DCC changed to CDC, and DCS to CDS

[Mike W]

I have just been told a DCC is actually a CDC, and a DCS is a CDS. Where can I find an announcement about this?

[RangerConlin]

CDC and CDS stand for what?

[EMT-83]

I have just been told a DCC is actually a CDC, and a DCS is a CDS. Where can I find an announcement about this?

What announcement? Those are the correct titles.

[NC Hokie]

I have just been told a DCC is actually a CDC, and a DCS is a CDS. Where can I find an announcement about this?

CDC and CDS are the office symbols for the deputy commander positions as given in Attachment 1 of CAPR 10-1.  The literal meaning is Commander, Deputy, Cadets (or Seniors).  The rationale for this format is given earlier in CAPR 10-1:

b. Using CAP office symbols. Office symbols (see attachment 1) are shortcuts
representing the organization structure and functional responsibility. Office symbols may be
used on correspondence, e-mail, forms, etc. Major functions have two-letter symbols, e.g.,
director of operations (DO). Since basic functions report to major functions, basic functions
have three-letter (or more) symbols, e.g., emergency services officer (DOS). A basic function's
office symbol starts with the same letters as the parent function's office symbol, and adds one
more letter, e.g., emergency services training officer (DOST); assistant ES officer (DOSA).

In real life, you address the person as Deputy Commander for Cadets/Seniors, but in correspondence, you use CDC or CDS.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

CDC and CDS are office symbols (see CAPR 10-1 Attachment 1)

If I remember correctly the first C refers to command section so CC = Command Section - Commander

CC is Commander
CD is Deputy Commander (which we have in Senior and Cadet Squadrons)

CDC is Deputy Commander for Cadets which could be abbreviated DCC
CDS is Deputy Commander for Seniors which could be abbreviated DCS (both we have in Composite Squadrons only, instead of a single DC)

For my current assignment my office symbol is IG
I have an assistant, his symbol is IGA
If I had additional staff I could split into areas
IGT - Training
IGI - Investigations
IGQ - Complaints (Why Q instead of C? My best guess is Quality. It's how it's on the NHQ IG site.) 

[coudano]

This isn't a change, it's the way it has always been.

DCC has always been wrong, but it is commonly used because it makes sense

[BHartman007]

CD is Deputy Commander (which we have in Senior and Cadet Squadrons)

CDC is Deputy Commander for Cadets which could be abbreviated DCC
CDS is Deputy Commander for Seniors which could be abbreviated DCS (both we have in Composite Squadrons only, instead of a single DC)

Are you saying a composite shouldn't have all three (CD CDC CDS) or am I misreading?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Are you saying a composite shouldn't have all three (CD CDC CDS) or am I misreading?

Not me, CAPR 20-1 Figures 12, 14, 16 and 17.

[BHartman007]

Interesting. We have all three 

[coudano]

CD is Deputy Commander (which we have in Senior and Cadet Squadrons)

CDC is Deputy Commander for Cadets which could be abbreviated DCC
CDS is Deputy Commander for Seniors which could be abbreviated DCS (both we have in Composite Squadrons only, instead of a single DC)

Are you saying a composite shouldn't have all three (CD CDC CDS) or am I misreading?

Composite squadron should have a CDC and a CDS.

Cadet squadron and senior squadron should have a CD.

[rebowman]

Announcement?   For what?   This is not breaking news.

Check the regs.

[Eclipse]

Announcement?   For what?   This is not breaking news.

Sadly, in some corners, "reading the regs" is remarkable enough to justify a press release...

[Mike W]

Announcement?   For what?   This is not breaking news.

Check the regs.

There is absolutely no need to be rude.  You added  no value to the conversation.
Thank you to those who answered constructively. It is people like you that make me stay in CAP.

[Private Investigator]

CDC and CDS are office symbols (see CAPR 10-1 Attachment 1)

If I remember correctly the first C refers to command section so CC = Command Section - Commander

CC is Commander
CD is Deputy Commander (which we have in Senior and Cadet Squadrons)

CDC is Deputy Commander for Cadets which could be abbreviated DCC
CDS is Deputy Commander for Seniors which could be abbreviated DCS (both we have in Composite Squadrons only, instead of a single DC)

For my current assignment my office symbol is IG
I have an assistant, his symbol is IGA
If I had additional staff I could split into areas
IGT - Training
IGI - Investigations
IGQ - Complaints (Why Q instead of C? My best guess is Quality. It's how it's on the NHQ IG site.)

Correctomundo.

The Comm Officer office symbol is DC. His assistants are:

DCA Admin
DCF Frequency Manager
DCL Licensing
DCO Operations
DCT Training

Along with others, maybe DCC is the person who makes coffee in the Comm Shack? Or the Cadet who sweeps up the Comm Shack after the weekly meeting?

Not to be confused with the DOCI and DOCL in the Operations Directorate.   

[Private Investigator]

Interesting. We have all three 

I know a Squadron has four and an Executive Officer. (don't forget they have a Chief of Staff too)

For the same reason they give an annual award to every Cadet in their Squadron. 

[Eclipse]

There is absolutely no need to be rude.  You added  no value to the conversation.

Having it pointed out that you were misinformed for a prolonged period of time because of not reading the regs isn't "rude".

While this was recently reinforced in 10-1, this has been the proper use of office symbols for at least this century.
The most recent 10-1 is dated Feb 2011, which means the people in your unit who are responsible for being
current on this type of information are at least 2.5 years behind.

Rather then being thin-skinned about reality, perhaps you should take it as a "call to action" and spend some time
at unit meetings brushing up on the program and curriculum.  Even for those who are fully invested and have TMFT
CAP is a moving target and can catch you off guard.  An annual review of the regs pertinent to your duty assignment
is a good idea as at least the LDC.

I know a Squadron has four and an Executive Officer. (don't forget they have a Chief of Staff too)

((*sigh*))

[PHall]

I know a Squadron has four and an Executive Officer. (don't forget they have a Chief of Staff too)

((*sigh*))

Whats with the sigh?  If he's in a particularly big squadron maybe they do need an Excutive Officer and a Chief of Staff.
That's for the Squadron Commander to decide.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I know a Squadron has four and an Executive Officer. (don't forget they have a Chief of Staff too)

((*sigh*))

Whats with the sigh?  If he's in a particularly big squadron maybe they do need an Excutive Officer and a Chief of Staff.
That's for the Squadron Commander to decide.

Organizational Structure. Civil Air Patrol's organizational structure at all levels follows the basic organizational concepts in this regulation. However, there may be situations where wings/units need to realign organizational elements to fit unique mission requirements. In these cases region commanders may approve deviations to improve efficiency.

Like a lot of things in CAP our regulations say when deviations can be made and who can authorize them. In this case it's the region commander's call.

I do put some of the blame on e-Services. It allows some silly duty assignments. (Ex. Chief of Staff at a squadron, Assistant Deputy Commander (Dwight Schrute joins CAP?)) It the past it has not allowed correct assignments (Ex. no Director of Professional Development at the wing level)

I don't know if this is still the case but a while back my squadron commander discovered that he could not grant temporary command functions (designed if the CC is going to out of touch for a medium period of time) to me as CDC. It could be done for CD and CDS. So for a while I was in e-services as CD and CDC of a composite squadron.

I've said before that sometimes it appears the IT people were given a CAP Regulation as there spec for a e-Services section. Anyone with a few years in CAP knows reading our regulations is an acquired skill. 

[lordmonar]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

[Private Investigator]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Exactly. If everyone feels good why not? I mean you have seven (7) Senior Members so I could see how the span of control can be overwhelming.

I know a Squadron that had an IG about twenty years ago before the Regs were changed and/or enforced. That is a cool title for a policeman who does not want to be Supply Officer or Recruiter   

[Mike W]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Please send my regards to Chaplain Polk. I have just returned from spending a week teaching Cadets to fly RC airplanes at Camp Parks, Dublin, and spent a lot of time with him.

