# Acting lacking MCpl in charge of a section with qualified MCpl's



## Veovius (23 Nov 2010)

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I threw it in here.

Can someone explain to me what Acting/Lacking means, and how it relates to rank and pay?  I'm asking from an MP point of view, but I thought there may be other trades that use it.  Thanks!


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Nov 2010)

Acting/Lacking means you have been promoted to a rank for which you lack the actual qualification for.  It doesn't effect pay unless there is Spec pay involved.

For example:

MCpl Bloggins is not PLQ qualified, so he is considered an Acting/Lacking MCpl until he completes the PLQ course.  He still gets paid as a MCpl.

Sgt X is a PMed Tech without a 6A course (required for Spec pay).  He is considered Acting/Lacking Sgt and gets _standard_ Sgt's pay until completion of the 6A course.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Veovius (23 Nov 2010)

I think so...
So would an MP in training be a Cpl, but only get standard Cpl pay until he finishes his/her QL3 trade course?


----------



## MP 811 (23 Nov 2010)

You have to have your QL5 for spec pay in the MP trade now, so you'll be receiving standard Cpl pay.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (23 Nov 2010)

You are only also allowed to be missing one of the items required for substantive promotion to the next higher rank.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Nov 2010)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> You are only also allowed to be missing one of the items required for substantive promotion to the next higher rank.



The only exception being A/Cpl as that rank is considered uncontrolled.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2010)

Now you guys got him really confused ;D


----------



## Veovius (24 Nov 2010)

Ohh boy.....

I suppose I need to find out what the QL5 is for MPs, and when you get to take that.

So:
Private pay --> BMQ through SQ
Cpl pay --> QL3 through QL5?
Cpl Spec pay --> after QL5?


----------



## Journeyman (24 Nov 2010)

Hi Veovius. You probably don't recognize me, but I'm the voice of reason.

Since you don't even start recruit training until 2011, you may want to take a deep breath or two before _too_ getting wound up about Spec Pay.

Your call of course


----------



## Veovius (24 Nov 2010)

I think I remember that voice...usually right before I do something stupid 

The reason I'm asking here is that I've asked several different people, and got several different answers.  Two were serving MPs, and one was a Lieutenant that gave us a briefing about the MP trade on my MPAC.  I think he said that we didn't get corporal hooks for about 2 years, but everyone else had some variation on either being insta-corporals after BMQ, or getting promoted before QL3 and getting backpay to your start date!  As inclined as I am to believe the Lt., I've never heard that repeated again by anyone else.  I was hoping someone here would have a definite answer.  I hope that clarifies things from my end.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Nov 2010)

Ah...well, there's your problem.....you asked a lieutenant; perhaps worse, you _listened_ to a lieutenant   ;D


----------



## Veovius (24 Nov 2010)

To be fair, he was mustanged from the infantry


----------



## medicineman (24 Nov 2010)

He's an infantry officer dude.

MM


----------



## Veovius (24 Nov 2010)

Sorry I should clairify... He was infantry, got offered a commission, and became an MP Officer.  He's been doing that for 4 years now.


----------



## medicineman (24 Nov 2010)

Good recovery  ;D.

MM


----------



## MP 811 (24 Nov 2010)

Veovius said:
			
		

> The reason I'm asking here is that I've asked several different people, and got several different answers.  Two were serving MPs, and one was a Lieutenant that gave us a briefing about the MP trade on my MPAC.  I think he said that we didn't get corporal hooks for about 2 years, but everyone else had some variation on either being insta-corporals after BMQ, or getting promoted before QL3 and getting backpay to your start date!  As inclined as I am to believe the Lt., I've never heard that repeated again by anyone else.  *I was hoping someone here would have a definite answer. *




Here's your definitive answer....from a serving MP.  You *WILL* be promoted to acting/lacking Corporal upon graduation from your BMQ at St. Jean.   You *WILL NOT * receive spec pay until you get your QL5 qualification.......clear as mud?


----------



## garb811 (25 Nov 2010)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> Here's your definitive answer....from a serving MP.  You *WILL* be promoted to acting/lacking Corporal upon graduation from your BMQ at St. Jean.   You *WILL NOT * receive spec pay until you get your QL5 qualification.......clear as mud?


To muddy the waters even further...this is true unless you are unable to take your QL5 in the time period you normally would have received it due to the needs of the service.  I have only ever seen this happen due to pers deploying on Operations.  In this specific instance you will be granted Spec Pay effective the day you would have graduated from the QL5 course you would have been scheduled to attend had you not been deployed as embers will not be disadvantaged due to reasons beyond their control.  The caveat to that is you fail the QL5 or don't go on the next QL5 you are available for, your spec pay is forfeit and you pay it all back.


----------



## Veovius (28 Nov 2010)

MP811: Thank you!  Crystal clear....until I read Garb's post.

Garb811: Oh great...  What is the QL5, and when are you supposed to take that?  Now I'm asking out of curiosity's sake


----------



## garb811 (29 Nov 2010)

The QL5 is your "journeyman" course, at which point you are expected to be able to operate independently and act as a coach officer to new MPs.  This is the course which formally qualifies you for the rank of Cpl, at which time the Acting/Lacking is dropped.  Normally you take this about 2-2.5 years after taking your QL3.


