Changes to service medals announced

[Halifax Tar]

The issue in EITS’ post is that under the previous rules, both would get the GSM-EXP when clearly the one dropping weapons and facing the occasional AAA in Iraq/Syria should have been recognized for a bit more...  Both jobs are indeed important but one is in direct contact with the enemy, the other not.

You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?

These two posts articulate my point exactly.  Stop looking at the other guy an begrudging them and take pride in your service.  We all have a roll to play. 

SSM, you wouldnt have been able to drop ordiance with out someone paying you, loading your bombs, ordering your bombs, selecting yout target(s), feeding you, housing you ect ect ect.  We all have a role to play. 

 

[Sub_Guy]

You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?

They get 1.  He isn't looking for two medals.  It is the recognition that's all.  Everyone in Kuwait can get the GSM-EXP.  To qualify for the GCS-EXP aircrew needed 30 sorties over Iraq (and later Syria).  The CF-18 folks (and AAR) needed at least two rotations to get their 30 flights.

He would qualify for two medals if the rotations were 6 months apart..

It really isn't a big deal anymore, now that they've dropped it to 14 days, which is a victory for aircrew (IMHO). 

 

[daftandbarmy]

You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?

I was in Northern Ireland (not doing SAS tasks), at the same time as the SAS were in Northern Ireland (doing SAS tasks). I have the same GSM NI gong as the SAS guys who served there. So does the guy who was our clerk at Bn HQ.

This is a good thing IMHO as it recognizes campaign service, not apparent proximity to the enemy (FWIW, the stats show that me and the clerk were more likely to get nailed by the bad guys than the SAS, mainly as a result of sniper/mortar/IED attacks).

In the US they have the Combat Infantryman's Badge (CIB) to differentiate the 'front fighters' from those in the rear with the gear. As I understand, it they have a terrifically difficult time figuring out who should get that distinction versus who shouldn't, and suffer from excessive war tourism from those who are just trying to bling up their battledress.

I've never been a fan of these types of awards as it officially ignores the fact that one of the key reasons that those at the sharp end can do their jobs at all is because the other arms and services support them. Also, in our new asymmetric warfare reality, almost everyone is more or less at risk as there are no safe zones anymore, as I described above with my NI example or as we've seen recently with Iran launching missiles at our bases in Iraq.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

ACRA = "Flight Pay" like Sea and Land pay ?  How did you guys manage to collect that while being in receipt of FSP, HA and RA ?  We have all been told we arent allowed to collect environmental allowances and deployment benefits.

Yes, AIRCRA is aircrew allowance.  How did we keep it while receiving Ops FSP, HA and RA?  We were in Designated Flying Positions (which is included in the Remarks section of the CFTPO tasking msg), or we lost it.  Aircrew trades who were deployed and working in say, the DMSC (Deployed Mission Support Center) for the CP-140 Det would lose their AIRCRA because they weren't actually flying during that period, and collecting Ops FSP, RA and HA (and tax free status).  I've kept my AIRCRA on every deployment over a few different named ops, some of which did and some did not have associated HA and/or RA.

The only "extra" cash flyers took home was AIRCRA.  Most LRP folks were flying 100+ hours a month, so that works out to $3-$4 more an hour for flying around Iraq and Syria.  Should we have kept AIRCRA?  Certainly...why would I lose it just because I was receiving Ops FSP, HA and RA?  None of them are intended to compensate what AIRCRA is for:

205.32 - Aircrew Allowance (Monthly)
205.32(1) (Intent) Aircrew Allowance (Monthly) is financial compensation paid for the performance of assigned duties where there is continual and substantial exposure to the environmental conditions associated with flying operations.

10.3.04 - Operations Foreign Service Premium
10.3.04(1) (Intent) The Operations Foreign Service Premium (OPS FSP) is an allowance payable to a member:
in recognition of service on operations; and
to cover expenses not specifically covered by other allowances and benefits.

10.3.05 - Hardship Allowance
10.3.05(1) (Intent) The intent of the Hardship Allowance (HA) is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post.

10.3.07 - Risk Allowance
10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.

If all non-flyers at our location in Kuwait got Ops FSP, the same HA and same RA rates (which was the case), what compensation was there for flyers?  AIRCRA. At $3-$4 hour of flying.  Not really much of a financial advantage to going into the Badlands, more so when you consider the worst case scenario (i.e. - the Jordanian pilot they doused in gas and burned alive in the cage after he was captured).

