- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 130
Eye In The Sky said:
Actually OFP is now the hinge point irrespective of when it is. OFP is now the point where you are considered operationally functional and can be posted to your first operational billet. For some that might be the old QL3 for others the old QL5. When we examine for waivers, it is predicated on OFP as defined by the MOSID.
What's the hold-up on the DAOD . . . one word . . . LEGAL.
Cheers
Andraste
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Not quite. The wording of the CFAO states QL4 qualified. If a trade doesn't have a QL4, then a QL3 is accepted. Right?
QL3 is not the OFP for some (most?) trades.
There is something similar with a COR/MOC Reassignment. IAW the CFAO, the member can be reverted to their old trade if they do not pass 'initial occupation training'. If a mbr has passed their QL3, they are 'occupationally qualified' and can't be COTd without an AR (unless that has changed).
Having said that, I am well aware of attempts to do the things described above, and they did not stand up when challenged and reviewed by an unbiased process. In the end, the CFAO and it's wording is the official policy until such time as the CFAO is signed and superseded by the DAOD.
In short, OFP is not found in the CFAO. OFP was *always* the point you were considered operationally functional, hence the term OFP.
Case in point; ATIS Tech. You are 'occupationally qualified' at completion of QL3, but you are not OFP until you are QL5 qualified. Despite them having an OJTP, they do not have a formal QL4 qualification, so they can apply for AVOTP as QL3 qualified Ptes (providing they meet the other requirements set out in the the CFAO). Or this was the case a few years ago, at least.
I'm well aware of folks who are doing what you describe above, and if the mbr is denied their AVOTP application process based on OFP and they challenge it thru the right avenues it will be overturned, because it has in the past.
The CFAO is the current policy and only one, the spirit/intent/wording of the DAOD shouldn't be coming anywhere's near a mbrs VOT application.
QL3 is not the OFP for some (most?) trades.
There is something similar with a COR/MOC Reassignment. IAW the CFAO, the member can be reverted to their old trade if they do not pass 'initial occupation training'. If a mbr has passed their QL3, they are 'occupationally qualified' and can't be COTd without an AR (unless that has changed).
Having said that, I am well aware of attempts to do the things described above, and they did not stand up when challenged and reviewed by an unbiased process. In the end, the CFAO and it's wording is the official policy until such time as the CFAO is signed and superseded by the DAOD.
In short, OFP is not found in the CFAO. OFP was *always* the point you were considered operationally functional, hence the term OFP.
Case in point; ATIS Tech. You are 'occupationally qualified' at completion of QL3, but you are not OFP until you are QL5 qualified. Despite them having an OJTP, they do not have a formal QL4 qualification, so they can apply for AVOTP as QL3 qualified Ptes (providing they meet the other requirements set out in the the CFAO). Or this was the case a few years ago, at least.
I'm well aware of folks who are doing what you describe above, and if the mbr is denied their AVOTP application process based on OFP and they challenge it thru the right avenues it will be overturned, because it has in the past.
The CFAO is the current policy and only one, the spirit/intent/wording of the DAOD shouldn't be coming anywhere's near a mbrs VOT application.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 130
Well I am not sure what to tell you . . . operationally functional point (OFP) is defined in various DAODs as the point where the member has reached the operationally functional point (i.e., trained) for their specific MOSID. Granted it is not defined that way in the CFAO for VOT but it is coming and will be brought into line with the rest of the in-service selection programs.
In reality we are talking about the same thing just calling it different things. You contend it is "occupationally qualified" (old terminology), specifially at some juncture (the old QL something or the new DP something) the member is considered trained. I apply the new terminology (OFP) on a daily basis to determine "trained" or "untrained" status (operationally functional point) as defined by the individual MOSID.
Just to clarify . . . I never implied anyone would be denied an AVOTP based on not reaching OFP. You are correct in that the CFAO is the guiding document (for now) on VOT and the member must be "trained" in her/his current MOSID and have 48 months service by 31 Dec of the year they apply. Not debating that point.
Where this takes effect is when a member is not trained (not OFP) so they cannot apply for AVOTP but must apply for VOT-U because they have not reached OFP (untrained). So yes, OFP does come near the member's OT application when making a determination as to whether it is "untrained" or not and this is CMP sanctioned and I have yet to see a grievance lost on this point. Once the member is trained (referred to in various ISS DAODs and the new OT DAOD as OFP) they can no longer avail themselves of the VOT-U process and must apply in competition with their peers for AVOTP.
Cheers
Andraste
In reality we are talking about the same thing just calling it different things. You contend it is "occupationally qualified" (old terminology), specifially at some juncture (the old QL something or the new DP something) the member is considered trained. I apply the new terminology (OFP) on a daily basis to determine "trained" or "untrained" status (operationally functional point) as defined by the individual MOSID.
