# Retired colonel charged with forgery, falsifying document



## krustyrl (20 Oct 2011)

> A colonel, just out of the military, has been charged by military police with forgery and falsifying a document.
> 
> Retired Col. W.J. Lewis was charged Thursday under the National Defence Act for allegedly altering an annual physical fitness evaluation form, according to military police.
> 
> Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Retired+colonel+charged+with+forgery+falsifying+document/5582672/story.html#ixzz1bN4crilI



More on link....


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Retired+colonel+charged+with+forgery+falsifying+document/5582672/story.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2011)

_*A reminder:  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada's constitution, guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. *_ From the CF news release:


> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged a retired Canadian Forces colonel today with offences under the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code.
> 
> Colonel (Ret’d) W.J. (Bill) Lewis now faces the following two charges and two alternate charges:
> 
> ...



Coincidentally, the CF is also sharing this backgrounder on Physical Fitness Standards.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (20 Oct 2011)

> The majority (97.3%) of CF Regular Force personnel who undergo the CF EXPRES test pass the evaluation. Those who fail and those who do not complete the evaluation are considered non-deployable and may face career restrictions.


He did the forgery in April and retired in July, how much of a restriction would apply?

EDIT: Typo.


----------



## a78jumper (20 Oct 2011)

My roommate and fellow platoon member on basic training, a fellow classmate at RMC and my late bro in law's eulogist so I know him more than casually. If guilty what a stupid way end a 34 year career. Bill always was shaped like a fireplug....like me. Big deal get on with the program on lose some weight and work out if that is what it takes to remain in the military. I can not imagine why with only months to go in a career but perhaps there were earlier instances as well......being very objective why should a full bull Colonel perhaps 75 lbs overweight be allowed to falsify fitness docs when the career Cpl in a similar situation could be released.


----------



## krustyrl (20 Oct 2011)

> why should a full bull Colonel perhaps 75 lbs overweight be allowed to falsify fitness docs when the career Cpl in a similar situation could be released.



Being a former member of 8AMS and served while Bill Lewis held tenure as CO, this truly comes as a shocker as he was one of the most personable leaders I have ever met.
During that time, with 8AMS being a rather large Squadron, there were many NCMs on Remedial , C+P and RW and some were released for those reasons. 

I know there are some former Sqn members following this developing story.....


----------



## a78jumper (20 Oct 2011)

My sentiments exactly.


----------



## dogger1936 (20 Oct 2011)

Awesome. Glad this made the media; nothing like some feel good stories of leadership in the CF.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2011)

In order to maintain credibility with the Canadian public, we MUST share the not so good news with the good news. Years ago, this would never have seen the light of day.

My :2c:

Pro rated for my inflated ego. :raven:


----------



## a78jumper (20 Oct 2011)

Jim, known the man for 34.5 years and I agree with you 100%, especially given the senior rank level involved here. Seen too much "stuff" swept under the carpet by virtue of rank ( and how rank it was) over my career!


----------



## CBH99 (21 Oct 2011)

I have a slightly different take on the matter.

I know we are an organization that must be held accountable for our actions, and members must be held to a high standard.

However, in this case, I really do disagree with dragging the man's name through the mud before anything has been proven.  He's obviously been in for a long time, and he's retired now so he wouldn't be deployable anyway.

I agree that if true, it was a lapse in judgement.  But by the same token, why pursue the matter??  He's retired - as in, is no longer an active member of the CF.  The incident in question occurred prior to him retiring - so why pursue it now, months after the fact and when he isn't even in anymore??

Maybe I'm missing something, but we're not talking about something super serious.  We're not talking about fraud, or sweeping anything important under the rug.  A retired gentleman MAY have manipulated his fitness test prior to him before retired....sooooooooooooooooooooo????   Is it really worth ruining someone's reputation over, especially if it goes nowhere??


