# One IC on member's PERS are there serious career implications? can it be removed



## SIGHTI (19 Mar 2014)

If a member has one IC on record, but corrects deficiency and let's say 1-3 years pass with no other remedial measures plus consistent good behaviour moving forward can that "initial counsel" (IC) have serious career implications and can it be removed after sometime? I know the policy states its permanent but? ... I'm thinking there might be a an appeal process to have it removed ... any thoughts? ... given it is minor like a couple late incidents?


----------



## Jorkapp (19 Mar 2014)

It is permanent. Given the issue is resolved and doesn't reoccur, I don't think the career implications would extend beyond the PER season for which the IC was issued.


----------



## SIGHTI (19 Mar 2014)

Guy Incognito said:
			
		

> It is permanent. Given the issue is resolved and doesn't reoccur, I don't think the career implications would extend beyond the PER season for which the IC was issued.



Sorry I should have been more specific with the question I might have worded it poorly "One IC on member's PERS file (Personal File) are there serious career implications? can it be removed?".  I meant Personal File as opposed to PER


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Mar 2014)

SIGHTI said:
			
		

> given it is minor like a couple late incidents?



Each of which was likely a chargeable offence.  There is a saying about crime and time....


----------



## ballz (19 Mar 2014)

I'm no expert but my boss is big on these kind of administrative measures and I've gotten some good PD on them.



			
				SIGHTI said:
			
		

> I know the policy states its permanent but? ... I'm thinking there might be a an appeal process to have it removed ... any thoughts? ... given it is minor like a couple late incidents?



The actual Initial Counselling can be redressed. 

However, if the issuing authority had their ducks in a row and documented "a couple late incidents" I suspect the mbr is not going to win that one. Administrative measures exist to assist the CoC in correcting performance / conduct deficiencies. If they have documented the deficiencies occuring on a few occasions, they have provided pretty good grounds for an IC.



			
				SIGHTI said:
			
		

> If a member has one IC on record, but corrects deficiency and let's say 1-3 years pass with no other remedial measures plus consistent good behaviour moving forward can that "initial counsel" (IC) have serious career implications and can it be removed after sometime?



If the deficiency is corrected going forward, there should not be any career implications in the future. Many good soldiers and officers have received ICs in their careers. It will affect this year's PER though.


----------



## Shamrock (20 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> The actual Initial Counselling can be redressed.



Within 6 months of the act (or with very good reason).


----------



## Occam (20 Mar 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Each of which was likely a chargeable offence.  There is a saying about crime and time....



Yup, if you do the crime, you have to do the time...and then several years later get a pardon, which wipes the slate clean.

Except you can't do that with an IC...I still find the fairness in that questionable.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Mar 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yup, if you do the crime, you have to do the time...and then several years later get a pardon, which wipes the slate clean.
> 
> Except you can't do that with an IC...I still find the fairness in that questionable.



Pardons deal with the code of service discipline. So yes, you could get your slate wiped clean.

Remedial measures deal with your career. The fairness standard is different. Many folks seem to think that once they join they have a guaranteed career for life. If someone is not working out, though, then they need to be prepared to be shown the door if they do not improve. The IC stays on the file so that a problem individual does not keep squeaking back over the line and then making the same mistakes later on without repercussions. A young soldier can have a great career even with an IC (or higher). I have worked with many great leaders who have some form of remedial measures on their file. It did not colour how I judged their performance, and indeed they had all been promoted with  remedial measures on their files.  It did make a difference, though, if they had issues with conduct or performance in that they started higher up the ladder.

Having said that, I thought very carefully about putting an individual on remedial measures. Just because I found a young soldier guilty of a service offence and awarded a punishment was not immediate grounds for an IC. A soldier could spend a week or two getting retrained by the duty staff in a controlled environment and then soldier on. After two years the minor punishments disappeared and there was no blemish on the pers file. If there was a clear pattern or the incident was very serious (drugs/DUI etc), though, then remedial measures would be initiated.


----------



## Occam (20 Mar 2014)

The problem is that the consequences of IC and RW are the same.  There should be a ramping up of consequences.  If the second step is a Recorded Warning, then what's the point of having an initial step where the consequences are also "recorded" for posterity?

The system of VW, RW, C&P made more sense.  The problem was that there was a problem with how the VW was being administered - units were coming up with documents that the supervisor and member had to sign, which made no sense because the idea was that the first warning was to be "verbal".  Administering the VW in the presence of someone else in the CoC would have resolved that, but it seems that was too simple.

I don't like the idea that an IC for <insert reason> is permanently recorded on a Pers File, and then the possibility exists that a second occurrence of the same trait 20 years later can result in a RW or C&P.  That hardly constitutes a pattern of behaviour, and presents too much opportunity for misuse by a CoC with an axe to grind.  It doesn't happen often, but it does happen - I've seen it.


----------



## jeffb (20 Mar 2014)

I'm not sure if this is just a unit thing but at my unit IC's may have little to no impact on PERs. Our PER guidance this year only requires us to mention a RW or C&P in relation to conduct on/off duty. However, an IC may be used to justify lower scoring during the meriting process and can be used to substantiate a lower scoring on another assessment factor, say decision making, without the need to specifically mention it. It really depends on what the IC is for I guess. If it's something relatively minor, say a missed medical appointment, I see no reason why that IC should have any impact on that soldiers career. I've seen Gnrs who have been advance promoted to Bdr despite having an IC. One IC, not an issue in my view so long as the member corrects the deficiency.


----------



## DAA (20 Mar 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> The problem is that the consequences of IC and RW are the same.  There should be a ramping up of consequences.  If the second step is a Recorded Warning, then what's the point of having an initial step where the consequences are also "recorded" for posterity?
> 
> The system of VW, RW, C&P made more sense.  The problem was that there was a problem with how the VW was being administered - units were coming up with documents that the supervisor and member had to sign, which made no sense because the idea was that the first warning was to be "verbal".  Administering the VW in the presence of someone else in the CoC would have resolved that, but it seems that was too simple.
> 
> I don't like the idea that an IC for <insert reason> is permanently recorded on a Pers File, and then the possibility exists that a second occurrence of the same trait 20 years later can result in a RW or C&P.  That hardly constitutes a pattern of behaviour, and presents too much opportunity for misuse by a CoC with an axe to grind.  It doesn't happen often, but it does happen - I've seen it.



Ah, the dreaded "Written Verbal Warning"     :facepalm:

IC's remain on the Pers File for the remainder of the CF members career.  Years later and provided their has not been a recurrence, most supervisors are intelligent enough to see them, realize it's not a huge issue and carry on.

Have a look at DAOD 5019-4 and in particular  -  Factors in Selecting a Remedial Measure  -  an IA shall consider the following factors before selecting an RM   ---> any previous deficiency substantially related to the current deficiency of the CF member and the amount of time that has elapsed between the two  (e.g. C&P is more likely to be initiated for a CF member in respect of whom an RW was initiated six months ago for a related deficiency, than in respect of whom a similar RW was initiated 20 years ago)

So I highly doubt that someone given an IC for tardiness 10 years ago, is going to end up with an RW as a result.  But still, it could happen.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Mar 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> The problem is that the consequences of IC and RW are the same.  There should be a ramping up of consequences.  If the second step is a Recorded Warning, then what's the point of having an initial step where the consequences are also "recorded" for posterity?
> 
> The system of VW, RW, C&P made more sense.  The problem was that there was a problem with how the VW was being administered - units were coming up with documents that the supervisor and member had to sign, which made no sense because the idea was that the first warning was to be "verbal".  Administering the VW in the presence of someone else in the CoC would have resolved that, but it seems that was too simple.
> 
> I don't like the idea that an IC for <insert reason> is permanently recorded on a Pers File, and then the possibility exists that a second occurrence of the same trait 20 years later can result in a RW or C&P.  That hardly constitutes a pattern of behaviour, and presents too much opportunity for misuse by a CoC with an axe to grind.  It doesn't happen often, but it does happen - I've seen it.



I found that Verbal Warnings or Notes to File made even less sense. They were handled differently between units and no record was kept. The IC is formal and recorded forever, but the consequences are quite mild unless you make a mistake in the same vein (as noted by Jeff). The old system saw folks slip through the cracks between postings/leadership changes. Under the new system, if you are given an IC you can still progress. You just know that you have to watch your step.


----------



## Occam (20 Mar 2014)

I agree it's not something that happens often.  Still, it provides fodder later on if someone's looking for it.  The escalation of consequences should be key to how the process should work.

"Halt! Or I'll tell you to Halt again!"


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Mar 2014)

What we do in my unit is to put a conclusion memo on top of the IC when it's done and over with...


----------



## SIGHTI (20 Mar 2014)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Pardons deal with the code of service discipline. So yes, you could get your slate wiped clean.
> 
> Remedial measures deal with your career. The fairness standard is different. Many folks seem to think that once they join they have a guaranteed career for life. If someone is not working out, though, then they need to be prepared to be shown the door if they do not improve. The IC stays on the file so that a problem individual does not keep squeaking back over the line and then making the same mistakes later on without repercussions. A young soldier can have a great career even with an IC (or higher). I have worked with many great leaders who have some form of remedial measures on their file. It did not colour how I judged their performance, and indeed they had all been promoted with  remedial measures on their files.  It did make a difference, though, if they had issues with conduct or performance in that they started higher up the ladder.
> 
> Having said that, I thought very carefully about putting an individual on remedial measures. Just because I found a young soldier guilty of a service offence and awarded a punishment was not immediate grounds for an IC. A soldier could spend a week or two getting retrained by the duty staff in a controlled environment and then soldier on. After two years the minor punishments disappeared and there was no blemish on the pers file. If there was a clear pattern or the incident was very serious (drugs/DUI etc), though, then remedial measures would be initiated.



How higher up the ladder are we talking?


----------



## armybuck041 (20 Mar 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> What we do in my unit is to put a conclusion memo on top of the IC when it's done and over with...



As alluded to above, an IC is never "done and over with", therefor making that memo a bit misleading. An IC is a career long "period of observation" for the behavior being addressed. A "period of observation" which accompanies an RW or C&P is an entirely different animal and the memo to lift it is a requirement. In the case of C&P (depending on the grounds) a letter from the CO is actually required to be sent to DMCA in order for them to render a decision to lift it. Issuing remedial measures should trigger a file review in order to determine if the member has previously displayed this behavior, and in some cases, how relevant a very old IC is in making the case for an RW. 

As much as people don't like the permanentness of the new remedial measures (specifically the IC), the old system was open to even more abuse and disregard. It was as easy to use it as an axe to grind, as it was to allow other pers to go cleaning the slate of their ongoing issues whenever they got a posting message. We all knew "that guy with the chronic drinking problem" back in the day. 

Although remedial measures can be removed from a members Pers File if grieved by the member (not redressed) and the decision is in favour of the member, it requires some pretty solid evidence displaying mistakes or unfairness made by the CoC. Even then the CO can elect not to hear the grievance and have it pushed to an Initial Authority up the line, (and technically it can still be referred to the Final Authority or CDS if the member isn't satisfied with the IA's decision). This is where one needs to really get a sober second thought from an Assisting Officer prior to grieving an IC. Memories tend to be long in our small army.

Anyway, in order to avoid all of this from happening in the first place, most Units require a Sub-Unit Comd to approve an IC prior to being issued to a Jnr NCO, and the CO for NCOs and Offrs. For succession planned NCOs and Offrs, it often requires bending the ear of the Formation Comd for approval.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Mar 2014)

SIGHTI said:
			
		

> How higher up the ladder are we talking?



I've worked with Sr NCOs that had some form of remedial measures on their file.


----------



## Haggis (21 Mar 2014)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I've worked with Sr NCOs that had some form of remedial measures on their file.



"Back in the day", it was almost a prerequisite for the more senior NCMs in the unit to have either some type of "paper" on their files or to have spent time in cells.


----------



## lcis00110 (21 Mar 2014)

IC's are very important.  You can get an IC over and over again over long periods of time.  However, usually if you have 2 of the same incident type of ICs spread a couple years apart, there maybe a problem and thus the escalation to an RW maybe warranted.  I have 2 ICs on my PERS file (one for conduct, one for performance deficiency and they're for separate incidents 10 yrs apart).  As I'm sure we all have had our ups and downs in our careers, we all need to use the administrative measures in order to work harder at overcoming our flaws and strive to be a better soldier, sailor, or aircrew.  The ICs have not been a factor in my career advancement, and they actually made me be a stronger soldier.  Use it as a motivator!!!


----------

