# RANK and IPC on CFR



## timstec (15 Aug 2008)

Here is what I know:

A Sgt/WO when CFR'd will receive the rank of Lt.

A MWO/CWO when CFR'd will receive the rank of Capt.


Obviously you cannot go down in pay.

What I want to know is what is the calculation used to figure out which IPC you will be paid at upon CFR.


thanks in advance guys


----------



## garb811 (15 Aug 2008)

If this is in regards to you CFRing, I hope you know how to research your own question...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2008)

I am hoping you are not a Sgt/WO who is CFRing....

A good place to start your research is CFAO 11-9 COMMISSIONING FROM THE RANKS PLAN.  Specfically, pay particular attention to Annex B.


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 Aug 2008)

That CFAO is severely out of date, and other threads in this forum detail this subject matter. Search for SLC/ILQ, CFR and/or PLAR. Also the subject of IPC and determination of pay is covered at length in this very forum and CF publications. Just use the search function.

In short the SLC clause therein is no longer applicable but rather "at the moment" it is PLQ and above with further changes forthcoming.

Incidentally, generally when CWO/MWO's commission, it is not through CFR but rather through tthe Special Commissioning Plan, the DMCA webpage has all the references you need.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2008)

FinClk said:
			
		

> That CFAO is severely out of date, and other threads in this forum detail this subject matter. Search for SLC/ILQ, CFR and/or PLAR. Also the subject of IPC and determination of pay is covered at length in this very forum and CF publications. Just use the search function.
> 
> In short the SLC clause therein is no longer applicable but rather "at the moment" it is PLQ and above with further changes forthcoming.
> 
> Incidentally, generally when CWO/MWO's commission, it is not through CFR but rather through tthe Special Commissioning Plan, the DMCA webpage has all the references you need.



Its still a CFAO, whatever is published that supersedes it would have to implictly say it supersedes it....if the CFAO is out of date, has that been identified so it is corrected? Perhaps  you have links to the current authorized, published policies that override a CFAO??


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

Thanks for all the info guys.

I had already read the applicable CFAO's, QR&O's etc..

Maybe a Fin clerk can answer my question.

Here is an example of what I am looking for:

eg. WO (1)  when CFR'd will become a LT(3)
      MWO (2) when CFR'd will become a Capt (4)

Someothing to that affect. There MUST be some sort of conversion formula that is used to ensure you do not go down in pay.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2008)

This is a guess from something I've heard before but, I believe you go to the IPC that will put you at the same or closest to the same actual dollar amount you were when you CFR.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> I had already read the applicable CFAO's, QR&O's etc..
> ( . . . )
> Someothing to that affect. There MUST be some sort of conversion formula that is used to ensure you do not go down in pay.



I guess your "etc" didn't include Compensation and Benefit Instructions (CBI), specifically CBI 204.04 RATE OF PAY ON PROMOTION.  The "formula" is highlighted.



> 204.04 – RATE OF PAY ON PROMOTION
> 
> 204.04(1) (General) The rate of pay on promotion or commission for an officer up to the rank of lieutenant-general and for a non-commissioned member will be based on the rate of pay held prior to promotion. A pay increment higher than basic in the new rank may be determined in accordance with this instruction.
> 
> ...



(edited to add after reflection)
As an aside, after reviewing your other posts, I get the impression that you may be currently serving as an NCM and are considering commissioning.  If however you had not been able to find the answer to this question on your own (it took me 67 seconds on open internet sources), then I (if I was your CO)  would seriously question your fitness for CFR and most likely would not recommend you.


----------



## TDeV (16 Aug 2008)

"There MUST be some sort of conversion formula that is used to ensure you do not go down in pay"

I'm under the impression that pay cannot be decreased without disciplinary action being involved. Let me know if im out-of'er.


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

Thank you for the reference Blackadder1916. 

However I do believe your statement afterwards is very simple minded. 

Refusing someone's CFR because he/she could not find a reference.

You obviously have not heard of something we call... leadership!  ???


----------



## Shamrock (16 Aug 2008)

The specific CBI.

