# STREAMLINING THE RECRUITING PROCESS /  CARENER LE PROCEDE DE RECRUTEMENT



## mstorey (6 Sep 2005)

Ok ladies and gents I will soon be sitting on a board that will be tasked with streamlining the recruiting process for the CF.   It has been 15 yrs since I was recruited I would like to here your problems and suggestions on this topic.

 I would like to hear the short comming and your solution to the problem. If you don't have a solution then there is not a probleme. I would also like to here good   points that you have about the system.

 Bonjour les dames et les messieurs je vais assister bientôt un conseil qui sera donner le task de carénant le procédé de recrutement pour le FC. Il y a 15 ans puisque j'ai été m'enroller et  j'aimerais ÃƒÂ  ici vos problèmes et vos suggestions sur ce sujet. 

J'aimerais entendre le short commings et votre solution au problème. Si vous n'avez pas une solution pour la probleme que ne dit ça. J'aimerais aussi recivoir des points forts que vous avez du système.


----------



## -rb (6 Sep 2005)

I'll bite...

First off, just finished the recruiting process and get sworn in on the 14th for BMQ, I will relay these points based on my personal experience only. There is one shortfall that I thought could use some improvement...without getting in to specifics that would be regarding an Applicants file status. 

*Issue:*
There were a few cases of incomplete info given to Applicant(me) or small delays in relaying the necessary info, the overall ability of an applicant to track the flow of his application from one stage to the next unless they picked up the phone and called the CFRC to speak to their File Manager.

*Solution:*
Incorporate a secure web based access system that relays the required info to the applicant and provides a secure method of communication between the CFRC and the applicant. Upon the start of the application process a potential recruit would be given a userid and password and access to the system. Not knowing the specifics of the recruiting database one would assume that it would be fairly straight forward to port over the necessary info in to a web accessible system, this way, an applicant would be able to see where the file is in processing without having to call the CFRC and talk to their file manager. A small communication module could be incorporated to allow some dialogue between the CFRC and the applicant, much like the forum here but on a one to one type level. Incorporate voice services (VOIP etc.) in to this and automated messaging and suddenly you have a way to batch out communications to potential recruits at the click of a button.

*Benefits:*
- Recruits are able to take more control over their requirements and what is needed of them, 
- Cut down on the potential volume of calls between both parties.
- Allow recruiters to focus on other aspects of the recruitment process, (sorry, not my place to comment there)

*Disadvantages:*
- Billy doesn't have a computer/internet, "they have the internet on computers now??"   etc. etc. Back to the phone and the local CFRC visits
- Obviously someone still has to maintain the new system. If done effectively it could be a time saver, if ineffective it could be a severe headache. (ideally, CFRC staff would keep using the same sytem they are currently using and only the necessary info would be pulled from the database in to the applicants web accessible portion)
- Security...obviously all data would have to be encrypted via SSL and the applicant would be responsible for maintaining his userid and password (ie. not writing it on a sticky post-it note and leaving it on his monitor in the computer lab) Unfortunately some folks are just not to be trusted in this regards.

*Overall Impressions of the Recruiting Process:*
I found the process to be as straightforward as it comes..."here's what you need to have a complete application and start the processing, here's what you're lacking...go get a, b and c and then come back", no issues there at all. From the time I first walked in to the CFRC to the time of my initial offer (today) I found everyone I dealt with from desk staff, to my file manager, to my recruiting officer to be very straight forward, friendly and helpful. Although they did their best to inform me of all the benefits/aspects of choosing a career in the CF, at no point did I ever feel I was getting pushed in to one MOC over another. From my point of view it seemed that they were looking out for my best interests in regards to MOC selection, and ensuring that if given the opportunity to move on to basic training I would be happy in my trade of choice. (It didn't matter that I had my mind made up as to my sole choice (INF) before I ever walked in the door)

Now, getting me in the door in the first place...it certainly wasn't the catchy commercials or posters that did it. I believe we have a rather lengthy thread(s) on that already though 

cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Sep 2005)

mstorey,

as you can see from the collection of threads here at army.ca (5400+ posts in 401 topics in The Recruiting Process board alone) and by the extracts isolated to the Recruiting FAQ, there are a number of recurring issues.

