# HMCS Preserver 2012 Hijinks in Florida=desertion charge?



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2013)

Some reminders:
*1)  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."*
2)  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.  
3)  Moderators will be on the lookout for anything that could create problems (legal or otherwise) for the owner of this site.

CBC.ca's story from almost exactly one year ago today:


> The Royal Canadian Navy is investigating after more than a dozen incidents involving drunken sailors from a number of countries were reported to police in the Florida Keys, according to a statement released by the navy.
> 
> The supply ship HMCS Preserver is now back in Halifax harbour after returning from mid-September exercises in the Caribbean.
> 
> ...


.... followed by the latest story:


> A Royal Canadian Navy officer could spend life in prison after being accused of leaving his post during a military operation, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The desertion charge stems from HMCS Preserver’s port visit to Florida last fall.
> 
> ...


----------



## garb811 (9 Oct 2013)

As usual, the media has taken the worst case scenario for the "oh my gosh the military is so harsh!" factor.  If you read Sec 88 of the NDA you will see there are two possibilities for sentencing, one for when the member is on active service or under orders for active service, which does provide for life in prison and one for all other cases, which provides for term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or less punishment:



> *Desertion*
> Offence
> 
> 88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
> ...


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2013)

Let me get this straight.....5,000 sailors on liberty and only 14 incidents ranging from allegations of drunkenness, falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars, drunk driving on scooters and public mischief.  ?

Now that is really stretching the political correctness doctrine....what have we come to?  :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Oct 2013)

In comparison, here are the acts of some other Canadians to be judged.

*Note - the _"...life sentence..."  _ anic: bone was tossed out in that CBC article as well.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight.....5,000 sailors on liberty and only 14 incidents ranging from allegations of drunkenness, falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars, drunk driving on scooters and public mischief.  ?



That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.

This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2013)

Your link went to an empty posting window...


----------



## Old EO Tech (9 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.
> 
> This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.



I would agree, but still desertion is a bit over the top.  AWOL yes, drunkenness yes, 129 yes....but it would be pretty hard to prove the required "intent" required for desertion.

Jon


----------



## DAA (9 Oct 2013)

My math and you definitely can't go wrong with this equation.......

Foreign Location + CF Uniform + Over Indulgence = Possibility of a bad result


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.
> 
> This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.



Did you read the pink highlighted parts of my post..... Old EO Tech is closer to reality....take 250 guys from any base and let them fly for the weekend and I would be you could drum up 14 charges in the first few hours....especially falling down in the streets, slumping over in bars. 

Unlike the sober, mature members we are probably talking about young kids kicking up their heels thinking Big Brother isn't going to be watching too hard way down here....and besides that twerp from such'n such ship just told me Canadians can't drink worth donkey p*&^...... game on!!  ;D


----------



## garb811 (9 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.
> 
> This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.


Yeah, because its not like there were ever any problem with folks when we were doing the 72 hr R&R leave centers in the Balkans, in Guam after APOLLO 0 and currently in Cyprus.  Heck, they were so well behaved they didn't even put any MP on staff there...oh, wait a minute...



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I would agree, but still desertion is a bit over the top.  AWOL yes, drunkenness yes, 129 yes....but it would be pretty hard to prove the required "intent" required for desertion.
> 
> Jon


Unless you've been privy to the investigation, this would be pure speculation, would it not?


----------



## Old EO Tech (9 Oct 2013)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Yeah, because its not like the Army ever had any problem with their guys when they were doing the 72 hr R&R leave centers and currently in Cyprus.  Heck, they were so well behaved they didn't even put any MP on staff there...oh, wait a minute...
> Unless you've been privy to the investigation, this would be pure speculation, would it not?



Educated speculation but yes.  In my educated opinion it is unlikely that these sailors, intentionally avoided returning to the ship.  And that the said ship was scheduled to leave during the time period the sailors were passed out in the bar/street/ditch.....etc.

