Direct Entry Officer (DEO) questions [Merged]

[The_Falcon]

I'm sorry to revive an old thread. Does anyone have any information on the next selection board for DEO Construction Engineering Officer? I was told I missed selections for Engineering Officer.

I'm waiting for my medical to come back from Ottawa and I don't want to miss this board. It took me 3.5 years to get to this point and would hate to wait another year. Im hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. Thank you in advanced.

Call your CFRC, if you are still waiting for  the medical thumbs up then you can't be selected regardless of when the board sits. 

 

[Danny_C]

Thank you for the reply. I'm aware of that and the person I spoke to at the recruiting centre was unaware of when the national selection board sits for that profession. I know it's out of my control now but I'm trying to get an idea of the deadline.

Have a good weekend,

Danny

 

[aesop081]

I'm trying to get an idea of the deadline.

The selection board sits, when the selection board sits.

If selected, the CF will tell you, when the CF wants to tell you.

Since you have not completed the entire application process, it is all moot to you.

 

[armyforums25]

Hi Guys,

Quick question; coming out of school with a couple of professional degrees (including a law degree), I would really like to serve, no more than 4 years, in the military. I do not want to be a legal officer and combat arms officer is my goal.
- Armour
- Infantry
- MARS

Anyways, after reviewing the content of the forum I have been led to believe that my shortest commitment would be 9 years long. Is this assumption correct?

I come from a military family and see serving my country as a character prerequisite before beginning my career. However 10 years is simply too long for me. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks guys.

 

[PuckChaser]

Why don't you join the reserves and serve while starting your career? You'll get the experience and leadership you want without the time commitment. Don't waste the RegF's time if you can't commit for 9 years, we're not in the business of padding people's resumes.

 

[dimsum]

Slight (maybe pedantic) point:  MARS is not a Combat Arms trade. 

Also, I totally agree with what PuckChaser suggested.

 

[therickiness]

9 years is not a contract. its just a term the army will guarantee you a job. i believe the minimum obligatory service time before eligible for voluntary release is calculated as: time training + timing training x 2. for instance if i trained for a year, i am expected to give 2 years of service for a total of 3 years in force. i am an armoured deo and this is best to my knowledge. DND website has a page on this.

 

[therickiness]

i c nothing wrong in recruiting the best and brightest the community has to offer and still respect pplz decision not to make the military their career.

 

[PuckChaser]

i c nothing wrong in recruiting the best and brightest the community has to offer and still respect pplz decision not to make the military their career.

Maybe before you offer your opinion on how we train and retain our officer corps, you actually spend some time in the CF and maybe, just maybe, learn to type using punctuation and grammar. MSN speak won't get you far on BMOQ.

 

[jeffb]

9 years is not a contract. its just a term the army will guarantee you a job. i believe the minimum obligatory service time before eligible for voluntary release is calculated as: time training + timing training x 2. for instance if i trained for a year, i am expected to give 2 years of service for a total of 3 years in force. i am an armoured deo and this is best to my knowledge. DND website has a page on this.

The CF will not guarantee you a job. There are all kinds of people that get released as a result of training failures during training and more that get released for various administrative and disciplinary reasons afterwards. I would suggest that you stay in your lane on this one.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Quick question; coming out of school with a couple of professional degrees (including a law degree), I would really like to serve, no more than 4 years, in the military. I do not want to be a legal officer and combat arms officer is my goal.

- Armour  DEO VIE 9
- Infantry  DEO VIE 9
- MARS  DEO VIE 8

Anyways, after reviewing the content of the forum I have been led to believe that my shortest commitment would be 9 years long. Is this assumption correct?

Numbers I've inidicated in yellow text above are taken from ADM (HR-MIL) Instruction 05/05, Annex A, Appendix 1 (updated 10 Mar 12). 

VIE = Variable Initial Engagement, the new initial engagement for members of the Reg Force.

DEO #s (for external/off the street entry plan) for the occupations you indicated from the Intake plan this year are:

Armour - 15
Infantry - 5
MARS - 42

* those are total #s for 12/13, I can't say how many are still unfilled.

