Scenario: Troublesome Transportation

Group Size: 4-15

Scenario

“Hey, Gemma. Congratulations on the appointment as regulating petty officer. More authority, right?” asks Petty Officer, 1st Class (PO 1) Bram Jonas. 

“Yeah, thanks, Bram,” answers their colleague, PO 1 Gemma Álvarez. “It should set me up for promotion a bit sooner." 

PO 1 Álvarez’ new duties involve looking after the unit’s vehicles, including the staff car driven by the Commanding Officer (CO), Lieutenant-Commander (LCdr) Abara. A few days later, the CO asks PO 1 Álvarez to have their car ready for 8 a.m. the next day and says it will be returned later that same afternoon. They tell PO 1 Álvarez that there is a conference they must attend.

The next day following the conference, PO 1 Álvarez is informed that the car was returned by the CO that morning, not the day before as promised. They also learn that, once again, the odometer exceeded the anticipated mileage by at least 400 km. They hear from other members of the unit that the CO is often seen downtown with the staff car, shopping or going out to dinner with their family. 

Still, PO 1 Álvarez knows that other nearby Reserve units draw their vehicles from the same fleet, and the base transportation office hasn’t inquired about vehicle mileage, so maybe the CO’s mileage is normal after all. 

PO 1 Álvarez remains doubtful, however, and so later, they call Base Transport. “What a coincidence, Gemma,” says their friend, Warrant Officer (WO) Darien, on the other end. “I’ve been meaning to give you a call. One of your vehicles is logging a huge amount of mileage, even higher than my daily-use vehicles like the shuttle buses. Do you know what the story is there?” 

Until now, PO 1 Álvarez has thought highly of LCdr Abara and has had no problems with them. They seem like a solid officer. Now, PO 1 Álvarez has some doubts about the CO’s driving but is not quite sure what to do about it. 

Categories

• Principles: Serve Canada before Self, Obey and Support Lawful Authority
• Values: Integrity, Loyalty, Stewardship, Courage
• Cultural themes: Service, Identity
• Misconduct types: General Misconduct
• GBA Plus themes: Not Specific
• Audience: Canadian Armed Forces

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical principles of Serve Canada before self and Obey and Support lawful authority in this scenario. 
• Discuss the ethical values of integrity, loyalty, courage, and stewardship in this scenario. 

Facilitation Questions

1. What is the problem in this scenario?  
   • Open group discussion. 
   • The potential misuse of government resources, the inaccurate recording of mileage and the failure to return the car as promised raises concerns in this scenario. 
2. What considerations are at play with respect to Defence Ethics and the military ethos? 
   • Open group discussion.
   • There is a potential breach to the principle Serve Canada before self. This obligates all CAF members and DND employees to report misconduct that could compromise the integrity and reputation of the organization. 
   • When an individual in authority misuses resources or violates rules, it becomes the duty of subordinates to address such issues, even when the person in authority is their CO.     
3. Should PO1 Álvarez’ loyalty to their CO, LCdr Abara, override the duty to report the misuse of the staff car? Why or why not? 
   • Open group discussion. 
   • Loyalty is important, but it should not override the duty to uphold the principles of integrity and accountability. Reporting misconduct is a way to maintain the ethical standards of the organization.   
4. What courses of action should PO 1 Álvarez take?    
   • Option 1: Report the issue. They can report the misuse of the staff car to their immediate supervisor or the next level in the chain of command.  
   • Option 2: Address directly the CO. PO1 Álvarez can have a private and respectful conversation with LCdr Abara to discuss the concerns about the staff car's usage and mileage discrepancies. This approach may resolve the issue without the need for formal reporting. 
   • Option 3: Do nothing. This would mean allowing the potential misuse of government resources to continue. This could have severe consequences compromising the integrity of the organization and its personnel.