----------



## Veovius (30 Nov 2010)

Gotcha.  Actually, that explains why the Lt. said about 2 years, and why everyone else said right away.


----------



## captloadie (30 Nov 2010)

garb811 said:
			
		

> To muddy the waters even further...this is true unless you are unable to take your QL5 in the time period you normally would have received it due to the needs of the service.  I have only ever seen this happen due to pers deploying on Operations.  In this specific instance you will be granted Spec Pay effective the day you would have graduated from the QL5 course you would have been scheduled to attend had you not been deployed as embers will not be disadvantaged due to reasons beyond their control.  The caveat to that is you fail the QL5 or don't go on the next QL5 you are available for, your spec pay is forfeit and you pay it all back.



See, there is a problem with the system. How is a member disadvantaged by not getting spec pay before he is actually qualified? I think they are more disadvantaged if they get paid the money, and if/when something goes wrong they have to pay it all back. Why not do like most officer trades where members don't get promoted until they get the course completed, then their rank and pay is made retroactive.


----------



## lethalLemon (30 Nov 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> See, there is a problem with the system. How is a member disadvantaged by not getting spec pay before he is actually qualified? I think they are more disadvantaged if they get paid the money, and if/when something goes wrong they have to pay it all back. Why not do like most officer trades where members don't get promoted until they get the course completed, then their rank and pay is made retroactive.



Why not? Because that would mean someone with a brain would have to run the system  :


----------



## ARMY_101 (26 Aug 2013)

What - precisely - is the definition of an Acting/Lacking promotion now that the CDS has released this CANFORGEN:



			
				CANFORGEN 013/13 said:
			
		

> PROMOTION OF P RES NCMS WITHOUT LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION
> 
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...



Does Acting/Lacking occur when any of the above-noted requirements are not met (i.e. time *OR* leadership qualification *OR* MOC qualification), or would someone being promoted under this CANFORGEN be AWSE?  What exactly defines Acting/Lacking?


----------



## DAA (26 Aug 2013)

You need to meet ALL the "prerequisites" and if you don't and you are promoted, then it is considered "Acting/Lacking".

The CANFORGEN removes the "hard" requirement for Primary Reserve personnel to have met ALL the prerequisites prior to being promoted.  Previously in the Reserves, if you didn't meet ALL the prerequisites, then you could NOT be promoted.


----------



## ARMY_101 (26 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> You need to meet ALL the "prerequisites" and if you don't and you are promoted, then it is considered "Acting/Lacking".



Is there a specific ref that states this? CMP 20/04, CFAOs, DAODs... none seem to define what Acting/Lacking is, other than to say that members may, in certain circumstances, be promoted Acting/Lacking.

What differentiates A/L from AWSE, for example?


----------



## DAA (26 Aug 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Is there a specific ref that states this? CMP 20/04, CFAOs, DAODs... none seem to define what Acting/Lacking is, other than to say that members may, in certain circumstances, be promoted Acting/Lacking.
> 
> What differentiates A/L from AWSE, for example?



A/L is a promotion to a higher rank, where the individual lacks either the qualification (occupational or leadership) or the required time in (which is rare).  AWSE is a "temporary" promotion to the next higher rank and only in effect while an individual is performing a specific job (ie; whilst so employed).  To be promoted AWSE, you must be fully qualified and eligible to hold the next higher rank as "substantive", so you must meet ALL the promotion prerequisites, unless a waiver is authorized.

See CFAO 49-4, Anx A - Eligibility Criteria (Reg F) or 49-5, Anx A, App1 (Primary Res).


----------



## stokerwes (26 Aug 2013)

I heard a "rumour" that the ILP was being phased out and the ILQ and SLC would be the only two leadership courses required for NCM`s. Anyone here this or have some reliable information like a DAOD or CANFORGEN?
I have tried the search function and couldn't find anything


----------



## Old EO Tech (26 Aug 2013)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> I heard a "rumour" that the ILP was being phased out and the ILQ and SLC would be the only two leadership courses required for NCM`s. Anyone here this or have some reliable information like a DAOD or CANFORGEN?
> I have tried the search function and couldn't find anything



The ALP is being turned into DL only.  Other than that the other career courses(ILP, CQC, SAP etc) are unchanged so far.  

Jon


----------



## Franko (26 Aug 2013)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> I heard a "rumour" that the ILP was being phased out and the ILQ and SLC would be the only two leadership courses required for NCM`s. Anyone here this or have some reliable information like a DAOD or CANFORGEN?
> I have tried the search function and couldn't find anything



I've heard the same rumour....and only a rumour. As far as I know, there is no plans to cancel ILP/ ILQ or whatever they plan on calling it this week.

Regards


----------



## DAA (26 Aug 2013)

ALP/ALQ is in fact being converted over to strictly DL (ie; no residential) from what I understand.  D Mil C/CM's are in the process of contacting pers who have already done the ALQ DL portion and offering them the "Residential" phase prior to the cut-over inorder to obtain the full qual.  If they don't attend, then they will be subject to the full DL program once is comes out.  Just had a member of our unit experience this.


