I need some advice...

[The Infamous Meerkat]

It's been some time since I bothered you ladies and gents with a question, but I could use some opinions and advice on what you all think.

My squadron recently (a few weeks ago) had a Change of Command, replacing our long time Commander with a relatively green one. He's been in the program since '09, but he didn't become active at all until the start of '12, he was mostly there for his son whom has become our Cadet Commander. He's a good guy, has real lofty goals for what the program should be doing (which I support), but over the past few weeks I have noticed that a majority of his decisions and changes to the program have been against established regulation and policy, not maliciously, I believe, but rather by being and remaining uninformed.

They (the Commander, Vice Commanders and DCC, as well as some others) often wear 'uniforms' that are Black squadron polo's with Khaki pants, the same combo our booster club has been purchasing for some time. They have presented a new 'organizational chart' that is blatantly against the CAPR 20-1, for instance myself (being the Comms Officer) am now in charge of the historian's branch, the PAO's, and a portion of IT for social media, and my Comm Officer duties also now include the sending of organizational mass emails and correspondence.

When I brought up the CAPR 20-1 (which she said she had never known existed) organizational chart to the Vice commander and showed her a copy of it, I was dismissed from the room and she refused to speak with me further about it.

the newest Idea from our Commander is to remove all of the traditional desks from the Sqdn building and replace them with round tables, so that everyone has a place and we have  an equal ground setting for meetings and so forth. I'm not even sure we have control over these desks, as we are on a NG base and they might be either FoB property or state owned (I'm not quite sure). Base facilities might take issue with it, along with the other new construction they are planning for the building, which has already begun.

So my question is this, If you were faced with such a departure from the standard norm you've come to appreciate from your squadron, how would you feel about it, and what courses of action would you take? I have heard them each say on many occasions to 'bear with them, they're new at this and they don't know everything' but they also refuse to take input and dismiss my (and other's) opinions when we bring up regulations and evidence contrary to what they are doing. As a reasonably green person myself, I want to make sure I don't jump out on a branch that doesn't support my weight, but I do want the standards to be upheld. Most of it seems like change for the sake of change, with no real, quantifiable increases in productivity and operational efficiency, and some of our members (very experienced ones) have already moved to another Sqdn in a neighboring city because of it.

[kirbahashi]

I wish I could say you were the only one to ever experience this...

First, I will say the only constant, is change.  Sometimes things change and we do not like it and can be resistant to it.

Now having said that, some of the things you mention can be bad juju for a unit.  You are right when it comes to facilities.  Unless the desks and furniture within were purchased or donated to CAP.  A squadron on an installation cannot just get rid of the furniture unless they own it.  And even then, it is subject to rules of real property and all of that. (I just wish to say I am not an LG type, just pretend to be one online).

The uniform stuff...  My steadfast rule is (I am in a cadet unit mind you) is this...  (to seniors) If you are going to be in front of the cadets, with the cadets, whatever, you will be in the same uniform type as them.  Greys/Blues for blues, or field uniform or BDU for BDU.  Polo and slacks are ok if they are not with the cadets.  Your black polo and khaki combination is locally approved, and if you wanted to be anal, you could throw para 1-1 of CAPM 39-1 at at them.  I think we have enough uniforms as is, and I wouldn't be going out and buying more.  And if I am buying them with Unit funds, I can only imagine what I could have bought with that money, that my Unit could have really used.

With the personnel moves and things like that, it causes me to scratch my head.  The Comm Guy over the Historian does not make much sense to me, but it is not my place to ask why.  AND I have to review 20-1 again it seems.... And I just did.  Paragraph 3 in the second sentence states, "However, there may be situations where wings/units need to realign organizational elements to fit unique mission requirements."  It goes on to say the Region Commander MAY approve deviations.  Notice it does not say MUST.

My biggest recommendation to you is this.  Keep abreast of all regulations, if you are not sure, read the black and the white.  If your commander is straying from those boundaries, you need to let him know this tactfully.  If he choses to go his own course, then you need to consider your next move.  Grab the crayons and color until the next commander shows up, elevate your complaint (chain of command), notify the IG (not the chain of command BUT if you feel necessary), or move to another squadron.

Best of luck!

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Thanks for the input I really appreciate it!

I'm a black-and-white kind of guy, so when I see the 1-1 in the 39-1, I turn off to other ideas, But obviously most of my command there isn't like that. 

Also, I think what the intent of the 'unique mission requirements' bit in the 20-1 is referencing the optional delegation of certain positions to other groups, like ES being under Ops and such. The way I read it is that deviations, save for the listed possibilities in Fig. 16, are not authorized. I acted according to that.

I couldn't understand the logic of putting me in charge of those other positions, I'm not rated for them or anything. I don't have a problem wearing multiple hats or even doing the things they ask, but the org. chart was a pretty big pill to swallow...

[a2capt]

He's been in the program since '09, but he didn't become active at all until the start of '12, he was mostly there for his son whom has become our Cadet Commander.

You need not say much more.

Unfortunately, a lot of units run into where the commander is the 1st and only person to step up for the job.

Are there several of you who see possible issues? You say there's been a bit of transfering going on as of late? Maybe you are not the only one who sees issues..

The 'booster club' isn't supposed to be in charge of anything having to do with the unit. The mixing of the uniforms certainly doesn't help with that.

http://www.idahowing.com/docs/Wing%20CAP%20Uniform%20Policy.pdf

How many others have made an attempt to say something, and had results like your ejection from the room, on any issue?

Maybe it's time for those people to come together, with the statistics of member churn as of late, and take it to the next higher HQ.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I'm probably about to become part of that member churn, doing Comm. Ofc. at Boise and Nampa... 

The issue is that myself and all of the prior service and retired Enlisted guys are either fed up and leaving the squadron, or they stopped caring and went inactive a long time ago. One of my buddies (a medically retired Special Forces type with multiple combat deployments) left last week to take his experience where it was wanted... after the DCC (a retired AF pilot and Colonel) told him Cadet promotions were taking a backseat to model rocketry that evening.  He would have stepped up if he thought he could, but he was a brand new SMWOG.

We've had multiple occasions where we will have an altercation, take it to a back room, and it'll usually be settled by, 'we're going to defer to the senior person with the command billet, whether or not he's right', which we never win because we are either the newest or the youngest in the conversation... none of us have had command positions, but the guy that they know who just came back from AF basic now has 16 positions assigned to him overnight.

The booster club and the command structure have been intertwining heavily since I got here, and now are barely on the border of being correct by regulation. There are policies like you cited, but unfortunately, no one cares to read them, they do the bare minimum.

[jeders]

It sounds to me like you've got the same problem I had at my squadron; a commander with little to no experience doing as he pleases because he doesn't understand the big picture. After a year of trying to get him to understand that there are rules for a reason and that he can't just push the experienced people out because they disagree with him, I finally gave up and went silent. 8 months later and he's about to leave the AF and move out of the area, and I'll go back active as soon as he's gone.

[Storm Chaser]

This is a tough situation. Some changes can be good, even if unsettling at first. So there's nothing wrong with trying new things out to see if they work. That being said, we always should keep an eye open to make sure changes are improving the unit and not having the opposite effect. To ensure that, the objectives of those changes have to be clear, otherwise you can end up with change for the sake of change.

While some regulations provide guidance, others prescribe policies and procedures that are mandatory and must be enforced. There's some leeway on how a commander can organize his/her staff, but there are also limitations to that. If a commander wants to add responsibilities to your duties as communications officer, for example, you can request that he also assign you the duty positions that come with those responsibilities. Or you can simply say you're only available to perform those duties prescribed in CAPR 20-1. What is the commander going to do if you can't perform the additional duties? Fire you? Remember, this is a volunteer organization.

If the squadron commander continues to make decisions that go against regulations or policies, beyond his own authority as unit commander and in detriment of the unit, it is your responsibility to let the group commander know before it's too late. That includes prescribing an unauthorized uniform, especially when working with cadets.

