SQTR Approval Issues

[Storm Chaser]

"By the time a qualification has reached wing, it's been approved by at least one commander, if not two, not to mention the
evaluator - hitting the "disapproved" button calls the integrity of the whole chain into question and needs to get a direct response."


We had a retired attorney in our squadron, who was VERY knowledgeable in the ES arena of CAP. His AOBD was questioned, partially involving the dates issue, and he up and quit with little notice.

About a month later, my UDF re-qual was disapproved, and I got up and walked out. I was talked down, and came back to teach UDF a month later.

It was one of the trainees in my UDF training that had the dates again be used as an excuse to say no, and here we go again.

Questioning someones integrity is exactly what I felt, as our former member did, and what sent me out the door once, and almost again this weekend.

Again, thanks for letting me vent and pose this dilemma to the group. I do feel better now that at least I try the right way, regardless if someone else is misinterpreting their way as the correct way.

I've seen members first hand (granted, a small minority) trying to purposely cheat the system. I've also seen lots of well intentioned members validating tasks or approving qualifications incorrectly. That's why the current system is in place. It's not to question a member's integrity, but to ensure the qualification and approval process is followed correctly. If a qualification is denied in error, there are also mechanisms in place to correct that.

[Eclipse]

I've seen members first hand (granted, a small minority) trying to purposely cheat the system. I've also seen lots of well intentioned members validating tasks or approving qualifications incorrectly.

I have as well, shenanigans do occur but the current system is a lot harder to game.  BITD a CC or ESO could pretty much punch through anything they wanted with
few checks or balances, especially when / if the majority of the sign offs were done on paper and then caught up at a later date.

In this case someone is just making things up as they go along - there is supposed to be a reason given when anything is disapproved. 

If things really occurred as indicated here, the "reason" isn't a "reason", and it's unfortunate the member is the one who has to follow up.
As a commander, anytime I saw things like this, it was me or the respective staffer tracking down the fix.

[Storm Chaser]

I need to understand something about approving and disapproving qualifications in eServices.

Let's say that a member has their MRO, and now is training for UDF. Some of the tasks for MRO are part of the UDF training, such as the radio tasks and keeping a log. Now, those tasks are "GREEN" and therefore "ACTIVE" for the second qualification, in this example, UDF. If these task dates are PRIOR to the commanders approvals for the UDF, do they count, or do they have to repeat the tasks for the UDF qualification? Remember, they are showing as active on the new SQTR entry page.

Also, do the tasks have to have a mission number, or can training take place outside of an exercise?

Kevin

Any overlapping tasks completed as part of another qualification will reflect in other initial quals, regardless of commander approval dates. That's the way the Ops Quals SQTR system was designed, and it's valid and acceptable. A skills evaluator may still choose to have you demonstrate those skills again, especially if the tasks were completed a while back.

CAPR 60-3 does state that training tasks are good for two years. Unfortunately, because of the way Ops Quals works, tasks that are part of an active qualification show green on other initial quals even if the tasks are older than two years. As a skills evaluator, I like those re-accomplished prior to submitting a qualification for approval.

Tasks can be accomplished outside of a mission IAW CAPR 60-3. That said, some tasks are better accomplished in a mission setting.

If you feel your qualification was disapproved in error, I strongly encourage you to address it through your chain of command.

[Eclipse]

CAPR 60-3 does state that training tasks are good for two years. Unfortunately, because of the way Ops Quals works, tasks that are part of an active qualification show green on other initial quals even if the tasks are older than two years. As a skills evaluator, I like those re-accomplished prior to submitting a qualification for approval.

I'd say there is a lot in that sentence and while some of it is gray, that's not generally an SET's call absent other factors.

For starters, are we talking about initial or requal?

If a member comes to you for a sign off on "move point to point in a vehicle", it's not your call to look through his SQTR and
decide his "Keep a log" task is too old, so redo that as well. (etc).

Likewise, if he's on your team for a sortie, you're not there to review his history (nor would you generally even be aware of it),
your job is to evaluate his performance over the course of the sortie, and if he's successful, "click, quote, print".

Now if you hand him a compass and he tries to make a phone call on it, there would be some validity to redo-ing the
navigation tasks, but an SET, absent related staff or command appointments, isn't going to be able to undo an old task,
only enter the redo. Beyond that all he can do is recommend the qual be suspended or related tasks unchecked.

This goes double on a requal, which only requires the tasks eServices puts forth in gray.

Beyond that, if it's green, it's green.  I have a lot of other details to worry about beyond fixing NHQ's math.

I'm guessing, though, that like a lot of SETs, you're the end-to-end guy, not to mention ES staff, so
anything broke, anywhere is your to fix, that colors the situation somewhat.

I never want to see people in the field walking into trees, or sitting in the right seat trying to radio misison base using the
seat belt, but as a CC who is trying to rebnuild Es capability after years of the unit's members being left to their own
devices, I also don't have time for nuances that NHQ doesn't even care about, especially for members who are otherwise
clearly capable.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I also saw what I think the thread posting has turned into.

I went to a bivouac to get some familiarization and prep training. Think it was for UDF. However the trainer did not want to acknowledge it because he said my CC had not signed the "Commander Approval for Fam and Prep Training."

He insisted the CC should have signed the "Commander Approval for Fam and Prep Training" first as an indication he was giving me approval to take any training at all to include the familiarization tasks.

