Special initial appointments for those with infantry skills

[RiverAux]

CAP has a number of ways in which new members can achieve a promotion after completing Level 1 and CPPT based on mission-related skills.  However, the current program only applies to those with flying, aircraft maintenance, communication, and flight instructor backgrounds.  I am generally opposed to such quickie promotions but have come to realize that they are here to stay and I might as well try to figure out how to make them work for us. 

I have suggested in other forums that we also need to do what we can to increase recruitment of ground team personnel.  This is an extremely critical skill of which CAP is generally in short supply.  So, I would like to propose that qualified infantrymen from the Army or Marines receive higher initial appointments. 

While I recognize that a lot of infantry skills are not of use to CAP, but the basic map reading and field craft that makes up a large part of the ground team program are the heart and soul of infantry life.  Sure, they will need some SAR training to get up to speed on what we're doing, but the same can be said of a CFI who comes into CAP as a Captain and has to be taught SAR theory, patterns, etc. just like other aircrew members.  They receive the bump because they have skill in short supply  that we need and from which we can build. 

Now, I'm not familiar with different ratings for skills and experience in the infantry field, so would welcome suggestions matching specific Army/Marine qualifications with an appropriate CAP rank (2LT, 1LT, Capt, and maybe Major if you match it with a time-in-position requirement like they do for some of the professional appointments).   

Thoughts?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Map reading and fieldcraft skills are basic to the infantryman, and in fact to everybody in the Army.

I would say that anybody who has completed OCS/USMA/ROTC in the Army on the officer side, or Advanced NCO school on the NCO side would be qualified to lead a ground team after receiving some CAP-unique training on General ES and technical information of crash site locations and ELT detection.

[mikeylikey]

Map reading and fieldcraft skills are basic to the infantryman, and in fact to everybody in the Army.

I would say that anybody who has completed OCS/USMA/ROTC in the Army on the officer side, or Advanced NCO school on the NCO side would be qualified to lead a ground team after receiving some CAP-unique training on General ES and technical information of crash site locations and ELT detection.

Most likely those officers coming into CAP from the Army are not junior officers.  Why not just come in the grade you are.  As for the NCO's CAP has the new equivilancy for them to come in as CAP Officers. 

[ELTHunter]

Personaly, I'm not in favor of anyone being promoted past 1Lt. unless they are former military and held a higher rank.  Not that it is any great feat to get to Capt. or Major, it just seems like we have way too many folks that get bumped up to Capt. and above but don't know thing one about CAP and how things work down at the squadron level.

That's just my opinion, and it's pretty subjective.

[RiverAux]

Okay, the premise of this thread is that we have to live with the current system.  If someone wants to start a new thread discussing whether we should have the special appointment system in the first place, please do so (and I'll agree with you). 

Yes, most anyone who is in the Army or Marines at one time learned basic field skills.  However, they may never have used them again in their entire career.  This proposal is geared towards folks who demonstrated competence in this area and presumably served in this capacity for some period. 

As for the NCOs that only applies to fairly high level NCOs and has nothing to do with any particular mission related skill.  We offer mission-related skills appointments to pilots even though some of them may also qualify for higher ranks based on other factors.  For example a former CAP Cadet who earned the Spaatz Award and went on to be a Navy Commander and who is now a commercial rated pilot could come in either as a 1st Lt, Captain, or a Major depending on what part of their past they wished to draw on. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Not to be a pest, R.A., but a Commander would come in as a Lt. Col.

I was looking less at initial appointment as recognizing that certain skills were trained on active duty, and we could qualify these folks in ES specialties a bit quicker.

But, in rare circumstances, such as an ROTC or USMA grad who failed to qualify for active duty, COULD be brought in with advanced rank, such a 1st Lt.  I don't think too many folks would have any heartburn with that.

[lordmonar]

Well how about Boy Scout skills?  I mean if you are going to say that infantry skill equate to advanced GT training (and I agree) so does some Boy Scout skills.  If we assume for a moment that eagle scout is roughly equivilant to Spaatz in leadership ability and has a lot of manditory feild training (which Spaatz does not), how about advance promotion for Eagle Scouts?

[afgeo4]

Combat Infantrymen's specialty isn't orienteering or map reading, it's killing. A specialty that's as irrelevant to CAP's mission as ballet dancing.  Now, if you'd like, we could suggest special promotions for combat medics/pararescuemen/naval hospital corpsmen. Their jobs are to save lives in field conditions and they can plot azimuths pretty well too.

[RiverAux]

Combat Infantrymen's specialty isn't orienteering or map reading, it's killing.

But in order to do that they need to know quite a bit about orienteering and map reading. 

None of the mission related skills appointments match up exactly with CAP needs.  That CFI that comes in as a Captain might have been an airline pilot and not have flown a light aircraft in 40 years.  Who knows why we give mechanics "mission-related" appointments since CAP has severely restricted what maintenance we let our people do. 

But these folks possess the basic skills that CAP needs to accomplish its mission.

[Major_Chuck]

Combat Infantrymen's specialty isn't orienteering or map reading, it's killing. .

Sorry, as a Soldier this wording is really irking the crap out of me right now.

All Soldiers regardless of MOS are an infantryman at the basic level.  Medics, cooks, truck drivers, helicopter pilots, etc.  We are all trained with the basics to survive in the field, to navigate through terrain, and trained to be leaders on various levels.  All skills that can be applied easily to Civil Air Patrol.

Infantry, whether in combat or peace are trained to maintain the peace, provide aid and assistance, and yes be a show of force either as a deterant or to carry out a mission of armed force.

We do more than just ...killing.

[flyguy06]

As a current serving Infantry officer (1LT) I think that skills like map reading are played out . We dont really use them like we used to. I just returned from Iraq and can trell you I never used a compass or topo map. IWith technology today we have other equipment that can do the navigating. In todays war environment we dont travel on foot. The mission of the Infantry has changed. No more is it taking and holding land. Today the mission is community relations and nation building. Very differant from 20 years ago.

DO I think Infantrymen should be given special considerations? no. For one thing, females would complain about it because hey arent in the Infantry and number 2, its not really neccessary.

[mikeylikey]

How about field artillery officers.  They have extensive, if not more training in compass junk than infantry officers.  They are also weather experts on a certain level, as well as have all the same training that the infantry guys have.  Can they come in at a higher rank too? 

I say get rid of all the advanced appointments in CAP, except for those with prior service.  Why does the guy who knows how to fly get to start out as a CAPT?  WHy does an accountant who has a degree start out higher than others with a degree.  I have a degree, its not in accounting or nursing so I don't start out higher.  Comes down to being fair, and the current system is not fair. 

[Rangersigo]

Combat Infantrymen's specialty isn't orienteering or map reading, it's killing. A specialty that's as irrelevant to CAP's mission as ballet dancing.  Now, if you'd like, we could suggest special promotions for combat medics/pararescuemen/naval hospital corpsmen. Their jobs are to save lives in field conditions and they can plot azimuths pretty well too.

Well this is a somewhat naive....and poorly worded comment... 

I would not go so far as saying the comment is ignorant - but uninformed for sure...

I served as an Infantry soldier for a long time...  I would not say that an Infantryman in general would warrant advance in rank, but some of the courses might.

I attended Ranger, Pathfinder, SERE, Air Assault, etc...  These are very transferable skills - I will try to explain.

The Ranger Course is the Army's premier leadership school - yes leadership.  It should qualify in my opinion at least as a Ground Team skill of some sort.

Air Assault - besides rappeling, deal a large part with Aircraft management - although rotary...

SERE - Survival, Resist, Escape, Evade -again ground skills, compass, etc...

Pathfinder - this has a direct relation - aircraft management, setup DZ, PZz and LZs, pattern management, etc.

Should we establish correlations for all these - probably not.  Should we recognize skills brought to an organization - would be foolish not to...

[ZigZag911]

A big part of the problem is lack of understanding by civilians in senior CAP posts ( such as wing ES directors) who need to make the call on granting mission-skill equivalency.

I know of several cases in which Army NCOs (E7 to E9 range) with Special Forces and/or  Ranger backgrounds (in at least one case, as instructor!) were told that they could take a "challenge exam" to demonstrate their skills to the cadre of the wing ES school, most of whom were cadet officers!

The MSGTs and SGTMAJs concerned passed up this 'opportunity', and as a result their very significant field skills are not at the disposal of CAP for missions or training.

