CAP Talk

Perusing the CSAG minutes from November, I came across some numbers which if accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that they're not accurate) cut to the heart of a lot of the debates on CAPTalk over the years about our professionalism: it appears that only a shade over 6% of the Lt. Cols. walking around in CAP uniforms completed the appropriate PD levels for that grade, and just under 15% of Majors have completed PD for that grade.

I read a lot of hand-wringing on this board (and hear it from colleagues) about how some commanders seem to be running GOB Flying Clubs... don't apply the regs consistently...blow off uniforms...make up their own rules...or embarrass themselves (and us by extension) in the way they interact with other agencies, other CAP units or Ma Blue. Well, looking at these numbers, what do we expect??? An overwhelming 94% of Lt. Cols., based on 2012 data, had failed to complete Professional Development appropriate to their grade. That's darn near close to all. And for Majors that number is 85%.

In other words, there's a better-than-average chance that the Major or Lt. Col. you're talking to at any given moment has not done the "CAP homework" we think is required to be effective at that grade. Meanwhile we also hear about people who work diligently through the PD program and find their promotions pocket-vetoed or simply ignored...probably by a Major or Lt. Col. who has not done PD themselves and doesn't put much stock in it. As a relatively recent returnee to CAP after a three-decade absence (I came back in 2011), I find that genuinely astonishing.

Col. Cooper, chair of the National Promotion Eligibility Working Group, and his team made several recommendations which are now, I gather, under review. Personally I hope those recommendations are adopted, because I think they'll help raise the professionalism and expectations of our field-grade officers. The major changes involve extending the TIG requirement for progression, mandating Officer Basic Course for 2nd Lt. rather than letting folks take it later on, raising the PD levels one step for each grade (i.e., make Level III a Captain requirement rather than a Major requirement) and requiring a letter of justification for field-grade promotions.

I have a very large number of current active and prior-service military serving in my squadron. O-4s, O-5s and a smattering of O-6s. They all conclude that "grade in CAP is meaningless." To an extent they're right. In the military if you walk into a room full of strangers and you're trying to find the Guy/Gal In Charge, look at people's shoulders...except in CAP. I have a great guy on my staff who left the Navy as an O-5, and we got him a Lt. Col. after a few months in CAP because he was doing such a great job (and still is, by the way). Now he's going back and stepping through the PD stuff that he would have had to do without getting the Special Promotion, and I applaud that. When he's done, he'll not just know the Navy way but the CAP way, and he'll understand why CAP's legal framework and volunteer nature create major differences in leadership and management tactics required to keep things moving. He'll be as effective a CAP officer as he doubtless was a Naval officer.

There was a line in the working group's final November report worrying about how to make it have a minimal effect on existing members: well, as a guy who just pinned Captain, I would be directly affected by this and would see the goal post for Major move at least a year further away with other additional requirements as well. And you know what? I welcome it. I really do. I would welcome anything that makes our officer corps more professional, more mature and starts to address the Goober Problem (™) as a good thing.

 

hmm, my wing has more folks that aren't where they "should" be, but its nowhere near that level.  Any chance that you read the numbers backwards or they've got them backwards?  Everytime I've looked at my wing over the years its something like 60-75% of officers are at the "right" PD level. 

I'd be very interested how they actually came to those numbers.  There are a lot of field-grade officers
that completed the work but it was never recorded, or recorded improperly.  So if eServices is the data
source, I'd call those numbers into suspicion.

I'd also be interested in whether those numbers include empty shirts.  Nationally we have far too many
people who checked out 2 decades ago but are still paying their dues, and not all wings patron-ize them,
and that assumes they didn't include patron and 000 members in those numbers.

Now dirty data aside, I personally think everyone, military, pilot, lawyer, teacher, whatever, should come
in as a slick sleeve and work their way up from zero.

Since grade is not tied to any authority, it serves no purpose to give people advanced grade except
to set the wrong tone and establish the environment that we have come to know.

+1

Uh, sorry Jim, but I think you made a major mistake.  Table 4 starts with a section outlining how many people completed each PD level in 2012 (which is what the chart clearly says though the table text isn't as clear) and the second part has the number of people in each grade.  It looks like you divided the number of people completing a PD level in 2012 into the total number of people in that grade, which isn't what you are looking for at all.   

Quote from: RiverAux on February 08, 2014, 02:58:15 AM
hmm, my wing has more folks that aren't where they "should" be, but its nowhere near that level.  Any chance that you read the numbers backwards or they've got them backwards?  Everytime I've looked at my wing over the years its something like 60-75% of officers are at the "right" PD level.

Come to read it again, I *did* misread it somewhat, but it wasn't backwards. There was a single section in which the top table reported PD levels, but looking closely they reported them as levels completed in 2012. But the bottom table, which had numbers of officers in grades, were totals, rather than just limited to 2012 (although it's labeled 2012).

So although its presented on that page as apples-to-apples, upon closer examination it really isn't.

Now, that said...the working group also said elsewhere in the report that seniors are getting grade too quickly, and not getting the training they need to succeed when they're promoted to a given level. So that part's still true.

But you're right, if you look closely at that page looks apples-to-apples until you look more carefully (which I didn't) and that changes your conclusion somewhat.

Nonetheless, I still have encountered a fairly large number of folks wearing oaks who don't seem to know what Majors and Lt. Col.s should know. I guess the chart doesn't give them the excuse that they never learned it... ;)

In related issues, I very much like that they're eliminating a LOT of special appointments

They're considering a few proposals to increase the time in grade for each promotion, to eliminate some of the advanced grades currently authorized and to require appropriate PD for promotion, regardless of specialty or duty position. I, for one, think it's a good idea.

Quote from: November 2013 CSAG Minutes
CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically. Too often CAP officer grade is a misleading indication of ability or experience. The general civilian population cannot tell the difference and draws no distinction between CAP officers and Air Force officers. Therefore, the impression made is a direct reflection on our parent service. In addition, the impression made, whether in ability, bearing, or appearance, is a direct reflection on Air Force officers who have worked very hard to achieve that same rank.

Initial officer rank - It is not possible to produce a credible officer of someone with no military or CAP background by having them take an on-line course or even by spending a few hours in the classroom.

Subsequent promotions - Time in grade and PD awards are the minimum requirements for promotion - performance is also required. A promotion is also recognition of the NEXT level of service. It is not uncommon to promote officers that become completely inactive. Promotion is not a prize or payment for past service or a reward for simply being a volunteer. It is not an entitlement.

Jim....I hear you....and to an extent agree with you.

But let's look at those numbers.....who are these 94%ers?

My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

The changes you mentioned....will not decrease these percentages.   There is NO incentive for a prior military officer to do any PD beyond Level I.

What needs to be done IMHO.....is to require all officers who receive advanced promotions....for any reason......to "make up" their required PD with-in a reasonable time (one year per PD level)

So Lt Col Newguy who retires from the USAF and joins CAP would have three years from the time that he get's his advanced promotion to Lt Col to his Level IV, Get a Master Rating in some specialty track, attend two conferences, OBC, SLS, CLC, and all other requirements.

At the three year mark....if he is not Level IV.....then he will be demoted to a grade commensurate with his PD level.


On a purely CAP side.....Capt Otherguy who has level II PD.....is advanced promoted to Major because he takes on the role of Group Commander.     He would have a year to complete all the PD requirements for Major (Level III)....i.e. get his senior rating, attend two conferences, CLC, AEPSM award, or back to Capt he goes.

Doesn't look like they're proposing to make any changes regarding former military officers.

QuoteMy guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Well, I would suggest they haven't earned that CAP grade.  And actually, if you look at the proposed changes there are quite a lot of CAP-related things that they would be skipping over. 

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2014, 03:22:11 AM
My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Not at all. First off, let's be clear that my original conclusion was in error based on glossing over the apples-and-oranges nature of the two charts (that's what happens when you're typing with one eye on CAPTalk and the other on the Olympics!).

But more to the point, retired military have clearly earned their grade. I have a dozen or so of them in my own squadron and they're great to have around. All I'm saying is that Lt. Col. Newguy probably knows a lot about flying fighters, buying military gear, developing radars or whatever, and probably knows a lot about leading people in an environment governed by the UCMJ. He probably knows very little about the cadet program, the practicalities of our Aux relationship, how we interact with our state agencies, how to fly the right pattern so your MO can use the Becker, or even why Capt. Schmuck is the CC with Lt. Col.s working for him.

So I think we agree...by all means, let's recognize the grade...but Lt. Col. Newguy should go back and learn about CAP so he's knowledgeable in the way that he should be.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2014, 03:22:11 AM
There is NO incentive for a prior military officer to do any PD beyond Level I.

I did, but I also know a lot of prior military officers who haven't. I don't mind them getting advanced promotions, but I think they should also have to complete appropriate PD within a specified timeframe. While the military background can be extremely useful in CAP, it does't provided the necessary knowledge to be truly effective within the organization.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2014, 03:22:11 AM
My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Not in CAP, and in pretty much all cases, not relevent, especially day-1.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2014, 03:31:33 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2014, 03:22:11 AM
My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Not in CAP, and in pretty much all cases, not relevent, especially day-1.

???

So you cherry pick my opening line but don't say anything about the rest of my post.

:(  Not cool dude.

Like I said.......If Lt Col Newdude just want to fly airplanes and do nothing beyond getting his level I......that's okay by me.....after three years he will be demoted to 2d Lt and we press on. 

I ain't the only one what grabbed it.

I've gone on at some length on this topic, so I won't rehash.  But I think a good start would be expand the Flight Officer grades so that everybody (not just the under-21 crowd who have gone darkside) works their way through FO, TFO, and SFO before 2nd Lt.  Under-21 will be topped out at SFO but can continue their PD and will receive the appropriate grade when they hit 21 that they've earned through PD.  Completion of the Officer Basic Course will be a requirement before any promotion to or beyond 2nd Lt., and this includes special appointments.

Also, I would suggestion that we award FO immediately to members after completion of Level I, since (1) that will keep he new member interested and (2) the Flight Officer grades are meant to be "training" phases anyway.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 08, 2014, 03:31:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 08, 2014, 03:22:11 AM
There is NO incentive for a prior military officer to do any PD beyond Level I.

I did, but I also know a lot of prior military officers who haven't. I don't mind them getting advanced promotions, but I think they should also have to complete appropriate PD within a specified timeframe. While the military background can be extremely useful in CAP, it does't provided the necessary knowledge to be truly effective within the organization.

We've had two new members join in the past couple of months.  One started out as a slick-sleeve, but has shown much enthusiasm and drive.  He's been working hard and helping out the Squadron immensely.  He pinned on his butterbars a couple of weeks ago.

Now, we have member #2, a prior Marine O-3.  He hasn't done nearly as much as the newly promoted 2nd Lt., nor has shown nearly the same level of contribution.  Far as I can tell, he's joining because his kid is a cadet.  But he's now a CAP Captain.  How, exactly, does that benefit our organization?

As a field grade without the required PD- I agree that CAP promoted me too fast. I'm a Major in the Army, but it doesn't mean much in CAP. Personally, I'm working my butt off to get my Loening and earn it the CAP way (have CLC starting in just over 1 hour!). Unfortunately I'd have to agree with some of the previous sentiment- there just really isn't an incentive, beyond my own desire to be at the right place for the grade, for former military to work through CAP channels to get the right PD.

Sure, CAP waives some stuff- and that's probably a good thing, because we do have that base knowledge of respect, what a chain of command is, (generally) how to wear a uniform and follow regs, etc... but waivers should probably be kept to the early entry levels.

I'm not sure the reason CAP does allow us to wear our military rank- maybe that mentality of "herding volunteers" and trying to please people coming in to keep up the membership, not wanting them to feel like they're being demoted, etc... but it does hurt our (the individuals, not CAP) credibility a little. I can see how the problem compounds in military heavy squadrons, as in theory you get a bunch of brass who are experts in their military field, but not CAP.

It's probably not feasible in many squadrons, but I wonder if PD (not grade) could be a requirement for certain positions.

I just spent the last 30 minutes looking for the CSAG minutes on the CAP page.  No joy.  Can someone please post the link?  Thanks!

Quote from: DrKem on February 08, 2014, 11:44:08 AM
I just spent the last 30 minutes looking for the CSAG minutes on the CAP page.  No joy.  Can someone please post the link?  Thanks!

