Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]

[Sunnyns]

Last update,  I got the grievance back and it was a good win for me.  Not quite the win I wanted but it is a lot better then what I had and I feel good about the outcome.

Thank you everyone for your input and yes key was to make sure every point was justified and make sure everything was documented.

 

[Benzyme]

Hello everyone, FNG here to these forums.

I received a Recorded Warning for "Trying to access blocked site by bypassing DWAN firewall".
I have statements from others guys here who have been found guilty of greater offenses (Installing software on DWAN and infecting PC with a virus resulting in Quarantine of PC and investigation at CFNOC). These 3 guys simply had to resign ISSO forms and had to brief their crew on authorized and unauthorized use of DWAN (dont know the DAOD off the top of my head).

Point being, my CoC has clear negative bias towards me and I can substantiate that in the grievance. I can also prove of other people in my unit having done worse, and received way less.

I have the template for Grievances and currently working on it, have also asked for an Assisting Member as I am entitled to receive help this way under QR&O Volume 1 Chapter 7.

To be clear, my actions were wrong, I admitted that and apologized for it when the ISSO came and locked out my account.
My actions did not result in any damage to any CF networks or infrastructure.

I was not trying to access porn or anything "unauthorized". I was simply trying to read an article on destructoid.com (blocked due to being associated with "Games", there are no games on this website).

Has someone ever written a Grievance before, and if so could you show it to me and what was the result?

 

[Occam]

First, unless there were previous instances of you trying to do this, the first step should have been IC (Initial Counselling).

Second; you must've really ticked someone off.  I got a visit from the ISSO last week for running an executable on removable media (I was trying to load up a product catalogue of antennas from an antenna manufacturer), and all I got was the standard "Don't run unauthorized executables on a DWAN workstation" caution from the ISSO.

I know of military personnel who have used unauthorized USB sticks on a Secret network and I can guarantee they didn't suffer administrative actions.

Edit to add:  If I had a nickel for every time I ran into the site blocked/unauthorized site message on the DWAN in a day while carrying out the course of my work, I wouldn't have to come to work anymore.  You can't know a site is blocked until the system has told you it's blocked.  Now if you tried to circumvent the firewall with a proxy server, however....that would be grounds for admin/disciplinary action.

 

[FJAG]

The procedures set out in DAOD 2017-1 are quite straightforward. My best advice is follow them to the letter.

Having been a member of the chain of command let me tell you that the concept of the CoC has clear negative bias towards me and I can substantiate that in the grievance is a pipe dream. While I don't doubt for a minute that some leaders do not have a good opinion of certain subordinates in most cases those reputations have been earned by those subordinates. The fact that you were monkeying around with your computer when you know you shouldn't makes it clear that you have some issues.

The fact that other people did worse things and got less punishment is purely subjective on your part. For whatever reason, and I doubt that personal bias is the basis for this, they have decided to treat your case as one meriting a Recorded Warning. Quite frankly that's their call to make.

If I were to give you every benefit of the doubt and accept that there is bias against you then I would still have the view that you will have a hard time with this grievance with the grounds you have identified.

If I have one positive suggestion then it's to take a look at DAOD 5019-4 which relates to Remedial Measures of which Recorded Warning is but one. Note in particular the provision which provides that Remedial Measures ought to be progressive starting with Initial Counselling. The fact that you've gone to a RW tells me that you've either 1. already had an IC, 2. that the CoC has determined that the circumstances have been met to take you directly to an RW or 3. your CoC doesn't know what they are doing (it happens). Assuming you haven't been previously given an IC my approach would be to grieve the fact that your action was not sufficient to take you directly to a RW and that there should have been an IC at most resulting from this incident.

Anyway, that's my  :2c:

Have a good one.  :cheers:

 

[Benzyme]

The procedures set out in DAOD 2017-1 is quite straightforward. My best advice is follow them to the letter.

Having been a member of the chain of command let me tell you that the concept of the CoC has clear negative bias towards me and I can substantiate that in the grievance is a pipe dream. While I don't doubt for a minute that some leaders do not have a good opinion of certain subordinates in most cases those reputations have been earned by those subordinates. The fact that you were monkeying around with your computer when you know you shouldn't makes it clear that you have some issues.

The fact that other people did worse things and got less punishment is purely subjective on your part. For whatever reason, and I doubt that personal bias is the basis for this, they have decided to treat your case as one meriting a Recorded Warning. Quite frankly that's their call to make.

If I were to give you every benefit of the doubt and accept that there is bias against you then I would still have the view that you will have a hard time with this grievance with the grounds you have identified.

If I have one positive suggestion then it's to take a look at DAOD 5019-4 which relates to Remedial Measures of which Recorded Warning is but one. Note in particular the provision which provides that Remedial Measures ought to be progressive starting with Initial Counselling. The fact that you've gone to a RW tells me that you've either 1. already had an IC, 2. that the CoC has determined that the circumstances have been met to take you directly to an RW or 3. your CoC doesn't know what they are doing (it happens). Assuming you haven't been previously given an IC my approach would be to grieve the fact that your action was not sufficient to take you directly to a RW and that there should have been an IC at most resulting from this incident.

