• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JBP
  • Start date Start date
Update:  So...IST/CST not getting spec pay for awhile?

*** Sent on behalf of LCol I.R. Marchand ***

** This email has been sent to affected members of the RCCS, all RCCS Senior Officers and Senior NCOs **


It has been more than two months since our last official communication concerning ACISS specialist pay – although there has been many developments on this file, we assessed that it was best to ensure we had a firm understanding of the way ahead before re engaging with our community and our soldiers. Please disseminate this message to all concerned personnel.

1. FORMER LCIS TECHS

All technical data on former LCIS Techs who are entitled to specialist pay retroactive to 1 October 2011 has been provided to the Director of Human Resources and Information Management (DHRIM). This organization takes that data for every individual ACISS-LCIS Tech and rebuilds their military employment history in the Human Resource Management System (HRMS). While this process is achievable within a relatively reasonable amount of time, it is only part of the process. Once HRMS has been updated, files are then transferred to the pay authority, Director Military Pay and Allowances Processing (DMPAP). They must synchronize the new HRMS data with the member’s pay account, rebuilding the pay history – cycle by cycle (in 2 week intervals) for approximately 7 years. Because this process cannot be scripted, all actions need to be manual inputs and it is very time consuming and vulnerable to error. One file takes approximately 1 hour to synchronize, and that is when there are no complications. To date, several hundred files have been either completed or in the process of being completed. Given the complexity and unpredictability of file processing, DMPAP cannot provide an estimated time for completion. They have dedicated resources to our requirement and will continue to provide feedback as large number of files are completed. We are confident that they are working as fast as reasonably possible and our team will continue to work with them on LCIS files until every last soldier is correctly compensated.

2. CST /IST

IAW CDS Order 046/17, IST and CST were granted specialist pay retroactive to 1 October 2011; for a variety of reasons, the payment and/or corrective actions to pay accounts for these individuals has not commenced. First, we have to process LCIS Techs as a priority and the work cannot be done concurrently - as it is being completed by the same authorities within DHRIM and DMPAP. Secondly, and equally as important, we are currently working on modifying the Military Employment Structure (MES) of ACISS in order to greatly simplify career management and better manage the payment of specialist pay for the future. Unfortunately, but unforeseeable at the time, the revised ACISS MESIP (Aug 31 17) was not structured with CST and IST as specialist trades. Our attempts to establish a structure that could accommodate them being specialist trades in the future was not supported. As such, only once CDS Order 046/17 was approved in December 2017 could we begin the work to amend the structure to reflect IST/CST as specialist pay trades. In short, we need to fix this before we move forward or we would be complicating the career management of these sub occupations. Making this fix is now our main effort. Our objective is that a new MES can be in place shortly after the completion/payment of former LCIS Tech files.

3. CST – AKOR BEFORE AKOX

We sent an advisory in early January warning that any CST member who had received retroactive pay, but, who had qualified AKOR before AKOX, should be very cautious about spending all of their money because it is highly likely that some of it will be recuperated. To reiterate, when CDS Order 050/16 erroneously granted specialist pay to CST in January 2017, the pay authority based the backdated payment on the day the soldier obtained DP 2.1 (not taking into account DP 2.0 – AKOX). This should not have happened and we only discovered this oversight in late 2017 when reviewing the implementation of CDS Order 046/17. We encourage all units to look closely at these situations on an individual basis to mitigate the financial impact on our soldiers. While we have no mechanism to prevent a recuperation of monies paid between the date the soldier achieved AKOR (the date they were paid IAW CDS Order 050/16) and the date they achieved the latest of AKOR and AKOX (the date they should have been paid IAW CDS Order 046/17) – there are various courses open to alleviate the burden. The chain of command may contact us or G1 Personnel Policy to discuss individual cases.

4. CISTM

Recently, we have received many questions concerning CISTM and specialist pay, namely, why we have a structure in which a CST or IST Sgt will be promoted only to lose their specialist pay. This is a valid question, and we want all affected WOs and MWOs to know that we asked the same question to the authority which evaluates specialist pay. CISTM was considered for specialist pay in 2013 and were told by authorities unequivocally that CISTM was not eligible for specialist pay. Subsequent efforts by RCCS to petition for its consideration (2016, 2017) met with a similar inability to persuade the policy holder of our logic. Despite our unwavering assessment that IST and CST WO remains a specialist after promotion from Sgt, based on the Director of Pay Policy Development’s system for specialist pay evaluation, it would not meet the threshold to be assigned to the specialist pay trade group. To be clear, former LCIS Techs who retain specialist pay as CISTMs are receiving it because of their former status as LCIS Techs – and this is the only reason. We are now evaluating the future trade structure of ACISS to ensure that future evolutions of the MOSID address this discrepancy and ensure that for applicable occupations, our ranks from Cpl to MWO are considered for specialist pay assignment. In the interim, we continue to ask for patience, reinforcing that although we may not have been able to have specialist recognition bestowed on WO-MWO ranks of CST and IST at this time, we are laying the groundwork for the long term compensation of deserving ACISS members from Cpl to MWO.

