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

PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I'm glad it worked out for you and it sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders.  As long as that jr Pte knows his place and is willing to listen to people who have more experince then it may work out.  If not there are going to be a bunch of CiviU types running around and it will be problematic.
Oh, I would rather following a Cpl that has put up an Artic tent, done a tour then a new Pte/Jack that has no TI.
 
Just wondering what the reasoning behind advancing a pte to Mcpl is. If you are short on leadership in the platoon, why not just have the Pte (or Cpl) be the section commander, let them have a lot of on-the-job training from it and bump them back to section member when more leadership arrives? That way they've had leadership experience before going on their PLQ and will do better overall?

I'm just wondering because this topic is very interesting to me.

-Spooks
 
CFL,  good point.  It is a consequence of the times.  Back in the late 80's having a tour under our belts was a non-issue.  No one had tours except a few who might have gone to Cyprus years prior.  That being said, yes I agree that having a tour completed is important especially nowadays and prehaps should be a pre-requisite.  

CFL said:
As long as that jr Pte knows his place and is willing to listen to people who have more experince then it may work out.
 

The Jr Pte who gets accelerated promoted to MCpl should know his place is in front of his section effectively leading it.  Yes, he/she should be willing to listen to senior soldeirs, however, not to the point where thier control and authority is lost. If section members have a problem with a certain section comd than they should ask the question why they are not section comd.
 
There was a time, in the mid to late 80s where the infantry was short of NCOs, both jr & snr.  When I was a platoon leader with 2R22eR, out of my 4 mcpls, 2 had been accelerated after doing ISCC as ptes.  My plt 2i/c was a sgt and I had one, count him - one cpl in a 40 strong plt.  Most of the experienced cpls were either in Germany (where I commanded a plt the following year, and where I had very few ptes but many cpls) or in the support weapons plts or in Adm coy.  Accelerated promotion was a way of filling the gaps.  My two accelerted mcpls were solid guys and under my plt sgt's guidance, what they lacked in experience they learned really fast.  I was happy to have them.
 
Spooks,

The issue was a result of lack of senior Cpls willing to do the ISCC.  As I mentioned in a previous post the pre-ISCC that I attented had many Cpls who simply quit.  That year, my CO could not promote the 22 he wanted to and only promoted 11.  Thus, the gap continued into the next couple years.  Pte's do get OJT as section commanders however there comes a time when that position has to be filled.  If the Cpl's do not want to do the course then who else but the Ptes are available to do it. 

Though I am not in the infantry anymore I get the impression from this thread that the gap is once again occuring.  I believe that senior Cpls should get priority to do the training required according to their standing on the merit list.  Once all the list of Cpl's is depleted than the Pte's should get their chance if there is position available on the course, providing they possess the proper qualities. 

If the promotions are available give them to those who are trained and ready for promotion. 
 
"Yes, he/she should be willing to listen to senior soldeirs, however, not to the point where thier control and authority is lost."

Agreed.
 
A little background on my self first (feel free to skip ahead to the 3rd paragraph, but at least you will know the shoes that I have walked in): I was in army cadets for 4 or 5 years, did 4 years in cadet camp, 2 as an instructor. Joined the CF in '88, and saw a little of the Tpr (Pte) to MCpl action happen when I got to Petawawa. In my Sqn, we had 2 crewman Cpl's, and the rest of us were very new, as the Regt had a requirement to fill the ranks out for Cyprus. I saw more than a few jerks fly up the ranks, with no time as a Cpl. I also saw more than a few deserving guys able to move onwards and upwards at an accelerated pace. I then got posted to Gagetown to the tank squadron, did my CLC in 92, because they recognized my true greatness (AKA right place at right time: SHQ). I would argue that one didn't learn a lot of quote leadership unquote on a Combat Leaders Course, none that was really applicable to garrison life, anyway. I guess it was assumed (dangerous word) that it would be taught at the unit. I vaguely remember (on course) having to go through the CFAO's, charge report, write a memo stuff (which hasn't really proven to be useful in the intervening years, as I haven't had the neccesity to have someone recommended for a charge, but I have had to counsel soldiers and write assesments on them, which seemed to be left out of the TP at the time. Then the long freeze: At one point, in our squadron of ~140, we had ONE Pte (who was a tradesman). The majority were Cpl's (and obviously higher) with varying length's of time in rank. I was able to work my way up to Tp Ldr's loader/Tp Cpl, which we referred to as "floor whip",  so I was able to get leadership experience (though I wouldn't be so gracious as to say leadership training). Unless you call getting sh&t on for standing up for one of my troops by the Tp MCpl and Sgt, training.

