Wear of military service uniforms by retired officers while on CAP duty

[RiverAux]

In order to keep a structural thead from going to far off topic....

One option to deal with retired military officers is allowing them to wear the uniform of their service while on CAP duty, possibly while wearing some sort of CAP badge on the uniform. 

Federal law does allow retired officers to wear their uniforms so what we would be looking at would be a change in CAP regs to make this a separate series of alternative uniforms (since they would have to wear the uniform of their service). 

I brought up the height/weight issue for retired officers.  I don't think the services too much about retirees in their uniforms in Veterans Day parades or funerals,which is where they usually show up.  But we are talking about having the retired person wear the uniform as a CAP member representing the AF.  I have a hard time believing the AF will allow seriously overweight people to wear an AF (or Marines, etc.) uniform while on CAP duty at the same time they make non-prior service people meet height/weight standards to wear a AF-style CAP uniform.  This would be a big double standard.

The other issue is that the federal law allows the retired to wear the uniform only with their former rank.  So, a former AF 1st Lt. would only be able to wear 1st Lt. on his AF uniform while on CAP duty even though he could potentially be given a much higher CAP rank.  The only way he could wear the CAP rank would be to wear one of the other uniforms.   This would be a problem for folks under the current system and under any of the various proposals floating around to switch CAP adults from almost all Officers to mostly enlisted/WO with Officers only as needed. 

[Dragoon]

If I'm wearing my Army suit while working in CAP, the public will think I'm working for the Army.  (Makes sense, since the thing says U.S. Army right over the pocket).

CAP folks should wear CAP suits.

Now, if we value the training, we can give former military folks a break on certain elements of CAP training (as we do now).  But honestly, if a Lt Col joins CAP and doesn't do Lt Col level work, why give him the oak leaves?

If an Army Captain joins a volunteer fire department, they don't give him Captain's bars. Because that rank has meaning, and unless that Army Captain becomes a Fire Captain.....he's not doing VFD "captain's work."

Not a bad model for CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think its a good idea, either, but I'd tolerate it until the retirees CAP rank was approved.  No sense taking a bust from say, Major to Airman Basic.

[Dragoon]

As long as it's considered a "bust", I'd agree.

One way out is to create CAP distinctive grade, so that it's clear you aren't getting "busted" - you're taking a new position in a different organzation.

The use of flight officer bars, for example. Since USAF doesn't even have flight officers, it's hard to claim you're being demoted by pinning them on (back to the VFD analogy).

But as long as we hold onto this idea of CAP-USAF grade equivalence, we'll keep having this problem.


As an aside, this also points out the problem with an enlisted system that mirrors USAF.  Virtually everyone knows that an E-1 is an untrained newbie at the absolute bottom of the food chain.  Doesn't know squat.  Normally straight out of high school.

It's not just former NCOs and officers that will have a problem with being E-1s.  My guess is that the 50 year old successful businessman with a chain of hardware stores won't be so thrilled about being "busted" to E-1.  (I wasn't around, but I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't why we dumped enlisted ranks in the first place.)

[jayleswo]

I think we need to get past E-1 being "beneath" people when they join as new members of CAP. You start at the bottom and, for CAP, that would be E-1.

You mught check out the post I mande on the other thread about the idea for retired oficers/NCO's to join CAP in a new membership cateogry of "Advisor" where they would retain their last grade held adn wear their services uniform. Not too unusual for Army/Navy personnel to be in USAF units on exchange or joint assignments. Each service would have to approve of course, but avoids the issue of awarding advanced officer grade in CAP to officers from the service so we can keep the CAP officer grades for sitting commanders and some professional appointees (chaplain, legal). The originalpost was...

Just to add a few thoughts to the discussion:

1. We need to get away from everyone is an officer. Officer grade above 1st Lt  should be reserved for sitting unit commanders. Commanders would receive temporary promotions to Capt (Squadron), Major (Group), Lt Col (Wing), Colonel (Region), MGen (National) with their deputy/vice one grade below. They revert to their permanent grade after their command tour (3-4 years) is completed. This avoids the confusion over who is in charge we create by awarding grade based primarily on completion of training and TIG.  I think an organization where,  for all practical purposes, 2d Lt is the entry level grade isn't taken very seriously, even by our own membership, much less other agencies. Everyone would join as an E-1 and only after training and time (TIG) would be advanced in grade. Maybe a better organization to compare ourselves to is LE. Would you expect to be promoted to lieutenant in the Highway Patrol after completing basic training and doing your job for six months? No, of course not. Perfectly ok  for you to start off as a Patrolman, or whatever they may be called. It could be 20 years and many tests and lots of training before you get to lieutenant and those positions are competitive and come with command responsibilities.

2. Exceptions to the above for members receiving professional appointments: a) only for those specialties that are recognized by USAF for officer grade, AND b) have a significant role to play in CAP AND c) are actively assigned to and performing that role. The only one's I can think of relevent to CAP are Chaplain and Legal. Educators, CPA's, etc don't meet all of the above criteria (namely commissions in USAF for being a teacher, CPA, etc.). Regardless of training, experience and education, all professional appointments start as 2d Lt and are promoted once TIG is reached and satisfactory performance up to Captain and stops there. If they step down from their position, they revert to a permanent grade of E-1 unless they are otherwise eligible for advanced grade by completing promotion requirements appropriate to that grade (see #3 and #4)..

3. Reinstate Warrant Officer grade for other mission related skills that we need to recruit and retain people to do, such as pilot. Everyone would start as WO-1 regardless of level of certificate and would then be advanced based on time in grade and mission participation. Certificate level (CFI, for example) could waive some training/experience, but not TIG. An A&P could be advanced, for example, to an advanced enlisted grade after appropriate TIG, without completing any other training as long as they are performing a job requiring that skill in CAP.

4. Everyone else starts as enlisted. Again, specific skills could waive training requirements, but not TIG so everyone promotes at a reasonable rate. Top enlisted grade would be E-7 (to avoid aggravating any Air Force chief's out there in the top two grades).

5. Not sure what training program to use, but existing Level 1-5 could be adapted as well as AF PME courses, in addition to other ongoing discussions on this board which have been proposed.

6. Lastly, Officer of Armed Forces promotion: how to address issue where someone was a General in USAF and joins CAP as an E-1... Well, two ways. 1) Point out grade structure looks like USAF, but is NOT the same thing. Or 2) allow former officers to continue wearing their last grade held BUT get approval from USAF to have them wear their USAF uniform while serving in CAP. They would be placed in a special membership category like Advisor. They could hold any/all CAP positions, but senior officers would be assigned to HQ units. Distinguish them from active duty by having them wear a badge, similar to what AF JROTC/ROTC Officers/NCO's wear. CAP-USAF (liaison regions) would have to approve assignments of former USAF Officers/enlisted joining CAP in this capacity. That should take care of that, except not sure what to do with Army, Navy, Marine etc officers/senior enlisted.

7. Phase-in period of 2-3 years during which existing members can retain current grade in CAP and complete training as appropriate to the new structure. New members, or those transitioning sooner, would wear new grade insignia. Maybe we can get different colored epaulets to denote members holding grade under the new program, then phase out the gray?

John Aylesworth
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[mikeylikey]

No!  No need to reinvent the system.  CAP tried it and the membership got rid of it.  The old days are gone.  I say take off all rank insignia.  Use titles only.  EXAMPLE;  John E Doe, Commander.  Jane Doe, Recruting officer, Bob Snuffy, Assistant Recruiting Officer.  Why is everyone so caught up on the bling. 

[RiverAux]

And I think we've seen that this change wasn't a great idea.

This was suggested as part of an overall program to cut down the number of CAP Officers to those actually functioning in leadership roles.  The retirees in service uniforms would be the only real exceptions.  With a drastically reduced number of officers we would be more likely to be taken seriously.  

[shorning]

With a drastically reduced number of officers we would be more likely to be taken seriously.  

Sorry, but that's just a jump in logic that doesn't ring true. 

[RiverAux]

So, you're saying that our current all-officer force in which Lts can command units made up primarily of people that outrank them helps us be taken seriously by anybody, much less the AF? 

[shorning]

So, you're saying that our current all-officer force in which Lts can command units made up primarily of people that outrank them helps us be taken seriously by anybody, much less the AF? 

No, I'm saying your logic in that statement is flawed. 

I don't think the Air Force looks at our unit structure nearly as close as we think they do.  If fact, I'd bet that they don't care about the rank structure in our units nearly as much as they care about performance.

[DNall]

I don't think its a good idea, either, but I'd tolerate it until the retirees CAP rank was approved.  No sense taking a bust from say, Major to Airman Basic.

Agreed

Dragoon, my friend, you move from the Army to the AF you're keeping your grade. You move from Cav to Aviation you're keeping your grade. You move from the military to CAP you're keeping your grade. Your having the grade has ZERO to do with your MOS/AFSC & EVERYTHING to do with you as having attained a level of military leadership. The federal govt certifies to you that this person meets level X, they get level X, and don't think for a second you have the right to believe CAP is better than them & they don't deserve it. That's what it is & always will be, period.

