# CFRC



## Skinny (21 Mar 2005)

Just wondering, if my recuiting center is in halifax would i be able to get my status checked at another center?Im on vaction and just wanted to see were my app. was at.

Thanks


----------



## Skinny (21 Mar 2005)

So if i was in st.john could i get the status of my file?If my recruiting center was in halifax?


----------



## Tpr.Orange (21 Mar 2005)

chances are yes they could, if they are really busy unfortuantley they might not have time.


----------



## Skinny (21 Mar 2005)

Thanks for the info!


----------



## patrick666 (21 Mar 2005)

1-800-856-8488 is the tollfree recruiting number that will connect you to the local centre in your area if you are unsure of the number. 

Cheers


----------



## MCpl Wesite (15 Aug 2005)

As an instructor I am getting 'frustrated'  at the lack of care recruiters are showing. The level of competancy in the recruits that we now get is far below the military standard that we in the military need to have in place. An example, this summer I received a section with 13 candiates on it, after one week I was down to 10, a week later 9, on the last week I lost another one. I had one troop with ADD another suffering from depression and two who only signed up because they thought that they would be practicing martial arts and black ops crap. I know the standards I don't know if there are quotas ( please say no) that have to be filled; but the point is that CFRC has to stop worring about numbers, stop wasting money and time and stop these kids from entering the system. Employ better standards rewrite the recruiting process. Especially for the combat arms....last thing I need is another ADD on a live fire range.   

LOAD!


----------



## kincanucks (15 Aug 2005)

MCpl Wesite said:
			
		

> As an instructor I am getting 'frustrated'  at the lack of care recruiters are showing. The level of competancy in the recruits that we now get is far below the military standard that we in the military need to have in place. An example, this summer I received a section with 13 candiates on it, after one week I was down to 10, a week later 9, on the last week I lost another one. I had one troop with ADD another suffering from depression and two who only signed up because they thought that they would be practicing martial arts and black ops crap. I know the standards I don't know if there are quotas ( please say no) that have to be filled; but the point is that CFRC has to stop worring about numbers, stop wasting money and time and stop these kids from entering the system. Employ better standards rewrite the recruiting process. Especially for the combat arms....last thing I need is another ADD on a live fire range.
> 
> LOAD!



I will assume that you are talking about reserve applicants.  Applicants that were recruited by their units and deemed worthy enough by those units to be processed by the CF recruiting system.  Once in the system they were screened at the same level as any other CF applicant and held to the same high entrance standards.  As I don't know the details of exactly what happen to these particular recruits I would hazard a guess that they had met the standards and probably neglected to mention any problems during their processing, if they in fact had any problems.

Now for you to insinuate that the CF recruiting system would purposely process and enrolled applicants, whether they be Reg or Res, who may present a danger to themselves and to others is asinine.  Also to insinuate that we in recruiting are only concerned with numbers and wasting money and time is ignorant and asinine.

While I can't determine your motive for posting the rhetoric, I would suggest that if you have a legitimate complaint about the recruiting system you could pass up your chain of command.


----------



## dutchie (15 Aug 2005)

Kincanucks:

While I normally find your posts on recruiting to be informative and intelligent, I find this response to be anything but. This MCpl, who is instructing the troops that you process, brought up a relevant and significant issue in an articulate and straight-forward way, and provided examples. Your response?



			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> Now for you to insinuate that the CF recruiting system would purposely process and enrolled applicants, whether they be Reg or Res, who may present a danger to themselves and to others is asinine.



Did he insinuate that CFRC was pushing through troops who they knew to be a danger? No, I don't think he did. He did provide an example of a dangerous situation...


			
				MCpl Wesite said:
			
		

> last thing I need is another ADD on a live fire range.


but that was hardly insinuating that CFRC pushed a guy through they knew to be a danger on a range. 

and this...


			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> Also to insinuate that we in recruiting are only concerned with numbers and wasting money and time is ignorant and asinine.