I then had the good fortune to have a Tp WO (who was actually a Sgt) who stood up for me at merit board time, and made me his pet project, I guess (though the toes he stepped on to get me promoted have come back to be the foot that kicked me in the ass, but that's military politics for you....). I was posted to Edmonton, and less than a month later (8 1/2 years after joining) I was promoted to MCpl. It was difficult, in my opinion, going from the new boy on the block (at a new unit), to MCpl a month later, as many thought that I was new to the army (overnight success story.....), and didn't like that a newbie got promoted over them. That's natural in any organization, I suppose. Anyway, I went from being the soldier who toed the party line without (many) question(s), to starting to question some of the stupidity that is unacceptable and unneccesary in the CF. So, much like the term CFL (Cpl for life, for those not in the know), I thought I would be a MCFL (not as catchy......). A sign of how pathetic the military had become at this stage (late 90's) I distinctly remember getting an 'Attaboy' for accepting responsibility for something that happened in our troop, as though it was equivalent to saving someone's life (I'm prone to exageration, so bear with.....). I refer to one of the 10 principle's of leadership (seek and accept responsibility) as "shirk and avoid responsibility" because that seems to be the path of least resistance to the top. Don't even get me started on all the "leadership" shown by the powers that be in the wake of the "Somalia scandal", an event that effected a generation of soldiers in that a lot of trust in the powers that be, was lost. Anyway, after 7 years as a MCpl, with 2 tours to Bosnia in that rank, I was promoted to Sgt, and then I asked to be posted to Gagetown to be an instructor ( for personal and professional reasons).

Here's where my opinion on what CFL brought up, starts: The most formative time for a soldier is spent at the Cpl rank level. As a private, you are taught the basics, and then as a Cpl, you have mastered the basics of your trade, and now it's time to start learning to become a leader. My opinion on automatic promotion to Cpl (or Captain, for that matter): stupidity to the nth degree. I feel that it is rewarding incompetence, and creates mediocrity, or a union-like, job for life mentality. All rank levels should be earned, through performance and training. There should be no shame in staying a private (lance-corporal, whatever) for you career, if that's what you want, or what is your "station" in life. Leave Cpl for leadership or (I dread using this word) management positions. It is a reward for the soldier who has done his bit as a private, and then is a stepping stone for promotion, without being lumped in with all those people who are basically civvies in uniform (i.e no drive, 8 to 4 work-ethic, here for the pay, oxygen thieves, etc). At that level, it can be determined if Cpl Bloggins truly has what it takes to be a leader, or should he remain in a position where he can still put his experience and knowledge to work.

Pushing someone too fast leads to many of the points brought up by George Wallace. I honestly couldn't have imagined being a MCpl at the age of 21 or 22, and being "effective". Sure I could have done it, but it probably wouldn't have been pretty. A lot of people have "faked" it for a long time, and made their way to the top, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that they were effective. I joke that people usually rise to their level of incompetence: the more incompetent, the higher up the totem pole. So, I must only be a middle level incompetent....... With the right guidance and training, people have been able to be put in positions of leadership and authority, with minimal experience and training. Witness the way most militaries train officers: 4 or 5 years of military college, 4 summers of trade related training, and boom, you can lead soldiers into battle. That's the theory, and I guess it has worked to some degree. Personally, I would rather see ALL members of the CF join into the combat arms, do a set period as a "plug", and then once your intelligence, leadership, common sense, tactical ability, etc can be determined, you move on: to be an officer, be a tradesman, an NCO. Too radical, too far off the "normal" way of doing things, I guess. But how does a police force work???? A fire department??? Doesn't everybody start off at the bottom, and then progress. But, what do I know.......

