# Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Wounded soldiers to be given opportunity to stay in uniform: defence sources*
Canadian Press, 4 Oct 07
Article link

OTTAWA - Soldiers badly wounded in Afghanistan and who want to stay in uniform would be given the chance to do so under a new policy drafted by the Defence Department.

The plan, drawn up in the waning days of Gordon O'Connor's tenure as defence minister, would allow the military to avoid the controversy of dismissing injured soldiers who want to continue serving and - in some cases - have no other vocation.

Sources within the Defence Department told The Canadian Press that the policy has been stuck in bureaucratic limbo since O'Connor was replaced in August by the new minister, Peter MacKay.

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, said recently that he has some of "his brightest minds working on it," but offered few details on the proposal or a timeline.

Sources who've seen a draft of the policy say it would allow soldiers who do not meet the military's universality of service rule to apply to stay as long as they meet some criteria.

Under the current system, a soldier who becomes disabled has three years to be rehabilitated and meet the fitness standard for overseas operations. If they cannot meet the requirement, they have no choice but to face a medical discharge.

The rule, introduced by Hillier, has been a source of concern as the number of wounded from the desert battlefields of Afghanistan grows.

Hillier has steadfastly refused to make changes to the current fitness requirement, but conceded that military has been trying to find a way to take care of its wounded with some dignity.

The authority to release an injured soldier, sailor or air crew member rests solely with the defence chief and Hillier has argued that the current system is flexible enough to let him decide the future of individuals.

But defence sources say clear criteria are needed to ensure fairness and to avoid potential legal challenges.

Lt.-Col. Stephane Grenier, a spokesman for the chief of military personnel, says the new policy will not supersede, amend or even soften the universality rule.

Its intent will be to recognize that wounded soldiers still have something to contribute to military life.

"The military is being challenged to balance the deployability factor with the gainfully employed factor," he said in an interview.

Grenier would not discuss what kind of criteria would be attached to the policy.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague, an advocate for wounded soldiers, said he wants to see the conditions and worries they will be too narrow and restrictive.

"We're talking about wounded human beings who fought for this country," he said.

"A soldier's commitment is open-ended and the criteria on whether they remain in the Forces should be too."

Grenier denied there's been any footdragging in addressing the issue, but said he understood the urgency some people must feel.

"This is not something that started yesterday," he said. "The process has been well underway. It happens to be a top priority for the chief of military personnel. It's not limbo. It might be in limbo, according to people who don't think it's moving fast enough."

Grenier couldn't say when the new policy will be given to MacKay for approval and also would not discuss what criteria applicants will have to meet when the new program is finally established.

Since the latest deployment to Kandahar in February 2006, 71 soldiers and one diplomat have been killed and as many as 325 troops have been injured. Most of the wounded have been able to return to their units.

Only a few dozen will likely be considered permanently disabled because they've lost a limb or suffered other traumatic wounds. The designation has yet to be made in individual cases because they have yet to complete their three-year rehabilitation period.


----------



## GAP (4 Oct 2007)

I wonder how this is going to translate to personnel injured in the normal course of their duties here in Canada....this could turn into a real bag of worms....(but it would be nice if they were able to accommodate this)


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I wonder how this is going to translate to personnel injured in the normal course of their duties here in Canada....this could turn into a real bag of worms....(but it would be nice if they were able to accommodate this)



Good point -- still, like you say, there's gotta be SOMETHING that can be done by someone who may not be able to deploy.  Maybe backfill a staff job of some sort to free up another bayonet?  I know these things aren't this simple, but common sense tells me there's gotta be something there....


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I wonder how this is going to translate to personnel injured in the normal course of their duties here in Canada....this could turn into a real bag of worms....(but it would be nice if they were able to accommodate this)



What would be the difference?

If a troop was severly injured in training, and has  much experience, we should just write him off due to where the injury happened?

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2007)

The impression of the article is that this would only/primarily apply to tour related injuries, but I agree it should apply to all.


----------



## tech2002 (5 Oct 2007)

it would of be nice if they re-wrote this process, some armies allow individual either injured soldier or civilian to enter into specific trade that allow to cover those that are on tour or transfer to different trade because of their qualifications needed there


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Oct 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What would be the difference?
> 
> If a troop was severly injured in training, and has  much experience, we should just write him off due to where the injury happened?



I agree, Tess, if they do it for one, they are going to have to do it for all.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2007)

Admiral Nelson - Minus One Eye and One Arm
General Sam Browne (designer of the Sam Browne belt) - Minus One Arm
Wing Commander Douglas Bader (Flying commander of Spitfires WW2) - Minus Two Legs

All able to serve in the face of the enemy


----------



## Harris (5 Oct 2007)

Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2007)

Harris said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.



...or pass along valuable "lessons learned" face-to-face (even if they can't teach the entire curriculum), or provide advice from experience garnered at a pretty high cost to planners, purchasers and trainers.


----------



## Scot57 (5 Oct 2007)

Harris said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.


 Agree. There have been many good soldiers forced out of the system that could have added great value in our training system.

Adjust the Pay Scale and insert a couple of columns. We already have Basic, Spec 1 , Spec 2 .... 

Why not introduce something to the effect of *Column 1*: Basic ; for those soldiers unable to deploy or perform BFT for what ever reason or, have entered PCAT status. *Column 2*: Deployable, *Column 3*: Spec 1, *Column 4*: Spec 2 ...etc. 

All recruits must be deployable !

Those soldiers on TCAT must fully understand that if it leads to PCAT and they are retained (and positions are available), they would take a drop in pay.

Just a thought.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2007)

Scot57 said:
			
		

> Adjust the Pay Scale and insert a couple of columns. We already have Basic, Spec 1 , Spec 2 ....
> 
> Why not introduce something to the effect of *Column 1*: Basic ; for those soldiers unable to deploy or perform BFT for what ever reason or, have entered PCAT status. *Column 2*: Deployable, *Column 3*: Spec 1, *Column 4*: Spec 2 ...etc.
> 
> ...




So your saying that an injured soldier is worth less then a healthy one? is his work in some way inferior?

And if you lump those permanently wounded do to operatons in that idea I think it's just wrong. Nope I don't like that idea at all. I think it's almost insulting honestly


----------



## Scot57 (5 Oct 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I think it's almost insulting honestly


 Only a suggestion. And no one said changing the system would be easy. Clearly something has to be done to retain good soldiers currently being forced out. 

As for insulting. Perhaps to some. But my wife would have gladly taken a drop in pay to stay in the Military. Instead, because of a broken bone in her foot sustained in Petawawa, she was forced out after 21 years as a Sgt. She would have made a fine instructor.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2007)

But why should she have been paid less to be an instructor is what I am getting at. I agree with universitality of service and the need to maintain deployable troops. But I think perhaps something need to be reexamined, perhaps not those injured in the normal course of duty in domestic operations but certainly for those who sustain life changing and body altering injuries do to combat. 

I personally don't think a sliding pay scale is the answer though.


----------



## Scot57 (5 Oct 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> But why should she have been paid less to be an instructor is what I am getting at. I agree with univeritality of service and the need to maintain deployable troops. But I think perhaps something need to be re-examined, perhpas not those injured in the normal course of duty in domestic operations but certainly for those who sustain life changing and body altering injuries do to combat.
> 
> I personaly don't think a sliding pay scale is the answer though.


 I think its an *option* (a choice for that member) that has to be explored. I spent time as a CSM in Petawawa and saw too many good soldiers injured (or for other medical conditions) in Garrison, forced out.  

As for soldiers injured in combat .....my opinion  ...... yes, its a different matter.  Those able to return to duty in another capacity should be able to be retained their current rank and pay. 

Again - for those not injured in combat, and are facing PCAT ....more options must be made available. A cut in pay and retention is a good option for many.


----------



## RCR Grunt (5 Oct 2007)

There's 2 kinds of injuries we have to look at here: 
 1) Operational injuries sustained from action against an enemy / during a mission. 

 2) Injuries sustained through normal training / peacetime operations.

If you are injured as a result of attending what one instructor of mine calls "the final PO check," then there is no reduction of pay and every possible effort is made to retain you.  Whether that is in another trade or instructing doesn't matter.  The retention of people with real world combat lessons learned is vital to the future of the CF.

If you bust yourself up playing ball hockey or skateboarding, well then a sliding pay scale would be the best for the CF.  Paying an individual full pay if they cannot deploy just doesn't make sense and encourages others to malinger with no consequence.

Remember though that it should still be up to the member whether he / she even wants to stay in the CF.  There is no point retaining a soldier if all they want to do is fish and golf and never put on relish again.

Now, there will be cases where an individual is injured during normal training / peacetime ops but has deployed in the past.  There may be exceptions and each injury should be looked at in a case by case sort of way.  Pte Bloggins with 2 haircuts in who busted his femur at the skatepark obviously has less to offer than WO Johnny Cash with 12 tours and combat experience who destroyed his spine jumping with CSOR for example.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2007)

Agreed Grunt, But the if every PCAT is a case by case that system will indeed clog the medical system perhaps DMCARM would need a whole new sub section to deal with it, then again it could also just be a case of looking at a soldiers MPRR.


----------



## TCBF (5 Oct 2007)

The more complicated we make this, the faster it will fail a charter challenge.

My proposal:

1.  Must meet deployable/standard or no further career progression unless approved by trade, and even then:

2.  Cannot be meritted/career course loaded while fit soldiers of same rank are any where on the merit list and do not have the same qual.

3.  If broken, cannot be promoted ahead of any same rank on the merit list who is fit.

4.  This way, those who are broken still contribute, but do not gum up the succession plan with people who cannot deploy.

5.  If you are in a command position and broken, and a fit soldier wants your job - he/she gets it.


----------



## RCR Grunt (5 Oct 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Agreed Grunt, But the if every PCAT is a case by case that system will indeed clog the medical system perhaps DMCARM would need a who new sub section to deal with it, then again it could also just be a case of looking at a soldiers MPRR.



+ 1 for MPRR.  Makes it easy for a unit to look and see if an individual has any current and relevant knowledge that should be retained at full pay.  

I also like TCBF's proposal, and the KISS principal should definitely be employed here.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2007)

So what he have then in essence is this

Member injured in combat is retained at current rank and pay till his contract is concluded (though it can be renewed in the case of BE's) to pass on his hard earned knowledge.

Member is injured due to non deployed reasons. His MPRR is reviewed to ensue that member as relevant experience needed to be kept in the system ( Ref the example Grunt used) If member does he is retained in a training capacity at full pay. Member cannot advance in rank past fit soldiers.

Member does not have relevant knowledge. Member is moved to a non deployable postion at a reduced pay if he so desires and cannot advance in rank.

All Members above can choose Medical Release vice staying in CF


----------



## TCBF (5 Oct 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> ... Member does not have relevant knowledge. Member is moved to a non deployable postion at a reduced pay if he so desires and cannot advance in rank.



- Cannot reduce pay.  Maintain, or spend the money DND saves in wages on court costs.



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> All Members above can choose Medical Release vice staying in CF



- Not all.  "Exigencies of the Service" will dictate who gets offerrd what - and where.  Don't need a barrack warden living in a Iron Lung in Yellowknife.

- This cannot be loosened up too much!  Pers serving in a Special Duty Area and Wounded in Action are the priority.  If we do not specify that, people living in wheelchairs will (again) inundate us with applications claiming that they can do the same job as the 'injured on basic training' soldier.  

- IOT sort this out, we must get RUTHLESS in our quest to weed out those who joined the CF with pre-existing mental and physical incapacities.But,

- Looming problem: recent research indicating possible familial/genetic pre-dispositions towards PTSD.  Keep an eye on THAT research!


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2007)

In theory the CF is now expanding; which should leave plenty of positions (especially as instructors) with an actual CF “need” to be filled, which should allow for the CF to keep non-deployable personnel employed.

There should be no need for a special pay scale or an absolute denial of promotion. As an example: If there were a lot of WO positions open but not enough qualified deployable Sgts to fill them, then there would be no reason not to promote a qualified non-deployable Sgt to non-deployable WO (if the need exists).

There is no reason to look at how non-deployable status was achieved - qualifications to fill the CF "need" is all that matters.

As CF training and retention of deployable personnel meets demands then you start to buy out the non-deployable contracts (which were only ever there on a CF “need”).

Right now there seems to be a CF “need”; in a few years there may not be. CF “need” should be the determining factor; or else you’re just recreating a problem that was previously fixed: the problem of too many non-deployable personnel causing deployable personnel to be redeployed at a faster rate than what was anticipated?


----------



## battleaxe (5 Oct 2007)

Or how about this…

Let’s revisit the scenario that got me into so much trouble a while back (this time I promise to be polite and won’t scratch).

Link:http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html

The object of the game here is for DND and the CF to save face, avoid controversy and make job security for military personnel comparable to that found in the Public Service and other government departments.  

So...transfer the contracts of wounded military personnel into DND civilian contracts. 

Stop hiring fresh faced university students and civilians into DND- and begin to create a civilian force out of (mainly-nothing is absolute) former military personnel- a static non-deployable force that would exploit the skills and expertise and the incredibly expensive training and education that they all possess.

Currently, we (taxpayers) are paying thousands of people ? hundreds?; insurance adjusters, case managers, rehabilitation folks, vocational experts, employment experts, many, many, many lawyers, etc, to prepare our ex-military personnel for job hunting and employment.

It’s already been acknowledged that it is only a very small minority of those being released who will never work again and who actually require this extensive rehabilitation.  Most simply need jobs.

Most are already highly skilled and trained.  Those who aren’t and who require job training are currently being re-educated at government expense- only to take those skills to other companies and employers.

God…don’t get me started.

Employ those who we’ve already trained in DND- as civilians.  Those who don’t already have the skills to work in the government- train them so that they do- and then employ them. (We already pay to re-educate them so that other employers will hire them-why not do so and keep them?)

Currently, there are people- mostly the higher ranks and more educated ones-in the right place at the right time- who are released, get a fat VAC award, high medical pension…and then I (as a taxpayer) have to pay them a PS salary on top of that.

I don’t feel the need to do that, really.

I’d rather see these people have their contracts extended-transferred from military to civilian- and then see their benefits progress and mature naturally into one pension when they retire. 

Also, the system won’t be based on luck then- or rank- or connections.  

Every contract is switched to a civilian contract- and employment will be found.  If the positions can’t be found- create them.  Create positions that enhance and improve military services. There will be money available to do that- because we will no longer be paying hundreds of people to do a job that is not really required. Put the money into paying released military personnel to do actual constructive jobs that improve military ops and services- not into paying civilian personnel to teach released military personnel to find jobs with other employers.

Anyway, as many of you would say, “rant off”.

I did my happy dance this week when I heard Canada’s Labour Minister actually say that no person who has worn a military uniform should ever have to go from the front line to the employment line. I was also astonished when I read about the turnabout in U of S policy.

Then they started waffling again, talking about conditions and exceptions, and I stopped dancing.  It has to be all or nothing- or the challenges will continue- we’ve been through this before. 

Get them out of the military- maintain the U of S- transfer their CF contracts to DND contracts and make them civilians who will then work in support of military- if they wish to continue doing so. 

Who better to work in support of military operations than those who have already been there?

Idealistic?  Definitely.  Will it ever happen?  No…or it will take one heck of a fight- because veterans are currently big business and many people earn wages based on the fact that veterans continue to lose theirs.

I’m not saying this type of move would be easy to do- I'm also not saying that my thoughts consitute the perfect solution. I can’t even imagine the union problems, legislation changes, negotiations something like this will entail.  I do think, however, that the government has to start looking at something like this if there is every to be harmony and fairness for our men and women in uniform. 

To those of you who actually waded through this book I’ve just written, thanks for listening. 

Should I duck? 

Bren


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2007)

Lots of good input here...

I note that New Zealand is brave enough to set up a wiki to allow people to, literally, rewrite their Police Act.  Could the same thing be done here?

How's this for an experiment:  With all the expertise (both theoretical AND first-hand) Army.ca folks can bring to the table, could "the collective" develop a policy on this one?

On a whim, I've set up a little wiki - http://servingwounded.pbwiki.com/ - to see if this can happen.  I've just put in the headings - if you're interested in contributing, PM me and I'll send you the PW.  The wiki system is dead easy to use/edit.  I've set up headings, and if you click on the headings, you get to a blank page ready to fill.  As people write, others can log in, edit, post comments, etc.

Then again, it could just be like the proverbial lead fart, but nothing ventured.  If it the postings get ridiculous, or obviously pointless or non productive, the wiki will disappear.

Anyone up for it?


----------



## TCBF (5 Oct 2007)

Bren,

Good ideas, but political suicide.  Bases are tolerated in ridings because of the civilian employment they create.  If bases began restricted hiring policies with veterans as a top priority the protest lines would be up in a minute.  Larry Lunchbox and Susie Sewingkit would get political for the first time in their lives.

Sure, you can open 'competitions' to vets, but how many of those competitions for civ positions are filled even before the poster goes up?  A done deal.

Some tried to make CFE hire spouses on a priority basis in Germany and even there it was a problem.


----------



## battleaxe (5 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Sure, you can open 'competitions' to vets, but how many of those competitions for civ positions are filled even before the poster goes up?  A done deal.



We never hear about those competitions because the jobs are never posted.  If the transition to civilian was seamless- just a natural part of the release process- and personnel were put into jobs without a public posting and competition process (government employees need not apply for new positions in accommodation situations), Larrie and Suzie would never hear about the position and therefore wouldn't be able to gripe about not being able to apply for it.

No?

I get what you mean about the politics involved, though. 

I am an admitted idealist and what I've written represents how things would be "if I were Queen of the world". Most people are quite indignant about the treatment of vets- right up until the moment they hear that the solution to the problem will affect their own lives.  You're right.

That's why I brought the union issue into the mix- people, especially people with union backing- will never let it happen.

So, how can our released personnel continue working and contributing- without stepping on the toes of civilian government workers and/or current deployable military personnel who need jobs to come home to in between tours?

It's impossible-someone's going to get their toes smushed.  If the system is not radically changed, our deployable personnel are going to, once again, find their downtime positions taken and the recruiting system clogged with non-deployable personnel.  

That didn't work...so what to do? 

This time around, it has to be different.  We have tried accommodating personnel within the CF and the system got clogged up- promotions and recruiting were affected and downtime positions were taken away from deployable personnel.  It messed with the natural rotation of things.  This time, we have to go outside of the CF. There is no way to do that without conflict. Even if the injured are retained within the CF, and given a separate non-deployable status so that they don't get counted in CF staffing numbers, their mere presence will certainly begin to affect Public Service employment opportunities- and someone will complain. 

I can't see a solution that pleases everyone, but I feel that military personnel have made enough concessions and paid a big enough price.  Let the public make a contribution to Canada's defence and reputation by acknowledging that, being at war, it is in our collective Canadian best interest to keep our experienced military personnel in the loop and in DND-in training, logistics, and advisory positions. 

Let someone else step up and make the concessions this time. 

Yeah, I know...I'm dreaming again.

It would be nice to see them pull out the 'we are at war' and 'national security' cards here, though. Don't these things override union demands and civilian workers' indignation? Isn't security a priority- and don't priorities come first?  

Dreamin'?

I'm off to check out the wiki thing that was mentioned above...

Bren


----------



## simysmom99 (5 Oct 2007)

So here is where I see it, from someone who is living with a severely injured soldier.  
He is still working.  In fact, he is working more and away a lot more than he was before the injury.  His date for retirement is in 2009, which is his 10 year mark.  Does he want to continue?  I don't know.  I think he has earned the right to say "f*^& it" when retirement comes up and sit on his ass all day for the rest of his life.  This of course will  not happen because that is not the kind of person my dh is.
I completely understand the Universality of Service.  I see making sure that all of our deployable soldiers have jobs.  But what about making sure that those who have lost 2 legs (3 soldiers that I know of) and can't walk more than 1 km a day (which is like running a marathon, every day, day after day) have a position within the military that fulfills their need to be productive members of society.  We can't turn our backs on these soldiers either.  
I can't say 1 awful thing about how my dh has been treated by the military.  Sure, we have battles, but so does everyone else physically well or not.  We need to change our way of thinking and change policy.  The thing is is that we have to change an entire bureaucracy, which will take time and patience.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Oct 2007)

If a soldier can recover from his injuries,including loss of limbs and can pass the PT test should be allowed to stay on active duty.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=1747600&page=1


----------



## Kiwi99 (6 Oct 2007)

I am all for keeping wounded soldiers employes in DND.  If they have the drive and motivation to serve, then we as an army deserve them.  There are plenty of desk jobs that they would excel at.  Now, prying the present holders of those desks from their current job is another matter.  But it can be easily solved by the career managers.  And if those pers don't like the prospect of going back to a line unit, oh well, too bad.  My only concern is if the wounded soldiers stay on their home units nominal role or not.  This could impede the advancement of other soldiers.  At the end of the day, wounded soldiers are still soldiers, and if they wanna fight, lets give them the chance.  Same pay prospects, same promotion chances. They earn it like everyone else.  And that is, I beleive, how they would want it.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (6 Oct 2007)

I'm sorry but I don't agree with retaining personnel who have been injured, either in theatre or otherwise. The military needs fit capable people, not a bunch of wheelchair and cane commado's, especially at this time.

I was medically released and I must say that I'm glad I was, because having my career go down the tubes wasn't something I wanted to stick around to watch. Watching my peers advancing in rank, getting good postings and being able to do the "job" is something that played on me everyday and I was all to glad to leave, to make room for a healthy individual. 

If this is implemented, these individuals will take up spots were otherwise healthy individuals could have been. Its a bad,bad idea and will have all kinds of negative implications further down the road. 

The military is no place for physically challenged people and I'm speaking from first hand experience.  

Doing your thing for your country is admirable, getting injured while doing it sucks, but it's part of the job. Passing the flag to another to continue to the fight is hard, but we all have to be "realistic" and move on.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I don't agree with retaining personnel who have been injured, either in theatre or otherwise. The military needs fit capable people, not a bunch of wheelchair and cane commado's, especially at this time.
> 
> I was medically released and I must say that I'm glad I was, because having my career go down the tubes wasn't something I wanted to stick around to watch. Watching my peers advancing in rank, getting good postings and being able to do the "job" is something that played on me everyday and I was all to glad to leave, to make room for a healthy individual.
> 
> ...



So can I ask you one question,

You would not employ MCpl Paul Franklin to pass on his knowledge of Combat medicine, because he is a wheelchair bound, cane commando?

Interesting.

Please answer that one question.

dileas

tess


----------



## battleaxe (6 Oct 2007)

The conundrum is this...it's better to keep injured soldiers employed (both morally and from a human resources standpoint) but to do so causes no end of problems within the CF itself.

I recently wrote this in response to an e-mail I received from another medically released vet who, having managed to get into the PS, is still fighting to have his time in the CF counted towards seniority, vacation benefits, etc.  After years in the military- he started at the bottom again in the PS.  I'd say work needs to be done on the priority hire and transition into the PS (he's not the only one I know who has had this problem)- for those few who actually manage to do so.

"There needs to be a monumental shift in thinking.  

As a tax payer, I’m appalled at the experience, training, and money that the government tosses away each time a military member is released.  And, I feel that they are being released because it is easier to simply release them than to create new policies to employ them productively.  I also believe that changes in employment security for military members would jeopardize the employment of many other rehab, insurance, and VAC employees.

Veterans are big business- many people are employed in ‘rehabilitating’ people who require little or no rehabilitating. If we start giving employable (this is not about those who cannot work) released personnel jobs, who are they going to ‘rehabilitate’? What are they going to do? 

Anyway, instead of making it seem like charity, turn it around.  

Currently, the system works like this: We hear, “OK soldier, you were hurt in battle and can’t run anymore.  We appreciate your time.  Here’s some money, and we’ll give you a little extra consideration (along with all the other special interest groups that have priority hire) if you want another job in the government. If you can’t find a government job, you’re on your own. Good luck.  Catch you later.”

I would like it to hear this, “OK soldier, you were hurt in battle and you can’t run anymore.  You may feel like you can’t be of any use to us anymore; but do you know what?  The Canadian taxpayers spent a lot of time, money, and effort training and educating you and you owe them-and you signed a contract that we are going to hold you to.  We are at war, we are under staffed, and we need your experience and expertise to train those who are willing to continue the fight that you started.  We are going to stop hiring fresh faced university students and civilians into the DND civilian division, and we are going to put you to work there.  Instead of creating a PS position for a civilian so that there will be somebody to help you find a job, we are simply going to find a job for you- a PS position that will enhance CF services for deployable military personnel and allow you, now a civilian, to constructively continue to support the CF. We are going to do this, because you have proven yourself a good and motivated worker, and we need you.  We appreciate what you did for us, soldier, but your work is not done.”

Treat people with dignity and acknowledge their worth and we will have fewer 'disgruntled' (I hate that word) veterans sounding off to the media.

Somebody above mentioned that we have to be realistic.  

Realistically, this is neither the same world nor the same job market/employment situation that existed twenty or thirty years ago. The "suck it up, you signed on the dotted line" argument is no longer valid.  

Recently, Canada's Labour Minister vowed to enact legislation that would protect reservists' employment-on a national level.

If this happens, the CF will find people investing time and effort in first finding and establishing stable permanent employment...and then joining the reserves to fulfill the need they have to fight for Canada.  

Then, if they are injured, or get sick, they will have a job to go back to- with an employer that will work with them and accommodate for their missing limbs and kidney stones. People will not invest in a career that will have them starting all over again years down the road if they happen to get arthritis or end up using a cane. And they will know the CF treats their wounded this way because, unlike twenty or thirty years ago, ex-military are speaking out at the unfairness- telling the world, on national television, how things are. 

It's very noble to consider the military a calling, and to say that it's so much more than a job. It's very easy to get offended by being called a mere "employee"- until the paycheck stops.

I'm watching the MCpl Franklin situation with interest.  Here we have a man who has won the hearts and minds of nation, is motivated and has skills and experience that will help to save the lives of future soldiers.  Will they let him go? 

Can they not create a position for this man?  Or will people be shouting-"You have to open that position up to a competition- because he's not in the military anymore?"

It's a shame...and so frustrating that I don't know what else to say right now.

Bren


----------



## NCRCrow (6 Oct 2007)

I think we should retain wounded members in such areas of recruiting or if applicable UTA to the reserves. Or even in Nat/Reg Intelligence Centers as they have valuable on the ground experience and can add a tactical spin to Command (Trinity/CFEWC/Athena etc)

These people are motivated, highly knowledgeable and demonstrates that the CF is a family and we do not discard our sick.

But I think it would have to be assessed on a case by case basis. 

edit: Don't we accommodate people in postions anyway? (we do it in Navy)


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2007)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> I think we should retain wounded members in such areas of recruiting or if applicable UTA to the reserves. Or even in Nat/Reg Intelligence Centers as they have valuable on the ground experience and can add a tactical spin to Command (Trinity/CFEWC/Athena etc)
> 
> These people are motivated, highly knowledeable and demonstrates that the CF is a family and we do not discard our sick.
> 
> But I think it would have to be assessed on a case by case basis.



Not to shoot you down, but most of what you just posted is not workable.  The places you have mentioned are mandated to augment the Regular Force, and must meet the requirements of being deployable.  Reservists are making up very large percentages of Rotos.  Reserve units need deployable pers.  Any Int position is in high demand, and to fill them with non-deployable pers would soon make them non-effective.  This requirement to deploy in actuality applies to some civilians serving in some DND positions.

You have made a very valid point in closing, and that is that it is necessary that these are all assessed on a case by case basis.  

People should not confuse the CF with DND in this discussion, as they are two separate entities.  To keep a disabled Service Member in the CF is not the same as keeping them in DND.


----------



## TCBF (6 Oct 2007)

- We may recall that the PS was jammed with WW2 vets, but so was every other place - WW2 created almost 1,000,000 Canadian veterans, plus most of the 600,000 WW1 vets were still alive and working in Aug 1945.

- As well, up into the eighties you could transfer your seniority and benefits to the PS. That was shot down. Lots of officers were retiring at 20 or 25 years and brought their seniority into the PS. Naturally, that prevented a lot of the lower PS from progressing. Since the vast majority of the retiring officers were male, it allegedly created the hated "glass ceiling" which prevented female PS members from advancing at/to the executive level.

- Ironic, in that parity with the CF and the PS was created in the sixties to allow direct transfer (some have bemoaned that event as the death rattle of military professionalism), then we get frozen out of direct transfers to the PS, yet we still have our pay and benefits package stapled to - and stifled by - that of the PS.

- If it comes to wounded vets in wheelchairs versus the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the smart money will bet on PSAC.


----------



## NCRCrow (6 Oct 2007)

The reserves I can agree with you on. Or what about the CIC?

But I will tell you my situation on the intelligence side. I was working at a unit in Ottawa where we hired civilians to augment regular force members as time was lost to courses/training etc. The civilians were ex-members of the CF because of the experience and knowledge base requirements. Close your eyes and imagine Cubicle land. 

My question is why not let injured CF personnel with the right aptitude, experience & motivation to do these kind of jobs. Data base entry, technical reports etc. vice public servants.


----------



## TCBF (6 Oct 2007)

HFXCrow,

I think that - 

The strength of the CF is arrived at through the process of the main estimates which form the basis of the federal budget.  This is one way the people - through their elected members - control the direction of government: through the application or denial of funding (in theory).

Thus, the CF cannot excede the strength (by rank and number) tabled in the main estimates (generally speaking).

For every non-deployable position we create, we lose a deployable one.  The first hint of this being a problem will be non-deployable people taking up "shore billets" formerly used as "a change is better than a rest" postings by deployable members.  Once we keep burning out the same people on deployments because the 'rest' postings are filled by non-deployable pers who cannot take their turns on tour, we start losing experienced and expensively trained soldiers to releases.

As well, the 'Succession Plans' of our regimental system dictate that certain positions must be accomplished as we hack and claw our way up the pyramid.  We have to leave those positions open to fit pers.


----------



## geo (6 Oct 2007)

Harris said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.



Harris,  last thing people need to conclude is that all HQ positions are staffed by the Sick & lame.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (6 Oct 2007)

> So can I ask you one question,
> 
> You would not employ MCpl Paul Franklin to pass on his knowledge of Combat medicine, because he is a wheelchair bound, cane commando?
> 
> ...



The answer is quite simple. I would have been one of those wheelchair commando's, since I'm in a wheelchair, I can attest to what I said in my original post as having first hand knowledge and I knew deep down that the military was no longer the place for me. Don't get me wrong it was hard leaving the only life I knew and I was angry, but I also realized that my military career was over. and that I would always be playing second fiddle to someone else. No advancement, static postings, medical reviews would have been only a few of the hurdles I would have had to face If I had been alowed to stay, not to mention holding up a spot for an able bodied person.
We must be realistic and realize that the military is unlike any other job, it depends on fit able bodied people to perform their duties and alowing injured disabled people to remain in the ranks will only lead to more serious implications down the road. 
I stick with my conviction, that the military is no place for the disabled in uniform.



> As to your question Tess about Mcpl Franklin, he could do the same thing as a civilian consultant employed by DND.



Me, I went back to school, recieved my computer science degree and now I work as an IT consultant for Kellogs Canada here in London Ontario.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> The answer is quite simple. I would have been one of those wheelchair commando's, since I'm in a wheelchair, I can attest to what I said in my original post as having first hand knowledge and I knew deep down that the military was no longer the place for me. Don't get me wrong it was hard leaving the only life I knew and I was angry, but I also realized that my military career was over. and that I would always be playing second fiddle to someone else. No advancement, static postings, medical reviews would have been only a few of the hurdles I would have had to face If I had been alowed to stay, not to mention holding up a spot for an able bodied person.
> We must be realistic and realize that the military is unlike any other job, it depends on fit able bodied people to perform their duties and alowing injured disabled people to remain in the ranks will only lead to more serious implications down the road.
> I stick with my conviction, that the military is no place for the disabled in uniform.
> 
> ...



Too a Tee.

As opposed to your post last night, that conveys a better message.

That was all I asked for. 

Cheers.


dileas

tess


----------



## geo (6 Oct 2007)

+1 RG45


----------



## battleaxe (6 Oct 2007)

I'm going to drop a big dumb question right here in the middle of this thing.

This is a "what if" hypothetical and I am not learned enough about unions and such to make a truly informed opinion yet but- in the spirit of learning and in order to add to the discussion about options, I'm going to throw this out there...

If it is found that military personnel have the right to the same benefits and considerations as other people in the government...
If military people have skills that are valuable, comparable, and transferrable to many public service positions...
If tax payers invest large amounts of money in soldiers' training and would logically benefit from the continued use of those skills...
If it has been acknowledged that military personnel and vets have the right to advocacy...
and if one were to consider military service the highest form of public service... 

then, hypothetically, why not sign military personnel up as PS employees- and simply consider the CF another department within DND?

Don't get mad as a snap reaction...simply think about it.

First argument-CF personnel cannot be unionized.  Why not?  It is legislated.  Yes, and legislation is changed all the time.  
Unionization would undermine discipline in the CF?   Yes, but, let's face it, the days of mindless acceptance of poor treatment are long gone.  Forces personnel have any number of avenues to discuss, negotiate, and resolve their issues. There are already forms of advocacy- and people are screaming for more.  Greivances, the CF Ombudsman, the Human Rights Commission, the media- and all of those are currently backfilled with complaints. What difference, really, will belonging to a union make in how the military runs today- other than the fact that they would have to pay the dues? (This is not a hypothetical question but a real one- would unionization really make a big difference? Maybe another thread? (I'm going now to the search function to see if this has been discussed on this forum before)

Second argument-Union resistance.  Yes.
Third argument...you tell me...

I've admitted to idealism, but am not idealistic to the point of stupidity...and that is why I present this as a hypothetical rather than a concrete suggestion. I also realize the violent visceral reaction that many must feel upon simply considering the option.  

But consider it, please. If one can get past the drama, the legislation and the politics, all of those "it'll never work because" scenarios...would it be a viable option?

It would put military personnel on equal footing with other government employees- from the start- and would open up the door to moving them out of the CF when they cannot deploy and into other govenment employment.

Is unionism the only thing preventing military personnel being signed on as public servants? If yes,  is that rationale even a valid one, in the modern sense? 


Bren  (who asks that you all respond to this question guided by the spirit of the saying 'there are no stupid questions"-Thanks)


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (6 Oct 2007)

Sorry Tess, I re-read my post last night and I seen were someone would get the wrong idea. My apologies.


----------



## TCBF (6 Oct 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> then, hypothetically, why not sign military personnel up as PS employees- and simply consider the CF another department within DND?



- Asked and Answered.



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> First argument-CF personnel cannot be unionized.  Why not?  It is legislated.  Yes, and legislation is changed all the time.
> Unionization would undermine discipline in the CF?   Yes, but, let's face it, the days of mindless acceptance of poor treatment are long gone.  Forces personnel have any number of avenues to discuss, negotiate, and resolve their issues. There are already forms of advocacy- and people are screaming for more.  Greivances, the CF Ombudsman, the Human Rights Commission, the media- and all of those are currently backfilled with complaints. What difference, really, will belonging to a union make in how the military runs today- other than the fact that they would have to pay the dues? (This is not a hypothetical question but a real one- would unionization really make a big difference? Maybe another thread? (I'm going now to the search function to see if this has been discussed on this forum before)



- Bren, more forms of advocacy actually water down and delay positive results.  When everyone is responsible, NO ONE is responsible (Ahhhhhh, the joys of socialism!)  It merely employs more well paid bureaucrats to less result.



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> Second argument-Union resistance.  Yes. ... Is unionism the only thing preventing military personnel being signed on as public servants? If yes,  is that rationale even a valid one, in the modern sense?



- Valid? All power is validation.  Even after WW2, not all of the jobs being 'held' for soldiers were held. As I said above, if it comes to vets in wheelchairs versus PSAC, smart money is on PSAC.

- I am not picking on PSAC either.  Try getting school boards to give preferential hiring to vets who go through teacher's colledge/university.  Then wait for the footage of protesting teachers beating vets in wheelchairs with their picket signs "NO JOBS FOR BABY KILLERS!"  "HELP US KEEP CRAZED SOLDIERS FROM YOUR CHILDREN!"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Oct 2007)

If you can't deploy you should not be retained if you can't get better.  That includes those too out of shape, injured, not willing to deploy etc.  If these wounded personnel have experience to pass on then hire them as consultants.  Now that doesn't mean every chance to get better should be given but I think the current medical release is good with 2 years paid school including 75% of your wage and paying for you books and tools etc.  There is also the 2x 6 month temp categories and a permanent category so its not as if the member has to be released straight away and not have time to converse with his buddies.


----------



## battleaxe (6 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Asked and Answered.



Do you have a link to a discussion that doesn't list the unions or current legislation (both of which seem to be tired old excuses) as the over riding reasons for why CF personnel are not part of the PS?  I can't find one. 

I believe that the union argument may have lost some of its relevance along the way, and I believe that legislation is a dynamic thing that changes-albeit slowly- with the times.
I guess I am asking if union reasons and legslative roadblocks are the only things preventing military personnel being considered public servants. Are there any other reasons?



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - Bren, more forms of advocacy actually water down and delay positive results.  When everyone is responsible, NO ONE is responsible (Ahhhhhh, the joys of socialism!)  It merely employs more well paid bureaucrats to less result.



I hate the bureacracy involved in advocacy, too.  I think if things were simply done right the first time, there would be no need for it. Now, however, we have watchdogs guarding the watchdogs who are watching the advocates.  Terrible.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - Valid? All power is validation.  Even after WW2, not all of the jobs being 'held' for soldiers were held. As I said above, if it comes to vets in wheelchairs versus PSAC, smart money is on PSAC.



I'm not sure I understand. I don't want to put words in your mouth or misunderstand so...by this do you mean that you think the union is powerful enough to stop any proposal to include military personnel in the PS?  That the resistance presented by unions would come from the unions themselves rather than from any disciplinary issues that might arise as a result of having a unionized military? 

I just want to be clear. Thanks.

Bren


----------



## battleaxe (6 Oct 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> If you can't deploy you should not be retained if you can't get better.  That includes those too out of shape, injured, not willing to deploy etc.  If these wounded personnel have experience to pass on then hire them as consultants.  Now that doesn't mean every chance to get better should be given but I think the current medical release is good with 2 years paid school including 75% of your wage and paying for you books and tools etc.  There is also the 2x 6 month temp categories and a permanent category so its not as if the member has to be released straight away and not have time to converse with his buddies.



I think the backtracking on this issue- the reversal in thinking that has Hillier counting on his "brightest minds" to figure a way out of the current mess of things- shows that current release benefits and handouts aren't working.  I think that it is becoming apparent that people are more concerned with employment, fairness and dignity than they are about the money and handouts given them upon release.

Bren


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Oct 2007)

I wouldn't call the program a handout but an attempt to allow the person a chance to find a new career that he or she is physically capable of doing.  Releasing someone who can't deploy shouldn't be unfair or indignant.   To be clear that is how I understand a medical release to work and my understanding my be different from what is actual.


----------



## Kiwi99 (19 Oct 2007)

There is alot of talk in this thread about the ways or lack of ways to retain wounded soldiers from Afghanistan.  Pretty much it has all been about physical injuries, ie, loss of limbs, etc.  What about mental injuries?  There are plenty of those within the CF that can't deploy, go on exercise, have to do half days, etc.  Why not release them as well?


----------



## TCBF (19 Oct 2007)

- A lot are released eventually.  We don't hear about it unless they drive their SUV through the front entrance of the base headquarters building at Steele Barracks.


----------



## Kiwi99 (19 Oct 2007)

Anf you are guarenteed to get your CD in a presentation full of invited media within 48 hrs as well. if I recall. ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Oct 2007)

I think its harder to determine how long a mind will heal vs say how long it will take someone to walk.  I believe there is something in the CF that says something to the effect that they can't release you until they either fix you or determine you can't be fixed.  I a person with mental issues can't ever deploy after treatment etc then they too should be released.  If they have some need experience higher them on a private contract.
Our BN is standing up a cell of injured members to help with the up coming tour with regards as to how DVA works, death and injury benefits etc.  So that if needed a spouse or injured member has someone in BN in the know that has been through it.


----------



## RHFC_piper (20 Oct 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I think its harder to determine how long a mind will heal vs say how long it will take someone to walk.



I personally don't believe it's an issue of 'when' the mind will heal, more of an issue as to when the member has reach a point where they can resume duties effectively.  Most cases of PTSD aren't immediate, and most don't just 'heal up' and go away over time like a physical wound (granted; loss of limb doesn't go away either). It's a matter of weather or not the soldier can carry on and work effectively with these 'injuries'.

