Untrained BMQ Candidate Alleges Abuse by Directing Staff Sergeant

[Humphrey Bogart]

To counter: one case does not prove the rule.

No but this isn't the only case, it's only logical that if your military average age is higher fitness levels across the force will drop as will the overall health of the force.  As people age their physical abilities tend to dwindle and they become more susceptible to illness, this is something we cannot control.  This does have an impact on readiness and you're putting your head in the sand if it doesn't.  Age limits are a control measure that could be enacted to counter this.

Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms. 

Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?

I agree completely that many of them do bring valuable skills that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF and this would be something that would need to be weighted against other factors.  I personally like the idea but we would also need a cultural shift within CFRG and the Ottawa Bureaucracy for it to work. 

Right now CFRG uses a system heavily weighted towards quantitative recruiting practices, perhaps a paradigm shift to a system with heavier weight given to qualitative analysis of potential recruits would be more appropriate? 

For the record, I am not against recruiting 40 year olds entirely but until the recruiting system changes from a spreadsheet based system of number punching to one with far more qualitative analysis, I cannot support it and I view age limits as a viable "control measure" for keeping unfit folk out of the military.

3. There is a fine line between abuse, and let's call it enthusiastic method of instruction. If I tell people who have had nothing to do with the military some of the (now) amusing or tougher things that staff along my career have performed, said to me, made me do, implied, described, threatened upon me, they are horrified. Because to them it's something that is so far out of their comfort zone, that they don't recognize the requirement for it. Which is fine, they don't need to deal with what we do. My issue is that now, as an institution with more corporate interest in not looking bad and protecting the feelings of new members, we are taking away from the training value that prepares military members for the exigencies of service that nobody else will ever have to deal with.

Couldn't have said it better myself 

 

[The_Falcon]

Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms. 

Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?

I am willing to submit another FOI, but from what I saw (in albeit my brief time) in recruiting, is that very very few of the 35+ age group in the application process had that kind of experience to offer

 

[The_Falcon]

A simpler fix.....bring back mandatory fitness testing prior to shipping people off to St. Jean. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

A simpler fix.....bring back mandatory fitness testing prior to shipping people off to St. Jean. 

What time period would that be?  I'm sure that I did not do one way back in 1978.....

 

[Jed]

Many 40 year olds bring with them experience, skills and competencies that could be effectively leveraged by the CAF - for example, an RCMP Sgt joining as an MPO, a sports medicine doctor joining as a Medical Officer, or a CGA joining as a Log O.  Not everyone joins the combat arms. 

Indeed, if we recruit intelligently, we may be faced with a conundrum - what is the appropriate entry rank for an RCMP Sgt with 15 years experience, coming over as an MPO?  Should she perhaps be made a Major and employed in a position to leverage her knowledge and skills, or should we stick her in Dundurn as a Lt as the head of the detachment there?

It all depends on the individual's abilities.

Speaking as someone who went Reg force at age of 37 (when 35 was the unofficial cut off age) it is a very, very tough go to swim against the stream. The issue is not only physical, your peers are from a different generation, you relate better to your DS or your DS's superior.

I also went through a period when the CF was downsizing and the washout % from the Basic courses were high. If a recruit's skin and self confidence is not at peak level the recruit will not survive.

Maybe it is a generational thing,(in my opinion) but what is now considered abuse by society and the system is essential in developing first class personnel in the CAF.

I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve my country and fellow man in the CF. I would never have had the opportunity to do so if some recruiting Doctor had not altered my medical birth date year on his own accord.

All that being said, unless the stuff really hits the fan, there is no way the CAF should be recruiting untrained personnel over the age of 35. The system gets tied up in political fur balls and is made lesser because of it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What time period would that be?  I'm sure that I did not do one way back in 1978.....

And here is where the problem lies Bruce, we have tonnes of policy written on paper but very little of it is actually applied.  For the record I also didn't do a fitness test, I did what is called a self-fitness evaluation i.e. I said I could run 2 miles in X # of min and do X # of pushups and X # of situps but that's as far as it ever went, the recruiters took my word for it  :nod:

Luckily, I actually was fit otherwise the CF never would have known. 

It all depends on the individual's abilities.

Speaking as someone who went Reg force at age of 37 (when 35 was the unofficial cut off age) it is a very, very tough go to swim against the stream. The issue is not only physical, your peers are from a different generation, you relate better to your DS or your DS's superior.

