# Acting ranks



## Big Daddy142 (5 Feb 2007)

Hey I was in cadets a long time ago, and right before I went on Bisley, I was given a promotion to acting sgt (badge and everything) and I was even called sgt.  When I came back I was confirmed in rank.  I'm just curious if other corps do this as well and what would be the purpouse of this?


----------



## Burrows (5 Feb 2007)

Acting ranks are done usually when there is a need/desire for an individual to be promoted but the requirements are not met.  If there is a requirement that someone be MCpl for six months before being able to be a sgt, but for some reason the CO feels the need for a sgt and the best available for promotion is a MCpl with 5 months, then the CO may promote him as an acting sgt for the need to be met.

In the sense of cadet-land I have only ever needed acting rank where there have been large concentrations of cadets from multiple different units and due to conflict or other reasons, a critical link in the chain of command hasn't been met.  In both cases you ARE your acting rank.  Nobody in the land of cadets need know otherwise unless it is crucial.  The only people who need know a rank is acting in my eyes are the CO, the OPI, and anyone else it will have a direct impact on.  Otherwise - this is cadets, the world will not cease rotation.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (5 Feb 2007)

It has been my experience as well that acting ranks in cadet land can be given to find out what the cadet is made of.  If they are the right person for a job or position.  The CO can remove any rank up to and including WO without D Cadets getting involved.  I have used this method to test cadets that are new to the unit as well.  You don't know how they will work out so you make it an acting rank.  Just my two cents!  

Cheers!! 

the army guy :warstory:


----------



## D. Nicholson (5 Feb 2007)

and just to add to Kyle's comments, there is a lot of use of them at some CSTCs where they have challenges filling the staff vacancies with qualified Cadets. And just like Kyle said almost no one knows, in 2005 at VACSTC about 1/4 of the Sgts were "Acting."


----------



## GuNnEr@2853 (7 Feb 2007)

One of my fellow sergeants was an acting sergeant. Also on cadet weekends we have acting ranks.


----------



## Wolfmann (8 Feb 2007)

For the Sea program, Acting ranks are given only for those completing the LHQ Phase Program and have not met all the prerequisites for promotion. The only Acting rank in the Sea program is Acting Petty Officer First Class. YTo be promoted to Petty Officer First Class the cadet must have completed Phase IV, successfully completed the National written and practicals exams, be 16 years of age, and have been in the acting rank for six months.

Otherwise, the Sea program uses appointments for those that are placed in temporary positions of leadership, and no other rank can be awarded in an "acting" capacity. At least none that I know of.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (8 Feb 2007)

Acting ranks on weekends??  What a great idea!  I never thought of that one.  I'm gonna try it next exercise.  Thanks   
Cheers

the army guy  :warstory:


----------



## Shamrock (8 Feb 2007)

We do it here all the time.

During the weekends, my wife acts like she has a higher rank than mine.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Feb 2007)

Wolfmann said:
			
		

> For the Sea program, Acting ranks are given only for those completing the LHQ Phase Program and have not met all the prerequisites for promotion. The only Acting rank in the Sea program is Acting Petty Officer First Class. YTo be promoted to Petty Officer First Class the cadet must have completed Phase IV, successfully completed the National written and practicals exams, be 16 years of age, and have been in the acting rank for six months.



That's not an acting rank; Qualified Petty Officer First Class is a substantive rank (in as much as any other cadet rank is).

When the requirement to have a White Sail Level 2 qualification for promotion to PO1 first came in to effect we had acting/lacking PO1s -- these were people who had everything necessary for promotion but that.  It was felt that a sudden policy change shouldn't hold anyone back, so they were promoted acting/lacking to give them time to pick up the WS2 qual.

Nationally, there's no provision for acting ranks in the sea cadet programme.  Some regions may do their own thing with this, of course, as with all sort of other issues.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (12 Feb 2007)

Just a quick note.  The Cadet Administration Training Orders (CATO) 40-03 states that an acting rank may only be ONE rank higher than the cadet is currently qualified for.  Information is power!!

Cheers!!!  

the army guy  :warstory:


----------



## D. Nicholson (13 Feb 2007)

Why not use acting appoinments? since that is where most of the "authority" (I use the term loosely) comes into effect for Cadet purposes.

Rank isn't that important, if the Section Commander is a Pte then so be it, if the CSM is a MCpl then so be it.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (14 Feb 2007)

That is a compelling argument to be sure.  I agree with you.  Given the strength of some units, there are often not enough senior NCO's to do the jobs.  An acting appointment might just be the way to go.  Thanks for the idea.

Cheers!!!   

the army guy   :warstory:


----------



## Bergeron 971 (14 Feb 2007)

Appointments is where true authority lies. Its why I hadn't posted in this tread yet. Ranks are not as important as Appointments. 
I hate seeing kids get ranks they are not ready for, test them by appointment first if needed.
Acting ranks only discourage cdts. some might think its a promotion only to have it taken away.
I know me for one, was promoted on a COs inspection to WO only to find out it was so that the flag party would have a WO as the cmdr. Of course a Gen was going to be teh reviewing O for a cerimonial a couple weeks later. Well then the corps tryed to take the rank away from me. and I stood my ground as I felt I had the experiance, knowlegde needed to be the rank, had been appointed flag party cmdr for over a year and I was aging out less then a year later. 
With appointments no one gets upset and no misunderstandings. I use our 2 MWO's and swtich them around as acting RSMs when the RSM is absent.


----------



## Burrows (14 Feb 2007)

Just a counter to your argument Mr. Bergeron

Appointments are all good in a single corps situation when its of a fairly moderate size.  Otherwise, at multi-corps events, and in larger cadet corps, the need for rank is greater.  I was a PL WO at a garrison, and I was one of 4 Warrant Officers in the position, all the rest were filled by MWOs (because there could only be one CWO as Garrison RSM the rest were CSMs).  While we all got along pretty well, it was the rank I held above the section commanders (all of which were troops I had never met before) that allowed me to lay the ground and set my standards that would be adhered to.

Along with that though, I did have an altercation with one of the MWOs who promptly learned that when I tell the company to clean themselves off (CSM having been in OGrp and leaving me in charge), they don't pull rank on me.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (14 Feb 2007)

An appointment is just that.  A level of authority given to an individual in an appointed job.  The rank is the visual and sometimes physically obvious distinction that shows others ones level of authority.  An appointment will always be easier to take back.  As was pointed out by Mr. Bergeron, when taking back a rank, the cadets feel as though they are being cheated in some way.  I can see how using an appointment with the understanding that it may be taken away in the future, could be beneficial.  Just my two cents.

Cheers!!!   

the army guy   :warstory:


----------



## Bergeron 971 (14 Feb 2007)

I agree that at ASC's  will appoint ranks for posts, but its all in teh organization. if your going to give a rank out in my opinion. give it out for a reasion. not to take it away.
I know of one CC that has 3 or so units in one CC. but again its in the organization. My CC has FTXs and activities with other corps often. But I do not know of one time where we gave an acting rank just for that activity or ftx.
I'm not into that at all ;D


----------



## THEARMYGUY (14 Feb 2007)

A rank and/or appointment is not given out SO that it can be taken away.  It's done to provide structure at the unit and also to enable members of the organization to take on new roles as leaders.  A rank should always be given for a reason I agree.  An appointment would be the same.  In some circumstances it MAY be necessary to remove an appointment due to a change in structure of the unit.  At other times appointments or ranks may need to be removed or changed because the wearer is not capable of doing the job.  The acting rank/ appointment was given to find out that very thing.  It's not about making people feel bad, it's about the unit and its cohesion.  The effective organization of the unit is important if you are going to be successfully.  Acting ranks are a necessary evil as are appointments.  They can be valuable.  They can also be a boatload of trouble. 

Cheers!!!   

the army guy   :warstory:


----------



## D. Nicholson (14 Feb 2007)

Kyle your multi-unit FTX point is a very good one, and can be a case where acting ranks may be considered if there seems to be a potential challenge. 

It's situations like that which make me wish unit's followed the National standards! They are, in my opinion, quite good now!


----------



## THEARMYGUY (16 Feb 2007)

D. Nicholson said:
			
		

> It's situations like that which make me wish unit's followed the National standards! They are, in my opinion, quite good now!



Please expand.  Which National Standards are you referring to?

Cheers!!!   

the army guy   :warstory:


----------



## rwgill (17 Feb 2007)

I am just guessing, but would the National Standards be the CATOs?!?


