Chaplain Corps Emergency Services School

[Chappie]

Having a GES rating is required of all Chaplains to attain their Technician Rating in the PD program....the Mission Chaplain rating for the Senior Rating in PD.  Placing those requirements in the updated 221 was a means to help "motivate" more chaplains to get involved in ES...since it is part of CAP's mission.  It does not need to be in the CAPR 265-1 as it is in the CAPP 221 -- and is needed to advance in CAP both in responsibility and grade.

And none of the above, nor CCRSC, nor Wing Conferences, nor online training is currently required to be, or remain a "CAP Chaplain",
and those who >are< Chaplains, are already deplorable as augmentees absent any further training or requirements.

And that is what I see as part of the problem here - the USAF said "Our Chaplains have this training...the people CAP calls Chaplains, don't...fix it."

None of the above address the actual finding for the majority of CAP Chaplains who participate at the squadron aren't involved in ES, and have no interest
in progressing.

And to the progression point - 221 isn't the only rating a Chaplain could pursue for promotion, however in light of the fact that the majority
of Chaplains I've dealt with come in as Captains, coupled with the new progression requirements that will hold most members at Captain,
that sounds like an overestimation of the interest in progression as a means to forcing the training.

As of today, the average Chaplain who is already a Captain and not involved in ES has no requirement to complete any additional training,
nor fulfill the mandate of the USAF Finding.  If he does his 34's, even only to turn one in to indicate "no traffic, over", he can remain a Chaplain.

And we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training.   However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it.  And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.

[THRAWN]

"However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it."

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this, but remember that sentiment if you ever have to call on your local volunteer EMS or fire department....

I'm really, really sorry....

[Eclipse]

And we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training.   However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it.  And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.

Absolutely true, and making my point.  You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.

In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.

[Chappie]

<snip>

I can tell you from personal experience, and also based on back-channel discussions prompted by this thread, that the lack
of people authorized to facilitate CDI is holding back cadets all over the organizaiton for months or more because no sessions
are being held - CC is too busy and no one else can do it.  Cadets are perishable in this regard, and I'm sure it has cost us retention,
yet NHQ seems to be unaware this is an issue.
<snip>

Lack of people authorized to facilitate CD? On the contrary....since January of 2015 there are been 74 chaplains and 302 CDIs appointed...joining the existing cadre of Chaplain Corps personnel.   One of our goals is to see 100% coverage of our squadrons for facilitating Character Development. 

On the other hand -- Having an appointed CDI or Chaplain facilitating provides accountability for conducting the CD session per the regs as well as protecting the integrity of the CD program.  As mentioned before, there were reports of squadrons promoting cadets who did not meet the CD requirements (you think that might be a violation of the regs or a Core Values issue???)...squadron commanders treating CD as a safety briefing with a simple "Practice the Core Values of CAP" -- and giving credit for CD...and I could go on. 

[Chappie]

And we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training.   However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it.  And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.

Absolutely true, and making my point.  You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.

In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.

The context of the "fixing it" is the ES training...which is not applicable to cadets .   Am I to surmise that it is the Chaplain Corps the only area of CAP that has this problem???

[Chappie]

"However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it."

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this, but remember that sentiment if you ever have to call on your local volunteer EMS or fire department....

I'm really, really sorry....

I know...I hated saying it.   CAP members should see themselves as Volunteer Professionals.  Been in this organization long enough to see members who only like to wear the uniforms and get the recognition but offer little in the way of service.   Commitment is something that involves one's character.

[Chappie]

<snip> Side note: After reviewing 221, it is impossible to progress as a CDI without getting involved in support of the Chaplaincy
and in addition candidates have to research alternative faiths from their own.  I have had this issue cited to me several times
as a reason otherwise excellent CP staff have no interest in CDI.

Like it or not, there are an increasing number of people who feel faith and religion is a personal thing that stays at home. <snip>

That is part of the Senior and Master Ratings for the CDI (most CDIs have other ratings that qualify them for promotion...and from what I have observed, there are very few CDIs whose sole specialty track is the 225 track).  One may ask, why is this a part of CDI training?  CAP is a pluralistic group.  There are people of faith -- various groups and flavors...no faith...don't want no faith.  At the senior and master level of a CDIs career, having exposure to another person's world view is helpful in working through the dynamics of a pluralistic community.  One may not and doesn't have to agree with the tenets...but to have a cursory understanding of where that person is coming from could be valuable.