I would, of course, try to talk to the squadron commander first and explain that CAP has rules and regulations that must be followed and that there are limitations to what can be changed. Offer your help and continue to provide advice. If there's someone in the unit more experience, try to engage them as well.

If you can't reason with your commander, then inform him/her that you will be contacting the group commander to let him know of these changes that are being implemented in the unit and of your concerns that they may not comply with current regulations and policies.

[NC Hokie]

One of my buddies (a medically retired Special Forces type with multiple combat deployments) left last week to take his experience where it was wanted... after the DCC (a retired AF pilot and Colonel) told him Cadet promotions were taking a backseat to model rocketry that evening.

Can you elaborate on this, as I'm not seeing anything bad enough here (yet) to warrant taking one's ball and going home.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

NC Hokie, that was a long story I should have probably hinted at. This guy has been working hard at getting every ES qual and specialty rating he can to start raising the bar here. He's been told before:

1. He can no longer do ES functions unless he clears it with the ES officer.
2. That he has to slow down on his training
3. That he can't be a CP officer because they already have who they need (some of the people are inactive or in the booster club)
4. That he can't work with the cadets on drill or he PT program because they want to let the cadets do their own thing (while some of the cadet officers ASK him to help)
5. That he couldn't start the Honor Guard back up because the guy who did it before was still in the position and they didn't want to offend him ( he has been inactive and with the booster club since I joined the sqdn.)

And there are more I can't remember the details of, so I won't comment on them. He just keeps getting pushed back by the rest of the cadre, and I don't even understand why. He's one of the few people that actually wants to take an active role with cadet programs and be out there with them, and they have disliked him from day one.

[NC Hokie]

NC Hokie, that was a long story I should have probably hinted at. This guy has been working hard at getting every ES qual and specialty rating he can to start raising the bar here. He's been told before:

And there are more I can't remember the details of, so I won't comment on them. He just keeps getting pushed back by the rest of the cadre, and I don't even understand why. He's one of the few people that actually wants to take an active role with cadet programs and be out there with them, and they have disliked him from day one.

So it was a "last straw" thing.  I can understand that, although I still don't see what was so bad about the trigger incident you described.  As a DCC myself, I'd probably do the same thing if a well-meaning member suggested that I focus on cadet promotions when AE was on the schedule, but I'd like to think that I'd handle it with a little more tact.

Of course, that comes from a position of having a regular schedule that includes activities relating to cadet progression during other meetings, which may not be the case here.

[jeders]

The booster club and the command structure have been intertwining heavily since I got here, and now are barely on the border of being correct by regulation. There are policies like you cited, but unfortunately, no one cares to read them, they do the bare minimum.

The commander cannot be in the booster club, that is a VERY clear violation of regs (CAPR 173-4), and anyone with the word commander in their title really shouldn't be involved in booster club ops.

1. He can no longer do ES functions unless he clears it with the ES officer.

This one, as a former CC and ESO, I would agree with. No one should be participating in outside ES functions without at least a heads up to either the commander or ESO, if not outright permission. Under the previous TXWG CC you had to have a participation letter from your commander authorizing you to participate in any activity outside of weekly meetings. That seems to have been going away with the current WG leadership, mostly due to the fact that purpose behind the letter was perceived to be just a large SE paper chase.

NC Hokie, that was a long story I should have probably hinted at. This guy has been working hard at getting every ES qual and specialty rating he can to start raising the bar here. He's been told before:

And there are more I can't remember the details of, so I won't comment on them. He just keeps getting pushed back by the rest of the cadre, and I don't even understand why. He's one of the few people that actually wants to take an active role with cadet programs and be out there with them, and they have disliked him from day one.

So it was a "last straw" thing.  I can understand that, although I still don't see what was so bad about the trigger incident you described.  As a DCC myself, I'd probably do the same thing if a well-meaning member suggested that I focus on cadet promotions when AE was on the schedule, but I'd like to think that I'd handle it with a little more tact.

