achievement award

[Eclipse]

If Gen. Carr notices someone doing something that merits and Achievement Award, that award should be submitted by Gen. Carr to that individual's unit commander, and approved by the Group commander.

No.

If I'm the wing king...I don't have to ask my group commander to approve anything....I tell him!

Agreed - why would someone at a higher level send something down the chain for approval?

[Eclipse]

coudano's idea is a good one, but the autonomy lost by Wing CC's would probably nix the idea.

[lordmonar]

The only problem of a central board at NHQ for ALL awards is that you could run into over load.

Assuming that squadrons would start to reguarly start submitting packages on their people you would end up with a whole bunch of award packages.....too many for one board to handle.

I would agree witht he concept that NHQ put together a central board for REGIONAL submitted packages and parkages for Regional level work....and to establish the guide lines for the lower eschelon boards.

I would agree that awards boards maybe work something like the CAC.

The Chair for the Wing Board sits on the Regional Board, the Chair from Regional sits on the National Board....that way some sense of contitnutiy trickels down to the lower levels.

[Eclipse]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

[coudano]

The only problem of a central board at NHQ for ALL awards is that you could run into over load.

If that's truly the ONLY problem, then scale the size of the board to handle the workload.
Easy.
Done.

Putting it anywhere at all other than national only perpetuates the problems we already have.
"PACR is stingy, but MER hands out awards like candy" blah blah blah.
My suggestion is based almost precisely on AFPC.

How many CAPF 120's do you really think get submitted CAP wide annually?
Taking what I "see" in an 'average' wing in one year, and multiplying it times 52...  it's doable.
How many people, and how long, do you think it takes to review a single awards package for content, formatting, and appropriateness for recommended award?

Speaking out of turn on others' behalves, the wing staffers that I know would be GRATEFUL to have this lifted off their shoulders.

[lordmonar]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

Why? 

[Eclipse]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

Why?

That removes any bias in either direction.  I've encountered members who were inclined to approve anything in front of them
if they know the guy, and those who received decs themselves and then feel no one rises to their level of effort and won't
approve anything.

[lordmonar]

The only problem of a central board at NHQ for ALL awards is that you could run into over load.

If that's truly the ONLY problem, then scale the size of the board to handle the workload.
Easy.
Done.

Putting it anywhere at all other than national only perpetuates the problems we already have.
"PACR is stingy, but MER hands out awards like candy" blah blah blah.
My suggestion is based almost precisely on AFPC.

How many CAPF 120's do you really think get submitted CAP wide annually?
Taking what I "see" in an 'average' wing in one year, and multiplying it times 52...  it's doable.
How many people, and how long, do you think it takes to review a single awards package for content, formatting, and appropriateness for recommended award?

Speaking out of turn on others' behalves, the wing staffers that I know would be GRATEFUL to have this lifted off their shoulders.

Sure you could do that....then we would just have the change the reg to read that only NHQ can approve any award...and they must be boarded by the NHQ Awards Board.
Question:  Do they go directly to the board?  i.e. submitter to board....or would they follow the chain? 

[lordmonar]

Region is more workable - one person from each wing, and you have to abstain for awards from your home state.

Why?

That removes any bias in either direction.  I've encountered members who were inclined to approve anything in front of them
if they know the guy, and those who received decs themselves and then feel no one rises to their level of effort and won't
approve anything.

I guess I just have more faith in people...that they will do the job assigned to them with integrity....instead of automatically assuming that they lack integrity.   Now if they prove that they don't have it!  Fire the Bastages!

[Eclipse]

I guess I just have more faith in people...that they will do the job assigned to them with integrity....instead of automatically assuming that they lack integrity.   Now if they prove that they don't have it!  Fire the Bastages!

It's not even an integrity issue, necessarily, but everyone has a home team.

[lordmonar]

I guess I just have more faith in people...that they will do the job assigned to them with integrity....instead of automatically assuming that they lack integrity.   Now if they prove that they don't have it!  Fire the Bastages!

It's not even an integrity issue, necessarily, but everyone has a home team.

It is an integriyt issue.......If I am charged to sit on a board....I am there to do a job......If Member X is from my squadron and his package is not up to snuff....then it is not up to snuff.

I have had this same question about Color Guard competition.  You protect against this happening by haveing a board.....some odd numbe of people so even if I lacked that level of integrity then someone else would catch me up on it.

