# use of cadet ranks



## bLUE fOX

Hey All,

I was wondering if anyone here knows the official policy (with referances) for the use of cadet ranks in official documents? I was under the notion that all cadet ranks are to be prefaced with Cdt. I am being told this is incorrect, but want i want to be safe. Any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers


----------



## JorgSlice

Start the document with "Cadet Sergeant" for example, and then in the body of the letter/document you can abbreviate it down to C/Sergeant or C/Sgt.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Do you have a reference for this at all?
Thank you


----------



## JorgSlice

Not sure if there's a reference but I have 6 years worth of documents and reference letters and certificates all printed with "Cadet Corporal/Warrant Officer/RSM" etc.


----------



## George Wallace

Get the manual on Military Writing.  It will explain when and how to use titles and salutations, how to format paragraphs, etc.


----------



## dogger1936

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> Do you have a reference for this at all?
> Thank you



that right there made me shed a tear. This here above is what ALL CIC officers should be doing. Reference or it isnt real.



			
				JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Not sure if there's a reference but I have 6 years worth of documents and reference letters and certificates all printed with "Cadet Corporal/Warrant Officer/RSM" etc.



This above is an opinion and nothing else until a reference is found or written.

Thank you Bluefox;  this made my night.

Keep it up; your youth program needs more of it.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Get the manual on Military Writing.  It will explain when and how to use titles and salutations, how to format paragraphs, etc.



There is no longer such manual.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There is no longer such manual.



Tell that to the people down in Borden


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Tell that to the people down in Borden



They should know. CFP 121 died an inglorious death quite some time ago. The CFSAL QL6A aide-memoire i use references it, however.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Dogger: I appreciate the sentiment, but it's a cya thing. Nothing I hate more then saying something's right, and then finding out I'm actually an idiot.

George Wallace: I think Cdn Aviator is right. The closest I could find to this manual was the Resource Management Support Clerk Apprentice Training Military Writing Guide. Although this is an excellent resource, it does not at all give a list of titles or abbreviations, but instead refers to the Canadian Forces Manual of Abbreviations. The only reference to the use of the word "cadet" in ranks in that manual is for officer and naval cadets.

Presently I am at Penhold ACSTC, and the Admin O I deal with here is both new, and is uncertain if we have any of those manuals kicking about the office, and at previous cadet units I've paraded with, it's never really been a concern, but now that I interact daily with cadet and actual warrant officers, i feel it's important to make that distinction in any of my writing.

Thank you all for your input.

Cheers


----------



## aesop081

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> I think Cdn Aviator is right.



I am.


----------



## JorgSlice

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> that right there made me shed a tear. This here above is what ALL CIC officers should be doing. Reference or it isnt real.
> 
> This above is an opinion and nothing else until a reference is found or written.
> 
> Thank you Bluefox;  this made my night.
> 
> Keep it up; your youth program needs more of it.



Opinion how? I said "I don't know if there is a reference" and you'd think it was common sense, that when putting together documents relating to the world of Cadets, you'd distinguish full-CF members and cadets by the prefix "Cadet", "Cdt." or "C/". Documents going to the outside would generally just use the name of cadet with prefix "Mr./Ms."

QR (Cadets) - Table to Article 7.15 sure seems to outline this. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Pusser

An old copy of QR (Cadets) seen at http://airdriecadets.com/docs/Supplemental%20References/QR%20(Cadets)%20Complete%5B1%5D.pdf, says the following:

4.11 - CADET RANKS
The ranks to which cadets may be appointed are:

(a) Sea Cadets

Chief Petty Officer Cadet, 1st Class
Chief Petty Officer Cadet, 2nd Class
Petty Officer Cadet, 1st Class
Petty Officer Cadet, 2nd Class
Leading Cadet
Able Cadet
Ordinary Cadet

(b) Army Cadets

Cadet Chief Warrant Officer
Cadet Master Warrant Officer
Cadet Warrant Officer
Cadet Sergeant
Cadet Master Corporal
Cadet Corporal
Cadet  Lance Corporal
Cadet

(c) Air Cadets

Cadet Warrant Officer. Class 1
Cadet Warrant Officer, Class 2
Cadet Flight Sergeant
Cadet Sergeant
Cadet Corporal
Leading Air Cadet
Air Cadet. (1 9 Jun 85)

Yes, I'm aware that this is outdated and that some ranks have in fact changed and others have been added.  However, this likely answers the OP's actual question and a quick look at a current copy of QR(Cadets) 4.11 will confirm it.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They should know. CFP 121 died an inglorious death quite some time ago. The CFSAL QL6A aide-memoire i use references it, however.