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> The CANFORGEN removes the "hard" requirement for Primary Reserve personnel to have met ALL the prerequisites prior to being promoted.  Previously in the Reserves, if you didn't meet ALL the prerequisites, then you could NOT be promoted.



No, this CANFORGEN removes only the hard requirement for the *leadership qualification * for P Res, bringing P Res NCM promotion policy into line with Reg F NCM promotion policy in CFAO 49-4 _*for Acting/Lacking promotions only*_.  In the past, P Res members could be promoted Acting/Lacking as long as they had the leadership qualification.  Occupational quals and time in rank could be waived.

Substantive promotion, either P Res or Reg F still requires that all  promotion prerequisites be met.


----------



## Inf Soldier (28 Aug 2013)

Scenario:

Member is in an under-ranked position

Member goes on PLQ and is told following PLQ they will be promoted to MCpl

Member returns from PLQ and is told they now need to attend another "new" course before being promotable (the new infantry DP2 ASA)

Member inquires about Acting/Lacking and is told their unit "doesn't do" A/L

Member cites CDS guidance specifically allowing A/L

Unit persists

... Does this sound like grounds for a grievance or redress of some sort?


----------



## Haggis (28 Aug 2013)

Inf Soldier said:
			
		

> ... Does this sound like grounds for a grievance or redress of some sort?



No.  You do not, at this time, meet all the prerequisites.  One of the prerequisites is CO's recommendation and it appears that you lack that.   Therefore, you will not be appointed Acting/Lacking MCpl.


----------



## Awesomedude (15 May 2018)

Hello Army.ca 

<flame shield up>

I thought I saw a regulation that said an acting lacking MCpl should not be put in charge of other MCpl's who are PLQ qualified. It is the topic of 
discussion right now with the boys and now im not sure if its something I dreamed while on a peyote trip.


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2018)

1. MCpl is an appointment, not a rank.  MCpls are Cpls.

2. Order of seniority in rank is as laid out in QR&O 3.09.


----------



## mariomike (15 May 2018)

Awesomedude said:
			
		

> I thought I saw a regulation that said an acting lacking MCpl should not be put in charge of other MCpl's who are PLQ qualified. It



See also,

Substantive Rank [MERGED]
https://army.ca/forums/threads/50104.0

Definition of Acting/Lacking  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/111902.0

Acting/Lacking?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/97718.0

Acting Lacking Corporal  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/113678.0

etc...


----------



## Awesomedude (15 May 2018)

Thank you kindly, 

I DID use the search but i didn't see those. Im a read the shit out of those topics and come back


----------



## mariomike (15 May 2018)

Awesomedude said:
			
		

> Thank you kindly,



You are welcome. My pleasure.


----------



## Awesomedude (15 May 2018)

Digging around in that QR&O im seeing this

(1) Officers and non-commissioned members *who hold acting rank have no seniority in that rank.* They have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority in their substantive rank.

So im reading this as an acting lacking MCpl has less seniority then a substantive MCpl 

(2) When any part of the Canadian Forces is on active *service, substantive and temporary ranks* shall be regarded as equal for purposes of determining seniority.

I read this as substantive and temporary ranks are treated the same. I am under the understanding that acting rank =/= temporary rank. 

So a more accurate question would be does seniority matter? (in so far as the Sgt making an acting lacking his 2ic over substantive MCpl's ) 

I suppose I will reg-rat around for a better definition of seniority, it might be just a pay thing 

EDIT:

This is making me think that a MCpl means nothing in regards to seniority cause its not part of the hierarchy at all.  

 http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-03.page

EDIT2: 

3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.


I guess MCpl's are special snow flakes.  I think where im not clear is:

- Acting rank = no seniority in that rank just your substantive rank.

- Acting appointment to MCpl = Corporal seniority? 

So their is no real difference between MCpl appointed, and MCpl Substantive IRW seniority as they are both basically corporals? (substansive rank)? 

Im assuming Corporal(B) is a pay thing and means nothing for seniority?


----------



## mariomike (15 May 2018)

Awesomedude said:
			
		

> I suppose I will reg-rat around for a better definition of seniority, it might be just a pay thing



Will this help?,

NCM Prgression  ( sic )
https://army.ca/forums/threads/93245.0.html

3.08 – MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT

(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.


----------



## Awesomedude (15 May 2018)

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

Where I am/was having issues is basically I know: 

MCpl > Corporal 

But, im not really sure if  

MCpl substantive > MCpl Acting lacking.

Im starting to think its MCpl with more corporal time > MCpl with less corporal time (regardless of substantives)


----------



## Pusser (15 May 2018)

You may be over-complicating this.  If the CoC has designated the A/MCpl as the supervisor in the Sgt's absence, that pretty much seals the deal.  This is a command prerogative.  I suppose the other MCpls could complain, but I don't think it would do much good.


----------



## Awesomedude (15 May 2018)

However,

if the Wo said, random Cpl is the supervisor and the Sgt reports to him. Im sure there would be a legitimate complaint. So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

EDIT: im thinking it don't btw, MCpl wise, I always thought it did but more I read into it, im not finding anything.


