Remedial Measures DAOD 4019-4 [merged]

[armyvern]

I swear someone in Ottawa keeps their job alive by changing how things are referred to - IC vs VW, etc.  Too bad said person doesn't always ensure promolgation to some of us folks locked away in school for a couple of years

BTW, my 5's did a formal RSM's inspection in Males: boxers, boots, dogtags and appropriate head dress and Females: same but with isolation gowns - he almost had the big one. 

MM

Having written up enough ICs, RWs and a few C&Ps in the past few years ... I`m getting used to the terminology now. 

You should have seen the Comdt face during ours on our 5s ... again, the females were inspected first .... first room, first locker = BIG eyes; moves on to the 2nd locker = BIGGER eyes; moves to the 2nd room | 1st locker = BULGING eyes ...

Immediately beats hastey retreat from edifice and can been seen literally moving at 60km/hour while tripping over his feet accross the parking lot on the way back into the school ...

The guys on the course knew something was up when they could hear our course staff and the girls howling in the hallway of the shacks. It was a fine day --- and a very short inspection.

 

[meni0n]

Doesn`t the verbal stay on your file for a year and then  gets tossed into the garbage?

 

[armyvern]

Doesn`t the verbal stay on your file for a year and then  gets tossed into the garbage?

A verbal is now an "IC" - actual "Official Admin Action" paperwork that is issued by the OC, signed and dated by the member etc and placed one one's file. There is an actual form to fill out for this "verbal". It serves as the "proof" that an IC (formerly known as a 'verbal') was 'officially' given for a "shortcoming in Area XXX" on date "XXX" --- and serves as the precusser to the "validity" of issuing of an RW should a file review upon another "incident" of same type of shortcoming occuring in members career.

It's not supposed to be removed.

One may sleep in one day and be issued an "IC" instead of being charged with AWOA for example ... two years later and the member sleeps in again & is thus AWOA again ... you're back to step 1 (the IC) if you've removed this from the member's file. Else you charge their butt - remembering of course that you can indeed do both - an ADMIN action does not preclude the ability to also take disciplinary action. But, if you want to move up the ADMIn steps ... the first step must be there and identifiable upon the member's file ... unless the shortcoming causing the Admin action is particularily heinous/grave ... then you can immediately go to RW or C&P if the CO deems it warranted/grave enough to do so.

ADMIN actions (which an IC is) are (supposed to be) retained for career.

 

[meni0n]

So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.

 

[armyvern]

So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.

I could very well be wrong.

Perhaps it's that my pers have always managed to step on their dicks the 2nd time before a single year has passed ...  >

Yet, I had ICs done up for BFT and Xpress test failures too (as sayeth the DAOD) ... and I'm quite sure that should remain on the members' files ... for obvious reasons. That testing is only done once per year ... how would you  move them up the Admin ladder if the IC from the failure the year before is removed from their file and they fail it again the 2nd year? They ceratinly shouldn't be getting an "IC" year after year after year for the same failure/shortcoming.

 

[meni0n]

Vern, correction to my last, mine was for a year because I was leaving on tour when I got it so they extended it for a year. But I think the normal timeframe was 6 months.

 

[armyvern]

So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.

As far as I'm aware --- the rules have always stated that Admin actions remained on file for career. Ergo the advice to "take the extras & not the Admin."

 

[armyvern]

Vern, correction to my last, mine was for a year because I was leaving on tour when I got it so they extended it for a year. But I think the normal timeframe was 6 months.

Ahhhhaaa!!

Your period of observation to correct your shortcoming noted on your Initial Counselling was 6 months (extended to one year because you would miss 6 months while on tour) ... but that paperwork is retained on your file for career ... at least it should be. next time, if it's the same shortcoming ... that's an RW.

Count yourself lucky if you watched your supervisor remove your ADMIN action from your file ... he wasn't supposed to.

 

[Roy Harding]

So I guess with the new terminology came the new rules that it stays on your file forever? I remember when I got a verbal, once the time ran out the Sgt took it out of my pers file in front of me and threw it into the garbage.

Nope.

RW and C&P were SUPPOSED to be on your file for "life", for all the reasons Armyvern outlined.

Some folks (me included - on a couple of occasions) took it upon themselves to "expunge" the record.  They (probably mostly without knowledge) and I (with FULL knowledge) decided that they (I) "knew better".

In truth - on one occasion I was right, I DID know better regarding that individual.  On the other - I was WRONG, and ended up saddling the CF with a thud-f**k longer than it would have been otherwise.

Regardless - ADMINISTRATIVE actions (RW, C&P, etcetera) are SUPPOSED to remain on your file FOREVER.  DISCIPLINARY actions are sometimes removed, and sometimes not - depends upon the severity.

 

[meni0n]

When I signed the paper in memo format. It stated I was verbally councilled for .... and that it will remain on my file for a year and if the action repeats then it will go to recorded. At the end of the one year it went to the garbage in front of my eyes. Either it was more informal or there is a photocopy somewhere but when I looked at my pers file after I didn`t see it there.

