Remedial Measures DAOD 4019-4 [merged]

[Occam]

Let me put it to you a different way.

Is there an "Unrecorded Warning"?

Then let's just call it "Initial Counselling", "Warning", and "C&P".

 

[armyvern]

Let me put it to you a different way.

Is there an "Unrecorded Warning"?

Then let's just call it "Initial Counselling", "Warning", and "C&P".

Absolutely; for me it goes something like this:

(During Inspection) ... "Get the lint off your uniform & your boots are not acceptable; Do not let it happen again."

That means: Do not let it happen again ... <--- that is a verbal. No??

I have indeed also gone straight to the IC (and skipped that verbal verbal) or higher when someone showed up improperly turned out for a parade. Do I feel bad? No. That is what happens when one turns up for a DEU 1a medals parade ... wearing their combat boots on their feet vice their parade boots. A corporal too - someone who definitely knew better.  :

 

[armyvern]

It's actually worse than when it was called VW.  Now you have to explain to someone why they're getting a Recorded Warning, when they've already been given an Initial Counselling which was...wait for it...recorded for posterity on their UPR.

Really?? No, it is not worse now than when it was a "Verbal" - in my experience. Experience that has seen me issue out environ 20 over the past couple years.

That is because it is fully laid out on the form, and explained to them by the OC when signing, that:

You are in front of me today to formally receive this "Initial Counselling"; Please read it carefully; then (pointing) - "these are your shortcomings which have been noted and this is what you have to do to overcome them". "If there should be no improvement, or if the behaviour/shortcoming should re-occur in the future - you will move up a step on the ADMIN cycle to a Recorded Warning or higher, based upon the severity of a future shortcoming falling within the same area as this initial infraction."

Is the first transgression actually found in "writing" on one's file? Absolutely it is, but it's called the "Initial Counselling" ... a step which is then followed by a 2nd Admin Step called a "Recorded Warning"; the recorded Warning has always been strike two ... exactly as it remains today.

If you want to take it's name and say "oh it's recorded too", then what, exactly, did you do to ensure a written record of a "verbal" warning was placed on the members file before? Oh, that's right - you must should have placed something "in writing" on their file to note that the verbal occured ... a memo perhaps? Or nothing because it was "verbal" (which was exactly what some people did and why it was changed to this way in the first place).

No more of that with the new way. Less problems too - at least for me there has been far fewer less problems and explanations required.

Before I used to get "well if it's a "verbal warning" - why are you putting it in my file?  :

Now, it's not a "verbal". It's an INITIAL Counselling. Again - Initial means first (according to the dictionary). A Recorded is 2nd.

I can see the difference. Apparently those I've been privvy to writing up for IC, then being present as well when it was "issued" by the OC/CO understood the concept of "initial" meaning first too. No more queries as to why a "verbal" is being placed on their file.

 

[armyvern]

If people were given verbals multiple times for the same infractions, that's a failure of the CoC, not the Remedial Measures policy.  Someone needs a verbal?  March him in front of the RSM (or someone else in the member's direct CoC), give the verbal, and it's witnessed by two different people in the CoC.  The member can't claim he wasn't previously counselled at a later date.

Do you happen to work in a CFRC?? You are the FIRST - in my experience (that's around 20 of the "new type IC" issued out) to come up with this line of reasoning. In my experience - there is NO confusion anymore from those "receiving" the IC.

So, in your sit above - just exactly how did you "record" that verbal onto the member's file (as, IAW regulations - that "verbal" WAS supposed to be noted onto their file)? Or did you just have two witness' to it being given verbally and not make a note of it onto the file (in contravention of regulations)?

Now, if the latter, did the CSM etc move to the next Unit with the indiv when they were posted so that same said witness' could stand up and say "we gave him a verbal in my office on "date XX" for the very same infraction?"

Did the troop then say: "Prove it?"

