# Canadian Forces Officer guilty of wearing unearned medals.



## eliminator

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-military-officer-accused-of-wearing-fake-medals/article19703235/

*Canadian military official faces charges of wearing unearned medals*



> A high-ranking military official faces multiple charges after allegedly wearing medals on her uniform she didn’t earn.
> 
> Lieutenant-Colonel Debbie Miller, a 34-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces currently posted to the Canadian Defence Academy in Kingston, is expected in court in October on three charges of unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates.
> 
> The 57-year-old also faces eight charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
> 
> Military police launched the investigation after another member of the military filed a complaint about Lt.-Col. Miller’s medals in December, 2012, said Captain David Hitchcock, detachment commander at 2 Military Police Regiment in Kingston. Lt.-Col. Miller was charged in April the next year.
> 
> “I believe she was outed at an event or something with her unit and someone there noticed,” Capt. Hitchcock said, adding that investigators then conducted interviews and used photos to probe the allegations against Lt.-Col. Miller.
> 
> Captain Joanna Labonte, spokesperson for the Provost Marshal, said Lt.-Col. Miller is still on duty in Kingston, though it’s unclear whether her duties have changed.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Miller did not return multiple voicemail messages left at her Defence Academy number in Kingston.
> 
> While in Kingston, Lt.-Col. Miller reviewed books and wrote an opinion piece for the Canadian Military Journal about a new strategy to modernize armed-forces training and education.
> 
> In a short biography under her articles, she used the postnominal letters OMM and CD, suggesting she’d received the Order of Military Merit for officers, a badge recognizing exceptional service by a Canadian Forces member, and the Canadian Forces’ Decoration medal, awarded for completing 12 years of service. Capt. Hitchcock refused to confirm which medals are at the centre of the allegations against Lt.-Col. Miller.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Miller was also stationed until 2009 at CFB Trenton, the air-force base that manages delivering supplies, troops, equipment and humanitarian cargo worldwide. She was quoted in several publications in 2008 and 2009, including CFB Trenton’s weekly newspaper the Contact, Northumberland News and the Belleville Intelligencer, while she served as the administration officer, speaking about the base’s need for more resources and promoting a 2009 anniversary celebration and air show.
> 
> In a February, 2009, issue of the Contact, Lt.-Col. Miller wrote a short piece about a Crystal Ball event sponsored by the Quinte Children’s Foundation to raise money to prevent child abuse and help children go to summer camp or play sports.
> 
> “I was once a child and I well know what it was like to be loved, encouraged, educated, and made fell like a part of a great community,” Lt.-Col. Miller wrote. “My siblings and I grew up in an atmosphere of encouragement and the fact that anything was possible, so I cannot imagine a child not being able to participate in something they loved.”
> 
> She and four others were recognized by the foundation for their efforts to improve children’s lives.
> 
> Capt. Labonte said it wasn’t common for military personnel to be charged with unlawful use of uniforms.
> 
> The highest penalty for someone convicted of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline is dismissal from service with disgrace.


----------



## eliminator

GG.CA shows that she was appointed to the ORMM (OMM) on 02 October 2007 and invested on 30 January 2009.


----------



## OldSolduer

eliminator said:
			
		

> GG.CA shows that she was appointed to the ORMM (OMM) on 02 October 2007 and invested on 30 January 2009.
> 
> So, safe to say that OMM and CD were legit, but what were the ones that were unearned?



Enquiring minds want to know. 

What is the motivation behind this Waltery I wonder......


----------



## NavalMoose

"Canadian Military Official"....sigh


----------



## Colin Parkinson

She might have received some bad advice and not bothered to follow up to ensure it was correct a bout wearing certain things.


----------



## Old Sweat

Whatever the facts of the case, she has not been convicted yet and is presumed innocent until that happens. It annoys the mods no end when people here make intemperate statements about the accused in pending cases.


----------



## The_Falcon

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Whatever the facts of the case, she has not been convicted yet and is presumed innocent until that happens. It annoys the mods no end when people here make intemperate statements about the accused in pending cases.



Yup.  Everyone please keep this in mind.  Also a friendly reminder the media DO visit this site as well, so let's stick to the facts and refrain from the ad hominem's.


----------



## eliminator

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Whatever the facts of the case, she has not been convicted yet and is presumed innocent until that happens. It annoys the mods no end when people here make intemperate statements about the accused in pending cases.



Agreed, just passing the information around as this story is now being reported on by various news agencies.


----------



## brihard

Is this the same numpty who was court martial led and convicted for 125 and 2x 129 a couple years ago for a false EXPRES Test? Years of service and such seem to add up.

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012/miller.page


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The one and the same.....


----------



## Transporter

Had wondered how long it would take for someone to connect the dots on that one...


----------



## PiperDown

Interesting news story at link below.  Allegedly LCol Miller was spotted at an event wearing a medal she was not entitled to.  We shall see how this pans out. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-military-officer-accused-of-wearing-fake-medals/article19703235/


edit to correct spelling of Miller.


----------



## PMedMoe

Already here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/115739.0.html


----------



## PiperDown

Rgr.


and I checked to make sure I was not creating a new post.  Obviously not checked close enough !!

mods.. can delete topic if deemed necessary.


----------



## George Wallace

Well.  We have:

The Past:  http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012/miller.page

The Present:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-military-officer-accused-of-wearing-fake-medals/article19703235/

The Future:  http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2014/Miller.page

Come the New Year, we shall see what becomes of this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

What else will it be?  If guilty she'll get a slap and NCM's of good ethics and character will still be forced to salute her.....


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What else will it be?  If guilty she'll get a slap and NCM's of good ethics and character will still be forced to salute her.....



At 34 years in I suspect we'll see a very ignominious retirement come out of this one...


----------



## Brasidas

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What else will it be?  If guilty she'll get a slap and NCM's of good ethics and character will still be forced to salute her.....



She picked up a severe reprimand last time around; I can't imagine it'll be helpful during sentencing this time if she's convicted.


----------



## pbi

Respecting the mods direction, my comments have nothing to with the current charges against LCol Miller, but rather with what is clearly a matter of public record.

It's a rather sad commentary on the CAF that a senior officer, found guilty of offences that very clearly call into question some basic tenets of officership, has remained in the service. 

An officer is not a private, who can be kicked in the arse and sent on their way. There is, IMHO, far more expected of an officer, and these expectations should increase with rank. So should the consequences of failure of character. The CAF has machinery to deal with professionalism issues, but sometimes seems very reluctant to use it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

pbi said:
			
		

> Respecting the mods direction, my comments have nothing to with the current charges against LCol Miller, but rather with what is clearly a matter of public record.
> 
> It's a rather sad commentary on the CAF that a senior officer, found guilty of offences that very clearly call into question some basic tenets of officership, has remained in the service.
> 
> An officer is not a private, who can be kicked in the arse and sent on their way. There is, IMHO, far more expected of an officer, and these expectations should increase with rank. So should the consequences of failure of character. The CAF has machinery to deal with professionalism issues, but sometimes seems very reluctant to use it.



Exactly, hence my earlier snarky comment.
I couldn't possibly imagine being a fine young ethical NCM knowing what she was previously convicted of and having to toss her the official amount of "respect" her position calls for.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What else will it be?  If guilty she'll get a slap and NCM's of good ethics and character will still be forced to salute her.....


Or, if it works like some bits of the public service, everyone below the rank of Sergeant will have to take compulsory Values & Ethics training ....


----------



## Haggis

Brasidas said:
			
		

> She picked up a severe reprimand *and a $3k fine *last time around; I can't imagine it'll be helpful during sentencing this time if she's convicted.



TFTFY.

I'm guessing that since that sentence was passed in 2012, neither offence has been pardoned.  So, yes, this would have a bearing on her next sentencing, _should she be found guilty_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or, if it works like some bits of the public service, everyone below the rank of Sergeant will have to take compulsory Values & Ethics training ....



Truth sadly, perhaps another little brown book on the subject...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What else will it be?  If guilty she'll get a slap and NCM's of good ethics and character will still be forced to salute her.....



I think you've been out too long Bruce.   :nod:

You're saluting the commission, not the person.  

However, I see your point and agree.  8)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

pbi said:
			
		

> Respecting the mods direction, my comments have nothing to with the current charges against LCol Miller, but rather with what is clearly a matter of public record.
> 
> It's a rather sad commentary on the CAF that a senior officer, found guilty of offences that very clearly call into question some basic tenets of officership, has remained in the service.
> 
> An officer is not a private, who can be kicked in the arse and sent on their way. There is, IMHO, far more expected of an officer, and these expectations should increase with rank. So should the consequences of failure of character. The CAF has machinery to deal with professionalism issues, but sometimes seems very reluctant to use it.



I've been laughing uncontrollably at the fact she still is a member of the Order of Military Merit given her previous conduct.  What a joke hahahaha  :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I've been laughing uncontrollably at the fact she still is a member of the Order of Military Merit given her previous conduct.  What a joke hahahaha  :facepalm:



Well......She wasn't nominated to the Senate.   >






Yet.


----------



## TCM621

This is one of the problems of the current system. Given the seeming inability of the CF to release people who constantly screw up and the fact that an officer's job requires that he be in charge of others, you are bound to have a fair number of people who shouldn't be in the military in charge of NCMs. A corporal can be fired off to the library or canteen where he can't cause damage but an officer has to be put in a situation to screw things up for others. You also have the problems of good NCM being forced to work for people who are constantly being fired or "reassigned".
It doesn't happen often but happens enough that it is a legit issue in the CAF.


----------



## Shamrock

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> This is one of the problems of the current system. Given the seeming inability of the CF to release people who constantly screw up and the fact that an officer's job requires that he be in charge of others, you are bound to have a fair number of people who shouldn't be in the military in charge of NCMs. A corporal can be fired off to the library or canteen where he can't cause damage but an officer has to be put in a situation to screw things up for others. You also have the problems of good NCM being forced to work for people who are constantly being fired or "reassigned".
> It doesn't happen often but happens enough that it is a legit issue in the CAF.



Not even close to true.


----------



## TCM621

Really? I have seen it a handful of times in my career and I am sure I am not the only one.   It isn't common but it does happen.


----------



## GreenMarine

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> This is one of the problems of the current system. Given the seeming inability of the CF to release people who constantly screw up and the fact that an officer's job requires that he be in charge of others, you are bound to have a fair number of people who shouldn't be in the military in charge of NCMs. A corporal can be fired off to the library or canteen where he can't cause damage but an officer has to be put in a situation to screw things up for others. You also have the problems of good NCM being forced to work for people who are constantly being fired or "reassigned".
> It doesn't happen often but happens enough that it is a legit issue in the CAF.





			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> Not even close to true.



I begg to differ tcm621 has a point, as I've seen people who are considered screw ups or at risk are given the can do no wrong positions. While the standard work horse person is left at the gamble. Of course the apple polishers seem to get the nice fast track jobs.

Officers and Sr. NCM just seem to be randomly put where they can be put even if it's a redundant post and in the mix they're given something important to do. If all goes well no one clues in, if the boat sinks cause the leader stinks, then everyone gets wet or certain people get thrown under the bus to provide an escape goat for the failer of leadership.

In this LCol case of course keeping in mind not all facts are known, and other high profile officer cases I can see the "super powers" given to high ranks being cut down a bit as the corrupt are weeded out of service.


----------



## pbi

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I've been laughing uncontrollably at the fact she still is a member of the Order of Military Merit given her previous conduct.  What a joke hahahaha  :facepalm:



Yes-there's another good point.

When I was in uniform I dealt with two cases, (years apart in two different battalions) in which the CO tried to get rid of two officers who had managed, in a relatively short period of time, to flagrantly violate not only most of the tenets of officership, but most of the behaviour we would expect of a responsible adult.

In one case I was the Acting Adjt, in the second I was the Adjt. In both cases the CO and I were shocked and frustrated by how difficult it was to get rid of these embarrassing wretches. It was as if the entire chain of command and the NDHQ pers system were working against us intentionally. At one point we were accused of indulging in a "vendetta".

Both individuals were eventually released after lengthy struggles with "The System". The first was released years later in a different unit, when another CO finally managed to make a case stick. The second, after being charged for one of his various idiocies, was eventually released, but I was no longer around.

When we started to work on both cases, the files of these two people showed the same sad story: problems not dealt with, or not dealt with properly; problems shunted to another unit, etc. What really bothered me throughout both of these cases, and now again in this most recent case, is the apparent absence of any real conviction by "The System" that officers are supposed to set an example, and that character matters.


----------



## TCM621

Just to be clear, I am painting with a decidedly narrow brush. I have dealt with the whole range of officers in my career from a CO who got a spontaneous 10 min ovation at his change of command down to an officer who I wouldn't talk to without a direct order and an escort. Officers are people and they come in all types.

My point is that this officer has on two occasions (assuming she is found guilty here) shown a blatant disregard for the truth, the military Ethos and values.  Unless she is released, she will end up in a position with subordinates. Everything she does from now on could be seen as suspect. Got a bad PER? Well the LCol has lied in the past and she is lying again. Project came in under budget? Really? Are we sure or is she lying again? As bad this would be for say a Sgt, this is much worse for an officer due to the nature of the military system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

She hasn't been found guilty on the latest charges. Most are keeping a civil tongue in their heads regarding our policy on the forum.

However, not withstanding the former charges, a large number of posters here are still trying to get their licks in, by talking in the most obvious, generalities.

No one is being fooled by the obtuse references.

Your still talking about a serving commissioned officer. That's not on.

Soooo.....

Until a verdict comes in, either way, we will cease talking about her.

Locked

---Staff---


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thread stays locked, but here's an update:


> A high-ranking military officer accused of wearing medals she wasn’t awarded pleaded guilty Monday to three National Defence Act counts of prejudice of good order and discipline.
> 
> Eight other charges against Lt.-Col. Deborah Miller, 57, including three counts of unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates, were withdrawn.
> 
> The charges are for her attire at a Canadian Defence Academy event on Dec. 12, 2012.
> 
> The prosecution and defence submitted a joint sentence recommendation of a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

And the latest - sentence passed:


> Lt.-Col. Deborah Miller, a high-ranking military officer based in Kingston, Ont., was sentenced to a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine on Tuesday morning at a court martial held in Currie Hall at Royal Military College.
> 
> On Monday, Miller, 57, pleaded guilty to three counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for wearing military medals and insignia on her uniform she was not authorized to wear.
> 
> She initially faced eight similar charges, but those were dropped in a plea bargain for her admitting guilt on the three charges.
> 
> The trial's prosecutor, Maj. Eric Carrier, and Miller's counsel, Maj. Sara Collins, submitted the joint sentence submission to Military Judge Col. Michael R. Gibson on Monday, but the judge admitted he was struggling with the joint sentence recommendation and thought it may be a bit light considering Miller's record of a conviction at a previous court martial only two years ago.
> 
> Gibson accepted the joint sentence submission 24 hours later, saying Miller was "deficient in her self-control by wearing the medals."
> 
> He said Miller, being a senior officer, "should have known better" than to wear the medals just for the extra recognition she may have received by wearing them.
> 
> He was also concerned Miller wore the unauthorized medals at military events only two months after being convicted at her other court martial, at which she was found guilty of making false statements ....


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And the latest - sentence passed:


        :not-again:

If only we had some Legal Branch apologist who could explain the awesomeness of _this_ decision.


----------



## Good2Golf

Next time she'll get an $8,000 fine and a severe, severe reprimand.

  *sigh*


----------



## PuckChaser

Her defense council said a severe reprimand is the harshest message a soldier could recieve to denounce their conduct.... Dismissal from the CAF might just be a tiny bit harsher, but I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Next time she'll get an $8,000 fine and a severe, severe reprimand.
> 
> *sigh*


Or ....


----------



## George Wallace

She and her case(s) are an embarrassment to the Canadian Armed Forces, and cause for a lot of discussion on various media forums.  Not only is she a topic of discussion, but the members of the court and their judgement are coming into question.  Many are beginning to wonder if this may be signs of a systemic problem, not limited to this one individual.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

I'm sorry, it's one thing to be a skid with no service (pr basic dropout) and wear medals and ribbons you never earned, or retired and embellish your service.... But to be actively serving and do it!? What a POS. Unbelievable.


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> She and her case(s) are an embarrassment to the Canadian Armed Forces, and cause for a lot of discussion on various media forums.  Not only is she a topic of discussion, but the members of the court and their judgement are coming into question.  Many are beginning to wonder if this may be signs of a systemic problem, not limited to this one individual.



I am seeing the same trends GW.  

My civilian friends are simply stating "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot", while my subordinates and peers in the CAF seem to be head scratching and wondering what consequence or significance this has on moral and discipline.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I'm going to ask her where I can get my "medals" mounted if I see her kicking around!   :

What a joke!


----------



## Jarnhamar

She will retire, get a nice cushy job as some kind of adviser or something in a company then talk about how much the CF sucks.


----------



## Lightguns

Anyone know exactly which medals she wore that she is not entitled to. She seems have a complete set of NDHQ project director's Thank You medals? Were these Operational medals?


----------



## Remius

I'm no expert so I can't say if this was an appropriate punishement.  I can say that it does not seem so (to me at least).  I feel this sets a bad precedant.  But at least I'm comforted by the fact that this woman has added to her criminial record.  Hopefully that sticks to her if and when she moves on.


----------



## Stoker

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Anyone know exactly which medals she wore that she is not entitled to. She seems have a complete set of NDHQ project director's Thank You medals? Were these Operational medals?



Here is some of the details

Prosecutor Maj. Eric Carrier read the facts behind the charges, which involved medals and insignia she was awarded in the 1990s and 2008 but were not officially confirmed and were being worn without authority.

He read from a prepared statement outlining the facts of the case.

In April 1996, Miller, then a major, requested a special service medal for her work with NATO, but she only served 126 out of a minimum 180 aggregate qualifying days from April 1989 to July 1995.

She has been wearing the medal on her uniform, without authority, since 1997, said the statement.

During a year-long deployment from June 1996 to July 1997 for the United Nations Disengagement Observation Force, Carrier read that Miller, still at the rank of major, was awarded a medal for her support in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon mission. But upon returning to her base in Winnipeg, she was unable to get the proper confirmation from her superiors to wear the medal. It was disclosed later that she never met the criteria for the medal, which she's worn since 1997.

For her third charge, Carrier said Miller was awarded the Vice Chief of Defence Staff Commendation in August 2008, which entitles her to wear the commendation insignia on her uniform, but there's no documentation authorizing her to wear insignia with two other commendation medals she was wearing on Dec. 20, 2012.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Absolutely completely 100% pure AWESOME!!!!! Why work to earn medals and commendations - just buy them and put them on.....

CS - I didn't quite understand the last part of the Prosecutor's statement - was she wearing two other commendation insignia that she wasn't entitled to? Perhaps 2x CDS Commendations or lower?

Clearly, this individual has multiple issues with ethical behaviour and honesty.  As such, she should be asked (told) to leave the CAF ASAP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I'm just a wee short for my CD and I did volunteer for the UN Sinai mission but didn't get to go, can I wear those? 

She was a officer and could have taken the responsibility to determine if she should wear them or not. The fact that she felt the "need" to wear them when I highly suspect she knew she was not supposed to, tells me everything I need to know about her and am thankfully I did not have to serve under her.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I'm just a wee short for my CD and I did volunteer for the UN Sinai mission but didn't get to go, can I wear those?
> 
> She was a officer and could have taken the responsibility to determine if she should wear them or not. The fact that she felt the "need" to wear them when I highly suspect she knew she was not supposed to, tells me everything I need to know about her and am thankfully I did not have to serve under her.



From what I was reading on the web, she was awarded some or all of these medals in theater. When it was determined that she didn't qualify, she was suppose to take them she obviously didn't.  She had been wearing some since 97, she received the OMM in 2008, you think someone would have checked.


----------



## OldSolduer

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> From what I was reading on the web, she was awarded some or all of these medals in theater. When it was determined that she didn't qualify, she was suppose to take them she obviously didn't.  She had been wearing some since 97, she received the OMM in 2008, you think someone would have checked.



She has shamed herself and the profession of arms. She should at least resign her commission.

The troops see this as a two tiered system. The officers taking care of their own and dispensing arbitrary Justice to the troops.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just repeating what my friends still in have said and I can understand their view. They believe had that been an NCM they would have been treated a lot more harshly and most likely given the boot. My former colleague believe there is a two tier justice system in place and unless that belief is dispelled then you will see morale erode even more.


----------



## Old Sweat

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> She has shamed herself and the profession of arms. She should at least resign her commission.
> 
> The troops see this as a two tiered system. The officers taking care of their own and dispensing arbitrary Justice to the troops.



Exactly!


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just repeating what my friends still in have said and I can understand their view. They believe had that been an NCM they would have been treated a lot more harshly and most likely given the boot. My former colleague believe there is a two tier justice system in place and unless that belief is dispelled then you will see morale erode even more.



I know of a CPO2 in Ottawa who was recently charged with wearing a medal he wasn't entitled to. I believe he received a fine and a severe reprimand.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> you think someone would have checked.



I'm sorry, but I would hope upon being handed a rank of LCol, that nit picking uniform checks might be something you could be trusted with......


----------



## Stoker

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> She has shamed herself and the profession of arms. She should at least resign her commission.
> 
> The troops see this as a two tiered system. The officers taking care of their own and dispensing arbitrary Justice to the troops.



I heard there is a group petitioning to revoke her OMM now. I suspect she will be retiring with full pension sometime soon. Anyone know this woman, what was she like as a boss?


----------



## Stoker

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I would hope upon being handed a rank of LCol, that nit picking uniform checks might be something you could be trusted with......



No I thought there would be a vetting process for the OMM, including an audit of honors to ensure there is no embarrassment later. Probably will be now though.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

> what was she like as a boss?



MODERATOR WARNING.

JUST KEEP THE ANSWERS REAL AND RELEVANT.


----------



## expwor

Just asking a question.  I know when I received my Corrections Exemplary Service Medal there was also a certificate issued.  Is this the same for medals issued in the Armed Forces?
Reason I ask is where did she buy (I assume she bought the medal) the medals.  And if someone is selling medals without verifying that the purchaser is entitled to have the medals shouldn't the seller be investigated and charged too

Tom


----------



## McG

The new process for getting medals mounted does include a CO's confirmation of which medals are awarded (and therefore eligable for mounting at public expense).


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm 3 days short for my second Afghan bar, I wonder if anyone would notice an extra bar popping on there..

Honestly though, for such a blatant series of poor judgements as a leader (showing zero integrity) why wouldn't she be demoted?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm 3 days short for my second Afghan bar, I wonder if anyone would notice an extra bar popping on there..
> 
> Honestly though, for such a blatant series of poor judgements as a leader (showing zero integrity) why wouldn't she be demoted?



Because it would completely screw up her pension.


----------



## captloadie

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Because it would completely screw up her pension.


It wouldn't affect her pension at all, as it is based on the average of your best five years. Not the rank you retire with.


----------



## kratz

I agree with captloadie, but revision in rank and all the attendant consequences are part of the punishment.


----------



## captloadie

We all agree that what the individual did demonstrated a serious lack in judgment and integrity.

However, if you research the CMJ site and see what punishments have been handed out for both Officers and NCMs, reduction in rank and/or dismissal are very rare occurrences. In the recent past, they are normally only doled out where there is a loss of life or sexual assault. In the grand scope of things, wearing unauthorized medals may say alot about the person's character, but isn't really a heinous crime. We can't punish people simply because who they are and what they did outrages us. It must meet the crime.

And although I'm only guessing, the reason she was likely allowed to plead out was it would have been up to the prosecution to prove: 
a) she hadn't earned the medals; and
b) she knew without she wasn't entitled to wear them.
I'm guessing this would have been difficult without an agreed statement of fact.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Because it would completely screw up her pension.






			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> It wouldn't affect her pension at all, as it is based on the average of your best five years. Not the rank you retire with.



I'm thinking RD's sarcasm meter was ridin' high with that post........


----------



## Bzzliteyr

captloadie said:
			
		

> We all agree that what the individual did demonstrated a serious lack in judgment and integrity.
> 
> However, if you research the CMJ site and see what punishments have been handed out for both Officers and NCMs, reduction in rank and/or dismissal are very rare occurrences. In the recent past, they are normally only doled out where there is a loss of life or sexual assault. In the grand scope of things, wearing unauthorized medals may say alot about the person's character, but isn't really a heinous crime. We can't punish people simply because who they are and what they did outrages us. It must meet the crime.
> 
> And although I'm only guessing, the reason she was likely allowed to plead out was it would have been up to the prosecution to prove:
> a) she hadn't earned the medals; and
> b) she knew without she wasn't entitled to wear them.
> I'm guessing this would have been difficult without an agreed statement of fact.



*raises hand* 

I got reduction in rank to cpl from sgt on a summary trial. Disobeying a lawful command. Request for review brought me back up but it happens. 

Courts martial aren't the only disciplinary measures out there. We're only up in arms because 1. she took a court martial and 2. the media told us about things. 

If she had taken a summary trial we probably wouldn't even know it happened. One of the reasons for military justice is to provide an example to others what NOT to do... I wish there were a site that published those results. I think it would be a wake up call for everyone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I was under the impression that at her rank she doesn't have the option for summary trial.



			
				Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> *raises hand*
> 
> I got reduction in rank to cpl from sgt on a summary trial. Disobeying a lawful command. Request for review brought me back up but it happens.
> 
> Courts martial aren't the only disciplinary measures out there. We're only up in arms because 1. she took a court martial and 2. the media told us about things.
> 
> If she had taken a summary trial we probably wouldn't even know it happened. One of the reasons for military justice is to provide an example to others what NOT to do... I wish there were a site that published those results. I think it would be a wake up call for everyone.


----------



## The_Falcon

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> *raises hand*
> 
> I got reduction in rank to cpl from sgt on a summary trial. Disobeying a lawful command. Request for review brought me back up but it happens.
> 
> Courts martial aren't the only disciplinary measures out there. We're only up in arms because 1. she took a court martial and 2. the media told us about things.
> 
> If she had taken a summary trial we probably wouldn't even know it happened. One of the reasons for military justice is to provide an example to others what NOT to do... I wish there were a site that published those results. I think it would be a wake up call for everyone.