Interesting that they publish the "Coles Notes" handouts "Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics, Resource Management Support Clerk Apprentice Training, Military Writing Guide" using as a Reference: A-AD-121-CO/FP-000 Staff and Writing Procedures.  Last ammended 2008-10-23.

 :-\


----------



## dogger1936

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Opinion how? I said "I don't know if there is a reference" and you'd think it was common sense, that when putting together documents relating to the world of Cadets, you'd distinguish full-CF members and cadets by the prefix "Cadet", "Cdt." or "C/". Documents going to the outside would generally just use the name of cadet with prefix "Mr./Ms."
> 
> QR (Cadets) - Table to Article 7.15 sure seems to outline this. But I could be wrong.



When asked a question and a response is "thats how we always did it" doesnt make something correct. Using terms such as " I seen it done this way" is nothing more than opinion.

When a question is posed in the Cadet organisation many times people use examples as you did to validate something. It's nothing more than your opinion on how things are suppose to be.

An answer to factual direction such as what Pusser posted is an answer.

It's good to see CIC questioning stuff and looking for answers. Not personal opinions.


----------



## Strike

Pusser said:
			
		

> An old copy of QR (Cadets) seen at http://airdriecadets.com/docs/Supplemental%20References/QR%20(Cadets)%20Complete%5B1%5D.pdf, says the following:
> 
> 4.11 - CADET RANKS
> The ranks to which cadets may be appointed are:
> 
> (a) Sea Cadets
> 
> Chief Petty Officer Cadet, 1st Class
> Chief Petty Officer Cadet, 2nd Class
> Petty Officer Cadet, 1st Class
> Petty Officer Cadet, 2nd Class
> Leading Cadet
> Able Cadet
> Ordinary Cadet
> 
> (b) Army Cadets
> 
> Cadet Chief Warrant Officer
> Cadet Master Warrant Officer
> Cadet Warrant Officer
> Cadet Sergeant
> Cadet Master Corporal
> Cadet Corporal
> Cadet  Lance Corporal
> Cadet
> 
> (c) Air Cadets
> 
> Cadet Warrant Officer. Class 1
> Cadet Warrant Officer, Class 2
> Cadet Flight Sergeant
> Cadet Sergeant
> Cadet Corporal
> Leading Air Cadet
> Air Cadet. (1 9 Jun 85)
> 
> Yes, I'm aware that this is outdated and that some ranks have in fact changed and others have been added.  However, this likely answers the OP's actual question and a quick look at a current copy of QR(Cadets) 4.11 will confirm it.



As Pusser's reference may be out of date, here is something to add on to it:

http://www.termiumplus.gc.ca/tcdnstyl-chap?lang=eng&lettr=chapsect1&info0=1.07

It is the reference to Canadian Writing Style used by media regarding abbreviations.  The abbreviation of Officer Cadet, in DND writing, is OCdt, so one can infer that the abbreviation for Cadet when dealing with cadet ranks (be they before or after the rank) would be Cdt.

Hope thins helps.


----------



## George Wallace

Strike said:
			
		

> As Pusser's reference may be out of date, here is something to add on to it:
> 
> http://www.termiumplus.gc.ca/tcdnstyl-chap?lang=eng&lettr=chapsect1&info0=1.07
> 
> It is the reference to Canadian Writing Style used by media regarding abbreviations.  The abbreviation of Officer Cadet, in DND writing, is OCdt, so one can infer that the abbreviation for Cadet when dealing with cadet ranks (be they before or after the rank) would be Cdt.
> 
> Hope thins helps.



According to your link, Officer Cadet would not be abbreviated if used in "non-DND writing".

If you go to MANUAL OF ABBREVIATIONS, A-AD-121-F01/JX-000  you will find that the abbreviation for Cadet is indeed cdt.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting that they publish the "Coles Notes" handouts "Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics, Resource Management Support Clerk Apprentice Training, Military Writing Guide" using as a Reference: A-AD-121-CO/FP-000 Staff and Writing Procedures.  Last ammended 2008-10-23.
> 
> :-\



Yes, i know. I mentioned that already.

