CAP Talk

I was at the squadron meeting yesterday when one of our most active and involved members announced to the Squadron Commander that he will be leaving CAP as of 1 Oct 2014. The whole room fell silent and you could hear that no one was breathing, nor were any pins dropping. When the initial shock wore off the Squadron Commander asked the question we all had: "Why?"

His answer was that he was told of the new NCO rank structure and program and refuses to wear [uncomplimentary comments edited out]. He later, very calmly, informed me and others that he was not going to wear those things, and that he thinks there are maybe 80 NCOs in CAP altogether and questioned why they wanted them all to leave? He wondered why CAP does not value his service to the organization. I asked him if he would consider switching to the officer ranks so that he would remain? and he said that as he understood things, he would still have to resign and reapply to become a SMWOG and was not going to do so.

If this happens, CAP will lose one of the people who make the organization really run. Who have great commitment to the program, it's missions, and it's cadets and we will all be much poorer for it.

If he is basing his decision on the yet unreleased NCO program, rumors regarding said program, and how the insignia looks, is he really worth keeping?

Well.... thats pretty sad.  He's leaving over a patch that he doesn't even have to wear?? My first thought is you have a  member who has been looking for a way to leave, and this offered him the chance to make it someone else's fault.

^ I concur  8)

His information is "flawed" at best.

So, he reason for leaving was just because he didn't like the design for the NCO stripes?

It's not like they're maroon or something...

He's making a rash decision based on a program that hasn't been released and/or implemented yet. Why not just wait to see what happens before jumping the gun on this?

Resign and reapply?

Straw. Camel. The angst to endure until resolution?

Maybe his aggravation threhsold has been reached?  We've lost good people, not over any one thing (usually) - just the prepoderance.  Hey, different people, diffrent personalities, have varying tolerances for varying aggravators.   Some CAP nonsense screws me into the ceiling; other guys just shrug it off. 

He did give notice, which is cool. Most folks just disappear, or run screaming into the night. . .

Since the new NCO program hasn't even been implemented, neither does anyone know when it will be, the SM in question is jumping to conclusions. He doesn't have to resign and then rejoin to become an Officer, just submit the paperwork to get him the 2LT or whatever grade he is eligible for.

Maybe the thing will drag on through the next National Commander change and get ditched afterwards.
As for using that as catapult to quit. Whatever lands your plane. Don't forget to close your flight plan.

Being an NCO is not just a rank you wear, it's a collection of special education, specific responsibilities, and a wealth of experience.  If he's leaving based on something as silly as rank, them wish him good luk an thank him for his contributions, but the program doesn't have a place for that attitude.

He can contribute the exact same things as a CAP officer as he can am NCO.  Whether a CAP 2d Lt or full bird colonel, he'd be the exact same person an get paid the exact same salary.

Quote from: Stonewall on March 12, 2014, 09:45:18 PM
Being an NCO is not just a rank you wear, it's a collection of special education, specific responsibilities, and a wealth of experience.  If he's leaving based on something as silly as rank, them wish him good luk an thank him for his contributions, but the program doesn't have a place for that attitude.

He can contribute the exact same things as a CAP officer as he can am NCO.  Whether a CAP 2d Lt or full bird colonel, he'd be the exact same person an get paid the exact same salary.

What!!!!!  You guys are getting paid!  WTF is my check!

Anyone that makes any decisions based on a draft plan that is still subject to all sorts of changes is pretty dumb. 

Now, I've said before that uniform changes can signal to a member that the AF wants to distance itself from us so I have some sympathy for what you say he said about the NCO insignia.  After all, CAP officers don't have little "CAP" devices stuck on them (like the CG Aux has an "A" on theirs), so why should the NCO insignia be different? 

If tomorrow they told me they were doing away with officer ranks and everyone had to start over from scratch as airmen, I'd continue mission as if nothing changed.

I am who I am, regardless of military or CAP rank.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 12, 2014, 09:52:00 PM
Anyone that makes any decisions based on a draft plan that is still subject to all sorts of changes is pretty dumb. 

Now, I've said before that uniform changes can signal to a member that the AF wants to distance itself from us so I have some sympathy for what you say he said about the NCO insignia.  After all, CAP officers don't have little "CAP" devices stuck on them (like the CG Aux has an "A" on theirs), so why should the NCO insignia be different?

Have you seen the grade slides? Field coats?

Besides, wasn't the NCO draft program developed and sign off by NCOs?

Quote from: RiverAux on March 12, 2014, 09:52:00 PM
Anyone that makes any decisions based on a draft plan that is still subject to all sorts of changes is pretty dumb. 

Now, I've said before that uniform changes can signal to a member that the AF wants to distance itself from us so I have some sympathy for what you say he said about the NCO insignia.  After all, CAP officers don't have little "CAP" devices stuck on them (like the CG Aux has an "A" on theirs), so why should the NCO insignia be different?

Actually, CAP officers have CAP embroidered on their epaulets, as was mentioned already. Current CAP NCOs also have CAP insignias on their collar (metals cutouts on blues and embroidered on BDUs). I suspect the placement of CAP on the chevron insignia came about to remove the CAP collar insignias, which would put our NCO uniforms more in line with the Air Force's.

What exactly offends him so much?  Is it the new NCO program itself?  We don't know anything about it yet.  Has he seen it already?  Is it the proposed NCO grade insignia ("CAP" letters & three bladed prop)?  If he quits over a grade insignia, that sends a poor message to the cadets.  Yet you say he is committed to the cadet program!!??

This was a move at garnering attention.  He probably got the response that he wanted.  If wants to stay in CAP, then he will stay in for all the right reasons.  I suspect he wants to quit for whatever reason, and was looking for an "out" and he chose this.  The other response that he may be looking for is to have everyone beg him stay.

I think announcing his intentions in this manner displayed poor etiquette and was disrespectful to the commander.  He should have discussed it privately beforehand.  I suspect he is probably in the minority with his thoughts on the new NCO program and grade insignia.  He wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

It's called a flounce. It's very popular on FB groups.

Quote from: pierson777 on March 12, 2014, 11:29:34 PMHe wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

Define "mass".  There are roughly 80 NCOs in CAP and roughly 34,000 senior members in CAP.  That's what, 0.2%?

Maybe he really doesn't like the insignia, or the proposed NCO program. As in, truly hates it. A lot of conclusions get drawn here on scant evidence. Deductive reasoning bias, maybe.

Maybe it's enough that the idea is even being floated, along with that mickey mouse insignia, that put him over the "leave town" threshold. "Get me out of this chicken outfit" kind of thing.

Might be a flounce. . .might not. Shake his hand, thank him for his service, wish him luck. Not like he's renouncing his citizenship or doing number two n the wing king's desk.

Quote from: Stonewall on March 12, 2014, 11:52:31 PM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 12, 2014, 11:29:34 PMHe wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

Define "mass".  There are roughly 80 NCOs in CAP and roughly 34,000 senior members in CAP.  That's what, 0.2%?

Anybody know how many are safety current, like a monthly average? Half? More than half? Less?

Quote from: SunDog on March 12, 2014, 11:53:41 PM
Maybe he really doesn't like the insignia, or the proposed NCO program. As in, truly hates it. A lot of conclusions get drawn here on scant evidence. Deductive reasoning bias, maybe.

Maybe it's enough that the idea is even being floated, along with that mickey mouse insignia, that put him over the "leave town" threshold. "Get me out of this chicken outfit" kind of thing.

Might be a flounce. . .might not. Shake his hand, thank him for his service, wish him luck. Not like he's renouncing his citizenship or doing number two n the wing king's desk.

Please...the guy assumed he'd have to "Resign and start over as a SMWOG" if he was to become an officer.

Quote from: Stonewall on March 12, 2014, 11:52:31 PM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 12, 2014, 11:29:34 PMHe wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

Define "mass".  There are roughly 80 NCOs in CAP and roughly 34,000 senior members in CAP.  That's what, 0.2%?

What I said was "mass exodus of CAP NCOs," not mass exodus of senior members.  In this context I would describe the word "mass" as a majority of, which would be more than half.  I have no idea how many CAP NCOs there are.  If there are indeed roughly 80 NCOs in CAP, then roughly 40 would constitute a mass exodus or a majority of.  While that would only be 0.2% of senior members, it would be 50% of CAP NCOs.

Sounds like the NCO program was an excuse.  However, not knowing the person nor any details of how active he was, this is just a guess.  I am curious if he did not like the fact that now non-military can become CAP NCOs?

Quote from: LSThiker on March 13, 2014, 02:41:34 AM
I am curious if he did not like the fact that now non-military can become CAP NCOs?

What are you talking about?  Perhaps I missed a publication or draft or something.  I haven't seen anything regarding the future CAP NCO program.  I've not heard or seen anything about NCO grade for non-military.  Is this just speculation.  Please cite what you are referring to so that I may learn more on this topic.  Thank you.

check one of the other NCO threads.  There were official things discussing making non-prior service eligible for NCO status in the future. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 12, 2014, 09:52:00 PM
After all, CAP officers don't have little "CAP" devices stuck on them (like the CG Aux has an "A" on theirs), so why should the NCO insignia be different?

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/000000CAP0747K_MED.jpg)

Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 13, 2014, 02:22:11 AM
Please...the guy assumed he'd have to "Resign and start over as a SMWOG" if he was to become an officer.

I was zeroing in on the "Not gonna wear that *#%^*#}"

Sounds like he brings a lot - maybe he'll buy in to the officer thing, and they'll shove the paper around to keep him.

Just how bad looking are these new patch insignia?

Quote from: PaulR on March 13, 2014, 03:46:22 AM
Just how bad looking are these new patch insignia?

Bad.  :o

Quote from: PHall on March 13, 2014, 04:12:05 AM

Quote from: PaulR on March 13, 2014, 03:46:22 AM
Just how bad looking are these new patch insignia?

Bad.  :o

There have been some better designs put forth by various sources, but I think we all know that since this is probably the design that Ma Blue wants, this is the design that we'll get.

(http://www.capvolunteernow.com/file.cfm/media/news/large_NHQncochevrons_copy_copy_AAC2F8ED191F7.jpg)

Quote from: Stonewall on March 12, 2014, 09:57:17 PM
If tomorrow they told me they were doing away with officer ranks and everyone had to start over from scratch as airmen, I'd continue mission as if nothing changed.

I am who I am, regardless of military or CAP rank.

What!  You mean you don't spend all your hard earn time and money so you can wear a spiffy suit and sport some cool rank?   

Quote from: pierson777 on March 12, 2014, 11:29:34 PM
What exactly offends him so much?  Is it the new NCO program itself?  We don't know anything about it yet.  Has he seen it already?  Is it the proposed NCO grade insignia ("CAP" letters & three bladed prop)?  If he quits over a grade insignia, that sends a poor message to the cadets.  Yet you say he is committed to the cadet program!!??

This was a move at garnering attention.  He probably got the response that he wanted.  If wants to stay in CAP, then he will stay in for all the right reasons.  I suspect he wants to quit for whatever reason, and was looking for an "out" and he chose this.  The other response that he may be looking for is to have everyone beg him stay.

I think announcing his intentions in this manner displayed poor etiquette and was disrespectful to the commander.  He should have discussed it privately beforehand.  I suspect he is probably in the minority with his thoughts on the new NCO program and grade insignia.  He wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

I'm one of the 80+.......he can go.

Thanks for playing.

a)  Ain't nothing set in stone yet as far as i know.
b)  Any NCO who makes this sort of decision based on this level of information...is probably a liablity in the long run anyway.
c)  I'm not in it for the uniform.
d)  It's just CAP.

Quote from: pierson777 on March 13, 2014, 02:32:46 AM

Quote from: Stonewall on March 12, 2014, 11:52:31 PM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 12, 2014, 11:29:34 PMHe wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

Define "mass".  There are roughly 80 NCOs in CAP and roughly 34,000 senior members in CAP.  That's what, 0.2%?

What I said was "mass exodus of CAP NCOs," not mass exodus of senior members.  In this context I would describe the word "mass" as a majority of, which would be more than half.  I have no idea how many CAP NCOs there are.  If there are indeed roughly 80 NCOs in CAP, then roughly 40 would constitute a mass exodus or a majority of.  While that would only be 0.2% of senior members, it would be 50% of CAP NCOs.

I don't think that 40 people spread out over 51 wings could be considered a "mass" anything.   

Quote from: lordmonar on March 13, 2014, 04:28:41 AM
I'm one of the 80+.......he can go.

Thanks for playing.

a)  Ain't nothing set in stone yet as far as i know.
b)  Any NCO who makes this sort of decision based on this level of information...is probably a liablity in the long run anyway.
c)  I'm not in it for the uniform.
d)  It's just CAP.

Well, he could always transfer to officer status and troll for salutes at the PX with the rest of us.

(Disclaimer for the humor impaired or impressionable airmen: this is a joke.)

So, what is wrong with some metal added to add the difference, and allow those who are NCO's to utilize the same uniform, rather than now having to get something separate sewn on.. and something else that the Big V can make with apathy towards craftsmanship.

The biggest issue I have with them is the ones with no stripes on the top look -hideous- with that blue field on top. The ones being 'tested' by CMSgt Walpus with just the CAP in the middle at least looked the same outline wise.

Quote from: pierson777 on March 13, 2014, 03:19:50 AM

Quote from: LSThiker on March 13, 2014, 02:41:34 AM
I am curious if he did not like the fact that now non-military can become CAP NCOs?

What are you talking about?  Perhaps I missed a publication or draft or something.  I haven't seen anything regarding the future CAP NCO program.  I've not heard or seen anything about NCO grade for non-military.  Is this just speculation.  Please cite what you are referring to so that I may learn more on this topic.  Thank you.

I've seen the MOU signed by the USAF.   The long term goals is to in fact open the NCO ranks to non-prior service members.
As far as I know.....it is just that......a long term goal.  No training plan, no PD system, just a strategic plan of where they want to take the NCO program.

I can't find my copy of it right now....I'll find it and share when I get a chance.

By tomorrow this will be a 26 page uniform discussion!  :)

Quote from: lordmonar on March 13, 2014, 04:30:52 AM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 13, 2014, 02:32:46 AM

Quote from: Stonewall on March 12, 2014, 11:52:31 PM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 12, 2014, 11:29:34 PMHe wanted to convince everyone that there would be a mass exodus of CAP NCOs.  I doubt it.  Are there any CAP NCOs here on CAPtalk that can chime in with their thoughts?

Define "mass".  There are roughly 80 NCOs in CAP and roughly 34,000 senior members in CAP.  That's what, 0.2%?

What I said was "mass exodus of CAP NCOs," not mass exodus of senior members.  In this context I would describe the word "mass" as a majority of, which would be more than half.  I have no idea how many CAP NCOs there are.  If there are indeed roughly 80 NCOs in CAP, then roughly 40 would constitute a mass exodus or a majority of.  While that would only be 0.2% of senior members, it would be 50% of CAP NCOs.

I don't think that 40 people spread out over 51 wings could be considered a "mass" anything.

I agree that 40, or even as many as 80 NCOs for that matter, spread out over 51 wings would not constitute much of a "mass".  But MacGruff said that the soon-to-quit NCO said he "thinks there are maybe 80 NCOs in CAP altogether and questioned why they wanted them all to leave."  Those are his words according to MacGruff, not mine.  The use of the term "mass exodus" is merely a rhetorical metaphor.  My point here is, please don't get hung up on a metaphor, rather focus on the topic at hand...an NCO doesn't like the future of the CAP NCO program and wants to quit.  Is that a real problem or an isolated incidenT?