I also went through a period when the CF was downsizing and the washout % from the Basic courses were high. If a recruit's skin and self confidence is not at peak level the recruit will not survive.

Maybe it is a generational thing,(in my opinion) but what is now considered abuse by society and the system is essential in developing first class personnel in the CAF.

I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve my country and fellow man in the CF. I would never have had the opportunity to do so if some recruiting Doctor had not altered my medical birth date year on his own accord.

All that being said, unless the stuff really hits the fan, there is no way the CAF should be recruiting untrained personnel over the age of 35. The system gets tied up in political fur balls and is made lesser because of it.

I agree completely, especially if we wish to call ourselves a professional military.

 

[George Wallace]

All that being said, unless the stuff really hits the fan, there is no way the CAF should be recruiting untrained personnel over the age of 35. The system gets tied up in political fur balls and is made lesser because of it.

I am not sure that the matter is really recruiting untrained, but more of recruiting "skilled" prospects.  As mentioned, there are folk with skills that they have acquired outside of the CAF, that are beneficial to the CAF and exceptions are made to bring them in.  Again, the question has arisen as to what level/rank you are willing to bring them in as.  I suppose an extreme example would be the recruiting of a Fifty something Chaplain as a Capt or Major.  There are exceptions to the rule in all cases, so it is not so Black and White/Cut and dried.

 

[Monsoon]

1. The Complainant has an injury attributed to military service. I think we can all agree to that point. He's getting a VAC pension, he was medically released. The article doesn't specify WHAT injury his release was attributed to. He was NOT injured BY the military, he was injured during military service.

Actually, we DO know what the injury was: he slipped on the ice and damaged his Achilles tendon in some way. Obviously the injury was not (as he claims) that his Achilles tendon was "ripped": I know about that injury and if he'd suffered it, there's no way he could have stood let alone be forced to continue running.

 

[Jed]

I am not sure that the matter is really recruiting untrained, but more of recruiting "skilled" prospects.  As mentioned, there are folk with skills that they have acquired outside of the CAF, that are beneficial to the CAF and exceptions are made to bring them in.  Again, the question has arisen as to what level/rank you are willing to bring them in as.  I suppose an extreme example would be the recruiting of a Fifty something Chaplain as a Capt or Major.  There are exceptions to the rule in all cases, so it is not so Black and White/Cut and dried.

It is true that making it a cookie cutter approach to recruiting by establishing age determined entrance gates, will screen out some necessary, essential candidates; but too me, it is a small price to pay to create a far better CAF. The very few mentally and physically suitable specialist positions gained in no way make up for the loss of efficiency and effectiveness of the CAF recruiting system.

Of course, I would be the first one to adjust the age recruitment gate if we needed to rapidly expand the personnel numbers.

 

[The_Falcon]

What time period would that be?  I'm sure that I did not do one way back in 1978.....

??? 2006, there was tons of bitching about it here (still is) about warrior/fat camp platoon etc.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

??? 2006, there was tons of bitching about it here (still is) about warrior/fat camp platoon etc.

Bruce is alluding to the fact that nothing changes in the CAF and that not completely a fitness test to enter the CAF is "business as usual"

 

[Tibbson]

As for the MP's investigating and recommending charges, this happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that recommendation will be taken by the JAG.  The MP's can get it wrong as well and they regularly do.  Nowhere in this article is there any mention on whether the JAG followed through with the recommendation.

I'm no fan of this guys lawyer and once I saw his name I realized that it doesn't matter what the facts of the case are, Drapeau won't let them stand in the way of a good story as he sees it and a chance to lob grenades at the military justice system. 

<off topic>

As for your comment quoted above, I can't sit by and let that one go either.  I'm not saying that MPs get it right all the time, no police department does, but to say they do so regularly is both simply quite wrong and actually quite inflammatory in the course of this, or any discussion. 

People assume that when the MPs (or any police) lay a charge but the person either gets off or the charges are not proceeded with it's because the police got it wrong.  What people don't realize (or for some people they refuse to realize) is that the legal and charging system is progressive.  Police investigate and when they lay a charge they do so based on a the legal standard of their having "reasonable and probable grounds" which means they feel they have met the elements of what constitutes an offence.  An RMP (or in civilian court, a Crown) then looks at the case file and confirms there were reasonable and probable grounds for the charge and then they decide to proceed based upon whether they feel they have a likelihood of successful prosecution and that the matter is in the public interest to be proceeded with.  This is a higher standard then the one applied by the police.  Of course, after that the matter goes to court and the court then applies the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" when they assess whether the accused is guilty or not.  If someone is found not guilty then many people, such as yourself it seems, automatically assume that "the MPs screwed up". 

