MEMOS:CFAO/DAOD or other source for the # of days it must be returned to the mbr

[George Wallace]

Many, not all, today are too lazy to properly staff their "important" requests/complaints/etc.; requests/complaints/etc. that need more than a face to face verbal exchange.  They have to be told to do up a memorandum to pass up their CoC.  Then they have to be shown how to do so.  Those that do, sometimes run into supervisors who don't have two clues what to do with these memos.  Perhaps they were promoted before their time, but the problem is there.  In a case, as was put forward by the OP, a series of memos have become "Lost".  What should (s)he do?  That is what this whole discussion is about.  Some suggestions have been put forward, and you have poo pooed them.  Now we are discussing/questioning your leadership style and concepts.  They differ greatly from the majority of the CF (from what I have seen), who deal with large numbers of personnel.  Your concepts seem to be only applicable to small closely knit units of under 30 (plus/minus) pers, not to a larger more spreadout population/Base/Installation/Unit.

 

[DBF]

Many, not all, today are too lazy to properly staff their "important" requests/complaints/etc.; requests/complaints/etc. that need more than a face to face verbal exchange.  They have to be told to do up a memorandum to pass up their CoC.  Then they have to be shown how to do so.  Those that do, sometimes run into supervisors who don't have two clues what to do with these memos.  Perhaps they were promoted before their time, but the problem is there.  In a case, as was put forward by the OP, a series of memos have become "Lost".  What should (s)he do?  That is what this whole discussion is about.  Some suggestions have been put forward, and you have poo pooed them.  Now we are discussing/questioning your leadership style and concepts.  They differ greatly from the majority of the CF (from what I have seen), who deal with large numbers of personnel.  Your concepts seem to be only applicable to small closely knit units of under 30 (plus/minus) pers, not to a larger more spreadout population/Base/Installation/Unit.

The suggestion to use a 728 is poorly thought out, whether in a 60 person submarine crew or a 7500 person base.  I called you and Occam on it.  Rather than accept that it was perhaps not the best plan, you both started attacking me.  I'm pretty sure I have never claimed to be anything more that a simple commenter but you both seemed obsessed on rank and privilege.  That is a "leadership style and concept" more suited to a schoolyard than a professional CF.

 

[George Wallace]

:  All I can say is "Fill your boots!" 


This is going........  :deadhorse:



:brickwall:

 

[aesop081]

DBF,

I am also a simple commenter on here but i am currently serving and i am a senior NCO.

You are out to lunch.

Period.

 

[Occam]

The suggestion to use a 728 is poorly thought out, whether in a 60 person submarine crew

Perhaps the above is the problem.  Life on a sub rarely reflects that in the rest of the CF, and if I had a nickel for every submariner that told me that, I would probably be retired by now.

Maybe it's your environment which is clouding your opinion on the matter.

 

[SupersonicMax]

How about the OP sends an email to his supervisor?  In my mind, it replaced the memos years ago and usually shows results much more quickly.

 

[George Wallace]

How about the OP sends an email to his supervisor?  In my mind, it replaced the memos years ago and usually shows results much more quickly.

.....And creates a "paper trail" or "chain of events".

 

[George Wallace]

...as long as (s)he has a DWAN Outlook account.    >

 

[PMedMoe]

And don't forget to use the "Read Receipt" option.

 

[Occam]

And don't forget to use the "Read Receipt" option.

Many people I know who rely on their e-mails getting through (and read) have their Outlook client set to send every e-mail with that option set.  It's a few mouse clicks to set it for every e-mail sent.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/192929

There's no need to set it for delivery receipts, as DWAN e-mails are delivered instantly to a user's mailbox (located on Exchange servers, not on your client PC).

One has to be careful to manually de-select the option prior to sending to a large distribution list, though - unless you like being swamped with read receipts.  ;D

 

[Eye In The Sky]

DBF,

I was posted to a Navy unit in my former life.  It was the POs with mindset and lack of leadership responsibility like you are suggesting is the way to do business that I wanted to punch the living shit out of every day.

If an NCO doesn't want to do an NCOs job, that NCO should request to see his/her CO immediately, as you suggested...to request a reduction in rank.  Let someone who knows how, and wants to, look after the Jnr Ranks in the CF. 

Mindsets like yours should be sorted out on Friday night behind the Mess.  I never treated my Tpr's and Jnr NCOs like you are suggesting is the way to.

I bet you bitch and moan about what a pain in the ass the PT tests are every year too.  :

 

[CountDC]

Your link goes nowhere.