As far as the new grade insignia, I like them.  I just hope that when they are worn on the service coat, that the CAP cutouts on the lapel can be replaced with the encircled US insignia, mirroring how the USAF NCO wear their uniform.

Pierson.....I understand what you are saying.

On facebook their is CAP NCO page....kind of full of people with zero information making a lot of noise about what they do not know.

This NCO is making a lot of noise about quitting over a program that he can't know anything about (unless he is actually on the NCO working group).

So.....I think SARDRAGON called.   A flounce.   worth what every you thing it should be.

BTW found it.

I think we've seen that here before, haven't we?

I seem to recall noticing that they have a an apparent misunderstanding of the organizational structure of CAP squadrons and use terms for CAP positions that don't actually exist as such. 

I thought about becoming a CAP NCO once, but then again... I got out as an E5.  It would have been cool at 23.... at 40, I don't want to be an E5 :o  Besides, the pay cut from Captain was more than I could handle. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 13, 2014, 05:28:53 AM
On facebook their is CAP NCO page...

You could have stopped there.

Im already missing my children's formative years by spending way to much time on the internet.  I don't need to know about a CAP NCO FB page thank you very much.

On Facebook there is a CAP NCO page...

QuoteOn Facebook there is a CAP NCO page...

Dear Lord...... :-[

So, as a brand new CAP member (me), the whole business of having this NCO rank system seems pointless. I get why they have it: to throw a bone in the direction of any former enlisted serviceman in the name of potential recruitment/enticement into CAP. Honestly though, that's about as much sense as I can make of it.

In the Cadet program/Senior Member program, rank means: "hey, you've accomplished something equal to everyone else around you who also holds your same rank."

But NCO's can't "advance" rank-wise in CAP, correct?

So here's why I don't agree with the whole NCO thing in CAP. Flame me if you disagree, but these are just my humble thoughts.

Please, Please don't read into this any further than a surface level, but when you join a new organization, you should more or less start over. The fact that you were an admiral in the Navy allows you to bring almost no inherent extra benefit to CAP missions than you would if you had never served in the military. Former LT's in the army don't automatically become eliglible for "LT" if they join a police or fire dept after military service.

Look at Rank like this: Rank only means something in your respective organization. You stop being a SGT the moment you leave the army. Sure, your WERE a SGT, but now you are in the civilian world where you are literally nothing more than a civilian. You go get a job at any company, and no one calls you "SGT," because guess what, you're not one anymore. Get Over it. You start over at zero in the civilian world. The mere fact that you acheived E5 verses E2 in the military means virtually nothing to the 99% of Americans who never served in the military. We all are in great respect and gratitude for your service, but almost none of us actually care or even understand what you making it to E5 really meant. Please, Please don't read into this any further than a surface level.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 05:16:13 PMBut NCO's can't "advance" rank-wise in CAP, correct?

As it stands today, you are correct, however the proposed new program would allow for both military NCOs and non-military CAP NCOs to advance in rank grade based only
on CAP professional development and TIG.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 05:16:13 PM

QuoteOn Facebook there is a CAP NCO page...

Former LT's in the army don't automatically become eligible for "LT" if they join a police or fire dept after military service.

Gee, no flame here - I had a CAP sqdn CC who was a relatively senior, active duty Army officer; he considered CAP more like a volunteer fire department than a military entity.  He didn't mind the CAP rank structure, but didn't see a compelling need for it.  It probably doesn't hurt much of anything, and except for the constant uniform angst, I can take it or leave it, as I suspect many CAP members with prior service could.

A lot of people do like the rank structure, and like the AF style duds, and that's cool.  If some potential new members would rather be pseudo-NCOs, as opposed to pseudo-Officers, heck, gen up the stripes and let 'em have 'em.  I guess there would be some NHQ overhead related to it, but in the big scheme of silly cycles expended, probably not that bad?

Things which are considered "probably not that bad" should not get time, attention, or budget.

In this case, the assertion is being made that since NCOs are the "backbone of the military", implementing them
in CAP will significantly impact the program in a positive way.

That is certainly one opinion.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 05:16:13 PM
So, as a brand new CAP member (me), the whole business of having this NCO rank system seems pointless.

It's not just you.  A lot of members, myself included, think there's no good reason for it's existence other than, as you pointed out, "Hey, I was an NCO in the RealMilitary™!"

QuoteBut NCO's can't "advance" rank-wise in CAP, correct?

As Eclipse already pointed out, no, not at this time, but that's slated to chance.  But advancement past Technical Sergeant will be restricted by a weird quota system.

Well, most SMs don't get past 1st Lt/Capt anyway, so I suppose it's somewhat inline with the O-side.

I would still argue that CAP having a rank structure (even the current one, which is similar to the USAF) has value, especially at the Cadet level. Just so we are clear, I'm in no way advocating the abolishment of the current CAP rank system. In fact, I would even be against fundamentally changing it.

I just don't get why there is a need for two parallel rank systems for senior members. That's really just it. :)

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 05:48:26 PM
I just don't get why there is a need for two parallel rank systems for senior members. That's really just it. :)

Maybe we'll know an answer to this by the time our annual conference takes place this August...

I know an Air Force retired General that is a Colonel in CAP.  Maybe he should go whining and crying and stomping his feet about the injustice of it all?  No, he is a classy guy that can fly a glider through the eye of a needle.  He is an outstanding asset to CAP and I appreciate his service both active and CAP.  But, that is the difference in an Officer and an NCO?? 

Quote from: AirAux on March 13, 2014, 06:00:11 PM
I know an Air Force retired General that is a Colonel in CAP.  Maybe he should go whining and crying and stomping his feet about the injustice of it all?  No, he is a classy guy that can fly a glider through the eye of a needle.  He is an outstanding asset to CAP and I appreciate his service both active and CAP.  But, that is the difference in an Officer and an NCO??

Not really a fair comparison.  I'm sure every single person on CAPTalk knows of at least one CAP officer who is... well, let's just say "less than professional."

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 05:48:26 PMI just don't get why there is a need for two parallel rank systems for senior members. That's really just it. :)

They aren't "parallel", NCOs are subordinate to officers, and that's where the fun is going to start.

If they want to "play" like the big boys, that means even the most lowly Flight Officer or new butter bar will have authority over NCOs...wait,
no, that's not right, because authority in CAP comes from staff posting, not grade so...

...anyway... NCOs are the backbone of the military and responsible for the health and well being of the enlisted so in a CAP context
they will...wait, there's no "enlisted" in CAP...so...

...where was I going with this?

QuoteIf some potential new members would rather be pseudo-NCOs, as opposed to pseudo-Officers

See, this is were I think people's understanding of "rank" is confused. You are a "real" officer in CAP. It's just that you being an CAPT in the army means nothing outside of the army. You are a real officer in cap, just not in the army, or your local police dept for that matter. Rank is entirely dependent on each organization.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 06:17:00 PM
It's just that you being an CAPT in the army means nothing outside of the army.

Tell that to Chief Petty Officer who decided to rip me a new orifice for failing to salute the Ensign he was with when I was a Specialist in the Army.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 06:17:00 PM

QuoteIf some potential new members would rather be pseudo-NCOs, as opposed to pseudo-Officers

It's just that you being an CAPT in the army means nothing outside of the army.

Well, I think what you meant to say was a Captain in the Army doesn't mean anything outside of the military.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 06:17:00 PMIt's just that you being an CAPT in the army means nothing outside of the army.

There's about 4 vectors of wrong there.

Quote from: Flying Pig on March 13, 2014, 06:26:08 PM

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 06:17:00 PM

QuoteIf some potential new members would rather be pseudo-NCOs, as opposed to pseudo-Officers

It's just that you being an CAPT in the army means nothing outside of the army.

