Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[captloadie]

So Pat Stogran would have us create a multi-tiered system that uses a subjective measuring stick to determine who is allowed to stay and who isn't? If the problem is the CF is not applying the USP equally to all, then call the offenders to task. Don't go saying let's make more exceptions because that is the current flavour of the day.

I have all the respect in the world for those who have fought and been injured on any operation, but I also have respect for the guy who gets injured on a training exercise or at a garrison job whose career is also ended. 

My  :2c:

 

[Nemo888]

I was going to stay out of this thread, but find that I cannot.  I do not know the Mcpl in question here, unlike some posters, so I only know about his situation what I have gleaned from the press.

I would offer that each of us will eventually reach the end of our usefulness as soldiers and must inevitably leave the CF.  Some of us will become unable to soldier due to old age; some because of injury or infirmity; some because of wounds suffered in combat.  The point is: we must all leave uniform, eventually.  There is no room in a military as small as ours for those who cannot deploy and cope with the demands of combat.  We tried that for a while in the mid 1990s and it was dismal failure.  Those who were fit to deploy, deployed without respite while garrison and staff jobs were plugged with the infirm.

What we need as an institution is an ongoing commitment to transition those who can no longer fully serve to a dignified career elsewhere.  As individual CF members, I think we all need to be honest with ourselves so that we can recognize the day that  will inevitably come to all of us which marks the end of our time in the CF and depart with dignity, pride and grace.

Once again, I do not know this person.  I am sceptical that a double amputee is up to the rigours of combat- but what do I know?  What I do know is, that if we regularly retain injured soldiers who are not deployable, it will not be very long before the CF will find itself in a court of law and ordered to recruit the infirm, because clearly we not really mean universality of service.

And then what?

I agree with you but VAC and the transitional system is still currently broken for injured personnel IMO. It's miles better than it was in 2005(New Vets Charter), but my advice to injured pers is to stay in as long as possible till things are properly fixed. Talk to some people who have been through the system in private. Everyone I know says it's broken, though one or two say differently publicly. Knowing that your comrades could be thrown away and not given proper support would you still want to kick them out? The government bureaucracy is not being honorable with injured vets so even though I agree with you I can't currently support your position on release until the system is fixed.

 

[McG]

... I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  ...

The ExPress test being a measure of physical fitness, I don't think it should be the yard stick to keep medically unfit personnel.  Not only can pers have medical limitations which are unrelated to anything measured by the test, but the test itself is not a direct measurement of fitness to serve - it is a statistically valid predictor of fitness to serve for a sample population that is known to be medically fit.  For personnel missing limbs, it would be neccessary to either prove the ExPress to still be a statistically relevant predictor or have the members complete the Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation.

 

[ModlrMike]

Considering the CMTFE is the last stage of fitness testing, and most readily resembles operational situations, I think it is fair to use it as the standard.

 

[George Wallace]

The ExPress test being a measure of physical fitness, I don't think it should be the yard stick to keep medically unfit personnel.  Not only can pers have medical limitations which are unrelated to anything measured by the test, but the test itself is not a direct measurement of fitness to serve - it is a statistically valid predictor of fitness to serve for a sample population that is known to be medically fit.  For personnel missing limbs, it would be neccessary to either prove the ExPress to still be a statistically relevant predictor or have the members complete the Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation.

This whole case is a "Can of Worms".  Promises were made by people of high rank, and subsequently broken.  The precedence has been set by some of our allied nations, of both retaining amputees the military and deploying them in combat roles.  There are also historical examples of this being done in WW II.  This would seem to fly in contradiction to your post on Common Military Task Fitness Evaluations, even if there is no current Canadian nexus.  There are amputees who have stayed in the Service, some for a good many years, and this is a case where a redress will probably bring light of how many and in what capacities these members have been retained.

We are witnessing a case where many events have lead to a member having to take drastic measures.  Not only has he been wronged, or is under the impression that he has been wronged, by the CF and DND, but perhaps by other Government Departments and/or Agencies.  The method by which this has all come to light may also have been handled in a less than desired way.  We have already seen, through this means, that the initial news release has inaccuracies.

This will indeed be an interesting case to follow. 

