# CIC And PRes



## youravatar (15 Nov 2006)

I did a couple searches but came out empty handed.

Is it possible to be a Cadet CIC and be in the Primary Reserve simultaniously? 

If it is... Would you choose whether to do Summer ARC or Get employment at Cadet Camp?

Thanks in advance!

-Tony


----------



## ryanmann356 (15 Nov 2006)

CIC is the largest reserve organisation in Canada, if what i've been told is correct.  ;D


----------



## rwgill (15 Nov 2006)

A CIC officer is a reserve officer so the answer is no.

You can be a PRes officer and volunteer with a cadet unit.  You can be a CIC officer and be attached/seconded to a PRes unit.  PRes officers can be employed at a Cadet Summer Training Centre.


----------



## 63 Delta (15 Nov 2006)

I know of a 15th field Artillery officer who is in the PRes and is also with a RCAC sqn as an officer. He wears two different uniforms and two different capbadges. Im not sure how it is done, but I know firsthand that he does it.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Nov 2006)

521 said:
			
		

> I know of a 15th field Artillery officer who is in the PRes and is also with a RCAC sqn as an officer. He wears two different uniforms and two different capbadges. Im not sure how it is done, but I know firsthand that he does it.



What do you mean by two different uniforms?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2006)

Cadet Warrant-Mann said:
			
		

> CIC is the largest reserve organisation in Canada, if what i've been told is correct.  ;D



You have been mis-informed.  CIC - approx 7500; P Res - approx 32000.

As for the officer who wears two uniforms:  You can be in the Primary REeerve, the Supp Reserve, the CIC, the Rangers, or the Reg F - but not more than one at a time.  As previously stated, some pers do parade with both a P Res unit and a CIC organisation (legally, most cadet corps are not units in the legal sense of the word).  There are restrictions on the employment of CIC officers outside the cadet movement as their training is geared towards youth leadership and management.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Nov 2006)

> You can be a CIC officer and be attached/seconded to a PRes unit.



No, you can't.  CANFORGEN 081/05 VCDS 016 270938Z APR 05 refers.



> _THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO REITERATE THE POLICY THAT CIC OFFICERS WILL NOT BE USED OUTSIDE THE CCM....
> 
> CIC OFFICERS WERE REMINDED THAT IF THEY WISHED TO CONTINUE THEIR SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CCM, THEY SHOULD REQUEST A TRANSFER TO THE PRES...._


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

CIC are member of the reserve, 

Therefore a CIC officer cannot be a member of the Primary Reserve. They are formed to manage, organise and work with teens, so they cannot be part of the Preserve...otherwise they would have an other job.

If a CIC want to transfer to Pres, HE has to reffer to the DOAD 5002-3 which gives the procedure to follow....be sure to insist on these procedure...or you will do the entire procedure for nothing.


(I'm trying to transfer to the Pres....and renounce to my commission and to get in as NCM )


----------



## Signalman150 (15 Nov 2006)

Mysterious Mind,

It was a long time ago, and things were likely different, but --

way back in 1982 I was a Lt in the CIL (now CIC), and decided I'd had enough and wanted to get back into the PRes (CommRes).  All they had to do was put me on the Sup List, and then pull me off as a Cpl, which was my old Militia rank.  There didn't seem to be any problem with the commission.  Of course two things are different for you: you don't have previous experience in the PRes, and; that was then, this is now.

Good luck.  BTW I never regretted the move.


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

Signalman150

thanks, I doubt ill regret it, I'm joining as 935,

The thing is that when I decided to make the move in January I had already joined the Sup Res. and told them it was a sub-res transfer but they argued it was a new processus that I had to do all the procedure from starters as I was considered as a low life with no experience at all..

So I shut my mouth a did all the procedure as they requested...at the recruiting center, I also told them and they ignored it. 

On November 6, I went and finally signed my paper, they called me back  on the 8th to tell me they had made a mistake that it was a transfer.

And now...my files is pending, getting dust bunny on it while we have to wait for equivalence to be calculated.....

I a little sad about the fact that I was going to be on December 9 BMQ and now...nothing is certain.

Buts its life...and I have to be patient and wait...until one day...eventually in a certain future. 

 ^-^


----------



## 63 Delta (15 Nov 2006)

"What do you mean by two different uniforms?"

In replying to my earlier post and to the CANFORGEN that was refrenced.

It was in 2002 that I last personally meet with the above mentioned officer, and at that time he was with two different units. As of now I know he still works with the unit, wether he works for both units, or volunteers at the RCAC unit, I dont know. Maybe he only volunteers since that CANFORGEN came out. But he did work for both units.