Let us know what you come up with.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> Thank you for the reference Blackadder1916.
> 
> However I do believe your statement afterwards is very simple minded.
> 
> ...



How about something called "initiative"?? That's a big part of _Leadership_ too you know.

Not being able to find a simple reference in this day and age with all of the electronic wizardry available to us CF members (it's available at work if not available in your home), or failing that - the inability to type "pay level on promotion" into a search bar on a civ website, may certainly tend to lead one to question one's "ability".

What are you going to do the first time a Warrant Officer like me walks into your office after issuing a caution, or tossing IC or RW or C&P paperwork on your desk for action via the CoC? Ask us to find your references for you after we've done our jobs already? Actually scrap that --- the WO would already have the paperwork done up, the references researched and printed, and all your ducks already lined up in a row for you, neatly tucked into a Protected B folder and would actually be giving you a simple "sign here" - perhaps even with a minute sheet (if they're really keen) outlining what the next steps they recommend that YOU take are. You'd best know how to use (ie: have the incentive) "search" and how to "utilize your resources" to make sure we've done our jobs properly --- else it's your signature (and thus you) on the line. That's called "administration" and can also reflect on your "problem solving" and "job knowledge" abilities.

I hope this is making sense for you. Ultimately ... it's your "responsibility" to ensure that we are correct and to research your own information to ensure that what we are providing you is current, accurate and good to go.

Notice that ALL of my quoted words can be found in the performance and potential areas of an NCMs annual PER - that happens to be one of those things that a CO would look at when considering such an NCM for a Commission recommendation. 

Just my .02 cents worth.


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

I think SOME of you are a little up-tight!

You guys are telling me that you are perfect soldiers and that you never had to ask anyone anything? 

There is something in the army called mentorship. If you know an answer, teach and develop your subordinates. Don't be arogant and try to belittle them.

I thought the whole purpose of this forum was to help shed the light on questions that people might have.

That is my 2 cents... and I am ending it there. Not going to argue with people that lead from behind their computer screens.  

Have a great day, and THANK YOU to the people that DO try to help out in these forums.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Aug 2008)

timstec while there is mentorship there is also personal accountibility and as was already stated personal initative. If one of my guys refuses to help himself and relies on everyone to do his/her work for them, do you think they will get far?


----------



## PO2FinClk (16 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Its still a CFAO, whatever is published that supersedes it would have to implictly say it supersedes it....if the CFAO is out of date, has that been identified so it is corrected? Perhaps  you have links to the current authorized, published policies that override a CFAO??


Haven't you heard, CFAO's are being phased in favour of DAOD's and new FAM's? They have not conducted proper CFAO amendments for years, some even over 20 years so doubt very much they would amend this either. Just wait for direction that CDA should be releasing once all the T's are crossed.

And by the way, no it does not need to say it implicitly say it supersedes CFAO's. Ideally it would, however looking at endless changes in policy over the last 20 years it is unfortunately a rarity, rather direction issued by Managing Authorities of the subject matter has become current policy (take the DCBA Aide-Memoire for example).


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

If you would have read my previous post. I did look through the various acts and references.

So the answer slipped in doing so. I'm sorry for not being perfect.

How does that show a lack of initiaive in any way?


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> I think SOME of you are a little up-tight!
> 
> You guys are telling me that you are perfect soldiers and that you never had to ask anyone anything?
> 
> ...



ANY good leader would tell their subordinates to look up something on their own (they'd even give them directions on HOW to look up the answer they are seeking - EXACTLY as has been done for you here on this site) ... it's how the subordinate learns and gains that experience so that, one day, when that subordinate is a leader themself - they can then do the same for _their_ subordinates. NO leader worth his salt would do the work for the subordinate ... as that does not DEVELOP or TEACH the subordinate anything.

No one here is trying to be "arrogant".


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

Geeez..

I am dancing around the right answer and I just can't pinpoint it.

So I ask for help... and all of a sudden I am not a good leader?

