CF PLQ equivalent to BOTP?

[gunner065]

Good day all, I recently accepted an offer for CEOTP (as a NCM) and I am confused as if I have to complete BOTP or not. 

From all the literature I was able to gather, because I am PLQ qualified I will be granted an IAP bypass.

After talking to a friend of mine who is currently instructing in St-Jean, only ILQ/GMTI qualified members are currently being granted BOTP.  As well, some members who completed BOTP in the last year informed me that PLQ is equivalent for BOTP, therefore I should get BOTP granted...

Anybody working in the CDA/Recruiting Group departments have any information into that regards?  I would greatly appreciate, as I would prefer getting a few more university courses completed than having to repeat training I, in most part, already have done part of PLQ.

 

[PO2FinClk]

New standards to PLAR assessments by CDA which have not yet been distributed allow for anyone who holds PLQ or more to be granted bypass BOTP. Rather they shall only be required to attend the "Officership Colloquium" (sp?) This was not even know by CFRG but CDA has been granting these equivalencies since last year, where as those completed by CFRG were premise to the old rules of "WO ILQ Qual or greater". Last I heard these changes are to be promulgated by CDA in the next few months.

 

[gunner065]

Thank you PO2FinClk for the prompt and informative reply, appreciated.

I inquired into the matter with CDA, and as yet, have not received any reply.  As well, if this is the case, then which procedure should be followed to seek CDA granting that qualification?  Is it too early for this?

When I applied for commissioning, I mentioned this to my chain of command and they were confused too.  Therefore, they do not even know the proper procedure to follow for a PLAR.

Thanks

 

[George Wallace]

Like everything else in the Recruiting process, you are treated as an individual when these decisions are made.  Qualifications granted will be determined on what qualifications you have, along with what experience you have had, including Deployments.  This is where one sees two people with the same qualifications, both being offered different terms and qualifications on joining.  Unless both people have had identical courses, employment and deployments, they may not be offered the same things.

 

[MJP]

You can get your unit to ask for a BOTP equivalencies through the CDA.  Simple process and covers you just in case.  Unit just writes you a letter and includes all the proper paperwork.

http://cda.mil.ca/dlm/engraph/services/accred/milequiv/botp_e.asp  DWAN link

 

[gunner065]

Thank you all, for your words of wisdom.  And yes, George Wallace, I do understand that every person/member is treated as an individual as far as granting qualifications goes, but what I am looking for is pretty cut and dry. 

I just want to find out if CF PLQ is equivalent to BOTP, if it is and it is verifyable (printed somewhere black on white), than how does one member proceeds to get assessed.

When I had my commissioning interview with the BPSO, I mentioned rumours I had heard about PLQ equivalencies to BOTP, but the BPSO did not know anything about such allegations.  Furthermore, if indeed it is the case, than why isn't it public CF knowledge?

I have friends who did end up in St-Jean during the last year and were asked why they were there by the instructor cadre if they already had completed PLQ (Reg Force).  Again, I go on hearsay, it is the understanding by some that if a member is CF PLQ qualified that there is no requirement to do BOTP.  Furthermore, if that is the case, why isn't it mentioned anywhere?

Don't get me wrong, it would be a great refresher training for a seasoned NCM, but I would rather complete a few more university courses than having to refresh myself on the principles of leadership.

 

[George Wallace]

I really didn't appreciate your tone.

Having been down at the Inf School on Tasking running the CAP CP, I can tell you that I have seen WO's who still had to go through all the hoops like raw recruits.  As I said, it is all decided when they review your file, you qualifications, experience, Tours, etc. 

As for Instructors asking why a student is there; this is old news, and outside the powers of Instructors to control.  It is usually "natural curiousity" into the working of the System.

If you don't like that answer, then tough.  You are the one seeking advice.  If you don't like what you hear, then don't ask next time.

 

[Monsoon]

On the NAVRES side, the Master Seamen commissioning this year are being granted IAP, but not BOTP, over at VENTURE. If I recall correctly they were told that if they had hjad ILQ they would have been granted BOTP and only have to do the "Officership Colloquium" mentioned by PO2FinClk. So I gather the current math is PLQ = IAP and ILQ = BOTP.

 

[MJP]

I really didn't appreciate your tone.

What part of the tone or content offended you George?  I thought he voiced his question and follow ups in calm logical manner. You were the the only one that really did not add value to the actual question except for your generic answer on how ones file will be evaluated which could have applied to anyone.

If you don't like that answer, then tough.  You are the one seeking advice.  If you don't like what you hear, then don't ask next time.

I don't even see where he was mad/not liking the answers he got? The process itself is very obscure and the documents that lay it out are hard to find.  I only happened upon the actual PLAR at the CDA looking for something else.  I can understand why he was on here to seek clarification on things he has been told or heard.  Sounds to me like he is utilizing all the resources at hand to find the solutions and then present COAs to his CoC, not whining but hey what do I know. 

Having been down at the Inf School on Tasking running the CAP CP, I can tell you that I have seen WO's who still had to go through all the hoops like raw recruits.  As I said, it is all decided when they review your file, you qualifications, experience, Tours, etc. 

That is exactly why the system is changing in order to reduce redundant training and get these people into their units as soon as feasibly possible. 

 

[gunner065]

Thanks George for not understanding my comments.  Instead of generic information, I wanted to probe this forum to see if anyone had inside, precise information on any new developments in regards to PLQ/BOTP equivalencies.

