dilemma - career

[serzhe]

Hi,

I am currently looking for some advice because I am confused about what I should do and it is really not obvious for me. I would like to start off by saying that I have no doubt that I want to serve as a IO at some point in my life (now or later).

First option: I could study 4 years in the university and get the diploma in the program I would like to study in my town (note: this program is only offered in one university) and I would have to pay the studies and everything myself (probably with government help). Then I could join the army as a DEO.

Second option would be going to RMC and doing the 9 years of my contract afterwards. I would more likely study in psychology since the program I want to go in the civilian university is not offered at RMC.

I'm motivated going in the army and it is one of the most important things to become an IO for me. The only problem is that I don't see myself serving the CFs till my 30's. The 9 year contract could be too much for me, but I do not doubt I could make it since the army is very interesting for me.

This is where my questions come. What is the length of DEO contracts? How shorter would it be for me to serve as DEO versus Regular Officer at RMC. I don't mind studying in psychology instead of the program I chose at the civil university but I'm not looking forward of committing all my young life to the forces. I am ok with 7 years, but not 9. Yet, the RMC looks amazing and it would be an honor for me to study there.

What would you do in my situation? I've been thinking about it for a while now and I can't seem to find the right choice. My family doesn't have a lot of money either and I always take into consideration the fact that the RMC would support me financially because it would be harder to study as a civil for me.

What are your thoughts? If I'm getting something wrong go ahead and correct me, I've been studying the subject for a couple months now and this is where I am at the moment.

Thanks for taking your time and reading this.

 

[brihard]

I suspect you're not aware that the ROTP program that offers subsidized education in return for contractual service is available at other universities too. Basically the same deal as RMC, except at a normal university as a normal student. That could solve the part of your dilemma regarding program choice.

Now, with that said, Int O is VERY hard to get into under any entry program. Others can speak to it better, but I don't believe many people do ROTP for the IO classification; there tend to be much more competitive candidates looking to either occupation transfer it, or direct entry candidates with grad school and language skills.

I would also suggest, and pardon me for being harsh, that if your heart isn't set on the CF as a long term career path perhaps you should reconsider what you're aiming for. You're looking at getting into something that will take you a considerable amount of time to get to, and within which it will take you probably some years to begin to professionally flourish. In addition, the CF will invest considerable resources in you, which would then walk out the door.

Can I ask what is your motivation for IO so specifically? What is it that you conceive of the position as actually doing or being involved in?

You need to read through this thread from start to finish.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I will disent slightly with Brihard.  The CF offers different contract lengths for a reason.  There is nothing dishonourable about joining, completing ones basic engagement or obligatory service and then retiring.  If there was, all we would offer would be the 25 year gig- much like the Roman Legion. 

 

[brihard]

Yup, fair enough- my view on this particular one is more than anything dependent on the specific MOS he's looking at. If he wanted to DEO combat arms or logistics or something and get out, frig, more power to him. Int is just something I (perhaps unreasonably) see a bit differently.

 

[serzhe]

I suspect you're not aware that the ROTP program that offers subsidized education in return for contractual service is available at other universities too. Basically the same deal as RMC, except at a normal university as a normal student. That could solve the part of your dilemma regarding program choice.

I'm aware, but if we are talking about 9 years, I would rather start at RMC because I prefer starting as soon as I can. Yet, I still have time and will think about it. I have heard also that it's pretty difficult to get a subsidized education in a civilian university. Is it true?

Now, with that said, Int O is VERY hard to get into under any entry program. Others can speak to it better, but I don't believe many people do ROTP for the IO classification; there tend to be much more competitive candidates looking to either occupation transfer it, or direct entry candidates with grad school and language skills.

What is the best way for someone willing to get a degree and become an IO after? Isn't that what normal officers do : go at RMC and after finishing they do their IO trainings, etc? I think I am missing something at this point or are you confusing me? (misunderstanding / read at the bottom)

I would also suggest, and pardon me for being harsh, that if your heart isn't set on the CF as a long term career path perhaps you should reconsider what you're aiming for. You're looking at getting into something that will take you a considerable amount of time to get to, and within which it will take you probably some years to begin to professionally flourish. In addition, the CF will invest considerable resources in you, which would then walk out the door.

