CAP Talk

Since we just can't have threads drifting too much....

1) There is a system of FO grades for members 18-20.

2) Grade in CAP does not currently vest any level of responsibility or authority.

3) So, there is no logical reason to prevent 18-20yo members from holding officer grade (2Lt & above).

4) In my opinion, this situation represents unjustifiable discrimination.

5) If anything, grade in CAP is used as an incentive to recruit &/or retain individuals (ie pilots, lawyers, EMTs, etc). The use of the FO system with regard to cadets coming over to SM or under 21 adults works exactly the opposite in the form of a disincentive. This further skews membership toward older members and to some extent limits the organization's capabilities in physically demanding GSaR.

What this is not a discussion of:

1) Grade insignia

2) Any change to the program which would vest responsibility/authority, therefore creating reasonable justification to limit it over 21 members.

3) The availability of insignia or treatment of FOs by membership.

Discuss...

Quote from: DNall on October 14, 2008, 08:31:59 PM2) Grade in CAP does not currently vest any level of responsibility or authority.

[...]

2) Any change to the program which would vest responsibility/authority, therefore creating reasonable justification to limit it over 21 members.

There already is one: you have to be an officer to be a commander.  Ergo, members under 21 cannot be commanders.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you do want to discuss.....

One option that has not been mentioned is to make 18-20 year olds senior members without grade.  This wouldn't imply they were "officers".  However, in order to compensate for them not being able to promote as a flight officer, all their time in grade would be applied when they turn 21 so that if they have met all the other requirements for that grade, they could:
1. Promote directly from SMWOG to 2nd Lt if they have been a SMWOG under the age of 21 for at least 6 months.
2.  Promote directly from SMWOG to 1st Lt if they have been a SMWOG under the age of 21 for at least 18 months.  

This would be mostly of benefit to former cadet NCOs who never made cadet officer and for those who join CAP when they are already over 18.  Former cadet officers already have ways to jump grades when they turn 21.  

However, it would stink not to have a real grade for up to 3 years so quite frankly, the current system may be the best out there (if you are one that resists making 18-20 year olds CAP officers.  

Quote from: dwb on October 14, 2008, 08:35:02 PM

Quote from: DNall on October 14, 2008, 08:31:59 PM2) Grade in CAP does not currently vest any level of responsibility or authority.

[...]

2) Any change to the program which would vest responsibility/authority, therefore creating reasonable justification to limit it over 21 members.

There already is one: you have to be an officer to be a commander.  Ergo, members under 21 cannot be commanders.

Actually, my wing has had at least one(that I know of) flight officer commander's in the past 10 years. 

This is one of the aspects of my "cadets over the age of 18" argument.

In my experince FO's are generally treated like over aged cadets.
Some of our regulations (besides rank) limit the activities of under 21 year olds ) they can't drive CAP vehicles for one.

If you chuck in the CADET aspect of it...it becomes very ambigous.  We make some 20 year old Spaatz Cadet be a lowly SFO for a year or two but we let some 21 year old off the street put on 2d Lt six months after he joins.

I would one of two things.

1) Set a hard and fast date....this is a cadet and this is a Senior Member.  What ever that date is we would just go from there. Completely eliminating the FO ranks.

or

2) We make all are members progress through the FO ranks....maybe merging them into just one FO rank that you hold for 1 year.  Promotion to 2d Lt would be .....1) Complete Level II, 2) 12 Months Time In Grade 3) be 21 years of age.

This is not a perfect fix....but it would then mean that everyone was an FO at one time so it would remove the stigma from it.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2008, 09:17:01 PM
This is one of the aspects of my "cadets over the age of 18" argument.

In my experince FO's are generally treated like over aged cadets.
Some of our regulations (besides rank) limit the activities of under 21 year olds ) they can't drive CAP vehicles for one.

If you chuck in the CADET aspect of it...it becomes very ambigous.  We make some 20 year old Spaatz Cadet be a lowly SFO for a year or two but we let some 21 year old off the street put on 2d Lt six months after he joins.

I would one of two things.

1) Set a hard and fast date....this is a cadet and this is a Senior Member.  What ever that date is we would just go from there. Completely eliminating the FO ranks.

or

2) We make all are members progress through the FO ranks....maybe merging them into just one FO rank that you hold for 1 year.  Promotion to 2d Lt would be .....1) Complete Level II, 2) 12 Months Time In Grade 3) be 21 years of age.

This is not a perfect fix....but it would then mean that everyone was an FO at one time so it would remove the stigma from it.

That's a much more reasonable argument.

There should either be no restriction whatever on 18-20yo members - ie they go straight to 2LT after 6mos just like everyone else, or a higher standard should be applied to everyone.

If you want to put everyone in a year long training/probationary "officer candidate" status, then make them 2Lts, that's a lot more reasonable and fair than what we are doing.

In a broader sense, I look at it from a military perspective, where every commissioned officer is in essence some level of a corporate officer, not just the wing commander. Putting officer grade on people that doesn't really mean anything is a waste of time. But, if we're then going to deny that status, it had better be on the basis of a whole lot more than age.

^^ I completely agree it sounds like the best option.

Quote from: dwb on October 14, 2008, 08:35:02 PM
You have to be an officer to be a commander.  Ergo, members under 21 cannot be commanders.

There is no defined minimum age to be a Squadron commander, nor requirement that you be an officer. 

The minimum requirement is that you be a senior member, period. So by default the minimum age to be a Squadron CC is 18.

It is not out of the question for a senior member without grade (SMOWG) or one who has chosen to display his NCO grade from another service in lieu of accepting a CAP Officer appointment to serve as a Squadron CC (or higher).

Ok to slightly merge two threads for a moment.  I like the idea of every SM moving through the same ranks with no restrictions.  But what if using FO we use NCOs.  This would also keep us from having 1st Lt for life.  If you choose to work in just the SQD level you stay and NCO   and not progrees to the officer.  This would alow them to promote with out doing all the PD that goes along with the officer side. 

^That one has actually been discussed at length.  So here we are again.....Rank in CAP means nothing to anyone outside of CAP.  These arguments are silly.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 15, 2008, 06:14:25 PM
^That one has actually been discussed at length.  So here we are again.....Rank in CAP means nothing to anyone outside of CAP.  These arguments are silly.

Not in this context...because I have seen FO's treated differently.  So maybe rank does not mean anying to anyone outside of CAP we do have an internal problem.  And just saying "get over it" does not really fix the problem.

 Maybe it's not the FO grades that are bad but peoples opinions of them is what the problem is.

Quote from: NCO forever on October 15, 2008, 06:56:26 PM
Maybe it's not the FO grades that are bad but peoples opinions of them is what the problem is.

I believe this is probably the root cause of the problem.  Public opinion can greatly skew reality.  However, in regards to the focus of this post, the success of the FO program as an incentive to join/retain members depends on the squadron.  I was a FO and worked all the way through the program.  I did not let the older members of the squadron treat me any differently than any other senior member.  The program, in my opinion, is a great way for young/transitional members to learn what the Senior program is like and where they fit in to the Squadron.  If a member decides to become a FO, good for them.  It encourages progression and can set a great example for cadets to follow.   

Quote from: NCO forever on October 15, 2008, 06:56:26 PM
Maybe it's not the FO grades that are bad but peoples opinions of them is what the problem is.

Kind of like racism huh?

Point being, we got a seperate & unequal system without any reasonable justification to have it. Sorry to put it in those kind of terms, but I think the parallel has merit.

Here's an issue...

Say a 20-year-old Cadet Officer working toward his/her Spaatz wants to have an 18-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend join CAP as a FO. They would no longer be able to date, or the C/Lt Col would have to transition to Senior Member.

This really doesn't make sense. I wouldn't call it a "perk" of being an 18-20 year-old in the Flight Officer program... but he/she should be allowed to date an Adult Cadet!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

My own "JAFFO" experience...

As a 19-year-old in the Flight Officer program, I was brought up on "charges unbecoming an officer" by MUCH OLDER senior members in my unit. I never actually thought about whether or not I was actually an "officer" in this circumstance until right now - about 15 years later!

The charges were deemed BS by wing and dropped quickly. However, in the process I was incorrectly demoted from TFO to FO by my CC, which later I found out shouldn't have happened... Right after I re-completed all the requirements to be promoted again at another unit!

As a former Cadet Officer and even as C/CC, I was a pretty complacent subordinate. But as a young new Senior Member, my ample supply of motivation and enthusiasm (which they severely lacked) seemed to rock the boat a little too much for comfort.

The animosity against me by the "good ol' boy network" of older officers at that unit was mostly because of my age. Had I been a "real" officer when it happened, would things have gone differently? Well, being in the FO program is one thing that could be keeping a younger adult member down, no mater their abilities as an officer.

An so ends my counseling session.

^ Within the program, there is no such thing as an "adult cadet".

Not by name, but there definitely are "adult" cadets.  That in itself can bring problems.  Its like having a 20 year old in a church youth group.  Its OK as long as everyone behaves.