 

[George Wallace]

WOW!  What a way to have loss one's credibility in one, two, posts.  I have seen Armour Troopers with a better command and respect for the English written language, than what you have just displayed.

9 years is not a contract. its just a term the army will guarantee you a job. i believe the minimum obligatory service time before eligible for voluntary release is calculated as: time training + timing training x 2. for instance if i trained for a year, i am expected to give 2 years of service for a total of 3 years in force. i am an armoured deo and this is best to my knowledge. DND website has a page on this.

i c nothing wrong in recruiting the best and brightest the community has to offer and still respect pplz decision not to make the military their career.

Please be so kind as to go back and refresh your mind by READING our Army.ca Conduct Guidelines and then conduct yourself in a more professional manner.  I for one doubt I would like to have any documentation written by you in such a manner cross my path.  Please respect the Site Guidelines and use a more professional form of writing that will more accurately reflect your 'station'.



EDIT to add:  From our Recruiting Thread - The Importance of proper grammar on this forum AND in the CF.

 

[therickiness]

Such an avid expression of hierarchy and discipline on a "forum", which compels me to say this is an unfortunate understanding of the concept "internet discussion". Hopefully these bureaucratic censors are unique only to those old army guys and not everyone. I will try to follow grammatical guidelines but my ideas remain until otherwise suggested by my experience.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Whoops.  Mistakenly thought you were the OP.  My mistake, your fault!  :blotto:

 

[Tollis]

Such an avid expression of hierarchy and discipline on a "forum", which compels me to say this is an unfortunate understanding of the concept "internet discussion". Hopefully these bureaucratic censors are unique only to those old army guys and not everyone. I will try to follow grammatical guidelines but my ideas remain until otherwise suggested by my experience.

At least that post had better grammar even if it did lack respect.  You should remember that this forum is public and therefore is a representation of the Canadian Forces to the public.  As someone who hopes to someday be an officer in the CF you should take some pride in the way we display ourselves to the public you will come to learn we take that very seriously.  Also those "old army guys" will be the ones training you and the ones in command of you and any units you'll serve in so don't think for one minute that your going to get away from the so called "bureaucratic censorship" 

 

[brihard]

Such an avid expression of hierarchy and discipline on a "forum", which compels me to say this is an unfortunate understanding of the concept "internet discussion". Hopefully these bureaucratic censors are unique only to those old army guys and not everyone. I will try to follow grammatical guidelines but my ideas remain until otherwise suggested by my experience.

Cry more. This being a community of professionals, we generally hate seeing something that appears as if written by a child. The internet is a means of communication, not an excuse to get bloody idle. It's not just 'old army guys'. Some of us young ones thing it's sloppy and stupid too. Nobody's asking for you to be the pinnacle of eloquence and grammar- just to avoid the internet stylings of fifteen year old girls on MSN. If that offends you somehow, too bad. Welcome to the grown up world you're trying to enter into.

 

[therickiness]

Ok, boss. Lesson learned.

 

[curious george]

Such an avid expression of hierarchy and discipline on a "forum", which compels me to say this is an unfortunate understanding of the concept "internet discussion". Hopefully these bureaucratic censors are unique only to those old army guys and not everyone. I will try to follow grammatical guidelines but my ideas remain until otherwise suggested by my experience.

If I may humbly add my two cents.  The best English is clear, uses simple language, has brevity, and humanity.  Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. 

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . . . my ideas remain until otherwise suggested by my experience.

Knowledge n.  Awareness or familiarity gained by experience.  A person’s range of information.  A theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Experience n.    Actual observation or practical acquaintance with facts or events.  Knowledge or skill arising from this.

You’re going to let your statements (and tone of posts) stand and fall on your experience and knowledge?  A bold stand for one without any experience or knowledge of the subject. 

