# Not Given Promised Pay Incentive DEO



## MidShipsMan (28 Jun 2016)

During the recruitment process (DEO) I asked and was assured I would receive a Pay Level C, increment 2 for my civi education (Masters and PhD in a very applicable field to my occupation).

1st time: I asked following the aptitude test. Upon successful completion I asked about incentives for my education . The Recruiting Officer stated that they do provide incentives for academics RE: CBI 204.015 - Pay Increments. And stated the pay level that I could be eligible for.

2nd time: I asked again over the phone when I was sent my offer, at this point they deferred my question to the signing of the offer of enrollment meeting at the recruitment center.

3rd time: at the meeting, I was presented the pay schedule, with the lowest pay level highlighted for an Officer Cadet. I said, this is incorrect, and that I was promised Pay Level C, increment 2. The interviewer stated that I would be paid an incentive level and arrears to that level after completing BMOQ, and would be paid the base cadet level during basic. I was satisfied with this answer.

Unfortunately, I failed to ask for written documentation, and my offer of enrollment letter contains the incorrect rate. I have since attempted to remedy this, and have recently submitted a Payroll grievance concerning this act of omission.

My question is: I feel I was misled during the recruitment process, and am entitled to either A: my correct pay level, and any arrears, or B: a VOT where my pay level can be re-negotiated, or C: a release.

Under the articles for release.
(e) Irregular Enrolment. Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member by reason of an irregular enrolment other than Item 1(d).

Does this apply for this situation? Or is this mainly for when the member provides fraudulent information during enrolment? In this case, the irregularity was on the part of the MND, not the member.

Since I have very little documentation to support my case, release looks like the most probably outcome. Does anyone have any experience or guidance on how to approach the release process with respect to this issue.


----------



## tree hugger (28 Jun 2016)

I'm surprised that a difference/mistake with pay increments is enough for you to consider release.... makes me scratch my head...

Grievances take some time, I'd just ride it out.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2016)

I doubt a grievance would be in order here.  If your Pay Scale is not on the Msg that outlined your offer and was sent to your first Posting, it is just a "he said; she said" case that can not be reasonably resolved.

If your only aim in joining the CAF is monetary, then perhaps your choice of careers is not the best one.


----------



## brihard (28 Jun 2016)

tree hugger said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that a difference/mistake with pay increments is enough for you to consider release.... makes me scratch my head...
> 
> Grievances take some time, I'd just ride it out.



Seems more to me that the issue is that one of his first experiences with the CAF is getting screwed over to the effect of several thousand dollars per year. If he is presenting the story accurately, I'd be pissed too. If recruiters promised one thing and then gave another, lesser, worse thing, then they're fulfilling an ugly stereotype that the institution must be guarding itself against.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2016)

MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> they deferred my question to the signing of the offer of enrollment meeting at the recruitment center.





			
				MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> my offer of enrollment letter contains the incorrect rate.



If you don't mind me asking, why did you sign it?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Jun 2016)

I have heard of DEO having to collect OCdt Salary until completion of BMOQ, BOTC, and then are given backpay to their respective rank and IPC. 

Generally, a Military Career Counselor will advise that you *could* be eligible for IPC and rank whatever, but until the results of the PLAR come in and you are presented an offer based on those results, nothing is official. 

PLARs aren't just based on related education, practical work experience is also a factor. Having the education is great, but if you don't have any (or very little) work experience in the field, obviously you'll receive a lower "score"  and lower offer as a result. 

However I'll also echo the above: If you're doing it for the money vice a rewarding career, I'd take Option C as well. 

First lesson in the Canadian Armed Forces - nothing is promised unless it's in writing. 

Second lesson - don't sign anything unless you _*actually*_ agree with it. 

Third lesson - keep copies of everything.


