Promotion TG1

[da i ddim]

Got my snec to phone up the board today to find out where i am in terms of promotion. He was asked if I was qops which was quite a funny question to ask seeing that I am a jt. Turns out they have me as non qops which means if I was an sac(t) I would not be eligable for promotion.

If this is the case what are my options if some fekwit has fooked up my paperwork?DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[da i ddim]

3 recs how about up to my eyeballs in hi recs. last year i had a careers brief with the chief clark after hello he said " i have no idea why you are still a jt". brief pretty pointless me thinks.

 

[Gillo]

Bring back time promotion.

 

[Spearmint]

3 recs how about up to my eyeballs in hi recs. last year i had a careers brief with the chief clark after hello he said " i have no idea why you are still a jt". brief pretty pointless me thinks.

Sounds familiar........

 

[monobrow]

Could be possible that the magic Q-OPS never got transferred onto JPA? If so I'd imagine that you could be retrospectively graded like those assesments late through the door, or a service complaint!!!

 

[da i ddim]

JT's dont have q-ops.

 

[monobrow]

JT's dont have q-ops.

My understanding was that on passing a fitters course, you had made the operational standard and as such awarded Q-OPS. This was transfered to the SAC(T) system to differentiate between those that had made the operational standard and as such deemed to be on par with a JT in respect to promotions. As time has gone by, they probably rely on a database filter to get rid of all the non Q-OPS peoples which would include you.

I am not comparing SAC(T) to JT, just this is how I understood the system working... If this is correct then no wonder you've not been picked up as the system has you down as non-promotable.

 

[da i ddim]

if this is the case what can i do

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Why don't you speak to your Chief Clerk?

Surely this is a fairly major problem and should be dealt with by your unit PSF. Always good to get your FS/WO onside as well if you come across 'difficulties' with PSF.

 

[da i ddim]

From what i can gather from the phone call this morning an official request has gone in for me througfh pma to see what has happened.

i think i just have to wait and see what comes of this in the next few days.

 

[MrMasher]

My understanding was that on passing a fitters course, you had made the operational standard and as such awarded Q-OPS. This was transfered to the SAC(T) system to differentiate between those that had made the operational standard and as such deemed to be on par with a JT in respect to promotions. As time has gone by, they probably rely on a database filter to get rid of all the non Q-OPS peoples which would include you.

I am not comparing SAC(T) to JT, just this is how I understood the system working... If this is correct then no wonder you've not been picked up as the system has you down as non-promotable.

Q Ops was purely for SAC(T)'s that had done the requisite work after their further training.
An SAC(T) was either Non Q Ops (not yet a qualified technician) or Q Ops (a technician).

Q Ops was never attached to the rank of JT as a JT was a techician straight after passing the course.

The Original posters SNCO should have queried this instantly. Failing that a trip to HR, maybe some Project Apollo if it's at your unit.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

From what i can gather from the phone call this morning an official request has gone in for me througfh pma to see what has happened.

i think i just have to wait and see what comes of this in the next few days.

I had a similar JPA issue that meant I didn't get my Q-OPS pay for over a year after I became an SAC(T). Eventually I had to mention it at an AVMs 'forum' for anything to get done.

I hope your case doesn't get that far!

 

[monobrow]

Q Ops was never attached to the rank of JT as a JT was a techician straight after passing the course.

Even so, the majority is SAC(T) not JT, and if the initial filter just pulls people with Q-OPS then he'd be left out.

Whether Q-OPS is required for a JT is somewhat irrelevant, however how they come to the conclusion that a JT is non Q-OPS is the crux of the issue. Should JT's have had it applied to keep them in the frame or did the query get amended because the majority are SAC(T)'s? It's all just interrogating a system after all isn't it???