Summary trial wasn't an option, since she was facing 3x charges for " unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates " which is a criminal code charge (s.419) and not one that is triable at summary trial. (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/chapter-chapitre-108-eng.asp para 3a )


----------



## Haggis

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> If she had taken a summary trial we probably wouldn't even know it happened.



NDA 164(1) A superior commander may try an accused person by summary trial if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a. the accused person is an *officer below the rank of lieutenant-colonel *......


----------



## The_Falcon

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that at her rank she doesn't have the option for summary trial.



That too.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Derp. I stand corrected. 3 times.

I'll sneak back to my line of thinking that even summary trials should have their results posted. Sure, hide names but ranks and trade could be kept so we could actually learn from Pte Bloggins and Sgt Jenesaispas.


----------



## eliminator

expwor said:
			
		

> Just asking a question.  I know when I received my Corrections Exemplary Service Medal there was also a certificate issued.  Is this the same for medals issued in the Armed Forces?
> Reason I ask is where did she buy (I assume she bought the medal) the medals.  And if someone is selling medals without verifying that the purchaser is entitled to have the medals shouldn't the seller be investigated and charged too
> 
> Tom



Copy/replica medals are easily obtainable from a variety of military outfitters for about $10 each. These can be used for a variety of purposes, such as family displays and likes. There is no requirement for the seller to verify the military records of the buyer. Why would there be? If you decided to purchase and unlawfully wear medals you haven't been awarded, that's your problem.

Original medals can be acquired from coin/medal dealers, but typically there are quite expensive.

I was under the impression that she was at a mess dinner when she was "ousted", perhaps she was wearing miniature medals? Technically, they aren't the medals themselves, but miniature "representations" purchased at personal expense.

What medals was she wearing exactly? Operational? Commemorative?


----------



## The_Falcon

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Derp. I stand corrected. 3 times.
> 
> I'll sneak back to my line of thinking that even summary trials should have their results posted. Sure, hide names but ranks and trade could be kept so we could actually learn from Pte Bloggins and Sgt Jenesaispas.



I have seen summay trial results posted in base/unit RO's (Meaford for example).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Same At Kapyong in Wpg



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I have seen summay trial results posted in base/unit RO's (Meaford for example).


----------



## sidemount

Summary trial results were always posted in the monthly unit ROs as well, when I was posted to 2 horse.


----------



## Vell

Please enlighten a civvie trying to understand these articles (I'm just an applicant at the moment).

-Aren't medals only awarded and given to members of the CAF (at all ranks, both NCM and Officer) only after they have been confirmed to have be earned and then generally presented in some sort of ceremony (in a very obvious manner)?

-Wouldn't anyone buying a replica medal that they were never granted before know full well when they are putting that replica on their uniform that they did not earn it?

-Is it acceptable to put replica medals on your uniform if you have received an officially granted version of it before (Perhaps so you can for example; keep the real one safely in a display)?

-Is it possible to be officially awarded a medal and not actually receive it in which case some people may go buy one instead (and be allowed to wear it)?

I ask because I am trying to understand how anyone (especially a high ranking officer) can possibly 'accidentally' put on a medal they have not earned.


----------



## Haggis

Vell said:
			
		

> -Aren't medals only awarded and given to members of the CAF (at all ranks, both NCM and Officer) only after they have been confirmed to have be earned and then generally presented in some sort of ceremony (in a very obvious manner)?



Yes.  An exception to this is medals awarded by a foreign government (i.e. the US Bronze Star).  Permission must be sought from The Chancellery of Honours before the medals may be worn.



			
				Vell said:
			
		

> -Wouldn't anyone buying a replica medal that they were never granted before know full well when they are putting that replica on their uniform that they did not earn it?



They would indeed.  



			
				Vell said:
			
		

> -Is it acceptable to put replica medals on your uniform if you have received an officially granted version of it before (Perhaps so you can for example; keep the real one safely in a display)?



Yes.  However, you should only wear originals.  If the originals are lost/stolen they can be replaced with duplicates.  An exception to this would be rare or foreign medals.



			
				Vell said:
			
		

> -Is it possible to be officially awarded a medal and not actually receive it in which case some people may go buy one instead (and be allowed to wear it)?



I suppose it is possible.  However, records that that medal was awarded would be avialable either in hard copy in the member's pers file, electronically in HRMS (PeopleSoft) or from the Chancellery of Honours.



			
				Vell said:
			
		

> I ask because I am trying to understand how anyone (especially a high ranking officer) can possibly 'accidentally' put on a medal they have not earned.



I suppose one could put on the wrong medals "accidentally" if getting dressed while drunk or in complete darkness.


----------



## PuckChaser

My unit posts summary trial results in the ROs, as well as ordering any member of the unit without a pending task to observe. We then do question and answer with the presiding officer/RSM in which as long as questions are constructive, its an open forum.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My unit posts summary trial results in the ROs, as well as ordering any member of the unit without a pending task to observe. We then do question and answer with the presiding officer/RSM in which as long as questions are constructive, its an open forum.



That is brilliant


----------



## a_majoor

What I find rather incomprehensible is the slap on the wrist given, especially considering the accused had been previously court martialed for making a false statement.

You know that you or I would have the book thrown at them for a second court martial....


----------



## PuckChaser

Just saw a petition floating around Facebook to have her medals stripped. Unfortunately, serving military members are signing it....


----------



## The_Falcon

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Just saw a petition floating around Facebook to have her medals stripped. Unfortunately, serving military members are signing it....



Why is that unfortunate?  It may not necessarily be a smart thing to do career wise (but given the precedent perhaps, all they will get is a slap on the wrist), but I think it's a very telling gesture that many people serving and non-serving, have some serious issues with not only this officer but the sentence that was handed down.  A major principle in sentencing (military or civilian) is that a sentence is supposed to uphold the public expectation that justice has been served (I know I know, try to keep the giggles to yourself).  The fact that many serving members are publicly risking some sort of reprimand from their chain of command over this, tells me (and should tell the JAG, GG and MND) that that principle was completely and utterly missed.


----------



## Stoker

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Why is that unfortunate?  It may not necessarily be a smart thing to do career wise (but given the precedent perhaps, all they will get is a slap on the wrist), but I think it's a very telling gesture that many people serving and non-serving, have some serious issues with not only this officer but the sentence that was handed down.  A major principle in sentencing (military or civilian) is that a sentence is supposed to uphold the public expectation that justice has been served (I know I know, try to keep the giggles to yourself).  The fact that many serving members are publicly risking some sort of reprimand from their chain of command over this, tells me (and should tell the JAG, GG and MND) that that principle was completely and utterly missed.



No most I suspect have no idea that as serving members they're not supposed to sign petitions. The petition was started by a ex LS Cook who now resides in the US.


----------



## PuckChaser

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No most I suspect have no idea that as serving members they're not supposed to sign petitions. The petition was started by a ex LS Cook who now resides in the US.



That's what I was getting at: sorry was posting from my phone.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Yes, summary trials are posted in Routine Orders (RO) but that is base specific. There's no way Cpl Facedepeaudebat in Valcartier is going to find out about the charge that Cpl Bloggins received in Petawawa. 

When I was charged I only had courts martial to look through for precedence or to decide what direction to go. A soldier on charge is given an assisting officer. I'm pretty sure that officer can't truly bring much more to the table than a call to the 1-800 JAG number can. In fact, I found my 1-800 (from Afghanistan no less) to be incredibly helpful in clearing things up.

PuckChaser, I definitely like what your unit is doing.


----------



## Infanteer

1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.  The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.  The national press coverage (and your own thread on Army.ca!) are also punishments in their own right.  The only punishments higher on the scale deal with the stripping of rank/seniority, imprisonment and dismissal from the CAF and while I acknowledge that the pitchforks are out right now, I wouldn't expect the offences of the offender, who clearly has some integrity issues, to get thrown into the mix with the pedophiles, thieves and drug dealers that typically earn imprisonment and/or dismissal.

2.  For those who argue of a double-tiered system of officers looking out for officers, I'd counter that you are just plain wrong.  This has nothing to do with the rank of the offender and everything to do with legal procedure.  I would be willing to bet my house that a soldier facing a court martial for such activity would not be facing imprisonment or release.

3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.


----------



## TCM621

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.  The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.  The national press coverage (and your own thread on Army.ca!) are also punishments in their own right.  The only punishments higher on the scale deal with the stripping of rank/seniority, imprisonment and dismissal from the CAF and while I acknowledge that the pitchforks are out right now, I wouldn't expect the offences of the offender, who clearly has some integrity issues, to get thrown into the mix with the pedophiles, thieves and drug dealers that typically earn imprisonment and/or dismissal.
> 
> 2.  For those who argue of a double-tiered system of officers looking out for officers, I'd counter that you are just plain wrong.  This has nothing to do with the rank of the offender and everything to do with legal procedure.  I would be willing to bet my house that a soldier facing a court martial for such activity would not be facing imprisonment or release.
> 
> 3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.


Wasn't she promoted after her first severe reprimand? Or is my timetable all messed up?


----------



## George Wallace

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Wasn't she promoted after her first severe reprimand? Or is my timetable all messed up?



She was a LCol during her first Court Martial.

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012/miller.page


----------



## The Bread Guy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.


In theory, yes, but optically, in this case, it appears the defendant's first "career ender" didn't have quite that effect between October 2012 and now.  Have to agree with you here:


			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> .... the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.


That said ....


			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.


_*This*_ is the bit that's "behind the curtain", which the public doesn't see and I hope is occurring.


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.


To be fair (probably fairer than she deserves), the _mens rea_ of the "second" offence actually occurred in 1997 when she decided that 126 days in theatre was enough time to put up an SSM. The fact that she was sentenced the first time no doubt led to the scrutiny of her record that resulted in the discovery of the second instance of lack of integrity. For her part, after being sentenced the first time she surely wasn't going to call attention to herself by mysteriously not wearing some medals she'd been known to wear for decades.


----------



## Shamrock

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.



Did the wearing of the medals occur begin being punished for the PT test?


----------



## GeorgeD

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No most I suspect have no idea that as serving members they're not supposed to sign petitions. The petition was started by a ex LS Cook who now resides in the US.



Is that all petitions or just once related to government/military?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

All I believe


----------



## ballz

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> All I believe



Only matters affecting the CAF.

People tend to spin about things involving political activism. We still maintain all the rights and freedoms outlined in the Charter, with a few extra asterisks and nuances which can be reasonably justified. 

If I want to sign a petition that's going to be brought to the town council about clearing snow off a certain road in my town, it's no concern of the CAF.



> 19.10 - COMBINATIONS FORBIDDEN
> 
> No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:
> 
> a. combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
> b. sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
> c. obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Not coming down on one side or another here, but some things need to be stated, whether some agree or not.

The person, in question, is still serving. You may not respect the person, but serving members and old school retired types still need to respect the commission.

Serving members need to be mindful of signing petitions, whether alluding to the fallibility of the system to dispense proper justice or criticizing a member of the CAF who holds the Queen's Commission. The NDA and QRO make provision for such instances and it's not taken lightly.

Last of all, this is public forum. Anyone, with the exception of previous banned persons, can gain access. Your fancy, cute delightful play on words username does not guarantee anonymity. Do not fall into the trap that you're just discussing this with your buds, over a beer. There is no doubt, nor should there be, that this thread is being monitored. Likely by both the MSM and the CAF.

Forewarned is forearmed. That's about as subtle as I can put it.


---Staff---


----------



## eliminator

Does anyone have a photo of here in uniform with the gongs in question? All I can find regarding her awards was this:



> In April 1996, Miller, then a major, requested a special service medal for her work with NATO, but she only served 126 out of a minimum 180 aggregate qualifying days from April 1989 to July 1995.
> 
> She has been wearing the medal on her uniform, without authority, since 1997, said the statement.
> 
> During a year-long deployment from June 1996 to July 1997 for the United Nations Disengagement Observation Force, Carrier read that Miller, still at the rank of major, was awarded a medal for her support in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon mission. But upon returning to her base in Winnipeg, she was unable to get the proper confirmation from her superiors to wear the medal. It was disclosed later that she never met the criteria for the medal, which she's worn since 1997.
> 
> For her third charge, Carrier said Miller was awarded the Vice Chief of Defence Staff Commendation in August 2008, which entitles her to wear the commendation insignia on her uniform, but there's no documentation authorizing her to wear insignia with two other commendation medals she was wearing on Dec. 20, 2012.



http://www.thewhig.com/2014/10/06/lt-col-pleads-guilty-to-three-charges


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

recceguy said:
			
		

> and old school retired types still need to respect the commission.



Sorry my old friend, but I've long since passed the brainwashing that a commission means anything except that we protect each other's asses from the general public and those lowly NCO [since we're old school] types.


----------



## dapaterson

recceguy said:
			
		

> [Lots of Good Advice Snipped]
> 
> Forewarned is forearmed. That's about as subtle as I can put it.



Subtle like a Sergeant Major...  :nod:


----------



## Brasidas

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.  The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.  The national press coverage (and your own thread on Army.ca!) are also punishments in their own right.  The only punishments higher on the scale deal with the stripping of rank/seniority, imprisonment and dismissal from the CAF and while I acknowledge that the pitchforks are out right now, I wouldn't expect the offences of the offender, who clearly has some integrity issues, to get thrown into the mix with the pedophiles, thieves and drug dealers that typically earn imprisonment and/or dismissal.
> 
> 2.  For those who argue of a double-tiered system of officers looking out for officers, I'd counter that you are just plain wrong.  This has nothing to do with the rank of the offender and everything to do with legal procedure.  I would be willing to bet my house that a soldier facing a court martial for such activity would not be facing imprisonment or release.
> 
> 3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.



So its a second severe reprimand to an irresponsible individual, who has not been rehabilitated by past actions, who continued to act with a lack of integrity long after their act should have been cleaned up. Three years from CRA, never getting promoted again after the first severe reprimand. Depending on how long she'd been a LCol, even a reduction in rank isn't going to affect the pension.

Why should the judge accept the sentencing agreement? To avoid discouraging such agreements in the future? What are precedents for rejecting one?

How is a second severe reprimand an appropriate measure? It seems meaningless to me. In terms of subsequent administrative action, she can still get a 5a if it looks like she won't be able to stay til 60. She still gets to avoid the disgrace of being officially thrown out, as well as keeping her rank going into retirement.


----------



## ballz

I have no idea what admin measures she may be facing with regards to her previous conviction and/or this one. If we consider her to have none (which I hope is not the case), can her CoC make a recommendation to DMCA for a 5(f) release, thereby starting an administrative review?

I have only been involved in one AR, but it was for a member that had been placed on C&P and breached the conditions of the C&P by getting an AWOL charge only a week after being issued said C&P. I never came across anything that stated any minimum conditions which must be met for the CoC to get the ball rolling on an AR.

While the individual convictions may not constitute grounds for a dismissal with disgrace from a justice point of view, there can certainly be a case made for a release from an administrative point of view.


----------



## Journeyman

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Why should the judge accept the sentencing agreement?


Based only upon the newspaper reports (the CMJ website is understandably not real time), the Judge had heartache with its leniency (given previous Court Martial; accused Senior Officer status), but "found no precedent" to rule in excess of the joint submission.  _Apparently_ military Judges are not allowed to establish precedent even where the situation calls for it.  :dunno:


Shame our resident FJAG Colonel (ret'd), who's apparently checked in here daily, has decided not to comment.


----------



## George Wallace

ballz said:
			
		

> I have no idea what admin measures she may be facing with regards to her previous conviction and/or this one. If we consider her to have none (which I hope is not the case), can her CoC make a recommendation to DMCA for a 5(f) release, thereby starting an administrative review?



Other than her immediate circle within her of CoC, I highly doubt we will know what exactly her CoC is doing administratively, or otherwise, with her.  We may only find out after all actions they take are finalized.




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> While the individual convictions may not constitute grounds for a dismissal with disgrace from a justice point of view, there can certainly be a case made for a release from an administrative point of view.



Personally, I would figure that being convicted twice for fraudulent conduct would justify that, but that brings us back to my previous point -- we are not privy to any knowledge of what her CoC may be contemplating, nor will we be until everything is finalized within all legal channels.


----------



## FJAG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Based only upon the newspaper reports (the CMJ website is understandably not real time), the Judge had heartache with its leniency (given previous Court Martial; accused Senior Officer status), but "found no precedent" to rule in excess of the joint submission.  _Apparently_ military Judges are not allowed to establish precedent even where the situation calls for it.  :dunno:
> 
> 
> Shame our resident FJAG Colonel (ret'd), who's apparently checked in here daily, has decided not to comment.



I noted that there was a joint recommendation on sentence and a comment that the judge was originally reluctant to accept it.  I'm holding my comments and opinions on this until I see the published written decision which unfortunately probably won't be posted on the CMJ website for a few months.

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm holding my comments and opinions on this until I see the published written decision which unfortunately probably won't be posted on the CMJ website for a few months.


Ack.   _Informed_ opinions....even those not informed by transcript....are always welcome.  Even if just gut feel.  

Your profile says you _were_ a Combat Arms Officer.....   op:


----------



## FJAG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ack.   _Informed_ opinions....even those not informed by transcript....are always welcome.  Even if just gut feel.
> 
> Your profile says you _were_ a Combat Arms Officer.....   op:



Even as an artillery officer I was taught not to fire until I had double-checked my data.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

FJAG said:
			
		

> Even as an artillery officer I was taught not to fire until I had double-checked my data.  ;D


*While not remotely relevant to the topic*, I thank you for reaffirming why we need 'danger close' indirect capability within the Bn, and not residing two bounds back with the slide-rule troops.  You clearly chose the right classification.

Some of us have been in positions where we were paid to think and act on our feet.

/tangent


----------



## The_Falcon

Keep it civil Journeyman, your incessant attempts to bait FJAG are getting tiresome.  If he wants to withhold comment until he has all the details, that is his prerogative.  Until then you are free to do your own research about case law regarding joint submissions here https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/


----------



## FJAG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *While not remotely relevant to the topic*, I thank you for reaffirming why we need 'danger close' indirect capability within the Bn, and not residing two bounds back with the slide-rule troops.  You clearly chose the right classification.
> 
> Some of us have been in positions where we were paid to think and act on our feet.
> 
> /tangent



Still  ff topic:, I agree with you that the battalion should have its own indirect fire capability but even they double-check their data to ensure that a "danger close" does not become a "drop short"

To think and act on your feet is commendable.   I tend to believe that thinking and consciously deciding not to shoot from the lip is equally commendable.  :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman

FJAG said:
			
		

> ..... consciously deciding not to shoot from the lip is equally commendable.  :2c:


 *I agree*.  Regardless of how informed.  Apparently some Mods agree.


----------



## expwor

Speaking only as a civilian who was in the Federal Public Service, wouldn't seeking dismissal from the Armed Forces be something protected under the Privacy Act?  Even if her CoC wishes her released wouldn't they need to protect her privacy rights too.  
While a court proceeding (and I assume Courts Martial are considered a court proceeding) is public, wouldn't personnal administration be considered private and protected under the Privacy Act
I know where I worked (Corrections) both staff and inmates had privacy protection
Hope it makes sense, only working on my first coffee LOL

Tom


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Can she have admin action placed on her after she was already charged?



Most definitely.



> There are quite a number of civilian, military and ex military on social media who are putting her up with the likes of russel williams



That just supports that some people truly are a special kind of stupid.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Chief Stoker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .......... There are quite a number of civilian, military and ex military on social media who are putting her up with the likes of russel williams ........
> 
> 
> 
> That just supports that some people truly are a special kind of stupid.
Click to expand...


I think what Chief Stoker was actually saying was that like Russel Williams, she has disgraced the CAF; not that she had committed a heinous criminal act like murder.   Both cases disgrace the CAF, but to differing degrees.  Let's not go overboard in lumping "some people" all into one category.


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That just supports that some people truly are a special kind of stupid.
> 
> 
> I think what Chief Stoker was actually saying was that like Russel Williams, she has disgraced the CAF; not that she had committed a heinous criminal act like murder.   Both cases disgrace the CAF, but to differing degrees.  Let's not go overboard in lumping "some people" all into one category.



That's what I was thinking, from what I have been reading on social media there are people who want her literally strung up and that's CF personnel. Yes she disgraced the CF, and there's no way back from something like that at that rank level. If she was smart she would drop her release now and hope to fade away.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That's what I was thinking, from what I have been reading on social media there are people who want her literally strung up and that's CF personnel. Yes she disgraced the CF, and there's no way back from something like that at that rank level. If she was smart she would drop her release now and hope to fade away.



If she was "smart", she wouldn't have put herself into this position in the first place and we'd never heard of her.  But apparently, she's not that smart...


----------



## George Wallace

Not knowing her personally, but making a comment:  Sometimes Egos trump Smart.


----------



## tomahawk6

Sounds like the accused should be reduced to Major and allowed to retire,as she has 34 years of service.


----------



## Tibbson

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just repeating what my friends still in have said and I can understand their view. They believe had that been an NCM they would have been treated a lot more harshly and most likely given the boot. My former colleague believe there is a two tier justice system in place and unless that belief is dispelled then you will see morale erode even more.



A number of years ago I investigated a MCpl wearing a medal he was not entitled to as well as a specialist qualification badge he was not qualified to wear.  He recieved a $1000 fine and no reduction in rank or cell time.  While I dont like the sentence in this officers case I dont see it as out of line what an NCM would recieve.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> A number of years ago I investigated a MCpl wearing a medal he was not entitled to as well as a specialist qualification badge he was not qualified to wear.  He recieved a $1000 fine and no reduction in rank or cell time.  While I dont like the sentence in this officers case I dont see it as out of line what an NCM would recieve.



What do you suppose he would have received if he had been charged again just 3 months afterwards?


----------



## Tibbson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I would hope upon being handed a rank of LCol, that nit picking uniform checks might be something you could be trusted with......



One would think that but just this past tuesday, here in Ottawa where such issues should never occur, I had to correct an AF major who was wearing a Commanders Commendation on the flap of his shirt pocket vice on the pocket where it is supposed to be worn.  This site even points out more errors from people who should know better or who have people working for them who should know better.  http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.ca


----------



## Tibbson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If she was "smart", she wouldn't have put herself into this position in the first place and we'd never heard of her.  But apparently, she's not that smart...



I'm sure FJAG woukd agree, if it wasn't for stupid people most cops and lawyers would be out of a job.


----------



## ballz

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Other than her immediate circle within her of CoC, I highly doubt we will know what exactly her CoC is doing administratively, or otherwise, with her.  We may only find out after all actions they take are finalized.
> 
> 
> Personally, I would figure that being convicted twice for fraudulent conduct would justify that, but that brings us back to my previous point -- we are not privy to any knowledge of what her CoC may be contemplating, nor will we be until everything is finalized within all legal channels.



Agree with what you're saying, it was more of a general question for my own PD and wondering what options are available to her CoC outside of just remedial measures. Basically, does anybody know of any kind of minimum requirements that must be met before a file is sent away for an admin review, or is it just on the CoC to recommend one?

In this case, given the two convictions, their relation to integrity issues, and the rank, I believe DMCA would concur with a recommendation for a 5(f) release.


----------



## dapaterson

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> One would think that but just this past tuesday, here in Ottawa where such issues should never occur, I had to correct an AF major who was wearing a Commanders Commendation on the flap of his shirt pocket vice on the pocket where it is supposed to be worn.  This site even points out more errors from people who should know better or who have people working for them who should know better.  http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.ca



Except the flap is a permitted place to wear it for females, so in that case I would give him the benefit of the doubt as it may have seen it there and made an assumption.  (Or possibly we could offer him a taxpayer-funded sex change operation so that it would be correct).


----------



## cupper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or possibly we could offer him a taxpayer-funded sex change operation so that it would be correct



He'd never make the same mistake again.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> One would think that but just this past tuesday, here in Ottawa where such issues should never occur, I had to correct an AF major who was wearing a Commanders Commendation on the flap of his shirt pocket vice on the pocket where it is supposed to be worn.  This site even points out more errors from people who should know better or who have people working for them who should know better.  http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.ca



I think wearing medals/decorations in the wrong spot is a little different then wearing something you aren't entitled to.  Probably an honest mistake, but if no one ever says anything, why would they change it?

We just recently went through the process for nominating folks for the OMM/MMM, so based on how difficult it is to even nominate someone, let alone get it awarded, kind of shocked.

Interestingly enough, there is a clause in the constitution to have membership terminated.  Seems like a sad way to end a long career, where I'm assuming her performance was high enough to be awarded it, but given the standard required to become a member, imagine this might be up for review.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14945&lan=eng

Not really sure what to say on this, waiting to see the details of the judgement, as I'm curious why/how the decision was made.


----------



## Good2Golf

I worked an ORMM submission for an incredibly dedicated and professional soldier for several consecutive years and even with an incredible body of service and community service never broke through the threshold to be admitted to the Order.  

LCol Miller's actions speak volumes and tarnish the order.  Her conduct and the apparent support by the particular elements of the CAF chain of command are incredibly disappointing, particularly in light of the dedication of many men and women in service who have served and been appropriately recognized.  That LCol Miller felt that recognition of her service was special and unique enough that she needent comply with qualification pre-requisites is either: a) incredibly arrogant, b) narcissistic, or c) both.  Shameful.

That said, as some have noted, it is important that any feelings about her conduct and/or the disciplinary action taken do not in any way influence the fact that it would be inappropriate for any information pertaining to any administrative action considered or taken against her to be divulged.  

:2c:

G2G


----------



## tomahawk6

Over time the US Army has had instances of senior officers wearing unauthorized decorations.The USN had an admiral that did the same and committed suicide.Thats an extreme response.A US Army BG Eugene Forrester had an unauthorised Silver Star.Forrester was a good officer and overcame his stolen valor issue retiring as a LTG.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/16/boorda.6p/

http://medicinthegreentime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MEDALS-INVESTIGATION-OUTCOME.pdf


----------



## TCM621

There is a feeling that if this was a corporal, the book would have been thrown at them and that because of her rank she got of easy. While this may or may not be the case, shouldn't it be the opposite? Part of the responsibility of higher rank is greater accountability. In other words, a LCol, by nature of their rank and responsibilities, should be held to a higher standard. 