Well, I think what you meant to say was a Captain in the Army doesn't mean anything outside of the military.

Correct. This is what I should of said. Of course, this is 99% of Americans.

QuoteTell that to Chief Petty Officer who decided to rip me a new orifice for failing to salute the Ensign he was with when I was a Specialist in the Army.

Also remember that even a CAPT in the army in not even equivalent to a CAPT in the naval services. Being a PFC in the army is not the same as being a PFC in the marine corps. :) An E5 is an E5, which is the same across the military services. But that's paygrade, not rank.

QuoteThere's about 4 vectors of wrong there.

Bearing in mind my above correction, please explain. Outside of the military, "Captain" means many different things. :) I don't mean to detract from well-earned accomplishments of our service people, I just don't like the assumption that all rank necessarily means military. I don't look at a police SGT as having pseudo-rank. :)

^ You're drilling yourself in deeper the more you explain, might be best to just let it go.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 05:48:26 PM
I just don't get why there is a need for two parallel rank systems for senior members. That's really just it. :)

Even better is that the two different systems uses the exact same course materials for advancement.  For example, completing the SLS and CLC will be some of the requirements for promotions of both officers and NCOs.  Demonstrates just how "unique" NCOs will be.

Quote^ You're drilling yourself in deeper the more you explain, might be best to just let it go.

I wouldn't want to argue with a man who has 21,552 more posts than I do.... ;)  :P

Quote from: Eclipse on March 13, 2014, 06:12:48 PM
...where was I going with this?

I think that's National's approach to the NCO program summed up nicely, thankyouverymuch.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 07:33:45 PM

Quote^ You're drilling yourself in deeper the more you explain, might be best to just let it go.

I wouldn't want to argue with a man who has 21,552 more posts than I do.... ;)  :P

Why not? Everyone else does.

Quote from: arajca on March 13, 2014, 08:14:16 PM

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 07:33:45 PM

Quote^ You're drilling yourself in deeper the more you explain, might be best to just let it go.

I wouldn't want to argue with a man who has 21,552 more posts than I do.... ;)  :P

Why not? Everyone else does.

Argument? Oh I'm sorry, that's next door. It's being hit on the head lessons in here.

Quote from: antdetroitwallyball on March 13, 2014, 06:17:00 PM

QuoteIf some potential new members would rather be pseudo-NCOs, as opposed to pseudo-Officers

See, this is were I think people's understanding of "rank" is confused. You are a "real" officer in CAP. It's just that you being an CAPT in the army means nothing outside of the army. You are a real officer in cap, just not in the army, or your local police dept for that matter. Rank is entirely dependent on each organization.

Ah, yeah, my bad - I should have said "Corporate Officer",  vice "pseudo-Officer"; I tend to think of "Commission" IRT "Officer", as in a document hanging on the wall, when I think Military officer. Only we ain't military officers, we're corporate officers. I think. . .no one gave me a commission or a Fed oath of office in CAP, so we must be corporate officers. Perhaps?

What's the civilian corporate equivalent to an NCO? Technician? Foreman? Line Supervisor? That''s why I'll never make Major - it's not worth worrying ab

"Corporate officer" is not an appropriate term, either.

We are "Civil Air Patrol Officers".

Edit.. Ehhhh  nevermind

Quote from: SunDog on March 13, 2014, 10:00:08 PM
What's the civilian corporate equivalent to an NCO? Technician? Foreman? Line Supervisor? That''s why I'll never make Major - it's not worth worrying ab

Senior Fry Cook?

Did y'all read the memorandum LordMonar posted in this thread? I think that after you read the timetables in the back, you'll get a decent feel for what's going to happen over the next several years. Sounds to me like there WILL be two tracks when all is said and done, and they won't be parallel.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 14, 2014, 04:00:00 AM
Sounds to me like there WILL be two tracks when all is said and done, and they won't be parallel.

Phase II - "Redefine the standards for entry into the CAP Officer program."

Oh my.  I can only imagine the amount of angst and internet drama this is going to produce.

I have to admit, there are some nice things about this system.  I like the promotion quota.  However, I find it funny that a squadron is limited to 1 MSgt but unlimited Lt Cols.  On the other hand though, this can limit promotion potential as that single MSgt may never leave for 20 years, which means no other NCOs can be promoted without going to Wing.  That system never states how many MSgt's a wing can have.  But that SMSgt may sit at his/her position for 20 years.  The only person that seems to have a tenure rule is the CMSgt.  Which raises another question, since squadrons are not authorized anything higher than a MSgt, where will that CMSgt go after his/her tenure?  I find it interesting that CMSgt positions have a tenure position except the National Command Chief.  Why does he/she not have a tenure length as even the National Commander and BoG members do?

I know, only time will tell.

Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 04:13:31 AM
Phase II - "Redefine the standards for entry into the CAP Officer program."

Oh my.  I can only imagine the amount of angst and internet drama this is going to produce.

May be that will be the requirement for a bachelors degree for CAP officers  >:D

Gad. . .now read the original post again; the departing member may be spot on.

Quote from: LSThiker on March 14, 2014, 04:22:56 AM

Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 04:13:31 AM
Phase II - "Redefine the standards for entry into the CAP Officer program."

Oh my.  I can only imagine the amount of angst and internet drama this is going to produce.

May be that will be the requirement for a bachelors degree for CAP officers  >:D

(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4d02415749e2aef63a010000-480/mushroom-cloud.jpg)

That being said, anything is an improvement over Mr. and Mrs. Public who join as SM's only because little Timmy is a cadet, and become 2nd Lieutenants six months later without actually doing anything that doesn't direct involve their kid.

Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 04:49:14 AM
That being said, anything is an improvement over Mr. and Mrs. Public who join as SM's only because little Timmy is a cadet, and become 2nd Lieutenants six months later without actually doing anything that doesn't direct involve their kid.

Or, like in the senior squadron I was part of on paper, signing their significant others up (and then they get to be second lieutenants six months later!) just so they can fly in the CAP airplane, but they never take part in any squadron business.

Having said that, I have to agree that insisting on having the "CAP" in the NCO stripes is redundant and not needed, not to mention quite ugly.  One recommendation I would make is to make the triangle/prop design full-colour (red on a white triangle).  That would stick out and be (bleurgh) "distinctive."

After all, since NCO's are not saluted in the military anyway, it is not possible for a CAP NCO to troll for a salute!

As for the OP...that is strange.  I do not understand where he is coming from.

Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 04:55:03 AM
After all, since NCO's are not saluted in the military anyway, it is not possible for a CAP NCO to troll for a salute!

True, but speaking strictly from my time in the military, anytime a new E-8 or (especially) E-9 showed up on base, it was kinda big news.

I can understand Ma Blue's concern about some random Airman having an anxiety attack when they see a CAP E-9 in their area and freak out.  I mean, let's face it, random officers on a Air Force Base wouldn't warrant a second glance.  But a Chief Master Sergeant?  Different story...

They can't get 2LT w/o completing Level I. It's not as effortless as it was, and if the unit is pencil whipping, then thats what they get.

Quote from: a2capt on March 14, 2014, 05:04:22 AM
They can't get 2LT w/o completing Level I. It's not as effortless as it was, and if the unit is pencil whipping, then thats what they get.

True.  But if the eventual plan is to make all non-military SMs start of at the "Junior Enlisted" grades (CAP E-2 to E-4), and then have them choose which "track" they wish to pursue (NCO or Officer) if they're shown an interest in being actual active members, I would be cool with that. 

Does anyone really think there is a pool of potential members out there unwilling to join CAP because they can't wear their real military NCO stripes? 

Reading the proposed program it persons holding the rank/grade/position of MSgt and higher would either be locked into their unit or play 'Stripe On – Stripe Off' as the stripes belong to the squadron/region/wing and not the individual.  Sorry but the US Army discarded that concept in the 1920's.

