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

Ottawa soldier alleges he faced reprisals from military

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,147
Points
1,160
Beyond the Now, thanks for sharing your history and your perspective with a number of very valid points.

Regards
G2G
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
276
Points
1,010
BeyondTheNow said:
I think it’s crucially important to be aware that these types of issues can be painful triggers for some coming from all sides of the spectrum—assaulted, accused & falsely accused. Perspective and empathy are greatly needed here. We don’t know much, if any, about people’s backgrounds on these boards unless they’ve decided to share experiences which have lead them to feeling the way they do about topics which have the potential to become emotionally charged. And many aren’t comfortable doing that.

As evidenced a bit through my later posts in this thread, I’m frustrated and highly skeptical of all parties involved now, especially after reading the transcript. That being said, I want to explain a few things from my own perspective & experiences (which I’ve decided to do based off a few of the comments made).

The reason I’m frustrated is because when situations like this occur where the complainant and/or accused don’t (appear) to be telling the whole truth—and let’s be clear...while the complainant’s version of facts are questionable, the accused’s are just as much...then it’s harder for every single person coming after them to navigate their own situation. Again, that applies to both the complainant and the accused in any situation.

I’ve mentioned I was sexually assaulted outside CAF in another thread. (Personally, I hate the term “sexually assaulted.” It’s unclear because it now encompasses everything from inappropriate touching/fondling to full-out penetration.) So let’s be clear—I was raped. I was a teenager. I attempted to tell one person who I deeply, deeply trusted. Do you know what happened? That person told me they didn’t believe me. Do you know what happened next? I didn’t tell another individual for well over 20 years.

As I look back now, after maturing, therapy, coming to peace with the event and moving on with my life, I can recall every vivid, scary, painful detail through a calm mind. But then? Being young, as well as being scared, confused, angry, feeling alone, feeling violated and having my worst fear come true on top of it all?—which was not being believed? I absolutely know that details changed and I left things out or put them back in as I tried to recall things through a racing mind and lack of full comprehension of my emotional state. So, my point is that a victim’s story having inconsistencies isn’t necessarily indicative of the incident not having occurred and falsely accusing another. Furthermore, increased trauma is absolutely added to the entire situation when the victim is facing skepticism, coldness and a lack of understanding and/or pressure to recall everything.

On the flip side, while I’ve never been in the situation, I can absolutely empathize with an individual who’s being accused of an assault which never took place. And when the repercussion is the loss of everything the individual has worked hard for, then it’s even more devastating. I don’t to have personally gone through the situation to understand how difficult it could be for another.

I don’t think anyone is “disgusting” (or their comments) for expressing their POV, nor do I think it was necessary to scoff at another person’s equally-as-passionate feelings towards words expressed. As I said, circulation of these types of situations can be triggers for different people for different reasons.

I personally think this is a great post and a very balanced one. I don't think for a second that people who commit crimes shouldn't be brought to justice but false accusations are not a harmless crime.

If you are going to accuse someone of something as serious as sexual assault, you better be prepared to have your accusation intensely scrutinized and if your story is found out to be false you should be held accountable.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,147
Points
1,160
Humphrey Bogart said:
...if your story is found out to be false you should be held accountable.

An important point.  Not just ‘accusations unproven’ but confirmation of fabrication of accusation, should be dealt with appropriately.  We (society writ large) do not do this in any measure.

Regards
G2G
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
If someone intentionally falsifies something there should most definitely be consequences but just because a judge throws out the charges or finds the accused not guilty, that isn't the same as if the accused lied about everything.

Another concern I have and everyone else should have is the matter of the claim.  As a previous RMS Clerk, I can't even remember how many times people tried to claim things they are not entitled to claim.  Not once was someone disciplined for it.  They either have items removed and told they can't claim them or if it gets through and later caught, the claim is amended and they need to pay back the things they shouldn't have been reimbursed for.

 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
81
Points
330
Remember this event happened, that part wasn't what was argued. What was argued was whether or not it was consensual. They didn't prove it wasn't consensual which is why it failed in trial. However they also didn't prove it was consensual.

I can imagine nothing worse than someone going to trial against their assaulter and having that person being found not guilty even if you know they did it, all because you don't have the evidence to prove it. Afterwards they are accused of being a liar, being out to ruin someone's life, and that they should face charges for daring to attempt to find their attacker guilty.

