# MEMOS:CFAO/DAOD or other source for the # of days it must be returned to the mbr



## vojnik (14 Dec 2009)

Was wondering if someone had any insight on  the number of days a memo ought to be responded to and returned to the mbr?

I did a search and found "14 day" response. However, since some paperwork has gone repeated "lost" and reappearing well-after the response was needed - I was wondering if someone could point me to an official source so I could actually reference it?

I was talking with some people at work who seem to remember a CFAO with this. However, since they are in the process of transferring them electronically, the best I could do was use the Wayback Machine - but to no avail.


----------



## Occam (14 Dec 2009)

For everyday administration, there is no "14-day" reference that you'll find anywhere.

Now if the memo happens to be an official grievance submitted under QR&O 7.01, you will find that there are strict deadlines for certain events to occur.


----------



## Monsoon (14 Dec 2009)

And since I see that you're Navy, you may be thinking of request forms or "official requests" that are tracked by the Regulating Office. These are supposed to be responded to within 14 days, and I think the reference is SSOs (or possible MARCORDs) since it's an exclusively Navy practice. The key here is that the forms have to be tracked manually and someone (i.e. the Coxn or RPO) has to be in the charge of making sure they get moved along; otherwise they'll go adrift.

Memos are just a form of correspondence and have no "due date"; the majority of memos that get sent have no expectation of being returned to the sender.


----------



## gcclarke (14 Dec 2009)

Oh, as well there are timeliness guidelines if the memo is in regards to a complaint of harassment. For example, the Responsible Officer must acknowledge reciept of the complaint within 5 working days. 

For full details, if you're on the DWAN, you can have a look at the Harassment Prevention and Resolution Guidelines.


----------



## vojnik (14 Dec 2009)

Hummm....I know where I work just starting implementing the use of Minute Sheets which has resulted in a marked improvement in the framing or contextualizing of memo requests  and their subsequent support/denial.

However, I am a little disappointed  that asides from Harassment complaints that there is no strict time-line documented anywhere.  This leaves a lot to good-will and trust between the rungs of the CoC which may or may not be respected.

Essentially, without the return of the memo which ought to have some sort of date received/actioned indicated, how must the mbr (who is ultimately in charge of their own administration and career in the end) supposed to keep on top of things and document for redress issues a repeated pattern of legitimate requests getting "lost"?  Registered mail?  :-\

I find that the Military can be so meticulous in other aspects of document-keeping/paper-trails but curiously selective in whose memos reach the intended recipient.

Thanks to all for the assistance....


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2009)

If you are really that concerned, why don't you take your original, and your personal file copy, to your Unit Central Registry or OR and have them "Time stamp" it with the date that the Unit received it.  Keep it in your personal files and then resubmit a copy of it after a period of time, if you received no reply.


----------



## armyvern (14 Dec 2009)

vojnik said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Essentially, without the return of the memo which ought to have some sort of date received/actioned indicated, how must the mbr (who is ultimately in charge of their own administration and career in the end) supposed to keep on top of things and document for redress issues a repeated pattern of legitimate requests getting "lost"?  *Registered mail?*  :-\
> 
> ...



You're almost close with the bold remark above.

Go to your Unit OR or Sup section and request a blank *DND728 Document Transit & Receipt Voucher*.

If they don't have any 'hard copies' avail, ask one of those places to pull you up an electronic version on the DIN (they are avail on the DIN in an adobe format which can be filled out on-screen, then printed).

------------------------------
To order actual 'hard copies':  DND 728 7530 21 870 8443 Document Transit and Receipt Voucher ~ Unit of Issue: PG
------------------------------

Both your OR and your QM should be able to assist you with filling it out. As your file #, assign the number "1" (#2 to your second memo of the year etc), the year and your last three followed by a 'pers' (example below):

1-09/239 Pers

Columns on the voucher should read from left to right (IIRC - it's been a couple of months since I filled one in & I don't have one sitting in front of me):

QTY / UofI / SERIAL # (use your applic memo file #) / DESCRIPTION (self-explanitory)

Fill those in as follows:

1 / each / Memorandum 1180-1 (239 pers) / Memorandum to CO pertaining to Redress of Grievance 239 Pte Bloggins dated 14 Dec 2009.
------------------

At the bottom of the 728, there is an area where you can indicate whether a "receipt is required" and by what date. You also identify yourself here so that the pers receiving your memo can send the receipt to you.  In the "TO" block of your 728, address it to the CO etc (whoever your memo is addressed "TO")

Keep the "originator" copy for yourself & submit your memo "with" the other copies of the DND728 attached.

Additionally, you can add other remarks into the description block. For example, if you are handing in your memo to your Sgt etc ... you can put a remark such as this on your 728:


______(Sgt Bloggart Signs on Line)_______
"Hand carried for submission by Sgt Bloggart
                       14 Dec 2009"


Now, normal, routine memos should not be submitted to your CoC utilizing a DND728, but it's your call to make; if you are indeed experiencing "lost" repeated requests, then a DND 728 may be the way to go. 

BTW: Sgt Bloggins should have no issues with signing for your memo from you if he has been involved in the hunt to track to track down your previous submissions; in which case, I'm surprised that Sgt Bloggins has not added a DND728 himself already ...

Hope this helps.

Vern


----------



## vojnik (14 Dec 2009)

ArmyVern / George Wallace,

Once again, I have to say it:   YOU TWO ROCK !!!

Thanks for the info - I will make sure those afflicted by these "administrative oversights" have some sort of recourse....


 >


----------



## DBF (20 Dec 2009)

Following that advice would be the textbook definition of "administrative burden" and unlikely to get you anywhere other than released.  Why not try the direct route and talk to your CO?


----------



## CallOfDuty (20 Dec 2009)

vojnik said:
			
		

> Essentially, without the return of the memo which ought to have some sort of date received/actioned indicated, how must the mbr (who is ultimately in charge of their own administration and career in the end) supposed to keep on top of things and document for redress issues a repeated pattern of legitimate requests getting "lost"?


   Sounds to me DBF, that his administrative handlers are being a burden to him, and others in his unit.  So he is taking steps to correct the issue, and doing it with a system set up by DND.  Sounds good to me  :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> Following that advice would be the textbook definition of "administrative burden" and unlikely to get you anywhere other than released.  Why not try the direct route and talk to your CO?



I don't know about you, but I have always advised all my peers and subordinates to keep "shadow files" of their Pay Records and  Pers Files (keeping Posting Msgs, Claims, Crse Reports, PERs, PDRs, CF Expres, Med chits and docs, Lve Passes, etc.).  It is always a good idea to keep a copy of memos that you want actioned, and a record of when and where they went.   

What does the Career Manager have as a favourite saying?  Oh yes!  You are your own best Career Manager.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> Sounds to me DBF, that his administrative handlers are being a burden to him, and others in his unit.  So he is taking steps to correct the issue, and doing it with a system set up by DND.  Sounds good to me  :2c:



DND 728s are not intended for inter-unit paperwork.  I can assure you that I would annotate his DIVNOTES appropriately for each time I had to waste my time dealing with this.  It doesn't take too many DIVNOTE entries before admin action follows.  Why the resistance to approaching the CO directly?  That will certainly clear the air and reveal where the problem lies.  I have to admit that phrases such as "document for redress issues " tend to speak for themselves.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I have always advised all my peers and subordinates to keep "shadow files" of their Pay Records and  Pers Files (keeping Posting Msgs, Claims, Crse Reports, PERs, PDRs, CF Expres, Med chits and docs, Lve Passes, etc.).  It is always a good idea to keep a copy of memos that you want actioned, and a record of when and where they went.
> 
> What does the Career Manager have as a favourite saying?  Oh yes!  You are your own best Career Manager.


Agree fully.  Not sure the relevance WRT my advice against using DND 728s to send memos within a unit CoC.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> Agree fully.  Not sure the relevance WRT my advice against using DND 728s to send memos within a unit CoC.



Ah!

Clarity.

You made no reference to DND or CF 728's in your original post.


----------



## Occam (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> DND 728s are not intended for inter-unit paperwork.



You have a reference for this, of course.



> I can assure you that I would annotate his DIVNOTES appropriately for each time I had to waste my time dealing with this.  It doesn't take too many DIVNOTE entries before admin action follows.



You mean you'd annotate his Div Notes appropriately for every time you wasted your time dealing with a subordinate's welfare were expected to do your job?  If a member has to resort to DND728s to document his attempts at resolving an issue administratively, then someone is not doing their job.  If it's not you, then your job in his/her chain of command is to find out who.

