All Things Negligent Discharge (merged)

[armyvern]

I agree with them. ICs?? Where the hell were the charges?? There are some things that are servere/serious enoguh to warrant both actions: Weapons mishandling should result in BOTH immediately.

 

[MJP]

I agree with them. ICs?? Where the hell were the charges?? There are some things that are servere/serious enoguh to warrant both actions: Weapons mishandling should result in BOTH immediately.

I don't agree with an immediate administrative measure for an ND unless it was gross negligence (like playing quick draw or similar asshattery) or there is a pattern of negligence(troop has 2-3 NDs over a short time period).  NDs happen, we should deal with them quickly via summary trial or CM and lots of remedial training.  There is no need to drag out the entire issue.

 

[armyvern]

I don't agree with an immediate administrative measure for an ND unless it was gross negligence (like playing quick draw or similar asshattery) or there is a pattern of negligence(troop has 2-3 NDs over a short time period).  NDs happen, we should deal with them quickly via summary trial or CM and lots of remedial training.  There is no need to drag out the entire issue.

The ones in the article below were screwing around with them ... like they were toys. That is serious enough for the admin action ... but where were the well-justified charges to go with that admin action.

As for lack of admin action ... read the recruits electronics thread where someone has actually suggested that the fines are being kept to <200 so that the Conduct Sheet clears off ...

Becomes pretty hard to prove a pattern of negligence if we: Don't charge, and when we do charge, hold the fine to <200 and don't IC/RW/CP.

A pattern discerned needs to be a pattern that is visible and will STAY visibile. I'd be OK if we forego the admin action, but only IF those damn Conduct Sheets don't have infractions removed ...

 

[CountDC]

"All of the soldiers are members of 36 Canadian Brigade Group, the main army reserve unit based in Halifax."


Bet none of them are actual members of 36.  PL Fus and 1 Fd must love this part, guess they need to practice the freedom of the city more often.  Reporters at their best.  How about LFAAHQ or did they finally move to Gagetown like was threatened so many years.


Nice to see Collette and Alex are still kicking around there.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

"All of the soldiers are members of 36 Canadian Brigade Group, the main army reserve unit based in Halifax."


Bet none of them are actual members of 36.  PL Fus and 1 Fd must love this part, guess they need to practice the freedom of the city more often.  Reporters at their best.  How about LFAAHQ or did they finally move to Gagetown like was threatened so many years.


Nice to see Collette and Alex are still kicking around there.

LFAA HQ still in Halifax.....

 

[Sythen]

I don't agree with an immediate administrative measure for an ND unless it was gross negligence (like playing quick draw or similar asshattery) or there is a pattern of negligence(troop has 2-3 NDs over a short time period).  NDs happen, we should deal with them quickly via summary trial or CM and lots of remedial training.  There is no need to drag out the entire issue.

ND's are an extremely serious thing. They need the come down hard and fast on anyone who has one. If you handle your weapon properly, you will never have an ND. Everyone talks about professionalism, so why would we expect anything but proper handling of weapons?

I have never seen an ND that could not have been prevented. I saw one weapon which went off due to mechanical failure which was proven in the investigation and there were no charges filed. And one burst of C-6 due to hot barrel, but the Cpl maning the gun was able to break the belt before more than a couple rounds went off. Any time it is an actual ND, there should be no second chances or "do overs". If you have 2-3 in a short period of time, maybe soldiering isn't the right job for you.

 

[MJP]

ND's are an extremely serious thing. They need the come down hard and fast on anyone who has one. If you handle your weapon properly, you will never have an ND. Everyone talks about professionalism, so why would we expect anything but proper handling of weapons?

I have never seen an ND that could not have been prevented. I saw one weapon which went off due to mechanical failure which was proven in the investigation and there were no charges filed. And one burst of C-6 due to hot barrel, but the Cpl maning the gun was able to break the belt before more than a couple rounds went off. Any time it is an actual ND, there should be no second chances or "do overs". If you have 2-3 in a short period of time, maybe soldiering isn't the right job for you.

Dude believe me when I say I know they are serious. I am certainly not trying to insinuate they are not serious business.  I have seen quite a few in my career while training, in battalion and while instructing.  Funny enough while relatively untrained soldiers had NDs, so did many highly trained soldiers.  They happen and unless there are more extenuating circumstances they don't merit administrative action IMHO.  FWIW the system seems to agree with me as well, as while I am sure they are out there, I haven't seen a soldier place on admin action for a routine (albeit still serious) ND.  What has happened in almost every case was the carrying out of swift punishment via the military justice system.

 

[armyvern]

... I haven't seen a soldier place on admin action for a routine (albeit still serious) ND.  What has happened in almost every case was the carrying out of swift punishment via the military justice system.

I know where you're coming from, but you need to peek at the recruits Electronics threads wrt NDs occuring in Clearance Bays. No more charges, just a 'counselling' and I still haven't got an answer as to whether or not that's an "official IC". For NDs out of clearance bays, fines <200 so they fall off and no admin action (hard to track that pattern if this is the case isn't it?) ... That's protectionism ...