I've done more than my share of DI's and charges in my career to date, and I would not even bother to waste the AJAG's time asking to lay a desertion charge on drunk sailors :-/


----------



## garb811 (9 Oct 2013)

Given Desertion is not able to be tried via Summary Trial, pre-charge screening by AJAG IAW QR&O 107.03 was required, so I'm pretty sure whoever laid the charge had the evidence they needed to lay it and the AJAG supported that decision or it wouldn't have happened.

I also note the Capt refused to link the Desertion charge with the allegations of Drunkenness etc in the CBC article.


----------



## Electric Ian (10 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's not how I'm reading it. The 14 incidents were from just the Preserver's crew.
> 
> This isn't political correctness, if you can't handle your booze without public mischief or drunk driving, then maybe you shouldn't have booze. Plenty of people get drunk and do stupid stuff, they just don't do it in uniform while on liberty in a foreign country and get caught.



There's a lot more to this story than you're aware of.  I was there, but I'm not going to elaborate or comment on it.  Incidents like this happen all the time in EVERY Navy around the world, shit happens, and people need to get a grip and some backbone wrt to PR. Believe it or not, CF members are HUMAN and they ARE going to make mistakes.  There's no way he's getting an "impartial" trial when it's all over the news, unless he goes inland.


----------



## Lightguns (10 Oct 2013)

If it's in uniform, you have no excuse, regardless of navy, army or girl guides.  When you are in uniform you are not a private person.


----------



## MARS (10 Oct 2013)

Electric Ian said:
			
		

> There's a lot more to this story than you're aware of.  I was there, but I'm not going to elaborate or comment on it.  Incidents like this happen all the time in EVERY Navy around the world, crap happens, and people need to get a grip and some backbone wrt to PR. Believe it or not, CF members are HUMAN and they ARE going to make mistakes.  There's no way he's getting an "impartial" trial when it's all over the news, unless he goes inland.



An that's a fair statement - being human and making mistakes and getting a grip.  Unfortunately, the way the senior leadership might choose to 'get a grip' might be to do away wih booze on ships.  Will it stop these kind of incidents?  No.  But at least the ship won't be contributing to it.  A LOT of sailors fail to realize that there is a building movement underway to do away wih booze.  Because it is a relatively easy way to mitigate some of this stuff.  EVERYTIME something like this happens, the argument gains more ligitimacy.  There is simply very, very little tolerance among the Canadian public for this kind of stuff from CAF members.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2013)

Sailors drunk in a foreign port, my god, has this ever happen before, has briefing notes been written, memo's to Cabinet. Where any of them visible minorities? Quick, find the headless chicken and set it loose.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sailors drunk in a foreign port, my god, has this ever happen before, has briefing notes been written, memo's to Cabinet. Where any of them visible minorities? Quick, find the headless chicken and set it loose.....


At one level, I agree with you.  Sadly, though, "the rules" are often made not because of the 99% of folks who use common sense and think before they act, but because of the others.  And (to mix my metaphors a bit) like bad cops, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc., it only take one "holy crap" to erase the million "attaboys" out there.

Welcome to the land of "risk aversion and don't embarrass the boss".


----------



## captloadie (10 Oct 2013)

To get a better understanding of why this particular charge was laid would it be fair to say that:

a) a member who misses the departure of his ship, aircraft, etc. but makes the effort to report the fact and meet the ship, aircraft at its next destination would be AWOL; but

b) a member who misses the departure and just says screw it and makes his way back to his shore based home unit (either ASAP, or not), would be closer to being considered as deserting?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2013)

captloadie said:
			
		

> b) a member who misses the departure and just says screw it and makes his way back to his shore based home unit (either ASAP, or not), would be closer to being considered as deserting?



I disagree.  Making his way back to his shore based home unit would show that he did not intend to desert, and was using a reasonable means to return to his unit.

Desertion would be more in line with: if (s)he decided to disappear and intend not to return to CAF service at all.


----------



## Remius (10 Oct 2013)

It can according to the definition be in line with: "Hey I'm the duty watch guy but screw it I'm going into town to fornicate"  except that you are on active service and you deserted your post.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Oct 2013)

Electric Ian said:
			
		

> There's a lot more to this story than you're aware of.


