Advancded Grade for RM Officers- Split from NCO thread

[Eclipse]

Another bunch of time spent hashing something which is absolutely meaningless in the end.

Why do you guys continue to mentally reengineer the program in corners that have no impact on operations?

Kinda hard to perform operations when you lack members in sufficient numbers.

Yep, and this isn't going to fix that, nor are ABU's, NIMS compliance, subdued grade or better ID cards.

What we need is a national, coherent marketing campaign, and an equally coherent program for all those new members to join.

[Hawk200]

Yep, and this isn't going to fix that, nor are ABU's, NIMS compliance, subdued grade or better ID cards.

Probably not, this would be more of a retention aspect.

What we need is a national, coherent marketing campaign, and an equally coherent program for all those new members to join.

Quite true. So what do have in mind for helping with that? Is there more than just slamming other peoples ideas because you think that your area of interest is more important?

[Eclipse]

My area of "interest" is in trying to get the program as a whole moving again, instead of concentrating on
special interest nonsense.

We already have uniforms, ID cards, and ratings, what I would like now is top-down leadership and a real plan,
coupled with bottom up followership.

I come here to get the scuttle, and its a good source of current information, but I don't understand why
people here hit "send" just to "raise the question" on such silly things. My perception is that some people
gnosh all day until a light bulb goes off on "something that will REALLY stir the pot on CAPTalk", and then they can't wait to throw gas on the fire.  Once lit they tape down the refresh key and wait.

In reality its the same 10 people arguing about the same 10 things over and over.

Even better is when the same person poses the same question here, CS, and mil forums, and the same 10 people get in the same 10 arguments on those forums as well, and of course there's MyBook and FaceSpace, etc.

Yeah, I know, switch off - but its like a car wreck, I can' t look away - plus I'm incredibly bored again.

I suppose.  I'd like CT to be a place to get quick, factual answers on things which are subjective or less than obvious, but most times its just a bunch of people not listening waiting to re-state their tired point over again.

Myself included.

[Hawk200]

My area of "interest" is in trying to get the program as a whole moving again, instead of concentrating on
special interest nonsense.

We already have uniforms, ID cards, and ratings, what I would like now is top-down leadership and a real plan,
coupled with bottom up followership.

I come here to get the scuttle, and its a good source of current information, but I don't understand why
people here hit "send" just to "raise the question" on such silly things. My perception is that some people
gnosh all day until a light bulb goes off on "something that will REALLY stir the pot on CAPTalk", and then they can't wait to throw gas on the fire.  Once lit they tape down the refresh key and wait.

In reality its the same 10 people arguing about the same 10 things over and over.

Even better is when the same person poses the same question here, CS, and mil forums, and the same 10 people get in the same 10 arguments on those forums as well, and of course there's MyBook and FaceSpace, etc.

Yeah, I know, switch off - but its like a car wreck, I can' t look away - plus I'm incredibly bored again.

I suppose.  I'd like CT to be a place to get quick, factual answers on things which are subjective or less than obvious, but most times its just a bunch of people not listening waiting to re-state their tired point over again.

Myself included.

I'll agree that there seems to be a lot of rehash on various subjects, but I've personally noticed that sometimes the rehash brings an interesting new perspective. Granted there are a few folks that literally give the same canned answer time and time again, but every now and then something a little different can give me an interesting new perspective.

However, you cannot force people to work on just your own interests any more than I can force them to work on mine. Telling folks that their "corners" have no impact is just as likely to either tick them off, or make them tune you out. If you want something else discussed, slamming their discussion isn't going to help.

I've started ignoring some threads entirely. I may have missed something which could have changed my own views or triggered an input that might help with something. I'll never know, but it's probably happened.

This thread addresses some inequities in the promotion system. Promotion can be a matter of retention. It works in the military, and I've known a few people that quit CAP because their own promotions didn't get processed. A couple of those were real losses, they were excellent DFer's. Which from the way I see it, it has had impact on operations.  Those may have been extremely isolated cases that have never been repeated. Then again, there are things that I have never seen that many others have. Sometimes there is an impact that you never see.

[LeoBurke]

Some interesting thoughts here, as a new guy to this forum, but an old CAP guy, I have heard a lot of this before.  Here are some of my thoughts:

1.  About the RM (Real Military - Not Royal Marines, right?) There are some stellar folks in the officer and NCO ranks in all branches of the military.  There are also a bunch of complete idiots.  Don't think for a minute that an organization as large as the DoD doesn't have a bunch of them.  Many of whom manage to last for years and years.  They also manage to get promoted beyond their abilities - just like CAP.

In GLR, the Region Commander (A retired USAF MSgt) requires that all prior military folks demonstrate their committment to and involvement in CAP, BEFORE they get promoted to their prior rank. 

