CAP officers who do not deserve their rank - is it a big problem?

[RiverAux]

One of the issues discussed in the 2nd Lt thread and some other threads is whether or not someone should be promoted after checking all the PD and time-in-grade boxes or whether they should be held to some subjective standard with the potential of not being promoted even after meeting the minimum requirements laid out by CAP regulations.

Those who advocate for the latter must believe that without imposing some subjective judgement on whether someone is worthy of promotion to the next higher rank then we would have a big problem with CAP officers wearing rank that they "don't deserve". 

For the purposes of this discussion, lets leave aside all mission-related and professional appointments and only think about those who gain rank through the regular CAP PD system. 

Now, I fully understand that CAP officially favors the use of promotion boards to make subjective judements regarding  senior member promotions, but in practice, I believe that most senior members get promoted after completing the relevant requirements pretty much as  a matter of course. 

Personally, I tend towards promotions once the requirements are met unless there is some major mistake or regs violation that person has made that would warrant holding them back, but I think those are going t obe extremely rare cases.  Now, if we had some standards for what we expected of people at different grade levels by which we could judge whether someone was worthy, I would re-consider.  But in the meatntime I don't see much evidence that our current system is producing so many people undeserving of their rank that it is a problem for CAP.

[davedove]

With the way the officers grade is used in CAP, I don't really see a big problem with it.  Now, if there was actually some authority associated with the grades, that could be a problem, but it's not the way we currently do things.  Officer grade is really more a gauge of how far someone has progressed in the PD program.

Now, one thing I would say is that some people can manage to get in their "checkmarks" without being all that active.  If someone isn't seen at meeting or activities, but still meet the other requirements, I would be real hesitant to submit their promotion.

[MIKE]

CAP "rank" is a joke... There, I actually said it... Thread over. 

[Cecil DP]

CAP "rank" is a joke... There, I actually said it... Thread over. 

If it's a joke, are you planning on reverting to SMWOG to set an example?

[MIKE]

I traded my captains bars in for Flotilla Staff Officer butter bars.

[flyboy53]

I traded my captains bars in for Flotilla Staff Officer butter bars.

So, that makes your vote and comment null and void.

I don't think it's as big a problem as it could be even though I have personal knowledge of some that I wonder how they got where they are. I wish there was away to take politics out of the promotion process and wonder if that would have prevented HWSRN.

[FW]

Making CAP grade means what it is supposed to mean.  There may be a few who just get it for no real reason however, so what?  Those members usually fall by the wayside eventually; unless they end up as wing commanders

[rmcmanus]

I've been a senior member since September 1984.  Although I have served in 2 wings, region, national (full time) and chartered/commanded  two squadrons, I have found only a handful who didn't deserve their "rank and they were the SMWOG-to-2nd Lt's.

[davidsinn]

One of the issues discussed in the 2nd Lt thread and some other threads is whether or not someone should be promoted after checking all the PD and time-in-grade boxes or whether they should be held to some subjective standard with the potential of not being promoted even after meeting the minimum requirements laid out by CAP regulations.

Those who advocate for the latter must believe that without imposing some subjective judgement on whether someone is worthy of promotion to the next higher rank then we would have a big problem with CAP officers wearing rank that they "don't deserve". 

For the purposes of this discussion, lets leave aside all mission-related and professional appointments and only think about those who gain rank through the regular CAP PD system. 

Now, I fully understand that CAP officially favors the use of promotion boards to make subjective judements regarding  senior member promotions, but in practice, I believe that most senior members get promoted after completing the relevant requirements pretty much as  a matter of course. 

Personally, I tend towards promotions once the requirements are met unless there is some major mistake or regs violation that person has made that would warrant holding them back, but I think those are going t obe extremely rare cases.  Now, if we had some standards for what we expected of people at different grade levels by which we could judge whether someone was worthy, I would re-consider.  But in the meatntime I don't see much evidence that our current system is producing so many people undeserving of their rank that it is a problem for CAP.

If you leave out the mission based promotions I'd be real hard pressed to come up with a person that didn't deserve the promotion. I feel that most of the people that have grade they do not deserve get it through mission based promotions and it's a pretty big problem because they come in and try and take over when they really don't have a clue. I have encountered this many times.

[dwb]

If it's a problem, how exactly do you suggest we fix it?  Demote people that some objective body decides are unworthy of their rank?

If it's not a problem, or there isn't really a solution, then why start a thread about it?

[flyboy53]

I once thought that CAP officers should undergo the same process that Air Force/AFR/ANG officers have to go through to get promoted. They're boarded, complete with photos and OERs. We don't have OERs in the CAP, however, and getting official photos may be a little cost prohibitive even though everything is done digitally these days.

I said something earlier that just fulfilling the requirements and TIG shouldn't mean an automatic promotion and that's the best rule. The other would be for units to abide by their special orders and set a a formal promotion board. Instead of just reviewing a Form 2, have the board meet the candidate and decide if a promotion is warranted.

Too often there aren't a lot of seniors involved in cadet or composite squadrons, which can get pretty busy, so a lot of quality control gets lost in the process. So boarding the promotions may stop a lot of the problem. Successful units do it with cadets, so why not the senior members.

Now if we can get a handle on the politics.

[lordmonar]

I see a lot of comments like this..."Meeting the requirements and TIG is not enough".  What more needs to be done?  Boards?  Okay....but what standard do they use?  If the Squadron CC who is promoting these supposed substandard officers does not know or hold the "standards" why makes you think a "board" will be any better?


The problem here is that we are now kicking the "subjective standard" that no one has defined yet.   Any one who has met the STANDARDS should be automatically be promoted. 

I think what is really the problem is.....there are some who have a different opinion of what the standard should be.

New processes will not fix the "problem"....only defining and communicating the standards will make sure our promtees are meeting them.

[Eclipse]

A continuous thread in my AOR is what, specifically, should be required of members over and above the check boxes, considering that the regulations specifically prohibit adding any objective criteria to the promotion process.

My response has always been that I can certainly give you examples of members who shouldn't be promoted, but absent a negative reason, everyone who has competed their PD and TIG should be moved up.

We have no "up and/or out" in CAP, so acceptance of command roles or moving to higher HQ is out as a consideration.
The minute you ask a question that has a yes/no answer which determines eligibility, you've broken the regs.

I am all for adding weight to the grade, but that requires a full program reboot, and placing additional gates in the way of promotion just
makes things harder on members who really are deserving, while not meaning much to those who aren't.

[davidsinn]

If it's a problem, how exactly do you suggest we fix it?  Demote people that some objective body decides are unworthy of their rank?

If it's not a problem, or there isn't really a solution, then why start a thread about it?

Simple. Remove all mission based promotions. The only promotions are on PD or positional such as WG/CC etc.

[ßτε]

So you are telling me that a CFI who teaches our cadets how to fly and teaches our MP's how to fly a Glass Cockpit and makes sure all our pilots are qualified shouldn't have two silver bars unless they also have completed OBS/ECI 13 and SLS and have a tech rating?

[davidsinn]

So you are telling me that a CFI who teaches our cadets how to fly and teaches our MP's how to fly a Glass Cockpit and makes sure all our pilots are qualified shouldn't have two silver bars unless they also have completed OBS/ECI 13 and SLS and have a tech rating?

