Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!! :)
Adapt, improvise, overcome.
Change is inevitable, and sometimes you need to be the one making changes. You live in a part of the country that is less formal and socially structured than others. In some of the places I've lived, everyone over the age of about 30 or 35 gets called sir or ma'am. It's a form of respect, and is unquestioned. The same goes for calling someone Mister, Miss, Missus, or Miz. It's there, all the time.
Personally, I've had to get used to the same thing - 20 year Navy enlisted, and 30-something year CAP officer, concurrently for a while. Suck it up, put on your big boy undies, and drive on. Others before you have done it, and others in the future will, too.
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
In Air Force tradition, NCOs can be and are often called sir, so don't let that be a deterrent. Whether you go the NCO or officer route is entirely up to you. In CAP, NCOs are still a novelty (even though they've always been part of the organization). The program is still being developed, so there's not much difference at the moment between a CAP NCO and a CAP officer. It boils down to whether you want to wear chevrons or bars.
I'm doing NCO track, just because I believe that's my wheelhouse and have no desire to be an officer.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
A deputy commander should be able to assume or exercise command of a unit in the absence of the commander. If NCOs can't command, then they shouldn't be deputies either.
I'm just looking forward to when/if I ever get the option to trade in the bottlecaps for stripes. If not, meh. If so, good.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2016, 11:01:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
A deputy commander should be able to assume or exercise command of a unit in the absence of the commander. If NCOs can't command, then they shouldn't be deputies either.
Nope...not in CAP. Deputy Commanders for X is just that only for X. He/She does not automatically rise up to commander in the commander's absence.
But yes.....a major rework of 20-1 needs to be done.....oh wait.... :)
Quote from: SarDragon on May 13, 2016, 10:55:04 PM
Adapt, improvise, overcome.
Change is inevitable, and sometimes you need to be the one making changes. You live in a part of the country that is less formal and socially structured than others. In some of the places I've lived, everyone over the age of about 30 or 35 gets called sir or ma'am. It's a form of respect, and is unquestioned. The same goes for calling someone Mister, Miss, Missus, or Miz. It's there, all the time.
Personally, I've had to get used to the same thing - 20 year Navy enlisted, and 30-something year CAP officer, concurrently for a while. Suck it up, put on your big boy undies, and drive on. Others before you have done it, and others in the future will, too.
I do get called Sir when I work at NavSta Great Lakes, doesn't bother me because it is expected in the environment. Just something about being called Sir, when I feel I should be addressed as Sergeant, knowing we have Sergeant Ranks. Thanks for the advice, I truly appreciate it!!!
Thank you everyone for the advice and spelling out for me!!! Will let you know which path I choose later on. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 11:05:20 PM
Nope...not in CAP. Deputy Commanders for X is just that only for X. He/She does not automatically rise up to commander in the commander's absence.[/quote]
Members can be appointed to "Deputy Commander" without a qualifier, in which case they would be the defacto commander in
the CC's absence.
Same goes for a situation where you are the CDS in a senior unit or flight.
The way it is today there is no real difference between CAP officers and NCOs. That is supposed to change with NCOs getting their own PD program. I honestly don't understand the purpose of the program as it currently exists. I chose to go the officer route since I felt that would be the best way for CAP to utilize my skills and experience. I don't get hung up on being called sir or the whole officer versus NCO thing in the military. I'm a SMSgt with nearly 30 years of service. It doesn't bother me to be called by my officer rank.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 11:05:20 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2016, 11:01:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
A deputy commander should be able to assume or exercise command of a unit in the absence of the commander. If NCOs can't command, then they shouldn't be deputies either.
Nope...not in CAP. Deputy Commanders for X is just that only for X. He/She does not automatically rise up to commander in the commander's absence.
But yes.....a major rework of 20-1 needs to be done.....oh wait.... :)
CAPR 20-1, Para 16 disagrees:
Quote16. Command Authority during Temporary Absence of Commanders. During the temporary absence of a
commander at the region, wing or unit level, the vice/deputy commander or the chief of staff, in that order, will act as
temporary commander
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2016, 12:16:58 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 11:05:20 PM
Nope...not in CAP. Deputy Commanders for X is just that only for X. He/She does not automatically rise up to commander in the commander's absence.
Members can be appointed to "Deputy Commander" without a qualifier, in which case they would be the defacto commander in
the CC's absence.
Same goes for a situation where you are the CDS in a senior unit or flight.
[/quote]Senior Squadrons, and Cadet Squadrons don't have "Deputy Commander for Seniors" or "Deputy Commander for Cadets" respectively, only "Deputy Commander"
Ref: CAPR 20-1, Figure 12 and Figure 14 for Senior Squadrons and Figures 17 and 18 for Cadet Squadrons.
Only Composite squadrons have CDS and CDC
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 18, 2016, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
There is no regulation that says they can't.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 18, 2016, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
There is no regulation that says they can't.
In my experience, there is principally custom and practice. Nothing says that an NCO can't hold the relevant qualifications and have the relevant experience. In today's context, it is a limit as custom and practice, and current regulation, dictate that Chaplains are Commissioned (in the RM) and Chaplain Assistants are enlisted. During the early days of the organized military in the UK, Chaplains were civilians. Times and practice change.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 18, 2016, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
There is no regulation that says they can't.
There is none that says that they can, either.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 18, 2016, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
35-5 seems pretty clear on this when combined with 265-1. Meet the requirements for appointment as a chaplain and you're an officer....
The real question, and one that has been debated here quite a bit, is if there is no difference in what an NCO or Officer can do in CAP then what is the point in having both, especially if only former military NCOs can be CAP NCOs?
I am very proud to say that I am an Air Force SNCO but I just don't understand the point in having CAP NCOs except for the VERY few military NCOs that have no desire to be a CAP Officer. To me the CAP NCO needed just as much as the Cadet First Sergeant position. Neither position do what is traditionally done in the military. Now if all adults who joined CAP had to progress through the enlisted ranks like the cadets do then I can understand it. An NCO is a person to provides mentoring and leadership to junior enlisted (among other duties) and there are no junior enlisted in CAP.
As it stands now, the CAP NCO program just seems to be a source of confusion among the general membership. If there is a plan to make it more meaningful and separate from the Officer program I would love to hear it. I think there is great potential here but not as it currently exists.
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Do you honestly believe the role of the NCO in a military organization is "undefined?" Really?
NCOs have been used - without exception -
in every single military organization in the world since the Roman Legions. Even Starfleet had NCOs.
No really, NCOs are literally universal. We are the rather odd exception given the limited number of NCOs in our ranks.
I'm sorry if you think Spaatz and Curry got it wrong when they included NCOs in our rank structure.
Sure, most units currently struggle along without NCOs, so it is hard to argue that CAP would roll up and die without NCOs. But given that the key word in that sentence is "struggle," consider how much
better CAP would be with a mature and viable NCO corps supporting our people and missions.
It really isn't that hard to imagine the crucial roles NCOs could serve in supporting our missions.
Heck, just in CP (quoting myself from a couple years back):
QuoteJust in the Cadet Program tent, I could put 1200 CAP NCOs to work tomorrow by assigning one or two to each cadet and composite unit to serve as Leadership Officers. Essentially by definition, NCOs have years of experience mentoring and developing junior leaders in a military environment. And since every single cadet must develop their followership and leadership skills initially as an airman and cadet NCO, senior member NCOs could and would provide outstanding and needed support.
Our CP would be measurably better if we had one or two experienced NCOs at each cadet and composite unit.
If we had a mature CAP senior member enlisted/NCO structure in CP, at the squadron I would expect to see SSgts and Tsgts working more or less directly with the troops; directly monitoring training and mentoring the cadet instructors for things like D & C, and acting as instructors. I would normally expect senior NCOs (MSgt +) to do things like training schedules, coordinate and rehearse instructors, mentor both the junior NCOs and the cadet staff, conduct CP-related professional development for the senior member side, and also serve in additional duties for the unit as a whole (things like unit First Sergeant, Personnel and Admin NCO, etc.).
At the group, wing, and region level I would expect senior NCOs to work as SMEs in CP. I would probably see them working on CI and SAV teams, maintaining associated records and providing administrative support, directly coordinating with their counterparts at lower and higher levels, planning CP activities at their level, producing reports and maintaining electronic data, and mentoring and training NCOs at lower echelons.
At things like encampments, NCOs would provide valuable support on the tactical staff, liaisoning with host facilities, as well as serving as logisticians and administrators.
And at all levels, NCOs - like all SMs - would be eligible for the dreaded "similar and related duties as required." 8)
(Remember, this is a vision for a mature and self-generating enlisted structure, NOT what we have today. Today, our NCOs come to us pre-trained in leadership and organizational skills by Uncle Sam and all we have to add are the CAP-specific skills. This may well change as we tweak the program to allow non-prior service CAP NCOs).
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
You got to have the people to fill those roles. You got to have the people to write those roles. We are very aware of the issues with building this horse and cart.
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PM
Do you honestly believe the role of the NCO in a military organization CAP is "undefined?" Really?
Yes.
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMNCOs have been used - without exception - in every single military organization in the world since the Roman Legions. Even Starfleet had NCOs.
As we're often told, CAP is not a military organization.
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMNo really, NCOs are literally universal. We are the rather odd exception given the limited number of NCOs in our ranks.
Only if compared to a hierarchical military structure, which we are not.
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMI'm sorry if you think Spaatz and Curry got it wrong when they included NCOs in our rank structure.
The program then, and the duties of NCOs at the time was drastically different. As were the membership numbers, mission, and candidate pool.
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMSure, most units currently struggle along without NCOs, so it is hard to argue that CAP would roll up and die without NCOs. But given that the key word in that sentence is "struggle," consider how much better CAP would be with a mature and viable NCO corps supporting our people and missions.
How will having most of my members converted to NCOs, or being NCOs help, when we need an officer role filled, and none available?
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMIt really isn't that hard to imagine the crucial roles NCOs could serve in supporting our missions.
Of course not. They've been doing it for decades, without limitations, as CAP Officers.
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Like I said....baby steps. Not being able to promote was the biggest disincentive for former NCOs to keep wearing stripes. So we fixed that problem. We are building the PME for NCOs now....that will be different then the officer PME. We are building a recruiting program. Once those are in place we expand the program to anyone interested in being and NCO. Once that is in place we will then be positioned to make greater changes to CAP that with strengthen both the NCO and Officer corps.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Like I said....baby steps. Not being able to promote was the biggest disincentive for former NCOs to keep wearing stripes. So we fixed that problem. We are building the PME for NCOs now....that will be different then the officer PME. We are building a recruiting program. Once those are in place we expand the program to anyone interested in being and NCO. Once that is in place we will then be positioned to make greater changes to CAP that with strengthen both the NCO and Officer corps.
The program was rushed out half-baked because the national commander's term was about up.
Positions for NCOs were created without duties.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 18, 2016, 09:25:35 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PM
Do you honestly believe the role of the NCO in a military organization CAP is "undefined?" Really?
Yes.
We are working on that actively.
Quote[/size]Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMNCOs have been used - without exception - in every single military organization in the world since the Roman Legions. Even Starfleet had NCOs.
As we're often told, CAP is not a military organization.
But we use the military model for leadership....ergo you can have that cake and eat it too.
Quote[/font]Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMNo really, NCOs are literally universal. We are the rather odd exception given the limited number of NCOs in our ranks.
Only if compared to a hierarchical military structure, which we are not.
Really? We don't have a national commander? Or a chain of command?
If you mean we don't have an up or out policy or that a 2d Lt can command a squadron with a Col in it....then yes you are right. Having an NCO corps may be a remedy for some of that.
Quote[/font]Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMI'm sorry if you think Spaatz and Curry got it wrong when they included NCOs in our rank structure.
The program then, and the duties of NCOs at the time was drastically different. As were the membership numbers, mission, and candidate pool.
Yes you are correct. But today is vastly different then the time that they built the current CAP Officer program. Membership numbers, missions and candidate pool are different. We are looking to build new tools to better use our members.
Quote[/font]Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMSure, most units currently struggle along without NCOs, so it is hard to argue that CAP would roll up and die without NCOs. But given that the key word in that sentence is "struggle," consider how much better CAP would be with a mature and viable NCO corps supporting our people and missions.
How will having most of my members converted to NCOs, or being NCOs help, when we need an officer role filled, and none available?
I guess any future program where most of your members are NCOs would include a program to develop the officers you need to fill those officer roles.
Quote[/font]Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PMIt really isn't that hard to imagine the crucial roles NCOs could serve in supporting our missions.
Of course not. They've been doing it for decades, without limitations, as CAP Officers.
So....your argument is basically......It's been this way for a long time....why make changes? Am I reading that right?
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 09:42:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Like I said....baby steps. Not being able to promote was the biggest disincentive for former NCOs to keep wearing stripes. So we fixed that problem. We are building the PME for NCOs now....that will be different then the officer PME. We are building a recruiting program. Once those are in place we expand the program to anyone interested in being and NCO. Once that is in place we will then be positioned to make greater changes to CAP that with strengthen both the NCO and Officer corps.
The program was rushed out half-baked because the national commander's term was about up.
Positions for NCOs were created without duties.
And? If your assessment of the situation is true.......what bearing does that have on my argument? We need to slowly build up an NCO corps....slowly integrate it into the existing programs......and then we can slowly make changes to that program to make everything better.
In the mean time......we are not killing anyone. We are not taking away anyone's birthday. We are not telling anyone to do anything different. Why all the angst? If you see something that is going to kill a mission, cost money, cost life or limb, or even put an undue burden on the members at large......let us know.
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Do you honestly believe the role of the NCO in a military organization is "undefined?" Really?
NCOs have been used - without exception - in every single military organization in the world since the Roman Legions. Even Starfleet had NCOs.
No really, NCOs are literally universal. We are the rather odd exception given the limited number of NCOs in our ranks.
I'm sorry if you think Spaatz and Curry got it wrong when they included NCOs in our rank structure.
Sure, most units currently struggle along without NCOs, so it is hard to argue that CAP would roll up and die without NCOs. But given that the key word in that sentence is "struggle," consider how much better CAP would be with a mature and viable NCO corps supporting our people and missions.
It really isn't that hard to imagine the crucial roles NCOs could serve in supporting our missions.
Heck, just in CP (quoting myself from a couple years back): QuoteJust in the Cadet Program tent, I could put 1200 CAP NCOs to work tomorrow by assigning one or two to each cadet and composite unit to serve as Leadership Officers. Essentially by definition, NCOs have years of experience mentoring and developing junior leaders in a military environment. And since every single cadet must develop their followership and leadership skills initially as an airman and cadet NCO, senior member NCOs could and would provide outstanding and needed support.
Our CP would be measurably better if we had one or two experienced NCOs at each cadet and composite unit.
If we had a mature CAP senior member enlisted/NCO structure in CP, at the squadron I would expect to see SSgts and Tsgts working more or less directly with the troops; directly monitoring training and mentoring the cadet instructors for things like D & C, and acting as instructors. I would normally expect senior NCOs (MSgt +) to do things like training schedules, coordinate and rehearse instructors, mentor both the junior NCOs and the cadet staff, conduct CP-related professional development for the senior member side, and also serve in additional duties for the unit as a whole (things like unit First Sergeant, Personnel and Admin NCO, etc.).
At the group, wing, and region level I would expect senior NCOs to work as SMEs in CP. I would probably see them working on CI and SAV teams, maintaining associated records and providing administrative support, directly coordinating with their counterparts at lower and higher levels, planning CP activities at their level, producing reports and maintaining electronic data, and mentoring and training NCOs at lower echelons.
At things like encampments, NCOs would provide valuable support on the tactical staff, liaisoning with host facilities, as well as serving as logisticians and administrators.
And at all levels, NCOs - like all SMs - would be eligible for the dreaded "similar and related duties as required." 8)
(Remember, this is a vision for a mature and self-generating enlisted structure, NOT what we have today. Today, our NCOs come to us pre-trained in leadership and organizational skills by Uncle Sam and all we have to add are the CAP-specific skills. This may well change as we tweak the program to allow non-prior service CAP NCOs).
This is exactly what I envisioned when I joined, and part of the reason I'm taking the NCO route.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 09:47:25 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 09:42:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on May 18, 2016, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And the point is that is back-asswards. You define the roles, then you build a program to support the roles. You don't build a program with no roles then expect to figure out the roles later.
Solution in desperate search of a problem.
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Like I said....baby steps. Not being able to promote was the biggest disincentive for former NCOs to keep wearing stripes. So we fixed that problem. We are building the PME for NCOs now....that will be different then the officer PME. We are building a recruiting program. Once those are in place we expand the program to anyone interested in being and NCO. Once that is in place we will then be positioned to make greater changes to CAP that with strengthen both the NCO and Officer corps.
The program was rushed out half-baked because the national commander's term was about up.
Positions for NCOs were created without duties.
And? If your assessment of the situation is true.......what bearing does that have on my argument? We need to slowly build up an NCO corps....slowly integrate it into the existing programs......and then we can slowly make changes to that program to make everything better.
In the mean time......we are not killing anyone. We are not taking away anyone's birthday. We are not telling anyone to do anything different. Why all the angst? If you see something that is going to kill a mission, cost money, cost life or limb, or even put an undue burden on the members at large......let us know.
It was done half-baked. The program was rolled out before it was ready for prime-time.
We're what, 2-3 years out from when "NCO Advisor" position was created. It should have been defined when the position was created. But, instead, you had someone who was on his way out the door, and he signed off on half-a-plan, rather than finishing the plan before rolling it out.
Positions should be defined before they are created. Thus my comment about being back-asswards.
Noted. Noted as noted. Moving on. Duty positions are written and waiting for the OPR to publish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 10:43:36 PM
Noted. Noted as noted. Moving on. Duty positions are written and waiting for the OPR to publish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And you've been saying that for over a year too.
Solution in search of a problem.
Complaint for no reason.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ned on May 18, 2016, 09:10:08 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on May 18, 2016, 05:56:55 PM
Definitely backwards. You can't make the program viable unless there is a defined role for it. There would probably be much more interest in the program if there was a defined goal and mission that separates it from the Officer track. The way the program is now I just see it as a vehicle for former military NCOs to get additional stripes.
Do you honestly believe the role of the NCO in a military organization is "undefined?" Really?
NCOs have been used - without exception - in every single military organization in the world since the Roman Legions. Even Starfleet had NCOs.
No really, NCOs are literally universal. We are the rather odd exception given the limited number of NCOs in our ranks.
I'm sorry if you think Spaatz and Curry got it wrong when they included NCOs in our rank structure.
Sure, most units currently struggle along without NCOs, so it is hard to argue that CAP would roll up and die without NCOs. But given that the key word in that sentence is "struggle," consider how much better CAP would be with a mature and viable NCO corps supporting our people and missions.
It really isn't that hard to imagine the crucial roles NCOs could serve in supporting our missions.
Heck, just in CP (quoting myself from a couple years back): QuoteJust in the Cadet Program tent, I could put 1200 CAP NCOs to work tomorrow by assigning one or two to each cadet and composite unit to serve as Leadership Officers. Essentially by definition, NCOs have years of experience mentoring and developing junior leaders in a military environment. And since every single cadet must develop their followership and leadership skills initially as an airman and cadet NCO, senior member NCOs could and would provide outstanding and needed support.
Our CP would be measurably better if we had one or two experienced NCOs at each cadet and composite unit.
If we had a mature CAP senior member enlisted/NCO structure in CP, at the squadron I would expect to see SSgts and Tsgts working more or less directly with the troops; directly monitoring training and mentoring the cadet instructors for things like D & C, and acting as instructors. I would normally expect senior NCOs (MSgt +) to do things like training schedules, coordinate and rehearse instructors, mentor both the junior NCOs and the cadet staff, conduct CP-related professional development for the senior member side, and also serve in additional duties for the unit as a whole (things like unit First Sergeant, Personnel and Admin NCO, etc.).
