# Forcing me to swtich from Navy Int op to army int op.



## holmessean (24 Nov 2008)

Well my component transfer (from reserve infantry) went through and I got my offer letter, Int Op Sea was stated on the letter. I then received my posting message which also stated Int Op sea. My offer letter also stated along with my posting message that I would be posted to 2 EW Sqn. Now I had assumed it would be my posting only for duration of my course and then I would be posted to a coast.Due to the fact that the int op courses are no longer run purple I wouldn't be able to work at 2 EW sqn as an int op. So my first day in Kingston I receive word that my career manager and the RSM of my unit decided to swtich me to army int. I was told due to service requirements that they can swtich me to Army int.  Is this true? Is there anything I can do to try and keep myself Navy Int? Would I not have to sign a new contract stating I'm army int, that I could in tunr choose not to sign?  Any help or advice appreciated.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Nov 2008)

So let me get this right...Int Ops are no longer purple trades but are now element specific?


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Nov 2008)

So let me get this right.....you had to post this twice?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So let me get this right.....you had to post this twice?



Not any more.    ;D


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

holmessean said:
			
		

> ................. So my first day in Kingston I receive word that my career manager and the RSM of my unit decided to swtich me to army int. I was told due to service requirements that they can swtich me to Army int.  Is this true? Is there anything I can do to try and keep myself Navy Int? Would I not have to sign a new contract stating I'm army int, that I could in tunr choose not to sign?  Any help or advice appreciated.



Yes the Career Manager can.  You will go where they have a "requirement" for you to go, just as in past years others went Air Force.  The Career Manager, the Branch Chief and Branch Commandant will decide where they need people and send them there.  You can make a request, just like your three choices of Postings, and if you are lucky you get one, but in the end, it is where the CF needs you the most, not what you want.

If you wanted to not sign accepting your Terms of Service, you should have done so when they offered you the CT.  Now that you have accepted, it is a little late.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (24 Nov 2008)

Based on what he posted the terms of service clearly said Int Op Sea, which is exactly what he wanted.  Why then would he not sign it?

I personally think what they are doing is BS.  Try to fight it.  If Int Op sea is what you want then do a bit of kicking and screaming and see what happens.  The worst they can say is no.  This issue here is a great example of why we have trouble retaining people.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Based on what he posted the terms of service clearly said Int Op Sea, which is exactly what he wanted.  Why then would he not sign it?
> 
> I personally think what they are doing is BS.  Try to fight it.  If Int Op sea is what you want then do a bit of kicking and screaming and see what happens.  The worst they can say is no.  This issue here is a great example of why we have trouble retaining people.



Sorry you disagree, but I know you were there and saw it happen.  It is what the CF and the Branch want and need; NOT your personal "demand" as to what you want.  The CF is not the refuge for "spoiled children".


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

To be honest this is the first situation that I have personally heard of this happening.  I know that people havent always gotten their prefered posting location but this is entirely different.  It would be one thing had this member been properly informed about this possibility before hand, but I think we both know that is likely not how it went down.  There are too often nasty little surprises.

I also would not classify this as a "spoiled brat" situation.  The fact of the matter is, if you are not happy with your job or where you work you will be miserable.  That is a huge issue for the individual member, and I would argue and even bigger issue for the CF.  We cant retain guys if we jerk them around like that.  Granted the CF has a bigger need for Army Int Ops, however, if the situation truly is that severe then the offer should have specifically stated the Army element so this member could have made an informed decision.  On another note, it does not take long to train an Int Op to QL5 standard and it is a very popular trade.  It would not be hard to find willing Army Int Op recruits within the CF, it just requires a little direction and leadership god forbid.

But to the original poster, I was an army Int Op and it really is not a bad job.  You will see alot of action and move up to Sgt relatively quickly as that is the working rank in the Int world.  In my opinion the Sea Int side is not nearly as well developed as the army side so if worse comes to worse, you still have a pretty good job in my opinion.


----------



## Occam (25 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry you disagree, but I know you were there and saw it happen.  It is what the CF and the Branch want and need; NOT your personal "demand" as to what you want.  The CF is not the refuge for "spoiled children".



