PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Sapper6]

PteG,

Well, if you are truthful, then you have been served an injustice.  As an Army officer, I couldn't imagine not having one of my soldier's CF743As staffed up when they were due.

If you immediate supervisor is the problem then my only suggestion is to ask for an appointment with the Pl Comd.  He/she should know who you are anyway so this shouldn't be a stretch.  Failing that, I would recommend you speak to a Snr Cpl who you trust and could advocate your situation to someone that could make a difference.

In the end, you will get your Cpl rank.  Make sure that you are backdated for pay to your 48 month point.

As for your QL 5s, I know that there was a backlog in Borden for the RMS trade... we had the same problem out West with our clerks. 

Bottom line - hang in there and try not and get bitter.  Easy for me to say I know, but I don't think the CF is populated with guys like your supervisor.  There are really a good bunch of people out there.

Sapper 6

 

[pbi]

I echo Sapper6's advise. If your immediate IC is as bad as you say, then request an audience with the next in the chain. Do you have a Chief Clerk, or a CSM equivalent you could talk to? If, as you say, in your unit people don't ask questions of the chain of command, it sounds to me like it's time that they did.

On the other hand, there may be a good reason why you have not been promoted, one that you have not been counselled on, and which you may not like when it is explained to you. It appears that the CFPAS system is not being applied wherever it is you are working, so I imagine you do not have a clear, factual idea of what the problem is. Be that as it may, you are owed at least a clear explanation of why, and the opportunity to question it.

Sapper6: IMHO (and based on a bit of experience), it is dangerous to say things like:

In the end, you will get your Cpl rank.

We do not know this, because we do not know for sure what the problem is. IMHO this falls under the heading of the kind of promises that Pte G82 was complaining about in the first place.

The fact is that in the Army we do not promote ourselves. We do not "ask" for promotion. We work for other people, and either we meet their expectations or we don't go very far. We have a right to expect fair and open treatment, and to have the system explained to us, but that is all. Cpl and Capt are not automatic and both can be withheld by the CO for cause.

Cheers

 

[CdnArtyWife]

Quote from: mseoptrucker on January 21, 2005, 18:14:02
The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .

Directly from the CFPAS Help File:
Quote
Member's Responsibilities
To prepare for the discussion with the supervisor, members are asked to think of their strengths and weaknesses. The member also reviews Section 1 of the PDR Form in preparation for discussing the Critical Tasks and whether he/she has successfully met the Expected Results. In addition, the member completes Section 3 of the PDR Form by writing a list of accomplishments, which includes work-related and extracurricular activities the supervisor may or may not have observed. The member also completes Section 4, Member's Career Goals, by listing any career goals he/she has in terms of jobs, postings, courses, or other aspirations the member is striving for.

So for what it's worth at this point, you are now responsible for letting your supervisors know what your career goals are, short and long term, and this includes aspirations for promotion in my book, even if it isn't mentioned specifically.   In spite of this, I never fail to be amazed at the number of subordinates who will arrive at a PDR session with Section 3 and Section 4 either not filled out or done so poorly they shouldn't have bothered.   If they can't be bothered to put any effort into preparing for a critical element of their personal and professional development, it tells me a lot.

good post garb811, well said.

Mseo-> There is something to be said about taking the "initiative" and making your superiors aware of your career intents. This initiative is usually one of many qualities that they look for in a leader, and from my understanding the rank of Sgt is usually considered a junior leadership position. Therefore there are certain responsibilities that go hand in hand with promotion, not just the pay incentives.

It is good to know that you are finally on track, good luck to you.....

 

[Sapper6]

Sapper6: IMHO (and based on a bit of experience), it is dangerous to say things like:

We do not know this, because we do not know for sure what the problem is. IMHO this falls under the heading of the kind of promises that Pte G82 was complaining about in the first place.

The fact is that in the Army we do not promote ourselves. We do not "ask" for promotion. We work for other people, and either we meet their expectations or we don't go very far. We have a right to expect fair and open treatment, and to have the system explained to us, but that is all. Cpl and Capt are not automatic and both can be withheld by the CO for cause.

