message to military folks that work with cadets

[flyguy06]

Please be careful of what you say in front of cadets or how you teach them. I was visiting a squadron last night and I asked  a cadet what was his rank. He told me he was an e-6. Now as far as I know e-6 is NOT a rank. Its a pay grade used by members of the military. Cadets do not get paid therefore they do not not have pay grades.

Obviously he learned that  from somewhere and he assumed because we incorrectly use this term in the military to describe our rank (its wrong in the army too) that he can do the same in the cadet program. This is wrong He is a Tech Sergeant, Thats his rank, not e-6. And we that work in the cadet program need to teach them the correct phraseology

Topic title spelling - MIKE

[carnold1836]

Actually In the CAP cadet program Tech Sergeant the cadet's grade. Their rank is determined by how long they have been that particular grade compred to other cadets with the same grade. That is one of the first things the cadets learn in their leadership books while studying for the Curry.

[shorning]

Why do you assume it was a military person?  I mean, if you're going to paint us all with the same brush we should know why.  It doesn't take a military person to make the kind of mistake you described.  Heck, from the little bit you told us, there might not be a military person involved at all.  The "somewhere" could have been the cadet looking at a manual, or a chart, or the internet.  It's not exactly a national secret.  So ease up on the finger pointin', 'kay?  Your message would have been the same had you simply said "seniors that work with cadets".  No need to lambaste the military folk.

[flyguy06]

Actually In the CAP cadet program Tech Sergeant the cadet's grade. Their rank is determined by how long they have been that particular grade compred to other cadets with the same grade. That is one of the first things the cadets learn in their leadership books while studying for the Curry.

That wasnt the point of my post

[flyguy06]

Why do you assume it was a military person?  I mean, if you're going to paint us all with the same brush we should know why.  It doesn't take a military person to make the kind of mistake you described.  Heck, from the little bit you told us, there might not be a military person involved at all.  The "somewhere" could have been the cadet looking at a manual, or a chart, or the internet.  It's not exactly a national secret.  So ease up on the finger pointin', 'kay?  Your message would have been the same had you simply said "seniors that work with cadets".  No need to lambaste the military folk.

I assume it was someone in the military because I aminthe military and Iknow how we are. But you are right.It may not have been.

Iguess the wholepointof my post was to be careful what we are teaching our caets. Its not fingerpointing at anyone. Heck, I dont know any of you folks. Its a general statement

[Ned]

(. . .) This is wrong He is a Tech Sergeant, Thats his rank, not e-6. And we that work in the cadet program need to teach them the correct phraseology

I'm sorry, I think I missed the problem here.

You asked a question, and the cadet answered.

Did you not understand his answer?

Why are you busting his chops?  Did you really not understand him?  Was he not wearing his grade in the first place?


The point here is communication, and it sounds like he adequately communicated the information. 

I understand you didn't like the format of his answer, but would it have been any different if he had answered "Tech Sergeant, sir"?


BZZZZT.  "Sorry son, that is not the correct answer -- you failed to respond 'Cadet Technical Sergeant' as stated in CAPR 52-16, figure 2-3.  You receive a 'no-go' on this question.  Report to the First Sergeant for re-training."

[Becks]

(. . .) This is wrong He is a Tech Sergeant, Thats his rank, not e-6. And we that work in the cadet program need to teach them the correct phraseology

I'm sorry, I think I missed the problem here.

You asked a question, and the cadet answered.

Did you not understand his answer?

Why are you busting his chops?  Did you really not understand him?  Was he not wearing his grade in the first place?

No but a C/TSgt is not an E-6.  Like Flyguy said "E" or "O" are designators of paygrades (Take for instance E-4 in the army; it can be Specialist or Corporal, two different ranks within the same paygrade), and thusly not applicable to the CP.  Proper terminology is important, though a simple on the spot explanation and correction is all it takes.

