# Who is an Officer Commanding a Command (OCC)?



## McG (30 Jan 2011)

I know that it seems like a pretty simple question, but I have had no joy finding the authoritative answer.  The topic is not touched in DAODs, but a read of CFAOs and QR&Os seems to suggest (the term is not specifically defined) that a Command is one of the hard military L1s (the environmental commands and the dotCOMS).  This by extension would mean that an OCC is one of the ECSs or a Comd of a .COM.

However, I know that within Army the area commanders and Comd LFDTS are considered OCCs.  I suspect that the same is considered true of the commanders of 1 CAD, 2 CAD, MARLANT, and MARPAC.  Is there a mechanism for designating certain higher formations to be commands, or is there a standing policy/directive that defines what constitutes a command?


----------



## Strike (30 Jan 2011)

I would assume that it would also include the head of a trade for those groups that don't neatly fit into what you've given -- MPs, Log, Chaplains, PAOs, etc.

I used to think it was a simple question when I was an operator but, now being purple, I'm finding it's much more complex.   ???


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> I would assume that it would also include the head of a trade for those groups that don't neatly fit into what you've given -- MPs, Log, Chaplains, PAOs, etc.


No.  You might be thinking of the Managing Authority (MA) but this can be found on the DGMC DWAN pages.

Your OCC is definately related to your current posting (where you find yourself in the CF org chart) and not to your occupation or uniform colour.

For a PAO posted to 1 CMBG, the OCC would be Comd LFWA and the next higher OCC would be the CLS ... alternately, the OCC is the CLS but Comd LFWA has been delegated the authority of an OCC.  I cannot find the references to clarify which of these possibilities is correct.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jan 2011)

Is not the status of the commander, ie commander of a command, formation, base, unit or whatever, spelled out in the appropriate CFOO? This surely is based on more than the whim of DCFOO Coord or whomever, but other than appointed by the MND or the CDS or whatever the NDA says, there should be guidelines somewhere. Or maybe not, this is the CF afterall. 

It sounds like a neat professional development exam question.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2011)

Yes.  Commands are established as a type of formation under the NDA.  Certain level 2 formations (eg Army Area Commanders) are named within their CFOOs as their commanders holding the powers of the commander of a command.  There is a DWAN page with most/all the CFOOs posted, an excellent place to start when looking for examples of such things...


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Certain level 2 formations (eg Army Area Commanders) are named within their CFOOs as their commanders holding the powers of the commander of a command.


Is there a standard against which the CF decides which formations will be designated as commands?


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2011)

As I'm doing this all off the top of my head (or out of a bodily orifice) take it for what it's worth, but I do not know of a CF order or instruction that dictates such things.  CFP 219, establishment management, may have some information.

Tomorrow I'll try to look up a few CFOOs for examples.


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Tomorrow I'll try to look up a few CFOOs for examples.


Thanks.  I can pull those up now that I know they are the authority that identifies what is a command.

I just found it odd that unit and formation were so clearly defined in QR&O Vol 1, Chapt 1, but that there was nothing defining command.


> “unit” means an individual body of the Canadian Forces that is organized as such pursuant to section 17 of the National Defence Act, with the personnel and material thereof;





> “formation” means an element of the Canadian Forces, other than a command, comprising two or more units designated as a formation by or on behalf of the Minister and grouped under a single commander;


----------



## kratz (30 Jan 2011)

This is one of the more educational threads I am watching. Please keep up the effort in finding an answer, and thank you for your efforts to inform us all.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2011)

From the CFOO for Land Force Command (some edits to keep focus):

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE HAS AUTHORIZED THE ORGANIZATION OF LFC AS A COMMAND OF THE CANADIAN FORCES, EMBODIED IN THE REGULAR FORCE

THE CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF (CDS) EXERCISES COMMAND OVER LFC. THE CHIEF OF THE LAND STAFF (CLS) IS APPOINTED COMMANDER LAND FORCE COMMAND, WHO IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND 

COMD LFC EXERCISES COMMAND OVER ALL FORMATIONS, UNITS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS ALLOCATED TO LFC

THE NEXT SUPERIOR OFFICER IN MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE IS THE CDS

COMD LFC MAY DESIGNATE ONE OR MORE OFFICERS UNDER HIS COMMAND, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF A UNIT WITHIN LFC, TO BE COMMANDING OFFICERS AND MAY PRESCRIBE THE OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS IN RESPECT OF WHOM THEY MAY EXERCISE THEIR POWERS



And from Land Force Doctrine and Training Systems:

COMD LFDTS IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A FORMATION AND IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE COMMANDER LFC. THE COMD LFDTS HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS AN OFFICER WITH THE POWERS AND JURISDICTION OF AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND

THE NEXT SUPERIOR OFFICER IN MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE IS THE COMMANDER LFC



For those on the DWAN:  CFOOs are online at http://vcds.mil.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=4395 .  MOOs, unfortunately, are not - so we can't see whether or not the designations originate in the CFOO (subordinate document) or MOO (superior document).