This is also why many people don't come forward with their cases, or if they do its years after the fact once they have had time to deal with the trauma. Look at how many are coming out of the woodwork with OP Honour, its not like these people were just lying waiting to have these people charged for no reason.

I am not saying that standard of proof needs to be changed, but what I am saying is a lot of criminals don't get convicted due to that high standard required. Throwing in charges against someone who is basically being brutalized by first by the accused, then by the system is not a fair or reasonable act. 
 

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stellarpanther said:
Another concern I have and everyone else should have is the matter of the claim.  As a previous RMS Clerk, I can't even remember how many times people tried to claim things they are not entitled to claim.  Not once was someone disciplined for it.  They either have items removed and told they can't claim them or if it gets through and later caught, the claim is amended and they need to pay back the things they shouldn't have been reimbursed for.

This.

Quite a few times Ive seen the CoC tell someone they are entitled, yet a simple check of policy would indicate otherwise. And unfortunately its the member that ends up paying back. However that being said, i think everyone should be checking CBIs and CFTDIs and be familiar with them. I see lots of issues with people not knowing every day.

This is where my first comment on this topic came from. Did the original grievance wrt claims get upheld and then reversed because "CoC said it was g2g" and then then the analyst did an "oh shit, it doesnt matter, we have to follow policy"
Maybe the same situation with the CDS. Outside review says the member was good, yet ignored policy and the CDS was just following it?
Tough to say without the finer details. But is a question worth asking.
 

gryphonv

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Eaglelord17 said:
its not like these people were just lying waiting to have these people charged for no reason.

I need to chime in on this part,

I have the unenviable position of being both accused and having experienced sexual assault.

In my teenage years I was accused of it, the person who I slept with only did it after their partner found out we did. It was totally a false accusation, it never really went anywhere and sort of just stopped being a thing. But it still poisoned me for life. The person lied, just to get out of an uncomfortable situation.

Years later, while in an off base 'coffee course', I was assaulted by one of the other course attendants. This person wasn't in the military, but what they did to me was very similar to what the accused was accused of doing in this case. I freaked at the time, but it was downplayed by the staff there and many others, while the 'accused' in this case managed to stay on the course with only repercussion of having to change their sleeping arrangements. While I downplay this, and it isn't as serious as someone who was raped, I still struggle with this to today, and I struggle with being accused of it in the past.

So I can relate to both sides of the situation. Being assaulted and being falsely accused can and most likely will have life long consequences. People will and can do lie on both sides of the spectrum. With that said, I feel every accusation should be taken seriously and investigated fully. But if found to be malicious, or an outright falsehood, they should face their own punishment.

Simply saying to the falsely accused that they should be happy it's over, is the same as saying to a sexual assault victim to 'suck it up' and move on.

These cases are all unique and there is no one size fits all for it. Right now the with current attitudes of the public, the accused is usually tried and found guilty by the court of public opinion long before they get a chance to defend themselves. And that gives more motive to people to do a false accusation. Like it or not, some people will always side with the accuser regardless (seems to be the norm today), and some will even side with the accused regardless.

I'll leave that there for now, but until we can publicly respect the accused and accusers rights in these situations, there will always be problems with how these things are dealt with.

These words were a lot harder to write than it seems.
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
sidemount said:
This.

Quite a few times Ive seen the CoC tell someone they are entitled, yet a simple check of policy would indicate otherwise. And unfortunately its the member that ends up paying back. However that being said, i think everyone should be checking CBIs and CFTDIs and be familiar with them. I see lots of issues with people not knowing every day.

This is where my first comment on this topic came from. Did the original grievance wrt claims get upheld and then reversed because "CoC said it was g2g" and then then the analyst did an "oh crap, it doesnt matter, we have to follow policy"
Maybe the same situation with the CDS. Outside review says the member was good, yet ignored policy and the CDS was just following it?
Tough to say without the finer details. But is a question worth asking.

In the article, it mentions that the mbr could now possibly be CM's because of the claim issues which is something that I take issue with.  Trying to claim things they shouldn't be happens all the time with nothing more than a "you can't claim that".  Nobody gets charged for trying to claim something they shouldn't be.

The rest of it, since I'm not a legal expert of grievance expert, I'll keep my opinions of it to myself.

 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
910
stellarpanther said:
In the article, it mentions that the mbr could now possibly be CM's because of the claim issues which is something that I take issue with.  Trying to claim things they shouldn't be happens all the time with nothing more than a "you can't claim that".  Nobody gets charged for trying to claim something they shouldn't be.