He didn't say numbers and dollars were the only concern. He simply expressed the opinion that while quantity of troops has gone up, the quality has gone down, in his HO. I agree with him. Why recruit people who so obviously do not possess the mind set to soldier? If he (and I) can see it after a week of BMQ, what does that say about the 'vetting' proces at CFRC? If it's the evaluation system, fix it, if it's priorities (numbers vs. quality), stop pushing recruits through who can't hack it(his 'waste of money' argument).



			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> While I can't determine your motive for posting the rhetoric...


His motive? Well, knowing this particular MCpl as well as I do, I suspect that he was motivated by his desire to take quality recruits and turn them into quality soldiers. Give him the raw materials (suitable recruits) and he'll produce well trained Pte soldiers. If you give him people not CAPABLE of soldiering well, or without the will to soldier, what do you think will be the result? Incompetant, and possibly unsafe soldiers.



			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> I would suggest that if you have a legitimate complaint about the recruiting system you could pass up your chain of command.



So, no one here can bring up something that concerns them? This would be a pretty lonely place if troops weren't allowed to b*itch. It's our God-given right you know.

Could you perhaps formulate an articulate, well-thought out response to his concern? The BMQ/SQ MCpl is critical to the recruiting process, and to dismiss his concerns as 'assinine' is really quite shallow. Give him the respect he deserves.

I await your mature thoughts on this important recruiting issue. I suspect that due to your expertise, you have knowlege and insight into this problem.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (15 Aug 2005)

I'm not surprised at the poor quality of recruits that the MCpl is speaking of.  Back in 1997/98 we were having the same problems with the vetting process at CFRC.  I had one recruit who ended up leaving because he was not adapting well to military life.  On further examination, he had a drug use record as long as my arm and for some reason, CFRC never picked up on it.  I even had recruits show up for recruit training with an inhaler for asthma and for some reason, they still made it through the screening of the recruiting process.

Recruits were showing for basic training unprepared to undertake the rigors of the training.  Many had no real idea of what they were really getting themselves into.  There needs to be more of a familiarization process prior to shipping for training.  This is a lesson that can be learned from the Marines.

Here in the Marine Corps, recruits, once processed and approved for training, need to spend time in what we call the recruit pool.  Poolies, as they are known, will spend one day a month learning about Marine Corps training as well as participating in regular physical fitness training on their own before they are allowed to ship to boot camp.  They are prepared both mentally and physically for what will take place at boot camp.  Once they get there, it is still a shock but they knew what they were getting themselves into and didin't just arrive for training in the dark.  Recruiters spend a lot of time preparing the applicants once they are processed.  Their job doesn't end with getting them to sign the contract.  They are responsible for their preparation until they ship to training.

Once at boot camp, the recruiter is still held responsible for the applicants making it through phase one of tarining (three weeks).  If they don't make it through the first three weeks, the recruiter is held responsible for not preparing the poolie adequately and as a result, his average (number of total recruits who make it through successfully) is affected which in turn affects his fitness report.  There is accountability at all levels.

What seems to be missing in the CF process is this accountability aspect.  There is no real chain of ownership.  Once the applicant is deemed qualified and sent to training, the accountability ends.  It's much like buying a car without any warranty.

CFRETS could learn a lot about how the recruiting business is done at Recruiting Command in Quantico, Va.  Marine Corps recruiting is very efficient and the attrition rate at boot camp is comparatively low.  The key to reforming the CF recruiting process lies in taking a lesson from those who know how to do it and do it right.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## kincanucks (15 Aug 2005)

Face it some bad ones slip through sometimes.  We don't put these people on lie detectors and if they don't answer the questions truthfully they can sneak through.  I had one applicant who told me he had only used marijuana a couple of times then he is interviewed by a female officer and he decides to tell her his truth drug usage history.

PJ D-Dog:  We haven't had CFRETS for about four years now.


