Flight Officer Status

[SARDOC]

With the introduction of the new revamped NCO program where the grade would be recorded at National Headquarters, Is there any reason why NHQ still won't record the Grade of those flight officers.   I would figure that with eServices that it wouldn't be that difficult to record the grade for the few flight Officers that we have to ensure a continuity of the promotion process.

[RiverAux]

 A strong and vibrant NCO program is critical to the future of CAP and we must do everything we can to make sure they get recognized for what they may have done 40 years ago.   Flight Officers are just cadets by another name and don't deserve to have their ranks recorded.       

[Please note extreme sarcasm]

[bosshawk]

Sarcasm noted: good night.

[MSG Mac]

I wish they would record FO grades. It's so easy to fudge dates to make a FO a 1Lt or even a Captain when he turns 21. 

[a2capt]

How so? It's all based on the last cadet grade held, which is absolutely recorded.

[arajca]

Not if the member joins at 19.

[PHall]

They can track cadet promotions on e-services, Flight Officer grades should be no problem.

[SARDOC]

How so? It's all based on the last cadet grade held, which is absolutely recorded.

Not all flight officers are former cadets.  Even if they were, based on their cadet achievement they will be advanced...but if they are a flight officer they are eligible for promotion before coming over to the dark side.  I just think that the justification for not recording the Flight Officer Grades doesn't apply any more.

[Eclipse]

...if they are a flight officer they are eligible for promotion before coming over to the dark side.

If they are a Flight Officer, they are already on the Dark Side.

[SARDOC]

...if they are a flight officer they are eligible for promotion before coming over to the dark side.

If they are a Flight Officer, they are already on the Dark Side.

Maybe I should have qualified it as the Even Darker side.

[Eclipse]

Black like coal, sucks all energy it can find.

[a2capt]

I still don't see the problem. Time in grade is .. time in grade. FO means you're in eServices as SM already, it means there's a max of 36 months that is tracked at the unit level. If you entered as a cadet and flipped, that's easy. Otherwise, you start at your join date and go forward. Six months... that's easy, that's the join date. The rest, if it happens like clockwork, and the PD is done, you move on. All things themselves that are recorded in eServices, and when that promotion is put it at age 21, it's all sorted out.

If the system is gamed, there's hardly any advantage, and there's things recorded that will back it up, including rosters where grade may be written by the member themselves.

If they're going to pull shenanigans.. chances are they're not the ideal member anyway and will get caught somehow. But there's too many things that happen in parallel. Even things like newsletter/articles will come back to get you.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

What's wrong with going old school with the paper CAPF 2?  I've had some recent under 21 year-olds, non-cadet types - and that's how I kept track.

Straying a bit off topic, but, my biggest issue with the FO grades (and this coming from someone who was one many moons ago) is the TIG differences between the FO grades and the standard officer track.  Note the differences in the CAPR 35-5 figure 2 (for regular officer) and figure 8 (for FO).  Seems to me that a newb at age 19 could easily become a SFO and ultimately a Capt at age 21 with a minimal amount of time (21 months vs 36).

[THRAWN]

Buuut...you can't become a captain unless you've been a cadet, in that instance.

What's wrong with going old school with the paper CAPF 2?  I've had some recent under 21 year-olds, non-cadet types - and that's how I kept track.

Straying a bit off topic, but, my biggest issue with the FO grades (and this coming from someone who was one many moons ago) is the TIG differences between the FO grades and the standard officer track.  Note the differences in the CAPR 35-5 figure 2 (for regular officer) and figure 8 (for FO).  Seems to me that a newb at age 19 could easily become a SFO and ultimately a Capt at age 21 with a minimal amount of time (21 months vs 36).

[Bayareaflyer 44]

Buuut...you can't become a captain unless you've been a cadet, in that instance.

In terms of cadet transitions, I think that is what the "Special Provisions", figure 9 is for.  The way I have always interpreted 7-4(b) figure 8 to be is the minimum TIG for those (regardless of starting point as a transitioning cadet) working through the FO grades.

Anyway, not to hijack the original intent of the thread, but, I just always found the discrepancy to be odd.  Of course, I could have completely misinterpreted it 

[THRAWN]

I'm going off of personal experience as well as the reg. I joined as a SM, wore FO and TFO and when I turned 21....was a second looie...35-5 is so full of charts that ref each other that it's no wonder that this comes up and goes in circles every now and again...

Buuut...you can't become a captain unless you've been a cadet, in that instance.

In terms of cadet transitions, I think that is what the "Special Provisions", figure 9 is for.  The way I have always interpreted 7-4(b) figure 8 to be is the minimum TIG for those (regardless of starting point as a transitioning cadet) working through the FO grades.

Anyway, not to hijack the original intent of the thread, but, I just always found the discrepancy to be odd.  Of course, I could have completely misinterpreted it 

[MSG Mac]

join at 18: 3 months + level 1= FO
                 6 months + Tech rating = TFO
                  1 year + Davis Award= SFO
1 year 3 months as SFO + 3 months as 1Lt= Captain

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Bring on the brickbats, but I have long thought that the cadet side should end at the 18th birthday, period.

I have found that many, many cadets who hang on until 21 do so just so they can continue to hang with their cadet friends.

At 18 they should be moved into the F/O grades.  At 18 they are legally adults so their status in CAP should reflect that.  If they've got their Mitchell, they automatically get F/O, otherwise they are SMWOG.

My first squadron produced a Spaatz, she hung on until 21, became a Captain and then I rarely saw her again, though I think she became an officer in the Air Force.  She told me she hated the transition, and that she now outranked me (I was a 1st Lt at the time), and she rapidly lost interest in CAP.

Yes, some will say keep the 21-cutoff so a cadet can have a chance to earn his/her Spaatz.  I do not believe the two are related.

I was in the BSA after becoming a Cub Scout at age 8.  I went through WEBELOS into Boy Scouts.  I was, in succession, an Assistant Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader and Junior Assistant Scoutmaster, with a sash full of merit badges and a belt full of the noisy, clanking metal "skill awards."  However, I finished as a Life Scout.  I could blame my turning 18 for not getting my Eagle, but the fact is that other things took precedence in my life.  Girls, being in a rock band, girls, my first car, girls, growing my long hair, girls, hanging with my metalhead friends, and...girls.  The fact that I didn't get my Eagle was my fault and mine alone.  Extending the age to 21 would not have meant a thing in my case.

I have always found the 18-21 cadet status illogical.  They have to take CPPT...yet they are cadets themselves.  They are legally adults...yet CAP still treats them as "children."

[LSThiker]

What's wrong with going old school with the paper CAPF 2?  I've had some recent under 21 year-olds, non-cadet types - and that's how I kept track.

Straying a bit off topic, but, my biggest issue with the FO grades (and this coming from someone who was one many moons ago) is the TIG differences between the FO grades and the standard officer track.  Note the differences in the CAPR 35-5 figure 2 (for regular officer) and figure 8 (for FO).  Seems to me that a newb at age 19 could easily become a SFO and ultimately a Capt at age 21 with a minimal amount of time (21 months vs 36).

Oddly enough, the FO grades and the officer grades do not line up. 

While most people like to think of the ranks equaling this:

FO = 2d Lt
TFO = 1st Lt
SFO = Capt

That is not the case unless you were a cadet.

According to CAPR 35-5:

Promotion to 1st Lt is 12 months as a 2d Lt or TFO
Promotion to Capt is 18 months as a 1st Lt or SFO

So if a person is a SFO and reaches 21, they should turn 1st Lt unless they earned the Spaatz or they are promoted to Capt due to 18 months as SFO.  It appears that FO does not get you anything in terms of promotion time. 

However, to complicate the matters, the minimum skill level are almost equal:

FO = Level 1 + 3 months = 2d Lt but requires 6 months
TFO = Tech Rating + 6 months FO = 1st Lt but with 12 months 2d Lt/TFO
SFO = Level II + 12 months TFO = Captain but with 18 months as 1st Lt/SFO

[Bayareaflyer 44]

That is my exact point - the TIG and grade progressions do not match between FO and non-FO grades.  Now, it could be as Thrawn's experience where a non-former cadet progresses through the FO grades with the noted TIGs in CAPR 35-5 figure 8, and when 21 is not given an advanced "commensurate" grade, but rather starts at 2d Lt (which would be weird, since the TFO gets you the Davis).

I know when I was a TFO when this program first started, nobody knew what to do with someone like me, so this makes me a little sympathetic to those in the same situation.

Anyway, this will be good fodder to throw at the Knowledge Base to see what National's official position on this is. 

[THRAWN]

Just off the top of my head and with no real planning....

Now what could be done, is this: restructure the SM initial entry program so EVERY new SM serves time as a FO.
0-1 months –SMWOG (Level 1 and all the associated requirements)
1-3- months-FO (Work with mentor in squadron. Learn the tasks for the position the member will be in.)
3-7 months TFO (obtain tech rating/Davis Award)
7-12 months SFO (Work with mentor at higher level, group or wing and will be eligible to attend SLS PD only)
12 months+ Second Lieutenant or special circumstance promotion. After that, follow the normal progression in 35-5.

At the end of the 12 months, the new member will have a tech rating, have done some schooling in the CAP way of things, and see how things are done at the squadron and wing levels. Basic insignia on the corporate or AF uniforms. Would go pin on for the utilities, since sewing on the tabs every couple of months would just be a drag...

