J
Sailor Derek de Jong and Other Ship Misconducts?
- Thread starter ModlrMike
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,502
- Points
- 1,140
If half of what he says is true, I would gather that this ships company will be investigated .....,
- Reaction score
- 4,854
- Points
- 1,060
Jim Seggie said:
Something in me says it won't Jim. Some polite inquiries from the top perchance and maybe a quiet purge of a few lower ranking individuals to other pastures.
A formal inquiry might be announced, but it'll probably be PR window dressing.
- Reaction score
- 4,333
- Points
- 1,160
Jim Seggie said:
Why?
Let's assume everything he said is true ... an officer behaved badly; Lt(N) de Jong reported it to the captain; he (Lt(N) d Jong) was not satisfied with whatever actions the captain took or did not take. So what? What actions did the captain take? Do you know? I certainly don't. Maybe the captain spoke to the officer who behaved badly and suggested that, at some appropriate time, she should apologize to Lt(N) de Jong; maybe the captain just just shook his head in dismay and said to himself "Lt(N) ______ will get an adverse performance report based on reported disgraceful conduct which does not rise to the standard requiring formal disciplinary action, but Lt(N) de Jong has got to grow up."
It seems to me that this is well within a commanding officer's discretion. Lt(N) de Jong may be an excellent logistics officer but, it appears, to me, that he may be just a wee, tiny bit too delicate to be a seagoing officer. (Having said that if someone of about the rank peed in my room I would have taken swift, physical, retaliatory action, including a forced scrubbing of my floor.)
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
E.R. Campbell said:
Amen! I would use their face as the bloody mop!
- Reaction score
- 268
- Points
- 780
Except for the fact, according to the story, it was a senior female officer. Are we now advocating violence against women?
- Reaction score
- 4,333
- Points
- 1,160
Does being female excuse one from the normal, generally accepted rules of good conduct? Not in the army in which I served ... all members, all sexes, all races, all creeds were held to one, common standard of conduct.
I fully, and confidently, expect that the captain and the XO, both, corrected that officer and that her misconduct will be reflected on her PER and it will impact her career.
Not every act of misconduct rises to a level that requires formal disciplinary action, and, sometimes, even when it does, the misconduct, especially amongst officers and senior NCOs, will not be easy to prove (at the required level) at a court martial.
If female officers want to fly with the eagles they had better be prepared to coexist in the same nest; if supply officers are too delicate to correct a mess mate then maybe they need to try Canadian Tire instead of the Canadian Forces.
I fully, and confidently, expect that the captain and the XO, both, corrected that officer and that her misconduct will be reflected on her PER and it will impact her career.
Not every act of misconduct rises to a level that requires formal disciplinary action, and, sometimes, even when it does, the misconduct, especially amongst officers and senior NCOs, will not be easy to prove (at the required level) at a court martial.
If female officers want to fly with the eagles they had better be prepared to coexist in the same nest; if supply officers are too delicate to correct a mess mate then maybe they need to try Canadian Tire instead of the Canadian Forces.
- Reaction score
- 268
- Points
- 780
I was replying to the notion that one would "use their face as a bloody mop" and "swift, physical, retaliatory action."
I am in no way endorsing the individuals actions, but I do believe in cases like this there does need to be open disciplinary measures taken. Even if securing a conviction was not possible, it would at least demonstrate, publicly, that these behaviors are not tolerated. Comments on a PER do not do anything for general deterrence.
I am in no way endorsing the individuals actions, but I do believe in cases like this there does need to be open disciplinary measures taken. Even if securing a conviction was not possible, it would at least demonstrate, publicly, that these behaviors are not tolerated. Comments on a PER do not do anything for general deterrence.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
captloadie said:
I took that statement to be gender neutral.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
I suspect that in today's politically correct society and military service we would be expected to all come together in a circle, discuss our feelings about the member urinating on the floor, have a group hug and the sing "Kumbaya".
Mr. de Jong may well be outstanding at doing his JOB.
But in my opinion sorely lacks sufficient understanding of his chosen CAREER.
Mr. de Jong may well be outstanding at doing his JOB.
But in my opinion sorely lacks sufficient understanding of his chosen CAREER.
NavyHopeful
Member
- Reaction score
- 29
- Points
- 330
As a VERY Jr member of the RCN (with only 3 years under my belt), I am at a loss for words to describe the feelings of confusion I have for this whole situation. I was under the impression that something of this situation was to be dealt with internally, through the proper channels. Is this not why all of our units have personnel dedicated as harassment advisers? The CF puts people through courses to act as harassment advisers, and I have been offered it once or twice already (and would take it, if training and departmental work wasn't a priority at the moment), so that we (anyone within the unit) can approach a member of the Unit Harassment Committee (or whatever the hell they're called) to report the feelings of hurt, neglect, or harassment they are receiving from another member in the unit.
