PD Progression, Grade Structure & Professionalism

[ProdigalJim]

Perusing the CSAG minutes from November, I came across some numbers which if accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that they're not accurate) cut to the heart of a lot of the debates on CAPTalk over the years about our professionalism: it appears that only a shade over 6% of the Lt. Cols. walking around in CAP uniforms completed the appropriate PD levels for that grade, and just under 15% of Majors have completed PD for that grade.

I read a lot of hand-wringing on this board (and hear it from colleagues) about how some commanders seem to be running GOB Flying Clubs... don't apply the regs consistently...blow off uniforms...make up their own rules...or embarrass themselves (and us by extension) in the way they interact with other agencies, other CAP units or Ma Blue. Well, looking at these numbers, what do we expect??? An overwhelming 94% of Lt. Cols., based on 2012 data, had failed to complete Professional Development appropriate to their grade. That's darn near close to all. And for Majors that number is 85%.

In other words, there's a better-than-average chance that the Major or Lt. Col. you're talking to at any given moment has not done the "CAP homework" we think is required to be effective at that grade. Meanwhile we also hear about people who work diligently through the PD program and find their promotions pocket-vetoed or simply ignored...probably by a Major or Lt. Col. who has not done PD themselves and doesn't put much stock in it. As a relatively recent returnee to CAP after a three-decade absence (I came back in 2011), I find that genuinely astonishing.

Col. Cooper, chair of the National Promotion Eligibility Working Group, and his team made several recommendations which are now, I gather, under review. Personally I hope those recommendations are adopted, because I think they'll help raise the professionalism and expectations of our field-grade officers. The major changes involve extending the TIG requirement for progression, mandating Officer Basic Course for 2nd Lt. rather than letting folks take it later on, raising the PD levels one step for each grade (i.e., make Level III a Captain requirement rather than a Major requirement) and requiring a letter of justification for field-grade promotions.

I have a very large number of current active and prior-service military serving in my squadron. O-4s, O-5s and a smattering of O-6s. They all conclude that "grade in CAP is meaningless." To an extent they're right. In the military if you walk into a room full of strangers and you're trying to find the Guy/Gal In Charge, look at people's shoulders...except in CAP. I have a great guy on my staff who left the Navy as an O-5, and we got him a Lt. Col. after a few months in CAP because he was doing such a great job (and still is, by the way). Now he's going back and stepping through the PD stuff that he would have had to do without getting the Special Promotion, and I applaud that. When he's done, he'll not just know the Navy way but the CAP way, and he'll understand why CAP's legal framework and volunteer nature create major differences in leadership and management tactics required to keep things moving. He'll be as effective a CAP officer as he doubtless was a Naval officer.

There was a line in the working group's final November report worrying about how to make it have a minimal effect on existing members: well, as a guy who just pinned Captain, I would be directly affected by this and would see the goal post for Major move at least a year further away with other additional requirements as well. And you know what? I welcome it. I really do. I would welcome anything that makes our officer corps more professional, more mature and starts to address the Goober Problem (™) as a good thing.

 

[RiverAux]

hmm, my wing has more folks that aren't where they "should" be, but its nowhere near that level.  Any chance that you read the numbers backwards or they've got them backwards?  Everytime I've looked at my wing over the years its something like 60-75% of officers are at the "right" PD level. 

[Eclipse]

I'd be very interested how they actually came to those numbers.  There are a lot of field-grade officers
that completed the work but it was never recorded, or recorded improperly.  So if eServices is the data
source, I'd call those numbers into suspicion.

I'd also be interested in whether those numbers include empty shirts.  Nationally we have far too many
people who checked out 2 decades ago but are still paying their dues, and not all wings patron-ize them,
and that assumes they didn't include patron and 000 members in those numbers.

Now dirty data aside, I personally think everyone, military, pilot, lawyer, teacher, whatever, should come
in as a slick sleeve and work their way up from zero.

Since grade is not tied to any authority, it serves no purpose to give people advanced grade except
to set the wrong tone and establish the environment that we have come to know.

[Storm Chaser]

+1

[RiverAux]

Uh, sorry Jim, but I think you made a major mistake.  Table 4 starts with a section outlining how many people completed each PD level in 2012 (which is what the chart clearly says though the table text isn't as clear) and the second part has the number of people in each grade.  It looks like you divided the number of people completing a PD level in 2012 into the total number of people in that grade, which isn't what you are looking for at all.   

[ProdigalJim]

hmm, my wing has more folks that aren't where they "should" be, but its nowhere near that level.  Any chance that you read the numbers backwards or they've got them backwards?  Everytime I've looked at my wing over the years its something like 60-75% of officers are at the "right" PD level.

