Canadian Forces Officer guilty of wearing unearned medals.
- Thread starter eliminator
- Start date
- Status
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 426
- Points
- 910
George Wallace said:
Agree with what you're saying, it was more of a general question for my own PD and wondering what options are available to her CoC outside of just remedial measures. Basically, does anybody know of any kind of minimum requirements that must be met before a file is sent away for an admin review, or is it just on the CoC to recommend one?
In this case, given the two convictions, their relation to integrity issues, and the rank, I believe DMCA would concur with a recommendation for a 5(f) release.
- Reaction score
- 21,821
- Points
- 1,090
Schindler's Lift said:
Except the flap is a permitted place to wear it for females, so in that case I would give him the benefit of the doubt as it may have seen it there and made an assumption. (Or possibly we could offer him a taxpayer-funded sex change operation so that it would be correct).
- Reaction score
- 5,257
- Points
- 1,040
Schindler's Lift said:
I think wearing medals/decorations in the wrong spot is a little different then wearing something you aren't entitled to. Probably an honest mistake, but if no one ever says anything, why would they change it?
We just recently went through the process for nominating folks for the OMM/MMM, so based on how difficult it is to even nominate someone, let alone get it awarded, kind of shocked.
Interestingly enough, there is a clause in the constitution to have membership terminated. Seems like a sad way to end a long career, where I'm assuming her performance was high enough to be awarded it, but given the standard required to become a member, imagine this might be up for review.
http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14945&lan=eng
Not really sure what to say on this, waiting to see the details of the judgement, as I'm curious why/how the decision was made.
- Reaction score
- 18,386
- Points
- 1,360
I worked an ORMM submission for an incredibly dedicated and professional soldier for several consecutive years and even with an incredible body of service and community service never broke through the threshold to be admitted to the Order.
LCol Miller's actions speak volumes and tarnish the order. Her conduct and the apparent support by the particular elements of the CAF chain of command are incredibly disappointing, particularly in light of the dedication of many men and women in service who have served and been appropriately recognized. That LCol Miller felt that recognition of her service was special and unique enough that she needent comply with qualification pre-requisites is either: a) incredibly arrogant, b) narcissistic, or c) both. Shameful.
That said, as some have noted, it is important that any feelings about her conduct and/or the disciplinary action taken do not in any way influence the fact that it would be inappropriate for any information pertaining to any administrative action considered or taken against her to be divulged.
:2c:
G2G
LCol Miller's actions speak volumes and tarnish the order. Her conduct and the apparent support by the particular elements of the CAF chain of command are incredibly disappointing, particularly in light of the dedication of many men and women in service who have served and been appropriately recognized. That LCol Miller felt that recognition of her service was special and unique enough that she needent comply with qualification pre-requisites is either: a) incredibly arrogant, b) narcissistic, or c) both. Shameful.
That said, as some have noted, it is important that any feelings about her conduct and/or the disciplinary action taken do not in any way influence the fact that it would be inappropriate for any information pertaining to any administrative action considered or taken against her to be divulged.
:2c:
G2G
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Over time the US Army has had instances of senior officers wearing unauthorized decorations.The USN had an admiral that did the same and committed suicide.Thats an extreme response.A US Army BG Eugene Forrester had an unauthorised Silver Star.Forrester was a good officer and overcame his stolen valor issue retiring as a LTG.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/16/boorda.6p/
http://medicinthegreentime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MEDALS-INVESTIGATION-OUTCOME.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/16/boorda.6p/
http://medicinthegreentime.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MEDALS-INVESTIGATION-OUTCOME.pdf
There is a feeling that if this was a corporal, the book would have been thrown at them and that because of her rank she got of easy. While this may or may not be the case, shouldn't it be the opposite? Part of the responsibility of higher rank is greater accountability. In other words, a LCol, by nature of their rank and responsibilities, should be held to a higher standard.
I don't know enough about military law to know if this is even legal but to me a big part of deterrence would be if the big fish get nailed to the wall, little fish like Cpl bloggins, better toe the line. There is also the idea that this officer, by nature of her rank, will be someone's boss. A LCol should be a leader almost by definition, and integrity is a huge part of this.
Maybe military law isn't allowed to take that stuff in to consideration. Maybe it has to judge the accused without regard to rank. That could explain the "slap on the wrist". We are thinking in terms of a senior leader in the CF and the judge is thinking in terms of a generic service member. Could this be the case?
