Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[Mediman14]

I was in an O'Group today, it was mention by the BSurg that a new interm Policy on direction for Clinicians to follow regarding categories was coming out shortly. Has anyone been told the same? If so, any idea on how this interm policy is going to be laid out?

The official Policy was supposed to be out in Dec/ Jan time frame

 

[Armymedic]

Yes. And no clue, because I don't work in Ottawa.

During a visit last month, the Surg Gen was talking about a new approach to decide whether or not service members are fit for service. The current system is too limited and somewhat punitive with the removal of allowance if you are not "fit". This is counter to a developing concept which will determine those who can deploy and those who can't, while retaining trained personnel for recruiting, training and other non-operational roles.


There is a culture shift the CAF that is starting in MILPERS that will fundamentally change how we care for the sick and injured and how we can retain our personnel.

 

[Gunner98]

Four conditions for retention shared recently were:
1) Operate personal weapon
2) Pass FORCE Test
3) Employable in military environment (can tolerate the sight of others in CAF uniform)
4) Employable in an operational environment (the example given was able to perform duties in a CP during an Exercise in Wainwright).

 

[Mediman14]

There is a culture shift the CAF that is starting in MILPERS that will fundamentally change how we care for the sick and injured and how we can retain our personnel.

I think in order to retain our personnel, the CAF will need to change in so many ways, from the Medical side to the policy side. Some policies laid out by the CAF are outdated. One Policy that sticks out is DAOD 5003-6 (CCM, Compassionate Postings etc) We have to be more family friendly given today's society, many Mbrs in the CAF have children with special needs. Instead of Commanders saying " to bad, so sad" attitude, the CAF will need to be more understanding and have a common sense approach. An Example of this could simply be "You can't up root an family with an autistic child" changes are not taking likely, this could be achieved by stop blind siding people with postings, give a Mbr 6 months to a year notice. But I do realize there is challenges with that as things every day within the CAF.
  This is only one example, I know there is many more. The only I mentioned this is that I am fighting for a subordinate that is in that situation.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It also has to be balanced with the needs of the service and those people who are single, with no children, who also want to remain in location for Reason X/be posted out of their current location for Reason Y.

Tough balance to strike, but the effort should be made. 

 

[Mediman14]

I totally agree with you! It will be hard balance the needs of the service with the demands from personnel. And yes, there should be an effort made, it's better than nothing at all!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think if the collective "we" of the CAF can put an effort into looking after our people, our people will put an effort into looking after the CAF.

Win-win, and we won't send people out the door because they 'can't operate a machine gun after parachuting into the front lines' who still have years of valuable service left to give to their country.

 

[garb811]

The things folks need to remember that if they are making an ask to be accommodated for family reasons, there needs to be an understanding on the member's part that there may be a sacrifice required on their end as well to make that accommodation happen. I've been privy to a few instances in the past several years where my Branch was willing to leave the member in situ because the move was being driven by a promotion yet the member refused to decline their promotion to make the deal work; they expected someone else who had been in the geo loc a shorter period of time than them to be moved so they could stay put and still be promoted...

 

[TCM621]

The things folks need to remember that if they are making an ask to be accommodated for family reasons, there needs to be an understanding on the member's part that there may be a sacrifice required on their end as well to make that accommodation happen. I've been privy to a few instances in the past several years where my Branch was willing to leave the member in situ because the move was being driven by a promotion yet the member refused to decline their promotion to make the deal work; they expected someone else who had been in the geo loc a shorter period of time than them to be moved so they could stay put and still be promoted...

To be fair, they earned the promotion why would they give it up? If they can't accommodate him at the local unit, then he moves or applies for compassionate which would allow him the promotion he earned but have career implications going forward, which everyone involved with would be aware of. If there is no basis for the compassionate why was a "deal" even on the table? This under the table shit males everyone else life more difficult.

