Senior member Professional Development/Grade advancement

[pixelwonk]

Here's my perception of the SM program:

There is a need within the organization for adult leaders. Officers, if you will.

Members need to be validated for duty performance and professional development accomplishments.


Despite command being one of the most important duties in a unit, it has no "real" specialty track. Just a number. Even Admin has more clear-cut requirements!

CAP company and field officer grades (minus Colonel) do not hold the weight of rank (authority) behind it; therefore it is inherently meaningless in a command structure, which is what we operate under.

AD and Res military do not know how to deal with CAP members in equal or higher grades.



OK, now here's what would happen in my personal CAP Shang-gri-la:

• new members are without grade for one full year.


• Each TIG requirement is extended by one year for company grades, two years for field grades.


• Member's grades are restructured: 2Lt becomes WO-1, lLT becomes CWO-2, all the way to LtCol becoming Chief Warrant Officer Five. Grade insignia is identical to the Army's, except for the color blue replacing black. The reason for this is to be familiar enough, but remain distinctive. If CAP-USAF balks at the WO grade because it's not parallel with the AF, then rename it Flight Officer, which is completely distinctive to the USAF-Aux. (Army Air Forces used that rank before Warrants)


• Prior service (AD or Res) members would come in at a WO grade commensurate with their AD grade as outlined in the previous bullet. These PS members coming in for the express purpose of serving in command positions will retain their AD grade, up to LtCol, as is current policy.  NCOs who want to stay that way can remain NCOs.


• Command positions have an actual specialty track, focusing heavily on people management with requirements, study guide, etc... typical of any other specialty track. 


• Those who aspire to command must be at minimum WO-2. Upon entering the command Specialty Track outlined above will be appointed the temporary grade of Capt for Flights, (DCOC or DCOS as well) Major for Sqdns, and Lt Col for Groups, Wing Vice Commanders and/or Chiefs of Staff. The member is encouraged to complete the specialty track requirements for each level in order for the grade to become permanent. If not completed, The grade will revert to it's WO equivalent as outlined in the 3rd bullet point.


• Grade advancement for Wing Commanders and above shall remain consistent with current policy.

Am I way off in outer space or does this make sense?
I also attached a rendering of WO grades for those who aren't familiar with them.

[attachment deleted by admin- older than one year]

[arajca]

Sounds similar to something that was discussed on CadetStuff before the Great Data Dump of 2004. I actually developed a chart and grade insignia for the "new" senior program.

I have them in Word doc's, but I don't have a way to host the files for all to see.

[pixelwonk]

I dunno.  I remember talking about it somewhat on the old auxiliary power forum.  Unfortunately, archives aren't available. 

I'll host em if you want to email them to me, unless Jerry would permit me to attach them here on CAP-Talk?

[SarDragon]

[redacted] Despite command being one of the most important duties in a unit, it has no "real" specialty track. Just a number. Even Admin has more clear-cut requirements!

But Squadron Commanders have presumably been through at least SLS, and are also required to attend the Unit Commander's Course.

[redacted] AD and Res military do not know how to deal with CAP members in equal or higher grades.

Only until you explain it to them. That's not usually very hard.

[Major_Chuck]

I remember the discussion we had about it on the old Auxiliary Power forum.  We all pretty much agreed that something like this was needed but the powers to be did not.
Very similiar to creating a NCO progression for Senior Members.

What I want to do away with is the term "Senior Member".  Hate it!  Hate it!  Hate it!  I try to avoid using it at all costs.

I dunno.  I remember talking about it somewhat on the old auxiliary power forum.  Unfortunately, archives aren't available. 

I'll host em if you want to email them to me, unless Jerry would permit me to attach them here on CAP-Talk?

[arajca]

Instead of using Chief Flight Officer # for grade titles, tie them to the required PD accomplishments. So you'd have:
Senior Member/Trainee/Candidate/Probie/Plebe/whatever to call members w/o grade
Flight Officer - completed Level I
Technical Flight Officer - completed Level II requires Tech rating
Senior Flight Officer - completed Level III requires Senior rating
Master Flight Officer - completed Level IV requires Master rating
Chief Flight Officer - Completed Level V

