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

Role of Officer vs job of NCM [Merged]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Argyll 2347
  • Start date Start date
Your unit Adjutant can give you the information. Being offered is a unit specific custom.
You CAN do it, as long as you are Sgt qualified, and have a university degree or college diploma or at least be working towards one.
You do have to possess outstanding skills and your superiors will have noticed that by now.
You can also quit as an NCM and apply as an officer, so long as you are enrolled in post-secondary education, you are eligible.
Talk with your Officer, Adjutant, WO, CSM or RSM for advice. If you're not a punter they'll give you good advice. If you are a punter, or they really want to keep your skills in the ranks, they'll disuade you.
At some point in the very near future, every officer will be required to have a degree.
But then one has to ask... why do you want to be an officer in the RHLI? :)
 
There are two ways without a current university degree to become an officer from an NCM(there is another way if you have one already). 

One was already mentioned and that is CFR.  Usually Sgt and above, but my be given to outstanding MCpls.  It always(AFAIK) to the MOC your are currently in.

The other is UTPNCM or university training plan non-commissioned member.  This plan see you go to university and complete your degree.  You get paid your normal wage, as well as all schooling costs and upon graduation you are obligated to serve for X number of years to help the CF realize the cost of sending you to school.  It is an extremely competitive program and your best bet is to read up on all CFAO related to it and do your homework.
 
Hi there, I have recently enlisted into the reserve and am considering going on to the Regular Force in the future. However, I am unsure of what NCM and Officer mean and how they would apply to me if I were to go regular force.
 
Take a look around this site: this subject has been discussed at considerable length on other threads. Cheers.
 
I know this may not relate to this topic directly; but just out of curiousity, say you wanted to go from officer to ncm (don't ask)?
What would be the process? Is this inclusive of PRes, Reg, and CIC?
Would you have to leave the forces for a period of time? Is there a written policy on this? And where can i find it?

Just wondering, had a heated discussion with an individual concernig this topic, and am looking for the correct answer. I believe you are reguired to release for a period of time, but not 100% sure on this. Any comments/references would be helpful.

Thanks
 
HEY GUYS

BEING OLD SCHOOL AND HAVING BEEN FORCED FROM MY COMFORTABLE 3 HOOKS, THERE IS A PARALELL IN THE RANKS AND OFFICERS.  MCPL's ARE ALMOST A GIVEN POSITION, MUCH THE SAME WAY SOME OFFICERS MAKE THEIR GRADE.  AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED GOOD OFFICERS ARE INSTINCTIVE MUCH THE SAME AS GOOD SNR NCO;s.  FAR TOO MANY GET THE GRADE ON BOTH SIDES, FROM THE BOOKS & / OR BROWN NOSE.  ONE OF THE THINGS TAUGHT IN COMMAND SCHOOL IS THE REASON FOR SEPARATION OF THE RANKS FROM OFFICERS.  SOME ONE HAS TO ULTIMATELY MAKE THE CRAP DECISIONS THAT COST LIVES.  IT IS HARDER TO SEND YOUR BUDDIES TO HELL ON A WILD SCHEME, THAN BODIES THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.  I'VE HAD THE DUBIOUS HONOUR OF HAVING TO MAKE CRAP DECISIONS THAT AFFECTED PEOPLE I KNEW & WORKED WITH.

AT ANY RATE THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT SHOULD NOT HOLD THEIR GRADE, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF A LACKSIDASICAL ATTITUDE.  THEY HAVE BOOK SMARTS WHICH QUALIFY THEM FOR ALMOST NOTHING IN THE FIELD.  WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO KNOWING OUR TRADE INSIDE & OUT.
 
Do you not think that "knowing the trade" for an Officer requires "book smarts" ie: having a decent grounding in military issues and professional discourse?
 
I think the argument is about "Character", those almost undefinable things which separate true leaders from the rest. I personally have had candidates who routinely scored 90% on PO's, yet were unable to organise a breakfast line when tasked as course senior; these are the people who CH1 is reffering to.

Going back a step or two, CFR is one way to assess character, the candidate has already acted in a leadership capacity (and in the most demanding one of section commander). A very intense SAS style "selection" for leadership candidates is also a way of testing for character; no matter what the job, we want people who are not inclined to quit or take the easy way out.

Given the security environment we wil be operating in over the next few decades, "Selection" might even be a good idea right at recruiting and junior leader training. In a three block war environment, small sub and sub sub units will have to operate independently in a very confused environment. The fate of service support convoys that got lost in OIF should be a grim reminder that EVERY rank and trade needs to learn the killing arts first, and each soldier has to have the character and determination to use their skills to the utmost.
 