You're still missing the point, George.  He received an offer that stated "Int Op Sea".  Based upon that offer, he signed the TOS.  Now the CF has reneged on that offer after the TOS are signed.  It's akin to the CF dangling a $20,000 recruiting bonus in front of someone in order to get them to sign on the line, and then once the member shows up at his first unit, they tell him "Sorry, you didn't qualify for the $20,000 because of this little bit of fine print".  If the fine print precluded the member from getting it, then why bother mentioning the recruiting bonus in the first place?  Classic bait and switch.

The CF and Branch may want and need, but they cannot recruit people under false pretenses and break TOS in doing so.  The "spoiled children" comment was a little heavy, don't you think?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

ltmaverick25 

As I said, I know darn well that you witnessed people being told what Element they were to become.  At the time it was Air.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> You're still missing the point, George.  He received an offer that stated "Int Op Sea".  Based upon that offer, he signed the TOS.  Now the CF has reneged on that offer after the TOS are signed.  It's akin to the CF dangling a $20,000 recruiting bonus in front of someone in order to get them to sign on the line, and then once the member shows up at his first unit, they tell him "Sorry, you didn't qualify for the $20,000 because of this little bit of fine print".  If the fine print precluded the member from getting it, then why bother mentioning the recruiting bonus in the first place?  Classic bait and switch.
> 
> The CF and Branch may want and need, but they cannot recruit people under false pretenses and break TOS in doing so.  The "spoiled children" comment was a little heavy, don't you think?



Sorry to burst your bubble Occam, but I have seen all of the above.  It is at the discretion of the Career Manager and Branch.  I know of some who did not get the $20,000 Signing Bonus, as does ltmaverick25, because they did not meet the prerequisites.  A "skilled/semiskilled" applicant MAY QUALIFY for a Signing Bonus is what is stated.  A Signing Bonus is not guaranteed.  That is one reason that Signing Bonus' should not be mentioned to people who do not qualify.  Another reason, Signing Bonus' are not permanent fixtures.  They are there to attract people to undermanned Trades.  Once those Trades are up to strength, then the Signing Bonus' disappear.  They may be here this year, and gone next.  (For more information on Signing Bonus' look up the topics on them.)


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

Let's put this another way:

Say we change Navy INT Op to .............. let's say..............LdSH(RC) as a Crewman

.........And the INT Branch to the Armour Branch.

And now the Armour Branch has decided to post our original poster to the RCD as a Crewman.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

We can try it with the Infantry, if you want?


----------



## Steel Badger (25 Nov 2008)

George, I agree with your comments above regarding a recruit posted RCD vice LdSH...  But if the INT trades are now environment specific, does that not change the picture?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> George, I agree with your comments above regarding a recruit posted RCD vice LdSH...  But if the INT trades are now environment specific, does that not change the picture?



INT is one Trade.  The Navy guys can also confirm another point..........There is no Navy INT OP.  There are Navy INT O's.  There are NESOPs and NAVCOMs, both of which are different Trades from INT.

Perhaps when the INT Branch sorts out its new QL5A package, things will become clearer as to what direction they are going.  Until then, anyone going INT OP will have to be FLEXIBLE and accept the direction in which the Branch places them.  The Branch is in a state of flux right now, and changing quickly.  They are Recruiting and many do not make the final cut to graduate.  This whole topic may turn out to be a moot point, if holmessean fails out (Another thing I have witnessed a bit of lately.).


----------



## Occam (25 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst your bubble Occam, but I have seen all of the above.  It is at the discretion of the Career Manager and Branch.  I know of some who did not get the $20,000 Signing Bonus, as does ltmaverick25, because they did not meet the prerequisites.  A "skilled/semiskilled" applicant MAY QUALIFY for a Signing Bonus is what is stated.  A Signing Bonus is not guaranteed.  That is one reason that Signing Bonus' should not be mentioned to people who do not qualify.  Another reason, Signing Bonus' are not permanent fixtures.  They are there to attract people to undermanned Trades.  Once those Trades are up to strength, then the Signing Bonus' disappear.  They may be here this year, and gone next.  (For more information on Signing Bonus' look up the topics on them.)



