IAP For CFR's

[Eye In The Sky]

Rowshambow,

Just curious if you had your ILQ before?  And are you being made to do CAP?

I know some of the clerks you said were WOs, but were they A/L (no ILQ yet) WOs?  If so, that is likely why they ended up on BOTP.

Seems like the some of the same issues still exist at CFLRS...mainly, different standards for IAP/BOTP candidates within the 3 Div's.

I am not, by the way, saying I agree with the policy of the 'thou shall wear a cornflake', but they should ATLEAST make it a School standard.  I never could figure out why the SCWO seemed to leave that to the DSMs but it was always something that was talked about in the bullpen.

I guess in the 'interest of uniformity', all IAP candidates don't wear the cornflake until...what Week 4 or something isn't it?

The last I heard was, as I said...PLQ qual = IAP bypass and ILQ qual = BMOQ bypass...but that could have changed.

And to add some most mud into the unclear waters, I have known of Infantry WOs that had their 6B/DP3B or whatever it is called today  ;D AND their ILQ and...yup, had to do BOTP.  Go figure.

There is a hole in the process that should be corrected and promulgated NAOTIONALLY to all the PSO shops and other responsible agencies involved with the programs that take selected, deserving NCMs that are making the step into the Officer world, and maybe it needs the have the word "shall" in it alot! 8)

have you guys thought about addressing this "the PSO didn't do PLAR" issue to your CoC?  It won't get you back your 7 weeks but...it might prevent the same stuff from happening to the next crop of folks to go thru the sausage machine.

"Leave it better than you found it" type thought...

 

[Rowshambow]

Jimmy, you are so bang on, I was a Sgt and did not have ILQ hence why I had to do the BOTP, but our staff told us that as of Jan there are new requirements (confirmed by our div oc) so if you have plq, you will no longer need to do BMOQ or whatever the flavour of the day is! Also you are right in guessing about the acting lacking Chief clerk WO's, but man did they know there stuff regarding clerk stuff!
As for the cap badge thing, yes I also agree that's prob why they did it, but then there were a few  (I know the one guy who had his navy badge) and a few others that wore there trade badge on the BOTP, and even had it when others had the CF badge before BOTP, our div policy was everyone will be the same, so we all had CF Badge. I agree the school should set forth one policy and follow it, this would alleviate some of the discrepancies!
I put in the paperwork for a PLAR once I got back, just to make sure, but I did already have the CAP bypass and already qualified phase 3 (Armoured) So it's on to phase 4! I talked to the PSO in the mess one day, and it kinda blind sided him, he thought that it was Borden's job to do the PLAr automatically, there must have been some type of paperwork mix up, as PSO's from across the country didn't do the PLAR on any of the CFR's! Oh well, at least I can identify with people when they talk about the mega now! lol

 

[ModlrMike]

I talked to the PSO in the mess one day, and it kinda blind sided him, he thought that it was Borden's job to do the PLAr automatically, there must have been some type of paperwork mix up, as PSO's from across the country didn't do the PLAR on any of the CFR's! Oh well, at least I can identify with people when they talk about the mega now! lol

Now I see the problem. It's the parent unit or base PSO's responsibility to submit the PLAR, Borden does the assessment portion only. We get lots of new kids at our unit who require PLARs done... and this is after having been in Borden for 9 months. I guess the lesson here is for the member being CFR'd to req a PLAR thereby ensuring that it has been at least started.

 

[klee519]

I believe that making anyone redo their basic, while they are still a serving member of the CF regardless of component is a waste of money and time on both the CF and the individual in question.

We are currently at a need to expand our military, due to both operational requirements and other needs. I think that BMQ/IAP does not benefit anyone with prior experience to have to redo it. If the individuals have never completed PLQ, then fine, send them to BOTP because that's where we teach them leadership. I say go for it, because leadership is constantly evolving thing and should never be brushed over.

But, if the person's got PLQ, ILQ or what ever other forms of leadership, is it really pertinent to send them on IAP/BOTP = BOTC all over again? No. It is a waste of time and opportunity. The sooner we get some of these pers trained up the better off we as an organization shall be. If we think that we will not be hit by the retiring frenzy that is currently hitting the civilian job market, we are kidding ourselves. The more experience we give to the up and coming leaders regardless of rank, will only further our own cause of creating a stronger CF.

