Clarification for Professional Appointment

[BFreemanMA]

I did a search and didn't find anything related to my question yet, so I'm going to ask it here.

I was reading CAPR 35-5 since I wanted to review the standards for professional appointment. As an AEO with a Master's degree and 5 years' teaching experience, I was promoted to Captain after my Level I was complete and after proving to my SQ/CC that I was performing "at the Capt level."

Under 35-5, 5.2, I came across some text that confused me. "Health Service personnel, legal officers, professional educators serving as aerospace education officers and financial professionals serving as finance officers are exempt from all other training requirements prescribed for promotion to additional grades."

I know that our regs can sometimes be very fuzzy, but I can't quite figure out the application for this. Is it saying that those receiving professional appointment are exempt from the training requirements for promotion to a higher grade (ie. Capt to Maj)? Or is it saying that we do not need the training requirements for initial appointment, but must "back fill" our training in order to promote to our next grade?

If professional apppointees are exempt from training, that doesn't really strike me as fair. I just completed my Level II the other day and, in the process, I learned loads about CAP and how things operate. Without this knowledge, I don't feel I could do my job as well as without having completed the training requirements. If appointees weren't required to do the training, that would be a huge detriment to those appointed. We may know a lot about our areas of expertise, but I feel it's important that everyone has the same CAP background.

Long story short, what are your thoughts/interpretations on this reg? How has it worked in the past?

[arajca]

As long as you're serving as AEO, you're excempt for any other training requirments, i.e. SLS, CLC, RSC, etc. for promotion. Just stay in office and you get promoted when time-in-grade has passed.

I personally dislike it, because you end up with folks who don't know CAP, but are wearing Maj and Lt Col. I recommend and STRONGLY suggest all of those folks take the training so they will be well rounded (no pun intended) CAP members. We have a Finance Officer whose attitude, when told about not needing the classes (he's a CPA and a retired CFO), is "yeah, whatever. When is the next class? I need to schedule for it." Great guy. He wants to make sure he is a knowledgeable CAP member.

[NIN]

Long story short, what are your thoughts/interpretations on this reg? How has it worked in the past?

As a unit commander, I used that codicil to get one of my members (a Health Services Officer) promoted to Major.  He subsequently completed the PME for Major (after he was promoted) and it was not that big of a deal. He was  the kind of guy who was a sponge for information, so it wasn't like CLC was going to *really* give him a ton of knowledge.

Now, that being said, there are others who have used this to burn all the way to Lt Col and never did a lick of CAP PME, and it shows.

YMMV, but commanders should be cautious about how and when they promote members, even under professional appointments.  It is good to remember that you *CAN* do it, but you don't *HAVE* to do it.

[BFreemanMA]

Arajca: Wow, that strikes me as very unfair too. I appreciate the clarification and I side with you. I can't see myself wearing leaves and not having gone through the same experiences as everyone else!

NIN: good point about your HSO. I'd be afraid that this clause could be used to rail through the promotions without any personal development and, as you've mentioned, it does impact their ability to operate within CAP.

I wonder if this is a big enough problem to warrant a change of regs? It's probably not a huge problem, but, like NIN said, when it happens or is abused, it can hurt functionality, I think.

[Eclipse]

The number of people this actually effects approaches zero, but it's certainly a place where 35-5 needs revision.

We need to just drop all these advanced grade loopholes and "go directly-s" and recognize that everyone
brings their unique talents to the table, and that everyone should be treated equally so that by the time
they get to wear oaks (of either color), they actually have a clue.

[NIN]

Mind you, my guy was serving as our HSO AND safety officer, and he was absolutely KILLING it in safety.  Best safety officer I ever saw.  People would actually drop what they were doing to go to safety briefings.  (commanders: How many times do you have to round up and herd people into Safety Briefing, right?  Not in my unit.  Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

[Eclipse]

Mind you, my guy was serving as our HSO AND safety officer, and he was absolutely KILLING it in safety.  Best safety officer I ever saw.  People would actually drop what they were doing to go to safety briefings.  (commanders: How many times do you have to round up and herd people into Safety Briefing, right?  Not in my unit.  Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

OK, but then he should be recognized for his work in Safety, not "other". In the current paradigm of CAP, a safety professional would be able to do way more directly-related to
his job then a Health Professional, but that's not even factored in.

[NIN]

Mind you, my guy was serving as our HSO AND safety officer, and he was absolutely KILLING it in safety.  Best safety officer I ever saw.  People would actually drop what they were doing to go to safety briefings.  (commanders: How many times do you have to round up and herd people into Safety Briefing, right?  Not in my unit.  Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

OK, but then he should be recognized for his work in Safety, not "other". In the current paradigm of CAP, a safety professional would be able to do way more directly-related to
his job then a Health Professional, but that's not even factored in.

