# IAP For CFR's



## Disenchantedsailor (18 Dec 2007)

not sure if this is the right place for this one, 

Being on the most recent run of the back to back IAP/BOTP I'm wondering if anyone has the same perception that IAP for mbrs CFR'd with a few years under their belt (some with CD's) is a rather large waste of taxpayers money. In some cases these mbrs were made to remove capbadges altogether, now branch/regimental cap badges I can see for the sake of the trg establishment but denying the wear of the CF Cap Badge (earned once allready in thier career) seems to me a bit far. 

Lets look at it from a trg perspective. In the most recent course
PO 101: Contribute as a member of a military team (with between 5 and 15 Years experience I'm not sure this had any benefit to CFR'd mbrs)
PO 102: Adhere to CF regulations and orders (Again if we havent figured it out by now we wouldn't have had our CO's reccomendations)
PO 103: Operate the service rifle (annual requiremnt for refresher trg)
PO 104: Maintain physical fitness proficiency (CF Express/BFT every year, and had to be passed prior to application for the programs (SCP/CEOTP)
PO 105: Perform drill (Covered during BMQ/PLQ/JLC and every parade since)
PO 106: Administer First Aid (Again refresher and pre-deployment requirment)
PO 107: Operate in a field environment (covered during BMQ - this could be taught during BOTP for CFR's - see proposal at the end)
PO 110: Maintain a safe working environment (Unit safety lectures during annual PD Day's and constant refresher trg)
PO 111: Communicate verbally and in writing (Most CPL's have this down pat and being a CPL is a req for all in service commisioning)
EDO 101: Canadian domestic / international military relationships (very little taught on this 1 lecture topic)
EDO 102: History, heritage, traditions of the profession of arms in Canada (most mbrs have an understanding of this none tested subj)
EDO 103: CF well-being programs and initiatives (never a waste)
EDO 104: Personal management and administrative procedures (most CPL's and even Pte(T) have a fairly decent understanding of the topic to the level that is taught)

The most beneficial part of this course is the half day LPAC.

So a better use of taxpayer money would be to make BOTP a 7 week course (remove week zero - really im sure we can all figure out an in routine in 10 minutes- especially when everyone is on TD) 
Run a CFR Specific BOTP course add on PO 107 and LPAC in the first week of the course and save 10 weeks of wages not only of the students but the instructors, the R&Q, Incidentals, and so on.

My thoughts, anyone else on the course care to comment


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Dec 2007)

Did you ever stop to think as to the reason why they do it like that?

To make sure that everyone is on the same playing field.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (18 Dec 2007)

I can buy that, but not all are on the same field, some like myself for example have to worry about burning off 25 Days leave between now and ph 2 which might maybe start in February. We were not permitted to talk to our home units for example and of course being on TD were entitled to benefits the "off the street guys" were (no offence to the off the street guys, we were all there once).


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Dec 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> We were not permitted to talk to our home units for example



Hmm...... to me that seems strange during my Leadership course I had constant access to my home unit. Maybe someone posted as an Instructor to CFLRS could clarify the above statment as to why they can't talk to their units.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Dec 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I can buy that, but not all are on the same field, some like myself for example have to worry about burning off 25 Days leave between now and ph 2 which might maybe start in February. We were not permitted to talk to our home units for example and of course being on TD were entitled to benefits the "off the street guys" were (no offence to the off the street guys, we were all there once).



You may not all start out "on the same field", but it is your new peer group you are training with.  Look upon it as an opportunity to integrate with that peer group, train with them from the outset of this stage of your careers, and (like those with prior service on BMQ) take the opportunity to share your experience with them as a peer and team member. 

There are enough occasions where people declare themselves to be special, or deserving of special treatment, there's no reason to create more of them.  I doubt the cost savings of a shorter course for the few would really be worth the effort.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Dec 2007)

And to add a little naphtha to the Arctic mitts before lighting the stove.(Anyone remember that video) ;D

I worked with a gentleman who had completed up to phase 3,then quit and re-enlisted as a NCM.His PLQ was written off even though he came in as a Pte.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Dec 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I can buy that, but not all are on the same field, some like myself for example have to worry about burning off 25 Days leave between now and ph 2 which might maybe start in February. We were not permitted to talk to our home units for example and of course being on TD were entitled to benefits the "off the street guys" were (no offence to the off the street guys, we were all there once).



That sucks.Worrying about burning off leave.I hate that!!

How long did you have in the army?Course staff should sort out all your admin military side.Why would you need to talk to your unit?


----------



## armyvern (18 Dec 2007)

The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> Hmm...... to me that seems strange during my Leadership course I had constant access to my home unit. Maybe someone posted as an Instructor to CFLRS could clarify the above statment as to why they can't talk to their units.



I had no access to mine during my ILQ in Saint Jean. No DWAN/DIN for we students ... ergo the dreaded "Blackberry" coming my way push ... too bad I got myself posted just to keep away from that Blackberry "is an absolute necessity" requirement!!

 >


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Dec 2007)

Ok, guess I stepped out of my safe lane then.


