# Naval Reserve Issues



## Stoker (18 Oct 2008)

Is these things ever get built, the Naval Reserve will prominently play a role in the manning. These ships will have a core crew of about 45 pers with more added as the mission required IE air det etc. Reserve officers are going to need up grading for example ice navigation, we already have a number of officers with ice experience and taken ice coursing. What I have heard from some reliable sources is that the regular force is not interested in manning the AOPS because of the shortage in the Navy now. Its looks like maintenance will be carried out much like the current MCDV's with outside contractors, the ship will have a "return home" capability in case of mechanical failure. Crews will be responsible for preventive maintenance. Most trades are being revamped to provide more technical training to bring them in line with their regular force counterparts. The AOPS will also have the addition of a hull tech dayworker which will bring to the table experience we currently do not possess in the naval reserve.
The only problem I can see is numbers which right now we have plenty of Class C billets, but not enough personnel to fill them. Hopefully over the next 5 years we can address that concern.


----------



## Sailorwest (20 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> The only problem I can see is numbers which right now we have plenty of Class C billets, but not enough personnel to fill them. Hopefully over the next 5 years we can address that concern.


That is the crux of the matter isn't it? Navres recruiting has not been able to keep up with attrition over the past few years. To date, I don't think that we are starting a recruiting process to take people directly into Cl C or B billets either. A great deal of effort has gone into making life better for perma-shads (pensions, PLD, Cl C pay, etc.) yet transfers to the Reg force or release's, are getting more and more common.  The two very different worlds of reservists (full time vs. part time) are at a certain level mutually dependant but us part-timers are finding it more and more difficult to be interested. When the NRD's start to shut down due to a lack of core manning, so will the intake into the full time world. Once that happens, manning of AOPS, and for that matter KIN class will become a non-issue as the only ones capable will be in the Reg force.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2008)

This is slightly off topic, and I may be restating the obvious, but, I think it is *vital* for the Navy, the whole _'system'_, indeed, to understand that those part-timers, the _Saturday sailors_, provide the foundation upon which the successes the Navy has had with reservists manning operational war ships was built. The needs - recruiting, training, periodic employment and retention - of the Class A people are important if that success is to continue.


----------



## Sailorwest (20 Oct 2008)

I apologize for the divergence of topic from the AOPS. It is important to recognize that manning the MCDV's came at a cost and that is the viability of the NRD. The reason that the KIN class are suffering from manning issues is directly related to that. As the AOPS come on stream, that problem will be exacerbated unless, and this is a big if, the navy stands down more destroyers or frigates. I really don't think people who are planning around manning for the AOPS should be looking at NAVRES as the solution.


----------



## Stoker (20 Oct 2008)

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> I apologize for the divergence of topic from the AOPS. It is important to recognize that manning the MCDV's came at a cost and that is the viability of the NRD. The reason that the KIN class are suffering from manning issues is directly related to that. As the AOPS come on stream, that problem will be exacerbated unless, and this is a big if, the navy stands down more destroyers or frigates. I really don't think people who are planning around manning for the AOPS should be looking at NAVRES as the solution.



I do agree that manning the MCDV's have decimated the NRD's and took away a much of the corporate knowledge that the NRD's possessed. We all know recruitment and retention is a problem, however it seems that NAVRES hasn't a clue that we have a problem and what to do about it. I put this question to the Commodore this Summer and she seemed surprised, what do that tell you? I think a lot of the problem is we are still in the mindset that this a part time job, until we recognize that one can have a satisfying career and improve conditions and benefits we will see more and more transfer out to the regular force. There are a lot of "full time " people sailing and a good percentage of those never intended to make this a career, I know I didn't but circumstances changed and i'm still here.
As for the regular force standing down other assets to man AOPS, I really don't think that will happen.


----------



## Sailorwest (20 Oct 2008)

I guess that I don't quite understand that people who find the lifestyle and work to be something that they want to do, don't go and join the reg force early on. Too many people I know have 15+ years of continuous Cl B/C service, haven't set foot in an NRD since they started, yet are still considered 'reservists'. 
They way things look to me is the going to sea jobs will be given to those on Cl B or C and the port securty event work will be given to those who are normally Cl A. Unfortunately, that is a big dissatisfaction issue for me and many others who joined (or stayed) because we like the work at sea.


----------



## Stoker (20 Oct 2008)

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> I guess that I don't quite understand that people who find the lifestyle and work to be something that they want to do, don't go and join the reg force early on. Too many people I know have 15+ years of continuous Cl B/C service, haven't set foot in an NRD since they started, yet are still considered 'reservists'.
> They way things look to me is the going to sea jobs will be given to those on Cl B or C and the port securty event work will be given to those who are normally Cl A. Unfortunately, that is a big dissatisfaction issue for me and many others who joined (or stayed) because we like the work at sea.



One thing they should get rid of is the term Class A, either your on Class B or C. I really can't see port security work be given to full time members, because of the part time aspect of it. As for the work at sea, you are more than welcome to sail, however there is really no part time aspect to it anymore.


----------



## Sailorwest (20 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> One thing they should get rid of is the term Class A, either your on Class B or C. I really can't see port security work be given to full time members, because of the part time aspect of it. As for the work at sea, you are more than welcome to sail, however there is really no part time aspect to it anymore.



I guess i don't understand what you are suggesting here. If you were to get rid of Cl A (us great unwashed part timers who do 40 hrs+ in our chosen career) you get rid of the need for having the NRD. If you get rid of the NRD, you get rid of the members able to participate in Port Security. Additionally, if there is no NRD, there is no way to intake people into the Naval Reserve and you functionally have no Naval Reserve. If you are going to recruit people into the system to work full time, then they join the regular force. By and large, the people who want to work full time (Cl B, C) are doing so now. The rest of us have other jobs that keep us busy.


----------



## Stoker (20 Oct 2008)

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm saying get rid of the Class A designation altogether not the Class A organization. If your at the unit you still get Class B if your on the ships you get Class C. I never did like the 3 classes of pay.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (20 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I really can't see port security work be given to full time members, because of the part time aspect of it.



Full time as in Class 'C', or full time as in Reg?


----------



## Stoker (20 Oct 2008)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Full time as in Class 'C', or full time as in Reg?



Full time Class C.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (20 Oct 2008)

Ok...just wondered about that. The MOG voluntold me for HDU stuff when I was a Reg. Sounded weird to me at the time.


----------



## Sailorwest (21 Oct 2008)

I would suggest that the MOG could assign anyone to a Port security unit, reg, reserve, Cl A, B, or C. As an example, I would think that the olympics in Vancouver, should a PSU be stood up as is expected, that all those people will be on Cl C for the term of their employment and they may draw from elsewhere to get the number needed.


----------



## whitehorse (18 Dec 2008)

To the site administrators you may wish to create a separate thread on this since it has little to do with AOPVs. May I suggest a new topic or even category called Naval Reserve Issues?

Stoker:

Based upon what I read between you and Sailor West I am guessing that you have spent the bulk of your 'reserve' career working full time for the navy. In which case you seem surprisingly confused about classes of service in the reserve. 

Class A and B are the same rate of pay (about 85% of Reg F rates) the only difference is that Class B can't run for less than 2 weeks and can obviously run for an indefinite period. Class A is casual and can cover both whole and half days and hence largely applies to part-time folks, like me. 

Class C is full -time and usually for periods of time ranging from 2 weeks to 20 years (like class B) but is defined as being when a reservist occupies a Reg F position. Rates of pay are = to Reg F. This idea has evolved over time and this class of service is now often invoked when there is perceived to be a heightened level of 'risk' or 'commitment' involved. (e.g. as suggested by Sailor West it might be used during the winter Olympics for the PS team, but is also used on MCDV crews etc).

As far as your idea of getting rid of Class A it simply doesn't make sense since part-timers are an integral part of the reserves (at least for now). If on the other hand you are saying that rates of pay (obviously divided into daily or half daily rates) should be the same regardless of 'full-time' or 'part-time' status I quite agree.

The simple reality is that most if not all of our NATO allies do this already. UK, US, Aus and NZ are but some examples of this. 

As far as how the AOPV are going to be manned I guess I really only have 2 points:

First: Don't count your chickens - Unless you have been in a cave in the last 3 months, you will have noticed that we are headed into a severe recession or even depression. Discretionary spending on non-stimulus items are extremely unlikely despite political promises and statements, regardless of their source. Building 6 or 8 AOPVs is unlikely and the odds are decreasing every day. Ditto for JSS, CADRE etc etc. Even the FELEX program could be cut back. No contracts have been signed yet, and are unlikely in this environment.

