# "Master Corporals" - Merged Thread



## warrickdll (25 Feb 2006)

I tried this question out a short while back in Offr-NCO-NCM Relationships (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1268/post-341211/topicseen.html#msg341211) but there weren't any takers. Here it is again, slightly modified:


It has been pointed out that in different locations MCpls have had their own separate places away from the troops while in most locations they do not.  This -extra messing- would seem to indicate that the CF is unsure on how the MCpl fits into the structural rank/social relationship. 

Keeping in mind that a lot of information and experience can be passed along in the semi-social conditions of a mess:

 - Given that Officers do not have a split like this while NCOs do, is there a better way? 

 - Should there be an NCO mess instead of a Senior NCO mess? 

 - If not, then could the same reasons for keeping the section 2ic separate from the Senior NCOs also be applied to the section commander (as in – should there just be a WO mess)? 

 - Or is something everyone thinks Hellyer got right?


Note: This is not about renaming MCpls or any other rank, and this is not about changing their duties at all.


----------



## PiperDown (26 Feb 2006)

The reason Mcpls have their own mess at some bases could be a  frat issue.  These bases are training establishments, and MCpl is usually the first rank at which an NCO becomes an instructor. Now, the MCpls are not yet senior NCOs, so the cant be socializing at the Sgts and Wos mess.. And, some places frown upon the new recruits/students hanging out and drinking at the same mess as the people who are instructing them.. creates far too many problems.. Now, saying this.. There was a separate MCpls mess in Kingston 10 years or so ago, but there is no such thing there now.. But then again.. no one goes drinking there anymore anyway.. LOL..


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

Consider how officers manage this though – A 2Lt does not go to the Sgt & WO mess or the JRs. 

In which case, if given a slight nudge there seems to be a desire to separate the MCpls from the Cpl/Ptes, why not just rename the the Sgt & WO mess the NCO mess?


----------



## teltech (26 Feb 2006)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> The reason Mcpls have their own mess at some bases could be a  frat issue.  These bases are training establishments, and MCpl is usually the first rank at which an NCO becomes an instructor. Now, the MCpls are not yet senior NCOs, so the cant be socializing at the Sgts and Wos mess.. And, some places frown upon the new recruits/students hanging out and drinking at the same mess as the people who are instructing them.. creates far too many problems.. Now, saying this.. There was a separate MCpls mess in Kingston 10 years or so ago, but there is no such thing there now.. But then again.. no one goes drinking there anymore anyway.. LOL..



I was recently posted from the training centre in Meaford, and the Jr Ranks were indeed split - but the split was along the lines of "permanent staff (Pte to MCpl) - student" with the part time staff (i.e. reserve summer courses) using the "student" side of the mess. It was precisely to prevent fraternization that this was done, but as for a mess strictly by rank, no this wasn't the case. I haven't actually seen a "MCpls only" mess though - any takers?
As for no one drinking at the mess in Kingston... I resemble that remark! ;D


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2006)

Yes, I have seen MCpls Messes, but only where sustainable, such as Cyprus, or the North Marg.

No, an MCpl should be able to sort out his own way in 'Da Ranks'.  We all had to, and I had some nights in the ranks when I was glad there were no Sr NCOs or WOs around, believe me.

Anyhow, do you really think three messes is needed for ORs (sorry, NCMs) while the officers can get by with one?

A recruit officer (OCdt) gets to drink beside the Base Commander, a recruit Private does NOT get to drink beside the Base RSM, does he?

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (26 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> A recruit officer (OCdt) gets to drink beside the Base Commander, a recruit Private does NOT* get * to drink beside the Base RSM, does he?
> 
> Tom



"get" ?  ;D


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> No, an MCpl should be able to sort out his own way in 'Da Ranks'.  We all had to, and I had some nights in the ranks when I was glad there were no Sr NCOs or WOs around, believe me.
> Anyhow, do you really think three messes is needed for ORs (sorry, NCMs) while the officers can get by with one?
> A recruit officer (OCdt) gets to drink beside the Base Commander, a recruit Private does NOT get to drink beside the Base RSM, does he?



Not advocating a MCpl mess, just pondering why they should not be in the same one as WOs and Sgts. Take your example of the CO and the OCdt - now compare it to the RSM and a Mcpl - it doesn't seem too dissimilar.

And on the other hand if the section 2ic can sort out their way in The Ranks, why couldn't the section commander?


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2006)

"get?" - You know what I mean.

This is a centuries old system that has proven itself through time.  The only issue is a MCpl's Mess, and it is not economically feasable where it cannot be operated as a 'Rest Area".

If you put young, on the bounce, gung-ho, inebrieated MCpls in the same mess as their SSMs and RSMs, a lot of careers would be summed up right quick.


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> This is a centuries old system that has proven itself through time.  The only issue is a MCpl's Mess, and it is not economically feasable where it cannot be operated as a 'Rest Area".
> 
> If you put young, on the bounce, gung-ho, inebrieated MCpls in the same mess as their SSMs and RSMs, a lot of careers would be summed up right quick.



Again - Not advocating a MCpl mess

Only old if you only look at the rank-labels being used, consider:

-	UK (and other nations) a section commander/tank cc is labeled a Cpl
-	US  (and other nations) a section commander/tank cc is labeled a Staff Sgt
-	Canada (and other nations) a section commander/tank cc is labeled a Sgt

Leaving the lower rank, respectively LCpl, Sgt, and MCpl.
The tradition only exists regarding the labels not the actual functions or responsibilities.
Or to look at it another – what benefit is it to have a Sgt with the WOs in the mess? And couldn't the same logic be applied to a MCpl.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Feb 2006)

I haven't really been to our mess in years, but I have heard from some of the old-timers over the years that it used to be in our mess that the MCpls had their own tables in the mess - it wasn't anything formal, it just evolved that the MCpls would sit together.  I think at that time a lot of them were commanding sections due to shortages of Sgts - these were lean years for the reserves.  And it used to be if a corporal or private did well on an exercise, he would be invited over by the MCpls to sit with them for a drink - it was supposed to be quite an honour at the time.  I never saw anything like that myself but have always been in a support trade and kind of peripheral to how the infantrymen treated one another.  