----------



## MARS (15 May 2018)

Awesomedude said:
			
		

> However,
> 
> if the Wo said, random Cpl is the supervisor and the Sgt reports to him. Im sure there would be a legitimate complaint. So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all



That would be true, I think, because there is an actual difference in rank in your Cpl/Sgt example.  But the Acting MCpl and the substantive MCpl are both the same _rank_: Cpl.  I haven't been a LS in over 20 yrs, but what currently separates the two other than some coursing, specifically PLQ?  To answer your question, I don't think the A/MCpl situation falls into it at all.

It isn't pretty, but if the A/MCpl is a better junior leader and administrator than his peers who have said courses completed, then yes, I would have made the same decision as the CoC in this case.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 3.08 – MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
> 
> (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.
> 
> ...



I believe MM hit the nail on the head above.

I recall my first time being a Crse WO (as a Sgt).  I was 3 years in rank, and the Sgt who held the position of Trg Sgt on the course had 10 or more years in rank more than me.  Despite that, I had the authority and responsibilities of the Crse WO position.

Another consideration when people are the same rank is having authority over others by way of position or appointment.  There can be 4 or 5 Captains on a long range patrol crew;  not all of them will have 'command' authority that comes with being either the Crew Commander or the Aircraft Captain (who have different authority on different aspects of the crew and mission). 

Maybe assigning this position was done for PD reasons and not to slight anyone?  In my job, we often give people the position of Acting Crew Lead, to expose them to the job requirements and 'develop the leadership potential in our subordinates'.  Lots of possible reasons, that might be one of them.    :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (15 May 2018)

Awesomedude said:
			
		

> So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all
> 
> EDIT: im thinking it don't btw, MCpl wise, I always thought it did but more I read into it, im not finding anything.



They're both MCpls. If the course mattered in attaining the promotion/appointment, you'd be required to complete PLQ before being appointed.

I really think it comes down to this: If you're going to be a good leader, you need to be a good follower. If someone junior to you (but same appointment) is placed in charge over you, you should be supporting that person as much as you would your Sgt. You should also ask the Sgt politely why its happening, as its either due to professional development of the junior member, or the job performance of that "substantive" MCpl being subpar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2018)

:goodpost:





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're both MCpls. If the course mattered in attaining the promotion/appointment, you'd be required to complete PLQ before being appointed.
> 
> I really think it comes down to this: If you're going to be a good leader, you need to be a good follower. If someone junior to you (but same appointment) is placed in charge over you, you should be supporting that person as much as you would your Sgt. You should also ask the Sgt politely why its happening, as its either due to professional development of the junior member, or the job performance of that "substantive" MCpl being subpar.



 :goodpost:  Yup, we don't operate like a union.  Well, not EXACTLY like one, at least...


----------



## CountDC (16 May 2018)

I think people have to spend more time getting the job done than worrying about who has seniority.  I have had occasions where I supervised more senior ranks and been supervised by more junior ranks simply because of position and/or work knowledge.  One time I did have to explain to the Cpl that he was the sect comd I was assigned to for a weekend ex so he was to issue me directions the same as everyone else (keeping in mind respectably as he was a couple ranks lower).  Seniority has never been a factor when I assign leaders of a work party, I always pick on more important factors such as real skill observed in past performance, job knowledge or occasionally the desire to observe performance.  

A Substantive MCpl should understand that it is not always seniority as this is part of completing small party tasking on the JLC (or at least use to be), deciding who would be your 2IC based on skill not rank or seniority.  Cpl Bloggins over MCpl Bloggins because the Cpl is a MSE Op and the task is veh recovery.


----------



## Awesomedude (16 May 2018)

FYI, this was an entirely theoretical discussion. 

I remember someone pulled this card on deployment (this guy cant be my supervisor because he dosn't have PLQ) and its where I originally heard the topic, and it came up in the shop. I always thought it to be true but now digging into it I can't find any proof, therefore I was probably mistaken.  Now get your touque and gloves on with your winter coat fuckers its the RULES! (its not really)


----------



## CountDC (17 May 2018)

Awesomedude said:
			
		

> Now get your touque and gloves on with your winter coat ****ers its the RULES! (its not really)



Should have been with me years ago when I had a discussion with a chief that felt I should be wearing gloves with my all weather overcoat.  I was wearing the coat because it was raining but it was his opinion that if it was cold enough to wear the coat it was cold enough to wear gloves as per the dress regulations.  Wasn't cold either, it was actually hot that day.


----------



## TCM621 (17 May 2018)

MARS said:
			
		

> what currently separates the two other than some coursing, specifically PLQ?



The answer is the same for every rank, the fact that they were selected for promotion via a merit board. There are two issues at play here. The first is the increasing willingness to give pre-requisite courses after promotion to the rank said course was required to get. I have noticed a trend of late where each rank is taking the lower ranks course to get promoted. The seniority thing is pretty irrelevant but it does get pretty ugly around PER time when unqualified people are ranked higher than qualified people.

