Requiring COMMAND experience for Level III completion

[RiverAux]

Hawk, judging by your last post, I think we agree on this issue overall.  This particular suggestion is a way of trying to work within our current system to do a little bit to improve the quality of the upper level of our rank structure by broadening their experience. 

If we had a more robust officer training program as you suggest, that would be great and I wouldn't see much need for this particular proposal.  But, quite frankly, I see my proposal as being the more likely to get implemented in comparison to increasing training requirements (and realistically, the need for military-level leadership training isn't there). 

And again, thanks for the personal attacks. 

[JoeTomasone]

You are all forgetting one very important concept.   CAP is a volunteer organization.

If you make a volunteer organization controversial, burdensome, or seemingly unfair to its members, suddenly you are short on volunteers.

Grade is a reward of sorts for hard work, dedication, and study; the studies are intended to greater prepare the member to be of service, no matter what form that service comes in.

I certainly could never be a Commander with my normal job/travel schedule (this little sojurn to Iraq notwithstanding).   To tell me that I will be forced to top out as Captain despite busting my butt as a staff member simply because I cannot devote the proper time to being a Commander is akin to telling me that my contributions are not valuable -- or certainly not as valuable as someone with a "normal" 9-5 job and plenty of time to command.   That's the kind of attitude that seriously limits the appeal of volunteering with a given organization.

[RiverAux]

Yes, we are a volunteer organization, but we are already pretty unique in having a set of personal ranks for our members that are relatively independent of a person's place in the organization's structure.  Not many do it that way.  And there will always be conflict between those who take the PD program seriously and those that just don't give a fig.  Given that more than 75% of the senior members who join CAP will never achieve Level III anyway (and an even smaller member will achieve Level IV), I don't see this as a major impediment to the average member. 

Right now we are all prevented from achieving the rank of Colonel unless we take on the Wing Commander's job (yes, there are a few exceptions), so this suggestion isn't entirely out of the mainstream and is a variation on that theme. 

And by imposing any requirements at all to obtain something, we are thereby limiting the number of CAP members who are likely to achieve it.  So, we're really just discussing the level of difficulty there should be in obtaining Level III (or Lev IV if you'd like) and the benefits that would/should/hopefully acrue by making it harder. 

This being a subjective thing, I wouldn't expect everyone to agree - heck we don't all agree on the current requirements. 

[Short Field]

All your proposal does is ensure that newbie Squadron Commanders will have at most Level II.   Level II only requires  the CAP Senior Officers Course, SLS, and a tech rating in something.   

The CAP Senior Officer Course seems to be the major roadblock for most people.  Hopefully, the on-line version will make it easier to take the CAP Senior Officer and significantly increase the number of folks completing it.  A bunch of small modules that you can take and pass sequentially tends to be easier than a long course with a big test at the end. 

[Eclipse]

^ Won't make any difference until we start consistently stressing how important PD is for everyone.

[RiverAux]

You're right that this change from ECI-13 to the SOC might lead more people to participate in the upper levels of the PD program than there are now.  However, anyone that was being "held back" by  unwillingness to dedicate the time necessary to complete eci-13 is probably not going to want to go to RSC/NSC or do the AF correspondence courses so will probably top out at level 3 anyway.

Nevertheless, the uncertaintity associated with this may be a good reason to put this requirement on level 4 rather than 3.

[EMT-83]

I haven't heard from anyone who was unwilling to dedicate the time necessary to complete ECI-13, but know of several members (including myself) unwilling to dedicate that time to what has been described as a horribly outdated program.

It should be interesting to see what effect the new SOC will have on the number of members moving past Level I in the near future.

[RiverAux]

I haven't heard from anyone who was unwilling to dedicate the time necessary to complete ECI-13, but know of several members (including myself) unwilling to dedicate that time to what has been described as a horribly outdated program.

to-may-toe, to-ma-toe, the point being that it wasn't a tough course, but for whatever reason it has been a good barrier keeping those that aren't terribly motivated from moving up in rank. 