Oopss.   :-[


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Dec 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> In some cases these mbrs were made to remove capbadges altogether, now branch/regimental cap badges I can see for the sake of the trg establishment but denying the wear of the CF Cap Badge (earned once allready in thier career) seems to me a bit far.



WTF? I think asking an experienced NCO or WO to remove a cap badge that they have earned through years of valued service is a shame. I'm all for everyone belonging to the same peer group, but good lord! Some of these folks have quite literally risked their lives for their country, and this is their reward? Shame!


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2007)

A freind of mine CFR'ed last year. He did not have to do IAP. Him and the other CFRs showed up for the last 6 weeks of the course.

Has this changed ?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Dec 2007)

The latest rumours are that IAP will not be req'd for CFR's and BOTP will be written off by the new version of CF PLQ, but again as all things military this is still a rumour as far as I know. (I'm still sifting through 4 months of message traffic and trying to sort out xmas lve)


----------



## Shamrock (19 Dec 2007)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think asking an experienced NCO or WO to remove a cap badge that they have earned through years of valued service is a shame.



It's a hat badge.  A trinket.  Given that most individuals are not or are no longer trade qualified when attending IAP, it should be a non-issue -- they are not or no longer qualified to wear it. 

I have gone through BOTC after being a passable NCO, and had no qualms with doing everything required of me.  I was QL5B qualified in a couple of trades, had a couple of medals, and had to do the same shit as everyone else fresh off the street.  And I did them without complaint -- indeed, I feel I did the tasks before me with less complaint than the individuals fresh off the street.  It did not bother me to remove my cap badge, it did not bother me to shelve my medals, it did not bother me to do the same thing expected of everyone else.  That meant redoing indoctrination period, calling out the timing, and the dreaded coming to attention for a MCpl.

Yes, I did feel that certain bits of my training were repeated, but  that's the military.  The CF would have saved no money having me skip those portions as I'd have been drawing salary regardless, and having redone them cost me nothing -- and given BOTC serials aren't run every week, finish dates would have been the same.  The only benefit to skipping portions of training would be to the individual's ego, and an inflated ego or sense of entitlement in any junior officer is a dangerous thing.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Dec 2007)

A hat badge is not a trinket, it is something earned through hard work and dedication, it allows a mbr to salute any commission issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second, this includes all commissioned officers, warships, cenotaphs, and war dead. It is a dismal feeling to watch a friends casket pass by you in DEU's and a cap with no badge while you solemly stand there denied the privledge to salute his sacrifice, that privledge earned by years of hardship, deployments, long absences from family. Not common to only myself, but common to all 60 of us CFR's on the recent run, some of whom had been in Canada from Afghanistan less than one month before the course started.

And medals, again issued by or on behalf of our Sovereign not to be removed for any reason other than misconduct. I challange you as a fellow officer to tell just one of your soldiers to remove thier hat badge and not display wear thier earned medals, regardless of whether you or I did it does not make it right. But hey I have an Idea lets do away with the honours system if all they are is "trinkets"


----------



## Shamrock (19 Dec 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> And medals, again issued by or on behalf of our Sovereign not to be removed for any reason other than misconduct. I challange you as a fellow officer to tell just one of your soldiers to remove thier hat badge and not display wear thier earned medals, regardless of whether you or I did it does not make it right. But hey I have an Idea lets do away with the honours system if all they are is "trinkets"



I'm sorry, I'm not falling for your self righteous indignation (as prosically worded as it is)

Yes, I hold cap badges, medals, qualification badges, collar dogs, buttons, buckles, belts, keepers, and stitches to be trinkets.  I guess I foolishly expect my deportment to indicate my levels of dedication and professionalism; I don't need to wear my UER on my uniform to feel like a soldier and I don't require a prettily decorated uniform for others to treat me as same.  

I do, however, consider professionalism, dedication, and esprit de corps in very high regard.  I hold the ability to lead by example and not with a volley of paperwork in very high regard.  I hold the ability to perform any task set before the individual without whining on the Internet about how it was a crime against his very being because he already did something pretty close to it before in very high regard.  I hold the willingness to perform a duty that is good enough for everyone else as though it's good enough for the person who's too good for it in very high regard.

While I'd love to let your red herring fade away, I suspect you're like a terrier with someone else's bone.  Honours have a time and place and are of an important cultural and symbolic nature to the CF.  Do I hold them in as high regard as most?  I suspect not as I'm willing to forego them in the name of getting a fucking job done quickly and without whining. If you think long and hard about this, you'll realize that we in the army suspend several practices for convenience, operational requirements, or both.  If not wearing one's medals or a cap badge is a make-or-break moment in an individual's career, there's a bigger problem.

Now, to forego any further indignation on your behalf, I'll address a point you should have already formed.  Since I seem to hold medals in such low esteem, given the opportunity to endorse a deserving individual awards for conspicuous behaviour in the face of the adversity, would I?