----------



## THEARMYGUY (17 Feb 2007)

Yes, I'm sure that would be the National Standard.  I was simply looking for clarification of which CATO was being referred too.  I was thinking if you used 40-03 on the Army side it would only give you a very small part of the requirements.  Merit and a vacancy being the common thread.  No other prerequisites for appointments are available in that document besides perhaps star qualification.  

Cheers!!!   

the army guy   :warstory:


----------



## Burrows (17 Feb 2007)

I personally like what the sea cadets do.  I think an interview with at least the CO would be something that can be added to help decide.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (18 Feb 2007)

Kyle, are you referring to the promotion review board?  It is a great idea.  My unit does that for the CWO position ever time.  Resume and the whole bit.  It works well and gives you some insight as to the individuals life outside cadets as well.  The CO meeting is also a valid point.  It really is important for the CO to be involved in the process at many levels.  

Cheers!!!   

the army guy   :warstory:


----------



## rwgill (18 Feb 2007)

The Army Guy said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm sure that would be the National Standard.  I was simply looking for clarification of which CATO was being referred too.  I was thinking if you used 40-03 on the Army side it would only give you a very small part of the requirements.  Merit and a vacancy being the common thread.  No other prerequisites for appointments are available in that document besides perhaps star qualification.
> 
> Cheers!!!
> 
> the army guy   :warstory:



Sorry, I wasn't clearer.  I thought we were all army and speaking of the army side.

There are two requirements for the army side 1.  Star level, 2. Vacancy.  Merit is something which differes from unit to unit but is not a cut and dry prereq.

The current sysytem is better, in the long run, WRT merit.  It wasn't long ago that in order to be a substantive CWO, a cadet had to have accomplished CLI D&C.  All other CLI courses qualified a cadet to the rank of MWO.  Problem was, many of the "best" cadets chose to attend and applied for CLI Patrolling.  CLI D&C, to some, was a 2nd or 3rd choice.  

From experience, the top choices for CWO were all CLI Patrolling qualified.  The cadet with the least merit, was the only "qualified" candidate.


----------



## Burrows (18 Feb 2007)

The Army Guy said:
			
		

> Kyle, are you referring to the promotion review board?  It is a great idea.  My unit does that for the CWO position ever time.  Resume and the whole bit.  It works well and gives you some insight as to the individuals life outside cadets as well.  The CO meeting is also a valid point.  It really is important for the CO to be involved in the process at many levels.
> 
> Cheers!!!
> 
> the army guy   :warstory:


Yep, thats exactly what I was reffering to.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (21 Feb 2007)

rwgill said:
			
		

> Sorry, I wasn't clearer.  I thought we were all army and speaking of the army side.
> 
> There are two requirements for the army side 1.  Star level, 2. Vacancy.  Merit is something which differs from unit to unit but is not a cut and dry prereq.
> 
> From experience, the top choices for CWO were all CLI Patrolling qualified.  The cadet with the least merit, was the only "qualified" candidate.



Mr Gill.  We are Army and speaking from same.   You and I spent some time in uniform together at Ipperwash in the early 90's.  Ask me about it on PM.  The merit item is often clouded and difficult to deal with.  You make a good point about the choice of camps.  I would also add the fact that many cadets do not get accepted for camp at all.  This makes getting there for all of the prerequisites quite hard.  As well often the candidate with the most qualifications does exhibit less merit that his/her less "qualified" peer.  This is a blatant generalization I know.  It is of course only my humble opinion.  

Mr. Burrows.  The review board is an important step for the Navy program.  It's one the Army side can benefit greatly from.

Cheers!!!   

the army guy    :warstory:


----------



## Cyclonexftw (28 Jul 2008)

My squadron promotes acting ranks when we have a need for them, but no-one meets the requirements yet. For example:

To be promoted to the rank of Flight Sergeant (FSgt) you must have passed level 4, and have 80% uniform and 80% attendance. In my squadron, two sgts met the level requirement only, the other 4 met the uniform and attendance requirements only (they had only passed level 3 and are beginning 4 in the fall). Thus, our CO promoted the group of 4 to acting FSgts. I was one of those 4. I will become a full FSgt at the end of next year when I pass level 4.


----------

