Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[armyvern]

As being one that was awarded the wounded stripe, I hope that this is recorded.

I, as others, have sacrificed and lived, and this should be a record to show Canadians the sacrifice we have made.

Being wounded Vern, should not be something to be embarrassed about.  I am proud to let people know that I have offered my life, was injured in doing so, so tha Canadians can live free.

dileas

tess

I think that you misread my post Tess. I mean to infer in NO way whatsoever that a member is/could/should/would be embarassed or ashamed by being wounded.

I'm talking about their right to personal privacy. There is indeed an official listing at DHH - of that I'm quite certain.

But, have you seen the media flock over the neighbours, friends, and especially the relatives of our fallen? Sometimes, those people have asked for their privacy and have not been given it. Police have actually had to block off streets in residential areas because the media would just not leave families alone as they were requested to do.

I'd just hate to see the media get ahold of one of our wounded's name through some "public" list that the member doesn't want to be included on because he'd rather not take the chance that some media members (or anti-war activists etc) begin tracking him down, calling, harassing etc for the "details" of his/her award/incident.

That's how I meant it.

Vern

 

[George Wallace]

IMHO I think the medal is a good idea. I also understand those that wish to retain the wound stripe.

.......... If a member is put forward for the medal by a member of his/ her unit without knowledge then I really don't think the hierarchy would demand it be worn (least I hope not)....

I do not know of any case where a member has known that they have been nominated in any way, shape or form, for an award of any type.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I think that you misread my post Tess. I mean to infer in NO way whatsoever that a member is/could/should/would be embarassed or ashamed by being wounded.

I'm talking about their right to personal privacy. There is indeed an official listing at DHH - of that I'm quite certain.

But, have you seen the media flock over the neighbours, friends, and especially the relatives of our fallen? Sometimes, those people have asked for their privacy and have not been given it. Police have actually had to block off streets in residential areas because the media would just not leave families alone as they were requested to do.

I'd just hate to see the media get ahold of one of our wounded's name through some "public" list that the member doesn't want to be included on because he'd rather not take the chance that some media members (or anti-war activists etc) begin tracking him down, calling, harassing etc.

That's how I meant it.

Vern

I hear you Vern,

However, medals are just like issued kit.

We, as soldiers, have no right to decide what we can wear or what is published.

Further to that, to say we are humble and do not want to show are medals, destroys the reason why we serve.  The medals are issued by the country that asks us to serve.  They do not belong to us.  They belong to Canada. We are obligated to wear them, and have them recorded in the histroy of our country.

That is what I have a problem with.  People can say that they don't want to wear them, or have them recorded, however, that is not what promotes a country and is not anyone's right to do so.

If no one wants to be reminded of their duty, well then strip the uniform, and don't acknowledge their service on ther own time.

dileas

tess

 

[YYC Retired]

I received a letter from the Govenor Generals Office (Australia) informing me that I was being considered for an award, in the letter I was asked to reply with my acceptance of the award or notification that I would prefer not to accept it ......

My bad for guessing the member would have a say in receiving a medal other than campaign or long service etc.....

 

[the 48th regulator]

I received a letter from the Govenor Generals Office (Australia) informing me that I was being considered for an award, in the letter I was asked to reply with my acceptance of the award or notification that I would prefer not to accept it ......

My bad for guessing the member would have a say in receiving a medal other than campaign or long service etc.....

Huh?

dileas

tess

 

[YYC Retired]

Huh?

dileas

tess

It was in reply to a post by George Wallace.... maybe I should have quoted him...... still quite new to the forums thing......

 

[George Wallace]

I received a letter from the Govenor Generals Office (Australia) informing me that I was being considered for an award, in the letter I was asked to reply with my acceptance of the award or notification that I would prefer not to accept it ......

My bad for guessing the member would have a say in receiving a medal other than campaign or long service etc.....

I have never heard of that being done here in Canada.  How do you go about nominating a person for a Award/Decoration/Medal and inform that person about it, only to have someone "higher" squash the nomination?  Talk about giving a person reason to have an "attitude" and "hate on for Higher Ups".   I have no problem with a person knowing they are getting an Award, but I do have a problem with them knowing that they have been nominated.  They are two different things.  The "Nomination" is not a given.  The "Receiving" is a fact.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

However, medals are just like issued kit.

