# CIC Physical Fitness Standards - Split from Transfer from PRes to CIC



## mysteriousmind (14 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> That being said, it is desirable and important that as a member of the CF one "looks the part".  After all the aim of the cadet program includes "promote physical fitness".
> 
> Yes, there are some extreme body types



Ive seen often some over 300 pounds CIC, who would never in a million year pass the CF physical fitness test or do the 13km. and if we had to take out all of the  physically-unfit member of the CIC, it would possibly crumble...due to lack of officer. 

and as to "promote physical fitness" if you only take whats in the mandatory instruction, it wont be that way that you promote, but this is and entire whole story, and we would go off track of the subject.


----------



## gwp (14 Aug 2008)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> if we had to take out all of the  physically-unfit member of the CIC, it would possibly crumble...due to lack of officer.


  

That's an uncalled for and unsupportable over statement.  There are extremes across the CF.  

The CIC along with the entire CF is no more or less fit that the Canadian population. And the CF has the studies to prove that.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Aug 2008)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> From being former CIC, I speak in knowledge of cause.



Your comment is a gross exaggeration.  If you're speaking in good faith, I can only speculate that you've served in a very statistically abnormal region.


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Aug 2008)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> And I continue to stand my ground. a majority of CIC, perhaps not a big majority, but never the less a majority of CIC would not pass the CF express test, It is not required to join in as a CIC and it should be mandatory, after all they are member of the CF and they are officers.



Then I have to disagree as I doubt that you have seen anything like the number of CIC officers necessary to make up a valid sample from which to draw your conclusion.  I recently pointed out in another thread, and will do so here as well, that there are about 7000 CIC officers in the CF.  In my nine years of involvement with the cadet programme I haven't laid eyes on enough of that number to be able to draw any valid conclusions.  But of those I have seen, by no means would I describe a majority as having been of poor enough shape as to be unable to pass the Expres test.

This:



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> these members stand out to such an extent that they overshadow the fit ones and give an *erronious* perception that most of the CIC is out of shape.



is bang-on.  It's human nature to see one representative of a group and form an opinion of the group on that basis.  But such an opinion isn't especially valid or reasonable.



> There are plenty of CIC officers that are in good shape, and I would hazard a guess that these form the majority.  I find most of the CIC in this category are former cadets.



The overwhelming majority of CIC officers are former cadets, enough that I would guess that the majority of almost any group within the CIC  -- including the athletes, the average-sized ones, the slightly pudgy ones, and the most out-of-shape ones -- would also be former cadets.  What you're probably seeing is that the younger officers (regardless of background) tend to be in better shape -- a trend that I expect exists all though the adult population both in and out of the Forces.


----------



## gwp (14 Aug 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Ok, this has all been a good read,but I have heard that the CFRC is going to apply the CF fitness standard to all new CIC applicants regardless of where they are coming from,civillian or Forces. Is this the truth? I have no idea... but it is supposed to match the current fitness standards of the Forces in all of its elements. Any body heard the same? If it the truth then I will hanker a guess that the enrollment proceedures for CIC applicants will get alot harder to do,and as such the ranks will thin for it. The CIC are volunteers as much as any other element of our Forces, but are drawn mainly from the civil sector for resources..correct? Ubique


They apply the CF fitness standard -- this is the standard
Minimum medical for CF CIC is V4 CV3 H3 G3 O3 A5  Same as for general officers. 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/policies/med_standards/pdf/engraph/cfp154_annexEappen1-2_e.pdf

d. meet the medical standards prescribed in CANFORGEN 070/07. Normally, the applicant must have a medical category no lower than V4 CV3 H3 G3 O3 A5. An applicant with a medical category below this standard but not lower than V4 CV3 H4 G4 O4 A5 may be accepted if the command surgeon approves the medical limitations and certifies that any medical condition will not be aggravated by military service;
CATO 23-01 OAIC 23-01
Ch 14/07 2/5 Mod 14/07


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Aug 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Ok, this has all been a good read,but I have heard that the CFRC is going to apply the CF fitness standard to all new CIC applicants regardless of where they are coming from,civillian or Forces. Is this the truth? I have no idea... but it is supposed to match the current fitness standards of the Forces in all of its elements. Any body heard the same?



