Acting lacking MCpl in charge of a section with qualified MCpl's

[Blackadder1916]

But is the problem the promotion system or the training system?  Are the numbers of Acting(LQ) due to people receiving their promotions in a timely manner after being properly evaluated and judged (centrally by board) in comparison to their peers, but due to limited space they haven't been able to be course loaded prior to promotion.  Granted I'm not familiar with the current situation but in the old days while trade courses and promotions were controlled from the career shops, JLC (the lack of which was usually the reason for A/MCpl) was controlled and loaded at the command/formation/regional level.  Though a priority list for JLC loading was developed based on promotion projections it was not always a guarantee that availability of course slot and availability of student coincided.

Or is the problem a result of changes in regulation about length of time that one can remain Acting Lacking if the inability to gain that leadership qualification is due to circumstances other than unavailability of course, i.e. medical category or other personal reason for not attending PLQ?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But is the problem the promotion system or the training system?  Are the numbers of Acting(LQ) due to people receiving their promotions in a timely manner after being properly evaluated and judged (centrally by board) in comparison to their peers, but due to limited space they haven't been able to be course loaded prior to promotion.

This is what I've seen in my trade the last few years;  in fact, I don't know of a single Cpl who went on PLQ before being promoted.  The norm seems to be get promoted, then get loaded on PLQ DL in the near future (several months to half a year), then go away for the residential portion.

The pre-req's for PLQ course loading for my MOSID seems to be "must be promoted to A/L MCpl.

Or is the problem a result of changes in regulation about length of time that one can remain Acting Lacking if the inability to gain that leadership qualification is due to circumstances other than unavailability of course, i.e. medical category or other personal reason for not attending PLQ?

Not sure about this part, but I will say there seems to be relatively consistent trend over the past decade to change the PLQ coursing, and in those transition times there were people who had some Mods of the course done but not all of them, and when the "new" PLQ course kicked in, they had to start all over again.  Back in the mid-90's, they were trialing "new" courses to replace ISCC and CLC (Army Jnr NCO for ISCC and JNCO OAS [Other Arms and Services] for everyone not Infantry).  I was staff on one of the pilot OAS courses, and the most significant change I could see from my CLC in the early 90s was the name change.  PLQ has changed and re-changed and changed to the point we've come full circle again and now have a CAF PLQ again.

Back in 2002, I was in Gagetown on my SLC.  There were 2 courses of PLQ on the go, and both of them were full of A/L MCpls.  Talking to some of the PLQ staff at the Mess, one of them told me the backlog in getting A/L Jacks thru was big enough that if every TE in the CAF running PLQs ran their full schedule of courses for a year, they might catch up to the amount of A/L MCpl in the CAF at that time IF no other people were promoted A/L.  16 years later and...I've got 5 A/L MCpls, that are all waiting.  I see a lot of name changing and 'revamping' going on, but none of it has reduced the actual problem IMO.  In the end, it had dropped the baseline expectation of the MCpl/MS down lower than ever and 'lessened' the rank.  I've heard people say "well, I've been a MCpl for over a year now, what possibly could I learn on PLQ".  :

 

[Eaglelord17]

How is the appointment ambiguous?  Although it is an appointment, it is still a promotion;  so it Pte to Pte (T).  I certainly expect more from a trained Aviator than I do an untrained one; it is a step towards the first NCO rank - Cpl.  Would we argue to get rid of the OCdt and 2Lt ranks, and everyone is a Lt right off the mark?  MCpl is also a stepping stone to Sgt, IAW the CFAO on Reg Force NCM Career Progression.  CFAO 49-4 IIRC? in the tables in Annex A (going from memory and away from my postal code and DWAN right now).

The QR & O doesn't seem to be ambiguous:  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals. 

The NDA doesn't get into the weeds stating a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl.  Where do you read that?

The pre-req's for MCpl are laid out in the CFAO mentioned above.  How do we have acting ranks (not just limited to MCpl)?  Because the QR & 0 permits it.

