# Likelyhood of VOR for Combat Arms Officers



## SAUVE (3 Mar 2008)

Quick question.
I'm currently in artillery (OCdt).  Is it possible to switch trades to let's say armour if both of the trades are red.  Iv'e heard all combat arms trades are red, I may be wrong.  Does this mean there is no possibility of a transfer?

MOD EDIT: If you want any respect on this site you'll refrain from getting yourself into a debate only to change the thread title that fuelled the debate. Grow up.


----------



## Lumber (4 Mar 2008)

Word around campus:

This was the last year for the VOR process. From now on once you're in, you're in, no changing trades except for exceptional circumstances.


----------



## SAUVE (4 Mar 2008)

It's also referred to as a Voluntary Occupation Reassignment in some cases.


----------



## geo (4 Mar 2008)

when I was still in a field unit...VOR stood for Vehicle on Repair....

If you decide to jump from one trade to another, you are just confusing the numbers and DND is spending money on training that you won't use...... they usually make individuals wait several years (3) before permitting ORs the chance for an OT....


----------



## benny88 (4 Mar 2008)

CSA, 

   VOR _IS_ the correct term, but as I understand, it's only used in ROTP/RMC circles. I guess it's different from an OT only because we're students and not officers/fully qualified yet. I don't think it's fair to rip SAUVE for using a term that the University Liason guys tell him. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's wrong.

  
Geo,

   True about retraining costing lots of money, but if the member in question has only done common training like IAP/BOTP, that ceases to be a problem, and then the only headache is paperwork.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2008)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Word around campus:
> 
> This was the last year for the VOR process. From now on once you're in, you're in, no changing trades except for exceptional circumstances.



For the love of christ, why do you people post crap like that?  I am sure the CFAO supercedes, well anything else.  Get a grip.  If you make your training, you will have to answer these type of questions with subordinates, and 'your gut feel' doesn't cut it or what you heard in the lunch-lineup.  Maybe referring to authorized offical policy is a nice start?   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2008)

benny88 said:
			
		

> CSA,
> 
> VOR _IS_ the correct term, but as I understand, it's only used in ROTP/RMC circles. I guess it's different from an OT only because we're students and not officers/fully qualified yet. I don't think it's fair to rip SAUVE for using a term that the University Liason guys tell him. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's wrong.



Then...its not official CF terms if its 'only' used there.  I suggest you call up the CDS, Deputy Minister and MND and tell them your ROTP/RMC slang is correct and they need to reword the CFAO  .  I am guessing you haven't done OPMEs yet or you would know what level of authority a CFAO is published at.  And, if you are an OCdt, you ARE an Officer.  Check the official CF Rank Structure poster next time you walk by it.  Subordinate Officers=OCdt.

Now, I don't know CSA105 from a hole in the ground but I am betting he has underwear with more TI than you do.  Maybe you might want to listen to him.


----------



## GAP (4 Mar 2008)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> And in some cases people refer to their C7 as a "gun".  Does it make it right?  No.



And 62  guys end up against the fence separating San Diego Int'l Airport and MCRD San Diego with their rifles in one hand, their d*&ks in the other chanting 

"This is my rifle, this is my gun!!" repeatedly......all because one guy called his rifle a gun.... ;D


----------



## SAUVE (4 Mar 2008)

Yes VOR is a term widely used by everyone I have talked to.  Personnel selection officers in Toronto, ULO's, and even instructors at CFLRS.  It is a minor discrepancy...get over it.


----------



## SAUVE (4 Mar 2008)

I also heard there was a "point system" that is used to determine if you are allowed "to switch trades".  They look at scores from a wide variety of things.


----------



## benny88 (4 Mar 2008)

I'm not debating the proper term in the QR&O or CFAO, and I concede the "officer" remark, I should have said "commisioned officer" in my first post. I am also not trying to overrun you with "ROTP slang" but my point stands that it is used by people in mine and SAUVE's CoC. And despite my inexperience, as you all pointed out, I know enough to obey my CoC and also use the term. You're right that it's just used in some circles, but because this question was asked regarding action within those circles, I don't see a problem.




			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Then...its not official CF terms if its 'only' used there.



  C'mon, you think every term used in this forum is an official CF one?


  Listen, I apologize for stepping on anyones toes, because you're right in that I have much less experience, but I don't think TI, post count, or mod status means that you're always right. If my CoC uses the term, I consider it totally legitimate, if not technically official.


----------



## MARS (4 Mar 2008)

Holy Frak. 