----------



## Gunner98 (21 Oct 2011)

What is good/bad for one is good/bad for all.  There are two issues you must consider:

1.  The investigation likely started before he was released.

2.  When the accused is a Cpl and the document is a claim, we prosecute. So why does the fact that he is a retired Col make a difference - it just happens to be more noteworthy for the media.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2011)

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.  I have too have seen too many lower ranks fry and higher ranks fly over the years.  Nice to see some accountability to the upper echelons, there is more of this lately ie. Menard.  About time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> In order to maintain credibility with the Canadian public, we MUST share the not so good news with the good news. Years ago, this would never have seen the light of day.
> 
> My :2c:


Not to mention letting the troops know publicly that this sort of thing is not on.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2011)

A similar subject came up two weekis ago. A young captain (not my unit) sought our advice about how he should proceed with a WO who attempted the same thing......


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2011)

I have do difficulty with the publication of the charge etc for all the reasons outlined here. I have a problem with the officer's perceived "need" to falsify the document. If he was unable to complete his physical fitness tests then, surely - _*and someone please correct me of I'm wrong*_ - he would have been given medical tests and a regime to help him achieve the requires standard and time in which to do that.

Why on earth would he want to forge a report? And I guess I can understand why a lower rank person with more time to earn a full pension might be tempted, but not a colonel at or near full pension. Help (and time if he really didn't want help) must be available. At that rank level he would receive a sympathetic hearing from a military medical community, officers of about his rank, that is worried about too much sedentary work, too little exercise, bad eating habits, etc.

Am I missing something?


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2011)

I would guess that is precisely why everyone is shaking their heads.....there simply was little need for this, especially for someone who had a host of other options available to him....


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> IAm I missing something?



Maybe a vendetta against him?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:  

Not trying to be funny, but these things do happen.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (21 Oct 2011)

I think everyone needs to remember you need to answer the "If" before you answer the "why." 

As it was said earlier, this is all speculative and could just be an administrative error on his or someone else's part. Paperwork can make a mountain out of a molehill if its incorrectly completed, misplaced, not handed in on time etc. 

I would like to give the Col. the benefit of the doubt until the proof has been presented.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Sig_Des (21 Oct 2011)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I agree that if true, it was a lapse in judgement.  But by the same token, why pursue the matter??  He's retired - as in, is no longer an active member of the CF.  The incident in question occurred prior to him retiring - so why pursue it now, months after the fact and when he isn't even in anymore??



The fact that he's retired shouldn't play into it. He was in when he's accused of committing the act, and that should be enough. I would hate to see a mentality of "well, I'm about to get my peepee slapped, but I'm getting out, so it doesn't matter". Add to that that the position that the Col held on his release was "the director of applied military science, as well as the commanding officer of postgraduate and military faculty at the Royal Military College of Canada". A position of authority in a school that instills the foundation of military discipline in future leaders.



> Maybe I'm missing something, but we're not talking about something super serious.  We're not talking about fraud, or sweeping anything important under the rug.  A retired gentleman MAY have manipulated his fitness test prior to him before retired....sooooooooooooooooooooo????   Is it really worth ruining someone's reputation over, especially if it goes nowhere??



I think it's worth pursuing. Forgery. It doesn't matter what the paperwork was; It's falsifying documents. It all starts somewhere, and if a Cpl were accused of it, he'd be prosecuted, therefore the standard needs to be across the board. He'll have his day, and if he's innocent, it will hopefully also be published by the media.

I don't see anything wrong with the charge, or the announcement of the charge. My issue would be when the media runs articles like this as if they're uncovering a scandal, just trying to give us a black eye. But I didn't see much of that in this one.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Oct 2011)

Truth, Duty, Valour


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2011)

If charges have been laid, then it is Government policy that charge information on upcoming courts martial proceedings be published on the Canadian Military Justice court martial website here.  Col(Ret'd) Lewis' charges have not been published on the CMJ site yet (21 Oct), likely an issue of timing, since only Court Martials that have been scheduled are posted to the site.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Scoobs (21 Oct 2011)

All I can say is wow.  This was a shocker, especially since he was in my trade.  I never personally worked for the man, but all of my interactions with him were very positive.  He was known as a straight talker and perhaps this rubbed someone the wrong way as it is interesting that this info "became available" last April.  However, the question (which should come out in the court martial, if any) is how this info became available.

We should give due process its course.  I disagree with the way that this all came to light as yes, we will hold all ranks accountable, but do we announce to the media everytime a Cpl, etc. is charged with something?  Nope.

All of this should make some interesting conversation at work on Monday.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> We should give due process its course.  I disagree with the way that this all came to light as yes, we will hold all ranks accountable, but do we announce to the media everytime a Cpl, etc. is charged with something?  Nope.