[Майор Хаткевич]

That is my exact point - the TIG and grade progressions do not match between FO and non-FO grades.  Now, it could be as Thrawn's experience where a non-former cadet progresses through the FO grades with the noted TIGs in CAPR 35-5 figure 8, and when 21 is not given an advanced "commensurate" grade, but rather starts at 2d Lt (which would be weird, since the TFO gets you the Davis).

I know when I was a TFO when this program first started, nobody knew what to do with someone like me, so this makes me a little sympathetic to those in the same situation.

Anyway, this will be good fodder to throw at the Knowledge Base to see what National's official position on this is.

Sound like the issue isn't the program, but lack of reg reading in the field. I had the same SFO=Capt belief until it was pointed out to me here a few years back when I was in that age group. It actually all makes sense, and if you look at the break down, someone starting at 18 can get Capt at 21Y 3Mos old, so you're actually looking at 3 years 3 months as opposed to 3 years for a 21+ SMWOG.


I guess the argument can be made that it's based on maturity or some such. It's still a pretty fast way to get there, and is even faster than someone like me who was a SMWOG at 20, and at 21 (plus  a few months when I got the ball rolling) became a 1st Lt based on Earhart. The fastest way is Spaatz, getting Capt at 21 (and CFI, but you know), so a FO tracked member is there right up with the "high speed" cadets in terms of time.


I was almost 23 when I became a Capt, turning 1st Lt at 21Y 4Mos, and going to Capt in 18 months.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

My point is that ages and the way that CAP regards "cadets" and "adults" does not match up.

In some ways, when someone turns 18, they are regarded as an adult member; i.e., must have CPPT, but in other ways they are still a "child; i.e., despite having to abide by CPPT regulations, they can still hang out with the under-18 cadets if they remain a cadet.

However, someone joining off-the-street at 18 cannot be a cadet and goes into the senior/FO category and must abide by the same regulations as a National Commander Major General.

Age 18 needs to be "either you is or you ain't."

[THRAWN]

And that's a good valid point. Is there a legitimate reason to allow cadets to remain over the age of 18? None that I've seen or have even heard of....

My point is that ages and the way that CAP regards "cadets" and "adults" does not match up.

In some ways, when someone turns 18, they are regarded as an adult member; i.e., must have CPPT, but in other ways they are still a "child; i.e., despite having to abide by CPPT regulations, they can still hang out with the under-18 cadets if they remain a cadet.

However, someone joining off-the-street at 18 cannot be a cadet and goes into the senior/FO category and must abide by the same regulations as a National Commander Major General.

Age 18 needs to be "either you is or you ain't."

[Ned]

Is there a legitimate reason to allow cadets to remain over the age of 18?

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

None that I've seen or have even heard of....

(Hint: things like NCSAs (including IACE),  tens of thousands of dollars in college scholarships, leadership training, aerospace education, flight training opportunities, leadership positions at encampments and other wing activities, participation in cadet advisory councils (including the NCAC), etc. that are not available to senior members may impact your analysis.)

Any cadet 18 and older can choose whether they want to remain as a cadet or transition to senior member status at any time.   

Both seniors and cadets in the program get training and perform services for their community, state, and nation.  But the choice of senior or cadet status is their choice to make.  Not yours.


Normally choice is a good thing.  Why do you think it is not?

[THRAWN]

I never said that it wasn't a good thing. I asked a question. Thank you for the lecture.

Is there a legitimate reason to allow cadets to remain over the age of 18?

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

None that I've seen or have even heard of....

(Hint: things like NCSAs (including IACE),  tens of thousands of dollars in college scholarships, leadership training, aerospace education, flight training opportunities, leadership positions at encampments and other wing activities, participation in cadet advisory councils (including the NCAC), etc. that are not available to senior members may impact your analysis.)

Any cadet 18 and older can choose whether they want to remain as a cadet or transition to senior member status at any time.   

Both seniors and cadets in the program get training and perform services for their community, state, and nation.  But the choice of senior or cadet status is their choice to make.  Not yours.


Normally choice is a good thing.  Why do you think it is not?

[Eclipse]

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

Maybe - if NHQ has now chosen to view them as "Seniors-lite" or some such. 
NHQ can't have the language both ways in the protection regs and not expect confusion and problems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.  (i.e., any non-Spaatz cadet over 18, who does not promote at least once per calendar year, is likely no longer engaged
in a meaningful way).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

Maybe - if NHQ has now chosen to view them as "Seniors-lite" or some such. 
NHQ can't have the language both ways in the protection regs and not expect confusion and problems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.  (i.e., any non-Spaatz cadet over 18, who does not promote at least once per calendar year, is likely no longer engaged
in a meaningful way).

You make a lot of the same exact points I make, especially regarding CPPT and participation.

[Ned]

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.

We have a hard number for how many cadets are 18.  I don't have it handy. but it is something like 1,200 - 1,500 or so out of 26,000. 

