Soldier sentenced for staying in bed during fight

[Haggis]

OK, my bad.  I inferred from the article that he was an infanteer.  However, seeing thet he is "employed in Ottawa as an image analyst" and had been assigned duties as a stretcher bearer at the time of the incident, it's reasonable to conclude that he is an Int Op, not an Infanteer.

I really shouldn't post while on leave without ingesting sufficient coffee first.

 

[dapaterson]

Unfortunately, the judge's hands are tied somewhat by what the prosecution and defence propose as sentences.  One judge had the "temerity" to overrule a joint submission; on appeal, he was scolded by two of three judges, saying that the fact that loser being sentenced had never paid a fine from an earlier court-martial was irrelevant, and he should have accepted the join submission.  Judge #3 on the appeal supported the original military judge, saying his decision was fair.  (see http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-468_e.shtml)

Thus, Canadian military judges are loathe to overrule submissions, as they'll likely just see them overturned.  I also suspect that in this instance the prosecution lowered the threshold a bit as the individual was pleading guilty .

In my opinion, this case called for much more severe punishment.  It also highlights the perils of MCpl - an appointment, not a rank.  Any demotion of a MCpl results in a Pte, not a Cpl.  However, there could still be administrative action (though I doubt it) IAW CFAO 49-4, para 6 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/049-04_e.asp) to remove the appointment.

 

[RHFC_piper]

OK, my bad.  I inferred from the article that he was an infanteer.  However, seeing thet he is "employed in Ottawa as an image analyst" and had been assigned duties as a stretcher bearer at the time of the incident, it's reasonable to conclude that he is an Int Op, not an Infanteer.

I really shouldn't post while on leave without ingesting sufficient coffee first.

This is just an argument about his trade and not his duties while in FOB, Right? (not trying to pick a fight, just clarifying)  'cause he could have been a cook in the FOB and it still doesn't excuse him from getting the hell out of bed and doing his damn job while the enemy's attacking.  And it certainly doesn't excuse him from telling others to go back to bed during a fight. This is why every member of land forces takes SQ, 'cause no matter the trade, everyone breaks down to the lowest common denominator when under fire, and in the military that denominator is infantry.  As a Sgt once told a clerk in my unit; Every soldier in the CF is expected to take a bayonet, fix it to a rifle and stab it into the guts of his enemy... granted, his rant was focussed at the argument the clerk made about having to do the PWT, but the premise stand; Soldier First.

I just bring this up 'cause the quoted argument could be misconstrued as an excuse for his actions... I know it's not, I'm just clarifying.   

 

[Haggis]

RHFC_Piper:  correct.  His trade is/was irrelevant given the circumstances.  Nor do I regard his not being a Cbt A soldier as an excuse for his inaction or conduct.  A soldier is a soldier.

In my original post, I had incorrectly surmised that he was released as the news article stated that he was employed as an "image analyst in Ottawa".  Knowing how Ottawa works, I, again incorrectly, concluded that an "image analyst" was a person who helps bigwigs craft a more positive corporate image for themselves and/or their business.

Now do you understand why I need coffee prior to posting while on leave???

 

[RHFC_piper]

RHFC_Piper:  correct.  His trade is/was irrelevant given the circumstances.  Nor do I regard his not being a Cbt A soldier as an excuse for his inaction or conduct.  A soldier is a soldier.

In my original post, I had incorrectly surmised that he was released as the news article stated that he was employed as an "image analyst in Ottawa".  Knowing how Ottawa works, I, again incorrectly, concluded that an "image analyst" was a person who helps bigwigs craft a more positive corporate image for themselves and/or their business.

Now do you understand why I need coffee prior to posting while on leave???

Seen... as I said, just clarifying.  Don't want anyone to think that his trade excuses him.  And I see why you'd come to your former conclusions... I would assume he got the punt too... too bad he didn't.

 

[mudrecceman]

Wow, I had no idea that the MILITARY 'legal' system was as corrupt and pussified as the civilian one. In their quest to be fair to all people, victims and criminals, they end up showing their complete disdain and disrespect for all those who are truly brave and valiant soldiers. IMHO, I would throw his CO into jail for 21 days for failing to put a bullet in his head when they were in the field.  :threat:

Not only are you shooting at the wrong target with this one...I will go further to say...

You are on the wrong range, with the wrong weapon, with the wrong ammo, on the wrong day...get the point?

I suggest OPME DCE 002 - Introduction to Military Law for some reading material for where you spew this stuff out...aka the bathroom.

Courts-martial are NOT handled by COs, nor do we execute people.

Did you just time-warp from the late 1800's or something?