2.  Unlike the "RM" CAP does not bring everyone in at the same relative age/education/experience levels.  The Federal Government has a program called Senior Executive Service (SES).  That translates well to our extra-ordinary promotion policy.  Just like CAP, lawyers, dentist, nurses, and others (of many age groups) get special promotions, and can still function within the command structure. 

3.  CAP has some very specific operational skills and leadership requirements.  The special promos recognize the contributions that these people make.  Sorry if you didn't get those skills, or your parents didn't finance your aviation ratings through CFII.   That doesn't diminish in the least the fact that we need CFIIs.  Desperately.  And we recognize that in our 'business' CFIIs are a highly trained and skilled commodity. 

4.  We have Level I, SLS, CLC, RSC, NSC all in place to give our seniors the institutional knowledge required to participate in the corporate aspects of CAP.  None of these courses, or any others that you create are going to make instant superstar leaders.  BUT unlike the RM, we manage to get some extraordinary folks at different points in their lives.  Believe it or not some of the best leaders in our program have never served in the military.  For instance, this one guy: MIT Graduate with a PhD in Mathematics, CFII (+2500 hours), formed and ran a large (more than 5,000 employees) engineering consulting company.  Got senior executive written all over him.  I think he's covered the basics of leadership.  Any one see a problem with him coming in as a Major or Lt Col?  His experience is the equivalent of an full bird or Brig Gen in the military, right?

If you really push the 'RM' analogy - it should be a two way street. 

5.  The Flight Officer grades are one of our longest lasting traditional mistakes.  This could be resolved very quickly.  Simply allow 18-20 year olds to join as cadets.  Then eliminate the FOs.  You become a senior at 21.  Stay a senior until age 100 or so.  My experience has been the seniors that joined at 18 would have benefited from and enjoyed being a cadets.  And the cadet that became seniors early should have stayed as cadets and learned a few more leadership lessons. 

[ddelaney103]

5.  The Flight Officer grades are one of our longest lasting traditional mistakes.  This could be resolved very quickly.  Simply allow 18-20 year olds to join as cadets.  Then eliminate the FOs.  You become a senior at 21.  Stay a senior until age 100 or so.  My experience has been the seniors that joined at 18 would have benefited from and enjoyed being a cadets.  And the cadet that became seniors early should have stayed as cadets and learned a few more leadership lessons. 

I have a Dr's appointment so I'll have to comment on the rest later, but I felt a need to mount a "hasty attack" on this idea.

This is pretty wacky.  Are you suggesting that a new member: be they college student, junior enlisted, or perhaps a young parent with a full time job, should be placed in the CP just because they're under 21?  And they'll enjoy it?

I can see it now...

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

[Eclipse]

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

Active duty status would preclude them from being cadets (i.e. automatic conversion), the small number of guardsmen, etc., who squeak by because of "short-term" deployments, etc. (but not actually active duty) are so small as to be functionally zero.

Smaller still are the number of young people over 18, under 21, with military service who would even be interested in the cadet program.  Again, the number is zero from the standpoint of making program changes to accommodate them.  The reality is that anyone joining the military at 17/18 will have more things to worry about than CAP, and it will likely be at least a year before they have any time to do much but sleep and train, and in today's world, unless there is a unit in a place ending in "-stan", no place to serve CAP anyway.

Any 19/20 year old with RealMilitary® experience is, at least compared to (most) cadets, functionally an adult, and belongs in the Senior program.

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

This would effectively preclude a large number from ever completing the program.  Many do not join
until they are 14-15.  Would your recruiting collateral include a paragraph:  Welcome to CAP, we want you to
work hard and expect progression, but please don't do the math because its physically impossible for you
to make Spaatz..."?

[ZigZag911]

Maybe the answer is to make the Spaatz an award for 18-20 year old seniors.....which would eliminate the phenomenonon of 13-14-15 year old 'cadet colonels'!

[mikeylikey]

^  Ah....you are on to something.  Instead of that though, maybe make a requirement that you have to be 18 to receive the Spaatz. 

Back to RM Officers, I have no problem letting them come into CAP at an advanced rank, but make them complete the CAP specific requirements for that CAP rank.  So, an AD Lt Col comes into CAP, but before he or she is made a CAP Lt Col, they need to complete CLC, SLS...etc.

[ZigZag911]

I have no problem letting RM officers join CAP in their highest earned grade, up to and including however many stars (though I would make flag officers 'members' of the National Commanders squadron for their membership unit....participate wherever they wish "ADY").

What I would not do is give anyone any CAP command until 2 years of membership were completed.

[Hawk200]

What I would not do is give anyone any CAP command until 2 years of membership were completed.

It's a nice thought, but in some cases that's impossible. Every now and then, a unit forms with people that don't have someone with two years under their belt. Or else it may be someone with former military command experience, and wants to form a unit to serve the community.

