BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs

[SeanNewman]

TT,

No worries, I am still scratching my head over Nfld Sapper not having the option to elect.  Potentially in a trg-type environment where it was common and there was a unit SOP for how to deal with them?

 

[dapaterson]

Right to elect depends on the nature of the charge. 

Per QR&O 108.17, a 129 does not give a right to elect provided

the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence are sufficiently minor in nature that the officer exercising summary trial jurisdiction over the accused concludes that a punishment of detention, reduction in rank or a fine in excess of 25 per cent of monthly basic pay would not be warranted if the accused were found guilty of the offence.

As long as it's anticipated the fine will be under the equivalent of 7 1/2 days of pay, there is no right to elect.  And a smart RSM/Adjt combination will ensure all minor charges are dealt with in a way to prevent elections - keep the write-ups simple so the JAG sign off comes quickly, and get the wheels of justice proceeding quickly and smoothly, to resolve things in the unit with as little delay as is possible.

 

[tomahawk6]

Menards fine of $3500 was pretty stiff.

 

[SeanNewman]

Menards fine of $3500 was pretty stiff.

I think quite in line with the escalation of rank and significance, though.  Something like $200 would have been silly because untrained Ptes and OCdts get that while in training and make 1/10th the money he does.  Something like $10,000 would have been Thor's hammer.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Menards fine of $3500 was pretty stiff.

Not particularly. 2 rounds @ $1750 per. NCMs and others have gotten $1500 per round.

 

[SeanNewman]

Not particularly. 2 rounds @ $1750 per. NCMs and others have gotten $1500 per round.

It averages out that way, but I am not certain if it is done on a "per round" basis.

I think it is more in line with the significance of the act (at least that's what I have seen in the training system).

If someone has an ND that's a 4-5 round burst with the C9, it is seen as slightly more significant than a C7 one-round ND but not five-times worse.  For example, that candidate might get a $300 fine instead of a $200 fine (if that's the going C7 rate), but certainly not a $1000 fine because he still only made one mistake.

However, if someone had multiple C7 NDs on different days, he might get a $200 fine, then $400, then $1,000 because he has now made three different errors and is not progressing.

 

[Strike]

One has to wonder why Yon has such a hate-on for Menard.  The only thing that seems to fit is that Menard probably told Yon to pound salt at some point in the past. 

;D

 

[GAP]

More Media commentary....


No sex, please. We're soldiers
Article Link

Erin Anderssen

From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, May. 30, 2010 10:49PM EDT Last updated on Sunday, May. 30, 2010 10:50PM EDT

It’s a no-nookie zone, officially. Having feelings for a fellow soldier at the Canadian base in Kandahar is against the military’s fraternization rules, let alone sneaking off with the coveted keys to a light-armoured vehicle and its air-conditioned rear cabin.

But let’s face it, these are young, buff men and women working closely together in life-and-death situations. On weekend nights, the Dutch often host a disco on the base – it’s alcohol free, but the flirty dancing, says a journalist who’s attended, is closer than sanctioned military standards. Scoring the keys to the LAV is an open joke, since the vehicles are one of the few private spots for a rendezvous away from the desert heat. The army store on the base sells western-style lingerie. And there’s a reason, suggest journalists stationed in Kandahar, why condoms (ostensibly for soldiers going on leave) are freely available in the waiting room at the doctor’s office.

But when a commanding officer allegedly partakes in a similar dalliance, breaking the very rules that he’s required to set on the base, there’s no looking the other way.

“The people who are at the top simply must follow the rules and must set an example,” says Canadian military historian Jack Granatstein. “If they don’t then there is no enforcing discipline on others, and maybe more important, things down the ranks. How can I enforce discipline, when Private Jones says to me, yeah but you’re screwing so and so.”
More on link

 

[Tank Troll]

From what I've seen over the years it usually works out to a half months pay regardless of how many rounds were fired. (a burst will be the same as a single shot) How ever this is normally with live rounds only. In training a ND with blanks usually cost 200 Bucks, which is just enough money to stay on your permanent record  ;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

It averages out that way, but I am not certain if it is done on a "per round" basis.

I think it is more in line with the significance of the act (at least that's what I have seen in the training system).

If someone has an ND that's a 4-5 round burst with the C9, it is seen as slightly more significant than a C7 one-round ND but not five-times worse.  For example, that candidate might get a $300 fine instead of a $200 fine (if that's the going C7 rate), but certainly not a $1000 fine because he still only made one mistake.

However, if someone had multiple C7 NDs on different days, he might get a $200 fine, then $400, then $1,000 because he has now made three different errors and is not progressing.

