Proposal 2: CAP Professional Development and Rank/Grade

[Major Carrales]

This is a commonly discussed topic here, but we have never combined a few issues into one workable plan.

Rank and Grade and professional development, how do we make it meaningful?

1) Let's make Professional Development get to to captain and...
2) Make Command/Staff get you the rest of the way.


Professional Development should be strict and likely needs to be redesigned.  A CAP Major should be trained to the level that such an officer could handle the responsibilities of a USAF Staff Officer.  The idea is, not to have CAP Officers replace or fill in for acice USAF, but rather to develop those skills to benefit CAP.

This will require reexamining how promotions work in CAP.  Several models exist presented by Kach and others.  Current officers will be grandfathered into their rank and continue up to their next level once they have met the criteria.

Rank should exist as followed:

The COMPANY GRADES:
1) Officer Candidate- The Basic rank we all start with and old until Level I is completed.  Level I is defined as what we currently do now with SLS added.

2) Second Lieutenant: Much as today, except one needs SLS and six months to obtain the RANK.  A 2d Lt is learning the TECHNICIAN's level in the SPEC TRAC.  Is an assistant or trainee officer.  Must Complete SLS and obtain a TECH rating.  Special Promotions to this rank as they exist currently.

3) First Lieutenant:  Assumes a Staff Possition in the unit.  Must take CAP Officer's Course and SENIOR RATING to advance beyond. Special Promotions to this rank as they exist currently.

4) Professional Development promotions up through Captain.  Staff Officers at the Squadron level who have a MASTER's RATING advance to Captain.  A Squadron Commander can be promoted to Captain from 2d or 1st Lieutenant if serves a full year as Squadron Commander and to Major if they serve a second year. Special Promotions to this rank as they exist currently in addition to all those promotions that would get one to Major or Lt Col would only advance to this point.

2) Squadron Commanders (and former) who have completed a Master's Rating and are a Captain are appointed to Major.  Additionally, CAP Captains that serve as a GROUP STAFF Officer for 1 Year promote to Major, 1st Lt in the same condition promote to Captain after 1 year and Major after two.  CAP Officer Cadidates and 2d Lt cannot serve at Group beyond the "assistant level."  Assistant Group Staff Officers have no promotion via time-in-service, but may advance at Group under the normal channels.

3) Group Commanders (and former) appointed to Lt Col.  Made up of Former former Squadron Commanders.  One Year as Group Commander and Region Staff College to advance.

4) Wing Commanders (and former) Colonels- Come from former Group and Squadron Commanders, must take SOS before promotions.   Wing Staff may be Majors or Lt Cols, Majors may promote to Lt Col after one full year as a Staff Officer.  Captains may only serve as assistants to Staff Officers and may promote to Major after a full year as an assistant. Lower Company Grade Officers are not to serve at Wing Until they reach teh rank of Captain. They will then  Must have Region Staff College.

5) Region Commanders (and former) Brig General- Made up of elevated Wing Commanders or special circumstance Group Commanders.  The latter advances only to Colonel until qualifications are met.

6) Vice Commander (and former) Brig General- Appointed by National Board from Wing and Region Commanders

7) National Commander (and former) Major Generals- Appointed by National Board from Wing and Region Commanders

This does not address Prior Service promotions...

So, here it goes...

Prior Service Company Grade Officers promote to their RANK.  Prior Service Field Grade Officers must assume command or fulfull a Wing advistory role for 1 year at their old rank to obtain their rank in CAP, at which time they can wear it indefinately.  General Officers must do the same.

The Wing Advisory Officer, being a former US Military Officer, serves in a real position at Wing that can even be geographically determined.  For example, if a CAP Colonel (former US Army Colonel) lives in South Texas, that person would serve as an advisor to that area.  The duties and responsibilities would have to be better defined.

Former NCOs would serve a similar role...like are more a sort of "protocol" function designed to provide military bearing to cadet programs.

That is the best I can do to solve these problems.  Help!!!

[arajca]

Are wing staff officers restricted to Major or can they make Lt Col after, say two years as wing staff officer. Time served as assistants or deputies does not count toward this service time.

[Major Carrales]

Are wing staff officers restricted to Major or can they make Lt Col after, say two years as wing staff officer. Time served as assistants or deputies does not count toward this service time.

I may have left that one out...let me go back and correct it.

[Major Carrales]

Some rationale for the above...

The idea is to make rank truer to position without going as far as the Coast Guard Auxiliary.   It keeps the Coruse 13 at Captain, but does not allow for promotion beyond Captain at the Squadron Level.  There are many that are content with doing CAP at the local level (Squadron/Group), in theory I am one of them.  These folks ususally don't much put that much stock in promoting much beyond Captain, but rather find solice in the  Cadet Program or being a local aviator.

It is also based on the idea of Staffing.  Squadron has a staff, Group Staff officers are ideally ranks att eh same level as Squadron Commanders...Wing staff with the same relative rank as Group Commanders and so on.

This ties rank to what leve one is at.  Will there be lots of Captains?  Sure, but that would be a personal choice. 

There are a few minor backdoors to promotions...such as a lower level person serving in a higher staff position for some time and promoting based on having filled that role.  Also, some lower lever officers can serve as assistants.  That would mean these assistants would have to have a defined role.

For example, the Wing Public Affairs Offier would have an assistant that..along with the Group PAOs would develop training and other activities under the guidance of the Wing level Officer.  These assistance could be geograhically based, thus, a lower level officer that attaches to a unit or groups of units that keep up with the needs of local units.

There is some prohibition to people "going right to Group or Wing" from Officer Candidate (SM).  This creates a "training requirement."  Even those that take the "backdoor" route have to train a year before one of these promotions.

Please add more commentary.

[Hawk200]

I like the idea of improving PD, but I'm leary of higher staff requirements to promote. Reason being, the "good ol' boy" network exists, and will never be gotten rid of. I think that would be my biggest issue with it.

There are a lot of politics involved at the wing level, and I personally have no talent for politics. Strangely, some of the people with the political talent to get the jobs are complete morons otherwise. They end up relieved for the simple fact that someone can only cover up so much for them.

Over the years, I've been starting to think that the CAP Officers Course should be necessary to make 2LT. We show them a video, give them a small test, wait six months, and then give them butterbars. What kind of accomplishment is that? We shouldn't be trying to be minting military officers, but CAP officers (or anyone called an "officer") should have a little more training than that.

I haven't seen the full Iowa Wing syllabus, but from what I've seen here, I think that's a start in the right direction. Make it enough of a challenge that they gain a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. If they quit in the middle, then you know that this wasn't for them.

[Major Carrales]

Over the years, I've been starting to think that the CAP Officers Course should be necessary to make 2LT. We show them a video, give them a small test, wait six months, and then give them butterbars. What kind of accomplishment is that? We shouldn't be trying to be minting military officers, but CAP officers (or anyone called an "officer") should have a little more training than that.

My Original idea was to start everyone at Airman Basic and promote up to Senior Airman.  During that time all the professional development would be accomplished and the COure 13 would be required to become an Officer.  Under that structure, local people woudl also do what they found best.  Someone would remain a Senior Airman for a long time (I've heard that Senior Airman is to the Enlisted Ranks what Captain is to Officers...this is a strange parallel in this original idea of mine and the one I propose  ) but would be happy because they were doing what they liked best.

Under that system, NCOs would provide some 80% of the training and military bearing, all CAP Officers would have been trained by one save those that would rate a position as a pilot or so.  That would create "elitism" among pilots.

That is what make me scrap the "airmen proposal."  Last thing we need are Airmen and NCOs that would be (dare I say it) CAP Hard and pilots/specialists who would not have that experience.

[Hawk200]

There is some prohibition to people "going right to Group or Wing" from Officer Candidate (SM).  This creates a "training requirement." 

I think this is a good idea. We have a unit commander course, why not Group Command/Staff, or a Wing Command/Staff course? Develop a course educating these people on what their effect on the rest of the wings personnel is.

We have a Squadron Leadership School, but what does it really teach anyone? I was a presenter when I went to SLS for the first time. I read a great deal and I knew most of the course content already. It was literally a check mark I needed. There should be new content.

Same for any other courses we have. Someone should be learning something new when they attend something new. The military has educational requirements for each rank, and it's not a bad idea. Not attempting to mirror the Air Force, just use some of their lessons learned.

[Hawk200]

Over the years, I've been starting to think that the CAP Officers Course should be necessary to make 2LT. We show them a video, give them a small test, wait six months, and then give them butterbars. What kind of accomplishment is that? We shouldn't be trying to be minting military officers, but CAP officers (or anyone called an "officer") should have a little more training than that.

My Original idea was to start everyone at Airman Basic and promote up to Senior Airman.  During that time all the professional development would be accomplished and the COure 13 would be required to become an Officer.  Under that structure, local people woudl also do what they found best.  Someone would remain a Senior Airman for a long time (I've heard that Senior Airman is to the Enlisted Ranks what Captain is to Officers...this is a strange parallel in this original idea of mine and the one I propose  ) but would be happy because they were doing what they liked best.

Under that system, NCOs would provide some 80% of the training and military bearing, all CAP Officers would have been trained by one save those that would rate a position as a pilot or so.  That would create "elitism" among pilots.

That is what make me scrap the "airmen proposal."  Last thing we need are Airmen and NCOs that would be (dare I say it) CAP Hard and pilots/specialists who would not have that experience.

I'm not a really big fan of the idea of CAP creating NCO's. That is a distinctive military rank bracket that I don't think that anyone can really duplicate outside of the military. We have enough diversity in training standards across the country within CAP, I would shudder to think of what the varying qualities of NCO's that a CAP program would produce.

There are certainly people that will be offended by that belief, but I would doubt they have military experience, or if they did they're not thinking about what it took for them to become one. Some military NCO's don't even seem to realize the extent fo their own training and leadership roles.

All in all, I doubt we are ever going to end up with positional grade in CAP. I doubt we will ever have lower enlisted ranks again. What we have is a current program that needs some work. Let's try to fix this wagon before buying a new one.

[SarDragon]

Regarding the relationship between the ratings and the ranks, some Masters ratings require service in positions at the Wing level. This might be relatively easy for small wings, but getting wing staff positions for 2Lts and 1Lts can be difficult in large wings.

[Major Carrales]

Regarding the relationship between the ratings and the ranks, some Masters ratings require service in positions at the Wing level. This might be relatively easy for small wings, but getting wing staff positions for 2Lts and 1Lts can be difficult in large wings.

Then those tracks would have to be adjusted.  If what you say is true, then that is currently a problem.

The idea is for one get their initial training at the squadron level...where the rubber meets the road before they move up that chain.

No, the only answer is to shift the training downward and make it more intense.  How can we expect someone to fill a role at Wing to become a MASTER of it.  Would it not be more logical to have someone become a master at the SQUADRON/GROUP before taking the Wing? 

There are reasonable ways to make that so that everyone could agree to. 

[SarDragon]

WIWOAD, we were always in training to be the next higher level. Once the requirements had been met, then we advanced. The CAP PD program is similar. Learn to do tasks at the next higher level, then get the brass ring.

[Major Carrales]

WIWOAD, we were always in training to be the next higher level. Once the requirements had been met, then we advanced. The CAP PD program is similar. Learn to do tasks at the next higher level, then get the brass ring.

I yield to your experience.  I would be honored if you adjusted my proposal to include these elements.

[lordmonar]

How about making everyone flight officers and only give rank to the leaders/staff officers?

No advance promotions for anything including AD rank.

FO1 for Level 1, FO2 for Level 2...FO5 for Level 5.

Nat CC Maj Gen
Nat CV BGen
National Staff Cols and Lt Cols
Regional CC BGen
Regional CV Col
Regional Staff Lt Cols and Majors
Wing CC Col
Wing CV Lt Col
Wing Staff Majors and Capts
Group CC Lt Col
Group CV Major
Group Staff Capt and Majors
Sqadron CC Major
Squadron CV Capt
Squadron Staff 1st and 2nd Lts.

You only wear the rank when you are performing the job and then you go back to being a FO.

[ZigZag911]

Sparky, what you said over here answers my question from the 'what would I do as Nat'l CC' thread.....I think you're on a good track here, I share a bit of Hawk's concern about GOBs holding folks back because of the group/wing staff requirements....although you can hold all the rank in the world, but i you are on the 'outs' with the 'in' crowd, you're going to ride the bench, so to speak.

I have some concerns that time in grade/time in staff jobs is too brief between promotions.....jumping from 1 Lt to Maj in 2 years, even for a squadron commander, just distrubs me!

LordM, your proposal seems like a modification of Coast guard Auxiliary method, is that what you were using as a framework? I think it would be tough to sell to the troops....not even sure I care for it myself! Changing from field grade to CWO4 or 5 just doesn't do it for me, sorry.

[Major Carrales]

I have some concerns that time in grade/time in staff jobs is too brief between promotions.....jumping from 1 Lt to Maj in 2 years, even for a squadron commander, just distrubs me!

I tend to agree, we can modify the time-in-grade to match any we would set as "fitting."

Feel free to suggest modifications.  The purpose of that is to prevent "sky rocketing."  There are lots of variables to take into account; from those that never intend to rise above their unit, to those that genuinely want to serve at a higher level.  It is thus hard to mold a structure that both serves and limits both of these groups.

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't have a major problem with this proposal however you need to account for Wings without groups. 

And frankly, I would still allow for a time-in-grade promotion from 1st Lt to Captain, but make the time requirement very long -- for example, 5-10 years. 
This would allow some room for the CAP officer to advance who is doing a lot of good work for the organization (probabl in ES), but not necessarily as a staff officer but keep them from going too high without really getting into the guts of the organization. 

[Trung Si Ma]

I tend to agree with the "everyone is a flight officer" concept and that grade, in CAP is positional.  But I believe that we need to tie that positional grade back to the PD efforts. 

All "stripes for skills" special promotions would be to FO ranks.  I'd start them as FO1 and waive all time in grade requirements as they meet the training requirements.

In my "perfect" world:

National CC - MG, CAP
National CV and Region CC - BG, CAP
Wing CC, CV, and Region CV - COL, CAP
Squadron CC, Group CC, Group CV - MAJ, CAP
Wing CS, Region CS, Squadron CV - CPT, CAP
NCO's as current except that I would allow lateral promotions to 1SGT for units with more than one NCO.
SM without grade are addressed as Airman.

Notice that there are no LtCol's - that grade is reserved for IC's functioning as IC's.  In other words, all IC's will need two sets of epaulets - one at their "real" grade and one for LtCol while specifically serving and performing as an IC.  I believe that this would make the structure more readily identifiable during large exercises and events.

LtCol may even be appropriate for project officers at large wing / region / national level activities (such as encampments or NCSA) during the activity only.

[ColonelJack]

Yow, Trung Si Ma!!!  That's what I call a radical realignment.

You sure you're not Bud Selig in disguise??

Obligatory comedic comment -- they can have my silver oak leaves when they pry them from my cold dead shoulders.

I'm not at all clear about why all this fuss is being made about grade in CAP.  It is doing the job it was intended to do -- show how far one has progressed in one's professional development.  With the exception of corporate officers (Wing, Region, and National CCs), it's not supposed to be a "command" thing.  It never was intended to be that.

Why all this "redesigning" anyway?  If we want our grade to mean what it does in the AF, we should just go join the -- oops, I ain't gonna say that again.

Jack

[Trung Si Ma]

Yow, Trung Si Ma!!!  That's what I call a radical realignment.

You sure you're not Bud Selig in disguise??

Obligatory comedic comment -- they can have my silver oak leaves when they pry them from my cold dead shoulders.

I'm not at all clear about why all this fuss is being made about grade in CAP.  It is doing the job it was intended to do -- show how far one has progressed in one's professional development.  With the exception of corporate officers (Wing, Region, and National CCs), it's not supposed to be a "command" thing.  It never was intended to be that.

Why all this "redesigning" anyway?  If we want our grade to mean what it does in the AF, we should just go join the -- oops, I ain't gonna say that again.

Jack

I thought that I'd stir some things up

What do I care - I'm already an NCO.

[Hawk200]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

Higher staff should definitely be held by higher grades, and there should be training to take those command positions. We have SLS, and CLC, but they're checkmark courses right now. You attend, you get a certificate, even if you slept in the course. No accomplishment, other than showing up.

For higher level courses, train people to handle higher command positions. Make them worth attending. How many people here have attended any kind of military school or college course where there wasn't a test? Did you get handed a certificate for just showing up? Learn from the lessons that the military has, more leadership training as you gain rank. There isn't any of that now.

You have to take a test for the CAP officer course, why should everything else be different?

There was a commercial in the '70's. "Long hours, low pay, difficult language. Join the Peace Corps" It worked beyond their own imaginings. People wanted a challenge. Why don't we challenge people too?

[Pylon]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

I don't personally see why CAP members need to be officers.  The flight officer idea is workable because it's finally our own rank system.  It doesn't draw parellels to anybody elses system, it doesn't use anybody else's insignia and so people don't make assumptions based on a particular symbol they see on your uniform. 

We've long established that CAP is way different than the Air Force and other services.  What would be a better opportunity to create a perfect system for our membership, that fits like a glove, eliminates stereotypes, and functions the way we function than using unique-to-CAP ranks/grades?

[Hawk200]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

I don't personally see why CAP members need to be officers.  The flight officer idea is workable because it's finally our own rank system.  It doesn't draw parellels to anybody elses system, it doesn't use anybody else's insignia and so people don't make assumptions based on a particular symbol they see on your uniform. 

We've long established that CAP is way different than the Air Force and other services.  What would be a better opportunity to create a perfect system for our membership, that fits like a glove, eliminates stereotypes, and functions the way we function than using unique-to-CAP ranks/grades?

We're not commisioned or anything, so I don't see why the resistance to it. And it would be easy to get confused with everyone being an FO. Plus, there are numerous logistics problems to making such a changeover. Instead of improving the existing system, you want to do something infinitely more difficult by scrapping it, and building something new. And it will require new policies, procedures, and programs. Besides, do you honestly believe that this would fly at National? Do you think they want to take the time to do that? You're not going to be able to hand them a whole new program, and have them adopt it without them taking time to look at it. Smaller steps are far easier than big ones.

What stereotypes are there? And what functions are there that would actually be served better by having a CAP unique rank structure? How does it improve anything? You can't say that it would give anyone anymore authority by virtue of having a higher grade as an FO, than as an officer. We still have the same problem.

Since we are a volunteer organization, there are problems with the concept of chain of command. So we should train people to lead. Leadership is a different concept than command. We have to apply a different concept to make the team function.

As for insignia, that seems like a copout. People don't want to have anything expected of them, so we create a system with no expectations. Not exactly a striving to be better, is it?

[ddelaney103]

I'm a big fan of the FO plan and have been for years.

My modification would be to make "commissioned grades" (below the NB level) dependent on your PD level as well as the position.

There would be 5 PD levels tied to FO grades.  Your PD level would also be the maximum O rating you could hold.  Your commissioned grade worn would be the lower of either your PD level or the rating of the command or staff position.

Exp 1: An FO-5 became sdqn DCS (a 1st Lt position).  He would wear silver bars as long as he held the position, even though he could be a Lt Col if he held an O-5 position.

Exp 2: An FO-2 becomes Gp Commander (a Maj position). He would also wear silver bars (1st Lt) until he increased his PD/FO level.

This way you avoid the current pitfalls of the system (grade inversion and grade doesn't mean what it does in the Real Military (TM)) and avoid the possibility of the "good 'ol boy network" making their friends Colonels w/o any training or experience to back it up.

This also give the commander a carrot/stick to use with their staff.  The tougher jobs would have more bling so you would have to do the job to keep the bling.

I'm a good example of this problem.  Due to the war, I haven't been very active in CAP, though I have kept my dues current.  If I decide to go back and be the supply guy for Podunk Comp Sqdn I'll be a Major.  If I go back and become the Wing CS, I'll be a Major.  I keep the costume jewelery either way.  Lord knows that doesn't happen in the real military.

[Major Carrales]

I'm a good example of this problem.  Due to the war, I haven't been very active in CAP, though I have kept my dues current.

If I may comment on this for a bit, I high recommend that CAP Officers that are pulled away from regular attendance retain their membership...even if as a patron status at reduced dues.  We have had several long time people, some that have and other that have not kept membership current.  Those that have kept their currency return to full activity in one forth the time.  Its just matter of updated GES and getting back Flight/Ground quals.  For the others, Level I as to be redone and the time is considerable even with documentation.

Now back to your regular discussion...

[ddelaney103]

We're not commisioned or anything, so I don't see why the resistance to it. And it would be easy to get confused with everyone being an FO. Plus, there are numerous logistics problems to making such a changeover. Instead of improving the existing system, you want to do something infinitely more difficult by scrapping it, and building something new. And it will require new policies, procedures, and programs. Besides, do you honestly believe that this would fly at National? Do you think they want to take the time to do that? You're not going to be able to hand them a whole new program, and have them adopt it without them taking time to look at it. Smaller steps are far easier than big ones.

What stereotypes are there? And what functions are there that would actually be served better by having a CAP unique rank structure? How does it improve anything? You can't say that it would give anyone anymore authority by virtue of having a higher grade as an FO, than as an officer. We still have the same problem.

Since we are a volunteer organization, there are problems with the concept of chain of command. So we should train people to lead. Leadership is a different concept than command. We have to apply a different concept to make the team function.

As for insignia, that seems like a copout. People don't want to have anything expected of them, so we create a system with no expectations. Not exactly a striving to be better, is it?

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military. 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

[Ricochet13]

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military. 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

An observation based on the "rank - position" situation.  Can it be said that it creates a situation in which the "minimum becomes the maximum"?  That is, do LTs and Captains stop their progression through professional development when they achieve a position in which they are comfortable? 

As I look around I see a number of members with those ranks who are content doing what they do with no sense of urgency or need to progress.  On the other hand I also see those few who have achieved ranks of MAJ and LT COL content to sit back and let others work.  (Note:  I said some . . . not all)

If courses such as SLS, CLC, RSC, UCC, etc have important information and lessons to be learned, should attendance and participation not be more strongly encouraged in order to enhance leadership and other related skills?  That is already done with UCC and the requirement to attend within 1 year of assuming command.

Should we change the system so rank does become important and is tied to increasing responsibility.  As a senior officer in rank, I view it much as I did when I was assigned to HHC.  The unit may have been commanded by a 1LT or CPT, but that was for administrative (and of course pay) purposes.  I certainly was not "ordered around" by someone of lesser rank. 

Quite honestly I have a problem following "orders" from another member who has not completed the same professional development as I have.  Having worked hard to achieve those recognitions I "expect" someone who has been given a position of "authority" over me to have worked as hard.  I see older Captains who have occupied a position of influence/importance, and want to do nothing more.  How much more could they contribute.

Again, it is my observation that the "minimum is the maximum" has become the norm within a significant part of the organization. 

[ColonelJack]

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military.

And this is no different than the way things were in 1941.  Grade was never intended to mean what it does in the military!  It has evolved over time to represent one thing, primarily -- how far one has progressed in one's personal professional development.  You know all second lieutenants have finished Level I.  All first lieutenants have earned at least a tech rating in a specialty.  All captains have completed Level II.  All majors have completed Level III.  All lieutenant colonels have completed Level IV.  That's all it's supposed to mean.  (From the no-prior-service perspective, of course -- for those who come in with prior commissioned service, it's different, and rightfully so.)  In the scheme of CAP, whether the CC is a 1st Lt or a Lt Col, he/she is still the CC.  Outside of duty, the rank is recognized.  On duty, the position reigns.  This is the way CAP was set up.  What's up with this urgent need on the part of some to monkey around with that?
 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

An interesting way to put it.  I hardly think sixteen years' service to CAP and completion of Level V (and SOS and ACSC) is equivalent to sending in boxtops, and I take some umbridge at your comment, sir.  I worked [darn]ed hard and earned my silver leaves, as did all others who wear them.  (At least I hope they did.)  Are my leaves the same as an AF light colonel's?  No, and I don't think that they should be.  His/her leaves mean something entirely different, even though they have the same title.  And that's the way it should be.

What's this need for the RealMilitary™ to "respect" us based on our symbols of office?  We will earn their respect by doing our jobs to the best of our ability and being their auxiliary when they need us to be such.   We aren't the military.  We are an auxiliary of the military -- a civilian auxiliary that is authorized to have a paramilitary structure and military-style uniforms.

Maybe the AF really does consider us a part of their overall picture; I don't know.  But I do know that for over 60 years, rank has never been meant as anything other than recognition of personal professional development.  And I just don't understand this need on the part of many to change that.

Again -- we are not the military. 

We shouldn't think of ourselves as such.

Jack

[Hawk200]

Wish I could have put it that well, ColonelJack.

[ZigZag911]

OK, here goes:

1) Time in grade:
        1 year as SM for 2 Lt
        2 yrs   as 2Lt for 1 Lt
        2 yrs   as 1 Lt for Capt
        4 yrs   as Capt for Maj
        6 yrs   as Maj  for Lt Col

2) Time in CAP for command/staff jobs:
        2 yrs before eligible for Sqdn CC/DC or group staff
        4 yrs before eligible for wing staff
        5 yrs before eligible for group CC/CV or region staff
        7 yrs before eligible for wing CC,CV,CS, with at least two years
                 as lower echelon commander or deputy
      10 yrs before eligible for region CC, CV, CS, with at least three
                 years as wing CC or CV
      10 yrs before eligible for national staff, with at least 3 yrs wing
                 or region staff experience
      15 yrs before eligible for election as Nat'l CC or CV, or appointment
                 as Nat'l CS, with at least 3 yrs as region or wing CC

No waivers, loopholes, or exceptions!

3) Professional & Mission related skills appointments:
      a) doctors (dentists, etc), lawyers, clergy keep as is (capt)....eliminate bump to
                major after 1 year
      b) nurses & physicians assistants get 1 Lt
      c) ATP/CFII/CFI still get Capt
         Commercial  gets 1 Lt
      d) A & P mechanics get Capt, A or P gets 1 Lt

4) Eliminate accelerated promotions for: instrument or private pilots; radio comm techs; educators (and I'm a teacher!); finance experts; health professionals other than those listed above; moral leadership officers

5) Squadron or group commanders retain their current grade on appointment; after 1 yr successful service, sqdn cc gets captain, group cc gets major

6) Former cadets' structure (officer or FO) stays as it is now.

7) Retired/former military get their military grade on completion of Level 2 (not just 1)

Accelerated or special promotees must "catch up" on PD before eligible for any further promotion, including a command appointment or election that would result in higher grade.
   
       

[ColonelJack]

An observation based on the "rank - position" situation.  Can it be said that it creates a situation in which the "minimum becomes the maximum"?  That is, do LTs and Captains stop their progression through professional development when they achieve a position in which they are comfortable?

As long as CAP doesn't utilize an "up-or-out" system of promotion (which would be organizational suicide, given the fact that there are only 52 wings and 8 regions -- thus a total of only 60 active command colonel slots, and darned few others in the organization -- and only two general officer slots), people will rise to the highest level they wish.  Some folks are perfectly content to remain captains or majors (or even lieutenants) their entire career in CAP.  As long as they're doing their job, what difference does it make?  Rank is not indicative of position, nor is it supposed to be.  Rank (or grade) is only indicative of personal professional development.  That's the way it started and that's the way it continues.  Only at the O-6, O-7, and O-8 grades does rank have any actual command meaning.
 

As I look around I see a number of members with those ranks who are content doing what they do with no sense of urgency or need to progress.  On the other hand I also see those few who have achieved ranks of MAJ and LT COL content to sit back and let others work.  (Note:  I said some . . . not all)

An argument could be raised for those majors and light colonels you mention that they've "earned it."  I wouldn't say it, however, because until the day I sent in my CAPF 2a to retire, I was an active member -- squadron commander and then group staff officer.  I earned my promotions as soon as I could, not because I wanted the bling, but because of the challenge of the SM program.  Getting that Gill Robb Wilson meant much more to me than being able to make light colonel eleven years after I joined.

If courses such as SLS, CLC, RSC, UCC, etc have important information and lessons to be learned, should attendance and participation not be more strongly encouraged in order to enhance leadership and other related skills?  That is already done with UCC and the requirement to attend within 1 year of assuming command.

I would strongly support strong encouragement at all these development courses, and those offered by the Air Force as well.  All living is learning -- those who are not learning are dead.  But remember -- "mandatory" and "requirement" have little meaning in a volunteer organization in which one gets no financial reward (and has to pay to join!) and thus can vote with his/her feet at any time.  The UCC requirement is probably the easiest to enforce -- don't take the course, you don't command.  Period.  Other than that, people rise to the level of their comfort.

Should we change the system so rank does become important and is tied to increasing responsibility.

Not just, "No," but, "Hell no!"  Why would we want to change the way the entire grade system was envisioned?  From flight officer to lieutenant colonel, it's the way an officer shows his/her professional development.  "Command" and "responsibility" in the way you mean it come about when one assumes a corporate office such as Wing Commander, which has a grade tied to that position.  There's no real reason to change the rest of it -- unless change for the sake of change is the goal.

As a senior officer in rank, I view it much as I did when I was assigned to HHC.  The unit may have been commanded by a 1LT or CPT, but that was for administrative (and of course pay) purposes.  I certainly was not "ordered around" by someone of lesser rank.

No, you weren't "ordered" around.  I will bet, however, that you recognized the fact that the person listed as commander also had the responsibility for the unit, and if the unit didn't achieve its goals and objectives, his/her backside was on the line -- not yours -- and thus did as requested.  If that person had paid attention in Leadership 101, they knew how to lead the unit and not just "order" people to do things.  That 1LT or CPT may have been in the slot for what you call "administrative" purposes, but it was his/her ass if the unit didn't perform.  You knew that. 

Quite honestly I have a problem following "orders" from another member who has not completed the same professional development as I have.  Having worked hard to achieve those recognitions I "expect" someone who has been given a position of "authority" over me to have worked as hard.  I see older Captains who have occupied a position of influence/importance, and want to do nothing more.  How much more could they contribute.

Again, it is my observation that the "minimum is the maximum" has become the norm within a significant part of the organization. 

In the ideal world, my friend, it would be as you say.  But as I mentioned above, until and unless CAP adopts the "up-or-out" philosophy, such as you cite is going to continue to happen.  I have chafed under commanders who didn't know much more than how to tie their shoes, but rather than cook in my own stew, I made it a point to get them at least in the direction of the professional development they needed.  Some appreciated it -- some didn't.  (One even tried to 2b me because of it.  Long story short -- I stayed in.  He was invited to leave.) 

If "minimum as maximum" is becoming the norm as you see it, work hard to make it different (as I can tell you already do).  Those who fight this should lead by example, and if nothing else, you can shame these stagnant so-and-sos into doing better.

Good on you!  Semper Vi!

Jack

[lordmonar]

LordM, your proposal seems like a modification of Coast guard Auxiliary method, is that what you were using as a framework? I think it would be tough to sell to the troops....not even sure I care for it myself! Changing from field grade to CWO4 or 5 just doesn't do it for me, sorry.

That would be an incentive to step up and take a staff/command job.

Rank will not mean anything until we make it mean something.

Adding more requirements/TIG/TIS/Education is not going to help the basic fact that a CAP Lt Col has the same responsibilities and obligations as a brand new SMWOG.

We can't go the USAF method of moving people around to different units to match rank with billet.  So the only thing to do is to tie the rank to specific jobs.

If that is a hard sell....well so be it.  We either just ignore the problem and press on or we attempt to do something about it.

Bottom line is....how much of a problem do you thing this "rank does not mean anything" problem really is?

Zig....you indicate that you would rather keep your rank even if the don't mean anything....which is fine by me.....I too would like to keep my Capt Bars but the fix to the "problem" is easy.