It's just not practical in all cases. In one of the obvious differences from the military, we don't reassign people to other units based on need. That works for the military, but it wouldn't work for us. There are people that would quit rather than take the "assignment".

[ZigZag911]

As a group CC I was successful, on numerous occasions, in persuading officers to go to another unit to assume command.

Did not engender as much resentment as you might think in the 'gaining' unit, especially once it became clear that all command & group staff slots were open to the most qualified officer available.

I've seen inexperienced (in CAP) officers take commands at group & wing level....not a pretty sight! Nor a pleasant experience, now that I think about it....

As for the squadron forming where no one else was available -- well, I've seen that too, it does work sometimes....but it causes problems too.

If I were wing CC I'd probably keep the unit as an unchartered flight until they had a commander qualified according to my policy.....wouldn't hurt anything, and would give them a goal

[LeoBurke]

I have a Dr's appointment so I'll have to comment on the rest later, but I felt a need to mount a "hasty attack" on this idea.

This is pretty wacky.  Are you suggesting that a new member: be they college student, junior enlisted, or perhaps a young parent with a full time job, should be placed in the CP just because they're under 21?  And they'll enjoy it?

I can see it now...

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

This has happened to you personally - or anyone else reading this - exactly how many times?  Compared to the number of times a 18 year old HS senior tried to join the summer after he graduated because his friends were in, ended up in the FO DMZ and eventually quit. 

Imagine you realistically had a 19-20 yo, active duty, academy, Hell even if it were a cadet from VMI, they get an option of accelerated placement, just like our JROTC friends.... 

The CP leadership lessons still apply.  I hate to break it to you, boot camp and Adv Inf do not build leaders.  They build followers.  As far as the young parents? I'm not sure we want a 20 yo parent with a 12 yo cadet. 

Hope the doc helped.

Leo

[ddelaney103]

I have a Dr's appointment so I'll have to comment on the rest later, but I felt a need to mount a "hasty attack" on this idea.

This is pretty wacky.  Are you suggesting that a new member: be they college student, junior enlisted, or perhaps a young parent with a full time job, should be placed in the CP just because they're under 21?  And they'll enjoy it?

I can see it now...

"Welcome to Wingnut Comp Sqdn, Pvt Tentpeg!  I'm glad you've decided to join CAP.  You'll be falling in with the 13 yr olds and a 15 yr old will be instructing you on basic drill and ceremony - after all we do things a little differently than Benning.  Pretty soon, you'll have a Curry ribbon to put underneath your GWOT-E, Iraq and NDSM.  No, you can't wear your Combat Action Badge, but you will be able to earn a CAP Solo Wings instead."

We don't get many 18-21 yr olds: this will eliminate them entirely.

A far better solution is to eliminate Cadets above the age of 18.  This will remove the fact that we have two classes of adults: those that have to be "protected" under CPP, and those that do the protecting.  I'd be willing to entertain some method that they could continue to work towards Cadet awards but still be treated as Officers.

This has happened to you personally - or anyone else reading this - exactly how many times?  Compared to the number of times a 18 year old HS senior tried to join the summer after he graduated because his friends were in, ended up in the FO DMZ and eventually quit. 

Imagine you realistically had a 19-20 yo, active duty, academy, Hell even if it were a cadet from VMI, they get an option of accelerated placement, just like our JROTC friends.... 

The CP leadership lessons still apply.  I hate to break it to you, boot camp and Adv Inf do not build leaders.  They build followers.  As far as the young parents? I'm not sure we want a 20 yo parent with a 12 yo cadet. 

Of course it hasn't happened - it's your proposed idea, not current policy.  You were suggesting all below 21 play Cadet.

Frankly our biggest problem is having our post HS Cadets fade on us - college or jobs tend to get them and we're really bad on find the Ph 3's things to do.

[SJFedor]

^ But both are still 21 year old captains... which is bad IMO.

Don't hate on the 21 year old Captains...

[ZigZag911]

21 year old captains....for that matter, 28 year old lt cols -- were not one of CAP's better ideas.

Speaking as a former cadet officer myself, I just think, based on years of observation, it's too much rank, too soon.

[MIKE]

^ The at one time 21 year old First Lieutenant agrees.  26 year old Captain ain't so bad though. 

[ZigZag911]

26 y.o. capt is fine, in fact mirrors RM pretty closely, I believe.

[mikeylikey]

So it is agreed.  26 To be a Captain, 76 to be a Lt Col?  Or how about the time I walked into a room and there were like 24 Lt Col's and none of them were younger than 80.  Needless to say I had a very difficult time explaining what a computer was used for, let alone how to turn it on.

[SJFedor]

Maybe, once you hit 70, we need to start demoting.