Untrained BMQ Candidate Alleges Abuse by Directing Staff Sergeant

[Monsoon]

Odd to see comments that boil down to "I don't care what the CDS said/says.  I'll do what I see fit".  Seems to go against this to me. 

Not at all what I'm saying. It's the job of commanders to analyze and seek out command intent in interpreting orders, particularly when one order or policy appears to significantly deviate from other orders and policies, as this one seems to. At some point long stale-dated messages cease to properly reflect current command intent; I would say that goes double when the commander being referenced changed over a decade ago, and no subsequent commander was willing to sign off on official doctrine to back up what he said in one particular meeting. Contrary to what you may think, it's actually quite easy to get a CANFORGEN released; the much harder part is developing sound policy.

Now that being said, my only command experience has been in force generating units and I can't conceive of when such a unit would not closely adhere to medical recommendations. But I suspect a deployed TF commander wouldn't get too hung up on them in extremis.

 

[trustnoone73]

.. Coughs, Colds, Sore Holes, Pimples on your Ding Dong ... Cepacol

Cepacol and foot powder is so '90's.

In the 21st Century a "No Shave Chit" is the cure all.

 

[George Wallace]

Cepacol and foot powder is so '90's.

In the 21st Century a "No Shave Chit" is the cure all.

Gosh!  We have gone full circle.  "No Shave Chit" is so '80's.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not at all what I'm saying. It's the job of commanders to analyze and seek out command intent in interpreting orders, particularly when one order or policy appears to significantly deviate from other orders and policies, as this one seems to. At some point long stale-dated messages cease to properly reflect current command intent; I would say that goes double when the commander being referenced changed over a decade ago, and no subsequent commander was willing to sign off on official doctrine to back up what he said in one particular meeting. Contrary to what you may think, it's actually quite easy to get a CANFORGEN released; the much harder part is developing sound policy.

Now that being said, my only command experience has been in force generating units and I can't conceive of when such a unit would not closely adhere to medical recommendations. But I suspect a deployed TF commander wouldn't get too hung up on them in extremis.

The intent of the CANFORGEN, though, was pretty clear.  "Medical Staff chit/MELs shall be adhered to".  That seems pretty cut and dry.

I see what you are saying, but will also note that no CDS since then has seen fit to supersede or cancel the CANFORGEN;  therefore it is still 'in play'.

Where things go off the rails sometimes is the "I don't agree with/I am going to interpret/ignore" it stuff that happens (at all ranks levels).  Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen need only go look at the MGERC case files to find where it has, and at times the CDS as FA has overturned wrongful decisions.  But that's a different thread.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The intent of the CANFORGEN, though, was pretty clear.  "Medical Staff chit/MELs shall be adhered to".  That seems pretty cut and dry.

I see what you are saying, but will also note that no CDS since then has seen fit to supersede or cancel the CANFORGEN;  therefore it is still 'in play'.

Where things go off the rails sometimes is the "I don't agree with/I am going to interpret/ignore" it stuff that happens (at all ranks levels).  Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen need only go look at the MGERC case files to find where it has, and at times the CDS as FA has overturned wrongful decisions.  But that's a different thread.

:goodpost:

I stand by my statement if you feel like you know what is best for an injured/sick subordinate then go ahead and paddle down that stream but I don't advise any to follow your lead.

My whole career I have been taught that sick chits are gospel and rock solid.  And I understand why.  They are there to promote the recovery of the member and protect them from an over zealous chain of command who will in all likelihood just make things worse if allowed to run a muck of members recovery.

 

[Baz]

:goodpost:

I stand by my statement if you feel like you know what is best for an injured/sick subordinate then go ahead and paddle down that stream but I don't advise any to follow your lead.

My whole career I have been taught that sick chits are gospel and rock solid.  And I understand why.  They are there to promote the recovery of the member and protect them from an over zealous chain of command who will in all likelihood just make things worse if allowed to run a muck of members recovery.

Again, to be clear, most of the time I agree completely.

However, there has to (and is) an out for Commanders when absolutely necessary.  This means Commanders, not supervisors, and the out is when order to complete a MISSION they are allowed to assume risk.

