MEMOS:CFAO/DAOD or other source for the # of days it must be returned to the mbr

[DBF]

You have a reference for this, of course.

You mean you'd annotate his Div Notes appropriately for every time you wasted your time dealing with a subordinate's welfare were expected to do your job?  If a member has to resort to DND728s to document his attempts at resolving an issue administratively, then someone is not doing their job.  If it's not you, then your job in his/her chain of command is to find out who.

I thought that mindset had been purged from the Navy.  Clearly, it still lingers like a bad case of flatulence.

If it's not to initiate a grievance, then what reason would a member have to request a meeting with the CO through his/her CoC?  If anything, the member is going to be privately chastised for taking minor matters to the CO.  I'm not saying there isn't a place and a time for it, but that place and time is when all avenues have been exhausted and the only thing left is to pursue the Grievance system.
(This is dangerously bad advice - I assume it was posted in jest?  From para 2.2 of the  Canadian Forces Grievance Manual: "The right to grieve does not preclude a verbal request for resolution directly to the Commanding Officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance."  In fact one of the pre-formatted boxes on a DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM is the "Request to see the CO on a service matter" box for this type of thing.)

What is that supposed to mean?  I've never seen that phrase before.

(Maybe you should have read the whole thread before commenting then?)

 

[DBF]

If it's not to initiate a grievance, then what reason would a member have to request a meeting with the CO through his/her CoC?  If anything, the member is going to be privately chastised for taking minor matters to the CO.  I'm not saying there isn't a place and a time for it, but that place and time is when all avenues have been exhausted and the only thing left is to pursue the Grievance system.

This is dangerously bad advice - I assume it was posted in jest?  From para 2.2 of the  Canadian Forces Grievance Manual: "The right to grieve does not preclude a verbal request for resolution directly to the Commanding Officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance."  In fact one of the pre-formatted boxes on a DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM is the "Request to see the CO on a service matter" box for this type of thing

 

[DBF]

I thought that mindset had been purged from the Navy.  Clearly, it still lingers like a bad case of flatulence.

Ahhhh...there's some old school Navy thinking:  When in doubt, insult the other person.  BZ!

 

[DBF]

And since I see that you're Navy, you may be thinking of request forms or "official requests" that are tracked by the Regulating Office. These are supposed to be responded to within 14 days, and I think the reference is SSOs (or possible MARCORDs) since it's an exclusively Navy practice. The key here is that the forms have to be tracked manually and someone (i.e. the Coxn or RPO) has to be in the charge of making sure they get moved along; otherwise they'll go adrift.

Memos are just a form of correspondence and have no "due date"; the majority of memos that get sent have no expectation of being returned to the sender.

Well said.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Is there no such thing as a Round Trip Memo in existence for communication within a unit anymore?  There was a 14 day turnaround on those, IIRC.

 

[CountDC]

A-AE-000-001/AG-E00 Guide to the Divisional System. Halifax: MARCOM/N1, 1993.

Are you serious?? MARCOM/N1 1993??  You don't even give a paragraph number where it says not to use a 728 or a link to it.  MARCOM itself is out of a date just like your reference.

Try this link for Div Guide by CMS in Aug 2005, I recommend chapter 2: 

http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/Divguide/toc.asp

 

 

[Occam]

This is dangerously bad advice - I assume it was posted in jest?  From para 2.2 of the  Canadian Forces Grievance Manual: "The right to grieve does not preclude a verbal request for resolution directly to the Commanding Officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance."  In fact one of the pre-formatted boxes on a DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM is the "Request to see the CO on a service matter" box for this type of thing

Yes, that request to complain verbally to the Commanding Officer is part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, and for all intents and purposes can be considered a first step in the Grievance process.

That "DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM" isn't used outside the Navy, by the way.

Ahhhh...there's some old school Navy thinking:  When in doubt, insult the other person.  BZ!

Well, you got it partly right - I was old school Navy, but I evolved. 

The notion that any Chief or PO or Officer would resort to such dirty tactics as placing a negative comment in the Div Notes of a sailor simply because he lawfully submitted a memo or used established administrative procedures to document his attempts at resolving a complaint is beyond me.  If the memos were frivolous and repetitive in nature, I could possibly see some justification.  Not in this case.