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 16, 2008, 03:41:44 PM
Not by name, but there definitely are "adult" cadets.  That in itself can bring problems.  Its like having a 20 year old in a church youth group.  Its OK as long as everyone behaves.

A good example, however as someone who is vehemently against any fraternization within the program, including among adults, I would counter that a cadet who has decided to date within the program is likely going to be an issue in other areas as well, especially if he's forced into a decision on status because of it.

CAP is not a dating service or a social club, and if we pressed that point more, we'd have less issues in general.

And while there are exceptions to everything, few 19-21 years olds are "adult" in terms of their maturity or life experience, their ability to vote, drink, or go to war not withstanding.

^different subject....

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 03:27:31 PM
As a former Cadet Officer and even as C/CC, I was a pretty complacent subordinate. But as a young new Senior Member, my ample supply of motivation and enthusiasm (which they severely lacked) seemed to rock the boat a little too much for comfort.

The animosity against me by the "good ol' boy network" of older officers at that unit was mostly because of my age. Had I been a "real" officer when it happened, would things have gone differently? Well, being in the FO program is one thing that could be keeping a younger adult member down, no mater their abilities as an officer.

Unfortunately, that does happen a whole lot, not only to 19yo FOs, but to 25yo Capts and 30yo Majs too. It's part of the program, fighting back against it as a younger officer to cause the pgm to be successful in spite of the people listed as in charge of whatever, that's something you can take pride in.

However, that negative aspect of our membership actually crosses from unprofessionalism to actual discrimination when you move to the FO grades.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 16, 2008, 03:45:50 PM
And while there are exceptions to everything, few 19-21 years olds are "adult" in terms of their maturity or life experience, their ability to vote, drink, or go to war not withstanding.

That's true. Now, I got a near legally retarded 1LT & a whole ton of full on adults in CAP that I wouldn't trust to mow the lawn. On the Army side, I'm used to dealing with freakin immature idiots. That's every private we got, regardless of age. You cross into CAP & those folks who would never make NCO are officers. Okay, I understand rank doesn't mean much. But then you have those dirtbags acting all self important cause they're wearing officer grade & someone younger is not. While I've seen just as many FOs that really had it together.

Personally, I don't think members under 21 should be officers, but that's not based on age alone. I don't think the majority of our adults are at all qualified to be officers either. There should be much higher standards for who is lifted to that. Everyone else should go thru the same enlisted ranks.

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 03:27:31 PM
Here's an issue...

Say a 20-year-old Cadet Officer working toward his/her Spaatz wants to have an 18-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend join CAP as a FO. They would no longer be able to date, or the C/Lt Col would have to transition to Senior Member.

This really doesn't make sense. I wouldn't call it a "perk" of being an 18-20 year-old in the Flight Officer program... but he/she should be allowed to date an Adult Cadet!

Life is full of choices.  Sometimes you have to live with the results of those choices.

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 03:27:31 PM
Here's an issue...

Say a 20-year-old Cadet Officer working toward his/her Spaatz wants to have an 18-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend join CAP as a FO. They would no longer be able to date, or the C/Lt Col would have to transition to Senior Member.

This really doesn't make sense.

I agree it doesn't make much sense.

But the problem I have is in the first sentence.  I am a little confused by the notion that a 20 year old cadet would want to have their boyfirend/girlfriend join and then be surprised or disappointed that they can't have a senior member boyfriend or girlfriend in CAP.

BTW, what senior member PD track is most appropriate for someone who joins just to be a boyfriend or girlfriend?

(And can I get several of them assigned to my unit?  ;D)

I don't meant to skip over the very real issue we have with seniors inappropriately dating cadets.  It is always wrong.  Period.

Even if the senior joined for the specific reason of dating a cadet.

Cadets who encounter what I call the "Romeo and Juliet" scenario (two cadets dating when one turns senior for whatever reason) have choices.  The senior could take patron status or they could "pause" their relationship (true love abides, after all.)

However, it is worth remembering that far fewer cadets are caught up in the "Romeo and Juliet" scenario than there are cadets who are simply preyed upon by avaricious older seniors.  As a former legal officer, I dealt with far more "28 year old senior dating a 15 year old cadet" situations than "22 year old senior dating a 20 year old cadet."

Thus the bright-line rule.  Which can seem unfair to the age-appropriate couples who suffer to protect younger cadets.

Ned Lee

Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2008, 05:32:52 PM
"28 year old senior dating a 15 year old cadet"

Ew

Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2008, 05:32:52 PM
BTW, what senior member PD track is most appropriate for someone who joins just to be a boyfriend or girlfriend? Even if the senior joined for the specific reason of dating a cadet.

My scenario is with the assumption that they are ALREADY a couple, and the non-cadet happens to get interested in what we do. Some people who date take interest in the other's activities... it's how a relationship grows. In the scenario, it's obvious the 20 yr old cadet should continue to strive for the Spaatz and have their significant other hold off joining until that milestone is made. But it's sad that a potentially outstanding new member had to be - in effect - turned away because of our policies that don't follow common law.

My point is that the lines between Cadet into FO into Officer bleed a little more together for a smoother transition, or take away the gray area of what a FO is completely. Maybe we don't have 18-20 year-old regular grade Officers is because they don't exist in the Real Military (tm)?

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 06:43:19 PM
But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

Yeah, right. No dating, period.

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 06:43:19 PM

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

I met my wife though this organization a little over a year ago.

Quote from: davidsinn on October 16, 2008, 07:37:11 PM

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 06:43:19 PM

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

I met my wife though this organization a little over a year ago.

Congrats - for every positive experience, I can show you three negative, some that ended very badly, and had a serioulsy negative effect on the unit and activities they participated in.

CAP should be treated like work, dating is inappropriate and generally detrimental to the situation.

But unlike work....we do CAP for fun...and I, as a former commander and current ES/PD/AE/Trans officer, do not have the time to be the drama coach for a squadron of adults.

Also just like at work...I'll be dambed if I am going to let someone tell me who I can or can't date.....unless they have very good reason to do so.

(military fratinisation is an understandable rule).

But if you do it just to avoid "drama" in a volunteer organisation.......good luck with that.

Back on topic....

But this again ties back into the gray area of what we do with our 18-20 year old members.

Too much gray area, too much overlap between if they are a "children" or "adults".

The FO ranks do not help.
The Cadet on Senior dateing rules do not help.
The vehicle driving rules do no help.
The CAP promotion rules do not help.
The attitdues of the old guys in CAP definatly do not help.

I don't have a simple answer because it is not a simple problem.

But if someone were to take it on with a suggest it would have to include eliminating as much of the "gray area" as possible.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 16, 2008, 07:55:27 PM
But unlike work....we do CAP for fun...and I, as a former commander and current ES/PD/AE/Trans officer, do not have the time to be the drama coach for a squadron of adults.

Also just like at work...I'll be damed if I am going to let someone tell me who I can or can't date.....unless they have very good reason to do so.

(military fraternization is an understandable rule).

So the military is already telling you, and, there are any number of companies that prohibit dating in the workplace, or require you formally disclose any relationship, especially between a subordinate and a boss.

Otherwise, the "don't poop where you eat" rule is generally at the top of the list for most people serious about their careers, and failure to live by that mantra is, more times than not, at the top of the list why people's career's tank, especially when you move higher on the ladder.

^ God I really don't want to drag this further off topic... but, it's a lot less like that in the military then you think. Yeah boss/subordinate is unacceptable, and in the same unit is pretty crazy but happens on the DL, but between units happens all the time & that's fine. I personally don't want to date anyone in the military for the "poop where you eat" reasons.

Just on the dating issue......notice it is a rule of thumb..

that is...it is usually not a good idea, but it is not a "even if you just go out for a drink one time, I got to kick you out of CAP" rule.

Sure...don't poop where you eat....I got that and accept that.  But that is a far cry from...."Cadet Johnson...I say you and Cadet Girly-girl at the mall last Saturday in civies.....I need you to give me a detailed report of what you were doing and why....so I can decide if I need to 2b you are not."

Yes I am exagerating...but as we all know here on CAPTalk....if the regulation say...such and such...people are going to follow the letter of the rule and not the spirit.

Now...back on topic..

FO's and to the some extent cadets over 18 are discriminated against.

The cadets you can argue it is because they choose to remain cadets and technically childern....it is their choice.

But FO's it is simply a rule that has been around for a long time...and it stems from someone (CAP or the USAF I don't know) not wanting to see some 18 year old wearing Lt bars (or FSM forbid Capt Bars).

And it is true.

Younger people do get left out of the SM experince because they are younger and not just FO's.  I'm 42 years old and I am the young kid on the block when it comes time to work at the mission base.  FO's (which we do not have a lot of) are pushed to the side lines all the time.  Not by everyone, but generally speaking they are not respected simply because of their youth...that their FO bars shouts out to everyone under the sun.

So...once again....solutions.

1.  Make everyone go through the FO ranks as part of their entry into CAP. (Good, but too radical of a change will make people angry).

2.  Eliminate FO ranks all together. (good except who ever instituded the rule in the first place).

3.  Make everyone under the age of 21 a cadet. (kills lots of birds with that one stone).

4.  Make everyone over the age of 18 a SM (increases the number of FO's makes a clear disction between cadets and SMs)

5.  Eliminate USAF rank except for Command personnel and put everyone one in FO ranks (FO-Level I, TFO- Level II, SFO-Level III, 2d Lt-Level IV with no job, 1st Lt-Level V with no job).  (very....very....radical.  ;D)

Quote from: alamrcn on October 16, 2008, 06:43:19 PM

Quote from: Ned on October 16, 2008, 05:32:52 PM
BTW, what senior member PD track is most appropriate for someone who joins just to be a boyfriend or girlfriend? Even if the senior joined for the specific reason of dating a cadet.

But DO NOT discourage dating in CAP, please! If we got rid of all the CAP couples and their subsequent offspring (and future cadets) created over the years, it would be like nuking an entire wing out of the program!

Probable one bigger than RI ;D

Here is the take of another former Flight Officer.  I experienced a bit of prejudice from some SMs while I was active, but I also recieved a lot of support from most members.  Overall, I think my time as an FO was very rewarding and made for a good transition.  Here are some things I would like to point out.

1.) After I turned 18 I became an FO because for two reasons.  One, I felt that I had taken what I could from the cadet program and I could be a better asset to the unit by turning senior and taking over the Leadership Officer position.  Two, I was an adult and wanted to be treated as one.  It just seemed ridiculous that I could be responsible enough to do things like moving out of my parents house, go to college, work, and pay bills while on my own, but as soon as I went to a CAP activity I wasn't responsible enough to keep the keys to my car nor keep my cell phone for the duration of the activity. 

2.) It would be stupid to allow 18-20 year old members to hold 2d Lt - Capt.  There is no room there for any type of transition between being a cadet and being an officer.  Keeping the same members at the rank of SM would also be a poor move.  It would lock them in place and prevent growth in the program as they gain experience.  The FO program is in the middle here.  It doesn't make these members full officers, but it does give them room to grow and gain promotions as they increase in maturity, responsibility and capability.  This rank also lets the member gain a bit of seniority after turning 21. 

Let's use 3 examples:

Policy A: An individual joins as a cadet on their 15th birthday and earns the Mitchell Award when he is 17.  At 18 he decides to turn senior because he is going to college and feels he has outgrown the cadet program and wants to be treated as an adult.  The policy is that all Seniors are eligible for officer rank.  Because he has the Mitchell Award he is promoted to 2d Lt immediately after becoming a senior even though he was a cadet just days before with no time to gain the maturity needed to be an officer or to seperate himself from being a cadet.

Policy B: The same individual turns senior at 18, but cannot hold any rank other than SM.  Between 18 and 21 this member earns a technician and senior rating in personnel and a technician rating in cadet programs and completes level II of the PD program.  On turning 21 this member is only capable of promoting to 2d Lt despite having 6 years in CAP and valuable experience and training.

Policy C: The same individual turns senior at 18 and is appointed as a Flight Officer because of the Mitchell Award.  Between 18 and 21 he earns a technican rating in personnel and is promoted to Technical Flight Officer.  The member then earns a senior rating in personnel and a second technician rating in cadet programs and completes level II of the PD program.   As a result he is promoted to Senior Flight Officer six months before turning 21.  As such, when he turns 21 he is promoted to 1st Lt with 6 months time in grade towards Capt.  Seemingly more appropriate for somebody with 6 years in the program and the experience and training of the member.

3.) Whether the FO program stays or goes, something has to be done that addresses members that are 18-20 years old.  Making them all cadets will not work and making them all seniors will not work either.         
       

QuotePolicy B: The same individual turns senior at 18, but cannot hold any rank other than SM.  Between 18 and 21 this member earns a technician and senior rating in personnel and a technician rating in cadet programs and completes level II of the PD program.  On turning 21 this member is only capable of promoting to 2d Lt despite having 6 years in CAP and valuable experience and training.

Actually, under my proposal he would be able to promote to 1st Lt immediately upon turning 21 if he had completed all the other pre-requisites. 

Quote from: Smitty on October 18, 2008, 01:40:49 AM
2.) It would be stupid to allow 18-20 year old members to hold 2d Lt - Capt.  There is no room there for any type of transition between being a cadet and being an officer.  Keeping the same members at the rank of SM would also be a poor move.  It would lock them in place and prevent growth in the program as they gain experience.   

There's no transition between civilian and 2Lt either, nothing different than an FO is going thru anyway. I don't agree that all 20yos are so spectacularly less (fill in the blank) than all 21yos, such that discrimination is justified in the program.

There is no transition when a cadet stays a cadet till 21 either. Lack or presence of FO ranks makes no difference. What does make a difference is assigning that new SM away from cadet programs for the first year or two.

The issue with leaving them in place as a SMWOG is the same as making them a FO - it's an insult/discrimination, and as such deters many cadets from crossing over. That in turn contributes to the gap between cadets and our much older members with a big blank spot in between. We actually want to retain cadets as they reach adulthood & begin to have success in life, not re-gain them 45 years later when they retire to fixed income.

Quote from: DNall on October 18, 2008, 04:06:59 AM
The issue with leaving them in place as a SMWOG is the same as making them a FO - it's an insult/discrimination, and as such deters many cadets from crossing over. That in turn contributes to the gap between cadets and our much older members with a big blank spot in between.

No it doesn't, what deters most cadets from crossing over is LIFE, which just starts getting interesting between 18-21.

Cadets on a Spaatz track generally stay cadets through 21, and those not generally get demotivated in general around 18.  They go away to school, get jobs, enlist, or otherwise find ways to spend their weekends  other than CAP.

I don't personally believe the people who are actually effected by this care about it or think about it as much
as even this thread would insinuate - it is what it is, and what it not is discrimination or insulting.

Does anyone know if Flight Officer rank is noted in eservices as such or are they lumped as Senior Members like all the NCOs used to be?  If it is the latter, I would recommend changing that so at least it is recorded officially.

On e-Services FOs stay Senior Members.  Promotions in the FO Grades are controlled and tracked at the Squadron level.  It would make it more "official" looking if FO grade was tracked at National, but I don't believe it is all that necessary.  The system works as written. 

Quote from: RiverAux on October 19, 2008, 02:17:38 AM
Does anyone know if Flight Officer rank is noted in eservices as such or are they lumped as Senior Members like all the NCOs used to be?  If it is the latter, I would recommend changing that so at least it is recorded officially.

No eServices doesn't record Flight Officer grade. I wish they did. Believe it or not, it adds credibility to the grade. I've noticed that whenever people see me for the first time in uniform or see my grade they get confused. Unless they have specifically taught to know what Flight Officer insignia looks like or have known another Flight Officer, they have no idea what to call me. Yes, all members SHOULD know what all the insignia looks like and how to address the people that wear them. But, more often that not, few have any idea what they are. Just last Thursday at my squadron's weekly meeting I was called Senior Member, LT, Warrant Officer, and Flying Officer. When I show people my 101 card or my CAPID card, they get just as confused or accuse me of impersonating an officer  >:D One way we can solve this is by educating members on proper terms of address and identification of CAP grade insignia...which should happen during Level One training. But it's not going to happen so let's record the grade on CAPID cards and 101 cards and make my life a little easier. It gets old explaining my grade to EVERYONE. I do wish to keep the Flight Officer system though, it's not perfect but it gets the job done.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 19, 2008, 01:48:46 AM

Quote from: DNall on October 18, 2008, 04:06:59 AM
The issue with leaving them in place as a SMWOG is the same as making them a FO - it's an insult/discrimination, and as such deters many cadets from crossing over. That in turn contributes to the gap between cadets and our much older members with a big blank spot in between.

No it doesn't, what deters most cadets from crossing over is LIFE, which just starts getting interesting between 18-21.

Cadets on a Spaatz track generally stay cadets through 21, and those not generally get demotivated in general around 18.  They go away to school, get jobs, enlist, or otherwise find ways to spend their weekends  other than CAP.

I don't personally believe the people who are actually effected by this care about it or think about it as much
as even this thread would insinuate - it is what it is, and what it not is discrimination or insulting.

My life was pretty dang entertaining from about 8th or 9th grade on. With the exception of the care & living away from my parents, I wasn't doing anything as a senior in college that I wasn't already doing in HS. While many of our cadets live rather sheltered lives - and I don't know if that's who we attract or CAP plays some part in that - the majority of kids that age do not.

While you're correct that graduating HS is a time when most kids are going to move away (college or military) and hence drop CAP. There are also a lot of young adults moving into our area or just finding CAP at that point, as I did.

I joined at 18 & came up thru the FO system. I found it both insulting and discriminatory, as have just about every current or former FO I've ever talked to.

Quote from: cjrousseau on October 19, 2008, 04:02:56 AM
On e-Services FOs stay Senior Members.  Promotions in the FO Grades are controlled and tracked at the Squadron level.  It would make it more "official" looking if FO grade was tracked at National, but I don't believe it is all that necessary.  The system works as written. 

It wouldn't take but a few keystrokes.  If it was worth doing for a few dozen CAP NCOs, it is probably worth doing for a whole lot more Flight Officers.  Its a legitimate rank, so there is no legitimate justification for not treating it as such. 