----------



## armyvern (19 Dec 2007)

So why then does a remuster retain the right to wear his hard-*earned* capbadge until he is presented with his new trade cap badge?? Unlike the other pers on his 3s -- he is NOT in a cornflake because he does hold a trade qualification.

Making him an Officer -- does not erase that qual from his record; nor should the fact that he does hold a bonified CF trade qualification lessen the _esprit de corps _ of the, to use your own words, professional and dedicated Officers he is now on course with. 

To use more of your own words:

"If not wearing one's medals or a cap badge is a make-or-break moment in another individual's career initial course, there's a bigger problem."

They've earned that right to wear it. Why take it away?


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

I believe that making anyone redo their basic, while they are still a serving member of the CF regardless of component is a waste of money and time on both the CF and the individual in question.

We are currently at a need to expand our military, due to both operational requirements and other needs. I think that BMQ/IAP does not benefit anyone with prior experience to have to redo it. If the individuals have never completed PLQ, then fine, send them to BOTP because that's where we teach them leadership. I say go for it, because leadership is constantly evolving thing and should never be brushed over. 

But, if the person's got PLQ, ILQ or what ever other forms of leadership, is it really pertinent to send them on IAP/BOTP = BOTC all over again? No. It is a waste of time and opportunity. The sooner we get some of these pers trained up the better off we as an organization shall be. If we think that we will not be hit by the retiring frenzy that is currently hitting the civilian job market, we are kidding ourselves. The more experience we give to the up and coming leaders regardless of rank, will only further our own cause of creating a stronger CF. 

By training them up sooner, and having them work under the supervision of more senior officers, our more "junior" officer with previous service may turn out to be better officers in the long run without having to redo BOTC. That is my opinion. You may disagree. In fact some of you probably will. However, having to redo basic, and be taught how to do hospital corners, how to shine your boots for people with any TI above 3 years is kind of pointless. IAP is not needed for anyone whose completed BMQ. If they've been assessed ready by both their CoC and the PSO... I think they're good to go... don't you?


----------



## Shamrock (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So why then does a remuster retain the right to wear his hard-*earned* capbadge until he is presented with his new trade cap badge?? Unlike the other pers on his 3s -- he is NOT in a cornflake because he does hold a trade qualification.



No idea.  However, when a candidate goes through IAP, he becomes trade unqualified.  His UER, MPRR, and various other R's do not cease to exist, they just cease to be relevant.  And this isn't the case for officers only; NCM's who go through BMQ who are trade qualified are also required to go sans cap badge. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Making him an Officer -- does not erase that qual from his record; nor should the fact that he does hold a bonafied CF trade qualification lessen the esprit de corps of the, to use your own words, professional and dedicated Officers he is now on course with.



These individuals represent the very first realistic glimpse future officers get of NCM's -- unlike the staff, former service members aren't out to kill and eat the recruits.  When they whine, bitch, and complain about the special treatment they aren't getting because of their previous service, I say yes, they do hinder esprit de corps.  If these individuals present themselves as capable and willing to perform any task in any condition equal to (or more austere than) those coursemates face, then they certainly won't have reduced the esteem the new officers will have for the troops that will eventually work for them. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> To use more of your own words:
> 
> "If not wearing one's medals or a cap badge is a make-or-break moment in another individual's career initial course, there's a bigger problem."



If wearing one's cap bade is a make-or-break moment in another initial course, there's a bigger problem?  I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get across here.  I think you've cleverly reworded what I said to say the same damn thing.

MedTech As I said before, it's not really a waste of money; former service officers draw a salary regardless, and graduation dates would be the same.  EWAT can be barely rewarding -- there's only so many times one can press the copy button before he ceases to feel like a functioning member of a unit.  You fringe upon a valid point, though: the undue strain rehashing lessons to former service pers places on an already strained recruit training system.  Given the increased drive to commission from the ranks, there's certainly more impetus behind improving this system, but the stress this seems to generate within individuals seems unneccessary.


----------



## CFFB (19 Dec 2007)

I think it all comes down to one thing.  When you apply for an in service selection program you know what is expected of you for training.  If your objections are that strong then don't apply.  

I'll be heading off for BOMQ (IAP/BOTP) in Jan, and while I must admit that I have thought about all of the objections that are listed below (not wearing a hat badge, wasting time on repeated training, etc) I just pictured the look on my instructors face when I told him that I should be different.  And when I thought about it some more, do I want to be that different than my course mates?  It's a much higher height to fall from if you've placed yourself on a pedestal.  Rather be just one of the guys with a funny blue hat on, running my a$$ into the ground just like everyone else.  

There is a CWO that works in my building, and after he heard my story, he was ready to call all over ready to say that I shouldn't go on the training.  And maybe I shouldn't, but I don't want my name being dragged all over, being the guy at CFLRS that thinks he doesn't need to be there.  So I asked him politely to not bother.  I think I'll probably learn a thing or two when I'm up there, and be a better officer for it.  (cheesy, but true)

I'm not putting anyone down, but in my experience I've just told myself to suck it up buttercup.  It will all be worth it when I'm doing something that I really enjoy and hopefully being a better provider for my family because of it.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I believe that making anyone redo their basic, while they are still a serving member of the CF regardless of component is a waste of money and time on both the CF and the individual in question.