For most of your post I don’t disagree with you.  I think the GCS has been diluted and its original intent has be lost.  You should see the sailors who walk around with it.  They haven’t been in a bar fight in a foreign port let alone be "in the presence of the enemy" yet they manage to justify its issue.  Meah...

Maybe so, but if it's the case, then how would we define the criteria more effectively for the GCS-Exp, or for the GCS-SWA back in the Afghanistan days?  If you look at the criteria I posted for the WWII Star, it was defined by "inside a specific geo area, during and for a specified time".  In the WWII Star....it was only 1 day.  I am certain there are WWII vets wearing Stars who never 'closed with and destroyed the enemy'. 

The quoted portion I still don’t understand.  Are you upset that the REMF is making the same as the fighter pilot , getting the same medal ?  Or are you ok with what the REMF is getting and you think the fighter pilot deserves better recognition by way of pay and medals ? 

*I am a REMF, I am allowed to use that term at my pleasure*

I wouldn't actually use the word "upset".  Do I think there should be different H & As and RAs for the 2?  I do, and it's not because their service is less important, but it certainly is different.

I recall many discussions, some on here, back during the Afghanistan days where some people were not happy that KAFers got the same Star as those folks who were living in FOBs and out posts, away from Timmies and the DFAC for weeks and months at a time. 

Looking back on the info I posted from the WWII Stars and Medals info...I suspect this discussion took place many many times in many Legions after WWII as well.  Happened then...happened during Afghanistan...happening now.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Both jobs are indeed important but one is in direct contact with the enemy, the other not.

Maybe the best word isn't "importance" or "value", but simply the word "different". 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?

They got 1 if they were solely in Iraq.  Some of them might have received the GSM-Exp even though they were in the Badlands some too (speaking as a guy who conducted some missions IDS to the CANSOF TF, and had their LOs come with us on missions). 

2 medals for one tour....that doesn't happen!  Oh..wait…

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/08/14/liberal-lip-service-to-peacekeeping-didnt-live-up-to-election-pledge/211254

Everyone who wears a CPSM...do you give them the  rly: look;  they are all "2 for 1" types.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You want 2 medals for your tour? What about CANSOF, who was probably in infinitely more "direct contact with the enemy" for more than the handful of hours a day you were over the ops box? How many medals do they get?

I want people who did two tours get the medals they deserve for different purposes (one tour supporting combat ops, one conducting ops against an armed enemy).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I want people who did two tours get the medals they deserve for different purposes (one tour supporting combat ops, one conducting ops against an armed enemy).

Just wanted to add here, the change doesn't apply only to Aircrew who flew IMPACT sorties.  All folks who deployed into Iraq when we were hitting ISIS, and the follow-on folks who went onto the training mission under IMPACT or the NMI and were in Iraq are also included in this.

If a Doctor deployed to IMPACT for say, less than 30 days before, and was at the Fd Hosp in Erbil...saved X amount of lives from IED injuries or something like that...he/she got...nadda.  Nothing. 

Doing their job, in a deployed Op location...but "for not enough days".  Saves lives.  But it was only for say 19 days. Sorry, your contribution isn't worthy of a Star.

Does that really make sense to people?  Really?

 

[SupersonicMax]

These two posts articulate my point exactly.  Stop looking at the other guy an begrudging them and take pride in your service.  We all have a roll to play. 

SSM, you wouldnt have been able to drop ordiance with out someone paying you, loading your bombs, ordering your bombs, selecting yout target(s), feeding you, housing you ect ect ect.  We all have a role to play.

I am pretty sure I said both jobs were important.  No job is more important but they are executed in massively different conditions.  If a pilot was only flying over Kuwait doing Maintenance Test Flight, he would not deserve the GCS.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, AIRCRA is aircrew allowance.  How did we keep it while receiving Ops FSP, HA and RA?.... 

Thats awesome I am glad you get to keep it.  I only wish I worked for an organization who realized, recently, that it could have been paying us SDA as well as FSP, HR and RA and began doing it.  Instead my leadership said NO!  Who knows what the future holds...

If all non-flyers at our location in Kuwait got Ops FSP, the same HA and same RA rates (which was the case), what compensation was there for flyers?  AIRCRA. At $3-$4 hour of flying.  Not really much of a financial advantage to going into the Badlands, more so when you consider the worst case scenario (i.e. - the Jordanian pilot they doused in gas and burned alive in the cage after he was captured).

