New Commander's specialty track

[arajca]

As noted in the April BoG agenda thread, the new Commander's Specialty Track has been released. It is CAPP 222.

An interesting note is the program has a "jump-start" provision for service performed prior to the release of the track. This is a one-time option based on length of commander (or deputy/vice commander) service.

Also, this track excludes NCOs as one requirement for the Technician rating is to be at least a Captain.

A nice provision is the allow service as a Deputy Commander to count for the Technician rating, and Vice Commander to count for Senior rating.

Now for the mandatory uniform item - no specialty badge has been described.

[NIN]

Now for the mandatory uniform item - no specialty badge has been described.

Already is one.

[Al Sayre]

Looks like if your wing doesn't have Groups, the best you can do on a jump start is Technician, even though the Senior allows for "3 years command and staff experience at any level within wing or region"...

[arajca]

Now for the mandatory uniform item - no specialty badge has been described.

Already is one.

That is for current squadron commanders. With a star is for current group commanders. It denotes position, not progression. If you step down from squadron command and move to group vice commander, no more wearing the badge.

[NIN]

That is for current squadron commanders. With a star is for current group commanders. It denotes position, not progression. If you step down from squadron command and move to group vice commander, no more wearing the badge.

IIRC, you wear the badge on the pocket/below your nametag following your command tour. I might be wrong, there have been changes since I retired in 2009.   There is a badge for command.  No need for another specialty insignia that looks like it was designed with Microsoft clip-art.

[arajca]

Nope. The Air Force does that, CAP does not. Ref CAPM 39-1, Table 6-2, Line 10. Current commander's only. Wing and region commanders get to keep wearing their badges after stepping down.

PS. Nothing in the ICLs changes that.

[a2capt]

[Wrong Thread]

[lordmonar]

That is for current squadron commanders. With a star is for current group commanders. It denotes position, not progression. If you step down from squadron command and move to group vice commander, no more wearing the badge.

IIRC, you wear the badge on the pocket/below your nametag following your command tour. I might be wrong, there have been changes since I retired in 2009.   There is a badge for command.  No need for another specialty insignia that looks like it was designed with Microsoft clip-art.

I made the suggestion to the NB a few years back that we do it like the USAF....but it got shot down....I think there is a thread on it (either here or at CS)

[Luis R. Ramos]

Please give me your opinion on this...

Member A was Deputy Commander for Squadron ACS for two years. Then moves to another squadron and other duties. Then joins Squadron BCS as Deputy Commander. Leaves CAP for a few years. Then comes back to other squadrons and no duties as Squadron Commander or Deputy Squadron Commander.

When does the "Jump Start" apply? Is it only if he is appointed Commander or Deputy Commander of Squadron XXXCS?

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

CAPP 222 states in page 5 that:

Successful completion of the Technician level prepares the trainee for command at the squadron or group level (if applicable).

Page 13 states that one of the service requirements for the Technician Rating is:

1 year staff experience at the squadron, group, wing, or region level (service as a deputy commander for seniors or deputy commander for cadets preferred).

That means that you don't have to be a commander to enroll in this specialty track. Because it is meant as a preparation to be a commander, I can see this being used in the future as another tool in the selection process for subordinate commanders.

And as mentioned on a previous post, there's no correlation between the Command Badge (awarded to commanders) and the Command Specialty Track. I suppose NHQ may decide to establish a specialty badge at a later time, but there's no guarantee. Since one of the requirements to enroll in the specialty track is to have Level II, trainees in this specialty would already have a Technician Rating in another specialty track.

Page 29 states as a requirement to jump-start to Technician Rating that the:

Member has successfully served at least 1 year as a squadron commander or squadron deputy commander prior to 30 April 2013.

The one question I have is: does being a deputy commander for cadets or seniors for a year meet the "deputy commander" requirement, since there's a separate duty assignment as deputy commander in eServices?

[NIN]

Nope. The Air Force does that, CAP does not. Ref CAPM 39-1, Table 6-2, Line 10. Current commander's only. Wing and region commanders get to keep wearing their badges after stepping down.

PS. Nothing in the ICLs changes that.

Got it. My bad. Although, I think perhaps I have some intel on changes in the pipeline...