Civil Air Patrol IS NOT U.S. Air Force (Lite) and I really feel the organization would be better served forgetting about active Air Force courses, schools, programs and developing concepts and programs aligned with the CAP Mission.  The USAF has to train and school for the war fighting mission and overseas deployments.  For the CAP to spend as little as 5 minutes in this arena is wasted effort.  If anything, CAP should be getting far closer to CERT Programs, Civil Defense, and Local EMA's, for outside of the aerospace education for cadets if CAP is to have a future Preparedness and recovery is where it will be. 
Civil Air Patrol has far too many semi-ignored programs and procedures that really should be fixed before embarking on another quest for the Golden Fleece, but I know it's going to be hard for someone to look at and fix something created by their predecessor instead of creating their own claim to fame.

The quota thing is going to be a bit more problematic than the briefing lets on.   I don't think NHQ has a done a real head count of former NCO's and their grades.   I know in my wing alone we have at least half a dozen retired E-8's and E-9's that I can name off the top of my head, somewhere around a dozen E-7's and a big heaping pile of E5's and E-6's.   Almost of all them are currently in the squadrons wearing officer rank...

Quote from: Panache on March 14, 2014, 05:02:52 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 04:55:03 AM
After all, since NCO's are not saluted in the military anyway, it is not possible for a CAP NCO to troll for a salute!

True, but speaking strictly from my time in the military, anytime a new E-8 or (especially) E-9 showed up on base, it was kinda big news.

I can understand Ma Blue's concern about some random Airman having an anxiety attack when they see a CAP E-9 in their area and freak out.  I mean, let's face it, random officers on a Air Force Base wouldn't warrant a second glance.  But a Chief Master Sergeant?  Different story...

My supervisor was an E-8 SMSgt.  My flight commander was a First Lieutenant (later Captain).  It is not hard to figure out who really ran things. ;)

Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on March 14, 2014, 01:49:46 PM
Civil Air Patrol IS NOT U.S. Air Force (Lite) and I really feel the organization would be better served forgetting about active Air Force courses, schools, programs and developing concepts and programs aligned with the CAP Mission.  The USAF has to train and school for the war fighting mission and overseas deployments.  For the CAP to spend as little as 5 minutes in this arena is wasted effort.  If anything, CAP should be getting far closer to CERT Programs, Civil Defense, and Local EMA's, for outside of the aerospace education for cadets if CAP is to have a future Preparedness and recovery is where it will be. 

You speak as too many in CAP do, who think that we are ALL ES, ALL THE TIME.  It is but one of our three authorised missions, no more and no less important than the other two.

Regardless of what you think of the concept, we are the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary (AUXON/OFF be hanged).  It would take an Act of Congress to change that.

Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 07:48:48 PM
You speak as too many in CAP do, who think that we are ALL ES, ALL THE TIME.  It is but one of our three authorized missions, no more and no less important than the other two.

AE is lip service, there's only two real missions in CAP, and if you're not involved with cadets, what else is there but ES?

Rare is the person so enamored with administration that they join to balance the checkbook or file forms.  Most members
do that as a necessary evil ADY so they can continue for the reasons they joined.

I'd be willing to bet that one of the reasons we supposedly have "3 missions" is because someone, somewhere, liked
the idea of the tri-prop representing the missions, even though from a practical perspective the math doesn't work.

Quote from: LSThiker on March 14, 2014, 04:20:00 AM
I have to admit, there are some nice things about this system.  I like the promotion quota.  However, I find it funny that a squadron is limited to 1 MSgt but unlimited Lt Cols.  On the other hand though, this can limit promotion potential as that single MSgt may never leave for 20 years, which means no other NCOs can be promoted without going to Wing.  That system never states how many MSgt's a wing can have.  But that SMSgt may sit at his/her position for 20 years.  The only person that seems to have a tenure rule is the CMSgt.  Which raises another question, since squadrons are not authorized anything higher than a MSgt, where will that CMSgt go after his/her tenure?  I find it interesting that CMSgt positions have a tenure position except the National Command Chief.  Why does he/she not have a tenure length as even the National Commander and BoG members do?

I know, only time will tell.

The Command Chief's tenure is the same as the National Commander's at the will of the BOG's

I must say..  since 1972, it's the easiest way out.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf)

Click the link, enter the text, and send it off.

Quote from: LSThiker on March 14, 2014, 04:20:00 AM
I have to admit, there are some nice things about this system.  I like the promotion quota.  However, I find it funny that a squadron is limited to 1 MSgt but unlimited Lt Cols.  On the other hand though, this can limit promotion potential as that single MSgt may never leave for 20 years, which means no other NCOs can be promoted without going to Wing.  That system never states how many MSgt's a wing can have.  But that SMSgt may sit at his/her position for 20 years.  The only person that seems to have a tenure rule is the CMSgt.  Which raises another question, since squadrons are not authorized anything higher than a MSgt, where will that CMSgt go after his/her tenure?  I find it interesting that CMSgt positions have a tenure position except the National Command Chief.  Why does he/she not have a tenure length as even the National Commander and BoG members do?

You have to wonder if the people proposing grade quotas have actually ever been in CAP.

It won't work, period.

If they want to re-work the ENTIRE CAP grade structure perhaps some of this would make sense.  But having limits on high level NCO positions, especially those that under the current system can only be had by those who had equivalent ranks in the military, makes no sense at all. 

Its entirely different than CAP officer grades, even for past Generals, being limited to Lt. Col. except for those very few who earn Col or above.  Having a bunch of CAP Generals walking around serving as squadron supply officers would cause a level of dissonance too great even for CAP.  However, having more high level NCOs than might normally be seen in a real military unit isn't going to cause anyone to freak out. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 14, 2014, 08:58:43 PMHowever, having more high level NCOs than might normally be seen in a real military unit isn't going to cause anyone to freak out.

I tend to agree, but only because most people don't understand the question.

It's no less ridiculous, and will raise the same questions once people get a clue.

I am a retired CMSgt.  I joined CAP after retirement in 1996.  I was asked at the time, if I wanted to be a CAP NCO or a SM. 
At the time there was no challenge to the NCO program, so I became a SM.  I am now a major in CAP, but I am still a retired CMSgt.

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 14, 2014, 08:19:44 PM
The Command Chief's tenure is the same as the National Commander's at the will of the BOG's

Not according to that document, unless I am missing it and I hope I am:

QuoteAs such, tenure rules as applicable to wing and region commanders will apply, namely one year in probationary status and three years of continuance for a maximum of four years in position to which the CMSgt is appointed.  The National Command Chief will serve at the pleasure of the National Commander and does not have a tenure limit

Quote from: Ron MacCarthy on March 14, 2014, 09:27:08 PM
I am a retired CMSgt.  I joined CAP after retirement in 1996.  I was asked at the time, if I wanted to be a CAP NCO or a SM. 
At the time there was no challenge to the NCO program, so I became a SM.  I am now a major in CAP, but I am still a retired CMSgt.

And now that you are a CAP-FGO, you most certainly understand that neither is mutually exclusive, nor, frankly, relevent to the other.

Another question - will this mean the end to CAP Officer special appointments for military NCOs?

As of today, the assertion is that "x" NCO is equivalent to "x" CAP Officer grade, but if you follow the
math on the proposal, that is clearly not the case.

So there you go.

The limits for SNCOs are a terrible idea. What happens to all of the current SNCOs in CAP? Move to Wing/Region or demote?

I think another way to look at that policy letter is that these are prescribed positions. As in, you have one Unit level NCO in a position. Their minimum grade must be MSgt and so on. That is not to say a SMS or CMS could fill those unit level positions.

Has anyone determined if these NCO positions will be mandatory? My unit doesn't have any retired NCOs. Will someone have to be ADY to several units/groups if there just aren't available NCOs?

