# Honours & Awards (merged)



## Art Johnson (1 Dec 2002)

It has come down from the Governor General‘s office that two members of the 48th Highlanders of Canada,  Lieut. Martinis and MCpl Stibbard have been awarded the Medal of Bravery (MB). 

Canadian Bravery Decorations are national honours awarded to recognize acts of courage. The Medal of Bravery is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. A recipient is entitled to use the letters "MB" on all occasions when the use of such letters is customary

This award is as a result of their actions on September 11, 2001.  As we know the USA was attacked by terrorists on this day.  The Armoury was in a lock down condition with security on the main gate.  

Lieut. Martinis and MCpl. Stibbard were on the gate when approached by one of the local residents, well known within the Armoury as a harmless but frequent visitor.  This individual was told he could not enter MPA, at this point he started to become somewhat excited.  The two Highlanders had to restrain him from attempted entry into MPA.  

At this point two Toronto‘s Police officers on patrol were driving by on Queen Street and noticed the commotion and pulled in.  The Highlanders backed off to allow the civil authorities to do their thing, when the local resident sucker punched one of the cops and then attacked the other.  They all fell to the ground in a struggle with the two Highlanders not sure if they should enter the fray when one of the cops yelled "He‘s got my gun!".  At this point Lieut. Martinis and MCpl Stibbard leaped into action, entered the fray and disarmed the resident.  

The Toronto Police were of the opinion that if they had not entered the fray then one police office would have been shot, the pistol was under his armpit, above his bulletproof vest, and the second officer may have been shot as well.  Lt. Col. Turner upon learning of the incident had an investigation ordered, and with supporting documentation from Toronto Police the nominations were sent higher.

The award presentation will be made by the Governor General, exact date to be confirmed, some time prior to 18 Dec. 02 in Ottawa.

It is nice to see a small silver lining to a horrible day in history come to light.

Dileas Gu Brath.

Doug Chappell
.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Dec 2002)

Congratulations to the two Highlanders; they follow in the footsteps of many brave men of the 48th - the majority of whom have never been decorated for their valour.


----------



## Harry (1 Dec 2002)

I have a strange feeling that the Gee Gee will through the recognition of service and acts like the aforementioned bring to the forefront the sacrifice and duty our Canadian Forces in the service of Canada and Canadians.

And in recognizing our sailors, soldiers and airmen assist in the rebuilding of moral and esprit de corp that has been in short supply for some time.

In an aside, I have a feeling the PM never planned on her being so proactive in areas outside of the arts.  

At this time in our countries living history and in the disposition of our CF, she is exactly what we need.  She is proving herself like few before her have and in her actions is slowly rebuilding the institutional representation of Canada and I believe, ultimately what we as Canadians will grasp as our identity.

Many of us here, have been, seen and lived some of the crappier aspects of service in the past while, but I can say that I finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

God speed to the Gee Gee.

God save the Queen


----------



## John Nayduk (1 Dec 2002)

Good on them!


----------



## Pikache (1 Dec 2002)

Most good to hear


----------



## Art Johnson (2 Dec 2002)

More Honours and Awards

"After 20 gun battles and nine years, a medal"

 http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=D6A51B50-C270-4AA8-843F-6772C99DEBCB 

and

"Medals slow in coming for veterans of Afghanistan"

 http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=61C38E44-87E3-4F2C-AFEC-198439A605E8


----------



## Snakedoc (20 Nov 2009)

I don't think this has been posted yet.  News that just came out from N.S.:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091120/bus_crash_091120/20091120?hub=TopStoriesV2

One killed in crash involving Navy bus, SUV in N.S.

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Fri. Nov. 20 2009 11:04 AM ET

At least one person is dead after a fiery crash involving a National Defence bus and an SUV near Halifax, N.S. 

The SUV and Canadian Navy bus collided around 9:45 a.m. local time Friday morning.

The SUV burst into flames and the bus had extensive fire damage. 

RCMP Cpl. Joe Taplin says the driver of the SUV was killed, while three people on the bus were taken to hospital. 

He said it appears one of the vehicles crossed over the centre line. 

The crash happened on a two-lane stretch of Hwy. 107 and the two vehicles came to a stop on the yellow divider line, where they remain. 

"It's quite bright, perhaps one of the drivers was blinded, but it looks like one vehicle was trying to pass," CTV's Atlantic Bureau Chief Todd Battis reported. 

A Department of National Defence spokesperson referred all calls to the RCMP. 

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is in Halifax Friday to meet with U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to discuss improving relations between the two countries. 

Battis said however, that there are a number of military bases in the area, and buses often patrol in the area. 

More to come... 

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## AmmoTech90 (20 Nov 2009)

RIP to the driver and speedy recovery to those injured.

but some people should chose their words more carefully.



> Battis said however, that there are a number of military bases in the area, and buses often patrol in the area.



We obviously have a severe shortage of recce vehicles if we are using highway cruisers to carry out patrols.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Nov 2009)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> We obviously have a severe shortage of recce vehicles if we are using highway cruisers to carry out patrols.



It was a Blue Bird BTW.. and the guys are recovering fine. I keep in close contact with them.


----------



## mariomike (23 Nov 2009)

"Woman killed in collision was wife of navy man": 
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1154035.html


----------



## gaspasser (23 Nov 2009)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> RIP to the driver and speedy recovery to those injured.
> 
> but some people should chose their words more carefully.
> 
> We obviously have a severe shortage of recce vehicles if we are using highway cruisers to carry out patrols.


  you owe me a new monitor    {we need a coffee spew smilie}

RIP to the driver of the SUV.

Please don't tell me it was my brother driving ??


----------



## TN2IC (23 Nov 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> you owe me a new monitor    {we need a coffee spew smilie}
> 
> RIP to the driver of the SUV.
> 
> Please don't tell me it was my brother driving ??



No it wasn't. He's in tractor section. Yeah I know.. someone gave him his 404's back. Next time you talk to him... ask about Pte Bloggins shooting on the range. He"ll know what I mean..


----------



## gaspasser (24 Nov 2009)

Heehhee.
I thought he was in heavy!!  Same as me for SNIC!.  We're coming down for Xmas, I will ask about Bloggins...did he screw up again??!!
Any idea yet as to who did what?  107, isn't that the Circumferencial around D'mouth to S'water?  Or it that the one that goes out back of D'mouth?  Haven't been that way in years and the geogoly is hazy.   8)


----------



## TN2IC (24 Nov 2009)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Any idea yet as to who did what?  107, isn't that the Circumferencial around D'mouth to S'water?  Or it that the one that goes out back of D'mouth?  Haven't been that way in years and the geogoly is hazy.   8)



Behind Dartmouth...

It's funny on how getting the call from the accident and then seeing on how quick the media cover it. Let's say it was under an hour it was on CTV. Go figure.

If anyone wants to know.. one of the members on here was on that bus. FYI.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Nov 2009)

I sailed for several years with the husband of the deceased.   While Rick was not a friend, he was not an enemy either but a shipmate nevertheless.  My heart goes out to him and his girls.  Especially as he was away overseas doing almost a back to back tour.  

I hope the guys in the bus recover soon.


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Nov 2010)

From the Vancouver Sun:


OTTAWA — As the last Canadian troops prepare for deployment to Afghanistan, Canada's new Governor General took a moment Tuesday to honour the sacrifices and achievements of those who've served on the mission which officially ends next year.

Moments before he began handing out military decorations to some 39 service members during a ceremony at Rideau Hall, David Johnston acknowledged that a lot of the news coming out of Afghanistan has been about the human toll.

"Those of you who were there understand the other side of the equation," he said.

"You know about the lives you saved, the communities you helped to stabilize, the schools you helped reopen."

Johnston noted the lives that were lost were not lost "in vain," and that while he also mourns every Canadian and Afghan death, it's also important to recognize the lives that have been saved and the people who made that possible.

"Each of you is here because you . . . went beyond what your fellow Canadians could reasonably have asked of you," he said in short speech before the medals presentation.

"We are recognizing your acts of courage and selflessness in the face of enemy fire and natural disasters and we are recognizing equally vital contributions that may have been made under less dramatic circumstances."

Johnston presented three Medals of Military Valour for devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy and two Meritorious Service Crosses and 34 Meritorious Service Medals to soldiers whose professionalism brought "benefit or honour" to the military.

The ceremony took place a day before members of the Royal 22nd Regiment from Valcartier, Que., begin deploying to Afghanistan as part of the last combat rotation and less than a week before Canadians across the country pause to mark Remembrance Day.

Master Cpl. Paul Rachynski of Edmonton was among those who received high honours during the ceremony — a Medal of Military Valour.
He was recognized for his actions on May 6, 2008, when he led Canadian and Afghan soldiers through heavy insurgent fire following an ambush in Zhari district west of Kandahar City in Afghanistan.

"It was very chaotic," he said in an interview after the ceremony.

"It was more or less just getting the guys out safely and keeping the enemy at bay while we pulled out."

Rachynski, who recently completed his third tour in Afghanistan, was modest about the prize and his contribution to the mission, noting the real heroes are those who paid the ultimate price.

This Nov. 11, he said he'll be thinking about his comrades who didn't make it home.

So, too, will Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk, who was on hand to congratulate recipients with a firm and friendly, locker room-style pat on the back that echoed through the room.

"Canadians have travelled around the world to do their duty to bring freedom and peace," he said. "We honour all of our veterans."

"And our veterans are so proud of you," he added. "You, the recipients, hold the torch of service up high. You were recognized today for going well beyond the high standards of valour, of duty and of service to Canada."

For the full list of medals recipients visit www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13917


article link

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


----------



## Gunner98 (3 Nov 2010)

No disrespect meant toward these deserving individuals, but did anyone else note the preponderance officers and in particular senior officers receiving honours.  Perhaps this is an anomaly and cyclical thing?  26 of 34 - greater than 75% of MSC/MSM.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2010)

It's a bit of a structural fault with the MSM/MSC, in my opinion.  Sergeants, for example, don't usually fill positions that can provide them the opportunity to bring "great benefit and honour" or "benefit or honour" to the Canadian Forces.  Senior Officers - usually occupying positions observed by those who sign off on these things - usually do.

So, despite stellar effort, a Sergeant can only influence about 10-40 guys which makes fitting his action into the MSM/MSC criteria that much harder.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Nov 2010)

In previous wars, when we used the British honours and awards system, there was a wider variety of awards available. I note at least two battalion commanders on the MSM list; in previous conflicts they probably would have received the Distinguished Service Order (DSO), while officers of any rank serving on the staff more likely would have been awarded one of the levels of the Order of the British Empire (OBE), to whit, member (MBE), officer (OBE) or commander (CBE.) A DSO also probably would have gone to any company commander on the list who was receiving an award for leading his subunit in action. The DSO was usually reserved for majors and above; the Military Cross (MC) was the equivalent for junior officers for deeds in action. On the rare occasion when a junior officer was awarded the DSO, this signified that his actions were above the norm for a MC, but did not quite reach the VC standard. Today one can not differentiate between an officer who received the MSM for exemplary leadership of his company in battle and one who exceeded the performance norms in a non-combat role. Pity!

For NCMs it would have been usual to have been awarded the British Empire Medal (BEM) for non-combat service.


----------



## Pusser (3 Nov 2010)

My biggest issue with this article is that it implies that everyone is being recognized for service in Afghanistan.  At least 25% of the recipients, however, were recognized for things that absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan.  The CF is involved in other things....


----------



## Nostix (3 Nov 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The CF is involved in other things....



If it was, I would've heard about it on CBC. As it stands, I'm inclined to believe you've gone loopy.


----------



## Pusser (3 Nov 2010)

Come on!  I said it.  Then, I wrote it and posted it on the internet.  Therefore, it must be true! ;D


----------



## FDO (3 Nov 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Come on!  I said it.  Then, I wrote it and posted it on the internet.  Therefore, it must be true! ;D



I read it somewhere too so its got to be right.


----------



## gun runner (3 Nov 2010)

I read the list, there are a few Yanks on it, and a few for actions in Haiti, and one from Egypt.Not all from  Afghanistan.Cheers.


----------



## AJC (4 Nov 2010)

Should be an addition to section 5 of PER, right above promotion recommendation. Should say something like " Performed adequately in a position of authority"  The note should say " Click box for awarding MSM"

Looks like a Medal for one of two criteria 1) awarding a mbr for stellar performance about their level of training and experience; and 2) Performed adequately in a position of authority.

Switched on = Promotion not medals.

Bring back the MM and MC.


----------



## opcougar (5 Nov 2010)

One of the senior officer honoured on the list deserves it for his work in Haiti. I can tell you that the man is really switched on, has very good knowledge of the country and to be in charge of 5000 people from different forces isn't an easy job. Col Girard from CANOSCOM is the person am talking about ( signals officer )


----------



## Strike (5 Nov 2010)

There is also a member from this site who was honoured as well.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Nov 2010)

While the GG noted much about Afghanistan, it was not all about Afghanistan; both His Excellency and the CDS addressed the full spectrum of operations and support activities within which the recipients were involved in.  E.g., the full crew of RESCUE 903 is on the MSM list, a Capt (the aircraft commander), a Major (the co-pilot), a MCpl flight engineer and a MCpl SAR Tech - a variety of ranks due to the composition of the crew involved in the resuce.  That represents a 50/50% officer/NCM MSM split for those who appear to focus on the rank, vice the accomplishments of the recipients.  What, no complaints about the 100% "sweep" of the MMV awards by NCMs?  Notice how petty it would sound asking that question?  Should we somehow deduce that officers do not act valorously since they don't often receive MMVs?  Aside from a nominatively associated rank within the Order of Military Merit, there is no such restriction/limitation/proponency to rank within the GoC's meritorious decoration structure.

Infanteer noted some of the issues perhaps in the structure of the awards that may lead to differences in nomination/identification of individual contributions.  As an MSM recipient myself, I am humbled by many fellow recipients for whom I believe recognition should have in fact been for a higher degree (MSC or MMV...Sgt(Ret'd) Joe Brink comes to mind.)  I also put great credence in awards that some folks appear not to appreciate (or understand) as much as I feel they should; Mention-in-Dispatches being such an award.  

Apparently it isn't enough for some folks simply to appreciate the accomplishments for what they are, in many cases not only of the recipients, but also for others who often contributed to the overall meritorious achievements.

Question, how many of those critiquing the award distribution here, have previously nominated a deserving individual or team in their own organization for a similar or related meritorious award?  I have done so; seeing some success, but also being frustrated at seeing others I though quite deserving not be recognized.  I can't explain why some of those nominated were not recognized, but I feel "the system" (i.e. us) is working hard to recognize the numerous CF personnel who, with great devotion, work above and beyond expectations and make the CF a truly great organization within which to serve our country.

Perhaps, until there is an award for statistical prowess, we could leave out categorical convolutions that have the potential to detract from the intent of the original recognition?

Regards  
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I also put great credence in awards that some folks appear not to appreciate (or understand) as much as I feel they should; Mention-in-Dispatches being such an award.



I've had people ask if my MiD was the new maple leafs for the rotation bar...   ???


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well it's nice to see the area is getting recognition now.



Actually, having worked the H&A side, the system is getting a lot better now in terms of how things are recognized.  The GCS-GCM / OSM structure of service medals makes for timely yet distinct recognition of operational service (and repeated tours).  Our framework for recognizing Valour and Meritorious service is sound.  I think, in general, the system is a lot better understood and utilized than it was 5 years ago and we owe it to ourselves to make all efforts to recognize our solid performers.

What I'd still like to see is:

1.  A revamp of the Mention-in-Dispatches to cover the ground between the Meritorious Service Medal and the CDS Commendation.  This would include perhaps changing it from a device on a ribbon to an actual independent insignia.  Have approval authority as the CDS (vice Government House, although I think this was done with the M-i-D) and target it at "exceptional acts of leadership or initiative while on operations".  Right now, we have lots of guys deserving of some sort of operational recognition for excellent work in theater but the "brings honour or distinction to Canada" bill is harder to fit for a MCpl/Sgt/Lt type at the low levels then it is for a CWO or a LCol - hence why MSM/MSCs are tended to be awarded to senior ranks whose service is more visible.

2.  A system to ensure a quicker turn around from submission to award.  Right now, things tend to take 9-15 months.  When we have something bad to deal with, things tend to get done within 30 days, but for some reason, we're content to let recognition of our best stretch out over months.  Either a regimented system of admin timings for paperwork (with hard dates for committees) or a direct line to the award OPI from a specific level (essentially skipping some levels of the chain) are possible solutions.

Edit: Grammar.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Mar 2011)

What I meant by area was the physical area of operations.  We spent a solid three months there doing the job for no recognition as would be the case now as it has some value.  

On the recognition of valour, I like the more timely speed the Americans use for the lessor awards at times.  Being awarded the medal in the field or soon thereafter, with your mates present would mean more to me than a trip to Rideau Hall a year or two later in front of strangers and the like, were I being recognized.  I could understand for the higher awards, VC, SMV etc a more lengthy process would be required to ensure quality control.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> On the recognition of valour, I like the more timely speed the Americans use for the lessor awards at times.  Being awarded the medal in the field or soon thereafter, with your mates present would mean more to me than a trip to Rideau Hall a year or two later in front of strangers and the like, were I being recognized.  I could understand for the higher awards, VC, SMV etc a more lengthy process would be required to ensure quality control.



Totally agree - I had guys getting M-i-Ds in Afghanistan while on tour their for their second tour....

Perhaps my proposal (1) would fit the bill for your comment.  Something like CO does letter, forwarded to TF Comd for minute, forwarded to CDS who minutes letter and approves presentation in theater.  30 days from flash to bang allows for quality control and the like.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Mar 2011)

It would be a start in the right direction, that's for sure.


----------



## McG (16 Mar 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Perhaps my proposal (1) would fit the bill for your comment.  Something like CO does letter, forwarded to TF Comd for minute, forwarded to CDS who minutes letter and approves presentation in theater.  30 days from flash to bang allows for quality control and the like.


I would just like to see a system where nominations just kept moving forward.  If a formation or command level board decides that an individual deserves a different honour or award than the nomination suggests, that nomination should not be fired all the way back to the originating unit to be rewritten so that the file can appear unanimous when it reaches the decision level.  Instead, the level that decides a different recognition is deserved should put their own comment onto the file ("X is nominated for award B, but award C is more appropriate because ...") or there should be an award issued from that level (this could be that the individual gets a Comd's commendation from the level that decides the nomination does not warrant anything higher) or the nomination is rejected (ie - the nomination has already gone higher than the highest level of recognition that it merits).

I've seen nominations spending years getting bounced back from successively higher levels of HQ with the unit being directed to rewrite back & forth between to possible recognitions.  I've even seen a level of command change its mind (everyone left over APS and the new H&A board did not agree with the previous) and bounce a nomination back to be rewritten with the recommendation it had just previously rejected.

... I'll take some comfort in the hope that my observations are just the problems of a particular food-chain and not symptomatic of the CF (or even the Army) as a whole.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... I'll take some comfort in the hope that my observations are just the problems of a particular food-chain and not symptomatic of the CF (or even the Army) as a whole.



Rest assured that is the case in my locale - if the reviewing Commander decides to elevate the award, he simply indicates so in his covering letter higher.  Perhaps you've witnessed lazy staff officers at work?

The problem administratively is :

1.  The DND 2448 can be a pain in the neck, especially with DHRs own requirements contrary to what the actual form says.  These tend to get bounced (and eat up time);

2.  Vague requirements as to what actually is required for an award - for some reason, formation, command, and national awards can have different requirements (some with an info sheet, some with a draft citation, some with a narrative, etc, etc).  DHR needs to come out with a universal standard so Adjutant's aren't guessing what to submit and they need to apply Occam's Razor to narrow this requirement to the most minimal amount of paperwork as necessary; and

3.  Most of all, the need for every level to collect, prepare, deliberate, and finally propose to the Commander nominations for a commendation or award.  This process likely takes 2-8 weeks at every level and after looking at a flow chart of how this paper work travels, you can see.  For example, Cpl Bloggins destroys an enemy bunker and saves his buddy.  His immediate supervisors write up the report and the unit Adjutant collects the paperwork for the CO and submits it higher, possibly reviewing at a unit committee firsthand.  Goes to HQ Task Force Whateverstan, where it is put through the collection, preparation, deliberation and Commander review process.  Commander approves and it, putting it under cover letter to Commander CEFCOM.  Repeat the cycle, to go to NDHQ, where it repeats the process at DHR twice (once for a national awards committee and then again at a Bravery Committee).  It is then forwarded to Government House for approval by the Governor-General.  I didn't think there was something more long and painful than the Road to High Readiness until I saw the Honours and Awards administrative system....


----------



## Navalsnpr (16 Mar 2011)

I've seen a CLS Commendation go from concept to being awarded in 8 days and I've also seen a CMS Commendation be awarded 18 months after its submission. There is obviously an issue with the way submissions are processed depending on which element you belong to. 

Isn't it also ironic that a LCol can write up a Commendation and then a Capt denies it at the HQ level? or one of the reviewing authorities at an Area Command HQ is a Public Servant who has the power to deny application?

The system needs to be streamlined while maintaining the integrity of the Honours and Awards it supports.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Mar 2011)

Not timely yet for the GCS rotation bars. I don't know if there's a slow down in the minting, or my unit is just awful at paperwork, but I'm still waiting. ISAF bar is staying on until I get it.

As for the MID, I agree with what Infanteer stated to start the thread. It doesn't need to be its own medal, but I can see it being a separate insignia a la CLS/CinC commendation. I also agree it needs to be easier for troops to get the MSM. If almost every unit commander overseas can get it, there must have been some hard working Sgt/MCpl/Cpl/Ptes that got them there.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Mar 2011)

My GCS bar was awarded in October.  The paperwork was submitted in April.  The initial award of the GCS took about 6-7 months after I returned to Canada.


----------



## RCR Grunt (17 Mar 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 2.  A system to ensure a quicker turn around from submission to award.  Right now, things tend to take 9-15 months.  When we have something bad to deal with, things tend to get done within 30 days, but for some reason, we're content to let recognition of our best stretch out over months.  Either a regimented system of admin timings for paperwork (with hard dates for committees) or a direct line to the award OPI from a specific level (essentially skipping some levels of the chain) are possible solutions.



In 2 instances I'm aware of it took nearly 4 years for the individuals to be recognized for their actions on TF 3-06 and they are still waiting to be awarded their medals.

Whats up with that?


----------



## Navalsnpr (17 Mar 2011)

Wow... I can't believe that it took so long for the rotation bar. 

Mine was submitted on day 210 in theatre and received while I was in theatre 18 days later.


----------



## medicineman (29 Jun 2011)

Feel free to move this if I've plunked in the wrong place - left the French half out due to space constraints, so apologies in advance.

