Precedence of Tribal Badges (or “why I want to wear that badge) – split thread

[Edward Campbell]

Our good friend, The Regimental Rogue posted this ...

   

... which is, pretty much, why we have fairly senior people who, supposedly, ought to have something useful to do, harping about their "right" to wear this or that, while other people, the ones who really are useful, are trying to get boots out to the field ... after they fix the B vehicle fleet that we need to carry the boots (and bullets and beans). The Canadian Armed Forces is a far less than perfect "military machine," and it is made less and less perfect by the "'polish and pipeclay' school," as Liddell-Hart so aptly described the people who wasted staff time, efforts and focus on restoring pips and crowns when there are real, serious, deficiencies with which our admirals and generals ought to be concerned.

                                       

 

[CountDC]

We get it, you hate the Army.

Don' recall saying that.

You also work for the Army, and they can tell you to wear whatever they want. Just like if I worked for the Navy, I'd wear ballcaps and coveralls because that's a lawful order. This buttons and bows crap is not solely an Army problem. It was the Navy that issued a CANFORGEN overstepping its bounds (IMHO).

It was the VCDS who had the auth to do so that issued the CANFORGEN which I am sure he discussed with the CDS prior. The Navy cannot issue them, they issue MARGENS.  Agree though that it is certainly not just an army problem - navy curl comes to mind.

You also don't sail, so why are you wearing a Naval work dress? You're not using the uniform for its intended purpose, so throw on your DEU and wear that.

Because the regulations say I am to wear NCDs.  I would have no problem with just wearing DEU.  In fact I think they should have a seperate uniform for purple trades which consists solely of DEU or a suitable work dress for those needing it ie veh techs.  Then when we are posted to whichever element and need the environmental kit they could issue it rather than wasting it on us all the time. I have two pages of army kit that I am sure could be used by others instead of sitting in my office.  Other option would be to totally seperate us all again so that navy logs are posted to navy, army to army and air to air but I think Baz is right on that one. 

You trying to start a bunfight over uniforms is exactly why we have problems with empire building in the CAF.

Didn't start or try to start this.  I posted about one part of my posting that I am enjoying (see post 13) then others did the traditional read what they want to, assume what wasnt said and pile on. 

At the end of the day, ordering Naval DEU pers to wear NCDs all the time was an absolutely stupid idea, out of someone's idea that no one knew the Navy existed. As if the anchor, black beret, and black thread on slipons/nametags wasn't enough. Look at the new NCDs: How many freaking times do you need your uniform to say "NAVY"?

I agree but it was ordered in the CANFORGEN and until it is changed as many have liked to point out - it is an order so we are to obey it.  Although it was aimed at the public which most likely wouldn't understand the items you mentioned even wearing the NCDs they still don't get it and think army unless you are on the coast.  if the order was given to save money or keep the green available for members that actually needed it or as OGBD mentioned it would make sense.

There's your first problem.... PWT 2 is only done in the SAT if you are required to do PWT 3 live. You have to complete your highest level PWT live.

Thank you, wasn't aware of that as they have told me every year it could be done on the SAT.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the contents of CFP 265 then WRT being ordered to wear CADPAT.  First, Order of Precedence WRT CFP 265 [A-DH-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, is issued on authority of the Chief of Defence Staff].  Does your Adm's CANFORGEN say it supersedes CFP 265?  Likely not, however...

Not my Adm - the VCDS and the CANFORGEN does supersede the CFP and I think fits into the "subject to overall command direction" part of your quote.

If I was your Sgt-Major, I would give you 2 choices (1) get issued and wear CADPAT IAW Art 8 above or (2) be prepared for a charge which may be successful, and a RW that would be successful.

and as it was an order i would then wear it (already have it issued) and submit my grievance that would be successful to have the order over ruled by a higher level as it is against regulations.

If you are a PO2, you are a Senior NCO, not a Senior NCM.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank.page

Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers  Notice, there is no term SNCM present.

actually I am both.  SNCO is someone of Sgt rank level, SNCM covers all from Sgt to CWO level.