----------



## MCpl Wesite (15 Aug 2005)

Thx Caesar, now I don't have to type alot. I think the military has to change it's recruiting requirments. While I understand that the military must be open to all Canadian citizens, surely we can impose some standards besides Grade 10 and doing a set min. number of situps and push-ups. Some of these recruits that we do get can't even do those. So what happened? CFRC has to put the hammer down. The CF Express test for both reg and res non combat arms and the PT 400 or BFT for comabt arms. Make that a requirement even before they see the barber 8) 

And as kincanuck, if you do work at CFRC I hope you pay attention to all the volutary releases / training failures / charges from this summer. I am not making this stuff up.


----------



## MCpl Wesite (15 Aug 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> While I can't determine your motive for posting the rhetoric, I would suggest that if you have a legitimate complaint about the recruiting system you could pass up your chain of command.



by the way my motive is producing the best soldiers Canada can get, not the most.

edited for spelling


----------



## dutchie (15 Aug 2005)

MCpl Wesite said:
			
		

> last thing I need is another ADD on a live fire range.



At least he didn't fall asleep in the prone at the 100 with the weapon on 'R', eh Scrubs?


----------



## MCpl Wesite (15 Aug 2005)

lol, he wouldn't have been the first! :dontpanic:


----------



## PJ D-Dog (15 Aug 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> PJ D-Dog:   We haven't had CFRETS for about four years now.



And that's about how long I have been away from the CF...sorry I didn't keep up on the restructure...we don't get much news down here. 

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Blakey (15 Aug 2005)

I was under the assumption that Militia/Reserve units recruited their own personal?
If so, then where would the CFRC come into play in all of this?
As well, maybe this problem is just indicative to the west coast?, I haven't seen any complaints from anywhere east of the BC/Alta border...unless they start posting now.


----------



## kincanucks (15 Aug 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> I was under the assumption that Militia/Reserve units recruited their own personal?
> If so, then where would the CFRC come into play in all of this?
> As well, maybe this problem is just indicative to the west coast?, I haven't seen any complaints from anywhere east of the BC/Alta border...unless they start posting now.



All reservists are recruited by the reserve units but are processed through the CFRC/Ds.


----------



## Blakey (15 Aug 2005)

seen


----------



## dearryan (15 Aug 2005)

"As well, maybe this problem is just indicative to the west coast?, I haven't seen any complaints from anywhere east of the BC/Alta border...unless they start posting now"

Blakey,

Ease up on the West Coast....unless you can actrually back that statement up. I have had many dealings with the staff of one recruiting center  on the "West Coast" and I assure you they are very though and professional members. If you where refering to the canidates on the "west coast" I really dont know what you could base that bold statement on....please enlighten.

Ryan


----------



## c1984ml (15 Aug 2005)

MCpl, if you are referring to Reserve recruits, you need to be aware that Reserve units are responsible for attracting (i.e. recruiting) their own recruits. The CFRC simply processes them IAW applicable standards. Medical conditions are a tricky subject - unless the applicant admits to having a pre-existing condition during the Part One medical,it is unlikely that the Physician's Assistant will discover it unless there is obvious physiological evidence. Mental health conditions are not easy to diagnose. As far as I know, CFRCs do the best they can to screen out those who do not measure up. Imagine the potential recruits that are being screened out... As a result, you (the training system instructors) become the 2nd line of "defence". There are no quotas for CFRCs - they only process as many as are attracted by the local Reserve units.


----------



## Blakey (15 Aug 2005)

Whoa! back up the banana boat here slim.


> As well, maybe this problem is just indicative to the west coast?,


If you read the post I was simply posing a question.
Edited for spelling


----------



## MCpl Wesite (15 Aug 2005)

Alright, I know that the resereve unit are responsible for sending the files to CFRC for processing. However, when they do their interview / Apptitude test / medical / CF Express test, ( All done at CFRC) a light has to click on at some point that these individuals can't be soldiers. We had a 98 lb woman on course this year...she was training to be in the infantry! She released. At what point do we stop and say to the recruit that you are unfit for the trade you are going for. Another example, this one was a clerk, he didn't have the physical strength to **** a C7! We need to have tougher regulations in place to stop unfit recruits from entering the system as it's a drain on the military's training buget. Time wasted on a course reteaching / mentoring individual recruits is just that...a waste. Unless the troop has just had minor difficulties during a test, but when it's constant it's a drain on staff and students alike. Morale on the course goes down, time is wasted that could be better spent practicing with the whole section. I say all this not as a rant but as a warning that the current recruiting system has very big flaws in it. We do get very good troops but on every course I've taught on in the last three years, our problem recruit ratio is getting larger.