[lordmonar]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Please send my regards to Chaplain Polk. I have just returned from spending a week teaching Cadets to fly RC airplanes at Camp Parks, Dublin, and spent a lot of time with him.

Sorry....don't know a Chaplain Polk.

[abdsp51]

There is a Chap Polk at Travis.  Is that whom you are referring to?

[Eclipse]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Because there's a reason these things are as they are.

A unit does not need an XO or a COS. Working or otherwise, and again, if people
actually opened a reg once in a while, they would see that these titles don't exist at the unit level,
which means there is no way for them to be signed as such.

I would hazard that units with these sorts of issues are also having issues in other areas of
fundamental understanding as well.  This kind of thing is what WSOP players refer to as a "tell".

No one decides to make up title out of whole cloth without making up other stuff as well.

[Mike W]

There is a Chap Polk at Travis.  Is that whom you are referring to?

Yes, I got the two muddled up   

[lordmonar]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Because there's a reason these things are as they are.

A unit does not need an XO or a COS. Working or otherwise, and again, if people
actually opened a reg once in a while, they would see that these titles don't exist at the unit level,
which means there is no way for them to be signed as such.

I would hazard that units with these sorts of issues are also having issues in other areas of
fundamental understanding as well.  This kind of thing is what WSOP players refer to as a "tell".

No one decides to make up title out of whole cloth without making up other stuff as well.

You see that's where I think you are wrong.  I don't think a unit needs a "deputy commander for seniors" and a "deputy commander for cadets".

A composite squadron needs a Commander, An XO, An Operations Officers and a Cadet Programs officers.

CC owns everything.  XO owns logistics, PD, Admin, Personnel,  Ops owns ES, ES training, comm, and Cadet programs owns cadet program.

But that's just me.

Like I said...if it works.....it's not stupid.

[Eclipse]

Like I said...if it works.....it's not stupid.

So standardization of terminology, function, and purpose have no place?  Just "do whatever works?"

This is precisely why we have so many problems in CAP, everyone thinks they can just " do whatever they want",
then people who actually follow things like regs and guidelines wander in unexpectedly and find some structure that
isn't a CAP model and titles that don't exist.

There's no point to that, especially when the reality is that it's generally just a bunch of guys in a room who
thankfully showed up blundering through whatever needs to be done.

I know you're all about field expediency, maybe that works in the military, but what I think you forget in a CAP
context is that our people don't have the consistency of training to know what the "norm" "is".  For most of our members,
local unit perception is their total CAP reality, so they don't know they are thinking outside the box,
whatever they are doing, right, wrong, or otherwise, to them that >is< the box.

We need to all do things THE SAME.

[lordmonar]

What ever.....listen if you are going to just say "well the book says....and we got to follow the book.....even if it makes no sense" is just fine and dandy.

Just stop criticizing everyone who does things differently than you.  You want to make all of us pull the company line just like you do in your neck of the woods.....become the National Commander.

But really.   On the one hand you say we can't follow regs....and then on the other hand you say that following regs is the only thing keeping CAP together. 

And finally........I agree we have to SOME things the same....PD, Promotions, Awards and Decs, CP, ES.......but WHY WHY must my squadron look exactly like your squadron?  What value is added or lost if I call the guy who runs my senior programs an XO instead of a Deputy Commander for Seniors?   The world will not end.....nor will I forget to do my monthly reports.....Wing will certainly be able to contact me and be what ever info they need from my XO just like they can from my DCS.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I think that question is best answered with what I have been discussing with my squadron Commander as of late:

"This basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission."  ~CAPR 20-1

Meaning; That unless having your own structure, positions, and methods significantly boost the effectiveness of your squadron, it is not authorized (but beyond that not recommended, as it is just as easy to call yourselves by the appropriate titles). Further more, having extensions and changes are also limited to only a few things, and they aren't commanders positions...

Him becoming the Nat. Cmdr. has nothing to do with it Lordmonar, as this has already been passed by our current Nat. Cmdr. and there are still groups who say, "That's not fair/ I don't want to/ You can't make me/ why does it matter.... Etc. etc.  The value lost (my opinion) is that we signed up to be part of CAP, but there seem to be a lot of groups that think they can do it better, and thus don't want to be part of CAP, they want to be on their own program. They ask/tell us to play in a box because it's a standardized, efficient model. Not staying in the box is contrary to good order and discipline, no matter whether it works better or not.

[lordmonar]

I think it is a stretch to say "hey we need a Chief Of Staff" is people trying to have their own program.

In my own squadron we use the standard designations.....because they work....but that's the point.  What works here....may not work elsewhere....and do we really need to go to region to beg permission to have a slightly different organization?  Really?

That is just asinine.

[Eclipse]

And what does a CS or XO at the unit level "do"?

Where is their status recorded?  How are rights assigned (hint: has to be manually via other duty assignments).

Where is their tenure as a CS or XO recorded for their own F24's or OE track later (hint: nowhere, it didn't happen).

What is the command succession in the event the CC is indisposed?  (hint: there isn't one).

There are plenty of places that being creative is encouraged.  Organizational structure isn't one of them, as indicted
by 20-1's specific prohibition - (expanding a role is not the same as creating one from whole cloth).

As to needing approval - that's how the universe works.  Units do not exist in a vacuum, and just because you
think it's a good idea to rebuild it in your own image, doesn't mean anyone else does.  Your average corporation,
or even military unit isn't going to allow a new manager to simply change the structure "because".   Dwight Schrute
died a thousand deaths on that sword as "assistant to the Regional Manager", which is basically what an XO or COS
would be at the unit level in CAP.

"Forcing", for lack of a more appropriate term, units to adhere to the public structure also "forces" other
situations and structure downstream.  It also relieves the burning of calories in areas they need not be burned.

The program, as it exists on the page, pretty much "works", and in all but a few cases, mucking with the structure
is an affectation of "I know better".

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I think it is a stretch to say "hey we need a Chief Of Staff" is people trying to have their own program.

And my thought on that is that it is trying to have your own program, because, frankly, you don't. You don't need a Chief of staff, you have two Dep. Cmdrs. that handle specific taskings, but somebody wants a super-kewl title. Just as my squadron doesn't need two Dep. Cmdrs and two Vice Cmdrs, you don't NEED a Chief of Staff... You WANT one.

And actually, yes, you need the Region Cmdrs permission because It's his bloody region, not yours and because the organization is CAP, not yours.  That way when the Region Cmdr gets lit up for having units out of spec, at least he signed off on it rather than being completely ignorant. I don't think I need to tell a MSgt how the Chain of Command works...

It's not asinine, it's logical.

[JeffDG]

What value is added or lost if I call the guy who runs my senior programs an XO instead of a Deputy Commander for Seniors?   

Well, for me, it will impact communication from Group and Wing.

We have automatically updated mailing lists for certain duty positions, including deputy commanders.  So, if I as a wing staff member, want to reach out to all commanders and deputy commanders, your XO won't get the message.

Alternatively, you need to develop systems to take into account all the customization, all so one squadron can change a well-defined title.

[lordmonar]

I think it is a stretch to say "hey we need a Chief Of Staff" is people trying to have their own program.

And my thought on that is that it is trying to have your own program, because, frankly, you don't. You don't need a Chief of staff, you have two Dep. Cmdrs. that handle specific taskings, but somebody wants a super-kewl title. Just as my squadron doesn't need two Dep. Cmdrs and two Vice Cmdrs, you don't NEED a Chief of Staff... You WANT one.

And actually, yes, you need the Region Cmdrs permission because It's his bloody region, not yours and because the organization is CAP, not yours.  That way when the Region Cmdr gets lit up for having units out of spec, at least he signed off on it rather than being completely ignorant. I don't think I need to tell a MSgt how the Chain of Command works...

It's not asinine, it's logical.

See....now you are projecting your assumptions on to me that just don't exist.

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

I am not saying anyone should just do what they want....never said that...never would.....because it is in the regulations to get permission.
I am saying that it is asinine that it IS IN THE REGULATION.

Squadron Organization should be up to the local commander....and of course coordinated through his chain of command.   If as JeffDG said non-standard organization disrupts timely communication....then you should not do it.  But that is a function of the group and wing staffs....not the region commander.

My point is while 20-1 is okay......it is not necessarily the end all beat all of the "best" way to do it.  We teach situational leadership.   Organizing your squadron should be based on your organizational needs.  Not what I think you need, not what someone in another wing thinks what your needs are ....but what you think your needs are based on how your wing/group is organized and how your squadron functions.

This is not about having a cool title.....and I resent that you suggest that is all I am concerned with.

This is not about changing the CAP program.  I am not talking about changing anything with promotions, PD, CP, AE, Operations.

This is about exploring the different ways a squadron organizes it self where it is logical and uses their resources in the most efficient way.

So beyond JeffDG's good point about disrupting automated communications.

Why can't (beyond 20-1) a Composite Squadron be organized with an XO or COS?

You got the CC who directly is over his Operations Officer,  his Cadet Programs Officer, and his XO(or COS).
The COS owns the staff.....admin, finance, personnel, logistics,
The Ops Officer owns the ES function...planning, training, comms, etc.
The CPO owns the CP functions...testing, leadership,  AE.

What is not logical about that?

[Private Investigator]

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

Exactly. When I was an IG and I visited Squadrons that had their own way of doing things. As long as they are not stealing or misusing CAP property, Wing Commanders and Region Commanders do not care what titles Bubba has. 

[The Infamous Meerkat]

What you're saying works Lordmonar, I'm sure it operates just fine. The only issue I, personally, take with it is that it's not a recognized format at any squadron but yours, and thus goes against good order. Standardization is something I appreciate in this case.
It does change operations, all the paper moves differently under your's than anyone elses, so, as in ICS, no one can just waltz in and know how to help you. You've set your group apart from the whole by instituting it...

Military units use XO's and CoS's, they work just fine. But, we have an instituted way in our organization that works fine, and it sounds to me like you're trying to re-invent the wheel. I don't see the necessity of change in your case, because your unit doesn't have any special circumstances that require this change, you guys just believe it works better. It leaves myself (and a few others) scratching my head.

[lordmonar]

Again......we use the standard organization at my unit.
And again......Which one of you have visited my unit and seen what/how we do thing and what our needs are?

"I don't see the necessity of change in your case, because your unit doesn't have any special circumstances that require this change, you guys just believe it works better"

And that's my angsts with the reactions here on the this thread to the simple suggestion that a unit do something different.

If unit X wants to have an XO instead of a CDS........or a COS instead of a CDS......the reactions were everything from "You don't need to be special" to "You are just trying to have a cool title".

The only real objections I have gotten are "20-1 requires Regional CC permission" (which IMHO is just stupid) and "non-standard organization my make communications to staff officers difficult".

As for your suggestion that it may make it hard for outsiders to "waltz in and know how to help" I would buy if in fact we had people ready to in fact waltz in and help.....they certainly don't come in and help when we beg them. 

[Eclipse]

As for your suggestion that it may make it hard for outsiders to "waltz in and know how to help"

Frankly, that's an argument in favor of doing your own thing, at least in CAP.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

Exactly. When I was an IG and I visited Squadrons that had their own way of doing things. As long as they are not stealing or misusing CAP property, Wing Commanders and Region Commanders do not care what titles Bubba has. 

The current Subordinate Unit Inspection (SUI) Guide has specific questions on the staffing of the cadet programs side including is a CDC appointed in writing / e-services. If that's not there, in my opinion, that is minimum an area of concern write up for the SUI.

[lordmonar]

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

Exactly. When I was an IG and I visited Squadrons that had their own way of doing things. As long as they are not stealing or misusing CAP property, Wing Commanders and Region Commanders do not care what titles Bubba has. 

The current Subordinate Unit Inspection (SUI) Guide has specific questions on the staffing of the cadet programs side including is a CDC appointed in writing / e-services. If that's not there, in my opinion, that is minimum an area of concern write up for the SUI.

Is the CDC appointed in writing.

Yes.  The Cadet Program Officer is appointed in writing via E-services. 

This alludes to my point about being asinine.   The SUI should be more focused on the fact that we have a competent individual doing the program not that he is a) appointed in writing and b) that his title on the org-chart is "deputy commander for cadets".

Do you see my point here?

Your concern from and inspection point is not about "are you all doing the Cadet Program right" but "Do you have all your I's dotted and T's Crossed and does it look nice and neat".

I am not saying that attention to detail to the I's and T's is not important.  I am not saying that we should not be doing the jobs we need to be doing.  But what we call the guy who oversees the squadron's cadet program/squadron staff/emergency services operations/et al is less important than having someone overseeing the squadron's programs and doing it "right".

[Eclipse]

This alludes to my point about being asinine.   The SUI should be more focused on the fact that we have a competent individual doing the program not that he is a) appointed in writing and b) that his title on the org-chart is "deputy commander for cadets".

No argument there, but as someone who is in the military, you know these inspections are almost always around the objective
staff appointments, reports and other administraitvia, and rarely about the subjective of actually doing the job.

The entirety of both the SUI and CI falls into this category.   Having read reports from all over the country, not to mention my own and my wing's,
it's utterly disappointing how much credit people who do nothing, and have zero program get for filing a report that says "no activity", since the report
and not the activity, is the question.

[lordmonar]

This alludes to my point about being asinine.   The SUI should be more focused on the fact that we have a competent individual doing the program not that he is a) appointed in writing and b) that his title on the org-chart is "deputy commander for cadets".

No argument there, but as someone who is in the military, you know these inspections are almost always around the objective
staff appointments, reports and other administraitvia, and rarely about the subjective of actually doing the job.

The entirety of both the SUI and CI falls into this category.   Having read reports from all over the country, not to mention my own and my wing's,
it's utterly disappointing how much credit people who do nothing, and have zero program get for filing a report that says "no activity", since the report
and not the activity, is the question.

Yes......even in the big military we have a lot of asinine stuff we have to wade through.......but the bloody Number Air Force Commander did not have to sign off on a squadron commander's decision to move his Satcom Maintenance Office out of the Radio Branch and into the Networks Branch (SCD to SCE).  Nor did he have to get permission if he wanted to change the job title of one of his officers.

That the asinine part.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

In the same guide there is a requirement for an assigned Communications Officer. Would this discussion be different someone said we like Wireless Officer better?

In the same guide there is a requirement for an assigned Supply Officer. Would this discussion be different someone said we like Quartermaster better?

I suspect the Coast Guard Aux and the BSA don't have this issue.

[jimmydeanno]

The SUI guide does go on to ask if the assigned person does have a rating in said specialty. 

But I think the title could be argued both ways.

A unit needs to have someone who supervises the senior program & staff.  20-1 says that person in the CDS. 

Another unit has the same need for the stuff to get done but calls the person a "Chief of Staff."  Why doesn't squadron #2 just call their Chief of Staff the CDS and call it a day?

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

[Luis R. Ramos]

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

Because it causes confusion. It is far easier for me to refer in communications and type official correspondence if we use one and only one abbreviation for a position. It is much easier to train someone that may use or refer to that function in what amounts to be a part - time occupation. I have a Master rating in Admin and about ten years as Admin Officer. I would not be able, with all this experience, to remember "Ohh, I am writing non-official correspondence, so I'd better use DCC..." or "Ohh, I am writing official correspondence, now I have to switch to CDC."

Flyer

[UH60guy]

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

On that front, the problem is the military has too many acronyms as it is, many of which trickle down to CAP. When you use non-standard or unexpected ones it just gets even more confusing. At least this way there's a common reference for what they all mean, and I don't have to ask the author or speaker every time one is used.

[Eclipse]

In the same guide there is a requirement for an assigned Communications Officer. Would this discussion be different someone said we like Wireless Officer better?

In the same guide there is a requirement for an assigned Supply Officer. Would this discussion be different someone said we like Quartermaster better?

