FO discrimination

[Nathan]

I would like to see some sort of change, but I'm not sure what that solution is.

I can tell you that the idea of FO being a "transitory period" doesn't matter much. I'm a cadet now, and at the end of March, I'll be a Captain, senior-member type. I suppose the argument is that a cadet who earns a certain rank as a cadet has proven preparedness for a certain senior rank. Whatever. The point is that even the C/2d Lt with Mitchell Syndrome still transfers over to 2d Lt in the senior program, regardless of how prepared he is.

I would argue against cutting of cadet membership at 18. I joined when I was fourteen, which isn't too bad as far as a joining age goes. I am a fairly active cadet with multiple encampments and NCSA's under my belt, went to every squadron meeting only until recently, and progressed through the ranks at a decent rate. I am now 20, and earned my Spaatz in June. I think I moved at pretty much the most average rate one could expect for the Spaatz, and I know for some, it takes longer to get there. We'd be shortening the deadlines for many cadets by cutting off at 18, especially since the cadets who join at 16 and 17 have very little chance of actually earning anything at all in the program.

In order to ACTUALLY make it a choice, we could give 18-20 year old new recruits the OPTION of joining either as a cadet or a senior. I never really understood why we only offered that choice to cadets, but it would at least help this silly dating problem that was discussed earlier.

In order to help the FO rank problem, I would suggest that we, as has already been mentioned, simply make the FO program something everyone goes through, and eliminate the grade of SM completely. The current program FO program would not really change, but it would help the 18-20 year old FO's blend in a little better with the CAP SM population if the grade of SM was simply changed into a FO grade. In fact, it might even give the 18-20 year old FO's who have been working through the FO program a bit of rank on new members, which would help with the whole respect issues.

Just a thought.

[JoeTomasone]

Retiring the SM would not be a bad idea and would eliminate two of the most annoying SM issues - having to almost immediately re-sew insignia on BDUs and replace a flight cap.

Having 2 extra grades to advance through (TFO/SFO) would also provide a little more granularity for our SM program, which is obviously top-heavy.   I wouldn't mind seeing a few more grades and having it take much longer to reach Lt. Col. 

[CAPLAW]

Make senior member officer canidate.  Make every person be a flight officer firsr and work towards 2nd LT.

[Major Carrales]

Make senior member officer canidate.  Make every person be a flight officer firsr and work towards 2nd LT.

Hey, that is a viable option.

[alamrcn]

Make senior member officer canidate.

That's the first time I've heard that thrown out... kinda like the W.O.C. program in Army Aviation. I think that's a very viable idea for BOTH catagories of SMs...

For new 21+ SMs during the current 6 month before completing Level 1 - no program change, just a change of title... they actually get one!

And for 18-20 officers during a 12 month probationary period, where then they are reviewed for transition to the regular grades - or reviewed every quarter past that until their 21st B-day.

That's a little closer to equality, and only a 1-step program that's not too complex despite involving a local review process.

[Major Carrales]

Make senior member officer canidate.

That's the first time I've heard that thrown out... kinda like the W.O.C. program in Army Aviation. I think that's a very viable idea for BOTH catagories of SMs...

For new 21+ SMs during the current 6 month before completing Level 1 - no program change, just a change of title... they actually get one!

And for 18-20 officers during a 12 month probationary period, where then they are reviewed for transition to the regular grades - or reviewed every quarter past that until their 21st B-day.

That's a little closer to equality, and only a 1-step program that's not too complex despite involving a local review process.

I could see 6 months as an FO, 6 as a TFO and 3 month minimum as an  SFO until some test was taken (foundations).

Those under 21 would maintain the same criteria as is listed in the status quo.  This would give "teeth to" (or "beef up") the idea of 2d Lt in CAP.  More of a process than the current "Foundations" system works.

The "in training" officer candidacy period might serve to thin out the officer grades as some desire while making the system more rigorous as others maintain.  The Membership Ribbon might also be more than just a "fog a mirror."

[DNall]

Make senior member officer canidate.

That's the first time I've heard that thrown out... kinda like the W.O.C. program in Army Aviation. I think that's a very viable idea for BOTH catagories of SMs...

Are you serious? That's been put out a couple dozen times on here. Even with zero programming changes, we should change SMWOG to Officer Candidate, and call Lvl I OTS, whatever it happens to consist of.

The most logical proposal I've seen is all new members regardless of age begin as AB. Progress thru Amn, A1C, and SrA; which correspond to current FO/TFO/SFO. Promotion to 2Lt requires: a) prereqs, application packet, interview, board selection, 1yr training pgm (combination online & mentor), board appvl to grad; and, b) a unit position appropriate to officer grade (CC, DCS, DCC, or positions above local units). If we do or don't open up NCO grades for further progress of people that don't qualify or don't want to progress to officer, I'd defer that to our current NCO corps.

[alamrcn]

Are you serious? That's been put out a couple dozen times on here.

Look at your number of posts compaired to my number of posts!
Obviously I don't get to all the discussions.

The concept of progression from Airman up is very complex and would be very hard to change into. Fine for a ground up program, but not our who have been doing things the same way for decades. Let's not reinvent things... yet.

Our issue (here) lies with the treament and acceptence of those in the FO program as equal but different. Remove all of the FO grades and instate the OC program for all ages - but with two different timeframes based on age......
*  21+, after 6 months probation (same as now)
*  18-20, after 12 months - plus additional 3 month probation periods if needed
......before transition into the normal rank system as it stands.

Completion of the OC period would complete Level 1 and promote to 2d Lt for age 19 minimum.

[pixelwonk]

I entered CAP at 24, so I was never a FO, and really have no dog in this fight.  I'd still like to see senior membership structure improve though.
Respectfully, I'd point out that a lot of the changes being suggested here still discriminate towards the pre-21 crowd.  What has been fixed?

[lordmonar]

Are you serious? That's been put out a couple dozen times on here.

Look at your number of posts compaired to my number of posts!
Obviously I don't get to all the discussions.

The concept of progression from Airman up is very complex and would be very hard to change into. Fine for a ground up program, but not our who have been doing things the same way for decades. Let's not reinvent things... yet.

Our issue (here) lies with the treament and acceptence of those in the FO program as equal but different. Remove all of the FO grades and instate the OC program for all ages - but with two different timeframes based on age......
*  21+, after 6 months probation (same as now)
*  18-20, after 12 months - plus additional 3 month probation periods if needed
......before transition into the normal rank system as it stands.

Completion of the OC period would complete Level 1 and promote to 2d Lt for age 19 minimum.

I would not have different tracks for different ages.

Use the FO ranks we have now.....use them as a OCS program that everyone has to go through....it should take 1 year to 18 months....at the end of which (if you are 219 you get 2nd Lt.  If you have to wait....well you have to wait.

That is assuming the 21 age requirement is an outside requirment (the USAF does not want 18 year old Lts running around).

If we can remove the 21 year age requirment we then have a good program that gets people promoted quickly....makes our USAF rank a little more meaningful, give a clear transition program for all members, makes the FO ranks simply a step you got to take up the ladder which shoudl help with the discrimination thing.

Young people are still going get dumped on.....but at least we would be removing some of the excuses the old farts use.

[Eclipse]

I'd have no issue with that - based on my personal experience, though owing mostly to the inertia at my first squadron, I was useless to CAP the first two years anyway.

I'd say the first year is definitely the learning phase, especially for seniors, where many don't meet weekly.

Holding everyone at FO and making them meeting more of a requirement than respiration and gravitation attraction would be an idea worth considering.

[DNall]

POINT OF ORDER:
There is not & never has been any requirement or suggestion from AF that under 21 members not be officers.

That requirement does not exist in the military. I know a 20yo 2LT right now in the Army that's taking a platoon to war in less than a year.

