# CAF Rank Structure vs Unified Ranks



## Avail (17 Apr 2018)

This is a random hypothetical that has crossed my mind:

Would the CAF (or any Military really) be more or less effective had it adopted a "unified/singular" rank structure along the lines of the RCMP, or most any police force, and why?

Why have Militaries historically separated their non-commissioned and commissioned rank structure into distinct career paths, while police forces produce their Commissioned Officers by promoting their Staff Sergeants to Senior Commissioned Officer ranks such as Inspector, and therefore do not have Junior Commissioned Officers?

On the surface at least it would seem to be a good thing that the Commissioned Officers "know the job" and started at the very bottom.

Thanks in advance for the insight folks


----------



## brihard (17 Apr 2018)

Various observations/thoughts-

In the military, the progression through junior and NCO ranks (I will use the latter term generally, and yes in Canada that would include our Warrant Officers) will generally start with an apprenticeship through to mastery of the job at the individual technicl level, and then up to command of small teams whose success is very dependent on a high level of technical expertise by the commander. The span of control of a section or crew commander and what they are responsible for necessitates years and years of experience at a very granular level.

As one goes up the chain of command in an army unit, the nature of the needed expertise begins to change. A platoon commander is an apprentice in his or her own right- they need less of the nitty gritty expertise because they have their NCOs for that. The time of the commanders at platoon, company, and battalion level, however, is much too valuable to spend on housekeeping, and the care and feeding of troops, and so they depend on those very experienced NCOs to take care of that for them.

The span of control of military officers can grow so large by late in a career (brigade, divisional commanders and such) that they really do need to have spend some time getting good at each of thsoe command levels, plus the various time in staff and other roles, as well as furthering their professional education. At each level they have to have some solid grasp of the conduct of operations a couple levels down from their own- the company commander will need to know how his weapons dets are best employed, and how his sections can be best used, though generally that will be them being grouped within their platoons The battle group or brigade group commanders have to really know how to use their companies, but needn't really concern themselves down to where individual platoons are placed. They have bigger stuff to worry about.

I would contend that few people will succeed in becoming senior NCOs, and then still have enough time left in their careers to be senior officers in command roles. To get those really skilled very senior officers, they have to get as much out of them as possible in the roles officers conventionally fill, knowing that in their officer apprenticeship they will be under the eye of and mentored by both more experienced company commander,s and their platoon 2ics, and so they can be dropped right into that initial command level without spending years mastering individual soldier skills and tecnical/equipment matters to the level that their experienced NCOs will.

So- I think in large part the divergence right from or almost from the start in noncommissioned and commissioned officer ranks in the military is largely necessity.

In the policing world it's pretty different. For one, simply put the police universe doesn't have large battles to be fought. Commissioned officers are generally senior managers, oversight, and administrators. An inspector in an RCMP detachment for instance may command the detachment, but that 'command' still generally involves delegating operational day to day policing matters to a Sergeant or Staff Sergeant who will be called an Operations NCO. You will usually only see a commissioned officer take a direct command role with tactical decision making if they are commanding a critical incident, as a trained incident commander- a SWAT call, hostage taking, barricaded subject, etc- or if they are at a higher level commanding a major event.

In policing the degree of individual responsibility for things with significant consequence goes right down to the individual police officer level. Any police officer can be potentially making decisions that have considerable import on the safety and freedom of individuals. They have to have technical expertise of their own (application of the law, knowledge of their powers and authorities, knowledge of the actual physical techniques of police interventions, knowledge of a whole ton of policy) that in the military will usually be seen at section command level at lowest. That's not to say a rookie cop has the same responsibility as an infantry section commander there's no easy analogy that immediately comes to mind- but there is potential *consequence* down to a low level.

With same, the oversight requirements from police officers necessitate those commissioned officers to have considerable technical knowledge to fall back on. The individual commissioned police officer is likely to be in a role where they are responsible for the safety of a whole community, either for a given shift or as 'the boss' 24/7. The RCMP inspector commanding the detachment in Fort Moose's Armpit, Manitoba, may command a group of police the size of a platoon- but he'll also be the effective chief of police for a community of tens of thousands, responsible for a detachment budget in the millions, responsible for liaising with community leaders, legal experts, politicians, etc etc. A newly commissioned police officer in the civilian world *cannot* be an apprentice the way a subaltern is. On the flip side, even the largst police force in Canada, the RCMP, has only six commissioned officer ranks- a member must be at least a corporal first, which in turn almost always means at least eight years of service. Sergeant or Staff Sergeant is more common.  