FROM: NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
DTG: R 211159Z JUN 11
SUBJ: HONOURS AND AWARDS
(0392522-2011180000269.txt)
------------------------------------------------------------
RAAUZYUW RCCLHAV6009 1801920-UUUU--RCEMRKS RCWEWLA RCWEZNA RCWMFYS
RCWMHVS RCWMMGA RCWMNHS RCWMNMS RCWMPCA RCWMRGS RCWMSKS RCWMTRS
RCWMWGS RCWMWVA RCWMYKS.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC ZIA
R 211159Z JUN 11
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CMP 055/11 CANFORGEN 112/11
SIC WAK
SECTION 1 OF 6
SUBJ: HONOURS AND AWARDS
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
1. HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL HAS APPROVED NATIONAL HONOURS
FOR THE FOLLOWING DESERVING INDIVIDUALS
A. STAR OF MILITARY VALOUR
(1) CAPT (THEN LT) G. CHASSE-JEAN FOR CONSPICUOUS GALLANTRY UNDER
FIRE WHEN HE RALLIED HIS PLATOON TO DEFEAT THE ENEMY IN AFGHANISTAN,
8 TO 29 JUN 09
(2) MWO R. STACEY FOR CONSPICUOUS VALOUR IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY
THAT ENABLED HIS MULTINATIONAL COMBAT TEAM TO FIGHT THROUGH SIX
INSURGENT AMBUSHES IN AFGHANISTAN, 4 AUG 09
B. MERITORIOUS SERVICE CROSS
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6009 UNCLAS
(1) BGEN J.H. VANCE FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP, AS COMD OF JOINT
TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, THAT ENABLED THE CF TO MAINTAIN THE
INITIATIVE AND ADVANCE THE MANDATE OF ISAF, FEB TO NOV 09
(2) COL (THEN LCOL) J.A.M. BIGAOUETTE FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP
AND UNWAVERING DEDICATION AS CO OF THE CANADIAN HELICOPTER FORCE
AFGHANISTAN, APR TO NOV 09
(3) COL (THEN LCOL) J. PAUL - FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND
TACTICAL BRILLIANCE AS CO OF 2 R22ER BATTLE GROUP IN AFGHANISTAN,
APR TO OCT 09
(4) COL (THEN LCOL) C.J. TURENNE - FOR SUPERB LEADERSHIP AS CO OF
THE KANDAHAR PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAM IN AFGHANISTAN, JAN 09
TO JAN 10
(5) LCOL G.C. THIBAULT - FOR EXCEPTIONAL PROFESSIONALISM, AS THE
AIRCRAFT COMD ONBOARD A CORMORANT HELICOPTER, THAT PROVIDED CRITICAL
COMMAND DECISIONS DURING A RESCUE AT SEA, 9 JUN 08
(6) MAJ T.M. ARSENAULT FOR OUTSTANDING FRONTLINE LEADERSHIP,
TACTICAL ACUMEN AND UNWAVERING DETERMINATION AS OC B COY, JOINT TASK
FORCE AFGHANISTAN, MAR TO OCT 09
(7) CWO J.J. MOREAU FOR EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP AND SELFLESS
DEDICATION AS RSM 2 R22ER BATTLE GROUP IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6009 UNCLAS
(8) PO1 M. BEDARD FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND UNWAVERING
DEDICATION AS A PHYSICIAN S ASSISTANT IN AFGHANISTAN, MAR TO NOV 09
(9) SGT M.A. SMITH FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM, COURAGE AND
SELFLESS DEDICATION TO DUTY AS AN EOD OPERATOR IN AFGHANISTAN, APR
TO OCT 09
C. MEDAL OF MILITARY VALOUR
(1) CAPT (THEN LT) G.F. CARON FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP, COURAGE
AND TACTICAL ACUMEN AS A PL COMD OF AN OMLT IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO
OCT 09
(2) WO J.D.F. RANGER FOR COURAGE AND FRONTLINE LEADERSHIP, AS A
MENTOR TO AN AFGHAN RECONNAISSANCE COMPANY, FOLLOWING AN INSURGENT
ATTACK WHERE HE RALLIED HIS SOLDIERS, ESTABLISHED A FIRE BASE AND
POURED HEAVY FIRE INTO THE ENEMY, 14 JUN 09
(3) SGT D. BERUBE FOR COURAGE AND OUTSTANDING SOLDIERING ABILITY
BY REPEATEDLY PLACING HIMSELF IN EXPOSED POSITIONS TO COORDINATE
FIRE SUPPORT FOR HIS COMBAT TEAM DURING OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN,
29 MAY TO 29 JUN 09
(4) SGT J.M.S. MERCIER FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND COURAGE IN
THE AFTERMATH OF SEVERAL AMBUSHES AND IED ATTACKS IN AFGHANISTAN, 28
APR TO 15 AUG 09
PAGE 4 RCCLHAV6009 UNCLAS
(5) MCPL S. FRIGON  FOR COURAGEOUS FRONTLINE LEADERSHIP AND
TACTICAL ACUMEN, AS A SECTION COMD, DURING TWO SEPARATE ENEMY
ENGAGEMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN, 7 AND 20 MAY 09
(6) LS P.-V. MICHAUD FOR OUTSTANDING COURAGE AND SELFLESS ACTIONS
DURING AN INTENSE FIREFIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN, ON 29 MAY 09
(D) MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL
(1) MGEN M. DE KRUIF (ROYAL NETHERLANDS ARMY) FOR OUTSTANDING
LEADERSHIP AND UNWAVERING DEDICATION AS COMD OF REGIONAL COMMAND
SOUTH IN AFGHANISTAN, NOV 08 TO NOV 09
(2) COL G.D. BURT FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION AS CO
OF THE OMLT IN AFGHANISTAN, MAR TO OCT 09
(3) COL J.C.R. LACROIX FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND
LEADERSHIP AS DCOMD OF JOINT TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, FEB TO NOV 09
(4) COL J.B. PLOUGHMAN FOR SUPERB LEADERSHIP AND ASTUTE TACTICAL
INSIGHT AS COMD OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN AIR WING, MAY TO
NOV 09
(5) COL M.C.D. SAVARD FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND
LEADERSHIP AS CO OF THE ROLE 3 MULTINATIONAL MEDICAL UNIT IN
AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(6) HCOL G.C. SOLAR FOR EXCEPTIONAL DEDICATION AND PROFESSIONALISM
PAGE 5 RCCLHAV6009 UNCLAS
AS HCOL OF THE FORT GARRY HORSE, SINCE 2003
(7) LCOL G.J.J. GERGELY FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND
DEDICATION AS THE A4 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 1
CAD WINNIPEG, SINCE 2005
(8) LCOL L.J. HAMMOND FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND SUPERB
LEADERSHIP AS CHIEF OF OPERATIONAL PLANS, JOINT TASK FORCE
AFGHANISTAN, JAN TO NOV 09
(9) LCOL D.C. MURPHY FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AS INTERIM 8 WING
COMD DURING ITS MOST TIRING CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD
IMPOSED BY NUMEROUS CO-CURRENT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, FEB 10
(10) LCOL B.A-M. TARDIF FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND
PROFESSIONALISM AS CO OF THE NATIONAL SUPPORT ELEMENT IN
AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(11) CDR S.M. WADDELL FOR SUPERB LEADERSHIP AND OPERATIONAL FOCUS
AS CO OF HMCS FREDERICTON AND TASK FORCE COMD WHILE DEPLOYED TO THE
GULF OF ADEN AND ARABIAN SEA IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL
COUNTER-PIRACY AND COUNTER TERROR EFFORTS, OCT 09 TO MAY 10
(12) MAJ D.G. ADAMS FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP, INITIATIVE AND
UNWAVERING DEDICATION AS CHINOOK FLIGHT COMD IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO
PAGE 6 RCCLHAV6009 UNCLAS
OCT 09
(13) MAJ E.J. BOUCHER FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP, FORESIGHT AND
INITIATIVE AS DCO OF CANADIAN HELICOPTER FORCE (AFGHANISTAN), APR TO
NOV 09
(14) MAJ L. CARVALLO FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND UNWAVERING
DEDICATION AS DCO OF THE KPRT IN AFGHANISTAN, AUG 08 TO SEP 09
(15) MAJ J.-F. DUVAL FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TACTICAL
ACUMEN AS THE BATTLE GROUP BATTERY COMD IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT
09
(16) MAJ M. FERLAND FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM
AS DCOMD OF THE BATTLE GROUP IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(17) MAJ (THEN CAPT) J.M.F. MALLET - FOR EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP AND
DEDICATION AS THE DEPUTY OPS OFFICER WITH 430 TAC HEL SQN
VALCARTIER, JUN 08 TO APR 09
(18) MAJ J.S.R. MORIN FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION AS
A SENIOR MENTOR TO THE COMD OF AN AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY KANDAK, APR
TO OCT 09
(19) MAJ Y. PEPIN (POSTHUMOUS) FOR EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP AND
PROFESSIONALISM AS THE OC OF THE BATTLE GROUP FIELD SQUADRON IN
AFGHANISTAN, APR TO SEP 09
UNCLAS CMP 055/11 CANFORGEN 112/11
SIC WAK
SECTION 2 OF 6(20) MAJ P. SCANNELL (FORMERLY OF THE BRITISH ARMY) - FOR
OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AS AN EXCHANGE OFFICER IN CANOSCOM
OTTAWA, JUL 08 TO JUL 10
(21) MAJ J.R.M. VERRET FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AS COMD OF THE
STABILIZATION COMPANY B IN AFGHANISTAN, MAR TO OCT 09
(22) CAPT M. DAUPHIN FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AS OC THE ROLE 3
MULTINATIONAL MEDICAL UNIT IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(23) CAPT J.M. MERCER, WO K.P. MITCHELL, SGT W.J. KELLAND, SGT D.M.
PAWULSKI FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION, AS
MEMBERS OF RESCUE 913, IN EVACUATING A CRITICALLY INJURED SAILOR
FROM THE CONTAINER SHIP MAERESK DUNEDIN IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN IN
HAZARDOUS WEATHER CONDITIONS, 9 JUN 08
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6010 UNCLAS
(24) CWO J.G.G. POIRIER FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND
LEADERSHIP AS RSM OF THE KPRT IN AFGHANISTAN, FEB 09 TO FEB 10
(25) CWO E.G.J. POITRAS FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND
PROFESSIONALISM AS CWO OF THE JOINT TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN AIR WING,
MAY TO NOV 09
(26) CWO A.P. STAPLEFORD FOR UNWAVERING DEDICATION AND
PROFESSIONALISM AS RSM OF JOINT TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, FEB TO NOV
09
(27) WO P.P. CHARTRAND FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION
AS THE 2IC OF AN INFANTRY PLATOON IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(28) WO S. OUELLET FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND TACTICAL ACUMEN
AS THE 2IC OF AN OMLT IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(29) WO (THEN SGT) J.F.C. PICHE FOR OUTSTANDING FRONTLINE
LEADERSHIP AND OUTSTANDING WORK AS A MENTOR TO AN ANA INFANTRY
COMPANY, APR TO OCT 09
(30) SGT (THEN MCPL) J. DEZIEL FOR OUTSTANDING COMBAT LEADERSHIP
AND TACTICAL ACUMEN AS A FIRE EFFECTS OFFICER WITHIN A OMLT IN
AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(31) CPL M. BOULAY-PAILLE FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND
PROFESSIONALISM AS DCOMD OF AN OMLT IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6010 UNCLAS
(32) CPL E.D. DIONNE FOR EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TACTICAL
ACUMEN AS A MEMBER OF AN OMLT IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO OCT 09
(33) CPL F.-J. G.M. HEBERT FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND TACTICAL
ACUMEN AS A MENTOR TO NUMEROUS SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE ANA, APR TO OCT
09
(34) ONE PERSON FROM CANSOFCOM AND ONE PERSON FROM CDI RECEIVED A
MSM FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION. FOR
SECURITY AND OPERATIONAL REASONS, THE NAMES AND CITATIONS OF THE
RECIPIENTS ARE NOT RELEASED
2. I AM ALSO PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE CF AWARDS FOR THE FOLLOWING
DESERVING INDIVIDUALS
A. CDS COMMENDATION
(1) COL (THEN LCOL) R.B. EWING FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND
LEADERSHIP AS CO OF DART OF JOINT TASK FORCE HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(2) HCOL G. RAINBIRD FOR OUTSTANDING ASSISTANCE AND DEDICATION AS
HCOL OF 8 WING DURING A PERIOD OF CRISIS IN TRENTON, ON, IN FEB 10
(3) CDR P.R. CRAIN FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM
AS THE CO OF HMCS ATHABASKAN DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR
10
(4) CDR (THEN LCDR) G.D. EVERTS FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND
PAGE 4 RCCLHAV6010 UNCLAS
DEDICATION AS THE XO OF HMCS ATHABASKAN DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI,
JAN TO MAR 10
(5) CDR P.W. FORGET FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND TREMENDOUS DEDICATION
AS MARITIME COMPONENT COS DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(6) LCOL K. KIMPINSKI FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION AS
THE AIR CONTROL ELEMENT COMD DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR
10
(7) CDR J. KURTZ FOR EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM AS
THE CO OF HMCS HALIFAX DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO FEB 10
(8) LCOL (THEN MAJ) J.R.R. MOFFET FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AS
THE OPERATIONS OFFICER OF JOINT TASK FORCE HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(9) LCDR (THEN LT(N))W.A. BARLOW FOR OUTSTANDING INITIATIVE AND
DEDICATION AS THE COMBAT OFFICER OF HMCS HALIFAX DURING OP HESTIA IN
HAITI, JAN TO FEB 10
(10) LCDR D.A. CHARLEBOIS FOR EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION
AS THE XO OF HMCS FREDERICTON DURING ITS DEPLOYMENT TO THE GULF OF
ADEN AND ARABIAN SEA IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-PIRACY AND
COUNTER-TERROR EFFORTS, OCT 09 TO MAY 10
(11) MAJ S. FOREMAN (BRITISH ARMY) FOR FRONTLINE LEADERSHIP AND
DIPLOMATIC SKILLS AS THE SOLE LOGISTICS OFFICER ON THE GROUND DURING
PAGE 5 RCCLHAV6010 UNCLAS
THE FIRST WEEK OF THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE IN HAITI, 12 TO 19 JAN
10
(12) LCDR J.B. HUTT FOR LEADERSHIP AND TIRELESS DEDICATION AS THE
COMBAT OFFICER FOR HMCS ATHABASKAN DURING OP HESTIA, AS PART OF
CANADA S RESPONSE TO THE EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(13) MAJ D.P. MILLER FOR LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM AS THE AIR
OPERATIONS OFFICER OF JOINT TASK FORCE HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(14) MAJ (THEN CAPT) D.O.J. PAQUETTE FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND
DEDICATION AS THE OPS OFFICER FOR THE AIRLIFT CONTROL ELEMENT OF
JOINT TASK FORCE HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(15) MAJ M.D. SHELDEN FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND OUTSTANDING
DEDICATION AS THE AIR OFFICER FOR THE MARITIME COMMAND COMPONENT OF
JOINT TASK FORCE HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(16) LCDR J.K. WILSON FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP AS THE XO
OF HMCS HALIFAX, DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO FEB 10
(17) CAPT B.J. DEY FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP
AS THE AIR OPS OFFICER DURING OP CADENCE, FOR THE G8/G20 SUMMITS IN
ONTARIO, JAN TO JUN 10
(18) LT(N) P. HATFIELD FOR PROFESSIONAL ACUMEN AND DEDICATION AS
THE MEDICAL OFFICER AT THE CANADIAN FIELD HOSPITAL DURING OP HESTIA
PAGE 6 RCCLHAV6010 UNCLAS
IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(19) CAPT (THEN MWO) R.T. LYMAN FOR LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM
AS THE DART CSM DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(20) LT C. CLARKE (JAMAICAN DEFENCE FORCE) FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND
DEDICATION AS A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TEAM MANAGER SUPPORTING THE
KANDAHAR PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAM IN AFGHANISTAN, JUN TO OCT
09
(21) LT E. MORGAN (JAMAICAN DEFENCE FORCE) FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND
FRONTLINE LEADERSHIP AS A TEAM LEADER IN THE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION
SQUADRON IN AFGHANISTAN, APR TO DEC 10
(22) CPO1 S.P. RASMUSSEN FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION
AS COXSWAIN OF HMCS FREDERICTON WHILE DEPLOYED TO THE GULF OF ADEN
AND ARABIAN SEA IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-PIRACY AND
COUNTER TERROR EFFORTS, OCT 09 TO MAY 10
(23) MWO T.D. DOUCETTE FOR LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM AS THE
CAMP SERGEANT-MAJOR AT THE JACMEL AIRFIELD IN HAITI DURING OP
HESTIA, JAN TO MAR 10
(24) WO J.A. MCBRIDE FOR LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION, AS A MEDICAL
TECHNICIAN ONBOARD HMCS ATHABASKAN, IN PROVIDING CRITICAL SUPPORT TO
THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
UNCLAS CMP 055/11 CANFORGEN 112/11
SIC WAK
SECTION 3 OF 6(25) WO B. PLAMONDON FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION AS
 THE
CAMP SERGEANT-MAJOR AT THE CANADIAN EMBASSY IN HAITI DURING OP
HESTIA, JAN TO MAR 10
(26) WO J.A.W. STEWART FOR STEADFAST LEADERSHIP AS THE PLATOON
WARRANT OF THE DEFENCE SECURITY PLATOON, DART COMPANY IN HAITI, JAN
TO MAR 10
(27) SGT (THEN MCPL) J. HENWOOD FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION
AS THE ADMIN AND PERS OFFICER FOR THE AIR COMPONENT DURING OP HESTIA
IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(28) SGT D.F. NEARING FOR COURAGE, LEADERSHIP AND DECISIVE ACTIONS
BY DIFFUSING A VOLATILE SITUATION FOLLOWING A RIOT AT A FOOD
DISTRIBUTION POINT AT THE PINCHINET INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6011 UNCLAS
CAMP IN HAITI, 10 FEB 10
(29) MCPL (THEN CPL) R. ALAM FOR PROFESSIONAL ACUMEN AS A MEDICAL
TECHNICIAN WITH THE DART DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO FEB 10
(30) MS D. LEBLANC FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION AS A MEMBER
OF HMCS ATHABASKAN DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR 10
(31) MS (THEN LS) D.T. LEEPER FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION
AS A MEMBER OF HMCS HALIFAX DURING OP HESTIA IN HAITI, JAN TO FEB 10
(32) MCPL D. NEUFELD, CPL R.KENNEDY, CPL M.F. NICHOLSON FOR
PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION AS MEMBERS OF AN URBAN SAR TEAM IN
HAITI DURING OP HESTIA, JAN TO MAR 10
(33) MCPL J.-P. SOMERSET FOR LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION, AS A
MEDICAL TECHNICIAN ONBOARD HMCS ATHABASKAN, BY PROVIDING CRITICAL
SUPPORT TO THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM IN HAITI, JAN TO MAR
10
(34) CPL (THEN PTE) J.M.L. ANDERSON FOR OUTSTANDING INITIATIVE AND
GREAT DEDICATION BY COLLECTING OVER 7,000 DOLLARS WORTH OF TOYS,
CLOTHING, BLANKETS AND FIRST AID KITS FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE
EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI, PRIOR TO DEPLOYING WITH HMCS HALIFAX, JAN 10
(35) CPL G.B. EVANS FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION AS A
CONSTRUCTION TECHNICIAN AT THE JACMEL AIRFIELD IN HAITI DURING OP
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6011 UNCLAS
HESTIA, JAN TO MAR 10
B. CF MEDALLION FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE
(1) MR. K. HAMILTON FOR OUTSTANDING DEDICATION AND
PROFESSIONALISM, PMO CANSOFCOM OTTAWA
(2) MR. J.B. VARNER FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP AS THE
SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE MND SINCE 2008
3. ON BEHALF OF THE CDS, I EXTEND MY SINCEREST CONGRATULATIONS TO
ALL RECIPIENTS.  THE LEADERSHIP, PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION YOU
HAVE DISPLAYED REFLECTS WELL ON OUR DEFENCE TEAM
4. SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH, CMP
END OF ENGLISH TEXTE / LE TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT


Congrats folks - 2 classmates from my PA course are on that list.  Good work dudes  .

MM


----------



## wildman0101 (29 Jun 2011)

Outstanding.. Congratulation's All...  
Scoty B


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2011)

Congratulations to all recipients, as well as those who contributed to the recipients' nomination.


As an aside, shouldn't the MMV recipients be listed ahead of those receiving an MSC?

Regards
G2G


----------



## medicineman (29 Jun 2011)

Yeah, you'd think...

MM


----------



## JMesh (29 Jun 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As an aside, shouldn't the MMV recipients be listed ahead of those receiving an MSC?



Actually, for whatever reason, MSC is higher in the order of precedence than MMV.

http://gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71


----------



## Navalsnpr (29 Jun 2011)

Outstanding, well deserved!


----------



## RCR Grunt (29 Jun 2011)

JMesh said:
			
		

> Good2Golf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't worry about it.  When they go to Rideau Hall to get their medals all the valor recipients, Stars and Medals, will be sitting in the front row.


----------



## Strike (29 Jun 2011)

Well done to all.

There are quite a few people named that I've had the honour of working with in the past and I am happy to see that their hard work is being recognized.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2011)

Congrats to all


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2011)

JMesh said:
			
		

> Actually, for whatever reason, MSC is higher in the order of precedence than MMV.
> 
> http://gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71



Right you are.  I always thought all orders of valour and bravery went ahead of orders of merit.

Regards
G2G


----------



## xo31@711ret (4 Jul 2011)

Well done Johnny Bravo! (for one of te medic types in the message) Militi Succurimus


----------



## Delaney1986 (5 Jul 2011)

Love hearing this sort of thing! Good to see hard work/dedication recognized! Keep it up!


----------



## gun runner (9 Jul 2011)

Congratulations to all the award recipients. Cheers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jul 2011)

Bravo Zulu to all recipients.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Jul 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Right you are.  I always thought all orders of valour and bravery went ahead of orders of merit.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Generals have to pad their resumes somehow!


----------



## 3VP Highlander (10 Jul 2011)

Congrats to all.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Jul 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Generals have to pad their resumes somehow!



What do you mean?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Jul 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> What do you mean?



I was in response to the comment about meritorious service cross being higher in precedence than medals of military valor or merit.  I am pretty sure almost every general or full colonel I have ever seen has a meritorious service cross or medal.  Not that I am sure they don't deserve it as I am sure they worked hard for it but it says something about the awards system when these awards are ranked higher in precedence than medal of military valour and medal of bravery.  

On another note I know some of the people up on that list and well they are all deserving so congrats


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Jul 2011)

Your comment implies that the precedence has been set by those Generals in order to "pad their resumes."  In fact, the order of precedence of orders, decorations was authorized by Order in Council, under P.C. 1998-591, April 2, 1998.

Hate to nit-pick, but I wouldn't want to pass a fault.... 8)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> I was in response to the comment about meritorious service cross being higher in precedence than medals of military valor or merit.  I am pretty sure almost every general or full colonel I have ever seen has a meritorious service cross or medal.  Not that I am sure they don't deserve it as I am sure they worked hard for it but it says something about the awards system when these awards are ranked higher in precedence than medal of military valour and medal of bravery.
> 
> On another note I know some of the people up on that list and well they are all deserving so congrats



You mean like the RSMs that submit their COs and the COs that submit their RSMs?

And then we have a flurry of OMMs and MMMs

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Not implying anyone from your list, of course, just that it happens.

Sorry for the tangent


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jul 2011)

My original point was that I thought all valour awards went before meritorious service awards as groupings, as opposed to the actual precedence of most crosses, be they for valour, bravery OR meritorious service, before medals.  It had nothing to do with rank of recipient.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> My original point was that I thought all valour awards went before meritorious service awards as groupings, as opposed to the actual precedence of most crosses, be they for valour, bravery OR meritorious service, before medals.  It had nothing to do with rank of recipient.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Sorry G2G,

And I apologize for the tangent if it somehow detracted from you're post. 

It was totally unrelated and not meant to be an addendum. 

I just have a tendency, after knowing numerous recipients, their backgrounds, what they did during their career and how they got there, of having somewhat of a jaundiced eye.

When I see them getting said awards.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jul 2011)

Recceguy, not related to you, but more to those to whom PPCLI Guy was referring.

I don't disagree with you at all that sometimes there seems to be a bit of top-level writing up going on.  One of the biggest challenges I have had in my past positions has been getting "the system" to give as much apparent consideration to my subordinates way down the ladder when it comes to recognition...still trying to press a subordinate's nomination for an award years (and two postings) later.  It's hard when it's for "body of work" type recognition and not a specific event or achievement.  Frustrating.  :-\

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Pusser (11 Jul 2011)

Let's see if I can clarify a few things here.  Honours from the Crown (which they all are) are broken down into three basic groups:  Orders, Decorations and Medals.

1) Orders are societies of merit.  Individuals are not "awarded" orders, but rather are inducted into them.  The "medal" (more correctly referred to as the insignia) that inductee receives at the investiture is not the award itself, but rather a badge signifying membership.  Generally, membership in an order signifies a lifetime of achievement.  Thus you don't see too many corporals who are members of the Order of Military Merit (it has happened though).  Membership in orders is generally limited.

2)  Decorations are awarded for individual acts of bravery, valour or merit (do not confuse the Order of Military Merit with the Meritorious Service Cross or the Meritorious Service Medal).  There is no limit to the number of individuals that can be decorated.

3)  Medals are awarded to anyone who meets specific criteria (e.g. participates in a mission.

Don't be confused by the names of the individual awards.  For example, the Medal of Military Valour, the Medal of Bravery and the Meritorious Service Medal are actually decorations.  The Canadian Forces Decoration (CD) is a special case in that strictly speaking, it is a medal by definition and treated as such in the order of precedence; however, it is classed as a decoration, largely because the King George VI (who established it) decided to make it so.

Orders and Decorations (including the CD) carry the right to post-nominal letters and the inclusion of the insignia and/or motto (orders only) on personal coats of arms.  The highest ranks within the orders also carry the right to supporters (the animals or people holding the shield) on coats of arms.

The order of precedence for wear is shown here: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/index-eng.asp, but in general terms is:  VC, CV, Orders, Decorations and then, Medals.  There are are variety of criteria used to determine where each award fits in the order of precedence (including date of establishment), but it is not correct to say that all bravery/valour awards come before other awards.

The CANFORGEN announces awards in the order of precedence, but the presentations at Rideau Hall are not.  At Rideau Hall they are grouped into Valour and Meritorious Service in order to simplify the program.  Inductions into Orders and the presentation of Decorations are never held at the same time


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jul 2011)

Pusser, thanks for that.  You may not have thought so, but you outlined it in a very clear and understandable (for me, anyway) manner.  BZ.



> The CANFORGEN announces awards in the order of precedence, but the presentations at Rideau Hall are not.  At Rideau Hall they are grouped into Valour and Meritorious Service in order to simplify the program.



This must have been why I had a difference impression of the precedence issue.

Thanks for helping to clear this up.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Davionn (11 Jul 2011)

FYI:

A more complete order of precedence is found here:

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=71


----------



## Rheostatic (11 Jul 2011)

And slightly less complete, but much more visual:
DH&R - Canadian Honours Chart


----------



## infantryian (16 Nov 2011)

http://www.ckom.com/story/saskatoon-man-awarded-pilot-rescue/31920

In April a plane crashed on a Saskatoon road, the news reported that a CF member, who happened to be driving past when he saw it happen, was the first responder on the scene. This was now published. 



> Saskatoon man awarded for pilot rescue
> Corporal Hrycuik honoured for the second time after risking his life to save others
> Reported by Bre McAdam
> First Posted: Nov 15, 2011 4:06pm | Last Updated: Nov 15, 2011 7:16pm
> ...



Click the link to see videos of the aftermath


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Nov 2011)

Good job, Cpl. Hrycuik!


----------



## CallOfDuty (16 Nov 2011)

Way to go Winston!  

http://gov.ns.ca/news/smr/2011-11-16-Bravery-Medals/


----------



## mariomike (16 Nov 2011)

We have a thread on that MVC.
Topic: One killed in crash involving Canadian Navy bus, SUV in N.S
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/90590.0


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Nov 2011)

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> Way to go Winnie!!  Congratulations my friend
> 
> http://gov.ns.ca/news/smr/2011-11-16-Bravery-Medals/



Wow, well done Cpl Matheson!  Amazing people, all the recipients!  


Regards
G2G


----------



## gun runner (16 Nov 2011)

Congratulations, Cpl.Hrycuik! Well done. Ubique


----------



## gun runner (16 Nov 2011)

Congratulations, Cpl.Matheson! Well done. Ubique


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Nov 2011)

WOw way to go Winston...I never knew.

Just a bit of background Winston and I were in 2 NSH together.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Nov 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just a bit of background Winston and I were in 2 NSH together.


Hang on.....you were infantry AND armour......yet ended up being a sailor?    ???


----------



## GAP (17 Nov 2011)

we all find acceptance......eventually...


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Nov 2011)

Well done.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Nov 2011)

Well done!!


----------



## cupper (17 Nov 2011)

Bravo Zulu!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hang on.....you were infantry AND armour......yet ended up being a sailor?    ???



Not to mention an Air Cadet.


----------



## cupper (17 Nov 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not to mention an Air Cadet.



Holy multiple personalities!


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (21 Nov 2011)

Always nice to see a feel good story, excellent job.


----------



## Thompson_JM (15 Dec 2011)

Bravo Zulu to Cpl Harris,   

I take a little extra pride in posting this as he is an MSE Op, and its always nice to see someone in your own trade do well...  (Though I'll always say that ALL the trades are important!)

Below is the link to the article with a select few excerpts from it.... 

Full Story on link....


http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/reluctant-soldier-unhesitating-hero-corporal-tony-harris-to-be-awarded-the-medal-of-military-valour/



> Tony Harris was a kid without a plan. His mother will tell you he was going nowhere, fast, just spinning his wheels through post-high school life in Pennfield Ridge, N.B....
> 
> ...“I had no direction,” says Tony Jr. “I think I always knew that I was going to join the military. But when it came time I needed a push from my Dad.”
> 
> ...



Apologies if this was posted elsewhere... I did take a good look and could not find it anywhere... 

Cheers,
     Tommy.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2011)

Great story, BZ to Cpl Harris!


----------



## VIChris (19 Dec 2011)

Excellent work, Cpl. Harris, BZ indeed!


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Dec 2011)

There, walks a man.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2011)

Here's a question:  We're still seeing H&A coming out of deployments in 2009 - two years ago.

This compares poorly to historical precedent. LCol Merritt was awarded the VC less than two months after his action - the raid on Dieppe was on 19 August 1942, and his award was gazetted on 02 October 1942.  That's about 45 days turn-around; why does it now take us two years or more?


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Dec 2011)

There seems to be a quota for each award each year, and quite a few nominations have gone in. These awards (no less important), perhaps didn't make the first cut in the year of the deployment.

I'm still surprised we haven't seen a VC awarded yet for Afghanistan. With all the MMVs, MBs, SMVs awarded, we have had soldiers doing heroic things under heavy enemy fire and some sacrificed their lives for their comrades. Perhaps the bar was raised way too high.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Dec 2011)

dapaterson has raised a good point.  The time it takes for proper recognition of meritorious service or gallantry is unacceptable.  This isn't a problem unique to the CF, as I've seen journal articles in U.S. and British publications on the over-bureaucratization of the H&A process.  Paperwork and committees are the primary culprit for slow returns - I've seen things delayed at the formation level and I can only imagine what happens at the command/national level; despite have staff officers dedicated solely to H&A, each level has a chain of command has to sign off on anything of significance.

If the chain of command receives a Redress of Grievance or an harassment complaint, policy lays out a clear timeline on when certain things are to be completed.  Why does our system of honours and recognition (short of the OMM) not have similar guidelines in place?


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The time it takes for proper recognition of meritorious service or gallantry is unacceptable.



Seems to work fast for some people though.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14337

The last bomb had barely done it's detonation.............


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Seems to work fast for some people though.
> 
> http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14337
> 
> The last bomb had barely done it's detonation.............



Even though I'm a ground pounder, I don't begrudge the Brylcreem Brigade finally getting some recognition. But yes, the bodies are hardly cooling...


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Even though I'm a ground pounder, I don't begrudge the Brylcreem Brigade finally getting some recognition. But yes, the bodies are hardly cooling...



At the very least, it should have been presented at the same time as the medal for the troops. At this time, what the medal will be for OP MOBILE has not even been announced. I don't debate the merit of his MSC, just the timing.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ...the Brylcreem Brigade ...


   :rofl:   

Damn, you _are_ old   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Seems to work fast for some people though.
> 
> http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14337
> 
> The last bomb had barely done it's detonation.............


I wonder how much it helps when there's political support for sharing what is considered damned good news quickly and broadly:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=4484
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3994
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3993
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3992
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3991
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3988
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3978


----------



## Haggis (23 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Seems to work fast for some people though.



Maybe the nomination was submitted with his DAG forms in the expectation of a job well done?  Had he not lived up to that expectation, the nomination could be cancelled.

We all know that it's easier to turn something off than on.   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Dec 2011)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We all know that it's easier to turn something off than on.   ;D



Oh, you know my wife then?


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Damn, you _are_ old   ;D



Yes, so old that I have no use for Brylcreem anymore! (although a little dab will do me on my back).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes, so old that I have no use for Brylcreem anymore! (although a little dab will do me on my back).



Switch to Butch Wax


----------



## armyvern (23 Dec 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> why does it now take us two years or more?



Non PC answer:  "Job Protection".

 >


----------



## armyvern (23 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There seems to be a quota for each award each year, and quite a few nominations have gone in. These awards (no less important), perhaps didn't make the first cut in the year of the deployment.
> 
> I'm still surprised we haven't seen a VC awarded yet for Afghanistan. With all the MMVs, MBs, SMVs awarded, we have had soldiers doing heroic things under heavy enemy fire and some sacrificed their lives for their comrades. Perhaps the bar was raised way too high.



Yes, but we also need to keep Afghanistan in context. It's like comparing apples and oranges ...

I recall my son (9 or 10 at the time) saying to me, "Mommy why are the news complaining about us having "X" number of soldiers killed in the war? More than that died on one day in WWII." Ahhhh, but from the mouths of babes.

