• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,236
Points
1,260
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Wounded soldiers to be given opportunity to stay in uniform: defence sources
Canadian Press, 4 Oct 07
Article link

OTTAWA - Soldiers badly wounded in Afghanistan and who want to stay in uniform would be given the chance to do so under a new policy drafted by the Defence Department.

The plan, drawn up in the waning days of Gordon O'Connor's tenure as defence minister, would allow the military to avoid the controversy of dismissing injured soldiers who want to continue serving and - in some cases - have no other vocation.

Sources within the Defence Department told The Canadian Press that the policy has been stuck in bureaucratic limbo since O'Connor was replaced in August by the new minister, Peter MacKay.

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, said recently that he has some of "his brightest minds working on it," but offered few details on the proposal or a timeline.

Sources who've seen a draft of the policy say it would allow soldiers who do not meet the military's universality of service rule to apply to stay as long as they meet some criteria.

Under the current system, a soldier who becomes disabled has three years to be rehabilitated and meet the fitness standard for overseas operations. If they cannot meet the requirement, they have no choice but to face a medical discharge.

The rule, introduced by Hillier, has been a source of concern as the number of wounded from the desert battlefields of Afghanistan grows.

Hillier has steadfastly refused to make changes to the current fitness requirement, but conceded that military has been trying to find a way to take care of its wounded with some dignity.

The authority to release an injured soldier, sailor or air crew member rests solely with the defence chief and Hillier has argued that the current system is flexible enough to let him decide the future of individuals.

But defence sources say clear criteria are needed to ensure fairness and to avoid potential legal challenges.

Lt.-Col. Stephane Grenier, a spokesman for the chief of military personnel, says the new policy will not supersede, amend or even soften the universality rule.

Its intent will be to recognize that wounded soldiers still have something to contribute to military life.

"The military is being challenged to balance the deployability factor with the gainfully employed factor," he said in an interview.

Grenier would not discuss what kind of criteria would be attached to the policy.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague, an advocate for wounded soldiers, said he wants to see the conditions and worries they will be too narrow and restrictive.

"We're talking about wounded human beings who fought for this country," he said.

"A soldier's commitment is open-ended and the criteria on whether they remain in the Forces should be too."

Grenier denied there's been any footdragging in addressing the issue, but said he understood the urgency some people must feel.

"This is not something that started yesterday," he said. "The process has been well underway. It happens to be a top priority for the chief of military personnel. It's not limbo. It might be in limbo, according to people who don't think it's moving fast enough."

Grenier couldn't say when the new policy will be given to MacKay for approval and also would not discuss what criteria applicants will have to meet when the new program is finally established.

Since the latest deployment to Kandahar in February 2006, 71 soldiers and one diplomat have been killed and as many as 325 troops have been injured. Most of the wounded have been able to return to their units.

Only a few dozen will likely be considered permanently disabled because they've lost a limb or suffered other traumatic wounds. The designation has yet to be made in individual cases because they have yet to complete their three-year rehabilitation period.
 
I wonder how this is going to translate to personnel injured in the normal course of their duties here in Canada....this could turn into a real bag of worms....(but it would be nice if they were able to accommodate this)
 
GAP said:
I wonder how this is going to translate to personnel injured in the normal course of their duties here in Canada....this could turn into a real bag of worms....(but it would be nice if they were able to accommodate this)

Good point -- still, like you say, there's gotta be SOMETHING that can be done by someone who may not be able to deploy.  Maybe backfill a staff job of some sort to free up another bayonet?  I know these things aren't this simple, but common sense tells me there's gotta be something there....
 
GAP said:
I wonder how this is going to translate to personnel injured in the normal course of their duties here in Canada....this could turn into a real bag of worms....(but it would be nice if they were able to accommodate this)

What would be the difference?

If a troop was severly injured in training, and has  much experience, we should just write him off due to where the injury happened?

dileas

tess
 
The impression of the article is that this would only/primarily apply to tour related injuries, but I agree it should apply to all.
 
it would of be nice if they re-wrote this process, some armies allow individual either injured soldier or civilian to enter into specific trade that allow to cover those that are on tour or transfer to different trade because of their qualifications needed there
 
the 48th regulator said:
What would be the difference?

If a troop was severly injured in training, and has  much experience, we should just write him off due to where the injury happened?

I agree, Tess, if they do it for one, they are going to have to do it for all.
 
Admiral Nelson - Minus One Eye and One Arm
General Sam Browne (designer of the Sam Browne belt) - Minus One Arm
Wing Commander Douglas Bader (Flying commander of Spitfires WW2) - Minus Two Legs

All able to serve in the face of the enemy
 
Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.
 
Harris said:
Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.

...or pass along valuable "lessons learned" face-to-face (even if they can't teach the entire curriculum), or provide advice from experience garnered at a pretty high cost to planners, purchasers and trainers.
 
Harris said:
Agreed.  Surely someone doesn't need to be in fighting trim to man a HQ desk, or many other, non-combat type positions.
Agree. There have been many good soldiers forced out of the system that could have added great value in our training system.

Adjust the Pay Scale and insert a couple of columns. We already have Basic, Spec 1 , Spec 2 ....

Why not introduce something to the effect of Column 1: Basic ; for those soldiers unable to deploy or perform BFT for what ever reason or, have entered PCAT status. Column 2: Deployable, Column 3: Spec 1, Column 4: Spec 2 ...etc.

All recruits must be deployable !

Those soldiers on TCAT must fully understand that if it leads to PCAT and they are retained (and positions are available), they would take a drop in pay.

Just a thought.
 
Scot57 said:
Adjust the Pay Scale and insert a couple of columns. We already have Basic, Spec 1 , Spec 2 ....

Why not introduce something to the effect of Column 1: Basic ; for those soldiers unable to deploy or perform BFT for what ever reason or, have entered PCAT status. Column 2: Deployable, Column 3: Spec 1, Column 4: Spec 2 ...etc.

All recruits must be deployable !

Those soldiers on TCAT must fully understand that if it leads to PCAT and they are retained (and positions are available), they would take a drop in pay.

Just a thought.


So your saying that an injured soldier is worth less then a healthy one? is his work in some way inferior?

And if you lump those permanently wounded do to operatons in that idea I think it's just wrong. Nope I don't like that idea at all. I think it's almost insulting honestly
 
HitorMiss said:
I think it's almost insulting honestly
Only a suggestion. And no one said changing the system would be easy. Clearly something has to be done to retain good soldiers currently being forced out.

As for insulting. Perhaps to some. But my wife would have gladly taken a drop in pay to stay in the Military. Instead, because of a broken bone in her foot sustained in Petawawa, she was forced out after 21 years as a Sgt. She would have made a fine instructor.
 
But why should she have been paid less to be an instructor is what I am getting at. I agree with universitality of service and the need to maintain deployable troops. But I think perhaps something need to be reexamined, perhaps not those injured in the normal course of duty in domestic operations but certainly for those who sustain life changing and body altering injuries do to combat.

I personally don't think a sliding pay scale is the answer though.
 
HitorMiss said:
But why should she have been paid less to be an instructor is what I am getting at. I agree with univeritality of service and the need to maintain deployable troops. But I think perhaps something need to be re-examined, perhpas not those injured in the normal course of duty in domestic operations but certainly for those who sustain life changing and body altering injuries do to combat.

I personaly don't think a sliding pay scale is the answer though.
I think its an option (a choice for that member) that has to be explored. I spent time as a CSM in Petawawa and saw too many good soldiers injured (or for other medical conditions) in Garrison, forced out. 

As for soldiers injured in combat .....my opinion  ...... yes, its a different matter.  Those able to return to duty in another capacity should be able to be retained their current rank and pay.

Again - for those not injured in combat, and are facing PCAT ....more options must be made available. A cut in pay and retention is a good option for many.
 
There's 2 kinds of injuries we have to look at here:
1) Operational injuries sustained from action against an enemy / during a mission.

2) Injuries sustained through normal training / peacetime operations.

If you are injured as a result of attending what one instructor of mine calls "the final PO check," then there is no reduction of pay and every possible effort is made to retain you.  Whether that is in another trade or instructing doesn't matter.  The retention of people with real world combat lessons learned is vital to the future of the CF.

If you bust yourself up playing ball hockey or skateboarding, well then a sliding pay scale would be the best for the CF.  Paying an individual full pay if they cannot deploy just doesn't make sense and encourages others to malinger with no consequence.

Remember though that it should still be up to the member whether he / she even wants to stay in the CF.  There is no point retaining a soldier if all they want to do is fish and golf and never put on relish again.

Now, there will be cases where an individual is injured during normal training / peacetime ops but has deployed in the past.  There may be exceptions and each injury should be looked at in a case by case sort of way.  Pte Bloggins with 2 haircuts in who busted his femur at the skatepark obviously has less to offer than WO Johnny Cash with 12 tours and combat experience who destroyed his spine jumping with CSOR for example.
 
Agreed Grunt, But the if every PCAT is a case by case that system will indeed clog the medical system perhaps DMCARM would need a whole new sub section to deal with it, then again it could also just be a case of looking at a soldiers MPRR.
 
The more complicated we make this, the faster it will fail a charter challenge.

My proposal:

1.  Must meet deployable/standard or no further career progression unless approved by trade, and even then:

2.  Cannot be meritted/career course loaded while fit soldiers of same rank are any where on the merit list and do not have the same qual.

3.  If broken, cannot be promoted ahead of any same rank on the merit list who is fit.

4.  This way, those who are broken still contribute, but do not gum up the succession plan with people who cannot deploy.

5.  If you are in a command position and broken, and a fit soldier wants your job - he/she gets it.





 
HitorMiss said:
Agreed Grunt, But the if every PCAT is a case by case that system will indeed clog the medical system perhaps DMCARM would need a who new sub section to deal with it, then again it could also just be a case of looking at a soldiers MPRR.

+ 1 for MPRR.  Makes it easy for a unit to look and see if an individual has any current and relevant knowledge that should be retained at full pay. 

I also like TCBF's proposal, and the KISS principal should definitely be employed here.
 
So what he have then in essence is this

Member injured in combat is retained at current rank and pay till his contract is concluded (though it can be renewed in the case of BE's) to pass on his hard earned knowledge.

Member is injured due to non deployed reasons. His MPRR is reviewed to ensue that member as relevant experience needed to be kept in the system ( Ref the example Grunt used) If member does he is retained in a training capacity at full pay. Member cannot advance in rank past fit soldiers.

Member does not have relevant knowledge. Member is moved to a non deployable postion at a reduced pay if he so desires and cannot advance in rank.

All Members above can choose Medical Release vice staying in CF
 
Back
Top