There's been nothing through official channels to suggest that there will be any change in enrolment standards or procedures.



> The CIC are volunteers as much as any other element of our Forces, but are drawn mainly from the civil sector for resources..correct?



All newly-entered CF members are drawn from the civilian community.  How could it be any different?  Everyone is born a civilian.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> They apply the CF fitness standard -- this is the standard
> Minimum medical for CF CIC is V4 CV3 H3 G3 O3 A5  Same as for general officers.
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/policies/med_standards/pdf/engraph/cfp154_annexEappen1-2_e.pdf
> 
> ...



Normally, I wouldn't jump into a Cadet/CIC thread as I have never been either one.  Just wanted to point out that *fitness* standard and *medical* standard are two completely different issues.  If the CIC is the same (or similar) as the PRes, then why not hold them to the same fitness *and* medical standards?


----------



## gun runner (14 Aug 2008)

Probably because the main applicants are like myself..36 year old former troops who are willing to step up to the plate and give a little back to the organization(s) that helped to get us where we are now. Ubique


----------



## gwp (14 Aug 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Normally, I wouldn't jump into a Cadet/CIC thread as I have never been either one.  Just wanted to point out that *fitness* standard and *medical* standard are two completely different issues.  If the CIC is the same (or similar) as the PRes, then why not hold them to the same fitness *and* medical standards?


Where it is required, they are.  It is the same for members of the Sup Res and Rangers

See DAOD 5023-2
CF members are required, unless exempted from evaluation (see the Exemptions from Physical Fitness map), to meet the mandatory physical fitness standard …

Regular Force, Primary Reserve -on an annual basis.

Cadet Instructors Cadre-
Supplementary Reserve-
Canadian Rangers-
on an annual basis if attached, seconded or transferred on consent to the Regular Force or Primary Reserve.


----------



## gun runner (15 Aug 2008)

Ok, so hypothetically, a 58 year old former soldier( Pres or reg force) with a bad ticker or shot lungs from smoking all his/her life,or some other affliction, could still get into the CIC if and only if they meet the current physical and medical requirements of the forces enrollment?Not flippin likely! It sounds like the CF is trying to get around the hiring of these types of individuals (older and not in such great shape) in favor of younger and healthier prospects. I was always under the assumption(we all know that rule,right) that the CIC would be staffed by everyday volunteer people( John/Jane Blow ) from the communities that the units reside, and commission them into a sub unit of the primary reserves ( to instill a sense of CF involvement) to eliminate the need for full time involvment of the CF( at the local levels). Am I correct in this assumption? When I was in the cadet program in the 80's, my CO was a mountain of a man, a smoker, probably loved his rye whiskey( who doesn't), and still found the time to sucessfully run a 55 member cadet sqdn. I guess all I am saying is that the general public has about a snowballs chance of ever being able to contribute to these organisations if they do not match the countries largest health clubs standards for BMI and C/V health, for starters. The cadets for me was the next step from scouts, and was the logical one for those of us who chose to pursue a career in this countries armed services. And now that I have the abilities to return the favors to this unit, I find that the corps needs live bodies in uniform and cant seem to find a suitable applicant due to some minor infirmity that would keep me off the battlefield sure, but why I cant teach cadets to march, or map amd compass, or shoot an air rifle while in uniform, is a little confusing to me. It would seem that the CFRC has finally found a way to keep mom and dad from helping little Johnny or Jane in a way like this. Sad really.. just my thoughts. Ubique


----------



## gun runner (16 Aug 2008)

I guess I was trying to hard to confirm my frustrarions at the CF for imposing the standards of an organisation on a group of adults who will never see the hallowed ground of a field of combat. It is difficult to think that the leaders of tomorrows leaders are placed in a difficult situation for only attempting to get involved in what they feel is the right thing to do. Maybe the CF should only use former soldiers, sailors and airmen/women to staff cadet units instead of civillian volunteers.Ubique


----------



## rage (17 Aug 2008)

Let's do a hault here boys. The orignal post was Transfer from PRES to CIC; I think we may have started a new thread here on CIC fitness standards.