I do a metric shyte ton of writing at work. All i go by is the CFSAL A-M as CFP-121 "Staff and Writing Procedures" is dead.

On a related note, the Feb 2012 version of the CFSAL "cole's notes" sucks compared to the previous version.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sidebar

is it true that the rank of private was removed from the cadet rank structure because it was too "military like"?


----------



## dogger1936

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Sidebar
> 
> is it true that the rank of private was removed from the cadet rank structure because it was too "military like"?



Yup.
CHANGES TO CADET RANK

The following Bulletin is sent on behalf of LCol Christian Bergeron, D Cdts 4 (Program Delivery) and Senior Staff Officer - Army Cadets, Directorate of Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers

Greetings;

Over the past months, discussions took place to consider a change of designation for the rank of soldat/private used by Army Cadets. The argument for this change was brought forward by Eastern Region because the word soldat carries a significance which, in English, would mean SOLDIER. Given that we are trying to avoid situations where cadets might be perceived to be soldiers, a decision was made to consult all regions about a potential change of designation in both French and English. The feedback received for the change of the French version was unanimous in support. The feedback received in support of the English version was not unanimous for or against. 

As SSO Army cadets, I am announcing that the CATO 13-02 Cadets promotions will be amended to read that the ranks of soldat/private will now become the ranks of lance-caporal/Lance Corporal. This decision will be effective in September 09 when the new training season starts. CATO 13-02 will be amended in the near future.

•	Lance-Corporal becomes the official Army Cadet rank.

The following denominations will be considered acceptable at the corps level:

•	Sapper, in observance to the historical and regimental significance the Engineer Branch of the Cdn Army; 
•	Trooper, in observance to the historical and regimental significance the Armoured Branch of the Cdn Army;
•	Gunner, in observance to the historical and regimental significance the Artillery Branch of the Cdn Army; 
•	Guardsman, in observance to the historical and regimental significance Guards Regts of the Cdn Army;
•	Highlander, in observance to the historical and regimental significance Highland Regts of the Cdn Army; 
•	Any other nomenclature used as Canadian Forces customs and traditions may dictate;
•	The rank of Private can still be used in observance to the historical affiliation with the Canadian Army. 


Edit to add: CATO 13-02 has been changed


----------



## bLUE fOX

Thank you all for your responses, they have been very helpful. To bad about the RS Clerk apprentice training writing guide. I found it to be an excellent resource as well. Certainly easier to follow then the package I received form RCIS Central.


----------



## Spartan

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Yup.
> CHANGES TO CADET RANK
> 
> The following Bulletin is sent on behalf of LCol Christian Bergeron, D Cdts 4 (Program Delivery) and Senior Staff Officer - Army Cadets, Directorate of Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers
> 
> Greetings;
> 
> Over the past months, discussions took place to consider a change of designation for the rank of soldat/private used by Army Cadets. The argument for this change was brought forward by Eastern Region because the word soldat carries a significance which, in English, would mean SOLDIER. Given that we are trying to avoid situations where cadets might be perceived to be soldiers, a decision was made to consult all regions about a potential change of designation in both French and English. The feedback received for the change of the French version was unanimous in support. The feedback received in support of the English version was not unanimous for or against.
> 
> As SSO Army cadets, I am announcing that the CATO 13-02 Cadets promotions will be amended to read that the ranks of soldat/private will now become the ranks of lance-caporal/Lance Corporal. This decision will be effective in September 09 when the new training season starts. CATO 13-02 will be amended in the near future.
> 
> •	Lance-Corporal becomes the official Army Cadet rank.
> 
> The following denominations will be considered acceptable at the corps level:
> 
> •	Sapper, in observance to the historical and regimental significance the Engineer Branch of the Cdn Army;
> •	Trooper, in observance to the historical and regimental significance the Armoured Branch of the Cdn Army;
> •	Gunner, in observance to the historical and regimental significance the Artillery Branch of the Cdn Army;
> •	Guardsman, in observance to the historical and regimental significance Guards Regts of the Cdn Army;
> •	Highlander, in observance to the historical and regimental significance Highland Regts of the Cdn Army;
> •	Any other nomenclature used as Canadian Forces customs and traditions may dictate;
> •	The rank of Private can still be used in observance to the historical affiliation with the Canadian Army.
> 
> 
> Edit to add: CATO 13-02 has been changed



What about the fact that they are the Royal Canadian ARMY cadets?