We, as soldiers, have no right to decide what we can wear or what is published.

Further to that, to say we are humble and do not want to show are medals, destroys the reason why we serve.  The medals are issued by the country that asks us to serve.  They do not belong to us.  They belong to Canada. We are obligated to wear them, and have them recorded in the histroy of our country.

That is what I have a problem with.  People can say that they don't want to wear them, or have them recorded, however, that is not what promotes a country and is not anyone's right to do so.

If no one wants to be reminded of their duty, well then strip the uniform, and don't acknowledge their service on ther own time.

dileas

tess

[/quote]

Some people are humble, and medals really aren't the reason we choose to serve our country. I as a civilian accept that i become property of the CF, and therby do as i'm told when i'm told.

But in this instance i think the individuals should have a teeny say in whether they feel like showing a chest full of medals or not. It doesn't change who they are or what they have done or accomplished while in the uniform.

Cheers.

 

[YYC Retired]

I have never heard of that being done here in Canada.  How do you go about nominating a person for a Award/Decoration/Medal and inform that person about it, only to have someone "higher" squash the nomination?  Talk about giving a person reason to have an "attitude" and "hate on for Higher Ups".   I have no problem with a person knowing they are getting an Award, but I do have a problem with them knowing that they have been nominated.  They are two different things.  The "Nomination" is not a given.  The "Receiving" is a fact.

It is a similar process here. The nominator prepares the package and submits it eg. to the Govenor Generals Office. The nominator is requested to NOT inform the nominee. The incident is investigated and considered by a review board, if the board decides the incident is worthy of recognition the the nominee is contacted as to whether or not they wish to accept the award as determined by the board.......

Sorry for getting a little off topic

 

[armyvern]

I hear you Vern,

However, medals are just like issued kit.

We, as soldiers, have no right to decide what we can wear or what is published.

I'm just thinking that this bit from the Privacy Act may be applicable is all.

Disclosure of personal information

8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.

Of course, with the above, para (m) may become applicable:

(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,

(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or

(ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.

I'm just curious as to whether the "clearly benefit the individual" caveat is satisfied.

Names of our Fallen from Afghanistan become "public" once the appropriate notifications have been made. The names of our injured are not, unless those injured 'consent' to such or come forward on their own because they "retain" thier right to privacy if they so choose. So, I'm just of the thinking that it'll remain the same now despite the introduction of this medal.

Ergo, if any list is made public ... I'd hope that those member's who didn't want it (their name) public would retain that right as other Canadians do.

Much along the lines of Library and Archives only making available the online service records of our World War One veterans. Those records for our World War Two veterans are not available "for general public consumption" because they may still be living.

 

[Sig_Des]

I consider anyone who willingly joins the forces and then ends up losing thier life regardless of the circumstances should be eligible for this medal, after all it's called the "sacrifice medal" paying the ultimate price for ones country and kin and then being shunned to a technicality is a bit lame.

So if I'm in uniform, coming home from work, walk across the street to buy a pack, and get smoked by a bus, you think I should still get a medal?

Not to sound callous, but the CF, like many other industrial type employments, is rife with the possibility of workplace injury or death. It sucks, but IMHO you can't give the same award to someone who gets hurt when a forklift drops a pallet to someone who is wounded in theater.

As far as this little gem:

Obviously the line about self inflicted would be considered an act of cowardis or negligence and thus apply as intended

Why is this so obvious? In WWI soldiers who were suffering from what we now call PTSD were executed for cowardice. I'd be wary of using such a wide brush to cover situations that may have different circumstances.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Much along the lines of Library and Archives only making available the online service records of our World War One veterans. Those records for our World War Two veterans are not available "for general public consumption" because they may still be living.

Actually, service records for released personnel who have served since 1918 (that have been transferred to the Library and Archives Canada) can also be accessed.  Only if the member has been deceased for at least 20 years can an uncensored file be obtained. Otherwise, a heavily censored file is provided, to protect the member and next of kin.

Details can be found here.

 

[armyvern]

Actually, service records for released personnel who have served since 1918 (that have been transferred to the Library and Archives Canada) can also be accessed.  Only if the member has been deceased for at least 20 years can an uncensored file be obtained. Otherwise, a heavily censored file is provided, to protect the member and next of kin.

Details can be found here.