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21101.0.html

As a third party observer to the current recruiting process, I would have to say that there are two fundamental periods when people are looking for information that brings them here in droves.

Firstly, those who are interested in joining the military, whether 'now' or in a few years are always looking for information on such topics as health issues, physical fitness preparation, likely recruiting numbers by trade and what training and, subsequently, daily life is like.

Secondly, we see many new members after they have started the Recruiting process, in some cases after they have finished with the CFRC and are "waiting for the call." At that point they are getting nervous about their upcoming training and are seeking detailed information of what is to expected, particularly during basic training.

The issue, as I see it, is the paucity of officially posted and regularly updated information to fill this void - a void which army.ca has been filling for a few years now, and will continue to do so in one form or another.

The solution:

...... the accessibility of more detailed and current information addressing these issues.

You can even start with the range of topics covered by the Recruiting FAQ - involve the current staff in the whole CFRC, CFLRS process - update it regularly to avoid a sense that it is stale or that it will be out of date for any particular serial.

A few more specific examples follow:

a.     A brief roundup of medical notes on asthma, vision, etc., written by the CFRC MO could give the clear declaration of what is the required process for medical confirmation by a family doctor during the recruiting process; specifying requirements for Reg F and Res when two different processes may be followed.

b.     Current notes from the Recruit School detailing an ongoing course week by week - perhaps augmented by a student's point of view. - With enough detail to not just say "you'll be getting a military haircut; but adding "the current standard for recruits in training for hair is as follows" (perhaps written by the School RSM).

c.     A readily accessible set of documents on what to bring for training and how to prepare one self - we know the "what to bring" list is issued on swearing in, but that can be months after the candidate is told there's an offer coming, months to sweat over having to get ready within days of swearing in.

d.     Briefs on what the choke points in the process are (Med review, VFS, etc.) and why; what steps are involved in order to prove that the process is appropriately detailed and in the best interests of the service and the individual.

e.     "Official" CFAT example tests to help candidates prepare.

f.     Fitness regimes, perhaps prepared by PSP staff; focussing on strategies for individuals based on a given self-assessment - so the candidate who needs to bulk up and strength train and the one who needs help gaining cardio fitness can each have a basic routine to start with. 


I'm sure this gives a good picture of where I am headed - if nothing else it gives those of us at army.ca an official resource to direct inquiries to, one that we know is current and not based solely on our own experiences of years, or decades, before.

Better informed applicants will reduce some of the communication pressures on the system, and they will be more prepared to meet each stage of their new career choice. Take the point of view that just because generations of soldier, sailors and airmen have gone into the system blind to its details doesn't mean it was the most effective approach.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Sep 2005)

A worthwhile post to review:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31273/post-223351.html#msg223351



			
				ab00013 said:
			
		

> First off, for some background information before I begin writing my opinion, I'm 22 years, living in Newfoundland, have a B.A. degree in Criminal Justice, and am currently in the reserves and in the process of CT to reg force.
> 
> Young Canadians have more choices nowadays than anytime before. The employment possibilities for a young educated Canadian span the globe from all across Canada to working throughout the world. The Canadian Forces needs to be as competitive an option as other organizations/companies. Don't get me wrong, the benefits definitely far surpass many civvie companies; however, most people do not know or even think about the CF as a potential employer. For example, when I was choosing universities after I completed high school, I looked at the local universities, and some well-known Canadian and American universities. I didn't even know there was such a place as RMC! Or when, for example, students graduate with degrees from well-know Canadian universities, do they know how they can use their degree in the CF?
> 
> ...


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Sep 2005)

I'll bite too.   When someone on supp list wants to get back in, the process seems to be longer and more complicated than that for a new entry, or even than that of someone who didn't sign up for supp list prior to release.   It involves verification of previous service and this step seems to take an unnecessarily long period of time.   I would suggest some means of speeding up the "recruiting" process for re-enrolling/enlisting members especially in reserve units.   As well, there tends to be problems with negotiating rank when service is outdated - perhaps there could be some means of retreading returnees with old service so that they can be re-integrated smoothly without having to be re-taught the basics.     Such a re-treading option would be much more than just learning the new acronyms, but would be better that the current situation of (in some cases) starting nearly from scratch.   One example that I remember was a former CWO being told that he could come back as a sergeant, even though there was no change of MOC.   He wasn't very interested in that much of a step-down and a very capable and experienced (even if long ago) fellow was lost.   Some means of improving the conversion of MOC for returnees would also be useful.   Just my thoughts on your question.


----------



## 30 for 30 (7 Sep 2005)

Problem: Security Clearances taking 3, 4, 5 (!) years to complete, according to the local CFRC. 2 years+ just for going on vacation to a few different (touristy) destinations around the globe. A great way to lose good candidates to other employment offers that come along. 

Perhaps this is out of the hands of the CF, but surely these cannot be seen as reasonable waiting periods.


----------



## Spartan (7 Sep 2005)

Problem: Component Transfers to Reg force from Reserves and the horror stories thereof.  These horror story cases cause reservists to be hesitant in considering the Reg force as a career, and a ways of life. The excessively long wait between initial memorandum to being accepted causes people to worry excessively - especially problematic when it is not only themselves this decision will affect.
Solution: Streamline the process - a majority of paperwork required in the process is already in the system - being able to utilize it would save time and effort by all parties involved. Having a process that is clear, understanding and well laid out to the member would make it alot easier for them to consider the Reg force as a career.


----------



## x-grunt (7 Sep 2005)

Outstanding posts so far. I will not attempt to cover any of the ground previously discussed, instead I will address things I am seeing in my own re-enlistment process.
*
Background*
First, let me state my first enlistment back in '77 is a murky memory. However it was not as long or arduous as it is today. Even allowing for pulling old files etc, this is a ridiculously long process. I'm told if all is well I'll be sworn in next year sometime. I first entered the CFRC in July of '04, so that will be pushing 1-1/2 to 2 years.

This is if everything goes well. From what I'm hearing, this is not a very common occurrence with re-enlistments.

Having said that (thanks, I needed to get that out of my system) I have some suggestions:

*Medical issues*
First, let's put out an applicants package that includes everything it has now, plus a medical questionnaire and vision questionnaire. Something that has a comprehensive list, with a doctors form required if any are checked off as yes. Include the doctor's form so it can be done as part of the initial application. If a person wears glasses, get an optometrists form filled out. Again, include it. That gets the outside medical/vision stuff done and over with immediately, and any red flags can be noted for followup by CFRC staff. Right now it works the other way around, and uses the med persons resources inefficiently.

*Testing*
My testing is spread out all over the darn calendar. My CFAT was in April, and my medical is 28 Sep, that's nearly 1/2 a year between tests. I have tried to get all my remaining testing more or less together, but I'm told that I will have about 2 months until my next testing after this, and I can't schedule it until my medical is done. I have no idea why this is needed. I have asked this question, and the standard answer seems to be that this is just the way it is. Let's get it all done on one or two consecutive days, okay?  Saves the CFRC some travel money, too.

*General issues*

I have had the unfortunate problem of one person telling me to do one thing, to have the next person in the chain say "no, that's wrong, do it this way". I actually lost my cool at one point around having to redo my references a third time. The recruiter was adamant that it needed to be done again. When she checked further discovered she wrong, much to my relief. Hopefully this is an isolated experience, but somehow I don't think so from things I've read here.

Since I have not actually made it that far in the process in the last 14 months, I can't speak to anything else from experience.