The rest of it, since I'm not a legal expert of grievance expert, I'll keep my opinions of it to myself.

This is entirely false. People can and do get charged all the time for improperly claiming things they are not entitled to. I have personally seen it happen. Ask the chief judge of the CAF about it: he is currently facing a court martial of his own for this very thing.

You, the member, are responsible for what you claim. Not the RMS clerk who processes the claim and not your CO who approves the claim. Pro tip: regardless of your rank and time in service, male an effort to understand CFTDIs and the CBIs. If you are not sure: ask. If you are really not sure: err on the safe side and don't claim it. Is your job worth a few bucks?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
115
Points
710
SeaKingTacco said:
This is entirely false. People can and do get charged all the time for improperly claiming things they are not entitled to. I have personally seen it happen. Ask the chief judge of the CAF about it: he is currently facing a court martial of his own for this very thing.

You, the member, are responsible for what you claim. Not the RMS clerk who processes the claim and not your CO who approves the claim. Pro tip: regardless of your rank and time in service, male an effort to understand CFTDIs and the CBIs. If you are not sure: ask. If you are really not sure: err on the safe side and don't claim it. Is your job worth a few bucks?

If I had to guess, this Corporal, like most, did not know the process for "non-claimable days" which I don't actually believe is in any of those policies as it's about "how to administer/finalize a claim" which is, in fact, the area of expertise of the FSAs. I don't know how much support he would have gotten in the claims process at a PRes Int Coy, but I'd guess very little. I am familiar with one of the PRes Int Coys out here and they are a complete gongshow for all of these things due to the fact that they are PRes, completely geographically dispersed, etc. Chances are the clerks made an honest mistake and this guy continued to do as he was told and signed it. I find it a lot more probable that this was effed up through an innocent mistake than a malicious attempt to rob the government of $80 for a rental car that he didn't want in the first place. The military grievance committee also seems to agree, and that committee is one of the few remaining things in the CAF I still have any faith in.*

Regardless, I'd be pretty surprised see anyone punished / have this held against them in any normal circumstances unless there was pretty rock solid evidence that it wasn't a mistake, as the chance of being an honest mistake is so high.

*While I understand the article is one-sided, the fact that the grievance committee concluded in the manner that it did is what makes me lean heavily that way. I look forward to seeing all the facts come out but having to rely on the credibility of the various organizations/people involved, the grievance committee has more credibility than any of them in my eyes.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
910
Ballz,

To be clear, I was reacting to stellarpanther's comment. I actually have no opinion about the Cpl in the article that started this thread, as I do not have enough information to form one.
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
SeaKingTacco said:
This is entirely false. People can and do get charged all the time for improperly claiming things they are not entitled to. I have personally seen it happen. Ask the chief judge of the CAF about it: he is currently facing a court martial of his own for this very thing.

You, the member, are responsible for what you claim. Not the RMS clerk who processes the claim and not your CO who approves the claim. Pro tip: regardless of your rank and time in service, male an effort to understand CFTDIs and the CBIs. If you are not sure: ask. If you are really not sure: err on the safe side and don't claim it. Is your job worth a few bucks?

Maybe it does happen but in over 16 years, I have never seen a person charged.  As an example, when a mbr is authorized a rental car, they are to get a intermediate sized car.  I've seen more than a few come back trying to claim a SUV and a separate charge for a GPS which is not claimable.  One of them was picked up by an audit.  The only thing that I've seen happen is they are told they can't claim it and only get to claim the amount that a intermediate car would have cost.  If it was already paid out they pay back the difference.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
910
stellarpanther said:
Maybe it does happen but in over 16 years, I have never seen a person charged.  As an example, when a mbr is authorized a rental car, they are to get a intermediate sized car.  I've seen more than a few come back trying to claim a SUV and a separate charge for a GPS which is not claimable.  One of them was picked up by an audit.  The only thing that I've seen happen is they are told they can't claim it and only get to claim the amount that a intermediate car would have cost.  If it was already paid out they pay back the difference.

Fine. You have never personally seen anyone charged for it.

I am telling you that I have personally seen people charged and found guilty for it.

