Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[OldSolduer]

Let's talk abou Universality of Service. A CF member, no matter what rank or trade, must be capable of doing certain tasks relating to general military duties and common defence and security tasks and not just the tasks of their particular trade/classification. They also must be capable of deploying on operations.

If a member does not meet U of S, he/she can be released. Period. Full Stop.

And it doesn't matter if the soldier was WIA, ill, injured, unfit or incompetent. That is the reality of the policy.

 

[George Wallace]

If a member does not meet U of S, he/she can be released. Period. Full Stop.

Playing Devil's Advocate; there is a great difference between "CAN" and "WILL".

 

[OldSolduer]

Playing Devil's Advocate; there is a great difference between "CAN" and "WILL".

You are absolutley correct. How many physically unfit pers have we encountered who will not be released?

 

[armyvern]

Every member of the Canadian Armed Forces on Active Duty is considered Deployable. But I would wager that only 70-80% (thats being generous) of the Regular Force is actually Deployable at any one time for various Reasons. The Reserves are fully deployable as is the Supp Res list with much less of a percentage of those who would dag Green.

Face the facts that CF Office worker that weighs 280lbs and is 5'1 at Base HQ may be a awesome Clerk, but is not deployable in reguards to fitness or War fighting ability. But they possess the skills required to do their day to day job better then the person next to them who is more focused on being fit then they are at their job.

When I say non "deployable" I mean non deployable positions" I mean the Actual position at Base Supply or Base HQ where a person can work and that actual position is a static Position. Base supply Would not pack up go to minimum manning and deploy Base supply as a unit to support operations abroad. (there are exceptions but not many)

The Regimental QM will deploy with the Regiment then will transfer as the new unit rotates in.
We do not deploy complete bases through rotations, we deploy Regiments who then task out Battalions.  Someone is going to say "we draw from Base HQ to provide personalle". We draw from across Canada to fill some positions so that point is null and void.

Bottom line is there are many positions within the CF that can be filled by Unfit for active duty Servicmen and Women who are inured on Operations. No they will not take away all the cushy jobs, maybe some of them. But hey they were injured so they should have a choice.

Many of you are looking at this as a "you" issue when in fact this is a Leadership issue. If you have 1000 people injured from Service reasons through out Canada we can easily employ them, we may have to lay off a Civilian or maybe not renew a contract or two but it is more then possible.
Afterall that person working Base Stores for the past 10 years and is not going anywhere soon can rotate to a line unit to provide a position for a injured member.

WTF!?? Non deployable posns?? Greetings from Edmonton where I am currently WUing for deployment --- I'm here from my usual static Supply RQ posn in Kingston (to which I will return sometime after 31 Dec 2011).

Your argument above (that I've highlighted in yellow) has been raised on this forum before; it is not new. Problem with your argument is that it is not factual either.

There simply exists no such thing as a "static" base supply. You speak of Units deploying who do not deploy their "entire RQ". First thing you need to do is lose the "Army" mentality and realize that sup is not part of the Army. While Army Units like to deploy en masse, sup techs across the CF deploy "en masse" within their current posnl unit or/and augment other tours that are occurring outside of their Unit. In other words, when 2RCR (or any other 1st line Unit) is deployed overseas in Afghanistan - supply may very well have sent some of their sup techs to Afghan with 2 RCR, all the while other of their sup techs are serving in Alert, Bosnia, Sudan, CM, Haiti  etc etc because all those other tours still need to be supported (even if not by complete army 1st line units).

Purple pers do not deploy as "Units" like 1st line army units do ... we have sup techs on every tour and every roto in every theatre of operations. Just because 2 RCR is home, doesn't mean their purple staff all are (& vice versa).

I had a couple persons working for me in Gagetown at clothing stores +10 years. All three of them had at least 3 tours overseas in those same 10 years. Eritrea, Afghanistan, Golan, Alert, Sudan, Bosnia, CM, Haiti & Congo --- yet they belonged to base supply (your supposedly static location).