Why do you/they need further compensation ?  Are we in the business of trying to create a tiered level of deployment compensation ?  See Dafts post.  Hes more articulate than I can be.

Maybe so, but if it's the case, then how would we define the criteria more effectively for the GCS-Exp, or for the GCS-SWA back in the Afghanistan days?  If you look at the criteria I posted for the WWII Star, it was defined by "inside a specific geo area, during and for a specified time".  In the WWII Star....it was only 1 day.  I am certain there are WWII vets wearing Stars who never 'closed with and destroyed the enemy'. 

I think the criteria is fine.  I think we simply like to fudge reality to ease egos.

I wouldn't actually use the word "upset".  Do I think there should be different H & As and RAs for the 2?  I do, and it's not because their service is less important, but it certainly is different.

I recall many discussions, some on here, back during the Afghanistan days where some people were not happy that KAFers got the same Star as those folks who were living in FOBs and out posts, away from Timmies and the DFAC for weeks and months at a time. 

Looking back on the info I posted from the WWII Stars and Medals info...I suspect this discussion took place many many times in many Legions after WWII as well.  Happened then...happened during Afghanistan...happening now.

Perhaps.  And often the supply train is misunderstood and undervalued by those it supports.  Ask Paulus how that turned out.  Again see Dafts post.

I am pretty sure I said both jobs were important.  No job is more important but they are executed in massively different conditions.  If a pilot was only flying over Kuwait doing Maintenance Test Flight, he would not deserve the GCS.

I dont think you understand that Logistics and other support are just as necessary as you flying the plane.  But if you really feel like your supporting arms had no or different or lesser levels of contribution to the fight I suggest your create a service paper supporting your position and staff it up through RCAF channels.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was in Northern Ireland (not doing SAS tasks), at the same time as the SAS were in Northern Ireland (doing SAS tasks). I have the same GSM NI gong as the SAS guys who served there. So does the guy who was our clerk at Bn HQ.

This is a good thing IMHO as it recognizes campaign service, not apparent proximity to the enemy (FWIW, the stats show that me and the clerk were more likely to get nailed by the bad guys than the SAS, mainly as a result of sniper/mortar/IED attacks).

So, not really any different than the GCS?  It doesn't matter if you are aircrew, SOF, a HR Admin, Supply, Veh Tech...inside the defined area for the defined amount of time...and you're eligible.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So, not really any different than the GCS?  It doesn't matter if you are aircrew, SOF, a HR Admin, Supply, Veh Tech...inside the defined area for the defined amount of time...and you're eligible.

Doesn't the GCS require presence of the enemy ?

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations/details/118

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations/details/117

 

[SupersonicMax]

I dont think you understand that Logistics and other support are just as necessary as you flying the plane.  But if you really feel like your supporting arms had no or different or lesser levels of contribution to the fight I suggest your create a service paper supporting your position and staff it up through RCAF channels.

I don’t think you understand that I understand that, very well.  The guy cooking the food, the gal driving the bus, the tech fixing the aircraft, the fighter pilot dropping weapons, the AESOP working the sensors in the back of the Aurora, the ACSO calculating and dispensing fuel to aircraft, the SOF guy kicking doors down.  We all have an important role to play.  Every deployment deserves an award. The fact that the requirements for GCS and GSM are different however indicate that different operating conditions (in this case, one in the presence of an enemy and on to support operations against an enemy) show that leadership sees a distinction in the service of different individuals not based on WHAT they do but WHERE they do it and in WHAT conditions they do it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why do you/they need further compensation ?

Because of the reality of deployment and ops in a place that the enemy will burn you alive in a cage, make a video of it for your friends and family to watch (on that particular op)?  Seems like a legit reason to me.  None of us here are donating our bi-monthly pay to charity;  we all expect and receive compensation.

I'll use the MFSI to support my position:

10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.

10.3.13 - Determination of Hardship and Risk Allowance Levels

10.3.13(5) (Factors – Risk Level)  Before determining an RA level for a post, the Chairperson of the Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee must consider all of the following:

a.  kinetic activities (e.g. threat posed by hostile forces, civil instability, and risk caused by other contingents and/or neighbouring national forces);

b.  the operational environment (e.g. geospatial hazards from: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear contamination, hazardous plants, animals, and unexploded ordnance, health and hygiene, and the physical geography and its effects on the task force);

c.  measures taken to mitigate the risk to members serving at the post; and

d. any representations made by interested commanders in accordance with instructions issued by or under the authority of the CDS concerning RA determinations.