But don't let the absence of facts stop a good e-lynching by the barrack-room lawyers.   op:


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Oct 2013)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Yeah, because its not like there were ever any problem with folks when we were doing the 72 hr R&R leave centers in the Balkans, in Guam after APOLLO 0 and currently in Cyprus.  Heck, they were so well behaved they didn't even put any MP on staff there...oh, wait a minute...


The Roto that did the work up training in Ft Bliss Texas in 2008, when they got there respite after training.......if even half the stories I was told were true, how THAT didn't make the news.....(heck even the CDS commented on it when we were in Irwin for Roto 9 workup, saying they learned from '08, and hoped to hell we didn't break Las Vegas).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2013)

If you missed your ship and contacted the navy, ship or even embassy and awaited instructions, then you will still face charges but likely not desertion. If you missed your ship, said screw it and went back into the sack with Bonita, then you have a problem.


----------



## Stoker (10 Oct 2013)

Actually I was very surprised at the shift in attitude toward drinking in foregin ports, it doesn't help that Key West is a major area for bars and partying. When you have a ship come into their first port after so many days at sea with a bunch of sailors who are fatigued, people are going to blow their heads off.  I would rather have it happen on the ship (in a controlled manner) than ashore where they can get hurt. Over the years we  had a few sailors ashore that died while drunk.  Is the answer to ban booze off the ship, perhaps but as the Americans have found pers will turn to other means like drugs. Perhaps what we need when a ship arrives in port, the ship's organizes other activities such as tours of local attractions and stuff like that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2013)

The Chaplin service on major US warships have/had a volunteer program, where groups in the port of call can request assistance of the crew. I managed to wrangle 30 seaman off of a USN aircraft carrier (Ranger I think) to help scrap the bottom of our Museum's 50' Seiner. Made sure all the young single girls working at the Museum's came down to help out as well. The sailors weren't expect women to be there, so that made the work go quickly so they could spend time chatting up the girls. Everyone went away happy that day.


----------



## medicineman (10 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Making his way back to his shore based home unit would show that he did not intend to desert, and was using a reasonable means to return to his unit.
> 
> Desertion would be more in line with: if (s)he decided to disappear and intend not to return to CAF service at all.



Kind of like the dude who's room I packed up as a private - there were his ID cards and ID discs on his desk with a big "Frig The Army" letter explaining his not being at work anymore...

MM


----------



## DAA (10 Oct 2013)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Kind of like the dude who's room I packed up as a private - there were his ID cards and ID discs on his desk with a big "Frig The Army" letter explaining his not being at work anymore...
> MM



Saw something similar, many years ago.

3 guys were going up on charge and the ultimate outcome was "detention", hands down.  But rather than proceeding with the charges, the unit decided to wait because we were deploying for RV 87, so they would do this in Wainwright and thus save TD money to get the individuals/escorts to and from the DB in Edmonton.  First two guys go up and get 30 days.  The last guys time comes and he is no where to be found.  His ID Card and Dogtags are laying on his cot/sleeping bag.  So he gets reported as AWOL.

Unit redeploys back to Base and admin procedures go into effect.  10 days prior to the date that we could have "administratively" released him, he turns himself in to the DB in Edmonton.  DB says send someone out to escort him back, unit replies that they are not going to do this, gives the DB a fin code and tells them to buy him a plane ticket from Edm to Ott and then he can take a bus back to Pet and turn himself in again.

So the DB does as told.  Guy gets on the plane, flies from Edm to Ott but doesn't show up in Pet.......

At the end of the day, he was an admin release 12 months later.  But at least his trip back home was paid for!    :rofl:


----------



## Pusser (10 Oct 2013)

MARS said:
			
		

> An that's a fair statement - being human and making mistakes and getting a grip.  Unfortunately, the way the senior leadership might choose to 'get a grip' might be to do away wih booze on ships.  Will it stop these kind of incidents?  No.  But at least the ship won't be contributing to it.  A LOT of sailors fail to realize that there is a building movement underway to do away wih booze.  Because it is a relatively easy way to mitigate some of this stuff.  EVERYTIME something like this happens, the argument gains more ligitimacy.  There is simply very, very little tolerance among the Canadian public for this kind of stuff from CAF members.



