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

[Eye In The Sky]

That could be a different scenario there.  The proper fix shouldn't have been to give spec pay to people who didn't complete a QL5;  it would have been to continue the old Ql5 until the new one was ready to run.  That is a different fuck-up though.

The regs are clear for spec pay;  min rank Cpl AND QL5 (or course designated in the Spec Pay table.  I know your trade and branch screwed this and other things up horribly over the past decade + but...folks in my trade don't get spec pay until they are entitled to it, period.  It should be that way across the board.  The fact that some were receiving it was wrong in the first place.  Your MCpl was switched on to push you for the PLAR and it paid off for you literally.  :nod:

 

[LCIS-Tech]

<snip>The fact that some were receiving it was wrong in the first place.  Your MCpl was switched on to push you for the PLAR and it paid off for you literally.  :nod:

Those "specific LCIS Techs" that were affected were granted a Waiver, since a QL5A course did not exist at that time. Make sure that a copy of the waiver is on your PERS File.

 

[LCIS-Tech]

This particular problem exists for a number of reasons. From what I have been able to ascertain thus far, nobody that I have heard of above the rank of Sgt has had any Spec Pay back-Pay action taken (myself included). In 'My" case, I was a Rad Tech, and had to COT to LCIS Tech in 1996. I did COMET QL5A (Rad Tech QL5A) in 1991 (I think...). Never did an LCIS Tech QL5A. Is this a reason? Who knows.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Those "specific LCIS Techs" that were affected were granted a Waiver, since a QL5A course did not exist at that time. Make sure that a copy of the waiver is on your PERS File.

If those 'with the waiver' are denied and redress it, it will be interesting to see the F & R and final decision (I'll assume denial at the IA level).  Waiver isn't the same as being granted qual/equivalency via PLAR or similar processes so it would be interesting to see how an unbiased review would look at the whole mess.

I feel for the folks left in the branch going thru this whole mess;  hopefully this is looked after quickly and in favour of the mbrs.  Anyone who is not satisfied in the ACISS world, just keep in the back of your mind that AES OP is always taking remuster applications, there is no question on if you get spec pay after QL5, and there is aircrew allowance for anyone in a flying job.  Maritime Helicopter types get the added bonus of PLD and if they are posted to a HMCS AirDet, sea duty allowance.  See your PSO!  ;D

 

[upandatom]

Shouldnt be that Difficult.

Had spec pay? Yes
Had Spec pay frozen? yes

Did you say yes to both questions above?
Yes
Here is your money
Thanks

There are alot of nuances out there with the " never did QL5," etc.
Pay office had to have the ability to grant you Spec, not just someone saying here you go.
Pay audits and major pay changes like that require signoffs or higher up approval with notes and traceable as to who made the changes.

Fact is, you were screwed out of your rightfully earned spec pay.
Here it is back for you.

 

[c_canuk]

To the people pointing out the 2011 deadline, that deadline exists because the original submittion was that CST was a new trade. Therefor spec pay was frozen, and new people who were hired into CST or LCIS but did not complete an LCIS QL5/POET/Cpls, would not get Spec pay since CST was a new trade.

Now keep that in mind that the reason CSTs don't get spec pay, is because CST was decided to be a new trade, not merely a name change of LCIS.

Then we get this message stating that there was a mistake, CST is NOT a new trade, it was merely just a name change.

Still following, therefore by any reasonable interpretation, LCIS is CST, and CST is LCIS. By extension, anyone who is CST Cpl/POET/Cpl course qualified, should be considered an LCIS tech and get spec pay.

Ether it's a new trade or it isn't. Pick one.

Personally as an IST I don't have a bun in the fight other than seeing two very switched on Mbrs working for me where one gets it, and the other doesn't cause he got deployed before he could do his QL5 and missed the arbitrary cut off for the new trade that apparently isn't new.

This is common sense, easy crap to fix and in the grand scheme of things arse wipe money. The right, ethical, prudent decision is the give it to them rather than cause divisions in the ranks.

"Know your men and promote their welfare" it's not just a catchy phrase, we're supposed to live it. So why aren't we?

Edit:Clarity

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Shouldnt be that Difficult.

Had spec pay? Yes
Had Spec pay frozen? yes
Was entitled to that spec pay IAW CAF policy that applies to all spec pay trades?

FTFY  :nod:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

seeing two very switched on Mbrs working for me where one gets it, and the other doesn't cause he got deployed before he could do his QL5 and missed the arbitrary cut off for the new trade that apparently isn't new.

This is common sense, easy crap to fix and in the grand scheme of things arse wipe money. The right, ethical, prudent decision is the give it to them rather than cause divisions in the ranks.

"Know your men and promote their welfare" it's not just a catchy phrase, we're supposed to live it. So why aren't we?

Edit:Clarity

Believe me...I get it.  I work with Avr's who are QL5 qualified but are Avr's, not Cpls yet.  They are on the same aircraft, sitting next to someone else who is QL5 qual'd but they are a Cpl.  Only one of those people get spec pay.  As I said, the regs for spec pay apply to all spec pay trades, and every AES Op who is an Avr goes without spec pay until they are Cpls.  Just the nature of the beast.  The 5s covers the qualification part of specialist pay...the Cpls covers the experience aspect.

Anyways...I'm probably coming off the wrong way here.  Whoever gets it in this back pay thing, I am glad for them.  I just think the mistake was granting a waiver and granting $ on that.  The direction should have been " get a valid QL5 LCIS course developed, or prepare to lose your spec pay" to the trade.  The folks at the helm then took the easy way, and still today there is a negative affect on people's careers.  Not on.

 

[DigitalCurrents]

I've heard that ACISS is now a 'red trade' so I can't VOT.  Anybody know if that's true?

 

[buzgo]

Believe me...I get it.  I work with Avr's who are QL5 qualified but are Avr's, not Cpls yet.  They are on the same aircraft, sitting next to someone else who is QL5 qual'd but they are a Cpl.  Only one of those people get spec pay.  As I said, the regs for spec pay apply to all spec pay trades, and every AES Op who is an Avr goes without spec pay until they are Cpls.  Just the nature of the beast.  The 5s covers the qualification part of specialist pay...the Cpls covers the experience aspect.

Anyways...I'm probably coming off the wrong way here.  Whoever gets it in this back pay thing, I am glad for them.  I just think the mistake was granting a waiver and granting $ on that.  The direction should have been " get a valid QL5 LCIS course developed, or prepare to lose your spec pay" to the trade.  The folks at the helm then took the easy way, and still today there is a negative affect on people's careers.  Not on.

So if they couldn't develop a valid QL5 then maybe they actually have a huge problem and the trade should not have been receiving spec pay at all. Once they scrambled to fix it, they were 'good' until we were all COT'd into ACISS. Then the senior MWOs and the CWOs who were mostly former LCIS, spent the next 5 years trying to manipulate the JBS, task list and QS for the CST sub occ in order to get spec pay.

I'm so tired of this. I'm glad they are getting the money but let's be done with it. This incessant focus on spec pay has put us 5 - 6 years behind where we could have been.

 

[PuckChaser]

I've heard that ACISS is now a 'red trade' so I can't VOT.  Anybody know if that's true?

It's always been yellow or red.  Even red trades allow you to VOT, but the cap is lowered. If you have a strong file with good PERs, you shouldn't have an issue.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

True;  the OUTCAP numbers are based on a trades TES (Trained Effective Strength) and 'health'.  Amber (yellow) trades are allowed 1% of their TES to OT and Red trades are allowed o.5% of the TES to OT.

 

[c_canuk]

Believe me...I get it.  I work with Avr's who are QL5 qualified but are Avr's, not Cpls yet.  They are on the same aircraft, sitting next to someone else who is QL5 qual'd but they are a Cpl.  Only one of those people get spec pay.  As I said, the regs for spec pay apply to all spec pay trades, and every AES Op who is an Avr goes without spec pay until they are Cpls.  Just the nature of the beast.  The 5s covers the qualification part of specialist pay...the Cpls covers the experience aspect.

Anyways...I'm probably coming off the wrong way here.  Whoever gets it in this back pay thing, I am glad for them.  I just think the mistake was granting a waiver and granting $ on that.  The direction should have been " get a valid QL5 LCIS course developed, or prepare to lose your spec pay" to the trade.  The folks at the helm then took the easy way, and still today there is a negative affect on people's careers.  Not on.

I may be interpreting wrong, but I think you misunderstand the situation. They have all the required documentation/quals, but because back in the day CST was designated a new trade, those that missed the 2011 cut off didn't get spec pay.

Today, I have people with identical quals, one gets spec, the other doesn't because he got deployed and the other went on a 5s earlier.