Very simply put;  the kinetic activities, operational environment considerations were considerably different between aircrew in a killbox over Iraq or Syria and anyone in the secure Kuwait locations.

I could speak to 'measures to mitigate the risk', but I won't, not here at least.  There were some things that happened and decisions taken that were...irresponsible.  Nuff said on that for a public site.

Despite the MFSI, details above and theatre realities....aircrew who conducted missions over Iraq and Syria received the same RA as folks who never left Kuwait and, most of those people never left the air bases they were at.  They didn't even carry, let alone wear, any PPE, weapons etc. 

Didn't make us better, or more important...just facing a different level of actual risk.  To use SSMs words..."massively different conditions".

Does that sound reasonable in the assessment/assignment of RA?  What was the risk in that op area?  Only this I guess, if aircrew had a really bad day.  That video is not a 'made up movie'; it happened to a real human being (graphic stuff starts at 18:20 or so.  Don't watch it if you're not prepared to see someone die a fairly horrible death and then get smashed into the ground with a front end loader).  That was the 'worst case scenario'.  Even GW1, the captured aircrew didn't have to worry about being BBQd...

How many people who deployed to and never left Kuwait had the potential to suffer this fate?  I'd say zero.  How many had the potential to suffer it on the aircrew side?  Anyone who operated over a piece of ground with ISIS in it.

Kuwait compared to the Iraq/Syria battlespace, especially early on when ISIS had more territory south and along the ERV and TRV, etc...significantly different.

Are we in the business of trying to create a tiered level of deployment compensation ?  See Dafts post.  Hes more articulate than I can be.

Trying to create?  We're already in one.

- Ops FSP. Based on points and nothing else.  I could be on the same Op doing the same job as the mbr next to me and making alot of Ops FSP.

- HA bonus, tied to Ops FSP.  Again, I could (and do) make HA Bonus...person next to me doing the same job 3 feet away might not get any HA bonus.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I will relent and say this, perhaps I don't get it because there is little to no separation of my work in the ship to that of operations at sea and I just see it differently because of that. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Because of the reality of deployment and ops in a place that the enemy will burn you alive in a cage, make a video of it for your friends and family to watch (on that particular op)? 

So here we see the difference between the Air Force and the Infantry: I'd much rather be closer to the 'Red Force Enemy', at the tip of the spear, than the 'Blue Force Enemy', that lurks in the rear areas of any operational deployment.

We should therefore probably issue the more coveted medals to those serving closer to the 'rock painting/ gate guarding/ VIP visit management platoon' lines

 

[brihard]

I will relent and say this, perhaps I don't get it because there is little to no separation of my work in the ship to that of operations at sea and I just see it differently because of that.

When deployed you guys are literally all in the same boat... any of the tangible, physical risks are shared very, very equally. Less so in the army, very much less so in the Air Force given that they usually fly from safe places (though not always, as some British ground crew in Camp Bastion proved one night).

 

[Furniture]

When deployed you guys are literally all in the same boat... any of the tangible, physical risks are shared very, very equally. Less so in the army, very much less so in the Air Force given that they usually fly from safe places (though not always, as some British ground crew in Camp Bastion proved one night).

Except it's not so clean as you present it.  I'm Air DEU, but spent 7 month in Kandahar with D Bty 2 RCHA driving Bison, and doing 'army", "combat arms" things alongside gunners. Right beside us were Comms Research, Vehicle Techs, Med Techs, etc. We all got the same gold star for attendance.

Like D&B said, we should award medals by theatre. Pretending your service is more important, more dangerous, etc. is just ego fluffing most times.

I do find it amusing when an Army DEU guy looks down on my "KAF" time because I wear a blue suit though...

 

[dapaterson]

You mean the lessons learned guy who spent just enough time in KAF to qualify, then developed a compassionate reason to go home?

 

[eliminator]

While I do think the GCS and GSM "team" of awards is great, it does seems like the Op IMPACT experience has created alot of unnecessary administivia and confusion.

The Brits and Aussies award a single medal for all operations against ISIL in the region, irrespective of location (note: the Brits do add a "Iraq and Syria" bar if you actually serve in Iraq and/or Syria). Nevertheless, everyone gets the same medal. One team, one mission, one medal. Perhaps an "OSM-ISIL" would have been a better approach for Canada. 

https://www.defence.gov.au/Medals/Australian/Since-1975/AOSM-Greater-Middle-East-Operation.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Service_Medal_Iraq_and_Syria