E-services/CAP National Agenda and Meeting notes/ CSAG Nov 2013

When it comes to current and former military officers, I think the biggest issue with advanced promotions to their military grade is not so much PD completion (which I strongly recommend they do), but level of contribution and responsibility commensurable with their grade. I see it too often where a member joins, within a short period of time he/she is promoted to Lt Col, but don't have a duty position or they're someone's assistant, but barely make any significant contribution (no one needs to be a Lt Col to chaperon or drive cadets around, participate in exercises, but not as staff, or just help out with small things, as needed). I know that's common in CAP, but why do we need a Lt Col with little or no CAP experience to do the type of work expected from a brand new 2d Lt (if that)?

I don't think a current or former military officer should be advanced in grade in CAP solely based on their military grade. I think no one should be advanced unless serving in a position where their contributions and responsibility are commensurable with the grade they're seeking. This should apply especially to field grade officers. After they've demonstrated that they can and are operating within that level, then they can get a temporary promotion. PD completion should still be expected within a given timeframe to make the grade permanent. Duty performance and accomplishments should also be evaluated before making the grade permanent. If someone doesn't perform, they should revert to a grade commensurable with their position, PD, etc.

Quote from: MSG Mac on February 08, 2014, 12:28:36 PM

Quote from: DrKem on February 08, 2014, 11:44:08 AM
I just spent the last 30 minutes looking for the CSAG minutes on the CAP page.  No joy.  Can someone please post the link?  Thanks!

E-services/CAP National Agenda and Meeting notes/ CSAG Nov 2013

Thanks!

Folks, I just don't see temporary promotions of former military officers to equivalent CAP rank as something that would fly and would probably be worse than not giving them the promotion to begin with.  They are not going to like that it looks like they've been massively demoted and while a few may be inspired to get caught up on CAP PD in order to avoid that perceived embarrassment, I think most would just say, "to heck with this" and leave rather than be demoted. 

Now, some might say that those folks probably shouldn't be in CAP anyway if they are that sensitive, but I think that if we told them right up front -- everyone is treated the same no matter what their past history, that they're going to be much more likely to accept it and get with the program. 

And frankly, its not likely that most of the field grade officers are going to have the time or money to get caught up on PD in a relatively short period of time, especially under the new proposed program that basically makes you do stuff a grade earlier than now.  Unless, that is they've already got the military school training that can substitute for some of the CAP program ready to go (which may not always be the case depending on that individual's service history). 

And the biggest problem with the temporary promotions is that it actually doesn't solve the issue of having brand new members that know nothing about CAP representing us for several years without really knowing what CAP is about. 

^ You make some valid points. However, I believe that lack of knowledge, which can be acquire over time, is not as big of a problem as lack of responsibilities and contributions within the organization. I don't need or want a Lt Col that doesn't perform. There are reasonable expectations that come with grade.

Besides, an Air Force Lt Col is already going to have many PD requirements such as ECI 13 (equivalent), SOS, ACSC, RSC (equivalent) and NSC (equivalent). The timeframe to complete the rest doesn't have to be short, but the member must demonstrate progression. Either way, the weight should be placed on the member's contribution and responsibilities in CAP.

I'm open to other solutions, for example, removing or reducing the time in grade requirement; all other PD requirements must still be accomplished. I'm not sure that would fly with some, as it would delay promotion further. Regardless of what we do, I want to make sure that when a new member is promoted to Maj or Lt Col, that he/she has a level of responsibility commensurable with that grade. Otherwise, we should welcome them to CAP as Lts.

OK, so I hear some heartburn about people pinning on rank without responsibility...so why not fix that? 

What I would propose would be that each echelon have Command grade (CG), then various roles within that echelon be based off of that.  So, Vice Commanders, Deputy Commanders, Chief of Staff would be CG-1.  Senior staff officers (and I define that as those who at Wing would be "Director of...") would be CG-2.  Junior staff members (those not covered by senior staff) would be CG-3.  Assistants to would be one less than the primary officer.  Members who are multi-hatted could wear their highest-grade of their positions.

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18498.0;attach=5290)

You could combine this with the PD program, and say that a member would need to achieve a level in the PD program to wear a particular grade.  Grades would be temporary, and made permanent after serving in a position for a time based upon grade.  This way, you would know that the Lt Col you're looking at holds, or at least has successfully held, a position of some authority and should know what he's talking about.

Sounds good for the first few years, but as long as you have a permanent route, and no "up or out" you still
wind up in the same place eventually.

Grade only has meaning when there is the weight of responsibility and authority behind it, in THAT order, and ramifications
for poor performance or abuse.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2014, 05:06:55 PM
Sounds good for the first few years, but as long as you have a permanent route, and no "up or out" you still
wind up in the same place eventually.

Grade only has meaning when there is the weight of responsibility and authority behind it, in THAT order, and ramifications
for poor performance or abuse.

Agree. In the military, there's an expectation that with increased grade comes increased responsibility and authority. Not so much in CAP, were a member can opt for the position as "Snack Officer", while holding the grade of Lt Col.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 08, 2014, 05:06:55 PM
Sounds good for the first few years, but as long as you have a permanent route, and no "up or out" you still
wind up in the same place eventually.

Grade only has meaning when there is the weight of responsibility and authority behind it, in THAT order, and ramifications
for poor performance or abuse.

Not necessarily.

If you want to progress in grade, you'll have to move "up".  If you're happy as a career 1st Lt, then that's fine too.  What I'm proposing is exactly that...you get grade when you take on responsibility.  If you stay as a unit staff officer, you'll top out as a 1st Lt.  Take on more responsibility and become a Group staffer, and you can move up to Captain.  Become a squadron commander and you can become a Major.

In addition, I'd make the grades temporary, essentially in line with the current TIG requirements to achieve the grade.  So, if you serve as a senior unit staff officer for 18 months, your 1st Lt bars become permanent.  Group Commander for a full term (4 years), you get to keep your Lt Col rank.

It may not denote current responsibility, but at least you can look at a Lt Col and know that's he's been there, done that, assumed considerable responsibility (Group Command, Wing Vice Commander/CS, Region Senior Staff or National Junior Staff), and done so successfully.

OK, I see.  Would go a long way towards fixing things.

Might be fun to normalize everyone, too!  Lt Col Neverwhere?  You're now 1st Lt Neverwhere.  Congratulations!

I will not re-hash my promotion problems, other than to say that there is still so much arbitrariness, especially with who is deemed worthy of going from company grade to field grade.  Personalities often (and are in my case) play heavily into it.

I am not advocating a "just check the boxes" approach, as some here have accused me of, nor do I think a cookie-cutter approach is good.

The upshot of it is, for me anyway, that I will probably never progress beyond Captain, while I have seen many, many people get gold and silver bottlecaps for knowing the "right" people at Group, Wing or Region, or by being sycophants, neither of which I am skilled at, and in the latter case will never do.

I am almost eligible for the Paul E. Garber award, but not for promotion.

JeffDG's recommendations sound sensible to me but will never happen.

That is all I will say because I do not want to start another firestorm.

The proposed system looks like it actually addresses the responsibility problem.  I'm a little concerned about how it would play out in practice, but it does make it much more clearer to those making the promotion decisions that it isn't just a reward for past actions. 

Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

Just tell your CC you're not interested in promoting, and/or only wear uniforms that don't display your grade.

And your CAP grade, and whether you're "in charge of anything" are not, in any way, connected.

So in my case, if I was to switch from patron to actual member, I could come in as a SMWOG, not as a Major, and do all the PD courses and training to qualify for the various CAP badges and wings and never have to put a gold oakleaf on my uniform i f I wanted to?

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 08:56:28 PM
Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

Sure.....no one "has to" get promoted.

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 09:05:06 PM
So in my case, if I was to switch from patron to actual member, I could come in as a SMWOG, not as a Major, and do all the PD courses and training to qualify for the various CAP badges and wings and never have to put a gold oakleaf on my uniform i f I wanted to?

No....in your case.....you ARE a major....even if you are a patron.  All your old statuses are still there.

If you wanted to become a SMWOG you would have to do a CAPF2 "demoting" you to SMWOG and send the soft copy to NHQ so they could change it in E-Services.

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 09:05:06 PM
So in my case, if I was to switch from patron to actual member, I could come in as a SMWOG, not as a Major, and do all the PD courses and training to qualify for the various CAP badges and wings and never have to put a gold oakleaf on my uniform i f I wanted to?

You would transfer over without grade, regardless, and if you don't say anything about advanced grade, no one will care, either.
No one is going to submit you for military equivalence if you don't ask for it, since for starters they won't have your records.

However I wouldn't go around wearing your "no grade" as some kind of badge of honor, either.

Lord - to my understanding he joined as a patron direct into 996, he's got no grade at all on file.

Lordmonar, I'm not sure I am listed as a Major in E Services, my patron member ID says SMWOG.  ???

Actually it says "SM", the without grade isn't actually a "thing".

Patron members are not eligible for promotions while in that status, and your military equivalence would
have had to be specifically requested and approved.

QuoteLord - to my understanding he joined as a patron, he's got no grade at all on file.

Correct.

I guess what I'm saying is, if I was to to switch over, I wouldn't want to be a Major. I know a little bit about CAP but not enough to be the subject matter expert that wearing that rank would say that I am... or at least should be.

That's fine - just progress organically and leave it at that.

Ah.....then yes....when you switch to normal membership.....all you have to do is Level I.   Nothing else needs to be done.   Don't want to be a Major due to your military/pilot/lawyer/CPA/Teacher/Doctor/et al.....credentials.....don't ask for it.   

Just follow the normal PD progression and use the normal duty performance promotions.

Eclipse beat me to it.

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 09:19:49 PMI guess what I'm saying is, if I was to to switch over, I wouldn't want to be a Major. I know a little bit about CAP but not enough to be the subject matter expert that wearing that rank would say that I am... or at least should be.

I came back to CAP and asked for - and got, my military grade established.  I have since caught up to the level of PD the grade would normally require, so I would be that anyway at this point.

My motivation was actually thrift.  I didn't want to have to keep changing everything.  I have met CAP captains who were PD level 5 and just stayed Captains as rank in CAP is meaningless.  And they were Captains only because they were flight instructors when they joined.

I fully intend to remain a Major until forcibly promoted. If there was a way I could become a Dark Jedi (NCO) I would. Perfect grade for me.

When I came back into CAP in '09, I told my then-CC that my grade of Captain dated back to 1997.

PD and rank progression were a bit different back then; i.e., ECI 13 had to be taken closed-book, and now it is done online as the Officer Basic Course.  My CC in 1993 enrolled me in ECI 13 right after I joined.  I still remember getting this stack of books in the mail and thinking "I have to learn all of this?"  As most who have taken that will attest, it was as exciting as munching on stale cardboard.

My SLS and CLC dated to 1994.

I told her that I was willing, and in fact preferred, to start out and "climb the ladder" again.  However, she submitted the paperwork for my grade to be reinstated, and it was, and so I became a Captain again.

I think, that had I been permitted to "start from the bottom" again, my perspective in CAP would be quite a bit different now.

Here's a slightly different perspective, maybe.

I came into CAP (again) in 2012. I requested the special promotion for several reasons, among them my perception that what CAP needed more than people with knowledge of CAP was people willing to put some leadership principles into some energetic action. Think of organizational knowledge as a lesser included set of that principle.

CAP advertised that they allowed military folks to come in at grade and I was "recruited" to fill a Deputy Commander for Cadets position. As a CAP O5, I expect to be expected to perform at an O5 level. The Navy had performance expectations that increased with grade, and so should CAP. That promotion took a year, during which I continued my PD and revived a unit cadet program.

If I am wearing silver oak leaves, I expect to be called out as an example, role-model, or responsible person in various settings. The barracks are a mess after they were supposed to be cleaned? The O6 should call the O5 in and put him in charge of fixing the problem. If there's a CMSgt in the crowd, I'd expect they'd be in a similar position.

I believe our issues with senior member grade reflect a cultural - not procedural - issue. Our corporate culture needs to expect more from members who wear senior grade. Don't want to be a leader anymore? Fine, we'll take those oak leaves back. That has precedence in both civilian and military environments. And there's room for letting folks wear grade when we want to recognize former contributions, e.g., the guy who spent four years as a Wing CC, as long as they know higher standards (if not participation) are expected of them.

My PD level doesn't reflect my current grade. That's because to be eligible for senior rating I have to serve for 12 months in a billet as a CPO technician (although I was a Deputy Commander for Cadets even before I was a tech). Next, I'll have to spend 18 months as a senior-rated CPO - although I lead and mentor folks who have been in CAP longer. I'm moving as fast as the PD pipeline allows, while doing jobs that require knowledge commensurate with Level IV. While Level IV guys are nowhere in sight. Doing the math, by the time I'm a senior rated CPO I'll have been a CDC for almost 2 years. I'll put my performance as a CPO up against any Level IV / master-rated CPO any day. I'm at least in that ballpark.

You (the rhetorical you, not the OP) want to slow my promotion rate down? Fine, make me ineligible to do the hard jobs until I organically promote to a grade where the hard jobs happen.

I don't mind being a junior officer as long as I get to act like one.

I do like the concept JeffDG suggested - associated grade with command and staff positions. But the more critical issue is the cultural one. I'm not sure TIG increases would help. In fact I might suggest reducing TIG for those who are active and contributing. Time serving in an actual responsible position matters more. This is not an issue in the military, since with promotion normally comes a set of orders to that next challenging job.

We could address the "personality" issues by holding boards (even virtual boards) and issue clear guidance to the board. Boards and guidance won't make personality issues go away, but they would help.

Either way - I'd love the discussion to migrate to how we get folks to act their grade.



   

Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on February 09, 2014, 01:12:17 AM
My PD level doesn't reflect my current grade. That's because to be eligible for senior rating I have to serve for 12 months in a billet as a CPO technician (although I was a Deputy Commander for Cadets even before I was a tech). Next, I'll have to spend 18 months as a senior-rated CPO - although I lead and mentor folks who have been in CAP longer. I'm moving as fast as the PD pipeline allows, while doing jobs that require knowledge commensurate with Level IV. While Level IV guys are nowhere in sight. Doing the math, by the time I'm a senior rated CPO I'll have been a CDC for almost 2 years. I'll put my performance as a CPO up against any Level IV / master-rated CPO any day. I'm at least in that ballpark.

Really?  And, what, exactly, are you doing as a Unit CDC that is "commensurate" with Level IV?

Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on February 09, 2014, 01:12:17 AMCAP advertised that they allowed military folks to come in at grade and I was "recruited" to fill a Deputy Commander for Cadets position.

Here's part of the problem - we should not be recruiting commanders.

Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on February 09, 2014, 01:12:17 AM
I don't mind being a junior officer as long as I get to act like one.

Um, what?

I have held off on commenting on the topics of similar nature until the working group's report was released in some format. Now that it has been I'll talk a little about it but will not necessarily get into all the nitty gritty details for a number of reasons. That being said, I would like to shine some light on some of the thoughts and discussion here.

First, I want to assure all of you that the opinions of many CAPTALK members were considered throughout the process of discussions. A number of people on this board make various points and have concerns and some of the biggest, or most contentious ones, were discussed by the working group, often at great length. That being said, to prevent the grapevine from going crazy (as it is prone to doing, especially with information on this board) the internal discussions were kept largely internal to the working group. But if you think you are operating in a vacuum and no one is listening to what is said you are quite mistaken.

The group was also put together with a bit of a cross-section of people with different experiences and from around the country. This includes a member of the group that had not completed all of the TiG requirements, and was not, a CAP Lt Col. Additionally, as the report indicates, there was a lot of research put into it looking at the total force of the USAF, the USCG Aux, Boy Scouts, CAP historically, etc. There was also a mix of ES/AE/CP experience, Ops (pilot), and the like.

With regards to military officers retaining their grade: while many officers would have no issue with starting from the bottom, others would. It was discussed and input was sought from a number of sources and after the discussions you can see the results in the report.

The issues of an immediate reset, demoting people, or a period of grand fathering people in to a new program was also discussed. Essentially, rather than antagonize some who have served honorably and didn't do anything wrong under the old system, and things along those lines, that there was no need to go around demoting people.

This recommendation is focused as a long term fix that should alienate fewer people while the goal (improving the OVERALL quality of CAP officers) would be preserved and achieved. Essentially, as new generations of officers worked their way up the 'empty shirts' or others would find themselves more and more an exception, possibly passed over again and again for positions because they would not be as well trained or the most qualified. However, they would still have the opportunity to excel without any unnecessary embarrassment. The goal was to focus on POSITIVE reinforcement by raising new generations of high quality FGOs.

There were extensive discussions about the professional appointments, cadet appointments, and the like. Some of the issues are not a problem with the system, but a problem with the execution of the system. This was also addressed in discussions but is a cultural issue that cannot be solved simply by more regulation. There was effort to provide ideas on how to write regulations to support ensuring members actually complete the training and are up to standards. The thought was also to retain some autonomy for commanders (allow them to command) but ensure better oversight by the next higher echelon so it is more likely to have greater consistency across the force.

This was a first step, the final rendition of the regulation would require massive rewrites if that is the direction the CAP/CC wants CAP to go.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 08, 2014, 11:56:36 PMI think, that had I been permitted to "start from the bottom" again, my perspective in CAP would be quite a bit different now.

What's stopping you? Can you not enroll in SLS, CLC, anyway? If there's room in the course, what's it going to hurt?

Quote from: Eclipse on February 09, 2014, 01:18:55 AM
Really?  And, what, exactly, are you doing as a Unit CDC that is "commensurate" with Level IV?

In addition to CDC, I work with and for many of the folks in other squadrons, at Group and Wing level on Wing-wide issues, from ES training to the Wing's glider program to helping with the multi-Wing Conference. Note that I stated I'm in the ballpark of Level IV / master-rated CPOs. I do know fellow members who are putting in tremendous work at the Level IV level. Some even have the PD achievements to go with their performance. I admit the statement wasn't clear.

However, I'll take the opportunity of your comment to re-emphasize that I think this is a cultural issue. I'd be all for providing clear expectations for the PD levels, and not just for attaining the award but as an expectation of sustained performance.

CAPR 50-17 describes Level IV as "command and staff" and "designed for members who desire to become high-level leaders in CAP", while the CAPP 216 describes Master rating as  "capable of commanding a cadet unit, directing the Cadet Program at the wing level, and providing expert Cadet Programs advice to new members and senior CAP leaders". It's not "is serving as a Wing Director of Cadet Programs".

What if we explicitly linked that to positions at higher levels of responsibility? I.e., "Level IV officers serve at the group level as commanders and at the wing level as directors."

So we take our eternal Captains and, if they are performing to Level III standards we promote them. TIG doesn't really demonstrate anything. The only reason there's TIG associated with promotion in the military is that there is sufficient inventory of people within that grade and with whom one competes for promotion. When the inventory is degraded, the TIG decreases (e.g., WWII).

We need to be measuring demonstrated performance and making that a cultural norm if we're serious about fixing anything.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 09, 2014, 01:18:55 AM
Here's part of the problem - we should not be recruiting commanders.

I totally agree. We should have a plentiful inventory of would-be commanders with the prerequisite grade, knowledge, leadership ability, and availability for non-paid work, all competing with each other. Those who rise to the top should be assigned to the hardest jobs.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 09, 2014, 01:18:55 AM
Um, what?

Um, a junior officer is typically not a Deputy Commander, or even a department head. They serve as a JO and are mentored by senior officers. They do fun jobs like fly airplanes. The NCOs keep them from getting into too much trouble.

For example: No, Lt, we won't let you manage Wing-wide glider registrations. We need at least a Capt for that. You could drive 8 cadets to your squadron's glider orientation flight day, though. Fortunately, we have lots of active members at the Capt level who we can order to do hard jobs with significant responsibility because they're bucking for Maj!

The point is, if your active duty and retired military officers were told that they could come into CAP as an O5, but would be required to immediately begin a training track for Wing Director of Operations or Group Command and would be expected to fill those O5 positions if they wanted to retain their grade, many of the ones who you don't want wearing O5 would decline the offer.

When I joined and my CC talked to me about the special promotion, he expected me to serve actively and contribute to the squadron.  My read of CAPR 50-17 is that as an O5 being of service to my Wing should be a minimum expectation. That's consistent with the way the military views performance: something that might earn a 1st Lt an award might earn a Lt Col a "thanks for coming to work."

In the meantime, I've taken every PD test in my specialty I can while I wait for TIG to tick over. When it does, I'll take and pass my Master CPO test and start waiting for 18 months to pass, while continuing to make myself available to Squadron, Group, and Wing and doing what I can to contribute to the mission according to what I view as commensurate with what should be expected of a Lt Col.

The PD program needs to complement a culture of excellence. We might accomplish that by focusing more on sustained performance and demonstrated leadership, and less on TIG.

OBTW, this came in as I was drafting my response, and I heartily concur (as well as with those last three paragraphs):

Quotebut is a cultural issue that cannot be solved simply by more regulation.

Very encouraging to see this recognized.

Quote from: a2capt on February 09, 2014, 02:57:15 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on February 08, 2014, 11:56:36 PMI think, that had I been permitted to "start from the bottom" again, my perspective in CAP would be quite a bit different now.

What's stopping you? Can you not enroll in SLS, CLC, anyway? If there's room in the course, what's it going to hurt?

There is nothing stopping me and it would not hurt a thing.  In fact, I have instructed at an SLS - but it was years ago.

What I am trying to get at is that if I were to have "started over," everything would (should?) be documented in E-Services.

As it is, and I am sure many others from the "pre-technology" era can relate, my "documentation" has quite a few gaps in it from trying to keep various bits of paper together through many moves.  A former squadron CC in another Wing whom I have not seen or talked to in almost seven years, and have no idea where he lives, how to get in touch with him, or even if he is still living, let alone in CAP, has (had?) some of my papers and certificates.

I suppose the upshot is that I would have preferred to start with a "clean slate."

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 09, 2014, 02:13:24 AM

This recommendation is focused as a long term fix that should alienate fewer people while the goal (improving the OVERALL quality of CAP officers) would be preserved and achieved. Essentially, as new generations of officers worked their way up the 'empty shirts' or others would find themselves more and more an exception, possibly passed over again and again for positions because they would not be as well trained or the most qualified. However, they would still have the opportunity to excel without any unnecessary embarrassment. The goal was to focus on POSITIVE reinforcement by raising new generations of high quality FGOs.

I'd like to comment on this, specifically. This is one of the more insightful statements that have been made on this thread. As a Lt Col, CAP, who received my grade via a special promotion based on my military grade I'm going to do my best to live up to that grade. I don't want my performance to reflect poorly on either CAP or my Service. Part of that performance is pursuing my PD.

Since I can't directly influence the degree to which other senior members live up to the grade they are wearing (sometimes I'm not even aware of what they're doing for CAP), I'll just do my best to model what I think that standard should be.

If there are enough of us who see grade this way eventually we'll change the culture. Leadership can help (or is helping) by clearly stating these expectations, and maybe making some improvements to the PD system.

Here's my recommendation for a replacement for all TIG requirements: make billet history a factor in promotions. In the military, as Storm Chaser alluded to, a promotion is not a reward for completing a course or passing a test, although sometimes those are also required. A promotion occurs when the Service trusts you to handle greater responsibility. The authority (and pay) that comes with your new grade isn't a prize, it's a means of fulfilling the greater responsibility that comes with your new grade. 

CAP could adopt this concept. Instead of TIG, each grade level could come with a matrix of increasingly hard CAP leadership jobs that one would have to successfully fill prior to promotion. By doing these jobs members demonstrate that they are capable of increasingly greater responsibility. The standards for job levels already exist in the CAPR 50-17 in very general terms; the next logical step is a specific list of corresponding duty positions. 

People come in with different levels of leadership experience, so we could develop a way to determine equivalency, including what tasks needed to be completed to round out the member. For example, an active duty O5 may not need OBC but we might want to require CLC prior to promoting. Someone who is a CEO might need more basic military customs and courtesies training as well as CAP corporate training, but would likely adapt pretty quickly. In my year as a 2d Lt (promoted based on my Mitchell) I learned a lot about the "CAP way" and with a few improvements to the training program I would have learned even more.

Making job history a requirement in place of TIG could actually address one of the problems we have, which is people not wanting to fill some of those hard jobs like squadron CC. My CC has listed "identifying his replacement" as one of his goals. That shouldn't be something a CC has to worry about, because there should be someone who wants to promote but needs a CC (or equivalent) tour to become eligible. TIG would come as a beneficial side effect because there will be minimum tour lengths for each job. However, if you spend 3 years as Squadron CC, Group CD, and Wing DO, you could promote faster than someone who spends 3 years as a SM-without-duty-position. Since not everyone can be a Squadron CC, we could identify jobs of equal challenge at the Group and Wing staff level.

Commanders could influence that matrix, for example, if a Wing CC has a hard time filling a Wing ITO billet he could designate it as a hard-fill, which provides credit towards your Level III requirements.

This would also help with your perceived issue with regard to CAP grade based on active duty grade. My promotion to Lt Col went to a promotion board (Region, I think). For these promotion requests Why not include a board question like: "We appreciate your military service and recognize that your military grade reflects significant potential contributions to our organization. CAP expects Lt Cols to be available to the Group and Wing CC for Wing-wide tasks. Are you ready and willing to contribute at this level? What issues do you see where you think your expertise could help the Wing?"

This question 1) articulates the organization's expectation, 2) identifies the member's motive for requesting promotion, and 3) assesses the degree to which the member is aware of the Wing's needs. Promote me to Lt Col when I know what's expected of CAP Lt Cols, my motivation is to serve the organization at a level appropriate to my capabilities, and I have made the effort to understand where the Wing needs me.

Furthermore, the question should be published on the website under the FAQ that addresses the "Is prior military experience counted" question and also discussed with those prospective members who have prior service at the membership board.

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 08:56:28 PM
Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

And if that ever happens, make sure a photographer is there. Because you'll need photographs to help the sculptor chisel out the statue of the first USMC captain to say "Nah, I'm fine wearing cutouts and saluting Second Lieutenants who've only been in CAP 6 months."

This all circles around the basic "problem" with CAP rank.

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

So....either we just accept the status quo and put band-aids on the problems our system generates.  Or we trash the whole system and develop another model to base our system around.

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2014, 04:36:21 AM

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

Though this is a problem the "Real Military" ^tm hasn't completely solved either. Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan that have Lt Col specialists working for Capt Team leads. There are Colonels flying as navigators on KC-135s under the operational command of Captains. Captains in the missile fields under the command of a 1st Lt who is, by regulation, defined as 'The senior officer in charge'.

The idea here is to have rank recognize what a person has been trained and is capable of doing. Not necessarily what the organization is currently using them for. The theory is that they are able to the things listed for their rank in Table 1 of the NPRWG's report. It is a definition of the system slightly outside the way the way the USAF uses its folks, "another model to base our system around." It may not be an exact match to what we would like but I would still say it is better than the current system as it has many more measures that can be made. (Need to test 'understanding' you can use a test. Need to test 'Demonstrate' you can have a task evaluation of some kind.)

Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on February 09, 2014, 04:10:50 PM

Here's my recommendation for a replacement for all TIG requirements: make billet history a factor in promotions. In the military, as Storm Chaser alluded to, a promotion is not a reward for completing a course or passing a test, although sometimes those are also required. A promotion occurs when the Service trusts you to handle greater responsibility. The authority (and pay) that comes with your new grade isn't a prize, it's a means of fulfilling the greater responsibility that comes with your new grade. 

The NPRWG agrees with that being the idea of a new grade. "It should promote officers based on their demonstrated ability to successfully serve in the next higher grade and in positions of greater responsibility." For example, before being promoted to Captain you need to be able to do the things shown in Table 1 for captain. Instead of saying 'Hey you have this job on Wing Staff so you should be a captain' we're looking at it as 'Hey, you need a wing staffer for X?, you prolly want to look at a captain.' (At least as the system matures.)

Quote
CAP could adopt this concept. Instead of TIG, each grade level could come with a matrix of increasingly hard CAP leadership jobs that one would have to successfully fill prior to promotion. By doing these jobs members demonstrate that they are capable of increasingly greater responsibility. The standards for job levels already exist in the CAPR 50-17 in very general terms; the next logical step is a specific list of corresponding duty positions.

This was also discussed and not recommended for several reasons. One of them was that not all jobs at all levels realistically are equally challenging and trying to weigh one against another for what counts can get very tricky. (For example, are the Wing Finance Officers all really equal? If a wing has a budget of $1000 are they doing the same job (demands wise) as someone working with a budget of $100,000? What about personnel, etc) Additionally, it is a matrix that would have to change as jobs shift. Anytime a new position was added to 20-1 it would have to be added to a matrix in a different regulation and 'racked and stacked' against others.

Additionally, it was viewed that the rank being based on levels would already  incorporate that because specialty track ratings are required for advancement in level. You have to get a master rating in a specialty track to advance so that would be the avenue for that specific track.

Finally, there was concern that those who simply do not have the avenues to serve on higher staffs, for one reason or another, would be stunted by internal politics.

(It's recognition that it's there, and term limits for commanders are an interesting step but how much CAP will adopt that for ALL positions is certainly a question. In many ways this was to avoid the very problem the Guard can have when people's careers get stunted because no one above them is moving up or out.)

The minimum term for positions is another good idea that could be incorporated but that is more a 20-1 or specialty track realm than it is one for a promotion regulation. But it certainly could be discussed some more in those realms if this proposal was incorporated into regulation. Time in Grade though

Quote
People come in with different levels of leadership experience, so we could develop a way to determine equivalency, including what tasks needed to be completed to round out the member. For example, an active duty O5 may not need OBC but we might want to require CLC prior to promoting. Someone who is a CEO might need more basic military customs and courtesies training as well as CAP corporate training, but would likely adapt pretty quickly. In my year as a 2d Lt (promoted based on my Mitchell) I learned a lot about the "CAP way" and with a few improvements to the training program I would have learned even more.

Making job history a requirement in place of TIG could actually address one of the problems we have, which is people not wanting to fill some of those hard jobs like squadron CC. Since not everyone can be a Squadron CC, we could identify jobs of equal challenge at the Group and Wing staff level.

Commanders could influence that matrix, for example, if a Wing CC has a hard time filling a Wing ITO billet he could designate it as a hard-fill, which provides credit towards your Level III requirements.

This somewhat defeats the purpose of moving away from promotions being a reward for past performance. If there is a hard-to-fill billet that doesn't carry Level III type responsibilities why should it get credit for level III? Additionally, this could easily lead to small wings (couple hundred people in them total) declaring ALL their positions to be 'Hard-fill' and lots of people just coming in to get credit for things. Part of the goal of this proposal is to increase consistency so a Lt Col from WY has a similar skill set to a Lt Col from Wing/HQ of CAWG.

Quote
This would also help with your perceived issue with regard to CAP grade based on active duty grade. My promotion to Lt Col went to a promotion board (Region, I think). For these promotion requests Why not include a board question like: "We appreciate your military service and recognize that your military grade reflects significant potential contributions to our organization. CAP expects Lt Cols to be available to the Group and Wing CC for Wing-wide tasks. Are you ready and willing to contribute at this level? What issues do you see where you think your expertise could help the Wing?"

This question 1) articulates the organization's expectation, 2) identifies the member's motive for requesting promotion, and 3) assesses the degree to which the member is aware of the Wing's needs. Promote me to Lt Col when I know what's expected of CAP Lt Cols, my motivation is to serve the organization at a level appropriate to my capabilities, and I have made the effort to understand where the Wing needs me.

The exact method of promotion was outside the scope of the NPRWG but it certainly is an interesting discussion to look at next. There was some discussion of whether promotion recommendations should be kept at the squadron, group, wing, or even region level. As you're aware (but some who read this board may not be) promotion authority in the Real Military is NOT held by Sq/CCs or even up to NAF or MAJCOM commanders. It's done by a board of officers who are looking at everyone eligible across the entirety of the USAF. Now the commanders certainly have a layer of input but they are not the sole authority for it.

CAP could adopt this model but the current infrastructure doesn't really support it. Additionally, it could be extremely burdensome on the membership to carry out and could vastly slow the promotion process. There could be a yearly board done for each promotion, or only those of a certain set, but this can be troublesome enough at the Region or Wing Level let alone the national level.

There is also nothing saying a board can't ask those types of questions as it is since military rank is technically not automatic. However, if an active duty officer, who could produce substantiating records of their service in that rank, were denied promotion by CAP in the current clime, I do not see that going well for the commander that denied it. It could get REALLY ugly between the USAF and CAP and the board that did it better have a darn-tooting-good reason to do so at this point.

All THAT being said, there was another recommendation that was voiced but has nothing to do with this report that might interest you. That being a pamphlet (50- series) should be written by military officers and NCOs who are long-time members of CAP talking about the differences between CAP and the regular military and how to adapt to them. It would be written in 'military speak'. Essentially, it would be a similar thought like the one for a cadet becoming a senior member. Not regulatory in nature but informative. However, it does open additional possibilities that could be discussed further down the road.

Edits: Couple formatting and just a few extra clarifications upon further review after proofreading

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 10, 2014, 05:29:44 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2014, 04:36:21 AM
In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

Though this is a problem the "Real Military" ^tm hasn't completely solved either. Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan that have Lt Col specialists working for Capt Team leads. There are Colonels flying as navigators on KC-135s under the operational command of Captains. Captains in the missile fields under the command of a 1st Lt who is, by regulation, defined as 'The senior officer in charge'.

This is not a "problem" that needs solving. A Lt Col flying as a navigator with a Capt as the Aircraft Commander (PIC) is akin to our Operations/ES qualifications specialties/ICS structure, where the qualified IC may be a Capt, while the CUL or MP may be a Lt Col. It's about qualifications and specialties. That same Capt in an Air Force flying squadron would never be appointed squadron commander, a Lt Col would. So in the example provided, the Col or Lt Col would be in charge in the ground and only subordinate to the Capt while conducting the mission/sortie. If that aircraft crashes, the senior ranking officer takes command.

That's not the same in CAP, where you can encounter 1st Lt with little experience and/or qualifications as squadron commanders, with more experienced Lt Cols serving under them in other support functions.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on February 10, 2014, 03:31:59 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 08:56:28 PM
Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

And if that ever happens, make sure a photographer is there. Because you'll need photographs to help the sculptor chisel out the statue of the first USMC captain to say "Nah, I'm fine wearing cutouts and saluting Second Lieutenants who've only been in CAP 6 months."

And if he's not fine with it, he shouldn't be in CAP to begin with.

Slightly OT but I remember reading a story about an RAF bomber that had to stop at a USAAF station in Egypt (I think) for repairs.

At that time the RAF/Commonwealth had Sergeants as pilots.  This Wellington (I think) bomber had a Flight Sergeant as pilot and aircraft captain, and Sergeants in the gunners' positions.  His co-pilot and navigator were both Flying Officers (First Lieutenant).  When they stopped at the USAAF base, their American allies' Adjutant could not figure out where to put the crew members in regard to billets...the "Aircraft Captain" was taken to the Officers' Mess and the rest of the crew to the Sergeants' Mess.  The "Aircraft Captain" had to inform his Yank friends that two of his crew were, in fact, officers, while he was not, and he requested "just put me up in the Sergeants' Mess, Sir."  The USAAF officer walked away muttering about the peculiarities of the British.

How does that relate to the thread?  In many cases, with us, position takes precedence over rank.

On one mission (as a Captain) I flew as Mission Scanner with a First Lieutenant Pilot and a Major as Observer.  The Lieutenant (courteously but unnecessarily) said "Sirs, I know you both outrank me, but please remember for the duration of the flight that I am PIC," which of course we already knew.  He seemed a bit self-conscious about it, but a nice guy (and excellent pilot) nonetheless (in fact, despite his FAA qualifications and being a brainiac graduate of Embry-Riddle, he did not request advanced rank when he joined CAP).

My squadron has a Captain as CC, but there are other Captains, as well as a Major and two Lieutenant Colonels, as members of the unit.  We all know ultimately who has to say yea or nay to squadron issues.  I cannot go to him and say "we're both Captains, and I've been one a lot longer than you, so don't lord it over me."  Well, I could, if I wanted to be that kind of idiot, but, despite being an idiot on too many occasions  :( at least I know how stupid (and CAP-career-ending) it would be to do that.

Again the rank/office system of the CGAUX comes to mind, but if anything, I found that even more confusing (I never did learn all the alphabet-soup of abbreviations).  I was wearing the insignia equivalent of a Lieutenant j.g., but not the title, and a former Division Captain wearing Commander insignia equivalent was "junior" to me because I was the Deputy Commander of my Flotilla.  As well, at a Change of Watch we had an AD CG Lieutenant Commander as guest, and I knew I had to salute him and address him as "sir," but not another Auxiliarist wearing equivalent insignia...

As I have stated in the past, CAP could benefit from a warrant officer tier, but of course that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Question for LGM30GMCC...

Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

Granted, some of the ideas in the FO expansion I didn't think were feasible (Requiring a Senior Specialty Track rating for SFO seemed unrealistic, for example, as I know a couple of Captains who don't have Senior ratings), but it would give new members more time to acclimate to the CAP culture before becoming Second Lieutenants, as well as reenforcing to the USAF that we considered 2nd Lt to be something to work for, not a practically-automatic increase after six months.  I do like the idea of OBC being a pre-requisite to 2nd Lt though.

Quote from: Panache on February 10, 2014, 05:42:55 PM
Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

I believe it was discussed, but was tabled due to the new NCO program being considered.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 10, 2014, 06:21:31 PM

Quote from: Panache on February 10, 2014, 05:42:55 PM
Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

I believe it was discussed, but was tabled due to the new NCO program being considered.

Upon further reading of the minutes, I noticed that it wasn't really tabled. The CSAG decided "to recommend that CAP/CC form a working group to study revisions to the rank structure and requirements."

That means that the working group could recommend this proposal or go with a different one altogether. Either way, it would be a recommendation that would still need to be approved.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 10, 2014, 06:33:14 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 10, 2014, 06:21:31 PM

Quote from: Panache on February 10, 2014, 05:42:55 PM
Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

I believe it was discussed, but was tabled due to the new NCO program being considered.

Upon further reading of the minutes, I noticed that it wasn't really tabled. The CSAG decided "to recommend that CAP/CC form a working group to study revisions to the rank structure and requirements."

That means that the working group could recommend this proposal or go with a different one altogether. Either way, it would be a recommendation that would still need to be approved.

Right, and the working group apparently decided to not expand the use of the FO grades.

I think the proposed time in grade requirements are reasonable. I thought there was some merit with expanding the flight officer grades as well, although I understand the desire to first see where this new NCO program goes.

Frankly, if we're going to build a CAP enlisted membership, I think we should expand it into airman grades too. There's an expectation that NCOs have been around for a while and are proficient at their specialties. They're also usually supervisors. I can't see a brand new senior member getting SSgt stripes after, lets say, 6 months of membership.

On the other hand, if we're expanding the enlisted membership in CAP, there would be an expectation, I presume, that not everyone who joins will become an officer. That means revamping the officer program as well and, possibly, coming up with new requirements to become an officer in CAP.

If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 10, 2014, 11:17:12 PM
If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

What do you mean? You do the same thing you do with other senior members. A flight officer is an officer just like a warrant officer is an officer too. In fact, chief warrant officers 2 (CWO-2) and above are also commissioned officers in the U.S. military. I don't see the problem here.

The problem with expanding TIG is that it does not address the simple question of whether the individual is performing at a level meriting their new grade.

That's the thing that I like with the grade linked to position concept.  If the Wing Commander thinks you are performing at a level to be a senior member of his staff, that's an assessment that he makes.  There are consequences to him if he errs in that judgement (ie. you can't do the job he needs you to do, and that the Commander alone is accountable for).

Additionally, it gives commanders a bit of a carrot to use to attract talented people to more difficult jobs.  The Wing Commander can say "Hey, Capt. Smith, I need a new Director of Communications.  You've been doing good work on Group staff, and I think you're ready for the additional responsibility.  If you take the job, I can bump you to Major, as this job has a field-grade level of responsibility."

Now, the person is being promoted and granted grade in part based on past performance (if he's a screwup, Wing commander's not going to tap him for a bigger job), and partly based upon expectation of future performance (new job at Wing level), which, I think, meets just about everyone's idea of what grade should mean.

And none of this addresses where these people are coming from.

Until NHQ give retention and recruiting some legitimate attention, this is just moving the deck chairs, and potentially
angering the existing monkeys.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 10, 2014, 05:29:44 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2014, 04:36:21 AM

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

Though this is a problem the "Real Military" ^tm hasn't completely solved either. Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan that have Lt Col specialists working for Capt Team leads. There are Colonels flying as navigators on KC-135s under the operational command of Captains. Captains in the missile fields under the command of a 1st Lt who is, by regulation, defined as 'The senior officer in charge'.

The only time I've seen that has been when the more senior officer isn't a line/combat arms officer (e.g., a chaplain, medical officer, etc) or the more senior officer isn't qualified and is under training. If they become POWs, the officer who is senior takes command. Regarding CAP, I think what we can do is set an expectation that if you're an O5, act like one and pitch in where you're needed. Then again, my experience is Navy and they're pretty strict along those lines.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 10, 2014, 05:29:44 AM

Quote
CAP could adopt this concept. Instead of TIG, each grade level could come with a matrix of increasingly hard CAP leadership jobs that one would have to successfully fill prior to promotion. By doing these jobs members demonstrate that they are capable of increasingly greater responsibility. The standards for job levels already exist in the CAPR 50-17 in very general terms; the next logical step is a specific list of corresponding duty positions.

This was also discussed and not recommended for several reasons. One of them was that not all jobs at all levels realistically are equally challenging and trying to weigh one against another for what counts can get very tricky. (For example, are the Wing Finance Officers all really equal? If a wing has a budget of $1000 are they doing the same job (demands wise) as someone working with a budget of $100,000? What about personnel, etc) Additionally, it is a matrix that would have to change as jobs shift. Anytime a new position was added to 20-1 it would have to be added to a matrix in a different regulation and 'racked and stacked' against others.

Additionally, it was viewed that the rank being based on levels would already  incorporate that because specialty track ratings are required for advancement in level. You have to get a master rating in a specialty track to advance so that would be the avenue for that specific track.

Finally, there was concern that those who simply do not have the avenues to serve on higher staffs, for one reason or another, would be stunted by internal politics.

A finance officer with a budget of $100,000 is a more responsible job than a finance officer with a budget of $1,000. There's a metric for your promotion levels. If you create a job in the 20-1, you determine the level of responsibility and identify that. So: finance officer ($1,000 budget is a Level III job, $100,000 is a Level IV job).

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 10, 2014, 05:29:44 AM

Quote
People come in with different levels of leadership experience, so we could develop a way to determine equivalency, including what tasks needed to be completed to round out the member. For example, an active duty O5 may not need OBC but we might want to require CLC prior to promoting. Someone who is a CEO might need more basic military customs and courtesies training as well as CAP corporate training, but would likely adapt pretty quickly. In my year as a 2d Lt (promoted based on my Mitchell) I learned a lot about the "CAP way" and with a few improvements to the training program I would have learned even more.

Making job history a requirement in place of TIG could actually address one of the problems we have, which is people not wanting to fill some of those hard jobs like squadron CC. Since not everyone can be a Squadron CC, we could identify jobs of equal challenge at the Group and Wing staff level.

Commanders could influence that matrix, for example, if a Wing CC has a hard time filling a Wing ITO billet he could designate it as a hard-fill, which provides credit towards your Level III requirements.

This somewhat defeats the purpose of moving away from promotions being a reward for past performance. If there is a hard-to-fill billet that doesn't carry Level III type responsibilities why should it get credit for level III? Additionally, this could easily lead to small wings (couple hundred people in them total) declaring ALL their positions to be 'Hard-fill' and lots of people just coming in to get credit for things. Part of the goal of this proposal is to increase consistency so a Lt Col from WY has a similar skill set to a Lt Col from Wing/HQ of CAWG.

Regional CCs should be overseeing Wing CCs. If we're not selecting the right folks for CC, then we'll have a problem no matter what system we put in place. Selecting the right kind of leadership is an issue the RM faces, as Chairman Dempsey recently chagrined. But seriously, there's usually a good reason something is hard-to-fill. TIG does nothing for the consistency we're seeking, but willingness to take on jobs that need taking on does, in part. The actual skill sets don't take as long as the current TIG requirements. It's mostly a matter of waiting until someone schedules the right school - or finally giving up and organizing one yourself.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 10, 2014, 05:29:44 AM

Quote

This would also help with your perceived issue with regard to CAP grade based on active duty grade. My promotion to Lt Col went to a promotion board (Region, I think). For these promotion requests Why not include a board question like: "We appreciate your military service and recognize that your military grade reflects significant potential contributions to our organization. CAP expects Lt Cols to be available to the Group and Wing CC for Wing-wide tasks. Are you ready and willing to contribute at this level? What issues do you see where you think your expertise could help the Wing?"

This question 1) articulates the organization's expectation, 2) identifies the member's motive for requesting promotion, and 3) assesses the degree to which the member is aware of the Wing's needs. Promote me to Lt Col when I know what's expected of CAP Lt Cols, my motivation is to serve the organization at a level appropriate to my capabilities, and I have made the effort to understand where the Wing needs me.

The exact method of promotion was outside the scope of the NPRWG but it certainly is an interesting discussion to look at next. There was some discussion of whether promotion recommendations should be kept at the squadron, group, wing, or even region level. As you're aware (but some who read this board may not be) promotion authority in the Real Military is NOT held by Sq/CCs or even up to NAF or MAJCOM commanders. It's done by a board of officers who are looking at everyone eligible across the entirety of the USAF. Now the commanders certainly have a layer of input but they are not the sole authority for it.

CAP could adopt this model but the current infrastructure doesn't really support it. Additionally, it could be extremely burdensome on the membership to carry out and could vastly slow the promotion process. There could be a yearly board done for each promotion, or only those of a certain set, but this can be troublesome enough at the Region or Wing Level let alone the national level.

There is also nothing saying a board can't ask those types of questions as it is since military rank is technically not automatic. However, if an active duty officer, who could produce substantiating records of their service in that rank, were denied promotion by CAP in the current clime, I do not see that going well for the commander that denied it. It could get REALLY ugly between the USAF and CAP and the board that did it better have a darn-tooting-good reason to do so at this point.

That's a very interesting point. If there is that much pressure to recognize military grade why would the USAF allow us to hold promotion boards at all? They must either have some rational scenario where a board would turn down a promotion or not want us to hold boards at all. I'd think that documented answers to a question would satisfy the USAF. I would suggest Regional Boards forward all recommendations for non-promotions to NHQ/CC. NHQ/CC then presents the documented answers to USAF/CAP. "Sir, 2d Lt Day retired as a Navy Commander and wants promotion to Lt Col but as documented in attachment 1 indicates he's not willing to assume the responsibility level of an O5. Unless otherwise directed, I'm recommending he be retained as a 2d Lt." If they reject that alternative, then abolish the boards and all further discussion regarding grade structure as it applies to former military members.

I'd think we'd have an especially good case if we posted this to our website FAQ along with a cut-in date.

Good point regarding what our infrastructure will support. I think just asking the questions and documenting the answers would be a step in the right direction.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 10, 2014, 05:29:44 AM

All THAT being said, there was another recommendation that was voiced but has nothing to do with this report that might interest you. That being a pamphlet (50- series) should be written by military officers and NCOs who are long-time members of CAP talking about the differences between CAP and the regular military and how to adapt to them. It would be written in 'military speak'. Essentially, it would be a similar thought like the one for a cadet becoming a senior member. Not regulatory in nature but informative. However, it does open additional possibilities that could be discussed further down the road.

I'd be happy to comment or provide input. Though to be honest it hasn't been that much of a leap for me. It's a different environment, yes, but so have been all of my tours. As a land-based anti-submarine patrol guy, my assignments to the aircraft carrier and to the Army War College were environmental changes of much greater magnitude. Admittedly that could reflect on the way my unit helped me get up to speed when I re-joined CAP.

Quote from: Lt Col Tim Day on February 11, 2014, 12:42:46 AM
A finance officer with a budget of $100,000 is a more responsible job than a finance officer with a budget of $1,000. There's a metric for your promotion levels. If you create a job in the 20-1, you determine the level of responsibility and identify that. So: finance officer ($1,000 budget is a Level III job, $100,000 is a Level IV job).

And when no one wants the job, you take the slick-sleeve who joined last week, and tat's not going to change.

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 10, 2014, 11:17:12 PM
If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

I think I'm more incline to having a warrant officer/flight officer track than an NCO track. I think that transforming our CAP membership from one that is officer centric to one that is NCO centric is a huge undertaking and I just don't see the ROI.

I believe implementing a warrant officer/flight officer track would be much easier. That said, it seems the current CAP leadership is committed to this new NCO program and that would, inevitably, put an alternate warrant officer track or modified flight officer program on the back burner.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on February 08, 2014, 02:39:55 AM
... it appears that only a shade over 6% of the Lt. Cols. walking around in CAP uniforms completed the appropriate PD levels for that grade, and just under 15% of Majors have completed PD for that grade.

On the original topic, has anyone come up with the correct numbers? I spot checked various Units and it appears just the opposite. 94% Lt Col have Level IV and 85% of Majors have Level III.

When I was a Senior Programs Officer I recall the usual hold back from Lt Col was attending RSC and for making Captain was ECI 13. Of course in the past the way to make Captain without ECI 13 was upgrade to CFI or be a Squadron Commander for a year. I know a Senior Squadron that rotated Squadron Commanders annually so everyone could be a cool Captain   8)

Quote from: Private Investigator on February 11, 2014, 08:24:40 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on February 08, 2014, 02:39:55 AM
... it appears that only a shade over 6% of the Lt. Cols. walking around in CAP uniforms completed the appropriate PD levels for that grade, and just under 15% of Majors have completed PD for that grade.

On the original topic, has anyone come up with the correct numbers? I spot checked various Units and it appears just the opposite. 94% Lt Col have Level IV and 85% of Majors have Level III.

When I was a Senior Programs Officer I recall the usual hold back from Lt Col was attending RSC and for making Captain was ECI 13. Of course in the past the way to make Captain without ECI 13 was upgrade to CFI or be a Squadron Commander for a year. I know a Senior Squadron that rotated Squadron Commanders annually so everyone could be a cool Captain   8)

Quote from: RiverAux on February 08, 2014, 03:07:58 AMUh, sorry Jim, but I think you made a major mistake.  Table 4 starts with a section outlining how many people completed each PD level in 2012 (which is what the chart clearly says though the table text isn't as clear) and the second part has the number of people in each grade.  It looks like you divided the number of people completing a PD level in 2012 into the total number of people in that grade, which isn't what you are looking for at all.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 11, 2014, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 10, 2014, 11:17:12 PM
If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

I don't know.  The CAP FO insignia.... has history.  It's CAP-distinctive.  But I would humbly suggest (1) changing the epaulet design.  Right now our Flight Officers look like they're in the Navy or Coast Guard officers.  They should be embroidered versions of the bars, much like the rest of our officer rank.  And (2) reverse the colors on the embroidered FO insignia with the navy-blue backgrounds.  So the "BDU" version would be a navy-colored insignia on an ultramarine-blue background, and the "BBDU/ABU" version will be a ultramarine-blue insignia on a navy-blue background.

Even if we expand the use of the FO grades, I think we should keep it.

If we're going to use the FO grades as a "training grade" before 2nd Lieutenant, three FO grades (FO, TFO, SFO) is fine.  Anything more and you're just stretching it out too far. 

For example, Let's say...

SMWOG: New Member
FO: Immediately upon completion of Level 1 / CPPT / OPSEC.
TFO: 6 months time-in-grade as a FO.
SFO: 6 months time-in-grade as a TFO.
2nd Lieutenant: 6 months time-in-grade as a SFO, completion of OBC, completion of Technician Level in specialty track.

That already makes it at least 1.5 years before somebody is eligible for promotion to 2nd Lieutenant.  That being said, that should be plenty of time to obtain a Tech rating in at least one track.

Quote from: Panache on February 12, 2014, 05:30:11 AM
I don't know.  The CAP FO insignia.... has history.  It's CAP-distinctive.  But I would humbly suggest (1) changing the epaulet design.  Right now our Flight Officers look like they're in the Navy or Coast Guard officers.

Point made, but modified WO insignia would also be CAP-distinctive, since the Air Force has not had a warrant officer since the last one retired from the Air Force Reserve in the 1980s.

I do not even see that current FO insignia approaches the likeness of Navy/CG officers, since their gold braid is much wider, even for an Ensign.

There is no FO grade plastic-encased insignia available for the green flight suit.

I personally have trouble with grade recognition for the FO grades on the collar of B/BDU's.

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/000000CAP0744B_MED.jpg)

These FO insignia, to me, look like an RAF/Commonwealth Pilot Officer.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/UK-Air-OF1B.svg/65px-UK-Air-OF1B.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/RAAF_O1_rank.png/75px-RAAF_O1_rank.png)

Of course, if we wanted to make a nod to our USAAF roots, we could use a version of the "capsule" insignia that Flight Officers of that era wore:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/FlightOfficerRank.jpg)

Here's some other thoughts:

1) Special promotions for commanders can be made only after a one year probationary period -- this reflects what I understand RM tends to do, and also is in touch with CAP history (new wing CCs would be advanced to lt col if not already there, receive their eagles only after the probation year)

2) Any other special promotions to 2 Lt or above should require:
         a) completion of Level 2
         b) wing level promotions board

3) We already have FO insignia and structure...let's use that for all new SMs...forget expanding NCO corps (limit to those who earned in RM, possibly with a means to advance)...also, don't bring up WO ranks to USAF, they're very proud of not having them!

In the olden days, newly-minted wing kings kept their silver bottlecaps for six months before being granted their silver eagles. Now, they get their eagle on appointment but the grade does not become permanent until successful completion of appointment, approval by CSAG and publication of NHQ promotion orders granting permanent grade.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 11, 2014, 08:38:06 PM

Quote from: Private Investigator on February 11, 2014, 08:24:40 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on February 08, 2014, 02:39:55 AM
... it appears that only a shade over 6% of the Lt. Cols. walking around in CAP uniforms completed the appropriate PD levels for that grade, and just under 15% of Majors have completed PD for that grade.

On the original topic, has anyone come up with the correct numbers? I spot checked various Units and it appears just the opposite. 94% Lt Col have Level IV and 85% of Majors have Level III.

When I was a Senior Programs Officer I recall the usual hold back from Lt Col was attending RSC and for making Captain was ECI 13. Of course in the past the way to make Captain without ECI 13 was upgrade to CFI or be a Squadron Commander for a year. I know a Senior Squadron that rotated Squadron Commanders annually so everyone could be a cool Captain   8)

Quote from: RiverAux on February 08, 2014, 03:07:58 AMUh, sorry Jim, but I think you made a major mistake.  Table 4 starts with a section outlining how many people completed each PD level in 2012 (which is what the chart clearly says though the table text isn't as clear) and the second part has the number of people in each grade.  It looks like you divided the number of people completing a PD level in 2012 into the total number of people in that grade, which isn't what you are looking for at all.

Thank you, I missed that.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 11, 2014, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 10, 2014, 11:17:12 PM
If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

Holly Cow Batman, we've gone full circle like we were in the 50's.  I personally like the WO rank better than the FO grades anyway.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 13, 2014, 06:28:03 PM
Here's some other thoughts:

1) Special promotions for commanders can be made only after a one year probationary period -- this reflects what I understand RM tends to do, and also is in touch with CAP history (new wing CCs would be advanced to lt col if not already there, receive their eagles only after the probation year)

Sensible.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 13, 2014, 06:28:03 PM
2) Any other special promotions to 2 Lt or above should require:
         a) completion of Level 2
         b) wing level promotions board

Again a good thought...I knew a Captain who came in as that simply for being a CPA, and he was quickly advanced to Major because he had friends at Wing.  He had not done any of the PD for company grade, much less field grade, nor did I ever see him in a uniform (not even a polo shirt).

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 13, 2014, 06:28:03 PM
3) We already have FO insignia and structure...let's use that for all new SMs...forget expanding NCO corps (limit to those who earned in RM, possibly with a means to advance)...also, don't bring up WO ranks to USAF, they're very proud of not having them!

The expanded NCO corps is already reality.

Why are WO's a bad thing to the USAF?  I have known a lot of people in the AF who support bringing them back (they are still authorised, just not used).

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/303250026/The-time-bring-back-warrant-officers-now (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/303250026/The-time-bring-back-warrant-officers-now)

Anyway, the AF does not have FO's, but we do, and they are good with that.  It would just be a matter of changing the insignia and title. 

I know the explanation about the "supergrades" for NCO's in the AF, but the other four services have those grades too and still have WO's.

In any case, our rank structure does not mirror the USAF; it used to, but has not for decades.

Hey, I'm all for WO grade restoration...I was one in CAP (both cadet and senior)...my impression was USAF looked down on it (mainly the super-grade thing with NCOs), but it's interesting to hear there is at least some sentiment for bring it back in the Air Force.

As you say, we have FO structure and insignia, distinct from RM...might be simpler to go with that (which connects, BTW, to Army Air Corps rank structure from World War II)

Quote from: Grumpy on February 13, 2014, 08:25:33 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on February 11, 2014, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on February 10, 2014, 11:17:12 PM
If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

Exactly, on "Star Trek" was 'Scotty' a Chief Warrant Officer?  8)

Holly Cow Batman, we've gone full circle like we were in the 50's.  I personally like the WO rank better than the FO grades anyway.

No.

During the Original series he was a Lt Commander.  By the movies he had been promoted to Commander
and by Star Trek III had been promoted to Captain.

Enlisted grades (and anything else other then officer grades) were not seen in Star Trek until Next Gen,
and not used very much, really, until DS9.

Miles O'Brien was probably the most prominent enlisted person in most of the TV shows, and his
grade changed a lot in his early appearances.

Roger that, thank you sir   :clap:

I live to serve.

Sadly, possessing "useful" information like this is likely the reason that, to this day, I
am unable to comprehend carburetor adjustments or IP Addressing, despite having read
a significant amount on both of those subjects.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 14, 2014, 10:02:59 PM
I live to serve.

Sadly, possessing "useful" information like this is likely the reason that, to this day, I
am unable to comprehend carburetor adjustments or IP Addressing, despite having read
a significant amount on both of those subjects.

Carburetor - French for don't mess with it.

carburetor adjustments = turn set screws all the way closed. Turn back 2 turns. Leave it alone.

Quote from: Panache on February 10, 2014, 02:03:59 PM

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on February 10, 2014, 03:31:59 AM

Quote from: shuman14 on February 08, 2014, 08:56:28 PM
Silly question, but is there a way to refuse a promotion in CAP.

In an example cited above the USMC Officer who joined to spend more time with his son, could he refuse any promotion and just be a SMWOG so he can participate but not be "in charge" of anything?

And if that ever happens, make sure a photographer is there. Because you'll need photographs to help the sculptor chisel out the statue of the first USMC captain to say "Nah, I'm fine wearing cutouts and saluting Second Lieutenants who've only been in CAP 6 months."

And if he's not fine with it, he shouldn't be in CAP to begin with.

I was kinda thinking the same thing. In the the USCGAux, I'm just a member, I hold no appointed or elected office so I have no "rank" other than a member device/boards.

I have no problem saluting any Warrant or Commissioned Officer that I pass in that uniform, even when I outrank them in my actual grade.

It's professionalism and respect for the uniform you're currently wearing.

Quote from: a2capt on February 14, 2014, 11:28:58 PM
carburetor adjustments = turn set screws all the way closed. Turn back 2 turns. Leave it alone.

My father actually patented a carburettor cleaning device back in the '60s.  Unfortunately  it would be largely obsolete today since almost everything is fuel-injected.

Quote from: shuman14 on February 15, 2014, 01:08:58 AM
I was kinda thinking the same thing. In the the USCGAux, I'm just a member, I hold no appointed or elected office so I have no "rank" other than a member device/boards.

I have no problem saluting any Warrant or Commissioned Officer that I pass in that uniform, even when I outrank them in my actual grade.

It's professionalism and respect for the uniform you're currently wearing.

I didn't either, when I was an Auxiliarist.  However, the Aux has very little in the way of PD, and I never did master the alphabet-soup of office abbreviations.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 11, 2014, 02:57:04 PM

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

CAP appropriately avoids referring to its officers (2d Lt and higher) as "commissioned officers," as they lack commissions.
That being said, I doubt we'd ever get approval to create warrant officers who lack warrants as well as commissions.

If logic were mandatory in such matters, however, we wouldn't have flight officers who don't, well ... fly.

Given the lack of a CAP commissioned officer corps, I'm not quite sure how we manage to have SSgt-CMSgt personnel referred to as a CAP noncommissioned officer corps.  "Noncommissioned" distinguishes that category from "commissioned," which we lack.  History and bureaucratic inertia, no doubt.

Sincerely,
An uncommissioned officer

Using that logic, Chief Warrant Officers 2-5 wouldn't hold a commission either, but in the U.S. they do. In addition, not every Airman in the Air Force is, well... an airman (in the strictest sense of the word).

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 19, 2014, 06:51:42 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on February 11, 2014, 02:57:04 PM

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

CAP appropriately avoids referring to its officers (2d Lt and higher) as "commissioned officers," as they lack commissions.
That being said, I doubt we'd ever get approval to create warrant officers who lack warrants as well as commissions.

If logic were mandatory in such matters, however, we wouldn't have flight officers who don't, well ... fly.

Given the lack of a CAP commissioned officer corps, I'm not quite sure how we manage to have SSgt-CMSgt personnel referred to as a CAP noncommissioned officer corps.  "Noncommissioned" distinguishes that category from "commissioned," which we lack.  History and bureaucratic inertia, no doubt.

Sincerely,
An uncommissioned officer

Well, you see, there's the difference, right there in your signature to the post.

CAP NCOs are "non-commissioned."

CAP officers are "uncommissioned."

(Bows)  Thank you!  Tip your servers ... I'll be here all week.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on February 19, 2014, 08:22:51 PM

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 19, 2014, 06:51:42 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on February 11, 2014, 02:57:04 PM

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

(http://wikiimages.qwika.com/thumb/en/2/25/USAFWarrant.jpg/225px-USAFWarrant.jpg)

CAP appropriately avoids referring to its officers (2d Lt and higher) as "commissioned officers," as they lack commissions.
That being said, I doubt we'd ever get approval to create warrant officers who lack warrants as well as commissions.

If logic were mandatory in such matters, however, we wouldn't have flight officers who don't, well ... fly.

Given the lack of a CAP commissioned officer corps, I'm not quite sure how we manage to have SSgt-CMSgt personnel referred to as a CAP noncommissioned officer corps.  "Noncommissioned" distinguishes that category from "commissioned," which we lack.  History and bureaucratic inertia, no doubt.

Sincerely,
An uncommissioned officer

Well, you see, there's the difference, right there in your signature to the post.

CAP NCOs are "non-commissioned."

CAP officers are "uncommissioned."

(Bows)  Thank you!  Tip your servers ... I'll be here all week.

Jack

So......CAP has.....

NCOs and......UCOs.

A maybe interesting side note - the Indian Army, when India belonged to the "Empreror of India" or "Empress of India," was not part of the British Army, even though it had British Officers holding royal commissions in the Indian Army. The Indian Army also had Indians serving as officers - known as "VCOs," or "Viceroy Commissioned Officers." They were exactly the same will also being totally different, as only the British could accomplish.

Every adult member above the grade of "Senior Member" is a "Non-Commissioned Officer", since
even those wearing insignia which emulates military grade, do not hold a commission or warrant.
Those who actually >are< in the military notwithstanding, since it's irrelevant in this context. 

So, for starters, the term "NCO", is meaningless in a CAP context.

We use the term "appointed" as a generic term to replace "commissioned" in a CAP context,
however that is also incorrect, since the majority of CAP members were not "appointments"
but "promotions".

CAPR 35-5, Page 3:
"1-2. Appointment and Promotion Systems. Senior members may qualify for appointment or
promotion to CAP officer or noncommissioned officer grades under the following provisions:"

Per 35-5, most members are simply "promoted" to their next grade.

In the context of the actual regulations, I have no idea what you'd refer to the
"Members who don't want to be officers" category.

They are not "enlisted".

They are not "Non-Commissioned".

They >are< "promoted".

Not only is the Military NCO-Officer paradigm unworkable from a practical perspective in a volunteer organization.
There isn't even terminology that fits the idea in a logical way within our regulations.

I really don't see why this whole "commissioned" thing keeps coming up.  It is entirely meaningless.   Especially since "commissioned" does not necessarily imply either someone in the military or a commission from the President.   I can "commission" all sorts of stuff. 

Most of the terms we use in CAP don't have the same meaning as they do in the military and are only used because of tradition and/or to give CAP its paramilitary nature as the Air Force Auxiliary. Take for example the title "commander". Commanders in CAP don't really command in the strict sense of the word. They lead and manage. They don't have real command authority, yet we use the title.

I wouldn't put too much thought into this whole "commissioned" vs. "non-commissioned" officer. As I said before, even in the military, chief warrant officers don't have warrants, but commissions, yet they're still called warrant officers. I guess we could just call CAP NCOs "sergeants" instead of NCOs; it would be a more accurate term. But everyone's familiar with the term "NCO" and I don't think anyone would be confused into thinking that our officers are "commissioned" just because we also have "non-commissioned" officers.

Commanders command. Can't be any other way. Lead and manage? Definitely, but sometimes command decisions need to be made, and that's what commanders are for. Can they back up their command of it is disobayed? Perhaps. But typically those members choose to disassociate themselves well before any command action takes place.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 20, 2014, 03:29:14 AM
Most of the terms we use in CAP don't have the same meaning as they do in the military and are only used because of tradition and/or to give CAP its paramilitary nature as the Air Force Auxiliary. Take for example the title "commander". Commanders in CAP don't really command in the strict sense of the word. They lead and manage. They don't have real command authority, yet we use the title.

I'd buy that.  Day to day, it's functionally the same thing, but at the road level it's not the
same as the "do it or die" authority of an actual "commander'.

No one below the BoG is an "Officer" either.

An "officer", by definition,  is someone with authority within an organization.

Up until the reorg, Wing CC's were considered corporate officers as they sat on the National Board.
Now they simply have delegated authorization for expenditures and management of their particular state.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 20, 2014, 03:41:06 AM
Commanders command. Can't be any other way. Lead and manage? Definitely, but sometimes command decisions need to be made, and that's what commanders are for. Can they back up their command of it is disobayed? Perhaps. But typically those members choose to disassociate themselves well before any command action takes place.

In the U.S. military, a commander derives his/her authority from the commission they hold (given by the president) and by law through the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). CAP commanders don't have that type of command authority, as they are civilians in a volunteer, non-profit organization. They have authority given by the organization; no doubt about that. But is it really command authority in the strictest sense of the word? I would have to say "no".

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 20, 2014, 03:51:31 AMBut is it really command authority in the strictest sense of the word? I would have to say "no".

I agree, it is delegated management authority at best.

The officers (BoG), appoint people to manage their organization, but the only command authority in the sense people understand from the movies,
stops at the national level.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 20, 2014, 03:43:29 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 20, 2014, 03:29:14 AM
Most of the terms we use in CAP don't have the same meaning as they do in the military and are only used because of tradition and/or to give CAP its paramilitary nature as the Air Force Auxiliary. Take for example the title "commander". Commanders in CAP don't really command in the strict sense of the word. They lead and manage. They don't have real command authority, yet we use the title.

I'd buy that.  Day to day, it's functionally the same thing, but at the road level it's not the
same as the "do it or die" authority of an actual "commander'.

No one below the BoG is an "Officer" either.

An "officer", by definition,  is someone with authority within an organization.

Up until the reorg, Wing CC's were considered corporate officers as they sat on the National Board.
Now they simply have delegated authorization for expenditures and management of their particular state.

The members of the BoG are "Governors"; not officers.  They select (or approve) Corporate Officers (there are 5).  Those Officers appoint, hire, or promote other non corporate officers for selected positions, and may or may not delegate authority to them..... These non corporate officers may have grades from SSgt to Col.  Corporate Officers may have grades from Col to Maj Gen.  Some have no grade, but titles...  All Corporate and Non Corporate officers manage; commanders also lead.

Command Authority?  All commanders in CAP have authority; also responsibility. They do not have "Military Command Authority".

If we get the job done, does it really matter? :angel:

The five corporate officers (CC/CEO, CV, CO/COO, CFO and GC) are specified in the Constitution & Bylaws. All of these are either appointed and/or confirmed by a majority vote of the BoG.

Our status as "officers" has, for those unfamiliar with what Storm Chaser pointed out, a degree of confusion, to say the least.

I have had it go both ways, in terms of "either you is or you ain't."

One airshow where I was doing flightline safety as a First Lieutenant, an AFRES First Lieutenant came up and saluted me.  I returned his salute and said "you don't have to salute me, and anyway we're both the same grade."  He said, "I know, just showing respect to a fellow officer."  Warm fuzzy. :)

On the same base, at another time (I think I was there for SLS or CLC), some of us CAP officers were on break and eating at the base Burger King (the base Wing King allowed us virtually unlimited use of the BK, dining hall, BX when on CAP activity - warm fuzzy again :)).  There were a group of AFRES (I think) NCO's sitting a couple of tables away and, while we could not hear everything they said, what we did hear was along the lines of "those CAP poseurs thinking they're officers getting to use OUR facilities..."

We were told to just "suck it up" and "ignore it" by the CAP brass overseeing us for that activity.  The prevailing attitude then ('94-'95) was "we're already in enough trouble with the Air Force and challenging them on it will just make things worse."

NOT a "warm fuzzy" in the slightest.  We ARE officers - CAP OFFICERS.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 22, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
On the same base, at another time (I think I was there for SLS or CLC), some of us CAP officers were on break and eating at the base Burger King (the base Wing King allowed us virtually unlimited use of the BK, dining hall, BX when on CAP activity - warm fuzzy again :)).  There were a group of AFRES (I think) NCO's sitting a couple of tables away and, while we could not hear everything they said, what we did hear was along the lines of "those CAP poseurs thinking they're officers getting to use OUR facilities..."

Well, I can kind of see their point.  Burger Kings are a rare, precious resource which must be jealously guarded lest some poseurs hoard all their irreplaceable and delicious Whoppers.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 22, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
NOT a "warm fuzzy" in the slightest.  We ARE officers - CAP OFFICERS.

Not to mention, a pretty high percentage of those are veterans of the "real" military.

Quote from: Panache on February 22, 2014, 07:07:50 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on February 22, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
On the same base, at another time (I think I was there for SLS or CLC), some of us CAP officers were on break and eating at the base Burger King (the base Wing King allowed us virtually unlimited use of the BK, dining hall, BX when on CAP activity - warm fuzzy again :)).  There were a group of AFRES (I think) NCO's sitting a couple of tables away and, while we could not hear everything they said, what we did hear was along the lines of "those CAP poseurs thinking they're officers getting to use OUR facilities..."

Well, I can kind of see their point.  Burger Kings are a rare, precious resource which must be jealously guarded lest some poseurs hoard all their irreplaceable and delicious Whoppers.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 22, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
NOT a "warm fuzzy" in the slightest.  We ARE officers - CAP OFFICERS.

Not to mention, a pretty high percentage of those are veterans of the "real" military.

I think the message on the day in question was "those CAP guys think they're in the Air Force." ::)

In retrospect, I wish I would have gone to them and told them if they had a problem with it, to discuss it with the Brigadier General commanding the base.  Not as a Lieutenant, not as a CAP officer, but just as one human being to another.  It was a crock of Bravo Sierra that we were expected to just "suck it up."

But that's water over the dam.

^ Not worth getting worked up over it. I doubt that's the sentiment of the majority of AF members. I've always received nothing but support.

I was once sitting in emergency war order training (as my AF captainy self) and a 2d Lt started bashing CAP. First I corrected the crap he was spewing, then explained what CAP really did and its value. It was like I had thrown a grenade into his lap. The other Lts around him kinda leaned away and looked away from him. I didn't even say I was a member of CAP. I admit it was entertaining on some level.  >:D

I'm sure it happens, but that's likely due to misunderstanding or lack of knowledge, not malice or animosity against CAP. Many in the USAF just don't know what CAP does or how it contributes to the Air Force's overall mission. Heck, many in the Air Force are not even aware of AFRCC and its role in inland SAR.

Ideally, we would have a closer relationship with our parent service. But that shouldn't discourage us. The best thing we can do to improve that relationship is to be (and look) professional and do our missions the best we can.

Air Force personnel who bash CAP have generally had a bad experience with one of our members (or know someone who did).

A simple way to improve CAP's image is to be polite, friendly and respectful...these bases are where they live, work and serve their country. Keep in mind that we're "visiting relatives" at best, and try to be good guests!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 23, 2014, 04:32:07 AM
Air Force personnel who bash CAP have generally had a bad experience with one of our members (or know someone who did).

A simple way to improve CAP's image is to be polite, friendly and respectful...these bases are where they live, work and serve their country. Keep in mind that we're "visiting relatives" at best, and try to be good guests!

From my perspective as a USAF retiree and current CAP member, agreed.  Be a quiet professional, wear the uniform properly, represent us well, and don't be That Guy who triggers a tale that will be exaggerated in the retelling.  Some Airmen will cling determinedly to their anti-CAP mindsets, despite all the professionalism you display.  That's more on them than you.

Quote from: CyBorg on February 22, 2014, 06:53:33 PM

One airshow where I was doing flightline safety as a First Lieutenant, an AFRES First Lieutenant came up and saluted me.  I returned his salute and said "you don't have to salute me, and anyway we're both the same grade."  He said, "I know, just showing respect to a fellow officer."  Warm fuzzy. :)

The only thing I can imagine being more silly than a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant is two First Lieutenants saluting each other.

Quote from: JK657 on February 23, 2014, 06:23:15 PM
The only thing I can imagine being more silly than a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant is two First Lieutenants saluting each other.

How is a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant silly?

Quote from: Panache on February 23, 2014, 10:46:52 PM

Quote from: JK657 on February 23, 2014, 06:23:15 PM
The only thing I can imagine being more silly than a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant is two First Lieutenants saluting each other.

How is a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant silly?

+1

Quote from: Panache on February 23, 2014, 10:46:52 PM

Quote from: JK657 on February 23, 2014, 06:23:15 PM
The only thing I can imagine being more silly than a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant is two First Lieutenants saluting each other.

How is a Second Lieutenant saluting a First Lieutenant silly?

It's not.  That said, there is something of an "unwritten rule" that lieutenants don't salute each other.  I've heard it from more than one lieutenant, and it was important enough to merit at least one colonel's attention:

http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204054 (http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204054)

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 23, 2014, 11:13:15 PM
That said, there is something of an "unwritten rule" that lieutenants don't salute each other.

There's a reason it's "unwritten", and it doesn't apply to CAP, even a little.

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 23, 2014, 11:13:15 PM
It's not.  That said, there is something of an "unwritten rule" that lieutenants don't salute each other.  I've heard it from more than one lieutenant, and it was important enough to merit at least one colonel's attention:

http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204054 (http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204054)

Must be an Air Force thing.  I've never seen this in practice in the Army.

Quote from: Panache on February 23, 2014, 11:35:57 PM

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 23, 2014, 11:13:15 PM
It's not.  That said, there is something of an "unwritten rule" that lieutenants don't salute each other.  I've heard it from more than one lieutenant, and it was important enough to merit at least one colonel's attention:

http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204054 (http://www.goodfellow.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204054)

Must be an Air Force thing.  I've never seen this in practice in the Army.

No, but I've seen all over the Air Force, usually at pilot training basses where you have large numbers of 2d Lt's and 1st Lt's.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 23, 2014, 11:17:23 PM

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 23, 2014, 11:13:15 PM
That said, there is something of an "unwritten rule" that lieutenants don't salute each other.

There's a reason it's "unwritten", and it doesn't apply to CAP, even a little.

Agreed wholeheartedly, hence my saying "it's not" (silly that a 2d Lt would salute a 1st Lt).  I merely acknowledged the existence of said "unwritten rule."  I don't endorse it. 

I actually went back and RTFA'ed, which is an excellent article and should be required reading for new CAP members, too.

WIWOAD, the Navy had a similar unwritten policy. Dunno how it is these days; been out for a while.

Same deal with the unwritten tradition that officers do not wear ribbons on the blues shirt, but enlisted are expected to wear their rack.

"unwritten" = there is no such thing. Show me it in writing, or go pound sand.
"unwritten" is GoB Network bunk.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on February 24, 2014, 01:29:48 AM
Same deal with the unwritten tradition that officers do not wear ribbons on the blues shirt, but enlisted are expected to wear their rack.

I've followed that "tradition" over the years because I was told that this is "how it's done in the AF" by members who were around longer than me (including prior service AF). Just out of curiosity, how many others follow this practice?

I wear my ribbons most of the time on my aviator shirt - it's the only place I've got to wear them.

I don't wear my blues except on very rare occasions because I'm TDO to be wearing AF blues any more.  My blue golf shirt and gray slacke are more comfortable than my white aviator shirt and gray slacks so that's what I wear.  No need for ribbons.

I only wear my ribbons on my service dress coat, more out of convenience than anything else. 

I have a large amount of dermal ink deposited on my arms. I am reguired to wear long sleeves when in AF style blues, so I always wear the service coat.  It has all my CAP and military ribbons and badges on it while the light blue shirt only has name and rank slides.   I always wear my CAP ribbons and a badge on my white Aviator shirt.

When wearing just the USAF-style shirt, I wear my CAP/USAF ribbons and badges. If I wear the service coat, those items move to the coat. Basically, I always wear them.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on February 24, 2014, 01:29:48 AM
Same deal with the unwritten tradition that officers do not wear ribbons on the blues shirt, but enlisted are expected to wear their rack.

Funny you should mention that one.  I once helped quash a cadet proposal that would have written said "unwritten tradition" for SM NCOs and cadet CMSgt and below.  I pointed out that National already has a uniform policy, Big Blue doesn't mandate the "unwritten tradition," it's not universally followed by USAF officers or enlisted, and CAP cadet officers should lead by example if they expect their juniors to wear ribbons.

Semi-related:  A prior-enlisted USAF captain told me that he was encouraged not to wear his ribbons because he had more than his O-6 group commander.  No organization has a monopoly on pettiness, I guess.

Quote from: DoubleSecret on February 23, 2014, 01:26:26 PM
From my perspective as a USAF retiree and current CAP member, agreed.  Be a quiet professional, wear the uniform properly, represent us well, and don't be That Guy who triggers a tale that will be exaggerated in the retelling.  Some Airmen will cling determinedly to their anti-CAP mindsets, despite all the professionalism you display.  That's more on them than you.

Which I have always endeavoured to do, almost to the point that when I go on an AFB/AFRB/ANGB I am extremely self-conscious and almost avoid interacting with AF personnel whom I don't know well, other than rendering a salute when required.

What I refuse to do is to be the "whipping boy" for all of those exaggerated tales.

The unwritten rule of 2d Lts not saluting 1st Lts in the USAF is likely from the operations-side of the house and general mindset. Because of timing issues, it is possible for a 2d Lt to have more technical, and leadership, experience than a 1st Lt.

Real world example: If someone comes on active duty, goes to a base for casual status for 6 months, pilot training for up to a year, is eliminated, goes to missile training, sits casual for 4-5 months, and is in training for 7 months, by the time they hit the crew force they will have been in for over  two years, and have had no serious responsibility, almost no technical experience in their field, and be on-line crew for maybe a month or two. Meanwhile a 2d Lt who came right on active duty, went straight through training may have 6 months experience on crew already and be closing in on becoming an instructor. Basically, that 2d Lt knows more and is more valuable to the force than the 1st Lt.

Much less applicable to the support side of the house.

Not saying the tradition is right, but that's where things get weird between 'customs' and 'courtesies' when they don't quite line up right. If you are the 2d Lt and salute 1st Lt's and call them sir you will get weird looks, some shrugs, and some comments not to do it, but you will never get in trouble. If you are the 2d Lt who doesn't salute 1st Lt's and a colonel catches you, you might get in trouble. If you are a 1st Lt and get on a 2d Lt and are a jerk about them not saluting you, you will catch serious flak from peers and some superiors.

As to the ribbons on shirts and whatnot: Traditionally many folks will also wear mini wings/badges on the shirt, and full size only on the jacket. I have no idea where that comes from and has been pointed out its not universal. Personally I don't like wearing my ribbons on my shirt, so I don't do it.

The "mini" badges don't weigh down the shirt as much, especially if you're not using enforcers,
they are also less ostentatious.

I prefer them on the shirt.

Talking about ribbons on the shirt always makes me remember the experiment with half-sized ribbons, or "miniature" ribbons, as they were called.

Someone who had a lot of fruit salad who tried those ended up looking like a German general from the last war.

Jack

Unwritten or not, I did it as a 2nd Lieutenant.

Once when I was going into a base Burger King (yes, the same one) an AFRES 1st Lieutenant in flight suit walked out.

I popped him my best salute and said "Good afternoon, Sir."

He barely brushed his forehead and looked at me like I was starkers (which is another issue entirely).

His problem, not mine.

Quote from: ColonelJack on February 25, 2014, 07:37:38 PM
Talking about ribbons on the shirt always makes me remember the experiment with half-sized ribbons, or "miniature" ribbons, as they were called.

Someone who had a lot of fruit salad who tried those ended up looking like a German general from the last war.

Jack

Or my favourite example, the old Warsaw Pact:

(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/$(KGrHqZ,!oQE8Vb65d4EBPMEstzwEg~~60_35.JPG)
East German Air Force General

^ Are you sure this is not the new service coat for the gray/white corporate uniform? >:D

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 25, 2014, 08:38:56 PM
^ Are you sure this is not the new service coat for the gray/white corporate uniform? >:D

Not a Realtor^TM jacket. Not double breasted for us heavier folk.

Why not?

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on February 25, 2014, 08:57:44 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 25, 2014, 08:38:56 PM
^ Are you sure this is not the new service coat for the gray/white corporate uniform? >:D

Not a Realtor^TM jacket. Not double breasted for us heavier folk.

Why not?

Too military.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 25, 2014, 08:38:56 PM
^ Are you sure this is not the new service coat for the gray/white corporate uniform? >:D

I wish it were.  It'd be heaps better than the Realtor setup we've got now, it has a service cap, and you can wear ribbons on it!

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on February 25, 2014, 08:57:44 PM
Not a Realtor^TM jacket. Not double breasted for us heavier folk.

Why not?

Again, courtesy of the former DDR:

(http://galleryplus.ebayimg.com/ws/web/300944704218_1_0_1/1000x1000.jpg)

Quote from: arajca on February 25, 2014, 09:31:54 PM
Too military.

We sure can't have that. ::) >:(

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 25, 2014, 07:18:05 PM
The unwritten rule of 2d Lts not saluting 1st Lts in the USAF is likely from the operations-side of the house and general mindset. Because of timing issues, it is possible for a 2d Lt to have more technical, and leadership, experience than a 1st Lt.

By that logic, there's no reason for anybody who's E-7 or higher to salute anybody O-3 or lower.

Quote from: Panache on February 26, 2014, 04:52:03 AM

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 25, 2014, 07:18:05 PM
The unwritten rule of 2d Lts not saluting 1st Lts in the USAF is likely from the operations-side of the house and general mindset. Because of timing issues, it is possible for a 2d Lt to have more technical, and leadership, experience than a 1st Lt.

By that logic, there's no reason for anybody who's E-7 or higher to salute anybody O-3 or lower.

That's not the reason. While an Air Force 2d Lt can certainly salute a 1st Lt (and they normally do while in certain training environments), 2d Lt and 1st Lt are considered peers just like Amn and A1C are.

Not if you ask the A1C.  >:D

Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 27, 2014, 12:12:23 AM
Not if you ask the A1C.  >:D

And you have experience is this? >:D >:D

Quote from: PHall on February 27, 2014, 01:52:30 AM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on February 27, 2014, 12:12:23 AM
Not if you ask the A1C.  >:D

And you have experience is this? >:D >:D

Yes. Known many a fresh A1C, saviour of the (air) force, leader of the skeeters.

Quote from: Panache on February 26, 2014, 04:52:03 AM

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on February 25, 2014, 07:18:05 PM
The unwritten rule of 2d Lts not saluting 1st Lts in the USAF is likely from the operations-side of the house and general mindset. Because of timing issues, it is possible for a 2d Lt to have more technical, and leadership, experience than a 1st Lt.

By that logic, there's no reason for anybody who's E-7 or higher to salute anybody O-3 or lower.

I didn't say it completely made sense. But there you have it. Whether it's right or not (culturally, not by letter of the reg) is somewhat irrelevant as it is a largely ingrained part of the USAF culture. Folks can stamp their feet or say 'THAT'S NOT RIGHT!' or 'E-7s shouldn't have to salute' all day long...it likely isn't going to change much, if at all, for several generations.

It would take a shift so those that do the 'right' thing aren't looked down on by a number of their peers to really start to shift it. As long as there is the peer-based politics in the CGO corps, I don't see it going away any time soon.

^ And that's fine, for the USAF, as long as there's no attempt to import that into CAP
or imply it's wrong for a CAP 2d Lt to salute a USAF 1st Lt, etc.

So does this also mean that 1st Lieutenants should not salute Captains, since they are both "company-grade" officers?

And what about Warrant Officers?  I know, the AF does not have them (neither do we, of course) but it is entirely possible to cross paths with one on a base, especially where other services are tenant units.

I would feel a bit odd as a CAP Captain being saluted by a CWO of any level.

I didn't say 'should' or 'shouldn't' I am simply saying what the culture IS.

Captains are always saluted by Lieutenants. By the time it shakes out to captain the chances of you having 0 operational experience is rapidly approaching zero. (Since that is the 4 year point.)

You can try to argue the logic all day long, but it is simply a cultural thing that seems to be unique to the AF, and largely to one part of the USAF. (The operations world.)

As Eclipse said, it's fine for the USAF but that doesn't mean it should be applied to CAP. I would definitely argue it's inappropriate even though you could have a similar situation. (Pilot 1st Lt with no PD training beyond level 1 and 6 months experience in CAP compared to 2d Lt with a tech rating, level I and OBC complete.)

That being said, one move in the proposal was to try to mitigate/curtail that by eliminating the vast majority of special promotions

When appropriate, I salute all superior officers.  It's simply a sign of respect for the grade as well as the individual who richly earned that grade.  When is it appropriate?  Outdoors, when reporting, etc.  Do I expect to be saluted by junior officers?  That is their perogative. I do gently remind cadets but only to help educate them in military culture.  For me, the core value is respect for our fellow members, both seniors and cadets.  We are a team.