So what do we do?
Any thoughts out there?
Any other instructors feel the same?

by the way the asterix in front of C7 is not a swear, it's the action of pulling back the "charging " handle  ;D


----------



## PJ D-Dog (16 Aug 2005)

I can sympathize with your cause.  I was once a frustrated MCpl instructor as well.  As a former CF QL2 instructor, I faced the same challenges in 1997 when I had a female in my section who was experiencing many of the same problems.  She spent the first 15 days of training going to medical.  She had a chit for pretty much everything.  I suggested to my course officer that she be recroused since she had missed too much drill.  The response was to order me to spend extra time to catch her up on drill (evenings until 2300).  It seems that nothing has changed much.  She ended up graduating but she certainly was not going to be a very effective soldier in the supply field she was going into.  Incidently, this was on the east coast (LFAA)..trying to spread the wealth here.

Your asking for a solution to a problem that doesn't have a very equitable solution to it.  If we restrict certain applicants from certain trades then it can be construde as discrimination.  The CF entry criteria is quite broad and set up in a way that will not be interpreted as discriminatory.  Remember, the human rights commission is always looking over your shoulder.  Having said that, perhaps if the recruiter who performs the first and second contacts were to explain in great detail the physical requirements of certain trades and of the basic training overall, then the individual may be able to make a determination on their own.

I tell all my recruit applicants what they are getting themselves into and how "boot camp is no joke".  I tell them up front that it will be hard and how they must want to pass and how they will have to physically push themselves to the limit.  I find that if they expect the worse, they tend to put out more.  Then again, I'm recruiting Marines and the applicants expect it to be hard.  Surprisingly, anyone can pass boot camp, just do what you're told, pass everything and put forth an effort.  I don't know what CF boot camp is like anymore.  I instructed on ten recruit courses back in the mid 1990's and the program was changing from serial to serial.

Hope this helps.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Springroll (16 Aug 2005)

How about, instead of allowing recuits to pick their trades, why doesn't the CFRC pick a few for them and let them choose from there...or even better, why don't the recruits go to basic and have those instructors see what they excel at and assist the rercruit in finding a suitable trade for them??

Just a couple ideas


----------



## dearryan (16 Aug 2005)

Sorry Blakey,

I got a little excited when I saw a potential slam against the Westerners. My bad!

Ryan


----------



## Matt_Fisher (16 Aug 2005)

In all honesty, I wouldn't say that the Marine Corps recruiting system is that much better in screening out the "bad apples".   I had a fair number of recruits I went through boot camp with that I thought were borderline insane.

The difference is in the 'moulding' of the recruit that occurs in Marine recruit training vs. CF.   The Marines have 3 months to break down and rebuild a recruit into a Marine, whereas the CF Reserves tries to do it in a 6 or 7 weeks.   Plus, the Marines have a far more 'liberal' attitude towards what is acceptable vs. non-acceptable and give their drill instructors tremendous latitude in sorting recruits out through some very draconian 'old school' means.


----------



## Springroll (16 Aug 2005)

BMQ is now 12 weeks long...


----------



## bcbarman (16 Aug 2005)

As a recruiter and an instructor, I know both sides of the story.  The units are responsible for their own attraction and recruiting, and the recruiting center is responsible for processing.  

The disconnect is that CO's of units and the recruiting centers care only for numbers.  Once we stop having raw bodies being the qualifier for funding, we will stop having this "everybody on the bus" syndrome.  

Once the units are allowed to conduct screening of applicants, and the Military Career Councellers can elliminate a person on reasons more than personal history, we will get better candidates.

The current CDS said in a recent interview "the current recruiting process gives us a return of 2.5 to one, for one recruit, it takes 2.5 applicants.  I would like to see that go to 10 to one."  

This is the right direction to go, we do not need a bigger force, we need a better force.  

I am happy to train the 60% of troops that show up, the ones that try and give their all, its the 40% that make me shiver on the range.

Cheers


----------



## PJ D-Dog (16 Aug 2005)

bcbarman said:
			
		

> The current CDS said in a recent interview "the current recruiting process gives us a return of 2.5 to one, for one recruit, it takes 2.5 applicants.   I would like to see that go to 10 to one."
> 
> This is the right direction to go, we do not need a bigger force, we need a better force.



From all accounts, the CF is not in a situation where they can pick and choose too much.  LFC tried to go in the direction of quality vs quantity back in 1999.  This move was due to a lack of equipment and funding.  Six years later, they are short 5,000 soldiers and are trying to recruit more.

Given this situation, the solution needs to lie at two levels:  the recruiter and the training.

The recruiter:

a bonus system needs to be in effect in order to give recruiters that extra incentive to go out and FIND the most qualified applicant.  Set the basic criteria and reward recruiters who find applicants who exceed the basics.

The training:

As Matt Fisher pionted out, the training needs to be geared to moulding the recruit as opposed to just training him.  Anyone can go through training and pass the course.  A moulding mechanism needs to be in place where it will shape the recruit's thinking and military perspective.

Moving to a ten to one ratio in a time when the recruiting is not meeting the needs of the CF is a tall order especially in the absence of any mechanisms in place to help achieve this goal.  This is beyond any getting a bonus at signing for the recruit.  In addition, the whole recruiting process needs overhauling, but that is another debate discussed in full in other threads.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Sivad (17 Aug 2005)

OK I'm no were near any of you guys in Rank or Experience, hell I haven't been through BMQ thanks to over numbers, what made me real happy is hearing how many do quite while I couldn't get in.

Anyways I think to help weed out the "not capable" recruits is to simply make the express PT hard as hell, give the NEW recruite a basis for what is to come in BMQ stop this equal rights shit that dumbs down everything so my little Johnny or Suzy can get in.  I for one will not be happy if we do go to war and the soldier beside me is some ADD, Depression or someother kind of bullshit made up disease.  An infantry soldier should be the toughest of the tough.  Maybe make the age limit higher too instead of letting 16 yrs in raise it.  

I'm just throwing sh_t around here sorry for the rant, but I do feel better now  ;D

P.S. regarding the Marines so called excellent screening process wasn't it a marine that shot like 14 people from the Boston university Clock Tower?  basically I guess there is no real way of weeding out all the "bad apples" but the CFRC I think could do a bit better of a job.

Real name with held due to I haven't been to BMQ yet and one of you guys could be my trainer  ;D,

Don't ever worry about me I will make it through anything you Got.  :threat:


----------



## swanita (17 Aug 2005)

MCpl Wesite said:
			
		

> We need to have tougher regulations in place to stop unfit recruits from entering the system as it's a drain on the military's training buget. Time wasted on a course reteaching / mentoring individual recruits is just that...a waste.  We do get very good troops but on every course I've taught on in the last three years, our problem recruit ratio is getting larger.



I agree, how is it that a recruit can pass the PT test during the recruiting process but when they get on their course....can barely do one push-up?!?! I have also found that quality has gone downwards over the last few years....the sad part is that the ones that do get through are the "top third" of those who applied. Almost scary how some people do get through.  ???  Just my thoughts.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (17 Aug 2005)

A physical fitness test is designed to evaluate the applicant's abbility to meet the minimum required physical fitness standard to undertake training.  If the applicant is processed in one month and only sent to training six or eight months later, their ability to perform the minimum standard PT can diminish if they don't keep training. There isn't a different PT standard for each MOC although judging from what is being said in this thread, maybe there should be.

In the Marines, applicants need to meet the basic PT standards in order to ship to boot camp.  This is known as the IST (inital strength test).  The standard is 1.5 mile run under 13.5 minutes, minimum of 5 pull ups and 55 crunches under 2 minutes.  That is not the PT standard in the Marines, it is only the minimum acceptable standard to ship for training.  This has been established to evavluate the applicants ability to follow a progressive PT regiment.  Once at boot camp, all recruits must perform the IST again on day two of processing week.  If the recruit fails to meet the minimum standard, they are not allowed to undertake training.  They are sent to PCP (physical conditioning platoon) where they will do PT every day until they can meet the minimum requirements to start training.

This could be a solution for the CF.  Introduce a PT standard that has to be met prior to the start of training and conducted in the first days of training to reconfirm the recruit's ability to meet the minimum standard.  My thoughts of finding a solution to this issue.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## swanita (17 Aug 2005)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> If the recruit fails to meet the minimum standard, they are not allowed to undertake training.   They are sent to PCP (physical conditioning platoon) where they will do PT every day until they can meet the minimum requirements to start training.
> 
> This could be a solution for the CF.   Introduce a PT standard that has to be met prior to the start of training and conducted in the first days of training to reconfirm the recruit's ability to meet the minimum standard.   My thoughts of finding a solution to this issue.
> 
> PJ D-Dog



That sounds like a great idea but i'm sure would get a huge negative response because of the work it would entail & the number of staff that might then need to be involved. But would be one option to ensure the PT level is upkept. Obviously would be even harder on the reserve side of things....do the reserves do anything similar to the marines in the states?


----------



## kitrad1 (17 Aug 2005)

Just a point for clarification, but fitness evaluations are handled by PSP contracted evaluators. CFRCs don't do the testing.

If you look at the history of recruiting (not just in Canada, but around the world, the tools available are limited, but overall are adequate.

The aptitude test is generally able to weed out the bottom ten per cent of the applicant pool. 

The medical examination, which is actually a pretty good tool (I know, people get ticked because of the additional info required)...but it is okay. I would hazzard a guess that this eliminates a significant portion...I'd guess 25%. It probably reflects the overall state of health nationally.

Like the medical, the fitness evaluation probably reflects the state of physical fitness nation-wide and weeds out another ten percent (my guess)

Your frustration is understood....to a point. But there are three sides to every story. Yours is but one. Consider how many Reg F and Reserve NCMs are hired each year and then look at the attrition. My guess is that, depending on the course, the average will be under ten per cent. That's really not too bad. 

But, there is a standard, whether or not any of us agrees is not the issue. I have observed many courses of all types where the "standard" is left open to interpretation. Look at the 13 and 16 km marches. I believe that the standard is 2 hours 26 minutes. How many combat arms units insist that sub-units complete it in less than 2? Why have a measurable standard then?Has the time ever been reduced?

I see that I am rambling now, so I'll leave it at that. Personally, I would visit the CFRC and provide them with some feedback. Perhaps these applicants were identified as weak, yet still within the parameters? I know that if I was in their shoes, I'd be interested in knowing who passed, who quit and why.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (17 Aug 2005)

swanita said:
			
		

> Obviously would be even harder on the reserve side of things....do the reserves do anything similar to the marines in the states?



Marine reservists go through the exact same boot camp and MOS training schools as the active duty Marines do.  I had reservists go through when I went to boot camp and there was no difference that I could tell.  We all start out the same and share in the same culture building experience that boot camp provides.  We have to remember that the US has different laws for reservists than in Canada.

