Shifting "up" Level Completion requirements for promotion

[RiverAux]

Many here have pointed out over the years that Level 5 of the senior member professional development program is just sort of sitting out there with very little incentive for people to want to complete it. 

Others have proposed shifting "up" the PD levels required to meet promotion so that in order to obtain Lt. Col. you would need to complete Level 5.  But, I don't think it has been done in poll form, so here we go.

This is how it would look (not regarding the Time in Grade and other promotion requirements):
Level 1  2nd Lt.  (no change)
Level 2  1st Lt.
Level 3  Capt.
Level 4  Maj
Level 5  Lt. Col. 

No, this wouldn't solve any major problem, but would square away a minor inconsistency wherin you can get promoted without completing a level (1st Lt.) and where you complete a level but don't get promoted (Level 5).  Why not simplify it? 

While I think it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway because someone will bring it up -- if we went to this system we would grandfather in everybody at their current grade, but make them meet the new requirements before being promoted again. 

I'm not putting this out there because of any belief that CAP is too top-heavy in rank.  For those who care to look into it, we do have a pyramid-shaped distribution of ranks now.  This probably would widen the bases a bit as a lot more people would probably top out at Captain (since you'd have to go to RSC as part of Level 4 to get to Major). 

This would raise the bar to become a CAP field grade officers (other than those unneeded special and mission-related appointments) and I think would encourage more folks to take advantage of the higher level training available at Region and National Staff Colleges.  A small side benefit of the proposal, but not the reason I'm bringing it up. 

   

[Eclipse]

I actually agree with this!

Its always befuddled me why we push into 1st Lt with no PD, which involves our newest and most inexperienced members, but offer nothing in the way of incentive for Level 5, which is the top-end of our PD program.

[FlyTiger77]

In a perfect world, wing and higher commanders would be selected from among those who have already completed Level 5. Thus, level 5 would have 'meaning' as a prerequisite for promotion to colonel.

[arajca]

[sarcasim]Whoa! Time Out! Wait just a minute!

Good God, man. Are you actually suggesting applying LOGIC to the CAP grade structure!? Have you learned NOTHING here? Logic and CAP grades are mutually exclusive. [/sarcasim]

It makes sense, which means it will probably never get approved.

I like it. I also like the addressing of the major complaints against the idea before they pop-up.

[a2capt]

I too agree. When I first researched it I thought it was a bit odd that I could finish up the ranks without an award to go with it - and because of that I have plotted my CAP career path to get the Level 5 pre-requisites completed before reaching Lt. Col.

With three years to go, I just need NSC and the specialty track rating.

[Cecil DP]

[sarcasim]Whoa! Time Out! Wait just a minute!

Good God, man. Are you actually suggesting applying LOGIC to the CAP grade structure!? Have you learned NOTHING here? Logic and CAP grades are mutually exclusive. [/sarcasim]

Why apply logic when Cronyism, Nepotism, and Sycopathy have worked so well for almost 70 years?

[FW]

^What!!!??? You mean a member would actually have to accomplish the whole PD program before becoming a Col.?  Wow! What about all those Cols. who only made it to Level 2? 
Nahh, it would never work...

(But, I love the idea)

GRW #2085

[RVT]

This is how it would look (not regarding the Time in Grade and other promotion requirements):
Level 1  2nd Lt.  (no change)
Level 2  1st Lt.
Level 3  Capt.
Level 4  Maj
Level 5  Lt. Col. 

No, this wouldn't solve any major problem, but would square away a minor inconsistency wherein you can get promoted without completing a level (1st Lt.) and where you complete a level but don't get promoted (Level 5).  Why not simplify it?  While I think it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway because someone will bring it up -- if we went to this system we would grandfather in everybody at their current grade, but make them meet the new requirements before being promoted again.  I'm not putting this out there because of any belief that CAP is too top-heavy in rank.  For those who care to look into it, we do have a pyramid-shaped distribution of ranks now.  This probably would widen the bases a bit as a lot more people would probably top out at Captain (since you'd have to go to RSC as part of Level 4 to get to Major).  This would raise the bar to become a CAP field grade officers (other than those unneeded special and mission-related appointments) and I think would encourage more folks to take advantage of the higher level training available at Region and National Staff Colleges.  A small side benefit of the proposal, but not the reason I'm bringing it up. 

ALL of the reasons you give are good & valid.  I never understood why the system was set up the way it is.  I'm coming in at the bottom of this system, it would slow up every promotion I will ever get, and I still think this is how it should work.  Levels should equal "O" grades.  Level 1 for O-1, level 4 for O-4 etc.  At first I thought that's how it DID work

If a lot of people stop at Captain, thats good too.  Captiain is the main USAF "working rank"   On active duty the USAF promotes someone to Captain faster than the other branches do, even though major still comes at the same 11 year point.  USAF flying squadrons tend to have mostly Captains.  Another plus there.

And wow, a consensus?  Everybody agrees with this?  Print this thread out & frame it - it will never happen again.

[SarDragon]

On active duty the USAF promotes someone to Captain faster than the other branches do, even though major still comes at the same 11 year point.

Really? In less than 4 years? That's the USN promotion point for O-3. IIRC, USMC has a similar requirement.

[AlphaSigOU]

IIRC, this is the current promotion requirements for USAF company grade officers:

1st Lt - 24 months after commissioning as a 2d Lt; fully qualified (so long as you're not a dirtbag or under charges, you get pinned)
Capt - 24 months as a 1st Lt; fully qualified

Promotion to Major takes place about 10 years after a year group commissions. About 90% make it to Maj.

[RVT]

IIRC, this is the current promotion requirements for USAF company grade officers:

1st Lt - 24 months after commissioning as a 2d Lt; fully qualified (so long as you're not a dirtbag or under charges, you get pinned)
Capt - 24 months as a 1st Lt; fully qualified

Promotion to Major takes place about 10 years after a year group commissions. About 90% make it to Maj.

Time moves on.  When I was comissioned in the USAF in 1980 1LT cme in 18 months and Captain was two years later.  Sounds like they finally evened things out.

[davidsinn]

The main argument that I've heard for not doing this before was the fact that ECI13 was hard to get into and complete in a timely manner. That's not an issue anymore. When can we implement this?

[Custer]

The main argument that I've heard for not doing this before was the fact that ECI13 was hard to get into and complete in a timely manner. That's not an issue anymore. When can we implement this?

We can't it makes too much sense.

[davidsinn]

The main argument that I've heard for not doing this before was the fact that ECI13 was hard to get into and complete in a timely manner. That's not an issue anymore. When can we implement this?

We can't it makes too much sense.

Coup? We've already got a pair of "birdies" on the inside.

[RiverAux]

Wow, extremely high poll support and all positive comments.  Now I really wish that this was my original idea. 

[SARDOC]

[quote author=Dwight J. Dutton link=topic=10972.msg200437#msg200437 date=1278967756

And wow, a consensus?  Everybody agrees with this?  Print this thread out & frame it - it will never happen again.
[/quote]

I have to disagree..just to ruin the perfect streak....sorry  (but really it is a good idea)

[AlphaSigOU]

[quote author=Dwight J. Dutton link=topic=10972.msg200437#msg200437 date=1278967756

And wow, a consensus?  Everybody agrees with this?  Print this thread out & frame it - it will never happen again.

I have to disagree..just to ruin the perfect streak....sorry  (but really it is a good idea)
[/quote]

Fifty lashes with a wet noodle! 

[FlyTiger77]

ALL of the reasons you give are good & valid.  I never understood why the system was set up the way it is.  I'm coming in at the bottom of this system, it would slow up every promotion I will ever get, and I still think this is how it should work.  Levels should equal "O" grades.  Level 1 for O-1, level 4 for O-4 etc.  ...

And wow, a consensus?  Everybody agrees with this?  Print this thread out & frame it - it will never happen again.

"[T]his is how it should work."  Really? Why?

"...[A] consensus? Everybody agrees...?"  How do you figure? I had voted "No" at about the same time as my post 121019Jul10, a good 5 hours prior to your post.

[PHall]

I voted no, only because this smacks of a "solution looking for a problem."

What problem is this proposal supposed to fix?

[FW]

^ "What problem is this proposal supposed to fix?"  Are you kidding?  By the time a member is appointed to a senior leadership position in CAP, don't you think he or she should be fully versed in all phases of CAP culture, procedures, policies and regulations?  Don't you think it may be a good idea for all aspiring a senior leadership position in CAP to have, at least, the best CAP credentials to hold such a position? 

Then again, as Cecil DP said; "Why apply logic when Cronyism, Nepotism, and Sycopathy have worked so well for almost 70 years?"