Although you have been instructing CAP CP and have seen WO's that would need 'remedial' leadership training, in essence it had nothing to do with my initial question.

I've been instructing at the QL5/QL6A level for the past two years, and do understand that some people are long in the tooth, therefore granting qualification is on a case by case basis.

Furthermore, I was not asking an advice, but merely asking information from people working at the CDA or within the Recruiting policy departments.  If doubtful, read my initial post...

For all the others, especially PO2FinClk and MJP, thank you for your insights, I will look further into the matter once I have access to my account next week.

I thought that people replying to posts on these forums were members with first hand knowledge of the topics, my mistake.  After 14 years in the military, you still get surprise by people...

 

[Zoomie]

Good question:

Although I don't work for PLAR, CFRC or CDA (or insert another acronym here) I can tell you how I was treated.

I had my CFJLC (IAP) and was granted a BOTC 1 bypass (IAP).  I simply added BOTC 2 (BOTP) where I didn't learn a thing except sword drill.  It's only 6 weeks out of your life for BOTP - enjoy it, it is the easiest leadership course the CF can offer.  I slept over 10 hours per night on that course.

 

[gunner065]

Yeah, right now zoomie I'm at the point where I believe (75%0 that I will end up doing BOTP, no sweat.  The main reason why I am trying to clarify this topic is:  I was told that in the near future BOTP and IAP would be granted to member who completed a CF PLQ by now 2Lt's and someone on this forum.

Furthermore, as I will get commissioned under the CEOTP program, I would rather spend my time completing my degree than having to redo PLQ all over again.  In my mind, going to St-Jean would be a waste of time when I could progress through my studies faster...

 

[rifleman]

When we graduated BOTP, the reviewing officer asked one of the guys "what was his toughest course?" JLC, he said. The General quickly moved on.

Having gone through it myself, ISCC was more than enough for a By-pass. What a waste of time and resources.

 

[Rowshambow]

Having gone through this myself, I can tell you that if you are plq qualified, BOTP is a waste of time. On day 2 of our course, the PL WO asked why we were there, and he was told from his COC that if a PLAR was done (as it was supposed to be) most would have had a BOTP bypass and would have only had to do the 3 week Officer qualicom (sp?). I was glad to see it was Canada wide, and not just the 3 of us from Edmonton!

George, I hear what you are saying, I also know a WO who had to do BOTP because he wasn't ILQ, but what they are realizing is that as a PLQ qual pers you already know most of what is taught, and prob taught some of it! The big thing they are getting into at BOTP is the introduction of mission analysis. Also the sword drill thing doesn't count, they only have enough swords for a few guys, so you now only carry one if you get top candidate, and you only get taught a little bit of it, while on grad parade practice.

As for the "it's only 6 weeks just do it", well that's just dumb, why waste your time and the CF's money, and why would you want to be treated like a recruit again? For those of you who have been to St Jean, yes it's still the same, green desk, march on the yellow line etc... so why do it if you don't have too!

Submit a memo, have a plar done, it might help you, it might not!

 

[2fly]

Hey Gunner,  any news on this issue?  I too may be running into the same situation...  I have heard that it was under review but nothing more.  From what I was told the current policy is we do BOTP only.  It would be good to bypass both IAP and BOTP if possible.

 

[Osotogari]

I would hope that if you can be employed as an NCM instructor on a course, then you should be entitled to a bypass.  That would be the most logical thing.  I would pull up the course/staffing MSExcel file they put out and use that to advance your case.  For example if a MCpl can instruct on the purple trades Basic officer course (whatever it's called these days) then there's no reason they should have to sit through it.

 

[Arctic Acorn]

I came across this document for the same reason: LFCO 24-20 - PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT (PLA) FOR EQUIVALENCIES AND QUALIFICATION REINSTATEMENT.

Seems pretty cut and dried...the way I interpret this LFCO is that PLA is only compulsory during a CT or an OT (see para 11). Requests for equivalency during the commissioning process (either regular or reserve) is on a voluntary basis only (hence the "may" in para 12). I interpret that as something the member him/herself must initiate. Their chain of command can suggest a PLAR during the commissioning process when councelling the member, however the onus appears to be on the member to initiate the request for a PLAR in this case.  

I guess the key thing here is ensuring your MPRR is up to date (always a good idea anyway) and make a point to request a PLAR if you commission...according to this LFCO it won't be done automatically, as with a CT/OT. That might explain the number of members who wind up loaded on BOTP who, if the paperwork had been staffed and an equivalency granted, wouldn't have had to do the course in the first place.

Hope that helps.

 

[2fly]

Good point Otto.  Perhaps I will ask my chief to look into this further.

 

[George Wallace]

Unfortunately the PLA for Equivalencies and such are decided by persons in Borden who may not know of what they are assessing.  :-\

 

[benny88]

Also the sword drill thing doesn't count, they only have enough swords for a few guys, so you now only carry one if you get top candidate, and you only get taught a little bit of it, while on grad parade practice.

  This is on a tangent, split if you want. When was your BOTP Rowshambow? I don't recall seeing or hearing of even the top candidates carrying swords during grad parades in the last little while. Anyone know what the deal is these days? I'm not worried about sword drill or top candidate at all, just curious.

Cheers.