The biggest problem here would be a spineless leadership that would actually make it sound that our sailors were somehow being abnormal.  Getting drunk at a hot tourist spot in Florida!  Heck, no one ever does that so there is obviously something wrong in the Royal Canadian Navy that its sailors might indulge a bit!  

Removing booze from ships would be the worst thing they could do.  You don't have to look too far to see the problems the USN has in its "dry" ships (booze and drugs smuggled on board and far worse problems with debauchery ashore when they get alongside than we've ever had to deal with).  We studied this years ago and I remember talking to the crusty old chiefs who were quick to point out that we had more trouble with booze in the Navy BEFORE we had bars on board for the sailors (NB: prior to stopping the tot, only the Wardroom had a bar - everyone else got their daily tot).  There was widespread hoarding of tots and smuggling of booze on board.  When you try to ban something, you drive it underground and  that only makes the problem worse (look at Prohibition for another bad American example).  Keeping bars on board the ships enables us to control it, which is good, because we'll never be able to stop it.


----------



## MARS (10 Oct 2013)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The biggest problem here would be a spineless leadership that would actually make it sound that our sailors were somehow being abnormal.  Getting drunk at a hot tourist spot in Florida!  Heck, no one ever does that so there is obviously something wrong in the Royal Canadian Navy that its sailors might indulge a bit!
> 
> Removing booze from ships would be the worst thing they could do.  You don't have to look too far to see the problems the USN has in its "dry" ships (booze and drugs smuggled on board and far worse problems with debauchery ashore when they get alongside than we've ever had to deal with).  We studied this years ago and I remember talking to the crusty old chiefs who were quick to point out that we had more trouble with booze in the Navy BEFORE we had bars on board for the sailors (NB: prior to stopping the tot, only the Wardroom had a bar - everyone else got their daily tot).  There was widespread hoarding of tots and smuggling of booze on board.  When you try to ban something, you drive it underground and  that only makes the problem worse (look at Prohibition for another bad American example).  Keeping bars on board the ships enables us to control it, which is good, because we'll never be able to stop it.



I agree with everything you have said.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2013)

MARS said:
			
		

> Quote from: Pusser on Today at 18:00:35
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem here would be a spineless leadership that would actually make it sound that our sailors were somehow being abnormal.  Getting drunk at a hot tourist spot in Florida!  Heck, no one ever does that so there is obviously something wrong in the Royal Canadian Navy that its sailors might indulge a bit!
> ...




 :ditto:

Things will go off the rails; sailors, soldiers and air force members will find ways to get into trouble; when (not if) they do then punish the guilty ~ quickly and publicly ~ not the large, responsible, innocent majority.

That senior officers are more worried about _image_ than in treating adults like adults suggests that the wrong messages are being sent from the very, very top.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Oct 2013)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps what we need when a ship arrives in port, the ship's organizes other activities such as tours of local attractions and stuff like that.


   :rofl:




....oh, you were serious....   :-[


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2013)

Wasn't it the visits to "local attractions" that got these guys into kaka in the first place?


----------



## Occam (11 Oct 2013)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps what we need when a ship arrives in port, the ship's organizes other activities such as tours of local attractions and stuff like that.



They've done that for years.  First organized tour I ever had in a foreign port was in 1986 - of the Tuborg Brewery in Copenhagen.   ;D


----------



## Stoker (11 Oct 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> They've done that for years.  First organized tour I ever had in a foreign port was in 1986 - of the Tuborg Brewery in Copenhagen.   ;D



So did I, but later in life I wish I actually toured a little more than drank my face off all the time. Like it or not the guys are going to drink, I just think we need alternatives than drinking your face off.  Tuboug the beer of Danish Kings :nod:


----------