I don't know enough about military law to know if this is even legal but to me a big part of deterrence would be if the big fish get nailed to the wall, little fish like Cpl bloggins, better toe the line. There is also the idea that this officer, by nature of her rank, will be someone's boss. A LCol should be a leader almost by definition, and integrity is a huge part of this.

Maybe military law isn't allowed to take that stuff in to consideration.  Maybe it has to judge the accused without regard to rank.  That could explain the "slap on the wrist". We are thinking in terms of a senior leader in the CF and the judge is thinking in terms of a generic service member. Could this be the case?


----------



## X Royal

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, there is a clause in the constitution to have membership terminated.  Seems like a sad way to end a long career, where I'm assuming her performance was high enough to be awarded it, but given the standard required to become a member, imagine this might be up for review.
> 
> http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14945&lan=eng


What does that link have to do with removing someones OMM?
That link only applies to the Order of Canada.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Termination of membership in the Order of Military Merit requires one of three conditions:

a.    the person dies;

b.    the GG accepts their resignation in writing; or

c.    The GG makes an ordinance terminating the person's appointment to the Order.

Source: The Order of Military Merit, by Christopher McCreery


----------



## Brasidas

FJAG said:
			
		

> I noted that there was a joint recommendation on sentence and a comment that the judge was originally reluctant to accept it.  I'm holding my comments and opinions on this until I see the published written decision which unfortunately probably won't be posted on the CMJ website for a few months.
> 
> :cheers:



Understood. Could you please elaborate on precedents in which the judge would consider in rejecting a joint sentencing recommendation?

I'm not asking for an opinion on this case, just context for where the bar is on such a thing.


----------



## The_Falcon

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Understood. Could you please elaborate on precedents in which the judge would consider in rejecting a joint sentencing recommendation?
> 
> I'm not asking for an opinion on this case, just context for where the bar is on such a thing.



https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/all=joint%20submission%20rejection

https://www.google.com/search?q=Canada+legal+precedents+rejecting+a+joint+submission&hl=en&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ei=IHg6VPySO43maonJgIAD&ved=0CBEQvwU

have fun reading.


----------



## FJAG

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Understood. Could you please elaborate on precedents in which the judge would consider in rejecting a joint sentencing recommendation?
> 
> I'm not asking for an opinion on this case, just context for where the bar is on such a thing.



Hatchet Man has given you some good source material. While there are some very minor variations, the Park decision from Newfoundland gives a good summary of the law as follows:

"The following principles of general application can be distilled from these precedents
(1) a sentencing judge is not bound to accept a joint submission (Simon, Abbott, and Samms);
(2) if a sentencing judge is disinclined to accept a joint submission, she or he should advise counsel accordingly and invite further submissions (Barrett);
(3)[b] a sentencing judge should decline to endorse a joint submission only if (1) endorsing the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; or (2) doing so would be contrary to the public interest[/b] (Druken);
(4) if the joint submission would cause a reasonable persons to conclude that its endorsement by the sentencing judge would cause a “break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”, the trial judge can decline to endorse the joint submission (Oake);
(5) in assessing a joint submission, the sentencing judge should refrain from focussing on the principles of sentencing (“such as fitness, proportionality and range of sentence”), but on the questions: will endorsement of the joint submission “in the circumstances of the case, bring the administration of justice into disrepute” and is the sentence jointly recommended “contrary to the public interest” (Oxford and Lavers);
(6) a joint submission cannot be rejected simply because it falls outside the normal range (Oxford ); and
(7) a sentencing judge must not only state the test for determining whether to endorse a joint submission, she or he must comply with it "without adulterating it" (Barrett)."

Point (3) is the key one and universally accepted. You should note that the civilian courts put a great emphasis on plea bargaining as it greatly speeds up and facilitates the administration of justice. Similarly you should note that the prosecutor's role is to represent the public interest and the administration of justice and will already have weighed those factors when agreeing to a joint recommendation.

In short a judge has the power to overwrite a joint recommendation but generally does so only in rare circumstances.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

In a court martial context, look at Castillo v. R.; the learned judge (correctly in my opinion) rejected a joint submission and ordered the repeat-offending miscreant to jail.

The appeal judges, however, disagreed in a 2-1 split.  So instead of being jailed (since the first fine had not been paid as of the first court martial, as the judge at the court martial noted) on appeal the joint submission was substituted, ordering another fine.

Unfortunately, the CMAC ruling was not appealed, as it is bad precedent and a bad decision by judges who should have known better; the dissent at appeal was concise and clear.

Of course, it would be unusual for a decision to reinstate a joint submission to be appealed; neither the Crown who negotiated the inadequate sentence nor the defence who jumped at it have any motivation to appeal, as if their deliberations are not upheld, they lose face.

http://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/7798/index.do?r=AAAAAQAQam9pbnQgc3VibWlzc2lvbgAAAAAB


----------



## Danjanou

You know Bad as this L/Col's actions are and I'm in the group saying strip the medal, demote her and toss her out, she 's a rank amateur when compared to this L/Col http://army.ca/forums/threads/108503.0.html

Maybe a posting to the SANDF would be appropriate, she may pick up a few pointers 8)


----------



## Journeyman

Now that the anger has subsided (the disgust remains), here's what I meant to say......
(It was submitted too late to be considered a 'timely' letter to the editor)


*A Matter of Honour and Justice*
Re: Ian MacAlpine, “Military officer gets severe reprimand, fine.” _Kingston Whig-Standard_, 7 Oct 2014. 

The Canadian military has made great strides in advancing its professionalism and ethical behaviour, often motivated by public scrutiny into the periodic lapses of its members.  One cannot tar the organization with a large brush, but occasionally incidents crop up that can only leave one to scratch their head; this is one such occasion.

Within two months of being convicted at a Court Martial for falsely claiming to have passed a Physical Fitness test, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was again accused of fraudulently wearing un-earned medals and a commendation award -- the subject of this week’s Court Martial.  The guilty finding of the first Court Martial returned a sentence of a severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine.  For this recent transgression, which in the eyes of every military person with which I’ve spoken is a much more heinous crime, the legal system decided that a punishment of a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine would be just; effectively, she committed a worse crime and received nearly identical punishment with some adjustment for inflation.

Frankly, the actions of the Military Justice system boggle my mind.  With the first sentencing, the Judge noted that the disposition proposed jointly by counsel (the same two military lawyers who worked this case, by the way) would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  This current Judge however, apparently struggled with the lightness of the requested sentence, given Miller’s recent conviction record and position as a senior officer. Yet he went with it anyway.

The article cites Miller’s defence attorney as saying that the decision was just and everyone was pleased with the result.  She further believes that “a severe reprimand is the harshest message a soldier can receive to denounce their conduct”; perhaps she was unaware that the charges’ potential sentence could include up to dismissal with disgrace from the Forces.

A quick perusal of the comments on this story from newspapers all across the country, or reading stunned and angered comments at non-official military websites such as “army.ca,” shows how completely out of touch the legal system is; I assure you that not everyone is pleased.  While the military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure of summary trials and courts martial, for many there is a growing belief that those tiers are more akin to Orwell’s _Animal Farm_ in that “some pigs are more equal than others.”  The optics here are appalling.

*Now, I won’t speak to LCol Miller’s integrity or what her next move ought to be, or even comment further on the perplexing state of the military’s justice system.  Instead, I’ll only express sympathy for those serving members who have the honour and often challenging task of commanding Canada’s troops and mentoring our future leaders; they are the ones who will have to justify this travesty to their subordinates.*


Now I'm done.


----------



## ATCO

Good stuff Journeyman!


----------



## pbi

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A quick perusal of the comments on this story from newspapers all across the country, or reading stunned and angered comments at non-official military websites such as “army.ca,” shows how completely out of touch the legal system is; I assure you that not everyone is pleased.  While the military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure of summary trials and courts martial, for many there is a growing belief that those tiers are more akin to Orwell’s _Animal Farm_ in that “some pigs are more equal than others.”  The optics here are appalling.
> 
> *Now, I won’t speak to LCol Miller’s integrity or what her next move ought to be, or even comment further on the perplexing state of the military’s justice system.  Instead, I’ll only express sympathy for those serving members who have the honour and often challenging task of commanding Canada’s troops and mentoring our future leaders; they are the ones who will have to justify this travesty to their subordinates.*
> 
> 
> Now I'm done.




Journeyman: I've been staying off the site for months, but I can't resist giving you a "BZ" for this post. Well said.

This entire sad matter is, without any doubt, one of the most bitter and heartbreaking things I have witnessed in the CAF, in uniform or out. We seem to have forgotten that we retain a military discipline system for a reason: to maintain a disciplined military. As well as the understandable desire to protect the rights of the accused, and to observe due process, I don't think the legal system should forget the great value of exemplary discipline. _Pour encourager les autres_. Or perhaps "_desencourager_" in this case.

I absolutely, utterly, cannot accept for one moment that discourse concerning this matter, (which was always one of clear public record), needed to be restrained by some sort of misplaced concern about "respecting the commission". Please. A commission is a badge of honour and trust, not a sinecure.  This individual, quite clearly, and in the judgement of two separate courts martial, utterly disrespected this sacred pact with the country that bestowed it, and the subordinates we expect to loyally follow it.  The commission was disrespected all right, but not by people on this site.

A good friend of mine attended the final court martial, and related the proceedings in somewhat more detail than has been provided here. As FJAG has pointed out, the transcript or other records will become available in due course. But, from a layman's point of view, I believe that the presiding judge did what was prudent under the circumstances he was placed in. He was, I'm told, extremely unhapppy, as well he might have been, particularly since apparently the two Legal Officers were  the ones acting at Miller's previous CM, but in reversed positions.  The bigger question for me is what might have possessed the prosecutor to agree to such a joint submission given the history, but we will likely never know that.

Finally, the action (or, maybe "inaction" )of the chain of command in question here puzzles me. Have we forgotten that character, integrity and following the law are basic requirements of officership? What happened to using the well-proven administrative system to deal with people who are unable to meet the professional standards required by the act of accepting a commission? Yes: it's hard to get rid of officers. Hard...but not impossible. if you are determined and stick at it, the system eventually does what it is supposed to do. A truckload of character references, in my opinion, do not offset the violation of integrity, or excuse the "system" from the duty of demonstrating that higher rank means higher demands and expectations on the bearer of that rank. Not less--more.

I understand the anger and frustration of serving soldiers who look on this as "one rule for the rich , and one for the poor". I feel it too, and I'm glad I'm no longer serving and having to explain this to my troops. I don't envy those who do.


----------



## FJAG

The judge's reasons for decision on sentence have now been posted at this link:

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/assets/CMJ_Internet/docs/en/2014cm2018_miller_sentence.pdf

 :cheers:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Could he not done his own thing and sent her to cells for a month?


----------



## cavalryman

She has been court-martialed for dishonesty twice, and yet she will be allowed to retire at the same rank as so many other officers with unblemished records.  That alone fills me with revulsion.

There is a reason why we spend so much more time on values and ethics training in DND than in any other department I've worked in.  I am not qualified to question the judge's decision.  I do however question her chain of command's integrity.  

Having had to deal with this individual on a business matter in the last week, I can confirm that I have no respect for her, her rank or anything good she may have done.  Her lack of integrity has forever coloured my view of her as an officer and her effectiveness in her job.


----------



## George Wallace

cavalryman said:
			
		

> There is a reason why we spend so much more time on values and ethics training in DND than in any other department I've worked in.  I am not qualified to question the judge's decision.  I do however question her chain of command's integrity.
> 
> Having had to deal with this individual on a business matter in the last week, I can confirm that I have no respect for her, her rank or anything good she may have done.  Her lack of integrity has forever coloured my view of her as an officer and her effectiveness in her job.



For the amount of time we preach ethics, morals, credibility, etc.; we so often see examples of people practicing the opposite of what is preached.  Really makes you wonder.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Not really. You'd have to be obtuse not to see that many people simply don't give a shit. There was an officer that made up a job with the qual's he had then retired and took the job.


----------



## TCM621

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Not really. You'd have to be obtuse not to see that many people simply don't give a crap. There was an officer that made up a job with the qual's he had then retired and took the job.


Happens all the time. Chiefs are often quite skilled at job creation too. I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of head who have created jobs for them to retire into.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Funny they don't cover that in any ethics briefs I've been too.


----------



## cavalryman

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Happens all the time. Chiefs are often quite skilled at job creation too. I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of head who have created jobs for them to retire into.


Don't blame the chiefs.  Blame the CoC that allowed  it to happen.  Had one try that on me a few years back.  Had a bit of a misfire when I told him his proposed civvie job wasn't required.  Our problems aren't at the low end of the food chain.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

To a point but if my superiors aren't ethical then why should the troops. Lead by example.


----------



## pbi

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> To a point but if my superiors aren't ethical then why should the troops. Lead by example.



 I think this is mostly correct, but it might be a bit over the top (although I am in agreement with most of what you have said so far). I really don't believe there is a pandemic of unethical behaviour going on in the CAF. In fact, we are probably better off in that department than we have been in a long time. 