 

[Petard]

Now we see the name of Sgt Goodland being grabbed at by his defence, and Billard's previous and subsequent performace in his normal trade. Both are twisting what is obvious to anyone in the military, at that particular moment he was expected to act as a soldier should and decided he was smarter than the average bear and didn't have to, and his defence council seems to miss the point of what the judge says about the importance of maintaining discipline. In his statement from a report by Charles Mandel, CanWest News Service, Billard's lawyer says about the judge that "and there's doubt about it, he's made an example of my fellow"
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0b662e30-ac75-4fe1-af38-f4f9769d8faa&k=68520

and then the comment about Sgt Goodland (from the canwest report)
In his defence, McMunagle cited the case of Sgt. D. A. Goodland. In 2003, Goodland fell asleep while on guard duty at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan and was subsequently given a severe reprimand and a $3,800 fine. “I tried to argue that what that guy did was worse than what my guy did,’’ McMunagle said.

Goodland was a member of a FOO party, 2 people should always be watching the zone, but IIRC there were 2 of them in the hole but only the sig was awake. Dumb, very very dumb, but not under fire.  I have met people from that tour over the years, and know Goodland well, as do I, I would consider him a good soldier and certainly someone I would trust. Consider where he's been lately
http://www3.thestar.com/cgi-bin/star_static.cgi?section=top&page=/Videos/070418_afghan_canadians.html
There was a lot involved behind the circumstances of what occurred with Sgt Goodland in 2002, but none that I can remember that sounds like a parallel could be drawn with Billard's incident.  

The whole point is to make an example of Billards incident of not accepting orders while under fire, and 21 days is not very much considering the effect if the sentence is suspended or over turned, good luck maintaining discipline then.

 

[RHFC_piper]

The comment about Sgt Goodland (from the canwest report)
In his defence, McMunagle cited the case of Sgt. D. A. Goodland. In 2003, Goodland fell asleep while on guard duty at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan and was subsequently given a severe reprimand and a $3,800 fine. “I tried to argue that what that guy did was worse than what my guy did,’’ McMunagle said.

Goodland was a member of a FOO party, 2 people should always be watching the zone, but IIRC there were 2 of them in the hole but only the sig was awake. Dumb, very very dumb, but not under fire.

The whole point is to make an example of Billards incident of not accepting orders while under fire, and 21 days is not very much considering the effect if the sentence is suspended or over turned, good luck maintaining discipline then.

I agree.

Billard;
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 74(c) NDA, when ordered to carry out an operation of war, failed to use his utmost exertion to carry the orders into effect.
Charge 2: S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

This is where I become confused (happens a lot, bear with me)... So they're comparing "Soldier A"  who was asleep at a position which was not under attack, with another person awake, etc (don't know all the details, but based on the info at hand) to "Soldier B" who was repeatedly given an order to rise and refused and then encouraged others to refuse the order, all while under fire?
Lets look at the meat and potatoes of this;
- Disobeyed a direct order = Bad
- Disobeyed a direct order under fire = Worse
- Encouraged others to Disobey a Direct order = JUNK

and yet; Charge 1 is dropped?  wha...?  I don't understand.  Where's the accountability?  And they compare that to someone who was asleep at a post (which is still pretty bad)?  It's not about sleep, it's about following orders.  "Get up, the enemy's trying to kill us!" doesn't seem like an unlawful order to me.... and the sound of sirens and weapons fire would make it a pretty clear and concise order in my book.... What's the deal?  Why did they drop the real issue and proceed with the "catch all"?  And why are they trying to compare apples to oranges?

My head hurts....  I need a nap. 

 

[FastEddy]

Well... if politics are in his future, I can think of at least one politician who would harbour him... *cough* Taliban Jack *cough*  >


Either way, I hope, if he is working, he's doing something which won't affect peoples lives.

You got that right !, like a Driver for a Emergency Service Vehicle, (hell, he'll probably be dead by the time we get, lets get another 20 winks).

Cheers.

 

[George Wallace]

.......  Why did they drop the real issue and proceed with the "catch all"?  And why are they trying to compare apples to oranges?

My head hurts....  I need a nap. 

Perhaps.....In today's "kinder, gentler Army" the Prosecution was to afraid of the Public image of having sent a miscreant to prison on a "Life Sentence".  Perhaps they didn't feel that they had the support in facts, and will, to make the first charge stick beyond a reason of doubt.

 

[Haggis]

One point to consider is that if he loses the appeal, the CMAC can increase his punishment, too.  That's happened before.  second, there's been no mention of an appeal by the Crown.  Maybe that's in the wings considering the adverse opinion  generated to date.

 

[Mortar guy]

Did anyone else notice the $2000-$3000 fine paid in monthly installments of $250!? Someone who looks almost exactly like me paid a fine of that size for a much less serious offence and I he didn't get no GD monthly payments!!