[lordmonar]

I think the Flight Officer for everyone is a bad idea. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Make the PD steps worth the achievement. Don't throw out what we have, improve it. Besides, no one is going to buy off on converting all seniors to FO grades anyway. National would have fits, and I guarantee that the higher ups with their colonel grades won't go for it.

Higher staff should definitely be held by higher grades, and there should be training to take those command positions. We have SLS, and CLC, but they're checkmark courses right now. You attend, you get a certificate, even if you slept in the course. No accomplishment, other than showing up.

For higher level courses, train people to handle higher command positions. Make them worth attending. How many people here have attended any kind of military school or college course where there wasn't a test? Did you get handed a certificate for just showing up? Learn from the lessons that the military has, more leadership training as you gain rank. There isn't any of that now.

You have to take a test for the CAP officer course, why should everything else be different?

I don't see how that fixes the problem.  So what that you worked you butt off to get your level 5...doing PhD level work, working long hours at your staff job.  At the end of the day......you "rank" means nothing only your position.  A 1st Lt Squadron Commander still out ranks a Maj General ex National Commander.

Making it harder to get the rank does not mean it "means" anything.  Giving the rank responsibilities and authorities does.  Once you do that...then you can talk about making it harder to earn those responsibilities and authorities.

[ColonelJack]

That would be an incentive to step up and take a staff/command job.

There are only so many of those staff/command jobs available, you know.  So if a job isn't available, a member has no rank (or "flight officer" grade)?

Rank will not mean anything until we make it mean something.

It does mean something.  It means exactly what it is supposed to mean in CAP -- personal professional development. 

Unless, of course, your dream is to have CAP rank mean the same thing as it does in the RealMilitary™.  In which case, I have to ask you why you want that.  As I said in an earlier post ... we are not the military and we should not think of ourselves as such.  People who think CAP should be just like the military meet my definition of a "wannabe."  (No offense intended.)

Adding more requirements/TIG/TIS/Education is not going to help the basic fact that a CAP Lt Col has the same responsibilities and obligations as a brand new SMWOG.

Does it not matter that your hypothetical CAP light colonel has more training, more experience, and more familiarity with CAP than the brand new SMWOG?  He is able to do more for CAP in many different ways -- including teaching the new SMWOG about duties and responsibilities. 

And to whom, exactly, are his responsibilities and obligations?  To himself?  His unit?  His wing?  His region?  His CAP? 

We can't go the USAF method of moving people around to different units to match rank with billet.  So the only thing to do is to tie the rank to specific jobs.

If that is a hard sell....well so be it.  We either just ignore the problem and press on or we attempt to do something about it.

WHY???  What is it you want here?

Bottom line is....how much of a problem do you thing this "rank does not mean anything" problem really is?

I know you're not asking me this, but I will answer you anyway.  How much of a problem is this?

None whatsoever within CAP.  It's the way rank has been used since 1941.  It's never been a problem before now.  And I've seen no reason to believe it's a problem now.

Outside of CAP ... if you're looking for your rank to be respected by the RealMilitary™, you're barking up the wrong idea.  Since we don't earn our rank the same way, it won't mean the same thing -- no matter how we contrive to make it similar.

Zig....you indicate that you would rather keep your rank even if the don't mean anything....which is fine by me.....I too would like to keep my Capt Bars but the fix to the "problem" is easy.

The fix is easy because (in my opinion) the problem doesn't exist.  The rank we hold does have meaning within our organization.  Why does it have to have meaning elsewhere? 

The fact that some people don't like the meaning it holds doesn't lead to revising or discarding it.  It should lead to more of an acceptance.  Nod, smile, salute, and carry on.  That's what I do.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

I don't see how that fixes the problem.  So what that you worked you butt off to get your level 5...doing PhD level work, working long hours at your staff job.  At the end of the day......you "rank" means nothing only your position.  A 1st Lt Squadron Commander still out ranks a Maj General ex National Commander.

I'm not sure how it works where you are ... but in my 16 years experience, I've found that on duty or off, a person who understands what rank is supposed to be in CAP acts properly around those of higher and lesser rank than themselves.  When I was a major and a squadron CC, my unit was visited by a former wing commander.  He held absolutely no authority over me in duty positions -- but he was a bird colonel, and he was "Sir," when I spoke to him.  I saluted him -- he didn't salute me.  It's all in how you present yourself to the other grades that determines what that grade -- and your own -- means to you.

I still think you want our rank to be more in line with the RealMilitary™ ... and that just ain't gonna happen, because we're not the military.

Making it harder to get the rank does not mean it "means" anything.  Giving the rank responsibilities and authorities does.  Once you do that...then you can talk about making it harder to earn those responsibilities and authorities.

Sigh.  None so blind as those who will not see, and all that other sort of rot.

Rank in CAP means exactly what it was intended to mean -- personal professional development until one gets to the level of corporate officer.  Then rank is tied to position by regulation.  Everyone can't become a wing/region CC.  Everyone can't earn the rank of colonel.  But unless CAP adopts the AF's "up-or-out" this is the way it should be.

If you know what rank stands for ... and you act accordingly ... then it means what you want it to.  We're never going to be able to give legal orders to the real guys.  That's one of the major trappings of officer rank, and we just ain't gonna get that.  Because ... say it with me, now ... "we are not the military."

I apologize if I'm coming off snide or arrogant (or worse) here.  It's just that I have no idea why this is an issue ... no idea at all.

Jack

[lordmonar]

I sorry Col Jack.

I thought we were addressing the "problem" that CAP rank means nothing.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the current system.  I was just chucking out a possible solution to the perceived problem and defending that position.

I don't want to change our system....but if we are going to change it....we should do it intelligently.

[RogueLeader]

The problems with the current system are many:  grade means nothing, Lt Col's answer to 2nd Lt's, you can have grade without doing work appropriate to the grade.  All of these are the exact opposite of what the very same set of bars, leaves, eagles and stars mean to the military.

And this is no different than the way things were in 1941.  Grade was never intended to mean what it does in the military!  It has evolved over time to represent one thing, primarily -- how far one has progressed in one's personal professional development.  You know all second lieutenants have finished Level I.  All first lieutenants have earned at least a tech rating in a specialty.  All captains have completed Level II.  All majors have completed Level III.  All lieutenant colonels have completed Level IV.  That's all it's supposed to mean.  (From the no-prior-service perspective, of course -- for those who come in with prior commissioned service, it's different, and rightfully so.)  In the scheme of CAP, whether the CC is a 1st Lt or a Lt Col, he/she is still the CC.  Outside of duty, the rank is recognized.  On duty, the position reigns.  This is the way CAP was set up.  What's up with this urgent need on the part of some to monkey around with that?
 

How exactly do we get their respect if treat their symbols of office so cavalierly?  Military rank is based on a system of responsibility, authority and qualifications - our system is based on boxtops.

An interesting way to put it.  I hardly think sixteen years' service to CAP and completion of Level V (and SOS and ACSC) is equivalent to sending in boxtops, and I take some umbridge at your comment, sir.  I worked [darn]ed hard and earned my silver leaves, as did all others who wear them.  (At least I hope they did.)  Are my leaves the same as an AF light colonel's?  No, and I don't think that they should be.  His/her leaves mean something entirely different, even though they have the same title.  And that's the way it should be.

What's this need for the RealMilitary™ to "respect" us based on our symbols of office?  We will earn their respect by doing our jobs to the best of our ability and being their auxiliary when they need us to be such.   We aren't the military.  We are an auxiliary of the military -- a civilian auxiliary that is authorized to have a paramilitary structure and military-style uniforms.

Maybe the AF really does consider us a part of their overall picture; I don't know.  But I do know that for over 60 years, rank has never been meant as anything other than recognition of personal professional development.  And I just don't understand this need on the part of many to change that.

Again -- we are not the military. 

We shouldn't think of ourselves as such.

Jack

AMEN!!!

[ColonelJack]

I sorry Col Jack.

No apology necessary, Captain.  I enjoy spirited debates.  (You couldn't tell, could you?)  My journalism training shows through.

I thought we were addressing the "problem" that CAP rank means nothing.

Here's where the discussion loses me.  I don't see a problem at all.  CAP rank does have meaning -- within CAP.  It's not supposed to have meaning outside CAP.  And the meaning it has within CAP is not the same as the meaning military rank has within the RealMilitary™, and that's as it should be.

Let me give you an exercise in understanding whence I come:  take your average Army captain, or Navy commander.  Put them in, say, Wal-mart.  In or out of uniform, doesn't matter.  Exactly how much "authority" over others in the store does that officer have?  None.  Zip.  Nada.  He's a guy in a nice-looking suit (if in uniform), and if he's not acting like a total snot, he'll probably be thanked for his service -- but that's about it.

Now, put a CAP captain or light colonel in Wal-mart.  In uniform.  Those who don't know what CAP is, will probably thank him for his service.  (To which he should reply, "Thank you for your kind words," without trying to explain the difference between CAP and the RealMilitary™.  That would be silly.)  Out of uniform, he's just another average Joe.

See, my point here is that rank (or grade -- we use the terms interchangeably and they really shouldn't be) only has meaning within the organization that confers it.  Our CAP rank has its meaning in our organization.  Voilá!

I personally don't see anything wrong with the current system.  I was just chucking out a possible solution to the perceived problem and defending that position.

And doing a good job, I might add.  My only objection is to the perception of a problem -- unless we're trying to be "wannabes" and act like something we ain't, there isn't a problem.  (In my view.  Your mileage may vary.)

I don't want to change our system....but if we are going to change it....we should do it intelligently.

Correct, Captain.  Change should be done intelligently.  But only if there is a legitimate reason for such change.  Here, there just isn't one, as far as I can see.

All the best ...

Jack

[Major Carrales]

Here's where the discussion loses me.  I don't see a problem at all.  CAP rank does have meaning -- within CAP.  It's not supposed to have meaning outside CAP.  And the meaning it has within CAP is not the same as the meaning military rank has within the RealMilitary™, and that's as it should be.

Well said, Colonel.

The Significance of CAP RANK is to show the professional development level of a CAP OFFICER.   Even if it is from a Pilot's certificate, Teaching Certificate or prior cadet preformance.  The rank from 2d Lt to Lt Col reflects your training (in and out of CAP depending on the situation),  Col to Major General shows your current/former position and experience in CAP.  That is likely to mean something to subordiates and peers.  I see a CAP Lt Col and I can expect to see someone who as "been there and done that" in CAP...or in the Armed Forces.  I can look at a captain and tell by the ribbons and badges if that person is a "up the chain" Captain of someone "by appointment." 

I know wearing ribbons is cultrually un-USAF...but it would serve a purpose in CAP...

A Captain or Major with no Leadership Ribbon or Loening is likely a pilot or other professional that one should respect for that purpose.  A person of Captain or Major rank with a membership ribbon under US miltiary Awards is a prior service person who should be respected for that reason.  A Captain or Major with those ribbons should be respected for that as well.  It's all good!

I would say the authority and meaning of these titles, ranks and grades is intended to function within its own sphere.  I could be wrong.

Military rank, it could be said, really only has authority under the Armed Forces.  I don't think a USAF Major could simply walk into a CAP meeting and attempt to exercise control (I am assuming since I have never seen it happen) or a USAF General likely could not walk into a police station in a small town and begin giving orders.

[ColonelJack]

Military rank, it could be said, really only has authority under the Armed Forces.  I don't think a USAF Major could simply walk into a CAP meeting and attempt to exercise control (I am assuming since I have never seen it happen)

Theoretically, I suppose he could, but if he is a smart person -- and wants to give the correct impression of the AF, especially to cadets -- he won't.  The CAP meeting is not his territory, and if he's worth the paper his commission was printed on, he'll realize that and not come in trying to give orders to people not in his chain o' command.

Jack

[RiverAux]

Theoretically, I suppose he could,

I hope you meant that in theory he could try to assert authority, not that he actually had any authority over CAP. 

I could agree he could try, but no one in CAP is obligated to listen to him.

[ZigZag911]

That would be an incentive to step up and take a staff/command job.

Rank will not mean anything until we make it mean something.

Adding more requirements/TIG/TIS/Education is not going to help the basic fact that a CAP Lt Col has the same responsibilities and obligations as a brand new SMWOG.
 
So the only thing to do is to tie the rank to specific jobs.

Zig....you indicate that you would rather keep your rank even if the don't mean anything....which is fine by me.....I too would like to keep my Capt Bars but the fix to the "problem" is easy.

I agree rank can be a motivator to take on more responsibility, and support that concept.

Doesn't the CG Aux let "past" officers continue to wear the insignia of their former role? Why couldn't we do that?

LM, I did not say I wanted to keep my rank even if it is meaningless.
I was a Cadet Warrant Officer, and then a senior member Warrant Officer = been there, done that, got the T-shirt!

I feel flight officer or warrant officer grades would be appropriate for for the 'single minded' amongst us who want to do ONE thing (whether it is fly, ground team, aerospace, finance, cadet programs) and are also reluctant or unwilling to accept significant leadership roles....in other words, technical experts.

[ZigZag911]

The problem with CAP rank today is that you can not look, for instance, at a captain or major and presume that officer has a certain basic knowledge about CAP.

I would like to bring some degree of standardization to PD and promotions.

I would also like to throw as many regulatory obstacles as possible in the way of individuals who give their cronies undeserved and unearned grades.....as unrealistic a goal as that may be!

[ddelaney103]

I hate to break up the mutual admiration society, but I do think there is a problem.

I keep hearing people talking out of both sides of their mouth: first they say their grade is a "CAP thing," but then they rail about someone taking away the oak leaves that they "earned."

If it is a "CAP thing" then it shouldn't matter if we use AF grade, FO/WO grade, or something off the wall like 1-5 tri-props on the boards.  Bring that up and we start hearing about how they "earned it."

The problem is it isn't a "CAP thing," and never was.  We wear AF-style suits and AF-style grade.  To the unenlightened (which is pretty much most of the military and almost all of the rest of the US) they don't get that "well, I know that you may recognize this as the Lt Col grade you use in the military and, yes, we call ourselves "Lt Col" - but it means something entirely different from what everyone thinks it means."

I feel their pain, because I don't get the "it looks like a duck, calls itself a duck, salutes like a duck, but isn't really a duck at all," either.

One of our IC's decided to start promoting.  When asked why, he related a story from a search he took over from another IC.  While he was running it, one of the target's family came to him and asked if they thought the search was a lost cause and were winding it down.  He said no and asked how he got this idea.

His answer?  "Well, yesterday the IC was a Lt Col, and today it was a Capt..."

Grade, as we used to say in my youth, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."  For most people, you will never get the chance to explain the oddness that is CAP grade.  They will just think we are weird and will never ask for an explanation.

That is why I think we should junk the bars, leaves, and eagles altogether.  You are right that CAP can do it any way they want - let's just not take anyone else's symbols for a ride while we do it.

[Hawk200]

I keep hearing people talking out of both sides of their mouth: first they say their grade is a "CAP thing," but then they rail about someone taking away the oak leaves that they "earned."

Where's the double talk? If I meet all the requirements under the Professional Develeopment program for promotion to Lt Col, then I have indeed "earned" it.

The way I would have earned it is through the CAP program. That's the "CAP thing".

It is different from the way military officers would earn Lt Col. The ways don't cross. An Army officer moves forward by learning to manage ground combat, an Air Force officer by learning air campaigns. An "Army thing" and an "Air Force thing". Each service has it's own thing. And we don't operate like either one of them.

We use standardized officer ranks. It's a lot simpler. Most people coming into the program learn fairly quickly what the rank system is, and cadets learn it too. Why should we create an arbitrary system (which it would be)? CAP cadets going into the military can quite often gain advance rank upon initial entry due to their exposure to a similar environment as the military. Similar enough that there is little transition. Why change that too?

Besides, who here honestly believes that trashing our current ranks would even be approved? I doubt it would happen, for a number of reasons.

[ColonelJack]

The problem with CAP rank today is that you can not look, for instance, at a captain or major and presume that officer has a certain basic knowledge about CAP.

Beg pardon?  That's exactly what it does mean.  The only thing you can't tell with any certainty is whether they were prior military service or not.

I would like to bring some degree of standardization to PD and promotions.

I would think the promotions are standardized to professional development right now.  Without prior commissioned service, you can't make 2nd Lt without Level I.  You can't make 1st Lt without a tech rating in Level II.  You can't make Captain without completing Level II.  You can't make Major without Level III.  You can't make Lt Col without completing Level IV.  What could be more standardized than that?

I would also like to throw as many regulatory obstacles as possible in the way of individuals who give their cronies undeserved and unearned grades.....as unrealistic a goal as that may be!

Heheheheheh.  I think I know what you mean here.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

I hate to break up the mutual admiration society, but I do think there is a problem.

I keep hearing people talking out of both sides of their mouth: first they say their grade is a "CAP thing," but then they rail about someone taking away the oak leaves that they "earned."

What are you talking about?  There's no double-talk here.  CAP regulations specify what must be done to earn a specific grade.  If I met the standards set by those regulations, then I bloody well earned my leaves.  See, the difference here is -- I knew going in that my bars, and later leaves, didn't mean the same thing as those worn by the RealMilitary™.  I didn't earn mine the same way they did.  And I also never lost one second of sleep about it, either.  I earned mine under the existing regulations of the service auxiliary I joined.  So, for that matter, did you.

If it is a "CAP thing" then it shouldn't matter if we use AF grade, FO/WO grade, or something off the wall like 1-5 tri-props on the boards.  Bring that up and we start hearing about how they "earned it."

Your issue here, then, is with Gill Robb Wilson, Fiorello LaGuardia, and the other founders of CAP.  Because it was their decision to make CAP an auxiliary of the Army Air Corps -- which meant using AAC uniforms, ranks, etc.  And because we stayed in that billet as the AAC became the AF, that's what we use.  And we use them the way we were originally intended to use them.

Look, CAP rank was never, ever, ever, ever intended to mean the same thing as active-duty military rank.  It is our rank system.  And before you go off about, "Let's not use their symbols, then," tell that to every single police and sheriff's department that has corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, colonels, etc.  They use 'em too.  I don't hear you railing about that.

The problem is it isn't a "CAP thing," and never was.  We wear AF-style suits and AF-style grade.  To the unenlightened (which is pretty much most of the military and almost all of the rest of the US) they don't get that "well, I know that you may recognize this as the Lt Col grade you use in the military and, yes, we call ourselves "Lt Col" - but it means something entirely different from what everyone thinks it means."

They also probably don't give a flying hoop about it!  In all the time I was in public in my uniform I never heard one person wonder if my rank meant the same as someone in the RealMilitary™.  Not once.  I also would find it hard to believe that an AF officer seeing me in my CAP uniform would blink twice about my rank.  If he sees the CAP trappings on my uniform he knows my rank isn't the same as an active-duty light colonel's.  He also probably doesn't care.  It wouldn't be an issue to him.  Why is it an issue to you?

I feel their pain, because I don't get the "it looks like a duck, calls itself a duck, salutes like a duck, but isn't really a duck at all," either.

Your logic totally escapes me.  Reading your words, what I gather is ... you want our CAP grade to mean what military officer grade means.  And since it doesn't -- and, given the structure of CAP, it never will -- we should junk it and come up with our own.

You do realize, of course, that there is no way that is going to happen.  Hell will freeze over.  The Cubs will win the World Series ... after beating Tampa Bay in seven nerve-wracking games.  Cincinnati will win the Super Bowl with Michael Vick at quarterback and Pacman Jones carrying the ball for him -- and NBA referees will legally bet on the games.  The National Board and NEC and BoG is never, ever going to buy into that idea.  Just ain't gonna happen, because to them -- and to the Air Force -- and to most of CAP's membership -- this "problem" you cite isn't a problem, it's a non-issue.

Grade, as we used to say in my youth, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."  For most people, you will never get the chance to explain the oddness that is CAP grade.  They will just think we are weird and will never ask for an explanation.

There's nothing to explain.  Our grade is our grade.  Police captains have to go through dozens of different hoops than ours, or AF captains -- does that mean they shouldn't use railroad tracks for rank? 

That is why I think we should junk the bars, leaves, and eagles altogether.  You are right that CAP can do it any way they want - let's just not take anyone else's symbols for a ride while we do it.

When police departments, sheriff's departments, etc., do that, I'll consider the idea as having merit.  We're not the military.  Neither are they.  They use the insignia and titles.  So do we.

Maybe you can fix the problem when you become National Commander ... but you're going to run into a major-league brick wall with AF, tradition, membership, etc.

Jack

[RogueLeader]

^^Thank you ColonelJack

[ddelaney103]

I keep hearing people talking out of both sides of their mouth: first they say their grade is a "CAP thing," but then they rail about someone taking away the oak leaves that they "earned."

Where's the double talk? If I meet all the requirements under the Professional Develeopment program for promotion to Lt Col, then I have indeed "earned" it.

The way I would have earned it is through the CAP program. That's the "CAP thing".

Yes, you "earned it" under the CAP system, but you then use a symbol given gravitas by another's system, in this case the military.  I don't begrudge anyone their Wilson or Garber - just their "right" to be Majors or Lt Col's.

It is different from the way military officers would earn Lt Col. The ways don't cross. An Army officer moves forward by learning to manage ground combat, an Air Force officer by learning air campaigns. An "Army thing" and an "Air Force thing". Each service has it's own thing. And we don't operate like either one of them.