I guess the point is that there would be nothing stopping MCpls in any particular unit from doing the same thing - establishing their own territory in the mess and enforcing their own rules, if it was something they really wanted to do.  Don't see a need for it myself, but that's from a CSS and reservist perspective.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2006)

MCpl is an appointment......not a rank. If it was a rank, they MAY be entitled to separate facilities, but it's not. They are Jr NCO's, same rank area as a Corporal. They do not belong in the Sgts' and WOs' Mess. The Sgts' and WOs' Mess is the only mess you have to earn your way into. The others you belong to just by joining the CF either as a Pte (JRs') or an Officer (Offrs' Mess).


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

Appointment/Rank - a technicality that is only as much as one wants to make it – just for the sake of this discussion let us treat it as substantive (and earned).

A Sgt has earned their way into the mess only in as much as the army started to label section commanders as Sgts. This change is about 30 years old now but the wheels didn’t go flying off the system just because the WOs & Sgts mess changed form having platoon 2ics and up, to having section commanders and up. If the new style Sgts could be accommodated couldn’t MCpls?

What does a Sgt get out of being in the Senior NCOs mess? What harm would it do the CF if they returned to the JR ranks?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2006)

For the sake of the discussion, let's not. Don't try make it something it's not. MCPL IS NOT A RANK.

Sgts got to their Mess by hard work and courses, not only by time in. Section Commanders are but one small, tiny entity. A megre percentage of the Sgts in the CF. The world, nor the CF is centred around those few individuals that are Section Commanders in the Infantry.


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

The equivalent is applicable. The earned part is in regards to the fact that the criteria has been changed before. The person known as a Sgt today holds the same duties as a person known as a Cpl at the time of unification – they earned the same rank – it is only called/labeled something else now.

Appointment, sure - but the discussion is the same.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (26 Feb 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> The equivalent is applicable. The earned part is in regards to the fact that the criteria has been changed before. The person known as a Sgt today holds the same duties as a person known as a Cpl at the time of unification – they earned the same rank – it is only called/labeled something else now.
> Appointment, sure - but the discussion is the same.



The eqivalent is not applicable.  Look beyond the combat arms.  Within the supply, transport, and ammo worlds most sections are run by MCpls.  As far as your equivalence with the British system is not completely accurate either.  Outside of the infantry, a lot of "section commander" appointments are at the Cpl level.  However, today the duties of a Sgt are much wider ranging.  Yes they may be an infantry section commander, but he may also be filling in for a long time as the battalion/regiment op WO, or run the clothing stores for the busiest training base in Canada.

The entire rank system has undergone a paradigm shift since unification and trying to apply pre-unification lables to current ranks is like putting square pegs in round holes.  Your proposal about a NCO's mess would be like allowing LCpls in the Sgts mess in a pre-unification environment.  After all LCpls were the section 2i/c, which is what MCpls are now.  I live and work with a British unit which is basically our pre-unification system that would not fly.

D


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The eqivalent is not applicable.  Look beyond the combat arms.  Within the supply, transport, and ammo worlds most sections are run by MCpls.  As far as your equivalence with the British system is not completely accurate either.  Outside of the infantry, a lot of "section commander" appointments are at the Cpl level.  However, today the duties of a Sgt are much wider ranging.  Yes they may be an infantry section commander, but he may also be filling in for a long time as the battalion/regiment op WO, or run the clothing stores for the busiest training base in Canada.



I’m getting bogged down in terminology soup of my own making…

-	1) many things are called a section and are not necessarily the same size or under someone of the same rank
-	2) many branches do not use the term section at all
-	3) some people not in the infantry still know what an infantry section is, and basically how it is organized
-	4) if someone does not fall under 3) then there is little I can do due to 1) and 2)



> The entire rank system has undergone a paradigm shift since unification and trying to apply pre-unification lables to current ranks is like putting square pegs in round holes.



And I am not trying to do that. All this stuff about sections and Sgts was to point out that the way it is now is not the way it has always been even though the names of the ranks may be the same.



> Your proposal about a NCO's mess would be like allowing LCpls in the Sgts mess in a pre-unification environment.  After all LCpls were the section 2i/c, which is what MCpls are now.



Yes, Thank-you. That is 1 of the 3 options. The others being a mess change in the opposite direction and the 3rd being status-quo.



> I live and work with a British unit which is basically our pre-unification system that would not fly.



Again, Thank-you. The question though is, based on your experience, why / why not?

This was not meant to be Infantry specific.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (26 Feb 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I’m getting bogged down in terminology soup of my own making…
> 
> -	1) many things are called a section and are not necessarily the same size or under someone of the same rank
> -	2) many branches do not use the term section at all
> ...



OK.  Well, lets define section, regardless of branch, as the smallest group of people usually employed to carry out a task.  So for a Rifle company, this would normally be a section.  For an ammo platoon it would be a warehouse team.  These could be broken down further, but then you are talking about a temporary measure.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> And I am not trying to do that. All this stuff about sections and Sgts was to point out that the way it is now is not the way it has always been even though the names of the ranks may be the same.



It all goes back to this quote of yours which may have made some people (or at least me) think you are view this from a very narrow perspective.



> This change is about 30 years old now but the wheels didn’t go flying off the system just because the WOs & Sgts mess changed form having platoon 2ics and up, to having section commanders and up. If the new style Sgts could be accommodated couldn’t MCpls?



The only place there was a real change was in the infantry and some other combat arms.  As noted a lot of organizations had Sgts as section commanders pre-uni.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Yes, Thank-you. That is 1 of the 3 options. The others being a mess change in the opposite direction and the 3rd being status-quo.



Going in the opposite direction would be somewhat similar to some US units I have worked with, who did not view US (Army) Sgts as Sr NCOs and they were relegated to corner of the mess while the Canadian Sgts were granted full status.  Of course US Sgts usually aren't in that rank too long.  It was not viewed as a good thing though, as it made the Sgts feel like a second class citizen.  I think that if you have to have a separate place for junior (note not Junior) NCOs then a "MCpls Club" is a better route than a "Sgts corner or room".

