Afghan Medals Process (merged)

[Occam]

In all fairness, the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal was a classic example of a "gimme" medal.

According to this press release, the criteria for it was as follows:

A range of selection proposals were considered, and it has been determined that the Canadian Forces will distribute the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to the Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Cadet Instructor Cadre, Rangers and honorary appointments on a proportional basis by naval, land and air environment. Within each environment, distribution will be proportional by rank and military occupation. Seniority, based on years of service, will be the final criteria. This impartial selection process will ensure an equitable distribution of the medals.

What did a recipient of the QGJ medal do to specifically earn the medal, aside from have a pulse, breathe, and swear an oath?  Nothing.  Even conduct which would have delayed the awarding of the CD didn't affect eligibility for the QGJ.

 

[Michael OLeary]

He got 4 medals for going to war.

They all have separate criteria but with only odd exceptions, everyone who went to war got 4, 5, or 6 medals.  Those who did not go to war but spent over 30 days in the military got at least one.

Sadly, your lack of respect or appreciation for what each of those medals represents and the commitment of time and service to earn them shows through your offhand remarks to dismiss them as merely repetitive awards. Did you bother to read the referenced award criteria from 1946?  Or is it your intent to simply denigrate any methods of which you don't personally approve?

For those considering the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and the way the Canadian Forces awarded it (those awarded by politicians are not a subject of this thread and should not be referred to gratuitously to cheapen the CF approach), you would only have had to be in the right offices to know of the medals returned by COs who refused to award them to people who had remained at particular rank levels for less than commendable reasons.  Many commanders did their best to ensure the intent of the system was met as well as the letter of the award criteria.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yeah, it's not like our medals are like a Nobel Peace prize, which seems to be the latest example of a significant honour which has been recently cheapened through the application of a 'fuzzy' set of criteria. Cough... Obama... Cough

Count down to Happy Hour.....

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Sadly, your lack of respect or appreciation for what each of those medals represents and the commitment of time and service to earn them shows through your offhand remarks to dismiss them as merely repetitive awards. Did you bother to read the referenced award criteria from 1946?  Or is it your intent to simply denigrate any methods of which you don't personally approve?

For those considering the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and the way the Canadian Forces awarded it (those awarded by politicians are not a subject of this thread and should not be referred to gratuitously to cheapen the CF approach), you would only have had to be in the right offices to know of the medals returned by COs who refused to award them to people who had remained at particular rank levels for less than commendable reasons.  Many commanders did their best to ensure the intent of the system was met as well as the letter of the award criteria.

I denigrate nothing.  Going to war in WWI earned 2 medals, WWII earned at least 4 medals, Korea earned 3 medals.  I'm just saying that giving a soldier lots of medals for fighting a war is good, while giving them for other reasons is less good.  Is this an unreasonable viewpoint?

I remember officers with a bit more rank than me putting in their digs on another officer who got the 1977 Silver Jubilee Medal while they didn't.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I denigrate nothing.  Going to war in WWI earned 2 medals, WWII earned at least 4 medals, Korea earned 3 medals.  I'm just saying that giving a soldier lots of medals for fighting a war is good, while giving them for other reasons is less good.  Is this an unreasonable viewpoint?

Forgetting about the 1914-15 Star? Might as well just say soldiers who attested early for the First World War got en extra medal for the "same work" as later soldiers.

Your viewpoint is unreasonable because it fails to recognize that each of those medals do have different criteria, and there are many different combinations awarded for service in the Second World War.  There wasn't just a standard package of "welcome home, here's your set of gongs".

In my opinion, you cheapen their service with your generalizations.  Is that an unreasonable viewpoint?

I remember officers with a bit more rank than me putting in their digs on another officer who got the 1977 Silver Jubilee Medal while they didn't.

And that justifies what, exactly?

 

[vonGarvin]

As a CF member who was awarded the QGJM, I wear it with pride.  Especially consider the following:

you would only have had to be in the right offices to know of the medals returned by COs who refused to award them to people who had remained at particular rank levels for less than commendable reasons.  Many commanders did their best to ensure the intent of the system was met as well as the letter of the award criteria.

Few were awarded to members of my unit.  Yes, maybe my name initially appeared on "the list" when it criteria were set; however, someone up my chain of command said "Yes, I've seen his dancing video. He deserves the medal."  So, yeah, I don't feel cheapened wearing it.

 

[Sonnyjim]

I'm sorry...I know this has nothing to do with the topic but instead of sending a PM of comendation to Technoviking I just wanted to thank you for posting that link. Adult Diapers may need to be purchased in my next outing to the drug store.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I have  the QGJM.  It is not (yet) attached to my rack of "gimmes".  I retired as a Corporal with 23 years of (mostly) undetected crime.  No, I did not zoom up the ranks, but that was more due to my lack of political savvy than my soldiering ability.  In short, I was fucking good at what I did, day in and day out at the coal face doing the heavy lifting, and was invited back to my regiment two years after retirement to be awarded it on parade. 