If you think tactics such as that have a place in today's CF, I would consider a career change if I were you.  One of these days a sailor smarter than you will have documented everything better than you have, and you'll be the one explaining yourself to the old man.

 

[DBF]

Are you serious?? MARCOM/N1 1993??  You don't even give a paragraph number where it says not to use a 728 or a link to it.  MARCOM itself is out of a date just like your reference.

Try this link for Div Guide by CMS in Aug 2005, I recommend chapter 2: 

http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/Divguide/toc.asp

Your link goes nowhere.

Sorry but your credibility is shot when you make comments like "MARCOM is out of date".  The Canadian Forces Maritime Command (MARCOM) is the naval branch of the CF IAW art 510 of Canadian Forces Joint Publication 01 (B-GJ-005-000/FP-001) and available at this URL:

http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/websites/Resources/dgfda/Pubs/CF%20Joint%20Doctrine%20Publications/CFJP_%2001_Canadian_Military_Doctrine_En_2009_04.pdf

If that's not enough proof, check out the official CF website and note the public contact info for the "Maritime Command Headquarters":

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/9/9_eng.asp

:christmas happy:

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Have you tried the link from a DWAN/DIN computer cause it won't work from any other computer.

 

[DBF]

Yes, that request to complain verbally to the Commanding Officer is part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, and for all intents and purposes can be considered a first step in the Grievance process.

[Provide your link to prove that SVP.  My quote came verbatim from the Grievance Manual.]

That "DIVISIONAL REQUEST FORM" isn't used outside the Navy, by the way.

[The original poster is in the Navy.  Try reading the whole thread.]

Well, you got it partly right - I was old school Navy, but I evolved. 

[Apparently not.]

The notion that any Chief or PO or Officer would resort to such dirty tactics as placing a negative comment in the Div Notes of a sailor simply because he lawfully submitted a memo or used established administrative procedures to document his attempts at resolving a complaint is beyond me.  If the memos were frivolous and repetitive in nature, I could possibly see some justification.  Not in this case.

[The advice to use 728s was clearly intended to be frivolous and repetitive.]

If you think tactics such as that have a place in today's CF, I would consider a career change if I were you.  One of these days a sailor smarter than you will have documented everything better than you have, and you'll be the one explaining yourself to the old man.

[Maybe some day - but why would I aspire to be a supervisor so I can spend my day processing 728s?]

 

[Occam]

[Provide your link to prove that SVP.  My quote came verbatim from the Grievance Manual.]

The same Grievance Manual you quoted.  Para 2.2 and 2.3.

[The original poster is in the Navy.  Try reading the whole thread.]

Wrong.  The original poster wears a Naval uniform.  Big difference.  If someone wearing Naval DEU submits a Divisional Request Form at CFS Leitrim, they'd better be prepared to hear a little chuckle before they get told to draft a memo.  Try reading the whole thread, and the poster's history.

[The advice to use 728s was clearly intended to be frivolous and repetitive.]

ArmyVern's advice may be a lot of things, but frivolous and repetitive it is not.

[Maybe some day - but why would I aspire to be a supervisor so I can spend my day processing 728s?]

Maybe if you did your job right in finding out why subordinate's administration is not being staffed properly, there would be no need for a 728.

If you're not at the very least a supervisor, what are you doing telling off an officer who has been there and done that in this thread?  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89955/post-896846#msg896846

 

[George Wallace]

[The advice to use 728s was clearly intended to be frivolous and repetitive.]

Obviously you have no idea of what a 728 is for.  How often have you lost a document, or been looking for a document, that could have been sent to any Base/Unit/Facility in the CF?  It is a "Tracking System".  It leaves a paper trail where and when a document has travelled.  If you think this is frivolous, I can't believe you are in any position of authority or responsibility.

 

[DBF]

The same Grievance Manual you quoted.  Para 2.2 and 2.3.

[Thank you for conceding my point, albeit in a canting manner]

Wrong.  The original poster wears a Naval uniform.  Big difference.  If someone wearing Naval DEU submits a Divisional Request Form at CFS Leitrim, they'd better be prepared to hear a little chuckle before they get told to draft a memo.  Try reading the whole thread, and the poster's history.

[Glad you finally read the whole thing.]

ArmyVern's advice may be a lot of things, but frivolous and repetitive it is not.