The way I see it, and is supported by the appropriate regs:

Since it is in order of "1234" or from top on down:

Member completes the prerequisites.

Then CC approves the member as taking the prerequisites.

Then member completes the fam and prep training.

Then CC signs for the fam and prep training.

Then member starts the advanced training.

However the OP writes about what others describe as cross-pollination. This is difficult to avoid, and as a squadron ESO I do not look at the dates only to make sure they are current.

For example, a member goes for UDF. Some of those tasks cross-pollinate to GTL, GTM3, GTM1, GTM2, and MRO. Can / should we not accept those cross-pollinated tasks? Why not?

The member may decide they only wanted one ES specialty at the time. Or maybe they had difficulty getting the other tasks required to finish other qualifications.

And while we are at it, IS-100, IS-700, IS-300 and the others are listed as "advanced tasks." However for members waiting to take them after they take the fam and prep tasks only makes it more difficult for a member to be trained. You have an excellent member, interested in ES. Should we not tell him to take IS-100 or 700 because he has not been able to get Curry or CAPT 116?

What about the new member who had to take IS-100 or IS-700 because he was a member of an EMT crew so was required to take it, then joined CAP? Should we make him re-take IS-100?

[Spaceman3750]

IS and ICS are tracked as separate qualifications and should be completed as early in training as possible.

[Storm Chaser]

CAPR 60-3 does state that training tasks are good for two years. Unfortunately, because of the way Ops Quals works, tasks that are part of an active qualification show green on other initial quals even if the tasks are older than two years. As a skills evaluator, I like those re-accomplished prior to submitting a qualification for approval.

I'd say there is a lot in that sentence and while some of it is gray, that's not generally an SET's call absent other factors.

For starters, are we talking about initial or requal?

If a member comes to you for a sign off on "move point to point in a vehicle", it's not your call to look through his SQTR and
decide his "Keep a log" task is too old, so redo that as well. (etc).

Likewise, if he's on your team for a sortie, you're not there to review his history (nor would you generally even be aware of it),
your job is to evaluate his performance over the course of the sortie, and if he's successful, "click, quote, print".

Now if you hand him a compass and he tries to make a phone call on it, there would be some validity to redo-ing the
navigation tasks, but an SET, absent related staff or command appointments, isn't going to be able to undo an old task,
only enter the redo. Beyond that all he can do is recommend the qual be suspended or related tasks unchecked.

This goes double on a requal, which only requires the tasks eServices puts forth in gray.

Beyond that, if it's green, it's green.  I have a lot of other details to worry about beyond fixing NHQ's math.

I'm guessing, though, that like a lot of SETs, you're the end-to-end guy, not to mention ES staff, so
anything broke, anywhere is your to fix, that colors the situation somewhat.

I never want to see people in the field walking into trees, or sitting in the right seat trying to radio misison base using the
seat belt, but as a CC who is trying to rebnuild Es capability after years of the unit's members being left to their own
devices, I also don't have time for nuances that NHQ doesn't even care about, especially for members who are otherwise
clearly capable.

CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-2.a, states:

Training to qualify in a specialty is expected to be completed within 2 years from the time the member is authorized to begin familiarization and preparatory training in Operations Qualification on a Specialty Qualification Training Record (SQTR). Members not completing training requirements within two years should expect to re-demonstrate expired portions of their training.

If a member has a task, green or otherwise, that is over two years old, they have to re-accomplish it before they can complete their initial qualification.

But you're right, while I have some authority and discretion as a commander within the constraints of the regulation, as a skills evaluator I have no authority to make a trainee complete a task. I can, however, withhold the exercise participation sign off if I don't feel they performed to the level expected. That includes demonstrating different skills, even if those skills have previously been signed off. Now, as a rule of thumb, I don't reevaluate tasks that have already been signed off unless the member seems unable to perform. In that case, I will do instruction and have them redo the task to demonstrate their understanding.

[Eclipse]

If a member has a task, green or otherwise, that is over two years old, they have to re-accomplish it before they can complete their initial qualification.

But you're right, while I have some authority and discretion as a commander within the constraints of the regulation, as a skills evaluator I have no authority to make a trainee complete a task. I can, however, withhold the exercise participation sign off if I don't feel they performed to the level expected. That includes demonstrating different skills, even if those skills have previously been signed off. Now, as a rule of thumb, I don't reevaluate tasks that have already been signed off unless the member seems unable to perform. In that case, I will do instruction and have them redo the task to demonstrate their understanding.

Agree all the way around, just wish the system complied with the regs, but I realize math is hard, and
computers aren't very good at doing date comparisons or if/then so whadda goin' do?

[Storm Chaser]

I went to a bivouac to get some familiarization and prep training. Think it was for UDF. However the trainer did not want to acknowledge it because he said my CC had not signed the "Commander Approval for Fam and Prep Training."

He insisted the CC should have signed the "Commander Approval for Fam and Prep Training" first as an indication he was giving me approval to take any training at all to include the familiarization tasks.

The way I see it, and is supported by the appropriate regs:

Since it is in order of "1234" or from top on down:

Member completes the prerequisites.

Then CC approves the member as taking the prerequisites.

Then member completes the fam and prep training.

Then CC signs for the fam and prep training.

Then member starts the advanced training.

You are correct. The commander approval for prerequisites is there to certify the prerequisites were met and the member is authorized to start fam & prep training. Once fam & prep is completed, the commander approval authorizes the member to start advanced training. It goes in that order.