I began my service in 1974, and ended it in 2012. During that time, I can safely say we went through a period where unethical and actually illegal behaviour (at all rank levels) had become far more commonplace than it is now. Gen Menard was not the first CAF GOFO to be caught misbehaving, by a long shot. He was, in my opinion, one of the few to be dealt with appropriately. In my opinion, it was the inevitable result of a large institution falling into a rut with a lack of public scrutiny and accountability. At least now we talk about it openly, and widely recognize it as wrong.

Although I'm no longer in uniform, I work very closely with uniformed CAF folks every day, and I know that, without exception, at all rank levels, they are shocked, infuriated and frustrated by this outcome, and by the repetitious nature of the accused's behaviour. They don't see such behaviour as routine, or "OK", or acceptable. This reaction, I think, is a very good thing.

Do we (sorry..."the CAF"...hard to break old habits...) still have corrupt, unethical people? It would seem that you do. Power, position and all of those things that go with rank are always going to corrupt people whose character is inadequate to the task. Dealing with that problem is only the job of the military justice system in the very last resort. It is really, IMHO, a professional issue to be dealt with by the chain of command, long before it slides to the sad end we have seen in the Miller case.

I learned (slowly, and the hard way) that if you have problems with people in the military, you have two choices. Fix or fire. By "fix", I mean you do everything you possibly can as a leader to have that person correct their behaviour and rise up to the expected standard, and stay there under their own steam.

By "fire", I mean just that. Bring the full power of the administrative system, as quickly as possible,  to bear to get that person out of that position or if necessary (and it often is...) out of the service. This is difficult, often slow and frustrating, but you must line up your ducks and stick with it.

There is no third option called "ignore and hide", but how many times have we all seen that done, from Cpl to LCol?


----------



## George Wallace

:goodpost:

I see this as where our problems ( to whatever extent they exist ) lie:



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> By "fire", I mean just that. Bring the full power of the administrative system, as quickly as possible,  to bear to get that person out of that position or if necessary (and it often is...) out of the service. This is difficult, often slow and frustrating, but you must line up your ducks and stick with it.
> 
> There is no third option called "ignore and hide", but how many times have we all seen that done, from Cpl to LCol?



When it comes to "firing", and I have seen it so often in the Training System, we often have no will to do so, nor is the documentation required to ensure all our "ducks are in a row" being done.  Worse case scenario was on my 6A where one candidate was on PRB twice and still passed the crse.  That was a surprise to all the candidates, and most of the Staff.  Later as a member of the Staff I sat in on the PRB for a Capt.  Comdt's decision was to allow him to continue and graduate.    I find that our weakness is in our administration.  If we are afraid or often too lazy to document and justify our reasons to "fire" members, being the "Mr/Mrs Nice Guy" instead, we perpetuate that weakness.  That Third Option of "ignore and hide" is the reason the Second Option is not being utilized to its fullest extent.  In the end we only "shot ourselves in the foot".


----------



## pbi

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> I see this as where our problems ( to whatever extent they exist ) lie:
> 
> When it comes to "firing", and I have seen it so often in the Training System, we often have no will to do so, nor is the documentation required to ensure all our "ducks are in a row" being done...



Yes, I agree. I once discussed this with a CWO who had been a Cdo Sgt Maj in the Airborne, about why some of the very plainly terrible people sent there (sadly, a number from my own Regt), were not dealt with before things went bad. His answer? "Too much goddamned paperwork".

To be fair, in the majority of my time at least, the system did not make it easy to get rid of an officer. As I have related elsewhere on this site, I was directly involved in two cases in the 80's and 90's which, despite the hideous and disgusting behaviour of the two officers in question, the CO had to fight the system tooth and nail to even get a hearing about releasing them, never mind get these people out. In the end, both were thankfully done away with, but it took ages. These were only junior officers: I can only imagine the impossibility of ousting a LCol at that time.

By contrast, in the early 2000's I was involved in a case in which an officer under my command had been accused (but never found guilty) of a sexual offense against a female subordinate. As opposed to the resistance to getting rid of people in earlier days, I was now fighting off DMCARM's hounding to release the officer as quickly as possible.

In my opinion, if the military is truly a profession, then it needs to act as one and not as a sinecure public service. Much as the College of Surgeons, or the Law Society can disbar or defrock a member for professional reasons, so should the CAF.


----------



## Old Sweat

I saw an officer released in something less than 12 hours from offence to civilian. We were in the field on the 3 CIBG summer concentration in 1964 and I had gone of an advance to contact exercise as the FOO with D Coy, 1 RHC. On my return to base camp another lieutenant told me the story. At about 0200 the young officer in question decided he would like a drink despite the mess being closed, so he broke into the trailer where the booze was secured. A soldier caught him, but the second lieutenant beat him up. This woke up all sorts of people and he was placed under close arrest with a couple of officers guarding him. Our battery commander went to see the CO forthwith.

At about 0630 the CO drove over to Petersville, the concentration headquarters, where the Adjutant General of the Canadian Army was, by chance, staying on a visit to the exercise. Sunray met him as the great man left the mess and explained the situation and handed him the paper work for a procedure called AG's Disposal. The major general signed the form releasing the officer for misconduct, the CO got on the phone, the young officer did a lightning quick out clearance under escort and by 1000 was standing in civilian clothes at a bus stop with a ticket back to his pre-enlistment place of residence.

And bloody good riddance, too.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> The judge's reasons for decision on sentence have now been posted at this link:
> 
> http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/assets/CMJ_Internet/docs/en/2014cm2018_miller_sentence.pdf
> 
> :cheers:


Here's what stood out for me - highlights my own....


> .... It is open to question whether in these circumstances the joint submission of the prosecution and defence is sufficiently different in kind from the sentence that was awarded to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller at her previous trial by court martial to respect the step principle of sentencing. They submit that the increased quantum of the fine is sufficient to say that it does. Some doubt attends this. *Absent the joint submission, given the record of previous convictions in the period preceding the date specified in the three charges of which Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has now been convicted, the court would have considered the punishment of reduction in rank.* However, as I indicated earlier, the jurisprudence provides that this is not the test.
> 
> In deciding whether to depart from the joint submission I must have regard to the guidance provided by appellate courts, and in particular the Court Martial Appeal Court. Having done so, the court does not consider that the proposed sentence is so far off the mark as to be unfit, unreasonable, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or be contrary to the public interest.
> 
> I am also cognizant of *the arguments articulated by counsel suggesting the multiple factors that may potentially influence the positions ultimately taken on sentence recommendations by the prosecution and defence in any given case, and for judges to restrain their instincts to look behind the face of submissions made to them by prosecution and defence counsel as officers of the court.*
> 
> I also am cognizant of *the strong mitigation evidence entered on Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's behalf concerning her past and recent performance as an officer in the Canadian Forces*.  Thus the court will accept the joint submission of counsel for the prosecution and defence as to sentence ....


(If that underlined bit is true, why not come up with a computer instead of a human judge, with algorithms to cover "stuff entered into evidence vs. sentence issued"?)

And what was the mitigating stuff?


> .... a)  first and foremost, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has pleaded guilty to the offences. This is always an important mitigating factor,  reflecting that the offender has accepted responsibility for her actions;
> 
> (b) the outstanding performance consistently demonstrated over a number of years by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller in the Performance Evaluation Reports entered into evidence that relate to the years prior to her conviction by a Standing Court Martial in 2012;
> 
> (c)  the sheaf of letters of commendation over the years, and support for Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, that were entered into evidence at Exhibit 15.  Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has substantial equity in the Service over the 34 years of her career in the Canadian Forces; and,
> 
> (d) the indications in the letter in evidence at Exhibit 15 written in October 2014 by Major-General Tremblay, her current Commander at the Canadian Defence Academy, and in the email written by Colonel Ewing, her current supervisor, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has performed strongly in the recent past notwithstanding the pressure of her imminent trial by court martial and that she continues to make a valuable contribution to the Canadian Forces ....


I know it's "woulda, coulda, shoulda" at this point, but it would have been interesting to see how an appeal would have dealt with, say, a promotion or dismissal from the judge.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think, in fairness to the judge, that this sentence - "However, as I indicated earlier, the jurisprudence provides that this is not the test." - is the reason.  Maybe FJAG can help us with that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I removed my post about retired Col. W.J. (Bill) Lewis as the news article was from 2011 and I obviously have issues reading dates........... :facepalm:


----------



## FJAG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's what stood out for me - highlights my own....(If that underlined bit is true, why not come up with a computer instead of a human judge, with algorithms to cover "stuff entered into evidence vs. sentence issued"?)
> . . .



The algorithms bit reminds me a little of just about every NCIS episode where Tim writes an algorithm in ten minutes to do stuff that the software's original programmers were unable to do in years of development.

In a lot of ways judging IS like a computer.  You take the law as stated in cases by higher courts, add to that the facts of the case, compare those facts with those of similar prior cases, add a fudge factor for novel elements and come up with the right conclusion. A really sophisticated algorithm could do that. The trouble is we don't have one but we do have judges with training and experience and the ability to do the analysis - wetware algorithms.

The judge here applied the right test: accept the joint recommendation unless "the proposed sentence is unfit, unreasonable, would bring the system of justice into disrepute, or be contrary to the public interest." 

This was not a case engaging the public interest but one where the question was that whether or not the system of justice would be brought into disrepute. Obviously many of the commentators on this site would think that that's exactly what happened here but there are obviously contrary opinions such as the ones by the prosecutor (and you can believe that this recommended sentence was undoubtedly canvassed within the offices of DMP) and the various individuals who provided testimonials on her behalf at the sentencing hearing. I'm not saying one is more right than the other, just that there are undoubtedly differences of opinion.

If there was one thing in the decision that caught my attention it was the fact that the judge was not provided any "cases similar on their facts to the present case". Instead the prosecution and defence merely pointed out that the fine element of the punishment had increased from $3,000.00 in the first trial to $5,000.00 in the second and that this was sufficient, in their minds, for a second offence - the judge quite rightly points out that "some doubt attends this". I would have thought, like the judge, that the prosecution and defence should have seen the optics of the recommended sentence and done a more thorough job in giving the judge appropriate caselaw (if not from the military side, then from civilian cases) showing him that the recommended sentence was within the ball park.

 :cheers:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?


----------



## Sully

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?



Good Question.


----------



## ballz

pbi said:
			
		

> I learned (slowly, and the hard way) that if you have problems with people in the military, you have two choices. Fix or fire. By "fix", I mean you do everything you possibly can as a leader to have that person correct their behaviour and rise up to the expected standard, and stay there under their own steam.
> 
> By "fire", I mean just that. Bring the full power of the administrative system, as quickly as possible,  to bear to get that person out of that position or if necessary (and it often is...) out of the service. This is difficult, often slow and frustrating, but you must line up your ducks and stick with it.
> 
> There is no third option called "ignore and hide", but how many times have we all seen that done, from Cpl to LCol?



I have also learned the hard way, although as a very junior officer and while I am still a Pl Comd. A tough lesson to learn, but looking back I would have done things differently.

The "book" gives us all the tools to accomplish what we need to, but I what I have found is a reluctance to use it. IMO, it is largely out of pure cowardice that we do not, and often resort to your third option. No one wants to look a man in the face and say "you're just not performing at the standard that you're required to." In the end, that's why you're getting paid the big bucks, to do exactly that when it is required. It's the easy way out to "make do" so that you can avoid holding someone to account.

I know for me, despite the problems I was encountering with dealing with a WO, my Pl 2IC, people were shocked that I was issuing a 5b PDR and thought it took a set of stones to do it. In reality, I should have issued a 5b PDR or two before that, and I should have been issuing an Initial Counselling at that point, and it was only out of the same cowardice that I hadn't. I think everyone else's reaction to it also made me second-guess myself. I was half-convinced it was my failure as a leader for not being able to make the member perform. In hindsight, a lot of people had failed to do their job for me to even be in the position I was in. I have often expressed to those around me that *I* should have been put on IC for failing to take appropriate action sooner, and following up on it with more admin action when the member failed to respond. It was a legitimate leadership challenge and I failed, full stop. However, who could honestly put me on IC? At least I did *something*, even when advised by peers that I shouldn't, that's more than I can say for anyone before me and more than I can say for the command team that I was looking to for guidance on dealing with the issue.

But at least I've learned, even if it had to be the hard way. That mistake has redefined my approach.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find that our weakness is in our administration.  If we are afraid or often too lazy to document and justify our reasons to "fire" members, being the "Mr/Mrs Nice Guy" instead, we perpetuate that weakness.  That Third Option of "ignore and hide" is the reason the Second Option is not being utilized to its fullest extent.  In the end we only "shot ourselves in the foot".



I would argue that it's out of "being afraid" to be a leader and not out of "laziness" in most cases, but I find your assessment spot on.


----------



## Sully

ballz said:
			
		

> IMO, it is largely out of pure cowardice that we do not, and often resort to your third option. No one wants to look a man in the face and say "you're just not performing at the standard that you're required to." In the end, that's why you're getting paid the big bucks, to do exactly that when it is required. It's the easy way out to "make do" so that you can avoid holding someone to account.
> 
> I would argue that it's out of "being afraid" to be a leader and not out of "laziness" in most cases, but I find your assessment spot on.




I agree and I don't think that I could have summarized my sentiments in a better manner.


----------



## captloadie

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and *sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?*


He did lend his voice. He stood behind the LCol with his support. As did her immediate supervisor.


----------



## OldTanker

The motto of The Royal Canadian Regiment, of which I am not a member but have profound respect, is "Never pass a fault". Hard to implement sometimes but if military life was easy we wouldn't need leaders to lead. I suspect her faults were passed often.


----------



## Monsoon

FJAG said:
			
		

> If there was one thing in the decision that caught my attention it was the fact that the judge was not provided any "cases similar on their facts to the present case". Instead the prosecution and defence merely pointed out that the fine element of the punishment had increased from $3,000.00 in the first trial to $5,000.00 in the second and that this was sufficient, in their minds, for a second offence - the judge quite rightly points out that "some doubt attends this". I would have thought, like the judge, that the prosecution and defence should have seen the optics of the recommended sentence and done a more thorough job in giving the judge appropriate caselaw (if not from the military side, then from civilian cases) showing him that the recommended sentence was within the ball park.


Am I right in thinking that the judge's emphasis on "not looking behind the face of the submissions" is a bit of a signal that in fact he felt that there was something quite flawed with the joint submission? On the face of it, it looks to me like the prosecutor copped a plea deal with the defendant's counsel that allowed her to retain her rank in exchange for a guilty plea and a speedy release. Given that the facts of the case were so clearly established, that strikes me as an unnecessary mitigation of prosecutorial risk. It's almost as though what they were really interested in was saving themselves the trouble of having to mount a prosecution...


----------



## Towards_the_gap

OldTanker said:
			
		

> The motto of The Royal Canadian Regiment, of which I am not a member but have profound respect, is "Never pass a fault". Hard to implement sometimes but if military life was easy we wouldn't need leaders to lead. I suspect her faults were passed often.



Seems lately that the motto for the CF as a whole has been instead 'f**k it, I'm posted/retiring/releasing next year, he/she can be someone elses problem''


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Post out the problem, if a promotion needs to happen to make it happen then oh well


----------



## Haggis

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?



Even though her immediate supervisor stood up for her, the judges decision shows that the separation between the military justice system and the chain of command has been maintained.  Notwithstanding her sentence before the courts, the chain of command can proceed with all manner of administrative actions, up to and including release.  My guess is that we have not yet seen the end of this story.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What action?  She has the full support of her supervisors. Lame duck organization


----------



## The Bread Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?


In the case of the most immediate ones, adding to the "sheaf" of mitigating letters.


----------



## TCM621

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Seems lately that the motto for the CF as a whole has been instead 'f**k it, I'm posted/retiring/releasing next year, he/she can be someone elses problem''


This isn't a lately thing. The old days were not any better. The difference was[ the off books stuff that was done. Many a soldier was sorted our after spending a few days polishing brass, peeling potatoes or washing dishes in a field kitchen. Worked for me.

Now that stuff is verboten but we still have the mentality of not keeping a paper trail and ruining a career. As a young soldier, I prefer a beasting over getting something on my file. As long as I smartened up, only my supervisor knew a screwed up and I knew I could make up for it. Unfortunately, those days are gone and you have to do the paperwork or there is nothing you can do.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So why did things change if they worked.


----------



## FJAG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Am I right in thinking that the judge's emphasis on "not looking behind the face of the submissions" is a bit of a signal that in fact he felt that there was something quite flawed with the joint submission? On the face of it, it looks to me like the prosecutor copped a plea deal with the defendant's counsel that allowed her to retain her rank in exchange for a guilty plea and a speedy release. Given that the facts of the case were so clearly established, that strikes me as an unnecessary mitigation of prosecutorial risk. It's almost as though what they were really interested in was saving themselves the trouble of having to mount a prosecution...



I didn't mean to suggest that the judge "didn't look behind the face of the submissions". What I meant to convey that considering the optics of the recommended sentence, the submissions should have been more developed and robust.

I think that the judge, in fact, did look behind the face of the submissions and found them wanting; his statement that he would have probably reduced her in rank based on the facts of the case points in that direction. He just considered that the recommended sentence, while too light, was not so far out of line that he could go beyond the bounds of the case law respecting agreed sentencing.

There is no indication that the prosecutor copped a plea that allowed her to keep her rank and get a speedy release. It certainly allowed her to keep her rank but the release issue is just speculation. I can't see a prosecutor agreeing to a condition (her release) which he can't enforce if she reneges on it.

On the other hand the deal was a package which included the guilty pleas on three of the five charges (ignoring the alternates) and as such the prosecution was definitely saving itself from having to mount a prosecution and a sentencing hearing. The unanswered question in my mind is whether that was, as you say, "an unnecessary mitigation of prosecutorial risk".  Admittedly, it appears that the defence seems to have gotten the better of the deal but lawyering is a bit like playing poker and I tend to take the view that without having seen the entire hand that the prosecutor was dealt it would be a bit presumptuous of me to second guess whether or not he played it right. 

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

Well stated.  I'm aware of one court martial in the late '90s where the offender received a reduced sentence because he agreed to release; a few months ago I saw him wandering around NDHQ, still serving.


----------



## Good2Golf

So is case law so inviolate that the judge truly was as constrained in his passing sentence as he believed himself to be?  I don't recall there being an identical case of a senior officer not once, but twice acting in such an ethically-deficient manner, for which case law was so compelling, that the judge was professionally and morally constrained to accept the jointly recommended sentence.  This was most surely a case where the judge had the moral and professional grounds to give cause to evolve the existing case law, no?

Nearly as disappointing as the fact that there is such institutional (read CoC) support for such a non-representative individual.  

Perhaps the CDA could demonstrate professional/institutional remorse by including this case in future studies related to ethics and ethical conduct within the CAF?

G2G


----------



## OldSolduer

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> So why did things change if they worked.



IMO for a few reasons:

1. The advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not only must we obey the law we have to be seen as obeying the law, despite the fact that a few Shytepumps will use the Charter against us;

2. Better educated troops that won't put up with shenanigans - trust me there were lots of shenanigans in the "olden" days;

3. People that use adminstrative measures too freely ie an IC for being late, where a charge SHOULD have been used to correct behaviour. As far as I know, an IC is much simpler to issue than actually charging someone and going through a Summary Trial.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You know what kept my nose clean?  A room overlooking the parade square at Kapyong Barracks.


----------



## dapaterson

G2G: There was a case at the CMAC, where a learned military judge rejected a joint submission for a repeat offender, based (among other things) that the offender hadn't paid the fine from the first court martial by the time the second one came around.

On appeal, the CMAC tossed the judge's sentence and substituted the joint submission.  There was a dissent in the case; one of the CMAC judges agreed with the military judge.

Unfortunately, in a case like that there is no one to appeal to the next level; the prosecutor and defenders have just "won" over the judge, so the very bad precedent is allowed to stand, and future judges feel even more constrained in what they do when presented with what appears to be a very, very bad joint recommendation.


----------



## OldSolduer

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> You know what kept my nose clean?  A room overlooking the parade square at Kapyong Barracks.



That was entertainment for those not on defaulters parade.....and a warning to others.

It was no fun being the BOS unless you were inspecting the defaulters.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well stated.  I'm aware of one court martial in the late '90s where the offender received a reduced sentence because he agreed to release; a few months ago I saw him wandering around NDHQ, still serving.



Saw the same thing in the early 80's.  Cpl was drummed out of the Regiment in Petawawa, never supposedly to be able to re-enlist in the CAF.  Two years later shows up in Germany as a Reservist.  Two years later he had CT'ed back to the Regular Force.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That was entertainment for those not on defaulters parade.....and a warning to others.
> 
> It was no fun being the BOS unless you were inspecting the defaulters.



Every time I told myself, "no that's not for me"


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> Admittedly, it appears that the defence seems to have gotten the better of the deal but lawyering is a bit like playing poker and I tend to take the view that without having seen the entire hand that the prosecutor was dealt it would be a bit presumptuous of me to second guess whether or not he played it right.


This brings to mind another question for me:  how did the prosecutor from her previous CM end up as her defence this time, and vice versa?  WTF?  Outside the military, would a Crown have to be switched if, in a previous life, s/he'd been counsel for someone they're prosecuting?  Not quite conflict of interest, but perceived "insider trading"?


----------



## pbi

ballz said:
			
		

> I have also learned the hard way, although as a very junior officer and while I am still a Pl Comd. A tough lesson to learn, but looking back I would have done things differently.
> 
> The "book" gives us all the tools to accomplish what we need to, but I what I have found is a reluctance to use it. IMO, it is largely out of pure cowardice that we do not, and often resort to your third option. No one wants to look a man in the face and say "you're just not performing at the standard that you're required to." In the end, that's why you're getting paid the big bucks, to do exactly that when it is required. It's the easy way out to "make do" so that you can avoid holding someone to account....But at least I've learned, even if it had to be the hard way. That mistake has redefined my approach.



Ballz: Ack. There is an old (but very true) saying that "_there is none so zealous as the reformed sinner_". I , like you, am without any doubt a reformed sinner. (About this particular sin, if maybe not others... 

There were surely times that I didn't act when I should have. Early on, I gave PER scores that I would now say were clearly unmerited, or failed to question scores that were handed down by company or battalion merit boards. I submitted to the culture that said "everybody gets a "Met Standard".

On occasion, I gave breaks to people who later proved quite clearly that they didn't deserve them, and that I definitely should have seen it coming. And, yes-I "hid and ignored" people, and ironically later ended up having to "take out the trash" myself.

But, I think I did eventually learn about all this. It took me a long time, perhaps because like many of us by nature I wanted to see the best in the people I served with, and I (naively) thought that everybody saw their service the way I did.

Wrong.

I was the subject of three PER grievances because I insisted on assigning the scores that people's performance really deserved, not giving them a "Superior" because they show up for work on time. I was overruled in all three cases. Fine.

I did end up, finally, learning to tell people the truth. I was once assigned an MWO from another organization, only to receive a rather lame "apology" from the losing unit CO saying "sorry for the guy I sent you". I called the guy in, and said: "If you work hard and do your job as well as you possibly can, I am in your corner and I will do all I can for you. If you don't, and you carry on the way you did in "X" unit, I will do everything I can to get rid of you. Got it?"

He didn't turn into a super star, but he did OK.  That, I think, is how we need to be with people. But, like you, I fear that the CAF culture doesn't encourage that. Whether it is because we ("you") are cowards or not, I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just pressure from the culture. Remember that one of the very present dangers in the military profession is that discipline and loyalty may descend into mindless obedience and groupthink. I'm sure we've all seen it.

I hope that you and all serving leaders think about the Miller case, and about all the complex things it represents for the profession. Never forget that you have men and women who follow you, and want very much to be treated fairly and to be proud of their service. The Canadian soldier is the hardest person on earth to fool, and if he catches you doing it, he is unforgiving.


----------



## Edward Campbell

:goodpost: pbi

I suspect several of us identify with you ... some of those things certainly brought back very, very similar memories (and some shame) for me.

We are pretty ordinary people, by and large,who, now and again, are sent off to do some difficult things. That we almost always get the job done is because we have a deeply ingrained sense of teamwork and some of our leaders are smart enough to build on that.


----------



## Dissident

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :goodpost: pbi
> 
> I suspect several of us identify with you ...



I sure do.


----------



## TCM621

pbi said:
			
		

> Ballz: Ack. There is an old (but very true) saying that "_there is none so zealous as the reformed sinner_". I , like you, am without any doubt a reformed sinner. (About this particular sin, if maybe not others...
> 
> There were surely times that I didn't act when I should have. Early on, I gave PER scores that I would now say were clearly unmerited, or failed to question scores that were handed down by company or battalion merit boards. I submitted to the culture that said "everybody gets a "Met Standard".
> 
> On occasion, I gave breaks to people who later proved quite clearly that they didn't deserve them, and that I definitely should have seen it coming. And, yes-I "hid and ignored" people, and ironically later ended up having to "take out the trash" myself.
> 
> But, I think I did eventually learn about all this. It took me a long time, perhaps because like many of us by nature I wanted to see the best in the people I served with, and I (naively) thought that everybody saw their service the way I did.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> I was the subject of three PER grievances because I insisted on assigning the scores that people's performance really deserved, not giving them a "Superior" because they show up for work on time. I was overruled in all three cases. Fine.
> 
> I did end up, finally, learning to tell people the truth. I was once assigned an MWO from another organization, only to receive a rather lame "apology" from the losing unit CO saying "sorry for the guy I sent you". I called the guy in, and said: "If you work hard and do your job as well as you possibly can, I am in your corner and I will do all I can for you. If you don't, and you carry on the way you did in "X" unit, I will do everything I can to get rid of you. Got it?"
> 
> He didn't turn into a super star, but he did OK.  That, I think, is how we need to be with people. But, like you, I fear that the CAF culture doesn't encourage that. Whether it is because we ("you") are cowards or not, I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just pressure from the culture. Remember that one of the very present dangers in the military profession is that discipline and loyalty may descend into mindless obedience and groupthink. I'm sure we've all seen it.
> 
> I hope that you and all serving leaders think about the Miller case, and about all the complex things it represents for the profession. Never forget that you have men and women who follow you, and want very much to be treated fairly and to be proud of their service. The Canadian soldier is the hardest person on earth to fool, and if he catches you doing it, he is unforgiving.