As much as I hate to say it, I think the status quo is good.  Canadian Sgts are usually quite a bit more mature (older) than US Sgts/SSgts and might not be at ease hanging out with Ptes and Cpls on a regular basis.  They usually have just as much TI, often more, and again the age comes up when working with the Brits.  This experience makes them accepted by the Brits in the Sgts mess even though they may doing the job of a British Cpl (and again, this generally only applies to Cbt Arms/Inf).  As well a Canadian Sgt would be employed in positions that a British Cpl would not be.  So the potential employment areas for a Canadian Sgt range from that of a Brit Cpl to a Brit SSgt.
As a slight aside the Brits put a lot of emphasis on rank you hold, not necessarily the duties you perform.  I am a Canadian WO, posted into the position of a British SSgt.  This around the right level.  But because I hold the rank of WO, I carry out the secondary duties normally assigned to WO1/WO2.  I cannot be a course sponsor because WOs do not do that, even though my colleagues (all Sgts/SSgts) do.  They are quite inflexible on that.  It is very similar to the picture painted for me of the pre-uni army buy the old and bold (sometimes retired) when I joined.  Your rank (even the name of your rank) determines your duties and expected performance.  



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Again, Thank-you. The question though is, based on your experience, why / why not?



The reason inviting JrNCOs in the Sgts mess (and thats what its called here, no WO and Sgts mess) would not work is that experience has shown people where the line is drawn.  
It does come down to discipline.  MCpls/Cpls can be employed as the first level of leadership.  This is where you prove yourself.  Once that has been done, you have earned your way in, and are invited into the Sgts mess.  Look at it like this.  Sgts mess contains the leaders leader's.  There is some shades of grey where you have section commanders, but the ranks in the Sgts are those who have the *potential* to be the second level or higher of leadership.  They are ones who can confirm discipline and help set the tone for discipline in the unit.  A certain amount of distance is required for that therefore we have the separate messes.

D


----------



## Spanky (26 Feb 2006)

This worked well for our unit for quite a while.  As a MCpl, a bunch of us began an informal "Leaf Club" in the Jnr NCO mess.  It began as our own little corner table where we could get away from candidates on the course we were instructing minutes earlier, or from the new driver who wanted to get too informal with his/her new cc.  We were still in a position to provide wise and sage advice in an informal way.  We knew our place.


----------



## pbi (26 Feb 2006)

When I served in 3 PPCLI at Work Point Barracks (1983-86), the Ranks ("Patricia Arms") had an "official" Master Cpls club inside it, physically separated from the Cpls/Ptes. That is the last time I recall seeing a separate facility for MCpls, although I have spent my almost my entire service away from school environments, so I can't comment on what goes on there.

When I joined as a Militia soldier in 1974, inside the Ranks at Fort York Armoury in T.O. there was no separate facility for MCpls, but there was a very clear social distinction: there were "Cpls tables" where the MCpls and "command Cpls" (we still had quite a few Cpls acting as Section Comds) sat. If you didn't have the rank on your arm, you bloody well didn't sit at those tables!

As far as I can tell, both of these practices have faded away: probably because the MCpls themselves were not interested in sitting in a half-empty room, or being socially separated. But then, the whole business of going to the Mess has taken such a huge beating in the RegF (and even the Res...) in the last decade that maybe it's just part of a bigger trend.

My opinion on the structure of messes is that there really is no logical or functional basis for it: it is IMHO something we inherited from the social stucture of the British Army. It reflects the division of the Army into three groups: the upper class officers, the solid middle class NCOs ("who had to work to get there"-a very middle class view), and the raucous lower class represented by the Ranks. It has worked more or less for us over the last century or so, but its social underpinnings have vanished in the CF, and it if it's imagined to separate those who must lead each other, it doesn't really do that anyway, or else different ranks would have separate messes, not just different rank groups.



Cheers


----------



## reccecrewman (26 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> MCpl is an appointment......not a rank. If it was a rank, they MAY be entitled to separate facilities, but it's not. They are Jr NCO's, same rank area as a Corporal. They do not belong in the Sgts' and WOs' Mess. The Sgts' and WOs' Mess is the only mess you have to earn your way into. The others you belong to just by joining the CF either as a Pte (JRs') or an Officer (Offrs' Mess).



This is a completely true statement, at the same time it kind of hints that Sgt. and above are the only ranks in the CF you truly earn.  I disagree.  Yes, 1 hook and Corporal are gimmies regardless of Reg or Res, but that MCpl "appointment" is perhaps one of the hardest to attain "ranks" in the CF.  Consider that to get your foot on that rung of the ladder to go up, you have to be merited on a list against every Corporal in the Corps.  The forecast for this year is 55 MCpl.  Now, how many Corporals are there in the School, 12eRBC, RCD & LdSH(RC) ?  Give those with the leaf some credit, they're also in one of the toughest spots in the Army.  First point of contact in the CoC, handling all the Troops admin issues, playing the role of disiplinarian and also having to be approachable to Tpr. Cpl. types who have problems, doing their job within their Troop or Platoon ie; commanding a vehicle and being responsible for it and the crew....................

On top of all of it, this is a new Army.  Years ago, it wasn't uncommon to see a senior Corporal commanding a vehicle when various NCO's were on task, course or leave.  Now, the rules are way more rigid....... You have to be CLC/JLC/JNCO/PLQ (or whatever the #@!* they want to call it this year) as well as have your DP3A course to be qualified crew commander.  So with these stipulations in place, I'd say the MCpl. "rank" is really getting the short end of the stick.  Senior NCO's don't want them in their mess because it's an appointment......... a glorified Corporal if you will...... but thats ridiculous.  Those men and women with that "rank" are looked down upon by NCO's and yet by Corporal / Trooper types, eyed with a degree of suspicion because they still represent authority.  Absolute limbo!  I still hold the belief that they belong in the JR's because they are first point of contact in the CoC and as such should always be visible to JNCM's, rather the belief they be excluded from the NCO's mess because they are only "appointments"

How about we set up a special mess for MCpl.'s and MWO's?  After all, MWO is just an "appointment" as well?  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2006)

> This is a completely true statement, at the same time it kind of hints that Sgt. and above are the only ranks in the CF you truly earn.