Funny thing is last time I checked, we didn't have clearance bays to prevent someone getting charged and held accountable for having an ND; we have clearance bays precisely so no one gets killed when someone has a Negligent Discharge. It's still an ND.

I have seen soldiers placed on admin actions for weapons mishandling (not NDs), just behaving like f'n idiots.

 

[PMedMoe]

Just two points here (because I am by no means an expert):

1.  Yes, proper weapon handling will prevent an ND.  So will knowing the state of your weapon at all times.

2.  It disturbs me to see the words "routine ND" together.

 

[MJP]

I know where you're coming from, but you need to peek at the recruits Electronics threads wrt NDs occuring in Clearance Bays. No more charges, just a 'counselling' and I still haven't got an answer as to whether or not that's an "official IC". For NDs out of clearance bays, fines <200 so they fall off and no admin action (hard to track that pattern if this is the case isn't it?) ... That's protectionism ...

I have seen the thread and commented on that aspect.  The more I think 'bout it the less it makes sense to me for two reasons.  The first is a recruits biggest fear is failing and therefore most are afraid of things that can fail them.  One only needs to look at the recruiting thread and its numerous threads on the PT test to see that in action.  It would follow that if they receive a PO failure for weapons handling it only increases the fear of not only the weapon, but the act of weapons handling.  This brings us to the second point in that they are also for the most part unfamiliar with firearms, how they operate and as a general rule are wary of them.  If you want to increase their ability you encourage them to handle their weapon as much as possible via as many means as possible.  The behaviours we desire when we give recruits weapons are increased confidence, ability, familiarity & competence.  However if you are afraid of your weapon and afraid of having a PO failure then you are getting the exact opposite.  The CFLRS policy of a ND as a PO failure reinforces behaviours we don't want in our soldiers.  I said it in the other thread but the two should be de-linked.  An ND in BMQ (or anywhere in the training system) should be treated exactly how we do it in the rest of the CF.  Charge 'em and march the guilty bastard in. 

For NDs out of clearance bays, fines <200 so they fall off and no admin action (hard to track that pattern if this is the case isn't it?) ... That's protectionism ...

FWIW from what I can recall within the training system most ND trials that I have witnessed are generally below $200 so it would eventually come off of a soldiers conduct sheet.  I don't really have a heartache with it as it is DP1 training and mistakes will be made.  It still stays on ones file for a period of time so there is some limited ability to track if Pte Shootfromthehip makes the same mistake after their BMQ during their SQ or trades training.  Eventually yes it will come off their file which can allow some pumps to slip through but NCOs are pretty good at knuckling down on those individuals. 

2.  It disturbs me to see the words "routine ND" together.

Poor choice of words on my part.  I was just trying to point out that they happen on a regular basis to folks at all levels whether we like it or not.

 

[Haggis]

IF you are going to have a ND, the time and place to do so is in training, with blanks.  THEN, the root cause of that failure can be addressed through remedial training and disciplinary action (if warranted).

During a deployment in the Balkans, some non Cbt Arms soldiers were so fearful of the consequences of having a ND that they would tape over the tops of thier magazines or remove the firing pin from thier weapons.

I witnessed this first-hand when a resupply packet arrived in my camp and I saw a driver and co-driver clearing their C7s at my clearing bay.  Although they were going through the motions, neither actually looked at the breech areas (or even at the rifle for that matter) while performing the UNLOAD drill.  Well, I "loses it!" and came aboard them like a fat kid on a Smartie only to have one of them tell me that "don't worry, sir, there's no firing pin in my bolt.  I don't want to have a ND!"  So, I loses it AGAIN only to find out later on just how common this practise was!

My point here is that these soldiers feared the consequences of mishandling their weapons more than they feared the threat in theatre.  That's just wrong.  And, I beleive, the product of a risk adverse Army that punishes rather than corrects shortcomings during training (yes, even pre-deployment training).

We expect a certain level of skill and competence from SOF, CBT A, NBP, Bosns etc. who handle weapons on a regular and routine basis.  Weapons handling is an essential part of soldiering and we should also expect - and train for- a level of proficiency in weapons handiling which allows safe handling to be second nature under routine circumstances (like standing in front of a clearing bay). 

There is, in my opiniopn, a belief in the mainstream media that rank begets competence and that belief extends to weapons handling.  That's why stories like this will always be big news - because this Colonel (or BGen or CWO) is expected to be the pinnacle of competence in all the military arts, sciences and skills.  Weapons handling included.

 

[Snaketnk]

I read all of the thread, and I hope I didn't miss this being posted.

I wonder what those numbers actually mean; I think it's very possible that a good portion of that 40% is in new "Accidental Discharges" being reported, rather than all new incidents. 40% seems like too sudden a change in weapon profiency to make sense in my mind... I do know that every single ND I've seen in the past couple of years has been reported and investigate to the extent of the "law", and sometimes to extremes (when it was obviously an equipment failure...). It seems everything is done by the books and every t is crossed and i is dotted.

I can remember during training where NDs wouldn't result in a charge, but rather in other "corrective" training.

