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

What does "decorated" mean?

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Good2Golf said:
...and CDs result in a post-nominal. :nod:

I’d consider Pusser’s list, add CD and MID.

The CD is a decoration.  MiD is not and post-nominal are not authorized.

The MiD is more like a commendation (albeit at the top of the list of commendations).  Before the dogpile starts, I'm well aware of the things that folks have done to get MiDs, but the fact remains, they are considered below that which would warrant a decoration.  In fact, many MiDs start with recommendations for decorations, but upon closer investigation and comparison to other similar actions are deemed to not be at the same level.  It's actually quite an involved process and recommendations are investigated and considered seriously.
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Blackadder1916 said:
I suppose the argument (for some) hinges on how they define "decoration".  In Pusser's OP the list he provides are those that are listed and identified as "decorations" on the GG's honours site.  None other are so identified as such.  It then becomes easy to equate "decorated" solely with "received a decoration".  But it is not so simple.  Language changes and sometimes that includes the meaning.  Prior to a unique Canadian honours system, would not someone who received, for example, the Military Medal (MM) for actions in either of the world wars or Korea not have been considered to have been "decorated"?  Yet in the terminology of that time the MM was not a decoration but rather a "MEDAL FOR GALLANTRY AND DISTINGUISHED CONDUCT".  The "decorations" in the order of wear which preceded the medals for similar actions were:
Royal Red Cross (Class I).
Distinguished Service Cross.
Military Cross.
Distinguished Flying Cross.
Air Force Cross.
Royal Red Cross (Class II).

If one was to restrict the discussion to those awards applicable solely to the military and naval services, in the good old days of class hierarchy (sarcasm intended), officers received decorations, lesser mortals received medals (of course, the VC and GC, though both being decorations were however treated differently).  So it was whether for gallantry and distinguished actions or long service and good conduct.

As to the CD being a decoration or a medal, that argument has been here before.  While it might be a stretch to say that Pusser has changed his tune, he did once think it was in a different category.

And of course, my response to his complaint that the CD did not get the respect it deserved was a repeat of a post that I had made more than a decade ago.

You're absolutely right, decorations were once strictly for officers and medals were for the men.  The VC was the one that broke that mold, but even then it took over a century for it to be completely smashed.  Even the British no longer restrict decorations to officers.  The modern definition of a decoration is that it is for a more or less individual act of particularly meritorious service or valour/bravery.  In other words, someone has to do something particularly noteworthy, especially in comparison to one's peers.  Medals on the other hand are largely awarded for just showing up - everybody who meets a defined criteria in terms of time, location, etc. gets one.

The Canadian Forces Decoration is a decoration.  I have not changed my tune on that.  I also still believe it does not get the respect it deserves.  I love your story of the older gentleman you met on the ship and I repeat it to others.  However, that doesn't alter the fact that the CD is really only a decoration because the King decreed (he was the King - he was allowed to do that).  The reason, the King made it a decoration was because it actually replace five other awards, two of which were decorations.  Each of the services had their own long service and good conduct medals.  The LS and GC medals were awarded to both Regular and Reserve members, but not to officers (their good conduct was expected - that class thing again).  Reserve officers could receive either the Volunteer Decoration (VD - yes, that's right) or the Efficiency Decoration, depending on their service.  Regular officers received nothing.  In replacing three medals and two decorations with one award, it was decided that despite the fact that it would be awarded to "men" as well officers, it would be classed as a decoration (it having replaced two others).  There was actually a lot of discussion about this point and some of the folks involved were shocked at the concept and were convinced that the King would never go for it.  Turns out the King was much more liberal than some folks thought and he had absolutely no problem with it.  The rest is history.

Having said all this, the fact remains that despite it being a decoration (complete with post-nominal) it is otherwise treated as a medal in that it is essentially awarded to everyone who gets all the ticks in the box.  You don't have to do anything special to get it (other than 12 years of your life).  It also sits in the Order of Precedence as if it were a medal, at the end with all the long service medals.  In fact, despite being a decoration, it sits below the RCMP Long Service Medal in the Order of Precedence (the RCMP Long Service Medal sits higher because it's older).
 

medicineman

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
54
Points
530
Eye In The Sky said:
Someone seriously put QSJM on their signature block?  I don't know whether to  :rofl: or  ::).

Some folks have put some time into making the Canadian Honours Chart that makes this really easy;  click the applic order/decoration/medal and voila!  There is the info you need.

http://forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-medals-chart/medal-silverjubilee.page  Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal

Postnominals

The use of a post-nominal is not authorized for this medal.


Not...not sure how much easier it could be?  People are lazy and lack good old fashioned military bearing and attention to detail in this day and age it seems.

I see it used quite frequently by very insecure people on their LinkedIn profiles...which usually translates into their resume/CV as well.  My profile has my CD and professional designation on it - my other post nominals of SBStJ are not, as they're not permitted for use outside of The Order of St John, a fact noted on the GG chart, but also frequently violated I've noted over the years.  Most people also use the wrong postnominal of that when they do use it external to the Order - I see Lord knows how many "OSJ" out there that are actually "SB/SS/SMStJ". 

Suffice to say, people use things for LCF or insecurty reasons - however they need to be talked at about them and corrected. 

MM
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
medicineman said:
I see it used quite frequently by very insecure people on their LinkedIn profiles...which usually translates into their resume/CV as well.  My profile has my CD and professional designation on it - my other post nominals of SBStJ are not, as they're not permitted for use outside of The Order of St John, a fact noted on the GG chart, but also frequently violated I've noted over the years.  Most people also use the wrong postnominal of that when they do use it external to the Order - I see Lord knows how many "OSJ" out there that are actually "SB/SS/SMStJ". 

Suffice to say, people use things for LCF or insecurty reasons - however they need to be talked at about them and corrected. 

MM

Absolutely!

Folks often get post-nominals wrong.  I think it may have something to do with them confusing post-nominal with abbreviations.  Although post-nominals  can often do double duty, as both an abbreviation, that is not always the case.  "CD" is a good example.  I once saw a poster on this very forum ask a question about what "CD" meant after the names of a bunch of military people he'd read about.  One of the DS (this was years ago, so it was a different crowd then) said, "Canadian Decoration," and promptly locked the thread with a rather terse comment to the effect that we weren't going to waste our time discussing that silly question.  I thought that this actually rather rude considering he gave no one a chance to actually give a correct answer and in fact, bluntly gave a wrong one.  The name of the decoration in question is the "Canadian Forces Decoration."  The post-nominals  are "CD."

There are a few other examples.  "OMM" are the post-nominals for an "Officer of the Order of Military Merit, but the abbreviation for the Order is, "OrMM."  The post-nominals for a Member of the Order of Canada are, "CM," likely because, "MC" was already taken by the Military Cross.

Finally, the only authorized post-nominals  are for orders and decorations, not for medals, commendations, MID, etc.  And, I'll say it again, it's just, "CD" no matter how many bars you have on it, NOT, "CD1," "CD2," etc.  Those are abbreviations, used on MPRRs.
 

Navy_Wannabe

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wikipedia and post-nominals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-nominal_letters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-nominal_letters_in_Canada
 
Top