I understand how they feel.....I am an educator with more than 25 years experience, mostly college & secondary school teaching (I was a member for some years before I got into teaching, so I did  not one receive an initial rank as an educator).....the same wing staff types told me I could instruct for them AFTER taking "Train the Trainer"....which, at least at that point, consisted of spending the best part of a day listening to a cadet officer read from a notebook explaining how to prepare a class, plan a curriculum, design an exam....

Is there always something new to learn, or something worth reviewing?

Of course.

Can we learn things even from those with much less knowledge or experience?

Sometimes, sure.

But -- there comes a point when  bureaucracy degenerates into insanity AND inanity!

[RiverAux]

The Ranger Course is the Army's premier leadership school - yes leadership.  It should qualify in my opinion at least as a Ground Team skill of some sort.

Air Assault - besides rappeling, deal a large part with Aircraft management - although rotary...

SERE - Survival, Resist, Escape, Evade -again ground skills, compass, etc...

Pathfinder - this has a direct relation - aircraft management, setup DZ, PZz and LZs, pattern management, etc.

I've got no problem modifying my proposal to recognize these sorts of specific courses rather than infantry qualifications in general.  I think the Ranger and Pathfinder would be most appropriate and any Marine equivalents. 

I know of several cases in which Army NCOs (E7 to E9 range) with Special Forces and/or  Ranger backgrounds (in at least one case, as instructor!) were told that they could take a "challenge exam" to demonstrate their skills to the cadre of the wing ES school, most of whom were cadet officers!

If they weren't actually qualified in the CAP skills I would agree that they shouldn't have automatically been put on staff.  I wouldn't make such people take classes but if they can ace the tasks in the guidebook based on their prior experience, it shouldn't be a big deal. 

We make everyone demonstrate their skill.  We just don't accept private pilots to fly our planes without testing them ourselves even if they've got thousands of hours in the make and model we fly. 

[ZigZag911]

If they weren't actually qualified in the CAP skills I would agree that they shouldn't have automatically been put on staff.  I wouldn't make such people take classes but if they can ace the tasks in the guidebook based on their prior experience, it shouldn't be a big deal. 

I apologize for my lack of clarity....no one was seeking to put them on any staff....their unit commanders wanted to issue 101Ts (which were still in use, this is about 7-8 years back) and allow these individuals to demonstrate their skills in the field, on missions.

The Powers That Were wanted them to sit through classes they had probably taught for the Army.

[ZigZag911]

We make everyone demonstrate their skill.  We just don't accept private pilots to fly our planes without testing them ourselves even if they've got thousands of hours in the make and model we fly. 

Yes...and its the right thing to do....but we don't send them back to "CAP flight school" to learn the basics all over again.

[EMdude]

Every soldier in the Army has a fair amount of map reading / navigation training.  There is merit in looking at how some ES skills can be met by virtue of this training, with an abbreviated skills challange.  I understand the idea of special appointment, but don't think this skill raises to that level.

For credibility sake, I have a CIB, and was a Feld Artillery officer.

[Eclipse]

There is no requirement that anyone attend any class for any ES qualification or rating.

What is required is the DEMONSTRATION of a given skill, the CAP way.

You grab the book, see the specific of the given tasks, and then demonstrate to an SET that you can do x-y-z.  The demonstration is objective, and important in terms of liability protection for all involved.

Just because you SAY you were a Ranger, doesn't mean you could read a map or lead people, but with that said, any Ranger, or similar, should be able to take our curriculum and dance circles around it, meaning that he could DEMONSTRATE the needed tasks very easily.

The key is DEMONSTRATE.  As an SET, I am signing off that I am comfortable with your level of understanding and ability.  If I take your word for it, and then you hurt yourself or someone else, or violate a CAP reg, I am the one who could be held potentially liable.

But again, owing to the fact that the GT curriculum is almost verbatim from the USAF Survival Manual, and that book is a derivative of the Army manual, anyone who is reasonably current on their field skills from a military service will have ZEE-RO problem.

People with prior service, especially in related skills, should be given the benefit of the doubt, but not a pass.

Would I expect a Seal to listen to me explain how to use a compass?  Of course not.  Would I expect him to go and find the 6 targets like everyone else?  Yes.

[RiverAux]

The Powers That Were wanted them to sit through classes they had probably taught for the Army.

Well, that was just dumb.  As was pointed out there is no requirement that anyone take a particular class before being tested in any of the ES specialties if they think they can test out of them.