In the old days did CAP have enlisted ranks? If so, how did it work?
For example, if a new member had a University Degree, did that person start as an officer? If on the other hand the new member had no University Degree did that person go to enlisted rank?
I don't know what the criteria were for enlisted v. officer, but CAP did have both.
We also had Warrant Officers.
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/Cloth/Rank-NCO/Rank-NCO.html (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/Cloth/Rank-NCO/Rank-NCO.html)
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/Cloth/Rank-Officer/Rank-Officer.html (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/Cloth/Rank-Officer/Rank-Officer.html)
More than likely, during the 1940s, when CAP was being used to train pilots for the Army, the officers were the pilots, while the enlisted held jobs like their Army counterparts. Afterwards, I don't know. Probably more of the same
The old photo I was looking at had CAP enlisted ranks in the photo. Additionally, some of the pilots appeared to be wearing sidearms. The photo was from the CAP in WWII. That is the first I ever noticed CAP pilots carrying sidearms ( I should say what looked like sidearms in the photo).
CAP airfield guards were armed in WWII.
CAP personnel were also paid.
All through the '60's there were CAP enlisted grades, for the most part they were just like the
cadet grades - you started at zero and worked your way up.
There were also billets and manning tables (i.e. what each unit should have grade-wise, which jobs they
fill and you can't move up until a billet vacates upstream, etc.)
My wing still has a few Lt Cols who worked that structure and then converted over. I've seen one
still very active pilot in a photo flying a helo for CAP and wearing stripes on his arm.
CAP had a CAP Officers Course which was one of the criteria for appointment to the grade of 2lt. As stated earlier grade within a unit (cadet and Senior) were based on a manning table and the size of the unit.
I remember two types of Airmen/NCOs in CAP during the 1960's-70's:
1) Former military NCOs who didn't want to become officers;
2) SMs who joined after age 18 but before age 21.
Ex-cadets over 18 with Mitchell Award were almost instantly appointed as Warrant Officers. They hD the option of converting to 2nd Lt or 1st Lt after turning 21 or remaining as Warrant Officers. Also, it was common to appoint SMs over 21 as WOs pending completion of appointment as 2nd Lt (WO and CWO was done locally, didn't appear on the membership card, while 2nd Lt and higher was recorded at NHQ and the membership card had to be updated).
The big problem with the second Airman/NCO option was that the TIG was very short and promotions locally controlled. Not unusual to have 18 year old Staff Sergeants and 20 year old Master Sergeants (CAP didn't use SMSgt or CMSgt then).
Has anybody actually heard anything regarding the revised CAP "NCO" program? There was that big announcement in October and... nothing... seven months later.
Anyhoo...
If they really want to expand / reboot the CAP airman side, my suggestion would be to reserve the Airman grades (Airman, Airman First Class, Senior Airman) for those CAP senior members who join only because their kid is a cadet and they really don't want to do any managing of the squadron, and they have zero interest in the PD program.
Example: Mr. Smith wants to join CAP because his son/daughter is a cadet. But he's looking at all the other senior members and thinking "I want to help out, but I really don't want to deal with all that professional development nonsense. I don't want to be responsible for commanding a squadron, or managing their finances, or any of that."
So, instead of joining as a SMWOG and becoming another empty-shirt 2d Lieutenant in six months, he joins as a CAP Airman Basic.
Give him an abbreviated version of Level 1, a "basic training" if you will, that covers the bare essentials (CPPT, OPSEC, a brief run-down on uniform wear and C&Cs). Once he passes that and his FBI check comes back okay, he's immediately promoted to Airman and given his stripe.
Airman First Class and Senior Airman will have TIG and some other requirements, but nothing too heavy. Once they reach Senior Airman, they can work towards Staff Sergeant once they complete the full Level 1 program and put TIG or transition to the Officer track if they choose to do so. (They can transition to the officer track at any time they wish, assuming they meet the requirements.)
The purpose of this will (1) encourage those who want to help out, but not "too much", to join and contribute. (2) It will give them something to personally work for and a goal to achieve, encouraging them to stay in CAP. (3) It's a nice carrot, as they can tell their buddies at the PTA meeting that they're "an Airman First Class in the Air Force Auxiliary."
In short:
Airman Corps
Adults who want to "help out" but don't have the desire, ability, or time to help manage the Squadron. "Level 0.5"/Basic Training a requirement for Airman. Also, adults who want to "try out" CAP but don't want to commit to anything yet.
NCO Corps
Prior RealMilitary™ NCOs or CAP Airmen who have worked up the ladder. Level 1 a requirement for Staff Sergeant or higher.
Officer Corps
Everybody else. Level 1 a requirement for 2d Lieutenant.
I can't say where I saw this.....but it is moving forward. There are Regs in draft comment right now.
Quote from: Panache on June 03, 2014, 06:56:32 AM
Has anybody actually heard anything regarding the revised CAP "NCO" program? There was that big announcement in October and... nothing... seven months later.
Anyhoo...
If they really want to expand / reboot the CAP airman side, my suggestion would be to reserve the Airman grades (Airman, Airman First Class, Senior Airman) for those CAP senior members who join only because their kid is a cadet and they really don't want to do any managing of the squadron, and they have zero interest in the PD program.
{snip}
I set a similar set of "requirements" in another post, very similar to yours. Sounds like we have a winner on this NCO/Airman deal.
If I could, I'd start over as an Airman E-1 (or maybe E-3 because of my educational qualifications), just as I would be glad to start over as a WO if those grades still existed.
That way, I could never be accused of the apocryphal "CAP officers trolling for salutes" because I wouldn't be entitled to a salute from anyone, even within CAP.
When I rejoined in '09, I offered to start over as an SMWOG but my then-commander, bless her, put my paperwork through to get my Captain's bars back.
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong. Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong. Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.
No different then the top three ranks on the O-side.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2014, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong. Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.
No different then the top three ranks on the O-side.
Yep, but extends the concept down the chain some more. Don't get the one slot at Group, too bad, can't promote you Sgt. Same at Wing. And if you're expecting less politics in picking people for those promotions, I'm pretty sure I can find you a bridge that you might like to invest in.
Hoping, yes. Expecting, no.
I've been in CAP long enough to know that politics can never be divorced from CAP.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2014, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong. Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.
No different then the top three ranks on the O-side.
Yep, but extends the concept down the chain some more. Don't get the one slot at Group, too bad, can't promote you Sgt. Same at Wing. And if you're expecting less politics in picking people for those promotions, I'm pretty sure I can find you a bridge that you might like to invest in.
There is always politics and drama.....but there you go. Want to be chief.......get a job a wing/group and move up. Don't care about it....stay at the squadron.
Can't keep on the good side of the "right" people.....maybe you shouldn't be a chief......no different then AD SNCOs. There is always an element of politics in getting promoted to the top ranks.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2014, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on June 03, 2014, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong. Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.
No different then the top three ranks on the O-side.
Yep, but extends the concept down the chain some more. Don't get the one slot at Group, too bad, can't promote you Sgt. Same at Wing. And if you're expecting less politics in picking people for those promotions, I'm pretty sure I can find you a bridge that you might like to invest in.
There is always politics and drama.....but there you go. Want to be chief.......get a job a wing/group and move up. Don't care about it....stay at the squadron.
Can't keep on the good side of the "right" people.....maybe you shouldn't be a chief......no different then AD SNCOs. There is always an element of politics in getting promoted to the top ranks.
I don't disagree with you...however the poster to whom I was replying has lamented multiple times about his not being able to promote because he doesn't know the right people at higher echelons. I was simply dispelling his notion that it would be less political on the NCO side. It won't, and the system as most recently proposed, will likely be more subject to politics than the current officer system.
Not saying that's a good or a bad thing, simply pointing the objective reality out.
Master Sergeant, I have never been any good at "bucking for a stripe." I cannot be something I am not.
^ Not really any different then the rest of the world, corporate or otherwise.
I don't know of too many situations, outsides >maybe< professional sports, where objective performance
is the only criteria for advancement (even professional sports have issues with timing and "who you know").
There's always an element of politics (in the generic sense) and having to impress the next tier.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2014, 07:21:47 PM
^ Not really any different then the rest of the world, corporate or otherwise.
I don't know of too many situations, outsides >maybe< professional sports, where objective performance
is the only criteria for advancement (even professional sports have issues with timing and "who you know").
There's always an element of politics (in the generic sense) and having to impress the next tier.
Nonetheless, something I am thoroughly unskilled with.
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 08:33:50 PM
Nonetheless, something I am thoroughly unskilled with.
Then you have some personal development goals for the remainder of the year.
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 03, 2014, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Panache on June 03, 2014, 06:56:32 AM
Has anybody actually heard anything regarding the revised CAP "NCO" program? There was that big announcement in October and... nothing... seven months later.
Anyhoo...
If they really want to expand / reboot the CAP airman side, my suggestion would be to reserve the Airman grades (Airman, Airman First Class, Senior Airman) for those CAP senior members who join only because their kid is a cadet and they really don't want to do any managing of the squadron, and they have zero interest in the PD program.