Some would argue quite the opposite.  With their experience, they can mentor their peers.  They can show initiative and coursemanship in passing on some of their experience to their new coursemates.  Their knowledge and experience can help foster "Teamwork".  In the eyes of the Training System, this would be beneficial in that it takes some of the load off the Instructors and Staff.  It would also free up some of the Staff from constantly having to monitor the course 24 and 7.


----------



## BF1 (19 Dec 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I'm not falling for your self righteous indignation (as prosically worded as it is)
> 
> Yes, I hold cap badges, medals, qualification badges, collar dogs, buttons, buckles, belts, keepers, and stitches to be trinkets.  I guess I foolishly expect my deportment to indicate my levels of dedication and professionalism; I don't need to wear my UER on my uniform to feel like a soldier and I don't require a prettily decorated uniform for others to treat me as same.
> 
> ...


In '93 I commissioned from Arty WO to Int OCdt. As far as doing BOTC with all the kids getting ready to go to RMC it wasn't a big deal.  I do have a question for Shamrock though: did someone actually order you not to wear your medals or ribbons?


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So why then does a remuster retain the right to wear his hard-*earned* capbadge until he is presented with his new trade cap badge?? Unlike the other pers on his 3s -- he is NOT in a cornflake because he does hold a trade qualification.



But a Component Transfer who goes off to basic training (as either officer or NCM) does not, and I would suggest that that is a better analogy than remuster.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> By training them up sooner, and having them work under the supervision of more senior officers, our more "junior" officer with previous service may turn out to be better officers in the long run without having to redo BOTC. That is my opinion. You may disagree. In fact some of you probably will. However, having to redo basic, and be taught how to do hospital corners, how to shine your boots for people with any TI above 3 years is kind of pointless. IAP is not needed for anyone whose completed BMQ. If they've been assessed ready by both their CoC and the PSO... I think they're good to go... don't you?



Do you honestly think that basic officer training consists of nothing more than "be[ing] taught how to do hospital corners, [and] how to shine your boots".  There are also the aspects of giving the new officer a chance to join his/her new peer group, and a chance to stand back and take the opportunity to start seeing how they may want to change their leadership technique from that learned on the PLQ/ILQ to one more suited to their new appointments and responsibilities.  It's a learning opportunity for much more than simply making beds, ironing and shining boots.


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Some would argue quite the opposite.  With their experience, they can mentor their peers.  They can show initiative and coursemanship in passing on some of their experience to their new coursemates.  Their knowledge and experience can help foster "Teamwork".  In the eyes of the Training System, this would be beneficial in that it takes some of the load off the Instructors and Staff.  It would also free up some of the Staff from constantly having to monitor the course 24 and 7.



There is most definitely that. I am by no means correct just presenting my own point of view on things. Of course I'm doing it all over again, and will do it wit the utmost enthusiasm required of me ;D It won't be that bad.



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think that basic officer training consists of nothing more than "be[ing] taught how to do hospital corners, [and] how to shine your boots".  There are also the aspects of giving the new officer a chance to join his/her new peer group, and a chance to stand back and take the opportunity to start seeing how they may want to change their leadership technique from that learned on the PLQ/ILQ to one more suited to their new appointments and responsibilities.  It's a learning opportunity for much more than simply making beds, ironing and shining boots.



Sometimes I do, and I know I'm mistaken in that belief but at the same time, they will be joined in their peers and integration at their MOC course level as well. I do agree with both you and George, but merely presenting my point of view as stated.


----------



## exgunnertdo (19 Dec 2007)

I might suggest a correction to the title of this thread?  "CFR" is Commissioning From the Ranks" - a specific program for Snr NCOs and WOs with specific parameters - for example an experienced WO is Commissioned to the rank of (I believe) Lt, in the same occupation (Arty WO to Arty Offr).  I don't think CFRs do IAP/BOTP in any circumstance...There's another course for that, the name of which escapes me.

I think what people are referring to is the other in-service commissioning plans - UTPNCM, CEOTP, SCP and others which are not CFR.

There is a matrix for equivalencies and it's pretty clear - PLQ (not sure what version) gets you IAP written off, SLC gets you BOTP written off.

There is also PLAR - Prior Learning Assessment Request.  If a member really feels that even though they are missing the above quals, they do not require the training, they are welcome to submit a PLAR.  You have to go through the training you are requesting a write-off for and outline, PO by PO, what in your previous experience should make the training redundant.  But you can't just say "I've got 10 years in and a tour, I know this stuff already."  You need to do your research and write it up.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Dec 2007)

I think this has snow-balled a wee bit. The objection is to the IAP phase of the BMOQ, the BOTP was extremely beneficial, as was previously said this is where the leadership portions are taught. The IAP course is 9 weeks of recruit training, a trip to the War Museum, A trip to a cemetary, and 1 week of in routine. This is an issue admitted by the instructors.  As for money lets say 60 CFR's about 30 were CPL 4 (578,640) and 10 Mcpl/Sgt (200,000) so really is this an effective way to spend a million dolloars or have de-centralized BOTP srls run (CFB Esquimalt is geared up to run them at NOTC Venture as are other bases I'm sure) and have these mbrs to Phase trg sooner, as it is most of us (and this includes off the street types too) will not be field employable for over 24 months.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2007)

A few points if I may.