I said nothing about Sgts and above being the only ranks you earn. I simply said it was the mess you earned your way into. Every rank, qualification and incentive is earned, at every step, and the succesful soldier deserves congratulations at every step. Please don't build your case by twisting my words.



> Those men and women with that "rank" are looked down upon by NCO's and yet by Corporal / Trooper types, eyed with a degree of suspicion because they still represent authority.



It is a sad individual who would eye a MCpl as such......from either perspective.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Feb 2006)

Just to add to all this confussion, way back when, there once was a rank of Lance Corporal.  The Lance Corporal used to be God.  He would command a Tank.  He would be a Section 2 i/c.  Ptes would stand at attention, with their heals together to address him.  That was before Unification and the creation of the new rank structure.  When a Lance Corporal did finally get promoted to the rank of Cpl, he really had it made.  Sgts and WOs were even more feared in those days.  They truly had power.  

Unfortunately, none of that is true today.  

When I was a kid, there were Cpl's Clubs on Bases, as well as Jnr Ranks Clubs.  Now there is only a Jnr Ranks, and even they are becoming less and less.  There used to be three JRs on the Base in Petawawa, now there are two, and perhaps soon only one.

I have seen MCpl 'Rest Areas' in Germany, but they were not really separate from the Base JRs Mess, but a Unit administered facility.  I have seen MCpl's Clubs in Kingston and Valcartier, and know they existed elsewhere.  I have seen Student Messes for OCdts, not only at RMC, but at Gagetown, where the OCdts would be segregated in a separate facility away from Staff and other Serving Officers.  The same thing was found in Cornwallis, Borden, Meaford, St Jean, etc. where Students would frequent one Mess and other Staff Jnr NCOs would frequent another.

Iterator has many of his facts wrong and doesn't understand the ones that he has correct.  Sgt's and WOs have always been in separate Messes.  Unification and changing times have not changed that.  The only thing that changing times have done is bring in young people, who don't have any interest in learning the history, traditions and reasons for having the various Messes.  These are the people you find who are too self-centered to worry about 'Team-work', centering only on 'self' and 'career'.  These self-centered, careerists have done more to destroy the Military than to build it.  They are typically what one would call a "Buddy-F*cker" and they don't care who they step on to advance.

With changing times, so have come changes in the way we operate.  Responsibilities of the various Ranks and Appointments and Delegated Positions have had to change with the times, technology, doctrine, restructuring, and now the new 'Transformation'.  Where once a LCpl had a lot of power, now a MCpl has most of it.  Where once a LCpl was thought of as the first real 'supervisory rank' and then CPL, now we have them both combined into what the MCpl is today.  Cpls never became members of the Sgts and WOs Mess in the past, and MCpls aren't members of the Sgts and WOs Messes today.

In these changing times, the 'Reason' and 'Function' of the Messes has been forgotten.


----------



## ZipperHead (26 Feb 2006)

_Edit: I composed this before I read George's and recceguy's posts, and they have excellent points, and mine are at odds somewhat, so bear in mind I didn't read their posts when I composed what is below._

Very good points 'reccecrewman'. You were right on the money with your points. 

Rather than get wrapped around the axles with wordology (appointment vs rank), a lot of this comes down to people's attitudes towards the position that the MCpl's fill in any unit, regardless of trade. Saying that a person doesn't earn the rank/appointment of MCpl is a major slap in the face of those that are trying to achieve that, or have achieved it. I have heard the tired old saw that the Sgt's and WO's mess is the only mess that you are promoted, or earn your way, into (the other's being automatic upon enrollment), so it must be special. A lot of this mentality, IMO, is based on elitism and class structure. Here's an example I just thought of, so I'll add it here: What about a Sgt/WO/MWO/CWO who CFR's or goes through UTPNCM? They have "earned" their way into 2 separate messes - the Sgt's and WO's mess, and then the Officers mess. So much for the exclusivity of the Sgt's/WO's mess....

I will relate a story from my own life: I was teaching on a course in Wainwright, as a 6A MCpl, so I was the section commander, with a PPCLI MCpl as my 2 IC. I knew that I was getting promoted at the Regimental Moreuil Wood parade, so I went back to Edmonton the day prior to the parade to get my uniforms turned in for tailoring, pick up new slip-ons, etc. Anyway, I was walking down the hall in the unit lines, and walked by a WO, and being the good little MCpl I nodded and said "good day, Warrant". He walked past me without even acknowledging my presence. Fast forward to the unit party the evening after I get promoted. Guess who was my new best friend (well not really, but much more friendly than the day before, when I was a lowly MCpl)? Yes, that is one person, not the whole Sr NCO corps, but I think it is a telling example.

I don't know if it is feasible, or even neccesary, to create a separate facility, in an official capacity anyway, to differentiate between the Tpr's/Cpl's, the MCpl's, and the Sr NCO's (Sgt's and WO's, officially). I suppose that they could make MCpl's automatically Sr NCO's (and then call the mess the Sr NCO's mess, rather than the MCpl's, Sgts, and WO's mess), which would require a mentality and culture shift in the CF. I know that people here have said that Sgt's are (generally) more mature than MCpl's (usually), but who hasn't seen 23 year old Sgt's (I have) or 50 year old MCpl's (or Cpl's for that matter)? If a person "knows their place" (i.e their social status) and are taught/shown how to act, they will act accordingly. And if they don't, that's what the stuttering typewriter that prints out the duty roster is for. 

As for terminology, can anyone point me in the right direction (ie CFAO, QR & O) as to why MCpl is "only" an appointment, and not a rank? My guess is because of Unification, but I'm curious as to why? It could be because other militaries don't have a similar "rank", and in the interest of keeping things "simple" this approach was chosen, but like many simple solutions, it seems to have created more confusion than is neccesary. I DON'T advocate changing the system (i.e making MCpl -> Cpl, Cpl -> LCpl, one hook pte -> pte), because then it only shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic: it doesn't address the position that MCpl's get put into (a member of the unwashed masses one moment, The Man the next). Yes, this is the way that many of us lived it, so it must be right, right?!? Well, maybe, maybe not. If anything, if more respect were shown to the rank/appointment, by all parties (including MCpl's), there wouldn't need to be a lot of hand wringing going on, but to marginalize it via terminology and a healthy amount of contempt doesn't help, either.

