Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[ModlrMike]

I'm appalled that there are so many, while simultaneously being glad that people are being held to account.

 

[Kat Stevens]

A lot of people do not know about or downplay the rehabilitation services that DB offers, they only look at the punishment aspects of the detention barracks. It is easy to punish, a lot hard to rehabilitate.

If by "rehabilitate" you mean "put the fear of ever having to go back there again in you", then yes, I was rehabilitated. Mostly it was just 12 days out of a 14 day sentence of Belt Fed Cock.

 

[MilEME09]

Just like an increase in flight safety incident reporting isn’t necessarily a sign that things are worst, the increase im CM could simply be an increase in reporting rather than an increase in assaults. I view an increase in reporting a great thing. It means people are more comfortable reporting those events, which is a good step forward.

Also means people trust their CoC to handle it properly, which is also important

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If by "rehabilitate" you mean "put the fear of ever having to go back there again in you", then yes, I was rehabilitated. Mostly it was just 12 days out of a 14 day sentence of Belt Fed Cock.

If you get sent there for a “long haul”, in addition to “BFC”, there is a healthy dose of counselling and lifestyle rehabilitation that is also added in.

 

[KevinB]

If you get sent there for a “long haul”, in addition to “BFC”, there is a healthy dose of counselling and lifestyle rehabilitation that is also added in.

My stint (like Kat's) was 14 days - my boots never looked better, and my drill was pretty sharp.

Given the point system anyone in for over 30 days could get it fairly easy (relatively) after that with the pack drill being phased out - and getting books beyond the Bible.

My understanding having seen a few in for the Long Haul was mostly anyone in for 90+ was getting released - but that wasn't a large sample size.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

He was making a joke about "clown noses and rainbow wigs," the inference is that people who wear clown noses and rainbow wigs are politicians.



Just so we're clear here, since it was my post you were replying to, my post was not a suggestion of such. My post was pointing out the hypocrisy in people who are questioning whether a civilian system can prosecute military members competently, given that our current system is asking for a far taller order.... completely unqualified WOs and MWOs to play the role investigators/prosecutors*.

I'm of the same mindset that there's no reason a civilian authority can't investigate/prosecute.

*I know they aren't literally prosecutors, but when you look at a summary trial, they are essentially the version of the prosecutor, putting forth the argument/evidence of why someone is guilty.

Re the part about unqualified WOs and MWOs; I have to semi-agree. I’ve done the UDI/CL training and thought “there’s no practical aspect”. The course should be 5 days and include an actual qual (therefore having a QS and TEP with actual testing of knowledge/competency). Same as the DLN course and qual on Summary Investigation.

I say semi-agree because some of us are fairly capable when it comes to a simple UDI.

 

[ballz]

Re the part about unqualified WOs and MWOs; I have to semi-agree. I’ve done the UDI/CL training and thought “there’s no practical aspect”. The course should be 5 days and include an actual qual (therefore having a QS and TEP with actual testing of knowledge/competency). Same as the DLN course and qual on Summary Investigation.

Improved education/training can certainly help, but there's only so much you can learn in 5 days and it certainly isn't going to measure up to the combination of education and experience of civilian authorities.

I say semi-agree because some of us are fairly capable when it comes to a simple UDI.

I have no doubt that some are. However, there are many who aren't, and quite honestly were never cut from the right cloth to be.

It's not exactly in the job description for most trades, not exactly we can expect someone to have any inclination toward doing.... what the Army does is like going to Syncrude and giving a bunch of labourers, tradesmen, safety inspectors, etc. a shitty course and then saying "well these guys understand Syncrude's operations better than civilian authorities, so the RCMP shouldn't have jurisdiction here." Yeah sure, a small minority of guys will be alright for some simple things (i.e. drunkenness, AWOL, etc.), but the vast majority, no....

Not to mention that you can pick whoever you want, the smartest one available, chances are that WO is juggling numerous jobs because they're doing their normal Ops WO duty which is it's own gongshow at the best of times in today's "everything is last minute" Army, the CSM is gone so they're covering off for him, and the unit is deploying for a 3-week field ex next week.... and now you've asked them to do a UDI on a complaint that someone in the unit forged a signature on a claim... moderately simple but they're now distracted by the fact that it's a financial document, involves FSAs, HRAs, etc. all stuff they're not familiar with. Even if they were the smartest most experience person available, real surprise they botch the investigation.......................