PBI,

      Yes, you are correct.   Although I didn't come right out and ask, perhaps there is a discipline or performance issue that he is not been forthcoming with.   If so, the chain of command (ie. CO) does not need to support the promotion to Cpl.   However, that being said it has been my experience that 'in today's Army' we don't hold back Cpl promotion unless there is something very serious going on.   In fact, poor performance noted on PDRs or told verbally to a Pte have not been supported by Formation HQs for holding back Cpl promotion....in my humble experience.   I personally don't agree with this 'unwritten policy' but precedent has been set unfortunately.

S6

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I have just gone through the carreer mangers brief and he mentioned that do to the shortage at Mcpl and Sgt level the powers that be are trying there best to push through the necessary steps to allow exceptional (this is relative in application) pte's to take the leadership course and advance to Mcpl without spending anytime in the Cpl rank.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I have just gone through the carreer mangers brief and he mentioned that do to the shortage at Mcpl and Sgt level the powers that be are trying there best to push through the necessary steps to allow exceptional (this is relative in application) pte's to take the leadership course and advance to Mcpl without spending anytime in the Cpl rank.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?

"You're being passed over, Staff."

  The RSM, "The Hill"

 

[sigpig]

Isn't this the old DAPS - Delegated Advanced Promotion Scheme (System?) in the combat arms?  I can remember one Christmas parade with the strats where about 8 guys got promoted to MCpl and about 6 or 7 had been Ptes. A very smart and sharp Pte in my tp got daps'd to MCpl and was made my gunner and shortly afterward a crew commander. As I said, he was a great soldier, but had very little experience when he became a crew commander.

At one time it almost seemed like something was wrong with you if you were a Cpl in the combat arms - you hadn't been daps'd from Pte to MCpl.

 

[George Wallace]

Problems?

1. EGOs off the chart.

2. No Experience in the many aspects involving "Man Management".

3. No Experience in job, and methods of getting job done successfully.  Lack of knowlegde of getting a job done via accepted 'shortcuts'.

4. No Field Experience in Leadership roles.

5. Not enough time to develop "Tactical sense".

6. Problems with Power.

7. Lack of maturity (should be ruled out in selection process).

8.......

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Exactly what I was thinking GW.

 

[big_johnson1]

I thought a lot of the Army Reserve units did this already? I had a friend who joined the arty reserves in 11th grade, and three years later he was a Master Bombadier. Smart guy, but again, no time in the job, and in the militia it's got to be even worse than reg force, with most parading being done on weekends and in the summer.

 

[sigpig]

The (unofficial) rationale behind the daps I referred to above was to encourage retention in 'less than desireable' trades, ie the combat arms. There was a hemorrhaging of people to other trades or out altogether and it was thought this would encourage good people to stay.

Is this proposal along the same lines? You've just mentioned inf but is this being looked at for the other cbt arms trades? Once the individual progress to senior sgt and above things would tend to even out but there would definitely be problems with experience and maturity in the MCpl and possibly junior sgt ranks.

A guy could be a pte in a veh crew or section one day and in charge of it the next.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I can't speak for the other trades as it was specifically addressed (ie across the board) I can only speak on behalf of what was addressed to the Infantry and personal shortages.

 

[X Royal]

Its nothing new its been happening at   least since the the late   70's. Lets not forget that Cpl. is not a leadership rank but in the Reg. force denotes 4 years service generally. In the Reserves 2years?   : I've been out for about 9 years so things may have changed. In the late 70's & 80's only the exceptional Pte's(generally) were offered the chance to take the ISCC. They still had to pass the course before having a chance for promotion.

 

[pbi]

X-Royal is correct. I remember DAPS very well. It came on the scene at a time in the late 1970's/early 1980s when the Regular Army was "aging out" just as it is now, and was losing numbers of soldiers to release and OT (then called remuster). It had mixed results. I had some young MCpls under my command who were absolutely sharp soldiers and natural leaders: under the guidance of the CSM and Pl WOs they did very well and went on to be keen young Sgts and WOs, learning as they went. These guys deserved to get going early, and did the unit and the Army proud. On the other hand we got some who had little idea of what they were doing, and could not handle the rank properly. They got into fights in the Ranks, and otherwise failed to behave as leaders. These, IMHO, were in the minority.

An additional result, as has been suggested, was that anybody in the Reg Inf who was a Cpl came to be looked upon as a "dead-ender" because so many MCpls were getting there via DAPS and leaving the older, slower guys behind. Soon, in the PPCLI anyway, we began to run out of these guys. I remember when 3 RCR was briefly part of 1 CMBG: they sent a batch of guys on the ISCC, and the Battle School staff remarked on the high proportion of old Cpls being sent on the course by the RCR. We generally were sending Ptes or young Cpls: we just didn't have a significant population of older Cpls.