Anyway, interesting discussion, although the thread title is a little provocative, though I don't think that was the intent.

Al


----------



## reccecrewman (26 Feb 2006)

Recceguy - You are a man of immense knowledge and experience.  I wasn't trying to twist your words, I merely read it as it was written.  You did say that the Senior NCO's mess was the only one it's members earned entrance to.  I was pointing out that the MCpl. appointment is most certainly earned as well.  To many a degree, I wholeheartedly agree with you in the sense that MCpl's belong in the JR's mess.  I just got the feeling from your post that you overlooked the hard work and difficulty it takes to get that appointment.  Nothing hostile here, not trying to point a finger - but by your post, that was the feeling conveyed. (By myself) 

And you're also right in your assessment that it is a sad individual who looks at MCpl's in the sense I spoke of earlier, but it does carry a degree of truth to it.

Regards


----------



## teltech (26 Feb 2006)

Allan,
 I have a portion of an email once sent to me which may have some of the answer, and no, it doesn't point to any official document about MCpl appointments. But here goes...

Evolution of the Master Corporal Appointment 
One can see that a corporal - once a position of great authority in the Canadian Army - had after Unification become merely a pay grade increase. The appointment of Master Corporal was introduced in the post-Unification era, but in practical terms was equivalent only to the Lance Corporal of old, when one compares their actual level of responsibility. 

The following notes on Unification and its impact on the rank system were sent to me by David Willard: 
The pre-unification system of rank (Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Warrant Officer II Class and Warrant Officer I Class) and appointment (Lance Corporal and Lance Sergeant) were a development that evolved through the British system for centuries. It was tried, tested and true for the Army's system of organization and addressed the whole concept of command and control efficiently. It attached a degree of prestige and status to the various levels of supervision/leadership. For example not everyone was automatically promoted to a higher rank simply for being a good soldier or doing one's job well. The individual had to be outstanding amongst his peers, and prove that he was, through tough training and leadership courses which had to be passed to certain standard to qualify. Of course battlefield promotions were another matter where the outstanding qualities observed alone qualified the individual for obvious reasons. This older proven system was advantageous for another but less important reason. Internationally, our ranks and their levels of responsibility were understood by most other nations. A foreign soldier - perhaps a belligerent in a UN setting - knew when he was dealing with a Canadian Corporal that this NCO was a leader of men, schooled in the art of war and no one to fool around with. I can remember tours in Egypt and Cyprus where senior officers would negotiate with Canadian Jnr NCOs almost on an on-par basis, there was (that much) respect. The post-unification system has destroyed the status and respect that several ranks had at one time. 

Paul Hellyer's basic concept - integration - was a good one. It had meant an integration of logistics and support services - why have three different logistical organizations cutting contacts, keeping files, and awarding three different contracts for the same materiel? The government, however, further likened the need for National Defence in Canada to a US Marine Corps model. This showed no understanding of what made the three arms (navy, army and air force) tick in Canada. Tradition to the military is the food on which they are nourished and provide for a sense of organization, family and probably most important, ideals to be used as benchmarks for excellence and ability to prevail on the battlefield.

One might compare the situation to a case where a politician or non-elected human rights commissioner descended on the world renowned Ottawa Heart Institute reorganizing the administration and operation of the unit. One need only imagine them telling the heart doctors how they were going to perform surgical operations, to the point of advising them on which instruments they could have, to realize how ridiculous it would be. 

At the time of Unification, servicemen were given a raise in pay to keep them enrolled. Signing bonuses of $200.00 were given for each year to a maximum of five that they re-enlisted for. $1000.00 in 1967 was a life changing amount, possibly worth about ten times as much in 1999 dollars. Rank was given away next; anyone who had ever had a Junior NCO course was automatically promoted to Corporal. Everyone who had 4 years of service automatically went on a new Junior Leaders Course to get him promoted to Corporal. Corporal was now a giveaway, it meant nothing as far as status was concerned, it was a shoe-in for everyone. 

The problem was that at that time, Corporals were then section commanders. The actual commander now was leading a whole section of his rank peers. There was actual fighting in the ranks and discipline was poor. So another level was instituted - Senior Corporal. But that was not enough, they then introduced the "B" Corporal (indicating he had qualified Part B of the Junior NCO Course). They changed the chevrons to have a little crown sewed on over the hooks.          
We took turns being B Corporals as there were now so many of us. There was no continuity and of course this was unworkable. Finally instead of putting it back to what everyone knew was workable, they developed a new appointment...Master Corporal. But who would become the Masters? It was decreed that those wearing the B Corporal crown at the time would become the appointee. New leadership qualities had to established....this took years and years to even get to the point where the right people were in charge. In the process, the rank of Corporal was destroyed in the Canadian Army. Almost the exact same thing happened to the rank of Captain.

The system has been very rapidly changed for the worse. A better concept would have been "lateral trade progression" - it is possible to give a man status, prestige and more money without promoting him in rank. Unfortunately, the Canadian Army never went this route.

I apologize for the lack of attributes.


----------



## ZipperHead (26 Feb 2006)

Teltech, many thanks. It (the reasoning for MCpl) was somewhat as I expected (Unification), but to hear it from someone's own perspective (the author) makes it more 'alive' than were it just a QR&O ref, which sometimes one needs to be a JAG to decipher.

Thanks again,

Al


----------



## GO!!! (26 Feb 2006)

I (like many others here) think the creation of a different mess on a RegF base would be a waste.

While I agree that the MCpl rank is not a "giveaway" they are definitely a "limbo" rank. Where else can you be expected to lead company PT in the morning, and stand at attention outside your room for an inspection of your quarters after lunch? MCpls are in the very uncomfortable position of being more than a Cpl, but less than a Sgt, with duties that can vary wildly day to day and unit to unit.

I don't see how MCpls don't "earn" their ranks either, quite frankly. The PLQ system now takes about four months, with two of that in a school, and in the winter for us. This trg includes all of the duties of a section commander, and is not a cakewalk, or simply a matter of "showing up" as has been alluded to.