Sorry but your credibility is shot when you make comments like "MARCOM is out of date".  The Canadian Forces Maritime Command (MARCOM) is the naval branch of the CF IAW art 510 of Canadian Forces Joint Publication 01 (B-GJ-005-000/FP-001) and available at this URL:

http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/websites/Resources/dgfda/Pubs/CF%20Joint%20Doctrine%20Publications/CFJP_%2001_Canadian_Military_Doctrine_En_2009_04.pdf

If that's not enough proof, check out the official CF website and note the public contact info for the "Maritime Command Headquarters":

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/9/9_eng.asp

:christmas happy:

The link just worked fine for me - perhaps it is the sub you are working from.

MARCOM is out of of date in regards to the Div Guide you attempted to use as your reference.  As shown at the link I provided it has been replaced by MS.

it is also out of date in usage - for the most part we now use MS (Maritime Staff). Try an email search for MARCOM as the Group/Wing/Formation - all you will get is CFMWC staff.  The rest of us you will have to find by searching for CMS. MARCORDs are now updated and released by MS. Basically everything to do with the Navy at the top level is done and signed off by MS not MARCOM staff. The old MARCOM no longer exists.  Look at the link you provided for the Official Navy home page, along the left side in the blue it lists all the Directors - they are the ones setting Navy Policy. They are the old MARCOM N1, N2, N3, etc.  Look up MARCOM in the address book - not much there, certainly nothing for a command headquarters.  Look up CMS and you will find the correct address.

There are still the odd usage of the term MARCOM but for the most part we no longer use it.  How often do you hear MARCOM Comd?  Even he uses the term CMS (Chief of Maritime Staff).

 

[DBF]

DBF,

I was posted to a Navy unit in my former life.  It was the POs with mindset and lack of leadership responsibility like you are suggesting is the way to do business that I wanted to punch the living crap out of every day.

If an NCO doesn't want to do an NCOs job, that NCO should request to see his/her CO immediately, as you suggested...to request a reduction in rank.  Let someone who knows how, and wants to, look after the Jnr Ranks in the CF. 

Mindsets like yours should be sorted out on Friday night behind the Mess.  I never treated my Tpr's and Jnr NCOs like you are suggesting is the way to.

I bet you ***** and moan about what a pain in the *** the PT tests are every year too.  :

Wow - where to begin?  You believe the correct leadership is to insist that proper leadership is to use 728s to communicate with your subordinates?  Glad you're no longer with the Navy, we've tried hard to get rid of dinosaurs.  I hope your getting treatment for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder...

PS:  Got an exempt this year and did the BFT with a guy going to the sandbox.  Why do you ask?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

PS:  Got an exempt this year and did the BFT with a guy going to the sandbox.  Why do you ask?

And your point?

 

[aesop081]

I hope your getting treatment for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder...

Is that what you are suffering from ?

You dont seem to understand the point that if a subordinate submits paperwork that consistently gets "lost" , a 728 may help resolve this problem by forcing accountability for that document. No one is saying that every single peice of written communication should be attached to a 728. If you got over yourself for a minute, you might get that.

 

[George Wallace]

Wow - where to begin?  You believe the correct leadership is to insist that proper leadership is to use 728s to communicate with your subordinates?  Glad you're no longer with the Navy, we've tried hard to get rid of dinosaurs.  I hope your getting treatment for that Oppositional Defiant Disorder...

We have a saying: "Pay attention to Detail."

We are suggesting that the use of a 728 is a resort that a member can fall back on when his/her CoC fail to process a memorandum/query/complaint/etc. in a timely manner.  If the member is FRUSTRATED in his or her process, then use the 728; NOT use the 728 with an 'initial' correspondence (unless it has a great importance, Security classification, or requires some urgency).

So why don't you just get off your fixation of the 728 being used with each and every correspondence.

 

[CountDC]

has anyone seen the troll.  :

 

[Otis]

I'd say the troll is under the bridge ... right where he's led his long and distinguished line of personnel who have followed him in this circle of h*ll ...

Someone PLEASE lock this thread or delete it or whatever ... it's going nowhere and the arguments have stopped making any sense, despite several people's attempts to get back to the original question and suggested courses of action.

Otis

 

[CountDC]

exactly

so to the original question

As a Navy Clerk who has worked as a Cox'n Writers and in the SHO along with numerous other Army, Navy, Air Force units I stand by using the 728, a legitimate document for tracking purposes that I have used in every job I have held since 1985 and currently use for inter-unit mail. Although I hate the abuse of this document in your case you have a valid reason to use it.

Cheers

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm will lock this and sometime later try and cleanse it of the "kife" without touching the answers contained within.
Bruce