Requiring COMMAND experience for Level III completion

[RiverAux]

As it stands now, to progress in the senior member PD program you need to have a certain amount of time in a command or staff slot, with the amount of such time increasing the higher you go.

In the interest of making our higher level grades more meaningful as well as providing an incentive to take on some of the more challenging roles in CAP, what do you think of changing the requirement to complete Level III (to be eligible for promotion to Major) from two years of command or staff assignment to two years of command? 

With this as a PD requirement, those that are interested in participating in the PD program would have a strong incentive to step up and be a squadron commander (a very hard job to fill) rather than hiding out their whole career in staff jobs.  And lets face it, the experience you get in some staff jobs is minimal when compared to other staff jobs -- someone who did all their PD in the historian track is not going to have nearly the same set of skills as someone who did the ES or Cadet Programs track.

This would assist in creating a little bit of turnover in the squadron CC job as it would make it more likely that in each squadron there are one or two people who want to be Majors who now would have a real reason to take on this job. 

Drawbacks -- you could end up in a squadron where the current commander likes the job and has every intention of dying there.  I don't think there are many of those out there -- after a year or two almost every one I've ever talked to is interested in finding a replacement so that they can take a break.  Also, I think the Wing/Group Commander would have some incentives to replace such holdouts (since they would basically be blocking promotions within their unit) rather than taking the easy way and just letting them stay in command for years.   

Under this proposal, I would retain the current command or staff options for Levels IV and V.  The reasoning being that most people are going to get their command experience as a squadron commander and with those who stay in the organization most are probably going to move up to group or wing staff and as many states don't even use groups, this would leave no way to get command experience except by staying as squadron commander and "clogging" up the system preventing others from getting their command opportunity.  And really, after a few years in command you've probably learned most of what you're likely to learn in that position so requiring you to do the same thing for longer to earn IV or V isn't really going to be helpful to you or the organization (same reason the military moves commanders out after a few years). 

[arajca]

Bad idea. There are member who are outstanding staff members who would make terrible commanders. There are also those who don't have the time to be commanders - it's easily a full-time job without pay.

[Flying Pig]

Bad idea. There are member who are outstanding staff members who would make terrible commanders. There are also those who don't have the time to be commanders - it's easily a full-time job without pay.

Amen.  And I have a Deputy who does 90% of the work.  (OK Rick, 92% but I look a lot better in uniform)

[RiverAux]

Any staff officer at Major or Lt. Col. should be a great leader and if they're serving at group or wing they better be since most of their job consists of leading folks in the squadrons to do their job.  If you're really a great staff officer you should have the ability to command a squadron. 

[Cecil DP]

The Military doesn't have a command requirement for promotion to O-4.

[RiverAux]

The military doesn't require SLS or CLC either. 

[EMT-83]

I think you would freeze members out of advancement. I joined at about the same time as several other members, and we've been working our way though the PD program. If we each need 2 years of command, do we draw straws to see who gets left behind?

[Cecil DP]

The military doesn't require SLS or CLC either.

They do require MOS/AFSC expertise for advancement to 1LT and Captain. In the Army and MArines the first command experience comes as a company commander (O-3). In the Air Force the first command level is the Squadron which is normally a LtCol. In the Navy, the first command is usually at  LtCdr (O-4).

[Eclipse]

There are member who are outstanding staff members who would make terrible commanders.

That's the point.

What's the reasoning, or value in making someone who has never left their unit a Lt. Col. based solely them being asst. transport officer for ten years?  It just means their commanders, who are likely putting in twice the time and have less time in service, have to salute a subordinate, which frankly, is silly.

I have no issue with this whatsoever, but the politics of special, and "mission skill" appointments makes it impossible to implement.

[RiverAux]

I have no issue with this whatsoever, but the politics of special, and "mission skill" appointments makes it impossible to implement.

I actually wouldn't have a problem making this a requirement for level IV rather than Level III since it would avoid the few special promotions to Major available without going through the PD system.  This isn't quite as big a problem at the Lt. Col. level.  However, moving it up that high would cut down on some of the benefits associated with this proposal since right now very few people make Lt. Col. anyway.   

[RiverAux]

The military doesn't require SLS or CLC either.

They do require MOS/AFSC expertise for advancement to 1LT and Captain. In the Army and MArines the first command experience comes as a company commander (O-3). In the Air Force the first command level is the Squadron which is normally a LtCol. In the Navy, the first command is usually at  LtCdr (O-4).