1.  NCMs who have completed a PLQ are not 'normally' required to do IAP.  Makes sense, you would have enough T.I. and MOC training upon completion of PLQ, and have enough ppl think you are a 'rising star' to actually course load you for PLQ, or in some cases, promote you to A/L MCpl/MS and then course you.  Right?  If you took an Jnr Ldrship course "way back when" (i.e. JLC, CLC or one of the JNCO (OAS)/Army Jnr NCO courses) and they don't recognize it as PLQ, then I suggest you request a PLQ equivalency thru CDA.  IntraNet link for PLQ Equiv below:

http://cda.mil.ca/dlm/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/plq_e.asp

2.  NCMs who have completed ILQ are not 'normally' required to complete BOTP and potentially will bypass BMOQ complete.  Again, if you took an older SLC course, then you can request ILQ equivalency thru CDA once again.  IntraNet link for ILQ Equiv is below:

http://cda.mil.ca/dlm/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/ilq_e.asp

3.  For info on all equivalencies that may be sought thru CDA, please see IntraNet link below.  Note, there is a link there for BMOQ as well, for those so inclined.

http://cda.mil.ca/dlm/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/milequiv_e.asp

4.  WRT the issue of the capbadge and such:  AFAIK, when you go from the NCM rank to the Subordinate Officer world that is the life of an OCdt, you 'change hats'.  And with that 'change', does your MOC/MOSID not also change?  And, in that new MOC/MOSID, what qualification do you hold in THAT one?  I would bet...nadda.  So, in essence, you are wearing the capbadge of your *current* qualification level.   ;D

Now, from my time as an Instr at CFLRS, depending on the Div you were in, your Div OC, DSM, Course O and WO, which direction the wind was blowing and the ambient temperature of the male bathroom in the Bistro, all of these factors came into play WRT the "CFRs" being allowed to wear their capbadges.  If a Supp Tech was CFRing to Log O, then they usually were allowed to wear it, as an example.  But if the Supp Tech was going Armour O, then...forget it.  So...'military common sense' applied.

As for the 'why do we have to redo this training' stuff...well, someone who makes decisions, based on policy currently in place, decided that it was the way to do business.  If you 'know it all already' then...shouldn't it be rather easy to...perform to your best, lead by example, EDI and ICEPAC?  If you don't know what I am talking about then maybe you should be on IAP  ;D.

Just because you 'did this trng before' doesn't mean there is no legitimate military requirement to redo it.

Someone mentioned even playing field.  I will go further.

Some of the process is simply to remove, the chip off people shoulders that HAVE served before.  Yes, you served and I will guess served well, or your CoC and CM would likely have squashed your application, or your conduct sheet would have eliminated you from the competition, PERs, etc.  However, going from the NCM world to the Subordinate and Junior Officer world requires changes in the way you think, the people you work with, and it takes time for most to 'let go' of their "NCO ways".

BMOQ consists of...IAP and BOTP portions.  IF the people that assessed your file determined you were trained enough to bypass either of those portions, IAW current policy, you would have.

I would suggest that the suggestions to revamp the current trng courses and invent new ones "for CFR types" is an idea that would not float.  There is already a process in place;  you didn't meet the criteria for a IAP or BOTP (which would bypass you BMOQ) bypass.

My question is...why not use the time to the way the system wants you to?  If you thing CFLRS is hard...CAP is waiting.  Now, I challenge you to look at the POSITIVE things you will take out of repeating this trng ( as a different MOC ), and spend as much time on that as you have finding the NEGATIVE things.  

I think its time to Ruck Up and get on with it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I believe that making anyone redo their basic, while they are still a serving member of the CF regardless of component is a waste of money and time on both the CF and the individual in question.
> 
> But, if the person's got PLQ, ILQ or what ever other forms of leadership, is it really pertinent to send them on IAP/BOTP = BOTC all over again? No. It is a waste of time and opportunity. The sooner we get some of these pers trained up the better off we as an organization shall be. If we think that we will not be hit by the retiring frenzy that is currently hitting the civilian job market, we are kidding ourselves. *The more experience we give to the up and coming leaders regardless of rank, will only further our own cause of creating a stronger CF. *
> 
> However, having to redo basic, and be taught how to do hospital corners, how to shine your boots for people with any TI above 3 years is kind of pointless. IAP is not needed for anyone whose completed BMQ. If they've been assessed ready by both their CoC and the PSO... I think they're good to go... don't you?