I realise none of this is going to change a mind that is firmly set in the negative on the topic but the fact that the MPs recommended charges in this case, or any case, only means that there is suitable evidence or doubt to support the laying of a charge, not an eventual finding of guilt.  That is the job of the Court.  I've had plenty of cases that have gone to court where the accused was found guilty and I've had plenty where they have been found not guilty.  Regardless of the case I can honestly say I've never won or lost any of those cases.  That is the job of the lawyer and I've never had one of them come back and say the person got off the charge because of something I've done wrong or one of my subordinates has done wrong.  Those are the only cases the police actually lose. 

<back on topic>

 

[Remius]

I am not sure that the matter is really recruiting untrained, but more of recruiting "skilled" prospects.  As mentioned, there are folk with skills that they have acquired outside of the CAF, that are beneficial to the CAF and exceptions are made to bring them in.  Again, the question has arisen as to what level/rank you are willing to bring them in as.  I suppose an extreme example would be the recruiting of a Fifty something Chaplain as a Capt or Major.  There are exceptions to the rule in all cases, so it is not so Black and White/Cut and dried.

+1 to this.

We'd be in a far worse situation in the CF if we hadn't gone out and recruited some of those "over 35" types in some very specific trades.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm no fan of this guys lawyer and once I saw his name I realized that it doesn't matter what the facts of the case are, Drapeau won't let them stand in the way of a good story as he sees it and a chance to lob grenades at the military justice system. 

<off topic>

As for your comment quoted above, I can't sit by and let that one go either.  I'm not saying that MPs get it right all the time, no police department does, but to say they do so regularly is both simply quite wrong and actually quite inflammatory in the course of this, or any discussion. 

People assume that when the MPs (or any police) lay a charge but the person either gets off or the charges are not proceeded with it's because the police got it wrong.  What people don't realize (or for some people they refuse to realize) is that the legal and charging system is progressive.  Police investigate and when they lay a charge they do so based on a the legal standard of their having "reasonable and probable grounds" which means they feel they have met the elements of what constitutes an offence.  An RMP (or in civilian court, a Crown) then looks at the case file and confirms there were reasonable and probable grounds for the charge and then they decide to proceed based upon whether they feel they have a likelihood of successful prosecution and that the matter is in the public interest to be proceeded with.  This is a higher standard then the one applied by the police.  Of course, after that the matter goes to court and the court then applies the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" when they assess whether the accused is guilty or not.  If someone is found not guilty then many people, such as yourself it seems, automatically assume that "the MPs screwed up". 

I realise none of this is going to change a mind that is firmly set in the negative on the topic but the fact that the MPs recommended charges in this case, or any case, only means that there is suitable evidence or doubt to support the laying of a charge, not an eventual finding of guilt.  That is the job of the Court.  I've had plenty of cases that have gone to court where the accused was found guilty and I've had plenty where they have been found not guilty.  Regardless of the case I can honestly say I've never won or lost any of those cases.  That is the job of the lawyer and I've never had one of them come back and say the person got off the charge because of something I've done wrong or one of my subordinates has done wrong.  Those are the only cases the police actually lose. 

<back on topic>

I re-read what I wrote and I agree with you that it was an inflammatory comment and didn't help advance the debate.  Apologies for that and I will edit my comment accordingly.

 

[Jed]

+1 to this.

We'd be in a far worse situation in the CF if we hadn't gone out and recruited some of those "over 35" types in some very specific trades.

Crantor, is this your personal opinion or do you have knowledge to back this up? I personally would like to think you are correct, but my, somewhat dated personal experience led me to think otherwise. (albeit, experience from the 1993 -1996 cut and slash, decade of darkness era)

 

[Brasidas]

Actually, we DO know what the injury was: he slipped on the ice and damaged his Achilles tendon in some way. Obviously the injury was not (as he claims) that his Achilles tendon was "ripped": I know about that injury and if he'd suffered it, there's no way he could have stood let alone be forced to continue running.

