Topic: CAF Beard policy-CANFORGEN 158/18

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The last time the Navy got in a real shooting match was Korea, but we have fires all the time in peacetime at all levels of operational readiness.  I like having an option to have a beard, but wouldn't think of being anything but clean shaven if I was on a ship (for both my own safety and for the rest of the team).  Seems like a pretty common sense restriction to me, but you do you I guess.

That is quite true, but we also learn from other people's mistake - so to speak.

Many of the fire fighting methods we use, smoke containment system, onboard emergency processes and fitted equipment were radically upgraded and changed first after the KOOTENAY explosion of 1969, and even further after the RN's "lessons learned" of the Falkland war.

And Navy Pete is also correct that we regularly have fires onboard and with all the stuff ship's carry that can generate toxic by-products, not having a proper fit on your mask is pretty dangerous. Look at what happened onboard HMCS CHICOUTIMI in terms of death and serious injuries due to smoke inhalation - probably just because onboard first responders or personnel requiring to take some immediate action could not don their air mask quite fast enough.

[Pusser]

Can I assume beards are permitted onboard naval vessels for religious reasons?

If so, are these individuals treated as liabilities? 

I get the impression the RCN feels that everyone with a beard is a liability in a firefighting situation.

NAVORD 5250-2 states the following:

4.3 Religious Accommodation

While posted to a sea going billet, if a member retains or
grows their beard in respect of their religious belief, they
must be able to achieve and maintain a fit testing seal.
The current policy reflecting accommodation of beards in
the RCN is as follows:

a. The member shall modify the beard up to the
extent required to safely function using the current
mask, repeating testing as required; and

b. If a seal cannot be achieved, the CO, when
circumstances warrant (i.e. low tempo), shall
manage the Watch and Station Bill to best satisfy
the members’ accommodation as well as the unit’s
needs.

In other words, people wearing beards for religious reasons are given the opportunity to trim or modify it in order to get a seal.  If that doesn't work, the CO has to try to adjust their duties to reduce risk!  I'm a pretty liberal guy and I generally have no issues with religious accommodation, but that last bit is over the top, especially since the requirement to grow a beard in most religions is actually open to interpretation.  I also don't see why everyone isn't given the opportunity to try to get a seal.  Right now, policy says I can't even take the test unless I'm clean shaven.

[Eye In The Sky]

Does this NAVORD extend to MH AirDet mbrs?  I've noticed the ones deployed recently with the VDQ are all clean shaven.  By choice, or by order?

[Furniture]

Does this NAVORD extend to MH AirDet mbrs?  I've noticed the ones deployed recently with the VDQ are all clean shaven.  By choice, or by order?

My understanding is it applies to anyone onboard the ship that may be involved in FF activities, so that would include the Air Det.

[Navy_Pete]

Does this NAVORD extend to MH AirDet mbrs?  I've noticed the ones deployed recently with the VDQ are all clean shaven.  By choice, or by order?

It applies to anyone posted to the units.

The air det is all part of the damage control team, and any of them can be part of a FF team.  Because they are all up in the hangar, sometimes they are the easiest to send.  Normally you use the FFs first, but once in a while in training we have a team of pilots show up which can be fun.

Doing stuff like that, landing garbage with the rest of the crew etc are all key to being part of the ship's company, and normally there is a bunch of work at the HOD/chief level when they roll in to integrate both sides so its not an 'us vs them'.  When they roll in they make up a significant portion of the crew, and can be really poisonous to morale if there is different standards (especially as you normally lose sailors to make room, so they show up as people have picked up a higher work load).  The difference of the operational effectiveness of an AC that integrates with the ship and OPSCHED vice one that doesn't is significant, and not really something I understood until I was one of the ones working on getting them to integrate.

[Lumber]

NAVORD 5250-2 states the following:

4.3 Religious Accommodation
In other words, people wearing beards for religious reasons are given the opportunity to trim or modify it in order to get a seal.  If that doesn't work, the CO has to try to adjust their duties to reduce risk!  I'm a pretty liberal guy and I generally have no issues with religious accommodation, but that last bit is over the top, especially since the requirement to grow a beard in most religions is actually open to interpretation.  I also don't see why everyone isn't given the opportunity to try to get a seal.  Right now, policy says I can't even take the test unless I'm clean shaven.

Yea that doesn't sit well with me, especially as a non-religious guy. I can agree with religious accommodation to basic dress and deportment, because our "traditions" of dress and deportment are just made up human inventions (just like their religion). Safety should NOT be compromised for this.

[Furniture]

Yea that doesn't sit well with me, especially as a non-religious guy. I can agree with religious accommodation to basic dress and deportment, because our "traditions" of dress and deportment and made up human inventions (just like their religion). Safety should NOT be compromised for this.

The other side of it is, there are pers on a ship that will never put a SCBA on outside of training. When I was on PRO during the fire I never once put on bunker gear and an SCBA because my job was accounting for and supervising the civilians onboard. That fire burned a long time, and most crew cycled through but there were still people like me that though trained and capable never did engage in FF activities. It is a reasonable accommodation for a deeply held religious belief, and should be manageable with little effort.

[MARS]

It is a reasonable accommodation for a deeply held religious belief, and should be manageable with little effort.

Agree with your post, Furniture.

I've had to risk manage a sailor with a heart condition, who was still fit to sail but not to participate in DC.

Someone else who has a soft tissue injury while underway, also not fit for DC/bunker gear.

And several sailors, concurrently, who were not even NETP-qualified.  That one concerned me enough that, when told I was required to request a waiver from higher IOT sail with these folks who were AP'd to me, I decided not to seek the waiver, to make a point.  Low and behold, on getting wind of that, higher faked to the left and sent me a message waiving the requirement I hadn't asked to have waived.

So, another dude who can't get into bunker gear?  For a CO, its just another day that ends in Y.  At least that dude can likely do a whole bunch of other FF/DC jobs that don't require him to get dressed up, so it is likely one of the easier things I had to risk manage on any given day.

[Lumber]

Agree with your post, Furniture.

I've had to risk manage a sailor with a heart condition, who was still fit to sail but not to participate in DC.

Someone else who has a soft tissue injury while underway, also not fit for DC/bunker gear.

And several sailors, concurrently, who were not even NETP-qualified.  That one concerned me enough that, when told I was required to request a waiver from higher IOT sail with these folks who were AP'd to me, I decided not to seek the waiver, to make a point.  Low and behold, on getting wind of that, higher faked to the left and sent me a message waiving the requirement I hadn't asked to have waived.

So, another dude who can't get into bunker gear?  For a CO, its just another day that ends in Y.  At least that dude can likely do a whole bunch of other FF/DC jobs that don't require him to get dressed up, so it is likely one of the easier things I had to risk manage on any given day.

Agree 100%, but those are medical and training issues of jo fault of the members. Just from my personal point of view, religion is a personal choice.

[Pusser]

To add to the mix, here's a case in the US Army, where a soldier was granted a religious accommodation to wear a beard due to his practice of Heathenism (Norse Gods):

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/25/this-soldier-just-got-authorization-to-wear-a-beard-because-of-his-norse-pagan-faith/

[garb811]

To add to the mix, here's a case in the US Army, where a soldier was granted a religious accommodation to wear a beard due to his practice of Heathenism (Norse Gods):

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/25/this-soldier-just-got-authorization-to-wear-a-beard-because-of-his-norse-pagan-faith/

You didn't have to go to the US Army to find an instance of someone asking for religious accommodation as Norse Pagan, there are more than a few in the CAF.

[Pusser]

You didn't have to go to the US Army to find an instance of someone asking for religious accommodation as Norse Pagan, there are more than a few in the CAF.

But have they asked for and been granted permission to grow beards?  I'm think more about the fact that beards are currently prohibited at sea by the RCN, except for religious accommodation.  Are there any heathens posted to ships who are seeking or have been granted permission to wear a beard?

[garb811]

But have they asked for and been granted permission to grow beards?  I'm think more about the fact that beards are currently prohibited at sea by the RCN, except for religious accommodation.  Are there any heathens posted to ships who are seeking or have been granted permission to wear a beard?

Can't speak to if there is anyone in the Navy but part of the accommodation as Norse Pagan entails beards and hair as that is an integral part of the religious belief.

[CanadianTire]

I heard a rumour that beards will now be policed and the 2cm bulk will be enforced, even amongst the Pioneers in Gagetown and that the threat is to rescind BEARDFORGEN if people can't follow the rules. I've heard this from two sources, one of whom is back East. Anyone have any insight into this?

[Eye In The Sky]

Rescinded by who? 

Here's an idea;  follow the regs (everyone) and there's no issue.  Who would have thought !!!!   

[CanadianTire]

I'm assuming the CDS. Again, this is just rumour but I know of at least one person who is currently in Gagetown and has been told to clean their beard up. Mind you, it was quite massive...so it may just have been intended as motivation to make sure people don't look like they're fighting in the Crimean War.

[Jarnhamar]

I'm assuming the CDS. Again, this is just rumour but I know of at least one person who is currently in Gagetown and has been told to clean their beard up. Mind you, it was quite massive...so it may just have been intended as motivation to make sure people don't look like they're fighting in the Crimean War.

It was the CWO of the army or something. Esentially a ridiculous hollow threat.

[Good2Golf]

If so, the ASM needs to be quiet.

There are times when the seniors amongst the non-commissioned ranks over-appreciate the appropriateness of their attempt at pseudo-command.

Regards
G2G

[Old EO Tech]

If so, the ASM needs to be quiet.

There are times when the seniors amongst the non-commissioned ranks over-appreciate the appropriateness of their attempt at pseudo-command.

Regards
G2G

Or could it be that the ASM and the CCA actually chat once in a while and the ASM is enforcing the command direction of the CCA? ....hmmm

[Jarnhamar]

That's the first thing that came to mind.

I can't see a CWO deciding he doesn't like a CANFORGEN and rescinding it on his own.

[Good2Golf]

Or could it be that the ASM and the CCA actually chat once in a while and the ASM is enforcing the command direction of the CCA? ....hmmm

If that’s the case, then it’s LGen Eyre giving the direction, or the ASM clearly and explicitly supporting the CCA’s direction.  Not a personalized ASM’s thing.  Did CCA give such direction?

[Old EO Tech]

If that’s the case, then it’s LGen Eyre giving the direction, or the ASM clearly and explicitly supporting the CCA’s direction.  Not a personalized ASM’s thing.

I don't think anyone said the ASM was off in left field making decisions all on his own, just because we don't see the inner workings of a senior command team doesn't mean its not happening.  In my experience, CWO at any level of command are given the delegated authority by their CO/Comd to enforce dress policy, it's still the commanders policy and direction, but he expects the CWO to deliver it, and any ramifications of people not following the Comd direction

[Good2Golf]

I don't think anyone said the ASM was off in left field making decisions all on his own, just because we don't see the inner workings of a senior command team doesn't mean its not happening.  In my experience, CWO at any level of command are given the delegated authority by their CO/Comd to enforce dress policy, it's still the commanders policy and direction, but he expects the CWO to deliver it, and any ramifications of people not following the Comd direction

Pretending that some CWOs don’t take liberties with they partship of the Command Team Relationship is naive. It happens and/or has happened from unit right up to CAF to varying degrees. JH notes he thought it was the ASM or someone at similar level.  JH didn’t not say “the ASM noted that CCA is frustrated that CA members are not respecting the requirements of BEARDFORGEN, and may have to take additional action if required...” 

[Old EO Tech]

Pretending that some CWOs don’t take liberties with they partship of the Command Team Relationship is naive. It happens and/or has happened from unit right up to CAF to varying degrees. JH notes he thought it was the ASM or someone at similar level.  JH didn’t not say “the ASM noted that CCA is frustrated that CA members are not respecting the requirements of BEARDFORGEN, and may have to take additional action if required...”

Well I'm not going to speculate on personalities that may or may not have done that in the past.  But neither does a CWO have to say he's speaking for his Comd, for that to be a fact. I would find it considerably condescending to ask the ASM if he talked with his boss before issuing this direction...and I'm positive that if you did that it would not be without consequences.   

[Good2Golf]

Well I'm not going to speculate on personalities that may or may not have done that in the past.  But neither does a CWO have to say he's speaking for his Comd, for that to be a fact. I would find it considerably condescending to ask the ASM if he talked with his boss before issuing this direction...and I'm positive that if you did that it would not be without consequences.

If I had not heard from CCA of such concerns yet heard the ASM speaking in first person about rescinding beard wearing rights, I would have no issue whatsoever discretely having a discussion with the ASM about it.  If the/an ASM felt such engagement to be condescending, and that he attempted to influence ‘consequences’ that would only serve to reinforce my earlier point of some CWOs in the past taking liberties with the Command Team relationship.  I do not accept your innuendo that one should not (if even appropriately and discretely) query the nature of such commentary by members of senior leadership.  I was fortunate to have had the pleasure and privilege of having the support of one of the finest pan-service CWO/RSMs in the business, but I wouldn’t, for a second, professionally tolerate bravado and inappropriate transfer of command (vice coordination) prerogative by a member, professional as they may otherwise be, that has not been charged with and entrusted to executing command authority.

Regards
G2G