"Army investigating members allegedly involved in 'abhorrent' Facebook group"

[ModlrMike]

Could you not argue harassment at that point?

Possibly, but unlikely. RM are separated into Conduct and Performance. A collection of bad acts during a single event (ie: drunk, inappropriate comments, insubordination) would best be managed with a single RM, but separating them out would not necessarily be harassment. Bad admin, but not harassment, and not specifically prevented in DAOD 5019-4.

So one administration action when the OC finds out about it, another when the CO finds out, and other one when the Brigade Commander finds out.

No. You shouldn't be issuing RMs for the same exact same transgression up the CoC. That's likely a winnable RoG.

I don't think you can have 3 remedial measures for the same conduct/performance deficiency. One would have to name different conduct related deficiencies for the same event if that makes sense.

I would tend to agree with you there, but I wager there are those who don't, given that there is nothing in DAOD 5019-4 that prevents it. That being said, I would seek DMCA advice before I sliced up the event into pieces.

IE: On (xyz date), Pte Nasty was employed at (xyz location/task). While in the barracks common room, they were observed to consume a large quantity of alcohol and behave in a manner consistent with drunkenness. They continually made unwanted remarks of a sexual nature towards another member, and when directed to go to their bed by PO2 Diligent (Duty PO), they responded to by telling them to "fuck off, I'll go when I'm ready." Pte Nasty's behaviour and comments represent a clear conduct deficiency, relating to intoxication, inapporpirate comments and insubordination. Their behavior was inconsistent with the CF Code of Conduct, most notably, respecting the dignity of all persons. Etc, etc, etc.

One RM that covers the collective conduct failures. They don't need to have another event exactly like this one, they only need to fail at any one of the conduct breaches to be at risk of AR.

If I recall it’s a verbal, written followed by Counselling and Probation.
And you can’t have C & P twice for the same problem

No, the system is IC, RW, then C&P. That being said, if a person appears to be drifting out of line, they should have a verbal intervention at some point before they become problematic. You are correct, so in this case if Pte Nasty got drunk in quarters again, they could be subject to AR.

Right. But you couldn't have 3 levels of the CoC giving you ICs for being late, or an IC and RW for being late. You need an opportunity to overcome the deficiency.

You could get an IC for being late and another IC for bad dress and deportment (same incident).

@ModlrMike does that sound accurate?

Yes, but I think the more effective approach is to treat the conduct as a whole, by issuing a comprehensive RM for the entire event. Separate RMs are somewhat harder to manage concrurrently, because ideally there should be a different person conducting the monitoring for each one. Bundling the RMs allows for a single monitor, and still preserves a potential breach of each conduct failing at a later date. Although, I know of a certain ex Bosn who would argue that they need to repeat all of the defects within the previous event under exactly the same circumstances.

 

[Kilted]

I don't think that's what we are talking about here. The question was related if the person involved had received RM last year, could they receive RM again for the same conduct because the CDS found out about it?

Possibly, but unlikely. RM are separated into Conduct and Performance. A collection of bad acts during a single event (ie: drunk, inappropriate comments, insubordination) would best be managed with a single RM, but separating them out would not necessarily be harassment. Bad admin, but not harassment, and not specifically prevented in DAOD 5019-4.


No. You shouldn't be issuing RMs for the same exact same transgression up the CoC. That's likely a winnable RoG.



I would tend to agree with you there, but I wager there are those who don't, given that there is nothing in DAOD 5019-4 that prevents it. That being said, I would seek DMCA advice before I sliced up the event into pieces.

IE: On (xyz date), Pte Nasty was employed at (xyz location/task). While in the barracks common room, they were observed to consume a large quantity of alcohol and behave in a manner consistent with drunkenness. They continually made unwanted remarks of a sexual nature towards another member, and when directed to go to their bed by PO2 Diligent (Duty PO), they responded to by telling them to "fuck off, I'll go when I'm ready." Pte Nasty's behaviour and comments represent a clear conduct deficiency, relating to intoxication, inapporpirate comments and insubordination. Their behavior was inconsistent with the CF Code of Conduct, most notably, respecting the dignity of all persons. Etc, etc, etc.

One RM that covers the collective conduct failures. They don't need to have another event exactly like this one, they only need to fail at any one of the conduct breaches to be at risk of AR.


No, the system is IC, RW, then C&P. That being said, if a person appears to be drifting out of line, they should have a verbal intervention at some point before they become problematic. You are correct, so in this case if Pte Nasty got drunk in quarters again, they could be subject to AR.


Yes, but I think the more effective approach is to treat the conduct as a whole, by issuing a comprehensive RM for the entire event. Separate RMs are somewhat harder to manage concrurrently, because ideally there should be a different person conducting the monitoring for each one. Bundling the RMs allows for a single monitor, and still preserves a potential breach of each conduct failing at a later date. Although, I know of a certain ex Bosn who would argue that they need to repeat all of the defects within the previous event under exactly the same circumstances.

 

[Furniture]

No, the system is IC, RW, then C&P. That being said, if a person appears to be drifting out of line, they should have a verbal intervention at some point before they become problematic. You are correct, so in this case if Pte Nasty got drunk in quarters again, they could be subject to AR.

In fairness, "Verbal Warning" was the common terminology used for IC when I joined, up until about 10-15 years ago.

In the same way that people still call a summary hearing a summary trial, despite the rules having changed a couple of years ago.

 

[Furniture]

Short answer, no.

I don't think that's what we are talking about here. The question was related if the person involved had received RM last year, could they receive RM again for the same conduct because the CDS found out about it?

Maybe the RM could be escalated to a higher level based on higher level review, but otherwise, you only get punished once for a behaviour.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Maybe the RM could be escalated to a higher level based on higher level review, but otherwise, you only get punished once for a behaviour.

Remedial measures are not punishments. If a person under a RM does not correct the deficiency, the RM can be escalated (IC to RW or C&P, RW to C&P) or terminated and an AR be requested to DMCA.

 

[Navy_Pete]

In fairness, "Verbal Warning" was the common terminology used for IC when I joined, up until about 10-15 years ago.

In the same way that people still call a summary hearing a summary trial, despite the rules having changed a couple of years ago.

That was confusing for sure, especially when it came with paperwork to document it.

Having said that, the remedial measure process done properly pretty effectively helped a few people that I've had to use it with, as it made sure they got retrained on things that maybe didn't stick in the QL3/5/6s, or otherwise was twinned with things for drinking problems etc.

 

[brihard]

Remedial measures correct deficiencies in performance. The member’s performance falls short with respect to their actual job duties, and remedial measures are an administrative mechanism to improve that performance and to to document deficiencies in case their employment is to be terminated for poor performance.

Charges are judicial or quasi-judicial and address misconduct. The threshold of proof is higher, and the sanctions more serious, to potentially include a criminal record and imposed and enforceable punishment beyond simply the termination of employment.

There can, of course, be overlap. A conduct deficiency that brings about charges can also trigger remedial measures because it’s also a performance deficiency.

My CAF time is increasingly long pst now but I never remember this being taught to us particularly well as junior leaders.

 

[MJP]

Remedial measures correct deficiencies in performance. The member’s performance falls short with respect to their actual job duties, and remedial measures are an administrative mechanism to improve that performance and to to document deficiencies in case their employment is to be terminated for poor performance.

Charges are judicial or quasi-judicial and address misconduct. The threshold of proof is higher, and the sanctions more serious, to potentially include a criminal record and imposed and enforceable punishment beyond simply the termination of employment.

There can, of course, be overlap. A conduct deficiency that brings about charges can also trigger remedial measures because it’s also a performance deficiency.

My CAF time is increasingly long pst now but I never remember this being taught to us particularly well as junior leaders.

Not quite accurate. performance and conduct are considered separately and remedial measures. I can see how you could potentially consider it a performance deficiency of someone having poor conduct, but that's not how it's applied

Well I think it's getting better. It's not just that it's not taught well to Junior folks. Lots of mid and Senior folks misinterpret or rely on faulty knowledge from 10 - 20 years ago.

DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures - Canada.ca

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5019-4 - Remedial Measures

www.canada.ca

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not quite accurate. performance and conduct are considered separately and remedial measures. I can see how you could potentially consider it a performance deficiency of someone having poor conduct, but that's not how it's applied

Well I think it's getting better. It's not just that it's not taught well to Junior folks. Lots of mid and Senior folks misinterpret or rely on faulty knowledge from 10 - 20 years ago.

DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures - Canada.ca

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5019-4 - Remedial Measures

www.canada.ca

I've seen a few cases where it is both; for example guy with a drinking problem was on RW for performance related issues, but also had some charges relating to being AWOL (due to drinking problem).

In that particular case he cleaned himself up (with help from the CAF programs, and support from CoC and peers/friends) and turned the corner (and gotten a few promotions since) so think it was a case where the system worked and we were able to retain someone after they bottomed out. Could have escalated to C&P and AR if he hadn't, so gave us some tools to work with. Was a lot of admin, but one of those cases where it's worth doing properly.

 

[brihard]

Not quite accurate. performance and conduct are considered separately and remedial measures. I can see how you could potentially consider it a performance deficiency of someone having poor conduct, but that's not how it's applied

Well I think it's getting better. It's not just that it's not taught well to Junior folks. Lots of mid and Senior folks misinterpret or rely on faulty knowledge from 10 - 20 years ago.

DAOD 5019-4, Remedial Measures - Canada.ca

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5019-4 - Remedial Measures

www.canada.ca

Sorry, you’re right. I was still thinking of behavioural conduct issues as being related to performance because with CAF it all counts, but yes the policy quite expressly and explicitly covers conduct as distinct.

So CAF kinda has two separate conduct systems, one through remedials, one through military justice, with two different standards of proof required. Maybe in the long run it would be worth revisiting this and determining if harmonization is needed, or if it ain’t broke. Clearly there also needs to be consideration of how the CSD applies to Class A reservists; the existence of digital spaces has outpaced the law and policies.

 

[MJP]

I've seen a few cases where it is both; for example guy with a drinking problem was on RW for performance related issues, but also had some charges relating to being AWOL (due to drinking problem).

In that particular case he cleaned himself up (with help from the CAF programs, and support from CoC and peers/friends) and turned the corner (and gotten a few promotions since) so think it was a case where the system worked and we were able to retain someone after they bottomed out. Could have escalated to C&P and AR if he hadn't, so gave us some tools to work with. Was a lot of admin, but one of those cases where it's worth doing properly.

Yeah I've seen it a few times. DMCA usually give some good advice on on those. And if we're being honest, the conduct almost always is the most important. We put up with s***** performers year and year out.

For some reason we think we're social workers and need to fix everyone. In some cases people just need to swift kick in the butt and they're fine. But those with serious conduct issues or habitual ones, there's no reason to keep them.

Sorry, you’re right. I was still thinking of behavioural conduct issues as being related to performance because with CAF it all counts, but yes the policy quite expressly and explicitly covers conduct as distinct.

So CAF kinda has two separate conduct systems, one through remedials, one through military justice, with two different standards of proof required. Maybe in the long run it would be worth revisiting this and determining if harmonization is needed, or if it ain’t broke. Clearly there also needs to be consideration of how the CSD applies to Class A reservists; the existence of digital spaces has outpaced the law and policies.

One is for service discipline and the other is the administrative way we document shortcomings, help a soldier improve and if needed justify releasing a soldier.

I'm not sure they need to be the same process if only to preserve justice system for operational needs. That said I wasn't a fan of the old military justice system, and think the new one is okish. But if I'm being honest, I'd rather deal with everybody through administrative means but I can see the appeal of the military justice system to scare someone straight with a minor punishment when they're late a few times. Rather than have a remedial measure that follows them around for the rest of their career.

 

[dapaterson]

A justice system has as an objective institutional impacts - "faire un exemple pour encourager les autres". Administrative measures are not public and thus have less of a deterrent effect.

 

[Halifax Tar]

An interesting situation we ran into during this year's PEBs is people who's conduct was unacceptable and then them getting meets and exceeded leadership expectations on performance and potential.

Made for some interesting PEBs.

Just my one very humble opinion, but if ones conduct is unacceptable, perhaps they should be excluded from PEBs for that year.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So CAF kinda has two separate conduct systems, one through remedials, one through military justice, with two different standards of proof required.

Actually the same standard of proof: balance of probabilities for both.

 

[dapaterson]

Actually the same standard of proof: balance of probabilities for both.

For summary proceedings the standard is a balance of probabilities; for court marital, it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Both are parts of the military justice system.

 

[SupersonicMax]

For summary proceedings the standard is a balance of probabilities; for court marital, it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Both are parts of the military justice system.

Fair. I was thinking of summary proceedings.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I remember being a young Trooper and Corporal.

We didn’t have cell phones or internet though.

 

[ModlrMike]

I don't think that's what we are talking about here. The question was related if the person involved had received RM last year, could they receive RM again for the same conduct because the CDS found out about it?

No. However, there are some complexities that would have to be worked out. The likely scenario would be that the member's CoC would be directed to assess the situation to determine if there was a breach, and then solicit advice from DMCA.

 

[OldSolduer]

I remember being a young Trooper and Corporal.

We didn’t have cell phones or internet though.

Thank heavens for that or maybe we wouldn't be here right now.

 

[PuckChaser]

I remember being a young Trooper and Corporal.

We didn’t have cell phones or internet though.

The stone tablets for sending letters on were heavy though...