Second: I suspect that the crew composition of these vessels is simply not predictable at this time. A lot depends on the building of other platforms from JSS, CADRE, SSC (or whatever these acronyms have morphed into in Ottawa). The sad reality is that we could see the fleet reduced to 8-12 CPFs, 8 MCDVs, maybe 3 SSKs and nothing else. In which case 'reserves' either 'full time' pr part time could well become redundant.


----------



## Stoker (18 Dec 2008)

whitehorse said:
			
		

> To the site administrators you may wish to create a separate thread on this since it has little to do with AOPVs. May I suggest a new topic or even category called Naval Reserve Issues?
> 
> Stoker:
> 
> ...



When I made that post it was back in Oct and before the reality of the current financial situation. As for cut backs unless the coalition gets into power, it has already been mentioned in the media that part of a economic stimulus package, naval ship building projects in Canada has been mentioned as a way to stimulate the economy and keep people working. As for the doom and gloom you are predicting for the military it still makes financial sense to employ reserves and reserve ships to take up the slack. In fact last week in Halifax we were briefed by the Commodore and were told for the immediate future we could expect the sea days for the MCDV's to increase to 130 sea days per unit.
As for my comments about getting rid of Class A, if you reread my comments I said I would like to get rid of the terms the Class A, B or C not the actual personnel or jobs. I would like to see it abolished and streamline it to see two classes of reserves "full time or part time", because that's what we have right now isn't it. There are a lot of full time reserves right now and will continue to be. This in fact has been recognized by Commodore Bennett and is part of the "way ahead" for the reserves.
In fact if we were to have a "full time " reserve or "part time", that may lead to separate merit lists for promotion.


----------



## whitehorse (18 Dec 2008)

Stoker;

The point was to clear up terminology. Ultimately I think we can agree that pay rates  should be equal regardless of type of service.

As far as the 'way ahead' goes, anything is possible. Yes, the current Defence Minister (who is also an MP from NS) has made a number of speeches in the last few weeks indicating that ship building should be used as part of a 'stimulus' package. However, simply calling it that doesn't necessarily make it one. In fact most economists today regard defence spending as a poor economic stimulant since it requires relatively few people (and a lot of technology) to build most modern military equipment. You get better bang for your stimulus buck if you spend it on roads and bridges not warships or tanks.

The reality that has coalesced in the last few months necessitates that the Feds spend 10's of billions to prop up Ontario's manufacturing sector as well as mining and forestry. Building warships in NS or BC probably isn't in line with this objective but ultimately this will become a cabinet discussion. If teh 'coaltion' takes over then the chances of cabinet seeing it this way diminish even furhter.

To focus once again on reserve issues here my guess is that the future of the Naval Reserve and the ships it crews will largely depend on factors beyond the navy's control (as usual). Yes the MCDVs will be busier as DND operating budget cutbacks make these relatively cheap platforms more attractive (hence more sea days). But I would remind you that these platforms are now past the half way mark in their life cycle. The acquisition timeline for DND projects (and in particular warships) usually takes about 10 - 15 years. You do the math.

Finally, I quite agree with you that we should quite clearly delineate and separate the two 'worlds' of the Naval Reserve. I for one left the Primary Reserve in part because of my frustration with an establishment that refused to recognise this simple reality.


----------



## Stoker (18 Dec 2008)

Well I certainly hope we won't feel the pinch of the current economic downturn, however historically the military has always been a easy target, time will tell.
I really can see the platforms life being extended from the expected 25 years to god knows what. Have we ever had a class of ships in modern times that weren't continuously extended past its expected hull life? Even though the so called "midlife" refit was cancelled, the ships are getting a lot of needed upgrades. New radars, new ops room, IBIS, Telular, Drager SCBA fit, new funnels, new diesel beds and lots of others are in the works. I can foresee the ships lasting longer, especially with the economy being some bad.
Yes it is frustrating that there is no recognition that there is indeed a full time reserve, but that is changing. I'm looking fwd to doing another 5 years full time and retiring with a pension.