[Eclipse]

And we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training.   However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it.  And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.

Absolutely true, and making my point.  You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.

In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.

The context of the "fixing it" is the ES training...which is not applicable to cadets .   Am I to surmise that it is the Chaplain Corps the only area of CAP that has this problem???

That's an unnecessary and defensive straw man - we're discussing the Chaplaincy right now, and specifically CAP's response to a
USAF inspection finding.

There is currently no mass-casualty training for the rest of CAP ES, but the Chaplains need it, despite their very limited presence in CAP missions?

From myh readin of the finding, the issue isn't a CAP-ES problem, but a USAF augmentee issue, and this doesn't fix the problem.

[Chappie]

And we are attempting to "fix it" in the area of training.   However, since CAP is a volunteer organization you can not "force" someone to do something they do wish to do or have the time to do.  We can encourage...provide opportunities for training and service...but it is up to the individual to avail themselves of it.  And you see that across the board in CAP and not just the Chaplain Corps.

Absolutely true, and making my point.  You can't require Chaplains, you can't require CDIs, and meanwhile the cadets suffer
because of the attempts to "make it better". We all know which road is paved with good intentions.

In this case, CAP boxed itself into a corner with the restriction, and then appears to be wishing it will simply fix itself through encouragement.

The context of the "fixing it" is the ES training...which is not applicable to cadets .   Am I to surmise that it is the Chaplain Corps the only area of CAP that has this problem???

That's an unnecessary and defensive straw man - we're discussing the Chaplaincy right now, and specifically CAP's response to a
USAF inspection finding.

There is currently no mass-casualty training for the rest of CAP ES, but the Chaplains need it, despite their very limited presence in CAP missions?

From myh readin of the finding, the issue isn't a CAP-ES problem, but a USAF augmentee issue, and this doesn't fix the problem.

And the finding was/is being addressed regarding the "mass casualty" training.   Once the USAF made the CAP Chaplain Corps aware of it...that course was made available through our CCRSCs.  The new ES rating for Mission Chaplains will have three levels:

CAP Support - for the CAP missions
Disaster Support - for those occasions when CAP Chaplains will be functioning with outside agencies (not reporting to CAP ICs)
Air Force Support - working as a force multiplier

The former MC rating was difficult for most chaplains to obtain.  The design of this new rating -- with its 3 tiers - is to provide doable ES training to handle what level they wish to engage -- primarily CAP missions.  Not every Chaplain can or wants to take a week or more to work an incident like "Deepwater Horizon"... or live in the proximity of an AF base to provide services.  So rather than a "one-size fits all" approach, we are endeavoring to provide the training for the nature of the mission.  It will be an educational process and will take some time to get it up and running...but it will happen.  As with anything in CAP, it will not take place overnight.   The Chaplain Corps does not have a staff at NHQ doing the heavy lifting -- like Ops, Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education -- we have to depend on our volunteers to do the work...and they have.   The current Chief assumed the reins in August of 2014 and there have been significant changes/progress made under his leadership -- and still more in the pipeline.  Hopefully, we can see the majority of it accomplished before he completes his term.

[Eclipse]

And the finding was/is being addressed regarding the "mass casualty" training.   Once the USAF made the CAP Chaplain Corps aware of it...that course was made available through our CCRSCs.

And for the majority of Chaplains who don't go to the RSC?

Chaplain's are already force multipliers by requirement and design, absent the NESA school.

I'm not trying to be obtuse about this, that's the reality.

[Chappie]

And the finding was/is being addressed regarding the "mass casualty" training.   Once the USAF made the CAP Chaplain Corps aware of it...that course was made available through our CCRSCs.

And for the majority of Chaplains who don't go to the RSC?

Chaplain's are already force multipliers by requirement and design, absent the NESA school.

I'm not trying to be obtuse about this, that's the reality.

