official policy to not use periods.



Well, someone had better tell the people who take care of the Governor General's website and the Directorate - Honours and Recognition website, because they use periods.

If push came to shove, I would say that both of those sources are much more authoritative on the subject than some cookie cutter style guide written by a pencil-necked geek at PWGSC.  PWGSC is surpassed only by CFPSA in their ability to pooch everything they touch.


----------



## Pusser (14 Mar 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I was talking post-nominals conferred under the Canadian Honours System: http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71



No you weren't.  You specifically said that post-nominals for academic degrees were not authorized.  I'm saying they are.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I don't know what policy you're referring too, but there's certainly nothing in the law to prevent people from putting whatever they like behind their names. Of course the use of professional fellowships and designations - _when used in the context of the profession_ - is actually required by many associations when working in the fields they regulate, but if you're employed as a Tactical Analyst at CEFCOM HQ then I don't need to read that you're a member of the New Brunswick Registered Barber's Association (yes, it exists), or even a CA, in your signature block. Likewise, the fact that you have a Bachelor of Arts in History isn't going to be especially relevant.


  

If you receive an invitation from Rideau Hall, they will ask you to confirm your post-nominals and those include Honours from the Crown, academic degrees, fellowships and professional designations.  Unauthorized ones (e.g. CPSM) will be edited out, but the others will be used.  Although I agree that it's sad when a real estate agent puts "BSc" on his signs, there is nothing wrong with him doing so if he chooses.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> There's no basis in custom for employing university degrees as post-nominals outside of academic contexts (with the exception of "Dr" for PhDs). Likewise, I don't insist that my bank address mail to me as "LCdr hamiltongs". If the quality of thought and expression in your email doesn't itself communicate that you have an advanced degree, including it in your signature block will not only fail to impress anyone, but will also call the degree into general contempt. If Treasury Board says we can all put one degree after our name on our business card then fill your boots, especially if you're, say, a Mar Eng or JAG and have a related advanced professional degree like an MEng or LLM. But the worst culprits - and the ones I was really complaining about - are the ones who list _every_ degree after their name, as well as all of their medals, including those that don't come with authorized post-nominals (SSM, CPSM, etc).



You need to get out more.  I see this happen all the time and if you ask your bank to address you as "LCdr,"  they will (seen that too).  You're right on SSM, CPSM, etc.  They're not authorized.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> To my mind, if you're putting letters before or after your name in your everyday life, they had better be the same ones that would appear on an invitation addressed to you from Buckingham Palace. And if you're not the sort of person to get mail from the Queen, then it may be best to just give it a rest.



In fact, I have received mail from Buckingham Palace,... >



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Well, someone had better tell the people who take care of the Governor General's website and the Directorate - Honours and Recognition website, because they use periods.
> 
> If push came to shove, I would say that both of those sources are much more authoritative on the subject than some cookie cutter style guide written by a pencil-necked geek at PWGSC.  PWGSC is surpassed only by CFPSA in their ability to pooch everything they touch.



As I said before, it's a matter of preference.  Both styles are correct.  Yes, both the GG website and the DH&R website use periods, but if you receive any correspondence from DH&R, there will be no periods.


----------



## Monsoon (15 Mar 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> No you weren't.  You specifically said that post-nominals for academic degrees were not authorized.  I'm saying they are.


Academic post-nominals are *not authorized under the Canadian Honours System*. As I said before, there's nothing in the law preventing anyone from putting anything after their name (and I should have added: as long as they're not claiming an honour from the crown they haven't been bestowed). You're relying on a Treasury Board guideline about signature blocks and business cards; I'm invoking actual custom. There's no basis in custom for using academic post-nominals except in academic contexts.



> If you receive an invitation from Rideau Hall, they will ask you to confirm your post-nominals and those include Honours from the Crown, academic degrees, fellowships and professional designations.


I'll have to take your word on that since you don't cite an official reference and I can't find one, neither here (http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=67) at the Chancellery of Honours nor here (http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/prtcl/address6-eng.cfm) at Canadian Heritage's Styles of Address.



> In fact, I have received mail from Buckingham Palace,... >


Did they ask you to stop sending them mail? 