I have some pretty bad days still, but I'm able to do my assigned duties effectively.



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I believe there is something in the CF that says something to the effect that they can't release you until they either fix you or determine you can't be fixed.



The only documentation I've found regarding this is in reference, specifically, to the reserve members; CANFORGEN 116/04 EXTENSION OF CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE FOR INJURY OR ILLNESS WHILE IN SDA/SDO



CANFORGEN 116/04]
3. ... ALL RES FORCE MBRS INJURED OR ILL WHILE SERVING ON CLASS C SERVICE IN AN SDA/SDO said:


> If a person with mental issues can't ever deploy after treatment etc then they too should be released.



Well... essentially, if they can't DAG green for deployment due to mental health issues, they probably shouldn't be employed in the CF anyway... depending on the severity of the mental illness, of course.



			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Our BN is standing up a cell of injured members to help with the up coming tour with regards as to how DVA works, death and injury benefits etc.  So that if needed a spouse or injured member has someone in BN in the know that has been through it.



I think this is a great idea.  And I think more units, both Reg and Res should be getting on this boat.  Each deploying unit should have a deployment cell in place to deal with this kind of stuff for when it happens.  Most Reg F units do this, but it's a big issue in the Res world. Due care should be employed when Res units augment the big R in deployments, 'cause from personal experience, the Reserves struggle to keep on top of their deploying members needs... and it gets a lot worse when casualties return.
Not saying things haven't gotten better, it's just a long time coming and there is always room for improvement.  But it is understandable to an extent; most reserve unit aren't used to dealing with casualties from deployment.


----------



## TCBF (20 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I personally don't believe it's an issue of 'when' the mind will heal, more of an issue as to when the member has reach a point where they can resume duties effectively.  Most cases of PTSD aren't immediate, and most don't just 'heal up' and go away over time like a physical wound (granted; loss of limb doesn't go away either). It's a matter of weather or not the soldier can carry on and work effectively with these 'injuries'.



- Brings to mind a story in a late 1980s  (European edition of 'Stars and Stripes', I believe).  Apparently, a soldier had a breakdown related to his Vietnam service some 15 - 20 years previous.  This started a lot of organizational soul searching related to high ranking positions in 'nuclear capable' units and so on. 

- On the flip side, this opens the door to grotesque abuse: recall the smearing of John McCain by his political oponents who stated that his years as a captive by North Vietnam had rendered him unfit to be President.


----------



## GAP (20 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I think this is a great idea.  And I think more units, both Reg and Res should be getting on this boat.  Each deploying unit should have a deployment cell in place to deal with this kind of stuff for when it happens.  Most Reg F units do this, but it's a big issue in the Res world. Due care should be employed when Res units augment the big R in deployments, 'cause from personal experience, the Reserves struggle to keep on top of their deploying members needs... and it gets a lot worse when casualties return.
> Not saying things haven't gotten better, it's just a long time coming and there is always room for improvement.  But it is understandable to an extent; most reserve unit aren't used to dealing with casualties from deployment.



Most reserve units are within shouting distance of some form of Reg Force unit....why not use the same cell?


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Most reserve units are within shouting distance of some form of Reg Force unit....why not use the same cell?



It's not the decibel level of the the shouting, it is  the level of listening that impedes this help.

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (20 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Most reserve units are within shouting distance of some form of Reg Force unit....why not use the same cell?





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It's not the decibel level of the the shouting, it is  the level of listening that impedes this help.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




What 48th said is exactly right. 

But you also have to keep in mind that members from LFCA deployed with units from RCR, and the furthest reserve units are from as far away as Windsor, London, K-w etc. (6+ hours).  Support stretching that far out usually comes too little too late.
It's probably no different in any other area.

In my mind, the deployment support cell in each unit would cover every aspect of, and only, deployment of their members;
- Selection and pre-pre-training of deploying members
- DAGing issues which need to be covered at CBG/unit level before the member can progress to their deploying unit
- Financial care taking at unit level while the member is working with their deploying unit, but has not yet taken on a class C contract (this is going on right now. our deploying members for 3-08 are on class B paid through our unit by LFCA/31 CBG until Feb when they start their class C deployment contract... all part of the 2 year commitment reservists now make to deploy.)
- Family information network when member deploys (the Deployment support center is nice and all, when you can get through to them via phone... my parents gave up)
- AOs for wounded and KIA.  The Res unit supplies these for their members who are wounded/KIA no matter what Reg F unit they deploy with.
- Post deployment DAG when troops return.  There are members of my unit who deployed in 3-06 who have not completed their post deployment screening/medical, TB testing, etc.  Simply because when they got back, they went back to their civilian jobs and no one from the unit (day staff) had the time/information, to get them going on this. When I started working half days again at the unit, it was my job to do this... by then, the troops had been home 4 months.
- Post deployment assistance issues; employment, education, etc.

These are the kinds of things a Res unit deployment cell could take care of.  Years ago, this may have seemed unreasonable, since most units sent only a few members on deployment, but now reservists are deploying in much greater numbers.  From my unit alone we sent 10 on TF3-06, there are already 10 in training for 3-08 and we're expecting to send a few more... possibly another 10.  Demand is getting greater and greater... and when the troops from 3-08 return, the unit will still be dealing with members from 3-06 (I can guarantee at least 1).   

Perhaps having a cell at each unit is a bit excessive/not cost effective, but it would be good to have one at Brigade level at least.   These cells would have to be tasked only with deployment and nothing else, or they would get bogged down... most Res units have members appointed to take care of some of this stuff, along with their normal tasks, which creates issues... especially when they're class A.

just my $0.02


----------



## c_canuk (22 Oct 2007)

you bring up some good points but I don't think there is a really any good solution... Res members like it has already been said, commit 2 years or almost to deploy... unless we spend a wack load of money to provide these services at the Res units... even if just to the areas with multiple units in a single building... you are going to end up keeping the reservists from home even longer. 

the two tours I've been on I was away from home 7-8 months max... to go to afghanistan I will be away 15-18 months... I suppose if there were an accelerated IBTS trg for reservists, say a quarterly run 2 month program that worked 16 hour days including saturday we might be able to accomidate the Res a little better... other than that I don't see much of an alternative.


----------



## RHFC_piper (22 Oct 2007)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> you bring up some good points but I don't think there is a really any good solution... Res members like it has already been said, commit 2 years or almost to deploy... unless we spend a wack load of money to provide these services at the Res units... even if just to the areas with multiple units in a single building... you are going to end up keeping the reservists from home even longer.
> 
> the two tours I've been on I was away from home 7-8 months max... to go to afghanistan I will be away 15-18 months... I suppose if there were an accelerated IBTS trg for reservists, say a quarterly run 2 month program that worked 16 hour days including saturday we might be able to accomidate the Res a little better... other than that I don't see much of an alternative.



Well... Honestly, just about everything I've mentioned above is already done by a few day staffers at reserve units anyway... while they try to do their normal duties.  This is when people and their issues slip through the cracks.  Simplest solution: 1 extra class B member working per unit just for deployment... if that's too much of a drain, how about 1 class B member per CBG to co-ordinate everything deploying troops need (as listed above.)

I don't think it's unreasonable.  And the CF reserve system has certainly wasted money on more useless things (like bumper stickers, banners and fliers for a 2 week exercise with limited attendance required.)  Anyway, the point is, I don't think it would cost a "whack load" of money, and where better would this money be spent then on deploying troops?  

These members, who would be looking after deploying pers, would be co-ordinating with already existing services... 


As for IBTS and extra training;  Before I deployed, during "selection training", we did it all in Meaford over a few weekends.  I won't go into details, but it was a mess.
The troops we sent up to Pet in March for TF3-08 were put on class B in Jan/feb and spent a couple of months sitting around in the Armoury doing odd jobs, if anything at all, waiting to go.  This is time they could have used to go over IBTS, or at least working with the guys who just came back, but, alas, they did not.  They sat on ass and waited for orders to move.  Why? no one was around to sort them out (well... I was around, but I wasn't allowed to sort them out... 'cause I am but a lowly Cpl with no PLQ)
Anyway, this is the kind of thing a deployment cell, even one consisting of one PLQ qualified member, could cover... once the troops know they're deploying, they could immediately begin unit level work up during regular training nights and some weekends and still stay within budget.
And perhaps they could even learn something from members who have returned from previous tours, wounded or otherwise.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Dec 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Wounded will have easier time getting transfers*
By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press
Wed. Dec 26 
Article link

OTTAWA — Soldiers who’ve lost limbs or suffered other grievous wounds in Afghanistan will soon find it easier to transfer to training — or other specialties within the Canadian Forces, says the country’s top military commander.

In the first eight months of this year more than 100 Canadian soldiers were injured badly enough on the battlefields of Kandahar to be evacuated home to what many consider to be an uncertain fate.

The Defence Department will not release a precise accounting of the total number of wounded.

One of the first questions Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says he hears from wounded, most of whom he’s met, is: "Sir, do I have a future in the Canadian Forces?"

The latest episode took place a couple of weeks back and involved a young platoon commander from CFB Valcartier, Que., whose left leg was shredded below the knee as he struggled in vain to reach a comrade in a bombed-out vehicle last fall.

"You’re damn right" you have a future, was Hillier’s answer to the young lieutenant, a Royal Military College graduate, whom he declined to identify.

The same kind of encounters are happening more and more frequently, forcing both the army and the Defence Department to grapple with human resource and health issues it hasn’t faced since the Korean War.

Asked in a year-end interview whether a new policy, meant to keep injured soldiers in uniform, will make it easier for them to transfer to less strenuous occupations, Hillier answered: "Absolutely."

Soldiers will be required to make the decisions individually, based upon what’s best for their career, but red-tape impediments are expected to be removed.

"We have 115 other specialists," Hillier said. "If the wear and tear of being an infantry officer with a (prosthetic limb) is too much, that’ll be his decision to make, then we have all of these other specialities that we’d want you to have a look at."

The quality of treatment given to those wounded in the Afghan war received increasing public attention during the last year as troops, many of whom have no other skills than soldiering, have been forced to confront what can sometimes be an indifferent bureaucracy.

The policy was drafted last summer in the waning days of Gordon O’Connor’s tenure as defence minister, but has yet to be implemented, despite the growing number of Hillier’s emotional interviews with young soldiers.

Hillier defended the delay by saying many of the injured are still recovering and face a long road of rehabilitation before they’re eligible to return to duty.

"We don’t need to rush. We need to get it right."

Under the current system, a soldier who becomes disabled has three years to recover and meet the fitness standard for overseas operations — known as the universality of service rule. If they cannot meet the requirement, they have no choice but to face a medical discharge.

The system was introduced by Hillier as a way to improve fitness in what had become in the late 1990s an increasingly flabby Forces. He has resisted efforts to tinker with the base requirements of the universality rule, despite internal pressure to bend the rules for wounded.

There have been remarkable advancements in prosthetic limbs, which allow amputees the opportunity to remain physically fit, said Hillier.

The message he’s been giving troops is: as long as they pass the fitness test, the injured soldier will be able to retrain for other occupations.

A problem just as vexing, which has yet to be addressed by either the Defence Department or Veterans Affairs Canada, involves the wait time for benefits faced by medically discharged soldiers.

Since members of the Forces are not allowed to apply for health benefits, such as counselling, until after they are released, there is normally a "gap of several months," warned a briefing note to O’Connor, which was released earlier this year.

An official with Veterans Affairs acknowledged in July there is a problem, but no formal steps have been taken to close the gap.


----------



## Col.Steiner (26 Dec 2007)

Sounds like a brilliant idea that should have been implemented already. I don't know how many semi-usless bodies in uniform I have met while merely in the reserves that could be given a C7 and put to work. A soldier wounded on tour deserves and commands some dignity and respect and it isn't too hard to rectify the problem by giving them desk-duty or some kind of training to pass on knowledge, which is what the forces desperately need at the moment. I have to admit that the way the forces treats its wounded (mentally or physically) is one negative that concerned me when applying.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Dec 2007)

Sounds good. Its a win win for the soldier as well as for the Forces.


----------



## simysmom99 (26 Dec 2007)

It's coming.  This is a great big government with so many hands in the pot.  If it was just up to the Military, it would  have been implemented many months ago.  All the hard work and lobbying is paying off.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Dec 2007)

And to be clear, not a single soldier that has been injured in AStan has been forced to discharge - indeed I know of one soldier who was convinced to sign a re-engagement so that he could continue to receive the benefits offered to a serving member.  The regulations are slowly catching up to the reality, as well as the sentiment.


----------



## Takeniteasy (26 Dec 2007)

I know something is coming out very soon, I do know that the policy will encompass not only those who have become injured on tours and duty but those who have gained their disability through illness and accidents. I have been working with the Soldier On program since the start and one of the goals is to make sure the whole Defence Team is taken care of!


----------



## 284_226 (26 Dec 2007)

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> I know something is coming out very soon, I do know that the policy will encompass not only those who have become injured on tours and duty but those who have gained their disability through illness and accidents.



That very topic has been the elephant in the room for some time now.  In other threads, some people have been quite vocal against the concept of disabled members remaining in uniform.  Has there been a change of heart, now that even the CDS has acknowledged the situation needs to be addressed?


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2007)

Helping wounded soldiers is a key part of the promise made to anyone who joins.  But we need to have fit, capable soldiers.  There is a whole "Defence Team" - we could have  soldiers unable to meet Universality of Service transferred into civilian roles in DND, whether in the training system or elsewhere.  

But if we show we can and will accommodate anyone, we open the door to anyone and everyone to join.  How can we refuse people enrollment who are not fit field if we protect and promote others who are not fit field?  And when a key limiting factor for our force structure is the number of Reg Force PYs, filling them with those who are unable (but not unwilling) to deploy or be employed in the harder parts of the trade means greater stress and strain on the others still in.  It's unfair to the rest, and it's consumption of a scarce resource (Reg F PYs) that delivers little combat capability.

So re-jig some structures to provide public service employment with portability of benefits.  Ensure a robust transition program is in place.  Provide a clear policy on medical / rehab leave.  Get VAC to provide services starting a month before release to ensure continuity of care (and for every case where they fail, start docking performance pay from everyone in VAC in receipt of it).  But don't tie up Reg F PYs with pers who will be unable to recover sufficiently to meet U of S.

Just my (unpopular) 2c.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Dec 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> That very topic has been the elephant in the room for some time now.  In other threads, some people have been quite vocal against the concept of disabled members remaining in uniform.  Has there been a change of heart, now that even the CDS has acknowledged the situation needs to be addressed?



Kidney stones, and wounds acquired on operation are two different things wouldn't you agree?

dileas 

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Dec 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Kidney stones, and wounds acquired on operation are two different things wouldn't you agree?



Are they?  Under existing regs - both conditions, if they prevent deployability, will end a serviceperson's career.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So re-jig some structures to provide public service employment with portability of benefits.  Ensure a robust transition program is in place.  Provide a clear policy on medical / rehab leave.  Get VAC to provide services starting a month before release to ensure continuity of care (and for every case where they fail, start docking performance pay from everyone in VAC in receipt of it).  But don't tie up Reg F PYs with pers who will be unable to recover sufficiently to meet U of S.



All valid points, save for the last sentence.  It's clear that something is coming that will allow individuals to violate UoS, but still continue to serve.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Dec 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Are they?  Under existing regs - both conditions, if they prevent deployability, will end a serviceperson's career.



One aquired do to service, other due to genetics/lifestyle.....

You tell us....

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (26 Dec 2007)

I'm "one of those people from the other threads". Still am.

No change of heart here, there are ways to look after these people without putting our deployability at risk and reducing the number of fit UoS deployable personnel who will, of course, ultimately be the ones who end up doing the gritty overseas work and deployments. Without an increased Reg F PY capability of posn numbers to match those unfit UoS being resigned -- eventually the CF will see those who are fit and deployable on sick leave and stress leave themselves. And, I think that dapaterson has expressed my thoughts exactly.

Accomodation is one thing -- but build in extra posns for those we accomodate or transfer them to civ service with retention of benefits.

Otherwise, we really are reducing our fit manning levels, but still expecting those reduced numbers of fit pers to accomplish the lions share and burden of deployed ops. Their families, I'm sure, will love that given that they already require 12 months of workups away from home to deploy for 6 months. I see rising divorce rates and increased released rates amongst the fit UoS pers if this comes to pass wihout a necessary increase in funded RegF PY to match those being retained who are unfit. 

My prediction? It'll all look good for 5 years ... til the fit people doing all the deployments and field work back in Canada say "enough already ..." and get the hell out. Cripes, there's enough of them doing so now without this further decrease in deployable personnel; because, that's exactly what it is -- a decrease in the number of deployable personnel we have. Each of those positions filled by unfit UoS personnel ... mean one less position that we can recruit a fit for deployment or field person into.

Kind of how FRP looked good ... until the CF figured out just how badly that came back to bite them in the ass when all  most of their Cpls were 40 years old and everyone above the rank of Sgt was eligible for retirement within 5 years of each other.  :


----------



## 284_226 (26 Dec 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> One aquired do to service, other due to genetics/lifestyle.....
> 
> You tell us....



It's never as clear cut as one might think at first glance.  If it were, the US Army wouldn't be operating lithotripters in Iraq.

You can substitute any malady - was there a contributing factor related to military service?


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Dec 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> It's never as clear cut as one might think at first glance.  If it were, the US Army wouldn't be operating lithotripters in Iraq.
> 
> You can substitute any malady - was there a contributing factor related to military service?




hehehe,

Can I punch your ticket for your ride on our coat tails?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm "one of those people from the other threads". Still am.
> 
> No change of heart here, there are ways to look after these people without putting our deployability at risk and reducing the number of fit UoS deployable personnel who will, of course, ultimately be the ones who end up doing the gritty overseas work and deployments. Without an increased Reg F PY capability of posn numbers to match those unfit UoS being resigned -- eventually the CF will see those who are fit and deployable on sick leave and stress leave themselves. And, I think that dapaterson has expressed my thoughts exactly.



Again, valid points.



> Accomodation is one thing -- but build in extra posns for those we accomodate or transfer them to civ service with retention of benefits.



Agreed.  I'd prefer the former, but the latter would work if the legislation has teeth.



> Otherwise, we really are reducing our fit manning levels, but still expecting those reduced numbers of fit pers to accomplish the lions share and burden of deployed ops. Their families, I'm sure, will love that given that they already require 12 months of workups away from home to deploy for 6 months. I see rising divorce rates and increased released rates amongst the fit UoS pers if this comes to pass wihout a necessary increase in funded RegF PY to match those being retained who are unfit.



Agreed.  All things remaining equal, the ones who are deployable would be forced to deploy more.  It's simple math.



> My prediction? It'll all look good for 5 years ... til the fit people doing all the deployments and field work back in Canada say "enough already ..." and get the hell out. Cripes, there's enough of them doing so now without this further decrease in deployable personnel; because, that's exactly what it is -- a decrease in the number of deployable personnel we have. Each of those positions filled by unfit UoS personnel ... mean one less position that we can recruit a fit for deployment or field person into.



There's two schools of thought on that.  What about the number of people who are choosing not to enroll or not to re-engage because they realize "Hey, we're being shot at now - I'd like to make sure my future is secure if one of those bullets ends up in my body"?  You have to admit - the press has a field day with stories of those who return from overseas with debilitating injuries.  That has to play a factor in how we're viewed strictly as an employer, and how we treat our injured personnel.



> Kind of how FRP looked good ... until the CF figured out just how badly that came back to bite them in the *** when all  most of their Cpls were 40 years old and everyone above the rank of Sgt was eligible for retirement within 5 years of each other.  :



Yup, and we're still feeling the effects of it, even 12 years later.  I know, my ex-wife took FRP back in 1995.

It's clear that a blanket "if you're not deployable, you're not employable" policy won't work.  It's equally clear that retaining every single member who is faced with a breach of UoS is also an impossibility.

Where's the happy medium?

From the looks of things, now is the time to start talking about it - whether you're a deployable member, or you're an injured member - because both are going to be equally affected by any upcoming change in policy.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Yup, and we're still feeling the effects of it, even 12 years later.  I know, my ex-wife took FRP back in 1995.
> 
> It's clear that a blanket "if you're not deployable, you're not employable" policy won't work.  It's equally clear that retaining every single member who is faced with a breach of UoS is also an impossibility.



Well, 90% of the people I know personally who are realeasing attribute it to that which you have outlined above ... in that "now that we've gone to war they finally feel it appropriate to man us and equip us like they should have been doing all along... well ... "fuck 'em if this is the only time we're good enough for their attention." The others I know, have just got their TI, are pensionable, are getting older, and some even feel as if they're freeing up a spot for the young _up&comers_ who they feel can contribute more given the CFs current op tempo. Then, I know some who are getting out because they can't get overseas (which is my personal dilema these days being pensionable myself on 12 Jan & seriously considering pulling the pin due to "feeling useless" even though I still love my job) ... and feel they'd rather feel "useless" on civvie street.



> There's two schools of thought on that.  What about the number of people who are choosing not to enroll or not to re-engage because they realize "Hey, we're being shot at now - I'd like to make sure my future is secure if one of those bullets ends up in my body"?  You have to admit - the press has a field day with stories of those who return from overseas with debilitating injuries.  That has to play a factor in how we're viewed strictly as an employer, and how we treat our injured personnel.



I have yet to meet a person (or even hear from one/about one) who has released for your above reason. It must be a very very small school.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> hehehe,
> 
> Can I punch your ticket for your ride on our coat tails?



Seriously, are you suggesting that your winger who can't manage to dump enough water down his throat to compensate for the heat of summer in Afghanistan, and consequently develops kidney stones as a result, is any less protected/entitled than you as a member injured as a result of a direct combat injury?  Or, I dunno...someone involved in a simple traffic accident in a Duty Area?

We're all supposed to be on the same team, with equal portions of unlimited liability, right?


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, 90% of the people I know personally who are realeasing attribute it to that which you have outlined above ... in that "now that we've gone to war they finally feel it appropriate to man us and equip us like they should have been doing all along... well ... "frig 'em if this is the only time we're good enough for their attention." The others I know, have just got their TI, are pensionable, are getting older, and some even feel as if they're freeing up a spot for the young _up&comers_ who they feel can contribute more given the CFs current op tempo. Then, I know some who are getting out because they can't get overseas (which is my personal dilema these days being pensionable myself on 12 Jan & seriously considering pulling the pin due to "feeling useless" even though I still love my job) ... and feel they'd rather feel "useless" on civvie street.



Yup, I've heard all of those reasons for pulling the plug.  I've also heard of young folks refusing their IE25 (while on VIE) because they've started families, and they plain and simple don't want to leave their families in a lurch should something serious happen to them.  I know the old adage "If the CF wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one", but that doesn't reflect reality.

I'm genuinely sorry that you're considering pulling the pin due to "feeling useless".  I've never felt that way, across three different MOCs, so I can't empathize with you.  If nothing else, I've always felt that at the absolute least, I've passed on valuable experience to those coming up behind me - regardless of whether that experience was gained in a ship tied up alongside in Halifax, or in a dirt hut in Somalia.



> I have yet to meet a person (or even hear from one/about one) who has released for your above reason. It must be a very very small school.



It's playing a factor (albeit a small one) in retention, but talk to someone who is currently involved in recruiting.  They'll tell you the question is getting asked frequently by those looking to enroll.  Our recruits are getting older, better educated, and more often than not, have already started families.  They're asking these questions, and the answers aren't always there for them.  That could be the difference between coming through our door, or heading off to greener pastures in Alberta (for example).  This is venturing fairly far off the original topic, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

"If the CF wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one"

I haven't heard that in years. I can tell you that the families in these parts are very near to the top of the priority list these days. It's not like it was when I joined.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> "If the CF wanted you to have a family, they'd have issued you one"
> 
> I haven't heard that in years. I can tell you that the families in these parts are very near to the top of the priority list these days. It's not like it was when I joined.



I haven't heard it in years, either...unless it's been a winky-eyed joke between old-timers like us.  The families are *extremely* well taken care of these days.  My wife and I had a lengthy discussion the other day after she picked up the Trident and discovered the MFRC in Shearwater offered a "Mommy and Me" fitness class much cheaper than the one that they offer downtown.  I'm quite certain that after one child, two and half years of marriage, and two and a half years of living together before that, my wife couldn't list one-tenth of the services that the MFRC provides.  Well, she couldn't a week ago, anyways.   

What I was referring to was the treatment of injured members, and the amount of press given to them (deservedly) regarding problems with the system.  People don't remember the news story about the member's wife and kids doing a video conference from thousands of miles away on Christmas Eve.  They remember the fella who had to appeal three times to VAC for something or other.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> What I was referring to was the treatment of injured members, and the amount of press given to them (deservedly) regarding problems with the system.  People don't remember the news story about the member's wife and kids doing a video conference from thousands of miles away on Christmas Eve.  They remember the fella who had to appeal three times to VAC for something or other.



And, let's use this bit of fact to clear up a myth that I am sick and tired of seeing perpetuated by the media (and sometimes by posts such as yours which equate VAC with the CF) ...

VAC does NOT equal the CF.

VAC has a reputation for letting our injured soldiers down, and the media has a reputation of somehow managing to equate them (VAC) to us (the CF) each and every time it hits the news.

They slam our CDS, they slam the CF ... instead of grilling the Minister of Veterans Affairs like they should be. Why the heck does he walk away smelling like roses while the WRONG department and people take it in the teeth. What bullshit that is.

VAC is a whole other government department altogether ... and neither the CDS nor the MND run it or oversee it.

Put the blame for injured troops not being looked after -- squarely on VAC where it richly deserves to be seated.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> VAC does NOT equal the CF.
> 
> VAC is a whole other government department altogether ... and the CDS nor the MND run it or oversee it.
> 
> Put the blame for injured troops not being looked after -- squarely on VAC where it richly deserves to be seated.



Bravo, Vern.  This message needs to be put out everywhere, loud and clear.


----------



## TCBF (27 Dec 2007)

No matter how hard the CF will try to improve it's HR policies, the one problem that will never disappear is that of spouses who cannot adapt to military life.  I bet more promising careers have met an untimely end due to whining, misfit, spoiled, hillbilly-bred, moderately sociopathic spouses than alcohol and tertiary syphilis combined.

They interview well, though.

 :


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (27 Dec 2007)

Bravo, TCBF.  This message needs to be put out everywhere, loud and clear.


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Dec 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> No matter how hard the CF will try to improve it's HR policies, the one problem that will never disappear is that of spouses who cannot adapt to military life.  I bet more promising careers have met an untimely end due to whining, misfit, spoiled, hillbilly-bred, moderately sociopathic spouses than alcohol and tertiary syphilis combined. They interview well, though. :



Is it Careers or Marriages that see an (un)timely demise?


----------



## TCBF (27 Dec 2007)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Is it Careers or Marriages that see an (un)timely demise?



- Yes.

 ;D

- Unfortunately, we often lose the soldier before the soldier can lose the albatross.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, let's use this bit of fact to clear up a myth that I am sick and tired of seeing perpetuated by the media (and sometimes by posts such as yours which equate VAC with the CF) ...
> 
> VAC does NOT equal the CF.



No, I didn't suggest that it did.  This thread is about how the *CF* treats its disabled members, although you've made a distinction that the public is not entirely aware of.  That leads me back to the questions being asked by potential recruits.



> VAC has a reputation for letting our injured soldiers down, and the media has a reputation of somehow managing to equate them (VAC) to us (the CF) each and every time it hits the news.
> 
> They slam our CDS, they slam the CF ... instead of grilling the Minister of Veterans Affairs like they should be. Why the heck does he walk away smelling like roses while the WRONG department and people take it in the teeth. What bullshit that is.
> 
> ...



No arguments whatsoever.  But again, this thread is about the CF's treatment of disabled members.  I can make the distinction, and I shouldn't have used the example of a fella fighting for VAC benefits to illustrate my point.  My bad.

VAC has nothing to do with this issue.  This is all about how *serving members* with disabilities are managed.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> VAC has nothing to do with this issue.  This is all about how *serving members* with disabilities are managed.



I could be wrong ... but serving members whose injuries are directly attributable to "military service" or deemed to have been "aggravated by military service" are ultimately VAC handled no? VAC services are provided via the CF while they are still serving.

VAC *MUST* be included ... the CF is administering to serving members *on behalf  * of VAC those service related or aggravated injuries.

From VACs very own Homepage



> Our Clients
> We provide pensions for disability or death, economic support in the form of allowances, health care benefits and services to:
> members of the Canadian Forces and Merchant Navy veterans who served in the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War





> You may qualify for a disability pension if you have a medical disability that is related to your service and you are:
> 
> a Canadian Forces (CF) Veteran or a Merchant Navy Veteran of the First or Second World War or the Korean War;
> *a current or former member of the Regular or Reserve Force*; or
> a civilian who served in close support of the Armed Forces during wartime.



VAC is where the problem lies NOT the CF.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2007)

Back to the Subject line again - we're talking about whether or not - and in what manner - disabled serving members would continue to serve wearing the CF uniform.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Dec 2007)

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that we will see the creation of a couple of hundred line serials against which accomodated veterans will be held - thereby alleviating the concerns with respect to "weakening the force".  

As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that we will see the creation of a couple of hundred line serials against which accomodated veterans will be held - thereby alleviating the concerns with respect to "weakening the force".
> 
> As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?



Created AND funded are the operative words here. 

We've got lots of created posns here -- just not funded. As long as they remain unfunded ... it's taking away from combat capability which is, as we all know, our raison d'etre.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that we will see the creation of a couple of hundred line serials against which accomodated veterans will be held - thereby alleviating the concerns with respect to "weakening the force".
> 
> As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?



That's certainly one criteria that could be used.  However, I'll draw your attention to the article from yesterday, which said:



> Asked in a year-end interview whether a new policy, meant to keep injured soldiers in uniform, will make it easier for them to transfer to less strenuous occupations, Hillier answered: "Absolutely."
> 
> Soldiers will be required to make the decisions individually, based upon what’s best for their career, but red-tape impediments are expected to be removed.
> 
> "We have 115 other specialists," Hillier said. "If the wear and tear of being an infantry officer with a (prosthetic limb) is too much, that’ll be his decision to make, then we have all of these other specialities that we’d want you to have a look at."



I'm really not trying to draw fire here, but does that not lead someone to believe that the UoS principle is soon to be a thing of the past?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Dec 2007)

We're going to end up with a bastardized system of "UoS, except where it's not".  And that will fail the courts test.

And PPCLI Guy:  A little bird has whispered a few things to me about the current concept fr retention - you're right, except that you're wrong.  How's that for NDHQ cryptic?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Dec 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As to criteria (and I would not lay a bet on this one), how about the wound stripe?



This should be the exact standard that to be used when implementing this.  Full stop.

dileas

tess


----------



## dapaterson (27 Dec 2007)

So Cpl Bloggins, injured while preparing to deploy, would not be kept, but Cpl Smith, injured a week later once deployed, would be retained?

Whole lot of worms in this one... and we haven't even begun to consider career limitations - can Cpl Smith be promoted if he can't meet UoS but we've kept him or her anyways?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2007)

Does CSOR have the same fitness standards as the rest of the army/CF?  How about divers?  Are they as fit/more fit than other members?  Did the Airborne have different fitness standards to the line regiments?


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Dec 2007)

According to a recent CANFORGEN, you are considered to be eligible for SDA (Special Duty Area) injury/death-related entitlements once you begin pre-deployment training for a specified mission. (I do not currently have access to DWAN for exact ref.)

IMO, I think you will see a lot MMO (Military Manning Overhead) positions used for these soldiers.  As well, many of the pers will be declared as having SPQR (Special Personnel Qualification Requirements) and then they can be retained.

In summary, IMO, Universality of Service will not apply to those soldiers for which their injuries took place during training for or while deployed in a SDA and who have SPQR or are placed in MMO positions


----------



## dapaterson (27 Dec 2007)

(1) There's no such thing as an MMO position.  MMO = not held against a position.  People held MMO don't count towards meeting manning levels, but they do count against the paid strength limits.  This has severe knock-on effects.

(2) SPQR - Senatus Populumque Romani.  Perhaps a more appropriate version of the same abbreviation - who do the soldiers go forth to represent, and who is ultimately responsible for their welfare?  (Finally - a use for High School Latin!)

(3) In the CF context, an SPQR is attached to a position, which then, in theory, should have a qualified person posted in.  However, if we're keeping folks MMO, we still have positions vacant and training requirements to fill those same positions.

(4) The CF as a whole desperately needs to get over its uniform fetish.  There are many valid uses for civilians within a military.  The Army, much more than the Navy and Air Force, refuses to admit this, and continues to populate its headquarters with senior officers lacking the background and experience to provide effective counsel in their areas of employment.  Similarly, the training system is ripe for a makeover, filling many traditionally military positions with civilians and reserving military PYs for key leadership and select skills roles.  Replacing those military PYs with civilians holding military backgrounds opens up places for the wounded who can still contribute without tying up military PYs.


----------



## Greymatters (27 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (4) The CF as a whole desperately needs to get over its uniform fetish.  There are many valid uses for civilians within a military.  The Army, much more than the Navy and Air Force, refuses to admit this, and continues to populate its headquarters with senior officers lacking the background and experience to provide effective counsel in their areas of employment.  Similarly, the training system is ripe for a makeover, filling many traditionally military positions with civilians and reserving military PYs for key leadership and select skills roles.  Replacing those military PYs with civilians holding military backgrounds opens up places for the wounded who can still contribute without tying up military PYs.



While it makes sense financially and logistically, there are serious implications in regards to differing levels of performance and discipline.  You can chew a soldier's *** off, but you cant use the same methods of discipline (aka fortification of responsibilities, aka morale-building) with a civilian, especially if that civilian is brought in as a member of the government employee union.  It can also be detrimental to morale and increase interpersonal conflict when you have two employees working side by side, and the civilian gets up and says 'I'm done for the day', while the uniformed member keeps working to get the job done (either through personal dedication to duty, or orders to do so).


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2007)

Can you not subject civilians to QR&Os while they are in the employ of the CF?


----------



## Strike (27 Dec 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> This should be the exact standard that to be used when implementing this.  Full stop.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Gonna have to disagree with this one.  There's a tech at 403 Sqn who lost her leg to cancer and has smashed that whole UoS list to shreds.  Unfortunately, because of her prosthetic, she would be considered to require med attention at least once every 6 months and therefore is not deployable.  However, she can still climb onto the aircraft and get the work done.  (Note: She is under the process of trying to deploy.)


----------



## Greymatters (27 Dec 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Can you not subject civilians to QR&Os while they are in the employ of the CF?



I talked about this with one guy a few years ago who was in charge of both uniformed and civilian workers.  Basically, he said that although the rules technically applied to every employee, union collective agreements tended to trump QR&O's every time.  You could push your case, but the union pushed back, and once union reps started talking 'walkout', the charges would get dropped.  However, this may not be true for other managers at different bases.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> While it makes sense financially and logistically, there are serious implications in regards to differing levels of performance and discipline.  You can chew a soldier's *** off, but you cant use the same methods of discipline (aka fortification of responsibilities, aka morale-building) with a civilian, especially if that civilian is brought in as a member of the government employee union.  It can also be detrimental to morale and increase interpersonal conflict when you have two employees working side by side, and the civilian gets up and says 'I'm done for the day', while the uniformed member keeps working to get the job done (either through personal dedication to duty, or orders to do so).



That's the minset though that's still stuck inside the box. I'm a purple trade. We have more civ posns than we do mil posns at this location. The work gets done. The GREAT majority of civ pers are just as dedicated to thier work as mil pers are -- they get the job done and are very professional about it. Don't be so quick to write off "discipline etc" as a detriment to military morale as it's not usually the case.

When my troops are working nights -- the civ staff is as well.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Can you not subject civilians to QR&Os while they are in the employ of the CF?



There is a caveat that they be employed in a position of active service to fall under the Code of Service Discipline:

JAG Legal Basis



> The Code of Service Discipline applies to all CF members and, in certain circumstances, to civilians who may become subject to Canadian military law, for example, when accompanying a CF unit on service or active service.
> 
> Not all offences can be charged and tried in the military justice system. The CF has no jurisdiction to try any person charged with having committed, in Canada, the offences of murder, manslaughter, or any offence under sections 280, 282 and 283 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
> 
> When a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline commits an offence under the Criminal Code or other federal law, the NDA extends jurisdiction to deal with the matter in the military justice system. Similarly, jurisdiction under the NDA may also be extended when an offence is committed contrary to foreign law.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Dec 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So Cpl Bloggins, injured while preparing to deploy, would not be kept, but Cpl Smith, injured a week later once deployed, would be retained?
> 
> Whole lot of worms in this one... and we haven't even begun to consider career limitations - can Cpl Smith be promoted if he can't meet UoS but we've kept him or her anyways?





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Gonna have to disagree with this one.  There's a tech at 403 Sqn who lost her leg to cancer and has smashed that whole UoS list to shreds.  Unfortunately, because of her prosthetic, she would be considered to require med attention at least once every 6 months and therefore is not deployable.  However, she can still climb onto the aircraft and get the work done.  (Note: She is under the process of trying to deploy.)



Dapaterson and Strike,

You have both presented very valid points, that I did not even think about.

I have been mulling on a way to answer however, I think I have had my opinion changed on this matter by both of your posts. 

This sure does open a large can of worms.

dileas

tess


----------



## Strike (27 Dec 2007)

There certainly is no black and white in this matter, that's for sure.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> Gonna have to disagree with this one.  There's a tech at 403 Sqn who lost her leg to cancer and has smashed that whole UoS list to shreds.  Unfortunately, because of her prosthetic, she would be considered to require med attention at least once every 6 months and therefore is not deployable.  However, she can still climb onto the aircraft and get the work done.  (Note: She is under the process of trying to deploy.)



An MEL of medical follow-up not less than once every 6 months should be fine. I'm on PCat. Mine reads "requires specialist medical follow-up not less than once every 6 months." That leaves me good to DAG green medical for deployment -- which I have done twice since it was assigned.

If I were to require it more than once every 6 months I would be unfit UoS. After my tumor was removed ... I did sit on the PCat and required medical follow up "once every 3 months" -- at that point in time my retention was in serious doubt until my brain doctor (that's right I have a brain doctor!!  ;D) decided that I could see him once every 6 months. My cat was changed to read such and within a month the WSurg dagged me green to deploy. I deployed the next month ... and recd the paperwork in-theatre advising me that I was unfit UoS and was being medically released. Thank gawd for the assistance of the MO and the AdminO over there who said "wait a minute -- she's DEPLOYED!! She's good enough to serve outside the country, but not inside the country??" Needless, med release action ceased ... and here I am today.

Good luck to your friend Strike ... it's all in the attitude. I wish her all the best.


----------



## Greymatters (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's the minset though that's still stuck inside the box. I'm a purple trade. We have more civ posns than we do mil posns at this location. The work gets done. The GREAT majority of civ pers are just as dedicated to thier work as mil pers are -- they get the job done and are very professional about it. Don't be so quick to write off "discipline etc" as a detriment to military morale as it's not usually the case.  When my troops are working nights -- the civ staff is as well.



True, I shouldnt broad-brush all civilian workers with the same brush, and the greater majority are dedicated to their work.  Your (former?) staff sound like they were dedicated,  and likely had the benefit of a good boss where the civilian employees knew their efforts were appreciated and were willing to do what everyone else did as part of the team.


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> True, I shouldnt broad-brush all civilian workers with the same brush, and the greater majority are dedicated to their work.  Your (former?) staff sound like they were dedicated,  and likely had the benefit of a good boss where the civilian employees knew their efforts were appreciated and were willing to do what everyone else did as part of the team.



Morale tends to be good on both sides and remain as such when both sides are treated and respected as full members of that said Team.

When one wants to infer that 1/2 of that workforce is somehow lesser --- one tends to reap the lowered morale amongst both halves of that workforce that he/she has sown ... in my experience anyway.

One just needs to remember -- One Team. Two different aspects to their jobs, but each striving to reach the same goal and meet Comds intent. As long as each side is aware of, and respectful of, the unique requirements of the other half -- there's not usually a problem.


----------



## battleaxe (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Morale tends to be good on both sides and remain as such when both sides are treated and respected as full members of that said Team.
> 
> When one wants to infer that 1/2 of that workforce is somehow lesser ---



You've hit at the very heart of the issue in the above statement.

If the civilian members of your 'Team'-are injured or fall ill, they are not relieved of their positions and employment.  There are great pots of government money and very luxurious accommodation policies that protect the employment of civilian government employees who require special consideration due to injury or illness.  

There have been great strides taken by government to provide LTD and disability awards, rehabilitation and medical care for our wounded soliders.  And this is wonderful.

Civilian government workers get all of these things, as well.  In addition, they have the security of knowing they have a job to return to when they have recovered.  I would like to hear one story of a PS employee losing a leg/getting a kidney stone and being told they are losing their employment as a result.

I feel that this latest 'development' (the article that began this thread) means little and offers nothing more to injured soldiers than what is already offered.  Without the employment security offered all other government workers, CF members will always be treated as 'lesser' than civilian counterparts in government. 

Has anyone heard of a study (or know of any stats) of what has happened to all the medically released personnel in the last 2, 3, or 5 years? How are they employed?  I think this type of study would be very illuminating.

Employment is an investment of time and tears, education and sweat.  Many military personnel, through no fault of their own, because they are injured or develop an inconvenient medical condition, lose out on their investments while other government workers continue on reaping the rewards of theirs.

This is the inequity that must be corrected if this issue is ever to be put to rest.

Just my thoughts,

Bren


----------



## Greymatters (27 Dec 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Has anyone heard of a study (or know of any stats) of what has happened to all the medically released personnel in the last 2, 3, or 5 years? How are they employed?  I think this type of study would be very illuminating.



There was supposed to be a study on this topic by Tim Black, assistant professor at University of Victoria (newspaper article I have is dated Apr 2007), but not sure if it has been completed or published yet...


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> You've hit at the very heart of the issue in the above statement.
> 
> If the civilian members of your 'Team'-are injured or fall ill, they are not relieved of their positions and employment.  There are great pots of government money and very luxurious accommodation policies that protect the employment of civilian government employees who require special consideration due to injury or illness.
> 
> ...



But that is one of the "unique" items that _must_ be recognized. Civilians are *not* employed within the CF, but are employees of DND. The _unique requirements_ of each of these is vastly different. When they are injured it does not directly effect the CFs combat capability or deployment capacity. This is not so when CF members of the Defence Team are injured. To compare the retention "in their regular job" of a civil servant to a CF member is comparing apples/oranges.

That all being said, our injured can be protected without necessarily remaining in the employ of the CF. This can be accomplished by ensuring they are rolled over (or, accomodated if you will) into the public service, preferably within DND ... where they can remain respected and contributing members of the Defence Team. 

Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.


----------



## battleaxe (27 Dec 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> There was supposed to be a study on this topic by Tim Black, assistant professor at University of Victoria (newspaper article I have is dated Apr 2007), but not sure if it has been completed or published yet...



Thanks, I'll be looking into that.  Anybody else who knows of this, please post link or results.

Bren


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Dec 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Thanks, I'll be looking into that.  Anybody else who knows of this, please post link or results.
> 
> Bren



http://communications.uvic.ca/releases/release.php?display=release&id=865

On the above link that was dated November 7th of this year, it describes the survey, and you can contct him directly for results.

dileas

tess


----------



## battleaxe (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But that is one of the "unique" items that _must_ be recognized. Civilians are *not* employed within the CF, but are employees of DND. The _unique requirements_ of each of these is vastly different. When they are injured it does not directly effect the CFs combat capability or deployment capacity. This is not so when CF members of the Defence Team are injured. To compare the retention "in their regular job" of a civil servant to a CF member is comparing apples/oranges.
> 
> That all being said, our injured can be protected without necessarily remaining in the employ of the CF. This can be accomplished by ensuring they are rolled over (or, accomodated if you will) into the public service, preferably within DND ... where they can remain respected and contributing members of the Defence Team.
> 
> Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.



I am in complete agreement with you.  You have just basically stated what I said (that released CF members should be swung over into a PS contract) the first time I dared to speak up on this forum last year. At that time, I was involved in a fight (through the Human Rights Commission) to have DND accept responsibility for the continuing employment of released soldiers.

The very idea was, at that time, very promptly and definitively shot down.

Do you mind me asking what prompted the great change in your opinion over the last year?  

Link to old argument:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html.

Bren


----------



## armyvern (27 Dec 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I am in complete agreement with you.  You have just basically stated what I said (that released CF members should be swung over into a PS contract) the first time I dared to speak up on this forum last year. At that time, I was involved in a fight (through the Human Rights Commission) to have DND accept responsibility for the continuing employment of released soldiers.
> 
> The very idea was, at that time, very promptly and definitively shot down.
> 
> ...



Look back through that whole thread ...  

Priority Hire ring any bells for you?

It wasn't happening remember?? 

Funny thing is that I've hired for four DND PS positions in the past year (very small unit) and all 4 persons were CF personnel on pri hires due to being medically released from the CF for not meeting UoS.

I've not changed a thing in the past year.

The thread will reveal that you were arguing that DND/CF were one in the same employer ... and myself and others were arguing that they most definitly were and ARE not. What changed your mind in that thread from it's beginning until it's end?

Your arguement was that they MUST be retained within the CF/DND -- I disagree and always have. The CF is out as far as I'm concerned, but DND is preferable, but failing that there is always the already enacted legislation that "accomodates" these members within the Federal Public Service in ANY government department.


----------



## battleaxe (27 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Look back through that whole thread ...
> 
> Priority Hire ring any bells for you?
> 
> ...



I have read all the threads I participated in about accommodation and employment from last year over and over, in an attempt to to figure out how things went so wrong, and how I ended up losing both my temper and my credibility on this site. 

(I'm not sure what you mean about priority hire-it was in effect at the time of the thread in question).

I'm sorry I read into your prior statement-I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

I am all too well acquainted with priority hire-and, from experience, its limitations.  I argued then, and will continue to argue, that priority hire and accommodation are two vastly different things.  Priority hire is a nice gesture-one that many other special populations receive.  It does not offer the same level of job security that other government workers enjoy-and it is certainly not an easy pass into a comparable PS job for all people-which is why I would like to see a study on what has happened to all our released military personnel-with regards to re-employment.

I'm hesitant to get into this further.  As long as you continue to equate accommodation with priority hire, I will have to be content to remain in disagreement-because my mind has not changed in the last year either.  We are coming at this issue from such polar opposite positions-you from a position of hiring, me from a position of being medically released and one day hoping to be hired-that arguing this point further will just get me in trouble again.

Once again, sorry to have made an assumption,

Bren


----------



## Harris (27 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Harris,  last thing people need to conclude is that all HQ positions are staffed by the Sick & lame.



Sure, but sick & lame doesn't equal unqualified in my opinion.  If someone can do the job, why would that be seen as a bad thing?  I see people put into jobs all the time who are not qualified, but fit some other "requirement" for the posn.  (I'm referring to Unions for example)


----------



## armyvern (28 Dec 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I am all too well acquainted with priority hire-and, from experience, its limitations.  I argued then, and will continue to argue, that priority hire and accommodation are two vastly different things.  Priority hire is a nice gesture-one that many other special populations receive.  It does not offer the same level of job security that other government workers enjoy-and it is certainly not an easy pass into a comparable PS job for all people-which is why I would like to see a study on what has happened to all our released military personnel-with regards to re-employment.
> 
> I'm hesitant to get into this further.  *As long as you continue to equate accommodation with priority hire, I will have to be content to remain in disagreement-because my mind has not changed in the last year either.  * We are coming at this issue from such polar opposite positions-you from a position of hiring, me from a position of being medically released and one day hoping to be hired-that arguing this point further will just get me in trouble again.
> 
> ...



Quaint.

No where in this thread have I said that accomodation = priority hire. I didn't mention priority hire in this thread, on this subject, until you brought up the previous thread to which I pointed out that my mind has still not been changed. The old thread referenced priority hire ... to which some stated that it sounded good, but was not an actuality. That it had "no teeth" shall we say and THAT is where we differed in the previous thread.  My post in this thread was in direct response to your bringing the old post up and asking where I changed my mind ... I pointed out that I had not -- that the disagreement there was about PRIORITY HIRE.

I haven't confused the two issues at all.

In this thread, I have specificly stated that we CAN look after our soldiers by:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...
> *That all being said, our injured can be protected without necessarily remaining in the employ of the CF. This can be accomplished by ensuring they are rolled over (or, accomodated if you will) into the public service, preferably within DND ... where they can remain respected and contributing members of the Defence Team. * Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.
> 
> ...



Hmm, no mention of priority hire there; rather that I believe that soldiers can be (and indeed are being) _accomodated_ as public servants within, preferably, DND.

But, if not within DND, then the legislation already exists to hire these injured pers in other government departments as I previously stated.

There is no reason that these injured members can not be looked after (I think we agree on that), but I do NOT agree that it should be within the CF (due to the impact upon combat capabilities I have previously stated). Nor do I believe that rolling them into DND positions is the only acceptable option, there are plenty of government departments where these injured service members can indeed be accomodated upon medical release.


----------



## battleaxe (28 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Funny thing is that I've hired for four DND PS positions in the past year (very small unit) and all 4 persons were CF personnel on pri hires due to being medically released from the CF for not meeting UoS.



I guess this is what is confusing me. Do you consider the above scenario- the hiring of people with priority hire status-as accomodation?

As for this, "rather that I believe that soldiers can be (and indeed are being) accomodated as public servants within, preferably, DND.
But, if not within DND, then the legislation already exists to hire these injured pers in other government departments as I previously stated."

Do you have a link or reference information for this legislation? Is it new?  I admit I may be out of touch and unaware of new developments-has something come up-other than priority hire- that allows for the hiring of all military personnel into the PS-not just those who are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time?

Bren


----------



## armyvern (28 Dec 2007)

The New PSEA Act already mandates for the "priority hiring" of members who are injured as a direct result of thier military service (or aggravated by) within ANY government department -- it is quite possible to build upon this existant legislation to mandate their transfer to positions with those same department when medically released due to service related injuries.

RTW IS applicable to CF personnel as well as to civilian employees. I have a MCpl being employed outside of the CF (but within another fed dept -- not DND), on the RTW program right now. He is still being paid by the CF.

I already adressed your question as to "priority hire" and "accomodation", quite clearly stating that they were not the same thing, nor was I under the impression that they were.

You brought up the old thread which reffed Priority Hire and asked why my mind had changed. I stated it had not -- the old thread was my thoughts on Priority hire ...

My statements in this thread are ref accomodation.

As for your earlier comment ref "where you lost your credibility on this site" ... I don't think you have. Some people just don't agree with you as to _how & where_ we should go about ensuring the continued employment of our injured soldiers. That doesn't mean that they (as in I) don't find you credible -- it just means that they (as in I) don't agree with you on your entire arguement.

I CARE about my subordinates. I CARE about my comrades-in-arms who have been injured. But I also recognize the fact that the CF's ultimate raison d'etre is to provide a combat capable force. I do not believe that scarce PYs in our reduced military should be taken up by those who are not fully combat capable. I do believe that they should as a PRIORITY (note that my use of priority in this instance does not = "priority hire") be accomodated (I think I used the term 'rolled-over' earlier) within the civilian workforce of DND preferably, and -- should it be required within ANY federal government department WITH a transfer of all applicable benefits/seniority, as I also stated earlier.


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (2) SPQR - Senatus Populumque Romani.  Perhaps a more appropriate version of the same abbreviation - who do the soldiers go forth to represent, and who is ultimately responsible for their welfare?  (Finally - a use for High School Latin!)



dap,

I guess your latin is a little rusty. SPQR would be Senatus Populusque Romanus.  I ack your comments on my use of the phrase - positions. I still think these pers will be held as MMO to specific units or on SPHL as it will take forever to develop individual positions with appropriate prerequisites through Establishment Change Proposals (ECPs). SPHL would allow them to replaced on their unit's establishment with another trained person.


----------



## Kilroy (2 Feb 2008)

What about MENTALLY wounded soldiers? What options are there for them? What if they feel that being in the military is adding to their stress and problems? What help is the military going to give them getting jobs?


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Feb 2008)

Kilroy said:
			
		

> What about MENTALLY wounded soldiers? What options are there for them? What if they feel that being in the military is adding to their stress and problems? What help is the military going to give them getting jobs?



All your questions can be found here;

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41832/post-361725.html#msg361725

In particular;

http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/dlm/engraph/services/movingon/scan/pdf/new/MovingOnBook_e.pdf

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/er/engraph/mss/handbook/pdf/Eng_Chapter_9.pdf

Also, much has been written ont he forums, or you can PM me with any questions.

dileas

tess


----------



## battleaxe (2 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not being employed directly within the CF does not equate "not being looked after" in my books. And one does not need to be retained within the CF to be "looked after." If they are injured in service to their country, employment within DND as public service members of the Defence Team, and the transfer of all medical benefits should be a priority and should go far to ensure their well-being and financial stability.



Armyvern,

What I've highlighted above-do you think this is being done successfully-and for enough people? Even expanding it to include the hiring into the whole of the PS-are you content with current policies and legislation regarding the hiring of wounded personnel?

Bren


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Armyvern,
> 
> What I've highlighted above-do you think this is being done successfully-and for enough people? Even expanding it to include the hiring into the whole of the PS-are you content with current policies and legislation regarding the hiring of wounded personnel?
> 
> Bren



It's been a month. I don't have the time nor, quite frankly, the inclination to have this conversation yet again with you. 

Sorry, not biting. Feel free to go through my posting history -- it's all been said before and usually to you. Please refrain from visiting the site solely to pose queries to me (because that certainly seems to be MO in the past few months) -- there is just so much more on here ... and people in here.


----------



## old medic (2 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> ....-do you think this is being done successfully-and for enough people? Even expanding it to include the hiring into the whole of the PS-are you content with current policies and legislation regarding the hiring of wounded personnel?
> 
> Bren



That : ("enough people") is impossible to gauge without a proper study of everyone's information.


----------



## battleaxe (2 Feb 2008)

old medic said:
			
		

> That : ("enough people") is impossible to gauge without a proper study of everyone's information.



That's true, and I have looked for information and stats on our released members.  The only time I've ever seen numbers put to the issue is in an article by Gloria Galloway-Globe and Mail 28/10/06.

The director of civilian employment policies told her-at that time-that of 278 medically released personnel who requested priority hire since 2001-only 175 were placed.  The article also goes on to state that over 4,000 medical releases have taken place since 2002.

I don't believe the stats she got were very comprehensive.  I know that many of the thousands released either simply retired, went on to other things, started their own businesses, or were hired into the PS without having to worry about priority hire.  But I do find myself wondering what happened to those 103 who asked for PS employment and never received it-maybe because I've never considered %60 a grade to be overwhelmingly proud of.

I have been looking for info on the subject but it is hard to come by-I will post any findings and would welcome any info from others on the subject.  I plan to look into the Tim Black resource that was posted earlier-haven't been able to, as I've been out of commission since it was posted.

Bren


----------



## battleaxe (2 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It's been a month. I don't have the time nor, quite frankly, the inclination to have this conversation yet again with you.
> 
> Sorry, not biting. Feel free to go through my posting history -- it's all been said before and usually to you. Please refrain from visiting the site solely to pose queries to me (because that certainly seems to be MO in the past few months) -- there is just so much more on here ... and people in here.



Please don't bite...and then tell me you're not biting.  It's contradictory.

And the contradictions I noted in your posting history (I have gone through it) are exactly why I asked you the question I did. I think it was a logical question. 

I do not show up once a month just to bug you, and don't feel that I've established a pattern of stalking you. It's been a month since I've posted because I've been in the hospital and recovering from surgery-I haven't had a chance to logically follow up on the subject until now.  I post in many topics that touch on release and employment issues-because they interest me.

I simply asked a question.  If you choose not to answer, so be it.  No need to be snide.

Bren


----------



## armyvern (2 Feb 2008)

No contradiction in my posts as I've already pointed out to you when you've claimed that before. Apparently you don't read as well as you profess. Two different topics = different answers. And such a quick reader you are too, to manage to review my 7000 & some-odd posting history in a mere hour and a bit. Or perhaps you think that only my posts regarding these subjects in threads which you've been involved in count?? There are many more threads besides the ones you're active in on this forum lest 'ye be so quick to judge.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66949/post-654366.html#msg654366

That's not being snide, that's being honest. I'd also suggest that the first para by me in the post linked above also answers your question to me posed earlier today ... funny you skipped that entire post to bring back an earlier one. Blinders on.

Have a great day.  

No need to respond to this post. If I have anything else to say to you, or you to me ... it can be via PM.


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> That's true, and I have looked for information and stats on our released members.  The only time I've ever seen numbers put to the issue is in an article by Gloria Galloway-Globe and Mail 28/10/06.
> 
> The director of civilian employment policies told her-at that time-that of 278 medically released personnel who requested priority hire since 2001-only 175 were placed.  The article also goes on to state that over 4,000 medical releases have taken place since 2002.



battleaxe,

It is possible that some or all of the other 103 pers did not meet the (original) requirements of the program:

"A priority hiring status with the Public Service Commission is...available for CF members who are injured or who become disabled while deployed to a Special Duty Area."


----------



## battleaxe (3 Feb 2008)

Frostnipped Elf (I'd like to hear the story behind that handle),

I hadn't thought of that.  Now that you mention it-it seems so obvious.

As the requirment only changed in December of 2005 to include others (not just those who served in SDAs)- many could have fallen through the cracks between 2001 and 2005 based on that specific requirement. 

I was wondering, too, why the number of priority hire requests was so low in that article. I would have thought it would have been higher-given the number of medical releases that was cited.  As only people who had served in SDAs would have been applying for priority hire during that time period-the numbers are logically lower.  

An important detail-thanks for clicking on my light bulb, it makes more sense to me now.

Bren


----------



## geo (3 Feb 2008)

Another point to consider is that, regardless of how "generous" a priority hire program might be, the applicant has to meet the requirements of the job he's applying for.  If he doesn't even come close to meeting the job requirement profile, he requires retraining - under DVA or PSP retraining programs.


----------



## old medic (3 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I would have thought it would have been higher-given the number of medical releases that was cited.



Not every medical release from the CF is a member of the Regular force.


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2008)

Quite possibly, some of the missing numbers from the RegF have no desire to be accomodated or priority hired within the public service. Perhaps also, some of the missing numbers were undergoing retraining at the time (or doing the 2 years educational upgrade they can also take), and thus had not accepted an offer of employment in a PS position as of the date of those figures.


----------



## battleaxe (3 Feb 2008)

old medic said:
			
		

> Not every medical release from the CF is a member of the Regular force.



No, medically released reserves (there are guidelines to their eligibiity) are also entitled to the same benefits and programs as regular force members.

Link to the 2007 Death and Disability Handbook- http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/centre/pdf/DD_Web_June_e.pdf.  (See page 59).


----------



## old medic (3 Feb 2008)

Not every medical release is a member of the regular and reserve force.

Your missing that some of those numbers are cadet instructors, irregular medical enrollment and other reserve lists. etc.
Your are also overlooking the word eligible in that document.  



> Primary Reservists on full-time Class
> B service of more than 180 consecutive days; Reservist on Class C service;
> members of the special force; and, members of the Primary Reservists
> on Class A or B service of less than 180 days when the reason for medical
> release is *attributable to service*.


----------



## battleaxe (3 Feb 2008)

old medic said:
			
		

> Not every medical release is a member of the regular and reserve force.
> 
> Your missing that some of those numbers are cadet instructors, irregular medical enrollment and other reserve lists. etc.
> Your are also overlooking the word eligible in that document.



old medic,

I do get how the inclusion of the cases you brought up would increase the overall number of medical releases. I don't think, though, that it would have any effect on the number of people that were cited as applying for priority hire.

I've spoken with someone who applied for priority hire and-before he was even able to apply and be put on the priority hire list-he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements. Released military personnel do not apply for priority hire, only to then be weeded out because they aren't eligible.  They are weeded out before even applying.

If the 2000-2005 stats only apply to those who served in SDAs, then that, to me (based on the only info I've ever seen released on the subject) means that only slightly more than %60 of those SDA veterans who asked for priority hire were placed.  It's a passing grade, I guess. 

I understand that some may not have met the essential requirements for the positions they applied for-but I also think that many probably played second fiddle to PS employees.  The guidebook does say that " CF members who release for medical reasons have a right to appointment in priority of all persons, other than those referred to in section 40 and subsections 41(1) to (4) of the Public Service Employment Act." Those sections and subsections go on to list those PS employees who must be placed before a released military member can even be considered for a position.

I'm not saying that PS employees don't deserve the consideration.  I'm just saying that CF employees don't deserve any less.

I'd like to see someone scare up the stats for 2006/2007.  I'm thinking there will be more substantial numbers in those stats, and a greater chance to see how successful the priority hire program truly is.  

Thanks,

Bren


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I'd like to see someone scare up the stats for 2006/2007.  I'm thinking there will be more substantial numbers in those stats, and a greater chance to see how successful the priority hire program truly is.



Try an Access to Information request.  I think you need to reconsider your approach to trying to get information out of the members of this forum.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2008)

Excuse me!



			
				battleaxe said:
			
		

> I've spoken with someone who applied for priority hire and-before he was even able to apply and be put on the priority hire list-he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements. Released military personnel do not apply for priority hire, only to then be weeded out because they aren't eligible.  They are weeded out before even applying.



Where do you get the opinion that Released Military personnel are weeded out before even applying?  You stated that the person you talked to was told that he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements.  That does not weed him out, unless he was too lazy to comply with the regulation to provide the letter.  It is not the fault of the employer, but, as shown in this case, the Ex-member who did not provide the prerequisite documentation.


----------



## armyvern (3 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> I've spoken with someone who applied for priority hire and-before he was even able to apply and be put on the priority hire list-he had to submit a letter that stated he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements. Released military personnel do not apply for priority hire, only to then be weeded out because they aren't eligible.  They are weeded out before even applying.


Medically released is not the _only_ condition. The medical release must be due to a medical problem attributable to military service to effect eligibility for priority hire.

They are not weeding out anyone who is eligible before they even apply. They are weeding out those who are medically released due to injuries that are not service related (and some who are not even medically released) who apply for priority hire anyway with the attitude of "oh well, the worse they're going to do is say no, so I might as well apply". 

Understand that not every medical release is due to service injury, and that those pers are not eligible ... but that nothing stops them from trying to apply. Nor are any pers who just VR stopped from applying. They are simply weeded out in the application phase by filling out the forms (ie letters) meant to show a fulfillment of eligibility requirements -- just as was done with the soldier you spoke to to determine his eligibility.

There is _*NO*_ grand conspiracy to weed out members who are eligible before they even apply, rather those forms weed out the ineligible.


----------



## battleaxe (4 Feb 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Try an Access to Information request.  I think you need to reconsider your approach to trying to get information out of the members of this forum.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Quite truthfully, this was never my intention...and  I am trying myself.

Bren


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Feb 2008)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Quite truthfully, this was never my intention...and  I am trying myself.
> 
> Bren



Perhaps it was not your intention, but that is not how you are coming across in this medium.  You repeatedly express doubt over the numbers you have seen and repeatedly ask/challenge the forum members here for clarification while appearing to dismiss the rational explanations you are offered.  Your approach and persistence makes it look like you are presuming a conspiracy, including the possible involvement of those here because they don't have the precise information that would satisfy your curiosity.  Even if someone on these forums has the detailed data, there may be valid reasons (like privacy concerns) why they haven't expressed it here.  More likely (see Occams's Razor), no-one here has more information than has been presented.  So, I reiterate, if you want more information, try official sources and Access to Information requests.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## battleaxe (4 Feb 2008)

"Odious"* nonwoman waiting boob job so I've been told. LMAO. said:
			
		

> Medically released is not the _only_ condition. The medical release must be due to a medical problem attributable to military service to effect eligibility for priority hire.
> 
> They are not weeding out anyone who is eligible before they even apply. They are weeding out those who are medically released due to injuries that are not service related (and some who are not even medically released) who apply for priority hire anyway with the attitude of "oh well, the worse they're going to do is say no, so I might as well apply".
> 
> ...



That is exactly what I meant in my post-you clarified it in a much more logical way.  My intentions seem to be at odds with how I'm actually expressing my thoughts. I will attempt to be more clear in future.

I was, in my own inept way, trying to get across that the stats that were given on the priority hire requests vs. actual job placements would be an accurate reflection of the program between the years 2000 and 2005-because they would only take into account those military members who were medically released due to injuries attributable to service in SDAs. VRs and those released for other reasons would not have been admitted to the program.

Bren

Thank you


----------



## simysmom99 (30 Mar 2008)

This is Mcpl P Franklin (as some have called me the poor sod with no legs) I continue to serve with pride and honour as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
As a medic there are many desk jobs that are left unfullfilled due to the chronic shortage of trained CF personnel.
I have been offered a teaching position at the school in Borden but only if I leave the army and come as a commissionare. (obviosuly that wont happen).

I have recieved my MEL's and I am on the paper work process of being 3 b medically released...once that paperwork is done then my file as all files of the wounded in action (not just afghan but all areas of operations) will sit on his desk till the time I decide to leave the army at my free will.

I do not take up a position and I do not force other members to deply more often.
The number of 100% disabled (like myself) are very few and far.  
We have 5 amputees from this war.
One a below the knee amp who is deciding to move on and leave the army.
We have Jody Mitic a double below the knee amputee that has dreams of redploying but most likely wont be able to due to the technology of the prostheticsa at this time.  (the americans have redployed on full tours in irag and afghan 8 amputee soldiers...they have kept in uniform just around 60 or so members and this is with a total of 750 major limb amputations from the war.  Also of note is that Jody was able to complete a 5 km race last week and im sure he will be the first double below to redploy in the western armies. (fingers crossed)

We have another amputee that was a infanteer and falls into the job of being unable to due this due to his pyhsical limitations.  So as a single above knee amputee plus a above the knee amputee he is taking a course in Kingston and will continue to have a CF career in a new trade.

I am a double above the knee amputee and my story has been well publisized.  As the above indicates had we been able to save the one knee joint (not even a working knee just the joint) i would be out of the wheelchair today.  As of now i am 80% of my time in the wheelchair...less walking in edmonton god forsaken winters and more in the summers.  I personally will be planning to stay in the military for a while longer as my 10 year mark comes up in aug 2009.  Field amb has offerred me a position on the upcoming 6b course (allowing me to be promoted to Sgt) and I will be making the decision to go one the course in the next few weeks.  I am currently on half days and with my chairity work and my public speeking apperances it is safe to say that I keep myself busy.

The other amputee from the war was a man by the name of Fredric Coutre (sorry if speeling is wrong) and he lost his leg below the knee in Nov 2007 and was unable to deal with the loss and committed suicide in Dec 2007.

So as many of you have talked semantics and whispered behind my back at the hospital, at a nd w or simply right to my face.  I plan to stay in the army.   The commanders intent is that all wounded soldiers are to stay in the armed forces andf have meaningfull employment.   Done.

A man in a wheelchair can do many things...serve as president of the United States, roll across the world (Rick Hansen) a man who is missing a limb can do many things as well....run across Canada, run sub 10 seconds in the 100 meters and therefore qualify for the Olympics but then to be turned down by the goiverening body as an amputee he has an unfair advantage.


Maybe as we debate the merrits of whay we are trying to keep wounded and injured soldiers in uniform we should as ourselves why?



What does a wounded soldier have to offer besides riding a warm desk and an easy pension.

Years of service and experience that can be utilized in the training schools throughout the CF (we are chronicallly short instructors and yet the mbrs with the most expereince are the ones people want to force out)

We have years of training under our belt...as a paramedic and 5b qualified i have a large sum of money that the CF has invested into me.

Anyone with over 3 years of experience or holds the rank of Mcpl or Captain and above are the type of people that need to be retained as they offer the best bang for your buck....imagine an instructor that is posted to the school and will not deploy so there will be a continuous service and teaching cadre for years to come?

Fitness can be tested in many different ways....v02 max is a good indicator of the physcial fitness thats someone has especially for someone like myself.

There is no reason to get rid of U of S because this way it prevents physically disabaled persons from entring the armed forces.  Some call me a hypocrit for saying so but we need a full fit fighting force at the basic training level and from that point on we have programs in place to either keep people fit, make people better through the CF health care system with its provincial partners and then releasing those that are "unable to keep up".  My injury is not because i weighed 400 lbs and i have a sore back and broken ankles as the result....mine is due to almost dying for king and country.   There is a difference.


Many who agrue thatI shouldnt stay in the army have put up many barriers in my path.  I imagine many soldiers would have quit after the incrediably poor treatment my fellow soldiers my commanding officer (at my old unit) and others have done to push if not force me to leave the Canadian Armed Forces.  I will leave when I am ready and in the mean time i will continue to tell the story of the wounded, work with other wounded soldiers as a peer support worker, teach tactical medicine and especially the value of the touniquet.  I will work with families of wounded and fallen soldiers, talk to the press and thefore the public about the fine work our soldiers are doing in Afghanisatn, I will continue to talk to Afghans that i have become friends with and tell their stories to people like the NDP and the "jack Laytons's" of this country.  I will go from base to base telling all this and promoting the ideas of supporting the troops and the mission as i still believe in it.  I will work with civilian hospital and health care systems so that every wounded and injured soldier that reurns will get the best care humanly possible.  I will continue to travel to places like Australia and the Unites States to talk about the care of the injured and the care of the fallen...I will also tell them that Canada is the best in the world and I will promote the idea that amputees and soldiers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.


My travels throughout the us has led to the creation (with a group of fine people)a chairity called the Franklin Foundation that will help the needs of the amputees not just military but civilian as well. (www.naap.med.ualberta.ca).  Its always been my belief that since we dont have a NDMC (thats a good thing) that we need to promote the intigration of the military and the civilian health care systmes to give our members the best care possible.

I went to Australia in Nov 2007 at the rerquest of the Chief of the Army of the ADF.  He wanted to hear my story first hand adn also the care of the wounded and the care of the fallen.   We had  Brig Gen come with us and a Maj that was involved in some 26 repats of fallen or wounded soldiers.  The plan was to have 4 speechs (one at the ADF HQ with the CA, one at the Staff College, one open forum one (like a luncheon speaker) and one at the embassy.  They were so impressed with the cdn story that we ended up doing 14 speechs to every group you can imagine in the ADF.

That trip has directly resulted in an EOD member  who lost a hand, finger and an eye due to a booby trap in Orzgan province in early 2008 from being automatically released and pushed to VA, to moving to the EOD school in Perth.

So you can see wounded and disabled soldiers from operational tours, training for operational tours (i include jumpers with broken backs in that category) and others who suffer a disabling injury due to operational reasons should be retained.  Plus any argument about whether a wounded soldier should stay in uniform should be looked at through the coloured lens of the commanders intent.

Wounded soldiers are to be retained in the current positions or we have other positions within the CF that will allow these soldiers to serve with pride, dignity, respect and in a meaningfull way.

  

Look outside the cubicles of this world and see the value that all people can give in this world and remember that all of us have a disablity in some way.  Mine is obvious others have a fear of heights, others have problems in public spaces, some hate needles, some arent good public speakers, some have bad knees from too many mountain mans, some have bad knees from too much running, some because they are overweight, some are obese, some are blind, some are deaf due to be an arty, some have the disability of being unable to see past the easy things in life...the cut and dry.  The world is full of grey and quite simply we owe (not just to myself as a wounded soldier) all our vets, wounded and injured soldiers the respect and freedom from worry for the rest of their lives.


Thanks for listening to my rant....

Master Corporal Paul Franklin

franklin.pm@forces.gc.ca

Med Tech
1 Field Amb
Cas Sup NCO LFWA


Soem may notice that i am a horrible speller....please take that as an example of what mild traumatic brain injury can do.....similar to a hockey player getting too many concussions...my TBI reflects itself in the higher brain function of spelling.  On an MRI there would prob be no changes from before the tour and there is no medical treatment for it as it would be akin to using a baseball bat where a needle might be more appropriate.  When you see a fellow Afghan vet (i use them as they are exposed to explosions fairly frequent and of course our EOD or CER guys) give them a lil bit of leeway on such simple things as spelling or math....there may be a good reason for it.


----------



## OnTrack (30 Mar 2008)

Paul,

Well put, BZ, good on you for saying it.

Folks like you and all who have served make me proud to be a Canadian and a CF retiree.

Best of luck to you in your recovery.  God bless.

Jack


----------



## manhole (30 Mar 2008)

thank you, Paul, for your service.......I sincerely hope that you and the other wounded will continue to be employed by the Canadian Forces.   You are such a wealth of knowledge and inspiration to others that it only makes sense to tap into that resource.   You are a credit to your country, to your unit, and to your family and friends.   Thanks again for your leadership in these extremely important situations.   Ubique


----------



## leroi (30 Mar 2008)

Thank you, Paul. Your eloquence, integrity and spirit shine through your written words.

I hope you will continue to tell this important and poignant story; it needs to be heard and will go a long way to help others.

Thank you for serving Canada; I sincerely hope you will continue to do so. 

I pray your employer will recognize your continuing worth and value as an inspiration to others and as an asset to the Canadian Forces.


                   _Even experience cannot cure a man of bravery._    
                                                                          
                                                                              Rene Quinton, _Soldier's Testament_, 1930


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2008)

Thanks a lot for your words Paul,  

BTW, Cpl Frederic Couture was injured in Nov 06 and passed away in Dec of 07.  There is a BOI going on right about now to shed light on some of the circumstances that led to his act.... in some areas - he didn't receive as much help as he should have... 

I am happy that things are going so well for you and that the CDS + CLS are supporting a move to retain our injured soldiers & offer them something better than a "shelf".  Career advancement is definitively something I did not see happening for the seriously injured.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to the CF... Keep in touch 

CHIMO!


----------



## RHFC_piper (30 Mar 2008)

MCpl. Franklin... Thank you.   

Your dedication is an inspiration to all soldiers, wounded or otherwise.    Keep up the good fight for all of us and we'll be there to support you.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Mar 2008)

"Many who agrue thatI shouldnt stay in the army have put up many barriers in my path.  I imagine many soldiers would have quit after the incrediably poor treatment my fellow soldiers my commanding officer (at my old unit) and others have done to push if not force me to leave the Canadian Armed Forces. * I will leave when I am ready * and in the mean time i will continue to tell the story of the wounded, work with other wounded soldiers as a peer support worker, teach tactical medicine and especially the value of the touniquet."

I'm glad to hear you are getting this opportunity, many before you did not.  Your attitude and ethics are to be admired and your story should be an inspiration for others!


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2008)

Paul,

BTW, have talked to a number of friends at 5 Fd Amb.... 
They appreceate your friendship and positive words.

CHIMO|


----------



## dapaterson (31 Mar 2008)

Rather than open a new thread, thought this fit nicely on this one:

MPs want to increase SISIP payouts to individuals who lose limbs, sight or hearing, and want all CF members, full-time or part-time, to be treated the same way

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/31/5148971-sun.html



> Soldiers who lose limbs, sight or hearing to roadside blasts or training accidents deserve more cash and part-time soldiers should be treated the same as full-time soldiers, say MPs demanding changes to the military amputee and injury compensation program.
> 
> Under 2003 guidelines, most Canadian Forces members are eligible for a maximum lump-sum payment of $250,000 if they lose both feet or hands or suffer another permanent major injury. The figure is $125,000 for loss of a single body part, and some classes of reservists on service of less than six months are capped at $100,000 and eligible for only half, or in some cases, one quarter, of the dismemberment claims for regular forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## battleaxe (12 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Medically released is not the _only_ condition. The medical release must be due to a medical problem attributable to military service to effect eligibility for priority hire.



I was a part of this thread a while ago.

I've come back in to clarify the above point because somebody contacted me and tagged me on it; saying that it left the misleading impression that priority hire is only available to those medically released with disabilities attributable to military service.

In the course of this particular discussion, we had been discussing the policies that applied prior to the New Veterans Charter, and old info seems to have gotten tangled up with the new; looking back on it, I can see how it can be seen as misleading.

Being a details girl, I felt the need to clarify:

As of December 31, 2005, the federal public service priority appointment policy applies to all medically released regular force members (and to certain reserves based on length of service and/or depending if the disability is attributable to service).

Currently, the disabilities that cause regular force members to be released do not have to be attributable to service in order for them to qualify for priority hire consideration.

I also wanted to say that I appreciate that MCpl Franklin has decided to join in the discussion, and I’m wondering if he’d be willing to continue helping us to understand some things.

 He stated, “I imagine many soldiers would have quit after the incredibly poor treatment my fellow soldiers my commanding officer (at my old unit) and others have done to push if not force me to leave the Canadian Armed Forces”.

In another thread, http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/71725.0/all.html (sorry, I still haven’t figured out how to pick up and insert quotes from other threads), milnewstbay asked a question I found very interesting:
“Is there reluctance on the part of some people in the system about having other troops regularly interacting with the wounded?”

It would be understandable if MCpl Franklin didn’t want to dredge up old hurts, but if he is open to discussing why he feels like so many people turned on him, I think it would be eye-opening.  I ask because I think there are so many more things than just legislation and policies that need to be changed if we are ever to treat wounded soldiers properly with regards to continuing employment-we’ll also have to change attitudes and address fears.

If he has any thoughts on this issue, I’d certainly appreciate hearing them.

Bren


----------



## Eland (12 Apr 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> <snip>  I bet more promising careers have met an untimely end due to whining, misfit, spoiled, hillbilly-bred, moderately sociopathic spouses than alcohol and tertiary syphilis combined.



Holy shit, that sounds just like my ex-wife! She spent 17 years in the service while I did not (two years' Reserve service is all I can cop to).  :rofl:


----------



## simysmom99 (29 Apr 2008)

While still serving I will not mention names about any bad service or issues that have confronted me over the last two years (wounded 2006).
But we always seem to circle around the ideas of hiring and the issues of disabled.  That is not the case.


Its simple.
Wounded means retained without complications without problems and the CF has issued orders to that effect.
This is not about hiring.
This is about doing the right thing.
We always over think life and problems when in reality and when touched by death we get it.

Wounded means retained.
Done.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2008)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ describes a device/system that may, eventually, offer significant benefits for wounded soldiers:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081107.whondagadget1107/BNStory/Technology/home


> New Honda device helps you walk
> 
> YURI KAGEYAMA
> Associated Press
> ...


----------



## brihard (7 Nov 2008)

A basic lower-body powered exoskeleton... Friggin' cool. I wonder what kind of battery endurance it has?

I could see a lot of people with partial use of their legs finding something like that a huge help in day to day life.


----------



## Strike (7 Nov 2008)

Sounds like a great tool to help seniors (and others) recover from things like hip surgery without losing too much mobility.

Hey, if it will encourage my dad to get up off the couch and go for a walk even when his knees are bothering him I'm all for it.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Nov 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> Sounds like a great tool to help seniors (and others) recover from things like hip surgery without losing too much mobility.
> 
> Hey, if it will encourage my dad to get up off the couch and go for a walk even when his knees are bothering him I'm all for it.



I don't think it will do anything to reduce joint pain or inflammation, so I don't think it will make much difference in that scenario.


----------



## CougarKing (8 Nov 2008)

Just great...some of us who live long enough to see this in more widespread use (probably many decades more from now) outside Japan will have robot legs walk us around in an old folks home. :



> *Honda unveils wearable robotic walker*
> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/11/07/robotic.walker.ap/index.html
> 
> TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Imagine a bicycle seat connected by mechanical frames to a pair of shoes for an idea of how the new wearable assisted-walking gadget from Honda works.
> ...


----------



## HollywoodHitman (8 Nov 2008)

I might be able to be a 'Mechwarrior' afterall!! Thats cool. It could mean some of us will be soldiering into our 90's!


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Nov 2008)

Read this article in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday.  Very interesting!

Article Link

U.S. military researchers grow new limbs, organs
Tiny scaffold helps cells rebuild bone, tissue
Vito Pilieci, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, November 08, 2008

American military researchers say they have unlocked the secret to regrowing limbs and recreating organs in humans who have sustained major injuries.

Using "nanoscaffolding," the researchers have regrown a man's fingertip and the internal organs of several test subjects.

The technology works by placing a very fine apparatus called a scaffold, which is made of polymer fibres hundreds of times finer than a human hair, in place of a missing limb or damaged organ. The scaffold acts as a guide for cells to grab onto so they can begin to rebuild missing bones and tissue.

More on link


----------



## Snakedoc (9 Nov 2008)

Amazing the times we live in!  nanoscaffolding is truly science fiction come to life!  Takes being wounded in combat..or any injury for that matter to a new level.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2008)

This is a bit off topic, but ...

Some maybe not too interesting numbers:

I found this little _thingy_ while reading an article referenced here in Army.ca.