3.05 - ACTING RANK

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member may be granted an acting rank higher than the member's substantive rank:
a.for an indefinite period; or
b.for the period during which the member is filling a position on an establishment for which a rank higher than the member's substantive or temporary rank is authorized.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member granted an acting rank is liable to be posted or transferred in the member's substantive rank at any time.

(M)

We send people on tours, deployments etc *WSE* (While So Employed), including Col's as TF Commanders WSE to BGen.  If we can do it for position with that much command authority and responsibility, why not for Cpl's to MCpls?

I think the CAF has other things to focus and spend brain power, work hours and funding on that are a much higher priority to what amounts to cosmetic changes that have no positive or measureable benefit.

You keep referring to it as a rank which it is not. It is not a promotion, promotions have to do with rank, not appointments. A MCpls rank remains that of a Cpl. You cannot possess acting rank for something that isn't a rank to begin with, otherwise it wouldn't be a appointment.

"3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals."

Yes MCpls have authority over Cpls, but at the end of the day a Cpl can still do the same job as a MCpl, as at the end of the day a MCpl is a Cpl according to the QR&Os.

What is being suggested is changing written wording of the rank structure to be reflective of how it is actually used. Everyone treats MCpl as its own rank, either make it a rank or get rid of it. Personally I favour getting rid of it as it simply isn't necessary. No hooks being your attending training/initial trades courses, 1 hook being your trade qualified/working rank, and two hook being leadership rank as per many other nations in the Commonwealth and how we did it before unification. Have the pay line up with current no hook pay at the modified no hook, current Cpl pay for the modified 1 hook, and modified Cpl getting current Cpl (B) pay.

 

[TCM621]

I do have to agree that Acting ranks is used too much at least in the admin world. 

I also wonder about the meriting of acting with substantive.  Seems to me that the acting ranks should be merited only if there isn't enough substantives to meet the requirements.  Meriting someone that doesn't have the pre-reqs for the rank they are already wearing creates the situation of pushing them ahead onto a course, hoping they pass and promoting them acting again. Of course they deserve it because they are superior based on the PERs they earned because no supervisor ever over writes their PERs. 

That is a huge pet peeve of mine. If I have two people, one of whom is fully qualified for promotion and another is not, there needs to be some serious justification to promote the unqualified person. A/L should be used to fill spots that can't be filled with substantive people. The problem all comes back to the Per system. Being qualified to be promoted to MCpl is worth the same as having a mediocre French profile. Stop writing unqualified people as immediates.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You keep referring to it as a rank which it is not. It is not a promotion, promotions have to do with rank, not appointments. A MCpls rank remains that of a Cpl. You cannot possess acting rank for something that isn't a rank to begin with, otherwise it wouldn't be a appointment.

"3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals."

Yes MCpls have authority over Cpls, but at the end of the day a Cpl can still do the same job as a MCpl, as at the end of the day a MCpl is a Cpl according to the QR&Os.

What is being suggested is changing written wording of the rank structure to be reflective of how it is actually used. Everyone treats MCpl as its own rank, either make it a rank or get rid of it. Personally I favour getting rid of it as it simply isn't necessary. No hooks being your attending training/initial trades courses, 1 hook being your trade qualified/working rank, and two hook being leadership rank as per many other nations in the Commonwealth and how we did it before unification. Have the pay line up with current no hook pay at the modified no hook, current Cpl pay for the modified 1 hook, and modified Cpl getting current Cpl (B) pay.

Although it is an appointment, it is still treated as a promotion, as is Pte (B) to Pte (T).  I can't remember the ref for this, and am away from my postal code but when I get back I'll see if I can dig it up on my Favorites at work.

IMO, MCpl/MS is actually treated more of a rank than an appointment.  It's included in the PER 'rank' drop-down list, it is included in all 3 DEU rank and badges.  More specifically, indicate here on the CAF Ranks and Appointments website:

The formal rank structure within the CAF is essential for:

•passing orders in operations
•ensuring clarity of command
•maintaining order and discipline

Taking the above into context, and considering the "Master Corporals have powers of authority over all other Cpls", the MCpl appointment/rank (collectively, as the black and white policy combined with the actual use of the appointment day to day across the CAF) fits in well.  If the rank is not being employed to its max potential in a unit or sub-unit, that is a leadership and/or training issue to me, not a 'name and pay level' one.