My point was that we are CAP, not the military and have our own system of promoting people.  Yes, our system does somewhat mirror what the military does, but theirs is much more based on merit than ours (Unlike the military every CAP Captain can become a CAP Major if they want it).  Since most people on CAPTalk at least don't want a merit-based system, or don't think it could be made to work in CAP, I'm putting this out there as an alternative. 

[dwb]

This is a solution in search of a problem.

The underlying problem I think you're trying to solve is preventing people from earning field grade that can't lead their way out of a paper bag.

If that's the case, then making people run a squadron into the ground for two years before promoting them isn't going to help.

[Short Field]

So any squadron can expect to allow ONE person the opportunity to advance to Level III every two to four years?  That also means you would have ONE person starting work toward Level IV every two to four years and ONE person starting work toward Level V every two to four years.   That would sure improve our professional development program. 

[Eclipse]

So any squadron can expect to allow ONE person the opportunity to advance to Level III every two to four years?  That also means you would have ONE person starting work toward Level IV every two to four years and ONE person starting work toward Level V every two to four years.   That would sure improve our professional development program.

No, it would separate professional development from the grade structure.

Just make it so you can attain the PD levels independent of grade, and make grade requirements command+PD.

Everybody gets their ribbons, and the grade structure is significantly suppressed, making it mean something.

This proposal doesn't mean much, however, without an up and/or out mentality, because after a few year seven those who progressed organically wold still be spooling back around to the squadrons.

[Short Field]

This proposal doesn't mean much, however, without an up and/or out mentality, because after a few year seven those who progressed organically wold still be spooling back around to the squadrons.

That is really what we need - a up or out mentality.  And just which members do you think are available at a moment's notice to work five days during the week on a SAR?

[heliodoc]

Up or out?  In CAP?  WTH?  I probably  can see it in the RM.  But folks here at CAPTalk are tough talkers...up or BS on that.  Eliminating more MRE handing out manpower??  Maybe the other VOAD's could replace us as we go up or out....Might have to call NASAR or CERT teams to backfill CAP when the tough times get going 'cuz we are worried about a up or out program. 

Some Squadrons let alone Wing can hardly get out the door in two hours and I agree with Short Field...other than a TRUE major disaster..... 5 days on a SAR?   Usually the pros are on this long after we (CAP) gets sent home

[Eclipse]

Helio, I thought you were going to quit...

I'm so tired of your nonsense and insults about CAP, fix it, ignore it, or quit, but save the BS.

[ol'fido]

Remember, officers and GENTLEMEN. ^^^

[Lt Oliv]

Up or out?  In CAP?  WTH?  I probably  can see it in the RM.  But folks here at CAPTalk are tough talkers...up or BS on that.  Eliminating more MRE handing out manpower??  Maybe the other VOAD's could replace us as we go up or out....Might have to call NASAR or CERT teams to backfill CAP when the tough times get going 'cuz we are worried about a up or out program. 

Some Squadrons let alone Wing can hardly get out the door in two hours and I agree with Short Field...other than a TRUE major disaster..... 5 days on a SAR?   Usually the pros are on this long after we (CAP) gets sent home

I don't believe anyone ever said "up or out." I believe the proposal is that rank should, in some way, be tied to command responsibility.

When I first read the idea, my first instinct was "Heck No!" I'm a staff officer, and what if I never find myself in a command position?

Then I thought about it for a second before typing a reply (a routine I might recommend to some others), and I thought, "how many times have I met someone who is unprofessional, has no idea what is going on around them and they are wearing clusters?"

What about people who make terrible leaders but are awesome staffers? Are we doing wrong by them in "holding them back" at the grade of Captain?

I think not.

Look, as it stands, when you walk into a room and see clusters on a person's collar, you can generally only make one assumption:

"That person has been around longer and shows up to stuff."

Is that really the criteria we want for clusters?

Does that maybe send the wrong message to cadets? If you sit around long enough, you're ENTITLED to promotion.

If that means I never make major because I choose to remain a staff member, then I will proudly wear my railroad tracks and carry on about my duties.

[RiverAux]

Frankly, I see this as a sort of compromise between those who generally like our check the boxes and get promoted system and those who favor some sort of quota system whereby you don't get promoted unless your unit needs someone in a particular rank.

For those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often?  Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.