They are both now Cpls, they both are QL5 or equivalent qualified, and they both have POET.

One gets spec pay because he's got the quals prior to oct 2011 and it's been unfrozen because CST is now considered not a new trade.
The guy sitting next to him with identical quals but got them after 2011, doesn't get spec pay because CST is a new trade.

He won't get spec pay in the future, it's simply not available to him due to some schism in thought about CST.

Based on my interpretation of what you wrote, your Avr will get spec pay once they get promoted.

My guys have been qualified for years except CST was deemed a new trade and no case for spec pay had been approved for CST, now that CST is not a new trade and merely a name change of LCIS which does have an approved case for spec pay, they should be getting it.

Either it's a new trade, and LCIS spec pay should not have been unfrozen, or it's not a new trade and all CSTs with Cpls, QL5 and POET should be getting spec pay.

the 2011 cut off shouldn't factor into because that was a deadline for the stand up of a new trade and discontinuation of an old one, except we've now been told, it's not a new trade anymore.

you're going to see these divisions end up in paying one troop vastly more over their career for the same work, over another, simply because of a bureaucratic fuck up. CST never should have been listed as a new trade, and spec pay should never have been denied to any LCIS or CSTs.

Those responsible for submitting the spec pay for the rest of ACCIS should have either gotten it finished within the 12 month deadline for Oct 2012 or admitted inability to perform their task and stepped aside for someone else who was competent to do the job. They apparently still cannot put together a comprehensive description of what each sub trade does, and they've been working on since 2011 or earlier. The DPPD shutdown in 2014 is irrelevant, it's 2 years past the date the original case was supposed to be submitted.

When will someone take responsibility for this and get on with it. Why is this state of affairs being allowed to continue? Why are higher officials above RCCS ok with this project going on for 6 years with no resolution?

 

[PiperDown]

If there was a course loading message ( or a deferral message ) for the deployed guy in 2011 who missed his 5s, and thus never received spec pay,  there may be some good news.
There are a couple guys who redressed this and were granted spec pay with a very hefty cheque.  The caveat is, they were course loaded on a QL5, but deferred because of deployment. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I may be interpreting wrong, but I think you misunderstand the situation. They have all the required documentation/quals, but because back in the day CST was designated a new trade, those that missed the 2011 cut off didn't get spec pay.

Today, I have people with identical quals, one gets spec, the other doesn't because he got deployed and the other went on a 5s earlier.

They are both now Cpls, they both are QL5 or equivalent qualified, and they both have POET.

One gets spec pay because he's got the quals prior to oct 2011 and it's been unfrozen because CST is now considered not a new trade.
The guy sitting next to him with identical quals but got them after 2011, doesn't get spec pay because CST is a new trade.

He won't get spec pay in the future, it's simply not available to him due to some schism in thought about CST.

Based on my interpretation of what you wrote, your Avr will get spec pay once they get promoted.

My guys have been qualified for years except CST was deemed a new trade and no case for spec pay had been approved for CST, now that CST is not a new trade and merely a name change of LCIS which does have an approved case for spec pay, they should be getting it.

Either it's a new trade, and LCIS spec pay should not have been unfrozen, or it's not a new trade and all CSTs with Cpls, QL5 and POET should be getting spec pay.

I was leaning more towards stuff like this...

Also ref the whole QL5 qualified requirement, some of you may remember there was a period of several years where the LCIS QL5 course was being redesigned and thus did not exist. I am talking around the 2004-2005 timeframe so there are some members who were not offered the opportunity the complete their QL5 yet still received their spec pay since no QL5 existed at the time. This issue affected me and I know of others who are fighting to get their backpay because of it. I was fortunate in that my MCpl insisted that I complete a PLAR for my QL5 just to cover my butt which got processed/approved in 2010 so I guess I dodged that bullet. Good luck to those of you who are facing this dilemma.

LCISALCpl was granted 5s via PLAR...sounds like most others were not but still received Spec pay because...

Those "specific LCIS Techs" that were affected were granted a Waiver, since a QL5A course did not exist at that time. Make sure that a copy of the waiver is on your PERS File.

The folks who got a waiver should have all HAD to complete QL5 to get spec pay.  I know and understand the difference between quals, currencies and waivers.  Each of those waivered people should have been PLARd like LCISALCpl was (kudos to his MCpl for knowing the importance of this...too bad the entire LCIS senior trade management weren't so switched on) and anyone who did not get a QL5 qual via PLAR/equivalency should have lost their spec pay, and shouldn't be wondering why they don't get spec pay now or then.  Its simple, Cpls and QL5 = spec pay, right?

The snr leadership in the LCIS world took the quick and easy route of a waiver rather than sitting a QSWB and doing the necessary follow on work to get a valid QL5 course stood up.  That is just plain lazy in my books.  Then, of course, the clusterfuck of ACISS and sub-occs...

I feel for you guys; hopefully the sun comes up on the horizon soon.

 

[LCIS-Tech]

The QL5A Exemption Waiver states in para 5 that if they meet the criteria, they will be granted the Journeyman (QL5A) qualification (AIXP). That said, they will have the course code added to their MPRR, so there is no need to PLAR.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Right,  okay. 

SO...what training, or OJTP, etc did they actually complete to get this qualification?  None, just a waiver, because the LCIS trade couldn't put the effort into a QL5 course?  If there is no QL5 course, then there are no special skills being taught and/or required...so, no requirement for spec pay.  It has to be one, or other. 

Every other Spec trade in the CAF has an actual course or OJTP that has to be signed off/completed...why would LCIS be special?  My previous trade (226), when I was on my way out the door for my remuster, was just changing from a OJTP QL5 qual to a formal QL course;  the OJTP was moved to post-QL3 ín house trg and was part of the complete QL3 qual IIRC;  you had to have the package signed off before you could be loaded on QL5 (they should have made it a QL4 vice part of the QL3 but..).  So, POET + QL3 in house trg + QL3 Apprentice OJTP before going on QL5, around which time you'd be a Cpl or close and then you'd have your specialist pay.  I think we are talking around the same timeframe;  I left ATIS and the the C & E branch in 2009.  We had an OJTP with signatures required on XXX items before getting spec pay, then moved to the actual QL5 course.

My current trade is also a spec pay and in 2009 moved from a 'remuster only' trade to accepting direct entries.  That meant having Pte's in the ranks and the trade was told it would HAVE to develop a QL3 and new QL5 course (Basic AQC and Intermediate AQC), as up until the direct entry stuff, remusters took a QL5 BAC (Basic AES OP Course).  With no real choice, the trade sat the required QSWBs and did the required follow-on work to get the courses up and running.

I say all this to demonstrate 2 other trades, one of them even from the C & E branch (kind of) who managed to develop and implement QL5 courses...I don't see why LCIS wasn't able to.  IMO, the CAF should have held 227 to the same standard as it did 226 and 081...if you are a spec trade, you need to have a QL5 qualification in your training for your members to qual for spec pay.  Waivers are SUPPOSED to be temporary and "until the actual trg is complete".  Just another indication of the senior leaderships ball-dropping back in that timeframe...

:2c:

 

[LCIS-Tech]

That very well may be, however when the LCIS Tech QL3 was developed, they did not run it through the ADE process properly. The result was that all of the knowledge that would have been passed along on a QL5A course was actually already included in the QL3; thus the reason why the course was so long. The result of the LCIS QS review removed certain POs from the QL3 package and moved them into the QL5A QS IOT meet Treasury Board requirements that a Journeyman course was required for Spec Pay.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That very well may be, however when the LCIS Tech QL3 was developed, they did not run it through the ADE process properly. The result was that all of the knowledge that would have been passed along on a QL5A course was actually already included in the QL3; thus the reason why the course was so long. The result of the LCIS QS review removed certain POs from the QL3 package and moved them into the QL5A QS IOT meet Treasury Board requirements that a Journeyman course was required for Spec Pay.

I edited my post above some...as I mentioned, my former trade moved from an OJTP QL5 to a formal course between 2008-09ish. 

I think you, and your present day worker-bee techs got royally screwed by the former LCIS leadership and branch leadership that left LCIS in a lurch and ACISS in a utter mess.  My head shaking isn't directed at folks with waivers getting spec pay, it is at senior folks in trades leaving their people to fend for themselves long after they are retired and enjoying that pension.

I've got a coin you can give to all the MWOs and CWOs in your trade and branch who've fucked over all the people left behind... :nod:

 

[PuckChaser]

Don't worry EITS, a lot of the senior leaders that pushed for the crapshow that ACISS created pulled pin immediately after. At least we're at the point where the Branch leadership is actively engaged in fixing the issue, including doing another full up trade review and solving the pay freeze for the guys that got screwed.