At the group, wing, and region level I would expect senior NCOs to work as SMEs in CP. I would probably see them working on CI and SAV teams, maintaining associated records and providing administrative support, directly coordinating with their counterparts at lower and higher levels, planning CP activities at their level, producing reports and maintaining electronic data, and mentoring and training NCOs at lower echelons.
At things like encampments, NCOs would provide valuable support on the tactical staff, liaisoning with host facilities, as well as serving as logisticians and administrators.
And at all levels, NCOs - like all SMs - would be eligible for the dreaded "similar and related duties as required." 8)
(Remember, this is a vision for a mature and self-generating enlisted structure, NOT what we have today. Today, our NCOs come to us pre-trained in leadership and organizational skills by Uncle Sam and all we have to add are the CAP-specific skills. This may well change as we tweak the program to allow non-prior service CAP NCOs).
Sir I never said that NCOs do not have a defined role in the military. I said there is no defined role for them presently in CAP. The things you suggested that CAP NCOs could be doing, like at encampment, are being done today by CAP officers, correct? How would these positions be better if they were staffed by NCOs? A defined role would be something that is mostly unique to that group. I don't really see what roles would go to the NCOs and taken away from the officers and what benefit it would be to CAP to have it.
I firmly believe that NCOs are needed in the military but I'm just not buying it in CAP as it presently exists. As I have said previously, if CAP moves to a rank and promotion system similar to cadets where everyone starts at the bottom and then works their way up the I can see the need for such positions as Command Chiefs and NCO advisers. Having everyone start at the bottom would actually make more sense than having a 21 year old with zero training (except for finishing a few CBTs) or experience being a 2d Lt.
In the military an NCO is someone how has spent years within the organization and knows it very well and is a trained leader responsible for the training and mentoring of the junior enlisted mainly among other duties. A new CAP NCO will likely have the leadership skills but will have little to no knowledge of CAP and will have not junior enlisted to train or mentor.
While I am all for an "enlisted" track in CAP, the current program needs a great deal of work before it even makes sense to have it. At the end of the day that is what really matters is does it benefit CAP and as of right now I don't see any benefit or a path to become a benefit to the organization. Simply being able to get promoted isn't a benefit at all to CAP and probably won't get many people to join.
The NCO program was announced and established without any guidelines or structure. At the last two National Conferences, we've been told "everything should be in place within the next three or four months". Maryland Wing has told me that they won't appoint a Command Chief until they can assess the program at the Wing and Region levels. Of course the announcement that every reg would be rewritten didn't help either.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 05:13:58 PM
The point is that down the road there may be a difference in roles. We are taking baby steps here. Once the NCO is a viable program then we can start differentiating the roles training and requirements.
IMHO, this "program" is a major distraction from solving some real issues facing CAP. I would rather have our leadership tackle such problems as the development of better leaders, improved morale, higher retention, stronger contributor base, and wider opportunities for the membership (adult and cadet). After almost 40 years, I see no reason to relabel or reclassify member grade levels. There is absolutely no proof, nor evidence a CAP NCO corps will improve anything other than Vanguard's profits... :(
Ranks in CAP have never meant anything related to authority or responsibility. they are simply a visual indication of a members PD level... or their military rank that was transferred to CAP membership. Yet, the NCO program will be different?
I am reading a ton of reasons listed why there is no need for NCO's, the same reasons Lordmonar has brought to the this discussion of why an NCO Corps is needed!!! He stated that many of us former NCO's have mentored and trained both Enlisted and Officers in the military, which in my case is true. Developing professional Soldiers, Airman, Marines, and Seamen is what we do. This is why I have chosen Cadet Programs as a specialty, so that I can mentor and pass down the things I learned to the next generation that will take up where I left off. I know this isn't the military, but it is an Auxiliary of the Air Force, that uses the USAF chain of command, and unit structure, something most NCO's that are in CAP should know all to well. For someone like me, an NCO Corps will help me fit in with CAP, IMHO. I loved being an NCO during my 21 years, I am sure I would love being an NCO in CAP also!!! My biggest hang-up with it is being able to be a pilot. If I could get a definite answer, or find it in a regulation that states I can fly as a TSgt, I would put my paperwork in today to put on my stripes back on today. The only other issue is; that I could see myself a permanent TSgt because it seems like there isn't a ton of knowledge on how to actually promote an NCO. I feel that if I complete all the same training to gain higher rank as an officer, I should at least gain the a little rank as an NCO without leaving my squadron.
The ability to mentor cadets, or anyone else in CAP is in no way related to grade, CAP or otherwise.
Comments regarding CAP's comparison to the USAF in terms of structure also fail on examination,
as grade confers no authority whatsoever - in a world where SMWOGs command squadrons
and can direct the action of generals, trying to portend that being an NCO infers or confers some
special ability to mentor, guide, or lead in a volunteer paradigm simply doesn't work.
CAP needs leaders from all sectors and backgrounds, not people who believe their grade, or belonging
to one caste vs. another, will make a bit of difference.
There's nothing wrong with allowing NCOs to promote, but to try and infer there will be a "program",
or worse, the NCO stripes somehow carry more "weight" in a CAP context then just exposes how
poorly thought out this will be.
It's going to take 10+ years to normalize the changes in the officer grades just encompassing
the greater PD and TIG that was implemented in 2014, and ultimately it means nothing because
it just extended the timeline and artificially suppressed the FGOs to people who have more flexible lives
and / or can write the checks for the staff colleges...correction, it's increased the sour grapes and stalled the
PD of a fair number of members who are our most active because they have done the math and realized
further promotion will never happen for them, which means the number of members with Master ratings, and
even senior will plummet in the next few years as members realize there is little to no point in the effort.
You can't fix things like this in pieces, especially when the over-reaching idea is moot to start with.
The amount of time wasted on this subject, grade and PD, when you consider that none of it is required, and
most of it is treated like a check box should be grounds for an FWA complaint
Quote from: grunt82abn on May 19, 2016, 04:07:21 PM
I am reading a ton of reasons listed why there is no need for NCO's, the same reasons Lordmonar has brought to the this discussion of why an NCO Corps is needed!!! He stated that many of us former NCO's have mentored and trained both Enlisted and Officers in the military, which in my case is true. Developing professional Soldiers, Airman, Marines, and Seamen is what we do. This is why I have chosen Cadet Programs as a specialty, so that I can mentor and pass down the things I learned to the next generation that will take up where I left off. I know this isn't the military, but it is an Auxiliary of the Air Force, that uses the USAF chain of command, and unit structure, something most NCO's that are in CAP should know all to well. For someone like me, an NCO Corps will help me fit in with CAP, IMHO. I loved being an NCO during my 21 years, I am sure I would love being an NCO in CAP also!!! My biggest hang-up with it is being able to be a pilot. If I could get a definite answer, or find it in a regulation that states I can fly as a TSgt, I would put my paperwork in today to put on my stripes back on today. The only other issue is; that I could see myself a permanent TSgt because it seems like there isn't a ton of knowledge on how to actually promote an NCO. I feel that if I complete all the same training to gain higher rank as an officer, I should at least gain the a little rank as an NCO without leaving my squadron.
What would you be doing different if you had stripes on your sleeves vs bars on your shoulders in CAP? Nothing.
Many of us here on this board (and in CAP in general) have been NCO's. All of us have done CAP just fine for decades without an "NCO advisor" or without wearing stripes.
All we have heard about this NCO program is "oh it will help, trust us". Yet no one, not on here nor from on high, has explained how this will help the current situation in CAP.
I was just informed that the county I was a cadet in is almost empty of CAP units. The third most populated county in this state and the highest income per resident of the entire state has only a single CAP unit left in it. (At the high count, this county had 5 units in it)
I want someone to explain how an NCO is going to fix the issues CAP is facing.
I really wish I had the answers to your questions on how to fix the major issues of CAP. I am ignorant to all the major workings of CAP and NHQ. Apparently I hit a touchy subject with some and that was not my intent. I was just looking for insight into being an NCO for myself, not advocating for or against the instituting of the NCO program. Apparently there are tremendous issues in CAP that again, I am totally ignorant of, and probably will be for sometime until I get acquainted more with the entire workings of the CAP program. I am just a new guy who was sitting on the fence about which to choose and was looking for information to make an informed decision, not to start a fight, and not to be insulting.
The simple answer is that, as of today, there are no significant differences between a CAP officer and a CAP NCO. They both participate in the same Professional Development program, can hold the same duty assignments, complete the same Emergency Services qualifications, and participate in the same activities, programs, and missions. That may change in the future, but it's the reality today. As such, you should wear the insignia you feel most comfortable wearing. It's no ones decision, but yours. Good luck!
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 19, 2016, 05:27:38 PM
The simple answer is that, as of today, there are no significant differences between a CAP officer and a CAP NCO. They both participate in the same Professional Development program, can hold the same duty assignments, complete the same Emergency Services qualifications, and participate in the same activities, programs, and missions. That may change in the future, but it's the reality today. As such, you should wear the insignia you feel most comfortable wearing. It's no ones decision, but yours. Good luck!
Thank you!!!
As Storm Chase has pointed out.
As of right now. There is no difference between Officers and NCOs in CAP. We do the same jobs, we do the same PD, we do the same mission.
So......there are no PROs nor CONs for being an NCO vs an Officer (even the issue of NCOs being a commander has a an already in place fix....appoint the NCO an Officer and then make him commander.)
Having said all that.
We are working on an NCO specific PD system. As that grows and the NCO corps grow we will be re-writing job and duty descriptions to differentiate between NCO roles and Officer roles.
As for the specific "issues" brought up by the Angst Squad. No one has come up with a single reason not to expand our NCO corps other then to say "well there's nothing wrong with how we do it now".........and then they go to another thread and complain about how everything we do on the leadership side is so screwed up.
Yes......we don't have a full blown, 100% polished, 100% viable program. Yes CAP is slow as Christmas Sunday in getting anything done.....and it does not matter that we have had a lot of the things they point out ready to go for nearly a year now.....CAP is slow. It has always been slow...it probably will always be slow.
For those who point out that it is a distraction from fixing other issues.....I say how so? Point out one issue that is not getting done because the NCO committee is working on this one program? Although I think this program does address the issue about developing better leaders. Or will in the future, once it is matured and we worked out the kinks.
And yes I agree there is no proof that it will fix anything. There is not proof that it will make things worse.....ergo....why the angst in letting us try?
YMMV.
And since I'm repeating myself......again.......I'll stop here for awhile. If anyone has any specific questions or comes up with any new "issues" they would like to bring up....please feel free to PM me.
G'night
Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2016, 08:41:18 PMNo one has come up with a single reason not to expand our NCO corps...
FTFY.
I do have a question. PM sent. Thanks.
How about this one.
:)
How about just about every post I or NED have made on the topic of NCOs.
So...there's three.
Ya know...if you really want to mentor some enlisted troops and officers, get some Warrant Officers...nah...I would have to put my coffee down.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2016, 10:01:13 PM
How about just about every post I or NED have made on the topic of NCOs.
Please try again. The request is for specifics, which have never been provided by anyone involved with
the actual program, nor who advocate the idea. Something this far-reaching should not be undertaken
with wishful thinking and playing a Beach Boys song on infinite repeat.
It's almost as if those advocating the program never thought they'ed actually get approval, and were unprepared
for what to do next. Pretending this opens the door to recruiting more NCOs, or somehow accesses leadership
resources not currently available would seem to indicate those who typed that sentence don't understand how CAP works.
Few, if anyone, have issues with prior-service NCOs retaining their grade, nor even being able to promote internal to CAP,
but the rest, as is par for CAP's course, is the cart before CAP can even agree on whether a horse is necessary, and if so, for what.
The only thing that gets you past the legit questions are legit,
direct answers, not a lot of "we're hoping" and "we're planning'.
As of today, it's not even possible to keep NCOs out of unit command positions, even though it's prohibited by reg, and then
the fix "just turn them into officers".
So much for "accessing leadership resources previously unavailable"...
Eclipse.....for one who is always trying to use logic and demand cites......and then when one supplies them for you....you move the bar.
My and Ned's and the white paper are three instances of people who see a need....have communicated the need....and see a possible solution to that need.
So....once again.
You complain about lack of leadership and lack of training....and when a group of CAP members get together to build just that.....you throw up your arms and say "But we don't need that".
I am beginning to think that you are just a Troll. That no solution is going to satisfies you....unless it comes from you.
We are trying something new. We know it is going to be slow. We know we are not going to get it right first time.
We are open to suggestion. But I have not seen one good suggestion from you. Just a lot of "it's not gonna work" and "You screwed up the soft opening" and such.
And now...I'm really out on this topic for a while.
Thanks. Now I have Sloop John B in my head....
The Maryland MILDEP just did this. Invented a decoration and then said...we will let you know what the criteria is.
I get the sense that there is too much emphasis on the flashy new insignia but no real answers about the meat of the program, even from those involved in the development. We have no issue with mentoring cadets by officers. This is just coming off as a solution in search of a problem. Good.lick with it but it doesnt seem to have much real value for the amoint of effort that has been expended.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2016, 04:23:21 PM
The ability to mentor cadets, or anyone else in CAP is in no way related to grade, CAP or otherwise.
Non-concur. Or to use terms you seem to enjoy, "cite, please."
Common definitions of "mentoring" vary significantly, but CAP has a significant amount of mentoring doctrine (CAPP 50-7, "Mentoring: Building Our Members (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_007_CED2A62F71379.pdf), CAPP 50-6, Cadet Programs Mentoring (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_006_204F34CBD9CF4.pdf), and the requirements in the 52-16 to appoint specific mentors to new cadets and for P III cadets to serve as mentors to junior cadets).
Our doctrine points out that one of the key components of mentoring is to serve as a role model. ("Some one whose behavior is worthy of emulation.")
And as much as you and some other non-prior service folks think otherwise, NCOs and officers model different leadership behaviors in accomplishing the mission. (Refer to our multiple previous discussions on this topic. Or ask anyone who has served in a military organization since about 500 B.C..)
While every CAP officer I know has many admirable qualities worthy of emulation, the great majority of CAP cadets are cadet airmen or NCOS in Phases I and II of our program and are focused on learning followership and direct leadership techniques. Accordingly, essentially by definition, in many cases CAP NCOs can serve as more effective role models than CAP officers. But since most units do not currently have access to NCOs, officers are all that are available to most cadets. Focus on growing the NCO corps will help our cadets.
QuoteComments regarding CAP's comparison to the USAF in terms of structure also fail on examination,
as grade confers no authority whatsoever - in a world where SMWOGs command squadrons
and can direct the action of generals, trying to portend that being an NCO infers or confers some
special ability to mentor, guide, or lead in a volunteer paradigm simply doesn't work.
Ummm, cite please. Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned. I'll wait.
(And, yes, currently every single CAP NCO has literally
years of training and experience in mentoring, guiding, leading. On average, for more than our typical officer member, in fact.)
QuoteThere's nothing wrong with allowing NCOs to promote, but to try and infer there will be a "program",
or worse, the NCO stripes somehow carry more "weight" in a CAP context then just exposes how
poorly thought out this will be.
For the sake of argument, it sounds like you would agree that the NCO program will essentially be as valuable as the officer PD program that you and I have participated in, in the sense that "greater officer grade will [not] somehow carry more 'weight' in a CAP context." It seems problematic to condemn the NCO program for having the same "fault" as the officer program you currently enjoy.
QuoteYou can't fix things like this in pieces, especially when the over-reaching idea is moot to start with.
It bears repeating that CAP has had NCOs since the beginning. This is just a tweak on the professional development and appointment system. Officer PD has been tweaked numerous times without the sky falling. This is really no different.
QuoteThe amount of time wasted on this subject, grade and PD, when you consider that none of it is required, and
most of it is treated like a check box should be grounds for an FWA complaint
We easily waste 10-20x more time on uniforms, ribbons, and badges, sir.
No FWA complaints so far.
And it is hard to imagine that attempting to implement a program directly approved by the Assistant Secretary of the AF could ever amount to FWA.
NED I Can bite at the first 2....
I had no issue mentoring cadets as an officer and have 2 TORCH Awards to prove it.
Point 2...Air Victory Compositr Squadron NERNJ079 was structured like that for a bit...
Now I have a meeting....bbl....
Most of your response is red herring or wishful thinking, so there's not much point in responding, again.
Quote from: Ned on May 19, 2016, 10:57:52 PMUmmm, cite please. Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned. I'll wait.
As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.
There's no enlisted corps to mentor on the senior side, and as to the cadets, that is more of the "Chief experience" nonsense
that stalls many progressions.
Assuming a fix is needed, you can't fix this in pieces. If it's worth the effort, just do it and stop playing games, or pretending it's
going to accomplish things which are impossible in the current state of CAP.
Almost the entity of CAP is based on a combination of "you're lucky I showed up at all" and "thank god you took the job" - there's
no time left for the few holding the corners for PD or for 5-year development plans, since a lot of the FNGs don't even stick around
that long anymore due to the current state of the program.
Show us a recruiting plan that actually gets CAP to a state of manning where an enlisted corps would even be functional.
Show us the list of unit staff jobs better, more completely accomplished by an NCO vs an officer, and then show us where all those
new people are coming from.
Etc., etc.
And "having NCOs" isn't the same as having an actual program that works in the way it's supposed to. It was, for the most part,
just a prolonging the inevitable march to FGO. CAP also had manning tables, until it could no longer sustain that idea because
of shrinking numbers and the inability to fill the jobs correctly.
Who is the better mentor? A level V Col or an NCO, because in a world where people cycle back to the squadron on a regular basis,
the need for NCOs as "mentors" vs. the L3's to V's sitting at squadrons is zero.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2016, 11:20:20 PM
Most of your response is red herring or wishful thinking, so there's not much point in responding, again.
Or that could mean you got nothing and you deflecting. But okay.
QuoteQuote from: Ned on May 19, 2016, 10:57:52 PMUmmm, cite please. Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned. I'll wait.
As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.
So.....you are basically saying...."You are right sir.....my example does not exist." and those few that are sort of like what I discribe are a 3-4 our of some 2000+ units.....so statistically null and void.
QuoteThere's no enlisted corps to mentor on the senior side,
There could be. But should we not build the NCOs that will mentor them before we build the airman?
Quoteand as to the cadets, that is more of the "Chief experience" nonsense that stalls many progressions.
No...it just means we have CP NCOs and CP Officers that work together to mentor our cadets as the progress up the ranks.
QuoteAssuming a fix is needed, you can't fix this in pieces. If it's worth the effort, just do it and stop playing games, or pretending it's
going to accomplish things which are impossible in the current state of CAP.
Yep....that's the answer. Burn it all down tomorrow and start over! Because........reasons? Why can't we do it in stages? I mean we don't make our cadets start studying for the Spaatz on their first meeting.
QuoteAlmost the entity of CAP is based on a combination of "you're lucky I showed up at all" and "thank god you took the job" - there's
no time left for the few holding the corners for PD or for 5-year development plans, since a lot of the FNGs don't even stick around
that long anymore due to the current state of the program.
And an NCO corps helps or hinders this status quo in what way? At the very worst it makes people have to look up regs that they don't normally look at. At the bottom line it is still those same people with those same issues.
QuoteShow us a recruiting plan that actually gets CAP to a state of manning where an enlisted corps would even be functional.
As opposed to the recruiting plan you officers have got that gets CAP to a state of manning where an enlisted corps would even be functional?
QuoteShow us the list of unit staff jobs better, more completely accomplished by an NCO vs an officer, and then show us where all those
new people are coming from.
Again......maybe if down the road.....we had NCO staffing the jobs currently held by officers.....and those officers would then be able to free up their time to do their real officer jobs of strategic leadership, planning and thinking. Your problem is that you thin that CAP is run the way the military is....and it is not. In the military NCOs do all the jobs that CAP officers are doing. So let's call them what they are instead of giving every high school graduate with some free time an officer. (sorry for the insult there.)
QuoteAnd "having NCOs" isn't the same as having an actual program that works in the way it's supposed to. It was, for the most part,
just a prolonging the inevitable march to FGO. CAP also had manning tables, until it could no longer sustain that idea because
of shrinking numbers and the inability to fill the jobs correctly.
What the hell are you talking about? Maybe....when the plan is fully implemented......maybe we wont have a dozen a dime field grade officers. Maybe we will have a super big pool of experienced MSgts who have been doing their job at the squadron level since forever. And then we got a pool of very capable individuals who bring the right skills to CAP apply themselves to the leadership/management track and hold positions of authority doing Officer stuff. Instead of the status quo of "master" rated Lt Cols who barely know where the Wing Headquarters are located let alone what a wing staff officer does on a daily basis.
QuoteWho is the better mentor? A level V Col or an NCO, because in a world where people cycle back to the squadron on a regular basis,
the need for NCOs as "mentors" vs. the L3's to V's sitting at squadrons is zero.
I know some Level V's who can't find the bathroom. And there is no reason why those NCO's are not getting their PD done. They have to in fact if they want to promote. So your argument is null and void.
But I think I found out what your problem is. You don't like the fact that NCOs and Officers with real military experience get to waltz in and "take over". I can understand that. It's kind of short sighted but I can understand where you are coming from.
All that text, and still no answer to the direct questions.
Ok, Lordmonar, I have an actual question.
Not trying to be facetious or snarky, honest question.
Ned and yourself speak of a pool of candidates or the untapped potential with the NCO idea and maybe future enlisted corps.
Who are these people and where are they?
I have bought into NIN's recruiting ideas, even attempted an open house/pipeline recruiting event, with very little success. I advertised hard, even getting on the major talk radio during the drive home. I sold all the great points of what I love about this program and has kept me here for 17 years now. Like I said very little success.
Have you all found a source of volunteers who only want to be enlisted? Where are these people who are going to show and help? Because honestly, I need their help now...
So, again, not trying to be snarky or a smart %#*. I just really want to understand.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 19, 2016, 05:27:38 PM
The simple answer is that, as of today, there are no significant differences between a CAP officer and a CAP NCO. They both participate in the same Professional Development program, can hold the same duty assignments, complete the same Emergency Services qualifications, and participate in the same activities, programs, and missions. That may change in the future, but it's the reality today. As such, you should wear the insignia you feel most comfortable wearing. It's no ones decision, but yours. Good luck!
Thanks Storm!!!
Some....but not all.....are former NCO's who drive by CAP take one look at the officers and keep on driving.
The all officer structure turns them off. Or they see the quality of some of those officers and are turned off.
I know this to be true in my AOR. But I accept that everywhere is not like my AOR so YMMV.
If you are looking for a source of volunteers......and you are near a base......contact their NCO Association (TOP Three, First Sergeants Council, Chief's council, CPO locker....what ever your local service calls it.) Ask to give the 5 minute CAP speech....and ask them to send anyone who needs some community service bullets, or some extra leadership opportunities.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 20, 2016, 01:39:36 AM
Ok, Lordmonar, I have an actual question.
Not trying to be facetious or snarky, honest question.
Ned and yourself speak of a pool of candidates or the untapped potential with the NCO idea and maybe future enlisted corps.
Who are these people and where are they?
I have bought into NIN's recruiting ideas, even attempted an open house/pipeline recruiting event, with very little success. I advertised hard, even getting on the major talk radio during the drive home. I sold all the great points of what I love about this program and has kept me here for 17 years now. Like I said very little success.
Have you all found a source of volunteers who only want to be enlisted? Where are these people who are going to show and help? Because honestly, I need their help now...
So, again, not trying to be snarky or a smart %#*. I just really want to understand.
Along the same lines of trying not to be a wisenheimer, I joined last month and already have three prior service leads that want to join as NCO's and also fly. Just like me, they never knew CAP was there for anyone to be a Senior Members, they thought, just like me, that Senior Members were actual USAF Officers and NCO's selected to run a JROTC type program. Maybe if we had a dynamic, nationwide recruiting push, we would be able to tap a viable resource for CAP.
QuoteAgain......maybe if down the road.....we had NCO staffing the jobs currently held by officers.....and those officers would then be able to free up their time to do their real officer jobs of strategic leadership, planning and thinking. Your problem is that you thin that CAP is run the way the military is....and it is not. In the military NCOs do all the jobs that CAP officers are doing. So let's call them what they are instead of giving every high school graduate with some free time an officer.
It may be mostly Pat's perception (so I dont wont it repeated as CAP Gospel from the NCO corps) But that is the answer to most of these questions. I do not disagree, too many officers that are officers because CAP has a "mostly" officer system. CAP is run enough like the military (at least on paper) that the theory of tactical leaders and strategic leaders is not that far fetched. Based on the above, I see an eventual shift from everyone is an officer to only those in the "strategic" positions need be an officer, everyone else is an airman/NCO. More senior members will join and become NCO's (ie no college degree or specialized skills) and some will move on or be recruited to become officers.
Maybe that I am off base here, but I think that is the white elephant in the room, the only way for an NCO system to really have the "effect" that everyone seems to think it will, is if CAP creates an actual caste system of airman/NCO's and officers. Its not a cart before the horse, just no one really knows what the horse is. Well I think its that on XYZ date CAP is going to say if you dont have these requirements you are an NCO if you have these ones here you are an officer. These are officers jobs and these are NCO jobs. FGO's mentor junior officers & SNCO's mentor airman and lower grade NCO's.
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 20, 2016, 02:41:29 AMbut I think that is the white elephant in the room, the only way for an NCO system to really have the "effect" that everyone seems to think it will, is if CAP creates an actual caste system of airman/NCO's and officers.
I agree completely, and have said so several times.
The problem comes in when you try to do this in a volunteer environment that has inconsistent training,
lack of command imperative, and nearly non-existent ability to enforce even the most basic regulations
without alienating the members.
How long do you think 50 year old NCOs with 12 years in will stick around to listen to 21 year old
Captains in a volunteer environment? It's one thing when you're getting paid to SUAC, a whole
different paradigm on people's free time when you're lucky they showed up at all.
Military experience and a degree don't carry nearly the weight they are given credit for
in a volunteer paradigm mentoring adolescents and herding adult cats. The look of
"why won't they listen?" is both priceless and demoralizing on the average Chief or
FGO who walks into CAP thinking they have things knocked. BTDT.
Yes, the military experience gets you past level-1 uniform issues, you can get up to speed
on the colorful jargon faster, and you get to walk around with all the preconceived notions
that will fit in your pockets. Beyond that, members are reminded regularly "that CAP isn't the military,
and BTW "please" is as important as "sir", because no one in this room needs to pay you any mind
unless your appointment put you in their chain, and even then "my day job, kids, and Netflix queue
(not necessarily in that order) will get my attention before you do."
The ROI of CAP is accepting people "as they are" and leveraging their existing skills, while
hopefully enhancing them. That idea is broken today because CAP is so short handed, and
has shrunk to a level that most unit CCs view everyone who walks in the door as the "savior of x".
Of course there's also the issue of mission and purpose, but as long as CAP able to dress in a similar
fashion to it's parent service, the rest will take care of itself, right?
Ok, fine, lets look at it differently. Who will the officers be? Commander? Deputy? "Department" Heads?
What's a typical unit be like?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
How long do you think 50 year old NCOs with 12 years in will stick around to listen to 21 year old
Captains in a volunteer environment?
Pft. We have that now with few NCOs.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 20, 2016, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
How long do you think 50 year old NCOs with 12 years in will stick around to listen to 21 year old
Captains in a volunteer environment?
Pft. We have that now with few NCOs.
Agreed, but there is no separation of duties, nor any caste system today. That's where the issues
will come in.
As it stands, anything not assigned falls onto the CC. Does that change, too?
SUI Q 116: "Is X duty assigned and completed as per Y regulation."
Response: "No - Reg 0U812 restricts that to TSgt or below. Unit currently has no NCOs of proper grade."
IG: "Well, who's going to do that?"
Unit CC (Capt w/ Degree in Botany): "No idea, but the regs are clear."
Presumably a degree won't be enough to become an officer...Otherwise CAP will look very similar to today.
Quote from: THRAWN on May 18, 2016, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 18, 2016, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
35-5 seems pretty clear on this when combined with 265-1. Meet the requirements for appointment as a chaplain and you're an officer....
Yah. I think there's another thing to consider. The CAP Chaplain Service is affiliated with their USAF counterparts in ways much closer than most fields in CAP, with CAP chaplains augmenting USAF chaplains. Fair enough, given the similarities in professional qualifications and identical endorsement requirements.
Having a CAP TSgt show up to perform chaplain duties at a USAF facility would be yet another un-needed CAP oddity that would give due and justified pause.
So, with all considered, I'll go out on a limb and say that, by regulation or otherwise, for now, we have at least two assignments that are not NCOable. And there is neither sadness nor glee in that, it's just the way it is.
I've seen two rationales presented so far:
- CAP NCO program as a way to recruit Active Duty NCOs
- CAP NCO to more credibly model what it means to be an NCO for cadets
I appreciate seeing these presented - as a volunteer I like to know the thought processes behind organizational policy changes. As a mid level manager, it's great to be able to answer hard questions from subordinates about organizational changes.
As stated in Learn to Lead, Volume 4, Chapter 13:
Quote4. Put mechanisms in place for communicating vital issues to frontline employees. People aren't going to pick up on what leaders want them to know by osmosis. You need to tell them clearly, succinctly, and often. That means putting in place a system, or a series of systems, to ensure that transparency gets translated into action.
and
Quote5. Prepare managers to answer tough questions. If managers tell staff the organization is instituting a hiring or salary freeze, they'll almost certainly hear questions like, "If money's so tight, how can the company afford the new database?" The manager needs to know ahead of time exactly how to answer, so he won't blurt out a we/they perpetuator like, "Sorry, that's the orders from the top."
The reaction we are seeing to the NCO program validates the principles on which we are instructing our cadets, which is pretty cool. Col Lee, you probably wrote (or at least help edit) some of this. Right now, I'm at the "Uh, that's just what NHQ has decided to do, and I support it" stage. I'd love to be able to provide a brief and credible paragraph on the utility of CAP NCOs.
A good start would be:
Civil Air Patrol leadership is implementing an NCO program in order to increase our outreach to Active Duty NCOs and to more effectively model NCO concepts to our cadets.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 20, 2016, 07:33:03 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on May 18, 2016, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 18, 2016, 08:19:44 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2016, 10:55:19 PM
As far as what you can do operationally, administratively or professionally....there is no difference.
The only limit is that you can not Command. You can Deputy Command....just not Command.
I think I found another limit. Unless NCOs can be chaplains.
Does anybody know?
35-5 seems pretty clear on this when combined with 265-1. Meet the requirements for appointment as a chaplain and you're an officer....
Yah. I think there's another thing to consider. The CAP Chaplain Service is affiliated with their USAF counterparts in ways much closer than most fields in CAP, with CAP chaplains augmenting USAF chaplains. Fair enough, given the similarities in professional qualifications and identical endorsement requirements.
Having a CAP TSgt show up to perform chaplain duties at a USAF facility would be yet another un-needed CAP oddity that would give due and justified pause.
So, with all considered, I'll go out on a limb and say that, by regulation or otherwise, for now, we have at least two assignments that are not NCOable. And there is neither sadness nor glee in that, it's just the way it is.
That's actually included in the regs. Chaplains must meet DoD requirements as well as CAP requirements. Either way, you're correct. It's an officer billet and it would be inappropriate for CAP to field enlisted Chaplains. Chaplain's assistants, or RPs or what ever they are called this week, is another matter.
Tim
We did that. Way back when the program was first announced.
You are right that CAP is bad at communications. We have had a lot of questions we (the NCO committee) just can't answer because the official changes to regs are jammed up in staffing or the reg moratorium.
I'd like to give definitive answers but until played by God and everyone we can't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One other thing that will need to be considered is the use of billeting and base facilities when activities are held on a military base. Generally, Officers and NCO's have separate billeting, messing, and club facilities which may or may not be located geographically near each other. This may cause some issues with the transportation and supervision of cadets and cadre after working hours. It may also cause some individual rancor like "How come 2d Lt Newguy is in a nice efficiency suite in the BOQ and SSgt Olddude is stuck in an open bay barracks that doesn't even have air conditioning?"
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 20, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
One other thing that will need to be considered is the use of billeting and base facilities when activities are held on a military base. Generally, Officers and NCO's have separate billeting, messing, and club facilities which may or may not be located geographically near each other. This may cause some issues with the transportation and supervision of cadets and cadre after working hours. It may also cause some individual rancor like "How come 2d Lt Newguy is in a nice efficiency suite in the BOQ and SSgt Olddude is stuck in an open bay barracks that doesn't even have air conditioning?"
While it's rare that NCOs have separate transient billeting anymore, if it does happen the answer is easy. SSgt Olddude chose to be an NCO.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 20, 2016, 02:42:26 PMIt may also cause some individual rancor like "How come 2d Lt Newguy is in a nice efficiency suite in the BOQ and SSgt Olddude is stuck in an open bay barracks that doesn't even have air conditioning?"
Answer: The AF didn't want you to miss out on the full NCO experience. ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on May 20, 2016, 01:23:26 PM
Tim
We did that. Way back when the program was first announced.
You are right that CAP is bad at communications. We have had a lot of questions we (the NCO committee) just can't answer because the official changes to regs are jammed up in staffing or the reg moratorium.
I'd like to give definitive answers but until played by God and everyone we can't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see the announcement from 2013 here (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?nco_corps_to_gain_prominence_under_new_cap_plan&show=news&newsID=17657), but I don't see the "why". Here's the closest the announcement came:
QuoteAlong with making the organization more appealing to past and present military NCOs, the restructured program is also designed to provide CAP commanders at all levels with greater access to the professional military skills, training and experience that the NCOs can readily provide. CAP members without military backgrounds are also expected to benefit from their NCO colleagues' expertise in military organization, leadership and management.
Nothing in this paragraph explains why we are doing this - it approaches some generalized expectations of benefit, but that's it. I'm not attacking the decision, I'm just reminding our organization of the content of our own teaching material. There's a mismatch between what we state as our doctrine and what we do.
Quote from: Starfleet Auxiliary on May 20, 2016, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 20, 2016, 02:42:26 PMIt may also cause some individual rancor like "How come 2d Lt Newguy is in a nice efficiency suite in the BOQ and SSgt Olddude is stuck in an open bay barracks that doesn't even have air conditioning?"
Answer: The AF didn't want you to miss out on the full NCO experience. ;D
Hell, it's happening here right now. Our Nat'l Guard brothers deployed here are split into either 4/6 to a room, with various health hazards for the Amn/NCOs in the forgotten dorms on a hill, and 2 to a room in the base hotel for the SNCOs/Officers.
But I'll still keep my stripes. Interacting with folks has generated some interest, without the "why are there 17 El-tees in this room" reaction I got when I introduced one of my troops to CAP. That reaction will vary based on the person, but (in my opinion) if people want to tout "US Air Force Auxiliary" then we need to at least mirror the AF and have both a strong officer and NCO corps.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on May 20, 2016, 03:13:10 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
How long do you think 50 year old NCOs with 12 years in will stick around to listen to 21 year old
Captains in a volunteer environment?
Pft. We have that now with few NCOs.
This is CAP. A members authority comes from their position, not their rank. No different than a 21yr old Captain who is a former Spaatz cadet who finds themselves as a SqCC by default leading a bunch of Majors and LTCs who have all done rotations as SqCC.
The NCO idea is nothing more than a recruiting tool. CAP cant seem to recruit based on what they do, so the only way it seems CAP can attract military NCOs is to dangle stripes in their face. its going to back fire, because those NCOs will be recruited, then get into CAP and discover their stripes, your oak leaves or that other persons bars really have no bearing on ANYTHING that happens in CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2016, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 19, 2016, 10:57:52 PMUmmm, cite please. Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned. I'll wait.
As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.
So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?
Got it.
Quote
Who is the better mentor? A level V Col or an NCO, because in a world where people cycle back to the squadron on a regular basis,
the need for NCOs as "mentors" vs. the L3's to V's sitting at squadrons is zero.
I guess it depends on who is being mentored, doesn't it?
For the 5% or so of CAP that are currently working on Level IV, I would agree that a Level V Colonel might make the better mentor. For the other 95% of us, it may well be the NCO. Especially for the 20,000 or so cadets we are responsible for developing.
So call the NCO concept the "95%" solution if you want.
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2016, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 19, 2016, 10:57:52 PMUmmm, cite please. Please name the squadron with the SMWOG in command that has one or more GOs assigned. I'll wait.
As of last check, there were at least two NCOs serving as unit CC's, and a couple of SMWOG. nothing prevents GOs, Cols, or
anyone else from joing those units and being directed by a member who has been in CAP long enough for his check to clear.
So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?
Got it.
Quote
Who is the better mentor? A level V Col or an NCO, because in a world where people cycle back to the squadron on a regular basis,
the need for NCOs as "mentors" vs. the L3's to V's sitting at squadrons is zero.
I guess it depends on who is being mentored, doesn't it?
For the 5% or so of CAP that are currently working on Level IV, I would agree that a Level V Colonel might make the better mentor. For the other 95% of us, it may well be the NCO. Especially for the 20,000 or so cadets we are responsible for developing.
So call the NCO concept the "95%" solution if you want.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Nice!!!
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
So, you got nothing besides a theoretical possibility that does not, and has never existed in the 75-year history of the organization?
Ned, why not just answer the question instead of getting pedantic about the argument? In the majority of discussions where you disagree
with the reality of CAP, you try and deflect the argument to the irrelevant, generally ignoring how CAP actually works in day-to-day practice,
and then thank everyone for their service.
I acknowledge there are not current GOs serving in units with SMWOG CCs, however there certianly could be in the current system, and further,
we both know there are full-birds all over CAP who are reporting to unit CC's of lesser grade, even more Lt Cols. This has existed forever in the 75 year history of CAP.
Now, with that irrelevant issue closed...how about an answer to the direct questions no one has answered in the 10+ year history of the
NCO discussion.
Also, the insinuation that NCOs, as a concept, would somehow be better mentors for 12 years olds then the existing members of CAP
who have somehow managed to blunder their way through the task, is an insult to all of them, and I reject it out of hand.
The average prior-service NCO has no more (or less) ability to mentor 12 years olds in a CAP context then the average normal member,
parent, or internally trained person, and IN FACT may suffer from preconceived notions about dealing with adolescents that are colored from their service.
Or if you feel I'm wrong, please CITE the CAP studies that indicate otherwise. Heck, cite anything relevent to the
context...
CAP has many CAP officers who are current or former NCOs, including myself. Are they/we somehow less effective because they/we are wearing bars and oak leaves instead of chevrons? I think not.
We also have many current and former commissioned officers serving in CAP. Are they any less able to mentor, or provide leadership, or put to use their skills than NCOs. Again, I think not.
We're making big assumptions with NCOs regarding their ability to better mentor and educate our members on uniforms, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, and physical fitness. As a former NCO and current officer, I know for a fact that not every NCO is suitable for that task, just as not every officer is suitable for command or management.
What about our non-prior service members? Are new NCOs better equipped to manage the Cadet Programs or CAP in general than members who have been been doing so for many years? Again, we're making big assumptions here.
I have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.
Another thing I have a big problem with is when I ask a Committee member to provide guidance on what my Group NCO's duties and responsibilities should be and the answer I get is "make something up". If I have to make something up to task or keep my Group NCO engaged, then I don't really need a Group NCO, do I? That is the textbook definition of putting the "cart before the horse" or working on "a solution in search of a problem".
^^^^ Bam...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 20, 2016, 04:56:33 PM
I have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.
I am in agreement. As a CIVILIAN organization with a military like system of authority, our grade structure is relevant in a vastly different context. I've seen no polls, surveys, studies, or educated opinions showing that an NCO corps would improve P1 or P2 cadet training, however I've seen a boat load of exit surveys showing we have a dearth of leaders able to handle the retention of our new members; both cadet and seniors.
If it can be shown a NCO corps can be the answer to increased member retention, leadership, and mission effectiveness, great. Wishful thinking will not make it so, continued comparison with "the military" will not make it happen, and pandering to current or former NCO's without the "full disclosure" of what we expect, and what CAP "culture" really is, will lead to failure.
As quite a few have already said, and better than I, this really is putting the cart before the horse. Bottom line, IMHO, be whatever you want to be. It won't make a difference; your paycheck will not depend on it, just your uniform...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 20, 2016, 04:56:33 PM
CAP has many CAP officers who are current or former NCOs, including myself. Are they/we somehow less effective because they/we are wearing bars and oak leaves instead of chevrons?
As odd as it may seem, the answer may well be "yes," depending on the context. Particularly in the area where you serve as a role model exhibiting leadership behaviors.
Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers. The two roles are both critical and complementary, but not the same. Former NCOs who are currently CAP officers lead like officers. Neither is more important or "better" than the other, but surely you would agree based on your experience they are different, don't you?
Obviously, we have a shortage of NCOs, and have had for at least the last 40 or so years I've been around. And officers can be effective in teaching these leaderships techniques. But they cannot be as effective in
modeling those techniques.
Bottom line, we have a successful CP despite a lack of NCOs. Just think how much better it could be if we had sufficient NCOs to train our cadets.
The great majority of our cadets are studying direct leadership techniques as cadet NCOs. The best model for NCO leadership styles are successful NCOs.
QuoteWe're making big assumptions with NCOs regarding their ability to better mentor and educate our members on uniforms, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, and physical fitness. As a former NCO and current officer, I know for a fact that not every NCO is suitable for that task, just as not every officer is suitable for command or management.
I can't really argue with that. To paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of the NCOs are going to be "below average." One of them is going to be the "worst NCO in CAP." But as you point out, that is exactly true of the officers as well. Thank goodness we have experienced commanders and CP officers to make appropriate assignments.
QuoteI have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.
Please don't put words in my mouth to make your point. My position is that CAP has had NCOs for over 70 years. They can be an invaluable addition to the CP when it comes to training and mentoring cadets. I could happily put 1200 or so to work tomorrow, and CP would be a better for it. The "new program" authorized by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force is essentially just a tweak to the appointments and PD for the NCOs CAP has had for decades. No more, no less.
To Col Lee's point, many cadets are often the "NCOs" of the unit, doing those tasks on behalf of the squadron that would normally be done by an enlisted person. But there is still that limit of cadet NCOs working with senior member officers. It's still not quite the same as having a senior member NCO.
The NCO, as he said, is critical and complimentary to the officer grade. Having a strong NCO corps would really help to avoid that burden of treating an officer in an NCO capacity. I don't that from a respect regard, but in his/her duty assignment.
What we do on the cadet side is train cadets to be NCOs, then progress them to be officers and take on a different role. It's similar to an ROTC training structure, without the time devotion.
I'm an advocate of an NCO corps, whether we promote it to our veterans/current military personnel or assign new civilians to be NCOs on joining. I think a lot of senior members don't really understand the role of NCOs in the military, and therefore it's very difficult to expand that role.
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 05:55:34 PM
Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers. The two roles are both critical and complementary, but not the same. Former NCOs who are currently CAP officers lead like officers. Neither is more important or "better" than the other, but surely you would agree based on your experience they are different, don't you?
Within the military, yes. Within CAP, I'm not so sure.
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 05:55:34 PM
Obviously, we have a shortage of NCOs, and have had for at least the last 40 or so years I've been around. And officers can be effective in teaching these leaderships techniques. But they cannot be as effective in modeling those techniques.
I've been both an NCO and a commissioned officer and I have to respectfully disagree. That said, if we feel that CAP is in desperate need of an NCO corps to function, then why not open the NCO track to non-prior service members now? Why not define the role, duties, and responsibilities of NCOs now? Why not limit our current NCOs to those roles, duties, and responsibilities, and stop the whole "NCOs can do everything an officer can do, except for command"?
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 05:55:34 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth to make your point.
With all due respect, my post was not directed at you. Why would you make that assumption?
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 05:55:34 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 20, 2016, 04:56:33 PM
CAP has many CAP officers who are current or former NCOs, including myself. Are they/we somehow less effective because they/we are wearing bars and oak leaves instead of chevrons?
As odd as it may seem, the answer may well be "yes," depending on the context. Particularly in the area where you serve as a role model exhibiting leadership behaviors.
Because NCOs act and lead like NCOs, and officers act and lead like officers. The two roles are both critical and complementary, but not the same. Former NCOs who are currently CAP officers lead like officers. Neither is more important or "better" than the other, but surely you would agree based on your experience they are different, don't you?
Obviously, we have a shortage of NCOs, and have had for at least the last 40 or so years I've been around. And officers can be effective in teaching these leaderships techniques. But they cannot be as effective in modeling those techniques.
Bottom line, we have a successful CP despite a lack of NCOs. Just think how much better it could be if we had sufficient NCOs to train our cadets.
The great majority of our cadets are studying direct leadership techniques as cadet NCOs. The best model for NCO leadership styles are successful NCOs.
QuoteWe're making big assumptions with NCOs regarding their ability to better mentor and educate our members on uniforms, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, and physical fitness. As a former NCO and current officer, I know for a fact that not every NCO is suitable for that task, just as not every officer is suitable for command or management.
I can't really argue with that. To paraphrase Garrison Keillor, about half of the NCOs are going to be "below average." One of them is going to be the "worst NCO in CAP." But as you point out, that is exactly true of the officers as well. Thank goodness we have experienced commanders and CP officers to make appropriate assignments.
QuoteI have no problems with having NCOs in CAP. I also have no problems with allowing them to promote. And I'm not opposed to NCO-specific duty assignments or training. But I do have a problem with the idea that we need to have NCOs to make CAP better even though we don't really know what they're going to do that they couldn't do before as lieutenants and captains.
Please don't put words in my mouth to make your point. My position is that CAP has had NCOs for over 70 years. They can be an invaluable addition to the CP when it comes to training and mentoring cadets. I could happily put 1200 or so to work tomorrow, and CP would be a better for it. The "new program" authorized by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force is essentially just a tweak to the appointments and PD for the NCOs CAP has had for decades. No more, no less.
I was an NCO in the Marines and the Army. So when I was a CAP 1Lt. leading a Sq. as the commander of a unit that was full of Majors and LTC's... many of which were prior service officers, was I leading as an officer or an NCO? And all the Majors and LTC's.... what were they leading like?
I love this notion that because you join and select a particular symbol, that its going to have absolutely anything to do with how you "lead" or that because you have a patch on your sleeve that looks like USAF stripes, that you are somehow more effective in modeling techniques. Hearing all this talk about how amazing the NCO program will be, I vote we just dump the officer ranks all together. Who would have thought a patch would change how volunteers lead. In the end, you will ABSOLUTELY NOT be a non-commissioned officer. You will be a CAP volunteer who thought the stripes looked better on your uniform than the bars. This entire notion that the symbol you choose to wear has anything to do with your ability to mentor cadets is ridiculous.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 20, 2016, 06:29:07 PMWho would have thought a patch would change how volunteers lead. In the end, you will ABSOLUTELY NOT be a non-commissioned officer. You will be a CAP volunteer who thought the stripes looked better on your uniform than the bars. This entire notion that the symbol you choose to wear has anything to do with your ability to mentor cadets is ridiculous.
Bam
2
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 20, 2016, 06:29:07 PM
I was an NCO in the Marines and the Army. So when I was a CAP 1Lt. leading a Sq. as the commander of a unit that was full of Majors and LTC's... many of which were prior service officers, was I leading as an officer or an NCO?
I've had the opportunity to watch you in action, and from my perspective you lead appropriately as an officer. And a good one.
I never had an chance in watch while you were serving as an NCO in the Army or Marines, but I have certainly had a chance to see a couple hundred of them working with their troops during my military career. And they acted like terrific NCO leaders.
It sounds like we simply disagree on this, but given that militaries have without exception used both NCOs and officers for literally a couple of thousand years at this point, suggests that there is indeed a difference in leadership styles and behaviors. Regardless of the symbols worn on the collar or sleeve.
QuoteThis entire notion that the symbol you choose to wear has anything to do with your ability to mentor cadets is ridiculous.
Look, it's not me you need to convince. At this point it is the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.
Aside to Storm Chaser: You're right, I did think that was directed at me. Looking back, I'm not sure why. My bad.
What "militarys" have or have not done is irrelevant to CAP, since CAP doesn't follow the military
model for authority or even training in anything but name, and if it did in the distant past, it certainly
hasn't for the last relevent decade or two.
The question isn't what CAP has or hasn't done in the past, but what those proposing this idea
>want< to do in the future. Lots of blinky lights about the awesomeness of stripes, not much detail on the "why or how".
Repeating the assertion that this was somehow the idea of the SECAF also insinuates he / they
had a complete plan, or at least enough of a framework to have a non-negative enough opinion
to sign it. The reality is, at least publicly, that the idea of custom insignia, and the allowance for
prior service NCOs to promote internally was all that was presented at the time, with some squishy language
about exploring non-prior service NCOs in the future.
That's.
Done.
And does not need to be repeated over and over as if that answers any of the questions being asked here and now.
Stipulated - CAP has always had NCOs in ranks.
Fact no in dispute, CAP hasn't had a working NCO model in...ever. One might forget that up until
a few years ago, being a "CAP NCO" meant your ID card said "SM", and there was no way to enter the
grade in eServices. SO much for "always having NCOs".
The simple fact remains, some members keep making the assertion that NCOs will be the savior of CAP, Maj Gen Carr
made statements to that effect in the original announcement.
Others ask..."Oh really?...How, exactly?"
The answers presented are irrelevant military history lessons, wishful thinking about recruiting from a pool
that isn't even existent in most of the country and..."reasons".
I don't think that eServices not tracking things properly is a ringing endorsement of your argument...
I don't believe it's a matter of what you wear. It's a matter of your professional development. The training for an NCO versus an officer is completely different because of the functions of those roles.
I spend way too much time listening to commanders teaching you how to become a commander. Everyone that's running these training courses at conferences is a commander/former commander/deputy commander telling you how to progress as an officer and become a commander at some point. That's the impression I get.
But I look at everything from a Cadet Programs standpoint, which is my role. Plain and simple. It's a cycling training program. Nothing less. It's training people to either take a staff role, an NCO role, or an officer role within the CP. A lot of work as far as manpower, but very easy when it comes to structuring. I have NCOs under my; albeit cadets, but NCOs they are. And they perform NCO roles.
One of the challenging things I see in the senior program is that each individual squadron is set up like an Air Force wing. Many units try to fill every role because there is "something for everyone," and now they have a very wide-span operation which can be fairly difficult to control. Officers are very much usable as supporting assistants if their commanders knew how to utilize them. But there isn't that pool of quality NCOs to progress as NCOs and be the heavy lifters in the execution of tasks. It's somewhat a "You're the radio guy, do everything" Comms Officer. I'm sure it varies unit to unit; that's just my observation at a few of the local squadrons. I'm sure there are some squadrons that just nail it.
Maybe it works the way it is, but it's not just about mission success as effective mission success. Can it be done better?
One of the things we talked about over the weekend was "CAP is the best-kept secret in the civilian world." That's unacceptable. The manpower and dedication is out there. Improve internally and promote externally.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2016, 07:47:38 PM
What "militarys" have or have not done is irrelevant to CAP, since CAP doesn't follow the military
model for authority or even training in anything but name, and if it did in the distant past, it certainly
hasn't for the last relevent decade or two.
As always, it is interesting how two people can look at the same thing and see it so differently.
The notion that CAP doesn't follow your personal concept of the "military model for authority" is
irrelevant. (Just mirroring your stylistic choices.)
(Actually CAP
does pretty much follow the military model of leadership and authority, which is not surprising since we use essentially the same training materials for our leadership classes that Uncle Sam uses, but we can save that debate for the next "CAP is NOT the military thread.)
The lack of a CAP equivalent of a UCMJ simply has nothing to do with the concepts of leadership, leadership styles, mentorship skill sets, etc.. Which is what we have talking about in this thread.
Really. After all, we employ a military model for authority in the senior program, right? (Chain of command, discipline for things like insubordination and failure to follow regulations., etc.) Sure sounds like a military model of authority to me. And that's just the senior program. Our cadets actually take an oath to "obey my officers."
QuoteThe question isn't what CAP has or hasn't done in the past, but what those proposing this idea
>want< to do in the future. Lots of blinky lights about the awesomeness of stripes, not much detail on the "why or how".
This may be getting to the heart of what you indicate is the "problem." Obviously you agree that CAP has had NCOs since before your or I were members. And that's a long time.
Your concern appears to aimed squarely at the intangible: the proponents' (secret, unstated) "future plans" about blinking lights.
There are, of course, several problems with this particular strawman.
First, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "they" want anything more than to continue to improve an existing aspect of CAP. Restated, we have NCOs, and apparently this whole hullabaloo is about how they should be promoted and educated. That's all the "program" that so frightens you is about. I don't remember the NCOs being overly concerned that last time we improved the officer PD program.
Second, nobody needs to outline the "why and how" of the NCO corps anymore than you had to do for your last promotion to Lt Col. Seriously. Both officers and NCOs have been here a long time. This is genuinely nothing new. OTOH, if you were proposing to
eliminate the NCO ranks, the burden would be on you to explain how that would benefit CAP.
Third, the whole notion that "proponents" have some sort of secret agenda that they "want" in the future seems just a little like Black Helicopter stuff. As you know, the proponents were (and are) the most senior leaders of the organization. Volunteers like you and me.
Finally, those who are dismissive of history lessons - military or civilian - seem doomed to repeat errors rather than learn and restructure the organization for success.
[
Col Lee,
As a current active duty NCO and also a CAP officer, I have asked the same questions and there hasn't been anything to substantiate a critical need for a NCO program. Yes we have always had NCOs, yes there was some major limitations on them and some of that has been fixed to a degree.
The issue most of the membership and posters have that is yet to be answered with anything of substance is what are they suppose to do? What are their duties/responsibilities? What positions are they to fill?
There is an NCO committee supposedly working on this but the only thing that comes of it is they are planning and working.
This was something conceived by a previous Nat CC and pushed out before he left and supposedly is a pet project of an AF Undersecretary.
This is something that is being pushed on us and there is no real meat to it other than it will make CAP better, but nothing indicating how it will make CAP better. The NCO committee wants to try this but yet there is nothing out there other than a manning table, how to promote and that they can promote.
In fact here in CAWG we use to have a SMSgt and then he traded those stripes for bars (don't know if that was his choice or what), that example does do this initiative any good.
I've asked before and I'll ask again. How is having NCOs going to make CAP "better" to warrant trying this concept and use it as a recruiting tool to tap into resources that are already there? What are they going to be expected to do as far as duties, responsibilities, etc?
How is having a CAP NCO going to be better at mentoring, leading, etc that I as an AD NCO also a CAP officer can not do? The way it seems to me is those in the same category as I am in are perceived as inept to do those very things and those very things are a good chunk of what I have been doing for the last 4 years in 3 squadrons, 3 wings and now currently at a group.
We the membership need something more than "make CAP better", "we are planning", "let us try" to buy into this and sell it.
I think once the questions that have been asked and there is an answer with more substance to it, you may see more people willing to support this because they want to rather than because they have to.
I am in no way bashing the committee for something that they seem to be really enthused about but for the rest of us come on give us something more than fluff to bite into.
I have to agree with some of my counterparts here in that this is a solution looking for a problem.
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 10:26:13 PM
The notion that CAP doesn't follow your personal concept of the "military model for authority"...
It is not "my" model, it is
the model.
Please cite the regulations conferring >any< authority to anyone in CAP based on their grade alone. That is the primary failure
of the grade model in CAP when compared to a "military model". The second issue is the lack of "up and / or out" which results in
Lt Cols with 50 year badges reporting to 2nd Lts with less then a year.
We haven't had "NCOs" in CAP in recent memory in any way meaningful to this argument - a prior service NCO wearing his stripes
on a CAP uniform is no more a "
CAP NCO" then "somebody with a high school diploma" is a CAP officer, to paraphrase the NCO program's
most vocal proponent's incredibly condescending dismissal of the service of thousands of
volunteers who are currently keeping
the doors open while they await the "Saviors with Stripes" to come over the hill and fix CAP.
Quote from: Ned on May 20, 2016, 10:26:13 PM
First, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that "they" want anything more than to continue to improve an existing aspect of CAP. Restated, we have NCOs, and apparently this whole hullabaloo is about how they should be promoted and educated. That's all the "program" that so frightens you is about. I don't remember the NCOs being overly concerned that last time we improved the officer PD program.
Second, nobody needs to outline the "why and how" of the NCO corps anymore than you had to do for your last promotion to Lt Col. Seriously. Both officers and NCOs have been here a long time. This is genuinely nothing new. OTOH, if you were proposing to eliminate the NCO ranks, the burden would be on you to explain how that would benefit CAP.
Third, the whole notion that "proponents" have some sort of secret agenda that they "want" in the future seems just a little like Black Helicopter stuff. As you know, the proponents were (and are) the most senior leaders of the organization. Volunteers like you and me.
Let's be clear - I'm not "frightened" by this, I am concerned. Big difference. Concerned that a group of well-intentioned members with an agenda that is more about nostalgia
then a workable idea convinced a former national commander to press an idea that wasn't well thought out, and that taken to it's logical conclusion will
cause significant harm to an organization already suffering from issues of mission , purpose, and retention.
Concerned that leaders are so focused on not admitting they took a wrong path that they are willing to call out the very people still keeping the lights
on as less effective then phantom members down the road who will be recruited from a non-existent pool of people who are apparently
all that CAP needs to regain it's former glory, yet can't see past the insignia on their sleeves long enough to sign an application.
Concerned that our leadership believe implementing a caste system of "doers" vs. " managers" is remotely workable in a volunteer organization
where the most basic rules like dress and behavior are all but unenforceable.
As to the black helicopters, no, but clearly there is a full plan sitting on a desk somewhere waiting for approval, and when people ask
what that entails, we get evasive, deflective answers instead of straight talk.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2016, 10:43:36 PM
Duty positions are written and waiting for the OPR to publish.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2016, 08:41:18 PM...and it does not matter that we have had a lot of the things they point out ready to go for nearly a year now.....CAP is slow. It has always been slow...it probably will always be slow.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 20, 2016, 01:23:26 PMWe have had a lot of questions we (the NCO committee) just can't answer because the official changes to regs are jammed up in staffing or the reg moratorium.
I'd like to give definitive answers but until played by God and everyone we can't.
Please cite your significant harm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2016, 11:09:24 PM
Please cite the regulations conferring >any< authority to anyone in CAP based on their grade alone. That is the primary failure
of the grade model in CAP when compared to a "military model". The second issue is the lack of "up and / or out" which results in
Lt Cols with 50 year badges reporting to 2nd Lts with less then a year.
I guess that is pretty much the point. 99% of what your are calling the "military model" is exactly the same in CAP as it is in the armed forces. Authority is overwhelmingly based on position rather than grade. In the Army, just like CAP, commanders hold and exercise disciplinary authority based on their position, not their rank. Restated, when I was a unit commander, people had to do what I directed because I was in command, not because I was a officer of a particular grade.
A 2LT walking down the street on base has no authority whatsoever to punish some random private that is misbehaving. Just like CAP, the 2LT has to notify the private's chain of command who are the only persons who can actually discipline the private.
And as we have discussed before, it is not all that unusual in the armed forces to have someone senior in grade assigned to someone junior in rank or grade. Aircraft commanders are not always the most senior officer in the aircraft. I was a captain commanding a unit with at least three officers senior to me.
CAP is far more alike than different from the armed forces in the "military model of authority."
Quote
Let's be clear - I'm [. . . ]concerned that a group of well-intentioned members with an agenda that is more about nostalgia
then a workable idea convinced a former national commander to press an idea that wasn't well thought out, and that taken to it's logical conclusion will cause significant harm to an organization already suffering from issues of mission , purpose, and retention.
