# Operational Service Medals?



## misratah500 (24 Nov 2011)

Have any of these been issued yet. They Haiti one, or the Expedition one. They released these medals about a year ago but I haven't heard about anyone getting them awarded them yet. I've had my paperwork in for the OSM Exp since last spring now and haven't heard a whiff. Do you think they mint is really busy or something like that.


----------



## 211RadOp (24 Nov 2011)

I recieved my OSM-Humanitas this past summer, as did all the members of the DART Sigs Tp.


----------



## frank1515 (24 Nov 2011)

The major I work with got his OSM-Sudan about 6 months ago.


----------



## Pusser (24 Nov 2011)

Thousands have been issued and the Mint is pumping them out as fast as they can.


----------



## medicineman (24 Nov 2011)

Got my OSM-Haiti this spring.

MM


----------



## smale436 (24 Nov 2011)

I've seen several different OSMs here in Cold Lake but in conversation with a friend waiting for his OSM-Haiti it seems it has a lot to do with the people in your CoC and OR. He was in Haiti with the Infantry seven years ago and is still waiting to be presented his. (He works at a squadron now) Despite dozens of visits over the past year to the OR to make sure there is no paperwork problem, as well as intervention on his behalf from supervisors, he's still waiting. Yet a guy currently at the same unit as him who was in Haiti at the same time (with a Tac Hel unit) received his last year. Also his former infantry co-workers from who remained in the infantry up to this point also have received their medals.

        He figures at this point he will receive his Libya medal before his OSM-H. Even taking into account the fact that the Libya medal hasn't been developed yet. Although we were told by the General from CEFCOM that it will more than likely be a GCS/GSM with Libya ribbon.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Nov 2011)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> I've seen several different OSMs here in Cold Lake but in conversation with a friend waiting for his OSM-Haiti it seems it has a lot to do with the people in your CoC and OR. He was in Haiti with the Infantry seven years ago and is still waiting to be presented his. (He works at a squadron now) Despite dozens of visits over the past year to the OR to make sure there is no paperwork problem, as well as intervention on his behalf from supervisors, he's still waiting. Yet a guy currently at the same unit as him who was in Haiti at the same time (with a Tac Hel unit) received his last year. Also his former infantry co-workers from who remained in the infantry up to this point also have received their medals.
> 
> He figures at this point he will receive his Libya medal before his OSM-H. Even taking into account the fact that the Libya medal hasn't been developed yet. Although we were told by the General from CEFCOM that it will more than likely be a GCS/GSM with Libya ribbon.


PM me his details.  I was on that mission (2004), and I'll see what I can do from my end.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2011)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> Although we were told by the General from CEFCOM that it will more than likely be a GCS/GSM with Libya ribbon.



That certainly fits the description and purpose of the GCS/GSM.


----------



## medicineman (24 Nov 2011)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> I've seen several different OSMs here in Cold Lake but in conversation with a friend waiting for his OSM-Haiti it seems it has a lot to do with the people in your CoC and OR. He was in Haiti with the Infantry seven years ago and is still waiting to be presented his. (He works at a squadron now) Despite dozens of visits over the past year to the OR to make sure there is no paperwork problem, as well as intervention on his behalf from supervisors, he's still waiting. Yet a guy currently at the same unit as him who was in Haiti at the same time (with a Tac Hel unit) received his last year. Also his former infantry co-workers from who remained in the infantry up to this point also have received their medals.
> 
> He figures at this point he will receive his Libya medal before his OSM-H. Even taking into account the fact that the Libya medal hasn't been developed yet. Although we were told by the General from CEFCOM that it will more than likely be a GCS/GSM with Libya ribbon.



I had to go into my OR twice to get the ball rolling...the gong arrived not long afterwards.  Of course, there was a waiting period while they tried to find someone of an appropriate rank to present it.  

MM


----------



## aesop081 (24 Nov 2011)

My paperwork just went in for the OSM (Expedition)........see how long it takes............


----------



## misratah500 (29 Nov 2011)

Yeah I just finished up with OP Mobile myself, and I was also wondering what medal they think will be done. We heard a rumor that NATO was going to commission a new medal for Operation Unified Protector. So what if NATO does that, will the CF still create a GCS/GSM for the operation?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2011)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> Yeah I just finished up with OP Mobile myself,



I have as well and have heard the same rumours as you but, in the end, NATO medal or not, Canada is free to issue whatever medal it wishes.


----------



## smale436 (29 Nov 2011)

That would sound like a similar scenario to some of the people here in CL who were involved in the Allied Force campaign in 1999. Most people I know had initially the NATO-K medal for that and when the GCS/GSM with AF bar was introduced several years later they were able to exchange the NATO medal for the other one. On the basis of one mission, one medal they could only wear one or the other.

     That said, there are still a handful who were involved in only the Allied Force campaign who just never bothered to exchange their NATO-K even though they are entitled to the GSM-AF. One person used the phrase "I like the look of the NATO one better."


----------



## aesop081 (29 Nov 2011)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> That would sound like a similar scenario



No. What happened for OAF has nothing to do with this.

Back then, Canada had issues the NATO medal and then, years later, created the GCS and decided to replace the NATO medal for these people with the GCS.

If NATO creates a medal for OUP, Canada does not have to issue it to its personnel. Canada can chose to issue its own medal, GCS or otherwise.


----------



## misratah500 (30 Nov 2011)

I thought the whole point of overhauling the medals system with the creation of the GCS/GSM/OSM was for quick recognition of missions for personnel. OP Mobile started what back in Feb 2011. I bet we don't see anything till the summer of 2012. Thats a year and a half. I guess that's fast in the government.


----------



## NavyShooter (30 Nov 2011)

A useful quote from the document organizing/authorizing a recent event in Ottawa:

"Medals.  NATO has created a medal for Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR and Canada has received a copy.  It is currently being considered and a decision is expected in November 2011.  If found suitable by Canada, the medal distribution may start as early as Feb 2012."

Personally, if you look at the description for the GCS, you'll see the following quote:  

"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."

I'm on a wait and see for this....and wait...and wait....interesting that they can deploy us on 26 hours notice, but it takes month to figure out what the appropriate recognition is.  *shrug*  Hurry up and wait....nothing new here.

As for the OSM, I was told by my last unit that the paperwork for my OSM as part of OP Caribe was being delayed in Ottawa....I should go see my new unit OR now I guess and see what they can figure out for me.

NS


----------



## misratah500 (30 Nov 2011)

_"Medals.  NATO has created a medal for Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR and Canada has received a copy.  It is currently being considered and a decision is expected in November 2011.  If found suitable by Canada, the medal distribution may start as early as Feb 2012."_

Where the heck did this come from? Is this an internal document? Or is it on the DH&H website? This is the most solid thing I've heard about it so far. We heard rumors of NATO making a medal which they rightfully would, but never knew it was finished. I wonder why they would keep it under wraps. I imagine if the CF let them issue the previous NATO medals for OAE, Africa, Kosovo, Yugo etc. Then I pretty sure they'll issue this one as well. 

Which is funny because OP Mobile is also the perfect CF mission for an issue of the GCS since it was in the "presence of an armed enemy". I talked to the Charlottetown's clerks and they said that their unit was fighting for two. One from NATO and a GCS. That was back in August. I wonder how thats working out for them. Only time will tell. 

But what is apparent is that Stephen Harper really liked this OP because it was his, it was clean, get in get out, no casualties.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Nov 2011)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> I imagine if the CF let them issue the previous NATO medals for OAE, Africa, Kosovo, Yugo etc. Then I pretty sure they'll issue this one as well.



Thats some funny logic right there. Those medals were issued at a time where there was no corresponding Canadian medal.

In the end, so what ? There will be a medal. NATO or GCS.....whatever..........nothing to get wrapped around the axle over.........


----------



## MJP (30 Nov 2011)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> But what is apparent is that Stephen Harper really liked this OP because it was his, it was clean, get in get out, no casualties.



Say what?  How is that even relevant to medals?  And even further to that how is it apparent?  Or is this just a  useless broad-brushing drive by.


----------



## Pusser (30 Nov 2011)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> I talked to the Charlottetown's clerks and they said that their unit was fighting for two. One from NATO and a GCS. That was back in August. I wonder how thats working out for them. Only time will tell.



There can be only one.  A principle tenet of the Canadian Honours System is that dual recognition is not allowed.  If Canada accepts a NATO medal into the honours system to recognize this operation, then there will be no GCS issued.  The reason Canada did not accept the NATO ISAF medal (and issued a GCS instead) is because the NATO medal did not cover everything we wanted recognized.


----------



## teenwolf (29 Dec 2011)

The OSM-Exp is listed on my MPRR, but I haven't physically received the medal yet.


----------



## misratah500 (13 Jan 2012)

No one I know has been issued that medal physically yet. Same goes with the Libyan operation medal. They still haven't decided on that yet. I was told there is a delay in the OSM's. And if I was a betting man I would say the delay is that the mint is too busy minting 60000 queens diamond jubilee medals.

So far they have managed to decorate Gen Bouchard three times for his work but have yet to recognize the crews of Charlottetown, Vancouver or the aiwring. The good General has recieved the Meritorious Service Cross, Legion of Merit (US), and he will get the Order of Canada. jeez. And whatever medal they decide to give out for op mobile. That's four medals in the year he retires. Hell they will probably throw him a QDJM just for the hell foot too. Old Boys network???


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> No one I know has been issued that medal physically yet. Same goes with the Libyan operation medal. They still haven't decided on that yet. I was told there is a delay in the OSM's. And if I was a betting man I would say the delay is that the mint is too busy minting 60000 queens diamond jubilee medals.
> 
> So far they have managed to decorate Gen Bouchard three times for his work but have yet to recognize the crews of Charlottetown, Vancouver or the aiwring. The good General has recieved the Meritorious Service Cross, Legion of Merit (US), and he will get the Order of Canada. jeez. And whatever medal they decide to give out for op mobile. That's four medals in the year he retires. Hell they will probably throw him a QDJM just for the hell foot too. Old Boys network???



You're not the only one waiting so relax.

You got paid today so the world isn't ending.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You got paid today so the world isn't ending.



We get paid?