It's ok, not harsh at all. I simply would love to be in the CF honestly. But I don't understand how it would walk out the door if I'm planning on serving my full contract length? Obviously it will take time, 4 years of study then I will just start my military career but I have to admit it's extremely intriguing for me and if I decide to become IO I will not surrender under any circumstances.

Can I ask what is your motivation for IO so specifically? What is it that you conceive of the position as actually doing or being involved in?

Well, it's simple. I love discipline, I love doing sports, I love firearms (obsessed in a good way), I want to challenge myself and I want to see other places from different perspectives. I'm just excited about thinking I could be an IO.

I will disent slightly with Brihard.  The CF offers different contract lengths for a reason.  There is nothing dishonourable about joining, completing ones basic engagement or obligatory service and then retiring.  If there was, all we would offer would be the 25 year gig- much like the Roman Legion.

5 years is more than an enough as a payback to the forces. If someone doesn't want to serve more it's his choice and it is respectable. That's just my two cents.

I think we have a bit of misunderstanding and I just realized it at this point. I was talking about becoming an Infantry Officer. Excuse me, it was my mistake.

Although the program at the civil university is an intelligence program (which is a coincidence). Besides I'm not looking to be an intelligence officer in the army, I would rather be a civil one. But I never taught about it that way, I guess it would be pretty easy to become an intelligence officer if I get the diploma in that civil university. Interesting.. at least I don't have to read that long thread you sent me  .

So what are the DEO contract lengths for an Infantry Officer, any ideas?

 

[PuckChaser]

You want to be a civilian Intelligence Officer? Who are you, James Bond?

 

[Ayrsayle]

IO is rather unclear - INT O is the abbreviated form for Intelligence Officer, and INF O for Infantry Officer (which probably explains the confusion)

I took the DEO (Direct Entry, available to those who already have a degree when applying) route to become an INF O, and my contract length is 9 years. This was a hard line, not a "would you like to change it to something else, etc." Simply put, the first half of that 9 years will be spent on training (there is no Civilian equivalent for training in the Combat Arms - it is military specific), so 4 years of training for 5 years of "useful" service seems fair, especially considering they are paying you the entire time.

Someone with RMC experience could likely talk more about the exact terms of service from going that route - it is my understanding the forces expects 2 years of service for each year of education (which would work out to a 12 year contract) but I am uncertain the specifics.

Best Route? Depends on your own desires / options really. I enjoyed my time in a civilian university, but I've heard the same from friends who went the RMC route. A paid tuition and full time work during times off looks much more appealing now that I'm staring at a 20K student loan, but I was never obligated to join the forces after my education. I believe if you want to leave the forces early having gone the RMC route, they expect you to pay back your education as well. Infantry Officer requirements are not so exacting as to preclude either option however.

Contrary to your opinion, it is certainly NOT easy to get into the INT field. They are turning down candidates with grad school and multiple languages. There are few positions that come available in that field and they are usually taken by exceptional candidates. It is possible to be accepted to RMC as an INT O, but from what I have been hearing that is becoming more and more rare. Again, Hopefully an RMC individual can comment more specifically.

Intelligence Officers are specific to the Military, if I am not mistaken. I have no idea how you could be a Civilian Intelligence Officer irregardless of your training.

 

[aesop081]

I have no idea how you could be a Civilian Intelligence Officer irregardless of your training.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

http://intelligencematters.ca/en/jobs/intelligence-officer

Yup, theres a whole wide world outside the CF.

 

[Ayrsayle]

My error then, I did not realize their title included "Officer" in it.

 

[serzhe]

Contrary to your opinion, it is certainly NOT easy to get into the INT field. They are turning down candidates with grad school and multiple languages. There are few positions that come available in that field and they are usually taken by exceptional candidates. It is possible to be accepted to RMC as an INT O, but from what I have been hearing that is becoming more and more rare. Again, Hopefully an RMC individual can comment more specifically.

Never said that. You misunderstood. I said it's probably easy to get into military intelligence with the diploma I expected to do in a civil (it's directly related to intelligence) university. Maybe it's as hard as you say but that's not the point anyway.

