Reserve unit's roll WRT taskings

[Forgotten_Hero]

Hello,
I've just got a question about what a reserve unit's roll is in regards to taskings available to its soldiers. Does anyone know of any documentation that details what the unit's arcs are regarding how they handle applications for certain taskings? Do all applications have to go through the unit?

I'd like a clear idea of how this process works because I see a lot of potential for favoritism happening within a unit chain of command when it comes to who gets to go on some of the more interesting taskings.

 

[aesop081]

that would be "Role"

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Yes, yes... thank you... my mind's going a mile a minute, hah.

 

[Michael OLeary]

If you are asking if there are built in "checks and balances" that ensure fairness in all tasking allocations (from any given point of view), then the simple answer is "no."

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

So, aside from going through a long process of submitting grievances and all that because they believe they've been treated unfairly, are soldiers capable of applying for taskings outside of their chain of command?

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, aside from going through a long process of submitting grievances and all that because they believe they've been treated unfairly, are soldiers capable of applying for taskings outside of their chain of command?

Again, the simple answer . . . "no."

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Whats the more detailed answer? Some of my troops are concerned with favoritism playing a part in whether they get on a certain tasking and I'm looking in to the subject. I'm searching through the CFAOs now to see what I can come up with, do you have any further information?

 

[Michael OLeary]

The detailed answer, which you have already identified, is to decide if there is enough weight to the argument to initiate a grievance. 

You may be able to get to the same outcome by requesting an officer or WO that you trust as an assisting officer who might be able to take the matter higher and get results  before the grievance gets tabled.

Keep in mind, however, that grievances are an individual action, not a group activity.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

I see. Another question on this subject that was asked of me was whether a unit is allowed to limit the number of names they'll submit for a tasking. For example, if there's a tasking outside of the unit requiring 100 positions and say 50 members from the unit expressed interest, does the unit have the right to withhold the application of 30 members because it wishes to not lose 50 members?

Edit:
What I mean is, since the approving authority for a position on the tasking is whoever the tasking belongs to (am I right on this?) does the unit have the right to refuse submitting a members application to that position?

 

[Michael OLeary]

It's not a matter of having a "right" to have your name put forward.  The unit can use whatever criteria it wants to decide how many nominations it will submit, or what cut-off for quality, qualifications, etc., it will maintain. If a unit doesn't do that, it only forces the next level to create some sort of cut-off (and thats not going to make your Ops staff any new friends).

Usually, units are only given a certain number of spaces, and cannot submit more names than the allocated slots.  This is particularly controlled when the tasks are issued via the tasking program  A unit cannot fill extra positions until other units have actually "no-filled" them and the task "owner" has reallocated those positions.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

I see. If, however, a unit is given, lets say 100 positions, can it refuse to submit more than say 10 names because they do not wish to risk 100 people getting accepted for the tasking and leaving the unit?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Yes, a CO can make such a decision.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

I see. Alright, thanks for the info.

 

[TCBF]

Yes, a CO can make such a decision.

- Good thing, too.

- Reserve units nowadays often  send  a huge percentage of their trained and AVAILABLE soldiers on tour.  This certainly provides the unit with more experienced soldiers, but the number one practical mission of a reserve unit is - for lack of a better word - "existance".  The unit must continually recruit, train and RETAIN young soldiers.  If too many capable Officers and NCOs are away on tour, they cannot be teaching the 'armoury floor' and area courses that sustain the units.  Unlike the Regular Force, militia units do not continualy receive trained soldiers from the end of a 'pipeline'.  If they have no Officers and NCOs to train their own, the unit begins to die off.

- When we use up all of the experienced Officers and NCOs in a unit, we have basically eaten our 'seed corn'.

I'm sure every Militia CO would LOVE to parade 1,000 soldiers and have 100 on tour at any given time.  Meanwhile, it is a balancing act.