I guess that's kind of what I was getting at. "Deceased" is the operative word. Those members who are still living "retain" their right to privacy of personal information.

If "wounds" are not considered "personal information", then why aren't the names of our injured being made public unless they've consented or come forward on their own. Perhaps that's the reason that there is no publicly available listing of of personnel (serving or retired) who have already been presented with the Wound Stripe??  ???

I think, actually, we have another thread on the site where the opposition/media were screaming about a "cover-up" and accusing the current ruling party of "playing with numbers" precisely because we would not release our "casualty" counts/lists.

 

[gwp]

Is there a way to view a listing of those of us that have been awarded the wound stripe? I can't seem to find it with googlefu.
dileas
tess

While "wound stripes" are found in the dress manual with the instruction .... "are worn ..." (not shall be or may be) ... they are conspicuosly absent in CFP 200 - The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the CF" -likely because they are described in the criteria as a dress distinction rather than a reward or award.

There is also this article in the CFP Newsletter indicating that the criteria for wound stripe is about the same as for the new medal

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_03/11_03_wound_e.asp

and the CFP instruction here detailing recording and eligibility for wound stripes which has more latitude than the medal and indicating that wound stripes "will be worn "

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp

 

[Franko]

While "wound stripes" are found in the dress manual with the instruction .... "are worn ..." (not shall be or may be) ...

They are worn at the discretion of the recipient.

There is plenty of directives on it and I know of many who have been awarded it and don't wear it by their own choice.

Regards

 

[Snafu-Bar]

So if I'm in uniform, coming home from work, walk across the street to buy a pack, and get smoked by a bus, you think I should still get a medal?

Not to sound callous, but the CF, like many other industrial type employments, is rife with the possibility of workplace injury or death. It sucks, but IMHO you can't give the same award to someone who gets hurt when a forklift drops a pallet to someone who is wounded in theater.

As far as this little gem:

Why is this so obvious? In WWI soldiers who were suffering from what we now call PTSD were executed for cowardice. I'd be wary of using such a wide brush to cover situations that may have different circumstances.

My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?  Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet.

And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.

Cheers

 

[Run away gun]

Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet.

"in the face of the enemy". That means in combat with the enemy.

 

[Sig_Des]

And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.

In the military, self-inflicted wound could be something as simple as a sunburn. It isn't necessarily PC-ese for Suicide.

My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?

In my mind, there is a pretty big difference between injury and death that could occur in any workplace, and those attributable to hostile action.

I'm not trying to trivialize those who have died in those types of situations, but that's not what the sacrifice medal is for.

Personally, I didn't think we needed a medal before, nor do I still, and that is my personal opinion.

edit: R.A.G beat me to it.

 

[Michael OLeary]

My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?  Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet.

Both a civil servant and a member of the CF serve their country, but only one of the does so under the knowledge that they may pay the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their normal duties.  If both died in a bus accident, neither having ever left the country, why would one have a greater eligibility for such an award under your wide applicability than the other?

And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.

I think you need to do some more research into "self inflicted wounds" (of the variety of physical damage intended to avoid perceived further danger, i.e., not the "sunburn" type), not all of which are fatal, or intended to be.  Also, the reasons for them historically vary widely.  I expect that one of the dilemmas the system will face in awarding this medal is cases of self-inflicted wounds when the member was suffering from PTSD symptoms.  There are probably many aspects of the medal eligibility criteria that few of us have the professional background to assess individual cases.

 

[George Wallace]

While "wound stripes" are found in the dress manual with the instruction .... "are worn ..." (not shall be or may be) ... they are conspicuosly absent in CFP 200 - The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the CF"

That is because they are detailed in CFP 265 (A-AD-265-00/AG-001) Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

From this link

ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 03/03
AWARDING AND RECORDING OF WOUND STRIPES

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

IDENTIFICATION
Date of Issue 11 April 2003

Application This ADM(HR-Mil) Instruction applies to all members of the Canadian Forces.

Supersession: Nil

Approval Authority This Instruction is issued under the authority of the Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources - Military) (ADM(HR-Mil)

Enquiries Director Casualty Support Administration (DCSA) or ADM(HR-Mil) Chief Warrant Officer

Document Content This document contains the following topics:

Introduction
Policy and procedures


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

INTRODUCTION

Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the Canadian Forces (CF) award 'wound stripes' to battlefield casualties, a dress distinction that recognizes a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict. One narrow gold braid stripe will be worn in respect of each occasion an individual is wounded - but NOT for each separate injury.
This distinction is not to be regarded in the nature of a reward.

POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Eligibility: All ranks of the CF, along with members of foreign military forces on exchange duties with the CF, as well as Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency and contract employees, will be eligible for this distinction.

A wound stripe recognizes injury directly attributable to hostile action received in honourable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid. Individuals who are injured in accidents in a special duty area or while employed on domestic provision of service operations or training exercises do not qualify for a wound stripe. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.

Awarding Authority: The authority to wear a wound stripe is granted by the casualty's unit Commanding Officer (CO). The CO shall verify eligibility, referring doubtful cases directly, by message, to National Defence Headquarters, attention: Director Casualty Support and Administration (NDHQ/DCSA).

Claims and Entitlements:  All CF members who consider that they are entitled to a wound stripe may initiate a claim to their CO. Paragraph 10 of this instruction outlines a list of wounds or injuries that would qualify personnel for an entitlement to a wound stripe.

Promulgation and Recording: The award of a wound stripe will be published in unit routine orders. The CO will ensure that the circumstances of the award are recorded on the individual's personal file and personal record resume. The CO will also notify the individual's career manager of the award, by message. Instructions on how this procedure is to be conducted are contained in A-PM-245-001/FP-001 'Military Human Resources Records Procedures', Chapter 10 (Unit Personnel Records).

Presentation: On verification of eligibility, and as soon as practicable after the injury has been incurred, the casualty's CO, or representative, will formally present the wound stripe to the member. Based on the discretion of the member, the presentation may be done in public or in private. A DND 5266 (01-03) 'Certificate of the Award of Wound Stripe' will also be awarded and given to the individual. The NATO Stock Number (NSN) for the Wound Stripe Certificate is 7530-20-000-6922. Visit http://diso-s041.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/DFC2/ to download the certificate.

Display: Wound stripes will be worn on CF uniforms in accordance with A-AD-265-000/AG-001 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions'. Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.


Qualification for Wound Stripes: Wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid (i.e., treatment at a medical facility of more than 5 days duration, not necessarily consecutive) that are due to hostile actions and would be a qualification for a wound stripe include, but are not limited to:

    Injuries due to blast;
    Injuries due to rescue work in bombed buildings or defences;
    Injuries due to collision of a vessel or a vehicle with a mine;
    Injuries sustained by aircrew or passengers as a result of an aircraft crash, or aircraft damage, or fire in an aircraft, provided that these are due to hostile actions or take place during an operational sortie. Injuries sustained by eligible personnel who rescue, or attempt to rescue, aircrew and passengers in such circumstances would qualify for the wound stripe;
    Injuries due to mine or bomb disposal duties;
    Injuries due to terrorist attack (attempted assassinations, car bombs, etc) by hostile forces when Canadian military forces are the targets. Incidents such as these do not necessarily need to take place in an operational area;
    Wounds or injuries inflicted by our own, allied or coalition forces' projectiles (or parts of them) when these have been fired at real or perceived hostile forces;
    Injuries that require not less than one week's treatment in hospital (or equivalent) as a consequence of:
          exposure at sea in open boats and life rafts directly due to hostile action;
          exposure in the air following attacks on aircraft by hostile forces;
          inadequate or harsh treatment by hostile forces as a result of being captured or detained; or
          the employment of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by hostile forces.
    Operational stress injuries may qualify for a wound stripe if treatment of not less than one week in hospital (or equivalent) is the direct result of a traumatic incident caused by hostile forces in a combat zone.
    Injuries, although not directly due to hostile force actions, if sustained in the combat zone by personnel in direct contact with a hostile force, would also qualify for a wound stripe. For example, injuries sustained as a result of a vehicle accident directly attributable to terrain that needed to be followed due to the tactical situation would qualify for the wound stripe if they required medical treatment beyond local first aid.
    Injuries due to accidents arising out of employment in an operational area, but not directly due to hostile action, e.g. due to collisions between ships at sea, vehicle accidents, flying accidents, handling of lethal weapons, gun explosions, etc, do not qualify for the wound stripe.
    Wounds and/or injuries that are self-inflicted do not qualify for the wound stripe.