[Eclipse]

The one question I have is: does being a deputy commander for cadets or seniors for a year meet the "deputy commander" requirement, since there's a separate duty assignment as deputy commander in eServices?

Yes, CD is CD.

From the looks of things, I qualify for Master out of the gate (have to check on substantiating a stint as CD), and the skills
indicated and required are pretty much what a unit CC needs to do his job.

However, unless there is some pressure to actually require this rating to be a CC, I don't think it's going to make much difference, and frankly I don't see it ever being required to assume command.

[FlyTiger77]

Unless I missed it, there is no requirement to successfully complete the UCC in order to progress in the specialty track.

[JeffDG]

Unless I missed it, there is no requirement to successfully complete the UCC in order to progress in the specialty track.

Page 12, required for Technician.  So is TLC.

[FlyTiger77]

Unless I missed it, there is no requirement to successfully complete the UCC in order to progress in the specialty track.

Page 12, required for Technician.  So is TLC.

I stand corrected. I'm going to blame it on...well, never mind. 

[JeffDG]

Unless I missed it, there is no requirement to successfully complete the UCC in order to progress in the specialty track.

Page 12, required for Technician.  So is TLC.

I stand corrected. I'm going to blame it on...well, never mind. 

That's OK, if you didn't make mistakes, you'd be commanding Group I. 

[Private Investigator]

That is for current squadron commanders. With a star is for current group commanders. It denotes position, not progression. If you step down from squadron command and move to group vice commander, no more wearing the badge.

IIRC, you wear the badge on the pocket/below your nametag following your command tour. I might be wrong, there have been changes since I retired in 2009.   There is a badge for command.  No need for another specialty insignia that looks like it was designed with Microsoft clip-art.

I made the suggestion to the NB a few years back that we do it like the USAF....but it got shot down....I think there is a thread on it (either here or at CS)

I think they should reconsider it. I think it was shot down in 2010. The reason was you got the Command Service Ribbon for Command and you want to wear the badge too?

[Private Investigator]

The one question I have is: does being a deputy commander for cadets or seniors for a year meet the "deputy commander" requirement, since there's a separate duty assignment as deputy commander in eServices?

Yes, CD is CD.

From the looks of things, I qualify for Master out of the gate (have to check on substantiating a stint as CD), and the skills
indicated and required are pretty much what a unit CC needs to do his job.

However, unless there is some pressure to actually require this rating to be a CC, I don't think it's going to make much difference, and frankly I don't see it ever being required to assume command.

+1

Looks like I got a Master out the gate too   

[FlyTiger77]

Unless I missed it, there is no requirement to successfully complete the UCC in order to progress in the specialty track.

Page 12, required for Technician.  So is TLC.

I stand corrected. I'm going to blame it on...well, never mind. 

That's OK, if you didn't make mistakes, you'd be commanding Group I. 

Wing staff members should be seen and not heard...   

[Luis R. Ramos]

Since the last page talking about "Fast tracking" does not mention UCC or TLC I tend to read that as UCC or TLC are not required if you are "Fast-tracking." Am I wrong?

Flyer

[arajca]

Since the last page talking about "Fast tracking" does not mention UCC or TLC I tend to read that as UCC or TLC are not required if you are "Fast-tracking." Am I wrong?

Flyer

The correct term is "jump-start", and UCC & TLC are not required. I put in my request for the Technician based on service as CDC for 18 mos this time, but I have already completed UCC & TLC. It was approved by my wing/cc and sent to National. I'm waiting to see if my unit cc and cds, who have not completed UCC or TLC, get the same approval.

[Luis R. Ramos]

You are right, "jump-start."

I transferred to a different squadron in the same Group, and in looking at my new squadron CC and deputy records, both have more extensive time than I have as deputy and/or commander however have not "jump-started." The deputy has UCC and TLC. I wrote that out to the commander stating I intended to "jump-start" based on my two plus years service as deputy commander of two cadet squadrons.

At some point I still intend to take the UCC and TLC, though.

Flyer

[Eclipse]

In looking at my records, I see I'm going to have to send some update memos.  One major command isn't even listed, and some service
dates are wrong.  I have had some conversations with others on similar subjects recently as well.

It's especially problematic for service and activities which occurred in the pre-2006 timeframe before eServices was tracking duty assignments.

All very easily correctable if you can substantiate.