OK, let's be clear. So you are far less concerned with what the doctrine
actually says than what you are assuming is the (vaguely evil and largely unknown)
agenda of the leaders who wrote it?
Seriously? That will make for a tough debate, all right.
What is
written is a plan for some of our members to get promoted and provides for their education / professional development. Nothing more; nothing less.
I honestly don't know how you can have a rational discussion about the unknown subjective intent of a "former national commander," let alone where the "logical conclusion" of that unknown subjective intent takes us. Hence my comment about the Black Helicopter stuff.
But I suppose that has never stopped us before on CT. . . .
Eclipse.....has taken a bureaucracy snafu and turned it into a full blown conspiracy.
Those plans sitting on the desk....are the recruit plan. The matrix that gives credit for CAP time to "advanced" appointment of former NCOs.
The duty descriptions are stuck in the Reg Moratorium.
We are currently gathering baselines and standards to start building the Professional Development Course ware.
So....that's the "plan". That's the "program".
As for the rest of your screed......The Officer/NCO is not a caste system. A caste system implies that you are born into it and cannot change. Most definitely not a caste system.
So....don't use that term sir. It is wrong.
The Officer/NCO system is a division of labor. Airman are the doers, NCOs are the front line supervisors, Officers are managers. We have a in the real military "gate keeper" requirements to move from one corps to another....but it is not a caste.
This help illustrates your lack of understand of most things military. While I understand you come by that naturally.
I still don't understand the angst?
What is the worst that can happen? What is this grave danger that we are going to run into?
Can we at least get a hint at what the division of labor will be between NCOs and Officers? As you stated NCOs are the front line supervisors but if there is no rank under them then who exactly are they supervising? What tasks are going to be taken away from Officers?
For me the angst is simply the fact that I see this as more of a waste of time and resources than a benefit to CAP. I keep hearing that it is a recruiting tool but I can't foresee the tons of NCOs beating down our door to join now that CAP has NCO promotions, especially when they are pretty limited in the SNCO grades.
I really would like to see this succeed but at it is currently presented to the membership, it just seems half-baked and has been stated often here, a solution in search of a problem.
The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.
I've seen the laundry list of responsibilities regarding uniform, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, etc., which is what Cadet Programs Officers do. In fact, these are part of the duties and responsibilities of the Leadership Education Officer and Deputy Commander for Cadets. If what we're saying is that NCOs will work primarily in the Cadet Programs filling these roles, then fine. But what I keep hearing is that NCOs can do any job that officers do except for being commanders. Which one is it? Because in the military, NCOs and commissioned officers have distinct duties and responsibilities; they don't just do the same jobs.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 12:58:53 AM
This help illustrates your lack of understand of most things military. While I understand you come by that naturally.
And this helps illustrate the real timbre of the NCO corps, which I understand
you come by naturally.
And neither is relevent in this discussion, yet you and Ned keep bring it up, because deflection is easier then just answering the simple
questions everyone is asking.
Not answering is answering.
However this...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2016, 02:20:45 AM
The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.
...is actually the real answer, typical of CAP - run into a burning room and then realize you don't have a hose - and all we really need to know.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2016, 02:20:45 AM
The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.
I've seen the laundry list of responsibilities regarding uniform, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, etc., which is what Cadet Programs Officers do. In fact, these are part of the duties and responsibilities of the Leadership Education Officer and Deputy Commander for Cadets. If what we're saying is that NCOs will work primarily in the Cadet Programs filling these roles, then fine. But what I keep hearing is that NCOs can do any job that officers do except for being commanders. Which one is it? Because in the military, NCOs and commissioned officers have distinct duties and responsibilities; they don't just do the same jobs.
That was me
And yes as I have stated we have not defined all the roles yet.
It's no secret that we haven't.
You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.
And you poo poo them. But hey thanks for soo porting the program.
You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.
Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers. Because of baby steps.
But again thanks for supporting the program.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2016, 02:20:45 AM
The draft I saw last year regarding NCO duties and responsibilities at each echelon was so vague and high level that it was practically useless. And considering that a prominent member of this NCO Committee recently told me to "make something up" when I asked what the duties and responsibilities of my Group NCO should be (yes, I have one appointed), I'm convinced that they haven't truly defined these roles yet.
I've seen the laundry list of responsibilities regarding uniform, customs and courtesies, drill and ceremonies, etc., which is what Cadet Programs Officers do. In fact, these are part of the duties and responsibilities of the Leadership Education Officer and Deputy Commander for Cadets. If what we're saying is that NCOs will work primarily in the Cadet Programs filling these roles, then fine. But what I keep hearing is that NCOs can do any job that officers do except for being commanders. Which one is it? Because in the military, NCOs and commissioned officers have distinct duties and responsibilities; they don't just do the same jobs.
That was me
And yes as I have stated we have not defined all the roles yet.
It's no secret that we haven't.
You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.
And you poo poo them. But hey thanks for soo porting the program.
You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.
Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers. Because of baby steps.
But again thanks for supporting the program.
Can't embrace and support something that really isn't there outside of how to appoint and promote. Maybe just maybe if there was more substance to this as I have stated before, there may be more willingness to support this.
Honestly until there is something more provided and spelled out I wouldn't expect any type of enthusiastic support.
I'm not looking for enthusiastic support. It's the negative this will kill CAP, cause global warming and bring back the Soviet Union angst that I don't understand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:40:14 AM
I'm not looking for enthusiastic support. It's the negative this will kill CAP, cause global warming and bring back the Soviet Union angst that I don't understand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's a stretch. But honestly the angst is there because the questions presented have not been answered outside of smoke screen answers.
This program won't survive if the support is there and the lack of information will it's own downfall. This is change but change that has been poorly implemented. Can you honestly expect us to support this with the lack of information outside of hey we can appoint and they can promote and this will make CAP better?
This is akin to the wonderful new EPR system we have in the AF and changes for E7, it's suppose to make things better but it's done nothing but generate headaches.
I think if the committee provided the information that is being requested the angst you see will disappear.
I agree this is poor change management.
Always have.
But again. Even if I exaggerate some of the angst (but eclipse sees grave issues in the future) even with the lack of info there is nothing about the program that can hurt CAP. And if there is something that I can't see we can always just kill turn it off at my time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: grunt82abn on May 13, 2016, 10:37:02 PM
Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!! :)
No need to decide between "officer" or "NCO." Senior members can eschew grade completely and avoid all manner of drama, while still contributing to CAP in meaningful ways. There are very few roles that require CAP grade.
^Pretty much, true. There is no obligation to promote; staying a SMWOG is acceptable. I wonder how many Wilson awardees are still "E1s"... :)
So, it's now been about 2 years since this party started. Other than new grade insignia, we see nothing about the program which is truly tangible. Will we expect to see the program at the annual conference? Is there going to be an end to this discussion? Pat says it quite well; "poor change management". This is not going to cut it. It is an excuse for poor performance by a leadership which seems to be overwhelmed with day to day baloney. We got ABUs sooner than this.... >:D
Duplicate post
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.
I'm not the one proposing or advocating for the NCO program. You are. It's not my job to come up with the duties and responsibilities of a position I didn't create, but one which came from your Committee. I'm doing my job. Do I need to do yours too?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
And you poo poo them. But hey thanks for soo porting the program.
I used to support the program... when I thought there was a program to support. Your posts and the lack of guidance from above have proven otherwise.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.
I asked a serious and legitimate question. I did so privately (through PM), so I could get an honest answer without generating additional debate. I wanted/needed guidance from a subject matter expert, and all I got was rudeness and borderline disrespect on your reply. Is that how a senior NCO is supposed to address a field grade officer?
You still haven't answer some basic questions. Maybe you should focus on doing that.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers. Because of baby steps.
That's not taking baby steps. That's putting the cart before the horses. Repeating yourself continuously doesn't make it so. You want to shut up Eclipse and the rest of us, stop trying to sell the program and address the concerns.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on May 21, 2016, 09:42:26 AM
Quote from: grunt82abn on May 13, 2016, 10:37:02 PM
Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!! :)
No need to decide between "officer" or "NCO." Senior members can eschew grade completely and avoid all manner of drama, while still contributing to CAP in meaningful ways. There are very few roles that require CAP grade.
This is something I have been saying for a couple.of decades. Put rank on those that are in positions of authority. Everybody else is "member"...
Quote from: THRAWN on May 21, 2016, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on May 21, 2016, 09:42:26 AM
Quote from: grunt82abn on May 13, 2016, 10:37:02 PM
Ok I thought I made up my mind about just going the officer route, but now here I sit after this weeks meeting, realizing I hate being called sir!!! Making rank isn't that big of a deal, I just want to make sure I can still fly, and have all the same opportunities that I would as an officer. I would start out as a TSGT, but eventually would like to make MSGT. If any one has any insight on how the new NCO program is going to pan out I would love to hear it. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!! :)
No need to decide between "officer" or "NCO." Senior members can eschew grade completely and avoid all manner of drama, while still contributing to CAP in meaningful ways. There are very few roles that require CAP grade.
This is something I have been saying for a couple.of decades. Put rank on those that are in positions of authority. Everybody else is "member"...
There are orgs that exist with that structure if you really want it.
Indeed there are. They call them best practices for a reason. Thay way there are no issues about things like this thay have a direct impact on less than one percent of the membership. Wasnt there a bathroom issue like this recently? Lets focus on more important issues like complaining about ABUs that we collectively complained about not getting....
The "issues" as you call them seem to mostly exist within the realms of captalk.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2016, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
You asked for some specifics because you could not figure it out.
I'm not the one proposing or advocating for the NCO program. You are. It's not my job to come up with the duties and responsibilities of a position I didn't create, but one which came from your Committee. I'm doing my job. Do I need to do yours too?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
And you poo poo them. But hey thanks for soo porting the program.
I used to support the program... when I thought there was a program to support. Your posts and the lack of guidance from above have proven otherwise.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
You are applying selective hearing. Which is very disturbing in a group CC.
I asked a serious and legitimate question. I did so privately (through PM), so I could get an honest answer without generating additional debate. I wanted/needed guidance from a subject matter expert, and all I got was rudeness and borderline disrespect on your reply. Is that how a senior NCO is supposed to address a field grade officer?
You still haven't answer some basic questions. Maybe you should focus on doing that.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 21, 2016, 05:20:11 AM
Today there is no difference between NCOs and Officers. Because of baby steps.
That's not taking baby steps. That's putting the cart before the horses. Repeating yourself continuously doesn't make it so. You want to shut up Eclipse and the rest of us, stop trying to sell the program and address the concerns.
:clap: :clap: :clap: HAAAA!! Well you arent a "real" field grade officer..... but the NCOs will be real >:D
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 20, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
One other thing that will need to be considered is the use of billeting and base facilities when activities are held on a military base. Generally, Officers and NCO's have separate billeting, messing, and club facilities which may or may not be located geographically near each other. This may cause some issues with the transportation and supervision of cadets and cadre after working hours. It may also cause some individual rancor like "How come 2d Lt Newguy is in a nice efficiency suite in the BOQ and SSgt Olddude is stuck in an open bay barracks that doesn't even have air conditioning?"
Ever go to a place and hear a song that reminds you of being in a different place many years earlier? This is one of those.
Add it to this quote from....sorry, apologies to the author, I clipped it and forgot where I got it...Eclipse, maybe?
<<Stipulated - CAP has always had NCOs in ranks.
>>
That "always had NCOs" is a bit revisionist. CAP had them at the beginning. CAP has them now. At both ends, there were differences and it is evolving yet again. But, the actual history does not support the "always had."
Originally, CAP NCOs came from two sources - people with military experience and people without military experience. Currently, there is only one source - people with not only military experience, but NCO experience. That seems to be morphing into a three source system - no military experience, prior military experience (perhaps not at NCO level) and CAP officers looking for something different.
What keeps getting left out of the story is the fact that, for a significant period of its history, CAP had NO NCOs, thereby negating any claim to "always had NCOs." (I'm not sure of the dates or length of time - somebody here will undoubtedly know, but it was in the 1970's-1980's era).
We this went from some to none, then back to some, and are now looking at some +.
This is far from a matter of trivia and minutiae. There is actually a lost lesson in all this. It's in these questions:
"Why did we get rid of them?" and "Why did we bring them back?"
We got rid of them mostly for two reasons. First was exactly as stated in the quote from Al Sayre. The close working relationships of CAP volunteers, for whom rank was a small factor, did not mesh with the traditions, protocols and norms of the armed forces, for whom rank was a BIG factor. The military reactions to CAP LtCols dropping by the NCO club and dampening things or CAP TSgt trying to go into the O club with the captains brought about accusations of boorishness on the part of CAP. Then came the 21 year old CAP 2nd Lt bragging about his VOQ quarters to the CAP SSg who was sharing space in a barracks with 6 other guys. They both did the same job, paid the same dues, so...?
The second reason why it came about is related to my last example. Nobody could really find anybody in the average CAP local unit who was doing much on a different level than anybody else - and at higher levels, with our lack of "up or out," almost anybody could end up, willingly and cheerfully, working for anybody else. While it was weird to see a LtCol working for a 1st Lt, it was even weirder to see a LtCol working for a SSg.
So...we dumped NCOs. Some people transitioned in to officer grades. A few NCOs became SMWOG. And a few simply quit - they would not become things they were not, be that officer or SM.
After literally years (10 or better? Anybody know?) of EFFECTIVE operation where lack of NCOs was not missed, former military NCOs lobbied for the ability to retain their earned grade. They even stipulated that duties would not change. It was sold, and bought, as an honorific recognition, not as a program, and was limited - ex-military NCO only, same grade, no promotions unless promoted in the military.
Jump ahead to recently. Personally, I used to think that the new program was a solution in search of a problem, based on everything I wrote above. I saw it being driven by a National Commander who himself had a NCO mindset but who had not thought it all the way through. I also thought that there were a lot of horses hooked up to the wrong end of their carts. (But do keep reading, please).
In my opinion, it would have made more sense to really analyze the need for this, as opposed to what seemed like a vague reliance on "NCOs, gotta have 'em, backbone of the Air Force, doncha know, and, leadership, because professionalism." Then, if analysis bore out the need, design a program, phase it in - not phase it in, then design it. (I keep thinking of something like "Just jump out of the plane. O'Malley will meet you at the DZ and issue you your parachute").
But, "personally" and "in my opinion" don't create policy at my level. So, here we are. I started wondering why they even kept at it once the proponent was replaced. Because they'd already sold it to SECAF? Because a small and faceless cartel of CAP NCOs had some incriminating "holiday snaps" and were determined to see it through? I truly doubt that, or most other theories.
Instead, here's what I really think is happening, whether by design or by evolution. This is simply part of a pathway to putting the USAF Auxiliary on a better footing as an Air Force asset rather than as an Air Force appendage. It's a move to help CAP get away from the GOB flying club stereotype - while still being able to welcome the GOB flying club people.
In other words - I think that by creating an NCO corps of professional NCOs, regardless of recruiting source, CAP will be creating paths to creating a more professional officer corps. Each follows the other, in a circular way. This isn't directed at demoting existing officers, as much as it is at putting future CAP members where their talents and abilities are the best fit.
I think that it all adds up to a future time when rank in CAP will actually be meaningful. Not just to USAF, not just to CAP, but to us, individually. It won't be painful, but it will be hard.
In my crystal ball, I see a toughening of requirements for appointment as a CAP officer. Some college requirement, perhaps starting with 60 units/AA, working up to bachelors down the road for field grade. I see attendance at an actual officer school, maybe akin to what USAF JAGS and captains attend, or at least what our counterparts in Canada and UK attend. I think I even see an end to 24 year old majors - Spaatz getting somebody maybe 6 months off TIG or a limited waiver of some requirements for a PD rating. And, I see people wearing stripes, proud to wear them, because they took a path leading to them, worked for them and they are genuinely valued for their efforts in their specialities by the officers who took a different path to different responsibilities.
So - I will always adamantly insist that history not be revisionist and include references to a time when we had no NCOs. But I will fully support any efforts to professionalize and validate the rank structure in the volunteer component of the USAF Total Force.
^bam.
I have always been skeptical of this idea and nothing in yet another thread about it has changed my mind.
However, I have come to the conclusion that unless there is a subsequent change that makes all new members start as enlisted and work their way up, the NCO program will never expand much beyond where it is today.
Why?
1. We already know that essentially all former or current "real" NCOs that are in CAP have no interest in wearing stripes just to wear stripes. If this was actually a thing, we would have thousands of NCOs, not dozens.
2. Although I'm sure they're trying hard, it still doesn't seem likely that whatever duties are carved out for NCOs will be significantly NCOish to really attract anyone. Sort of like the health-related jobs in CAP -- doctors and nurses aren't rushing to join in order to be kept from doing most of what they are trained to do. Since CAP, at least in the short term, is not going to have enlisted airmen for NCOs to lead and since the NCOs wouldn't be in the chain of command of our other "enlisted" (i.e., cadets) UNLESS they take a position that could just as easily be filled by a CAP officer, then all they will be doing is taking on some generic "advisor" role with no real responsibility.
Therefore, I trust that most of those that would be eligible to be NCOs are smart enough to figure out that there isn't anything much to this "program" and will chose to go the traditional senior member route.
So, let them plant the seeds of a program, but it will just wither on the vine.
In the RM, you don't start as an E-1 and "work you way up" to officer. Yes, there are enlisted to commission tracks, but generally speaking you either come in as an officer, or come in enlisted, and you stay there. So the whole "unless people come in as airmen and work their way up" doesn't track.
True, but seeing as how our cadets do that now it is a realistic option for a total senior member program restructure (not one I am particularly in favor of since I don't think its necessary, but one I could get behind as a comprehensive "solution" to the "problem").
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2016, 02:23:03 PM
True, but seeing as how our cadets do that now it is a realistic option for a total senior member program restructure (not one I am particularly in favor of since I don't think its necessary, but one I could get behind as a comprehensive "solution" to the "problem").
The reason the CP is like that is because it is a leadership training program, which is not what the so-called "senior program" is for.
We're not training leaders in the senior member PD program?
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2016, 01:46:45 PM
2. Although I'm sure they're trying hard, it still doesn't seem likely that whatever duties are carved out for NCOs will be significantly NCOish to really attract anyone.
I think it's headed 180 degrees opposite of that. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised to see it where, instead of looking to see which jobs could be carved out for NCOs, it will actually come down to carving which ones "need" to be held by officers - and that number is small. When all you have are officers, other than the small number who choose to retain stripes that nobody else can get, then everybody is an officer. Change it so everybody can get stripes and...everybody will get stripes, except for the small number who are needed to fill roles that need to be filled by officers. (Yes. A guess. Idle speculation. As with many things on these pages).
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2016, 01:46:45 PM
Therefore, I trust that most of those that would be eligible to be NCOs are smart enough to figure out that there isn't anything much to this "program" and will chose to go the traditional senior member route.
Not if it isn't their choice as to which route to go, but which route the organization sends them.
We keep hearing "nothing we do has to be done by NCOs." For some reason, there is reluctance to admit "most of what we do doesn't need to be done by officers." Given a fresh look at this, and given (assumed, yet to come) delineation between qualification, selection and performance standards between NCOs and officers, I really think we are headed toward fewer cap members as officers, more as NCOs, and everybody getting used to that, then moving on. Many current CAP officers might not even meet enhanced officer standards, or be in "career fields" where officers are needed. My hope would be that, if it goes that way, this is resolved by attrition rather than demotion. Given the length of our "service careers" in CAP, we would be looking at 10-15-20 years to "normalize" our officer/NCO ratios.
But, admittedly, all speculation on my part.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2016, 03:45:19 PM
We're not training leaders in the senior member PD program?
We are not. We're training managers.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 22, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2016, 01:46:45 PM
2. Although I'm sure they're trying hard, it still doesn't seem likely that whatever duties are carved out for NCOs will be significantly NCOish to really attract anyone.