I thought that mindset had been purged from the Navy.  Clearly, it still lingers like a bad case of flatulence.



> Why the resistance to approaching the CO directly?  That will certainly clear the air and reveal where the problem lies.



If it's not to initiate a grievance, then what reason would a member have to request a meeting with the CO through his/her CoC?  If anything, the member is going to be privately chastised for taking minor matters to the CO.  I'm not saying there isn't a place and a time for it, but that place and time is when all avenues have been exhausted and the only thing left is to pursue the Grievance system.



> I have to admit that phrases such as "document for redress issues " tend to speak for themselves.



What is that supposed to mean?  I've never seen that phrase before.


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> DND 728s are not intended for inter-unit paperwork.  I can assure you that I would annotate his DIVNOTES appropriately for each time I had to waste my time dealing with this.  It doesn't take too many DIVNOTE entries before admin action follows.  Why the resistance to approaching the CO directly?  That will certainly clear the air and reveal where the problem lies.  I have to admit that phrases such as "document for redress issues " tend to speak for themselves.



Post your ref please.

PERs move under cover of DND728. UERs & PERs files move under cover of DND 728 ... often between sections in the very same platoon in the very same building.

When a loss report is moved from clothing stores to cust svc (both base Supply) - it goes under cover of DND728.

This prevents it's loss. Where is your reference stating that DND728s are not to be used for inter-unit communications? That is false.

Are you also noting on his Div Notes each time he has submitted his memo ... only to have it lost? Because if you are, then you'd realize that the "Admin problem" is not with the member, but with his higher CoC. As his supervisor it would then be your job to fix that issue, not to punish the member because his higher-ups lack organizational, planning and administrative abilities.

Instead you wish the member to go directly to the CO, thus circumventing his CoC and attempting to keep 'the problem' at the lower level, --- which --- given your statement regarding "I have to admit that phrases such as "document for redress issues " tend to speak for themselves." --- tends to show that you'd then probably turn around and nail him on his Div notes and PER with failing to respect the CoC. 

Perhaps the reason his paperwork keeps getting lost is that he may have a supervisor just as biased as you seem to be with your quoted response above. His bosses losing his paperwork is not his problem; it's his bosses & it really is as simple as that.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!
> 
> Clarity.
> 
> You made no reference to DND or CF 728's in your original post.


Mea culpa.  Figured it would be read in context to the email above it but I could have been more clear.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

Just stepping back a bit.



			
				DBF said:
			
		

> Following that advice would be the textbook definition of "administrative burden" and unlikely to get you anywhere other than released.  Why not try the direct route and talk to your CO?



The best way to become an "administrative burden" in most organizations is to "try the direct route and talk to your CO".  Circumventing the CoC is the quickest way to be alienated by your peers and superiors.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

vojnik said:
			
		

> Hummm....I know where I work just starting implementing the use of Minute Sheets which has resulted in a marked improvement in the framing or contextualizing of memo requests  and their subsequent support/denial.
> 
> However, I am a little disappointed  that asides from Harassment complaints that there is no strict time-line documented anywhere.  This leaves a lot to good-will and trust between the rungs of the CoC which may or may not be respected.
> 
> ...


My reference for the quote "document for redress issues" came from the 3rd para above.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Post your ref please.
> 
> PERs move under cover of DND728. UERs & PERs files move under cover of DND 728 ... often between sections in the very same platoon in the very same building.
> 
> ...


A-AE-000-001/AG-E00 Guide to the Divisional System. Halifax: MARCOM/N1, 1993.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> You have a reference for this, of course.
> 
> You mean you'd annotate his Div Notes appropriately for every time you wasted your time dealing with a subordinate's welfare were expected to do your job?  If a member has to resort to DND728s to document his attempts at resolving an issue administratively, then someone is not doing their job.  If it's not you, then your job in his/her chain of command is to find out who.
> 
> ...


(Maybe you should have read the whole thread before commenting then?)


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> If it's not to initiate a grievance, then what reason would a member have to request a meeting with the CO through his/her CoC?  If anything, the member is going to be privately chastised for taking minor matters to the CO.  I'm not saying there isn't a place and a time for it, but that place and time is when all avenues have been exhausted and the only thing left is to pursue the Grievance system.


This is dangerously bad advice - I assume it was posted in jest?  From para 2.2 of the  Canadian Forces Grievance Manual: "The right to grieve does not preclude a verbal request for resolution directly to the Commanding Officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance."   In fact one of the pre-formatted boxes on a DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM is the "Request to see the CO on a service matter" box for this type of thing


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> I thought that mindset had been purged from the Navy.  Clearly, it still lingers like a bad case of flatulence.


Ahhhh...there's some old school Navy thinking:  When in doubt, insult the other person.  BZ!


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> And since I see that you're Navy, you may be thinking of request forms or "official requests" that are tracked by the Regulating Office. These are supposed to be responded to within 14 days, and I think the reference is SSOs (or possible MARCORDs) since it's an exclusively Navy practice. The key here is that the forms have to be tracked manually and someone (i.e. the Coxn or RPO) has to be in the charge of making sure they get moved along; otherwise they'll go adrift.
> 
> Memos are just a form of correspondence and have no "due date"; the majority of memos that get sent have no expectation of being returned to the sender.


Well said.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2009)

Is there no such thing as a Round Trip Memo in existence for communication within a unit anymore?  There was a 14 day turnaround on those, IIRC.


----------



## CountDC (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> A-AE-000-001/AG-E00 Guide to the Divisional System. Halifax: MARCOM/N1, 1993.



Are you serious?? MARCOM/N1 1993??  You don't even give a paragraph number where it says not to use a 728 or a link to it.  MARCOM itself is out of a date just like your reference.

Try this link for Div Guide by CMS in Aug 2005, I recommend chapter 2:  

http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/Divguide/toc.asp


----------



## Occam (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> This is dangerously bad advice - I assume it was posted in jest?  From para 2.2 of the  Canadian Forces Grievance Manual: "The right to grieve does not preclude a verbal request for resolution directly to the Commanding Officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance."   In fact one of the pre-formatted boxes on a DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM is the "Request to see the CO on a service matter" box for this type of thing



Yes, that request to complain verbally to the Commanding Officer is part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, and for all intents and purposes can be considered a first step in the Grievance process.

That "DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM" isn't used outside the Navy, by the way.



			
				DBF said:
			
		

> Ahhhh...there's some old school Navy thinking:  When in doubt, insult the other person.  BZ!



Well, you got it partly right - I was old school Navy, but I evolved.  

The notion that any Chief or PO or Officer would resort to such dirty tactics as placing a negative comment in the Div Notes of a sailor simply because he lawfully submitted a memo or used established administrative procedures to document his attempts at resolving a complaint is beyond me.  If the memos were frivolous and repetitive in nature, I could possibly see some justification.  Not in this case.

If you think tactics such as that have a place in today's CF, I would consider a career change if I were you.  One of these days a sailor smarter than you will have documented everything better than you have, and you'll be the one explaining yourself to the old man.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Are you serious?? MARCOM/N1 1993??  You don't even give a paragraph number where it says not to use a 728 or a link to it.  MARCOM itself is out of a date just like your reference.
> 
> Try this link for Div Guide by CMS in Aug 2005, I recommend chapter 2:
> 
> http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/Divguide/toc.asp



Your link goes nowhere.

Sorry but your credibility is shot when you make comments like "MARCOM is out of date".  The Canadian Forces Maritime Command (MARCOM) is the naval branch of the CF IAW art 510 of Canadian Forces Joint Publication 01 (B-GJ-005-000/FP-001) and available at this URL:

http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/websites/Resources/dgfda/Pubs/CF%20Joint%20Doctrine%20Publications/CFJP_%2001_Canadian_Military_Doctrine_En_2009_04.pdf

If that's not enough proof, check out the official CF website and note the public contact info for the "Maritime Command Headquarters":

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/9/9_eng.asp

 :christmas happy:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Dec 2009)

Have you tried the link from a DWAN/DIN computer cause it won't work from any other computer.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yes, that request to complain verbally to the Commanding Officer is part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, and for all intents and purposes can be considered a first step in the Grievance process.
> 
> [Provide your link to prove that SVP.  My quote came verbatim from the Grievance Manual.]
> 
> ...


----------



## Occam (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> [Provide your link to prove that SVP.  My quote came verbatim from the Grievance Manual.]



The same Grievance Manual you quoted.  Para 2.2 and 2.3.



> [The original poster is in the Navy.  Try reading the whole thread.]