I understand that the whole PT thing would be hard to accomplish at the CF reserve level but it can be done.  The difference is that the onus is placed on the individual soldier to keep up a PT schedule on his own.  Of course this opens a whole can of worms (reservists wanting to be paid to pt at home, what if they get hurt while on their own and can no longer work, who covers it etc..).  I don't really want to discuss that one as it would take a year with all the differing points of view.  I had a bit of that issue taking place when I was in the CF and I resigned myself to the fact that the argument was litterally unwinable.  Hope this answers your question.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## kincanucks (17 Aug 2005)

A comment was made about feedback.  Something that the CFRC/Ds don't get on a regular basis and they should. What we do get on a regular basis are comments about where we supposedly screwed up.  A comment that I made when I first joined this site was that the standards are there and they are pretty good and I believe they should be even higher.  The recruiting does do a very good job of weeding out the bad ones but occasionally some will slip through and that is the acceptable risk of doing business.  As previously mentioned, if you look at the statistics of BMQ failures and dropouts overall they are quite low and well in the acceptable limits.

If I had my way every CFRC/D would be equipped with full body scanners at the entrances so we get rid of the flotsam immediately.  Some people are not meant to be in the CF and they take up a lot of time and resources that could be better used for those that do want to be in the CF.  Cheers.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (18 Aug 2005)

Sivad said:
			
		

> Anyways I think to help weed out the "not capable" recruits is to simply make the express PT hard as heck, give the NEW recruite a basis for what is to come in BMQ stop this equal rights crap that dumbs down everything so my little Johnny or Suzy can get in.



If the government was to adopt that kind of a policy, the CF would be even smaller than it is today.   Many of these so called "not capable" recruits sometimes turn out to be fine soldiers once they have been given the training and learned about the military.   I taught some very mediocre recruits in the CF in my day and many of them turned out just fine later on.   We can't throw the baby out with the bath water.   The issue at hand is recruits arriving to BMQ physically unprepared for training although they have passed the basic physical fitness requirement in order to qualify for the armed services.



> I for one will not be happy if we do go to war and the soldier beside me is some ADD, Depression or someother kind of bullshit made up disease.   An infantry soldier should be the toughest of the tough.



I really don't think that ADD and depression qualify as a made up disease.   I can understand the frustration of having to deal with a recruit who has this and "why are they even in training" but I wouldn't dissmiss it as being made up.   As for infantry soldiers being the toughest of the tough, well that rules out most of all the grunts that I know.   I dare venture a guess and say you have watched way too many war movies where Hollywood portrays grunts as super tough, bullet stoppers who have more lives than morris the cat.   Your definition of toughest of the tough needs clarification if you are to be taken seriously.



> I'm just throwing sh_t around here sorry for the rant, but I do feel better now



You should stop and think before you post otherwise your credibility as a contributor to the forum will be compromised.



> P.S. regarding the Marines so called excellent screening process wasn't it a marine that shot like 14 people from the Boston university Clock Tower?   basically I guess there is no real way of weeding out all the "bad apples" but the CFRC I think could do a bit better of a job.



It was actually the Texas State University clock tower at Austin, Texas where a Marine, who had just returned from Vietnam and who was suffering from advanced post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) decided to indiscriminantly shoot people.

This incident has nothing to do with how well the Marines screened their applicants.   This was not a recruit who failed to meet the basic physical fitness requirements to start training.   This was a seasoned combat veteran who did not possess the psychological tools needed to deal with the experience of everyday combat in Vietnam.   If you're going to use an example, use one that is relevant to the topic at hand.



> Don't ever worry about me I will make it through anything you Got.



Good.   Try 13 weeks at Parris Island and then 54 days at the School of Infantry and then on to Recon selection.   If you make it through, then come back and gloat.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## MCpl Wesite (19 Aug 2005)

First off I'd like to thank all the excellent comments regarding this topic. I'm glad I'm not the only jack out there that feels something needs to be done. The points that I received are:

1. PT tests need to be looked at and changed for the non combat (CF Express) / combat arms (BFT)

2. The interviewer should look at the aptitude test / PT tests and choose 3 trades in which the member qualifies for.

3. A more complete medical test is needed.

4. Better communications between recruiters/units/PSP/medical personnel in regards to candidates.

Now if only the people in charge could get this information.... *looks over a kinscanuck* ;D


Again thanks to all who participated. This post was read 559 times in 4 days!
Off to the field to administer the SQ FTX.