I still opine your changes are cosmetic (much the same as going to Lance Cpl/Cpl/Sgt would) be and the required efforts wouldn't be worth it.  I'll agree it is problematic in some minor areas to have a MCpl 'appointment', but we've lived with it in the CAF for decades now, to no detriment to our ability to do the tasks Canada demands of the Forces given the identified purpose of the rank structure above.  :2c: 

 

[hattrick72]

You should look in the QR&Os for what a substantive rank is. For Officers it is the rank they hold (and are qualified). For NCMs it is the rank in which you can be demoted to from a charge or words of that affect. This may be playing into the appointment aspect of MCpl.

 

[dangerboy]

You should look in the QR&Os for what a substantive rank is. For Officers it is the rank they hold (and are qualified). For NCMs it is the rank in which you can be demoted to from a charge or words of that affect. This may be playing into the appointment aspect of MCpl.

Here is what QR&O Vol 1 Chapter 3 says:

3.03 - SUBSTANTIVE RANK
(1) The substantive rank of an officer is the officer's confirmed rank.

(2) The substantive rank of a non-commissioned member is that rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise than by:

      a.  a sentence of a service tribunal; or
      b.  reversion for inefficiency or misconduct. (See articles 11.10 - Reversion and Remustering for Inefficiency and 11.11 - Reversion upon Conviction by a Civil Authority).
(M)

 

[hattrick72]

(2) The substantive rank of a non-commissioned member is that rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise than by:

      a.  a sentence of a service tribunal; or
      b.  reversion for inefficiency or misconduct. (See articles 11.10 - Reversion and Remustering for Inefficiency and 11.11 - Reversion upon Conviction by a Civil Authority).
(M)
[/quote]

So is a Sgts substantive rank Cpl? The rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise? I have always seen it treated as QL6A or DP3A qualified meant substantive but the quote above always threw me off

 

[Navy_Pete]

(2) The substantive rank of a non-commissioned member is that rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise than by:

      a.  a sentence of a service tribunal; or
      b.  reversion for inefficiency or misconduct. (See articles 11.10 - Reversion and Remustering for Inefficiency and 11.11 - Reversion upon Conviction by a Civil Authority).
(M)


So is a Sgts substantive rank Cpl? The rank below which the member cannot be reduced otherwise? I have always seen it treated as QL6A or DP3A qualified meant substantive but the quote above always threw me off

It's slightly different for each trade; it's laid what prerequisites are required for each promotion.

But if someone has met all the requirements, and has been promoted to Sgt, I think what they are saying is that is there substantive rank, as they can only be reduced in rank as a result of a court martial sentence (possibly from a civilian conviction as well?  that could be an old ref in the QR&O)

Remember looking this up and dragging out the oc spec, the QR&O etc to explain to a flag officer why they couldn't demote a PO1 because he didn't want to do his cert 4, as he had completed everything required for the rank (cert 4 is for CPO2 in the oc spec).  That was a fun conversation as a new Lt(N)....

 

[hattrick72]

It's slightly different for each trade; it's laid what prerequisites are required for each promotion.

But if someone has met all the requirements, and has been promoted to Sgt, I think what they are saying is that is there substantive rank, as they can only be reduced in rank as a result of a court martial sentence (possibly from a civilian conviction as well?  that could be an old ref in the QR&O)

Remember looking this up and dragging out the oc spec, the QR&O etc to explain to a flag officer why they couldn't demote a PO1 because he didn't want to do his cert 4, as he had completed everything required for the rank (cert 4 is for CPO2 in the oc spec).  That was a fun conversation as a new Lt(N)....

I think CFAO 49-5 or 6 would play into the decision process as inefficiency plays a part as well as what you have; refusing a course that is required for the rank putting you A/L.  I generally find the dinosaurs are the CPO1/2 and the CWO/MWO.

