Retaining Cadets in Grade

captrncap · April 10, 2008, 01:59:43 PM

I have a cadet that I am retaining in grade for 30 days (CAPR 56-12 2-4.C) and putting on probations for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a cadet officer (yelling at the SQ/CC and slamming a door when he left the room).

I know that the regulations state that a CAPF 50 must be complete but it seems that is based on the cadet's "regular" performance not as a punishment. (It also may conflict with the new CAPF 52-16 (Oct 06) since the new Leadership Feedback (50-1,2,3,4) are out).

I have documented the incident in a Letter of Reprimand but is their anything else by regulations that must be done.

Thank you.

chiles · April 10, 2008, 02:23:52 PM

Since the reg says to do the CAPF 50 to show ways of improving, but the 50 series has been removed, it would seem that the letter of reprimand, so long as it details what happened and the response by the senior staff to help the cadet learn from the mistake or lapse in judgment, then you are meeting the intent of the regulation as best you can with the limited assets available. Don't forget about the 60 day review mentioned in 2-4.c. It'd probably do the cadet good to hear that the mistake of old had been overcome. I'd advise that an addendum to the letter be attached stating what was discussed in the review and any improvement or further problems noted in the 60 day period. Of course, I'd advise getting the cadet in question to sign the letters as the old CAPF 50 required it. That's probably a little paranoid CYA meassure, but it makes a difference when the cadet signs it. I guess it makes it more real.

captrncap · April 10, 2008, 02:57:41 PM

Thank you.

Quote from: chiles on April 10, 2008, 02:23:52 PM
Of course, I'd advise getting the cadet in question to sign the letters as the old CAPF 50 required it. That's probably a little paranoid CYA meassure, but it makes a difference when the cadet signs it. I guess it makes it more real.

I have that in the bottom of the letter stating the "this has been review with me on XX XX XX" with their signature and the Deputy Commander.

Talk about CYA !!!

davedove · April 10, 2008, 03:15:43 PM

Quote from: captrncap on April 10, 2008, 02:57:41 PM
Thank you.

Quote from: chiles on April 10, 2008, 02:23:52 PM
Of course, I'd advise getting the cadet in question to sign the letters as the old CAPF 50 required it. That's probably a little paranoid CYA meassure, but it makes a difference when the cadet signs it. I guess it makes it more real.

I have that in the bottom of the letter stating the "this has been review with me on XX XX XX" with their signature and the Deputy Commander.

Talk about CYA !!!

Also, if the cadet refuses to sign the letter, which may happen, be sure to note that as well.

lordmonar · April 10, 2008, 03:30:56 PM

The 50 series removed?

They are still on the CAP web site.

chiles · April 10, 2008, 04:02:45 PM

I thought they were being revised. I still use them at my squadron because I printed a whole load of them awhile ago. I'd advise that if you're using the CAPF-50 for a punitive measure to a single infraction, that it say so on the document somewhere so as not to be mistaken for a normal review or a statement of repeated offenses.

Rube11 · April 10, 2008, 04:26:07 PM

I'm sure you have thought about or made it a point of discussing this incident with the Cadet's parents. You might be surprised to hear this type of behavior is more than likely happening at home as well.

Also, if this took place where other cadets or seniors members were present, I would have the cadet make a formal appology in front of them as well.

Lastly, a LOR is great especially if you outlined what would be the next step of discipline if this type of behavior continues.

I wholeheardedly agree that both the Sq CC and Cadet needs to sign the LOR...with the cadet acknowledging receipt and understanding. If the cadet refueses to sign; have a witness; another senior member and the Cadet SQ CC sign an "indorsement" that Cadet Behavioral Problem was issued this LOR.

Hope this helps.

Rube11

kpetersen · April 10, 2008, 09:11:38 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 10, 2008, 03:30:56 PM
The 50 series removed?

They are still on the CAP web site.

They updated the CAPF 50 to be a form 50A, b, c, d, etc. depending on which of the phases the cadet is currently in. That way they are evaluated for the correct level of development, and the standards on the form 50 change dependent on their level.

MIKE · April 10, 2008, 10:02:28 PM

It's CAPF 50-1 through CAPF 50-4 actually, and it says on the form that the previous CAPF 50 can still be used, so I could see retaining the old form for this type of issue which doesn't exactly fit with the new forms.

lordmonar · April 10, 2008, 11:53:39 PM

Quote from: MIKE on April 10, 2008, 10:02:28 PM
It's CAPF 50-1 through CAPF 50-4 actually, and it says on the form that the previous CAPF 50 can still be used, so I could see retaining the old form for this type of issue which doesn't exactly fit with the new forms.

The new forms actually has a check block "Retain in grade"...it perfectly fits this situation.

MIKE · April 11, 2008, 01:09:21 AM

Not what I was getting at... What I meant was that the previous form seemed to give a lot more leeway for an evaluator to give a more focused reason why a cadet was being retained in grade... The new forms are more broken down much more in terms of comments than previously, IIRC.

SarDragon · April 11, 2008, 07:45:41 AM

I agree with Mike J. here. The olde form seems more appropriate for documenting a single adverse event than the new ones. If it's still usable, keep some around and do what needs to be done.

Nathan · May 05, 2008, 03:32:18 PM

Quote from: Rube11 on April 10, 2008, 04:26:07 PMAlso, if this took place where other cadets or seniors members were present, I would have the cadet make a formal appology in front of them as well.

I would not recommend this. It goes completely the other way from what cadets are taught about "praising in public, scolding in private." Because the member is also a cadet officer, it would undermine the authority that goes with the rank and completely destroy any chance of regaining the respect of the other cadets he commands or will command in the future.

We can pretend that it would be the "mature" thing to do, but it's the mature thing to do only among equals, when you are willing to put yourself down on the same level as those around you. In a paramilitary chain-of-command, this is not only inappropriate, but devastating to what the ranking structure is all about. Not even any seniors present need to hear an apology. Humiliating the cadet is likely to do more harm than good.

Best to do your damage in private, and let the cadet change over time. There is absolutely no need to make this a public matter and throw the dirty laundry out for the rest of the world to see.

notaNCO forever · May 05, 2008, 03:44:02 PM

I'd do the Form 50 and put whey the cadets being retained in grade under the "needs work on" ,I believe thats what it is called. Then I'd write a letter, my squadron uses a discrepancy form that the cadet must sign, and have a talk with his parents. While the cadet should have controlled his anger he could be having problems at home so you allways need to be understanding.

NavLT · June 25, 2008, 04:28:16 PM

The important aspects are the corrective action, the documentation and the review if the cadet is going to change.

I don't think a public apology should be mandatory but highly recommended.

In a military world if a Junior officer yelled at the CC and slammed a door in front of others the guy being an even more junior officer would probably soon follow (fairly public too...) or that junior officer painting rocks on base.

V/R
Lt J.