I can attest to the majority of my unit's ability to "deal with it at the lowest level", having had a mess mate sleeping in a rack above mine during a port visit become ill, and accidentally missing the bucket. Thank the lord for the little curtain, or I would've worn it. Sure I was upset about it, but the member and the Senior hand of the mess looked after it, and after the young lad apologized profusely and exchanged my linens, everything was okie-dokie.
That said, I cannot relate to the whole "urinating on the floor, and posting a sign on the door that reads Female Heads" scenario. I CAN tell you that the difference between harassment and fooling around (or being a schmuck) is directly related to intent and perception. If I cried "HARRASSMENT" every time someone made a fat joke, I'd have to ensure that I was the primary person getting the crap-stick. Yeah, I'm a big dude. And yeah, I pick on myself for it (I'm probably the one person who harasses myself WAY too much). I do it as a defense mechanism. I learned long ago that if you make fun of yourself a lot, it takes the gas out of bullies when they try to do it to you. And I've done it for so long, that it actually has become somewhat of a habit. People have come to expect that no one knows what I'm going to say next, but it'll either be smart, funny, or stupid (heavy emphasis on the last one... see? I'm doing it AGAIN).
Basically, my whole thoughts on Lt(N) De Jong's scenario, from a dopey AB's perspective are this: Who was his harassment adviser? I believe it is either another Lt(N), or possibly the XO. That being the case, if he reported the event as harassment, it is essential that it is investigated and responded to in a timely manner. And, to be clear and fair, a couple of days during a foreign port visit is probably not an effective amount of time for something as intricate as harassment to be investigated and dealt with, owing to the fact that one, or both of the members involved may be floating around in town, doing whatever it is that they have planned. So, once the ship is back to sea, and all members are present and accounted for, the matter can be dealt with swiftly and, hopefully, justly. I have seen that any sort of possible harassment at sea is dealt with in a swift manner and usually has a tone of finality to it (from the experience of a departmental coworker).
So, in my opinion, had this event happened to me, I would have utilized my proper procedures by advising my proper Chain of Command, and my Harassment Adviser, about the events that had taking place. If I felt that it was being dealt with flippantly, or not at all, my next step would be to submit a Personnel Request and memo to have the incident investigated properly. I have always been told by supervisors and instructors that if I am every in doubt, get it in writing. If you cry to someone about a colleague peeing in your living space, and they tell you to suck it up and deal with it, well that's one thing, and it's one person's word against the other. If you fill out a statement/memo, well then, you have documentation to back up your claim, and in my experience, a story can be told, and told, and told again, and it never remains the same, but if you have it in writing, well, my friend, that's called EVIDENCE.
If you need to leave a unit during a deployment, use your proper channels. I'm certain that if Lt(N) De Jong had informed the ship's doc or padre, and informed them that he was suffering from undue stress due to workplace harassment, they would have moved mountains to ensure that he would not remain in such a "toxic" environment. I have seen people get landed from sails because they just couldn't handle being at sea. It isn't a weakness thing; sailing isn't for everyone. I will never look down on someone who went to sea, and couldn't handle it. I know of people who have LOADS of sea time, and still have trouble going to sea. It's all about the PERCEPTION.
Basically, Lt(N) De Jong should never have felt the need to abandon his post because of harassment. He should have felt that, even though that situation may have needed a few extra days to resolve, that a resolution would've been in place before too long, and that his "toxic work environment" would have either been rectified, or he would have been permitted to return to Halifax, without the need to turn himself in to the MPs and go through all of this hullabaloo.
As for his sentence... Well, a $5,000 fine and a severe reprimand may seem just in the light of the harassment claims, the scenario of the events, and the location of the ship when he left; however, I have done the same deployment, and I can tell you that the ship needs its LogO for this deployment. Without that position being filled, the ship would have no food, fuel, replacement parts for repairs, mail, jetties at foreign ports, or anything else that you can think of that is coordinated by the LogO. Basically everything a ship needs for it's sailors to be able to function well as a whole will, in some way, be connected to the Log Dept. I think that the people who think his sentence was too heavy or just right need to think of the bigger picture here. Not only did he leave his unit, but he held a very important position within that unit that could have potentially prevented that unit from participating in their mission. If this had been someone on the ground in Afghanistan, how would his/her court martial play out? Would it have the same results? I think not.
I can attest to the majority of my unit's ability to "deal with it at the lowest level", having had a mess mate sleeping in a rack above mine during a port visit become ill, and accidentally missing the bucket. Thank the lord for the little curtain, or I would've worn it. Sure I was upset about it, but the member and the Senior hand of the mess looked after it, and after the young lad apologized profusely and exchanged my linens, everything was okie-dokie.