 

[PuckChaser]

To be fair, they earned the promotion why would they give it up? If they can't accommodate him at the local unit, then he moves or applies for compassionate which would allow him the promotion he earned but have career implications going forward, which everyone involved with would be aware of. If there is no basis for the compassionate why was a "deal" even on the table? This under the table crap males everyone else life more difficult.

It appears the "under the table crap" was to try to accommodate the member who did not appear/stated to have compassionate reason for needing to stay geographically stable. The member was selected for promotion, and didn't want to move. Career shop tried to help them out, but there wasn't another position in the new rank. Member had a choice, defer the promotion or move (which is a good deal, because every CM briefing I've been in says deferring a promotion doesn't mean you can't be posted). The member wanted to stay and wanted the rank: too bad. They definitely earned the promotion, which was coming with a posting. Why should the CM screw another member of that person's unit so they could stay and get their promotion?

That's the problem with loosening the rules, we have a tendency to swing the pendulum way too far when trying to "fix" things. We could end up with people on "permanent" retention with massive MELs that make them basically non-deployable (especially if the "operational environment" caveat uses MAPLE RESOLVE CP Shift as an example).

 

[garb811]

To be fair, they earned the promotion why would they give it up? If they can't accommodate him at the local unit, then he moves or applies for compassionate which would allow him the promotion he earned but have career implications going forward, which everyone involved with would be aware of. If there is no basis for the compassionate why was a "deal" even on the table? This under the table crap males everyone else life more difficult.

Not sure how you're even reading that anything in these instances was "under the table", it was all above board with the chains of command and the CM involved. 

The choices to the members were simple, be promoted and posted or decline the promotion and stay in situ.  As PuckChaser pointed out, they were still liable for posting anyway if they declined the promotion simply to try to avoid a posting but the "deal" was they wouldn't be and they would be left in place for at least one more year.  An "under the table deal" would have been something along the lines of promoting the member and letting them sit in a MMO position while another unit went vacant at a key command team rank, while they stayed in location without an actual job to do.

As for why they would give up a promotion they earned, it's pretty simple. They were the ones asking not to be moved to accommodate a family situation.  As a reminder, every rank change instruction states, "THIS PROMOTION IS CONDITIONAL UPON THE MEMBER ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT THE ASSIGNED DUTIES AT THE HIGHER RANK AND AT SUCH PLACE WHERE THE SERVICE REQUIREMENT EXISTS".  If a member is asking for special consideration and part of that makes them unable to meet that simple requirement, they shouldn't expect to be promoted.

Ref your idea about compassionate status...  This makes the member ineligible for promotion so they'd have to move first in order to be promoted anyway and then try to get a compassionate posting back to that location.

 

[Mediman14]

Speaking of compassionate posting, My bet is that most pers are not aware that, if you ask for a compassionate posting with or without compassionate status, you do not require to have an empty position available at that current rank!

Also, I should mention that, Base social workers treat all three (CCM, Compassionate Status, Compassionate Posting) the same, despite the differences in all three!

 

[garb811]

Speaking of compassionate posting, My bet is that most pers are not aware that, if you ask for a compassionate posting with or without compassionate status, you do not require to have an empty position available at that current rank!

Also, I should mention that, Base social workers treat all three (CCM, Compassionate Status, Compassionate Posting) the same, despite the differences in all three!

In order to qualify for a compassionate posting, you must be assigned compassionate status. Otherwise it is simply a contingency cost move for personal reasons and there must be a position available in that MOS and at that rank at the location the member wants to be posted to.

See para 5.2 here:  DAOD 5003-6 - Contingency Cost Moves for Personal Reasons, Compassionate Status and Compassionate Posting

 

[CombatDoc]

I was in an O'Group today, it was mention by the BSurg that a new interm Policy on direction for Clinicians to follow regarding categories was coming out shortly. Has anyone been told the same? If so, any idea on how this interm policy is going to be laid out?

