• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

General Vance - Inappropriate conduct?

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
980
Yuup. I guess the fact that he was married at time of his relationship with the US LCol wasn't a factor, and that his wife at the time was the "other woman" from his first marriage. SMFH
I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
301
Points
880
This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. SO you are all telling me that Operation Honour, which I took seriously, was in reality a great big game of pretend?
Army wisdom. They used to send people who committed harassment in a unit on the harassment advisor course. Kind of a punishment and "fix" all in one.

Of course it turned into a running joke where the worst offenders were now the advisors who people have to report harassment to.
"I'm allowed to harass people I'm the harassment advisor yuk yuk"

If you look at how we treated harassment in the military (or army) it makes sense why Vance was put in charge of Op Honour.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
206
Points
680
So MND told PCO, but PCO didn’t think the MND’s information was sufficient to take action...did PCO advise MND it needed more information? Was MND told yet chose to not provide any additional information?
Fortunately the PCO is the bastion of ethical decision making, so if they didn't think it was sufficient to take action we can rest assured everything was fine.
:rolleyes:
The Rock Reaction GIF by WWE
 

hattrick72

New Member
Reaction score
3
Points
80
I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."
Something about ethical standards..... We just don't have the numbers. Their COs can also kick you out for lying and their CO's can be replaced in quick fashion when things are not meeting standard.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
980
Something about ethical standards..... We just don't have the numbers. Their COs can also kick you out for lying and their CO's can be replaced in quick fashion when things are not meeting standard.
I would suggest that ethical standards and numbers were directly related to the number of followers of Judeo-Christian values in the US vs Canada. We have been far more secular (with the exception of Quebec, which finally came around in the 1960's/1970s) than the US, and that continues to influence their interpretation/application of the UCMJ.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
129
Points
680
I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."

Likewise I was on course with the US Army over thirty years ago; probably half of the approx 240 students on the course were female (my platoon, one of four, had 62 in total, 30 were female - Medical Dept, lots of nurses) so there were numerous opportunities during the several months for hanky and panky. While the general motto was don't fool around within 100 miles of the flagpole, it was, to use a phrase that would not be acceptable today, a target rich environment. Adultery, though frowned upon, was not uncommon but the Army didn't take any action unless it was "officially" brought to their notice. There were a few cases when one of the parties to the relationship wanted to continue it following graduation while the other party did not - they just wanted to go home to their family. One way that was dealt with was by friends of the one who didn't want to continue (usually the woman) having a few short, sharp words with the other party. In one instance, when the individual who wanted to continue the relationship became a pest to the other, she made the mistake of bringing the harassment to the attention of her faculty advisor. They were both brought up on charges of adultery, even though only one (the man) was married.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
308
Points
880
I was on a course in the US in 1997 and was astonished to be told that adultery was an offence under the US UCMJ and that punishment often resulted in dismissal. I believe my reaction was something like " If that applied in Canada, we would be kicking out half our military every year."
Adultery is actually not provided for under Title 10 of the US Code within which the core of the UCMJ is contained. What creates the foundation of an offence out of adultery is at 10 U.S.C. § 934 article 134 which is very similar to our section 129 of the NDA. Article 134 reads:

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
The US Military provides a Manual Of Courts Martial which is revised every few years and:

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) is the official guide to the conduct of courts-martial in the United States military. An Executive Order of the President of the United States, the MCM details and expands on the military law established in the statute Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
In a way it is something like our QR&O Vol 2 Disciplinary but it goes much further than mere procedure in that in that it deals with a variety of offences that build on various provisions in Title 10. (It's 936 pages long) With respect to Article 134 it provides at para 62 of Part IV (see page IV-117 of the current 2016 issue of the MCM) what all of the legal elements of the offence of adultery are. It's quite comprehensive for anyone that wants to have a read of it.

In short, adultery is considered by the US military as an offence to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

🍻
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
511
Points
860
Hmm. When a Canadian is posted to the US and an American unit, are they generally subject to the UCMJ? (Obviously someone posted to an embassy would be in a different situation, as Cpl McGregor learned.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
308
Points
880
Hmm. When a Canadian is posted to the US and an American unit, are they generally subject to the UCMJ? (Obviously someone posted to an embassy would be in a different situation, as Cpl McGregor learned.
I'm not an expert on the UCMJ by any stretch but it does have provisions respecting jurisdiction over the person like (but different from) the ones in the NDA. 10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. provides for jurisdiction and includes:
(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Again, the NDA has similar provisions.

I would expect that any CF soldier in the US would be subject at a minimum to the NATO SOFA which provides that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the sending state has priority re offenses done in the course of duties. But it does get fuzzy. One could probably write a university dissertation on the subject but I won't. :D

As an aside I found a more recent version of the MCM for 2019 here.