But the Army treats it as, "we received a complaint, we tasked an expert to investigate, there were no grounds for charges, phew, glad that's behind us."

 

[dapaterson]

Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".

 

[MJP]

Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".

That was my life as Adjt except it was the RSM who was the issue. On the plus side he was not immune to saying he was wrong, made our relationship stronger for it.

 

[Haggis]

Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".

Sometimes the JAGs are no better. I drafted an RDP for a soldier in my Coy who had lost a rather expensive piece of kit on a deployment. I sent it to the TF JAG for review (the charge was electable) and when it came back the recommended wording bore no resemblance to the actual alleged offence.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Improved education/training can certainly help, but there's only so much you can learn in 5 days and it certainly isn't going to measure up to the combination of education and experience of civilian authorities.

But what level education and experience do we need to investigate the simplest cases; most minor service offences, no election for CM (para's 5 -> 8 at link.)

Chapter 12: Election - Canada.ca

Chapter 12 of the Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level Manual discusses the purpose and procedure of an Election by an accused during a summary trial process.

www.canada.ca

I have no doubt that some are. However, there are many who aren't, and quite honestly were never cut from the right cloth to be.

It's not exactly in the job description for most trades, not exactly we can expect someone to have any inclination toward doing.... what the Army does is like going to Syncrude and giving a bunch of labourers, tradesmen, safety inspectors, etc. a shitty course and then saying "well these guys understand Syncrude's operations better than civilian authorities, so the RCMP shouldn't have jurisdiction here." Yeah sure, a small minority of guys will be alright for some simple things (i.e. drunkenness, AWOL, etc.), but the vast majority, no....

Not to mention that you can pick whoever you want, the smartest one available, chances are that WO is juggling numerous jobs because they're doing their normal Ops WO duty which is it's own gongshow at the best of times in today's "everything is last minute" Army, the CSM is gone so they're covering off for him, and the unit is deploying for a 3-week field ex next week.... and now you've asked them to do a UDI on a complaint that someone in the unit forged a signature on a claim... moderately simple but they're now distracted by the fact that it's a financial document, involves FSAs, HRAs, etc. all stuff they're not familiar with. Even if they were the smartest most experience person available, real surprise they botch the investigation.......................

But the Army treats it as, "we received a complaint, we tasked an expert to investigate, there were no grounds for charges, phew, glad that's behind us."

The problem in the context above isn't the skill of the WO/MWO, IMO, it is the decisions of the CO/Snr Leadership.

I'm not sure what your experiences are but, speaking for myself, my first exposure and trg to Mil Law/CSD was during CLC in '93 where we had dedicated classes and trg in the subj. I have no idea what PLQ has/does/will provide but it should include Mil Law, and throughout DP2/3/4 so when NCMs are WO/PO1 they are comfortable with things like UDIs.

A WO+ should be able to ask the necessary question after providing the required cautions, etc for "Cpl Bloggins was late for Coy PT" or other non-CM electable type minor offences. We shouldn't need civilian investigators in these cases where the consequences/jeopardy to the mbr and CAF is low/negligible. Late for Platoon PT/tasking, proof of clear direction given for timings/location, witnesses that will confirm it was passed to the platoon, a review of the mbr's history to see if this is isolated or a pattern...no requirement for a LEO to be involved in this, IMO.

As for the Ops WO who is the Acting SWO part...that is literally me this month; I have also been working away from normal place of duty on high priority task and without DVPNI. If I was suddenly tasked with a UDI, I'd be speaking to my Flt Comd and DCO saying "something has to fall off" be being replaced on the hi-pri task, or the UDI.


I do share a concern, with the level of UDI/CL trg I was provided...I also have concerns for the level of trg an Assisting Officer receives. I was on the receiving end of several charge reports earlier in my career; the last ST the Sgt-Major came up to me shortly before it proceeded to say "your AO can't make it, we are to delay". I said "no need to delay sir". The AO was of no use to me, basically....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or you get an Adjt who watched Law and Order when on TD once, thinks they are the world's greatest lawyer, based on the UDI draft a long list of complex charges, and Cpl Bloggins, on getting marched in says "Yeah, I'd like to elect court martial".

The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.

I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.

 

[MilEME09]

The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.

I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.

Atleast the were passionate about what they did?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The worst military law experience I ever had was watching the chaos ensure when the CO (a lawyer) and one of my Pl Comds (a lawyer who worked for him in civvy street) were arguing during a charge parade for a fairly simple 'crime'.