----------



## MJP (28 Jun 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Seems more to me that the issue is that one of his first experiences with the CAF is getting screwed over to the effect of several thousand dollars per year. If he is presenting the story accurately, I'd be pissed too. If recruiters promised one thing and then gave another, lesser, worse thing, then they're fulfilling an ugly stereotype that the institution must be guarding itself against.



Damm straight.  We are our own worst enemy when it comes to this sort of thing.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If your only aim in joining the CAF is monetary, then perhaps your choice of careers is not the best one.



This isn't the military of old, it is just a job for many people.  It is the old guard and our stuck in the 60/70s HR model that are very much part of the problem.  If it is just a job then we need to sell it like that and make sure we are doing our part.  This isn't doing our part, and people will vote with their feet.  

I do urge the OP to not release based on this.  Grievances take time and it sounds like you have a decent case.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2016)

MJP said:
			
		

> If it is just a job then we need to sell it like that < snip >



I don't know about the selling part, but they don't shy away from using that word,

Canadian Armed Forces Jobs

CHECK OUT these "in demand" jobs

Browse Jobs

Part-time Jobs

etc...
http://www.forces.ca/en/home


----------



## MidShipsMan (28 Jun 2016)

-I will wait and see what happens with the grievance. But numerous people have told me it doesn't have much of a chance. LunchMeat gives good advice!

-I clearly state why I signed in the original post. I was told I'd get the correct rate after basic.

-Yes, ~600dollars a month is significant for me, and does make my career in the forces a lot less competitive than some of the opportunities I have in the private sector or gov't departments. I've been called a "careerist", "unpatriotic", "selfish", even a "little bitch" in front of my entire Division for filing this grievance. I do my duties, and I'm good at what I do. I'd appreciate it if people withheld their judgements or opinions and stuck to the question at hand.

I'm mainly wondering what kind of release would this entail? That is in case the grievance is refused and a VOT is denied. Just trying to be prepared.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2016)

MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> I was told I'd get the correct rate after basic.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2016)

Ignore the chattering about your motivation or that your services not needed.  Your grievance sounds like a valid one an I'd wait to see the outcome of it.  I'm unsure of why you've been derided by your chain of command in this issue - it ain't their money.  I was always supportive of my subordinates' financial grievances if, after reading through the documentation, I felt it was legitimate.  If it wasn't, I simply said I'm not certain it was supportable but passed it on without comment as a grievance is a legal entitlement under the QR&O (see section 29 of the National Defence Act).



			
				MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> Under the articles for release.
> (e) Irregular Enrolment. Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member by reason of an irregular enrolment other than Item 1(d).
> 
> Does this apply for this situation? Or is this mainly for when the member provides fraudulent information during enrolment? In this case, the irregularity was on the part of the MND, not the member.



The latter.  All Item 1 releases are under the category of misconduct on the part of the member and are usually the result of a disciplinary proceeding such as a court martial.  If you were to choose to release over this issue, it would fall under Item 4(c) - voluntary release (other causes).

Stick with your grievance and continue your service.  If events unfolded as you have described them, then someone got lazy with paperwork and you are not getting what other members in your situation are getting.


----------



## MidShipsMan (28 Jun 2016)

Thank you very much Infanteer. Outstanding wisdom.


----------



## rnkelly (28 Jun 2016)

As long as your education is indeed related to your occupation than I would agree with you that the appropriate pay scale would be C and IPC 2.  One IPC for each of your graduate degrees.  I would contact the MCC that assured you this would be the case or the MCC that did your enrolment interview and assured you the change would take place after Basic.  As your probably aware now it should have been in the enrolment papers but if the recruiting personnel told you otherwise than you have been aggrieved.  

On the bright side, it sounds like you have a great education that will put you in a great position to excel (if you decide to stay) and will give you preferential treatment in consideration for promotions later on (more money).

I question why you would not get written documentation since you make it abundantly clear that this was a condition for your enrolment but that's your problem.

Concur that it would be a 4C release but I'll add that it would be 4C before Occupation functional Point (OFP) which has some implications.  Mainly a 1 year delay before being eligible to reenrol and a waiver approval.