Of course, that comes from a position of having a regular schedule that includes activities relating to cadet progression during other meetings, which may not be the case here.

My guess is that scheduling is minimal, at best. When I was a young cadet commander, I would regularly have SMs coming to me wanting to teach an "important" class last minute; my response was always, "We can do it in two weeks according to policy." This always kept things on track, but again requires a firm long term schedule that is well known by all the players.

[Eclipse]

OK, so a few things, some obviously more important then others.

Units do not have Vice Commanders - they have Commanders and Deputy Commanders, and the proper office symbol for a Deputy Commander is "CD" as in CDS and CDC, respectively.

The uniform you describe is not approved and wearing it for CAP activities would be a violation of 39-1, at a minimum.

20-1 is not a prescription, beyond the charter minimum mandates, a commander can organize his unit any way he wants.  My guess would be that he is not
aware of the required appointments which are as follows:

Commander
Safety Officer
Finance Manager
AE Officer
PAO

They keep adding to the list, but last I checked these were the ones mandated by various regs.

With that said, that org chart is ridiculous and clearly reflects a clueless commander.  He is under the impression that "Communications" is meant in the media sense, which is
180 from the intention.  Further, a unit in the state you've indicated has little use for  historian when likely a lot of other things are falling off the edges.

The best course of action for a new commander is to do a compete SUI self-evaluation.  That will clue everyone in on what, exactly is mandated by National and where
the unit will have issues in inspections - also, they need to find out when the last inspection was, get a copy, and then confirm when the next one is.  This is not
something to be ignored.  A clueless CC missing a few key things is a great way to get a unit stood down.

For other things, such as the politics and possible historical baggage, best to erect a "somebody else's problem field" around it and concentrate on your experience
and responsibilities.  Just because someone hands you a stuffed envelope doesn't mean you have to accept it.   Comms, for example, is not intended to
be an office manager, and there should be no expectation that someone who like radios is interested or competent to deal with historical records or the press.
You always have the option to disengage, or move to another unit or echelon.

As to that ES nonsense, a Commander has the right and authority to limit participation by members or direct they request approval in advance for various activities,
but an ESO does not.  Staffer have zero authority over members for things like this, and if he starts playing games with qualifications he's asking for trouble.  In that case,
I'd be willing to bet the Group and Wing CC would have an "opinion" about a member with initiative being told to "slow his own training".  As to his working with cadets,
well, that's a commander call that the guy has to accept and then decide if he wants to stick around.

Pay heed to the comments in regard to the booster club - that behavior is a ticket to being an ex-member.  If they won't knock it off and follow the regs,
steer clear of any involvement.  Since that is a serious violation of finance and other regs, you might want to whisper in someone's ear about what is going on,
or simply contact an IG and get it over with.

[JeffDG]

My guess would be that he is not aware of the required appointments which are as follows:

Commander
Safety Officer
Finance Manager
AE Officer
PAO

Both Supply and Communications are also mandatory, per CAPR 174-1, 1-6(j)(1):

j. Group and unit commanders are responsible for management of CAP property within their command. They will:
(1) Appoint supply and communications(in accordance with CAPR 100-1) officers

Only reason I know that one is that I'm a Wing DC, and the CV asked me about it, and after initially answering "No, I think it's recommended but not mandatory." I went digging and found that, and promptly apologized to the CV for providing incorrect advice.

[Eclipse]

Was that added in Dec?  I don't recall that being a "will" before, but regardless, there you go.

[JeffDG]

Was that added in Dec?  I don't recall that being a "will" before, but regardless, there you go.

Just looked at the July 2010 rev of 174-1, and the language is the same in 1-6j...only difference I see is they had a space between "communications" and the open parenthesis in the old version. 

Can't fault you for not knowing it...heck, it's my job to know it and I managed to flub it!

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Thank you all for the information, you guys have been a big help. Some things I wanted to ask clarification questions on:

Eclipse, the way I read the 20-1 suggested to me that it was a prescription:
"21. Field Organization:
a. Headquarters organizational structures for each level of command throughout CAP are depicted in part II. This basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission."

Am I wrong in this?
Now, we've been operating under this table since I was a cadet in 2006-2008, with less mission than we had back then (We lost our plane to a squadron with a hanger). I don't believe we even warrant the jockeying around of positions at all, even if it was allowed.

I will suggest the SUI Self Evaluation to him, that's a good idea (The CDC seems to think that since he hasn't seen one in three or four years, that they are a myth.). Also, I'm reasonably sure we don't have a Finance Ofc. who's active, Our PAO is selected but I'm not sure it's in writing (And she's also the AEO, If that matters), Our Supply Officer is Moving to the other squadron/ moving to wing, and our Safety Ofc. is also one of the "CVs" and has a total of 16 positions in the unit.

I was aware that squadrons don't have CVs, but they seem to think it sounds more official, so we should have them. 

NC Hokie, My buddy there has just been treated with a complete lack of tact and respect from anyone because he will state an objection to obvious problems (with supporting regulations and evidence) and the senior guys don't have time for it. The command from the CDC that caused him to move to the other squadron was snapped at him as the CDC walked through the room, while a quick recitation of the cadet oath was going on. No more than a five minute tasking, but it wasn't important enough.

There has always been a basic plan for promotion activity nights, but they keep failing to plan things properly before the actual meetings. We will get there and know there was supposed to be a moral leadership lecture, but nobody seemed to remember the Chaplain telling us about his absence (which he had done a month prior, nobody wrote it down) So we end up scrambling to find a role replacement for a problem we'd been warned about before hand and not actually accomplishing the mission of the evening.

[Eclipse]

The CDC seems to think that since he hasn't seen one in three or four years, that they are a myth.

If they haven't been inspected in 3-4 years, the entire >wing< may be at risk, or during the next CI it will come up and the unit might be stood down
immediate (we've had similar issues).  Your commander should be proactive and find out the real status.

As to the "no deviation" verbiage.  Most read that in the spirit of not changing the core requirements of a charter, and you can't make up your own staff titles anymore.
My wing required Region approval to move to the multi Chiefs of Staff model, however I believe part of that was because the "big three" have considerable corporate power
and changing that model makes that come in to play.

[Storm Chaser]

There's some flexibility as to how a unit can be organized. One of the reasons the "prescription" of CAPR 20-1 is there is to avoid the issues you're encountering where the communications officer duties are be changed so dramatically as to include public affairs, admin, IT and multimedia functions that are clearly not related to CAP Communications Program. It's also there to prescribe the proper duty titles at each echelon as to not cause confusion within the organization. That's why it's not appropriate to call the squadron deputy commander vice commander, as the latter is the second in command at wing and region headquarters.

When your unit does get inspected, your squadron leadership will be in for a big surprise. Ignoring regulations for the sake of doing so, or even trying to reinvent the CAP organization and structure, will not be seen with good eyes by the inspectors. Neither is the involvement of your unit leadership with the booster club.

Unfortunately, your options are limited. You can keep working on correcting these issues. You can contact the IG or group commander (wing commander if your wing doesn't have groups). Or you can find another unit. Good luck!

[Grumpy]

There's some flexibility as to how a unit can be organized. One of the reasons the "prescription" of CAPR 20-1 is there is to avoid the issues you're encountering where the communications officer duties are be changed so dramatically as to include public affairs, admin, IT and multimedia functions that are clearly not related to CAP Communications Program. It's also there to prescribe the proper duty titles at each echelon as to not cause confusion within the organization. That's why it's not appropriate to call the squadron deputy commander vice commander, as the latter is the second in command at wing and region headquarters.

When your unit does get inspected, your squadron leadership will be in for a big surprise. Ignoring regulations for the sake of doing so, or even trying to reinvent the CAP organization and structure, will not be seen with good eyes by the inspectors. Neither is the involvement of your unit leadership with the booster club.