The second issue is that of MCpl as a rank. It is the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the NCM Corp that is such an easy fix but no one gives a shit enough to change it. It is a rank in everything but name.  Can anyone see a benefit to the current system? I could see it is it was a position the CO gave to the most senior/exceptional Com in a section but that isn't how it works.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 May 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The answer is the same for every rank, the fact that they were selected for promotion via a merit board. There are two issues at play here. The first is the increasing willingness to give pre-requisite courses after promotion to the rank said course was required to get. I have noticed a trend of late where each rank is taking the lower ranks course to get promoted. The seniority thing is pretty irrelevant but it does get pretty ugly around PER time when unqualified people are ranked higher than qualified people.
> 
> The second issue is that of MCpl as a rank. It is the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the NCM Corp that is such an easy fix but no one gives a shit enough to change it. It is a rank in everything but name.  Can anyone see a benefit to the current system? I could see it is it was a position the CO gave to the most senior/exceptional Com in a section but that isn't how it works.



Two small perks is if they need to demote someone they go to a one hook Pte if they were a MCpl and if they are a Sgt they can be demoted to Cpl. 

As I understand it there is two main reasons the appointment exists in the first place. #1 was back in the day it was the only way to raise the amount of money people were making for being at the working rank (working rank before this point was a one Hook Pte.). So by promoting them to Cpl they got a pay raise, and by pushing a Cpls responsibilities on to the new MCpl appointment they still retained effective JR leadership. #2 is before this appointment existed it was the senior Cpl which was in charge. This could be a problem if they weren't very motivated/good and by creating the MCpl appointment they could select who they felt would be best in charge to lead. 

Currently both those reasons aren't really valid anymore. The first as the pay is pretty decent, the second because it isn't used that way anyways. Personally I would like to see the MCpl position seize to exist and put things back right where Cpl is the leadership rank and Pte T is the working rank (pay for MCpl would be given to the Cpls and current Cpl pay given to Pte T).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Currently both those reasons aren't really valid anymore. The first as the pay is pretty decent,  Personally I would like to see the MCpl position seize to exist and put things back right where Cpl is the leadership rank and Pte T is the working rank (pay for MCpl would be given to the Cpls and current Cpl pay given to Pte T).



And who then is in charge when the Snr NCOs, WOs or Officers aren't around??  You've created a bigger problem by 'solving' the one you see.  _MCpl's have power of command over all Cpls._  What do we go back to, the "Snr Cpl"?  Why bother?

[quotethe second because it isn't used that way anyways.[/quote]

Maybe not in all places, but that is a LEADERSHIP issue.  Snr NCOs and WOs should be expecting their MCpls/MSs to be exactly that;  Jnr NCOs.  If people are getting their Leaf that shouldn't, that is a different issue - how did they merit if they are weak?  If they were chosen because there was no better option...Snr NCOs and WOs should be there to get them on their feet, and give them the necessary mentoring and feedback to get their shit together.

The fixes to the problem aren't to remove the MCpl appointment - it is to expect, demand MCpl to perform their duties in line with their appointment, and for those who can't, to remove the appointment and let them be CFLs if they want.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (17 May 2018)

Or, we roll MCpl back in with Cpl and reinstate Lance Corporal instead of PTE(T)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2018)

So, you're suggesting we change Pte/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/LCpl/Cpl.  Can you explain the tangible difference in structure, command, seniority other than the name change and requirement to take uniforms to the base tailor?  What is the perceived benefit of doing this, assuming the Cpl 5B pay would be for Cpl and 5A for LCpl so no changes to the pay stuff.  

Keep in mind, this would be a change to the NDA, as the rank of Lance Corporal doesn't exist.

I am firm believer in 2 things WRT the MCpl/MS appoint (1) we give WAYYY too many people their Leaf in an A/L capacity (you should earn it before you wear it).  I have no less than 5 MCpls under me and all 5 of them....A/L.  (2)  the biggest problem with the MCpl/MS deal is that they are not employed to the extent they are supposed to be Forces wide.  I've seen or heard too many times where Snr NCOs and above say "but he is just a MCpl".  The Forces has the appointment for a reason.  I consider part of (2) stems from (1), where no ones knows anymore if someone is a qualified Jack or an A/L one - culturally across the Forces, this may make people less reliant on the rank.  When I was a Jack in my first MOC (early 90s), I don't remember there being a single A/L one in existence.  That might have given the CofC more confidence in *us*.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2018)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Or, we roll MCpl back in with Cpl and reinstate Lance Corporal instead of PTE(T)



What "leading change" problem are we solving again by doing this? Sounds like a giant PITA to change the NDA for very little tangible gain to the CAF.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> When I was a Jack in my first MOC (early 90s), I don't remember there being a single A/L one in existence.  That might have given the CofC more confidence in *us*.



For my first few years in the CAF, I never met anyone who was A/L either. In fact, there were quite a few Cpls who had done mods 1-6. A lot of them were more effective leaders than what passes for a MCpl (and in some cases, Sgt) in my current trade. 

I'd much rather have Cpls get their PLQ and then give them enough rope to hang themselves, see how they do etc


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, you're suggesting we change Pte/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/LCpl/Cpl.  Can you explain the tangible difference in structure, command, seniority other than the name change and requirement to take uniforms to the base tailor?  What is the perceived benefit of doing this, assuming the Cpl 5B pay would be for Cpl and 5A for LCpl so no changes to the pay stuff.



No the change would be from Pte/Pte T/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/Pte T (or Lance Cpl or whatever you want to call the working rank)/Cpl.

Your removing what is essentially a redundant rank currently in the form of two Pte ranks which has no difference between pay and responsibility between them (other than one having a hook and the other not). It also gets rid of this ambiguous appointment status and the current technicality that a Cpl is under the NDA is the Jr leadership rank. 

Also just as a side note, how is it even possible we have a acting lacking for a appointment? Your technically not doing anyone elses duties as according to the NDA a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl. It shows that we really don't treat it as a appointment as if we did you would be appointed or not, no ambiguous status.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 May 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> No the change would be from Pte/Pte T/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/Pte T (or Lance Cpl or whatever you want to call the working rank)/Cpl.
> 
> Your removing what is essentially a redundant rank currently in the form of two Pte ranks which has no difference between pay and responsibility between them (other than one having a hook and the other not). It also gets rid of this ambiguous appointment status and the current technicality that a Cpl is under the NDA is the Jr leadership rank.



How is the appointment ambiguous?  Although it is an appointment, it is still a promotion;  so it Pte to Pte (T).  I certainly expect more from a trained Aviator than I do an untrained one; it is a step towards the first NCO rank - Cpl.  Would we argue to get rid of the OCdt and 2Lt ranks, and everyone is a Lt right off the mark?  MCpl is also a stepping stone to Sgt, IAW the CFAO on Reg Force NCM Career Progression.  CFAO 49-4 IIRC? in the tables in Annex A (going from memory and away from my postal code and DWAN right now).

The QR & O doesn't seem to be ambiguous:  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.  



> Also just as a side note, how is it even possible we have a acting lacking for a appointment? Your technically not doing anyone elses duties as according to the NDA a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl. It shows that we really don't treat it as a appointment as if we did you would be appointed or not, no ambiguous status.



The NDA doesn't get into the weeds stating a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl.  Where do you read that?

The pre-req's for MCpl are laid out in the CFAO mentioned above.  How do we have acting ranks (not just limited to MCpl)?  Because the QR & 0 permits it.

3.05 - ACTING RANK

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member may be granted an acting rank higher than the member's substantive rank:
a.for an indefinite period; or
b.for the period during which the member is filling a position on an establishment for which a rank higher than the member's substantive or temporary rank is authorized.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member granted an acting rank is liable to be posted or transferred in the member's substantive rank at any time.

(M)

We send people on tours, deployments etc *WSE* (While So Employed), including Col's as TF Commanders WSE to BGen.  If we can do it for position with that much command authority and responsibility, why not for Cpl's to MCpls?

I think the CAF has other things to focus and spend brain power, work hours and funding on that are a much higher priority to what amounts to cosmetic changes that have no positive or measureable benefit.


----------



## CountDC (18 May 2018)

I do have to agree that Acting ranks is used too much at least in the admin world.  

I also wonder about the meriting of acting with substantive.  Seems to me that the acting ranks should be merited only if there isn't enough substantives to meet the requirements.  Meriting someone that doesn't have the pre-reqs for the rank they are already wearing creates the situation of pushing them ahead onto a course, hoping they pass and promoting them acting again. Of course they deserve it because they are superior based on the PERs they earned because no supervisor ever over writes their PERs.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 May 2018)

But is the problem the promotion system or the training system?  Are the numbers of Acting(LQ) due to people receiving their promotions in a timely manner after being properly evaluated and judged (centrally by board) in comparison to their peers, but due to limited space they haven't been able to be course loaded prior to promotion.  Granted I'm not familiar with the current situation but in the old days while trade courses and promotions were controlled from the career shops, JLC (the lack of which was usually the reason for A/MCpl) was controlled and loaded at the command/formation/regional level.  Though a priority list for JLC loading was developed based on promotion projections it was not always a guarantee that availability of course slot and availability of student coincided.

Or is the problem a result of changes in regulation about length of time that one can remain Acting Lacking if the inability to gain that leadership qualification is due to circumstances other than unavailability of course, i.e. medical category or other personal reason for not attending PLQ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 May 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But is the problem the promotion system or the training system?  Are the numbers of Acting(LQ) due to people receiving their promotions in a timely manner after being properly evaluated and judged (centrally by board) in comparison to their peers, but due to limited space they haven't been able to be course loaded prior to promotion.



This is what I've seen in my trade the last few years;  in fact, I don't know of a single Cpl who went on PLQ before being promoted.  The norm seems to be get promoted, then get loaded on PLQ DL in the near future (several months to half a year), then go away for the residential portion.

The pre-req's for PLQ course loading for my MOSID seems to be "must be promoted to A/L MCpl.



> Or is the problem a result of changes in regulation about length of time that one can remain Acting Lacking if the inability to gain that leadership qualification is due to circumstances other than unavailability of course, i.e. medical category or other personal reason for not attending PLQ?



Not sure about this part, but I will say there seems to be relatively consistent trend over the past decade to change the PLQ coursing, and in those transition times there were people who had some Mods of the course done but not all of them, and when the "new" PLQ course kicked in, they had to start all over again.  Back in the mid-90's, they were trialing "new" courses to replace ISCC and CLC (Army Jnr NCO for ISCC and JNCO OAS [Other Arms and Services] for everyone not Infantry).  I was staff on one of the pilot OAS courses, and the most significant change I could see from my CLC in the early 90s was the name change.  PLQ has changed and re-changed and changed to the point we've come full circle again and now have a CAF PLQ again.