Some of you should brush up on your 12 principles of leadership. And yes... there are 12 now.. not 10.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> So of you should brush up on your 12 principles of leadership. And yes... there are 12 now.. not 10.



Don't worry about me ... I'm certainly not.  

1) Achieve professional competence and pursue self-improvement

2) Clarify objectives and intent

3) Solve problems; make timely decisions

4) Direct; motivate by persuasion and example and by sharing risks and hardships

5) Train individuals and teams under demanding and realistic conditions

6) Build teamwork and cohesion

7) Keep subordinates informed, explain events and decisions

8 ) Mentor, educate, and develop subordinates

9) Treat subordinates fairly; respond to their concerns, represent their interests

10) Maintain situational awareness; seek information; keep current

11) Learn from experience and those who have experience

12) Exemplify and reinforce the miiltary ethos; maintain order and discipline; uphold professional norms


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

STUDY them...

really hard!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> Geeez..
> 
> I am dancing around the right answer and I just can't pinpoint it.
> 
> ...



My bosses nor my subordinates have any issues with how I do things. The owner of this site is happy with my performance as a mod so I am doing fine thanks.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> STUDY them...
> 
> really hard!



Suggest you do that yourself.  

Making special note of numbers 1, 3, 4 (direct), 5, 10 (seek information - this can be done by yourself via the "search" button as explained), and 11 (learn from experience would insinuate that you GAIN the experience). I've already explained #8 to you in an earlier post.

This is what a Leader does.

YOU are asking about CFRing (being a Leader in the Officer Corps), thus insinuating that you ALREADY have the Leadership skills required to pull off being able to comply with and fulfill these 12 Principles of Leadership. 

Correct? Or am I missing something in that 2nd principle listed?


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

YES Ma'am! I'm right on it!


----------



## Shamrock (16 Aug 2008)

If memory serves, when I changed status, the formula was something like:

1.  Determine your present pay class.  That should be the lowest salary that meets your current pay without reducing it.
2.  Take the difference between IPC 0 and IPC 1 of your present rank.
3.  Add that value to your present IPC.  This is your entitlement to pay increase upon promotion.
4.  Use the CBI's to find where your pay scale and table are upon promotion.
5.  Find where that least amount on the appropriate scale and table that satisfies that value.  This conceivably means a $1 (or no) pay raise.


A ficticious example:
MCpl Bloggins has applied for and been accepted into the UTPNCM program.  Presently, he's getting MCpl 3 for a total of $4300 a month.  MCpl 0 is $4100 a month and MCpl 1 is $4225 - a total of $125 a month difference.  So, MCpl Bloggins is entitled to $4325 upon promotion to OCdt.

He refers to the proper tables.  OCdt 7 makes $4100 a month.  OCdt 8 Makes $4210 a month.  OCdt 9 makes $4336 a month.  Since his entitlement is only $4325, MCpl Bloggins gets OCdt 8, for a grand total of a $10 pay raise.


Rules have changed since I switched, and I may be recalling them incorrectly.  Although I am now an officer, I did not CFR, so there may be a different formula for those undergoing that comissioning plan.  For those wondering, there is a marked difference between CFR and other comissioning plans, including what is required to be accepted into them and the ability to function once comissioned.  CFR is not a comission sought, it is a comission offered for outstanding leadership, both at the individual and institutional level.

Which is where the umbrage is taken at the original post.


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

Thank you Shamrock.

Your post helps me out quite a bit.

thanks again


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Aug 2008)

FinClk said:
			
		

> Haven't you heard, CFAO's are being phased in favour of DAOD's and new FAM's? They have not conducted proper CFAO amendments for years, some even over 20 years so doubt very much they would amend this either. Just wait for direction that CDA should be releasing once all the T's are crossed.
> 
> And by the way, no it does not need to say it implicitly say it supersedes CFAO's. Ideally it would, however looking at endless changes in policy over the last 20 years it is unfortunately a rarity, rather direction issued by Managing Authorities of the subject matter has become current policy (take the DCBA Aide-Memoire for example).