 

[armyvern]

When I signed the paper in memo format. It stated I was verbally councilled for .... and that it will remain on my file for a year and if the action repeats then it will go to recorded. At the end of the one year it went to the garbage in front of my eyes. Either it was more informal or there is a photocopy somewhere but when I looked at my pers file after I didn`t see it there.

Sits like this are exactly why we now have "IC" ... an "Official Verbal warning - an Official ADMIN action" given on "Official Government forms" signed off "Officially by the CO and the member" ... so that these verbals don't just "disappear" and meanwhile buddy gets passed on from Unit to Unit who all have to start from scratch to fix things and cross Ts and dot Is.

No more memo's ...

 

[dangerboy]

It is all laid out in DAOA 5019-4, Remedial Measures

It is important that a CF member’s personnel record accurately reflect a complete history of the CF member’s service, conduct and performance.

All forms referred to in this DAOD and all correspondence indicating successful conclusion of a monitoring period shall be kept permanently on the CF member’s UPF.

 

[Occam]

Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.

Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded. 

I mean, call it something - anything - other than "Recorded", as that name suggests that the the step below it is something less than being Recorded or retained on record.

 

[armyvern]

Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.

Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded. 

I mean, call it something - anything - other than "Recorded", as that name suggests that the the step below it is something less than being Recorded or retained on record.

Hmmm, I think "Initial" (meaning first) pretty much gives it away for what it is.

It's better than the days where it was called the "Verbal Warning" ... and some mistook it as "strictly verbal" or didn't make note of it in the member's file because it was "verbal" (vice 'written') ... thus, some members were given verbals multitudes of times for the very same infractions ...

This way (and with that DAOD) - that wee little problem is, itself, corrected.

 

[George Wallace]

Whoever wrote the DAOD needs to come up with a new name for the RW, though.

Someone is given an IC, and then later is given a Recorded Warning.  Wait a minute, Initial Counsellings are recorded.  documented.

:


There!  Fixed that for you.  Make sense now?

 

[Occam]

:


There!  Fixed that for you.  Make sense now?

Oh, thanks.  That's SO much better now.  :

 

[Occam]

Hmmm, I think "Initial" (meaning first) pretty much gives it away for what it is.

It's better than the days where it was called the "Verbal Warning" ... and some mistook it as "strictly verbal" or didn't make note of it in the member's file because it was "verbal" (vice 'written') ... thus, some members were given verbals multitudes of times for the very same infractions ...

This way (and with that DAOD) - that wee little problem is, itself, corrected.

It's actually worse than when it was called VW.  Now you have to explain to someone why they're getting a Recorded Warning, when they've already been given an Initial Counselling which was...wait for it...recorded for posterity on their UPR.

If people were given verbals multiple times for the same infractions, that's a failure of the CoC, not the Remedial Measures policy.  Someone needs a verbal?  March him in front of the RSM (or someone else in the member's direct CoC), give the verbal, and it's witnessed by two different people in the CoC.  The member can't claim he wasn't previously counselled at a later date.

 

[George Wallace]

It's actually worse than when it was called VW.  Now you have to explain to someone why they're getting a Recorded Warning, when they've already been given an Initial Counselling which was...wait for it...recorded for posterity on their UPR.

If people were given verbals multiple times for the same infractions, that's a failure of the CoC, not the Remedial Measures policy.  Someone needs a verbal?  March him in front of the RSM (or someone else in the member's direct CoC), give the verbal, and it's witnessed by two different people in the CoC.  The member can't claim he wasn't previously counselled at a later date.

Just having an ___________ savant moment here.

I guess you never picked up on the fact that has been posted several times in this thread already, that people get "POSTED".  The member may get posted.  His/her Chain of Command will all get Posted or rotated to other positions.

Unless a WARNING is DOCUMENTED, it will in all likelihood be forgotten, thus the offence could have a probability of reoccurring and not be given the appropriate "punishment".

 

[Occam]

Just having an ___________ savant moment here.

I guess you never picked up on the fact that has been posted several times in this thread already, that people get "POSTED".  The member may get posted.  His/her Chain of Command will all get Posted or rotated to other positions.

Then maybe the rest of the CF could take a lesson from the Navy, with Div Notes.  Destroyed after five years, not to form a part of the UPR.  If the problem reoccurs beyond 5 years down the road, then it's a safe bet it's not occurring frequently enough to escalate.

Unless a WARNING is DOCUMENTED, it will in all likelihood be forgotten, thus the offence could have a probability of reoccurring and not be given the appropriate "punishment".

My problem is with the term "Recorded" Warning.  You can't call it a Recorded Warning when the measure it escalates from is also recorded, and carries exactly the same ramifications to the member.

 

[George Wallace]

I think you shouldn't get hung up on, and get over the use of, the term "recorded" for a item that is "documented"; in that "Recorded" and "recorded" are two completely different things.  It may seem like semantics, but there are vast differences in terminology between the two.