The significance of 2Lt in CAP

[vmstan]

That I will agree with. The Level 1 training is C R A P -- I'd rather see something like what is currently Level 1 brought down to "Level 0" and required to be an SM at all, with a more serious training program put in Level 1s place. You should be required to complete this "Level 0" before your application is even processed.

Completing the Level 1 qualifications took me about 30 minutes.

[kd8gua]

Since when is Lt. Col a temporary grade? And why the change?

[Camas]

Since when is Lt. Col a temporary grade? And why the change?

Re: CAPR35-5 Para 1-5D. This started this past October. Not sure why; it could be a start in the process to ensure that senior officers have truly earned this grade.

[ßτε]

Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.

Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy. 

[lordmonar]

Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.

Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can MUST directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.

Strike through and bold added.

If the Region CC does not re-approve the promotion at the one year mark...they AUTOMATICALY revert to Maj.  The Oct 09 change clarified that point....in the past the promotion became permanent automatically at the one year mark.

[Short Field]

There's so much to be gained, especially for cadets, to have NCOs mentoring them. There's so much to be gained among senior members to have an NCO program for those who chose not to be officers.

Please explain what special experience or knowledge the cadets and senior members are gaining by having some senior members wear a different set of insignia?  What "special" training did the senior member get that only manifests itself if they are wearing stripes?   Do you really believe CAP can train and develop a SNCO corps from scratch and in a few years? 

C/CMSgts are NOT at the top of their promotion path but just half way on the path to C/Colonel.  IMHO trying to equate them to RM E-9s is a mistake and ends up creating C/CMSgts for Life.  If C/CMSgts feel a "demotion" when they promote to C/2nd Lt, then the cadet program has a problem.

[Eclipse]

C/CMSgts are NOT at the top of their promotion path but just half way on the path to C/Colonel.  IMHO trying to equate them to RM E-9s is a mistake and ends up creating C/CMSgts for Life.  If C/CMSgts feel a "demotion" when they promote to C/2nd Lt, then the cadet program has a problem.

You might be surprised how many cadets use the excuse of the "Chief Experience" to avoid or delay becoming an officer.

You might also be surprised at how many cadets and even seniors feel:

C/2d Lt. is really the "end" of the program because it's the last time a cadet receives a tangible reward outside CAP connected to grade.

C/Lt. Col. is really the "completion" of the program because it represents the completion of Phase IV (making Spaatz an irrelevant "nice to have" in the grand scheme).

Mental gymnastics are fun for everyone.

[OldSalt]

What about this proposed setup for starters:
CUrrently we have these authorized:

SMWOG
All of the AF Airman / NCO Ranks
Flight Officer
Technical Flight Officer
Senior Flight Officer

Thinking in CAP terms, the above grades are all specifically Non-Command / Non-Leadership position grades. Thinking in these terms, forget about what a RM Airman / NCO / Warrant Officer (for lack of a better term) is and focus strictly on the CAP structure and these as being the basic core of our membership. These are our technically trained and adept workhorse members. For manageability's sake, let's cut these down and apply new use and revised promotion criteria as follows:

CAP Airman = SMWOG (untrained new member)(They both have no visible rank anyway)
Flight Officer (Completed Level I, begin Tech / Squadron Operations mentoring – Non-Pilots)
Technical Flight Officer (Technician Rating + 12 mos. TIG as FO)
Senior Flight Officer (24 Mos. TIG as TFO – no further PD completed)

Think of "Flight" in "Flight Officer" as in the organizational Flight Unit under a Squadron – not as a description of Pilots. Rated Pilots by their nature as "Aircraft Commanders" do not fit this category.

Now, the AO grades (Appointed Officers) grades should be used for those members who decide to hold command positions, or who desire to move up to Corporate Officers and who want to further their professional development. So, let's try to align our current PD and positions with our expectations for CAP Corporate leadership.

----non-corporate officers----
2^nd Lt (Complete Level II + 6mos TIG as TFO, or be a rated "Pilot in Command")
1^st Lt (12mos TIG as 2^nd Lt)
Capt (24mos TIG as 1^st Lt + Senior Tech Rating)
---corporate officers----
Maj (Complete Level III + 24mos TIG as Capt)
Lt Col (Complete Level IV + 36mos TIG as Maj)
Col (12mos TIG as Lt Col and is temp grade for current NB members, region VCs, and selected National staff officers. Becomes perm grade after successful assignment and completion of Level V)
Brig Gen (Complete Level V + 12mos TIG as Col. Temp grade for National Vice-Commander)
Maj Gen (Complete Level V + 12mos TIG as Col. Temp grade for National Commander)

Only completion of Level V makes grade of Col or Brig Gen eligible for permanency. Maj Gen is never permanent, but may be granted to ex-National Commanders upon CAP retirement.

[ßτε]

Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.

Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can MUST directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.

Strike through and bold added.

If the Region CC does not re-approve the promotion at the one year mark...they AUTOMATICALY revert to Maj.  The Oct 09 change clarified that point....in the past the promotion became permanent automatically at the one year mark.