Just to clarify . . . I never implied anyone would be denied an AVOTP based on not reaching OFP. You are correct in that the CFAO is the guiding document (for now) on VOT and the member must be "trained" in her/his current MOSID and have 48 months service by 31 Dec of the year they apply. Not debating that point.
Where this takes effect is when a member is not trained (not OFP) so they cannot apply for AVOTP but must apply for VOT-U because they have not reached OFP (untrained). So yes, OFP does come near the member's OT application when making a determination as to whether it is "untrained" or not and this is CMP sanctioned and I have yet to see a grievance lost on this point. Once the member is trained (referred to in various ISS DAODs and the new OT DAOD as OFP) they can no longer avail themselves of the VOT-U process and must apply in competition with their peers for AVOTP.
Cheers
Andraste
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Andraste said:
Perhaps I wasn't writing clearly...still on my first coffee. Basically I am saying a member is qualified in the MOSID as soon as they complete their QL3 but not all trades have their OFP set at QL3 completion. My trade is one of those; BAQC is our QL3 but QL5 qual (IAQC) is our OFP. Once I'd completed my QL3, I was qualified in the trade but not yet at OFP. My previous trade I OTd out of was the same, with QL5 being it's OFP as well.
I don't simply contend it, it is a reality. QL3 means "Qualification Level 3". If I complete QL3, I have a qualification level in the given trade. If a trade has a QL3 and you complete it, that is the 'initial occupation trg' as detailed in CFAO 11-12. In contrast, the draft DAOD doesn't refer to things like QLs and 'initial occupation trg' for things like COT/COR, VOTs, etc...it all is focused on the OFP level.
If you are using OFP as a determining point for if a member is trained, then that is IAW a draft DAOD and not the CFA0 and is done in error. I am aware it has been going on now for some time (ignoring the CFAO, using the draft DAOD spirit/intent/wording. It has already been challenged and determined that it is contrary to the actual CAF policy for NCMs. It might appear to be a small issue, but for members who are being assessed under the wrong 'rules' it is not ethical. We are all (Officer or NCM) required to know and follow any/all order that apply to the conduct of our duties.
Just to clarify . . . I never implied anyone would be denied an AVOTP based on not reaching OFP. You are correct in that the CFAO is the guiding document (for now) on VOT and the member must be "trained" in her/his current MOSID and have 48 months service by 31 Dec of the year they apply. Not debating that point.
Ok
Again, 'trained' and 'OFP' are not linked hand in hand. The CFAO requirements are (1) 48 months of service [36 for LOTP folks], (2) QL4 quald (3) meet medical/CFAT, etc right?
IF a trade doesn't have a QL4, then QL3 qualified would be the QL level for AVOTP. I've seen the recent AVOTP messages and they use the OFP, which is not correct as long as the CFAO is still in play.
The question should not be "is the member at OFP", because OFP has no bearing in CFAO 11-12. QL level does so QL level must be used. There is no term in the CFA0 'VOT-U' either. You are talking about something that is properly referred to as MOC Reassignment, again the rules for when/how are laid out in CFA) 11-12.
There is actual NO 'new DAOD' [yet] on OTing. That is the point; it is not signed off yet but it is being used. THAT is wrong. Full stop. Until the CFAO is properly superseded it is the 'current policy".
I have seen more than one review of this type of thing at the grievance level and the result in all cases has been in favour of the grievor.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
For clarity, I think the new DAOD is better worded and structured to the CAF of today; the CFAO is old for sure and not in step with today's realities/needs of the CF. I'm not against the OT DAOD.
What I am saying is that it is NOT 'signed off' yet, and it should not be being used AT ALL until it properly supersedes the CFAO. This has also been the assessment of the use of the draft OT DAOD by several review authorities, some of them inside the CMP org itself.
What I am saying is that it is NOT 'signed off' yet, and it should not be being used AT ALL until it properly supersedes the CFAO. This has also been the assessment of the use of the draft OT DAOD by several review authorities, some of them inside the CMP org itself.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 130
Okay we are just going to have to disagree on this one as you have your view based on your past experience and I have mine based on my current load station.
In actual fact QL no longer exists as they were rolled up under the DP structure. OFP is a clearly defined term in various CMP signed off policy documents and applied consistently across DMCPG and DPGR who are the policy authorities for in service selection (which includes the OT structure).
Sorry not aware of any challenges to date and to be clear nobody is using the "draft" copy of the DAOD . . . they are using sanctioned policy documents signed off at the CMP level. Well aware of my requirement to follow orders which are duly applied and done within the guidelines laid out by my superiors.
What can I tell you. DMCPG is the releasing authority for OT offers and I am sure they are applying the regulations as directed by their chain of command (i.e., CMP).