Most supervisors give multiple "verbal" unofficial warnings prior to issuing an IC. I am one of them. If they're getting an IC ... it's because they've already been given their chances and failed to produce or correct. That first formal step is now called the "Initial" counselling. It works. And, it works a lot better than the old way - and with far fewer 'questions". <--- My considerable experience under both the old and new way certainly bears that out for me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So have we wasted enough time stating the obvious, to anyone with half a brain?
Or do we waste another two pages, while Occam trolls, and jerks your chain? :

I should go on 'final warning' for my cheap, unintended foray into the world of cheesy poetry ;D

 

[armyvern]

So have we wasted enough time stating the obvious, to anyone with half a brain?
Or do we waste another two pages, while Occam trolls, and jerks your chain? :

I should go on 'final warning' for my cheap, unintended foray into the world of cheesy poetry ;D

I'm an insomniac - I'm certainly not losing any sleep over this.  And, my french homework is done!!

Now, as for you - feel free to bust out the haiku anytime there baaabbbbby.  ;D

 

[Occam]

So have we wasted enough time stating the obvious, to anyone with half a brain?
Or do we waste another two pages, while Occam trolls, and jerks your chain? :

WTF?

If we can't have a discussion about how to improve the system without you launching accusations of trolling, then there's something wrong here.

I bring it up because it's an issue.  The question has been asked by subordinates when faced with administrative actions.  Nobody is questioning the Initial Counselling/RW (or Warning, or whatever you want to call it)/C&P process.  What I'm telling you is that it makes no sense to be giving someone a "Recorded Warning", when the previous action (IC) did exactly the same thing - placed a permanent recorded warning on the member's UPR.  Call it something different and end the confusion.  I suggested Initial Counselling/Warning/Counselling & Probation, which I think demonstrates an escalating level of seriousness.

ArmyVern:  You missed the quotes around "Unrecorded Warning".  You gave an unrecorded warning to the sod with lint on his uniform.  I asked if there was such a thing as an "Unrecorded Warning" (in the context of the DAOD on Remedial Measures - which I had hoped would be implied, but I guess not).

While we're at it, you will not find a single QR&O, CFAO or DAOD which stated that a VW was to be documented in any way, shape or form.  Oh, you may have seen a document called a Verbal Warning, which had places for the supervisor and the member to sign, and a place for the shortcoming to be written - but it was not an official document under any CF regulation.  That's the whole reason VW became IC - one can't very well issue a verbal warning that is documented, as the whole idea of the VW was that it wasn't to be recorded.

 

[armyvern]

ArmyVern:  You missed the quotes around "Unrecorded Warning".  You gave an unrecorded warning to the sod with lint on his uniform.  I asked if there was such a thing as an "Unrecorded Warning" (in the context of the DAOD on Remedial Measures - which I had hoped would be implied, but I guess not).

While we're at it, you will not find a single QR&O, CFAO or DAOD which stated that a VW was to be documented in any way, shape or form.  Oh, you may have seen a document called a Verbal Warning, which had places for the supervisor and the member to sign, and a place for the shortcoming to be written - but it was not an official document under any CF regulation.  That's the whole reason VW became IC - one can't very well issue a verbal warning that is documented, as the whole idea of the VW was that it wasn't to be recorded.

Initial

You are getting queries why?

We don't get queries about it. Then again, we have them read it, sign it, point out the next ADMIN steps to them and have them actually read the DAODs etc (and provide copies of them too to the mbrs in question). You are having "problems", yet our Unit is not. We are actually having far fewer than the old way.

Verbal Warnings were Admin actions - the rules have, again, ALWAYS stated that "ADMIN actions were to be retained on file for career" (that would include some note of a 'verbal issuance' in a formal setting. That is why some Units did up local forms, some Units did up Memos etc to place on members file so that the ADMIN action first step (the "Verbal warning") WAS documented on the file as having been issued IAW regulations staing that all ADMIN actions WILL be documented. Some, such as yourself, were of the belief that a "verbal" didn't HAVE to be documented onto the file (even though it was/always has been "an official ADMIN action and was to be recorded onto file just as the rules stated all ADMIN actions were to be).

