Main Menu

CAP Field Grade Officers

Started by RiverAux, January 13, 2007, 03:55:24 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

One of the issues I've complained about is folks coming into CAP on professional appointments who never do any of the CAP senior member development programs and in particular don't get involved in any of the specialty tracks. 

Well, I decided to take a look at my Wing and see how big of a "problem" that might be at the highest levels.  So, I broke out the capwatch database and looked at all our Lt. Cols. and whether or not they have done any specialty track training.  I was actually surprised at the results:

About 60% of Lt. Cols. have at least one Master rating, about 7% have a senior rating, about 11% have a Tech rating, and about 22% haven't completed a rating yet. 

So, if you see a CAP Lt. Col. the chances are pretty good that the person has mastered some aspect of running the CAP program.  However, the fact that about a third of them have not done anything or only very little is worrying.

How about if we step this down to Major?   Only abour 46% of Majors have Mastered a specialty, but if you lump in those that have completed Senior track (36%) about 82% can be assumed to be very competent in some aspect of running CAP and would be where you expect from somebody with that rank.  But, the percentage with little or no experience (18%) is actually only about half that of the Lt. Cols.

So, what this says to me is that if we increase the training requirements in the specialty track program (some are absurdly easy while others are actually either pretty hard or have much longer time-in-position requirements than others), then over time we can expect that most higher level CAP officers will complete the required training.     

Lets turn to completion of the various levels in the senior member training program.  This will give a much better overall view of their accomplishments as it factors in other training programs and command and staff duty assignments. 

With Lt. Cols 48% have completed Levels 1, 2 & 3, 43% have completed Level 4, and 9% completed Level 5.  With Majors 73% have completed Levels 1, 2, and 3, 9% have completed Level 4, and 2% have completed Level 5.  For fun I also looked at Captains to see what percentage have completed Level 2 which is required for promotion to that rank--- A little less than 60%. 

To me this is pretty worrying in that a very high percentage of our leaders haven't done a darn thing to learn about how CAP is supposed to work.  Most obviously either came in based on prior military rank or special appointments. 

Frankly this makes me much more supportive of higher initial training requirements to become active in CAP after joining.  SLS and ECI13 which are now part of Level 2 need to be put in Level 1 to ensure that all CAP officers receive this basic information about how CAP works and basic leadership training.  The SLS should be made into a web-based course and test so that new members wouldn't have to wait for one to be held. 

I'm not opposed to an Iowa-style Officer Training School which would do the above and more, but realisticially it would be easier for us to make these shifts in the training program quickly. 

Then just shift the rest of the requirements down a notch (i.e, the new Level 2 would be what is now Level 3.  This would result in Level 5 actually having some meaning in that it would be necessary to get promoted to Lt. Col.  Right now you don't get anything of value for completing the top level of training other than a nice award. 

lordmonar

Or you can simply eliminate advanced promotions.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

mikeylikey

Agreed, no more advanced promotions!  Everyone non prior service starts out at the same place.  There should be an over abundance of 2nd Lt's not LT Col's!
What's up monkeys?

RiverAux

I don't have a problem with that but I prefer to focus on what is possible.  Lets face it, special appointments are not going to go away, especially those for prior military (even if it was for rank they held 40 years in the past). 

I think its clear that our only real shot at getting some people to do training is to make it part of Level 1 which is a pre-requisite for doing just about anything "fun" in CAP. 

I am encouraged that most of these higher CAP officers are participating in the program though. 

lordmonar

The only problem is that we can't get the required training for our current system.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: lordmonar on January 13, 2007, 06:17:27 PM
The only problem is that we can't get the required training for our current system.

Or in a lot of cases, don't get training...

DNall

I got no problem with a transition course for Military officers, and really if you did a survey I think you'd find the number of prior officers is quite small overall (maybe not in some units, but most units don't have any prior-service anything from any service). To that end, there's a FEMA course on managing volunteers that's required for emergency managers among others. That might be a requirement you'd look to make part of the matrix.