----------



## Pendant (2 Jan 2009)

The naval reserves are in horrible shape right now, i dont know how they look back at nrd's i havnt been at mine in about 3 years but i can tell you that the ships arnt doing to good right now and im not to sure who said it but the commodore saying that the mcdv's are expected to sail 130 days is crazy, we sail that in half a year now on the east coast, the problem with retention is because the reserves have a hard time keeping their people happy, especially alot of the ones sailing now, i dont know how many people expect to be home for a bit and are told they will have to sail with another ship because their short manned, and i agree 100% with the argument made about the need for only 2 classes of reservist. the problem is that they always find loopholes, i only just got class c which is bull, they just kept giving me contracts which last like 3-4 months so they could keep me on class B and i know one case that someone was given a contract for like 3 weeks under a year and they arnt able to get PLD because of it. I heard a rumour that everyone on MCDV's are now being paid class C i dont know if this is true but i know that all core crew get class C and those who arnt core crew are usually class b with the odd one getting lucky enough to get class C.

and now their is no longer any money for some trades to sail creating even more manning problems, the budget for those trades to do OJT onboard is dry and that means that the only real positions are the core crew and the few who were under contract before they money ran out.

Now for the Port security. It is not a position held by class A sailors, both coasts have full time class C personnel at the port security units. The worst part about manning too is that both coast are short manned and it is looking more and more like both coasts will have 2 down ships because of it, and the majority of personnel at Port security arnt in the navres, their army reservists. so 2 mandates which are suppose to be done by the Navres arnt able to be done because of manning problems. if they expect us to fully man the new aops if they ever come, which is a total of 8 ships with an estimated manning of 45, i dont know if thats max or its minimum but were gonna have a really hard time doing this.

thats my two cents though i dont want to get on anyones nerves or try to make it look like im taking sides, im just blowing off steam, ive been thrown around by navres for over a year now, im transfering because of it. anyways thats it


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2009)

Maybe it's time for the CF to make two shocking admissions:


First, we're in stage 3+ mobilization, based on the number of full-time Reservists compared to the overall population (more than half of Reservists at certain ranks are on full-time service).

Second, many "full-time Reservists" meet the legal definition of being in the Regular Force.  That is, they are employed on "continuing, full-time military service" - I'd argue that any Reservist in part I of the CFSA has met that definition.  If a BE in the Reg F is 3 years, and we have Reservists employed full-time for 3+3 years in positions, they'd seem to fall into that category.


Finally, on a semi-Nav Res note, I suspect in the near future the Army will refuse to provide pers to work as gate guards; the Army is having enough troubles filling its own billets that those positions will be left empty.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (4 Jan 2009)

Pendant said:
			
		

> the commodore saying that the mcdv's are expected to sail 130 days is crazy, we sail that in half a year now on the east coast,



When I heard her say that in December, I thought "ok, a given ship might only sail 130 days, but given manning issues, I'd bet the average sailor will be spending much more time at sea than that, just on a different ship".


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2009)

Pendant.... if you or your mate really & truly feels that they are being dicked around and shortchanged on the pay side of the house.... file a grievance.  A whole lot of continuing class B route letters for the same job is just the same as one really long one & should be treated the same way.

It might bet turned down at the 1st level.... but will land in the CDS' shop on the 2nd - at this point, what do you have to lose ?


----------



## Stoker (4 Jan 2009)

DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> When I heard her say that in December, I thought "ok, a given ship might only sail 130 days, but given manning issues, I'd bet the average sailor will be spending much more time at sea than that, just on a different ship".



When I said the Commodore it was the Marlant Commodore not Navres that stated that. 130 days don't seem like much, but when you count in foregin ports etc, it adds up. As it stands there are two ships stood down each coast and that has helped the manning shortage quite a bit, but is a stop gap measure and more permanent solutions are needed.


----------



## Stoker (4 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Pendant.... if you or your mate really & truly feels that they are being dicked around and shortchanged on the pay side of the house.... file a grievance.  A whole lot of continuing class B route letters for the same job is just the same as one really long one & should be treated the same way.
> 
> It might bet turned down at the 1st level.... but will land in the CDS' shop on the 2nd - at this point, what do you have to lose ?