[mikeylikey]

Perhaps the cadet knew you were in the military and were trying to relate to what you know.  You said you are in the military, and thats how "we" in the military operate. 

[flyguy06]

(. . .) This is wrong He is a Tech Sergeant, Thats his rank, not e-6. And we that work in the cadet program need to teach them the correct phraseology

I'm sorry, I think I missed the problem here.

You asked a question, and the cadet answered.

Did you not understand his answer?

Why are you busting his chops?  Did you really not understand him?  Was he not wearing his grade in the first place?


The point here is communication, and it sounds like he adequately communicated the information. 

I understand you didn't like the format of his answer, but would it have been any different if he had answered "Tech Sergeant, sir"?


BZZZZT.  "Sorry son, that is not the correct answer -- you failed to respond 'Cadet Technical Sergeant' as stated in CAPR 52-16, figure 2-3.  You receive a 'no-go' on this question.  Report to the First Sergeant for re-training."

Who said I busted his chops? I never said anything like that.

[Ned]

(. . .) This is wrong He is a Tech Sergeant, Thats his rank, not e-6. And we that work in the cadet program need to teach them the correct phraseology

I'm sorry, I think I missed the problem here.

You asked a question, and the cadet answered.

Did you not understand his answer?

Why are you busting his chops?  Did you really not understand him?  Was he not wearing his grade in the first place?

No but a C/TSgt is not an E-6.  Like Flyguy said "E" or "O" are designators of paygrades (Take for instance E-4 in the army; it can be Specialist or Corporal, two different ranks within the same paygrade), and thusly not applicable to the CP.  Proper terminology is important, though a simple on the spot explanation and correction is all it takes.

In the context of the question, an E-6 is indeed a Technical Sergeant.  The cadet knew to whom he was speaking and chose his words to communicate the concept accurately.  There was no mis-commication here.

Just some sort of "gotcha" game being played by a hyper-technical senior, who in a misguided effort to "correct" a cadet, probably taught the cadet an altogether different lesson.  One about senior members, and one that all too many cadets have to learn.

And yes, publicly announcing that a perfectly correct answer is "wrong" (your words, not mine) is, among other things, busting his chops.

[flyguy06]

Hold on wait a minute. There are some overly sensative people on hre. First of all, I didnt bust anyones chops. I idnt even corrct the cadet. I just happen to mention iton THIS board. Idont fault him at all.But I do think he was wrong. It dosnt matter if I am in the army or not. right is right. If you are going to have a standard than follow it.

If Iwere writing a memo and addressing an Air Force Captain. Should I write Dear CPT or Dear Capt? they are both correct but one is Army and the other is USAF. Ther eis a correct way.

I didnt really think I would get this kind of respnse Geeeez. Nevermind I said anything.

Plus, I am recent former cadet so I think I know how cdets think. Thanks though

[afgeo4]

Ok, E-6 in the Air Force is Technical Sergeant.
E-6 is a pay grade that indicates the level of pay, not rank (although there is a rank name attached to the pay grade)
An E-6 in another service may be called something else.

The cadet is a C/Technical Sergeant, so he's not that far off in describing his grade.
Technical Sergeant is a Grade in CAP like E-6 is a Grade in USAF, so I could see the confusion.

If a CAP cadet was talking to a Sea Cadet and tried to explain his grade, the best way to approach it is to use the pay grade military comparison and he's be right to do so.

So... this very minor infraction (confusion actually) isn't worth all this attention from any of us. If there aren't any bigger fish to fry in that squadron please let us know cause we'll all take a field trip and do a big study on how that particular unit is able to be perfect.

And lay off the military folk please... if we were so smart we'd be politicians, make millions of dollars and have hot interns. Instead we are airmen/soldiers/sailors/coasguardsmen/Marines who make peanuts and ... well ...  I don't wanna comment on females we work with. 