*Positives*
Everyone has been unfailing polite, even when I lost my cool that one time ( and I did apologize publically to her). Kudos for this, it's important. And everyone has been forthcoming with what info they have. I would say the system may need an overhaul, but the personnel are doing a good job with what they have.

mstorey, feel free to PM me for any further info you want. Good luck with your panel


----------



## mstorey (7 Sep 2005)

Excellent points so far keep them comming. I am trying my very best to reply personally to every one that comments on this thread however I am in the middle of prep week for a BMQ which starts Monday 12 Sept so please bare with me.

 i have already started to address some issues that directly affect CFLRS such as Capt O'Leary's points on more up to date info on the CFLRS web site. I spoke with the school DSM today and we are going to look at what we can do here with out stepping on the toes of the recruiting department.

Keep them comming.

ProPatria

Sgt M Storey
CFLRS


----------



## Zarathustra (7 Sep 2005)

I'm in the recruiting process. Two comments:

- If I don't meet the medical requirements I'd like to know as soon as possible. A list of what's OK, what's not OK would be nice. It would save the CF some time/money too. If such a list exist it should be more widely available, I never saw it. 

- Ideally for me it would be medical test in the morning, fitness test in the afternoon. CFAT test next morning, interview in the afternoon. If you can squeeze them all in the same day, even better. One would walk out and think, "Wow, these guys don't waste time." My first test was November 4th 2004, my last one on April 6th 2005. Kind of slow...


----------



## mstorey (7 Sep 2005)

There is a very simple answer to your point about having the screening process completed in such short order. The CFRC's deal with a number of outside agencies for such things as the physical fitness exam's and in some cases out side medical agencies depending on the size of the recruiting area. As to such things as security Clarence's those things take some time to confirm.


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Sep 2005)

It's true that security clearances take time to perform; however, it seems to me that someone could be on probation, that is, not allowed to to handle material requiring security clearances, but still permitted to parade.  That way they are involved and don't loose interest, and yet the process can continue.  If a problem comes up that affects their ability to be employed and it can't be resolved, then the person on probation would be released.


----------



## mdh (7 Sep 2005)

> As well, there tends to be problems with negotiating rank when service is outdated - perhaps there could be some means of retreading returnees with old service so that they can be re-integrated smoothly without having to be re-taught the basics.



I'll second redleafjumper's point.   I don't think re-doing basic makes a lot of sense for old service guys who are re-enrolling.   Some type of refresher program (weapons, regs, PT) would make better sense rather than wasting time and resources on someone who has already gone through the experience - especially for older guys who generally know how to shave and polish their boots (hopefully anyway   ).   This is especially pertinent to the reserve world where there is already limited training time and the clock starts ticking on the ancient reserve conundrum -- i.e. work-family-life-militia balance - do you want that limited time frittered away on basic training or getting the prior service guy working on something else that's going to benefit the unit more immediately? I'm not sure if this issue is precisely within your mandate - but it has worked against bringing experienced people back into the reserve system.

I think the US military has the right approach - once you've done basic training - you've done it. 

my two cents,

cheers, mdh


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Sep 2005)

Thanks mdh, that is exactly the point that I wanted to make.  The problem is that the process tends to throw up barriers rather than get people re-treaded and working.  When it takes too long they become discouraged and look for some other activity that appreciates their value.


----------



## x-grunt (8 Sep 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> I think the US military has the right approach - once you've done basic training - you've done it.



I agree, up to a point. Again using myself as an example - my experience is over 20 years old. Much of the info is still stuck in my brain. I don't need a lecture on rank structure, or how to come to attention. I have been indoctrinated into military life. But I do need to learn the C7, and practice on the drill square, etc. and get re-acquainted with the demands of the life. The physical aspect is important too, whip my butt into whatever passes for the fitness level right now. I couldn't _skip_ basic, it's been too long. But a shortened refresher version would be an effective option for the "over 10 years out" crowd. 

I figure this is more of a concern for PRes Air and Navy, who have BMQ's similar to the Reg Force. For a Reg re-enlistment, it may not be so pressing, but PRes types have to consider outside careers, etc and could concievably requal in their trade in one year instead of having to wait two due to the length of BMQ. More efficient for the PRes member and unit.

The Militia weekend BMQ is only a total of 30 days or so, that would suffice as a good refresher. Maybe that could be used, on weekends or run over one month. 

