Should we return to the old PD requirements?

[Eclipse]

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

That's a minimum of 12 1/2 years to make Lt Col.  The minimum time for the services to make Lt. Col. is 10 years, based on the regs I have read.  Why would CAP require longer?

For one thing, we're not full time, for another, most of us never get formal front-end training.  If we're going to have parity to the RealMilitary® for time-in, we should probably double-up everything.

[RiverAux]

I don't think anyone would argue that we would drop all CAP requirements in favor of the AF courses.  There is still a need for them. 

By the way, to those who think that "stifling" promotions would hurt CAP membership, I've got serious doubts.  Though "rank" doesn't exist as such in the CG Aux, they still wear rank insignia based on their administrative office.  As a result, you will very rarely see an CG Aux member with inisignia higher than that equivalent to AF/Army/Marines "Captain".  This doesn't seem to bother anyone.  So, if CAP ended up with even higher percentages of folks more or less permanently at 2nd or 1st Lt. rank, I doubt it would be a problem. 

[scooter]

I don't think anyone would argue that we would drop all CAP requirements in favor of the AF courses.  There is still a need for them. 

By the way, to those who think that "stifling" promotions would hurt CAP membership, I've got serious doubts.  Though "rank" doesn't exist as such in the CG Aux, they still wear rank insignia based on their administrative office.  As a result, you will very rarely see an CG Aux member with inisignia higher than that equivalent to AF/Army/Marines "Captain".  This doesn't seem to bother anyone.  So, if CAP ended up with even higher percentages of folks more or less permanently at 2nd or 1st Lt. rank, I doubt it would be a problem. 

I agree.

[Dragoon]

To be honest, huge sections of USAF Officer Professional Development are pretty useless for our folks.  Sure, it's cool to learn about the tenets of Air Power, and dissect Tooey Spaatz's bombing campaigns, but is that the best use of our officers' time?

I've seen AFSC graduates come in to CAP and have the same problems as any other new member - because we are different enough that what works there doesn't work here.  Different cultures, different missions, differentexpectations of the members, different reward systems, etc.

Now, if we just make it official that grade is irrelevant, and that our grade insignia is really just our "Air Force Professional Development Awards", then yeah, link it to USAF courses.  What the heck.

But as others have pointed out, it won't make our leaders better officers.  Because, frankly, most of our leaders won't do it.  And they'll STILL be the ones in charge, because their the best ones for the job who are willing to do it.  And, frankly, some of the folks with the time to take the correspondence courses and "earn" the grade will still be the kind of folks you wouldn't want leading a round of "Row Row Row Your Boat" much less a CAP squadron.

Book learnin' is great (I've got a few  Master's Degrees lying around here somewhere myself), but it's only valuable if the material is relevant to the job  Only some of that stuff would really help make you a better CAP leader.  And then only if you've got some leadership talent to begin with. 

I've yet to see a correspondence course that produces leaders - it's the kind of skill that requires hands-on training.

[Dragoon]

And here's the less smarmy answer.

Tell me what you expect a CAP Lt Col to DO, and we can figure out what kind of training he needs in order to do that.

Ditto a Captain or a Major.

We really need to focus on deciding why we have grade, and how we should use it. What role do we expect high ranking CAP officers to play?  What do we expect them to do that we don't expect of lower ranking members?

From that it will be easy to figure out what the requirements for promotion should be.

In the absence of that analysis, it really doesn't matter.  Grade becomes just a merit badge - you can set the requirements however you like.

[Dragoon]

2ndLt - SLS + 12 months TIS
1stLt - ECI-13 + 18 months TIG
Capt - CLC + 24 months TIG
Maj - RSC + 36 months TIG
LtCol - NSC + 60 moths TIG + 12 months command time (possibly waived by commanding two encampments?)

That's a minimum of 12 1/2 years to make Lt Col.  The minimum time for the services to make Lt. Col. is 10 years, based on the regs I have read.  Why would CAP require longer?

Is there anywhere in DoD today where a guy goes from 0-1 to 0-5 in 10 years?  Last time I checked, the average was around 16.  10 might be the minimum in public law, but I don't think any of the services are doing it that way.

[mikeylikey]

I read through the ACA regs on this subject, very interesting.  A lot is being said of the ACA now, both here and elsewhere, but what they have down on paper and with whom I have spoken, they seem to have a better grasp on PD and appointments, promotions than CAP.  You may ask why.......simply put they copied the Military way of doing things.  

I quote them...."Not everyone will be an Officer, we are in need of civilian instructors, NCO's, Warrant Officers.....".

CAP is "hung up" on everyone being an Officer.  That was the first mistake.

[Dragoon]

Very true - all officers doesn't work.  All chiefs and no indians.

Where ACA will begin get in to trouble, I think, is when a former Lt Col just wants to hang out at a local unit and not be in charge.  Ir when the best guy to run the local unit is just an NCO, and there are two officers willing to help, but neither is a good choice to run things.

It will happen, and will begin to fray their "just like the military" model.

Because that's the one thing seperating us from the Real Military - we don't (and shouldn't) have an "up or out" policy.