So, yes, we spent 10 years there. We spent fewer in Europe, BUT in Europe war was very different than it is now. We had 10 of thousands of soldiers involved in hundreds of actions each day in WWII Europe. We, quite simply, did not see that "frequency in numbers" in Afghanistan. If we want to "ratio" it out and attempt to figure out the 'odds', then we need to also consider the very low participation rate and contact rate from WWII vs Afghanistan when doing so as well. When you think about that vast difference now what are the odds??

When I think about that vast difference, I'm not - actually - surprised at all.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Dec 2011)

Well, how about South Africa?  Our commitment was small, the combat over a third of our time in Afghanistan.  And yet, there was no less than 4 VC awards.  As I said in a different thread, from reading some of the citations for the SMV awards in the sandbox, the deeds described were no less brave and risky in my opinion to some of the VC citations I have read.  Lastly, our British, Australian and NZ allies are no different in commitment both today and 70 years ago but they have managed to award VC.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2011)

While i do find it interesting that we have not awarded any VCs, saying "they did therefore we should have also" is hardly a convincing argument.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> While i do find it interesting that we have not awarded any VCs, saying "they did therefore we should have also" is hardly a convincing argument.


Not saying that, what I am responding to is Vern's pondering that our commitment in troops, TIC's and theaters is greatly out of proportion to Afghanistan.  That the numbers don't add up by weight.  I am merely countering that by that math they did the same then and today.   And that we did with a similar small war of South Africa.  What I am saying is by the numbers, we could have possibly had an act of valour that was worthy.  That command chose not to go to that level is their choice, however disappointing that might be is in the end their choice.


----------



## Hurricane (23 Dec 2011)

What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.


----------



## Hurricane (23 Dec 2011)

BZ to a fellow trucker.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Dec 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.




Nor were any awarded during the Korean conflict - despite some pretty remarkable acts of valour.

I have hunch that deciding on who gets the first VC is a frightening prospect for some senior officers and bureaucrats - unless it can be awarded to a _Francophone,_ female, visible minority member of the CF who performs a lifesaving rescue while under fire but doesn't, ever, shoot back or destroy property in the process or annoy the media in the process.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.



You meant that as a joke, right?

That the Government of Canada, would not accept the recommendation of an award, from the CF, because they didn't want to spend 3 grand a year in award?

IIRC, that stipend from the government, is not tied to the vetting process by the CF.

From my understanding that vetting process is, wholly, in house and has nothing to do with the political stripe of the government.

I can't believe anyone would attempt to cheapen that process over money and if they did, they should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2011)

While i have read about the annuity that goes with the British VC, i have yet to find evidence that the Canadian VC includes such provision.

Found it.

Still......not much of an expense for the Feds. I don't believe this to have any weight on VC award decisions.


----------



## mariomike (23 Dec 2011)

Something about "GRATUITIES AND ANNUITIES" here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-90-95/page-1.html


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Something about "GRATUITIES AND ANNUITIES" here:
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-90-95/page-1.html



Yeah, found it somewhere else.


----------



## Hurricane (24 Dec 2011)

It was yet was not a joke. It was merely to throw into perspective, that there are 3 other awards for bravery that can be awarded. Which are awarded, with every recipient deserving of that award. That being said, every decoration goes through the Awards and Decorations Board if i understand correctly, with the VC then being forwarded to the Governor General for approval. (forgive me if I have their official name incorrect) So, I'm sure that the board just doesn't approve every recommendation. Not that I would do this, but is it unrealistic that if a recommendation for a VC came across the desk for a "similar" scenario that someone was awarded the Star of Courage or Cross of Valour for. Would the Governor General not award the precedent that has been set with the SC or CV, rather than move the precedent to be the VC? If they were to start awarding the VC more often, do you not think that opposition parties would try and use that $3000 a year paid to recipients as an example of "wasteful" spending. (No I do not think it is wasteful spending, I'm just thinking on a political standpoint here) 

To be perfectly honest, if there wasn't an annuity, in my opinion we would probably have seen a VC or 2 awarded during the combat role in Afghanistan.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Dec 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> do you not think that opposition parties would try and use that $3000 a year paid to recipients as an example of "wasteful" spending.



No.



			
				Hurricane said:
			
		

> if there wasn't an annuity, in my opinion we would probably have seen a VC or 2 awarded during the combat role in Afghanistan.



 :


----------



## Gunner98 (24 Dec 2011)

Could it be that the awards' critieria include these words:

VC - while facing a hostile force (does any conflict or insurgent group that CF members have faced on or after 1 January 1993 - meet the description?)

SMV and MMV - in the presence of the enemy (Afghanistan meets this criteria)

Let the debate continue!


----------



## Swingline1984 (24 Dec 2011)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> VC - while facing a hostile force (does any conflict or insurgent group that CF members have faced on or after 1 January 1993 - meet the description?)



A plague of pine beetles meets that criteria.  I'm fairly certain that the Taliban and AQ are organized in some fashion.


----------



## Gunner98 (24 Dec 2011)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> A plague of pine beetles meets that criteria.  I'm fairly certain that the Taliban and AQ are organized in some fashion.



You may be 'fairly certain' but are you on the Honours and Awards Committee at the appropriate level?

It did take our government 40+ years to acknowledge that the CF members had been involved in a 'war' and not a UN struggle or a police action.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2011)

According to what I have read, the Taliban have an organizational structure based on small groups capable of being concentrated into larger bodies. They use radios for field communications and are capable of planning ambushes and attacks at roughly the company level. Do they have formal parades, badges of rank, published regulations? Probably not, but they probably are on an organizational level with the Metis and the Boers or the Canadian sedentary militia of the 19th century for that matter.


----------



## Gunner98 (24 Dec 2011)

I will rescind my early comments with apologies directed toward Swingline1984 (but I will not delete them for the integrity of the thread), after further research, it is evident from the DHH booklet on the VC that:

The definition of the “enemy” was expanded to reflect the new reality of warfare in the 1990s, the Department of National Defence noting it entailed “a hostile armed force, including armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and armed pirates.  Canada does not have to be at war to acknowledge the existence of an enemy which fits this description.  It is broad enough to encompass Canadian involvement in UN peacekeeping operations.”  Any member of the Canadian Forces or member of an allied armed force serving with the Canadian Forces on or after 1 January 1993 is eligible for the award and, like its British counterpart, the Victoria Cross can be awarded posthumously.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/boo-bro/vc-cv/index-eng.asp


----------



## Swingline1984 (24 Dec 2011)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> ...with apologies directed toward Swingline1984.



No apologies necessary, I'm always wrong anyway, just ask my wife.  ;D

 :subbies:


----------



## armyvern (24 Dec 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> It was yet was not a joke. It was merely to throw into perspective, that there are 3 other awards for bravery that can be awarded. Which are awarded, with every recipient deserving of that award. That being said, every decoration goes through the Awards and Decorations Board if i understand correctly, with the VC then being forwarded to the Governor General for approval. (forgive me if I have their official name incorrect) So, I'm sure that the board just doesn't approve every recommendation. Not that I would do this, but is it unrealistic that if a recommendation for a VC came across the desk for a "similar" scenario that someone was awarded the Star of Courage or Cross of Valour for. Would the Governor General not award the precedent that has been set with the SC or CV, rather than move the precedent to be the VC? If they were to start awarding the VC more often, do you not think that opposition parties would try and use that $3000 a year paid to recipients as an example of "wasteful" spending. (No I do not think it is wasteful spending, I'm just thinking on a political standpoint here)
> 
> To be perfectly honest, if there wasn't an annuity, in my opinion we would probably have seen a VC or 2 awarded during the combat role in Afghanistan.




Wow. I just shakes my head ... and walk away from responding to this post ...


----------



## armyvern (24 Dec 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not saying that, what I am responding to is Vern's pondering that our commitment in troops, TIC's and theaters is greatly out of proportion to Afghanistan.  That the numbers don't add up by weight.  I am merely countering that by that math they did the same then and today.   And that we did with a similar small war of South Africa.  What I am saying is by the numbers, we could have possibly had an act of valour that was worthy.  That command chose not to go to that level is their choice, however disappointing that might be is in the end their choice.



Sorry, I forgot to mention technology. War is very different today than it was then. Even when we're up close now, we still manage to do lots from afar. It is my opinion, that these wars are incomparable --- that includes South Africa. These days, we'd simply send in the rotor heads to blow up a gun so it didn't fall into enemy hands ... you wouldn't see it being saved by someone requiring to snatch it off it's carriage and run with it to keep it from being taken.  

Happy belated birthday to the RCDs too ...


----------



## Stoker (24 Dec 2011)

Does anyone know of a mbr actually being nominated for a VC for Afghanistan or were they downgraded to a lower medal?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2011)

I don't think you can nominate for a specific medal, or at least that's how it was explained to me. There's a few of the individuals who were awarded the SMV that (with only getting part of the picture for the citation) seem to definitely fit the criteria outlined for the Victoria Cross. One member shielded a wounded comrade with his own body, took strikes on his body armour and fought off an enemy attack. Reads like a movie script, which is what most VC winners seem to have as their citations, unbelievable acts of valour.


----------



## Stoker (25 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think you can nominate for a specific medal, or at least that's how it was explained to me. There's a few of the individuals who were awarded the SMV that (with only getting part of the picture for the citation) seem to definitely fit the criteria outlined for the Victoria Cross. One member shielded a wounded comrade with his own body, took strikes on his body armour and fought off an enemy attack. Reads like a movie script, which is what most VC winners seem to have as their citations, unbelievable acts of valour.



I think it would be certainly interesting to find out the actual reason why a VC wasn't awarded yet not just speculation. I doubt if we'll ever fight another conventional war like WW2 and perhaps that's the standard the VC is being held by. I think if the intention is not to award a VC again or wait for the next big one then strike it off the honors list.


----------



## Hurricane (25 Dec 2011)

Just did a bit more reading up on the Canadian VC. The very first medal created wasn't even unveiled until May 2008, so that's also a possibility. The possibility being that the medal hadn't even been created yet, therefore could not be awarded. Maybe we could in fact see some awarded posthumously?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I think it would be certainly interesting to find out the actual reason why a VC wasn't awarded yet not just speculation. I doubt if we'll ever fight another conventional war like WW2 and perhaps that's the standard the VC is being held by. I think if the intention is not to award a VC again or wait for the next big one then strike it off the honors list.



Yep, to be a fly on the wall in the H&A boards would be very interesting. However, I doubt we'll ever see those notes as the process is designed to be closed-door to prevent outside interference, which now brings all these questions to light because there's no transparency. No one is going to redress being awarded a valour decoration, 95% don't even know they've been nominated for one.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> War is very different today than it was then. Even when we're up close now, we still manage to do lots from afar.



Warfare isn't very different today than it was then when you get down to it.  Technology has provided some increases in time, space and magnitude, but the dynamics of attrition, manoeuvre and the human on the battlefield are relatively similar to the point that someone from a century ago would have little problem identifying what is going on on the battlefield.  Dirty soldiers running around in defensible positions trading fire with the enemy - images from Bloemfontein, Passchendaele or Panjwayi?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Does anyone know of a mbr actually being nominated for a VC for Afghanistan or were they downgraded to a lower medal?



I believe there was a nomination for a VC; the nominee was awarded the SMV.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think you can nominate for a specific medal, or at least that's how it was explained to me.



There is a spot right in the DND 2448 where the CO writes the award that is being recommended.  I am unsure if CEFCOM has any specific policies regarding medals for valour, but my observation is that the unit puts in the type of award and it passes through the chain of command to be elevated, downgraded or supported as is.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I doubt if we'll ever fight another conventional war like WW2 and perhaps that's the standard the VC is being held by.



...and what are you basing those doubts on?  Didn't they say that after the "War to End All Wars"?  One shouldn't get into the business of making assumptions in this line of work.

On the H&A system in general, I saw an interesting article in the RUSI Journal about the overhaul of the British system of H&A a while back.  In it, the author describes the ascending order with which awards for Gallantry are awarded.  The highest, the VC, was reserved for actions in the face of the enemy where the chance of death was 90-100%.  The next level down, the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross (the equivalent of our SMV) featured a 50-90% chance of death.*

I know not if DHR and/or Government House has some sort of similar criteria that tries to apply some objectivity to gallantry awards (nor am I aware of how one devises a formula to figure out how the chance of death was over 90%) but I did find it interesting that there is a method to the madness in the British Forces for this kind of thing.  I can only assume that our boards for Valour have some similar sort of existing criteria.

As for the VC and why it has or hasn't been awarded in Afghanistan, the reason is likely one of two:

1.  The political will isn't there.  The military will certainly is (or was) as I heard General Hillier once say that he was convinced there would be a Canadian VC by the end of the Afghan campaign.  If anyone remembers the media that the first SMVs raised, you can only imagine what attention a VC would have garnered; attention is not something that is always wanted when you are trying to sell the idea of progress in war.  There were similar murmurs to this down in the U.S. where comments that political will was making "posthumous" a prerequisite for the Congressional Medal of Honour; this is something that has changed in the last year or two.  A different mentality or approach in places like Australia may explain why there has been a VC there; or

2.  No recommendations merited the VC.  This is plausible as well; there were no VCs for the Canadian contingent in Korea, which saw far more soldiers and far more fighting.  While the Brits and Americans have seen VC/MoH presented, they have also had a greater amount of soldiers in battle, meaning far more instances that could merit such an award.

My SWAG is that it is a mixture of the two.  We have a few instances that could legitimately be considered for the VC (IMO, there are 2 on the list of SMV recipients that read close to actual VC citations).  Of those very few, they either clearly didn't meet criteria (whatever that criteria is) and the national attitude and political reality was such that committees would err on the side of caution; unless there was a slam dunk case then the SMV would be awarded.

* Ryder, Brig. Stuart. 'Reform of Operational Gallantry Awards: A Missed Opportunity' in _The RUSI Journal_, Vol. 142, No. 1, pp. 41-44.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Dec 2011)

I've actually spoken to the person in charge of all honours and awards for the CF.  There is no conspiracy surrounding the awarding ( or non awarding) of the VC.  The board that sits and decides these things is entirely independent of any political influence ( he admitted that people approach him all the time and encourage him to award a VC), but he does not answer to the CDS, or the PM or anyone else for the boards decisions.  He did not lay out the specific criteria the board uses to decide the level of award, but it is based at least in part on the awards submission and what the CO recommends (interpolation- are COs reluctant to recommend a VC?).

He assured me that the medals exist (he has several brand new VCs in a safe in Ottawa). I got the distinct impression that he would like nothing better then to be able to award one.  Who knows- maybe one is still in the research phase?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I've actually spoken to the person in charge of all honours and awards for the CF.  There is no conspiracy surrounding the awarding ( or non awarding) of the VC.  The board that sits and decides these things is entirely independent of any political influence ( he admitted that people approach him all the time and encourage him to award a VC), but he does not answer to the CDS, or the PM or anyone else for the boards decisions.  He did not lay out the specific criteria the board uses to decide the level of award, but it is based at least in part on the awards submission and what the CO recommends (interpolation- are COs reluctant to recommend a VC?).



The guy responsible for all honours and awards in the CF is the CDS.  As far as I understand things, boards make recommendations and the chain of command is not obligated to heed such recommendation.  A VC would require the approval of the CO, the Task Force Comd and Comd CEFCOM on the DND 2448 and, likely, some sort of memo from the CDS before it moves to Government House for final approval (I've heard this process is largely a rubber stamp).


----------



## armyvern (25 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Warfare isn't very different today than it was then when you get down to it.  Technology has provided some increases in time, space and magnitude, but the dynamics of attrition, manoeuvre and the human on the battlefield are relatively similar to the point that someone from a century ago would have little problem identifying what is going on on the battlefield.  Dirty soldiers running around in defensible positions trading fire with the enemy - images from Bloemfontein, Passchendaele or Panjwayi?



Not when coupled with scale, incidents and technology. You will not convince me that this past war is comparable to those that came before it. We no longer go in "bayonets first" for trench warfare, as a rule, unless our technology is not sufficient to sort it out before we send the troops in. In essence, although still sometimes necessary, we most often use other means first to lessen the risk to our own as the rule now.


----------



## dogger1936 (25 Dec 2011)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> A plague of pine beetles meets that criteria.  I'm fairly certain that the Taliban and AQ are organized in some fashion.



Agree. The Taliban we fought were well organised and I respected them. BZ to all the boys who got well deserving medals and recognition.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The guy responsible for all honours and awards in the CF is the CDS.  As far as I understand things, boards make recommendations and the chain of command is not obligated to heed such recommendation.  A VC would require the approval of the CO, the Task Force Comd and Comd CEFCOM on the DND 2448 and, likely, some sort of memo from the CDS before it moves to Government House for final approval (I've heard this process is largely a rubber stamp).



Infanteer- you are, as usual, pedantically correct.  However, the CDS does not do all of the research in each case nor does he  chair the board.  I've spoken to the guy who does all that and then drafts the letters for the CDS. I doubt that there are many changes after he is does his work.  However, I should have been more clear about whom I was speaking.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not when coupled with scale, incidents and technology. You will not convince me that this past war is comparable to those that came before it. We no longer go in "bayonets first" for trench warfare, as a rule, unless our technology is not sufficient to sort it out before we send the troops in.



I'm not sure what you're inferring with "scale, incidents and technology" but a large degree of the technology would be recognizable to someone from a century ago.  What's more, the new stuff hasn't vastly changed things; a UAV dumping a 500-lb bomb on an enemy still means that there is a bunch of HE from overhead killing him - that it is done by a bunch of rubbernecks in Nevada is really irrelevant.  What's more, modern technology has the same problems of overcoming the opacity and cover provided by terrain (as described here); I'm sure anyone who's wandered the greenspace of Panjwayi can attest to this.

As for "bayonets first" and tactics part of things, we never went in "bayonets first" in 1916 and we still don't.  I'll let the Gunners speak to the artillery side of things, but I've researched the evolution of infantry tactics and much of what you see in today's manuals can be found in pamphlets from the First World War.  Organizations, both administratively and tactically, are recognizable, sometimes almost the same.

What's more, the quantitative research has been done, (notably here and here) on this and points (IMO) pretty convincingly to a lack in any substantial change in the conduct of battle in the last century.  So, while I may not convince you, the evidence out there points to your opinion being inaccurate.

How does it relate to the discussion?  We shouldn't assume that any evolutionary changes in the conduct of warfare have substantially altered the criteria or threshold for the awarding of a VC.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Infanteer- you are, as usual, pedantically correct.  However, the CDS does not do all of the research in each case nor does he  chair the board.  I've spoken to the guy who does all that and then drafts the letters for the CDS. I doubt that there are many changes after he is does his work.  However, I should have been more clear about whom I was speaking.



As I Staff Officer, I'll take "pedantically" as a compliment.   

I willing to bet personality plays a part in this; the Commander I work for takes interest in H&A and reviews all submissions, especially ones going to Ottawa.  I also have no doubt that, considering the gravity of an SMV or VC (only 10 SMV and no VC), when a file for this level of award comes across the desk of the CDS he probably reads into the file a bit.  That's just my guess, and I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if SMVs and VCs didn't receive the personal attention of every level of the chain of command, implying that there is more input into the process than the H&A committee.

Would be interesting to follow a file from the battlefield to Rideau Hall and see how those things really play out though.


----------



## Pusser (25 Dec 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.



The $3000/a pension is completely irrelevant as that only applies to VCs awarded to Canadians for WWII and before.  There is no pension attached to the current Canadian VC (or any other current Canadian awards for that matter).  

It is worth noting that these awards come under a great deal of scrutiny.  After a nomination has made it through the Chain of Command, it ends up in front of the CF Decorations Advisory Committee (CFDAC), which is chaired by the CDS and includes all the Environmental Commanders.  The level of scrutiny at CFDAC is high and all nominations have the benefit (or hindrance) of all being compared to each other.  In other words, no one can accuse one organization of having different standards than another as all nominations are reviewed by the same people in the end.

Consider also the following:

1)  Modern warfare is (for lack of a better term), "safer" than in the past in that it is no longer necessary to send hundreds of men over the top in order to attain an objective.  Modern warfare uses fewer people and relies more on technology than it did in previous generations.  Now, before the dogpile starts, I'm not saying modern warfare isn't dangerous, but we do fight it differently to the point where I think there are fewer opportunities for individuals to exhibit personal valour than in the past;

2)  In keeping with the above point, we as a society are less willing to sacrifice human life for "glory" or to gain turf than we have been in the past.  The Charge of the Light Brigade would never happen today;

3)  if you look at recent awards, they are virtually all for cases where individuals go in harm's way in order to save other people, not to achieve an objective.  Capturing the enemy's colours would win you a VC at Crimea, but would be seen as foolhardy today;

4)  I think the bar has been set pretty high for a VC when you look at what we have awarded SMVs for.  I'm not sure anyone knows how much more valour will be required for a VC.

5)  comparing a VC to CV is apples to oranges.  What is considered exceptional bravery for a civilian working outside of his/her area of expertise, could be seen as routine for a trained soldier in a combat zone.  Since 1972, only about 20 CVs have been awarded and each case involved a person who could easily have saved themselves or avoided the situation, but chose not to and instead dove in and did more than anyone could ever have reasonably expected.  A soldier in combat is expected to get involved and do something.

6)  The standard for the VC has steadily risen over the years.  Modern VCs are harder to win than the original ones at Crimea were.  In fact, modern VCs are worth more at auction for that very reason.

7)  The biggest challenge will be awarding the first Canadian VC.  Once the standard has been set, others will follow.


----------



## Pusser (25 Dec 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Something about "GRATUITIES AND ANNUITIES" here:
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SI-90-95/page-1.html



This legislation deals strictly with the former British awards, for which Canada has assumed responsibility for Canadians.  It does not apply to any current Canadian awards, including the Canadian VC.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 1)  Modern warfare is (for lack of a better term), "safer" than in the past in that it is no longer necessary to send hundreds of men over the top in order to attain an objective.  Modern warfare uses fewer people and relies more on technology than it did in previous generations.  Now, before the dogpile starts, I'm not saying modern warfare isn't dangerous, but we do fight it differently to the point where I think there are fewer opportunities for individuals to exhibit personal valour than in the past;



Are we assuming that warfare has become "safer" or "different", or perhaps we simply haven't faced a peer enemy in a long enough time to appreciate what a conventional battle requires?  I will agree with you that lethality of modern weapons has forced greater and greater dispersion, but I feel a lot of what we accept as "modern warfare" are really circumstances of dreadfully outclassing most opponents since about 1951 (this includes the Iraqis and the Taliban, who are generally third rate). 

As for your other points, very good and I agree with them all, especially this one:



> 7)  The biggest challenge will be awarding the first Canadian VC.  Once the standard has been set, others will follow.



Cheers


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 4)  I think the bar has been set pretty high for a VC when you look at what we have awarded SMVs for.  I'm not sure anyone knows how much more valour will be required for a VC.



This is the biggest issue. We've set it so high that I don't think its attainable. Comparing some of the citations of SMV recipients to VC winners from NZ and AUS, they are remarkably similar in context and what the individual soldier accomplished.


----------



## Pusser (25 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This is the biggest issue. We've set it so high that I don't think its attainable. Comparing some of the citations of SMV recipients to VC winners from NZ and AUS, they are remarkably similar in context and what the individual soldier accomplished.



Unfortunately, it is also worth noting that the citations often don't do justice to the event.  Sometimes, it's hard to describe something spectacular in 90 words or less.  CFDAC, however, has all the supporting documentation at their disposal and that can be volumes.  Two different files can clearly show a difference between two events, that is not readily apparent in a 90 word summary.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Dec 2011)

At the risk of covering ground already covered by others, the following is a slightly modified extract from a study I did re honours and awards, in this case from the Boer War, for my possible future use.

Having said all that, there is one factor that ranked above all else in determining the number of honours and awards granted. Simply, to receive an award, one had to have been nominated.  This is as true today as it was in South Africa, or in any other war in which Canadians fought for that manner. For example, during the South African War 78 Victoria Crosses were awarded to British and Empire forces. Of these, five, including three to Canadians, were awarded to members of 19 Brigade commanded by Major General Horace Smith-Dorrien for just over a year including both Paardeberg and Leliefontein. His nickname was “Half Rations, Full Congratulations” because he worked his troops and himself very hard, but also liberally recommended his officers and men for awards. It is well known in military history circles that the numbers of decorations awarded to members of a unit more often than not reflected the number of the recommendations submitted, and not necessarily the unit’s success in battle.  There is another factor which is almost as important. To be successful, any recommendation submitted must be fully documented and well-written. It must also conform to the appropriate instructions and should be as complete as possible. The more documentation, especially eye-witness accounts, included with the submission, the better.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Dec 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sorry, I forgot to mention technology. War is very different today than it was then. Even when we're up close now, we still manage to do lots from afar. It is my opinion, that these wars are incomparable --- that includes South Africa. These days, we'd simply send in the rotor heads to blow up a gun so it didn't fall into enemy hands ... you wouldn't see it being saved by someone requiring to snatch it off it's carriage and run with it to keep it from being taken.
> 
> Happy belated birthday to the RCDs too ...



Yes, you are right.  Tech makes a big difference to what can be accomplished nowadays.  Maybe I'm a softie, or maybe they were back then. But reading some of the citations from today, when I compare them to yesterdays VC citations they are just as incredible and brave acts of valour.  To my mind, I would have awarded several VC from what I have read.  Of course, I am not in a position to make a recommendation, comment etc and maybe that is a good thing.  But as I mentioned in other threads, have we not set the bar so high that a mere mortal could not/would not be recognized accordingly?  Look at Sgt Richardson from the LdSH(RC) for example.  More balls than I possess certainly, and not to belittle his act.  But come on, some of our current lads were no less brave and daring...


----------



## armyvern (26 Dec 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, you are right.  Tech makes a big difference to what can be accomplished nowadays.  Maybe I'm a softie, or maybe they were back then. But reading some of the citations from today, when I compare them to yesterdays VC citations they are just as incredible and brave acts of valour.  To my mind, I would have awarded several VC from what I have read.  Of course, I am not in a position to make a recommendation, comment etc and maybe that is a good thing.  But as I mentioned in other threads, have we not set the bar so high that a mere mortal could not/would not be recognized accordingly?  Look at Sgt Richardson from the LdSH(RC) for example.  More balls than I possess certainly, and not to belittle his act.  But come on, some of our current lads were no less brave and daring...



In no way, at no time, have I belittled or suggested that acts of our troops in Afghanistan weren't incredible acts of bravery and valour. 

I am only suggesting that 'opportunities' (& I hate calling it that) are much fewer and in between in our latest conflict and that our current technology does much to mitigate direct, face-to-face instances. 

Yes, the bar is set extremely high. _It's a VC_.

I don't think it was set any lower back then; how many other Honours and Awards were distributed to Canadians for acts of valour and bravery in prior conflicts, of which a great many probably also read close to VCs? Hundreds? Whatever it is, I can almost guarantee that it is the VC that was and does remain the rare one even though, historically, Canadians won VCs at a higher per captia rate than any other nation.

Now, with stats to determine "ratios" from then - till now, you may be able to convince me otherwise, but if the stats showed that in previous conflicts we awarded "96 VCs (inclusive of Hall's and Reid's respectively - 1857 Indian Rebellion) and 3110 other awards for Military Bravery during same period" and that the stats for same from this conflict indicate that such an obvious (according to some here) discrepency and anomaly actually does exist with it's "lack" of presentation, then I may be willing to be convinced. Pulled my figures from the GGs page.


----------



## Ralph (26 Dec 2011)

Is there any point in comparing Boer War-era citations with present day? Look at the last two Brit VCs - Beharry and Budd gave up all expectations of living to do what they did...and imagine the VCs that could have been issued in WWI if all the witnesses hadn't died along with the one who performed the gallant act...


----------



## armyvern (26 Dec 2011)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Is there any point in comparing Boer War-era citations with present day? Look at the last two Brit VCs - Beharry and Budd gave up all expectations of living to do what they did...and imagine the VCs that could have been issued in WWI if all the witnesses hadn't died along with the one who performed the gallant act...



Exactly. Apples vs an Orange.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Dec 2011)

A couple of points re Boer War honours and awards that are moot. First, there were many, many more awards of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for officers and the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) for men along with the very few VCs. Second, the VC could not be awarded posthumously at the time, although King Edward VII changed that policy in the last stages of the war.

And regarding recommendations for awards, 2 RCRI was the only Canadian unit that served in South Africa that did not have a NCM receive a gazetted decoration. Even the 10th Canadian Field Hospital which was in theatre for a few months in 1902 had a soldier awarded the DCM. However, several officers in 2 RCRI were awarded the DSO, so recommendations for officers at least were being submitted. The Minister of Militia and Defence noticed this and Otter caught a load of crap for it. He did try to submit a recommendation for a VC for Private RR Thompson well after the event (and after Thompson had received his Queen's Scarf in the mail and then returned to South Africa in the South African Constabulary) but it got bogged down in the bureaucracy and was rejected. I believe that if a recommendation for Thompson had been submitted after Paardeberg, it very likely would have been successful.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Dec 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> In no way, at no time, have I belittled or suggested that acts of our troops in Afghanistan weren't incredible acts of bravery and valour.