By training them up sooner, and having them work under the supervision of more senior officers, our more "junior" officer with previous service may turn out to be better officers in the long run without having to redo BOTC. That is my opinion. You may disagree. In fact some of you probably will. However, having to redo basic, and be taught how to do hospital corners, how to shine your boots for people with any TI above 3 years is kind of pointless. IAP is not needed for anyone whose completed BMQ. If they've been assessed ready by both their CoC and the PSO... I think they're good to go... don't you?

you are right about that, in my opinion both IAP and BMQ are very similar but IAP is way more easier than BMQ, physically and mentally. The instructors tend to scream more at a recruit than an ocdt. People been thru the BMQ should be exempted from IAP. I've seen ex cpl, mcpl and even sgt were forced to take iap. Some of them didn't bother to finish iap, however i am sure the military wants to get rid of these experienced people with attitude.
on the other hand, st jean cflrs is running out of space to accommodate new soldiers, as next year they are moving PAT/PAR to the trailers near the obstacle course. The govt will never run out of new people to join the  military, even if approx only 50% candidates able to pass BMQ/IAP.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

you are right about that, in my opinion both IAP and BMQ are very similar but IAP is way more easier than BMQ, physically and mentally. The instructors tend to scream more at a recruit than an ocdt. People been thru the BMQ should be exempted from IAP. I've seen ex cpl, mcpl and even sgt were forced to take iap. Some of them didn't bother to finish iap, however i am sure the military wants to get rid of these experienced people with attitude.
on the other hand, st jean cflrs is running out of space to accommodate new soldiers, as next year they are moving PAT/PAR to the trailers near the obstacle course. The govt will never run out of new people to join the  military, even if approx only 50% candidates able to pass BMQ/IAP.

Have you taken both IAP and BMQ?  Either?  If so which one?  What are you basing this opinion on?

Folks, once and for all...while the PO/EO/Edo's might be the same (drill, MK, C7, CBRN, etc) the courses are NOT the same.  IAP stands for Initial Assessment Period.  This, while having some similarities to BMQ, is NOT BMQ.  The Leadership portion of the training is not the same, the 'expectations' are not the same.

Think of it.  If there courses WERE the same, don't  you think they would have been combined for 'effeciency of effort' sakes?

Anyone who has done BMQ and been trained to the Cpl/LS level and who go on to the Officer world, who have to do IAP 'most likely' will find it easy and see alot of it as BS that they have done before, because, well they have.  For the folks who are ROTPs/DEOs that have NEVER had a CF uniform on before, IAP is just a hectic and confusing as it is for BMQs who have never wore a CF uniform before.

The courses are not the same, full stop.  The assessment critieria are not the same, full stop.  The 'aim' is different.  Maybe I can sum it up like this.

BMQ is to train Private Recruits to be able to effectively carry out lawful commands and perform the general duties of service life to the expected standard and to 'convert' them from civie to military creatures (well, to start the process atleast).

IAP is to train OCdts (Subordinate Officers) to do all of the above, but also to GIVE orders to subordinates.  So, not only are they demanded to be followers, but leaders as well. 

Klee519, running out of space is not a good enough reason for the CF to start demanding less of trainee's for our Officer Corps, IMO.  The correct solution to that?  Build more buildings.

Again, if you are an NCM who is going to jump to the Officer world, you must have PLQ to bypass IAP.  They cover (basically) the same leadership skill development. 

The military does not want to 'get ride of experienced people with attitude'.  They do want them to transition from the NCM to the Officer world and to help mold the less experienced people into the CF family.  Call it the effective use of Group Discipline. (no that doesn't mean blanket parties).

When you take the ILQ course, you will learn about that, unless you want to self-educate yourself on the 4 types of discipline the military employs primarily.  (Well, that is what was taught on my SLC, I am guessing it is still part of the ILQ but could be wrong).

Now, I am not trying to take a huge crap on you, but if you are 22 years old, and I am guessing that you haven't done both IAP and BMQ, then maybe you haven't been around long enough to know why the folks who make up the rules make the ones they do.

All my opinion, of course...

 

[Patrolman]

When I did my BOTP course this summer there were approximately 17 CFR's,20 RMC students,and 10 civu U candidates on my serial. Being a former  MCpl. I feel the course was a waste of seven weeks of my life. I really did not learn anything, and being made to wear a cornflake;sorry Tri-Service Badge was a slap in the face. I did it just the same and even wore the old web gear despite having the tac vest in my locker. When all of the RMC students found out that we had to remove our unit badges they immediately removed their RMC badges. Ther gesture was well appreciated and was a fine example of esprit de corps. Needless to say the CF realizes there is a problem with the system and working to have it rectified. Supposedly in the summer of of 08 there will be seperate courses (as well as new TP's ) for former NCO's.