There is no significant additional expense or adminstrative burden for the 18+ cohort. 

(They do have to take CPP, but since they would have to take it anyway if they were converted to senior members, it's a wash (and not a huge burden in the first place.))

And I think it is a little dangerous to start deciding which members are "worthy" of our time and attention. 

(And if we did, let's start with deciding which seniors are "worthy" of our time and attention.  Please.  I'll bet many participants here on CT would have some suggestions.    )

Members either meet the published standards, or they do not.  And we already have standards for cadet participation, which apply equally to cadets over and under 18.

Commanders are already tasked with enduring that cadets continue to "participate actively" (CAPR 52-16, para 4-4) and can terminate a cadet for "failure to progress satisfactorily" or "lack of interest demonstrated by a failure to attend three successive meetings without an acceptable excuse.) (CAPR 35-3, para 3.)

Sure, there are almost certainly commanders out there who are probably cutting some 18 year old college students some slack in terms of participation and progress.

But the fact that some cadets may not participate as often as they used to seems logically unrelated to whether cadets who continue to participate should be removed from the program when they turn 18.

[Eclipse]

(And if we did, let's start with deciding which seniors are "worthy" of our time and attention.

Please, lets, immediately, I'll get my pen...

Members either meet the published standards, or they do not.  And we already have standards for cadet participation, which apply equally to cadets over and under 18.

Not even a little (evenly), and the latest updates remove even a hint of objectivity in the standard.

Ned,

What, exactly, does this mean in a CAP context?

"h.  Adult Member.  For the purposes of this regulation, an adult member is an individual who has attained the age of majority, based on the jurisdiction of membership, and is assigned to any CAP membership category. College-age cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending upon the age of majority in a given jurisdiction."

[Ned]

I tried to answer that, but it was part of a response to someone else, so you might not have seen it.

And Bob, I'm similarly confused by your last question.  "College-aged cadets, for example, are often adult members, depending on the age of majority in a given jurisdiction" seems relatively straightforward, given that the age of majority is not the same in every location where we have cadets.  As just one example, a 19 year old cadet attending college in San Jose, California is an adult (hence an adult member), but that same cadet attending college in San Juan, Puerto Rico is not.  At least while physically in Puerto Rico.

Should we reword that?

[Eclipse]

Yes, we should reword that, what's there now doesn't properly frame the situation, and is almost certain
to give some CCs license to break rules regarding supervision, if not CPPT as well.

In a CAP-context, a "cadet" is never an "adult member', so the age of majority is irrelevant, unless
NHQ is looking to radically change the current paradigm.

This might be frustrating to 20-year olds, but that's always been the price of admission for cadet opportunities.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Yes, we should reword that, what's there now doesn't properly frame the situation, and is almost certain
to give some CCs license to break rules regarding supervision, if not CPPT as well.

In a CAP-context, a "cadet" is never an "adult member', so the age of majority is irrelevant, unless
NHQ is looking to radically change the current paradigm.

This might be frustrating to 20-year olds, but that's always been the price of admission for cadet opportunities.

+1.


Even as an 18 year old cadet, I wouldn't be told the "cool stories", or treated without kid gloves - because that's what CAP required of the SMs around me.


Of course now I'm 23, and the kid gloves are off, I still don't get all the "cool stories", but let the pent up angst and hazing begin!  :angel: :angel:

[ZigZag911]

The status of the 18-20 year old cadets has been around for quite awhile, and no one has come up with a reasonable answer yet.

About 15 years ago, I raised the question in a supposedly "open forum" with a National CV, and got my butt chewed for daring to express an opinion contrary to the party line!

As a former cadet myself, I feel some clear distinction needs to be made for this age range.

I understand and support Ned's objections, and feel these should be taken into account in any revision of membership status...but a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

Back in the day (mid 70s) something called the "Cadet Transition Program" was tried...not wildly successful, too complex...but perhaps a place to start looking at the situation and its resolution.

[Ned]

In a CAP-context, a "cadet" is never an "adult member', so the age of majority is irrelevant, unless
NHQ is looking to radically change the current paradigm.

This might be frustrating to 20-year olds, but that's always been the price of admission for cadet opportunities.

When the draft 52-10 is approved, cadets over the local age of majority will indeed become "adult members," as we define the term.  That is the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted from paragraph 1-2g of the draft. 

But I agree that for practical purposes in our cadet program, the age of majority is irrelevant, because we treat cadets as cadets.

That's the paradigm we have always used, and the nothing in the draft would change our successful program in this regard.


Remember, some seniors are adults; some are minors in their home wings.  But we don't need any special rules for that, at least until we come across a systemic problem we need to address.  The same thing applies to cadets -- most are minors, some are adults.

