BMT Recourse

[Kyoji83]

Because PES E BMT is only a vocational training. Oh my gosh. He already got a vocation from his 4 day course. Why would he go through vocational training again? All recoursees don't enjoy the perks of POP except PES A/B recoursees.

He do not have any vocation & did not attended any vocational training yet.

Uncle,you tell me what does PES E BMT do? Training NSF for their vocation only. The 4 day course is packaged such a way that all the lectures in 1 month have been compressed. They are considered "pass out" their vocation training from their 4 day course. Because their temp unit needs them to be trained asap.
Just understand the fact that SAF will recourse NSF that has not been weapon trained but is eligible for weapon training. Is it so hard to understand?
Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

When Infantry Battalion secure Area 1, CSS staffs (S1, S4, MO & etc) will take over Area 1 which is known as Battalion Support Area (Bn SA).

Then Infantry Battalion (without CSS staffs) will move ahead to conquer Area 2.

So CSS Commanders will needs to assign guard duties to CSS Men like Clerk to protect the Bn SA.

This is the reason why PES E Land Deployability Code is L9 & to bear bear firearms and protect themselves, others and property.

So SAF should trained PES E for weapon handling & shooting for their BMT too.

 

[Kyoji83]

Hope you can end up in SCS.

So what vocation you hope to end up as a Sergeant? Eg: Infantry?

yeap. apparently im the only 'clerk' in my unit to not have an isac card. and the only one among all the storemen who hasnt been sent to or notified of any store course watsoever. and its been months here alr lol

 

[SotongLove]

He do not have any vocation & did not attended any vocational training yet.




When Infantry Battalion secure Area 1, CSS staffs (S1, S4, MO & etc) will take over Area 1 which is known as Battalion Support Area (Bn SA).

Then Infantry Battalion (without CSS staffs) will move ahead to conquer Area 2.

So CSS Commanders will needs to assign guard duties to CSS Men like Clerk to protect the Bn SA.

This is the reason why PES E Land Deployability Code is L9 & to bear bear firearms and protect themselves, others and property.

So SAF should trained PES E for weapon handling & shooting for their BMT too.

You tell SAF that. Don't need to tell me. My PES E clerks me that they only see and touch SAR21,no ranges for them.
Then why did you say that TS can remain in unit despite saying that he has up pes to PES B?
Whether you get vocation trained or not,once you up pes from E to A/B/C,you need to go recourse to get yourself weapon trained. This is clear cut. I do not have to repeat. Whether PES E should be taught SAR21 is out of my business. Ought to let you know some(or most) of mentally challenged people belong to PES E. By letting them to handle gun,do we feel safe? Let's face the reality,no we don't feel safe. And parents being overprotective,I can understand from SAF's perspective that they don't include weapon training in PES E BMT

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

You tell SAF that. Don't need to tell me. My PES E clerks me that they only see and touch SAR21,no ranges for them.
Then why did you say that TS can remain in unit despite saying that he has up pes to PES B?
Whether you get vocation trained or not,once you up pes from E to A/B/C,you need to go recourse to get yourself weapon trained. This is clear cut. I do not have to repeat. Whether PES E should be taught SAR21 is out of my business. Ought to let you know some(or most) of mentally challenged people belong to PES E. By letting them to handle gun and parents being overprotective,I can understand from SAF's perspective that they don't include weapon training in PES E BMT

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

tbh, a unit has a say as to whether they want to let someone go even after recoursing PES A/B BMT.

 

[SotongLove]

tbh, a unit has a say as to whether they want to let someone go even after recoursing PES A/B BMT.

Yes. This is why some unit only let them recourse before they ORD. Because the unit need manpower. But they also know they need to clear their BMT. I know of people who recourse early and people who recourse 2 mths before ord. If they need manpower,I guess they can raise it up. But most non-combat fit who became combat-fit gotta be re-assigned.

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

Yes. This is why some unit only let them recourse before they ORD. Because the unit need manpower. But they also know they need to clear their BMT. I know of people who recourse early and people who recourse 2 mths before ord. If they need manpower,I guess they can raise it up. But most non-combat fit who became combat-fit gotta be re-assigned.

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

"Gotta be" I wouldn't be so certain about that.

 

[SotongLove]

"Gotta be" I wouldn't be so certain about that.

Why would you want a combat-fit soldier be doing a clerk work anyway? Unless your office has lack of manpower,I see no reason why they 100% will stay with their unit. TS himself has also mentioned that his S1 already confirmed he will be re-assigned. Can't with you guys. Here to give some fella NSF some advice yet have to play around with you all

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

Why would you want a combat-fit soldier be doing a clerk work anyway? Unless your office has lack of manpower,I see no reason why they 100% will stay with their unit. TS himself has also mentioned that his S1 already confirmed he will be re-assigned. Can't with you guys. Here to give some fella NSF some advice yet have to play around with you all

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

Not sure if you read what I said.

I said your unit got a say in whether you get posted out or not. I never say you will or will not get posted out for sure.