I received a briefing similar to the one that CFL received, and I actually anticipated something like this happening a while back (rapid rank progression), when I realized that the cycle of recruitment from 20 years was coming up. There are a lot of good soldiers who have jumped ship from the combat arms, and the CF, due to the snail's pace of career progression (at NCM level anyway). A lot of good troops have OT'ed because they felt they never had a chance to be a leader in their corps, due to the slow pace and the perceived (and sometimes real) way that bootlickers and "yes" men were rewarded with leadership positions or cushy jobs ("high profile") while soldiers who voiced their opinions about screwed up policies or the like were branded as trouble makers. Some of the attributes that defined a generation of soldiers from not that long ago: hard drinking, fighting, rough around the edges,looking after their buddies, but able to get the job done are put by the wayside while the Ned Flanders style of soldiers are coming to the fore. It was perceived (when I joined) that if you were a Cpl, you were a loser (due to fast promotion rates). And today, I have witnessed a lot of good guys who weren't in the right place at the right time get bypassed by guys who are young and keen. Well, it's easy to be young and keen, when you are young and keen. I know a Cpl (who will remain nameless who was a Cpl when I met him in '90 (I was a no hook Tpr), congratulated me when I got promoted to Cpl, then MCpl, and then Sgt, and although his mouth has held him back, I'm sure he knows more than some of the MCpl's (and Sgt's, WO's, etc) he works for, definitely has more tours than most (Cyprus, UNPROFOR, SFOR, KFOR), but he hasn't given up (completed his PLQ after 16-ish years in), and I look forward to him getting promoted (he is doing the job of a MCpl now). If he doesn't get promoted in favour of someone with more "potential" (read as: more time to rise to the top, and/or still able to be brainwashed into the corporate thinking), I know that the system will have failed.

I would rather have a somewhat disgruntled (but not overly so) Cpl in charge of troops, than a Johnny Cleanboots, no-hook or one-hook straight to MCpl, just because they feel they need to promote people. I see a lot of PLQ's being run where half the students seem to be acting-lacking Master Jacks. Why???? The rationale I have heard is: we need a MCpl in that position, so lets put an unqualified Cpl in there with a leaf, and then train them after the fact. I heard a story about a Cpl who taught on a PLQ, where his boss from his shop (a MCpl) was a student on the course he was instructing on. How much sense does that make? Why race to promote an unknown quantity??? Something that I have seen happen, that I like, is WSE rank (while so employed) for tours. It gives the person a chance to prove themselves, and if they fall on their face, they lose the rank. Otherwise, it takes an act of Parliament to reduce someone in rank, short of complete meltdown. It's a win/win situation for the unit and the soldier.

I put some soldiers through the SQ course a couple of years ago that I expect will beat me to the rank of WO, and definitely to the rank of MWO (I will be a RSM before them, though: Retired Service Member). The army is definitely a young mans game, but I would hate to see them cast a lot of good guys by the wayside, even if they don't have 18 years of service left, in favour of those that do. When people race to the top too soon, they have to wait a LOOOONNNNGGGG time at the WO or MWO level, and I think it's better that soldiers spend that time as a Cpl, learning their skills, knowing what it's like to push a broom, sit on sentry, kitchen duty, etc than skip all that, and then pretend they know what it's like. And age isn't really a disqualifier: I have seen more than a few older people joining lately, with more drive and a higher level of fitness than some of  the Generation X-box soldiers coming in. I'm not saying push the older guys faster (I hate the "Well, he's not getting any younger, you know??!?!" mentality to push older guys up the chain..... who is getting any younger?), it's just that, even if a guy is a little older, as long as he's fit and good to go, don't throw him on the scrap heap. Oh, and by the way, I did Mountain Man out west last September, and of all the young privates (that went to 3PPCLI) that I trained on that SQ course, I beat them all (and I was 36). Actually, the RSM of 3PPCLI beat all of them (and me). So, don't sell the oldies short: old age and treachery will also beat youth and enthusiasm, and you can't buy experience, though you can buy Viagra (and a plastic hip), and I think I'll need those in a few years, but that's another story......

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and those, and $1.60, will buy you an extra large coffee at Timmie's, and not much else.

Al
 
Allan Luomala:

Great post. I particularly agree with:

My opinion on automatic promotion to Cpl (or Captain, for that matter): stupidity to the nth degree. I feel that it is rewarding incompetence, and creates mediocrity, or a union-like, job for life mentality. All rank levels should be earned, through performance and training. There should be no shame in staying a private (lance-corporal, whatever) for you career, if that's what you want, or what is your "station" in life. Leave Cpl for leadership or (I dread using this word) management positions. It is a reward for the soldier who has done his bit as a private, and then is a stepping stone for promotion, without being lumped in with all those people who are basically civvies in uniform (i.e no drive, 8 to 4 work-ethic, here for the pay, oxygen thieves, etc). At that level, it can be determined if Cpl Bloggins truly has what it takes to be a leader, or should he remain in a position where he can still put his experience and knowledge to work.

I sat on the Army TASK (Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge) board held at FMCHQ in the early 90's, to try to work out a system for the Army in which we could pay soldiers more for trade skills without having to promote them, and also rationalize the ranks from Pte to Sgt (we were heading for Pte/Cpl/Sgt or something like that...). Anyway, it all amounted to nothing largely because the Army was (and still is) trapped inside the "purple" personnel regulations world. But, the point remains, IMHO we should not be giving out rank "automatically". Even though Cpl and Capt are not actually "automatic" (the CO can stop it for cause, and paperwork has to be submitted to get it...) they have that appearance and reputation. I have no problem that a guy with more TI and more skill gets paid more than a guy who doesn't: that isn't an issue for me. I see the value of the "senior soldier" as long as he is fit, does a good job, and makes the team function better. Senior soldiers add a leavening of common sense and experience that we need.
But, to me, rank should be just that: rank, and it should be tied to authority or potential to carry authority.
Cheers.
 
PBI, thanks for the comments.

I know I shouldn't have stated "automatic" for promotion to Cpl and Captain, but I have only seen/heard of 2 guys who took longer than 4 years to get to Cpl, and never heard of someone staying at Lt for an inordinate period of time (even those relieved of command, fired, etc.....).

It's much like incentives: they shouldn't be automatic, and the reg's state as much, but it HAS become automatic. A former RSM of mine info'ed me of this, when we had a RSM/MCpl's discussion at the regiment, and when asked how to punish someone for poor performance, he brought this up, and I researched it. I posted it (the CFAO) at work to put the fear of God (or of someone not afraid to do a little paperwork, anyway.....) into the more complacement soldiers, particularly the 1st incentive Cpl's who feel they can do no wrong, and think they can never get punished. Hit 'em where it hurts: the wallet.

I don't remember how somebody on their highest incentive could get zapped by this administrative action, but I imagine if they were busted down to private, they have to start at Cpl Basic all over again. Again, admin isn't my strong point, but it's a tool in the belt to get onto people who's performance is wanting. It isn't supposed to be used to "punish" people (that's what the good ol' charge is for), but a way of increasing performance. Personally I think if a person is that much of a 'pump', they should be released, but I think killing the Pope wouldn't even get a person kicked out now....... probably stoppage of leave and a nasty NTF.

Anyway, as this is going a bit OT, I suppose I can salvage it by saying that it is a lesson in admin to any of the young guys who will see their leaf before they sign their 2nd BE.........

Al
 
The question is: what other option do we have ??
There is a large number of Cpls out there who have no intention of going on PLQ and progressing in rank. We need JNCOs now. So we train them, early in their career if we have to, and put them in Leadership positions. So ultimately, these young guys are qualified and get promoted, they become Leaders and are responsible for their outfit. No Cpl, no matter how old, will be held responsible if things go wrong; that young Mcpl will. So he makes the decision, and it is wrong; so what ?? The best way to learn is by trial and error, and this is especially true in Leadership.
 
