Confusion About Contracts :S

[brendanhm1]

Ok recruitors via chat today told me the contract was 9 years but i could voluntary release before that....

But on the RMC website it says

Upon successful completion of their undergraduate studies, ROTP Officer Cadets are awarded a university degree and granted a commission as officers in the Canadian Forces. Graduates of the ROTP are obliged to serve three to five years (depending on the number of years of subsidized education) in a regular component of the Canadian Forces.

Im just confused as to what this means, and Ive gone over tons of threads and even read the QR&Os.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Contract and obligatory service are 2 different things.  You will sign a contract for 9 years after graduation.  However, 5 years after graduation, you will be able to apply for release.  Inside that, you may get released if you are willing to give some money back.

Max

 

[brendanhm1]

Ok, but after the five years and I apply for release is that considered dishonorable or does releasing before contract have any negative connotations as far as applying for future career in policing?

 

[chris_log]

Ok, but after the five years and I apply for release is that considered dishonorable or does releasing before contract have any negative connotations as far as applying for future career in policing?

Backing out on a contract, even with obligatory service complete, never looks good. I'm not sure how the police would see it (many police forces are on a hiring blitz and any type of military experience is highly sought after), but in general, if you sign a contract you should complete it.

 

[brendanhm1]

Yeah thats what I figured. Its misleading though to say 4-5 years, when it is really a nine year contract.  For a non career soldier getting out in your mid to early thirties is very unreasonable. Especially when you need to find a new career.

I notice in the states the ROTC only requires 4 years.

 

[chris_log]

Yeah thats what I figured. Its misleading though to say 4-5 years, when it is really a nine year contract.  For a non career soldier getting out in your mid to early thirties is very unreasonable. Especially when you need to find a new career.

I notice in the states the ROTC only requires 4 years.

It's not misleading at all. To receive subsidised education, you must pay it back by serving for a certain time period without incurring financial penalties. The contract you sign when you join is completely different and decided by different people, one guy may sign for 9 years, another may sign for 10 years, or 13 years, etc.

When you join ROTP you agree to TWO things;

a) to serve out the terms of your contract (which takes into account training time, in which is included school) - this is your contract, same as everyone else who joins signs
b) to pay back your free schooling by serving x number of years to pay back y number of years/months in school - this is repaying the free schooling the CF provided for you

Re: your comment about getting out in your thirties. It's not unreasonable at all. Lots of people get second careers mid life and, FYI, the average age of recruits going through the Ontario Police College right now is 29-30 (you can find that info on google). And, of course, if you don't think it's fair, do your degree on your own and then join as a DEO officer, or not at all. Or join for 3-5 years as an NCM. Or join the reserves.

 

[brendanhm1]

A clear sentence would read:

Upon successful completion of their undergraduate studies, ROTP Officer Cadets are awarded a university degree and granted a commission as officers in the Canadian Forces. Graduates of the ROTP are under contract for 13 years including the time to complete the degree.  However members are only obliged to serve three to five years (depending on the number of years of subsidized education, and upon operation requirements) in a regular component of the Canadian Forces.

 

[chris_log]

A clear sentence would read:

Upon successful completion of their undergraduate studies, ROTP Officer Cadets are awarded a university degree and granted a commission as officers in the Canadian Forces. Graduates of the ROTP are under contract for 13 years including the time to complete the degree.  However members are only obliged to serve three to five years (depending on the number of years of subsidized education, and upon operation requirements) in a regular component of the Canadian Forces.

Ok, let me make it more clear for you. ROTP types are all NOT under a 13 year contract. Some are under a contract for 9 years, some are in for 10 years (like me), some are in for 11 years, and some for 13 years. There is no generic ROTP contract.  Also, you ARE obliged to complete 13 (or whatever) years of service. Thats why you sign a contract. However, you can pay back your degree in 3-4 years (or whatever they tell you) without incurring a financial penalty. So if you leave before you pay back your school by serving, then you owe them money (and they WILL take it from you).

So, you HAVE TO serve out the terms of your contract unless you want to be released unfavorably or have that black mark on your record. Also, unless you want to pay back your schooling you have to serve out those 3-5 years to avoid a financial penalty. The 3-5 years pay back is not a contract of any kind, it is only the length of time you must serve to avoid a financial penalty. Your contract is the length of time you HAVE TO serve. Anyone can leave the military in the middle of their initial contract (I can't remember the offical term, I think maybe VIE or IE), but there will be penalties.

