# Platoon warrant disregarding chits



## y2kroachman (2 Oct 2007)

Hey guys/girls just a quick question, our PW is forcing our guys with med chits for their feet to wear the mk3s.  What can I do about this> Is there a reference I can pull out from the cfmos that would make him understand that he cant do that sort of thing? ???

Thanks everyone


----------



## Bane (2 Oct 2007)

This is obviously not a direct answer to your question, but this sounds like something that your platoon commander or CSM might help you out with.


----------



## BernDawg (2 Oct 2007)

Make sure your MO knows about this.


----------



## Strike (2 Oct 2007)

It all depends what the chit says.  If it says specifically that they are to wear some other type of footwear, then they should be the ones talking to the med staff about it.


----------



## DirtyDog (2 Oct 2007)

Are you on course? in a unit? res or reg?  Just wondering.......


----------



## Armymedic (2 Oct 2007)

jovi said:
			
		

> Is there a reference I can pull out from the cfmos that would make him understand that he cant do that sort of thing? ???



Nope. And unless you are the Sect Sgt just below him....I advise agaist showing your PL WO anything of the sort. Talk to your Sect Comd/2iC first.

BTW, until you are issued the new boots as deemed by the chit replacing the Mk3s, you have to wear them, not whatever you please.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Oct 2007)

In my expirience, there is usually more to it than what you see.

Jovi, lay down ALL THE FACTS!
Does the PL 2IC know about the chit?
Does the chit say may be issued alternative boots?

There are alot more questions to it than what is simply being presented here. So how about you describe everything. Since you brought it up, what exactly did your chit say?

I doubt there would ever be a platoon 2IC who willingly go agaisnt an MO advice just to screw troops over.

 Waiting for the whole story!


----------



## xena (2 Oct 2007)

+1 ArmyRick.

Pl WO's generally don't ignore an MO's advice, unless they've got a really good reason.  In my personal experience, I have never seen or heard of a Pl WO doing this.  Occasionally, there has been a difference in _interpretation_ of what the chit says - and invariably, the Pl WO has been _right_ on the interpretation.

Just my two rubles, of course.


----------



## armyvern (2 Oct 2007)

jovi said:
			
		

> Hey guys/girls just a quick question, our PW is forcing our guys with med chits for their feet to wear the mk3s.  What can I do about this> Is there a reference I can pull out from the cfmos that would make him understand that he cant do that sort of thing? ???
> 
> Thanks everyone



Interesting situation.

Regarding this response from SMMT:


> Nope. And unless you are the Sect Sgt just below him....I advise agaist showing your PL WO anything of the sort. Talk to your Sect Comd/2iC first.
> BTW, until you are issued the new boots as deemed by the chit replacing the Mk3s, you have to wear them, not whatever you please.



SMMT knows the med regs ... I know the Sup Regs.

Once you've been issued a Med Chit ... you should be reporting to your supporting clothing stores who will get your boots for you. When those boots come into Supply and you pick them up they are issued to your clothing docs and your MKIIIs should be punched through the tongue and written-off your charge.

If you have already been issued your chit boots ... you DO NOT have any MKIIIs on your charge. Your authorization to wear those purchased boots (ie your chit) is kept on your clothing doc file and the NEW boots are what is on your charge and are now what is AUTHORIZED for you to wear. If you've done this, wear your new & authorized boots ... keep your original of your chit in your wallet because anyone can ask for it at any time. If your PL WO questions you, show your chit and advise that the boots you are now wearing are the boots you have been ISSUED by the Supply system and thus they ARE authorized for wear by you, and that you NO LONGER have MKIIIs on your charge due to the MEDICAL chit.

I want to know how your Pl WO is directing you to wear MKIIIs that are no longer on your charge and are technically NO LONGER authorized for wear by you. That pisses me off.


----------



## y2kroachman (3 Oct 2007)

sorry for being a little late replying to this, ok here is what my chit(from the MO) says:

Authorized to wear alternative footwear.

Thats it, nothing more. My PL WO does know about my chit and the other guys chits. We are a res unit.  My chit is from a military doctor and the PL WO has a copy of my chit. I already have my new issued boots from the clothing stores. The reason he wants all of us to wear the mkIIIs is to look the same.  Now I dont want to step on anyones toes or piss anybody off at my unit but I dont want to get screwed either.  I.E: I wear my mkIIIs and the pain in my knees gets worse and then not be covered by the military because i wasnt wearing the boots I was supposed to with the chit. I just think its kinda pointless seing an MO and going through the process for a chit  if your PL WO can just say wear the mkIIIs anyways. Hope this info helps


----------



## armyvern (3 Oct 2007)

jovi said:
			
		

> sorry for being a little late replying to this, ok here is what my chit(from the MO) says:
> 
> Authorized to wear alternative footwear.
> 
> Thats it, nothing more. My PL WO does know about my chit and the other guys chits. We are a res unit.  My chit is from a military doctor and the PL WO has a copy of my chit. I already have my new issued boots from the clothing stores. The reason he wants all of us to wear the mkIIIs is to look the same.  Now I dont want to step on anyones toes or piss anybody off at my unit but I dont want to get screwed either.  I.E: I wear my mkIIIs and the pain in my knees gets worse and then not be covered by the military because i wasnt wearing the boots I was supposed to with the chit. I just think its kinda pointless seing an MO and going through the process for a chit  if your PL WO can just say wear the mkIIIs anyways. Hope this info helps



So. You have your new issued boots. You NO LONGER have MkIIIs on your charge. How can you wear them?? NOW, your authorized footwear is that which was issued to you in lieu of the MkIIIs.

I'll post the ref up for you ... and you can show him that you NO LONGER own MkIIIs on your docs, ergo he CAN NOT make you wear them. Even if HE wants you to look uniform which would possibly hasten YOUR medical condition. Dinsosaurs out there ... still ...

Say: "I am no longer issued MkIIIs, how can I possible wear them?? I am wearing what I am issued." --------"Warrant."  

 :brickwall:


----------



## Roy Harding (3 Oct 2007)

Jovi:

As others have pointed out, there's usually more to a story than one persons' perspective.  I'll be interested to read your response to ArmyVern's question regarding how you are apparently in possession of authorized "alternative boots", and unauthorized "MkIIIs".

As a former Pl WO myself, I can tell you that it would be an unusual individual who would attempt to countermand an MO's prescription.  However, interpretation is everything.  I can't recall how many Infmn over the years who, having received a chit for being temporarily "unfit normal trade duties" were shocked to learn that they could be the Chief Clerk's (MY) phone orderly, photocopier technician, runner, message taker, or the RQ's stock taker, or the Chief Cooks pot scrubber, or a myriad of other tasks.  It all comes down to interpretation, and the vast majority of Pl WOs are savvy enough to interpret orders (medical or otherwise) correctly.

When discussing this situation with your chain of command or your Pl WO directly - be very careful.  Do not prevaricate, slant your recollection of conversations, or make accusations - these actions will bite you in the ass, whether your Pl WO is, in this case, mistaken or not.


Roy


----------



## armyvern (3 Oct 2007)

It is possible for him to have retained his old MKIIIs when he was issued his alternative footwear.

But, the tongue would have been hole-punched and they would have been written off his charge. His authorized footwear is that which is on his docs, he can't be ordered to wear something which he does not "own" nor something not issued to him.

That being said, if he is wearing his old MKIIIs which have been written off his charge and punched (therefore NO LONGER EXCHANGEABLE), I wonder exactly what his PL WO is going to do when those punched MkIIIs are worn out beyond use?? Certainly, Supply will be getting him "alternative footwear" as his chit states, not the MkIIIs he shouldn't be wearing anyway.

Perhaps he plans on having you go downtown and buy you own replacement MkIIIs from some surplus place?? How freakin' ironic that would be.

(To the one who sent me the PM ... I'll get you an answer from the Clothing SME here ... she should know if that's the case or not -- officially -- I am currently out of the loop.)


----------



## charlesm (3 Oct 2007)

Jovi,

   Our RSM only allows MkIII's or WWB on Parade. Unless you have a medical chit and boots ordered through the supply system. If you went to a civy doctor and got a chit and went and bought your own boots, you could not be allowed to wear them!

  Pl WO usually are the ones enforcing these rules as dictated by the RSM.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (3 Oct 2007)

charlesm said:
			
		

> Unless you have a medical chit and boots ordered through the supply system.



Isn't that what Vern just said?


----------



## Douke (3 Oct 2007)

On a side note, if he only asks you to wear Mk3 on parades, it might not be worth de trouble to go through that whole process... I know very few people who cannot whitstand Mk3 for a parade. I mean I fully understand the need for alternative footwear for field duties, but in garnison i can't believe they are hurting your feet that bad... Of course I agree that you should be able to wear them but sometimes it's just not worth the trouble to fight it.

P.S. : Maybe there's more to the problem than what I saw, my comprehension of English is far from perfect... It's just an opinion.

Douke


----------



## medaid (3 Oct 2007)

Douke,

  Jovi has consulted an MO,who has in his or her opinion and medical expertise provided the soldier with alternative footwear chit. IMHO, it is not anyone else's opinion who a) does not fall within the CF H Svc b) does not make the regulations to stipulate what a soldier can or cannot wear when their med file states the obvious. This could just be me, but leaving medical decisions up to anyone who is not qualified, and I don't care if they're a neurosurgeon in an infantry Pl WO's body, if they did not enroll as a healthcare professional in the CF their opions do not count. Sorry that's just me...


----------



## Thompson_JM (3 Oct 2007)

Douke.. 

Its ALWAYS worth the fight when it comes to MY Feet.

Speaking as someone who has a chit from the MO to wear non issued boots, I havent had a problem with my unit or any course up to this point. the problem i have seen in the reserve world is that civilian Doc's sometimes write very vague chits... I would advise that if this is the case, to go to your nearest MIR and get one from one of the MO's there. I got mine from the London ontario MIR, and it just reads Member may wear Danners purchased at own expense. which works fine by me. I get the quality footwear I need, and I have some choice about the type and what will be the best fit for my feet.

The fact is, that boots shouldnt be the issue that they are... everyones feet are different, my personal philosophy is that if theyre black, and polished, and blend into the uniform, then there should be no issue... besides Cordura is awsome! less to shine, and it breathes alot better in my opinion.

Get clarification from the MO, and if need be go higher..... there are alot of good platoon WO's.. most are pretty bang on... but sometimes in the reserve world I have noticed a God Complex among some members of higher rank... as well as some (as vern put it) Dinosaurs who refuse to think progressively.

best of luck on your situation...


----------



## Roy Harding (3 Oct 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Douke..
> 
> Its ALWAYS worth the fight when it comes to MY Feet.
> 
> ...



Absolutely agree - just conduct the fight in a manner which will lead to victory.  

In a case like this, when dealing with your CofC, overt aggressiveness is usually not the preferred COA.  In these cases, persistent (if necessary), discretion is required.  That's all I or anyone else (I think) have been trying to get across.


Roy


----------



## Douke (3 Oct 2007)

I think I was misunderstood there... I really can't see how wearing combat boots for a parade is worse on your feet than wearing CF boots (outside from a few very rare cases). I myself have alternative footwear for garrison and field duty, but I don't mind wearing mk3s for parades for uniformity's sake (it's what parades are all about no?). Of course I could bring my chit up and refuse to wear em, but I think this army was built on a "can-do" attitude and I personally don't see the point of using a chit in a situation where it's intended purpose (preventing injuries or permanent pain to the feet) is not an issue. I guess it all depends if you see it as a "why?" or a "why not?". Heck I have a chit for my beard, yet I still occasionnally shave for important parades and stuff. It don't kill me to do it once in a while and it pleases the staff.

Different people different attitudes I guess, but I see it that way : that chit was given to me to prevent injuries (and I thank god for having it on every 13 click), I don't feel the need to get a special treatment in situations where I do not risk injuries or excessive pain. Of course if you don't have your Mk3s anymore or you have a special feet condition really preventing you from wearing your mk3s painlessly on a parade, it's a whole different matter.

Douke


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2007)

Douke,
as indicated, if the individual was provided by QM with alternate footwear & thus, no longer has Mk IIIs in his posession, then the subject if "moot".


----------



## y2kroachman (4 Oct 2007)

Ya the clothing stores never took back my mkIIIs or punched a whole in them the guy just said take em home but they are not on my docs anymore. I think ill keep wearing my new boots and if the issue keeps geting pushed ill just wear my mkIIIs because I dont want to be in the PL WO bad books.  Thanks for all the help guys I really appreciate it.


----------



## geo (4 Oct 2007)

jovi said:
			
		

> Ya the clothing stores never took back my mkIIIs or punched a whole in them the guy just said take em home but they are not on my docs anymore. I think ill keep wearing my new boots and if the issue keeps geting pushed ill just wear my mkIIIs because I dont want to be in the PL WO bad books.  Thanks for all the help guys I really appreciate it.


jovi,
You're not getting the message here
QM issued you new boots and took the Mk IIIs off your charge
The new boots are the only boots you are supposed to wear & are authorized to wear.
So long as you are wearing black boots that are issued by the CF supply system & approved for you to wear by the CF medical system, then there should not be a problem.

While I am not advocating your facing down your Pl WO on your own, you should be getting your section commander in on the act.
1.  Your feet had problems with Mk IIIs
2.  The MO confirmed you had problems with your feet & prescribed different boots for you to wear... PERIOD
3.  The CF supply system validated your MOs chit & ordered special CF approved boots for you to wear.
4.  The CF supply system issued you new boots.... PERIOD

If the Mk IIIs are the root cause of futur incapacitating injuries to your feet & your back, will the Pl WO assume full responsibility for your injuruies? I think not....  

If reason fails to sway the Pl WO, ask to have a conversation with your Pl Commander - thru your section commander.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Oct 2007)

Keep wearing your special boots.Officially you no longer have the mk3 boots to wear. I dont know about CF policy but if you were a US soldier and you were issued special boots but kept wearing the old issue boots and you injured yourself as a result, you could be brought up on charges. Similarly if a supervisor made you violate the orders of a doctor he could be charged.


----------



## COBRA-6 (4 Oct 2007)

Vern, got a question for you...

I have a med chit and had alt boots issued through clothing stores last year, recently I went in because I had worn out one pair and needed new ones, and they mentioned I needed to get a new med chit every two years, is that standard policy accross the board? Not a problem for me as my chit was less than two years old, but I would have thought once you were issued alt boots you would be good to go from then on...

Also, I don't remember them taking the Mk III's or the WWB's off my docs, should they have told me if they did this?

Cheers!


----------



## Shamrock (4 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> ...
> 1.  Your feet had problems with Mk IIIs
> 2.  The MO confirmed you had problems with your feet & prescribed different boots for you to wear... PERIOD
> 3.  The CF supply system validated your MOs chit & ordered special CF approved boots for you to wear.
> ...



Not all chits for wearing non-issue boots stem from problems directly related to the Mk III's.  Mine came about from either my orthotic or my foot fitting in my boot (but not both).  I can wear the Mk III's comfortably for a short while -- it's the same as wearing any footwear without my orthotic.


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Not all chits for wearing non-issue boots stem from problems directly related to the Mk III's.  Mine came about from either my orthotic or my foot fitting in my boot (but not both).  I can wear the Mk III's comfortably for a short while -- it's the same as wearing any footwear without my orthotic.



True,

BUT, if we bought you boots to accomodate your orthotics ... YOUR MkIIIs would also have been bunched and written off your charge.

Short & Simple:

If the Sup system has purchased you boots to wear ... THEY are the authorized boots now on your charge; if you still have MkIIIs still on your charge ... then a Sup Tech at Clothing Stores did NOT do their jobs properly. You CAN NOT be made to wear that which you NO LONGER are entitled to be issued. You are entitled to 2 pairs of cbt boots ... either MkIIIs OR LPO'd boots ... not BOTH.

If you can still wear both -- why would the Crown (taxpayer) have to buy you civ pattern boots in the first place for??


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

jovi said:
			
		

> Ya the clothing stores never took back my mkIIIs or punched a whole in them the guy just said take em home but they are not on my docs anymore. I think ill keep wearing my new boots and if the issue keeps geting pushed ill just wear my mkIIIs because I dont want to be in the PL WO bad books.  Thanks for all the help guys I really appreciate it.



And this is exactly why soldier's injuries become permanent.

Tell your PL WO ... to put that order in writing. If you want an AO for the charge ... give them my name.


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2007)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Vern, got a question for you...
> 
> I have a med chit and had alt boots issued through clothing stores last year, recently I went in because I had worn out one pair and needed new ones, and they mentioned I needed to get a new med chit every two years, is that standard policy accross the board? Not a problem for me as my chit was less than two years old, but I would have thought once you were issued alt boots you would be good to go from then on...
> 
> ...



It is every two years ... because sometimes (whatever the medical problem is that caused the chit ...) is correctable and will be corrected during that 2 year period.

But hey, why don't you just wear your MkIIIs and make it permanent??  > (Really ... do NOT take the advice I have given in my last line!!)


----------



## Armymedic (9 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It is every two years ... because sometimes (whatever the medical problem is that caused the chit ...) is correctable and will be corrected during that 2 year period.


Actually, gait is not correctable once you have concluded your growth cycle (after 18 yrs for women, 21 for men).  And any condition that is non correctable in 12-18 months should be subjected to a PCAT change.

**************

As you can see, this is not a medical issue, but one of regulations, interpretation and supply system directives.


----------



## Haggis (9 Oct 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Tell your PL WO ... to put that order in writing.



*jovi:  *  If the Pl WO orders that you keep wearing Mk III's and will not put his orders on paper, ask to see your CSM, with a copy of your chit and wear your new boots.  Ask the CSM to review with the Pl WO, on your behalf, CANLANDGEN 009/07 specifically para 1, which states:

"1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CANLANDGEN IS TO REMIND UNIT COMMANDING OFFICERS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE OR DISREGRARD WHAT MEDICAL STAFF RECOMMENDS AS MEDICAL CARE FOR MEMBERS UNDER THEIR COMMAND. THIS INCLUDES MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED."

This is drawn from CANFORGEN 128/03 which states, in part: 

"3. COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE OR DISREGARD WHAT MEDICAL STAFF RECOMMEND AS MEDICAL CARE FOR CF MEMBERS UNDER THEIR COMMAND. THIS INCLUDES *BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO* MEDICAL AND SURGICAL TREATMENT, DIAGNOSTIC AND INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURES, HOSPITALIZATION, PREVENTIVE MEDICINE PROCEDURES, MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS AND SICK LEAVE."  (emphasis is mine)

As a CSM myself, I'd readily accept that the issue of new LPO boots to allow a member to train and deploy is considered "medical treatment" since your chit was written by an MO.

See, Vern, we're not all Dinosaurs!


----------



## medaid (9 Oct 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> See, Vern, we're not all Dinosaurs!



True  But you're one of those Un-dinos, and you're quite a rare breed indeed! Rare breed!

EDIT: Geo is also part of the Un-dino family. That makes 2 so far


----------



## geo (9 Oct 2007)

Piffle..... I saw the light at the end of the tunnel 
(though I mighta been the old 4:05 coming down the track)
we're no exception


----------



## Haggis (9 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> True  But you're one of those Un-dinos, and you're quite a rare breed indeed! Rare breed!
> 
> EDIT: Geo is also part of the Un-dino family. That makes 2 so far



OK... maybe I am a dinosaur. I've been called one in the past (along with some other names that usually don't pass the Army.ca  content filter)

But I look at myself as a more cereberally evolved Velociraptor; relatively smart, small (by dino standards), fast and deadly.  I'm not a T-Rex.


----------



## Franko (9 Oct 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> OK... maybe I am a dinosaur. I've been called one in the past (along with some other names that usually don't pass the Army.ca  content filter)
> 
> But I look at myself as a more cereberally evolved Velociraptor; relatively smart, small (by dino standards), _*fast and deadly*_.  I'm not a T-Rex.



ummm...some have seen you in Sarajevo a few years ago, you may want to re think that one.              ;D

Regards


----------



## Haggis (9 Oct 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> ummm...some have seen you in Sarajevo a few years ago, you may want to re think that one.              ;D



So may you.  I'm some 40 odd pounds lighter now, and far better looking.  Times change.  People change, too.


----------



## medaid (10 Oct 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So may you.  I'm some 40 odd pounds lighter now, and far better looking.  Times change.  People change, too.




How'd you lose your 40lbs? I wouldn't mind doing that at all!


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Oct 2007)

if your PL WO is overiding med chits, he is simply failing his duty of care.

Not happy?

Take it further up the chain of command. Thats your right. Exercise it.

Here in Australia, we don't have PL WOs, we have PL SGTs, and I am one (RAAC - we use TP and SQN). 

A top priority for any one in this position is the welfare of his men. Any medical chits come from them thru to me, and are strictly adhered to without question and duely noted. I inform the TP Leader, who informs the SSM, who informs the OC.

Why anyone would do otherwise is beyond me.

My two bob,

Wes


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> How'd you lose your 40lbs? I wouldn't mind doing that at all!



So far, it's 45 lbs actually.... in eight months.  (I doubt RBD would recognize me from a distance any more)

*THREAD HIJACK ALERT!*

Three words:  Army Fitness Manual.  Good programs, good info.  Stick to it, eat sensibly and you'll do just fine.

I'll start off by giving you a bit of background before I go into the details.

Back in November, my wife and I made a bet to see who could drop the most pounds by Christmas.  We did this without any real "plan" in place, just trying to eat healthy and exercise more.  I concentrated on exercising without changing the way I ate and she concentrated on watching her caloric intake without doing any substantial exercise.  I lost about six pounds, she lost eight.  However, over Christmas, we put on about half of that. Clearly our "plan" wasn't working.  It lacked discipline.

In January 2007, we decided it was time for some lifestyle changes.  My DEU was fairly tight and I was tired a lot, getting headaches etc. 9er Domestic was determined to make a big difference in her physique and energy levels.  There's a variety of reasons for this but our primary motivation was that 2007 is our 20th anniversary and we had never taken a honeymoon.  It was time.  We decided to shape up for our anniversary and set the date for May 17th weekend. That was our first step: we now had a goal.

Since I already have access to a CF gym, we shopped around for a membership for her.  All the gyms were offering "New Years Resolution Fitness and Weight Loss Specials" and we found one she liked.  So, she signed up.  

In a nutshell her program consisted of guided exercise and weight loss education.  No pills, no special food to buy, no supplements.  Just education and information on nutrition and healthy eating habits.  She also learned how to exercise properly and efficiently with a personal trainer.  Now you're thinking "What has this got to do with the Shrinking Haggis?".  Well, I piggybacked on her program.  I did what she did, but without the trainer support.

OK, now on to the program:

Getting Started: To get started I did the Army Fitness Manual 12 week program, weeks 1 to 9 (the winter in Ottawa was too messy outside to ruck march in).  That gave me a quick, easy program to follow and specific goals to measure my progress against.  The AFM program is super!

Moving On: Once I'd completed the AFM program, now I do a split routine (upper body weights and lower body weights), five days a week.   Strength training is an integral part of the program as lean body mass helps to raise your metabolic rate, thus burning more fat.  Plus, chicks dig big shoulders.  For strength training I divide my month into weeks.  In weeks 1 and 3, I do three days of upper body weight training and two days of lower body training.  In weeks 2 and 4 I reverse this.  I do it as a circuit to keep my HR up and cut the time down.  

Each day consists of 6-7 exercises which should be done in three sets of 10-15 reps. That's 18-21 sets per day.  What I do is alternate muscle groups (Push/Pull) and do them back to back.  For example, I'll do a set of Push Ups and a set of Lat Pull Downs, back to back, three times.  Then I'll move on to Dumbbell Press and Dumbbell Curls the same way.  You can do the entire strength workout in 30 minutes.

Cardio: Every day includes 40-50 minutes of Target Heart Rate cardio; running, or elliptical trainer.  I do at least ruck march a week, 10 km or longer.

Warm Up and Cool Down:  I use my cardio workout as a warm up, going semi-easy for about 5 minutes then ratcheting up the pain.  Similarly I always do cardio before weights and close out with a 5-7 top to bottom stretching routine.  If you skip this, you'll be sore and risk injury.

Rest: Don't train more than 5 days a week.  You'll burn out the muscles which need time to recover and grow.  You also risk overuse injuries.

Diet:  Surprisingly this was the biggest factor in our success.  We learned about the Canada Food Guide, portion control and, above all, discipline.  Here's a few of our biggest changes:

- Switch to a smaller, 9 inch dinner plate;
- Divide your plate into quarters:  1/2 should be vegetables, 1/4 should be starch/carbs, 1/4 should be meats/proteins.
- Read and follow the Canada Food Guide
- Snack healthy:  veggies, fruits etc.  V8 is your friend.  Snack only enough to fool your body into thinking it had a meal. (3-4 pieces of celery, an apple etc.)
- Watch your alcohol intake.  I cut back to about 2-4 beer a week on average and maybe a glass of wine with 9er Domestic on weekends (liquid panty remover ;D).  Some weeks I have none.
- Drink water.  Lots of water, at least 64 ounces a day (8 X 8 ounce glass)
- Limit sweets to 2 X a week and no bigger than ONE donut or two cookies.  Use these to reward yourself after a particularly hard workout.
- Cook smaller quantities.  Don't leave enough for leftovers.
- Clear the table as soon as you're done eating your first (and only) serving.  Remove temptation to refill your plate.
- Drive throughs are EVIL!!  If you must drive through, pick a salad, chicken or fish.
- Set a cut-off time (i.e. 8:00 PM) after which you don't eat/snack anymore that day.  Water, decaffeinated tea or coffee is OK.  No soft drinks!

If you follow the diet rules 90% of the time (hey, we're only human) than you'll drop pounds pretty quick.  9er Domestic, who is 5'1", has lost 25 lbs and kept it off for nine months.  I've dropped 45 lbs of weight since November 2006.  In the last month I've put on about 4 lbs of lean muscle mass for a net loss of 41 lbs.  How do I know?  i'm getting heavier but my clothes are looser.  I went from a 42" waist to a 34" waist; an 18 1/2" shirt to a 17" shirt..... and I'm keeping it off!

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

*THREAD HIJACK ALERT ENDS!*


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Actually, gait is not correctable once you have concluded your growth cycle (after 18 yrs for women, 21 for men).  And any condition that is non correctable in 12-18 months should be subjected to a PCAT change.
> 
> **************
> 
> As you can see, this is not a medical issue, but one of regulations, interpretation and supply system directives.



Uhmm, actually no. Some of those medical chits are written for mesh-sided footwear due to rash etc -- which IS a correctable situation, is the reason these soldiers have follow-ups appts with their MOs etc, and the reason new chits are required. I find that most just get their new chit written at those follow-up MO appts -- where, I would assume, the MOs are also doing up that recommendation for PCat should there be no change or improvement in the situation (and, I'm pretty sure that new direction out on this from the medical world this past spring -- made PCat processing a necessary requirement for A Class Res F pers who were required to wear orthotics as well).

The Sup procedures outlining ortho/medical chit processing are based upon CFMOs (or whatever they are called these days) ... in consult with your medical staff in NDHQ ... It's really quite simple. If the sitauation IS corrected within the time period laid out, the MO won't be issuing a new chit -- ergo no more LPOd footwear for buddy -- his entitlement to them ceases; buddy who's first chit read "requires boots to accomodate orthotics" now comes back after his follow-up MO appt with a chit reading "requires *vibram soled* boots which accomodate orthotics". It does change from chit to chit -- frequently -- and that's a medical thing -- not a Supply thing. 

Here's a reason based on *Supply Procedures * that you will need a new chit:

When you are posted from one base to another base -- you will need a new medical chit from the new Unit's medical facility. This is because the funding to pay for boots etc comes from the individual Base's budget -- and thus the chit must be issued by the new Base Medical Facility within the parameters that *it* sets out to determine whether a chit is required or not. Authority to spend the Comds budget must come from personnel authorized to do so on his behalf and within the parameters set out for that spending. (IE -- according to the med directives each soldier who is issued a chit for "vibram soled" footwear should have been put through some gait testing etc at physio pror to getting it. Some places just hand them out like candy -- no testing performed -- some Comds KNOW that.) Me personally, I don't care as long as he's got that new chit from the medical side of the house which is SUPPLY's AUTHORITY to go purchase those boots for the member using the Comd's money ON BEHALF OF the medical system (we could, I suppose, send this function where it could be -- to your Base Pharmacy because we are only filling a prescription on your behalf in footwears case. The BPharm fills all other physio eqpt prescriptions itself). Physio's signed the new chit?? The MOs written a new chit?? It's their signature on the bottom of it saying that there was a valid medical requirement for that chit IAW applicable medical directives. It is not a Supply issue.


----------



## bisonmedic (10 Oct 2007)

Regarding the whole boot issue thing, here in Pet, it is a supply issue, not a medical issue. Supply must give you proper fitting boots . The new Mk 3 boots have 72 different sizes for issue, they get mixed reviews, but people who have orthotics can fit them better in this boot. It's a start, but more could be done.
If you want a boot that feels better on the feet, you ask the CoC and request permission to wear them, out of you're own pocket. The MO/PA will not write you a chit for Magnums, Danners, or any other boot unless you have an extra large foot, extra small foot, or your orthotics cannot be fitted properly to the Mk 3.


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2007)

bisonmedic said:
			
		

> Regarding the whole boot issue thing, here in Pet, it is a supply issue, not a medical issue. Supply must give you proper fitting boots . The new Mk 3 boots have 72 different sizes for issue, they get mixed reviews, but people who have orthotics can fit them better in this boot. It's a start, but more could be done.
> If you want a boot that feels better on the feet, you ask the CoC and request permission to wear them, out of you're own pocket. The MO/PA will not write you a chit for Magnums, Danners, or any other boot unless you have an extra large foot, extra small foot, or your orthotics cannot be fitted properly to the Mk 3.



I suggest that you read this whole thread.

SIZE = Supply resp -- if you do not fit into *standard stocked sizes * then it is a Supply issue & NO chit is required.

Orthotics/Vibrams = Medical/physio chit IS required for purchase & IF you have that chit, then the Supply system will get you boots to accomodate & conform with that chit ON BEHALF OF the medical system. They will also cover the costs for that footwear as, with a CHIT, is IS medically prescribed & authorized.

And no, MOs CAN NOT "prescribe" you a specific type boot (Danner, Magnum etc) ... but the reasons for that are also stated in this thread already. And that non-ability to prescribe a specific boot-manufacturer type is based on MEDICAL direction from NDHQ.

Don't confuse the two issues. The footwear policy is national (that includes Pet) ... and that policy in the books and it's references are also already posted in this thread. I suggest more reading for you.


----------



## bisonmedic (11 Oct 2007)

Just to clear things up here, I know that people require chits for orthotics and different insoles, that's why I send them to physio. There has been a change in the policy with regards to the boots, we have the document at the CDU if one has questions about it. The base gets billed for all the non issued boots that are required, that's why the new Mk 3 was made with all its sizes, so it would cover the use of orthotics. As I stated before, you will not get a chit for different boots unless you have major foot problems or you have feet too big/too small for the issued sizes of Mk 3.  Again, if you want different boots, and your CoC has no heartache about it, then you can buy them out of your own pocket. This info does come from Ottawa. I deal with this situation everyday as a medic, my reading ability is just fine thank you.


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2007)

bisonmedic said:
			
		

> Just to clear things up here, I know that people require chits for orthotics and different insoles, that's why I send them to physio. There has been a change in the policy with regards to the boots, we have the document at the CDU if one has questions about it. The base gets billed for all the non issued boots that are required, that's why the new Mk 3 was made with all its sizes, so it would cover the use of orthotics. As I stated before, you will not get a chit for different boots unless you have major foot problems or you have feet too big/too small for the issued sizes of Mk 3.  Again, if you want different boots, and your CoC has no heartache about it, then you can buy them out of your own pocket. This info does come from Ottawa. I deal with this situation everyday as a medic, my reading ability is just fine thank you.