As for a distinctive grade system, why? We are part of the AF family & need to act like it. We do work for them on a regular basis, and now that our mission is evolving I believe we'll be working directly with them on AF tasks much more regularly. They're negotiating right now to put CAP medical personnel, in uniform, in AF hospitals, maybe even deployed in uniform on paid contracts or w/ special reserve commissions (that's a question w/ Chaplains also).


I don't think anyone is looknig at the strength roster breakdown of who's in what grade to decide if we should be taken seriously. It looks a little wierd when an all officer GT rolls up on someone, but otherwise they don't know the difference. It's meeting the professional standards of the military at varrious grade levels... you get taken seriously when you deserve to be, when you are serious. If I could lean in on LtCol Horning for second... I think the point of meeting those standards is about effecting performance to the greatest extent, but to a degree also being taken seriously creates the situation where you can be handed some bigger missions & more complex gear to do them with. The most efficent dog catcher in the world doesn't get promoted to governor, you have to change your image & qualifications along the way.

[ZigZag911]

So, you're saying that our current all-officer force in which Lts can command units made up primarily of people that outrank them helps us be taken seriously by anybody, much less the AF? 

No, I'm saying your logic in that statement is flawed. 

I don't think the Air Force looks at our unit structure nearly as close as we think they do.  If fact, I'd bet that they don't care about the rank structure in our units nearly as much as they care about performance.

I think Shorning is right....USAF may be amused (bemused?) by our multitude of field grade officers, but they are really much more interested in how well we get the job done.

[mikeylikey]

Thats news to me.  Perhaps I am way out of the loop here, but the AF is actually considering using CAP med's in thier hospitals.  Reserve Commissions?  Serious laws will need to be changed for that happen.  Doesn't the AF already have "too many" officers (reference the latest round of cuts last year).  Please share your sources, I truely am interested. 

[DNall]

You can go find ther links, but the current HSO track development is slow in coming cause they're working w/ AF to allow them to augment exactly like Chaplains do now. Not much more to it then that.

No laws need be changed to grant someone a commission. Yes AF has RIF'd officers. I didn't say everyone gets a commission. There is discussion of sending a few Chaplains overseas to like Bosnia or Kuwait versus Iraq. The original idea called for that to be on civilian contract, but chaplains were deemed to be a target they'd want protected by generva conventions (as if that mattered) so they wanted them in uniform (CAP uniform is fine, need not be AF), but then there was concern if this person is formally a civilian then there may be problems w/ how someone interprets the convention, so maybe we should send them to RCOT, waive PT/Age, & grant them a 12-18mo commission. None of this is out of the discussion phase, but there's source floating on it. If it goes thru then there's interest in pulling up medical personnel under similiar conditions. They get a lot of very experienced Docs wanting to serve short terms - better than going to Africa or Hatti like my brother does. River was sayin some SDF just sent a medical unit to Bosnia w/ their national guard. Same kind of capacity can be used for our people.

I don't personally think any of this requires a reserve commission, I think you can do everything under a contract & by being in uniform in that situation (which the ocntract would state) you'd be bound by UCMJ, with precedent.

[lordmonar]

So, you're saying that our current all-officer force in which Lts can command units made up primarily of people that outrank them helps us be taken seriously by anybody, much less the AF? 

No, I'm saying your logic in that statement is flawed. 

I don't think the Air Force looks at our unit structure nearly as close as we think they do.  If fact, I'd bet that they don't care about the rank structure in our units nearly as much as they care about performance.

I think Shorning is right....USAF may be amused (bemused?) by our multitude of field grade officers, but they are really much more interested in how well we get the job done.

bingo!  They would not care if we all called ourselves Col...if we got the job done and did not bring discreet to us.  And a Lt bossing a squadron with a bunch of retired Lt Cols in no way shape or form makes us look bad in their eyes...so long at that Lt is competent.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You can go find ther links, but the current HSO track development is slow in coming cause they're working w/ AF to allow them to augment exactly like Chaplains do now. Not much more to it then that.

No laws need be changed to grant someone a commission. Yes AF has RIF'd officers. I didn't say everyone gets a commission. There is discussion of sending a few Chaplains overseas to like Bosnia or Kuwait versus Iraq. The original idea called for that to be on civilian contract, but chaplains were deemed to be a target they'd want protected by generva conventions (as if that mattered) so they wanted them in uniform (CAP uniform is fine, need not be AF), but then there was concern if this person is formally a civilian then there may be problems w/ how someone interprets the convention, so maybe we should send them to RCOT, waive PT/Age, & grant them a 12-18mo commission. None of this is out of the discussion phase, but there's source floating on it. If it goes thru then there's interest in pulling up medical personnel under similiar conditions. They get a lot of very experienced Docs wanting to serve short terms - better than going to Africa or Hatti like my brother does. River was sayin some SDF just sent a medical unit to Bosnia w/ their national guard. Same kind of capacity can be used for our people.

I don't personally think any of this requires a reserve commission, I think you can do everything under a contract & by being in uniform in that situation (which the ocntract would state) you'd be bound by UCMJ, with precedent.

Dennis:

Chaplains who fall into the enemy's hands are "Retained Persons" under the Geneva Convention.  So are medics.  The enemy we are fighting doesn't give a fart in a windstorm about the Geneva Convention, so I wonder why it would be an issue.

Any person accompanying a US force in the field overseas is subject to the UCMJ.  By law.

 

[bosshawk]

I usually stay out of these discussions about uniform wear and rank things, but I do believe that the active duty AF guys who have spoken have it right on the money: the AF generally doesn't care about our rank structure, as long as we keep it to ourselves and don't try to emulate AF officers.  I have been around quite a number of the CAP-USAF liaison officers and the only negative comment that I have ever heard was  a CAP-USAF Liaison Region CC state that if he had to deal with the plethora of regulations that CAP deals with, he would openly rebel.  The Commemorative Air Force deals with this whole thing very neatly: everyone is a Colonel.

We sometimes fall into the trap of trying to define how many versions of the Star Spangled Banner we can put on the head of a pin.

[shorning]

We sometimes fall into the trap of trying to define how many versions of the Star Spangled Banner we can put on the head of a pin.

[Rangersigo]

This is an interesting conversation.  For those who feel that former miltary officers should start at E-1, my guess never served in the Armed Forces as an Officer.  If CAP is an AF Auxiliary, you would have to honor the prior service.  If you transfer between services, for that matter a CEO of one Company does not enter as a entry level job - there is a recognition of their service and accomplishments.  Rank is a measure of experience and leadership - but mostly leadership.  If we are not going to model the AF, I aggree we should simply go to titles rather than rank.  And in cases of ES service, the position outweighs the ranks anyway.  For those that say CPTs do not command COLs in the service, technically that is not true as most are assigned to a headquarters element of some sort, that are administratively commanded by a junior officer. 

I agree that someone walking off the street should not be appointed to an advanced grade unless they have the professional skill that warrants it (Med, Chap, MD, etc.) which is very similar to the Armed Services.

[Monty]

Rank is a measure of experience and leadership - but mostly leadership. 

Not so sure about that.  Within the CAP adult context, rank/grade are indications of experience and TRAINING.  It's a safe bet that a Lt Col in CAP likely has at least RSC to his/her credit (or some equivalent, excluding the military officers that come into CAP) whereas a 2d Lt may (and generally has) not.

Pilots that are granted 1st Lt aren't granted said grade by their leadership abilities; their pilot training seals the deal (whether we like it or not.)  Leadership has a very minor - if any - role in promotions (arguably sad, if you ask me, but c'est la vie.)

CAP has plenty of Lt Cols that haven't a bit of leadership ability what so ever. 

In its present form, grade derives from experience and training; no question about it.

[Rangersigo]

Was referring to the Armed Services - not CAP....

[JohnKachenmeister]

As a captain, I commanded a headquarters company that had a brigadier general and his staff of horse-holders, all full colonels.  I told them when the formations would be and what uniform to wear, when and where the PT test was, and what time chow would be.  

I also let a colonel perform alternate drill in Chicago for almost a year until he found another O-6 vacancy when his job transfered him.  Neither one of us better run for President, since Michael Moore will call us "Draft Dodgers."

[Dragoon]

This is an interesting conversation.  For those who feel that former miltary officers should start at E-1, my guess never served in the Armed Forces as an Officer.  If CAP is an AF Auxiliary, you would have to honor the prior service.  If you transfer between services, for that matter a CEO of one Company does not enter as a entry level job - there is a recognition of their service and accomplishments.  Rank is a measure of experience and leadership - but mostly leadership.  If we are not going to model the AF, I aggree we should simply go to titles rather than rank.  And in cases of ES service, the position outweighs the ranks anyway.  For those that say CPTs do not command COLs in the service, technically that is not true as most are assigned to a headquarters element of some sort, that are administratively commanded by a junior officer. 

I agree that someone walking off the street should not be appointed to an advanced grade unless they have the professional skill that warrants it (Med, Chap, MD, etc.) which is very similar to the Armed Services.