You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Doesn't what I bolded contradict what you said about it not being required?  IAP and BOTP IS experience and they ARE up and coming leaders.   :

There is a huge differenc between IAP and BMQ.  Period.  Do you even know what IAP stands for?  Perhaps you should get the TPs of both courses from the CFLRS website if you can, or better yet, go to St-Jean and ask around the Bullpens in the Div's what the differenc between IAP and BMQ is.

The PSO does an interview only.  Jesus.  Put the cap back on the glue stick.

And ref their CoC assessing them...so if a, lets say, NCI Op Leading Seamen from a CPF in Halifax goes for UTPNCM as a Infantry Officer, his "CoC" has properly assessed him?

 :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Some would argue quite the opposite.  With their experience, they can mentor their peers.  They can show initiative and coursemanship in passing on some of their experience to their new coursemates.  Their knowledge and experience can help foster "Teamwork".  In the eyes of the Training System, this would be beneficial in that it takes some of the load off the Instructors and Staff.  It would also free up some of the Staff from constantly having to monitor the course 24 and 7.



EXACTLY!

Which is part of the point.  

Now, I know this is a book but did anyone read Red Storm Rising?  When the Cat A units were being hauled off the frontline, some of the veteran Officers and NCOs were sent to the rear to merry-up with the Cat C Reserve units, to pass on their experience and strengthen them as a fighting force...same principle here.


----------



## CFFB (19 Dec 2007)

While I must respect the opinion that those from the ranks will be an asset to the course, I doubt that this was the intention of putting people on the course.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but there must be the odd course that goes through without those with previous service.  

On a side note, for those that already went through, how did you find being on the course having come from within the forces?  Did it make it more difficult on you or did you manage to just do the course and carry on?


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2007)

CFFB said:
			
		

> While I must respect the opinion that those from the ranks will be an asset to the course, I doubt that this was the intention of putting people on the course.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but there must be the odd course that goes through without those with previous service.



While I must also respect your opinion, what makes you think that the Training Systems people did not intend on using this method of instruction as part of their training philosophy?  Seems like a simple and common sense side benefit that aids in the mentoring of new candidates which is next to cost free.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2007)

I do have a question.   Are some "dinosaurs" now going on IAP, who think that an "old Dog can't be taught new tricks?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2007)

CFFB said:
			
		

> While I must respect the opinion that those from the ranks will be an asset to the course, I doubt that this was the intention of putting people on the course.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but there must be the odd course that goes through without those with previous service.
> 
> On a side note, for those that already went through, how did you find being on the course having come from within the forces?  Did it make it more difficult on you or did you manage to just do the course and carry on?



Granted, not the main reason, but definitely a benefit and one "people on the ground" at CFLRS can see the tangible results from.  

A friend of mine who went from Cmbt Arms NCO to Cmbt Arms Officer said to me "it was like prison.  you just bite the pillow, grin and bear it and then try to forget about it when its over".  He had PLQ so he arrived to partake in, and enjoy the BOTP only.

 ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Dec 2007)

Don't you remember getting TCCCS?
A lot of dinosaurs still can't be taught that. 

Personally If I was getting my commission,full TD,and education they could make me wear what ever the hell they wanted.
And unless your CFR'ing to an officer of the same trade,are you really that attached to your old capbadge?
Do a officer cadet with a capbadge get paid more?If that was the case I would fight to keep it.However I don't think that's the case is it.

Full TD,getting taught absolutely nothing.Therefore no studying at night,no stress at all and moving forward to your commission.
WTF is your issue?


----------



## CFFB (19 Dec 2007)

> While I must also respect your opinion, what makes you think that the Training Systems people did not intend on using this method of instruction as part of their training philosophy?  Seems like a simple and common sense side benefit that aids in the mentoring of new candidates which is next to cost free.



Very good point.  I always think the worst of people/agencies when it comes to how the planning process works.  Too much time seeing _some_ people in the forces dealing with things much to quickly, and without a lot of thought.  

On the otherhand, good policies have come out of Ottawa as well.   



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do have a question.   Are some "dinosaurs" now going on IAP, who think that an "old Dog can't be taught new tricks?"


I'm far from being a dinosaur, I've been in 10 years and feel like a FNG at least one day of the week.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2007)

CFFB said:
			
		

> ......  I always think the worst of people/agencies when it comes to how the planning process works.  Too much time seeing _some_ people in the forces dealing with things much to quickly, and without a lot of thought.



Yea.  I know.  An urge that we all have to fight and not become too pessimistic.  'Still trying to look on the 'Bright Side of Life'.


----------



## medaid (19 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 'Still trying to look on the 'Bright Side of Life'.



There isn't a brighter side of life mate... :'( there's only the gray side... and the grayer side... and some times they fuse and become.... um a medium grayish hue...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yea.  I know.  An urge that we all have to fight and not become too pessimistic.  'Still trying to look on the 'Bright Side of Life'.



Bright Side of Life   ;D


----------



## Rowshambow (19 Dec 2007)

I just did this and just got back from St J almost 2 weeks ago, so here is my input!