Could have been like mine; there were a couple rounds of being declared fit and subsequent reinjury. It doesn't take a huge stretch for a serious initial injury and being hounded to perform by enthusiastic staff to finish it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I agree with all your points except #4... it's very germane to the discussion as it ties into numerous other issues facing the CAF at the moment such as, readiness, physical/mental fitness, resilience, recruitment practices, etc....

We could limit people to age 30-something as applicants, except for Para 15 of this little document.  I know I'm being obvious, but we can't pick and choose what parts of our laws we follow and what ones we don't.

However, we do have things like fitness/medical standard, Occupation Specifications, and a whole slew of policy that can be applied when a mbr doesn't perform to the required, identified standards.  Can't dig a trench fast/deep enough?  I bet I can find something in the Inf Occ Spec's about that.  The course QS and TP.  Don't know your Emergencies and AC Gen as aircrew?  I bet I can find something in your Occ Specs, QSs and TPs about that.

The tools are there for us to use, the standards are set in countless QSs, TPs, Orders, Occ Specs, you name it and we can do ours jobs as NCOs and Officers to maintain those standards...while adhering to things like our own Charter.

Bringing back the PT test into the Reg Force Recruiting process;  IMO, it never should have been removed.  I was staff at CFLRS around the time it was and the first wave of 'untested' recruits arrived.  I can say that we had people go to the MIR Day 1 of their course, because they weren't fit enough to carry their civy kit to the 6th floor without getting hurt.  That's no shit either.

A few mentioned "I didn't do a PT test to get in".  In 1988, neither did I BUT my generation did things that are foreign to kids today;  we played outside, climbed trees, ran, biked, swan.  I mean, in real life.  Not an App, or a Xbox game.  We were fit kids and had fallen out of trees, wiped out on our bikes, fought other kids for whatever reason.  Mentally and physically, we grew up differently than the Xbox generations of today, who think 'toughing it out' is waiting for the next version of iPhone to be available in stores.

As for this particular guy, who knows.  None of us were there and I don't believe in making hard opinions on half of a story.  The instructor might have gone outside their lanes.  That is not a CF centric issue; it happens in any workplace so why would anyone be surprised if it did at CFLRS?  People are human and therefore imperfect (not to excuse or justify, just making a point).  We (CAF) just have better ways and means to sort out those who get carried away.  RMs, ST and CMs, ARs for really serious offenders if and when it happens.  Corrective training, mentoring, etc for the less serious cases.  Many civie jobs, people have no recourse.  For all we know, the instructor could have received C & P or faced an AR.  If so, he/she should expect the same as any other Canadian WRT Privacy Act protections.

I agree with some other points though, that if the mbr would have 'ripped his tendon' he wouldn't have been walking to start with.  The wording and catch phases might get a  :'( from Joe and Jane Taxpayer, but it causes me to question credibility of facts allegations presented.

:2c:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

We could limit people to age 30-something as applicants, except for Para 15 of this little document.  I know I'm being obvious, but we can't pick and choose what parts of our laws we follow and what ones we don't.

I understand the legal reasons behind this, or at least how the laws are interpreted.  I tend to take Rick Hillier's stance with reference to his comment, "we protect democracy, we don't practice it"

If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everything we do in the military, than why even have a separate court and police force?  Is the fact we do, not a tacit enough acknowledgement that military service should be governed by a different set of rules?

Also if we aren't allowed to discriminate based on age than how are we allowed to have a compulsory retirement age of 60?

I'm not asking rhetorical questions btw, I'd actually like to hear an answer from someone in the know, preferably a lawyer.

 

[George Wallace]

I understand the legal reasons behind this, or at least how the laws are interpreted.  I tend to take Rick Hillier's stance with reference to his comment, "we protect democracy, we don't practice it"

If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everything we do in the military, than why even have a separate court and police force?  Is the fact we do, not a tacit enough acknowledgement that military service should be governed by a different set of rules?

Also if we aren't allowed to discriminate based on age than how are we allowed to have a compulsory retirement age of 60? 

I'm not asking rhetorical questions btw, I'd actually like to hear an answer from someone in the know, preferably a lawyer.

Actually, we have gone over all of this in the past.  [I am by no means a Lawyer, nor a student of Law.]  As I understand it: the CAF have been exempted some parts of the Charter through clauses that reflect Universality of Service.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Also if we aren't allowed to discriminate based on age than how are we allowed to have a compulsory retirement age of 60?

Here is one challenge to CRA.  http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/rec/014-eng.html