# Soldier reprimanded for misconduct



## 57Chevy (2 Jul 2010)

An Edmonton-based soldier has been reprimanded and fined after being involved in "inappropriate" conduct with a subordinate while overseas.

Capt. Michael Gough was second-in-command of Lord Strathcona's Horse B Squadron when he "inappropriately conducted himself with another CF member" in Cyprus on April 24, said navy Lt. Melanie Graham, spokeswoman for 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, a unit stationed in Edmonton.

Gough, who is married, was returning from a tour of duty in Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers stop in Cyprus to decompress before going back home.

He was charged with "conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline," Graham said.

Gough chose to have his summary trial heard by a senior officer within his own command -- in other words, one of his bosses.

"Capt. Gough admitted to the charges against him and was found guilty," Graham said.

The senior officer who heard the case, Col. Omer Lavoie, did not have the authority to dismiss the soldier from the armed forces, Graham said.

Gough was fined $2,000 and a reprimand will remain on his permanent record, but he was not demoted.

Graham said prior to his misconduct, Gough had been on a fairly positive career path.

"He will now have to work twice to three times as hard to get his career back on track," she added.

Gough's actions were less important than the fact that they did not contribute constructively to his leadership, Graham said, adding that the captain's behaviour set a bad example for his troops.

"Leadership is a privilege and a responsibility," she said. "When our leaders make poor choices we have to make sure it is costly for them."

Gough was already scheduled to leave Edmonton Garrison, Graham said, but she could not confirm where his next posting will be.

In May, Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard, was relieved of his duties and sent home amid allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a female member of his staff.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Explosion+army+office+Trois+Rivieres/3227237/Soldier+reprimanded+misconduct/3226879/story.html#ixzz0sXWV3jHL


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


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Graham said prior to his misconduct, Gough had been on a fairly positive career path.
> 
> "He will now have to work twice to three times as hard to get his career back on track," she added.
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter where he gets posted now, the repercussions can be just as bad as if he stayed in his unit.  Poor leadership qualities being passed on as an Instructor at the Armour School or RSS are far more damaging than as an officer shunned in a unit.  A Staff job only hides a person until such time that they may go back to their unit, the School or RSS.   

I will now assume that this officer is a ROTP graduate and has time remaining in a VIE.  One flaw in the System:  Graduates who have no leadership or management skills being retained as opposed to being dismissed and made to pay back their tuition, etc.


----------



## The Gues-|- (2 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> An Edmonton-based soldier has been reprimanded and fined after being involved in "inappropriate" conduct with a subordinate while overseas.
> (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)



... and the consentual subordinate gets away scot free.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2010)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> ... and the consentual subordinate gets away scot free.



There is no proof of that. Stop the conjecture.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## The Gues-|- (2 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is no proof of that. Stop the conjecture.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter where he gets posted now, the repercussions can be just as bad as if he stayed in his unit.  Poor leadership qualities being passed on as an Instructor at the Armour School or RSS are far more damaging than as an officer shunned in a unit.  A Staff job only hides a person until such time that they may go back to their unit, the School or RSS.
> 
> I will now assume that this officer is a ROTP graduate and has time remaining in a VIE.  One flaw in the System:  Graduates who have no leadership or management skills being retained as opposed to being dismissed and made to pay back their tuition, etc.



There's a precedent to be followed:  After 5 years of staff job purgatory, promotion and 5 years of back pay.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I will now assume that this officer is a ROTP graduate and has time remaining in a VIE.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There is no proof of that. Stop the conjecture.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Furniture (3 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter where he gets posted now, the repercussions can be just as bad as if he stayed in his unit.  Poor leadership qualities being passed on as an Instructor at the Armour School or RSS are far more damaging than as an officer shunned in a unit.  A Staff job only hides a person until such time that they may go back to their unit, the School or RSS.
> 
> I will now assume that this officer is a ROTP graduate and has time remaining in a VIE.  One flaw in the System:  Graduates who have no leadership or management skills being retained as opposed to being dismissed and made to pay back their tuition, etc.



So by sleeping with another soldier it suddenly means the guy isn't fit to be in the CF? Seems a bit over the top.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2010)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> So by sleeping with another soldier it suddenly means the guy isn't fit to be in the CF? Seems a bit over the top.



Not at all. The rules are quite clear and explicit, so no one should be able to claim ignorance.

This also protects subordinates from abuse and superiors from blackmail. Even married couples are under the ban while in theater, to prevent jealousy and backbiting from the other deployed troops.

Actually, there does not even have to be a sexual component, openly favouring or "courting" or "pursuing" other members could be enough if it is disruptive enough.


----------



## pbi (3 Jul 2010)

I don't know anything about the details of the case in question, and my comments are not case-specific. 

It's about time we started cracking down much harder on leadership failures that reflect moral and ethical weakness.  (This is not the same as doing a bad platoon attack, or making other honest mistakes). They are not "OK" or "excusable". Not if you consider what we do to be a profession, as opposed to a mere job.

In my opinion, we need to take a professional view ("this isn't acceptable and dishonours our profession") instead of a merely legalistic view ("this is a violation of written law"). And we need to completely dump the "populist" or "egalitarian" view ("everybody else does it...so who cares if he does it?).

Once you put up bars on your shoulder, or stripes and crowns on your arm (I've had both), life changes. You're not "one of the boys" anymore. That doesn't mean you have to be an a**hole, but it does mean that you can't just do whatever you want anymore. It also means that you have to live up to the single most important part of being a leader--the part without which the rest is meaningless--setting an example. And that sometimes means denying stuff you'd  really, really just love to do.

Some learn this without getting burnt. Some get burnt and learn it. And some will never learn and should be dumped, quickly, before they become corrupt senior officers. We lived through that, remember?

Cheers


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Jul 2010)

PBI,

Instructing on officer leadership courses I have said exactly what you just did.

As a platoon commander, odds are you won't be the most fit, the best shot, the smartest, or even the best tactical leader.  The one thing that sets you apart is your commissioning scroll stating the country has trust and confidence in your loyalty, *integrity*, and courage.

Basically, your ethical decision making must be flawless.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> PBI,
> 
> Instructing on officer leadership courses I have said exactly what you just did.
> 
> ...


In that case the scroll should be fought for and earned,  not given to an untested Officer Cadet or 2LT.


----------



## REDinstaller (3 Jul 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Commisioning scroll presented when an OCdt is commisioned as a 2Lt.


----------



## Franko (3 Jul 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Commisioning scroll presented when an OCdt is commisioned as a 2Lt.



Nope, you're right.

Regards


----------



## REDinstaller (3 Jul 2010)

I think that no matter how stringent our screening becomes for future officers and senior leadership at all levels, some personnel have shown a distinct disregard for moral ethics. ie Never dip your own pen in the company ink. Relationships have a way of happening, but keep it away from work and most certainly an area of Operations. Cyprus is only 5 days long, keeping your pants on shouldn't be a problem at this point, most have been away for over 180 days at this point minus HLTAs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jul 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Commisioning scroll presented when an OCdt is commisioned as a 2Lt.



I stand corrected but a 2LT is  still basically given a scroll and told not to screw up. 

It's still interesting that nothing about the other party has came up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2010)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is not strictly an Officer problem. It occurs at all levels, down to and including course seniors amongst peers. A Commissioning Scroll doesn't give an individual a lock on integrity. You either have it or you don't.

As for other parties involved not being disciplined in kind, the facts of an individual case are not privy to the masses. Without being privy to those reasons and circumstances, people should just MYOB and quit speculating.


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Jul 2010)

Apollo,

I do not remember seeing anywhere that it was anything consenting.  What if he propositioned her?  What if he gave her the old 1985 secretary's boss tap on the butt as she walked by?

Before we start accusing that there must be two guilty parties, let us await the facts and not fill in the blanks.


----------



## Tetragrammaton (3 Jul 2010)

Generally speaking, what is the main problem with a romantic relationship between members? 

Heck, most of the relationships I know are between two members of the Forces. We are going to be attracted to like-minded people we have contact with, and we do spend a lot of our time within the military environment. Certainly, there are guidelines that I personally believe make things easier, such as discretion on the job, not within the same chain of command, and stay away from recruits.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Jul 2010)

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, what is the main problem with a romantic relationship between members?



The problem(s) occur(s) when:

a.  it's a conflict with issued orders,
b.  it's a conflict with chain of command,
c.  It's a situation of abuse of authority,
etc.

There are many situations where, just like in any workplace, it's a problem.  Without facts, no single case can be objectively assessed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Apollo,
> 
> I do not remember seeing anywhere that it was anything consenting.  What if he propositioned her?  What if he gave her the old 1985 secretary's boss tap on the butt as she walked by?
> 
> Before we start accusing that there must be two guilty parties, let us await the facts and not fill in the blanks.



Excellent point.


----------



## Ralph (3 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> In that case the scroll should be fought for and earned,  not given to an untested Officer Cadet or 2LT.



I'm envisioning some sort of octagon battle. It would be cool.


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Jul 2010)

I am a captain and I will not disagree with some of the NCM comments that perhaps a commission is given out a bit too easily.

Don't get me wrong, I am not challenging the decisions of those well above any of us who have made the system the way it is, but accepting things the way they are _just because_ is what causes things like WWI "okay send _another_ battalion over the top then" mentality.

I don't think that the answer is taking the best WOs and making them officers, but perhaps making the split at the Cpl level so you can still identify officers early enough to have Majors in their 30s.

Perhaps something like a competition in the first three-year contract, and offer the officer path to those who excel as soldiers and show phenomenal leadership potential.  Don't make it automatic, but still give them the choice (we need outstanding Sgts, too).

The problem you will run into though is the educational requirement.  I do not believe that having a degree automatically makes someone better, but higher education does teach people to use their brain in different ways which is directly attributable to being a good leader.  If you keep the degree a must, you're going to take a 20-21 year old out of the NCM path and not get that guy directly contributing again for another six years (4 years of school + 2 years of phase training).

The potential flaw with that system is that now you're talking about the absolute youngest possible an officer could be is 27, and that's if someone joined at 17-18, let alone a lot of the guys now who join at 25-30.

The current system may not be perfect, but it is what it is.  Is every officer perfect?  Probably not, but when they do something wrong the gauntlet always drops harder on them, which is a good thing.  We should never be where we were centuries ago when officers thought they were actually better than the troops, and we should also never be at a point where officers can get away with things.  Quite a few recent events demonstrate that we might be living in good times and perhaps the system isn't that bad because not too many troops can watch the news and think to themselves that officers can get away with things.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2010)

Cut off at the tangent.

Off topic.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

