New Commander's specialty track

[arajca]

Since the last page talking about "Fast tracking" does not mention UCC or TLC I tend to read that as UCC or TLC are not required if you are "Fast-tracking." Am I wrong?

Flyer

The correct term is "jump-start", and UCC & TLC are not required. I put in my request for the Technician based on service as CDC for 18 mos this time, but I have already completed UCC & TLC. It was approved by my wing/cc and sent to National. I'm waiting to see if my unit cc and cds, who have not completed UCC or TLC, get the same approval.

[Luis R. Ramos]

You are right, "jump-start."

I transferred to a different squadron in the same Group, and in looking at my new squadron CC and deputy records, both have more extensive time than I have as deputy and/or commander however have not "jump-started." The deputy has UCC and TLC. I wrote that out to the commander stating I intended to "jump-start" based on my two plus years service as deputy commander of two cadet squadrons.

At some point I still intend to take the UCC and TLC, though.

Flyer

[Eclipse]

In looking at my records, I see I'm going to have to send some update memos.  One major command isn't even listed, and some service
dates are wrong.  I have had some conversations with others on similar subjects recently as well.

It's especially problematic for service and activities which occurred in the pre-2006 timeframe before eServices was tracking duty assignments.

All very easily correctable if you can substantiate.

[EMT-83]

... which why I still believe in keeping copies of those forms that are no longer required. Form 2, Form 2a, Personnel Authorizations, whatever.

[Eclipse]

I have everything from the pre-electronic era, but going forward, a lot of that paper simply isn't ever going to be generated.

The SET module upgrade, for example, is going to eliminate a lot of paper on that side of the house.  Duty assignments no longer require paper, etc., etc.

What >is< important is getting members to pay attention to their own eServices records, which many are not even aware of.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not crazy about the way the Jump-Start is being implemented. I realize that many who qualify will disagree with my opinion (and that's all it is), but here's my reason:

• Person A served a year as squadron commander prior to 30 Apr 2013. He did not complete TLC or UCC.  He applies and is awarded a Technician Rating in the Command Specialty.


• Person B served a year as deputy commander prior to 30 Apr 2013. She is a 1st Lt. She did not complete a Technician Rating on any specialty and did not receive Level II. She applies and is awarded a Technician Rating in the Command Specialty.


• Person C has been serving as squadron commander. He is short two months to complete his first year before 30 Apr 2013. He is a Capt, has a Technician Rating and Level II completed. He has attended UCC and TLC. He has been a member for over two years. He does not qualify for a Jump-Start. Instead, he has to enroll in the specialty track and wait another year.

I have no problem with crediting command time to all former commanders who successfully completed their term. But I think they should still meet the basic requirements such as UCC, TLC, Level II, etc. That would make this Jump-Start much more fair. Just my two cents.

[Eclipse]

I have no problem with crediting command time to all former commanders who successfully completed their term. But I think they should still meet the basic requirements such as UCC, TLC, Level II, etc. That would make this Jump-Start much more fair. Just my two cents.

I agree - as defined I think we'll just wind up awarding the rating to a lot of people who are actually the problem to start with, although
if they have been a CC for 5 some years, and still an uninformed problem, they aren't likely to get fixed, anyway.  So for the next 5-7 years we'll have
a large group grndgfathered in, with the same rating as those doing the actual work.

It would be much more fair and proper to require the PD work be completed before allowing the jumpstart.  With a calendar year to complete it,
anyone really interested has more then enough time to do what they are missing.

[ol'fido]

I only qualify for senior. I've got TLC and UCC plus all the rest. I am just missing NSC(or ACSC) for my Level V. I don't have enough time at group for the Master rating. When does this start. I couldn't find it in the Specialty Track module in eServices.

[Private Investigator]

I have no problem with crediting command time to all former commanders who successfully completed their term. But I think they should still meet the basic requirements such as UCC, TLC, Level II, etc. That would make this Jump-Start much more fair. Just my two cents.

A long time member I know has done three tours as Group Commander for a total of 16 years or so, the last being in 1997 so no UCC or TLC back then. Does he rate a Master rating in Command?

[Private Investigator]

The problem I see for "Jump-Start" is if your Wing does not have Groups to get a Senior rating you will need to be a Wing Commander or Vice Commander.