Looking back on my comment, I have to clarify some points & I have to stand from my Perspective.  Yes it is good to have knowledge of military, & political issues and have a professional discourse.  Having cfr'd, I still have the the outlook of an NCO.  This may come from the ucw background, or from my training.  I do not pretend to understand global politics.  I understand mission politics.  Professional discourse is a loaded statement.  In my position, I have seen too many officers having their next career move as priority 1 over their people.  Making sure my people were properly equipped mentally, physically, & with the gear required for the job has always been my priority.  Yes I have a good knowledge of tactics through out history. The electronics degree does not present tactical advantage, where as knowing intimately the 7.62x39 AK47 does.  Knowing how to interpret a topo map gives me possible hides.  Knowing how , when & what to deploy is crucial.
                                                                                                                                                      Over the years I have seen a few Infantry officers rise to the top after having failed to pass basic field quals.  I spent a long time doing bdf's, and the critiques on them.  I probably made more than my share of enemies over the bdf reports simply because certain officers did not like the fact that a Sgt and later Lt could penetrate their defensive positions.  Instead of taking a "professional attitude" & learning, the position was that I had not followed the ex format (cheated).  Maybe my attitude is wrong as you, the younger generation have seen more combat than I have.  I do not profess to have all the prerequisite knowledge but if a target presents at 500m, & I have a  7.62x51-147 gr fmj, that round is gonna drop approx 1.2 m & I will have my people positioned for that.  (Sorry, grey moment, forgot the stats for SS109- 556x45)  If I do an ambush or ATC, you can rest assured that my people will be in the best & safest spot.  I will ensure that mission objectives will be reached.  By the same token there is good officers out there.  It has & always will be a juggling act to advance a good officer on merit alone.  The same can be applied to NCO's.  The per's & por's have not addressed this problem adequetely.  The old boys network still factors into the equation.

    Am I popular in the Officer's Mess?  Probably as much as a case of the plague.  Will people follow me into harm's way? From what I have heard, 99% will (scary thoughts for old men.)  My own opinion of me as an officer? Let's not go there.  Will I put my can on the line for my people? See dotted line on neck.
Did I get my commision on merit? My guess not.  Do I know Parade drill? As good as any DI.

    Bottom line is the selection process is like swiss cheese.  It was probably built that way to allow enough people to qualify.  The problem being is there is no effective way to deal with the screw ups or other variables such as personality traits unless they hit critical mass.  In combat there are ways, but not socially acceptable.  The other half of the coin is simply that the military is not a place for people to climb the social order. The ratios of NCO's & Officers have to be brought back into line for the size of the military.  I don't know if any body else remembers this old stat, but 135 Leopards & 140 Generals.
We are sporting more Generals/capita than the whole US or Russian Army (cold war). 

    Who ever said there's no life like it, wasn't lieing.  In spite of systemic problems, my hat is off to all the young NCM's & Officers.  They collectively shine on the world stage with professional attitude & dedication, second to none! & this is the end of my rant on the subject, for better or worse.
                                                                                                                                         
 
I wonder why you think that it must be mandatory to have a University/College degree to be an Officer?

Just because you have a diploma or degree, doesn't make you smart.   I know many smart people who would not be able to survive in 'everyday life or jobs' so they stay in University.   They may be smart, but they don't have any common sense.   They couldn't lead you to the washroom, or even give you directions, if their lives depended on it.   Education diplomas or degrees do not make one a Leader.   Many of this countries greatest leaders didn't even have High School Diplomas.
Many highly educated people know how to 'screw the pooch' when it comes to getting work accomplished......look at our great companies like Bombardier, those AD Agencies in Quebec,.....they know that they can make money or get promoted because they have a piece of paper on their wall that says they are 'Educated' and can milk the system until caught.

I have noticed a distinct lack of 'Staffing' and Staff Work being done in the last few years when it comes to preparations for and deployment of Pers and Equip on Major Exercises or Deployments.   And these are "Degree Holding" Officers.   ......................................


GW
 
Sorry if I am stepping on anyones toes but I wasn't going to read 10 pages of threads.

I think that Offr's Command and NCO's lead. They should not have to come up through the ranks because then they would be too familiar with the troops. Familiarity breeds contempt!

CHIMO!
 
Mike Cotts said:
Sorry if I am stepping on anyones toes but I wasn't going to read 10 pages of threads.

I think that Offr's Command and NCO's lead. They should not have to come up through the ranks because then they would be too familiar with the troops. Familiarity breeds contempt!

CHIMO!

Sorry, Mike, but I have to disagree with most of this post. First off, officers definitely do lead. That is their primary duty and that is clearly laid out in their commission and is the basis of their training. It is when officers fail to lead (as we have sadly seen far too much of over the last decade or so in our military...) that serious problems develop. Look at history's greatest "commanders"-they were all leaders as well. In fact, officers are always leaders (good or bad...) but they may not always be commanders, since that power is specifically granted in certain appointments.