----------



## dogger1936

Spartan said:
			
		

> What about the fact that they are the Royal Canadian ARMY cadets?



And somehow Gunner doesn't offend but private does....

The program has been gutted over the past few years and replaced. It no longer looks like army cadets and infact wanted to move towards "adventurist expedition esque training vice "Army".

The old style army cadets of the 80's-90's is no longer the case. It is a neutered program and not what most parents remember.


----------



## JorgSlice

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> When asked a question and a response is "thats how we always did it" doesnt make something correct. Using terms such as " I seen it done this way" is nothing more than opinion.
> 
> When a question is posed in the Cadet organisation many times people use examples as you did to validate something. It's nothing more than your opinion on how things are suppose to be.
> 
> An answer to factual direction such as what Pusser posted is an answer.
> 
> It's good to see CIC questioning stuff and looking for answers. Not personal opinions.



I referenced QR (Cadets) Table to Article 7.15 which was supported by Pusser's post of QR (Cadets) Article 4.11 which in both, support my statement of "Cadet" and "Cdt." prefixes when addressing cadet ranks in document (or at any time really).

I said "I don't know if there's reference" and simply made note that I have 6yrs worth of documentation, both official and unofficial, with prefixes as above. Then, I proceeded to delve into the sea of PAMs and found a QR (Cadets) that is applicable and referenced it here. Later, another poster also confirmed my research (albeit with a different article) using QR (Cadets).

But hey, if you feel it's opinion, whatever floats your boat.


Note: Not claiming credit for anything.


----------



## dogger1936

Ok let me break this right down for you.

CIC out at the corp level are getting 4 half days pay as month to run a youth program. Each CIC captain at Det level are making a tough living on in $76 357. That alone should provide a reason for CIC's at det's should feel the need to HELP the corps. 

CIC at corp levels deserve answers. "I don't know if there's reference." Is considered an answer within the CIC and promotes nothing but incorrect information half the time. 

Every Capt "working" at Det level is pulling in near 80 grand a year. They owe the CO's in the communities answers. There seems to be a disconnect at det level where they forget without the corp CO's working their butts off there would be no youth in the program and they would be out of a very well paying job.


----------



## my72jeep

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> And somehow Gunner doesn't offend but private does....
> 
> The program has been gutted over the past few years and replaced. It no longer looks like army cadets and infact wanted to move towards "adventurist expedition esque training vice "Army".
> 
> The old style army cadets of the 80's-90's is no longer the case. It is a neutered program and not what most parents remember.


And that Dogger is the issue, the rank and file CIC at the unit level can see this. this new direction is coming from DCadets. It is the brain dead idea of a few people with to much time and little IQ's.


----------



## dogger1936

my72jeep said:
			
		

> And that Dogger is the issue, the rank and file CIC at the unit level can see this. this new direction is coming from DCadets. It is the brain dead idea of a few people with to much time and little IQ's.



I know brother!

Having personally known a couple of the "writing board" who developed this million dollar new project; it doesn't surprise me that it's SNAFU. Instead of trialing it at a unit or two they pushed this new course down to the corp level (albeit without the thought that corps need the equipment to facilitate the new program). I have heard nothing but complaints about the program at corp level and nothing but praise about it at the det.

It has officially sucked any interesting "army" type things out of the program that these kid's are joining for.

There are only two corps here that are doing excellent. Funny thing was I was warned about these corps with laughs and eye rolls at the det before conducting my SAV there. I could give their staff and kids nothing but praise when I seen them. I wrote up an excellent report putting them number 1 in the province....however the det commander doesnt bother to fill in his portion of the SAV report so nothing get's passed on anyway....making the ACA job moot anyway.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Each CIC captain at Det level are making a tough living on in $76 357.



I'm speechless.


----------



## dogger1936

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm speechless.



We have Capt's here who aside from their 30 or so days (total) training have no education to speak of. They are buddies with the B class clique and will retire on a Capt's pension moving from job to job in the det and maybe finishing off their careers at regional level retiring as a Maj. 

The overhead in this program is staggering. 

CIC shouldn't be retiring with a Canadian forces pension higher than that of regular force members regardless of rank. CIC in the communities would never accumulate enough pensionable time due to paid days; however there are many people making a full time career off the CIC. Many people are not aware of that.


----------



## Northalbertan

Hey, I fully expect my reserve force pension to cover the cost of my cigarettes, or maybe a case of beer per month.   We are way off topic here though and perhaps this discussion should take place in another thread.

Northalbertan


----------



## PJGary

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> The feedback received in support of the English version was not unanimous *for or against*.



Am I the only person who finds it hilarious they had to clarify that?  :facepalm:


----------



## cicdude

First, I'm aware that this thread fizzled out ages ago. However, I feel as though I have an obligation to reply because the posts were tainted with misinformation and nefarious generalizations. I'm sure I won't win this war, but I feel obligated to at least reply.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> CIC out at the corp level are getting 4 half days pay as month to run a youth program. Each CIC captain at Det level are making a tough living on in $76 357. That alone should provide a reason for CIC's at det's should feel the need to HELP the corps.



CIC at corps level are paid up to 25 days per year (the CO up to 35) [Ref: CATO 21-03]. So that's roughly 2.5 (3.5) days per month. Additional pay for attending courses, regionally-directed activities, CSTC work, or "specialist" days for work with other units are extra. As people may be aware, officers often work well above their 25 days in a volunteer capacity (such as supervising cadets during the Legion's poppy campaign, coaching marksmanship teams and drill teams, band, etc.).

CIC at Det-level are paid the same as any other Capt on Class B. Many full-time Det and HQ staff _are_ actually helpful at the corps level. They don't just plop in anyone to most of these jobs; these people have experience working within the CCO. There are some derps/derpinas here and there, just like in any organization with internal politics.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> CIC at corp levels deserve answers. "I don't know if there's reference." Is considered an answer within the CIC and promotes nothing but incorrect information half the time.



No, that's not considered acceptable "within the CIC". That's called laziness, and it's rampant everywhere in society.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> We have Capt's here who aside from their 30 or so days (total) training have no education to speak of. They are buddies with the B class clique and will retire on a Capt's pension moving from job to job in the det and maybe finishing off their careers at regional level retiring as a Maj.
> 
> The overhead in this program is staggering.
> 
> CIC shouldn't be retiring with a Canadian forces pension higher than that of regular force members regardless of rank. CIC in the communities would never accumulate enough pensionable time due to paid days; however there are many people making a full time career off the CIC. Many people are not aware of that.



The majority of CIC officers whom I work with at the corps level and CSTC have completed post-secondary education or are currently pursuing it. Many of the CIC officers I know work as teachers, police officers, nurses, adult and youth corrections officers, engineers, and IT programmers. I'm not just spouting that off as the politically correct response, it's true.  There certainly  some who are factory workers or labourers too, but they often have experience as a cadet, parent, or other related youth work experience. The notion that most CIC do not have any education is false, but is perpetuated by the occasional goober who doesn't know what he or she knows and doesn't know. The CIC has a fair share of "late joiners" who enroll, but most those I know are in their 40s and have lots of work and family experience that make them valuable to the program, often after volunteering for quite some time.

If the CAF were to provide all CIC officers with the same training as PRes an infantry officer, it would simply be wasteful. The 30 (or so) days of training readies the person to take on additional, informal, on-the-job training with cadets. They don't just take people off the street and make them a Capt and send them to Det. In order to get these full-time jobs you compete  with others who have many years experience working with various parts of the program.

You're right that the pension is out of reach at the corps level (without CSTC employment). But is this not the same for most PRes members?

The question about whether people know about the full-time career types is interesting. There are politics and cliques within every organization, and I've heard many stories from PRes friends about the politics within their own units. Within the CIC, I would say most are aware that these types exist. Many of the people working full-time do it for the right reasons and aren't just there to collect their paycheque, but of course that is a generalization. There's dead weight in every organization.


----------



## Franko

The area in which dogger1936 was speaking of was in NLFD. 

This is what he experienced directly and what he observed.

Regards


----------