[Opinions are like belly buttons...]

Maybe if you did your job right in finding out why subordinate's administration is not being staffed properly, there would be no need for a 728.

[Since when did the poster become my subordinate??]

If you're not at the very least a supervisor, what are you doing telling off an officer who has been there and done that in this thread?  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89955/post-896846#msg896846

[Nowhere in that thread did I represent myself as anything other than a person with an opinion.  IMHO, he was out of line.  Maybe you don't agree.  See my comment on opinions above.]

 

[DBF]

Obviously you have no idea of what a 728 is for.  How often have you lost a document, or been looking for a document, that could have been sent to any Base/Unit/Facility in the CF?  It is a "Tracking System".  It leaves a paper trail where and when a document has travelled.  If you think this is frivolous, I can't believe you are in any position of authority or responsibility.

Seems like the CF that you served in is different from mine.  It seems like poor advice to me to suggest that you should turn in a memo to your supervisor with a 728.  In your world this seems reasonable.  Glad I'm not there as apparently you need to be in a "position of authority or responsibility" to have an opinion. 

 

[George Wallace]

Seems like the CF that you served in is different from mine.  It seems like poor advice to me to suggest that you should turn in a memo to your supervisor with a 728.  In your world this seems reasonable.  Glad I'm not there as apparently you need to be in a "position of authority or responsibility" to have an opinion.

Shall I in turn tell you to go back and read the whole thread?  The OP is frustrated that he got no reply to a memo sent through normal channels.  Now he would like to up the ante.

 

[Occam]

[Thank you for conceding my point, albeit in a canting manner]

Did you even have a point?  My point was that there are steps to take before making requests to see the CO - and that includes administrative procedures such as sending documents under cover of a 728.

[Glad you finally read the whole thing.]

I'm glad one of us did.  Did you miss the part where you erroneously assumed the original poster was in a Naval environment?

[Opinions are like belly buttons...]

She's made it to MWO.  How are you makin' out?

[Since when did the poster become my subordinate??]

Not the literal "you", the figurative "you"....not too quick on the uptake tonight, are you?

[Nowhere in that thread did I represent myself as anything other than a person with an opinion.  IMHO, he was out of line.  Maybe you don't agree.  See my comment on opinions above.]

Given that the person in question held a command as CO of a NRD, and skipper of a MWV, I think you should probably give a hint as to what credentials you hold that would qualify you to say his opinion was out of line.

 

[DBF]

Did you even have a point?  My point was that there are steps to take before making requests to see the CO - and that includes administrative procedures such as sending documents under cover of a 728.

I'm glad one of us did.  Did you miss the part where you erroneously assumed the original poster was in a Naval environment?

She's made it to MWO.  How are you makin' out?

Not the literal "you", the figurative "you"....not too quick on the uptake tonight, are you?

Given that the person in question held a command as CO of a NRD, and skipper of a MWV, I think you should probably give a hint as to what credentials you hold that would qualify you to say his opinion was out of line.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
~ Sir Winston Churchill

 

[George Wallace]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
~ Sir Winston Churchill

Well?  If you are insinuating that you are going through life with blinders on......Then ..... OK.

 

[DBF]

Well?  If you are insinuating that you are going through life with blinders on......Then ..... OK.

Where'd that come from?  I already agreed with you that the old CF you served in bears no resemblance to my current experience.  In today's CF, having to submit memos with 728s to your CoC would be the sign of major problems.  The majority of today's generation would rather talk things out in a direct manner than try to bury their supervisors in paperwork.  Apparently it wasn't always that way. 

 

[Occam]

Where'd that come from?  I already agreed with you that the old CF you served in bears no resemblance to my current experience.  In today's CF, having to submit memos with 728s to your CoC would be the sign of major problems.  The majority of today's generation would rather talk things out in a direct manner than try to bury their supervisors in paperwork.  Apparently it wasn't always that way.

I'm still serving, and I'm pretty sure George is as well.  Your "current experience" is therefore the same as our "current experience". 

If a DND728 is "burying you in paperwork", gawdhepya if you ever step into a real position of responsibility and have to deal with a lot more than that.  The fact that you're even making such a claim leads me to believe that you're really not all that familiar with the administration that's part and parcel of leadership roles.