The official Policy was supposed to be out in Dec/ Jan time frame

What you are referring to falls under a review of the Universality of Service policy, which itself is part of much larger The Journey project. The intent of modifying U of S is to allow personnel with certain MELs to continue to serve - rather than medically releasing them, as would have previously occurred. This review should be completed by end-2018, but DMCA has already made changes to their AR/MEL processes (as noted above).

The Journey, being led by a MGen COS Strat from MilPersCom, is reviewing the entire suite of policies/compensation from Enrollment-to Release-and post release.

 

[TCM621]

If that is the case, then rather than allow him to defer maybe the CM should remind him of the consequences of posting avoidance. I totally agree, you can't have your cake and eat it too. When people like this are accommodated for no real reason. It has a ripple effect. Rather than create a hole at the old rank which could be filled as per the CMs plan. Maybe a member really needs a CCM to that spot, which now can't be filled.

Not sure how you're even reading that anything in these instances was "under the table", it was all above board with the chains of command and the CM involved. 

The choices to the members were simple, be promoted and posted or decline the promotion and stay in situ.  As PuckChaser pointed out, they were still liable for posting anyway if they declined the promotion simply to try to avoid a posting but the "deal" was they wouldn't be and they would be left in place for at least one more year.  An "under the table deal" would have been something along the lines of promoting the member and letting them sit in a MMO position while another unit went vacant at a key command team rank, while they stayed in location without an actual job to do.

As for why they would give up a promotion they earned, it's pretty simple. They were the ones asking not to be moved to accommodate a family situation.  As a reminder, every rank change instruction states, "THIS PROMOTION IS CONDITIONAL UPON THE MEMBER ACTUALLY CARRYING OUT THE ASSIGNED DUTIES AT THE HIGHER RANK AND AT SUCH PLACE WHERE THE SERVICE REQUIREMENT EXISTS".  If a member is asking for special consideration and part of that makes them unable to meet that simple requirement, they shouldn't expect to be promoted.

Ref your idea about compassionate status...  This makes the member ineligible for promotion so they'd have to move first in order to be promoted anyway and then try to get a compassionate posting back to that location.

 

[garb811]

If that is the case, then rather than allow him to defer maybe the CM should remind him of the consequences of posting avoidance. I totally agree, you can't have your cake and eat it too. When people like this are accommodated for no real reason. It has a ripple effect. Rather than create a hole at the old rank which could be filled as per the CMs plan. Maybe a member really needs a CCM to that spot, which now can't be filled.

Please show me where I said they were allowed to defer.  Even better, show me where I even used the word “defer”, because I didn’t.

I used “decline” which is a totally different thing than “defer” because it means you don’t get promoted, at all, that year and will only be promoted in the future should you rank high enough another year.

As with your first response, you’re reading into my post and complaining about something that isn’t even there.

 

[Mediman14]

In order to qualify for a compassionate posting, you must be assigned compassionate status. Otherwise it is simply a contingency cost move for personal reasons and there must be a position available in that MOS and at that rank at the location the member wants to be posted to.

You are right about Compassionate Posting, but it is opposite pertaining to Compassioante Status. Ref Compassionate Posting, there does not have to be a position in their Mosid available. See the Grievance below
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2016-005.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2015-110.html

 

[TCM621]

You are right, the word defer has a different connotation than decline. Poor choice of a word on my part. To restate my position, I think the response from the CM should be, "you don't qualify for compassionate or a CCM, so you can take your promotion or not but you are still being posted." The CM only has so many cost moves, so if he knew a member wanted to stay and s/he didn't need the member somewhere else, then there would have been no posting offered.

Please show me where I said they were allowed to defer.  Even better, show me where I even used the word “defer”, because I didn’t.

I used “decline” which is a totally different thing than “defer” because it means you don’t get promoted, at all, that year and will only be promoted in the future should you rank high enough another year.

As with your first response, you’re reading into my post and complaining about something that isn’t even there.