PD Progression, Grade Structure & Professionalism

[Storm Chaser]

Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

I believe it was discussed, but was tabled due to the new NCO program being considered.

Upon further reading of the minutes, I noticed that it wasn't really tabled. The CSAG decided "to recommend that CAP/CC form a working group to study revisions to the rank structure and requirements."

That means that the working group could recommend this proposal or go with a different one altogether. Either way, it would be a recommendation that would still need to be approved.

[Panache]

Even though expansion of the Flight Officer grades were proposed by the CSAG for all new members, how come the Working Group didn't suggest that in their report?

I believe it was discussed, but was tabled due to the new NCO program being considered.

Upon further reading of the minutes, I noticed that it wasn't really tabled. The CSAG decided "to recommend that CAP/CC form a working group to study revisions to the rank structure and requirements."

That means that the working group could recommend this proposal or go with a different one altogether. Either way, it would be a recommendation that would still need to be approved.

Right, and the working group apparently decided to not expand the use of the FO grades.

[Storm Chaser]

I think the proposed time in grade requirements are reasonable. I thought there was some merit with expanding the flight officer grades as well, although I understand the desire to first see where this new NCO program goes.

Frankly, if we're going to build a CAP enlisted membership, I think we should expand it into airman grades too. There's an expectation that NCOs have been around for a while and are proficient at their specialties. They're also usually supervisors. I can't see a brand new senior member getting SSgt stripes after, lets say, 6 months of membership.

On the other hand, if we're expanding the enlisted membership in CAP, there would be an expectation, I presume, that not everyone who joins will become an officer. That means revamping the officer program as well and, possibly, coming up with new requirements to become an officer in CAP.

[Al Sayre]

If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

[Storm Chaser]

If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

What do you mean? You do the same thing you do with other senior members. A flight officer is an officer just like a warrant officer is an officer too. In fact, chief warrant officers 2 (CWO-2) and above are also commissioned officers in the U.S. military. I don't see the problem here.

[JeffDG]

The problem with expanding TIG is that it does not address the simple question of whether the individual is performing at a level meriting their new grade.

That's the thing that I like with the grade linked to position concept.  If the Wing Commander thinks you are performing at a level to be a senior member of his staff, that's an assessment that he makes.  There are consequences to him if he errs in that judgement (ie. you can't do the job he needs you to do, and that the Commander alone is accountable for).

Additionally, it gives commanders a bit of a carrot to use to attract talented people to more difficult jobs.  The Wing Commander can say "Hey, Capt. Smith, I need a new Director of Communications.  You've been doing good work on Group staff, and I think you're ready for the additional responsibility.  If you take the job, I can bump you to Major, as this job has a field-grade level of responsibility."

Now, the person is being promoted and granted grade in part based on past performance (if he's a screwup, Wing commander's not going to tap him for a bigger job), and partly based upon expectation of future performance (new job at Wing level), which, I think, meets just about everyone's idea of what grade should mean.

[Eclipse]

And none of this addresses where these people are coming from.

Until NHQ give retention and recruiting some legitimate attention, this is just moving the deck chairs, and potentially
angering the existing monkeys.

[Tim Day]

In the "Real Military" ^tm once you are promoted they move you to where you are need.....CAP just can't do that.

Though this is a problem the "Real Military" ^tm hasn't completely solved either. Provisional Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan that have Lt Col specialists working for Capt Team leads. There are Colonels flying as navigators on KC-135s under the operational command of Captains. Captains in the missile fields under the command of a 1st Lt who is, by regulation, defined as 'The senior officer in charge'.

The only time I've seen that has been when the more senior officer isn't a line/combat arms officer (e.g., a chaplain, medical officer, etc) or the more senior officer isn't qualified and is under training. If they become POWs, the officer who is senior takes command. Regarding CAP, I think what we can do is set an expectation that if you're an O5, act like one and pitch in where you're needed. Then again, my experience is Navy and they're pretty strict along those lines.

CAP could adopt this concept. Instead of TIG, each grade level could come with a matrix of increasingly hard CAP leadership jobs that one would have to successfully fill prior to promotion. By doing these jobs members demonstrate that they are capable of increasingly greater responsibility. The standards for job levels already exist in the CAPR 50-17 in very general terms; the next logical step is a specific list of corresponding duty positions.

This was also discussed and not recommended for several reasons. One of them was that not all jobs at all levels realistically are equally challenging and trying to weigh one against another for what counts can get very tricky. (For example, are the Wing Finance Officers all really equal? If a wing has a budget of $1000 are they doing the same job (demands wise) as someone working with a budget of $100,000? What about personnel, etc) Additionally, it is a matrix that would have to change as jobs shift. Anytime a new position was added to 20-1 it would have to be added to a matrix in a different regulation and 'racked and stacked' against others.

Additionally, it was viewed that the rank being based on levels would already  incorporate that because specialty track ratings are required for advancement in level. You have to get a master rating in a specialty track to advance so that would be the avenue for that specific track.

Finally, there was concern that those who simply do not have the avenues to serve on higher staffs, for one reason or another, would be stunted by internal politics.

A finance officer with a budget of $100,000 is a more responsible job than a finance officer with a budget of $1,000. There's a metric for your promotion levels. If you create a job in the 20-1, you determine the level of responsibility and identify that. So: finance officer ($1,000 budget is a Level III job, $100,000 is a Level IV job).

People come in with different levels of leadership experience, so we could develop a way to determine equivalency, including what tasks needed to be completed to round out the member. For example, an active duty O5 may not need OBC but we might want to require CLC prior to promoting. Someone who is a CEO might need more basic military customs and courtesies training as well as CAP corporate training, but would likely adapt pretty quickly. In my year as a 2d Lt (promoted based on my Mitchell) I learned a lot about the "CAP way" and with a few improvements to the training program I would have learned even more.

Making job history a requirement in place of TIG could actually address one of the problems we have, which is people not wanting to fill some of those hard jobs like squadron CC. Since not everyone can be a Squadron CC, we could identify jobs of equal challenge at the Group and Wing staff level.

Commanders could influence that matrix, for example, if a Wing CC has a hard time filling a Wing ITO billet he could designate it as a hard-fill, which provides credit towards your Level III requirements.

This somewhat defeats the purpose of moving away from promotions being a reward for past performance. If there is a hard-to-fill billet that doesn't carry Level III type responsibilities why should it get credit for level III? Additionally, this could easily lead to small wings (couple hundred people in them total) declaring ALL their positions to be 'Hard-fill' and lots of people just coming in to get credit for things. Part of the goal of this proposal is to increase consistency so a Lt Col from WY has a similar skill set to a Lt Col from Wing/HQ of CAWG.

Regional CCs should be overseeing Wing CCs. If we're not selecting the right folks for CC, then we'll have a problem no matter what system we put in place. Selecting the right kind of leadership is an issue the RM faces, as Chairman Dempsey recently chagrined. But seriously, there's usually a good reason something is hard-to-fill. TIG does nothing for the consistency we're seeking, but willingness to take on jobs that need taking on does, in part. The actual skill sets don't take as long as the current TIG requirements. It's mostly a matter of waiting until someone schedules the right school - or finally giving up and organizing one yourself.

This would also help with your perceived issue with regard to CAP grade based on active duty grade. My promotion to Lt Col went to a promotion board (Region, I think). For these promotion requests Why not include a board question like: "We appreciate your military service and recognize that your military grade reflects significant potential contributions to our organization. CAP expects Lt Cols to be available to the Group and Wing CC for Wing-wide tasks. Are you ready and willing to contribute at this level? What issues do you see where you think your expertise could help the Wing?"

This question 1) articulates the organization's expectation, 2) identifies the member's motive for requesting promotion, and 3) assesses the degree to which the member is aware of the Wing's needs. Promote me to Lt Col when I know what's expected of CAP Lt Cols, my motivation is to serve the organization at a level appropriate to my capabilities, and I have made the effort to understand where the Wing needs me.

The exact method of promotion was outside the scope of the NPRWG but it certainly is an interesting discussion to look at next. There was some discussion of whether promotion recommendations should be kept at the squadron, group, wing, or even region level. As you're aware (but some who read this board may not be) promotion authority in the Real Military is NOT held by Sq/CCs or even up to NAF or MAJCOM commanders. It's done by a board of officers who are looking at everyone eligible across the entirety of the USAF. Now the commanders certainly have a layer of input but they are not the sole authority for it.

CAP could adopt this model but the current infrastructure doesn't really support it. Additionally, it could be extremely burdensome on the membership to carry out and could vastly slow the promotion process. There could be a yearly board done for each promotion, or only those of a certain set, but this can be troublesome enough at the Region or Wing Level let alone the national level.

There is also nothing saying a board can't ask those types of questions as it is since military rank is technically not automatic. However, if an active duty officer, who could produce substantiating records of their service in that rank, were denied promotion by CAP in the current clime, I do not see that going well for the commander that denied it. It could get REALLY ugly between the USAF and CAP and the board that did it better have a darn-tooting-good reason to do so at this point.

That's a very interesting point. If there is that much pressure to recognize military grade why would the USAF allow us to hold promotion boards at all? They must either have some rational scenario where a board would turn down a promotion or not want us to hold boards at all. I'd think that documented answers to a question would satisfy the USAF. I would suggest Regional Boards forward all recommendations for non-promotions to NHQ/CC. NHQ/CC then presents the documented answers to USAF/CAP. "Sir, 2d Lt Day retired as a Navy Commander and wants promotion to Lt Col but as documented in attachment 1 indicates he's not willing to assume the responsibility level of an O5. Unless otherwise directed, I'm recommending he be retained as a 2d Lt." If they reject that alternative, then abolish the boards and all further discussion regarding grade structure as it applies to former military members.

I'd think we'd have an especially good case if we posted this to our website FAQ along with a cut-in date.

Good point regarding what our infrastructure will support. I think just asking the questions and documenting the answers would be a step in the right direction.

All THAT being said, there was another recommendation that was voiced but has nothing to do with this report that might interest you. That being a pamphlet (50- series) should be written by military officers and NCOs who are long-time members of CAP talking about the differences between CAP and the regular military and how to adapt to them. It would be written in 'military speak'. Essentially, it would be a similar thought like the one for a cadet becoming a senior member. Not regulatory in nature but informative. However, it does open additional possibilities that could be discussed further down the road.

I'd be happy to comment or provide input. Though to be honest it hasn't been that much of a leap for me. It's a different environment, yes, but so have been all of my tours. As a land-based anti-submarine patrol guy, my assignments to the aircraft carrier and to the Army War College were environmental changes of much greater magnitude. Admittedly that could reflect on the way my unit helped me get up to speed when I re-joined CAP.

[Eclipse]

A finance officer with a budget of $100,000 is a more responsible job than a finance officer with a budget of $1,000. There's a metric for your promotion levels. If you create a job in the 20-1, you determine the level of responsibility and identify that. So: finance officer ($1,000 budget is a Level III job, $100,000 is a Level IV job).

And when no one wants the job, you take the slick-sleeve who joined last week, and tat's not going to change.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

[Storm Chaser]

I think I'm more incline to having a warrant officer/flight officer track than an NCO track. I think that transforming our CAP membership from one that is officer centric to one that is NCO centric is a huge undertaking and I just don't see the ROI.

I believe implementing a warrant officer/flight officer track would be much easier. That said, it seems the current CAP leadership is committed to this new NCO program and that would, inevitably, put an alternate warrant officer track or modified flight officer program on the back burner.

[Private Investigator]

... 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.

On the original topic, has anyone come up with the correct numbers? I spot checked various Units and it appears just the opposite. 94% Lt Col have Level IV and 85% of Majors have Level III.

When I was a Senior Programs Officer I recall the usual hold back from Lt Col was attending RSC and for making Captain was ECI 13. Of course in the past the way to make Captain without ECI 13 was upgrade to CFI or be a Squadron Commander for a year. I know a Senior Squadron that rotated Squadron Commanders annually so everyone could be a cool Captain   

[Майор Хаткевич]

... 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.

On the original topic, has anyone come up with the correct numbers? I spot checked various Units and it appears just the opposite. 94% Lt Col have Level IV and 85% of Majors have Level III.

When I was a Senior Programs Officer I recall the usual hold back from Lt Col was attending RSC and for making Captain was ECI 13. Of course in the past the way to make Captain without ECI 13 was upgrade to CFI or be a Squadron Commander for a year. I know a Senior Squadron that rotated Squadron Commanders annually so everyone could be a cool Captain   

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.

[Panache]

If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

I don't know.  The CAP FO insignia.... has history.  It's CAP-distinctive.  But I would humbly suggest (1) changing the epaulet design.  Right now our Flight Officers look like they're in the Navy or Coast Guard officers.  They should be embroidered versions of the bars, much like the rest of our officer rank.  And (2) reverse the colors on the embroidered FO insignia with the navy-blue backgrounds.  So the "BDU" version would be a navy-colored insignia on an ultramarine-blue background, and the "BBDU/ABU" version will be a ultramarine-blue insignia on a navy-blue background.

Even if we expand the use of the FO grades, I think we should keep it.

If we're going to use the FO grades as a "training grade" before 2nd Lieutenant, three FO grades (FO, TFO, SFO) is fine.  Anything more and you're just stretching it out too far. 

For example, Let's say...

SMWOG: New Member
FO: Immediately upon completion of Level 1 / CPPT / OPSEC.
TFO: 6 months time-in-grade as a FO.
SFO: 6 months time-in-grade as a TFO.
2nd Lieutenant: 6 months time-in-grade as a SFO, completion of OBC, completion of Technician Level in specialty track.

That already makes it at least 1.5 years before somebody is eligible for promotion to 2nd Lieutenant.  That being said, that should be plenty of time to obtain a Tech rating in at least one track.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I don't know.  The CAP FO insignia.... has history.  It's CAP-distinctive.  But I would humbly suggest (1) changing the epaulet design.  Right now our Flight Officers look like they're in the Navy or Coast Guard officers.

Point made, but modified WO insignia would also be CAP-distinctive, since the Air Force has not had a warrant officer since the last one retired from the Air Force Reserve in the 1980s.

I do not even see that current FO insignia approaches the likeness of Navy/CG officers, since their gold braid is much wider, even for an Ensign.

There is no FO grade plastic-encased insignia available for the green flight suit.

I personally have trouble with grade recognition for the FO grades on the collar of B/BDU's.



These FO insignia, to me, look like an RAF/Commonwealth Pilot Officer.





Of course, if we wanted to make a nod to our USAAF roots, we could use a version of the "capsule" insignia that Flight Officers of that era wore:

[ZigZag911]

Here's some other thoughts:

1) Special promotions for commanders can be made only after a one year probationary period -- this reflects what I understand RM tends to do, and also is in touch with CAP history (new wing CCs would be advanced to lt col if not already there, receive their eagles only after the probation year)

2) Any other special promotions to 2 Lt or above should require:
         a) completion of Level 2
         b) wing level promotions board

3) We already have FO insignia and structure...let's use that for all new SMs...forget expanding NCO corps (limit to those who earned in RM, possibly with a means to advance)...also, don't bring up WO ranks to USAF, they're very proud of not having them!

[AlphaSigOU]

In the olden days, newly-minted wing kings kept their silver bottlecaps for six months before being granted their silver eagles. Now, they get their eagle on appointment but the grade does not become permanent until successful completion of appointment, approval by CSAG and publication of NHQ promotion orders granting permanent grade.

[Private Investigator]

... 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.

On the original topic, has anyone come up with the correct numbers? I spot checked various Units and it appears just the opposite. 94% Lt Col have Level IV and 85% of Majors have Level III.

When I was a Senior Programs Officer I recall the usual hold back from Lt Col was attending RSC and for making Captain was ECI 13. Of course in the past the way to make Captain without ECI 13 was upgrade to CFI or be a Squadron Commander for a year. I know a Senior Squadron that rotated Squadron Commanders annually so everyone could be a cool Captain   

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.

Thank you, I missed that.

[Grumpy]

If they expand the FO grades, what do you do with them when billeted on a Base for activities and conferences etc.?  I'm sure they have instructions for WO's from other services, but the FO grades only exist in CAP...

Simply rename the grades as Warrant Officer, and redesign the insignia accordingly.

Holly Cow Batman, we've gone full circle like we were in the 50's.  I personally like the WO rank better than the FO grades anyway.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Here's some other thoughts:

1) Special promotions for commanders can be made only after a one year probationary period -- this reflects what I understand RM tends to do, and also is in touch with CAP history (new wing CCs would be advanced to lt col if not already there, receive their eagles only after the probation year)

Sensible.

2) Any other special promotions to 2 Lt or above should require:
         a) completion of Level 2
         b) wing level promotions board

Again a good thought...I knew a Captain who came in as that simply for being a CPA, and he was quickly advanced to Major because he had friends at Wing.  He had not done any of the PD for company grade, much less field grade, nor did I ever see him in a uniform (not even a polo shirt).

3) We already have FO insignia and structure...let's use that for all new SMs...forget expanding NCO corps (limit to those who earned in RM, possibly with a means to advance)...also, don't bring up WO ranks to USAF, they're very proud of not having them!

The expanded NCO corps is already reality.

Why are WO's a bad thing to the USAF?  I have known a lot of people in the AF who support bringing them back (they are still authorised, just not used).

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/303250026/The-time-bring-back-warrant-officers-now

Anyway, the AF does not have FO's, but we do, and they are good with that.  It would just be a matter of changing the insignia and title. 

I know the explanation about the "supergrades" for NCO's in the AF, but the other four services have those grades too and still have WO's.

In any case, our rank structure does not mirror the USAF; it used to, but has not for decades.