/signed/ an MCC that didn't promise you any IPCs


----------



## meni0n (28 Jun 2016)

I am just going to throw this in here for those that have been slamming this individual for the basis of his grievances. If any of you are/were in a leadership position, I hope you are well versed in the following point:  *Treat subordinates fairly; respond to their concerns, represent their interests*. If I have a subordinate that comes to me for help in filing a grievance, I put away any sort of judgments or prejudices that I might have and I help this individual in any way that I can. Why? Because it is my duty as a leader to do this. I am not there to judge them, I am there to guide them and provide advice within my capacity. 

If that individual believes that they have been wronged, it is within their right to file a grievance and no one within their chain of command should be looking down upon them or trying to shame them for doing so. I would encourage MidShipMan to contact a harassment adviser if anyone from your chain of command have publicly or privately have said the kind of things that he revealed. Also, there would be a breach of privacy as the grievance is a PROTECTED matter. These kind of things are not tolerated in the CF.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Jun 2016)

meni0n said:
			
		

> I am just going to throw this in here for those that have been slamming this individual for the basis of his grievances. If any of you are/were in a leadership position, I hope you are well versed in the following point:  *Treat subordinates fairly; respond to their concerns, represent their interests*. If I have a subordinate that comes to me for help in filing a grievance, I put away any sort of judgments or prejudices that I might have and I help this individual in any way that I can. Why? Because it is my duty as a leader to do this. I am not there to judge them, I am there to guide them and provide advice within my capacity.
> 
> If that individual believes that they have been wronged, it is within their right to file a grievance and no one within their chain of command should be looking down upon them or trying to shame them for doing so. I would encourage MidShipMan to contact a harassment adviser if anyone from your chain of command have publicly or privately have said the kind of things that he revealed. Also, there would be a breach of privacy as the grievance is a PROTECTED matter. These kind of things are not tolerated in the CF.



Let me just clarify, my intention was not to alienate, it was simply to state that *  IF  * they were more willing to release than to go through with a lengthy and often difficult grievance despite having a rewarding career in a great organization, then maybe they should look elsewhere anyway. 

Otherwise, I fully agree with you.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2016)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> ...... One IPC for each of your graduate degrees.



On what authority are you making this claim?


----------



## mariomike (28 Jun 2016)

MidShipsMan 

I'm a non-professional. 

But, if I had a recruiting or pay related situation like yours, the person I would reach out to for help is DAA because he is an expert on such matters. 
He has helped many others. I'm surprised he has not responded to your post yet as questions like this are right up his alley.


----------



## MidShipsMan (28 Jun 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Let me just clarify, my intention was not to alienate, it was simply to state that *  IF  * they were more willing to release than to go through with a lengthy and often difficult grievance despite having a rewarding career in a great organization, then maybe they should look elsewhere anyway.
> 
> Otherwise, I fully agree with you.



-So far its been a 13 month process since BMOQ ended. At least 5 trips to the BOR, numerous meetings with my CoC, and assisting Officer. Otherwise, I can't overstate how rewarding my military career has been.

-I'm witholding my unit, occupation, and the details of my education, because those are personal details that don't have any bearing on the generality of this situation. And the military is small.
How about we pretend I'm a DEO pilot with a Masters in Atmospheric Sciences, and PhD project in an Aeronautical Engineering topic. No one ever questions the applicability of my credentials in my case.

-The harassment and shaming is what it is. We dealt with it directly. I have to choose my battles.

Any ongoing insights into how I can move forward through the VOT or release process is helpful. The grievance will just run its course, and the decision will have to be lived with.


----------



## rnkelly (28 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On what authority are you making this claim?



None but I have seen it done that way in the past which isn't exactly a guarantee, my bad.  The real problem lies with what the CFRC promised though.  The CF is responsible for what the CFRC states to the applicant/enrollee even if what was stated is not consistent with policy which may or may not be the case here(recent judicial reviews confirm this).