I would agree that taking off Army oak leaves and putting on USAF stripes would feel...wrong.

However, taking off Army oak leaves and putting on CAP stripes (which wouldn't look like USAF stripes) would be acceptable.

CAP is not the Air Force.  If it was, Air Force Second Lieutanants would salute our Majors.  Is doesn't happen and it ain't gonna.  Why not embrace our unique contribution to the team by having a unique grade structure (or position structure, or whatever works best).

Better to have something unique to ourselves.  That doesn't make us "less Air Force" any more than my friend the USAF GS-13 civilian isn't Air Force.  He IS part of the team - just neither enlisted nor officer.

Heck, the SECAF does fine without General's stars and other bling....

[Dragoon]

Dragoon, my friend, you move from the Army to the AF you're keeping your grade. You move from Cav to Aviation you're keeping your grade. You move from the military to CAP you're keeping your grade. Your having the grade has ZERO to do with your MOS/AFSC & EVERYTHING to do with you as having attained a level of military leadership. The federal govt certifies to you that this person meets level X, they get level X, and don't think for a second you have the right to believe CAP is better than them & they don't deserve it. That's what it is & always will be, period.

Not actually true.

1.  First, CAP doesn't let Colonels and Generals keep their grade, so it's not a hard and fast rule.  The Air Force has upheld this.  Because CAP isn't better, it's different.

2.  More importantly, while you are correct that interservice transfers keep grade intact for officers, that's because those transfers only occur if the officer has the specific skills necessary to function at the same level in the required job.  I'm not aware of anyone being transferred recently because of "level of military leadership."  Each service has more of that than they can handle.  The transfer occurs if the guy has the skills to function at that paygrade in a specific job in that new service.  So yeah, skills DO matter.

3.  Finally, this whole premise is based on transfers between U.S. uniformed services.  CAP isn't one of these.  Never has been, never will be.  If it was, then active duty folks woudn't be allowed to join (can't be Army and USAF at the same time.)

As for a distinctive grade system, why? We are part of the AF family & need to act like it.
We do work for them on a regular basis, and now that our mission is evolving I believe we'll be working directly with them on AF tasks much more regularly. They're negotiating right now to put CAP medical personnel, in uniform, in AF hospitals, maybe even deployed in uniform on paid contracts or w/ special reserve commissions (that's a question w/ Chaplains also).

There are several of "parts of the AF family" who have distinctive grade insignia and uniforms.  Check out Air Force Instruction 36-801  (Uniforms for Civilian Employees), especially Chapter 3. http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-801/afi36-801.pdf

That chapter describes the uniforms for USAF civilian police and guards.

They don't wear BDUs.  Instead, unlike SP's they wear police style uniforms.
They have grades like "Chief" and "Assistant Chief" instead of "Colonel" and "Major"

And yet these folks do a heck of a lot more work, side by side with the uniformed members of USAF than we ever will.  Are they not "part of the USAF family?"

And what about the civilians?  They have their own grade system (GS 1-15 and SES).  Certainly they are part of the USAF family.

Bottom line - while aligning CAP with the military side of USAF is one option, it is only one option out of several.  And all are equally "Air Force."  Being on the team doesn't have to mean looking like a warrior.

[DNall]

You re-branch in the Army, you get sent to the new training, they don't drop your grade at any point. Even less of a hassle in the AF. Why you think ex-pilots command space units.

I'd argue that it isn't in fact different. The thing w/ Col & above is those grades are specifically reserved for particular command positions, but no I thnk it's a travesty that we'd take a LtGen & reduce him to LtCol. That's rediculous. At very least they should get MajGen, & then only cause that's as high as we got.

Being an NCO is about skill expertise, being an officer is about the skill of leading/managing people/resources/etc.

We are part of the AF, even if only part of the time & formally civilians throughout. We're still not a seperate org free to do as we please. We're ruled by Congress & even in the weakest interpretation by a govt board with partially AF appointed members... and it took a LOT of legal stretching to get it that loose. It's working itself back the other way now & if you don't like that you can talk to your congressman.

We are not AF civilian employees. I grant that we're in this loose "AF-family" status as termed by CAP-USAF, but we're working toward & have been for many years, becoming a full partner in the "total-force" & that doesn't include civilian food service workers.

We're not trying to just emulate an AF based concept to run our own private little club, we're trying to integrate into the AF as a full partner: Active - Reserve - ANG - Auxiliary. What we're doing here is not a game, it's not for fun, & it's not the boy scouts, or the rescue club. We exist to accomplish all missions of the AF in partnership with them & within the minimal boundries set by congress (no assigned combat missions, combat support okay).

[Dragoon]

I'd argue that it isn't in fact different. The thing w/ Col & above is those grades are specifically reserved for particular command positions, but no I thnk it's a travesty that we'd take a LtGen & reduce him to LtCol. That's rediculous. At very least they should get MajGen, & then only cause that's as high as we got.

And then that Major General can just serve as a squadron Aerospace Ed officer, because he only joined because his granddaughter is in the program.

Nope - rank should come with inherent responsiblity.  You want to wear 2 stars, you do a 2 star job.  And since we only have one of these at a time......

Being an NCO is about skill expertise, being an officer is about the skill of leading/managing people/resources/etc. .

Right.  That's why USAF commissions pilots...

We are not AF civilian employees. I grant that we're in this loose "AF-family" status as termed by CAP-USAF, but we're working toward & have been for many years, becoming a full partner in the "total-force" & that doesn't include civilian food service workers. .

First, if the "food service worker" is a government civilian (not a contractor) then YES THEY ARE PART  OF THE TOTAL FORCE.   It is the height of arrogance to think otherwise. 

Take a look around the Pentagon - half the USAF folks up there are civilians.  Including the Assistant Secretarys of every part of the Air Force. Not to mention all the civilian intell analyists, budget folks, maintenance personel, security guards, administrative officers, weapons system program managers....the list goes on and on. 

None of these guys wears a USAF military uniform (except when deployed).  None of them feels the need to be called "Major" or "Colonel."     "Mister" does fine.  And then they go about the daily business of the Air Force.  Working a lot closer to them than we could ever hope to.  Some of them work for Generals.  Others are in charge of Generals.  And it all works out just fine.

How can you possibly say they don't count, and yet the Civil Air Patrol does?

We're not trying to just emulate an AF based concept to run our own private little club, we're trying to integrate into the AF as a full partner: Active - Reserve - ANG - Auxiliary. What we're doing here is not a game, it's not for fun, & it's not the boy scouts, or the rescue club. We exist to accomplish all missions of the AF in partnership with them & within the minimal boundries set by congress (no assigned combat missions, combat support okay).

And there is nothing that prevents us from being a full partner without warrior uniforms, titles and grade insignia.

[DNall]

You know responsiblity isn't consistent from job to job. Even in cAP we make all our Wg CCs a Col, but some of those wings have 3000 members & 30 planes, while some have 200 members & 7 Sqs w/ no planes (something like that for DC). My GROUP down here covers more teritory than Iowa, we got 1000 members in 16 Sqs & more planes than most wings, & do more missions than most wings, have more direct coordination w/ state/local authorities & govt realtions than most wings... yet it's commanded by a Major, what's up with that?

It's not dif in the AF. The time you spend at AWC is not the same as being a Wing CC, which isn't the same as moving on from there to a mid-level staff job at a NAF, or from there to commanding an AFROTC det. That's just the one person too, it's an even bigger gap between specialities.


I know it looks funny when a LtCol works their way up & then, because people don't retire or get forced out of CAP like they do the military, steps back down to a lesser job. Still a LtGen brings something more to the table than does a LtCol. We give advanced promotions for teachers, doctors, A&Ps, lawyers all sorts of things that don't always get used at all. Why would we insult or discourage the participation of that senior military leader that can bring so much more to CAP?

What can we do to mitigate the wierd look of it? You want a mandatory retirement age like some SDFs? You want to go the Iowa route & transfer field grade officers to Wg - I kinda like that one. I don't know we can talk about some ideas, but I don't think it's that big a problem.

The problem isn't that appearance though. It's that we put an inexperienced junior officer in charge of a unit that should be commanded by someone with many years of training & experience in preperation for that critical role. It would be much better fo us if we made our grade actually meaningful so they can equate to leadership slots in terms of qualificaitons rather than what we promote someone to when they've only been in six months.


Junior officer pilots are trained to be officers FIRST & THEN given the chance to learn a speciality as a pilot. As junior officers, like all other junior officer, they are still learning & developing, as they will be for their whole career. By the time they're a flight lead or on up to Sq CC or significant staff positions, they are officering up mighty strong. That officer doesn't need to know the wire route that controls his elevators. He needs to know the elevators don't work & be able to order an NCO to fix it even though that NCO is an expert & is confident the pilot is just wrong.


Far as total force... yes thsoe people are part of the family, but they aren't interchangable. That's what we're going for is interoperable. The ability of a properly trained & qual'd CAP officer to stand in for an AF officer in domestic non-combat roles approved by AF.