At one point in 2005, I was missing 60% of my mil staff as they were all deployed overseas (and not all to Afghanistan either). 2007 was no better. Fact is, these posns are not "static/non-deploying" as you claim them to be. Far from it. And, lose the thought that if no army unit on that base is doing a tour in Afghanistan, then that means that no purple trades on that Army base are either. Because I'll guarantee you that they are ... on top of tours into other non-Afghanistanian theatres as well.

 

[CombatDoc]

Purple pers do not deploy as "Units" like 1st line army units do ... we have sup techs on every tour and every roto in every theatre of operations. Just because 2 RCR is home, doesn't mean their purple staff all are (& vice versa).

I had a couple persons working for me in Gagetown at clothing stores +10 years. All three of them had at least 3 tours overseas in those same 10 years. Eritrea, Afghanistan, Golan, Alert, Sudan, Bosnia, CM, Haiti & Congo --- yet they belonged to base supply (your supposedly static location).

At one point in 2005, I was missing 60% of my mil staff as they were all deployed overseas (and not all to Afghanistan either). 2007 was no better. Fact is, these posns are not "static/non-deploying" as you claim them to be. Far from it. And, lose the thought that if no army unit on that base is doing a tour in Afghanistan, then that means that no purple trades on that Army base are either. Because I'll guarantee you that they are ... on top of tours into other non-Afghanistanian theatres as well.

+1.  This is true for all purple trades, who also have a "day job" to fill while in garrison.  The only people that the Army Managed Readiness Cycle (or whatever it is being called today) works well for are Infantry Bns.  Now, back to the regularly scheduled discussion on disposition of wounded soldiers...

 

[Journeyman]

WTF!?? Non-deployable posns??

Gutsy move, CTD; pissing off a redheaded, female, MWO.  op:

All three of them had at least 3 tours overseas in those same 10 years. Eritrea, Afghanistan, Golan, Alert, Sudan, Bosnia, CM, Haiti & Congo --- yet they belonged to base supply (your supposedly static location).

Which reinforces that well-worn peeve -- you can post opinions, or you can post informed opinions; the latter get you dog-piled much less.

 

[OldSolduer]

To quote DAOD 5023:
Principle of Universality of Service
The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.

See DAOD 5023-1 Minimum Operational Standards Related to Universality of Service

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5023-1-eng.asp

This is the criteria we MUST adhere to. It hurts to release members BUT we must follow the policy.

 

[armyvern]

I do note that the below quote:

To quote DAOD 5023:
Principle of Universality of Service
The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.

uses terminology such as "general military duties and common defence and security duties", not "perform all duties to an infantry standard" (which happens to be what a HUGE number of members thinks that "Soldier First" actually means)... just a "general" and/or "common" standard. To me, that implies meet the "minimum" (UofS), not the "infantry" standard for retention in the CF.

Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.

 

[McG]

I do note that the below quote:
uses terminology such as "general military duties and common defence and security duties", not "perform all duties to an infantry standard" (which happens to be what a HUGE number of members thinks that "Soldier First" actually means)... just a "general" and/or "common" standard. To me, that implies meet the "minimum" (UofS), not the "infantry" standard for retention in the CF.

Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.

Pers who are medically fit universality of service, but medically unfit occupation get medical occupational transfers.  Those who do not want an OT can choose the release.

 

[vonGarvin]

Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.

You are 100% right in this.  In fact, there is no fitness requirement specific to the infantry (maybe that's another debate: ought there to be one?) 
But, I guess, if a member meets the physical standards for the CF, or any other standard for their element or trade (eg: army pers have to do the BFT, etc), then they meet requirements of the DAOD quoted.

 

[McG]

The fitness of concern, with wounded personnel being considered for release, is not physical fitness - it is medical fitness.
Doctor evaluations, not CF Express or BFT, are what decides. 

 

[vonGarvin]

The fitness of concern, with wounded personnel being considered for release, is not physical fitness - it is medical fitness.
Doctor evaluations, not CF Express or BFT, are what decides.

Understood.  Having said that, if a wounded person cannot do the applicable fitness test due to their injury, is what I meant.

 

[OldSolduer]

I do note that the below quote:
uses terminology such as "general military duties and common defence and security duties", not "perform all duties to an infantry standard" (which happens to be what a HUGE number of members thinks that "Soldier First" actually means)... just a "general" and/or "common" standard. To me, that implies meet the "minimum" (UofS), not the "infantry" standard for retention in the CF.

Debate away, but nothing in that quote states that the fitness performance level required by an infanteer is required by the entire of the CF.

Vern I agree with you 100%. I've seen and heard too many brain dead infantry types yell and scream about how the Air Force and Navy and the "wogs" aren't fit enough.

 

[armyvern]

Pers who are medically fit universality of service, but medically unfit occupation get medical occupational transfers.  Those who do not want an OT can choose the release.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[armyvern]

You are 100% right in this.  In fact, there is no fitness requirement specific to the infantry (maybe that's another debate: ought there to be one?) 
But, I guess, if a member meets the physical standards for the CF, or any other standard for their element or trade (eg: army pers have to do the BFT, etc), then they meet requirements of the DAOD quoted.

Exactly. My point was to those who yell "Soldier First!!" at every opportune time & infer that the minimum standard for the CF should be such that the entire CF should/must be able to perform first and foremost as infanteers; that is bunk and is not what "Soldier First" means. UofS and PT standards are such that they are the minimum required for employment within the entire of the CF ... not that they are the minimum required to perform Function X Job in the CF.

 

[armyvern]

The fitness of concern, with wounded personnel being considered for release, is not physical fitness - it is medical fitness.
Doctor evaluations, not CF Express or BFT, are what decides.

Agreed to this too. But, there are also minimum trade standards that must be met (where the fitness was brought in, I think, wrt trades). Sup techs chuck around 80pounders as a matter of daily tasks when working in an AC spares section (for example). That involves lifting a minimum weighted item (which would fall under physical fitness), but is also mentioned as a minimum trade standard requirement. Same with minimum hearing profile etc etc.

 

[McG]

There are occupation specific medical standards.  We do not have occupation specific physical fitness standards.
There are specific mechanisims to release or OT a member who has a medical restriction against lifting over a certain weight but who must perform this duty in his occupation.

There are also mechanisims to release members that fail to meet the physical fitness standards.  However, if the a Sup Tech cannot lift the 80 lbs his occupation may require and that inability is purely related to physical fitness, then the mechanisms for failed physical fitness do not come into play ... there is still recourse, but it is different.

Hearing (if the requirement is morestringent than that of universality of service) is also covered under occupational medical standards.

 

[aesop081]

We do not have occupation specific physical fitness standards.

Yes we do. SAR techs are one of them. IIRC, firefighters also have differing fitness standards that the rest of the CF.

 

[armyvern]

There are occupation specific medical standards.  We do not have occupation specific physical fitness standards.
There are specific mechanisims to release or OT a member who has a medical restriction against lifting over a certain weight but who must perform this duty in his occupation.

There are also mechanisims to release members that fail to meet the physical fitness standards.  However, if the a Sup Tech cannot lift the 80 lbs his occupation may require and that inability is purely related to physical fitness, then the mechanisms for failed physical fitness do not come into play ... there is still recourse, but it is different.

Hearing (if the requirement is morestringent than that of universality of service) is also covered under occupational medical standards.

Absolutely. I can lift the 80lbs required today, but I could not perform 7 chinups ... my shoulder blades (& age - I`m getting over the hill  >) simply wouldn`t allow it as my skeleton is shaped differently than a males - you see, lifting is not like pulling directly upwards and the skeleton acts/performs quite differently in both instances.

Where would I be for those arguing that the Coopers test should be the minimum? I can do my job.

(Which, I think, has been split to another spot now ... ???)

 

[McG]

I too think we are starting to get back down into the Measuring Physical Fitness tangent that was split to here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/98528.0.html