5. REQUESTS FOR PAY REVIEW

We are aware that many of you had already estimated what amount of retroactive pay you should have received – and, have subsequently discovered that you were paid a lesser amount. First, our leadership advises against this practice of self-calculation. Only the analysts in DMPAP are qualified to calculate retroactive pay transactions given the complexity of rebuilding approximately 400-800 separate transactions and taking into account several General Pay Increases (GPI). However, some soldiers have taken the time to do this exercise. If, based on some form of quantifiable evidence they believe that they should have received additional money – then I suggest that (through the chain of command) they request a review of their pay account. I caution, however, that if such a review reveals that a soldier was overpaid rather than underpaid, recovery action will be initiated and there will be nothing that can be done to avoid it.

6. PENDING RELEASES

We have received a number of requests to accelerate the process of addressing pay files of CST and IST members with pending releases. For reasons described in paragraph 2, we are unable to process these requests at this time as much as we would want to. As file data to DHRIM and DMPAP is processed in groupings of 20-40 soldiers, it is extremely difficult to influence when an induvial soldier’s file is treated. That said, we understand that as some soldiers approach release, the uncertainty of not knowing how their pay situation will affect their retirement income is creating justifiable stress. With this in mind, we will be discussing these scenarios with DMPAP in order to issue supplementary information about how a member who is retired will receive the money that they are owed and how this will affect their pension. Any soldier who is releasing should be informed that RCCS leadership remains responsive to them to provide updates on their pay situation until such a time that it resolved.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

The passage of clear and accurate communication is vital to our community in respect to these challenging developments to ensure soldiers receive proper compensation. To this end we have attempted to provide the most accurate information available, trying to balance the need to accurately inform against issues which evolve weekly. However, communication which has originated from the field has been less than helpful at times. With this in mind, I remind all senior leaders of the RCCS to discourage the passage of negative, incomplete or even inflammatory information through official means (DWAN, town halls) and unofficial means (social media). I will be clear – negative communication does not assist our community in achieving our compensation goals and is dangerous to the morale and health of ACISS and the RCCS. We will continue to provide as much information as we responsibly can, as quickly as we can; any soldier who wishes a more timely update is free to request one from us through the chain of command and they will receive a sitrep accordingly. In short, negativity - especially pessimism based on conjecture - will not assist in achieving the end state and is harmful to our community and credibility.

8. NEXT COMMUNIQUE

Keeping with our objective to provide meaningful and informative communications, our next communique will provide information about the payment of releasing members. Following from this, the next major update will come in April and it will outline the overall progress in ACISS-LCIS files as well as progress in re-aligning the ACISS MES to improve the management of IST and CST soldiers for specialist pay purposes.

Interim questions may be sent to the undersigned, or Major J Manley at G1 Personnel Policy (613) 971-7282.

Respectfully,
 
Hshahahaha. Remember when MES told everyone that they wanted CISTMs to get spec 2? What a gongshow of a project.
 
This reaffirms my belief that the RCCS Chain of Command no longer has the best interests of its members in mind. This is all a matter of saving face. Especially the gag order on para 7.

I will most likely be out of the CAF before we see the end of this nightmare.
 
So how does this work then, will someone promoted from Sgt to WO go down in pay or do they at least get pay protected at Sgt 4 Spec 1?
 
Pre-flight said:
So how does this work then, will someone promoted from Sgt to WO go down in pay or do they at least get pay protected at Sgt 4 Spec 1?

It looks that way, a pay freeze at whatever Sgt Spec 1 IPC you're at when you get promoted to WO, until you hit an IPC of a rank that would net you a pay raise. Another massive fail from the MES group, that will not be rectified until we get the next restructure done or someone convinces the CDS to generate another order moving CISTM into Spec 1 group (which is highly unlikely to happen as LSTs fall under CISTM and do not get Spec 1).
 