Finally, there is no requirement for a MCpls mess because by and large, JR Messes are pretty empty these days. The combination of mixed units, the propensity of soldiers to live off - base, a zero tolerance policy for DUI, lack of any available females and zealous supervision by civilian bar staff and the MPs have made the JRC a decidedly "un-fun" place to hang out for any more than the free pizza that appears on fridays. Even the new guy parties had to be moved to civilian establishments that appreciated the business.


----------



## pbi (26 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> ...Finally, there is no requirement for a MCpls mess because by and large, JR Messes are pretty empty these days. The combination of mixed units, the propensity of soldiers to live off - base, a zero tolerance policy for DUI, lack of any available females and zealous supervision by civilian bar staff and the MPs have made the JRC a decidedly "un-fun" place to hang out for any more than the free pizza that appears on fridays. Even the new guy parties had to be moved to civilian establishments that appreciated the business.



A telling comment that is applicable to all of our messes these days, not just the Ranks. I would not be surprised to see, before I finally turn in my gear, that Messes will pass into some sort of service delivered to us by CFPAS, rather than "member-owned and run" as we all knew them years ago. Maybe the social needs they were intended to fill no longer exist. (OK, OK-I know this is off the topic...)

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just to add to all this confussion, way back when, there once was a rank of Lance Corporal.



That too was an appointment.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Feb 2006)

Teltech said:
			
		

> Allan,
> I have a portion of an email once sent to me which may have some of the answer, and no, it doesn't point to any official document about MCpl appointments. But here goes...
> 
> Evolution of the Master Corporal Appointment
> ...




That's from my website at www.canadiansoldiers.com, if you ever need to find it again.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Feb 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Consider how officers manage this though – A 2Lt does not go to the Sgt & WO mess or the JRs.
> 
> In which case, if given a slight nudge there seems to be a desire to separate the MCpls from the Cpl/Ptes, why not just rename the the Sgt & WO mess the NCO mess?


Because WOs, MWOs and CWOs are not NCOs: they are all warrant officers 
;-)


----------



## teltech (26 Feb 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> That's from my website at www.canadiansoldiers.com, if you ever need to find it again.



Thanks Michael, I had a feeling I saw this before and like a lot of things, emails tend to get recirculated. (recycled? )


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The only place there was a real change was in the infantry and some other combat arms.  As noted a lot of organizations had Sgts as section commanders pre-uni.



That does put a crimp in my assumptions. I found it easy to see pre-unification infantry section / tank cc lead by someone labeled a Cpl and then see post–unification by someone labeled a Sgt (though keeping in mind their training levels have also changed), but had no idea that there wasn’t a parallel experience in other branches.



> The reason inviting JrNCOs in the Sgts mess (and thats what its called here, no WO and Sgts mess) would not work is that experience has shown people where the line is drawn.
> It does come down to discipline.  MCpls/Cpls can be employed as the first level of leadership.  This is where you prove yourself.  Once that has been done, you have earned your way in, and are invited into the Sgts mess.  Look at it like this.  Sgts mess contains the leaders leader's.  There is some shades of grey where you have section commanders, but the ranks in the Sgts are those who have the *potential* to be the second level or higher of leadership.  They are ones who can confirm discipline and help set the tone for discipline in the unit.  A certain amount of distance is required for that therefore we have the separate messes.



The closest yet to an actual reason other than "tradition", and "MCpls aren’t called Sgts". And I find myself thanking you again for understanding that I wasn’t advocating a MCpl mess.


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> My opinion on the structure of messes is that there really is no logical or functional basis for it: it is IMHO something we inherited from the social stucture of the British Army. It reflects the division of the Army into three groups: the upper class officers, the solid middle class NCOs ("who had to work to get there"-a very middle class view), and the raucous lower class represented by the Ranks. It has worked more or less for us over the last century or so, but its social underpinnings have vanished in the CF, and it if it's imagined to separate those who must lead each other, it doesn't really do that anyway, or else different ranks would have separate messes, not just different rank groups.



I've met many people who have felt that way, though could you really see them getting rid of the Officers’ mess? Even without the messes wouldn’t there still be lines drawn?


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Iterator has many of his facts wrong and doesn't understand the ones that he has correct.



That, at least, appears to be the consensus on this so far. I only hope the rest of that paragraph wasn’t directed at me as well. 

Speaking of which though:


> The only thing that changing times have done is bring in young people, who don't have any interest in learning the history, traditions and reasons for having the various Messes.



You provided information regarding those called LCpls but how would you summarize the history, traditions and *reasons* for having the various Messes.


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> ... although the thread title is a little provocative, though I don't think that was the intent.



Well… I did figure a little sugar couldn’t hurt   . I agree with you that "Appointment vs Rank" is a subject of its own.


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2006)

Ultimately, familiarity breeds contempt - up as well as down.

tom


----------



## warrickdll (26 Feb 2006)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Going in the opposite direction would be somewhat similar to some US units I have worked with, who did not view US (Army) Sgts as Sr NCOs and they were relegated to corner of the mess while the Canadian Sgts were granted full status.  Of course US Sgts usually aren't in that rank too long.  It was not viewed as a good thing though, as it made the Sgts feel like a second class citizen.



Not to quote you too many times, but it wasn't until I reread this that I clued in to your example of the segregation in the opposite direction. 
Perhaps it is just an awkward level of leadership no matter what shelf you put it on.


----------



## DG-41 (27 Feb 2006)

> I have seen Student Messes for OCdts, not only at RMC, but at Gagetown, where the OCdts would be segregated in a separate facility away from Staff and other Serving Officers.



Well, there's a good reason for that, similar to the reason why the JRs and Senior NCOs are given separate messes.

The idea here is not that the riffraff are kept away, but rather that you give junior guys a separate space away from the watchful eyes and all-hearing ears of their bosses and instructors.

An OCdt is a strange beast. He's an Officer, but he's uncommisioned and unqualified. His status amongst other officers is closer to the diference between a recruit and a BMQ-qualified no-hook Pte (and up). At a training base, an OCdt is 99 time out of 100 a student on a course, not a part of an operational formation. As such, it makes sense to give them their own space.