Again, I think the OP would be wise to contact their CFRC of enrolment to see if there's any documentation with respect to pay entitlements for education because without proof it will be tough slogging.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Jun 2016)

I think that the root of this issue is that CFRC is probably not in a position to promise anything. The recruiter can *suggest* that one *may* be offered xyz, but the ultimate decision lies further upstream.

It is perhaps not an unusual circumstance that an applicant hears "will" where "may" was said. Not that this is necessarily the case in this instance, but one's proof is only worth the paper it's written on.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jun 2016)

I don't see where in CBI 204.015 that a member can be granted a higher pay increment for education, for anything other than prior service. I want to make sure this is clear, are you currently being paid on the Officer pay scale "C", as you should as your entry plan was DEO, and you believe you should have a higher pay increment that you were offered? Or are you being paid on the "A" pay scale?

The only time I've seen money given to someone because of education would be a Recruitment Allowance (CBI 205.525), but it is currently suspended by CANFORGEN 114/12 CMP 048/12 121601Z JUN 12.


----------



## chrisf (28 Jun 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Let me just clarify, my intention was not to alienate, it was simply to state that *  IF  * they were more willing to release than to go through with a lengthy and often difficult grievance despite having a rewarding career in a great organization, then maybe they should look elsewhere anyway.



Why shouldn't money be a motivating factor in career choices?

Unless the recruiting centers start printing "might as well relax, because we're going to screw you" on their pamphlets, if I had joined the forces as a qualified professional, $7200 in my first year of employment would be enough to make me reconsider those choices...

There was an article that popped up in my Facebook news feed this morning on forces retirees turning to charity and food banks because of pension delays...

Like it or not, money puts food on the table and keeps a roof  over heads, and while I don't know the details of the op's scenario aside from what he's said, it wouldn't be the first time the cf needs to get it's act together on pay and benefits.

No, the pay in the cf won't compete with the pay in the civilian world in certain jobs, but I can't believe how happily some members would attack someone got for asking questions about what they were promised/entitled to, particularly if he's doing the job he's expected to do in the mean time.

Edit: I have no idea if/if not the op has a leg to stand on, and honestly don't care, just tired of people being attacked when they ask questions about pay.


----------



## MidShipsMan (28 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't see where in CBI 204.015 that a member can be granted a higher pay increment for education, for anything other than prior service. I want to make sure this is clear, are you currently being paid on the Officer pay scale "C", as you should as your entry plan was DEO, and you believe you should have a higher pay increment that you were offered? Or are you being paid on the "A" pay scale?
> 
> The only time I've seen money given to someone because of education would be a Recruitment Allowance (CBI 205.525), but it is currently suspended by CANFORGEN 114/12 CMP 048/12 121601Z JUN 12.



Here is the reference.

204.015(1) (Purpose) Pay increments as set out in the tables to the CBIs in this chapter serve two purposes:

    to determine the rate of pay on enrolment, transfer or change in class of Reserve Service based on pay credits that, in accordance with orders or instructions issued by the Chief of Defence Staff, reflect the amount of qualifying service, *academic* or other special qualifications possessed by an applicant that are determined to be of military value; and


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jun 2016)

Didn't answer the second part though. Are you currently on the C pay scale?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (29 Jun 2016)

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't money be a motivating factor in career choices?
> 
> Unless the recruiting centers start printing "might as well relax, because we're going to screw you" on their pamphlets, if I had joined the forces as a qualified professional, $7200 in my first year of employment would be enough to make me reconsider those choices...
> 
> ...



I think you've misconstrued my message. 

I meant it not as in "you're being greedy, frig off" I meant it as in "pay isn't great, and they'll do everything to give you as little as possible." 

Someone with that kind of impressive education should be able to have better success competing for better compensation in the non-CF public service or even the private sector. I understand why people gravitate to us, I do. But at the end of the day, when it comes to pay, there really is no negotiations in the CAF unless you have substantive proof that you are eligible for it.


----------



## chrisf (29 Jun 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I meant it not as in "you're being greedy, frig off" I meant it as in "pay isn't great, and they'll do everything to give you as little as possible."



I don't really feel that makes it any better.

Op is clearly aware of the difference in pay scales, but chose the cf anyway...

If he feels he's hard done by or not receiving what he was promised, nothing wrong with questioning it.

He could well be a greedy whiner, I have no idea, but if his chain of command insulting him rather than providing him with a reference, maybe that's a problem.

Like I said, I have no idea what's involved with the ops case, there's two sides to every story, and I doubt he has anything in writing from the recruiting centre, but money is and always will be a factor.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jun 2016)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> .......  The real problem lies with what the CFRC promised though.  The CF is responsible for what the CFRC states to the applicant/enrollee even if what was stated is not consistent with policy which may or may not be the case here(recent judicial reviews confirm this).
> 
> Again, I think the OP would be wise to contact their CFRC of enrolment to see if there's any documentation with respect to pay entitlements for education because without proof it will be tough slogging.



As has been mentioned; the staff at the CFRC are not the ones who make the decisions as to what a prospect will be paid when they are enrolled.  That decision is made at a higher level, by people who looked at the prospect's qualifications and did a PLAR to determine which qualifications they will accept and what pay IPC they will award the prospect on entry.  If the prospect is hearing something other than what is said, then there could be a problem.  How many times have we seen examples of someone hearing only what they want to hear, right here on this site?
Those who have reviewed the prospect's qualifications and decided on the IPC that they will be awarded will do so in the message that is included in the offer, and sent to their first posting.  As a DEO, the OP in this case is already making more than other new prospects who have entered under other plans.

As I initially said, without documentation, their argument/grievance boils down to a case of "he said/she said" and could have numerous responses varying from "no change, what we decided was the correct amount" to "we will do a reevaluation" and most likely be a very time consuming matter whichever decision is made.  If the OP does manage to win their case, they will see a large lump sum payment made and a correction made to their IPC at some date in the future.

If the OP has entered into the grievance process, then all we have here is nothing more than speculation along with some good advice on how to conduct the grievance process mixed in here and there.

Advice I always passed on, was much the same as this, to create your own "Shadow Files" at home to cover all your military documents: Posting Msgs, Crse Reports, Travel Claims, Sick Chits/Medical docs, Pay docs, PT/BFT tests, etc. to ensure that if you do find a problem, you also have documentation of your own to back up your claims to correct an error:  



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> First lesson in the Canadian Armed Forces - nothing is promised unless it's in writing.
> 
> Second lesson - don't sign anything unless you _*actually*_ agree with it.
> 
> Third lesson - keep copies of everything.



You land up being your own RMS Clerk.   [


----------



## da1root (29 Jun 2016)

My post is intended to provide some general information about the Pay Increment Policy - Special Treatment as signed by the CDS for this group, hopefully raising awareness amongst the community as our currently and ex-serving members are at times our best recruiters.



			
				MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> Here is the reference.
> 
> 204.015(1) (Purpose) Pay increments as set out in the tables to the CBIs in this chapter serve two purposes:
> 
> to determine the rate of pay on enrolment, transfer or change in class of Reserve Service based on pay credits that, in accordance with orders or instructions issued by the Chief of Defence Staff, reflect the amount of qualifying service, *academic* or other special qualifications possessed by an applicant that are determined to be of military value; and



CBI 204.015(1) is only part of the authority to grant Pay Incentives on enrolment. Yearly (sometimes 2-3 times a year) the CDS will put out a CDS Order titled "Pay Increment Policy - Special Treatment" the CFRC's and CFRG HQ personnel commonly call this the "Tick n Flick", it's the policy that it used to determine what pay incentive someone will receive upon enrolment.

The granting of Pay Incentives to DEO's with academic experience hasn't always been in existence and is still fairly new to the recruiting world.  Depending on when someone enrolled is depending on whether the CDS order would apply (i.e. someone who enrolled in 2014 is not entitled to the Pay Incentive, but someone who enrolled in 2016 is). 



			
				MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> How about we pretend I'm a DEO pilot with a Masters in Atmospheric Sciences, and PhD project in an Aeronautical Engineering topic. No one ever questions the applicability of my credentials in my case.



Unfortunately this cannot be done, to determine a Pay Increment eligibility one would need to know what trade you're going into and what your education is.  The policy is stated as:



> A graduate of a university, or college or educational institute that has degree granting authority who is assigned to an officer military occupation for which their academic studies and degree meets the entry standards for the targeted officer military occupation.



Best explained, if you are going CELE (Communications and Electronics Engineering (Air)) and have a 4 year Bachelor of Engineering (in any of the following areas: Communications; Computers; Electrical; Physics;  or Software/Software Systems) and a Masters in Arts, you would be given the credit for the 4 year Engineering degree and not the Masters as it doesn't pertain to the trade.

One final note:



			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I have heard of DEO having to collect OCdt Salary until completion of BMOQ, BOTC, and then are given backpay to their respective rank and IPC.



It has been awhile since I worked as the Offers Sergeant so I spoke with the CFRG HQ Offers Cell on this statement, and they've stated this should never be the case.  When Pay Incentives are granted in accordance with the CDS Order for academic experience, it should be paid as of the date of enrolment less any leave without pay.  

The member will wear the rank of OCdt / NCdt while on BMOQ and the "promotion" (i.e. wearing of rank) to 2Lt / A/SLt will be upon completion of BMOQ back dated, however for anyone that has a copy of the ETP message, the pay is defined in paragraph 3 which will be inline with whatever is granted in accordance with the "Pay Increment Policy - Special Treatment".

If you know of anyone that doesn't have this happening please send me a PM, while I won't personally solve the issue I can reach out to the cell that would clarify the enrolment message with the applicable staff.

Best Regards,
Sgt Laen


----------



## DAA (29 Jun 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> MidShipsMan
> I'm a non-professional.
> But, if I had a recruiting or pay related situation like yours, the person I would reach out to for help is DAA because he is an expert on such matters.
> He has helped many others. I'm surprised he has not responded to your post yet as questions like this are right up his alley.



Thanks mariomike and I have reached out with an offer of assistance but the individual refuses to provide the necessary information (ie; Occupation and Education Credentials) needed to make an educated guess, hence my reluctance to chime in until now.

Sgt Laen has provided the best response.   Both he and I know the policy, how it applies and what the process is at the time of application.  There is no room for negotiating salary with the CAF, the offer of employment is a "take it or leave it" deal but there are instances when an error can and has occurred.  It doesn't take a grievance to have this corrected if a correction is required, it starts with a simple query to the appropriate office and then wait for the response back, which shouldn't take more than a week or two.

The only thing official, is the Offer of Employment which new members to the CAF are suppose to and should be signing.  If it's not in the offer, you aren't getting it and "promises" don't count and never will.  Good luck!


----------



## MidShipsMan (29 Jun 2016)

I'm simply trying to retain some personal privacy by not disclosing my Unit and personal information. If it offends someone that I don't disclose my private information, then please respectfully withhold your advice instead of sending rude personal messages.

Site Privacy Policy
_
Army.ca will not collect or maintain your private and personally identifiable information without your consent. Further, if you consent to give us your personal information, we will keep it confidential and will not sell, license or disclose your personal information to any third party without your consent, unless we are compelled to do so under the law or to comply with a court order. _

My hypothetical about the pilot does in fact work, and has in fact worked as here are examples of some of my colleagues that were given incentives upon enrollment in 2015:
-Infantry Officer DEO with a Masters in Science Biochemistry = Pay Level C, increment 2 
-Infantry Officer DEO with a Masters of Economics = Pay Level C, increment 2
-MARS Officer DEO with a Masters in International Studies = Pay Level C, increment 2
-Pilot DEO with a MSc, PhD Aeronautics = Pay Level C, increment 2

My personal credentials have ZERO bearing on this discussion. Assume that my "academic or other special qualifications possessed by an applicant that are determined to be of military value" and move on.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jun 2016)

MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> I'm simply trying to retain some personal privacy by not disclosing my Unit and personal information. If it offends someone that I don't disclose my private information, then please respectfully withhold your advice instead of sending rude personal messages.
> 
> Site Privacy Policy
> _
> ...



Two points:

1.  The person you are 'insulting' with your remarks in this quote is, having been in the Recruiting role in the past, and very familiar with its policies, more than qualified to give an answer and they offered you their service via a private means.  Your attitude is out of line, with your comments above.

2.  As was explained, the PLAR is done and does not take into account any non-related degrees or qualifications.  Your examples fall into that category.  The Masters Degrees in your examples, for the main, were irrelevant.


----------



## DAA (29 Jun 2016)

Sorry that I offended you by saying "I'm offering assistance and if you can't see that, then clearly you are too wrapped up in the "pay issue" to recognize this, so I will leave you to your own demise."   I don't see this as being rude but rather accurate and constructive criticism.

You've merely demonstrated by your previous posts that you already possess a "sense of entitlement" and most likely had it before you even received your job offer and commission.  When a helping hand is being offered, you totally ignore that also.  I took things "offline" and asked for your Occupation and Educational Credentials and nothing more.  Can't help you, without that info.    :facepalm:

What do you insist that your subordinates address you as?   SLt "Dr" Midshipsman or "Dr" SLt Midshipsman?


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Jun 2016)

Problem is a trust issue. DAA has offered numerous times to use his real life connections to informally check on issues. I would have no problem giving him trade/rank in a context like this because he hasn't burned a forum member, at all. If you're that worried about privacy, don't post your question on an open forum. The CAF is a small place, and I'm willing to bet someone already knows exactly who you are. Take the help, or don't and ask for this to be locked, you've got all the help anyone can give without you taking up DAA on his offer.


----------



## Scott (29 Jun 2016)

Re-reading my earlier posts I binned them because they were not meant to take a swipe at anyone. I was not adding to anything anyone else had said here.

Cheers


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jun 2016)

Like Scott, I too have decided it's not worth the effort and have deleted my post.


----------



## MidShipsMan (30 Jun 2016)

Thanks to those that posted helpful advice on what I can expect after the grievance is processed. Which was the stated question in the original post.

Its unfortunate that several of you have resorted to pressuring someone to forgo a protection provided by the site's privacy policy. This post is as much a resource for understanding a component of the recruitment administrative process as it is an example of a toxic culture.


----------



## AbdullahD (30 Jun 2016)

MidShipsMan said:
			
		

> Thanks to those that posted helpful advice on what I can expect after the grievance is processed. Which was the stated question in the original post.
> 
> Its unfortunate that several of you have resorted to pressuring someone to forgo a protection provided by the site's privacy policy. This post is as much a resource for understanding a component of the recruitment administrative process as it is an example of a toxic culture.



MSM I'll try to be as neutral as I can.

From what I understand in my ignorance, is that you are asking a question that has very specific variables. Without knowing those precise variables people here can not fully assist you.

which has put you in a predicament, either you can release that specific information so the general membership here can help you or you can withhold it.

Now I lurk this site a LOT yet post very rarely, because my knowledge on many of these topics is nil. But I feel from watching the posters here, that MOST of the longtime membership is safe to trust. 

I highly recommend reaching out privately to DAA if he is still willing to help. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is swallow your pride and change your course. But this is just my opinion.. and you know what they say about those 

All the best

Abdullah


----------