This isn't about uniforms, though I think they help us bond together on the same team & think they reflect the level of professional respect they have for us in their similiarity, or lack thereof depending on how you look at it. The AF wants us in those unifroms, always has. They want us acting like the reserves, and always have. Congress wants us to get our act together & serve the AF, and always has. Moving away from 65 years of military tradition & breaking the cultural identity we have with the AF is a bad thing thats erves neither of us. I don't see where anything else matters.

[Dragoon]

Far as total force... yes those people are part of the family, but they aren't interchangeable. That's what we're going for is interoperable. The ability of a properly trained & qual'd CAP officer to stand in for an AF officer in domestic non-combat roles approved by AF.

"Interchangeable" and "Interoperable" are very different things.

The thousands upon thousands of USAF civilians are interoperable with their military counterparts.  As I've said, military sometimes work for these guys, and the civilians sometimes work for the military.

There are uniformed public affairs officers and civilian public affairs officers in USAF.  Often working side by side.
Ditto doctors, lawyers, security forces, logistics technicians etc. etc.

They are not "interchangeable," though.  There are certain things (like flying fighters) that the civilians aren't going to do.  And surprisingly enough, neither are we.  Nor do we need to , in order to play a larger role.

This isn't about uniforms, though I think they help us bond together on the same team & think they reflect the level of professional respect they have for us in their similarity, or lack thereof depending on how you look at it. The AF wants us in those uniforms, always has. They want us acting like the reserves, and always have. Congress wants us to get our act together & serve the AF, and always has. Moving away from 65 years of military tradition & breaking the cultural identity we have with the AF is a bad thing thats erves neither of us. I don't see where anything else matters.

If USAF wanted us all in USAF suits, we'd be wearing them today.  But they don't.  They ALLOW some of us (the thin and clean shaven ones) to wear those uniforms.  And yet, they are more than happy to have the "fat and fuzzies"  supporting USAF missions.  In 25+ years I have never had a USAF evaluator tell me "I sure wish you guys acted more like the Reserves."

Congress wants us to help USAF.  But that doesn't mean they give a crap about what we wear when we're doing it, or what titles we call ourselves.  They only care about the capability we bring to the table.

You are absolutely right that uniforms provide esprit de corps.  CAP started wearing military uniforms with bright red epaulets (now THAT stood out) and no grade system.  Just position titles.  That's our original heritage.  And our "65 years of military tradition" includes the smurf suit, the golf shirt and the blazer!

When a USAF civilian deploys, he may wear BDUs.  And he should, because he's on the team. But they don't pin captain's bars on him.  Even if his job involves supervising Lts and NCOs.  He's a USAF civilian.  And his uniform identifies him as such.

This would be one route for CAP.  Put everyone, regardless of weight or grooming, in USAF suits, but with very specific insignia to make it clear that we were USAF auxiliarist.  Right down to whatever sort of grade structure we feel we need to run a good CAP (flight officers anyone?).  And no pretenses as to where we fit in the United States Air Force.  We are the Auxiliary.  We should be proud of that.  And it might even get us more acceptance.

When I was a young Army Captain just back into CAP, I had a very different mindset.  "Why can't  they all be more like me?"  Humility came quickly, as I figured out how different running an underfunded volunteer organization was from a full time military unit. I saw how talent wasn't tied to grade, and that time spent on perfecting formations and uniform wear might be better spent on training things like search techniques, supply accountability and airmanship.  CAP has a whole bunch of problems with training and accountability, but I'm not sure military officer grade is key to the solution.

Way back during the Cold War, my squadron (cavalry, not CAP) visited communist East Berlin. On thing I noticed there was that almost everyone, from the firemen to the streetsweepers to the postmaster, had very snappy military-style uniforms.  I don't think it helped them a whole lot.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Snappy military uniforms are a German tradition!

[Hawk200]

... and that time spent on perfecting formations and uniform wear might be better spent on training things like search techniques, supply accountability and airmanship.  ....

Right now, we don't spend any time on teaching any new senior members about formations or uniform wear. I think we should.

When I started a job here that wore a uniform, I was told how it was to be worn, and have been corrected a few times when I forgot my nametag. If you don't have your shirt tucked in; your shoes need to be tied; or you need to shave, one of the managers will point it out to you. Does this sound like a military organization? It's not: I deliver pizza for a living. None of the managers, nor the owner have any military experience. If I'm held to a uniform standard delivering pizza, CAP needs to be pickier about its uniforms being worn.

What's my point? That we need to train on how to wear a uniform before we start teaching search techniques and supply. And like it or not, proper uniform wear is airmanship.

[Dragoon]

What's my point? That we need to train on how to wear a uniform before we start teaching search techniques and supply. And like it or not, proper uniform wear is airmanship.

What I meant by airmanship was handling airplanes and aviation crew duties in a safe and effective manner.   Which to me seems a bit more critical than explaining the differences between the four different CAP name plates and which one goes on what suit...(thanks a lot, National HQ)

(by the way, this this is coming from a guy who meets weight and grooming standards, and owns every freakin' uniform CAP authorizes, except the new Corporate service dress, and I'll probably pick that up soon.    And I beat the heck out of folks who wear them incorrectly.)

But we only have so many hours a month to train.  I would looooove everyone to look like USAF posterboys. But I know how much time that takes to maintain.  And, given a choice, I'd rather have competent aircrews, search team members and unit administrators.  Much better trained than we have today.  Which seems like a good place to put our valuable training time.

The key to uniforms is to keep them simple.  Less choices.  Less bling.  Less things for our members to screw up.  So they can focus on doing their jobs better, and spend less time on uniform-trivia.

Some wise man once said "3 hours a week is a heck of a way to run an air force..."

[DogCollar]

You're right about the uniform!  It should be clean, crisp and SIMPLE.  All the patches, and ribbons, nameplates, insignia...boy, some peoples uniform shirts weigh more than I do! (Not literally!!)

[Hawk200]

What I meant by airmanship was handling airplanes and aviation crew duties in a safe and effective manner. 

I see we're looking at different types of airmanship. You were looking at the flight aspect, I was looking at it more as being an Air Force member (or it's associated organization. Training either way is important, I will definitely agree with that.

Which to me seems a bit more critical than explaining the differences between the four different CAP name plates and which one goes on what suit...(thanks a lot, National HQ)

The biggest part I have to agree with is the multitude of uniform variations. It is important that all uniforms be worn correctly. However, it is irresponsible to produce so many that it detracts from other important training matters.

(by the way, this this is coming from a guy who meets weight and grooming standards, and owns every freakin' uniform CAP authorizes, except the new Corporate service dress, and I'll probably pick that up soon.    And I beat the heck out of folks who wear them incorrectly.)

If you own every one authorized, I'd say you have more money than I do. (If you ever are inclined to share any, I'd volunteer to accept some.  ).  Keep wearing them correctly. If they can't learn by training, then maybe they'll learn by your example(Which is another reason why it's important to wear them properly.)

But we only have so many hours a month to train.  I would looooove everyone to look like USAF posterboys. But I know how much time that takes to maintain. 

Pretty much every AF member should be a "posterboy". It's a standard. Those that don't meet it find themselves with constant hassles. But it's like riding a bike, once you're up to speed, it's really not hard to stay there.

And, given a choice, I'd rather have competent aircrews, search team members and unit administrators.  Much better trained than we have today.  Which seems like a good place to put our valuable training time.

I agree we need the qualified people, but nobody jumps straight into the job. In the military, you don't learn how to work on a plane, or learn plumbing, or shuffle paperwork first. You get a uniform, and learn how to wear it. Then you learn to march. Then you get other "foundation" skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you would rather put up the building without the foundation.

I think that's a disservice to those without mlitary background. We expect them to wear a uniform properly, but don't teach them how. We expect them to be officers, but never train them. I think CAP needs to get away from the trial by fire, and start doing the training.

The key to uniforms is to keep them simple.  Less choices.  Less bling.  Less things for our members to screw up.  So they can focus on doing their jobs better, and spend less time on uniform-trivia.

Agreed, wholeheartedly, and a thousand times. We could stand to be a lot simpler.

Some wise man once said "3 hours a week is a heck of a way to run an air force..."

I have a feeling that this is an inside joke that I'm not privy to, probably coming here after it was initially said. However, I like it, it's quite true. And with the permission of the original author, I would like permission to use it in the future.

[Dragoon]

If you own every one authorized, I'd say you have more money than I do.

Or I just spend it poorly.  I've even got the yellow flight scarf.  It's up on my bookshelf next to my Matchbox CAP NASCAR racer.  (together, they're my "what were they thinking?" collection.)

I agree we need the qualified people, but nobody jumps straight into the job. In the military, you don't learn how to work on a plane, or learn plumbing, or shuffle paperwork first. You get a uniform, and learn how to wear it. Then you learn to march. Then you get other "foundation" skills. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you would rather put up the building without the foundation.

Nope. I'm just not sure that learning how to march is a foundation skill for us.  Do we actually think we'd be more effective at SAR, for example, if we could correctly execute a right oblique?

Here's a thought.  Let's say, for a minute, that Air Force basic training is about 6 weeks long, and the average tech school is 26 weeks long.  At 8 hours a day (yeah right) 6 days a week, that's about 1536 training hours.

Let's say a full 3 weeks at 8 hours a day is devoted to uniform wear training (my guess its less) during this training.  That's  about 144  hours,  or about 10 percent of the training time.

Now, let's look at CAP.  Since it's 6 months from member to second lieutenant, we've got

8 or so hours of Level 1
3 hours a week for 26 weeks (I'm assuming the guy goes to every single meeting)
3 weekend activities focused on training him (as opposed to just driving cadets or such).  I'm being generous here.
For a total of....134 hours.

That means, percentage wise, we can afford an hour and a half of uniform instruction!  That's a little more that the block in Level 1!

With that much instruction, we're never going to be as good.  And if we spend the the time the Active Force spends....oh wait, we can't.  We've only got 134 hours and we need 144!

Of course this assumes that every single hour of those six months is spent training the new member.  And we all know that ain't true.  Because we don't have dedicated Instructors to do nothing but train new members. Even if added 6 weeks of full weekend training for Officers, we still aren't even close to the hours USAF gets to train for E-1 Airmen!

And remember, in that limited training time, we have to teach the guy things like GES, Cadet Protection, his tech track, perhaps an ES rating, how get get reimbursements, etc. etc.

We used to be able to leverage the Basic Training that most of our draft age members already had.  But those days are gone.  Our SM recruits come to us with no military knowledge beyond seeing Saving Private Ryan.  Can we afford the time to bring them up to Basic Training speed, or is it best to mold the organization to the workforce?

We have to set priorities, and accept that we cannot do everyting to the standards of those with 100 times our resources and time.  We can't do it all.

I'd rather have us finding all our search targets, accounting for all our funds and equipment, etc etc than worrying about "do we look as good as the Air Force?"

(that doesn't mean we should look like slobs.  But, for example, I don't think killing saluting like CGAUX did would be the death of CAP.  Crashing planes is the death of CAP.  Or at least its members.)

Like the CAP-USAF Commander said a year or so ago "We can do anything.  But we can't do everything.

Some wise man once said "3 hours a week is a heck of a way to run an air force..."

I have a feeling that this is an inside joke that I'm not privy to, probably coming here after it was initially said. However, I like it, it's quite true. And with the permission of the original author, I would like permission to use it in the future.

I wish I could remember where I heard it.  I guess if you pay homage to the unknown originator, he won't be too upset.

[DNall]

"Interchangeable" and "Interoperable" are very different things.
-snip- civilians interoperable...
They are not "interchangeable," though.  There are certain things (like flying fighters) that the civilians aren't going to do.  And surprisingly enough, neither are we.  Nor do we need to , in order to play a larger role.

yeah we're trying to be careful what words we use. Interoperable means you can work WITH them, interchangable means you can replace them. We're talking about replacement in certain jobs on a part-time basis, primarily to cover their short-staff situations & give them a break every so often w/o having to force guard reserve troops to duty away from their jobs & family. The only restriction right now is Congress stating to AF that only non-combat missions will be assigned. That doesn't make us non-combatants though.

In some crazy theoretical funtime dream world... it's possible (legal now but not forseeablly realistic) for a CAP officer to stand watch as a shift or floor supervisor in a combat command & control center making use of force decisions & passing orders to military personnel. There are scenerios where DoD civilians do simliar things, but they are never allowed to be operators, where we are. When on mission, we are pretty much in the military. There's legal distinctions I understand, but there are even larger legal distinctions between CAP member in that capacity to AF civilians.

What I'd like to do, long-term after we get our hosue in order & prove it to everyone, is make some changes in the law to have CAP treated like a federal level SDF. That means you are bound by UCMJ, etc.; your grade is meaningless day-to-day, but when on active duty for mission or augmentation then it counts within restrictions (like how the Army views branches, or a JA officer can't come order a line officer around in an operational capacity). That's WAY down the road though, 10-15-20 years out. That's not why we'd understake these changes, it's just the natural evolution that may occur if the current logic is carried to fruition beyond the goals we're shooting for.

We're going for interoperable now, a high degree of but not complete interchangability in the really long term.

If USAF wanted us all in USAF suits, we'd be wearing them today.  But they don't.  They ALLOW some of us (the thin and clean shaven ones) to wear those uniforms.  And yet, they are more than happy to have the "fat and fuzzies"  supporting USAF missions.  In 25+ years I have never had a USAF evaluator tell me "I sure wish you guys acted more like the Reserves."

Congress wants us to help USAF.  But that doesn't mean they give a crap about what we wear when we're doing it, or what titles we call ourselves.  They only care about the capability we bring to the table.

You are absolutely right that uniforms provide esprit de corps.  CAP started wearing military uniforms with bright red epaulets (now THAT stood out) and no grade system.  Just position titles.  That's our original heritage.  And our "65 years of military tradition" includes the smurf suit, the golf shirt and the blazer!

When a USAF civilian deploys, he may wear BDUs.  And he should, because he's on the team. But they don't pin captain's bars on him.  Even if his job involves supervising Lts and NCOs.  He's a USAF civilian.  And his uniform identifies him as such.

This would be one route for CAP.  Put everyone, regardless of weight or grooming, in USAF suits, but with very specific insignia to make it clear that we were USAF auxiliarist.  Right down to whatever sort of grade structure we feel we need to run a good CAP (flight officers anyone?).  And no pretenses as to where we fit in the United States Air Force.  We are the Auxiliary.  We should be proud of that.  And it might even get us more acceptance.

When I was a young Army Captain just back into CAP, I had a very different mindset.  "Why can't  they all be more like me?"  Humility came quickly, as I figured out how different running an underfunded volunteer organization was from a full time military unit. I saw how talent wasn't tied to grade, and that time spent on perfecting formations and uniform wear might be better spent on training things like search techniques, supply accountability and airmanship.  CAP has a whole bunch of problems with training and accountability, but I'm not sure military officer grade is key to the solution.

Way back during the Cold War, my squadron (cavalry, not CAP) visited communist East Berlin. On thing I noticed there was that almost everyone, from the firemen to the streetsweepers to the postmaster, had very snappy military-style uniforms.  I don't think it helped them a whole lot.

We DID have military grade in the very begining during WWII & ever since. Check your history on that one. We've always been in the AF uniform w/ minor varriations to distinguish us.

The AF never proposed, authorized, or accepted corporate-style uniforms. They introduced ht/wt/grooming standards, CAP complained, CAP was given 20% varriation.... that's it. The logic there indicates if you can't fit it you should have gone at that time. Instead CAP made an end run & created corporate-style business attire that could NOT be associated with any branch of the military & did NOT appear to be a uniform. AF accepted that & moved on even though it is not what they originally wanted.

Congress now... I worked there till this past summer, I pretty much know what most individual members of congress (the house more than the senate & not so much the new ones) thinks about CAP, what motivates that opinion, and what if anything they want to see from CAP & the AF in the future.

They were pissed at CAP in 2000, but cut us some slack while making changes to force us in line. What they've gotten was no change to the pre-2000 situation. That means what they did didn't work, but trust me when I tell you they blame us for continuing to be bad instead of themselves for not fixing it right. No matter what happens now, they will take serious historical massive org altering action one way or the other, I'd guess in 2-3 years unless their hand is forced sooner. That move will be to execute some version of the original bill written by the House Armed Services Cmte in 99 (which is strong direct AF control), or it will be to dissolve CAP. Which way that goes will be based on what happens between now & then to make CAP indispensible to AF & so culturally identified as a part that it would be as though they were losing an arm that can't be replaced.

The only reason CAP exists, at least as far as Congress is concerned, is to help the AF do their job better, faster, cheaper. Right now that's not the case & we're not on track to making it the case.

The uniforms are about cultural identity. You take them away & we're no longer affiliated with the AF. It doesn't matter what anything says on paper or who pays the bills, just the culture. If you're a DoD employee getting a paycheck & working in an AF office everyday then you're living in their culture & accepted after you prove yourself, never on sight. That's a big deal too cause we aren't going to be working with these people on a daily basis. We need to have them see our qualifications & trust that we are competent to give & take orders in defense of the country.

We can be supermen at our current job & that doesn't make AF feel like we're capable of holding the line at home. We do need to fix our performance, and I'd tell you that starts with fixing our people. This is ultimately a military organizations exising to do missions of the AF. We need to get in line or move on.

[ZigZag911]

  If you transfer between services, for that matter a CEO of one Company does not enter as a entry level job - there is a recognition of their service and accomplishments. 

I believe also, however, that if you transfer between services there is some sort of required orientation (accelerated officer basic course?) to the new service.

I'm all for recognizing the grade earned in prior service by military personnel --A FTER they complete initial CAP orientation.

[DNall]

Absolutely. Blue to green, how does that work? I think you do Officer Basic Course which combines your tech school & the equiv of AF's ASBC (notice that doesn't say ACSC, dif courses). Not positive. On the enlisted side there's a Warrior Transition course (2-3 weeks of basic combat training). Coming Army to AF I don't know, I think you just go to tech school.