I will bet your next paycheck that in none of the cases you're familiar with, did a recruit ever sign a document stating they were eligible for the recruiting bonus, accept an offer based upon that recruiting bonus, and then later be told that they were no longer eligible for a recruiting bonus.  It's a term of the offer, and the CF is obliged to meet it.  The offers stipulate all sorts of criteria - time credit for incentive, time credit for promotion, QL granted on enrolment (and provisional status if applicable), and yes, environmental affiliation.  If it's there in the offer, it shouldn't be tossed out the window at the whim of the CF.

By the way, I agree with your examples of Crewmen and Infantry.  However, in those cases, we're talking about posting location/initial unit, and not environmental affiliation.

Even the recruiting website indicates that there are Int Ops affiliated with all three branches, and they're usually the last to know.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

Occam

"Environmental Affiliation".  Sorry, but that has been covered several times in the forums, in several different "Purple" Trades.  Army Vern has given an example of it herself, in that she has had to change DEU.  Again a Branch decision.  

The point of Navy INT OPs, has also been covered in other discussions by Navy pers.  

As for Signing Bonus', well it really isn't part of this discussion, and I shouldn't have allowed you to sidetrack the discussion along those lines, but I have seen two people not get it.  Also, it may not be around much longer.  It is a Red Herring in this discussion anyway as holmessean never brought it up in his posts, as he (unskilled) did not qualify for one.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Nov 2008)

2 EW isn't so bad, you'll learn a lot of material here and end up with at least one tour if not 2 out of your posting. You'll fit in with the Navy Comms Rsch guys that look a little out of place driving around Bisons.


----------



## Occam (25 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Occam
> 
> "Environmental Affiliation".  Sorry, but that has been covered several times in the forums, in several different "Purple" Trades.  Army Vern has given an example of it herself, in that she has had to change DEU.  Again a Branch decision.



Apples and oranges.  Army Vern didn't have her DEU changed immediately upon enrolment, there were other mitigating factors later in her career.



> The point of Navy INT OPs, has also been covered in other discussions by Navy pers.



What point is that?  The only point that really matters is that the poster was offered terms.  He signed TOS based upon those terms.  Once he was through the door, the CF reneged on those terms.  It's no different that someone signing on as a Pilot, and then getting told that they've been reassigned to Infantry "due to service requirements".  Not spot on.



> As for Signing Bonus', well it really isn't part of this discussion, and I shouldn't have allowed you to sidetrack the discussion along those lines, but I have seen two people not get it.  Also, it may not be around much longer.  It is a Red Herring in this discussion anyway as holmessean never brought it up in his posts, as he (unskilled) did not qualify for one.



I know lots of people who didn't get it.  However, I don't know anyone who was offered it, accepted it, signed on the dotted line, and then had it yanked back.  That's renegeing on the offer of employment, and it's grounds for grievance.  It's bait and switch, just like offering the lad Navy Int Op, and then telling him he's Army after he signs his TOS.

I won't beleaguer the point any further as you appear reluctant to admit there's a breach of the TOS he was offered.


----------



## meni0n (25 Nov 2008)

George it is environment specific for now. From CFSMI web site on the DWAN training goes ( I may be off a day or two ):

10 days distance learning
72 Core Training
43 Environment specific training


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

Occam said:
			
		

> I won't beleaguer the point any further as you appear reluctant to admit there's a breach of the TOS he was offered.



Nether will I, as neither of us have seen his actual TOS.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Nov 2008)

I don't think the environment training is *trade* specific.  From the Recruiting website:



> After completing the core phase and cross-environmental training, INT OPs will be trained according to their *assigned* environment.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> George it is environment specific for now. From CFSMI web site on the DWAN training goes ( I may be off a day or two ):
> 
> 10 days distance learning
> 72 Core Training
> 43 Environment specific training



So, the Core, as well as the Environmental, portions have, more or less, doubled in length.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2008)

Having read the thread, I have one question.  What is the reference that states what the CF policy is surrounding this?  There must be a DAOD, CFAO, etc on this, authorizing it, if they are doing it.