NCOs (and I was one...) on the other hand must always be leaders as well, although only the Section Commander appointment gives the NCOs power of command. To me the NCO is the "ultimate soldier" in his organization, or should be. The Section Commander, Pl/Tp 2IC, CSM/SSM and RSM should each be the example soldier that the troops below them look up to and want to be. Just as we have had officers who have failed us, I believe that (sadly) we have also had NCOs/WOs who seem to think it's all about "time in" instead of being leaders. Of couse, in the end, this too can be laid at the feet of officers because we accept and abet this kind of behaviour.

On the issue of   coming up through the ranks-I think you have made a very gross generalization about those of us who were NCOs/WOs first and then took our commissions. How "familiar" you are with those subordinate to you is a product of your personality, not of the fact that you came up through the ranks. Ask MGen(Retd) Lew McKenzie or LGen(Retd) Jeffreys, our previous CLS, both of whom started in the ranks. I know other fine officers in my Regt and others who have come up through the ranks, so I cannot accept your generalization.

Cheers.
 
Obviously your opinion is correct.........Sir. LOL Nah I am just kidding, it's good to see different view points however, in your trade, Offr's do lead however in my trade, it is the NCO's who do the leading.

And I do agree with your other comment however, I think my point is very real and very valid.
 
George Wallace said:
I have noticed a distinct lack of 'Staffing' and Staff Work being done in the last few years when it comes to preparations for and deployment of Pers and Equip on Major Exercises or Deployments.   And these are "Degree Holding" Officers.   ......................................
GW

Hmm.  I see that you are in Pet, so are you referrring to BTE 03 and recent ROTOs (ie 0 and 13) If so, were the deficiencies at the unit level or higher?  I'm not being defensive, just doing a back bearing to make sure that I am not totally lost....
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Hmm.   I see that you are in Pet, so are you referrring to BTE 03 and recent ROTOs (ie 0 and 13) If so, were the deficiencies at the unit level or higher?   I'm not being defensive, just doing a back bearing to make sure that I am not totally lost....

I think the thing being forgotten by him is that when we are not on an Operation we are training. And even when we are, we still train. Rehearsals, rehearsals, rehearsal!!!!!!
 
I don't know of late but most of those Eng Officers I knew who came up through the ranks were on the whole the best I have worked with.
I can only put it down too ; Been there,done it and got the T- Shirt.

 
No....what I mean is that the proper staffing is not getting done.  When deploying, it is not unusual to arrive and still not know what vehicle you may be in, what packet you may be in, not have a Route Card for all vehicles, some vehicles are still not marshalled because they are VOR'd,........just small things like that.

How about the MP at the TCP in Borden, who didn't stop traffic, but walked over and pushed the Pedestrian Walk button to change the light and then got back into her vehicle without directing traffic.  

In the old days, everyone was briefed on what the plan was and how it was going to be carried out to the minutest detail; who was responsible for what, Emergency numbers and contacts, Locations andTimings for all movements, Halts, and Release Points.  You knew where you would rest, eat and what to expect on arrival.  

Today, passage of info sucks.

GW
 
George,

As far as I know nobody has ever said that you need a degree to be a leader.  Although we are going to a degreed officer corps (an admitedly debatable decision) officers are of course not the only leaders in our army.  I am very reluctant to enter this thread because it is very personal and one's point of view and experiences have a great bearing on the position that we take.  Outstanding officers have been hurt by this decision (among other CF-inflicted wounds over the past ten years such as the constantly changing Kingston course).

I agree that having a degree on your wall does not magically transform you into a leader.  I saw plenty of fellow candidates thunder in on Phase training who had degrees or were working towards them.  They were very smart but lacked the ability to do the "gut check" required to pass.  All the same, I think having a degree can help an officer in his duties.  It must be combined, of course, with character and training (one you have, the other you get).  Hopefully the process of obtaining a degree will develop the capacity for critical thinking and analysis.  I credit spending five years in civilian univesity with giving me a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism when someone presents the latest fad (I should have been done in four but that's another story).  I don't think that having all officers with degrees will be the silver bullet that it was made out to be in the late 90s, but I do believe that having a degree can be beneficial.

All,

One unintended effect of having all officers come from the ranks is that you might actually see the regretable disappearance of the NCO or a reduction in his importance.  I have worked with at least one army like this and the officers ran everything (from the Section on up).  I think that having our "messes" is a strength of our Army.  We have a very wide leadership base that makes our Army hard to topple over.  It can take a while to figure it out, but I truly believe that everyone has an important role to play.  I believe that as long as the Tp Ldr/Tp WO (and so and so on) relationship is handled with care and mutual respect the bumps in the road can be smoothed out (as my own bumps have been and continue to be straightened out) .  Perhaps I'm just an arch-conservative trying to guard my little office!   ;D

Cheers,

Iain
 
Back
Top