Far as the stats up top there. I'd wonder if that LtCol numbers are entirely acurate. I'm willing to be a lot of them had a master rating prior to it being computerized. The percentage that've completed Lvl 4 (requires master) is going to be quite high cause there's only a couple other narrow ways to make that grade. I know my record isn't perfect, but who even understands how to fix that crap, or is motivated to if it doesn't matter.

Otherwise, I found the Lvl2 at Capt, and 3/sr at Maj to be disconcerting. You'd expect a little offset at Capt since CIT/ATP/Dr/PhD/MML slots in there, but that should be no more than 15-20%.

I think the program gets stretched much too far just for recruiting purposes & for skills we really don't need in local units or that aren't used by that person. Even so, the travesty of it is that we further promote people past that initial point w/o requireing them to do teh PD req's for the current grade, much less for the one they want to move to. It really is betraying our normal members that work years & years to earn it. I don't minf comensating for their skills & education, but not past Capt & not w/o catching up.

Dragoon

It's not just about taking training, it's about NEEDED training.

For example, if I'm going to spend my life in a squadron, do I really need Level 3 and above?  It might be nice, but do I NEED it?

It would be like asking every USAF NCO to complete the War College.

If we had some link between grade and position, it would be easier to figure out what training was needed for every level.  And to FOCUS training efforts on those who need it for the jobs they are in, or are likely to get.

That said, since levels 1 and 2 are focused on the squadron level, there's a heck of a lot more that could be added there to help make good squadron staffers.


And yeah, special promotions just screw things up.  In some cases, it's a recruiting tool for some high speed guy you want.  In other cases, it's a bribe (cough....Congressional Squadron....cough).

davedove

I think the main problem with the advanced promotions is that it takes away the main incentive to participate in the PD program.  For instance, if a member receives a professional promotion up to Major, what is his motivation to complete Level III (and prior levels) so that he can be eligible for Major.  Of course, if he wanted to get promoted to Lt. Colonel, he would have to backfill all the training.  Many folks though, as you can see from all the 1st Lieutenants walking around, are perfectly happy to just "do their job" and not get promoted.

Some may pursue the training to get the extra "bling" from the levels, but if they received their promotion based on military service, they've probably already got a fair amount of that.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Monty

Hmmm....well, I made it through all of CAP's ProDev levels.  I wear white and gray 99% of the time so I can't get off on the bling of it, I didn't need to get Level V for a promotion, I'm not a former CAP cadet, and I didn't elect to use any of my Air Force credentials to circumnavigate the CAP ProDev requirements

So why did I go all the way to GRW?  Simple...I wanted ALL the tools.  Sort of like when you buy a computer, you'd like your computer to be as up-to-date with all the bells and whistles, even if you've no forecasted need for a few of the options you get (I call it the "Tim Allen" syndrome.)

Or....use the MMR inoculation we should all get...  It isn't likely we'll ever get measles, but you know...if we get exposed to measles, we'll be ready!

Same thing in the CAP.  I wanted to go through and gain as many of the tools as possible, if for any reason, to either (a) re-solidify something I might have learned or (b) learn a new method or way of seeing something in the event I might need it for later.

Major_Chuck

I personnally feel that advanced promotions to Major or above should be limited or abolished except in cases where the member is a prior service military officer.   Too often I've seen the 'just add water and presto...instant major' occur for people with little or no CAP experience.  They for the most part haven't experienced or given to the program enough time to warrant the award of advanced rank.

But then this is just my opinion.
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

afgeo4

How about everyone joining as Officer w/ no grade and advanced promotion to grade determined after all requirement for that grade are completed?  The time in grade requirements would be eliminitated. Thus, the person is allowed to fast track to their grade, but we are still left with someone who is trained to their grade.
GEORGE LURYE

SarDragon

I only see three instant Major promotion opportunities in the 35-5 that fall outside former military grade crossover.