Even a Verbal Warning was an ADMIN action and thus should have been noted "someway" onto the members file. 

That's now fixed for those who just couldn't grasp the concept that ADMIN actions included (always have) Verbals.

 

[Occam]

Initial

You are getting queries why?

See reply #32 in this thread.  I hate repeating myself.

We don't get queries about it. Then again, we have them read it, sign it, point out the next ADMIN steps to them and have them actually read the DAODs etc (and provide copies of them too to the mbrs in question). You are having "problems", yet our Unit is not. We are actually having far fewer than the old way.

Nobody has questioned the process you just described (although I'll bring up a point later on about sanctions against the member).  What I said was that members were questioning why a "Recorded Warning" follows an "Initial Counselling", which just so happens to be recorded permanently on the member's UPR.  If the member is to be subjected to increasing levels of sanctions (which they should), the name should reflect it.

Supervisor: We're giving you an IC for being a screwup at your job.  We'll counsel you and put a DAOD 5019-4A on your file permanently.  Straighten up and fly right.
Member:  Career ramifications?
Supervisor: None.

(three months later)

Supervisor:  You're still screwing up.  We're giving you a Recorded Warning.  We'll continue to counsel you and put a DAOD 5019-4A on your file permanently. Straighten up and fly right.
Member:  Wasn't my IC recorded permanently?
Supervisor:  Yes.
Member:  Career ramifications?
Supervisor:  None.
Member:  Well, now I'm motivated. (/sarcasm)

Verbal Warnings were Admin actions - the rules have, again, ALWAYS stated that "ADMIN actions were to be retained on file for career" (that would include some note of a 'verbal issuance' in a formal setting. That is why some Units did up local forms, some Units did up Memos etc to place on members file so that the ADMIN action first step (the "Verbal warning") WAS documented on the file as having been issued IAW regulations staing that all ADMIN actions WILL be documented. Some, such as yourself, were of the belief that a "verbal" didn't HAVE to be documented onto the file (even though it was/always has been "an official ADMIN action and was to be recorded onto file just as the rules stated all ADMIN actions were to be).

Even a Verbal Warning was an ADMIN action and thus should have been noted "someway" onto the members file. 

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect.

I have a copy of CFAO 26-17 in front of me, titled "Recorded Warning and Counselling and Probation".  (For any of you young pups following along, this CFAO is now obsolete and replaced by DAOD 5019-4)

Nowhere within it does it identify a verbal warning as an administrative action.  It is very clear in identifying RW and C&P as administrative actions.

There were only two vague references to verbal warnings within CFAO 26-17;

5.  RW and C&P are administrative actions designed to raise a member's inadequate performance or conduct to an acceptable standard which must be established by the commanding officer (CO) or higher authority.  These actions are serious steps toward the correction of a member's deficiencies.  Therefore, prior to taking these steps, it is imperative that supervisors and COs ensure that all other applicable avenues have been explored.  For example, it might be appropriate in some cases to issue a verbal warning or to solve a minor deficiency by counselling.

[...]

10.  RW is the second last attempt to salvage a member's career.  A RW should not be issued unless the member has been warned verbally, and been given guidance on overcoming the deficiencies, on one or more occasions.  Any RW shall:

    a.  be initiated by the member's supervisor...
    b.  remain permanently on the member's unit personnel file (UPF)
    c.  not have any effect on promotion, training, posting, re-engagement or pay; and
    d.  not have any further career consequences, if the RW is successful.  A record in the form of a memorandum, noting that the deficiencies have been corrected, must be placed on the member's UPF.

There were no instructions directing that a verbal warning was an administrative action, no instructions that it was to be placed in writing on the member's UPF, no instructions dealing with how it was to be removed or annotated as having been rectified, no nothing.  That was the problem with the verbal warning.  Units were making up their own policies to deal with the lack of policy in CFAOs.

That's been fixed in the DAOD, except that the verbal warning is now an "Initial Counselling", which just happens to be recorded just like a RW would be.  Effectively, we have two levels of RW now, with identical implications to the member.  No perceived escalation for not complying with the counselling, other than to say "Next time it's C&P".  IMHO, it would have been wiser to have ICs recorded for a set period of time (3 years, perhaps?) with no sanctions (and then removed if there is no further reoccurrence), a Warning (not a RW) recorded permanently with the imposition of sanctions, and then C&P recorded permanently with the full range of sanctions brought against the member as in the past.

 

[ajp]

In my experience the RW and IC's may not have immediate ramifications, but when you compile a number of them in a file for Admin Review with the goal of release, the stack of Admin usually wins over any version of Verbal Warnings.  If an individual has been councelled on a few diff matters, and still the pile of Admin rises, it is easier to gain a relase with the proof of matters on paper.  Certainly lint on a uniform is not severe, but routinely failing to follow direction and correct the matter might raise a few flags.

IMO

AJP

 

[OldSolduer]

First of all, members need to be informally "counselled" by the Pl WO or the CSM.

There is nothing wrong with a good old fashioned "counselling" session, when conducted properly. If more MCpls and above would do this, then the ICs, RWs etc would be minimal.
Don't be scared to stand a troop to attention behind closed doors and "counsel" them. No doubt others will hear it and remember it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Then maybe the rest of the CF could take a lesson from the Navy, with Div Notes.  Destroyed after five years, not to form a part of the UPR.  If the problem reoccurs beyond 5 years down the road, then it's a safe bet it's not occurring frequently enough to escalate.

Div Notes as a solution?

See, now to me, I thought the OTHER things the rest of the CF does covers that (PDRs, PERs, PXRs, etc).  For performance issues of the GSK type, I/we usually used the catch-all statements in the PDR that covered things like conduct, GSK type stuff such as dress and deportment, drill and all those other "common-to-all" things anyone is the CF is expected to know and follow. 

IMO, *if* CFPAS is properly employed, these things can be documented in the mbr's PDR Section 1 (Critical Tasks and Expected Results).  You review the Initial PDR, and the member signs it, no?  So, Bloggins has a bad inspection turnout.  There is your document to work with.  All you have to do is a PDR review and properly document Sections 5b and 5c, based on your Initial PDR reviews' Section 1 info.  Seems simple to me and that is what I used with a special-needs Cpl I had in the past.

From the CFPAS Help File, on the Contents tab, Chap 4, Art 405:

405. PDR Feedback Sessions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of the process involves two feedback sessions: one at the mid-point of the reporting period and the second at the end of the reporting period, concurrent with the PER interview. When you, as a supervisor give feedback, you are acting as a steering mechanism, sending signals to your subordinates to ensure they stay on course. To be effective, you must be giving subordinates feedback on a continual basis; providing feedback only once a year rarely changes behaviour. Feedback has maximum impact when it is given as close as possible to the action. If a subordinate does something well, tell her/him immediately. Similarly, if the subordinate behaves ineffectively, also ensure he/she is made aware of it immediately. “Saving up” performance-related information, especially if it is negative, may result in feelings of resentment and frustration, and if it is positive, may be forgotten by the time a formal session is held. To complement the daily feedback that supervisors should routinely give to personnel, formal feedback sessions have been built into the CFPAS. Their purpose is to summarize performance-related information, and to provide a tool for documenting performance throughout the year. There should be a minimum of one feedback session during the reporting period with a final feedback session being the PER interview. Ideally, feedback interviews should occur approximately every four months. The frequency of these interviews will depend on how a subordinate is performing, the unit’s schedule and workload.


Feedback sessions serve several functions:

- provide information to subordinates on how well they are doing with respect to the Critical Tasks you have assigned them;
- provide guidance on how they can perform better;
- motivate subordinates, resulting in greater effort on their part; and
- recognize the achievements of subordinates, giving them a sense of satisfaction and inspiring them to try harder.

IMO, the Navy has a system that duplicates something that is already in place.  Maybe they should just use CFPAS properly.

OldSoldier,

Agree with your post...those are the ones I remember the most fondly (both sending & receiving )

 

[armyvern]

Except that a PDR is only retained on the mebrs file for the FY ... until the PER is written. It is not forwarded to the next unit when the member is posted ...

That is why we have IC, RW & C&P Admin actions in place ... because they are kept for career (IAW policy) no matter how long after, where or when a meber happens to be.

 

[ajp]

When I was at the Armour School we tried to have the Years worth of PDR's in the UER until PER season passed, and this was supposed to travel when youo got posted.  So there should be some level of clarity on the discipline issues that were not listed on the members pers file, but Reality and Theory do not always march hand in hand now do they.

 

[George Wallace]

See reply #32 in this thread.  I hate repeating myself.

Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.

Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded. 

I mean, call it something - anything - other than "Recorded", as that name suggests that the the step below it is something less than being Recorded or retained on record.

I am sooooo glad that you aren't repeating yourself because you are tired.  The rest of what you have posted is pure crap.

Actually, I would say that you really don't have a grasp on what the heck you are talking about (just to be polite). 

You are just making an idiot of yourself.

 

[Occam]

I am sooooo glad that you aren't repeating yourself because you are tired.  The rest of what you have posted is pure crap.

Actually, I would say that you really don't have a grasp on what the heck you are talking about (just to be polite). 

You are just making an idiot of yourself.

Well, come on, George.  Tell us why you think I don't have a grasp on what the heck I'm talking about.  Don't just sit back and take potshots because I've disagreed with you.

Try responding to the message and not the messenger.  The messenger hasn't been around as long as you have, but he ain't far off.

 

[Burrows]

And we're done.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[grandin105]

Hey,

What measures are available to a supervisor to address a troop being AWOL? the DAODs, QR&Os, CFAOs, etc. are helpful in describing the charge procedure and the definition of AWOL, but what are the other corrective measures can be taken?

PS. I am not a supervisor looking for someone to do my job.

PPS. Not AWOL as in desertion, but being late for a duty by 30 minutes

Thank you,

 

[Eye In The Sky]

QR & O, Vol II, Chap 103 - Services Offences, Article 103.23 - Absence Without Leave  (may not be limited to a single charge, or even that one...that is the obvious on that came to mind and I won't speculate on others)

Corrective measures?  Depends on how the CofC proceeds.  Could be a summary trial, could be extras w/out an official charge (lower forms of punishment), could be Remedial Measures.  It could be resolved with a quick one sided conversation "don't let it happen again or...".    Many factors affect the outcome.

- what was the duty and circumstances around the duty? 
- rank, experience, history of the offender?
- recommendations of the CofC of the offender?

There could be administrative action and disciplinary action taken (example, mbr could be placed on a Recorded Warning [administrative action] and be charged [disciplinary action]).


More info on Summary Proceeding, Court Martial, Service Offences, etc can be found in QR & O, Vol II - Disciplinary.

Aside from that, I'd suggest the best source of information if this goes forward in a formal manner would be your Assisting Officer.

 

[George Wallace]

PPS. Not AWOL as in desertion, but being late for a duty by 30 minutes

Sorry.  AWOL is AWOL.  There is no stated time as to what constitutes AWOL.  We charged a Cpl with being AWOL for coming in ten (10) minutes late.  The CO, new to job, Charged him with AWOL and Released him from the CF.

We were expecting a slap on the wrist to smarten him up.  He, however, had been placed on C&P by a 2Lt for being AWOL in Germany during Fasching.  We did not know that.  The CO used that to Release him.......for being late for duty by 10 minutes at lunchtime.