Ok...then why are the CFAOs still online and not amended as superceded?  Makes it hard for some folks to be able to look at the books and find the right info.

If this is the way the CF is doing enterprise level admin, someone up top should be getting a kick in the nuts.


----------



## Shamrock (16 Aug 2008)

No worries.  You may want to read the CBI I directed you to and confirm the math remains the same and confirm for others reading.


----------



## timstec (16 Aug 2008)

thanks I will


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> If memory serves, when I changed status, the formula was something like:
> 
> 1.  Determine your present pay class.  That should be the lowest salary that meets your current pay without reducing it.
> 2.  Take the difference between IPC 0 and IPC 1 of your present rank.
> ...



You're correct with your 1 through 5 (as was given to him officially at post number 7's response here )

But, if I were OCdt Bloggins (in your example above) -- I'd be coming back to haunt you about your reference and forumla. $4300 at my MCpl Bloggins pay-rate PLUS the $125 difference between IPC 0 and 1 of that pay scale = an entitlement to at least *$4425* as an Officer Cadet (vice $4325 that you gave). That'd have me bumped up a pay scale and cursing RMS clerks who figured it out wrong and put me at your listed OCdt 8 IPC. You giving me interest on my back pay when I finally figure out that you were paying me at the wrong OCdt 8 rate?  >

I already know the answer ... no you're not. Ensuring we are paid the proper rate each month is a personal responsibilty vice a responsibilty of the RMS clerk.


----------



## Shamrock (16 Aug 2008)

That Bloggins guy is an idiot anyway.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> That Bloggins guy is an idiot anyway.



Well, he's prolific to say the least!!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Aug 2008)

timstec said:
			
		

> Refusing someone's CFR because he/she could not find a reference.
> 
> You obviously have not heard of something we call... leadership!  ???



Technically it wouldn't be "refusing someone's CFR" since in many cases if the individual is not judged worthy for consideration they will never know, as CFR is not an application program.   Nominations for CFR rest solely with a CO, though many of the suggestions for nomination originate at a lower level, and sometimes the initial idea may come from the nominees themselves when they mention it to their CoC.

And yes I have heard of leadership...once or twice.  Plus, I have nominated/recommended pers in the past for commissioning as well as told individuals that I did not judge them suitable for CFR when they asked if I would nominate them.  CFR was once very common as an officer production program in my (before I retired) MOC, HCA.  At one time, over 90% of the officers in tha occupation had prior service in the ranks (reg force).


----------



## PO2FinClk (17 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ok...then why are the CFAOs still online and not amended as superceded?  Makes it hard for some folks to be able to look at the books and find the right info.
> 
> If this is the way the CF is doing enterprise level admin, someone up top should be getting a kick in the nuts.


I cannot agree more, and pretty much any clerk out there would have to agree with you. The entire idea of phasing out CFAO's for DAOD's was announced over 10 years ago and yet here we are now. The volume of reference material on a myriad of subjects makes it difficult to find, if its even made available online through the DIN at all.

The Pay & IPC issue, CBI's however are in fact very clear on the issue, not hard to find and/or interpret in the slightest. And as stated in my previous post, there are several threads in these forums which elaborate on them even further. USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION!. I will not simply use my personal time to assist someone looking for a very simple handout.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Aug 2008)

Agreed FinClk...some people would prefer you do all the work for them and if you don't they get all snitty.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed FinClk...some people would prefer you do all the work for them and if you don't they get all snitty.



Are you referring to me?


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are you referring to me?



Seems to me that it is more appropriately being addressed towards the poster of this ... (the original poster - just look what happened when we provided him refs and told him how to go about getting his answer ...)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/78967/post-744877.html#msg744877


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Aug 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Seems to me that it is more appropriately being addressed towards the poster of this ... (the original poster - just look what happened when we provided him refs and told him how to go about getting his answer ...)
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/78967/post-744877.html#msg744877



Seen.  

Sometimes its frustrating to find what you think is the Ref, only to find that is superceded and its not indicated at the old Ref, with no link to the new Ref...ah well, keeps me busy!


----------