In regards to the two uniform question. He wore a 15th field uniform at 15th field, and wore an air CIC uniform at the RCAC unit. I knew him peronally having worked with him at staff. Wether or not he was truly authorized to do both, I cant answer that, but he was authorized by both of his CO's as far as I know.


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

Im not sure I follow the 2 uniforms thing.


Altought I think I understand wath you mean.

Either he is volunteer to work with a cadet corp, where he would have to need the permission of his Pres unit or, he his advisor and he is being paid by his Pres unit to be with the CAdet corps.

As for the job during summer, he cannot apply on Cadet summer training camp. he is not  a CIC. he will have take a job from the Pres.


----------



## CO 113 (15 Nov 2006)

Members of the P Res can serve at CSTCs.  They need only apply for the positions advertised at CSTCs.  Even Reg Officers from RMC have served at CSTCs, some because they did not require trg during the summer, ie second language trg, or various other reasons.


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

Tehy can serve only in reseve open position not as platoon commander or company commander or etc...


----------



## rwgill (15 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> No, you can't.  CANFORGEN 081/05 VCDS 016 270938Z APR 05 refers.



Please read here:  DOAD 5023 and DOAD 5023.1 effective May 2006
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5023/0_e.asp
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/DAOD/5023/1_e.asp

and QR&O Chapter 10
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch010_e.asp

This arguement went way down hill last time........................I don't want to go that way.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

I think that the crux of the matter is that you can only hold one commission scroll at a time.  You cannot wear two different uniforms - depending on what you have to do and how busy you happen to be on a given day.

As long as there is an agreement between both "employers", a reservist can be on class B at one place and continue to train with his parent unit.... but he always wears the same ranks and unit / formation badges.....

Same rule would apply to someone in the Reserves wanting to help out with the CIC.


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

GEo has given a good rresume 


One thing ... A Officer scroll wther you are CIC, reserve or Regs is the same.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

a scroll is a scroll...... BUT
A CIC Officer would founder greatly if placed in direct command of Reg or Res formation for any length of time.......  the training just isn't there.


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

I do not even contest this 

I know that a very large vast majority of CIC would not be able to do it. And probably that a Res officer would probably have a hard time commanding a Cadet corp unit. as the training is not the same


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2006)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> One thing ... A Officer scroll wther you are CIC, reserve or Regs is the same.



{off topic tangent}

Yes.  Except that Naval officers scrolls differ from Army or Air Force officers, and Padres have their own text as well (with a Naval variant as well).

{back on topic}

(edited because my fingers and my brain dislike working together when I type...)


----------



## Dipstick (15 Nov 2006)

521 said:
			
		

> to the two uniform question. He wore a 15th field uniform at 15th field, and wore an air CIC uniform at the RCAC unit. I knew him peronally having worked with him at staff. Wether or not he was truly authorized to do both, I cant answer that, but he was authorized by both of his CO's as far as I know.



I believe I know the officer you're speaking of.  If it's the Captain I'm thinking about, he's actually an Air CIC officer with 111 RCACS.  He works with the people at 15 Field, wearing CADPAT, but is not a member of the PRes or the Army, nor does he, to my knowledge, switch between a Land and Air DEU.


----------



## mysteriousmind (15 Nov 2006)

Air OFficer for cadets received the cadpat combat uniform for feild training...It is "normal" for him to have a cadpat. It is standard issue.


----------



## Scott (15 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> a scroll is a scroll...... BUT
> A CIC Officer would founder greatly if placed in direct command of Reg or Res formation for any length of time.......  the training just isn't there.



OK, it's been stated, agreed upon and we do not have to discuss this part of things again as it is another argument that has been had many times here, never with nice outcomes.


----------



## youravatar (15 Nov 2006)

Thanks alot guys. Afraid you awnsered my question. Not what i wanted to hear though. Maybe i'll find some admisistrative loophole  ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Nov 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> {off topic tangent}
> 
> Yes.  Except that Naval officers scrolls differ from Army or Air Force officers, and Padres have their own text as well (with a Naval variant as well).
> 
> {back on topic}



New to me.  Can you provide the differences?


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2006)

Naval officers as commissioned as acting sublieutenants vice as second lieutenants; the remainder is the same.

As for padres:  I do not have a Padre scroll here, but as I recall certain of the details differ, as they are not told to endeavour to keep their Inferior Officers and Non Commissioned Members in good Order and Discipline (given that they are not permitted to command).