There are two cases that commonly account for that. The first is military junior colleges that commission via ROTC with only an associates degree. The second is generally homeschool kids that complete dual credit at a junior college & graduate HS at 18 with an associates degree, so are able to make the education requirements prior to 21 and commission via OTS/OCS or ROTC.

The military requirement is 19, education level, accepted into & passed the applicable course, then recommended & approved for commission.

/End Point of Order.


Okay so where are we at?

1) Everyone should go thru an initial entry training phase somewhat stronger than the current level 1.

Call that at minimum: current level 1 plus a year of mentorship, with recommendation from the mentor to promote.

At max: some kind of more involved OTS program designed to train actual officer caliber leaders.

But, lets just go with the min for the sake of this discussion.

2) The program/period described above, regardless of what it involves, should be officially called OTS. Members in this program described as Officer Candidates (abbreviated OC name; said as: Candidate name). Do away with FO ranks completely. They aren't needed to designate levels of OC status over a one-year period.

3) The above should be irrespective of age. Note: if a member joins at 18, they'll be 19 after the 1 year mentor process.

4) Cadet officers crossing over to the adult side should go thru this program in OC status just like everyone else, but will promote to the currently appropriate grade upon completion (Earhart/1Lt, Spaatz/Capt).

Notes/Benefits:
1) This is a probationary period. Members may be asst XYZ officers, but not primary staff till promoted to 2Lt. They may not be the sole supervisor of cadets (2-member rule required at all times).

2) This gives us a better period of time to develop/train members rather than just throwing them in the fire. That will cause them to be capable officers more quickly than what we're doing now.

3) They may, actually it would be a requirement, complete tech level training in their to be assigned specialty track. - That makes them trained up before they start doing the job, pairs up the officer mentor and spec track mentor into one person. And, it allows us to improve the higher levels of the spec tracks (those really should be 4 level tracks with the basic badge coming at the second level, but that's another conversation).

What are your thoughts???

[RiverAux]

I could get on board with that provided that all CAP senior members have to go through the same process --- in other words, if you qualify for a special appointment or mission-related skills appointment, you don't get to claim it until after the 1-year period. 

[hatentx]

but if our rank means nothing why the fuss.  I even wonder with that thought is the ''discrimination'' coming from the lack of age and maturity?

[DNall]

I could get on board with that provided that all CAP senior members have to go through the same process --- in other words, if you qualify for a special appointment or mission-related skills appointment, you don't get to claim it until after the 1-year period. 

I don't personally have a problem with that regarding mission related skills. That is pilot, comm, EMT, etc. The condition on those is that they be applied to CAP. Yet, additional ES training is required before they can do that. The year of mentorship allows that to occur.

I would probably lean toward an abreviated version of that for certain other cases. Prior mil officers, lawyers, finance officers, doctors, nurses, chaplains... those are all special branch type promotions. They are doing the job they are already expert in & we can't train them for. I would have them do the same process, but accept the appropriate grade after level 1 is done, and serve out the year of mentorship as an officer. I know you're not in love with that idea, but there's a reason we treat these people special. It's cause we need them more than they need us, and we need to attract them to the org more than we need to be fair to everyone else.

Legislative/congressional Sq members obviously don't do any of this. Their grade is honorary.

but if our rank means nothing why the fuss.  I even wonder with that thought is the ''discrimination'' coming from the lack of age and maturity?

It has come to mean nothing. That has not always been the case, and it is not at all useful. I may not be able to make the difference between LtCol & Capt mean anything, but I would certainly like to have all members have a basic officer skill set.

In terms you & I understand, they should be utilize TLPs, plan & deliver OPORDs, operate according to doctrine/METL/commander's intent, and have situational awareness, attention to detail, and professionalism appropriate to, if not officer grade than at minimum to their position as a leader/manager and representative of the AF.

[davidsinn]

Members may be asst XYZ officers, but not primary staff till promoted to 2Lt. They may not be the sole supervisor of cadets (2-member rule required at all times).

How does that work when you stand up a unit cold. IE you have NO experienced officers at all? My unit did that. All but 2 members joined within months of each other. We all were given staff positions rightaway long before we had rank and before some had acquired uniforms.

[RiverAux]

They are doing the job they are already expert in & we can't train them for.

Thats a big assumption, especially in regards to prior service.  But, for the "professionals" its still going to take them months and months to really understand their role in CAP before they can really do the job (assuming they actually take a position and do the work).  

Making all the professionals wait a year while they actually get familiar with how CAP works in their specialty field can only benefit the program.  And lets face it, in regards to the professional appointments we really don't need them as badly as the military does and CAP officers are not nearly as restricted to their "lane" as those in the military.  

That doctor that joins CAP is just as likely as anyone else to be put in command of a squadron, group, etc. as someone else, so they need to have the same training as the rest.  That isn't nearly as likely in the military. 

So, making all our officers go through the same training at the start is not going to hurt us at all.  And, its not like the professionals still won't get to skip far ahead of everybody else after they complete that period so they're still getting their perk.  

[DNall]

Members may be asst XYZ officers, but not primary staff till promoted to 2Lt. They may not be the sole supervisor of cadets (2-member rule required at all times).

How does that work when you stand up a unit cold. IE you have NO experienced officers at all? My unit did that. All but 2 members joined within months of each other. We all were given staff positions rightaway long before we had rank and before some had acquired uniforms.

And not one of those people was qualified to hold any of those positions. Having a tech rating means you can do the position at Sq/Flt level only, and under direct supervision. Theoretically, either your Sq/CC or some other member w/ a Sr or higher rating in the field should be mentoring & supervising all work performed by that individual. Again in theory, training for a tech rating means you can't hold the primary position, even under supervision. You're being trained for that purpose and working under heavy supervision.

Is that how things actually work? Not really. You adapt as necessary.

Now, when starting a new unit, you should be under the direct hands-on involved supervision of Wg, Gp, or another Sq.  They should be providing that mentorship to each new member as they train to hold a position & be an officer. That's not a proposal. That's what's supposed to happen now.

Optimally, you'd recruit the core adults first, enough to form a flight, use that train up year to get them competent, and gain the unit charter. THEN you'd move into recruiting cadets and more adults once you have that solid foundation. You don't have to do it that way, but you'll be operating to standard quicker if you do.

[DNall]

They are doing the job they are already expert in & we can't train them for.

Thats a big assumption, especially in regards to prior service.  But, for the "professionals" its still going to take them months and months to really understand their role in CAP before they can really do the job (assuming they actually take a position and do the work).  

I know special appointments is a pet peeve of yours, but it's not the subject of this thread.

To your point though, a lawyer is acting as a lawyer for CAP, a finance officer is keeping the books & doing budgets, a doctor/nurse is setting up unit health & wellness pgms including DDR... I'm not even going to talk to you about prior service. That's not something you're going to understand without better exposure to officer training. If you'd like to get with me offline, we can discuss the "thing" they have that CAP doesn't & desperately needs.

[Maj Daniel Sauerwein]

I currently work with a couple of gentlemen who are Flight Officers and find them to be fine members and capable officers. I think the problem here has nothing to do with the grade, or having a separate grade structure for 18-21 yo members, but with attitudes. If we look at our younger members, who are in the FO program, by their skills and devotion to professionalism and not by what is on their collars and shoulders, the problem of FO discrimination will resolve itself. I would like to think that people treat me with respect in my squadron not because of the 1st Lt bars that I wear, but because of what I give to the squadron. Changing the system will not solve the problem, as we would then have the problem of age discrimination with 18-20 yo Lt's. What is needed is for older members to encourage younger members to join and be involved, as new SMs who are under 21 have a lot to offer our program in terms of youth and excitement that will resonate with cadets and be refreshing for older senior members. Those are just my thoughts on the subject.