Which is all to say that the Cpl in question cannot necessarily tie his disciplinary issues over a claim to his "whistleblower" status. Being a hero in one situation does not give you a shield in other situations.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
276
Points
1,010
stellarpanther said:
Maybe it does happen but in over 16 years, I have never seen a person charged.  As an example, when a mbr is authorized a rental car, they are to get a intermediate sized car.  I've seen more than a few come back trying to claim a SUV and a separate charge for a GPS which is not claimable.  One of them was picked up by an audit.  The only thing that I've seen happen is they are told they can't claim it and only get to claim the amount that a intermediate car would have cost.  If it was already paid out they pay back the difference.

Go on the Court Martial page, there are three Recent Decisions related to fraudulent expenses just from this year.
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
SeaKingTacco said:
Fine. You have never personally seen anyone charged for it.

I am telling you that I have personally seen people charged and found guilty for it.

Which is all to say that the Cpl in question cannot necessarily tie his disciplinary issues over a claim to his "whistleblower" status. Being a hero in one situation does not give you a shield in other situations.

Just to make sure were on the same page here, are you referring to a person making up a fraudulent CF52 claim saying that they paid for something and then stealing their WO's stamp and forging the signature and making it look like the claim was section 32'd and 34'd because that I've seen happen a few times and they were caught and charged as they should be or are you talking about a person who tries to claim the wrong size car or a claim a car that wasn't approved in advance because that I've also seen happen but not get charged because of it.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
306
Points
880
Humphrey Bogart said:
Go on the Court Martial page, there are three Recent Decisions related to fraudulent expenses just from this year.

Sure wish we would get this serious about openly disobeying the local purchasing regulations.

But I have seen that too.
 

BeyondTheNow

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
4
Points
530
I’m inclined to lean towards a sentiment mentioned earlier where rarely, at least in my experience during my PRes posting, will one ever see a combat arms Cpl (purposely and/or with the intent to deceive) trying to take advantage and claim things he/she isn’t entitled to. (I’ve encountered a few Sgts and above here and there though, in which case, yeah, the clerk tells them ‘no, sorry’ and that’s the end of that—Mostly—Sometimes an issue will get escalated to CClk so that they can be told “no” again...)

But anyway, they only vaguely know what they’re entitled to in a narrow field of circumstances. Meals during travel over certain time-periods, boots up to certain cost after tax, some are aware of TAA (but many aren’t), and many are even clueless about CLDA...

If there’s extensive travel required for a course or something, we usually have to tell them exactly what will be reimbursed, explicitly tell them what receipts and other paperwork they’ll need to hold onto, etc. (The majority of them don’t keep their DWAN active, let alone take time to familiarize themselves with CFTDTIs, know what they should be entitled to and why, and so on.) I’m also struggling with accepting that this Cpl knew enough about how to work the system in order to try and pull a fast one—I think he simply would’ve done what he was told to do. I’m prone to benefit of the doubt though... :dunno:

Of course I wasn’t there...’just my thoughts on one element of the situation as it was presented in the article.

WRT charges, I’ve also read about a few instances of pers getting charged related to claim entitlements/payouts. But the majority of the instances I’m aware of, again, involve those with the rank and/or knowledge/experience on how to proceed fraudulently. A Pte or Cpl? I’m sure examples exist somewhere, but they aren’t common.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
826
Points
940
In the context of this story it looks like the cpls coc was looking for reasons to charge him. Common tactic to punish someone in a round about way.



 

BeyondTheNow

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
4
Points
530
Jarnhamar said:
In the context of this story it looks like the cpls coc was looking for reasons to charge him. Common tactic to punish someone in a round about way.

Yes, good point for those who haven’t read it.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
347
Points
910
Big difference between something being audited and found that something claimed wasn't allowed and the requirement for a CM.  I've been audited a few times, and sometimes it goes back and forth as to why you claimed something (ex they took off a meal because of a flight time but ignored the actual travel to the airport as per the itinerary, but spent a while sorting it out. In one case took an extra month for a fairly expensive claim to be paid out because I didn't claim the tip on a taxi)

The ones that I can remember from past court martials were things like people manufactured receipts for extra claims, or made up a different itinerary to get some extra meals. If there are flights, should be be straightforward to figure it out in this case (especially if booked through the CAF). But without proper oversight, pretty easy to screw people around and threaten them with all kinds of stuff, so not sure if the relatively niche isolation of some of these units makes it worse. Really strange that the CDS didn't go along with the analysts recommendations (as they sounded like they were based on some easily demonstrable facts) but have no idea what the facts are, so not really sure what the right decision is. Does seem like they are going out of their way to jerk him around, and the threat against his security clearance is a pretty big one to brow beat someone in the Int world with.
 
Top