Lets make all CAP senior members follow the same program

[JeffDG]

What skill does an A&P bring (anymore?) CMX means no one is working on the airplanes anymore.

You do realize that planes sometimes break at places other than when they are in for routine maintenance, right?  Right handy to have someone who can legally look at the bird, make a quick adjustment, and allow us to continue.

[arajca]

What skill does an A&P bring (anymore?) CMX means no one is working on the airplanes anymore.

You do realize that planes sometimes break at places other than when they are in for routine maintenance, right?  Right handy to have someone who can legally look at the bird, make a quick adjustment, and allow us to continue.

That'd be fine, except CAP does not allow members to work on CAP aircraft, unless they're in the employ of an aircraft shop and working as the shop employee, not a CAP volunteer. In part, I believe, due to the potential liability issues.

[CAP_truth]

That's one of those CAP urban legends that I just don't think is based in fact.  We have had CAP officers trolling for Salutes...would that be justification to eliminate officer grade?  If that were the case that would have been a major knee jerk reaction.

  That is fact I knew the squadron commander and the senior member involved.

[Hardshell Clam]

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

[RogueLeader]

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Not the question at hand.
Grade insignia is not being discussed as whether they should do the PD to the level that they are promoted.

[Hardshell Clam]

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Not the question at hand.
Grade insignia is not being discussed as whether they should do the PD to the level that they are promoted.

Strange, you would make this remark even though some other posts are further off topic then I?

[Private Investigator]

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

+1

I agree, that would make sense. 

[lordmonar]

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

Not the question at hand.
Grade insignia is not being discussed as whether they should do the PD to the level that they are promoted.

Actually, what is being discussed is doing away with all advanced promotions.

[TCMajor]

I should think that the CAP Seniors would do just fine ranking like the CG Aux.

+1

I agree, that would make sense.

I concur with this also, including the elimination of referring to someone using the military rank structure.  I would instead refer to them based on the position they hold as a member of staff or command in the organization.  We are actually already doing this, as people here are given authority based on position rather than rank.  I have several Lt Cols in my squadron and before I took over it was commanded by a 1st Lt who made Capt. before changing out.  Further, in our organization a 19-yo cadet can run a ground team that has any level of senior members on it regardless of their rank.  I also believe we should adopt their method for the rank devices and place an "A" in the middle so as to clearly designate to those poor active duty Air Force types that we are not military officers.  Do this, then tie PD directly to positions that you can hold in the organization and you have the start of something.  Unfortunately, without enforcement all you will have is change.  As my father used to say "All change is not progress, and all progress is not forward."  I am sure he took that from somebody.  Just a note, I am not a member of the USCG (aux) and I have no dog in the hunt there. 

Yes, as stated earlier in these posts by some, I am one of those hated (sarcasm here) retired military officers that came in with advanced standing.  I came here in June of '10 and took command of a squadron 9 months later.  I have completed all PD training up through level III including TLC and UCC.  I did receive PME for RSC and NSC based on attendance at US Army Combined Logistics Officer Advanced Course and the Command and General Staff College.  Even with PMS, I still intend to attend the National AEO course.  At this time the only thing left for me to finish leveling up is to pick up my Senior and Master ratings in Cadet Programs and Aerospace.  Senior ratings will come in February.  I presently am rated as a Ground Team Leader and Mission Observer and participate in most but not all SAREXs and real world missions.  I have served on staff at Florida Encampment over the Christmas Holiday and just recently commanded the NH Wing NCO Academy over this past Christmas Holiday.   So why do I share this?  I am sharing this because you can't generalize about people.  In my short time here, the people that throw rank around most are the ones who never served in the military.  Is that everyone? No. Do I group them together as bad people for it? No.  Each individual deserves the opportunity to prove themselves and fix themselves along the way without being grouped into a category.

(Warning for all those who would take the following paragraph seriously DON'T)

For all the arguments about the various advance appointments, no one wants to touch the one for former cadets.  I can easily make a simple statement about that too.  No other officer producing cadet program in existence gives its graduates advanced rank based on how far they progressed in the cadet rank structure.  I personally see our Cadet program as the Civil Air Patrol Cadet program and for me it exists to create Civil Air Patrol Officers. So why would I give a graduate of that program advanced standing just for graduating?  No worries, I am not advocating a change here, because I personally can justify the arguments and have no issues with the present situation.  I am just throwing the concept out there so show how dangerous it is to group people into a category.  I will just ask one question.  Have you ever met a cadet that received advanced standing the probably should not have?  If you did the no cadet should get advanced standing.  Do you see how stupid the argument is?