I'll take that guy over a guy who folds like a cheap suit any day. My thing has always been, if you work hard and are honest when you screw up, I will do everything thing I can to help you. If you don't or actively lie or try to get out of work, I will do everything I can to bury you.

I don't think there is anything wrong with giving guys the benefit of the doubt but it can't last for ever. On the same token, one should be able to earn the privilege of getting away with screwing up once in awhile.


----------



## FJAG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This brings to mind another question for me:  how did the prosecutor from her previous CM end up as her defence this time, and vice versa?  WTF?  Outside the military, would a Crown have to be switched if, in a previous life, s/he'd been counsel for someone they're prosecuting?  Not quite conflict of interest, but perceived "insider trading"?



I saw that in a prior post as well and was somewhat surprised. I checked the decisions in both courts martial and in fact while both counsel were the same for both trials, they were there in the same role. i.e. the prosecutor in both case was the same individual and the defence counsel was also the same for both trials. They did not trade roles. In my opinion it would be ethically improper for a lawyer who once defended an individual and thereby became aware of confidential information about that individual to subsequently prosecute that same individual.

That said there used to be a time where we did switch roles. In my younger days DJAs (and even an AJAG) within a specific geographic region would be the prosecutor for cases within that region while the defence counsel would be a DJA assigned from any other region or the director of defence services from Ottawa. In my case I prosecuted in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and defended in any other province.

Since the formation of DMP and DDCS, prosecutors and defence counsel (regular and reserve) come solely from within their respective office. It is still possible for a lawyer who has served a tour with DDCS or DMP (usually three or so years) to subsequently be posted to the other office but in practice that hasn't happened (to my knowledge) or probably won't because there are only a few limited positions in those offices and the general aim (from a professional development point of view) is to have legal officers serve only one tour with either DMP or DDCS before moving on to a different area of law (Ops, Admin law or a field office).

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

Does that create problems?  A single three year tour hardly seems sufficient to build a base of experience to properly do the job; is it perhaps that lack of experiential depth that results in plea bargains like this?


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> I saw that in a prior post as well and was somewhat surprised. I checked the decisions in both courts martial and in fact while both counsel were the same for both trials, they were there in the same role. i.e. the prosecutor in both case was the same individual and the defence counsel was also the same for both trials. They did not trade roles.


Thanks for that - I should have read more closely.


----------



## ballz

pbi said:
			
		

> I did end up, finally, learning to tell people the truth. I was once assigned an MWO from another organization, only to receive a rather lame "apology" from the losing unit CO saying "sorry for the guy I sent you".



Our unit's solution was to send a bad posting letter. How weak is that... "Sorry for sending you this guy, we failed to do our job, he's your problem now." There seemed to be a consensus that sending over a "warning" to his new CoC washed our hands of any responsibility. IMO, it was JUNK. I felt the shame you mentioned.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> But, like you, I fear that the CAF culture doesn't encourage that. Whether it is because we ("you") are cowards or not, I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just pressure from the culture. Remember that one of the very present dangers in the military profession is that discipline and loyalty may descend into mindless obedience and groupthink. I'm sure we've all seen it.



As a leader, folding to cultural pressure instead of doing it "right" can be described in no other way than being a coward. I was taught at a young age "what is right may not always be popular, and what is popular may not always be right," but sure had to learn it the hard way. At least now I get it... but our culture should encourage others to do what's right, it does not, it encourages one to go with the grain. Sad really...



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Never forget that you have men and women who follow you, and want very much to be treated fairly and to be proud of their service. The Canadian soldier is the hardest person on earth to fool, and if he catches you doing it, he is unforgiving.



Something I never thought of at the time, but would have probably persuaded me to act sooner, was "what must my privates, corporals, jacks, and sergeants think of my failure to hold this Pl 2IC to account. Safe to say, after I did, convincing my troops to follow my lead became a lot easier.

Reformed sinner :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Does that create problems?  A single three year tour hardly seems sufficient to build a base of experience to properly do the job; is it perhaps that lack of experiential depth that results in plea bargains like this?



That's a very good question and has been debated internally for years. It's the old saw-off between giving trial experience to legal officers in general vs developing expertise through longevity. In that respect, the current system is an improvement over the prior one.

You should note that each directorate has reg force senior leaders (a Col and LCol within DDCS and a LCol (now Col) within DDCS) who would have had prior tours before being appointed and in addition to the reg force legal offrs there are around nine plus reservists in each directorate. The reservists are generally individuals who practice criminal law full-time, or close to full-time, so there is a depth of experience there. (as an aside during my time with the branch the reserve LCol within DMP was an Ontario crown prosecutor from Thunder Bay who had literally dozens of murder trials under his belt; an amazing resource from the branch - another was a prosecutor with the DoJ in Ottawa who eventually accepted a position as a reg force military judge)

On the down side, there are generally few courts martial in any given year (in the last few years just over sixty annually) which means that each legal officer within DMP and DDCS generally is assigned only a handful of cases each year (as compared to the dozens and dozens that civilian crown and defence counsel handle annually).

Over and above the relatively low number of cases, many of the cases are generally minor in nature (there are a few assaults, sexual assaults and other more serious offences but the majority of the cases are much lower on the scale). In summary the extent of the trial experience gained is significantly less than civilian crowns and defence lawyers.

I've been a long-time critic of the large number of staff assigned to DMP and, to a lesser extent, DDCS (and for that matter CMJ). In my opinion, it is excessive for the case load historically experienced.  Unfortunately the procedures used within the military justice system are unnecessarily complex, lead to long delays from when a charge is first investigated, proffered and eventually heard and cause each trial to take longer to complete than is necessary. In the civilian world, the less complex cases are generally sent to trial within a few months at worst and generally take a day or less of trial time - not so courts martial.

I'm generally seen as an apologist for the military justice system but quite frankly in my humble opinion it is excessively expensive and ponderous. While I think the accused gets a fair trial in each and every case, I think that the system is due for an overhaul from the ground up as opposed to the incremental fine tuning that it currently receives.

 :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## pbi

FJAG said:
			
		

> ...I'm generally seen as an apologist for the military justice system but quite frankly in my humble opinion it is excessively expensive and ponderous. While I think the accused gets a fair trial in each and every case, I think that the system is due for an overhaul from the ground up as opposed to the incremental fine tuning that it currently receives.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> :cheers:



Being very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I agree. In my layman's opinion, discipline is best served when it's swift and seen to be executed swiftly. The longer an accused hangs about, the worse it is for all, IMHO. My only worry is that I lived through a period of time during which the whole military legal system, including the powers of the CO, came under very close scrutiny. It survived, but I would not want to provoke any "unwanted" reforms at this point.   



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Something I never thought of at the time, but would have probably persuaded me to act sooner, was "what must my privates, corporals, jacks, and sergeants think of my failure to hold this Pl 2IC to account. Safe to say, after I did, convincing my troops to follow my lead became a lot easier.
> Reformed sinner :cheers:


Having spent eight years in the ranks before crossing Fool's Alley, I understand quite well what you're saying. This is NOT about a popularity contest with the troops, or about trying to curry favour with them. It's about realizing that the soldiers have a standard in their minds, and they are constantly judging officers against it. Some officers just never get this.

Once I started Regtl duty as a 2Lt, I was shocked by a number of my peers who thought that it was somehow "cool" or funny to come on parade with torn or worn out items of kit, civvy scarves under their cbt coats, long hair, etc. These were all things for which the troops could expect to be charged.

There was a pervasive attitude, held by both sides, that there was one rule for the rich and one for the poor. On the officer side, I put this down to some degree to the Anglophilia that was rampant in those days. If we ape the US Army now, we aped the Brits then. Unfortunately for some officers, the social class division that gave rise to that sort of thinking in the British Army was already gone in our Army, so there was no way that Canadian troops were automatically going to accept that these were just the actions of their "betters".


----------



## MaximusDMGG

Hi,

I am not military and never been and there's something I don't understand about all this. It was said (on several web sites) that she didn't bought those medals. She earned them overseas but was not allowed to wear them in Canada. How is this possible? Secret missions? Something else???

Thanks for explaining!


----------



## ModlrMike

Some further action on this case:

Termination of Order of Military Merit Appointment

OTTAWA––Today, the Canada Gazette published a notice advising that the appointment of
Lieutenant-Colonel Deborah Miller to the Order of Military Merit was terminated on December 22, 2014.


----------



## Gunner98

MaximusDMGG said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I am not military and never been and there's something I don't understand about all this. It was said (on several web sites) that she didn't bought those medals. She earned them overseas but was not allowed to wear them in Canada. How is this possible? Secret missions? Something else???
> 
> Thanks for explaining!



Perhaps she was on a medals parade overseas when all people from her tour were receiving their overseas medals; however, when she return to Canada it was learned that she did not complete the necessary time to be entitled to wear the medals.  Although she was informed she was not entitled to wear them she chose to wear them anyways.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Some further action on this case:
> 
> Termination of Order of Military Merit Appointment
> 
> OTTAWA––Today, the Canada Gazette published a notice advising that the appointment of
> Lieutenant-Colonel Deborah Miller to the Order of Military Merit was terminated on December 22, 2014.


Good catch - a bit more from media:


> A high-ranking military official has been stripped of a significant decoration after pleading guilty last fall to wearing medals on her uniform that she didn't earn.
> 
> Just before Christmas, the Governor General terminated Lt.-Col. Debbie Miller's membership in the Order of Military Merit, which recognizes exceptional service in either regular or reserve force.
> 
> Miller, 57, was sentenced to a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine following a court martial last October in Kingston, Ont.
> 
> She pleaded guilty to three counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for wearing military medals and insignia on her uniform she was not authorized to wear.
> 
> According to court martial transcripts, Miller had been awarded the medals following an overseas deployment, but she was not authorized to wear them in Canada, which is something the military takes very seriously.
> 
> Miller quietly retired from the military on Jan. 5 and had been posted to the Canadian Defence Academy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thanks for being a glue bag. Here's a cushy job.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think they're using it in past tense, in that her previous posting before retiring was at CDA. If they gave her a job afterwards, there is something seriously morally wrong with that organization.


----------



## slayer/raptor

The way that I read this:

"According to court martial transcripts, Miller had been awarded the medals following an overseas deployment, but she was not authorized to wear them in Canada, which is something the military takes very seriously." 

It seems she could have been given a foreign medal that wasn't recognize by the government of Canada and she chose to wear it anyways. Although if that is the case, many of us have seen members wear foreign decorations or insignia on their uniforms even though they are not allowed to, specifically on mess kit.


----------



## ModlrMike

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Although if that is the case, many of us have seen members wear foreign decorations or insignia on their uniforms even though they are not allowed to, specifically on mess kit.



I seem to recall that as mess kit is private purchase, then wearing the foreign decoration is permitted. It would not be so if the member wore mess dress.

It's still kind of tacky though.


----------



## PiperDown

The link to the CM results page was posted earlier, but here is a short cut and paste to refresh the thread. (which seems to be inquiring what the medals(s) in question was (were) and what uniform they were worn on.)


From the Court Martial results page.  

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2014/Miller.page



[9]               On 20 December 2012, for a unit event in Kingston, Ontario, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller wore her DEU tunic with the following medals/ribbons and decorations:

(a)    Officer of the Order of Military Merit (OMM);

(b)   Special Service Medal (SSM) with NATO bar;

(c)    Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal (CPSM);

(d)               UN Disengagement Observation Force (UNDOF) with the tour numeral two;

(e)                UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL);

(f)                Canadian Forces' Decoration (CD) with one clasp/one silver rosette; and,

(g)               three Command Commendations. 

[10]           She did not have authority to wear the UNIFIL medal, the SSM, or two of the command commendations.  The statement of circumstances indicates that she has been wearing the UNIFIL and SSM medals on her uniform since 1997.


----------



## George Wallace

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> .......... Although if that is the case, many of us have seen members wear foreign decorations or insignia on their uniforms even though they are not allowed to, specifically on mess kit.



While in Canada, in most instances it is not permitted to wear those foreign decorations or insignia on DEU, it may be allowed while on foreign postings.  Mess Kit is a different story.  So be careful of which "uniform" and "nation in which it is being worn" when you are making your statement about.

DHH will have specific orders as to what one can wear, and where.


----------



## Boondock Saint

I can't think of too many things are as heinous as to take the accolades of another. But I will confess I wear me Dad's black beret on occassion. Hope that will not offend too many lads.


----------



## Brasidas

Boondock Saint said:
			
		

> I can't think of too many things are as heinous as to take the accolades of another. But I will confess I wear me Dad's black beret on occassion. Hope that will not offend too many lads.



Offend, no. Confuse, yes.


----------



## OldSolduer

We're still talking about this officer? Me thinks a wrap is in order.


----------



## krustyrl

Agreed    :ditto:


----------



## Harris

And done.  If anyone has further NEW info to add I or one of the Mods can reopen it.

Todd

MILNET STAFF


----------