He was a Nurse Practitioner who worked (at the time) in basically an ambulatory "clinic" setting that saw substantially industrial folks who'd been injured in "on the job accidents."

He brought an interesting flavor of information to the table in that regard.

(NVM the safety briefing that included that afternoon's story about the guy working on the rolling garage door that had the door slam down on the pads of all 8 fingers, which then blew all the fat out the side of his fingertips like crushed grapes.... I leave you with that pretty picture in your heads. "Jolly Rancher?")

[Devil Doc]

We have a ACDC in our unit who was a Major in the Airforce, She refuses to but on Major Rank and wants to Go through the ranking system liek everyone else. Her reasoning is, she wants to learn how CAP does things, you cant learn that by starting from the top, you learn from starting at the bottom.

[RiverAux]

I"m confident that 99% of those who have gotten professional appointments wouldn't care a bit if they had had to go through the normal CAP PD process.  The 1% who would really want the advanced rank probably shouldn't be in CAP anyway. 

[JeffDG]

Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

Don't get me wrong, but that seems a bit counter-productive...

[NIN]

Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

Don't get me wrong, but that seems a bit counter-productive...

I know, right?

[Storm Chaser]

I think the problem with these professional appointments is that they copy (in many ways) the format in which military professional appointments are made. However, the reality and needs of CAP and the military are very different.

In the military, you need to provide an incentive to recruit certain professionals. You can't just train a line officer into a doctor or an attorney or a chaplain. These professionals required advanced degrees, licenses, etc. They also want to get financially compensated according to their qualifications. Their rank doesn't affect their branch much because they don't interact with the rest of the force in the same way. For example, a medical officer will not serve in a non-medical capacity and will not command a non-medical unit.

While CAP may benefit from (or even need) certain professionals, there is no financial benefit linked with the advanced rank given to these. That makes rank an ineffective recruiting tool. And because CAP is a volunteer organization where most of its officers wear different 'hats' and participate in different capacities, you end up with a senior ranking officer that knows very little about CAP, yet may end up working as a staff officer in areas where such knowledge is needed.

[RiverAux]

you end up with a senior ranking officer that knows very little about CAP, yet may end up working as a staff officer in areas where such knowledge is needed.

or having them actually put in command of CAP units. 

[Ned]

I think the problem with these professional appointments is that they copy (in many ways) the format in which military professional appointments are made. However, the reality and needs of CAP and the military are very different.

Well, yes and no.

Sure, we do professional appointments for folks like physicians and attorneys in a manner roughly similar to the military, but in direct response to the "needs and realities of CAP" our leadership created the "mission related skills" category for appointment of things like CFIs, ATPs, and ATPs as well as special appointments for former cadets and former members.

I suppose a strong argument can be made that these particular incentives are not as an effective recruiting tool as we would like based on the simple observation that we still don't have enough of any of them.

Which just begs the question:  "what would be a more effective recruiting incentive for these categories?"

Until we can answer that, I suppose we will have to struggle on the way we have.

[Storm Chaser]

I think the problem with these professional appointments is that they copy (in many ways) the format in which military professional appointments are made. However, the reality and needs of CAP and the military are very different.

Well, yes and no.

Sure, we do professional appointments for folks like physicians and attorneys in a manner roughly similar to the military, but in direct response to the "needs and realities of CAP" our leadership created the "mission related skills" category for appointment of things like CFIs, ATPs, and ATPs as well as special appointments for former cadets and former members.

As I see it, the problem is not so much giving them advanced rank because of their professional background or mission related skills. The problem is that, unlike the military, a physician (or lawyer, etc.) in CAP can (and often does) assume other staff and command roles. Again, that doesn't happen in the military, but it's a reality in CAP.

[Eclipse]

Which just begs the question:  "what would be a more effective recruiting incentive for these categories?"

Meaningful service.

[Ned]

As I see it, the problem is not so much giving them advanced rank because of their professional background or mission related skills. The problem is that, unlike the military, a physician (or lawyer, etc.) in CAP can (and often does) assume other staff and command roles. Again, that doesn't happen in the military, but it's a reality in CAP.

Non-concur.

I had signficant positions of responsibility in the military (multiple command and XO billets in MP and Infantry outfits) despite being a lawyer, not because of it. 

(Like many in the Guard, I took endless amounts of ribbing because of my "outside job.")

Similarly, we theoretically select the best qualified and available officers to serve in command and staff roles.  It shouldn't matter if the person happens to be a dentist if she is indeed the best qualified person for the job.

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

[Eclipse]

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, the "only willing" generally trumps the ongoing search for "best qualified", since the former is far too often the only choice.

The fix, again, is more people.

[lordmonar]

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, the "only willing" generally trumps the ongoing search for "best qualified", since the former is far too often the only choice.

The fix, again, is more people.

Ned did say the Best Qualified and Available.