While there are some overlaps in military and police rank structures, there are many differences too... Experienced, senior constables may carry considerable responsibility. A police Corporal or Sergeant may fill jobs that in the military would never go to someone who isn't a commissioned officer. Police organizations also much less employ very senior NCOs in roles akin to Sergeants Major- they certainly do not fill 'command team' roles in a way akin to a military command team, although there will be some analogous duties.

Neither system is perfect. Both suit their particular context. There is certainly some value in some time spent in the ranks before commissioning in the military, but I think there's a quickly diminishing rate of return on that, and the longer one stays noncommissioned before commissioning,t he larger the opportunity cost to a subsequent commissioned officer career.


----------



## Monsoon (18 Apr 2018)

All of the above is heartily endorsed. I'll also add that there's nothing especially unique to militaries in having a distinct "executive development" track. Large corporations (and there are many larger than the CAF) structure their HR along much the same lines: the career tracks for people entering the organizations with MBAs or commerce degrees will be different than for folks entering as pure technical/operations/clerical staff. Like the CAF, there's permeability between the streams and people starting out on the executive development track are expected to get to know life at the coalface early in their career before moving on.

To a certain extent, classic corporate structure may be influenced by military structure (as the archetypal "massive organization"), but the private sector is generally pretty good at optimizing for what works. If it didn't serve a useful purpose, the practice wouldn't be as widespread as it is.


----------



## mariomike (18 Apr 2018)

Neso said:
			
		

> Why have Militaries historically separated their non-commissioned and commissioned rank structure into distinct career paths, while police forces produce their Commissioned Officers by promoting their Staff Sergeants to Senior Commissioned Officer ranks such as Inspector, and therefore do not have Junior Commissioned Officers?



From a historical perspective, there was / is no RMC equivalent in the emergency services. 

QUOTE

The presumption that post-secondary education is unnecessary and possibly harmful is a leftover from an earlier policing era that preferred malleable and unsophisticated young recruits who could then be “socialized” into being compliant and loyal officers.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/tsk-frc-rcmp-grc/_fl/archive-rthnk-plc-eng.pdf

When Staff Sgt. Gravel joined the force 30 years ago, the average age of a new police officer was about 20 years old because many young men were just graduating from high school or coming from the military. Now, he says, the average age of a recruit in Ontario is 29.
http://www.policecouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ottawa-Citizen-2006.pdf

END QUOTE


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Apr 2018)

While the policing model of all entry being at the single unified structure base, then progressing up the chain is the most common model in North America, it is not the sole model even for policing.

For instance, in France, around the turn of the 20th century, they noted that criminal investigations of the larger crimes were becoming more complex and that street policing was not necessarily the best preparation for it anymore.

As a result, they split the "uniformed" police/gendarmes from the investigators, who became the "police judiciaire" (PJ). The two are separate and recruit separately - with the PJ requiring a bachelor's degree as a minimum but no experience in police patrol tasks. Uniformed personnel who meet the requirements and pass the admission exams can switch to the PJ, just like they still investigate the smaller crimes, such as break-ins street thefts, defacing public property or public mischief, etc.

Since the "major crimes" are investigated by the PJ who, while working regularly in collaboration with the uniformed police forces, remain never the less a separate entity not having recruited from the same base, it makes it much more easy for the PJ to be seen as independent when they have to investigate potential deportment of the police in their interventions, such as any time someone is shot by the gendarmes, and vice versa when the PJ has potentially screwed up and the uniformed police then investigates them.

The Japanese have a similar split system of investigators being separate from the uniformed police and recruiting and training separately.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2018)

Coming late to this, but ...

The Hong Kong Police have a hybrid system: while there is a Constable to Commissioner path available, most officers are recruited as Probationary Inspectors (one pip) and are selected from recent university graduates and undergo what I think is a year or so long training course followed by a year or so of "on-the-job" (supervised) training.