Forgive me, but I was not suggesting or thinking that you had. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am only suggesting that 'opportunities' (& I hate calling it that) are much fewer and in between in our latest conflict and that our current technology does much to mitigate direct, face-to-face instances.


That is a very good point, and it is not a bad thing either.  I like the idea of stand off for our guys and being able to put hurt down at a distance.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes, the bar is set extremely high. _It's a VC_.
> 
> I don't think it was set any lower back then; how many other Honours and Awards were distributed to Canadians for acts of valour and bravery in prior conflicts, of which a great many probably also read close to VCs? Hundreds? Whatever it is, I can almost guarantee that it is the VC that was and does remain the rare one even though, historically, Canadians won VCs at a higher per captia rate than any other nation.
> 
> Now, with stats to determine "ratios" from then - till now, you may be able to convince me otherwise, but if the stats showed that in previous conflicts we awarded "96 VCs (inclusive of Hall's and Reid's respectively - 1857 Indian Rebellion) and 3110 other awards for Military Bravery during same period" and that the stats for same from this conflict indicate that such an obvious (according to some here) discrepency and anomaly actually does exist with it's "lack" of presentation, then I may be willing to be convinced. Pulled my figures from the GGs page.



Agreed, the bar should be high.  From what I have read of citations for the high level decorations (VC, SMV, MMV and earlier awards DSC, MM, MC etc) they all were of course stand out acts of selfless heroism and at times self sacrifice.  As such, when consideration is given to the weight it must be like splitting hairs and I don't envy the selection board.

As many of the VC awards were posthumous, I would be happier to think that our people come home alive for a SMV or MMV in that they would not have been put into situations of VC award considerations in the first place.  Which goes back to your stand off situations of bringing hurt down at a distance.


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Whatever it is, I can almost guarantee that it is the VC that was and does remain the rare one even though, historically, Canadians won VCs at a higher per captia rate than any other nation.



Canadian V.C.'s were rare in World War Two. For example, of the 10,659 members of the RCAF killed in Bomber Command, only one was awarded the Victoria Cross.


----------



## armyvern (26 Dec 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Canadian V.C.'s were rare in World War Two. For example, of the 10,659 members of the RCAF killed in Bomber Command, only one was awarded the Victoria Cross.



Understood. I had edited my previous post after visiting the GG site. 96 VCs awarded along with 3110 "other" decorations for bravery in previous wars; about 3%, 3 per 100 bravery medals awarded was a VC in previous conflicts.

I'm not sure we've even awarded 100 from this conflict yet, so I'm not seeing anything to back up the comments that infer that we've now made the standard too high or are being stingey etc (even IF we had the same volume of "daily" opportunities --- which we certainly didn't have in this conflict).


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Dec 2011)

They have similar issues in the US with delays and the 'bar being too high" with the MoH:

Medal of Honor takes moment to earn, years to receive

For Sal Giunta's actions more than three years ago, he will be awarded the Medal of Honor.In most cases when a soldier does something extraordinarily brave in battle, it happens in a matter of moments. But to reward that bravery often takes years.

Spc. Sal Giunta went above and beyond the call of duty on October 25, 2007, when he helped thwart an ambush and stopped two Taliban fighters from capturing a fellow solider. But it will be November 16, 2010, when now Staff Sgt. Giunta received the Medal of Honor from President Obama, a wait of more than three years


http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-16/us/medal.of.honor.giunta.process_1_medal-of-honor-recommendation-second-highest-medal-proper-recognition?_s=PM:US


----------



## Pusser (26 Dec 2011)

Keep in mind that a good part of the delay in awarding decorations is a direct result of the scrutiny in the process.  If the court of public opinion (or the uninformed masses if you like) weren't so quick to denigrate, doubt and trash everything, perhaps the process wouldn't be so slow.  CFDAC sits once a month, so it's not like these files are sitting around gathering dust forever.  The process simply takes that long.


----------



## tacmed2007 (1 Jan 2012)

Very interesting story...mind you there is a very different story from the US army Medics that ran that very base....hmmm


----------



## Jammer (1 Jan 2012)

If you weren't there...button it and either offer congrats or begone


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jan 2012)

Jammer said:
			
		

> If you weren't there...button it and either offer congrats or begone



AGREED!!   :+1:

Well done Cpl Harris!!!!!


----------



## brihard (1 Jan 2012)

tacmed2007 said:
			
		

> Very interesting story...mind you there is a very different story from the US army Medics that ran that very base....hmmm



Is it a story you'd like to personally put your name behind? Or will it suffice to suggest politely that you bugger off?


----------



## Fatalize (2 Jan 2012)

Cool read...Very brave and well deserved, congrats!


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jan 2012)

tacmed2007 is just doing a drive-by trolling. Its his first post in a year and note the negative milpoints.


----------



## Hurricane (2 Jan 2012)

tacmed2007 said:
			
		

> Very interesting story...mind you there is a very different story from the US army Medics that ran that very base....hmmm



Jealous Much?


----------



## fake penguin (2 Jan 2012)

Hughes congrats to the corporal.


----------



## tacmed2007 (3 Jan 2012)

OK first thanks puck chaser for the FYI have better things to do then sit here and post, I came here looking for a can-forgen...whatever dude  I have been out doing my job. I had this post sent to me, so i said what i thought....

Second Jammer I was there in FOB Wilson with the TF 3-09 and B&C coy 1/12 Inf, B coy 101st Airborne Div, So yes Jammer I was there.

Third my name is on this as part of an investigation being carried out by the 1/12 Inf US Army as part of the action that day by several members. So who did what will come out...but that is beyond me. 

As far as those that choose to blast off, well I can assume none of you where there and are going off third forth, reporters versions...so whatever the few that want to attack my " status as a troop" have at er, been in this rodeo for a long time....what makes a solid troop in this army, one that never takes what is not his, one that stands up for the troops, and one that will go out that front gate every time, regardless of how many bad hits they took.

I would also point out that this whole H&A system we have is BS, there are dudes right now that are getting gimmes and crap for outstanding work, others that got a H&A for sitting at a desk drinking green beans. There is one dude that should have got the VC for what he did....i think he is getting the MID.

dudes did some righteous work my last tour over there and they should get what they deserve, most wont for one reason or another....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2012)

tacmed2007 said:
			
		

> OK first thanks puck chaser for the FYI have better things to do then sit here and post, I came here looking for a can-forgen...whatever dude  I have been out doing my job. I had this post sent to me, so i said what i thought....
> 
> Second Jammer I was there in FOB Wilson with the TF 3-09 and B&C coy 1/12 Inf, B coy 101st Airborne Div, So yes Jammer I was there.
> 
> ...


So, you just figured you'd come here and run your gate during an open investigation then?

We don't spend a lot of time dealing with self righteous little prigs around here. 

I suggest you just wind in your neck and keep your opinions to yourself if you can't be civil about it.

You may not like our H&A system, but unless you know all the facts, for all the people that have received things, you should just be quiet.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2012)

tacmed2007 said:
			
		

> OK first thanks puck chaser for the FYI have better things to do then sit here and post, I came here looking for a can-forgen...whatever dude  I have been out doing my job. I had this post sent to me, so i said what i thought....
> 
> Second Jammer I was there in FOB Wilson with the TF 3-09 and B&C coy 1/12 Inf, B coy 101st Airborne Div, So yes Jammer I was there.
> 
> ...



So, now you were there too and SO involved that you, yourself, are part of the 1/12 Inf US Army investigation into actions by American forces that day ... But, here's your original post 



			
				tacmed2007 said:
			
		

> Very interesting story...mind you there is a very different story from the US army Medics that ran that very base....hmmm



So, you were there or you weren't to know what this kid did? Just passing on idle gossip, rumour and inuendo I suppose as others certainly put their statements into official documentation and writing regarding the young Pte's actions that day. Where's yours on him ... if you were thetre as you now claim in your second post? I can only presume that it doesn't exist because, even were you at the FOB on the day in question, you have ZERO personal factual knowledge of what he did ... just "shit you heard". And you choose to denigrate someone whose file has been through the process --- along with statements obviously differing from "what your US buds told you" and the kid was awarded?

I'd suggest politely that it's time for you to shut your cakehole about your supposed "factual first-hand knowledge" that is actually non-existent.

Minus 300 more; it's a new day and a new post.  :


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2012)

tacmed2007 said:
			
		

> OK first thanks puck chaser for the FYI have better things to do then sit here and post, I came here looking for a can-forgen...whatever dude  I have been out doing my job. I had this post sent to me, so i said what i thought....
> 
> Second Jammer I was there in FOB Wilson with the TF 3-09 and B&C coy 1/12 Inf, B coy 101st Airborne Div, So yes Jammer I was there.
> 
> ...



Rarely does someone say so much, yet really say so little. For the rest, I think Vern covered it better than I could. Second or third hand innuendo is of little interest in a community of professionals.


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Jan 2012)

Here is a link to a National Post story re the award to the MMV to MBdr Holmes.

I interviewed Holmes and the other Canadian in early 2011. They had an impressive story to tell, including that early in the engagement they were informed that the Taliban commander had radioed that there were two Canadians present and they should be killed first. Needless to say, they stayed and fought.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/24/133336/


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2012)

Gutsy guy, thanks for the story link.


----------



## GAP (25 Jan 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Gutsy guy, thanks for the story link.



 :+1:


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jan 2012)

Kudos!


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jan 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Gutsy guy, thanks for the story link.



Wow. Awesome. Well done!


----------



## dogger1936 (25 Jan 2012)

BZ!!

It's nice to see that some of this stuff put forward now YEARS ago is still getting processed! Well Done Mcpl!


----------



## Strike (26 Jan 2012)

BZ to all!



> Soldiers and pilot recognized for valour in Afghanistan
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120126/william-todd-fielding-medal-of-valour-120126/


----------



## Scoobs (26 Jan 2012)

Well done guys.  I'm friends with Bill Fielding and he is a very modest fellow.  Only spoke of the incident when asked and gave little info.  I'm very glad that he got something.

By the way, having done H&A in KAF for 9 and a half months, I can tell you straightforward that nominations are actioned ASAP.  Not YEARS after as a previous poster stated.  The amount of nominations received during a 6 month ROTO is incredible.  Agreed that stuff that occured in 2009 should have been actioned earlier, but on the whole, the system has dramatically improved.

Let's end with the positive, BZ to all that received H&A today!!


----------



## David1997 (26 Jan 2012)

Very good story  ;D nice to see .


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2012)

BZ to Bill Fielding. Nice to see guys that you started with do well.


----------



## Strike (27 Jan 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> BZ to Bill Fielding. Nice to see guys that you started with do well.



Here here!  Not that I started with him, but we were in the same Sqn for a time.


----------



## rotrhed (2 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> BZ to Bill Fielding. Nice to see guys that you started with do well.



I have more than a few hours in the logbook with Bill sitting beside me.  Great to see him getting the recognition he deserves.


----------



## Loudubiel (17 Mar 2012)

Congratulations to All! Thank you for your Service.


----------



## krustyrl (17 Mar 2012)

An excellent read, well done Gents and well deserved.


----------



## q_1966 (17 Mar 2012)




----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Mar 2012)

Congrats


----------



## Dooley (17 May 2012)

Good day all,

I am creating this thread to help educate and defuse as many myths about the Canadian Honours and Awards system and I invite anyone to please post questions they may have.  
From whether or not someone is allowed to wear an undressed ribbon before presentation of the medal, to the actual system of ordering medals for serving members, to the wearing of the ISAF bar, to rotation bars etc...

Instead of me posting the things I know about medals and such I would rather hear what the general knowledge is out there, hear the questions and guide fiction towards fact.


----------



## Dkeh (17 May 2012)

I am not important enough to have any bling, but do have a question. 

I have heard you can not get a CD if you have been charged? 

This iste is a good source of info on past and current military medals. I have used it a few times when I have seen a 'vet with chest jewlery I don't recognize. 

http://www.peacekeeper.ca/medals.html


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> I have heard you can not get a CD if you have been charged?



Some charges will cause delays in your eligibility for the CD but, by itself, a charge does not preclude you from getting your CD.

I have been charged and still got my CD on time.


----------



## Danjanou (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> II have heard you can not get a CD if you have been charged?



I hope not or I'll have to give mine back and I just had it remounted ;D



> This iste is a good source of info on past and current military medals. I have used it a few times when I have seen a 'vet with chest jewlery I don't recognize.
> 
> http://www.peacekeeper.ca/medals.html



Let me know if you come across anyone wearing that Fenian one  still breathing I'd call Walt.  BTW anyone notice what's wrong with the Korean Vets set pictured there?


----------



## Occam (17 May 2012)

Precedence looks okay, ribbons seem correct, gongs aren't backwards...   ???


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2012)

Lrrr said:
			
		

> Instead of me posting the things I know about medals and such I would rather hear what the general knowledge is out there, hear the questions and guide fiction towards fact.



You work for DH&R or something? We need some context on your knowledge...


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You work for DH&R or something?



I very much doubt that:



> MOSID:Combat Engineer
> Rank:Cpl
> Unit:Canadian Military Engineers


----------



## Dooley (17 May 2012)

Dkeh said:
			
		

> I am not important enough to have any bling, but do have a question.
> 
> I have heard you can not get a CD if you have been charged?
> 
> ...



For better info and refs see the following sites:
DH&R - For current authorized medals
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/index-eng.asp
VAC 
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/collections/cmdp/mainmenu
GG - For current Orders and Honours
http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=5

As for the CD, CDN Aviator is right certain charges can result in time being deferred; these have to be serious in nature, See following DWAN link:
http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/DHRIM/mhrrp/ch18/engraph/ch18b_e.pdf

NES, ED&T, LWOP and Supp Res is all time that is not counted towards the CD.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> Precedence looks okay, ribbons seem correct, gongs aren't backwards...   ???



Only thing I can think of is that the member isn't authorized the CPSM unless his/her tour started before 27 July 53 and ended sometime after that date. They'd get both medals Korea service and UN Korea and the CPSM would be good to go because of the UN Korea was awarded after 27 Jul 1953.


----------



## Dkeh (17 May 2012)

Lrrr said:
			
		

> For better info and refs see the following sites:
> DH&R - For current authorized medals
> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/index-eng.asp
> VAC
> ...




Thank you Lrrr, ruler of the planet Omacron Persai 8. Very informative.


----------



## Dooley (17 May 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Let me know if you come across anyone wearing that Fenian one  still breathing I'd call Walt.  BTW anyone notice what's wrong with the Korean Vets set pictured there?



Occam is right, there is nothing wrong with this picture.  Depending on when this mbr served in Korea, they would be elgible for the CPSM.  And since the CPSM is a Canadian Honour it is always before any international medal.


----------



## Danjanou (17 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only thing I can think of is that the member isn't authorized the CPSM unless his/her tour started before 27 July 53 and ended sometime after that date. They'd get both medals Korea service and UN Korea and the CPSM would be good to go because of the UN Korea was awarded after 27 Jul 1953.



Ding ding we have a winner. Actually Odd was what I meant to say rather than "wrong" as the CPSM is usually not seen without a corresponding UN/NATO medal  there are rare exceptions though

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/chart-tableau-eng.asp?ref=CPSM
Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Non-Eligible Service
Revision Date : 28 January 2011
•	First and Second World Wars;
•	Korea during the period 27 June 1950 to 27 July 1953;
Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Eligible Service
•	UNCOK [UN Commission on Korea] (12 December 1948 – 7 October 1950)
•	UNCURK [UN Commission on the reunification and rehabilitation of Korea] (7 October 1950 - 2000)
•	UNC [UN Command in Korea] (28 July 1953 – 27 June 1957)
•	UNCMAC [UN Command Military Armistice Commission] (28 July 1953 - )

 We had a similar one oh here a while back. The VAC commercial with TEss in had another vet with just an SSM and CPSA  and there was  a fair discussion on how that  happened. 

Ok Occam bonus round is there any incidence of for mounting a medal back to front? 

Hint not Canadian and not official policy just what many awarded said medal have chosen to do.


----------



## Occam (17 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only thing I can think of is that the member isn't authorized the CPSM unless his/her tour started before 27 July 53 and ended sometime after that date. They'd get both medals Korea service and UN Korea and the CPSM would be good to go because of the UN Korea was awarded after 27 Jul 1953.



You'll find there are a fair number of RCN personnel (not so sure about Army) who fit those criteria.  My father was on HMCS Huron, it was post 27 July 1953 service in Korea that earned him the CPSM, in addition to the Korea medal and the UN Korea Medal.  I think HMCS Cayuga and HMCS Haida were also in theatre after 27 July 1953 (as well as tours during the conflict), so their crew would've been eligible for CPSMs as well.


----------



## Danjanou (17 May 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> You'll find there are a fair number of RCN personnel (not so sure about Army) who fit those criteria.  My father was on HMCS Huron, it was post 27 July 1953 service in Korea that earned him the CPSM, in addition to the Korea medal and the UN Korea Medal.  I think HMCS Cayuga and HMCS Haida were also in theatre after 27 July 1953 (as well as tours during the conflict), so their crew would've been eligible for CPSMs as well.



Probably right. I should check into my Father's eligibility for it.  So any ideas on my trick question?


----------



## Occam (17 May 2012)

Nope....was it a form of protest in some way?


----------



## Ostrozac (17 May 2012)

Hey everyone, long time lurker, first time caller.

As to a medal being worn reversed, wasn't that very common for the Waterloo Medal? I believe I even saw a portrait in the Guards Museum in London where they specifically mention that the guardsman in the portrait has his medals mounted incorrectly.

But I don't think it was a mass protest against King George IV. It was just that the back of the medal actually says "WATERLOO" in big bold letters -- and that everyone who was at that battle wanted to show it off.

(Edited because I got reverse and obverse mixed up)


----------



## Sub Standard (17 May 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Ding ding we have a winner. Actually Odd was what I meant to say rather than "wrong" as the CPSM is usually not seen without a corresponding UN/NATO medal  there are rare exceptions though


You may find that there are quite a few sailors that have the CPSM with out a corresponding UN/NATO medal for service off the coast of Haiti in 93 and 94 for OP Fwd Action.  Most of the ships tours on station were too short to qualify any medal.


----------



## Danjanou (17 May 2012)

Sub-normal said:
			
		

> You may find that there are quite a few sailors that have the CPSM with out a corresponding UN/NATO medal for service off the coast of Haiti in 93 and 94 for OP Fwd Action.  Most of the ships tours on station were too short to qualify any medal.



so it appears, thanks.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Nope....was it a form of protest in some way?



yup, also unique in that it was awared to combatents on both sides and the international monitoring force that oversaw the end of the conflict.




> The Zimbabwe Independence Medal was awarded to all those who were serving in Rhodesia in April 1980 - Rhodesian Security Forces, Commonwealth Monitoring Forces and the Patriotic Front (ZAPU/ZIPRA). The correct placement is to have the Zimbabwe Independence Medal first with the Zimbabwe Ruins facing.
> 
> This medal was unique, being the first medal to have ever been issued to all sides of a conflict in the world. Over the years there has been a resistance by entitled Rhodesians to wear the medal. In New Zealand precedence was set by the late Peter Bomford MC to wear the Zimbabwe Independence Medal last on his group and to reverse it in protest (see the group above, right hand side). He believed that those entitled to the medal should wear it, but if they were not happy with the situation to make their protest known thus.



http://www.rhodesianservices.org/medals.htm


----------



## Tank Troll (17 May 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> You'll find there are a fair number of RCN personnel (not so sure about Army) who fit those criteria.  My father was on HMCS Huron, it was post 27 July 1953 service in Korea that earned him the CPSM, in addition to the Korea medal and the UN Korea Medal.  I think HMCS Cayuga and HMCS Haida were also in theatre after 27 July 1953 (as well as tours during the conflict), so their crew would've been eligible for CPSMs as well.



My Dad was with the Pats and was eligible for one . (As were the rest of the Bn)


----------



## Dooley (18 May 2012)

Refs
CANFORGEN 003/09 - APPLICATION FOR SERVICE/CAMPAIGN MEDALS
CANFORGEN 047/09 - DESIGNATION OF MEDALS APPLICATION CLERKS
CANFORGEN 096/09 - PROOF OF SERVICE FOR MEDALS ENTITLEMENT

Info on ordering service medals for serving mbr’s of the CF:

All applications must be created using the Medal Application Processing System (MAPS), a part of PeopleSoft, through the unit OR; a clerk with specific MAPS access is required.  

Once the application has been registered in the system an Intranet Medal Application Submission Report (IMASR or Submission Report) is printed and the CO must sign and date attesting that the member(s) on the Sub Rpt are eligible for the medal requested and that qualifying service has been correctly entered on the mbr’s MPRR. 

The Sub Rpt is mailed, with a 728, to DH&R with the MPRR and any other Proof of Service (POS) attached.

A few key things to remember are: 
1) It is in fact the Unit CO, or in their absence the delegated signing authority, that signs the Sub Rpt.
2) The MPRR has been updated to show, in the assignment history, the correct org name, location and dates in/out of theatre for every tour.  In the case that the mbr is posted to a theatre a CCPS (pay screen) will be required in order to determine the exact date of departure.  
3) An application for medals CANNOT be created before the member has met eligibility requirements, (i.e. on or after the mbr’s CD forecast date is when an application can be created)


----------



## Dooley (18 May 2012)

Ref: CANFORGEN 127/00 - COURT MOUNTING OF MEDALS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE

Court mounting medals

The common misconception is that if you only have one then you don’t need to have it mounted. 
All CF mbr’s are required to have their medals court mounted and as such the CF will pay, or reimburse the cost, for all court mounting of medals and parts to them (i.e. bars, numerals etc).
Depending on your area one can usually just bring their medals to the local clothing stores to be either done on site or contracted out.  The mbr can always go to a private company and get the medals mounted there.


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2012)

Lrrr said:
			
		

> Ref: CANFORGEN 127/00 - COURT MOUNTING OF MEDALS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
> 
> Court mounting medals
> 
> ...



Yep, we've quoted the ref for that 'single medals shall be court mounted' on this site a few times too.


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2012)

Lrrr said:
			
		

> Ref: CANFORGEN 127/00 - COURT MOUNTING OF MEDALS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
> ...
> All CF mbr’s are required to have their medals court mounted and as such the CF will pay, or reimburse the cost, for all court mounting of medals and parts to them (i.e. bars, numerals etc)....



Let's clarify this one right quick:

The CF will reimburse _up to_ $8.00 / medal and / bar~numeral. Five medals and 5 bars = 10 X 8 = _up to_ $80.00 bucks back *with receipt*!!.

Someone, somewhere, will take your "will reimburse the cost for all court mounting" to mean their buddy can charge 'em $200.00 bucks for 2 medals and he'll get it all back. Yep, they will; trust me.


----------



## Journeyman (18 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, they will; trust me.


 *                   ^--- this bit is sarcasm. *



Normally, there should be no need to post that, but having seen what shows up in the Recruiting threads......


----------



## Pusser (24 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *                   ^--- this bit is sarcasm. *
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, there should be no need to post that, but having seen what shows up in the Recruiting threads......



I'm not so sure that stating a verifiable fact can be considered sarcastic.


----------



## Danjanou (24 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Let's clarify this one right quick:
> 
> The CF will reimburse _up to_ $8.00 / medal and / bar~numeral. Five medals and 5 bars = 10 X 8 = _up to_ $80.00 bucks back *with receipt*!!.
> 
> Someone, somewhere, will take your "will reimburse the cost for all court mounting" to mean their buddy can charge 'em $200.00 bucks for 2 medals and he'll get it all back. Yep, they will; trust me.



Average cost for court mounting (had mine redone for Mov 11th last year) was around $20.00 a pop plus extra for ribbons and minis.  BTW add a medal and count on the guy charging to remount all of them, not just $20.00 for the new one. So anyone sadistic enough who put me in for a QDJM stop now, as that's money could be better spent on booze. 8)


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2012)

You're getting charged 20 bucks a medal? They better use glue with gold and diamonds in it. Going rate I've seen for medal mounting is $10 a medal, and the mounting job is absolutely perfect.

You also have to remount all the medals, if you're going to do it properly to add one in. The backing needs to be made a certain size, especially if you only have 2-4 medals.

Minis are definitely pricey though, just got my mess kit last year, and thankfully my father gave me my mini as a wedding gift, otherwise it would have been close to $30 just for a GCS mounted. Ribbons should be covered by the Crown if clothing stores does not supply them, correct?


----------



## Hurricane (24 May 2012)

Is HLTA counted as time in theatre for the awarding of bars?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2012)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Is HLTA counted as time in theatre for the awarding of bars?



Was the last time I deployed, and I believe it still is. I think that's why HLTA is the 18 days that it is, so none of your allowances and medal time stop.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 May 2012)

Gagetown charges $8/medal for mounting.... BTW she does excellent work too....if and when I get anymore I will wait until I return to Gagetown to get them mounted....


----------



## Danjanou (24 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're getting charged 20 bucks a medal? They better use glue with gold and diamonds in it. Going rate I've seen for medal mounting is $10 a medal, and the mounting job is absolutely perfect.



No but he has big windows. Actually that's the rate in and around Toronto AFAIK. He's local  too. I dropped them off came back a couple of hours later and done. Excellent job to, much better than the last job.



> Ribbons should be covered by the Crown if clothing stores does not supply them, correct?



Not for those of us who get to write retired after our rank 8)


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Average cost for court mounting (had mine redone for Mov 11th last year) was around $20.00 a pop plus extra for ribbons and minis.  BTW add a medal and count on the guy charging to remount all of them, not just $20.00 for the new one. So anyone sadistic enough who put me in for a QDJM stop now, as that's money could be better spent on booze. 8)



You are so getting ripped off.

Here's my listing for minis as I just had to have them redone last week for a Mess Dinner next Friday night:

7 medals and 4 bars:

Bill:
Mounting: 7 medals with 4 bars = 75.25
Purchase: 1 X medal, mini = 8.50
Purchase: 2 X bars, mini = (2 @ 4.50) = 9.00

Total: 92.75 (+TPS of 4.54 and TVQ of 9.25) =
Total after tax:  106.64


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Average cost for court mounting (had mine redone for Mov 11th last year) was around $20.00 a pop plus extra for ribbons and minis.  BTW add a medal and count on the guy charging to remount all of them, not just $20.00 for the new one. So anyone sadistic enough who put me in for a QDJM stop now, as that's money could be better spent on booze. 8)



ALL of your medals are covered each time that you require them remounted. Your post makes it seem as if you are reimbursed only upon it's initial mounting. That's not the case (or someone is not aware of the proper regs when doing your claim up). Get presented a new one and the remounting of all is covered up to the 8 bucks per. If you are paying over 10/ ... you are being raped ---- repetitively.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2012)

...........or you can do it yourself. 

After all it isn't rocket appliances.


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...........or you can do it yourself.
> 
> After all it isn't rocket appliances.



I don't have the time any more.  I spend it here instead.


----------



## Pusser (25 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ALL of your medals are covered each time that you require them remounted. Your post makes it seem as if you are reimbursed only upon it's initial mounting. That's not the case (or someone is not aware of the proper regs when doing your claim up). Get presented a new one and the remounting of all is covered up to the 8 bucks per. If you are paying over 10/ ... you are being raped ---- repetitively.



And this includes all medals *within the Canadian Honours System  *  that you may receive from organizations outside the CF (e.g. Order of St. John).


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You are so getting ripped off.
> 
> Here's my listing for minis as I just had to have them redone last week for a Mess Dinner next Friday night:
> 
> 7 medals and 4 bars:




Sounds like you've got an impressive rack.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2012)

hehehehe he said impressive rack


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 May 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> hehehehe he said impressive rack



Bzzliteyr *likes* this


----------



## cupper (25 May 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sounds like you've got an impressive rack.



 :rofl:   :nod:


----------



## m2austin (6 Jun 2012)

Sourced from the Ottawa Citizen, 6 June 2012, Link <a href="http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/06/06/order-of-military-merit-ceremony-to-be-held-friday-here-is-the-list-of-recipients/">Here</a>



> *Order of Military Merit Ceremony To Be Held Friday: Here is the List of Recipients*
> From the Governor General’s office:
> 
> OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Jun 06, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, will preside over an Order of Military Merit investiture ceremony at Rideau Hall, on Friday, June 8, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. The Governor General will bestow the honour on 4 Commanders, 9 Officers and 31 Members.
> ...


----------



## Haggis (19 Jun 2012)

The story of Cpl Eric Monnin, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, shared with the usual disclaimer.  This is a small town newspaper, not what you would call MSM.