I got to thinking about the numbers and made this little table from the data in the CP _thingy_:
Operation                   Served         Killed     Rate Killed  Wounded  Rate Wounded  Total Casualties  Casualty Rate  Ratio Wounded:Killed
Boer War:                     7,400          224           3.03%        252       3.41%                476            6.43%    1.12:1
First World War:         626,000      61,623           9.85%  174,623      27.90%          236,286           37.75%   2.83:1
Second World War:  1,100,000      42,042           3.82%    54,514       4.96%            96,556            8.78%    1.29:1
Korea:                       26,000           516          1.98%      1,567        6.03%             2,083            8.01%    3.03:1
Afghanistan:                8,000             97          1.21%        300*       3.75%                397            4.96%   3:09:1
--------------------
* I got his number from another article referenced in Army.ca

A few things stand out:

•	Afghanistan and Korea have a remarkably similar KIA percentage and the Wounded:Killed ratio is similar for the First World War, Korea and Afghanistan;

•	The Boer War and the Second World War have similar percentages and ratios; and

•	The casualty rates for the First World War are very high.

I would expect a “better” wounded:killed ratio as immediate treatment, casualty evacuation and battlefield/area medical care improve, but I would have though that there would have been marked improvements in the 1940s over the First World War but the wounded:killed ratio is worse for 1939:45. Did the very high Navy and, especially, Air Force wounded:killed ratios account for that? 


------------------------------​
Mods: if there’s a better place for this, please put it there.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Nov 2008)

While anybody can have fun with numbers, the Boer War casualties are incorrect, especially the dead. The figure of 224 is based on the First and Second Contingents and Strathcona's Horse. The original document in which the number is cited, notes that it does not include all dead to date. The actual figure is just under 300 and this is reflected in the Book of Honour. 

For a number of years I was part of an informal group that was trying to get all the Canadian war dead recorded in the book. As late as a couple of years ago I was contacted by VAC re a Canadian casualty. There was some (quite natural) confusion as two Canadian died on the day in question in early 1901 and both were named F. Davidson. One was an ex-Strathcona who had transferred to the Canadian Scouts, while the other was an architect from Toronto who had moved to the UK and was serving in the Imperial Yeomanry. 

I also suspect there are a few others we haven't discovered.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Mar 2009)

Fit to Serve: Universality of Service and Related Support Programs
BG–09.009 - March 16, 2009

In the civilian workplace, employees are generally obliged to perform only those duties specified in their job description. Military service is comparatively open-ended. The Canadian Forces (CF) principle of universality of service holds that all personnel must be capable at all times of performing a broad range of general military, common defence and security duties, in addition to the particular duties of their occupations. 

The universality of service principle is also known as the “soldier first” principle, identifying the men and women of the CF as members of the profession of arms first – before they may be identified as pharmacists, logistics officers or pilots. Every member, regardless of their military occupation, regardless of whether their place of work is a desk, a ship or the cockpit of a CF-18, must meet the universality of service standards in order to remain in the CF. 

The universality of service standards

The universality of service standards are very rigorous. Canadians should be proud of the men and women of their military for being able to meet them. 

Among other things, CF personnel must be able to do the following:

fire and maintain a personal weapon; 
conduct nuclear, biological and chemical drills; 
fight fires; 
administer first aid, including CPR; 
communicate using a radio; 
prepare written military correspondence; 
deploy on short notice to any geographical location, in any climate; 
work irregular or prolonged hours; 
function effectively on irregular or missing meals; 
travel as a passenger in any mode of transportation; 
perform under physical and mental stress; and 
perform with minimal medical support.

Additionally, because strength and endurance could mean the difference between success and failure in a military operation, CF personnel must be more physically fit than the general Canadian population. In order to meet the universality of service standards, CF personnel are required to undergo an annual physical fitness evaluation, known as the CF EXPRES test, where they must meet a minimum physical fitness standard1. 

A legal basis

Universality of service has a legal basis. It is imposed by section 33(1) of the National Defence Act, which states that all Regular Force members are “at all times liable to perform any lawful duty.” The legislative imperative means that a member who can not “at all times … perform any lawful duty” can not serve within the Regular Force, except during a carefully limited period of recovery from injury or illness or a period of transition out of the military and into civilian life. 

Exceptions are few. CF personnel under the age of 18 can not be deployed to a theatre of hostilities, but they must remain fit enough to be able to deploy upon reaching age 18. Chaplains are not required to perform any duty other than those pertaining to their calling; accordingly, they are exempt from the requirement to perform general military duties and common defence and security tasks. However, they are required to be medically and physically fit and deployable. Section 33(2) of the National Defence Act foresees that Reserve Force members “may be called out on service to perform any lawful duty other than training at such times and in such manner as any regulations or otherwise are prescribed by the Governor in Council.”  Since the Primary Reserve is given the role of directly supporting the Regular Force, operational effectiveness requires these Reservists to meet the universality of service standards. Personnel in other Reserve subcomponents – the Cadet Instructor Cadre, the Canadian Rangers and the Supplementary Reserve – are only required to meet certain standards associated with universality of service, unless they are serving with the Regular Force or Primary Reserve; in the latter case the full universality of service standards must be met2. 

Medical release

The CF benefits from a strong commitment from the federal government, and significant increases in funding to fix, transform and expand Canada’s military. Most recently, this has resulted in the approval of the Canada First Defence Strategy, which will allow the CF to grow over the next decade with a degree of certainty and coordination that was not previously possible. Under the CFDS, the CF will expand to 100,000 (70,000 Regular Force and 30,000 Primary Reserve) by fiscal year 2027-28.

The CF remains committed to supporting ill and injured personnel as they progress through recovery, rehabilitation and return to work. At the same time, the CF is required to take those measures necessary to field a ready, operationally effective force in the defence of the nation. Illness or injury can make it challenging for a CF member to meet the universality of service standards, as can poor physical fitness. Rigorous fitness programs and routine evaluations ensure that military personnel maintain a high level of physical fitness. 

Ill and injured personnel are given the time they need to recover, before any administrative action is taken with regards to their career. Once a member is considered to be medically stable, a permanent medical category is assigned, which may include medical employment limitations (MELs). Members who are assigned MELs of a temporary nature or permanent MELs that do not put the individual in breach of universality of service are not prevented from continued service with the CF. Essentially, a member will be identified as belonging to one of the following categories:

Those who are assigned MELs of a temporary nature, and meet universality of service standards, or will likely meet them in the near future, will return to full servivce in their previous occupation. 
Those who are assigned MELs that place them in permanent breach of the universality of service standards, but who are employable in some capacity and wish to remain in the CF, may be retained for up to three years. This transitional period of service will be engaged only if a personnel shortage exists in the member’s occupation, or there is a requirement for the member’s particular skill set; otherwise, the member will be transitioned to civilian life. 
Those who are assigned MELs that place them in permanent breach of the universality of service standards, and who are not employable (or choose not to remain) in the CF, may be retained for a short period while awaiting their medical release. Upon release, they are entitled to a range of transition services and care under the purview of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). 

As Table A demonstrates, about 1,000 Regular Force personnel have been medically released in each of the past four years.



TABLE A

Medical Releases From the Regular Force, 2005-2008
  

2005 1,102

2006 1,150

2007 979

2008 988

On average, 5,500 to 6,000 individuals leave the CF on an annual basis. Most people who leave the CF do so on a voluntary basis, not as a result of medical release. This annual attrition is a factor contributing to the constant renewal of CF personnel. 

Support programs

VAC and the CF partner at many levels to care for ill and injured military personnel and their families. VAC has the legislated mandate to provide care and support for military personnel following release from the CF. When a member faces medical release, the CF works closely with VAC to establish a comprehensive, individualized management program including rehabilitation, vocational services such as job placement, financial assistance and emotional support to the injured CF member in the period leading up to, and after release. The financial compensation available to Reserve Force personnel may differ in some instances3. 

A. Financial support

The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is the pension plan for all personnel of the Regular Force. It requires contributions from its participants, and benefits depend on the length of service. 
The Long Term Disability Group Insurance Program, a feature of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), provides medically released CF personnel with income protection, and prepares them to obtain gainful civilian employment. 
The Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan, another feature of SISIP, provides a lump-sum benefit to CF personnel who have suffered dismemberment or loss of sight, hearing or speech that is attributable to military service. (This plan complements the Injured Military Members Compensation Act, an older legislation covering members for injuries suffered prior to February 12, 2003.) 
The Allowance in Lieu of Operational Allowances compensates for the loss of operational allowances paid to deployed personnel, in the event of a member being compelled to return from deployment due to illness or injuries sustained in theatre. 
Income support programs available to former CF personnel under the New Veterans Charter include the Earnings Loss Benefit while they are participating in the Rehabilitation Program, the Supplementary Retirement Benefit, CF Income Support and a Permanent Impairment Allowance. 
CF personnel and former personnel with a service-related disability may qualify for a VAC Disability Award, which is designed to compensate for the fact that an individual may experience the impact of a service-related disability or death in ways other than financial. 
CF personnel or former members in receipt of a VAC Disability Pension or Disability Award may qualify for funding for long-term care in a community facility or for access to the Veterans Independence Program if the need is related to their pensioned condition. The program provides housekeeping and grounds maintenance benefits to assist veterans in remaining independent in their own homes. 

B. Vocational support

The CF’s Vocational Rehabilitation Program for Serving Members allows eligible personnel with an impending medical release up to six months in a civilian vocational rehabilitation training program, covering tuition fees, books, travel and other costs. 
The VAC vocational rehabilitation program will help a member determine whether it is possible to transfer their skills to another career. If not, the member may qualify for training to help obtain suitable civilian employment. 
The VAC Job Placement Program offers workshops, career counselling and job searches to releasing or released Regular Force personnel, some Reserve Force personnel and their survivors. 
A joint DND-VAC initiative, the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) allows prospective employers access to a database of job applicants with military experience. TAP has resulted in dozens of private companies agreeing to post online employment offers specifically aimed at medically released personnel. 
Many CF bases and wings participate in the Second Career Assistance Network, which makes seminars, career counselling and access to a job bank available to personnel anticipating a career change. 
The CF’s Skills Completion Program reimburses eligible Regular Forces personnel with 10 years’ service the costs of upgrading their skills and education in order to transfer to a civilian career.

C. Additional support

The CF Member Assistance Program provides external, short-term counselling to Regular Force personnel and their families, and to some Reserve Force personnel, who are seeking assistance outside military health services. The program is civilian-based in that it uses professional counsellors provided by the Employee Assistance Services of Health Canada, but it is funded by the CF. 
Released CF personnel have access to the VAC Assistance Service, a confidential toll-free 24/7 counselling service delivered through a nation-wide team of professional counsellors. The service, which is provided through a Memorandum of Understanding between VAC and Health Canada, is accessed initially through a toll-free line. 
The Operational Stress Injury Social Support program (OSISS) provides peer support and family counselling to military personnel suffering from Operational Stress Injury (OSI), which includes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). OSISS also works to reduce the stigma attached to those suffering from PTSD/OSI through formal presentations and other communications tools. A joint CF-VAC initiative, the program was founded by a group of CF veterans. 

Former CF personnel and their families may also benefit from the Veterans Pastoral Outreach Program, which can provide a swift response and high-quality care in various crisis situations. All former members of the CF, both Regular and Reserve Force, are eligible. 

1 For more information on the CF EXPRES test, visit the Canadian Forces website Newsroom at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2848.

2 Regular Force personnel work full-time and have usually signed long-term contracts committing them to regular service. Primary Reserve personnel train regularly and may work alongside their Regular Force counterparts on a full-time basis. Other subcomponents of the Reserve Force are the Supplementary Reserve (former commissioned and non-commissioned members who could be called out in an emergency), Canadian Rangers (who constitute a military presence in isolated and sparsely settled areas of Canada) and the Cadet Instructors Cadre, or CIC (officers with administrative, instructive and supervisory responsibilities to the cadet program).

3 The Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity is a severance benefit for members of the Primary Reserve only. Reservists’ eligibility for compensation under the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan is governed by the terms of the contract under which they serve. Reservists incapable of completing the terms of their contract due to injury or illness attributable to service are entitled to pay and allowances until the termination of their contract. Compensation for disability due to injury or illness is payable when disability continues beyond the termination of the class of Reserve service during which it occurred. VAC services and benefits are available to ill or injured Reservists on the same basis as they are to Regular Force personnel, subject to eligibility provisions applicable to both groups.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2010)

Latest version as of 29 Jun 10

*Fit to Serve: Universality of Service and Related Support Programs*
BG–09.009 (Revised) - June 29, 2010

In the civilian workplace, employees are generally obliged to perform only those duties specified in their job description. Military service is comparatively open-ended. The Canadian Forces (CF) principle of universality of service holds that all personnel must be capable at all times of performing a broad range of general military, common defence and security duties, in addition to the particular duties of their occupations.

The universality of service principle is also known as the “soldier first” principle, identifying the men and women of the CF as members of the profession of arms first – before they may be identified as pharmacists, logistics officers or pilots. Every member, regardless of their military occupation, regardless of whether their place of work is a desk, a ship or the cockpit of a CF-18, must meet the universality of service standards in order to remain in the CF.

The universality of service standards

The universality of service standards are very rigorous. Canadians should be proud of the men and women of their military for being able to meet them.

Among other things, CF personnel must be able to do the following:

    * fire and maintain a personal weapon;
    * conduct nuclear, biological and chemical drills;
    * fight fires;
    * administer first aid, including CPR;
    * communicate using a radio;
    * prepare written military correspondence;
    * deploy on short notice to any geographical location, in any climate;
    * work irregular or prolonged hours;
    * function effectively on irregular or missing meals;
    * travel as a passenger in any mode of transportation;
    * perform under physical and mental stress; and
    * perform with minimal medical support.

Additionally, because strength and endurance could mean the difference between success and failure in a military operation, CF personnel must be more physically fit than the general Canadian population. In order to meet the universality of service standards, CF personnel are required to undergo an annual physical fitness evaluation, known as the CF EXPRES test, where they must meet a minimum physical fitness standard.

A legal basis

Universality of service has a legal basis. It is imposed by section 33(1) of the National Defence Act, which states that all Regular Force members are “at all times liable to perform any lawful duty.” The legislative imperative means that a member who can not “at all times … perform any lawful duty” can not serve within the Regular Force, except during a carefully limited period of recovery from injury or illness or a period of transition out of the military and into civilian life.

Exceptions are few. CF personnel under the age of 18 can not be deployed to a theatre of hostilities, but they must remain fit enough to be able to deploy upon reaching age 18. Chaplains are not required to perform any duty other than those pertaining to their calling; accordingly, they are exempt from the requirement to perform general military duties and common defence and security tasks. However, they are required to be medically and physically fit and deployable. Section 33(2) of the National Defence Act foresees that Reserve Force members “may be called out on service to perform any lawful duty other than training at such times and in such manner as any regulations or otherwise are prescribed by the Governor in Council.”  Since the Primary Reserve is given the role of directly supporting the Regular Force, operational effectiveness requires these Reservists to meet the universality of service standards. Personnel in other Reserve subcomponents – the Cadet Organizations and Training Services (COATS), the Canadian Rangers and the Supplementary Reserve – are only required to meet certain standards associated with universality of service, unless they are serving with the Regular Force or Primary Reserve; in the latter case the full universality of service standards must be met.

Medical release

The CF benefit from a strong commitment from the federal government, and significant increases in funding to fix, transform and expand Canada’s military. Most recently, this has resulted in the approval of the Canada First Defence Strategy, which will allow the CF to grow over the next decade with a degree of certainty and coordination that was not previously possible. Under the CFDS, the CF will expand to a sustainable 100,000 (70,000 Regular Force and 30,000 Primary Reserve) by fiscal year 2027-28.

The CF remain committed to supporting ill and injured personnel as they progress through recovery, rehabilitation and return to work. At the same time, the CF are required to take those measures necessary to field a ready, operationally effective force in the defence of the nation. Illness or injury can make it challenging for a CF member to meet the universality of service standards, as can poor physical fitness. Rigorous fitness programs and routine evaluations ensure that military personnel maintain a high level of physical fitness.

Ill and injured personnel are given the time they need to recover, before any administrative action is taken with regards to their career. Once a member is considered to be medically stable, a permanent medical category is assigned, which may include medical employment limitations (MELs). Members who are assigned MELs of a temporary nature or permanent MELs that do not put the individual in breach of universality of service are not prevented from continued service with the CF. Essentially, a member will be identified as belonging to one of the following categories:

   1. Those who are assigned MELs of a temporary nature, and meet universality of service standards, or will likely meet them in the near future, will return to full service in their previous occupation.
   2. Those who are assigned MELs that place them in permanent breach of the universality of service standards, but who are employable in some capacity and wish to remain in the CF, may be retained for up to three years. This transitional period of service will be engaged only if a personnel shortage exists in the member’s occupation, or there is a requirement for the member’s particular skill set; otherwise, the member will be transitioned to civilian life.
   3. Those who are assigned MELs that place them in permanent breach of the universality of service standards, and who are not employable (or choose not to remain) in the CF, may be retained for a short period while awaiting their medical release. Upon release, they are entitled to a range of transition services and care under the purview of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC).

      Regular Force and Primary Reserve members who have a medical condition that precludes their return to normal duty in a timely manner may be posted to the Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU) and either assigned to one of its component parts - an Integrated Personnel Support Centre (IPSC) - or transferred to the Service Personnel Holding List (SPHL) where an IPSC has not yet been stood up in the area. The JPSU provides a CF/VAC integrated “one-stop service” for ill and injured CF personnel and their families by facilitating access to care and support while personnel reintegrate into military life or explore new options in the civilian workplace. It supports currently serving and releasing CF personnel, both Regular Force and Reserve Force, and caters to both referrals and walk-in clients, to long-term injured personnel and to members considering retirement.

      As Table A demonstrates, about 1,000 Regular Force personnel have been medically released in each of the past five years.
      TABLE A
      Medical Releases From the
      Regular Force, 2005-2009
      Year 	 
      2009 	986
      2008 	988
      2007 	979
      2006 	1,150
      2005 	1,102


      On average, 5,500 to 6,000 individuals leave the CF on an annual basis. Most people who leave the CF do so on a voluntary basis, not as a result of medical release. This annual attrition is a factor contributing to the constant renewal of CF personnel.

      Support programs

      VAC and the CF partner at many levels to care for ill and injured military personnel and their families. VAC has the legislated mandate to provide care and support for military personnel following release from the CF. When a member faces medical release, the CF work closely with VAC to establish a comprehensive, individualized management program including rehabilitation, vocational services such as job placement, financial assistance and emotional support to the injured CF member in the period leading up to, and after release. The financial compensation available to Reserve Force personnel may differ in some instances.

      A. Financial support
          * The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is the pension plan for all personnel of the Regular Force. It requires contributions from its participants, and benefits depend on the length of service.
          * The Long Term Disability Group Insurance Program, a feature of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), provides medically released CF personnel with income protection, and prepares them to obtain gainful civilian employment.
          * The Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan, another feature of SISIP, provides a lump-sum benefit to CF personnel who have suffered dismemberment or loss of sight, hearing or speech that is attributable to military service. (This plan complements the Injured Military Members Compensation Act, an older legislation covering members for injuries suffered prior to February 12, 2003.)
          * The Allowance in Lieu of Operational Allowances compensates for the loss of operational allowances paid to deployed personnel, in the event of a member being compelled to return from deployment due to illness or injuries sustained in theatre.
          * Income support programs available to former CF personnel under the New Veterans Charter include the Earnings Loss Benefit while they are participating in the Rehabilitation Program (and longer, if the person is unable to work after rehabilitation), the Supplementary Retirement Benefit, CF Income Support and a Permanent Impairment Allowance.
          * CF personnel and former personnel with a service-related disability may qualify for a VAC Disability Award, which is designed to compensate for the fact that an individual may experience the impact of a service-related disability or death in ways other than financial.
          * CF personnel or former members in receipt of a VAC Disability Pension or Disability Award may qualify for funding for long-term care in a community facility or for access to the Veterans Independence Program if the need is related to their pensioned or awarded condition. The program provides a number of benefits, including personal care, housekeeping and grounds maintenance benefits to assist veterans in remaining independent in their own homes.

      B. Vocational support
          * The CF’s Vocational Rehabilitation Program for Serving Members allows eligible personnel with an impending medical release up to six months in a civilian vocational rehabilitation training program, covering tuition fees, books, travel and other costs.
          * Many CF bases and wings participate in the Second Career Assistance Network, which makes seminars, career counselling and access to a job bank available to personnel anticipating a career change.
          * The CF’s Skills Completion Program reimburses eligible Regular Forces personnel with 10 years’ service the costs of upgrading their skills and education in order to transfer to a civilian career.
          * The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) allows prospective employers access to a database of job applicants with military experience. TAP has resulted in dozens of private companies agreeing to post online employment offers specifically aimed at medically released personnel.
          * The VAC vocational rehabilitation program will help a member determine whether it is possible to transfer their skills to another career. If not, the member may qualify for training to help obtain suitable civilian employment.
          * VAC’s Career Transition Services offer workshops, career counselling and job searches to releasing or released Regular Force personnel, some Reserve Force personnel and their survivors.

      C. Additional support
          * The CF Member Assistance Program provides external, short-term counselling to Regular Force personnel and their families, and to some Reserve Force personnel, who are seeking assistance outside military health services. The program is civilian-based in that it uses professional counsellors provided by the Employee Assistance Services of Health Canada.
          * The Operational Stress Injury Social Support program (OSISS) provides peer support and family counselling to military personnel suffering from Operational Stress Injury (OSI), which includes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). OSISS also works to reduce the stigma attached to those suffering from PTSD/OSI through formal presentations and other communications tools. A joint CF-VAC initiative, the program was founded by a group of CF veterans.

      Released CF personnel have access to the VAC Assistance Service, a confidential toll-free 24/7 counselling service delivered through a nation-wide team of professional counsellors. The service, which is provided through a Memorandum of Understanding between VAC and Health Canada, is accessed initially through a toll-free line.

      1 For more information on the CF EXPRES test, visit the Canadian Forces website Newsroom at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2848

      2 Regular Force personnel work full-time and have usually signed long-term contracts committing them to regular service. Primary Reserve personnel train regularly and may work alongside their Regular Force counterparts on a full-time basis. Other subcomponents of the Reserve Force are the Supplementary Reserve (former commissioned and non-commissioned members who could be called out in an emergency), Canadian Rangers (who constitute a military presence in isolated and sparsely settled areas of Canada) and the Cadet Instructors Cadre, or CIC (officers with administrative, instructive and supervisory responsibilities to the cadet program).

      3 For more information on the JPSU, visit the Canadian Forces website Newsroom at http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=03&id=2880

      4 The Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity is a severance benefit for members of the Primary Reserve only. Reservists’ eligibility for compensation under the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan is governed by the terms of the contract under which they serve. Reservists incapable of completing the terms of their contract due to injury or illness attributable to service are entitled to pay and allowances until the termination of their contract. Compensation for disability due to injury or illness is payable when disability continues beyond the termination of the class of Reserve service during which it occurred. VAC services and benefits are available to ill or injured Reservists on the same basis as they are to Regular Force personnel, subject to eligibility provisions applicable to both groups.


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Dec 2010)

Forces weighing whether soldiers wounded in Afghanistan should be let go

The Canadian Forces will review the files of up to 50 soldiers wounded during the Afghan war to determine whether they should be allowed to continue to serve or be released from the military. 

The administrative review is expected to start in the spring but sources say as many as 18 of the soldiers, some severely wounded, could be asked to leave. 

Rear-Admiral Andy Smith, chief of military personnel, confirmed the reviews will take place but he said it is too early to determine the outcome. 

"Those who are wounded in action represent a special set of people who have gone out there and done the business and merit the full compassion of the institution and the country," he said. 

But Smith said that the Canadian Forces still adhere to the principle of universality of service, which dictates that all members must be fit and capable of deploying on operations. 

Smith also noted that Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk has put a priority on doing as much as possible to take care of the wounded. 

"The CDS has said for those people who don't want to leave the Canadian Forces, we're not going to release them unless or until we work with them to transition their way out of the forces," Smith explained. 

"As long as they are employable, if they don't want to leave the Canadian Forces we are going to look to provide them options to stay in the forces in areas where the overlying principle of universality of service doesn't apply." 

He said the two main areas for that is employment with the cadet program or with the Rangers in Canada's North. There could be training or administrative jobs with either organization. 

The files of 40 or 50 wounded soldiers would be reviewed, Smith added. Those all involve individuals wounded as a result of enemy action. Wounded reservists would also be covered under the same process. 

Soldiers, worried that the wounded veterans would be kicked out of the military, approached the Ottawa Citizen to provide details about the review process. 

But Smith said the Canadian Forces has placed great emphasis on caring for the wounded over the last several years, setting up mental-health programs and a joint personnel support unit, which provides help for ill and injured military personnel and their families. 

In addition, the military has provided assistance to help upgrade homes of wounded soldiers to deal with their injuries, he added. 

Smith also pointed out that he recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Corps of Commissionaires to provide employment opportunities for personnel. As well, there is a system where veterans are supposed to get priority referrals for public service jobs. 

Smith said the military has learned lessons over the last several years from the Afghan mission. 

"I would submit this is a good news story," he explained. "We're not taking a cold, heartless, clinical approach and pushing people out the door. We're making sure that we work with them to help them get back on their feet and if they have to turn the page we help them." 

A number of injured Afghan war veterans have approached the Citizen to discuss their ongoing problems receiving help from either the Canadian Forces or Veterans Affairs but they decline to go public for fear of retribution from either organization. 

Other Afghan veterans have expressed concern there are a number of physically unfit individuals in the Canadian Forces who have never been sent overseas, yet who are allowed to remain in the military while wounded combat veterans could be shown the door. 

But Smith said individuals who can't pass fitness tests are provided with help but ultimately they too would be removed from the Canadian Forces if they cannot meet the universality-of-service conditions. 

A number of senators have been speaking out recently to prod the government to do more for Afghan veterans. 

Liberal Senator Percy Downe has written cabinet ministers urging them to show "political leadership" and order their departments to hire more ex-military who are on the waiting list for jobs in the public service. 

The government gave medically discharged veterans a hiring preference in 2005 to work in the public service. But Downe has long criticized departments for not making more of an effort to hire these veterans, many of whom are young and were injured during their prime working years. 

He argues the government could easily absorb the number of ex-military and RCMP sitting on priority lists. At last count, 245 went on the list and 177 found jobs over two years, with the majority hired by National Defence. Last year, 67 veterans fell off the priority list when their hiring preference expired. 

                       (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Dec 2010)

67 of 245.  A 30% failure rate is acceptable? 14$ an hour as a commish doing shift work doesn't sound too great either. Try supporting a family on that.

Just stay in till they figure this out. Don't let them push you out the door.  I want vets to keep building up their pensionable years and making a decent salary. That is the Canada I grew up in. Not the disposable Vets of the New Veterans Charter. Hillier would have crushed anyone who tried to push out a wounded vet. Bureaucrats like Natynczyk trying to spin this will be watched closely by the troops.  There is no proper transition program. Just a great add campaign that is more about press releases than actual helping.

Bah I'm getting pissed.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> 67 of 245.  A 30% failure rate is acceptable? 14$ an hour as a commish doing shift work doesn't sound too great either. Try supporting a family on that.
> 
> Just stay in till they figure this out. Don't let them push you out the door.  I want vets to keep building up their pensionable years and making a decent salary. That is the Canada I grew up in. Not the disposable Vets of the New Veterans Charter. Hillier would have crushed anyone who tried to push out a wounded vet. Bureaucrats like Natynczyk trying to spin this will be watched closely by the troops.  There is no proper transition program. Just a great add campaign that is more about press releases than actual helping.
> 
> Bah I'm getting pissed.



Excuse me!  This did not happen overnight.  I highly doubt it happened on Natynczyk's watch, but rather on Hillier's watch.  

Having known (Still do) both these men, I find your opinion offensive.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2010)

The sad fact of the matter is this:
Universality of Service.  If a member is unable to continue to serve in any trade in the CF, then that member ought to be released.  Not kicked out on the street, but released.  After all, we owe it to our Canadian citizens to have the best and fittest force we can.


Having said that, since we let fatties stay in (and deploy), then keep them all in.


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Dec 2010)

I hope I am wrong. The  way vets are treated is maddening. I want someone to blame. The system is clearly broken and the fixes are more about saving face than actually helping. Universality is a given only if the Vet is NOT kicked to the curb and forgotten.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2010)

I agree, Nemo, not kicked to the curb, but given our PY limits imposed on the system, so long as an unfit soldier is serving in position "x", we cannot recruit someone to fill that.

Perhaps a way ought to be established to have overages for PYs.  Is the JPSU set this way, such that any PYs in there don't count against our totals?  But since we are an armed force, and not a social jobfare program, we ought to only keep the fit in, and then find a "departure with dignity".  After all, if someone lost their legs for the nation, then that nation owes them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Forces weighing whether soldiers wounded in Afghanistan should be let go
> ...
> "Those who are wounded in action represent a special set of people who have gone out there and done the business and merit the full compassion of the institution and the country ..."
> 
> ...




RAdm Smith is right, overweight and other unfit people are given help and a second chance, but my perception - which may well be quite wrong - is that too many are given third and fourth and even more chances.

TV is certainly correct: real personnel/staffing issues mean that we (the country) cannot afford to have injured soldiers, but let's start with those with the self inflicted wounds. At the very least anyone who cannot pass or does not attempt his/her fitness tests should be placed on a "restricted" list which means not eligible for promotion, no matter how "valuable" (s)he is to the team until (s)he is fit and "universally" available for service anywhere.

The CDS could start with a rumoured list of senior_ish_ officers who are never available for tours, because, I hear, some bosses don't want to lose them or, perhaps, they cannot pass the medical or something. If we are looking at pushing wounded soldiers out the door they ought to be following the _deadwood_ - if there really is deadwoods; I said that list was a  rumour.


----------



## Wookilar (14 Dec 2010)

I have to agree with Technoviking. Universality of Service has to be upheld.

I say this, being one of the injured that may be on my way out the door (part 2 tomorrow, we'll see what Med Cat I end up with. Praying for G3, O3). Injured or not, I refuse to be a liability. If the Army says I can no longer serve (in this manner), then I will serve in some other way.

I also have to agree with the sentiment that we MUST look after our troops and not push them out the door (I don't think anyone here will argue with that at all).

I guess the major discussion to be had is whether the JPSU/IPSC's are the best place to achieve this transition or is it best to stay (if possible) with the Regimental/Branch/Unit family? I'm going to wager that the answer will be ..."It depends."

I am one of the lucky ones in that I can stay in my current position while I await release (if I need to). Whether the Career Mangler will agree with that may be a different story. The Manglers seem bent on emptying the units of broken pers and filling up those positions and I have to say that I understand that from a systemic POV, but that may not be the best for the individual. I have seen people absolutely destroyed at being cutoff from their "family" and sent to rot at JPSU and I have also seen a Pl be absolutely ineffective due to the amount of pers that had extensive limitations on them.

I think finding a balance between the manning requirements of the units and a bit of compassion/accommodation will be difficult. It will be a bit of a moving target, depending on who you are in the food chain and what your individual and/or collective requirements are.

As for the deadwood, I despise them. When I, who some days has a hard time walking upright, can leave some piece of poo in my dust on an Express test or leave them behind at the half-way mark on the BFT, it's time for those individuals to have a good hard look at themselves and for their respective CoC's to have a hard look at them as well.

Wook


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2010)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> As for the deadwood, I despise them. When I, who some days has a hard time walking upright, can leave some piece of poo in my dust on an Express test or leave them behind at the half-way mark on the BFT, it's time for those individuals to have a good hard look at themselves and for their respective CoC's to have a hard look at them as well.


I agree 100% re: deadwood.  And as E.R. Campbell pointed out, the injured ought to be following the deadwood out.

As for "other options", I've seen former service members in the US being hired as contractors.  I know we have "TCEP" and other programs, but is there appetite to create civilian positions in DND such that they can still serve, but out of uniform?  I don't mean simply as pucksters in JCATS, but as bonafide instructors in some capacity?  Writing manuals?  Doing clerical work?

Anyway, just an idea.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> 67 of 245.  A 30% failure rate is acceptable? 14$ an hour as a commish doing shift work doesn't sound too great either. Try supporting a family on that.
> 
> Just stay in till they figure this out. Don't let them push you out the door.  I want vets to keep building up their pensionable years and making a decent salary. That is the Canada I grew up in. Not the disposable Vets of the New Veterans Charter. Hillier would have crushed anyone who tried to push out a wounded vet. Bureaucrats like Natynczyk trying to spin this will be watched closely by the troops.  There is no proper transition program. Just a great add campaign that is more about press releases than actual helping.
> 
> Bah I'm getting pissed.


Not to berate you, but stay within your arcs of fire. There is a transitioni program, called TAP. There is also VRPSM.

While I admire General Hillier as much as any of you do, the current CDS is following policy set down by the Government of Canada, which we are duty bound to follow.

I do agree with your advice. Take the time and stay in til they figure it out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> .... bonafide instructors in some capacity?  Writing manuals?  ....


Don't know about the process mechanics, but I agree this would be a good way to circulate the experience through the CF without necessarily having people wear uniforms.

Still, gotta be tough leaving "the family".


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Dec 2010)

Just because you have been wounded in some manner does not necessarily mean that you are no longer able to contribute.  Were this the case there would not have been the contributions of WC Douglas Bader and Adm Horatio Nelson for starters.  I am sure there are a legion of others who made significant contributions following being wounded in some manner.  If you are able and willing, then for God's sake let them stay as long as they can do some good.

The lazy bastards who don't wish to or are unwilling to contribute are another case altogether and if a fire cannot be struck under their asses to change them then they should be shown the door.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just because you have been wounded in some manner does not necessarily mean that you are no longer able to contribute.  Were this the case there would not have been the contributions of WC Douglas Bader and Adm Horatio Nelson for starters.  I am sure there are a legion of others who made significant contributions following being wounded in some manner.  If you are able and willing, then for God's sake let them stay as long as they can do some good.
> 
> The lazy bastards who don't wish to or are unwilling to contribute are another case altogether and if a fire cannot be struck under their asses to change them then they should be shown the door.



I heartily concur. 

I don't know how many pictures I've seen of officers and Snr NCOs/WOs who have a wooden leg or the arm of a tunic pinned up. There are jobs for them that would free up able bodied pers that could deploy.


----------



## Pusser (14 Dec 2010)

It is worth noting that the British Army has long had a practice of employing retired soldiers as instructors in their schools.

On another note, don't be too hard on the folks who've never deployed.  It's not always their fault.  Although I've got some ribbons now, it took a long time to get them because I was too often told that I was too valuable to allowed to deploy.  I was very close to getting out in disgust when I finally got my chance.

As for the fitness issue, I'm not a big fan of the ExPres test.  It's designed for long legged track stars, but who gets to carry the @#$! radio when it's time to hump over the mountain?  When the defence of the nation depends on my ability to run back and forth inside a 20m box, then I might have some faith in it.  In the meantime, how come I'm not allowed to take the BFT?


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Dec 2010)

For whatever it is worth, Lieutenant General Freddy Franks, who commanded 7 US Corps in the First Gulf War, had lost part of one leg in Vietnam. In my career I have meet both British and American officers with artificial limbs. These individuals, however, were fairly senior when wounded, and could still contribute as staff officers. The situation for more junior members of the CF, both officers and NCMs, may be deemed to be different.

Hopefully all ranks will be treated with compassion and they will be given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Dec 2010)

This article is one of the best I have read regarding wounded soldiers. It clearly outlines the commitment and compassion our Government has taken toward the wounded.

I must agree with E.R. about the "deadwood rumor". 
The deadwood can easily be replaced by well motivated wounded soldiers even where some retraining or
further education would be required.


----------



## HavokFour (14 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> RAdm Smith is right, overweight and other unfit people are given help and a second chance, but my perception - which may well be quite wrong - is that too many are given third and fourth and even more chances.
> 
> TV is certainly correct: real personnel/staffing issues mean that we (the country) cannot afford to have injured soldiers, but let's start with those with the self inflicted wounds. At the very least anyone who cannot pass or does not attempt his/her fitness tests should be placed on a "restricted" list which means not eligible for promotion, no matter how "valuable" (s)he is to the team until (s)he is fit and "universally" available for service anywhere.
> 
> The CDS could start with a rumoured list of senior_ish_ officers who are never available for tours, because, I hear, some bosses don't want to lose them or, perhaps, they cannot pass the medical or something. If we are looking at pushing wounded soldiers out the door they ought to be following the _deadwood_ - if there really is deadwoods; I said that list was a  rumour.



Here here! 

First order of business: Turn off all escalators at Mackenzie King Station (Rideau Centre). I've noticed quite a few large waisted serving members there every morning.  >

But in all seriousness, unfit members should be looked at being released before any wounded members that may be able to do a better job.


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Dec 2010)

I agree with a lot of the comments regarding the 'dead-wood'.  And I look at it this way;

I know soldiers working at the infantry school who have been there for 5+ years and been twice promoted...but they can't seem to find a way to get deployed.  Hmmmm, healthy enough to meet promotion guidelines and complete courses....but can't deploy.   Or a Cpl/MCpl and higher in either the Inf, Armd, Arty or Eng that has not deployed to Afghanistan...EVER!!!  But can still stay in the CF even though there is nothing wrong with them.  .

We all know these types of people, some personally.  THEY are the deadwood that needs to be cut first, before all others.  Sure, some people that deploy cannot pass a BFT or some other challenge, but they still end up deploying anyway.  BUT, at least they deploy...unlike those i mentioned earlier.

As for the wounded, most, if not all, have drive and motivation beyond their peers.  If they can do a job then let them do it.  However, it must be made 110% clear that they may stay in their present rank if they cannot meet the requirements or pass the courses for promotion.  If they can, awesome, and I would very much like to see that.

So, in closing.  Yes, we have over-weight people in the CF.  But at least some of them deploy.  Those hiding out in schools or elsewhere in their units, you should be the first to be cut.  Those in said places that have done their bit and gone to face the enemy, well done.  You know who those are in your units that I talk about.


----------



## dangerboy (14 Dec 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I agree with a lot of the comments regarding the 'dead-wood'.  And I look at it this way;
> 
> I know soldiers working at the infantry school who have been there for 5+ years and been twice promoted...but they can't seem to find a way to get deployed.  Hmmmm, healthy enough to meet promotion guidelines and complete courses....but can't deploy.   Or a Cpl/MCpl and higher in either the Inf, Armd, Arty or Eng that has not deployed to Afghanistan...EVER!!!  But can still stay in the CF even though there is nothing wrong with them.  .
> 
> ...



There are a lot of people at the schools that want to deploy but are not able to as they are being told they are not able to by their chain of Command.  It is very easy to attack the people at the schools but the majority of people I talk to want to deploy overseas but are just not able to.


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Dec 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> There are a lot of people at the schools that want to deploy but are not able to as they are being told they are not able to by their chain of Command.  It is very easy to attack the people at the schools but the majority of people I talk to want to deploy overseas but are just not able to.



So, in the last 5-6 years they have been too important to the schools?  Really, come on, you are kidding me...right?  

It's not an attempt to bash people at schools. So don't see it that way.  It's about those that are there that do anything they can to not go...and they DO exist.

Long and short of it...if you want to deploy there is no reason, not even your CoC , to stop you from submitting the memo, speaking with your career manager.  Not to mention, every infantry BG that has returned has posted people tio the infantry school, and they send people back to the units and they go on tour the following Roto or soon after.  But there are people that don't ever get posted back, no matter how many people we send to the inf school.  Like I said, no soldier is too important that they cannot go and to their job and fight in a war!


----------



## aesop081 (14 Dec 2010)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> I know soldiers working at the infantry school who have been there for 5+ years and been twice promoted...but they can't seem to find a way to get deployed.  Hmmmm, healthy enough to meet promotion guidelines and complete courses....but can't deploy.   Or a Cpl/MCpl and higher in either the Inf, Armd, Arty or Eng that has not deployed to Afghanistan...EVER!!!  But can still stay in the CF even though there is nothing wrong with them.  .



You must think very highly of me then. 5 years in the same unit and have gone from Cpl to (very shortly) WO. I have never been to Afghanistan although several of my subordinates have.

I repeatedly asked but for a very long period i was a "one of" in terms of certain qualifications and had to remain in Canada so that my unit could fulfill its operational missions. Once, my unit said it would suck it up and do without me but my MOC decided that a person of higher rank was required. I only ever turned down one opportinity for a tour and that was to the DRC. I refused it because i would have had to leave almost immediately ( it was to replace someone being pulled out and was already 2 weeks behind) and being a single-parent, that was no very ideal. Given a bit more notice, i would have gone.

You should be careful with those broad brushes.........


