A Pre ATF Sgt (ATC) has passed his SIFT interview for Commission but has to go and do SSIC BEFORE paperwork can be progressed to HQAC.
If its the way things are done then fair enough just seems like a total waste of Admin time/money and candidates Leave.
I understand that SSIC and OIC cover different things and the process might be to produce a more rounded Officer.
So the debate, Is this what CAC means by providing better training to CFAV’s ? or just one of those rules that somebody has made without thinking it through fully ???
How is a Pre ATF Sgt going for a commission, if they have been put into the SNCO cadre, I’d expect them to spend as a minimum 2 years in that role before looking at breaking through the ranks for a commission.
It would appear that they have been put into the wrong role if this is happening, and I would be very interested to understand the reasons behind the sudden change before this was put forward to HQAC, if I was at wing level in this case.
Must admit im with themajor how on earth is a pre ATF SNCO being put forward for commisson it seems a lot of people treat SNCO’s as a stop gap to get one or a consolidation prize for not getting one
A few CWO’s and CI’s made up to SGT (ATC) instead of being put directly through to VRT. With all the confusion a year or so ago with the updated Commissioning process I think the wing decided to put a huge stack of candidates through as SNCO.
[quote=“Dasonix” post=10320]I know of a few in the same boat tbh.
A few CWO’s and CI’s made up to SGT (ATC) instead of being put directly through to VRT. With all the confusion a year or so ago with the updated Commissioning process I think the wing decided to put a huge stack of candidates through as SNCO.[/quote]
may be a bit of CI avoidance as well, but that’s not the point. I think it’s a waste of everyone’s time, money, his leave and an ATF place to send him for an SSIC, and i imagine ATF would prefer not to do have to teach him twice in quick succession. I haven’t seen any policy requiring such a process.
Personally my long term goal is to be commissioned although I am being encouraged to spend a few years as an SNCO, partly due to my age, but more overridingly because the wing is well below strength for SNCOs, and my current unit has none. Zinggy are you saying this is wrong, and I should in fact solely have a commission?
Just a thought, and I have come across a similar argument many years ago (not in the ACO though), perhaps the appropriate HQ are considering that the individual may fail OASC or OIC? This way, at least they have a uniformed appointment to fall back on.
Notwithstanding my comment above, I have to agree that it’s odd we didn’t appear to know in what capacity we wanted this person to serve!
Personally my long term goal is to be commissioned although I am being encouraged to spend a few years as an SNCO, partly due to my age, but more overridingly because the wing is well below strength for SNCOs, and my current unit has none. Zinggy are you saying this is wrong, and I should in fact solely have a commission?[/quote]
It is worth remembering this:- the roles and responsibilities of SNCOs and Officers are different. Yes we all generally “muck in” with the same stuff, but the skill sets, life experience and ability requirements are different (NOTE - Not “better/worse”, but different). I.e. it is not unreasonable for someone to say “at this stage in your life, your skill set is better matched to NCO rather than Officer service - lets give that a go now and we will work on developing your officer qualities”.
BUT, Sgt tapes should not be handed out as a consolation prize, a situation which, I am pleased to say locally at least, I have seen little evidence of lately.
I must say (in relation to the OP) the whole situation is a little odd and if someone puts on a blue suit with stripes, it seems a little odd to commission them before the jumper even starts to fray.
My old unit had a candidate in this position. CWO timed out, put in as SNCO to maintain time in uniform with the intention of going for a commission in fairly short order. I don’t see any real issue with this, but it does seem daft to insist the candidate do SSIC. It’s not like a direct entry commissioning candidate would have to?
The way I see it you go for SNCO or comission depending on what skill you have and which role they suit best if you suit a comissioned role thats what you should go for stopping off at SNCO seems like a waste of time and effort to me.
If the Sgt originally applied for SNCO (ATC) then yes, he/she should be expected to complete SSIC before applying for commission. It’s part of the conditions of appointment.
Unsure whether the candidate applied for a commission in the first instance and was directed to SNCO for a development period or if they have subsequently decided that they would like to apply for a commission.
Either way, if you go into uniform as a SNCO you should expect to do SSIC, otherwise stay as a CI until you pass OASC. I suspect for some (you know the type) it will be a case of accruing time in uniform to count towards CFM.
Are Potential Staff Courses the norm across the Corps? They run them in my Wg and individuals’ own aspirations are considered against their performance in basic leadership tasks, discussions and an informal interview; very much a ‘mock OASC’. As well as recommending commissioning or SNCO as their mainstream route, I believe that quite a few candidates are also advised to go down the SNCO route for ‘development’ with a view to seeking a commission later, as the major has mentioned.
As for development Im not convinced it helps to go SNCO before commission yes they both wear uniform but the roles are different yes some parts overlap but not so much that it would help out all that much to be a SNCO first or everyone would be doing it.
[quote=“zinggy” post=10330]We have them on my wing aswell.
As for development Im not convinced it helps to go SNCO before commission yes they both wear uniform but the roles are different yes some parts overlap but not so much that it would help out all that much to be a SNCO first or everyone would be doing it.[/quote]
Thanks Zinggy, I thought most places were doing them.
I agree to a certain extent with your other comment. Both roles need confidence and (one would hope) a degree of military bearing, but in theory at least the officer corps should tend to be involved more in the managerial and planning aspects rather than the actual application. (Before everyone comes back and says ’yes but as an SNCO on my Sqn, I do that bit as well’, I said in theory - well that’s my theory at least!)
For some, a few years ‘doing’ and learning about the planning and management is beneficial.
As far as I’m aware the CWO’s were given Sgt so they didn’t loose out on length of service, The Wing did Run a mini OASC. In the case of the CI’s they were asked to spend some time as a SGT to get some more experience.
Personally my long term goal is to be commissioned although I am being encouraged to spend a few years as an SNCO, partly due to my age, but more overridingly because the wing is well below strength for SNCOs, and my current unit has none. Zinggy are you saying this is wrong, and I should in fact solely have a commission?[/quote]
My goal is also to be commissioned, as my skills and abilities are more suited to VRT than SNCO. My OC agrees, but has said for quite some time it would be better to become an SNCO first then spend a couple of years as SNCO before I apply for commission. This was the process he was taught by his OC and SWO when he left as a cadet in the 70s/80s and when he has recommended people my age for commission against this advice (pre-OASC), they have been turned down for commission and offered SNCO instead for at least a couple of years. I recently had an informal chat with my WSO, who agreed with my OC, but raised concerns about the lack of VRT in the Wing and said the choice should be mine as to which route I go down.
On the original topic, though, it may seem like a waste of resources (and with cuts to budgets, this should not be tolerated in too many instances), however, if someone has accepted an SNCO role, they should accept the terms that go with it. This clearly includes attending SSIC - and if they are unlikely to achieve VRT before their first year as an SNCO is up, then they should attend SSIC. Either that or resign as an SNCO and wait until they have passed OASC (by no means a certainty) before returning to uniform.
In this case, though, I’m not entirely sure from the OP who has paused the process, so cannot give an informed opinion as to why the commissioning process has been halted. A quick question to the OP: is the paperwork being held by Wing, Region or HQAC?
I really don’t get this insistence on going through SNCO status before commissioning. If you believe that someone has the skills necessary for commissioning, OASC will be the best judge of that, so put them up straight away. I they fail at OASC, use the debriefing from there to decide the best course of action. If OASC indicates that a period as an SNCO would beneficial to the individual then do it, but we shouldn’t be insisting on puting people trough the rank just because we think it would be good for them.