I am split in the middle on it.  If the CT offer said "this MOC, this DEU" and the mbr accepted that, I think the mbr is in his/her rights to want to retain that DEU.

However the mbr, even though in Navy DEU, can and should be expected to be posted anywhere mbr's in his/her MOCs is employable.

I've yet to see it confirmed the CF does/does not have the ability to do this, as in no one is backing up their stance with a reference.

To the OP;  submit a memo requesting the reference where it clearly states the CF can do this.  Last resort would be to file a Grievance.  Make sure you pick a good Assisting Member.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Nov 2008)

From the monograph on the recruiting website:

Training      


Successful candidates will attend QL5A. Those who do not have a minimum English language proficiency of BBB will require language training prior to the QL5A. 


Basic Qualification 

Successful applicants will be sent to the Canadian Forces School of Military Intelligence (CFSMI), located at Canadian Forces Base Kingston, to attend QL5A core phase of training.* In consultation with CFSMI and the Intelligence Branch, INT OPs will determine during this phase what environmental sub-occupation best meets the needs of the Intelligence Branch and their own. After completing the core phase and cross-environmental training, INT OPs will be trained according to their assigned environment*. 

Advanced Qualifications 

The QL6A course is a pre-requisite for promotion to Sergeant/Petty Officer 2nd Class. *Like the QL5A, the QL6A course contains a core and cross-environmental training followed by an environment-specific phase. INT OPs in need of training in another environment will be considered on a case-by-case basis.* 


_My_ take on this is that even though you requested Navy Int Op, the CFSMI and the Branch have already decided that Army Int Op would be better since you are already coming from a Combat Arms background.


----------



## holmessean (25 Nov 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Having read the thread, I have one question.  What is the reference that states what the CF policy is surrounding this?  There must be a DAOD, CFAO, etc on this, authorizing it, if they are doing it.
> 
> I am split in the middle on it.  If the CT offer said "this MOC, this DEU" and the mbr accepted that, I think the mbr is in his/her rights to want to retain that DEU.
> 
> ...



Actually navy int ops are no longer employable where army int ops are employable and vice versa now. There are navy int ops in 2EW however they completed thier course 2003 or before when it was still by defination a "purple" trade. The courses are no longer run with army, navy, air all on the same course anymore. I will be put on an army course if I'm army and navy course if I'm navy, and if I complete the navy course I will be posted to a coast or possibly Ottawa. Now on my offer letter it CLEARLY stated Int Op SEA and on my posting message it clearly stated Int Op SEA, which means I will wear a Navy uniform and complete the NAVY course. That is what I signed for, and if it waspossible for me to be swtiched I should have been informed BEFORE I signed it! Int Op SEA was my TOS and not ARMY. It seems pretty clear that the line of thinking was to get this guy in and then switch him to Army, as I was told I my career manager was swtiching me to army the day I arrived in Kingston.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Nov 2008)

IMHO, it would seem you have a valid issue for grievance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> IMHO, it would seem you have a valid issue for grievance.



Agreed.  (based on the assumption that the info provided is correct and current.  I can not confirm that it is.)

First question...did you recieve a memo or msg stating you are changing DEU/environment or was it done verbally?  If verbally, ask for it in writing is my first thought.

Now I know a bunch of people will say "oh don't do that" but my advice is to request (first verbally, and then if 'no dice' in a memo), the reference to the CF policy that states the CF can do that (do not make it "the Career Manager", as he/she doesn't own the CF policy, so don't direct it at anyone person, keep it to "the CF" type wording).

This will do a few things:

1.  start a paper trail; 
2.  it may solve the problem, as your CoC may see there is no grounds for them to do this and stop it;
3.  you may find out that the CF IS authorized to do this which would stop you from making an arse out of yourself;
4.  you may find out the CF is NOT supposed to be doing this, but moving forward with it, and then, if you want, you can request a sit-down with your CoC to present your case verbally.  If that goes no where, you have the option of a grievance.
5.  your paper trail of supporting documents will begin with your CT offer message and the *contract* you signed the day of your CT, and I strongly recommend you pick a good Assisting Member who knows the paperwork side to help you put your grievance into the proper format.  In your grievnace, you will have to name SPECIFIC outcomes you are requesting, so make sure you consider those carefully if it comes to that point.

The overall point here is, you are looking initially to see if there is a policy stating clearly they can/can not do this.  Simple.

Just because the "Career Manager" says so does NOT make it golden.  The CF policy governs, and the CM is bound to that, like every other member of the CF.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2008)

holmessean said:
			
		

> .......... The courses are no longer run with army, navy, air all on the same course anymore. I will be put on an army course if I'm army and navy course if I'm navy, ............



You are wrong.  If you look up above, you will see that the Distant Learning portion is 10 days and the CORE is 72 days.  All INT OPs in training will do these crses.  It is only the last portion, the Environmental that is divided down to Elements.  In the Crse of the Training, the Branch will decide where it wants to place its emphasis on what Element.  




			
				holmessean said:
			
		

> .......... Now on my offer letter it CLEARLY stated Int Op SEA and on my posting message it clearly stated Int Op SEA, which means I will wear a Navy uniform and complete the NAVY course. That is what I signed for, and if it waspossible for me to be swtiched I should have been informed BEFORE I signed it! Int Op SEA was my TOS and not ARMY. It seems pretty clear that the line of thinking was to get this guy in and then switch him to Army, as I was told I my career manager was swtiching me to army the day I arrived in Kingston.



Did you bother to ask, when you signed?  And if so, did you get the answer in writing?  

I'm sorry, but obviously you don't yet understand that the CF will place you where they need you the most.

As is, and as you are not yet on Crse, you are about to find that the QL5A has drastically changed.  Along with that, are other changes.  You have been caught up in "bad timing".  

As for all the "Barrackroom Lawyers" giving advice, I would advise you to think very carefully about what they say.  It may just alienate you from the Branch and end up with nothing but negative results; not in your favour.  As a CT into a very small Trade, you do not want to burn any bridges before they have been built.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for all the "Barrackroom Lawyers" giving advice, I would advise you to think very carefully about what they say.  It may just alienate you from the Branch and end up with nothing but negative results; not in your favour.  As a CT into a very small Trade, you do not want to burn any bridges before they have been built.



I hope you are including yourself in that 'barrackroom lawyer' group.  I've yet to see you (or anyone else, for that matter) produce an actual CF policy reference, which certainly would help to clear this one up and put it to bed now, wouldn't it.  The point?  Without a reference as that says "the CF can switch your DEU" or vice versa, this debat of opinions can go on for pages.

It seems that if someone says something to the contrary of your advice, they are 'barrackroom laywers'.  My advice is find out what the policy says.  Simple.  Once he/she finds out the official CF policy, they can then decide what to do, or how far they want to take it.  

I've presented (some) of the options available based on the OP believing the CF is wronging them, and in a manner where they MAY resolve their own questions if their MCpl/Sgt were to show them on paper the CF policy or directive or whatever.  Why would I do that?  Because it falls in the "lowest level possible" catagory, and it may very well answer the OPs question/problem/concern.

I fail to see how that is not good advice.

I agree on the point, somewhat, about the "making a name for yourself in the branch' idea, as much as that crap irks the sh*t out of me.


----------



## medaid (25 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> INT is one Trade.  The Navy guys can also confirm another point..........There is no Navy INT OP.  There are Navy INT O's.  There are NESOPs and NAVCOMs, both of which are different Trades from INT.



I can confirm that. There are no Navy INT OPs.


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Nov 2008)

> the reference to the CF policy that states the CF can do that (do not make it "the Career Manager"




Could perhaps CFAO 11-12 apply?

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/011-12_e.asp



> TYPES OF OCCUPATION TRANSFERS3.     OTs are categorized as:  Compulsory, Voluntary, MOC Reassignments and
> Career Progression Occupation Transfers.
> 4.     Compulsory.  This category refers to cases where members must leave
> their current MOC because of:
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2008)

BW7,

I looked thru that one too but...the mbr is not being told he/she is changing MOCs (will still be an Int Op)...

I looked thru ADM (HR-MIL) 05/05 as I was sure it would be there but...eitehr I didn't see it or its not there.


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Nov 2008)

Well, looking in CFPAS, seemed that all the INT OP MOSIDs were the same, just different sub-category....so technically, they're not changing his occupation, so they could use that reasoning that they are not actually changing his MOS, just his element. Which is something we've seen in other trades.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Nov 2008)

I found this under the same CFAO (emphasis mine):



> CF ENVIRONMENTAL UNIFORMS22.    Members may indicate their preference for environmental uniform
> assignment at Part 1 of the application form when seeking voluntary OT to
> MOCs accoutered in more than one environmental uniform.  *Environmental
> uniform assignment will be actioned by the applicable CM based upon the
> ...



I think the *real* issue at hand is that the OP signed a contract/TOS stating their environment would be Navy and that is no longer the case.

Info here may apply.


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Nov 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I found this under the same CFAO (emphasis mine):
> 
> I think the *real* issue at hand is that the OP signed a contract/TOS stating their environment would be Navy and that is no longer the case.



I can understand the frustration, but that CFAO seems clear. Your job isn't based on Environment, but on MOC/MOSID, and his isn't changing.

However, your Ref does give the CM the Authority.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Well, looking in CFPAS, seemed that all the INT OP MOSIDs were the same, just different sub-category....so technically, they're not changing his occupation, so they could use that reasoning that they are not actually changing his MOS, just his element. Which is something we've seen in other trades.



Yes and, most people don't seem to have an issue with it once they wrap their head around the "purple" concept.

To compare it to something in our world, its like someone being told they are CTing to ATIS Tech, then getting to CFSCE and told they are now an LCIS Tech.  Sorta.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I think the *real* issue at hand is that the OP signed a contract/TOS stating their environment would be Navy and that is no longer the case.



Yes, and I am wondering about the process now between CFRG and DMCARM, does the CM shop see the offer before it goes out?  You'd almost believe like the offer was made, then the CM shop went "dammit!" and changed it to fill his/her actual requirements.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing...


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Nov 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> To compare it to something in our world, its like someone being told they are CTing to ATIS Tech, then getting to CFSCE and told they are now an LCIS Tech.  Sorta.



I dunno, I see it more being like the new trade. Join as a CIST-LINEMAN, and CM says, nope, now you're a CIST-IS OP. Same MOSID, different sub-category. Which I can absolutely see happening.

Never hurts to exhaust all lines of questioning, but in the end, I see it being, this is what you're gonna be.


----------



## twistedcables (25 Nov 2008)

INT O's serve where they are told to serve.  This is the Canadian Forces not Navy forces or Air forces or Army forces.


----------



## medaid (25 Nov 2008)

I stil think this is quite drawn out considering there IS no Navy Int OP MOC!the only INT the Navy has are Int Os.

MAYBE, just MAYBE that they finally realised that they made a mistake. A BIG boo boo, and fixed it. Realising that *gasp* Int OP (N) does not exist, well what do we do? Well Int OP (Army) exists, let's give him THAT instead!


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

I am still of the opinion that this member has gotten screwed.  I do not buy into this BS that you go where you are told ect...  When we all chose our trades, we have some reasonable idea as to where in Canada that may place us and what our jobs overseas entail.  What some of you fail to realize is that this member, and the rest of us, and everyone else for that matter has a life outside of the military and that IS important to them, justifiably so.  The original poster seems to be very concerned about where he is posted because he states repeatedly Navy Int Ops are usually on a coast or in Ottawa, I dont know if that is true or not, but if it is, becoming an Army Int Op could screw up whatever plans he may have had.

This is not the CF of the 1950s anymore folks.  We are becoming a victim of our own recruiting success.  What I mean by this is that we are recruiting members who are increasingly more educated, dynamic and intelligent then ever before which I think is great.  But that also means that these same recruits are also VERY employable elsewhere and if we do not make resonable, and the operative word here is resonable, efforts to keep our people happy we are going to lose them.  Nobody wants to be miserable for the rest of their life doing a job they dont want to do.  The great thing about the CF is you get to chose what job you are applying for and accepting.  There is obviously some grey area in the case of Int Ops and in my opinion unacceptable grey area that needs to be sorted out.