Not to blow up my argument, but your grade really isn't automatic either. They have actual slots that are open which are auth particular grades & they'll give you the highest one you're qual'd for, but it's possible if no captain slots are open for them to offer you a 1Lt slot & it's up to you to take it or not.

That's not really the thing though. CAP members may be legally civilians, but the org belongs to the AF, and at very least we need to be interoperable dealing them a lot... that means everyone we can get with military experience is good for us, especially when they are senior officers. Certainly those same people do take it as an insult when we demote them, and well they should, espeially since we've established CAP service isn't as challenging as military service. I'm all for a special transition course to refresh their military & comm skills, as well as orient them quite intensively to CAP. I think that's certainly reasonable, and in practical terms I see CAP as just a dif specialty.

[JohnKachenmeister]

When I went to advanced officer school, we had a captain (O-3 type) who appeared to be completely clueless, such that I wondeed how he managed to get through his platoon time.

Being the blunt and tactless fellow that I am, I asked him.

Turns out he was ex-Navy.  Was a Lieutenant (also O-3, for you Doggies and Zoomies) on active duty, and there was no Navy reserve slot near his home.  He found a captain slot in an Army reserve unit.  They took him in at his grade, and required that he complete officer advanced school. 

Once we found that out, we all pitched in and helped him out, rather than just giving him "What the heck???" looks when he asked dumb questions and had no idea how to write an operations order.

Sort of like the level of understanding you reach when your least-productive co-worker shows you his medal from the Special Olympics.

[Dragoon]

yeah we're trying to be careful what words we use. Interoperable means you can work WITH them, interchangable means you can replace them. We're talking about replacement in certain jobs on a part-time basis, primarily to cover their short-staff situations & give them a break every so often w/o having to force guard reserve troops to duty away from their jobs & family. The only restriction right now is Congress stating to AF that only non-combat missions will be assigned. That doesn't make us non-combatants though.

I get the difference and in fact pointed it out in my previous message.  I think "interchangeable" is not anywhere near as critical as "interoperable."  I don't see USAF clamouring for plus ups from CAP to fill USAF jobs.  That's what Reserve Component Individual Mobilization Augmentees are for.   Not that it can't happen on a limited basis (the handful of chaplains, for example).   But you don't need officer grade to be a Chaplain.  Note that there are military and USAF civilian doctors working side by side in USAF clinics.  No problem at all. 

But shouldn't we worry most about doing those things that USAF can't do - like fly light planes in support of their missions - than duplicating functions they can do and hope the need us to do them?

There are scenerios where DoD civilians do simliar things, but they are never allowed to be operators, where we are. When on mission, we are pretty much in the military. There's legal distinctions I understand, but there are even larger legal distinctions between CAP member in that capacity to AF civilians.

First, you have to give a clear definition of "Operator"

Second, I don't believe when on a mission we are pretty much "in the military."  If we were, UCMJ would apply, we could be deployed to combat zones, etc. etc..  We are an "instrumentality of the Air Force."  Which ain't the same thing.

We're going for interoperable now, a high degree of but not complete interchangability in the really long term.

I'm with you on the interoperable.  I haven't yet seen the case made for interchageable.  By "the case" I mean "describe the need and justify the pain needed to fill it.

If we raise the standards too high in the interest of interchangeablility, we'll have to kick out some of the same members who joined us because they couldn't meet the standards to join the actual military.[/quote]

We DID have military grade in the very begining during WWII & ever since. Check your history on that one. We've always been in the AF uniform w/ minor varriations to distinguish us. .

Sorry, you're mistaken.  This was briefed to the National Board by the CAP National Historian Col Leonard A. Blascovich, a few years back when they were discussing changes to the rank structure..  Drop him a line at len_b@ix.netcom.com.  CAP did not always have grade insignia.

The only reason CAP exists, at least as far as Congress is concerned, is to help the AF do their job better, faster, cheaper. Right now that's not the case & we're not on track to making it the case.

Yup, as I stated, Congress only cares about the capability we bring to the table.  They don't care if we call ourselves "Majors" or "Grand Poobahs."

The uniforms are about cultural identity. You take them away & we're no longer affiliated with the AF. It doesn't matter what anything says on paper or who pays the bills, just the culture.

I'm a big fan of USAF uniforms - USAF civilians wear 'em to.  We are affiliated, and showing that is a good thing.  I'm just not sure trying to turn us into "real USAF officers" is mission essential.

[Dragoon]

That's not really the thing though. CAP members may be legally civilians, but the org belongs to the AF, and at very least we need to be interoperable dealing them a lot... that means everyone we can get with military experience is good for us, especially when they are senior officers. Certainly those same people do take it as an insult when we demote them, and well they should, espeially since we've established CAP service isn't as challenging as military service. I'm all for a special transition course to refresh their military & comm skills, as well as orient them quite intensively to CAP. I think that's certainly reasonable, and in practical terms I see CAP as just a dif specialty.

I would agree that if someone tells a Lt Col that "sorry, you can't be a Lt Col here, you're just a 2d Lt", he's gonna get a little huffy.

But....truthfully, the guy isn't going into a Lt Col's job, so there is some validity to making him start where he's going to work.  And take the time to truly understand CAP.

One way to eliminate the ego thing is to say, "We don't have commissioned grades in CAP.  We use a flight officer system, which is unique to us, and is recognized by USAF for auxiliarists.  Because of your military experience, which we value, you will start as an FO-2 rather than an FO-1.  Plus, you will recieve waivers for several CAP schools based on your military education.  And if you choose to pursue CAP training and serve in positions of increased responsibility, you will quickly move up through the ranks.

No muss, no fuss.  Since it ain't eh same thing, no egos are hurt.  USAF knows who we are, doesn't attempt to confuse (or compare) us with their warfighting folks, and yet we are on the team and in uniform.

[Dragoon]

When I went to advanced officer school, we had a captain (O-3 type) who appeared to be completely clueless, such that I wondeed how he managed to get through his platoon time.

Being the blunt and tactless fellow that I am, I asked him.

Turns out he was ex-Navy.  Was a Lieutenant (also O-3, for you Doggies and Zoomies) on active duty, and there was no Navy reserve slot near his home.  He found a captain slot in an Army reserve unit.  They took him in at his grade, and required that he complete officer advanced school. 

Once we found that out, we all pitched in and helped him out, rather than just giving him "What the heck???" looks when he asked dumb questions and had no idea how to write an operations order.

Sort of like the level of understanding you reach when your least-productive co-worker shows you his medal from the Special Olympics.

Happily they don't do that these days unless the guy has the right skill set, like transferring a doctor.

[ZigZag911]

When I went to advanced officer school, we had a captain (O-3 type) who appeared to be completely clueless, such that I wondeed how he managed to get through his platoon time.

Being the blunt and tactless fellow that I am, I asked him.

Turns out he was ex-Navy.  Was a Lieutenant (also O-3, for you Doggies and Zoomies) on active duty, and there was no Navy reserve slot near his home.  He found a captain slot in an Army reserve unit.  They took him in at his grade, and required that he complete officer advanced school. 

Once we found that out, we all pitched in and helped him out, rather than just giving him "What the heck???" looks when he asked dumb questions and had no idea how to write an operations order.

Sort of like the level of understanding you reach when your least-productive co-worker shows you his medal from the Special Olympics.

Happily they don't do that these days unless the guy has the right skill set, like transferring a doctor.

Oh yeah??  Ever heard of the "Blue to Green" program?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Don't know, Dragoon.  probably a function of who they need when and where.  Rather than bring in an O-3 Water Lily, I would think that there are some hungry 1LT's out there.

But... I actually LIKE your idea about flight officer rank for everyone.  I'd carry it one step farther, since the USAF does not avail itself of warrants.  I would recommend that SECAF issue warrants to CAP officers, upon qualification.

We already have 5 warrant grades, and pay is not an issue, since we don't get paid anyway.  This would resolve a lot of issues, including the status of our officers.  We would (Regardless of prior service grade) rank above enlisted airmen, but below all AF commissioned officers.  Putting a program such as that together with the enlisted program for the "Soccer Mom" members and career NCO's would solve a whole bunch of CAP image issues with the Air Force, and open the way to some serious augmentation missions.

Your plan merits serious discussion, Dragoon.  I think its a good idea.

And all this time I thought you Cav. guys were sort of like Marines with GED's!

[ZigZag911]

.
[/quote]

One way to eliminate the ego thing is to say, "We don't have commissioned grades in CAP.  We use a flight officer system, which is unique to us, and is recognized by USAF for auxiliarists.  Because of your military experience, which we value, you will start as an FO-2 rather than an FO-1.  Plus, you will recieve waivers for several CAP schools based on your military education.  And if you choose to pursue CAP training and serve in positions of increased responsibility, you will quickly move up through the ranks.

No muss, no fuss.  Since it ain't eh same thing, no egos are hurt.  USAF knows who we are, doesn't attempt to confuse (or compare) us with their warfighting folks, and yet we are on the team and in uniform.
[/quote]

Question: do we still have people pinning on officer rank (although now 'flight officer 1' rather than 2 Lt) in a mere six months?