But thanks for sharing the other info.

 

[serzhe]

My error then, I did not realize their title included "Officer" in it.

Those are just details anyway, you understood my point/maybe not actually . But yeah, I was thinking about the CSIC when saying that..

 

[serzhe]

IO is rather unclear - INT O is the abbreviated form for Intelligence Officer, and INF O for Infantry Officer (which probably explains the confusion)

I took the DEO (Direct Entry, available to those who already have a degree when applying) route to become an INF O, and my contract length is 9 years. This was a hard line, not a "would you like to change it to something else, etc." Simply put, the first half of that 9 years will be spent on training (there is no Civilian equivalent for training in the Combat Arms - it is military specific), so 4 years of training for 5 years of "useful" service seems fair, especially considering they are paying you the entire time.

Someone with RMC experience could likely talk more about the exact terms of service from going that route - it is my understanding the forces expects 2 years of service for each year of education (which would work out to a 12 year contract) but I am uncertain the specifics.

Best Route? Depends on your own desires / options really. I enjoyed my time in a civilian university, but I've heard the same from friends who went the RMC route. A paid tuition and full time work during times off looks much more appealing now that I'm staring at a 20K student loan, but I was never obligated to join the forces after my education. I believe if you want to leave the forces early having gone the RMC route, they expect you to pay back your education as well. Infantry Officer requirements are not so exacting as to preclude either option however.

Contrary to your opinion, it is certainly NOT easy to get into the INT field. They are turning down candidates with grad school and multiple languages. There are few positions that come available in that field and they are usually taken by exceptional candidates. It is possible to be accepted to RMC as an INT O, but from what I have been hearing that is becoming more and more rare. Again, Hopefully an RMC individual can comment more specifically.

Intelligence Officers are specific to the Military, if I am not mistaken. I have no idea how you could be a Civilian Intelligence Officer irregardless of your training.

So from what I understand, you signed a 9 year contract as a DEO? Was there any other possibilities? Shorter contracts?

 

[Ayrsayle]

If you want a shorter contract, the NCM route has 3 year contracts for Infantry. There were no shorter contracts for those going into the Combat Arms as officers, at least not for any on my current Platoon for the reasons I already mentioned. Those who had shorter contracts in other trades were due to being already trained before joining the forces.

 

[serzhe]

If you want a shorter contract, the NCM route has 3 year contracts for Infantry. There were no shorter contracts for those going into the Combat Arms as officers, at least not for any on my current Platoon for the reasons I already mentioned. Those who had shorter contracts in other trades were due to being already trained before joining the forces.

Ok thanks a lot for the info. So the shortest way remains by going to the RMC/civil university? Well, sounds good for me. If I have no choice then my choice is made at this point. Makes me one step closer to my goal.

(NCM doesn't interest me).

What about you? Why did you decide to study 3 years and serve 9 instead of studying/serving 9? Is it because you wanted to study in something specific before going to the army or is it a personal choice? (If you are ok to share that info)

 

[brihard]

I think we have a bit of misunderstanding and I just realized it at this point. I was talking about becoming an Infantry Officer. Excuse me, it was my mistake.

Oh hell, OK. Different story entirely.

Read *this* thread in its entirety, then.

 

[Pusser]

I think folks are a little confused here.  I'm not sure what you think the nine year commitment actually is.  If you think you have to serve nine years after graduation, that is patently false.    The most you would have to serve after graduation from university would be four years. 

There is a difference between your "contract" (misnomer because we don't actually have contracts in the technical legal sense) and "obligatory service."  Your "Terms of Service" (the proper term) vary by rank and occupation (generally 13 years for ROTP officers:  four years of university + nine years of commissioned service), but they are essentially the agreement between you and the CF.  If you agree to serve for a certain period of time, the CF agrees to pay you for that period of time.  The CF will also provide a certain package of benefits upon release, if you complete your terms of service.  However, this does not mean you HAVE to stay in for that long.  As soon as your "obligatory service" is completed, you're free to go.  Just be aware that leaving before your Terms of Service are completed may mean you miss out on a few things.  To be clear, leaving before completing your Terms of Service will not cost you anything, but it may mean you will lose out on certain things that you otherwise would have received upon release.