QR&O Definitions: 
"non-commissioned member" (militaire du rang)means any person, other than an officer, who is enrolled in, or who pursuant to law is attached or seconded otherwise than as an officer to, the Canadian Forces; *
"non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal;

:2c:  I saw lots of NAval DEU folks on my last deployment, oddly enough they were all in Arid CADPAT, and not one of them in NCDs.

because they were deployed and not in garrison. I would certainly do the same.  It also fits within the regulations

Being a clerk gives you no more 'right' or 'duty' to challenge lawful commands than anyone else.  :  No offense to clerks, but you're not exactly on the spear, let alone the tip of it.

No it doesn't nor did I state it did, it gives me the same right and duty though to challenge commands that are against regulations and may not be lawful, we even have a grievance process in place for such things if needed.    Any clerk taking offense should shake their head although I am sure some would argue about not being on the spear - it seems that often clerks are on the tip of the spear getting skewered everytime we point out a regulation that someone doesn't like even though it is part of our job.  Of course when we pull out a regulation that they like we are suddenly their best buddy.

So to try to be more clear and hopefully not have anyone continue to read things that are not there.  I didn't say anything about hating the army nor did I refuse to obey an order (after all one was never given) nor did I indicate that I would refuse.  I stated in post 13 that one part of my posting that I am enjoying is driving the army crazy by wearing my NCDs... which is in accordance with current regulations issued on behalf of the CDS in a CANFORGEN signed by the VCDS who does have the auth to do so.  I posted comments made, a question asked and my answers none of which involved refusing an order despite what some seemed to have read.  I also didn't state that the only reason I wear my NCDs is to bug them, I wear them because that is my dress of the day, driving them crazy just happens to be a fun side effect for me.  Interesting though how so many feel that I should just obey an order without questions even though that command is given by someone that is disobeying an order. 

 

[McG]

One part of my posting that I am enjoying, driving the army crazy by wearing NCDs and a beard.

Okay, so you wear the uniform that you understand yourself to have been ordered to wear.  Your chain of command has not told you to do otherwise, but there are other people in the workspace who get a little poopy-pants about it.  We have now spent a page exploring the idea.  Here is the important part of your message that was missed:

Let's not waste money revamping a badge,...

Yes.  Let's not waste money on aesthetic tinkering of badges and buttons for egos.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not my Adm - the VCDS and the CANFORGEN does supersede the CFP and I think fits into the "subject to overall command direction" part of your quote.

Ok.  Then I ask you to support the claim/idea that something the CDS has authorized has been superseded by a lower rank.  Go to the actual CANFORGEN you are referring to please, and copy the relevant part of it where it says "this CANFORGEN supersedes Ch1, Art 8 of CFP 265.  If it does, then there should be an amendment to CFP 265 forthcoming, no?

submit my grievance that would be successful to have the order over ruled by a higher level as it is against regulations.

The highest reference we have in the CAF for dress is CFP 265.  Issued under authority of the CDS.  Usually, the higher orders are the more 'open' and amplifying orders from lower level HQs, etc may be more restrictive, but not more permissive.  In my case, I have CFP 265, 1 Cdn Div Orders, Wing and then Sqn Dress Instructions that I follow.  They become more restrictive, not permissive.  It only makes sense.

If you know at all how file reviews are conducted at DGCFGA or the MEGRC, you know that they look at orders in their order of precedence, etc.  I would not be so confident in a grievance being accepted, let alone successful. 

However, please identify the actual CANFORGEN.  I  bet a box of donuts it doesn't say "CFP 265 no longer matters" but would be more than willing to say "Okay, I was wrong" if it does.

actually I am both.  SNCO is someone of Sgt rank level, SNCM covers all from Sgt to CWO level.

The term Snr NCM, while commonly used/abused in the CAF of the last decade or so, is not defined in actual CAF policy.  Your own ref's to QR & O, Vol 1, Art 1.02 "definitions" below doesn't mention and/or define a Snr NCM.  So where is this definition of Snr NCM? 

QR&O Definitions: 
"non-commissioned member" (militaire du rang)means any person, other than an officer, who is enrolled in, or who pursuant to law is attached or seconded otherwise than as an officer to, the Canadian Forces; *
"non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal;

Art 1.02doesn't mention 'Snr NCM', so not sure why you referred to it.  ???

it gives me the same right and duty though to challenge commands that are against regulations and may not be lawful, we even have a grievance process in place for such things if needed. 

