Likelyhood of VOR for Combat Arms Officers

[SAUVE]

Quick question.
I'm currently in artillery (OCdt).  Is it possible to switch trades to let's say armour if both of the trades are red.  Iv'e heard all combat arms trades are red, I may be wrong.  Does this mean there is no possibility of a transfer?

MOD EDIT: If you want any respect on this site you'll refrain from getting yourself into a debate only to change the thread title that fuelled the debate. Grow up.

 

[Lumber]

Word around campus:

This was the last year for the VOR process. From now on once you're in, you're in, no changing trades except for exceptional circumstances.

 

[SAUVE]

It's also referred to as a Voluntary Occupation Reassignment in some cases.

 

[geo]

when I was still in a field unit...VOR stood for Vehicle on Repair....

If you decide to jump from one trade to another, you are just confusing the numbers and DND is spending money on training that you won't use...... they usually make individuals wait several years (3) before permitting ORs the chance for an OT....

 

[benny88]

CSA,

  VOR IS the correct term, but as I understand, it's only used in ROTP/RMC circles. I guess it's different from an OT only because we're students and not officers/fully qualified yet. I don't think it's fair to rip SAUVE for using a term that the University Liason guys tell him. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's wrong.

 
Geo,

  True about retraining costing lots of money, but if the member in question has only done common training like IAP/BOTP, that ceases to be a problem, and then the only headache is paperwork.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Word around campus:

This was the last year for the VOR process. From now on once you're in, you're in, no changing trades except for exceptional circumstances.

For the love of christ, why do you people post crap like that?  I am sure the CFAO supercedes, well anything else.  Get a grip.  If you make your training, you will have to answer these type of questions with subordinates, and 'your gut feel' doesn't cut it or what you heard in the lunch-lineup.  Maybe referring to authorized offical policy is a nice start?   : 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

CSA,

   VOR IS the correct term, but as I understand, it's only used in ROTP/RMC circles. I guess it's different from an OT only because we're students and not officers/fully qualified yet. I don't think it's fair to rip SAUVE for using a term that the University Liason guys tell him. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Then...its not official CF terms if its 'only' used there.  I suggest you call up the CDS, Deputy Minister and MND and tell them your ROTP/RMC slang is correct and they need to reword the CFAO  .  I am guessing you haven't done OPMEs yet or you would know what level of authority a CFAO is published at.  And, if you are an OCdt, you ARE an Officer.  Check the official CF Rank Structure poster next time you walk by it.  Subordinate Officers=OCdt.

Now, I don't know CSA105 from a hole in the ground but I am betting he has underwear with more TI than you do.  Maybe you might want to listen to him. 

 

[GAP]

And in some cases people refer to their C7 as a "gun".  Does it make it right?  No.

And 62  guys end up against the fence separating San Diego Int'l Airport and MCRD San Diego with their rifles in one hand, their d*&ks in the other chanting

"This is my rifle, this is my gun!!" repeatedly......all because one guy called his rifle a gun.... ;D

 

[SAUVE]

Yes VOR is a term widely used by everyone I have talked to.  Personnel selection officers in Toronto, ULO's, and even instructors at CFLRS.  It is a minor discrepancy...get over it.

 

[SAUVE]

I also heard there was a "point system" that is used to determine if you are allowed "to switch trades".  They look at scores from a wide variety of things.

 

[benny88]

  I'm not debating the proper term in the QR&O or CFAO, and I concede the "officer" remark, I should have said "commisioned officer" in my first post. I am also not trying to overrun you with "ROTP slang" but my point stands that it is used by people in mine and SAUVE's CoC. And despite my inexperience, as you all pointed out, I know enough to obey my CoC and also use the term. You're right that it's just used in some circles, but because this question was asked regarding action within those circles, I don't see a problem.

Then...its not official CF terms if its 'only' used there. 

  C'mon, you think every term used in this forum is an official CF one?


  Listen, I apologize for stepping on anyones toes, because you're right in that I have much less experience, but I don't think TI, post count, or mod status means that you're always right. If my CoC uses the term, I consider it totally legitimate, if not technically official.

 

[MARS]

Holy Frak.

OK, and this isjust my opinion, but....I think we have cleared up the terminology confusion, no?

I would respectfully suggest that someone:
a. change the title; and/or
b. move this to some sort of "terminology" thread.

I was marginally interested in the original question, but as the number of posts related to the original questions rapidly drops to below 50%, well...maybe we could get this back on track for the benefit of the original poster?

Cheers,

MARS

 

[Blackadder1916]

   VOR IS the correct term, but as I understand, it's only used in ROTP/RMC circles. I guess it's different from an OT only because we're students and not officers/fully qualified yet. I don't think it's fair to rip SAUVE for using a term that the University Liason guys tell him. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's wrong.