 

[Steel Badger]

Hero, as an example:

My unit currently has 26 soldiers deployed to Afghanistan, including my humble self.  The pers deployed were selected from the Regmental Standby List.  While the CO certainly did wish to send as many soldiers overseas as had volunteered; we were restricted by postions allocated by BDE. in addition we had to juggle the names to ensure our ongoing  training and tasks could still be completed.
  The lads who didnt make the deployed list,  will, however, be merited the higher on the Standby list for 2010.

It may not be apparent at your level but a great deal of juggling does go into ensuring that we can deploy as many soldiers as possible while retaining the ability to carry out our core tasks


Cheers

SB

 

[toughenough]

Also, the merit listing can definitely benefit the soldier in the end. I would hate to have some numpty be my LAV gunner, just because he put his hand up. I'd rather know that the CoC thought they were the best suited soldier for the job, not just a pair of boots.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

I see. But the difference for you, Steel, was that your unit was restricted by the positions allocated by the BDE. What if, on the other hand, the unit said "No, we're not going to send 26 soldiers to Afghanistan. We're only going to let 5 of them go, despite the fact that we have many more positions?" What's your opinion on that?

 

[TCBF]

I see. But the difference for you, Steel, was that your unit was restricted by the positions allocated by the BDE. What if, on the other hand, the unit said "No, we're not going to send 26 soldiers to Afghanistan. We're only going to let 5 of them go, despite the fact that we have many more positions?" What's your opinion on that?

- I'll give you my opinion: If the choice was between maxing out the contribution to Afg and shutting down the unit, or minimizing the Afg contribution and carrying on with unit commitments (trg, courses, Class B slots, etc), then my choice would be minimizing the Afg contribution.

- The age-old phrase "Exigencies of The Service" fits well here.

- We joined the Army - it didn't join us.

 

[211RadOp]

I see. But the difference for you, Steel, was that your unit was restricted by the positions allocated by the BDE. What if, on the other hand, the unit said "No, we're not going to send 26 soldiers to Afghanistan. We're only going to let 5 of them go, despite the fact that we have many more positions?" What's your opinion on that?

If the Unit "No Fills" a position, one of three things will happen. Your Area G3 will reallocate those positions to another unit or they will go back to who ever looks after manning at CLS Ottawa and have them reallocate to position to another area. The third option is for the G3 to say "No, you will fill these positons" and then it will be up to the unit to justify why they can't.

 

[Steel Badger]

Lost

I lived through a period in the reserves where our applications for tour were regularly denied. During the 90's there was a lot of emphasis on CRE ( the Combat readiness Evaluation). I am not complaining about the CRE; but it led to a situation where CO's were very reluctant to send away pers who they NEEDED to fulfill their CRE obligations... ( IE Leadership)

I had to wait 18 years to get a chance to deploy on my first tour. Was I upset? Hell Yes! But the unit ( as an extension of the Army) wanted me right where I was....  Luckily when roto 13 popped up the CO of the day agreed that I should get my chance. Of course, being a canny fellow, he ensured that my position ( and my company) were covered before he agreed to send me.

TCBF is correct; the Army has every right to decide who, and how many, get sent from every unit for deployment. It is all part of soldiering. If the CO determines he can only fill 5 of 10 positions then that is how it is. As leaders we must ensure that our soldiers realize that in the end the Army has the final say in weather or not they deploy; get a desired course or in which platoon / section they will serve.
In my experience however,  CO's usually wish to send many more troops than he has positions. For this roto we had 50+ volunteers... Initially we were slated for a platoon complete; but that got reduced to 2 sections plus the positions we already had elsewhere in the org.

In regards to a unit deciding to underfill the positions allocated to it just for the hell of it: I guess it would be possible for a unit to arbitrarily decide to underfill out of sheer obstinance; but that unit CO would have to answer to the brigade as to why he is underfillling.

In the end, all of the above may not be transparent form your level. I can assure you that in most reserve units, a lot of hard work by the Units Officers and WOs/NCOs ( including the Reg Force Cadre) goes into preparing the noms.