This is weak. The MCpl should have had several books thrown at him.

MG

 

[George Wallace]

Yes!  I too found that odd.  Usually they give you a max of three months to pay....even with my CO's letter stating I would pay back an overpayment of my pay (Pay Office mistake) in three months, a snot nosed young Lt Pay Officer took it all back as one lump sum......hard to pay rent and car payments ......... but perhaps this is a different thing.  :

 

[HItorMiss]

I never paid my fine in installments, must be nice to disobey orders and get to avoid the big punishments.

 

[Haggis]

Yes!  I too found that odd.  Usually they give you a max of three months to pay....even with my CO's letter stating I would pay back an overpayment of my pay (Pay Office mistake) in three months, a snot nosed young Lt Pay Officer took it all back as one lump sum

Same thing happened to me in 1RCR a long time ago.  When I tried to get on the payment plan I was told "it was never yours to begin with so we're taking it all back before you can earn any interest on it".

$7/pay doesn't go very far.

 

[Petard]

I suppose defence council was still trying to make a parallel with Sgt Goodland's case, and he was fined $3600 repaid over 18 months.
Sleeping at his post? Yes he was, but like I said, supposed to have 2 pairs of eyes on the zone, wether or not you do has a lot to do with what else is going on; he made a judgement call for him and his sig to take turns resting, there was nothing going on but the zone was observed, but not in accordance with the way his officer wanted it to be, bad call on Sgt Goodland's part. But there were a lot of dodgy things that went along with that whole Goodland episode, when I heard some of it I wondered why he was being court martialed in the first place. Seems to me the real problem lay in personality conflicts that needed to be sorted out more than anything else, and Goodland got caught in the middle of it. Some of this came out during his trial. In addition Sgt Goodland had been involved with an earlier incident where he and another NCO went under fire to go help an American unit that was being attacked. Maybe those things together is why he was given leniency of the payment plan, I don't know for sure. I'll have to go digging here and research the background before saying much more, but IMO there was much credit in Sgt Goodlands performance before his incident that gave account of his good soldier qualities; Billard's performance as an image analyst does not in anyway mitigate his poor qualities as a soldier. As for everyone else over reacting, BS, has nothing to do with it, if your commander says get up lets go, you go. Doesn't anyone remember the "not right now joe boy" incident from leadership training?

 

[a78jumper]

Pathetic behavior. I served as a retired military flat faced civy type in Camp Julien and twice in my tour things went BANG! in the night (Tanx Terry) and I got the hell out of bed, put on my helmet and flak jacket, and made my way to the bunker behind our CP with a motorola, grabbed the phone  and cell phone as well, so our people would have a chain of command(we were not manned 24/7 in the CP, but I was the DO even in bed until 0700 the next am).

 

[RHFC_piper]

Perhaps.....In today's "kinder, gentler Army" the Prosecution was to afraid of the Public image of having sent a miscreant to prison on a "Life Sentence".  Perhaps they didn't feel that they had the support in facts, and will, to make the first charge stick beyond a reason of doubt.

I kinda see it the other way; I think it's even more of a detriment to public appearance to allow someone to be let off with a slap on the wrist. 

But, there's also the fact that this is now a dishonour that he'll have to carry forever... no matter what the final outcome of the legal issues.

 

[George Wallace]

In all seriousness, we have the Code of Service Discipline, The National Defense Act, QR&Os, CFAOs, and numerous other Rules and Regulations to govern us as members of the CF.  All of these have set what Discipline we can expect as Serving Members of the CF.  They are Black and White.  They are there for very explicit reasons.  Any member of the CF, no matter their rank or education, had better be prepared to follow those rules and regulations or face the consequences.  Any NCO or Officer who figures that they are not just and/or 'archaic' is a fool and should not be a member of the CF.   The rules and regulations are constantly being updated.   They are not some "first year university discussion group" and not open for abstract thinking from Barrackroom Lawyers.  They are pretty cut and dried. 

The guilty party was put on Courts Martial and the facts presented.  The verdict was rendered as per all the rules and regulations and to the fullest authority authorized.  The system worked the way it was meant to.  End of story.

 

[1feral1]

Deadwood! He'll never deploy again.

One in, all in. Teamwork!

There is no excuse for his actions at all, none!

Leading by example? NOT!

A discredit to his unit, and the CF.

I hope he was not in theatre long enough to collect any gongs. He is undeserving of them. His career in the CF is as well as dead, this will haunt him forever, and no man would ever seriously listen to him again, they might do what they're told, but the respect for him is long gone.

A nice cushy Comissionaires career is calling, he can sleep on the job there for less than 10 bucks an hour!


Wes