Promotions in the CAF [Merged]

[George Wallace]

.......... end the Cpl For Life (CFL) stigma perhaps?

You will never end that.  There will always be "Cpl for Life", "MCpl for Life", "Sgt for Life", and so on; in the Jnr, Snr and officer ranks.  They will always exist.  What is the most scary scenario is when people are promoted two levels above their level of competence.  Now that is a problem.  Would you really want a Sgt (as not to detract from this topic) who was barely competent as a Cpl?

 

[Ludoc]

Removing MCpl and replacing with Lance Cpl and Cpl is "6 half and one dozen of the other".  Would serve no purpose other than to keep the base tailor busy and spend some tax dollars.

*cough* Pips and Crowns *cough*

 

[Pusser]

Really George, again? This is really stuck in your craw isn't it:

As was explained then, and remains the same now, it had absolutely nothing to do MP Ptes not getting respect, it was about using the pay scale of a Cpl as a recruiting incentive that was also tied into the requirement for a college diploma/spec pay.  Back in 2006 there were 18 trades that had the ability to promote their pers upon completion of Basic including those trades such as Veh Tech, Dental Tech, LCIS Tech and ATIS Tech...I suppose the whole point of the other 17 trades being able to offer that promotion as a recruiting incentive wasn't really about the money but rather about the lack of respect their Ptes were getting too, right?

If you want to hate the promotion, fine, I'm there with you, but at least hate it for the right reason(s) and stop continuing to spread the lie that it is an attempt to gain respect.

Actually George has a valid point.  In one of my sources from WWII, it clearly states that there were no privates in the military police.  This meant that all MPs were at least lance corporals.  The reason being that as lance corporals, they were NCOs and so had more authority than privates.  I don't know whether all MPs were instantly appointed/promoted to lance corporal or whether one had to have another trade first and could only transfer upon reaching lance corporal.

On another note, lance corporals are subordinate to corporals; therefore, presumably if we were to eliminate the master corporal appointment, then master corporals would become corporals (two chevrons) and corporals would become lance corporals (who traditionally wear one chevron).

 

[Journeyman]

Whatever the underlying rationale, automatically promoting MPs to Cpl certainly cleared up that respect issue. 

 

[old fart]

.....On another note, lance corporals are subordinate to corporals; therefore, presumably if we were to eliminate the master corporal appointment, then master corporals would become corporals (two chevrons) and corporals would become lance corporals (who traditionally wear one chevron).

As I have added before, in the Brit system at least, a Lance Corporal is a section 2IC with obviously Corporals the section commanders.

Whoever wrote the paragraph below for wikipedia spells it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_corporal

"The Canadian Forces abolished the rank of lance corporal on their creation as a unified force in 1968. The rank of trained private equates to OR-3 and wears the single chevron, but has no command authority. In terms of actual authority, the current appointment of Master Corporal equates most directly to the pre-unification appointment of lance corporal as in both cases, this rank was granted to soldier second-in-command of an infantry section, for example. The current rank of Sergeant equates most directly to the pre-unification appointment of corporal."

In the UK Royal Engineers for instance, to become a Lance Corporal, a sapper (trained, senior private) needs to be selected for a Junior NCOs Cadre, pass it and on completion is then eligible for promotion. 

And on it goes, a Warrant Officer being equivalent to a S/Sgt. 

On the MP note, always funny to watch newly minted Brit MP Cpl's trying to be everything but the sprogs they where....particularly back in the 70s/80s....when it was not uncommon to have Privates nearing 22 years of service. 

 

[Blackadder1916]

  In one of my sources from WWII, it clearly states that there were no privates in the military police.  This meant that all MPs were at least lance corporals.  The reason being that as lance corporals, they were NCOs and so had more authority than privates.  I don't know whether all MPs were instantly appointed/promoted to lance corporal or whether one had to have another trade first and could only transfer upon reaching lance corporal.

All Provosts were appointed L/Cpl on completion of Canadian Provost Corps training so that they had NCO status and thus authority to take into custody any soldier (including other NCOs regardless of rank) - they could not arrest officers, including warrant officers.  This was the same power as any other NCO regardless of corps.  Privates had no legal authority to order into confinement other privates, even ones seemingly junior to them.  From my understanding, WW2 era military policemen did not have the specially appointed  powers as "peace officers" that modern meatheads MPs have.  Respect had nothing to do with it.  They needed the rank in order to do their job according to the military law of the period.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

when it was not uncommon to have Privates nearing 22 years of service.

[tangent] Ah yes, the mytical 22 yr sapper/private who, on the last day in the mob, are promoted to LCpl so as to avoid the government having to pay the RSM's pension due a soldier who never got promoted in 22 years!!! [ /tangent]

 

[GreenMarine]

when it was not uncommon to have Privates nearing 22 years of service.

I almost love the thought being a Private for life, everything will be above the paygrade and one could slack off with maximum ignorance,

however I like having some money in my pocket and the ability to pull what little rank I have when the young no hooks aren't behaving.

 

[ronin medic]

I've had some mixed messages at work so I'll throw it out.  If a member is promoted in march do that help or hurt their career in general?  I would have thought it would be good since this member has been filling a MCpl position as a Cpl for most of the year and I would assume a decent MCpl PER would be written. Thoughts?

