Canadian Forces Officer guilty of wearing unearned medals.

[a_majoor]

What I find rather incomprehensible is the slap on the wrist given, especially considering the accused had been previously court martialed for making a false statement.

You know that you or I would have the book thrown at them for a second court martial....

 

[PuckChaser]

Just saw a petition floating around Facebook to have her medals stripped. Unfortunately, serving military members are signing it....

 

[The_Falcon]

Just saw a petition floating around Facebook to have her medals stripped. Unfortunately, serving military members are signing it....

Why is that unfortunate?  It may not necessarily be a smart thing to do career wise (but given the precedent perhaps, all they will get is a slap on the wrist), but I think it's a very telling gesture that many people serving and non-serving, have some serious issues with not only this officer but the sentence that was handed down.  A major principle in sentencing (military or civilian) is that a sentence is supposed to uphold the public expectation that justice has been served (I know I know, try to keep the giggles to yourself).  The fact that many serving members are publicly risking some sort of reprimand from their chain of command over this, tells me (and should tell the JAG, GG and MND) that that principle was completely and utterly missed.

 

[Stoker]

Why is that unfortunate?  It may not necessarily be a smart thing to do career wise (but given the precedent perhaps, all they will get is a slap on the wrist), but I think it's a very telling gesture that many people serving and non-serving, have some serious issues with not only this officer but the sentence that was handed down.  A major principle in sentencing (military or civilian) is that a sentence is supposed to uphold the public expectation that justice has been served (I know I know, try to keep the giggles to yourself).  The fact that many serving members are publicly risking some sort of reprimand from their chain of command over this, tells me (and should tell the JAG, GG and MND) that that principle was completely and utterly missed.

No most I suspect have no idea that as serving members they're not supposed to sign petitions. The petition was started by a ex LS Cook who now resides in the US.

 

[PuckChaser]

No most I suspect have no idea that as serving members they're not supposed to sign petitions. The petition was started by a ex LS Cook who now resides in the US.

That's what I was getting at: sorry was posting from my phone.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Yes, summary trials are posted in Routine Orders (RO) but that is base specific. There's no way Cpl Facedepeaudebat in Valcartier is going to find out about the charge that Cpl Bloggins received in Petawawa.

When I was charged I only had courts martial to look through for precedence or to decide what direction to go. A soldier on charge is given an assisting officer. I'm pretty sure that officer can't truly bring much more to the table than a call to the 1-800 JAG number can. In fact, I found my 1-800 (from Afghanistan no less) to be incredibly helpful in clearing things up.

PuckChaser, I definitely like what your unit is doing.

 

[Infanteer]

1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.  The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.  The national press coverage (and your own thread on Army.ca!) are also punishments in their own right.  The only punishments higher on the scale deal with the stripping of rank/seniority, imprisonment and dismissal from the CAF and while I acknowledge that the pitchforks are out right now, I wouldn't expect the offences of the offender, who clearly has some integrity issues, to get thrown into the mix with the pedophiles, thieves and drug dealers that typically earn imprisonment and/or dismissal.

2.  For those who argue of a double-tiered system of officers looking out for officers, I'd counter that you are just plain wrong.  This has nothing to do with the rank of the offender and everything to do with legal procedure.  I would be willing to bet my house that a soldier facing a court martial for such activity would not be facing imprisonment or release.

3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.

 

[TCM621]

1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.  The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.  The national press coverage (and your own thread on Army.ca!) are also punishments in their own right.  The only punishments higher on the scale deal with the stripping of rank/seniority, imprisonment and dismissal from the CAF and while I acknowledge that the pitchforks are out right now, I wouldn't expect the offences of the offender, who clearly has some integrity issues, to get thrown into the mix with the pedophiles, thieves and drug dealers that typically earn imprisonment and/or dismissal.

2.  For those who argue of a double-tiered system of officers looking out for officers, I'd counter that you are just plain wrong.  This has nothing to do with the rank of the offender and everything to do with legal procedure.  I would be willing to bet my house that a soldier facing a court martial for such activity would not be facing imprisonment or release.

3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.

Wasn't she promoted after her first severe reprimand? Or is my timetable all messed up?

 

[George Wallace]

Wasn't she promoted after her first severe reprimand? Or is my timetable all messed up?

She was a LCol during her first Court Martial.

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012/miller.page

 

[The Bread Guy]

1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.

In theory, yes, but optically, in this case, it appears the defendant's first "career ender" didn't have quite that effect between October 2012 and now.  Have to agree with you here:

.... the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.

That said ....

The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.

This is the bit that's "behind the curtain", which the public doesn't see and I hope is occurring.

 

[Monsoon]

3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.

To be fair (probably fairer than she deserves), the mens rea of the "second" offence actually occurred in 1997 when she decided that 126 days in theatre was enough time to put up an SSM. The fact that she was sentenced the first time no doubt led to the scrutiny of her record that resulted in the discovery of the second instance of lack of integrity. For her part, after being sentenced the first time she surely wasn't going to call attention to herself by mysteriously not wearing some medals she'd been known to wear for decades.

 

[Shamrock]

3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing. 

Did the wearing of the medals occur begin being punished for the PT test? 

 

[GeorgeD]

No most I suspect have no idea that as serving members they're not supposed to sign petitions. The petition was started by a ex LS Cook who now resides in the US.

Is that all petitions or just once related to government/military?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

All I believe

 

[ballz]

All I believe

Only matters affecting the CAF.

People tend to spin about things involving political activism. We still maintain all the rights and freedoms outlined in the Charter, with a few extra asterisks and nuances which can be reasonably justified.

If I want to sign a petition that's going to be brought to the town council about clearing snow off a certain road in my town, it's no concern of the CAF.

19.10 - COMBINATIONS FORBIDDEN

No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:

a. combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
b. sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
c. obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not coming down on one side or another here, but some things need to be stated, whether some agree or not.

The person, in question, is still serving. You may not respect the person, but serving members and old school retired types still need to respect the commission.

Serving members need to be mindful of signing petitions, whether alluding to the fallibility of the system to dispense proper justice or criticizing a member of the CAF who holds the Queen's Commission. The NDA and QRO make provision for such instances and it's not taken lightly.

Last of all, this is public forum. Anyone, with the exception of previous banned persons, can gain access. Your fancy, cute delightful play on words username does not guarantee anonymity. Do not fall into the trap that you're just discussing this with your buds, over a beer. There is no doubt, nor should there be, that this thread is being monitored. Likely by both the MSM and the CAF.

Forewarned is forearmed. That's about as subtle as I can put it.


---Staff---

 

[eliminator]

Does anyone have a photo of here in uniform with the gongs in question? All I can find regarding her awards was this:

In April 1996, Miller, then a major, requested a special service medal for her work with NATO, but she only served 126 out of a minimum 180 aggregate qualifying days from April 1989 to July 1995.

She has been wearing the medal on her uniform, without authority, since 1997, said the statement.

During a year-long deployment from June 1996 to July 1997 for the United Nations Disengagement Observation Force, Carrier read that Miller, still at the rank of major, was awarded a medal for her support in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon mission. But upon returning to her base in Winnipeg, she was unable to get the proper confirmation from her superiors to wear the medal. It was disclosed later that she never met the criteria for the medal, which she's worn since 1997.

For her third charge, Carrier said Miller was awarded the Vice Chief of Defence Staff Commendation in August 2008, which entitles her to wear the commendation insignia on her uniform, but there's no documentation authorizing her to wear insignia with two other commendation medals she was wearing on Dec. 20, 2012.

http://www.thewhig.com/2014/10/06/lt-col-pleads-guilty-to-three-charges

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

and old school retired types still need to respect the commission.

Sorry my old friend, but I've long since passed the brainwashing that a commission means anything except that we protect each other's asses from the general public and those lowly NCO [since we're old school] types.

 

[dapaterson]

[Lots of Good Advice Snipped]

Forewarned is forearmed. That's about as subtle as I can put it.

Subtle like a Sergeant Major...  :nod:

 

[Brasidas]

1.  A Severe Reprimand is not a "slap on the wrist" - it is a career ender.  The offender will never be promoted and the full weight of administrative measures will likely be put in place due to a clear history of conduct deficiencies - I'd be surprised if they weren't.  The national press coverage (and your own thread on Army.ca!) are also punishments in their own right.  The only punishments higher on the scale deal with the stripping of rank/seniority, imprisonment and dismissal from the CAF and while I acknowledge that the pitchforks are out right now, I wouldn't expect the offences of the offender, who clearly has some integrity issues, to get thrown into the mix with the pedophiles, thieves and drug dealers that typically earn imprisonment and/or dismissal.

2.  For those who argue of a double-tiered system of officers looking out for officers, I'd counter that you are just plain wrong.  This has nothing to do with the rank of the offender and everything to do with legal procedure.  I would be willing to bet my house that a soldier facing a court martial for such activity would not be facing imprisonment or release.

3.  That being said, the fact this is the second fine/severe reprimand to show up on the conduct sheet of the offender is, to me, confusing.  Although there is some general deterrence to the masses here (don't do that unless you want to stop your career as well), the specific deterrence of a fine and severe reprimand clearly did not deter the accused from committing a second criminal act nor did the fine and severe reprimand have any rehabilitative effect since she committed another offence demonstrating no lack of personal integrity, so I am curious as to why she essentially received the same sentence.  To my untrained legal mind, a loss of seniority or rank, as the next step up in the scale of punishments, may have been a more suitable punishment in this case, and this is likely what the judge had in mind when he said he wasn't happy with the joint sentencing agreement.

So its a second severe reprimand to an irresponsible individual, who has not been rehabilitated by past actions, who continued to act with a lack of integrity long after their act should have been cleaned up. Three years from CRA, never getting promoted again after the first severe reprimand. Depending on how long she'd been a LCol, even a reduction in rank isn't going to affect the pension.

Why should the judge accept the sentencing agreement? To avoid discouraging such agreements in the future? What are precedents for rejecting one?

How is a second severe reprimand an appropriate measure? It seems meaningless to me. In terms of subsequent administrative action, she can still get a 5a if it looks like she won't be able to stay til 60. She still gets to avoid the disgrace of being officially thrown out, as well as keeping her rank going into retirement.