Anyone more godly than me around to chip in their 2 cents?


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

(will have to sneak into the padre's office tomorrow morning)


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Nov 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Naval officers as commissioned as acting sublieutenants vice as second lieutenants



Of course!  Thanks.


----------



## Neill McKay (20 Nov 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> 99% of CIC types do not meet the 'minimum operational standards' (none have done BOTC/CAP/Phase training).



Quite a few have, in fact.  Considerably more than 1 per cent of CIC officers come into the branch having served elsewhere in the Forces.

Don't we have a rule around here about people keeping their comments within their fields of expertise?


----------



## mysteriousmind (20 Nov 2006)

Im the oposite of the discssion and I find it quite interesting.

Being CIC since 1999 and being LT at this moment, 

Im trying to de-cimission and to renounce to my Lt rank. to go into the PRes as NCM (935 or 911)

They are retarding my application because they are verifying what equivalent they can give me.

Which I really dont want because I want to do my BMQ ASAP part time.

Wounder what will tehy tell me.  ???


----------



## Sloaner (20 Nov 2006)

Neill is Bang on there.  Not to mention, the minimum Operational Standards are Be Physically Fit, Be Employable, Be Deployable.  While there are elements many of the CIC may need training on or re-training on, the conditions laid out in the DAOD's are pretty broad.  That being said, the CANFORGEN was to stop a loophole that allowed unit commanders to attach civilian qualified pers into their CoC's without having to complete the efforts of a CT.  So can it happen, yes under very unlikely grounds now, but it can happen (it did happen quite a bit more in the past, I was attached for about 12 months outside the CIC in 1999/2000 because of what I do in the civilian world and my background in the PRes).  The rules are there, the loopholes are largely plugged, so lets all get back in our lanes.  It shouldn't happen, but those from the CIC interested in the PRes can attempt a CT to an appropriate unit.

Now Piper, I realize you have time in the MO, but calling rwgill on this one, when he has considerably more TI, on this matter may not be the best approach.  I don't think he was refuting TeddyR, but offering additional resources for those interested in the current stance and policies.  Just a thought.


----------



## rwgill (20 Nov 2006)

Sloaner said:
			
		

> Now Piper, I realize you have time in the MO, but calling rwgill on this one, when he has considerably more TI, on this matter may not be the best approach.  I don't think he was refuting TeddyR, but offering additional resources for those interested in the current stance and policies.  Just a thought.



Thanks Chris 

Piper,

It really does happen quite a bit, still today.  Many CIC officers are currently employed with the Ranger and Junior Ranger programmes.  CIC officers are an extremely diverse branch of the CF, perhaps (dare I say) more diverse than any other branch or MOSAID.

Looking at the staff I currently work with, we have a cop (OPP), lawyer (Justice Dept on loan to DND), legal administrator, restaurant owner and ambulance attendant.  The CF may be able to use all of us.  4 have previous Reg F or PRes experience.

Teddy's CANFORGEN is a good one, but as Sloaner pointed out it stopped loop holes.  The DAOD and the QR&O are also still good, it just makes the OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT much clearer and makes it more important.  Saying a CIC officer *cannot be * attached or seconded is wrong, but it is unlikely.


----------



## geo (20 Nov 2006)

There are very specific instructions from the CDS & LFC about the employment of CIC officers in Reserve & Regular positions..... Verboten! Niet! Nein! Non! No!

It's nothing personal but them's the rules.


----------



## Neill McKay (20 Nov 2006)

One would think CIC officers would be the SMEs on the employment of CIC officers.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> One would think CIC officers would be the SMEs on the employment of CIC officers.



One would think that even CIC officers can read the CDS directive in the  CANFORGEN mentioned previously


----------



## yoman (20 Nov 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Quite a few have, in fact.  Considerably more than 1 per cent of CIC officers come into the branch having served elsewhere in the Forces.



Agreed, 3 or 4 of my officers are formally reg force and one still is (he's volunteering with my unit).



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Don't we have a rule around here about people keeping their comments within their fields of expertise?



That we do.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Nov 2006)

Previous service is immaterial.  The fact of the matter is that direction has been issued, in the form of a CANFORGEN that _effectively_ bans CIC officers from serving in other components - for very good reason.  It is a legal order, as valid as any DAOD.

Indeed, the other references quoted do not in themselves permit the employment of CIC officers in other components of the CF.  The DAOD quoted clearly sets a lower standard for CIC officers than for members of the PRes and Reg F which would certainly preclude their employment in most units without a full component transfer.

This, to me, is should be the end of the discussion.  The CANFORGEN states clearly that CIC officers cannot serve with other CF components.  The fact remains that, as a group, the CIC has different skill sets than the remainder of the CF and that these skills - again as a group - are of limited utility in an operational setting.


----------



## yoman (20 Nov 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Then that one is not CIC, he is still a regular force officer. So moot point there.
> 
> As to the other two...it does not matter! They are FORMALLY reg force. The times they are a changin' in the mission the army is now on, you think they could drop everything and go workup for 6 months and then lead troops in Afghan (unless they left only a few months ago, but that is the exception rather then the rule)?



Heck no. I was just stating that there are CIC officers that have previous reg force experience.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

yoman said:
			
		

> Heck no. I was just stating that there are CIC officers that have previous reg force experience.



and that previous experience is irrelevant to the argument at hand.  If they are currently CIC officers, they cannot be seconded to RegF or Pres units.


----------



## yoman (20 Nov 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> So what's your point? All of those ex-military folks are as equally qualified to serve in the PRes and Regs as an ex-military CIC officer.



1. I never said I was for or against what was being said.
2. I was just commenting on what Neil said about the amount of former reg force officers in the CIC.
3. Are cops, dentists, lawyers, truck drivers still part of the CF? CIC officers still are.

Now if the CDS says he doesn't want CIC officers working with the PRes, then that's the way it is.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

yoman said:
			
		

> Now if the CDS says he doesn't want CIC officers working with the PRes, then that's the way it is.



Are we done yet ?


----------



## yoman (20 Nov 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> : : : : :
> 
> I doubt very much that it is because the CDS 'does not want' CIC officer to train with the PRes or Regs.
> 
> I suspect very much that it is because he knows that the CIC is not capable of filling that role and has made this new rule to ensure that it does not happen, period.



He does not want CIC officers to train with them for this reason "he knows that the CIC is not capable of filling that role and has made this new rule to ensure that it does not happen."

He know's that CIC do not have the training to operate with the reg force/PRes. 



			
				cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Are we done yet ?



I hope so.


----------



## Sloaner (21 Nov 2006)

Perfect timing Kyle, I was about to PM you.

I think the facts we all need to understand are these:
-CIC are a non-operational trade
-CIC officers CANNOT be immediately be called into active service
-CIC officers DO NOT have the requisite TRAINING/QUALIFICATIONS to take on operational roles or lead those in them
-In the past, exceptions were made for whatever reasons, and the avenues for these exceptions have been effectively closed

The above do not mean a CIC officer is completely incapable of leading personnel in the combat arms based on individual competence, but recorgnizes that they are not immediately ready to adhere to the requirements of universality of service as a broad category of the reserve force.  The CIC are still military, but not Combat Arms and cannot be employed as such without significant re-training.  CIC officers can, when required or appointed to do so, exercise authority over other ranks like any other officer, however they are rarely put in a position for this to be a requirement.

The future is clearly laid out in the 5 Mandates 5 Branches documentation available from several sources, but most appropriately:

http://www.cadets.ca/support/or/intro_e.asp#man-comp

The orders and regulations required are to be amended, and a seperate set of standards applied to the CIC to stop the continual number of exceptions and deviations from normal rules and regulations for the rest of the reserve force.  This should be our base line until all other orders are completed and issued.  

Perhaps you could include the 5 mandates discussion as a sticky so we don't delve into this again.


----------



## Trinity (21 Nov 2006)

I think the statement of the CDS has been taken WAY out of proportion.

This has nothing to do with the competency of the CIC officers.  This is
not trying to punish the CIC officers in anyway or limit their employment.

This has to do with PRes and Reg force officers.  What has happened
in the past is that due to age one is forced to retire from the Pres and Reg force.
HOWEVER, since you can still be a CIC officer for more years (65?) many officers
were simply going to the CIC as a way to get back in and then taking class b or C
positions in their old jobs or similar fields. 

This has many detriments
a) receiving pension and getting paid for new job (costly)
b) creates fewer openings for others to come up and learn
c) many of these officers never actually work in the CIC but just wear the badge


This was a loophole that was being used by some officers to continue their career
when retirement was required.  It has nothing to do with  CIC officers or their training.

This was explained to me by someone last year... so unfortunately I cannot verify this
however, it seems to be a valid explanation for this rule... much more so than speculation
on CIC officer qualifications.


----------



## rwgill (22 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> c) many of these officers never actually work in the CIC but just wear the badge


In some cases a person was CIC, but only on paper.  The accoutrements were never changed.