[SarDragon]

[stuff redacted] And lay off the military folk please... if we were so smart we'd be politicians, make millions of dollars and have hot interns. Instead we are airmen/soldiers/sailors/coasguardsmen/Marines who make peanuts and ... well ...  I don't wanna comment on females we work with. 

FWIW, Mr flyguy is on AD as we speak, so he has some familiarity with the big picture. I tend to agree with his position of discouraging the use of incorrect terminology. If we teach it wrong, it gets perpetuated into the next generation ad nauseum.

[CLB]

OH!  The DRAMA! 

[DNall]

Actually In the CAP cadet program Tech Sergeant the cadet's grade. Their rank is determined by how long they have been that particular grade compred to other cadets with the same grade. That is one of the first things the cadets learn in their leadership books while studying for the Curry.

More correctly, "rank" is your position over or under another person. So yes that includes precedence of your grade to other TSgts, but also includes SqCC over cadet - they outrank you by position.

In the military it is common to use your paygrade (E-6, O-3) to describe a person's rank when in a joint situation that the toehr guy may or may not remember what a Marine or Navy E6 is called, but knows they outrank them or not. It's okay within reason. Also, you'll find in registering with AFIADL that we do use pay-grades (O-3) equiv to our grade (Capt). That is correct for use in CAP if you are paid or not. The cadet would be incorrect in this case cause he in fact is not an E-6, but rather a SM TSgt would be an E-6. That's an important distinction unless you want C/LtCol's registering for AWC while still in HS.

I think if you want to press it, everyone is GS-9 I think it is that they cover us at on benefits if we get hurt.

And lay off the military folk please... if we were so smart we'd be politicians, make millions of dollars and have hot interns. Instead we are airmen/soldiers/sailors/coasguardsmen/Marines who make peanuts and ... well ...  I don't wanna comment on females we work with. 

Yeah I'm leaving poltics & taking four times less to go flying for a while. Still waiting for those playboy posing troops. What the hell? Who gets deployed with that? Can I go green to blue for a little while or what? 

[mikeylikey]

If Iwere writing a memo and addressing an Air Force Captain. Should I write Dear CPT or Dear Capt? they are both correct but one is Army and the other is USAF. Ther eis a correct way.

I never understood that.  When did the AF switch from using the Army abreviations for rank.  I guess it was one of those changes after World War II to make the AF more distinctive.  They should never have changed that, since they pretty much kept everything else from the Army regarding writing style and format. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Mikey:

Actually, the Army switched.

They established a computer database called SIDPERS (Standard Installation and Division Personnel Something Something System).  SIDPERS allowed for 3 characters in the "rank" entry.  The Army made it standard for all rank abbreviations.  Generals had to be given a hyphen in SIDPERS, but not in other abbreviations.  BG in SIDPERS became B-G.

[BlackKnight]

I think flyguy is absolutely correct with his remarks about the E-6 issue.
I'm discouraged that many of the replies in this thread "shot the messenger" rather than putting any serious thought toward the problem that flyguy tried to bring to our attention.

The CAP Cadet Program has standards. The most basic of those is learning how to wear the uniform properly, and learning proper terminology for the CAP grade structure.  There is absolutely no excuse for a C/TSgt to ever refer to himself as an "E-6" when speaking to a uniformed CAP officer. 

I've visited squadrons similar to what flyguy describes.  The E-6 terminology is a dead giveaway for the iceberg-sized problem underneath.  Along with the ignorance regarding grade terminology you may also see cadets and seniors running around in digital camo. You'll see plenty of new cadet airmen but few senior NCOs or cadet officers because their leadership training is so poor that they can't pass the Phase II and Phase III tests.  On blues night the color guard will be wearing their shoulder cords army-style, attached to the epaulet button instead of the shoulder seam. You'll see seniors wearing the old style cadet service coats. (Because frankly, they just don't give a crap about CAP/USAF standards and it's not worth spending spend their money on a proper uniform. But they'll spend hundreds of dollars on army gear.) Their ES training will be conducted from army field manuals rather than the CAP ES Task guides.  Their drill commands will be army or marine style commands and movements. Mention AFMAN 36-2203 to one of their cadet NCOs and you'll get that deer-in-the-headlights look almost every time.

Given the choice between conducting a squadron FTX or participating in wing/group level activities, they'll invariably eschew activities where their cadet members might run into someone like flyguy and get taken to task because they don't know what they should for the number of chevrons on their collar.   

You may conclude I'm more than a little passionate about this issue. 
Because when I see this I know it's a squadron that's denying their cadets the full-value of the CAP Cadet Program.  The seniors in the squadron are so busy trying to redefine CAP/USAF standards that they shortchange their cadets.  They don't promote on time, they don't apply for NCSAs, they don't take advantage of aerospace education opportunities.  But show them an Abrams tank and they'll be able to name every major part on it...

The self-starter cadets eventually realize they've been taught incorrectly and they drift out of the program or transfer to another squadron.  Others stay happily oblivious and enjoy becoming very big fish in a very small pond. The only long term solution is for we seniors to educate ourselves on CAP standards, enforce them, and quit teaching incorrect terminology and standards.

JMHO, 

[SarDragon]

Thank you for your golden eloquence.

[lordmonar]

If Iwere writing a memo and addressing an Air Force Captain. Should I write Dear CPT or Dear Capt? they are both correct but one is Army and the other is USAF. Ther eis a correct way.

I never understood that.  When did the AF switch from using the Army abreviations for rank.  I guess it was one of those changes after World War II to make the AF more distinctive.  They should never have changed that, since they pretty much kept everything else from the Army regarding writing style and format.

What makes you think that it was the USAF that changed?  I don't know how they abbreviated things back in 1947....but I have been in the USAF all my life (my father was AD military) and as far as I know the USAF has always abbreviated their ranks the way they do now.

[Ned]

I think flyguy is absolutely correct with his remarks about the E-6 issue.
I'm discouraged that many of the replies in this thread "shot the messenger" rather than putting any serious thought toward the problem that flyguy tried to bring to our attention.

(. . .)   

You may conclude I'm more than a little passionate about this issue. 
Because when I see this I know it's a squadron that's denying their cadets the full-value of the CAP Cadet Program.  The seniors in the squadron are so busy trying to redefine CAP/USAF standards that they shortchange their cadets. 

JMHO, 

Phil,

Prepare to be discouraged again.

While I may have wrongly assumed that the original poster publicly "corrected" the cadet, I suspect your passionate slippery slope argument about squadrons going to hell in a handbasket because of a single question and answer is equally misguided.

It all started with a fairly simple inquiry.  A senior asked a cadet a question.  The cadet responded with a perfectly understandable answer that instantly communicated the requested information. 

Was it a doctrinally perfect answer cut-and-pasted from the 52-16?  No, but the question didn't call for such a thing.  For anyone to pronounce such an answer as "wrong" requires additional context not provided, or is simply hypertechnical.

At this point, anyone who has never addressed a lieutenant as "L-T," described an Army MSG as "three-up-and-three-down," or referred to an NCO as "Sarge" may take the cadet to task.  Others may be somewhat hypocritical.

Communication is effective and efficient if it can be readily and easily understood.

It was.

[ZigZag911]

Except a cadet isn't an "E" anything.

[Ned]

Except a cadet isn't an "E" anything.

Thanks for helping me make the point.  Successful communication is all about context. 

Your simple statement "Except a cadet isn't an 'E' anything," is either true or false outside a given context.

Example:  the dictionary on my desk says "enlisted" means "of or related to a rank below an officer or warrant officer."  I'm, sure you'd agree that the grade of Cadet Technical Sergeant is below that of any officer or warrant officer.  So, assuming that we agree that "E" is short for enlisted, then the cadet correctly described that he held the sixth grade of the cadet enlisted series (as defined by the dictionary.)  Normally when someone uses a word correctly (IOW, as defined by a mainstream dictionary) they are not "Wrong."