 ;D


----------



## dimsum (13 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You got paid today so the world isn't ending.



Duh, everyone knows it ends on Dec 21, 2012!   :bowing:


----------



## GAP (13 Jan 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> We get paid?
> 
> ;D



It's not all Joy you know...... :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Jan 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Duh, everyone knows it ends on Dec 21, 2012!   :bowing:



Not Harold Camping.   :bowing:


----------



## dimsum (13 Jan 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not Harold Camping.   :bowing:



That reminds me:  I passed by some huge highway signs in Utah and Idaho proclaiming that May 2011 was the end (I think it was those guys?) when I was on my road trip in the States.  I think they were just too embarrassed to ask the ad agency to take them down  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Jan 2012)

Yes, they would be the dumb asses who contracted those signs.  I'd be embarrassed as well, I hope he is.


----------



## MARS (13 Jan 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As for the OSM, I was told by my last unit that the paperwork for my OSM as part of OP Caribe was being delayed in Ottawa....I should go see my new unit OR now I guess and see what they can figure out for me.
> 
> NS



I received part of an email chain indicating the same thing.  Some issue with the in/out-chop dates for CARIBBE, as entered by CANADACOM, has resulted in the ceasing of minting/issuing CARIBBE OSMs for the moment.  The Fleet Chief is on it, though.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2012)

MARS said:
			
		

> I received part of an email chain indicating the same thing.  Some issue with the in/out-chop dates for CARIBBE, as entered by CANADACOM, has resulted in the ceasing of minting/issuing CARIBBE OSMs for the moment.  The Fleet Chief is on it, though.



Most units and deployment dates do not show up in the system. My OR pulled up the list and my unit does not show up despite having deployed 3 times to OP CARIBBE.


----------



## misratah500 (14 Jan 2012)

So were thinking CANADACOM screwed up or something?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jan 2012)

Can happen at any level.  From what I am told, our information had not even left the ship at 3 months after returning from OP CARIBBE.  Your medal will get to you when it gets to you as always.  But then, I had to initiate my GCS upon my return from the sandbox as we fell through the cracks admin wise in KAF.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Jan 2012)

OSM -Caribe for one of my guys who sailed last January is finally arriving tomorrow.

Mine from 2008...still in the air....because I was posted off during the middle of that deployment, but my COS was shifted to accomdate completing that trip....so my OR is looking into it.  *sigh*  No rush...it's interesting, they can send you away for 6 months on 26 hours notice, but take months after you get back to figure out how to recognize that service...


----------



## CountDC (24 Jan 2012)

Navyshooter - seems some things never do change.  There is a simple way for that to be done - it is called attach posting  being published in the system so that there is a record.  Unfortunately over the years the Navy has had a very bad record on this and many of our people have unrecognized service as there is no record other than their own memories.  I remember when I first reported to a ship there was a basket stacked with attach posting messages that had never been entered as they were not considered important. I was so shocked until I saw some of the other practices.  Two events that have made this stand out was the Sea Pay audits and the SSM calculations.  So many times the official record showed the member was with ship X while they remembered being with ship Y as a loaner for a few months.

In your case was the COS shifted or was it the RFD that was shifted? COS are usually easier to verify as they are done by the CM while RFD are often done between units via emails/phone calls.


----------



## Pusser (24 Jan 2012)

The problem is that NDHQ (the centre of the universe) assumes everyone does everything the same same way.  When an Army unit deploys, every member of that that unit (the ones that are going that is) is individually attach posted to the deployment location/operation.  Ships, on the other hand are simply assigned and there is no real requirement to attach post anyone because nothing actually changes.  Ships are self-contained in that they take everything with them (files, admin office, pay office, etc).  Even their mailing address doesn't change.  In a previous life, everytime NDHQ published rules for a new benefit, I had to call and remind them that unless they really wanted to deny the benefit to deployed ships, they had to adjust the wording to include those other than whom were "attach posted" to an operation.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The problem is that NDHQ (the centre of the universe) assumes everyone does everything the same same way.  When an Army unit deploys, every member of that that unit (the ones that are going that is) is individually attach posted to the deployment location/operation.  Ships, on the other hand are simply assigned and there is no real requirement to attach post anyone because nothing actually changes.  Ships are self-contained in that they take everything with them (files, admin office, pay office, etc).  Even their mailing address doesn't change.  In a previous life, everytime NDHQ published rules for a new benefit, I had to call and remind them that unless they really wanted to deny the benefit to deployed ships, they had to adjust the wording to include those other than whom were "attach posted" to an operation.



No, the problem is that the navy thinks in terms of ships and not in terms of people.

There is a requirement to track where _people_ are, not just ships.  Attach posting a person to a ship means the official records state that "Pusser was aboard HMCS Retentive from 15 July through 18 September 2007" - so ten years from now when it's discovered that HMCS Retentive was, in fact, infested with cooties, we can track down Pusser and ensure he gets his shots.

Right now, if I understand CountDC, the problem is that many sailors are brought aboard to fill empty billets but their pers files are never properly annotated - so once the HMCS Retentive cooties scare comes up, "the system" shows that Pusser was at his desk in Jonquiere as N1-5-7-12 at that time and he may not receive the medical attention he requires.


Associating benefits with attach-posted status is a different issue.


(And the current CF method of attach-posting to a deployed UIC has other, more interesting impacts, since the "units" never deploy - meaning a true pedant would observe that CinC commendations can't be given, since the unit that forms the core of the battle group never deployed - its personnel did, but the unit itself did not... but that's another discussion better suited for a stand-up table in the mess)


----------



## Pusser (24 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, the problem is that the navy thinks in terms of ships and not in terms of people.



Yes it does, but what is the point of attach posting someone to the unit to which they are already posted?  Ships ARE different, because when they deploy, they deploy completely.  There is no rear party.  There are no offices in the home port to do the ship's business.  The folks who are left behind are sent to other units or sections to be employed, but the ship is still responsible for all their administration.

Please note that I am not making excuses for poor personnel administration.  When folks make "pier-head jumps" or report for duty on dates other than those on their posting messages, these things need to be recorded and properly accounted for.  The tools exist.  We just need to get better at using them.  Attach posting everyone is not the solution, but neither is failing to attach post some of them.


----------



## CountDC (25 Jan 2012)

The problem I refer to is not in regards to the crew posted to the ship.  the problem is the navy likes to loan crew across ships (attach post) and not publish them.  Sometimes it is that a message is generated (ie a basket full of them) but not published into the system.  Sometimes it is a last minute "Freddie is sailing today and needs another Bosn so take one from Athab" with no message cut.

An example I dealt with for a member going on Ops and having to calculate his points (can't remember the actuals so I will make them up but the case is real):

MPRR states member was with Athab Oct 2001 to Sep 2003 at which time the ship did not sail so no points

Check of his pers file shows an att-pst to Iroq Jan 2002 to Jan 2003 which according to the points msg gave him a couple but not enough to increase the OPS FSP.

Member though insist that he was further loaned from the Iroq to Freddie as a last minute replacement prior to doing a NATO Apr 2002 to Sep 2002.  This would not only give him enough points to jump to the next level of OPS FSP but it would increase again while on the op.  

Piece everything together between his records, medal(which also was not recorded on his rcds), Div Notes, etc I was able to prove that he was with Freddie for that time and give him the higher OPS FSP.

If everything had been done properly it would have been 5 minutes of checking the mprr and pers file and entering the information into the calculation sheet.  Instead I spent 2 days compiling everything to put together an air tight case for the member.

I have seen a member be loaned from one ship to another which loaned him to another which in turn loaned him to another (yes 4 ships) and not recorded properly.  Looking at his MPRR he was still with the first ship the entire time.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2012)

A request for an under the table "loan" like that was made for CHA recent trip.  My Chief, told them if they did not want to cut a proper request/message etc, No Dice.  He said that if I was there under the radar and ended up hurt, I would be SOL as I was not really there now was I...  Needless to say, I'm not there and someone who was not so fussy is.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jan 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> A request for an under the table "loan" like that was made for CHA recent trip.  My Chief, told them if they did not want to cut a proper request/message etc, No Dice.  He said that if I was there under the radar and ended up hurt, I would be SOL as I was not really there now was I...  Needless to say, I'm not there and someone who was not so fussy is.



Kudos to your Chief.  Though one shouldn't have to say "Kudos" merely because he's doing his job.  The others who don't care that the admin of their pers is done properly are in need of a bare-headed reminder of the phrase "CONDUCT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE".


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2012)

Of all the Chief's I have served under.  My former one is the only one who really went out there to look after the welfare of his people on a continual basis.  I had only heard some not complimentary things about this man prior to my arrival there, but it was obviously bad press by jealous peers.  He was the best I have seen in the Navy and I would walk through fire to help this man.  I have had some others at lower ranks, but most of them have since left the service.  The Navy could learn some lessons from the Army on promoting the welfare of your personnel etc etc (such as the troops eat first).  That is not to say that the Navy does it all wrong either.  Each have their good and bad points.


----------



## misratah500 (8 Feb 2012)

Britain has accepted the NATO OUP Non article 5 medal for operations in Libya. 


http://www.arrse.co.uk/medals/176831-operations-libya-medal-announced.html


----------



## aesop081 (8 Feb 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> Britain has accepted the NATO OUP Non article 5 medal for operations in Libya.
> 
> 
> http://www.arrse.co.uk/medals/176831-operations-libya-medal-announced.html



Well, the Brits are a different country than Canada so..........what they do does not mean that Canada will do the same, as seen with the QDJM just recently.


----------



## eliminator (8 Feb 2012)

Well, considering that people are trading their NATO Kosovo medals in for Allied Force GCSs and GSMs, and that Canadians cannot accept the ISAF NATO medal for Afghanistan due to the GCS/GSM SWA, I think it's safe to say that Canada will be issuing either a GCS/GSM or OSM specifically for Op Mobile.

It probably doesn't help that the CF is knee-deep in the QDJM and trying to keep up with all those new OSMs.

Best keep an eye on the Orders in Council website. Parliament is back and they'll be passing lots of stuff in the coming weeks. It will likely appear there first before anywhere else. CANFORGEN soon after. 

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&page=secretariats


----------



## aesop081 (8 Feb 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> or OSM specifically for Op Mobile.



OP MOBILE does not fit the criteria for the OSM.


----------



## eliminator (8 Feb 2012)

True, I doubt they will issue an OSM, but the GCS for the pilots and navy folk and GSM for all the Italy based pers sounds logical to me.

Thoughts? Anyone have any inside info?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> True, I doubt they will issue an OSM, but the GCS for the pilots and navy folk and GSM for all the Italy based pers sounds logical to me.
> 
> Thoughts? Anyone have any inside info?



Well...