That is exactly what I am saying. I wouldn't just say CFIs either, but doctors, lawyers, comms guys etc.

[ßτε]

That is exactly what I am saying. I wouldn't just say CFIs either, but doctors, lawyers, comms guys etc.

And what would be the positive side to this?

[davidsinn]

That is exactly what I am saying. I wouldn't just say CFIs either, but doctors, lawyers, comms guys etc.

And what would be the positive side to this?

What would be the negative?

Positive
People with a clue wearing advanced rank.
Deflate egos.
Make people that are not in those "special" classes feel a little more equitable.
Make our public image a little better due to my first point.

[Eclipse]

That is exactly what I am saying. I wouldn't just say CFIs either, but doctors, lawyers, comms guys etc.

And what would be the positive side to this?

The answer is in your question - what is the point of building lifer Captains?

[lordmonar]

If it's a problem, how exactly do you suggest we fix it?  Demote people that some objective body decides are unworthy of their rank?

If it's not a problem, or there isn't really a solution, then why start a thread about it?

Simple. Remove all mission based promotions. The only promotions are on PD or positional such as WG/CC etc.

I would not necessarily do that.....but I would add the requirment that the advanced promoted (be it pilots, ex-military, what ever) have a limited amount of time to finish the CAP requirments to hold their rank.

That way we keep the ability to attract people with desirable skills but still maintain the integrity of the promotion system.  (i.e. no more Lt Cols with just Level I).

[davidsinn]

If it's a problem, how exactly do you suggest we fix it?  Demote people that some objective body decides are unworthy of their rank?

If it's not a problem, or there isn't really a solution, then why start a thread about it?

Simple. Remove all mission based promotions. The only promotions are on PD or positional such as WG/CC etc.

I would not necessarily do that.....but I would add the requirment that the advanced promoted (be it pilots, ex-military, what ever) have a limited amount of time to finish the CAP requirments to hold their rank.

That way we keep the ability to attract people with desirable skills but still maintain the integrity of the promotion system.  (i.e. no more Lt Cols with just Level I).

I would rather have fewer people motivated by service then a lot of people who are only here because they get the bling coming through the door.

[Hawk200]

I would not necessarily do that.....but I would add the requirment that the advanced promoted (be it pilots, ex-military, what ever) have a limited amount of time to finish the CAP requirments to hold their rank.

I'd be for this. Some of our advanced promo folks get the idea that they're some kind of supreme gift to CAP because of their advanced promotion. Was reading in the paper the other day about how some companies create arrogance in new hires by treating them like they're some type of "save" for the company.

That way we keep the ability to attract people with desirable skills but still maintain the integrity of the promotion system.  (i.e. no more Lt Cols with just Level I).

Agreed, especially on the light colonels with just Level I. An established time frame for PD progression would be beneficial. Maybe something to the effect of 1LT gets a year to come up to speed; CPT gets two; and so on. Time periods would need adjustment, that's just an idea thrown out there.

[ßτε]

People with a clue wearing advanced rank.

People who have a clue about what? Trust me, those you get advanced promotions do have a clue in the area for which they are getting a promotion. Just because they aren't fully familiar with some CAP specific stuff, doesn't mean they don't have a clue.

Deflate egos.

I am not sure what you mean here. I have yet to meet any CAP officer who has been promoted for mission related skills to have an ego that needs to be deflated. 

Make people that are not in those "special" classes feel a little more equitable.

What do you mean? Do people actually feel that they are considered less of a person because they earned their Captain's bars in a different way than another? Promotions are not about equality. They are about recognizing something or some skill that is valuable to the organization.

Make our public image a little better due to my first point.

How is our public image harmed by mission related skills promotions?

I would rather have fewer people motivated by service then a lot of people who are only here because they get the bling coming through the door.

It has never been my experience that those officers promoted for mission related skills have any motivation other than applying those skills for the benefit of the members in the organization. What is the harm in recognizing those skills?

[Hawk200]

I would rather have fewer people motivated by service then a lot of people who are only here because they get the bling coming through the door.

One way to determine that they do something is telling them that they can get an advanced rank, but they're gonna have to do a little work to keep it. You'll see the motivated ones working on their professional training.

Got a guy in a local unit, retired Army colonel. Seen his retired ID so I know it's legit. In CAP, he's a Captain. Asked him why he doesn't bring in the paperwork. He wants to progress through the CAP ranks the same way that everyone else does, and feels that an instant promotion wouldn't make him knowledgeable enough in CAP to be effective. I think I'm swaying him toward the advanced rank lately, as he's pretty well CAP "savvy" now. I think he'd probably consider a requirement to progress in PD as a good thing. I'll ask him tonight.

[ßτε]

That is exactly what I am saying. I wouldn't just say CFIs either, but doctors, lawyers, comms guys etc.

And what would be the positive side to this?

The answer is in your question - what is the point of building lifer Captains?

How does this in any way answer the question?

[Eclipse]

That is exactly what I am saying. I wouldn't just say CFIs either, but doctors, lawyers, comms guys etc.

And what would be the positive side to this?

The answer is in your question - what is the point of building lifer Captains?

How does this in any way answer the question?

Exactly.

[ßτε]

Maybe I need to clarify my question.

What would be the positive side to having only duty performance promotions and not mission related skills promotions?

That is the question I would like answered.

Clearly, the responses so far have not answered that. The reference to "building lifer Captains" doesn't make sense since one can be a lifer captain regardless of how they were promoted to captain in the first place.


My point has been that those who are promoted for mission related skills are no less deserving of the promotions than any one else. They earn them for using their mission related skills for the betterment of CAP and its members.

Now if you have a pilot who is promoted just because he is a pilot and is not using those skills as either a MP or orientation pilot, then there is a problem. This type of pilot shouldn't have been promoted in the first place if they aren't using their skills for the organization.

[davidsinn]

People with a clue wearing advanced rank.

People who have a clue about what? Trust me, those you get advanced promotions do have a clue in the area for which they are getting a promotion. Just because they aren't fully familiar with some CAP specific stuff, doesn't mean they don't have a clue.

Deflate egos.

I am not sure what you mean here. I have yet to meet any CAP officer who has been promoted for mission related skills to have an ego that needs to be deflated. 

Make people that are not in those "special" classes feel a little more equitable.

What do you mean? Do people actually feel that they are considered less of a person because they earned their Captain's bars in a different way than another? Promotions are not about equality. They are about recognizing something or some skill that is valuable to the organization.

Make our public image a little better due to my first point.

How is our public image harmed by mission related skills promotions?

I would rather have fewer people motivated by service then a lot of people who are only here because they get the bling coming through the door.

It has never been my experience that those officers promoted for mission related skills have any motivation other than applying those skills for the benefit of the members in the organization. What is the harm in recognizing those skills?

I have seen several advanced promotions that did not have a clue about how CAP works or what it really is. You can't get that until about three years in. They come swaggering in thinking they are all that and screw things up. I don't care if they are Lt. Maverick, USN or Marconi himself. I don't care how good they are in their niche once they step out of that they are clueless. What good is advanced skills in one field with no knowledge of anything outside that niche? You give them the bling for a niche then they don't have a lot of incentive to round themselves out. I want to surround myself with well rounded officers. The team works much better together when they have a solid base of common knowledge to stand on.

Maybe I need to clarify my question.

What would be the positive side to having only duty performance promotions and not mission related skills promotions?

That is the question I would like answered.

Clearly, the responses so far have not answered that. The reference to "building lifer Captains" doesn't make sense since one can be a lifer captain regardless of how they were promoted to captain in the first place.


My point has been that those who are promoted for mission related skills are no less deserving of the promotions than any one else. They earn them for using their mission related skills for the betterment of CAP and its members.

Now if you have a pilot who is promoted just because he is a pilot and is not using those skills as either a MP or orientation pilot, then there is a problem. This type of pilot shouldn't have been promoted in the first place if they aren't using their skills for the organization.

I have never heard of a captain stay a captain when they came up through the ranks. Once you hit that point you're pretty engaged. I never said pilots don't deserve promotions. I merely said they need to earn them just like everyone else. That's what this is all about. Equality.

[Eclipse]

What would be the positive side to having only duty performance promotions and not mission related skills promotions?

Everyone does the same work for the same bling, which in theory means that everyone has at least a similar understanding of the whole of CAP.

No one is "special", and those who choose to specialize and not play the whole game can do so without the dichotomy of how
"grade isn't important, but I made sure I got mine..."

Our big brother service does not had out grade without at least some level of "salutin' school", why should we?

[lordmonar]

I would not necessarily do that.....but I would add the requirment that the advanced promoted (be it pilots, ex-military, what ever) have a limited amount of time to finish the CAP requirments to hold their rank.

I'd be for this. Some of our advanced promo folks get the idea that they're some kind of supreme gift to CAP because of their advanced promotion. Was reading in the paper the other day about how some companies create arrogance in new hires by treating them like they're some type of "save" for the company.

That way we keep the ability to attract people with desirable skills but still maintain the integrity of the promotion system.  (i.e. no more Lt Cols with just Level I).

Agreed, especially on the light colonels with just Level I. An established time frame for PD progression would be beneficial. Maybe something to the effect of 1LT gets a year to come up to speed; CPT gets two; and so on. Time periods would need adjustment, that's just an idea thrown out there.

I was thinking more like 1 year per PD Level.

If your rank requires Level II then you have two years to get Level II complete or you will be demoted to the highest rank that you can hold with your PD level.

That would mean Lt Cols would have 4 years to complete their PD...plenty of time IMHO for them to get everything done.

[lordmonar]

Maybe I need to clarify my question.

What would be the positive side to having only duty performance promotions and not mission related skills promotions?

That is the question I would like answered.

Clearly, the responses so far have not answered that. The reference to "building lifer Captains" doesn't make sense since one can be a lifer captain regardless of how they were promoted to captain in the first place.


My point has been that those who are promoted for mission related skills are no less deserving of the promotions than any one else. They earn them for using their mission related skills for the betterment of CAP and its members.

Now if you have a pilot who is promoted just because he is a pilot and is not using those skills as either a MP or orientation pilot, then there is a problem. This type of pilot shouldn't have been promoted in the first place if they aren't using their skills for the organization.

Okay...I'll bite....I see no real benifit of limiting promotion only to performace based promotions.

- Ego does not apply as you will always have an ego problem...that is a problem in itself not one related to rank.
- High ranks with no clue about CAP operations is a function of training....not promotion inceintives.  You hook the CFI/Legal/DR/Chaplain/CPA/PhD in with higher rank........it is a recruiting tool.....then you give them the training they need.
- Hurt feelings......suck it up.  Sorry it is as simple as that.  Life ain't fair get used to it.
- Public confidence....that's a strech....the public knows nothing about CAP....all they see is a Capt who is a CFI with a million hours....in a flying context what is the problem?  If they see an AE officer who is a PhD and a Major....gain....where's the problem. 

Yes neither of these two guys know a darn thing about the history and structure of CAP....but neither does the "public" so who cares?

Like I said before...got nothing agaisnt advanced promotions.....but I would like to see them have to catch up to the rest of use.

[Hawk200]

I was thinking more like 1 year per PD Level.

If your rank requires Level II then you have two years to get Level II complete or you will be demoted to the highest rank that you can hold with your PD level.

That would mean Lt Cols would have 4 years to complete their PD...plenty of time IMHO for them to get everything done.

Sounds fair. I would require it for everyone that gets an advanced promotion though, not just pilots or current/former military. Make it the same across the board.

[lordmonar]

I was thinking more like 1 year per PD Level.

If your rank requires Level II then you have two years to get Level II complete or you will be demoted to the highest rank that you can hold with your PD level.

That would mean Lt Cols would have 4 years to complete their PD...plenty of time IMHO for them to get everything done.

Sounds fair. I would require it for everyone that gets an advanced promotion though, not just pilots or current/former military. Make it the same across the board.

I was only using the ex-military as an example of those who could hold high rank (Lt Col) and only have Level I....but yes all advanced promotion (including those for commanders) should have to catch up.

[Hawk200]

I was only using the ex-military as an example of those who could hold high rank (Lt Col) and only have Level I....but yes all advanced promotion (including those for commanders) should have to catch up.

Sounds good to me. Now what do we need to do to get this up the chain? I'll send up from where I'm at, we just need to present a united front to do so, and make sure it's done properly.

[lordmonar]

I'll write up a white paper and send it up my chain to my wing CC for the next NB.

[RiverAux]

Topic folks?  I specifically wanted to exclude talk of the advanced promotions from this thread.  But, just so you know, I think they should all be abolished.

If it's a problem, how exactly do you suggest we fix it?  Demote people that some objective body decides are unworthy of their rank?

If it's not a problem, or there isn't really a solution, then why start a thread about it?

The point of the poll was to try to get at whether or not we do have a problem with too many officers not "worthy" of their grade.   

And judging by the answers, it seems that we don't to any great extent, at least in regards to those who got their rank through duty performance promotions. 

T

[FlyTiger77]

Simple. Remove all mission based promotions. The only promotions are on PD or positional such as WG/CC etc.

Works for me.

Would it really hurt recruiting and retention very much to do away with accelerated promotions? Being currently in a senior squadron, rank is fairly superfluous anyway.

At least, in this situation, everyone would know the wickets everyone else navigated to get to their current grade and that they are 'deserving.".

(Full disclosure: My initial appointment and first promotion were based on military rank/promotion and my AFIADL 13 and RSC were credited due to military schools, in much the same way I intend to complete credit for NSC. Other than that, I earned my present CAP grade the "hard" way.)

[flyboy53]

I never had a problem with professional or mission-based appointments. It's done in all the military services and based on levels of experience or education. You  need those guys/gals. The only sad thing is when you recruit an A&P Mechanic, give him the grade of captain and then there's noting for him/her to do under the consolidated maintenance program. Most of the people who come in like that ususally aren't at a squadron-level very long, their recruited for other things or they end up in the corner with all the aircrews.

