Remedial Measures DAOD 4019-4 [merged]

[ModlrMike]

Considering that an IC is an administrative process and not a punishment, then the answer is yes. From what you've said I'm surprised you haven't been charged with being AWOL, uttering a false document, fraud etc. You should think yourself lucky that the you're only losing the leave days. I must say if I were the officer signing off on the IC I would be asking for a copy of the RDP.

You should bear in mind that the IC process is completely separate from the Discipline system. IC is not a punishment, it is intended to lay out corrective measures so the member can repair whatever defect needs work. It is quite normal for an IC to follow a charge parade. For example you're charged for being AWOL, and the IC lays out how you learn not to be AWOL again.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's not uncommon for people guilty of AWOL to be forced to pay those days back. They didn't work them and didn't have approved leave; why should they get paid for them?  It shouldn't come out of your annual leave it should come off your pay.

 

[FJAG]

You indicated that you "got some 'leave' under untruthful circumstances" which to me means that you were granted some time off without any entitlement and were caught at it. Assigning those days to "annual leave" is not a punishment at all. It is the system correcting the accounting for your time off from a fraudulent one to one you would have been entitled to take.

As MM said, consider yourself lucky not to have been charged.

The example re your colleague and his 10 minutes late is also quite proper. An AWOL charge comes under disciplinary action and was merited. A fine of 25% of monthly base pay is within the powers of punishment of a delegated officer under QR&O 108.25. There is absolutely no problem in adding an administrative action of an IC. The purpose for that is to provide corrective guidance and to lay a process for more serious corrective action - including release - if the behaviour does not improve.

:cheers:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-4.page

Administrative Actions Versus Disciplinary Actions

3.13 Administrative actions are not punishments under the Code of Service Discipline.

3.14 Both disciplinary actions under the Code of Service Discipline and administrative actions are meant to address a CAF member's conduct or performance deficiency. They may operate independently or one may complement the other.

3.15 Disciplinary actions and administrative actions serve different purposes. Disciplinary actions possess a punitive aspect that administrative actions do not. Disciplinary action is initiated only if there are sufficient grounds to justify the laying of a charge under the Code of Service Discipline against a CAF member.

 

[Mediman14]

This was a discussion I overheard at the gym one day. I thought it would be a good discussion!

 

[ModlrMike]

Notwithstanding the phrasing of your question, I think that any RM considered for a member undergoing treatment for a mental health issue would have to be very carefully constructed. It would be paramount that the issue that needs remediation is clear, and separate from their medical condition. Unfortunately, this would likely be very hard to accomplish, as there would always be a question of whether or not the member's medical issue influenced the behavior requiring improvement.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Remedial Measures are there to let someone know they are doing something, conduct or performance wise, that is unacceptable.  It shouldn't matter if they have mental health issues. 

If you don't give them Remedial Measures, you are reinforcing negative behaviour.  You then end up with toxic individuals who have been allowed to carry on screwing up, at the expense of their peers, subordinates, superiors and the organization. 

 

[McG]

... and often to their own detriment too.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

... and often to their own detriment too.

I think part of the problem is people treat Remedial Measures as a disciplinary tool when that is not their purpose.  If someone does have a Mental Health problem then that is where the Part 5 of the Remedial Measure comes in i.e. "What you need to do to overcome the deficiency" and the follow-up counselling sessions in Part 6, which are critical to the Remedial Measures process but are rarely ever done properly.

 

[ballz]

... and often to their own detriment too.

At the recent Wellness Training conducted by 3 Div, they had a Post-Traumatic Growth Panel. One of the questions that was asked was pretty much "how much should we let those suffering from mental health 'get away with' while they are suffering / recovering" or in other words what's the right amount of leeway, if any.

Sgt Lorne Ford was on the panel and expressed the sentiment that for him, being held accountable by his Pl WO was what helped him turn around and start taking active steps towards growth. One of the other panelist was Capt Ashley Collette formerly an Infantry Officer and currently working as a Social Work Officer. She echoed this sentiment and said, to my understanding and to the effect that, it is also the current clinical perspective.

I was faced with a particularly long period where a subordinate was escaping any form of accountability and had obstinate denial of their deficiencies (not my call on them escaping accountability... I was the a$$hole for recommending remedial measures), because the grown-ups decided that it was "because of their mental health." It was cancerous for everyone involved, and it definitely left the individual far worse off. A little accountability probably would have allowed them to at least maintain some sense of dignity / self-respect instead of going right off the rails.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have had subordinates who struggled with PTSD and whose day to day behaviour was occasional quite antithetical to the standard we expect of CF members.

In those cases, I strongly supported the clinical efforts to heal them. I also made it crystal clear to those soldiers that I expected soldierly conduct and that PTSD was not an excuse for indiscipline. This included issuing remedial measures, when warranted.

Maybe I was just lucky, but in my experience, them knowing that I both had their back on treatment and that I expected soldierly conduct were not mutually exclusive things. I was rewarded by watching soldiers both heal and return to being productive members of my unit, instead of chronic disciplinary problems.