[EMT-83]

... which why I still believe in keeping copies of those forms that are no longer required. Form 2, Form 2a, Personnel Authorizations, whatever.

[Eclipse]

I have everything from the pre-electronic era, but going forward, a lot of that paper simply isn't ever going to be generated.

The SET module upgrade, for example, is going to eliminate a lot of paper on that side of the house.  Duty assignments no longer require paper, etc., etc.

What >is< important is getting members to pay attention to their own eServices records, which many are not even aware of.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not crazy about the way the Jump-Start is being implemented. I realize that many who qualify will disagree with my opinion (and that's all it is), but here's my reason:

• Person A served a year as squadron commander prior to 30 Apr 2013. He did not complete TLC or UCC.  He applies and is awarded a Technician Rating in the Command Specialty.


• Person B served a year as deputy commander prior to 30 Apr 2013. She is a 1st Lt. She did not complete a Technician Rating on any specialty and did not receive Level II. She applies and is awarded a Technician Rating in the Command Specialty.


• Person C has been serving as squadron commander. He is short two months to complete his first year before 30 Apr 2013. He is a Capt, has a Technician Rating and Level II completed. He has attended UCC and TLC. He has been a member for over two years. He does not qualify for a Jump-Start. Instead, he has to enroll in the specialty track and wait another year.

I have no problem with crediting command time to all former commanders who successfully completed their term. But I think they should still meet the basic requirements such as UCC, TLC, Level II, etc. That would make this Jump-Start much more fair. Just my two cents.

[Eclipse]

I have no problem with crediting command time to all former commanders who successfully completed their term. But I think they should still meet the basic requirements such as UCC, TLC, Level II, etc. That would make this Jump-Start much more fair. Just my two cents.

I agree - as defined I think we'll just wind up awarding the rating to a lot of people who are actually the problem to start with, although
if they have been a CC for 5 some years, and still an uninformed problem, they aren't likely to get fixed, anyway.  So for the next 5-7 years we'll have
a large group grndgfathered in, with the same rating as those doing the actual work.

It would be much more fair and proper to require the PD work be completed before allowing the jumpstart.  With a calendar year to complete it,
anyone really interested has more then enough time to do what they are missing.

[ol'fido]

I only qualify for senior. I've got TLC and UCC plus all the rest. I am just missing NSC(or ACSC) for my Level V. I don't have enough time at group for the Master rating. When does this start. I couldn't find it in the Specialty Track module in eServices.

[Private Investigator]

I have no problem with crediting command time to all former commanders who successfully completed their term. But I think they should still meet the basic requirements such as UCC, TLC, Level II, etc. That would make this Jump-Start much more fair. Just my two cents.

A long time member I know has done three tours as Group Commander for a total of 16 years or so, the last being in 1997 so no UCC or TLC back then. Does he rate a Master rating in Command?

[Private Investigator]

The problem I see for "Jump-Start" is if your Wing does not have Groups to get a Senior rating you will need to be a Wing Commander or Vice Commander.

[Al Sayre]

Yep, WG/CS doesn't count even though it has the same job description in 20-1...

[Hawk200]

That is for current squadron commanders. With a star is for current group commanders. It denotes position, not progression. If you step down from squadron command and move to group vice commander, no more wearing the badge.

IIRC, you wear the badge on the pocket/below your nametag following your command tour. I might be wrong, there have been changes since I retired in 2009.   There is a badge for command.  No need for another specialty insignia that looks like it was designed with Microsoft clip-art.

I made the suggestion to the NB a few years back that we do it like the USAF....but it got shot down....I think there is a thread on it (either here or at CS)

I think they should reconsider it. I think it was shot down in 2010. The reason was you got the Command Service Ribbon for Command and you want to wear the badge too?

Easy fix: You may wear the badge as a "graduated commander," or you may wear the ribbon, but not both. Or eliminate the ribbon, and allow former commanders to move the badge down. Simple.

Personally, I'd rather wear the badge.

[Private Investigator]

I rather wear the badge too.

[arajca]

Well, I went for the jump start to Tech. It posted today. Wing/CC sent it in Wed.

[LGM30GMCC]

For the badge thing, I would definitely prefer we ditch the ribbon and go for the USAF model. Ditch the badge with star...

All current commanders O-6 and below wear the badge above the nameplate/nametape.