Some branches, like the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau are "officer heavy" with many, many officers requiring advanced degrees in either accounting or a cyber related discipline.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> In the military, the progression through junior and NCO ranks (I will use the latter term generally, and yes in Canada that would include our Warrant Officers)



Actually, that is not correct if you are saying NCO includes WO --> CWO.  

QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 1, Art 1.02 - Definitions

"_non-commissioned officer_" (sous-officier) means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal;

If you were to word it more accurately, you could say "progression thru junior to senior ranks, for both Commissioned and Non Commissioned members...".

Same ref as above:

"non-commissioned member" (militaire du rang) means any person, other than an officer, who is enrolled in, or who pursuant to law is attached or seconded otherwise than as an officer to, the Canadian Forces; * 

"officer" (officier) means

a. a person who holds Her Majesty's commission in the Canadian Forces,
b. a person who holds the rank of officer cadet in the Canadian Forces, and
c. any person who pursuant to law is attached or seconded as an officer to the Canadian Forces; * 

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.  WOs, MWOs and CWOs are not NCOs.  They are Warrant Officers.  

I've attached a PDF that talks in some part of the history of the Warrant Officer, before and after unification and other info, including some info on what FJAG is speaking to below.


----------



## FJAG (26 Aug 2018)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that "historically" in the British military system the officers generally came from the landed gentry (complete with some form of rudimentary education) who had the financial means to support their officer status while the other ranks were generally from the poor unlanded sectors of society without education and without any specific skills.

Officers and other ranks (including NCOs) simply moved in separate social and career circles and were strictly divided by class. With the exception of the American Civil War, where large numbers of educated men, joined the ranks and officers were often elected from amongst the troops, class/education distinctions also played a role. While "mustang" officers were not unknown, they were in the minority.

In the twentieth century, at least here in North America, the dividing mechanism started to become less class and more education levels. Officers needed a high school education at first and more recently a university one while soldiers in the ranks did not. While we have had commissioning from the ranks programs for some time, that has been an exception to our officer generation process.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Officers and other ranks (including NCOs) simply moved  still move in separate social and career circles and were are still strictly divided by class.



FTFY


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that "historically" in the British military system the officers generally came from the landed gentry (complete with some form of rudimentary education) who had the financial means to support their officer status while the other ranks were generally from the poor unlanded sectors of society without education and without any specific skills.
> 
> Officers and other ranks (including NCOs) simply moved in separate social and career circles and were strictly divided by class. With the exception of the American Civil War, where large numbers of educated men, joined the ranks and officers were often elected from amongst the troops, class/education distinctions also played a role. While "mustang" officers were not unknown, they were in the minority.
> 
> ...



It is worth noting that the concept of purchased commissions applied only to the Army. There was no such thing in the Navy, although prominent families were able to arrange appointment as Midshipmen for their sons.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Aug 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It is worth noting that the concept of purchased commissions applied only to the Army. There was no such thing in the Navy, although prominent families were able to arrange appointment as Midshipmen for their sons.



From which ranks they then had to fight and claw their way out to join the wardroom through the same unceasing series of examinations, testing and boards as everybody else, with little or no favour arising from their prominence in society. Early after the battle of the Armada, the British Navy decided that the only thing England could afford was a thoroughly ruthless and professional Navy that abided no possible weakness. They still believe that concept and evaluate their personnel at each level on that basis.


----------



## FJAG (26 Aug 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It is worth noting that the concept of purchased commissions applied only to the Army. There was no such thing in the Navy, although prominent families were able to arrange appointment as Midshipmen for their sons.



It's quite true that the Navy was rarely the choice of the aristocracy but more that of the gentry who had or were capable of learning the technical skills needed to master seamanship (and the funds to purchase officers uniforms etc). 

There were similar examples in the army in that the artillery and engineers were also not the choice of the aristocracy (and incidentally where commissions were not available for purchase either). 

The true upper crust during the 1700 and early 1800s were more likely to seek commissions in units that had smart uniforms and little need for study of tactics or technical skills (cough, cough cavalry and infantry).