----------



## Kiwi99 (14 Dec 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You must think very highly of me then. 5 years in the same unit and have gone from Cpl to (very shortly) WO. I have never been to Afghanistan although several of my subordinates have.
> 
> I repeatedly asked but for a very long period i was a "one of" in terms of certain qualifications and had to remain in Canada so that my unit could fulfill its operational missions. Once, my unit said it would suck it up and do without me but my MOC decided that a person of higher rank was required. I only ever turned down one opportinity for a tour and that was to the DRC. I refused it because i would have had to leave almost immediately ( it was to replace someone being pulled out and was already 2 weeks behind) and being a single-parent, that was no very ideal. Given a bit more notice, i would have gone.
> 
> You should be careful with those broad brushes.........



I was speaking of my trade, of which I am qualified to do.  With regards to your trade, I am sure you also have seen similar things.

I really don't know why we tip toe around the issue.  While we do have members with self induced health problems, and they repeatedly get slammed on these threads, we all seem to ignore the other elephant in the room.  The fit and healthy soldier that for some reason can never deploy anywhere.  And in my trade there is quite a few of those.  And again,  a lot of them are in schools, that's a fact.  And if they can remain fit and healthy and get promoted but not once in 5-6 years get deployed, then there is an issue.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Dec 2010)

This is a serious response to the "never deployed there" part mentioned earlier, just to illustrate that "some do" pass through the system.  I'll use me as an example.
In 1992, I was posted from 2 RCR to an ERE position in London Ontario, fresh back from Cyprus.  I was due to be posted back to a battalion in 1995, but was accepted UTPNCM and ended up staying in London for four more years.  Then in 1999 I was posted to a battalion fresh back from Bosnia.  So, after Bosnia stood down, we all looked around, and there I was, no tour in the Balkans, in spite of many others having multiple tours and in spite of me serving in the Regular Force infantry since 1989.

But I think that the concensus is there: physically unfit people (due to just being out of shape) ought to be removed from Her Majesty's service before the wounded in action.


----------



## captloadie (15 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> But I think that the concensus is there: physically unfit people (due to just being out of shape) ought to be removed from Her Majesty's service before the wounded in action.



Yes, it is important that we all remain fit. And no one should be failing the Express Test, because it really isn't that hard. But we shouldn't be using the broad stroke brush. What if one of these rotund Ottawa souls you see is the best int analyst at the unit who has proved their value time and again. Yeah he can pass the PT test, but would really struggle at the BFT. Compare him to a wounded soldier who can't sit at a desk for more than 45 minutes at a time because of his injuries. Does it make sense to say the productive one must go to if the injured one has to? 

If we go back to the topic of the post, the answer we need to find is what do we do with those that no longer meet the UofS? The best idea so far is to employ those we can in the civilian side of DND. Instructors, Sim operators, range staff, Project offices, etc. are all places their experience can be put to good use.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2010)

This will be a difficult potato for whoever has to manage it. 

There will be plenty of emotional issues to address - I suspect some will request/demand preferential treatment for casualties of Afghanistan over any other medical release.  Personally, I don't think we should be doing geography based preferential treatment.  If service member is injured in the performance of duties, that person deserves the same care regardless of if the incident happened in Wainwright, Afghanistan or the middle of the Atlantic.

One of the problems is that many combat related injuries are sufficient to put a person right into a PCAT, and once that happens the clock starts counting for the remaining time that one can be retained.  Back in Canada, some can spend two years on TCATs before a decision is made that their condition is permanent.  Some individuals even cast the appearance of becoming quite good at riding a train of TCATs that are broken just sufficiently that the individual never catches the attention of a medical AR - many such individuals are labelled malingerers (and some probably are).  For these people (regardless of where the condition first started or of the malingering possibility) the CF needs to be more aggressive in assisting the transition to civilian employment.

I would propose a few things.  Firstly, that CF members be added to the PS priority hire list as soon as a medical release decision is made and even if that member is to be retained for another three years.  Secondly, that service member names should remain on the PS priority hire list for greater than the current two years.  Finally, there needs to be mechanisms to ensure we do hire those injured members that want to be hired in the PS.  I don't like the idea of creating unneccesary jobs just to keep people employed, but there needs to be something for even those times with the budgets are crunched and the department (or all the government) declares no new hires.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Yes, it is important that we all remain fit. And no one should be failing the Express Test, because it really isn't that hard. But we shouldn't be using the broad stroke brush. What if one of these rotund Ottawa souls you see is the best int analyst at the unit who has proved their value time and again. Yeah he can pass the PT test, but would really struggle at the BFT. Compare him to a wounded soldier who can't sit at a desk for more than 45 minutes at a time because of his injuries. Does it make sense to say the productive one must go to if the injured one has to?
> 
> If we go back to the topic of the post, the answer we need to find is what do we do with those that no longer meet the UofS? The best idea so far is to employ those we can in the civilian side of DND. Instructors, Sim operators, range staff, Project offices, etc. are all places their experience can be put to good use.




I don't think personal stories help much, but ...

I was (still am) one of those "rotund Ottawa souls" who could, and did, pass the PT test but, thanks to some serious joint problems, suffered for it for days, sometimes even weeks, afterwards. Oddly enough, a BFT (scaled down as it was in NDHQ in the '80s) was 'easier' for me - but I only recall doing it every two or three years. But I could, just, pass the annual (now and again semi-annual) PT and (less frequent) weapons tests when, now and again, they were offered.

Anyway, I was on PCAT for a fairly serious neurological condition. I could work but my employment (and prospect for promotion) was 'restricted' for various reasons. I was issued with a cane to address a balance problem, caused by the neurological condition,* but then, as now, it was more help with arthritic knees. (Paradoxically, the most effective treatment for osteoarthritis of the knees is weight loss, running, jogging and walking are amongst the best ways to lose weight, they are also the hardest on the knees and ankles.)

Given my sundry medical problems no one - like the VCDS who was the only guy who mattered - cared too much about my waistline. Every two years there was a CMRB (Career Medical Review Board) and every two years I was told that I could retire now or stay in - as I chose. I enjoyed my work and felt it was worthwhile and I felt that I was amongst the best choices for that job, so I stayed and stayed.

So I agree, not all the "rotund Ottawa souls" are unfit, but those who are need to be on *restricted* status: no tours = no promotion or _jammy_ postings. And those who are, for other than valid medical reasons, unfit need to be given one chance for remedial action before they are booted out.



----------
Edit: *  before some smartass says it, yes one can serve as a senior officer, directing a staff branch, without a fully _normal_ brain! In fact, at least in the '80s and early '90s in Ottawa it probably helped to be somewhat mentally _disabled_.


----------



## Pusser (15 Dec 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Yeah he can pass the PT test, but would really struggle at the BFT.



What about those of us who struggle with the ExPres test, but can complete the BFT without difficulty?


----------



## dogger1936 (15 Dec 2010)

I think this is a great initative IRT offering jobs such as the Rangers and the cadet program. Excellent stuff. I am personally getting sent away to a out of trade position if all goes well this APS and am very happy about it. I know the PCAT is coming, and I suspect the release. This position will hopefully prevent the latter.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Yeah he can pass the PT test, but would really struggle at the BFT.



If the minimum standard to pass is the EXPRES Test and that solider is not in LFC, that is the standard. The soldier passes.

If the soldier struggles with the BFT and passes, the soldier still passes. If the soldier does not pass the BFT, that soldier must be given an opportunity to train and make the standard.

Its not as simple as "They're unfit....toss them." There is a process that must be followed. And that goes for everyone.


----------



## TN2IC (15 Dec 2010)

Sad thing to add... but doing the IPT program. Seeing some folks fail the EXPRES test, and then the BFT (Tap out at 2km mark). But yet, still deploys, while the rest of us have to do both fitness tests. Fair or what?

Only thing wrong with them, is the lack of PT they do. Also over weight and smokes... hmm.

Regards,
TN2IC




*edit for spelling*


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2010)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Sad thing to add... but doing to IPT program. Seeing some folks fail the EXPRES test, and then the BFT (Tap out at 2km mark). But yet, still deploys, while the rest of us have to do both fitness tests. Fair or what?
> 
> Only thing wrong with them, is the lack of PT they do. Also over weigh and smokes... hmm.
> 
> ...



Not fair at all and the CoC should be dealing with that.


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2010)

Boy there sure is a lot of hand wringing over a minuscule number of pers....I'm not talking about the malingerers, but the injured vets. So long as the numbers a low, LEAVE THEM ALONE. 

When it gets into the thousands revisit it...

my :2c:


----------



## Jed (15 Dec 2010)

A second that, GAP. With such small numbers, this would be the best policy for them and the greater CF.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Boy there sure is a lot of hand wringing over a minuscule number of pers....I'm not talking about the malingerers, but the injured vets. So long as the numbers a low, LEAVE THEM ALONE.
> 
> When it gets into the thousands revisit it...
> 
> my :2c:



I agree with you, its not a huge number. In my view the problem lies in  Universality of Service and how its applied.

IMO not everyone in the CF needs to be deployable and to a certain extent, not everyone in the CF will be deployable at any given time.


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Dec 2010)

Till VAC and the CF transition program work properly I can't think of any other way to look after our shared responsibility for our brothers in arms.  It's not that many. That kicking them out is being considered given the current knowledge of how cosmetic and dysfunctional the system is disturbs me. It is much better than 2005. I will give them that. But it needs at least  5 more years to be fixed IMO.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Boy there sure is a lot of hand wringing over a minuscule number of pers....I'm not talking about the malingerers, but the injured vets. So long as the numbers a low, LEAVE THEM ALONE.
> 
> When it gets into the thousands revisit it...
> 
> my :2c:


The CF does already have too many people, and it is by four digits in at least one occupation.  Your threshold of excess has already been met.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Dec 2010)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Sad thing to add... but doing the IPT program. Seeing some folks fail the EXPRES test, and then the BFT (Tap out at 2km mark). But yet, still deploys, while the rest of us have to do both fitness tests. Fair or what?
> 
> Only thing wrong with them, is the lack of PT they do. Also over weight and smokes... hmm.
> 
> ...



DING DING DING!  There ya go, smokers!  Kick em all out.  after all they ARE committing slow suicide by ingesting a massive number of toxic components into their bodies, a clearly self inflicted wound.  THAT ought to free up a few positions for new crossfit commandos.


----------



## gun runner (15 Dec 2010)

Don't forget the alcoholics, chronic pill poppers, dope heads, and anyone with mental disabilities from training injuries if you are going to paint with that brush. And trust me..alcoholics outnumber the smokers 3/1. Fact, not fiction!


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Dec 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Don't forget the alcoholics, chronic pill poppers, dope heads, and anyone with mental disabilities from training injuries if you are going to paint with that brush. And trust me..alcoholics outnumber the smokers 3/1. Fact, not fiction!



I'd like to see the document to back that one up.


----------



## Snakedoc (16 Dec 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> "As long as they are employable, if they don't want to leave the Canadian Forces we are going to look to provide them options to stay in the forces in areas where the overlying principle of universality of service doesn't apply."
> 
> He said the two main areas for that is employment with the cadet program or with the Rangers in Canada's North. There could be training or administrative jobs with either organization.



For my own curiousity (as I genuinly don't know), but does the principle of universality of service not apply to members serving in the cadet program or the Canadian Rangers?  I thought (but may be mistaken) that this applied to all members of the CF in uniform; but I guess it would make sense if it didn't for those elements of the CF that do not deploy to areas of combat.  

Or did the Admiral mean employment with the cadet program or Canadian Rangers as civilians working for the CF/DND?


----------



## Northalbertan (16 Dec 2010)

CIC members are not deployable.  The fitness standard is different.  And CIC can serve until age 65.


----------



## CombatDoc (16 Dec 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Don't forget the alcoholics, chronic pill poppers, dope heads, and anyone with mental disabilities from training injuries if you are going to paint with that brush. And trust me..alcoholics outnumber the smokers 3/1. Fact, not fiction!


Let's use 25% as the estimate of CF members who smoke (perhaps an underestimate, especially in the sandbox).  That leaves the remaining 75% of the CF - i.e. 3:1 - as alcoholics.  We can confidently conclude, therefore, that if you don't smoke you must be alcoholic.   :nod:

Sorry gun runner, I'm not buying your math.  Not sure where you're getting your facts, but they don't correspond with my observations regarding addictions within the CF. My $0.02.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Dec 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> And trust me..alcoholics outnumber the smokers 3/1. Fact, not fiction!



I don't normally bother with this kind of post, but I am going to parse your statement:



> Trust me



Why?  Based on what experience and / or expertise?



> alcoholics outnumber the smokers 3/1



According to...?



> Fact, not fiction!



Stating an opinion in an assertive manner (or with an exclamation point) does not make it a "fact".  A "fact" is, according to OED, a "thing certainly known to have occurred or to be true....a thing that is indisputably the case"

Please present a fact that supports your statement.


----------



## gun runner (16 Dec 2010)

Experience...3 yrs on the guns. I have been to a lot of course smokers, seen a lot of parties, been hammered more than a few times and yes, I smoked. But back in the eighties that was a norm. It was a different army. We did PT every day regardless of the weather, that hasn't changed..has it? We worked hard, and partied hard. The majority of the battery members that served were out until o-dark stupid getting loaded, just to start all over again the next day. Getting drunk/high,whatever was just what happened when you were not smacking bullets downrange. Spent more than a few paycheques at the jr.ranks mess in Shilo, and loved every freakin' minute of it. My 2 cents.


----------



## MJP (16 Dec 2010)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Experience...3 yrs on the guns. I have been to a lot of course smokers, seen a lot of parties, been hammered more than a few times and yes, I smoked. But back in the eighties that was a norm. It was a different army. We did PT every day regardless of the weather, that hasn't changed..has it? We worked hard, and partied hard. The majority of the battery members that served were out until o-dark stupid getting loaded, just to start all over again the next day. Getting drunk/high,whatever was just what happened when you were not smacking bullets downrange. Spent more than a few paycheques at the jr.ranks mess in Shilo, and loved every freakin' minute of it. My 2 cents.



So anecdotal evidence based within a very small time frame gathered in your infallible memory almost 20 years ago, not actual empirical evidence.  Empirical evidence being the kind of evidence that you usually need to support the kind of claims you are making.  


edited for typo


----------



## gun runner (16 Dec 2010)

Like I said, it was a different army back then. We didn't run marathons for the hell of it. It wasn't expected of us. We worked and partied when the mess opened. Todays Forces are different. The expectations are higher, much higher than I was dealing with. I am now a CIC due to the fact that my hearing loss from my ' very small time frame' of experience,and my age prevents me from serving in a more dynamic capacity. I did not post to piss people off. That was not my intention. I merely stated that the Forces has more than one vice to contend with within the ranks. And all vices will inhibit function. Not just smokers. I served with guys that would puff back 3/4 to a full pack a day and still run 5 miles in the morning. Food for thought. Ubique


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Dec 2010)

I think some of those full time CIC positions should be opened up to injured guys. I know it wouldn't be for everyone however giving back to the community could be therapeutic.


----------



## catalyst (17 Dec 2010)

They are - one of the aims of COATS was to allow injured/wounded NCMs and Officers to serve - and the positions aren't just at a cadet corps. Some positions are of course, designated CIC (in which you would have to transfer) but the majority will be COATS designated in the future.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2010)

I thought Hillier made it a rule that you can't be promoted unless you pass your PT test?

Or is it a rule that mostly kind of usually gets followed.


Everyone always LOLz at the various sizes of people working at NDHQ. Yea, some of them are big. I really don't care THAT much that a clerk in charge of correcting someones spelling mistakes has a huge butt.   What I find worse is the malingerers. We all know who they are, we all see them.  They eek out an existence never deploying never going on ex- all because the CF has made it crazy hard to nail them to the wall.

I have no idea how but a soldier in my unit spent every day of his Dp1 infantry course in the MIR.  People were making fun of him for it and his defense was that it wasn't every day, he wasn't at the MIR for 3 days of his course.  Yet he passed.   I've gone on runs with him and rucksack marches, he's fine just out of shape.  He's CTing to aerospace controller.   We all have stories of MIR commandos making a mockery of the system.

STOP these guys on their basic training/trade course.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I thought Hillier made it a rule that you can't be promoted unless you pass your PT test?
> 
> Or is it a rule that mostly kind of usually gets followed.



Its a rule alright. If you dont have a valid pass/exempt, you cannot get promoted until you have passed the test. Once you pass, you can have your promotion. If you dont have a valid pass by December 31st of the year you were selected for promotion, you lose that promotion and have to compete again at the next selection board.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jan 2011)

But you don't have to be promotable to be employable.

Lets not confuse the issue.


----------



## Dissident (4 Jan 2011)

My thoughts: 

Universality of service is necessary.

BUT.

I would like to see service members wounded in service the chance to work for the recruiting center, a la "Starship Troopers". If a wounded vet still can still sell the CF to applicants, all the while being a graphic reminder of the commitment it entails, I would think it would doubly or triply serve us.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Jan 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> My thoughts:
> 
> Universality of service is necessary.
> 
> ...



I must admit that always really appealed to me too.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> But you don't have to be promotable to be employable.
> 
> Lets not confuse the issue.



I dont think anyone was confused.


----------



## IBM (4 Jan 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> I would like to see service members wounded in service the chance to work for the recruiting center, a la "Starship Troopers". If a wounded vet still can still sell the CF to applicants, all the while being a graphic reminder of the commitment it entails, I would think it would doubly or triply serve us.



I thought they did that back in the day, didn't they? Your local recruiter used to be some old crusty Sgt too banged-up\shot-up to do anything else and is really just hanging around till he has enough years for a full pension.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jan 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont think anyone was confused.



Just me.   :blotto:


----------



## childs56 (7 Jan 2011)

I think they should catogorize those injured members as non operational and offer them jobs that do not require them to be deployed. They keep their wages and benifits they have and they can stay where they are or apply for a posting elsewhere. We have many jobs on bases across Canada that do not require operational status and or are filled by civilians. It is going to be a very touchy subject but one that should have been thought about years ago.
As for non operational injuries and catagories well those have to be on a case by case basis, many jobs require certain training and abilitys that we may not know about. The problem is how do we figure out who we need and who we are sheltering.


----------



## Pusser (7 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> I think they should catogorize those injured members as non operational and offer them jobs that do not require them to be deployed. They keep their wages and benifits they have and they can stay where they are or apply for a posting elsewhere. We have many jobs on bases across Canada that do not require operational status and or are filled by civilians. It is going to be a very touchy subject but one that should have been thought about years ago.



And where would those jobs be?  If we fill every non-operational job with the non-deployable injured, pretty soon every healthy person in the CF will be constantly deployed.  This is not a very good recruiting and retention tool ("join the Army - never go home again") and will lead to horrendous burnout to the point where no one will be deployable.  Contrary to popular belief we do not have a lot of jobs that do not require operational status.  In many cases, non-operational positions are filled by individuals who have just completed or are preparing to leave on an opertional deployment.  What we call the "sea-shore" ratio in the Navy is very important and we ignore it at our peril (I know it's not perfect, but we try).  We need to treat members who've been injured properly, but this is not the solution.  A better idea would be to create civilian positions that can take advantage of the knowledge these folks have.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jan 2011)

But, would that not just be robbing Peter to pay Paul?  A position is still a position regardless of how the person filling it is dressed.  We only have so many slots, period.  I'm sorry that I don't have a suggestion to put forward unless it was for expansion both of the CF and DND to make room for these folks.   Even that will only take you so far, and I don't see the public at large supporting it.  They already want a peace dividend, again.


----------



## childs56 (7 Jan 2011)

Considering all bases have many civilians employed doing jobs that at one time were staffed by Military and or civilian personalle not to mention the multiple postings across Canada that have Regular Force members in positions that could be staffed by Non Operational staff.  Things that come to mind are Base Stores, CE, Office Staff, training Cadre, Recruiting Staff and the list does kinda go on and on. 

You could easily intergrate members who are injured due to Operationl and non operational service while on Duty and keep them within the system. They would maintain their pay and rank and all other benifits. But take them out of the loop for their Operational status and redesignate them non Operational.  
Or the other soolution is to Pay them their wages and benifits till they retire then give them their full pension. But that brings up many other issues. 

If your argueing this point maybe I am not saying it correctly, but all Bases have non deployable personalle either Civilian or Military employed through various Jobs through out. 

Although this may not apeal to everyone, they can still make a choice to serve their country even if it maybe as a office clerk or Storesmen on Base. All still important jobs.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> but all Bases have non deployable personalle either Civilian or Military employed through various Jobs through out.



No, that is a false statement. Everyone in the CF, regardless of position, is deployable. We have had many, many people in static units and domestic HQs get deployed to various missions around the world.


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jan 2011)

That's correct.  My last trip to TFA was done while I was with my present Unit, FMFCS, which is a building and not a ship.  There were plenty of others from shore billets there with me too.


----------



## childs56 (7 Jan 2011)

Every member of the Canadian Armed Forces on Active Duty is considered Deployable. But I would wager that only 70-80% (thats being generous) of the Regular Force is actually Deployable at any one time for various Reasons. The Reserves are fully deployable as is the Supp Res list with much less of a percentage of those who would dag Green. 

Face the facts that CF Office worker that weighs 280lbs and is 5'1 at Base HQ may be a awesome Clerk, but is not deployable in reguards to fitness or War fighting ability. But they possess the skills required to do their day to day job better then the person next to them who is more focused on being fit then they are at their job. 

When I say non "deployable" I mean non deployable positions" I mean the Actual position at Base Supply or Base HQ where a person can work and that actual position is a static Position. Base supply Would not pack up go to minimum manning and deploy Base supply as a unit to support operations abroad. (there are exceptions but not many)
The Regimental QM will deploy with the Regiment then will transfer as the new unit rotates in. 
We do not deploy complete bases through rotations, we deploy Regiments who then task out Battalions.  Someone is going to say "we draw from Base HQ to provide personalle". We draw from across Canada to fill some positions so that point is null and void. 

Bottom line is there are many positions within the CF that can be filled by Unfit for active duty Servicmen and Women who are inured on Operations. No they will not take away all the cushy jobs, maybe some of them. But hey they were injured so they should have a choice. 

Many of you are looking at this as a "you" issue when in fact this is a Leadership issue. If you have 1000 people injured from Service reasons through out Canada we can easily employ them, we may have to lay off a Civilian or maybe not renew a contract or two but it is more then possible. 
Afterall that person working Base Stores for the past 10 years and is not going anywhere soon can rotate to a line unit to provide a position for a injured member.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> When I say non "deployable" I mean non deployable positions" I mean the Actual position at Base Supply or Base HQ where a person can work and that actual position is a static Position.Base supply Would not pack up go to minimum manning and deploy Base supply as a unit to support operations abroad. (there are exceptions but not many)



I know what you mean and you are still wrong. I have seen enough people in static positions get handed a CFTPO tasking message and head off to TFA and a few others. At certain bases, services had to be drasticly reduced as entire base functions ( non-deployable units) were CFTPO'ed wholesale to man the MSS in Mirage. 




> Bottom line is there are many positions within the CF that can be filled by Unfit for active duty Servicmen and Women who are inured on Operations.



I never said that this was not the case. I was only refuting you assertion that there are non-deployable uniformed members of the CF based on what unit they work in. That is entirely false.




> we may have to lay off a Civilian



As someone who has had to deal with DND civillians and the unions, i wish you the best of luck with that.



> Afterall that person working Base Stores for the past 10 years and is not going anywhere soon can rotate to a line unit to provide a position for a injured member.



Why not rotate in a deployable member whos tired of deploying aft his/her 4th tour ?


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jan 2011)

We can argue all we want on here and debate endlessly. The bottom line is that if a member is deemed unfit due to illness or injury and cannot be deployed on ops, Universality of Service is breached.
There are systems and programs in place to assist those members who are going to be medically released to transition them to civilian life. As much as I do not want to see them go, the policy is there and it must be adhered to.


----------



## dogger1936 (7 Jan 2011)

I typed out a big rant that made me feel better and deleted it. ;D

Im injured and cannot WAIT to burn this uniform and fling my medals. I will gladly get out tomorrow if they speed up the buracracy bull to let me out. Oh and by the way...I'm gonna take em for every darn cent I can.

I will never recommend deploying for this country to anyone.


----------



## childs56 (8 Jan 2011)

dogger1936
I know a few guys with your exact thoughts. Good luck in your future endevours what ever they maybe.


----------



## 57Chevy (8 Jan 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We can argue all we want on here and debate endlessly. The bottom line is that if a member is deemed unfit due to illness or injury and cannot be deployed on ops, Universality of Service is breached.
> There are systems and programs in place to assist those members who are going to be medically released to transition them to civilian life. As much as I do not want to see them go, the policy is there and it must be adhered to.



Well said Jim.
Although most soldiers never want to leave the military, there are existing circumstances that make release
the better overall option.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (8 Jan 2011)

In my first post I was perhaps a little too accurate of a description of a current situation, so with persec in mind, have edited this post.

How should the universality of service be applied to the PRes? I know, I know, under section blah blah blah, they can be mobilised, but really, apart from MACP tasks, when was the last time a full reserve unit was mobilised for overseas service? Surely some of these wounded pers have a greater right to Class B/C positions, ops/trg type jobs, at a reserve unit close to their home, in order to both aid their reintergration to civvy street, allow them to still contribute in a meaningful way, and yet allow their former position to be filled with a fully fit person? A greater right I should say, compared to someone in the PRes who has not deployed at all and only fills class b/c contracts because they want a full time job without the hassle of being posted.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2011)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> In my first post I was perhaps a little too accurate of a description of a current situation, so with persec in mind, have edited this post.
> 
> How should the universality of service be applied to the PRes? I know, I know, under section blah blah blah, they can be mobilised, but really, apart from MACP tasks, when was the last time a full reserve unit was mobilised for overseas service? Surely some of these wounded pers have a greater right to Class B/C positions, ops/trg type jobs, at a reserve unit close to their home, in order to both aid their reintergration to civvy street, allow them to still contribute in a meaningful way, and yet allow their former position to be filled with a fully fit person? A greater right I should say, compared to someone in the PRes who has not deployed at all and only fills class b/c contracts because they want a full time job without the hassle of being posted.



Although I am of a like mind with you on this, there is a whole new problem that would be created by placing these people in Reserve units, but not working within those Reserve Units.  Taking up posns in a Reserve unit (the same problem with keeping them in a Reg Force unit), cuts down on numbers of posns that those Reserve units can recruit for and fill.  This is where the PRL would have to be put to use.  

If these people can be employed in Class B posns at a Reserve unit, fine.  If not, employ them in Class B posns as part of the PRL, in posns at various Reg Force establishments (NDHQ, CMBGs, Trg establishments, etc.).


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Jan 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We can argue all we want on here and debate endlessly. The bottom line is that if a member is deemed unfit due to illness or injury and cannot be deployed on ops, Universality of Service is breached.
> There are systems and programs in place to assist those members who are going to be medically released to transition them to civilian life. As much as I do not want to see them go, the policy is there and it must be adhered to.



Very well said.

CTD, your feelings are noble, however, they are not feasible in any way.  You think a combat soldier would be satisfied Photocopying and answering phones??  You actually think it is even easy to remove civilian unionized workers (some of them Veterans by the way, I being one of them   ) to back-fill with these wounded vets?

Jim nailed it.  There are many services out there that provide a very good transition for these people.  Stop relying on the MSM to tell you what is happening to the wounded vets, and listen to some of us that are part of the system that helps the soldier transition out properly.

dileas

tess


----------



## McG (8 Jan 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But, would that not just be robbing Peter to pay Paul?  A position is still a position regardless of how the person filling it is dressed.  We only have so many slots, period.


Not really true.  Regular Force Positions, Reserve Force Positions and Civilian Positions are three distinctly different things.  You cannot place a Reg F soldier in a reserve or civilain position, you cannot place a reservist in a regular force or civilian position, and you cannot employ a civilian in a military position.  Military personnel (regular and reserve) must meet universality of service.  Further, we have an established ceiling for the number of regular force positions, and so moving a non-deployable service person into the public service does free a spot for a deployable member.



			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Surely some of these wounded pers have a greater right to Class B/C positions, ops/trg type jobs, at a reserve unit close to their home, in order to both aid their reintergration to civvy street, allow them to still contribute in a meaningful way, and yet allow their former position to be filled with a fully fit person?


A service member that does not meet universality of service does not (and should not) have a "greater right" to any military position over someone that is deployable.  We should be reintegrating such members to the civilian workforce and all the better if we can benefit from thier experience through employment in DND, *but* we should not be kicking deployable Class B (including B/A) reservists out of thier jobs to make employment for someone that is no longer medically fit to serve.  ... it is neither fair to the reservists filling existing positions nor is it good for the unit to impose pers that cannot support even the short weekend exercises, into the limited full-time staff.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If these people can be employed in Class B posns at a Reserve unit, fine.  If not, employ them in Class B posns as part of the PRL, in posns at various Reg Force establishments (NDHQ, CMBGs, Trg establishments, etc.).


Unfortunately, this also flies in the face of clearly articulated higher intent to reduce the number of full time reservists outside of the reserve establishment.  We have more full time reservists than we should have.  Both the Army and the CF have stated goals to correct this.  If we start creating HQ reserve jobs for the sake of giving them to non-deployable service pers, then we will be robbing Class B from the place that it belongs - in the reserve units.

In the end, the CF's only long-term sustainable solution is to limit medical retentions in quantity and duration while ensuring we do everything possible to support a sucessful transition of wounded members to the civilian workforce.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jan 2011)

Let's talk abou Universality of Service. A CF member, no matter what rank or trade, must be capable of doing certain tasks relating to general military duties and common defence and security tasks and not just the tasks of their particular trade/classification. They also must be capable of deploying on operations.

*If a member does not meet U of S, he/she can be released. Period. Full Stop.*

And it doesn't matter if the soldier was WIA, ill, injured, unfit or incompetent. That is the reality of the policy.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> *If a member does not meet U of S, he/she can be released. Period. Full Stop.*



Playing Devil's Advocate; there is a great difference between "CAN" and "WILL".


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jan 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Playing Devil's Advocate; there is a great difference between "CAN" and "WILL".



You are absolutley correct. How many physically unfit pers have we encountered who will not be released?


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> Every member of the Canadian Armed Forces on Active Duty is considered Deployable. But I would wager that only 70-80% (thats being generous) of the Regular Force is actually Deployable at any one time for various Reasons. The Reserves are fully deployable as is the Supp Res list with much less of a percentage of those who would dag Green.
> 
> Face the facts that CF Office worker that weighs 280lbs and is 5'1 at Base HQ may be a awesome Clerk, but is not deployable in reguards to fitness or War fighting ability. But they possess the skills required to do their day to day job better then the person next to them who is more focused on being fit then they are at their job.
> 
> ...



WTF!?? Non deployable posns?? Greetings from Edmonton where I am currently WU_ing_ for deployment --- I'm here from my usual static Supply RQ posn in Kingston (to which I will return sometime after 31 Dec 2011).

Your argument above (that I've highlighted in yellow) has been raised on this forum before; it is not new. Problem with your argument is that it is not factual either.

There simply exists no such thing as a "static" base supply. You speak of Units deploying who do not deploy their "entire RQ". First thing you need to do is lose the "Army" mentality and realize that sup is not part of the Army. While Army Units like to deploy en masse, sup techs across the CF deploy "en masse" within their current posnl unit or/and augment other tours that are occurring _*outside*_ of their Unit. In other words, when 2RCR (or any other 1st line Unit) is deployed overseas in Afghanistan - supply may very well have sent some of their sup techs to Afghan with 2 RCR, all the while other of their sup techs are serving in Alert, Bosnia, Sudan, CM, Haiti  etc etc because all those other tours still need to be supported (even if not by complete army 1st line units).

Purple pers do not deploy as "Units" like 1st line army units do ... we have sup techs on every tour and every roto in every theatre of operations. Just because 2 RCR is home, doesn't mean their purple staff all are (& vice versa). 

I had a couple persons working for me in Gagetown at clothing stores +10 years. All three of them had at least 3 tours overseas in those same 10 years. Eritrea, Afghanistan, Golan, Alert, Sudan, Bosnia, CM, Haiti & Congo --- yet they belonged to base supply (your supposedly static location).

At one point in 2005, I was missing 60% of my mil staff as they were all deployed overseas (and not all to Afghanistan either). 2007 was no better. Fact is, these posns are not "static/non-deploying" as you claim them to be. Far from it. And, lose the thought that if no army unit on that base is doing a tour in Afghanistan, then that means that no purple trades on that Army base are either. Because I'll guarantee you that they are ... on top of tours into other non-Afghanistanian theatres as well.


----------



## CombatDoc (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Purple pers do not deploy as "Units" like 1st line army units do ... we have sup techs on every tour and every roto in every theatre of operations. Just because 2 RCR is home, doesn't mean their purple staff all are (& vice versa).
> 
> I had a couple persons working for me in Gagetown at clothing stores +10 years. All three of them had at least 3 tours overseas in those same 10 years. Eritrea, Afghanistan, Golan, Alert, Sudan, Bosnia, CM, Haiti & Congo --- yet they belonged to base supply (your supposedly static location).
> 
> At one point in 2005, I was missing 60% of my mil staff as they were all deployed overseas (and not all to Afghanistan either). 2007 was no better. Fact is, these posns are not "static/non-deploying" as you claim them to be. Far from it. And, lose the thought that if no army unit on that base is doing a tour in Afghanistan, then that means that no purple trades on that Army base are either. Because I'll guarantee you that they are ... on top of tours into other non-Afghanistanian theatres as well.


+1.  This is true for all purple trades, who also have a "day job" to fill while in garrison.  The only people that the Army Managed Readiness Cycle (or whatever it is being called today) works well for are Infantry Bns.  Now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion on disposition of wounded soldiers...


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> WTF!?? Non-deployable posns??


 Gutsy move, _CTD_; pissing off a redheaded, female, MWO.  op:




> All three of them had at least 3 tours overseas in those same 10 years. Eritrea, Afghanistan, Golan, Alert, Sudan, Bosnia, CM, Haiti & Congo  --- yet they belonged to base supply  *(your supposedly static location)*.


Which reinforces that well-worn peeve -- you can post opinions, or you can post informed opinions; the latter get you dog-piled much less.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jan 2011)

To quote DAOD 5023:
Principle of Universality of Service
The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.

See DAOD 5023-1 Minimum Operational Standards Related to Universality of Service

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5023-1-eng.asp

This is the criteria we MUST adhere to. It hurts to release members BUT we must follow the policy.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

I do note that the below quote:


> To quote DAOD 5023:
> Principle of Universality of Service
> The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.



uses terminology such as "*general* military duties and *common defence and security* duties", _not_ "perform all duties to an infantry standard" (which happens to be what a HUGE number of members thinks that "Soldier First" actually means)... just a "general" and/or "common" standard. To me, that implies meet the "minimum" (UofS), not the "infantry" standard for retention in the CF.

Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I do note that the below quote:
> uses terminology such as "*general* military duties and *common defence and security* duties", _not_ "perform all duties to an infantry standard" (which happens to be what a HUGE number of members thinks that "Soldier First" actually means)... just a "general" and/or "common" standard. To me, that implies meet the "minimum" (UofS), not the "infantry" standard for retention in the CF.
> 
> Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.


Pers who are medically fit universality of service, but medically unfit occupation get medical occupational transfers.  Those who do not want an OT can choose the release.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.


You are 100% right in this.  In fact, there is no fitness requirement specific to the infantry (maybe that's another debate: ought there to be one?)  
But, I guess, if a member meets the physical standards for the CF, or any other standard for their element or trade (eg: army pers have to do the BFT, etc), then they meet requirements of the DAOD quoted.


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2011)

The fitness of concern, with wounded personnel being considered for release, is not physical fitness - it is medical fitness.
Doctor evaluations, not CF Express or BFT, are what decides.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The fitness of concern, with wounded personnel being considered for release, is not physical fitness - it is medical fitness.
> Doctor evaluations, not CF Express or BFT, are what decides.


Understood.  Having said that, if a wounded person cannot do the applicable fitness test due to their injury, is what I meant.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I do note that the below quote:
> uses terminology such as "*general* military duties and *common defence and security* duties", _not_ "perform all duties to an infantry standard" (which happens to be what a HUGE number of members thinks that "Soldier First" actually means)... just a "general" and/or "common" standard. To me, that implies meet the "minimum" (UofS), not the "infantry" standard for retention in the CF.
> 
> Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.


Vern I agree with you 100%. I've seen and heard too many brain dead infantry types yell and scream about how the Air Force and Navy and the "wogs" aren't fit enough.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Pers who are medically fit universality of service, but medically unfit occupation get medical occupational transfers.  Those who do not want an OT can choose the release.



Absolutely agreed.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You are 100% right in this.  In fact, there is no fitness requirement specific to the infantry (maybe that's another debate: ought there to be one?)
> But, I guess, if a member meets the physical standards for the CF, or any other standard for their element or trade (eg: army pers have to do the BFT, etc), then they meet requirements of the DAOD quoted.



Exactly. My point was to those who yell "Soldier First!!" at every opportune time & infer that the minimum standard for the CF should be such that the entire CF should/must be able to perform first and foremost as infanteers; that is bunk and is not what "Soldier First" means. UofS and PT standards are such that they are the minimum required for employment within the entire of the CF ... not that they are the minimum required to perform Function X Job in the CF.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The fitness of concern, with wounded personnel being considered for release, is not physical fitness - it is medical fitness.
> Doctor evaluations, not CF Express or BFT, are what decides.



Agreed to this too. But, there are also minimum trade standards that must be met (where the fitness was brought in, _I think_, wrt trades). Sup techs chuck around 80pounders as a matter of daily tasks when working in an AC spares section (for example). That involves lifting a minimum weighted item (which would fall under physical fitness), but is also mentioned as a minimum trade standard requirement. Same with minimum hearing profile etc etc.


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2011)

There are occupation specific medical standards.  We do not have occupation specific physical fitness standards.
There are specific mechanisims to release or OT a member who has a medical restriction against lifting over a certain weight but who must perform this duty in his occupation. 

There are also mechanisims to release members that fail to meet the physical fitness standards.  However, if the a Sup Tech cannot lift the 80 lbs his occupation may require and that inability is purely related to physical fitness, then the mechanisms for failed physical fitness do not come into play ... there is still recourse, but it is different.

Hearing (if the requirement is morestringent than that of universality of service) is also covered under occupational medical standards.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> We do not have occupation specific physical fitness standards.



Yes we do. SAR techs are one of them. IIRC, firefighters also have differing fitness standards that the rest of the CF.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> There are occupation specific medical standards.  We do not have occupation specific physical fitness standards.
> There are specific mechanisims to release or OT a member who has a medical restriction against lifting over a certain weight but who must perform this duty in his occupation.
> 
> There are also mechanisims to release members that fail to meet the physical fitness standards.  However, if the a Sup Tech cannot lift the 80 lbs his occupation may require and that inability is purely related to physical fitness, then the mechanisms for failed physical fitness do not come into play ... there is still recourse, but it is different.
> ...



Absolutely. I can lift the 80lbs required today, but I could not perform 7 chinups ... my shoulder blades (& age - I`m getting over the hill  >) simply wouldn`t allow it as my skeleton is shaped differently than a males - you see, lifting is *not* like pulling directly upwards and the skeleton acts/performs quite differently in both instances. 

Where would I be for those arguing that the Coopers test should be the minimum? I can do my job.

(Which, I think, has been split to another spot now ... ???)


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2011)

I too think we are starting to get back down into the Measuring Physical Fitness tangent that was split to here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/98528.0.html


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jan 2011)

It is well known that all members of the Forces must meet the physical fitness standard and operational requirements.
But there must be positions within the CF where injured soldiers can/will be employed..
Quote from the article:
"As long as they are employable, if they don't want to leave the Canadian Forces we are going to look to provide them options to stay in the forces in areas where the overlying principle of universality of service doesn't apply." 

.....so where are these positions found ?


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> .....so where are these positions found ?



That is the question. Someone has already inferred that they believe these posns are found within "static" purple posns such as Base Supply. I`ve countered with my reasoning as to why that belief is wrong.

So, where are they?


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> .....so where are these positions found ?


Anywhere in the CF that a Commanding Officer says I can afford to take that person with their known medical employment limitations and employ that person in this establishment position.  If a CO is not willing to give-up a position to someone who does not meet universality of service, then there is no position in that unit.  

The CO is in the best place to assess if the unit can afford the operational impacts of retaining an unfit member at the expense of having a fit member fill the established position.  The CO is also in the best place to look at the specific limitations of the member and decide if there is a position within the unit that can fully employ the member while accommodating those limitations/restrictions.

