Author Topic: QL5 nominations....what gives?  (Read 780 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LanVan

  • Guest
  • *
  • 90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
QL5 nominations....what gives?
« on: September 27, 2018, 17:50:41 »
I’ve always been told that 2 years after QL3, we are eligible for QL5. Ive excelled within this time and held a 2IC position and often fill in for Shift IC when manning is tight. I’ve recieved excellent PDR and PER’s resulting in a ready and have Hit the numbers for promotion to the next rank.. 2 years have come and gone....another six months...nothing. I’ve been told that I’m not going on my 5’ s until spring 2019, a full year after eligibility. The reason given for he delay was that MP group training decides who is loaded, not the CM and that it is done alphabetically... nothing the unit can do.
My subordinates will be qualified before me?
Can anyone out there confirm this process or recommend a course of action?
I think it’s BS personally.

Online garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,329
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2018, 19:40:06 »
You have always been told?  Did you actually look up the reference to find out if that is true or not for yourself? You probably should before you start feeling hard done by.

As for the CM not having input on the load into QL5 when you are a Cpl, why would they?  The CM's involvement with the Designated Training Authority is not required because you are already Acting Lack Corporal, and in any case, the CM is not the authority for promotion to Cpl, the CO is.  Even in the cases where pers are due to be promoted, the CM's involvement is to support the Training Authority on who should be prioritized for course loading, they are not the ones who do the actual load for our courses. Even for things like PLQ-A, the CM is simply the nominator, CTC is the Designated Training Authority who actually makes the decision on who will be loaded on the course, although in most cases that is a formality because MOSIDs are allocated "x" number of seats in a given course.

Like it or not, you are a AL/Cpl just like every other AL/Cpl in the Branch. There is no requirement at this time to give you preferential treatment on course loading you because you will have your QL5A in plenty of time to be promotable next APS.  At which time you are going to become AL/MCpl and then be back in the same position.

I get it, there is $$ involved, but that was why the decision was made to find an impartial system to load the people who have been graduating off of the super courses into the QL5s because everyone can't go at once.

Offline LanVan

  • Guest
  • *
  • 90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2018, 20:21:02 »
I am serving my 14th year in the CF, a remuster with PLQ. I started out at Cpl 4.... I am acting/ lacking nothing.
Yes, the 2 year eligibility IS fact.
Maybe I am just “butt hurt” for losing out on a year of Spec pay while being employed in a 2IC / IC position. who wouldn’t be?
I find it rediculous that the decision to be loaded on a career course is based on “alphabetical order” and not merit.
If the units were able to express their requirements to the CM and looked out for the interests of their troops. Perhaphs there wouldn’t be people in this situation?
Merit for promotion or not, I can’t get a leaf without 5’s... even with PLQ.

Offline ExRCDcpl

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 316
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2018, 21:08:34 »
I am serving my 14th year in the CF, a remuster with PLQ. I started out at Cpl 4.... I am acting/ lacking nothing.
Yes, the 2 year eligibility IS fact.
Maybe I am just “butt hurt” for losing out on a year of Spec pay while being employed in a 2IC / IC position. who wouldn’t be?
I find it rediculous that the decision to be loaded on a career course is based on “alphabetical order” and not merit.
If the units were able to express their requirements to the CM and looked out for the interests of their troops. Perhaphs there wouldn’t be people in this situation?
Merit for promotion or not, I can’t get a leaf without 5’s... even with PLQ.

And how do you know you’re “more deserving” than others who are loaded onto their 5s before you?  Unless that entire course comes from your det and you know for a fact you’re “more deserving” all I’ve seen here is nothing but arrogant speculation coming from you.

Also.....a QL3 calling other QL3’s his “subordinates” comes off as pretty ridiculous sounding.

You’ve got 2 years on the road and you’re whining about a leaf.

Relax, learn how to be the best patrolman you can, and quit acting so entitled.  You may have 14 years in the CAF but you don’t have 14 years in the branch....it owes you nothing.

Offline LanVan

  • Guest
  • *
  • 90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2018, 21:19:01 »
Thank you for your feedback.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 168,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,139
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2018, 01:29:25 »
Also.....a QL3 calling other QL3’s his “subordinates” comes off as pretty ridiculous sounding.

Why? Have we forgotten that Cpls are supposed to be NCOs? If a person has been appointed, by virtue of the authority vested in the chain of command, as a second in command of a section (shift, I guess) is it not accurate to describe those under his or her authority as 'subordinates'? As shift 2ic, if he were to issue an order to thsoe individuals, would it not be valid?
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline LunchMeat

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 723
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2018, 08:57:27 »
Is the Branch still giving Spec Back Pay for members that do QL5 beyond their eligibility date, or has that gone way of the Dodo?

If not, then once you're done your 5's and your Spec Pay is initiated, you'll get Back Pay from the date of your eligibility to attend QL5 to the date of your completion of QL5. So it's nothing to panic over.

Unfortunately, just like the rest of the CAF, there will always be people ahead of you, that have waited longer than you.

Just remember, anytime anyone deploys or goes on MATA/PATA, or for whatever reason can't attend the course (minimum Manning can get people pulled off too), they go to the next name on the list.

6 month wait is not a huge deal, friendo.
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Offline LanVan

  • Guest
  • *
  • 90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2018, 10:25:03 »
Hi LunchMeat,

No the branch doesn’t back pay in cases like this anymore.
I hear what your saying however in most cases, deployment is the members choice or request. Same with Pata / Mata. The members are willingly passing up the opportunity for this course. It’s not the six month delay I’m upset about, it’s the 1 year delay. Not only does this have a significant financial impact, how am I supposed to accurately advise and mentor without the info and skills obtained on QL5?
Should mismanaging or over committing  personnel, justify delaying ones career progression?

Thanks for your input!

Online garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,329
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2018, 16:24:52 »
I am serving my 14th year in the CF, a remuster with PLQ. I started out at Cpl 4.... I am acting/ lacking nothing.
Yes, the 2 year eligibility IS fact.
Maybe next time you ask a question, put all of the pertinent information into it so the answer can be shaped accordingly. So, yes, in that instance, you are eligible for a QL5 but not entitled to it.

I get where you are coming from, but you are not the only one in this situation.  You career progression is hardly being affected here though; you have been given the opportunity to work in supervisory positions, you have obviously done well and you're being promoted next APS.  Your career progression is going fine and I would argue, better than many.

Lunchmeat:  That practice was short lived and was only in the 2009-2011 timeframe or so.  It also was during the height of Afghanistan when people were being told they had to deploy, vice the current situation where people are given a choice of deployment and deferment of their QL5 or their QL5and ended when the Treasury Board notified the VCDS that he did not have the authority to authorize those waivers. 

Offline LunchMeat

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 723
Re: QL5 nominations....what gives?
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2018, 17:34:32 »
Maybe next time you ask a question, put all of the pertinent information into it so the answer can be shaped accordingly. So, yes, in that instance, you are eligible for a QL5 but not entitled to it.

I get where you are coming from, but you are not the only one in this situation.  You career progression is hardly being affected here though; you have been given the opportunity to work in supervisory positions, you have obviously done well and you're being promoted next APS.  Your career progression is going fine and I would argue, better than many.

Lunchmeat:  That practice was short lived and was only in the 2009-2011 timeframe or so.  It also was during the height of Afghanistan when people were being told they had to deploy, vice the current situation where people are given a choice of deployment and deferment of their QL5 or their QL5and ended when the Treasury Board notified the VCDS that he did not have the authority to authorize those waivers.

Ah, thanks
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC