Losing the term "Officer" as a generic term for Senior Members

[DNall]

Someone suggested changing "senior member" to "Officer Candidate", and that wouldn't be too bad. 

But that's not right either, because not all members are "Officer Candidates", either.  There is a similar handful who profess not to care enough to bother with the grade and never progress.

That's actually part of the justifaction in going to something like officer candidate over SM. We want to imply to new members that they are expected to progress in the professional development program - ie better themselves to be of service to CAP. And, that it isn't simplly watching a quick orientation/CPPT module & then waiting six months, but that you are supposed to be doing OJT/mentoring/etc to learn how to be an actual capable & competent officer (not just member).

agree with all of this to the letter:

Wow.....we did this last year in another thread, and here we are again.  I will type what I typed before.  The vast majority of Adults in CAP wear a recognizable Rank device (some would say Commissioned Officer Rank Insignia) so why can't we call ourselves "Officers".  Those NCO's that choose to be CAP NCO's are likewise, OFFICERS....just of the Non-Commissioned Variety. 

You, me and everyone else wearing an Officer defice is in fact a CAP OFFICER.  No, we are not all CAP Corporate Officers, but we are Officers non the less. 

Those Members awaiting initial promotion to an Officer Rank do need their title changed.  I am not sure what that will be.  I never liked SMWOG. 

Why do you want to move away from referring to ourselves as Officers?  What is the big deal.  Who is it hurting.  Why don't we focus on getting the term changed to Auxiliary Officer?  We need to pump up the fact we are the AIR FORCE AUXILIARY!  The new VSAF shirts should read the "Volunteer, Air Force Auxiliary", since we are perfroming an AFAM!  That is where I think this idea stemmed from.  I could be mistaken.

To turn mindset, I would even go with Mike's idea and change the title to Auxiliarist.  That is more in line with what we will (or should) be doing.

[LittleIronPilot]

... many of our "customers" do not want to see anyone under 18 on an actual missing persons search, or aircraft crash, etc...

I'd really like to see this in writing, not passed on by supposed word of mouth, but actually in writing from some of these so called "customers", because I do not believe this is true. I know that there are at least a few units in Georgia who have run this very question by their local EMA Directors and they have no problems working with Cadets when they know that they are properly trained and supervised.

There may be rare instances where a "customer" doesn't want cadets involved, but I believe that is the exception. From my experience the only people who don't want Cadets involved in ES are other CAP members who think that dealing with Cadets is below them.

Now, does this mean that you have to always allow Cadets on a Ground Team? No, not necessarily. But what if you have a Cadet who is qualified and in the Ground Team leader's opinion is mature enough to participate in a mission? What if you have a Cadet who is not only qualified but is on a Ground Team with their parent(s)? My main point is that there is no reason to completely exclude Cadets from ES, if nothing else there needs to be some fresh blood coming up the pipe to replace the old timers, and nothing beats real world on-the-job training.

Also, Cadets more interested in D&C / Honor Guard / etc. over ES? I suggest you examine your attitude and your training program, because while they may not all be interested, a large number of them are. I think the reason that you don't have much interest from your Cadets is because of your attitude towards them.

Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women. I also have NO problem with them on ES missions and would LOVE to have more of them. It is just that Color Guard and Drill Team are a HUGE deal in our squadron.

I am working on doing "in-house" GES training for our cadets to get them at least to that point, and then incorporating them into our ES training as their schedule allows.

So please...do not assume you know my attitudes about cadets, because you do not.

[ADCAPer]

 

Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women.

Well, considering you original post, I'm not sure what other reaction you could have expected???

Based on some here...since I have no real interest to work much with the Cadets (just not my thing) I should not join CAP since I am not willing to "do my part" to tackle all three missions of CAP.

[JayT]

... many of our "customers" do not want to see anyone under 18 on an actual missing persons search, or aircraft crash, etc...

I'd really like to see this in writing, not passed on by supposed word of mouth, but actually in writing from some of these so called "customers", because I do not believe this is true. I know that there are at least a few units in Georgia who have run this very question by their local EMA Directors and they have no problems working with Cadets when they know that they are properly trained and supervised.

There may be rare instances where a "customer" doesn't want cadets involved, but I believe that is the exception. From my experience the only people who don't want Cadets involved in ES are other CAP members who think that dealing with Cadets is below them.

Now, does this mean that you have to always allow Cadets on a Ground Team? No, not necessarily. But what if you have a Cadet who is qualified and in the Ground Team leader's opinion is mature enough to participate in a mission? What if you have a Cadet who is not only qualified but is on a Ground Team with their parent(s)? My main point is that there is no reason to completely exclude Cadets from ES, if nothing else there needs to be some fresh blood coming up the pipe to replace the old timers, and nothing beats real world on-the-job training.

Also, Cadets more interested in D&C / Honor Guard / etc. over ES? I suggest you examine your attitude and your training program, because while they may not all be interested, a large number of them are. I think the reason that you don't have much interest from your Cadets is because of your attitude towards them.

Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women. I also have NO problem with them on ES missions and would LOVE to have more of them. It is just that Color Guard and Drill Team are a HUGE deal in our squadron.

I am working on doing "in-house" GES training for our cadets to get them at least to that point, and then incorporating them into our ES training as their schedule allows.

So please...do not assume you know my attitudes about cadets, because you do not.

It seems to be that your goals and your squadrons goals are different.

[LittleIronPilot]

Whoooaaaa there cowboy. First I have NO problem with Cadets and find them an amazing group of young men and women.

Well, considering you original post, I'm not sure what other reaction you could have expected???

Based on some here...since I have no real interest to work much with the Cadets (just not my thing) I should not join CAP since I am not willing to "do my part" to tackle all three missions of CAP.

My apologies, that statement was as a "direct" management type with the Cadets, not from an integration viewpoint with ES. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, hope that clarifies things.

[Irishrenegade]

Officer Candidate? How about that?

[SarDragon]

Officer Candidate? How about that?

How would that fit in with those folks who go on to become NCOs? I know there aren't many of them, but they exist. Going from Officer Candidate to NCO would be a step down.

[Hawk200]

Officer Candidate? How about that?

How would that fit in with those folks who go on to become NCOs? I know there aren't many of them, but they exist. Going from Officer Candidate to NCO would be a step down.

Now that I think about it, NCOs probably wouldn't be much of an issue. An individual can be promoted to an NCO rank once Level 1 is completed.

As to uniform, I wouldn't bother with collar insignia. Only those persons electing to go the officer route could really stand to have something other than collar insignia. And with epaulet sleeves for them, we could probably do just fine with "U.S." insignia on their service coats.

[RiverAux]

Officer Candidate? How about that?

How would that fit in with those folks who go on to become NCOs? I know there aren't many of them, but they exist. Going from Officer Candidate to NCO would be a step down.

Those who choose to become CAP NCOs are essentially taking a step down no matter what considering that the normal course of events for 99.9% of CAP senior members is to go to become an officer. 

[Flying Pig]

They arent taking a step down per se, because CAP rank has no authority in itself, even in CAP.  A CAP LTC has no more juice than a CAP Senior member E-5.  CAP is based on position not rank.  The step down if there were one, would be the lack of anywhere for the member to go as far as the Professional Development Program.  And, any future advancement has nothing to do with performance in CAP, good or bad. 

[RiverAux]

As far as C&C is concerned, they are taking a step down.  Might not mean much, but it is a fact.

[billford1]

Any chance we can do away with this remnant of He Who Shall Remain Nameless as well?

Nothing official in any of the regs has been changed, nor has eServices, the WMU, our ID cards or the grade structure.  It is an improper description of a large portion of our members, and it isn't even used consistently by the very people who push it.

Senior Member has worked for decades, but if we need a different term "Officer" isn't it. 

In posts, docs, and emails I have recently seen:

"Officer without grade" (for SMWOG)

"Officer NCO's"

All adult members are not officers, and not all officers are adult members, but all senior members are adults.

For Pete sake Just leave things alone. Resist the urge to force change on a culture that's looking to do some good.