Other than that, this sounds feasible...even if we rolled all current personnel into equivalent FO level.

[DeputyDog]

But... I actually LIKE your idea about flight officer rank for everyone.  I'd carry it one step farther, since the USAF does not avail itself of warrants.  I would recommend that SECAF issue warrants to CAP officers, upon qualification.

That sounds like a good idea. Any further thoughts on this?

[JohnKachenmeister]

We will still need to proceed with the OTS program for pre-warrant training, and we could fit our existing professional development system into the 5 warrant grades.  (2nd Lt. through Lt. Col. -- 5 grades.  W-1 through W-5 -- 5 grades.  Coincidence?  I think not!)

Issuing warrants would also give SECAF additional control over CAP, and provide for an official status when working for and with the Air Force.

I would offer the "Soccer Mom" members enlisted rank status, Airman Basic through Senior Airman, with very light requirements to serve as drivers, clerks, cooks, and other stuff around the local unit.  I would also continue to give NCO's the option of serving at their highest former rank.

[Dragoon]

Let me give you an old suggestion that's been kicked around on several boards.

Set up a 5 step "flight officer" (or perhaps warrant officer) program.  We'll call the grades FO-1 through FO-5.  Pick whatever titles make you happy.

These become your permanent grade.

Level of the Senior Member Program = your grade.  Finish Level 1 - you get FO-1.  Finish your Certificate of Proficiency (Level 2), get FO-2.  Etc. Etc.

Now, certain jobs in 20-1 would be coded for a maximum commissioned officer grade.  For example, Squadron CC's would max out as  majors, Deputy Squadron CC's and a few key staff officers as captains, with a smattering of 1st and 2nd Lt Billets.  Group and Wing get the Higher Grades.

Now here's where the magic occurs.  Commissioned grade is temporary, and is based on the the lower of:

1.  The max commissioned grade of the position you are serving in.

and

2. The level of the senior memer program you've completed.


For example:

A relatively new member (FO-2) gets thrust into command of a squadron.  The position is coded for up to a major (0-4).  But he's only completed level 2.  So he only gets to wear 1st Lt bars (0-2).  If he completes Levels 3 and 4, he can now wear major's oak leaves (0-4).

If that same person, now a level 4 qualified  squadron commander wearing Major (O-4) oak leaves, decides he wants to step down and just be an observer for a while, with no staff job, he reverts to FO-4)

An FO-5 decides to take the Wing job of Stan/Eval, which is coded for a Major (0-4).  Even though he's a level 5 guy, the max of the slot is 0-4, so that's what he wears.  If he later takes over as the Chief of Operations (coded for an 0-5, he now is "promoted" to Lt Col)

When he goes back to a squadron to be an Aerospace Ed Officer (coded for an 0-2), he reverts to 1st Lt.




ONE CAVEAT - to keep folks from buying lots of mess dress shoulder boards, for social occasions (like Dining's In) the member may wear the grade insignia of the highest grade ever worn, along with a pocket badge identifying the person as a "former officer' (sort of like what CGAUX does)

Advantages -

1.  This system rewards professional development for all members, even those not in any position. But it gives the best rewards to those who compete all training AND work in the tough jobs at the high levels.

2. It gives commanders a powerful accountability tool - if you don't do a good job, I replace you and you give back your cool rank.

3.  It limits commissioned rank to those currently serving as leaders and staff officers in the organization.


Disadvantages

1.  There would still be some grade inversion - if a Level 1 person was a squadron Commander, he could be a 2d Lt in charge of some Captains.  But there will be much less of this than there is today.

2.  Ego - some folks have a problem accepting a grade commensurate with their low level of contribution, and will want to keep the oak leaves that they've "earned" by completing some weekend courses that no one ever fails.

[Dragoon]

And all this time I thought you Cav. guys were sort of like Marines with GED's!

If you ain't Cav, you ain't sh**t.

Conversely if you are Cav,........

[Hawk200]

But... I actually LIKE your idea about flight officer rank for everyone.  I'd carry it one step farther, since the USAF does not avail itself of warrants.  I would recommend that SECAF issue warrants to CAP officers, upon qualification.

That sounds like a good idea. Any further thoughts on this?

I don't think the AF would go for this. They don't have warrants, what reason would they want to do it for CAP? You would be adding a tracking system for a rank structure that doesn't exist in the AF.

[Dragoon]

But... I actually LIKE your idea about flight officer rank for everyone.  I'd carry it one step farther, since the USAF does not avail itself of warrants.  I would recommend that SECAF issue warrants to CAP officers, upon qualification.

That sounds like a good idea. Any further thoughts on this?

I don't think the AF would go for this. They don't have warrants, what reason would they want to do it for CAP? You would be adding a tracking system for a rank structure that doesn't exist in the AF.

I don't think they'd go for warrants, because warrant bars have a very specific meaning in the military (just like oak leaves and stripes).  I DO think they'd go for something uniquely CAP (like flight officer) as it would eliminate confusion between their officers and ours, and make it abundantly clear that they are different, and one is not subordinate to the other.  Which is the way things really work anyway.

[DNall]

When I went to advanced officer school, we had a captain (O-3 type) who appeared to be completely clueless, such that I wondeed how he managed to get through his platoon time.

Being the blunt and tactless fellow that I am, I asked him.

Turns out he was ex-Navy.  Was a Lieutenant (also O-3, for you Doggies and Zoomies) on active duty, and there was no Navy reserve slot near his home.  He found a captain slot in an Army reserve unit.  They took him in at his grade, and required that he complete officer advanced school. 

Once we found that out, we all pitched in and helped him out, rather than just giving him "What the heck???" looks when he asked dumb questions and had no idea how to write an operations order.

Sort of like the level of understanding you reach when your least-productive co-worker shows you his medal from the Special Olympics.

Happily they don't do that these days unless the guy has the right skill set, like transferring a doctor.

Oh yeah??  Ever heard of the "Blue to Green" program?

Not jsut that, people move branches/specialties all the time inside a service, and people move between services quite a lot. Plus there's the guard. How many Guard Captains you think started in another service. You know I was watching a program last night about a Stryker Company in Iraq & they interviewed the Co XO extensively. He was wearing a CIB in top, SEAL & Navy para wings over his Army tape, then halo down on the pocket, and this was an active duty unit (B 5/20 2ID). That's going to get you some looks.

[DNall]

Have to get back to this thread later, gotta run... but, SECAF can't issue warrants for CAP, not real ones anyway. Looking at teh success fo teh Army program, AF wanted to use WOs, at least in the helo community & some other aircrew & specialized positions, but Congress said they'd have to give up officer slots to do it & that just don't fly. In other words, they can't give you a real warrant w/o giving up a 2Lt slot. That may not be hard & fast, I think WO1 gets a "warrant" & doesn't count against the Army total, but CWO2 & up get a "commission" but don't quote me on that. I can tell you in real-time, but that may be a little late for this discussion.

In a practical sense it doesn't matter what sort of grade system we use or if we wear uniforms or are in any other way associate ourselve w/ the military. However, you well know it generates further division from the AF when we don't follow their lead, and it has caused extensive problems in the past. I thnk the fundamental structure is sound, just the standards are not.

[Hawk200]

...Looking at teh success fo teh Army program, AF wanted to use WOs, at least in the helo community & some other aircrew & specialized positions, but Congress said they'd have to give up officer slots to do it & that just don't fly. In other words, they can't give you a real warrant w/o giving up a 2Lt slot. That may not be hard & fast, I think WO1 gets a "warrant" & doesn't count against the Army total, but CWO2 & up get a "commission" but don't quote me on that.

The ironic thing is that giving up those officer positions, and converting to warrant would save a load of money.

[RiverAux]

no grade system.  Just position titles

That is incorrect.  CAP was using grade titles right from the beginning.  I've got notes on CAP grades being used in early 1942. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

...Looking at teh success fo teh Army program, AF wanted to use WOs, at least in the helo community & some other aircrew & specialized positions, but Congress said they'd have to give up officer slots to do it & that just don't fly. In other words, they can't give you a real warrant w/o giving up a 2Lt slot. That may not be hard & fast, I think WO1 gets a "warrant" & doesn't count against the Army total, but CWO2 & up get a "commission" but don't quote me on that.

The ironic thing is that giving up those officer positions, and converting to warrant would save a load of money.

Initially, yes.  But when a service gets a lieutenant, they get a management trainee.  Eventually, he will fly less and spend more time in command and staff positions making things run right so a new batch of lieutenants and captains get what they need to put ordnance on target.  A warrant officer is a technician.  He just flies the plane.  You see warrant 2's and above in command slots within their specialty, but never higher than company level.  And NEVER out of their specialty.

