Senior promotions, appointments and retirements (merged)

[armyvern]

Yes and meanwhile we are blindly just cutting CWO's again, without any particular analysis about what they do for the CA and CAF....

Jon

Blindly ... no.

Analysis ... oh yes.

 

[Haggis]

Yes and meanwhile we are blindly just cutting CWO's again, without any particular analysis about what they do for the CA and CAF....

The CAF and the CA (notably the ARes) have more CWOs than positions.  At any given time there are a number of CWOs filling vacant Capt positions either for lack of Capts or while awaiting the process of their CFR or SRCP process.  Where the problem arisies is when you have a surplus (i.e. not ATL, BTL or part of the succession plan) CWO filling a Capt/Maj position who has no desire to CFR/SRCP when offered and wants the Capts job while retaining the CWOs prestige.  If you want to do the officer's job, become an officer.  CWOs/CPO1's have a shelf life and if your not part of the CAF succession plan, you're either invited up to the Officer's Mess or out.

 

[armyvern]

The CAF and the CA (notably the ARes) have more CWOs than positions.  At any given time there are a number of CWOs filling vacant Capt positions either for lack of Capts or while awaiting the process of their CFR or SRCP process.  Where the problem arisies is when you have a surplus (i.e. not ATL, BTL or part of the succession plan) CWO filling a Capt/Maj position who has no desire to CFR/SRCP when offered and wants the Capts job while retaining the CWOs prestige.  If you want to do the officer's job, become an officer.  CWOs/CPO1's have a shelf life and if your not part of the CAF succession plan, you're either invited up to the Officer's Mess or out.

Bingo.

CWO shelf life = 35 years of service or 10 years in rank or 55 years of age (CRA for the CWO rank) = Bye to those do not CFR or are not offered SRCP.

 

[Old EO Tech]

The CAF and the CA (notably the ARes) have more CWOs than positions.  At any given time there are a number of CWOs filling vacant Capt positions either for lack of Capts or while awaiting the process of their CFR or SRCP process.  Where the problem arisies is when you have a surplus (i.e. not ATL, BTL or part of the succession plan) CWO filling a Capt/Maj position who has no desire to CFR/SRCP when offered and wants the Capts job while retaining the CWOs prestige.  If you want to do the officer's job, become an officer.  CWOs/CPO1's have a shelf life and if your not part of the CAF succession plan, you're either invited up to the Officer's Mess or out.

Yes but this will even get worse if they cut the hard CWO positions, just because they don't have a CO/Comd as there partner(but still work for a LCol/Col).  As this is the CA's attitude right now.  Even though there are some very good reasons that these positions are CWO in the first place.

I do agree that CWO should not be holding Capt/Maj positions, I personally don't want to SRCP as COA1, but would if there was no hard CWO job to go into.  At least Capt/Maj's are deployed, were as non-SA/KP CWO are not..

Jon

 

[ModlrMike]

I would agree with that approach. Let's say you join at 20, and in 20 years your're a CWO/CPO1. You could theoretically serve another 20 years in the same rank. A significant barrier to developement for younger members. I think another aspect that diminishes the appeal of SRCP is that unlike CFR, there appears to be no opportunity for further promotion. If that limitation were removed, I wager more CWO/CPO1 might accept the offer. On the other hand, if we got rid of SRCP and rolled it into the CFR programme, so that there are two entry streams with the same career development opportunities - call it CFR and SCFR, then that might help to solve the problem.

 

[PuckChaser]

That makes a lot more sense. Our career progression system is stuck in the 1970s, there's a lot more folks getting in at 18 and staying until 60. If that individual makes CWO/CPO1 in 25 years, they're still only 43 with lots of time left to contribute. If we insist on our CWOs and successsion planned Tier 1/2 CWO/CPO1s be younger than 55, we need to provide a proper outlet into the officer corps.

We have a massive problem in Sigs, where we're 50% over PML in CWOs, but every single one in succession planning turned down a posting as the 1 HQ&Sigs RSM, forcing the Army to give it to a Cbt Eng CWO. Those CWOs were not removed from succession planning, nor told "SRCP or release", so we're still stuck in a quagmire that's partly of our own creation.

 

[Haggis]

That makes a lot more sense. Our career progression system is stuck in the 1970s, there's a lot more folks getting in at 18 and staying until 60. If that individual makes CWO/CPO1 in 25 years, they're still only 43 with lots of time left to contribute. If we insist on our CWOs and successsion planned Tier 1/2 CWO/CPO1s be younger than 55, we need to provide a proper outlet into the officer corps.

Back around 5 years ago there was a CWO/CPO1 Senior Appointment Employment Construct/Concept document published which outlined potential career "off-ramps" for CWO/CPO1 who were not, at a point in time, succession planned.  This closely followed the CANFORGEN announcing the 35/55 exit ramp ArmyVern mentioned in a previous post. Some of those "off-ramps" were, for example, lateral postings at Tier 4  (RSM to RSM), back-to-back KP postings, SA to KP to SA postings, ATL postings and, of course, SRCP and CFR.  I CFR'd in late 2014 after almost eight years as a Tier 4 and KP CWO so I didn't follow where this eventually went.

 

[armyvern]

...  As this is the CA's attitude right now.  ...

Not from my experience; where are you getting this from?

 

[armyvern]

Back around 5 years ago there was a CWO/CPO1 Senior Appointment Employment Construct/Concept document published which outlined potential career "off-ramps" for CWO/CPO1 who were not, at a point in time, succession planned.  This closely followed the CANFORGEN announcing the 35/55 exit ramp ArmyVern mentioned in a previous post. Some of those "off-ramps" were, for example, lateral postings at Tier 4  (RSM to RSM), back-to-back KP postings, SA to KP to SA postings, ATL postings and, of course, SRCP and CFR.  I CFR'd in late 2014 after almost eight years as a Tier 4 and KP CWO so I didn't follow where this eventually went.

I'll link to the following, but even it has been worked on heavily as part of the SEM project.  I have more recent project docs at my desk, but suffice it to say it's a dynamic project at this point in time. "Off-ramps" options have changed somewhat etc and the SAs & KPs now well-defined as to requirements, expectations and TORs etc ...

You are probably very familiar with the below already I suspect:

http://www.davidmlast.org/POE456-NEPDP/POE456-NEPDP_files/10%20NCM%20DP%205%20Report%2016%20June.pdf

 

[PuckChaser]

Back around 5 years ago there was a CWO/CPO1 Senior Appointment Employment Construct/Concept document published which outlined potential career "off-ramps" for CWO/CPO1 who were not, at a point in time, succession planned.  This closely followed the CANFORGEN announcing the 35/55 exit ramp ArmyVern mentioned in a previous post. Some of those "off-ramps" were, for example, lateral postings at Tier 4  (RSM to RSM), back-to-back KP postings, SA to KP to SA postings, ATL postings and, of course, SRCP and CFR.  I CFR'd in late 2014 after almost eight years as a Tier 4 and KP CWO so I didn't follow where this eventually went.

Some good info here, thanks. I'm keenly interested in how this all develops, as I'll end up one of those young MWO/CWO with lots of time left to serve should I make it that high up.

I'm not up high enough in the food chain to have all the succession planning acronyms down, what's KP and SA? I've got the tiering down but haven't seen them before.

 

[blacktriangle]

I'm no CWO but I think it's Key Position/Senior Appointment?

I plan to be a civilian long before I need to worry about succession planning, so I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm way off.

 

[armyvern]

I'm no CWO but I think it's Key Position/Senior Appointment?
...

You're right.

 

[armyvern]

Some good info here, thanks. I'm keenly interested in how this all develops, as I'll end up one of those young MWO/CWO with lots of time left to serve should I make it that high up.

I'm not up high enough in the food chain to have all the succession planning acronyms down, what's KP and SA? I've got the tiering down but haven't seen them before.

I'll get something up on Tuesday as to tiering /environmental, Branch, PAN-CAF, and how each Tier fits into KPs or SAs.

 

[PuckChaser]

Thanks Vern, much appreciated. I'll split everything out into a succession planning thread on it's own afterwards, I think it'll be a good resource here.

 

[Haggis]

I'll link to the following, but even it has been worked on heavily as part of the SEM project.  I have more recent project docs at my desk, but suffice it to say it's a dynamic project at this point in time. "Off-ramps" options have changed somewhat etc and the SAs & KPs now well-defined as to requirements, expectations and TORs etc ...

You are probably very familiar with the below already I suspect:

http://www.davidmlast.org/POE456-NEPDP/POE456-NEPDP_files/10%20NCM%20DP%205%20Report%2016%20June.pdf

Thanks, ArmyVern, and yes I am (was) familiar with this and the CWOSEM as well as the creation of the SAL Occ Specs.  I went to the civilian side/Class A world in mid 2013.  It seems like a long time ago now.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Not from my experience; where are you getting this from?

Its actually in a SEM ppt Vern, I'll dig it up and send it to you at work.  The CA doesn't consider CWO valid if they are not in a Command Team with a CO/Commander.

Jon

 

[Haggis]

Its actually in a SEM ppt Vern, I'll dig it up and send it to you at work.  The CA doesn't consider CWO valid if they are not in a Command Team with a CO/Commander.

The CA have a number of CWO KP as well.

 

[Old EO Tech]

The CA have a number of CWO KP as well.

Yes true they are fine with those they have designated KP, like Corps SM, AJAG etc

Jon

 

[armyvern]

Its actually in a SEM ppt Vern, I'll dig it up and send it to you at work.  The CA doesn't consider CWO valid if they are not in a Command Team with a CO/Commander.

Jon

Not quite right.  RSM is just the initial entry level appointment to the tiers of SP (Tactical Level Command Team).  Most CWOs are expected to do some TIR as a CWO (Snr Tech etc) prior to being appointed as RSM/Cox'n/UCWO is all.  Some CWOs will then move up a tier from those initial entry posns into the higher tiers, KP (operational lvl) through SA (strategic lvl).

I'm pretty sure that I also have the powerpoints with the project docs already.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Not quite right.  RSM is just the initial entry level appointment to the tiers of SP (Tactical Level Command Team).  Most CWOs are expected to do some TIR as a CWO (Snr Tech etc) prior to being appointed as RSM/Cox'n/UCWO is all.  Some CWOs will then move up a tier from those initial entry posns into the higher tiers, KP (operational lvl) through SA (strategic lvl).

I'm pretty sure that I also have the powerpoints with the project docs already.

Well I think we are getting different in formation Vern, I think we will be lucky to see any Snr Tech left, I talked with my Corps SM last week and the CA wanted to just simply cut 1/3 of our CWO....we are pushing back on that of course, but it's not as pretty as the slides make it look, the "SME CWO" stream in the SEM structure is not defined, and looks more likely to just be KP CWO positions only.  Time will tell.

Jon