# Kenny:  Time to get more mileage from field grade officers?



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2011)

> By the time officers climb to the level of general or admiral, the Canadian taxpayer has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in honing their skills. By the time they hit their early 50s, it should be payback time for Canadians - this is when these people are at their peak. Unfortunately, this is also the time that they are pushed out the door, into the arms of a giddy private sector delighted at the opportunity to make use of their advanced tactical and strategic decision-making skills.  This year alone, half a dozen threestar generals below the age of 55 are being sent packing, taking their pensions to very green private sector pastures. What's wrong with this picture? Can't our military structure be adjusted to make use of prime talent when it hits its peak years? .... the Canadian Forces also needs to get longer tenure from people in whom it has invested mightily - top-ranking officers. Of course nobody wants desks filled with generals doing nothing. But there are plenty of ways to use top brass in their early 50s, many of whom have built up superb tactical and strategic thinking capacity. The private sector certainly knows that - it has shown itself to gobble these people up after Canadians have paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop their skills. So why isn't our military doing more to reap the rewards of our investment in them for as long as it can? ....


Source:  _Ottawa Citizen_, 11 Jul 11


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Source:  _Ottawa Citizen_, 11 Jul 11




Leaving aside the fact that he's got his terminology wrong (they are flag and general officers, not field officers), there is always a need to keep moving people out of the most senior ranks - to create opportunities for others.

Despite a (very) brief tour in the oil patch, in the early 1980s, Sen. Kenny is, essentially, a professional politician; perhaps he doesn't know that _executive constipation_ is a real problem in all sectors, private and public, and that the military may be better than most many some because it does keep the senior executive ranks _moving_.


----------



## Swingline1984 (11 Jul 2011)

Seeing as the CF is capped at 70000 all ranks, would Sen. Kenny suggest we go overborne in General Officers at the expense of Private Soldiers?  Should we disband a Regiment to keep these people employed?  Fix the cap, fix the problem (not a Forces but a Gov't of Canada decision).  Until then I will continue to enjoy having at least a few troops around to actually complete the mission.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jul 2011)

> generals below the age of 55 are being sent packing



Is this correct, or just sloppy reporting?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jul 2011)

I thought CRA was 60?


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Jul 2011)

There also is the premise that these flag and general officers are "being sent packing," which may or not be true. If they have not reached CRA, they could be retiring voluntarily.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Is this correct, or just sloppy reporting?




I don't know if your question relates to age or "sent packing."

Old Sweat has addressed the difference between voluntary retirement and being "sent packing." Flag and general officers are, very often, attractive to many private sector employers; good jobs are on offer and once one has "maxed" his or her pension many GOFOs see a good civvie job as the right move, especially if they believe their prospects for further advancement in the Cf are limited.

We used to calculate (at the bar of the Staff College Mess) our prospects for being CDS as: promoted to Cdr/LCol before 15 years of commissioned service and to RAdm/MGen before 25 years. So retiring as a GOFO before one turned 55 was, probably still is, quite normal for some officers - given that most of us were commissioned at about the age of 22 and would retire (at ages 48-55) with, roughly, 30-35 years of service.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jul 2011)

CRA for new enrollees is 55; those serving when CRA was raised have the option to remain at CRA 55 or to elect CRA 60, up to their 59th birthday.


----------



## old fart (11 Jul 2011)

quote author=Jim Seggie link=topic=101696/post-1060190#msg1060190 date=1310385158]
I thought CRA was 60?
[/quote]

*Only if you elect and the election is approved.*

I think Kenny's position is based on the fact than many officers are serving effectively grandfathered under the old pensions provisions (as I am) which dictate release based on years of service/age in order to retire without a penalty (the 5% per year).  

The following QR&O still applies although often seems contradictory when the complimentary CFAOs are read:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/doc/chapter-chapitre-015.pdf

15.17 – RELEASE OF OFFICERS – AGE AND LENGTH OF SERVICE 
(1) Except where the Minister has otherwise prescribed under paragraph (2), the retirement age of an officer *is the first to occur of the following ages*: 

(a) the age for his rank set out in the table to this article that applies to him; or 

(b) the age at which he completes, 
(i) as a colonel or above, 30 years, or 
(ii) as a lieutenant-colonel or below, 28 years, 

full-time paid service, including service as a non-commissioned member, in any of Her Majesty’s Forces.

TABLE “A” TO ARTICLE 15.17 RELEASE AGES – GENERAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Rank/Age
Colonel and above/ 55
Lieutenant-Colonel/51
Major/47 
Captain and Lieutenant/45

ON REACHING RETIREMENT AGE - http://www.smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/cfa-oaf/015-02-eng.asp

22. Superseded by ADM(HR-Mil) Instruction 05/05

23. Superseded by ADM(HR-Mil) Instruction 14/04

24. No officer will, unless the officer so requests, be compulsorily released under the provisions of QR&O 15.17(3)(b) before completing 10 or more years service in the Regular Force.