 :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's quite true that the Navy was rarely the choice of the aristocracy but more that of the gentry who had or were capable of learning the technical skills needed to master seamanship (and the funds to purchase officers uniforms etc).
> 
> There were similar examples in the army in that the artillery and engineers were also not the choice of the aristocracy (and incidentally where commissions were not available for purchase either).
> 
> ...



Which explains some of these gems:

Q. What has the IQ of 10
A. The Guards Division


A Guards officer and a Para in the bogs. The Para finishes having a p!ss and starts to walk off.

Guards officer: In the Guards we teach our men to wash their hands after taking a p!ss

Para: ReallySir, in the Paras we learn not to piss on our hands.



Pitch black and two squaddies are on guard. The hear a steady stomp of feet marching up the road but cannot see who it is. The first sentry calls "Halt" and the footsteps continue. He calls "Armed sentry, halt!" and still the the sound draws nearer. Finally he calls "British Army, halt or I'll shoot!" and still the footsteps. Seeing a large group coming inexorably towards him he has no option. He and his mucker mow them all down with their really lovely A2 rifles.

They move slowly forwards and find a group of dead or dying Guardsmen lying on the deck.
Collaring a wounded Guardsman the sentry yells "Why the feck didn't you halt when I called out to you?"

"Well" says the Guardsman, "you called 'Halt' on the wrong foot"....


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Aug 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Which explains some of these gems:
> 
> Q. What has the IQ of 10
> A. The Guards Division
> ...



Which reminds me of a time we were on the field firing ranges in Warminster....

The CSgt takes a radio message then announces that 'Lt the Honourable Ponsonby-Smythe' (or whatever his real name was) was slightly injured on the range.'

He was a Life Guards' Officer.

'It is assumed that he fell off his wallet.'

We laughed, a lot.


----------



## Pusser (28 Aug 2018)

I had good fun hanging out with the British Army years ago.  I played rugby with a Scots Guards officer who was always impeccably dressed and who (rumour had it - he never told me this) had never actually drawn his army salary.  Apparently, many officers who come from the highest of the upper class circles tend to serve more out of family obligation ("my father was a colonel in the Guards, etc") and for adventure rather than any hope of remuneration.  I've been led to believe that this has occasionally caused some difficulty when a regiment has been given orders to deploy and an officer decides to immediately resign as a result:  "You have to go."  "No, no I don't.  Daddy has increased my allowance and I'm going home."

One of my favourite stories (told to me by a Royal Logistic Corps (RLC ) officer goes as follows:

One morning an RLC officer enters a Guards Officers' Mess for breakfast.  He sits down at the table and notices a Guards officer earing his cap at the table and reading the newspaper:

RLC:  "Please pass the sugar."

GUARD:  silence, continues reading

RLC:  "Excuse me. Could you please pass the sugar?

GUARD:  still silent

RLC:  "I said excuse me, but..."

GUARD:  "DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT WHEN A GUARDS OFFICER IS WEARING HIS CAP IT MEANS HE IS NOT TO BE DISTURBED?!"

RLC: climbs onto the table walks over and stands in the Guards officer's breakfast "AND DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT WHEN AN RLC OFFICER STANDS IN YOUR BREAKFAST IT MEANS HE WANTS YOU TO PASS THE @#%&! SUGAR!"


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> One of my favourite stories (told to me by a Royal Logistic Corps (RLC ) officer goes as follows:
> 
> One morning an RLC officer enters a Guards Officers' Mess for breakfast.  He sits down at the table and notices a Guards officer earing his cap at the table and reading the newspaper:
> 
> ...



Maybe an apocryphal story that changes to match the regiment/corps of the teller.  I've heard the same story from two different British officers, one RAMC (a CFR - or whatever they call their version - who delighted in that the hero was also a RAMC CFR) and the other REME.  It is even related in Paddy Ashdown's autobiography "A Fortunate Life" in which he purports to have witnessed such an event where the hero (the hero is never the Guards officer) was a Royal Marine officer (and not just any old one but a WWII SBS veteran and former Colditz prisoner) and the event ended with a bowl of porridge on the Guards' head.  If all the versions are to be believed then there probably hasn't been a Guards officer in a half century who managed to eat breakfast undisturbed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I had good fun hanging out with the British Army years ago.  I played rugby with a Scots Guards officer who was always impeccably dressed and who (rumour had it - he never told me this) had never actually drawn his army salary.  Apparently, many officers who come from the highest of the upper class circles tend to serve more out of family obligation ("my father was a colonel in the Guards, etc") and for adventure rather than any hope of remuneration.  I've been led to believe that this has occasionally caused some difficulty when a regiment has been given orders to deploy and an officer decides to immediately resign as a result:  "You have to go."  "No, no I don't.  Daddy has increased my allowance and I'm going home."



