Special Service Medal - Domestic Operations Bar

[Booter]

About 40 of my troops deployed on the Kelowna fires in 2003. When they returned I asked them how it went.

To a man - and woman - they all said 'it was the best experience of my life'. That should be reward enough, IMHO.

If we turn it into a gong hunting expedition, counting down 'days to gong', you tarnish the reason why our soldiers derive personal satisfaction from serving their country IMHO.

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive though.

 

[Furniture]

Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive though.

Indeed, it can be a rewarding experience and be recognized. If not, I had better turn in all my medals, because my career has on balance been quite rewarding.

 

[markppcli]

About 40 of my troops deployed on the Kelowna fires in 2003. When they returned I asked them how it went.

To a man - and woman - they all said 'it was the best experience of my life'. That should be reward enough, IMHO.

If we turn it into a gong hunting expedition, counting down 'days to gong', you tarnish the reason why our soldiers derive personal satisfaction from serving their country IMHO.

While yes an act of service is thanks in and of itself; the reality is now we have soldiers that will deploy to fight fires 3 times in a year, after doing it the year before and the year before that. Thats a lot different than a one time positive experience.

 

[foresterab]

About 40 of my troops deployed on the Kelowna fires in 2003. When they returned I asked them how it went.

To a man - and woman - they all said 'it was the best experience of my life'. That should be reward enough, IMHO.

If we turn it into a gong hunting expedition, counting down 'days to gong', you tarnish the reason why our soldiers derive personal satisfaction from serving their country IMHO.

100% understand what you're saying here. And in fact its for that reason I believe it's why folks with the provincial response agencies should not be included in the eligibility list as their job is primarily focused upon that domestic response. That also includes myself as ineligible.

From the outside looking at the CAF though I don't believe domestic response is the primary role of the CAF outside of maybe Arctic operations focused upon Canadian Sovereignty (a topic for another beer/coffee). I also know multiple ex-CAF members who joined up, did their service honorably, and didn't always deploy overseas depending on timing/unit rotations etc. But many of those same members also served on domestic operations within Canada. They didn't sign up for a "gong" but to serve the country, did so honorably, and now you'd never know it.

I believe Canada does not do a good job at two things 1) recognizing the commitment of a CAF to join and honorably serve and 2) recognize the important role the CAF plays in assisting with Domestic Operations. And frankly the more I dig into the different operations, and scale of operations completed in past years to more it exposes how much is done by the CAF that is not recognized. Overseas service awards and honors isn't always easy to unravel and while not perfect is at least updated and maintained to account for the ongoing operational tempo of the CAF...but for domestic OPS...crickets. And it bothers me that as a nation we are not recognizing that service which is why I've spent so much time digging into trying to learn more.

In my own perfect world - which the better half often reminds me is flawed - each CAF member would be recognized at for their service at the completion of their first enlistment/4 years/honorable release (to account for those members who medically release early). So to use the phrase from earlier in the thread it will - yes - become an "EBGO award". It is to this basic award I would look at adding additional recognition for a significant time in that CAF members time in uniform spent on Domestic OPs which is where the heart of this thread's discussion lies...what is the proper way to recognize that time.

Hope this helps clarify some of my thinking and why I'm spending so much time on this topic
foresterab

 

[Booter]

And changes to medal court mounting length....

Court Mountings.
Court mounting shall be used. The length from the top of the medal bar suspender to the bottom edge of the medal shall be 9 cm. In rare cases where a recipient has an especially long insignia (i.e. a foreign award), expansion up to 9.5 cm will be permitted. The ribbons and medals shall be mounted on a panel, its size being determined by the number of ribbons worn. The lower edge of the panel shall be in line with the centre of the medals. Commencing from the lower edge, each ribbon runs up the front of the panel to the top and back down to the medal. The medals shall then be stitched to the panel to prevent them from swinging. This method prevents medals from clinking against each other.

NOTE
Members who fall under the old 10 cm policy do not have to modify their medals mounting. It should be only done by attrition/new mounting.

This makes you guys the same as the RCMP requirements. Looks like the same wording.

 

[Svanen]

Our honours and awards is a bit of a dogs breakfast.

There are, in some cases, 4 different medals for the exact same operation.

Correct. See here, at page 78.

“A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow.” — Winston Churchill

Very much worth watching:

They just introduced a 2 year service medal for Navy League Cadets, that is worn on the right side.

Service???

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Correct. See here, at page 78.

Very much worth watching:

Service???

For a kid 9-12 that's around 20% of their life spent in Cadets.

 

[foresterab]

Correct. See here, at page 78.

Very much worth watching:

Service???

Thanks for the paper Svanen. It unfortunately tends to focus mostly on the overseas awards especially the confusion around Afghanistan service awards and the differences occurring depending on rotation, area deployed, Armed Forces served under and multiple changes to the award criteria mid mission.

The paper does have 6 criteria for consideration (Table 4-1 on Page 43)

1. Compatibility - Any specific proposal must be compatible with the existing system of Canadian honours.
2. Duplication - No new military honour should duplicate the existing national honours.
3. Eligibility - No new military honour should adversely affect the eligibility of military personnel for existing awards.
4. Respect - Fundamental to the concept of honours is that they carry prestige. Their raison d'être is to recognize an accomplishment commanding the respect of members of the military, the general public and the person honoured.
5. Equitability - Non-recognition of this factor could produce the negative effect of dissatisfaction rather than improve morale. If an honour is bestowed for duty under certain circumstances, similar duties and circumstances should also be rewarded.
6. Credibility - This factor is related to respect. To be credible, an honour must represent a worthy endeavour. It must not represent routine duty.

When it comes to Domestic Operations it ultimately I think boils down to the question - are Domestic Operations "routine" duty or not?

I believe that while the CAF has and continues to do very well in responding to requests for aid there are significant operations that members and the CAF as a whole have under taken that are not "routine" and deserve recognition. The criteria for such awards would need to be carefully considered but is separate from establishing the "Credibility" of such an award.

For reference on my incomplete list of Missions/Operations for domestic response seem to show 3 key dates:

1970 and the FLQ Crisis which also resulted in several other missions (Montreal Olympics for example)
1989 and the start of the break up of the USSR/end of Cold War
2008 and the creation of Canada COM which included a joint Civil Assistance Plan.

Or if you prefer an estimate on the number of CAF members involved:


All I know is the CAF has been punching above it's weight on domestic operations for a long time and it's not well acknowledged.

foresterab