As far as I know nobody is getting "dicked around" when it comes to contracts. There are a certain amount of "core crew" billets that are class C, the rest are Class B OJT. There are always people who are completing for these billets and usually they are given to people who finish the OJT on time or early or have stated a desire to put in several years on contract. Right now there isn't any money for OJT and that's because of the War. There is indeed talk that everyone posted to a MCDV will get Class C, but as far as I can tell that's only talk.
As for the case of the person getting posted for 1 year less 3 weeks intentionally to prevent that person from getting his/her PLD, well I call BS on that.


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2009)

Stoker said:
			
		

> As for the case of the person getting posted for 1 year less 3 weeks intentionally to prevent that person from getting his/her PLD, well I call BS on that.


Like I said, if the fella(s) feel they are being messed with, it is their right & priviledge to submit grievances (individual - not collective) and they will be given a fair hearing..... It isn't all that long ago that reservists weren't allowed travel assistance - till a grievance was handled by the CDS and a CANFORGEN fixed that one... retro to 2003


----------



## Stoker (4 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Like I said, if the fella(s) feel they are being messed with, it is their right & privilege to submit grievances (individual - not collective) and they will be given a fair hearing..... It isn't all that long ago that reservists weren't allowed travel assistance - till a grievance was handled by the CDS and a CANFORGEN fixed that one... retro to 2003



Yes by all means, if they have a beef that's why the grievance process was put in place.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (4 Jan 2009)

Stoker said:
			
		

> When I said the Commodore it was the Marlant Commodore not Navres that stated that. 130 days don't seem like much, but when you count in foregin ports etc, it adds up. As it stands there are two ships stood down each coast and that has helped the manning shortage quite a bit, but is a stop gap measure and more permanent solutions are needed.



I guess everyone seems to be on the same page then, as this was what was relayed to us during a "fireside chat" with the navres commodore/formation chief.


----------



## Cronicbny (9 Jan 2009)

Yes, NAVRES needs to manage people more effectively. Yes, we should all be on Class C TOS (full timers - that is). Sailing 130 days a year? I consider that "old hat (with the benefit of 50 more days alongside)" so I'm not too worried. 

The manning situation has no easy fixes, our bleed through CT also has no easy fixes. EVERYONE I talk to really considers "pierhead" jumping the problem. The point was made that HMCS XXXX will sail for 130 days, but OS/AB/LS/MS/PO2/SLT/LT(N) Bloggins will be sent from unit to unit and he/she will sail for XXX days. 

Our main problem is attraction. We can't recruit enough people. Full stop. Why? No idea.

Are we losing people to CT's? Of course we are, but we have been losing people in the past - the manning shortage (fleet wide) is a big problem, and, quite frankly, there is nothing the "reserves" can do about it. Two ships in Extended or Reduced readiness is already the past. We now have (West Coast) two ships basically out of routine, two ships restricted to 12/5 ops and 2 that are really 24/7 - kinda (every department is short, and many people are double hatted - NAVO/DECKO as one example). 

I wish I had an answer to the problem, but I'm not convinced that "sailing days" are really the issue amongst the great majority of our CT or release candidates.  Job satisfaction is a major problem, and my ideas to fix that would take up two threads alone (I have mentioned some ideas in past posts). 

The first (and yet undone) step is admitting that we cannot, under current circumstances, fulfill our role as primary manning for the KIN class. Shut down all of the boats and people will still leave. Personally, my ship is alongside for ISSC... I am sailing in ORCA for a MARS IV as the A/NAVO. I don't mind - the work is challenging and that is what I signed up for.  Fully half a dozen members of my crew are off to ORCA or other KIN class ships in various capacities to support this MARS IV - and they all volunteered.

I really do believe that if people had unfettered access to Class C (read: RegF) benefits (including PLD) they wouldn't leave in as many numbers as we are seeing now. People who think the job sucks in MCDV land will think the job sucks in K-Mart - they aren't our concern... the people we need to focus on are those who generally like the job but are sick and tired of the aforementioned (prev posts) Class B, short contract, no benefits BS.

All recorded IMHO as usual

If we simply treat our people well, give them a sailing plan in advance, and compensate them equally to all members in the ship, I think we would solve at least half our manning problems... and when you're talking about 25+ Component transfers a year on the jetty for the last five years... it is the difference we MUST make.