[arajca]

There has also been an issue in getting the materials and tests in a timely manner. It took three months between the time I ordered my test (using the AFIADL Help Desk method) until the test came in. I also had to wait for one of the volumes that had run out of stock for a month.

[Spike]

I also had to wait for one of the volumes that had run out of stock for a month.

You could have borrowed a copy or found it online. 

[Gunner C]

And by imposing any requirements at all to obtain something, we are thereby limiting the number of CAP members who are likely to achieve it.  So, we're really just discussing the level of difficulty there should be in obtaining Level III (or Lev IV if you'd like) and the benefits that would/should/hopefully acrue by making it harder. 

Level III seems to be the appropriate level for someone to have passed IOT serve as a commander:

CAPR 50-17
5-1. Management. CAP designed professional development at this level for senior members serving as squadron, group, or wing commanders and for staff officers.

This is where an officer would have been trained enough in the way CAP works to really do their best job as a CC.

[O-Rex]

Command, even in CAP, is NOT an easy job, and is not for everyone: some folks find their niche on staff and are happy/effective in their position.

Futhermore, you don't want unit command to become a 'ticket punch.'

[Major Carrales]

Facts are facts, many Squadrons are understaffed and a good many of Squadron Commanders must take on the positions and duties of Staffers when there simply are no people to fill those roles.  Some squadron commanders are 2d Lts by "situation" and some commanders are Lt Cols for the same reason.

Many Wings are staffed to a high percentage because of the sheer number of people to pool.  In know that some folks at one level "moonlight" at other levels.  Wing Officers might be commanding a unit somewhere.

Many of us approach these questions as if every level of CAP was fully staffed.

Level III is better defined, in my opinion, by filling a staff position.  Command is sometimes hard to come by and I would hate to have a commander who is serving only to rise to a higher position creating a motivation of PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT than true SERVICE to the UNIT. 

I command my unit because I want to and I want to build a good squadron so that someday I can pass it on to someone else and have a meeting to go to that is functioning as the result of a culture I help to bring forth.  I would hate for anyone to even assume I was commanding a unit to simply make LEVEL III at which time I would step down willy-nilly.

[RiverAux]

This would actually be an incentive for folks to take on the squadron commander position, which is one of, if not the hardest, position to fill in CAP. 

Just because people may receive a tangible benefit from doing something, doesn't mean that they're ONLY doing it for that reason.  I get paid for my job, but thats not the only reason I do it.  People take staff jobs not only because they feel they can help the unit/wing, but because they get a benefit out of it in terms of meeting one of the other PD requirements.  This would be no different. 

[Major Carrales]

This would actually be an incentive for folks to take on the squadron commander position, which is one of, if not the hardest, position to fill in CAP. 

Just because people may receive a tangible benefit from doing something, doesn't mean that they're ONLY doing it for that reason.  People take staff jobs not only because they feel they can help the unit/wing, but because they get a benefit out of it in terms of meeting one of the other PD requirements.  This would be no different.

No, I still think people need to take a position because they want to, not because it is a requirement.  Most CAP officers in my area are more interested in their service, efficiency in the duty position and getting the job done than  in what rank they are.

We need to keep our focus on service, performance on the job and how we appear to our community.  Commanding a squadron to earn a ribbon is, in my opinion, doing it for the wrong reason.

[RiverAux]

So, you're really saying that our entire PD and rank system is counterproductive as it is a series of rewards based on performing specific actions that CAP deems beneficial to the organization?  Thats fine if you believe that - I know others on this board are also of that opinion.  Heck, I estimate that 20-30% of all CAP members don't care about the PD program at all and don't really participate past Level 1, so its not that far out of the mainstream. 

But, requiring that a person spend time at squadron command to achieve a particular level is absolutely no different than requiring someone to serve time in a staff job to achieve some other level, which is integral to our PD program.   It wouldn't distract any more from our missions than anything else in that program. 

[Major Carrales]

So, you're really saying that our entire PD and rank system is counterproductive as it is a series of rewards based on performing specific actions that CAP deems beneficial to the organization?  Thats fine if you believe that - I know others on this board are also of that opinion.  Heck, I estimate that 20-30% of all CAP members don't care about the PD program at all and don't really participate past Level 1, so its not that far out of the mainstream. 