All graduated commanders O-6 and below wear the badge below the nameplate/nametape.

If you become a current commander again...it goes back up above.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Well that sounds... That's just...

Hey, that's actually not a bad idea...

To bad it won't get done. It makes far too much sense, and is far too easy to warrant further consideration. Thanks for playing, though, it was a good try.  :clap: 

[Hawk200]

For the badge thing, I would definitely prefer we ditch the ribbon and go for the USAF model. Ditch the badge with star...

All current commanders O-6 and below wear the badge above the nameplate/nametape.

All graduated commanders O-6 and below wear the badge below the nameplate/nametape.

If you become a current commander again...it goes back up above.

I would agree with the first two points, and the last. As for third,  I would say any former commander should be allowed to wear below, regardless of current rank. Your command experience doesn't just go away simply because you have gained rank. Allow continued wear, of course, contingent on the four badge limit.

Well that sounds... That's just...

Hey, that's actually not a bad idea...

To bad it won't get done. It makes far too much sense, and is far too easy to warrant further consideration. Thanks for playing, though, it was a good try.  :clap: 

Unfortunately, this is way too common. And sad.

[LGM30GMCC]

Notice it's O-6 and below. That's means the only graduated commanders who wouldn't be able to wear it anymore would be BGs and MGs. Who were basically as high in the organization as you can get. If you have a star, it's a safe bet to say you commanded something at somepoint (since it was a requirement to get the star in the first place).

[Storm Chaser]

Notice it's O-6 and below. That's means the only graduated commanders who wouldn't be able to wear it anymore would be BGs and MGs. Who were basically as high in the organization as you can get. If you have a star, it's a safe bet to say you commanded something at somepoint (since it was a requirement to get the star in the first place).

I would argue that the CAP Commander Badge is only "necessary" for commanders that are Lt Col and below. My reasoning is that, unlike the Air Force, you can't get selected for promotion to Col, but must be appointed to specific duty assignments in order to get promoted, most of which are high command positions anyway (Wing, Region). In my opinion, retaining your permanent rank of Col is enough recognition as it is.

[JeffDG]

Notice it's O-6 and below. That's means the only graduated commanders who wouldn't be able to wear it anymore would be BGs and MGs. Who were basically as high in the organization as you can get. If you have a star, it's a safe bet to say you commanded something at somepoint (since it was a requirement to get the star in the first place).

I would argue that the CAP Commander Badge is only "necessary" for commanders that are Lt Col and below. My reasoning is that, unlike the Air Force, you can't get selected for promotion to Col, but must be appointed to specific duty assignments in order to get promoted, most of which are high command positions anyway (Wing, Region). In my opinion, retaining your permanent rank of Col is enough recognition as it is.

That's not true.

There are a number of Col.'s out there who have not been Wing Commanders or Region/CC or CVs.  There are other paths to birds in CAP that do not require command.

Are they common?  No, but they do exist.

[ol'fido]

I think we should use William's accoutrements to denote commanders.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/cm/harpersbazaar/images/kN/hbz-prince-military-042811.gif

I want my sash and sword.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I guess you will not have to wait too long... Here is your sword. Now you only have to wait for the sash...

:angel:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2870.0

Flyer

[ol'fido]

That's not a sword.

http://www.thearma.org/images/S2000/New_Folder/p9160037.jpg

Now that's a sword.

Apologies to Paul Hogan and Crocodile Dundee.

[MSG Mac]

I think we should use William's accoutrements to denote commanders.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/cm/harpersbazaar/images/kN/hbz-prince-military-042811.gif

I want my sash and sword.

That's not a "command sash", that's the Order of the Garter

[ol'fido]

Yes, I know what it is. It's called a j-o-k-e.

[BillB]

I think Vanguard stil lists the CAP Sword

[Private Investigator]

I think we should use William's accoutrements to denote commanders.

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/cm/harpersbazaar/images/kN/hbz-prince-military-042811.gif

I want my sash and sword.

I am guessing they both got the National Defense Medal but only one got a Good Conduct Medal   :angel:

[a2capt]

There's no CAP Sword on Vanguard.

Probably too many people falling on it.

[Storm Chaser]

I would argue that the CAP Commander Badge is only "necessary" for commanders that are Lt Col and below. My reasoning is that, unlike the Air Force, you can't get selected for promotion to Col, but must be appointed to specific duty assignments in order to get promoted, most of which are high command positions anyway (Wing, Region). In my opinion, retaining your permanent rank of Col is enough recognition as it is.

That's not true.

There are a number of Col.'s out there who have not been Wing Commanders or Region/CC or CVs.  There are other paths to birds in CAP that do not require command.

Are they common?  No, but they do exist.

Let me get this straight; I was careful to say 'most' not all, but still your counter argument was that not all colonels in CAP have been commanders and that while they're NOT common, they do exist. Ok, then...

While I'm not sure if other services have something similar, I'm pretty sure CAP copied this badge and its implementation from the Air Force. In the Air Force, unlike CAP, it is possible to make Brig Gen, and even Maj Gen, without ever being a commander. Taking from your quote... "Are they common?  No, but they do exist."

Based on this fact, how come the Air Force doesn't allow general officers who HAVE been commanders to wear the commander' badge? One possible answer is because being a general officer is enough recognition on its own. In addition, the promotion process for general officers is different from field grade officers, usually linked to an appointment/duty assignment. If you ask me, that sure sounds a lot like the way colonels are promoted in CAP.

Excluding national and region staff, in any given CAP wing, there's one colonel, the wing commander, and maybe a few others who were former wing commanders.

In contrast, an Air Force wing has 5-6 colonels assigned to that wing and some installations have more than one wing. This is excluding any colonels assigned to NAF, MAJCOM, DRU, etc. The Air Force has several wings in many states, which translates to dozens of colonels within that state.

That is the reason I suggested that the CAP Commander's Badge should only be awarded to Lt Cols and below. Being a CAP Col, in my opinion, is enough recognition.

[Private Investigator]

Excluding national and region staff, in any given CAP wing, there's one colonel, the wing commander, and maybe a few others who were former wing commanders.

Or former National Commanders. I know two in my Wing.   

[Storm Chaser]

Or former National Commanders. I know two in my Wing.   

And I'm sure your wing is not the only one since both current and former commanders/vice commanders (National, Region, Wing) have to live somewhere, right? 

[JeffDG]

Or former National Commanders. I know two in my Wing.   

And I'm sure your wing is not the only one since both current and former commanders/vice commanders (National, Region, Wing) have to live somewhere, right? 

No generals, but my wing has 5 Colonels right now.  Although 4 of them are PATRON members.

[Storm Chaser]

I know every wing has several colonels. But unless these colonels are assigned to your squadron, they usually stand out. Why? Because they're not as common as other ranks. Everyone knows that unless you're appointed to certain command or national staff positions, the highest rank you can achieve in CAP is Lt Col. Hence, being a Col in CAP is a big deal.

That's why I reasoned that the Command Badge is unnecessary for this rank. I know many will disagree. But using the logic that many have used to try to debunk my argument, Brig Gen should be able to wear the badge if they're former commanders since, at least in theory, it's possible for an officer who's never served as commander to get appointed National Vice Commander.

All I'm saying is that there's a reason why the Air Force decided to exclude general officers from being able to wear the badge. Using the same reasoning in CAP, we could also exclude colonels from wearing it. Is it going to happen? Probably not. This is just one opinion. Cheers!

[Eclipse]

That's why I reasoned that the Command Badge is unnecessary for this rank. I know many will disagree. But using the logic that many have used to try to debunk my argument, Brig Gen should be able to wear the badge if they're former commanders since, at least in theory, it's possible for an officer who's never served as commander to get appointed National Vice Commander.

The command badge denotes service as a Unit or Group CC, which is different and much more direct then serving as a Wing CC or higher.  Those who have served at those levels
have BOG, NEC, CSAG and similar badges they can wear during and after their service as national command staff.

Different badges, different scope, and no, not everyone who has been a wing CC or higher has been a unit / group CC first.

[Майор Хаткевич]

and no, not everyone who has been a wing CC or higher has been a unit / group CC first.

unfortunately.

[Storm Chaser]

The command badge denotes service as a Unit or Group CC, which is different and much more direct then serving as a Wing CC or higher.  Those who have served at those levels
have BOG, NEC, CSAG and similar badges they can wear during and after their service as national command staff.

Different badges, different scope, and no, not everyone who has been a wing CC or higher has been a unit / group CC first.