I never wanted to subject anyone, accused of anything, to that again.

My brain automatically played this while reading your post...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Atleast the were passionate about what they did?

It was the first and, thankfully, only time I ever heard the phrase 'I submit to you....' during a charge parade...

 

[ballz]

But what level education and experience do we need to investigate the simplest cases; most minor service offences, no election for CM (para's 5 -> 8 at link.)

Chapter 12: Election - Canada.ca

Chapter 12 of the Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level Manual discusses the purpose and procedure of an Election by an accused during a summary trial process.

www.canada.ca

We use in-house WOs to investigate a lot more than just the baby five.....

The problem in the context above isn't the skill of the WO/MWO, IMO, it is the decisions of the CO/Snr Leadership.

It's a leadership issue for sure.... trying to do more than we have the resources for. Outsourcing all the stuff we try to do ourselves is a pretty good solution to that.

We shouldn't need civilian investigators in these cases where the consequences/jeopardy to the mbr and CAF is low/negligible. Late for Platoon PT/tasking, proof of clear direction given for timings/location, witnesses that will confirm it was passed to the platoon, a review of the mbr's history to see if this is isolated or a pattern...no requirement for a LEO to be involved in this, IMO.

Agreed, but I was never arguing we should need civilian investigators for baby 5 offences. But like I said, we go well-beyond that, including things with criminal record implications. Hard to argue that 30 days in jail and a criminal record are "low/negligible" consequences to someone's life.

And I have personally witnessed examples where the MPs were asked to investigate because of 1. the complexity and 2. the weight of the issue, and the MPs just flip it back to the unit.

As for the Ops WO who is the Acting SWO part...that is literally me this month; I have also been working away from normal place of duty on high priority task and without DVPNI. If I was suddenly tasked with a UDI, I'd be speaking to my Flt Comd and DCO saying "something has to fall off" be being replaced on the hi-pri task, or the UDI.

And if the leadership's decision is, "no, do all tasks, we accept that it might take you longer to do the UDI" ?

And then a UDI which should take a week, takes 3, 4, 5 or 6 months because the people you need to talk to end up on their own taskings, you just get another "last-minute task" dropped on your plate when the FTX ends, etc. People's memories fade effecting the investigation. It tarnishes the investigation, even if a conviction occurs and someone is finally punished for being AWOL 6 months later, and ultimately undermines discipline.

Yes, we have a leadership issue.... obviously, or we wouldn't have this thread. But there are solutions available to help mitigate that and give us a functioning system. If the current system works in theory but not in reality, what good is it?

I do share a concern, with the level of UDI/CL trg I was provided...I also have concerns for the level of trg an Assisting Officer receives. I was on the receiving end of several charge reports earlier in my career; the last ST the Sgt-Major came up to me shortly before it proceeded to say "your AO can't make it, we are to delay". I said "no need to delay sir". The AO was of no use to me, basically....

No arguments here.

 

[MilEME09]

AO needs to be a full on course taught by JAG, also all officers need to be briefed on when a member needs an AO. I had a friend go under investigation for harassment, only to find out near the end he was entitled to an AO and the CoC never notified him or assigned him one. He was thankful cleared but he was ready to elect court martial just to argue that the process wasn't followed correctly to investigate him.

 

[OldSolduer]

If I remember correctly every soldier charged under the NDA must be assigned an AO. And they should be trained - not just given a book and told to get on with it.

 

[dangerboy]

As Old Soldier says in In accordance with QR&O article 108.14 (Assistance to Accused), as soon as possible after a charge has been laid, a commanding officer shall appoint an officer to assist the accused. A non-commissioned member above the rank of sergeant may be appointed in exceptional circumstances. It is taught that you must have an assisting officer and in fact, you need to fill in the name of the assisting officer on the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.

 

[Kat Stevens]

As Old Soldier says in In accordance with QR&O article 108.14 (Assistance to Accused), as soon as possible after a charge has been laid, a commanding officer shall appoint an officer to assist the accused. A non-commissioned member above the rank of sergeant may be appointed in exceptional circumstances. It is taught that you must have an assisting officer and in fact, you need to fill in the name of the assisting officer on the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings.

"Who do you choose as your AO, Sapper A?"
"Lt. Z, sir"
"Not available, choose another."
"Lt Y, then, sir."
"Busy, try again"
"Lt X?"
"Nope, it seems only either WO B or Lt W are available"
"But both of them hate my guts, sir"
"Justice is served! Next!"