TS S1 confirmed he will be posted out, doesn't necessary mean everybody in similar situation will get posted out.

In TS case, the unit stance is TS get posted out. But the unit of the other person may want that person to stay.

For you to say for sure about something without access to ALL information, you are the one who's playing them around.

 

[Kyoji83]

You tell SAF that. Don't need to tell me.

Like I say in #29, I have been discussing about the unproductiveness of SAF. It is not that I am unable to comprehend what you are saying.

Even if I tell SAF, no one will also entertained me. SAF is a big organization with lot of 'Indian chiefs & tribes'. Each of them write their own directives & interpret common directives like GOM differently.

My PES E clerks me that they only see and touch SAR21,no ranges for them.

Still the same as my era when PES E only go for 1 week BMT. Stupid SAF, now got L9 due to CSS & still remain unchanged.

Then why did you say that TS can remain in unit despite saying that he has up pes to PES B?

As per #7, I have misread the first time. I assume that he OOT from PES A/B BMT but completed his PES E BMT with vocational training. He was posted to supply unit as a storeman & just up PES to B1L1.

Unit have the command right of their man. If supply unit just sent him to course, he will return back to supply unit after course.

If supply unit post him out to BMTC, the command right belong to BMTC & he is no longer a man of supply unit.

Whether you get vocation trained or not,once you up pes from E to A/B/C,you need to go recourse to get yourself weapon trained. This is clear cut. I do not have to repeat. Whether PES E should be taught SAR21 is out of my business.

Like I say in #29, I have been discussing about the unproductiveness of SAF. It is not that I am unable to comprehend what you are saying.

Ought to let you know some(or most) of mentally challenged people belong to PES E. By letting them to handle gun,do we feel safe? Let's face the reality,no we don't feel safe.

I don't remember SAF assess our mental health during enlistment checkup. How to they determine we will not have mental health just because we did not visit a Psychiatrist to log in a case?

If they have mental health illness & unsafe to everyone, why are they still serving? They did not have access to weapons like rifle but they can still have access to other weapons like knife.

And parents being overprotective,I can understand from SAF's perspective that they don't include weapon training in PES E BMT

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

I like every servicemen is a son to our parents & I also don't like to handle & shoot with weapon. But at operation point of view, I do not see why PES E cannot be trained in weapon training & shooting in BMT when their medical condition allow them?

 

[SotongLove]

Not sure if you read what I said.

I said your unit got a say in whether you get posted out or not. I never say you will or will not get posted out for sure.

TS S1 confirmed he will be posted out, doesn't necessary mean everybody in similar situation will get posted out.

In TS case, the unit stance is TS get posted out. But the unit of the other person may want that person to stay.

For you to say for sure about something without access to ALL information, you are the one who's playing them around.

Here we go again. I playing them around? Ok sure. Who's the one that answered TS's doubt? Definitely not you. Like I said,I'm here to give TS my two cents. You never say anything that contributed to TS's doubts,don't need to act like a hero. TS acknowledged my help and answers,that's all. I care no less about you and your "what you say are not actual facts" statement. You 2 enciks are the lao jiao lah. Who dare to play with you 2? You 2 should just be in charge of this sub forum. Nobody else shall answer queries in this forum except you 2.
See you guys around

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[Kyoji83]

TS do not attend any vocational training & he did not have any vocation yet. He is still a 'BMT Trainee' vocation who is a OOT 'aimlessly saikang warrior' task to do 'clerk-storeman' work. This is just temp arrangement until he up PES & clear his FFI for recourse. That why at the end, he will needs to post out & go back to attend BMT as a 'BMT Trainee'.

Those who (attended vocational training & have a vocation) posted to a unit is a prem arrangement. He will be doing his vocation job instead of 'aimlessly saikang warrior'. So unit will just sent him to BMT recourse (because of 'directive') & after course will return to unit to do his vocation job.

Why would you want a combat-fit soldier be doing a clerk work anyway? Unless your office has lack of manpower,I see no reason why they 100% will stay with their unit. TS himself has also mentioned that his S1 already confirmed he will be re-assigned. Can't with you guys. Here to give some fella NSF some advice yet have to play around with you all

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[SotongLove]

TS do not attend any vocational training & he did not have any vocation yet. He is still a 'BMT Trainee' vocation who is a OOT 'aimlessly saikang warrior' task to do 'clerk-storeman' work. This is just temp arrangement until he up PES & clear his FFI for recourse. That why at the end, he will needs to post out & go back to attend BMT as a 'BMT Trainee'.

Those who (attended vocational training & have a vocation) posted to a unit is a prem arrangement. He will be doing his vocation job instead of 'aimlessly saikang warrior'. So unit will just sent him to BMT recourse (because of 'directive') & after course will return to unit to do his vocation job.

Ok lah. You two are the final winners lah. Knn. I say whatever you also not happy. Like I said,if you don't feel happy that I rebutted your statement. So be it. At the end of the day,TS got his doubt answered. I shall not continue this debate. Just remember this,my office people are going for recourse with a storeman badge sewed onto his no.4
This sub-forum like only you 2 correct. Nobody else will be correct one. Ok? See you guys around

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

I don't remember SAF assess our mental health during enlistment checkup. How to they determine we will not have mental health just because we did not visit a Psychiatrist to log in a case?

If they have mental health illness & unsafe to everyone, why are they still serving? They did not have access to weapons like rifle but they can still have access to other weapons like knife.

I can't answer you as to how SAF determines whether someone have mental health issues because they did not visit a psychiatrist. However, I am sure SAF has their own rationale for doing what they are doing. As to whether their rationale make sense or not, it is debatable.

Mental health illness doesn't mean cannot serve in other capacity right? So are you trying to say that everybody who has mental health illness should be thrown into jail? Because even if they don't serve NS, they still will have access to knife. Like that they shouldn't be able to venture in public?

 

[Kyoji83]

Wow, you are a Arch-Supremacy Member while reddevil0728 is a High Supremacy Member. I am just a small fly Supremacy Member.

Seriously, what important is your experience and what you are expose to. I have been to different units & work on different scope of work which is the reason why I share my view. I see the changes from 2G to 3G.

For someone who may only work in his section in his branch, he may have limited knowledge. For example, the directive may only applicable to his unit cause this is written by them. The most funny part will be he may even never read the directive before & just follow blindly his upperstudy by 'hear-say' experience.

Here we go again. I playing them around? Ok sure. Who's the one that answered TS's doubt? Definitely not you. Like I said,I'm here to give TS my two cents. You never say anything that contributed to TS's doubts,don't need to act like a hero. TS acknowledged my help and answers,that's all. I care no less about you and your "what you say are not actual facts" statement. You 2 enciks are the lao jiao lah. Who dare to play with you 2? You 2 should just be in charge of this sub forum. Nobody else shall answer queries in this forum except you 2.
See you guys around

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

Here we go again. I playing them around? Ok sure. Who's the one that answered TS's doubt? Definitely not you. Like I said,I'm here to give TS my two cents. You never say anything that contributed to TS's doubts,don't need to act like a hero. TS acknowledged my help and answers,that's all. I care no less about you and your "what you say are not actual facts" statement. You 2 enciks are the lao jiao lah. Who dare to play with you 2? You 2 should just be in charge of this sub forum. Nobody else shall answer queries in this forum except you 2.
See you guys around

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

I am not saying you are not answering TS's doubts. I am saying you shouldn't be making a definitive statement which you can't prove.

Can you say for sure that you have access to the cases of ALL NSFs who OOT, downgraded, then get upgraded, recourse? Are you sure they all get posted out?

If you don't have access to such information, you shouldn't be making definitive statement. You can at most say there are cases like this or like that.

If TS or anybody is foolish enough to take your definitive statement as gospel truth, then I got nothing to say.

 

[SotongLove]

Wow, you are a Arch-Supremacy Member while reddevil0728 is a High Supremacy Member. I am just a small fly Supremacy Member.

Seriously, what important is your experience and what you are expose to. I have been to different units & work on different scope of work which is the reason why I share my view. I see the changes from 2G to 3G.

For someone who may only work in his section in his branch, he may have limited knowledge. For example, the directive may only applicable to his unit cause this is written by them. The most funny part will be he may even never read the directive before & just follow blindly his upperstudy by 'hear-say' experience.

Haha. Ok lah. My statement is hear-say lah. Your version is the most updated one. Like I have said,in this sub-forum,all other answers except yours and red devil's have no credibility lah. Carry on with this "I am a laojiao with vast experience" mindset. In the end,TS's situation is like what I have described. So...bye

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

Haha. Ok lah. My statement is hear-say lah. Your version is the most updated one. Like I have said,in this sub-forum,all other answers except yours and red devil's have no credibility lah. Carry on with this "I am a laojiao with vast experience" mindset. In the end,TS's situation is like what I have described. So...bye

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

If you are in denial about you should not be making definitive statement unless you are willing and prepared to present the evidence, if not you shouldn't be making definitive statements.

 

[SotongLove]

If you are in denial about you should not be making definitive statement unless you are willing and prepared to present the evidence, if not you shouldn't be making definitive statements.

Let say I want to produce a part of directives as evidence. It's in the fooking Intranet,you want me to take photo and produce evidence here? I know what to do next time. Thanks for the advice

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[SotongLove]

.
Ok. So be it. Seen you making exchanges with other forumers in other sub-forums before. Am no surprise you will chut this "I am a laojiao with vast experience". Ok. Your answer carries 100% credibility while mine carries 0%. Like I've said,in the end,TS has his queries answered.
- End -

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

 

[reddevil0728]

Let say I want to produce a part of directives as evidence. It's in the fooking Intranet,you want me to take photo and produce evidence here? I know what to do next time. Thanks for the advice

Sent from LGE LG-H860 using GAGT

Directive is directive. Directive ≠ actual. You got access to actual data?