OK, and this isjust my opinion, but....I think we have cleared up the terminology confusion, no?

I would respectfully suggest that someone:
a. change the title; and/or
b. move this to some sort of "terminology" thread.

I was marginally interested in the original question, but as the number of posts related to the original questions rapidly drops to below 50%, well...maybe we could get this back on track for the benefit of the original poster?

Cheers,

MARS


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Mar 2008)

benny88 said:
			
		

> VOR _IS_ the correct term, but as I understand, *it's only used in ROTP/RMC circles*. I guess it's different from an OT only because we're students and not officers/fully qualified yet. I don't think it's fair to rip SAUVE for using a term that the University Liason guys tell him. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's wrong.



At one time, proper military writing was initially taught during BOTC; maybe things have changed in a few decades.  And those of us who spent a few months on Avenue Road learning the finer points of "staff duties" can not be blamed for sometimes becoming pedantic.  But reading the title to this thread had me wondering: (in this order, really)

a.  Is there something wrong with their vehicles?  VOR according to A-AD-121-F01/JX-000 The Canadian Forces Manual of Abbreviations (I have an old digital copy) means "Vehicle Off Road".

b.  Do they have a new navigation device?  VOR according to AAP-6 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions refers to "air navigational radio aid which uses phases comparison of a ground transmitted signal to determine bearing. This term is derived from the words « very high frequency omnidirectional radio range »". 

c.  Are they having problems with their eyes?  VOR (in the medical world) could refer to vestibulo-ocular reflex.

One of the principles of military writing is clarity.  The use of the acronym VOR in this thread did not accomplish the aim of the opening post.  Instead of getting the information wanted, it has turned into a lesson on use of abbreviations and just makes me wonder even more how they are training OCdts at RMC.  Perhaps the convention for introducing new abbreviations should have been used:

(from A-AD-121-CO1/FP-000 Staff and Writing Procedures for the Department of National Defence and The Canadian Forces, 1994)

Abbreviations and Acronyms.  An abbreviation is usually a shortened from of a word, or may be the initial letter of two or more words.  An acronym is usually created from the initial letters of a group of words.  *The use of abbreviations and acronyms (ref P) is encouraged but care should be exercised to avoid possible ambiguity*.  If an abbreviation or acronym is used in a document addressed to Allied forces or civilian agencies, *it is recommended that the word or words represented be written in full on the first appearance, followed by the appropriate abbreviation or acronym in brackets* (i.e. "National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ)").  Acronyms are written in capital letters without spaces or punctuation.  The use of abbreviations that are in common international use (e.g. m, ft, k, etc.) is recommended.


----------



## medaid (4 Mar 2008)

benny88 said:
			
		

> I have much less experience, but I don't think TI, post count, or mod status means that you're always right. If my CoC uses the term, I consider it totally legitimate, if not technically official.



You bet it does because it means you should take the advice and learn from the experience of senior board members who often have been in the CF longer then you have and in some cases longer then you've been alive. Sure it doesn't mean they're always right, but when they provide BACK UP and REFERENCES to their posts and all you've got is hearsay , and oh yeah it's considered hearsay, I consider that complete BS and not worth anything. The fact is I've worked in the recruiting realm and not for ONCE have I heard of VOR, but the funny thing is you know what I HAVE heard with an V and a R in it? Here's a few recruiting acronyms and definitions for you. 

VR which stands for Voluntary Release... 
VOT stands for Voluntary Occupational Transfer
COT stands for Compulsory Occupational Transfer
CT stands for Component Transfer 
CC stands for Career Counselor 

Anything else?

Now... is it because most of the OCdts don't consider themselves as officers in the CF, that's why the majority of them are knobs?!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2008)

No.  Its all quite clear.  As Mr Lumber has stated, there will be *NO* more VORs, unless exceptional cicumstances.  Every ET and wrench-bender in the CF must be happy now.   ;D  and for what its worth, I am sure lots of Combat Arms Officers Leos, LAVs, etc will go VOR, but can't comment if they actaully will, though I have seen it happen on occassion.   8)


----------



## Quag (4 Mar 2008)

VOR is a term used routinely in the ROTP world.

Yes...it is the real, correct and accurate term used.

Yes...it stands for Voluntary Occupation Reassignment, because you are an officer who is not qualified in your current occupation.

For the people that wrote out paragraphs of explanations of how VOR isn't a term, I suggest you do your research better in the future to avoid wasted time.