Just thinking out loud here. It still seems to me that the major stumbling blocks are in the recruiting process itself, not basic. My apologies to mstorey if this is a bit of a digression from your original purpose.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2005)

First point, never seen a bilingual thread here - always time for a first.  Anyways, the Recruiting forum is generally for recruiting information; since this is a real good thread, I moved it into the CF forum for some better exposure.

Anyways, I'll offer my 2 cents, having gone through the grinder a couple of times.

The way I see it, there are a couple issues with recruiting.

The first is the ebb/flow of the process.  There seems to be 5 (or 6) things that need to get squared away:

1) Aptitude Test
2) Interview
3) Fitness Assessment
4) Medical
5) Security and Reliability Check 
(6) Verification of Former Service is a potential 6)

Now, here are a few outside observations:

1) Aptitude test is straightforward.  Go in, do the test, pass/fail.

2) Interview is straightforward as well.  Get interviewed, look like a good applicant or look like an asshat.  The only criticism I have is the requirement for those generic reference letters - I think they're useless.  First off, is any candidate going to submit a reference letter that makes them look bad?  Second of all, do mostly civilian references have any idea of whether a person is suitable for a military environment?  Sure, Johnny is a good guy in shop class, but is this really indicative of a platoon attack?  FWIW, I think the interviewing Officer and socialization on Basic Training provide ample an enough picture of whether the applicant has what it takes or not.

3) Fitness Assessment.  Straightforward.  Go in, pass/fail.

4) Medical - seems to be one of the stumbling blocks; from what I understand, this is due to the CFMS playing turf war and not the CFRG.  Perhaps, if the applicant is screened by the CFRC pers (given the basic medical and no serious problems - you know, the check boxes on that two-sided medical form), a waiver can be signed that will allow the CF to continue processing the applicant but can release/hold them if a problem develops with their Med File in Borden.

5) Security and Reliability Check - the other stumbling block; again, from what I understand, it is because law requires all government bodies (CF included) to do this through a centralized process with CSIS.  Another point where centralization fails to deliver efficiency, but there is nothing we can do about it from where we stand.  Perhaps, like the idea above, a basic screening can be conducted by CFRC (it is right in the application) and as long as you don't have any obvious ties to Al Qaeda or something, CFRC can proceed with your application and can dismiss/hold you/throw you in jail if your file has a problem down the road.  IIRC this is what the Americans do when the FBI conducts background checks.

6) VFS - used to take long time, but I understand that it is now quite easy to do because of a computerized system that allows CFRC to bring up applicants old Pers File.  Is this true?

Anyways, it seems that a problem is getting all these things done concurrently.  Getting the ability to further process recruits on a conditional status might be worth looking at.

The other idea here is one I've posted before, which seems to have some merit in a) getting all the components done together and b) giving applicants a taste of military life, hopefully weeding out those who would otherwise quit a week into BMQ/BOTC at St Jean.  Here it is:



> Perhaps we need a system like the RM uses, holding a 3-day "Potential Soldier" course at cities around Canada.  Run by a recruiting cell, applicants will come to these things for a 2-night stay and essentially "DAG" into the Forces.  In the 3 days, applicants will be assessed and interviewed by a "Course Officer" - essentially a recruiting Officer, and administered by Recruiting NCOs.
> 
> A basic medical should be done at the CFRC when the applicant walks in the door - this should be done to ensure that people with medical conditions are screened before being thrown into a "Indoc Course" which may be a hazard to their health.  Those who have no medical "hick-ups" should be immediately booked into an Indoc Course, which should probably be a bi-monthly or monthly affair.
> 
> ...



A second issue seems to be a disjoint between recruiting and training.  I don't think it is so bad for NCMs, because St Jean gears up for them every month, but for Officer selection, there are very narrow windows to get into the CF, which can lead to very long wait periods and potentially driving off very good candidates.  There is probably a handful of issues that lead to this (the way merit boards work, numbers of Officer Cadets, resources at St Jean and Gagetown/Moose Jaw/Halifax, etc, etc) but looking at why guys have to wait 8 months to get in because of narrow windows should be addressed.

