Enrollment: Swearing an Oath or Affirmation [merged]

[da1root]

"so I would take DAOD 5002 to be more as guidance..."

Just a quick note on that: "DAOD" stands for "Defence Administrative <b>Orders and Directives</b>"
DAOD's are not a set of "guidance" (suggestions) for members of the CAF to undertake.

Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces corporate administrative direction is set out in the comprehensive collection of Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) that are issued by or under the authority of the Deputy Minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff.

 

[Harris]

I agree the DAOD states what it states.

However I'll also argue that if every CO who did not follow to the letter every DAOD and other rules and regulations of the CAF was jacked up for not doing so, there wouldn't be a single one not jacked.  Not saying it's right, but there are a ton of Regimental or other organization traditions that do not necessarily follow every rule as laid down.  Personally since Recruits in my Unit have been enrolled either in the CO's office (without picture and flag) or in front of the Regimental Colours for at a minimum of the last 35 years, and no one has made an issue, I'll assume it's safe to continue doing so.

 

[da1root]

While I agree you wouldn't see a CO jacked up for not following this particular DAOD, and you wouldn't see someone irregularly enrolled... rules are rules.
As a clerk I've seen plenty of rules not followed through the years, it doesn't mean it's ok - it just means the rules weren't followed.

But ultimately that opens the door to asking who decides which rules are followed and which ones are "soft" rules and ok to break?

Edit Note: Above came across harsh and was not my intent.

The DAOD's have not been in existance for 35+ years, so the CO doing the enrollment may not even be aware of the policy.
It is the "job" of people like the Recruiting NCO and Chief Clerk to know policies, admin orders, etc.

In my experience I have reported to many CO's that weren't necessarily up to date on all the policies, and as their Chief Clerk I explained the rules & regulations to them.
I have yet to report to a CO that when I brought a policy to their attention (DAOD or otherwise) would then ignore the policy/order/directive.

 

[Harris]

Ack, and I agree to your points.  I am the CO and I'd never know that DAOD was in existence.  Haven't heard anyone else in the Brigade mention it either when swearing in.  The Inf Regiments I know use the Colours.  Now I guess Ill have to find a way to get a current picture of the Queen in a timely manner and add the Canadian Flag to the area near the Colours case.

 

[Lumber]

Just a quick note on that: "DAOD" stands for "Defence Administrative <b>Orders and Directives</b>"
DAOD's are not a set of "guidance" (suggestions) for members of the CAF to undertake.

Hey, I'm not denying that DAODs are "Orders and Directives", and I'm on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to "hard" vs "soft" orders.

However, the way I would look at it is that the DAOD is an order to the CO and the unit on how enrolments shall be conducted, whereas the QR&O establishes what is a legal enrolment and what is not. So long as they speak the correct words and the enrolment is conducted by an officer, you could do the enrolment at Hooters with everyone wearing power-puff girls costumes and the enrolment itself would 100% valid.

 

[dapaterson]

So long as they speak the correct words and the enrolment is conduct by an officer, you could do the enrolment at Hooters with everyone wearing power-puff girls costumes and the enrolment itself would 100% valid.

With that context, the RCN makes a lot more sense.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

Hey, I'm not denying that DAODs are "Orders and Directives", and I'm on the same side of the argument as you when it comes to "hard" vs "soft" orders.

However, the way I would look at it is that the DAOD is an order to the CO and the unit on how enrolments shall be conducted, whereas the QR&O establishes what is a legal enrolment and what is not. So long as they speak the correct words and the enrolment is conduct by an officer, you could do the enrolment at Hooters with everyone wearing power-puff girls costumes and the enrolment itself would 100% valid.

That was my point to begin with, regardless of the order stating a CO shall decorate the room accordingly, much like other Oaths of Office etc., It is the act of swearing the oath that matters and is legally binding.

The last oath I swore, I read off a piece of paper and then signed said piece of paper.

Holds the same weight.