It may be defined as MOC Reassignment in the CFAO but it has not been referred to as VOR for some time. The guiding policy documents for selection (Personnel Selection Directives) which are approved by the CMP make changes to selection oriented CFAOs for various administrative reasons and while the letter of the CFAO continues the wording changes. So VOR is now VOT-U and COR is now COT . . . trust me on this one. Look in your quote above you even state MOC Reassignment. MOC is no longer a term used it is now MOSID but it is still MOC in the CFAO . . . this doesn't mean MOSID does not exist because the CFAOs still use MOC.
As I said above nobody is using the draft DAOD. Policy is being applied as outlined by various policy documents which are authorized to compliment the existing CFAO which have fallen behind on various administrative nuances and naming conventions over the years (this is why CFAOs are being replaced). These complimentary policy documents are authorized and signed off by all levels of authority and applied in a fair and equitable manner so there can be no procedural or distributive justice challenges based on poor application of the rules and regulations.
Cheers
Andraste
[/quote]
Eye In The Sky said:
In actual fact QL no longer exists as they were rolled up under the DP structure. OFP is a clearly defined term in various CMP signed off policy documents and applied consistently across DMCPG and DPGR who are the policy authorities for in service selection (which includes the OT structure).
Eye In The Sky said:
Sorry not aware of any challenges to date and to be clear nobody is using the "draft" copy of the DAOD . . . they are using sanctioned policy documents signed off at the CMP level. Well aware of my requirement to follow orders which are duly applied and done within the guidelines laid out by my superiors.
Eye In The Sky said:
What can I tell you. DMCPG is the releasing authority for OT offers and I am sure they are applying the regulations as directed by their chain of command (i.e., CMP).
Eye In The Sky said:
It may be defined as MOC Reassignment in the CFAO but it has not been referred to as VOR for some time. The guiding policy documents for selection (Personnel Selection Directives) which are approved by the CMP make changes to selection oriented CFAOs for various administrative reasons and while the letter of the CFAO continues the wording changes. So VOR is now VOT-U and COR is now COT . . . trust me on this one
. Look in your quote above you even state MOC Reassignment. MOC is no longer a term used it is now MOSID but it is still MOC in the CFAO . . . this doesn't mean MOSID does not exist because the CFAOs still use MOC.Eye In The Sky said:
As I said above nobody is using the draft DAOD. Policy is being applied as outlined by various policy documents which are authorized to compliment the existing CFAO which have fallen behind on various administrative nuances and naming conventions over the years (this is why CFAOs are being replaced). These complimentary policy documents are authorized and signed off by all levels of authority and applied in a fair and equitable manner so there can be no procedural or distributive justice challenges based on poor application of the rules and regulations.
Cheers
Andraste
[/quote]
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
It would really make it so much easier if they just signed the DAOD and put the CFAO to rest! ;D From a logical / personal standpoint [vice a pure application/determination of correct policy one], the draft 5002 is actually relevant and 'useable' in line with the current system in place. I do note, QLs do still exist and MOSIDs have different QLs assigned to OFP. But, using OFP is more suitable as a point of considering someone 'trained' then 'QL3 - init occ trg'.
A few years back, this was definitely challenged and upheld (the CFAO is sanctioned policy and must be followed, the DAOD is a draft and may as well not exist) in at least 2 cases I am aware of. In one case, a COR was cancelled because it was determined the mbr was in fact 'trained' (had completed Ql3) IAW with CFAO; the draft DAOD policy was being used and determined it was incorrect because, well, it was a draft and the CFAO was current policy. AFAIK at that time (several years ago now), there was no interim policy in place within CMP so looks like that was remedied. ;D
I'm not sure how much, or what has happened since then but, as mentioned, was surprised to find out the DAOD wasn't in play yet. The copy I have and reviewed is the one dated 12 Oct 2011.
The wheels of change, they turn but in the CAF sometimes they are slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. :nod:
A few years back, this was definitely challenged and upheld (the CFAO is sanctioned policy and must be followed, the DAOD is a draft and may as well not exist) in at least 2 cases I am aware of. In one case, a COR was cancelled because it was determined the mbr was in fact 'trained' (had completed Ql3) IAW with CFAO; the draft DAOD policy was being used and determined it was incorrect because, well, it was a draft and the CFAO was current policy. AFAIK at that time (several years ago now), there was no interim policy in place within CMP so looks like that was remedied. ;D
I'm not sure how much, or what has happened since then but, as mentioned, was surprised to find out the DAOD wasn't in play yet. The copy I have and reviewed is the one dated 12 Oct 2011.
The wheels of change, they turn but in the CAF sometimes they are slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. :nod:
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 130
I hear you about the DAOD and getting it out there . . . it is close if we can just get a few folks to agree to disagree and legal to bless it.