I would like to see some sort of change, but I'm not sure what that solution is.

I can tell you that the idea of FO being a "transitory period" doesn't matter much. I'm a cadet now, and at the end of March, I'll be a Captain, senior-member type. I suppose the argument is that a cadet who earns a certain rank as a cadet has proven preparedness for a certain senior rank. Whatever. The point is that even the C/2d Lt with Mitchell Syndrome still transfers over to 2d Lt in the senior program, regardless of how prepared he is.

I would argue against cutting of cadet membership at 18. I joined when I was fourteen, which isn't too bad as far as a joining age goes. I am a fairly active cadet with multiple encampments and NCSA's under my belt, went to every squadron meeting only until recently, and progressed through the ranks at a decent rate. I am now 20, and earned my Spaatz in June. I think I moved at pretty much the most average rate one could expect for the Spaatz, and I know for some, it takes longer to get there. We'd be shortening the deadlines for many cadets by cutting off at 18, especially since the cadets who join at 16 and 17 have very little chance of actually earning anything at all in the program.

In order to ACTUALLY make it a choice, we could give 18-20 year old new recruits the OPTION of joining either as a cadet or a senior. I never really understood why we only offered that choice to cadets, but it would at least help this silly dating problem that was discussed earlier.

In order to help the FO rank problem, I would suggest that we, as has already been mentioned, simply make the FO program something everyone goes through, and eliminate the grade of SM completely. The current program FO program would not really change, but it would help the 18-20 year old FO's blend in a little better with the CAP SM population if the grade of SM was simply changed into a FO grade. In fact, it might even give the 18-20 year old FO's who have been working through the FO program a bit of rank on new members, which would help with the whole respect issues.

Just a thought.

Retiring the SM would not be a bad idea and would eliminate two of the most annoying SM issues - having to almost immediately re-sew insignia on BDUs and replace a flight cap.

Having 2 extra grades to advance through (TFO/SFO) would also provide a little more granularity for our SM program, which is obviously top-heavy.   I wouldn't mind seeing a few more grades and having it take much longer to reach Lt. Col. 

Make senior member officer canidate.  Make every person be a flight officer firsr and work towards 2nd LT.

Quote from: CAPLAW on October 20, 2008, 05:55:42 PM
Make senior member officer canidate.  Make every person be a flight officer firsr and work towards 2nd LT.

Hey, that is a viable option.

Quote from: CAPLAW on October 20, 2008, 05:55:42 PM
Make senior member officer canidate.

That's the first time I've heard that thrown out... kinda like the W.O.C. program in Army Aviation. I think that's a very viable idea for BOTH catagories of SMs...

For new 21+ SMs during the current 6 month before completing Level 1 - no program change, just a change of title... they actually get one!

And for 18-20 officers during a 12 month probationary period, where then they are reviewed for transition to the regular grades - or reviewed every quarter past that until their 21st B-day.

That's a little closer to equality, and only a 1-step program that's not too complex despite involving a local review process.

Quote from: alamrcn on October 20, 2008, 07:15:06 PM

Quote from: CAPLAW on October 20, 2008, 05:55:42 PM
Make senior member officer canidate.

That's the first time I've heard that thrown out... kinda like the W.O.C. program in Army Aviation. I think that's a very viable idea for BOTH catagories of SMs...

For new 21+ SMs during the current 6 month before completing Level 1 - no program change, just a change of title... they actually get one!

And for 18-20 officers during a 12 month probationary period, where then they are reviewed for transition to the regular grades - or reviewed every quarter past that until their 21st B-day.

That's a little closer to equality, and only a 1-step program that's not too complex despite involving a local review process.

I could see 6 months as an FO, 6 as a TFO and 3 month minimum as an  SFO until some test was taken (foundations).

Those under 21 would maintain the same criteria as is listed in the status quo.  This would give "teeth to" (or "beef up") the idea of 2d Lt in CAP.  More of a process than the current "Foundations" system works.

The "in training" officer candidacy period might serve to thin out the officer grades as some desire while making the system more rigorous as others maintain.  The Membership Ribbon might also be more than just a "fog a mirror."

Quote from: alamrcn on October 20, 2008, 07:15:06 PM

Quote from: CAPLAW on October 20, 2008, 05:55:42 PM
Make senior member officer canidate.

That's the first time I've heard that thrown out... kinda like the W.O.C. program in Army Aviation. I think that's a very viable idea for BOTH catagories of SMs...

Are you serious? That's been put out a couple dozen times on here. Even with zero programming changes, we should change SMWOG to Officer Candidate, and call Lvl I OTS, whatever it happens to consist of.

The most logical proposal I've seen is all new members regardless of age begin as AB. Progress thru Amn, A1C, and SrA; which correspond to current FO/TFO/SFO. Promotion to 2Lt requires: a) prereqs, application packet, interview, board selection, 1yr training pgm (combination online & mentor), board appvl to grad; and, b) a unit position appropriate to officer grade (CC, DCS, DCC, or positions above local units). If we do or don't open up NCO grades for further progress of people that don't qualify or don't want to progress to officer, I'd defer that to our current NCO corps.

Quote from: DNall on October 20, 2008, 07:48:08 PM
Are you serious? That's been put out a couple dozen times on here.

Look at your number of posts compaired to my number of posts!
Obviously I don't get to all the discussions. ;D

The concept of progression from Airman up is very complex and would be very hard to change into. Fine for a ground up program, but not our who have been doing things the same way for decades. Let's not reinvent things... yet.

Our issue (here) lies with the treament and acceptence of those in the FO program as equal but different. Remove all of the FO grades and instate the OC program for all ages - but with two different timeframes based on age......
*  21+, after 6 months probation (same as now)
*  18-20, after 12 months - plus additional 3 month probation periods if needed
......before transition into the normal rank system as it stands.

Completion of the OC period would complete Level 1 and promote to 2d Lt for age 19 minimum.

I entered CAP at 24, so I was never a FO, and really have no dog in this fight.  I'd still like to see senior membership structure improve though.
Respectfully, I'd point out that a lot of the changes being suggested here still discriminate towards the pre-21 crowd.  What has been fixed?

Quote from: alamrcn on October 21, 2008, 01:57:43 PM

Quote from: DNall on October 20, 2008, 07:48:08 PM
Are you serious? That's been put out a couple dozen times on here.

Look at your number of posts compaired to my number of posts!
Obviously I don't get to all the discussions. ;D

The concept of progression from Airman up is very complex and would be very hard to change into. Fine for a ground up program, but not our who have been doing things the same way for decades. Let's not reinvent things... yet.

Our issue (here) lies with the treament and acceptence of those in the FO program as equal but different. Remove all of the FO grades and instate the OC program for all ages - but with two different timeframes based on age......
*  21+, after 6 months probation (same as now)
*  18-20, after 12 months - plus additional 3 month probation periods if needed
......before transition into the normal rank system as it stands.

Completion of the OC period would complete Level 1 and promote to 2d Lt for age 19 minimum.

I would not have different tracks for different ages.

Use the FO ranks we have now.....use them as a OCS program that everyone has to go through....it should take 1 year to 18 months....at the end of which (if you are 219 you get 2nd Lt.  If you have to wait....well you have to wait.

That is assuming the 21 age requirement is an outside requirment (the USAF does not want 18 year old Lts running around).

If we can remove the 21 year age requirment we then have a good program that gets people promoted quickly....makes our USAF rank a little more meaningful, give a clear transition program for all members, makes the FO ranks simply a step you got to take up the ladder which shoudl help with the discrimination thing.

Young people are still going get dumped on.....but at least we would be removing some of the excuses the old farts use.

I'd have no issue with that - based on my personal experience, though owing mostly to the inertia at my first squadron, I was useless to CAP the first two years anyway.

I'd say the first year is definitely the learning phase, especially for seniors, where many don't meet weekly.

Holding everyone at FO and making them meeting more of a requirement than respiration and gravitation attraction would be an idea worth considering.

POINT OF ORDER:
There is not & never has been any requirement or suggestion from AF that under 21 members not be officers.

That requirement does not exist in the military. I know a 20yo 2LT right now in the Army that's taking a platoon to war in less than a year.

There are two cases that commonly account for that. The first is military junior colleges that commission via ROTC with only an associates degree. The second is generally homeschool kids that complete dual credit at a junior college & graduate HS at 18 with an associates degree, so are able to make the education requirements prior to 21 and commission via OTS/OCS or ROTC.

The military requirement is 19, education level, accepted into & passed the applicable course, then recommended & approved for commission.

/End Point of Order.


Okay so where are we at?

1) Everyone should go thru an initial entry training phase somewhat stronger than the current level 1.

Call that at minimum: current level 1 plus a year of mentorship, with recommendation from the mentor to promote.

At max: some kind of more involved OTS program designed to train actual officer caliber leaders.

But, lets just go with the min for the sake of this discussion.