Clear? 'It' is worded just fine.

 

[brendanhm1]

The contract I was referring to, infantry officer is 13 years for ROTP and 9 for DEO. Anyways:

"Also, you ARE obliged to complete 13 (or whatever) years of service."

I don't agree, if that was the case then why would the  subsidized/payback time be termed obligatory service in the QR&O's.  Therefore the 13 years is not obligatory, only the 4 or 5 years approx is.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Ok, let me make it more clear for you. ROTP types are all NOT under a 13 year contract. Some are under a contract for 9 years, some are in for 10 years (like me), some are in for 11 years, and some for 13 years. There is no generic ROTP contract.  Also, you ARE obliged to complete 13 (or whatever) years of service. Thats why you sign a contract. However, you can pay back your degree in 3-4 years (or whatever they tell you) without incurring a financial penalty. So if you leave before you pay back your school by serving, then you owe them money (and they WILL take it from you).

So, you HAVE TO serve out the terms of your contract unless you want to be released unfavorably or have that black mark on your record. Also, unless you want to pay back your schooling you have to serve out those 3-5 years to avoid a financial penalty. The 3-5 years pay back is not a contract of any kind, it is only the length of time you must serve to avoid a financial penalty. Your contract is the length of time you HAVE TO serve. Anyone can leave the military in the middle of their initial contract (I can't remember the offical term, I think maybe VIE or IE), but there will be penalties.

Clear? 'It' is worded just fine.

People release inside their contract (they have to ask for it and it can be denied) and it isn't a big deal.  If they let you release, you won't have a black mark on  your record....

 

[brendanhm1]

Thank you for your response supersonic, thats pretty much what I was asking in the first place.

 

[chris_log]

People release inside their contract (they have to ask for it and it can be denied) and it isn't a big deal.  If they let you release, you won't have a black mark on  your record....

Depends on circumstances. There are people who have been released and did get a 'black mark', and some who didn't. However, by signing a contract you agree to complete it and not doing so will have consequences. I (and anyone else) would advise to NOT sign a contract if you aren't able/willing to complete it. But yes, people do apply to release and are approved and nothing else comes of it.

I don't agree, if that was the case then why would the  subsidized/payback time be termed obligatory service in the QR&O's

You just answered your question, you are obliged to complete those 3-5 years to pay back for school, your contract is a different thing (although it will, obviously, be long enough so that you can complete that period of obligatory service. Every contract you sign is binding, and therefore you are obliged to complete that 13 years.

Sorry, I should have phrased it better for you....you can ask to release but since you did sign a contract, they can hold you to it and say no and keep you in the CF until your time is up. In other words, yes you can ASK to be released. It's not always granted and you aren't always released favourably (depends on lots of factors).

 

[SupersonicMax]

Depends on circumstances. There are people who have been released and did get a 'black mark', and some who didn't. However, by signing a contract you agree to complete it and not doing so will have consequences. I (and anyone else) would advise to NOT sign a contract if you aren't able/willing to complete it. But yes, people do apply to release and are approved and nothing else comes of it.

It's kinda hard to predict NOW if in 9, 10 or 13 years you will still be able to honour your contract or there may be better long term opportunity that came up.  Releases are there for a reason.  It gives a way out to people that just don't want to do it anymore.  I know MANY MANY people that released for personnal reasons and never got a black mark on their records.  Au contraire, they got a "thank you very much for your service" kind of reply.  Lots of them signed for their 25 but at 23, decided to jump ship to Air Canada I personnally don't see anything wrong with that....  If you're not happy anymore and you can't see anything that will make you happy, it's better for you and the organization to get out.  The mandatory service is there for a reason.  You pay back what the CFs gave you in term of training.  Other than that, not happy anymore?  Ask for a release.  Chances are it'll be accepted.  And you won't have any "black marks" on your "file"

 

[chris_log]

It's kinda hard to predict NOW if in 9, 10 or 13 years you will still be able to honour your contract or there may be better long term opportunity that came up.  Releases are there for a reason.  It gives a way out to people that just don't want to do it anymore.  I know MANY MANY people that released for personnal reasons and never got a black mark on their records.  Au contraire, they got a "thank you very much for your service" kind of reply.  Lots of them signed for their 25 but at 23, decided to jump ship to Air Canada I personnally don't see anything wrong with that....  If you're not happy anymore and you can't see anything that will make you happy, it's better for you and the organization to get out.   The mandatory service is there for a reason.  You pay back what the CFs gave you in term of training.  Other than that, not happy anymore?  Ask for a release.  Chances are it'll be accepted.  And you won't have any "black marks" on your "file"

Hence my 'depends on circumstances' comment. If you want to release because you are done paying back for free school and training and want to go be a cop, then good luck. If you want to leave because you got married, have kids and your family is falling apart due to deployment stress, etc, then yes, they will pat you on the back, say good luck and let you go. But don't say 'chances are it will be accepted', it's a case by case basis. And if it is accepted, you are not guarenteed a favorable release (my little 'black mark comment).