🍻
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
980
Adultery is actually not provided for under Title 10 of the US Code within which the core of the UCMJ is contained. What creates the foundation of an offence out of adultery is at 10 U.S.C. § 934 article 134 which is very similar to our section 129 of the NDA. Article 134 reads:


The US Military provides a Manual Of Courts Martial which is revised every few years and:


In a way it is something like our QR&O Vol 2 Disciplinary but it goes much further than mere procedure in that in that it deals with a variety of offences that build on various provisions in Title 10. (It's 936 pages long) With respect to Article 134 it provides at para 62 of Part IV (see page IV-117 of the current 2016 issue of the MCM) what all of the legal elements of the offence of adultery are. It's quite comprehensive for anyone that wants to have a read of it.

In short, adultery is considered by the US military as an offence to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

🍻
It is explained thusly, and far more specifically than NDA 129:

The military’s prohibition on adultery is stated in Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which makes adultery a crime when legal criteria, known as “elements,” have all been met. There are three specific elements:

Adultery and Article 134 of the UCMJ: Elements​

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

The first two elements are self-explanatory; the third is more complex. The “explanation” part of Article 134 identifies several factors military commanders should consider, including whether the soldier or his or her sexual partner were “legally separated.” A legal separation involves a signed a formal separation agreement with a spouse or a court-ordered of separation issued by the state.

While being legally separated weighs into whether a sexual relationship violates Article 134, it is not the only consideration. Article 134 "explanations" identifies other factors for commanders including:

  • The rank and position of the parties involved
  • The impact on the military unit
  • The potential misuse of government time or resources to facilitate the prohibited conduct
  • Whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other UCMJ violations

Adultery and Article 134 of the UCMJ: Explanation​

(1) Nature of offense. Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member.

(2) Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember.

Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem. While adulterous conduct that is private and discreet in nature may not be service discrediting by this standard, under the circumstances, it may be determined to be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Commanders should consider all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the following factors, when determining whether adulterous acts are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces:


(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;

(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;

(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;

(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;

(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;

(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;

(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;

(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and

(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.

(3) Marriage: A marriage exists until it is dissolved in accordance with the laws of a competent state or foreign jurisdiction.

(4) Mistake of fact: A defense of mistake of fact exists if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief either that the accused and the co-actor were both unmarried, or that they were lawfully married to each other. If this defense is raised by the evidence, then the burden of proof is upon the United States to establish that the accused's belief was unreasonable or not honest.".

My point is that one can carry on an adulterous relationship within the CAF and not contravene NDA 129. The restrictions in the UCMJ are far more constraining.
 
Last edited:

hattrick72

New Member
Reaction score
3
Points
80
I would suggest that ethical standards and numbers were directly related to the number of followers of Judeo-Christian values in the US vs Canada. We have been far more secular (with the exception of Quebec, which finally came around in the 1960's/1970s) than the US, and that continues to influence their interpretation/application of the UCMJ.
I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.

Here is an example:

A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.

The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."

An email was sent out unit wide that said:
1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.

Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.

Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.

So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.

The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.

The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.

Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.

This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.

Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.

To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
851
Points
910
I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.

Here is an example:

A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.

The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."

An email was sent out unit wide that said:
1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.

Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.

Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.

So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.

The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.

The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.

Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.

This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.

Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.

To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.

Dude, I want that JR's PMC in my unit.

As CO :)
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
980
I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.

Here is an example:

A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.

The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."

An email was sent out unit wide that said:
1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.

Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.

Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.

So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.

The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.

The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.

Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.

This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.

Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.

To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.
Ummmmmmmmmm.........OK. Good war story, sort of.

My post was in response to your comparing US and Canadian military systems of justice, and perhaps how/why they differ.
 

Kilted

Member
Reaction score
51
Points
280
I am suggesting that we lack the fortitude to do what is right and hold people accountable for their actions or lack of actions. Some would say we lack the numbers, others would say we lack the ability to replace quick enough as the posting budget wouldn't support, some would just rationalise the behaviour away (that is my top Cpl/Sgt/Maj etc.) And it was a one time thing. The list of reasons is too exhaustive to list.

Here is an example:

A Jr officer or SNCO gets caught bringing their own liquor into a mess during a unit Christmas party. The Cpl running the mess for the event finds the flask, and approaches the CO of the host unit. The Cpl shutdown the event and sent everyone home (2200hrs). The CO argued with the Cpl stating he/she would like the party to continue and that she/he would be better to handle the situation on his/her own at a later time. The Cpl held their ground and shut the event down.

The CO was already furious, a member of the unit approached the CO to report that they overheard the Cpl state, "I am going to shut this event down early, because this unit left the mess a shit show last year."

An email was sent out unit wide that said:
1. The Lt that left the flask out came forward, I am satisfied with this and nothing further will be administered (charges or administrative measures).
2. If anyone else heard the Cpl say they were going to shut the party down I want you to come forward.
3. I will be raising this issue with the mess and the Cpl will be held accountable for their actions/removed from their job.

Another email came out next week that said, the mess did not remove the Cpl nor did they punish the member. So we will not be participating in that mess going forward and that includes the Soldiers Dinner being held there next week.

Now, administrative measures are nobody else business other than the members and the direct CoC above them. That being said both Lt's were promoted to Capt very shortly after that (one was a week later, the other six weeks later). The Capt the was promoted first was put in charge of the Soldiers Dinner that the unit held in March to replace the one they cancelled.