We use standardized officer ranks. It's a lot simpler. Most people coming into the program learn fairly quickly what the rank system is, and cadets learn it too. Why should we create an arbitrary system (which it would be)? CAP cadets going into the military can quite often gain advance rank upon initial entry due to their exposure to a similar environment as the military. Similar enough that there is little transition. Why change that too?

Besides, who here honestly believes that trashing our current ranks would even be approved? I doubt it would happen, for a number of reasons.

We use "standardized officer ranks," sure, but we use them in non-standardized ways.

Of course they will never change the system, because people are in love with looking like "real officers."  They cling to those oak leaves even though they are CAP's answer to merit badges instead of marks of authority and responsibility.

That's part of the answer to the "police use them, too" strawman argument.  First, police are rarely mistaken for the military.  Second, and most importantly, they use the insignia the same way the military does.  A Major in the MD State Police isn't the same as an military Major, but they both have authority over their respective Lt's and Captains and are the responsible person unless a higher ranking person shows up. 

In CAP, no one can hold me responsible because some Captain goes all stupid, which is good because I have no authority to tell him to do anything, anyway.

If I have authority in CAP it is due to position (Gp Commander, PIC, GTM) not due to grade.  That's jacked up.

[ColonelJack]

Well, Mr. Delaney (I won't call you "Major" Delaney or "Colonel" Delaney since you obviously don't see yourself as such), if this is so much of an issue for you, why do you maintain your affiliation with the organization? 

Your premise about why the system won't be changed is silly.  It won't be changed for one reason -- it works the way it was originally intended to work.  There's simply no logical reason to do anything to change the senior officer grade structure, because it does what it is supposed to do -- show personal professional development.

And before you go calling my arguments "straw men," check yourself -- you're resorting to personal attacks to bolster your less-than-tenable position.  Saying the system won't change because people like looking like "real officers" does a tremendous disservice to those who have worked hard -- within the system you seem to condemn -- to earn their grade as provided for in regulations. 

But you are correct on one item.  Any authority you have is directly the result of your position.  If you'll read CAP history, you'll find out that it was planned that way, back when the whole thing started.  Just like the grade system was.

Jack

[ddelaney103]

There is only one thing that CAP grade does: it represents your perceived worth to CAP.

Your "classic" CAP officer who works up through the grades is an example of this.  If you pursue your PD levels you're working for CAP on many levels:  you keep taking PD courses and increasing your knowledge base, you are working a specialty track (which usually involves both gaining knowledge and serving in a position) and putting in time.  Because CAP likes this they give you not just the Award, but also promotions.  However, that's not the only way to get grade in CAP...

The NB/NEC has decided a lot of times that they thought something was important.  They like having the various commander's slots filled, they like having members with special skill sets or knowledge.  To show how important it is, they hand out grade.

CAP likes pilots (Air is our middle name, after all) so we entice pilots with grade.  The more tickets in your book, the better the bling.  Doctors, lawyers, chaplains?  Break out the box of railroad tracks!  Military officers?  As long as you won't outgrade the NB/NEC, we got the hook up!  None of these people have to slog through the PD system: most of them have their own special classes to take.

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all.  The last time I saw grade taken away was when the Board worked over Brig Gen Bergman, and he got that back.

Finally, there are the "suck up" grades.  CAP loves US Congressmen - we'll make them Lt Col's faster than you can say "FedEx that Senator a flight suit!"  CAP likes state representatives - we'll make them Majors.

Regular members can get in on this action, too.  SMWOG Joe Bagadonuts goes to his Lv 1 training and talks about all the time he spends at the state capital working with the State House Speaker.  After graduation, he gets buttonholed by the Wing King, who asks if he'd take the job of Wing Legislative Liaison Officer.  Joe says yes and (whenever he gets his stuff from Vanguard) he will be hitting the state house with shiny silver oak leaves and one whole ribbon.

So, in the end, grade means only one thing:  how much CAP thinks you're worth.

[Hawk200]

Of course they will never change the system, because people are in love with looking like "real officers." 

I've never been "in love" with looking like a real officer. People in my current Army Guard unit know I'm in CAP. But they don't know my rank. A couple people have asked. I've told them it wasn't important. They ask what I do. That I tell them about.

I'm beginning to wonder about this hangup that some people have about CAP ranks. We do have some  idiots that try to flaunt a rank earned far differently than the military, and shouldn't have any. But taking it away from everyone isn't the answer.

But I'm seeing a lot of people here that don't want officer grade, and I think it's for a far different reason. If you don't want people to expect officer conduct from you, give it up yourself. Don't try to tell everyone else that they don't deserve to be officers because you lack the desire to behave like one, or conduct yourself in the manner expected of those grades. It is unjust to demand others sacrifice for your shortcomings.

Those that are seriously offended by that are probably part of the problem.

[Hawk200]

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all. 

I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

[Trung Si Ma]

[I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

I do.  Had to quote it extensively to Group, Wing, Region, and National when I gave up those pretty silver leaves to get a rank that was actually earned - MSgt.  Granted, I didn't do it until through with AWC, but it still was a huge headache getting some grade that actually means something.

[ddelaney103]

Well, Mr. Delaney (I won't call you "Major" Delaney or "Colonel" Delaney since you obviously don't see yourself as such), if this is so much of an issue for you, why do you maintain your affiliation with the organization?

You're welcome to call me by my user name.  I avoid using my given name because too many times have I seen tattletales run off the boards to complain that X said this or Y said that.  Without a little "academic non-attribution" this will quickly become a yes-men committee.

I am a CAP Major and I understand what that means in the larger scale of things.  I promoted for reasons similar to the IC I mentioned in a previous post.  In order to do things in CAP, you need a certain amount of "CAP street cred."  Major is enough to prove you're serious about CAP.

I have my Garber, and plan to get my Wilson, but I don't see many reason to become a Lt Col.  It'll cost me fifty bucks and I don't gain anything.

And if tomorrow they said "new system - here's your WO-4 shoulderboards?"  I'd swap without looking back.  Same thing with any other grade system they came up with.  It wouldn't decrease my CAP street cred any and I wouldn't feel like I was "dressing up" in big brother's clothes.

I'm here because CAP can be useful in many ways: our ability to put eyes in the sky for any disaster and our ability to give young Americans experience in leadership are just the two biggest.  However, our missions are accomplished in spite of our grade system, not because of it.

Your premise about why the system won't be changed is silly.  It won't be changed for one reason -- it works the way it was originally intended to work.  There's simply no logical reason to do anything to change the senior officer grade structure, because it does what it is supposed to do -- show personal professional development.

And before you go calling my arguments "straw men," check yourself -- you're resorting to personal attacks to bolster your less-than-tenable position.  Saying the system won't change because people like looking like "real officers" does a tremendous disservice to those who have worked hard -- within the system you seem to condemn -- to earn their grade as provided for in regulations. 

Hang on, I've gone ad hom?  You're the one up top deciding I shouldn't be called by what you consider my rightful title.  Considering how important you consider the grade to be, that would seem a personal insult.

I have not called you into question, just your argument that "the police do it and you don't complain about that."  As I mentioned in a previous post, the police don't look like the military or have a (sometimes) formal relationship with an armed service.  If their uniforms gave the impression of being military officers, I'd have a beef with them, too.

More importantly, they use grade insignia as an instant indicator of authority and responsibility, which is much more in the spirit of the insignia then our useage.

In CAP, grade is considered a right, not a privilege.  Every time the talk turns to tying higher grade to service above Group level, we hear the cries of "but what if I live too far from Wing?  I won't be able to promote!"  In the Reserve/Guard, if you want to promote you go to where the slot is or you don't promote.  If someone talked about their "right" to be a Chief or General, they'd get a trip to Mental Health.

In the military, a salute is a recognition that the person being saluted is the person in authority.  In CAP, it is the recognition that "CAP loves him/her better."

[RiverAux]

In order to do things in CAP, you need a certain amount of "CAP street cred." 

Hmm, then it seems as if the rank is more or less accomplishing its purpose by representing your accomplishments within CAP and to some extent your abilities. 
------

[ddelaney103]

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all. 

I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

Been up one side and down the other and for all the time I've been in CAP I've never seen anyone hand back their probationary grade or get called to the carpet for not doing whatever job they signed up for.

Often, it's because they have nothing to do.  A sqdn Legal Officer may go for years without work.  A Doctor can't do med stuff - he's stuck giving the semi annual seasonal health brief.  And your average commander would be so overjoyed to have a Chaplain drop in every so often to do ML he's not going to pull grade for non-performance.

In the real military, the limited slots and the inherent authority that goes with grade will make promotion authorities very careful in handing out the bling.  Promoting to E-5 means deciding "yes, I am comfortable with this person taking charge of Airmen/Sailors/Soldiers/Marines in a crisis."

In CAP, promoting to Lt Col means what?  "Do I want to salute this person?"  Because for the promotion authority there are few repercussions.  There's no authority or responsibility and he or she still keeps working as DCS or Asst AEO.  Promotions make the member happy and the PD awards that drive most of them makes the Wing King happy, so what's not to love?

[ddelaney103]

In order to do things in CAP, you need a certain amount of "CAP street cred." 

Hmm, then it seems as if the rank is more or less accomplishing its purpose by representing your accomplishments within CAP and to some extent your abilities. 
------

No, it means I understand the system and I am using it to help me.  It doesn't mean i like it.

If we shifted to a "FO-1 to 5 for PD level and the officer bling was reserved for command and higher staff" system, we'd still retain the "street cred" system while making grade more like it is in the AF we're trying to be part of.  We'd also hand the commander an important carrot/stick in filling staff slots and enforcing performance.

The ability to say, "take this job and I'll make you a Lt Col" and "do your job or I'll find someone else to give your oak leaves" would be a big advantage over the current "stop, or I'll say 'stop' again."

[ColonelJack]

There is only one thing that CAP grade does: it represents your perceived worth to CAP.

Your "classic" CAP officer who works up through the grades is an example of this.  If you pursue your PD levels you're working for CAP on many levels:  you keep taking PD courses and increasing your knowledge base, you are working a specialty track (which usually involves both gaining knowledge and serving in a position) and putting in time.  Because CAP likes this they give you not just the Award, but also promotions.  However, that's not the only way to get grade in CAP...

No, it isn't.  But it is -- by far and away -- the primary way to get grade in CAP.  And, as I have said repeatedly, the use of grade was meant to do that. 

But in the RealMilitary™, is it not the same thing?  Does one not have to keep taking professional development ... work in a command slot or staff job ... put in time ... to advance in rank?

The NB/NEC has decided a lot of times that they thought something was important.  They like having the various commander's slots filled, they like having members with special skill sets or knowledge.  To show how important it is, they hand out grade.