{snip}
I set a similar set of "requirements" in another post, very similar to yours. Sounds like we have a winner on this NCO/Airman deal.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the 60's-70's, CAP had twenty year old Master Sergeants who looked out of place. But that's nothing compared to a 40 year old Airman.
But, why even have a stripes track for people who just want to help out? I think the UK ATC solved this. Some of their people are officers, in uniform, rank titles. Others are "Instructors," blazers, no pretense of them being uniformed people with military ranks.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 03, 2014, 09:36:24 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 03, 2014, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Panache on June 03, 2014, 06:56:32 AM
Has anybody actually heard anything regarding the revised CAP "NCO" program? There was that big announcement in October and... nothing... seven months later.
Anyhoo...
If they really want to expand / reboot the CAP airman side, my suggestion would be to reserve the Airman grades (Airman, Airman First Class, Senior Airman) for those CAP senior members who join only because their kid is a cadet and they really don't want to do any managing of the squadron, and they have zero interest in the PD program.
{snip}
I set a similar set of "requirements" in another post, very similar to yours. Sounds like we have a winner on this NCO/Airman deal.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the 60's-70's, CAP had twenty year old Master Sergeants who looked out of place. But that's nothing compared to a 40 year old Airman.
But, why even have a stripes track for people who just want to help out? I think the UK ATC solved this. Some of their people are officers, in uniform, rank titles. Others are "Instructors," blazers, no pretense of them being uniformed people with military ranks.
I spent a good deal of time today revising my own vision of the senior member program. I am sure, absolutely sure, that this plan I have is completely and 100% unattainable and I have all the specifics and such wrong, and have not taken into account a lot of things.
Say a person joins CAP at 18 and wants to be a SM. They will join CAP as they would the military, with no rank or nothin'. After 6 months, they get to be promoted to Airman as part of Level 1. In a year, they get another stripe to A1C. 3 years later, they can promote to SrAmn and complete Level 1. At that time, they have the option to either "test out" and become a 2nd Lt, or they can continue to progress up through the NCO corps, eventually topping out at CMSGT in a minimum of 14 years. The grade structure and TIG requirements are in line with the Air Force. Level 2 would encompass SSGT and TSGT, Level 3 MSGT, Level 4 SMSGT, and Level 5 CMSGT.
Not interested in progressing past SrAmn as an NCO? No Problem! You can, as I said, "test out" and become a 2nd Lt. After 6 months, start Level 2 and promote to 1st Lt at 12 months. And so on.
Interested in a field that doesn't involve command or a specialty such as legal, medical, or chaplain? No problem! Here's our handy Flight Officer program. You can specialize in Admin, Personnel, Logistics, ES, AE, and a host of other specialties!
Wanna be a REAL ossifer? If you're a pilot, or a lawyer, or medical officer, you can get instant gratification as a REAL CAP OFFICER! Depending on how many hours you have as a pilot, or your educational level in your professional field, you can start off as anywhere from a 2nd Lt to a Captain!
If for some reason you are appointed to a squadron leadership position, you will be temporarily granted a grade of:
CC: Major
DCC/DCS: Captain
These grades are temporary if you are a FO or NCO, permanent if you are a REAL CAP OFFICER and have satisfied the professional development requirements for those grades. If not, you revert back to your grade upon removal from office.
Cadet turning senior at 18? A little more dicey. If you're a Mitchell, Earhart, or Spaatz recipient, you would start off as a FO, SFO, or TFO until you turn 21, then you would start off as a 2nd Lt. No more 21 year old captains! However, you would be allowed to progress through Level 1 and 2 until you are all caught up.
Of course, there are a lot of things I am missing, and probably will get raked over the coals, but it was something I have been thinking of for a while now.
No thank you, it is fine as it is.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on June 03, 2014, 10:41:06 PM
No thank you, it is fine as it is.
I put way too much, and way too little, thought into it, as you can see.
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 03, 2014, 10:27:31 PM
These grades are temporary if you are a FO or NCO, permanent if you are a REAL CAP OFFICER and have satisfied the professional development requirements for those grades. If not, you revert back to your grade upon removal from office.
This is where I have the issue, and where it breaks down in a paradigm of "you're lucky I showed up at all" - either you're qualified or you aren't.
If being a "real" major requires PD, then you shouldn't get the oaks just because you take a job, regardless of
the grade or job being discussed.
And conversely, if being a Unit CC means you really should be a major, then until you >are< a major, or at least
major qualified, then you shouldn't get the job.
That doesn't work in CAP's current envelope of no planning, manning, or expectations, but by the same token,
provisional grade is also a waste of time, not to mention an expense (albeit relatively minor).
Quote from: Eclipse on June 03, 2014, 10:50:34 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on June 03, 2014, 10:27:31 PM
These grades are temporary if you are a FO or NCO, permanent if you are a REAL CAP OFFICER and have satisfied the professional development requirements for those grades. If not, you revert back to your grade upon removal from office.
This is where I have the issue, and where it breaks down in a paradigm of "you're lucky I showed up at all" - either you're qualified or you aren't.
If being a "real" major requires PD, then you shouldn't get the oaks just because you take a job, regardless of
the grade or job being discussed.
And conversely, if being a Unit CC is means you really should be a major, then until you >are< a major, or at least
major qualified, then you shouldn't get the job.
That doesn't work in CAP's current envelope of no planning, manning, or expectations, but by the same token,
provisional grade is also a waste of time, not to mention an expense (albeit relatively minor).
Yeah, see, told you I there were some issues.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 03, 2014, 09:36:24 PM
But, why even have a stripes track for people who just want to help out?
Honestly? Just to keep their interest piqued.
This particular proposal popped into my head because we have a newish SM who joined because her son is a cadet. She's a real nice person, but holds absolutely no interest in the PD program. None. We're trying to get her through Level 1, but her eyes just glaze over when we start getting into the history of CAP and whatnot.
Sure, she could just stay a SMWOG, but with the "Airman" proposal, it gives her some goals, something she could look forward too. More importantly, it gives her a sense of progression with her kid.
It's a way for CAP to reach out to parents (who I imagine would be the primary participant of this) and say "even though you don't want to take part in our Professional Development program, we still would like you to be a member and be part of the squadron." You know, CAP being inclusive.
Sorry guys, I did not mean to open a can of works. I was only interested in how things were done in past.
Quote from: Nikos on June 04, 2014, 04:10:02 PM
Sorry guys, I did not mean to open a can of works. I was only interested in how things were done in past.
It's no big deal. We're just waiting now to see who turns this into a uniform thread. All threads serve the uniform. Hail Uniform!
Quote
...All threads serve the uniform. Hail Uniform!
You just did!!!
:P
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on June 04, 2014, 09:10:45 PM
Quote
...All threads serve the uniform. Hail Uniform!
You just did!!!
:P
No, I didn't!
Quote from: Nikos on June 02, 2014, 11:33:12 PM
In the old days did CAP have enlisted ranks? If so, how did it work?
For example, if a new member had a University Degree, did that person start as an officer? If on the other hand the new member had no University Degree did that person go to enlisted rank?
Not sure if your question was answered, so let me help.
First, a good resource, if you can find it is the three volume set for CAP member training from 1949. Vol. 1 was called the Civil Air Patrol Manual, Vol. 2 was an Aviation Study Manual for senior members and the third, in blue, was an Aviation Preflight Manual for cadets.
The rank structure (officer and enlisted) was pretty much a product of three things: CAP members "called to active duty" (according to Vol. 1) for for the Coastal Patrol mission, the Executive Order transfer of the CAP under the Army Air Forces, and the implementation of the cadet program which was seen as a preliminary step for individuals wanting to join the AAF. A cadet of that era could actually join CAP and serve in the AAF Enlisted Reserve. Also, at one point CAP administered military service qualification tests.
According to Vol. 1, rank was pretty much controlled by training, hours of service and a very formal Table of Organization. Although there are no illustrations of senior member rank insignia, I can pretty much guess that the enlisted rank structure went from private to master sergeant with the senior ranks heavily dependent on unit vacancies and training. There were no senior or chief master sergeants in the Air Force at that time. In that era, especially in 1949, there were CAP warrant officers and officer trainees. OTs were of the same age that our flight officers are now.
Cadets only had nine ranks: C/PFC, C/CPL, and C/Sgt. and a C/Sgt, with a first sergeant diamond; C/2nd Lt., C/1st Lt, C/Capt., C/Maj., C/Lt. Col., and C/Col.; and three ribbons: red, white and blue service ribbons. Cadets had to complete 11 achievements then called Units and each unit was tied to a civilian or military occupation.
The interesting thing is that senior members only had six ribbons: Distinguished, Exceptional and Meritorious Service Awards, and the blue, white and red service ribbons.
I've talked before about the enlisted program and it's demise in the 1970s. I was an CAP NCO then and I got the skinny of what happened years later when I became a CAP-RAP NCO. I'm pretty sure that the return of the NCO program has a lot to do with efforts to bring the CAP more under the Air Force again. I wish we had officer trainees instead of flight officers.
Thank you flyboy1, I found your reply, and others were interesting. I was a History major when I was in College, thus my interest in CAP History. This gives me a direction to find more information.
Speaking as one of the new guys here, I must agree that the uniform threads seem to get a lot of "ink", so to speak.
Quote from: Panache on June 03, 2014, 06:56:32 AM
Has anybody actually heard anything regarding the revised CAP "NCO" program? There was that big announcement in October and... nothing... seven months later.
Anyhoo...
If they really want to expand / reboot the CAP airman side, my suggestion would be to reserve the Airman grades (Airman, Airman First Class, Senior Airman) for those CAP senior members who join only because their kid is a cadet and they really don't want to do any managing of the squadron, and they have zero interest in the PD program.
Example: Mr. Smith wants to join CAP because his son/daughter is a cadet. But he's looking at all the other senior members and thinking "I want to help out, but I really don't want to deal with all that professional development nonsense. I don't want to be responsible for commanding a squadron, or managing their finances, or any of that."
So, instead of joining as a SMWOG and becoming another empty-shirt 2d Lieutenant in six months, he joins as a CAP Airman Basic.
Give him an abbreviated version of Level 1, a "basic training" if you will, that covers the bare essentials (CPPT, OPSEC, a brief run-down on uniform wear and C&Cs). Once he passes that and his FBI check comes back okay, he's immediately promoted to Airman and given his stripe.
Airman First Class and Senior Airman will have TIG and some other requirements, but nothing too heavy. Once they reach Senior Airman, they can work towards Staff Sergeant once they complete the full Level 1 program and put TIG or transition to the Officer track if they choose to do so. (They can transition to the officer track at any time they wish, assuming they meet the requirements.)
The purpose of this will (1) encourage those who want to help out, but not "too much", to join and contribute. (2) It will give them something to personally work for and a goal to achieve, encouraging them to stay in CAP. (3) It's a nice carrot, as they can tell their buddies at the PTA meeting that they're "an Airman First Class in the Air Force Auxiliary."
In short:
Airman Corps
Adults who want to "help out" but don't have the desire, ability, or time to help manage the Squadron. "Level 0.5"/Basic Training a requirement for Airman. Also, adults who want to "try out" CAP but don't want to commit to anything yet.
NCO Corps
Prior RealMilitary™ NCOs or CAP Airmen who have worked up the ladder. Level 1 a requirement for Staff Sergeant or higher.
Officer Corps
Everybody else. Level 1 a requirement for 2d Lieutenant.
Panache - what you are suggesting already exists. They are called Cadet Sponsor Members.
Only PD requirement is level 1; they are then allowed to accompany and chaperone cadets on trips and activities. No promotions though.
Quote from: MacGruff on June 05, 2014, 01:24:27 AM
Panache - what you are suggesting already exists. They are called Cadet Sponsor Members.
Only PD requirement is level 1; they are then allowed to accompany and chaperone cadets on trips and activities. No promotions though.
But my proposal has five significant changes from the Cadet Sponsor Member program:
1) Elimination of Level 1 as a requirement. Instead, it would be "Level 1 Lite" (CPPT, OPSEC, uniform wear and C&C).
2) Authorization to wear the AF-style uniforms (CSMs are only authorized the Corporate variants, as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(h).)
3) As outlined above, the limited promotion track.
4) Also eligible for awards and commendations if appropriate (CSMs are barred from awards and commendations as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(i).)
5) Can be assigned to duty positions in an Assistant capacity (i.e. Assistant Safety Officer, Assistant AE Officer, etc.). CSMs are not authorized to perform in any duty assignment, as per CAPR 39-2 1-12.
But other than that, yeah, totally the same thing. ;)
Quote from: Panache on June 05, 2014, 04:41:22 AM
Quote from: MacGruff on June 05, 2014, 01:24:27 AM
Panache - what you are suggesting already exists. They are called Cadet Sponsor Members.
Only PD requirement is level 1; they are then allowed to accompany and chaperone cadets on trips and activities. No promotions though.
But my proposal has five significant changes from the Cadet Sponsor Member program:
1) Elimination of Level 1 as a requirement. Instead, it would be "Level 1 Lite" (CPPT, OPSEC, uniform wear and C&C).
2) Authorization to wear the AF-style uniforms (CSMs are only authorized the Corporate variants, as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(h).)
3) As outlined above, the limited promotion track.
4) Also eligible for awards and commendations if appropriate (CSMs are barred from awards and commendations as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(i).)
5) Can be assigned to duty positions in an Assistant capacity (i.e. Assistant Safety Officer, Assistant AE Officer, etc.). CSMs are not authorized to perform in any duty assignment, as per CAPR 39-2 1-12.
But other than that, yeah, totally the same thing. ;)
So, you're proposing "Cadet Sponsor Member Plus." Or "active member light."
Most CSMs I've met were happy as CSMs. They didn't need USAF type uniforms, weren't interested in the rest of it. Those who became interested in more participation bit the bullet and participated as active members. I'm not sure that CSM Plus or active light would have been of much interest or served any real purpose.
Quote from: Panache on June 05, 2014, 04:41:22 AM
Quote from: MacGruff on June 05, 2014, 01:24:27 AM
Panache - what you are suggesting already exists. They are called Cadet Sponsor Members.
Only PD requirement is level 1; they are then allowed to accompany and chaperone cadets on trips and activities. No promotions though.
But my proposal has five significant changes from the Cadet Sponsor Member program:
1) Elimination of Level 1 as a requirement. Instead, it would be "Level 1 Lite" (CPPT, OPSEC, uniform wear and C&C).
2) Authorization to wear the AF-style uniforms (CSMs are only authorized the Corporate variants, as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(h).)
3) As outlined above, the limited promotion track.
4) Also eligible for awards and commendations if appropriate (CSMs are barred from awards and commendations as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(i).)
5) Can be assigned to duty positions in an Assistant capacity (i.e. Assistant Safety Officer, Assistant AE Officer, etc.). CSMs are not authorized to perform in any duty assignment, as per CAPR 39-2 1-12.
But other than that, yeah, totally the same thing. ;)
Yep. totally the same. ;)
In our squadron we have at least three active Cadet Sponsor Members. Each of them has been approached multiple times about becoming active Senior Members and each turned it down. Why? They are not interested in rank structure, uniforms, awards, staff positions, or more coursework. They want to contribute to their child's (and each is a parent of a cadet in the program) experiences and help out by being chaperones on trips and helping with the occasional errand or other stuff.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 05, 2014, 02:39:48 PM
Quote from: Panache on June 05, 2014, 04:41:22 AM
Quote from: MacGruff on June 05, 2014, 01:24:27 AM
Panache - what you are suggesting already exists. They are called Cadet Sponsor Members.
Only PD requirement is level 1; they are then allowed to accompany and chaperone cadets on trips and activities. No promotions though.
But my proposal has five significant changes from the Cadet Sponsor Member program:
1) Elimination of Level 1 as a requirement. Instead, it would be "Level 1 Lite" (CPPT, OPSEC, uniform wear and C&C).
2) Authorization to wear the AF-style uniforms (CSMs are only authorized the Corporate variants, as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(h).)
3) As outlined above, the limited promotion track.
4) Also eligible for awards and commendations if appropriate (CSMs are barred from awards and commendations as per CAPR 39-2 5-1(i).)
5) Can be assigned to duty positions in an Assistant capacity (i.e. Assistant Safety Officer, Assistant AE Officer, etc.). CSMs are not authorized to perform in any duty assignment, as per CAPR 39-2 1-12.
But other than that, yeah, totally the same thing. ;)
So, you're proposing "Cadet Sponsor Member Plus." Or "active member light."
Most CSMs I've met were happy as CSMs. They didn't need USAF type uniforms, weren't interested in the rest of it. Those who became interested in more participation bit the bullet and participated as active members. I'm not sure that CSM Plus or active light would have been of much interest or served any real purpose.
Now that is funny. Somebody did say I was a "Light Colonel" and I thought it was the tai chi, yoga and the daily walk. :clap:
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 05, 2014, 02:39:48 PM
So, you're proposing "Cadet Sponsor Member Plus." Or "active member light."
Most CSMs I've met were happy as CSMs. They didn't need USAF type uniforms, weren't interested in the rest of it. Those who became interested in more participation bit the bullet and participated as active members. I'm not sure that CSM Plus or active light would have been of much interest or served any real purpose.
I guess you're right. We can just continue doing what we're doing because it seems to be working so well at recruiting people, so there's no need to change.
Hmmmm. We have over a dozen membership categories already.
- Cadet
- Senior - Active
- Senior - Patron
- Senior - Retired
- Cadet Sponsor
- AEM - Student
- AEM - Organization
- Business Members
- Affiliate Members
- State Legislative Members
- Congressional Members
- Honorary
- Life
- 50 Year
But that's probably not enough categories for an organization our size.
Let's add another.
Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong. Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.
Agreed, For what I saw of the draft, it's easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it is for CMSgt.
My ex-brother-in-law tried repeatedly to make E-7/SFC in the Army. He never did.
Quote from: Panache on June 05, 2014, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 05, 2014, 02:39:48 PM
So, you're proposing "Cadet Sponsor Member Plus." Or "active member light."
Most CSMs I've met were happy as CSMs. They didn't need USAF type uniforms, weren't interested in the rest of it. Those who became interested in more participation bit the bullet and participated as active members. I'm not sure that CSM Plus or active light would have been of much interest or served any real purpose.
I guess you're right. We can just continue doing what we're doing because it seems to be working so well at recruiting people, so there's no need to change.
You will never convince me that targeting potential CSMs (or the proposed "CSM Plus") is the answer to CAP recruiting needs. Face it - most CSMs are in to support their kids being in a youth program. Kid leaves, they leave. If, by chance, they become interested in becoming full participants in CAP. then they will be full participants and won't need a "CSM Plus" program.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 06, 2014, 09:58:21 PM
You will never convince me that targeting potential CSMs (or the proposed "CSM Plus") is the answer to CAP recruiting needs. Face it - most CSMs are in to support their kids being in a youth program. Kid leaves, they leave. If, by chance, they become interested in becoming full participants in CAP. then they will be full participants and won't need a "CSM Plus" program.
+1 - We need more full members, not more excuses why people don't have to fully participate.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 10:23:45 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 06, 2014, 09:58:21 PM
You will never convince me that targeting potential CSMs (or the proposed "CSM Plus") is the answer to CAP recruiting needs. Face it - most CSMs are in to support their kids being in a youth program. Kid leaves, they leave. If, by chance, they become interested in becoming full participants in CAP. then they will be full participants and won't need a "CSM Plus" program.
+1 - We need more full members, not more excuses why people don't have to fully participate.
So, I guess in CAP world, a person who isn't a member is more desirable than a member that does not fully participate.
Huh. 0 > 1. Must be that new Common Core math.
I was never any good at math; one of the most loathsome subjects I had to endure in school.
CAP is laden with "funny math."
Some squadrons like to be laden with members-on-paper who never show up, just to give the impression that they're bigger than they really are, whereas others are more of a "contribute or out."
Quote from: Panache on June 07, 2014, 04:09:46 AM
So, I guess in CAP world, a person who isn't a member is more desirable than a member that does not fully participate.
Huh. 0 > 1. Must be that new Common Core math.
Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math". For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't
need partials.
However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the
potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).
That just made my head hurt.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math". For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.
However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).
Would you mind going over that one more time ... in English, please? ;D
Jack
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: Panache on June 07, 2014, 04:09:46 AM
So, I guess in CAP world, a person who isn't a member is more desirable than a member that does not fully participate.
Huh. 0 > 1. Must be that new Common Core math.
Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math". For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.
However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).
Translation.... If your check clears the bank. ;)
Quote from: ColonelJack on June 07, 2014, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math". For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.
However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).
Would you mind going over that one more time ... in English, please? ;D
Jack
Eclipse chose an odd sentence structure, but once you parse it, the logic is correct.
If you have a squadron with a slew of Active Senior Members who fall into the "empty shirt" category, and you also have Cadet Sponsor Members, the latter can carry the weight of the non-contributing Seniors. However, the more really active Senior Members you have who pull their own weight, the less you really need the Cadet Sponsor Members - although I suggest you NEVER turn them away!
In his second statement, he points out that an interested outsider has the POTENTIAL to become a larger contributor than a member who is dormant (with the financial exception mentioned_.
See? Clear as daylight!!! >:D
As rainy daylight or sunny daylight...? :P
Take all the potential out there and put it one hand.... >:D
First off.....I hate the term empty shirt. Unless we define it better.
The only thing I use to judge a CAP SM member is how much does he contribute to the mission vs how much butt pain he makes me go through to get that work done.
So I got people in my squadron that I have never seen. The pay their dues, keep safety current and say they are there if I need them. I get zero out of them (as I don't call them), I get some money out of them, but it costs me nothing to maintain them on the books.
So. I got other people who I see maybe once a quarter. They come in do their thing (such as Comm Training) and jet out again. Sometimes they don't keep safety current, sometimes they cost me a few phone calls and e-mails.
Sometimes I go a guy (usually a cadet) who has just dropped off the face of the earth. Costs me nothing to keep him on the books.
Sometimes I got a guy who shows up every meeting, who wants to be there for every sarex and wants to active in everything we do. But he can't work with others, can't do the job effectively, can't or won't learn. "Back in my cadet days we just did it like this".
I would love to have an empty shirt instead of one of these guys.
The only.....THE ONLY guy I can't stand in CAP....is the guy who says "Oh don't worry I got this.....I'll be there." and fails to come through. That is the one thing I say to any potential senior member....I don't care how much or how little you do....but if you commit to XYZ....I really really need you to XYZ.
That's great for your micro view of the universe - you know the status of the CAPIDS so you can manage properly.
It's different at the macro level where CAP uses raw, non-normalized membership numbers for everything from funding requests to
operational readiness reporting, not to mention patting itself on the back.
How can you manage a group of people who have no expectation of performance and no ramifications of absence?
Patron members should not even be on the books, certainly not below the wing level - run their files through a scanner and transfer them to
NHQ-000.
As for the other vacant tunics, we need to set expectations - start with safety currency - a waste of time from a safety perspective,
but indicative of participation.
Drop off safety? Even once, for any reason? The member goes into sub-active status, can't access anything in eservices
except safety education, and is removed from being counted for anything.
3 months? Probationary membership which requires a commander's approval to put on indefinite hold.
6 months with no indefinite hold? NHQ-000.
The uninhabited smocks become no one's problem in 6 months, CAP still gets the checks.
Done.
So the problem is how does big cap manage empty shirts at the squadron level
And your answer is to add more admin at the squadron level
Why not leave them alone and let the squadron deal with them as the feel like they need to.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2014, 03:03:24 AM
So the problem is how does big cap manage empty shirts at the squadron level
And your answer is to add more admin at the squadron level
My suggestion removes them from the squadron level, and thus eliminates hassles for the Unit CC.
It's all automatic, requires no intervention, other then dealing with the records once they exceed the 6 months.
Units should be working on digitizing their personnel records anyway, but if that's too much trouble,
just send it to NHQ, or Wing, anything that removes them from the Unit and being counted.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2014, 03:03:24 AMWhy not leave them alone and let the squadron deal with them as the feel like they need to.
That's what we have today, and it's not working.
They are still unabashedly counted in many member reports without any caveat or asterisk, and many who are inherited
are ignored and passed on to the "next guy" for years if not decades. Some unit CC's actually cultivate these hollow
blouses from other squadrons in an effort to pad their rolls.
If you're a CC, and you can say "...no idea who that guy is..." after you've had time to get situated, you're doing it wrong.
I continue to assert that if our >real< membership situation were more publicly and easily available, we'd see a lot
more action on this front, included, possibly, some pressure from CAP-USAF (though probably not). Even the
most recent comments by Ned about how our membership numbers are "essentially static" indicates an undeserved
comfort with the status quo.
Accurate statistics have a way of shining light on things that assumptions and obfuscation can hide.
Remove the deserted doublets from the roles in a meaningful was and things might start happening.
This could literally be a 20% reduction in membership numbers overnight, and that's just based on the 000 numbers.
What is not working?
I got plenty of No Shows.....costs us nothing.
WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?
Accurate Statistics?
The ones that don't keep safety current, or do any of the other "required" things that comes along..
..and then you've got the Wing CC sending out nagging emails saying that Group/Unit/Whatever requirements/currency is lagging and is unacceptable. So, you push non-participants to patron, and get dead weight off your roster.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2014, 04:31:58 AM
WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?
Accurate Statistics?
I guess we don't need those anymore?
Honestly, you have a very "my unit" centered mentality, and that's fine, I guess.
Maybe it's a legitimate position for an NCO to have - "I'm good, the rest isn't my problem."
Some of us are concerned with the larger picture, which includes things like "accurate statistics" when
we report our readiness to Congress, not to mention and much more importantly, when we try to make
strategic decisions at a larger scale.
This points back to the utter lack of anything resembling strategic planning or even understanding at the
national level - if you don't even know who and where your people >are<, you certainly can't plan
anything, nor set any expectations.
So yes, let's start with "accurate statistics".
How effective would the USAF be if 20+% of those on the books were "status undetermined"?
Truth be known, the military folks aren't much better at reporting accurate availability numbers.
Typically, somewhere between 10-15% of the reported forces are not available to do their primary jobs. They are away from their units for various reasons - leave, schools, hospital, TAD/TDY to non MOS jobs, and UA are the most typical. There might be one or two other reasons I don't recall. All of these people count on the unit's rolls, but aren't available.
ETA: Incarcerated.
Reminds me of when I was in the Guard, where they would hold transfers and discharges to maintain unit levels.
(http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/3000/400/223499/223499.strip.gif)