From personal experience, the great majority of CIC officers working outside the normal CIC _domain_ were hired in administrative roles at the HQ levels, hidden in the maze of hallways, in a dark closet.  Usually because no one else is readily available, who may be better trained. 

In one specific case, a Class B oppurtunity arose at NDHQ and the only person who applied AND was qualified (education) was a CIC officer.  She held that position for 6 years without competition. 

A CIC officer was also a member of the SkyHawks, obviously not in the CIC _domain_.

In general, you will rarely see a CIC officer employed outside of the Cadet World.  As Sloaner pointed out, all avenues have effectively been closed, in the CANFORGEN, and when the NDA is amended, perhaps for good.

The unfortunate truth is, it still happens, but extremely rare. 

Some CIC officers, whom I aware of, have transfered.  One wears the Infantry Branch badge because he has no unit.  

Others are waiting out the storm.


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Nov 2006)

rwgill said:
			
		

> The unfortunate truth is, it still happens, but extremely rare.



I'm not sure why it's so unfortunate.  If a CIC officer has the skill set required for a particular job, why should the Service not take advantage?  I don't see the harm in it, in cases such as the one described above.

I do agree with closing off the CIC as a so-called cap badge of convenience for personnel who want to circumvent HR policies, and concur that that is almost certainly what motivated the CANFORGEN we're discussing.


----------



## geo (22 Nov 2006)

If said CIC officer is interested in taking up full time occupation with the CF - then maybe said CIC officer should take phase training and become a Pres or Reg officer... 

(they can then volunteer their time to the cadet movement)


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> If said CIC officer is interested in taking up full time occupation with the CF - then maybe said CIC officer should take phase training and become a Pres or Reg officer...



Let me turn it around, then: if a position can be adequately staffed by a CIC officer, does it make sense to employ another officer whose training was much more expensive and whose specialized MOSID-specific skills could perhaps used elsewhere?  CIC officers are by far the best bargain in the Service.

On the broader subject of CIC officers serving full-time, there are quite a few of them in various area and regional headquarters, and NDHQ, working in support of the cadet programme.  (Some will be shocked to hear that many such officers supervise reg. force members.)


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Let me turn it around, then: if a position can be adequately staffed by a CIC officer, does it make sense to employ another officer whose training was much more expensive and whose specialized MOSID-specific skills could perhaps used elsewhere?  CIC officers are by far the best bargain in the Service.



There's an even cheaper bargain around - they're called civilians.  If a function requires little to no military background or training, civilians are more than capable of meeting that need.


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Nov 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's an even cheaper bargain around - they're called civilians.  If a function requires little to no military background or training, civilians are more than capable of meeting that need.



Yes, and we employ quite a few of them.  I hope you're not suggesting that a CIC officer is equivalent to a civilian, though.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2006)

Not at all.  I'm saying that if military training is not a requirement, why put someone in uniform in that chair at all?


----------



## Sloaner (22 Nov 2006)

Good point, but the unions are a B*tch.  Civies tend to be a bit more expensive too if they are FTE's.  Contractors or terms, is possible, just depends on the nature and tenure of the work I guess.


----------



## youravatar (22 Nov 2006)

It was never my intention to spark a huge debate  :. Why'd the topic get unlocked?


----------



## rwgill (22 Nov 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not at all.  I'm saying that if military training is not a requirement, why put someone in uniform in that chair at all?


One word, U-N-I-O-N.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2006)

Not a valid reason at all.  There are some HR challenges in managing members of the public service, but military pers management is even more of an arcane art, poorly executed by most; is that a reason to elminiate military personnel from consideration?

Civilians are cheaper than military pers, by and large.  There is however a military (and largely Army and Navy ) bias against civilians holding positions within the hierarchy.  Thus, instead of developing long-term corporate expertise and knowledge through effective management of a civilian workforce, we engage in a game of military musical chairs, where pers get posted into a position for just enough time to gain enough experience to become effective, and then, when they are on the cusp of true utility, posting them elsewhere.

There are valid reasons to employ military (Reg or Res, PRes or CIC or Ranger) pers, and valid reasons to emply civ pers within any military organization.  Military pers are a very limited resource; structures should make optimal use of all personnel available, regardless of whether they wear a uniform.


----------



## Burrows (23 Nov 2006)

Language - watch it.  Swearing in the cadet forums is *NOT TOLERATED.*

Keep the debate civil and to FACTS or it will be locked again.


----------