So how does this tie into what is being discussed; given the outcomes, lost Christmas party, broken liquor laws, lost Soldiers Dinner (consequent of CO decision), nobody was held accountable for their actions.

The fact is, our members are not aware of avenues to report outside CoC. Sometimes the avenue doesn't really exist or is hairy, such as needing the PCO to act, in the Generals case, it could have been reported to the CDS before they were appointed.

The reason it wasn't is because too many people worry about losing their next promotion if they speak up, even when they know they are right.

Not one SNCO or Major and above challenged the CO on their decision to cancel a very important tradition that should've superceded their emotion. None of them brought it to the OCC attention and if they did nothing happened.

This is a perpetual issue that a lot of units, commands face and it is the reason we can't overcome harassment, op honour, etc.

Once we figure out that morale and discipline improves when our best can be held accountable and allowed to progress if they react and fix the shortcomings appropriately, the rest should fall in place. The ones that don't will have leaders that went through being held accountable and won't rationalise the behaviour away with the thought; they were given a pass in a similar instance and look at where I am now.

To me the story isn't that the CDS may have or may not have acted inappropriately. The story is we never tried to investigate when it was brought up originally.
So they tried to punnish the PMC/whatever his position was for doing his job?
 

hattrick72

New Member
Reaction score
3
Points
80
Ummmmmmmmmm.........OK. Good war story, sort of.

My post was in response to your comparing US and Canadian military systems of justice, and perhaps how/why they differ.
They differ because we hold our standards differently. Adultery can be charged under a number of things and the higher the rank the more you put into question your ability to make ethical decisions.

The story was just to illustrate how far we can look the other way in what would seem like an easy black and white situation, that is ridiculous to boot. The black and white being is that an example of alcohol misconduct and is it right to hold the decision of the outcome at your level or should it be sent to Ottawa for their decision as suggested in the DAOD.

My wife was in the US Air Force and I spent a year with her at her PCS. The way they handle discipline and deportment is completely different from what I have seen in my 15 year career. They are not perfect, but the majority of the situations that come up make it to their JAG and they don't ignore the advice.
 

hattrick72

New Member
Reaction score
3
Points
80
So they tried to punnish the PMC/whatever his position was for doing his job?
They wanted that to be the outcome, but the other CoC saw it for what it was.

IMO, a Cpl doesn't show that kind of resolve unless they are very set in their ways or they weren't given permission to shut things down a little early if things got messy.

My main point is, if we can't figure out the easy things we have no hope of not being embarrassed everyone the chosen ones get found out in the media.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
162
Points
780
I'm not sure under what authority the Cpl had to close the entire event because of an individual bringing in offsite alcohol... I've worked those mess dinners as the Bartender, and been in mess dinners when folks brought in alcohol. It's poured out, and if the individual is a jerk about pouring it out they're told to leave. Party carries on unless a series of incidents start happening and then you find the nearest responsible CSM/SSM and let them know you'll have to close the bar if people carry on. Problem is normally solved 99% of the time at that point.
 

hattrick72

New Member
Reaction score
3
Points
80
I'm not sure under what authority the Cpl had to close the entire event because of an individual bringing in offsite alcohol... I've worked those mess dinners as the Bartender, and been in mess dinners when folks brought in alcohol. It's poured out, and if the individual is a jerk about pouring it out they're told to leave. Party carries on unless a series of incidents start happening and then you find the nearest responsible CSM/SSM and let them know you'll have to close the bar if people carry on. Problem is normally solved 99% of the time at that point.
My opinion is the CO could've been trusted to handle it and the event could have been left to continue. This was a unit Christmas party not a mess dinner. Their were spouses at the event as well.

From the standpoint of the mess, they could lose their liquor licence of they were inspected and a patron was found to have their own liquor. They also lose the ability to stop serving someone if they are too drunk. The latter is far more plausible.

In a private establishment, the group at the table would've been kicked out and the rest of the patrons would've been left alone. I am guessing they have had this problem in the past and they probably had it in the Constitution.

I just feel it is a good example of how fast a situation can fall apart when you don't remove emotion and subordinates are too afraid to speak up.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
406
Points
980
They differ because we hold our standards differently.
That, sort of, was my point. We have different military standards because we are different societies.

Adultery can be charged under a number of things and the higher the rank the more you put into question your ability to make ethical decisions.
Ummmmm no. Adultery/ethics knows no rank.

The story was just to illustrate how far we can look the other way in what would seem like an easy black and white situation, that is ridiculous to boot. The black and white being is that an example of alcohol misconduct and is it right to hold the decision of the outcome at your level or should it be sent to Ottawa for their decision as suggested in the DAOD.
Seems like it was black and white to me. The Cpl shut down the dinner.
My wife was in the US Air Force and I spent a year with her at her PCS. The way they handle discipline and deportment is completely different from what I have seen in my 15 year career. They are not perfect, but the majority of the situations that come up make it to their JAG and they don't ignore the advice.
They have a UCMJ, we have a NDA. And the CAF JAG is pretty good at suggesting charges, when they are warranted.
 
Top