There are more than just pilots in aircraft.  Indeed, on a sensor-heavy platform like the Aurora, the rest of the crew is what makes the mission work.

And anyone with inside info wouldn't be allowed to post - since such things are confidences of the Governor in Council until announced.


----------



## eliminator (8 Feb 2012)

True, yes "aircrew" is a better term to use. If they do go the GCS/GSM route, I wouldn't want to be the one who has to draw the lines on the map to decide who gets what. Would you give the tanker crews, fighter pilots, and aurora crews all the GCS? What would the navy get? Obviously the ground crew and support trades in Italy would get the GSM. 

But then there's the problem of a "defined enemy" Did we really conduct operations against a defined enemy? That's the whole base of the GCS/GSM. Maybe then an OSM would be more appropriate? Hard to say. I bet the government is attempting to decide this point now.

I know someone is not going to come right out and say what the medal will be, but there's alot of people with their ears to the ground and lots of generals visiting bases being posed such questions. 

I guess time will tell....


----------



## Pusser (9 Feb 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Well, considering that people are trading their NATO Kosovo medals in for Allied Force GCSs and GSMs, and that Canadians cannot accept the ISAF NATO medal for Afghanistan due to the GCS/GSM SWA, I think it's safe to say that Canada will be issuing either a GCS/GSM or OSM specifically for Op Mobile.
> 
> Your logic is off.  Canada will only issue its own medal if no other (e.g. UN/NATO) medal is being issued which meets Canada's criteria for recognition and is accepted into the Canadian Honours System.  CF personnel cannot accept the ISAF NATO medal because it has not been accepted into the Canadian Honours System.  It was not accepted because it would not have recognized all the personnel that Canada was sending into that part of the world for the operations Canada wanted recognized.  Therefore, Canada chose to issue the GCS/GSM instead in order to be more inclusive and meet our needs for recognition.  If there is a NATO medal issued that will cover Op MOBILE to Canada's satisfaction, then that will be the one used and no GCS/GSM will be issued
> 
> ...


----------



## aesop081 (9 Feb 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Did we really conduct operations against a defined enemy?



OP MOBILE was essentially no different that OP ECHO. That operation warranted the GCS (eventually).


----------



## NavyShooter (9 Feb 2012)

> SUBJ:  POST COMBAT REINTEGRATION ALLOWANCE (PCRA) FOR OP MOBILE
> REFS:  A.  CDS LETTER 5 OCTOBER 2011
> B.  CBI 10.3.09 (MFSI)
> C.  COS J3 022 302140Z JAN 06
> ...



Not sure if this makes a difference to the discussion or not...forwarded to my sailors as soon as I saw it.  (One was entitled to PCRA.)

NS


----------



## misratah500 (9 Feb 2012)

That's funny that this came out. Because our clerks told us pcra was not happening. So how does this effect people that didn't take hlta


----------



## NavyShooter (9 Feb 2012)

No mission leave used in theater = PCRA entitlement.

If you used mission leave while in theater, NO PCRA.

Shoot me a PM with your work e-mail and I can send you a copy of it.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> No mission leave used in theater = PCRA entitlement.


I'm curious.  How much is the PCRA entitlement?


----------



## misratah500 (9 Feb 2012)

I was repatriated early in mid November due to compassionate reasons. I took my mission leave at home.  Does this change my eligibility.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Feb 2012)

If "they" decide to go the route of a GCS/GSM <Libya> it will require a minimum of 30 combat missions for aircrew to be eligible for the Star. If they don't meet that milestone, they will get the GSM.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Feb 2012)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> If "they" decide to go the route of a GCS/GSM <Libya> it will require a minimum of 30 combat missions for aircrew to be eligible for the Star. If they don't meet that milestone, they will get the GSM.



Zoomie,

The GCS for OP ALLIED FORCE was issued to pilots and crews who had flow 5 missions over Kosovo and other territory.

The 30-mission requirement is for Crews based outside of the AO and flying into it and back out again, not crews based inside the JOA. For OP MOBILE, both Trapani and Sigonella were inside of the JOA.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Feb 2012)

I guess we'll just have to wait.  5 missions for a Star seems pretty low - 30 missions is more of a number to work towards.  

30 days on the ground or 30 missions overhead seems like a pretty good starting place.

I'm still waiting to see if the TB declares tax free status for that mission.  If so, we will actually have a leg to stand on for the current Afghan mission.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Feb 2012)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting to see if the TB declares tax free status for that mission.



That has already happened. I received my federal income tax back for that period already. Further to that, on this coming pay, the difference between what we had been paid in RA and the Maximum is being paid to us. HA is also finally being paid

OP ALLIED FORCE GCS criteria :

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



> 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.



There is no blanket 30-flight requirement for the GCS unless they make it so for that specific mission, as evidence with the ALLIED FORCE one.

The SWA GCS requires 30 sorties for crews flying *into* theatre, not for the crews based in theatre.


----------



## Zoomie (10 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That has already happened. I received my federal income tax back for that period already. Further to that, on this coming pay, the difference between what we had been paid in RA and the Maximum is being paid to us. HA is also finally being paid


That's what I needed to hear. Time to make some waves 

SWA aircraft that overfly Afghanistan are also based within the AOR - same as the Libya campaign.  It seems that the criteria for awarding the GCS is skewed.


----------



## eliminator (12 Jun 2012)

Libya OUP NATO medal available for purchase from the manufacture of all NATO medals:
http://www.eekelers-centini.be/catalog/index.php?cPath=29_138_139&language=en&osCsid=bvcetq7br0vf1si7qjl2jrcg92








Denmark is awarding the NATO non article 5 medal with the Libya OUP bar:





And no secret here about the medal requirements:


> SHAPE has confirmed the eligibility criteria for the NATO Non-Article V medal for OUP. In order to qualify personnel must have between 23 Mar – 31 Oct 11 completed 30 days’ continuous service or 60 days’ accumulated service under the following circumstances:
> 
> (a) Those Forces under NATO command or control, or in support of NATO, whilst deployed in the Joint Operations Area (JOA).
> 
> ...



So, I have a hunch that the CF will follow suit and award this medal, rather than an OSM or even GCS/GSM, since the eligibility requirements of 30 days should capture the vast majority of those who deployed on OP MOBILE.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2012)

When i asked the CFCWO 2 weeks ago, no decision had been made.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jun 2012)

WTF takes so long, seriously.... They have time to talk about shutting down colour patches, but yet, no time to think about how to grant recognition to their warfighters....  

This is important for unit morale, getting recognition for the sacrifices made.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jun 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> This is important for unit morale, getting recognition for the sacrifices made.



I asked exactly that to the CFCWO 2 weeks ago in St-Jean.

From what he told me, the original NATO medal criteria was not acceptable to Canada. NATO came back with a new criteria and decision had to be made if that was now acceptable. He continued by saying that the new NATO criteria may or may not be acceptable to Canada and if so, it will add to the wait as a national gong will have to be designed.

I told him that we were expecting some kind of GCS/GSM combination as was (belatedly) done for OAF.


----------



## dimsum (12 Jun 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> WTF takes so long, seriously.... *They have time to talk about shutting down colour patches*, but yet, no time to think about how to grant recognition to their warfighters....



Shutting down?  I thought they were out years ago?  And on that note, what's wrong with colour patches anyway?  Most if not all other aircrews have them and if people are whinging about the "tactical" aspect, that's what velcro backing is for.  

But I digress.


----------



## eliminator (12 Jun 2012)

-GCS/GSM are awarded for "those who serve/support operations in the presence of an armed enemy." Were the Pro Gaddafi forces considered an enemy? Was it not more along the lines of employing all necessary measures to prevent attacks on the civilian populace?

-OSM is for "those who serve in or provide support to overseas operations and for which no other medals, such as United Nations or NATO medals, are available." So, hard to justify an OSM if the NATO medal meets the requirements for Canada's participation.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jun 2012)

Funny Max.......What was your stance at the time about the people wondering about the medals for Haiti?


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jun 2012)

I personally don't care for myself, however I can see it being a very good thing for unit morale.   Instilling into the new guys that the unit they are now part of has actually done something great in the not so distant past is something that can motivate those same new guys to work their butts off.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I personally don't care for myself, however I can see it being a very good thing for unit morale.   Instilling into the new guys that the unit they are now part of has actually done something great in the not so distant past is something that can motivate those same new guys to work their butts off.




Ah!   A 'gong' does all that?  I usually measure people I know by other means than what they may wear on their chest, sleeve, or sash. [Edit to remove rest of sentence.] 

Yes, it is nice to have some form of recognition, but with the next generation, as is witnessed today, those will not mean the same sacrifices as what they have made.  You will never have seen the hardship, the horror, etc. that they have.  And so the march goes on; your battles (whatever they may be) and such will never measure up to what the next generation thinks their's are.  

Then again, we have already been down this road on this site before.


----------



## willy (13 Jun 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, it is nice to have some form of recognition, but with the next generation, as is witnessed today, those will not mean the same sacrifices as what they have made.  You will never have seen the hardship, the horror, etc. that they have.  And so the march goes on; your battles (whatever they may be) and such will never measure up to what the next generation thinks their's are.



I'm a latecomer to this discussion and wouldn't post, except for the above quote. A WW II bomber crew might have faced different circumstances of service than a modern RCAF aircrew flying over Libya, but I fail to see how that's relevant to the discussion.  Personnel should be recognized for their operational service.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Jun 2012)

willy said:
			
		

> Personnel should be recognized for their operational service.



And in a timely fashion too.  L/Gen B. was fetted and fawned over long ago.  The troops should come first.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> -GCS/GSM are awarded for "those who serve/support operations in the presence of an armed enemy." Were the Pro Gaddafi forces considered an enemy? Was it not more along the lines of employing all necessary measures to prevent attacks on the civilian populace?



Not that much different than bombing Serbia in 1999 during OP ALLIED FORCE, yet a GCS was issued for that.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Jun 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And in a timely fashion too.  L/Gen B. was fetted and fawned over long ago.  The troops should come first.



THIS.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jun 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> and such will never measure up to what the next generation thinks their's are.



Please turn in any medals you have George. NATO, UN, Whatever. You do no deserve medals as your service does not measure up to the vets of WW2.

That doesn't make sense does it.

