CF PLQ equivalent to BOTP?

[DC Roundsman]

Just an update on the subject.  After being appointed to NCdt and being loaded on BOTP, I received an email from a gal working at the CDA in the BTL Management Officer Cell. 

In a nutshell she mentioned that BMOQ (AIP and BOTP) granting procedures for members with previous leadership courses under their belt, were in the middle of being changed.  Therefore strongly suggesting members in my situation (CF PLQ qualified and outstanding potential at the next rank...) to submit a PLAR.

As well, she mentioned that in the past few weeks, several members only holding a CF PLQ had been granted a BMOQ bypass and only had to complete an Officership Colloquium.

Needless to say, the memo is in and I am awaiting to see what will happen.

My "significant other" is currently on her IAP/BOTP and there is a nasty rumour running around St. Jean that you need only to be QL5 qualified to get an IAP bypass.  I told her that the validity of this rumour is highly unlikely, but I would try to investigate it for her. Is there any update on this policy? 

 

[Wookilar]

It a little more than a rumour, but it is far from being policy.

IMHO, sending (most  ) former NCM's on IAP is a complete waste of time, money and resources and invariably leads to frustration on the part of the member and many instructors (just ask those in Weapons Cadre and certain members of our course staff giving us drill and PT "classes" about my IAP in '05, those poor guys had no idea what to do with 32 UT's on one course....).

A recommendation has been made to CFRG and CDA (official report service paper type) that they, essentially, get off their collective butts and put course equivalencies in black and white and make PLAR's automatic when commissioning from the ranks (whatever the program).

It is currently at the MGen level, waiting for a yea/nay and then a boot up higher. We do have people that are willing to look at it, but we are also fighting a system that has an issue with making NCM and Officer courses "equivalent" (for a number of reasons). This will not happen overnight.

If anyone is commissioning, put a PLAR in asap into CDA (NOT CFRG), it is still on an individual basis.

For example of how screwed up it currently is: PLQ (mod 6) gets you an automatic CAP bypass, BUT it does not automatically get a BOTP bypass......and CAP is considered a higher level course (even though it is in the same DP).

Wook

ps. Anyone needs any info, send me a pm.

 

[George Wallace]

For example of how screwed up it currently is: PLQ (mod 6) gets you an automatic CAP bypass, BUT it does not automatically get a BOTP bypass......and CAP is considered a higher level course (even though it is in the same DP).

Yes,  but PLQ and CAP don't teach you which knife and fork to use first and what is the proper way to pass the Port at a Mess Dinner.    ;D

 

[Wookilar]

and I learned not to eat soup with my port or butter my bun with my fork...  :blotto:

and I paraphrase from some silly officership etiquite book...  :warstory:

"Bloggins, you dunderhead, you do not eat soup with your port!"

"..as it is your duty to correct your peers when ingaged in such social and ceremonial situations..."

Wook

 

[muffin]

A recommendation has been made to CFRG and CDA (official report service paper type) that they, essentially, get off their collective butts and put course equivalencies in black and white and make PLAR's automatic when commissioning from the ranks (whatever the program).

This is already in the works - they are working on the database that will make this sort of thing happen. It isn't just a matter of this trade course vs that trade course, but also this university/college course plus this trade course vs that trade course etc. It's a complex and living thing, PLAR... and they are trying to make it faster and easier for everyone. They are calling it CFED in it's current form, but it doesn't seem to be functioning properly from the webapp, and it currently only contains info relevant to NCMs.

The "dream" is Little Johnny Private Recruite joins, they input all his courses and trainging to date and it will spit out ALL vialble options for advancement in his career. As Johnny progresses and takes this course at St Jean and that course in Borden, and then a few courses at Athabasca and U of M... his "options" update accordingly.

For now, the PLAR assessors use the current approved courses, and evaluate new courses as quickly as they can for the people who request it.

The only way course equivalencies could be "black and white" is if the content in the courses, the EOs and POs, never changed. There would be a lot of bored TDO's at CFTDC if that were the case

Since I have been working with OPME, the PLAR structures and equivalencies have changed multiple (ie more than 5) times, and I think the current course development lifecycle calls for a review every 3-5 years.

muffin

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What is available is located at the DIN site for CDA, more specifically at the CDA Accreditation and Equivalency page on their site.

 

[Wookilar]

Maggie,

I know the entire PLAR world is a very convoluted thing to behold and grows new heads seemingly constantly. I've seen bits and pieces of the CFED and I think it's a great idea, but like you say, very complicated and will be a living document, not something static.

The problem we are having specifically is with putting UT's on IAP/BOTP. Certain individuals, for their own reasons and own agendas, keep tying it up inside the whole PLAR process itself (not the PLAR guys themselves, they're all good over there and way over worked. This is from higher).

Granting a former NCM (with X amount of years, QL5 qualified) an IAP bypass should be a no brainer.
One look at the lesson plans and PO checks for PLQ and BOTP show them to be almost identical in content...add in years of experience and CO's/PSO's recomendation and someone is still going to tell me that an 18 year-old is more qualified/able to lead than a (former) MCPL with 10 years in?
If I hear one more officer tell me how "officer courses are taught differently" when the PO's and written tests are the exact same.....

We have to start the equivalencies somewhere instead of tying it up in buearacratic red tape, and this insistance by some that officer training is somehow harder/more difficult/more complete than NCM training has got to go (especially when those same officers have never even seen said NCM courses or even bothered to look at the lesson plans).

This has been a thorn in my side for 4 years and will be for a few more yet is my guess  :threat: CDA/CFRG/LFDTS will not be the death of me yet....but they do make me feel awfully tired some days  ;D

Wook

 

[muffin]

CDA/CFRG/LFDTS will not be the death of me yet....but they do make me feel awfully tired some days  ;D

I know what you mean ... but they pay my mortgage ... so I guess I can't complain too much  ;D haha

 

[Wookilar]

and you have air conditioning over there, don't you?

 

[muffin]

I do... but I am in the basement of Yeo Hall now - and moving to trailers behind the rink later this month  :blotto:

 

[DC Roundsman]

Maggie,

I know the entire PLAR world is a very convoluted thing to behold and grows new heads seemingly constantly. I've seen bits and pieces of the CFED and I think it's a great idea, but like you say, very complicated and will be a living document, not something static.

The problem we are having specifically is with putting UT's on IAP/BOTP. Certain individuals, for their own reasons and own agendas, keep tying it up inside the whole PLAR process itself (not the PLAR guys themselves, they're all good over there and way over worked. This is from higher).

Granting a former NCM (with X amount of years, QL5 qualified) an IAP bypass should be a no brainer.
One look at the lesson plans and PO checks for PLQ and BOTP show them to be almost identical in content...add in years of experience and CO's/PSO's recommendation and someone is still going to tell me that an 18 year-old is more qualified/able to lead than a (former) MCPL with 10 years in?
If I hear one more officer tell me how "officer courses are taught differently" when the PO's and written tests are the exact same.....

We have to start the equivalencies somewhere instead of tying it up in bureaucratic red tape, and this insistence by some that officer training is somehow harder/more difficult/more complete than NCM training has got to go (especially when those same officers have never even seen said NCM courses or even bothered to look at the lesson plans).

This has been a thorn in my side for 4 years and will be for a few more yet is my guess  :threat: CDA/CFRG/LFDTS will not be the death of me yet....but they do make me feel awfully tired some days  ;D

Wook

Ok...let me start by saying that granting a Cpl with some time in is probably not the best candidate for a IAP bypass, however, is it really necessary to make them learn how to do drill and to requalify on items that can or should be done at unit level. (like first aid, CBRN, weapons)

Also, I really fail to see how treating you like crap makes you a better leader.  I fully understand the team concept of being in the military and teaching new recruits on how to work together to ensure a mission is completed at all costs, is very important. However, is it really necessary to be treated like crap during our leadership courses as well.  I know that being treated like crap really made me a better leader.(can you feel the sarcasm). 

As far as I'm concerned a leader, is a leader, is a leader.  I believe through proper guidance and mentorship you will effectively develop proper leadership skills.  Once the adults realize that the CF's leadership courses are practically identical, we will eventually get some credit and stop wasting time and resources reteaching our personnel how to fold, iron, march and polish boots.


 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Please define 'treated like crap'.

(On my CLC in '93, we were inspected.  On my 6A in '97, we were inspected during the garrison portion (open locker).  We marched to/from the shacks to the School.  On my SLC in 2002, we did drill.  We had 1 room inspection.  We polished our boots.  Whats the big deal about that?)

 

[George Wallace]

Sailor B

One of two things are obviously being misunderstood by you.

The first being that everyone should pass and be given a position in the CF, no matter what.  That the CF should hold everyone by the hand and give them some sort of guarantee that they will become a Leader and actually be able to lead people.  I hope that this point never ever entered your mind.

The second point, I think you honestly do not understand.  That point is that the CF Training System is geared to train people for War, a very stressful job.  A job where there is no method of putting stress on people to evaluate and test them than the methods currently used........other than actual combat. 

Would you prefer that we weed out weak leaders on a Crse, or would you prefer we let them prove their metal in a Combat Zone getting people killed due to their incompetence?

 

[armyvern]

As far as I'm concerned a leader, is a leader, is a leader.  I believe through proper guidance and mentorship you will effectively develop proper leadership skills.  Once the adults realize that the CF's leadership courses are practically identical, we will eventually get some credit and stop wasting time and resources reteaching our personnel how to fold, iron, march and polish boots.

Lots of experience with those Leadership courses eh?

I can assure you that the ILQ (because I have actually DONE it) does not resemble the PLQ in any way, shape, or form. You can prattle off all you want about the "adults" and "realization that courses are identical" ... but that statement iteself just makes me realize that you have no clue - precisely because they are so NOT even close to resembling each other.   : Carry on (and yes, - feel free to note my sarcasm).

 

[Wookilar]

Vern,

Shouldn't you be re-writting Phase Training (and bringing me all the cheat notes  ;D) instead of sorting people out?

To further the discussion, a second service paper with hard recommendations is in front of higher right now..... don't know what is going to happen to all of this. Is it ever a rats nest and tied up between D Mil C or whatever their name is this year, RMC, CDA, CFRG, LFDTS and some Fleet School acronym I forget. Didn't see anything yet from any blue-types.

Arguments, objections and counter-objections are flying...turns out the standardized PLQ is not so standardized  : depending on who you ask to and what side of the fence they currently sit on....very frustrating. Seems the IAP question has been dealt with, but for some reason will still be done INDIVIDUALLY instead of making it an automatic PLAR (seems like a make-work project to me and the people that will actually be doing the work are not the ones suggesting it  ).

Can anyone, with more experience with higher command levels, make some educated guesses on why the reluctance to grant IAP bypass (given a set criteria of course) may exist ???....it is possible afterall that I am not seeing enough of the "big picture" but it seems like such a basic (no pun intended) bit of common-sense (I know,  I know) that an experienced member does not need to do Basic twice.

Wook

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'd like to see a comparison of the POs/EOs taught on BMQ/CF PLQ to those taught on IAP.

If they match up...then it should be easy-smeasy.

I'd also like to know who is at the table that is resistant as well.  Any ideas?  Anyone??

Maybe this is something each MA for each MOC needs to give a thumbs up/down to and make it work that way if the broader ALL OR NONE approach isn't working...

 

[gunner065]

Here's an update with my case.  I submitted a PLAR requesting both IAP and BOTP bypass on August 21st.  On September 4th, I received a lovely email with an attachment (a pdf formatted letter) indicating that the CDA was granting me both courses hence the whole Basic Officer Military Qualification (BOMQ).  Them granting the request was based on me completing PLQ in 2005 and my career highlights to-date.

So for anybody out there that thinks they may have the quals and experience to bypass some training in part or whole, please do not wait for someone else to do the work for you, it won't happen.  You are never better served than by yourself...as long as your CofC is informed.

 

[aesop081]

I'd like to see a comparison of the POs/EOs taught on BMQ/CF PLQ to those taught on IAP.

I recently had to do exactly that for my application. I took every single PO for both IAP and BOTC and had to relate it to training i had already done or experience i already had.

IAP was a no-brainer.

BOTC ( or whatever its called now) is a different story.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I recently had to do exactly that for my application. I took every single PO for both IAP and BOTC and had to relate it to training i had already done or experience i already had.

IAP was a no-brainer.

BOTC ( or whatever its called now) is a different story.

In the end, did the PLAR results come out with a yes/no for BOTP?

 

[MJP]

I recently had to do exactly that for my application. I took every single PO for both IAP and BOTC and had to relate it to training i had already done or experience i already had.

IAP was a no-brainer.

BOTC ( or whatever its called now) is a different story.

Did you hear back from them though.  I'm interested as I know we were both doing it at roughly the same timeframe.  Methinks someone might have even had someone else's memo template as well.....