I don't see anything about junior enlisted grades. Level 1 seems to correspond to SSgt and up from there. Which is interesting, if the levels will correspond to certain grades, does that mean only those who have earned the Wilson can become CMSgts? But one can only become a CMSgt at the appropriate level of leadership, which means if someone wants to focus on unit level only, they remain a MSgt. Strange.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a move to.make CAP officers have minimum bachelors or associates degrees. Hope I'm grandfathered in!

Mandatory schmandatory. I can't even see anyone in planning thinking that would even work.

Quote from: LSThiker on March 14, 2014, 09:31:56 PM

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 14, 2014, 08:19:44 PM
The Command Chief's tenure is the same as the National Commander's at the will of the BOG's

Not according to that document, unless I am missing it and I hope I am:

QuoteAs such, tenure rules as applicable to wing and region commanders will apply, namely one year in probationary status and three years of continuance for a maximum of four years in position to which the CMSgt is appointed.  The National Command Chief will serve at the pleasure of the National Commander and does not have a tenure limit

* AR-M355N_20100321_042119.pdf (573.22 kB - downloaded 47 times para 4.f under tenure

Quote from: LSThiker on March 14, 2014, 09:31:56 PM

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 14, 2014, 08:19:44 PM
The Command Chief's tenure is the same as the National Commander's at the will of the BOG's

Not according to that document, unless I am missing it and I hope I am:

QuoteAs such, tenure rules as applicable to wing and region commanders will apply, namely one year in probationary status and three years of continuance for a maximum of four years in position to which the CMSgt is appointed.  The National Command Chief will serve at the pleasure of the National Commander and does not have a tenure limit

It's in Para 4.f of Lord Monars submission on page 3 of the thread. CAn't copy it.

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 15, 2014, 02:22:54 AM
It's in Para 4.f of Lord Monars submission on page 3 of the thread. CAn't copy it.

Umm, what I quoted was Paragraph 4.f and specifically states the National Command Chief has no tenure limit and his/her serving is at the pleasure of the National Commander.  So in theory, if 8 National Commanders love him/her that person will serve for 8 national commanders.  A national commander cannot serve as national commander 8 times.  So where do you see that it says the National Command Chief tenure is the same as the national commander?

Quote from: kd8gua on March 15, 2014, 12:48:50 AM
The limits for SNCOs are a terrible idea. What happens to all of the current SNCOs in CAP? Move to Wing/Region or demote?

The document specifically states that everybody who currently holds CAP NCO grade will be grandfathered in and will not be demoted, but to advance in grade they will be subject to the new standards and quota system.

Quote from: LSThiker on March 15, 2014, 03:20:40 AM

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 15, 2014, 02:22:54 AM
It's in Para 4.f of Lord Monars submission on page 3 of the thread. CAn't copy it.

Umm, what I quoted was Paragraph 4.f and specifically states the National Command Chief has no tenure limit and his/her serving is at the pleasure of the National Commander.  So in theory, if 8 National Commanders love him/her that person will serve for 8 national commanders.  A national commander cannot serve as national commander 8 times.  So where do you see that it says the National Command Chief tenure is the same as the national commander?

same as in indeterminate and based on the will of the appointer.

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 15, 2014, 03:30:59 AM

same as in indeterminate and based on the will of the appointer.

Yes so the National Command Chief is indeterminate and based on the will of the appointer.  However, CMSgts assigned at the Wing and Region level are specifically only allowed 4 year terms.  Why the disconnect?

I'm not defending or promoting anything in this proposal.....but I would like to point out....the document submitted is NOT the NCO program.

It is a basic frame work that explicitly states that 90% of the questions being asked and groused about will have to be worked out.

CAP being CAP, I have my doubts that any of the senior NCO grades will, in the end, truly be "temporary".

I'm not convinced that there is a distinctive role for an expanded  NCO corps in CAP...I'd like to see some answers to practical questions, like "why"? (I don't oppose keeping the present program for former military non coms).

If there is such a role, then there ought to be some elements of professional development that are unique to officers or NCOs...some overlap is reasonable, especially in Levels 1 & 2, as well as technical track training...but the later stages of PD should focus on the specific roles more.

I think the bigger problem is the "180 day wonders" (2 Lt in 6 months with just Level 1), as well as the ridiculous system of special appointments to advanced grades. That really needs to be re-considered and revised.

If there is to be an NCO Corps, CAP will have to start every new SM, (with the exception of former Officers) as potential NCO's. Officer appointments will have additional requirements, possibly completion of the OBC and an in-residence Officer School. I would encourage everyone to review the PD presentation from the CSAG of Nov 2013.

Except for pilots, lawyers, teachers, ES professionals, that guy your sister dated in high school, etc.

D.

O.

A.

Quote from: MSG Mac on March 15, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
CAP will have to start every new SM, (with the exception of former Officers) as potential NCO's.

Just reread that, brings up another issue.

The new program is supposed to be all about opening a robust recruiting channel to current military NCOs as the "new backbone".

Q: How's that supposed to work in the same paradigm as a system with manning tables and limits on promotion?
A: It doesn't.  You have to eliminate all NCO and officer special appointments unless the person is assuming the respective role,
otherwise you've changed nothing.

CAP: "Chief!  You are exactly what CAP needs!  You'll be the C-4 in our new vertebrae!"

CAP: "Just one thing, we're all out of "Chiefs" for a while, so we'll need you to wear E-5 for a few years..."

Chief: "Well, who's that guy with the E-9 with the weird propeller on it?"

CAP: "Oh that's Jimmy.  Good guy.  Lives near Wing HQ and mows the lawn."

Chief: "What branch was he in?"

CAP:  "He wasn't, but like I said, he mows the lawn for us."

Chief: "Well, OK, when is his term up?"

CAP: "Probably about 3 years, we'll let you know!"

Chief: ((*))

CAP: "Welcome aboard!"

Quote from: Eclipse on March 14, 2014, 08:18:54 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on March 14, 2014, 07:48:48 PM
You speak as too many in CAP do, who think that we are ALL ES, ALL THE TIME.  It is but one of our three authorized missions, no more and no less important than the other two.

AE is lip service, there's only two real missions in CAP, and if you're not involved with cadets, what else is there but ES?

Rare is the person so enamored with administration that they join to balance the checkbook or file forms.  Most members
do that as a necessary evil ADY so they can continue for the reasons they joined.

I'd be willing to bet that one of the reasons we supposedly have "3 missions" is because someone, somewhere, liked
the idea of the tri-prop representing the missions, even though from a practical perspective the math doesn't work.

YMMV on AE being "lip service."

If a unit has a strong, interested, motivated AEO (and I have known a couple, who really put their backs and brains into AE), then the unit's AE operations will be solid.

I joined more for AE than for ES (I am enamoured with most "things with wings" and have been for much of my life), even though I became an Observer.

Secondary to that was my desire to be involved in making a place where young people could be safe, have fun, learn and grow without fear of bullying, since I never had that.

Kudos to all those who tramp out in the fields doing GT, but even if my health permitted it, I would not be interested in that.

As I'm sure you're aware, people join for all sorts of reasons (legitimate and otherwise).  I was in a unit where one new member was a nurse, and she took the reins on Health Services with gusto.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 15, 2014, 05:52:18 PM
CAP being CAP, I have my doubts that any of the senior NCO grades will, in the end, truly be "temporary".

I'm not convinced that there is a distinctive role for an expanded  NCO corps in CAP...I'd like to see some answers to practical questions, like "why"? (I don't oppose keeping the present program for former military non coms).

If there is such a role, then there ought to be some elements of professional development that are unique to officers or NCOs...some overlap is reasonable, especially in Levels 1 & 2, as well as technical track training...but the later stages of PD should focus on the specific roles more.

I think the bigger problem is the "180 day wonders" (2 Lt in 6 months with just Level 1), as well as the ridiculous system of special appointments to advanced grades. That really needs to be re-considered and revised.