----------



## kitrad1 (19 Aug 2005)

[quote author The points that I received are:

1. PT tests need to be looked at and changed for the non combat (CF Express) / combat arms (BFT)

A.  The CFAPFT is a CF wide standard. The Army has the LFC BFT. This is the standard for Army troops. Perhaps the answer is in progressive fitness training worked into a course outline? I'd be the first to agree that fitness ought to be a big part of one's life if they are applying...especially combat arms. The fact is, that for most applicants, fitness is not a big part of their life. 

2. The interviewer should look at the aptitude test / PT tests and choose 3 trades in which the member qualifies for.

A.  The interviewer (MCC) does indeed consider the aptitude test, PT test results and additional information in the selection phase of the process. By having the MCC decide which trade a person will go into is wrong. It will create nothing but waste and bitter people who will leave. But on the positive side, Navy numbers would increase!

3. A more complete medical test is needed.

A. You might want to look at some of the other threads with regard to medical. They are pretty complete. What exactly do you mean by a more complete medical examination? Pschiatric assessments? I'm no physician, but I think that the med does filter out a large segment of the applicant population.

4. Better communications between recruiters/units/PSP/medical personnel in regards to candidates.

A. Agreed.....with one observation. Any information regarding an applicant is protected under Federal law, under the provisions of the Privacy Act. Essentially, information regarding an applicant can not always be exchanged. Personally, I think that there needs to be closer integration between reserve recuiters and CFRCs in all aspects (attraction and processing as well as file management). But that's for another time!


[/quote]


----------



## MCpl Wesite (19 Aug 2005)

kitrad1 said:
			
		

> A.   The CFAPFT is a CF wide standard. The Army has the LFC BFT. This is the standard for Army troops. Perhaps the answer is in progressive fitness training worked into a course outline? I'd be the first to agree that fitness ought to be a big part of one's life if they are applying...especially combat arms. The fact is, that for most applicants, fitness is not a big part of their life.
> 
> currently the reserves only have CF Express as there sole PT standard. I want CF Express for non combat arms and BFT for Combat Arms.
> 
> ...


----------



## kitrad1 (19 Aug 2005)

"when candiates arrive on course with medical problems then there's something wrong with the medical exam. The medics should be allowed to look at the candidates' past civial medical file. That way we don't have to take the members word that he does have a mental / physical problem that could effect saftey."

What about those who do not have a family doctor? Do we just counsel them out? And if they do have a family doctor, do we assume that they are telling them the truth?

 Personally, I don't know what goes on during a recruiting medical examination because I am not a medical person. I would guess that there would be other signs regarding a person's mental health status, but again, I'm no expert.

How do you know that the student on course has a genuine mental health issue? Perhaps this is their best way of being RTU'd. As an instructor, what makes your medical training more accurate than another instructor? Who decides that a student has a mental health issue?

I understand your frustration, but no system is perfect; there are limitations. 

Fitness testing has always been a topic for debate. Personally, I like a 400 point style of test.

Enough from me. I do understand what you are saying. Anyways, at the very least, I would share the course results with your CFRC: they would probably be very interested.


----------



## Fry (25 Aug 2005)

Hats off to CFRC St. John's. Not only were they prompt in replying to my questions, they were quite friendly, and I got to do ALL of my testing in one day.


----------



## AmphibousAssult (30 Aug 2005)

Being one of the Candidates on this particular Mcpl's BMQ/SQ course I understand his frustration with some of the candidates (not to say that even the candidates that passed didnt at some point or another create some excessive paperwork or headaches) I myself was not overly thrilled having a fireteam partner who had trouble making his own bed nevermind firing a rifle with any level of competance (which concerned me far more then the state of his sheets). Who knows maybe some of these suggestions will be taken into consideration, which will not only ease the stress on the instructors, but also make some of the candidates feel much safer as welll.


----------