----------



## Burrows (17 Aug 2008)

Split from http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70389.0.html - Transfer from Pres to CIC Officer

army.ca staff


----------



## gwp (18 Aug 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Ok, so hypothetically, a 58 year old former soldier( Pres or reg force) with a bad ticker or shot lungs from smoking all his/her life,or some other affliction, could still get into the CIC if and only if they meet the current physical and medical requirements of the forces enrollment?


Yes, if his medical doctor attests to his fitness. 



> I was always under the assumption(we all know that rule,right) that the CIC would be staffed by everyday volunteer people( John/Jane Blow ) from the communities that the units reside, and commission them into a sub unit of the primary reserves ( to instill a sense of CF involvement) to eliminate the need for full time involvment of the CF( at the local levels). Am I correct in this assumption?



No your are not correct.   First the CIC is not a sub unit of the primary reserves.  The Primary Reserve and the CIC are both sub-componenets of the Reserve Force ... along with the Canadian Rangers and the Supplementary Reserve.  And like the entire CF - members of the CIC are recruited from everyday volunteer people (John/Jane Blow)  



> I guess all I am saying is that the general public has about a snowballs chance of ever being able to contribute to these organisations if they do not match the countries largest health clubs standards for BMI and C/V health, for starters ....... now that I have the abilities to return the favors to this unit, I find that the corps needs live bodies in uniform and can't seem to find a suitable applicant due to some minor infirmity that would keep me off the battlefield sure, but why I cant teach cadets to march, or map amd compass, or shoot an air rifle while in uniform, is a little confusing to me. It would seem that the CFRC has finally found a way to keep mom and dad from helping little Johnny or Jane in a way like this. Sad really.. just my thoughts. Ubique



How did you get to that conclusion?  The CF is enrolling people in their 50's into the Regular Force if they meet the medical and fitness standard for their particular MOC.


----------



## gwp (18 Aug 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> I guess I was trying to hard to confirm my frustrarions at the CF for imposing the standards of an organisation on a group of adults who will never see the hallowed ground of a field of combat. It is difficult to think that the leaders of tomorrows leaders are placed in a difficult situation for only attempting to get involved in what they feel is the right thing to do. Maybe the CF should only use former soldiers, sailors and airmen/women to staff cadet units instead of civillian volunteers.Ubique


Every member of the CF, including those in the CIC were civilians before they volunteered for the CF. 
About 28 % of Cadet Instructors have RegF experience (an average of 5.3 years)
About 17 % of Cadet Instructors have PRes experience (an average of 2.7 years)
Others are Canadians enrolling in the CF some former cadets but all members of the community at large ... the same recruiting base as the entire CF. 
While administering a cadet corps or squadron does result in a lot of volunteer time, CF members of the CIC are remunerated for their authorized paid attendance.


----------



## geo (18 Aug 2008)

There is a distinction between "medical" fitness AND "physical" fitness.  You can have one but not the other.

Then, there is the fact that, over 55, there are NO physical fitness standards.
CIC are not required to pass a fhysical fitness test - at any time...


----------



## gwp (18 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> There is a distinction between "medical" fitness AND "physical" fitness.  You can have one but not the other.


No one would disagree with that. 



> Then, there is the fact that, over 55, there are NO physical fitness standards.


That doesn't mean you don't challenge the test. 



> CIC are not required to pass a fhysical fitness test - at any time...


Not correct.  See DAOD 5023-2

Cadet Instructors Cadre-
Supplementary Reserve-
Canadian Rangers-
on an annual basis if attached, seconded or transferred on consent to the Regular Force or Primary Reserve.


----------



## geo (18 Aug 2008)

... IF ATTACHED to the Regular force or the Primary Reserve.

Given that there are several directives that forbid the employment of CIC officers within Pri Reserve units, then your comment is a "moot" point.


----------



## gwp (18 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ... IF ATTACHED to the Regular force or the Primary Reserve.
> 
> Given that there are several directives that forbid the employment of CIC officers within Pri Reserve units, then your comment is a "moot" point


There are no such current directive! It is not forbidden to employ CIC officers outside of the cadet program in activities in support of other component or sub components of the CF. 