We had 36 people on my BOTP, 29 of them were some type of CFR (ceotp, scp, cfr) We had people who were plq cpl's, 2 WO chief Clerks! There were also a number of Mcpl's and Sgt's (myself being the latter) I didn't learn anything, in fact because of my experience's, I would often help others that were having problems with mission analysis (as some never seen it having done jlc so long ago) We all wore cf cap badge (even though we fought it) we were in A div, some of the other divs wore their previous trades badges! Also I had a friend who was a MCpl and just came back from the dust bowl, and he had to do IAP and BOTP, not sure why? Myself and another ex Sgt in my section asked why we had to do it, and we were told that because the PSO didn't do a PLAR we had to do the course, the course WO then told all of us, "that if a PLAR had of been done almost all of us would not of had to do the course, and the school policy is that once you are there, you do the course regardless, so enjoy the course"
It was 7 weeks of my life I will never get back, the cap badge thing, well it just felt wrong, yes i was qualified in my old trade and only have to do my Tp Ldr course, so at the very least I should have been wearing the Armoured fist! 
We were also told that in the new year they are coming out with some new regulations regarding this and if you have a plq you won't have to do the course, maybe there is someone else on here with more info about that, as I just heard we (in Alberta) are getting PLD, so the info in St J didn't flow as freely to us as we would have liked to!
In MY opinion, I think it was a waste of money, time and resources! As for the "getting to know my new peers", I will never see these people again, and won't really see my peers until phase 4 or phase 3 if I had to do it!


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 Dec 2007)

rowshanbow, I was in B div, we not only lost the branch brass (not the concern) we lost all capbadges full stop, and you're right I spent alot of time on the phone with the kids (missing all 3 birthdays for the 5th year in a row) and helping everyone out. It's not that we thought we were better than anybody, but bite the pillow and take we did. (PS I think we might have attacked you guys by mistake on Vimy)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Dec 2007)

Rowshambow,

Just curious if you had your ILQ before?  And are you being made to do CAP?

I know some of the clerks you said were WOs, but were they A/L (no ILQ yet) WOs?  If so, that is likely why they ended up on BOTP.

Seems like the some of the same issues still exist at CFLRS...mainly, different standards for IAP/BOTP candidates within the 3 Div's.

I am not, by the way, saying I agree with the policy of the 'thou shall wear a cornflake', but they should ATLEAST make it a School standard.  I never could figure out why the SCWO seemed to leave that to the DSMs but it was always something that was talked about in the bullpen.

I guess in the 'interest of uniformity', all IAP candidates don't wear the cornflake until...what Week 4 or something isn't it?

The last I heard was, as I said...PLQ qual = IAP bypass and ILQ qual = BMOQ bypass...but that could have changed.

And to add some most mud into the unclear waters, I have known of Infantry WOs that had their 6B/DP3B or whatever it is called today  ;D AND their ILQ and...yup, had to do BOTP.  Go figure.

There is a hole in the process that should be corrected and promulgated NAOTIONALLY to all the PSO shops and other responsible agencies involved with the programs that take selected, deserving NCMs that are making the step into the Officer world, and maybe it needs the have the word "shall" in it alot! 8)

have you guys thought about addressing this "the PSO didn't do PLAR" issue to your CoC?  It won't get you back your 7 weeks but...it might prevent the same stuff from happening to the next crop of folks to go thru the sausage machine.

"Leave it better than you found it" type thought...


----------



## Rowshambow (21 Dec 2007)

Jimmy, you are so bang on, I was a Sgt and did not have ILQ hence why I had to do the BOTP, but our staff told us that as of Jan there are new requirements (confirmed by our div oc) so if you have plq, you will no longer need to do BMOQ or whatever the flavour of the day is! Also you are right in guessing about the acting lacking Chief clerk WO's, but man did they know there stuff regarding clerk stuff!
As for the cap badge thing, yes I also agree that's prob why they did it, but then there were a few  (I know the one guy who had his navy badge) and a few others that wore there trade badge on the BOTP, and even had it when others had the CF badge before BOTP, our div policy was everyone will be the same, so we all had CF Badge. I agree the school should set forth one policy and follow it, this would alleviate some of the discrepancies!
I put in the paperwork for a PLAR once I got back, just to make sure, but I did already have the CAP bypass and already qualified phase 3 (Armoured) So it's on to phase 4! I talked to the PSO in the mess one day, and it kinda blind sided him, he thought that it was Borden's job to do the PLAr automatically, there must have been some type of paperwork mix up, as PSO's from across the country didn't do the PLAR on any of the CFR's! Oh well, at least I can identify with people when they talk about the mega now! lol


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Dec 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> I talked to the PSO in the mess one day, and it kinda blind sided him, he thought that it was Borden's job to do the PLAr automatically, there must have been some type of paperwork mix up, as PSO's from across the country didn't do the PLAR on any of the CFR's! Oh well, at least I can identify with people when they talk about the mega now! lol



Now I see the problem. It's the parent unit or base PSO's responsibility to submit the PLAR, Borden does the assessment portion only. We get lots of new kids at our unit who require PLARs done... and this is after having been in Borden for 9 months. I guess the lesson here is for the member being CFR'd to req a PLAR thereby ensuring that it has been at least started.


