16 Signal Regiment and the IS Trade

#21
peed_off_is said:
Thanks for the replies guys, i have found a document which deals with this issue.

SOinC(A)/COS/30/9/12 - Communication Systems Engineer Implementation: Signaller Information System Engineers Promotion To Lance Corporal.

Of particular note is Annex B

I will quote a little:

"Throughout this process standard MS principles and procedures should apply to report writing in units, and will be applied to the boarding mechanism at the APC. As is current procedure with the SET, if a soldier is not of the quality to be promoted then the CoC should not recommend that idividual. It should be noted however, that the corps must establish parity across the new competence as soon as possible and a non-recommendation for promotion should be the exception rather than the rule"

Seems 16 Signal Regiment got it the wrong way around. Promoting an ISEngr was the exception and not promoting them was the rule.
My bold. Were the blokes recommended or not ? If not then dry your eyes. If they were, it would seem that 'they' have a legitimate reason to be pissed off.
 
#22
Boney M, IS Ski Geek, Poison D, heidtheba.

Your thoughts?

Edit.

P.S

This statement:

"Suffice to say - the whole thing was handled quite well, very publically, with ample notification Corps wide. "

Is totally untrue, my CoC did not know, and that includes my FofS (IS) from sqn to bde lvl :-
- At the time of CR writing
- Even when the "board" sat - (what board)
What was supposed to happen?
 
#23
peed_off_is said:
Boney M, IS Ski Geek, Poison D, heidtheba.
Why aren't I on the list?

peed_off_is said:
"Suffice to say - the whole thing was handled quite well, very publically, with ample notification Corps wide. "

peed_off_is said:
Is totally untrue, my CoC did not know, and that includes my FofS (IS) from sqn to bde lvl :-
- At the time of CR writing
- Even when the "board" sat - (what board)
What was supposed to happen?
My Red. I am not in a positon to gauge how well the "whole thing" went.

But.... having freinds and cronies in many units, some of whom are, or were IS Engrs, I would say that it is very true that the procedures were very public and had ample notification throughout the Corps'.

From the very outset of the combining the two trades (the notification of which came a few months prior to the notification about the promotion policy) Techs and IS Engrs were asking the question.... do the CS ENgrs come out as Siggies (as per IS Engr) or are they LCpls (as per Techs) and if that was to be the case what happens to the existing Siggies.

I am hazy on the exact dates, but the promotion policy came out well before the date of the merger. Information on how the trade will work, its manning, current and future, and the promotion for existing siggies came out well in advance.

My Bold. The crux of your arguement not too long ago was that only 16 Sigs' CS Engr (I)s were affected. If those at 7 and 22 were not similarly disenfranchised, how is the Bde FofS (IS) supposed to be at fault also?

A final death blow to your beliefs has surely got to be that 7 and 628 are not affected, yet share the same camp, and messes. I am sure that the COs, OCs, FofS, FofS (IS), etc from the three units on Elmpt may have talked to each other and this subject brought up.
 
#24
chocolate_frog said:
My Bold. The crux of your arguement not too long ago was that only 16 Sigs' CS Engr (I)s were affected. If those at 7 and 22 were not similarly disenfranchised, how is the Bde FofS (IS) supposed to be at fault also?

A final death blow to your beliefs has surely got to be that 7 and 628 are not affected, yet share the same camp, and messes. I am sure that the COs, OCs, FofS, FofS (IS), etc from the three units on Elmpt may have talked to each other and this subject brought up.
Well if they knew, why was the outcome so different in 16 Sigs compared to other units? Are you suggesting they simply ignored it or didn't action it for some reason?

Remember, however, that 16 Sigs were on tour at the time of CR writing, maybe they were out of Elmpt loop... Its very possible

chocolate_frog said:
ah, poi.

If he does a trawl does that make him promotable?

Are you still chasing down why you didn't get your tape?
This is why you arn't on the list, you can't have a reasonable debate and look at the facts. And no matter how many times i say it doesn't affect me your still going to point the finger.
 
#25
I'm not really finding it easy to understand why you are going on and on about this if it DOESN'T affect you.

Re understanding arguements, you haven't really answered that one have you. One minute it was purely a Regtl level prob, then it became a Bde level, then you just flip it off back to the Regt.

If your mate has seen the RCMO, and the RCMO has looked in to it, I would wager that there is no drama like you are insinuating. Just disappointment that they haven't come off for promotion, and perhaps bitterness and envy that the Cl 3 CS ENgrs are coming out with their tapes from the get go.

And no I am not suggesting 16 ignored it, just that the lads were not seen as ready for promotion.

