• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Officer positions

  • Thread starter Thread starter scouthern
  • Start date Start date
Rowshambow said:
The only problem with the CFR program is that you can be a MCpl, but usually at least a Sgt to go the CFR route and also must have 10 years experience, and UTPNCM, although you can be a Cpl or higher, you have to do school first, so you lose the SA of whats going on right then on the battlefield and way of doing things can change in 4 years. The best program for getting soldiers into the job right away is the CEOTP, which you can also do as a Cpl, but you do you training right away and get the degree "while working on your own". This way it does not deplete the Snr Ncm ranks as a typical CFR program might.

I don't agree with some of your figures, and you must also remember that things will always change.  Even those who are returning to do another Tour will find things have changed since their last one, so that was a rather moot point. 

Sometimes in order to promote, room at the top has to be made.  CFR, UTPNCM, and CEOTP are ways of doing so, without loosing all that experience to people Releasing.  The CFR of a MWO, may create several positions below him to open up for promotions: MWO, WO, Sgt, MCpl, and even Cpl's.  Stagnation at the bottom Ranks, will only create larger gaps in experience and leadership. 
 
George Wallace said:
I don't agree with some of your figures, and you must also remember that things will always change.  Even those who are returning to do another Tour will find things have changed since their last one, so that was a rather moot point. 

Sometimes in order to promote, room at the top has to be made.  CFR, UTPNCM, and CEOTP are ways of doing so, without loosing all that experience to people Releasing.   The CFR of a MWO, may create several positions below him to open up for promotions: MWO, WO, Sgt, MCpl, and even Cpl's.  Stagnation at the bottom Ranks, will only create larger gaps in experience and leadership. 

Thats a really good point.

I dont think CFR's should be limited to Sgt and above though.  The one danger you run into there is you have a bunch of NCOs running around with bars on their shoulders.  I think its important for officers to employ a different style of leadership then a hard army NCO would typically use.  There is nothing worse then working for a Capt that still thinks he is a Sgt! 

I think a balanced approach to the CFR process would work well though.  Get some of the SNCOs commissioned thus filling some officer gaps, and also making room for advancement for Junior NCOs and NCMs.

But also take a decent amount of Cpls up as CFRs too.  This way you are not wiping out your NCO corps, and you still have a solid and diverse experienced officer corps.
 
Well George, agree or not, those are the numbers on the Edmonton Garrison BPSO website. Yes sometimes you have to promote or move people as you indicated, but as some of the others have pointed out, right now the Snr NCM ranks are very short, I know in my Regt it is very very short, and I know the Armour school is also very very short, so tapping into the Snr Ncm world (at least right now) can be detrimental as others have also said. Don't get me wrong, I also agree in promoting people, and moving them, but right now we in the military are in dangerous times, in regards to our Snr Ncm experience. I also agree that the CFR program should be open to different rank levels, I was just showing the numbers from the BPSO website on a couple of different programs.
Yes things will change and always will, and I was just trying to say that there can be better ways to get people into the job, that are needed now, and not 4-5 years down the road, as we will then be in even worse shape!
 
I've seen how bad that can be first hand on a couple of occasions.

ltmaverick25 said:
There is nothing worse then working for a Capt that still thinks he is a Sgt! 
 
Rowshambow said:
Oh just as a side note old sweat, we have 2 LdSH(RC) Officers that are going to 1 PPCLI to fill voids in the LAV Capt roll, both are excellent choices, and both are ex rankers, one a Sgt and one an SSM!

I've heard this rumour as well - I don't know where it's coming from because there is no need for LAV Captains in that battalion.  As well, I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it, as it doesn't seem to make sense.  A LAV Captain is going to be a Company 2IC for a spell overseas, and I know one who led Infantry Company attacks due to OC and 2IC being absent.  Would the Armoured Corps want a relatively junior Infantry Captain (ATOC qualified) filling in the Battle Captain position in a Tank Squadron?
 
ltmaverick25 said:
I think a balanced approach to the CFR process would work well though.  Get some of the SNCOs commissioned thus filling some officer gaps, and also making room for advancement for Junior NCOs and NCMs.