On a side note, I do not see any challenge to the Charter by a serving member, or former member, as affecting recruiting of new members to the CF.  Universality of Service would still apply to anyone who has never served.  If they can not meet it they can not enroll.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The ExPress test being a measure of physical fitness, I don't think it should be the yard stick to keep medically unfit personnel.  Not only can pers have medical limitations which are unrelated to anything measured by the test, but the test itself is not a direct measurement of fitness to serve - it is a statistically valid predictor of fitness to serve for a sample population that is known to be medically fit.  For personnel missing limbs, it would be neccessary to either prove the ExPress to still be a statistically relevant predictor or have the members complete the Common Military Task Fitness Evaluation.

I agree. There are several impediments to "universal" service that are not physical.

I try to avoid these debates because, for the last few years of my service, I was medically restricted. I was sufficiently physically fit for most (almost all?) of the activities one might have expected for an officer of my age, rank and classification - there might, somewhere in as parallel universe, have been a requirement for me to mount a J.K. Lawson type defence of an office building or a five star hotel, but I'm guessing that the Career Medical Review Board decided that my experience, specialized training and the nature of my (then) current assigned argued for my retention on "restricted" service - no move (although extensive travel was permitted) and no further promotion. It was, essentially, a practical/economic decision - I was, at that time, the 'right guy' for a certain job - one which was considered to be quite important; there were no properly qualified alternatives at hand; the CF had invested an awful lot of money in my education and training; and so on.

In today's environment, fewer people doing more and more than we did 25 years ago, I would hope that retaining someone like me would be very rare, indeed. My impression is that there is not a severe shortage of skilled, knowledgeable officers and warrant officers. I guess there are enough trim, fit majors to replace the small handful of overweight lieutenant colonels I see waddling around Ottawa and, equally, some fit captains to replace the tubby majors, too.

But it's not just about physical fitness: we (Canada) need soldiers who are sufficiently "robust," as Field Marshall Wavell put it, and "able to withstand [all] the shocks of war" - physical and emotional.


Edit: typo

 

[Wolf117]

http://news-public.com/index.php/world-news/canada/2930-treatment-of-canadian-veterans-the-case-of-ryan-elrick

Try this again, hits the nail on the head.  This time NOT written by David whatever his name is.

 

[George Wallace]

http://news-public.com/index.php/world-news/canada/2930-treatment-of-canadian-veterans-the-case-of-ryan-elrick

Try this again, hits the nail on the head.  This time NOT written by David whatever his name is.

This article, too, has inaccuracies.  Reservists in NDHQ are not Class C, but Class B (earning 15% less than a Regular Force member), and they are there in most cases Backfilling posns of persons on Tour.  There are many Reservists working in NDHQ who have numerous Tours under their belts as well. 

As DND is looking at cutting many of the Civilian posns at NDHQ and within DND (Many of which are Reservists in their civilian jobs) the options of bringing in priority hiring of former members seems a little moot.  Replacing them with injured Service Members could be done on a small scale, but one has to remember, people in NDHQ also deploy.

What I got from this article was a "Us vs Them" feeling.  Everyone is pointing at the other guy, and not questioning why that other guy is in that posn; only why this former Cpl isn't still in his.

 

[McG]

http://news-public.com/index.php/world-news/canada/2930-treatment-of-canadian-veterans-the-case-of-ryan-elrick

Try this again, hits the nail on the head. 

I don't know that I agree.  The retention of the physically unfit is a bit red herring. 

We are applying universality of service in relation to medical fitness - that is good.
We are failing to apply universality of service in relation to physical fitness - that is bad.

The fact that we are failing to apply universality of service in relation to physical fitness does not justify that we should fail to apply universality of service in relation to medical fitness.  The right answer is that we should be applying universality of service in relation to all types of fitness and not turning a blind-eye in any cases.

 

[DirtyDog]

"Ottawa headquarters is full of “fat plugs” who aren’t physically fit "

It's definitely not limited to NDHQ.  People are starting to get sick and tired of these fat plugs everywhere that seem to find themselves constantly on a chit for one thing or another.

 

[brihard]

Whoops, my apologies to the mods- it didn't even occur to me to check the author of the Citizen article. Noted for next time.

