Advancded Grade for RM Officers- Split from NCO thread

[RogueLeader]

To help comply with the Mods wishes about keeping Threads to a single topic,  I thought a split was in order.

Here is what I would like to see when RM Officers come into CAP

2nd Lt thru Capt come in at their Grade
Maj+ come in as Capt, but TIG for each is only 6 months until they meet their RM Grade.

For example LTC. X comes in, and signs the forms, and the check.  Boom, gets RR Tracks, six months gets his gold oaks, six months later the gold went silver.

This is so they get real recognition for their achievements, and yet still learn about CAP. 

[MIKE]

Or you could just discontinue advanced grade for everybody... Problem solved.

[SJFedor]

It took me a minute here. I thought at first you were asking about advanced grade for Royal Marine officers.

Are you saying that those above Capt promote every 6 months regardless of PD requirements? That's kinda pointless, and an extreme waste of $$ since, lets say, that person is going to end up at Lt Col in a year. Why bother buying all the uniform bling, and spend all the effort to put it all on correctly just to take it off 6 months later to replace it?

Not to mention the paperwork.

[MIKE]

It took me a minute here. I thought at first you were asking about advanced grade for Royal Marine officers.

Only if they passed the Commando Course. 

[RiverAux]

I think that is just a little too complicated.  Either keep the current system or eliminate as much advanced grade as possible. 

[mikeylikey]

Or you could just discontinue advanced grade for everybody... Problem solved.

I think that is just a little too complicated.  Either keep the current system or eliminate as much advanced grade as possible. 

Agree with both.  Get rid of advanced grade.  Why do we need it?  Why do we even have it around?  I can see, if an 18 year old joins and he sits as a FO 3 years, he is more entitled to CAPTAIN than the 21 year old kid who joins who's mom and dad put him through flight school and he got his CFI.

The whole system is jacked!

[MIKE]

^ But both are still 21 year old captains... which is bad IMO.

[mikeylikey]

^  Yes it should mirror the RM just a little more.  23 year old LT's, 25 year old Captains...etc.  However there are special cases where you will find a 19 year old LT and a 21 year old Captain. 

[Major Carrales]

Or you could just discontinue advanced grade for everybody... Problem solved.

I think that is just a little too complicated.  Either keep the current system or eliminate as much advanced grade as possible. 

Agree with both.  Get rid of advanced grade.  Why do we need it?  Why do we even have it around?  I can see, if an 18 year old joins and he sits as a FO 3 years, he is more entitled to CAPTAIN than the 21 year old kid who joins who's mom and dad put him through flight school and he got his CFI.

The whole system is jacked!

Hummmmmm....

I see CAP advanced ranks for former cadets...I sort of look at the Cadet Program as CAP's form of "ROTC"  (CAP-OTC.)    Former military is strange since Lt Col is as high as they can get (see another thread for this discussion).

If we treated CAP as it's own "sphere," this would not be a problem.

I recall we had a Squadron Commander once that was former military that swaggered and issued orders as if it was the USAF (talk about playing soldier), even threatening to suspend CAP Officers for missing meetings when life interferred (including work and family).  

The unit nearly died.

If only there were a way to haness that officer's leadership skills and infuse CAP culture and issues.

[Major Carrales]

^  Yes it should mirror the RM just a little more.  23 year old LT's, 25 year old Captains...etc.  However there are special cases where you will find a 19 year old LT and a 21 year old Captain. 

Age is a precarious issue in CAP.  When you have 69 year old 2d Lts, this becomes a whole new thing.

[mikeylikey]

I see CAP advanced ranks for former cadets...I sort of look at the Cadet Program as CAP's form of "ROTC"  (CAP-OTC.)    Former military is strange since Lt Col is as high as they can get (see another thread for this discussion).

Now I look at the FO system as being the CAP-OTC.  Cadets are equivalent to the JROTC program at the most.  We should focus on getting Cadets to transfer over to FO at 18, and bring back the OTC format from the 1940's.  Really make an Officer Training Program for the Flight Officers.

[Major Carrales]

I see CAP advanced ranks for former cadets...I sort of look at the Cadet Program as CAP's form of "ROTC"  (CAP-OTC.)    Former military is strange since Lt Col is as high as they can get (see another thread for this discussion).

Now I look at the FO system as being the CAP-OTC.  Cadets are equivalent to the JROTC program at the most.  We should focus on getting Cadets to transfer over to FO at 18, and bring back the OTC format from the 1940's.  Really make an Officer Training Program for the Flight Officers.

I can agree with that.  Right now the Cadet Program and the "Senior" program are not the logical "next step."  Cadets are not trained to become CAP Officers...imagine how CAP would change ifit was made up 90% of trained Cadets.