FWIW, a lot of that is myth and legend of course. Many Guards Officers are excellent, and I'm lucky to count a few as friends. Like in the CAF, some are following a family tradition. Others are first class professionals with longer term careers in mind. The majority are thoroughly middle class working stiffs and depend on the income from the Army, like most of us. 

What I particularly appreciated were the British Officers who were literally bejillionaires from families centuries old, landed gentry, who still sucked it up and dug muddy holes with the rest of us when they could be home managing the trust fund. Not just Guardsmen, of course, and not all Commissioned Officers by the way, either.

I asked one guy (a pukka Lord) why he did it and his reply, muddled by the typical British self-deprecations, was all about being a good British citizen and doing your bit for your country. Members of the Royal Family have fewer choices than these guys (and less money, seriously) when it comes to military service, yet they still do it.

The sad thing is that it's hard to find people of equivalent 'privilege with choice' serving in the CAF, as an example to others if nothing else.

(Oh, and the 'hat' thing is a real thing, by the way. PARAs found out about that the hard way when we shared the Pirbright Mess with the Guards Depot chaps in the late 80s  ).


----------



## Lumber (28 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that it's hard to find people of equivalent 'privilege with choice' serving in the CAF, as an example to toerhs if nothing else.



I wouldn't say it's "sad", but merely interesting; but, I've noticed it too. I'n my 12 years of service, I've yet to meet one person who came from a "rich" family, and if I did, they didn't let it be know. I've also not met anyone who came from a family that could be considered as coming from Canadian "aristocracy" (whether rich or not), however it you can interpret that term in the Canadian sense. 

I'd be curious to see the official demographics of the CAF. I've met a ton of Sikhs (1.4% of Canadian Pop.) and Hindus (1.5% of Canadian Pop.) in the CAF, but I've not met a single Jew (1% of the Canadian pop).


----------



## Pusser (28 Aug 2018)

I've known two Jews in the CAF.  One was a Reservist and the other a Dental officer.  I don't think they were the only ones though...


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Aug 2018)

When I was serving, I knew of two Jewish gunner officers.

Later in life, I knew a regular infantry officer who came from a monied family.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Aug 2018)

I don't know how many Jews are currently serving, but years ago my CO was a practising Jew.  One of the other Reg Force Jews (or at least that's what she put that down as her religion) was also in the unit, a Cpl MSE Op.  The subject only came up because we were on exercise near a US base that had a temple and the CO wanted to attend services and wondered if the Cpl wanted to be his driver for that day and also attend services.  She, much like many of us Catholics, couldn't be bothered with such nonsense.  The CO did mention at one time the number of his faith who were serving (he looked it up) in the early 1990s and (IIRC) it was somewhere under a hundred, but not by much.  Then again, what does it matter? 

Oh, and just to dispel stereotypes, both were from the Maritimes.


----------



## Lumber (28 Aug 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I don't know how many Jews are currently serving, but years ago my CO was a practising Jew.  One of the other Reg Force Jews (or at least that's what she put that down as her religion) was also in the unit, a Cpl MSE Op.  The subject only came up because we were on exercise near a US base that had a temple and the CO wanted to attend services and wondered if the Cpl wanted to be his driver for that day and also attend services.  She, much like many of us Catholics, couldn't be bothered with such nonsense.  The CO did mention at one time the number of his faith who were serving (he looked it up) in the early 1990s and (IIRC) it was somewhere under a hundred, but not by much.  T_*hen again, what does it matter? *_
> 
> Oh, and just to dispel stereotypes, both were from the Maritimes.



it doesn't matter at all, other than for curiosity's sake. Why are some definable groups more or less represented in the CAF compared to other groups?