If you are being semantically specific when you use the occurrence descriptor  "everytime", then the answer would be no....however....

If the charge results in a COURT MARTIAL then the announcement (via the CMJ web site) IS made public.  See my earlier post.  ALL Courts Martial are made public, first when charges are laid, and secondly, the results after the trial. 


Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> .... I disagree with the way that this all came to light as yes, we will hold all ranks accountable, but do we announce to the media everytime a Cpl, etc. is charged with something?  Nope ....


To further reinforce G2G's comments, yup.  Here's a listing for a Sapper/Private facing a Court Martial, there for all the world to see on the interwebs ....
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/perras-eng.asp
.... as well as a Leading Seaman/Corporal
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/zinck-eng.asp
... and even a retired Corporal
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/wilcox-eng.asp


----------



## dapaterson (4 Nov 2012)

To close the thread: http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012-lewis.page

On the date alleged in the charge Colonel (now retired) W.J. Lewis was the head of the applied military science department of the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) in Kingston. In this position he was the commanding officer for all military post-graduate students attending the college. As well, he was responsible for the administration of his department. On 16 March 2011, a month prior to the offence date, Commodore Truelove, the commandant of the Royal Military College and Colonel Lewis's military superior, was preparing annual personnel evaluation reports (PERs) for his subordinates, including Colonel Lewis. A box on the PER form entitled “fitness test” has 5 options – pass, exempt, medically excused, fail, and not tested. Commodore Truelove emailed Colonel Lewis asking him to confirm that his EXPRES test was not expired. Colonel Lewis replied by email the same day falsely stating that he had received an exemption on his CF EXPRES test, and in April Commodore Truelove completed the PER form with this incorrect information. As part of the normal review process before final signature by the commander of the Canadian Defence Academy, Major Myers noticed a discrepancy between the information recorded on the PER as to Colonel Lewis's fitness status and information recorded on the member’s personnel record résumé. This document showed that Colonel Lewis last completed the EXPRES test in April of 2008, and therefore his last fitness test result had expired. Major Myers inquired of Colonel Lewis's unit and later Colonel Lewis sent an email to Major Myers falsely stating that a clerk had told him that he had passed his physical fitness test on 14 April 2010. Major Myers then requested a copy of Major Lewis's CF EXPRES test form, the DND 279. Colonel Lewis then went into the shadow file of one of his subordinates, Lieutenant-Colonel Beausejour, copied Lieutenant-Colonel Beausejour’s CF EXPRES test form, altered it to make it appear as his own and that he had received an exemption on the CF EXPRES test on 14 April 2011, scanned the document and sent it by email to Major Myers. Major Myers thought the document supplied to her by Colonel Lewis had been tampered with. An investigation was conducted in the course of which Colonel Lewis admitted to the investigators that he falsified the CF EXPRES test form intending to deceive his military superior, his chain of command, and the administrative support staff. He stated that he felt trapped when asked to supply a copy of the form after falsely stating that he had completed the test.


----------



## GAP (4 Nov 2012)

Ah....the "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" defense.....

attrition: 

William Shakespeare (1564–1616), British dramatist, poet. Richard, in Richard III, act 5, sc. 7, l. 7 and 13 (1597).

Richard's last words at the Battle of Bosworth.


edit: correction


----------



## fraserdw (4 Nov 2012)

How he ever made Light Colonel with such an amateurish ability to do a cover up, we will never know.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To close the thread: http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012-lewis.page


 You think that mere facts will close the thread?  Some threads _never_ end    op:


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> How he ever made Light Colonel with such an amateurish ability to do a cover up, we will never know.



Silly thing is, at his age all he basically need to pass a CF Expres was to have a pulse.   All he would have needed would have been to reach Level 6 in the Beep Test ( or perhaps he was eligible to do the Step Test ), an extremely low number of push ups and sit ups and then the grip test.  He would have to have been is an extremely unhealthy and weak state to fail.


----------



## Snakedoc (4 Nov 2012)

It's too bad, it sounds like he was a good CO and leader overall too but its a stark reminder that good leaders can make bad choices as well just like anyone else.