At one time, proper military writing was initially taught during BOTC; maybe things have changed in a few decades.  And those of us who spent a few months on Avenue Road learning the finer points of "staff duties" can not be blamed for sometimes becoming pedantic.  But reading the title to this thread had me wondering: (in this order, really)

a.  Is there something wrong with their vehicles?  VOR according to A-AD-121-F01/JX-000 The Canadian Forces Manual of Abbreviations (I have an old digital copy) means "Vehicle Off Road".

b.  Do they have a new navigation device?  VOR according to AAP-6 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions refers to "air navigational radio aid which uses phases comparison of a ground transmitted signal to determine bearing. This term is derived from the words « very high frequency omnidirectional radio range »".

c.  Are they having problems with their eyes?  VOR (in the medical world) could refer to vestibulo-ocular reflex.

One of the principles of military writing is clarity.  The use of the acronym VOR in this thread did not accomplish the aim of the opening post.  Instead of getting the information wanted, it has turned into a lesson on use of abbreviations and just makes me wonder even more how they are training OCdts at RMC.  Perhaps the convention for introducing new abbreviations should have been used:

(from A-AD-121-CO1/FP-000 Staff and Writing Procedures for the Department of National Defence and The Canadian Forces, 1994)

Abbreviations and Acronyms.  An abbreviation is usually a shortened from of a word, or may be the initial letter of two or more words.  An acronym is usually created from the initial letters of a group of words.  The use of abbreviations and acronyms (ref P) is encouraged but care should be exercised to avoid possible ambiguity.  If an abbreviation or acronym is used in a document addressed to Allied forces or civilian agencies, it is recommended that the word or words represented be written in full on the first appearance, followed by the appropriate abbreviation or acronym in brackets (i.e. "National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ)").  Acronyms are written in capital letters without spaces or punctuation.  The use of abbreviations that are in common international use (e.g. m, ft, k, etc.) is recommended.

 

[medaid]

I have much less experience, but I don't think TI, post count, or mod status means that you're always right. If my CoC uses the term, I consider it totally legitimate, if not technically official.

You bet it does because it means you should take the advice and learn from the experience of senior board members who often have been in the CF longer then you have and in some cases longer then you've been alive. Sure it doesn't mean they're always right, but when they provide BACK UP and REFERENCES to their posts and all you've got is hearsay , and oh yeah it's considered hearsay, I consider that complete BS and not worth anything. The fact is I've worked in the recruiting realm and not for ONCE have I heard of VOR, but the funny thing is you know what I HAVE heard with an V and a R in it? Here's a few recruiting acronyms and definitions for you.

VR which stands for Voluntary Release...
VOT stands for Voluntary Occupational Transfer
COT stands for Compulsory Occupational Transfer
CT stands for Component Transfer
CC stands for Career Counselor

Anything else?

Now... is it because most of the OCdts don't consider themselves as officers in the CF, that's why the majority of them are knobs?!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No.  Its all quite clear.  As Mr Lumber has stated, there will be NO more VORs, unless exceptional cicumstances.  Every ET and wrench-bender in the CF must be happy now.   ;D  and for what its worth, I am sure lots of Combat Arms Officers Leos, LAVs, etc will go VOR, but can't comment if they actaully will, though I have seen it happen on occassion.  8)

 

[Quag]

VOR is a term used routinely in the ROTP world.

Yes...it is the real, correct and accurate term used.

Yes...it stands for Voluntary Occupation Reassignment, because you are an officer who is not qualified in your current occupation.

For the people that wrote out paragraphs of explanations of how VOR isn't a term, I suggest you do your research better in the future to avoid wasted time.

 

[medaid]

VOR is a term used routinely in the ROTP world.

Yes... because we all know that the ROTP world is the REAL world... :

 

[Quag]

Call it what you want it is still a part of the CF, and as such has many unique aspects to it. 

 

[George Wallace]

VOR is a term used routinely in the ROTP world.

Yes...it is the real, correct and accurate term used.

Yes...it stands for Voluntary Occupation Reassignment, because you are an officer who is not qualified in your current occupation.

For the people that wrote out paragraphs of explanations of how VOR isn't a term, I suggest you do your research better in the future to avoid wasted time.

:

If arguing with senior CF members who have provided References and Sources, simple statements without References or Sources don't hold much water.  Unofficial use of abbreviations, does not make them official, no matter how often or widely used they may seem to you.  Checking your profile, and finding you listed as a 21U, still doesn't help the argument.

 

[Quag]

Then you would think senior CF members would know better George...

I don't think you read my message, I'm stating that VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM.