Resubmission Requirements for Disapproved Promotion and/or Award Requests

[IceNine]

While I cannot speak for what Col Carr is doing with his authority to approve/disapprove promotions I can tell you that I am following a similar track with mine.

In my opinion it is the responsibility of closer proximity commanders (squadron, group) to decide if a member truly warrants promotion.  I have a group comprised almost completely of Lt's, and Capt's.  I have about 5 majors and 2 Lt. Col's. 

I can pretty much go though my list and tell you the members that will (should the board recommend it) receive my signature without question, I can also tell you the members that will be denied, or asked further questions of.  It all has to do with performance, attitude, and knowledge.

As you get to the wing and region level the proximal daily dealings become slim to none.  Which is reason in itself to require a justification paragraph->novel.

The only direct issue that I have with this whole deal is not providing details as to why a promotion was denied.  Or not doing so with enough detail

[RiverAux]

If we are going to get serious about that clause in the duty performance promotion requriements, then we need to be just as, if not much more, serious about similar language in the requirements for special and professional appointments and those related to mission skills. 

So, if a lawyer joins, not only is he going to have to be serving as a legal officer somewhere, he will actually need to have done some legal work for the unit before getting the promotion to Captain.  If the squadron hasn't had any legal issues come up, which means he actually hasn't DONE anything, then he doesn't get the promotion even if he has had the position for 4 years and will have to advance just like every one else. 

Pilot with CFI?  No promotion to Captain until you get a CAP Pilot rating and are either doing regular orientation flights or are performing regularly as a Transport or Mission Pilot. 

Mechanics?  You need to be the squadron maintenance officer and have kept the plane flying for a while.

So, I'm not philosophically opposed to this idea, but we need to apply it across the board.

However, before getting all stingy with promotions, we all need to remember that despite the crack that everyone in CAP is a Colonel, we actually do have a pyramid-shaped rank structure with more Lts than Captains, more Captains than Majors, and more Majors than Lt. Colonels.  So, how much would anything really change?  Does it make much difference if only 5% of members are Lt. Colonels vs 10%? 

If you think the distribution of ranks within CAP is a problem, you're better off strengthening the objective requirements rather than counting on commanders to make subjective decisions that leave them open to charges (and to actually implementing) a good old boy system where if they've got a grudge, they can make it real hard for you to get a promotion and not need to have to justify their decision. 

[IceNine]

Being able to deny/approve promotions as you see fit is a benefit of being a commander.  If you remove subjectivity you remove one of the tools that commander's use to motivate members.  I have personally effectively used holding a promotion to produce required results.

One observation I have noticed (given a relatively small sample group).  Commanders that move through the ranks organically (duty performance from the start) are more apt to be tough on special appointments, mission skills promotions and the like.

Note: I'm not saying that is a hard and fast rule, but it represents a noticeable trend

[Eclipse]

If we are going to get serious about that clause in the duty performance promotion requirements, then we need to be just as, if not much more, serious about similar language in the requirements for special and professional appointments and those related to mission skills. 

Who says we're not?

What you suggested is specifically being done in my wing, based on the direction of the Region CC.

[RiverAux]

Although I've heard a few people here mention doing it, it hasn't been discussed or emphasized in my wing and I'm not aware of anything coming down from the national level or being discussed at that level (in the formal meetings). 

[Eclipse]

Without (honestly) looking to reopen that can of worms, your wing had for a while been on its own separate track in a lot of respects, most of them significantly more critical than a member's grade.

My bad, wrong wing...

[afgeo4]

Being able to deny/approve promotions as you see fit is a benefit of being a commander.  If you remove subjectivity you remove one of the tools that commander's use to motivate members.  I have personally effectively used holding a promotion to produce required results.

One observation I have noticed (given a relatively small sample group).  Commanders that move through the ranks organically (duty performance from the start) are more apt to be tough on special appointments, mission skills promotions and the like.

Note: I'm not saying that is a hard and fast rule, but it represents a noticeable trend

Denial of promotions isn't a "motivation tool". It is a reality check or a punishment for not having done sufficiently well.

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd. NO ONE knows how the person will perform in their new position (in CAP, even that's irrelevant since promotions aren't tied to positions). The commander takes a chance with belief that the member will continue to meet all standards to their grade as they have in past.

Promoting people as a reward isn't good enough in my opinion. We must promote those who perform to standard and have met the requirements. Going above and beyond has its own rewards in forms of awards, medals, etc. Promotions aren't awards.

[SarDragon]

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd.

That's interesting. In all my experience with the Navy (21 years AD and a family member before and after), there was a basic presumption that you were qualified to perform the duties of the next higher rank before you were promoted into it. It might not have always worked that way, but that was the fundamental concept.

YMMV.

[lordmonar]

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd.

That's interesting. In all my experience with the Navy (21 years AD and a family member before and after), there was a basic presumption that you were qualified to perform the duties of the next higher rank before you were promoted into it. It might not have always worked that way, but that was the fundamental concept.

YMMV.

Ditto on that!  Hence the minim TIG/TIS and skill requirements for each rank.

[afgeo4]

It appears that there are two schools of thought working here:
   1. Promote the person if he/she are performing satisfactorily as a "thank you" and as a sign of trust that that person will continue to perform to standards in their new grade and
   2. Promote the person if he/she is performing above and beyond their current grade and to the level of their future grade or above as a reward for such performance.

Well... in the military, the first school of thought has prevailed over the 2nd.

That's interesting. In all my experience with the Navy (21 years AD and a family member before and after), there was a basic presumption that you were qualified to perform the duties of the next higher rank before you were promoted into it. It might not have always worked that way, but that was the fundamental concept.

YMMV.

A presumption, yes. Proof, no.

A commander always takes a risk on promoting someone.

The requirement of proof of someone having already acted upon their grade before they reach their grade for them to be promoted is ludicrous to me.

A Major should act like a Major. A General like a General. The presumption is that if a Major is good at his job and is acting like he/she is able to take on additional responsibilities then he/she should be good at the LtCol job. A Major is never required to show and present proof of him/her acting and performing to the standard of a LtCol because in the military, grade is attached to duty position. A squadron commander can't command a group (unless there's an emergency) and cannot prove his/her experience as a LtCol as such. He/she can only demonstrate that they may be able to command a group well based on their performance as a squadron commander.

Simply put, we cannot expect someone to act like a unit commander before considering them for the job of a unit commander. We have to judge that person's abilities on their fulfillment of their other jobs and hope and expect they'll do just as fine of a job in their new position.

Anyway... what is a LtCol supposed to act like if there's no duty position attached to that? How different is it from a Major or Captain who may perform the same exact job on the same exact level? The whole thing's ridiculous.

Trying to promote people subjectively in CAP can't work. Subjectivity has to come in play when choosing staff and leadership positions, not grades. Our grades are markers of progression through the senior member development program. They are signs of longevity and training.

The position a member holds is what demonstrated character and leadership ability and/or competency in a core field, not their grade insignia.

[Bluelakes 13]

... They are signs of longevity and training.

And not even that!  There are many shortcuts to Capt, Major, HECK, Lt Col even!

The position a member holds is what demonstrated character and leadership ability and/or competency in a core field, not their grade insignia.

Amen, that is why I would be a big supporter of revamping the entire grade system, or getting rid of it altogether.  But in the meantime, we live in the system as it is now...

[Steve Kuddes]

Many times, the reason for disapproval is the way an Award or Promotion is written.  From January to March of this year, I was the Team Leader of the National Awards and Promotion Team.  During that time we saw awards and promotions that were not written well.  Sometimes we asked for more information or suggested they be re-written.  That usually worked well.
If you would like some guidance on how to write more effective requests, contact Lt Colonel Rick Moseley who is now the Team Leader of the National Awards and Promotion Team.  He has an excellent guide, which he presented at the recent National Boards, that is a great help in writing good requests.  Our NCR Wing commanders have used it since May and use it.  Made a great improvement on what we are now seeing in requests.  And really, many disapproved requests are just due to a lack of effectively written requests.

[MajorChuck]

Cato;

Email How to submit  a promotion request to GLR is on way. any Questions email or PM Me.

Chuck Cook, Maj CAP.
MIWG

[Cato the Younger]

I was told the region commander has by all intent and purpose delegated the promotion authority to the GLR/PAC. He is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the decisions made by the GLR/PAC. The memo below proves that the GLR/PAC is very well insulated from review or rebuke and can hide behind the region commander. Transparent administration of any program would include supporting data and membership wide dissemination of regulatory information.  The GLR/DP addresses his memo only to the CC's and DP's at the wing level. Since this effects everyones professional development and eventual progress in CAP, it really should be addressed to every member in GLR so, I post it here.

MEMORANDUM FOR WING/CC & WING/DP – GLR/CAP
FROM:   GLR/DP
SUBJECT:   Clarifications Regarding Promotion Procedures

1.   The following is intended to assist you when submitting promotions to Great Lakes Region based on Duty performance and Special Appointments. 
     a.   ALL PROMOTIONS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO:
          i.   Reward for knowledge and performance of assigned duties since the last promotion;
          ii.   The member considered for promotion is ready for greater responsibilities.
     b.   MINIMUM AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:
          i.   Minimum requirements are those requirements the member must meet before qualifying for initial appointment to officer grade or for promotion.  Once the minimum requirements are met, the member may be promoted.  However, promotions should never be viewed as automatic;
          ii.   Former or current military officer promotions should likewise never be viewed as automatic;
          iii.   Eligibility requirements differ in that the individual for promotion "must be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended."  This requirement is extremely important when contemplating submitting a promotion request.  Utilizing section IX (Remarks) of the CAPF 2 provides opportunity to explain why the individual should be promoted.  This section should be completed with great care in explaining the member's past and current activities.  Be complete, but also be succinct.
          iv.   WHEN SUBMITTING A PROMOTION REQUEST TO REGION FOR APPROVAL PLEASE KEEP IN MIND:
               (1)   Requests for promotions to Lieutenant Colonel and Special Appointment requests are reviewed by the Region Promotions and Awards Committee.  It is this committee which will recommend approval or disapproval to the Region Commander.
               (2)   When providing a write-up on the individual, in keeping with items 1.a., 1.b. and 1.c. above, explain what the member has accomplished and  how he or she performs his or her assigned duties; i.e., do they attend encampments, SAR/DR training, etc.
               (3)   Do not quote the regulation, i.e., IAW CAPR-35-5, the individual .....
               (4)   Regularly attending meetings, while important, does not equate to an automatic promotion;
               (5)   The promise of promotions should be avoided as a tool for keeping individuals from leaving CAP;
               (6)   Special appointments simply for promotional purposes must be avoided.
     c.   REQUEST FOR DUTY PERFORMANCE PROMOTION LIEUTENANT COLONEL:
          i.   REQUESTING COMMANDER:  The Requesting Commander will enter the promotion request into the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module and send a completed CAPF 2 and any supporting documents to the Wing Commander.   NOTE:  Follow wing procedures in the event you have groups in the chain of command;
          ii.   WING COMMANDER:   If the Wing Commander approves the promotion, he or she will do so via the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module and forward a completed CAPF 2, with any supporting documentation, by email, fax, or U.S. Mail to GLR/DP.  The most recommended way is to fill in an electronic CAPF 2 and email to GLR/DP.  If the Wing Commander disapproves the request, a proper annotation is made through the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module and nothing is sent to Region Headquarters;
          iii.   GLR/DP:    Immediately upon receipt of the completed CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation by email, fax or U.S. Mail, the GLR/DP emails the request and any supporting documents to the GLR/CS, Chairman, Region Promotion & Awards Committee, and other committee members.  The GLR/DP notifies the Wing Commander that the request was received.
          iv.   CHAIRMAN REGION PROMOTION & AWARDS COMMITTEE:   Schedules a monthly meeting of the GLR/PAC to review promotion requests.  The Chairman of the GLR/PAC will prepare a written report within seven (7) days of the GLR/PAC meeting to the GLR/CC recommending approval or disapproval of the requested promotions along with the CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation.   Should the request for promotion not be approved, the reason for the disapproval will also accompany the CAPF 2.
          v.   REGION COMMANDER:  Within seven (7) days of receiving the report of the GLR/PAC the GLR/CC will approve or disapprove the requests for promotion via the On-line Duty Performance Promotion Module.  If disapproved the GLR/CC notify the Wing Commander.
     d.   REQUESTS FOR NONDUTY PERFORMANCE PROMOTIONS:
          i.   WING COMMANDER:   The Wing Commander will forward a completed CAPF 2 along with any supporting documentation, either email, fax, or U.S. Mail to GLR/DP.   The most preferred method of submission is to complete an electronic CAPF 2 and email it to the GLR/DP;
          ii.   GLR/DP:    Immediately upon receipt of the completed CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation by email, fax or U.S. Mail, the GLR/DP emails the request and any supporting documents to the GLR/CS, Chairman, Region Promotion & Awards Committee, and other committee members. If received by fax or U.S. Mail, the GLR/DP forwards the request to the Chairman of the GLR/PAC and other committee members.  The GLR/DP notifies the Wing Commander that the request was received. 
          iii.   CHAIRMAN REGION GLR/PAC:   Schedules a monthly meeting of the GLR/PAC to review promotion requests.  The Chairman of the GLR/PAC will prepare a written report within seven (7) days of the GLR/PAC meeting to the GLR/CC recommending approval or disapproval of the requested promotion along with the CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation.   Should the request for promotion not be approved, the reason for the disapproval will also accompany the CAPF 2.
          iv.   REGION COMMANDER:  REGION COMMANDER:   Within seven (7) days of receiving the report of the GLR/PAC will approve or disapprove the request and notify the Wing Commander and forwards the approved CAPF 2 to NHQ/DP.
     e.   GLR/PAC PROCESSING PROCEDURES: 
               (1)   IAW current procedures, all requests for promotion must be received by the GLR/DP no later than the 18th of the month and will be entered into the GLR/PAC Promotions & Awards Database;
               (2)    The GLR/PAC will meet once per month.  The meetings will take place as close to the end of the month as possible, giving considerations to the schedules of the GLR/PAC members. 
               (3)   The agenda for the GLR/PAC meetings will only contain those matters received on or prior to the 18th of the month in which the meeting takes place;
               (4)   The Chairman of the GLR/PAC will prepare a written report within seven (7) days of the GLR/PAC meeting to the GLR/CC recommending approval of disapproval of the requested promotion along with the CAPF 2 and any supporting documentation.   Should the request for promotion not be approved, the reason for the disapproval will also accompany the CAPF 2.

FRED R. ROSENBERG, LTC, CAP
Director of Administration and Personnel, GLR, CAP

[lordmonar]

So the Regional CC did send it out....it is then the responsibilty of the Wing/Group/Squadron CCs to pass it on their promotion boards and general membership.

Not saying I agree with how GLR is doing its promotions...but you can't fault them for working with out passing the necessary information.

[NavLT]

The feedback loop is not mandated or checked on frequently.  Our system often misses that.  I had a member put in for AOBD that ended up dissaproved.  The unit commander did not know, the Group commander did not know and the member did not know.  Soooo someone at wing with the rights clicked denied and the need to communicate why is not built into the system. 

This also goes back to the discussion point about commanders and the decision to promote.  A Unit and Group Commander approved this and a wing member with probably no knowledge of the member said no.  Is the unwritten I have not seen you at a mission on this side of the state the reason? So what is the point of the qualifications required by our regs if we constantly add these unwritten rules?

Senior Promotions are the same.  National came up with a form for Promotions (CAPF2) with a block for a commander to describe why.  but I get told time and again that they want mountains of supplemental material to support the promotion (CAP Resume, Letters of recommendation, etc). Why? If the form is not adequate tell these commanders to work with national to change the submission requirements not do the "unwritten rule".

The standard with Unwritten rule is that, it by definition means that higher command is either unaware of the rule or would not endorse it.  By definition it means higher command does not approve and because it is unwritten it cannot be fairly applied because no one knows what it is.

V/R
LT J.

[Eclipse]

The feedback loop is not mandated or checked on frequently.  Our system often misses that.  I had a member put in for AOBD that ended up dissaproved.  The unit commander did not know, the Group commander did not know and the member did not know.  Soooo someone at wing with the rights clicked denied and the need to communicate why is not built into the system. 

This also goes back to the discussion point about commanders and the decision to promote.  A Unit and Group Commander approved this and a wing member with probably no knowledge of the member said no.  Is the unwritten I have not seen you at a mission on this side of the state the reason? So what is the point of the qualifications required by our regs if we constantly add these unwritten rules?

Let's not start comparing apples and gumdrops, this has nothing to do with ES quals, which are handled on a whole different level of "subjective" and actually do have real-world implications.

There is no response required if a Wing staffer disapproves a member for an ES qualification, and if your assertion is correct, that the person who denied it "didn't know the member", that's actually more justification for the denial. 

AOBD is a high enough visibility position and requires enough mission participation that by the time someone is ready to be rated, they are generally visible to higher HQ.

[NavLT]

I would argue that if you have a requirement for a position either senior promotion or ES qual that says have 2 years, 5 sticks and 1 dollar to submit a request for someone who has those things and a commanders recommendation and have it shot down with no feedback is bad, and in some places opens a door for IG/Lawsuits.

I handle about 15% of the wing ES missions out of my squadron and am qualified through BD and don't see most of the wing staff ever if they want to take my card for not hanging out with them they won't have the asset and we are very short of them now.  I have been on wing staff and group staff and have to point to the fact that if you train people to do the job right it is not a popularity/Political thing.  In ICS 300/400 we teach leave your identity at the door and do the assigned job.  CAP could take a lesson home with that.  I think that the political/popularity stuff is primarily a position issue not a grade/qual issue. 

I know the argument is going to be made that they are in the public eye as a manager at an ES event or they are the senior ranking officer at the airshow.  I think that is the point of a supervisor on the SQTR signing off that they can do the job (which includes perception management) or the recommendation from the commander that they can do the job.  If there is a problem there look at the supervisor or the commander who cannot do their job not the member who gets penalized.

V/R
LT J.

[heliodoc]

Good on NavLT

If the current SQTR's only require 2 signoffs after meeting all the "Demo" requirements, then CAP leadership should have no other reason than to go by current SQTR standards

If the Wing feels there needs to be change , like say, one needs 15 actual trainee sorties to be AOBD, then that has to be either ID'd by National or approved Wing Supplements and those then ought to be adherede to.

Granted AOBD is high profile.  But how many AOBD's per Wing??  What happens if Joe AOBD Sr is out of town??  Better have a ready staff and not come up short, have trained personnel, have the personnel with a penchant for the position.... none of these unwritten BS rules.   If they are not on paper.. they do not exist and to go along with "rules as a Wing goes along" is BS , too

Either stick with existing rules and maybe tighten some thingd up a little and make sure EVERYONE knows the rules

When people say  We do not have to give a reason"  BS Even a paid organization gives you a reason if you ask even if it is lame


Another leadership failure.... We do not have to give you a reason.... IG IG IG

[Eclipse]

Completion of a qualification (and upgrade of 101 card) requires 2 sheep, an acre of land and wing approval, the same subjective wing approval as field grade promotions.  People seem to think the check boxes are all that's needed.

While not technically a "wing-level" qualification, in most states operating as an AOBD is going to be effectively a wing-level situation and should have additional visibility and vetting, same with GBD or anything higher.

Did anyone actually ask why it was denied?  Maybe picked up a phone?

It could have been a mistake, too.