When it comes to human resources the CF will do what is in the best interests of the CF. There are policies and procedures for component/sub-component secondment, attachment and transfer regardless of the component sub-component. They are found here. 

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5002/3_e.asp

The moratorium that was placed on CF members of the CIC not being employed outside of the cadet organization was brought about when it was discovered that Primary Reserve Units were employing (and paying) the officers that supervised their affiliated cadet corps inappropriately.  (i.e. a person acting as an artillery spotter after a short briefing.)  

The authority to employ CF CIC officers outside of the Cadet Organization now rests with DGRC/DCdts on a case by case basis. It is approved for short term assignments when it makes sense, where the person is currently active in the cadet program, the cadet program will not be disadvantaged and the person has the required skills/training.  For long term assignments a component transfer from the CIC to the PRes is encouraged the terms of which are negotiable iaw the reference above.

See Section 2.8c This is the instruction

CHIEF MILITARY PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION 20/04

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/docs/word/instruction_20_04_e.doc

2.8.c.  *CIC.*  A mbr of the CIC shall not be employed for non-cadet related activities *unless approved by NDHQ/Directorate of Reserves (D Res).  If approved, the mbr may:*(1)	remain on the strength of their home unit and be att post to the host unit; or
(2)	be posted or att post to another unit within the command and control of the CIC.
(3)	Mbrs who wish to be employed outside the CIC may request a sub-component transfer to another Res F sub-component.


----------



## geo (19 Aug 2008)

It all boils down to employment in a job they have been trained to accomplish.  Given the limitations to the CICs military training, there are few if any positions outside the cadet movement where they can be advantageously employed.  As stated, requires NDHQ approval for each and every single one - without exception.

Again, the point is "moot" & CIC officers are not required to accomplish a CF Express test as a normal part of their training.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> It all boils down to employment in a job they have been trained to accomplish.  Given the limitations to the CICs military training, there are few if any positions outside the cadet movement where they can be advantageously employed.  As stated, requires NDHQ approval for each and every single one - without exception.
> 
> Again, the point is "moot" & CIC officers are not required to accomplish a CF Express test as a normal part of their training.



True that -- and here it is "officially":

CANFORGEN 081/05 270938Z APR 05 VCDS: *CLARIFICATION ON THE USE OF CADET INSTRUCTOR CADRE (CIC) OFFICERS OUTSIDE THE CANADIAN CADET MOVEMENT*



> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFS: A. DGRC MESSAGE 488 011853Z SEP 98
> B. D RES MESSAGE 311 041411Z FEB 04
> ...


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> There are no such current directive! It is not forbidden to employ CIC officers outside of the cadet program in activities in support of other component or sub components of the CF.
> 
> ...
> See Section 2.8c This is the instruction
> ...



Uhmmmm, as per my posted CANFORGEN below - it IS forbidden unless in very exceptional (AND pre-approved) circumstances.

Your ref quoted above is from 2004 - Not only does a CANFORGEN outweigh it officially, but the CANFORGEN suspercedes it as the most recent directive.


----------



## rwgill (19 Aug 2008)

Then we have DAOD 5023-1 (dated 2006) which again makes the "to meet the minimum operational standards if attached, seconded or transferred on consent to the Reg F or P Res" statement.  This outdates the CANFORGEN.

Should it happen, probably no.

Does it happen, yes.  A friend of mine, currently a CIC officer, will be attached posted for a short time.  He has already applied for component transfer but that could take a while.  The position is required to be filled immediately, and he is the only person with the expertise.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

rwgill said:
			
		

> Then we have DAOD 5023-1 (dated 2006) which again makes the "to meet the minimum operational standards if attached, seconded or transferred on consent to the Reg F or P Res" statement.  This outdates the CANFORGEN.
> 
> Should it happen, probably no.
> 
> Does it happen, yes.  A friend of mine, currently a CIC officer, will be attached posted for a short time.  He has already applied for component transfer but that could take a while.  The position is required to be filled immediately, and he is the only person with the expertise.



*As already stated NUMEROUS times:*

*IF* attached or seconded to a PRes or Reg posn.

IF NOT - there is NO PT standard.

