# Cpl. Felix Ngoviky Facing Court Martial- Toronto Sun Article



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2010)

I guess that not discussing an incident doesn't count to your Father........    and "shell-shocked"??  I thought we booted that term out long ago.                                                                                                                       


Shell-shocked soldier faces court martial    
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/12/12/16522291.html
By DOUG HEMPSTEAD, QMI Agency 
    
OTTAWA - The father of a decorated CFB Petawawa soldier has lost confidence in the military after his son - who has post-traumatic stress disorder - faces discipline after suffering flashbacks during a live-fire exercise. 

Cpl. Felix Ngoviky, 33, can't discuss the incident. But he is to appear before a court martial Dec. 14 in Petawawa, Ont. 
According to his father, Paul Ngoviky, the corporal faces three charges after he was rude to a non-commissioned officer on the training ranges in Petawawa on Oct. 28, 2009. 

Ngoviky's father said he has documentation from a psychiatrist who diagnosed his son with moderate but chronic post-traumatic stress disorder - an anxiety disorder and a panic disorder. 
He said it was this stress that led him to "freak out and have flashbacks" on the Petawawa ranges last fall, after his son was placed near the live-fire targets. When he was unable to continue with the exercise, his son became insubordinate - something Cpl. Ngoviky does not dispute. 

According to documents obtained by QMI Agency, Cpl. Ngoviky stamped his foot in a mock salute and sarcastically proclaimed "yes sergeant" to a superior officer.  
He's charged with disobeying the order of a superior, behaving in a contemptuous manner to a superior and with conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 
He intends to plead guilty. 

Cpl. Ngoviky served in Afghanistan for seven months from Aug. 2005 until Feb. 2006. In that time, he was a passenger in a convoy headed from Kabul to Kandahar that came under rocket attack. Cpl Ngoviky was also the victim of violence by a fellow soldier. On Dec. 25, 2005, Master Cpl. T.J. Mills and Ngoviky got into a fight that ended with Mills pointing and cocking a weapon at him. 

When Mills was found guilty in Sept. 2008 and handed a suspended sentence, the military judge Lieut.-Col. J. G. Perron told him "your actions have also affected the psychological well-being of the victim." 
But Ngoviky's father said all of this could have been avoided had the military been more understanding of his son's condition. 
"As a father, it's very upsetting," he said. "I have no trust whatsoever in the military. I could scream. I could yell. I could swear." 
"If he has an attitude problem, they created it," he said. 

Court martial convener Simone Morrisey said being that so many soldiers have served over seas, post-traumatic stress is "one of the defences they come back with." 
She said Cpl. Ngoviky has been assigned defence council and the court martial is open to the public. 

doug.hempstead@sunmedia.ca


----------



## dynaglide (13 Dec 2010)

I worked with this particular soldier long before he deployed to Afghanistan.  His father claims the military created his attitude problem.  Believe me when I say that it existed long before he deployed to Afghanistan.  I'll leave it at that...


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2010)

If he was diagnosed, would the docs put restrictions on where he should be employed to prevent flashbacks while he was under treatment? I thought thats why we had places like the IPSU/JPSU.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he was diagnosed, would the docs put restrictions on where he should be employed to prevent flashbacks while he was under treatment? I thought thats why we had places like the IPSU/JPSU.



The purpose of the  IPSU/JPSU is to  aid in the administration of the injured, as they are receiving therapy.  If he is not on mending in any way, or his MELs interferes with his performance , then he can be posted back to his unit.

dileas

tess


----------



## Franko (13 Dec 2010)

A rocket attack on a convoy in '05 from Kabul to Kandahar eh?

It was over before it started and half the convoy didn't even know it had happened, unless he was _in _the Gwagon....

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2010)

dynaglide said:
			
		

> I worked with this particular soldier long before he deployed to Afghanistan.  His father claims the military created his attitude problem.  Believe me when I say that it existed long before he deployed to Afghanistan.  I'll leave it at that...



Your word is as good as his considering the anonymous nature of the net but ya, I hear you.  I've met a few dudes who have serious issues from over there and I've seen a bunch who use it as an excuse to beak off and have little episodes. Guys who had attitude problems before deploying and have a convenient excuse now that they are back.