Eclipse, as usual, thank you for the clarification. The whole point I was trying to make was based on the premise of allowing former commanders to wear the badge, which unlike the Air Force, they currently cannot. I focused on the whole 'colonel' discussion and did not specified that in any of my previous posts and, for that, I stand corrected.

[Storm Chaser]

and no, not everyone who has been a wing CC or higher has been a unit / group CC first.

unfortunately.

Agree.

[Eclipse]

Rats - just went to put together the dates on my Master request and found I am 2 months short of what I can reasonably
substantiate towards Master.   I stood down as a Group CC 2 months early so we could do the CoC at encampment.    Also
noticed that two of my command assignments are not listed in eservices - nothing predates 2006.

I served as Group CD for over a year, but the then Group CC was rotating several people in and out on 6-months and 1-year
rotations to get everyone a little command time and I can't substantiate the posting. 

Double rats.

Seemed like a good idea at the time.   Get things in writing folks!

[lordmonar]

So?

Write the letter to Wing any ways......let's not worry so much about substantiation and worry about substance.


If you deserve it.....then you should have it.

[Eclipse]

...let's not worry so much about substantiation and worry about substance.

Deserving or no, either I can show I put in 5 years above the Squadron or I didn't, and bottom line is I can't prove it.
I'd expect the same for anyone else.

This is no different then the 100 other ways that members serve every year but never take the time to document - it seems
unnecessary at the time, and then 3-5 years goes by and you're looking for that promotion, PD level, etc., and have nothing
to show for all your work.

I have the same issue with ES - I'm constantly busy, SET'ing and Mission'fyin' all over the place, and then all of a sudden 3 years is gone and
I find myself expired.   You have to keep up with this stuff in real-time.

[lordmonar]

Integrity works both ways.

Sometimes all you need to do it take their word for it.

[Eclipse]

I go by "Trust but verify".  In this case, the most important person to verify things to is myself.

Of course the vast majority of members would never do anything intentionally dishonest
or put themselves in for something they didn't deserve, but to catch the few who would, the standard
has to be the same for all.

I keep just about everything, so odds are I can find it.  I might also consider asking my former Group CC,
who is still a member, though inactive, to provide an affidavit to the effect that I served enough time as Group
CD.  That actually might be the most expedient way to go.

Now, to stir the pot a bit, it might be interesting to see how many sitting Wing CC's or higher would qualify
for the Master rating as a jump-start. The level of expectation is pretty reasonable for that level of authority.

[Eclipse]

Just sent my Jumpstart for senior to the Wing CC.

2 months short of master.  Bummer.

[ol'fido]

Mine was posted about a month ago. I think he did a bunch of them at one time.

[Eclipse]

Jumpstart to OE Senior posted yesterday.  WOOT!

[Private Investigator]

Just sent my Jumpstart for senior to the Wing CC.

2 months short of master.  Bummer.

That is epic. Nothing is noted prior to 2006 in eServices but fortunately I had kept hardcopies of F27 and PAs from the past so my Master was approved and posted.

Now if NHQ would reconsider letting us wear the Command Badge below our nametag ala USAF.   

[Hawk200]

Now if NHQ would reconsider letting us wear the Command Badge below our nametag ala USAF.   

:clap:

[Alaric]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

[Eclipse]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

The commander's badge is for members who are commanders of a unit or group.

The Commander's Specialty Track is intended to be a mentoring program to build good commanders and staff.
Interestingly it does not currently have a badge.  Up until the recent change, it was referred to as "Operational Excellence".

While we'd like them to be, the two are not actually related.

[FW]

The Commander's Specialty Track is intended to be a mentoring program to build good commanders and staff.
Interestingly it does not currently have a badge.  Up until the recent change, it was referred to as "Operational Excellence".

While we'd like them to be, the two are not actually related.

Did I understand your thoughts here Eclipse? I thought that "Organizational Excellence 2.0" was still a program with its own guidelines (CAPP 50-9), and the (new) Command Specialty track was a formalized version of the old Command track found in CAPP 222. OE was developed for members to take an expanded roll in CAP; not just command. The Command Specialty track is to develop members to take an active leadership role in the organization; from the squadron to national level. Although there are similarities between the Specialty Track and OE, they are mutually exclusive. Mentors, although important in all specialty tracks and programs in CAP, are essential in the OE program.