As in many cases this becomes a leadership issue.  The whole idea of a member signing on as an Int Op and then the branch deciding during your training what element you will serve in sounds alot to me like the higher ups dont have their shit together and as a result need to make last minute decisions about where to put people.

Either way, I think the advise to create a paper trail is good advice.  Were not talking about the member behaving inapropriately or unprofessionally, were talking about him taking legitimate steps to bring his concerns to a resulotion.  George is right to a certain extent, the Int world is a small world and burning bridges is a bad idea, but I dont see this as burning bridges.  The other side of the coin is that because its a small world, people will know who can perform and who cannot perform.  Make sure you are one of those that can perform and that will demand respect regardless of what your favorite colour happens to be.

Either way though, at the end of the day there are worse things then being an Army Int Op, it is not a bad job.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I stil think this is quite drawn out considering there IS no Navy Int OP MOC!the only INT the Navy has are Int Os.
> 
> MAYBE, just MAYBE that they finally realised that they made a mistake. A BIG boo boo, and fixed it. Realising that *gasp* Int OP (N) does not exist, well what do we do? Well Int OP (Army) exists, let's give him THAT instead!



Int Op Army does not exist either actually.  The only thing that does exist is Int Op.  Even on the recruiting that is all it says. 

But you are right, its possible he is still going to get his element, maybe they just changed the paper around.  It will be much better when stupid mistakes like this stop being made.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2008)

From here.

Basic Qualification
Successful applicants will be sent to the Canadian Forces School of Military Intelligence (CFSMI), located at Canadian Forces Base Kingston, to attend QL5A core phase of training.  In consultation with CFSMI and the Intelligence Branch, INT OPs will determine during this phase what environmental sub-occupation best meets the needs of the Intelligence Branch and their own. After completing the core phase and cross-environmental training, INT OPs will be trained according to their assigned environment.

I don't see how CFRG could pump out an offer promising an environmental sub-occupation prior to the member even arriving in CFSMI.  If they did include it on the OP's offer, they messed up IAW with this says.  However, he/she has it on paper (assuming the info they are providing is correct and true) for navy DEU and sub-occupation.  IMO, the msg normally would say "DEU - Navy, to be finalized during MOC training and subject to reassignment" or something like that.

Knowing of the screw-up between CFRG and CFSCE with my own CT, it wouldn't phase me at all to believe CFRG jumped the gun and what the OP states he/she has in in their CT offer is factual.  It would also likely be on the CT 'contract' (whatever that was that was signed on the day of CT) the same as mine was, which included my DEU, MOC, and even my position number at my first posting.  

That document is signed by the member and a witness, who has to be a Commissioned Officer in the CF, and should reside on the mb'rs Pers File.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Nov 2008)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> What I mean by this is that we are recruiting members who are increasingly more educated, dynamic and intelligent then ever before which I think is great.



Thats what i keep being told. Thats what i keep hearing. However, i have yet to actualy see it.

The recruiting forum on this site is proof enough that the "more educated, dynamic and intelligent" argument is a nice demographic theory rather than reality.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thats what i keep being told. Thats what i keep hearing. However, i have yet to actualy see it.
> 
> The recruiting forum on this site is proof enough that the "more educated, dynamic and intelligent" argument is a nice demographic theory rather than reality.



I think you are being a bit too cynical with your post here.  We both know that the vast majority of guys posting there are not in the CF nor will they ever be.  Lots of posers on the internet.  As for the others, there are alot of very young inexperienced people posting.  Geez if I were 17 again I would probably sound like a complete idiot too.  But alas I cant speak for the entire CF of course, but based on the 4 years I spent in the Intelligence world I still argue that my above point holds true in that branch.  There are of course some notable exceptions but the vast majority of them seemed pretty solid to me when I was in Kingston teaching, and im pretty anal about that sort of thing.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (25 Nov 2008)

And I think that just about wraps it up.  Lots of pages posted, lots of back and forth, now spiralling.

The original poster has had plenty of air time on his beef and others got to post their views.

Unless there is something spectacularly logical, engaging or valuable to add, this one is *locked*. 

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------