Your use of the phrase “obligatory service” leads me to believe that you don’t know what you are talking about.  You’ve heard a few catchwords in your enrolment process and attempted to impress.  What may apply to you and your TOS may not necessarily apply to others.  You heard “apples” and started talking about “bananas”.  The OP was seeking clarification (or more likely reassurance) that by signing his terms of service he would not be obligated to X years in the military.  While initial terms of service (particularly for officers) may appear at face value to commit a person to nine or more years service, in practical terms it does not (or may not according to policies that are, of course, subject to change) .  While his initial TOS may be a VIE of 9 years, it is not “obligatory service”.  Obligatory service is a very specific term referring solely to periods of service that one “must” serve as payback for subsidized education or a few in-service training programs (e.g. pilot); most DEO officers do not incur obligatory service as a result of their occupational training.

Those with “knowledge” and “experience” (in other words like those old army guys you disrespected for having told you to stay in your lane) know that there isn’t one regulation, order, instruction or directive that lays everything out in simple terms understandable by a simpleton (otherwise you would have already known the true answer to the OP's question).  But anything enforceable in the CF (or any government organization) is written down.  Among the myriad directives applying to the OP’s question is CFAO 15-2 which deals with release.

CFAO 15-2
ANNEX A --SPECIFIC RELEASE POLICIES

SECTION 3 --VOLUNTARY


RELEASE -ENROLMENT PRIOR TO 1 JAN 82

38.  A member who enrolled, re-enrolled or transferred into the Regular
Force prior to 1 Jan 82, except for a member undergoing recruit or basic
military occupation training, who requests voluntary release must submit
that request at least six months in advance of the preferred date of
release or the commencement of terminal leave whichever is earlier.
Subject to deferral for a military requirement, as specified in paragraph
44 of this annex, the request will normally be granted and the member
released on the date requested.  Should military and personal requirements
be compatible, the six-month period of notice may be reduced by the
approving authority at NDHQ.

RELEASE -ENROLMENT ON OR AFTER 1 JAN 82

39.  A member, except those serving under ROTP, MOTP, DOTP, or DITP, who
enrols, re-enrols or transfers into the Regular Force on or after 1 Jan 82,
and requests voluntary release, will not normally have that request
approved, except during a period of recruit training as specified in
paragraph 36 of this annex, for a period of three years commencing from the
date of enrolment unless compassionate circumstances exist.  Subject to the
requirement to complete the initial three year period of service, a member
must submit that request at least six months in advance of the preferred
date of release or the commencement of terminal leave whichever is earlier.
Subject to deferral for a military requirement, as prescribed in paragraph
44 of this annex, the request will normally be approved to be effective on
the date requested.  Should military and personal requirements be
compatible, the six-month period of notice may be reduced by the approving
authority at NDHQ.

Caveat:  My access to CFAOs is limited to a (perhaps) outdated disk.  Someone with access to the DIN could check whether this portion of CFAO 15-2 is still applicable.


What does this mean in practical terms?  While a prospective officer may sign TOS with a VIE of nine years, his contract* (*Yes sunshine, it is a contract.  Look up the definition of contract - an agreement) will not necessarily bind him to the CF without any recourse for earlier release.  The terms of that agreement is that in exchange for serving in the Canadian Forces, an individual will be paid, trained, fed, watered and otherwise governed in accordance with existing (and future) laws, regulations, orders, instructions, directives, policies and sometimes customs and traditions.  If the CF needs the individual or if the individual wants to stay for the full nine years (and he is deemed acceptable to stay for that period of time) then he can stay and on completion of that period of service he will receive some additional benefits for having so served.  According to present policy, if the individual wants to leave before completion of his VIE, he can request voluntary release IAW CFAO 15-2 and in most circumstances his request will be approved.

 

[Danjanou]

Such an avid expression of hierarchy and discipline on a "forum", which compels me to say this is an unfortunate understanding of the concept "internet discussion". Hopefully these bureaucratic censors are unique only to those old army guys and not everyone. I will try to follow grammatical guidelines but my ideas remain until otherwise suggested by my experience.

And that crack is now going to cost you "valuable" mil points young jedi.