CIC And PRes

[Dipstick]

to the two uniform question. He wore a 15th field uniform at 15th field, and wore an air CIC uniform at the RCAC unit. I knew him peronally having worked with him at staff. Wether or not he was truly authorized to do both, I cant answer that, but he was authorized by both of his CO's as far as I know.

I believe I know the officer you're speaking of.  If it's the Captain I'm thinking about, he's actually an Air CIC officer with 111 RCACS.  He works with the people at 15 Field, wearing CADPAT, but is not a member of the PRes or the Army, nor does he, to my knowledge, switch between a Land and Air DEU.

 

[Deleted member 9665]

Air OFficer for cadets received the cadpat combat uniform for feild training...It is "normal" for him to have a cadpat. It is standard issue.

 

[Scott]

a scroll is a scroll...... BUT
A CIC Officer would founder greatly if placed in direct command of Reg or Res formation for any length of time.......  the training just isn't there.

OK, it's been stated, agreed upon and we do not have to discuss this part of things again as it is another argument that has been had many times here, never with nice outcomes.

 

[youravatar]

Thanks alot guys. Afraid you awnsered my question. Not what i wanted to hear though. Maybe i'll find some admisistrative loophole  ;D

 

[Neill McKay]

{off topic tangent}

Yes.  Except that Naval officers scrolls differ from Army or Air Force officers, and Padres have their own text as well (with a Naval variant as well).

{back on topic}

New to me.  Can you provide the differences?

 

[dapaterson]

Naval officers as commissioned as acting sublieutenants vice as second lieutenants; the remainder is the same.

As for padres:  I do not have a Padre scroll here, but as I recall certain of the details differ, as they are not told to endeavour to keep their Inferior Officers and Non Commissioned Members in good Order and Discipline (given that they are not permitted to command).

Anyone more godly than me around to chip in their 2 cents?

 

[geo]

(will have to sneak into the padre's office tomorrow morning)

 

[Neill McKay]

Naval officers as commissioned as acting sublieutenants vice as second lieutenants

Of course!  Thanks.

 

[Neill McKay]

99% of CIC types do not meet the 'minimum operational standards' (none have done BOTC/CAP/Phase training).

Quite a few have, in fact.  Considerably more than 1 per cent of CIC officers come into the branch having served elsewhere in the Forces.

Don't we have a rule around here about people keeping their comments within their fields of expertise?

 

[Deleted member 9665]

Im the oposite of the discssion and I find it quite interesting.

Being CIC since 1999 and being LT at this moment,

Im trying to de-cimission and to renounce to my Lt rank. to go into the PRes as NCM (935 or 911)

They are retarding my application because they are verifying what equivalent they can give me.

Which I really dont want because I want to do my BMQ ASAP part time.

Wounder what will tehy tell me.  ???

 

[Sloaner]

Neill is Bang on there.  Not to mention, the minimum Operational Standards are Be Physically Fit, Be Employable, Be Deployable.  While there are elements many of the CIC may need training on or re-training on, the conditions laid out in the DAOD's are pretty broad.  That being said, the CANFORGEN was to stop a loophole that allowed unit commanders to attach civilian qualified pers into their CoC's without having to complete the efforts of a CT.  So can it happen, yes under very unlikely grounds now, but it can happen (it did happen quite a bit more in the past, I was attached for about 12 months outside the CIC in 1999/2000 because of what I do in the civilian world and my background in the PRes).  The rules are there, the loopholes are largely plugged, so lets all get back in our lanes.  It shouldn't happen, but those from the CIC interested in the PRes can attempt a CT to an appropriate unit.

Now Piper, I realize you have time in the MO, but calling rwgill on this one, when he has considerably more TI, on this matter may not be the best approach.  I don't think he was refuting TeddyR, but offering additional resources for those interested in the current stance and policies.  Just a thought.

 

[rwgill]

Now Piper, I realize you have time in the MO, but calling rwgill on this one, when he has considerably more TI, on this matter may not be the best approach.  I don't think he was refuting TeddyR, but offering additional resources for those interested in the current stance and policies.  Just a thought.

Thanks Chris

Piper,

It really does happen quite a bit, still today.  Many CIC officers are currently employed with the Ranger and Junior Ranger programmes.  CIC officers are an extremely diverse branch of the CF, perhaps (dare I say) more diverse than any other branch or MOSAID.

Looking at the staff I currently work with, we have a cop (OPP), lawyer (Justice Dept on loan to DND), legal administrator, restaurant owner and ambulance attendant.  The CF may be able to use all of us.  4 have previous Reg F or PRes experience.

Teddy's CANFORGEN is a good one, but as Sloaner pointed out it stopped loop holes.  The DAOD and the QR&O are also still good, it just makes the OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT much clearer and makes it more important.  Saying a CIC officer cannot be attached or seconded is wrong, but it is unlikely.

 

[geo]

There are very specific instructions from the CDS & LFC about the employment of CIC officers in Reserve & Regular positions..... Verboten! Niet! Nein! Non! No!

It's nothing personal but them's the rules.

 

[Neill McKay]

One would think CIC officers would be the SMEs on the employment of CIC officers.

 

[aesop081]

One would think CIC officers would be the SMEs on the employment of CIC officers.

One would think that even CIC officers can read the CDS directive in the  CANFORGEN mentioned previously

 

[yoman]

Quite a few have, in fact.  Considerably more than 1 per cent of CIC officers come into the branch having served elsewhere in the Forces.

Agreed, 3 or 4 of my officers are formally reg force and one still is (he's volunteering with my unit).

Don't we have a rule around here about people keeping their comments within their fields of expertise?

That we do.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Previous service is immaterial.  The fact of the matter is that direction has been issued, in the form of a CANFORGEN that effectively bans CIC officers from serving in other components - for very good reason.  It is a legal order, as valid as any DAOD.

Indeed, the other references quoted do not in themselves permit the employment of CIC officers in other components of the CF.  The DAOD quoted clearly sets a lower standard for CIC officers than for members of the PRes and Reg F which would certainly preclude their employment in most units without a full component transfer.

This, to me, is should be the end of the discussion.  The CANFORGEN states clearly that CIC officers cannot serve with other CF components.  The fact remains that, as a group, the CIC has different skill sets than the remainder of the CF and that these skills - again as a group - are of limited utility in an operational setting. 

 

[yoman]

Then that one is not CIC, he is still a regular force officer. So moot point there.

As to the other two...it does not matter! They are FORMALLY reg force. The times they are a changin' in the mission the army is now on, you think they could drop everything and go workup for 6 months and then lead troops in Afghan (unless they left only a few months ago, but that is the exception rather then the rule)?

Heck no. I was just stating that there are CIC officers that have previous reg force experience.

 

[aesop081]

Heck no. I was just stating that there are CIC officers that have previous reg force experience.

and that previous experience is irrelevant to the argument at hand.  If they are currently CIC officers, they cannot be seconded to RegF or Pres units.

 

[yoman]

So what's your point? All of those ex-military folks are as equally qualified to serve in the PRes and Regs as an ex-military CIC officer. 

1. I never said I was for or against what was being said.
2. I was just commenting on what Neil said about the amount of former reg force officers in the CIC.
3. Are cops, dentists, lawyers, truck drivers still part of the CF? CIC officers still are.

Now if the CDS says he doesn't want CIC officers working with the PRes, then that's the way it is.