A clerk has the same obligations as any other NCM.  Please note the absence of the words/phrases "right and duty to challenge commands", etc.

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

(See articles 1.22 – Accessibility of Regulations, Orders and Instructions and 4.26 – Publicity of Regulations, Orders, Instructions, Correspondence and Publications.)

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and
e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

(M) (9 May 2008 effective 5 June 2008)

NOTE

Article 19.15 (Prohibition of Reprisals) prohibits the taking of reprisals, or directing that any be taken, against any person who has, in good faith, reported to a proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline, made a disclosure of wrongdoing or cooperated in an investigation carried out in respect of such a report or disclosure.

(C) (23 April 2009)


You referred to 'unlawful commands'.  What is the official CAF policy on this subj? 

19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS

Every officer and non-commissioned member shall obey lawful commands and orders of a superior officer.

(M)

NOTES

(A) The expression "superior officer" includes a non-commissioned member. (See article 1.02 - Definitions.)

(B) Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.

(C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.

(D) With respect to riots, subsection 32(2) of the Criminal Code (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46) states:


"32. (2) Every one who is bound by military law to obey the command of his superior officer is justified in obeying any command given by his superior officer for the suppression of a riot unless the order is manifestly unlawful."

(C)

19.02 - CONFLICTING LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS

(1) If an officer or non-commissioned member receives a lawful command or order that he considers to be in conflict with a previous lawful command or order received by him, he shall orally point out the conflict to the superior officer who gave the later command or order.

(2) If the superior officer still directs the officer or non-commissioned member to obey the later command or order, he shall do so.

(M)

My final  :2c:, pending the actual CANFORGEN.

 

[Happy Guy]

I think that the whole of NCDs everywhere by pers who wear the RCN uniform started with a Adm who took command of CANADA COM from an army Gen sometime about 2010.  The army Gen had made cbts the dress of the day for all.  When the Adm came in he refused to wear the cbts and wore salt and peppers.  He eventually ordered all pers, who wore the RCN uniform, to wear the NCDs.  Shortly afterwards the CANFORGEN came out about wearing NCDs.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Ok.  Then I ask you to support the claim/idea that something the CDS has authorized has been superseded by a lower rank.  Go to the actual CANFORGEN you are referring to please, and copy the relevant part of it where it says "this CANFORGEN supersedes Ch1, Art 8 of CFP 265.  If it does, then there should be an amendment to CFP 265 forthcoming, no?

The highest reference we have in the CAF for dress is CFP 265.  Issued under authority of the CDS.  Usually, the higher orders are the more 'open' and amplifying orders from lower level HQs, etc may be more restrictive, but not more permissive.  In my case, I have CFP 265, 1 Cdn Div Orders, Wing and then Sqn Dress Instructions that I follow.  They become more restrictive, not permissive.  It only makes sense.

Let's dispel some myths here, if we could.

First, the CFP's (Canadian Forces Publications), while issued under the authority of the CDS, are NOT orders. In the Navy we have the CFP 152 - seaman's Manual. It teaches how to tie the most important knots and the situation where they are to be used. If I use the wrong knots, (other than marking me as an engineer) I did not disobey an order. The CFP are guidance provided for all to follow, but not orders. You Quote the QR&O's and think of the CFAO's: Those are orders. CANFORGENS and can be orders or informative, depending on the situation. The one mentioned was an order.

Second: Article 8 of Chapter one of CFP 265 does NOT entitle any local commander to change or depart from the guidance of CFP 265 to the extent of ordering someone to change his or her environmental dress. That section can no more be used by a local commander to order his Air or Naval DEU personnel to all get and wear an Army DEU for a parade than it permits him to order them to change their environmental "combat" dress. It lets him vary things like the dates for wearing summer or winter uniforms, or deciding what the "order" of dress is for a given situation (no. 1 or No. 3 or no 5 etc.) or to specify, amongst a given variety, the head dress (so that in the Navy, for instance, we will specify  beret or cap).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Let's not waste money on aesthetic tinkering of badges and buttons for egos.

This didnt start out trying to get a whole new badge.  Just a better made badge for Log.  I understand you have no interest in anything besides your own narrow interests but the Log cloth cap badge is a disgrace in its current state and should be updated and made with better quality.

 

[McG]

This didnt start out trying to get a whole new badge.

You are right.  This thread started with a few individuals apparently pining to wear the Naval Ops badge.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/122065.0.html

I understand you have no interest in anything besides your own narrow interests but ...

Never mind.  I see you just want to turn the argument personal.  Have fun with that.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Let's dispel some myths here, if we could.

First, the CFP's (Canadian Forces Publications), while issued under the authority of the CDS, are NOT orders.

Great, seeing as it is not an order, each and every one of us can disregard it.  This will make life so much easier.  I guess we can all disregard every printed word of CFP 201 as well then? 

If only the QR & O didn't say "an officer/non-commissioned member shall: a. become acquainted with, observe and enforce iv. all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

Balderdash!!  CFP 265 is the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

Second: Article 8 of Chapter one of CFP 265 does NOT entitle any local commander to change or depart from the guidance of CFP 265 to the extent of ordering someone to change his or her environmental dress. That section can no more be used by a local commander to order his Air or Naval DEU personnel to all get and wear an Army DEU for a parade than it permits him to order them to change their environmental "combat" dress. It lets him vary things like the dates for wearing summer or winter uniforms, or deciding what the "order" of dress is for a given situation (no. 1 or No. 3 or no 5 etc.) or to specify, amongst a given variety, the head dress (so that in the Navy, for instance, we will specify  beret or cap).

CADPAT and NCDs are not DEU, or necessarily DEU related.  CADPAT, flight suits, NCDs are operational dress.  I worked in an Army HQ before, and I assure you the Navy DEU people wore CADPAT, with the CAG slip-ons and name tapes with black thread when operational dress was dress of the day, and they wore their Navy DEU when we wore # 1 / 2 / 3 orders of dress.

In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?

Operational dress, DEU are not the same.  There is no official term 'environmental combat dress' to my knowledge.

We've established that CFP 265 is an Instruction, and that QR & O, Vol 1, Chap's 4 and 5 say all CAF Officers and NCMs SHALL become acquainted with, observe and enforce all instructions.

The wording of 265, Ch 1 Art 8 is what it is.  Nothing anyone says can change it, it is clear and concise. 

 

[Remius]

I'm going to have to ask everyone in this thread to give me their lunch money.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You are right.  This thread started with a few individuals apparently pining to wear the Naval Ops badge.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/122065.0.html
Never mind.  I see you just want to turn the argument personal.  Have fun with that.

Did you read the whole quote ?  Or just the part that suited your stance ? 

You will also notice that while I conceded I would love to see Naval Log types wear the anchor I don't see that happening.  Having said as much I also said and still think the Log beret cap badge needs to be made of better quality.  My originating post had nothing to do with the Anchor and was simply about getting a better made Log Cap badge. 

(I dont know how to insert a quote from another thread, search Log Cap Badge)

Necrothread Revival (I know sounds like a modern EMO band's name eh ? lol)

After looking through the Log Branch website dpaterson provided me.  I had to raise this issue again.  I think we, as Loggies, need to make this issue felt up the Log Food chain. 

The MWO/CPO2 and below need a new and better quality capbadge.  This shouldn't take mountains to move...  Any Snr Log pers reading this (Pusser, Armyvern I'm looking at you ) please push this!

In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?

Because that was a warzone,  and it had a practicality about it ?  Same reason the RCN Commandos war Army Battle Dress in WW2, it was practical.

Army/Air trades in HMC Ships wear their environmental flashes because they are Cpls and Sgts and Capts ect; not LS, POs and LT(N) and should be addressed appropriately.

They are only issued NCDs while posted to HMC Ships and are required wear their environmental uniforms when posted ashore.  The Army could do this too.  While in garrison you wear NCDs when you go to the field you weare CADPAT. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Great, seeing as it is not an order, each and every one of us can disregard it.  This will make life so much easier.  I guess we can all disregard every printed word of CFP 201 as well then? 

If only the QR & O didn't say "an officer/non-commissioned member shall: a. become acquainted with, observe and enforce iv. all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

Balderdash!!  CFP 265 is the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

CADPAT and NCDs are not DEU, or necessarily DEU related.  CADPAT, flight suits, NCDs are operational dress.  I worked in an Army HQ before, and I assure you the Navy DEU people wore CADPAT, with the CAG slip-ons and name tapes with black thread when operational dress was dress of the day, and they wore their Navy DEU when we wore # 1 / 2 / 3 orders of dress.