I'd change some of the training requirements:
Level I - CPPT + SLS + AFIADL 13 + History of CAP + 1 yr TIG
Level II - Tech rating + CLC or UCC + attend 1 wing, region, or national conference + 2 year TIG
Level III - Senior rating + SOS + UCC or CLC (whichever not attended) + attend 1 additional conference + 3 yr TIG + Staff SLS/wing conference or instruct CPPT & History of CAP class
Level IV - Master rating + RSC + AWC + 4 yr TIG + Staff CLC/UCC or direct SLS + external Presentation + complete AEPSM
Level V - NSC + ACSC + 5 yr TIG + Staff RSC/NSC or direct CLC/UCC + instruct CPPT & History of CAP class

Obviously, you'd complete the levels in order, i.e. Level I is a prerequisite for Level II, and so on.
SOS, AWC, ACSC are completed via correspondence. Keep the military training replacements as currently listed in CAPR 50-17.
Throw out the Orientation course. The only part that is semi-decent is the history of CAP. Make that a separate class and throw out the rest. Add a uniform component to SLS (which gets renamed CAP Flight Officer Course).

I think one thing that sunk this proposal at the NB level was there were three proposals to revamp the PD program submitted at the same time.

[pixelwonk]

Instead of using Chief Flight Officer # for grade titles, tie them to the required PD accomplishments. So you'd have:
Senior Member/Trainee/Candidate/Probie/Plebe/whatever to call members w/o grade
Flight Officer - completed Level I
Technical Flight Officer - completed Level II requires Tech rating
Senior Flight Officer - completed Level III requires Senior rating
Master Flight Officer - completed Level IV requires Master rating
Chief Flight Officer - Completed Level V

That's cool, I'm not married to the #'s, myself... I was going for familiarity (yet distinctive)

[CAPSGT]

I think one thing that sunk this proposal at the NB level was there were three proposals to revamp the PD program submitted at the same time.

I think you're more likely to find that requiring the DOD PME courses is more likely to sink a proposal like this.  Generally people who take those are getting paid to do so.  It's a massive amount of material to cover, especially by correspondence.  I think you'd find yourself with people basically stagnating at level 2.  The only ones who would progress past it are those who had to take SOS, AWC, and ACSC in the military (or as a DOD civilian employee), and maybe a handfull of others across the country.

Despite having spent the last 8.5 years getting as much training as I can in/for CAP, that part would be enough to make me throw in the towel.

[arajca]

The quote you cited was in reply to Major_Chuck's post. A couple years ago, three proposals were sent to the NB - a CAP Flight Officer program, a Warrant Officer program, and an NCO program. All three were written - from what I saw in the minutes - identical except for changing the words "Flight Officer", "Warrant Officer", and "NCO". Since they were all competing and doing the same thing, none were approved.

If the DoD courses were dropped for my idea, I wouldn't be hurt. I was trying use existing programs to help provide leadership training to higher level members - where it is needed.

[CAPSGT]

wow, it has been a couple years, hasn't it?  It seems like just yesterday I was sitting in a wing staff meeting hearing about those.

I agree that the DOD courses are certainly a valuable resource.  I just try to remember that it is a volunteer organization and that we can really only ask so much of our volunteers if we want to retain them.

[Pylon]

Here's my perception of the SM program:

There is a need within the organization for adult leaders. Officers, if you will.

Members need to be validated for duty performance and professional development accomplishments.


Despite command being one of the most important duties in a unit, it has no "real" specialty track. Just a number. Even Admin has more clear-cut requirements!

CAP company and field officer grades (minus Colonel) do not hold the weight of rank (authority) behind it; therefore it is inherently meaningless in a command structure, which is what we operate under.

AD and Res military do not know how to deal with CAP members in equal or higher grades.



OK, now here's what would happen in my personal CAP Shang-gri-la:

• new members are without grade for one full year.


• Each TIG requirement is extended by one year for company grades, two years for field grades.


• Member's grades are restructured: 2Lt becomes WO-1, lLT becomes CWO-2, all the way to LtCol becoming Chief Warrant Officer Five. Grade insignia is identical to the Army's, except for the color blue replacing black. The reason for this is to be familiar enough, but remain distinctive. If CAP-USAF balks at the WO grade because it's not parallel with the AF, then rename it Flight Officer, which is completely distinctive to the USAF-Aux. (Army Air Forces used that rank before Warrants)


• Prior service (AD or Res) members would come in at a WO grade commensurate with their AD grade as outlined in the previous bullet. These PS members coming in for the express purpose of serving in command positions will retain their AD grade, up to LtCol, as is current policy.  NCOs who want to stay that way can remain NCOs.


• Command positions have an actual specialty track, focusing heavily on people management with requirements, study guide, etc... typical of any other specialty track. 


• Those who aspire to command must be at minimum WO-2. Upon entering the command Specialty Track outlined above will be appointed the temporary grade of Capt for Flights, (DCOC or DCOS as well) Major for Sqdns, and Lt Col for Groups, Wing Vice Commanders and/or Chiefs of Staff. The member is encouraged to complete the specialty track requirements for each level in order for the grade to become permanent. If not completed, The grade will revert to it's WO equivalent as outlined in the 3rd bullet point.


• Grade advancement for Wing Commanders and above shall remain consistent with current policy.

Am I way off in outer space or does this make sense?
I also attached a rendering of WO grades for those who aren't familiar with them.

It's an interesting idea, but you still have the issue of what do former commanders do and how it can become "weird" (especially from an AD/USAF perspective); let's say you have a commander under your proposal who serves as Group Cmdr, or Wing Cmdr.  They attain their officer rank of Lt. Col or Col., finish their Cmdr. specialty track, finish their term of office, and retain their rank.  Then what happens when they return to a squadron or even a Group staff full of Warrant officers while they have oak leaves or birds on their shoulders?   You still have the potential issue of a Lt. Col. being your squadron's testing officer, who reports to his or her supervisor - the Deputy Commander for Cadets, who is only a "CWO-2." - This is still the same issue of rank/grade not holding any weight or authority in and of itself, because our organizations structure puts the authority in the position.

[arajca]

The CAP Professional Development Committee has posted the minutes of their 20 March meeting online http://level2.cap.gov/documents/PD_Committee_Minutes_2005_03.pdf. They actually acknowledged something needs to be done about professional development. There isn't a whole lot of information about what they discussed, but it is a start.

[arajca]

 
It's an interesting idea, but you still have the issue of what do former commanders do and how it can become "weird" (especially from an AD/USAF perspective); let's say you have a commander under your proposal who serves as Group Cmdr, or Wing Cmdr.  They attain their officer rank of Lt. Col or Col., finish their Cmdr. specialty track, finish their term of office, and retain their rank.  Then what happens when they return to a squadron or even a Group staff full of Warrant officers while they have oak leaves or birds on their shoulders?   You still have the potential issue of a Lt. Col. being your squadron's testing officer, who reports to his or her supervisor - the Deputy Commander for Cadets, who is only a "CWO-2." - This is still the same issue of rank/grade not holding any weight or authority in and of itself, because our organizations structure puts the authority in the position.

If the staff grades/grades are only authorized while in office, that becomes a non-issue. As was suggested on CS, allow members to wear the highest officer grade they earned at social functions, but not at the unit. Officer grades are temporary. The permenant grade is the FO/WO grade.

Here is roughly the idea:

If your echelon is	And your position title is	And your specialty track rating is	And/or your PD Level is	Then your officer grade is
Squadron	Commander	Any or none	Level 1	Capt
		Technician or higher	Level 2 or higher	Major
	Deputy Commander	None	Level 1	1st Lt
		Technician or higher	Level 1 or higher	Capt
	Any staff officer	None or any unrelated	Level 1 or higher	2nd Lt
		Technician or higher (related)	Level 1 or higher	1st Lt
	Assistant to a staff officer	None or unrelated	None	None
		Any	Level 1 or higher	2d Lt
Group	Commander	Any	Level 1 or 2	Major
		Senior or higher	Level 2 or higher	Lt Col
	Deputy Commander	Any	Level 1 or 2	Capt
		Senior or higher	Level 2 or higher	Major
	Any staff officer	Technician (related) or any unrelated	Level 1	1st Lt
		Senior or higher (related)	Level 2 or higher	Capt
	Assistant/Deputy to staff officer	Technician (related) or any unrelated	Level 1	2d Lt
		Senior or higher	Level 2 of higher	1st Lt

etc. I think you can see the pattern. If you want the whole chart, pm me with your email.

[cmoore]

What I want to do away with is the term "Senior Member".  Hate it!  Hate it!  Hate it!  I try to avoid using it at all costs.

As a "Senior Member" I'll second that.  I also dislike the term "Senior Member Without Grade."
I don't expect to be an officer from day one, but how about "Airman" or something like that?

[pixelwonk]

Then what happens when they return to a squadron or even a Group staff full of Warrant officers while they have oak leaves or birds on their shoulders?   You still have the potential issue of a Lt. Col. being your squadron's testing officer, who reports to his or her supervisor - the Deputy Commander for Cadets, who is only a "CWO-2." - This is still the same issue of rank/grade not holding any weight or authority in and of itself, because our organizations structure puts the authority in the position.

Yes, It may happen, but at only a fraction of what it does now.  The reason for this is because s'members need to complete the specialty track rating commensurate with their grade for their grade to become permanent.  Without this, they would revert to their WO grade.

[arajca]

One solution would be for the offier grade to authorized only while filling a position for which it is authorized. When you step down - or up - your change grade appropriately. If you are no longer on staff, you revert to your permenant grade - FO or WO grade. You may wear your highest offier grade at social situations (banquets, high level award ceremonies, etc.), but not at regular meeting and activities.

[DeputyDog]

Instead of using Chief Flight Officer # for grade titles, tie them to the required PD accomplishments. So you'd have:
Senior Member/Trainee/Candidate/Probie/Plebe/whatever to call members w/o grade
Flight Officer - completed Level I
Technical Flight Officer - completed Level II requires Tech rating
Senior Flight Officer - completed Level III requires Senior rating
Master Flight Officer - completed Level IV requires Master rating
Chief Flight Officer - Completed Level V

I'd change some of the training requirements:
Level I - CPPT + SLS + AFIADL 13 + History of CAP + 1 yr TIG
Level II - Tech rating + CLC or UCC + attend 1 wing, region, or national conference + 2 year TIG
Level III - Senior rating + SOS + UCC or CLC (whichever not attended) + attend 1 additional conference + 3 yr TIG + Staff SLS/wing conference or instruct CPPT & History of CAP class
Level IV - Master rating + RSC + AWC + 4 yr TIG + Staff CLC/UCC or direct SLS + external Presentation + complete AEPSM
Level V - NSC + ACSC + 5 yr TIG + Staff RSC/NSC or direct CLC/UCC + instruct CPPT & History of CAP class

Obviously, you'd complete the levels in order, i.e. Level I is a prerequisite for Level II, and so on.
SOS, AWC, ACSC are completed via correspondence. Keep the military training replacements as currently listed in CAPR 50-17.
Throw out the Orientation course. The only part that is semi-decent is the history of CAP. Make that a separate class and throw out the rest. Add a uniform component to SLS (which gets renamed CAP Flight Officer Course).

I think one thing that sunk this proposal at the NB level was there were three proposals to revamp the PD program submitted at the same time.

The problem I see with the Flight Officer grade structure and the training requirements scheme is that in order to take SOS, you have to be a Captain, for ACSC you have to be a Major and for AWC you have to be a Lieutenant Colonel (or their civilian equivalents).

In a discussion I had with a Region PDO, he explained that a CAP Flight Officer grade could be considered as something akin to a "Third Lieutenant".

[arajca]

That particular proposal has been disgarded some time ago. It was discussed in the early stages of ideas, and other points against it were brought up.

[Bluelakes 13]

If I were CAP god for a day, the first change I would do is dump all the grades (and USAF uniforms) and implement a system similar to the Coast Guard Aux. 

There would be a plethora of learning opportunities/courses/classes available depending on the POSITION someone holds at the unit/wing/region level. 

The other change I would make is commanders being elected by those they command - but that's another thread...

[DeputyDog]

If I were CAP god for a day, the first change I would do is dump all the grades (and USAF uniforms) and implement a system similar to the Coast Guard Aux. 

There would be a plethora of learning opportunities/courses/classes available depending on the POSITION someone holds at the unit/wing/region level. 

The other change I would make is commanders being elected by those they command - but that's another thread...

In my view, the Coast Guard Auxiliary system is confusing (I am not flaming). The Coast Guard is better able to manage their Auxiliary due to its size. I imagine with the Air Force it would be a bit tricker to base everything on position.
Take for example the Squadron Officer School (a very valuable resource that the Civil Air Patrol is permitted to utilize). One must be a Captain in order to enroll in the SOS. How do you determine what position is equivalent to a Captain? Is a "Squadron Staff Officer" or a "Group Staff Officer" equivalent to that?
Given the size of the Air Force and the numerous other things that the Air University has to do, I imagine it would be a severe annoyance for the Air Force to deal with that. It is far simpler for someone to see Captain's bars, and say they are a Captain (although not commissioned).
Electing officers is not a bad idea. Isn't that how the volunteer units during the Civil War selected their NCOs and officers? How does that play out in the Coast Guard Auxiliary? Any problems involved with that?