Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[Occam]

Is this a new thing?  When I was being released under 3bin 2005, I submitted a memo requesting to challenge the generic task statement of the UofS and was told they don't do that....

I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, or if it's new.

FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 016-11 CMP 008-11
SIC WAC
SUBJ: COMMON MILITARY TASK FITNESS EVALUATION 10-13 MAY 2011
REFS: A. DAOD 5023 1, MINIMUM OPERATIONAL STANDARD RELATED TO
UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE
B. DAOD 5023 2, PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM
1. AS PER REF A, ALL CF PERSONNEL ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM
OPERATIONAL STANDARD RELATED TO UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE. THIS
MESSAGE DEALS WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING
2. COMMON MILITARY TASK FITNESS EVALUATION (CMTFE) WILL BE CONDUCTED
10-13 MAY 2011 BY THE DIRECTOR OF FITNESS AT SAINT-JEAN GARRISON,
RICHELAIN,QC
3. AS OUTLINED IN REF B, CF PERSONNEL WHO FAIL THE CF EXPRES TWO
CONSECUTIVE TIMES MAY REQUEST THE CMTFE THROUGH THEIR CHAIN OF
COMMAND. IN ADDITION, THOSE CF PERSONNEL DIRECTED TO PERFORM THE
CMTFE AS THEIR ANNUAL FITNESS TEST MAY REGISTER. THE CF EXPRES
PREDICTS THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE CMTFE, WHICH INCLUDES A
TRENCH DIG, A LAND EVACUATION, A SEA EVACUATION, A SANDBAG CARRY AND
A LOW-HIGH CRAWL. THE CMTFE IS THE GOLD STANDARD FOR EVALUATING THE
PHYSICAL FITNESS COMPONENT OF UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE. FOR MORE
INFORMATION REGARDING THE CMTFE, CONTACT LOCAL PSP FITNESS STAFF OR
GO TO WWW.CFPSA.COM/EN/PSP/FITNESS/GENERAL(UNDERSCORE)E.ASP
4. CMTFE TRAVEL EXPENSES ARE TO BE COVERED BY THE CANDIDATE S UNIT
5. TO REGISTER OR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT xxxxxxxxx
AT 613-XXX-XXXX
6. SIGNED BY RADM XXXXXXXX, CMP

 

[medicineman]

Is this a new thing?  When I was being released under 3bin 2005, I submitted a memo requesting to challenge the generic task statement of the UofS and was told they don't do that....

First time I saw someone go through it was 2002 - PSP organized it.

MM

 

[Webgear]

Is he really an Int Op, or an Int Officer, or just an Infantryman who has had a Combat Int Crse?  Nothing irks me more than an article in the media incorrectly identifying things.  Many will remember the news of tanks passing through town X, when in fact it was a APC or large truck.  This news article has too many vague and perhaps incorrect statements for me to make an educated assessment on his qualifications.

He is a qualified Int Op. Yes... you are correct, the media article has several incorrect details.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This news article has too many vague and perhaps incorrect statements , or may even be missing critical information, for me to make an educated assessment on his qualifications.

Fixed that for you, and agree.

 

[Wookilar]

The CMTFE looks less than easy, I would prefer to do a BFT anyday. I have not seen the test administered but I have seen the facilities/equipment used when we were looking at sending one of our pers for it last year. That sea evac has to be difficult.

As for UoS, it's a slippery slope.

I have no desire to go back to the "old days" where Base Maint (for example) was full of pers on significant PCat's, it's a manning nightmare and brutally hard on those pers that are deployable as all the tasks fall to a relatively few "healthy" pers due to restrictions. Base Maint Edmonton was a prime example of this when it was formed together with parts of 1 Svc to make up the first ASG. Those of us that came from 1 Svc were run ragged on taskings for the first 2 years until more unrestricted pers were posted in as the majority of pers already in Base Maint had numerous restrictions.

Buuut, I feel we do have a responsibility to those injured in the line of duty (whatever that injury was; wherever that injury happened). The priority hire list is always a possibility (and a good idea) but work in the public (unionized) service is not for everyone. I like Mr Campbell's recommendation, there are certainly jobs out there that mandatory military service would come in very handy.

