Is it not about time CRs were restructured. Have we lost sight of the CFN that might be the dogs bollox at trade but has a familiy life. What about the CFN who is a scruffy twat but top VM'A'. The guy who can run 10 mile with a pack on his back but can't run 1.5 mile in 10.5 mins (stamina)? And as for soldier first...well who has ever heard of remedial shooting!
Interesting point bunnyboy. The CRs for non-officer ranks is soon to be replaced with something similar to the Officers OJAR system. Quite what the changes are going to be I do not know, I would suggest that you ask one of our AGC bretheren on their forum.

As for reporting on CRs, the ticks in the boxes do serve a purpose, in line with the Military Secretary's guide. This is sadly not used by a lot of reporting officers (mostly out of not knowing it exists). The criteria for fitness (physical stamina) is plainly laid out, as are the different criteria for knowledge of trade etc. In addition, the overall grade boxes are not often written properly: people just say "oh, he is worth an A" without actually reading the criteria. So, is the soldier "just up to", "just above" etc.

Being a veteran of several REME promotion boards, I can safely tell you that the ticks in boxes don't really get looked at in any detail. The reason is that the written summaries are the most important, as that is where we get a flavour for how the individual has performed over the last three or so years. This is where the reporting officer can let the soldier down, as a vague report will not do any favours to the soldier at a board. What is needed is a sharp and pithy summary of Soldier X's performance over the last reporting period. Any really negative comments should have been addressed in the period post the Mid Year Report. It is up to reporting officers to be honest and accurate in their assessment of the soldier (and officers too).

This is where you can outline that a Cfn is "the best Class 2 VM in the unit, but his appearance lets him down somewhat". You can also get "he plays rugby at Corps and Army level, however has some difficulty in passing his BFPA".

A promotion board is not concerned about difficulty in passing a BPFA, it is concerned with the whole picture of the soldier. If he or she is excellent in other areas, a poor BPFA result will not hinder their chances of advancement.

Hope this non-pithy bit of info helps!
Yes, but if you are doing this correctly, ticks in the boxes have to correspond to what is written in the text, eg if you bring out something as "oustanding" this must be backed up by writing something of this oustanding work in the text of the part 1 or 2.

Similar threads

Latest Threads