But the CO's willingness to take such a person is not the only element in such a decision.  An occupation can only afford to have a certain percentage of its total strength unfit universality of service - if too many people are being accommodated in a given occupation & rank, then it places an unfair burden on the remaining healthy members.


----------



## JMesh (9 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Anywhere in the CF that a Commanding Officer says I can afford to take that person with their known medical employment limitations and employ that person in this establishment position.  If a CO is not willing to give-up a position to someone who does not meet universality of service, then there is no position in that unit.
> 
> The CO is in the best place to assess if the unit can afford the operational impacts of retaining an unfit member at the expense of having a fit member fill the established position.  The CO is also in the best place to look at the specific limitations of the member and decide if there is a position within the unit that can fully employ the member while accommodating those limitations/restrictions.
> 
> But the CO's willingness to take such a person is not the only element in such a decision.  An occupation can only afford to have a certain percentage of its total strength unfit universality of service - if too many people are being accommodated in a given occupation & rank, then it places an unfair burden on the remaining healthy members.



If we're going to do that, how can we call it a BFOR? I understand how it would work internally, in theory, but in practice, it just opens up DND to a lawsuit when someone says if one person can be exempt then it's not a true BFOR.


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jan 2011)

Vern,
I aggree with your argument on that. Some people seem to have the tendency
of thinking that Base Supply is limited to always be doing their business in the building.
However, 
A position in Base Supply can be catered toward meeting the needs of an injured soldier
without underlying its normal operational requirements much more readily than any
first line unit.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> A position in Base Supply can be catered toward meeting the needs of an injured soldier
> without underlying its normal operational requirements much more readily than any
> first line unit.



Your argument is fine until it meets reality. Even base supply sections ( or any other base/wing support function) need to be filled with deployable individuals as they do get tasked to deploy members regularly and in significant numbers.


----------



## dogger1936 (10 Jan 2011)

Let's face it...it's not feelings or public preception IRT them "weighing" keeping soldiers around. It all boils down to the mighty dollar. Is it cheaper to retain or release the member.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Jan 2011)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Let's face it...it's not feelings or public preception IRT them "weighing" keeping soldiers around. It all boils down to the mighty dollar. Is it cheaper to retain or release the member.


I must disagree with you on this one.

It's not the money, its the principle of universality of service that determines who may be released and who may be retained.


----------



## captloadie (10 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Anywhere in the CF that a Commanding Officer says I can afford to take that person with their known medical employment limitations and employ that person in this establishment position.  If a CO is not willing to give-up a position to someone who does not meet universality of service, then there is no position in that unit.
> 
> The CO is in the best place to assess if the unit can afford the operational impacts of retaining an unfit member at the expense of having a fit member fill the established position.  The CO is also in the best place to look at the specific limitations of the member and decide if there is a position within the unit that can fully employ the member while accommodating those limitations/restrictions.
> 
> But the CO's willingness to take such a person is not the only element in such a decision.  An occupation can only afford to have a certain percentage of its total strength unfit universality of service - if too many people are being accommodated in a given occupation & rank, then it places an unfair burden on the remaining healthy members.



What happens when the CO changes? Is he saddled with the decisions of a previous CO, or do accomodated soldiers have to worry every time there is a change of command that they might be out the door? We already have a path that accomodates a limited number of members for up to three years, but is this just extending the ineveitable?

I think the true answer has to be finding positions that are already civilianized or Reg/Res ones that can be, make them indeterminate positions, and transfer injured soldiers into those positions. The member gets to stay employed, hopefully in a position related to his former trade, and there is even the ability to transfer over the pensionable time.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jan 2011)

This is not a new....
A good friend of mine from way back in the days of the CAR was severly injured in a Mortar accident
somwhere out there on the East Coast.
After spending much of his time in hospital and healing he was retained in the Forces.
He was later accomodated by being employed in the CAR Museum, and I think (but not quite sure) he completed his
term of service. 
So, there are static positions out there.....rare as they may seem to be.

The willingness for COs to give up an operational position to accomodate an injured soldier
is an inherited responsibility and must be considered.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> The willingness for COs to give up an operational position to accomodate an injured soldier
> is an inherited responsibility and must be considered.




Lest there be any doubt, they DO consider it.

Let`s not forget, that we also have many injured & sick who are temporarily deemed non-deployable and whom are expected to make full recoveries who must also have positions within they can work while on those TCats.

Think pregnant female. Think guy who breaks his ankle. They are also going in to that desk job in Customer Services section on a Temp basis until they are healed etc. They too must be treated for that temp period of time in accordance with their TCats. THAT is a whole lot of people already. As they are TCat and are expected to fully recover and return to fit full duties and deployable status, the CO must also consider them in each and every decision he makes for they too _must_ be accomodated in the short term.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jan 2011)

I was not implying that they don't ;D 
TCat positions have already been well established throughout the CF and
I am pretty well sure that most, if not all, TCat positions are filled on a regular basis.
Once upon a time I painted the all too many trailers in Petawawa with the (at the time) new cam colors :

The requirement is to find long term solutions that will enable the retention of personnel.
The Government may have to inject new monies and create the necessary positions that
cater to the needs of injured soldiers.
That does not remove the responsibility of COs, Officers, and Snr NCOs to thoroughly
investigate any long term possibilities that can be submitted for consideration.
(Which is probably being done also)


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2011)

JMesh said:
			
		

> If we're going to do that, how can we call it a BFOR? I understand how it would work internally, in theory, but in practice, it just opens up DND to a lawsuit when someone says if one person can be exempt then it's not a true BFOR.


We already do it that way.  It works.  If all the involved decision makers agree, the unfit member continues serving for three years - continuing to contribute to the CF while simultaneously entitled to many programmes to prepare for the inevitable transition to the civilian workforce.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> What happens when the CO changes? Is he saddled with the decisions of a previous CO, or do accomodated soldiers have to worry every time there is a change of command that they might be out the door? We already have a path that accomodates a limited number of members for up to three years, …


If you look at what I described, you will see that I described the current system and did not propose something new.  Your question can be answered by looking at exactly what happens now.


----------



## childs56 (11 Jan 2011)

I heard of a Co in one Reserve Unit who was a Regular Force Member. He had to take command of a Field Unit prior to moving on in his carrer. Due to medical reasons he could not Command a Regular Force Field Unit due to his limitations. He served his two years as CO and moved on in his carrer to a much more important position. Not many others in the CF could do what he was doing in his new posting.  

I  never said that Base Supply or Base OR did not provide members for operations. I did say that they do not deploy as a Unit from a base. You would not see CFB Cold Lake Base Supply pack up shop and deploy to Haiti for example as a static unit.  They would how ever send members to be part of a Battle Group. 

Yes you can fit Members with in the system, the way of thinking of some of you seems to be more job protection then actual trying to gainfully employ. 

When you look around your base how many people do you have who have never deployed? How many people are employed in static positions? How many Civilians do you have. 
There will be a big difference between a Army base, Airforce Base and a Navy Base. There are also jobs out there within the HQ element that could be filled by injured members. It would take a little more thought process then the Military is used to but it is more then possible to do with out affecting Operational Effectiveness. 
There are also many Reserve Units and HQs out there across Canada who have office staff who are Reserve Soldiers who work on full time contracts. You could cut some of those contracts and offer the Job up to a Service Inujured member. If they turn down the offer of retraining then they can be released.  At least they are still in a job that needs to be done. 

Argue all you want there are close to 68,000 Full time members and 25,000 Primary Reserves plus Supp and Rangers. There is lots of room to place a few thousand Service injured Members.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2011)

CTD,

Please state your experience working in 1st line or 2nd line Supply. I am at a loss as to where you've gained your SME_ness_ in that area from. Obviously, it comes from a base that I've never worked at (or apparently, heard of) --- & I may like to request a posting there.


----------



## captloadie (11 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> We already do it that way.  It works.  If all the involved decision makers agree, the unfit member continues serving for three years - continuing to contribute to the CF while simultaneously entitled to many programmes to prepare for the inevitable transition to the civilian workforce.
> If you look at what I described, you will see that I described the current system and did not propose something new.  Your question can be answered by looking at exactly what happens now.



What we have now is a system that allows accommodation for three years, so maybe a new CO can live with that. But now we are talking about injured soldiers who may be at the beginning or only part way through their career. The original sentiment of this post was we shouldn't be getting rid of these injured soldiers because they fought a war for us. Unlike others who aren't injured in Afghanistan, there seemed to be a feeling we needed to do more for these individuals. So we aren't talking about just 3 years, we are talking about accommodating someone for possibly the majority of their career. I am all for using the current system of accommodation for the members, they get three more years, hopefully enough time to sort out their lives. There shouldn't be a difference between these guys and someone critically injured on workups, or a pilot who breaks his back ejecting, or the clerk who gets carpal tunnel syndrome. However, others on this site, and in the eyes of some of Joe public, this isn't good enough.


----------



## JMesh (11 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> We already do it that way.  It works.  If all the involved decision makers agree, the unfit member continues serving for three years - continuing to contribute to the CF while simultaneously entitled to many programmes to prepare for the inevitable transition to the civilian workforce.


Certainly makes sense. In that situation, I am all for it. They are temporarily occupying the position so we can help them transition. We owe them that, at a bare minimum, and they're assisted with that transition. However, if we start making that a long term plan to retain members, rather than a short term plan to help them transition into civilian life, then I would think my lawsuit comment is valid.


----------



## McG (11 Jan 2011)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The original sentiment of this post was we shouldn't be getting rid of these injured soldiers because they fought a war for us.  ...  So we aren't talking about just 3 years, we are talking about accommodating someone for possibly the majority of their career.


No.  Some people seem interested in indefinate retention.  I have already posted my opinion that the only sustainable solution for the CF is to transition unfit members to the civilian workforce (Public Service or otherwise).  While "we" may be talking about one thing, that does not imply all of us hold the position that the current system is broke.


----------



## Pusser (11 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> I  never said that Base Supply or Base OR did not provide members for operations. I did say that they do not deploy as a Unit from a base. You would not see CFB Cold Lake Base Supply pack up shop and deploy to Haiti for example as a static unit.  They would how ever send members to be part of a Battle Group.
> 
> Yes you can fit Members with in the system, the way of thinking of some of you seems to be more job protection then actual trying to gainfully employ.
> 
> ...



If only it was that simple, but it's not.  You really don't seem to understand why "static" positions need to be filled with fit people.  It's not just so that we have a pool of augmentees for deployed battle groups.  We also need a place to send fit people so that they get a break from constant operations (or else they won't stay fit for long).  This isn't the Roman Army where men joined and expected to campaign for 20 years.  CF members understand that they have to deploy, but at the same time they also need to have "static" postings so that they can enjoy some semblance of a home life.  How do you think recruiting and retention would go if we expected every member to be operational for their entire careers?  Furthermore, we have a manpower ceiling.  Every permanently disabled soldier we ratain means one less fit person we can recruit. Static positions can and are used for the temporary accomodation of the sick and injured, but it's expected that at some point these folks are going to rotate back into the operational stream.  Using static positions for the long term employment of the permanently disabled just isn't feasible.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> It would take a little more thought process then _than_ the Military is used to.....


It's a pity that no one in the CF is putting adequate thought into this, and those who are bumbling along with the issue lack the strategic thinking abilities of former-corporals.

Where, oh _where_, are Scott Taylor and Sunil Ram when we need their insights?  :'(


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Jan 2011)

Well, I'm a former Corporal, how may I enlighten your day today?


----------



## GAP (12 Jan 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a former Corporal, how may I enlighten your day today?



I'll one up you....I was both a LanceCorporal and a Corporal.......... ;D

uh.....on second thought.....belay that.......... :camo:


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jan 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'll one up you....I was both a LanceCorporal and a Corporal.......... ;D



In which order?  ANd how many times each?


----------



## QM (12 Jan 2011)

What an absolutely gut-wrenching topic. The poor bastards who get injured for Canada - bless them, thank them.  Its impossible to not be emotionally charged about this.

There is a "but", of course. I doubt that the sailor who breaks his back while fixing a broken rigging on a ship in Halifax, feels that his debilitating injury is any less significant than that of a soldier who loses a leg to an IED.  Both were injured serving Canada. There are also a hell of a lot of "repetitive use" injuries - guys in their 40's who wear out their bodies after years of abuse in a demanding job, and breach U of S. Emotionally, we tend to put our support more behind the guy injured in combat than the guy injured on garrison duties, or training in Wainwright, and we would like to treat combat veterans differently. But if you are the sailor with a broken back, do you really think you deserve lesser treatment than a young Patricia who lost his leg? Both were serving Canada.  Even the wrench bender who wears out his hip after 22 years of walking back and forth across various maintenance shops in shitty non-supportive boots carrying spare parts and twisting underneath engine casings, was injured in service to Canada. His injury just isn't as glorious as the guy injured in Afghanistan.

There has to be one standard for injured personnel. Its not fair to do otherwise.  Sadly there is limited capacity in our small military to absorb non-deployable personnel for more than a few years. To me, though, our obligation is to ensure that they never become unemployed, regardless of whether they are fit enough to wear a uniform. Whether that is through more robust application of Priority Referral status (whereby an injured military member has first crack at suitable civil service jobs), by paying for re-training or education after injury, by new legislation giving incentives to civilian companies to hire wounded veterans, or some other mechanism, DND (indeed the Gov't at large) needs to bend over backwards to ensure our injured personnel always have the ability to earn a living. Indefinite retention of all injured personnel, though, would render the CF non-deployable.  It just can't work, as emotionally painful as it is to say that.

NB: when I joined in 1989, the only people with huge racks of medals were Siggies and Sup Techs, as they had deployed on every freaking UN mission imaginable. A select few Inf/Armd/Arty guys had the Cyprus medal, and an infinitesimal number of Offrs/CWO's had UN gongs from observer medals. The battalions simply didn't deploy anywhere buy Cyprus. If we don't get another mission after Kabul ends, we'll revert to that situation, and talk of one's worth being determined by the number of medals on his chest will dry up. (but since that's not yet the case, please note that I have 6 !)


----------



## Journeyman (12 Jan 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Well, *I'm a former Corporal*, how may I enlighten your day today?


You too?
PM inbound


----------



## childs56 (12 Jan 2011)

So you would rather see a Service member who gets injured in the line of duty be given three years afterwards then transistion to a civilain life. Who may not actually be able to peform a civilian job but the Military did the right thing and gave them three more years.  Wow many people who get out of the Military with out an injury and have a hard enough time coping with the Civilian life let alone with a serious injury. 

So most of you agree that there are no positions with in the Canadian Forces, Civilian or Miltary side that they could gainfully employ members who were hurt while on Active Duty.

Right on lets not look outside of the box to see if there is a way to make it work for the better of all. afterall getting short changed on your pay check for the next 20 o so years is awesome. 

By the way how are our Griffons doing over there? Some of you arguing there is no way to make this work also said they would never deploy those. It truly is amazing what happens when one thinks outside of the box.  The US Army has soldiers who are amputees deployed back ovoerseas, what one can do when the will is there. 

Sorry but when a soldier Joins up they can expect to be deployed for one year, home for a year and redeployed again, Afterall it is the Military and that is what they do. (I have to make a disclaimer here, Deployed means Work up training included/ Home for a year also means attending training for carrer advancement) Plus any other day to day work required.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> By the way how are our Griffons doing over there? Some of you arguing there is no way to make this work also said they would never deploy those. It truly is amazing what happens when one thinks outside of the box.



How did this one work out for you then ?



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> as for the Hercs yes buy the new J models (actually strive for the Z model it will take to long to approve the J model then the J will be outdated)



Project started in 2008........First canadian CC-130J arrives in Canada June 4th 2010.......Arrives for operations in Afghanistan 1 Jan 2011. Good call on the timeline CTD, you sure were outside the box there  :


----------



## childs56 (12 Jan 2011)

I have worked with Supply Techs and have a few of them as friends. I have seen the difference between the Sup Techs working in Shilo Manitoba, CFB Esquamalt, CFB Cold Lake and CFB Wainwright. I have also seen the difference of the Base Supply compared to a Front Line Unit. Ie CFB COld Lakes Base Clothing Stores, material management and the Sqn Stores. Along with CFB Shilo Base Supply and Regimental and Battery QM/ Supply. 
 I also had the short pleasure of working in the Company QM during the Forest fires in BC. Needless to say it is a thankless job that both My Warrent and myself did not fully appreciate till we were doing the job. Up at 0430 to get ready for issue of the day, nap just before noon, deliver food and supplys for noon, back get ready for return of troops. supper, clean and organize, nap then around midnight be up to get supplys from Brigade Supply, organize done around 02-0300hrs, Sleep back up at 0430 again. 

You can have your job, but to say there is not room in your job or other jobs with in the CF s to employ injured members in a Base situation is not thinking like one should. I hope that one day you never get get hurt where the Miltary will terminate your employment. 

I did say that there are numerous jobs on bases across Canada that could be staffed, Civilian or Miltary. That would not effect the operational status of the Military. Nor put a hinderance on your Non Operational jobs to get away from the Deployments.

But no matter what I say or try to explain it is falling on deaf ears, so be it that is why this is a discussion board. 

Cheers all


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2011)

As I stated earlier, the principle of Universality of Service is the policy we have in the CF that governs who stays and who is released. While it would be desireable to see everyone that was ill or injured in the CF to be employed, we have polices, and laws that state otherwise. THAT is the cold hard fact. 

There are programs in place in the CF and VAC that will assist wounded/ill/injured members to transition to civilian life.

While I'm at it, don't tell "us"  how we should be thinking. "We" have spent virtually a lifetime in the CF and really hate to see our wounded/ill/injured released.

Your little dig at "deaf ears" tells me much about you and your knowledge of the subject. As a suggestion, you may want to read up on the subject.


----------



## GAP (12 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In which order?  ANd how many times each?



They kept getting them mixed up, and would ask me to          errrr......step back to clear the bottleneck and then come back, why, sometimes we had to step all the way back to private first class, just to help out those poor souls..... and mend our ways.........funny, we never did much sewing, so I'm not quite sure what the mending was all about..... ;D


----------



## Pusser (12 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> I have worked with Supply Techs and have a few of them as friends. I have seen the difference between the Sup Techs working in Shilo Manitoba, CFB Esquamalt, CFB Cold Lake and CFB Wainwright. I have also seen the difference of the Base Supply compared to a Front Line Unit. Ie CFB COld Lakes Base Clothing Stores, material management and the Sqn Stores. Along with CFB Shilo Base Supply and Regimental and Battery QM/ Supply.
> I also had the short pleasure of working in the Company QM during the Forest fires in BC. Needless to say it is a thankless job that both My Warrent and myself did not fully appreciate till we were doing the job. Up at 0430 to get ready for issue of the day, nap just before noon, deliver food and supplys for noon, back get ready for return of troops. supper, clean and organize, nap then around midnight be up to get supplys from Brigade Supply, organize done around 02-0300hrs, Sleep back up at 0430 again.
> 
> You can have your job, but to say there is not room in your job or other jobs with in the CF s to employ injured members in a Base situation is not thinking like one should. I hope that one day you never get get hurt where the Miltary will terminate your employment.
> ...



I have seen several good people, including friends of mine, released from the CF for what I considered poor reasons.  As a result, when I have been in positions to try and change things, I have done so to the best of my ability.  A good example of this was the BMI policy we had years ago.  I never supported it and said so at every opportunity.  Over time the policy was adjusted and finally dropped altogether (as well it should have been).  The reason this happened is because senior leadership listened, assessed and acted accordingly.  Thus your criticism of deaf ears is unfair and unwarranted.  Just because people don't agree with you, doesn't mean they're not listening or taking your thoughts into account.

The simple truth here is that you seem to lack a working knowledge of how the CF is populated and the controls under which we live.  The government dictates how many people we enroll and we have to live within that ceiling.  We manage the best we can and I can say without any doubt in my mind that the CF does not look for ways to get rid of people (FRP - mandated by government - aside).  Part of the reason it takes as long as it does to medically release people is that the system looks for ways to keep them in.  A full assessment is undertaken to determine whether a member can in fact be retained. I've actually seen cases where individuals who wanted to get out were frustrated by the amount of time it was taking.  Once they informed the system that they actually wanted out, things went very quickly as the system stopped looking for ways to keep them.   By the way, we do have amputees who are not being released and I recall recently that at least one has actually returned to Afghanistan. 

I note that you have actually changed your tune a bit.  When you started you were pushing for full career retention of injured members.  Now you're saying that putting them in civilian positions would be OK.  I think you'll find that none of us here are against that and in fact, many of us recommend it.  Making sure that injured veterans are looked after is very important, but retaining them in the CF when they cannot meet the U of S simply isn't practical.  Other solutions are available and in use.


----------



## childs56 (12 Jan 2011)

Hmm interesting, I said we could keep them employed within the Canadian Forces my mistake I should have said Department of National Defence, I also stated that there were many positions with in the CF (DND) that could be used to employ these inured members, then I was told that there was no way to employ these members further because it will take away jobs from others.  The Candian Forces (DND) Employs more then Just Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen. It also has a very large civilian continigents that encompasses not only direct  military support but also support to other agencies as well. 

I never once said keep "full career retention of injured members",  but I did say to keep them employed till their retirement at proper pay scales and benifits. Again there are may jobs that can be filled. 

Again the CANADIAN FORCES is composed of more then just the Navy, Army and Airforce.


----------



## Container (12 Jan 2011)

I believe the public services in the Canadian Forces at large has reached critical mass and they are on a no-hire until a good portion retires. My wife is a public servant with the RCMP and they received some emails basically suggesting the same.

Its unfortunate that its not as easy to move around some public servants. Its would be good idea to fill those positions firstly with or wounded- or at least in my own mind right now it is im sure one of you can tell me why its not, if we could move some public servants in to other sectors of the public service it would keep the wounded in the family, suply them with rewarding work and keep things running.

Perhaps an incentive program to get PS's to lateral in to some other departments is in order?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2011)

While I agree that perhaps keeping our folk in the Department in principle, in practice I think (IMO) would be difficult. First, we have a union to deal with that may not be as favorable to this solution as we are.
Second, all those other departments where our current civilians would go to also have a union to deal with, who may not look upon our solution as favorably as they might.

My two cents, plus GST.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Jan 2011)

CTD,

Those that are medically released receive Vocational Rehab from SISIP, Then from VAC, and are offered Priority Hiring through the Public Service (All departments).  So what you are asking is pretty much being done.  The idea is to empower the soldier to take  charge of their own lifes, and move foward.

dileas

tess


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2011)

And that is the Key!! The soldier must do it. IWe cannot sit in class for them nor do the job interviews.


----------



## Pusser (12 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> Again the CANADIAN FORCES is composed of more then just the Navy, Army and Airforce.



No, they most definitely are not.  The Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence are distinctly separate entities.  Members of the CF are not employees of DND (note the separate pay and administrative systems) and vice versa.  If you're going to press an argument, you need to get the terminology and details correct or you'll get pummeled.  If you had clearly stated from the outset that you felt personnel released due to injury should be employed as public servants, you would have had much more support.  However, you didn't say that and thus the dogpile began...


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jan 2011)

Of course, there are public servants who are employed by the Canadian Forces (like a Base Commander's secretary), and members of the Canadian Forces who are employed within the Department of National Defence (like those CF members working in many of the ADMs in Ottawa).  Just to keep people confused.


----------



## McG (12 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> Again the CANADIAN FORCES is composed of more then just the Navy, Army and Airforce.


Half the problem in your argument may be that you do not know the meaning of the terms that you are using.  The Canadian Forces is composed soley of military personnel.  DND employees are not part of the Canadian Forces.  If you want to provide guaranteed employment in DND on a medical release and you present this idea by stating that "wounded personnel have a right to stay in the Canadian Forces" then you will be missunderstood by everyone who understands the topic.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> I believe the public services in the Canadian Forces at large has reached critical mass ...


There are indeed more DND employees that we are supposed to have.


----------



## ballz (12 Jan 2011)

I have been trying to follow this thread but I don't really understand a lot of the issues at hand...

But one thing that just popped into my head that I think could be one of these "static" positions that a non-deployable soldier/sailor/airman or airwoman could be of a huge benefit to everybody would be as a ULO...

This is my 3rd year as an ROTP entrant. I have had at least 4 ULOs. It is generally a secondary duty, that really burdens people that have enough on their hands. There is a lot of in's and out's to learn, and generally when they start getting it down path we get a new ULO, and they go through the same learning curve. I've been blessed being in a small place where the ULOs generally don't have a ton of students under them, and so far for the most part they've done what they can. However, right now it's the station's chief clerk. We both agree that subsidized programs have more than a few wrinkles to iron out, and he has enough on his plate without babysitting (sometimes that's what it probably feels like) a bunch of people that really have little to no experience in the military, especially the many administrative things.

The best situation I had was a 2Lt who was awaiting medical release, as an "assistant ULO," and it was one of his primary duties. He did an unreal job, and as the PO2 said to the SEM, "I don't know what we're going to do with all these students without him." He went through the ROTP program, and spent maybe 2 years in the position. He made everything easier for everybody.

The solution to the problem was always easy, somebody needed it to be their primary duty, and actually spend at least a few years in the position so they could learn what they're doing before they're shuffled off somewhere else, but I could see why it couldn't be justified. But now, thinking about this, and about wounded soldiers, I think maybe it could be?

I realise there's not enough ULO positions to fill to solve the problem, but I dunno, I'm just throwing it out there. It's somewhat of an option?

And this is coming from somebody that's had a relatively good go with ULOs. There are many, many horror stories, I only have a few to speak of.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Jan 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I have been trying to follow this thread but I don't really understand a lot of the issues at hand...
> 
> But one thing that just popped into my head that I think could be one of these "static" positions that a non-deployable soldier/sailor/airman or airwoman could be of a huge benefit to everybody would be as a ULO...
> 
> ...




Having a brain fart....

What does ULO stand for?

Sorry.

dileas

tess


----------



## ballz (12 Jan 2011)

Not a brain fart at all...

University Liasion Officer.

They are responsible for assisting/handling students with their administration, career courses, school courses, finding EWAT (employment while awaiting training) positions between the end of school and the start of courses, the various "personal scenarios" that everybody is in, etc.

EDIT: Not just ROTP students, but UTPNCM, etc, all the subsidized education programs I believe.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Jan 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not a brain fart at all...
> 
> University Liasion Officer.
> 
> ...




So, that would be akin to a Base personnel selection officer (BPSO),  correct?

dileas

tess


----------



## MJP (12 Jan 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So, that would be akin to a Base personnel selection officer (BPSO),  correct?



No they are two seperate entities.

While on the surface it sounds like a good idea it truly depends on the base that the ULO belongs too.  In bases that don't have large amounts of ROTP/UTP, ULO is usually a secondary duty.   I find on Air Force bases the ULO position is used for their junior HR streamed Log Os to gain experience and it is a "tour/position" that they do before moving on to other things.  Like every other position that we have right now anyone of them could be tapped for some operational purpose.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So, that would be akin to a Base personnel selection officer (BPSO),  correct?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




Didn't used to be: the ULO was a sort of troop/platoon commander for the assorted ROTP etc at Civvy U, and it was, as was said, a secondary duty. Sometimes it was assigned to a grad student - a Capt or Maj doing a MSc or MA at the university, sometimes just to some poor bugger in the garrison who caught the colonel's eye. It was, as I recall - from a great distance, a thankless job.

If my memory serves the old COTC guys were looked after by their local reserve unit but ROTP were not, they relied upon the poor bloody ULO. Now that's all 30 or 40 years ago so ...


----------



## ballz (12 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Didn't used to be: the ULO was a sort of troop/platoon commander for the assorted ROTP etc at Civvy U, and it was, as was said, a secondary duty. Sometimes it was assigned to a grad student - a Capt or Maj doing a MSc or MA at the university, sometimes just to some poor bugger in the garrison who caught the colonel's eye. It was, as I recall - from a great distance, a thankless job.
> 
> If my memory serves the old COTC guys were looked after by their local reserve unit but ROTP were not, they relied upon the poor bloody ULO. Now that's all 30 or 40 years ago so ...



I still think it may be a job that no one wants, and probably pretty thankless.... but like clerks that do a good job, I always try and let mine know that I appreciate it when they take care of something for me.

I don't think it would be so crappy for someone who had it as a primary duty. I know the 2Lt I talked about enjoyed it and was always motivated to help us out. It's probably crappy when you've got better things to be doing and don't have the time to deal with what seem like minor issues since you've got a heap of other stuff on your plate, but to the students it's not minor.

One example I can think of is a student who needed to change locations (and university) because of a sick family member. An admin nightmare, and she really had no idea how to start / what to do, and no one really had any answers for her. Never been to BMOQ at that point, no military training, no idea about memos, etc. I think that would be rewarding to be able help someone in that situation... I helped her and it was for me.


----------



## McG (12 Jan 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> But one thing that just popped into my head that I think could be one of these "static" positions that a non-deployable soldier/sailor/airman or airwoman could be of a huge benefit to everybody would be as a ULO...


It becomes a question of finding a CO that wants to commit one established position to bring in an unfit individual to focus fully on a secondary duty.


----------



## Pusser (13 Jan 2011)

I guess things have changed.  When I was in ROTP, my ULO was one of two, who were responsible for all subsidized education candidates in Ontario.  They were based out of RMC and it was their primary duty.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2011)

CTD said:
			
		

> I have worked with Supply Techs and have a few of them as friends. I have seen the difference between the Sup Techs working in Shilo Manitoba, CFB Esquamalt, CFB Cold Lake and CFB Wainwright. I have also seen the difference of the Base Supply compared to a Front Line Unit. Ie CFB COld Lakes Base Clothing Stores, material management and the Sqn Stores. Along with CFB Shilo Base Supply and Regimental and Battery QM/ Supply.
> I also had the short pleasure of working in the Company QM during the Forest fires in BC. Needless to say it is a thankless job that both My Warrent and myself did not fully appreciate till we were doing the job. Up at 0430 to get ready for issue of the day, nap just before noon, deliver food and supplys for noon, back get ready for return of troops. supper, clean and organize, nap then around midnight be up to get supplys from Brigade Supply, organize done around 02-0300hrs, Sleep back up at 0430 again.
> 
> You can have your job, but to say there is not room in your job or other jobs with in the CF s to employ injured members in a Base situation is not thinking like one should. I hope that one day you never get get hurt where the Miltary will terminate your employment.
> ...



Not a single person in this thread said ANY such thing. What was said, was that the employment needed to be TEMPORARY within those "static" (they do NOT exist) positions. Not only do we employ our injured Afghan vets in 'desk' positions, but we also MUST employ our TCat personnel into those same few select desk spots as those pers will be back into the Op dep cycle. This has already been discussed in this very thread.

Additionally, when you speak of 2nd line Sup, you are forgetting something else that can NOT be overlooked. I'll take Gagetown as an example because that particular spot houses the largest 2nd line Sup Coy in the nation. Of those 175 personnel, there exists a grand total of 9, (that's NINE) strictly desk jobs into which injured members and Sup Coy members on TCat can be accomodated. OH, AND when any 1st line Unit there needs to move one of their own injured/TCatted Sup techs out of the 1st line spots because they are pregnant or have a broken ankle and thus non-field-employable ... we lose a healthy bod out of Sup Coy (2nd line) to replace that 1st line pers who will then move into one of those 9 desk jobs.

You see, you talk about the difference with 2nd line not deploying en masse, but you neglect the fact that 2nd line Sup etc are housing all injured, accomodated, and TCatted Sup techs for the entire base --- even as we replace those TCatted (even for a temp period) with one of our healthy bods so that the 1st line work/exs/field gets done --- all the while still filling all those overseas slots. Every roto, of every tour that the CF is participating in.

Plus, someone injured in Afghan is also a pri hire for employment in the public service --- often within DND itself in a PS slot. There's already some working in Gagetown Sup who were in this position. Those jobs are non-deployable ... that's why public servants hold them instead of CF members ... and our injured get first kick at the can on those already and officially.

I don't know what else you want us to do, but at the end of the day, the CF MUST retain it's deployability; that IS why we exist after all.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2011)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> What an absolutely gut-wrenching topic. The poor bastards who get injured for Canada - bless them, thank them.  Its impossible to not be emotionally charged about this.
> 
> ...
> 
> NB: when I joined in 1989, the only people with huge racks of medals were Siggies and Sup Techs, as they had deployed on every freaking UN mission imaginable. A select few Inf/Armd/Arty guys had the Cyprus medal, and an infinitesimal number of Offrs/CWO's had UN gongs from observer medals. The battalions simply didn't deploy anywhere buy Cyprus. If we don't get another mission after Kabul ends, we'll revert to that situation, and talk of one's worth being determined by the number of medals on his chest will dry up. (but since that's not yet the case, please note that I have 6 !)



If I could give you a + 1 000 000 for this post -- I would. Unfortunately, Mike is quite stingy with levels.

+300.


----------



## Pusser (13 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Additionally, when you speak of 2nd line Sup, you are forgetting something else that can NOT be overlooked. I'll take Gagetown as an example because that particular spot houses the largest 2nd line Sup Coy in the nation. Of those 175 personnel, there exists a grand total of 9, (that's NINE) strictly desk jobs into which injured members and Sup Coy members on TCat can be accomodated. OH, AND when any 1st line Unit there needs to move one of their own injured/TCatted Sup techs out of the 1st line spots because they are pregnant or have a broken ankle and thus non-field-employable ... we lose a healthy bod out of Sup Coy (2nd line) to replace that 1st line pers who will then move into one of those 9 desk jobs.



Similar observations can be made for Base Supply, Base Foods and the BOR in Halifax and Esquimalt.  These organizations are essentially treated as the manning pools for all the log posititions in the ships.  They are often filled with personnel who are unfit sea.

On another note, I was in a directorate at NDHQ awhile back where not a single military member was available for a critical manning requirement.  Every person was either deployed, just back from deployment or already selected and in preparation for deployment.


----------



## GAP (13 Jun 2011)

Soldier launches court challenge of military policy
By Paul Turenne, QMI Agency
Article Link

WINNIPEG — A local soldier who lost both legs in Afghanistan has launched a constitutional court challenge against a Canadian military policy that forces permanently injured members out of service because they aren't combat-ready.

Cpl. Ryan Elrick lost both legs after his armoured vehicle hit a roadside bomb in Afghanistan in June 2006.

Despite his injury, Elrick wanted to remain in the military, and was therefore re-trained to become an intelligence officer.

He got top secret security clearance, performed duties normally reserved for people two ranks above him, and was praised in his formal evaluations for his "outstanding leadership," "excellent military bearing," and "adherence to high Canadian Forces ethics and values."

Then, in July 2010, a review of Elrick's file deemed him unfit for service because the loss of his legs put him in violation of a section of the National Defence Act that states all Canadian Forces personnel must be eligible for all duties at all times.

A Canadian military policy, known as universality of service, confirms in writing this includes combat duties, therefore making Elrick and other injured soldiers ineligible to serve in any capacity.


Elrick was officially discharged from the military in March.

Elrick filed a lawsuit with Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench earlier this month arguing the policy is discriminatory and violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
More on link


----------



## fake penguin (13 Jun 2011)

I seriously feel bad for the guy. If the guy is doing an outstanding job as an intelligence officer ,then why not let him stay.Maybe there is something i do not understand. I hope it works out for him.


----------



## Nauticus (13 Jun 2011)

It sounds like he's served the country proud. We owe him our thanks.

But I don't think it's discriminatory that all members of a _military force_, who are soldiers first, be required to be combat ready.

Looks like we'll soon find out...


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Jun 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> It sounds like he's served the country proud. We owe him our thanks.
> 
> But I don't think it's discriminatory that all members of a _military force_, who are soldiers first, be required to be combat ready.
> 
> Looks like we'll soon find out...



I agree.

This issue has been tested many times in the past and found to be a reasonable limitation. While I'm sympathetic to his case, there are "Bone Fide Operational Requirements" (BFORs) that have to be satisfied by everyone in uniform.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jun 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> This issue has been tested many times in the past and found to be a reasonable limitation. While I'm sympathetic to his case, there are "Bone Fide Operational Requirements" (BFORs) that have to be satisfied by everyone in uniform.



...except we've already deployed amputees back to KAF.  So we've set the precedent that we can make "reasonable accomodations"  even on deployed operations for amputees to serve in the CF.

This could be a very interesting case, that I suspect will be appealed regardless of which side wins - all the way to the Supreme Court by 2015, I suspect.


----------



## Strike (13 Jun 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...except we've already deployed amputees back to KAF.  So we've set the precedent that we can make "reasonable accomodations"  even on deployed
> operations for amputees to serve in the CF.
> 
> This could be a very interesting case, that I suspect will be appealed regardless of which side wins - all the way to the Supreme Court by 2015, I suspect.



Those amputees have only lost one leg and were able to complete all the required fitness tests to get there.
One is an amputee below the knee and the other above.
Now, if this gentleman can pass all the tests, then I don't see how they could refuse him further service.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jun 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Those amputees have only lost one leg and were able to complete all the required fitness tests to get there.
> One is an amputee below the knee and the other above.
> Now, if this gentleman can pass all the tests, then I don't see how they could refuse him further service.



Ah, but in the past the CF refused to enrol single amputees.  We've now proven that we can make reasonable accommodations for single amputees, despite our previous claims.  So there is nothing to prevent their service.

Anything we say in this case will be viewed through that prism - past claims that have been disproven.


Medically, an amputee requires regular treatment, access to medical care, and access to prosthetics - regardless of whether they are lacking one or two limbs.  I suspect that the medical system classifies them the same.  So if they share the same medical categories, why can one continue to serve, while the other cannot?


----------



## medicineman (13 Jun 2011)

The medical category is one thing - the MEL's that accompany that category are what do the person in.  If there are limitations that violate the Universality of Service, they're on the way out.  Lots of trades have med cats that basically can be read as "Pulse and respiration required only", but they still have to be able to do a PT test and a number of other things.  If he can prove that he can, then he should be accomodated and his G/O factors should be adjusted...but if he can't, then he'll have to take his talents elsewhere.  Not personal, just business.

MM

Edited for grammar


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jun 2011)

I believe that based upon the spirit of the Charter and Constitution, he has a good case.

Personally, I feel our policy is fair, that you must be able to complete all universality of service be remain in the CF. 

I believe it will go to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Webgear (13 Jun 2011)

Seems rather impractical of the military to train him as an Int Op and then only to release him shortly after he has completed his course.  

Considering the Int branch is under currently under strength at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt levels, why would the military waste the resources on him? From my understanding, he was doing a good job in the Int branch.

I believe there should be positions and trades for wound personnel, ever effort should be made to find a position and meaningful career for them.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jun 2011)

Yes, I suspect it will be a long, drawn-out court battle.

Cynically (yes, me), I suspect the CF's operationally-focused Universality of Service will take a back seat to the touchy-feely Starbucks crowd who believe that "we're all equal, no matter what." 

This latter group will trump the reality of combat operations where not everyone -- even people with all their limbs -- is capable of sustained stresses. 

Perhaps more relevantly, a court decision in this direction will skew postings not actively involved with operations. This particular person, with no legs for example, would now _likely_ be obligated to fill a HQ position where some operational soldier could have been posted for a rest/family recuperation time; now, it's "you're stuck in a field unit because this soldier and his equally deserving friends are filling all the echelon positions. Sorry."


ps - I'm hesitant to judge the brilliance of any CF member based on a media quote from his PER....but that's a problem with the PER system. ***



*** For those of you who are arguing for this guy's retention, but don't know what "PER" means.....you really have no say in this.




Edit: 1. Yes, I know the 48th regulator will weigh in momentarily. I have no intention of playing:  :argument:

2. To reformat after a Mod change.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jun 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> he was doing a good job in the Int branch.



UoS has nothing to do with him doing a good job or otherwise.


----------



## Webgear (14 Jun 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> UoS has nothing to do with him doing a good job or otherwise.



Yes, I understand that UoS has nothing to do with his performance.


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Jun 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> There are "Bona Fide Operational Requirements" (BFORs) that have to be satisfied by everyone in uniform.



Universality of Service is internal to the military.  BFORs are recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. 
See link: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/occupational-eng.aspx


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jun 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> This particular person, with no legs for example, would now _likely_ be obligated to fill a HQ position where some operational soldier could have been posted for a rest/family recuperation time; now, it's "you're stuck in a field unit because this soldier and his equally deserving friends are filling all the echelon positions. Sorry."




This was the very discussion that precipitated the UofS policy and the development of the task statements for each trade. Prior to about 1995, there were quite a few "unfit" pers being hidden in echelon positions that could not be called upon to deploy during the rapid upswing in op tempo. The result was an understanding that fit soldiers required a rest as much as ill or injured soldiers did. If the ill and injured could not be returned to service in good time, then release was the only option. It was considered unfair that the fit pers would have to deploy repeatedly, while those comfortably ensconced in the rear would not.