And, from CFP 219:



> CHAPTER 5 – ORGANIZATION OF THE CANADIAN FORCES
> 
> SECTION 1 - CONCEPT
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2011)

Further to my last:

A quick review of the CFOOs for the dot COMs reveals they are also designated as commands, regardless of the CFP 219 information.  Indeed, 219 has not been revised post CF transformation, so there are a number of areas requiring revision.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Further to my last:
> 
> A quick review of the CFOOs for the dot COMs reveals they are also designated as commands, regardless of the CFP 219 information.  Indeed, 219 has not been revised post CF transformation, so there are a number of areas requiring revision.



Perhaps in anticipation of 2013.   >


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2011)

So, it would seem my inference from QR&O and CFAO may be correct - the only authentic commands are L1s.  However, some L2 formation commanders have been granted the authority of an OCC through the establishing CFOO.

I will have to find time to check the status of MilPerCom.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2011)

THE CHIEF OF MILITARY PERSONNEL (CMP) IS APPOINTED COMMANDER MILPERSCOM. COMD MILPERSCOM EXERCISES COMMAND OVER ALL FORMATIONS, UNITS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS ALLOCATED TO MILPERSCOM IAW QR AND O 2.08

COMD MILPERSCOM IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND AND IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE CDS


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2011)

And since your next question will be about the Canadian Defence Academy

COMD CDA IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A FORMATION, HOLDS THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMANDER CDA, AND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS AN OFFICER WHO MAY EXERCISE THE POWERS AND JURISDICTION OF AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND. THE COMMANDER CDA EXERCISES COMMAND OVER ALL CDA UNITS AND ELEMENTS AND IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO COMMANDER MILPERSCOM

THE COMMANDER CDA MAY DESIGNATE ONE OR MORE OFFICERS UNDER HIS OR HER COMMAND TO BE COMMANDING OFFICERS AND MAY PRESCRIBE THE OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS IN RESPECT OF WHOM THEY MAY EXERCISE THEIR AUTHORITY IAW REF

THE NEXT SUPERIOR OFFICER IN MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE IS THE COMMANDER MILPERSCOM


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2011)

There's an interesting anomaly:  The Land Force Command CFOO states:

THE CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF (CDS) EXERCISES COMMAND OVER LFC.  THE CHIEF OF THE LAND STAFF (CLS) IS APPOINTED COMMANDER LAND FORCE COMMAND, WHO IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND 

COMD LFC EXERCISES COMMAND OVER ALL FORMATIONS, UNITS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS ALLOCATED TO LFC


Whereas the other two Environments have CFOOs that state:

THE CHIEF OF THE MARITIME STAFF (CMS) IS APPOINTED COMMANDER MARCOM WHO IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND AND IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE CDS.  THE COMMANDER MARCOM EXERCISES COMMAND OVER FORMATIONS AND UNITS ALLOCATED TO MARCOM IAW QR&O 2.08, EXCEPT THAT OPERATIONAL COMMAND IS EXERCISED BY THE DESIGNATED NATO OR CONTINGENCY COMMANDER OVER MARCOM FORCES ASSIGNED TO NATO OR THE CONTINGENCY, AFTER TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY IS AUTHORIZED 

and

COMD AIRCOM EXERCISES COMMAND OVER ALL FORMATIONS, UNITS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS ALLOCATED TO AIRCOM IAW QR&O 2.08

THE CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF (CAS) IS APPOINTED COMMANDER AIRCOM, WHO IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND AND IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE CDS


The Land Force Command CFOO dates from 03; the Navy and Air Force from 08; that may be why the CDS exercises command over LFC.  Or perhaps it's just a typo.