Can an amputee complete all the tasks of an Infanteer? An AVN Tech? What about an Navy RMS Clerk? I don't know, but I know there are many determined people out there trying to prove they can do everything they used to be able to (MCpl Mitic for example).

Wook

 

[George Wallace]

Fixed that for you, and agree.

Thanks.  Sometimes we get the opposite picture of what we should, when this happens.

 

[CountDC]

.
Can an amputee complete all the tasks of an Infanteer? An AVN Tech? What about an Navy RMS Clerk? I don't know, but I know there are many determined people out there trying to prove they can do everything they used to be able to (MCpl Mitic for example).

hmmm a double amputee as a Navy RMS Clk?  could be an interesting try. Have to be able climb up/down a ladder while carrying up to 200+ pounds on a stretcher (we are first line med/ambulances on ships and some of those lads are big), fight fires with full kit (we are fire fighters too), perform man overboard drills (OSCAR gets heavy when wet and you have to pull him out of the drink), flood control and evac (may have to dive under, manuever through a hatch and dog it shut).  Lots of ladder climbing up and down on a ship that may be bobbing all over the place (depending on the ship and the weather) making sober sailors (is that real?) look drunk.  Of course everyting has to be done three times as fast as you are able to do it.  Funny that you should pick Navy Clerk as to be honest having worked with all 3 elements I found it was the hardest one (of course not everyone would agree).  If they can do it then by all means let them.  My concern (which may be a mute one these days as it has been a long time) is that I had a friend that was a leg amputee and he often needed to be able to take the leg off, adjust and clean things and somedays couldn't wear it as his stump was raw from wearing it. If the limb breaks what do you do in the middle of the ocean? For him it could be a long process to replace it and the sup techs on ships do not stock these items.

Again though there is that UofS that we have to deal with.  Everyone must be deployable and as a clerk you can be deployed with any of the elements regardless of your uniform.  So as a Navy Clerk you can still be sent to Afghan and as an Air Force or Army clerk you can be sent to a ship.  The clerk world went through the same fun in the past as other trades of only certain people were tasked as we were hiding so many that were not deployable.  Yes it sucks to be put out but if someone (including me) can not make the standard then we have no choice.

Public service priority is another touchy area. The current system of service being a tie breaker is good in my opinion.  To take it beyond that is a dangerous road as you then have lower skilled/qualified people getting the jobs.  This could in turn chase away good people that feel they have no chance as they never served. I know sitting in my OR I want the best staff I can get working for me and taking care of the people we are responsible for.  When you have a pay problem are you going to be concerned over what service the person you are dealing with has or are you hoping to have the best person fixing things for you?  When the chips are down the customer really doesn't care how you lost your limb, they want things fixed properly and now.

Although I am specifying Clerks (naturally) I am sure it carries over to other purple trades that people think of when they consider accomodation of injured members. Someone mentioned recruiting - fill them with the injured and that is a lot less shore billets for members to get a break.  When you take any position and fill it with someone not deployable it means someone is getting an extra deployable posting. Is that really fair?

 

[Neill McKay]

Those are all very good points.

Accommodation for disabilities aside, there would still be the need for seagoing pers to be fit for sea duty which -- I hope -- implies a complete set of limbs, for the reasons you noted.

I accept the argument that a non-deployable member in a non-deploying position would take away shore postings (and their equivalents in the other elements) from those who need them.  But I wonder if there are enough such members that it would make a significant difference in a Service the size of the CF?  It would be an interesting exercise to crunch the numbers and see.

 

[dapaterson]

Those are all very good points.

Accommodation for disabilities aside, there would still be the need for seagoing pers to be fit for sea duty which -- I hope -- implies a complete set of limbs, for the reasons you noted.

I accept the argument that a non-deployable member in a non-deploying position would take away shore postings (and their equivalents in the other elements) from those who need them.  But I wonder if there are enough such members that it would make a significant difference in a Service the size of the CF?  It would be an interesting exercise to crunch the numbers and see.

It's not just positions writ large - it's positions at specific rank levels in specific occupations.