[coudano]

Sure you could do that....then we would just have the change the reg to read that only NHQ can approve any award...and they must be boarded by the NHQ Awards Board.
Question:  Do they go directly to the board?  i.e. submitter to board....or would they follow the chain?

If you read the proposal...

The 120 submitted from the field goes directly to the board for quality control.

Those that pass the board go to the command chain for yes/no approval or denial.

Commander still final approval on everything.

If it's a 'commanders commendation' (wing) then the Wing Commander is still the approving authority.
But the package first (before the commander ever sees it) has to make it past the national "personnel center" vetting that the package meets formatting standards, and that the citation matches the requested award (and that the member is not being awarded the third award for the same action)


So... for our 'wing commanders commendation'

1.  Online CAPF 120 submitted
2.  National 'personnel center' verifies criteria, formatting, and other QC things as defined
3.  National personnel center could "reject" or even "edit" a package for cited qc reasons ... end process or -
4.  National personnel center could "go ahead" a package for command approval
5.  Member's direct commander (squadron) receives yes/no    if yes,
6.  members next commander (group?) receives yes/no   if yes,
7.  Member's approval authority (wing /cc) receives yes/no  if yes, create award and present it

[Eclipse]

This would also help prevent the "no action" issues when things are lost, submissions could have an
action date with reminders.

The other day they found a 15-year old UC for a unit that doesn't even exist anymore literally stuck behind a file cabinet, still in the
sealed envelope from NHQ.

[coudano]

This would also help prevent the "no action" issues when things are lost, submissions could have an
action date with reminders.

Yes and every action submitted must have a "closed" 'ticket status'
with reason or final disposition
with date submitted, date reviewed, date disposed

nothing ever gets lost or blackholed.


again, just like AFPC.

[Eclipse]

The trending might also indicate areas that need "addressing".  "Wing X has had 150 submissions this year and no approvals..."

One might also presume that with a submission system in place, NHQ would start tracking all decs awarded as well.

[lordmonar]

Again....if it is a National Level Board.....why would a group commander ever disapprove it?  What if the Group Commander disagrees with national board?

Basiclly you are consolidating the authority in a single board with no real need for it go anywhere else.

I am not saying that in and of itself is a bad idea.....just remember the law of unintened consequeses.

[Eclipse]

Well - then that brings it back to your idea that we need to give out more candy.

Anything passed by the board would presumably meet the spec for format, appropriateness, and scale, etc., so the inclination
should be to approve it.

[coudano]

Again....if it is a National Level Board.....why would a group commander ever disapprove it?  What if the Group Commander disagrees with national board?

Basiclly you are consolidating the authority in a single board with no real need for it go anywhere else.

I am not saying that in and of itself is a bad idea.....just remember the law of unintened consequeses.

Even with the system as it is now, the commander shouldn't be approving or disapproving the quality of the package.  The commander should only be approving yes or  no give this member the award.

As noted, 52 (61 actually) separate and distinct 'awards committees' are going to arrive at 61 different opinions on what justifies a commander's commendation vs a meritorious service.  This is designed ONLY to eliminate that (and, well, to help prevent things like black holing and gobn to some extent)

The "npc" isn't giving the person the award or not, they are only quality checking the package and verifying that it meets a certain standard.

The commander is the one who /actually authorizes/ the award.
Or doesn't...  If there are local considerations that should be applied;  such as: yes, john doe served 14 days flood relief this summer, which matches criteria for a commander's commendation and someone put him in for the award in the proper format, however we (john's local chain of command) know (and it wasn't reported in the awards packet) that he just sat on his butt, ate donuts, and complained about the national awards system the entire time and didnt ACTUALLY contribute to the mission, so... no, we aren't giving him this award.

[Eclipse]

The commander is the one who /actually authorizes/ the award.

We'd all like that to be true, but we know it's not - there's a whole lot of "other" between the submission and the approval, much related to human nature
and the volunteer paradigm.

[coudano]

The commander is the one who /actually authorizes/ the award.

We'd all like that to be true, but we know it's not - there's a whole lot of "other" between the submission and the approval, much related to human nature
and the volunteer paradigm.

Yah so that's kind of what i'm trying to address.
I'm trying to consolidate that "other stuff" and give it a much more clear and unified decision/process.
And quite frankly have a one stop shop which can be open to investigation/review.

We don't want commanders to just be able to "stroke of the pen" give candy out to their buddies for no reason whatsoever either... this helps with that too.