Wearing Uniforms Post-Release/Retirement (merged)

[Nfld Sapper]

419.(a) refers to the current uniform.

Sometimes I wear my jump smock when I go out fishing  ;D  no one has ever gotten confused.

Maybe they thought you just "dropped in" for the fishing............

;D

 

[Blackadder1916]

And in the criminal code it says…

419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,

(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,  . . . . . .


How would wearing old uniforms come into this? . . .

I guess I ask, is because I have a few old cadet uniforms and wear them to promote cadet history, the badges/medals I have on them are era accurate.  I have gotten mixed views from it being a great thing, and to something I should not do from civilians and military members.  I just want to make sure I am not really doing something that will get me thrown in jail.  . . .

The Criminal Code article you quoted deals with the wear of "Canadian Forces" uniforms (or the wear of other military and naval uniforms).  While the cadet movement in Canada is a youth organization sponsored by the Canadian Forces, it is not part of the CF and as such its distinctive uniforms (though supplied by the CF) are not "military" uniforms.  Similarly, the badges worn on cadet uniforms are not CF insignia, nor are the "medals" given to cadets considered honours as would be worn by military members or any other person who has been awarded an order, decoration or medal IAW Canada's honours and awards policy. 

So it is unlikely that you would be "thrown in jail".  However, I am in agreement with the negative comments you've received for this practice.  While I do not believe that it is a criminal offence (under the section you quoted), I am unable to comment on whether you are violating other legislation or regulation.  I  think it likely that the wear of a cadet uniform is sanctioned only for members of said cadet organization.  What does strike me as odd is an adult (I'm assuming that you are an adult, at least in age) wearing a costume normally associated with children, particularly if you have no nexus with a cadet organization when you wear these children’s clothes in public.

 

[Infanteer90]

I think the regulations are clear... wear of uniforms that are not otherwise authorized are permitted for theatrical performances... don't wear insignia and awards that you are not entitled to... it's really that simple. Why does this crap continue to come up every year? Don't wear stuff that you haven't earned or are not legally entitled to wear. Why is this so hard to grasp?????

 

[Vuhlkansu]

I guess they should arrest all the people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who wear WW1/WW2 uniforms for remembrance day ceremonies.  They clearly were not alive 100yrs/70yrs ago.... your obviously not grasping the point of this conversation.

Last year i got nothing but compliments by wearing my ww2 uniform.  I dont claim to have served during WW2, i wear it to help bring to life how it was for the men that served.

I think the regulations are clear... wear of uniforms that are not otherwise authorized are permitted for theatrical performances... don't wear insignia and awards that you are not entitled to... it's really that simple. Why does this crap continue to come up every year? Don't wear stuff that you haven't earned or are not legally entitled to wear. Why is this so hard to grasp?????

 

[Tyson Fox]

Where it comes to being confused as a member of the military, to whom would we be confused by? The general public which don’t know any better and would even think the ww2 uniform is current issue, or current military members who DO know the difference in the old uniforms to the new uniforms.

Well, I'm assuming that your poorly worded question really means: Who would mistake ME, not we, unless many people you know also have 80's Air Cadet uniforms and you wear them together, for a member of the military? The denotation of what you said seems to ask that when members of the military are confused, who is confusing us? The answer to that question being, civvies, obviously. Then you appear somehow answer your previous question, while simultaneously asking another.  You ask who would be confused by you wearing the uniform, then discount the civilians as not getting confused because they might think you're wearing a WWII uniform, which you are not, at all, and it makes no sense to bring that up, but then you say they aren't getting confused because they might think that your uniform is current issue which is...good? Then you ask if military members would confuse you for a soldier when they know the difference?

So this is what I interpret you as asking:

"Who would confuse me as a member of the military, the general public who would think that I'm wearing a current issue uniform, or military members who know I'm not wearing a current uniform?"

:facepalm: I can't get into that any deeper to save my sanity.

Anyway, my two cents are that you likely won't get in trouble for wearing something that isn't even a military uniform, but I doubt that you wear it just to promote "cadet history".

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I guess they should arrest all the people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who wear WW1/WW2 uniforms for remembrance day ceremonies.  They clearly were not alive 100yrs/70yrs ago.... your obviously not grasping the point of this conversation.

Last year i got nothing but compliments by wearing my ww2 uniform.   I dont claim to have served during WW2, i wear it to help bring to life how it was for the men that served.

Are you sure this isn't the real reason you wear WWII uniforms?

Re-enactors and the like are no doubt doing what they do with the best of intentions, at least outwardly, but I cannot help but think that if in 20 years time, I am at a cenotaph on Nov 11 and I see a 20yr old walking around in AR Cadpat, Tacvest, Body armour and helmet, I would immediately think 'attention seeker', not compliment him on his dress.

 

[Vuhlkansu]

I wore my authentic and dated WW1 Seaforth Highlander uniform (I even have pictures of the gentleman wearing it, dated 1914) to Folklorama for the Scottish Pavilion.  Partially to promote Scottish Heritage but for me to justify spending hundreds of dollars on finishing the outfit off and not just have it as a wallhanger in my basement.  That, and putting it on lets me check all the stuff to make sure moths have not gotten to it!
As for why I wear it, the primary reason is to promote military history, and to a smaller extend cause I look good in the uniform.  The same thing could be said as to why people join the military.  I would bet almost everyone who is serving would say its because they want to serve our country but other smaller reasons they would have would be that most positions in the military pay well, great job security in these uncertain times, GREAT BENEFITS and pension, you get to fire guns,  and because you get to look good in uniform.
Every reason I just stated are reasons I wanted to serve.  As my asthma had let me down I shake my head at people who smoke or do other activities to damage their lungs on purpose.
Anyways… this conversation is seeming to go off on tangents here so ill just wrap things up.  As I didn’t come on here to defend myself from what verbal attacks in what seems like an interrogation, but to rather to get a better understanding of the Canadian Law on wearing OLD military uniforms.


Conclusion:


It seems to be ‘ok’ to wear military uniforms that are not current issue or be mistaken by serving members of the military as being current issue.
So I will continue to enjoy wearing old military uniforms to the events I go to (just not my cadet ones anymore) and I will look forward to finishing putting together my WW2 Army battledress uniform to use for airsoft.
If you don’t like me wearing ww2 uniforms that’s fine, your entitled to your opinion.

 

[Bigdigs]

Are you sure this isn't the real reason you wear WWII uniforms?

Re-enactors and the like are no doubt doing what they do with the best of intentions, at least outwardly, but I cannot help but think that if in 20 years time, I am at a cenotaph on Nov 11 and I see a 20yr old walking around in AR Cadpat, Tacvest, Body armour and helmet, I would immediately think 'attention seeker', not compliment him on his dress.

Well 20 years is a bit too soon.  By far, the last people offended by someone kitted out in a full WW2 uniform to salute and pay homage to those old folks in wheel chairs, are the people sitting in those very same chairs.

The general public (under 40yrs old) by and large knows absolutely nothing about Canada's military history pre WW1, little about WW1, some about WW2, probably hasn't even heard about Korea, Cyprus what's Cyprus?, Gulf War 1??? huh?  everything about peacekeeping in the '90's and Afghanistan,... time will tell.

 

[kratz]

Thanks to Occam posting about this week's message, all I can say is wow!

Thank you for your long term service but button up and you no longer represent the RCN once you retire.
Your knowledge, experience and comments are no longer worth anything to the RCN, you are cut off 100%
with no connection to current sailors.

Why would anyone buy mess kit or a sword knowing this when they join?

Loyalty to the service has been so high due to the nature of the service, but this message cuts
members adrift on release.

I do not know enough, but based on the sentence, this move is based more on corporate image than reminding Canadians we
have a RCN.

We complain about "Martime blindness" WRT average Canadian and then this is issued. It's a fact the RCN already holds a smaller presence than the other elements, but to make Walts of previous serving members?

Well thought out. That will ensure more milk men and women sell ice cream on their way to and from work. [/sarcasm]

 

[Remius]

I think I'm missing something.

 

[dapaterson]

Not yet posted on the DIN (that I can find, at least).  From the comment above, it sounds like a blanket prohibition on retired sailors wearing uniforms.


I think Comd RCN is exercising his authority under QR&O 17.06 (3) (a):

(3) A former member of the Regular Force or Reserve Force, who was released for a reason other than misconduct may wear uniform:
(a) with the permission of an officer commanding a command or his designated authority and such other officers as may be designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff, when attending a military entertainment or ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate; and
(b) on other occasions with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff.


Of course, communicating this via a message to currently serving sailors might not hit your target audience...

 

[Occam]

I've changed my mind - I'll bite my tongue and post the message while refraining from any personal comment - and that takes a lot for me.



R 141937Z JUN 13
FM NDHQ C NAVY OTTAWA
TO NAVGEN
BT
UNCLAS RCN 026/13 NAVGEN 022/13
SIC WAK
SUBJ: WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. QR AND O 17.06 WEARING OF UNIFORM RESTRICTION
B. QR AND O 15.09 USE OF RANK AND WEARING OF UNIFORM AFTER RELEASE
C. A-DH-265-000/AG-001 CF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS CHAPT 2
D. CF MIL PERS INST 20/04 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR CLASS A B AND C
RESERVES
E. QR AND O 3.06 HONORARY APPOINTMENTS
F. QR AND O 2.034 RESERVE SUB COMPONENTS
G. QR AND O 1.02 DEFINITIONS
H. QR AND O 3.13 USE OF RANK BY MEMBERS OF THE SUPP RESERVE
I. DAOD 5002-4 SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE
J. QR AND O 15.01  RELEASE OF NCM AND OFFICERS
K. CHANCELLERY OF HONOURS: WEARING OF ORDERS DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
1.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS NAVGEN IS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO RCN
MEMBERS, UNITS AND INSTITUTIONS FOR WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY RCN
MEMBERS AFTER  RELEASE.
2.  THE NAVY IS A PROUD AND HISTORICAL INSTITUTION THAT CULTIVATES
AN ETHOS FOR SERVICE, LOYALTY AND PRIDE WITHIN ITS MEMBERS. FOR
MANY, THIS ETHOS DOES NOT DIMINISH ONCE A MEMBER RETIRES OR LEAVES
THE NAVY.  INDEED, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SOME FORMER SERVICE
MEMBERS WISH TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED CONNECTION TO THE NAVY,
AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE RCN PUBLIC MESSAGES, BY
WEARING THEIR UNIFORMS ON CEREMONIAL AND COMMEMORATIVE OCCASIONS.
HAVING SAID THIS, THE IRREGULAR APPLICATION OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO WEARING OF UNIFORMS AFTER RELEASE
REQUIRES CLARIFICATION.
3. WHILE THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS WHEN NO LONGER A SERVING MEMBER OF
THE CAF IS, IAW REFERENCE C, QUOTE CONDITIONALLY UNQUOTE PERMITTED,
THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA IS, BY CUSTOM, GOVERNED BY AND
SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE BRANCH/REGIMENT CONCERNED.  FOR THE
RCN, THAT AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS FOR NON-ACTIVE
MEMBERS LIES SOLELY WITH THE COMMANDER OF THE RCN.
4.  IAW REF C, PERMISSION FOR FORMER SERVICE MEMBERS TO WEAR
UNIFORMS IS LIMITED AND REVOCABLE. ACCORDINGLY ALL STANDING
AUTHORITIES AS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED AT THE FORMATION, UNIT AND
INSTITUTION LEVEL FOR FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS TO WEAR UNIFORMS
ARE REVOKED. THIS ORDER SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED IN THEIR PLACE.
5.  IAW REF C, MESS DRESS IS A UNIFORM.  THEREFORE MESS DRESS IS NOT
AN ACCEPTABLE ORDER OF DRESS FOR RETIRED MEMBERS UNLESS PERMISSION
HAS BEEN GRANTED IAW QR AND O 17.06(3). SIMILAR TO OTHER ORDERS OF
DRESS, THE AUTHORITY TO PERMIT THE WEARING OF MESS DRESS FOR FORMER
SERVICE MEMBERS LIES SOLELY WITH THE COMMANDER OF THE RCN.
6. THIS NAVGEN DOES NOT AFFECT HONORARY APPOINTMENTS WHICH ARE
GOVERNED AT REF E AND DOES NOT APPLY TO RCN MEMBERS WHO HAD SERVED
PREVIOUSLY AND ARE NOW ON TERMS OF SERVICE WITHIN THE PRIMARY
RESERVE.  SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE MEMBERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SERVING
MEMBERS AND ARE NOT, THEREFORE, AUTHORIZED TO WEAR UNIFORMS UNLESS
PERMISSION IS GRANTED IAW QR AND O 17.06(3).
7.  REQUESTS BY FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS TO WEAR UNIFORMS,
INCLUDING MESS DRESS, WILL BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
SUCH APPROVAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM IS NECESSARY AND WILL FAVORABLY
CONTRIBUTE TO THE RCN.  THESE OCCASIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED
CAREFULLY.  THERE ARE TOO MANY POSSIBLE SCENARIOS TO LIST ALL OF THE
EVENTS THAT MAY WARRANT WEARING OF A UNIFORM AFTER SERVICE.  EVENTS
SUCH AS SIGNIFICANT MILITARY ANNIVERSARIES CELEBRATED BY MESS DINNER
AND  AWARD PRESENTATIONS TO FORMER SERVICE  MEMBERS WHO ARE VERY
RECENTLY RETIRED MAY WARRANT, IF SUBSTANTIATED PROPERLY, THE WEARING
OF UNIFORMS. HOWEVER, MESS DINNERS, IN GENERAL, DO NOT WARRANT THE
WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY FORMER RCN MEMBERS.
8. ALL REQUESTS TO WEAR UNIFORMS (INCLUDING MESS DRESS) BY FORMER
RCN MEMBERS SHALL BE SENT, VIA LOCAL AND REGIONAL MESSES AND EVENT
ORGANIZERS, TO DIRECTOR NAVAL PERSONNEL AT DGNP.  A REQUEST SHOULD
BE SUBMITTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF EVENTS SO AS TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT
TIME TO PROCESS AND PROVIDE RESPONSES. SENDING A REQUEST DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE RECEIVING  PERMISSION.
9.  RCN INSTITUTIONS, SUCH AS MESSES, SHALL ENSURE THAT THEIR
CONSTITUTIONS CLEARLY REFLECT THIS POLICY ON THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS
AND ARTICULATE THE PROCESS FOR  REQUESTING PERMISSION SHOULD THERE
BE AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT THAT WOULD WARRANT THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS
VICE EQUIVALENT CIVILIAN ATTIRE. BLANKET REQUESTS FOR EVENTS WILL
NOT BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT IN THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER RCN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENCOURAGED
TO INCLUDE THIS NAVGEN IN THEIR LIST OF REFERENCES AND ARE ASKED TO
MAKE SPECIFIC COMMENT IN INVITATIONS ABOUT WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY
RETIRED RCN MEMBERS.
10. AS COMMANDER RCN, I PRAISE AND THANK ALL WHO HAVE SERVED
PREVIOUSLY: I AM MOST REASSURED BY THE NUMBERS WHO WISH TO
DEMONSTRATE THEIR CONTINUED LOVE FOR AND LOYALTY TO THEIR NAVY.
HOWEVER, AS COMMANDER I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS
OF THE DAY AND THAT THEY, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, REMAIN SWORN TO
UNLIMITED LIABILITY IF ORDERED INTO HARM S WAY, AND THEREFORE MUST
BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH IN THE MANY EVENTS ATTENDED BY BOTH
CURRENT AND FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS.
11. CRCN SENDS

 

[dapaterson]

Wow.  That's even more colossally stupid that I expected from the teasers.

From the last few paras, sounds like a retired individual at a mess dinner or other function was given an order, said "I'm retired", and someone senior got their knickers in a knot as a result.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Wow.  That's even more colossally stupid that I expected from the teasers.

From the last few paras, sounds like a retired individual at a mess dinner or other function was given an order, said "I'm retired", and someone senior got their knickers in a knot as a result.

Or, based on this bit ....

.... I MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE SERVING MEMBERS OF THE DAY AND THAT THEY, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, REMAIN SWORN TO UNLIMITED LIABILITY IF ORDERED INTO HARM S WAY, AND THEREFORE MUST BE CLEARLY RECOGNIZABLE AS SUCH IN THE MANY EVENTS ATTENDED BY BOTH CURRENT AND FORMER RCN SERVICE MEMBERS ....

.... maybe some spiffily-dressed former sailor did something so bad, they wanted to make sure nobody thought s/he was a serving sailor?

Wonder how much energy this ate up?  Not to mention the energy yet to be expended on everyone who thinks their exception is the one to make.

 

[Jed]

Wow.  That's even more colossally stupid that I expected from the teasers.

From the last few paras, sounds like a retired individual at a mess dinner or other function was given an order, said "I'm retired", and someone senior got their knickers in a knot as a result.

So what is the recrimination to those Retired Members who choose to 'cover their blind eye' ala Nelson and wear their old mess kit to the local policemen's ball without properly completing the paperwork?

 

[dapaterson]

Or, based on this bit ........ maybe some spiffily-dressed former sailor did something so bad, they wanted to make sure nobody thought s/he was a serving sailor?

No, he was still serving.

And pictures don't show him to be all that spiffy...

 

[Privateer]

I do not see how para. 6 (in regards to SUPP RES), can be squared with DAOD 5002-4, which reads:

"A Supp Res member is authorized to wear a uniform when on service or attending military entertainment or a ceremony at which the wearing of uniform is appropriate."

Note:  "IS authorized"; not "may be authorized".  Can CRCN overrule DAOD's on his own authority?  (And I do not think that one could end run the DAOD by trying to rewrite the DAOD to add "and no event is appropriate unless sanctioned in advance by command".)

Edit to add:  As DAODs are promulgated on the authority of CDS, the authorization in DAOD 5002-4 would seem to meet the requirement of QR&O 17.06(3)(b), and therefore be beyond the fiat of CRCN.

 

[kratz]

No, he was still serving.

And pictures don't show him to be all that spiffy...

With the current CDS, you are trying to tell me the RCAF did not put out an AIRGEN first for the same reason? (AKA R Williams),
Blaming this change on one sailor means the RCN would have made the change centuries ago.

 

[dapaterson]

With the current CDS, you are trying to tell me the RCAF did not put out an AIRGEN first for the same reason? (AKA R Williams),
Blaming this change on one sailor means the RCN would have made the change centuries ago.

Next time I'll add a  >

 

[Monsoon]

As you can see, the RCN is such a high-visibility institution that we really need to work to reduce the number of people wearing our uniform to society events. I'm certainly looking forward to going around mess dinners browbeating grey-hairs with copies of ss.130 and 419 of the Criminal Code for wearing their 50-year-old mess dress. "But thanks for coming to our dinner!"