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Universality of Service is internal to the military.  BFORs are recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
> See link: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/occupational-eng.aspx



True, but they're intimately related, and it's likely BFORs that the case will hinge on, more so than UofS.


----------



## Osotogari (14 Jun 2011)

If civil service hiring was changed to so that wounded veterans went to the top of the list instead of fulfilling some diversity mantra then at least we could cast the net wider to ensure that our guys get looked after


----------



## Dissident (14 Jun 2011)

We have discussed this before and I still maintain we should offer recruiting jobs to soldiers who were injured in the line of duty first. A la Starship Troopers. Anything else I think the UoS needs to stand.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jun 2011)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> If civil service hiring was changed to so that wounded veterans went to the top of the list instead of fulfilling some diversity mantra then at least we could cast the net wider to ensure that our guys get looked after



There is priority hiring in the civil service. That means if after competition, and two people are tied, the vet released under 3a or 3b gets the job. That is the law.

Edited to add: I am now on listening silence WRT this topic.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> Seems rather impractical of the military to train him as an Int Op and then only to release him shortly after he has completed his course.
> 
> Considering the Int branch is under currently under strength at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt levels, why would the military waste the resources on him? From my understanding, he was doing a good job in the Int branch.
> 
> I believe there should be positions and trades for wound personnel, ever effort should be made to find a position and meaningful career for them.



Is he really an Int Op, or an Int Officer, or just an Infantryman who has had a Combat Int Crse?  Nothing irks me more than an article in the media incorrectly identifying things.  Many will remember the news of tanks passing through town X, when in fact it was a APC or large truck.  This news article has too many vague and perhaps incorrect statements for me to make an educated assessment on his qualifications.


----------



## Navalsnpr (14 Jun 2011)

Last year when I was deployed in KAF, we had a service member who was deployed with a prosthetic leg, which he received as a result of a previous tour. He was at the gym every day or so on the treadmill like everyone else.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> There is priority hiring in the civil service. That means if after competition, and two people are tied, the vet released under 3a or 3b gets the job. That is the law.




In my opinion we need something more than military service as a “tie breaker.” We need a system that makes military service – even combat service, even wounded in combat – a requirement for some jobs.

There are some obvious civil service jobs in DND: there are, I am certain hundreds of jobs that _de facto_ require military experience – the experience is openly, honestly stated in the job description. Many of these jobs require the sorts of experience that is not obtained on active (combat) service but they should be designated as “retired member.” (I say retired because the experience required is usually only obtained by a career that lasted more than 20 years and involved senior officer and/or warrant officer/senior NCO rank.) This “retired member” exists (or used to exist) in the UK civil service. My counterpart, when I was a director in NDHQ, was a _Group Captain (RO)_ in the MOD in London. He “kept” his old RAF rank because his civil service job was open only to officers, with appropriate technical skills and knowledge, who had retired in the ranks of Cmdre/Brig, Capt/Col/Gp Capt, or Cdr/LCol/Wg Cdr. Some jobs in the UK – analogous to the guides in some Canadian historical sites, are open only to retired members of the UK armed forces: go visit HMS Victory or the Tower of London to see for yourself.

We can and should do some *similar* things.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jun 2011)

...and it's not like there isn't a lot of 'bed-feathering' for soon to be retired per who haven't left Ottawa in many a year and "combat" is a 31 day *cough* fact-finding fly-over.


----------



## tree hugger (14 Jun 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Personally, I feel our policy is fair, that you must be able to complete all universality of service be remain in the CF.



Now, if only we actually tested UofS instead of someone subjectively guessing if someone meets it....


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jun 2011)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> If civil service hiring was changed to so that wounded veterans went to the top of the list instead of fulfilling some diversity mantra then at least we could cast the net wider to ensure that our guys get looked after



Umm... diversity groups include the disabled, so an individual lacking limb(s) already has that check in the box going for them.


----------



## mariomike (14 Jun 2011)

Info in this topic may be relevant.
Topic: "Forces weighing whether soldiers wounded in Afghanistan should be let go" 6 pages:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/98054.0.html


----------



## GR66 (14 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion we need something more than military service as a “tie breaker.” We need a system that makes military service – even combat service, even wounded in combat – a requirement for some jobs.



I have not seen this in writing but have been told this by my Chain of Command with regard to establishing NEW civilian positions.  These positions do not go to open competition, they are first made available to qualified members on the priority list.  This priority list would include both retired CF members as well as spouses of current members posted into that location.


----------



## medicineman (14 Jun 2011)

tree hugger said:
			
		

> Now, if only we actually tested UofS instead of someone subjectively guessing if someone meets it....



They do - if a person fails to pass an ExPres Test or is challenging a medical releaseon UoS grounds, PSP is able to administer the test.  I've assisted in a few of these before.

MM


----------



## tree hugger (14 Jun 2011)

Is this a new thing?  When I was being released under 3bin 2005, I submitted a memo requesting to challenge the generic task statement of the UofS and was told they don't do that....


----------



## mariomike (14 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some jobs in the UK – analogous to the guides in some Canadian historical sites, are open only to retired members of the UK armed forces: go visit HMS Victory or the Tower of London to see for yourself.
> 
> We can and should do some *similar* things.



Something similar happens in Canada at the municipal level with various Chief's Ceremonial, Honour Guards and Pioneer Units. These paid positions  allow retired members to remain in departmental uniform, but with no operational responsibility. The emotional reward for pensioners far outweighs the financial.


----------



## Occam (14 Jun 2011)

tree hugger said:
			
		

> Is this a new thing?  When I was being released under 3bin 2005, I submitted a memo requesting to challenge the generic task statement of the UofS and was told they don't do that....



I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, or if it's new.

FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 016-11 CMP 008-11
SIC WAC
SUBJ: COMMON MILITARY TASK FITNESS EVALUATION 10-13 MAY 2011
REFS: A. DAOD 5023 1, MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARD RELATED TO 
UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE
B. DAOD 5023 2, PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM
1. AS PER REF A, ALL CF PERSONNEL ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM 
OPERATIONAL STANDARD RELATED TO UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE. THIS 
MESSAGE DEALS WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING
2. COMMON MILITARY TASK FITNESS EVALUATION (CMTFE) WILL BE CONDUCTED 
10-13 MAY 2011 BY THE DIRECTOR OF FITNESS AT SAINT-JEAN GARRISON, 
RICHELAIN,QC
3. AS OUTLINED IN REF B, CF PERSONNEL WHO FAIL THE CF EXPRES TWO 
CONSECUTIVE TIMES MAY REQUEST THE CMTFE THROUGH THEIR CHAIN OF 
COMMAND. IN ADDITION, THOSE CF PERSONNEL DIRECTED TO PERFORM THE 
CMTFE AS THEIR ANNUAL FITNESS TEST MAY REGISTER. THE CF EXPRES 
PREDICTS THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE CMTFE, WHICH INCLUDES A 
TRENCH DIG, A LAND EVACUATION, A SEA EVACUATION, A SANDBAG CARRY AND 
A LOW-HIGH CRAWL. THE CMTFE IS THE GOLD STANDARD FOR EVALUATING THE 
PHYSICAL FITNESS COMPONENT OF UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE. FOR MORE 
INFORMATION REGARDING THE CMTFE, CONTACT LOCAL PSP FITNESS STAFF OR 
GO TO WWW.CFPSA.COM/EN/PSP/FITNESS/GENERAL(UNDERSCORE)E.ASP
4. CMTFE TRAVEL EXPENSES ARE TO BE COVERED BY THE CANDIDATE S UNIT
5. TO REGISTER OR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT xxxxxxxxx
 AT 613-XXX-XXXX
6. SIGNED BY RADM XXXXXXXX, CMP


----------



## medicineman (14 Jun 2011)

tree hugger said:
			
		

> Is this a new thing?  When I was being released under 3bin 2005, I submitted a memo requesting to challenge the generic task statement of the UofS and was told they don't do that....



First time I saw someone go through it was 2002 - PSP organized it.

MM


----------



## Webgear (14 Jun 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is he really an Int Op, or an Int Officer, or just an Infantryman who has had a Combat Int Crse?  Nothing irks me more than an article in the media incorrectly identifying things.  Many will remember the news of tanks passing through town X, when in fact it was a APC or large truck.  This news article has too many vague and perhaps incorrect statements for me to make an educated assessment on his qualifications.



He is a qualified Int Op. Yes... you are correct, the media article has several incorrect details.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This news article has too many vague and perhaps incorrect statements , or may even be missing critical information, for me to make an educated assessment on his qualifications.


Fixed that for you, and agree.


----------



## Wookilar (14 Jun 2011)

The CMTFE looks less than easy, I would prefer to do a BFT anyday. I have not seen the test administered but I have seen the facilities/equipment used when we were looking at sending one of our pers for it last year. That sea evac has to be difficult.

As for UoS, it's a slippery slope.

I have no desire to go back to the "old days" where Base Maint (for example) was full of pers on significant PCat's, it's a manning nightmare and brutally hard on those pers that are deployable as all the tasks fall to a relatively few "healthy" pers due to restrictions. Base Maint Edmonton was a prime example of this when it was formed together with parts of 1 Svc to make up the first ASG. Those of us that came from 1 Svc were run ragged on taskings for the first 2 years until more unrestricted pers were posted in as the majority of pers already in Base Maint had numerous restrictions.

Buuut, I feel we do have a responsibility to those injured in the line of duty (whatever that injury was; wherever that injury happened). The priority hire list is always a possibility (and a good idea) but work in the public (unionized) service is not for everyone. I like Mr Campbell's recommendation, there are certainly jobs out there that mandatory military service would come in very handy.

Can an amputee complete all the tasks of an Infanteer? An AVN Tech? What about an Navy RMS Clerk? I don't know, but I know there are many determined people out there trying to prove they can do everything they used to be able to (MCpl Mitic for example).

Wook


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you, and agree.



Thanks.  Sometimes we get the opposite picture of what we should, when this happens.


----------



## CountDC (16 Jun 2011)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> .
> Can an amputee complete all the tasks of an Infanteer? An AVN Tech? What about an Navy RMS Clerk? I don't know, but I know there are many determined people out there trying to prove they can do everything they used to be able to (MCpl Mitic for example).



hmmm a double amputee as a Navy RMS Clk?  could be an interesting try. Have to be able climb up/down a ladder while carrying up to 200+ pounds on a stretcher (we are first line med/ambulances on ships and some of those lads are big), fight fires with full kit (we are fire fighters too), perform man overboard drills (OSCAR gets heavy when wet and you have to pull him out of the drink), flood control and evac (may have to dive under, manuever through a hatch and dog it shut).  Lots of ladder climbing up and down on a ship that may be bobbing all over the place (depending on the ship and the weather) making sober sailors (is that real?) look drunk.  Of course everyting has to be done three times as fast as you are able to do it.  Funny that you should pick Navy Clerk as to be honest having worked with all 3 elements I found it was the hardest one (of course not everyone would agree).  If they can do it then by all means let them.  My concern (which may be a mute one these days as it has been a long time) is that I had a friend that was a leg amputee and he often needed to be able to take the leg off, adjust and clean things and somedays couldn't wear it as his stump was raw from wearing it. If the limb breaks what do you do in the middle of the ocean? For him it could be a long process to replace it and the sup techs on ships do not stock these items.

Again though there is that UofS that we have to deal with.  Everyone must be deployable and as a clerk you can be deployed with any of the elements regardless of your uniform.  So as a Navy Clerk you can still be sent to Afghan and as an Air Force or Army clerk you can be sent to a ship.  The clerk world went through the same fun in the past as other trades of only certain people were tasked as we were hiding so many that were not deployable.  Yes it sucks to be put out but if someone (including me) can not make the standard then we have no choice.

Public service priority is another touchy area. The current system of service being a tie breaker is good in my opinion.  To take it beyond that is a dangerous road as you then have lower skilled/qualified people getting the jobs.  This could in turn chase away good people that feel they have no chance as they never served. I know sitting in my OR I want the best staff I can get working for me and taking care of the people we are responsible for.  When you have a pay problem are you going to be concerned over what service the person you are dealing with has or are you hoping to have the best person fixing things for you?  When the chips are down the customer really doesn't care how you lost your limb, they want things fixed properly and now.

Although I am specifying Clerks (naturally) I am sure it carries over to other purple trades that people think of when they consider accomodation of injured members. Someone mentioned recruiting - fill them with the injured and that is a lot less shore billets for members to get a break.  When you take any position and fill it with someone not deployable it means someone is getting an extra deployable posting. Is that really fair?


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Jun 2011)

Those are all very good points.

Accommodation for disabilities aside, there would still be the need for seagoing pers to be fit for sea duty which -- I hope -- implies a complete set of limbs, for the reasons you noted.

I accept the argument that a non-deployable member in a non-deploying position would take away shore postings (and their equivalents in the other elements) from those who need them.  But I wonder if there are enough such members that it would make a significant difference in a Service the size of the CF?  It would be an interesting exercise to crunch the numbers and see.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jun 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Those are all very good points.
> 
> Accommodation for disabilities aside, there would still be the need for seagoing pers to be fit for sea duty which -- I hope -- implies a complete set of limbs, for the reasons you noted.
> 
> I accept the argument that a non-deployable member in a non-deploying position would take away shore postings (and their equivalents in the other elements) from those who need them.  But I wonder if there are enough such members that it would make a significant difference in a Service the size of the CF?  It would be an interesting exercise to crunch the numbers and see.



It's not just positions writ large - it's positions at specific rank levels in specific occupations.

One out of 68000 isn't noticeable; but one out of seven Basket Weaving Tech MWOs is much less manageable (note: occupation and number of positions are made up).


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2011)

I don't know this gentleman from Adam, but I did hear his story on As it Happens last night.  Apparently he was wounded in Afghanistan in 2006 that resulted in him losing two limbs.  He later remustered to Int Op, and completed his QL 5 Int Op course in Kingston.  Since then, he has been working in Winnipeg "Airforce Intelligence" as he put it. 

He claims he is facing discrimination.  He is.  Discrimination based upon physical ability.  This sort of discrimination is perfectly fine by me; however, I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  If not, then follow the DOADs.

As for recruiting people off the street who are amputees, either through accident or a birth defect, given that they require ongoing medical (and other) treatment: sorry, go work for McDonald's, or even DND, but the Canadian Armed Forces already have enough to worry about.  It is not a "right" to serve in the CF, but a privilege.


 :2c:


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for recruiting people off the street who are amputees, either through accident or a birth defect, given that they require ongoing medical (and other) treatment: sorry, go work for McDonald's, or even DND, but the Canadian Armed Forces already have enough to worry about.  It is not a "right" to serve in the CF, but a privilege.
> 
> 
> :2c:



I think this is what people are rightly concerned is the sharp edge of the wedge. How long before some court somewhere rules that if we can keep disabled folk in, we can let them in?


----------



## Container (16 Jun 2011)

But this has existed in way for years hasn't it? A pilot needed a certain vision profile to get in. Once in it could degrade to the point where they wouldn't have been accepted but applicants with the same profile wouldnt be accepted.

???

There are all types of people in uniform that, lets face it, in any government "service" job that wouldnt be accepted if they had to do it again. I also know some disabled people who's fitness shames the rest of us- but are the operational sound? Im not an expert in prosthetics- maybe it is possible. I dont know what the answer is. Which would shock my wife.


----------



## CountDC (16 Jun 2011)

All hail the Technoviking!!

Agree that it is discrimination based upon physical ability and that sometimes there is a valid reason for it.  

The Expres test though is only one part of the equation. For example I know of a case where the member gets exempt on the test but then is never tasked for parades as according to the med world he is not physically able to stand for prolonged periods.  That in turns means that others get extra parade taskings.  In a unit with only a small number of members for taskings that can be a big issue.  Take that member and put him in a field where they are supposed to do sentry duty or on a ship where they are supposed to do look outs and someone again is doing extras as he can't.  On a ship it most certainly gets noticed when someone is not pulling their weight and does become a point of morale.  It is one thing to have a member get injured, totally other if the member arrives unable to perform.

So if they are able to pass the expres test and are medically fit all duties then let them serve. 

Container - some how I doubt it would shock your wife. Yes in a way it has existed for years and that is one of the problems the CF is trying to get away from.  Most of us know that butterball that somehow managed to stick around even though they could barely get out of their chair let alone be deployable.  A certain amount of accomodation is fine but at some point something has to give or you will have a useless military.


----------



## Container (16 Jun 2011)

I did. But his sentence "I doubt it would shock your wife" also made me chuckle.

I guess the way I FEEL is that when a guy loses his legs and is fighting you and everyone to stay in he gets my support- especially if he (hypothetical- since we dont know for sure) passes the physical and can perform his duties. I suppose that I would feel equally supportive if he got a comparable job in government somewhere. Perhaps in Intelligence analysis elsewhere- its not good enough to shove him in the passport office. He deserves a career that he can be passionate about (where qualified)

Im sure that most of us- working in a unit with this fellow, in a position where he could fulfill his duties, wouldnt accuse the double amputee of not pulling his weight. I suppose in a way he bought his position? I haven't entirely fleshed out my own opinion on the subject so Im enjoying reading the other views.


----------



## mariomike (16 Jun 2011)

This topic reminds me of this topic  - Reply #11 and #12 -  regarding W.C. Douglas Bader RAF and others:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/98054/post-999876.html#msg999876


----------



## Takeniteasy (17 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I don't know this gentleman from Adam, but I did hear his story on As it Happens last night.  Apparently he was wounded in Afghanistan in 2006 that resulted in him losing two limbs.  He later remustered to Int Op, and completed his QL 5 Int Op course in Kingston.  Since then, he has been working in Winnipeg "Airforce Intelligence" as he put it.
> 
> He claims he is facing discrimination.  He is.  Discrimination based upon physical ability.  This sort of discrimination is perfectly fine by me; however, I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  If not, then follow the DOADs.
> 
> ...



Technoviking,

Education is a wonderful thing, I would suggest you do some research before you make ignorant comments. I know Ryan personally and understand his concern and position. There is more to this then his amputations and or his injuries. But I guess most will do like they always do and armchair quarterback.

Enjoy....


----------



## Strike (17 Jun 2011)

Here's the thing.  UoS is not just being able to pass the PT test or BFT.  There are many more aspects to it, such as the basic requirements for each of the elements doesn't it?  If all those hoops have been jumped through, then there's really nothing the CF can say about it  Keep the guy in.

Now, I do understand the concern regarding what to do if one of his prosthesis breaks during deployment, but we've already sent 2 guys with amputations to Afghanistan, so that argument now becomes moot.  I would see a broken prosthetic as the equivalent to a broken leg...except that these two guys who deployed probably brought spares with them.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jun 2011)

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> Technoviking,
> 
> Education is a wonderful thing, I would suggest you do some research before you make ignorant comments. I know Ryan personally and understand his concern and position. There is more to this then his amputations and or his injuries. But I guess most will do like they always do and armchair quarterback.
> 
> Enjoy....


At no time did I suggest one way or another how this gentleman ought to be treated.  In fact, I stated:



> He claims he is facing discrimination.  He is.  Discrimination based upon physical ability.  This sort of discrimination is perfectly fine by me; however, I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  If not, then follow the DOADs.


For what it's worth, the DOADs do not say that a person will be released upon failing an ExPres test.  Only if they fail subsequent tests after going through administrative procedures.  

Now, if I may suggest, your opinion of his situation may be tainted because you know him.  I'm not suggesting that he was treated fairly or unfairly.  But I do know why we have a Universality of Service "clause" (or whatever) for members of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces.  If he cannot serve in uniform (and from listening to his interview, he sounds very passionate about serving), then I would offer that perhaps he ought to be considered for service in the Department of National Defence as a civilian.

Again, to emphasise, I don't know him nor do I know the specifics of his case.  But I do know that discrimination based on physical ability is more than justified for service in HM's Canadian Armed Forces.*



*Please note that I use the term "Canadian Armed Forces" throughout, because it _is_ an armed force, raised to offer violence to enemies of Canada, often at great risk to its members.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jun 2011)

I was going to stay out of this thread, but find that I cannot.  I do not know the Mcpl in question here, unlike some posters, so I only know about his situation what I have gleaned from the press.

I would offer that each of us will eventually reach the end of our usefulness as soldiers and must inevitably leave the CF.  Some of us will become unable to soldier due to old age; some because of injury or infirmity; some because of wounds suffered in combat.  The point is: we must all leave uniform, eventually.  There is no room in a military as small as ours for those who cannot deploy and cope with the demands of combat.  We tried that for a while in the mid 1990s and it was dismal failure.  Those who were fit to deploy, deployed without respite while garrison and staff jobs were plugged with the infirm.

What we need as an institution is an ongoing commitment to transition those who can no longer fully serve to a dignified career elsewhere.  As individual CF members, I think we all need to be honest with ourselves so that we can recognize the day that  will inevitably come to all of us which marks the end of our time in the CF and depart with dignity, pride and grace.

Once again, I do not know this person.  I am sceptical that a double amputee is up to the rigours of combat- but what do I know?  What I do know is, that if we regularly retain injured soldiers who are not deployable, it will not be very long before the CF will find itself in a court of law and ordered to recruit the infirm, because clearly we not really mean universality of service.

And then what?


----------



## Tow Tripod (17 Jun 2011)

Taco, I share your view. 100%! You hit the nail right on the head with a 10 pound sledge hammer. Well said!


----------



## captloadie (23 Jun 2011)

So Pat Stogran would have us create a multi-tiered system that uses a subjective measuring stick to determine who is allowed to stay and who isn't? If the problem is the CF is not applying the USP equally to all, then call the offenders to task. Don't go saying let's make more exceptions because that is the current flavour of the day. 

I have all the respect in the world for those who have fought and been injured on any operation, but I also have respect for the guy who gets injured on a training exercise or at a garrison job whose career is also ended.  

My  :2c:


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Jun 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I was going to stay out of this thread, but find that I cannot.  I do not know the Mcpl in question here, unlike some posters, so I only know about his situation what I have gleaned from the press.
> 
> I would offer that each of us will eventually reach the end of our usefulness as soldiers and must inevitably leave the CF.  Some of us will become unable to soldier due to old age; some because of injury or infirmity; some because of wounds suffered in combat.  The point is: we must all leave uniform, eventually.  There is no room in a military as small as ours for those who cannot deploy and cope with the demands of combat.  We tried that for a while in the mid 1990s and it was dismal failure.  Those who were fit to deploy, deployed without respite while garrison and staff jobs were plugged with the infirm.
> 
> ...



I agree with you but VAC and the transitional system is still currently broken for injured personnel IMO. It's miles better than it was in 2005(New Vets Charter), but my advice to injured pers is to stay in as long as possible till things are properly fixed. Talk to some people who have been through the system in private. Everyone I know says it's broken, though one or two say differently publicly. Knowing that your comrades could be thrown away and not given proper support would you still want to kick them out? The government bureaucracy is not being honorable with injured vets so even though I agree with you I can't currently support your position on release until the system is fixed.


----------



## McG (23 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ... I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  ...


The ExPress test being a measure of physical fitness, I don't think it should be the yard stick to keep medically unfit personnel.  Not only can pers have medical limitations which are unrelated to anything measured by the test, but the test itself is not a direct measurement of fitness to serve - it is a statistically valid predictor of fitness to serve for a sample population that is known to be medically fit.  For personnel missing limbs, it would be neccessary to either prove the ExPress to still be a statistically relevant predictor or have the members complete the Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Jun 2011)

Considering the CMTFE is the last stage of fitness testing, and most readily resembles operational situations, I think it is fair to use it as the standard.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The ExPress test being a measure of physical fitness, I don't think it should be the yard stick to keep medically unfit personnel.  Not only can pers have medical limitations which are unrelated to anything measured by the test, but the test itself is not a direct measurement of fitness to serve - it is a statistically valid predictor of fitness to serve for a sample population that is known to be medically fit.  For personnel missing limbs, it would be neccessary to either prove the ExPress to still be a statistically relevant predictor or have the members complete the Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation.



This whole case is a "Can of Worms".  Promises were made by people of high rank, and subsequently broken.  The precedence has been set by some of our allied nations, of both retaining amputees the military and deploying them in combat roles.  There are also historical examples of this being done in WW II.   This would seem to fly in contradiction to your post on Common Military Task Fitness Evaluations, even if there is no current Canadian nexus.  There are amputees who have stayed in the Service, some for a good many years, and this is a case where a redress will probably bring light of how many and in what capacities these members have been retained. 

We are witnessing a case where many events have lead to a member having to take drastic measures.  Not only has he been wronged, or is under the impression that he has been wronged, by the CF and DND, but perhaps by other Government Departments and/or Agencies.  The method by which this has all come to light may also have been handled in a less than desired way.  We have already seen, through this means, that the initial news release has inaccuracies.

This will indeed be an interesting case to follow.  

On a side note, I do not see any challenge to the Charter by a serving member, or former member, as affecting recruiting of new members to the CF.  Universality of Service would still apply to anyone who has never served.  If they can not meet it they can not enroll.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jun 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The ExPress test being a measure of physical fitness, I don't think it should be the yard stick to keep medically unfit personnel.  Not only can pers have medical limitations which are unrelated to anything measured by the test, but the test itself is not a direct measurement of fitness to serve - it is a statistically valid predictor of fitness to serve for a sample population that is known to be medically fit.  For personnel missing limbs, it would be neccessary to either prove the ExPress to still be a statistically relevant predictor or have the members complete the Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation.




I agree. There are several impediments to "universal" service that are not physical.

I try to avoid these debates because, for the last few years of my service, I was medically restricted. I was sufficiently physically fit for _most_ (almost all?) of the activities one might have expected for an officer of my age, rank and classification - there _might_, somewhere in as parallel universe, have been a requirement for me to mount a J.K. Lawson type defence of an office building or a five star hotel, but I'm guessing that the Career Medical Review Board decided that my experience, specialized training and the nature of my (then) current assigned argued for my retention on "restricted" service - no move (although extensive travel was permitted) and no further promotion. It was, essentially, a practical/economic decision - I was, at that time, the 'right guy' for a certain job - one which was considered to be quite important; there were no properly qualified alternatives at hand; the CF had invested an awful lot of money in my education and training; and so on.

In today's environment, fewer people doing more and more than we did 25 years ago, I would hope that retaining someone like me would be very rare, indeed. My impression is that there is not a severe shortage of skilled, knowledgeable officers and warrant officers. I guess there are enough trim, fit majors to replace the small handful of overweight lieutenant colonels I see waddling around Ottawa and, equally, some fit captains to replace the tubby majors, too. 

But it's not just about physical fitness: we (Canada) need soldiers who are sufficiently "robust," as Field Marshall Wavell put it, and "able to withstand [all] the shocks of war" - physical and emotional.


Edit: typo


----------



## Wolf117 (23 Jun 2011)

http://news-public.com/index.php/world-news/canada/2930-treatment-of-canadian-veterans-the-case-of-ryan-elrick

Try this again, hits the nail on the head.  This time NOT written by David whatever his name is.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> http://news-public.com/index.php/world-news/canada/2930-treatment-of-canadian-veterans-the-case-of-ryan-elrick
> 
> Try this again, hits the nail on the head.  This time NOT written by David whatever his name is.



This article, too, has inaccuracies.  Reservists in NDHQ are not Class C, but Class B (earning 15% less than a Regular Force member), and they are there in most cases Backfilling posns of persons on Tour.  There are many Reservists working in NDHQ who have numerous Tours under their belts as well.  

As DND is looking at cutting many of the Civilian posns at NDHQ and within DND (Many of which are Reservists in their civilian jobs) the options of bringing in priority hiring of former members seems a little moot.  Replacing them with injured Service Members could be done on a small scale, but one has to remember, people in NDHQ also deploy.

What I got from this article was a "Us vs Them" feeling.  Everyone is pointing at the other guy, and not questioning why that other guy is in that posn; only why this former Cpl isn't still in his.


----------



## McG (23 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> http://news-public.com/index.php/world-news/canada/2930-treatment-of-canadian-veterans-the-case-of-ryan-elrick
> 
> Try this again, hits the nail on the head.


I don't know that I agree.  The retention of the physically unfit is a bit red herring.  

We are applying universality of service in relation to medical fitness - that is good.
We are failing to apply universality of service in relation to physical fitness - that is bad.

The fact that we are failing to apply universality of service in relation to physical fitness does not justify that we should fail to apply universality of service in relation to medical fitness.  The right answer is that we should be applying universality of service in relation to all types of fitness and not turning a blind-eye in any cases.


----------



## DirtyDog (23 Jun 2011)

"Ottawa headquarters is full of “fat plugs” who aren’t physically fit "

It's definitely not limited to NDHQ.  People are starting to get sick and tired of these fat plugs everywhere that seem to find themselves constantly on a chit for one thing or another.


----------



## brihard (23 Jun 2011)

Whoops, my apologies to the mods- it didn't even occur to me to check the author of the Citizen article. Noted for next time.


----------



## wildman0101 (23 Jun 2011)

My personal opinion.
He was injured. He overcame his obstacle's.
He was retained and served.
I understand all the aspect's of what he went
through but I wasn't an amputee. my Cat was
G303. I was recomended a remuster by the unit
Med/O and was approved. While awaiting a course 
date to my new trade,,, I got a call from my MWO
regard's a CMRB Decision. 3-B release on med 
ground's disabled yada yada. Poof  I was heading 
for civvy-land.(Iwas in Germany at the time).
I still did my job, irregardless of my Catagory.
I passed all my fitness test's as I know this gent
did even wearing prothetectic's. He was retained 
as a serving member. He had the same shock as I
did..    bye Bye your gonna be a civvy.
I personally hope he win's his court case and is rein-
stated... I was also Intelligence, and Int Op.
Anyway Rant Off.
Please all response's by PVT PM please. Thank's.
Now where did I put my Beret. Us old ironside's
don't need helmut's. Cheer's,
Scoty B


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (24 Jun 2011)

As a dumb-ass civy ,can I ask if high level command personal have to meet the UoS standard (lets say B-Gen level) or do they just have meet what is required by their expected tasks as defined by their position? Does Field-Marshal Bloggins have to be able to man a fire-trench* ?

*Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.


----------



## lethalLemon (24 Jun 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> As a dumb-*** civy ,can I ask if high level command personal have to meet the UoS standard (lets say B-Gen level) or do they just have meet what is required by their expected tasks as defined by their position? Does Field-Marshal Bloggins have to be able to man a fire-trench* ?
> 
> *Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.



It's a good thing we don't have Field Marshals anymore.


----------



## medicineman (24 Jun 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> *Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.



If they're manning the fire trench, something has gone horribly wrong and lilkely should be running very quickly in the opposite direction.

MM


----------



## McG (24 Jun 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> As a dumb-ass civy ,can I ask if high level command personal have to meet the UoS standard (lets say B-Gen level) or do they just have meet what is required by their expected tasks as defined by their position? Does Field-Marshal Bloggins have to be able to man a fire-trench* ?
> 
> *Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.


Universality of service applies to everyone in the Regular Force and Primary Reserve.
There are also occupational medical standards which are equal or more stringent than universality of service.  If a member meets universality of service but does not meet the minimum medical requirements for occupation, that individual will be offered an occupation transfer within the service.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Jun 2011)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/in-defence-of-soldiers-124532974.html


Re: the editorial Military forgets flexibility (June 22). As your chief of the defence staff, I am personally responsible for the sons and daughters of Canada serving in the Canadian Forces and I am fully committed to treating wounded-in-action personnel with respect, fairness and compassion.
"Universality of Service" is an important principle that means all Forces members are sailors, soldiers and airmen and women first and must be capable of performing any duty that may be assigned to them. This allows Canada to maintain the combat-capable force it requires for our security. The Universality of Service principle is reflected in the National Defence Act and explicitly incorporated into the Canadian Human Rights Act.
We will ensure our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much receive the very best medical treatment and support possible. *Furthermore, I have directed that no service person who has been wounded in Afghanistan be released, unless they have personally initiated the release process themselves.* I can also assure you the Canadian Forces provide all wounded-in-action personnel the necessary time and support needed to recover from their wounds. We will also assist them in seeking additional opportunities to transition with confidence to the next phase of their lives.

Gen. Walt Natynczyk
Canadian Forces

_© 2011 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved. _


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jun 2011)

This from a letter to the editor appearing in the online edition of the _Winnipeg Free Press_, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._ - highlights mine:


> Re: the editorial Military forgets flexibility (June 22). As your chief of the defence staff, I am personally responsible for the sons and daughters of Canada serving in the Canadian Forces and I am fully committed to treating wounded-in-action personnel with respect, fairness and compassion.
> 
> "Universality of Service" is an important principle that means all Forces members are sailors, soldiers and airmen and women first and must be capable of performing any duty that may be assigned to them. This allows Canada to maintain the combat-capable force it requires for our security. The Universality of Service principle is reflected in the National Defence Act and explicitly incorporated into the Canadian Human Rights Act.
> 
> ...


----------



## wildman0101 (26 Jun 2011)

Thank-you Walt,,
I'm going to hold you to that promise.
Bold and Swift Brother.
Sincerely your's,
Cpl Brandt R.L.S. (8-CH/RCD)


----------



## lethalLemon (26 Jun 2011)

Wow, absolutely incredible!


----------



## Haggis (26 Jun 2011)

I'm not sure that he can legally do this, although I certainly hope that he can!

Does that include offering reinstatements for those who have already been compulsorily released for breaching the Universality of Service requirement and who want to come back?


----------



## krustyrl (26 Jun 2011)

Haggis, that's a million dollar question.  I wondered that also.!


----------



## simysmom99 (27 Jun 2011)

On a very practical note, Elrick is one above and one below the knee amputee.  I can't image using a C-Leg (that is digital and costs tens of thousands of dollars) in the sand.  Not only would the sand jam it up, you have to recharge it every night.  The difference in mobility on whether or not you have a knee is very wide.  Mcpl Mitic has 2 knees and mechanical legs, very different from having only one knee, or no knees at all.  
Elrick served his country and we are proud of that service.  I can't help but wonder if it's time to explore new possibilities.  All the best to him and his family, no matter the outcome.


----------



## dave.jones3 (27 Jun 2011)

Seems like, as mentioned earlier, it will be an interesting and drawn out case. I will be interested to see the final verdict, and the reasons for the ruling.

I think that it is important, perhaps now more than ever, that the CF adapt to a new generation of veterans. Young men and women who paid a heavy price in service of their country. If these heroes still endeavor to serve, and have the means to be of service in some capacity, why do anything to prevent them? A desk job as an intelligence officer hardly warrants the same level of physical capability as someone in a more physical role. While I understand the current concepts of universality, I am questioning the validity of some of its applications.

Granted, this can be a slippery slope. Recently, I read about a US Ranger who re-qualified after losing a leg 10 inches below the knee, and was back on tour. Somewhat off topic, but inspirational.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jun 2011)

dave.jones3 said:
			
		

> A desk job as an intelligence officer hardly warrants the same level of physical capability as someone in a more physical role.



A desk is not the only place an intelligence officer can find him/herself employed. The same can be said for most trades. So when all the "desk" Int officer  (or whatever trade) jobs are filled with injured personel, where do you put the deployable ones when they need a break ? Do you just tell them "suck it and go on tour #6" ? Tell them to get out ?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2011)

I've taken Int Os out on tour in Panjwayi district.  It can be far from a desk job.


----------



## Wookilar (27 Jun 2011)

My admin brain tells me that there are a number of ways that a pers could intiate the release process themselves.

Not that I am paranoid or anything  ^-^ (wellll, maybe a little, but I'm working on it) but just having a medical exam, because you want to get fixed as much as possible, can start the ball rolling.

Wook


----------



## Spooks (27 Jun 2011)

This is a tricky topic for me as I have recently been there. Being injured in Jan 06, I was 'taking too long' to recover. They gave me the ultimatum of 'get better or it's time to think of getting out'. This prompted me to ramp up my occupational therapy process and essentially get better faster b/c I did not want to be released due to breaching UoS.

I will note here that I was aiming to get back to the Infantry, back to my home, and not OT. However, IntOp was my first choice as a backup plan due to already receiving my TIOC-L (CbtInt) course post-injury. I believe being an 'injured vet' is an optimal choice to go Int due to you already having an appreciation of 'how it is outside the wire' and the small nice-ities that are good-to-know when you are making a briefing.

I believe that as an IntX (IntOp or IntO), as my personal opinion, your duties are intellectually based verse physically based. I see no problems to letting him stay just as I had no problems thinking -I- should stay, but UoS is the way it is. Until it is changed, members of the CF can gripe about it all we want but we ultimately have to fall in line.  :-\


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jun 2011)

Spooks said:
			
		

> I believe being an 'injured vet' is an optimal choice to go Int due to you already having an appreciation of 'how it is outside the wire'


[tangent]
Being "outside the wire" only lets you know how it is "outside the wire" in your tiny, myopic part of the battlespace.  As int ops, I want them to be able to speak in broader terms, though I will agree that they need some sort of "feel" how things are "out there", but that applies only to the area of operations in question.  (EG: If you have "outside the wire" experience in Shah-Wali Kot, but I want info on Maiwand, well, your "OTW" Experience isn't relevant)

[/tangent]


----------



## Spooks (27 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> Being "outside the wire" only lets you know how it is "outside the wire" in your tiny, myopic part of the battlespace.  As int ops, I want them to be able to speak in broader terms, though I will agree that they need some sort of "feel" how things are "out there", but that applies only to the area of operations in question.  (EG: If you have "outside the wire" experience in Shah-Wali Kot, but I want info on Maiwand, well, your "OTW" Experience isn't relevant)
> 
> [/tangent]



[tangental rebuttle]
I do not imply that being outside the wire in SWK or any district gives you an edge in that regard. I mean that being outside the wire allows you to appreciate things like choke points due to contour changes and....ugh, n/m. Lost my train of thought.
Essentially, your know how things work in practice versus all theory.
[/tangental rebuttle]


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jun 2011)

Spooks said:
			
		

> your duties are intellectually based verse physically based.



This is only true to a small extent. Even as an Int Op, your duties include personal and collective defence, assisting with casualty evacuation, etc..... Your duties include being able to deployed outside of an office, working at a desk.


----------



## Spooks (27 Jun 2011)

...

My apologies to all

I shall think a little more about what I am posting before I post it.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (27 Jun 2011)

Why are you guys arguing this anyways if the CDS reversed the UoS on Afghan Vets?


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jun 2011)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> the CDS reversed the UoS on Afghan Vets?



You have never talked about a decision from higher that you did not agree with ?
 :


----------



## SevenSixTwo (27 Jun 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You have never talked about a decision from higher that you did not agree with ?
> :



Not that it's a soldiers given right to complain about decisions etc but to me arguing decisions of higher ups is like arguing we need to get rid of the Leopard 2's for the Mobile Gun System.

Waste of time since the decision has already been made. Rather we should be focusing on ways to reintegrate our wounded better like the U.S. within the military.



As for Int Ops my only comment is that you don't just fly a desk as a Int Op you do much much more than that.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jun 2011)

Spooks said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> My apologies to all
> 
> I shall think a little more about what I am posting before I post it.



Hey, no problems here. I don't think you need to apologize. We've all done this sort of thing ourselves. Besides, your hat badge is cool. PPCLI hat badge I mean.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jun 2011)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> ......but to me arguing decisions of higher ups is like arguing we need to get rid of the Leopard 2's for the Mobile Gun System.


Fortunately, the Site owner has provided an option for those not wishing to enter into such discussions -- it's called "taking your finger off of the <post> key."


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2011)

I was interested in reading more about this and found another 7 pages dating back to 2007-2008, if interested.
Topic: "Wounded CF troops get opportunity to stay in uniform":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66949.0.html


----------



## jasonf6 (5 Oct 2011)

> Furthermore, I have directed that no service person who has been wounded in Afghanistan be released, unless they have personally initiated the release process themselves.



My question regarding this would be what about those injured training FOR Afghanistan?  I was injured back in 2002 and by 2005 was released 3B.  I feel my back/knee have improved and remained stable enough for me to try to get back in.  It would be nice not to have to jump through hoops and see numerous specialists just to prove that I am able to meet the UofS.

Oh, also I'm a long-time reader, first-timer poster.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Oct 2011)

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> My question regarding this would be what about those injured training FOR Afghanistan?  I was injured back in 2002 and by 2005 was released 3B.  I feel my back/knee have improved and remained stable enough for me to try to get back in.  It would be nice not to have to jump through hoops and see numerous specialists just to prove that I am able to meet the UofS.
> 
> Oh, also I'm a long-time reader, first-timer poster.