A problem with this is (using your term) overzealous  Commanders using this incorrectly.  My feeling to address that is that, because with given them the authority to assess and accept risk, if they deliberately screw up, then they are dealt with harsely.  Which the NDA allows. Like immediately being removed from Command, since we can't trust them.

 

[George Wallace]

Here we go again.  This really has the possibilities of opening a convoluted can of worms:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

What is a veteran?
By Staff  Global News

Global News has received many comments, emails, calls and tweets from veterans responding to our story about James Robichaud’s allegations of abuse during military training.

We thank everyone for taking the time to provide their feedback and express their views. We value input from our audience – positive or otherwise – in order to improve our service to the community.

The vast majority of veterans who reached out took issue with Robichaud being referred to as a “veteran” in the story.

Robichaud began basic training in late 2009 and was unable to complete the course – he says not because he didn’t want to, but because of his injuries. He was medically discharged in 2012. He now receives benefits through Veterans Affairs Canada, which recognized his injuries were caused by his time in the military.

Global News contacted Veterans Affairs for more information about how the department defines a veteran. The response?

“In general, any individual who is injured while serving their country in uniform may be eligible for benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). However, for confidentiality reasons, we are unable to comment on this story or provide information on individuals that may or may not be in receipt of benefits or services from VAC.”

That didn’t answer the question. So we asked The Veterans Ombudsman’s Office. We were referred to a report from October 2012 on A National Veterans Identification Card. The following is an excerpt from that report:

“In 2001, the then Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that henceforth all former members of the Canadian Forces, including those who served in the Reserve Force, special duty areas and on domestic duty, would be recognized as Veterans provided they had met their occupational classification training requirements and had been honourably released. The definition was adopted in recognition of “…the potential risk that all Canadian Forces members are exposed to when they swear the Oath of Allegiance and don a Canadian uniform.” The definition was revised in 2008, replacing the requirement for completion of occupational training to that of simply basic training, and, to this day, stands as the official Government of Canada definition of a veteran for commemoration purposes.”

Note, it says “for commemoration purposes.”

Michel Drapeau, Robichaud’s lawyer and a retired military colonel and veteran himself, defines “veteran” in legal terms as follows:

“Generally speaking, a veteran (from Latin vetus meaning “old”) is a person who has had long service or experience in a particular occupation of field. (military, hockey, teaching, astronaut)

Using everyday language, military veterans are considered those persons who have served or are serving in the armed forces, particularly but not exclusively those who have had direct exposure to acts of military conflict who may also be referred to as “war veterans”. Using the dictionary definition, one would be a military veteran with just one day of military service, even with a dishonorable release.

However, in real legal terms, at present, whether or not one is considered a “veteran” depends entirely upon which veteran program or benefit one is applying for at Veterans Affairs Canada.

The Veterans Bill of Rights applies to all clients of Veterans Affairs including: a “Former and, in certain cases, current members of the Canadian Forces.”

Hence, Mr. Robichaud is absolutely a veteran.”

Global News presented Robichaud’s story as allegations that have yet to be proven. The Department of National Defence refused to discuss the matter.

We look forward to following this story as it unfolds, and welcome any further feedback from our viewers.

© Shaw News, 2014

More on LINK.


That would mean that one becomes a Veteran as soon as they take the Oath of Allegiance or Solemn Oath and will be a Veteran even if they turned around within the next hour and said that they had changed their minds and did not want to be a member of the CAF.

 

[cryco]

well, it seems that definition was revised in 2008. Has it led to many decisions like this one? Has it been a problem? It does seems peculiar to be considered a veteran after only basic training.

 

[PMedMoe]

Global News tagged that story with CFB Saint John.  :facepalm:

 

[George Wallace]

Global News tagged that story with CFB Saint John.  :facepalm:

Well....Historically, it once was called Saint John, Quebec.  (I remember seeing an old photo of the Train Station in Saint-Jean with the Anglicised signage.  When my father joined the RCAF, his basic was in Saint John, Quebec.)