----------



## jeffb (4 Nov 2012)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> It's too bad, it sounds like he was a good CO and leader overall too but its a stark reminder that good leaders can make bad choices as well just like anyone else.



Bad choices yes, unethical decisions no. A good CO and leader are ethical leaders. Anyone who falsifies documents, as this officer has been convicted of doing, is de facto a bad leader.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2012)

Too bad.US BG Sinclair will have an Art 32 hearing tomorrow for a variety of sins. He was an Assistant Division CG of the 82d Abn.



> Brigadier General Jeffrey A. Sinclair, charged with forcible sodomy, multiple counts of adultery and having inappropriate relationships with female subordinates, begins an Article 32 Hearing on November 5, 2012 at Fort Bragg. The Army has not released the official charges against Sinclair but it is reported additional charges could include violating an order, possessing pornography and alcohol in a war zone, misusing a government travel charge card and filing fraudulent claims.
> 
> The military services usually provide the charge sheets to the public for information prior to every major Article 32 or court-martial.  In this case, they have limited that information and not revealed it publicly.  In an Article 32 hearing, the government and military criminal defense lawyers present their case to an investigating officer (IO) to prove or disprove the military member’s misconduct.  The IO then recommends a course of action to the convening authority (CA) that is either dismissal of some or all of the charges, non-judicial punishment such as Article 15, or the IO can recommend a court-martial.  The CA then may choose to follow the recommendation or make a different decision.
> 
> In this case, the reported charges against Sinclair appear to be very serious and if substantiated by the evidence, most likely will proceed to a general court-martial.


----------



## brihard (4 Nov 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Silly thing is, at his age all he basically need to pass a CF Expres was to have a pulse.   All he would have needed would have been to reach Level 6 in the Beep Test ( or perhaps he was eligible to do the Step Test ), an extremely low number of push ups and sit ups and then the grip test.  He would have to have been is an extremely unhealthy and weak state to fail.



Hell, even had he pooched it it would have been so long til the CF got around to declaring him unfit for service he would have hit his 35 anyway.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2012)

Whats the minimum time in service to receive a pension ?


----------



## Popurhedoff (4 Nov 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Bad choices yes, unethical decisions no. A good CO and leader are ethical leaders. Anyone who falsifies documents, as this officer has been convicted of doing, is de facto a bad leader.



I led by example, no excuses, that is the best form of leadership... After I broke my neck in an automoble accident I gained a lot of weight, but then I dropped 60lbs, made the time for PT and ran 5kms almost every morning with a 45lb rucksack before work.  I never failed a PT test and retired after 32 years with the same medical catagory as when I joined and in excellent physical condition and no DVA claims.

Cheers
Pop


----------



## dapaterson (4 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Whats the minimum time in service to receive a pension ?



It's a bit complex:

For the Regular Force:

* Two years to vest in the plan

* Once vested, if you are medically released you will receive an immediate, indexed pension based on 2% of the average of your best five years.  (There are other benefits, outside the pension plan as well)

* For an immediate annuity, you must have a minimum of 25 years (Unless you enrolled under the old plan, in which case the minimum is 20 years)

* With 35 years you reach the maximum of 35x2% = 70% of the average of your best 5 years

There are a variety of penalties that can apply for early retirements, plus issues of when indexing begins.  However, 35 years of service generally means an immediate unreduced pension with immediate indexing.




(Note the 2% per year is not the actual amount of the pension; it's really made up of two amounts, one that pays up to age 65, and a second one that is for life.  The bridge benefit to age 65 is because the pension plan is combined with the Canada Pension Plan; once you are 65 the bridge benefit ceases and you presumably begin drawing CPP.  You can begin drawing CPP at any time between 60 and 70, with penalties for starting early and bonuses for starting late.  Talk to a financial planner.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2012)

Interesting.Thanks


----------



## fraserdw (5 Nov 2012)

I wonder if he knew he would limit the punishments available be retiring before the CM?  It is shame our system allows honourable retirement under a cloud of suspicion.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2012)

He can retire under a cloud but the cloud never goes away. If you are innocent having your day in court clears away that cloud.


----------



## GAP (5 Nov 2012)

Clouds get thinner the older you are.....sometimes people just don't care about them.....