My officer specialty was Military Police, but I had assignments in Public Affairs, and as an S-2 of an Engineer battalion.  Warrants can't be used that way.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Have to get back to this thread later, gotta run... but, SECAF can't issue warrants for CAP, not real ones anyway. Looking at teh success fo teh Army program, AF wanted to use WOs, at least in the helo community & some other aircrew & specialized positions, but Congress said they'd have to give up officer slots to do it & that just don't fly. In other words, they can't give you a real warrant w/o giving up a 2Lt slot. That may not be hard & fast, I think WO1 gets a "warrant" & doesn't count against the Army total, but CWO2 & up get a "commission" but don't quote me on that. I can tell you in real-time, but that may be a little late for this discussion.

In a practical sense it doesn't matter what sort of grade system we use or if we wear uniforms or are in any other way associate ourselve w/ the military. However, you well know it generates further division from the AF when we don't follow their lead, and it has caused extensive problems in the past. I thnk the fundamental structure is sound, just the standards are not.

I'm not sure if that issue with the warrants would be operative or not.  Since we are not on the payroll, I don't think we would count against the end strength of the Air Force.  Sort of like my commission.  I still hold a commission, but since I am in the Retired Reserve, it does not count against the end strength of the Army.  If I am called back to active duty, however, it would.  I probably will be called back to active duty... as soon as the Army needs an MP officer to manage security for Elvis Presley's Live USO Tour.

[BillB]

Kach,  I hate to break it to you, but there won't be an Elvis Tour. He's to flabby to go on stage. I saw him last week and he's just bored stiff.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, I'm standing by for the call anyway.

[Dragoon]

Not jsut that, people move branches/specialties all the time inside a service, and people move between services quite a lot. Plus there's the guard. How many Guard Captains you think started in another service. You know I was watching a program last night about a Stryker Company in Iraq & they interviewed the Co XO extensively. He was wearing a CIB in top, SEAL & Navy para wings over his Army tape, then halo down on the pocket, and this was an active duty unit (B 5/20 2ID). That's going to get you some looks.

10 bucks says he was enlisted navy and then got his commission in the Army.  Happens all the time. It's a fresh start, not a transfer at same grade.

The current blue to green program isn't taking officers, to my knowlege. 

[Dragoon]

My guess is that if the Service Secretary wanted to, he could issue warrants to anyone he wanted.  They wouldn't count against any kind of quota unless they were occupying some kind of paid billet.

Besides the retired reserve, we've also got the Active Guard and Reserve program, which has no quotas.  The service can have as many of those as it's willing to pay for each year.  But if the money runs out, they all go home to momma as unpaid, non-drilling reservists.

I just can't see a reason WHY the SECAF would issue Warrants to CAPers, unless he wants to pay them. Not that he couldn't - I just can't figure out why he'd want to.

He'd certainly set the standards at least as high as for other Warrants Officers in his service (which means USAF would have no clue how to do it...)

[sandman]

Not jsut that, people move branches/specialties all the time inside a service, and people move between services quite a lot. Plus there's the guard. How many Guard Captains you think started in another service. You know I was watching a program last night about a Stryker Company in Iraq & they interviewed the Co XO extensively. He was wearing a CIB in top, SEAL & Navy para wings over his Army tape, then halo down on the pocket, and this was an active duty unit (B 5/20 2ID). That's going to get you some looks.

10 bucks says he was enlisted navy and then got his commission in the Army.  Happens all the time. It's a fresh start, not a transfer at same grade.

The current blue to green program isn't taking officers, to my knowlege. 

They are taking officers (some bonuses too) looking into it...

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure about how this got around to making CAP members into AF warrant officers..... seems like this would go better in one of the rank-specific threads. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree that I think SECAF could issue warrants against unpaid slots.  As for why he would, I was looking ahead at some of the missions to augment the Air Force, and as another way that SECAF could excercise control over CAP.  The Air Force would then have some authority to investigate wrongdoing directly, and take independent action against offending officers.

[DNall]

That would still put you over AF enlisted personnel. how you swing that w/o a mutiny? If I can say " this guy meets exactly the same requirements as an AF officer of that grade, boards & the whole bit, been in the same period of time, " that might get people to go along with it AFTER you've proven yourself, but but you got big big problems up to there.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dennis:

I realize that.  But at some point it has to be considered if we are going to assume duties in augmentation of the USAF.  For example, if we have an RN, she has to be able to order Medical Airman Snuffy to prepare Staff Sergeant Jones for his surgery.  A lot can be accomplished by what is called "Referent Power," knowing more about the task than your subordinates, but at some point there must be some legal and positional power there as well.   

Also, I'm not sure what would happen to people who hold military commissions concurrent with CAP membership.

[Dragoon]

Using medical is a good example for my favorite analogy.  If you go in to a military hospital stateside you will see somecivilian doctors and nurses giving direction to military orderlies.  It's a mixed force, and there are no problems.

The boss just sets up who's in charge of who, and everyone abides by it.  No need to give the civilian docs oak leaves.

I absolutly agree that if you give me general's stars, I'll get more instant compliance with my requests.  But I doubt anyone's gonna give them to me!   

[DNall]

Look... yeah that's a doctor giving orders to an orderly, who cares which one's in the military. Now put an off the street w/ no degree volunteer in a joint operations center & try to get a 20 year vetran NCO to follow their orders. Good freakin luck.

It isn't the officer insignia that gives you authority, it's an institutional reputation of competence & leadership. now, you're putting a CAP member in a place where they got not legal authority over anyone nut that given by the person that assigned them there & left the room right after. CAP with a reputation of exactly the opposite of competence - more like truck driver off the street thinks he's good enough to command my left.. uh foot, yeah we'll go with foot.

No, the way to gain acceptance is to meet the accepted standards. WAIT, reeread that sentence... the way to gain acceptance is to meet the accepted standards - got it? Okay, that's what we're going for. Step up to THEIR standards to be able to play in THEIR world. We're earning a level of institutional trust for the least among us that the AF believes is good enough to put us on the line defedning the country in place of them. Can we meet that now? Not in one little remote chance in hell!!! But, we can change that if we set our mind to it.

Also, you're not listening when I tell you Congress is willing to find only an AF Aux version of CAP that uses a military format & binds together every federal mission we can stretch ES to mean while carrying cadet programs & AE in service of the AF. They look at us as a coupon in paying for the AF. Outside that scenerio they refuse to give us a dime! And, that's final. If you're having trouble understanding that, please talk to your congressman about their views & those of others. It's a pretty widely held opinion & will carry the day, I assure you.

[Dragoon]

Look... yeah that's a doctor giving orders to an orderly, who cares which one's in the military. Now put an off the street w/ no degree volunteer in a joint operations center & try to get a 20 year vetran NCO to follow their orders. Good freakin luck.

It isn't the officer insignia that gives you authority, it's an institutional reputation of competence & leadership. now, you're putting a CAP member in a place where they got not legal authority over anyone nut that given by the person that assigned them there & left the room right after. CAP with a reputation of exactly the opposite of competence - more like truck driver off the street thinks he's good enough to command my left.. uh foot, yeah we'll go with foot.

No, the way to gain acceptance is to meet the accepted standards. WAIT, reeread that sentence... the way to gain acceptance is to meet the accepted standards - got it? Okay, that's what we're going for. Step up to THEIR standards to be able to play in THEIR world. We're earning a level of institutional trust for the least among us that the AF believes is good enough to put us on the line defedning the country in place of them. Can we meet that now? Not in one little remote chance in hell!!! But, we can change that if we set our mind to it.

There's a big difference between "meeting their standards" and "dressing like them."

We shouldn't put a guy into a job that he doesn't meet the standards for.  The civilian doctor, for example, is respected for his skills.  So he doesn't need oak leaves.

And we don't either.  We need to meet standards and let people know it.

We are NEVER going to meet the true standards for a line USAF officer.  Even if we went to all the schools.  Because, quite simply, part of those standards involve USAF experience.  The average USAF Lt Col has in excess of 16 years of USAF experience, either active or reserve.  Even if we set our timeline the same, our CAP Lt Col would have 16 years of CAP experience, not USAF experience.  It ain't the same, therefore HE aint the same.  He doesn't meet the expected standard.

But...he could be trained to do a given JOB to USAF standards.  Without the trappings of grade.

Also, you're not listening when I tell you Congress is willing to find only an AF Aux version of CAP that uses a military format & binds together every federal mission we can stretch ES to mean while carrying cadet programs & AE in service of the AF. They look at us as a coupon in paying for the AF. Outside that scenerio they refuse to give us a dime! And, that's final. If you're having trouble understanding that, please talk to your congressman about their views & those of others. It's a pretty widely held opinion & will carry the day, I assure you.

You're right.  I absolutely refute the fact that Congress wants a CAP that looks exactly like USAF.  I really don't think they care.

I don't think Congress wants us to produce officers interchangeable with USAF.

I don't think Congress cares if we wear golf shirts or BDUs, as long as we get the mission done.

You've provided no evidence to the contrary.  I've never heard a Congressman speak publically on any of the assertions above.  I certainly have read nothing like that in the Congressional register.

They want us to spend their money wisely and be effective.  If they wanted more than that, it would be in the law.  Or at the very least we'd be answering a bunch of Congressional Inquiries on why we don't have higher training standards for our officers.  Which, to my knowledge, has never happened.

If you've got facts the contrary, lay 'em on the table.