I don't know enough about military law to know if this is even legal but to me a big part of deterrence would be if the big fish get nailed to the wall, little fish like Cpl bloggins, better toe the line. There is also the idea that this officer, by nature of her rank, will be someone's boss. A LCol should be a leader almost by definition, and integrity is a huge part of this.
Maybe military law isn't allowed to take that stuff in to consideration. Maybe it has to judge the accused without regard to rank. That could explain the "slap on the wrist". We are thinking in terms of a senior leader in the CF and the judge is thinking in terms of a generic service member. Could this be the case?
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Termination of membership in the Order of Military Merit requires one of three conditions:
a. the person dies;
b. the GG accepts their resignation in writing; or
c. The GG makes an ordinance terminating the person's appointment to the Order.
Source: The Order of Military Merit, by Christopher McCreery
a. the person dies;
b. the GG accepts their resignation in writing; or
c. The GG makes an ordinance terminating the person's appointment to the Order.
Source: The Order of Military Merit, by Christopher McCreery
FJAG said:
Understood. Could you please elaborate on precedents in which the judge would consider in rejecting a joint sentencing recommendation?
I'm not asking for an opinion on this case, just context for where the bar is on such a thing.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Brasidas said:
https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/all=joint%20submission%20rejection
https://www.google.com/search?q=Canada+legal+precedents+rejecting+a+joint+submission&hl=en&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ei=IHg6VPySO43maonJgIAD&ved=0CBEQvwU
have fun reading.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,311
- Points
- 1,160
Brasidas said:
Hatchet Man has given you some good source material. While there are some very minor variations, the Park decision from Newfoundland gives a good summary of the law as follows:
"The following principles of general application can be distilled from these precedents
(1) a sentencing judge is not bound to accept a joint submission (Simon, Abbott, and Samms);
(2) if a sentencing judge is disinclined to accept a joint submission, she or he should advise counsel accordingly and invite further submissions (Barrett);
(3)[b] a sentencing judge should decline to endorse a joint submission only if (1) endorsing the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; or (2) doing so would be contrary to the public interest[/b] (Druken);
(4) if the joint submission would cause a reasonable persons to conclude that its endorsement by the sentencing judge would cause a “break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”, the trial judge can decline to endorse the joint submission (Oake);
(5) in assessing a joint submission, the sentencing judge should refrain from focussing on the principles of sentencing (“such as fitness, proportionality and range of sentence”), but on the questions: will endorsement of the joint submission “in the circumstances of the case, bring the administration of justice into disrepute” and is the sentence jointly recommended “contrary to the public interest” (Oxford and Lavers);
(6) a joint submission cannot be rejected simply because it falls outside the normal range (Oxford ); and
(7) a sentencing judge must not only state the test for determining whether to endorse a joint submission, she or he must comply with it "without adulterating it" (Barrett)."
Point (3) is the key one and universally accepted. You should note that the civilian courts put a great emphasis on plea bargaining as it greatly speeds up and facilitates the administration of justice. Similarly you should note that the prosecutor's role is to represent the public interest and the administration of justice and will already have weighed those factors when agreeing to a joint recommendation.
In short a judge has the power to overwrite a joint recommendation but generally does so only in rare circumstances.
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 21,821
- Points
- 1,090
In a court martial context, look at Castillo v. R.; the learned judge (correctly in my opinion) rejected a joint submission and ordered the repeat-offending miscreant to jail.
The appeal judges, however, disagreed in a 2-1 split. So instead of being jailed (since the first fine had not been paid as of the first court martial, as the judge at the court martial noted) on appeal the joint submission was substituted, ordering another fine.
Unfortunately, the CMAC ruling was not appealed, as it is bad precedent and a bad decision by judges who should have known better; the dissent at appeal was concise and clear.
Of course, it would be unusual for a decision to reinstate a joint submission to be appealed; neither the Crown who negotiated the inadequate sentence nor the defence who jumped at it have any motivation to appeal, as if their deliberations are not upheld, they lose face.
http://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/7798/index.do?r=AAAAAQAQam9pbnQgc3VibWlzc2lvbgAAAAAB
The appeal judges, however, disagreed in a 2-1 split. So instead of being jailed (since the first fine had not been paid as of the first court martial, as the judge at the court martial noted) on appeal the joint submission was substituted, ordering another fine.
Unfortunately, the CMAC ruling was not appealed, as it is bad precedent and a bad decision by judges who should have known better; the dissent at appeal was concise and clear.