[Al Sayre]

Yep, WG/CS doesn't count even though it has the same job description in 20-1...

[Hawk200]

That is for current squadron commanders. With a star is for current group commanders. It denotes position, not progression. If you step down from squadron command and move to group vice commander, no more wearing the badge.

IIRC, you wear the badge on the pocket/below your nametag following your command tour. I might be wrong, there have been changes since I retired in 2009.   There is a badge for command.  No need for another specialty insignia that looks like it was designed with Microsoft clip-art.

I made the suggestion to the NB a few years back that we do it like the USAF....but it got shot down....I think there is a thread on it (either here or at CS)

I think they should reconsider it. I think it was shot down in 2010. The reason was you got the Command Service Ribbon for Command and you want to wear the badge too?

Easy fix: You may wear the badge as a "graduated commander," or you may wear the ribbon, but not both. Or eliminate the ribbon, and allow former commanders to move the badge down. Simple.

Personally, I'd rather wear the badge.

[Private Investigator]

I rather wear the badge too.

[arajca]

Well, I went for the jump start to Tech. It posted today. Wing/CC sent it in Wed.

[LGM30GMCC]

For the badge thing, I would definitely prefer we ditch the ribbon and go for the USAF model. Ditch the badge with star...

All current commanders O-6 and below wear the badge above the nameplate/nametape.

All graduated commanders O-6 and below wear the badge below the nameplate/nametape.

If you become a current commander again...it goes back up above.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Well that sounds... That's just...

Hey, that's actually not a bad idea...

To bad it won't get done. It makes far too much sense, and is far too easy to warrant further consideration. Thanks for playing, though, it was a good try.  :clap: 

[Hawk200]

For the badge thing, I would definitely prefer we ditch the ribbon and go for the USAF model. Ditch the badge with star...

All current commanders O-6 and below wear the badge above the nameplate/nametape.

All graduated commanders O-6 and below wear the badge below the nameplate/nametape.

If you become a current commander again...it goes back up above.

I would agree with the first two points, and the last. As for third,  I would say any former commander should be allowed to wear below, regardless of current rank. Your command experience doesn't just go away simply because you have gained rank. Allow continued wear, of course, contingent on the four badge limit.

Well that sounds... That's just...

Hey, that's actually not a bad idea...

To bad it won't get done. It makes far too much sense, and is far too easy to warrant further consideration. Thanks for playing, though, it was a good try.  :clap: 

Unfortunately, this is way too common. And sad.

[LGM30GMCC]

Notice it's O-6 and below. That's means the only graduated commanders who wouldn't be able to wear it anymore would be BGs and MGs. Who were basically as high in the organization as you can get. If you have a star, it's a safe bet to say you commanded something at somepoint (since it was a requirement to get the star in the first place).

[Storm Chaser]

Notice it's O-6 and below. That's means the only graduated commanders who wouldn't be able to wear it anymore would be BGs and MGs. Who were basically as high in the organization as you can get. If you have a star, it's a safe bet to say you commanded something at somepoint (since it was a requirement to get the star in the first place).

I would argue that the CAP Commander Badge is only "necessary" for commanders that are Lt Col and below. My reasoning is that, unlike the Air Force, you can't get selected for promotion to Col, but must be appointed to specific duty assignments in order to get promoted, most of which are high command positions anyway (Wing, Region). In my opinion, retaining your permanent rank of Col is enough recognition as it is.

[JeffDG]

Notice it's O-6 and below. That's means the only graduated commanders who wouldn't be able to wear it anymore would be BGs and MGs. Who were basically as high in the organization as you can get. If you have a star, it's a safe bet to say you commanded something at somepoint (since it was a requirement to get the star in the first place).

I would argue that the CAP Commander Badge is only "necessary" for commanders that are Lt Col and below. My reasoning is that, unlike the Air Force, you can't get selected for promotion to Col, but must be appointed to specific duty assignments in order to get promoted, most of which are high command positions anyway (Wing, Region). In my opinion, retaining your permanent rank of Col is enough recognition as it is.

That's not true.

There are a number of Col.'s out there who have not been Wing Commanders or Region/CC or CVs.  There are other paths to birds in CAP that do not require command.

Are they common?  No, but they do exist.