Wrong.  The original poster wears a Naval uniform.  Big difference.  If someone wearing Naval DEU submits a Divisional Request Form at *CFS Leitrim*, they'd better be prepared to hear a little chuckle before they get told to draft a memo.  Try reading the whole thread, and the poster's history.



> [The advice to use 728s was clearly intended to be frivolous and repetitive.]



ArmyVern's advice may be a lot of things, but frivolous and repetitive it is not.



> [Maybe some day - but why would I aspire to be a supervisor so I can spend my day processing 728s?]



Maybe if you did your job right in finding out why subordinate's administration is not being staffed properly, there would be no need for a 728.

If you're not at the very least a supervisor, what are you doing telling off an officer who has been there and done that in this thread?  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89955/post-896846#msg896846


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> [The advice to use 728s was clearly intended to be frivolous and repetitive.]



Obviously you have no idea of what a 728 is for.  How often have you lost a document, or been looking for a document, that could have been sent to any Base/Unit/Facility in the CF?  It is a "Tracking System".  It leaves a paper trail where and when a document has travelled.  If you think this is frivolous, I can't believe you are in any position of authority or responsibility.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> The same Grievance Manual you quoted.  Para 2.2 and 2.3.
> 
> [Thank you for conceding my point, albeit in a canting manner]
> 
> ...


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you have no idea of what a 728 is for.  How often have you lost a document, or been looking for a document, that could have been sent to any Base/Unit/Facility in the CF?  It is a "Tracking System".  It leaves a paper trail where and when a document has travelled.  If you think this is frivolous, I can't believe you are in any position of authority or responsibility.


Seems like the CF that you served in is different from mine.  It seems like poor advice to me to suggest that you should turn in a memo to your supervisor with a 728.  In your world this seems reasonable.  Glad I'm not there as apparently you need to be in a "position of authority or responsibility" to have an opinion.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> Seems like the CF that you served in is different from mine.  It seems like poor advice to me to suggest that you should turn in a memo to your supervisor with a 728.  In your world this seems reasonable.  Glad I'm not there as apparently you need to be in a "position of authority or responsibility" to have an opinion.



Shall I in turn tell you to go back and read the whole thread?  The OP is frustrated that he got no reply to a memo sent through normal channels.  Now he would like to up the ante.


----------



## Occam (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> [Thank you for conceding my point, albeit in a canting manner]



Did you even have a point?  My point was that there are steps to take before making requests to see the CO - and that includes administrative procedures such as sending documents under cover of a 728.



> [Glad you finally read the whole thing.]



I'm glad one of us did.  Did you miss the part where you erroneously assumed the original poster was in a Naval environment?



> [Opinions are like belly buttons...]



She's made it to MWO.  How are you makin' out?



> [Since when did the poster become my subordinate??]



Not the literal "you", the figurative "you"....not too quick on the uptake tonight, are you?



> [Nowhere in that thread did I represent myself as anything other than a person with an opinion.  IMHO, he was out of line.  Maybe you don't agree.  See my comment on opinions above.]



Given that the person in question held a command as CO of a NRD, and skipper of a MWV, I think you should probably give a hint as to what credentials you hold that would qualify you to say his opinion was out of line.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Did you even have a point?  My point was that there are steps to take before making requests to see the CO - and that includes administrative procedures such as sending documents under cover of a 728.
> 
> I'm glad one of us did.  Did you miss the part where you erroneously assumed the original poster was in a Naval environment?
> 
> ...


A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
~ Sir Winston Churchill


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
> ~ Sir Winston Churchill




Well?  If you are insinuating that you are going through life with blinders on......Then ..... OK.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well?  If you are insinuating that you are going through life with blinders on......Then ..... OK.


Where'd that come from?  I already agreed with you that the old CF you served in bears no resemblance to my current experience.   In today's CF, having to submit memos with 728s to your CoC would be the sign of major problems.  The majority of today's generation would rather talk things out in a direct manner than try to bury their supervisors in paperwork.   Apparently it wasn't always that way.


----------



## Occam (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> Where'd that come from?  I already agreed with you that the old CF you served in bears no resemblance to my current experience.   In today's CF, having to submit memos with 728s to your CoC would be the sign of major problems.  The majority of today's generation would rather talk things out in a direct manner than try to bury their supervisors in paperwork.   Apparently it wasn't always that way.



I'm still serving, and I'm pretty sure George is as well.  Your "current experience" is therefore the same as our "current experience".  