I agree the COR thing should never had happened (trained or not) . . . that is unfortunate and a lot of these small holes have been plugged by interim policy direction so people don't end up on the crappy end of the stick. I thought the combat arms had crazy idiosyncrasies but the policy world . . . sometimes it like living on the island of misfit toys
Cheers
Andraste
I agree the COR thing should never had happened (trained or not) . . . that is unfortunate and a lot of these small holes have been plugged by interim policy direction so people don't end up on the crappy end of the stick. I thought the combat arms had crazy idiosyncrasies but the policy world . . . sometimes it like living on the island of misfit toys
Cheers
Andraste
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Imagine what it's like for us line unit monkeys to have to delve into this stuff! 
ullhair:
;D
ullhair:;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
DrSize said:
Let's go back to this post..has anyone heard anything? It is May now so it would make sense that they start coming out. Although if it is anything like last year we will be waiting another month. Just looking for some solid answers like everyone else.
/u/Eye In The Sky or /u/Andraste
Curious to know if the OFP situation in CFAO 11-12 or the DAOD or any current policy like that applies to Officers? In other words, where is the point in an Officers training that they would go from a VOT-U to something else, and would they be restricted on when they can OT after hitting their OFP?
Thanks in advance!
Curious to know if the OFP situation in CFAO 11-12 or the DAOD or any current policy like that applies to Officers? In other words, where is the point in an Officers training that they would go from a VOT-U to something else, and would they be restricted on when they can OT after hitting their OFP?
Thanks in advance!
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 130
Hello Chromenut,
Yes, it applies to all CAF members for in-service selection programs. In some of the officer MOSIDs as in some of NCM MOSIDs there are significant phases of training which can take years to complete before they are considered trained (e.g. ,Pilot or MARS) during which the time the member is not trained and should they wish to OT prior to training it would be a VOT-U.
As with NCMs, once the officer is considered trained (is employable in their MOSID) then they can no longer avail themselves of a VOT-U but must apply under Officer Voluntary Occupation Training Program (OVOTP). The difference between the officer and NCM side of the house is that the officer does not have a 48 month restriction. Now some officer MOSIDs do enforce a MOSID specific statement of understanding (SOU) which restricts them from moving out their MOSID for "x" number of years but those are far and few between.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Andraste
Yes, it applies to all CAF members for in-service selection programs. In some of the officer MOSIDs as in some of NCM MOSIDs there are significant phases of training which can take years to complete before they are considered trained (e.g. ,Pilot or MARS) during which the time the member is not trained and should they wish to OT prior to training it would be a VOT-U.
As with NCMs, once the officer is considered trained (is employable in their MOSID) then they can no longer avail themselves of a VOT-U but must apply under Officer Voluntary Occupation Training Program (OVOTP). The difference between the officer and NCM side of the house is that the officer does not have a 48 month restriction. Now some officer MOSIDs do enforce a MOSID specific statement of understanding (SOU) which restricts them from moving out their MOSID for "x" number of years but those are far and few between.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Andraste
Andraste,
That does help, thanks!
I asked because I have a VOT in and want to know where I stand. What is the OFP for infantry? DP1.1 or 1.2? I believe 1.2 is mandatory for reg force but not reserves... not sure if that makes a difference with what they consider OFP.
chromenut
That does help, thanks!
I asked because I have a VOT in and want to know where I stand. What is the OFP for infantry? DP1.1 or 1.2? I believe 1.2 is mandatory for reg force but not reserves... not sure if that makes a difference with what they consider OFP.
chromenut
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 130
For infantry the point where you would no longer be considered for VOT-U would DP 1.2 completed (trained). If it is not a requirement for Reserve Infantry Officer (which I am not certain) then it could possibly be DP 1.1 as that would be the point where the Reserves consider you fully employable in your unit.
Cheers
Andraste
Cheers
Andraste
I'm looking at a VOT and have the following two options listed;
HCA
SIGS O
I want to go into the PSO meeting well informed on the trades but I feel that the recruiting website doesn't tell the whole truth. Would anyone out there be able to give me the low down on what the trades ACTUALLY involve and not the recruiter version. Thanks in advance!
Sent via smoke signals
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HCA
SIGS O
I want to go into the PSO meeting well informed on the trades but I feel that the recruiting website doesn't tell the whole truth. Would anyone out there be able to give me the low down on what the trades ACTUALLY involve and not the recruiter version. Thanks in advance!
Sent via smoke signals
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 1,495
- Points
- 1,260
Chinook87 said:
All things Health Care Admin/HCA (merged)
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18135.75
4 pages.
Signal Officer
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++hca&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=EoswV4-aI8uC8QepgaGoDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca++signals+officer