Waaay back when I was in 1CMBG, the BG Commander did charge per round, $100. for each.  One poor C-9 gunner let off a burst of 23 rounds.  Costly mistake.

 

[SeanNewman]

One poor C-9 gunner let off a burst of 23 rounds.

Sweet Jebus, was he getting tazed at the time or something?  How in the heck can you hold your hand on the trigger that long and not realize something bad was happening?

It can't have been a runaway gun either because then the gun would have been at fault (for the last 20 rounds, anyway) unless they didn't test the functioning of the weapon back then.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Who can say, some of the kids had heavy trigger fingers.  I remember one of the Sgts screaming at a kid on the firing line WRT trigger control and bursts with the C-9.  " How many times do I have to tell you!  It's F@#K, F#$K  for a three round burst!!! Not a$$$$$$$Hole!!!"  Needless to say we were rolling on the ground laughing our collective asses off. 

There had been, over the previous few months, quite a number of NDs.  The General was cracking down in an effort to make folks more responsible.  Same thing went for traffic accidents after a couple of Ptes rolled and wrote off a brand new HLVW wrecker because they did not want to go through a mud puddle on the Sarcee Ranges.  They went around it on a hill and she rolled over like a dog it was a total loss.  Had been a rash of preventable accidents too.  I guess you could say there was a need for a wake up call.  Speaking for myself, I watched my  Ps and Qs after that.

 

[armyvern]

Disregarding the last few posts, I'm pretty sure I'm sticking this article in the proper thread ... highlights mine.
From the TorStar tonight:

(Reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copyright act ...)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/817125--general-toppled-by-a-corporal-s-revelation

OTTAWA —The extraordinary confession of a corporal set in motion the bombshell revelation that ended the tenure and possibly the military career of Canada’s top soldier in Afghanistan, the Star has learned.

The unidentified solider told a trusted confidant at the Kandahar Airfield about her relationship with Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, sparking a chain of events that reached the top echelons of the military and the government.
Within 24 hours, both Ménard and the soldier, a member of his staff, were on the same military transport plane, headed back to Canada, one defence source told the Star.

In the course of a day, Ménard had gone from commanding 5,000 American and Canadian troops getting ready to launch a major offensive in southern Afghanistan to a humiliating return to Canada to face a possible court martial.

The military gave no date for his return. However, one source said his wife, Maj. Julie Fortin, who commands a logistics company at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier in Quebec, was planning to meet him when he arrived back in Canada.

Military experts struggled Monday to recall a similar case of a high-profile commander being stripped of his command. Rarer still is such a case in a war zone. And they wondered why he would risk the high-point of his career on a battlefield dalliance.

“He is the senior commander. He knows the rules. . . . He knows the consequences and should have known better,” said retired colonel Alain Pellerin, head of the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations.

He noted that Ménard commanded several thousand American troops as well as Canadians, reflecting the trust of Canada’s ally in Afghanistan’s south.

“They must have confidence in him to place three battalions under his command. He was a good, solid, professional officer.” Pellerin said.

After a harried few hours on Saturday, all that was gone.

However, defence sources say the decision reflects both the seriousness of the allegation and the fact the Canadian Forces didn’t want a commander in place with a cloud over his head at the very time that coalition troops are preparing for their offensive.

Sources describe a frantic weekend of long-distance communications and high-level decisions that all began with one woman’s alarming disclosure about the relationship. It’s not known whether she made the revelation as an off-hand remark or as a deliberate move to seek help.

Whatever the case, it set off alarm bells that soon reverberated up the chain of command.

The soldier who heard the remark alerted Ménard’s second-in-command, Col. Simon Hetheringon, who immediately brought it to the attention of Lt.-Gen. Marc Lessard, who heads Canadian Expeditionary Force Command.

After discussions with Gen. Walt Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, the decision was made to strip Ménard of his command because of “inappropriate conduct” and bring him home.

Throughout it all, Defence Minister Peter MacKay was kept in the loop by Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, the vice-chief of defence staff who is second-in-command of the Canada’s armed forces.

Upon his return to Canada, Ménard will report to the chief of land staff, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, in Ottawa.

“His exact duties are not known at this time,” said Matthew Lindsey, a civilian spokespersons for the defence department.

“We will not comment or make predictions with regards to Brig.-Gen. Ménard’s future with the Canadian Forces right now,” Lindsey said.

He confirmed that another soldier is involved in the incident but declined to comment further, pending the investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, a branch of the military police that handles serious or sensitive defence probes.

Leslie appeared before a Senate committee Monday to discuss issues facing the army but later slipped out to avoid speaking with reporters about Ménard’s case.

Not much is known about the nature of the relationship or how long it had been going on.

“It obviously broke the rules. The allegation was serious enough that the system had to react and remove him,” Pellerin said.

The investigation is likely to look at whether this is an isolated incident.

Ménard, who joined the Canadian Forces in 1984, was said to have been humiliated after having to own up to the negligent discharge of his rifle while preparing to board a helicopter, while Natynczyk looked on.

That offence got him a $3,500 fine. This latest revelation risks bringing even greater disgrace for the once rising military star.

“You want to talk about humiliation. You’ve just been relieved of command and you’re being flown home,” said one defence source.

While his wife is also a member of the Canadian Forces, it’s not likely she was in Kandahar at the same time he was. Military policy discourages married couples from serving in positions where one spouse has to report to the other.

“She’s not allowed to be anywhere in his chain of command,” Pellerin said.

And because Ménard commands all soldiers in Afghanistan that made it impossible for her to serve there, too.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Within 24 hours, both Ménard and the soldier, a member of his staff, were on the same military transport plane, headed back to Canada, one defence source told the Star.

They were flown out on the same plane? That must have been awkward.

 

[vonGarvin]

If that article is true, I sure as shit hope it was more than just the Cpl's word that got him sent home.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If the allegations are true, I'm sure his wife will want to meet him at home.

BTW, nice of the Star to make her experience even brighter by naming her and telling us where she works.

 

[SeanNewman]

“It obviously broke the rules. The allegation was serious enough that the system had to react and remove him,” Pellerin said.

As Technoviking wrote, that is still the problem I'm having a hard time with.

So all the rules about conflict resolution and harassment go out the window when the allegation is serious enough that we no longer consider someone innocent until proven guilty?

Well why not just accuse someone you don't like of starting the holocaust then?  That allegation should be serious enough to get them straight to release from the Forces via discharge with disgrace.

Added - Although as also pointed out, it is quite probable that his bosses know more than we do and it is unlikely they'd do this on a whim.  It's the write-up in the paper that makes it seem sketchy; the truth probably makes a lot more sense.

 

[Rogo]

This is very true, I have been wondering about this myself but there is always a chance that they did an investigation at KAF and know far more about if something actually went on before sending anyone home.

 

[GAP]

The military has acted hastily
Article Link
By Michel W. Drapeau, Citizen Special June 1, 2010

Let me open by noting that from my perspective, Canada is in the happy situation of being blessed with a generation of outstanding senior military commanders whose leadership, discipline and operational readiness is impressive, inspiring and second to none in terms of professionalism.

I also want to note that, fundamentally, I agree with the necessity of a policy of non-fraternization (romantic and sexual liaisons) between Canadian Forces members, particularly in a theatre of war, to maintain morale, esprit de corps, teamwork, and discipline, and to protect and ensure fair and uniform treatment of subordinates.

I have some reservations, however, about the extent of this policy which includes prohibiting a CF member, while in uniform and in public, to kiss, hug or even hold hands with another CF member, even if united in a family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union with that person. This policy is implemented on a "no-tolerance" basis, which means that there are no shades of grey possible.

And I have some difficulties with the administrative decision-making process followed by the higher CF echelons which directed the precipitous and ignominious relief of one of its rising stars from the position of commander, Joint-Task Force Afghanistan.

First, to make public that the reason for Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard's sudden relief from command was related to allegations of inappropriate conduct related to the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization Directive has caused incalculable and irreversible damage to his professional, social and familial reputation, even before an investigation into the circumstances. In acting this way, CF decision-makers knew, or ought to have known, that this would spell the abrupt end of Brig.-Gen. Ménard's otherwise stellar career in the profession of arms. There can be no question about that.

Second, in issuing an immediate press release, in my opinion, the CF brass have not only shown a lack of finesse but, in the process, have violated the privacy of an officer who, up until that time, served his country and the armed forces in a most honourable and distinguished manner, as evidenced by his quick rise through the military ranks.

Surely, his previous accumulated good service ought to have been taken into account in sparing him, and his family, the embarrassment of broadcasting to the world, the news of his alleged violation of the non-fraternization policy.
More on link

 

[vonGarvin]

Given how bureaucratic our military is, I highly doubt that at 1755 on day "x", so-and-so said (insert seedy comment here), and then by 1800 DComd knew, and then by 1805, Comd CEFCOM knew, and by 1810, CDS knew, and then, and then, and then.


For all we know, these allegations may have been investigated and fired up and down the chain of command with due diligence.  The point is, we don't know.  So, I cannot say such things as M. Drapeau says, to wit, "the military acted hastily".