If a DND728 is "burying you in paperwork", gawdhepya if you ever step into a real position of responsibility and have to deal with a lot more than that.  The fact that you're even making such a claim leads me to believe that you're really not all that familiar with the administration that's part and parcel of leadership roles.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

Many, not all, today are too lazy to properly staff their "important" requests/complaints/etc.; requests/complaints/etc. that need more than a face to face verbal exchange.  They have to be told to do up a memorandum to pass up their CoC.  Then they have to be shown how to do so.  Those that do, sometimes run into supervisors who don't have two clues what to do with these memos.  Perhaps they were promoted before their time, but the problem is there.  In a case, as was put forward by the OP, a series of memos have become "Lost".  What should (s)he do?  That is what this whole discussion is about.  Some suggestions have been put forward, and you have poo pooed them.  Now we are discussing/questioning your leadership style and concepts.   They differ greatly from the majority of the CF (from what I have seen), who deal with large numbers of personnel.   Your concepts seem to be only applicable to small closely knit units of under 30 (plus/minus) pers, not to a larger more spreadout population/Base/Installation/Unit.


----------



## DBF (21 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Many, not all, today are too lazy to properly staff their "important" requests/complaints/etc.; requests/complaints/etc. that need more than a face to face verbal exchange.  They have to be told to do up a memorandum to pass up their CoC.  Then they have to be shown how to do so.  Those that do, sometimes run into supervisors who don't have two clues what to do with these memos.  Perhaps they were promoted before their time, but the problem is there.  In a case, as was put forward by the OP, a series of memos have become "Lost".  What should (s)he do?  That is what this whole discussion is about.  Some suggestions have been put forward, and you have poo pooed them.  Now we are discussing/questioning your leadership style and concepts.   They differ greatly from the majority of the CF (from what I have seen), who deal with large numbers of personnel.   Your concepts seem to be only applicable to small closely knit units of under 30 (plus/minus) pers, not to a larger more spreadout population/Base/Installation/Unit.


The suggestion to use a 728 is poorly thought out, whether in a 60 person submarine crew or a 7500 person base.  I called you and Occam on it.  Rather than accept that it was perhaps not the best plan, you both started attacking me.  I'm pretty sure I have never claimed to be anything more that a simple commenter but you both seemed obsessed on rank and privilege.  That is a "leadership style and concept" more suited to a schoolyard than a professional CF.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

:  All I can say is "Fill your boots!"  


This is going........  :deadhorse: 



:brickwall:


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2009)

DBF,

I am also a simple commenter on here but i am currently serving and i am a senior NCO.

You are out to lunch.

Period.


----------



## Occam (21 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> The suggestion to use a 728 is poorly thought out, whether in a 60 person submarine crew



Perhaps the above is the problem.  Life on a sub rarely reflects that in the rest of the CF, and if I had a nickel for every submariner that told me that, I would probably be retired by now.

Maybe it's *your* environment which is clouding your opinion on the matter.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Dec 2009)

How about the OP sends an email to his supervisor?  In my mind, it replaced the memos years ago and usually shows results much more quickly.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How about the OP sends an email to his supervisor?  In my mind, it replaced the memos years ago and usually shows results much more quickly.



.....And creates a "paper trail" or "chain of events".


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2009)

...as long as (s)he has a DWAN Outlook account.    >


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Dec 2009)

And don't forget to use the "Read Receipt" option.


----------



## Occam (22 Dec 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And don't forget to use the "Read Receipt" option.



Many people I know who rely on their e-mails getting through (and read) have their Outlook client set to send every e-mail with that option set.  It's a few mouse clicks to set it for every e-mail sent.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/192929

There's no need to set it for delivery receipts, as DWAN e-mails are delivered instantly to a user's mailbox (located on Exchange servers, not on your client PC).

One has to be careful to manually de-select the option prior to sending to a large distribution list, though - unless you like being swamped with read receipts.   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Dec 2009)

DBF,

I was posted to a Navy unit in my former life.  It was the POs with mindset and lack of leadership responsibility like you are suggesting is the way to do business that I wanted to punch the living shit out of every day.

If an NCO doesn't want to do an NCOs job, that NCO should request to see his/her CO immediately, as you suggested...to request a reduction in rank.  Let someone who knows how, and wants to, look after the Jnr Ranks in the CF.  

Mindsets like yours should be sorted out on Friday night behind the Mess.  I never treated my Tpr's and Jnr NCOs like you are suggesting is the way to.

I bet you bitch and moan about what a pain in the ass the PT tests are every year too.   :


----------



## CountDC (22 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> Your link goes nowhere.
> 
> Sorry but your credibility is shot when you make comments like "MARCOM is out of date".  The Canadian Forces Maritime Command (MARCOM) is the naval branch of the CF IAW art 510 of Canadian Forces Joint Publication 01 (B-GJ-005-000/FP-001) and available at this URL:
> 
> ...



The link just worked fine for me - perhaps it is the sub you are working from.

MARCOM is out of of date in regards to the Div Guide you attempted to use as your reference.  As shown at the link I provided it has been replaced by MS.

 it is also out of date in usage - for the most part we now use MS (Maritime Staff). Try an email search for MARCOM as the Group/Wing/Formation - all you will get is CFMWC staff.  The rest of us you will have to find by searching for CMS. MARCORDs are now updated and released by MS. Basically everything to do with the Navy at the top level is done and signed off by MS not MARCOM staff. The old MARCOM no longer exists.   Look at the link you provided for the Official Navy home page, along the left side in the blue it lists all the Directors - they are the ones setting Navy Policy. They are the old MARCOM N1, N2, N3, etc.  Look up MARCOM in the address book - not much there, certainly nothing for a command headquarters.  Look up CMS and you will find the correct address.

There are still the odd usage of the term MARCOM but for the most part we no longer use it.  How often do you hear MARCOM Comd?  Even he uses the term CMS (Chief of Maritime Staff).


----------



## DBF (22 Dec 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> DBF,
> 
> I was posted to a Navy unit in my former life.  It was the POs with mindset and lack of leadership responsibility like you are suggesting is the way to do business that I wanted to punch the living crap out of every day.
> 
> ...


Wow - where to begin?  You believe the correct leadership is to insist that proper leadership is to use 728s to communicate with your subordinates?  Glad you're no longer with the Navy, we've tried hard to get rid of dinosaurs.  I hope your getting treatment for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder...

PS:  Got an exempt this year and did the BFT with a guy going to the sandbox.  Why do you ask?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (22 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> PS:  Got an exempt this year and did the BFT with a guy going to the sandbox.  Why do you ask?



And your point?


----------



## aesop081 (22 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> I hope your getting treatment for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder...



Is that what you are suffering from ?

You dont seem to understand the point that if a subordinate submits paperwork that consistently gets "lost" , a 728 may help resolve this problem by forcing accountability for that document. No one is saying that every single peice of written communication should be attached to a 728. If you got over yourself for a minute, you might get that.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2009)

DBF said:
			
		

> Wow - where to begin?  You believe the correct leadership is to insist that proper leadership is to use 728s to communicate with your subordinates?  Glad you're no longer with the Navy, we've tried hard to get rid of dinosaurs.  I hope your getting treatment for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder...



We have a saying: "Pay attention to Detail."

We are suggesting that the use of a 728 is a resort that a member can fall back on when his/her CoC fail to process a memorandum/query/complaint/etc. in a timely manner.  If the member is FRUSTRATED in his or her process, then use the 728; NOT use the 728 with an 'initial' correspondence (unless it has a great importance, Security classification, or requires some urgency). 

So why don't you just get off your fixation of the 728 being used with each and every correspondence.


----------



## CountDC (23 Dec 2009)

has anyone seen the troll.   :


----------



## Otis (23 Dec 2009)

I'd say the troll is under the bridge ... right where he's led his long and distinguished line of personnel who have followed him in this circle of h*ll ...

Someone PLEASE lock this thread or delete it or whatever ... it's going nowhere and the arguments have stopped making any sense, despite several people's attempts to get back to the original question and suggested courses of action.

Otis


----------



## CountDC (23 Dec 2009)

exactly

so to the original question

As a Navy Clerk who has worked as a Cox'n Writers and in the SHO along with numerous other Army, Navy, Air Force units I stand by using the 728, a legitimate document for tracking purposes that I have used in every job I have held since 1985 and currently use for inter-unit mail. Although I hate the abuse of this document in your case you have a valid reason to use it.

Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Dec 2009)

I'm will lock this and sometime later try and cleanse it of the "kife" without touching the answers contained within.
Bruce


----------