"We" would like our leaders to be formally in the OE program, however it isn't mandated.  Maybe it should be? :angel:

[Eclipse]

Fair enough, the impression I got was that OE was dead.  I don't personally know anyone pursuing it, but then again I
don't know anyone pursuing Command either except through the jumpstarts.

As to mandated?  In an environment where 1/3+ of the units aren't even properly manned and commanders are selected based on "presence"?
I don't know how you can mandate anything and still keep the doors open.   Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm against the idea,
but National appears reticent about the kinds of disruptive change that would surely increase attrition, and we're still operating in an environment
where people have a hard time swallowing term limits, let alone mandated training.

Also, if OE and Command are actually still alive and complimentary, that begs the question as to how many "Leadership and Mentorship" programs
we need?

We already have the technical tracks, then there is SLS, CLC, RSC & NSC, not to mention UCC, which is supposed to be a training program for
commanders yet isn't mandated nationally.  And of course the ubiquitous TLC as well.

Sadly, in a lot of Regions, RSC is a rehash of SLS/CLC, which are in turn just rehashes or exercises in slide reading, but if we have an active OE & command
mentorship program, do we still need those?

And when will our "leaders" have time to actually lead or participate in unit or larger activities?

[arajca]

OE was developed for members to take an expanded roll in CAP; not just command.

Gotta call BS on this. To enroll, you do not need to be, or have been, a commander. To progress to any level you do.

[FW]

Good questions, Eclipse.  I have ideas and opinions, however the powers that be have other ideas and opinions...We must go with the flow, and do the best we can.  Our leadership has put the programs in place, and we need to utilize them in the best possible way.  I must note, though, our PD program gives us a great way to advance our knowledge of CAP.  In the "perfect world", OE would develop members to truely be "more qualified" to take a larger role in CAP; not just command. And, Andy, OE advancement does require command experience.  OE advancement also would, theoretically, better qualify us to be members of the BoG, National Staff leaders, or other such position at region, wing, group level; not just command...
Just sayn'... :angel:

[arajca]

In the "perfect world", OE would develop members to truely be "more qualified" to take a larger role in CAP; not just command. And, Andy, OE advancement does require command experience.  OE advancement also would, theoretically, better qualify us to be members of the BoG, National Staff leaders, or other such position at region, wing, group level; not just command...
Just sayn'... :angel:

Fine. Why not require a certain level in OE for wing and region staff members?

[Alaric]

Often there are more people who would like the opportunity for leadership than may be available.  Lets say in a composite squadron with 25 seniors you have 3 interested in commanding the squadron (I've been in squadrons with both higher and lower percentages), only one person will be able to have the position, further if he or she is doing a good job, there is no reason to remove them to allow another the opportunity.  This only gets worse as you rise higher, there is only one Wing Commander, and in Wings without groups that is the only place to command at a larger scale than squadron. It would be nice if OE was used to develop people so they could take a larger role, but until the politicing gets out of CAP, that will never happen, after all CAP is made of people.

[FW]

^It's true, as one rises to the top of the leadership pyramid, there are less positions to fill. In theory, OE advancement would give members an edge in filling those slots.  OE is a program which gives a member the "wider field of vision" in looking at CAP.  As one advances, the "student" realizes the organization is more than the sum of its mission, members, funding, and values. Unfortunately, most members have too much on their plate to begin the process.  Politics also still is a major factor in rising above a certain level; nothing can be done to change that; we are all human. 

Since, it seems, OE has never taken off, I guess we'll never know if it will make a change in how leaders are selected in CAP.

[Private Investigator]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

In the USAF if you are a sitting Commander, you Command Badge is above the nametag. A former Commander will have his Command Badge below his nametag.

NHQ decided against it because, "you already got a ribbon (Command Service) for it." But really besides Cadets, who wears every ribbon?

I have a Master rating in Administration and got a badge for it but I also have the Leadership Award with a silver star attachment for it too. What is the difference?   

[Alaric]

I guess I'm confused by the new Commander's Track, why have a badge for a qualification which gets a badge?  Its like having the Crossfield award for people who have the Master's in Aerospace.  But I guess the difference is you have to take the Commander's badge off when you are no longer the actual commander.

In the USAF if you are a sitting Commander, you Command Badge is above the nametag. A former Commander will have his Command Badge below his nametag.

NHQ decided against it because, "you already got a ribbon (Command Service) for it." But really besides Cadets, who wears every ribbon?

I have a Master rating in Administration and got a badge for it but I also have the Leadership Award with a silver star attachment for it too. What is the difference?   

There is none and I think that is superfluous as well

[Eclipse]

There is none and I think that is superfluous as well

Which one?

The ribbon says you did something in PD, the badge says what you did. 

Neither is required for wear together, and may be worn separately.

[Alaric]

There is none and I think that is superfluous as well

Which one?

The ribbon says you did something in PD, the badge says what you did. 

Neither is required for wear together, and may be worn separately.

I think there should be one ribbon or badge (or device) for a single accomplishment.  For instance, if you are a Master in Aerospace than you get a badge, not a badge, a ribbon (Crossfield), and a device (on the leadership award). 

[Eclipse]

I think there should be one ribbon or badge (or device) for a single accomplishment.  For instance, if you are a Master in Aerospace than you get a badge, not a badge, a ribbon (Crossfield), and a device (on the leadership award).

What about when you are rated in multiple specialties?

You can only wear one or two of the badges (usually only one, since wearing a PD badge over the nameplate, though authorized, looks "odd").

I, for example, have two seniors and a master (which reminds me I have to update the rack).

[Alaric]

I think there should be one ribbon or badge (or device) for a single accomplishment.  For instance, if you are a Master in Aerospace than you get a badge, not a badge, a ribbon (Crossfield), and a device (on the leadership award).

What about when you are rated in multiple specialties?

You can only wear one or two of the badges (usually only one, since wearing a PD badge over the nameplate, though authorized, looks "odd").

I, for example, have two seniors and a master (which reminds me I have to update the rack).

Then, like myself who also has two seniors and a master, I wear the one that either has something to do with my function at the time, if I'm directing a CLC, I'll wear my Senior in PD; if I'm acting in a finance capacity, my Finance badge, etc.

[Eclipse]

Makes sense, but what if you choose to wear no badges at all?

The badge(s) are essentially equivalent of an MOS badge.  Personally I'd prefer they all went over instead of under.

[Alaric]

Makes sense, but what if you choose to wear no badges at all?

The badge(s) are essentially equivalent of an MOS badge.  Personally I'd prefer they all went over instead of under.

Then don't that's a choice

[Eclipse]

I wouldn't mind reducing the ribbons overall - maybe get the leadership when you get your first Tech, and then just add
attachments for senior and master, etc.

[Garibaldi]

I wouldn't mind reducing the ribbons overall - maybe get the leadership when you get your first Tech, and then just add
attachments for senior and master, etc.

I sense a disturbance in the Force...

[Eclipse]

While I'm thinking about it - CS Jumpstarts are due by 31 March 2014.

CAPP 222 17 APRIL 2013
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P222_95366131D292D.pdf

Current and previous commanders have a single opportunity to
"jump-start" their progression through the Command Track based on
the qualifications listed below:

• If the member has successfully served at least 1 year as a
squadron commander or squadron deputy commander prior to 30
April 2013, he or she may be awarded the Technician rating.

• If the member has successfully served at least 1 year as a
squadron commander or squadron deputy commander AND at
least 1 year as a unit commander or vice commander above the
squadron level, prior to 30 April 2013 he or she may be awarded
the Senior rating.

• If the member has successfully served at least 5 years as a
commander or vice commander (with a minimum of 3 years as
commander) at any echelon above squadron level (service may
be combined between echelons), prior to 30 April 2013 he or she
may be awarded the Master rating.

[FlyTiger77]

If you are keeping score at home, the Jump Start deadline (31 Mar 14) is rapidly approaching.

I have attached a fillable .pdf version of the form for convenience.

[Eclipse]

One last reminder, the deadline is Monday.

[Storm Chaser]

One of the service requirements in CAPP 222 is to "Train for at least 12 months for the Technician rating in this track." Does anyone know if that means 12 months from the movement one is enrolled in the Command Specialty Track? Or does that count time served in a command duty position and/or other related training?

[Tim Medeiros]

With it saying "in this track" I'd venture to say from the date of enrollment.