[mikeylikey]

^  If it were made up of former cadets who advanced just to the Mitchell.....we would have a "kick ass" leadership pool to draw from!

[MIKE]

Drifiting... I'm definately not for advanced grade for commisioned officers and NCOs, but I'm not totally against the idea that you keep what you got. O-3 gets Capt, E-5 gets SSgt.  I would stop issuing equivalent officer grade to warrant officers also, 'cause it's not really is it?

[Major Carrales]

Drifiting... I'm definately not for advanced grade for commisioned officers and NCOs, but I'm not totally against the idea that you keep what you got. O-3 gets Capt, E-5 gets SSgt.  I would stop issuing equivalent officer grade to warrant officers also.

How is it drifting?  It is logical to discuss alternatives this occasion since this is a topic on the issuance of advanced grade.  What's more, your suggestions are as valid/invalid as ours.

So, should we issue equivalent rank to Former Military.  If we kill the practice what are the consequences.

[Eclipse]

Another bunch of time spent hashing something which is absolutely meaningless in the end.

Why do you guys continue to mentally reengineer the program in corners that have no impact on operations?

[mikeylikey]

Another bunch of time spent hashing something which is absolutely meaningless in the end.

Why do you guys continue to mentally reengineer the program in corners that have no impact on operations?

Because we can, and it helps with the movement of innovative ideas.  If you don't like it......keep out of topics you don't want anything to do with!

What do you want us to discuss.  Come on.....tell us what to talk about and we will start talking about it.  You brought up operations.......well give us something operational to discus. 

This is no more far fetched than any of the "crazy idea" posts in the ES forum. 

[BillB]

Over six months ago I brought up the old concept of 18-21 year olds being in an Officer Training Corp program. CAP loses to large a percentage of older cadets in a Squadron composed of 12 year olds. There needs to be an OTC program to train future senior officers, while at the same time allowing OTC members to earn the Spaatz. An OTC program would limit the interaction between the pre-teens and the 18 year olds (keep in mind they are legally adults). To often CAP says a cadet can't so something a 21 year old can do. If there was an OTC program, the OTC member is no longer a cadet, and more activities would open up thus allowing a higher retention rate. The OTC program of the 40's and 50's was aimed at USAF recruiting, now we must look to an OTC program to retain the 18-21 year old members. The former OTC program as it was written could with little modification be put in place with little trouble.  Now is the time for the National Board to look into this.

[mikeylikey]

^  Agreed!  Now that you mentioned it, I remember your postings awhile back on the subject.

[Hawk200]

Another bunch of time spent hashing something which is absolutely meaningless in the end.

Why do you guys continue to mentally reengineer the program in corners that have no impact on operations?

Kinda hard to perform operations when you lack members in sufficient numbers.

[Eclipse]

Another bunch of time spent hashing something which is absolutely meaningless in the end.

Why do you guys continue to mentally reengineer the program in corners that have no impact on operations?

Kinda hard to perform operations when you lack members in sufficient numbers.

Yep, and this isn't going to fix that, nor are ABU's, NIMS compliance, subdued grade or better ID cards.

What we need is a national, coherent marketing campaign, and an equally coherent program for all those new members to join.

[Hawk200]

Yep, and this isn't going to fix that, nor are ABU's, NIMS compliance, subdued grade or better ID cards.

Probably not, this would be more of a retention aspect.

What we need is a national, coherent marketing campaign, and an equally coherent program for all those new members to join.

Quite true. So what do have in mind for helping with that? Is there more than just slamming other peoples ideas because you think that your area of interest is more important?

[Eclipse]

My area of "interest" is in trying to get the program as a whole moving again, instead of concentrating on
special interest nonsense.

We already have uniforms, ID cards, and ratings, what I would like now is top-down leadership and a real plan,
coupled with bottom up followership.

I come here to get the scuttle, and its a good source of current information, but I don't understand why
people here hit "send" just to "raise the question" on such silly things. My perception is that some people
gnosh all day until a light bulb goes off on "something that will REALLY stir the pot on CAPTalk", and then they can't wait to throw gas on the fire.  Once lit they tape down the refresh key and wait.

In reality its the same 10 people arguing about the same 10 things over and over.

Even better is when the same person poses the same question here, CS, and mil forums, and the same 10 people get in the same 10 arguments on those forums as well, and of course there's MyBook and FaceSpace, etc.

Yeah, I know, switch off - but its like a car wreck, I can' t look away - plus I'm incredibly bored again.

I suppose.  I'd like CT to be a place to get quick, factual answers on things which are subjective or less than obvious, but most times its just a bunch of people not listening waiting to re-state their tired point over again.

Myself included.

[Hawk200]

My area of "interest" is in trying to get the program as a whole moving again, instead of concentrating on
special interest nonsense.