Unfortunately, your options are limited. You can keep working on correcting these issues. You can contact the IG or group commander (wing commander if your wing doesn't have groups). Or you can find another unit. Good luck!

Devil's Advocate here,  .  Could it be that the squadron is short handed and these people are assigned to several positions.  I know I had four duty positions once.  (What a hassle that was.)  Or have I missed something? 

[Eclipse]

Devil's Advocate here,  .  Could it be that the squadron is short handed and these people are assigned to several positions.  I know I had four duty positions once.  (What a hassle that was.)  Or have I missed something?

Pretty common, but that doesn't warrant shuffling around the report structure like that.  That's a big problem in CAP because we are short handed and
allow for multi-assignments, even across echelons.  "Who's in charge?"  "Depends, are we talking CP or ES?"  (etc., etc.)

Still you don't move CP to be under the Historian (or whatever) just because they live near each other or already work together for something else.

[Storm Chaser]

Devil's Advocate here,  .  Could it be that the squadron is short handed and these people are assigned to several positions.  I know I had four duty positions once.  (What a hassle that was.)  Or have I missed something? 

I'm not sure why you're quoting my post since I never questioned members assigned to multiple positions. I referred to the OP statement that his unit was significantly modifying duty positions to areas that have nothing to do with the positions in question.

As to your question, I too have been in situations where I had to assume multiple duty positions. I used to have 5 primary duty positions and I currently have 3. I would gladly step aside to let someone else take some of these responsibilities, but no one else has stepped up. I'm trying to train some assistants so that eventually they can take a more active role within these duties.

Now, the OP mentioned a member with 16 duty positions. Even as an assistant, this seems to me a bit of an extreme. No one should have to assume these many jobs, even in a small unit. I counted 23 positions in the cadet squadron org chart and 25 in the composite squadron one in CAPR 20-1, and many of these are optional positions (e.g. historian, homeland security, health services, etc.). You only need a communications officer if your unit has radios assigned to it. The same goes for the transportation officer; you only need the position if a vehicle has been assigned to the unit. In addition, the logistics officer can assume all of its subordinate officers' roles (supply, transportation, etc.) and the same goes for other positions indicated with **.

Many of these positions can be assisted by cadets, freeing up some of the SMs. The bottom line is that there are ways to tailor the unit org chart to meet unit needs without resorting to completely changing the positions themselves. And no one should have that many positions assigned to them, as there's no way they can be effective in every one of them.

[Eclipse]

I used to have 5 primary duty positions and I currently have 3. I would gladly step aside to let someone else take some of these responsibilities, but no one else has stepped up.

That's what is so amusing about steady increases in "required" staff appointments from NHQ, generally that just means one of the handful of
active members in a given unit gets another assignment on paper, with the same result in output as before the position was required.

Solution?  More people.

[Storm Chaser]

That's what is so amusing about steady increases in "required" staff appointments from NHQ, generally that just means one of the handful of
active members in a given unit gets another assignment on paper, with the same result in output as before the position was required.

Solution?  More people.

Agree. I'm one of those who try his best to do the required job (and more) on every assigned position (I don't like having positions assigned on paper only), with the side effect of making CAP an almost full-time job. When this happens, my goal has always been to train other members so that they can assume the role in the near future; I've done that with several positions. The problem I keep encountering is people volunteering for jobs and then not carrying out their respective duties.

I don't mind if someone can't commit to giving 100%; it's a volunteer organization after all. But if someone commits to giving 10%, then I expect to get no less. To do otherwise affects other folks that end up picking up the slack.

We certainly need "more [active] people".

[arajca]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in. Therefore I went from three that I am active in to a whole bunch because the inspectors felt if a member has a rating in a track, they MUST be serving in an appropriate position.

I have a bunch of ratings because I took on various jobs as needed and turned them over when appropriate. Also, as any long term member can attest, interests and available time do change.

[Storm Chaser]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in.