CAP likes pilots (Air is our middle name, after all) so we entice pilots with grade.  The more tickets in your book, the better the bling.  Doctors, lawyers, chaplains?  Break out the box of railroad tracks!  Military officers?  As long as you won't outgrade the NB/NEC, we got the hook up!  None of these people have to slog through the PD system: most of them have their own special classes to take.

Just an example of the same thing in the actual service:  One of the people in my Scottish Country Dance class is a doctor (an anesthesiologist).  She was a doctor for the Navy for five years.  Because of her specialty, after joining the Navy and going through officer training, she was commissioned a lieutenant commander.  Ninety days after signing the papers to become a Naval officer, she jumped to O-4 -- and didn't have to slog through any system the Navy uses for officer promotions.  CAP is not alone in doing this.

If I recall correctly, Army regulations state (or at one time stated) that in certain circumstances, certain people with vitally needed skills can be granted grade as high as lieutenant colonel -- just for agreeing to work with the Army.  My point is, the RealMilitary™ does it too.

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all.  The last time I saw grade taken away was when the Board worked over Brig Gen Bergman, and he got that back.

All you cite here happened after I retired, so I am "in the dark" about it.  I do recall something about Gen. Bergman, but it's kind of fuzzy to me.  (Anybody want to bring this old man up to speed?)

Finally, there are the "suck up" grades.  CAP loves US Congressmen - we'll make them Lt Col's faster than you can say "FedEx that Senator a flight suit!"  CAP likes state representatives - we'll make them Majors.

I'm not going to defend that one at all, 'cause I think it's silly too.  I understand the CGAux has a similar thing, but they bestow the grade of "honorary district commodore" on such folks.  The major differences are:  1) you have to do a lot more for the CGAux than these clowns do for CAP to get it ... 2) it's an honorary rank rather than a "real" one ... 3) they get a star.

Regular members can get in on this action, too.  SMWOG Joe Bagadonuts goes to his Lv 1 training and talks about all the time he spends at the state capital working with the State House Speaker.  After graduation, he gets buttonholed by the Wing King, who asks if he'd take the job of Wing Legislative Liaison Officer.  Joe says yes and (whenever he gets his stuff from Vanguard) he will be hitting the state house with shiny silver oak leaves and one whole ribbon.

I see that particular method of advancement as an abuse of the system, and not as the routine.  It's the same as some guy being a captain one day, made a group commander and bumped to major, then made wing (and later region) commander and bumped to colonel -- and never finishing a term in either slot.  That, too, is an abuse of the system.

But just because some abuse the system ... it doesn't mean the system should be done away with.

So, in the end, grade means only one thing:  how much CAP thinks you're worth.

Not necessarily.  It can -- and for most members does -- mean what you've done, what you've learned, what you've put into the program.

Remember, too, that CAP payday comes in only two ways -- bling and rank.  We don't get $$$ for being members.  You're advocating doing away with one of the two ways we get paid for our work.

I'm sure you understand why that touches a nerve with many people.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

[I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

I do.  Had to quote it extensively to Group, Wing, Region, and National when I gave up those pretty silver leaves to get a rank that was actually earned - MSgt.  Granted, I didn't do it until through with AWC, but it still was a huge headache getting some grade that actually means something.

What you got was a grade that meant something important to you -- which, I submit, is the same reason everyone else earns their grade.  It's important to them, for whatever reason.

And there will be as many reasons as there are members.

(You finished AWC?  I'm impressed!)

Jack

[ColonelJack]

But I'm seeing a lot of people here that don't want officer grade, and I think it's for a far different reason. If you don't want people to expect officer conduct from you, give it up yourself. Don't try to tell everyone else that they don't deserve to be officers because you lack the desire to behave like one, or conduct yourself in the manner expected of those grades. It is unjust to demand others sacrifice for your shortcomings.

Those that are seriously offended by that are probably part of the problem.

Well said, sir.

Jack

[Dragoon]

Sadly, our grade system is NOT working as it was intended to work.

In the original grade system, grade was based on position.  The squadron CC's rank was based on size of the unit.  Staffers were commissioned officers.  Pilots were flight officers. Everybody else was enlisted.

In other words, we looked pretty much like the Army Air Corps, and functioned in a similar fashion.  The guy with the most rank was in charge.  He has the responsiblity and the authority that should go with the grade on his epaulets.

So how the heck did we get from such a common sense system to the messed up, rank inverted, "my grade is really just a symbol of my CAP education level" system?

Simple - we don't do "up or out."

So the squadron CC is a major, but he doesn't want to be a squadron CC anymore.  So what now?  We decided demotions were too insulting. So we let him keep his grade.

Then, somewhere in the 50s (old timers can fill in the details) we had some sort of a quota based system where each unit got X number of officer grades.  But the same problem occured - the old Lt Col would step down and keep the rank, so now the new guy commander couldn't get promoted due to the quota being filled by the old commander!

So, we went to a "check the block, get promoted" system.  Everyone gets to be a Lt Col, as long as they sit through the classes.


And this would be fine, except that our grade still looks just like real military grade.  And, as several have pointed out we aren't in the military.  If we got rid of the oak leaves and railroad tracks, and replaced them with some CAP specific system, we'd be making it clear that our rank is nothing like the real military's.

Which would be truth in advertising.

[Hawk200]

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all.  

I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

Been up one side and down the other and for all the time I've been in CAP I've never seen anyone hand back their probationary grade or get called to the carpet for not doing whatever job they signed up for.

Obviously you haven't read it lately. Read the emphazised portion. Then, if you want some credibility, tell us how the statement is wrong in accordance with 35-5. Because your statement and the reg don't jive.

[ddelaney103]

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all.  

I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

Been up one side and down the other and for all the time I've been in CAP I've never seen anyone hand back their probationary grade or get called to the carpet for not doing whatever job they signed up for.

Obviously you haven't read it lately. Read the emphazised portion. Then, if you want some credibility, tell us how the statement is wrong in accordance with 35-5. Because your statement and the reg don't jive.

Yes, for the whole half dozen or so officers who fall into the "region vice but never been NB/NEC" category, they have to hand back their eagles.  I didn't bother including that because a) that event almost never happens and b) I never discussed O-6's and above.

I must admit, though, it's a great rule - we just need to extend it to the vast preponderance of officers who are either not in a staff slot or in one far below their current grade.

Again, I ask you to show me times when a member was demoted for not doing his job - since it clearly says:

9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or conducts himself/herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade.

[Hawk200]

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all.  

I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

Been up one side and down the other and for all the time I've been in CAP I've never seen anyone hand back their probationary grade or get called to the carpet for not doing whatever job they signed up for.

Obviously you haven't read it lately. Read the emphazised portion. Then, if you want some credibility, tell us how the statement is wrong in accordance with 35-5. Because your statement and the reg don't jive.

Yes, for the whole half dozen or so officers who fall into the "region vice but never been NB/NEC" category, they have to hand back their eagles.  I didn't bother including that because a) that event almost never happens and b) I never discussed O-6's and above.

I must admit, though, it's a great rule - we just need to extend it to the vast preponderance of officers who are either not in a staff slot or in one far below their current grade.

Again, I ask you to show me times when a member was demoted for not doing his job - since it clearly says:

9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or conducts himself/herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade.

Not what I'm talking about. Read 35-5 again on professional appointments. You'll see what I mean.

As long as we follow the reg, we don't get "shooting stars".

[ddelaney103]

When CAP started to run rough over financial stuff, one suggestion was to make CPA's Majors.  The coolest thing is, once they have the grade they get to keep it even if they never do work in their specialty, or useful work at all.  

I'm betting you don't know what 35-5 is, do you?

Been up one side and down the other and for all the time I've been in CAP I've never seen anyone hand back their probationary grade or get called to the carpet for not doing whatever job they signed up for.

Obviously you haven't read it lately. Read the emphazised portion. Then, if you want some credibility, tell us how the statement is wrong in accordance with 35-5. Because your statement and the reg don't jive.

Yes, for the whole half dozen or so officers who fall into the "region vice but never been NB/NEC" category, they have to hand back their eagles.  I didn't bother including that because a) that event almost never happens and b) I never discussed O-6's and above.

I must admit, though, it's a great rule - we just need to extend it to the vast preponderance of officers who are either not in a staff slot or in one far below their current grade.

Again, I ask you to show me times when a member was demoted for not doing his job - since it clearly says:

9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or conducts himself/herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade.

Not what I'm talking about. Read 35-5 again on professional appointments. You'll see what I mean.

As long as we follow the reg, we don't get "shooting stars".

If a direct appt to Captain qualifies for the "promote to Major after one year as Captain" option, having to wait the full time to promote still means silver oak leaves at about 5 years.  That's about 5 years faster than the minimum for military officers and about 10 years faster than your average O-5. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm

Granted, it's not the "Magic wand prang" the Legislative Liaison guys get, but that's still pretty dang fast.

[Hawk200]

If a direct appt to Captain qualifies for the "promote to Major after one year as Captain" option, having to wait the full time to promote still means silver oak leaves at about 5 years.  That's about 5 years faster than the minimum for military officers and about 10 years faster than your average O-5. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm

Granted, it's not the "Magic wand prang" the Legislative Liaison guys get, but that's still pretty dang fast.

What's the date on the 35-5 that you're looking at? You haven't addressed what I'm talking about yet. I'm wondering if you have an older version.

[ddelaney103]

If a direct appt to Captain qualifies for the "promote to Major after one year as Captain" option, having to wait the full time to promote still means silver oak leaves at about 5 years.  That's about 5 years faster than the minimum for military officers and about 10 years faster than your average O-5. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm

Granted, it's not the "Magic wand prang" the Legislative Liaison guys get, but that's still pretty dang fast.

What's the date on the 35-5 that you're looking at? You haven't addressed what I'm talking about yet. I'm wondering if you have an older version.

21 Aug 04 - I'm looking at the one of the cap.gov site...

[Hawk200]

What's the date on the 35-5 that you're looking at? You haven't addressed what I'm talking about yet. I'm wondering if you have an older version.

21 Aug 04 - I'm looking at the one of the cap.gov site...

Read pages 8 and 9. You should see what I'm talking about.

[ZigZag911]

Here's a couple of examples of 'accelerated promotion' for you:

Captain for about 8-10 years; major for several months; colonel (wing CC)

1Lt for taking a squadron for about 6 months; then major for taking a group for less than 6 months; then lt col for reasons no one has been able to discern thus far.

Oh, and instant captain to lt col for 'legislative sqdn CC' (I wish they'd get rid of that appointment, it's almost always a polite fiction/excuse for promoting a crony), followed by col (you guessed it, another wing CC!), in the space of about 9 months

By the way, I'm not sure any of the region vices who weren't wing CCs actually had to turn in their birds; in any case, they revert to lt col (regardless of prior grade....imagine, a region CC could make a SMWOG a temporary col who would at worst end up as a lt col!!!) unless approved by the NEC for permanent colonel....any bets on how small a number is not approved?!?