We already have uniforms, ID cards, and ratings, what I would like now is top-down leadership and a real plan,
coupled with bottom up followership.

I come here to get the scuttle, and its a good source of current information, but I don't understand why
people here hit "send" just to "raise the question" on such silly things. My perception is that some people
gnosh all day until a light bulb goes off on "something that will REALLY stir the pot on CAPTalk", and then they can't wait to throw gas on the fire.  Once lit they tape down the refresh key and wait.

In reality its the same 10 people arguing about the same 10 things over and over.

Even better is when the same person poses the same question here, CS, and mil forums, and the same 10 people get in the same 10 arguments on those forums as well, and of course there's MyBook and FaceSpace, etc.

Yeah, I know, switch off - but its like a car wreck, I can' t look away - plus I'm incredibly bored again.

I suppose.  I'd like CT to be a place to get quick, factual answers on things which are subjective or less than obvious, but most times its just a bunch of people not listening waiting to re-state their tired point over again.

Myself included.

I'll agree that there seems to be a lot of rehash on various subjects, but I've personally noticed that sometimes the rehash brings an interesting new perspective. Granted there are a few folks that literally give the same canned answer time and time again, but every now and then something a little different can give me an interesting new perspective.

However, you cannot force people to work on just your own interests any more than I can force them to work on mine. Telling folks that their "corners" have no impact is just as likely to either tick them off, or make them tune you out. If you want something else discussed, slamming their discussion isn't going to help.

I've started ignoring some threads entirely. I may have missed something which could have changed my own views or triggered an input that might help with something. I'll never know, but it's probably happened.

This thread addresses some inequities in the promotion system. Promotion can be a matter of retention. It works in the military, and I've known a few people that quit CAP because their own promotions didn't get processed. A couple of those were real losses, they were excellent DFer's. Which from the way I see it, it has had impact on operations.  Those may have been extremely isolated cases that have never been repeated. Then again, there are things that I have never seen that many others have. Sometimes there is an impact that you never see.

[LeoBurke]

Some interesting thoughts here, as a new guy to this forum, but an old CAP guy, I have heard a lot of this before.  Here are some of my thoughts:

1.  About the RM (Real Military - Not Royal Marines, right?) There are some stellar folks in the officer and NCO ranks in all branches of the military.  There are also a bunch of complete idiots.  Don't think for a minute that an organization as large as the DoD doesn't have a bunch of them.  Many of whom manage to last for years and years.  They also manage to get promoted beyond their abilities - just like CAP.

In GLR, the Region Commander (A retired USAF MSgt) requires that all prior military folks demonstrate their committment to and involvement in CAP, BEFORE they get promoted to their prior rank. 

2.  Unlike the "RM" CAP does not bring everyone in at the same relative age/education/experience levels.  The Federal Government has a program called Senior Executive Service (SES).  That translates well to our extra-ordinary promotion policy.  Just like CAP, lawyers, dentist, nurses, and others (of many age groups) get special promotions, and can still function within the command structure. 

3.  CAP has some very specific operational skills and leadership requirements.  The special promos recognize the contributions that these people make.  Sorry if you didn't get those skills, or your parents didn't finance your aviation ratings through CFII.   That doesn't diminish in the least the fact that we need CFIIs.  Desperately.  And we recognize that in our 'business' CFIIs are a highly trained and skilled commodity. 

4.  We have Level I, SLS, CLC, RSC, NSC all in place to give our seniors the institutional knowledge required to participate in the corporate aspects of CAP.  None of these courses, or any others that you create are going to make instant superstar leaders.  BUT unlike the RM, we manage to get some extraordinary folks at different points in their lives.  Believe it or not some of the best leaders in our program have never served in the military.  For instance, this one guy: MIT Graduate with a PhD in Mathematics, CFII (+2500 hours), formed and ran a large (more than 5,000 employees) engineering consulting company.  Got senior executive written all over him.  I think he's covered the basics of leadership.  Any one see a problem with him coming in as a Major or Lt Col?  His experience is the equivalent of an full bird or Brig Gen in the military, right?

If you really push the 'RM' analogy - it should be a two way street. 

5.  The Flight Officer grades are one of our longest lasting traditional mistakes.  This could be resolved very quickly.  Simply allow 18-20 year olds to join as cadets.  Then eliminate the FOs.  You become a senior at 21.  Stay a senior until age 100 or so.  My experience has been the seniors that joined at 18 would have benefited from and enjoyed being a cadets.  And the cadet that became seniors early should have stayed as cadets and learned a few more leadership lessons. 

[ddelaney103]

5.  The Flight Officer grades are one of our longest lasting traditional mistakes.  This could be resolved very quickly.  Simply allow 18-20 year olds to join as cadets.  Then eliminate the FOs.  You become a senior at 21.  Stay a senior until age 100 or so.  My experience has been the seniors that joined at 18 would have benefited from and enjoyed being a cadets.  And the cadet that became seniors early should have stayed as cadets and learned a few more leadership lessons. 

I have a Dr's appointment so I'll have to comment on the rest later, but I felt a need to mount a "hasty attack" on this idea.

This is pretty wacky.  Are you suggesting that a new member: be they college student, junior enlisted, or perhaps a young parent with a full time job, should be placed in the CP just because they're under 21?  And they'll enjoy it?

I can see it now...

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

[Eclipse]

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

Active duty status would preclude them from being cadets (i.e. automatic conversion), the small number of guardsmen, etc., who squeak by because of "short-term" deployments, etc. (but not actually active duty) are so small as to be functionally zero.

Smaller still are the number of young people over 18, under 21, with military service who would even be interested in the cadet program.  Again, the number is zero from the standpoint of making program changes to accommodate them.  The reality is that anyone joining the military at 17/18 will have more things to worry about than CAP, and it will likely be at least a year before they have any time to do much but sleep and train, and in today's world, unless there is a unit in a place ending in "-stan", no place to serve CAP anyway.

Any 19/20 year old with RealMilitary® experience is, at least compared to (most) cadets, functionally an adult, and belongs in the Senior program.

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

This would effectively preclude a large number from ever completing the program.  Many do not join
until they are 14-15.  Would your recruiting collateral include a paragraph:  Welcome to CAP, we want you to
work hard and expect progression, but please don't do the math because its physically impossible for you
to make Spaatz..."?

[ZigZag911]

Maybe the answer is to make the Spaatz an award for 18-20 year old seniors.....which would eliminate the phenomenonon of 13-14-15 year old 'cadet colonels'!

[mikeylikey]

^  Ah....you are on to something.  Instead of that though, maybe make a requirement that you have to be 18 to receive the Spaatz. 

Back to RM Officers, I have no problem letting them come into CAP at an advanced rank, but make them complete the CAP specific requirements for that CAP rank.  So, an AD Lt Col comes into CAP, but before he or she is made a CAP Lt Col, they need to complete CLC, SLS...etc.

[ZigZag911]

I have no problem letting RM officers join CAP in their highest earned grade, up to and including however many stars (though I would make flag officers 'members' of the National Commanders squadron for their membership unit....participate wherever they wish "ADY").

What I would not do is give anyone any CAP command until 2 years of membership were completed.

[Hawk200]

What I would not do is give anyone any CAP command until 2 years of membership were completed.

It's a nice thought, but in some cases that's impossible. Every now and then, a unit forms with people that don't have someone with two years under their belt. Or else it may be someone with former military command experience, and wants to form a unit to serve the community.

It's just not practical in all cases. In one of the obvious differences from the military, we don't reassign people to other units based on need. That works for the military, but it wouldn't work for us. There are people that would quit rather than take the "assignment".

[ZigZag911]

As a group CC I was successful, on numerous occasions, in persuading officers to go to another unit to assume command.

Did not engender as much resentment as you might think in the 'gaining' unit, especially once it became clear that all command & group staff slots were open to the most qualified officer available.

I've seen inexperienced (in CAP) officers take commands at group & wing level....not a pretty sight! Nor a pleasant experience, now that I think about it....

As for the squadron forming where no one else was available -- well, I've seen that too, it does work sometimes....but it causes problems too.

If I were wing CC I'd probably keep the unit as an unchartered flight until they had a commander qualified according to my policy.....wouldn't hurt anything, and would give them a goal

[LeoBurke]

I have a Dr's appointment so I'll have to comment on the rest later, but I felt a need to mount a "hasty attack" on this idea.

This is pretty wacky.  Are you suggesting that a new member: be they college student, junior enlisted, or perhaps a young parent with a full time job, should be placed in the CP just because they're under 21?  And they'll enjoy it?

I can see it now...

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

This has happened to you personally - or anyone else reading this - exactly how many times?  Compared to the number of times a 18 year old HS senior tried to join the summer after he graduated because his friends were in, ended up in the FO DMZ and eventually quit. 

Imagine you realistically had a 19-20 yo, active duty, academy, Hell even if it were a cadet from VMI, they get an option of accelerated placement, just like our JROTC friends.... 

The CP leadership lessons still apply.  I hate to break it to you, boot camp and Adv Inf do not build leaders.  They build followers.  As far as the young parents? I'm not sure we want a 20 yo parent with a 12 yo cadet. 

Hope the doc helped.

Leo

[ddelaney103]

I have a Dr's appointment so I'll have to comment on the rest later, but I felt a need to mount a "hasty attack" on this idea.

This is pretty wacky.  Are you suggesting that a new member: be they college student, junior enlisted, or perhaps a young parent with a full time job, should be placed in the CP just because they're under 21?  And they'll enjoy it?

I can see it now...

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

This has happened to you personally - or anyone else reading this - exactly how many times?  Compared to the number of times a 18 year old HS senior tried to join the summer after he graduated because his friends were in, ended up in the FO DMZ and eventually quit. 

Imagine you realistically had a 19-20 yo, active duty, academy, Hell even if it were a cadet from VMI, they get an option of accelerated placement, just like our JROTC friends.... 

The CP leadership lessons still apply.  I hate to break it to you, boot camp and Adv Inf do not build leaders.  They build followers.  As far as the young parents? I'm not sure we want a 20 yo parent with a 12 yo cadet. 

Of course it hasn't happened - it's your proposed idea, not current policy.  You were suggesting all below 21 play Cadet.

Frankly our biggest problem is having our post HS Cadets fade on us - college or jobs tend to get them and we're really bad on find the Ph 3's things to do.

[SJFedor]

^ But both are still 21 year old captains... which is bad IMO.

Don't hate on the 21 year old Captains...

[ZigZag911]

21 year old captains....for that matter, 28 year old lt cols -- were not one of CAP's better ideas.

Speaking as a former cadet officer myself, I just think, based on years of observation, it's too much rank, too soon.

[MIKE]

^ The at one time 21 year old First Lieutenant agrees.  26 year old Captain ain't so bad though. 

[ZigZag911]

26 y.o. capt is fine, in fact mirrors RM pretty closely, I believe.

[mikeylikey]

So it is agreed.  26 To be a Captain, 76 to be a Lt Col?  Or how about the time I walked into a room and there were like 24 Lt Col's and none of them were younger than 80.  Needless to say I had a very difficult time explaining what a computer was used for, let alone how to turn it on.

[SJFedor]

Maybe, once you hit 70, we need to start demoting.

[MIKE]

Retiring at least.

[mikeylikey]

Maybe, once you hit 70, we need to start demoting.

I can hear it now...."Lt Col Jones happy birthday, here is your gift certificate to McDonalds, oh by the way.....we are demoting you to Major so a more junior officer can be promoted to Lt Col so that it does not look like the Cadet Program is run by all old men"

Then Lt Col (now Major) Jones says "Fine, I quit, and I am taking my typewriter with me".

[SJFedor]

Well, that way, at least when they're REALLY old and senile (no offense to anyone, I'm just being playful) they'll just be SMWOGs, and no one from the outside looking in will expect much, because they're just new SMWOGs, not those experienced Lt Cols over in the corner.

[PaulR]

Why is the ranking such a big deal.  It is not like folks are being paid for their paygrade!   Sounds like a lot of ego hype to me.

The way I see it, everyone (unless they reached certain rankings as a cadet, as already stated) should start off at the bottom.  To bring personnel in at an advanced paygra... uuuhhmm I mean ranking who do not have any CAP experience is a disservice to the CAP.  I dont know about you, but when I see people with advanced rank, I would think that they would have a certain amount of experience within the organization.

Paul

[ZigZag911]

I believe there are federal laws and CAP regulations against discrimination of pretty much any sort that is not directly mission related, i.e., it is not considered discrimination to have physical  capability benchmarks relevant to task -- a pilot needs to have sight, a GTL/GTM needs to be able to move through difficult terrain.

I presume these rules include age discrimination.

[Major Carrales]

OK...not get your philosophical faculties around this next trick...

If...
USAF Major = CAP Major,

then does...

CAP Major = USAF Major?

It has always been my understanding that a prior service rank was extended in CAP to honor that person's service in the Military.  However, some of you seem to take it to the point where I have to bring up the above mathematics.

So, should everyone begin at the bottom?  Should we remove prior service appointments an donly alow pilots credentials?  Should we extend the rank to prior service officers only if they first attend some CAP specific training?

[PaulR]

Outside of sharing a name and general appearance of the ranking insignia, a major in the CAP is not equal to an equivalent rank in the regular military.   


The roles and job descriptions are not equal.  If an active duty officer was to switch branches of service in the military, in most cases he/she would drop a paygrade or two.  That is because the organizations have different ways of "doing business". 

What I mean, is that policies, procedures, reporting, and even forms/paperwork vary from branch to branch.  I feel that bringing personnel at an elevated senior grade without experience into any organization is setting both the member and the organization up for failure.

Just my take.

Paul

[Major Carrales]

Oh, I agree, there is a world or difference between a USAF Major and a CAP Major, I made that above equasion to try to point out the difference.

I have always maintained that a CAP Major should have the skills and training equal to that of a USAF 2d Lt. 

[ZigZag911]

I think very, very few of us would try to claim that a CAP officer was the quivalent of his/her active duty counterpart.

[Hawk200]

...If an active duty officer was to switch branches of service in the military, in most cases he/she would drop a paygrade or two.  That is because the organizations have different ways of "doing business".

I've seen a half dozen officers switch branches. They were either 1LT's or Captains. No reduction was done. The officer was required to attend initial entry training in whatever MOS (or AFSC)was required, but wore their rank through the school. More common were switches from Army to Air Force components, but the grade carried over.

I have always maintained that a CAP Major should have the skills and training equal to that of a USAF 2d Lt. 

I wouldn't say necessarily to 2LT, but I don't think additional training is all that bad an idea. Most states have Guard commisioning programs that are 18 drills (essentially 18 weekends), and two Annual Training periods. At the end you get your bars.

I don't think 12 weekends and a week would be all that difficult. Wouldn't be easy, but it's doable. Be nice if we could work on military installations for it. I'm sure the military wouldn't mind if they knew it was for a more professional officer corps for us. Hopefully they'd be willing to forgo charging us for it.

[Major Carrales]

I wouldn't say necessarily to 2LT, but I don't think additional training is all that bad an idea. Most states have Guard commisioning programs that are 18 drills (essentially 18 weekends), and two Annual Training periods. At the end you get your bars.

I mean this as a "rule of thumb." A standard for professionalism.

[LeoBurke]

Oh, I agree, there is a world or difference between a USAF Major and a CAP Major, I made that above equasion to try to point out the difference.

I have always maintained that a CAP Major should have the skills and training equal to that of a USAF 2d Lt. 

Interesting this fascination we have with equivalences.  (As it relates to Civil Air Patrol, Aviation, Cadet Programs and Leadership - forget about Aero Ed)  I know very few USAF officers, from 2d Lt to Major that could leave there current duty assignment and transfer to Operational role, A leadership position at the squadron or group level.  Bring the new guy over from the Navy or Army and forget about it.

The skills do not track.  From an aviation perspective, I recently spent 45 minutes at an eval watching TWO USAF RAP Officers try to find the tach time on a G1000 C182.  Not your run of the mill guys, both were airline captains (I hope flying steam gauges!)  They just didn't know anything about GA aircraft. 

If you ever have an adult conversation with a more senior military officer (or any NCO) they will tell you that all LTs and most Captains are useless beyond specific technical skills (running a computer, flying an airplane).  I will tell you the exact same thing about most college grads.  There are exceptions, but until they have 5-6 yrs of experience, rank and title mean nothing. 

In CAP, we have a different problem, as mentioned previously.  We use this rank structure as if it had some translation to the RM.  It doesn't.  It is a way for CAP to recognize the progression of our members through our technical/mission skills progressions. 

Everyone knows it the ribbons that really count!  LOL

PS I was a 21 yr old Captain and 28 yr old Lt Col.  I was also a Squadron CC at 21 and one day, and Wing Director of CP, Plans and Programs, a Mission Coordinator, MP, etc, by 28 as well. 

Don't be a hater.  There are some spectacular 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 yr olds in our program.  We also need to acknowledge that we have a spectacular number of fools in the same (and all the other) age groups.

[PaulR]

Don't be a hater.  There are some spectacular 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 yr olds in our program.  We also need to acknowledge that we have a spectacular number of fools in the same (and all the other) age groups.

LOL... I dont think that this is about the member's biological age so much as actual years experience in regard to rank.  I Agree that there can be some personnel with 15 years of experience/service in the CAP by the time they are 28.  I believe that these people should be wearing the senior ranks.

[ZigZag911]

 

If you ever have an adult conversation with a more senior military officer (or any NCO) they will tell you that all LTs and most Captains are useless beyond specific technical skills (running a computer, flying an airplane).  I will tell you the exact same thing about most college grads.  There are exceptions, but until they have 5-6 yrs of experience, rank and title mean nothing. 

PS I was a 21 yr old Captain and 28 yr old Lt Col.  I was also a Squadron CC at 21 and one day, and Wing Director of CP, Plans and Programs, a Mission Coordinator, MP, etc, by 28 as well. 

Don't be a hater.  There are some spectacular 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 yr olds in our program.  We also need to acknowledge that we have a spectacular number of fools in the same (and all the other) age groups.

I think you contradict yourself....you make the point that virtually all LTs lack the experience (and I would add 'maturity') to handle senior leadership roles....then tell is that, of course, CAP's former cadets are the exception to the rule.

I was a cadet officer myself.....I would have made a horrible squadron CC @ 21 y.o.....I was a group staff officer and did a reasonable job, with some guidance.

I recognize that there are varying situations and people; eg, one of my own former cadets took command of her home squadron almost as soon as she turned 21.....a rural area, few seniors, she was truly best qualified -- and has done a fine job under the circumstances....but still wouldn't have been my first choice if their had been some one more mature and as capable....and, as a rule, would rather see new seniors/former cadets work on their PD, SQTR, and technical track training....and just get used to being on 'the dark side'!

It's not a question of 'hating' -- simply my professional judgement that too much rank at too young an age is good neither for CAP nor for the officer.

[Dragoon]

If you ever have an adult conversation with a more senior military officer (or any NCO) they will tell you that all LTs and most Captains are useless beyond specific technical skills (running a computer, flying an airplane).  I will tell you the exact same thing about most college grads.  There are exceptions, but until they have 5-6 yrs of experience, rank and title mean nothing. 

Well, speaking as relatively senior military officer (0-5, Army), I've got a different perspective.

It may well be that USAF Lts and Captains are useless - I wouldn't know.  But I believe that vast majority of junior Army captains and senior 1LTs have organizational and leadership skills a good bit beyond the average CAP major.

Of course, we're in the people business, so it makes some kind of sense that this would be kind of a core competency. 

True, we do have a few  truly "technical" officers (mainly lawyers, doctors, etc), and yeah, they are pretty weak in the leadership arena.  And we all know that 2d Lts are unproven - some good, and some pretty worthless.  They get weeded out rather quickly.

But don't discount the value of a few years of active duty officer leadership experience - I've found it's incredibly valuable to CAP. 

[Hawk200]

But don't discount the value of a few years of active duty officer leadership experience - I've found it's incredibly valuable to CAP. 

I would agree on the leadership, especially since command is a difficult concept when it comes to volunteers. Make your people want to do something, it works a lot better than telling them to.

[Eclipse]

A RealMilitary® Captain is no more equivalent to a CAP Captain than a Police Captain is, in fact probably less so, because CAP does not require or equate grade or rank to positional authority.

The RealMilitary®, and most PD, FD, & similar agencies do.  So what?

We also do not have mandatory retirements, nor minimum / maximum entry ages - thus the 28 yro Lt. Col's., and the 80 yro Lt. Col's.. So what. The minimum requirements for the grades is clearly stated in the curriculum, meet them and advance.  It doesn't matter if you are a GOB or a Spaatz with parents in the program. It doesn't matter if you are a GOB or a Spaatz with parents in the program, the bars, oaks and clusters cost the same and carry the same weight and authority.

They mean more or less to individuals because of what they personally did to achieve them, and to those around that person for the same reason.  People know who does the work, and who gets the benefit of the golden pen, and in the end, its all the same.

Grade has absolutely NOTHING to do with operations, it is a historical representation of your relative training, development, and overall commitment to the program.  Nothing more (or less).

Airplanes fly straight and level because of the pilot's ability, not grade.

A ground team will be successful because of the experience and ability of the members, not their respective grades.

Commanders have their authority because of their corporate appointments, not their grade.

Your grade and ribbons speak volumes about you and are at the same time worthless and useless.  Read this, hang it on your wall, and move on.

Something which is also lost in all this background noise is that while members with experience from the RealMilitary®, whether platoon leaders or regimental commanders, may have a wealth of general knowledge, experience and background in group dynamics and leadership theory, there is a cavernous expanse between motivating people with identical training and compensation, who
are legally bound to follow your directions, from leading volunteers with diverse motivation and experience who always have the option of just going home.

[Eclipse]

Should have been an edit, not a quote...

[ddelaney103]

A RealMilitary® Captain is no more equivalent to a CAP Captain than a Police Captain is, in fact probably less so, because CAP does not require or equate grade or rank to positional authority.

The RealMilitary®, and most PD, FD, & similar agencies do.  So what?

We also do not have mandatory retirements, nor minimum / maximum entry ages - thus the 28 yro Lt. Col's., and the 80 yro Lt. Col's.. So what. The minimum requirements for the grades is clearly stated in the curriculum, meet them and advance.  It doesn't matter if you are a GOB or a Spaatz with parents in the program. It doesn't matter if you are a GOB or a Spaatz with parents in the program, the bars, oaks and clusters cost the same and carry the same weight and authority.

They mean more or less to individuals because of what they personally did to achieve them, and to those around that person for the same reason.  People know who does the work, and who gets the benefit of the golden pen, and in the end, its all the same.

Grade has absolutely NOTHING to do with operations, it is a historical representation of your relative training, development, and overall commitment to the program.  Nothing more (or less).

Airplanes fly straight and level because of the pilot's ability, not grade.

A ground team will be successful because of the experience and ability of the members, not their respective grades.

Commanders have their authority because of their corporate appointments, not their grade.

Your grade and ribbons speak volumes about you and are at the same time worthless and useless.  Read this, hang it on your wall, and move on.

Something which is also lost in all this background noise is that while members with experience from the RealMilitary®, whether platoon leaders or regimental commanders, may have a wealth of general knowledge, experience and background in group dynamics and leadership theory, there is a cavernous expanse between motivating people with identical training and compensation, who are legally bound to follow your directions, from leading volunteers with diverse motivation and experience who always have the option of just going home.

All very true - which begs the question "why do we wear grade?"

All of the services (armed, public service or emergency) wear insignia so a person can immediately determine the senior person there.  That is because the senior person bears the authority and responsibility.

As you say, CAP does not follow this system.  Grade has little to do with your authority or responsibility, so why do we wear it on our uniforms?  The bling factor? Wannabe-ism?

Also, there is a difference between "giving orders" and "leading people."  Getting the most out of people involves leading, even if you pay them or have UCMJ authority over them.

[Dragoon]

All very true - which begs the question "why do we wear grade?"

All of the services (armed, public service or emergency) wear insignia so a person can immediately determine the senior person there.  That is because the senior person bears the authority and responsibility.

As you say, CAP does not follow this system.  Grade has little to do with your authority or responsibility, so why do we wear it on our uniforms?  The bling factor? Wannabe-ism?

Also, there is a difference between "giving orders" and "leading people."  Getting the most out of people involves leading, even if you pay them or have UCMJ authority over them.

So true, so true.

Of course, Police and Fire departments use officer grade as well, in a very different fashion than the military.  But

1.  Unlike CAP, they aren't wearing U.S. military uniforms, so it's pretty durned obvious they aren't part of DoD

2.  Unlike CAP, they do link rank to authority and responsibility.  It's not very often you see a Police Major taking orders from a Police Lieutenant.

3.  Unlike CAP, they don't have anywhere the amount of military customs and courtesies attached to the grade.  When's the last time you saw a bunch of firemen salute when their captain walks by?

Seems to me, we'd be better off either using officer rank to designate current authority, as most folks do, or trading it in for some CAP specific stuff that clearly ISN'T a badge of authority.  It would eliminate the confusion (and half the traffic on this board!)

[Dragoon]

Something which is also lost in all this background noise is that while members with experience from the RealMilitary®, whether platoon leaders or regimental commanders, may have a wealth of general knowledge, experience and background in group dynamics and leadership theory, there is a cavernous expanse between motivating people with identical training and compensation, who
are legally bound to follow your directions, from leading volunteers with diverse motivation and experience who always have the option of just going home.

Actually, it's not as big a gap as you might think.  The average EM may not have the option of going home, but he certainly has (and will use) the options of slacking off, conveniently misunderstanding you, and anonymously turning you in to the IG for some percieved infraction if you don't properly motivate him.  The average subordinate NCO or Officer knows a million ways to ignore or undermine your programs if you don't motivate them as well.

Even with pay and UCMJ, if you can't build consensus, you're screwed.  In fact, I've heard it said over and over that if it comes down to you having to bark out an order to get obedience, you've already lost.

While I'm sure there are exceptions (and I've seen a few), once you tell most military officers "you know, these are volunteers and can bolt any time they want," one time,  they get it and use the appropriate tools to get the job done.

[Eclipse]

All very true - which begs the question "why do we wear grade?"

As you say, CAP does not follow this system.  Grade has little to do with your authority or responsibility, so why do we wear it on our uniforms?  The bling factor? Wannabe-ism?

Tradition, primarily - CAP was started and continued with members just out of the RealMilitary®
who had been trained appropriately and understood the concept.  Initially there >was< a meaningful NCO corps, and appropriately doled out responsibilities.  The program has changed, as has this country, requiring more accolades for less effort.  There also, I believe has been a swing (in theory) towards recruiting "professionals" (i.e. aircrew) with no thought given to the fact that these people aren't any more (or less) professional than anyone else, and a lack of thought for
what to do with "Joe 6er" who just wants to help.

Also, there is a difference between "giving orders" and "leading people."  Getting the most out of people involves leading, even if you pay them or have UCMJ authority over them.

There's ways to brick in every arena, public and private, but if you play games with the RealMilitary®, there are significantly more serious consequences than CAP (not that there should be).

Bottom line, the RealMilitary® ORDERS, but CAP is generally a movement of consensus, if only because there are little to know means to force anyone to do anything.

People participate because they want to, doing things they enjoy (not 100% pleasant, or without effort, but things they consent to doing), for which there are tangible or intangible benefits that they see as at least equal to the effort.