 

[expwor]

So I was a reservist.  Completed GMT (General Military Training) and TQ1 (Trade Qualification) Infantryman.  Two years in.  That included a couple months in W Germany with 3RCR.  Never called myself or considered myself a Veteran. Thought it would be insulting in comparison to those who's service to Canada involved operational tours, personal sacrifice etc. I find this ex recruit getting called a Veteran an insult to all who served.
Just this civilian's point of view, hope worded right

Tom

 

[kratz]

I agree with George, this is a can of worms.

There was much nashing of teeth from older veterans when the definition was changed in 2001.
I agreed that having a minimum of three years service and being occupationally trained is a valid minimum benchmark.
I also recognize the distinction between war veteran vice veteran.
Sadly, with the current situation this person's example mocks the service of anyone who has accepted, lived and dealt with
"the terms of unlimited liability".

 

[Jarnhamar]

If you go by a lot of dictionary definitions than this former member can be called a veteran.
Merriam-Webster for example defines a veteran as, among other things;

b :  a former member of the armed forces

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veteran

In the most basic sense this guy can be a veteran but the word has taken on a bit of a modified meaning and most people don't accept a military "veteran" as someone who didn't pass basic.


There are ways to interpret a sick chit or medical restriction to the letter.  No walking on uneven ground? You can walk up and down the road following your section doing section attacks in full gear. Not saying it's right but it happens.  This guys story sounds really messed up but I'll wait to see what types of charges, if any, are laid against the instructor. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I must say that, having served honourably in the Navy from 1975 to 2010, according to my service record, but never deployed ""in theatre" unless you count serving on warships involved in the cold war, I am happy to refer to myself as "retired". I, however, never considered myself a "veteran".

There may be a legal distinction out there in various rules and regulation, but I am pretty sure that most civilians consider that a member or ex-member of the CF that refers to him/her self as a veteran must have taken part in some form of "combat" operation. I have no doubt that Mr. Drapeau is fully aware of this view of the term and is using it on purpose when referring to his client for the sole purpose of creating outrage in the population (of the type: "How dare they do this to a vet…"). It disgusts me.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1619464/what-is-a-veteran/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Global News declaring him a veteran because he tried to do BMQ is as valid as Global News declaring me an Astronaut because I've flown WestJet. 

I've got 25 years and change in the Mob and I am not a "veteran".  And, for the record, I am in receipt of a monthly disability pension for life for a service-related injury...that happened in peacetime.  In Canada.

Still...not a veteran.

 

[Occam]

Global News declaring him a veteran because he tried to do BMQ is as valid as Global News declaring me an Astronaut because I've flown WestJet. 

I've got 25 years and change in the Mob and I am not a "veteran".  And, for the record, I am in receipt of a monthly disability pension for life for a service-related injury...that happened in peacetime.  In Canada.

Still...not a veteran.

I know the thought you're trying to convey, and I am in no way trying to condone what Global did (let's make that clear) - but you're a veteran, whether you choose to identify with that term or not.

This notion of "newer" veterans not wanting to identify themselves as such is how we ended up with two classes of veteran - one under the Pension Act, and one under the NVC.  Until we stop segmenting ourselves into different classes of veterans, we have no hope whatsoever of ever getting VAC (through legislation) to stop treating us as two different classes of veteran.

 

[The_Falcon]

Maybe a solution is to structure basic training, in a similar fashion to how the RCMP and CBSA structure their recruit training.  You are informally part of the organization, in that you signed up to go through training, but you aren't a full 100% member until you actually get through that initial basic training.  The only contract you sign is for the duration of this training, no contract for further service until you have satisfactorily completed the training.  You are paid a modest stiped/allowance, and if you are injured to the point you can't complete training, you are released immediately.

Thoughts?

 

[Occam]

Makes sense to me.

I keep pretty close tabs on veterans-related issues in the media, and I knew that at some point VAC defined a veteran as anyone who successfully basic occupation training.  I was also aware that at some point after that, they changed the definition to include anyone who successfully completed basic training.  I'm not aware of any change in the definition since then.  Given the most recent definition, I have no idea why VAC is even giving this individual the time of day.

 

[ModlrMike]

I would think that if a member were injured on basic such that they had to be released, they might still qualify for a pension from VAC. That would still not make them a veteran under VAC's own definition though.