The finding was that "Mass Casualty" as a course/topic was not part of the USAF/CAP Chaplain Corps training -- so the course was included in 2009 CCRSC forward.  It has been offered at break-out sessions during wing and region conferences.  Training in this can be found on-line (https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-360) .   Welcome to a changing world    Consequently, that aspect has been included in courses dealing with emergency responses in the years that have followed.  So...to answer the question "And for the majority of Chaplains who don't go to RSC - CCRSC?", the training is made available through CAP and non-CAP sources.

Not all CAP Chaplains are force multipliers...there are certain requirements for that listed in the CAPR 265-1.  The training in new MC rating (the advanced/third level) provides the CAP chaplain what is needed for that particular mission - Air Force Support.   I am a "waivered" chaplain, in that I received my post-baccalaureate degree from a school not listed in the ACE directory (approved by DoD).   Not a problem...I have had enough on my plate as a CAP Chaplain over my career without wanting or needing to assist the USAF Chaplain Corps.    Again NESA is but one venue...it is not required to take the courses/training in Indiana since there will be other opportunities to obtain the training.   As stated in previous postings, the NESA experience will enable the Chaplain Corps personnel to knock out the required work for the various ratings during the NESA session -- as well as providing them with the opportunity/experience of working with other ES personnel as they will participate in ES scenarios throughout the week.  The  member of the Chaplain Corps can take courses on-line and the uniquely CAP Courses will be offered during CCRSC, wing/region conferences breakout sessions, week-end schools, online...which will take a little longer to attain a rating but is very doable (and affordable).

[Eclipse]

Lack of people authorized to facilitate CD? On the contrary....since January of 2015 there are been 74 chaplains and 302 CDIs appointed...joining the existing cadre of Chaplain Corps personnel.   One of our goals is to see 100% coverage of our squadrons for facilitating Character Development. 

Two issues with those numbers - first out of context there is no way to know how many were lost during that same time period, or how many
of those are double-billeted CC's who are forced to become CDIs to comply with program mandates, or who were the only one in their unit with TLC, etc.
There are also any number of units with more then one Chaplain, not to mention 4 echelons about the unit which may have no, or limited exposure to
cadets where these Chaplains and CDIs are assigned.

But more importantly, there already was "100% coverage" before facilitators were artificially limited by the CDI program.

On the other hand -- Having an appointed CDI or Chaplain facilitating provides accountability for conducting the CD session per the regs as well as protecting the integrity of the CD program. As mentioned before, there were reports of squadrons promoting cadets who did not meet the CD requirements (you think that might be a violation of the regs or a Core Values issue???)...squadron commanders treating CD as a safety briefing with a simple "Practice the Core Values of CAP" -- and giving credit for CD...and I could go on.

I fail to see how having an appointed CDI, per se changes the accountability in any way other then from the optics.  The program is the same, the
record keeping is the same, as is the higher HQ oversight (or lack thereof).  Someone else may have, but I never said CC's were penciling whipping
the sessions, what I said was, they simply aren't doing them, primarily due to lack of availability. 

So in a room full of otherwise highly qualified people, he's the only one who can run the session, and he's in Prague, or at a Wing staff meeting that conflicts, or
maybe deployed to a Hurricane, or flying O-Rides, or whatever other lame excuse he made up.
IMHO CC's ignoring CDI is unacceptable, but there you go, with the end result being months or longer with cadets unable to progress and no way to make up that time later.

I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or make you support a program you might not have any say in implementation of, but purely
on the logical and mission-centric side of the conversation, there's no way to logically explain how this is "better".

1 - CDI is required for cadets to progress.
2 - CAP cannot mandate anyone serve in that role, nor grow more people (vs. the military which can do both).
Membership is continuing to shrink resulting in less people who have to do more each year.
3 - CAP, as an organization, limited who can provide CDI, yet didn't actually mandate any education or training to
insure the sessions and facilitators were "better", but simply insured the program remained under the control of the Chaplain Corps for assignment.
4 - CAP added the insinuation of, if not outright requirement, of additional, unrelated duties to those otherwise highly qualified members who wish to provide CDI to cadets.
5 - CAP now wonders why CDI isn't happening and Commanders and staff are grumbling.

The logic and math of the above doesn't compute, and the main reason it doesn't is because the underlying factors
for the way it was implemented were factors external to the mission-mandate at hand.

It's also disappointing, but not atypical, that an NHQ plan to makes things "better", results in lower levels of execution
and makes the CC's job harder.

[Chappie]

Lack of people authorized to facilitate CD? On the contrary....since January of 2015 there are been 74 chaplains and 302 CDIs appointed...joining the existing cadre of Chaplain Corps personnel.   One of our goals is to see 100% coverage of our squadrons for facilitating Character Development. 

Two issues with those numbers - first out of context there is no way to know how many were lost during that same time period, or how many
of those are double-billeted CC's who are forced to become CDIs to comply with program mandates, or who were the only one in their unit with TLC, etc.
There are also any number of units with more then one Chaplain, not to mention 4 echelons about the unit which may have no, or limited exposure to
cadets where these Chaplains and CDIs are assigned.

But more importantly, there already was "100% coverage" before facilitators were artificially limited by the CDI program.

On the other hand -- Having an appointed CDI or Chaplain facilitating provides accountability for conducting the CD session per the regs as well as protecting the integrity of the CD program. As mentioned before, there were reports of squadrons promoting cadets who did not meet the CD requirements (you think that might be a violation of the regs or a Core Values issue???)...squadron commanders treating CD as a safety briefing with a simple "Practice the Core Values of CAP" -- and giving credit for CD...and I could go on.

I fail to see how having an appointed CDI, per se changes the accountability in any way other then from the optics.  The program is the same, the
record keeping is the same, as is the higher HQ oversight (or lack thereof).  Someone else may have, but I never said CC's were penciling whipping
the sessions, what I said was, they simply aren't doing them, primarily due to lack of availability. 

So in a room full of otherwise highly qualified people, he's the only one who can run the session, and he's in Prague, or at a Wing staff meeting that conflicts, or
maybe deployed to a Hurricane, or flying O-Rides, or whatever other lame excuse he made up.
IMHO CC's ignoring CDI is unacceptable, but there you go, with the end result being months or longer with cadets unable to progress and no way to make up that time later.

I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or make you support a program you might not have any say in implementation of, but purely
on the logical and mission-centric side of the conversation, there's no way to logically explain how this is "better".

1 - CDI is required for cadets to progress.
2 - CAP cannot mandate anyone serve in that role, nor grow more people (vs. the military which can do both).
Membership is continuing to shrink resulting in less people who have to do more each year.
3 - CAP, as an organization, limited who can provide CDI, yet didn't actually mandate any education or training to
insure the sessions and facilitators were "better", but simply insured the program remained under the control of the Chaplain Corps for assignment.
4 - CAP added the insinuation of, if not outright requirement, of additional, unrelated duties to those otherwise highly qualified members who wish to provide CDI to cadets.
5 - CAP now wonders why CDI isn't happening and Commanders and staff are grumbling.

The logic and math of the above doesn't compute, and the main reason it doesn't is because the underlying factors
for the way it was implemented were factors external to the mission-mandate at hand.

It's also disappointing, but not atypical, that an NHQ plan to makes things "better", results in lower levels of execution
and makes the CC's job harder.

I appreciate and understand your comment about the numbers of appointments.  I provided raw numbers to point out that in the past 2 years the number of "appointed" Chaplain Corps personnel has increased dramatically.  In response to comments/concerns from the field regarding the appointment of CDIs, there were significant changes in the CAPR 265-1 to faciliate the requirement of having an appointed CDI or Chaplain conduct the CD session (CAPR 52-16).  While your observation about the "100% coverage" prior to the "artificial limitation" might seem legitimate, for clarification purposes, my intention was to state that the goal of the Chaplain Corps is to provide 100% coverage by "appointed" CDIs and Chaplains.  This would take the burden/responsibility off the shoulders of the Squadron CC who does not have a CDI or Chaplain in their squadron.

As for the aspect of accountability, I did not infer that you stated Squadron CCs were "pencil whipping".  I was simply citing reports heard over the years from those in the field -- wing commanders, senior members, cadets -- regarding the laxness in the conducting of the CD program.  While it may appear that the program may be the same or that the changes may be optic, there are things in the works to make record keeping of a cadet's participation online -- as to who taught what lesson, date, where, etc.  (accountability).