Come to read it again, I *did* misread it somewhat, but it wasn't backwards. There was a single section in which the top table reported PD levels, but looking closely they reported them as levels completed in 2012. But the bottom table, which had numbers of officers in grades, were totals, rather than just limited to 2012 (although it's labeled 2012).

So although its presented on that page as apples-to-apples, upon closer examination it really isn't.

Now, that said...the working group also said elsewhere in the report that seniors are getting grade too quickly, and not getting the training they need to succeed when they're promoted to a given level. So that part's still true.

But you're right, if you look closely at that page looks apples-to-apples until you look more carefully (which I didn't) and that changes your conclusion somewhat.

Nonetheless, I still have encountered a fairly large number of folks wearing oaks who don't seem to know what Majors and Lt. Col.s should know. I guess the chart doesn't give them the excuse that they never learned it...

[RiverAux]

In related issues, I very much like that they're eliminating a LOT of special appointments

[Storm Chaser]

They're considering a few proposals to increase the time in grade for each promotion, to eliminate some of the advanced grades currently authorized and to require appropriate PD for promotion, regardless of specialty or duty position. I, for one, think it's a good idea.

CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically. Too often CAP officer grade is a misleading indication of ability or experience. The general civilian population cannot tell the difference and draws no distinction between CAP officers and Air Force officers. Therefore, the impression made is a direct reflection on our parent service. In addition, the impression made, whether in ability, bearing, or appearance, is a direct reflection on Air Force officers who have worked very hard to achieve that same rank.

Initial officer rank - It is not possible to produce a credible officer of someone with no military or CAP background by having them take an on-line course or even by spending a few hours in the classroom.

Subsequent promotions - Time in grade and PD awards are the minimum requirements for promotion - performance is also required. A promotion is also recognition of the NEXT level of service. It is not uncommon to promote officers that become completely inactive. Promotion is not a prize or payment for past service or a reward for simply being a volunteer. It is not an entitlement.

[lordmonar]

Jim....I hear you....and to an extent agree with you.

But let's look at those numbers.....who are these 94%ers?

My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

The changes you mentioned....will not decrease these percentages.   There is NO incentive for a prior military officer to do any PD beyond Level I.

What needs to be done IMHO.....is to require all officers who receive advanced promotions....for any reason......to "make up" their required PD with-in a reasonable time (one year per PD level)

So Lt Col Newguy who retires from the USAF and joins CAP would have three years from the time that he get's his advanced promotion to Lt Col to his Level IV, Get a Master Rating in some specialty track, attend two conferences, OBC, SLS, CLC, and all other requirements.

At the three year mark....if he is not Level IV.....then he will be demoted to a grade commensurate with his PD level.


On a purely CAP side.....Capt Otherguy who has level II PD.....is advanced promoted to Major because he takes on the role of Group Commander.     He would have a year to complete all the PD requirements for Major (Level III)....i.e. get his senior rating, attend two conferences, CLC, AEPSM award, or back to Capt he goes.

[RiverAux]

Doesn't look like they're proposing to make any changes regarding former military officers.

My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Well, I would suggest they haven't earned that CAP grade.  And actually, if you look at the proposed changes there are quite a lot of CAP-related things that they would be skipping over. 

[ProdigalJim]

My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Not at all. First off, let's be clear that my original conclusion was in error based on glossing over the apples-and-oranges nature of the two charts (that's what happens when you're typing with one eye on CAPTalk and the other on the Olympics!).

But more to the point, retired military have clearly earned their grade. I have a dozen or so of them in my own squadron and they're great to have around. All I'm saying is that Lt. Col. Newguy probably knows a lot about flying fighters, buying military gear, developing radars or whatever, and probably knows a lot about leading people in an environment governed by the UCMJ. He probably knows very little about the cadet program, the practicalities of our Aux relationship, how we interact with our state agencies, how to fly the right pattern so your MO can use the Becker, or even why Capt. Schmuck is the CC with Lt. Col.s working for him.

So I think we agree...by all means, let's recognize the grade...but Lt. Col. Newguy should go back and learn about CAP so he's knowledgeable in the way that he should be.

[Storm Chaser]

There is NO incentive for a prior military officer to do any PD beyond Level I.

I did, but I also know a lot of prior military officers who haven't. I don't mind them getting advanced promotions, but I think they should also have to complete appropriate PD within a specified timeframe. While the military background can be extremely useful in CAP, it does't provided the necessary knowledge to be truly effective within the organization.

[Eclipse]

My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Not in CAP, and in pretty much all cases, not relevent, especially day-1.

[lordmonar]

My guess is that most of them are "real" Lt Cols....i.e. retired military officers.....are you suggesting that they did not earn their grades?

Not in CAP, and in pretty much all cases, not relevent, especially day-1.

So you cherry pick my opening line but don't say anything about the rest of my post.

  Not cool dude.

Like I said.......If Lt Col Newdude just want to fly airplanes and do nothing beyond getting his level I......that's okay by me.....after three years he will be demoted to 2d Lt and we press on. 

[Eclipse]

I ain't the only one what grabbed it.

[Panache]

I've gone on at some length on this topic, so I won't rehash.  But I think a good start would be expand the Flight Officer grades so that everybody (not just the under-21 crowd who have gone darkside) works their way through FO, TFO, and SFO before 2nd Lt.  Under-21 will be topped out at SFO but can continue their PD and will receive the appropriate grade when they hit 21 that they've earned through PD.  Completion of the Officer Basic Course will be a requirement before any promotion to or beyond 2nd Lt., and this includes special appointments.

Also, I would suggestion that we award FO immediately to members after completion of Level I, since (1) that will keep he new member interested and (2) the Flight Officer grades are meant to be "training" phases anyway.

There is NO incentive for a prior military officer to do any PD beyond Level I.

I did, but I also know a lot of prior military officers who haven't. I don't mind them getting advanced promotions, but I think they should also have to complete appropriate PD within a specified timeframe. While the military background can be extremely useful in CAP, it does't provided the necessary knowledge to be truly effective within the organization.

We've had two new members join in the past couple of months.  One started out as a slick-sleeve, but has shown much enthusiasm and drive.  He's been working hard and helping out the Squadron immensely.  He pinned on his butterbars a couple of weeks ago.

Now, we have member #2, a prior Marine O-3.  He hasn't done nearly as much as the newly promoted 2nd Lt., nor has shown nearly the same level of contribution.  Far as I can tell, he's joining because his kid is a cadet.  But he's now a CAP Captain.  How, exactly, does that benefit our organization?

[UH60guy]

As a field grade without the required PD- I agree that CAP promoted me too fast. I'm a Major in the Army, but it doesn't mean much in CAP. Personally, I'm working my butt off to get my Loening and earn it the CAP way (have CLC starting in just over 1 hour!). Unfortunately I'd have to agree with some of the previous sentiment- there just really isn't an incentive, beyond my own desire to be at the right place for the grade, for former military to work through CAP channels to get the right PD.

Sure, CAP waives some stuff- and that's probably a good thing, because we do have that base knowledge of respect, what a chain of command is, (generally) how to wear a uniform and follow regs, etc... but waivers should probably be kept to the early entry levels.

I'm not sure the reason CAP does allow us to wear our military rank- maybe that mentality of "herding volunteers" and trying to please people coming in to keep up the membership, not wanting them to feel like they're being demoted, etc... but it does hurt our (the individuals, not CAP) credibility a little. I can see how the problem compounds in military heavy squadrons, as in theory you get a bunch of brass who are experts in their military field, but not CAP.

It's probably not feasible in many squadrons, but I wonder if PD (not grade) could be a requirement for certain positions.

[DrKem]

I just spent the last 30 minutes looking for the CSAG minutes on the CAP page.  No joy.  Can someone please post the link?  Thanks!

[MSG Mac]

I just spent the last 30 minutes looking for the CSAG minutes on the CAP page.  No joy.  Can someone please post the link?  Thanks!

E-services/CAP National Agenda and Meeting notes/ CSAG Nov 2013

[Storm Chaser]

When it comes to current and former military officers, I think the biggest issue with advanced promotions to their military grade is not so much PD completion (which I strongly recommend they do), but level of contribution and responsibility commensurable with their grade. I see it too often where a member joins, within a short period of time he/she is promoted to Lt Col, but don't have a duty position or they're someone's assistant, but barely make any significant contribution (no one needs to be a Lt Col to chaperon or drive cadets around, participate in exercises, but not as staff, or just help out with small things, as needed). I know that's common in CAP, but why do we need a Lt Col with little or no CAP experience to do the type of work expected from a brand new 2d Lt (if that)?

I don't think a current or former military officer should be advanced in grade in CAP solely based on their military grade. I think no one should be advanced unless serving in a position where their contributions and responsibility are commensurable with the grade they're seeking. This should apply especially to field grade officers. After they've demonstrated that they can and are operating within that level, then they can get a temporary promotion. PD completion should still be expected within a given timeframe to make the grade permanent. Duty performance and accomplishments should also be evaluated before making the grade permanent. If someone doesn't perform, they should revert to a grade commensurable with their position, PD, etc.