			
				Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> A rocket attack on a convoy in '05 from Kabul to Kandahar eh?
> 
> It was over before it started and half the convoy didn't even know it had happened, unless he was _in _the Gwagon....
> 
> Regards



lol.  Our convoy got RPGed and we did a halt a while later to check the vehicles for damage. When we got back to KAF one trucker/co driver asked us why we stopped in the middle of the road. They had no idea what happened, they were listening to their IPODs and didn't have their radio headsets on.  Took about a month and the codriver started trying to get time off work. He was having flashbacks night terrors...


----------



## Franko (13 Dec 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> lol.  Our convoy got RPGed and we did a halt a while later to check the vehicles for damage. When we got back to KAF one trucker/co driver asked us why we stopped in the middle of the road. They had no idea what happened, they were listening to their IPODs and didn't have their radio headsets on.  Took about a month and the codriver started trying to get time off work. He was having flashbacks night terrors...



I personally know of one maintainer who is claiming PTSD and was never hit, never experienced a rocket/ mortar attack, never did one convoy from Kabul to KAF, never left Jullian except on the way in or on the way out, never attended any ramp ceremonies either, never pulled QRF or convoy escort detail. 

Flew from KIA to Kandahar and that was it. Left 2 weeks after landing in KAF for home because it was the end of the tour for him and the bulk of the BG. 

Went to the MO a month later. The rest is history. 

I know, I know; things affect people differently....but come on. Cases like his are well known and make others, who have big issues, very nervous in coming forward and seeking help.

Well, that's my rant of the day.

Regards


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2010)

a court martial for being rude to an NCM . . .   that used to be settled with a "march the guilty bastard in", a one way discussion with the Company Co and a whole lotta extra duties and attention from the RSM.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> a court martial for being rude to an NCM . . .   that used to be settled with a "march the guilty ******* in", a one way discussion with the Company Co and a whole lotta extra duties and attention from the RSM.



One reason to be careful in drafting a charge sheet:  Most charges permit the accused to elect a court martial instead of a summary trial.  If the charge sheet does not include any such charges, and is limited to those that do not give the right to elect, there's a summary trial.

Try to get too creative in drafting the charge sheet, and you end up with a court martial instead.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> a court martial for being rude to an NCM . . .   that used to be settled with a "march the guilty bastard in", a one way discussion with the Company Co and a whole lotta extra duties and attention from the RSM.



Agreed, there must be more than a little gobbing off involved here.  Hell, I would have spent a goodly hunk of my early, and some of my later career period of military employment on CMs.


----------



## mover1 (13 Dec 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He's charged with disobeying the order of a superior, behaving in a contemptuous manner to a superior and with conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
> He intends to plead guilty.



Like our SSM said a long time ago. "If ya did it admit to it take you lumps like a man and we can get on with life and we wont worry about it"

I also wonder how much og this story the MSM has wrong, how much is sensationalized etc. Is it just a summary trial they are talking about?


----------



## Occam (13 Dec 2010)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Is it just a summary trial they are talking about?



Nope, the CM is on the JAG CM Calendar.

Charge 1 (alternate to charge 3): S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
Charge 2: S. 85 NDA, behaved with contempt toward a superior officer.
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> a court martial for being rude to an NCM . . .   that used to be settled with a "march the guilty ******* in", a one way discussion with the Company Co and a whole lotta extra duties and attention from the RSM.



Could it be that the member elected to go to CM in a faint hope that he would more readily get off scott free?


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could it be that the member elected to go to CM in a faint hope that he would more readily get off scott free?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but a CM has a fair bit more punishment power than an individual trying someone in a summary trial, no?  If that's the case, it's also a gamble.


----------



## Gunner98 (13 Dec 2010)

Perhaps his conduct sheet and pers file is full of more, recent shenanigans and that CM is the next appropriate level of justice.


----------



## CombatDoc (13 Dec 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but a CM has a fair bit more punishment power than an individual trying someone in a summary trial, no?  If that's the case, it's also a gamble.


True, a CM has greater powers of punishment than a summary trial.  However, the evidentiary rules are also greater in a CM.  Regardless, CF members remain responsible for their actions regardless of medical condition, although the condition may mitigate the punishment if found guilty.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but a CM has a fair bit more punishment power than an individual trying someone in a summary trial, no?  If that's the case, it's also a gamble.



Yes, but at a CM you've got a defence attorney, and the abiltiy to introduce more complex forms of evidence and argument than at a summary trial.

