All recommendations for bravery awards are adjudicated by the Canadian Decorations Advisory Committee (Bravery). This non-military organization deals with a large variety of civilian and military cases and relies heavily on detailed investigation reports from such agencies as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Since Canadian Forces (CF) recommendation procedures are designed for war and modified only as necessary for peace, it is impossible for an outside agency to carry out such investigations for the majority of military cases. Instead, COs shall use any investigative resources available to them, e.g. Military Police (MP) and their reports, fire fighters, etc.
To ensure equitable deliberation of all cases, it is important that all CF nominations be submitted with detailed substantiation in accordance with the guidelines presented in the following paragraphs.
Individual witness statements form a key part of the investigative report.
A report must be accompanied by a minimum of two sworn witness statements. However, all participants in and witnesses to an incident should be interviewed when practicable and statements provided by each. In exceptional circumstances involving a rescue, where there are fewer than two witnesses, a sworn statement from the person rescued may be acceptable as one.
Any commissioned officer on full-time service may notarize a sworn statement, but the witnesses should describe the event and the actions of all participants in their own words.
Normally a recommendation for bravery, together with witnesses’ statements, must be initiated within one month of the date on which the deed or action occurred. If this time limit is exceeded, reasons for the delay must accompany the recommendation.
In peace, and when time and circumstances permit in war, the recommendation shall be accompanied by a supporting narrative which summarizes:
the location, time and date of the incident;
the relative positions and general actions of participants, vehicles, etc, (photographs or sketches are invaluable);
the full name, date of birth, occupation and address of participants, witness and others involved;
separate statements from all participants and witnesses, including the nominee (the confidentiality noted in Chapter 2, paragraph (2) must be respected - this is possible by requesting statements for general investigation purposes, etc.);
comments which may assist in evaluating the accuracy or credence of any statements, e.g. where one suspects bias or where events may be distorted due to passage of time; and
supplementary photographs, plan drawings, sketches, documentary evidence, newspaper clippings, etc.
Supporting narratives should include comments on the following points where applicable:
Were the nominee’s actions part of the activity needed to accomplish the assigned aim of a military mission? If so, did the actions go above and beyond the normal demands of duty expected of peers in rank and trade?
What training or experience did the nominee have with the problems involved in the incident? Was the nominee aware of the risks involved? Comment on the nominee’s physical condition and any ill effects suffered, if applicable.
What was the nature and extent of the peril? What special problems were present? What equipment, if any, was used? Did others at the scene help? Were others present who might have helped?
When applicable, comment on or provide a diagram of the following: distances from safety; depth of water; current, tide and ice conditions; weather factors and temperature; fire and smoke location, type and severity; location and condition of any victims; and means of access and exit.
If more than one individual might be recognized for a single action, the narrative must make clear the relative contribution on each. This allows intervening officers and the Committee to judge if any potential recognition should be granted equally, or if different awards might be justified for different individuals.