----------



## klee519 (23 Dec 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I believe that making anyone redo their basic, while they are still a serving member of the CF regardless of component is a waste of money and time on both the CF and the individual in question.
> 
> We are currently at a need to expand our military, due to both operational requirements and other needs. I think that BMQ/IAP does not benefit anyone with prior experience to have to redo it. If the individuals have never completed PLQ, then fine, send them to BOTP because that's where we teach them leadership. I say go for it, because leadership is constantly evolving thing and should never be brushed over.
> 
> ...



you are right about that, in my opinion both IAP and BMQ are very similar but IAP is way more easier than BMQ, physically and mentally. The instructors tend to scream more at a recruit than an ocdt. People been thru the BMQ should be exempted from IAP. I've seen ex cpl, mcpl and even sgt were forced to take iap. Some of them didn't bother to finish iap, however i am sure the military wants to get rid of these experienced people with attitude. 
on the other hand, st jean cflrs is running out of space to accommodate new soldiers, as next year they are moving PAT/PAR to the trailers near the obstacle course. The govt will never run out of new people to join the  military, even if approx only 50% candidates able to pass BMQ/IAP.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Dec 2007)

klee519 said:
			
		

> you are right about that, in my opinion both IAP and BMQ are very similar but IAP is way more easier than BMQ, physically and mentally. The instructors tend to scream more at a recruit than an ocdt. People been thru the BMQ should be exempted from IAP. I've seen ex cpl, mcpl and even sgt were forced to take iap. Some of them didn't bother to finish iap, however i am sure the military wants to get rid of these experienced people with attitude.
> on the other hand, st jean cflrs is running out of space to accommodate new soldiers, as next year they are moving PAT/PAR to the trailers near the obstacle course. The govt will never run out of new people to join the  military, even if approx only 50% candidates able to pass BMQ/IAP.



Have you taken both IAP and BMQ?  Either?  If so which one?  What are you basing this opinion on?

Folks, once and for all...while the PO/EO/Edo's might be the same (drill, MK, C7, CBRN, etc) the courses are NOT the same.  IAP stands for Initial Assessment Period.  This, while having some similarities to BMQ, is NOT BMQ.  The Leadership portion of the training is not the same, the 'expectations' are not the same.

Think of it.  If there courses WERE the same, don't  you think they would have been combined for 'effeciency of effort' sakes?

Anyone who has done BMQ and been trained to the Cpl/LS level and who go on to the Officer world, who have to do IAP 'most likely' will find it easy and see alot of it as BS that they have done before, because, well they have.  For the folks who are ROTPs/DEOs that have NEVER had a CF uniform on before, IAP is just a hectic and confusing as it is for BMQs who have never wore a CF uniform before.

The courses are not the same, full stop.  The assessment critieria are not the same, full stop.  The 'aim' is different.  Maybe I can sum it up like this.

BMQ is to train Private Recruits to be able to effectively carry out lawful commands and perform the general duties of service life to the expected standard and to 'convert' them from civie to military creatures (well, to start the process atleast).

IAP is to train OCdts (Subordinate Officers) to do all of the above, but also to GIVE orders to subordinates.  So, not only are they demanded to be followers, but leaders as well.  

Klee519, running out of space is not a good enough reason for the CF to start demanding less of trainee's for our Officer Corps, IMO.  The correct solution to that?  Build more buildings.

Again, if you are an NCM who is going to jump to the Officer world, you must have PLQ to bypass IAP.  They cover (basically) the same leadership skill development.  

The military does not want to 'get ride of experienced people with attitude'.  They do want them to transition from the NCM to the Officer world and to help mold the less experienced people into the CF family.  Call it the effective use of Group Discipline. (no that doesn't mean blanket parties).

When you take the ILQ course, you will learn about that, unless you want to self-educate yourself on the 4 types of discipline the military employs primarily.  (Well, that is what was taught on my SLC, I am guessing it is still part of the ILQ but could be wrong).

Now, I am not trying to take a huge crap on you, but if you are 22 years old, and I am guessing that you haven't done both IAP and BMQ, then maybe you haven't been around long enough to know why the folks who make up the rules make the ones they do.

All my opinion, of course...


----------



## Patrolman (28 Dec 2007)

When I did my BOTP course this summer there were approximately 17 CFR's,20 RMC students,and 10 civu U candidates on my serial. Being a former  MCpl. I feel the course was a waste of seven weeks of my life. I really did not learn anything, and being made to wear a cornflake;sorry Tri-Service Badge was a slap in the face. I did it just the same and even wore the old web gear despite having the tac vest in my locker. When all of the RMC students found out that we had to remove our unit badges they immediately removed their RMC badges. Ther gesture was well appreciated and was a fine example of esprit de corps. Needless to say the CF realizes there is a problem with the system and working to have it rectified. Supposedly in the summer of of 08 there will be seperate courses (as well as new TP's ) for former NCO's.


----------