The 30's called, they want their terminology back...

In your example, the function is not changed, nor are their systemic issues, not the case in the XO vs CD question.  Different roles.

[Eclipse]

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

Because that abbreviation is in use elsewhere.

Plus, it's just a matter of what is proper - if yo don't know better, so be it.  Once you do, to insist on using incorrect terminology is either childish or lazy.

[lordmonar]

The SUI guide does go on to ask if the assigned person does have a rating in said specialty. 

But I think the title could be argued both ways.

A unit needs to have someone who supervises the senior program & staff.  20-1 says that person in the CDS. 

Another unit has the same need for the stuff to get done but calls the person a "Chief of Staff."  Why doesn't squadron #2 just call their Chief of Staff the CDS and call it a day?

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

The abbreviations for Deputy Commander for Cadets.....is DCC.......his OFFICE SYMBOL is CDC.

Again.....about the job titles.......If Squadron #1 has a Deputy Commander For Cadets....and Squadron #2 has a Cadet Programs Officer......you ask, why does not Squadron #2 just call him the Deputy Commander for Cadets......I humbly ask....why CAN"T he call him His Lord High Pubah....and Why must a squadron commander ask the Regional Commander for permission to do it? 

But I also am pointing out 20-1......is not just about duty titles....but also about organization.

Even if we keep the titles.......what happens when Squadron #2 wants to put his Admin officer under his Deputy Commander for Seniors?  Or his Character Development Officers under his Deputy Commander of Cadets instead of under the Chaplain? 

You have to ask the Region Commander for that?  Really?  And we are in danger of being a rogue unit out doing their own program and causing the end of the world?  Really?

Another question.   Some wings have groups and some don't.......it seems that 20-1 leave that up to the wing commander.
So a wing commander can create or disband on his own authority several units and greatly change the organization of his wing with out seeking permission from anyone.

But a squadron commander can't use a different organizational structure for his squadron with out Regional Commander Authority.
ASININE!

And let's look at the org chart.

The Commander of a Composite Squadron has direct Supervision over no less six offices/officers (assuming that some offices may be filled by the same officer.
But could have direct supervision over those six and up to Seven Special Services Officers.
Now.....standard rule of thumb says that that is too large of a span of control.

But we can't deviate.  We can't move some of those offices around on the org chart and we can't create new positions.
So we just regulated us into an asinine position.

Do you see my point here?
We should rule the org chart.....not the other way around.  The Regs by all means should be telling us "You will have an XYZ officer" but how the squadron commander organizes this should be up to the commander.  And the commander should be able to create new job titles and duty positions to fit their needs.....such as moving the Special Services Officers and the Admin Officer under a Chief of Staff/Executive Officer.

Again looking at a composite Squadron vs a Senior Squadron......in the absences of the Commander it is clear that in a Senior Squadron that the Deputy commander is in charge....the lines show this direct relationship.  Who is in charge of a Composite Squadron when the commander is gone?

At least six people are next on the list and maybe upwards to 13 people.

As I said before Asinine

[Eclipse]

You're confusing deviation with making up titles and roles from whole cloth.

The role and title of XO and CS does not exist below Wing, therefore can't use them.

Reorganization of the structure, within a small margin, is allowed for by 20-1, that's quoted above,
and further, beyond those appointments specific by reg, not all roles and staff are required - CDs
are one of them.  Nothing says a small unit can't simply have appointed staff officers and forgo
CD.  However, a prudent Group or Wing CC would not allow that because it does not allow
for smooth transition in the absence of the commander.  CDs do, staff officers, XOs and CS' don't.

You just can't make things up.

[Private Investigator]

Do you see my point here?

Your concern from and inspection point is not about "are you all doing the Cadet Program right" but "Do you have all your I's dotted and T's Crossed and does it look nice and neat".

I am not saying that attention to detail to the I's and T's is not important.  I am not saying that we should not be doing the jobs we need to be doing.  But what we call the guy who oversees the squadron's cadet program/squadron staff/emergency services operations/et al is less important than having someone overseeing the squadron's programs and doing it "right".

Usually if a Unit can not dot the "i" and cross the "t". They are likely not doing anything correctly.

Before we had eservices and everything was paper. I inspected a Squadron and I already had a tip they did not bother doing safety briefs. So I was looking at the "documentation" and since they meet on Mondays I found it interesting that year the 4th of July was on a Monday. According to the paperwork they had a Squadron meeting and a safety brief with 100% attendance on Monday, July 4. While they had 'pencil whipped' all their safety paperwork in a careless manner, I found numerous errors. Alleged meetings on Thursdays and Sundays and a February 29 that did not exist that year.

I think some people know the motto of the Forrest Gump Composite Squadron, especially since they failed and was grounded.   

[Brad]

In the same guide there is a requirement for an assigned Communications Officer. Would this discussion be different someone said we like Wireless Officer better?

In the same guide there is a requirement for an assigned Supply Officer. Would this discussion be different someone said we like Quartermaster better?

I suspect the Coast Guard Aux and the BSA don't have this issue.

Have you ever looked at Coast Guard Aux office symbols?  They're somewhat intuitive once you understand them, but it takes a bit, especially the fact they have number designators and letter designators. Example: CG-BSX-1, which is the Auxiliary Division of the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety, CG-BSX, can also be referred to as CG-5421, the Auxiliary Division of the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety, CG-542.

Then there's distribution lists which is a whole nother ball of wax.

DISTRIBUTION – SDL No. 139

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	m	n	o	p	q	r	s	t	u	v	w	x	y	z
A	3	3	3		3	3	2	2	1	1		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1		1

Does that all the way down to row H.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

It's not logical. A DCC would be in communications. Anyone who has a first-letter C in a functional address symbol is in a command section. It's why a chaplain is an HC and not a CH. But if we followed the "why can't it be DCC," then here are some conundrums for you:

CO: Communications Officer. Confused easily with "commanding officer," an Army term.
CH: Chaplain. Like the radio guy, not part of the command section.
SO: Supply Officer. Could be Safety Officer, too. Don't LGS and SE make more sense?
LO: Legal Officer. Not to be confused with liaison officers.
FO: Finance Officer. Uh, sure. Flight Officer, or an endearing gesture that ensures motivated teamwork and esprit de corps.
And here's one you see flying around Florida Wing — DCSS, which is supposed to be "deputy chief of staff for support." It's actually supposed to be CSDS — Chief of Staff, Deputy, Support. Florida has three, they oversee different areas, and I just randomly picked one. A DCSS could be a communications directorate function that's seriously broken down into bits.

Since a squadron commander is the "old man," why can't a deputy commander for cadets just be called the "big kid" or (with apologies to Dustin Hoffman) the "little big man"?

[Private Investigator]

Also, why can't someone use the abbreviation of DCC for Deputy Commander for Cadets?  Just because the office symbol is CDC doesn't mean it can't be abbreviated DCC...

It's not logical. A DCC would be in communications. Anyone who has a first-letter C in a functional address symbol is in a command section. It's why a chaplain is an HC and not a CH. But if we followed the "why can't it be DCC," then here are some conundrums for you:

CO: Communications Officer. Confused easily with "commanding officer," an Army term.
CH: Chaplain. Like the radio guy, not part of the command section.
SO: Supply Officer. Could be Safety Officer, too. Don't LGS and SE make more sense?
LO: Legal Officer. Not to be confused with liaison officers.
FO: Finance Officer. Uh, sure. Flight Officer, or an endearing gesture that ensures motivated teamwork and esprit de corps.
And here's one you see flying around Florida Wing — DCSS, which is supposed to be "deputy chief of staff for support." It's actually supposed to be CSDS — Chief of Staff, Deputy, Support. Florida has three, they oversee different areas, and I just randomly picked one. A DCSS could be a communications directorate function that's seriously broken down into bits.

Since a squadron commander is the "old man," why can't a deputy commander for cadets just be called the "big kid" or (with apologies to Dustin Hoffman) the "little big man"?

I concur.

And that last line is so funny too   :clap: