Canadian Forces Officer guilty of wearing unearned medals.

[cavalryman]

She has been court-martialed for dishonesty twice, and yet she will be allowed to retire at the same rank as so many other officers with unblemished records.  That alone fills me with revulsion.

There is a reason why we spend so much more time on values and ethics training in DND than in any other department I've worked in.  I am not qualified to question the judge's decision.  I do however question her chain of command's integrity. 

Having had to deal with this individual on a business matter in the last week, I can confirm that I have no respect for her, her rank or anything good she may have done.  Her lack of integrity has forever coloured my view of her as an officer and her effectiveness in her job.

 

[George Wallace]

There is a reason why we spend so much more time on values and ethics training in DND than in any other department I've worked in.  I am not qualified to question the judge's decision.  I do however question her chain of command's integrity. 

Having had to deal with this individual on a business matter in the last week, I can confirm that I have no respect for her, her rank or anything good she may have done.  Her lack of integrity has forever coloured my view of her as an officer and her effectiveness in her job.

For the amount of time we preach ethics, morals, credibility, etc.; we so often see examples of people practicing the opposite of what is preached.  Really makes you wonder.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Not really. You'd have to be obtuse not to see that many people simply don't give a shit. There was an officer that made up a job with the qual's he had then retired and took the job.

 

[TCM621]

Not really. You'd have to be obtuse not to see that many people simply don't give a crap. There was an officer that made up a job with the qual's he had then retired and took the job.

Happens all the time. Chiefs are often quite skilled at job creation too. I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of head who have created jobs for them to retire into.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Funny they don't cover that in any ethics briefs I've been too.

 

[cavalryman]

Happens all the time. Chiefs are often quite skilled at job creation too. I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of head who have created jobs for them to retire into.

Don't blame the chiefs.  Blame the CoC that allowed  it to happen.  Had one try that on me a few years back.  Had a bit of a misfire when I told him his proposed civvie job wasn't required.  Our problems aren't at the low end of the food chain.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

To a point but if my superiors aren't ethical then why should the troops. Lead by example.

 

[pbi]

To a point but if my superiors aren't ethical then why should the troops. Lead by example.

I think this is mostly correct, but it might be a bit over the top (although I am in agreement with most of what you have said so far). I really don't believe there is a pandemic of unethical behaviour going on in the CAF. In fact, we are probably better off in that department than we have been in a long time.

I began my service in 1974, and ended it in 2012. During that time, I can safely say we went through a period where unethical and actually illegal behaviour (at all rank levels) had become far more commonplace than it is now. Gen Menard was not the first CAF GOFO to be caught misbehaving, by a long shot. He was, in my opinion, one of the few to be dealt with appropriately. In my opinion, it was the inevitable result of a large institution falling into a rut with a lack of public scrutiny and accountability. At least now we talk about it openly, and widely recognize it as wrong.

Although I'm no longer in uniform, I work very closely with uniformed CAF folks every day, and I know that, without exception, at all rank levels, they are shocked, infuriated and frustrated by this outcome, and by the repetitious nature of the accused's behaviour. They don't see such behaviour as routine, or "OK", or acceptable. This reaction, I think, is a very good thing.

Do we (sorry..."the CAF"...hard to break old habits...) still have corrupt, unethical people? It would seem that you do. Power, position and all of those things that go with rank are always going to corrupt people whose character is inadequate to the task. Dealing with that problem is only the job of the military justice system in the very last resort. It is really, IMHO, a professional issue to be dealt with by the chain of command, long before it slides to the sad end we have seen in the Miller case.

I learned (slowly, and the hard way) that if you have problems with people in the military, you have two choices. Fix or fire. By "fix", I mean you do everything you possibly can as a leader to have that person correct their behaviour and rise up to the expected standard, and stay there under their own steam.

By "fire", I mean just that. Bring the full power of the administrative system, as quickly as possible,  to bear to get that person out of that position or if necessary (and it often is...) out of the service. This is difficult, often slow and frustrating, but you must line up your ducks and stick with it.

There is no third option called "ignore and hide", but how many times have we all seen that done, from Cpl to LCol?

 

[George Wallace]

:goodpost:

I see this as where our problems ( to whatever extent they exist ) lie:

By "fire", I mean just that. Bring the full power of the administrative system, as quickly as possible,  to bear to get that person out of that position or if necessary (and it often is...) out of the service. This is difficult, often slow and frustrating, but you must line up your ducks and stick with it.

There is no third option called "ignore and hide", but how many times have we all seen that done, from Cpl to LCol?

When it comes to "firing", and I have seen it so often in the Training System, we often have no will to do so, nor is the documentation required to ensure all our "ducks are in a row" being done.  Worse case scenario was on my 6A where one candidate was on PRB twice and still passed the crse.  That was a surprise to all the candidates, and most of the Staff.  Later as a member of the Staff I sat in on the PRB for a Capt.  Comdt's decision was to allow him to continue and graduate.    I find that our weakness is in our administration.  If we are afraid or often too lazy to document and justify our reasons to "fire" members, being the "Mr/Mrs Nice Guy" instead, we perpetuate that weakness.  That Third Option of "ignore and hide" is the reason the Second Option is not being utilized to its fullest extent.  In the end we only "shot ourselves in the foot".

 

[pbi]

:goodpost:

I see this as where our problems ( to whatever extent they exist ) lie:

When it comes to "firing", and I have seen it so often in the Training System, we often have no will to do so, nor is the documentation required to ensure all our "ducks are in a row" being done...

Yes, I agree. I once discussed this with a CWO who had been a Cdo Sgt Maj in the Airborne, about why some of the very plainly terrible people sent there (sadly, a number from my own Regt), were not dealt with before things went bad. His answer? "Too much goddamned paperwork".

To be fair, in the majority of my time at least, the system did not make it easy to get rid of an officer. As I have related elsewhere on this site, I was directly involved in two cases in the 80's and 90's which, despite the hideous and disgusting behaviour of the two officers in question, the CO had to fight the system tooth and nail to even get a hearing about releasing them, never mind get these people out. In the end, both were thankfully done away with, but it took ages. These were only junior officers: I can only imagine the impossibility of ousting a LCol at that time.

By contrast, in the early 2000's I was involved in a case in which an officer under my command had been accused (but never found guilty) of a sexual offense against a female subordinate. As opposed to the resistance to getting rid of people in earlier days, I was now fighting off DMCARM's hounding to release the officer as quickly as possible.

In my opinion, if the military is truly a profession, then it needs to act as one and not as a sinecure public service. Much as the College of Surgeons, or the Law Society can disbar or defrock a member for professional reasons, so should the CAF.

 

[Old Sweat]

I saw an officer released in something less than 12 hours from offence to civilian. We were in the field on the 3 CIBG summer concentration in 1964 and I had gone of an advance to contact exercise as the FOO with D Coy, 1 RHC. On my return to base camp another lieutenant told me the story. At about 0200 the young officer in question decided he would like a drink despite the mess being closed, so he broke into the trailer where the booze was secured. A soldier caught him, but the second lieutenant beat him up. This woke up all sorts of people and he was placed under close arrest with a couple of officers guarding him. Our battery commander went to see the CO forthwith.

At about 0630 the CO drove over to Petersville, the concentration headquarters, where the Adjutant General of the Canadian Army was, by chance, staying on a visit to the exercise. Sunray met him as the great man left the mess and explained the situation and handed him the paper work for a procedure called AG's Disposal. The major general signed the form releasing the officer for misconduct, the CO got on the phone, the young officer did a lightning quick out clearance under escort and by 1000 was standing in civilian clothes at a bus stop with a ticket back to his pre-enlistment place of residence.

And bloody good riddance, too.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The judge's reasons for decision on sentence have now been posted at this link:

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/assets/CMJ_Internet/docs/en/2014cm2018_miller_sentence.pdf

:cheers:

Here's what stood out for me - highlights my own....

.... It is open to question whether in these circumstances the joint submission of the prosecution and defence is sufficiently different in kind from the sentence that was awarded to Lieutenant-Colonel Miller at her previous trial by court martial to respect the step principle of sentencing. They submit that the increased quantum of the fine is sufficient to say that it does. Some doubt attends this. Absent the joint submission, given the record of previous convictions in the period preceding the date specified in the three charges of which Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has now been convicted, the court would have considered the punishment of reduction in rank. However, as I indicated earlier, the jurisprudence provides that this is not the test.

In deciding whether to depart from the joint submission I must have regard to the guidance provided by appellate courts, and in particular the Court Martial Appeal Court. Having done so, the court does not consider that the proposed sentence is so far off the mark as to be unfit, unreasonable, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or be contrary to the public interest.

I am also cognizant of the arguments articulated by counsel suggesting the multiple factors that may potentially influence the positions ultimately taken on sentence recommendations by the prosecution and defence in any given case, and for judges to restrain their instincts to look behind the face of submissions made to them by prosecution and defence counsel as officers of the court.

I also am cognizant of the strong mitigation evidence entered on Lieutenant-Colonel Miller's behalf concerning her past and recent performance as an officer in the Canadian Forces.  Thus the court will accept the joint submission of counsel for the prosecution and defence as to sentence ....

(If that underlined bit is true, why not come up with a computer instead of a human judge, with algorithms to cover "stuff entered into evidence vs. sentence issued"?)

And what was the mitigating stuff?

.... a)  first and foremost, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has pleaded guilty to the offences. This is always an important mitigating factor,  reflecting that the offender has accepted responsibility for her actions;

(b) the outstanding performance consistently demonstrated over a number of years by Lieutenant-Colonel Miller in the Performance Evaluation Reports entered into evidence that relate to the years prior to her conviction by a Standing Court Martial in 2012;

(c)  the sheaf of letters of commendation over the years, and support for Lieutenant-Colonel Miller, that were entered into evidence at Exhibit 15.  Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has substantial equity in the Service over the 34 years of her career in the Canadian Forces; and,

(d) the indications in the letter in evidence at Exhibit 15 written in October 2014 by Major-General Tremblay, her current Commander at the Canadian Defence Academy, and in the email written by Colonel Ewing, her current supervisor, that Lieutenant-Colonel Miller has performed strongly in the recent past notwithstanding the pressure of her imminent trial by court martial and that she continues to make a valuable contribution to the Canadian Forces ....

I know it's "woulda, coulda, shoulda" at this point, but it would have been interesting to see how an appeal would have dealt with, say, a promotion or dismissal from the judge.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think, in fairness to the judge, that this sentence - "However, as I indicated earlier, the jurisprudence provides that this is not the test." - is the reason.  Maybe FJAG can help us with that.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I removed my post about retired Col. W.J. (Bill) Lewis as the news article was from 2011 and I obviously have issues reading dates........... :facepalm:

 

[FJAG]

Here's what stood out for me - highlights my own....(If that underlined bit is true, why not come up with a computer instead of a human judge, with algorithms to cover "stuff entered into evidence vs. sentence issued"?)
. . .

The algorithms bit reminds me a little of just about every NCIS episode where Tim writes an algorithm in ten minutes to do stuff that the software's original programmers were unable to do in years of development.

In a lot of ways judging IS like a computer.  You take the law as stated in cases by higher courts, add to that the facts of the case, compare those facts with those of similar prior cases, add a fudge factor for novel elements and come up with the right conclusion. A really sophisticated algorithm could do that. The trouble is we don't have one but we do have judges with training and experience and the ability to do the analysis - wetware algorithms.

The judge here applied the right test: accept the joint recommendation unless "the proposed sentence is unfit, unreasonable, would bring the system of justice into disrepute, or be contrary to the public interest."

This was not a case engaging the public interest but one where the question was that whether or not the system of justice would be brought into disrepute. Obviously many of the commentators on this site would think that that's exactly what happened here but there are obviously contrary opinions such as the ones by the prosecutor (and you can believe that this recommended sentence was undoubtedly canvassed within the offices of DMP) and the various individuals who provided testimonials on her behalf at the sentencing hearing. I'm not saying one is more right than the other, just that there are undoubtedly differences of opinion.

If there was one thing in the decision that caught my attention it was the fact that the judge was not provided any "cases similar on their facts to the present case". Instead the prosecution and defence merely pointed out that the fine element of the punishment had increased from $3,000.00 in the first trial to $5,000.00 in the second and that this was sufficient, in their minds, for a second offence - the judge quite rightly points out that "some doubt attends this". I would have thought, like the judge, that the prosecution and defence should have seen the optics of the recommended sentence and done a more thorough job in giving the judge appropriate caselaw (if not from the military side, then from civilian cases) showing him that the recommended sentence was within the ball park.

:cheers:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?

 

[Sully]

I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?

Good Question.

 

[ballz]

I learned (slowly, and the hard way) that if you have problems with people in the military, you have two choices. Fix or fire. By "fix", I mean you do everything you possibly can as a leader to have that person correct their behaviour and rise up to the expected standard, and stay there under their own steam.

By "fire", I mean just that. Bring the full power of the administrative system, as quickly as possible,  to bear to get that person out of that position or if necessary (and it often is...) out of the service. This is difficult, often slow and frustrating, but you must line up your ducks and stick with it.

There is no third option called "ignore and hide", but how many times have we all seen that done, from Cpl to LCol?

I have also learned the hard way, although as a very junior officer and while I am still a Pl Comd. A tough lesson to learn, but looking back I would have done things differently.

The "book" gives us all the tools to accomplish what we need to, but I what I have found is a reluctance to use it. IMO, it is largely out of pure cowardice that we do not, and often resort to your third option. No one wants to look a man in the face and say "you're just not performing at the standard that you're required to." In the end, that's why you're getting paid the big bucks, to do exactly that when it is required. It's the easy way out to "make do" so that you can avoid holding someone to account.

I know for me, despite the problems I was encountering with dealing with a WO, my Pl 2IC, people were shocked that I was issuing a 5b PDR and thought it took a set of stones to do it. In reality, I should have issued a 5b PDR or two before that, and I should have been issuing an Initial Counselling at that point, and it was only out of the same cowardice that I hadn't. I think everyone else's reaction to it also made me second-guess myself. I was half-convinced it was my failure as a leader for not being able to make the member perform. In hindsight, a lot of people had failed to do their job for me to even be in the position I was in. I have often expressed to those around me that *I* should have been put on IC for failing to take appropriate action sooner, and following up on it with more admin action when the member failed to respond. It was a legitimate leadership challenge and I failed, full stop. However, who could honestly put me on IC? At least I did *something*, even when advised by peers that I shouldn't, that's more than I can say for anyone before me and more than I can say for the command team that I was looking to for guidance on dealing with the issue.

But at least I've learned, even if it had to be the hard way. That mistake has redefined my approach.

I find that our weakness is in our administration.  If we are afraid or often too lazy to document and justify our reasons to "fire" members, being the "Mr/Mrs Nice Guy" instead, we perpetuate that weakness.  That Third Option of "ignore and hide" is the reason the Second Option is not being utilized to its fullest extent.  In the end we only "shot ourselves in the foot".

I would argue that it's out of "being afraid" to be a leader and not out of "laziness" in most cases, but I find your assessment spot on.

 

[Sully]

IMO, it is largely out of pure cowardice that we do not, and often resort to your third option. No one wants to look a man in the face and say "you're just not performing at the standard that you're required to." In the end, that's why you're getting paid the big bucks, to do exactly that when it is required. It's the easy way out to "make do" so that you can avoid holding someone to account.

I would argue that it's out of "being afraid" to be a leader and not out of "laziness" in most cases, but I find your assessment spot on.

I agree and I don't think that I could have summarized my sentiments in a better manner.

 

[captloadie]

I find that in this case, the law may have been well served, but our ethos was not.  Protection and application of the Law is the purview of the courts, whereas the development and sustainment of our ethos is the purview of Commanders.  Where was their voice in all of this?

He did lend his voice. He stood behind the LCol with his support. As did her immediate supervisor.