That said, I cannot relate to the whole "urinating on the floor, and posting a sign on the door that reads Female Heads" scenario. I CAN tell you that the difference between harassment and fooling around (or being a schmuck) is directly related to intent and perception. If I cried "HARRASSMENT" every time someone made a fat joke, I'd have to ensure that I was the primary person getting the crap-stick. Yeah, I'm a big dude. And yeah, I pick on myself for it (I'm probably the one person who harasses myself WAY too much). I do it as a defense mechanism. I learned long ago that if you make fun of yourself a lot, it takes the gas out of bullies when they try to do it to you. And I've done it for so long, that it actually has become somewhat of a habit. People have come to expect that no one knows what I'm going to say next, but it'll either be smart, funny, or stupid (heavy emphasis on the last one... see? I'm doing it AGAIN).
Basically, my whole thoughts on Lt(N) De Jong's scenario, from a dopey AB's perspective are this: Who was his harassment adviser? I believe it is either another Lt(N), or possibly the XO. That being the case, if he reported the event as harassment, it is essential that it is investigated and responded to in a timely manner. And, to be clear and fair, a couple of days during a foreign port visit is probably not an effective amount of time for something as intricate as harassment to be investigated and dealt with, owing to the fact that one, or both of the members involved may be floating around in town, doing whatever it is that they have planned. So, once the ship is back to sea, and all members are present and accounted for, the matter can be dealt with swiftly and, hopefully, justly. I have seen that any sort of possible harassment at sea is dealt with in a swift manner and usually has a tone of finality to it (from the experience of a departmental coworker).
So, in my opinion, had this event happened to me, I would have utilized my proper procedures by advising my proper Chain of Command, and my Harassment Adviser, about the events that had taking place. If I felt that it was being dealt with flippantly, or not at all, my next step would be to submit a Personnel Request and memo to have the incident investigated properly. I have always been told by supervisors and instructors that if I am every in doubt, get it in writing. If you cry to someone about a colleague peeing in your living space, and they tell you to suck it up and deal with it, well that's one thing, and it's one person's word against the other. If you fill out a statement/memo, well then, you have documentation to back up your claim, and in my experience, a story can be told, and told, and told again, and it never remains the same, but if you have it in writing, well, my friend, that's called EVIDENCE.
If you need to leave a unit during a deployment, use your proper channels. I'm certain that if Lt(N) De Jong had informed the ship's doc or padre, and informed them that he was suffering from undue stress due to workplace harassment, they would have moved mountains to ensure that he would not remain in such a "toxic" environment. I have seen people get landed from sails because they just couldn't handle being at sea. It isn't a weakness thing; sailing isn't for everyone. I will never look down on someone who went to sea, and couldn't handle it. I know of people who have LOADS of sea time, and still have trouble going to sea. It's all about the PERCEPTION.
Basically, Lt(N) De Jong should never have felt the need to abandon his post because of harassment. He should have felt that, even though that situation may have needed a few extra days to resolve, that a resolution would've been in place before too long, and that his "toxic work environment" would have either been rectified, or he would have been permitted to return to Halifax, without the need to turn himself in to the MPs and go through all of this hullabaloo.
As for his sentence... Well, a $5,000 fine and a severe reprimand may seem just in the light of the harassment claims, the scenario of the events, and the location of the ship when he left; however, I have done the same deployment, and I can tell you that the ship needs its LogO for this deployment. Without that position being filled, the ship would have no food, fuel, replacement parts for repairs, mail, jetties at foreign ports, or anything else that you can think of that is coordinated by the LogO. Basically everything a ship needs for it's sailors to be able to function well as a whole will, in some way, be connected to the Log Dept. I think that the people who think his sentence was too heavy or just right need to think of the bigger picture here. Not only did he leave his unit, but he held a very important position within that unit that could have potentially prevented that unit from participating in their mission. If this had been someone on the ground in Afghanistan, how would his/her court martial play out? Would it have the same results? I think not.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Thanks for the well written post. Some good thinking on how to respond to these situations.
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
captloadie said:
Don't be a wanker, maybe I will come drop a big coiler in your shoes and see how you like it? I don't know how the Navy works but I have seen similar situations in the army where the offender has had their ass kicked at the mess.
That being said, Lt(N) de Jong went about this the complete wrong way and should of probably grown a set instead of picking up all his toys and running home.