But, requiring that a person spend time at squadron command to achieve a particular level is absolutely no different than requiring someone to serve time in a staff job to achieve some other level, which is integral to our PD program.   It wouldn't distract any more from our missions than anything else in that program.

Command is very different that taking a staff job. Staff jobs do not have the "all encompassing" aspect of Command.  A Safety Officer, for example, implements their portion of the program over the unit; the commander coordinates the staffers and their programs.  A Staff position should be held by everyone...if you don't have a specialty track...what do you do in CAP?

I am a Public Affairs Officer by specialty track, I command a Unit (going on 4 years); I can testify that the STAFF position and COMMAND are totally different animals.

For the most part people who come to my unit come to participate in a unique form of communitarian service.  They want to use their pilot and ground abilities for the greater good of "community, State and Nation."  Since we have to travel over 2-5 hours for SLS and CLC and take lots of time out for RSC or the like; it seems that situational truths remain that being a good Maintenance Officer can be done by a 1st Lt as well as a Lt Col.  Level III is the top of the totem pole for most, Level II is where most remain at.  I came up the ranks from 2d Lt, Level III is my area for NOW.

[lordmonar]

RiverAux....the problem is that you have not sold the idea of requiring COMMAND experience for level III.

Pros....it makes those who Level III more expeinced as they move up the chain and take on more responsiblity. 

Cons:
It bottle necks those who want to move up but can't because there are no command slots.
It would reduced the number of people availble to take wing staff positions (assuming you would want a wing staffer to be at least Level III).
It would make your squadron commadners(one of the hardest jobs in CAP) only be Level II which should be your unit staffer PD level.
Those who no desire to progress through squadron command would have no incentive to improve their PD level beyond Level II.

While you state a lot of status que issues.....that is actually a different argument....why are not trying to encourage our members to progress in their PD levels....even if they are happy as a unit level staffer.

[RiverAux]

I feel that I've adequately addressed your first two "cons" (though obviously you don't, but oh well)...

It would make your squadron commadners(one of the hardest jobs in CAP)only be Level II which should be your unit staffer PD level.

Keep in mind that there is absolutely no requirement to be a squadron commander other than that you can breath and have done level 1.  How many squadrons are being run by those with only Level II right now?  Quite a few.  This would just encourage those with Level II to become squadron commanders when right now there is no incentive for them to even think about it.  Also, depending on the squadron there may not be anyone with Level II interested in moving up so the crusty old Lt. Cols might end up staying in command for a while too. 

Those who no desire to progress through squadron command would have no incentive to improve their PD level beyond Level II.

Thats true, but I think most squadron commanders had to be semi-browbeat into the position anyway, so they may not have the desire to do it, but will do it for the good of the unit.  Really not much different than the current situation, especially in smaller units.

While you state a lot of status que issues.....that is actually adifferent argument....why are not trying to encourage our members toprogress in their PD levels....even if they are happy as a unit levelstaffer.

Not sure I understand this one. 

[lordmonar]

The status quo is that members don't generally progress in their PD levels.  That no one really holds anyone to any sort of standard as it relates to PD to determine who gets what job.

But requiring command experience for level III does not solve this problem.  The only "problem" it will solve is that there are people with level III/IV/V with no command experince.

Is this really a problem?

By making command experince required for Level III you put a stop to almost all PD advancement beyond Level II.   So the problem gets worse because now you cut off the PD system for those people who want to progress in the PD system and move up to higher staff jobs but can't or don't want to hold command.

So you will be gutting the PD for the bulk of your group/wing/region/national staff.

This would cut out any possiblity of trying to require particular PD levels for higher level staff jobs because there are simply not enough people who have been given the opportunity to hold command positions.

Just because there is no requirment for this at this time does not mean there should not be.

If I were god I would require all squadron commanders to be Level III before they got the job.  I would allow for those curcumstances where there is no Level III member able/willing to take the position.

Your proposal does not solve any problems IMHO but creates more problems to those who want to progress in the PD system but can't or don't want to hold command positions.