That is not how I understood it.

Commanders may confirm the individual's permanent promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, extend the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel for an additional year, or have the individual revert to the previous grade held prior to promotion to lieutenant colonel.

I just don't see where it says that reversion to the previous grade is automatic. I could be wrong. I am not a region commander, so I do not know exactly how it is implemented.

[RiverAux]

Level 1 is not sufficient training for a member to undertake a leadership role in CAP, nor, IMHO, is six months TIG sufficient experience.

Well, for the most part we aren't expecting our 2nd Lts to take a real leadership role in CAP.  For the most part they're going to be serving as a staff officer or assistant or not holding any position at all while working towards ES quals or something else. 

[Eclipse]

Until the new provision for Lt Col promotions, promotion to Lt Col have been temporary for the first year. In other words it could be revoked within the first year and the member would revert to the previous grade. If after the first year it was not revoked, it would become permanent. This has been the case for quite some time. I don't remember it being any different.

Basically what has changed, since 1 Oct 2009, is that there is now a mechanism in eServices whereby the region commander can review Lt Col promotions within the last year, and can MUST directly revoke them, approve them making them permanent, or postpone the decision for another year. This last part is however a change in policy.

Strike through and bold added.

If the Region CC does not re-approve the promotion at the one year mark...they AUTOMATICALY revert to Maj.  The Oct 09 change clarified that point....in the past the promotion became permanent automatically at the one year mark.

That is not how I understood it.

Commanders may confirm the individual's permanent promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, extend the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel for an additional year, or have the individual revert to the previous grade held prior to promotion to lieutenant colonel.

I just don't see where it says that reversion to the previous grade is automatic. I could be wrong. I am not a region commander, so I do not know exactly how it is implemented.

From CAPR 35-5, dated 16 MAR 2010, Page 5
d. Lieutenant Colonel. The region commander is the promoting authority for promotions to the grade of lieutenant colonel for all senior members assigned to the region headquarters and subordinate units within the region. This authority will not be delegated. All lieutenant colonel promotions are temporary for 1 year. Individuals promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel after 1 October 2009 will require specific action by the approving authority to authorize the permanent grade of lieutenant colonel. One year after the initial promotion to lieutenant colonel, the individual member's name will appear in the approving authority's Commander's Corner application. Commanders may confirm the individual's permanent promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, extend the temporary grade of lieutenant colonel for an additional year, or have the individual revert to the previous grade held prior to promotion to lieutenant colonel.

Recent addition in bold, relative verbiage underlined - the process is now automatic.

[lordmonar]

Yes but that is my point.

It shows up on the commander's dash board and he MUST do one of three things....make permanent, hold for 1 year or revert to previous rank...nothing is automatic expect for the individual showing up on the dash board.

Before......it AUTOMATICALLY became permanent with out anyone doing anything.  The Regional CC had to specifically and purposely intervein to hold or revert the promotion....and he did not have any easy tools to improve his visibility on who was approaching their 1 year mark.

[lordmonar]

Think of "Flight" in "Flight Officer" as in the organizational Flight Unit under a Squadron – not as a description of Pilots. Rated Pilots by their nature as "Aircraft Commanders" do not fit this category.

So now you just lost me.

Just because you have a skill...you have leadership ability?  I think not.

[OldSalt]

Think of "Flight" in "Flight Officer" as in the organizational Flight Unit under a Squadron – not as a description of Pilots. Rated Pilots by their nature as "Aircraft Commanders" do not fit this category.

So now you just lost me.

Just because you have a skill...you have leadership ability?  I think not.

Agreed. What I was trying to say was that in the proposed grade scenario the term "Flight Officer" does not necessarily mean that the person is a pilot. With the proposed new grade criteria, those with specialized training and skills outside of the normal professional development / specialty tracts (like Pilots, Incident Commanders, and Ground Team Leaders, etc.) who do have mission-related command authority inherent with those positions should have TIG for these positions applied to the 2nd Lt. eligibility from their mission skillset rather than TIG as TFO.

Basically, a members grade should be reflective of the following:

1. Training / Professional Development milestones
2. Any critical mission-related skills outside of the Speciality Tracts
3. Command authority

Probably muddied it more - but I'm trying to fit everything into the currently authorized grades in a logical way.

[lordmonar]

Basically, a members grade should be reflective of the following:

1. Training / Professional Development milestones
2. Any critical mission-related skills outside of the Speciality Tracts
3. Command authority

Isn't that what we got?

No training, minimal PD milestones, + no critical mssion sills or specialty tracks, minimal command authority+6 months in the program= 2d Lt

Your premis if faulty because you WANT 2d Lt to mean something more than it really is.

Your aims to improve the meaning of the title "2d Lt" have no real impact on the program as a whole.

Instead of having a bunch of 2d Lts running around with out clue we will have a bunch of CAP Flight Officers running around with out a clue.  You have not really solved any problems....just changed their name.

[OldSalt]

Isn't that what we got?