> You need to get out more.  I see this happen all the time and if you ask your bank to address you as "LCdr,"  they will (seen that too).


I get out plenty, thanks. Certainly enough to know that a bank will do this if you want, and enough to know that it's preposterous and that everyone from the bank teller who enters the change on your file to the postal carrier who delivers your mail will think less of you for it. Of course _you're entitled to_, but what's the real message you're communicating?

Let me put it this way - as the descendant of a colonial residing in the US who migrated to Canada between 1775 and 1783, I'm entitled to use the post-nominals _UE_ to indicate that my family is United Empire Loyalist, and to do so with the force of law of an Order-in-Council. As an officer of the armed forces above the rank of Capt or equivalent, custom states that I can use the post-nominal _Esq_. But anyone using either of these for those reasons would be rightly judged to be a poltroon.

Just because you _can_ doesn't mean you _should_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...
> Let me put it this way - as the descendant of a colonial residing in the US who migrated to Canada between 1775 and 1783, I'm entitled to use the post-nominals _UE_ to indicate that my family is United Empire Loyalist, and to do so with the force of law of an Order-in-Council. As an officer of the armed forces above the rank of Capt or equivalent, custom states that I can use the post-nominal _Esq_. But anyone using either of these for those reasons would be rightly judged to be a poltroon.
> ...




I fail to see why demanding one's _entitlement_ to _Esq_ or _UE_ would make a bank clerk think you were a *coward*; a *braggart*, perhaps, but not a *poltroon*.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I fail to see why demanding one's _entitlement_ to _Esq_ or _UE_ would make a bank clerk think you were a *coward*; a *braggart*, perhaps, but not a *poltroon*.



I suspect that someone who uses the title UE typically is someone who has a great interest in history or genealogy and I'm sure that those who use the title are very proud of it.  In today's usage esquire is universal so no-one uses it anymore.  I used to see it occasionally 40 to 50 years ago.

I use a few post-nominals on my business letterhead to show to people that I have actually gone to school and have some minimal level of competency.  I have never used them in other circumstances.  Were I to peg my g-g-grandmother to her suspected father and I discovered I was a UE, I would use it.  Smiths are a plague to genealogy.


----------



## Monsoon (15 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I fail to see why demanding one's _entitlement_ to _Esq_ or _UE_ would make a bank clerk think you were a *coward*; a *braggart*, perhaps, but not a *poltroon*.


Huh - waddayaknow? Maybe I should have stuck to "pompous blowhard".


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I fail to see why demanding one's _entitlement_ to _Esq_ or _UE_ would make a bank clerk think you were a *coward*; a *braggart*, perhaps, but not a *poltroon*.



Either title, along with a toonie, will get you a cup of coffee just about anywhere in Canada.


----------



## Pusser (15 Mar 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Academic post-nominals are *not authorized under the Canadian Honours System*. As I said before, there's nothing in the law preventing anyone from putting anything after their name (and I should have added: as long as they're not claiming an honour from the crown they haven't been bestowed). You're relying on a Treasury Board guideline about signature blocks and business cards; I'm invoking actual custom. There's no basis in custom for using academic post-nominals except in academic contexts.



Yes, you're right.  Academic post-nominals are not authorized under the Canadian Honours System.  That's because they're not part of the Canadian Honours System.  However, that does not mean that they are not authorized for use at all, which is what I'm getting at.  They are earned and whoever earns them has a right to use them as they see fit, regardless of whether someone else thinks it's appropriate or not.  As to whether it's customary or not, I reiterate that you need to get out more, or hang out with different people, because it happens all the time.  Do I sign letters to Great Aunt Gladys, "Love Snookums, CD, MA, Esq?"  No, but there are plenty of scenarios that are not directly related to any of these things where the use of all post-nominals would be appropriate.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'll have to take your word on that since you don't cite an official reference and I can't find one, neither here (http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=67) at the Chancellery of Honours nor here (http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/prtcl/address6-eng.cfm) at Canadian Heritage's Styles of Address.



You would see this if you were to receive an invitation to Rideau Hall for an Investiture.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Did they ask you to stop sending them mail?



I've never actually sent anything to the Palace.  I've only received an invitation to drop by for tea (along with 3000 other close friends of Her Majesty  ;D).


----------