One out of 68000 isn't noticeable; but one out of seven Basket Weaving Tech MWOs is much less manageable (note: occupation and number of positions are made up).

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't know this gentleman from Adam, but I did hear his story on As it Happens last night.  Apparently he was wounded in Afghanistan in 2006 that resulted in him losing two limbs.  He later remustered to Int Op, and completed his QL 5 Int Op course in Kingston.  Since then, he has been working in Winnipeg "Airforce Intelligence" as he put it.

He claims he is facing discrimination.  He is.  Discrimination based upon physical ability.  This sort of discrimination is perfectly fine by me; however, I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  If not, then follow the DOADs.

As for recruiting people off the street who are amputees, either through accident or a birth defect, given that they require ongoing medical (and other) treatment: sorry, go work for McDonald's, or even DND, but the Canadian Armed Forces already have enough to worry about.  It is not a "right" to serve in the CF, but a privilege.


:2c:

 

[ModlrMike]

As for recruiting people off the street who are amputees, either through accident or a birth defect, given that they require ongoing medical (and other) treatment: sorry, go work for McDonald's, or even DND, but the Canadian Armed Forces already have enough to worry about.  It is not a "right" to serve in the CF, but a privilege.


:2c:

I think this is what people are rightly concerned is the sharp edge of the wedge. How long before some court somewhere rules that if we can keep disabled folk in, we can let them in?

 

[Container]

But this has existed in way for years hasn't it? A pilot needed a certain vision profile to get in. Once in it could degrade to the point where they wouldn't have been accepted but applicants with the same profile wouldnt be accepted.

???

There are all types of people in uniform that, lets face it, in any government "service" job that wouldnt be accepted if they had to do it again. I also know some disabled people who's fitness shames the rest of us- but are the operational sound? Im not an expert in prosthetics- maybe it is possible. I dont know what the answer is. Which would shock my wife.

 

[CountDC]

All hail the Technoviking!!

Agree that it is discrimination based upon physical ability and that sometimes there is a valid reason for it. 

The Expres test though is only one part of the equation. For example I know of a case where the member gets exempt on the test but then is never tasked for parades as according to the med world he is not physically able to stand for prolonged periods.  That in turns means that others get extra parade taskings.  In a unit with only a small number of members for taskings that can be a big issue.  Take that member and put him in a field where they are supposed to do sentry duty or on a ship where they are supposed to do look outs and someone again is doing extras as he can't.  On a ship it most certainly gets noticed when someone is not pulling their weight and does become a point of morale.  It is one thing to have a member get injured, totally other if the member arrives unable to perform.

So if they are able to pass the expres test and are medically fit all duties then let them serve.

Container - some how I doubt it would shock your wife. Yes in a way it has existed for years and that is one of the problems the CF is trying to get away from.  Most of us know that butterball that somehow managed to stick around even though they could barely get out of their chair let alone be deployable.  A certain amount of accomodation is fine but at some point something has to give or you will have a useless military.

 

[Container]

I did. But his sentence "I doubt it would shock your wife" also made me chuckle.

I guess the way I FEEL is that when a guy loses his legs and is fighting you and everyone to stay in he gets my support- especially if he (hypothetical- since we dont know for sure) passes the physical and can perform his duties. I suppose that I would feel equally supportive if he got a comparable job in government somewhere. Perhaps in Intelligence analysis elsewhere- its not good enough to shove him in the passport office. He deserves a career that he can be passionate about (where qualified)

Im sure that most of us- working in a unit with this fellow, in a position where he could fulfill his duties, wouldnt accuse the double amputee of not pulling his weight. I suppose in a way he bought his position? I haven't entirely fleshed out my own opinion on the subject so Im enjoying reading the other views.

 

[mariomike]

This topic reminds me of this topic  - Reply #11 and #12 -  regarding W.C. Douglas Bader RAF and others:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/98054/post-999876.html#msg999876

 

[Takeniteasy]

I don't know this gentleman from Adam, but I did hear his story on As it Happens last night.  Apparently he was wounded in Afghanistan in 2006 that resulted in him losing two limbs.  He later remustered to Int Op, and completed his QL 5 Int Op course in Kingston.  Since then, he has been working in Winnipeg "Airforce Intelligence" as he put it.

He claims he is facing discrimination.  He is.  Discrimination based upon physical ability.  This sort of discrimination is perfectly fine by me; however, I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  If not, then follow the DOADs.

As for recruiting people off the street who are amputees, either through accident or a birth defect, given that they require ongoing medical (and other) treatment: sorry, go work for McDonald's, or even DND, but the Canadian Armed Forces already have enough to worry about.  It is not a "right" to serve in the CF, but a privilege.




:2c:

Technoviking,

Education is a wonderful thing, I would suggest you do some research before you make ignorant comments. I know Ryan personally and understand his concern and position. There is more to this then his amputations and or his injuries. But I guess most will do like they always do and armchair quarterback.

Enjoy....

 

[Strike]

Here's the thing.  UoS is not just being able to pass the PT test or BFT.  There are many more aspects to it, such as the basic requirements for each of the elements doesn't it?  If all those hoops have been jumped through, then there's really nothing the CF can say about it  Keep the guy in.

Now, I do understand the concern regarding what to do if one of his prosthesis breaks during deployment, but we've already sent 2 guys with amputations to Afghanistan, so that argument now becomes moot.  I would see a broken prosthetic as the equivalent to a broken leg...except that these two guys who deployed probably brought spares with them.

 

[vonGarvin]

Technoviking,

Education is a wonderful thing, I would suggest you do some research before you make ignorant comments. I know Ryan personally and understand his concern and position. There is more to this then his amputations and or his injuries. But I guess most will do like they always do and armchair quarterback.

Enjoy....

At no time did I suggest one way or another how this gentleman ought to be treated.  In fact, I stated:

He claims he is facing discrimination.  He is.  Discrimination based upon physical ability.  This sort of discrimination is perfectly fine by me; however, I don't know if he can complete the CF ExPres test.  If he can, then let him serve.  If not, then follow the DOADs.

For what it's worth, the DOADs do not say that a person will be released upon failing an ExPres test.  Only if they fail subsequent tests after going through administrative procedures. 

Now, if I may suggest, your opinion of his situation may be tainted because you know him.  I'm not suggesting that he was treated fairly or unfairly.  But I do know why we have a Universality of Service "clause" (or whatever) for members of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces.  If he cannot serve in uniform (and from listening to his interview, he sounds very passionate about serving), then I would offer that perhaps he ought to be considered for service in the Department of National Defence as a civilian.

Again, to emphasise, I don't know him nor do I know the specifics of his case.  But I do know that discrimination based on physical ability is more than justified for service in HM's Canadian Armed Forces.*



*Please note that I use the term "Canadian Armed Forces" throughout, because it is an armed force, raised to offer violence to enemies of Canada, often at great risk to its members.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I was going to stay out of this thread, but find that I cannot.  I do not know the Mcpl in question here, unlike some posters, so I only know about his situation what I have gleaned from the press.

I would offer that each of us will eventually reach the end of our usefulness as soldiers and must inevitably leave the CF.  Some of us will become unable to soldier due to old age; some because of injury or infirmity; some because of wounds suffered in combat.  The point is: we must all leave uniform, eventually.  There is no room in a military as small as ours for those who cannot deploy and cope with the demands of combat.  We tried that for a while in the mid 1990s and it was dismal failure.  Those who were fit to deploy, deployed without respite while garrison and staff jobs were plugged with the infirm.

What we need as an institution is an ongoing commitment to transition those who can no longer fully serve to a dignified career elsewhere.  As individual CF members, I think we all need to be honest with ourselves so that we can recognize the day that  will inevitably come to all of us which marks the end of our time in the CF and depart with dignity, pride and grace.

Once again, I do not know this person.  I am sceptical that a double amputee is up to the rigours of combat- but what do I know?  What I do know is, that if we regularly retain injured soldiers who are not deployable, it will not be very long before the CF will find itself in a court of law and ordered to recruit the infirm, because clearly we not really mean universality of service.

And then what?

 

[Tow Tripod]

Taco, I share your view. 100%! You hit the nail right on the head with a 10 pound sledge hammer. Well said!