That is very surprising and an incorrect "observation" on part of the inspector(s). There's no requirement to be assigned to positions you have a rating on. You should be assigned to the positions you're actively working on. Anything else is a misrepresentation of your role and responsibilities in the squadron.

[Eclipse]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in.

That is very surprising and an incorrect "observation" on part of the inspector(s). There's no requirement to be assigned to positions you have a rating on. You should be assigned to the positions you're actively working on. Anything else is a misrepresentation of your role and responsibilities in the squadron.

That's why it's an "observation" and not a finding discrepancy.  Observations, now referred to as "Areas of Concern" do not require a response or an action (at least in terms of the inspection process).

Most, if not all, of the staff appointment questions on SUI's and CI's now ask about the staffers ratings and experience.

[a2capt]

..and an answer to that "concern" might be, "It's ludicrous to put someone in 14 slots."?

[Eclipse]

..and an answer to that "concern" might be, "It's ludicrous to put someone in 14 slots."?

That's the point where higher HQ is supposed to get involved and lead, decide if an AOC really is, and then press the CC to fix things if appropriate (or possible).

[Storm Chaser]

That's why it's an "observation" and not a finding discrepancy.  Observations, now referred to as "Areas of Concern" do not require a response or an action (at least in terms of the inspection process).

That is still a misguided observation and it makes absolutely no sense.

[Eclipse]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in. Therefore I went from three that I am active in to a whole bunch because the inspectors felt if a member has a rating in a track, they MUST be serving in an appropriate position.

I have a bunch of ratings because I took on various jobs as needed and turned them over when appropriate. Also, as any long term member can attest, interests and available time do change.

OK, wait - after a re-read I'm not clear what was cited as an AOC here.

That you had random members on the roster who weren't assigned in their area of specialty rating (but may or may not have something else to do).

or

That those assigned don't have experience or a rating in what they are assigned as?

[arajca]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in. Therefore I went from three that I am active in to a whole bunch because the inspectors felt if a member has a rating in a track, they MUST be serving in an appropriate position.

I have a bunch of ratings because I took on various jobs as needed and turned them over when appropriate. Also, as any long term member can attest, interests and available time do change.

OK, wait - after a re-read I'm not clear what was cited as an AOC here.

That you had random members on the roster who weren't assigned in their area of specialty rating (but may or may not have something else to do).

or

That those assigned don't have experience or a rating in what they are assigned as?

We had a few members, myself included, who have ratings in a multiple tracks. As we've gained more seniors, hats were passed on when appropriate and some members where not assigned to positions they had some ratings in. For example, I have an AE Tech rating, but I stepped out of an AE assignment since we had picked up a couple of folks who were more interested in it than I and took on that role. I was not needed as a 3rd asst. AEO. Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

[Storm Chaser]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely. Personnel change positions all the time.

You should only be assigned to those positions you're going to be actively working on. And no one can be required to have so many positions just because they've achieve multiple ratings in the course of their membership.

[Eclipse]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely. Personnel change positions all the time.

You should only be assigned to those positions you're going to be actively working on. And no one can be required to have so many positions just because they've achieve multiple ratings in the course of their membership.

(OK, I get it now).

+1 a ridiculous assertion and the commander should have pushed back during the inspection, or simply ignored it when the report came in.

Just because you have a rating in something, there's no requirement you be doing something in that area, especially if you are already doing other jobs.

Seriously - I have a Master in CP and Senior in ES, soon to include a Senior in OE.  I'm the wing ESO - what's supposed to happen, the wing gets
an AOC because I'm not cross-pollinated in the CP shop and not also serving as a CC somehere?

Your wing IG's need some schoolin'...

[jimmydeanno]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely. Personnel change positions all the time.

You should only be assigned to those positions you're going to be actively working on. And no one can be required to have so many positions just because they've achieve multiple ratings in the course of their membership.

(OK, I get it now).

+1 a ridiculous assertion and the commander should have pushed back during the inspection, or simply ignored it when the report came in.