 

[George Wallace]

In all fairness, the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal was a classic example of a "gimme" medal.

According to this press release, the criteria for it was as follows:

A range of selection proposals were considered, and it has been determined that the Canadian Forces will distribute the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to the Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Cadet Instructor Cadre, Rangers and honorary appointments on a proportional basis by naval, land and air environment. Within each environment, distribution will be proportional by rank and military occupation. Seniority, based on years of service, will be the final criteria. This impartial selection process will ensure an equitable distribution of the medals.

What did a recipient of the QGJ medal do to specifically earn the medal, aside from have a pulse, breathe, and swear an oath?  Nothing.  Even conduct which would have delayed the awarding of the CD didn't affect eligibility for the QGJ.

Really!  You just insulted the many who did receive this Honour.  I know many fine soldiers, whose performance and rise through the ranks failed to get them this honour, due to a blemish on their Charge Sheets from their early years in the Service.  My Regt followed the criteria, giving a proportional amount out to members of the Regt who had long unblemished Service Records, who had performed dedicated roles in the unit that in many cases would not garner much "glory" but were for the most part the necessary duties involved in Regimental life and contributed significantly to the Regimental "Family". 

So...OCCAM......Your attitude on this matter is biased by a less than accurate picture of how the intent of the award was set out.  What you may have witnessed, is not necessarily how others conducted the awarding of this Honour.  Once again, it seems to boil down to the people who have made, or not made, a responsible and fair decision in how to meet the intent of the award.

 

[Occam]

Really!  You just insulted the many who did receive this Honour. 

No, I did not.  I knew as soon as the medal was referred to as a "gimme" medal, that there would be a slew of members coming forward with tales of how they wear it with pride.

My point wasn't about how it's worn, it's about the criteria under which it was awarded.  Even the backgrounder I posted the link to stated "The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal is a commemorative medal, and is not intended to be an award of merit. There are other CF honours and awards programs that recognize meritorious service."

I know many fine soldiers, whose performance and rise through the ranks failed to get them this honour, due to a blemish on their Charge Sheets from their early years in the Service.  My Regt followed the criteria, giving a proportional amount out to members of the Regt who had long unblemished Service Records, who had performed dedicated roles in the unit that in many cases would not garner much "glory" but were for the most part the necessary duties involved in Regimental life and contributed significantly to the Regimental "Family". 

Tell me where in the criteria for the QGJM it states anything about unblemished service records.  Oh sure, at the higher levels there was most certainly picking and choosing based on their conduct sheets, but that wasn't done in accordance with the official, published intent of the medal.

So...OCCAM......Your attitude on this matter is biased by a less than accurate picture of how the intent of the award was set out.  What you may have witnessed, is not necessarily how others conducted the awarding of this Honour.  Once again, it seems to boil down to the people who have made, or not made, a responsible and fair decision in how to meet the intent of the award.

What I do know is that I was told I was to be a recipient of the QGJM.  I didn't get one....not because of any shortcoming in conduct, nor anything like that.  Want to take a guess why?    (Before you claim I'm bitter, I'll tell you flat out that it didn't and still doesn't bother me a bit - all it would have meant was that I would've had to get the other five gongs remounted.)

What I do know is that the most common reaction I personally saw after members were made aware that they were to be recipients was "So what am I getting this for again?".  Not all of them had pristine service records, and that means the criteria under which all the medals were issued were not applied uniformly.  The vast majority of members I know who got the QGJM view them as gimmes - and those are their words, not mine.

 

[vonGarvin]

The vast majority of members I know who got the QGJM view them as gimmes - and those are their words, not mine.

I know of one person who got the QGJM.  I know words too.  Want to hear them? 

 

[SeanNewman]

"Retired" 2Lt in Armoured Reserve = EPIC FAIL.

1/2 of me thinks you are being a bit too mean there.

1/2 of me thinks that you are pretty much bang on.

 

[Occam]

I know of one person who got the QGJM.  I know words too.  Want to hear them?

If you're happy with how yours got awarded, more power to you.

All I'm saying is that there are people out there, both recipients and non-recipients, who were equally puzzled with the process.  That's all.

 

[George Wallace]

Tell me where in the criteria for the QGJM it states anything about unblemished service records.  Oh sure, at the higher levels there was most certainly picking and choosing based on their conduct sheets, but that wasn't done in accordance with the official, published intent of the medal.

I remember a CANFORGEN (CANFORGEN 024/02 CDS 017 ) on this.  Do I have a copy now, or know where to find that copy?  No.  I do remember something to the effect of the member was to have had a clean record and ideally long service.  If someone digs up the whole CANFORGEN, I am sure they will find that it laid out a more detailed criteria.

What I do know is that the most common reaction I personally saw after members were made aware that they were to be recipients was "So what am I getting this for again?".  Not all of them had pristine service records, and that means the criteria under which all the medals were issued were not applied uniformly.  The vast majority of members I know who got the QGJM view them as gimmes - and those are their words, not mine.

As I have already said twice:

.........  Once again, it seems to boil down to the people who have made, or not made, a responsible and fair decision in how to meet the intent of the award.

It behoves the Commanding Officers, or superior officers/supervisors to follow the intent of the award and ensure that they meet the criteria.  If they don't then they cheapen the award and make it a "gimme" in some instances.  For some the CD is a "gimme".  For others, who have had good Commanding Officers, who have been conscientious enough to explain, even pontificate on, the significance of the award to the parade/gathering/recipient and guests, then it is a more significant award.  It is "criminal" to not accord the presentation of an award the proper dignity.  To literally mail an award to a recipient should be a crime, and you know this has happened.

 

[SeanNewman]

If the intent was for the Jubilee was the proportionate distribution according to rank, I must say that I did not witness this in an Infantry Battalion.

I am fairly certain that there are more Privates than Senior Officers in the CF, but I didn't see that many soldiers walking around with one, regardless of how perfect their record was or how many courses they topped.

 

[armyvern]

My father and most other overseas WWII veterans received 4 medals for essentially the same thing while many received 5 and those who were also in Italy often received 6.  In WWI they received 2 (or 3 if they joined in 1914 or 1915.)  In Korea they received 2 and whined and got 3.  I think lots of medals are appropriate for wars.  1 campaign medal would be the least for a war in about 107 years.

What bothered me were the gimme medals such as centennial, jubilee, etc medals that had no apparent criteria.

The CD is a good medal.  A Special Service Medal with an Alert bar - we're not too sure.  At least we don't give one for excelling in basic training unlike our neighbor.

I hear there's a town looking for it's CPA ...

:

 

[Occam]

I remember a CANFORGEN (CANFORGEN 024/02 CDS 017 ) on this.  Do I have a copy now, or know where to find that copy?  No.  I do remember something to the effect of the member was to have had a clean record and ideally long service.  If someone digs up the whole CANFORGEN, I am sure they will find that it laid out a more detailed criteria.

I don't recall the CANFORGEN mentioning conduct but I'll take your word for it until the doc can get dug up.

It behoves the Commanding Officers, or superior officers/supervisors to follow the intent of the award and ensure that they meet the criteria.  If they don't then they cheapen the award and make it a "gimme" in some instances.  For some the CD is a "gimme".  For others, who have had good Commanding Officers, who have been conscientious enough to explain, even pontificate on, the significance of the award to the parade/gathering/recipient and guests, then it is a more significant award.  It is "criminal" to not accord the presentation of an award the proper dignity.  To literally mail an award to a recipient should be a crime, and you know this has happened.

I think we're on the same page with this, and yes I do personally know people who have received decorations in the mail - the Canadian Korea Medal was sent out to many via those means, and it pissed some veterans off so badly that they sent them back.

 

[vonGarvin]

If the intent was for the Jubilee was the proportionate distribution according to rank, I must say that I did not witness this in an Infantry Battalion.

I am fairly certain that there are more Privates than Senior Officers in the CF, but I didn't see that many soldiers walking around with one, regardless of how perfect their record was or how many courses they topped.

The Jubilee medal was awarded circa 2002-2004.  Those who were Pte in that time frame are now Cpl or higher (or even higher: civilian, those whom we serve).  It was proportionate according to time served in rank, not just according to rank.  Since Ptes has fewer than four years service at that time, most went to higher ranking individuals.

 

[Occam]

The Jubilee medal was awarded circa 2002-2004.  Those who were Pte in that time frame are now Cpl or higher (or even higher: civilian, those whom we serve).  It was proportionate according to time served in rank, not just according to rank.  Since Ptes has fewer than four years service at that time, most went to higher ranking individuals.

That's not how it was explained in various different sources...

Given:

A range of selection proposals were considered, and it has been determined that the Canadian Forces will distribute the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to the Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Cadet Instructor Cadre, Rangers and honorary appointments on a proportional basis by naval, land and air environment. Within each environment, distribution will be proportional by rank and military occupation. Seniority, based on years of service, will be the final criteria. This impartial selection process will ensure an equitable distribution of the medals.

Would that not mean that the medals were first apportioned by environment, then within each environment by rank and MOC, and then finally by seniority within those ranks?

Put another way, only the most X senior Pte Infantrymen got it, only the most Y senior LS NCIOPs got it, only the most Z senior Capt CELE and so on, and so on...?

I seem to recall seeing many sources saying that the largest group of recipients was (supposed to be) Corporals.

 

[George Wallace]

I seem to recall seeing many sources saying that the largest group of recipients was (supposed to be) Corporals.

Yes.......And where are those "Corporals" today  --  five to seven years later?










Hopefully not all are still Corporals.  :camo: