Advanced Grade from Prior NCO Service

[Pylon]

This thread has taken a serious bent towards inter-personal issues.  Please, gentlemen, keep this topic on professional matters only.  I'll leave this locked for 24 hours to allow individual parties to collect their thoughts.  In the meantime, other discussions related to NCOs, CAP, Advanced Grade, etc., in a professional capacity, can be generated at any time.

Thank you for your understanding.

[SAR-EMT1]

Ok,
Chief Chiafos
I do not appriciate being termed a liar.
I merely repeated the information as I had been told.
As for insinuating that I am grouping anyone with anyone else I never mentioned anyone by name, nor was any name mentioned to me. I have no idea Chief as to what happened at the Boards.
I will not reply as to the thought that I am cancerous.
Please understand that none of what I wrote was intended as an attack on you or your work.

I would  like to apologize to anyone I may have offended.
And I would like to thank Skyray for coming to my defense.

[Skyray]

I think this thread has gone far enough in the direction it was headed, and I would like to make a turn.  In my job augmenting the Coast Guard as an Auxiliarist, I work directly for a Senior Chief (E-8) and in close harmony with two Command Master Chiefs (E-9).  All three of these men have more organizational skills than any Wing Commander with whom I have been associated.  To clarify, the rank is Master Chief, and these two Master Chiefs are assigned as the leading enlisted men in two different commands, hence "Command Master Chief."

Would it be appropriate to induct them into CAP at an advanced level?  Of course it would.  What level?  I would suggest major or above, because they already have the organizational skills to command a group, or even a wing.  On the other hand, I don't think any of them would have a problem with duty performance promotions, either.

[arajca]

At the Aug 2006 meeting, advanced grade for E-7 through E-9 was approved. E-7=>2d Lt, E-8=>1st Lt, and E-9=>Capt. (Go to page 47)

The initial proposal was for E-7=>1st Lt, E-8=>Capt, and E-9=>Maj. Two amendments affecting the grade were offered. First by Col Stickel to change 1st Lt, etc to CWO-3, -4, -5. It died. The second by  Col Weiss moved the proposed grades down a notch. It passed.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have reconsidered my older post, and would support E-7's and up as captains.  We give that rank to successful long-term cadets, so I suppose it is proper to give it to long-serving NCO's as well.

[afgeo4]

I have reconsidered my older post, and would support E-7's and up as captains.  We give that rank to successful long-term cadets, so I suppose it is proper to give it to long-serving NCO's as well.

I think we give that grade to Spaatz cadets, not those who have been members for a long time. It's because they're more than qualified to be Captains. They have plenty of knowledge of CAP programs, cadet and senior. They have a lot of leadership experience and they've taken the AFIADL course 13.

I personally don't mind them going officer although I think they should have to take the SLS to become eligible for it.

[MIKE]

I think we give that grade to Spaatz cadets, not those who have been members for a long time. It's because they're more than qualified to be Captains. They have plenty of knowledge of CAP programs, cadet and senior. They have a lot of leadership experience and they've taken the AFIADL course 13.

Not always... Personally, I think we should stop this practice.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have reconsidered my older post, and would support E-7's and up as captains.  We give that rank to successful long-term cadets, so I suppose it is proper to give it to long-serving NCO's as well.

I think we give that grade to Spaatz cadets, not those who have been members for a long time. It's because they're more than qualified to be Captains. They have plenty of knowledge of CAP programs, cadet and senior. They have a lot of leadership experience and they've taken the AFIADL course 13.

I personally don't mind them going officer although I think they should have to take the SLS to become eligible for it.

We sometimes use the terms "Rank" and "Grade" interchangeably.  It doesn't make much difference to us, since we don't get paid.  But "Captain" is a rank, and a captain's "Grade" is O-3.

[MIKE]

^ Not in CAP it ain't... Capt is your grade and your rank is your seniority among other captains.

[SJFedor]

. They have a lot of leadership experience and they've taken the AFIADL course 13.

Rarely. For their Eaker they either need to do RCLS or complete the ECI 13 course. In my 8 years in CAP, I've only ever met 2 cadets that met the requirement with ECI 13 and not RCLS. I think most kids take enough tests when they're growing up, most (especially Eaker candidates) would probably rather spend another week on a military installation with their friends, then studying for a big test.

I personally think Spaatz's should be held to 1st Lt until completion of ECI 13 and SLS and a tech rating, then be promotable to Capt immediately after those requirements are met. That way, they've already completed level 2 and can be expected to have the knowledge of their "up through the ranks" counterparts. Being a Spaatz cadet does not make them a "know all-BTDT", in some cases yes, they're very wise, in some instances, not so much.

[Hawk200]

We sometimes use the terms "Rank" and "Grade" interchangeably.  It doesn't make much difference to us, since we don't get paid.  But "Captain" is a rank, and a captain's "Grade" is O-3.

Agreed. So many people don't seem to really know the difference, especially if they're not prior military. Or else they just want to be stubborn and do it their own way.

I remember doing different paperwork in the military. Some asked for rank, but a lot asks for both rank and grade. A prime example are specialists vs. corporals. They're both in the grade of E-4, but one outranks the other.

Another practice in CAP that really needs to die is referring to people's rank by using a military grade. Military personnel that hear about an "O-4 in CAP" don't think we seem squared away. The fact that it's referred to in 39-1 is even further ignorance.

That and no one in the Civil Air Patrol has ever been promoted to "O-3". Until they can show me a CAP LES with that grade on it, it's nothing more than a joke. One that makes us look bad.

[ddelaney103]

We sometimes use the terms "Rank" and "Grade" interchangeably.  It doesn't make much difference to us, since we don't get paid.  But "Captain" is a rank, and a captain's "Grade" is O-3.

Agreed. So many people don't seem to really know the difference, especially if they're not prior military. Or else they just want to be stubborn and do it their own way.

I remember doing different paperwork in the military. Some asked for rank, but a lot asks for both rank and grade. A prime example are specialists vs. corporals. They're both in the grade of E-4, but one outranks the other.

Another practice in CAP that really needs to die is referring to people's rank by using a military grade. Military personnel that hear about an "O-4 in CAP" don't think we seem squared away. The fact that it's referred to in 39-1 is even further ignorance.

That and no one in the Civil Air Patrol has ever been promoted to "O-3". Until they can show me a CAP LES with that grade on it, it's nothing more than a joke. One that makes us look bad.

Yes, but ECI/AFIADL forms require an "O grade," so we do have to use them from time to time.

[Hawk200]

Yes, but ECI/AFIADL forms require an "O grade," so we do have to use them from time to time.

Yes, I know. It's a lot fewer spaces to write "O3" than it does to write "Captain". Just because you used it on a card for a course doesn't mean you have an O-3 pay grade.

In that particular case, it's easier to use an equivalency than try to explain the fact that we don't get paid.

[Eclipse]

A step further back is in order, I believe.

"Captain" is your grade.

The date of appointment would determine your rank, which is your place in the universe versus all the other Captains.

"O-3" is your >PAY< grade, for comparison to other services, etc. , it has no lateral use in CAP, but since many of us have to, on occasion, fill out military forms it is simply a checkbox we have to make a selection on.

Having dealt with any number of RealMilitary® Officers and enlisted personnel in my short (8-year) CAP career, including (USN) Captains, Admirals, and field+ in other services, I can assure everyone that the only thing they care about is execution of the mission, whatever that may be at the time.

How we are (or are not) compensated is far from their minds other than when, over coffee, they find out we are volunteers, it generally garners us points.

[Hawk200]

A step further back is in order, I believe.

"Captain" is your grade.

The date of appointment would determine your rank, which is your place in the universe versus all the other Captains.

"O-3" is your >PAY< grade, for comparison to other services, etc. , it has no lateral use in CAP, but since many of us have to, on occasion, fill out military forms it is simply a checkbox we have to make a selection on.

Having dealt with any number of RealMilitary® Officers and enlisted personnel in my short (8-year) CAP career, including (USN) Captains, Admirals, and field+ in other services, I can assure everyone that the only thing they care about is execution of the mission, whatever that may be at the time.

How we are (or are not) compensated is far from their minds other than when, over coffee, they find out we are volunteers, it generally garners us points.

As far as the "Real Military" goes, quite familiar with it. Eighteen years so far, between Army and Air Force. Rank and grade weren't interchanged, regardless of which branch I was in. Nobody ever told me to go looking for "E-7 Jones". Either branch, it was "Go find Sgt Jones".

What you call "Date of Appointment" has always been "date of rank". The date you achieved a certain rank (and it's accompanying pay grade: E-3, O-4, W-5, etc.) is used to compute your "time in grade". You're date of rank may be before someone elses, but if you're the same grade, you certainly don't outrank them. You would have seniority over them, but that gets into other things that aren't really important here.

[Eclipse]

Its obvious that...LOOK A PENNY! 

[Pylon]

Once again, the subject has devolved into semantics.   

[Dragoon]

My only problem with giving officer grade to prior service NCOs is "what about the officers?"

It's true that, compared to a civilian CAP officer, the military NCO has a leg up.

Of course, compared to a civilian CAP officer of equal grade, the military officer has a leg up as well.

So if we start by "promoting" military senior NCOs to captains and majors, how can we be fair without giving  similar "promotions" to military officers?

Or are we saying that we disagree with the DoD, and in our eyes there is no difference between, say, an Air Force E-7 and an Air Force 0-3, so they both get railroad tracks?

At some point, in our rush to recognize the NCO corps, we run the risk of denigrating the officer corps.

[SAR-EMT1]

I see your point.
I think that allowing NCOs to use their PME to cover CAP courses - such as RSC etc. -  might be enough. Thereby saving CAP grade for RM Officers.

But beyond that I know of more RM-NCOs who are current  CAP Officers then RM Officers doubling as CAP Officers.

[Dragoon]

Personally, I'd prefer that for both military officers AND NCOs - get credit for PME, and perhaps some breaks on time in grade.  But CAP is different enough from the military that making anyone a field grade off the street probably isn't a smart thing.

But as a counterpoint, it's possible that telling a USAF major that he gets anything less than oak leaves in CAP is probably a deal breaker.  Pity.