25. An officer who is to be released under the provisions of QR&O 15.17(3)(b) without the officer's consent will be so notified at least one full year prior to the estimated date of commencement of terminal leave.

26. An officer who wishes to retire after completing the years service prescribed for the officer's rank in QR&O 15.17(1)(b) must apply to the officer's CO to be considered for retirement under the provisions of QR&O 15.17(3)(b) by completing Appendix 5 to this annex. In such a case, Appendix 4 to this annex shall also be completed at Parts 1 and 2 and forwarded to NDHQ for consideration.

*In a nutshell, the provisions QR&O 15.17(3)(b) remain in effect and allow for an officer to be shown the door for service reasons when either the age or years of service windows have been attained...even if a fixed period of service contract is in effect.  All very British....but these aspects were important to me as I had 28 years of service at the age of 44 and could have released with an unreduced annuity at my Canadian 20 year point even though I was on IPS with service ending at 55.

So I believe Kenny is rather tenuously referring to the QR&O, whereas the reality is that hardly anyone (even flag officers) are pushed out the door before 55.  The CRA 60 aspect being available particularly useful for those who joined the CF late and before the 'coming into force of the new TOS' and want to boost pension by years of service.*


http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/15-04-eng.asp

"3. Subparagraph 15.17(3)(b) of Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O) states that:

“…an officer of the Regular Force shall be released … after the completion of 30 years of full-time paid service, including service as a non-commissioned member, in any of Her Majesty’s Forces, if the Chief of Defence Staff so recommends.”

4. Subparagraph 15.31(2)(b) of QR&O states that:

“…a non-commissioned member of the Regular Force shall be released… after the completion of 30 years of service, _*if the Chief of Defence Staff so directs*_.” 

5. *The procedure for the release of General/Flag officers or Colonel/Captain(Navy) on or after 30 years of service is the responsibility of the CDS.*

6. A term of service does not provide a guarantee that a CF member will reach CRA. CF standards for medical and physical fitness will always apply. Terms of service conversion procedures control personnel flow. Therefore, conversion from one engagement to the next remains conditional on service requirements and on selection by merit at the appropriate career gate. The length of a special indefinite period of service remains dependent on service requirements."


http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/05-05-eng.asp#ins-03-01-03


----------



## old fart (11 Jul 2011)

Jim is correct though for certain folks...I was selfishly thinking of those like myself who can serve under grandfathered provisions....and should have mentioned that that anyone who enrolled after 9 July 2004 (also seen mention of 'after 30 June 2004" and '1 July 2004') are automatically enrolled with a CRA of 60.

All spelled out here...: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/14-04-ann-b-eng.asp


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jul 2011)

Perhaps Senator Kenney can relinquish his Senate seat and let a General Officer/Flag Officer remain in the service of his or her country in the Senate?

Just a thought.  :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jul 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps Senator Kenney can relinquish his Senate seat and let a General Officer/Flag Officer remain in the service of his or her country in the Senate?
> 
> Just a thought.  :2c:



Let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Jul 2011)

By *convention* (ie it is the policy as currently applied), for GOFO's retirement is based on 35 years of service or 55 years of age, which ever comes first (and is routinely considered to be 55).  Col / Capt(N) on the other hand can serve until 60.  GOFOs can serve beyond 55 (especially if they do not have 35 years of service) but only at the pleasure of the CDS.  

I think you will find that very few are being "forced out" - the reality is that the private sector is willing to pay substantially more for the services of Senior Officers than the Queen is, and eventually the grass starts to look greener on the other side of the fence (true too for many ranks and trades of course).


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jul 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ...I think you will find that very few are being "forced out" - the reality is that the private sector is willing to pay substantially more for the services of Senior Officers than the Queen is, and eventually the grass starts to look greener on the other side of the fence (true too for many ranks and trades of course).



A good indication that Canada and the CF already got their "pound of flesh" from these officers over the 30-35 years it took to attain General rank.

Kenny's thesis is nonsense.  Are there undertones of his advocating restricted release once an officer is promoted to the General ranks?  Is Sen. Kenny advocating (for consistency's sake) a similar restriction on retirement from the civil service of equivalently 'ranked' mandarins?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (31 Jul 2011)

I have anything Sen Kenny says on "delete" / "trash" / "ignore"


----------



## Franko (31 Jul 2011)

So he's proposing keeping them around like in years of old.

132 Generals and only 130 tanks (various variants) in the CF (mid 90's).

A tad top heavy?

Regards


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jul 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> 132 Generals and only 130 tanks (various variants) in the CF (mid 90's).
> 
> A tad top heavy?



Is that a weight joke?  >


----------