You make a good point Jungle, I just worry that some (see a lot) of these guys will loose touch and respect of those who although may not be a higher rank still have something to teach.
 
Of course it's going to happen... most people go through a "power trip" period. For some it is permanent :eek: , for the majority it is a short rite-of-passage at the junior Leader level (Officers included  ;)). It is certainly hard to swallow for the guy with a couple of years more time-in and a tour, but we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions.
 
I agree with you Jungle, and I also share CFL's concerns.

I know that we need leader's now, and that a lot of Cpl's (sometimes out of spite or out of the "screw you, you passed me over when I was young and keen, so not now") don't want leadership trg. Their hands should be forced: take the training, and share the knowledge and experience, or pack your bags. Another one of my 5 million pet peeves is someone who complains about shitty leadership or leaders, but refuses to put up by taking a leadership position. There's a saying (which I'll no doubt screw up) about totem poles: you look up from your position on the bottom and all you see is assholes, and you look down when you're up top and everything looks small. I'm sure I've taken some liberties, but I'm sure you get the meaning (I hope).

There are a lot of problems in the CF WRT leadership, and I think a different way of looking at the problem needs to be addressed. It always seems to be someone else's fault (usually higher) that things are FUBAR. "I'm only a Pte/Cpl/MCpl/Lt/Capt/etc, what can I do?!? " is a familiar refrain, and I know I've used it as an excuse. Not a reason, but as an excuse."No single snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche". An example I like to use about one person making a change is my habit of picking up garbage. Most people who have been to Bosnia (post-war, I'm not sure what pre-war was like, but I think that the good Marshall had people picking up garbage.......) comment on how much of a garbage-dump it is. I know I did. Then I got back to Canada, and realized that Canada isn't as clean as we like to imagine it is. So I started picking up garbage in my neighbourhood. Mainly out of pride where I lived, but I didn't want to be a hypocrit for slagging the Bosnians for not picking up their garbage (after all, the McDonald's cup in the ditch in my neighbourhood didn't have the possibility of having and Anti Pers mine under it......). I pick up garbage on the way from my car into the mall. "But there are people whose job it is is to pick up garbage.....". Yes, but I can also do my part. I pick up garbage at the base gym and in the parking lot at my hangar. "There are Tpr's and Cpl's that should be doing that, not a Sgt......". I'm not handicapped, and maybe if they see a Sgt doing it, maybe Cpl's and Tpr's won't grumble when told to do it (I'm kidding myself about that, but at least they can't say Sgt Luomala never picked up a piece of garbage.......).

I had a Capt, whom I knew as a Cpl and then MCpl back in the day(and CFR'ed from WO), who told me when I was signing my course report for my 6A to make sure that I don't use the shitty Sr NCO's from my past as an excuse to be a shitty Sr NCO, but look to the one's that I respected and emulate them. I felt like saying "Well, duh!!!!", but he had a point. How many times have you heard of people using a bad example as an excuse to be half-assed in something, rather than looking to a good example and giving it their all???? I've heard (and told) my fair share of fat Sr NCO jokes, but when I get to the gym, I see a lot of older Sgt's and WO's (and MWO's and RSM's), sweating their asses off, and whether it's out of personal pride (hopefully) or out of being forced into it (hopefully not), they are doing it. Yes, there are old JNCO's in there as well, and good on them, but I have heard more than a few people use a fat Sgt as an excuse not to have do well on a run/ruckmarch/etc. "Why should I do well, if Sgt So-and-so is going to pulling up the rear????", which in itself is in the top 5 of my all time pet-peeves: SrNCO's either being expected to, or expecting to be bringing up the rear. Lead from the front, for Chrissakes!!!!

Anyway, I went a little bit further on that tangent than I expected to, but I suppose it ties in somewhat with what I would like to see in the new generation of soldiers, who will be leaders sooner than some of us, or even they, want to: be a leader. Don't use the shitty examples from the past as justification to be a shit leader. The sad thing is, I have an easier time thinking of shitty examples of leaders than of good ones, and I hope that's because the shitty ones stand out more......

Have a good one,

Al
 
Well, well, Alan:...another guy who likes to pick up trash around his neighbourhood! And here I am thinking I'm the only weird one. I can't stand littering pigs who chuck stuff about: too bad they don't sell hunting tags on them, especially the shytes who open their car door in the mall parking lot and pitch it on the ground! :skull: :rage: :flame:

Another outstanding post! Once again you have described things to a "T". The question I would ask, though, is this. If we go to a system such as you propose, in which we place greater pressure on people to show leadership (and, in view of modern combat, I think that may be a real need...) how do we deal fairly with all the guys who have made it to Cpl and stayed there because that is what they wanted to do, the system allowed and encouraged that for decades, and they are happy doing what they do? Is booting them out fair? This is the system that the German Reichsheer employed in the 1920s and early 30s: soldiers were trained to be leaders, and those who showed no potential were released. What are the consequences to us of a system like that? Would the loss of experience be worth the advantages to be gained?

Cheers
 
I think there is a place for people like me.   The beauty of a "CFL" is that they have the advantage of potentially staying in positions (usually Adm positions) where there is a great deal to learn and retain.   Of course anyone could come in but by having that constant with changing leadership around them they serve as an anchor and knowledge base for which their immediate supervisors can rely on.
You just have to be mindful that these CFL's aren't milking a plum job.
 
All excellent posts on here so far.  I just have to put in my .02 on something.  I was a Cpl for 19 of my 23 years, and saw my fair share of promotions, both deserved and completely baffling.  The assumtion that most of us lifer corporals are more than happy to remain so is erroneous, IMHO.  In my younger (read "less mature")  I made some mistakes, and therefore some enemies in the upper echelons of my beloved Corps.  There are a lot of long memories in a family as small as the Engineers, and subsequently I was unable to change anyones mind.  During my carreer I covered off on almost every job in the Sqn at one time or another, including SSM for 72 crazy hours pre Y2K.  So seeking and accepting were never the issue... and believe me, 23 years of pot walloping and 0200-0400 picquet gets awful old.  Starting to rant and ramble, I now return you to your eloquently written threads

CHIMO,  Kat
 
I'll add my two cents to this thread.  We are in a situation now, at least in the PPCLI, where there is an acute shortage of junior leadership.  This situation has happened before (80s) and was dealt with through DAPS.  For the long-term health of the Regiment, we have to develop junior leaders if we want to have senior NCOs and WOs next decade.  

The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to identify those with aptitude and put them into positions where they can gain the necessary experience to develop into a leader.  Throughout much of the training in 3 PPCLI last year, many Ptes filled the role of section 2i/cs (a role alluded to be Spooks).  Many of them, with experience taken into account, performed quite well.  We have pretty much tapped out the willing and able Cpls for leadership training (there are a few individual exceptions â “ deployments, etc) and have now turned to our capable Ptes, some of who are now on PLQ in WATC.  

I'm of two minds regarding youth versus experience when it comes to junior leaders.  On one hand, the experienced Cpl who then becomes a MCpl (or not) later on brings a heck of a lot of knowledge, skill, and corporate memory to the table.  On the other hand, if we force our NCOs to go through all the 'stations of the cross' and spend excessive time at each rank level, we will have RSMs very close to compulsory retirement that will never be competitive for the very influential post-unit CWO positions (CFCWO, Army CWO, etc).  Trust me, we need individuals at this level who understand the combat arms and can shape the Army plan.  To that end, we need junior leadership from both streams â “ young with great aptitude and potential, and older with more experience.  Balance is the key.

For the Ptes who become MCpl, vital for development is mentorship.  They must be paired with a more experienced Sgt and the Pl WO must take them under his wing.  One of the problems we face currently as compared to the 80s is field time.  Our troops aren't getting enough and thus the tactical experience isn't quite there.  A mitigating factor is now our troops are much more likely to get an op tour earlier on than in the 80s.  This won't make up for all tactical field time, but will for leadership in challenging conditions.

Finally, Allan Luomala referred to RSM 3 PPCLI and the Mountain Man (he beat me too).  This RSM is a product of the DAPS system in the 80s.  He went from Pte to MCpl, to great effect.  The system works when the right people are picked.  I'm looking forward to the career manager's briefing next week on how this new, similar system is going to be implemented.
 
eyre said:
I'm of two minds regarding youth versus experience when it comes to junior leaders.   On one hand, the experienced Cpl who then becomes a MCpl (or not) later on brings a heck of a lot of knowledge, skill, and corporate memory to the table.   On the other hand, if we force our NCOs to go through all the 'stations of the cross' and spend excessive time at each rank level, we will have RSMs very close to compulsory retirement that will never be competitive for the very influential post-unit CWO positions (CFCWO, Army CWO, etc).   Trust me, we need individuals at this level who understand the combat arms and can shape the Army plan.   To that end, we need junior leadership from both streams â “ young with great aptitude and potential, and older with more experience.   Balance is the key.

Herein lies a problem.   We can't be promoting from the bottom up.   In the Cbt Arms the trades should look like pyramids; Ptes at the bottom making the base with CWOs at the top.   If you don't spread out some of the time in rank requirements in our small Force, you will loose more than you gain.   Our Cpls will find other trades or careers to advance in.   A thirty year old CWO will tie up that position for years, unless he CFRs.   That ties up several MWO positions, which in turn ties up dozens of WO positions, tiing up even more Sgt positions, and so on and so on down the line.   All our experience will lie at the top and when the time comes that all our Senior NCOs retire at approximately the same time we will really be up the creek without that proverbial paddle.

We need the experience at the bottom as well as at the top.   The haste to promote, to keep people in, is a false hope.   It doesn't solve the problem and may even compound it.   I have seen many MCpls get sent off on a 6A and come back to the Unit, only to Remuster or Release on promotion.   They had used it as a step in their CV for a better job.  

Last year, my Sqn had a serious problem.   All our "experience" was at the Top, MCpl and above.   We had no "experienced Cpls" to "ramrod the troops on the Floor" and set an example of what a good Crewman was.   Too many new Cpls and Ptes for the MCpls to give enough "guidance" and individual direction, where that experienced Cpl would fit in and help our as a "peer".   That Sqn is now in Afghanistan with a totally new upper echelon, but many of the same young undeveloped Troopers.

I do place a lot of emphasis on gaining experience.   I agree with all the points so far, and when blended they are very valid.   It must be mentioned that there are always exceptions to the rules.   Some CFLs are a good thing and play a vital role in molding their peers, while some are not and are oxygen thieves.   Some young soldiers are suitable for DAPs due to their maturity and previous experiences, but I would seriously say they are few and far between.

Young CWOs may be a good thing in some cases, but what "experience" do they really have, and how long are they going to tie up the chances of promotion by their subordinants is another question.   To generalize that the Cbt Arms is a "young man's job" is quite often true, but how many of us have seen that 40 or 50 year old soldier "blow the doors off" the 18 to 20 year olds?

I look at our Army and am proud of the knowledge, initiative, pride, and overall basic skills of our soldiers.   Our Privates have more of these than those in many of those of any other Army.   I look at the US Army, where it seems that the working rank is Sgt and shake my head.   I have Troopers who have more knowledge that them.   I question anyone who's ambitions are for Rank or Money in the CF.   I do not agree with "Promotion" as a solution for "Retention".   We should have a bit more pride in ourselves than that.

GW
 
pbi said:
how do we deal fairly with all the guys who have made it to Cpl and stayed there because that is what they wanted to do, the system allowed and encouraged that for decades, and they are happy doing what they do? Is booting them out fair?

In the Infantry this may to some extent be a self correcting problem.  With the loss of pioneer pl and mortar pl there are notably less jobs that a cpl will find himself happy in.  Unfortunately the loss of those skilled jobs is not likely to retain the seasoned cpl's who rotate in and out the line companies every few years. 

I don't think booting CFL's out is a solution unless they have no apptitude in their current employment. 

In my Coy I wish I had a few CFL's. The junior pte's could use the mentoring. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top