No training, minimal PD milestones, + no critical mssion sills or specialty tracks, minimal command authority+6 months in the program= 2d Lt

Your premis if faulty because you WANT 2d Lt to mean something more than it really is.

Your aims to improve the meaning of the title "2d Lt" have no real impact on the program as a whole.

Instead of having a bunch of 2d Lts running around with out clue we will have a bunch of CAP Flight Officers running around with out a clue.  You have not really solved any problems....just changed their name.

The point is, I would rather CAP have "a bunch of CAP Flight Officers without a clue" running around than "a bunch of 2nd Lts without a clue running around. 2nd Lts should have some clue. The goal is to equate the 3 eligibility areas above to the appropriate grade. While having a bunch of 2nd Lts running around without a clue does not equal the system being broken - it certainly can be improved upon. It should be that those members who do have a clue should be the only ones wearing regular officer-style rank. It just makes sense. 

lordmonar - do you think that we can improve ourselves in this area? If so, what would your suggestion be?

[Eclipse]

The only way you are ever going to add any more weight to our grade is if you also confer the same level of responsibility, and tie it in some way to authority.

I don't personally see any way to do that beyond what we already have, in a volunteer organization, because the ROI on being somehow even more legally responsible than we already are, with no additional reward for that risk is too low.

As it is today we have members who shrink from basic ORM and personal responsibility for their own actions, let alone being responsible for others.

Those of us what gits-it, are already doin' it, those what don't never will, and the grade won't make any difference.

[lordmonar]

The point is, I would rather CAP have "a bunch of CAP Flight Officers without a clue" running around than "a bunch of 2nd Lts without a clue running around.

Why?

2nd Lts should have some clue.

Again why?

The goal is to equate the 3 eligibility areas above to the appropriate grade. While having a bunch of 2nd Lts running around without a clue does not equal the system being broken - it certainly can be improved upon. It should be that those members who do have a clue should be the only ones wearing regular officer-style rank. It just makes sense. 

I fail to see the logic.  I think you are again confusing Active Duty Military Rank "regular officer-style" with CAP ranks.  You are trying to make the same old argument "our ranks don't mean anything"...but again.....unless we institute a six week OTS course with USAF PD and require everyone to have a degree......our ranks will NEVER----EVER----be on par with AD military rank.....and even if we did go that fare we will still be the bastard step children lower then National Guard Non-Flyer type 2d Lts. (sorry that is not a hit on any ANG guys....only an generalised assessment of the state of the union.  )

lordmonar - do you think that we can improve ourselves in this area? If so, what would your suggestion be?

Do I think we CAN improve ourselves?  Sure do....just do a search on some of my posts about this subject......but the question really should be.....Do I think there is a NEED to improve on it?  No....I don't really see the system as broken.

Would I make changes to level I training?  Sure thing.  Would I like to see some better training?  Sure thing.  But the bottom line is that as it is right now....it works.  Not well.  Not always but it works.

Your suggestions while laudable don't really solve anything.  It is not changing the training provided....just the rewards that one receives based on their position in the process.  Your aim IMHO is not to improve the process as a whole....but to just improve the prestige of the lowest rank.

It could have that affect but then it screws up the rest of the system.  What are flight officers?  The AD USAF barely knows what CAP is.....let alone what a FO is.  Ramping up the numbers of those FOs will only make the problem worse.

Additonally you do not address any of the other areas that make our ranks meaningless.

A SMWOG is able to command a unit!  There are no rules preventing him from being appointed a commander and instantly putting on 1st Lt bars and then a year later putting on Capt!  WITH OUT EVER COMPLETING ANY OTHER PD LEVELS!

A member could in theory go straight from SMWOG to wing commander or region commander....heck in theory IIRC he could go directly to National CC an wear 2 stars!

Don't get tied up too much about the ranks.

They are a tool to show PD level and in some ways levels of responsbilty.

Would I do it differently?  Sure would.  But I don't really see a need to alter the system just to fit my personal preferences.

Look at me.....defending the status quo!  Who would have thought!  My appologies to you Ned about all the heart burn I gave you witht he over 18 cadets, the bright line, and Flight officers. 

[FlyTiger77]

The only way you are ever going to add any more weight to our grade is if you also confer the same level of responsibility, and tie it in some way to authority.

True. The reason rank has meaning in the military is because it is tied to responsibility. That responsibility carries a commensurate authority necessary to properly execute missions and vice versa. As a field-grade officer, I have quite a few tools and considerable leverage to ensure that what I need to have done gets done.

In CAP, a squadron- or flight-level commander has the authority to accept members into his/her unit and terminate substandard performer's membership. About the only other authority he/she has is to accept more responsibility. However, the only remaining authority in his/her tool kit is moral authority. People follow and do what (s)he asks because it is the right thing to do.

Without more regulatory authority, no CAP rank will have any more meaning. Realistically, in a volunteer environment, the level of regulatory authority is minimal at best, even at the highest echelons of "command," which in itself is a dubious term at best.

[FlyTiger77]

Look at me.....defending the status quo!  Who would have thought!

Here you go, have another glass of the Kool Aid!!