All three come after one year TIG as a Captain in the following professional categories: Health Services, Educators, Legal Officers,  and Finance Officers. One year should be long enough time to get up to speed on CAP specific material to justify possible promotion to Major. It's still in the SqCC's hands to affirm or deny any recommendations for promotions at any time. If you have a CC with ethics problems, it is unlikely any changes to the current system will fix that.

If it ain't broke, we don't need to fix it.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

DNall

Quote from: Dragoon on January 16, 2007, 05:13:38 PM
And yeah, special promotions just screw things up.  In some cases, it's a recruiting tool for some high speed guy you want.  In other cases, it's a bribe (cough....Congressional Squadron....cough).
:P

For sure though it gets way out of hand & it's insulting that it's used as a recruiting tool rather than setting a professionally degreed individual into a grade that gives him the span of control necessary to do the job that comes with the degree. You blink & they're a LtCol telling you how to do things. It's counter-productive & loses a lot of credibility in the program.... the justification I've seen printed is that these people (doctors & such) don't have time to do the training... HA, and I do right? Or the skills are so critically needed (who needs a Sq legal officer, HSO or A&P that can't work on the plane, or CFI that won't give lessons, or ATP that isn't going to fly missions or cadets but wants his fm5 yesterday) that we have to bribe them in. Think the whole thing needs an integrity check!!

Dragoon

Once we disconnected grade from position, we started down the slippery slope to "grade is a merit badge."

After all, why not make everyone a Lt Col if we can't define what a Lt Col does differently from what a 2d lt does?

Pylon

Quote from: Dragoon on January 17, 2007, 03:15:05 PM
After all, why not make everyone a Lt Col if we can't define what a Lt Col does differently from what a 2d lt does?

Years of CAP experience and PD education separate the two.  Perhaps small differences in some people's minds, but significant enough for me to want to know, when I'm listening to CAP-specific advice, whether the guy/gal is a Level 4 or 5'er with at least a handful of years in or a newbie with 6 months in.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Dragoon

I think we're talking past each other - what do we expect a Lt Col to DO that we don't expect a 2d Lt to DO?

For example, we expect a USAF Lt Col to be capable of commanding a squadron, holding UCMJ authority over others, fill staff slots where he is the principle advisor to an 0-6 or 0-7 level commander, etc.

We expect a USAF 2d Lt to perhaps lead a flight, fill an extremely low level assistant staff slot, or operate a single expensive piece of machinery (like an airplane).

So, when we promote a 2d Lt through the ranks to Lt Col, we don't just do it because he went to some schools - we do it because he has proven himself capable of doing Lt Col level jobs.


Now, let's go to CAP.  What do we expect a Lt Col to do?  Exactly the same thing as a second Lt!

Otherwise, we'd turn down any CAP member, regardless of schools he's attended, if he hadn't proven his ability to fill Lt Col level jobs.

But since we don't HAVE Lt Col level jobs (we just have jobs we let anyone fill) we promote anyone.  Regardless of their leadership or staff ability.  As long as they go to school and don't cause trouble, they can do the same thing as a Lt Col that they did as a 2d Lt.

We have ribbons for education level - we don't also need rank.  Why give out two things for the same purpose?  Rank needs to have some kind of connection to level of responsiblity and authority in order to truly be "rank."



DNall

Quote from: Dragoon on January 18, 2007, 06:00:38 PM
I think we're talking past each other - what do we expect a Lt Col to DO that we don't expect a 2d Lt to DO?

For example, we expect a USAF Lt Col to be capable of commanding a squadron, holding UCMJ authority over others, fill staff slots where he is the principle advisor to an 0-6 or 0-7 level commander, etc.

We expect a USAF 2d Lt to perhaps lead a flight, fill an extremely low level assistant staff slot, or operate a single expensive piece of machinery (like an airplane).

So, when we promote a 2d Lt through the ranks to Lt Col, we don't just do it because he went to some schools - we do it because he has proven himself capable of doing Lt Col level jobs.


Now, let's go to CAP.  What do we expect a Lt Col to do?  Exactly the same thing as a second Lt!

Otherwise, we'd turn down any CAP member, regardless of schools he's attended, if he hadn't proven his ability to fill Lt Col level jobs.

But since we don't HAVE Lt Col level jobs (we just have jobs we let anyone fill) we promote anyone.  Regardless of their leadership or staff ability.  As long as they go to school and don't cause trouble, they can do the same thing as a Lt Col that they did as a 2d Lt.

We have ribbons for education level - we don't also need rank.  Why give out two things for the same purpose?  Rank needs to have some kind of connection to level of responsiblity and authority in order to truly be "rank."
That's not at all correct. Just the way things are now, a 2Lt in CAP has viturally no experience or training & is generally a danger to themself & others even if they are CEO of a company on the outside. A LtCol for the most part has 15-odd years experience & a master rating. Right from the start that's a level of credibility & knowledge. You know you can trust him with a wide range of responsibilities which do include commanding a Sq, staffing in their spec field at the Wg level at least, mentoring officers... there's exceptions that suck azz, and that's bad quality control, but there's no chance in hell a 2Lt can do the same range of things as a LtCol.

Now if you're asking if there's some regulation restriction on what grade goes with what job, no there isn't, and for the most ppart there isn't in the military either - nothing that can't be bent anyway. You may have a super crappy LtCol that snuck thru all those years, and you may have an exceptional 2Lt that has the capability to fill a slot under the mentorship of senior officers.

If things functioned well now, you'd have a point that we don't need to recognize rank, but things are horrible now. Look at our leadership picture & tell me this is remotely acceptable? We got NEC saying they literally cannot fill all the Wg CC slots with competent people that meet the min quals because none exist in CAP, or at least they won't take the job. We got how many investigations going, how many problems with aco[censored]ability, BS politics... it goes on & on. That's not even mentioning the total lack of ability to step up on mission leadership at national standards. We're in trouble & we NEED people that can do LtCol work cause there's a lot of it to be done, there always has been it's just been getting ignored cause no one knew how, cared, or could do it.

Dragoon

Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 06:21:53 PM

That's not at all correct. Just the way things are now, a 2Lt in CAP has viturally no experience or training & is generally a danger to themself & others even if they are CEO of a company on the outside. A LtCol for the most part has 15-odd years experience & a master rating. Right from the start that's a level of credibility & knowledge. You know you can trust him with a wide range of responsibilities which do include commanding a Sq, staffing in their spec field at the Wg level at least, mentoring officers... there's exceptions that suck azz, and that's bad quality control, but there's no chance in hell a 2Lt can do the same range of things as a LtCol.

But they DO!  I've seen 2d Lt Wing Directors of Comms, Wing PAO, etc.  And I've seen Lt Col Assistant Squadron AE officers.  We as an organization don't expect  any level of performance based on grade.  We choose the best available guy for the job, regardless of grade. 

Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 06:21:53 PM

Now if you're asking if there's some regulation restriction on what grade goes with what job, no there isn't, and for the most ppart there isn't in the military either - nothing that can't be bent anyway. You may have a super crappy LtCol that snuck thru all those years, and you may have an exceptional 2Lt that has the capability to fill a slot under the mentorship of senior officers.

I'm waving the BS flag here.  Show me one 2d Lt in the active duty Air Force who was assigned to an official Lt Col's position in FY 2005.  It just doesn't happen. 

The services often slot one up, occasionally slot one down, but outside of temporary casualty-induced crisis stuff, that 's about it.  That's just not how things run.

As for the "super crappy Lt Col", while no system is perfect, those guys are few and far between.  Why?  Because it takes 16 years of performance (i.e. good efficiency reports) to get promoted.  Going to schools is just a checkmark.  Job performance gets you promoted.

CAP doesn't seem to work that way.  Sit in the class, don't make waves and pin on the rank.

Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 06:21:53 PM
If things functioned well now, you'd have a point that we don't need to recognize rank, but things are horrible now. Look at our leadership picture & tell me this is remotely acceptable? We got NEC saying they literally cannot fill all the Wg CC slots with competent people that meet the min quals because none exist in CAP, or at least they won't take the job. We got how many investigations going, how many problems with aco[censored]ability, BS politics... it goes on & on. That's not even mentioning the total lack of ability to step up on mission leadership at national standards. We're in trouble & we NEED people that can do LtCol work cause there's a lot of it to be done, there always has been it's just been getting ignored cause no one knew how, cared, or could do it.

None of those problems you mention require a military grade structure at all.  It just requires a workable management structure which chooses the right folks for the job, gives them the skills that they need, and holds them accountable.

In other words we need to train, retain and utilize higher level leaders and staffers.  Many volunteer groups do that with no military grade structure.

All the arguments of "we need grade because we're in the Air Force" in no way address the problems you list.

Grade structure really only helps the organization run well when it is tied to responsbility and authority.  That way, everyone must obey folks of higher grade, and those folks become responsble for making things run right. And if they DON'T ensure things are being run right, they get punished right along with the guy who screwed up.   But the problem in CAP continues to be that members often move from positions of high responsibility and authority to lower ones, with doesn't happen in our military.  If you're gonna have grade mean anything in CAP, the system has to account for that.

Hawk200

Quote from: Dragoon on January 18, 2007, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 18, 2007, 06:21:53 PM
Now if you're asking if there's some regulation restriction on what grade goes with what job, no there isn't, and for the most ppart there isn't in the military either - nothing that can't be bent anyway. You may have a super crappy LtCol that snuck thru all those years, and you may have an exceptional 2Lt that has the capability to fill a slot under the mentorship of senior officers.

I'm waving the BS flag here.  Show me one 2d Lt in the active duty Air Force who was assigned to an official Lt Col's position in FY 2005.  It just doesn't happen. 

To be fair, Dragoon, DNall never said that 2Lts were filling the places of LtCols. He just said that there are Lt's with the ability to fill those slots. You're demand wasn't reasonable and didn't apply.

QuoteCAP doesn't seem to work that way.  Sit in the class, don't make waves and pin on the rank.

Agreed. Positional rank doesn't solve this in any way shape or form. Until there is a testing requirement, those presentations aren't worth a whole lot.

QuoteIn other words we need to train, retain and utilize higher level leaders and staffers.  Many volunteer groups do that with no military grade structure.

Another valid point. But those groups don't have a history of using miltary rank structure. CAP does. That is indisputable. Trashing it would probably be pretty devastating.

QuoteBut the problem in CAP continues to be that members often move from positions of high responsibility and authority to lower ones, with doesn't happen in our military.  If you're gonna have grade mean anything in CAP, the system has to account for that.

If you really wanted to solve that movement problem, you can tell people they have to retire. That's the only reason why we end up with a lot of LtCols. There is no mandatory retirement mechanism that takes into account quotas. In the military, people move up, and eventually, they move out. CAP doesn't have that, and most likely, never will.

Anything else about "We have too many LtCol's!" doesn't address the issue. And there are people that will never make it that far anyway, because they refuse to do advanced training. I've met many of them. If people are being promoted without completing that training, you can't blame the people that have legitimately earned it through our system. The promotion system is the issue there.

We don't have postional grade now, but we do have positions. If you ignore your squadron commander because you outrank him, you're wrong, period. No need to deny people advancement in rank because others wish to do it their own way.

In CAP, the authority issues are not really related to grade anyway. It's the human element that is the flaw in any system.

ZigZag911

The big problem is the way some wings have begun working the system to the advantage of the untried, untrained and inexperienced.

Since there are NO firm requirements for appointment to group command, wing command, or other senior positions that carry grade (legislative liaison and/or legislative squadron commander), it is entirely possible to take a lieutenant, or even  a senior member without grade, name them group commander, make them a major (as long as they have ECI 13 done).

The legislative posts get one lt col WITHOUT ANY training requirements beyond Level 1!

I can even top that....at least one of these ersatz majors became a lt col on a 'waiver' which apparently made much of the individual's basic office skills as the "special qualification"...this was a case of 1 Lt to Lt Col in about 14 months with NO  prior military.prior CAP/professional background/mission skills....nothing!



flight dispatcher

"That's not at all correct. Just the way things are now, a 2Lt in CAP has viturally no experience or training & is generally a danger to themself & others even if they are CEO of a company on the outside."

Dnall, I take it you have had some CEO 2LT's?

Kindest regards

ZigZag911

Quote from: flight dispatcher on January 20, 2007, 03:00:41 AM
"That's not at all correct. Just the way things are now, a 2Lt in CAP has viturally no experience or training & is generally a danger to themself & others even if they are CEO of a company on the outside."

Dnall, I take it you have had some CEO 2LT's?

Kindest regards

I have, CEOs or owners of small to mid sized businesses -- and they are indeed often a safety hazard waiting to happen...think because they know how to run a business and earn money (worthwhile abilities), they know all about everything (like pilots, actually...in fact, entrepreneur-pilots are THE WORST!)

lordmonar

Quote from: Dragoon on January 18, 2007, 06:00:38 PM
I think we're talking past each other - what do we expect a Lt Col to DO that we don't expect a 2d Lt to DO?

For example, we expect a USAF Lt Col to be capable of commanding a squadron, holding UCMJ authority over others, fill staff slots where he is the principle advisor to an 0-6 or 0-7 level commander, etc.

We expect a USAF 2d Lt to perhaps lead a flight, fill an extremely low level assistant staff slot, or operate a single expensive piece of machinery (like an airplane).

So, when we promote a 2d Lt through the ranks to Lt Col, we don't just do it because he went to some schools - we do it because he has proven himself capable of doing Lt Col level jobs.


Now, let's go to CAP.  What do we expect a Lt Col to do?  Exactly the same thing as a second Lt!

Otherwise, we'd turn down any CAP member, regardless of schools he's attended, if he hadn't proven his ability to fill Lt Col level jobs.

But since we don't HAVE Lt Col level jobs (we just have jobs we let anyone fill) we promote anyone.  Regardless of their leadership or staff ability.  As long as they go to school and don't cause trouble, they can do the same thing as a Lt Col that they did as a 2d Lt.

We have ribbons for education level - we don't also need rank.  Why give out two things for the same purpose?  Rank needs to have some kind of connection to level of responsibility and authority in order to truly be "rank."

Where the disconnect between the USAF and CAP is....when they promote someone...not only do they think he is capable of doing the job at the next level...they make him do it.

CAP has no mechanism to do that.  Sure Maj Goodjob finished all his schools and did his time...now he is ready for promotion.....but we don't make him change jobs...as the USAF would do.

You are saying that in order for the good Major to get promoted he must take on a harder job.  Okay.  I can see that to a point.  So....Do you do your next level of training before or after you get the job?  Now we would be putting people into jobs that they don't have the training for.  If you require members to become qualified for the job (i.e. get the next level of training) and don't reward them with the rank....they will never ever volunteer for it.

Let's say we really made the training tough, meaningful and timely.....instead of just an attend and you pass (which I think is the real problem).....and you have a squadron full of Lt Cols and everyone else was actively pursuing his PD as fast as they can.

What exactly is wrong with that?  You have a squadron full of over qualified Lt Cols doing Captain and Lt work.  Who does it harm?  Does it make us look unprofessional?  I don't think so...not if you make sure that each and everyone of them is truly ready to take on a Lt Col Job...does it matter that they are not doing that job?

Another problem in your analogy is that Just because we have Lt Cols doing Lt's jobs...does not mean we need to have LTs who can do the Col's job.