Finally, the difference between CAP & Real Military (tm) regarding professional appointments is that the candidate for a military commission as doctor, lawyer, chaplain, nurse and so forth is required to get some actual grounding in the customs, procedures, operations and regulations of their service.

Professional appointments are OK, but two changes are needed:

1) the rank should be awarded after Level II
2) further promotion should require completion of CAP PD program for the rank in question

[Hawk200]

Here's a couple of examples of 'accelerated promotion' for you:

Captain for about 8-10 years; major for several months; colonel (wing CC)

1Lt for taking a squadron for about 6 months; then major for taking a group for less than 6 months; then lt col for reasons no one has been able to discern thus far.

Oh, and instant captain to lt col for 'legislative sqdn CC' (I wish they'd get rid of that appointment, it's almost always a polite fiction/excuse for promoting a crony), followed by col (you guessed it, another wing CC!), in the space of about 9 months

By the way, I'm not sure any of the region vices who weren't wing CCs actually had to turn in their birds; in any case, they revert to lt col (regardless of prior grade....imagine, a region CC could make a SMWOG a temporary col who would at worst end up as a lt col!!!) unless approved by the NEC for permanent colonel....any bets on how small a number is not approved?!?

Finally, the difference between CAP & Real Military (tm) regarding professional appointments is that the candidate for a military commission as doctor, lawyer, chaplain, nurse and so forth is required to get some actual grounding in the customs, procedures, operations and regulations of their service.

Professional appointments are OK, but two changes are needed:

1) the rank should be awarded after Level II
2) further promotion should require completion of CAP PD program for the rank in question

So there are people that buck the system, and cheat fellow members. Why should the system change? Anyone that finds a way to cheat it at present will find a way to cheat a different system.

Our current culture is one of entitlement. Kids out of high school think they should have 9 and $10 an hour jobs with no prior experience. How does changing our rank system deal with the underlying problem in our society? There are schools nowdays that don't even have tests. Cheating the promotion structure is a symptom, not the underlying problem.

Look at our top level leaders that are getting fired and replaced. Do you think they all were poor leaders? What about the fact that many of them were replaced with personnel having law enforcement background? Does that look totally innocent to everyone? Problems at the top. Even if a proposed system would supposedly fix that, there would still be cheaters. Many at the top levels.

[Dragoon]

So there are people that buck the system, and cheat fellow members. Why should the system change? Anyone that finds a way to cheat it at present will find a way to cheat a different system.   

But some systems are way more resistant to cheating than others. 

[Hawk200]

So there are people that buck the system, and cheat fellow members. Why should the system change? Anyone that finds a way to cheat it at present will find a way to cheat a different system.   

But some systems are way more resistant to cheating than others. 

Maybe so, but there is always a potential for abuse. And there are people that just ignore the rules. Unfortunately, in some of the systems that have been proposed, it would be harder to challenge a violation of rules.

This proposed FO for everyone, command slots get officer grade would present issues as well. There are people higher up that ignore anyone but unit commanders or people with more rank. It would make it even easier with FO for everyone. Higher level staff could just say: "Oh, he or she is just a Flight Officer, they don't have any input worth considering. Let me know when that unit commander calls." May or may not happen, there is only one way to know. Implement it and see. But do you really want to roll those dice? Are you willing to accept the repercussions if it does actually turn out that way? Will your conscience be clear if it does?

So far no one has answered one question that I have posed: Does anyone really think that an FO for everyone system would get passed if sent up? Honestly? Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.

Making a ProDev system that would present more challenges is probably far more likely than throwing out our current system, and creating a new one. Wouldn't you rather be a better officer than getting reduced to a less important one?

[ColonelJack]

So far no one has answered one question that I have posed: Does anyone really think that an FO for everyone system would get passed if sent up? Honestly? Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.

Well, I've answered it.  I believe my answer went something like this:

...Hell will freeze over ... the Cubs will win the World Series after a thrilling seven games with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ... the Cincinnati Bengals will win the Super Bowl with Michael Vick at quarterback and Pacman Jones carrying the ball for him -- with betting by NBA referees ...

Something like that.

In other words, a proposal to change grade in CAP -- any proposal that changes grades in CAP -- is most likely dead on arrival.

This is a fun exercise in semantics and "what if," but in reality, that kind of change is not going to happen.  Not in this lifetime, anyway.

Jack

[Hawk200]

So far no one has answered one question that I have posed: Does anyone really think that an FO for everyone system would get passed if sent up? Honestly? Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.

Well, I've answered it.  I believe my answer went something like this:

...Hell will freeze over ... the Cubs will win the World Series after a thrilling seven games with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ... the Cincinnati Bengals will win the Super Bowl with Michael Vick at quarterback and Pacman Jones carrying the ball for him -- with betting by NBA referees ...

Something like that.

In other words, a proposal to change grade in CAP -- any proposal that changes grades in CAP -- is most likely dead on arrival.

This is a fun exercise in semantics and "what if," but in reality, that kind of change is not going to happen.  Not in this lifetime, anyway.

Jack

My apologies, Colonel, you did answer, I wasn't paying attention. But I do like the way you have reinforced your answer. Certainly drives the point home.

I guess I should keep in mind that a lot of these concepts are "What if" flights of fancy. Maybe they won't irritate me so much.

[ColonelJack]

I guess I should keep in mind that a lot of these concepts are "What if" flights of fancy. Maybe they won't irritate me so much.

That's okay, my friend.  I have to make myself remember the "what if" aspects as well, 'cause some of this stuff is really irritating.  As you said in another thread, the basic proposal amounts to little more than "change for the sake of change."  Not a good idea, ever -- in any situation.

Jack

[ZigZag911]

Cheating the promotion structure is a symptom, not the underlying problem.

Look at our top level leaders that are getting fired and replaced. Do you think they all were poor leaders? What about the fact that many of them were replaced with personnel having law enforcement background? Does that look totally innocent to everyone? Problems at the top. Even if a proposed system would supposedly fix that, there would still be cheaters. Many at the top levels.

Agreed...which is why I feel a system involving some sort of checks & balances is needed....something that does not repose all appointment or promotion authority in the hands of one or two individuals, at any level.

[ZigZag911]

So far no one has answered one question that I have posed: Does anyone really think that an FO for everyone system would get passed if sent up? Honestly? Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.

Sorry, I thought I had replied....you are absolutely right, no way no how would it have a snowball's chance in hell of passing!

[Hawk200]

So far no one has answered one question that I have posed: Does anyone really think that an FO for everyone system would get passed if sent up? Honestly? Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away.

Sorry, I thought I had replied....you are absolutely right, no way no how would it have a snowball's chance in hell of passing!

I may have missed it, you probably did. I get frustrated with these concepts, because instead of actually working something that might possibly work, some folks engage in those flights of fancy. I think we ought to put our energies into actually making an attempt to improve what we have.

[ColonelJack]

I may have missed it, you probably did. I get frustrated with these concepts, because instead of actually working something that might possibly work, some folks engage in those flights of fancy. I think we ought to put our energies into actually making an attempt to improve what we have.

I would agree with that 100%, but for one thing ... the only people who actually have the power to make any changes at all to what is there are absolutely uninterested in doing so.  As far as they are concerned, the system works just fine.  It did for them, didn't it?

Until one of us here on CAPTalk gets into a wing/region/national command slot or sits on the BoG, all of this is just an exercise in typing skills.  There will be no changes, because those in charge don't want the system changed.  And certainly not in the radical ways mentioned here.

End of reality check ... we now return you to your previously scheduled program.

Jack

[ZigZag911]

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men should do nothing."
Edmund Burke

CAP Talk has made clear to a lot of us that we are not alone; that we, and our like-minded close CAP friends, are not a bunch of isolated crackpots, no matter what the 'in' crowd says or thinks.

In my 35 plus years in CAP, I've seen the politics revolve round and round....in became out, and vice versa.

For most of that time, there was a basic respect in both directions....when one group replaced another, there was an understanding that:

1) those on the way 'out' still had skills to contribute
2) they needed to be treated with dignity (if for no other reason than that fortunes would undoubtedly swing back again!)
3) our differences were in methods & philosophies rather than goals

Today we are seeing the ascendancy of the inexperienced and sketchily trained cronies of some who have come to significant positions of authority. They have little time in CAP, no command experience, sparse understanding of the program or the people....yet command wings & regions and serve on the national staff.

Do you need to be an 'old timer' like me to National CC? Of course not.

But I do think 10 years in CAP, with a complete term as wing or region CC, ought to be a minimal expectation.

Getting somewhat back on point, we need to keep communicating -- discuss, disagree, develop ideas.

Sooner or later all this talk will bear fruit.

It's how this nation was born!

[Major Carrales]

1) those on the way 'out' still had skills to contribute
2) they needed to be treated with dignity (if for no other reason than that fortunes would undoubtedly swing back again!)
3) our differences were in methods & philosophies rather than goals

Some of the saddest things I have seen in the Civil Air Patrol in recent times are related to these points and are as followed in (more or less) parallel.

1) A burnt-out long time (6 plus years) squadron commander...who likely filled the position because no one wanted it for 5 years) gives up (or is forced out) and slowly fades away to nothing as if that individual had nothing to contribute.

When I assumed command, the prior commander could have been seen as "burnt out," I made it one of my chief goals to continue to include him.  It is important to let folks "recharge," and have fun in CAP.  Carryling such a heavy burden for so long compresses the "CAP soul," if you will, and can depress a person so flat they slid right under the door and are forgotten. 

2) Those that have commanded no long command for three reasons...
A) Voluntary withdrawl for personal reasons
B) Overthrown by more ambitious types
C) Wrongdoing requires removal

The "A" choice is likely the best.  A person steps "across," and returns to fill a role in the unit that does not require the pressures of command.  There is no animosity and this fellow can return to command later to prevent burnout.

The "B" is mere petty politics and seldom ends well.  Overthrowing a commander also take with that fellow his supporters...who are often well trained CAP Officers.  One often ends up with a shattered unit that must be replaced and rebuilt seriously hampering the Unit's effectiveness.  Additionally, any "overthrowers" is subject to be "overthrown" themselves since the precedent is well established.  The more "theatrical" the event, the more irony when what goeth around cometh around.

The "C" method is the worst.  It means serious harm is done.  Many units will not survive scandal.

3) Yes, all our goals should be to accomplish the MISSIONS and subsequent OBJECTIVES of CAP.  If one's goal is to "rise" to a high position or to play political games...or to disrupt things based on your philosophies...then your track leads to a different two.

Promotion/rising in the Chain-of-command should be a "side-effect" of well accomplished mission objectives...not the goal.  One should be honored and surprised by the offer of a Command...not actively seek on.