It could also be a case of a delayed charge - if it's more than a year since the event, it must go to court martial.  In that case, if found guilty, the defence lawyer will no doubt raise the issue prior to sentencing - "A summary trial would have only had power of punishment X".


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but a CM has a fair bit more punishment power than an individual trying someone in a summary trial, no?  If that's the case, it's also a gamble.



Sure it is a gamble, but some feel that with a CM they will find some legal loophole or legal BS to save them.   Those types are usually fools.  They would have been better off taking the Sgt Major's punishment, rather than escalate it to a higher level.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sure it is a gamble, but some feel that with a CM they will find some legal loophole or legal BS to save them.


Or maybe even to get more public attention than a summary trial?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those types are usually fools.  They would have been better off taking the Sgt Major's punishment, rather than escalate it to a higher level.


If it's simple, straightforward and you're pleading guilty, I'd go down this road, too.  I can't wait to hear/read what the CM comes out with, given the fact that there's got to be more to this than meets the eye via MSM.


----------



## MPwannabe (13 Dec 2010)

Just curious:

Once the trial happens and everything is done, do the court documents and proceedings get released to the public? I know that's the case in civilian court for the most part.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2010)

MPwannabe said:
			
		

> Just curious:
> 
> Once the trial happens and everything is done, do the court documents and proceedings get released to the public? I know that's the case in civilian court for the most part.



Website for the Chief Military Judge posts results and sentences, together with transcripts of the sentencing.  Full transcripts are available via ATI requests.

Another fun place to watch ithe CMAC - Court Martial Appeal Court.  Always makes for interesting reading.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Dec 2010)

This topic piqued my interest in the CMJ website. 

The results etc are posted, and it makes for interesting reading. There is so much that could have been handled at a lower level than having the charges go to CM.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Dec 2010)

A former Sgt-Maj of mine once told me:

If you're guilty as sin, and likely to be found such, then take the Summary Trial. If you're innocent, but likely to be found guilty, take the CM. The rationale being that the Summary Trial only has so many punishments, and the CM is a real trial with evidence etc and you can appeal the verdict.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> a court martial for being rude to an NCM . . .   that used to be settled with a "march the guilty ******* in", a one way discussion with the Company Co and a whole lotta extra duties and attention from the RSM.



I think those days are long gone...  :'(


----------



## GAP (13 Dec 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I think those days are long gone...  :'(



Not true. My youngest and a couple of his buds got their tail into a sling over something relatively minor. Given the option of dealing it through the Sgt. or allowing it to become formal, he opted for the Sgt.. He got weekend duty, and a couple of minor duties, his buds, figuring they would get off easy had to pay $500 each........


----------



## CombatDoc (13 Dec 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This topic piqued my interest in the CMJ website.
> 
> The results etc are posted, and it makes for interesting reading. There is so much that could have been handled at a lower level than having the charges go to CM.


Don't forget that for most charges (except the minor 5) that the accused has the option to elect ST or CM, so it is quite possible that these CMs reflect the military justice process desired by the accused.


----------



## medicineman (14 Dec 2010)

I think he figures the PTSD Dx will be his defense - fact is though, you are still responsible for your actions, whether you have PTSD, alcoholism or other drug dependancy, etc.  Unless he was florridly psychotic (and can prove it), he made a conscious decision to be a dickhead and now has to face the consequences for that action.

Watch and shoot as it were.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I think he figures the PTSD Dx will be his defense - fact is though, you are still responsible for your actions, whether you have PTSD, alcoholism or other drug dependancy, etc.  Unless he was florridly psychotic (and can prove it), he made a conscious decision to be a fool and now has to face the consequences for that action.
> 
> Watch and shoot as it were.
> 
> MM



Read some sentencing transcripts of soldiers that were Court Martialed recently. It's clear they were suffering from an OSI, but were held accountable for their actions. The OSI was a mitigating factor.


----------



## medicineman (14 Dec 2010)

Thanks for that Jim.  

MM


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Dec 2010)

14 Dec 10 R. v. Cpl Ngoviky CFB Petawawa, Building L106, Petawawa, ON 
Charge 1 (alternate to charge 3): S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
Charge 2: S. 85 NDA, behaved with contempt toward a superior officer.
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Guilty. Charge 3: A stay of proceedings.

SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $500.

As seen here.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> 14 Dec 10 R. v. Cpl Ngoviky CFB Petawawa, Building L106, Petawawa, ON
> Charge 1 (alternate to charge 3): S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
> Charge 2: S. 85 NDA, behaved with contempt toward a superior officer.
> Charge 3 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
> ...