"Rank" does not have to have anything to do with the level of responsibilty...not at all.  It can also be a reward for a job well done.  It is mark of longevity and seniority.

Again...if we are going to go back to this same argument....let's just go with...you wear the rank based on your position and everyone else is a FO1-FO5 based on their PD completion.

That way we don't have to worry about any of this.  Only commanders will wear rank.  Capt for squadrons, Majors for Groups, Lt Cols for Wings, Cols for Region and General for National.

Deputy commanders will wear one rank down.

All the staff officer just wear their FO ranks.

NO advanced promotions, no CAP NCO's and Spaatzens are FO1 just like the rest of us.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

flyguy06

Quote from: RiverAux on January 13, 2007, 03:55:24 PM
One of the issues I've complained about is folks coming into CAP on professional appointments who never do any of the CAP senior member development programs and in particular don't get involved in any of the specialty tracks. 

Well, I decided to take a look at my Wing and see how big of a "problem" that might be at the highest levels.  So, I broke out the capwatch database and looked at all our Lt. Cols. and whether or not they have done any specialty track training.  I was actually surprised at the results:

About 60% of Lt. Cols. have at least one Master rating, about 7% have a senior rating, about 11% have a Tech rating, and about 22% haven't completed a rating yet. 

So, if you see a CAP Lt. Col. the chances are pretty good that the person has mastered some aspect of running the CAP program.  However, the fact that about a third of them have not done anything or only very little is worrying.

How about if we step this down to Major?   Only abour 46% of Majors have Mastered a specialty, but if you lump in those that have completed Senior track (36%) about 82% can be assumed to be very competent in some aspect of running CAP and would be where you expect from somebody with that rank.  But, the percentage with little or no experience (18%) is actually only about half that of the Lt. Cols.

So, what this says to me is that if we increase the training requirements in the specialty track program (some are absurdly easy while others are actually either pretty hard or have much longer time-in-position requirements than others), then over time we can expect that most higher level CAP officers will complete the required training.     

Lets turn to completion of the various levels in the senior member training program.  This will give a much better overall view of their accomplishments as it factors in other training programs and command and staff duty assignments. 

With Lt. Cols 48% have completed Levels 1, 2 & 3, 43% have completed Level 4, and 9% completed Level 5.  With Majors 73% have completed Levels 1, 2, and 3, 9% have completed Level 4, and 2% have completed Level 5.  For fun I also looked at Captains to see what percentage have completed Level 2 which is required for promotion to that rank--- A little less than 60%. 

To me this is pretty worrying in that a very high percentage of our leaders haven't done a darn thing to learn about how CAP is supposed to work.  Most obviously either came in based on prior military rank or special appointments. 

Frankly this makes me much more supportive of higher initial training requirements to become active in CAP after joining.  SLS and ECI13 which are now part of Level 2 need to be put in Level 1 to ensure that all CAP officers receive this basic information about how CAP works and basic leadership training.  The SLS should be made into a web-based course and test so that new members wouldn't have to wait for one to be held. 

I'm not opposed to an Iowa-style Officer Training School which would do the above and more, but realisticially it would be easier for us to make these shifts in the training program quickly. 

Then just shift the rest of the requirements down a notch (i.e, the new Level 2 would be what is now Level 3.  This would result in Level 5 actually having some meaning in that it would be necessary to get promoted to Lt. Col.  Right now you don't get anything of value for completing the top level of training other than a nice award. 

Finally RIveraux, I will agree with you onthis pont. I dont agree with members comming in and making ranks and never doing any specialty tracks.

jacklumanog

I'm jumping in way late to this discussion, I know.  But, as a direct appointee to Captain when I was admitted to the Chaplain Service, I realize that the new rank can be irritating to some people.

That said, I've done my very best to earn my grade and then some since I have been in the program.  I finished ECI 13, Yeager, Levels 2 & 3 and am a Master in my specialty track  --  and my 2nd year anniversary is coming up on 1 March. 

I know that there are some who don't do much to earn their grade or advance once they get their grade, but cut some of us direct appointees a slack who are really trying to earn their place. 
Ch, Lt Col Jon I. Lumanog, CAP
Special Assistant to the National Chief of Chaplains for Diversity of Ministry

Dragoon

Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2007, 04:09:50 AM
"Rank" does not have to have anything to do with the level of responsibilty...not at all.  It can also be a reward for a job well done.  It is mark of longevity and seniority.

Actually, yes it does.  The senior officer present has a responsibility to take charge in the absence of a clear chain of command.

For example, the ranking guy in the prison camp is in charge.  Or at D-Day, the ranking officer you ran into after you jumped in became the commander until things get sorted out.  (there are of course exceptions for chaplains and the like, but this is 90% solution)

If you hold any kind of leader's grade and you pass by a screwed up situation without taking action, you can be held accountable. By accepting the promotion, you accept a level of generic responsiblity and authority over every one of lesser grade.  You become one of the keepers of the standards, with the authority to enforce.

This is why it's a UCMJ offense to disobey a superior officer.  Note it says nothing about that officer having to be in your chain of command.

Case in point - a bunch of years back I read about a group of SEALS on a commercial flight got drunk and rowdy.  A Lt Commander Chaplain in uniform was on the plane, and took no action to settle them down.  Not only did the sailors get in trouble - the Chaplain did as well.  He got a letter of reprimand.

He argued that this was unfair because (a) he was a chaplain and (b) the sailors weren't from his unit.

The response was "You were the ranking officer present - you should have gotten involved."  The reprimand stuck.


CAP could benefit from such a model.  If a major had the authority to fix screwed up stuff AND the responsiblity to do so, it would add a large number of roving quality assurance agents to the program.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen folks pass by something that was completely screwed up because "those guys aren't from my squadron."

The REASON rank is worn on the military uniform is to identify the authority that person has over all of lesser grade.  If that authority was only over his own folks, there would be no need for the insignia - we all know who our boss is.  The insignia is there for the people who don't know you personally - but may have to follow your orders.

Of course, the key is ensure that the folks who wear the grade insignia can handle all of this authority and not misuse it.  And that comes down to training and selection.  The best way to handle this is to link grade to both level of training and position.  And then hold them accountable (there's the responsiblity thing again) for exercising their authority to make CAP better.  Screw up and lose the job (and the grade).

Then again, we could also decide we don't want generic authority and responsiblity in CAP.  And if we do so, then we either ditch the USAF grade insignia entirely or keep it and constantly deal with the misunderstandings it causes.

Dragoon

Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2007, 04:09:50 AM


Again...if we are going to go back to this same argument....let's just go with...you wear the rank based on your position and everyone else is a FO1-FO5 based on their PD completion.

That way we don't have to worry about any of this.  Only commanders will wear rank.  Capt for squadrons, Majors for Groups, Lt Cols for Wings, Cols for Region and General for National.

Deputy commanders will wear one rank down.

All the staff officer just wear their FO ranks.

NO advanced promotions, no CAP NCO's and Spaatzens are FO1 just like the rest of us.

I think you'd find the need to use commissioned ranks for key staff positions.  Both as an incentive AND because these guys sometimes need authority (for example, while the Director of Communications isn't technically in the chain of command, he sometimes needs to direct  squadron comms officers.

And you could still, if you wanted, have advanced promotions to various FO grades. 

Plus I'd recommend setting up FOs like Army Warrants - where they don't really salute or call each other sir.  The FO-5s get a measure of informal respect for their experience and training, but we focus our customs and courtesies on the serving commissioned officers.

RiverAux

QuoteI can't tell you how many times I've seen folks pass by something that was completely screwed up because "those guys aren't from my squadron."
And I've seen a CAP senior member demoted for pointing out a uniform problem to someone not in their squadron (No further details will be provided).