While it is not germane to this discussion, I have to bring this up because it has been brought up here earlier.  Let me address the subject of UCMJ in the military.  Any officer or military leader that uses UCMJ or the threat of it to accomplish a mission is not a leader; they are a bully and have no place in this organization or the military.  I would not give the time of day to that type of so called leader.  In fact, Army commanders are rated adversely based on how many Article 15s they hand out. It is a reportable item on their QTB.  The more you hand out the less successful your command was.  The application of UCMJ is a direct measure of the command environment and unit moral.  Yes, sometimes it has to be done for blatant offenders, but it is not a tool to make people do things.   While some may, the good ones don't.  In 22-years in service I never uttered the words "do this or else".  So don't think that we go around waving the UCMJ stick around in order to get things done, because quite simply, you are wrong!  In 24-months in command I gave only one Article-15 and that was for a drug offense.  I personally talk to every military and former military member before they come into our organization.  Are there those that I will not invite in?  Absolutely!  Just like anybody, they have to be screened individually. 

I apologize for being long winded.

[jsmcgary]

+1 on TCMajor

Having worked very closely with Major Harbison I give a great deal of weight to his arguments.

As a former cadet who benefited from advanced grade once I completed the CP and transitioned to Senior I do not feel any burning need for the system. It would be of much more benefit to acknowledge what training I received as a cadet and check of many more PD boxes than I did. Now I transitioned to senior over eight years ago now and many changes have been made in that time to address this very issue (PD equiv.). My personal feeling is that no matter why you are getting an advanced grade (former cadet, retired military, pilot, etc) you should have to go through a review process (read BOR) before you are allowed to pin on an advanced grade. You need to show your benefit to the organization.

I have found that grade means little in CAP. What seems to matter a great deal is your actual contributions to the organizations. Yet we seem to spend (waste) a large amount of time, energy, and effort on non-issues like this. Let's spend more time doing the jobs we volunteered to do, and less about what doo-hikky you get to put on your shoulder or chest. It's not like special appointments make any more money than I do.

I think the solution to this "problem" is not eliminating the system; but instead having a far more robust orientation and "basic" training phase for new seniors before they pin on advanced grade.

[MIKE]

Actually the USCGAUX system has the same issues as CAP... Yes, the "rank" insignia is position based but I still have members of my flotilla who "out-rank" me as a Flotilla Vice Commander because they hold or held positions at the division or district level, and one case of a member who is an Academy Admissions Partner... so he holds advanced "rank" based on this alone.  Everybody is a member of a Flotilla (Squadron), even while holding positions at the Division (Group), District (Region) or National level.  A lot of times concurrently.

This also means you could have a brand new member pin on oak leaves or eagles because they took X position.

The Auxiliary also changed some position titles to better match the insignia.  Division Commanders used to be called Division Captains but wear silver oak leaves.... Can't count how many times I've heard people be called Commander or Captain within the Auxiliary.

[Ned]

  I would instead refer to them based on the position they hold as a member of staff or command in the organization. 

I could really get into that.  I think the title "Governor" has kinda nice ring to it.     As in, "Top of the morning, Guv-na."   

No other officer producing cadet program in existence gives its graduates advanced rank based on how far they progressed in the cadet rank structure. 

It sounds like our backgrounds may have some similarities.  I am retired Army Guard Infantry officer.  But I need to gently non-concur with this statement.  When I completed ROTC, based on my class standing alone - my "progress in the cadet program", if you will" - I was offered an RA commission in lieu of the AR commission I had applied for.  As you know, an RA commission would have led to a substantial advantage in securing schools and assignments.  They offerred it again after OBC, but I declined both times.

Similarly, I know through the top graduates of each of the academies receive preference for graduate studies, advance training, assignments ,etc.  All of which will but them ahead of the graduates who finished lower in the order of merit.  Who made "less progress" in their cadet programs.

But more importantly, advanced cadets have skills and abilities that directly contribute to one of our Congressionally-mandated missions - our successful cadet program.  Just as CFIs and A & Ps can contribute directly to our aviation missions, so too can we immediately employ the skills of adanced cadets in our CP.  I only wish we could retain more of our former cadets to work with our current cadets.

[Eclipse]

...so too can we immediately employ the skills of adanced cadets in our CP.  I only wish we could retain more of our former cadets to work with our current cadets.

I wish that were true, but the realities of attitude and "kids" precludes all but the top-top but being able to make the senior transition
and immediately work with cadets who were their recent peers.  In most cases you get "fire-and-brimstone" about fixing something
or other specific that they personally didn't like in the program coupled with the "unless you were a cadet you just can't understand"
nonsense and cause more trouble than good.

I agree with the substantial number of experienced leaders in CAP who believe cadets should be mandated  to be separated from their
peers for a year or two and get the "senior experience" before being put back into positions of leadership in the cadet structure.

[TCMajor]

Ned,
 
  And a pleasant good day to you too Guv-na..lol

   Yes, you are correct in the Regular Army stuff.  I did take the RA route myself, initially as a Warrant Officer and then as a Commissioned Officer.  As a Warrant there were definite advantages to being RA, although I am not sure they exist anymore.  My point with the cadet piece was to emphasize the need to evaluate the individual rather than the source of the appointment. I in no way shape or form wish to alter any of our methods of appointment.  I am one of the solid no votes.  I would love a chance to chat Army junk with you sometime.   While not in the Guard, as a Logie we had very strong ties with the Guard and I have the highest respect for their work.  My oldest son was just accepted into Norwich and he is looking at the Infantry Branch, possibly Ranger.  Doesn't want to be a loggie.  I have no idea why, maybe it is the fact that i missed his first five years of life due to deployments.  Anyway, there is a lot of road between here and there so we will see.

 
Kevin

[TCMajor]

...so too can we immediately employ the skills of adanced cadets in our CP.  I only wish we could retain more of our former cadets to work with our current cadets.

I agree with the substantial number of experienced leaders in CAP who believe cadets should be mandated  to be separated from their
peers for a year or two and get the "senior experience" before being put back into positions of leadership in the cadet structure.

+1

Probably more like two to three years would work.  Get them out in the rest of the organization to see how the dark side functions.

[Ned]

I wish that were true, but the realities of attitude and "kids" precludes all but the top-top but being able to make the senior transition
and immediately work with cadets who were their recent peers.  In most cases you get "fire-and-brimstone" about fixing something
or other specific that they personally didn't like in the program coupled with the "unless you were a cadet you just can't understand"
nonsense and cause more trouble than good.

I agree with the substantial number of experienced leaders in CAP who believe cadets should be mandated  to be separated from their
peers for a year or two and get the "senior experience" before being put back into positions of leadership in the cadet structure.

I certainly understand that that is the "convential wisdom," and has been for a long time.

But in most cases, I disagree.  While I don't want to understate the challenge, guiding and mentoring former cadets to work with younger cadets is a leadership issue for the seniors (DCC, etc) leading the former cadet, and most decidedly not official or unofficial CAP doctrine.

First, the number of 18-21 year old cadets is relatively small.  Less than 10%.  The average age for a cadet is under 15.  So as a practical matter, a 19-22 year old former cadet senior member has a pretty small "peer group" problem.  Nearly 95% of the cadet population will be significantly younger than a 20 year old former cadet.

Second, if the cadet loves and enjoys the CP, it defies good leadership to take them away from the mission critical job skills and put them into an assignment that they did not seek, are unprepared for, and do not enjoy.  That makes no more sense that telling a CFI who enjoys her work that she not only cannot fly, but is stuck as the Logistics Officer.  "And oh, by the way, we have a lot of Reports of Survey that are overdue, and Group is really angry at us.  Ready, go . . . "  And then we wonder why more former cadets do not remain as seniors.

We both know that all of our volunteers are individuals, and some individuals may need some time away from CP to grow and be ready to engage with out cadets.  That's why we have experienced leaders at the squadron - to treat former cadets as the highly skilled seniors that they are, and guide and mentor them while they apply their desparately needed skills to CP.

But having any sort of formal or informal "rule" that former cadets have to do something else for a period of years is most decidedly NOT doctrine, and is improper.