The "new MkIII" (which the cbt boot GP you are referring to is *NOT* by the way ---) was constructed on the same size basis as the WW Boot. The construction of the Boot GP had ZERO to do with accomodating orthotics. The removable inserts that come in both the WW Boots and the Boots, GP do allow MORE people with orthotics to be accomodated in them though. But their design and manufacture had SQUAT to do with orthotics.
Footwear policy has ALWAYS stated (and it's in this thread too) that all pers reporting with chits for orthotics are to first be fitted into stocked footwear to see if that footwear can accomodate their particular orthotic.

If that stocked footwear can NOT accomodate the orthotics, their chit is THEN used as the purchasing authority to buy boots for medical purpose to accomodate that orthotic. No chit?? What medical authority do we have? No chit?? No Crown monies will pay --

I agree: If someone JUST WANTS different boots, and their CoC is OK with it ... then they can buy out of their own pocket, BUT that IS NOT what we are talking about here is it??

Change this:



> Again, if you want different boots, and your CoC has no heartache about it, then you can buy them out of your own pocket. This info does come from Ottawa. I deal with this situation everyday as a medic, my reading ability is just fine thank you.



to this:



> Again, if you want different  need boots to accomodate your medically issued orthotics, and your CoC has no heartache about it, then you can The Crown is responsible tobuy them out of your own pocketfor you upon presentation of your medical chit which authorizes their purchase for you based on that medical need. This info does come from Ottawa. I deal with this situation everyday as a medic Sup Tech purchasing footwear for persons who medically require it on behalf of the medical system.



Keep reading.

There is a differtence between WANT and NEED; you seem to be mixing them up. YOU issue the orthotics?? Then YOU write the chit so that buddy CAN have the boots purchased for him downtown if his orthotics do not fit into stocked ones. Just like when you write a prescription -- or are you having patients pay for those too these days?? It's the exact same thing -- only it's for an orthotic.

Or are you really in the habit wherever you are of issuing people things they must wear in their footwear, but then making them buy their own footwear in order to be able to follow that medical directive? AND, if that's the case where you are -- just how then -- are those soldiers getting the chits that they bring in to clothing there in Petawawa (because they are -- obviously NOT from you though)?? I think that you need to sort out the difference between WANT and NEED -- because those that NEED them should BE BEING LOOKED AFTER by the system -- that's in the books.


----------



## bisonmedic (12 Oct 2007)

First off, we do not make people but their own orthotics, we send them to physio for that ( I did mention that ), Secondly, I did say that there would be people that do not fit the new boots, supply will find a solution for that. The Mk 3 was purchased to help fit orthotics.(I do believe that was mentioned to) You seem to be confused on this matter, I never said we "issue" orthotics, that item is Rx only, you can issue generic insole though. At no time did I argue the point of stock boots first to fit orthotics, never mentioned it in fact. There is no confusion on need or want, just you confusing what I have said. Please read more clearly the words I have put down.


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2007)

> As I stated before, you will not get a chit for different boots unless you have major foot problems *or you have feet too big/too small for the issued sizes of Mk 3*.


Absolutely untrue.

If they have feet too big/too small to fit in stocked sizes -- that is NOT a medical issue and *no* chit is required for boots to be purchased for those soldiers -- that is a "special-size" (non-standard size) requirement and is a whole 'nother process which does not involve the medical side of the house at all. That's also addressed in this very thread.


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2007)

bisonmedic said:
			
		

> First off, we do not make people but their own orthotics, we send them to physio for that ( I did mention that ), Secondly, I did say that there would be people that do not fit the new boots, supply will find a solution for that. *The Mk 3 was purchased to help fit orthotics.(I do believe that was mentioned to) You seem to be confused on this matter, I never said we "issue" orthotics, that item is Rx only, you can issue generic insole though.* At no time did I argue the point of stock boots first to fit orthotics, never mentioned it in fact. There is no confusion on need or want, just you confusing what I have said. Please read more clearly the words I have put down.



Ref the bold: I'll say this one more time ... NO they were NOT. Boots, GP are NOT the replacements for the MkIII combat boot, nor were they purchased to help accomodate orthotics. Period.

Your words:



> Again, if you *want* different boots,





> Regarding the whole boot issue thing, here in Pet, it is a supply issue, not a medical issue.


Bullshit. People who don't fit into stocked sizes (and who don't wear orthotics) are a Supply issue.
People who don't fit into stocked sizes because of ORTHOTICS are a MEDICAL issue ... *EVEN* in Petawawa.

And, I realize that you don't make people buy their own orthotics, I never said that you did. They are prescribed. I said that "they are just like a prescription" ... but if you aren't giving them that chit saying they have been "prescribed orthotics (ie requires boots to accomodate orthotics) ... they are paying for their boots themselves ... and that's bullshit.


----------



## bisonmedic (12 Oct 2007)

You really do not get do you, as I stated  before, supply must provide boots, period. If the mbr has a condition that requires different footwear, a specialist will get involved. Twisting my words to fit your story does not work. Never did I mention people having the big or small feet were wearing orthotics, just said big or small, orthotics are another matter. And regarding the issue of people paying for the boots, that's up to them, we do not make people pay for them if they have orthotics and have a foot specialists chit. That is outside of base medical staff. It seems no matter how I explain, it all gets messed up by misunderstanding. Try slowing down and read carefully. No matter, I would be wasting my breath on you trying to dumb it down any further, good luck.


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2007)

bisonmedic said:
			
		

> You really do not get do you, as I stated  before, supply must provide boots, period. If the mbr has a condition that requires different footwear, a specialist will get involved. Twisting my words to fit your story does not work. Never did I mention people having the big or small feet were wearing orthotics, just said big or small, orthotics are another matter. And regarding the issue of people paying for the boots, that's up to them, we do not make people pay for them if they have orthotics and have a foot specialists chit. That is outside of base medical staff. It seems no matter how I explain, it all gets messed up by misunderstanding. Try slowing down and read carefully. No matter, I would be wasting my breath on you trying to dumb it down any further, good luck.



Twisting your words?? Re-read your posts.

Here's where you began ...



			
				bisonmedic said:
			
		

> Regarding the whole boot issue thing, here in Pet, it is a supply issue, not a medical issue. Supply must give you proper fitting boots . The new Mk 3 boots have 72 different sizes for issue, they get mixed reviews, but people who have orthotics can fit them better in this boot. It's a start, but more could be done.
> If you want a boot that feels better on the feet, you ask the CoC and request permission to wear them, out of you're own pocket. The MO/PA will not write you a chit for Magnums, Danners, or any other boot unless you have an extra large foot, extra small foot, or your orthotics cannot be fitted properly to the Mk 3.



I said: Bullshit. Size is a Supply issue, that I agree with. Pers who wear orthotics however ARE NOT a supply issue. We WILL buy them boots to accomodate thier orthotics on behalf of the medical system PROVIDED they have that chit that MEDICAL CHIT that authorizes them to wear those orthotics. That IS a MEDICAL issue. Two different policies -- two different issues, only one of which is a Supply issue.

I also said (for the first time) the boots, GP ARE NOT the replacements for the MkIIIs, nor was their design based upon anything to do with orthotics.

I also said: "And no, MOs CAN NOT "prescribe" you a specific type boot (Danner, Magnum etc) ... but the reasons for that are also stated in this thread already. And that non-ability to prescribe a specific boot-manufacturer type is based on MEDICAL direction from NDHQ." BUT, they sure as hell CAN write you a chit that says "requires boots to accomodate orthotics."

Here's that other part from you: "*If you want a boot that feels better on the feet, *" which is where I pointed out the difference between NEED & WANT. We are NOT discussing WANT in this thread ... we are discussing NEED ... and that NEED occurs when they are prescribed orthotics -- at which time they SHOULD be getting the chit that says so which THEN authorizes us in Sup to go buy their boots downtown for them if we have to. 

Next from you, we get this (speaking of putting words in someone's mouth ... ):



			
				bisonmedic said:
			
		

> First off, we do not make people but their own orthotics, we send them to physio for that ( I did mention that ), Secondly, I did say that there would be people that do not fit the new boots, supply will find a solution for that. The Mk 3 was purchased to help fit orthotics.(I do believe that was mentioned to) You seem to be confused on this matter, I never said we "issue" orthotics, that item is Rx only, you can issue generic insole though. At no time did I argue the point of stock boots first to fit orthotics, never mentioned it in fact. There is no confusion on need or want, just you confusing what I have said. Please read more clearly the words I have put down.



I pointed out that I never said people had to buy their own orthotics ... I said that if you AREN'T writing that chit, then WE are NOT authorized to buy those boots for them ... as purchasing boots to accomodate orthotics is a MEDICAL issue, thus medical authority (via that chit) IS required. No authority = no boots purchased. 

And, I pointed out (for the second time) that the boots, GP are NOT the replacement for the combat boot MkIII (it's replacement is STILL in development), nor were the boots G.P. and their 72 sizes, or their removeable inserts manufactured in any way, shape, or form "purchased to help fit orthotics", as you have stated. That's bullshit.

And, ref your comment about me bringing up too big/too small etc and this comment 





> At no time did I argue the point of stock boots first to fit orthotics, never mentioned it in fact.


. See the first quote from you above. I simply distinguished bewteen SIZE requirements for LPO and MEDICAL requirements for LPO ... as you flat-out wrongly stated that the medical world would write them a chit if they "have an extra large foot, extra small foot." <--- too big/too small a foot = NO CHIT required -- this IS a Supply matter (and again ... already adressed in this thread).

Now, regarding this latest post:



			
				bisonmedic said:
			
		

> You really do not get do you, as I stated  before, supply must provide boots, period. If the mbr has a condition that requires different footwear, a specialist will get involved. Twisting my words to fit your story does not work. Never did I mention people having the big or small feet were wearing orthotics, just said big or small, orthotics are another matter. And regarding the issue of people paying for the boots, that's up to them, we do not make people pay for them if they have orthotics and have a foot specialists chit. That is outside of base medical staff. It seems no matter how I explain, it all gets messed up by misunderstanding. Try slowing down and read carefully. No matter, I would be wasting my breath on you trying to dumb it down any further, good luck.



You should try reading carefully. You certainly don't have to waste your breath on me (more like vice versa) ... I've tried my best to dumb it down enough for you to understand ... with all your TI and expertise at writing chits for orthotics (just how many of them HAVE you ever written??) ... or is it physio that actually does that when you refer people there (this is indeed a sarcastic remark and should be taken as such ...  :)?? I've yet to see a chit from an MO or a physiotherapist with a JNCM's signature on it as authority, but maybe you are that special exception. And yeah, I guess with more time spent in the actual purchasing of footwear and dealing with those medical footwear chits than you have in service ... I MUST need it dumbed down.

_Whatever._


----------



## old medic (12 Oct 2007)

I suggest everyone take time off from this thread until tomorrow morning. 
We should be concentrating on fact of policy, and not he said she said.


----------