Just because you have a rating in something, there's no requirement you be doing something in that area, especially if you are already doing other jobs.

Seriously - I have a Master in CP and Senior in ES, soon to include a Senior in OE.  I'm the wing ESO - what's supposed to happen, the wing gets
an AOC because I'm not cross-pollinated in the CP shop and not also serving as a CC somehere?

Your wing IG's need some schoolin'...

I would probably have a concern if a unit had a Master Rated CP person that was the Finance Officer (with no rating), while a rated Finance Officer was the assigned CDC.  But, if the bases are covered, and someone with a rating isn't in a position, I see no reason to have that person assigned simply because.

[FlyTiger77]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely.

I agree. Who is assigned a certain duty position is the commander's perogative not an inspector's. If the commander has a valid reason for making personnel assignments a certain way, he is only answerable to his commander--assuming personnel are qualified, competent and enrolled  and progressing in the specialty track for the position they hold.

This is much the same as if an inspector cited an AoC for a unit not being enrolled in the optional AEX program with a recommendation that the unit enroll. That is strictly the inspector's opinion. The commander's decision is what carries the day. Opinion doesn't merit an AoC.

[Laplace]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely.

I agree. Who is assigned a certain duty position is the commander's perogative not an inspector's. If the commander has a valid reason for making personnel assignments a certain way, he is only answerable to his commander--assuming personnel are qualified, competent and enrolled  and progressing in the specialty track for the position they hold.

This is much the same as if an inspector cited an AoC for a unit not being enrolled in the optional AEX program with a recommendation that the unit enroll. That is strictly the inspector's opinion. The commander's decision is what carries the day. Opinion doesn't merit an AoC.

I'm not sure of what the Inspector's thought process was, nor have I read the AoC as it was exactly written.  As an IG, I have written AoCs suggesting that the staff officer enroll and progress in the specialty track.  This is done when the individual may be new to the position and in need of training or had some deficiencies during the SUI.  As said before, the AoC does not require corrective action.  It is meant to be a helpful suggestion.  The SUI report gives the following as an example of an AoC:  "(3)   Non-mandatory processes or activities that are not accomplished, but would be beneficial or useful to the program."  Is enrollment in the specialty track mandatory? No.  Would it be beneficial?  Yes.  Several of the specialty tracks have been recently updated and I am impressed with their content.

It is hard for me to believe that the intent of the inspector or IG was for the squadron to do what they did. 

[Eclipse]

As an IG, I have written AoCs suggesting that the staff officer enroll and progress in the specialty track.  This is done when the individual may be new to the position and in need of training or had some deficiencies during the SUI. 

That's totally appropriate, and even called for.

I would probably have a concern if a unit had a Master Rated CP person that was the Finance Officer (with no rating), while a rated Finance Officer was the assigned CDC.  But, if the bases are covered, and someone with a rating isn't in a position, I see no reason to have that person assigned simply because.

At the unit level, especially, by the time you get a master's in anything, you've probably had 10 years of it and a snootful - time to move on to "new".

[a2capt]

At the unit level, especially, by the time you get a master's in anything, you've probably had 10 years of it and a snootful - time to move on to "new".

Give that man a cookie.
.. and you know what? I have no problem mentoring someone new in that position. But one may just be spent on doing it.

[JeffDG]

Is enrollment in the specialty track mandatory? No.  Would it be beneficial?  Yes. 

Enrollment is actually mandatory, progress is not.

CAPR 35-1, 1.2b:
b. Additionally, when assigned to an authorized duty position, the member will also enroll in the appropriate specialty track of the CAP Professional Development Program unless he/she has already earned the master's rating in that specialty. When a member is assigned to more than one duty position, he/she will enroll in the specialty track for the primary duty. Training in remaining specialties is encouraged. Note: For promotion purposes, the highest skill rating earned, in any specialty, will be considered, regardless of the member's skill level in his or her primary duty.

[Eclipse]

And if you're not enrolled in a track of some kind, you will not get credit for things like CLC, etc.