I think it's headed 180 degrees opposite of that. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised to see it where, instead of looking to see which jobs could be carved out for NCOs, it will actually come down to carving which ones "need" to be held by officers - and that number is small. When all you have are officers, other than the small number who choose to retain stripes that nobody else can get, then everybody is an officer. Change it so everybody can get stripes and...everybody will get stripes, except for the small number who are needed to fill roles that need to be filled by officers. (Yes. A guess. Idle speculation. As with many things on these pages).
Quote from: RiverAux on May 22, 2016, 01:46:45 PM
Therefore, I trust that most of those that would be eligible to be NCOs are smart enough to figure out that there isn't anything much to this "program" and will chose to go the traditional senior member route.
Not if it isn't their choice as to which route to go, but which route the organization sends them.
We keep hearing "nothing we do has to be done by NCOs." For some reason, there is reluctance to admit "most of what we do doesn't need to be done by officers." Given a fresh look at this, and given (assumed, yet to come) delineation between qualification, selection and performance standards between NCOs and officers, I really think we are headed toward fewer cap members as officers, more as NCOs, and everybody getting used to that, then moving on. Many current CAP officers might not even meet enhanced officer standards, or be in "career fields" where officers are needed. My hope would be that, if it goes that way, this is resolved by attrition rather than demotion. Given the length of our "service careers" in CAP, we would be looking at 10-15-20 years to "normalize" our officer/NCO ratios.
But, admittedly, all speculation on my part.
Much like the entirety of the program.
What you have described is exactly what other organizations have done. Make the people who need a title an officer and make the rest....not officers...
Since this entire discussion is purely about uniform appearances, "I like stripes better than bars, so I want to be an NCO thingy" I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire. Your rank is based on position. You dont wear Major oak leaves in the Sheriffs Office and answer to a Lt.
QuoteI actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire.
Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 26, 2016, 07:08:07 PM
Since this entire discussion is purely about uniform appearances, "I like stripes better than bars, so I want to be an NCO thingy" I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire. Your rank is based on position. You dont wear Major oak leaves in the Sheriffs Office and answer to a Lt.
Maybe not so much in a SO, but lots of higher ranked LE people report to lower ranked people all the time. Under ICS, the position is key, not the agency, not the individual rank.
But, true enough, on a day to day basis, LE captains don't work for sergeants and chiefs don't work for Deputy Chiefs.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2016, 08:06:15 PM
QuoteI actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire.
Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).
Uhhhhh..... yeah. If you HAVE rank, yes, you wear it. But your rank corresponds with your position/authority. CAP rank does not work that way. ICS system isn't what we are talking about. And rarely will you have a lower rank person in a position of command in the ICS piston for very long. Im sure people will chime in with "not where I work"
There are way more "generals" in LEAs then CAP will ever see Lt Cols, and in context PD and FD "rank" is just as administrative in nature
as CAP's, yet rarely do you see people giving them grief about 4 stars on the collar and no experience, etc.
And the big city PDs have plenty of "merit" promotions where the officer "knew a guy" or fit the "check box of the quarter" and
bypassed the normally "required" testing.
There are a lot of sheriffs wearing uniforms who are elected and have zero LE experience or training.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2016, 01:01:17 AM
There are way more "generals" in LEAs then CAP will ever see Lt Cols, and in context PD and FD "rank" is just as administrative in nature
as CAP's, yet rarely do you see people giving them grief about 4 stars on the collar and no experience, etc.
And the big city PDs have plenty of "merit" promotions where the officer "knew a guy" or fit the "check box of the quarter" and
bypassed the normally "required" testing.
There are a lot of sheriffs wearing uniforms who are elected and have zero LE experience or training.
Name ONE LE agency in the US that has "generals." (Stars don't equate to "general." Ask any admiral.)
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 27, 2016, 02:45:11 AM
Name ONE LE agency in the US that has "generals." (Stars don't equate to "general." Ask any admiral.)
They all do, and that was exactly what I meant. I've seen LEAs using every standard military metal
grade from butter bar through 4-star sometimes with different terminology, but you can find everything
under the sun including colonels, corporals and everything in between.
You can say "stars don't equate to general" all you want, but we all know they do, especially when the
whole department's grade structure from an insignia perspective mirrors the military exactly.
So is that the only heartburn CAP gets about grade? The nomenclature?
If we started calling our FGOs Commissioner, Director, Chief, or Superintendent would that end the discussion
and allow us all to wear the same uniform?
Bob, you do know you're arguing with a retired police chief, right?
Does that change anything?
Quote from: PHall on May 27, 2016, 04:50:50 AM
Bob, you do know you're arguing with a retired police chief, right?
I didn't realize this was an "argument".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2016, 02:58:07 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on May 27, 2016, 02:45:11 AM
Name ONE LE agency in the US that has "generals." (Stars don't equate to "general." Ask any admiral.)
They all do, and that was exactly what I meant. I've seen LEAs using every standard military metal
grade from butter bar through 4-star sometimes with different terminology, but you can find everything
under the sun including colonels, corporals and everything in between.
You can say "stars don't equate to general" all you want, but we all know they do, especially when the
whole department's grade structure from an insignia perspective mirrors the military exactly.
So is that the only heartburn CAP gets about grade? The nomenclature?
If we started calling our FGOs Commissioner, Director, Chief, or Superintendent would that end the discussion
and allow us all to wear the same uniform?
It doesn't mirror the military exactly. They are used for convenience of reference points and have been since the 19th century.
Veterans and many civilians know that a bar outranks stripes and a leaf outranks a bar. Etc. etc. Same with some of the titles. Lieutenant is higher than sergeant etc. But that's about it.
Most cops enter their police careers at the bottom and stay there. That's not only OK, it's appreciated. Stripes and bars therefore don't signify occupational advancement. They distinguish levels of authority.
Sergeants in police departments are not E-5 junior NCOs. Police lieutenants are not freshly commissioned junior officers. And, police chief's aren't generals.
It varies by state, sometimes by county, sometimes by city boundary. Where I worked, 4 stars simply indicated "this is the chief of his/her department." It was that way due to long-standing custom. Every cop knew what it meant. Fellow Chief's knew. Showing up at something wearing an embroidered triangle or a gold duck wouldn't have made any sense. It could well be that the department only had 20 cops, with the next ranking guy being a lieutenant (which was the commonly used rank for a second-level supervisor). Even so, the chief had the four stars, because that's what Chief's wore. And, Chief Twentycops would stand right next to Chief Thousandcops, both as chiefs, the persons appointed as the police executives by their political jurisdictions, neither outranking the other.
Some big departments have ranks to use all combinations of stars, 1,2,3 or 4. LAPD has two grades of sergeant, 3 of lieutenant, three of captain, plus 4 ranks wearing 1 to 4 stars. Some departments use leafs (NYPD) and some use eagles (many, not all, State Police). In Tennessee, Chief's wear 5 stars. Their business, but almost always based on tradition.
Whatever insignia are used, there is no "NATO equivalent rank chart" comparing police ranks to military. Police they aren't equivalent.
And, I'm still waiting to read about the claimed US police department that has generals. I've never seen one. Never heard of one.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 26, 2016, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2016, 08:06:15 PM
QuoteI actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire.
Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).
Uhhhhh..... yeah. If you HAVE rank, yes, you wear it. But your rank corresponds with your position/authority. CAP rank does not work that way. ICS system isn't what we are talking about. And rarely will you have a lower rank person in a position of command in the ICS piston for very long. Im sure people will chime in with "not where I work"
Your statement was specifically about uniform appearance only and that was the way I responded. If you wanted to talk about CAP rank structure and its meaning, you should have said so.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 27, 2016, 10:44:26 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 26, 2016, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2016, 08:06:15 PM
QuoteI actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire.
Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).
Uhhhhh..... yeah. If you HAVE rank, yes, you wear it. But your rank corresponds with your position/authority. CAP rank does not work that way. ICS system isn't what we are talking about. And rarely will you have a lower rank person in a position of command in the ICS piston for very long. Im sure people will chime in with "not where I work"
Your statement was specifically about uniform appearance only and that was the way I responded. If you wanted to talk about CAP rank structure and its meaning, you should have said so.
My mistake.. I figured being on CAPTalk and saying "just like LE and Fire" would have been the giveaway that I was referring to CAP. But OK.
To address the LE generals....
LE agencies have absolutely NO correlation from one agency to the next. Whatever symbol your agency chooses has nothing to do with any other agency, nor does someone from another agency out rank you. I could be a level 1 road deputy, and a Capt in another dept may as well just be another dude. You get into state police agencies and they can go on and have Master Sgts, First Sgts, etc. Some state police depts. do have tracks that involve stripes vs bars. But its not enlisted vs officer.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 27, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
To address the LE generals....
LE agencies have absolutely NO correlation from one agency to the next. Whatever symbol your agency chooses has nothing to do with any other agency, nor does someone from another agency out rank you. I could be a level 1 road deputy, and a Capt in another dept may as well just be another dude. You get into state police agencies and they can go on and have Master Sgts, First Sgts, etc. Some state police depts. do have tracks that involve stripes vs bars. But its not enlisted vs officer.
Acknowledge, and the point I was trying to make about the way CAP grade should be viewed as well - it's "CAP Grade", has no correlation to the military or
other agencies, and should never be viewed as such or compared.
CAP would be much better off as a whole, not to mention in its dealing with other organizations if it overtly adopted that stance, instead of trying to drive
on both sides of the street at the same time.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2016, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 27, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
To address the LE generals....
LE agencies have absolutely NO correlation from one agency to the next. Whatever symbol your agency chooses has nothing to do with any other agency, nor does someone from another agency out rank you. I could be a level 1 road deputy, and a Capt in another dept may as well just be another dude. You get into state police agencies and they can go on and have Master Sgts, First Sgts, etc. Some state police depts. do have tracks that involve stripes vs bars. But its not enlisted vs officer.
Acknowledge, and the point I was trying to make about the way CAP grade should be viewed as well - it's "CAP Grade", has no correlation to the military or
other agencies, and should never be viewed as such or compared.
CAP would be much better off as a whole, not to mention in its dealing with other organizations if it overtly adopted that stance, instead of trying to drive
on both sides of the street at the same time.
For a military affiliate organization, CAP sure tries to play both sides of that coin. "We're military, but we're civilian. We aren't EMS, but we're search and rescue. We have a chain of command, but we don't install superiors based on grade. We are a volunteer force, but we don't come cheap." It works in some instances, and founders in others.
It's a fantastic organization. Sure, I have my grievances. But there's always room for improvement. I love what I do in CAP, despite how much I gripe. As someone who's CAP life revolves mostly around cadets, it's easy for me to push them to have respect for what they do in support of the Air Force, even just as a cadet program. I wish some seniors took it more seriously.
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 27, 2016, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 27, 2016, 10:44:26 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 26, 2016, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2016, 08:06:15 PM
QuoteI actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank. Just like LE or Fire.
Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).
Uhhhhh..... yeah. If you HAVE rank, yes, you wear it. But your rank corresponds with your position/authority. CAP rank does not work that way. ICS system isn't what we are talking about. And rarely will you have a lower rank person in a position of command in the ICS piston for very long. Im sure people will chime in with "not where I work"
Your statement was specifically about uniform appearance only and that was the way I responded. If you wanted to talk about CAP rank structure and its meaning, you should have said so.
My mistake.. I figured being on CAPTalk and saying "just like LE and Fire" would have been the giveaway that I was referring to CAP. But OK.
Jeesh -- did you read what you wrote at all? You said that LE and fire do not wear rank. I responded to that patently incorrect statement.
But, to respond to your additional comments -- yes, LE and Fire do have rank systems that match their day-to-day administrative structures but it is possible that should they have to respond to a large scale incident where ICS is utilized that they would end up in the same sort of situation as CAP and end up having functional leaders in positions over folks that "administratively" out-rank them. In regards to fire, in particular this is much more likely as they generally have a fairly flat command structure.
As I've pointed out many times over the years, CAP has the option of basically three different ways of looking at officer grade:
1) Grade represents your previous achievements in the PD program (current situation)
2) Grade is tied to your administrative position in the organization
3) Grade is tied to your operational qualifications and duties
The problem with 2 and 3 is that we would have to make all grade temporary to the time you hold that position or qualification or eventually end up in situations where people that formerly held a higher position but no longer do so are reporting to someone of a lower grade (i.e, the former IC that now is only a mission pilot but has a grade associated with being an IC).
And to bring it back around to topic -- it appears that the with the new NCO "system", we're favoring tying grade to administrative position.
Greetings all, been in the back of the room listening in...
I'm a prior cadet from back in the 70-80's along with recently as a retired Chief with just about 30 years in the Air Force. I now find myself looking at Civil Air Patrol filling that void, about being a part of something larger then yourself. I had no idea that CAP was bringing back the Enlisted Force for Senior Members. I know where l'm going to hang my hat, as a Chief in the most amazing volunteer organization in the world. "Hap...we're home..."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: Eclipse on May 27, 2016, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on May 27, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
To address the LE generals....
LE agencies have absolutely NO correlation from one agency to the next. Whatever symbol your agency chooses has nothing to do with any other agency, nor does someone from another agency out rank you. I could be a level 1 road deputy, and a Capt in another dept may as well just be another dude. You get into state police agencies and they can go on and have Master Sgts, First Sgts, etc. Some state police depts. do have tracks that involve stripes vs bars. But its not enlisted vs officer.
Acknowledge, and the point I was trying to make about the way CAP grade should be viewed as well - it's "CAP Grade", has no correlation to the military or
other agencies, and should never be viewed as such or compared.
CAP would be much better off as a whole, not to mention in its dealing with other organizations if it overtly adopted that stance, instead of trying to drive
on both sides of the street at the same time.
You know very well your point doesn't hold. We wear uniforms that look very much like the Air Force's. We use duty titles and organizational structures that mimic the Air Force to an extent. Our grade insignias and titles are the same as the military for the most part (minus flight officers grades). Yet we use them differently. In other U.S. organizations (military, LE, etc.), four stars outranks a bar every time, but not necessarily in CAP where grade confers no authority and denotes no responsibility.
There are also expectations that people with certain grades hold certain positions and the higher the grade, the more responsibility and possibly authority a person has. But not in CAP where a 1st Lt can be squadron commander of a squadron full of Lt Cols. While this is the way it's always been (at least since I can remember), it confuses a lot of people, even in the military, looking from the outside.
My question is, if CAP grades don't denote authority or responsibility, why are many (most?) members so attached to it? Is it because of the perception of the grade/rank? Grade, even in CAP, should denote more than PD progression. In fact, PD level doesn't automatically confer a CAP grade, even though some members think it does or should.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 29, 2016, 10:34:08 AM
My question is, if CAP grades don't denote authority or responsibility, why are many (most?) members so attached to it? Is it because of the perception of the grade/rank?
Well, because they have done something to earn it they feel that they deserve to have it.
yep, this includes more people than I would like who earned their CAP grade by doing something outside of CAP.
And despite the protestations of some here, there is absolutely no widespread movement in CAP by members who want to get rid of it. Something that has worked for 75 years can definetely be put in the "not broke, don't need to fix" category.
From a purely philosophical standpoint I agree that the system doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I have my own pet proposal for a philosophically pleasing way of addressing it, but no one should be fooled that CAP members would like to see the system change in any meaningful way
Quote from: RiverAux on May 29, 2016, 12:19:01 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 29, 2016, 10:34:08 AM
My question is, if CAP grades don't denote authority or responsibility, why are many (most?) members so attached to it? Is it because of the perception of the grade/rank?
Well, because they have done something to earn it they feel that they deserve to have it.
yep, this includes more people than I would like who earned their CAP grade by doing something outside of CAP.
And despite the protestations of some here, there is absolutely no widespread movement in CAP by members who want to get rid of it. Something that has worked for 75 years can definetely be put in the "not broke, don't need to fix" category.
From a purely philosophical standpoint I agree that the system doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I have my own pet proposal for a philosophically pleasing way of addressing it, but no one should be fooled that CAP members would like to see the system change in any meaningful way
I never said members wanted to get rid of grades; I know they don't. But I find it interesting how members feel they earned the grade, but when promotion requirements get a little tougher, everyone complains about it. I've had to earn my grades both in the military and in CAP and I know that it's much easier in CAP than the Air Force. Some CAP members want to wear uniforms and insignias that resemble the military, but don't want to be held to the same standards. And worst, some members what to be promoted, but are not willing to assume greater responsibility within the organization. This is in no way a criticism to our hard working volunteers. I know how much they do because I'm one of them. But the fact remains many of our members put more emphasis on the uniform and grade than our mission. I see it all the time and not just here in CAP Talk; it's just slightly worst here.
I believe in this organization and it's mission. And while I wear my uniform with pride, I would continue to be part of this organization even if the AF-style uniform or military-style grades were eliminated. How many members would stay if that was the case? At the end of the day, none of it really matters that much. We're not commissioned officers or noncommissioned officers in CAP; we just have grade insignias and titles that are similar to those used by the Air Force. We're all civilian volunteers and should be proud of that!
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 29, 2016, 01:07:33 PM
We're not commissioned officers or noncommissioned officers in CAP; we just have grade insignias and titles that are similar to those used by the Air Force.
Noncommissioned officers: SSgt through CMSgt
Flight officers: FO through SFO
Uncommissioned officers: 2d Lt through Maj Gen
Uncommissioned nonofficers: Everybody else?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 29, 2016, 01:07:33 PM
Some CAP members want to wear uniforms and insignias that resemble the military, but don't want to be held to the same standards.
And there is no reason we should be since it is CIVIL AIR PATROL uniform and grade. Once we start having the same authority and privileges as the military, then we should be held to the same standards. Since we don't (and never will), it is entirely appropriate for our standards to be lower. That being the logical conclusion, fighting over just how "tough" our standards need to be makes little sense.
There is no way that CAP can ever have standards high enough that someone couldn't make the same argument that you are. If the AF requires 18 weeks of training for grade X and CAP only requires 17 weeks, then someone is just as likely to complain that we're just a bunch of posers.
I barely recall the last time I wore an AF-style uniform that had any mention of the Air Force on it. My BDUs say Civil Air Patrol. My flight suit says Civil Air Patrol. The only mention of the AF on any of my uniforms is the tiny type under my name when I wear the service dress uniform.
It really boils down to one thing. Like a similar decision made for the military lately.... "Does this decision make the military more lethal?"
This issue with CAP.... "Does this NCO program make CAP more effective?" I dont think so. Ill use the old line we like to toss out here, "Its a solution looking for a problem."
If we put this much effort into solving actual problems, CAP would be a much stronger organization than it is today...
But instead we waste the effort on this, or uniforms. No wonder people complain about how much work CAP is. All of the people with the dedication and drive to actually get things done are arguing on CAPTalk about world-ending problems that nobody outside of this little circle even cares about - inside or out of the organization.
I now return you to your previously-scheduled nonsense.
(Re-posted from another thread because frankly I got the threads confused because we're talking about the same thing in 4 places)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 30, 2016, 09:53:38 PM
All of the people with the dedication and drive to actually get things done are arguing on CAPTalk about world-ending problems that nobody outside of this little circle even cares about - inside or out of the organization.
I'm not sure that we've ever solved any problems on CAPTalk and I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of CAP members working hard out there that have never been to this site...
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
And there is no reason we should be since it is CIVIL AIR PATROL uniform and grade. Once we start having the same authority and privileges as the military, then we should be held to the same standards. Since we don't (and never will), it is entirely appropriate for our standards to be lower. That being the logical conclusion, fighting over just how "tough" our standards need to be makes little sense.
I completely disagree. We should be holding our "officers" to the standards of any military officer, or that of any corporate officer.
To many CAP members, it's a hobby--play time. That's unacceptable to me. This organization has a purpose--a job to do. Its members should respect that role and hold themselves to be professional in everything they do.
I'm not sure how things play out for the senior side of the house, but I expect that when my cadets show up wearing their uniform, they maintain a strong level of dignity and respect for that uniform and their duties in the program. I expect nothing less. I refuse to tell anyone, whether it's a 14-year-old or a 40-year-old "I'm not holding you to a high standard because you aren't military." That's completely counter-productive.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on June 01, 2016, 05:10:47 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
And there is no reason we should be since it is CIVIL AIR PATROL uniform and grade. Once we start having the same authority and privileges as the military, then we should be held to the same standards. Since we don't (and never will), it is entirely appropriate for our standards to be lower. That being the logical conclusion, fighting over just how "tough" our standards need to be makes little sense.
I completely disagree. We should be holding our "officers" to the standards of any military officer, or that of any corporate officer.
To many CAP members, it's a hobby--play time. That's unacceptable to me. This organization has a purpose--a job to do. Its members should respect that role and hold themselves to be professional in everything they do.
I'm not sure how things play out for the senior side of the house, but I expect that when my cadets show up wearing their uniform, they maintain a strong level of dignity and respect for that uniform and their duties in the program. I expect nothing less. I refuse to tell anyone, whether it's a 14-year-old or a 40-year-old "I'm not holding you to a high standard because you aren't military." That's completely counter-productive.
I think most on here look at the "higher standard" in relation to education and training. In that regard, CAP officers could held to the same standard as military officers but is that in the best interest of CAP? I would say that it is not as there are a good number of pilots and SAR personnel who don't have a degree and would then not be eligible to be a CAP officer.
It may hurt the feelings of many people but frankly CAP grade really doesn't matter nor does it convey that the individual is a leader or knowledgeable. There are many 1st Lt's that have more to offer CAP than a lot of Lt Col's who have just been "present" long enough to get promoted. Now that promotions are a little more difficult that should slowly start to change.
I definitely agree with your statements about respect for the uniform. Age or grade doesn't matter. Everyone should wear the uniform properly.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on June 01, 2016, 05:10:47 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
And there is no reason we should be since it is CIVIL AIR PATROL uniform and grade. Once we start having the same authority and privileges as the military, then we should be held to the same standards. Since we don't (and never will), it is entirely appropriate for our standards to be lower. That being the logical conclusion, fighting over just how "tough" our standards need to be makes little sense.
I completely disagree. We should be holding our "officers" to the standards of any military officer, or that of any corporate officer.
To many CAP members, it's a hobby--play time. That's unacceptable to me. This organization has a purpose--a job to do. Its members should respect that role and hold themselves to be professional in everything they do.
I'm not sure how things play out for the senior side of the house, but I expect that when my cadets show up wearing their uniform, they maintain a strong level of dignity and respect for that uniform and their duties in the program. I expect nothing less. I refuse to tell anyone, whether it's a 14-year-old or a 40-year-old "I'm not holding you to a high standard because you aren't military." That's completely counter-productive.
If we did that, there are a number of people who would not be able to serve at all. You know, medical reasons and all, right?
Yes, to many this is "play time". They come, do their duty, and go home. Why? Because they like it, they're good at it, and it makes them feel alive. Don't question the motivation of your members when there is motivation. Not everyone does it for mom and apple pie.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on June 01, 2016, 05:10:47 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 30, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
And there is no reason we should be since it is CIVIL AIR PATROL uniform and grade. Once we start having the same authority and privileges as the military, then we should be held to the same standards. Since we don't (and never will), it is entirely appropriate for our standards to be lower. That being the logical conclusion, fighting over just how "tough" our standards need to be makes little sense.
I completely disagree. We should be holding our "officers" to the standards of any military officer, or that of any corporate officer.
To many CAP members, it's a hobby--play time. That's unacceptable to me. This organization has a purpose--a job to do. Its members should respect that role and hold themselves to be professional in everything they do.
Yes, we are Civil Air Patrol. We do have standards, act professional in all we do, and live up to our "Core Values". Our standards have roots in the military, however our culture derives from more. Being an "officer" or "NCO" really isn't the point; and that is the whole reason for this discussion. As Thrawn said; "Don't question the motivation of your members" when they are motivated... Be satisfied they "Come And Play".
Quote from: kwe1009 on June 01, 2016, 07:43:36 PM
I think most on here look at the "higher standard" in relation to education and training. In that regard, CAP officers could held to the same standard as military officers but is that in the best interest of CAP? I would say that it is not as there are a good number of pilots and SAR personnel who don't have a degree and would then not be eligible to be a CAP officer.
:) they could fly as enlisted. :)
Well that's not fair. Only officers should be able to be pilots.... because we are smarter.
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 02, 2016, 03:31:49 PM
Well that's not fair. Only officers should be able to be pilots.... because we are smarter.
Just like the military. But we're not the military. Which puts the whole NCO [redacted] into perspective...
edited to remove inappropriate content -Pace
I think standards can and should be increased for CAP officers, but not necessarily to the extent of the military. If we ever become an enlisted-centric organization, where most of our senior members are Airmen and NCOs, then increasing the standards and requirements for CAP officers would make sense. Then we would use those fewer officers to fill command and leadership positions. To accomplish that, we would have to start revamping our membership structure now and it would still take more than a decade to get there.
Unfortunately, the current program is not addressing that. NCO promotions were addressed, a few NCO duty position descriptions are in the works, and I understand the NCO Committee is working on a PD program. But the most important part, the role of the NCO, hasn't been fully defined. Furthermore, the NCO program hasn't been opened to non-prior service. And there are no current plans, that I'm aware of, to restructure our membership, so that new members have to join as Airmen and work their way up the ranks. I understand we need to take "baby steps", but at this rate it would take more than two decades to get such program fully implemented, if we get there at all.
Once.....the PD is in place....we are going to open the NCO corps to everyone one.
Once that is in place.
Then we can see about a general restructuring of the general membership and a "toughening" of the officer corps standards.
All of this is in the white paper. Not in so many words. But that is in fact the long long long term goal of the NCO program.
And yep It may take us 20 years to do it.....it took us 70 years to get us to where we are now....and CAP is slower then Christmas.
But it should take us a while....we want to go slow to make sure we don't break something along the way.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2016, 12:28:22 AM
Then we can see about a general restructuring of the general membership and a "toughening" of the officer corps standards.
Why?
No one has articulated any real need for "toughening".
Extend the TIG? Sure, all for that! Make being a volunteer more strenuous? Nope.
Does anyone really think the masses are going to mob us to join because we (may, one day) will make them start at airman basic? No way.
We have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining people right now, let alone making someone be the proverbial and literal lowest of the low.
By design, these new members we will (and already do) need will be the low grunt work workers.
(Someone on here will inevitably argue that we won't make the new airman be our uh... Big B word... But the simple known fact is a caste military structure with enlisted and officer means the lowest airman is the one who sweeps/cleans and grunts around.)
No one is going to stay in an organization FOR FREE and PAY to come, to be forced to be a grunt.
Is our system perfect? No. I have my complaints about people wearing oak leaves who do not even know who the region commander is, let alone how to lead a group of testy volunteers.
I would be all for supporting of a revision of the system, something like extending the TIG to make sure those that hit field grade are very dedicated and well CAP EDUCATED. I would also support tying in some positions with certain grades. (I.E. CoS for a Wing would be promoted to LT. Col, so forth and so on).
Quote from: NCRblues on June 03, 2016, 02:06:17 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2016, 12:28:22 AM
Then we can see about a general restructuring of the general membership and a "toughening" of the officer corps standards.
Why?
No one has articulated any real need for "toughening".
Extend the TIG? Sure, all for that! Make being a volunteer more strenuous? Nope.
Does anyone really think the masses are going to mob us to join because we (may, one day) will make them start at airman basic? No way.
We have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining people right now, let alone making someone be the proverbial and literal lowest of the low.
By design, these new members we will (and already do) need will be the low grunt work workers.
(Someone on here will inevitably argue that we won't make the new airman be our uh... Big B word... But the simple known fact is a caste military structure with enlisted and officer means the lowest airman is the one who sweeps/cleans and grunts around.)
No one is going to stay in an organization FOR FREE and PAY to come, to be forced to be a grunt.
Is our system perfect? No. I have my complaints about people wearing oak leaves who do not even know who the region commander is, let alone how to lead a group of testy volunteers.
I would be all for supporting of a revision of the system, something like extending the TIG to make sure those that hit field grade are very dedicated and well CAP EDUCATED. I would also support tying in some positions with certain grades. (I.E. CoS for a Wing would be promoted to LT. Col, so forth and so on).
Say it with me. This is a solution in search of a problem... ::)
While I've been a critic of the way this NCO program has been implemented, why does every member (or most for that matter) have to be an officer? That's not true in the military and it's not true in any other organization. Officers manage and lead. Not every CAP volunteer does that. Yet every single CAP volunteer has the opportunity to become an officer after six months. Why? Because it's always been that way it's not a good answer. Because members would not join unless they can become officers is not a good answer either. Being an officer (commissioned or not) means something. It does in the military and in does in every other organization. Why should being an officer mean something different in CAP?
Naval Sea Cadet Corps is all officer-of-some-variety adults.
Army Cadet Alliance is much the same as CAP.
Quote from: DakRadz on June 03, 2016, 02:40:27 AM
Naval Sea Cadet Corps is all officer-of-some-variety adults.
Army Cadet Alliance is much the same as CAP.
In those organizations, all the adults are in leadership positions leading the cadets. That's not the case in CAP, where not every officer is involved with the Cadet Programs.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 20, 2016, 01:52:57 AM
Some....but not all.....are former NCO's who drive by CAP take one look at the officers and keep on driving.
The all officer structure turns them off. Or they see the quality of some of those officers and are turned off.
^^^ IOW .... The same things that also turn off some civilians who visit. Yes. I'm the civilian still trying to figure all this out.
QuoteImplementing the proposal will enhance recruitment and retention of current and former enlisted members.
^^^ Yes, I get that and see how that could be a good thing for those people specifically. So the main goal here is recruitment?
But are we creating more of a division between the members? The laid back civilians who just want to volunteer and help ... trying to work along side the NCOs who may be a little more 'formal'?
I really enjoy my squadron. We work hard, successful missions, have fun helping Cadets and much more .... and I never seem to realize what rank/grade anyone is.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 03, 2016, 02:33:01 AM
While I've been a critic of the way this NCO program has been implemented, why does every member (or most for that matter) have to be an officer? That's not true in the military and it's not true in any other organization. Officers manage and lead. Not every CAP volunteer does that. Yet every single CAP volunteer has the opportunity to become an officer after six months. Why? Because it's always been that way it's not a good answer. Because members would not join unless they can become officers is not a good answer either. Being an officer (commissioned or not) means something. It does in the military and in does in every other organization. Why should being an officer mean something different in CAP?
That's not an answer or an articulated reason to change.
Why should it mean something different in CAP? Why not? It means something different in EVERY organization. PD, FD, DOD it all means something different.
So, tell me, what would an Airman Basic do in CAP? Or even an A1C?
Like PHALL said, answer in very desperate search of a problem.
Quote from: NCRblues on June 03, 2016, 02:06:17 AM
No one is going to stay in an organization FOR FREE and PAY to come, to be forced to be a grunt.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. There are State Defense Forces that are essentially using that model. Of course, most of them struggle mightily to recruit folks too.
We still haven't answer the question of why every CAP member has to be an officer. If CAP was all about the Cadet Programs, then it would make sense for all adults to be officers. But CAP is not all about the Cadet Programs. There are thousands of adult members in CAP that don't work with cadets and have no interest in doing so.
To the outside world, rank (yes, that's what it's called) have a specific meaning and it's not professional development progression (which by the way, it's not supposed to be the case in CAP either if we read CAPR 35-5 carefully). It has to do with authority and responsibility. In CAP, we've separated rank/grade from duty position, when in most organizations these two are related. The result is that we have an officer-centric membership where the majority of members are officers even though they don't manage or lead anything. And worst, there are no expectations that they ever do either.
In CAP, it's possible (or at least it was, since the requirements were increased slightly) to become a Lt Col in 10 years or less without ever leaving the squadron and without ever having a primary duty assignment. That's correct. There were many specialty tracks that didn't require a member to do anything beyond the squadron level or to even hold a primary duty position in order to achieve senior and master ratings. It's slowly changing, but there are still a few.
There are members in CAP that have no business being officers. They just can't perform at the grade they have been promoted. And in many cases, there are no expectations that they do either. This situation affects the credibility of our officer corps. And frankly, it's unnecessary. We don't need every member in CAP to be an officer in order for this organization to function properly.
Let me make one thing clear. I'm not proposing or advocating for an "enlisted membership", but merely questioning why every member in this organization has to be an officer. As far as I'm concerned, some members should just be that, members. But that's a different discussion for a different time and thread.
It just struck me. Didn't all of this nonsense begin right around the time that Senior Members started being referred to as "officers"? It's been said before, drop all the titles except for commanders and key staff and be done with it.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 03, 2016, 02:33:01 AM
While I've been a critic of the way this NCO program has been implemented, why does every member (or most for that matter) have to be an officer? That's not true in the military and it's not true in any other organization.
Emphasis mine
Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 03, 2016, 02:52:27 AM
Quote from: DakRadz on June 03, 2016, 02:40:27 AM
Naval Sea Cadet Corps is all officer-of-some-variety adults.
Army Cadet Alliance is much the same as CAP.
In those organizations, all the adults are in leadership positions leading the cadets. That's not the case in CAP, where not every officer is involved with the Cadet Programs.
I don't disagree with you, my above was a response to an absolute. If done properly, with clearer goals, reasoning, and assignment of authority than we currently have, then an enlisted corp could be done well.
I stand corrected on the absolute. I should've said "most" or "many". That said, I think my overall point still stands.
QuoteImplementing the proposal will enhance recruitment and retention of current and former enlisted members.
I would love to see some sort of study that backs up the claim that the new NCO program will enhance recruiting of former/current military enlisted. I really don't think that data exists. Just how many more people have joined as CAP NCOs since the program was announced? Of those how many specifically joined because they could get promoted in CAP?
As as been stated by many here, a solution in search of a problem. I think we have beat this dead horse enough.
Quote from: kwe1009 on June 03, 2016, 03:05:38 PM
QuoteImplementing the proposal will enhance recruitment and retention of current and former enlisted members.
I would love to see some sort of study that backs up the claim that the new NCO program will enhance recruiting of former/current military enlisted. I really don't think that data exists. Just how many more people have joined as CAP NCOs since the program was announced? Of those how many specifically joined because they could get promoted in CAP?
As as been stated by many here, a solution in search of a problem. I think we have beat this dead horse enough.
How many of those NCOs who see the mostly officer units of dubious quality (as stated by Lordmonar) are interested in being NCOs under said officers?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on June 03, 2016, 06:00:58 PM
How many of those NCOs who see the mostly officer units of dubious quality (as stated by Lordmonar) are interested in being NCOs under said officers?
That factored into my decision to NOT go the NCO route. I joined just before this new program but the ability to promote or not did not influence my decision in any way.
Quote from: kwe1009 on June 03, 2016, 03:05:38 PM
QuoteImplementing the proposal will enhance recruitment and retention of current and former enlisted members.
I would love to see some sort of study that backs up the claim that the new NCO program will enhance recruiting of former/current military enlisted. I really don't think that data exists. Just how many more people have joined as CAP NCOs since the program was announced? Of those how many specifically joined because they could get promoted in CAP?
As as been stated by many here, a solution in search of a problem. I think we have beat this dead horse enough.
The idea that the option of a patch vs an epaulet is a means to increase recruiting is sad.
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 03, 2016, 08:16:49 PM
The idea that the option of a patch vs an epaulet is a means to increase recruiting is sad.
Very sad, indeed, however recruiting is never really a major issue in CAP. The increased retention of good, well trained and motivated members is, and until it is addressed, we will continue to discuss this and "multiforms" on CT forever! >:D
Quote from: FW on June 04, 2016, 11:30:00 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 03, 2016, 08:16:49 PM
The idea that the option of a patch vs an epaulet is a means to increase recruiting is sad.
Very sad, indeed, however recruiting is never really a major issue in CAP. The increased retention of good, well trained and motivated members is, and until it is addressed, we will continue to discuss this and "multiforms" on CT forever! >:D
I wish I could get on a "retention committee" for NHQ. It's not rocket science by any means.
Some general ideas from the warped depths of my no caffeine mind this morning.
1. Start utilizing the amazing awards system that we have. Stop being so stingy with some of the awards, what does it hurt to give an achievement? Nothing, it increases a volunteers pride and dedication, heck the member even has to buy the ribbon if they want to wear it! Recognize your members for the hard work, don't wait for the local encampment commander to put them in for an award, do it at the local level!
2. Have actual conversations with members, tell them what they can improve on and give them goals! Don't allow "that guy" to stay "that guy". Don't lie to volunteers. We get it, not everyone can be the big boss, but share a little of the pie and make someone feel invested.
3. Actually train our members! All of us have seen that new member who shows up at activity XYZ and has no idea what they are doing at all. Take a few minutes out of your busy unit meetings for just the FNG's, also it will make them feel wanted!
4. Stop making people retake the classes they have already done (cough new TLC requirements cough). Make our training more than death by power point. What member wants to spend the weekend at (SLS/CLC/TLC) if they know that the local area just reads the power point and moves on. No one retains that information presented in that way. Hands on learning. Want advanced TLC credit? Staff an encampment, write an AAR and actually work the CP, Teenagers are (shockingly) not explained on PowerPoint slides.
5. Streamline all our regulations, and put EVERYTHING online. eServices should be a one stop shop for any member of any grade and TIS.
6. Leave your personal politics at the door. Don't like member smith, to bad, he is a volunteer as well. Get over it.
So forth and so on.
(This rant brought to you by lack of caffeine and viewers like you)
Quote from: NCRblues on June 04, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
1. Start utilizing the amazing awards system that we have.
Agreed, but this is a slippery slope, and the flipside is C/A1C's wearing 4 Unit citations.
Quote from: NCRblues on June 04, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
2. Have actual conversations with members, tell them what they can improve on and give them goals! Don't allow "that guy" to stay "that guy". Don't lie to volunteers. We get it, not everyone can be the big boss, but share a little of the pie and make someone feel invested.
These should be required annually and with every promotion: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F040_C73A311F4FC74.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F040_C73A311F4FC74.pdf)
This despite the fact that back in 2008 I said they were a bad idea: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6829.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6829.0)
Now that I am back in a position of command and have to adjust attitudes, I see them as a useful tool. With that said, I'm
not looking forward to it.
Quote from: NCRblues on June 04, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
3. Actually train our members! All of us have seen that new member who shows up at activity XYZ and has no idea what they are doing at all. Take a few minutes out of your busy unit meetings for just the FNG's, also it will make them feel wanted!
Agreed - despite the fact that assigning a mentor has been required since at least 2011, it's clear this isn't happening,
and the
Operational Excellence Command track is a complete non-starter in many wings.
Quote from: NCRblues on June 04, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
4. Stop making people retake the classes they have already done (cough new TLC requirements cough). Make our training more than death by power point. What member wants to spend the weekend at (SLS/CLC/TLC) if they know that the local area just reads the power point and moves on. No one retains that information presented in that way. Hands on learning. Want advanced TLC credit? Staff an encampment, write an AAR and actually work the CP, Teenagers are (shockingly) not explained on PowerPoint slides.
Agreed, to an extent, the problem being that many of NHQ's "first tries" are flawed at best, there's also an extreme inconsistency in
presentation, which results in some sessions being the equivelent of a revival meeting, and others (far too many) optically induced Xanex.
Quote from: NCRblues on June 04, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
5. Streamline all our regulations, and put EVERYTHING online. eServices should be a one stop shop for any member of any grade and TIS.
So simple, so important, so ignored.
Quote from: NCRblues on June 04, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
6. Leave your personal politics at the door. Don't like member smith, to bad, he is a volunteer as well. Get over it.
Agreed, but good luck with that. Politics & religion have no place in CAP, but there you go, and for many politics
is religion,
so. Some of the conversations I've had with "leaders"are...well...
Missions Missions Missions. If you build them, they will come.
People will be enticed into CAP with the allure of NCO stripes or Captain bars, or the idea that they miss the military, and this NCO thing could give them what they are looking for, but stripes and bars don't keep anyone. It never has. People stay for the missions. Sure we reward people with ranks and ribbons, but in the end they stay for the missions. Whichever mission of CAP it is that they are interested in.
Quote from: Flying Pig on June 04, 2016, 08:29:22 PM
Missions Missions Missions. If you build them, they will come.
People will be enticed into CAP with the allure of NCO stripes or Captain bars, or the idea that they miss the military, and this NCO thing could give them what they are looking for, but stripes and bars don't keep anyone. It never has. People stay for the missions. Sure we reward people with ranks and ribbons, but in the end they stay for the missions. Whichever mission of CAP it is that they are interested in.
Behave yourself. Using logic like that will get you branded as an insurrectionist.
All these discussions are interesting reading ... seeing the variety of folks we have in CAP.
We have this thread where many folks are wanting CAP to be even more military like and structured than it currently is.
And we have other threads where some wouldn't mind a shift toward Homeland Security and FEMA ... emphasizing the civilian side more.
Maybe this separation of NCO/Officer/Enlisted/Etc. ... is Hdq seeing this and trying to work all angles? Can that be done without creating division in the ranks?
Going to be fascinating watching all this play out over the next 10-20 years and see where we wind up.
One thing I am still unclear about, and can't seem to find the answer. Perhaps I missed it? Can a non-prior service person go into the CAP as an NCO?
Quote from: Nikos on June 27, 2016, 04:43:24 PMCan a non-prior service person go into the CAP as an NCO?
No.
As Archie Bunker would say, "See, right there, you got your basic discrimination." So you can join and become and officer, but not an NCO. Hmmmmmm?? As for the other retention stuff, modernization has hurt us somewhat. Back in the day, we would get 2, 3, 4 new guys and have a 4 hour class on a Saturday and watch and discuss the filmstrip introducing CAP. We would share donuts and coffee, and some tales and by the end of the class, everyone would know each other and have a good idea as to what CAP was and where they could fit in if they wanted. Another thing, here comes the dead horse galloping in, if we are a team, we need a team UNIFORM. I don't care what it is, but everyone should have the ability to wear the same thing everyone else is wearing. Flame suit on, and as usual, JMHO...
Quote from: AirAux on June 27, 2016, 07:24:42 PMFlame suit on,
I see you got your NFPA compliant ABUs!
Quote from: AirAux on June 27, 2016, 07:24:42 PM
As Archie Bunker would say, "See, right there, you got your basic discrimination." So you can join and become and officer, but not an NCO.
The above term does not apply, since there are no opportunities denied new members on that basis. In fact it's literally the opposite of discrimination
to keep new members out of the NCO stream, since placing them there precludes some CAP opportunities such as command.
Quote from: AirAux on June 27, 2016, 07:24:42 PM
Hmmmmmm?? As for the other retention stuff, modernization has hurt us somewhat. Back in the day, we would get 2, 3, 4 new guys and have a 4 hour class on a Saturday and watch and discuss the filmstrip introducing CAP. We would share donuts and coffee, and some tales and by the end of the class, everyone would know each other and have a good idea as to what CAP was and where they could fit in if they wanted.
Potential members are supposed to be attending several meetings, and then be considered by a membership board before submitting an application. If they
don't know where they fit after that (plus any recruiting that was done as well), they certainly won't "get it" over a Boston creme. Why would a unit CC
accept the membership of someone who doesn't know where they will "fit"? By the time they are in LSCode A, they should be well past wall-hugging and
intros and looking towards gettign some work done.
Quote from: AirAux on June 27, 2016, 07:24:42 PM
Another thing, here comes the dead horse galloping in, if we are a team, we need a team UNIFORM. I don't care what it is, but everyone should have the ability to wear the same thing everyone else is wearing.
Agreed.
Quote from: AirAux on June 27, 2016, 07:24:42 PM
As Archie Bunker would say, "See, right there, you got your basic discrimination." So you can join and become and officer, but not an NCO. Hmmmmmm??
Well, to be fair, you don't walk in off the street and start as a NCO in the military, but those who meet the requirements can and do start off as a 2LT.
As has been beat to death, non-prior service attaining enlisted grade is in the cards down the road.
Quote from: Jester on June 27, 2016, 07:47:06 PMAs has been beat to death, non-prior service attaining enlisted grade is in the cards down the road.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nazm3_OXac#)
Quote from: Jester on June 27, 2016, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: AirAux on June 27, 2016, 07:24:42 PM
As Archie Bunker would say, "See, right there, you got your basic discrimination." So you can join and become and officer, but not an NCO. Hmmmmmm??
Well, to be fair, you don't walk in off the street and start as a NCO in the military, but those who meet the requirements can and do start off as a 2LT.
As has been beat to death, non-prior service attaining enlisted grade is in the cards down the road.
Folks don't just walk in off the street and become second lieutenants. Most are either academy grads or ROTC grads, and have had four years of training on being an officer. Others are prior enlisted, with their turn in "knife and fork school" before actually commissioning. If there's still a "90-day wonder" school, that's still not walking in off the street.
It's splitting hairs frankly. A 2LT by and large has little experience or expectations on him. Yes there are outliers but a NCO is expected to be a technical expert and have some tactical proficiency.
A person doesn't start off as an E-5 but the first step in the officer structure is O-1.
Quote from: Nikos on June 27, 2016, 04:43:24 PM
One thing I am still unclear about, and can't seem to find the answer. Perhaps I missed it? Can a non-prior service person go into the CAP as an NCO?
Not at this time.....but that is one of the goals of the NCO program.
Quote from: Jester on June 28, 2016, 12:43:03 AM
It's splitting hairs frankly. A 2LT by and large has little experience or expectations on him. Yes there are outliers but a NCO is expected to be a technical expert and have some tactical proficiency.
A person doesn't start off as an E-5 but the first step in the officer structure is O-1.
There are two different promotion ladders, and two very different sets of expectations. An O-1 is expected to assume leadership roles right out of the chute, albeit small, and as a learner. And, there's almost always a SNCO standing by as a mentor.
NCOS have been through a different training and experience regimen, over the period of a couple of years, and already have time in the service before being given leadership roles.
It's not really fair to compare the two, because of these differences. We're discussing two different worlds here. I've also not forgotten the Mustang overlap, which is an entirely different topic, best left for another time.
And none of that applies to CAP because everyone enters with zero idea as to how WE operate.
Quote from: Капитан Хаткевич on June 28, 2016, 05:06:18 AM
And none of that applies to CAP because everyone enters with zero idea as to how WE operate.
And there is the core issue that many seem to forget. I was a USAF MSgt when I joined CAP (went officer route) and I knew ZERO about CAP so if I did choose to be a CAP NCO and people looked to me to be a CAP expert they would have been in for a rude awakening.
NCOs are looked at to either be experts or highly knowledgeable in their field. There are probably very few new CAP NCOs that are knowledgeable of CAP. It looks like we are trying to build a boat by throwing the engine in the water and then trying to build the boat around it before the engine sinks. Let's build the boat (CAP SM junior enlisted), and then put the engine inside (CAP NCOs).
As a prior cadet, retired Chief, today is my first day as a Senior Member. After completing level one and ES along with all the protection training this weekend, what exactly is the process for my promotion to CMSgt in CAP? Just submitting my DD-214 through e-services? Asking this esteemed group rather than guessing or trying to dig it up in the regs. Thanks in advance....
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: dwr2829 on June 30, 2016, 10:31:57 PMwhat exactly is the process for my promotion to CMSgt in CAP? Just submitting my DD-214 through e-services?
Per the regs, your CC or Personnel Officer would send the DD214 w/ the Form 2 direct to NHQ, however word here is that
they are now requiring the promotions be approved at all levels they normally would respective to the grade requested.
Speaking only for direct experience in my wing and region, military equivalent promotions, especially in the FGO and advanced NCO
areas are being scrutinized heavily for "what role will he play"?
As a former cadet, you may qualify for advanced professional development credit based on the level you completed there.
I believe there's the same 6 month waiting period as well. At least that's the way I read it and am about halfway through the wait.
Some relevent passages from 35-5. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_005_489E25C089E93.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_005_489E25C089E93.pdf)
This appears to be the current operational policy, in violation of 35-5:
"h. NCO Grades. The squadron commander is the promoting authority for members
assigned to his or her unit for the grades of staff sergeant and technical sergeant. The wing
commander is the promoting authority for promotions to the grade of master sergeant and the
region commander is the promoting authority for the grade of senior master sergeant. The
National Commander is the promoting authority for the grade of Chief Master Sergeant. "
"b. Noncommissioned Officer. Board Chairmen will be the appropriate commander
(Squadron, Wing, Region or National Commander) for the level of promotion. Board members
will be senior in grade to the candidates and will be appointed by the presiding commander.
Boards may be held in person or be conducted telephonically and will consist of no less than the
Chairman and five Board members"
Love that one - Officers only require 3 board members, but NCOs require 6?
As mentioned - L1 + 6 months
"b. The member must also have completed Level I of the Professional Development
Program and served 6 months in CAP."
"c. Members who meet the eligibility requirement outlined above may assume a CAP
NCO grade equivalent to their military grade upon presentation of documentation to the unit
commander (a copy of DD Form 214, military identification card or promotion order showing
the grade requested is considered sufficient). The CAPF 2 will be annotated to reflect the NCO
grade authorized and forward this form to National Headquarters for recording. Forms may be
submitted by e-mail, fax or U.S. Postal Service as outlined in paragraph 1-8c(1) above. The
member is authorized to wear the grade (CAP distinctive chevrons only) on the CAP uniform as
soon as the NCO grade is reflected in eServices."
Note the language "assume" - there's no "approval" necessary, and "double-secret" revisions that block this
leave the person refusing open to a sustainable complaint. NHQ is simply "recording" the annotation,
there is no allowance for any consideration or approval. A member simply presents his documentation
to the Unit CC and LeMay's your uncle. within this context I don't even see an allowance for the
Unit CC to refuse the "annotation".
Note also the difference in the language between officers and NCOs:
"3-4. Regular and Reserve Officers of the Armed Forces. Regular, Reserve and National
Guard Officers of the Armed Forces or Coast Guard of the United States, active, retired or
resigned, may be advanced to a CAP grade equivalent to their grade in the Armed Forces (but
not to exceed lieutenant colonel), in recognition of their military knowledge and experience.
Such promotions are neither automatic nor mandatory, but are at the discretion of the promoting
authority outlined in paragraph 1-5. Additionally, individuals who obtained the grade of warrant
officer may be promoted to the CAP grade shown in figure 3 below. The unit commander will
initiate initial promotion to officer grade based on prior military service only where proper
documentation for that grade exists (a copy of DD Form 214, military identification card or
promotion order showing the grade requested is considered sufficient)."
Officers do not "assume" they are "advanced", and this contains verbiage regarding
these advancements being "neither automatic, nor mandatory", however the NCO "assumptions"
contain no such provision. In fact, officer equivalency promotions have to go through the full
chain respective to the grade requested.
Why the disparity? An Air Force Major has to go through Wing for his equivalency, but a Master Sargent can
just walk in and tell his superior "I'll be wearing these, send this up...Sir..."
Goose and gander should be the same for all.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2016, 11:32:02 PM
"b. Noncommissioned Officer. Board Chairmen will be the appropriate commander
(Squadron, Wing, Region or National Commander) for the level of promotion. Board members
will be senior in grade to the candidates and will be appointed by the presiding commander.
Boards may be held in person or be conducted telephonically and will consist of no less than the
Chairman and five Board members"
Love that one - Officers only require 3 board members, but NCOs require 6?
I've always also thought it redundant to have a commander on a board. The board makes a recommendation to the commander, as such, the Commander chairing the board means that the Commander is making a recommendation to him/her self.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 01, 2016, 12:19:16 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2016, 11:32:02 PM
"b. Noncommissioned Officer. Board Chairmen will be the appropriate commander
(Squadron, Wing, Region or National Commander) for the level of promotion. Board members
will be senior in grade to the candidates and will be appointed by the presiding commander.
Boards may be held in person or be conducted telephonically and will consist of no less than the
Chairman and five Board members"
Love that one - Officers only require 3 board members, but NCOs require 6?
I've always also thought it redundant to have a commander on a board. The board makes a recommendation to the commander, as such, the Commander chairing the board means that the Commander is making a recommendation to him/her self.
There's a term for that, some say it robs you of your eyesight.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2016, 11:32:02 PM
Some relevent passages from 35-5. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_005_489E25C089E93.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_005_489E25C089E93.pdf)
This appears to be the current operational policy, in violation of 35-5:
"h. NCO Grades. The squadron commander is the promoting authority for members
assigned to his or her unit for the grades of staff sergeant and technical sergeant. The wing
commander is the promoting authority for promotions to the grade of master sergeant and the
region commander is the promoting authority for the grade of senior master sergeant. The
National Commander is the promoting authority for the grade of Chief Master Sergeant. "
"b. Noncommissioned Officer. Board Chairmen will be the appropriate commander
(Squadron, Wing, Region or National Commander) for the level of promotion. Board members
will be senior in grade to the candidates and will be appointed by the presiding commander.
Boards may be held in person or be conducted telephonically and will consist of no less than the
Chairman and five Board members"
Love that one - Officers only require 3 board members, but NCOs require 6?
As mentioned - L1 + 6 months
"b. The member must also have completed Level I of the Professional Development
Program and served 6 months in CAP."
"c. Members who meet the eligibility requirement outlined above may assume a CAP
NCO grade equivalent to their military grade upon presentation of documentation to the unit
commander (a copy of DD Form 214, military identification card or promotion order showing
the grade requested is considered sufficient). The CAPF 2 will be annotated to reflect the NCO
grade authorized and forward this form to National Headquarters for recording. Forms may be
submitted by e-mail, fax or U.S. Postal Service as outlined in paragraph 1-8c(1) above. The
member is authorized to wear the grade (CAP distinctive chevrons only) on the CAP uniform as
soon as the NCO grade is reflected in eServices."
Note the language "assume" - there's no "approval" necessary, and "double-secret" revisions that block this
leave the person refusing open to a sustainable complaint. NHQ is simply "recording" the annotation,
there is no allowance for any consideration or approval. A member simply presents his documentation
to the Unit CC and LeMay's your uncle. within this context I don't even see an allowance for the
Unit CC to refuse the "annotation".
Note also the difference in the language between officers and NCOs:
"3-4. Regular and Reserve Officers of the Armed Forces. Regular, Reserve and National
Guard Officers of the Armed Forces or Coast Guard of the United States, active, retired or
resigned, may be advanced to a CAP grade equivalent to their grade in the Armed Forces (but
not to exceed lieutenant colonel), in recognition of their military knowledge and experience.
Such promotions are neither automatic nor mandatory, but are at the discretion of the promoting
authority outlined in paragraph 1-5. Additionally, individuals who obtained the grade of warrant
officer may be promoted to the CAP grade shown in figure 3 below. The unit commander will
initiate initial promotion to officer grade based on prior military service only where proper
documentation for that grade exists (a copy of DD Form 214, military identification card or
promotion order showing the grade requested is considered sufficient)."
Officers do not "assume" they are "advanced", and this contains verbiage regarding
these advancements being "neither automatic, nor mandatory", however the NCO "assumptions"
contain no such provision. In fact, officer equivalency promotions have to go through the full
chain respective to the grade requested.
Why the disparity? An Air Force Major has to go through Wing for his equivalency, but a Master Sargent can
just walk in and tell his superior "I'll be wearing these, send this up...Sir..."
Goose and gander should be the same for all.
There is a great deal of disparity between initial promotions for NCOs and officers. I just went though this a couple of months ago with a retired MSgt who almost quite CAP over the whole ordeal. He found it "offensive" (his words) that an NCO had to wait 6 months before being allowed to be promoted while an officer could just walk in off the street and get their CAP equivalent rank. He was also "offended" over the different sizes of the promotion boards. This promotion had to go through the food chain (Squadron, Group, Wing, Region) and then be reviewed by the National Command Chief who then made a recommendation to the National CC. This process took well over a month after it left Region.
In contrast, an O-5 only needs Region approval and that process can take less than 2 weeks.
So I guess the real question is, "Why is it harder to come in as an NCO than it is an officer?"
This really doesn't make much sense if you are trying to build the program.
My guess it is harder because as has been alluded to here, and in other related threads: This is the newest plan for NCO's. The officer plan is still operating under the "old" plan. Sometime in the future the officer plan will be updated accordingly.
just my guess
MK
Thanks all for the insight. Another question...how many Chiefs (Senior members) are there in CAP? Will national try to keep the numbers low to run parallel to the one percent that the Air Force mandates?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was told yesterday about 10.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2016, 10:40:04 PM
Per the regs, your CC or Personnel Officer would send the DD214 w/ the Form 2 direct to NHQ, however word here is that
they are now requiring the promotions be approved at all levels they normally would respective to the grade requested.
That's what happened when I processed one IAW CAPR 35-5. Kicked back by NHQ because it didn't follow the double secret policy. When NHQ doesn't feel any particular need to follow its own written regulations, the whole program is called into question.
Quote from: dwr2829 on July 01, 2016, 10:10:33 AM
Thanks all for the insight. Another question...how many Chiefs (Senior members) are there in CAP? Will national try to keep the numbers low to run parallel to the one percent that the Air Force mandates?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It will be low based on the fact SNCO promotions are based on duty position (CAPR 35-5 Figure 8 ) unless a lot of retired Chiefs join CAP and go the NCO route (highly unlikely in my opinion). Only 1 promotion to fill the Wing/Region SNCO Adviser so each Wing or Region can only promote a single person to CMSgt and that is to fill the role of SNCO Adviser. In the same regard, only one person can be promoted to SMSgt to fill a Group/Wing/Region NCO Adviser position and only one person can be promoted to MSgt to fill a Squadron/Flight NCO position.
There are also minimum term limits in order to retain that grade so you just can't cycle people through those positions to get promoted. Thank breaks down to only one person getting promoted to Chief every 4 years in each Wing or Region, one person getting SMSgt every 3 years per Group/Wing/Region and one person getting MSgt every 2 years per Squadron/Flight.
This is actually a great idea and hopefully will filter over to the officer side very soon. That will eventually cut down on the number of high-rank/no responsibility officers.
Quote from: kwe1009 on July 01, 2016, 12:34:31 AM
I just went though this a couple of months ago with a retired MSgt who almost quite CAP over the whole ordeal. He found it "offensive" (his words) that an NCO had to wait 6 months before being allowed to be promoted while an officer could just walk in off the street and get their CAP equivalent rank. He was also "offended" over the different sizes of the promotion boards. This promotion had to go through the food chain (Squadron, Group, Wing, Region) and then be reviewed by the National Command Chief who then made a recommendation to the National CC. This process took well over a month after it left Region.
My prediction is that this person will not renew his CAP membership after the first year.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 01, 2016, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on July 01, 2016, 12:34:31 AM
I just went though this a couple of months ago with a retired MSgt who almost quite CAP over the whole ordeal. He found it "offensive" (his words) that an NCO had to wait 6 months before being allowed to be promoted while an officer could just walk in off the street and get their CAP equivalent rank. He was also "offended" over the different sizes of the promotion boards. This promotion had to go through the food chain (Squadron, Group, Wing, Region) and then be reviewed by the National Command Chief who then made a recommendation to the National CC. This process took well over a month after it left Region.
My prediction is that this person will not renew his CAP membership after the first year.
And that's if he continues to participate at all.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 01, 2016, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on July 01, 2016, 12:34:31 AM
I just went though this a couple of months ago with a retired MSgt who almost quite CAP over the whole ordeal. He found it "offensive" (his words) that an NCO had to wait 6 months before being allowed to be promoted while an officer could just walk in off the street and get their CAP equivalent rank. He was also "offended" over the different sizes of the promotion boards. This promotion had to go through the food chain (Squadron, Group, Wing, Region) and then be reviewed by the National Command Chief who then made a recommendation to the National CC. This process took well over a month after it left Region.
My prediction is that this person will not renew his CAP membership after the first year.
I'm afraid that you might be correct.