- Reaction score
- 701
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:
I know for a fact there is more to the story that was published. I tried to put myself in his shoes, on what I would do. Most likely I would of went to the HA and tried to have it ADR'd I guess. I have no idea of his mental state when he left the ship, obviously it wasn't good as the medic wanted to repat him home. Perhaps he seen no way out, people have done harm to themselves for less. In my career I met all types of personalities and some do not respond well to be being razzed, they usually do not do well in a military environment where it happens often. Lt(N) de jong should had toughed it out until they got back. At least the ship was on the way back to HFX.
As for the female urinating on the floor, hopefully she got run for that failure of leadership. With the amount of booze on the go on that weekend in question, I'm surprised more stuff didn't happen or most likely did.
- Reaction score
- 3,435
- Points
- 1,160
Chief Stoker said:
Then here's the question: Why is apparent alcohol abuse tolerated in ports of call? I've heard of people shipped back to Mirage/KAF from Cyprus for their summary trials for doing stupid stuff on decompression, and they didn't have daily access to alcohol (which is probably why most went way over normal tolerance).
This isn't 1750, press ganging people onto ships and keeping them drunk so they don't desert.
- Reaction score
- 701
- Points
- 1,160
PuckChaser said:
It was in the media that de Jong was upset at the amount of alcohol that was supplied to the crew as a reward for the end the OP. The attitude has changed a lot towards excess drinking in the last few years, several fairly high placed members of ship companies have been relieved due to excess drinking so it doesn't get swept under the carpet. Even the all you can drink cocktail parties are pretty much gone, hell some ships last Christmas didn't even have the customary Moosemilk because of fears of over drinking. I can think of a number of personnel that have been killed due to excess drinking. If it happens on the ship or ashore people will drink, the key is to change people attitudes towards excess drinking.
- Reaction score
- 13,102
- Points
- 1,010
PuckChaser said:
The short answer is, alcohol abuse is not tolerated. The longer answer is much more complicated.
A ship is, in a very real sense, the home for sailor for months at a time. It is not necessarily a comfortable home. The thinking is that providing alcohol for sale onboard a ship (in very real contrast to the USN) treats sailors as adults; keeps problems onboard instead of downtown and prevents the inevitable bootlegging that would happen if booze was banned (again, see the USN for the multitude of problems they suffer as a result of their fairly Puritan attitude towards alcohol).
Having served on a multitude of ships, the trick to healthy attitude towards alcohol seems to be leadership. The CO, XO, Coxn, HODS and CHODs must constantly send the message that while it is ok to drink, you must always look after and police your wingers. I will not pretend that I have never gotten completely obiterated on a ship in port, but I do not drink at sea because the nature of my job makes it unwise for me to ever even have one drink. That may not apply to others.
My 2 cents.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Chief Stoker said:
Sometimes people for various reasons, "REFORMED Alcoholic" or even religion, may have an overly extreme opinion of the 'alcohol policies' and any use of alcohol, no matter the occasion or amounts consumed. This could poison a work environment if dealt with incorrectly.
- Reaction score
- 5,288
- Points
- 1,040
SeaKingTacco said:
I agree; I think most folks don't drink at all while the ship is underway for similar reasons. Doesn't take much to go to emergency stations or otherwise have something come up, so folks are a bit cautious. Then you normally get into port a bit sleep foxed and jittery, so it's not unusual for the folks on duty to keep people from going across the brow and send them to their racks (with regular checks) after having a few too many. If they had a banyan or something similar as well I'm sure there are a number of folks that didn't make it ashore. Normally people self police and look after their wingers though, but you do sometimes get people that go rogue and do stupid things. I'd be pretty pissed off (no pun intended) at whoever the idiot girl was that dropped trousers in my running shoes but would pretty much expect the follow on jokes. I think the best way to deal with that is to roll with it and get ahead of the curve by initiating the jokes; as soon as you show it bothers you it'll ramp up.
I'm sure there is a lot more to this story, but I think he'll probably always be 'that guy'. Not sure if he ended up getting his HOD qualitication (he would have been the A/SyO, aka baby LogO) but I think he may have a tough time getting taken seriously as the HOD. A/HOD training can be stressful, but packing your bags doesn't really instill confidence. I think as much as you'd try giving someone the benefit of the doubt, kind of hard to ignore. Could be wrong, don't know anyone involved, but doesn't really seem like the best way to handle things, and I'd be nervous if that was the person supposed to be getting my parts.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
What is the likelyhood that Mr. de Jong gets released in the short to midterm future?
I'm surprised that release was not part of the final sentencing.
He obviously won't be gong to sea again. You could never trust him not to pack it in when the going gets rough.
And the same would hold on any sort of deployment. So what do you do with him?
I'm surprised that release was not part of the final sentencing.
He obviously won't be gong to sea again. You could never trust him not to pack it in when the going gets rough.
And the same would hold on any sort of deployment. So what do you do with him?
Similar threads