[Chappie]

From the Chaplain side of the house ... the professional appointment is necessary due to our MOA with the USAF Chaplain Corps.  So the grade bestowed at appointment is based on the academic standing/ecclessiastical endorsement required.  CAP does offer a waiver for Chaplain applicants who do not have the 72 hour Master's Degree required for an USAF Chaplain applicant but has 5 years of documented Pastoral Experience.  There was a time when promotions were based on TIG -- in other words, breathing in and out.  Chaplains were not required to go past Level 1 for promotions.   That changed in 2007 when the SLS/CLC waiver was dropped and Chaplains are required to complete the SLS/CLC requirement.  That has been a significant change in that Chaplains are now required to know the CAP culture (novel idea, isn't it?).  As with any change, it will take awhile to see the impact ... but based on the experience of those chaplains who previously have completed all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Training program, there will be more chaplains with a better understanding of the way CAP operates.   In addition, the 221 Specialty Track has been updated.   Previously, it was simply reading the 221 and 221A pamphlets (which substituted for SLS/CLC).  That is no longer the practice.  The 221 is the Specialty Track guide, which in addition to the 221A/B/C pamphlets requires tasks to be completed that is commensurate with level of responsibilities assigned to the Chaplain.  As the former Chief of Chaplains stated, "The Chaplain Corps has joined CAP".

[Spaceman3750]

From the Chaplain side of the house ... the professional appointment is necessary due to our MOA with the USAF Chaplain Corps.  So the grade bestowed at appointment is based on the academic standing/ecclessiastical endorsement required.  CAP does offer a waiver for Chaplain applicants who do not have the 72 hour Master's Degree required for an USAF Chaplain applicant but has 5 years of documented Pastoral Experience.  There was a time when promotions were based on TIG -- in other words, breathing in and out.  Chaplains were not required to go past Level 1 for promotions.   That changed in 2007 when the SLS/CLC waiver was dropped and Chaplains are required to complete the SLS/CLC requirement.  That has been a significant change in that Chaplains are now required to know the CAP culture (novel idea, isn't it?).  As with any change, it will take awhile to see the impact ... but based on the experience of those chaplains who previously have completed all 5 levels of the Senior Member Professional Development Training program, there will be more chaplains with a better understanding of the way CAP operates.   In addition, the 221 Specialty Track has been updated.   Previously, it was simply reading the 221 and 221A pamphlets (which substituted for SLS/CLC).  That is no longer the practice.  The 221 is the Specialty Track guide, which in addition to the 221A/B/C pamphlets requires tasks to be completed that is commensurate with level of responsibilities assigned to the Chaplain.  As the former Chief of Chaplains stated, "The Chaplain Corps has joined CAP".

Anyone who can figure out the process for becoming a chaplain should be given advanced grade on that merit alone. We recently had a minister join my squadron, and we're currently stuck at "Get an ecclesiastical endorsement" when the list of endorsers is hundreds long and he has received no guidance on exactly which endorser he is supposed to use, or how to get an endorsement from them. I haven't talked to him in awhile though as he has been traveling so he may have worked something out in the interim.

[RiverAux]

Okay, we'e had a decent (for CAPTalk) number of poll respondents and since the voting has stayed pretty consistent I've gone ahead and locked it for posterity.

Actually, I am extremely pleased at the higher-than-expected level of support for my extremely radical proposal.  If almost half either support getting rid of all of these options or don't care if it is done, then it seems to me that much more modest (and realistic) proposals to cut out some of the less defensible ones may have a chance.

However, it is also possible that eliminating these unnecessary special rules may only be done in an all or nothing fashion.  If we propose to only limit a couple it might be easy to counterargue that those aren't substantially different than the options we are keeping. 

I need to put my thinking cap on.

[SARDOC]

I voted NO in the Poll because of the way the questions was worded.

Would you favor eliminating all special appointments, mission-related skill, NCO, and profesional appointments and promotions?

I don't support Eliminating ALL such promotions.  I do think that we should have some reform in the process.  I would actually like to see us adopt an enlisted rank structure because not all members want to be an officer and all that implies even though we know rank doesn't really mean anything in our organization.  Maybe make all Mission related Skills appointments something like warrant officer positions.  I think the Officers of our organization should have some more training than we currently have.