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2012)

Sometimes true, sometimes not.  Probably depends on what type of "Second Career" he may be aspiring to and what type of screening they do.  Will they be interested or not in his moral and ethical decission making?  Will his previous reputation have a negative or positive influence internally and externally on their organization?


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2012)

What is important is how your peers view you. If you are under a cloud you suddenly find yourself alone. Friends of many years dont socialize with you. The invites dry up. That weighs heavy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sometimes true, sometimes not.  Probably depends on what type of "Second Career" he may be aspiring to and what type of screening they do.  Will they be interested or not in his moral and ethical decission making?  Will his previous reputation have a negative or positive influence internally and externally on their organization?


In this case, from the CM decision, it appears to have had no impact yet:


> .... He continues to maintain a professional association with RMC, and continues to be highly regarded by his engineering colleagues in the academic world ....


----------



## Journeyman (5 Nov 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> .... He continues to maintain a professional association with RMC, and continues to be highly regarded by his engineering colleagues in the academic world ....


...except for those cruel cadets who walk past his office and go "be-eep"    >


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...except for those cruel cadets who walk past his office and go "be-eep"    >


 :rofl:


----------



## medicineman (5 Nov 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...except for those cruel cadets who walk past his office and go "be-eep"    >



Thanks, my sinuses are now recovering from an attack of chicken soup going through them...

MM


----------



## fraserdw (5 Nov 2012)

Well, it is good to see that those nasty old courts are not ruining anyone's life! :sarcasm:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Nov 2012)

The sad thing is that when Col. Lewis had been initially queried about the discrepancy and had came back and said something like "Oops, made a mistake" and rectified the record, this would never of happened. As soon as he started making false statements and started falsifying documents he was only screwed.


----------



## Bluebulldog (6 Nov 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that when Col. Lewis had been initially queried about the discrepancy and had came back and said something like "Oops, made a mistake" and rectified the record, this would never of happened. As soon as he started making false statements and started falsifying documents he was only screwed.



It's seldom an initial act of deception that gets found, more often than not it is one of the actions done in support of it.


----------



## Wolseleydog (9 Nov 2012)

I hate to ask this, but I have another question here -- has his promotion to colonel been retroactively invalidated?

The reason I ask is that, as I read the details, his last valid expres test was back in 2008, which was (I believe) before his promotion.  That would mean that he did not have a valid expres test, one of the requirements for promotion.
So has his promotion been retroactively invalidated?  That would of course have implications for recovery of pay and, especially, on pension rate.  Far beyond the $5000 fine.

Do I detect a hint of this, buried deep at the very bottom of that court martial statement (http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012-lewis.page), where it lists, at the very bottom, after all of the text, the two counsels, and the defence counsel is described as "Lieutenant-Commander B. Walden, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services, Counsel for *LIEUTENANT-COLONEL* Lewis" [emphasis added]


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Nov 2012)

Reference his PT test being a requirement for promotion, and therefore that promotion being invalidated, it is a very likely scenario, but administrative actions are not inherently public, unlike courts-martial, so we will likely never know all the details.


----------



## Monsoon (9 Nov 2012)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> I hate to ask this, but I have another question here -- has his promotion to colonel been retroactively invalidated?
> 
> The reason I ask is that, as I read the details, his last valid expres test was back in 2008, which was (I believe) before his promotion.  That would mean that he did not have a valid expres test, one of the requirements for promotion.
> So has his promotion been retroactively invalidated?  That would of course have implications for recovery of pay and, especially, on pension rate.  Far beyond the $5000 fine.
> ...


According to his retirement message, he was promoted to Colonel in June 2008: http://everitas.rmcclub.ca/?p=59202


----------



## FJAG (10 Nov 2012)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> I hate to ask this, but I have another question here -- has his promotion to colonel been retroactively invalidated?
> 
> The reason I ask is that, as I read the details, his last valid expres test was back in 2008, which was (I believe) before his promotion.  That would mean that he did not have a valid expres test, one of the requirements for promotion.
> So has his promotion been retroactively invalidated?  That would of course have implications for recovery of pay and, especially, on pension rate.  Far beyond the $5000 fine.
> ...



Probably just a typo. The style of cause of the case identifies him as "Colonel".

Interesting question though. I know of no method by which one can "invalidate" a promotion and since I can't seem to get CFAOs through the internet anymore I can't even look it up.


----------