2) The program/period described above, regardless of what it involves, should be officially called OTS. Members in this program described as Officer Candidates (abbreviated OC name; said as: Candidate name). Do away with FO ranks completely. They aren't needed to designate levels of OC status over a one-year period.

3) The above should be irrespective of age. Note: if a member joins at 18, they'll be 19 after the 1 year mentor process.

4) Cadet officers crossing over to the adult side should go thru this program in OC status just like everyone else, but will promote to the currently appropriate grade upon completion (Earhart/1Lt, Spaatz/Capt).

Notes/Benefits:
1) This is a probationary period. Members may be asst XYZ officers, but not primary staff till promoted to 2Lt. They may not be the sole supervisor of cadets (2-member rule required at all times).

2) This gives us a better period of time to develop/train members rather than just throwing them in the fire. That will cause them to be capable officers more quickly than what we're doing now.

3) They may, actually it would be a requirement, complete tech level training in their to be assigned specialty track. - That makes them trained up before they start doing the job, pairs up the officer mentor and spec track mentor into one person. And, it allows us to improve the higher levels of the spec tracks (those really should be 4 level tracks with the basic badge coming at the second level, but that's another conversation).

What are your thoughts???

I could get on board with that provided that all CAP senior members have to go through the same process --- in other words, if you qualify for a special appointment or mission-related skills appointment, you don't get to claim it until after the 1-year period. 

but if our rank means nothing why the fuss.  I even wonder with that thought is the ''discrimination'' coming from the lack of age and maturity?

Quote from: RiverAux on October 21, 2008, 07:06:22 PM
I could get on board with that provided that all CAP senior members have to go through the same process --- in other words, if you qualify for a special appointment or mission-related skills appointment, you don't get to claim it until after the 1-year period. 

I don't personally have a problem with that regarding mission related skills. That is pilot, comm, EMT, etc. The condition on those is that they be applied to CAP. Yet, additional ES training is required before they can do that. The year of mentorship allows that to occur.

I would probably lean toward an abreviated version of that for certain other cases. Prior mil officers, lawyers, finance officers, doctors, nurses, chaplains... those are all special branch type promotions. They are doing the job they are already expert in & we can't train them for. I would have them do the same process, but accept the appropriate grade after level 1 is done, and serve out the year of mentorship as an officer. I know you're not in love with that idea, but there's a reason we treat these people special. It's cause we need them more than they need us, and we need to attract them to the org more than we need to be fair to everyone else.

Legislative/congressional Sq members obviously don't do any of this. Their grade is honorary.

Quote from: hatentx on October 21, 2008, 07:28:42 PM
but if our rank means nothing why the fuss.  I even wonder with that thought is the ''discrimination'' coming from the lack of age and maturity?

It has come to mean nothing. That has not always been the case, and it is not at all useful. I may not be able to make the difference between LtCol & Capt mean anything, but I would certainly like to have all members have a basic officer skill set.

In terms you & I understand, they should be utilize TLPs, plan & deliver OPORDs, operate according to doctrine/METL/commander's intent, and have situational awareness, attention to detail, and professionalism appropriate to, if not officer grade than at minimum to their position as a leader/manager and representative of the AF.

Quote from: DNall on October 21, 2008, 06:55:05 PM
Members may be asst XYZ officers, but not primary staff till promoted to 2Lt. They may not be the sole supervisor of cadets (2-member rule required at all times).

How does that work when you stand up a unit cold. IE you have NO experienced officers at all? My unit did that. All but 2 members joined within months of each other. We all were given staff positions rightaway long before we had rank and before some had acquired uniforms.

QuoteThey are doing the job they are already expert in & we can't train them for.

Thats a big assumption, especially in regards to prior service.  But, for the "professionals" its still going to take them months and months to really understand their role in CAP before they can really do the job (assuming they actually take a position and do the work).  

Making all the professionals wait a year while they actually get familiar with how CAP works in their specialty field can only benefit the program.  And lets face it, in regards to the professional appointments we really don't need them as badly as the military does and CAP officers are not nearly as restricted to their "lane" as those in the military.  

That doctor that joins CAP is just as likely as anyone else to be put in command of a squadron, group, etc. as someone else, so they need to have the same training as the rest.  That isn't nearly as likely in the military. 

So, making all our officers go through the same training at the start is not going to hurt us at all.  And, its not like the professionals still won't get to skip far ahead of everybody else after they complete that period so they're still getting their perk.  

Quote from: davidsinn on October 21, 2008, 08:29:57 PM

Quote from: DNall on October 21, 2008, 06:55:05 PM
Members may be asst XYZ officers, but not primary staff till promoted to 2Lt. They may not be the sole supervisor of cadets (2-member rule required at all times).

How does that work when you stand up a unit cold. IE you have NO experienced officers at all? My unit did that. All but 2 members joined within months of each other. We all were given staff positions rightaway long before we had rank and before some had acquired uniforms.

And not one of those people was qualified to hold any of those positions. Having a tech rating means you can do the position at Sq/Flt level only, and under direct supervision. Theoretically, either your Sq/CC or some other member w/ a Sr or higher rating in the field should be mentoring & supervising all work performed by that individual. Again in theory, training for a tech rating means you can't hold the primary position, even under supervision. You're being trained for that purpose and working under heavy supervision.

Is that how things actually work? Not really. You adapt as necessary.

Now, when starting a new unit, you should be under the direct hands-on involved supervision of Wg, Gp, or another Sq.  They should be providing that mentorship to each new member as they train to hold a position & be an officer. That's not a proposal. That's what's supposed to happen now.

Optimally, you'd recruit the core adults first, enough to form a flight, use that train up year to get them competent, and gain the unit charter. THEN you'd move into recruiting cadets and more adults once you have that solid foundation. You don't have to do it that way, but you'll be operating to standard quicker if you do.

Quote from: RiverAux on October 21, 2008, 08:33:15 PM

QuoteThey are doing the job they are already expert in & we can't train them for.

Thats a big assumption, especially in regards to prior service.  But, for the "professionals" its still going to take them months and months to really understand their role in CAP before they can really do the job (assuming they actually take a position and do the work).  

I know special appointments is a pet peeve of yours, but it's not the subject of this thread.

To your point though, a lawyer is acting as a lawyer for CAP, a finance officer is keeping the books & doing budgets, a doctor/nurse is setting up unit health & wellness pgms including DDR... I'm not even going to talk to you about prior service. That's not something you're going to understand without better exposure to officer training. If you'd like to get with me offline, we can discuss the "thing" they have that CAP doesn't & desperately needs.

I currently work with a couple of gentlemen who are Flight Officers and find them to be fine members and capable officers. I think the problem here has nothing to do with the grade, or having a separate grade structure for 18-21 yo members, but with attitudes. If we look at our younger members, who are in the FO program, by their skills and devotion to professionalism and not by what is on their collars and shoulders, the problem of FO discrimination will resolve itself. I would like to think that people treat me with respect in my squadron not because of the 1st Lt bars that I wear, but because of what I give to the squadron. Changing the system will not solve the problem, as we would then have the problem of age discrimination with 18-20 yo Lt's. What is needed is for older members to encourage younger members to join and be involved, as new SMs who are under 21 have a lot to offer our program in terms of youth and excitement that will resonate with cadets and be refreshing for older senior members. Those are just my thoughts on the subject.

I actually find many older members to be threatened by that youth & vigor rather than refreshed by it, but that's another topic.

There's two forms of discrimination at issue. First, there is personal treatment of the individuals by our members. In that sense, you are correct. Members regardless of age or grade need to practice the core value of mutual respect, or they need to seek volunteer opportunities elsewhere.

However, there is also another aspect. That is the discrimination by the national program through use of the FO grade system. This explicitly devalues these members and their service. Indirectly, it serves to promote & justify the personal discrimination you describe.

I can't cause every member to behave with mutual respect toward other members regardless of age, race, religion, etc. But, a small aspect of the national program can be tweaked to set the right example based on our core values. If we don't do that, then those values are a lie & we have no business existing as an organization.

Is the thought by the rank on the collar or by the age they are?  I am not saying younger FO can't do the job but there are things the can't do like drive due to Insurance reason.  There will always be a difference between the 18-20 group will be different that the older crowd.

Quote from: hatentx on October 22, 2008, 01:48:04 PM
Is the thought by the rank on the collar or by the age they are?  I am not saying younger FO can't do the job but there are things the can't do like drive due to Insurance reason.  There will always be a difference between the 18-20 group will be different that the older crowd.

It is both.....their age is always going to be a factor....but with CAP not allowing under 21 members holding "real officer" ranks it help justify that sort of discrimination.

Yes the insurance and regulation issue do not help....but we also have to remember that those people who are writing those regulations may already be infected by the "FO's are just old cadets" syndrom.

Again...there are several possible fixes for this type of problem.

1).  Eliminate the FO ranks all together. 
2).  Make FO ranks part of the normal progression of all members.
3).  Raise the minimium age for SM membership to 21 (everyone under 21 is a cadet).

What needs to be done is...
1) Determine why we have the 21 year old rule for officer rank.
2) Determine if there is a legitamate need to restrict any "adult" from doing anything...I find it strange that we let an 18 year old SM fly a CAP plane as PIC....but not a Corporate Owned Vehicle.
3) Determine how many of the age restrictions are driven by the "we don't want cadets doing this" mentality.
4) Do a wash of all regulations and make sure they all have a consitant set a rules.  i.e. if we have a hard 21 year rule due to insurance rules...then those under 21 should not be allowed any roles of responsibilities.  (such as 20 year old PICs, commanders, ground team leaders, etc).

Anytime we have a system that sets up large gray areas when it comes to who can do what...it sets up a system that allows institutional discrimination.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 22, 2008, 06:12:53 PM

What needs to be done is...
1) Determine why we have the 21 year old rule for officer rank.
2) Determine if there is a legitamate need to restrict any "adult" from doing anything...I find it strange that we let an 18 year old SM fly a CAP plane as PIC....but not a Corporate Owned Vehicle.
3) Determine how many of the age restrictions are driven by the "we don't want cadets doing this" mentality.
4) Do a wash of all regulations and make sure they all have a consitant set a rules.  i.e. if we have a hard 21 year rule due to insurance rules...then those under 21 should not be allowed any roles of responsibilities.  (such as 20 year old PICs, commanders, ground team leaders, etc).

Those are exactly the questions that need to be answered and the answer shouldn't be "because the regs have always been that way."  It may be that the restriction has existed for decades; the 26th amendment wasn't ratified until 1971 (Right to vote at 18, for those who don't know.)

All regulations should be examined from time to time to see if they're still valid, after asking "Why was this reg put in place?"

I do agree with lordmonar in that we should be consistent in how we treat people.

However, I think the FO issue is similar to the NCO issue in that as it effects only a small amount of people, it is much harder to get brought to the attention of those in charge. 

You never know, perhaps the NCO discussion might lead CAP down a different path for how we treat everybody in terms of rank and responsibilities.

As to when the 21 year requirement for officer grade and cadets being PIC. As a cadet I flew USAF L-4 aircraft as PIC on missions AND often carried a cadet Observer. Cadets could also drive CAP vehicles (usually military surplus). TYhe Air Force and Corporate thinking then was anything a senior member could do a cadet also could do, except command a Squadron as long as they were checked out in the equipment and could perform staff assignments. Cadets were not thought of as children which seem to be the Corporate thinking now.

Quote from: BillB on October 22, 2008, 07:24:02 PM
As to when the 21 year requirement for officer grade and cadets being PIC. As a cadet I flew USAF L-4 aircraft as PIC on missions AND often carried a cadet Observer. Cadets could also drive CAP vehicles (usually military surplus). TYhe Air Force and Corporate thinking then was anything a senior member could do a cadet also could do, except command a Squadron as long as they were checked out in the equipment and could perform staff assignments. Cadets were not thought of as children which seem to be the Corporate thinking now.

I have noticed a strange phenomenon amoung cadets.  The reasoning behind it being something I often point out.  I have cadets that fail math in school, I'm talking 8th grade and 7th Grade stuff.  However, in the Cadet Program they are doing good with weight and balance simulations and even trig functions associated with the more advanced side of rocketry.

I also have cadets that are holy terrors in class, but are well adjusted cadets that are respectful and focus on the given activity.

BillB's above comment on the treatment of CADETS got me to thinking about the issue.  I train cadets that choose ES as if I were training Adults, that is, they learn how to be MROs, UDF and the like as if they were CAP Officers.  Sometimes, the results among the cadets outshine those of senior members.

I suspect it is because they view that as being "REAL."  Actually training to be used, even if only in the smallest way.

Treat them like "worthless" kids and they will be "worthless" kids, treat them like adults and you will create that in them...adulthood.

^ Joe, school program sounds just about right for your cadets.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 22, 2008, 06:12:53 PM
Again...there are several possible fixes for this type of problem.

1).  Eliminate the FO ranks all together. 
2).  Make FO ranks part of the normal progression of all members.
3).  Raise the minimium age for SM membership to 21 (everyone under 21 is a cadet).

What needs to be done is...
1) Determine why we have the 21 year old rule for officer rank.
2) Determine if there is a legitamate need to restrict any "adult" from doing anything...I find it strange that we let an 18 year old SM fly a CAP plane as PIC....but not a Corporate Owned Vehicle.
3) Determine how many of the age restrictions are driven by the "we don't want cadets doing this" mentality.
4) Do a wash of all regulations and make sure they all have a consitant set a rules.  i.e. if we have a hard 21 year rule due to insurance rules...then those under 21 should not be allowed any roles of responsibilities.  (such as 20 year old PICs, commanders, ground team leaders, etc).

Anytime we have a system that sets up large gray areas when it comes to who can do what...it sets up a system that allows institutional discrimination.

There's nothing that says under 21 members can't drive vans, it's just the insurance would cost more so we choose to make it the policy that they can't. Okay, I support that. It'd bring the rate down further if we restrict drivers to 25 & older. There's also the issue of drivers over 65, 70, 75. Each of those point pushes up the rate actually more than younger drivers, and effects many times more people. Let me tell ya, I'm a lot more scared of some of our older pilots than I am an 18-20 van driver.

I understand & support age restrictions based on insurance & real justifiable purposes. When that happens though, it needs to be applied in both directions, or it's wrong.

We don't have a mandatory retirement age. We shouldn't have a second class senior members based on age.

I'd be surprised if anyone is getting that detailed with our insurance since as far as I know national doesn't track who has a CAP drivers license and couldn't provide a age breakdown of CAP drivers if asked. 

Conversely, one might wonder if our insurance premiums for the aircraft are any higher based on doing flight training for cadets and having young pilots.  Though I'm not sure there is a correlation there -- the AOPA Nall report doesn't seem to report on pilot age and accidents. 

Since when does anyone named Nall know anything?  ;D

Seriously, all auto insurance is broke down by age, with the young side age breaks at 18 & then 25 & old side varies by company, but generally 65/70/75. I could be completely mistaken on this, but I believe CAP is actually self-insured. Meaning there is no policy from some outside company, but rather we have enough assets in the foundation to cover state minimums. We just choose to enforce a policy similar to insurance rate breaks to reduce overall liability.

I have seen stats on aircraft accident rates. It shows student pilots (w/ instructor or solo) have a lower accident rate than licensed low time pilots & older pilots. Both of which have similar accident rates.

Again, I concede that insurance/liability issues relating to vehicles/aircraft are reasonable causes to restrict activities of under 21 members. BUT, in doing that we MUST also apply related restrictions on over-70 members. Otherwise it's discriminatory rather than justified/reasonable risk mgmt.

Regardless, that has no effect on members under 21 being or not being officers; the extent to which that is either actually or perceptually & therefor supportive of discrimination; and, what we should do about it to improve the organization.

There is a big line-item in the annual report for liability insurance.  Might be right about the rest.

I think we have flogged the dead equine into glue by now. Car insurance?

Quote from: olefido on October 23, 2008, 12:14:59 AM
I think we have flogged the dead equine into glue by now. Car insurance?

Well, they're trying to devil's advocate reasons why we might actually be justified in having FO grades for 18-20yo members, other than outright discrimination. That's a fair part of the discussion. I don't think it legitimately applies, or reaches the threshold to justify the discrimination, especially if not also applied to older members.

I think the argument about FO based on their rank is garbage.  In CAP our grade means nothing at all.  No UCMJ to give authority no commisioned officers but to give one some acomplishment and something to work for in our organisastion.  So making everyone be a FO is going to change the way we treat the 18 to 20 group?  Not in the least.  Should we have FOs?  I don't know but the let's make them real officers is crap. 
In my SQD I am the youngest SM.  Yes I have noticed some peoples treating of me different and I think that of my age.  Granted I am 24 an Army NCO and a proven combat leader (just not a combat speller) and I still get treated different because of my lack of age compaired to others.
If Insurance for A/C and vans go up substaually at certain ages then yeah ok what ever we need to do to save a buck, but If your a FO that is butthurt that you have been in CAP for 5 years and have to salute a newbie, or can't be a 2nd LT yet and drive a car then look at why you are really here.  If you want to call the discremination then what about cadets and not being able to do a lot more or what about the 11 year old that wants to join.
All I hear is crying about not being able to wear big boy rank and calling it something that it is not.

I disagree with your assertion about ranking having nothing to do with this issue.

First...yes rank means "nothing" in the literal sense of the word...no extra pay, no extra authority, no access to the first class lounge at the airport......but it does have a lot to do with how we perceive each other and how we treat each other.

If you doubt this....just suggest "there should be no rank in CAP" and see what sort of terrors come screaming out of the woodwork.

So...as part of the discrimination problem of younger folk in CAP in general...and FO's in particular....being an FO definately makes them 2nd class citezens.   "If he was any good they would let him be a Lt".

This not necessarily about letting anyone wear "big boy" rank...in fact most of the people discussing it here are all old crusties that it does not affect in any way.

It comes down to the basic question.

Why can't under 21 SM's be 2d Lts?

If there is a logical reasoning behind this basic rule....why is it not clearly spelled out and consistantly applied across all of our regulations.

No one is sayint this is a whining session....it is a discussion about treating our members with respect.

Maybe I am seeing this through my rose colored glasses with rank having authority and a level of knowldege from the RM.  I personally do see the point of the FO or SMWOG but that is me.  But if we let the 18-20 geoup be general officers the lack of respect is still going to be there.  So wanting to make changes based on descremination isn't going to do any good.  Other than these younger people proving their worth like the would in any real job they are new at.  I get what is being said about being looked at and not expection much from a 2nd Lt just transfering in but if a Lt Col transfer your are going to think he should know everything.  But that is were you work past the being new and prove your worth.  When I get back from Iraq I will be a CAP 2nd Lt for 2 1/2 years at least.  If I transfered squadrens are they going to descriminate because I have been a 2nd LT forever or assume I not know much?  Sure that is were you prove your worth.

No one is suggesting that eliminating the FO ranks is going to end the age discrimination.

But it would help.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2008, 09:17:01 PM
This is one of the aspects of my "cadets over the age of 18" argument.

In my experince FO's are generally treated like over aged cadets.
Some of our regulations (besides rank) limit the activities of under 21 year olds ) they can't drive CAP vehicles for one.

Please check the regs again. CAP members over 18 and under 21 are allowed to drive CAP vehicles, they are not allowed to drive with a cadet inside the vehicle (This is what I am told by a wing staff member). Basically, they can move a vehicle from point A to point B. They would be like a cargo or transport driver  with no cadet passengers (regardless of Cadet age). 

It looks like almost everyone agrees that the 18-21 year old CAP members, cadet or senior presents problems of one sort or another. The grade insignia looks like something from Junior ROTC, the 18-21 year old is legally an adult. And in many cases as a FO they are treated as "older children.
The 18-21 year old is fairly rare in CAP since they are mixed in with 12 year old cadets and have no perr group, plus the training program for cadets is designed and written for the 12-15 year old cadet
That's why I think the old Officer Training Corp program that CAP used to have years ago, meets the needs of the young adults. The main difference between the old program and what's needed is to allow OTC members to progress in both the cadet program and senior program. To do this it would be manditory for an 18 year old to transfer to OTC as being manditory. This allows the OTC member to take tests in the cadet program while fulfilling training and duties as a Senior member. And get rid of the mickey mouse grade insignia and replace it with something that a Senior member would recognize. The old USAF Flight Officer (Warrent Officer) insignia for example.
I won't argue that OTC members should have ALL the privledges of a senior member (driving vans with cadets on board etc, but treat a OTC member as an adult.
There needs to be a line between cadet membership and senior membership that an OTC program would fill. In summery:
1. membership manditory at age 18
2. OTC members may test in the cadet program to advance up to Spaatz
3. Make the grade insignia more inline with military insignia
4. Design a training program different that the cadet program in leadership
         and senior professional developement.
This moves the 18-21 from being an "older cadet" to prepare for senior membership on an equal footing. The reason the old OTC program failed was it was voluntary. And few 18 year olds wanted to end their cadet training. This concept deletes that problem.
The reason the age of 21 was required to be a 2LT was that came from the real military. Granted commissioning of 18-21 did occur, but it was not the norm.

Quote from: messofficer on October 23, 2008, 05:29:40 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2008, 09:17:01 PM
This is one of the aspects of my "cadets over the age of 18" argument.

In my experince FO's are generally treated like over aged cadets.
Some of our regulations (besides rank) limit the activities of under 21 year olds ) they can't drive CAP vehicles for one.

Please check the regs again. CAP members over 18 and under 21 are allowed to drive CAP vehicles, they are not allowed to drive with a cadet inside the vehicle (This is what I am told by a wing staff member). Basically, they can move a vehicle from point A to point B. They would be like a cargo or transport driver  with no cadet passengers (regardless of Cadet age). 

Members under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2008, 01:07:40 PMMembers under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 01:12:59 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2008, 01:07:40 PMMembers under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

That makes them worthless as GTLs then. Has anybody realized that?

Quote from: davidsinn on October 23, 2008, 01:32:41 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 01:12:59 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2008, 01:07:40 PMMembers under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

That makes them worthless as GTLs then. Has anybody realized that?

Not if they have someone over 21 to drive the van. The GTL does not need to be the driver.

No...but it does raise the question about how can someone be responsible enought to lead and command someone to do something he himself is not allowed to do due to age?

This is one of my points about making the rules consistant.

IF we are not responsible enough to drive our team until we are 21....we should not be responsible to lead our team in the field.

 Maybe not being able to drive a CAP vehicle until you are twenty one has more to do with insurance than age.

Quote from: NCO forever on October 23, 2008, 02:16:47 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on October 23, 2008, 01:32:41 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 01:12:59 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 23, 2008, 01:07:40 PMMembers under 21 can only drive regular passenger vehicles and 7-passanger vans, nothing larger, and they cannot transport other cadets.

They cannot drive with ANY passangers...cadets or seniors.

That makes them worthless as GTLs then. Has anybody realized that?

Not if they have someone over 21 to drive the van. The GTL does not need to be the driver.

So a 19 year old CADET can be a PIC($250k airframe)on a search. But a 19year old Adult Officer (Senior member, term of the week...) can't drive a Van($20k)? Something that in IN they would have been doing for 3 years out of uniform? They can command a unit and be responsible for the van but they can't drive it? That right there is pure age discrimination. BTW I was an 18 year old employee of a school system and was able to drive their 15 pax vans so the insurance is something that can be worked out.

We have under 21 Pvts drive vans for the national guard all the time. Generally 15pax completely full of enlisted soldiers & over a hundred miles each way. There's no training & no paperwork, just "jump up there & follow us."

I understand it being an insurance issue. In a perfect world we'd just pay more for insurance and do the right thing, but it's not perfect. It's reasonable for us to both reduce risk and insurance costs by imposing an age restriction on drivers. However: 1) that should also apply to our oldest drivers who also pose a risk/cost; and, 2) none of that has anything to do with grade.

Well to drive any Army vehicle legally you must have a DA 346.  Even if it is a TMP.  The difference with that though is that PVT works for the Army and is under UCMJ.  A FO is not.  I agree though the issue is the age and not the grade.  In the RM saftey briefs every weekend is focus to the 25 and under crowd despite the rank that us warn.  I would be interested why CAP choose to make the FO track.  It may have well served its purpose. 
You will never get the older crowd from driving because he who has the most votes make the rules.

They're rental vans in support of RRC moving enlistees to RSP drill wknds. So, no 346 or any other training other than a state driver's license. I don't even have a 346. I'm not sure where UCMJ comes into play.

I understand it's uphill to place any restrictions (driving, flying, etc) on over 70 members. I'm not necessarily arguing that has to be done, just that it's problematic to do it to under 21 members and not apply the same insurance liability standard across membership. That's potentially an example of discrimination.

That said, being an FO or 2LT really has nothing to do with being able to drive a van or not. If that were the case, a CAP driver's license would be a requirement to promote to officer grade, and it certainly is not.

OK I will dive into the gray waters here with this question, My oldest daughter is going to be 17, and may want to join CAP. Would she be better off joining as a cadet, or waiting another year and join at 18 to become a FO?

I don't know who much testing and such she could get done in a year as a cadet.

I understand that FO is 18 to 21.

Any guidance would be of help.

If your daughter joins at age 17, she can remain a cadet to age 21. I'd have her join to enjoy cadet membership. If and when she earns the Mitchell award, she might consider turning senior and be a FO. And until she turns 17, she would be eligible for O-flights.

^ Ditto.

There are any number of experiences open to a cadet that are not available to seniors - she can always convert, but never go back.

You can get pretty far in the program in 4 years, though some of how successful she can be will be dependent on the local unit and how well she is able to work with being a subordinate to cadets who will likely be much younger than she is.

Defiantly something for a direct conversation with the unit CC.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 03:17:52 PM
No...but it does raise the question about how can someone be responsible enought to lead and command someone to do something he himself is not allowed to do due to age?

This is one of my points about making the rules consistant.

IF we are not responsible enough to drive our team until we are 21....we should not be responsible to lead our team in the field.

If this is true, then when I was on Active Duty with the Air Force and under 21, I should not have been put in a position, as an E-4, to lead or supervise anyone because I couldn't drink legally? If I was't mature enough to get drunk according to the laws, then why was I mature enough be put in harms way. Don't ever underestimate what someone can accomplish under the age of 21. Think about it, when do most of us get our professional training? It isn't after the age of 25.

Quote from: mmouw on October 24, 2008, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on October 23, 2008, 03:17:52 PM
No...but it does raise the question about how can someone be responsible enought to lead and command someone to do something he himself is not allowed to do due to age?

This is one of my points about making the rules consistant.

IF we are not responsible enough to drive our team until we are 21....we should not be responsible to lead our team in the field.

If this is true, then when I was on Active Duty with the Air Force and under 21, I should not have been put in a position, as an E-4, to lead or supervise anyone because I couldn't drink legally? If I was't mature enough to get drunk according to the laws, then why was I mature enough be put in harms way. Don't ever underestimate what someone can accomplish under the age of 21. Think about it, when do most of us get our professional training? It isn't after the age of 25.

Apples and oranges....first drinking is not a normal duty function of anyone in the USAF or CAP.

If the USAF has a rule that you had to be 21 to drive...and then put you incharge a detail that required you to certify and supervise drivers....that would be very stupid.

Now...we don't have a lot of FO's in command positions.....but there is no rule stopping an FO being appointed a Squadron Commander.....where that exact situation can occur.

I don't really care one way or the other...but I do think we need to make all our regulations and policies consistant.

If you can drive a van with passangers under 21.....you should not be able to command, fly a C-182 with pax, be a GTL and a whole host of other jobs that are just as responsible and have the same potential for accidents/damage/cost.

Stop whining and turn 21.

Quote from: lordmonar on October 24, 2008, 05:52:01 PMIf you can drive a van with passangers under 21.....you should not be able to command, fly a C-182 with pax, be a GTL and a whole host of other jobs that are just as responsible and have the same potential for accidents/damage/cost.

The point I was making is the needs of the mission come before age. If you have someone who is capable of leading a team because of ability instead of how old they are, then that is all that matters. I would hate to have to explain to the family of someone who is missing that we can't send a team out to search for their loved one because our only available team leader was under 21. To be honest and up front, most of the good GTLs I have worked with were under the age of 23. Its the person that makes a good leader and not their age.

Tags - MIKE

Being a good GTL has nothing to do with driving a vehicle, in fact being the driver actually hinders
effective leadership to a certain extent for the same  reasons an MP isn't really supposed to be in the "search".

Many states waive the requirement for a CAP-DL for under 18 GTL's.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2008, 08:37:23 PM
Being a good GTL has nothing to do with driving a vehicle, in fact being the driver actually hinders
effective leadership to a certain extent for the same  reasons an MP isn't really supposed to be in the "search".

Many states waive the requirement for a CAP-DL for under 18 GTL's.

The point is you are placing someone in command of an asset that they are prohibited from operating.

Quote from: davidsinn on October 25, 2008, 12:04:56 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2008, 08:37:23 PM
Being a good GTL has nothing to do with driving a vehicle, in fact being the driver actually hinders
effective leadership to a certain extent for the same  reasons an MP isn't really supposed to be in the "search".

Many states waive the requirement for a CAP-DL for under 18 GTL's.

The point is you are placing someone in command of an asset that they are prohibited from operating.

A GTL is not necessarily in command of a vehicle just because they are in it, the CAP-driver is responsible for the vehicle.

It does potentially setup some places for conflict if the driver decides "I'm not going there", etc.  Thankfully it doesn't come up very often, at least by me, as we have plenty of GTM's w/ licenses, though I know there are too many wings that artificially limit the number of licenses they issue as a general rule, regardless of age or other.

As far as the FO program existing... I asked about this when I was once a young innocent Flight Officer.  I was told the reason for having it is that generally you must be 21+ to become a commissioned officer in the RM. CAP maintains the FO program in this day and age to adhere to that adage.


( I know about the half dozen "military Jo-Co's" that pop out 20 y/o reservists, with an associates; but they are 1) reservists and 2) they have stipulations requiring a bachelors before they advance/promote/go active)

Quote from: lordmonar on October 24, 2008, 05:52:01 PM
Apples and oranges....first drinking is not a normal duty function of anyone in the USAF or CAP.

As an aviation officer.... Well the definition of "duty"...   :P

QuoteIf the USAF has a rule that you had to be 21 to drive...and then put you incharge a detail that required you to certify and supervise drivers....that would be very stupid.

Now...we don't have a lot of FO's in command positions.....but there is no rule stopping an FO being appointed a Squadron Commander.....where that exact situation can occur.

I don't really care one way or the other...but I do think we need to make all our regulations and policies consistant.

If you can drive a van with passangers under 21.....you should not be able to command, fly a C-182 with pax, be a GTL and a whole host of other jobs that are just as responsible and have the same potential for accidents/damage/cost.

We don't often put FOs in charge of units, but we do very often place them in charge of other people's kids with limited to no supervision, including overnight. That's a case I would have to argue is fraught with much more potential liability/risk to CAP than any authority wielded by a Sq/CC.

I respect the insurance issue. Which makes flying aircraft very disjointed. I guess the insurance for pilots doesn't have age breaks. So, do we further restrict those younger members to be consistent, or let them fly... obviously fly.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on October 25, 2008, 01:50:31 AM
As far as the FO program existing... I asked about this when I was once a young innocent Flight Officer.  I was told the reason for having it is that generally you must be 21+ to become a commissioned officer in the RM. CAP maintains the FO program in this day and age to adhere to that adage.

That is absolutely incorrect, and in fact has never been a rule in the history of this country. There is no age requirement for commissioning.

Quote( I know about the half dozen "military Jo-Co's" that pop out 20 y/o reservists, with an associates; but they are 1) reservists and 2) they have stipulations requiring a bachelors before they advance/promote/go active)

The ROTC/Jr col's you mention are a VERY small factor. However, the majority of officers in the NG commission via OCS, which requires 90hrs at commissioning, not a completed degree. Again, with the rise of dual-credit home-school kids, we are seeing many more people meet this standard at 18/19 than in past generations.

You get a federal commission on day one, you can & do serve on active duty, and you don't need a completed degree till Capt, which can be 5-7 years.

Now... absorb this virtual smack upside the head... Them being guard/reserve doesn't have anything to do with age/education. More than half of all combat arms units in the Army are in the guard (that's infantry, armor, air defense, aviation, etc). Guard officers have as much or more combat experience as active duty counterparts & deploy just as often. These young officers, including many under 21, are very actively deciding life & death in combat zones.

The ONLY reason guard/reserve officers are commissioned w/o a completed degree and active duty officers generally are not is the part-timers have the opportunity to complete the degree where active officers generally do not. That said, active duty enlisted can attend OCS & commission w/o completed degrees as well, though they have to also be accepted into the degree completion program.

And while we're talking about this... You can enter the Army (including active duty) as a WO pilot at 18 w/ no college & operate 20-40million dollar state of the art aircraft in combat and in charge of dozens of enlisted troops. In fact, you can build hours and very potentially be in charge in the air/combat of commissioned officers who may well have degrees.

I was a FO my first time in CAP. The complaints about it are valid.

My situation was such that I left CAP. Even though I didn't work directly with cadets they believed that since I wasn't a "real" officer I was a joke. The Senior members, of whom I deputy commander of Seniors in a Composite squadron, treated the cadets better than the 3 FO's on staff.

It became a nightmare situation when a number of cadets lodged false CPPT complaints against me and another SM they didn't like in an effort to purge us from the unit and CAP. Among the ringleaders was my own brother, a "career" cadet NCO who had no desire to achieve anything past C/MSGT.

When the dust settled, I was cleared. However the mistreatment remained and the unit CC was unwilling to take any action to resolve the issues. Between this and seeing the unit CC spend money the unit didn't have  I quit.

I've railed before on the need for a earlier cutoff of the cadet program and how making every cadet a Senior member at age 18 solves more problems than it creates. I can also live with giving 18-21 yo members officer rank, provided a more intense program were created. Let's say both Senior levels 1-2-3 were merged with the academic/PT requirements of the Aerhart, Eaker and Spaatz in order to make 2LT and 1LT. That would make them almost equally qualified to make Captain at 21 just like any Spaatz cadet turning 21.

I won't get into the CPPT issues this solves. I think CAP, Inc. is living on borrowed time in a number of more liberal states (and some conservative ones, too) telling anyone over 18 who they can or can't date. They 2B an 18+ yo Senior and/or a Cadet somewhere like California, Connecticut  or Vermont  over dating and I believe the courts there could hand the plaintiff a huge chunk of our membership dues. 
     

By forcing CAP to change the status of Cadets 18-20, we do a great disservice to our program.  The program was designed from inception to allow these future leaders to continue their CAP Career.  Do we really need to stop these future leaders from representing the USA on IACE, recieving scholarships, acting as encampment cadet commanders, ES leaders, and representing cadets at their respective region and National Levels?  The moral of the story is that we need to respect our members as individuals.  For example, if you have a cadet who is a CFI, like I was back in the day-- they need to be treated as a CFI, but also acknowledged as a cadet.  Please realize many of our Phase 3 & Phase 4 cadets have been in as long as Captain's and Major's in CAP in some cases.  The CAP Program was designed for a reason and needs to be left as such.

From my point of view, I am an 18 year old senior member that had to switch over from the cadet side do to I was unable to attend any of my squadrons meetings because of night classes I am taking. I will be a Flight Officer in about a month and I personally don't see the point in it, but my Squadron Commander pointed out that I can work my way up to Senior Flight officer easily by the time I turn 21, and then transfer over to 1st Lt, or if I have the time in grade and Level II done, to captain, which sounds like a sweet deal.

Anyways, if your 18 your an adult, so it shouldn't matter what your grade is, as long as you act like an adult and take responsability for your actions, most likely they will treat you as one, heck that's how I made ES officer in my Squadron ;D