----------



## medaid (4 Mar 2008)

Quag said:
			
		

> VOR is a term used routinely in the ROTP world.



Yes... because we all know that the ROTP world is the REAL world... :


----------



## Quag (4 Mar 2008)

Call it what you want it is still a part of the CF, and as such has many unique aspects to it.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2008)

Quag said:
			
		

> VOR is a term used routinely in the ROTP world.
> 
> Yes...it is the real, correct and accurate term used.
> 
> ...



 :

If arguing with senior CF members who have provided References and Sources, simple statements without References or Sources don't hold much water.  Unofficial use of abbreviations, does not make them official, no matter how often or widely used they may seem to you.  Checking your profile, and finding you listed as a 21U, still doesn't help the argument.


----------



## Quag (4 Mar 2008)

Then you would think senior CF members would know better George...

I don't think you read my message, I'm stating that VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM.


----------



## medaid (4 Mar 2008)

Quag said:
			
		

> I don't think you read my message, I'm stating that VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM.



Where's the reference?


----------



## benny88 (4 Mar 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Yes... because we all know that the ROTP world is the REAL world... :



 Nobody has claimed that. The question was asked pertaining to the ROTP world.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If arguing with senior CF members who have provided References and Sources, simple statements without References or Sources don't hold much water.  Unofficial use of abbreviations, does not make them official, no matter how often or widely used they may seem to you.  Checking your profile, and finding you listed as a 21U, still doesn't help the argument.



   This is the header from a memo a friend forwarded to me that he was sent from our Subsidized Education Manager (a Capt.):

> > SUBJ: VOR DENIAL
> > REF: REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT DATED 07 OCT 07


  Like I said, I'm not arguing that it's correct according to the regs, or even outside of our ROTP bubble, but if my CoC uses it, how the hell is it wrong for me to?


----------



## Quag (4 Mar 2008)

Read the Subsidized Education Manual put out every year by CFRG Borden... MedTech you should have one, shouldn't you?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2008)

Quag said:
			
		

> Then you would think senior CF members would know better George...
> 
> I don't think you read my message, I'm stating that VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM.



And obviously, you never read mine.  As MedTech said: "Where's the reference?"; the reference to back up your untrained statement that "VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM"?


----------



## SAUVE (4 Mar 2008)

It's no longer an issue, it's resolved.  Im still sticking with the term "VOR" personally, just from what I'm use to.


----------



## Quag (4 Mar 2008)

You are not wrong Benny.  But I'm not gonna fight this one down to the bone like many other topics end up.  

The fact is, Voluntary Occupation Reassignment is a term, and if anyone disagrees, then so be it, I don't have the time to waste arguing this one.


----------



## benny88 (4 Mar 2008)

I hope this clears this up. Look at the bottom for the term VOR.


Official enough?

PS- Note that this is an example form and does not violate any PERSEC as it doesn't actually refer to anyone.


----------



## medaid (4 Mar 2008)

Quag said:
			
		

> Read the Subsidized Education Manual put out every year by CFRG Borden... MedTech you should have one, shouldn't you?



Nope I don't have one. Why? Because I don't work in recruiting anymore, why should I back up your sources for you?


----------



## Quag (4 Mar 2008)

I never once asked you to back up my sources...I was encouraging some professional development.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2008)

Words have meaning.  In the military, imprecision or use of the incorrect term can have serious, even fatal effects.  For those interested in the need for precision in language in the military, may I recommend this site:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT114006-eng.asp

Short version:  The Sqn commander of the Snowbirds used non-standard language on the radio net.  Two aircraft collided as a result.  One aircraft was lost.  The pilot suffered minor injuries.  The passenger suffered major injuries.  All because someone was not precise in their use of language.

This thread is titled "Likelyhood [sic] of Vehicles Off Road for Combat Arms officers".  That's the what the official Canadian Forces abbreviation expands to. That someone in Kingston has used that abbreviation in a non-standard way does not make it correct.  "The ROTP world" eventually becomes part of the real world.  And in the real world, misunderstandings due to the use of incorrect terminology can have severe impacts (see above).


----------



## Scott (4 Mar 2008)

The above from someone with mucho time in. Sums it up quite nicely, IMO.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand locked.

Usual caveats apply.


----------



## Scott (4 Mar 2008)

Hummm.

I just noticed that the thread title changed so I went ahead and changed it back to its original 

It's not kosher to come back and edit posts and/or thread titles when you step into a debate.


----------