And, IAW with the CANFORGEN ... the number of CIC seconded to the Pres or Reg F will be ONLY in exceptional AND pre-approved circumstances.

There is ZERO conflict between that CANFORGEN and the DAOD. None. Squat. Nil.

That DAOD does NOT superscede the CANFORGEN - the DAOD amplifies _how_ those CIC officers in exceptional circumstances (as per para5  the CANFORGEN) are to be handled.


----------



## rwgill (19 Aug 2008)

Gosh.  All that I am doing is contributing, not arguing.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

rwgill said:
			
		

> Gosh.  All that I am doing is contributing, not arguing.



I realize that.

It was not for your benefit in as much as it was for the benefit of another who seems to miss the "IF employed with PRes or RegF" in all the refs.

And the bit about "superceeding" was to point out that the DAOD is an amplification on treatment of CIC "during employment in those exceptional circumstances", but in no way "superceedes" the CANFORGEN outlining "the rarity and circumstances in which CIC can be seconded to ResF or RegF posns."

IE:

The CANFORGEN is the direction wrt to legality and authority to second CIC to Res/RegF "*when and how*" (only in exceptional and pre-approved circumstances); and 
The DAOD is "*while* seconded in those exceptional and rare Reg/Res F posns, a CIC Officer shall ..."


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Aug 2008)

rwgill said:
			
		

> Gosh.  All that I am doing is contributing, not arguing.



I think then, you will agree, that your information was then disputed by Vern.

That is not arguing, that is called being corrected.

Let's not lose track of things folks, and let passion get in the way of common sense.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## gwp (19 Aug 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That is not arguing, that is called being corrected.


Then let's talk about being corrected
These are the current and sole references regarding the employment of CF personnel. CANFORGEN 81/05 only clarifies permitted employment while re-inforcing the definition of inappropriate employment i.e "badge of convenience" and employing people in positions they are not qualified for such as "artillery spotter" with a half-hour brief.  

CHIEF MILITARY PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION 20/04
Administrative Policy Of Class “A”, Class “B” And Class “C” Reserve Service 
Date of Issue	1 December 2004, *Amendment 3, 24 May 2006*
Application	This instr applies to all Res F sub-components: the Primary Reserve (P Res); the Supplementary Reserve (Supp Res); the Cadet Instructors Cadre (CIC); and the Canadian Rangers (Cdn Rangs) and to any organization where reservists are serving
Supersession	NDHQ Instruction ADM(Per) 2/93, 1 April 1993
Approval Authority	CMP
Enquiries	DPGP 3-3
Document Content	Administrative Policy of Class “A”, Class “B” and Class “C” Reserve Service
References: A. NDHQ Instruction ADM(Per) 2/93, 1 April 1993 
B. A-PM-245-001/FP-001 Chapter 19, Class “A”, “B” and “C” Reserve Service
C.  CANFORGEN 032/06 240916Z Feb 06
D.  CANFORGEN 012/06 CDS 007/06
E.  CANFORGEN 013/06 CDS 009/09
F.  CANFORGEN 017/06 CDS 012/06
G.  CANFORGEN 019/06 CDS 014/06
H.  CANFORGEN ON Active Service

The assertion is that employment of CF CIC personnel outside the cadet program is "prohibited" .  Clearly it is not prohibited.  It is approved on a case by case basis by DGRC/DCdts in accordance with the requirements of the service.  CF CIC members are to meet the physical fitness standards when they are so employed.   There are no absolutes here.  

It is prohibited to cross the street when the light is red.  When it turns green you are approved to cross the street.  The CF will do what is in its best interests when it comes to human resources management ... and does. 

If you take issue with this point of view ... speak to Chief Military Personnel who is responsible for the policy or DCdts Col Craig Fletcher who ultimately makes the decision.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Aug 2008)

Where is that "beating a dead horse" emo ?


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> Then let's talk about being corrected
> These are the current and sole references regarding the employment of CF personnel. All previous CANFORGENs etc. are superceded.
> 
> CHIEF MILITARY PERSONNEL INSTRUCTION 20/04
> ...



I am not interested in being dragged in to this tit for tat.

I will reiterate, do not allow passions take over, and assume that someone is attacking.

Clearly, you required me to correct you on that.  Further to that, where was anyone adviocating a complete priohibition of CIC working with groups outside of cadets?  No One.  However, would you agree, that everyone has shown that only with extreme prejudice, can a CIC be allowed to do so?

I think, CDN A hit the nail on the head, and I will reiterate, do not allow passion to cloud your judgement of other posts on this thread.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The assertion is that employment of CF CIC personnel outside the cadet program is "prohibited" .  Clearly it is not prohibited.  *It is approved on a case by case basis by DGRC/DCdts in accordance with the requirements of the service. *  CF CIC members must meet the physical fitness standards when they are so employed.   There are no absolutes here.
> 
> It is prohibited to cross the street when the light is red.  When it turns green you are approved to cross the street.  The CF will do what is in its best interests when it comes to human resources management ... and does.



Ref the BOLD - which is EXACTLY what we have ALL been telling you since the start of this thread.

"Exceptional cases: pre-approved" ... (as per para 5 of that CANFORGEN)

NONE of which negates the FACT that CIC Officers are NOT subject to ANY Physical Fitness standards (UNLESS seconded to one of those exclusive and elusive RegF or PRIMARY [of which the CIC is not part of] ResF posns) ... also exactly what we've been saying all along.

And again - there's that (I changed to yellow in your ref) "when they are so employed" bit ... EXACTLY the same as that "IF" that you keep on missing.

Are you done yet?


----------



## gwp (19 Aug 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Where was anyone adviocating a complete priohibition of CIC working with groups outside of cadets


  

Earlier in the thread it was stated --- there are several directives prohibiting the employment of CF CIC with other components. That is simply not correct.  It was re-stated with an attempted to back it up with a dated CANFORGEN.   



> No One.  However, would you agree, that everyone has shown that only with extreme prejudice, can a CIC be allowed to do so?



I know of a CF CIC member who was employed this past weekend in direct support of the RegF and PRes.    It is not a rare occasion.  It is measured and approved.  

It is the "extreme prejudice" of some here that causes the passions to rise.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> Earlier in the thread it was stated --- there are several directives prohibiting the employment of CF CIC with other components unless under exceptional circumstances and pre-approved.   It was re-stated with an attempted to back it up with a dated CANFORGEN.
> 
> I know of a CF CIC member who was employed this past weekend in direct support of the RegF and PRes.    It is not a rare occasion.  It is measured and approved.
> 
> It is the "extreme prejudice" of some here that causes the passions to rise.



My additions added in yellow font. Re-read all the previous posts and have a gander for yourself.

Unfortunately, what you miss ... is essential to the discussion. NO ONE said it was prohibited. They said it was prohibited UNLESS in exceptional and pre-approved circumstances.

Your earlier ref btw was ammended to reflect that CANFORGEN's direction that I quoted. It doesn't say a damn thing different than the CANFORGEN (which is _not_ cancelled/superceeded btw - else the hyperlink on the VCDS site that I provided in that same post would state such ... just as the links to any CANFORGENs that are cancelled/superceeded do). As a matter of fact, the ref you gave was an ammendment made as a result of that very CANFORGEN - you can even see it listed as a "ref" in your ref.

My "knock head against brick wall" little icon doesn't seem to want to work for me right now -- please pretend it's here:

**~_Vern knocks head against brick wall_~**


----------



## Neill McKay (19 Aug 2008)

Perhaps this is one of those discussions in which everyone should confine his or her remarks to areas in which he or she has current knowledge based on branch and position.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2008)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is one of those discussions in which everyone should confine his or her remarks to areas in which he or she has current knowledge based on branch and position.



Neill,

As the Det Comd of a Reg Force Unit who was responsible for ensuring this implementation/verification/enforcement of new policy direction wrt the employment of CIC Officers outside of the CCM only in exceptional and pre-approved circumstances in a certain province ...

I can assure you that I am within my lanes, but - nice try regarding the "Branch" / "Position" bit.  :


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Aug 2008)

And that's a lock.

I see nothing more than a mushy mess of pulp, that was once a dead horse.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------