No dog in this fight.  But watching you  guys in the RCCS, while at JSR or now from the extreme outside, I find it hard fathom that other branches are still pursuing this method of combining whole branches into one master trade.  Lesson learned don't exist I guess.
 
More like, those pushing for changes based for purely ideological reasons, will ignore the realities of other similar efforts, because they believe the flaw was in previous efforts implementers. They will not accept that the ideology was flawed. Especially if their reputation has a stake in it.

 
Halifax Tar said:
No dog in this fight.  But watching you  guys in the RCCS, while at JSR or now from the extreme outside, I find it hard fathom that other branches are still pursuing this method of combining whole branches into one master trade.  Lesson learned don't exist I guess.

People making the decisions are usually senior MWOs and CWOs who have a pretty good understanding of most of the trades. What they don't really consider is while they may be able to feel they have the knowledge to do the work of most of those trades, they don't really consider that their knowledge comes from 25+ years of experience working side by side those same trades. A new recruit has too much to learn to become effective in all those trades at the beginning of their career. The training required to make them a generalist in all the trades that would previously be separate would be far too long, so they give them a course length of reasonable length. The result is a new tradesperson that doesn't have a functional level of competency in any of the occupations the new trade replaced.
 
ringo598 said:
*** Sent on behalf of LCol I.R. Marchand ***

** This email has been sent to affected members of the RCCS, all RCCS Senior Officers and Senior NCOs **

Not only to does your snr leadership not have the ability to manage this pay fiasco, they don't even seem to understand the basic rank structure of the CAF, unless that is, there are no Warrant Officers (WO, MWO, CWO) or Junior Officers in the Signals world.
 
Wait, you're doing your sigs DP1...in Gagetown?  Not CFSCE in Kingston?  Huh, didn't know they did that.

I have nothing useful to add, my DP1 was years ago and I'm told things are much different now, hopefully someone who did it recently can chime in.
 
The PRes was doing decentralized QL3 courses before the ACISS gongshow. Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.
 
PuckChaser said:
The PRes was doing decentralized QL3 courses before the ACISS gongshow. Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.
Do you know if CFSCE is going to not be teaching BSOC as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RocketRichard said:
Do you know if CFSCE is going to not be teaching BSOC as well?

I haven't seen or heard anything about a decentralized BSOC. It's already run in modular form so that PRes SIGS officers can get the 2 mods they need to reach OFP.
 
PuckChaser said:
The PRes was doing decentralized QL3 courses before the ACISS gongshow. Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.

It's a damn shame as the quality and usefulness of a Pte (T) ACISS solider has greatly suffered as a result.
 
runormal said:
It's a damn shame as the quality and usefulness of a Pte (T) Aciss tp has greatly suffered as a result.

The quality of the ACISS-Core DP1-qual'd Signaller is a direct result of the ACISS gongshow that thought being a SigOp was a secondary duty. They gutted the TacRad/Core skills, and paid lip service to the sub-occ training to save training time, and created someone who needs maximum supervision at the unit level.
 
So I got my pay statement for end of may.

It shows the regular payment going into my account, however there are a bunch of deductions called Compulsory re muster and an equal number of additions for the same amounts with the same heading (checked on a spread sheet, they added then removed a payment for every month since Jul 2014).

My closing balance is negative almost a grand because I was taxed on the payments but not refunded tax on the deductions.

If the spec payments are taxed after landing on my balance, why isn't the full amount deposited onto my balance? spec pay for a MCpl 4 in 2014 was not 225.23 it was $688.

Anyone else see the same on their sheet?
 
Same here, clerks tell me DMPAP is doing stuff and my pay still shows the "in progress" notes and not the completed notes and my pay should be normal regardless of all the notes until the final payout.

I give this a 60% chance of being accurate, a CFSCE pass as it were.
 
ringo598 said:
Wait, you're doing your sigs DP1...in Gagetown?  Not CFSCE in Kingston?  Huh, didn't know they did that.

I have nothing useful to add, my DP1 was years ago and I'm told things are much different now, hopefully someone who did it recently can chime in.

CFSCE has not taught a PRes ACISS DP1.0 in a while.  Having said that, there will be PRes on the DP1.0 starting in June so that it can make Min Load.

 
PuckChaser said:
... Seems like CFSCE is actively trying to get out of the actually teaching courses game.

I don't know where you go this little tidbit of information.
 
Back
Top