----------



## dimsum (28 Aug 2018)

I've worked with a few practising Jews and a couple of devout Muslims.  One of them used to call up to the Bridge to see what direction we were facing so he could pray to Mecca 5x a day (when able).  

As for the "people with money" front, one of the Coxn's of the MCDVs around the early/mid-2000s was part of the Birks jewelry family, and another guy (who went to the Armoured Corps but not sure which Regt) was about the same social circle of Prince William while at St. Andrews.  

All of them were pretty humble folks.


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Actually, that is not correct if you are saying NCO includes WO --> CWO.
> 
> QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 1, Art 1.02 - Definitions
> 
> ...



Yes, thank you, I’m very well aware of the differentiation between the SNCO and the Warrant Officers in the Canadian Military- I did not require the primer on functions of my own mess. I thought I had made it clear that I was generalizing for simplicity’s sake and to stick to the question at hand. Apparently I did not make that clear enough. I was speaking of western militaries generally, not just the Canadian one. It was unnecessary for the topic to get too granular in the specific Canadian breakdown of the non-commissioned ranks in their entirety. The point was officers and non-commissioned ranks and how they break down in the military versus police environments. The lumping together that I did was entirely appropriate for the discussion. It was also not necessary for me to break down the separate Warrant Officer ranks in the RCMP, but they exist too.


----------



## Pusser (29 Aug 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes, thank you, I’m very well aware of the differentiation between the SNCO and the Warrant Officers in the Canadian Military- I did not require the primer on functions of my own mess. I thought I had made it clear that I was generalizing for simplicity’s sake and to stick to the question at hand. Apparently I did not make that clear enough. I was speaking of western militaries generally, not just the Canadian one. It was unnecessary for the topic to get too granular in the specific Canadian breakdown of the non-commissioned ranks in their entirety. The point was officers and non-commissioned ranks and how they break down in the military versus police environments. The lumping together that I did was entirely appropriate for the discussion. It was also not necessary for me to break down the separate Warrant Officer ranks in the RCMP, but they exist too.



I understood what you were getting at.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Aug 2018)

I have a mature OS working for me.  He has applied for SCP. 

He has previous experience in the Bulgarian Army as an Infantry NCO. 

He managed a major construction company in Bulgaria. 

He came to Canada in the mid nineties. 

He is a full Canadian citizen. 

He holds various degrees and a masters 

He fluently speaks 6 languages, all recorded on his MPRR. 

He is a father and a husband. 

He was turned down for SCP last year because he lacked experience. 

How do we justify recruiting 18 year old kids as officers if this guy lacks experience ?  I have never seen a more glowing example of how backward our recruiting system and rank structure can be.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have a mature OS working for me.  He has applied for SCP.
> 
> He has previous experience in the Bulgarian Army as an Infantry NCO.
> 
> ...



Wow. Sounds like you have grounds for an appeal there.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that it's hard to find people of equivalent 'privilege with choice' serving in the CAF, as an example to others if nothing else.



DB, do you mean known/overt members of privilege?  I know a very senior member, now retired, whose family was very well off.  His father was an English Knight, in fact, but you would never know it from the guy - he was very low key...humble and stood entirely on his own accomplishments.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Wow. Sounds like you have grounds for an appeal there.



Pardon my ignorance as I am very unversed in the world of commissioning from the ranks programs.  

A member can appeal such a decision ?  Or would this follow a grievance process ?


----------



## Pusser (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How do we justify recruiting 18 year old kids as officers if this guy lacks experience ?  I have never seen a more glowing example of how backward our recruiting system and rank structure can be.



A very good question.  There is no doubt that it is far easier to become an officer in the CAF if you are an 18 year old kid, fresh out of high school, than a more mature individual with both life and military experience.  I once recommended a top notch petty officer for commissioning, but he didn't get it because felt he was deemed only an "average" candidate.  I somehow think I know more about what a CAF LogO needs to be than a very junior and inexperienced PSO (a newly graduated lieutenant) does.  That still rots my socks.  The end result, is that the CAF lost an incredible petty officer, who could easily have been a senior officer by now.  He moved on (and apparently is doing very well).