To give a clear example, an infantry officer who enrolls under ROTP, who completes a four degree at RMC (or a civilian university), only has to serve four years after graduation before he can leave the CF.  If he's 22 when he graduates, he'll be 26 when he becomes a civilian again.  Leaving before completing your Terms of Service will affect things like Severance Pay and certain move benefits.  You will likely still get those things, but they may be less than they could have been had you stayed a few more years.

 

[serzhe]

Oh hell, OK. Different story entirely.

Read *this* thread in its entirety, then.

I read this one a while ago already  Thanks still.

 

[serzhe]

I think folks are a little confused here.  I'm not sure what you think the nine year commitment actually is.  If you think you have to serve nine years after graduation, that is patently false.    The most you would have to serve after graduation from university would be four years. 

What I was thinking is that the contract is 9 years. That the RMC counts for 4 and that I have to serve 5 (5+4=9), at least that's what I understood at the recruiting office from what he explained me.

There is a difference between your "contract" (misnomer because we don't actually have contracts in the technical legal sense) and "obligatory service."  Your "Terms of Service" (the proper term) vary by rank and occupation (generally 13 years for ROTP officers:  four years of university + nine years of commissioned service), but they are essentially the agreement between you and the CF.  If you agree to serve for a certain period of time, the CF agrees to pay you for that period of time.  The CF will also provide a certain package of benefits upon release, if you complete your terms of service.  However, this does not mean you HAVE to stay in for that long.  As soon as your "obligatory service" is completed, you're free to go.  Just be aware that leaving before your Terms of Service are completed may mean you miss out on a few things.  To be clear, leaving before completing your Terms of Service will not cost you anything, but it may mean you will lose out on certain things that you otherwise would have received upon release.

Why did the person say 9, 13 or something else then at the recruiting office? You're saying that it's 13 years for ROTP.
So am I understanding this right : the obligatory service in a 13 years Terms of Service is 8 years? (Since 4 for the RMC and 4 as an Infantry Officer). What happens if the contract is 9 years ? You are saying that it is generally 13 years for ROTP, does that mean there's exceptions? I have to admit 8 years looks better for me. Makes me even more wanna go there!

 

[Pusser]

Anyone serving in the CF does so under certain "Terms of Service."  A good way to look at this is an agreement.  Upon enrolement, your first Terms of Service are called a "Variable Initial Engagement" (VIE).  As the term implies, this period varies in length depending on your particular enrolement plan.  For ROTP candidates, it is generally 13 years, broken down as follows:

4 years education
4 years obligatory service
5 years general service

All of these amounts can vary depending on circumstance, but I believe another underlying principle is that the CF is looking for nine years of commissioned service (i.e. after graduation from university).  Using myself as an example, if I were joing today under the same circumstances as I did back when the earth was cooling, my VIE would be 11 years (two years, education, three years obligatory service and six years general service - note how general service goes up as obligatory service goes down).

Having said all this,  a VIE of 13 years does not mean you have to stay in the CF for 13 years.  You can get out as soon as your obligatory service is completed.  If you do that though, you may lose out on some of the benefits.  Sometimes (depending on the circumstances), you can get out before completing your obligatory service, but there are some significant hurdles to jump and you may have to re-pay the Crown for your subsidized education.

Please note that I am only talking about ROTP here.

After completing a VIE, the next step is an "Intermediate Engagement (IE), which is 25 years of total service (i.e. including, NOT in addition to the years spent on VIE).  The final step is an Indefinite Period of Service (IPS), which will take you to retirement age.  We also have "Continuing Engagements" (CE), which are used for special circumstances and are beyond the scope of this discussion.  ROTP and DEO candidates are not offered CEs on enrolement. 

An important thing to note is that regardless of Terms of Service, as long as you have no obligatory service, you can get out at any time (although the process can take up to six months, again depending on a number of factors). 

 

[dapaterson]

Right of release is often misunderstood.  Personnel may request release at any time, but the CF is under no obligation to grant that request.  QR&O chapter 15 provides some information; 15.02 is particularly useful in understanding who has a right of release.  CFAO 15-2 also provides additional information.