----------



## clericalchronicals (3 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's an interesting anomaly:  The Land Force Command CFOO states:
> 
> THE CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF (CDS) EXERCISES COMMAND OVER LFC.  THE CHIEF OF THE LAND STAFF (CLS) IS APPOINTED COMMANDER LAND FORCE COMMAND, WHO IS AN OFFICER COMMANDING A COMMAND
> 
> ...



Good Pickup!  However, remember, the CF unlike the American Military is controlled by an environmental commander.  If we had an Admiral as CDS instead, then that Admiral would "exercise command over MARCOM".  It's environmentally determined.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2011)

That is incrrect.  CFOOs are institutional, not individual.  They are not changed when an individual is posted.

The CDS does not command their parent environment.  They hold the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff; other hold appointments of chief of environmental staffs and, simultaneously, commander of the environmental command.

The CDS is not an environmental commander.


----------



## clericalchronicals (3 Feb 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That is incrrect.  CFOOs are institutional, not individual.  They are not changed when an individual is posted.
> 
> The CDS does not command their parent environment.  They hold the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff; other hold appointments of chief of environmental staffs and, simultaneously, commander of the environmental command.
> 
> The CDS is not an environmental commander.



Hi again,

I have to apologize, I can't agree, and neither can Chief Review Services apparently.  The CF is in a command structure flux.  The "L2's" (CMS, CLS, CAS) are totally 100% environmental, obviously, wouldn't have an Air Force LGen as CMS, and the "L1's" are appointed as they always have been, however, and more subsequently, would it even make logical sense to say anything other than the CDS (of whichever environment) exercises command over ____ (LFC, AIRCOM or MARCOM accordingly).

Anyway, have a read if you don't think it true;

http://www.crs-csex.forces.gc.ca/reports-rapports/2006/pdf/107P0781-eng.pdf

Rather lengthy though.  Regardless, perhaps you should check the old CFOO's to find the last time a Navy Admiral was the CDS, and when I go to work i'll be certain to pull it up to have a boo, pretty certain it doesn't say the CDS exercises command over LFC.

Cheers!

OH! Almost forgot, CDS is an institutional organization of it's own within the CF, by the way!


----------



## dapaterson (3 Feb 2011)

clericalchronicals said:
			
		

> Hi again,
> 
> I have to apologize, I can't agree, and neither can Chief Review Services apparently.  The CF is in a command structure flux.  The "L2's" (CMS, CLS, CAS) are totally 100% environmental, obviously, wouldn't have an Air Force LGen as CMS, and the "L1's" are appointed as they always have been, however, and more subsequently, would it even make logical sense to say anything other than the CDS (of whichever environment) exercises command over ____ (LFC, AIRCOM or MARCOM accordingly).
> 
> ...



A few observations:

(1) "L2" is an organization such as MARPAC or LFWA.  That is, a formation below a L1; a L1 is a direct report to the DM or the CDS (or, in some instances, both).  Your use of "L2" to describe ECSes is incorrect.

(2) The CRS review was focused on the creation of the dot COMs under Hillier's misguided and failed attempt at transformation (note: misguided and failed are personal opinions).   It does not assess whether the CDS simultaneously commands one of the ECSes, since that's not an issue at all - he isn't, hasn't, and isn't planned to

(3) The Land Force Command CFOO quoted above is dated 061200Z FEB 03.  At that time, Gen Henault, an Air Force officer, was CDS.   This would seem to contradict your thesis, unless Ray was secretly an Infantryman.


And yes, I'm well aware of the CDS' place in the structure of the CF.  I would conservatively estimate that I have more knowledge and experience in DND/CF structure and establishmetns than (at least) 99% of the people on this board...


----------



## clericalchronicals (3 Feb 2011)

Actually I stand entirely corrected.  Meanwhile the environmental component to the CDS's position will remain unchanged, I have asked a rather official source as I consider said person, and he gave me the proverbial "slap upside the head".  What I was misguidedly speaking of was an old QR&O (which I thought that it was), however, it was moved to pasture many moons ago.  (That being the specification that the CDS remained as the "commander" of their respective environment.

Now saying that, secondarily I stand corrected yet again, regarding your statement, as I hastily reviewed the document, and have since gone and "re-read" what I read, so to put it on the table...the ECS's are L1's in their role to advise the DM/CDS and I quote "for other activities are considered to be L2's".

And ref the last part of your response, wow, broad statement, as conservative as it may be.  ;D

So my sincere apology for my initial misinterpretation, and I would suppose in the context of things, it's an old CFOO.


----------