Anyway, that's my  :2c:

Have a good one.  :cheers:

Good day FJAG,
I have received an IC in the past due to unrelated matters. It was for being late for work some 3 years ago.

I have never been disciplined for any DND Network related issue in the past.

Does this answer some of your concerns and do you agree that maybe, at  maximum, I should have received an Initial Counseling for my actions?

And to answer some of your comments, I understand that it may seem far fetched to you that my CWO or CO has a bone to pick with me, as I am just a lowly Cpl. But I'm also the same Cpl who was advanced promoted 12 months, who received a General's Coin from 2CAD Gen for oustanding work. I am not a shitpump by any means of the definition, however I'm not perfect either and definately have pissed some people off with what might be considered being a bit too truthful with superiors sometimes?

What i want my grievance to achieve is either A) Completely remove this admin action or B) Get reduced down to an IC.

Im already currently serving 12 Months C&P for drug related offense (not doing or selling drugs, but allegedly allowed drug use in my household).

Is the fact im on C&P for an unrelated issue, reason to jump to RW for DWAN issue?

Thanks for your responses,

Benzyme.

 

[Occam]

Notwithstanding the OP's involvement in the C&P process for an unrelated matter - as someone who worked for years in first and second line support to DND networks, and all the associated rules & regs for IT Security, etc., I can say this.  Getting flagged by the DWAN firewall for trying to access a "games" (which is a broad description they use, by the way) site is so low on the scale that I'm sitting here finding it hard to believe an ISSO would waste their time on it, unless the person did it repeatedly for a prolonged period of time.  In fact, when I was working in IT, it wouldn't be unusual for me to Google an obscure command-line command to try to perform a particular function on a server, and I'd run afoul of the firewall for hitting a "warez" site.  In my current job, I hit firewall violations numerous times a day while looking for information on parts, vendors, etc., and nobody has even inquired about it. 

I know what you're saying - he did something he shouldn't have done - but you don't know you've hit a firewalled site until it actually comes up and tells you that it's blocked, and by that time you're flagged on the security logs.  Some sites are arbitrarily blocked for obvious reasons, but some others make no sense and have been lumped in with other suspicious sites.  I truly think in this case, the OP has a beef.  I have never yet seen anyone suffer admin or disciplinary action for merely hitting the firewall while trying to access a site.

 

[PMedMoe]

Getting flagged by the DWAN firewall for trying to access a "games"....

I know what you're saying - he did something he shouldn't have done - but you don't know you've hit a firewalled site until it actually comes up and tells you that it's blocked....

I have never yet seen anyone suffer admin or disciplinary action for merely hitting the firewall while trying to access a site.

I received a Recorded Warning for "Trying to access blocked site by bypassing DWAN firewall".

I'd say there's a difference between having the firewall/site blocked page come up and trying to bypass the firewall.    :dunno:

 

[Occam]

I'd say there's a difference between having the firewall/site blocked page come up and trying to bypass the firewall.    :dunno:

I would have to agree with you, but I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that the wording on the RW might have been less than accurate.

For the OP:  When you got the blocked site message, did you then try to circumvent the firewall by using a proxy or some other means?  Or did you just carry on your merry way and that was the end of trying to access the site?

 

[Journeyman]

I'd say there's a difference between having the firewall/site blocked page come up and trying to bypass the firewall.    :dunno:

Whoa......you're suggesting that the story has two sides    -- it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!

Inconceivable.

 

[Occam]

it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!

Of course, that's never happened before either.  :

 

[PMedMoe]

Whoa......you're suggesting that the story has two sides    -- it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!

Inconceivable.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 

 

[dapaterson]

Whoa......you're suggesting that the story has two sides    -- it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!

Inconceivable.

 

[Journeyman]

Of course, that's never happened before either.  :

I suspect not remotely as often as those saying they've been oppressed would claim.

The same folks who will come on here and, when pressed for detail, will mention that they were "merely" AWOL...repetitively, or there's that minor, completely undeserved C&P for drugs on their file, or that sure, they may have been a complete shitpump throughout their career, but others have gotten lesser punishments, so it's not fair!

I'm not saying it's never happened, although I've never seen it.  Given the various checks & balances, I'd be predisposed to assume that there's another side of the story that people choose not to include when they're posting their 'hard-luck, system's out to get me' stories online.


Mind you, I also tend to disbelieve people who start their bar-room stories with I was a ninja-sniper-can't talk about it .......

 

[Occam]

Okay, fair enough.  I'll concede that people are usually less than forthcoming when there is more to the story than what they present.  I'll reword my thoughts on the subject.

If Bloggins simply clicked on a link that resulted in a blocked page message, and if Bloggins didn't try to get around it somehow using nefarious methods, and in the absence of other aggravating factors in the past concerning IT security or use of the internet, then I would suspect that someone has said (for one reason or another) "If Bloggins so much as blinks the wrong way, write him up" - which isn't particularly fair considering some similar or worse transgressions of which I know have been "swept under the carpet".

What's good for Smith should be good for Bloggins.

 

[Benzyme]

I suspect not remotely as often as those saying they've been oppressed would claim.

The same folks who will come on here and, when pressed for detail, will mention that they were "merely" AWOL...repetitively, or there's that minor, completely undeserved C&P for drugs on their file, or that sure, they may have been a complete shitpump throughout their career, but others have gotten lesser punishments, so it's not fair!

I'm not saying it's never happened, although I've never seen it.  Given the various checks & balances, I'd be predisposed to assume that there's another side of the story that people choose not to include when they're posting their 'hard-luck, system's out to get me' stories online.


Mind you, I also tend to disbelieve people who start their bar-room stories with I was a ninja-sniper-can't talk about it .......

I didn't need any pressing for detail, I was asked for clarification by 1 person and provided it.
I definately have not been a shitpump for the majority of my career lol.
I mentioned every fact of my situation for FJAG, including that I was on C&P and that I had been on IC earlier in my career for unrelated matters. Im not here to hide anything, I'm only asking for help, if you can't help, and only condescend, why are you even here?

I received a Recorded Warning for "Trying to access blocked site by bypassing DWAN firewall".

I thought it was clear in this statement that i tried to bypass the firewall. I DID try, i searched the term proxy server in google after the DWAN Alert that says "proxy server". And i ended up finding information that this could be used to access a site that would be normally nto accessible.

I tried it, I failed, I never was able to access anything through the proxy server, as the DWAN firewall picked it up.

However it's strange to me that these "proxy server" websites aren't blocked. Atleast not the one I ended up on?



Point: My first DND Information System incident. WHY did it go straight to RW versus IC? If you can answer that question with a reasonable explanation and a reference that states this is the NORM, then I'll gladly accept my fate. I looked and everything I've seen is that Administrative Action should be initiated in the proper order and that unrelated matters should not affect the decision.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So you intentionally tried to subvert a secure system.

I'd say your lucky that the investigation and warning was left up to your CoC and not the NIS or the RCMP.

Do you think , just maybe, your CoC consulted with the IT security people and this is what they recommended would be a good punishment?

Given the way people in service, including our own, are hacking networks and selling secrets, I'm surprised a RW was all you got.

If I was you, I'd worry more about buckling down and flying right and getting off the CoC's radar.

Instead of calling more attention to yourself and poking them in the eye with a stick.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oh, and all the while, your posting and reading from a DWAN computer during working hours. :facepalm:

 

[Occam]

Okay, that clears things up immensely.  Sometimes the people writing up RWs and C&Ps don't know there's a subtle difference in wording and methodology between trying to access a blocked site, and trying to circumvent the firewall to access a blocked site.  They've used the correct description.

Trying to use a proxy server is definitely up there on the "don't do it" scale.  When you received the "site blocked" message, that should have warned you that someone, for whatever reason, has decided that you shouldn't be able to access this through the internet portal.  Second guessing that determination by trying to access the site by using a proxy server is a pretty flagrant violation of acceptable use policy.

Whether it calls for a IC or RW is a subjective decision.  They could have charged you.

 

[OldSolduer]

He should have been charged under the NDA. Then the evidence is out there for all to see.

If the CoC wants to follow up with an IC, that is their decision.

 

[Journeyman]

..... if you can't help, and only condescend, why are you even here?

It's not always about you muffin;  in this case, if you'd wiped away the tears enough to follow the thread, I was talking with PMedMoe and Occam, although dapaterson jumped in as well -- believe it or not, not you. 

WHY did it go straight to RW versus IC? If you can answer that question with a reasonable explanation and a reference that states this is the NORM, then I'll gladly accept my fate. I looked and everything I've seen is that Administrative Action should be initiated in the proper order and that unrelated matters should not affect the decision.

Well, as someone else posted to you in a separate thread, "I think you've completely missed the point of the military justice system. :facepalm:  "

While you shrug off intentionally tried to bypass a DWAN firewall after being warned not to, your pout seems to be considering your previous transgressions in your sentencing.  You believe that a current C&P and a previous IC should not be considered?!1  Should you be allowed to go through the entire Code of Service Discipline, one crime at a time, and that would be OK because they're unrelated matters?
      :


I don't think anyone can give you an answer that you would find satisfactory; the obvious answer is

...my CWO or CO has a bone to pick with me, as I am just a lowly Cpl.

CWOs and COs are apparently more limited in their powers to deal with Cpls (however awesome) than I believed.

      :brickwall:



Edit: add link