Back in 2002, I was in Gagetown on my SLC.  There were 2 courses of PLQ on the go, and both of them were full of A/L MCpls.  Talking to some of the PLQ staff at the Mess, one of them told me the backlog in getting A/L Jacks thru was big enough that if every TE in the CAF running PLQs ran their full schedule of courses for a year, they might catch up to the amount of A/L MCpl in the CAF at that time IF no other people were promoted A/L.  16 years later and...I've got 5 A/L MCpls, that are all waiting.  I see a lot of name changing and 'revamping' going on, but none of it has reduced the actual problem IMO.  In the end, it had dropped the baseline expectation of the MCpl/MS down lower than ever and 'lessened' the rank.  I've heard people say "well, I've been a MCpl for over a year now, what possibly could I learn on PLQ".   :


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How is the appointment ambiguous?  Although it is an appointment, it is still a promotion;  so it Pte to Pte (T).  I certainly expect more from a trained Aviator than I do an untrained one; it is a step towards the first NCO rank - Cpl.  Would we argue to get rid of the OCdt and 2Lt ranks, and everyone is a Lt right off the mark?  MCpl is also a stepping stone to Sgt, IAW the CFAO on Reg Force NCM Career Progression.  CFAO 49-4 IIRC? in the tables in Annex A (going from memory and away from my postal code and DWAN right now).
> 
> The QR & O doesn't seem to be ambiguous:  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.
> 
> ...



You keep referring to it as a rank which it is not. It is not a promotion, promotions have to do with rank, not appointments. A MCpls rank remains that of a Cpl. You cannot possess acting rank for something that isn't a rank to begin with, otherwise it wouldn't be a appointment.

"3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals."

Yes MCpls have authority over Cpls, but at the end of the day a Cpl can still do the same job as a MCpl, as at the end of the day a MCpl is a Cpl according to the QR&Os. 

What is being suggested is changing written wording of the rank structure to be reflective of how it is actually used. Everyone treats MCpl as its own rank, either make it a rank or get rid of it. Personally I favour getting rid of it as it simply isn't necessary. No hooks being your attending training/initial trades courses, 1 hook being your trade qualified/working rank, and two hook being leadership rank as per many other nations in the Commonwealth and how we did it before unification. Have the pay line up with current no hook pay at the modified no hook, current Cpl pay for the modified 1 hook, and modified Cpl getting current Cpl (B) pay.


----------



## TCM621 (19 May 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I do have to agree that Acting ranks is used too much at least in the admin world.
> 
> I also wonder about the meriting of acting with substantive.  Seems to me that the acting ranks should be merited only if there isn't enough substantives to meet the requirements.  Meriting someone that doesn't have the pre-reqs for the rank they are already wearing creates the situation of pushing them ahead onto a course, hoping they pass and promoting them acting again. Of course they deserve it because they are superior based on the PERs they earned because no supervisor ever over writes their PERs.



That is a huge pet peeve of mine. If I have two people, one of whom is fully qualified for promotion and another is not, there needs to be some serious justification to promote the unqualified person. A/L should be used to fill spots that can't be filled with substantive people. The problem all comes back to the Per system. Being qualified to be promoted to MCpl is worth the same as having a mediocre French profile. Stop writing unqualified people as immediates.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 May 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You keep referring to it as a rank which it is not. It is not a promotion, promotions have to do with rank, not appointments. A MCpls rank remains that of a Cpl. You cannot possess acting rank for something that isn't a rank to begin with, otherwise it wouldn't be a appointment.
> 
> "3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
> (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.
> ...



Although it is an appointment, it is still treated as a promotion, as is Pte (B) to Pte (T).  I can't remember the ref for this, and am away from my postal code but when I get back I'll see if I can dig it up on my Favorites at work.

IMO, MCpl/MS is actually treated more of a rank than an appointment.  It's included in the PER 'rank' drop-down list, it is included in all 3 DEU rank and badges.  More specifically, indicate here on the CAF Ranks and Appointments website:

The formal rank structure within the CAF is essential for:

•passing orders in operations
•ensuring clarity of command
•maintaining order and discipline

Taking the above into context, and considering the "Master Corporals have powers of authority over all other Cpls", the MCpl appointment/rank (collectively, as the black and white policy combined with the actual use of the appointment day to day across the CAF) fits in well.  If the rank is not being employed to its max potential in a unit or sub-unit, that is a leadership and/or training issue to me, not a 'name and pay level' one.

I still opine your changes are cosmetic (much the same as going to Lance Cpl/Cpl/Sgt would) be and the required efforts wouldn't be worth it.  I'll agree it is problematic in some minor areas to have a MCpl 'appointment', but we've lived with it in the CAF for decades now, to no detriment to our ability to do the tasks Canada demands of the Forces given the identified purpose of the rank structure above.   :2c:


----------



## hattrick72 (17 Jul 2018)

You should look in the QR&Os for what a substantive rank is. For Officers it is the rank they hold (and are qualified). For NCMs it is the rank in which you can be demoted to from a charge or words of that affect. This may be playing into the appointment aspect of MCpl.


----------



## dangerboy (17 Jul 2018)

hattrick72 said:
			
		

> You should look in the QR&Os for what a substantive rank is. For Officers it is the rank they hold (and are qualified). For NCMs it is the rank in which you can be demoted to from a charge or words of that affect. This may be playing into the appointment aspect of MCpl.



Here is what QR&O Vol 1 Chapter 3 says:

3.03 - SUBSTANTIVE RANK
(1) The substantive rank of an officer is the officer's confirmed rank.

(2) The substantive rank of a non-commissioned member is that rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise than by:

      a.  a sentence of a service tribunal; or
      b.  reversion for inefficiency or misconduct. (See articles 11.10 - Reversion and Remustering for Inefficiency and 11.11 - Reversion upon Conviction by a Civil Authority).
(M)


----------



## hattrick72 (17 Jul 2018)

(2) The substantive rank of a non-commissioned member is that rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise than by:

      a.  a sentence of a service tribunal; or
      b.  reversion for inefficiency or misconduct. (See articles 11.10 - Reversion and Remustering for Inefficiency and 11.11 - Reversion upon Conviction by a Civil Authority).
(M)
[/quote]

So is a Sgts substantive rank Cpl? The rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise? I have always seen it treated as QL6A or DP3A qualified meant substantive but the quote above always threw me off


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Jul 2018)

hattrick72 said:
			
		

> (2) The substantive rank of a non-commissioned member is that rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise than by:
> 
> a.  a sentence of a service tribunal; or
> b.  reversion for inefficiency or misconduct. (See articles 11.10 - Reversion and Remustering for Inefficiency and 11.11 - Reversion upon Conviction by a Civil Authority).
> ...



It's slightly different for each trade; it's laid what prerequisites are required for each promotion.

But if someone has met all the requirements, and has been promoted to Sgt, I think what they are saying is that is there substantive rank, as they can only be reduced in rank as a result of a court martial sentence (possibly from a civilian conviction as well?  that could be an old ref in the QR&O)

Remember looking this up and dragging out the oc spec, the QR&O etc to explain to a flag officer why they couldn't demote a PO1 because he didn't want to do his cert 4, as he had completed everything required for the rank (cert 4 is for CPO2 in the oc spec).  That was a fun conversation as a new Lt(N)....


----------



## hattrick72 (17 Jul 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's slightly different for each trade; it's laid what prerequisites are required for each promotion.
> 
> But if someone has met all the requirements, and has been promoted to Sgt, I think what they are saying is that is there substantive rank, as they can only be reduced in rank as a result of a court martial sentence (possibly from a civilian conviction as well?  that could be an old ref in the QR&O)
> 
> Remember looking this up and dragging out the oc spec, the QR&O etc to explain to a flag officer why they couldn't demote a PO1 because he didn't want to do his cert 4, as he had completed everything required for the rank (cert 4 is for CPO2 in the oc spec).  That was a fun conversation as a new Lt(N)....



I think CFAO 49-5 or 6 would play into the decision process as inefficiency plays a part as well as what you have; refusing a course that is required for the rank putting you A/L.  I generally find the dinosaurs are the CPO1/2 and the CWO/MWO. 

I always disliked regs like this one as the meaning is not crystal clear. Officers cannot be promoted A/L am I right?


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2018)

Not in the same sense as it applies to NCMs. Officers must complete Phase 4 in order to be eligible for promotion to Capt/Lt(N). After that it's merit and time in rank. There are courses that are required for each subsequent promotion, but one can be promoted without them, as they're not DP style courses per se. There is a high degree of variability depending on the officer MOC involved.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> But if someone has met all the requirements, and has been promoted to Sgt, I think what they are saying is that is there substantive rank, as they can only be reduced in rank as a result of a court martial sentence (possibly from a civilian conviction as well?  that could be an old ref in the QR&O)



COs can reduce the rank of Sgt/PO2

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-summary-trial-level/annex-t-table-of-punishments-commanding-officers.page


----------



## hattrick72 (17 Jul 2018)

I will have to read the DOAD on development periods again with a focus on commissioned members then look at some trade specs. 
When my secondary duty was the training officer I started to read up on the distance learning course I was loading Army and Air Force captains on. (CAFJOD? There are 4 or 5 levels)Never really figured out how they factored into their career equation.


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Jul 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> COs can reduce the rank of Sgt/PO2
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-summary-trial-level/annex-t-table-of-punishments-commanding-officers.page



Right, following a summary trial.  Not just because feel like knocking them down a rank for not doing a qualification required for the next rank. 

Can't see where that could happen outside of some kind of wartime scenario, as it's not something even typical for a lot of court martial sentences.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2018)

hattrick72 said:
			
		

> I will have to read the DOAD DAOD on development periods again with a focus on commissioned members then look at some trade specs.
> When my secondary duty was the training officer I started to read up on the distance learning course I was loading Army and Air Force captains on. (CAFJOD? There are 4 or 5 levels)Never really figured out how they factored into their career equation.



I think you're looking for DAOD 5031-8, Canadian Forces Professional Development


----------