As I look back on DAPS, I think that in general the results were good: leading a rifle section or being 2IC is a young, fit keen  guy's game, not a place for most 35 or 40 year olds. The problem was quality control: sometimes it wasn't there. However, IMHO we are facing the same conditions now that we faced then: we are getting to be a very old Army (I notice this very starkly in comparison with US who appear to be 5-10 years younger at equivalent ranks) and we are desperately short of NCOs (both Res and Reg).

Cheers

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I hope (but doubt) that the quality control you speak of is there.  I can see it now, a bunch of 18 yr old Jacks with a chip on their shoulder and won't listen to no one.  I guess thats why God invented senior Cpl's who don't a f__k.

 

[pbi]

I can see it now, a bunch of 18 yr old Jacks with a chip on their shoulder and won't listen to no one.

I don't think we'll get them quite that young-you'd probably want the guy to have completed his first BE which would put him around 21. IMHO, the problem you describe above is a real one, but to me that is the job of the Pl WOs and the CSM: to train the younger NCOs.

Cheers

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I agree with you to a point and just want to remind you that the WO and CSM plates are really full as it is.  I do acknowledge the point you've made though.

 

[pbi]

I agree with you to a point and just want to remind you that the WO and CSM plates are really full as it is.   I do acknowledge the point you've made though.

Yes-you are very right, and their plates have been full at least since I was in bn. This is because we have got CSMs chained to their desks as clerks, and everybody else overloaded with things to do,some of them silly and wasteful.  IMHO the training of young NCOs is one of the most important jobs our WOs should be doing along with the training of junior officers. Unfortunately, like many truly professionally important things, these get lost in the endless shuffle of battalion life. Still, we must not lose sight of this.

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Any ideas on how to "free" Warrants and Sergeants Major from their desks to dedicate more time to developing the JNCO's?

 

[ex royal now flyer]

I did the ISCC in Sept - Dec 89, after 14 months in the Bn as a private.   Subsequently I was promoted to MCpl in Dec 89.   Say what you want about those of us in this category but in the end I was an effective section commander and I do not regret the accelerated promotion.

That year, the CO was looking to promote 22 pers to MCpl.   The pre-ISCC had 60 guys ranging from older Cpl's, Jr Cpl's, Snr Pte's and 6 Jr Pte's.   After the 9 day pre-ISCC only 22 were sent to the Battle School for the course.   The majority of the older Cpl's quit the pre-course as well a handful of the others.   A few were deemed to have "failed" the pre-ISCC.     All six of us Jr Pte's went on course and four of us passed.   Before the pre-ISCC started, the Jr Pte's were all told we were not the priority and there was no guarantee would go on course even if we passed the pre-course.   In the end, the CO only promoted 11 out of the 60 who started the pre-course. 7 Cpl's and 4 Pte's.   BTW, only one Cpl had more than 5 years in.

Back then, the older Cpl's quit because the $50 a month pay raise was not worth the aggravation.   On the other side of the coin the jr Pte's could see a 100% pay increase that came with the promotion.   At the time, I was making $17,000 per year.   A frist year MCpl made almost $34,000.   However, money was not the only motivation.

After a year in the Bn I felt that I was not learning as much as I should have been.   Though perhaps ass backwards, I learned more as a section commander than I did as a Pte and the end result was myself becoming a better soldier.   I believe that the management skills that I acquired would not have been acquired as a Pte.   At no time during the ISCC was how to deal with personnel problems ever taught.   Thus, I believe if I had done the ISCC three or four years later, I still would not have had the tools to deal with some of the personnel problems I faced.   However, one learns quickly how to deal with such problems when you are forced to deal with them.   Yes, listening to the senior persons was key to getting it right coupled with effective personal leadership skills - skills that cannot be taught but are instinctive.    

Call it being in the right place at the right time or whatever but I do believe that all 60 guys who started the pre-ISCC all had the same opportunity and chances to complete the ISCC.   For whatever reason, it was ulitimately their choice to quit.   So here is the question:

Would a platoon Commander, platoon WO, and Cpl's and Pte's rather have a not-so motivated Sr Cpl or a motivated ready to learn Jr Pte as a section commander?