Example:  Some cadets are indeed "enlisted" in the sense that they have entered into contracts of enlistment with the Armed Forces.  I was such a cadet.  It is also worth remembering that most cadets are in organizations other than the CAP.

(There are other examples, but I hope you take my point.)

IOW, your statement "Except that a cadet isn't an 'E' anything," can be either true or false -- right or wrong -- depending on the context.

Tying this back to the original post, a senior (who apparently is an armed forces member on AD) asked a cadet about their grade.  The cadet responded in a way that was familiar and easily understandable to the senior.  Unless you think that the cadet was actually trying to fool an AD service member into thinking that the cadet was a USAF Technical Sergeant.  But that of course is a foolish interpretation of the answer.

The only real puzzle is why we are still talking about a relatively simple (and successful) exchange between the cadet NCO and a senior.

[Chappie]

Except a cadet isn't an "E" anything.

The only real puzzle is why we are still talking about a relatively simple (and successful) exchange between the cadet NCO and a senior.

Was it from Proverbs or was it something from Ben Franklin or was it my late grandmother that said something about "making a mountain out of a molehill"?

[DNall]

Except a cadet isn't an "E" anything.

The only real puzzle is why we are still talking about a relatively simple (and successful) exchange between the cadet NCO and a senior.

Was it from Proverbs or was it something from Ben Franklin or was it my late grandmother that said something about "making a mountain out of a molehill"?

You know what percentage of our time as cadet programs officers is spent un-training incorrect behaviors? You know how much harder that is than teaching them right & to standard in the first place? Last month I saw a cadet officer wearing GT & solo badges in side by side format on blues. DnC/CnC is bad. NCO skills are real bad. Officer development is understandablly horrible (cause adults don't have much experience w/ it on that level). Our wing had to institute a centralized training program some years back to standardize cadets at varrious levels to a minimal basic skill set that just isn't ever reached in many Sqs.

I know this discussion is silly, but it springs from a legit issue the gentleman seeks to remind us of, and that's very valid.

[ZigZag911]

Except a cadet isn't an "E" anything.

Thanks for helping me make the point.  Successful communication is all about context. 

Your simple statement "Except a cadet isn't an 'E' anything," is either true or false outside a given context.

Example:  the dictionary on my desk says "enlisted" means "of or related to a rank below an officer or warrant officer."  I'm, sure you'd agree that the grade of Cadet Technical Sergeant is below that of any officer or warrant officer.  So, assuming that we agree that "E" is short for enlisted, then the cadet correctly described that he held the sixth grade of the cadet enlisted series (as defined by the dictionary.)  Normally when someone uses a word correctly (IOW, as defined by a mainstream dictionary) they are not "Wrong."

Example:  Some cadets are indeed "enlisted" in the sense that they have entered into contracts of enlistment with the Armed Forces.  I was such a cadet.  It is also worth remembering that most cadets are in organizations other than the CAP.

(There are other examples, but I hope you take my point.)

IOW, your statement "Except that a cadet isn't an 'E' anything," can be either true or false -- right or wrong -- depending on the context.

Tying this back to the original post, a senior (who apparently is an armed forces member on AD) asked a cadet about their grade.  The cadet responded in a way that was familiar and easily understandable to the senior.  Unless you think that the cadet was actually trying to fool an AD service member into thinking that the cadet was a USAF Technical Sergeant.  But that of course is a foolish interpretation of the answer.

The only real puzzle is why we are still talking about a relatively simple (and successful) exchange between the cadet NCO and a senior.

Cadets (below cadet officer grades) are as much 'enlisted' as seniors are 'commissioned'.

We all "join" CAP, we don't 'enlist'.

Military personnel enlist.

Cadets are cadet airmen, cadet NCOs, or cadet officers.

I'll grant that it was used as a colloquial expression....either verbal shorthand, or an effort (certainly harmless!) by the cadet to impress the senior wit his knowledge of military jargon.

Still, we don't want to encourage the cadets to indulge in 'wannabe' activities, there are already too many senios ding so!

[Guardrail]

Still, we don't want to encourage the cadets to indulge in 'wannabe' activities, there are already too many senios ding so!

I think there are too many senios ding so too!

[Chappie]

I know this discussion is silly, but it springs from a legit issue the gentleman seeks to remind us of, and that's very valid.

Another instance of miscommunication:  Not minimizing the importance of cadets learning the right way....was just overwhelmed by the continued discussion of "is-is so". 

[flyguy06]

Except a cadet isn't an "E" anything.

The only real puzzle is why we are still talking about a relatively simple (and successful) exchange between the cadet NCO and a senior.

Was it from Proverbs or was it something from Ben Franklin or was it my late grandmother that said something about "making a mountain out of a molehill"?

God. I agree withthat sooooooo much.

Look, I am an Infantry guy. I keep things simple. Bottom line Cadets are not E anything. SO saying E-6 is an incorrect term. Its just that simple. I have no idea what Ned is talking about.

Ned, I am sure you are a great guy, but you are realy diggin too deep on this.You are trying to ratinalize something thats not there. The cadet wasnt saying E because he is enlisted. Ok, you are making much ado of nothing

[flyguy06]

Cadets are basically officer trainees. Ok, I have a perfect example. When I was ROTC in college, we held various leadership positions. One week, I may be a Platoon Sergeant, the next week, I may be a Company Commander, the next week, I may be a Squad member. Ok. At no time while held rank in the ROTC cadet program did I address myself as an "E" grade. I was a Staff Sergeant, then I was a Captain, then I was  Private. In any cadet program(CAP. ROTC, Sea cadets, whatever) , thats the proper title.

I hope this clears up this minor issue that I raised. 

[ZigZag911]

Still, we don't want to encourage the cadets to indulge in 'wannabe' activities, there are already too many senios ding so!

I think there are too many senios ding so too!

Gotta remember to use that SPEL ChEk feature!

[JohnKachenmeister]

I can't believe this has gone on for two pages.

I thought I was bad, but sometimes, guys, I DO get outside and see the sun.

If an offhand comment by a 15 year old trying to impress an adult generates this much drama, you ALL need to go out to the nearest bar, and have a few beers.  Maybe talk the barmaid into showing off her tattoos, or something.  Anything to bring a little perspective into your life!

[arajca]

John, you gotta keep in mind that many of us do this while abaysitting papers/computers/furnishings at the office.

[flyguy06]

I can't believe this has gone on for two pages.

I thought I was bad, but sometimes, guys, I DO get outside and see the sun.

If an offhand comment by a 15 year old trying to impress an adult generates this much drama, you ALL need to go out to the nearest bar, and have a few beers.  Maybe talk the barmaid into showing off her tattoos, or something.  Anything to bring a little perspective into your life!

I agreee

[Skyray]

Cadets are basically officer trainees. Ok, I have a perfect example. When I was ROTC in college, we held various leadership positions. One week, I may be a Platoon Sergeant, the next week, I may be a Company Commander, the next week, I may be a Squad member. Ok. At no time while held rank in the ROTC cadet program did I address myself as an "E" grade. I was a Staff Sergeant, then I was a Captain, then I was  Private. In any cadet program(CAP. ROTC, Sea cadets, whatever) , thats the proper title.

I hope this clears up this minor issue that I raised. 

That's funny, I was a midshipman in NROTC where the training was done by Marines, and I don't ever remember being anything but a "MAGGOT.

[Chappie]

I can't believe this has gone on for two pages.

I agreee

Waiting for this thread to come out in its Readers Digest condensed version