As far as MCpls in the JRs go, the situation is similar to the subbies (2Lts, Lts, and junior Captains) in the Officer's mess. The subbies - when there are enough of them - gather at their own table and hang out there, approaching senior members only by invitation.

In reality, things tend to be a little more informal than that, mostly because there are so fewer officers in a unit than any other ranks (A recce squadron should - by my count -  have 18 senior NCOs + whoever is in the echelons vice 8 officers) But the concept is valid.

DG


----------



## warrickdll (28 Feb 2006)

As the thread slows a bit…

Just for some additional clarity on Senior NCO messes: 
-	Infantry used only as an example
-	Position if at established rank
-	Not discussing changing what anyone’s rank is / or is called (that would need its own topic)


_*Example Nation*_*U.K.**Canada**U.S.*_*Senior NCO members  *_Those at, or above, Platoon SNCO   
Platoon SNCO (U.K. Sgt)
Those at, or above, Platoon SNCO
Platoon SNCO (Cda WO)
Platoon Sub-Unit leader (Cda Sgt)           
Those at, or above, Platoon SNCO
Platoon SNCO (US Sgt 1cl)
Platoon Sub-Unit leader (US Staff Sgt)
Platoon Sub-Sub-Unit leader (US Sgt)


For at least the last 30 years (some have said more years than that) we’ve had the same Mess structure. 
Would there be any advantage in a change to the other systems?
Or, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?


----------



## Bart Nikodem (28 Feb 2006)

What I haven't read about on this thread or the Offr, Snr NCO etc, thread is the idea of a completely combined mess. That is all ranks in one mess. I have been a member of just a Junior ranks mess and a combined one and I really didn't feel one was superior to the other. If anything I like that currently I am in a combined mess because since most of my friends have more talent/initiative then I do, they are mostly Sargeants by now. I suppose if i wasn't in a combined mess it might give me more of a reason to work harder to get into the Sargeants mess but since I'm not then I don't.
I understand a combined mess is a rare breed and for the record mine is composed mostly of Reserve CSS trades, but I don't see how it couldn't work in other places.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## combat_medic (28 Feb 2006)

I don't think the idea of a combined mess is wise, particularly in a combat arms unit. While the MCpl/Sgts may be buddies and did training together, I imagine the last thing an RSM wants to do is deal with a bunch of rowdy privates in his time off. I'm also sure that the privates don't want to have to censure their behaviour because they're forced to wind down in front of their entire CoC. 

I think the more rigid discipline that a combat arms unit fosters is entirely why it wouldn't work. You need to be able to unwind, and having your CO or RSM at the next table would probably make that an impossibility.


----------



## reccecrewman (28 Feb 2006)

Definitely not a combined mess........... I would think that would make for a very tense and stuffy mess.  Nobody would want to hang out there for longer than a beer or two.  After that, time to get out of Dodge. It's important for the separate groups to have their own little corners where they can bitch about certain people, and have a good time in their peers company.  On a similar note, I've heard from a few different people including one on a mess committee that there has been instances of messes "borrowing" cash from other messes. (And it is not the JR's doing the borrowing - they do the lending)  Apparently it gets announced at mess meetings (which very few attend)  I think I'll start attending them, cause the Officer's mess is much more swank than the JR's, and if there were some new attractions to the mess, I know of many people who would be more inclined to go.


----------



## Franko (28 Feb 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Apparently it gets announced at mess meetings (which very few attend)  I think I'll start attending them...









Mess meetings are held in the Base Theater and are must attend.     

Regards


----------



## reccecrewman (28 Feb 2006)

Come on Franko, you know just as well as I do that the entire mess membership doesn't attend them.  Maybe they show up at the beginning, but at the end, they're gone.  Speaking for myself, I will ensure I am present for the duration. (I have fallen asleep in a few also) I can see now that silence is acceptance...........


----------



## Procrast (28 Feb 2006)

Hey i know this may sound like a really dumb question but can a NCO sit in the officer mess and/or vice versa?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> On a similar note, I've heard from a few different people including one on a mess committee that there has been instances of messes "borrowing" cash from other messes. (And it is not the JR's doing the borrowing - they do the lending)  Apparently it gets announced at mess meetings (which very few attend)  I think I'll start attending them, cause the Officer's mess is much more swank than the JR's, and if there were some new attractions to the mess, I know of many people who would be more inclined to go.



All funds are administered under the auspices of NPF. The Base Commander is the designator of those funds. If you have to much cash in the bank, just sitting there, he can designate it for the purpose he deems necessary, like bailing out another mess that happens to be running in the red.. Want to stop it? Forecast and earmark all your excess profits for long term projects in your yearly budget. If they're already allocated, they won't touch them.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Mar 2006)

Not completely true.  It seemed in Chilliwack in the '80s that the Base Commander delighted in the telling the JRs Mess that we couldn't spend our money as we wanted.  Every big ticket item that was voted on, was summarily executed at dawn the next day.  End result:  End of FY, lots of lovely extra money in JRs account, and the grownups messes were skint, as usual.  A more suspicious man might find this fishy, but not me....... 8)


----------



## combat_medic (1 Mar 2006)

Procrast said:
			
		

> Hey i know this may sound like a really dumb question but can a NCO sit in the officer mess and/or vice versa?



They can, if they are invited, or they are performing a duty there (Duty Officer, bartending etc.). As well, the CO can enter the mess without permission, although permission is often asked, out of courtesy. There are also functions which are held by one mess, but that are open to the general membership, or occasions like Remembrance Day in which a CO can open the messes.


----------



## GO!!! (2 Mar 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not completely true.  It seemed in Chilliwack in the '80s that the Base Commander delighted in the telling the JRs Mess that we couldn't spend our money as we wanted.  Every big ticket item that was voted on, was summarily executed at dawn the next day.  End result:  End of FY, lots of lovely extra money in JRs account, and the grownups messes were skint, as usual.  A more suspicious man might find this fishy, but not me....... 8)



Interestingly enough, much of that money is now part of the Edmonton JRC mess fund. 

It keeps accumulating, year after year, but any attempts to spend it on all but the necessities are shot down (usually by the supervising officer). Now what can we do with that extra 350K?.....


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, much of that money is now part of the Edmonton JRC mess fund.
> 
> It keeps accumulating, year after year, but any attempts to spend it on all but the necessities are shot down (usually by the supervising officer). Now what can we do with that extra 350K?.....


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

Back in the day the JRC in Winnipeg used to have strippers at lunchtime , now 350K , wow !!, I guess that is why they dont let us have control over the funds .


----------



## GO!!! (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Back in the day the JRC in Winnipeg used to have strippers at lunchtime , now 350K , wow !!, I guess that is why they dont let us have control over the funds .



Dream on...what if some female soldier was offended?

The fun police keep the JRC nice and quiet, believe it or not, people go there and complain about loud music, dim lighting and the presence of too many girls. Apparently it interferes with their dart games.

As a result, it is quiet, bright and uniformly male. At the last mess meeting, an attempt was made to build a heated smoking gazebo, but was shot down because no more "structures" will be authorised on JRC property.

In another 10 years I predict that the JRs will become extinct, they just don't serve much of a purpose.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (28 Mar 2006)

Before I ask this, let me set the stage: I serve at a reserve CS unit which has not had an NCO corps of any size in some time. Most folks here do not stick around long enough to get promoted past Cpl. We do have a couple of WOs and Sgts, but not enough to flesh out the ARE by a long shot, and what we do have are either deployed or on contract, and as such we don't see them in unit lines that often...

That said, I have found in my experience that a master corporal (at my unit, at any rate) is treated more or less another corporal, but one who can do all the stuff that a sergeant either isn't around for or doesn't want to do (PERs, UERs, general section adminstrtaion, leadership, etc...). There isn't much in the way of development. (again, not much of an NCO corps here)

I thought this was a pretty typical, but I was out on a large multi-unit ex recently, and I found that the MCpls tended to fall more on the Sgts side in other units. They associated with them more (outside of the mess, of course), and seemed to be brought into the 'management' side of things. 

I'd just like to know if this is a typical experience for Master Corporals? What are the opinions of MCpls/Snr NCOs here on this site? Is there a huge difference in philosophy between Cbt Arms units and CS/CSS units about the appointment? Are Master Corporals (by and large) seen to be super worker bees, competant in trade as well as possessing leadership skills, or as junior sergeants, capable of management? Does it fall somewhere in between? 

Thanks in advance. 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## PiperDown (28 Mar 2006)

There is no easy answer to your question. The short answer would be. It depends on the unit and position you are in.
In some units, the MCpl is a strong leadership position, more of a manager than a worker. (so, using your terms.. they would be a junior Sgt) On the other hand, in some units a MCpl is a worker bee, just like the ptes and cpls. (or sometimes there may not even be cpls and ptes. ) Although, in this case, the Mcpl would be seen as someone who should be capabile of more responsibility and larger work load than the cpls and ptes. (once again, in your terms.. a super corporal)


----------



## GO!!! (28 Mar 2006)

Otto,

"It depends" is the answer.

To look at one end of the spectrum, SAR Techs are all MCpls. It is their working rank. So every MCpl there is a worker bee.

In my unit, MCpls usually end up falling more on the leadership and less on the worker side - but we have lots of Ptes. I believe more cbt arms trades are heavy at the low end of the pay scale (pte/cpl), requiring more leadership and management from the MCpls. Most service trades, in my experience seem to be mostly cpls, and longer serving ones at that, so they don't require as much direction from the middle ranks. 

The role of the MCpl depends on where and how he is employed, there is no hard and fast answer for all trades.


----------



## JBP (29 Mar 2006)

Very interesting thread. In my reserve infantry unit, MCpl's are more often than not Section Commanders since we have an acute lack of Sgt's and MCpl's. Many times Cpl's end up leading Sections on weekend ex's and low-turnout parade nights. 

Our unit tries to keep the Cpl's who have had JLC training or at least the first have of it (mods 1-5?) in charge over the Cpl's who just have time in. My platoon Warrant is a Sgt most nights also. 

I think it's simply as you folks stated, depends on the trade we're talking about and the unit individually.


----------



## Avail (16 Sep 2015)

Sorry for the necro, this one's pretty old, but it seems to be the best thread for this.

How does Acting-Lacking appointment to MCpl work in the P Res? Who is the deciding authority on this / is it a Unit level decision, or does it go higher? I am inquiring about the P Res specifically, but I'm interested in the Reg F side of things as well.


----------



## DAA (16 Sep 2015)

Neso said:
			
		

> Sorry for the necro, this one's pretty old, but it seems to be the best thread for this.
> 
> How does Acting-Lacking appointment to MCpl work in the P Res? Who is the deciding authority on this / is it a Unit level decision, or does it go higher? I am inquiring about the P Res specifically, but I'm interested in the Reg F side of things as well.



CFAO 49-5   The promotion authority will probably be at the Brigade Level minimum seeing as the promotion is not to the substantive rank.


----------



## BinRat55 (16 Sep 2015)

I can't speak to the P Res side of things, however I do know a little about the Reg Force. Firstly, some people tend to confuse Acting-Lacking with WSE. There is a difference - If your CO has a spot (usually an overseas tasking) and careers blesses your posting into said spot "While So Employed" the you become that rank for the duration of the tour / tasking. You take it down after the tasking is complete.

Acting-lacking refers to a soldier not having all the prerequisites to fill the rank or appointment one will be promoted into. In the case of MCpls, a QL5 and PLQ (all mods) are required. Now, in most support trades one can be a MCpl without his / her PLQ, but there is a time limit (without complication) that one has to achieve their necessary qual. I think it's 18 - 24 months (this i'm not sure...) Within the Combat Arms world, I know that a soldier will not usually be promoted until his / her PLQ has been passed. Then, it seemingly becomes necessary to promote to MCpl.

So you may not see much of the "acting-lacking" in the Cbt Arms trades.

The career managers usually do not track PLQs anymore, but if it hinges on a promotion (or vice versa) they usually are all over it!


----------



## CountDC (16 Sep 2015)

The authority for P Res in 3 Div is the CO.  If the item missing is PLQ then it is preferred that they have completed the DL portion.


----------