It is certainly possible to grieve this.  I wonder though whether there are some security implications that no one is talking about.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> DB, do you mean known/overt members of privilege?  I know a very senior member, now retired, whose family was very well off.  His father was an English Knight, in fact, but you would never know it from the guy - he was very low key...humble and stood entirely on his own accomplishments.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> G2G



From my (admittedly very blinkered) perspective, it seems that the military is shunned by Canadian 'elites' and, as a result, we suffer when it comes to higher level decision making. It also means that the 'burden of our country's defence' probably rests unfairly upon the shoulders of the 'poor, dumb people' (like me ) . 

The militia, for example, used to have a lot of members who were from high powered families, or were self-made high powered professionals, with a voice the extended well beyond the armoury walls. Now.... not so much IMHO... The term 'ghettoization' hasn't been used yet to my knowledge, but we're likely not far off in some ways. Ironically, although the British have a reputation for being class obsessed, their military seems more vertically representative than ours, as it relates to socio-economic levels anyways.

Maybe MilCol helps address this issue for us? Not sure. We might also try and do a better job of targeting the 'upper levels' but might be shy for some reason. For example, my short experience with our recruiting system definitely shows a preference for hitting up public vs. private schools.

The answer? No idea of course, but just an observation from a guy who once served in an Army where that seemed to be less of an issue.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> A very good question.  There is no doubt that it is far easier to become an officer in the CAF if you are an 18 year old kid, fresh out of high school, than a more mature individual with both life and military experience.  I once recommended a top notch petty officer for commissioning, but he didn't get it because felt he was deemed only an "average" candidate.  I somehow think I know more about what a CAF LogO needs to be than a very junior and inexperienced PSO (a newly graduated lieutenant) does.  That still rots my socks.  The end result, is that the CAF lost an incredible petty officer, who could easily have been a senior officer by now.  He moved on (and apparently is doing very well).
> 
> It is certainly possible to grieve this.  I wonder though whether there are some security implications that no one is talking about.



It seems like we would almost rather intake from the street than turn a worthy NCM into an officer.  I don't understand that train of thought.  But I can be pragmatic to the point of naiveté at moments. 

I am interested to hear what you think a security concern would be.


----------



## Pusser (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am interested to hear what you think a security concern would be.



It wasn't that long ago that Bulgaria was one of "them" on the other side of the wall.  Until 1991, they were a full-fledged member of the Warsaw Pact, NATO's direct rival.  Notwithstanding that they are now a NATO member, they still have a recent history of being the "enemy."  At the very least, doing a background check on this guy could be problematic.  I have to admit that when I was in Bosnia in 2002, it seemed a little odd to see the Bulgarian guard force patrolling Camp Butmir (NATO HQ) carrying Soviet weapons and using Soviet armoured vehicles.  They were very nice though.

I'm old enough to remember standing on that wall and staring the red menace in the eye.  The world may have changed a great deal since then, but it wasn't that long ago and although your guy may not have served in a Warsaw Pact army, I suspect he can still remember living under a communist regime.  The influence that the Soviets had on Warsaw Pact nations was significant.  They had their hands well inside most of their institutions and we may have little ability to get reliable records out of Bulgaria.  Please note that I am only speculating.  I am no expert on this stuff.

On an interesting side note, I was on exercise in Poland a few years ago in an area that had been a Soviet base and training area.  All the "local" Poles were fairly new to the area as the entire population until the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact had been Russian.  Poles were not even allowed into the area - a part of their own country.  There were some pretty interesting things there, but even the Poles could not explain some of them (like an entire abandoned town in the middle of the forest, complete with a main street with multi-storied brick buildings)


----------



## blacktriangle (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It seems like we would almost rather intake from the street than turn a worthy NCM into an officer.  I don't understand that train of thought.  But I can be pragmatic to the point of naiveté at moments.
> 
> I am interested to hear what you think a security concern would be.



The CAF would definitely rather take someone from the street to become an officer. The proof is in the intake numbers. Also, when applying for programs like UTPNCM (possibly SCP too, I'd have to check) the aptitude test score is biggest thing they seem to care about.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It seems like we would almost rather intake from the street than turn a worthy NCM into an officer.  I don't understand that train of thought.  But I can be pragmatic to the point of naiveté at moments.



Having been an officer in an MOC that, at one time (the 1980s), was made up primarily of those who had served in the ranks - one study said over 85% had previously been NCOs -, I can attest to the wonderfulness of those who receive their commissions after being indoctrinated to military life in the great unwashed lower ranks.  Actually there was probably the same ratio of assholes and plugs as those who went to RMC.  But in the case of your Bulgarian Private, oh sorry, Ordinary Seaman who didn't make the SCP cut due to "inexperience",  remember, the SCP is an in-service commissioning "competition" where he would have been judged not only against the basic requirements but also against other serving soldiers who also applied for SCP and not against the anemic records of civilian DEO applicants.   What experience, actually *Canadian military experience* would his record contain that could trump that of a Cpl, MCpl or Sgt who acquired his degree while still performing above standard at his CF day job?  That's the "experience" he is probably lacking.  While the SCP is technically open to any NCM, how many Pte/OS (let alone ABs) are going to match the military record of even a junior NCO.


----------



## dimsum (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How do we justify recruiting 18 year old kids as officers if this guy lacks experience ?  I have never seen a more glowing example of how backward our recruiting system and rank structure can be.



A possible reason is that while said NCM has tons of life experience, which is a good thing, those 18-year olds will be able to be molded by the system.  Kind of like a civilian pilot joins the RCAF and starts in Phase 1 or 2 to "knock the bad habits out".  

As for the list of things that the OS has done, I'm not part of the selection process (so take with a huge grain of salt) but the one thing that would stand out for Officer v. NCM is that he managed the major construction company.  There are NCMs with multiple Masters (and at least one I know with a Ph.D), have had foreign military experience, and who can speak multiple languages.  Also, I'm not sure what level of responsibility NCOs had in Bulgaria - I've worked with Eastern European militaries and they seem to push leadership responsibilities that would be taken at the MCpl and above level to Officers.

My 2 Bulgarian Levs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Aug 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I understood what you were getting at.



I did as well, however given the thread title and knowing not all on the site are military, and some that are military don't know the difference, it was worth being accurate on.  Which I why I said:



> you could say "progression thru junior to senior ranks, for both Commissioned and Non Commissioned members...".



That wording is more accurate and wouldn't mislead anyone who doesn't know the difference.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance as I am very unversed in the world of commissioning from the ranks programs.



So am I, but I just had a read of DAOD 5002-11, Special Commissioning Plan

Is it possible the 'lack of experience' was focused specifically on his CAF service, or the CO recommendation was not entirely well written or supported thru the Div system?  I also had a member who had a degree in the officer MOSID he desired, but the CO would not support; "the mbr had not demonstrated leadership, OLQs and ZYX".  The mbr had not 'done anything substantial' in his current trade and that seemed count for a lot in the SCP world.  I've also heard that of all the commissioning programs, SCP is quite competitive as it is the 'last choice' for officer generation;  ROTP, DEO, UTPNCM etc all have more positions in the SIP that SCP, if the gen I was given is accurate (a few years ago now, too).

Having spoken to a PSO (LCdr) when I OTd about how important the CO recommendation is in the overall process;  she basically said "for NCM VOT, it is not a requirement really, we base it off what we see in the file and on the interview" but that the COs recommendation was considerably important if one was hoping to move from the NCM to the Commissioned Officer world.



> A member can appeal such a decision ?  Or would this follow a grievance process ?



If it was 'last year', the clock may have run out on a grievance.

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 7, Art 7.06 - TIME LIMIT TO SUBMIT GRIEVANCE


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Aug 2018)

Ironically enough, the three most senior officers in my unit are all CFR... and LogOs!


----------



## ballz (29 Aug 2018)

I'm guessing this is a case of his prior experience counting for absolutely nothing.

The CAF does not value being well-rounded / cross-training / etc. It seems to only be capable of seeing the trees, not the forest. For example, if you were OT'ing to Log O, you'd probably get more points for experience if you were an MSE Op or an RMS Clerk than if you were a senior Captain in the Combat Arms, because as the PSO will tell you, he/she wants to know how your prior experience is directly attributable to the trade. The institution seems to think its great at developing people when I think it's the exact opposite.


----------