It just mostly doesn't matter.

but a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

Back in the day (mid 70s) something called the "Cadet Transition Program" was tried...not wildly successful, too complex...but perhaps a place to start looking at the situation and its resolution.

There is no real dispute that there are significant developmental differences between a 12 year old and a 20 year old.  That is exactly why we already have doctrine that guides commanders and officers in this regard.  See paragraph 2-4d in the 52-16 that talks about age separation.  Within the cadet program we treat 20 year old cadet colonels and 12-14 year old cadet airmen differently depending on the activity and the circumstances.  But we treat them both as cadets, and senior supervision is always present.

And you are certainly correct that we have twice tried cadet transition programs.  I think my wife completed her Spaatz as part of the Advanced Cadet Transition (ACT) program back in the '70s, and we also implemented a remarkably similar Senior Transition Program (STP) later on.

Both failed because of a lack of participation.  Turns out there was no real incentive for successful cadets to transition to senior member status. 

Nothing has changed since then.

[Eclipse]

I understand and support Ned's objections, and feel these should be taken into account in any revision of membership status...but a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

I agree, though the problem is that if you allow an 18 year old to join as a slick-sleeve, what do you do with them?
Unless they have cadet experience from a similar organization (i.e. ROTC), they will be pretty clueless even compared to
a mosquito-winged 12 year old, and you can't just "park them" for a year or two to get a clue, since by the time they are
able to keep up, they will be aged-out.

Perhaps one compromise would be to limit cadets over 18 to Phase III or above and provide them some limited
adult responsibilities. However that would create a "max-age" for joining of about 16 for anyone who actually did the math.

You could argue that a motivated 16 year old would get a fair amount out of the program, even for only two years (probably
more then an 18 year old gets our of those same two years.)

No matter how you slice it, any change is likely to cause attrition and some hard feelings somewhere, which is not the
kind of thing NHQ tends to gravitate towards.

I have no particular heartburn with the way things are now, as long as there is no assertion of adult status for cadets.

[Eclipse]

When the draft 52-10 is approved, cadets over the local age of majority will indeed become "adult members," as we define the term.  That is the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted from paragraph 1-2g of the draft. 

But I agree that for practical purposes in our cadet program, the age of majority is irrelevant, because we treat cadets as cadets.

There's the problem, because those two sentences are at least somewhat contradictory.

The "adult members" are the senior members, not cadets.

I don't honestly understand the need for the language change, nor any special recognition of their legal status, at least within the confines of CAP's regs.

That looks like some sort of scope creep or a lawyer somewhere trying to "help".

If there is an important reason to recognize cadets or a given age as "adults", then that same reason probably justifies their not
being cadets anymore.   And in most cases, those "reasons" are voluntary and a choice made by those cadets - kids, military,
marriage, etc.  Personally, I've never understood the reserve / guard waivers, either.  Anyone who's completed BMT, and / or
become a commissioned officer, has leap-frogged much of what CAP could ever offer them. 

[Ned]

The "adult members" are the senior members, not cadets.

That's what we are clarifying with the draft.

"Adult member" = anyone over the local age of majority (includes some cadets)

"Adult leader" = all senior members, CSMs, etc., who might superivse cadets.  Specifically excludes cadets.

We made the distinction to help define who has to take certain CPP training (all "adult members," not just seniors) and some other rules like employment and mandatory termination upon conviction for abuse.

If there is an important reason to recognize cadets or a given age as "adults", then that same reason probably justifies their not
being cadets anymore.   

No, not really.  We are just talking about some needed CPP training for our older cadets (which we've been doing for years) and some vanishingly rare circumstances like terminating adult members convicted of abusing another member.

(Since in most jurisdictions, only adults can be convicted of crimes (as opposed to findings or adjudications of a juvenile court), it makes sense to to only talk about adult members in this circumstance.)

And that's pretty much it.  We could probably remove the "adult member" definition and references without making a huge impact one way or another, but it just made more sense to help clarify these situations as we wrote the draft.

And in most cases, those "reasons" are voluntary and a choice made by those cadets - kids, military,
marriage, etc.  Personally, I've never understood the reserve / guard waivers, either.  Anyone who's completed BMT, and / or
become a commissioned officer, has leap-frogged much of what CAP could ever offer them.

Can only concur that most cadets leave the program voluntarily for whatever reasons make sense to them. 

And the reserve / Guard waivers were put into place to allow 17 year old high school juniors to sign up for "split option" programs (basic training between junior and senior years, advanced training after high school and before college) without losing their CP eligibility.  It's worked pretty well for us.

And by the time most cadets hit 17, they are working on Phases III and IV indirect leadership stuff.  Which they pretty much never get in basic / AIT, where if I recall correctly, the emphasis is on followership.  IOW, CAP cadet training is different from, and complementary to the training provided by Uncle Sam at basic / BMT.  Win-win.

[Panache]

Just off the top of my head and with no real planning....

Now what could be done, is this: restructure the SM initial entry program so EVERY new SM serves time as a FO.
0-1 months –SMWOG (Level 1 and all the associated requirements)
1-3- months-FO (Work with mentor in squadron. Learn the tasks for the position the member will be in.)
3-7 months TFO (obtain tech rating/Davis Award)
7-12 months SFO (Work with mentor at higher level, group or wing and will be eligible to attend SLS PD only)
12 months+ Second Lieutenant or special circumstance promotion. After that, follow the normal progression in 35-5.

At the end of the 12 months, the new member will have a tech rating, have done some schooling in the CAP way of things, and see how things are done at the squadron and wing levels. Basic insignia on the corporate or AF uniforms. Would go pin on for the utilities, since sewing on the tabs every couple of months would just be a drag...

I suggested much the same thing in another thread.  I won't rehash it here.

If what I could recall, apparently NHQ is pondering the same thing, more-or-less (without the "Warrant Officers" idea), as they're concerned that SMs are being promoted too quickly.  I read it in one of the minutes they posted up in eServices.

EDIT: Found it.  It's in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes in eServices.  Page 38.

[flyboy53]

Not only do I agree that NHQ should recognize flight officer grades in e-services, I believe the rank should be permanent and not stripped when the individual turns 21. So often I've run into former cadets who transition to senior status but then something happens like college or the military and they don't remain unit active.

At least they would retain the highest rank held.

[Papabird]

I suggested much the same thing in another thread.  I won't rehash it here.

If what I could recall, apparently NHQ is pondering the same thing, more-or-less (without the "Warrant Officers" idea), as they're concerned that SMs are being promoted too quickly.  I read it in one of the minutes they posted up in eServices.

EDIT: Found it.  It's in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes in eServices.  Page 38.

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

[Panache]

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

[arajca]

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

[THRAWN]

Yet another arguement for dumping all SM rank and using the CG Aux style system....or even removing the cadet/SM option for the 18-21 crowd. Make the cadet program from 12-21....KISS....

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

[Storm Chaser]

Sounds like they are going to replace this idea with the NCO program, once it is open to non-prior enlisted membership (3-4 years)...maybe...possibly....kinda.  Could end up forcing those that are seniors 18-21 into the NCO program, at least until they turn 21 and get rid of the FO entirely.   

That'll sit well with the real prior-service NCOs who earned their stripes. 

"Thanks for joining CAP, Sergeant!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!  Thanks for joining CAP, Joe Q. Neverindaservice!  Here are your CAP Staff Sergeant stripes!"   

As a former NCO, I understand and agree with you. However, how is that different from "real prior-service" commissioned officers, "who earned their" commissions after 4 years in a service academy, 2-4 years of ROTC or even 9-10 weeks of OTS, which also has a very competitive selection process? We hand out 2d Lt bars after Level 1 completion and six months as a senior member and require no additional qualifications.

[Panache]

As a former NCO, I understand and agree with you. However, how is that different from "real prior-service" commissioned officers, "who earned their" commissions after 4 years in a service academy, 2-4 years of ROTC or even 9-10 weeks of OTS, which also has a very competitive selection process? We hand out 2d Lt bars after Level 1 completion and six months as a senior member and require no additional qualifications.

Oh, no.  Pretty much the same.  That's why I really think all SMs should start out in the Flight Officer / Warrant Officer ranks, and members should only be promoted to 2nd Lieutenant after significant time investment and training.

[SARDOC]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I would gladly trade my railway tracks for CWO-3, or even starting over at WO-1.

[abdsp51]

I agree that NHQ should recognize FO's in Eservices.  But really guys, we don't need to adapt the CGAUX's rank system or uniform system, seperate organizations, seperate culture and a seperate mission. 

[a2capt]

Here's a better idea:

I you like the CGAux system so much. http://www.cgaux.org/units.php

[Storm Chaser]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

And? Only 1% of the total enlisted force can make CMSgt in the U.S. Air Force. I don't have the numbers for Lt Col, but I'm sure they're much higher than 1%.

Actually, I would argue that the overall promotion system in CAP should be more demanding and challenging that what it currently is.

[Mitchell 1969]

Let's rephrase that a bit:  Is there a legitimate reason to forcible deprive cadets of the benefits of a successful cadet program because they choose to remain after the age of 18?

Maybe - if NHQ has now chosen to view them as "Seniors-lite" or some such. 
NHQ can't have the language both ways in the protection regs and not expect confusion and problems.

It would be interesting to know exactly how many cadets this affects, and of that, how many are active enough to be worthy of the attention
and background noise.  (i.e., any non-Spaatz cadet over 18, who does not promote at least once per calendar year, is likely no longer engaged
in a meaningful way).