There are a couple of wings that are testing conducting CD via tele-conferencing for those cadets who have a legitimate reason for not making a meeting or if the scenario you presented occurs, where the person qualified to teach is unable to make the meeting.

Now let's see about these items:

1. True - always has and will be.

2. True - but that does not stop us from recruiting or providing resources for those who want to take on a noble task

3. Not quite sure I agree - Under the leadership of the current Chief, with the various task forces established to improve the Chaplain Corps, there has been a revised/updated (basically, new) Specialty Track for CDIs.  For appointment, CDIs now have to have TLC - basic and the Basic Instructor's Course.   It may not be much for the moment, but it was more than we had required in standardized training before.  And it is in keeping with the requirement that cadet/composite squadrons have at least 2 people trained in TLC (we are helping achieve that ).  Look for online and video training for Chaplain Corps personnel in the future....it is in the works.

4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.

5. Depends on what voices you are listening to.   In any given situation, you can hear the voices of those who are grumbling or the voices of those who approve.  I hear both  

[Eclipse]

4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.

The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.

They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.

And if the response is "that's not going to be required" - then why does it need to be included at all?

And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?

[Chappie]

4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.

The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.

They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.

And if the response is "that's not going to be required" - then why does it need to be included at all?

And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?

In a previous post you wrote, "I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or make you support a program you might not have any say in implementation of, but purely on the logical and mission-centric side of the conversation..."

In this discourse, I have not felt like I have been on the defensive...rather I feel like having served in senior leadership positions of the CAP Chaplain Corps and have been included in discussions, served on committees/task forces, there are certain things that I have knowledge of and hopefully can bring some clarification or explanation.

The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.

A question and an observation:  Do you read anywhere in the regs that after the initial appointment, that the CDI is required to pursue the specialty track ratings?  Is it possible to be a CDI and not pursue the ratings?  At what rating does any of the "religious support aspects" kick in (hint: it is not Technician when they can wear the badge).  Would you say that the otherwise highly qualified folk you speak of have other specialty ratings that they have already have attained Senior or Master ratings....I know that I personally have 3 Master ratings in 3 Specialty Tracks (Cadet Programs, Chaplain, Professional Development).

They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.

A couple of things:  There is no "chain of command" in the Chaplain Corps.  Chaplains and CDIs are members of the Commander's Staff.  As with CAP publications...there are the regs and the pamphlets/manuals that flesh out the process.  Read them together and there is a reasonable answer/explanation:

CAPP 265-1   Section B, Paragraph 4 item b. The CDI works under the direction of a chaplain designated by the wing chaplain. 
Air Patrol. (NOTE: does not say "report to a chaplain") and  CAPP 216: Study each section and apply the information to actual situations on the job.  The wing chaplain will assign a chaplain as a mentor to assist the CDI through the process. If needed, an on-the-job training (OJT) supervisor can also be assigned to guide the CDI on a more local level.   Your OJT supervisor will determine your level of proficiency at each level.  When you reach the desired level of competency for the completion of a level, the unit commander will certify proficiency in your personnel record through eServices.  After the unit commander's certification of a technician, senior, or master rating, the member may wear the Leadership Ribbon (technician rating) with bronze (senior rating) or silver (master rating) star.  Completion of each rating is a requirement for promotion.  Complete promotion criteria are listed in CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and Noncommissioned Officer Appointments and Promotions.

The CDI has to have a Squadron CC sign the F35A....the CDI is on the Commander's Staff as is the Chaplain.   The Chaplain reports to Commander.  Chaplains do not authority to promote members, discipline members, etc.  However Chaplains are in a good position to know the workings of the Chaplaincy (which is foreign to the typical member -- and often the Commander) and can serve as a guide, mentor to the CDI -- but is not one to give directives, unless approved by the Commander.  Thus the need for a good working relationship with the Commander.

As for providing "religious support", refer to the first comment.

And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?