CORNWALL – For the first time since the Second World War, a serving Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Highlander is being awarded a decoration for military valour.

It was July 9, 2010, and the 1 RCR Charles Company 7 Platoon had the task of checking for a possible firing spot in Afghanistan.

They got their answer once they arrived.

“I was in the armoured vehicle called a LAV 3,” said Cpl. Eric Monnin.

Monnin was going to with his Warrant Officer (WO) to check the area when he was told stay behind.

“I was about to go with them and the Officer told me not to go because it’s only going to take a few minutes,” he said.

As the WO began checking the perimeter, the platoon was ambushed.

The WO was hit in the shoulder by an RPG with an entry wound of about three to four inches and an exit wound the size of a fist.

“When this happend I immediately thought he was dead,” Monnin said.

“But when I saw him slowly trying to crawl away, I jumped out of the LAV and ran to him. Once I got there, I saw he got hit in the shoulder so I started working on him.”

Trained in medic’s assitance, Monnin began helping the WO when enemy fire started to rain around him.

As he turned to fire back, some other soldiers dragged the WO to a safer spot between two buildings where Monnin would later find that the medic on hand was also wounded with non lifethreatening injuries.

“We just kept working. It took about two hours before the Quick Reaction Force came to help the people on the ground,” he said.

“It was so intense, everything happened so fast (but at that point) you’re just trying to get him back alive, trying to keep him calm.”

Both the medic and the WO survived the attack and the WO even joins Monnin for a drink from time to time.

“The guys, they’re your friends. You’ve been working with a guy for a year, it’s pretty much like if you saw your best friend get hit by a car, you just go and help.”

It was this act of heroism that led to Monnin being awarded the Medal of Military Valour for “courageous and selfless actions under enemy fire while rendering first aid to two wounded soldiers in Afghanistan.”

But a humble Monnin doesn’t believe that an award that holds such a big title should be awarded to him.

“I guess I was really surprised. I knew they put me in for a medal of some sort, but I didnt know Ii was going to get it,” he said.

“I was proud in a sense, but in the end I am just happy that the Warrent Officer and medic were good.”

The award will be pesented at ceremony this Friday at Rideau Hall in Otawa at 10:30 a.m. The medal will be presented to Monnin by Governor General David Johnston.

“I’m just a normal guy in the end," Monnin said.

"The thing is, I’m just one guy that got recognized for what I did, but there are a lot of Glens out there who just haven’t been (recognized).

"The Glens took me in pretty much like family and they’ve always been there. They’re very much part of my family.”


Cpl Monnin has since component transferred to the Reg F as a ACISS Tech.

Up the Glens!


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jun 2012)

Well done!!!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jun 2012)

+Up The Glens+


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2012)

Well done!

(And I'd consider a paper that's part of the Sun Media chain MSM)


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jun 2012)

Good job!


----------



## acen (19 Jun 2012)

Started my DP2A with him but he ended up getting his posting to the RegF. Solid guy, well done!


----------



## Danjanou (19 Jun 2012)

Well done, well deserved.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jun 2012)

BZ!  Well done.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Jun 2012)

Up the Glens!


----------



## Dooley (14 Aug 2012)

Ref: CANFORGEN 072/10 - GCS AND GSM - QUALIFYING SERVICE AMENDMENTS

ISAF and ALLIED FORCE bars:

'Allied Force' bars to the GCS and GSM are to be removed, and returned to DH&R via 728, and the medal re-ribboned to the GCS-AF and/or GSM-AF.

'ISAF' bars to the GCS and GSM are to be removed from the medal, and returned to DH&R via 728, regardless of eligibility to Rotation Bars.

It is a common misconception that the ISAF bar can be exchanged for the Roation Bar and that the ISAF bar needs to be returned to DH&R as a prequsite for ordering Roation Bars.  
This is not the case, although the ISAF bar is required to removed and returned, a seperate application for a Rotation Bar(s) must be created in MAPS.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Aug 2012)

I should just charge DND twice for having my medal mounted then. Once to have the ISAF bar removed, and once to put the rotation bar on that is at my unit, but hasn't been presented in over 18 months. Short-sighted CANFORGENs are awesome.


----------



## Dooley (14 Aug 2012)

Ref: A - CANFORGEN 066/10 - NEW OVERSEAS RECOGNITION FRAMWORK

Rotation Bars will be awarded for multiple tours within the same theatre of operations and are based on a cumulative day count of time served.  
For the GCS the RB's are gold in colour and bear a single centered maple leaf denoting 1 tour. A bar bearing 5 maple leafs is worn for 5 tours.  
For the SWASM+AG, GSM, and OSM the RB's are silver in colour and bear a single centered maple leaf denoting 1 tour. A bar bearing 5 maple leafs is worn for 5 tours.  

Rotation Bars will be awarded for each additional period of 180 days served after the initial qualifying 30 days required for the medal.
210 days=1 bar
390 days=2 bars
570 days=3 bars etc...

Time cannot be mixed or added between medals, i.e SWASM+AG and GCS-SWA time even though they are both in Afghanistan.

As mentioned before, serving CF mbr's must apply through their OR using MAPS and the full tour information must be captured on the MPRR.


----------



## Dooley (14 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I should just charge DND twice for having my medal mounted then. Once to have the ISAF bar removed, and once to put the rotation bar on that is at my unit, but hasn't been presented in over 18 months. Shortsighted Confines are awesome.



Since the DND changed the medal you are entitled to claim the cost required to do so.  
As for your unit holding the RB for 18 months, that is completely unacceptable.  Timely recognition has 2 main parts; First is the unit CoC nominating/applying for the mbr in a timely fashion and presenting the medal/award in a dignified manner and Second is DH&R in processing the medal request as fast as possible (given the backlog of applications).


----------



## Danjanou (14 Aug 2012)

Just came across this little (172 pages) time waster over on the NATO vets web page. Everything you wanted to know about the CD but couldn't be arsed to ask.  8)

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/pub/doc/cfd-dfc-eng.pdf


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Aug 2012)

Lrrr said:
			
		

> Since the DND changed the medal you are entitled to claim the cost required to do so.
> As for your unit holding the RB for 18 months, that is completely unacceptable.  Timely recognition has 2 main parts; First is the unit CoC nominating/applying for the mbr in a timely fashion and presenting the medal/award in a dignified manner and Second is DH&R in processing the medal request as fast as possible (given the backlog of applications).



DH&R had the bar to my unit in under 4 months, after stating it could be a 18 month wait. Very impressed on how they're handling the backlog.


----------



## Danjanou (14 Aug 2012)

Oh 18 months is nothing look how long these poor buggers had to wait. 
 8)
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group04/cvsmfk



> Established in 1991. Service between 27 June 1950 and 27 July 1954.



I guess whichever unborn NOK I will my gongs to will eventually end up getting the bill to have my "We Won the Cold War Medal" court mounted when it shows up in the mail three or four decades from now.  :


----------



## Danjanou (14 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...........or you can do it yourself.
> 
> After all it isn't rocket appliances.



For those so inclined this well illustrated step by step instructions comes compliments of our Brit cousins over at ARRSE

http://www.arrse.co.uk/medals/180026-diy-guide-full-size-medal-mounting.html


----------



## Ciskman (23 Oct 2012)

*Canadian Forces Members receive international award for gallantry*

Air Force Articles
Oct. 23, 2012

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=13299

This weekend marks one year since this mission took place.

RIP Janick.

Rescue


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Dec 2012)

Article Link

Air Force Articles

Search and rescue crew receives international gallantry award

Dec. 28, 2012

Royal Canadian Air Force search and rescue crewmembers have received another accolade for a dangerous and tragic rescue that occurred in the Arctic in 2011.

The Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators (GAPAN) Award for Gallantry was this year awarded to Royal Canadian Air Force crews who, on October 27, 2011, responded to a distress call near Igloolik, Nunavut, where two hunters were stranded in icy waters in deteriorating conditions.

The award, which is given to an individual or crew of an aircraft in any field of aviation for an outstanding act of gallantry, was presented in the Guildhall in London, England, on October 23, 2012.

The award was presented to the Cormorant helicopter crew from 103 Search and Rescue Squadron based in Gander, N.L. – Captain Aaron Noble, aircraft commander; Captain Dean Vey, first officer; Sergeant Brad Hiscock, flight engineer; and Sergeant Dan Villeneuve and Master Corporal Shawn Bretschneider who are search and rescue technicians. The honour was also awarded to Sergeant Janick Gilbert, Master Corporal Max Lahaye-Lemay, and Master Corporal Marco Journeyman, search and rescue technicians from 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Trenton, Ont.

Sgt Gilbert, SAR team leader, perished during the mission and received the award posthumously.

"The presentation of all the GAPAN awards was quite spectacular; especially, after the recent citation and award to 103 Squadron [the Cormorant Trophy for Helicopter Rescue by AugustaWestland] and, in particular, the presence of Sergeant Janick Gilbert's widow and mother," said BGen (ret'd) David Jurkowski, Chairman of GAPAN North America, who attended the presentation ceremony.

"Some 600 distinguished guests at the Guild Hall of London gala awards dinner rose in spontaneous enthusiasm and deep respect for a full two minute ovation.

"It was a truly moving salute which I will not forget," he said. “I have never seen a standing ovation like that before by so many dignitaries. It made me proud to be a Canadian.”

The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators was established in 1929; its principal activities are centred on developing action and activities to ensure that aircraft are piloted and navigated safely by aviators who are highly competent, self-reliant, dependable and respected. The Guild supports the education and training of pilots and navigators from the initial training of the young pilot to the specialist training of the highest levels. Through its charitable activities, education and training, technical committee work, aircrew selection, scholarships and sponsorships, advice and recognition of the achievements of fellow aviators world wide, the Guild keeps itself at the forefront of the aviation world.

Family members who attended the event were Melisa Lesquir, the widow of Sgt Gilbert, who accepted the award on behalf of her late husband; Diane Gilbert, mother of Sgt Gilbert; Anne Journeyman, spouse of MCpl Journeyman; and, Christine Baldwin, guest of MCpl Lahaye-Lemay.

About GAPGAN North America

The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN) North America (NA) is one of 108 current Guilds and Livery Companies steeped in rich English history dating back some 800 years and recognized by the Guild Hall of London. Established in 1929 when the future professional status of air pilots and air navigators was very much in doubt, GAPAN is now a professional organization of more than 2,000 members in aviation communities in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

Comprising approximately 30 percent airline pilots, 30 percent military and 40 percent general aviation, our ranks are populated by current and former airline pilots, air force pilots and navigators, members of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority and many other professional organizations.

Among several goals, three are prominent in the North American context:
 •To establish, maintain and recognize the highest standards of air safety through the promotion of good airmanship
 •To maintain liaison with all aviation regulatory authorities connected with licensing, training and legislation affecting the pilot and navigator communities in the private, professional, civil or military domains
 •To constitute a body of experienced airmen available for advice and consultation and to facilitate the exchange of information

To this end, experienced members provide expert consultative advice through a number of professional committees which are very active in all geographical regions:
 •Technical and Air Safety Committee •Educational and Training Committee
 •Environmental Committee
 •Trophies and Awards Committee

These committees cover a broad range of topical issues ranging from unmanned aircraft access to national airspace, future cockpit design, aircraft accident investigation, flight test and system design, aviation law, aviation medicine, aviation greenhouse gas and noise pollution mitigation, youth activities, training and the recognition of conspicuous actions.

On the latter, the Royal Canadian Air Force has been recognized three times for its search and rescue operations, the most recent of which was the crew of Rescue 915 (103 Search and Rescue Squadron, 9 Wing Gander, N.L., and 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron, 8 Wing Trenton, Ont. Such recognition is a wonderful objective testimony for what the RCAF does for Canada.

GAPAN NA is a recent amalgamation of its organizations in Canada and the U.S. In addition to the aforementioned recognition, members are kept up to date through paper or electronic issues of Guild News and can access or contribute to study, discussion and position papers or online discussions on a wide variety of aviation matters.

GAPAN enjoys special relations with a number of commercial and military units through its affiliation process. For example, Harbour Air, based in Vancouver, B.C. – the world’s largest seaplane operation; the Abbotsford Air Show; the Canadian Forces Snowbirds; 19 Wing Comox, B.C., 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, 12 Wing Shearwater, N.S., but located at Pat Bay., B.C.; the Royal Air Force Red Arrows; and many others around the world are Affiliated Units of GAPAN.

There is a wealth of aviation expertise in the North American region that can be brought together for the betterment of aviation. Anyone wishing to play a role in this important domain is welcome to join GAPAN NA by contacting Donna Farquhar, Administrator, GAPAN NA at donna@guildnorthamerica.org or David Jurkowski, CMM, CD (BGen ret’d), Chairman, GAPAN NA at 1.613.237.4556.

The GAPAN website can be found at: www.gapan.org


----------



## ATCO (21 Sep 2013)

Good day,

I was wondering if there was any more specifics for nominations for a MSM?

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/chart-tableau-eng.asp?ref=MSM

The description is, IMHO, fairly vague and might explain why it is seldom seen around compared to a MMM. Based on the DH&R site numbers, MSM are awarded an average of 28/year versus 63/year for MMM.

I realise that the GG site has more guidelines, including "Any CF member" and "7.1 The Medal may be awarded in the military division to any person referred to in subsection 5(1) for the performance, on or after June 11, 1984, of a military deed or a military activity in a highly professional manner or of a very high standard that brings benefit or honour to the Canadian Forces."

One of the reason I'm asking: I was told by DH&R staff that OMM/MMM nominations HAD to have non-work related involment i.e. volunteer/community work/etc... which is fine but not found in the online eligibility description. Does an MSM nomination need the same? Or any other pre-requisite that can only be found through corporate knowledge or by asking DH&R?

ATCO


----------



## 392 (21 Sep 2013)

AFAIK, MSM / MSC do not have any rank prerequisites, only that whatever it is the person being nominated did was done in a highly professional manner or of a very high standard that brings benefit or honour to the Canadian Forces in some way. As a side note, I was told by DH&R in 2010 they were trying to ensure MSM / MSC went to more junior ranks and they wanted it to look less and less like something awarded only at the MWO / CWO / Officer level. I was quite impressed by the candid remarks, as up until then, it seemed that only MWO+ were being presented those decorations.

The reason you see less MSM / MSC is that only a certain percentage of the CF population per year is permitted to be presented one. I am 100% unsure if the same ratios apply to OMM / MMM   :2c:


----------



## eliminator (21 Sep 2013)

> There is no annual limit or allocation for these decorations which are intended to be the workhorse of the merit recognition system and recognize one specific act or meritorious service performed over a specific period of time, be it a few minutes, days, a project, an operational rotation or a whole posting. The awards are not reserved for operational or overseas service and the level of award (Cross or Medal) is not linked to the rank or level of responsibility of the nominee, the degree of merit being the only factor. The criteria for each decoration are simple and flexible allowing the recognition of a wide array of achievements by military personnel at all levels and in all fields. Nominations, which must me submitted through the chain of command within five years of the date of the incident or the end of the service cited, should especially be made for individuals who demonstrate either:
> 
> - outstanding performance out of trade, rank and experience;
> - outstanding performance in trade, rank and experience but performed under exceptional or
> ...


----------



## ATCO (21 Sep 2013)

Thanks Eliminator, what is the link to your quote? Thanks


----------



## eliminator (21 Sep 2013)

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/dn-nd/D61-28-2011-eng.pdf


----------



## ATCO (21 Sep 2013)

Thanks again! You are a person of a few words but extremely effective  ;D


----------



## GPComd (21 Sep 2013)

There isn't any rank limitations of MSM I have ever seen.
I was a Sergeant when I was awarded my MSM in 1993, for actions that occurred when I was a MCpl 4 years earlier.

After reading some citations, you will find that is common for junior ranked persons (Pte-Sgt, Lt-Capt), MSMs are for singular acts, that were considered for a higher award than a CDS Commendation, but not quite an MB, for example.  For more senior ranks (MWO+, Maj+) they seem to be more for a period of time, ie Company Commander in a BG overseas, taking some new ship out for sea trials, or service with a UN/NATO HQ Op overseas.  

This link will take you to the MSM awards page of the RCR.  
http://theroyalcanadianregiment.ca/honours_awards/28_msm1984.html
From there you can also find the MSCs, MMM, etc.

I'm sure most Regimental websites have an Honours and Awards page that shows the citations of their soldiers who have received the medals.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Sep 2013)

GPComd said:
			
		

> For more senior ranks (MWO+, Maj+) they seem to be more for a period of time, ie Company Commander in a BG overseas, taking some new ship out for sea trials, or service with a UN/NATO HQ Op overseas.



Or for literally every Coy/Sqn/Unit commander and their SSM or RSM....


----------



## Pusser (22 Sep 2013)

ATCO said:
			
		

> Good day,
> 
> I was wondering if there was any more specifics for nominations for a MSM?
> 
> ...



The difference between decorations and orders is that decorations are for specific things, whilst orders recognize long-term achievement.  So, whereas a variety of things are needed to be inducted into the Order of Military Merit (note the terminology:  Orders are not awards.  They are societies of merit to which people belong), one can be decorated (e.g. with the MSM, MSC, etc) for a single act.  Thus, in answer to your question, no, you don't need to include outside activities in a nomination for a Meritorious Service decoration.  In fact, you may end up clouding and confusing the issue.  I suggest you go on the GG's website and call up some of the recent citations for the MSC or MSM to get an idea.

There is no limit to the number of decorations in any category that can be awarded.  If enough people merit them, they will get them.  The most important part of this is that folks (i.e. the Chain of Command) have to nominate them.

Inductions into the Order ARE limited.  Thus only the top nominees each year get in.  Total annual induction to the order is limited to 0.1% of the total strength of the CF.


----------



## ATCO (27 Oct 2013)

Good day to all!

Is there a reference for a time limit for a CDS or Command Commendation? Five years rings a bell but I need a knowledgeable person (and a ref) to confirm.

Thanks,

ATCO


----------



## Gunner98 (9 Nov 2013)

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/faq/index-eng.asp#q10

Question

What is the process for recommending awards to Canadian Forces' individuals or units, such as Bravery Awards (BA), Meritorious Service Decorations (MSD), Mentions-in-Dispatch (MID), Chief of the Defence Staff Commendations or Canadian Forces Unit Commendations?

Answer

The Canadian Forces Decorations and Commendations Advisory Committee (CFDCAC ) meets quarterly to consider nominations for these awards. Recommendations that are not received in time for the current meeting are placed on the agenda of the next available meeting. Recommendations for awards stemming from operations, either outside Canada or domestic (such as the Winnipeg floods, Ice Storm 98, etc) are forwarded, through the chain of command, to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff for approval. Other recommendations are forwarded through the chain of command. Once approved by the Committee, recommendations for BAs, MSDs, MIDs are sent to the Governor General for approval. It should be noted that military recommendations for bravery awards should be initiated not more than 30 days after the incident has occurred and include witness statements. The Government will not adjudicate bravery awards received more than two years after the event.


----------



## Privateer (27 May 2014)

New "EXPEDITION" bar to SSM

From announcement by the Governor General (excerpt):



> OTTAWA—His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, announces the creation of the EXPEDITION bar to the Special Service Medal (SSM). The SSM and the new bar will be awarded to Canadian Armed Forces members for honourable service performed outside Canada, while participating in or providing direct support on a full-time basis to approved operations.
> 
> “Canadian Armed Forces members who proudly serve our country merit our recognition and gratitude,” said His Excellency. “I am pleased that the new EXPEDITION bar will provide formal recognition of the valued contributions of the women and men who offer critical support while deployed overseas, and who participate in the success of a number of missions.”
> 
> The SSM was created in 1984, and has always been issued with a bar that specifies the service being recognized; each bar has its own eligibility criteria. The EXPEDITION bar is being introduced to ensure an inclusive and consistent recognition for a broader spectrum of overseas service and was especially designed to fill a gap where certain missions were not eligible for recognition.



Kink to full announcement:  http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=15634&lan=eng
Image:  http://www.gg.ca/images/SSM_barretteEXPbar.jpg

And from DH&R, the list of eligible missions for the new bar:


> - Service of CAF personnel in Comalapa, El Salvador, Curacao, and the Liaison Officer in Key West, Florida, in direct support (ground support to RCAF Auroras) to the US-led Joint Task Force – South mission since 1 Jul 07 (Op Caribbe). Aircrew flying into the defined theatre of operations for Op Caribbe credit those days for the OSM-EXP and shall not count those days for the SSM-EXP.
> 
> - Service of CAF personnel as a staff member at the Third Location Decompression Site, Cyprus, since 1 Aug 07.
> 
> ...


Link:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/eli-adm/ssmexp-expmss-eng.asp


----------



## Journeyman (27 May 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> ..... the Liaison Officer in Key West, Florida.....


   Apparently war _is_ hell.    :warstory:


----------



## PuckChaser (27 May 2014)

Staff at TLD Cyprus get a medal? Granted putting up with that many drunks for 2 months isn't a vacation, but wow.


----------



## Tibbson (27 May 2014)

Nice to see our military embassy staff in such far off vacation spots as Kiev, Bangkok, Tripoli and other such locations will finely be recogni....no, wait.  Never mind.

Oh well, at least the CAF liaison officer to Disney World will get something.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Nice to see our military embassy staff in such far off vacation spots as Kiev, Bangkok, Tripoli and other such locations will finely be recogni....no, wait.  Never mind.
> 
> Oh well, at least the CAF liaison officer to Disney World will get something.



Disneyland on the Rideau may have felt compelled to reward a fellow compatriot...... >


----------



## slayer/raptor (12 Oct 2016)

Hello all,

Currently in the process of writing up an Honours and Awards application for one of my soldiers. Now I know that awards are often down graded by higher headquarters. i.e. If the TF nominates someone for a CDS commendation but CJOC H&A committee feels it only merits a CJOC commendation. But has anyone seen the reverse happen? i.e Someone is nominated for a CDS commendation but a higher HQ feels it merits a MB or an MSM?

The reason I ask, is because I'm wondering if it is better to shoot high (nominate for a higher award) since there is a chance that the higher H&A committees will try to downgrade the award.

Thanks


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Oct 2016)

Write it up exactly as you think it should written. I have seen nominations go both ways in the past, both downgraded and upgraded by the Chain of Command.

Provide as much evidence as you can (ie hard, measurable outcomes/results). The flowery language can get tweaked.


----------



## slayer/raptor (12 Oct 2016)

Ok thanks.


----------



## Haggis (12 Oct 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Write it up exactly as you think it should written. I have seen nominations go both ways in the past, both downgraded and upgraded by the Chain of Command.
> 
> Provide as much evidence as you can (ie hard, measurable outcomes/results). The flowery language can get tweaked.



Both good suggestions. I should add that if you go to the GG's website ands search "Honours" it will give you many examples of the tone and format for the draft citation you need to submit.  Also, each L1/formation usually has an H&A guru, often found in the L1 or formation CWO's office.  Seek him/her out for advice on how to wordsmith your nomination so it'll fly.  That makes it less work for him/her as they don't have to bounce it back for editing or, worse, spelling and grammar.


----------



## CountDC (13 Oct 2016)

Had one case go to bde for the Comd Commendation that was upgraded and resulted in a nice presentation of MSM to the member from Ottawa instead.


----------



## slayer/raptor (13 Oct 2016)

That is good to hear, thanks a lot. Hopefully it will not take 2 years to get results.


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2016)

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> That is good to hear, thanks a lot. Hopefully it will not take 2 years to get results.



Anything that goes to Rideau Hall will take a while. I got put in for something in December 2013, and found out in August 2015, for a Feb 2016 presentation. My understanding is that this is par for the course for Rideau HAll. Anything that stays within the cAF could potentially be faster.

Our system of H&A baffles me in its glacial pace. I don't se any real reason we couldn't action nominations much more quickly.


----------



## Haggis (13 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Our system of H&A baffles me in its glacial pace. I don't se any real reason we couldn't action nominations much more quickly.



There have been several recent high-profile "oopsies" in the US H&A system, where an award was processed and awarded quickly only to be reviewed after the fact when information came to light that, had it been known at the time of nomination, would likely have stopped or amended the process.  In that we take time to process our H&A lessens (but does not eliminate) the possibility of similar errors.


----------



## Pusser (14 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Anything that goes to Rideau Hall will take a while. I got put in for something in December 2013, and found out in August 2015, for a Feb 2016 presentation. My understanding is that this is par for the course for Rideau HAll. Anything that stays within the cAF could potentially be faster.
> 
> Our system of H&A baffles me in its glacial pace. I don't se any real reason we couldn't action nominations much more quickly.



I hope you didn't find out in 2013 that you were nominated!  The proposed recipient is not supposed to be told.  The only time he or she is supposed to find out is when the award has been confirmed (i.e. the GG or other approving authority has signed off on it).

I would have to argue that the "glacial pace" is more within the chain of command than Rideau Hall (at least as far as determining the award is concerned).  Once DH&R receives it and is confident that it will pass, it goes to the CF Decorations Advisory Committee (chaired by the CDS), which meets as often as necessary (based on number of files - during Afghanistan, it was quite frequently).  After CFDAC has agreed to the list, the Chancellery can actually process it quite quickly.  Keep in mind though that it takes time to organize an event that brings 40-60 recipients together (along with their guests) from all across Canada to attend one of maybe three or four time slots available at Rideau Hall in  a year.  The GG is a busy guy and presenting honours is only one of his many duties.


----------



## brihard (14 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I hope you didn't find out in 2013 that you were nominated!  The proposed recipient is not supposed to be told.  The only time he or she is supposed to find out is when the award has been confirmed (i.e. the GG or other approving authority has signed off on it).
> 
> I would have to argue that the "glacial pace" is more within the chain of command than Rideau Hall (at least as far as determining the award is concerned).  Once DH&R receives it and is confident that it will pass, it goes to the CF Decorations Advisory Committee (chaired by the CDS), which meets as often as necessary (based on number of files - during Afghanistan, it was quite frequently).  After CFDAC has agreed to the list, the Chancellery can actually process it quite quickly.  Keep in mind though that it takes time to organize an event that brings 40-60 recipients together (along with their guests) from all across Canada to attend one of maybe three or four time slots available at Rideau Hall in  a year.  The GG is a busy guy and presenting honours is only one of his many duties.



I knew I was put in for something, but figured it was a Comd Commendation or something. Never expected it to go to Rideau Hall.

One neat thing the GG is doing now, is he's holding 'exported' honours presentation events. Mine was presented in Vancouver, and we had BC, Yukon, Alberta, and Saskawtchewan represented. I believe the intent is to bring honours and awards out to Canadians. The event I was at had a bunch of Caring Canadian awards, toekn long service awards for emergency services, bravery and meritorious service decorations. I got to meat some people who had done some relly fantastic stuff.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The GG is a busy guy and presenting honours is only one of his many duties.



Handing out well deserved  bravery medals to five-year olds.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bravery-medal-for-girl-5-who-saved-mom-brother-in-car-wreck-1.3300087

Received my 20 and 30 year ESMs both on the same day.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I knew I was put in for something, but figured it was a Comd Commendation or something. Never expected it to go to Rideau Hall.
> 
> One neat thing the GG is doing now, is he's holding 'exported' honours presentation events. Mine was presented in Vancouver, and we had BC, Yukon, Alberta, and Saskawtchewan represented. I believe the intent is to bring honours and awards out to Canadians. The event I was at had a bunch of Caring Canadian awards, toekn long service awards for emergency services, bravery and meritorious service decorations. I got to meat some people who had done some relly fantastic stuff.



Sounds like it was quite the gig.   :nod:  Like a Dothraki wedding.


----------



## Pusser (14 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Busy handing out bravery medals to five-year olds.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bravery-medal-for-girl-5-who-saved-mom-brother-in-car-wreck-1.3300087
> 
> Received my 20 and 30 year ESMs both on the same day.



The GG and the Chancellery have nothing to do with that award.  That medal came from the Royal Canadian Humane Association (which is private).  The GG only awards honours from the Crown (e.g. Cross of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery, ESM, etc)

I would argue though that the delays in your ESM are internal to your own organization.  Although the Chancellery processes them, they have to wait until the organizations actually forward the nominations.  Also note that the ESM for Emergency Medical Services didn't exist until 1994, so is it possible that you got the 20 and 30 year recognition at the same time because it wasn't available at the 20 year mark?


----------



## brihard (14 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sounds like it was quite the gig.   :nod:  Like a Dothraki wedding.



Derp. Good catch. No, the hors d'oeuvres were better than that.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The GG and the Chancellery have nothing to do with that award.  That medal came from the Royal Canadian Humane Association (which is private).  The GG only awards honours from the Crown (e.g. Cross of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery, ESM, etc)



My mistake. I was thinking of a different five-year old. Equally well deserved.
https://www.gg.ca/honour.aspx?id=167498&t=3&ln=Rosenberg



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Also note that the ESM for Emergency Medical Services didn't exist until 1994, so is it possible that you got the 20 and 30 year recognition at the same time because it wasn't available at the 20 year mark?



Our Department did not start sending them in until 2005. They preferred, and still do, to handle their Honours and Awards at the Departmental level. 
Not going to argue if that was / is right or wrong. There are three ways of doing things. That's just the way it was / is. KEEP BACK 200 feet years.  
General Rohmer, wearing the old shoulder patch here, does the honours.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Derp. Good catch. No, the hors d'oeuvres were better than that.



Better hors d'oeuvres than hors de combat at a Dothraki event.


----------



## Pusser (14 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Our Department did not start sending them in until 2005. They preferred, and still do, to handle their Honours and Awards at the Departmental level.



Sadly, that's not unique.  There are a number of departments across the country who feel that since they pay their people, they should be the ones to hand out the awards.  I can understand that, but would argue that nominating personnel for an honour from the Crown doesn't take away from that and more importantly, it's and honour from the CROWN!  Maybe it's just me, but I think that a medal personally instituted by Her Majesty is a little more prestigious than one by a municipal politician.  The local department can still organize the ceremony and party (ESMs are not presented at Rideau Hall).

On a similar note, should somebody win a Bravery award (e.g. Star of Courage), his/her ESM can be mounted and worn with it.  This is not the case for a departmental or municipal award.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I can understand that, but would argue that nominating personnel for an honour from the Crown doesn't take away from that and more importantly, it's and honour from the CROWN!



No offense, but does "the CROWN!" have any idea what it is like to be a cop, fireman or paramedic in this town?



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> They don't even have to parade 12 days/24 Nights.  Once in a 30 day period that has 3 scheduled parades in it if the unit will actually enforce the NES policy.  Depending on a unit parade schedule this could be as little as 7 parades for a unit that stands up in Sep and stands down in May.   I have seen a unit schedule based on budget restrictions in the past consist of Sep - Nov, stand down for Dec, Jan/Feb and Mar have evenings designated as on ramps if money was available so 5 evening parades kept the mbrs safe for that period.  Apr started the new FY so they had to do 1 day in Apr and 1 Day in May to finish off the training year.



That will get a CD?

I don't mind my medals come from a crack-smoking mayor and not "the CROWN!" Don't mind at all, because he signs my pay and pension check.  

I know what they represent. Responding to 9-1-1 calls 40 hours a week, year after year, in this town is stressful.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> On a similar note, should somebody win a Bravery award (e.g. Star of Courage), his/her ESM can be mounted and worn with it.



Like Old Blue Eyes used to sing, our Department has done it their way ever since I can remember.

Once again,

KEEP BACK 200 feet years.


----------



## brihard (14 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sadly, that's not unique.  There are a number of departments across the country who feel that since they pay their people, they should be the ones to hand out the awards.  I can understand that, but would argue that nominating personnel for an honour from the Crown doesn't take away from that and more importantly, it's and honour from the CROWN!  Maybe it's just me, but I think that a medal personally instituted by Her Majesty is a little more prestigious than one by a municipal politician.  The local department can still organize the ceremony and party (ESMs are not presented at Rideau Hall).
> 
> On a similar note, should somebody win a Bravery award (e.g. Star of Courage), his/her ESM can be mounted and worn with it.  This is not the case for a departmental or municipal award.



I have seen Canadian Honours System medals and decorations mounted with other provincial/municipal long service / bravery honours and awards in the emergency services. While a small subset of extremely loud people are quick to trumpet the 'rules' on national honours and awards- those supposed 'rules' are nothing more than custom and convention, as there is no law that precludes mounting national honours and awards with provincial or municipal ones. I think the value of any particular honour or award is more contingent on how it is viewed within the organization and community one exists in than who issues it. For instance, I have an award from Mothers Against Drunk Driving that I value more than if, say, I were to be awarded some commemorative medal for having the least natural hair growth of any given Sgt in my unit on the year such a medal is issued because Her Majesty completed another ten spins around the sun.

While I, personally, would likely not mount anything other than national honours and awards with my existing set, I don't have any issue with those who are awarded such honours by a different level of government and who mount them together in accordance with their services uniform standards.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I have seen Canadian Honours System medals and decorations mounted with other provincial/municipal long service / bravery honours and awards in the emergency services.



We only wore our dress uniforms on duty when going to court.

The rest of the time, you simply wore a little piece of navy blue cloth sewn onto the lower left sleeve of your Operations jacket. 
One maple leaf for every five years on the job.


----------



## Pusser (17 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I have seen Canadian Honours System medals and decorations mounted with other provincial/municipal long service / bravery honours and awards in the emergency services. While a small subset of extremely loud people are quick to trumpet the 'rules' on national honours and awards- those supposed 'rules' are nothing more than custom and convention, as there is no law that precludes mounting national honours and awards with provincial or municipal ones. I think the value of any particular honour or award is more contingent on how it is viewed within the organization and community one exists in than who issues it. For instance, I have an award from Mothers Against Drunk Driving that I value more than if, say, I were to be awarded some commemorative medal for having the least natural hair growth of any given Sgt in my unit on the year such a medal is issued because Her Majesty completed another ten spins around the sun.
> 
> While I, personally, would likely not mount anything other than national honours and awards with my existing set, I don't have any issue with those who are awarded such honours by a different level of government and who mount them together in accordance with their services uniform standards.



It's a little bit more than custom and convention.  It's all laid out in  Privy Council no P.C. 1998-59, which says:

OTHER DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

(The order of precedence is as set out for Other Decorations and Medals in section 1.)

6. The Newfoundland Volunteer War Service Medal has the same precedence as the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal.

*7. The insignia of orders, decorations and medals not listed in this Directive, as well as foreign awards, the award of which has not been approved by the Government of Canada, shall not be mounted or worn in conjunction with orders, decorations and medals listed in this Directive.
*
8. The insignia of orders, decorations and medals shall not be worn by anyone other than the recipient of the orders, decorations or medals.

NOTE: Policy regarding the wearing of non-authorized awards

*Only the insignia of orders, decorations and medals officially awarded under the authority of the Crown or that the wearing of which has been authorized by the Crown may be worn.* Only the actual recipient of an honour can wear its insignia; no family member or any person other than the original recipient may wear the insignia of an order, decoration or medal. Insignia that are purchased or otherwise acquired may be used for display purpose only and cannot be worn on the person in any form or manner.


----------



## mariomike (17 Oct 2016)

Pusser is right. Medals from the Crown probably would not go well with some Emergency Services ( unofficial ) medals.  

Never saved a life medal.

My Daddy is a Chief medal.

I know someone at Headquarters medal.

I cook a good pot of Ragu medal.

Eight to Four medal. ( HQ staff only. )

My face was in the newspaper medal.

I believe our own press medal.

etc...

But, times are changing. If you love your medals, I can see our Emergency Services going this way with our Firefighters and Paramedics in the not too distant future,
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/fdny/downloads/pdf/about/medal-day-book-2016.pdf

Police
http://www.huntzman.com/Images_Collectors/nypd_medals.jpg


----------



## Pusser (17 Oct 2016)

There is also the matter of the difference between local and national recognition.  National honours (e.g. the ESMs) are recognized nationally and the information is accessible from a national database.  Local ones, not so much.

On a somewhat related note, a number of municipal forces down south were caught making up their own awards (which is OK), but using the insignia of existing US Armed Forces medals (the ribbons anyway), which is not OK.  In many cases the insignia they were using were for Armed Forces deeds that were not in any way related to what the municipal force was recognizing. In other words, forces were recognizing things like long service with what could look like a US Army medal for service in an embassy.


----------



## brihard (17 Oct 2016)

Nonetheless, there is no actual law saying that what I referred to cannot be done. While we may think it's tacky, it's nonetheless legal, and clearly is kosher under the uniform regulations of at least some police forces. There is no means by which the Privy Council approved order of precedence can be enforced. 

Some provincial medlas have been incorporated into the national order of precedence, others have not. Ontario has medals for police and fir braery that are kosher to wear. Alberta and Saskatchewan both have centennial medals that are part of the national order of precendence. Hell, the British Columbia Fire long service medal is part of the national order of precedence, whereas the Alberta Police OFficer Long Service Recognition Medal is not. Clearly it's simply a matter of which provinces have gotten around to pushing their honours and awards through the grinder at Rideau Hall.

At the end of the day what stops people from combining their order or precedence recognized medals with other medals and decorations is merely good taste, not any actual rule or regulation that has legal teeth. An honour or award is no less 'official' if it comes from a municipality or province, it's just from a different level of government.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Pusser is right. Medals from the Crown probably would not go well with some Emergency Services ( unofficial ) medals.
> 
> Never saved a life medal.
> 
> ...



You forgot the: 'We were only given a few medals to hand out, so I will give one to myself and the rest to my willing stooges' medal


----------



## mariomike (17 Oct 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is also the matter of the difference between local and national recognition.  National honours (e.g. the ESMs) are recognized nationally and the information is accessible from a national database.  Local ones, not so much.



National organizations like the CAF and RCMP yes. Municipal, not so much.

If you know one Paramedic service, you know one Paramedic service. We have something like 60 in Ontario. Each one is different. Across Canada, Paramedics are regulated provincially. I have no idea of Paramedic Operations outside Ontario.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Ontario has medals for police and fir braery that are kosher to wear.



Paramedic too,
http://www.humber.ca/today/sites/default/files/old//uploads/news_article/headline/(L-R)%20Rob%20Bronson,%20paramedic%20program%20co-ordinator%20Lynne%20Urszenyi,%20Heiko%20Mueller.jpg

Like I said, other than court, you'll never wear a dress uniform on duty anyway. Unless they are warming a chair at Emergency Services HQ. ( I think THEY get medals.   )

Incidentally, what you do wear on your 40-hour Operational jacket are the little caduceus that you see on the lower left sleeve of the Paramedic on the right in the photo. ( They are partners both wearing the old shoulder badges. ) That's really all you need. Personally, I would prefer to partner with a Paramedic who has some TI on the job than a hero. Just my personal opinion only!

As far as Federal and Provincial Bravery medals go, I've seen examples posted on here of guys getting duplicate bravery medals from both the Federal and Provincial governments for the same call! I've also seen them awarded to - much deserving - five year olds.

What we found where we worked was that unlike the military or even the police or fire, it was usually just the two of you. Your partner is your only witness, if you want a medal.

We had a few crews where partners took turns nominating each other over the years for Departmental awards! You look at the list, and it's the same few guys year after year! They weren't above calling their favorite city reporters either.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, there is no actual law saying that what I referred to cannot be done. While we may think it's tacky, it's nonetheless legal, and clearly is kosher under the uniform regulations of at least some police forces. There is no means by which the Privy Council approved order of precedence can be enforced.
> 
> Some provincial medlas have been incorporated into the national order of precedence, others have not. Ontario has medals for police and fir braery that are kosher to wear. Alberta and Saskatchewan both have centennial medals that are part of the national order of precendence. Hell, the British Columbia Fire long service medal is part of the national order of precedence, whereas the Alberta Police OFficer Long Service Recognition Medal is not. Clearly it's simply a matter of which provinces have gotten around to pushing their honours and awards through the grinder at Rideau Hall.
> 
> At the end of the day what stops people from combining their order or precedence recognized medals with other medals and decorations is merely good taste, not any actual rule or regulation that has legal teeth. An honour or award is no less 'official' if it comes from a municipality or province, it's just from a different level of government.



Whether the legal basis of a statutory instrument (i.e. an order in council) detailing the wear of honours granted by the Crown or restrictions on the mingling with non Crown approved honours is sufficient to demand enforcement would be an interesting legal debate, but one that would probably require input from someone with legal training more than OPDP 4.

However, I would disagree with your assertion that a medal from one level of government is no different than one from a different level of government and all that absence from the "order of precedence" means is that the lower levels of government haven't submitted their awards to Rideau Hall for overly strict scrutiny.  One of the principles of the Canadian honours system is that The Sovereign (HM The Queen, at present) is the fount of all honour.  The administration and dispensing of that honour is delegated by her representatives in Canada, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors (the Lt Govs are not subordinate to the GG, but are the direct representation of the Crown in the individual provinces).

Taking two of the opposing examples in your post, "the British Columbia Fire Services Long Service and Bravery Medals" and "the Alberta Police Officer Long Service Recognition Medal" there is a difference in their statutory implementation.  In the case of the BC fire service medals they were previously instituted by the BC Fire Commissioner (and thus not in the order of precedence), however following legislation (signed into law by the Lt Gov) that amended the Fire Services Act these medals now emanated from the Crown rather than from a functionary.  The Alberta medal "came into existence as a result of a Ministerial Order of the Solicitor General dated March 19, 1979.  The Ministerial Order was amended on September 12, 2003, again on April 9, 2008 and most recently on September 25, 2013".  I was unable to find any legislation that specifically gives Crown direction for the Solicitor General to institute the medal and thus the establishment of this award falls outside a direct link to the "fount of honour" and that is likely why it is not included in the order of precedence.

Since municipalities or other entities do not have a direct connection to the Crown any awards established by them would be treated the same - as not emanating from a "fount of honour" - despite possibly recognizing legimately honourable service.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2017)

Topic is to list changes to or additions to prerequisites for Medals and Awards as listed on DHH site and in amended CANFORGENS 

SSM
Special Service Medal   -  Update 25 Apr 2016

RECOGNITION FOR OPERATION REASSURANCE AND OPERATION UNIFIER

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 073/16 CMP 076/16 251912Z APR 16 
B. CANFORGEN 003/09 CMP 002/09 081950Z JAN 09 
C. CANFORGEN 096/09 CMP 042/09 201315Z MAY 09

FURTHER TO REF A, AFC HAS DETERMINED THAT THE USE OF THE EXISTING NATO AND EXPEDTION BARS TO THE SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY METHOD TO RECOGNIZE SERVICE WITH OPS REASSURANCE AND UNIFIER RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE CDS HAS DIRECTED THE CF HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE SERVICE RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK AND INTENDS TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES THAT THE TIME CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN MEDALS BE AMENDED IN DUE COURSE

CONSEQUENTLY, AFC HAS APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THE FOL SERVICE TO THE ELIGIBILITY LISTS FOR CERTAIN CAMPAIGN AND SERVICE MEDALS, AS FOLLOWS:

SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL-NATO (SSM-NATO):

(1) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO CAMPIA TURZII, ROMANIA, LITHUANIA AND SPANGDAHLEM AIRBASE IN GERMANY AS PART OF THE AIR TASK FORCE (ATF), INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NATO BALTIC AIR PATROL (BAP), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

(2) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE AS PART OF THE LAND TASK FORCE (LTF), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

(3) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO SERVED ONBOARD HMC SHIPS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEAS UNDER NATO SNMG2, SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE), PROVIDED THE SERVICE IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS A NATO MEDAL. NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR. ONLY TIME SPENT UNDER NATO COMMAND IS ELIGIBLE - TRANSIT TIME DOES NOT COUNT. SERVICE UNDER NATO OPS ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR AND SEA GUARDIAN COUNTS TOWARDS THE APPROPRIATE NATO MEDALS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED NUMERALS AND NOT FOR THE SSM-NATO

(4) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO FORWARD LOGISTICS SITES (FLS) IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF HMC SHIPS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEAS UNDER NATO SNMG2 (WHEN THE SHIPS ARE NOT UNDER OPS ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR OR SEA GUARDIAN), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

(5) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS IN LATVIA AS PART OR IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE ENHANCED FORWARD PRESENCE (EFP) BATTLEGROUP LATVIA, SINCE 22 APR 2017 (OP REASSURANCE). NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR

SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL-EXPEDITION (SSM-EXP):

(1) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO UKRAINE TO PROVIDE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES, SINCE 13 JUNE 2015 (OP UNIFIER)


----------



## brihard (21 Jan 2017)

What would be the time in theatre requirements for this? Still 180 days?


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2017)

Yes, 180 days:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medal-ssm.page


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jan 2017)

But note from the CANFORGEN:

HOWEVER, THE CDS HAS DIRECTED THE CF HONOURS POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE SERVICE RECOGNITION FRAMEWORK AND INTENDS TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES THAT THE TIME CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN MEDALS BE AMENDED IN DUE COURSE


----------



## brihard (21 Jan 2017)

I noticed that, and was just clicking to reply to same. Reads like we'll probably see it drop comparable to the requirements for campaign medals.

Anyone know, once this gets put in place will the CAF go and track down everyone eligible, or will those who deployed (particularly reservists) be expected to self identify and put in a request for these?


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jan 2017)

In theory, there should be an ability to do an automatic search to identify eligible people.

In practice, recordkeeping is often hit or miss (people whose deployments to Afghanistan show solely as a period of TD in Petawawa on their MPRR, for example), so there will be a need for some manual checks as well.


----------



## brihard (21 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In theory, there should be an ability to do an automatic search to identify eligible people.
> 
> In practice, recordkeeping is often hit or miss (people whose deployments to Afghanistan show solely as a period of TD in Petawawa on their MPRR, for example), so there will be a need for some manual checks as well.



Yup... Somehow my tour (3-08) shows up on my MPRR, but didn't show up on CFTPO or something. Consequently, doesn't show up on Monitor Mass. GIGO.


----------



## dimsum (21 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In theory, there should be an ability to do an automatic search to identify eligible people.
> 
> In practice, recordkeeping is often hit or miss (people whose deployments to Afghanistan show solely as a period of TD in Petawawa on their MPRR, for example), so there will be a need for some manual checks as well.



Wouldn't it be flagged when it shows the mbr drawing HA/RA/FSP in Pet (for example) though?


----------



## rmc_wannabe (21 Jan 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be flagged when it shows the mbr drawing HA/RA/FSP in Pet (for example) though?



I did Operacise Reassurance Roto 3 and didn't see a dime of HA/RA/FSP. It was all "TD" for "Exercising in Europe." most of Roto 1,2,3 were all under 180 days because they didnt want people going 365 Red. Its only Roto 4 onward that it was listed as an SDA and a 6 month tour. 

I hope they approve a reduction in time because it would suck to get boned out of a medal lacking 27 days.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2017)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I did Operacise Reassurance Roto 3 and didn't see a dime of HA/RA/FSP. It was all "TD" for "Exercising in Europe." most of Roto 1,2,3 were all under 180 days because they didnt want people going 365 Red. Its only Roto 4 onward that it was listed as an SDA and a 6 month tour.
> 
> I hope they approve a reduction in time because it would suck to get boned out of a medal lacking 27 days.



Situation no change. They made sure RIP dates in Roto 4 for ATHENA kept people under 8 months because they didn't want to have to pay for the extra HLTA days, and some people left with 10 or 12 days short of their 210 day mark to earn a rotation bar. Happened again on ATTENTION.


----------



## eliminator (24 Feb 2017)

Has anyone heard anything about the recommendation going forward? It seems like the SSM-NATO and SSM-EXP are the ones most likely to see a reduction. My guess would be 90 days for those. 

I really cant see a reduction to less than 30 days for the GCS, GSM, and OSM.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Feb 2017)

How about 5 flights?  

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medal-gcs-af.page

The GCS with ALLIED FORCE ribbon is awarded to fighter pilots and AWACS crew members who flew at least 5 sorties during Operation ALLIED FORCE from 24 March to 10 June 1999 in the theatre of operations which consisted of the airspace over Kosovo and other territories of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Adriatic and Ionian seas.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Feb 2017)

If you're only able to muster up 5 flights during a 6 month rotation, I'd suggest we either are wasting our time employing those aircraft or we have a big serviceability problem. 

ALLIED FORCE was barely 2.5 months. Considering the airpower that went to Kosovo, I'd say they balanced the length of the Op with the average number of sorties flown.


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Feb 2017)

Usually it's a 56 day/90 day rotation for RCAF aircrew. There are valid reasons for this.

I also believe the 18 folks were flying 1 in 3 on Impact (I could be wrong)

I think for aircrew 10 sorties should be sufficient enough.

The issue comes from a lack of understanding, which is why the 30 days/30 sorties is flawed.  Which is also why I feel the fighter community received the short straw on Impact.


----------



## eliminator (25 Feb 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Usually it's a 56 day/90 day rotation for RCAF aircrew. There are valid reasons for this.
> 
> I also believe the 18 folks were flying 1 in 3 on Impact (I could be wrong)
> 
> ...



Without going down a rabbit hole, IMO having different medals for the same operation ends up creating a variety of issues. A singular OSM with a Op IMPACT ribbon would have been far easier to administer. 

Of note, the Americans have a similar take to "in the box for 30 days" medals, but can be awarded for 1 day if engaged the enemy in combat 



> To qualify for the Inherent Resolve Campaign Medal, personnel must have been based in Iraq or Syria, fly missions over those countries, and/or serve in contiguous waters for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days. Service members who were killed or were medically evacuated from those countries due to wounds or injuries *immediately qualify for the award, as do members who engaged in combat.*


----------



## MJP (25 Feb 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Usually it's a 56 day/90 day rotation for RCAF aircrew. There are valid reasons for this.
> 
> I also believe the 18 folks were flying 1 in 3 on Impact (I could be wrong)
> 
> ...



I agree, I didn't understand the 30 sortie bit at all when compared to tour length.  5 seems low, 10 seems more reasonable especially for non combat type Ops, but I am of the same mind as the Americans if one engages the enemy then it is earned immediately.


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Feb 2017)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Without going down a rabbit hole, IMO having different medals for the same operation ends up creating a variety of issues. A singular OSM with a Op IMPACT ribbon would have been far easier to administer.



With this specific type of mission, it is warranted.  Folks in camp deserve the GSM whereas folks flying over Iraq/Syria deserve the GCS, aircrew also qualify for the GSM if they have a 6-month break between rotations.

As for a specific Impact ribbon, there definitely should a ribbon specific to Impact, as I think the scope/size of the mission far surpasses the definition for the Expedition ribbon.  Yes I am aware that it was handed out to a handful of exchange folks prior to the start of Impact.

Ease of administration vs proper recognition?  I'll take proper recognition over ease of administration any day.


----------



## eliminator (25 Feb 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> With this specific type of mission, it is warranted.  Folks in camp deserve the GSM whereas folks flying over Iraq/Syria deserve the GCS, aircrew also qualify for the GSM if they have a 6-month break between rotations.
> 
> As for a specific Impact ribbon, there definitely should a ribbon specific to Impact, as I think the scope/size of the mission far surpasses the definition for the Expedition ribbon.  Yes I am aware that it was handed out to a handful of exchange folks prior to the start of Impact.
> 
> Ease of administration vs proper recognition?  I'll take proper recognition over ease of administration any day.



By ease of administration I'm referring more to the timelessness of the award being issued. Having clerks photocopy logbook entries and creating excel spreadsheets for each member just to track days seems like a waste of effort. Then there's the nightmare of "trading in" GSMs for GCSs if the 30 day cumulative tally is met in later rotations.  (i.e. Hornet driver gets 15 days over Iraq during a 56-day roto, gets the GSM, and then returns for another 56-day roto and gets another 15 days over Iraq.)

I do like the GCS/GSM approach. I just think it needs some refinement wrt counting of days, especially when actually engaging an armed enemy.  

As for the GCS/GSM ribbons, it's getting messy. Iraq and Syria fall within the definition of Southwest Asia, so why not just issue the GCS/GSM-SWA? EXP is meant for small contributions to short missions. Op IMPACT is well beyond that now. Probably just easier to rename the ribbon at this point.


----------



## Stoker (25 Feb 2017)

Apparently there's some talk of a medal for crews deploying to the Arctic, something like a 180 days accumulated above 60. Being the RCN is about to deploy more to the Arctic in AOPS makes sense.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Feb 2017)

So, basically a medal for staying in Canada, but out of your home base for 180 days and more?

That's like becoming American, man! What next: A crossing street in Toronto without a sergeant's assistance medal?

/SARC OFF.


----------



## Stoker (25 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, basically a medal for staying in Canada, but out of your home base for 180 days and more?
> 
> That's like becoming American, man! What next: A crossing street in Toronto without a sergeant's assistance medal?
> 
> /SARC OFF.



Have you ever been to the Arctic, its no picnic I can assure you. We hand out a medal for 30 days on Op Caribbe and that's with ports and sun. I honestly don't see the problem.


----------



## dimsum (25 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, basically a medal for staying in Canada, but out of your home base for 180 days and more?
> 
> That's like becoming American, man! What next: A crossing street in Toronto without a sergeant's assistance medal?
> 
> /SARC OFF.



Folks at CFS Alert are awarded medals, so I don't see the difference.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, basically a medal for staying in Canada, but out of your home base for 180 days and more?
> 
> That's like becoming American, man! What next: A crossing street in Toronto without a sergeant's assistance medal?
> 
> /SARC OFF.



I am aware of medals that have been issued by Canada specifically for domestic military service: the Special Service Medal with Alert or Ranger bar, and the North West Canada Medal. A medal for Arctic naval service doesn't seem too unusual to me.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Folks at CFS Alert are awarded medals, so I don't see the difference.




180 days vs 6 months is the same.


----------



## Stoker (25 Feb 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I am aware of medals that have been issued by Canada specifically for domestic military service: the Special Service Medal with Alert or Ranger bar, and the North West Canada Medal. A medal for Arctic naval service doesn't seem too unusual to me.



I think land forces would also qualify for it as well.


----------



## Cronicbny (25 Feb 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Have you ever been to the Arctic, its no picnic I can assure you. We hand out a medal for 30 days on Op Caribbe and that's with ports and sun. I honestly don't see the problem.



YMMV - in the Eastern Pacific it only comes with sun, no ports for the last 3 rotos (not anything longer than 18 hours, anyhow)

I am not sure how I feel about a gong for a Nanook or Limpid deployment of 2 months - i completely get the CFS Alert piece... 6 months is a very long time in austere conditions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Feb 2017)

eliminator said:
			
		

> By ease of administration I'm referring more to the timelessness of the award being issued. Having clerks photocopy logbook entries and creating excel spreadsheets for each member just to track days seems like a waste of effort. Then there's the nightmare of "trading in" GSMs for GCSs if the 30 day cumulative tally is met in later rotations.  (i.e. Hornet driver gets 15 days over Iraq during a 56-day roto, gets the GSM, and then returns for another 56-day roto and gets another 15 days over Iraq.)



If it was 180 days between those ROTOs, the mbr would keep the GSM and get the GCS.



> I do like the GCS/GSM approach. I just think it needs some refinement wrt counting of days, especially when actually engaging an armed enemy.
> 
> As for the GCS/GSM ribbons, it's getting messy. Iraq and Syria fall within the definition of Southwest Asia, so why not just issue the GCS/GSM-SWA? EXP is meant for small contributions to short missions. Op IMPACT is well beyond that now. Probably just easier to rename the ribbon at this point.



Actually, I think the mistake was actually in the naming of the GCS-Expedition from the get go.  The qualifying service was always:

The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is *military service within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq* from 20 January 2003 onwards provided the service has not been recognized by another service medal. 

Are you sure you're not thinking of the SSM Expedition?  

The Special Service Medal (SSM) was created to recognize members of the Canadian Forces who are taking part in activities and operations under exceptional circumstances.

EXPEDITION

(Authorized by PC 2014-606, 21 May 2014)

An aggregate of 180 days of honourable service performed outside Canada beginning July 1, 2007, while deployed to participate in or provide direct support on a full-time basis to approved operations, provided the said service is not counted towards any other Canadian or foreign service medal. In this context, “deployed” means sent outside of Canada temporarily, without family and effects, for the specific purpose of serving in or supporting approved operations; postings to permanent positions outside of Canada are excluded from eligibility.


I guess no one thought the name GCS- XPEDITION would create head scratching later on.  Or they never thought we'd do an OP in Iraq the scope of IMPACT; the last line in the Historical notes states:

As of 1 June 2012, 9 awards had been made.

Ref the earlier posts about the service medal for up north, there is an ALERT bar for the SSM as well.

2. ALERT

(Authorized by PC 1995-2003)

An aggregate of 180 days of honourable service on the posted strength of Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert, or of honourable service with a military force operationally deployed to or at CFS Alert, since it began its operation on 01 September 1958 and still continuing. Units deployed at CFS Alert include such detachments as aircrew flying into the station for re-supply missions.

If you're up north and not on the posted strength of the CFS though...


----------



## Stoker (25 Feb 2017)

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> YMMV - in the Eastern Pacific it only comes with sun, no ports for the last 3 rotos (not anything longer than 18 hours, anyhow)
> 
> I am not sure how I feel about a gong for a Nanook or Limpid deployment of 2 months - i completely get the CFS Alert piece... 6 months is a very long time in austere conditions.




I don't believe it for 30 days, its for 180 days accumulated I believe, Many people have gone on multiple deployments and some up to 3 months. When the AOPS start to deploy, they most likely will be up there for 4 months or more.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Feb 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I don't believe it for 30 days, its for 180 days accumulated I believe, Many people have gone on multiple deployments and some up to 3 months. When the AOPS start to deploy, they most likely will be up there for 4 months or more.



Any RUMINT yet on whether it's AOPS crews will deploy for the whole season of if they're going to crew-swap like the CCG does? The first option is fairly austere, the second option much less so.


----------



## Stoker (25 Feb 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Any RUMINT yet on whether it's AOPS crews will deploy for the whole season of if they're going to crew-swap like the CCG does? The first option is fairly austere, the second option much less so.



Hard to say, we trialed a RIF a few years ago with several MCDV's up north and it did work. I guess it will be all about personnel availability. With all the MCDV crew members being offered reg positions at rank, a lot of these will be ear marked to the AOPS. Harry DeWolf wont be selecting crews until the late 2018. If I was a betting man, it will be a straight deployment with no switching out.


----------



## eliminator (25 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As of 1 June 2012, 9 awards had been made.



They really need to update that. 

According to the 2015 Honours and Recognition pub, 208 GCS-EXPs were issued in 2015 alone. In 2014, 70 were issued. 

The 2016 edition of this pub should be out shortly.


----------



## eliminator (25 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If it was 180 days between those ROTOs, the mbr would keep the GSM and get the GCS.



Days in a given 180 period can only apply towards one medal.

Here's an over-simplistic example: Member deploys to Iraq on an HLTA-backfill for 29 days, just missing out on the GCS-EXP (no medal for that matter). One year later, the member deploys to Kuwait for a 180 day deployment (GSM-EXP). 

During that tour, the member manages to get on a CP140 ride over the badlands bringing the total "Iraq days" up to 29+1=30=GCS. 

However, the member can't use days from the same deployment towards two different awards. Member has to choose either GCS or GSM.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Feb 2017)

Ya, we're saying the same thing but differently I think.   :nod:  

Only, its not a choice, its precedence based.  In the example above, the 180 days deployment 1 year later, which brought the mbr to 30 flights in the JOA, would mean the mbr would only still get the GCS.  This is the way it was explained/briefed to us at least.  

Morale of the story?  Never leave theatre with 29 days towards the GSM or 29 missions.     (although I know of one guy who left R0 with 29 missions and didn't go back)


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Feb 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Have you ever been to the Arctic, its no picnic I can assure you. We hand out a medal for 30 days on Op Caribbe and that's with ports and sun. I honestly don't see the problem.



But yet with all the NANOOKs and NUNAVILUTs having been run in the last 10 years, I haven't heard anything on the Army-side about guys wanting a medal for it.

If you're patrolling the Arctic, you're patrolling Canadian territory. The medal you get to signify that is your CD, or your SSI if you're sailing. Yep, the Arctic is harsh. That's why you get Sea Duty or Land Duty allowance.


----------



## Stoker (26 Feb 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But yet with all the NANOOKs and NUNAVILUTs having been run in the last 10 years, I haven't heard anything on the Army-side about guys wanting a medal for it.
> 
> If you're patrolling the Arctic, you're patrolling Canadian territory. The medal you get to signify that is your CD, or your SSI if you're sailing. Yep, the Arctic is harsh. That's why you get Sea Duty or Land Duty allowance.



Yet Alert gets a SSM and its Canadian territory correct? Sea duty allowance is for being on ship, not the area that it operates in. Regardless I hope this goes through.


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Morale of the story?  Never leave theatre with 29 days towards the GSM or 29 missions.     (although I know of one guy who left R0 with 29 missions and didn't go back)



I know this is a but of a stretch, but I do recall someone mentioning sorties that start on one day but end on another count as two.  I personally think that it is BS, but it would not surprise me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I know this is a but of a stretch, but I do recall someone mentioning sorties that start on one day but end on another count as two.  I personally think that it is BS, but it would not surprise me.



Well...I can confirm that 1 mission over 2 Z-days can be counted as 2 sorties.   I personally didn't do that, my log book reflects "1 mission = 1 day towards".  It's not a factor now with the way the ATOs go, but you remember the rolling block times gig in the first part of the op, there was an opportunity for people to log on mission as 2 flights towards their throwing star.  I don't know of a single person who did, but it wasn't common knowledge then AFAIK, either.  There is a whole SOP for this *stuff* in theatre now.  Every month I've spent at Happy Land now, there's an additional entry on my logbook that says "X days credit towards the GCS-Exp" or something along that line, signed by the DetCO or Dep DetCO.  FWIW, the community realized the whole gong thing was FUBAR and steps were being taken to review everyone who'd rotated thru since R0-C0 and ensure their stuff was correct and appropriate honours were submitted.


----------



## eliminator (26 Feb 2017)

As much as I like the various GCSs and GSMs, I really wish we would have just gone with an OSM route for all expeditionary missions. Give a distinct ribbon, and if in "the box" where hostilities are taking place add a bar (for 1 days service). Like what we did with the Gulf and Kuwait Medal and Bar. 

To show multiple deployment rotations/excess days, go the route of an Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (like the UK has). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_Campaign_Service_Medal


----------



## eliminator (26 Feb 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yet Alert gets a SSM and its Canadian territory correct? Sea duty allowance is for being on ship, not the area that it operates in. Regardless I hope this goes through.



I was at a CFCWO Town Hall a couple of years back and he mentioned that DH&R was looking into suitable means to recognize service on domestic operations. Whether that would take the form of a medal, or badge, or otherwise no decision has been made yet.


----------



## MMSS (16 Apr 2017)

The Polar Medal states under eligibility "It also honours those individuals who have withstood the rigours of the polar climate to make significant contributions to polar exploration and knowledge, scientific research, and the securement of Canada’s northern sovereignty." So I would expect *if* a medal is to be awarded to mbrs going up north, that's the one they intend to use. Note the CAF site also explicitly states "Service that is recognized by other honours cannot be taken into account for the Polar Medal. This means the eligibility of CAF members for the Special Service Medal with ALERT bar and the Special Service Medal with RANGER bar remain unaffected by the new medal."


----------



## Carpenteer (1 May 2017)

MMSS said:
			
		

> The Polar Medal states under eligibility "It also honours those individuals who have withstood the rigours of the polar climate to make significant contributions to polar exploration and knowledge, scientific research, and the securement of Canada’s northern sovereignty." So I would expect *if* a medal is to be awarded to mbrs going up north, that's the one they intend to use. Note the CAF site also explicitly states "Service that is recognized by other honours cannot be taken into account for the Polar Medal. This means the eligibility of CAF members for the Special Service Medal with ALERT bar and the Special Service Medal with RANGER bar remain unaffected by the new medal."



This sounds like a great way to recognize some of the CE guys who spend extended periods maintaining places like Inuvik and other early warning sites. We have a few RM's that spend 1-3 months a year up there and it adds up quickly. After a posting they could easily have 365+ days above 60, yet only guys on the posted strength of Alert get the SSM. 

It's also not uncommon for people to head to Alert for months at a time without it counting towards anything.


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2017)

Carpenteer said:
			
		

> This sounds like a great way to recognize some of the CE guys who spend extended periods maintaining places like Inuvik and other early warning sites. We have a few RM's that spend 1-3 months a year up there and it adds up quickly. After a posting they could easily have 365+ days above 60, yet only guys on the posted strength of Alert get the SSM.
> 
> It's also not uncommon for people to head to Alert for months at a time without it counting towards anything.



No problem......Just put in the paperwork suggesting that an "INUVIK" Bar be made up for the SSM and you will be good to go.  Or should you just broaden the coverage and make it a "NORTH OF 60" Bar?     [


----------



## brihard (1 May 2017)

...or join the RCMP?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 May 2017)

Carpenteer said:
			
		

> This sounds like a great way to recognize some of the CE guys who spend extended periods maintaining places like Inuvik and other early warning sites. We have a few RM's that spend 1-3 months a year up there and it adds up quickly. After a posting they could easily have 365+ days above 60, yet only guys on the posted strength of Alert get the SSM.
> 
> It's also not uncommon for people to head to Alert for months at a time without it counting towards anything.



Not every time we are away from our postal codes = a gong though.  I've been away, more than once, on a CJOC named Op (not an exercise, a named op) OUTCAN and...its counts only towards the second bar on my CD.


----------



## Carpenteer (4 May 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No problem......Just put in the paperwork suggesting that an "INUVIK" Bar be made up for the SSM and you will be good to go.  Or should you just broaden the coverage and make it a "NORTH OF 60" Bar?     [



I was referring to the Polar Medal, it makes a comment about time served protecting Canada's northern sovereignty.

Or maybe a snowflake badge for the DEU's. . . .


----------



## Stoker (4 May 2017)

Carpenteer said:
			
		

> I was referring to the Polar Medal, it makes a comment about time served protecting Canada's northern sovereignty.
> 
> Or maybe a snowflake badge for the DEU's. . . .



As far as I know only one military per received it and that's for being the first to dive on HMS Erbus.


----------



## dimsum (4 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As far as I know only one military per received it and that's for being the first to dive on HMS Erbus.



I can imagine that person walking around with a copy of the Gazette to prove s/he earned it  >


----------



## Carpenteer (4 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As far as I know only one military per received it and that's for being the first to dive on HMS Erbus.



I guess they are going the "exceptional circumstances" kind of route. That's fine too, I guess there are more glorious jobs then renovating a kitchen  :nod:


----------



## Stoker (4 May 2017)

Carpenteer said:
			
		

> I guess they are going the "exceptional circumstances" kind of route. That's fine too, I guess there are more glorious jobs then renovating a kitchen  :nod:



I guess anyone who has the 180 days above 67 degrees and can prove it can get the medal. I'm not sure if they are even giving it out anymore.


----------



## Carpenteer (11 Jul 2017)

Here is a question;

One of my friends has deployed to Latvia, he already has the SSM with the Alert Bar. So if he completes 180 days in Latvia he would be awarded the NATO bar, but he asked me what happens if he goes back? or what if he did another tour in Alert?

I looked it up and it's seems that there is no further way of recognition. He thought that this was weird because of the new system we have with bars on the GCS,GSM, and OSM.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2017)

That's why the system is under review, especially the 180 day requirement. SSM didn't have any of the fancy numbers on there like a U.N. medal because it was a catch-all and applied to various missions.


----------



## Carpenteer (12 Jul 2017)

Is there a reason NATO is not supplying the medals for these ops? I'm guessing the SSM is an interim measure and will be switched out with something else in the future. I remember hearing about ships receiving the article 5. 

I'll read up on it, but the NATO website doesn't mention much about honours and awards.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jul 2017)

Carpenteer said:
			
		

> Here is a question;
> 
> One of my friends has deployed to Latvia, he already has the SSM with the Alert Bar. So if he completes 180 days in Latvia he would be awarded the NATO bar, but he asked me what happens if he goes back? or what if he did another tour in Alert?
> 
> I looked it up and it's seems that there is no further way of recognition. He thought that this was weird because of the new system we have with bars on the GCS,GSM, and OSM.



Not every Honour or Award has the same criteria.  Go to the DHH site and read what are the criteria for each Honour or Award.  http://forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medals-chart-index.page  (Click on item you want to research).

For the SSM, you get a bar for whichever deployment you were on.  If your "friend" was to Alert and also NATO, then they wear the ALERT and NATO bars on their SSM.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jul 2017)

I have two bars on my SSM, for three qualifying tours. You only get to wear one instance of a bar regardless of how many times you've qualified for that specific award. In my case Humanitas x 1 plus Alert x 2 = 2 bars.


----------



## sailoraye123 (13 Feb 2018)

hey,

        What recognition do you receive if you deploy inside of Canada sure theres a lot of medals for task done outside of Canada. He'll even Alert has its own medal, but why isn't the FOL in Inuvik recognized? Or does it fall under a different category.. hell they even have a name for the operation any idea if Inuvik gets any recognition?


----------



## Zoomie (26 Feb 2018)

O.N.E. Does not count towards any medal.  Just as Op Lentus does not, nor SAR missions or any other DOMOP.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Feb 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> O.N.E. Does not count towards any medal.  Just as Op Lentus does not, nor SAR missions or any other DOMOP.



There have been medals issued for certain specific domestic operations, but admitedly it has been a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_West_Canada_Medal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_General_Service_Medal


----------



## 63 Delta (1 Mar 2018)

Question IRT to time towards a medal. What is considered time? In example short TAV's on named Ops that don't qualify as an attach posting.

Do those days count towards medal criteria? Specifically culmuative days.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Mar 2018)

Pretty sure anything labelled a TAV, SIV or SAV isn't counted towards eligibility, or at least it was that way for the GCS in Afghanistan.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Mar 2018)

TAVs did indeed count towards the GCS.  My TAV in 07 was extended to 6 mos and we received the GCS.  Mind you, as we weren't officially part of the Roto we had to do our own leg work once we returned home.


----------



## Zoomie (1 Mar 2018)

I believe it’s in the wording on your CFTPO - TAVs can last an entire tour length (so they count).  SAV and SIV are usually 1 to 2 weeks (YMMV) and are not considered an attach-posting.  

In the end there is someone in DHH that looks at every file and makes a determination.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Mar 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> I believe it’s in the wording on your CFTPO - TAVs can last an entire tour length (so they count).  SAV and SIV are usually 1 to 2 weeks (YMMV) and are not considered an attach-posting.
> 
> In the end there is someone in DHH that looks at every file and makes a determination.



We were only supposed to be in country for 59 days so they could forgo the benefits that came at 60 days.  The decision was made to extend us as we were getting the LAVs, Bison and Coyote changed over with the new up-armour kits and ECPK in a day and a half by the end of the tour.  We stayed until all the vehicles in theatre were completed.

But l did see at least one guy on another TAV who was there for 59 days, back to Canada for 7 and straight back to KAF for another go.


----------



## Zoomie (3 Mar 2018)

I deployed out east on a TAV while we waited for CJOC to adjust the TO&E.  my CFTPO changed when it was made official.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Mar 2018)

I didn't see this posted yet, just popped up on my FB wall this morning.

Article Link

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has amended the criteria for two bars to the Special Service Medal (SSM), making it easier for CAF members to receive recognition for their contributions.

Canada’s new Defence Policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, includes an initiative to modernize the overseas recognition framework to make service medals more accessible and flexible, ensuring the appropriate and timely recognition of military personnel who participate in or provide direct support to operations.

The amendment was brought about in part as a result of Operations REASSURANCE and UNIFIER. Because of deployment patterns, many CAF members who participated in these operations did not reach the 180 day criteria previously required.

The criteria for the NATO bar to the SSM is amended from 180 days to 45 days of eligible service beginning on or after October 20, 2004. Service before this date remains under the former criteria. Those who have eligible service on both sides of the transition date can combine all eligible service towards the shorter time criteria.

Similarly, the criteria for the EXPEDITION bar to the SSM is amended from 180 days to 45 days of eligible service beginning on or after July 1, 2007.

This change will provide participants in eligible modern operations with well-earned recognition for their contribution to the operational success of the CAF. It will make a significant difference for CAF troops currently in Ukraine and Latvia, as well as ships at sea. It will also facilitate the presentation of medals in theatre before redeployment.

The detailed criteria may be found in CANFORGEN 021/18. Additional measures to make campaign and service medals more accessible and in tune with modern CAF operations are under consideration by the Government of Canada and will be announced as the decisions are finalized.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I didn't see this posted yet, just popped up on my FB wall this morning.
> 
> Article Link
> 
> ...



The actual list of approved places is hilarious.  Giving Liaison Officers in Key West Florida medals.  I note that CANSOF does this funny thing of calling everywhere they go an OP.

For instance, they call training in Jamaica an Operation.  I was there in 2012 for almost six months.  The money for CANSOF engagement and what we were doing there comes from the exact same place.  I should put in for the expedition tab just to see what they say.

We are getting as bad as the Americans with respect to honours and awards.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I didn't see this posted yet, just popped up on my FB wall this morning.
> 
> Article Link
> 
> ...



I was awarded the SSM with NATO Bar the day the change was announced lol


----------



## NavalMoose (18 Mar 2018)

Kind of like getting a SWASM for working in an air conditioned OPs room in Tampa  :rofl:


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Mar 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I note that CANSOF does this funny thing of calling everywhere they go an OP.
> 
> For instance, they call training in Jamaica an Operation.  I was there in 2012 for almost six months.  The money for CANSOF engagement and what we were doing there comes from the exact same place.



Considering there won't be any CANSOF members here to defend what they're doing, or that their mission details aren't exactly public knowledge, the only thing you accomplished here is stating your sour grapes at having to be in Jamaica for 6 months. IF that funding did come from the same place, I'm sure there was enough heat and light on their mission and your task to delineate between an actual operation and whatever you did there. 

If we're calling people being civil and not sexually assaulting each other an operation, who cares if they call whatever they do an operation?


----------



## McG (18 Mar 2018)

The CANFORGEN on this came out just over a month ago.  It is a little silly.  I remember when the running joke was that the US Army would hand out medals for doing an exercise out of country.  Now, Canada will give medals to CMTC guys for supporting two or three eFP CERTEXs (or Silver Arrows) in Europe.

As for CANSOFCOM making everything outside a five eyes country a named operation, that is becoming a CAF SOP. Named operations = tax free status, so everyone wants a piece of that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Mar 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering there won't be any CANSOF members here to defend what they're doing, or that their mission details aren't exactly public knowledge, the only thing you accomplished here is stating your sour grapes at having to be in Jamaica for 6 months. IF that funding did come from the same place, I'm sure there was enough heat and light on their mission and your task to delineate between an actual operation and whatever you did there.
> 
> If we're calling people being civil and not sexually assaulting each other an operation, who cares if they call whatever they do an operation?



I'm totally not sour grapes and what they do there is public knowledge.  Just google it.  Just pointing out the obvious and in fact it's smart play from CANSOF for their people.

My go was sweet, only semi-bad part was the food just because I was embedded completely with the JDF and the goat intestines with beans, fish heads for breakfast and chicken foot soup gets old real fast.  Very nutritious food though for working out.  



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The CANFORGEN on this came out just over a month ago.  It is a little silly.  I remember when the running joke was that the US Army would hand out medals for doing an exercise out of country.  Now, Canada will give medals to CMTC guys for supporting two or three eFP CERTEXs (or Silver Arrows) in Europe.
> 
> As for CANSOFCOM making everything outside a five eyes country a named operation, that is becoming a CAF SOP. Named operations = tax free status, so everyone wants a piece of that.



Yah, this is my point, it's a little ridiculous.  We shouldn't be calling Bi-lateral training or exercises an operation.


----------



## dimsum (18 Mar 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yah, this is my point, it's a little ridiculous.  We shouldn't be calling Bi-lateral training or exercises an operation.



We definitely should, especially if it makes my Hawaii/San Diego/Palm Springs/Norway/Italy/France/Scotland exercises all tax-free


----------



## garb811 (18 Mar 2018)

Deja-vu all over again for MPSS and CDA folks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Mar 2018)

For the folks that are arguing against the 45 days for the SSM for deploying to Europe...what about the DOBbers who are doing 30 days at the support location in Kuwait on IMPACT who's most serious threat is the fact there is no limit on soft ice cream consumption and walk away with the GSM-Exp?  

I didn't think people would really feel harsh about the SSM for a European deployment, really.  Granted, some of the locations are pretty soft and jammy on the eligible service list but...using Aurora techs as an example, when they are in El Salvador supporting Ops, they are making a big difference - last time I was down we credited for 5200+ k's of dope;  if they wouldn't have kept us serviceable, the only thing we'd of intercepted was burgers and beers at the 'rest area'.  I think they deserve the SSM-Exp in the same way we get the OSM-Exp;  30 days.  

Like I said, if you get the GSM-Exp in Kuwait after 30 days of DFAC duty, I've got no problem with 45 for the SSM.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Mar 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> We definitely should, especially if it makes my Hawaii/San Diego/Palm Springs/Norway/Italy/France/Scotland exercises all tax-free



SOLID point!   ;D

Although it was nice to see the tax-free time for Op Sxxxxx and Caribbe on my T4 Box 43 this year  rancing:...was getting used to Box 43 from IMPACT.


----------



## Furniture (19 Mar 2018)

If we are asking/telling people to go to foreign places and spend months over there why not give them some "bling" to show for it? Getting people to DAG green for a months long over seas exercises can be hard to do, people may want something to show for their time away. I know when we did POSEIDON CUTLASS 17 many of the younger sailors wanted to know if there was going to be recognition for their five months or so away from home on exercise. No medals for that one in the end, but I think they tax free status was enough for most.


----------



## IceBlue (19 Mar 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> If we are asking/telling people to go to foreign places and spend months over there why not give them some "bling" to show for it? Getting people to DAG green for a months long over seas exercises can be hard to do, people may want something to show for their time away. I know when we did POSEIDON CUTLASS 17 many of the younger sailors wanted to know if there was going to be recognition for their five months or so away from home on exercise. No medals for that one in the end, but I think they tax free status was enough for most.




Oh Furniture, i miss your rants.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Mar 2018)

Will there be an SSM bar for the troops who spend their entire summer in Meaford, Aldershot or Wainright? How about incremental staff at CTC? I spent two summers teaching in Gagetown, and deserved a medal for that more than I did for several other sweater buttons. We could call it OP BOHICA and make it tax free, too!


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Mar 2018)

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Kind of like getting a SWASM without-bar for working in an air conditioned OPs room in Tampa  :rofl:


----------



## Furniture (19 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Will there be an SSM bar for the troops who spend their entire summer in Meaford, Aldershot or Wainright? How about incremental staff at CTC? I spent two summers teaching in Gagetown, and deserved a medal for that more than I did for several other sweater buttons. We could call it OP BOHICA and make it tax free, too!



Taking that argument to the opposite extreme, should we even give out attendance medals? I mean, sure you went to Afghanistan the Balkans, Somalia, or any other random mission. Did you personally do anything worthy of recognition, or did you just show up, eat the food, and collect your money? Is 180 days sitting in Lahr in the 90s more worthy of recognition than 45 days in Latvia training and providing presence

The nature and length of deployments, and therefore the medals that recognize them has evolved in the last 20 years.  As stated earlier, if we hand out an GCS, GSM, or OSM for 30 days and they are higher on the order of precedence why is 45 days for a NATO bar on a SSM so bad?


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Mar 2018)

Meanwhile, in the US, the Anti-Brown Noser Medal  


'...rewarding courage under pressure, not just fire, tells those threats that America will never be outfought, or out-thought.'

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2018/03/04/commentary-military-needs-a-way-to-honor-a-different-critical-kind-of-courage/


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in the US, the Anti-Brown Noser Medal
> 
> 
> '...rewarding courage under pressure, not just fire, tells those threats that America will never be outfought, or out-thought.'
> ...



So?  Is this to be an award for those capable of "Critical Thinking"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Mar 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Is this to be an award for those capable of "Critical Thinking"?



Just give it to anyone who gets a *M* on "leading change".   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Mar 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Taking that argument to the opposite extreme, should we even give out attendance medals? I mean, sure you went to Afghanistan the Balkans, Somalia, or any other random mission. Did you personally do anything worthy of recognition, or did you just show up, eat the food, and collect your money? Is 180 days sitting in Lahr in the 90s more worthy of recognition than 45 days in Latvia training and providing presence
> 
> The nature and length of deployments, and therefore the medals that recognize them has evolved in the last 20 years.  As stated earlier, if we hand out an GCS, GSM, or OSM for 30 days and they are higher on the order of precedence why is 45 days for a NATO bar on a SSM so bad?



I bet you're a riot at parties.


----------



## Furniture (25 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I bet you're a riot at parties.



I think I have a fairly solid reputation in that department... At least in my trade and on the left coast. 

I get people being annoyed about changing medals criteria, I hated that the navy got the GCS for sailing around the Arabian Sea. Then I remembered I wasn't special because I got one with the 2 RCR BG in '07, I was just another cog in the machine. 

If you feel your NATO bar has been reduced in worth don't worry, in the mess or at the legion you can explain how you earned yours the hard way.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Mar 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I think I have a fairly solid reputation in that department... At least in my trade and on the left coast.
> 
> I get people being annoyed about changing medals criteria, I hated that the navy got the GCS for sailing around the Arabian Sea. Then I remembered I wasn't special because I got one with the 2 RCR BG in '07, I was just another cog in the machine.
> 
> If you feel your NATO bar has been reduced in worth don't worry, in the mess or at the legion you can explain how you earned yours the hard way.



For a guy who's party rep is solid, you don't spot humour very well. I was 100% kidding. I thought it was pretty obvious. I never went to war, so none of my medals count, and to be honest I'm indifferent to them. I ate my ration of shit, and then some, for 23 years, went some places and did some stuff, and got a few merrit badges for it. I really don't care who gets medals for what, as I'm 16 years removed from being all jelly like over them.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Mar 2018)

I have not bothered to mount the second bar for my CD.  Doubt l will.  Turning in my ISAF bar was a dissatisfier.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Mar 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I get people being annoyed about changing medals criteria, I hated that the navy got the GCS for sailing around the Arabian Sea. Then I remembered I wasn't special because I got one with the 2 RCR BG in '07, I was just another cog in the machine.



I still question the RCN getting that medal and its my personal belief that it was completed by shady staff work, an exaggeration of risks; because of jealousy and an over inflated sense of importance.  As it doesn't seem, to me, to meet the requirements below. 

_The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy._

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medal-gcs-swa.page

*Edited to remove some unnecessary harshness.*


----------



## Pusser (26 Mar 2018)

There is no actual requirement to wear medals that have been awarded.  So, if you feel one is not worthy, you don't have to wear it if you don't want to.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no actual requirement to wear medals that have been awarded.  So, if you feel one is not worthy, you don't have to wear it if you don't want to.


       :nod:

I have a set of ribbons that are just my deployments; I don't care about a Queen's Jubilee, a peacekeeping medal (for already having a peacekeeping medal  : ), etc.

 :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no actual requirement to wear medals that have been awarded.  So, if you feel one is not worthy, you don't have to wear it if you don't want to.



Taken under advisement should I ever find myself in that position.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no actual requirement to wear medals that have been awarded.  So, if you feel one is not worthy, you don't have to wear it if you don't want to.



Mt dad was a WW2 vet, landed at Normandy etc. He wasn't particularly proud of his medals, but wore them dutifully on Remembrance Day. 

Now that he's passed, I was thinking about getting them framed. In the meantime, I left them on the mantelpiece under a photo of him. 

Last year about this time I walked in to find my son holding them and looking at them. He wanted to know more about my Dad so I told him. He even took the medals to school for a project about family histories (and I had to shine them up real quick!).

To me, that's the value of medals.We don't think they're important to us now, well normal non-egomaniacs don't at any rate.  Being tangible evidence to our families and others that we have served a higher cause, sometime in our lives, and reminding them about the importance of service to others is their key purpose, I believe. They are there to pass on memories and a sense of duty to other generations. 

In the meantime my Dad's medals still sit, unframed, on the mantle piece for anyone to pick up and look at, and remember.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no actual requirement to wear medals that have been awarded.  So, if you feel one is not worthy, you don't have to wear it if you don't want to.



Again I've been misunderstood, clearly I don't articulate myself very well.  My medals were earned, therefore I wear them. None of them are war medals. Whatever rules are made, moved, folded, spindled or mutilated were not my concern then. They are even less so now. My original attempt was to draw an apparently not so humourous comparison between three months sweating your bag off at Swan Lake in the scenic Gagetown training area, and 45 (or 30, or 15, or an overflight) days sitting in air conditioned luxury in Florida or somewhere like that. Epic fail. Earned my medals, I wear them, but they're not the sum total of my service, just a result of it. Good for you guys who can sport an entire rack of in-the-shit medals, be proud, you deserve it. All I've got is "shit nickles" (not my term, but overheard in the legion more than once), so that's what I wear. I've now explained myself twice, I'm out of this one.


----------



## Pusser (26 Mar 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> I have a set of ribbons that are just my deployments; I don't care about a Queen's Jubilee, a peacekeeping medal (for already having a peacekeeping medal  : ), etc.
> 
> :2c:



The Diamond Jubilee Medal was actually awarded on merit, so if you received one through the CAF, then obviously someone thought you did something worthwhile.  The Golden Jubilee Medal was an entirely different story...


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The Diamond Jubilee Medal was actually awarded on merit, so if you received one through the CAF, then obviously someone thought you did something worthwhile.  The Golden Jubilee Medal was an entirely different story...



At a previous unit we were told the unit still had some to give out and if you wanted one to let your CoC know and why.  After that I was quite literally asked if I wanted one, and that I should just take one.  To which I declined. 

No doubt you are correct in that it was meant to be merit based and give credit for those deserving but in practicality; on the deck plates... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell it may have gone down a tad 
differently at certain places.


----------



## mariomike (26 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The Diamond Jubilee Medal was actually awarded on merit, so if you received one through the CAF, then obviously someone thought you did something worthwhile.  The Golden Jubilee Medal was an entirely different story...



See also,

Queen's Diamond Jubilee Super Thread  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/99042.125
23 pages.

Golden Jubilee Medals  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/263.0
2 pages.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> At a previous unit we were told the unit still had some to give out and if you wanted one to let your CoC know and why.  After that I was quite literally asked if I wanted one, and that I should just take one.  To which I declined.
> 
> No doubt you are correct in that it was meant to be merit based and give credit for those deserving but in practicality; on the deck plates... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell it may have gone down a tad
> differently at certain places.



On FRE. it was about 60/40 between merit and meeting certain benchmarks that were set on awarding medals.  After seeing Justin Beiber getting one "just because", in his overalls, general respect for it amongst the crew took a serious hit.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Mar 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> On FRE. it was about 60/40 between merit and meeting certain benchmarks that were set on awarding medals.  After seeing Justin Beiber getting one just because in his overalls, general respect for it amongst the crew took a serious hit.



I think it was the similar, with a mix of 'brownosers that filled in their own submission for their civvie bosses to submit' included.  There was enough disinterest in it that they had to put a second call out for 'nominations' and direct sections to meet a quota for nominations.  Then, there was the JB moment, along with a bunch of other highly questionable MP awards to civlians, and it was forever tarnished.


----------



## Pusser (28 Mar 2018)

The way that commemorative medals work is that there are a number of "partner" organizations that are invited to participate in the program.  Once it is decided how many a partner organization will receive, it is up to them how they're awarded.  The CAF was allocated around 11,000 Diamond Jubilee Medals (the largest single allocation) out of a hard and fast total of 60,000.  Based on DH&R's advice, the CDS ordered that the CAF allocation would be awarded on merit and each Command received a sub-allocation.  Although the merit of some recipients may have been dubious, Commands were supposed to monitor this and so presumably, there were checks and balances.  I would argue that for the most part, the process was fair and the awards were appropriate, but all the scrutiny in the world won't stop some dubious awards from slipping through (there are some that still argue that Billy Bishop should not have been awarded his VC).

Other partner organizations did not necessarily apply the same standards as the CAF.  In fact, each MP received an allocation to award as they saw fit.  One MP even gave one to a convicted criminal - while they were in prison!  Nevertheless, this should not detract from the CAF awards.

Fun fact:  each Diamond Jubilee Medal came with a certificate signed by the Governor General.  The GG personally signed each and every certificate.  Although Rideau Hall actually has a machine that can replicate the GG's signature, Mr Johnson never used it and he insisted on signing everything personally.

Another Fun Fact:  If you look at all the Jubilee Medals (silver, gold and diamond) and the Queen's Coronation Medal, you will notice that they are all similar in design (placement of stripes and dimensions), but that the same colours are simply rearranged. The British had planned a very different ribbon design for the Diamond Jubilee, but it was Canada (DH&R in fact) that pointed out the pattern and recommended the ribbon that both Canada and the UK eventually adopted.  The Canadian and UK medals are different (ours is actually a lot cooler), but the ribbons are identical.  The Caribbean ribbon is also the same, except that the centre stripe is black vice red.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Mar 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Other partner organizations did not necessarily apply the same standards as the CAF.  In fact, each MP received an allocation to award as they saw fit.  One MP even gave one to a convicted criminal - while they were in prison!



Just when I thought I couldn't see the QJ as 'less suited for wear with military decorations and medals'...



> Nevertheless, this should not detract from the CAF awards.



I laughed a little when I read that, because I thought you HAD to be joking.   8)


----------



## Pusser (28 Mar 2018)

It's all a matter of who's wearing something.  Anybody can wear a mini-skirt - doesn't mean everybody should.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Mar 2018)

If criminals were given the same medal, intentionally or not it greatly devalues it and takes it right out of the 'honour and/or award' category (for me).  

I'm not a fan of those types of medals, overall.  I knew a guy who had a CD, Canada 125 and the first 2 of the QJs.  To Joe Public, he looked like he'd 'been a few places'.  Which, of course, he had not.


----------



## CountDC (28 Mar 2018)

I laughed and shook my head at the same time when they came in at the unit I was at as I was handling them.  Only saw one that I would see as based on merit.


----------



## Rick Goebel (28 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If criminals were given the same medal, intentionally or not it greatly devalues it and takes it right out of the 'honour and/or award' category (for me).



There are criminals and criminals.  The criminals given the Jubilee medals were criminals of conscience, with whom you might or might not agree.  This article, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mp-defends-giving-queen-s-jubilee-medal-to-jailed-woman-1.1198998, mentions a comparison with Martin Luther King Jr, which I think is extreme, but he was another case of someone jailed for peaceful protest activities.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Mar 2018)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> The criminals given the Jubilee medals were criminals of conscience



 : They are criminals because they broke a law and ignored court orders.  *harassing women seeking abortions* isn't 'award nomination criteria, is it?  FML.  

There are 2 types of criminals in the little world I exist in;  ones who are guilty and were found guilty of breaking the law, and ones who were innocent and erroneously found guilty of breaking the law.

Neither of the 2 in the article appear to be in the latter category and there are many law-abiding citizens who should have received this 'medal' over those 2.  You can't go around breaking laws without consequence in this country, and you shouldn't be given a gong for it when you do.  rly:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If criminals were given the same medal, intentionally or not it greatly devalues it and takes it right out of the 'honour and/or award' category (for me).



While I can see "some" legitimacy in Rick's "criminals of conscience" argument (though I most vehemently disagree with the point of view and actions of the two criminal recipients), what devalues the award is not the two criminals who received it but the criteria that automatically gave the same medal (along with the Golden Jubilee and Centennial of Saskatchewan medals) to the Member of Parliament who nominated them in the first place.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You can't go around breaking laws without consequence in this country, and you shouldn't be given a gong for it when you do.  rly:



So no one with a conduit sheet should ever receive a medal?


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Mar 2018)

You also get an Conduct Sheet for National Awards such as ORMM, Valour, etc.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Mar 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You also get an Conduct Sheet for National Awards such as ORMM, Valour, etc.



Yup,  I have both types myself.  I was using the colloquial term


----------



## dapaterson (28 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So no one with a conduit sheet should ever receive a medal?



To be fair, in this case it would be like giving someone the MSM in recognition of a conviction under s 90 of the NDA.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yup,  I have both types myself.  I was using the colloquial term



You mean... conduct sheet entries for awards and conduct sheet entries for summary trials or court martials?  (I'm assuming plural for both  )


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Mar 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To be fair, in this case it would be like giving someone the MSM in recognition of a conviction under s 90 of the NDA.



Fair one - I was apple v orange ing

Speaking of pedantic......



> You mean... conduct sheet entries for awards and conduct sheet entries for summary trials or court martials?  courts martial(I'm assuming plural for both  )



I admit to at least one award and at least one summary trial...... 8)


----------



## dapaterson (28 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I admit to at least one award and at least one summary trial...... 8)



So far this week 8) ?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Mar 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So far this week 8) ?



Even I can't earn an award while home on leave....


----------



## dapaterson (29 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Even I can't earn an award while home on leave....



Slacker.



So only a summary trial this week. Gotcha


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So no one with a conduit sheet should ever receive a medal?



No, because electricians are sketchy.  

Seriously though, no, not for a medal which is supposed to be merit based.  If it was demerit based on the other hand...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So no one with a conduit sheet should ever receive a medal?



a Conduct sheet may negatively effect some decorations, such as the CD, based on the criteria:

_The Canadian Forces' Decoration is awarded to officers and Non-Commissioned Members of the Canadian Forces who have completed twelve years of service. The decoration is awarded to all ranks, who have a good record of conduct.
_


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Mar 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, because electricians are sketchy.



 :facepalm:  This seems to be my week for humble pie....



> Seriously though, no, not for a medal which is supposed to be merit based.  If it was demerit based on the other hand...



So a conduct sheet should preclude one from nomination for the Order of Military Merit?  Or the Meritorious Service Medal or Cross? (understanding that the former recognises a "body of work", whereas the latter is usually time, function or incident specific).

That would suggest, amongst other things, that we do not believe in the corrective powers of the military justice system....or the capacity of members to evolve / grow.


----------



## Lumber (29 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> That would suggest, amongst other things, that we do not believe in the corrective powers of the military justice system....or the capacity of members to evolve / grow.



Correct. In this day and age, once you've said or done something, a picture is painted describing your character and that becomes fixed and cannot be changed.

Well, at least it is in civilian life. 

I like to believe our troops can evolve, and that we do recognize their growth. How many chiefs do you know who are amazing leaders but who have rap sheets? I know a few.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Mar 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:  This seems to be my week for humble pie....
> 
> So a conduct sheet should preclude one from nomination for the Order of Military Merit?  Or the Meritorious Service Medal or Cross? (understanding that the former recognises a "body of work", whereas the latter is usually time, function or incident specific).
> 
> That would suggest, amongst other things, that we do not believe in the corrective powers of the military justice system....or the capacity of members to evolve / grow.



I was thinking of the Jubliee in particular.  It was "supposed" to be awardrd on merit, l think if you're to receive it your conduct should be clean.
If you want to recognize someone for growing then perhaps a "most improved" award of some sort should be created.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Mar 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was thinking of the Jubliee in particular.  It was "supposed" to be awardrd on merit, l think if you're to receive it your conduct should be clean.
> If you want to recognize someone for growing then perhaps a "most improved" award of some sort should be created.



The Jubilee criteria (at least in the Army) had a criteria related to this - a fine of greater than $500 would automatically disclude a file, even if it was in the top 10% of the Merit List.  

I was troubled by that then, and I remain troubled by it now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2018)

If conduct can delay or prevent someone from receiving their CD in the minimal time, or in one case I know of, the mbr never received the CD after 18 YOS (he may have later on, this was years ago), and the CD has standard, measureable criteria that applies to all CAF members then I have no issues with things like the Army *no fines greater than $500* criteria you're mentioned;  after all it is just the DJ we're talking about.  I don't know a single person who sees the DJ on someone and goes "oh wow, he/she must have really done something outstanding!".

There are thousand of members who serve decades having never been charged and contribute to the service of Canada and betterment of the Forces;  perhaps the QDJ was intended for those mbr's.   :dunno:

* question:  doesn't a guilty finding that results in a $500 or greater fine require a pardon to be removed from a mbr's service records?


----------



## Pusser (29 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> a Conduct sheet may negatively effect some decorations, such as the CD, based on the criteria:
> 
> _The Canadian Forces' Decoration is awarded to officers and Non-Commissioned Members of the Canadian Forces who have completed twelve years of service. The decoration is awarded to all ranks, who have a good record of conduct.
> _



That's interesting wording.  A good record of conduct could include a long list of convictions, but as long as the entries are accurate and sufficiently detailed, the record could be described as "good."  We keep "good" records of bad things all the time.  Syntax is important...


----------



## brihard (18 Sep 2018)

MND today put the nail through the heart of that petition that was circulating a little while back for a five year service medal.

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-1418/421-02405_DND_E.pdf


----------



## sandyson (18 Sep 2018)

Since our coins have become complex with colours and insets, should decorations be "spiffed-up"?  There is growth industry potential herein and exports. Heck!  With miniature electronics they can be made to glow.   ;D


----------



## Pusser (19 Sep 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> MND today put the nail through the heart of that petition that was circulating a little while back for a five year service medal.
> 
> http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-1418/421-02405_DND_E.pdf



Good (until somebody else resurrects it...)!  None of these proposals were anything more than "CD Lite."


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Sep 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Good (until somebody else resurrects it...)!  None of these proposals were anything more than "CD Lite."



Given the job jumping proclivities of upcoming generations, based mainly on the limited supply of skilled staff and the increasing demands of the economy, I'm guessing that the CD will then become more rare than the VC in the future


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Sep 2018)

Maybe someone will replace the minimum-service medal suggestion with a motorcycle vest patch option. They can create one that the owner can fill the blanks for the measuring contests: _"I served for ___ years and ___ months and ___ days. You're welcome."_


----------



## Pusser (19 Sep 2018)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> Since our coins have become complex with colours and insets, should decorations be "spiffed-up"?  There is growth industry potential herein and exports. Heck!  With miniature electronics they can be made to glow.   ;D



Apparently the Chelengk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelengk), created by the Ottomans centuries ago, sometimes had a clockwork incorporated into it so the "feathers" could turn and reflect sunlight in order to sparkle.


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Sep 2018)

> From the MND's recent statement:
> 
> Like many Commonwealth countries, Canada also adheres to a “five-year” retroactivity rule that precludes recognition for events occurring more than five years in the past.



This is the first I've heard of such a five-year rule. There have been Canadian medals that don't meet that timeline. Did we adopt that rule recently? Operational Service Medal - Haiti was created 6 years after Op HALO, and the Korea Volunteer Service Medal was established 38 years after the end of hostilities, which is probably something of a record.


----------



## Pusser (21 Sep 2018)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> This is the first I've heard of such a five-year rule. There have been Canadian medals that don't meet that timeline. Did we adopt that rule recently? Operational Service Medal - Haiti was created 6 years after Op HALO, and the Korea Volunteer Service Medal was established 38 years after the end of hostilities, which is probably something of a record.



It's more of a guideline or convention than an absolute rule.  In fact, there are no absolute rules when it comes to this stuff.  The Korea Volunteer Service Medal, the Arctic Star and the Bomber Command Bar were all created as a result of political pressure and against the recommendations of the honours and awards experts (and in the case of the Arctic Star, the express desires of George VI)


----------



## mariomike (21 Sep 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The Korea Volunteer Service Medal, the Arctic Star and the Bomber Command Bar were all created as a result of political pressure and against the recommendations of the honours and awards experts (and in the case of the Arctic Star, the express desires of George VI)



For every 100 aircrew of Bomber Command ( that includes RCAF ); 

12 Taken prisoner of war 

1 Evaded capture 

3 Seriously injured 

9 Killed in crashes in the UK 

51 Killed on operations
http://www.theunknownwarriors.co.uk/bomber-command/4533851453

They never received a campaign medal. 

Awarding a clasp 68 years after the war was seen as too little, too late by some Bomber Command survivors,

QUOTE

Bomber Command veterans boycotting 'insulting' award
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10064299/Bomber-Command-veterans-boycotting-insulting-award.html
Bomber Command veterans disgusted at being offered only a clasp rather than a medal are boycotting the award, with barely half of those eligible having so far applied for it. 

END QUOTE


----------



## Pusser (21 Sep 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For every 100 aircrew of Bomber Command ( that includes RCAF );
> 
> 12 Taken prisoner of war
> 
> ...



Let's not forget that they all qualified for the Aircrew Europe Star or other stars.  A "Bomber Command" Star would be akin to an "Eighth Army" Star.  Stars are awarded for campaigns, not formations.


----------



## Rheostatic (22 Sep 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> (and in the case of the Arctic Star, the express desires of George VI)


Would you care to elaborate on this?


----------



## mariomike (22 Sep 2018)

For reference to the discussion,

Canadian sailors may finally get medals for Second World War service  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/98672.0

New Bomber Command honour unveiled
https://army.ca/forums/threads/110250.0


----------



## Pusser (1 Oct 2018)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Would you care to elaborate on this?



George VI didn't specifically say no to an Arctic Star, but rather the creation of any further stars.  As the fount of all honours, the monarch has to personally approve them (that is one part of the Royal Prerogative that has NOT be delegated to the GG).  After creating eight stars for WWII, the King specifically asked to not create any more as he felt that all possible service was adequately covered and that too many stars would dilute their value.  The Arctic Star is unique in being the only honour ever created, using the cypher of a dead monarch.


----------



## Rheostatic (1 Oct 2018)

Interesting, thanks!


----------



## Brasidas (27 Nov 2019)

A mbr deploys on Op Impact to Kuwait. He spends more than 30 days there, qualifying for a GSM-EXP.

He then covers off a position in Iraq for over 30 days, qualifying for GCS-EXP, returning to Kuwait.

He then gets extended in Kuwait, such that he's there for at least 210 days, which is at least 180 days after he first qualified for the GSM but less than 180 days after he qualified for the GCS.

Does he qualify for both the GSM and GCS?

References, from the Canadian Medals Chart:

GCS-EXP
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index/general-campaign-star-expedition-gcs-exp.html

GSM-EXP
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index/general-service-medal-expedition-gsm-exp.html

"The GCS and GSM recognize 30 cumulative days (5 sorties for ALLIED FORCE ribbon of the GCS)* provided that the service has not been recognized by another service medal.*"

I've been hearing about going 180 days past qualifying for one medal allowing the award of both, but I'm finding nothing clear on the chart. If he'd spent all of his time in one country, he'd have had a bar.

Further reference: CANFORGEN 072/10:
http://vcds.mil.ca/apps/canforgens/default-eng.asp?id=072-10&type=canforgen

"1
f.
WITH THE NEW PRINCIPLE OF ROTATION RECOGNITION, THE EXISTING PROVISION STATING THAT ONE CANNOT EARN BOTH THE GCS AND GSM IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OP IS AMENDED SO THAT IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO EARN AND WEAR BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD. WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE GCS-SWA OR A BAR TO IT AND THE GSM-SWA OR A BAR TO IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE GCS OR A BAR TO IT"

So here's where the 180 days seem to come in. I'm still not sure if the mbr would qualify for both.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Nov 2019)

Email DHR on the DWAN.  They are generally pretty responsive.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2019)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> A mbr deploys on Op Impact to Kuwait. He spends more than 30 days there, qualifying for a GSM-EXP.
> 
> He then covers off a position in Iraq for over 30 days, qualifying for GCS-EXP, returning to Kuwait.
> 
> ...



Based on the LRP experiences there;  no.   Reason; there must be 180 days between 'deployments' to qual for both the medal and star.  This is the rule that was being applied at DHR up until 2ish years ago.  This caused a lot of admin overhead for LRP, as we were based out of Kuwait but operated in Iraq and Syria.  It became a bit of a gong show.

I know of one person who had enough missions to qual for the star, and also enough days to qual for the medal from 1 ROTO.  Went back as part of a tail swap crew over 6 months later...and qual'd for the medal as soon as his boots touched pavement.


----------



## Sub_Guy (28 Nov 2019)

The 6 months between rotations is what I disagree with.  Why does it have to be that?  Where is this policy written?


BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD.

This answers the “can I get both” question from the poster a few posts up.  Since they qualify for both in the same 6 month period.


----------



## Brasidas (28 Nov 2019)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The 6 months between rotations is what I disagree with.  Why does it have to be that?  Where is this policy written?
> 
> 
> BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD.
> ...



This is not for my own benefit, nor do I see that as a straight-forward answer.

The mbr did not qualify for both in their first 30 days, they qualified for one. They then stayed in theatre for at least another 6 month period. How is that considered to be "the person meeting the criteria for both in the same 6 month period"?

I am trying to get answers through other channels, including that suggested by Infanteer.

In the meantime, if you or another mbr can clarify how they do or do not qualify under those terms, I would appreciate it.

EITS, did the mbrs you're refering to stay in theatre for 210 or more days?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Nov 2019)

How long was the deployment period ? 6 months. I would think that additional tours would merit a gong that's how our's work.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Nov 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How long was the deployment period ? 6 months. I would think that additional tours would merit a gong that's how our's work.



Our systems are markedly different.  We do not get a medal at end of a tour of duty (a posting in our speak).  A rack with 10-12 medals is considered significant, even after 30 plus years of service.


----------



## dimsum (28 Nov 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> A rack with 10-12 medals is considered significant, even after 30 plus years of service.



10-12?!


----------



## winds_13 (28 Nov 2019)

Brasidas, unfortunately the qualifying dates need to be more than 180 days apart. If I understand correctly, the mbr has not been in theatre any time 180 days before or after the date they qualified for the GCS-EXP. In this case, the mbr can either receive the GSM-EXP with bar or the GCS-EXP, not both medals. 

If they return to theatre sometime in the future, they would immediately qualify for the GSM-EXP and once they have a cumulative 210 days in theatre, exclusive of their 30 days in Iraq to qualify for the GCS-EXP, then they would qualify for the bar.

This was the case for many mbrs on my deployment to Op IMPACT, most opted for the GCS-EXP alone over the GSM-EXP with bar. Its been a sore spot for many but this is what the regulation is.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2019)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> EITS, did the mbrs you're refering to stay in theatre for 210 or more days?



Some were there for 6+ months (our Det HQ folks as an example, who were also flyers).  If they flew 30+ missions, they only got the GCS regardless of how many days they had towards the GSM because, as mentioned, there needs to be 180 days between theatre entrance/exit dates.

*not saying I agree with this policy as the proper delineation;  but I also saw the emails direct from DHR that Dolphin_Hunter was kind enough to forward to me at one point a few years ago...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 10-12?!



As the folks who run this mounting business are both CAF members, I just assume the jobs they do aren't Walts...

https://www.facebook.com/MartelsMedalMounting/photos/a.598353283555630/2551299191594353/?type=3&theater

A few other pics attached of some exemplary service to Canada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2019)

winds_13 said:
			
		

> Brasidas, unfortunately the qualifying dates need to be more than 180 days apart. If I understand correctly, the mbr has not been in theatre any time 180 days before or after the date they qualified for the GCS-EXP. In this case, the mbr can either receive the GSM-EXP with bar or the GCS-EXP, not both medals.
> 
> If they return to theatre sometime in the future, they would immediately qualify for the GSM-EXP and once they have a cumulative 210 days in theatre, exclusive of their 30 days in Iraq to qualify for the GCS-EXP, then they would qualify for the bar.
> 
> This was the case for many mbrs on my deployment to Op IMPACT, most opted for the GCS-EXP alone over the GSM-EXP with bar. Its been a sore spot for many but this is what the regulation is.



They were given a choice??  The GCS is considered the 'higher' (not the right word...the proper one eludes me right now) award;  LRP folks were not given a 'choice'.  In fact, one MWO I know did not do 30 mission his first ROTO, received the GSM.  Went back for the 2nd ROTO...qual'd for the GCS.  He had to return the GSM and then get the GCS.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Nov 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As the folks who run this mounting business are both CAF members, I just assume the jobs they do aren't Walts...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/MartelsMedalMounting/photos/a.598353283555630/2551299191594353/?type=3&theater
> 
> A few other pics attached of some exemplary service to Canada.



Wow. I wonder how many 'missed birthdays', 'missed graduations' etc are represented there....  :cdnsalute:


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Nov 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Wow. I wonder how many 'missed birthdays', 'missed graduations' etc are represented there....  :cdnsalute:


Quick estimate is the first example has a minimum of 4 years service deployed on operations.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Nov 2019)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> This is not for my own benefit, nor do I see that as a straight-forward answer.
> 
> The mbr did not qualify for both in their first 30 days, they qualified for one. They then stayed in theatre for at least another 6 month period. How is that considered to be "the person meeting the criteria for both in the same 6 month period"?
> 
> ...



It seems that the interpretation that you are getting here is correct.  I was intrigued by your question so I pinged DH+R myself - I have sent you that feedback via other means.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2019)

Anything you can elaborate on here PPCLI Guy?  Was the gen provided previously by DH & R revisited and amended?

(Doesn't pertain to me personally, but it might to some people I know who did HQ tours with the LRP Det or other stints in the ATF-I org...)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Nov 2019)

The policy, while narrow in its intent - and more so in its application - is indeed valid, it strikes me as unfair, or at the least uncharitable.  Nonetheless, it is the policy.  It is possible it will be challenged in the New Year.

Sorry I can't add more - the bottom line is that this is the policy, and it is being ruthlessly applied.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2019)

Copy.


----------



## Brasidas (30 Nov 2019)

So I have what I was looking for, clear, written policy:

From CANFORGEN 201/18:
“THE GSM, OR BAR TO THE GSM, MAY ONLY BE AWARDED TO AN ELIGIBLE PERSON WHO IS IN AN ELIGIBLE LOCATION 180 DAYS OR MORE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE DAY THEY QUALIFIED FOR THE GCS OR THEIR LATEST BAR TO THE GCS”

So expanding on this into examples:

A mbr who does 180 days in Kuwait, then gets tasked to Iraq for 30 days is eligible both.

A mbr who does 210 days in Kuwait gets the GSM with bar.

A mbr who does 210 days in Kuwait, then gets tasked to Iraq for 30 days is eligible for both and does not get a bar for the GSM.

A mbr who does 30 days in Iraq then at least 180 days in Kuwait gets both.

A mbr who does 30 days in Iraq then at least 210 days in Kuwait gets both, with a bar for the GSM.

Any variation which includes the GCS, 30 days in Kuwait, and being in Kuwait for the 180th day after qualifying for the GCS gets both. For example, some of my troops who've bounced around Lebanon, Jordan, and Bahrain on support tasks have qualified for medals related to operations there. They could also qualify for the GSM while all of this is going on.

If a mbr is returning to theatre for a TAV, the relevant date which decides whether they get a GSM or not is the 180th day after they qualified for the GCS, not the date that they returned from theatre.

Why this is relevant and not nitpicking is that I now have people who are in theatre for another eight months who are likely run into these qualifying criteria over the course of their time in theatre. I will not be here for all of that time, but I want them and their future supervisors to be aware of exactly what the criteria are. Not to write their schedules around collecting medals, but to get them recognition where appropriate.

If anybody is confused by any of this, please pipe up. I appreciate folks like PPCLI guy following up on this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Dec 2019)

I read that before I had my 2nd coffee.   :stars:

That's good news for your people;  the CANFORGEN was a nice addition, but honestly, it should have been out a lot earlier than it was.  In our case, the LRP Det had closed up shop and returned to Canada after 3+ years of sustained ops.  How long should it take to promulgate clarifying direction?  A month, maybe 2?


----------



## jeffb (2 Dec 2019)

So how about a situation in which someone does over 30 days in Kuwait and then over 210 days in Iraq with no break in-between and no-return to Kuwait after Iraq. GCS-EXP with Bar right?


----------



## Brasidas (2 Dec 2019)

jeffb said:
			
		

> So how about a situation in which someone does over 30 days in Kuwait and then over 210 days in Iraq with no break in-between and no-return to Kuwait after Iraq. GCS-EXP with Bar right?



Yup.

Expanding that, even if they flew back through Kuwait for the 241st day, they're not getting a GSM.

If they do 30 days in Kuwait, then 209 days in Iraq, then 2 days in Kuwait, they get a GSM.


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2020)

Saw this in another thread, this A.M.,



			
				Walt said:
			
		

> Attached is a link to an interesting article regarding the potential to retroactively award the Victoria Cross to members of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in Afghanistan.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/victoria-cross-afghanistan-rick-hillier-1.5796078



Good.

While they are at it, perhaps they will also consider the potential to retroactively award a Victoria Cross to an RCAF aircrew member who served in Bomber Command operations over occupied Europe.

51% were killed on operations, 12% were killed or wounded in non-operational accidents and 13% became prisoners of war or evaders. Only 24% survived the war unscathed.

Only the Nazi U-Boat force suffered a higher casualty rate.

https://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/bomber-command/bomber-commands-losses/

For that, one VC was awarded ( posthumous ).


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Nov 2020)

> For that, one VC was awarded ( posthumous ).


 Bomber Command??

Fl Lt Hornell  was Cdn VC posthumous, but not BC. https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/canadian-virtual-war-memorial/detail/4033703

They were several VC's in BC.


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2020)

> Veterans Affairs Canada - Canadians in Bomber Command
> 
> There were exceptional acts of courage that would earn two Canadian airmen – Pilot Officer Andrew Mynarski and Squadron Leader Ian Bazalgette – the Victoria Cross, our highest honour for military valour.
> https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/second-world-war/canadians-bomber-command/backgrounder



Although both were born in Canada, only Mynarski was a member of the RCAF. Bazalgette was a member of the RAF.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> While they are at it, perhaps they will also consider the potential to retroactively award a Victoria Cross to an RCAF aircrew member who served in Bomber Command operations over occupied Europe.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Nov 2020)

Thanks, missed the RCAF part. Couldn't a Cdn posted to a RAF sqn as often happened also get a retro VC?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Nov 2020)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Thanks, missed the RCAF part. Couldn't a Cdn posted to a RAF sqn as often happened also get a retro VC?



If you are referring to WW2 service for a retro VC, then no.  The Military Valour Decorations Regulations (that apply in the case of the "Canadian" VC) are for individuals who are or were members of the CF (or attached to the CF) on or after 1 January 1993.


----------