As for adding extra requirements, that wasn't what I meant. We hold cadets to a different standard, especially if they want to be competitive for a national activity. Why not make the idea of promotions as competitive. Demonstrate that you are worthy of the promotion and willing to accept the added responsibility. Let's end what I've seen of getting promoted just because you showed up.

[arajca]

The vast majority of members who get promoted using the Duty Performance system do not have the issues that many of the insta-<insert grade> have. The duty performance members know how CAP works - and doesn't - and also understand that grade does not equal authority. Far too many of the insta-grades don't have that understanding, particularly the military promotions. They are too used to the grade=authority model that the military, police, fire, etc use.

If you REALLY need to have advanced promotions, reduce the TIG, but still require the PD. Additionally, require the PD for ALL advanced promotions - include HSO and legal. Currently, these only require Level I. Everything else is pure TIG.

[lordmonar]

As for adding extra requirements, that wasn't what I meant. We hold cadets to a different standard, especially if they want to be competitive for a national activity. Why not make the idea of promotions as competitive. Demonstrate that you are worthy of the promotion and willing to accept the added responsibility. Let's end what I've seen of getting promoted just because you showed up.

We should not be holding cadets to higher standards then those listed in 52-16...no matter what the reason.

As for making promotions "competitive"....to what point?  Are you suggesting a quota?  How will this be determined?

"Demonstarating that they are worthy of promotion" is done by completeding the PD training, getting your specialty rating and doing you TIG.

How do you determine is someone is "willing to accept added responsibility"?

The basic problem with all these ideas is that is it tied to the military concept that each job has a particular rank that goes with it, that we will fill theses jobs with those who are ready for them for them and move those who have BTDT to other jobs or force them out.

Sounds good on paper.....A squadron is commanded by a Major, with a Captain or two as his deputies and a bunch of 1st/2d Lts as his staff/worker bees.  A Group is commanded by a Lt Col with a Major or three as his deputies and a bunch of Captains and senior LTs on staff and so on up the chain.

When someone tops out and he is not going to be useful at higher command he is released/retired and we promote someone fill his slot.

If a location does not have someone ready for a particular slot we move an appropraite officer to fill that slot.

Come up with a way for CAP to manage its personnel in that manner...then I would think that talk about making promotions more competitive worth talking about.

Bottom line....our system works well for our organisation.

[AirAux]

No, it's not a big problem..Furthermore, if you are going to start messing with advanced promotions, don't forget promotions for state and federal legislators..

[flyboy53]

Good points

[Major Carrales]

How many threads must we have on this...basically the same...SUBJECT???

We get it, some of you hate the idea of CAP Officers.  To those ends I will write this...I would never support dropping people in grade for the bogus reasons presented in the last few threads on this matter.  Dropping people to some made up "CAP warrant officer" or "number scheme" is distracting at best and insulting at worst.

Next, nothing needs to so radically changed...there is no underlying motivation for such changes to CAP rank structure other than people's personal opinions.  People's statements that the USAF hates us for it or the "I heard my cousin's girlfriend's sister's doctor's son who's in the Air Force has a problem with us using Officer rank" nonsense do not reflect reality.  if it were true, the demand would come from them...the USAF.

Lastly, promotions for mission related skills are well desrved...they indicate a skill level achieved outside of CAP for a skillset that is being used in CAP.  I can tell you this...my Group Commander will promote no such person unless those skills are being used.  Educators coming to CAP hoping for a bump to some advanced grade don't get the green light unless they become AE officers.  Pilots have to take staff positions.  Lawyers have to apply their knowledge and skills as CAP Legal Officers.

The promotions for advancement come at a price in my neck of the woods, that price is an actual dedication to CAP service.  Those charts in the CAPR 39 series are only a starting point, not a finishing one.  Commanders have to be honest with new members about it.  Some use it as a recruiting tool..."Hey, you can be a 1st Lt if you join." 

In those practices lie the problem...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I feel a bit odd saying someone does/doesn't "deserve" their rank, but I have seen a few examples that raise a big "?" above my head.

One I knew of some years ago...brainiac CPA, came in as a Captain because of it, great at Finance and number crunching, better than I'll ever be (totally reconstructed the unit finances)...but not so strong on the overall CAP program.  Got promoted to Major without 3 years TIG.  Maybe he got promoted on his ability with number crunching.  I don't know.

I remember hearing years ago, when I first joined, that once in your CAP career the TIG could be waived, so maybe that's it, though I'd thought that was for all members, not just direct appointees.

I have no problem with following a policy similar to the AF on direct appointments:

Medical (MD, DO) - Captain
Dental (DDS and above) - Captain
Nurse (LPN) - 1st Lieutenant
Nurse (RN)/Nurse Practitioner - Captain
Legal - 1st Lieutenant/Captain
Chaplain - 1st Lieutenant
Pilots - six month TIG for 2nd Lieutenant waived once certified as Mission Pilot

Promotions after initial appointment dependent on the same PD requirements as any other CAP member, unless they've had similar achievements on Active Duty, Reserve Component, State Guard or (going a little out on a limb, though the CGAUXIES here may agree with me) USCG Auxiliary training.

OK, let the tomatoes fly...

[Major Carrales]

I think the initial promotion is enough...after that they, if they desire to, should have to "back fill" to move up.  That is not unreasonable to ask of them.

People should not...per se...get promoted on the whims of "higher ups" unless it is specificed in the regulations.  For example, commanding a Unit for a year or becoming a Wing/Region/National level Commander.  Special Treatment breeds Special Problems, once we start circumnavigating the conventions by promoting people outside the regs as "rewards," we are on very shacky ground.  Lets not forget that the proper thing to do to award good performance is not a Promotion, but rather an Award (of which we have one such Taylor made in the Achievement Medal).  Promotions are rewards for Professional Development rubrics.

[ßτε]

It is in the regulations:

Finance Officers. Upon successful completion of Level I, the unit commander may initiate a CAPF 2 on qualified finance officers, recommending appointment to an appropriate grade, as outlined below.
Major. A financial professional with a master's degree in accounting, certified public accountant (CPA) or certified management accountant (CMA) that has served 1 year time-in-grade as a captain may be appointed to the grade of major.

Not all promotions are based on "Professional Development rubrics." Most are, but there are skills other than professional development and duty performance that CAP wants to reward with promotions.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It is in the regulations:

Finance Officers. Upon successful completion of Level I, the unit commander may initiate a CAPF 2 on qualified finance officers, recommending appointment to an appropriate grade, as outlined below.
Major. A financial professional with a master's degree in accounting, certified public accountant (CPA) or certified management accountant (CMA) that has served 1 year time-in-grade as a captain may be appointed to the grade of major.

Not all promotions are based on "Professional Development rubrics." Most are, but there are skills other than professional development and duty performance that CAP wants to reward with promotions.

OK.  I wasn't aware of that particular reg.

[Eeyore]

With the advanced promotions for mission skills, the Commander still had to approve them.

The current system works well if the Commander does their job, CCs do not have to give them an advanced promotion until they feel that they have at least a basic understanding of CAP and are committed to the program. I never give an advanced promotion for mission skills until they have been in for 6 months, during that six months we are doing everything we can to get them up to speed on the program with emphasis on what their mission skill means in CAP.

For a pilot, they better be working towards their Form 5, if not have it complete by the end of the 6 months, as well as be working on their aircrew qualifications. They also should be working through the PD, be mentored in a specialty track and be active in the unit.

If they don't want to wait on the advanced promotion to get a solid footing in our programs, they probably don't need to be there. It's really up to the Commander to enforce that, nothing says that the advanced promotion has to be given within a month of joining.

[ßτε]

They also should be working through the PD, be mentored in a specialty track

PD and specialty track participation should not be used as criteria for mission related skills promotion, just as mission related skills should not be used as criteria for duty performance promotions.

Mission related skills promotions should be based solely on the credentials and whether or not the member is using those skills.

[Eeyore]

If they aren't providing anything at the Squadron and just flying or going to SAREX's they are not an active member. I require every member in my squadron to be active in the squadron, that means training for a duty position and progressing through the PD program. If they are not, they do not participate in activities outside of the squadron, if they stop showing up to meetings (unless they talk to me about their reasons) they will be transferred to the 000 squadron.

Since I have implemented this policy, attendance has increased at both weekend activities and weekly meetings, proficiency flying has increased, PD progression has increased and new membership has increased.

I tell the new members coming in that they can receive an advanced promotion for (insert qualification here), but that they must be active in the things I have already mentioned. Most are more than happy to join and meet those expectations. Yes, I have lost 2-3 prospective members because they weren't willing to do it, but in all likelihood they would not have been contributing to our missions.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If they aren't providing anything at the Squadron and just flying or going to SAREX's they are not an active member. I require every member in my squadron to be active in the squadron, that means training for a duty position and progressing through the PD program. If they are not, they do not participate in activities outside of the squadron, if they stop showing up to meetings (unless they talk to me about their reasons) they will be transferred to the 000 squadron.

:clap:

[Hawk200]

Mission related skills promotions should be based solely on the credentials and whether or not the member is using those skills.

That can create sticky situations. As a hypothetical, member comes in with a rating, get's 1LT. After a year and half (normal time in grade as 1LT), the member isn't promoted, and asks why. They're told that they haven't done any progression. In worst case, they raise a stink about doing the job that they got the advanced promotion for.

To move beyond the initial appointment, there's work to be done. Seen a few that left because they thought their initial promotion was all they needed.

[lordmonar]

As I said before....give them the initial promtion (and follow on promtion is allowed by regulations) but give them a drop dead date to back fill the CAP requirments.

That balances out the two trains of thought.

A CFI joins up...give him Capt...and he has two years to finish his Level II.  If after the two years he has only completed Level I and got his Tech rateing....demote him to 1st Lt.

An ex-military General joins up....you give him Lt Col....he has 4 years to get his Level IV.  If he only has his Level I at that time with no Specialty rating....demote him to 2d Lt.

Until you give people a reason to advance in their PD levels they will not do it.  It takes too much time, costs too much money.

It balances the need to attract mission related skills and the need to maintain the integrity of the PD/Promotion system.

[Eclipse]

Until you give people a reason to advance in their PD levels they will not do it.  It takes too much time, costs too much money.

?

Active participation will generally fulfill 80-90% of a given specialty's requirements and will cost virtually, to actually, nothing until you
start talking about RSC.

We should be pushing PD to build better members and staffers, not as just a means to promotion.

[ßτε]

Mission related skills promotions should be based solely on the credentials and whether or not the member is using those skills.

That can create sticky situations. As a hypothetical, member comes in with a rating, get's 1LT. After a year and half (normal time in grade as 1LT), the member isn't promoted, and asks why. They're told that they haven't done any progression. In worst case, they raise a stink about doing the job that they got the advanced promotion for.

To move beyond the initial appointment, there's work to be done. Seen a few that left because they thought their initial promotion was all they needed.

Of course. After the initial appointment, they would not be eligible to be promoted under mission related skills unless they later meet the criteria for captain, in which place TIG doesn't apply. To be promoted under duty performance, they would have to complete Level II, wait the 18 months TIG, and be performing in a duty position.

[ßτε]

If they aren't providing anything at the Squadron and just flying or going to SAREX's they are not an active member. I require every member in my squadron to be active in the squadron, that means training for a duty position and progressing through the PD program. If they are not, they do not participate in activities outside of the squadron, if they stop showing up to meetings (unless they talk to me about their reasons) they will be transferred to the 000 squadron.

Since I have implemented this policy, attendance has increased at both weekend activities and weekly meetings, proficiency flying has increased, PD progression has increased and new membership has increased.

I tell the new members coming in that they can receive an advanced promotion for (insert qualification here), but that they must be active in the things I have already mentioned. Most are more than happy to join and meet those expectations. Yes, I have lost 2-3 prospective members because they weren't willing to do it, but in all likelihood they would not have been contributing to our missions.

I commend you on what you have done in the squadron. It sounds like it is very successful.

However, you should not use participation in PD (other than Level I) or a duty position as criteria for mission related skills promotions. You can only use whether or not "they are contributing these skills to the CAP mission." You, as the commander, are the sole judge if the are doing this or not, but you should not use the fact they are not progressing in the PD program as a criteria.

SECTION D - MISSION RELATED SKILLS

4-2. Eligibility Requirements.

c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program. Upon completion of Level I training, members are encouraged to enter an appropriate functional specialty track, but Level II training is not mandatory for promotion under this section. (It should be noted, however, that members promoted under these provisions will not be eligible for promotion above the grade of captain until they have achieved the appropriate skill level.)

[lordmonar]

Until you give people a reason to advance in their PD levels they will not do it.  It takes too much time, costs too much money.

?

Active participation will generally fulfill 80-90% of a given specialty's requirements and will cost virtually, to actually, nothing until you
start talking about RSC.

We should be pushing PD to build better members and staffers, not as just a means to promotion.

That is the reason why we should push PD....not the only motivator that we should use to convice people to do it.

It is like the Cadet Program.  A 12 year old does not join CAP so he can become a better American, and be a productive member of society.....but that is why we created the program.  The cadet joins because it is fun, he gets to do O-rides, do drill and ceremonies, ES work, wear spiffy uniforms.  We sneak the true purpose of the cadet program around the other things.  We want to promote community service....we don't lecture them on how it helps people, and is a good thing.....we tell them there is a ribbon for it.  We encourage the cadets to advance in the CP because we want them to learn the lessons that the program has to teach....we push that by rewarding them with rank.

It is not much different with adults.

If we want more professional leaders to help run our programs we reward that work with promotions.  Special promotions are a tool to recruit special skills and professionals.....but it weakens our tools to motivate them to become more productive members of CAP.

By putting an incentive to progress in the PD (even if it is a negative one.....advance in your PD or you will be demoted) it at least is an incentive.

[EMT-83]

Our local policy on special promotions requires all requirements except TIG be met.

I have a retired Army Captain who is still a Senior Member. He just completed SLS, so his promotion is now being processed. Same for the Instrument rated pilot who hasn't gotten around to finishing his Form 5 – no mission related promotion.

It's important to promote those eligible, but within reason. Handing out promotions when people walk in the door removes any incentive to work the program.

[AirAux]

Adding requirements outside of Reg's or demotion is way out of line and liable to get your tail removed from command.  The Reg's are not a guideline, they are the Reg's and to be obeyed..

[EMT-83]

Wing CC says it the commander's discretion on recommending promotions, which are not automatic (per the regulation).

[ßτε]

Our local policy on special promotions requires all requirements except TIG be met.

I have a retired Army Captain who is still a Senior Member. He just completed SLS, so his promotion is now being processed. Same for the Instrument rated pilot who hasn't gotten around to finishing his Form 5 – no mission related promotion.

It's important to promote those eligible, but within reason. Handing out promotions when people walk in the door removes any incentive to work the program.

I really do believe that such a policy violates CAPR 35-5 Section 1-1:

1-1. General. Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly throughout Civil Air Patrol. CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures, and practices prescribed herein are prohibited.

Not all promotion methods require PD beyond Level I. So for special promotions, mission related skills promotions, and professional appointments/promotion, you need to use the criteria for those promotion methods and not include extra requirements that are used for duty performance promotions. Adding PD requirements and/or duty performance requirements to mission related skills promotion criteria when none exist shouldn't be done. It really is analogous to requiring at least one mission related skill for every promotion including duty performance promotions.

This doesn't mean you have to promote a new member who is a pilot just because he finished Level I. The member must be using his mission related skill to be eligible for promotion. But if the pilot has done his Form 5 and is on the way to being a mission pilot, there should be no reason not to promote just because he is not working in a specialty track.

Yes, it is important to promote those who are eligible. But we must use the eligibility criteria listed in CAPR 35-5 and not make up our own just because we think that every officer should complete PD. This is contrary to the regulation. If you read the regulation carefully, you will find that our national leaders believe that there are many different reasons to promote our members. Not all of them require PD beyond Level I. Otherwise it would have been included in the regulation.

This is not to say that commanders should be giving out promotions left and right. They should evaluate each member and determine if the member meets the promotion criteria. If the member meets the eligibility criteria, the member should be promoted unless there is some reason that the member shouldn't be promoted. But that reason shouldn't be just because the member hasn't met PD levels which aren't required for that promotion method. What I guess I am trying to say is that promotions for whatever promotion method is used, that the criteria for that promotion method be the only criteria and not criteria from any other promotion method.

[Hawk200]

Adding requirements outside of Reg's or demotion is way out of line and liable to get your tail removed from command.  The Reg's are not a guideline, they are the Reg's and to be obeyed..

This is in the reg: "d. The member must also be certified by the unit commander as contributing his or her special skills to the mission of CAP and performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended."

A prospective member that walks in this month, and is a member by the following month hasn't really been given the time to really contribute. I wouldn't have signed off a promo that soon either. A few months isn't too much to ask. If the member is truly deserving and motivated to contribute, it's doubtful that they would mind. It's the ones that walk in saying "I've got this and this, what does it get me?" that can end up problematic.

This organization is just as much about service as the military is.

[EMT-83]

We're probably more in agreement that you think. I didn't say that the pilot must be a Mission Pilot, only that he completes his Form 5. For a CFI, he needs to get signed off as CAP CFI. Not that this is specifically required by the regulation, but it's common sense.

With other types of promotions, it's working with the individual member. That includes using PME and applicable degrees. So, for the retired Captain we might discover that his PME covers most of the requirements through Level IV.

Somewhere, you need to strike a balance. I've had both pilots and prior service prospective members walk in and expect a promotion almost before submitting an application. I also know of pilots who were promoted long ago, but never once flew a CAP aircraft. By setting expectations early, and applying them uniformly, you get a member who buys into the program and becomes a productive member.

[SarDragon]

Not getting mission skills and professional skills members involved in PD is how we end up with the flying club/GOB mentality.

[DogCollar]

Professional Development should be STRONGLY encouraged for all senior members!!

[ßτε]

Not getting mission skills and professional skills members involved in PD is how we end up with the flying club/GOB mentality.

I know it is not what you meant, but what you wrote implies to me that "mission skills and professional skills members" are a different kind of member than the rest of us. They are not. What we have in this organization is a membership with a wide variety of skills and experiences. Our leadership has acknowledged that many of those skills warrant promotion to officer grades without regard to PD level. Our leadership has also acknowledged that PD is an integral part to the requirements for duty performance promotions.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "flying club/GOB mentality." To me, a 'flying club mentality' would be the expectation of being able to use an aircraft for personal or recreational use. If this is happening, it is not because members are getting promoted who haven't completed Level II. It would be due to a leadership failure and a failure of the flight release system. Even if promotions are a factor, it would be because the member isn't "contributing these skills to the CAP mission" as is required in the regulation. It is not because of PD or lack thereof.

By "GOB mentality," do you mean that pilots think they are more important than others simply because they are pilots and therefore only associate with other pilots? If so, requiring PD for promotion for mission related skills is not going to change this. Again, if this is happening at a squadron, it is a leadership failure not having to do with promotions.

[ßτε]

Professional Development should be STRONGLY encouraged for all senior members!!

I STRONGLY agree, but there is a difference strongly encouraging and adding a requirement when no such requirement exists.

[DogCollar]

Professional Development should be STRONGLY encouraged for all senior members!!

I STRONGLY agree, but there is a difference strongly encouraging and adding a requirement when no such requirement exists.

I think some of it should be required actually.  I do believe in advanced appointments for professional and mission critical disciplines; however, without professional development there is the danger that these skills and disciplines are not used to their full potential because there is an information vaccuum.  I would require a minimum of level II so that they are proficient in utilizing their skills at the squadron level.

[ßτε]

Professional Development should be STRONGLY encouraged for all senior members!!

I STRONGLY agree, but there is a difference strongly encouraging and adding a requirement when no such requirement exists.

I think some of it should be required actually.  I do believe in advanced appointments for professional and mission critical disciplines; however, without professional development there is the danger that these skills and disciplines are not used to their full potential because there is an information vaccuum.  I would require a minimum of level II so that they are proficient in utilizing their skills at the squadron level.

Good. But we need a change in National policy in order to implement it. Please submit your proposal through the chain of command so the NB or NEC can make the policy change.

[AirAux]

If you have a retired Army Captain that is a senior member and you made him complete his SLS prior to promotion to Captain, you are out of the Reg's and should be relieved of command..  I am really, really tired of the ego driven cowboys that are way beyond their authority and give CAP a bad reputation.  The Reg's are there and anybody can read them.. I would think that anyone in your squadron that has read the Reg's would think you are out of line and should be replaced.  If your Group Commander can't handle you, I would think the Wing Commander or IG could.. 

[EMT-83]

Apparently the Wing CC doesn't agree, as he was consulted in the matter.

As much as it may offend you, the commander is not required to grant automatic promotions.

[AirAux]

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Unless there is something you have not disclosed, you have gone above and beyond the Reg's and in doing so have insulted a retired military officer by having him jump through hoops of your own choosing/making.  Usually, when I see this type of thing it is when the person doing so has not earned their rank the hard way.  Now, looking at your sign in as an EMT, I might question whether you got your rank through your EMT or through becoming a Squadron commander, or how..  If you have found a deficiency in our Reg's, you need to write it up and submit it for change..  National specifically dislikes additions to or detractions from teh Reg's at any level other than their own.. And rightfully so..  If your Captain showed up at my squadron, I would advise him that you were jerking his chain and show him the Reg's..

[Spike]

THIS_LINK

The only Promotion system I know of in place by any Wing Commander.  It seems somewhat unfair, and unjust, but it is in this Colonel's right as Wing Commander.

I looked at other Wing Websites, but could not find any, or they are just not kept on line

[dmac]

No, it isn't within his rights. You can make regulations more strict, but you cannot contradict them. NYWG had a similar policy that was rescinded.

[Spike]

^ I must have read the rules wrong then.

[EMT-83]

So you have a new member with prior service. It was like pulling teeth to get Level I done, he won't wear a uniform, won't come to meetings or partipate in squadron activities. This does not preventing him from demanding the promotion he "deserves" due to his prior rank.

None of these details were important to the topic. Thanks for jumping to conclusions and throwing me, and the Wing CC, under the bus.

[Hawk200]

If you have a retired Army Captain that is a senior member and you made him complete his SLS prior to promotion to Captain, you are out of the Reg's and should be relieved of command..  I am really, really tired of the ego driven cowboys that are way beyond their authority and give CAP a bad reputation.  The Reg's are there and anybody can read them.. I would think that anyone in your squadron that has read the Reg's would think you are out of line and should be replaced.  If your Group Commander can't handle you, I would think the Wing Commander or IG could..

I appears you're making an assumption that people are requiring the later levels before the promotion. No one is advocating that.

What is being proposed is that a person with an advanced promotion should have to meet PD requirements eventually within a reasonable timeframe, after a reasonable period of time is given to show that the person is contributing their skills to show they're worthy of the promotion. It's really not too much to ask, and avoids people getting advanced rank just to get advanced rank.

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

I spoke to the member (a retired Army Guard colonel) I mentioned earlier who's advancing through the CAP promotion system and has declined the opportunity to promote based on his military status. He believes that a requirement for people with advanced promotions to "catch up" is a good one. I asked him about the time periods mentioned here, and he also considers a year per level as fair for the most part. He did mention that a year should be added for the Level I to COP be added, as it's almost essentially a level unto itself. It seems like the idea has merit.

The proposal could look like this:

Level 1: Advanced promotion upon completion of requirements.
Certificate of Proficiency: Due for completion one year after receipt of advanced promotion.
Level II: Due for completion one year after receipt of Certificate of Proficiency.
Level III: Due for completion one year after receipt of Level II.
Level IV: Due for completion one year of completion of Level III.

Level V is not mentioned, due to the fact that there's no advanced grade that would require it. The "after receipt of" is added to take into account that some of the awards can take a few months to actually receive. Not really fair to require someone to work for something on the next level when they haven't been awarded the previous one yet.

[Hawk200]

So you have a new member with prior service. It was like pulling teeth to get Level I done, he won't wear a uniform, won't come to meetings or partipate in squadron activities. This does not preventing him from demanding the promotion he "deserves" due to his prior rank.

My only question on that would be: Was he told of the initials before he joined? Even if he wasn't, I wouldn't consider him entitled if he chose not to contribute, but it would be easier to say: "Hey, you knew there was gonna be some requirements, and you haven't fulfilled them."

If the person knows up front that it's not gonna be a free ride, it's gonna be easier to have them contribute.

[Spike]

I think anyone with an Eagle or star should have to achieve level V within 1 year to keep the title "Colonel", or "General".

I love seeing Wing Commanders with level 2, and in for 3 years go from Lt to Colonel.  Blows my mind!!!!

[ßτε]

THIS_LINK

The only Promotion system I know of in place by any Wing Commander.  It seems somewhat unfair, and unjust, but it is in this Colonel's right as Wing Commander.

I looked at other Wing Websites, but could not find any, or they are just not kept on line

I would contend that, as written, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the memo violate Section 1-1 of CAPR 35-5. They add eligibility requirements which are not listed in CAPR 35-5.

However, i feel the intent of the paragraphs is to clarify CAPR 35-5 paragraph 2-1a(4)

(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended.

I think it should be reworded to make it clear that these are the positions the commander feels merit promotion to Major or Lt Col.

[ßτε]

I appears you're making an assumption that people are requiring the later levels before the promotion. No one is advocating that.

But there are people who are advocating this. You aren't and Patrick isn't but others are.


I personally do not agree with your proposal. It has the effect of implying that duty performance method of promotion is superior to any others. I don't think this is a good message to send. I think it is a better message to say that we value members for what they do for the organization and the special skills that they bring, whether it be mission related skills, professional skills and education, experience in the military, or professional development within our own organization.

[lordmonar]

I think anyone with an Eagle or star should have to achieve level V within 1 year to keep the title "Colonel", or "General".

I love seeing Wing Commanders with level 2, and in for 3 years go from Lt to Colonel.  Blows my mind!!!!

Well actually I would like to see Level V as a requirment to be even considered for Wing/vice Wing Command.

[C/Martin]

I'm not a senior member, but from my observation of the senior member program from a cadet's point of view. Rank does not matter as much as position. Someone who does not deserve Squadron Commander would seem like a bigger issue than if someone does not deserve Captain. At least at my squadron rank does not effect who holds which position.

[Eclipse]

I'm not a senior member, but from my observation of the senior member program from a cadet's point of view. Rank does not matter as much as position. Someone who does not deserve Squadron Commander would seem like a bigger issue than if someone does not deserve Captain. At least at my squadron rank does not effect who holds which position.

The senior program is not that much different in this respect from the cadets.  You are correct in that rank grade does not confer any authority in and of itself, but just as with cadets, if it didn't matter, we wouldn't be having these conversations.

The most amusing conversations I have are those that have someone telling me how little CAP grade means, and then arguing when they
don't get it.   

[lordmonar]

CAP grade does not mean anything in a legal or authority context.  A CAP Lt Gen has no more power then a CAP FO.

Position in CAP is what drives authority and power.

But CAP grade does mean something to the people who earn it or desire to earn it.

On should not forget that there is a distinct difference between the psychological power of rank and the legal power of rank.

[Eclipse]

On should not forget that there is a distinct difference between the psychological power of rank and the legal power of rank.

Which brings us back to "DOH!" and the whole problem with grade in CAP - SMWOG's saluting Colonels who are under their command.
I'm sure there are a few, but I don't personally know of any other organizations where the peacocks with the most feathers aren't also
running the roost.

[flyboy53]

I think anyone with an Eagle or star should have to achieve level V within 1 year to keep the title "Colonel", or "General".

I love seeing Wing Commanders with level 2, and in for 3 years go from Lt to Colonel.  Blows my mind!!!!

How about no promotion without it, especially if they've only completed Level 2.

[Ned]

I'm sure there are a few, but I don't personally know of any other organizations where the peacocks with the most feathers aren't also
running the roost.

I think I've mentioned before that as an Army captain, I commanded an HHD (Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment) that had the O-5 battalion CO, and two majors assigned to it.

I was the unit commander with Article 15 authority, but there was never any question that the field grades would have to salute me or anything.

So, it does happen with some regularity in the RM.

Just saying.

[Eclipse]

^ Yes, but not as a rule or an expectation.  Flying units tend to have those issues as well, but they are few and far between.

[lordmonar]

The problem here is that everyone is still equating CAP rank with military rank.

Don't do it.

Don't think about.

It is not the issue.

CAP grade is "normally" simply a designation of your level of PD completion, time in the organisation and maybe the subjective ability to serve at a particular level within the organisation.

It confers no authority.  It confers additional pay and benefits.  We use the military model of customs and courtesies but lets be honest.....90% of SM on SM C&C is just not done!

We use the military model as just that a model.  But that is all it is.  Position is the only source of authority in CAP.  End of story.

CAP is not the only organisation where the "highest ranking" is not always the guy in charge.

The BSA for example...the Senior Patrol Leader is the man....be he a 1st Class or an Eagle Scout.
There are lots of fraternal orders where the Grand Master Poobahs are not the guys actually running the local lodges.

That is the way it is going to stay until/unless we are willing to do a major change of our grade system.  Which I have suggested but no one seems to like. 

[AlphaSigOU]

The problem here is that everyone is still equating CAP rank with military rank.... CAP is not the only organisation where the "highest ranking" is not always the guy in charge.

Exactimundo... Another example: in most Masonic lodges 'Worshipful Masters serve for a year, Secretaries really run the lodge.' 

Or simply stated, CAP grade does not equate to the granting of 'dinging power'. (Except within our own ranks, of course.)

[Hawk200]

I personally do not agree with your proposal. It has the effect of implying that duty performance method of promotion is superior to any others. I don't think this is a good message to send. I think it is a better message to say that we value members for what they do for the organization and the special skills that they bring, whether it be mission related skills, professional skills and education, experience in the military, or professional development within our own organization.

I don't think it's a good message to send that a person has no responsibilities in our organization because they got a skill set somewhere else. We already saw an example of this in this thread. You can have people that walk in the door, demand a rank that they feel entitled to, and make no real contribution.

I've seen both examples. Many times in the same unit, at the same time.

One guy comes in gung ho to be a contributing member, takes the time, progresses in PD, wants to learn, and feels that he can serve better by learning as much as he can and applying it.  He takes ownership in the process, contributes to the unit, and wears a uniform with a professional pride.

Another comes in, takes his Level 1 after three months and a muleload of armtwisting; shows up when he wants to fly the plane; has said he'll only go to a SAREX if he gets to fly the plane there, back, and for sorties during it. There are many people in the unit that don't even know who he is, because he's never around. He's probably also the one that gets mad when he can't get a flight release because the FRO has never heard of him either, and the guy hasn't gotten around to getting a form 5 because there's "Nothing really in it for him".

Now, out of the two, which do you think deserves a promotion? I'll go with first. Just because a person is potentially eligible for something does not mean that they have a right to it.

Additionaly, CAP rank is usually an indicator of a person's professional experience. I don't think it's too much to ask that a Captain or Major know a little about Civil Air Patrol. Simple things like when CAP was founded; what constitutes a squadron, group or wing; what all those stars, bars, birds and leaves are (I have met a body or two with rank on that didn't know); or what the three missions of Civil Air Patrol are.

To be effective in an organization, one must be familiar with it. A person that's immediately at the "top" (or at least upper middle) should be.

Now, if you want to run your unit with as many people as you can get, and give them a rank that you feel they're entitled to, that's your thing. However, a large unit, with a lot of high number of higher ranking members, isn't a measurement of a succesful unit.

[ßτε]

I am in no way saying that the second member you describe should be promoted. It is clear to me that such an individual has not met all the requirements for even a mission related skills promotion. He is not contributing to the mission of CAP and not performing those duties in an exemplary manner. If I were the commander that member would not be promoted.

Also, all those bits of CAP knowledge you mention are a part of Level I. Since Level I is required for (virtually) all promotions, everyone other than a SMWOG should know these. If someone does not, you need to make sure Level I is being done correctly.

I guess the example I come up with is a CFI, becomes a MP, cadet orientation pilot, instructor pilot, and check pilot. This individual flies cadets at least once a month, participates in every sarex and when needed for a mission, teaches other pilots how to transition to a glass cockpit 182, and gives Form 5 checkrides at least once a month. Does this member deserve a promotion to Capt? He has more than met the minimum requirements. Under current regulations, this member should be promoted to Capt without regard to any completion to Level II training. Under your proposal, the member would then have 1 year to then complete Level II, or else be demoted. That is saying something like "We only have one real method of promotion which involves our professional development levels. But we do have a way to temporarily promote you until you meet the real requirements. But you're not really a Capt until you complete Level II." I just don't think this is right. We should value our captains regardless of the promotion method used to qualify them for promotion.

(In an earlier post, the Certificate of Proficiency and Level II were listed as two different things. The Certificate of Proficiency was what NHQ gave for completion of Level II. They weren't really two different levels. Of course now the COP has been replaced by the Benjamin O. Davis Leaderhip Award.) 

[Hawk200]

Under your proposal, the member would then have 1 year to then complete Level II, or else be demoted. That is saying something like "We only have one real method of promotion which involves our professional development levels. But we do have a way to temporarily promote you until you meet the real requirements. But you're not really a Capt until you complete Level II." I just don't think this is right. We should value our captains regardless of the promotion method used to qualify them for promotion.

Well, that's your call. But you have a person that should be able to function in the capacity of a captain.  From your view your advanced promotee won't have to obtain a specialty track, nor necessarily be familiar with CAP in general. There are things that get covered in SLS and CLC that people Captain and above should be familiar with. It's a problem when they're not. Does it sound like strings are attached? Yep, it sure does.

You're looking at it as if I'm saying that only the Levels are important. I, and probably a few others, are looking at as "Hey, we're gonna give you this rank early, but there are still things you need to learn, and this is what you should accomplish for your own benefit and to the benefit of this organization." The needs of the organization are important, and should not be supplanted just because a person is eligible for advanced rank.

Another thing to consider is that a Captain that never completes Level II cannot complete Level III. It's a requirement to complete previous levels to get the next one. You now have a permanent Captain if they don't fulfill the requirements.

From 35-5, dated 16 Mar 2010, para 4-2.c.:  (It should be noted, however, that members promoted under these provisions will not be eligible for promotion above the grade of captain until they have achieved the appropriate skill level.)

To avoid any whining about it, just make everyone do it. In that manner, everyone has the same skill set at the grade they're wearing. Handing people rank with no conditions is gonna result in swelled heads. Without any requirements, it's the same problem as companies that hire people, treat them like they're some kind of answer to all the problems, and end up with someone with too big an ego to fit the room (which is usually why such people demand a larger office when they've only been working for the company for a couple of months).

[DBlair]

I love seeing Wing Commanders with level 2, and in for 3 years go from Lt to Colonel.  Blows my mind!!!!

Is that actually possible?

[lordmonar]

I love seeing Wing Commanders with level 2, and in for 3 years go from Lt to Colonel.  Blows my mind!!!!

Is that actually possible?

Technically it is possible to go from SMWOG and Level straight to the Wing CC.