The written decision should be out shortly. I'd be interested in seeing the court transcript of the trial itself.


----------



## Privateer (17 Dec 2010)

It's unlikely that a transcript would be prepared, unless an appeal were taken from the order.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Dec 2010)

It seems to me that considering the NDA items that were used for the charges, the court displayed remarkable leniency in sentencing.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2010)

Privateer said:
			
		

> It's unlikely that a transcript would be prepared, unless an appeal were taken from the order.


That's fine, I'd like to find out why this progressed to a CM?


----------



## Strike (17 Dec 2010)

It's even more unlikely that they will release the transcripts beyond sentencing at all.  They started to shy away from it after questions regarding the Privacy Act came about.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It seems to me that considering the NDA items that were used for the charges, the court displayed remarkable leniency in sentencing.



I was quite surprised when I read some of the CM decisions and sentencing. It does make interesting reading.


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> It's even more unlikely that they will release the transcripts beyond sentencing at all.  They started to shy away from it after questions regarding the Privacy Act came about.


Where do you get that idea from??  Unless ordered otherwise by the Military Judge, CMs are open to the public, all testimony and evidence entered therein is a matter of public record.  There is no issue with the Privacy Act.  Even if the CM is closed or the transcript sealed, the transcript is produced, it is just not released to the public but it is retained and made available for research and case law reference purposes.


----------



## Strike (17 Dec 2010)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Where do you get that idea from??  Unless ordered otherwise by the Military Judge, CMs are open to the public, all testimony and evidence entered therein is a matter of public record.  There is no issue with the Privacy Act.  Even if the CM is closed or the transcript sealed, the transcript is produced, it is just not released to the public but it is retained and made available for research and case law reference purposes.



Just paraphrasing what a JAG LCol and Maj told my class a few weeks ago.  Open to members of the CF does not always equate to open to the public, especially if some of those CM were held on bases that don't have an open door policy.  The question was then raised, "Why do those guys essentially get a closed (to the civilian public) CM proceeding and I don't?"

Doesn't men people can't get the transcripts through ATI.

Edited to add: Okay, it may have been more than a few weeks ago.  I have lost all track of time.  I WILL tell you it was in the past 3 months.


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2010)

Seen but for the purposes of a CM "open to the public" simply means that persons can attend as spectators should they wish, it has no bearing on where the actual venue is and if non-CF members can actually access the venue.

And it has just dawned on me that folks are talking about the CMJ Internet site.  Check the CMJ DWAN site for complete transcripts of most CMs.  There's a link to the CMJ site from the National portal. 

Jim:  Unfortunately you won't find your answer as to why this proceeded to CM in any of the transcripts as that is usually not brought up at the CM.  You'd need to get access to the RDP if you want to try to figure out the why of that.


----------



## medicineman (17 Dec 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That's fine, I'd like to find out why this progressed to a CM?



I'm with Jim on this - aren't disobeying a lawful command and insubordination normally tried at a Summary Trial level vice CM?  Maybe I just fell asleep again in my Mil Law OPME class?

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2010)

Thanks very much. As far as the CSM tells me, this could have been dealt with at a much lower level.


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2010)

Yes, those offences may be tried by Summary Trial however the accused had the right to elect a CM for the charge of disobeying a lawful command, so for all we know at this point, that is what happened


----------



## medicineman (17 Dec 2010)

What I was getting at was there are 5 charges that the NDA states are to be tried at the Summary Trial level only and not by CM - was trying to remember if those were included.

MM


----------



## garb811 (17 Dec 2010)

Those 5 (Insubordination, Quarrels and Disturbances, Absence without Leave, Drunkenness and some charges pursuant to Conduct contrary to Good Order and Discipline) only remove the right of the accused to elect for CM; there are other factors which could result in the charge being dealt with via CM, such as if the CO determines their powers of punishment are inadequate given the gravity of the allegation.


----------



## medicineman (17 Dec 2010)

Gotcha.  Thanks much.

MM


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Dec 2010)

Locked.

No more Matlocking needed by the Ironsides of the site.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff



PS,


A very good and wise friend pointed out something to me.  I meant The show that starred Raymond Burr as the wheelchair-using Chief of Detectives, Robert T. Ironside., not the call sign.....


----------