In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?

Operational dress, DEU are not the same.  There is no official term 'environmental combat dress' to my knowledge.

We've established that CFP 265 is an Instruction, and that QR & O, Vol 1, Chap's 4 and 5 say all CAF Officers and NCMs SHALL become acquainted with, observe and enforce all instructions.

The wording of 265, Ch 1 Art 8 is what it is.  Nothing anyone says can change it, it is clear and concise.

Yes, the wording is what it is:

8. Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1, paragraph 44.

You got your overall command direction: A CANFORGEN that tells you don't do this. And it's an order that is issued by a lawful authority.

Let's also deal with your view that "operational dress are not necessarily DEU related": Let's see what CFP 265, Article 6 has to say:

6. In accordance with these instructions the Commanders of Commands are delegated authority to establish rules for the design and wear of their respective operational orders of dress. See Chapter 5, Annex D, paragraph 2.

And finally, I'd like to deal with the constant rebuke brought in these forums that the RCN requires army personnel to wear NCD's onboard ships.

Let's start with the fact that, funny enough, nobody ever mentions that the same RCN does not require the RCAF personnel onboard ship to wear the NCDs. We do however require ALL RCAF (not just the pilots) personnel to wear the Flight suits instead. Why would that be? Simple: Take a blow torch to a CADPAT for a few second and you'll know - Similarly, rip a velcro badge quickly from a CADPAT in an environment with volatile fuels and see what happens. The NCD and Flight suits are at the proper fire/flash resistance level and have the non sparking velcro, the CADPAT,does not.

But let's deal instead with the proper comparison here:

I would think that Esquimalt and Halifax are clearly bases under the control of the RCN. Yet, you will find that, even though operational clothing is the dress of the day, army DEU'd personnel working on the base, be it the dockyard, the main base or the various schools and lodger units wear their CADPAT and nobody requires them to wear the NCD.

And it is this equivalent situation that the CANFORGEN is aimed at: Not that when seaman deploy in the field (and that includes oversee deployments to the middle east) they have to wear CADPAT - that's fine - but that when they are just working around the base or in lodger units their local commanding officers would require them to switch to CADPAT. In other words, not a change required by operational reasons, but just a change to make the "army" base look more "army" in their mind. And that, as I have said before, is what is contrary to the very concept of the purple trades employment under the unified CF's.

 

[Baz]

My understanding is the situation has gotten much better; however in the '90's Air Dets were in fact required to get the equivalent of NCDs.  I was also required to wear them once just so we were all dressed the same.  Of course , we were still forced to wear Red Sea Rig to a stupid extent.  I think the RCN has become more pragmatic, but sounds like the Army may not be...

I do have to say that my main concern with the thread was the tone of the statement, and upon further explanation I don't think the tone matched the intent, so I'll admit I over-reacted to the statement.

I remain concerned about how C2 is evolving in the CF, but it is what it is...

 

[Pusser]

In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?

And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...

 

[Remius]

If someone had developped a proper set of Naval Combats, this wouldn't be an issue...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And what, pray tell is a proper naval combat? One that is green and camouflages you in the woods?

 

[FSTO]

And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...

Shush! They may have to assault an entrenched Bureaucrat, fight a fire in the broom closet or fly a paper airplane memo!

 

[jollyjacktar]

And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...

My dress of the day is NCD, however, I choose to wear S&P.  I don't get the points to support it, but meh....  besides, it's too hot here in the summer to want to wear NCD.

 

[Remius]

And what, pray tell is a proper naval combat? One that is green and camouflages you in the woods?

More along these lines.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8iKvG7ZDLAhXJcj4KHfyYBX0QjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnamu.wiki%2Fw%2FNWU&psig=AFQjCNGbIpnhCHSxePVB4K2cESKifAyXWw&ust=1456418646738021

 

[jollyjacktar]

More along these lines.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8iKvG7ZDLAhXJcj4KHfyYBX0QjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnamu.wiki%2Fw%2FNWU&psig=AFQjCNGbIpnhCHSxePVB4K2cESKifAyXWw&ust=1456418646738021

Slap youself repeatidly, until these thoughts go away...