Overall, this is the way it works right now. Some branches do more CFR than others, some do more UTPNCM, but of course a secondary effect is that a slot is opened for advancement for other folks in the ranks. Unfortunately, in our Army (esp the Inf) the problem isn't lack of slots: it's lack of people available/willing to fill them. That's why we have to be very careful about "poaching" the ranks to get officers: it's all part of the same machine.

Cheers

DJB
 
Rowshambow said:
Oh just as a side note old sweat, we have 2 LdSH(RC) Officers that are going to 1 PPCLI to fill voids in the LAV Capt roll, both are excellent choices, and both are ex rankers, one a Sgt and one an SSM!

And someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't they also sending one to 1 RCHA as a FAC?  Not CFR though I don't think.

Overall, this is the way it works right now. Some branches do more CFR than others, some do more UTPNCM, but of course a secondary effect is that a slot is opened for advancement for other folks in the ranks. Unfortunately, in our Army (esp the Inf) the problem isn't lack of slots: it's lack of people available/willing to fill them. That's why we have to be very careful about "poaching" the ranks to get officers: it's all part of the same machine.

This is the point, with units promoting every mod 6 Cpl and even bringing back DAPS to promote Ptes straight to MCpl, I don't think there is an argument to be made that we need to open spots at the top for the advancement potential of the young guys.

In my opinion there are three reasons people CFR:

1 - People who have taken time to "better themselves" i.e. get a degree etc. and shown the aptitude and leadership potential with enough time to have a career as an officer are either identified or volunteer to CFR.

2 - Older SNCOs and WOs who are reaching the end of their advancement potential and are looking for new challenges or frankly to pad their pension a bit.

3 - Disgruntled SNCOs and WOs who think that CFRing will give them more of a "voice".

In the end, taking people from category 1 doesn't rob from the top and they still have the potential to have a fulfilling careers as officers - good for all.  2 is fine but has to be managed properly.  In the interest of "looking after our guys" we almost never say no to these guys because they have usually served well and we feel they have earned it, but in the end the needs of the CF must be weighed against "doing right by an individual" and sometimes like it or not, the right thing overall to do is say no.  As for 3, those individuals couldn't be more wrong, but depending on the situation they can be hard to identify as they can sometimes sell themselves as 2.  I don't know why some people think this, an experienced WO has more credibility than a junior Capt let alone a Lt.  In the end if there is one thing we can agree on it is that the CF does not do a great job at "man management" which is why they find themselves in these cyclical problems in the first place.
 
Infanteer, I was talking to one of the OC's at the mess, (from 1VP) and he said they were short of Officers for those postions, he said there were like 3 Officers for 6 positions or something like that (I was a little wobbly, and wasn't really paying too much attention), as for the Jr Inf Officer being a Battle Captain, with ATOC, that's what our BC's have, I know what you are saying though, an Infanteer with Armoured (regardless of courses) won't know the equipment etc. I don't think it is ideal, but at least the 2 pers going know the vehicles, and tactics very well, and that is better than not having someone at all is it not? after all it was those units that put the call out to the other units looking for the help! Why does that unit not need a LAV Capt (sorry I don't know) you said they preformed Coy attacks, so did they walk to the attack from a FOB? If not who took care of the Zulu veh's when they dismounted? I think (in that scenario) an Armoured person would be great, who better to contol the veh's or run a firebase than someone who does it for a living? When he has to dismount though, look out fire and brimstone everywhere!!
As for the FAC, I am not sure, I know there is a Capt from Gagetown posted to Shilo as a FAC, but haven't heard about him going overseas, or what unit he is posted too, I think he starts his FAC course in January, and no he is not a CFR, he is a grad of RMC.
 
Cleared Hot said:
In my opinion there are three reasons people CFR:

1 - People who have taken time to "better themselves" i.e. get a degree etc. and shown the aptitude and leadership potential with enough time to have a career as an officer are either identified or volunteer to CFR.

2 - Older SNCOs and WOs who are reaching the end of their advancement potential and are looking for new challenges or frankly to pad their pension a bit.

3 - Disgruntled SNCOs and WOs who think that CFRing will give them more of a "voice".

In the end, taking people from category 1 doesn't rob from the top and they still have the potential to have a fulfilling careers as officers - good for all.  2 is fine but has to be managed properly.  In the interest of "looking after our guys" we almost never say no to these guys because they have usually served well and we feel they have earned it, but in the end the needs of the CF must be weighed against "doing right by an individual" and sometimes like it or not, the right thing overall to do is say no.  As for 3, those individuals couldn't be more wrong, but depending on the situation they can be hard to identify as they can sometimes sell themselves as 2.  I don't know why some people think this, an experienced WO has more credibility than a junior Capt let alone a Lt.  In the end if there is one thing we can agree on it is that the CF does not do a great job at "man management" which is why they find themselves in these cyclical problems in the first place.

All good reasons to run something like a 'Potential Officer' course to sort the wheat from the chaff and formally look over applicants for CFR.

I was part of one such course in the UK and it included serving SNCOs, Cpls, Ptes, as well as new applicants... just about anyone who wanted to be an Officer in the regiment. Out of 60 who started, about 25 finished the 2 month course and went to the Regular Commissions Board at Westbury. 15 made it into Sandhurst. 2 from my course (me and one other) made it through Sandhurst into the regiment, the rest joined other regiments/ corps as Officers. All those serving soldiers who didn't make it through to Sandhurst just went back to the battalion and resumed soldiering with a 'thanks for coming out' noted on their PERs.

The only downside would be the resources required to run such a program, but the benefits may outweigh the costs.
 
daftandbarmy said:
All those serving soldiers who didn't make it through to Sandhurst just went back to the battalion and resumed soldiering with a 'thanks for coming out' noted on their PERs.

The only downside would be the resources required to run such a program, but the benefits may outweigh the costs.

Would they be permitted to try out again as they matured through their careers?
 
The NFLD Grinch said:
Would they be permitted to try out again as they matured through their careers?


Yes. It was a ridiculously difficult course, so they actually went back to the unit with a big pat on the back and, unless RTU'd for some kind of heinous reason, had an opportunity to try again.

I should also have mentioned that there was the normal CFR routing for older guys, the QM types, who would typically CFR from WO2 or WO1 to Captain, and then progress through the QM chain.

This PO course was for 'younger' guys who would emerge from the sausage machine as Platoon Commanders.



 
daftandbarmy said:
All good reasons to run something like a 'Potential Officer' course to sort the wheat from the chaff and formally look over applicants for CFR.

I was part of one such course in the UK and it included serving SNCOs, Cpls, Ptes, as well as new applicants... just about anyone who wanted to be an Officer in the regiment. Out of 60 who started, about 25 finished the 2 month course and went to the Regular Commissions Board at Westbury. 15 made it into Sandhurst. 2 from my course (me and one other) made it through Sandhurst into the regiment, the rest joined other regiments/ corps as Officers. All those serving soldiers who didn't make it through to Sandhurst just went back to the battalion and resumed soldiering with a 'thanks for coming out' noted on their PERs.

The only downside would be the resources required to run such a program, but the benefits may outweigh the costs.

That is a good idea in principle.  The other downside however is the morale issue.  Especially the junior rank types like Cpls ect...  Think about being one of the 25 that passed this course but being one of the 10 that did not get to go to Sandhurst.  Its pretty hard to get yourself stoked for that sort of thing, make it, be turned down and then go back to being a Cpl.  I can imagine those people being pretty miserable afterwards.

Can you give details about this course?  What did they teach you, what sorts of things were you evaluated on, how did it differ from the training you had already received?  Also, of the ones that did make it through, how many were NCOs, junior NCMs and walk in off the street types?
 
ltmaverick25 said:
That is a good idea in principle.  The other downside however is the morale issue.  Especially the junior rank types like Cpls etc...  Think about being one of the 25 that passed this course but being one of the 10 that did not get to go to Sandhurst.  Its pretty hard to get yourself stoked for that sort of thing, make it, be turned down and then go back to being a Cpl.  I can imagine those people being pretty miserable afterwards.

Can you give details about this course?  What did they teach you, what sorts of things were you evaluated on, how did it differ from the training you had already received?  Also, of the ones that did make it through, how many were NCOs, junior NCMs and walk in off the street types?


As always, the British select and train their officers differently from anyone else. Everyone who goes to Sandhurst must be sponsored by a regiment or corps. While at Sandhurst you can choose another regiment/ corps if you like, and are accepted, but will always be there with the 'stamp of approval' of the one that originally sent you. The PO Courses were run by several regiments in the UK to make sure that the people they sent there would give a good account of themselves, and be well prepared to add value as a commissioned officer anywhere in the army. I think they still run them? The main goal was to prepare you to pass the Regular Commissions Board 'unconditionally', that is, go straight to Sandhurst without having to first attend Rowallan Company, for younger applicants who needed some 'character development', or Beaconsfiled, for NCMs who needed educational upgrading in some cases.

I was accepted into the Parachute Regiment's PO Course. I flew from Canada to the UK, joined up as a Pte soldier in the Parachute Regiment and went to Aldershot which, at that time, was the Regiment's depot. Previous to this I had completed Phase III Infantry on the RESO program, as well as the Airborne Course, so was pretty confident in being able to do well. I changed my mind after the first couple of days.

The course formed up with about 60 people. There were 'new recruits' like me, experienced NCMs from the Parachute Regiment battalions, back squads from other courses etc. A pretty mixed bag. Most of the 'new recruits' had previously attended an orientation day targetted at those wanting to join the Paras as an officer, so they knew what lay ahead pretty much.

The course syllabus was what I would call 'Recruit Training on Steroids' with a buch of leadership and writing thrown in. The platoon staff took us through all the normal stuff that recruits go through including weapons handling, drill, room inspections, sigs, navigation, basic fieldcraft and tactical exercises etc etc. We also did the usual orders process and led section/ platoon attacks, and recce patrols. Then there was the gym... my God... the Gym, and Battle Fitness. They worked us up from running the BFT (1.5 miles with boots on), through assault courses, log races and all that stuff to a 50 miler (in teams of 2) along the South Downs Way carrying 60lbs folowed by a CTR and extraction. I had recently completed the Airborne Course at CABC but was really pushed to keep up. Fitness was obviously a big thing for these guys and not eveyone made it - including some of the experienced Parachute Regiment NCMs.

Concurrent with all this was what I would call a 'Political science program on steroids'. We had to read every 'quality' paper every day, as well as the Economist etc, and learn how to write a high quality essay on any aspect of Defence and Foreign Policy from the point of view of the UK. I still remember to this day that Leo Genshcer was the West German Foreign Minister and, given a little studying, could write you a pretty good 1500 word essay on German foreign policy in 45 minutes - the maximum time we were allowed.

And concurrent with all of this were the 'Command Tasks'. These feature large at RCB, so we ran through lots of them: getting the box of gold across the bottomless chasm, extracting the secret radar from the pool of radioactive waste etc. The ultimate interesting individual leadership challenge came one day when we were marched individually to the Pl Comds office, and handed a sealed envelope after which he said 'see you in the Lake District on Monday'. It being Friday, we deduced this would be a weekend task. On opening the envelope, we each discovered three questions that we had to answer on our own by going to the location given, somewhere in the UK, without using PMT and finding out in person. I, for example, had to hitchhike to Evesham and find out what was underneath each window of this place: http://www.thefleeceinn.co.uk/ and bring back proof that I had been there. Answer: Three white crcles of course, to keep the witches out C. 1400. In the Lake District and we did 20 milers - and navexs and basic mountaineering - through the mountains for a week.

At then end of the 2 months we were graded and sent off to RCB - or not, in the case of those who didn't make it. I think we had the weekend off before the actual RCB started, and that was about all the time off I remember getting during the course. But we were stoked...

How was it different from training I had done previously? All the basics were pretty similar except the fitness, which was light years harder than anything I'd done before. But there was a greater emphasis on being both a good follower and leader under very stressful conditions and earning the respect of your peers as well as the staff. In this course, unlike many I have done before or since, the staff did EVERYTHING we did too, often carrying more weight and with less sleep. So they were clearly leading by example as opposed to getting us to read about it somewhere. I can respect a guy who sleeps in same sheep **** as me. There was also a huge emphasis on an intellectual approach to leadership integrated with the physical side. No one at Gagetown insisted that I know alot about the political situation in Nigeria, for example, or what impact the latest political initiative or new aircraft acquisition would have on my country's foreign policy. There was an expectation that you knew about this stuff because one day you might have to explain to your platoon/company/battalion why you were parachuting into that particuylar country. I liked that.

What did it teach me? Lead by example, good infantry leadership is based on high levels of fitness, sort yourself out first, tape your toes and go like hell, it's OK to not know what the answer is but it's not OK to hide it, simple orders and good drills are the key, don't lose your rag unless the situation calls for it, demand participation and involvement from everyone, hot tea with lots of milk and two sugars can cure hypothermia - or just about anything else, you don't need very much stuff to survive and get the job done, think and think in teams, planning is important and doing is critical, if you think this is hard just wait until next time, having a sense of humour is essential. It prepared me very well for RCB and Sandhurst and taught me loads of stuff I did not learn in Canada.

What were we evaluated on? I can't really remember any detailed 'PER - type' assessment, although I'm sure there was one in the system somewhere. We were constantly evaluated by the staff on our various technical skills, of course. We did TOETs, range work, sigs training and tests etc. The PT sessions were pretty simple: keep up or miss your timings (and go hungry) or get a kick in the ass from the Pl Sgt. Our essays were graded by the resident Education officer at the Depot (the British have an Army Education Corps). The ultimate assessment was at the end where they decided whether they would send you to RCB sponsored by the regiment, or not.

Of those that made it to Sandhurst I think about 1/3 were former NCMs and the rest were 'off the street'. Of those that did make it through, none who made it to the regiment were former NCMs. Just me and one guy 'off the street'. Those RTU'd were all big boys and didn't take it too hard. It was one of those courses where you couldn't believe that you'd passed it - I'm STILL not sure how the heck I made it through!

Could it have been done better? I'm sure... but what a ride it was!






 
I_Drive_Planes said:
Daftandbarmy,

This sounds like an excellent selection process.

It sure sorted us out or, at any rate, kept us humble.

I'm not sure you need to do that amount of tabbing though. For me, the keys were excellent staff leadership, tough, no nonsense training, and a solid blend of academic and military components with lots of hands on leadership opportunities in a 'safe to fail' environment. When you land in the canal with all your kit on and emerge spluttering in the mud on the near side, it was educational to watch the staff rolling on the ground laughing then shouting 'try again!'.
 
Wow that sounds like quite the experience and just a little intimidating, thanks for the insight! :)
 
daftandbarmy said:
There was also a huge emphasis on an intellectual approach to leadership integrated with the physical side. No one at Gagetown insisted that I know alot about the political situation in Nigeria, for example, or what impact the latest political initiative or new aircraft acquisition would have on my country's foreign policy. There was an expectation that you knew about this stuff because one day you might have to explain to your platoon/company/battalion why you were parachuting into that particuylar country. I liked that.

I've been critical of this as well - for some reason, our Army has a PO Check mentality when it comes to training.  You are only really assessed on the PO's (although other things go into your written assessment and - probably more importantly - your reputation in this small Army) and you are only pass/failed on the POs.  And POs are only formed around things that can be assessed by a simple tick-in-the-box form or crappy multiple choice exam and can be taught in a generic, 45 minute powerpoint presentation.

I think we were generally regarded as an "uneducated" Army in the past, and this is probably a vestige of it.
 
Infanteer said:
I've been critical of this as well - for some reason, our Army has a PO Check mentality when it comes to training.  You are only really assessed on the PO's (although other things go into your written assessment and - probably more importantly - your reputation in this small Army) and you are only pass/failed on the POs.  And POs are only formed around things that can be assessed by a simple tick-in-the-box form or crappy multiple choice exam and can be taught in a generic, 45 minute powerpoint presentation.

I think we were generally regarded as an "uneducated" Army in the past, and this is probably a vestige of it.

I think the PO check in the box mentality stems from a number of other things that were or maybe are still wrong with our army.  I think the idea of our PO check system is to ensure a standardized, fair assessment of all candidates regardless of who they are, or where they took their course.  In my opinion the PO check system is the army's way of eliminating the subjective evaluation from staff and instructors.  In a perfect world this would not be the case, but I have taught on several courses, some recently where it was evident that a subjective approach would have unfairly failed a candidate.

How many times have we all heard a fellow DS staff member say "I want to fail this guy but I cant".  (I have been guilty of this too).  In a good number of cases the sentiment is justified and well grounded, but in a number of cases it is not.

Overall I agree that the example of the British system relayed to us certainly sounds amazing in many ways and I hope we can get to that type of training as well.  In so doing there would need to be some method of balancing out the "fairness" and check and balance system we have in place now with alot of what is posted above.

You also bring up a good point about reputation and small army.  In a small army like ours reputation is extremely important.  However this has an ugly downside.  I have seem some guys have their reputations unfairly ruined out of pettyness and spite.
 
One of the interesting differences between my experience in Canada and the UK was that in the UK, we were being selected by Regimental staff (all the way up to the Regimental Colonel, who was the overseer for these courses) to be Officers in their Regiment. The staff were accountable to their chain of command at the Depot for running a tough, but fair and accountable, process. I know this because when I went back to our Depot as a Pl Comd I had the opportunity to be peripherally involved in other PO Courses, and it was quite an interesting display of concern that, first, we selected people to be Officers in our Regiment and, second, they could also go on to other Regiments/ Corps, if we were not keen on them, with no hard feelings. POs were seen as a valuable Army resource which was not to be squandered or abused.

I also encountered many of the staff on my PO course throughout my career in the Regiment, and we obviously knew each other quite well - which is a good team building experience! Where Officers are being selected and trained in a generic way, as in Canada, IMHO there are lower levels of accountability for staff actions and decisions, and less motivation from the trainees to exceed all Regimental expectations and go the extra mile (or 50).
 
daftandbarmy said:
One of the interesting differences between my experience in Canada and the UK was that in the UK, we were being selected by Regimental staff (all the way up to the Regimental Colonel, who was the overseer for these courses) to be Officers in their Regiment.

That was being perpetuated in many of Canada's Reserve Units into the 1970's.  I think today, many are simply accepting any officer prospect who is attending university at face value, with little or no selection process.  I am amazed at the feeling of entitlement many young people have today, expecting to be accepted as an officer (Reserve) simply because they are in their first year of university.  Reserve Units can still carry on these methods of selection.  It is a much harder thing for the Regular Force Units to do, simply due to the width and breadth of this land, not really being "Regional or County" Regiments.
 
Back
Top