Of course, it would be unusual for a decision to reinstate a joint submission to be appealed; neither the Crown who negotiated the inadequate sentence nor the defence who jumped at it have any motivation to appeal, as if their deliberations are not upheld, they lose face.
http://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/7798/index.do?r=AAAAAQAQam9pbnQgc3VibWlzc2lvbgAAAAAB
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
You know Bad as this L/Col's actions are and I'm in the group saying strip the medal, demote her and toss her out, she 's a rank amateur when compared to this L/Col http://army.ca/forums/threads/108503.0.html
Maybe a posting to the SANDF would be appropriate, she may pick up a few pointers 8)
Maybe a posting to the SANDF would be appropriate, she may pick up a few pointers 8)
- Reaction score
- 2,379
- Points
- 940
Now that the anger has subsided (the disgust remains), here's what I meant to say......
(It was submitted too late to be considered a 'timely' letter to the editor)
A Matter of Honour and Justice
Re: Ian MacAlpine, “Military officer gets severe reprimand, fine.” Kingston Whig-Standard, 7 Oct 2014.
The Canadian military has made great strides in advancing its professionalism and ethical behaviour, often motivated by public scrutiny into the periodic lapses of its members. One cannot tar the organization with a large brush, but occasionally incidents crop up that can only leave one to scratch their head; this is one such occasion.
Within two months of being convicted at a Court Martial for falsely claiming to have passed a Physical Fitness test, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was again accused of fraudulently wearing un-earned medals and a commendation award -- the subject of this week’s Court Martial. The guilty finding of the first Court Martial returned a sentence of a severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine. For this recent transgression, which in the eyes of every military person with which I’ve spoken is a much more heinous crime, the legal system decided that a punishment of a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine would be just; effectively, she committed a worse crime and received nearly identical punishment with some adjustment for inflation.
Frankly, the actions of the Military Justice system boggle my mind. With the first sentencing, the Judge noted that the disposition proposed jointly by counsel (the same two military lawyers who worked this case, by the way) would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This current Judge however, apparently struggled with the lightness of the requested sentence, given Miller’s recent conviction record and position as a senior officer. Yet he went with it anyway.
The article cites Miller’s defence attorney as saying that the decision was just and everyone was pleased with the result. She further believes that “a severe reprimand is the harshest message a soldier can receive to denounce their conduct”; perhaps she was unaware that the charges’ potential sentence could include up to dismissal with disgrace from the Forces.
A quick perusal of the comments on this story from newspapers all across the country, or reading stunned and angered comments at non-official military websites such as “army.ca,” shows how completely out of touch the legal system is; I assure you that not everyone is pleased. While the military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure of summary trials and courts martial, for many there is a growing belief that those tiers are more akin to Orwell’s Animal Farm in that “some pigs are more equal than others.” The optics here are appalling.
Now, I won’t speak to LCol Miller’s integrity or what her next move ought to be, or even comment further on the perplexing state of the military’s justice system. Instead, I’ll only express sympathy for those serving members who have the honour and often challenging task of commanding Canada’s troops and mentoring our future leaders; they are the ones who will have to justify this travesty to their subordinates.
Now I'm done.
(It was submitted too late to be considered a 'timely' letter to the editor)
A Matter of Honour and Justice
Re: Ian MacAlpine, “Military officer gets severe reprimand, fine.” Kingston Whig-Standard, 7 Oct 2014.
The Canadian military has made great strides in advancing its professionalism and ethical behaviour, often motivated by public scrutiny into the periodic lapses of its members. One cannot tar the organization with a large brush, but occasionally incidents crop up that can only leave one to scratch their head; this is one such occasion.
Within two months of being convicted at a Court Martial for falsely claiming to have passed a Physical Fitness test, Lieutenant-Colonel Miller was again accused of fraudulently wearing un-earned medals and a commendation award -- the subject of this week’s Court Martial. The guilty finding of the first Court Martial returned a sentence of a severe reprimand and a $3,000 fine. For this recent transgression, which in the eyes of every military person with which I’ve spoken is a much more heinous crime, the legal system decided that a punishment of a severe reprimand and a $5,000 fine would be just; effectively, she committed a worse crime and received nearly identical punishment with some adjustment for inflation.
Frankly, the actions of the Military Justice system boggle my mind. With the first sentencing, the Judge noted that the disposition proposed jointly by counsel (the same two military lawyers who worked this case, by the way) would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This current Judge however, apparently struggled with the lightness of the requested sentence, given Miller’s recent conviction record and position as a senior officer. Yet he went with it anyway.
The article cites Miller’s defence attorney as saying that the decision was just and everyone was pleased with the result. She further believes that “a severe reprimand is the harshest message a soldier can receive to denounce their conduct”; perhaps she was unaware that the charges’ potential sentence could include up to dismissal with disgrace from the Forces.
A quick perusal of the comments on this story from newspapers all across the country, or reading stunned and angered comments at non-official military websites such as “army.ca,” shows how completely out of touch the legal system is; I assure you that not everyone is pleased. While the military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure of summary trials and courts martial, for many there is a growing belief that those tiers are more akin to Orwell’s Animal Farm in that “some pigs are more equal than others.” The optics here are appalling.
Now, I won’t speak to LCol Miller’s integrity or what her next move ought to be, or even comment further on the perplexing state of the military’s justice system. Instead, I’ll only express sympathy for those serving members who have the honour and often challenging task of commanding Canada’s troops and mentoring our future leaders; they are the ones who will have to justify this travesty to their subordinates.
Now I'm done.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Journeyman said:
A quick perusal of the comments on this story from newspapers all across the country, or reading stunned and angered comments at non-official military websites such as “army.ca,” shows how completely out of touch the legal system is; I assure you that not everyone is pleased. While the military justice system employs a two-tiered tribunal structure of summary trials and courts martial, for many there is a growing belief that those tiers are more akin to Orwell’s Animal Farm in that “some pigs are more equal than others.” The optics here are appalling.
Now, I won’t speak to LCol Miller’s integrity or what her next move ought to be, or even comment further on the perplexing state of the military’s justice system. Instead, I’ll only express sympathy for those serving members who have the honour and often challenging task of commanding Canada’s troops and mentoring our future leaders; they are the ones who will have to justify this travesty to their subordinates.
Now I'm done.
Journeyman: I've been staying off the site for months, but I can't resist giving you a "BZ" for this post. Well said.
This entire sad matter is, without any doubt, one of the most bitter and heartbreaking things I have witnessed in the CAF, in uniform or out. We seem to have forgotten that we retain a military discipline system for a reason: to maintain a disciplined military. As well as the understandable desire to protect the rights of the accused, and to observe due process, I don't think the legal system should forget the great value of exemplary discipline. Pour encourager les autres. Or perhaps "desencourager" in this case.
I absolutely, utterly, cannot accept for one moment that discourse concerning this matter, (which was always one of clear public record), needed to be restrained by some sort of misplaced concern about "respecting the commission". Please. A commission is a badge of honour and trust, not a sinecure. This individual, quite clearly, and in the judgement of two separate courts martial, utterly disrespected this sacred pact with the country that bestowed it, and the subordinates we expect to loyally follow it. The commission was disrespected all right, but not by people on this site.
A good friend of mine attended the final court martial, and related the proceedings in somewhat more detail than has been provided here. As FJAG has pointed out, the transcript or other records will become available in due course. But, from a layman's point of view, I believe that the presiding judge did what was prudent under the circumstances he was placed in. He was, I'm told, extremely unhapppy, as well he might have been, particularly since apparently the two Legal Officers were the ones acting at Miller's previous CM, but in reversed positions. The bigger question for me is what might have possessed the prosecutor to agree to such a joint submission given the history, but we will likely never know that.
Finally, the action (or, maybe "inaction" )of the chain of command in question here puzzles me. Have we forgotten that character, integrity and following the law are basic requirements of officership? What happened to using the well-proven administrative system to deal with people who are unable to meet the professional standards required by the act of accepting a commission? Yes: it's hard to get rid of officers. Hard...but not impossible. if you are determined and stick at it, the system eventually does what it is supposed to do. A truckload of character references, in my opinion, do not offset the violation of integrity, or excuse the "system" from the duty of demonstrating that higher rank means higher demands and expectations on the bearer of that rank. Not less--more.
I understand the anger and frustration of serving soldiers who look on this as "one rule for the rich , and one for the poor". I feel it too, and I'm glad I'm no longer serving and having to explain this to my troops. I don't envy those who do.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,311
- Points
- 1,160
The judge's reasons for decision on sentence have now been posted at this link:
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/assets/CMJ_Internet/docs/en/2014cm2018_miller_sentence.pdf
:cheers:
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/assets/CMJ_Internet/docs/en/2014cm2018_miller_sentence.pdf
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Could he not done his own thing and sent her to cells for a month?
- Status
Similar threads