 :


----------



## eliminator (13 Jun 2012)

What's nice about GCS/GSM is that they are produced by the mint, engraved with the recipients name, and bear the symbology of our head of state. 
While "a medal is a medal", an award emanating from the Crown of Canada is more desirable than an award from an international organization that is simply "adopted" by our system. (at least in my books)

Moreover, the GCS/GSM does a better risk at defining risk/hardship exposure. (Aircrew flying over Libya and ship's company being shot at, versus support crew based in Italy.)

However, since the NATO Libya OUP medal criteria appears to be vague enough to capture most Canadians involved, I can see it being the "simpler" option. As well, Canada has adopted the NATO Non Art5 Africa medal, so the practice of accepting NATO medals is still on the table, even with our recently revised honours system.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Moreover, the GCS/GSM does a better risk at defining risk/hardship exposure. (Aircrew flying over Libya and ship's company being shot at, versus support crew based in Italy.)


 Ahh....so now those petty army "inside/outside the wire" arguments (_ad nauseum_) seem important?  



> .... vague enough to capture most Canadians involved


All-inclusiveness....lest someone's feelings be hurt.   :tempertantrum:


Maybe the left-wing hand-wringers are right -- Canada should go back to just being a UN peacekeeper.....if only because the medals are too challenging for NDHQ.


----------



## eliminator (13 Jun 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahh....so now those petty army "inside/outside the wire" arguments (_ad nauseum_) seem important?
> All-inclusiveness....lest someone's feelings be hurt.   :tempertantrum:
> 
> 
> Maybe the left-wing hand-wringers are right -- Canada should go back to just being a UN peacekeeper.....if only because the medals are too challenging for NDHQ.



I dont think the issue with the GCS/GSM is inside versus outside the wire, it's more about inside versus outside the country where the hostilities are taking place.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jun 2012)

Obviously the words were too big. Same argument; different perspective.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2012)

What is that Command in Florida, and what medal are they receiving?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jun 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is that Command in Florida, and what medal are they receiving?



CENTCOM. IIRC, they got the GSM (as far as Afghanistan is concerned).


----------



## eliminator (14 Jun 2012)

South-West Asia Service Medal without Afghanistan bar

Interim Staging Team (IST), Istanbul, Turkey
18 Oct 05 - 30 Jul 06

Strategic Airlift Det, Ramstein, Germany
01 Oct 01 - 16 Aug 03

Task Force Tampa, Florida, USA
11 Sep 01 - 29 Aug 03

Strategic Lines of Communications (LOC) Dets, USA and Europe
01 Oct 01 - 16 Aug 03

Military Police Security Implementation Teams, Europe & N. Africa
01 Jan 02 – 31 Jul 09

Too bad we have 4 different medals for operations in Afghanistan.....


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Too bad we have 4 different medals for operations in Afghanistan.....



Our honours system issued/approved 12 different medals for service in Former Yugoslavia. I think that Afghanistan has been a remarkable improvement in that regard.


----------



## CombatDoc (14 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> CENTCOM. IIRC, they got the GSM (as far as Afghanistan is concerned).


Also, previously when we were giving out SWASMs they received the SWASM without the "Afghanistan" bar.


----------



## eliminator (14 Jun 2012)

I got word from DH&R that a proposal was forwarded to the Chancellery of Honours for consideration by the Government Honours Policy Committee at Privy Council Office (PCO) to have the NATO medal for OUP in Libya approved for wear by Canadians.  They are now currently awaiting PCO Order-in-Council approval process and a CANFORGEN will follow soon after. 

So, no GSM/GCS/OSM for Op Mobile....


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> I dont think the issue with the GCS/GSM is inside versus outside the wire, it's more about inside versus outside the country where the hostilities are taking place.


I'm with you there.  I earned my GCS and Bar sand side both times.  I pisses me off to see fellow Sailors' wearing the GCS with SWA ribbon for hassling seaborne skinnies.  If they want to give the GCS for "Pirates of the ... tours" then they can fracking well come up with another ribbon etc.   :2c:


----------



## eliminator (14 Jun 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm with you there.  I earned my GCS and Bar sand side both times.  I pisses me off to see fellow Sailors' wearing the GCS with SWA ribbon for hassling seaborne skinnies.  If they want to give the GCS for "Pirates of the ... tours" then they can fracking well come up with another ribbon etc.   :2c:



I'm not up on the Navy stuff anymore, but I think there's some confusion with the what medals to award for navy ops relating to the "War on Terrorism", since some ships got the NATO Article-5 medal while others got the GCS-SWA or SWASM. Maybe someone on this forum can clarify.


----------



## misratah500 (17 Jun 2012)

well if they do go the NATO route, I know a lot of people will be dissatisfied. My buddies were waiting for a gcs. I think we'd be willing to wait longer to get it over NATO. Their medals are so cheap looking/feeling.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> I know a lot of people will be dissatisfied.



They'll get over it.



> My buddies were waiting for a gcs.



The ones who never left Sicily ? The ones in Naples ?


----------



## brihard (17 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The ones who never left Sicily ? The ones in Naples ?



From his profile, I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and suggest he might mean his buddies on Vancouver- and I'm sure he has friends on Charlottetown as well.


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> well if they do go the NATO route, I know a lot of people will be dissatisfied. My buddies were waiting for a gcs. I think we'd be willing to wait longer to get it over NATO. Their medals are so cheap looking/feeling.



Agreed, especially since NATO seems to be done with designing unique ribbons for each mission and are continuing to award either Article5 or non Article5 ribbons with whatever mission bar. Potentially you may have a CF member with a row of identical medals/ribbons with just different mission bars. (at least the UN medals have unique mission ribbons)

However, a NATO medal is at least a medal and whenever the final decision is cut, it will likley be lightyears ahead of some of the other participating nations, particularly the UK.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Jun 2012)

Rumble I heard is that VAN won't be eligible for the medal due to not enough time on station....

So basically, the only folks in the entire CF that would get any medal out of the actions off Libya would be the zoomies like CDN and others who helped get the birds in the air, the HQ staff wherever they were, and the crew on CHA.

That said, the thing that bothers me most about the whole situation is that there was a huge rush to get the guy in charge recognized, right up to getting stuff presented to him in the Senate chamber and everything, and here we are, 7 months later, and still nothing for the troops who enabled the mission which he's already been recognized for.

*shrug*

Nothing I can do to influence the situation, so it's a waiting game.

NS


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

Does anyone know many days the VAN participated in Op Mobile? CEFCOM says: "Joined SNMG2, tasked to Task Force Endeavour 15 November 2011
Departed Joint Operational Area	10 January 2012"

So while they may not qualify for the 30-day minimum for the NATO OUP Libya medal, they will potentially qualify for an NATO Article 5 medal relating to OP ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR (or possibly even an "Expedition" GCS or OSM)


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

CEFCOM:

Roto 0 (17 March–18 August 2011): Task Force Charlottetown
Roto 1 (19 August–31 October 2011): Task Force Vancouver

Looks like both ships meet the 30-day req.


----------



## misratah500 (17 Jun 2012)

Yeah, Don't NATO medals have 30 day requirements. Vancouver should be good to go for the OUP medal. Unless they're making up an excuse not to go with NATO medals to make a Canadian one. Would NATO feel that was a snub at all?


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> Yeah, Don't NATO medals have 30 day requirements. Vancouver should be good to go for the OUP medal. Unless they're making up an excuse not to go with NATO medals to make a Canadian one. Would NATO feel that was a snub at all?



Well, a Canadian was in charge, so that might be abit of a "snub". I bet most participating nations award their own medal AND accept the NATO medal for wear. 

Canadians don't accept the NATO ISAF medal, so its not like we accept every NATO medal. (Brits accept, but cannot wear the ISAF medal....although some feel the need to mount it for wear anyways, especially in miniature form)

I predict the next question will be "does participation in Op Mobile qualify for the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal" - no


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

end rant


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Jun 2012)

How does the navy "begin" it's service dates? Do your Operation start day 1 when you leave port Canada side? Or does it only count when your in Libyan waters (22.2km off shore according to google)?

Or is it a medal that is awarded for the ship being "tasked" in support of operations.

For the GCS wouldn't you need to be in Libyan waters under: " Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy."

Was there a armed enemy at sea outside Libya's waters?


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> How does the navy "begin" it's service dates? Do your Operation start day 1 when you leave port Canada side? Or does it only count when your in Libyan waters (22.2km off shore according to google)?
> 
> Or is it a medal that is awarded for the ship being "tasked" in support of operations.
> 
> ...



Food for thought: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/06/02/ns-hmcs-charlottetown-rockets.html


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> Food for thought: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/06/02/ns-hmcs-charlottetown-rockets.html



If it's the old Grad they would have around a 22ish km range. How long were they operating in Libyan waters would be something that I would think would need to be determined to award a GCS.

On your article you just posted: "She said HMCS Charlottetown was not hit because the crew considers the enemy's weapons capabilities and sails outside the maximum range."

So would that be operating in a area with armed enemy?

edit to add: I personally know traffic techs who worked in mirage but didnt get their GCS for 10-15 days spent in KAF. Wouldnt the same apply in this case?


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jun 2012)

Those BM-21s did not have the range to hit CHA................


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> If it's the old Grad they would have around a 22ish km range. How long were they operating in Libyan waters would be something that I would think would need to be determined to award a GCS.
> 
> On your article you just posted: "She said HMCS Charlottetown was not hit because the crew considers the enemy's weapons capabilities and sails outside the maximum range."
> 
> ...



Possibly, since 30 days is the req for the GCS. Multiple ships sailing under Op Altair qualified for the GCS-SWA, yet they're operating well outside the effective range of AK-47s? 

But trust me, for Op Mobile it's going to be a NATO medal for all which will make awarding much easier, if anything.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Jun 2012)

I don't know if we were in range of the BM-21's....but I guess the newspaper article is the best source for OPEN SOURCE info as to where a ship was conducting OPS....


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Jun 2012)

I know NATO had been watching the Lybian ships which never put to sea for two months prior to the liberation. Not to mention the RAF took out all the ships prior to the naval arrival to ensure mines were not placed.

Maybe if the ship was involved in some sustained contact which cannot be spoke of a SSM would be the best route?


----------



## eliminator (17 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I know NATO had been watching the Lybian ships which never put to sea for two months prior to the liberation. Not to mention the RAF took out all the ships prior to the naval arrival to ensure mines were not placed.
> 
> Maybe if the ship was involved in some sustained contact which cannot be spoke of a SSM would be the best route?



...an SSM would be an interesting route, although it requires a min of 180 days to qualify. Canada will accept the NATO OUP medal for wear, but there will be disappointed recipients who I am sure will be writing memos to institute a GCS/GSM or OSM. 

I bet 10 years from now there will be a CANFORGEN calling recipients to exchange their previously awarded NATO OUP medal for a newly approved Canadian award.


----------



## Ostrozac (18 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> ...an SSM would be an interesting route, although it requires a min of 180 days to qualify.



Length of service for an SSM is whatever it needs to be. The SSM with bar has been awarded for varying minimum durations of service, from 30 days to 4 years. Although I believe that the SSM has been retired/phased out, in favour of the GCS/GSM/OSM systems.

I certainly feel that the Libya mission deserves specific Canadian recognition, rather than simply a NATO medal. I feel that the GCS/GSM would be an appropriate choice. So would minting a Libya Medal (along the lines of the Somalia Medal).


----------



## eliminator (18 Jun 2012)

SSM isn't going away. They still award the Ranger bar, Alert bar, and NATO bar, although its now more difficult to meet the NATO bar requirements as they've been revised.


----------



## misratah500 (18 Jun 2012)

To answer the earlier question of how the navy determines what is operation time. For the Vancouver it was the minute we transitted into the MED. We were in an operation area and were getting 3/1 Pay. We called this the "Big Box", when we got off the coast of Libya we received 4/3 pay. We called this the "little box". So the minute you get inside the MED, your doing time for some medal. It just depends on what command and mission your tasked under.


----------



## brihard (18 Jun 2012)

misratah, can you please clarify what you mean by 1/3 and 4/3 pay? Is that risk/hardship?


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Is that risk/hardship?



Yes.


----------



## dogger1936 (18 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> To answer the earlier question of how the navy determines what is operation time. For the Vancouver it was the minute we transitted into the MED. We were in an operation area and were getting 3/1 Pay. We called this the "Big Box", when we got off the coast of Libya we received 4/3 pay. We called this the "little box". So the minute you get inside the MED, your doing time for some medal. It just depends on what command and mission your tasked under.



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## misratah500 (19 Jun 2012)

You figure the CFCWO, would have at least an idea of which way the council was swinging in-regards to what medal. But maybe he was just giving out a political answer of "no decision has been made yet".


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> You figure the CFCWO, would have at least an idea of which way the council was swinging in-regards to what medal. But maybe he was just giving out a political answer of "no decision has been made yet".



Or he's arms-length from the process, and is simply just the first person to find out what the committee will decide.

Seriously, whats the big deal with getting a Libya medal RIGHT NOW? How long did it take the OSM to come out and recognize multiple different theatres, some of them more than a decade ago? Or how long it took to recognize multiple AFG tours on the GCS?

Honestly, I see the bigger issue here was with the TF Comd getting recognized 3 separate times before his troops got even a sniff that they'd be getting a medal for the operation.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How long did it take the OSM to come out and recognize multiple different theatres, some of them more than a decade ago? Or how long it took to recognize multiple AFG tours on the GCS?



Poor performance by the system in the past is not a reason to accept poor performance today.

I remember the days where the CF actually managed to present troops with their tour medals while they were still on tour. My second tour, Kosovo, was a roto zero and we still had our NATO medals presented to us well before departure.

I don't care too much about my own medal, but i have troops who are junior enough to barely have one hook now for whom OP MOBILE was a pretty big deal. They certainly deserve to stand proud with their one medal on, just like the rest of us old farts.


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Poor performance by the system in the past is not a reason to accept poor performance today.
> 
> I remember the days where the CF actually managed to present troops with their tour medals while they were still on tour. My second tour, Kosovo, was a roto zero and we still had our NATO medals presented to us well before departure.
> 
> I don't care too much about my own medal, but i have troops who are junior enough to barely have one hook now for whom OP MOBILE was a pretty big deal. They certainly deserve to stand proud with their one medal on, just like the rest of us old farts.



Agreed, and well said. There's no reason I can see for it to have taken this long. There are plenty of precedents to go with, and it's not like we're creating an honours *system* from scratch here. I'm pretty sure if the operation itself could be thrown together as quickly as it was, simple recognition for it shouldn't need a team of rocket surgeons to figure out.


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Honestly, I see the bigger issue here was with the TF Comd getting recognized 3 separate times before his troops got even a sniff that they'd be getting a medal for the operation.



Again....

THIS.


----------



## misratah500 (19 Jun 2012)

Yeah, what was his awards so far?  Meritorious Service Cross, Legion of Merit (US),  Order of Canada. And the campaign medal when it comes out. Jeez, four medals for one mission. Jeez..


----------



## eurowing (19 Jun 2012)

I've been home a year, still waiting on 3 Bars for my GSM.  I did get the medal presented in theatre though.  I'm bettting I am back in KAF before I see the bars.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jun 2012)

It was less than two months from Dieppe to LCol Merritt being gazetted for the Victoria Cross.  The presentation was delayed over two and a half years, though.


And re: the CFCWO: Until the GG has made an announcement, any advice is considered to be a cabinet confidence (treat as secret).  No matter what he does or does not know he is not authorized to release information.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Jun 2012)

I think the issue we are facing here is closely related to any other issues in the CF.  We get bogged down in the paperwork/admin/technicalities, and in the end, people at the pointy end suffer the consequences of untimely decisions....


----------



## eliminator (19 Jun 2012)

Interesting Quote:



> Originally, the planned celebrations were to include the awarding of special medals to all the Canadian personnel who took part in the campaign. Unfortunately, it was soon realized that the number of decorations needed could not be produced in time. Instead it was decided to centre the attention on Bouchard by awarding him the Meritorious Service Cross.



http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/75029-recognize-sacrifice-soldiers-yes-spare-extravagance

Really? Could not be produced in time? Wonder where this fact came from?


----------



## misratah500 (19 Jun 2012)

That was back when I was  still on deployment myself. I wonder what happened. Did they go on a extended vacation, or once the good General was recognized they kinda just forgot about it. 

In other news HMCS Protecteur finally got their OSM-Exp medals. They earned them in the winter of 2011. So that was about a year and a half. Seems to be par for the course I guess.


----------



## NavyShooter (20 Jun 2012)

*shrug*  My OSM-Exp medal isn't even ordered....from 2008...because I have to prove that I was actually ON the ship when it was deployed...because my COS date was set in the middle of the OP Caribbe trip...so I have set another admin office into investigating it...*sigh*


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jun 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> *shrug*  My OSM-Exp medal isn't even ordered....from 2008...



Same sort of thing with me. My current unit can get their brain wrapped around OP CARIBBE and me having done it from 3 different locations during 3 different time periods. I'll sort it out when i get back to my original unit this summer.


----------



## medicineman (20 Jun 2012)

Fact is guys and gals, there are people that are paid big bucks, likely by the hour, to figure these things out...I got my OSM-Haiti 7 years after the fact, simply because they were haggling for ever and a day over what they felt we should actually get (if anything) since we were out of sight and mind down there.  The TF Commander and RSM and other senior staff got their MSC's within months of returning, as per norm.  My guess is there is a bit of a tiff going on over the combat/non-combat side of the house (GCS vs GSM) and what constitutes the actual danger box.  What you all have on your side is that this operation was in full view of Canadians because of the press given it and the high profile nature - if things don't get hammered out soon, ye olde "Globe and Mail Test" will likely start coming into it's own.  Most people think I was in Haiti for the aftermath of the earthquake a couple years ago...not in 2004 when the place went to Hell in a hand basket...again.

Chins up...don't lead with them though.

MM


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (20 Jun 2012)

> I'll sort it out when i get back to my original unit this summer.


 That's kinda funny since 407 now belongs to Greenwood.  :blotto:


----------



## NavyShooter (20 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Same sort of thing with me. My current unit can get their brain wrapped around OP CARIBBE and me having done it from 3 different locations during 3 different time periods. I'll sort it out when i get back to my original unit this summer.



What....your current unit can't figure out the admin on this one?     ;D     :brickwall:    ;D

Or, like me, leaving units too quick to get stuff sorted out properly before you leave...


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2012)

I thought we created the GCS/GCM/OSM system to avoid this problem?


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Jun 2012)

TB said:
			
		

> That's kinda funny since 407 now belongs to Greenwood.  :blotto:



Simmer down...  I don't think we belong to 14 Wing yet.   Functional Wing Concept, best idea ever!  Although 405 is supposed to be getting their own techs, which is a good idea.  14 AMS is pretty much useless.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (20 Jun 2012)

It's a done deal. We got the email in Ops.


----------



## Pusser (20 Jun 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think the issue we are facing here is closely related to any other issues in the CF.  We get bogged down in the paperwork/admin/technicalities, and in the end, people at the pointy end suffer the consequences of untimely decisions....



Perhaps it's because these things take time and *people* to sort through the files, order the medals, check them, ship them, etc.  Many on this site have frequently advocated the wholesale hacking and slashing of "unneccessary" HQ staffs.  One of the consequences of this approach is that things like this tend to fall down the list of priorities and thus, they will be delayed because there will be fewer people to do more work.

It's only going to get worse folks...


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jun 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It's only going to get worse folks...


How can it get worse FFS?  You'd think we had an Armed Forces equal in size, scope and operation of the Second World War...  We have small numbers going here and there relatively speaking, it's not like this is a gallantry award which needs to be vetted through several layers of paperpushers.  

It's a common "everybody get's one who qualifies gong" that can be, but obviously isn't, churned out in quantity so that the troops, who count first  can get the recogniton they deserved in a timely bloody fashion.  It's not rocket science!
You don't need more butts in seats in Ottawa making more loops and spins for this shit to go through, you need to simplify the godamned system so the troops get taken care of properly.  Tasking on Time!!!! That's leadership.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jun 2012)

Isn't one of the first principles of an effective H&A system is that it be timely ?



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Many on this site have frequently advocated the wholesale hacking and slashing of "unneccessary" HQ staffs.



I suggest it is high time for you to leave NDHQ.

Reality out there might shock you.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jun 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's because these things take time and *people* to sort through the files, order the medals, check them, ship them, etc.  Many on this site have frequently advocated the wholesale hacking and slashing of "unneccessary" HQ staffs.  One of the consequences of this approach is that things like this tend to fall down the list of priorities and thus, they will be delayed because there will be fewer people to do more work.
> 
> It's only going to get worse folks...



Nope.  We need Commanding Officers to be empowered, and minimal staff to execute - and robust internal review to hang the guilty bastards if they abuse their authority.

So, for example, a CO orders a CD for Bloggins - the CD should be issued on the CO's authority.  No staff in Ottawa or anywhere else checking every single submission.  Indeed, the whole delivery of much H&A should be outsourced - no need to have uniformed personnel or public servants doing it; get some large-scale mail order processor to do it on the CF's behalf.

Keep expertise on adjudication of tricky files, and on development of new H&A?  Yes.   But shipping and handling in-house?  Waste of money.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's because these things take time and *people* to sort through the files, order the medals, check them, ship them, etc.  Many on this site have frequently advocated the wholesale hacking and slashing of "unneccessary" HQ staffs.  One of the consequences of this approach is that things like this tend to fall down the list of priorities and thus, they will be delayed because there will be fewer people to do more work.
> 
> It's only going to get worse folks...



We only need these people because of over-bureaucractized process.  Mission command is absent from much of our day to day business processes.

Concerning the H&A system, I am looking at a diagram of the Award Approval Process from the CEFCOM site which I frequently use to educate fellow staff officers as to why the process is so long and drawn out.  Between action and approval, there are 7 stages, each of which generally requires an Honours and Awards Committee.  Staffing a committee involves getting players together, preparing files, discussing files, fixing files, and then staffing for signature.  Send to the next level and repeat x7.  You can see how weeks turn into months turn into years.

The obvious solution is to put policy into place limiting the amount of committees or signatures required.  If a committee is going to sit at the national level at DHR, is it really necessary to sit one at every level to get it there?  Perhaps a commander's signature and the judgement of a formation commander is enough?


----------



## eliminator (20 Jun 2012)

I personally think DH&R is doing some good work. They've published a considerable amount of literature to educate people and they've instituted a GSM to capture all the "forgotten" missions. Just look at all of those medals posters, books on the CD, annual reviews, and info pamphlets. Also, the quality of awards themselves have improved dramatically. No more "lowest bidder" producing sloppy SSMs, SWASMS, CDs, etc. Medals are now produced by the mint and are engraved with the recipients details in many cases.

Let's take the CD for example. Someone in my office just qualified as of this March and the medal is now waiting at the OR to be presented to the individual at the next H&A ceremony. Pretty good in my books compared to the late 90s and early 2000s. Another example is Afghanistan. Members are getting named medals at about the mid-way mark through 6-month tours. Again, not too shabby.

Obviously there's going to be time lag, but I'd imagine a decent chunk of that originates at the unit level in many cases. Its too bad about the Libya mission medal, I'm sure there was a ribbon design on the books for a GCS/GSM or OSM, but someone derailed it at higher.


----------



## dogger1936 (20 Jun 2012)

Then there's the fact it's only a medal. My gunner got some CEFCOM commanders coin for an action we did overseas. I was told I was getting something else and it was going up higher. I didn't get squat. Being 3 years ago now I have zero expectation of ever getting anything for it.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jun 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I was told I was getting something else and it was going up higher. I didn't get squat. Being 3 years ago now I have zero expectation of ever getting anything for it.



Perfect example of why members nominated for H&As should not be told they have been nominated.


----------



## dogger1936 (20 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Perfect example of why members nominated for H&As should not be told they have been nominated.



Well when your crew gets the coin at a pde without you..the command team tends to haul you aside to tell you why.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2012)

I was due my second rosette last Sept. It was properly indented for. Still haven't got it. :boring:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Jun 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's because these things take time and *people* to sort through the files, order the medals, check them, ship them, etc.  Many on this site have frequently advocated the wholesale hacking and slashing of "unneccessary" HQ staffs.  One of the consequences of this approach is that things like this tend to fall down the list of priorities and thus, they will be delayed because there will be fewer people to do more work.
> 
> It's only going to get worse folks...



It is actually going to get a lot better, as we will remove the multiple layers of bureaucracy and staff that mostly consist of Capts and LCdrs filling in each other's neato spreadsheets. 

Infanteer, dapaterson and jollyjacktar have all hit the nail square on the head - and before you ask, yes, I have served in NDHQ, but I never drank the Kool Aid.

I hate to tell you this Pusser, but you are not the solution.  You are the problem.


----------



## NavyShooter (21 Jun 2012)

Personal opinion.... H&A in the CF is broken.  Has been broken for a long time. 

Anyone can look at their MPRR and see when they're due for their CD....why is there not some trigger built into the system that automatically orders and delivers the CD to the member's unit at 11.5 years....so that it's there waiting for awarding to the member...ON TIME.....it's not like anyone should be surprised that someone's 12th or 22nd or 32nd anniversary of service is coming up....the member knows it well....units recognize it...in fact, my current unit gives a day of short leave on your service anniversary (to be used w/in 30 days.) 

Who here has actually seen a CD awarded to a member ON TIME?   EVER?   (Subtract the GG, who gets it on Day 1 in their job.)

Let's look at the above mentioned process...7 different approval stages.  And somehow, the medals awarded to the BGen have sailed through that, while the stuff for the troops is mired in the process.  

THAT is what's broken about the H&A system.

Know your people and promote their welfare.  

IMO, it appears that there is a failure to do that in this case.

NS


----------



## wesleyd (21 Jun 2012)

Yep still waiting for my CD1 due in Oct 2010, and my SWASM bars did my third tour in 2008.


----------



## captloadie (21 Jun 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Personal opinion.... H&A in the CF is broken.  Has been broken for a long time.
> 
> Anyone can look at their MPRR and see when they're due for their CD....why is there not some trigger built into the system that automatically orders and delivers the CD to the member's unit at 11.5 years....so that it's there waiting for awarding to the member...ON TIME.....it's not like anyone should be surprised that someone's 12th or 22nd or 32nd anniversary of service is coming up....the member knows it well....units recognize it...in fact, my current unit gives a day of short leave on your service anniversary (to be used w/in 30 days.)



It relates to the inherent fear of risk that has become the way in the CF. What's it cost to mint a CD? Probably not alot. What number of personnel screw up in the last 6 months (less than 100 I would think), or have an error in their records that would award a CD when not entitled (maybe a few more, but not a huge number). But . . . , most don't want to manange the risk of having, maybe a hundred or even 500 hundres medals a year being returned after minting due to an error. The safest route is to ensure that everything is ready to go before staffing the request. That is what we do, choose the safest route.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Personal opinion.... H&A in the CF is broken.  Has been broken for a long time.
> 
> Anyone can look at their MPRR and see when they're due for their CD....why is there not some trigger built into the system that automatically orders and delivers the CD to the member's unit at 11.5 years....so that it's there waiting for awarding to the member...ON TIME.....it's not like anyone should be surprised that someone's 12th or 22nd or 32nd anniversary of service is coming up....the member knows it well....units recognize it...in fact, my current unit gives a day of short leave on your service anniversary (to be used w/in 30 days.)



True, but there are people who do not have squeaky clean records which are not necessarily recorded/visible on their MPRR.

[EDIT to add:  This is administrative measure that may or may not be done by someone imputing data into HMRS.....or whatever to update MPRRs and we all know how that works.]


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Jun 2012)

Not an issue. Check it before you hand it over. Sounds like an excellent job for the Adjt to task those young LT's to do.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jun 2012)

If the staffing system can be fixed, that is streamlined, all the better. I have a copy of the Operational Hanbook for the First Canadian Army, Formation Organization, Staff Technique and Administration by John R. Grodzinski, 1996. On page 108 there is a discussion of the Honours and Awards system, which is well worth reading. The opening sentence reads "Awards were categorized as Immediate, Periodic, Special or Miscellaneous." Immediate awards were gallantry decorations  for a specific act or acts in battle, while Periodic were awards were for valuable services over a period of time, not necessarily under fire. Approval of both had been delegated to the Commander, 21st Army Group. Special awards were for the Victoria Cross, George Cross and George Medal which required special handling re substantiation of the circumstances and approval by higher authority. Miscellaneous awards were for long service or good service not in action medals.

The section includes the example of a recommendation for an immediate Military Cross to a lieutenant in the 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment for a action on 12 Apr 45. It was received at brigade on 21 Apr, division 25 Apr, Corps 12 May, Army 23 May and was approved by Montgomery in Jun.

Edit to add: The award was gazetted on 24 Jul 45. In other words, from deed to official promulgation took just over three months. My source for this is the Service Publication CD "Courage & Service Second World War Awards to Canadians."

It would be gratifying if our system could approach this efficiency, which after all was in the days of handwritten drafts, manual typewriters, gestetners, snail mail and a real shooting war. Extra staffing by a myriad of committees won't do anything but impose delay after delay.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jun 2012)

I believe it is Lt Black MC that Old Sweat is referring to.

Just to show that the 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment treated all ranks equally, see att Sgt Westwood MM for an action three days previous, 9 Apr 45.

The IO of the 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment was on ball as in the unit's short history there were 33 awards. I say IO as I have been told it was the IO (in a Inf Bn anyway) who wrote up the nominations at that time. Old Sweat will know.

I never received a nomination for an award of any description from a unit during my time as G1. The subject was continually brought up at Comd Conf, call msg etc. All a unit had to do was nominate and provide the info. The nomination would be written for them. Could not be easier.

A Bde Comd Commendation was designed (acrylic plaque with inserted coin plus folder/stationary), and promulgated. Very, very few pers were nominated. A Bde Coin was instituted for five years service (to be given out at the Xmas Dinner). Coin were pushed: not many were given away. 

The staffing and timelines on an ORMM were honorific. At some point down the line (NDHQ ??) they had to be translated. My understanding of the screening process was: Unit, Bde, LFA, LFC, NDHQ, and the Board. A nomination from NDHQ has less steps. Never liked that.

Of the five ORMM's I wrote, three (two Reg F, one P Res) were awarded. Why several Reg F units never nominated these two individuals is beyond me.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jun 2012)

It's another fine example of how the system is supposed to work, but it was from the 1st Canadian Armoured Car Regiment aka The Royal Canadian Dragoons, and not the 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment. 

Rifleman62 has raised another excellent point - for someone to receive an award, a recommendation has to be submitted.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jun 2012)

DHH has Lt Black listed under the 1st Canadian Armoured Car Regiment (RCD) vice 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment  (which only lists one decoration, an MM).  1 Cdn Armd Regt (RCD) is also listed vice 1st Canadian Armoured Car Regiment (RCD).

Sgt Westwood is listed correctly.

LCol Churchill DSO, the first CO of 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment is listed under the 1st Canadian Armoured Car Regiment (RCD).

I noticed this when researching material for Norm's Moyland Wood article for the Devils' Blast. I have emailed DHH on these errors and others and received a response.


----------



## quadrapiper (21 Jun 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> It relates to the inherent fear of risk that has become the way in the CF. What's it cost to mint a CD? Probably not alot. What number of personnel screw up in the last 6 months (less than 100 I would think), or have an error in their records that would award a CD when not entitled (maybe a few more, but not a huge number). But . . . , most don't want to manange the risk of having, maybe a hundred or even 500 hundres medals a year being returned after minting due to an error. The safest route is to ensure that everything is ready to go before staffing the request. That is what we do, choose the safest route.


Seems a balance might be struck by delivering a "tripwire" message to the member's chain of command at 11.25 or whatever; "barring a response indicating otherwise, subject member will be awarded the CD as of (date)."


----------



## Pusser (22 Jun 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It is actually going to get a lot better, as we will remove the multiple layers of bureaucracy and staff that mostly consist of Capts and LCdrs filling in each other's neato spreadsheets.
> 
> Infanteer, dapaterson and jollyjacktar have all hit the nail square on the head - and before you ask, yes, I have served in NDHQ, but I never drank the Kool Aid.
> 
> I hate to tell you this Pusser, but you are not the solution.  You are the problem.



You'll have to excuse me if I take that a little personally.  You don't know me.  You have never met me.  You have no idea how much time I have devoted over the years to streamlining processes and cutting out unnecessary BS.  I have locked horns with many on these issues.  Many times I've been successful, other times not so much.  The problem is intransigence at all levels that want immediate change in other folks' processes, but are unwilling to change their own approach or devote the resources necessary to make positive change.  Couple that with a fundamental lack of understanding of what is actually required to make the changes desired and we all get frustrated.

The fact is that no process is developed in isolation and no one lies awake at night dreaming up ways to complicate and bog it down.  Every step is designed for a purpose that at least at one time was real and necessary.  Should processes be reviewed periodically and perhaps changed?  Absolutely!  However, before we remove or streamline a process, we must first ensure that the original reason for it in the first place is no longer relevant.  Sadly, that step is often missed and we end up in worse situation than where we started.

Order a CD before the member is actually entitled in anticipation of awarding it on the day?  We used to do that, but there were enough situations where the CD had to be pulled back that it became untenable.  An individual mistake may not cost much (the actual cost of one CD is about $35), but this can add up and even $35 is bit much for scrap metal.

Too many levels of review?  Perhaps we should be asking ourselves what created that situation?  Why do commanders at each level want to see the nominations?  Perhaps the quality of the original submissions is less than adequate?  Considering that the CDS himself chairs the CF Decorations Advisory Committee, I would think that the commanders along the way would want to ensure that everything going there is well presented.  Sure, things seemed to go quicker 60 years ago, but people also seemed to write better then.

When you start hacking and slashing away at the support elements, don't be surprised if the level of support drops a little.  And no, I have not spent my entire career in Ottawa.  In fact, far from it.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Jun 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You'll have to excuse me if I take that a little personally.  You don't know me.


You are correct. 

From following through your posts for any length of time however, we can pretty well discern where you fit into the scheme of things. Sorry if your feelings are hurt, but I have to side with PPCLI Guy on this one.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Jun 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You'll have to excuse me if I take that a little personally.  You don't know me.  You have never met me.  You have no idea how much time I have devoted over the years to streamlining processes and cutting out unnecessary BS.  I have locked horns with many on these issues.  Many times I've been successful, other times not so much.  The problem is intransigence at all levels that want immediate change in other folks' processes, but are unwilling to change their own approach or devote the resources necessary to make positive change.  Couple that with a fundamental lack of understanding of what is actually required to make the changes desired and we all get frustrated.the CDS himself chairs the CF Decorations Advisory Committee, I would think that the commanders along the way would want to ensure that everything going there is well presented.  Sure, things seemed to go quicker 60 years ago, but people also seemed to write better then.




Pusser,

I am not at all surprised that you took this personally - I would have taken all of this the same way myself.  Moreover, I made it personal, and somewhat deliberately, and evidentally to some effect.  Having said that, you (specifically) are not the windmill at which I tilt.  Rather, it is the entire idea of staff officers who know better than commanders that is driving me here.  I, like you (albeit almost definitely in entirely different domains and likely in differing degrees / scale) have commanded at a few levels.  As such, I jealously guard the prerogatives of command, which are codified in the NDA and used to be absolute.  Sadly, they no longer are.  We have allowed commanders at every level to be neutered by risk adverse and process centered functionaries, to the overall detriment of the soldier / sailor etc.  That is what I can no longer abide.

If I as a hypothetical commander, nominate someone for an award, you, as a putative staff officer are obliged to find the way to make that happen, rather than explain the reasons why it should not.  The onus does not lie with the commander who was chosen by the leadership of the service in a highly stringent process to make hard decisions to actually explain himself.  Rather the onus lies with you who was posted to a staff position for multiple and competing reasons (the least of which is likely to be career potential development) to manifest my intent.

I do not mean all of that in an arrogant sense at all.  It is simply about roles.  Commanders decide.  Staff enable.  Being closer to the Clock Tower does not confer any special powers or intellectual capacity upon a staff officer.   He or she is still the same stellar performer / average plug / admin nightmare that he/she was in Edmonton or Esquimalt.  

So, processes (streamlined or otherwise) are not the answer.  As always, it is the output that matters, measured in its utility to a) achieving the mission, and b) serving the member.  Those who fail to see the difference are less than useful.  Sadly, many of them end up manning the process ramparts for the remnants of their careers, carefully scanning the horizons for any threats to their "processes".

How about we give commanders at all levels back their nuts and fire the those who screw it up (followed by beheading of those who chose the commander in the first place).  This will allow us to pull down the Guild Houses and lift the shroud of "process" that has driven us to multiple levels of overborne HQs.



> When you start hacking and slashing away at the support elements, don't be surprised if the level of support drops a little.



Do not confuse support and headquarters.  They are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Jun 2012)

:goodpost:  300+


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jun 2012)

:nod:


----------



## aesop081 (22 Jun 2012)




----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jun 2012)

To add a somewhat different viewpoint, but one that speaks to what PPCLI Guy was saying:

I remember back in 1995 when I was an MS at LFWA G1. There was an Honours and Awards committee. This was ostensibly to ensure that submissions were properly managed for furtherance to Ottawa. The reality was that units would make nominations through their own committees (usually CO/RSM/Adjt etc), and LFWA would fuss with them, send them back, or outright refuse them. It was a very finely meshed sieve.

I was astonished by the process. I could not then, nor can I now understand how a staff function so dramatically affected a command prerogative. Given my experiences later in my career, I can see not much has changed. I think it bears remembering by staff at all levels that these recommendations are from Commander to Commander, not Commander to staff. It is certainly the role of staff to ensure that the "I"s are dotted and "T"s crossed, but not to return recommendations out of hand, or act as a filter. That job falls to the national honours committee. If a recommendation is properly formatted, it should go forward. The CO obviously thought the member was deserving and did his/her own due diligence in making the nomination. Neither should the volume of nominations be a reason for slowing down the process. 

It used to irritate me as a SgtMaj to know that I would nominate someone and that paperwork would face committee at the unit, Area, Army, and then national level. In reality, there should be two committees - unit and national. The rest is for information purposes only.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jun 2012)

Best Post Award!

I have not heard the term "plug" for years.

Was there an occasion when the CO of 3 PPCLI (name escapes me) resigned on principal during the mission to FYR?

ModlrMike: That is exactly what I posted about. I was the G1 at 38 CBG.


----------



## Scott (22 Jun 2012)

Another +300 from me.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> .... processes (streamlined or otherwise) are not the answer.  As always, it is the output that matters, measured in its utility to a) achieving the mission, and b) serving the member.  Those who fail to see the difference are less than useful.  Sadly, many of them end up manning the process ramparts for the remnants of their careers, carefully scanning the horizons for any threats to their "processes".
> 
> How about we give commanders at all levels back their nuts and fire the those who screw it up (followed by beheading of those who chose the commander in the first place).  This will allow us to pull down the Guild Houses and lift the shroud of "process" that has driven us to multiple levels of overborne HQs.
> 
> ...








+300 from me, too, for PPCLI dude


----------



## eurowing (22 Jun 2012)

Regarding CD's being awarded to early in the event the member has done something to negate receipt at the 12 year mark.  Why pull it back and incure all the extra cost?  Stuff it in the RSM's filing cabinet, or in the OR with a note on the PERs file to prevent it being forgotten on a posting until the new due date is reached.  Are there really THAT many issued CDs that would never get issued at all?

$35 Dollars??  I threw away one time use nuts and bolts that cost $1000 or more each, actually I remember one case where a custom fit bolt cost $7500. I know it is apples and oranges, but seriously, 35 dollars X 500 doesn't even cover an F18 launch.  The time spent vetting all this stuff could be put to better use.   I guess I am trying to call it a false economy or a poor use of resources.

My $0.02 worth.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It used to irritate me as a SgtMaj to know that I would nominate someone and that paperwork would face committee at the unit, Area, Army, and then national level. In reality, there should be two committees - unit and national. The rest is for information purposes only.



Here, here!

 :goodpost:


----------



## misratah500 (25 Jun 2012)

Is it  possible to just email someone at DH&R? Do they have a POC for inquires about medals and such? Or public affairs people at that office?


----------



## NavyShooter (25 Jun 2012)

I've spoken with a few folks in my old COC...and they have spoken higher...and nothing is decided yet.

NS


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> Is it  possible to just email someone at DH&R? Do they have a POC for inquires about medals and such? Or public affairs people at that office?



If a decision has not been made, emailing DH&R will not yield anything.


----------



## medicineman (25 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If a decision has not been made, emailing DH&R will not yield anything.



...other than a terse email back with two words - one starting with 'F' and the other ending with same.

MM


----------



## misratah500 (25 Jun 2012)

A little info came down via our clerks today on Vancouver today was that Ottawa doesn't consider the awards for OP Mobile a priority right now. So we'll have to wait. I cannot verify this though.


----------



## Danjanou (25 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> A little info came down via our clerks today on Vancouver today was that Ottawa doesn't consider the awards for OP Mobile a priority right now. So we'll have to wait. I cannot verify this though.



Of course not. They're too busy trying to figure out if the War of 1812 pin should be worn just this year or until 2014. :


----------



## eliminator (25 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If a decision has not been made, emailing DH&R will not yield anything.



Official DH&R reply:

"Regrettably, there's not much to say except that a proposal was forwarded to the Chancellery of Honours at Rideau Hall for consideration by the Government Honours Policy Committee at Privy Council Office (PCO) to have the NATO medal for Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR in Libya [Op MOBILE] approved for wear by Canadians. Machinery of Government at PCO is the place where the Order-in-Council approval process occurs and this process can be lengthy and remains "honours in confidence" throughout. 

We are hopeful, however, that an official announcement will come from the Government soon, at which point, DH&R will be able to get our related information/communication package rolling. Normally this includes an internal CANFORGEN with instructions for Units and CF Members about the criteria & medal application process; this also includes website updates; and afterwards, everything should fall into place and medals should be issued to eligible recipients as quickly as possible."


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> A little info came down via our clerks today on Vancouver today was that Ottawa doesn't consider the awards for OP Mobile a priority right now. So we'll have to wait. I cannot verify this though.



From what I have seen that is not the case - at all.  Keep in mind that there is a lot of co-ordination needed - CF, NATO, political, and finally the Governor General.

There is also the consideration of finding a good time to announce and present the awards, though - if the government is in the middle of a big push for something else, this could get little or no notice; to this government's credit, they've tried to ensure that military recognition gets media attention and is the focus of their messaging when it takes place.


----------



## eliminator (26 Jun 2012)

and out of left field:



> New honour for Canadian vets from Second World War Bomber Command
> at 14:35 on June 25, 2012, EDT.
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...



http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/19190723.xml&CatID=National


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jun 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...there is a lot of co-ordination needed - CF, NATO, political, clerks in Vancouver,  and finally the Governor General.


I'm glad I've moved past the point in my career where I've gotten too concerned about gossip.


----------



## Strike (26 Jun 2012)

eliminator said:
			
		

> and out of left field:
> 
> http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/19190723.xml&CatID=National



Maybe that would be because the number of people who were ever involved in bomber command is dwindling a bit faster than more recent operations?


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jun 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Of course not. They're too busy trying to figure out if the War of 1812 pin should be worn just this year or until 2014. :



Now now, don't you go mentioning 1814 and the solid butt kicking that the British got at New Orleans, which closed out a fuzzy and inconclusively wierd conflict. Everyone knows that the war ended right after the Whitehouse was burned down, right?  :

On the other hand, maybe we should adopt the Johnny Horton ballad about the battle of New Orleans as the unofficial theme song for the 1812 commemoration events?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxB42cjHTGg


----------



## misratah500 (26 Jun 2012)

That bomber command thing was definitely out of left field. And a special pin for the war of 1812 jeez.


----------



## Strike (26 Jun 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> That bomber command thing was definitely out of left field.



Please explain why you think that is then.


----------



## eliminator (26 Jun 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Please explain why you think that is then.



Just the timing really. The fact that this is happening almost 70 years after the fact raises some eyebrows. IMO, it's an incredibly slippery slope and sets a precedent for other WWII groups who will want some sort of special recognition for their particular contributions.

From what I've been told and have read, the Bomber Command veterans were/are a special group. They took on incredible risks during their missions, with a devastating percentage of aircrew never returning from even one mission. Following the awarding of the Air Crew Europe Star, some felt that it was never enough. For years, veterans groups advocated for a special bar/medal/award for Bomber Command, but it never happened. Nobody wanted to set a precedent, for fear that other groups would want similar recognition. The issue faded from the limelight. So, why now? Did some veterans ban together in their final years on this earth to give-er one last push? Or is it the work of some self-serving lobby group? I fear the latter.

So, here we are, in about a year, the few remaining Bomber Command veterans or family members will start getting their bar in the mail. I predict that other groups like "Fighter Command" will use this to institute additional similar bars. I'm sure by the year 2030 it will all be sorted out.

This might be an odd comparison, but just imagine those who served "outside the wire" in KAF getting a special bar for their GCS 70 years from now. 

I personally view such decisions in the same boat as the Sacrifice Medal. While there was already recognition in the form of a Wound Stripe, someone felt that "it wasn't good enough" and advocated for the SM. Was it surviving wounded CF members or their families who pushed for this, or was it an action group? I'm not sure. Again, I point to the slippery slope, and in the next year or so you will witness a civil version of the Sacrifice Medal for police/fire/emergency/etc. Much like the range of no less than currently six "Exemplary Service Medals" that could have been captured with one medal. (Basically, non-RCMP police wanted a long service medal like the RCMP, then fire services, then corrections, then coast guard, etc, etc... Again, slippery slope.


----------



## dogger1936 (26 Jun 2012)

I'm sad to say as soon as I heard this bomber command bar; all I could think was what a great way for the current government to appear to be looking after vet's before their summer break.

Political smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## eliminator (19 Jul 2012)

Vol. 146, No. 15 — July 18, 2012

Registration

SI/2012-51 July 18, 2012

OTHER THAN STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Non-Article 5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal for Services on Operations and Activities in Relation to Africa Order

P.C. 2012-951 June 28, 2012

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister,

(a) authorizes Canadians to accept and wear the Non-Article 5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal for Service on NATO Operation “UNIFIED PROTECTOR - LIBYA”, in recognition of honourable service; and

(b) directs that the Medal follow the Non-Article 5 NATO Medal for Service on Operations and Activities Approved by the North Atlantic Council in Relation to Africa in the order of precedence in the Canadian Honours System.

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/2012-07-18/html/si-tr51-eng.htm


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2012)

CANFORGEN 138/12 CMP 058/12 051827Z JUL 12
AUTHORITY TO WEAR THE NON-ARTICLE 5 NATO OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR - LIBYA MEDAL
UNCLASSIFIED


REFS: A. PC 2012-951, 28 JUNE 2012 

B. CANFORGEN 106/00 ADMHRMIL 064 081930Z SEP 00 

C. CANFORGEN 096/09 CMP 042/09 201315Z MAY 09 



THE GOVT OF CANADA HAS APPROVED THE ACCEPTANCE AND WEAR OF THE NON-ARTICLE 5 NATO MEDAL FOR SERVICE ON NATO OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR - LIBYA (NATO OUP-LIBYA MEDAL) 


THE MEDAL RECOGNIZES 30 CONSECUTIVE OR 60 CUMULATIVE DAYS OF HONOURABLE SERVICE WITH OUP, WHICH BEGAN ON 23 MAR 2011 AND ENDED ON 31 OCT 2011 


SERVICE AS PART OF OR IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF OUP WITHIN THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, TERRITORIAL WATERS AND AIRSPACE OF LIBYA IS ELIGIBLE AS IS SERVICE IN OR OVER THE CENTRAL SOUTHERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA BETWEEN 10 DEGREES EAST AND 28 DEGREES EAST AND SOUTH OF 41 DEGREES NORTH, AND SERVICE AT THE SUPPORT BASES OF TRAPANI AND SIGONELLA AND AT NATO AND CDN SUPPORTING HQS IN NAPLES AND POGGIO RENATICO (ITALY) 


AIRCREW FLYING FROM A LOCATION OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED ABOVE WILL ACCUMULATE ONE DAY OF SVC FOR THE FIRST SORTIE FLOWN INTO THE THEATRE ON ANY DAY. ADDITIONAL SORTIES FLOWN ON THE SAME DAY RECEIVE NO FURTHER CREDIT 


UNITS SHALL APPLY ON-LINE IAW REF B FOR THEIR ELIGIBLE MIL AND CIV PERS, ENSURING THAT DIRECTION AT REF C WRT PROOF OF SERVICE IS RESPECTED. APPLICATIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE NECESSARY PROOF OF SERVICE WILL BE REJECTED. SPECIFICALLY: 


CF PERS MUST HAVE AN UPDATED MPRR THAT SPECIFIES THE ACTUAL DEPLOYED DATES IN THEATRE AND NOT THE DATES OF THE CANADIAN FORCES TASKING PLANS AND OPERATIONS (CFTPO), WHICH OFTEN EXTEND BEYOND DEPLOYED TIME 


CIV PERS APPLICATIONS MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION PAGE OF THE PASSPORT OR THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE INDICATING FULL LEGAL NAME AS WELL AS POSTING OR TRAVEL DOCUMENTS INDICATING ACTUAL DATES IN THEATRE AND LOCATIONS WHERE WORK WILL TAKE PLACE 


THE NATO OUP-LIBYA MEDAL SHALL FOLLOW THE NON-ARTICLE 5 NATO MEDAL FOR NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL APPROVED NATO OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO AFRICA (NATO AFRICA MEDAL) IN THE CDN ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. A MINIATURE VERSION OF THE QUOTE OUP-LIBYA/LIBYE UNQUOTE BAR IS WORN CENTERED ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON 


RIBBON AND MINIATURE BARS WILL BE AVAIL IN THE CF SUPPLY SYSTEM AT A LATER DATE 


MORE INFO WILL BE AVAIL ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT HTTP://CMP-CPM.FORCES.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR 


SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH, CMP


----------



## misratah500 (21 Jul 2012)

Well that's nice that it's finally taken care of. I wonder how long the turn around will be to get the paperwork in to final presentation. I'll say sometime at the end of summer early fall? Anyone do the Winnipeg trip in 2009 know how long it took from paperwork to presentation. 

I wonder if they'll come up with a Canadian medal down the road when they have time and have us hand this one in like they've done for Kosovo.


----------



## eliminator (21 Jul 2012)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> Well that's nice that it's finally taken care of. I wonder how long the turn around will be to get the paperwork in to final presentation. I'll say sometime at the end of summer early fall? Anyone do the Winnipeg trip in 2009 know how long it took from paperwork to presentation.
> 
> I wonder if they'll come up with a Canadian medal down the road when they have time and have us hand this one in like they've done for Kosovo.



-Approval to wear NATO Non-Article 5 medal with "Africa bar" appeared in the 24 November 2010 Gazette (based on 09 November 2010 decision)

-First presentation was 06 December 2010 in Halifax for HMCS Fredericton crews who participated in OP SAIPH.

So, with that, it looks to be a relatively fast process. The company in Belgium who makes the UN/NATO medals has had the Libya OUP version on their site for sale for a few months now, so production shouldn't be an issue. 

Each NATO  medal is accompanied by a certificate that includes the date that the recipient participated in the Op, so this aspect might take a while as the dates are not necessarily the same as the CFTPO message.

I'm predicting October for the first mass presentations.


----------