My final gripe is with accountability in the recruiting system.  My observations seem to indicate that recruiting is driven by bureaucratic inertia, which is a bad thing.  Applicants are files, and that is that.  Files get shuffled from here to there, some slip through the cracks, and some luck out and seem to end up on the top of the stack all the time.  Applicants are left hanging for weeks or months not knowing what the hell their status is with CFRC.  The onus seems to be on the applicant to ensure their file makes it through all stages.

Having dealt with the CF recruiting process at the same time as a good friend dealt with the American system, I can say that his recruiter seemed to pay alot more attention to his file.  His recruiter was his recruiter - he dealt with all aspects of his file and guided him through the process; he was ready to go in a month, and he was never left wondering what was next.  Perhaps a quota system (as the USMC uses) is needed?  Files (and the applicants) belong to a specific recruiter, and the onus lies with him (ie: he needs to reach his quota for a good evaluation) to ensure that they get done in a timely fashion.  As I said before, there are blocks in the process that are beyond the control of CFRG, but more communication and concurrent activity seem to be in order (judging from the hundreds of threads in the Recruiting forum, I think there is evidence to support this).

Anyways, these are just outside observations, and I may be right out to lunch, so feel free to agree/comment/criticize/blast them out of the water.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## GDawg (8 Sep 2005)

VFS is super quick, I just fill in the blanks with message drafter,
send an e-mail to ADM(HR-Mil) in Ottawa and get an e-mail response in less than a week.

Thats my 2 cents...for now.
Back to work for me.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2005)

GDawg said:
			
		

> VFS is super quick, I just fill in the blanks with message drafter,
> send an e-mail to ADM(HR-Mil) in Ottawa and get an e-mail response in less than a week.
> 
> Thats my 2 cents...for now.
> Back to work for me.



Thanks.  I understand that this is a recent thing - it used to take months to get a VFS done according to many.  A welcome change, that's for sure.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Sep 2005)

It's been since 1993 that I had to deal with the CF recruiting process and dealt with the USMC recruiting process in 2000.

I would agree with much that Infanteer discussed, in that in the CFs a largely disjointed recruiting effort leads to applicants feeling like (and in some cases actually) that they've fallen through the cracks in that the CFRC doesn't have much accountability for the recruits.  

CFMS and CFRG need to consolidate the recruiting process so that medical clearance times are reduced and any medical problems blocking a potential recuits entry into the CFs are rapidly identified and dealt with.  That way the CFRC staff can inform a disqualified potential recruit and they can refocus their efforts on recruiting a replacement.

Reliability and Security Checks also need to be streamlined to the point where a basic criminal record check is performed (outstanding warrants, arrest/criminal record, etc.) which is essentially the same as what happens when a cop pulls somebody over for a speeding ticket (takes no more than 10 minutes for the basic information).  The detailed background check would be performed whilst the recruit was completing the rest of their inprocessing procedures and whilst they are attending recruit training.  If something major (ie. involvement in some kind of terrorist organization) comes to light, that person is dealt with whilst in a semi-restrictive custody type environment (St. Jean) so there's no worry of them 'flying the coop'.
The other question I have about reliability and security checks relate to how much they actually apply to other federal government jobs?  If I were to apply for a position with Public Works Canada, or any other government service, should I realistically expect from the time I send my resume in and have an initial interview, that I'm not to expect hearing that I either got the job or didn't for 1-2 years due to a background investigation?  

With the job market becoming more competitive as the Canadian economy strengthens, applicants soon realize that the CFs are not the only game in town and may move on to other career choices.


----------



## mstorey (8 Sep 2005)

You guy's are keeping me busy lol. Keep it up.


----------



## mstorey (13 Sep 2005)

There where some points listed about more up to date info on the CFLRS web site. Here is the link with the most up to date info which changes daily. http://www.cflrs.forces.gc.ca/


----------



## Zarathustra (16 Sep 2005)

Two more thoughts. 

- Speeding up officers recruiting would be nice. I learned today that at best I could start my BMQ in September 2006. For someone who has been in the recruiting process for 10 months, it's kind of a downer. (To phrase it politely)

- If you have time/money, online application tracking would also be nice. I'm thinking of a web site where you could see your application status, your test dates, missing documents, next selection board dates, etc. Many universities have things like this. You would know where you are, what you need to do next and within what time frame.


----------



## reccecrewman (16 Sep 2005)

Streamline the recruit process and solve some BIG problems in the Army at the same time.

ISSUE:  9 Reg Force Infantry Battalions that are all woefully understrength; 3 Armoured Regiments all understrength (mine doesn't even have a standing 'C' sqn. and A, B & D are ALL undermanned save and except overseas deployments when the Squadrons rape each other for personnel) 3 Artillery Regiments & 3 Combat Engineer Regiments all undermanned.

SOLUTION:  This is where it should be so easy.  Don't give new recruits off the street the option to be a mechanic, RMS Clerk, Supply Tech or any other trade the Army has.  Give them the option of one of the 4 combat arms and train them to be a SOLDIER first.  After the've given 3 years of service in one of these trades, only THEN should they be allowed to OT to a support trade.  Exceptions should be made to civilians who already possess skills applicaple to their chosen Army trade, i.e a civilian Dental Assistant wants to be an Army dental assistant, fine.  But someone who has no prior training or work experience in the trade should not be given the option to do that in the Army until they've given 3 years service in a combat trade.  This would make things alot simpler and help rectify manpower shortages throughout the combat arms.  

As well, this would ensure that our support trades personnel have some real soldier skills, rather than going to the range once a year with their C7 and firing off their PWT I rounds and thats it for another year.  They would get the benefit of having served in a Unit that instills them with soldier skills, camaraderie & a daily PT regimen.  It wouldn't kill anyone to serve their Country for 3 years in a combat trade before switching to a support trade.


----------



## redleafjumper (17 Sep 2005)

It is an intriguing idea, but how would you address shortages in support trades?  There have been severe shortages in a number of them over the last several years.  The sentiment is a good one and I agree that the Combat arms should be fully staffed, but wouldn't everyone wanting a trade then first opt for the navy or airforce?  I don't believe that forcing everyone to be all they can be in the combat arms first is entirely workable - some folks just aren't cut out for the sharp end.   As well, wouldn't a three stint likely cause there to be a shortage of junior leaders in the combat arms as folks get their ticket punched and then head out to be a wrench puller, or supply clerk, or MP, or whatever else.


----------



## redleafjumper (22 Feb 2006)

I just wondered if anything had come of this effort to streamline the process?


----------



## Loch Sloy! (23 Feb 2006)

> Problem: Security Clearances taking 3, 4, 5 (!) years to complete, according to the local CFRC. 2 years+ just for going on vacation to a few different (touristy) destinations around the globe. A great way to lose good candidates to other employment offers that come along.



I have personally been waiting over 18 months for a security clearance. This was triggered by working overseas; 6 weeks on holiday in Scotland. I could understand if I had been working in an unfriendly nation or even for many years. I am also a past employee of the RCMP- not a shady character. My situation should not trigger an extensive sercurity check IMHO. What a waste of resources!

Incidentally when I was in Scotland I was told I could join the British Army. Total time from inquiry to training for the British reserves: 1 week. Seriously. 

Surely we could do better.

One positive is that the staff at CFRC have been patient with my requests to see how the security clearance is going. However it did occur to me; could more civilian staff be employed for clerical duties? A secretary would probably be cheaper and just as effective (in some limited jobs) than a Master Corporal and the money could be used for training or even an faster security check?


----------



## 30 for 30 (24 Feb 2006)

18 months for a six week vacation? That is shocking. I have just finished a wait of just over two years for security clearance, but I lived in the UK for a year...which still shouldn't require a two year wait (on top of the year it took security clearance to commence and other testing, which now has to be redone because it expired, to finish). The system needs drastic changes. Good luck and hang in there, hope it finishes up soon.


----------