----------



## whitehorse (10 Jan 2009)

Cronicbny:

A useful post but in your analysis you managed to completely ignore the issues facing about 50% of the NR, namely the part-timers. I personally have been involved in recruiting at the NRD and I can tell you that I personally left the NRD and the NR for the simple reason that I could see no gain either corporately or personally in supporting an organization and contributing my own time that by and large was completely obsessed with the issues facing the full time folks.

I have personally have had my PER file 'lost', ignored or in at least one case deliberately misrepresented at the merit boards so that full time folks could be promoted. As a result there is one less 'recruiter' out there in the community, selling the navy. I am not alone. The simple reality is that there are fewer and fewer part-time reservists willing to invest time in the NR and in particular 'sell' it to their friends and neighbours as a good investment of time and effort. The result? Dwindling part-time reservists involved in their NRD, dwindling recruiting and more attrition. For confirmation you only need to look at the numbers of part time sailors in CO, XO, or Cox'n billets in their respective NRDs the numbers are small and shrinking. I suspect that the attrition rate has also increased.

While their full-time counter parts do their best the by and large simply don't have the contacts to be as effective as recruiters.

The recruiting types will tell you that we are getting the numbers but the attrition is probably at an all time high for the simple reason that people joining what is sold as a 'part-time' organization soon find out that unless they give up on their education or civilian careers they effectively have no future in the NR. The result they leave or alternatively join the regular force.

Taken in conjunction with the valid points you raise we have an organization that is increasingly unable to meet its basic commitments. It is possible that with the recession looming on the horizon we may be able to temporarily delay the inevitable. However, as long as we recruit people on the basis that they are joining the 'reserves' (which is supposed to be about part-time citizen sailors) and then let them find out that it is really a cheap and nasty version of the regular force we will continue to have manning issues both at sea and ashore.


----------



## Cronicbny (10 Jan 2009)

Whitehorse:

I agree that I focus on the full timer issues - I can't claim to speak to the part time world, and didn't want to delve into it for lack of corporate knowledge in that area. Your post does raise some pretty important issues (especially the merit board aspect, which I find particularly interesting, and disappointing). 

No doubt the entire organizational structure needs to be reviewed, but I am reluctant to offer solutions without knowing more about the Class "A" world, to which I haven't been a part of since 2001.


----------



## Stoker (10 Jan 2009)

Whitehorse, as it was reminded to me by a senior naval reserve chief, we were all once Class A reservists at some point in time. I agree that sometimes the focus seems to be only on the "full time" people and that needs to change. As for the merit board point I see where you're coming from, however from the opposite point of view where Class A people are getting promotions over the "full time" people. Personally I think a separate merit board for the full times and part timers should be implemented. As for the Coxn's, XO's and CO's at units being filled with full time people, I know some large units probally benefit from a full time presence vs someone who comes in several nights a week.
As for recruiting people on the basis of joining the "reserves" and them finding out they really joined the res version of the reg force, well the recruiters should be more clear that we have a part time and full time reserve and the benefits and drawbacks of both. We have lots of kids who are on Class A most of the year and come out during the summer. These people still go to school, have civilian careers and don't have to give it up and still have a future in the Naval Reserve.


----------



## whitehorse (10 Jan 2009)

Cronicbny/Stoker 

The real issue here is that the current model is not sustainable and is not meeting the goals of the navy. Moreover what happens in the event of a crisis requiring significant additional naval personnel? Hell we don't even have enough people to man the ships we have now (reg f or reserve). The pretense that somehow this model is working is slowly corroding away the part-time sailors that we may need to meet the crisis, and in the meantime do most of the recruiting for the navy as a whole. 

When Admiral Hose invented the NR in 1923 he wasn't trying to invent a "minnie-me" version of the regular navy. He realized that we need to have a naval presence in every major city in the country as well as a pool of trained sailors when the next crisis came. We need to go back to the idea that the NR is about part-time folks available in a crisis and who do the bulk of recruiting for the navy.

The full time element should simply be transferred to the Reg F (with the same terms and conditions, but eliminating Class B pay). 

Separate merit boards, sure, but we need to start by no longer pretending that a full time reservist working 5, 10 or 20 years full-time is a reservist.


----------