Only the CFRC would be able to tell you for sure, but you'll definitely have to have the proof that you're good to go completely again.


----------



## dogger1936 (25 Dec 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/in-defence-of-soldiers-124532974.html
> 
> 
> Re: the editorial Military forgets flexibility (June 22). As your chief of the defence staff, I am personally responsible for the sons and daughters of Canada serving in the Canadian Forces and I am fully committed to treating wounded-in-action personnel with respect, fairness and compassion.
> ...



Funny thing is this direction is not being followed....at all. People who wish to remain in uniform are still being released. One member I know of had the bomb dropped on him/her right before Christmas leave...after just completing ILQ. I have this one printed off and kept for future reference.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2014)

Bumped w/the latest (from 2 weeks ago, which I somehow missed):


> Almost a year after facing a barrage of bad publicity, National Defence is having another look at a policy that ended the careers of gravely injured soldiers who wanted to remain in uniform.
> 
> Defence Minister Rob Nicholson has told a House of Commons committee that a working group was set up last summer to study the military’s universality of service rule, which has been used as a pretext to release wounded combat veterans, many of them with post-traumatic stress.
> 
> ...


DefMin's letter in response to committee recommendations here


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2014)

Make better use of the Reserves/Militia.

Keep the skills in the army.  Keep the soldiers in the army.


----------



## TCBF (14 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Make better use of the Reserves/Militia.
> 
> Keep the skills in the army.  Keep the soldiers in the army.



- Put the injured officers and NCMs in the Recruiting Centres. Take all of the current recruiting staff and post them all to combat arms units for three years.


----------



## quadrapiper (14 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Make better use of the Reserves/Militia.
> 
> Keep the skills in the army.  Keep the soldiers in the army.


Perhaps also look at the shops, FMF, R&D outfits, schools, and so on - while those posts might be suitable only for a certain percentage of wounded personnel, I assume that anything helps.

Might keep the number of contractors down, too.


----------



## brihard (15 Apr 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Put the injured officers and NCMs in the Recruiting Centres. Take all of the current recruiting staff and post them all to combat arms units for three years.



Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today.


----------



## DTC-62 (2 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Make better use of the Reserves/Militia.
> 
> Keep the skills in the army.  Keep the soldiers in the army.



You can take the soldier out of the army, but you can NEVER take the army out of the soldier!! I've been out for more than two decades, and I still can't get this shit out of me !! 

....still a soldier


----------



## McG (3 Nov 2015)

I have much sympathy for personnel forced out of the military for medical reasons, but keeping more non-deployable personnel within the same manning limits is not an option.  Such a move would only serve to increase the temp of a diminishing number of healthy personnel and, as a result, increase burn-out.

The solution must be better supported transition.  If we (the nation) want guaranteed employment, then there must be guaranteed transfer to the Public Service where deployability is not a necessity.



> *Expulsions pose risk to wounded veterans
> Universality-of-service rule led to more than 1,900 dismissals from Canadian military in 2014 despite mental-health concerns*
> By RENATA D’ALIESIO
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2016)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/disabled-soldier-sues-over-dismissal-280490332.html

Yeah. Good luck.


----------



## Teager (1 Mar 2016)

> Shefman said the universality rule has been challenged in court before, but no case ever progressed to the stage where a judge ruled on the policy's constitutionality.



So the last part of the article sums it up.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Mar 2016)

Are you suggesting that it will be challenged constitutionally this go around?  Or that precedence has been set?


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Mar 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that it will be challenged constitutionally this go around?  Or that precedence has been set?


This, as of November of last year, from her lawyer ...


> “She has made it clear to me if push comes to shove, she’s taking this all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.”


So, maybe not _this_ go-round, but the intent was there as of the fall.


----------



## McG (1 Mar 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that it will be challenged constitutionally this go around?  Or that precedence has been set?


There seem to be a lot of cases that challenge the constitutionality of something, but the judge renders a decision based upon some law or regulation lower than the constitution.  There was an example of this posted on the site not too long ago, but I forget what the case was.


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Mar 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/disabled-soldier-sues-over-dismissal-280490332.html
> 
> Yeah. Good luck.



Pretty much. Everything I've been able to find has upheld universality of service as a bona fide occupational requirement;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/section-15.html



> Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6)
> 15 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if
> 
> (a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;



http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/1994/1994fca0286.html



> [sv 1,188] [sv 75,3] [sv 19,1994]
> canada (h.r.c.) v. canada (armed forces)
> A-799-91
> Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant)
> ...


----------



## Teager (1 Mar 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that it will be challenged constitutionally this go around?  Or that precedence has been set?



Going with precedence. I don't see UofS changing and it shouldn't. I do believe that Veterans should get a quality career with the right tools and assistance to achieve that or proper compensation if unable to work once released.


----------



## DAA (1 Mar 2016)

UoS is just that!  Being able to drop your "normal" qualified occupation and becoming a pure and simple down to earth solider, sailor or airman, nothing more.  It's a rats *** when you find yourself in the position of being able to do the "daily" duties associated with your occupation but not being able to meet UoS.

The person in the news article, probably was one of the "lucky" few who were offered a "period of retention", so the writing was on
 the wall and they had plenty of time for transition.  If their CoC led them down another path, then that's another issue.


----------



## Pusser (1 Mar 2016)

I fully support the Universality of Service principle, although I'm not entirely convinced that as an institution we have fully defined or even understand what that should mean.  Let's not forget that one of the greatest naval heroes of history was missing an arm and an eye at the pinnacle of this career.  One of our own former governors general (Vanier) lost a leg in WWI, but continued to serve and was a general in WWII.

One area where I think we fail tremendously is in tapping the minds of those that are injured or even just retired.  Just because an individual is no longer able to serve in a military capacity, does not mean he couldn't serve as an instructor in a civilian capacity.  British Army schools are filled with retired WOs who are now instructing.  We could do the same (if the unions would let us or the government were willing to ignore them).


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I fully support the Universality of Service principle, although I'm not entirely convinced that as an institution we have fully defined or even understand what that should mean.  Let's not forget that one of the greatest naval heroes of history was missing an arm and an eye at the pinnacle of this career.  One of our own former governors general (Vanier) lost a leg in WWI, but continued to serve and was a general in WWII.
> 
> One area where I think we fail tremendously is in tapping the minds of those that are injured or even just retired.  Just because an individual is no longer able to serve in a military capacity, does not mean he couldn't serve as an instructor in a civilian capacity.  British Army schools are filled with retired WOs who are now instructing.  We could do the same (if the unions would let us or the government were willing to ignore them).



I completely agree those members contain a wealth of knowledge that could be used to provide valuable training. I'd support keeping them in the CF in a training cell within units, or if you must have them take off the uniform, give them a contract as a civilian instructor.


----------



## DAA (1 Mar 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I completely agree those members contain a wealth of knowledge that could be used to provide valuable training. I'd support keeping them in the CF in a training cell within units, or if you must have them take off the uniform, give them a contract as a civilian instructor.



Let me try and change your mind and way of thinking, if I can and the way it was put to me.

If we, as an institution, retain all of those who don't meet UoS and place them into "static" (ie; HQ, Trg and Desk Jobs) employment opportunities, then all that we achieve, is to put those who are fully fit, into purely operational postings.  The result, you now have an entirely different group of people (ie; the full fit), within your employ, who will never have the opportunity to learn these Command/Staff types of jobs.

I totally hear what you and everyone else is saying, so don't get me wrong on this comment.

There definitely is a time and a place for those who have been offered a period of retention to contribute and pass along their wealth of knowledge/experience, but it's up to them and their CoC to recognize this and prepare appropriately.

PS - and the above, comes from someone who was and accepted a period of retention and who was subsequently kicked to the curb with a 3.b.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2016)

I was going to say the same thing as DAA.

To add on to that how do we judge who has vital information to pass on to a younger generation? What about a cpl or LT who has 3 years in, signs their 20 or 25 year contract then gets injured?

Or a soldier who has 4 appointments a week that they need a driver to take them to for the next 15 years?


----------



## Pusser (2 Mar 2016)

Please let me clarify what I'm saying.  I am NOT advocating the retention of unfit personnel as instructors.  If their long-term prognosis is that they will never again be able to erform their full duties as a member of the CAF (including UofS), then they need to be released and we need to prepare them for that release.

What I am saying is that we should also not be allowing their experience and knowledge to walk out the door, IF they still have something to contribute.  This can be done by hiring SOME of them as instructors in our schools (not every veteran would make a suitable instructor).  However, they should not be replacing ALL of our instructors.  There is still a need for instructors who are serving military personnel, if only for currency.  Not every released member of the CAF could be accommodated in this manner, but we should be able to find a healthy balance.  The British Army seems to manage this quite well with a mix of both military and civilian instructional staff in their schools.

One of the reasons the last government failed at increasing the size of the CAF (which they promised to do) was that we had no means to train them, largely due to a lack of instructors.  Technical training was especially difficult and we actually had to introduce special release procedures to allow people who had become disillusioned by waiting too long (in some cases years) in PAT platoons.  The current government has also promised to increase the size of the CAF, but will have the same problem if not addressed.  We need to let go of the idea that instructors need to be currently serving personnel and tap into an hereforeto untapped resource.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2016)

You can't have people who spend 15 years as an instructor. They'd be really good at teaching, but lose the ground truth from doing their jobs on a daily basis. Max 5 years as a transition period IMHO, of you're going to do that.


----------



## Pusser (2 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't have people who spend 15 years as an instructor. They'd be really good at teaching, but lose the ground truth from doing their jobs on a daily basis. Max 5 years as a transition period IMHO, of you're going to do that.



Sure you can.  That's why you need a mix of both currently serving military instructors and former soldiers/sailors.  The current guys teach the current stuff (current tools, procedures, etc).  The older guys teach the stuff that doesn't change (initial principles, background concepts, etc).


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Mar 2016)

As hard a pill as it is for me to swallow, I honestly see both sides. As one who is being affected by this right now I can tell you - it sucks. It's almost like you're underwater and running out of breath and in the struggle to get breath you will just about break anyone's neck to get there.

I so want to serve. I have done so for almost 27 years. I am doing a VRPSM (Voc Rehab) on base in my trade as a civilian until my pending release. I absolute LOVE it. I have so much knowledge I can pass on to younger techs, I know my job cold. What I don't have to do is go back out on the range at my age and have another heart attack. I have so much "corporate" knowledge as well as the military bearing that will NEVER leave me....

But alas, I know what DAA is saying. Where the opportunity exists in the civilian world it works fine. But to "create" positions for people like me? You would have a new generation of tired, over worked, bitter soldier because they are stuck doing the "hard" work. I get that. No one wants to be the only healthy person on the floor because they are going to be tasked up the hoo haa.

But we wounded, tired and broken are still worth it. We carry the traditions that need to be passed on. Respect to all of you in that boat - mad respect!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Mar 2016)

You could do it, but it would have to a limited number of slots per unit. One option is to have a extra slot attached to Reserve units to assist the reg force staff. It would be nice to have a portion of the funding coming from outside of DND to reflect the fact that we are saving money by keeping people useful.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sure you can.  That's why you need a mix of both currently serving military instructors and former soldiers/sailors.  The current guys teach the current stuff (current tools, procedures, etc).  The older guys teach the stuff that doesn't change (initial principles, background concepts, etc).



So we double the course staff, or employ people who are only capable of instructing half the material? CFSCE tried civilian instructors who only did theory portions, they're gone now.


----------



## Teager (2 Mar 2016)

It should be noted that not every injured/ill person would want to stick around.


----------



## Pusser (3 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So we double the course staff, or employ people who are only capable of instructing half the material? CFSCE tried civilian instructors who only did theory portions, they're gone now.



We would only double the staff if we planned to double the output of the school.  As for only teaching half of the material, in what school does one instructor teach absolutely everything on a course?  There are possibilities here that really do exist.  We just need to open our institutional eyes to see them.  I've seen it work first hand and it really does work.  Can every single medically released member be employed this way?  Of course not, but to dismiss it out of hand is to miss an opportunity.  Keep in mind also that we habitually have problems finding instructors in some schools because the job is sometimes seen as a career-killer.

I sometimes think that some people are just looking to find problems, yet ignore the possibilities.


----------



## Brasidas (3 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> We would only double the staff if we planned to double the output of the school.  As for only teaching half of the material, in what school does one instructor teach absolutely everything on a course?  There are possibilities here that really do exist.  We just need to open our institutional eyes to see them.  I've seen it work first hand and it really does work.



I've seen it not work particularly well at CFSCE, and I'm not sorry to hear if its gone.

Some of it was the poor design of course material, but the sheer disconnect between the regular instructors (and students) and the civilian instructors (who were former regforce but had nothing to do with the rest of the course material) was such that I found them ineffective. They might know what's required of a QL3 Sig Op, but the image of one of them holding up a 3.5" floppy and describing the function of a mouse to self-selected army geeks was an apt metaphor for their role there.

Is there a role for pers who don't fit UofS? Maybe. But I've seen one version of this movie, and it wasn't good.

If you can get pers who are excellent instructors who can effectively relate currently needed material to the target audience without otherwise compromising the organization (eg CFSCE?), then great.


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2016)

We replaced military flying instructors on the Primary Flying Course in Portage with civilians just under twenty-five years ago, and all of the maintainers there as well. The pass rate improved dramatically and immediately and the cost dropped. Several CF aircraft fleets are maintained by civilians.

Yes, this reduces the "rest" postings for people who may otherwise be stuck for longer in high-tempo grinds, but there is ample precedent.

The US Army employs retired Aviators and ATC guys as sim instructors, and also in base ops.

I will be doing my current job for a few more months as a Public Servant for just slightly more than half of the pay rate (but with a decent pension as well, of course), so there would be a cost reduction at a time when we are short of experienced Pilots in cockpits were this position to be converted to a PS one permanently.

Plenty of benefit all around.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I sometimes think that some people are just looking to find problems, yet ignore the possibilities.



I said there was a possibility, but there's a time limit on that possibility. There's only so many ways to fly an aircraft, and those civilian instructors are likely not teaching military maneuvers like ground attack or dogfighting.

To continue my Sigs example, we run a course staff of 3 or 4 instructors (all military). For a few years, there is likely a very good opportunity for that member to work as instructional staff and stay in uniform (gee, sounds like the accomodation system we already have). After that, those members are stuck in an "instituational" mode, and are only able to teach theory. Those 3-4 instructors need to be able to go to the field, and mentor young Signallers as they do det setups, and general field craft. They also can't mentor those students if they've been stuck in CFSCE for 10 years, and only know "the CFSCE way". They've lost operational touch, and produce a substandard signaller to the Bdes. We also only cover 1 or 2 weeks on a 3 month course of "theory". You suggest we keep people well past their "best before date" to teach 1-2 weeks every 3 months or so?

There is opportunity for some members, in some trades, to be retained as instructional staff for a limited time. That time would depend on that trade, and how fast TTPs/equipment changes. This isn't ignoring the possibilities, its the reality of the world we live in.


----------



## McG (11 May 2016)

I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.



> Discharge rule for disabled soldiers must stay in place, general says
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> The Globe and Mail
> 10 May 2016
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/


----------



## CountDC (11 May 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/



I think that is something nobody wants to do - guarantee transfers.  Once you do that people would expect a job regardless of their quals (or lack of) and expect to be hired even if someone much better suited and qualified applied.    Put all the clauses you want in there it won't matter as some will lock on to the guarantee transfer part and scream bloody murder when they don't get the job.  Stick with a Priority Hire if everything else is equal..... oops that actually opens another kettle of worms as we already have priority hire all over the place.  Everything else equal does the female card take priority or does the vet card?  Does it become who has the most pri-hire cards?   

Ok - lets do the guarantee transfer and provide the training.  Seems to be easier after all.


----------



## Nudibranch (17 May 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.



I agree that the CDS says all the right things - dropping Universality of Service would result, over time (given the size of our military, not too long a time) of creating a pyramid structure with an undeployable shadow-VAC population on the bottom, and a deployable pointy end that would end up breaking down quicker...and move down to join the undeployable base.

As for the public perception, there really does need to be some public education wrt "CAF disabled" (ie, breaching UoS) and what the civ world thinks of as "disabled". Of course some of our 3B released mbrs fit into both definitions - but many, many 3B released mbrs happen to merely breach UoS. They are not what Joe Public would recognize as disabled, they are in many cases not even really ill. They may have medical conditions that cause them to be undeployable, because they need to see a specialist every couple of months for routine follow-ups, or they might not be able to stand the FORCE test; but lots and lost of civies working full time have those issues.

Should a 20 year old who twisted their ankle on a run in Basic be guaranteed lifetime PS employment because it didn't recover to 100% and the doc says they shouldn't be marching with a ruck over uneven ground? Breaches UoS, yeah - but that is not what the public perceives as a "disabled veteran".


----------



## stellarpanther (26 Feb 2017)

I think they need to take another look at UofS.  Take for example someone who has developed Osteoarthritis and has a hard time doing parades but can do his/her job with no problems and even do the Force test, I don't think someone in that situation should be released.  Basically it should come down to whether or not the person can do their job.  I know several people who have been in for 20+ years and haven't been based on the units they were in.  Don't release someone just because of what MIGHT happen.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Feb 2017)

And, in fact, career reviews do take such things into consideration.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Feb 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think the CDS says all the right things here, but I wonder what the public perception will be.  I think it is also unfortunate that there was no answer on the question of guaranteed transfers into the Public Service for medically released service personnel, but I suppose that statement would have to come from a minister not engaged in these interviews - neither DND nor VA own the PS.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/discharge-rule-for-disabled-soldiers-must-stay-in-place-general-says/article29970146/



Agreed the CDS shows real leadership on this issue.  Its not easy to say but it is 100% needed. 

We mush be able to kick people out the door on deployments and tasking's.  While short term issues can be accommodated, long or permanent must be looked at.  We cannot continue to rely on our dwindling numbers of fit and deployable people with out having the redundancy to back them up when they need to breather or start to break down themselves.


----------



## TCM621 (28 Feb 2017)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I think they need to take another look at UofS.  Take for example someone who has developed Osteoarthritis and has a hard time doing parades but can do his/her job with no problems and even do the Force test, I don't think someone in that situation should be released.  Basically it should come down to whether or not the person can do their job.  I know several people who have been in for 20+ years and haven't been based on the units they were in.  Don't release someone just because of what MIGHT happen.


 MELs can be wide ranging and not breach UofS. Can't run every day? You can still be employed. Can't run at all? Probably not. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Oct 2017)

Medically unfit for deployment? We'll try to employ you elsewhere, says Canada's top general

After public and political criticism, Vance signals a cultural sea change for the military

The Canadian military is redesigning itself to make room for troops who may not be "deployable," but are still "employable," the country's top general said. 

The remarks by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, represent a social and cultural sea change for an institution that has been accused of discarding injured members who, in some cases, have begged to continue serving.

Since the release of the Liberal government's new defence policy last spring, Vance has telegraphed that he wants to improve the career prospects of the wounded and that he was open to being more flexible.

More on link

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medically-unfit-soldiers-employed-elsewhere-1.4344464


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Oct 2017)

I'm on the fence with this whole issue;  I know there are some folks who can still serve, but I don't think the deployable fit folks should have to be the ones doing the heavy lifting while others stay home, enjoy every holiday weekend and work Mon-Fri, 8 to 4.

In a force as small as we are, I don't think we can afford to have any less people able to do the real business when push comes to shove.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2017)

I too am on the fence to some degree as well.  I know there are folks who can still contribute in a meaningful way to the machine, but if those who can deploy get left holding the bag and burned out with no escape from the treadmill, they'll vote with their feet.  That, is unsustainable in a small military like ours.  It is because of this type of situation in the navy that we're in deep trouble with keeping ships at sea that we are today and it's only going to get worse in the marine engineering world.  All this trade amalgamation has done is added fuel to the fires of discontent that was already there with pier head jumping amongst the Stokers and has now spread to the ET and HT.


----------



## Gunner98 (9 Oct 2017)

IMHO the CDS is now in legacy mode and he will never have to reap the seeds he is sowing in his final year in the job.  Remember that Gen Hillier left us with the .com HQs.  If you can be retained with injuries does that mean all of those who were medically released can now apply to re-enroll?  Are we going to establish a new set of "slightly less than" universality of service standards.  If it is done on a case by case basis as the CDS has long insisted who is doing the delineation between released, retained and meeting U of S?


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Oct 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm on the fence with this whole issue;  I know there are some folks who can still serve, but I don't think the deployable fit folks should have to be the ones doing the heavy lifting while others stay home, enjoy every holiday weekend and work Mon-Fri, 8 to 4.
> 
> In a force as small as we are, I don't think we can afford to have any less people able to do the real business when push comes to shove.



I think what we need to do is gather the data on how many personal as a percentage of the CAF this affects. Let's say the number is about 5% or less, I'd be okay with that amount being left alone to be a training cadre to impart their knowledge and skills to the next generation of troops. If it was say like 17% of the CAF then I'd say sorry some of you have to go, I think there is an acceptable number we can keep but as stated we are a small force, if too many personal cannot be deployed the problems will snow ball on us.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2017)

This is a massive slippery slope. Are you going to stick a Cpl from 3RCR in Range Control for 15 years? Are these folks going to get posted? If you post them to the schools, how long are they going to be retained until their operational experience (leaning more towards Sigs as a rapidly changing field) is no longer valid and the quality of instruction goes down?

We already have folks who are on TCAT/PCAT get promoted (only if they have a valid PT test for some reason) and folks who are not medically able to complete their career courses retain their rank (no issue here IMO). Even a 5% reduction in our deployable force is going to put more of the burden on those who can deploy, increasing the risk of OSI, which increases more folks who cannot deploy. Its a vicious circle.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2017)

Possibly there will be a requirement for a positive prognosis within a certain period of time so that member will be deplorable in x years. After that period a limit of one extension of x years. 

Pure speculation on my part.

Or, linking back to another thread, posting to Ottawa for ceremonial duties. ;D


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (9 Oct 2017)

We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.



Are those "without restrictions" pers going to be the ones posting around every 3 years? I can see this going horribly wrong, quickly, if not implemented in a way that has a lot of incentives to stay "without restrictions".


----------



## RocketRichard (9 Oct 2017)

Interesting post, thank you.  Ex reg force guy and ex base brat here, my family lived on 5 bases in 6 years.  When I was in the reg force postings were 3-4 years long.  How long are postings normally now?  Thanks for the response.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Oct 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.



That is going to need to be a serious non taxed financial bonus to keep people from being in the "with restrictions" category.


----------



## Gunner98 (9 Oct 2017)

The reality is that the Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Humans Rights Tribunals are going to squash this based on the National Defence Act, since bona fide operational requirement = universality of service = Soldier First.  Without it being universal then you can't prevent the enrolment standards from allowing "with restriction" recruits.

Reference: https://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/hr_topics/occupational-health-and-safety/soldier-first-policy-armed-forces-upheld-federal-court-appe

"On the question of the "soldier first" policy, there is a split in the Court's decision. The Canadian Armed Forces argues in this case (and in others) that blanket rules requiring that members be free of specified disabilities are bona fide occupational requirements because any member of the Armed Forces, no matter what his or her trade or position, is a "soldier first" and can be required to engage in combat.

The Tribunal declined to apply the "soldier first" policy because it found that in a number of ways the Canadian Armed Forces contradicted this policy in its practice; by failing to demonstrate that persons in non-combat positions could be called on in a time of combat; and by granting medical waivers to members who would be in combat positions in time of war.

However, the majority of the Court finds that the obligation on members to engage in combat if required is imposed by the National Defence Act. The statute is binding and administrative practice cannot work a modification. Consequently, the majority upholds the right of the Canadian Armed Forces to base its policies regarding disability on a "soldier first" policy."

Reference: https://www.cfmws.com/en/AboutUs/PSP/DFIT/Fitness/Pages/Bona-Fide-Occupational-Requirement.aspx

What is it?
A BFOR is defined by the Government of Canada as:
“A condition of employment that is imposed in the belief that it is necessary for the safe, efficient, and reliable performance of the job and which is objectively, reasonably necessary for such performance”
  
Why?
Fitness screening is necessary for a CF member because of the physically demanding occupation.  Ineffective job performance can result in loss of life or damage to property.  Because the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits any discriminatory practices, a CF member could say that a fitness screening is discriminatory.

Nevertheless, paragraph 15(1a)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, states that:

 “It is not a discriminatory practice if any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to employment is established by an employer based on a BFOR” (Government of Canada, 1985a).

Therefore, when establishing a occupational/fitness standard, the employer most comply with bona fide occupational requirements and must be related to the essential components of the job.  Also, the employer must be ready to defend it as a BFOR.


----------



## Stoker (9 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I too am on the fence to some degree as well.  I know there are folks who can still contribute in a meaningful way to the machine, but if those who can deploy get left holding the bag and burned out with no escape from the treadmill, they'll vote with their feet.  That, is unsustainable in a small military like ours.  It is because of this type of situation in the navy that we're in deep trouble with keeping ships at sea that we are today and it's only going to get worse in the marine engineering world.  All this trade amalgamation has done is added fuel to the fires of discontent that was already there with pier head jumping amongst the Stokers and has now spread to the ET and HT.



I think that's an accurate assessment, the fires are burning.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Oct 2017)

I can't say I'm thrilled by this idea. While I accept that there is a need to accommodate those pers who for whatever reason are not deployable, there is a certain threshold where it starts to impact overall operational capability. What happens when a small occupation crosses that threshold, or a unit is carrying too many people with restrictions? I foresee greater instances of burnout as the same folks get deployed even more often than they do now.

I'm also not convinced that a salary bump is going to have the desired effect. You can't cure a person with dollars. Injuries and illnesses take time, and some people never return to operation status. We (and they) should accept that this is a reality and we should invest in a robust transition programme that is more than mere words about priority hiring and so forth.

We should make much better use of things like SCAN, by turning it way from its current medical release focus, and redirect the energies to transition planning starting during recruit training. There should be a review at least at the end of each period of engagement. It's past too late to plan your civilian life when you have your release message in your hands. I recognize that it is not the job of the CF to prepare you for your second career, but I think there is a moral obligation to not release folks who are subsequently unemployable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Oct 2017)

As it stands now, some folks might be retained on accommodation for up to 3 years.  That gives the CF time to recruit, train, get to OFP and beyond perhaps, the "next person" who will replace them.

What if a mbr is injured (PCAT type injury) 2 months after signing their IE25.  Then what?  We have a mbr who cannot deploy for XX years, who takes the non-deploy billets in their trade?  This will have a cumulative effect.

Bonus for staying deployable?  What happens when a small trade like mine already is maxed out and a few more people go onto the "Cl B type TOS" list.


----------



## armyvern (9 Oct 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> We were briefed on ILP about this. My understanding is there will be major culture change that will need to happen. In a nutshell, they are looking at revamping the system to have a Reg Force without restrictions, Reg Force with restrictions, Res Force without restrictions and Res Force with restrictions. The main difference between with or without restrictions would be deployability and postings. Also, a financial bonus on the salary would be provided to encourage members to be in the "without restrictions" category.



Full Time Unrestricted;
Part Time Unrestricted;
Full Time Restricted;
Part Time Restricted.

Of course the greatest financial incentives will go to the unrestricted group.

Did they also brief the "CFB Canada" concept?  Federal Health Cards for all family members that will be utilized nation-wide vice having to switch up with every province (apparently having issues getting la belle province on-board with this) amongst the other items?

Indeed, _the times they are a changing ..._and it's looking for the better in my opinion.


----------



## armyvern (9 Oct 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ...I'm also not convinced that a salary bump is going to have the desired effect. You can't cure a person with dollars. Injuries and illnesses take time, and some people never return to operation status. We (and they) should accept that this is a reality and we should invest in a robust transition programme that is more than mere words about priority hiring and so forth.
> ...



They aren't ignoring "transition" while they deal with the other items.  Huge change is also coming in that area.

Register here:

https://www.metforce.ca/met/en/


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2017)

There is significant risk in over-promising in many areas.  When you have a potential need for legislative change, regulatory change, and policy & process changes, those take significant time to achieve; right now, there's a conceptual framework that briefs well on PowerPoint, and is about that deep.

So don't count on any of these conceptual ideas for your next few postings.


----------



## armyvern (9 Oct 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ....
> ...
> So don't count on any of these conceptual ideas for your next few postings.



Molasses indeed.  I'll be out before most come to fruition.  Slow and cold.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They aren't ignoring "transition" while they deal with the other items.  Huge change is also coming in that area.
> 
> Register here:
> 
> https://www.metforce.ca/met/en/


I attended their career fair last month.  It was very slick, promised the sun and the moon too.  So far, l have been underwhelmed with the website.  Lots of bugs to work out.  It's felt like an election campaign, lots of promises but less substance.  If they do make it match promises, will be a fine thing to see.


----------



## armyvern (9 Oct 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I attended their career fair last month.  It was very slick, promised the sun and the moon too.  So far, l have been underwhelmed with the website.  Lots of bugs to work out.  It's felt like an election campaign, lots of promises but less substance.  If they do make it match promises, will be a fine thing to see.



I know a few who've registered and are very impressed ... especially those with job offers and the one with the small business mentor who is really helping him out.

It's a month old so of course there's still bugs to be worked out ... just like generations-old iphones still get program updates to this day.

It's a non-profit so the slick is quite OK with me ... because _it's the right thing to do_.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I know a few who've registered and are very impressed ... especially those with job offers and the one with the small business mentor who is really helping him out.
> 
> It's a month old so of course there's still bugs to be worked out ... just like generations-old iphones still get program updates to this day.
> 
> It's a non-profit so the slick is quite OK with me ... because _it's the right thing to do_.




That's fantastic news if some are finding success.  This group's hearts in the right place.  I truly hope they are outstanding in their success rate and results.


----------



## Mediman14 (4 Jul 2018)

I was in an O'Group today, it was mention by the BSurg that a new interm Policy on direction for Clinicians to follow regarding categories was coming out shortly. Has anyone been told the same? If so, any idea on how this interm policy is going to be laid out?

The official Policy was supposed to be out in Dec/ Jan time frame


----------



## Armymedic (5 Jul 2018)

Yes. And no clue, because I don't work in Ottawa.

During a visit last month, the Surg Gen was talking about a new approach to decide whether or not service members are fit for service. The current system is too limited and somewhat punitive with the removal of allowance if you are not "fit". This is counter to a developing concept which will determine those who can deploy and those who can't, while retaining trained personnel for recruiting, training and other non-operational roles.


There is a culture shift the CAF that is starting in MILPERS that will fundamentally change how we care for the sick and injured and how we can retain our personnel.


----------



## Gunner98 (5 Jul 2018)

Four conditions for retention shared recently were:
1) Operate personal weapon
2) Pass FORCE Test
3) Employable in military environment (can tolerate the sight of others in CAF uniform)
4) Employable in an operational environment (the example given was able to perform duties in a CP during an Exercise in Wainwright).


----------



## Mediman14 (5 Jul 2018)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> There is a culture shift the CAF that is starting in MILPERS that will fundamentally change how we care for the sick and injured and how we can retain our personnel.



I think in order to retain our personnel, the CAF will need to change in so many ways, from the Medical side to the policy side. Some policies laid out by the CAF are outdated. One Policy that sticks out is DAOD 5003-6 (CCM, Compassionate Postings etc) We have to be more family friendly given today's society, many Mbrs in the CAF have children with special needs. Instead of Commanders saying " to bad, so sad" attitude, the CAF will need to be more understanding and have a common sense approach. An Example of this could simply be "You can't up root an family with an autistic child" changes are not taking likely, this could be achieved by stop blind siding people with postings, give a Mbr 6 months to a year notice. But I do realize there is challenges with that as things every day within the CAF.
   This is only one example, I know there is many more. The only I mentioned this is that I am fighting for a subordinate that is in that situation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jul 2018)

It also has to be balanced with the needs of the service and those people who are single, with no children, who also want to remain in location for Reason X/be posted out of their current location for Reason Y.

Tough balance to strike, but the effort should be made.


----------



## Mediman14 (5 Jul 2018)

I totally agree with you! It will be hard balance the needs of the service with the demands from personnel. And yes, there should be an effort made, it's better than nothing at all!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jul 2018)

I think if the collective "we" of the CAF can put an effort into looking after our people, our people will put an effort into looking after the CAF.

Win-win, and we won't send people out the door because they 'can't operate a machine gun after parachuting into the front lines' who still have years of valuable service left to give to their country.


----------



## garb811 (5 Jul 2018)

The things folks need to remember that if they are making an ask to be accommodated for family reasons, there needs to be an understanding on the member's part that there may be a sacrifice required on their end as well to make that accommodation happen. I've been privy to a few instances in the past several years where my Branch was willing to leave the member in situ because the move was being driven by a promotion yet the member refused to decline their promotion to make the deal work; they expected someone else who had been in the geo loc a shorter period of time than them to be moved so they could stay put and still be promoted...


----------



## TCM621 (6 Jul 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> The things folks need to remember that if they are making an ask to be accommodated for family reasons, there needs to be an understanding on the member's part that there may be a sacrifice required on their end as well to make that accommodation happen. I've been privy to a few instances in the past several years where my Branch was willing to leave the member in situ because the move was being driven by a promotion yet the member refused to decline their promotion to make the deal work; they expected someone else who had been in the geo loc a shorter period of time than them to be moved so they could stay put and still be promoted...



To be fair, they earned the promotion why would they give it up? If they can't accommodate him at the local unit, then he moves or applies for compassionate which would allow him the promotion he earned but have career implications going forward, which everyone involved with would be aware of. If there is no basis for the compassionate why was a "deal" even on the table? This under the table shit males everyone else life more difficult.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> To be fair, they earned the promotion why would they give it up? If they can't accommodate him at the local unit, then he moves or applies for compassionate which would allow him the promotion he earned but have career implications going forward, which everyone involved with would be aware of. If there is no basis for the compassionate why was a "deal" even on the table? This under the table crap males everyone else life more difficult.



It appears the "under the table crap" was to try to accommodate the member who did not appear/stated to have compassionate reason for needing to stay geographically stable. The member was selected for promotion, and didn't want to move. Career shop tried to help them out, but there wasn't another position in the new rank. Member had a choice, defer the promotion or move (which is a good deal, because every CM briefing I've been in says deferring a promotion doesn't mean you can't be posted). The member wanted to stay and wanted the rank: too bad. They definitely earned the promotion, which was coming with a posting. Why should the CM screw another member of that person's unit so they could stay and get their promotion?

That's the problem with loosening the rules, we have a tendency to swing the pendulum way too far when trying to "fix" things. We could end up with people on "permanent" retention with massive MELs that make them basically non-deployable (especially if the "operational environment" caveat uses MAPLE RESOLVE CP Shift as an example).


----------



## garb811 (6 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> To be fair, they earned the promotion why would they give it up? If they can't accommodate him at the local unit, then he moves or applies for compassionate which would allow him the promotion he earned but have career implications going forward, which everyone involved with would be aware of. If there is no basis for the compassionate why was a "deal" even on the table? This under the table crap males everyone else life more difficult.


Not sure how you're even reading that anything in these instances was "under the table", it was all above board with the chains of command and the CM involved.  

The choices to the members were simple, be promoted and posted or decline the promotion and stay in situ.  As PuckChaser pointed out, they were still liable for posting anyway if they declined the promotion simply to try to avoid a posting but the "deal" was they wouldn't be and they would be left in place for at least one more year.  An "under the table deal" would have been something along the lines of promoting the member and letting them sit in a MMO position while another unit went vacant at a key command team rank, while they stayed in location without an actual job to do.

As for why they would give up a promotion they earned, it's pretty simple. They were the ones asking not to be moved to accommodate a family situation.  As a reminder, every rank change instruction states, "THIS PROMOTION IS CONDITIONAL UPON THE MEMBER ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT THE ASSIGNED DUTIES AT THE HIGHER RANK AND AT SUCH PLACE WHERE THE SERVICE REQUIREMENT EXISTS".  If a member is asking for special consideration and part of that makes them unable to meet that simple requirement, they shouldn't expect to be promoted.

Ref your idea about compassionate status...  This makes the member ineligible for promotion so they'd have to move first in order to be promoted anyway and then try to get a compassionate posting back to that location.


----------



## Mediman14 (6 Jul 2018)

Speaking of compassionate posting, My bet is that most pers are not aware that, if you ask for a compassionate posting with or without compassionate status, you do not require to have an empty position available at that current rank!

Also, I should mention that, Base social workers treat all three (CCM, Compassionate Status, Compassionate Posting) the same, despite the differences in all three!


----------



## garb811 (6 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Speaking of compassionate posting, My bet is that most pers are not aware that, if you ask for a compassionate posting with or without compassionate status, you do not require to have an empty position available at that current rank!
> 
> Also, I should mention that, Base social workers treat all three (CCM, Compassionate Status, Compassionate Posting) the same, despite the differences in all three!


In order to qualify for a compassionate posting, you must be assigned compassionate status. Otherwise it is simply a contingency cost move for personal reasons and there must be a position available in that MOS and at that rank at the location the member wants to be posted to.

See para 5.2 here:  DAOD 5003-6 - Contingency Cost Moves for Personal Reasons, Compassionate Status and Compassionate Posting


----------



## CombatDoc (7 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I was in an O'Group today, it was mention by the BSurg that a new interm Policy on direction for Clinicians to follow regarding categories was coming out shortly. Has anyone been told the same? If so, any idea on how this interm policy is going to be laid out?
> 
> The official Policy was supposed to be out in Dec/ Jan time frame


What you are referring to falls under a review of the Universality of Service policy, which itself is part of much larger The Journey project. The intent of modifying U of S is to allow personnel with certain MELs to continue to serve - rather than medically releasing them, as would have previously occurred. This review should be completed by end-2018, but DMCA has already made changes to their AR/MEL processes (as noted above). 

The Journey, being led by a MGen COS Strat from MilPersCom, is reviewing the entire suite of policies/compensation from Enrollment-to Release-and post release.


----------



## TCM621 (7 Jul 2018)

If that is the case, then rather than allow him to defer maybe the CM should remind him of the consequences of posting avoidance. I totally agree, you can't have your cake and eat it too. When people like this are accommodated for no real reason. It has a ripple effect. Rather than create a hole at the old rank which could be filled as per the CMs plan. Maybe a member really needs a CCM to that spot, which now can't be filled. 





			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Not sure how you're even reading that anything in these instances was "under the table", it was all above board with the chains of command and the CM involved.
> 
> The choices to the members were simple, be promoted and posted or decline the promotion and stay in situ.  As PuckChaser pointed out, they were still liable for posting anyway if they declined the promotion simply to try to avoid a posting but the "deal" was they wouldn't be and they would be left in place for at least one more year.  An "under the table deal" would have been something along the lines of promoting the member and letting them sit in a MMO position while another unit went vacant at a key command team rank, while they stayed in location without an actual job to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## garb811 (7 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If that is the case, then rather than allow him to defer maybe the CM should remind him of the consequences of posting avoidance. I totally agree, you can't have your cake and eat it too. When people like this are accommodated for no real reason. It has a ripple effect. Rather than create a hole at the old rank which could be filled as per the CMs plan. Maybe a member really needs a CCM to that spot, which now can't be filled.


Please show me where I said they were allowed to defer.  Even better, show me where I even used the word “defer”, because I didn’t. 

I used “decline” which is a totally different thing than “defer” because it means you don’t get promoted, at all, that year and will only be promoted in the future should you rank high enough another year. 

As with your first response, you’re reading into my post and complaining about something that isn’t even there.


----------



## Mediman14 (10 Jul 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> In order to qualify for a compassionate posting, you must be assigned compassionate status. Otherwise it is simply a contingency cost move for personal reasons and there must be a position available in that MOS and at that rank at the location the member wants to be posted to.



You are right about Compassionate Posting, but it is opposite pertaining to Compassioante Status. Ref Compassionate Posting, there does not have to be a position in their Mosid available. See the Grievance below
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2016-005.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2015-110.html


----------



## TCM621 (11 Jul 2018)

You are right, the word defer has a different connotation than decline. Poor choice of a word on my part. To restate my position, I think the response from the CM should be, "you don't qualify for compassionate or a CCM, so you can take your promotion or not but you are still being posted." The CM only has so many cost moves, so if he knew a member wanted to stay and s/he didn't need the member somewhere else, then there would have been no posting offered.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Please show me where I said they were allowed to defer.  Even better, show me where I even used the word “defer”, because I didn’t.
> 
> I used “decline” which is a totally different thing than “defer” because it means you don’t get promoted, at all, that year and will only be promoted in the future should you rank high enough another year.
> 
> As with your first response, you’re reading into my post and complaining about something that isn’t even there.


----------