 

[lcis00110]

Depends on how a member has performed.  It'll be the first PER as a MCpl, and the promotion date should be noted.  The performance factor should not be changed if a member has been in the role of a MCpl position.  The potential factor towards the next rank however may take a little hit.  No matter though as it's a first PER in the new rank, and as such one can only climb from there and not drop.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just some (potential) UFI, for Reg Frce, ref is CFAO 49-4:

- for Seniority/EPZ, the newly minted Jack would have the same Seniority Date and EPZ for anyone promoted that year (01 Jan XXXX).  IMO, they are better off than the mbr who is promoted after 31 March, because they WILL have that first MCpl PER.  They did get promoted afterall, so they are doing things right (or at least "right enough"). 

- while they make take a hit on the Potential side, it shouldn't be a huge deal as they won't EPZ for Sgt for 2 years anyways.  That gives them time to develop and grow in the MCpl/MS world towards Snr NCO.

 

[Ostrozac]

Just some (potential) UFI, for Reg Frce, ref is CFAO 49-4:

- for Seniority/EPZ, the newly minted Jack would have the same Seniority Date and EPZ for anyone promoted that year (01 Jan XXXX).  IMO, they are better off than the mbr who is promoted after 31 March, because they WILL have that first MCpl PER.  They did get promoted afterall, so they are doing things right (or at least "right enough"). 

- while they make take a hit on the Potential side, it shouldn't be a huge deal as they won't EPZ for Sgt for 2 years anyways.  That gives them time to develop and grow in the MCpl/MS world towards Snr NCO.

Completely agree with Eye. Consider two members that are appointed MCpl out of the same merit board (in fall 2013). Member A is appointed 1 March 2014, Member B is appointed 1 May 2014. The seniority date for both is 1 Jan 2014. Both EPZ for Sergeant in 1 Jan 2016, and both, theoretically, could be seen by the merit board in fall 2015.

Merit boards look at the last three annual PERs.

Member A has a Cpl PER for 2013, a MCpl PER for 2014, a MCpl PER for 2015.
Member B has a Cpl PER for 2013, a Cpl PER for 2014, and a MCcpl PER for 2015.

That's a clear advantage to Member A. Admitedly, this would be smoothed out over time if the trade in question isn't promoting quickly, but for trades that have rapid promotion, it's a major advantage to get that first PER in rank as soon as possible.

 

[DAA]

- while they make take a hit on the Potential side, it shouldn't be a huge deal as they won't EPZ for Sgt for 2 years anyways.  That gives them time to develop and grow in the MCpl/MS world towards Snr NCO.

Chances are they will take a hit in the scoring but CFPAS takes that into consideration.  See Chap 1, Art 108, which states,

"When an individual has been promoted, or for any cause has been reverted or has relinquished rank during the reporting period, it must be clearly indicated in Section 3 (Official Appointments/Duties) with the effective date. The rank to be used in Section 1 of the PER is the rank held by the individual at the end of the reporting period with exception of an AWSE rank (see sect 109(1)). The supervisor should comment on the individual's performance in both ranks (e.g. "As a MCpl her performance was exemplary and she is proving to be a good Sgt"). The assessment of performance and potential must be based on the rank held at the end of the reporting period even if a promotion or reversion occurred late in the reporting period."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And, honestly, if someone JUST got their MCpl/MS, I'd like to think they are happy on the fact that they got promoted.  Getting a Developing MCpl is STILL a MCpl PER.  I'd take "Developing MCpl" over a Cpl PER any day. 

 

[PuckChaser]

And, honestly, if someone JUST got their MCpl/MS, I'd like to think they are happy on the fact that they got promoted.  Getting a Developing MCpl is STILL a MCpl PER.  I'd take "Developing MCpl" over a Cpl PER any day.

Especially since a Cpl MOI PER (at 50%) is worth less points towards the next merit board than a MCpl developing.

 

[ronin medic]

Thank you all very much for your input.  I was concerned that a potential disservice could have accidentally been inflicted on members unintentionally.  It seems pretty unanimous that a promotion late in the year is beneficial.  Thanks again.

 

[CountDC]

As someone that fell into this situation - March appointment - I have to agree that receiving it in Mar was better than waiting until Apr as it did place me in the merit boarding earlier.  Supervisors should though advise the member of the impact when they do the PER brief.  When you are expecting a MOI Cpl PER and suddenly it is a developing MCpl it does throw you for a bit of a loop.

 

[BetterL]

I was just watching the recruiting video for HCA.  During the video it mentioned that after basic training you will receive your commission and a promotion to lieutenant.  I thought you'd get a promotion to 2nd lieutenant.  Is this promotion trade specific or was the video not accurate?

 

[ModlrMike]

Generally speaking you are commissioned as a 2Lt upon graduation from BMOQ. The promotion to Lt usually follows completion of occupation training. There may be some variation based on the plan one is commissioned under.

 

[DAA]

Is this promotion trade specific or was the video not accurate?

Promotion to Lt after completion of BMOQ is "occupation" specific.