 

[wildman0101]

My personal opinion.
He was injured. He overcame his obstacle's.
He was retained and served.
I understand all the aspect's of what he went
through but I wasn't an amputee. my Cat was
G303. I was recomended a remuster by the unit
Med/O and was approved. While awaiting a course
date to my new trade,,, I got a call from my MWO
regard's a CMRB Decision. 3-B release on med
ground's disabled yada yada. Poof  I was heading
for civvy-land.(Iwas in Germany at the time).
I still did my job, irregardless of my Catagory.
I passed all my fitness test's as I know this gent
did even wearing prothetectic's. He was retained
as a serving member. He had the same shock as I
did..    bye Bye your gonna be a civvy.
I personally hope he win's his court case and is rein-
stated... I was also Intelligence, and Int Op.
Anyway Rant Off.
Please all response's by PVT PM please. Thank's.
Now where did I put my Beret. Us old ironside's
don't need helmut's. Cheer's,
Scoty B

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

As a dumb-ass civy ,can I ask if high level command personal have to meet the UoS standard (lets say B-Gen level) or do they just have meet what is required by their expected tasks as defined by their position? Does Field-Marshal Bloggins have to be able to man a fire-trench* ?

*Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.

 

[lethalLemon]

As a dumb-*** civy ,can I ask if high level command personal have to meet the UoS standard (lets say B-Gen level) or do they just have meet what is required by their expected tasks as defined by their position? Does Field-Marshal Bloggins have to be able to man a fire-trench* ?

*Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.

It's a good thing we don't have Field Marshals anymore.

 

[medicineman]

*Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.

If they're manning the fire trench, something has gone horribly wrong and lilkely should be running very quickly in the opposite direction.

MM

 

[McG]

As a dumb-ass civy ,can I ask if high level command personal have to meet the UoS standard (lets say B-Gen level) or do they just have meet what is required by their expected tasks as defined by their position? Does Field-Marshal Bloggins have to be able to man a fire-trench* ?

*Discounting the fact that if the field marshal has to man a fire-trench he probably shouldn't be a field marshal.

Universality of service applies to everyone in the Regular Force and Primary Reserve.
There are also occupational medical standards which are equal or more stringent than universality of service.  If a member meets universality of service but does not meet the minimum medical requirements for occupation, that individual will be offered an occupation transfer within the service.

 

[the 48th regulator]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/in-defence-of-soldiers-124532974.html


Re: the editorial Military forgets flexibility (June 22). As your chief of the defence staff, I am personally responsible for the sons and daughters of Canada serving in the Canadian Forces and I am fully committed to treating wounded-in-action personnel with respect, fairness and compassion.
"Universality of Service" is an important principle that means all Forces members are sailors, soldiers and airmen and women first and must be capable of performing any duty that may be assigned to them. This allows Canada to maintain the combat-capable force it requires for our security. The Universality of Service principle is reflected in the National Defence Act and explicitly incorporated into the Canadian Human Rights Act.
We will ensure our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much receive the very best medical treatment and support possible. Furthermore, I have directed that no service person who has been wounded in Afghanistan be released, unless they have personally initiated the release process themselves. I can also assure you the Canadian Forces provide all wounded-in-action personnel the necessary time and support needed to recover from their wounds. We will also assist them in seeking additional opportunities to transition with confidence to the next phase of their lives.

Gen. Walt Natynczyk
Canadian Forces

© 2011 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from a letter to the editor appearing in the online edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act. - highlights mine:

Re: the editorial Military forgets flexibility (June 22). As your chief of the defence staff, I am personally responsible for the sons and daughters of Canada serving in the Canadian Forces and I am fully committed to treating wounded-in-action personnel with respect, fairness and compassion.

"Universality of Service" is an important principle that means all Forces members are sailors, soldiers and airmen and women first and must be capable of performing any duty that may be assigned to them. This allows Canada to maintain the combat-capable force it requires for our security. The Universality of Service principle is reflected in the National Defence Act and explicitly incorporated into the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We will ensure our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much receive the very best medical treatment and support possible. Furthermore, [size=12pt]I have directed that no service person who has been wounded in Afghanistan be released, unless they have personally initiated the release process themselves. I can also assure you the Canadian Forces provide all wounded-in-action personnel the necessary time and support needed to recover from their wounds. We will also assist them in seeking additional opportunities to transition with confidence to the next phase of their lives.

Gen. Walt Natynczyk
Canadian Forces[/size]

 

[wildman0101]

Thank-you Walt,,
I'm going to hold you to that promise.
Bold and Swift Brother.
Sincerely your's,
Cpl Brandt R.L.S. (8-CH/RCD)

 

[lethalLemon]

Wow, absolutely incredible!