There are only 3 layers:  The first step is the Wing Chaplain. Besides receiving and reviewing the application, the wing chaplain completes an interview which will seek to determine the candidate's understanding of the role of a character development instructor and ascertain their willingness to work in a pluralistic environment. This is necessary to make sure that CDI is aware of the biggest offense that you and others have voiced about members of the Chaplain Corps: the use of the CD session as a pulpit or proselytizing.   The packet is sent to the Region Chaplain who makes sure that the packet is prepared properly and all the necessary documentation is in place (you can't believe how many times a packet has been returned for either lack of documentation or signatures).  Finally the Chief grants appointment.  Why is it necessary?  That's the process lined out in the CAPR 265-1.

[Fubar]

Let's take a look at the two examples of CDIs "who consider themselves chaplain substitutes":

Chappie, I think I failed to communicate my point. Your examples that anybody and lead a prayer and anybody can help counsel a cadet missed that in the cases I've experienced (and described), a CDI felt they were either the only person qualified to perform either example or at the very least, felt they were more qualified than non-CDIs to perform either example (even though CDI requires no actual qualification related to being a chaplain).

So that's one of the problems with the CDI program. The other is it's an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on squadrons and their members. There is absolutely no reason that character development within the cadet program needs to be the responsibility of another OPR. We allow anybody the CC designates to manage the aerospace education, leadership lessons, physical fitness, drill, but not character development. We can't trust the CC with chasing the right person?

[Hyperion]

To be a senior member in CAP, one must be: an adult; pass a background check; and follow the rules, regulations, and core values of the organization.

This means that ANY senior member in CAP should be automatically qualified to lead a CDI lesson as they must already follow these concepts before they could join while also maintaining those concepts as a member. To force a member to enroll into the CDI specialty track, as Eclipse stated, puts an artificial limitation on a required component of the Cadet Programs.

If you really want to force a standard to be a CDI, require that the member has at minimum a technician rating in the Cadet Program specialty track. However, I will argue that this is still unnecessary and artificial as the entire concept of a senior member is one who has already shown they are able to follow a life of integrity.

A commander is already eligible to lead a CDI lesson in absence of someone trained for that task, but we do not allow them to delegate that required task to someone they feel is qualified. The big question for me then becomes: do we trust our commanders, or not? (And if not, why have we allowed them to become a commander?)

The answer becomes clear: we trust the commander to delegate whomever they feel is appropriate to lead the CDI lesson, as they are already qualified in being a stand in CDI themselves and therefore must know who would also be a good CDI. It's time to remove the CDI specialty track and remove the artificial limitation that we place on our cadets.

- Hyperion

[Damron]

4. Not sure what requirement or unrelated duties are being added to highly qualified members.

The religious support aspects which many members, who would be otherwise highly qualified, want no part of.

They don't want to "report to a Chaplain" (which many CC's have an issue with - this secondary command chain),
or be looked to provide religious support.

And if the response is "that's not going to be required" - then why does it need to be included at all?

And further to that, why it is necessary to subject CDI candidates to multi-layers of Chaplain approvals for
appointment if they never have to act in support of the corps?

Hallelujah, can I get a witness?

[Damron]

It's time to remove the CDI specialty track and remove the artificial limitation that we place on our cadets.

Wait a second, don't chaplains have a more accurate moral and ethical compass than the rest of us?  Of course not.

Most of our chaplains are not licensed pastoral counselors or other licensed mental health professional. So, are they really qualified to provide any better advice than any other member? 

Without any thought, we are supposed to accept chaplains as wise sages with special gifts based on their completion of a degree program with extremely narrow focus, much like an English literature degree that chooses to study just one book. 

A couple of folks have mentioned mass-casualty events as justification for expanding the role and training of our chaplains.  Given their lack of counseling training in general and grief counseling in particular, how is anybody confident of positive outcomes?   I guess somebody walking around a disaster explaining that the deaths were part of God's will or that the departed are now living in the paradise of heaven if they accepted Christ as their savior is likely to have some comforting effect for some.

CAP chaplaincy survives as a result of the inertia of tradition and the reluctance of most to voice an opinion on the role and future of chaplaincy in CAP. 

[SarDragon]

...I guess somebody walking around a disaster explaining that the deaths were part of God's will or that the departed are now living in the paradise of heaven if they accepted Christ as their savior is likely to have some comforting effect for some....

Really? In my time in CAP, I have NEVER seen a Chaplain exhibit that sort of behavior. Ever.