One thing I will say is that 16 seems to have a larger number of Siggy IS, could that be the reason why it seems that so many have not been promoted.

Re Tours. No matter where the Regt is, it will still receive the various information from Glasgow. We, as an Army, have been on tours now for quite some time, and never had any problems with other promotions. I've even seen Class 1 enterance exams taken on tour.
 
#26
If you can get access to DII or similar, then check out the HQ SOinC(A) O&D website http://www.hqsoinc.dii.r.mil.uk/cos/od/CSEng_Implementation.html - it has all the documentation (which came out in June 08). It is very clear that non-promotion should be the "exception rather than the rule" but that they still need a recommendation. Clearly, it is completely contradictory for someone to come out of training and be promoted ahead of a Signaller who is 2 yrs his senior in exactly the same trade (but a Class 2). But at the end of the day, it's a chain of command issue.

I bumped into a couple of IS lads before Xmas from two separate Regts who were still Siggies. They had heard rumours from their mates that they should have been promoted, so I did a bit of digging, asked the advice of Glasgow and sure enough they were promoted within a couple of days. In those cases, it was a chain of command issue, but I also know for a fact that there are guys out there for whom there are explicit reasons that they are not NCOs yet.
 
#27
peed_off_is said:
OK, does anyone know what the score with promotion for the old IS Engineers, now amalgamated into the CSEng trade is?

I was told that the IS Signallers should have all come off the board last year to LCpl to bring them in-line with the new class 3's who would get LCpl straight from Blanford, this happened in mostly every regiment I know people at, except 16 Signal Regiment. At 7 Signal Regiment (who shares the same camp with 16) all the IS came off. How come not at 16? How can you have an ISEng straight from his class 3, no experience of a working unit and on the kit outrank and be in-charge of someone who has been at the regiment for 2 years, knows the kit inside out and has been on at least one operational tour?! It does not make sense.

I can tell you now that, in 16 Signal Regiment, all the IS who were Signallers at the time of last years board, minus 3, did not come off. These people have done at least one operational tour with the regiment, and I know of at least 1 who has done 2 tours, yet are now outranked and out-paid by people of the same trade with considerably less trade and army knowledge. This cannot be fair, they are also getting skipped over for some trade/army courses because they are only available to LCpl’s.

What has happened here? Have these people been career fouled? Has the regiment had failing at the top? Whatever, all I know is this is deeply, deeply unfair on those who it has affected, and moral in the IS roster has bottomed.

And before you say, it has not affected me. I’m not even in the same trade group.
my bold,

those that are leaving Blandford with their 1st tape are only doing so on successful completion of their PNCO course and with the recommendation of the CO 11 Sigs, there have been people who have passed the PNCO course but didnt get the reccommendation and therefore are rocking up to their 1st posting still as siggies, as well as those that didnt pass the course through one reason or another. as to what is happening with the rest of the guys out there who might have fallen through the cracks, i will echo the other posters comments and suggest you flag it up as high as you possibly can, it could be someone somewhere is reading the policy wrong, but who knows.
 
#28
peed_off_is said:
Boney M, IS Ski Geek, Poison D, heidtheba.

Your thoughts?

Edit.

P.S

This statement:

"Suffice to say - the whole thing was handled quite well, very publically, with ample notification Corps wide. "

Is totally untrue, my CoC did not know, and that includes my FofS (IS) from sqn to bde lvl :-
- At the time of CR writing
- Even when the "board" sat - (what board)
What was supposed to happen?
You pretty much got my thoughts when i made the statement you are calling into question. What i wrote isnt "totally untrue", the information came with standard Corps wide distribution lists and SOiinC had also identified the pids affected by the change.

I cannot comment on every Regiment however within ours the information was received from SOinC's, diseminated and actioned. As PD points out, there is scope for Chain Of Command issues. After seeing some Corps wide buffoonary over the years, i thought this one was handled well.
 
#29
PD, Liney & Boney. (And everyone else who commented, except choc_frog :wink: )

Thanks for the replies. I think i'l leave this issue here now, i feel there is nothing more that can be achieved through these means. The guys who this affects are aware of this thread so can take the advice given, maybe they will take it further (i think they should) maybe not. My aim was to get abit of publicity and advice from some people in the know, and i think this has been achieved.

I still think this is a travesty though as these are good lads, not knobbers who shouldn't be promoted, these guys have worked hard on tour, all earned their Class 2's and have supported staff officers on several ARRC exercises so know there stuff. They are in my opinion the right material for a stripe.

Thanks again.
 

Similar threads


Top