I'm just more blunt in the way I say it.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Hence my 'depends on circumstances' comment. If you want to release because you are done paying back for free school and training and want to go be a cop, then good luck. If you want to leave because you got married, have kids and your family is falling apart due to deployment stress, etc, then yes, they will pat you on the back, say good luck and let you go. But don't say 'chances are it will be accepted', it's a case by case basis. And if it is accepted, you are not guarenteed a favorable release (my little 'black mark comment).

I'm just more blunt in the way I say it.

I've seen it done many times, after the mandatory 5 years.  Especially ROTP guys...  Asking for a release is a right.  They may accept it or refuse it.  In the case they accept it, I can't see how your release can't be "favorable".  You haven't done anything wrong...

 

[chris_log]

I've seen it done many times, after the mandatory 5 years.  Especially ROTP guys...  Asking for a release is a right.  They may accept it or refuse it.  In the case they accept it, I can't see how your release can't be "favorable".  You haven't done anything wrong...

And I have (believe it or not) seen it denied many times. Show me where backing out on a signed contract is a right, if you don't mind. And if you don't think backing out on a contract is wrong....then I'm done here I guess. It DOES happen either way. So, in essence, we're both right. Except for that 'releasing is a right' thing, no idea where that comes from.

 

[brendanhm1]

QR&O's

 

[SupersonicMax]

I'm not saying they can't deny it or that releasing is a right.  Read again.  

Yes, releases have been denied.  However, is it really in the organisation's interest to keep an unhappy member?

ASKING for a release is a right.  If the other party agrees to you backing out, nope, don't see anything wrong.

 

[SupersonicMax]

All right, when you ask for a release during your contract and it is granted, you will be released under Item 4c (Voluntary Release, On Request - Other Causes).  Where's the "Black Mark?"

All in QR&O Vol1 Chap 15

 

[chris_log]

I'm not saying they can't deny it or that releasing is a right.  Read again.  

Yes, releases have been denied.  However, is it really in the organisation's interest to keep an unhappy member?

ASKING for a release is a right.  If the other party agrees to you backing out, nope, don't see anything wrong.

Nope, nothing in the QR&O section of releases that I can find says that asking for a release is a right. Besides, who cares? It can be your 'right' to ask all you want, that doesn't mean they have to agree.

And yes, if the org needs people then it is in their interest to keep people in. Hopefully that person has to integrity and intestinal fortitude to buck up and do their job properly.

Anyways, this is getting silly. I'll sum it up for you;

YES - you can release anytime from the CF
YES - you can leave with a 'good' release
NO - that is not a guarantee
YES - you will be forced to pay back school fees and such if you release before your 'pay back' date
NO - you shouldn't release before your contract is up unless you have a VERY good reason

All right, when you ask for a release during your contract and it is granted, you will be released under Item 4c (Voluntary Release, On Request - Other Causes).  Where's the "Black Mark?"

All in QR&O Vol1 Chap 15

In this case, when someone asks you at a job interview and you say "because I got my free degree and training and then left". Unless, of course, you lie.

Oh, and if you keep asking them to release (because it's your 'right') they can release you for being 'unsuitable for further employment'. It has happened (from how it has been explained to me by, oh, they people who've done it). It's not guarenteed that they will release you under a voluntary release, especially after you've got that free degree....expensive training and then once you hit a unit you up and leave (people aren't stupid). A lack of integrity is a valid reason to boot someone. Anyways, you can believe what I say or not. Getting a release before your contract is up is NOT a guarentee and NOT a good idea.

People with 25 years in and who decide to release will get it without an issue. A 27 year old (assuming you went to school at 18) who just finished his last day of obligatory pay back service and then wants out will, and I can this with certainty, not be looked at favorably. Maybe it's different with pilots.