I always disliked regs like this one as the meaning is not crystal clear. Officers cannot be promoted A/L am I right?

 

[ModlrMike]

Not in the same sense as it applies to NCMs. Officers must complete Phase 4 in order to be eligible for promotion to Capt/Lt(N). After that it's merit and time in rank. There are courses that are required for each subsequent promotion, but one can be promoted without them, as they're not DP style courses per se. There is a high degree of variability depending on the officer MOC involved.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But if someone has met all the requirements, and has been promoted to Sgt, I think what they are saying is that is there substantive rank, as they can only be reduced in rank as a result of a court martial sentence (possibly from a civilian conviction as well?  that could be an old ref in the QR&O)

COs can reduce the rank of Sgt/PO2

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-summary-trial-level/annex-t-table-of-punishments-commanding-officers.page

 

[hattrick72]

I will have to read the DOAD on development periods again with a focus on commissioned members then look at some trade specs.
When my secondary duty was the training officer I started to read up on the distance learning course I was loading Army and Air Force captains on. (CAFJOD? There are 4 or 5 levels)Never really figured out how they factored into their career equation.

 

[Navy_Pete]

COs can reduce the rank of Sgt/PO2

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-summary-trial-level/annex-t-table-of-punishments-commanding-officers.page

Right, following a summary trial.  Not just because feel like knocking them down a rank for not doing a qualification required for the next rank.

Can't see where that could happen outside of some kind of wartime scenario, as it's not something even typical for a lot of court martial sentences.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I will have to read the DOAD DAOD on development periods again with a focus on commissioned members then look at some trade specs.
When my secondary duty was the training officer I started to read up on the distance learning course I was loading Army and Air Force captains on. (CAFJOD? There are 4 or 5 levels)Never really figured out how they factored into their career equation.

I think you're looking for DAOD 5031-8, Canadian Forces Professional Development

 

[Quirky]

A/L is a promotion to a higher rank, where the individual lacks either the qualification (occupational or leadership) or the required time in (which is rare). AWSE is a "temporary" promotion to the next higher rank and only in effect while an individual is performing a specific job (ie; whilst so employed). To be promoted AWSE, you must be fully qualified and eligible to hold the next higher rank as "substantive", so you must meet ALL the promotion prerequisites, unless a waiver is authorized.

Seems to be the only relevant topic I could find.

If you're promoted via A/L into the next rank, does that time as a Cpl-MCpl, MCpl-Sgt etc, count towards time in rank for pension purposes?

 

[Remius]

Seems to be the only relevant topic I could find.

If you're promoted via A/L into the next rank, does that time as a Cpl-MCpl, MCpl-Sgt etc, count towards time in rank for pension purposes?

I think only if it becomes substantive but I could be wrong.

On my ILP years ago guys who were acting lacking were saying they were only there to get the substantive rank for pension purposes.

Don’t take this as gospel though.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm not sure that makes sense unless they were in danger of losing their rank by avoiding completing the substantive rank requirements and wanting to make sure best 5 was in the new rank.

My understanding is that pension makes best 5 years of pay rate, but if you're A/L and release then all your paperwork reverts you back to your previous substantive rank. This would mean if you got back in, it wouldn't be at the higher rank but you'd have still accumulated X years at the higher pay scale for pension purposes towards best 5.

 

[dapaterson]

Pension is based on what you are paid, regardless of your substantive rank.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Seems to be the only relevant topic I could find.

If you're promoted via A/L into the next rank, does that time as a Cpl-MCpl, MCpl-Sgt etc, count towards time in rank for pension purposes?

Its your best 5 years regardless of rank.

I think only if it becomes substantive but I could be wrong.

On my ILP years ago guys who were acting lacking were saying they were only there to get the substantive rank for pension purposes.

Don’t take this as gospel though.

Thats because they wanted to get rank XXX on their retirement ID card. But it is a thing, I've seen it too.

In the Reg Force you retire at the rank you are substantive at. But it has no bearing on your pension.