So in case that jumble of thoughts is as jumbled as I think, I'm just saying that I think that the 40% jump might be as a result of increased reporting of incidents.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

IF you are going to have a ND, the time and place to do so is in training, with blanks.  THEN, the root cause of that failure can be addressed through remedial training and disciplinary action (if warranted).

During a deployment in the Balkans, some non Cbt Arms soldiers were so fearful of the consequences of having a ND that they would tape over the tops of thier magazines or remove the firing pin from thier weapons.

I witnessed this first-hand when a resupply packet arrived in my camp and I saw a driver and co-driver clearing their C7s at my clearing bay.  Although they were going through the motions, neither actually looked at the breech areas (or even at the rifle for that matter) while performing the UNLOAD drill.  Well, I "loses it!" and came aboard them like a fat kid on a Smartie only to have one of them tell me that "don't worry, sir, there's no firing pin in my bolt.  I don't want to have a ND!"  So, I loses it AGAIN only to find out later on just how common this practise was!

My point here is that these soldiers feared the consequences of mishandling their weapons more than they feared the threat in theatre.  That's just wrong.  And, I beleive, the product of a risk adverse Army that punishes rather than corrects shortcomings during training (yes, even pre-deployment training).

We expect a certain level of skill and competence from SOF, CBT A, NBP, Bosns etc. who handle weapons on a regular and routine basis.  Weapons handling is an essential part of soldiering and we should also expect - and train for- a level of proficiency in weapons handiling which allows safe handling to be second nature under routine circumstances (like standing in front of a clearing bay). 

There is, in my opiniopn, a belief in the mainstream media that rank begets competence and that belief extends to weapons handling.  That's why stories like this will always be big news - because this Colonel (or BGen or CWO) is expected to be the pinnacle of competence in all the military arts, sciences and skills.  Weapons handling included.

That problem goes, at least, back to the B-H deployments. We caught guys doing gate duty with the firing pins out of their rifles.

 

[MJP]

That problem goes, at least, back to the B-H deployments. We caught guys doing gate duty with the firing pins out of their rifles.

Aye I saw the same thing in 2000 SFOR from pretty much every trade.

.

So in case that jumble of thoughts is as jumbled as I think, I'm just saying that I think that the 40% jump might be as a result of increased reporting of incidents.

Or the fact that the CF had a shooting war going on which meant a marked increase in the number of people doing weapons training.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Aye I saw the same thing in 2000 SFOR from pretty much every trade.


Or the fact that the CF had a shooting war going on which meant a marked increase in the number of people doing weapons training. deploying with weapons and live ammo that they actually have to carry.

TFTFY

 

[MJP]

TFTFY

FTW  ;D

 

[armyvern]

...

During a deployment in the Balkans, some non Cbt Arms soldiers were so fearful of the consequences of having a ND that they would tape over the tops of thier magazines or remove the firing pin from thier weapons.

I witnessed this first-hand when a resupply packet arrived in my camp and I saw a driver and co-driver clearing their C7s at my clearing bay.  Although they were going through the motions, neither actually looked at the breech areas (or even at the rifle for that matter) while performing the UNLOAD drill.  Well, I "loses it!" and came aboard them like a fat kid on a Smartie only to have one of them tell me that "don't worry, sir, there's no firing pin in my bolt.  I don't want to have a ND!"  So, I loses it AGAIN only to find out later on just how common this practise was!
...

So, did you charge them for having an non-operational weapon?

 

[armyvern]

...

We expect a certain level of skill and competence from SOF, CBT A, NBP, Bosns etc. who handle weapons on a regular and routine basis.  Weapons handling is an essential part of soldiering and we should also expect - and train for- a level of proficiency in weapons handiling which allows safe handling to be second nature under routine circumstances (like standing in front of a clearing bay). 

There is, in my opiniopn, a belief in the mainstream media that rank begets competence and that belief extends to weapons handling.  That's why stories like this will always be big news - because this Colonel (or BGen or CWO) is expected to be the pinnacle of competence in all the military arts, sciences and skills.  Weapons handling included.

Agreed with the mainstream's thoughts as to 'competence'. We had an ND our last week in KAF. An experienced (and obviously used to carrying weapon) officer. Clearing Bay. Charge. I also had to escort a fellow-CSM in for same (on range/C7) week one in KAF.

One of my best friends, Cpl Mike Abel was killed by an ND in Somalia and ,T., who had the ND was a small arms instructor; it happens. It should NEVER be taken lightly regardless of where one is in the training process or in their career.

 

[OldSolduer]

Agreed with the mainstream's thoughts as to 'competence'. We had an ND our last week in KAF. An experienced (and obviously used to carrying weapon) officer. Clearing Bay. Charge. I also had to escort a fellow-CSM in for same (on range/C7) week one in KAF.

One of my best friends, Cpl Mike Abel was killed by an ND in Somalia and ,T., who had the ND was a small arms instructor; it happens. It should NEVER be taken lightly regardless of where one is in the training process or in their career.

I agree fully. Good post Vern.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree fully. Good post Vern.

Jeez Jim. She just got back! Stop hitting on her from across the country!! :-*