Canadian Forces Officer guilty of wearing unearned medals.

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost: pbi

I suspect several of us identify with you ... some of those things certainly brought back very, very similar memories (and some shame) for me.

We are pretty ordinary people, by and large,who, now and again, are sent off to do some difficult things. That we almost always get the job done is because we have a deeply ingrained sense of teamwork and some of our leaders are smart enough to build on that.

 

[Dissident]

:goodpost: pbi

I suspect several of us identify with you ...

I sure do.

 

[TCM621]

Ballz: Ack. There is an old (but very true) saying that "there is none so zealous as the reformed sinner". I , like you, am without any doubt a reformed sinner. (About this particular sin, if maybe not others...

There were surely times that I didn't act when I should have. Early on, I gave PER scores that I would now say were clearly unmerited, or failed to question scores that were handed down by company or battalion merit boards. I submitted to the culture that said "everybody gets a "Met Standard".

On occasion, I gave breaks to people who later proved quite clearly that they didn't deserve them, and that I definitely should have seen it coming. And, yes-I "hid and ignored" people, and ironically later ended up having to "take out the trash" myself.

But, I think I did eventually learn about all this. It took me a long time, perhaps because like many of us by nature I wanted to see the best in the people I served with, and I (naively) thought that everybody saw their service the way I did.

Wrong.

I was the subject of three PER grievances because I insisted on assigning the scores that people's performance really deserved, not giving them a "Superior" because they show up for work on time. I was overruled in all three cases. Fine.

I did end up, finally, learning to tell people the truth. I was once assigned an MWO from another organization, only to receive a rather lame "apology" from the losing unit CO saying "sorry for the guy I sent you". I called the guy in, and said: "If you work hard and do your job as well as you possibly can, I am in your corner and I will do all I can for you. If you don't, and you carry on the way you did in "X" unit, I will do everything I can to get rid of you. Got it?"

He didn't turn into a super star, but he did OK.  That, I think, is how we need to be with people. But, like you, I fear that the CAF culture doesn't encourage that. Whether it is because we ("you") are cowards or not, I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just pressure from the culture. Remember that one of the very present dangers in the military profession is that discipline and loyalty may descend into mindless obedience and groupthink. I'm sure we've all seen it.

I hope that you and all serving leaders think about the Miller case, and about all the complex things it represents for the profession. Never forget that you have men and women who follow you, and want very much to be treated fairly and to be proud of their service. The Canadian soldier is the hardest person on earth to fool, and if he catches you doing it, he is unforgiving.

I'll take that guy over a guy who folds like a cheap suit any day. My thing has always been, if you work hard and are honest when you screw up, I will do everything thing I can to help you. If you don't or actively lie or try to get out of work, I will do everything I can to bury you.

I don't think there is anything wrong with giving guys the benefit of the doubt but it can't last for ever. On the same token, one should be able to earn the privilege of getting away with screwing up once in awhile.

 

[FJAG]

This brings to mind another question for me:  how did the prosecutor from her previous CM end up as her defence this time, and vice versa?  WTF?  Outside the military, would a Crown have to be switched if, in a previous life, s/he'd been counsel for someone they're prosecuting?  Not quite conflict of interest, but perceived "insider trading"?

I saw that in a prior post as well and was somewhat surprised. I checked the decisions in both courts martial and in fact while both counsel were the same for both trials, they were there in the same role. i.e. the prosecutor in both case was the same individual and the defence counsel was also the same for both trials. They did not trade roles. In my opinion it would be ethically improper for a lawyer who once defended an individual and thereby became aware of confidential information about that individual to subsequently prosecute that same individual.

That said there used to be a time where we did switch roles. In my younger days DJAs (and even an AJAG) within a specific geographic region would be the prosecutor for cases within that region while the defence counsel would be a DJA assigned from any other region or the director of defence services from Ottawa. In my case I prosecuted in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and defended in any other province.

Since the formation of DMP and DDCS, prosecutors and defence counsel (regular and reserve) come solely from within their respective office. It is still possible for a lawyer who has served a tour with DDCS or DMP (usually three or so years) to subsequently be posted to the other office but in practice that hasn't happened (to my knowledge) or probably won't because there are only a few limited positions in those offices and the general aim (from a professional development point of view) is to have legal officers serve only one tour with either DMP or DDCS before moving on to a different area of law (Ops, Admin law or a field office).

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

Does that create problems?  A single three year tour hardly seems sufficient to build a base of experience to properly do the job; is it perhaps that lack of experiential depth that results in plea bargains like this?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I saw that in a prior post as well and was somewhat surprised. I checked the decisions in both courts martial and in fact while both counsel were the same for both trials, they were there in the same role. i.e. the prosecutor in both case was the same individual and the defence counsel was also the same for both trials. They did not trade roles.

Thanks for that - I should have read more closely.

 

[ballz]

I did end up, finally, learning to tell people the truth. I was once assigned an MWO from another organization, only to receive a rather lame "apology" from the losing unit CO saying "sorry for the guy I sent you".

Our unit's solution was to send a bad posting letter. How weak is that... "Sorry for sending you this guy, we failed to do our job, he's your problem now." There seemed to be a consensus that sending over a "warning" to his new CoC washed our hands of any responsibility. IMO, it was JUNK. I felt the shame you mentioned.

But, like you, I fear that the CAF culture doesn't encourage that. Whether it is because we ("you") are cowards or not, I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just pressure from the culture. Remember that one of the very present dangers in the military profession is that discipline and loyalty may descend into mindless obedience and groupthink. I'm sure we've all seen it.

As a leader, folding to cultural pressure instead of doing it "right" can be described in no other way than being a coward. I was taught at a young age "what is right may not always be popular, and what is popular may not always be right," but sure had to learn it the hard way. At least now I get it... but our culture should encourage others to do what's right, it does not, it encourages one to go with the grain. Sad really...

Never forget that you have men and women who follow you, and want very much to be treated fairly and to be proud of their service. The Canadian soldier is the hardest person on earth to fool, and if he catches you doing it, he is unforgiving.

Something I never thought of at the time, but would have probably persuaded me to act sooner, was "what must my privates, corporals, jacks, and sergeants think of my failure to hold this Pl 2IC to account. Safe to say, after I did, convincing my troops to follow my lead became a lot easier.

Reformed sinner :cheers:

 

[FJAG]

Does that create problems?  A single three year tour hardly seems sufficient to build a base of experience to properly do the job; is it perhaps that lack of experiential depth that results in plea bargains like this?

That's a very good question and has been debated internally for years. It's the old saw-off between giving trial experience to legal officers in general vs developing expertise through longevity. In that respect, the current system is an improvement over the prior one.

You should note that each directorate has reg force senior leaders (a Col and LCol within DDCS and a LCol (now Col) within DDCS) who would have had prior tours before being appointed and in addition to the reg force legal offrs there are around nine plus reservists in each directorate. The reservists are generally individuals who practice criminal law full-time, or close to full-time, so there is a depth of experience there. (as an aside during my time with the branch the reserve LCol within DMP was an Ontario crown prosecutor from Thunder Bay who had literally dozens of murder trials under his belt; an amazing resource from the branch - another was a prosecutor with the DoJ in Ottawa who eventually accepted a position as a reg force military judge)

On the down side, there are generally few courts martial in any given year (in the last few years just over sixty annually) which means that each legal officer within DMP and DDCS generally is assigned only a handful of cases each year (as compared to the dozens and dozens that civilian crown and defence counsel handle annually).

Over and above the relatively low number of cases, many of the cases are generally minor in nature (there are a few assaults, sexual assaults and other more serious offences but the majority of the cases are much lower on the scale). In summary the extent of the trial experience gained is significantly less than civilian crowns and defence lawyers.

I've been a long-time critic of the large number of staff assigned to DMP and, to a lesser extent, DDCS (and for that matter CMJ). In my opinion, it is excessive for the case load historically experienced.  Unfortunately the procedures used within the military justice system are unnecessarily complex, lead to long delays from when a charge is first investigated, proffered and eventually heard and cause each trial to take longer to complete than is necessary. In the civilian world, the less complex cases are generally sent to trial within a few months at worst and generally take a day or less of trial time - not so courts martial.

I'm generally seen as an apologist for the military justice system but quite frankly in my humble opinion it is excessively expensive and ponderous. While I think the accused gets a fair trial in each and every case, I think that the system is due for an overhaul from the ground up as opposed to the incremental fine tuning that it currently receives.

:2c:

:cheers:

 

[pbi]

...I'm generally seen as an apologist for the military justice system but quite frankly in my humble opinion it is excessively expensive and ponderous. While I think the accused gets a fair trial in each and every case, I think that the system is due for an overhaul from the ground up as opposed to the incremental fine tuning that it currently receives.

:2c:

:cheers:

Being very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I agree. In my layman's opinion, discipline is best served when it's swift and seen to be executed swiftly. The longer an accused hangs about, the worse it is for all, IMHO. My only worry is that I lived through a period of time during which the whole military legal system, including the powers of the CO, came under very close scrutiny. It survived, but I would not want to provoke any "unwanted" reforms at this point. 

Something I never thought of at the time, but would have probably persuaded me to act sooner, was "what must my privates, corporals, jacks, and sergeants think of my failure to hold this Pl 2IC to account. Safe to say, after I did, convincing my troops to follow my lead became a lot easier.
Reformed sinner :cheers:

Having spent eight years in the ranks before crossing Fool's Alley, I understand quite well what you're saying. This is NOT about a popularity contest with the troops, or about trying to curry favour with them. It's about realizing that the soldiers have a standard in their minds, and they are constantly judging officers against it. Some officers just never get this.

Once I started Regtl duty as a 2Lt, I was shocked by a number of my peers who thought that it was somehow "cool" or funny to come on parade with torn or worn out items of kit, civvy scarves under their cbt coats, long hair, etc. These were all things for which the troops could expect to be charged.

There was a pervasive attitude, held by both sides, that there was one rule for the rich and one for the poor. On the officer side, I put this down to some degree to the Anglophilia that was rampant in those days. If we ape the US Army now, we aped the Brits then. Unfortunately for some officers, the social class division that gave rise to that sort of thinking in the British Army was already gone in our Army, so there was no way that Canadian troops were automatically going to accept that these were just the actions of their "betters".

 

[MaximusDMGG]

Hi,

I am not military and never been and there's something I don't understand about all this. It was said (on several web sites) that she didn't bought those medals. She earned them overseas but was not allowed to wear them in Canada. How is this possible? Secret missions? Something else???

Thanks for explaining!

 

[ModlrMike]

Some further action on this case:

Termination of Order of Military Merit Appointment

OTTAWA––Today, the Canada Gazette published a notice advising that the appointment of
Lieutenant-Colonel Deborah Miller to the Order of Military Merit was terminated on December 22, 2014.

 

[Gunner98]

Hi,

I am not military and never been and there's something I don't understand about all this. It was said (on several web sites) that she didn't bought those medals. She earned them overseas but was not allowed to wear them in Canada. How is this possible? Secret missions? Something else???

Thanks for explaining!

Perhaps she was on a medals parade overseas when all people from her tour were receiving their overseas medals; however, when she return to Canada it was learned that she did not complete the necessary time to be entitled to wear the medals.  Although she was informed she was not entitled to wear them she chose to wear them anyways.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some further action on this case:

Termination of Order of Military Merit Appointment

OTTAWA––Today, the Canada Gazette published a notice advising that the appointment of
Lieutenant-Colonel Deborah Miller to the Order of Military Merit was terminated on December 22, 2014.

Good catch - a bit more from media:

A high-ranking military official has been stripped of a significant decoration after pleading guilty last fall to wearing medals on her uniform that she didn't earn.

Just before Christmas, the Governor General terminated Lt.-Col. Debbie Miller's membership in the Order of Military Merit, which recognizes exceptional service in either regular or reserve force.

Miller, 57, was sentenced to a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine following a court martial last October in Kingston, Ont.

She pleaded guilty to three counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline for wearing military medals and insignia on her uniform she was not authorized to wear.

According to court martial transcripts, Miller had been awarded the medals following an overseas deployment, but she was not authorized to wear them in Canada, which is something the military takes very seriously.

Miller quietly retired from the military on Jan. 5 and had been posted to the Canadian Defence Academy.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Thanks for being a glue bag. Here's a cushy job.

 

[PuckChaser]

I think they're using it in past tense, in that her previous posting before retiring was at CDA. If they gave her a job afterwards, there is something seriously morally wrong with that organization.

 

[slayer/raptor]

The way that I read this:

"According to court martial transcripts, Miller had been awarded the medals following an overseas deployment, but she was not authorized to wear them in Canada, which is something the military takes very seriously."

It seems she could have been given a foreign medal that wasn't recognize by the government of Canada and she chose to wear it anyways. Although if that is the case, many of us have seen members wear foreign decorations or insignia on their uniforms even though they are not allowed to, specifically on mess kit.

 

[ModlrMike]

Although if that is the case, many of us have seen members wear foreign decorations or insignia on their uniforms even though they are not allowed to, specifically on mess kit.

I seem to recall that as mess kit is private purchase, then wearing the foreign decoration is permitted. It would not be so if the member wore mess dress.

It's still kind of tacky though.

 

[PiperDown]

The link to the CM results page was posted earlier, but here is a short cut and paste to refresh the thread. (which seems to be inquiring what the medals(s) in question was (were) and what uniform they were worn on.)


From the Court Martial results page. 

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2014/Miller.page



[9]              On 20 December 2012, for a unit event in Kingston, Ontario, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller wore her DEU tunic with the following medals/ribbons and decorations:

(a)    Officer of the Order of Military Merit (OMM);

(b)  Special Service Medal (SSM) with NATO bar;

(c)    Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal (CPSM);

(d)              UN Disengagement Observation Force (UNDOF) with the tour numeral two;

(e)                UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL);

(f)                Canadian Forces' Decoration (CD) with one clasp/one silver rosette; and,

(g)              three Command Commendations.

[10]          She did not have authority to wear the UNIFIL medal, the SSM, or two of the command commendations.  The statement of circumstances indicates that she has been wearing the UNIFIL and SSM medals on her uniform since 1997.

 

[George Wallace]

.......... Although if that is the case, many of us have seen members wear foreign decorations or insignia on their uniforms even though they are not allowed to, specifically on mess kit.

While in Canada, in most instances it is not permitted to wear those foreign decorations or insignia on DEU, it may be allowed while on foreign postings.  Mess Kit is a different story.  So be careful of which "uniform" and "nation in which it is being worn" when you are making your statement about.

DHH will have specific orders as to what one can wear, and where.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I can't think of too many things are as heinous as to take the accolades of another. But I will confess I wear me Dad's black beret on occassion. Hope that will not offend too many lads.