It is impossible for an 18-year old C/LtCol to remain a "non-Spaatz cadet" and still get promoted "...at least once per calendar year..." But that serves as no measurement whatsoever of engagement "..."in a meaningful way."

[Eclipse]

It is impossible for an 18-year old C/LtCol to remain a "non-Spaatz cadet" and still get promoted

Correct. 

Ergo.

[THRAWN]

There was nothing said about adopting the puddle pirate unis....the ranks system, however, is pretty clear cut. There is none of this "if/then" "refer to chart b" circle talk. All members are "members". If you hold a specific staff of leadership position, that is refected by your badge of rank. Simple. Clean. Too easy. If we went to it, what else would we talk about?   

I agree that NHQ should recognize FO's in Eservices.  But really guys, we don't need to adapt the CGAUX's rank system or uniform system, seperate organizations, seperate culture and a seperate mission.

[abdsp51]

FOs should be recognized at NHQ I don't believe there is any disagreement there.  But really guys we are not any other organization.  We have a PD and promotion system that works.  It is upto the member to track his/her promotion requirements and take the steps needed.  We don't need to adopt anyone elses system, and really alot of this I see as a solution looking for a problem when there is none.  Our promotion system works, our. PD system works, read the regs ask the questions when or or as needed.  Everyone regadlrdless of whether they ade a senior or cadet member will get out of the program what they put into it.

[SARDOC]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

And? Only 1% of the total enlisted force can make CMSgt in the U.S. Air Force. I don't have the numbers for Lt Col, but I'm sure they're much higher than 1%.

Actually, I would argue that the overall promotion system in CAP should be more demanding and challenging that what it currently is.

But we aren't the Air Force.   We have a system where rank doesn't really mean anything substantial just your progress in the Professional Development Program.

Because of staffing numbers although 1% may only make E9....I'm betting since about 1/6th of the Air Force is even an officer, I'm betting the Air Force has more E-9 Billets than they have O-5 Billets.   I'm also betting there are way more O-5's than E-9's with Masters Degrees and more advanced Professional Military Education Program graduates.  While, we the Civil Air Patrol are using the same exact professional development program so both NCO and Officer grades.

So really comparing us to the Air Force has absolutely no real relevance as we are not the Air Force.  It's like comparing Apples and Moon Rocks.

[JoeTomasone]

a 20 year old cadet colonel is an adult by most standards, and should neither be mixing with, nor classified with, 12-14 year old cadet airmen.

Correct.  The Cadet Colonel should be leading and mentoring them.   They need someone to look up to.

[Storm Chaser]

I konw one CAP NCO who turned in their stripes for butter bars as a result of the new NCO program.

I don't blame him really.   When you look at the Professional development program criteria for promotion it will be easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it will to make CMSgt.

And? Only 1% of the total enlisted force can make CMSgt in the U.S. Air Force. I don't have the numbers for Lt Col, but I'm sure they're much higher than 1%.

Actually, I would argue that the overall promotion system in CAP should be more demanding and challenging that what it currently is.

But we aren't the Air Force.   We have a system where rank doesn't really mean anything substantial just your progress in the Professional Development Program.

Correct, but we want to wear similar uniforms, have similar grade insignias and similar duty titles. I was waiting for someone to bring that up...

Because of staffing numbers although 1% may only make E9....I'm betting since about 1/6th of the Air Force is even an officer, I'm betting the Air Force has more E-9 Billets than they have O-5 Billets.

While I don't have the exact numbers, I would bet your numbers are off. Think about it. At the squadron level, depending on size and mission, you can have two or more Lt Cols (smaller ones may have one or none). But rarely would you see a squadron with more than one CMSgt (some have none). As you move up in echelons, the number of Lt Cols in higher headquarters (group, wing, etc.) starts to increase. The number of CMSgts, not so much. Even if the number of CMSgts (approximately 2,600 based on the total enlisted force) was larger than those of Lt Cols, it would still contrast with the officer side, in which approximately 30% of officers are Col (O-6) or above (over 19,800); that's 6% of the entire active duty force.

I'm also betting there are way more O-5's than E-9's with Masters Degrees and more advanced Professional Military Education Program graduates.  While, we the Civil Air Patrol are using the same exact professional development program so both NCO and Officer grades.

That's probably true, although I don't see the relevance to our discussion.

So really comparing us to the Air Force has absolutely no real relevance as we are not the Air Force.  It's like comparing Apples and Moon Rocks.

Again, you are correct; we're not the Air Force. Unfortunately, many CAP members want to "have the cake and eat it too"; meaning, they want to emphasize the "Civil" part of Civil Air Patrol for some things, and the "Air Force" part of U.S. Air Force Auxiliary for other things. Because we're both, we have to live with the good and the bad that comes from this combination.

[Eclipse]

Lots of stats here:  http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp
(Math is mine)
"The following Air Force active duty demographics information is current as of 31 Dec 2013. These statistics are from the current inventory and does not include the Guard, Reserve or Air Force Academy (approx 4,000 cadets).
.
Snapshot of the Air Force
325,952 Active Duty
64,104 Officers (~19.6%)
261,848 Enlisted (~80.3%)
The Air Force has 14,264 pilots, 3,607 navigators and 1,538 air battle managers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below. The Air Force has 25,377 nonrated line officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and below."
(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

I couldn't find any quickly-accessible stats on the breakdown of the enlisted grades or the further detail on the officers.

[RiverAux]

(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

In other words, 40% of the officers are Lt. Col. or higher.  I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about CAP having too many high ranking officers ever again. 

[arajca]

(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

In other words, 40% of the officers are Lt. Col. or higher.  I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about CAP having too many high ranking officers ever again.

No. 40% are COL or higher, while 60% are 2d Lt - Lt Col.

[RiverAux]

(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

In other words, 40% of the officers are Lt. Col. or higher.  I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about CAP having too many high ranking officers ever again.

No. 40% are COL or higher, while 60% are 2d Lt - Lt Col.

Thanks for the correction --- its even worse than I thought. 

[Storm Chaser]

(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

In other words, 40% of the officers are Lt. Col. or higher.  I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about CAP having too many high ranking officers ever again.

I don't see how you can come up with "40%" with the numbers given. We know that about 30.7% of active duty officers are full Col (O-6) or higher. That's only 6% of the entire active duty force. We don't really know how many officers are Lt Cols (O-5) based on those numbers. But even if 40% of officers were Lt Cols or higher, that's still less than 8% of the entire force.

I'm not sure what percentage of all senior members or even the entire CAP membership are Lt Col or higher. But in FLWG, over 15% of senior members are Lt Col or higher; that's 8% of all FLWG members.

I guess those numbers are not so bad. That said, I've never heard that the issue is that we have too many Lt Cols, but that virtually every senior member (almost 58% of all members) are officers. In contrast, only about 20% of Air Force active duty members are officers. Of course, as has been said before, we're not the Air Force.

[pascocap2002]

FOs should be recognized at NHQ I don't believe there is any disagreement there.  But really guys we are not any other organization.  We have a PD and promotion system that works.  It is upto the member to track his/her promotion requirements and take the steps needed.  We don't need to adopt anyone elses system, and really alot of this I see as a solution looking for a problem when there is none.  Our promotion system works, our. PD system works, read the regs ask the questions when or or as needed.  Everyone regadlrdless of whether they ade a senior or cadet member will get out of the program what they put into it.

When I joined the Air Force, I had to give up being a cadet, I went through the Flight officer grades and ended up as a Senior Fight Officer (SFO) and its all well documented. The bad thing is that because it is not recorded at National Headquarters (NHQ), when it came time for my promotion, it still took me about 3 more years to make Captain because no one really knew how to promote me since I was a previous SFO. This means that my promotions since then have been delayed and delayed because they did not know how to promote me while taking in account my time in grade as SFO.

With that said, NHQ should have records of promotions no matter if its an officer, non-commissioned officer, or cadet.

Furthermore, you will get out of the program whatever you put into it as long as you surround yourself with others that have the same drive for the program as you. If you rely on others to get their jobs done, then things usually take a long time.

No matter what, keep your records (or copies of them) and always follow up on requests. This is not to pressure someone into something, but to stay in the loop and to get the information you are looking for.

[Tim Medeiros]

This is relevant to the discussion it seems, one of my members actually used the ask the commander feature asking about this.  Below is what I got in response.

Please DO NOT reply to this Email message.

A response to your question has been sent.

CAPID: <snip to protect the innocent> From: AZ-085

Question to the National Commander:
Sir,

I was just curious as to why any of the Flight Officer Grades are not recognized in the CAP online system. We are recognized as Senior Members, I am really just curious about it.

TFO *name*

Response:
Flight Officer *name*, thank you for this question and I apologize for the response delay. I have spoken to our IT committee concerning this issue and was informed plans are being worked to expand the program allowing for flight officer grade input.

[pascocap2002]

Tim,

Great to hear a response.


(off topic) I am happy your still active in CAP! Also with SWR now.

-Jason McDonald

[AirDX]

(That makes ~60% of the officers Lt Col or below)

That just ain't right.  Better than 1-in-3 Air Force officers are O-6 or above?  Not.  I work in an organization of a couple of hundred people, and we have a smattering of LCs and two (2) O-6s.  And we're in a MAJCOM HQ.

I think the figures on the attachment here are much better - slightly less than 6% of the USAF officer strength are O-6 and above (as of the end of 2011). 

I can't imagine AFPC being screwed up on their numbers like that (BWAHAHAHAHA!)

[attachment deleted by admin]