Air Force used to routinely do appointments to advanced grades - perhaps they still do. I went to survival school with Uniformed Services medical school (USUHS?) student. He told me he walked into 2Lt  off the street, with a sort military charm school indoc. Those folks skipped 1Lt on graduation, went straight to Capt.

AF/DOD needed doctors, and that's what it took, apparently.  If we need a lawyer, and we pick somone up mid-career,  I haven't a problem with an advanced grade. Same for CFI pilots.  Pick up a USCG pilot, CFI, CFII, Commercial, and dozen of real SAR  missions,  CAP Capt seems not out of line to me.

Most of our MPs are instrument rated, maybe half have Commercials.  .  . no butter bars on entry.

The AF should still be doing advanced appointments for Doctors, Chaplains, etc.

Quote from: HGjunkie on March 16, 2014, 01:23:50 AM
The AF should still be doing advanced appointments for Doctors, Chaplains, etc.

They do for doctors, nurses, chaplains and lawyers.

I think the Army brings Physician Assistants in as Warrant Officers.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 12:26:47 AM
Air Force used to routinely do appointments to advanced grades - perhaps they still do. I went to survival school with Uniformed Services medical school (USUHS?) student. He told me he walked into 2Lt  off the street, with a sort military charm school indoc. Those folks skipped 1Lt on graduation, went straight to Capt.

AF/DOD needed doctors, and that's what it took, apparently.

Try again and read your history.  I would suggest the AMEDD C&S Museum at Fort Sam Houston, TX and the National Museum of Civil War Medicine in Frederick, MD (see F. Scott Key burial site as well). 

The practice of giving medical doctors advanced rank was before the USAF and the DoD were created.  The Army Medical Department was dated back to 1775 with the first field hospital.  It was not formally established until the late 1810s/1820s.  At this time, medical doctors and surgeons (they were not the same back then) were not given rank even though they wore Army uniforms.  This was changed in the 1840s when doctors and surgeons were given advanced officer rank.  The practice of giving medical doctors advanced rank was also started in the early days of CAP when medical officers wore the US Army Medical Corps insignia.  This was ended in 1955 with the introduction of the current Medical Officer and Nurse Officer badge.

Quote from: CyBorg on March 16, 2014, 01:27:11 AM
They do for doctors, nurses, chaplains and lawyers.

I think the Army brings Physician Assistants in as Warrant Officers.

1LT now.  It was 2LT until sometime after 1998 (I think).

Quote from: LSThiker on March 16, 2014, 01:43:34 AM

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 12:26:47 AM
Air Force used to routinely do appointments to advanced grades - perhaps they still do. I went to survival school with Uniformed Services medical school (USUHS?) student. He told me he walked into 2Lt  off the street, with a sort military charm school indoc. Those folks skipped 1Lt on graduation, went straight to Capt.

AF/DOD needed doctors, and that's what it took, apparently.

Try again and read your history.  I would suggest the AMEDD C&S Museum at Fort Sam Houston, TX and the National Museum of Civil War Medicine in Frederick, MD (see F. Scott Key burial site as well). 

The practice of giving medical doctors advanced rank was before the USAF and the DoD were created.  The Army Medical Department was dated back to 1775 with the first field hospital.  It was not formally established until the late 1810s/1820s.  At this time, medical doctors and surgeons (they were not the same back then) were not given rank even though they wore Army uniforms.  This was changed in the 1840s when doctors and surgeons were given advanced officer rank.  The practice of giving medical doctors advanced rank was also started in the early days of CAP when medical officers wore the US Army Medical Corps insignia.  This was ended in 1955 with the introduction of the current Medical Officer and Nurse Officer badge.

???

No history read required; I was paired with him, and we were hiding in a gully together. That was his situation, which he shared with me during the hide.  I passed it on here.  It was DoD practice at that time, and what transpired before or after? No interst to me - was pasding on an anecdotal bit of evidence that advanced rank had som precedent.

Here's the fuuny part -I asked him how he ended up at USAF survival school? He said the med school students had to do something during their breaks, and the school had a catalog of military schools/training oppurtunities. He thought survival school was learning about edible plants and such, and how to build shelters. . . he was somewhat misinformed.

I was not referring to the student.  The military has been doing it that way for awhile now.  I was referring to your "AF/DOD needed doctors, and that's what it took, apparently."  It did not take advanced grade to get doctors into the USAF.  The USAF started giving advanced grade based on the Army, which started giving advanced grade in the 1840s.  So no that is not what it took.

Yeah, I should have been more specific; he told me USAF gave advanced rank because no doctor would sign up for 2Lt pay. They were having a tough time getting/keeping docs, and one incentive was to advance them to O3 right away. The other was for DoD to run USUHS - free med school, O3 on graduation, in exchange for a muli-year commitment. I don't recall the number of years.

I don't think USAF was doing it because the Army did it decades before - it was an incentive used to assist in filling a shortage need at that point in time. USAF wasn't/isn't sentimental about handing out $$$ for salary and benefits, based on what was done in previous decades or centuries. Except maybe the precedent helped, if history showed it worked.

Anyway, the point was, advanced rank was used then to attract specialists, and also, apprently, long before, as you say.

So CAP isn't breaking ground or setting precedent to grant advanced rank to lawyers, chaplains, CFIs, etc. Just a smallish incentive .

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 06:32:50 PMSo CAP isn't breaking ground or setting precedent to grant advanced rank to lawyers, chaplains, CFIs, etc. Just a smallish incentive .

It's not about "precedent" it's about "propriety".

Those professionals still have to go to "Salutin' School" in order to maintain their grade and jobs, and they are expected to provide
their services in support of the military at a level commensurate with the grade they are given.

The USAF isn't hiring an MD off the street, making him the Chief MO of a Wing, including the gold or silver oaks, and then
all that person does is punch a monthly safety ticket.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 06:32:50 PM
Yeah, I should have been more specific; he told me USAF gave advanced rank because no doctor would sign up for 2Lt pay.

And he would be wrong.  Well at least he would be wrong that the USAF was doing it at that time for that reason.  Although he would probably be correct with the doctors mentality of pay.

QuoteThey were having a tough time getting/keeping docs, and one incentive was to advance them to O3 right away.

The system was in place long before that.  There was not a decision to advance them to O3 right away because the USAF needed doctors.  The system was in place by the War Department prior to the formation of the USAF and the DoD.

QuoteI don't think USAF was doing it because the Army did it decades before

From Sept 8 1947 until sometime in 1948, the Air Force continued to wear Army rank insignia. 

Oh when did  Robert MacArthur Crawford write the Air Force song?  Was it 1938 and originally title Army Air Corps?  Yup. 

Oh, what was an Army E-7 called before 1948?  Technical Sergeant?  Yup.  The name Sergeant First Class replaced the Technical Sergeant in 1948.

Yes the Air Force adopted many Army principles.

 :)

That's because USAF is a military organization, and a full time job. CAP is neither, of course, and we have the flexibilty to more easily tolerate the time it takes a new lawyer, chaplain, or pilot to get up to speed on our particular culture. Most new members can read - we can steer 'em as needed, they'll do level one, etc.

And it is, actually, about precedent, as that was the point; the folks CAP advance are also expected, as you say, to provide service commensrate with the grade granted.

Lawyers new to CAP bring a base of legal knowledge laymen don't have, and as chaplains bring training, usually with advanced education, to dealing with spiritual matters. Same-same for an instrument rated CFI - ones willing to donate thier time are rare enough.

I don't think CAP is 'hiring a CFII off the street" and making him a Wing OPS officer, either. If your wing has lawyers, chaplains and/or IPs punching a monthly safety ticket, that goes more to wing management - the issue isn't about the advanced grade they were given, I think. Maybe more about CAP corporate culture.

If you worked hard for each promotion, put in the time and effirt, I can see hOw it could be irritating to have someone walk in the door as a Capt. Maybe it'd help to consider they put in a lot of work and $$$ to get those skills, too - they just did the work before getting to CAP.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 07:11:03 PM
That's because USAF is a military organization, and a full time job. CAP is neither, of course, and we have the flexibilty to more easily tolerate the time it takes a new lawyer, chaplain, or pilot to get up to speed on our particular culture. Most new members can read - we can steer 'em as needed, they'll do level one, etc.

Actually quite the reverse, and the idea that CAP has all this extra time to "let things happen as they will" is one of the reasons we've been stuck
in a circular rut for decades.

Self-actualization with no expectation of deadline or deliverables is how you manage your Netflix queue, not a national service organization.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 07:11:03 PM
I don't think CAP is 'hiring a CFII off the street" and making him a Wing OPS officer, either.

We absolutely are, all the time.  We've got slick-sleeves who "know a guy" walking in off the street and the next month
are sitting at a Wing HQ desk as a director of "whatever" while the butter is still wet on their bars.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 07:11:03 PM
If your wing has lawyers, chaplains and/or IPs punching a monthly safety ticket, that goes more to wing management - the issue isn't about the advanced grade they were given, I think. Maybe more about CAP corporate culture.

>My wing?<  All wings.  100% no question.

CAP had enlisted grades and many members used them before they became officers. ECI 7C was required before anyone could become an officer. We could have a separate membership class for enlisted and a membership class for those who wish to become officers. Add a new PD training for enlisted rank along with a time in grade requirement list big blue uses for promotions. We also need to raise the requirements for officer that may require an associate degree for officers. Also flight officers grades be extended for some mission related grades. 

Quote from: CAP_truth on March 16, 2014, 07:29:14 PM
CAP had enlisted grades and many members used them before they became officers. ECI 7C was required before anyone could become an officer. We could have a separate membership class for enlisted and a membership class for those who wish to become officers. Add a new PD training for enlisted rank along with a time in grade requirement list big blue uses for promotions.

And what, exactly, would these "enlisted" members do that would be different then the "officers".

Quote from: CAP_truth on March 16, 2014, 07:29:14 PMWe also need to raise the requirements for officer that may require an associate degree for officers. Also flight officers grades be extended for some mission related grades.

Because?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 07:31:11 PM

Quote from: CAP_truth on March 16, 2014, 07:29:14 PM
CAP had enlisted grades and many members used them before they became officers. ECI 7C was required before anyone could become an officer. We could have a separate membership class for enlisted and a membership class for those who wish to become officers. Add a new PD training for enlisted rank along with a time in grade requirement list big blue uses for promotions.

And what, exactly, would these "enlisted" members do that would be different then the "officers".

And that, ladies and gentlement, is the $64,000 question no one has answered.

Level one would have and extra part for new seniors who would become officers, like and OTS, which would include BOC. Specialty training would cover job training. new SLS, CLC, covering enlisted or officer leadership. RSC and NSC for officers and RNCO and NNCO training with the appropriate grade requirements. 

Which one handles what duties at the unit? What functional difference would there be between an Admin Officer and an Admin NCO? What happens when you don't have NCO's in a unit? Who does their jobs?

The specialty training makes no difference when it comes to duties positions with the exception of professional positions like chaplains, legal officers, or medical officers. all commanders or deputy commanders should always be an officer.

Quote from: CAP_truth on March 16, 2014, 08:54:10 PM
The specialty training makes no difference when it comes to duties positions with the exception of professional positions like chaplains, legal officers, or medical officers. all commanders or deputy commanders should always be an officer.

So then the point an NCO/Officer caste system would be...?

I dunno, really. Not even sure why we muck with rank at all, versus just having duty assigments. Someone is sqdn leader, someone is Wing Ops, someone is the chaplain, someone is wing king.  Some of them have assistants.

Run a group or small wing like a volunteer fire dept., which is a lot closer to the ES reality than a USAF  sqd, group, or wing. Maybe keep the cadet rank structure intact, but loose it for SMs.

If you're a Big Noise in your wing, you still will be; the GOBS will still know each other's names. . .

I wouldn't wear rail-road tracks, just pilot wings. And maybe not those.  Wear some kind of simple, work duds with a CAP patch, maybe sqdn/ wing patch, something else like business casual (polo, open neck button shirt, wahtever), and a blazer and tie for the political junk or Christmas party.

Instead of Air Force light or wannabe

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
Run a group or small wing like a volunteer fire dept., which is a lot closer to the ES reality than a USAF  sqd, group, or wing. Maybe keep the cadet rank structure intact, but loose it for SMs.

Every volunteer fire department I've seen has ranks. Every police auxiliary/reserve I've seen has ranks. And I'm pretty sure they're not playing dress-up or wanna-be; they're performing real services to their community, in the exact same way that CAP provides thousands of man-hours per year of community, state, and federal volunteer service.

Yes, they do, but please note I said "like", not identical. . .I'm suggesting we could keep providing the services and drop some of the hoo-haw. The services we both mentioned have straight forward dress that identifies them readily. That's cool, but they they don't look like a NATO dress ball, either.  In a gathering of 25 CAP corporate officers, I saw may 20 uniform combinations, "legal" and otherwise. Gray, as a color, got a very liberal intepretation. . . it had to be incoherent to our hosts. 

The element of USAF mimickery makes Big Blue uneasy (apparently, anyway);  is there some reason we couldn't do the job sans ranks? I ain't religious about it, just kicking it around.  Short of sailor suits or knee-boots, I'll wear what everyone else is wearing.

I think I've seen our volunteer firefighters in two uniforms - something like BDUs, and something formal for ceremony. And their real work clothes, of course, which is more equipment/protective gear.

USAF has a decent uniform; o problem with it. Heck, I wore it for some years. But we aren't USAF, and it may be the rank structure isn't as necessary for us - how about just accept the job, do the job, be given the authority the job requires.

I'm just saying. . . 

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
I dunno, really. Not even sure why we muck with rank at all, versus just having duty assigments. Someone is sqdn leader, someone is Wing Ops, someone is the chaplain, someone is wing king.  Some of them have assistants.

That's mostly the way the Coast Guard Auxiliary is run...they don't have the rank titles, but they wear slightly-modified CG rank insignia.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
Run a group or small wing like a volunteer fire dept., which is a lot closer to the ES reality than a USAF  sqd, group, or wing. Maybe keep the cadet rank structure intact, but loose it for SMs.

Once more, with feeling...we are not just ES!

Why "loose it" for SM's?  I think most (except in the senior squadron I mentioned) CAP members do like to be rewarded for achievement and professional development.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
If you're a Big Noise in your wing, you still will be; the GOBS will still know each other's names. . .

The GOB/GN is a cancer on the Civil Air Patrol.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
I wouldn't wear rail-road tracks, just pilot wings. And maybe not those.  Wear some kind of simple, work duds with a CAP patch, maybe sqdn/ wing patch, something else like business casual (polo, open neck button shirt, wahtever), and a blazer and tie for the political junk or Christmas party.

I own the G/W kit, but I have never owned a polo shirt or the bloody awful blazer, and I never will as far as I can see.  And that makes me probably an increasing minority in CAP.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 10:48:45 PM
Instead of Air Force light or wannabe

Please do not use the term "wannabe."  There was another CT member who used it in almost every post, until he finally got banned.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 11:43:56 PM
The element of USAF mimickery makes Big Blue uneasy (apparently, anyway);  is there some reason we couldn't do the job sans ranks? I ain't religious about it, just kicking it around.

Yet they still authorise us to wear their uniform, modified.

I was in the CGAUX for a number of years, and while I have the highest respect for them (and the Coast Guard in general; the criminally-overlooked Armed Force) all of the "office designator" alphabet soup confused the living heck out of me.  Our system is much simpler.

Or we could go to something like the RAF and its Commonwealth offshoots use, where your rank sometimes tells what you actually do.

Pilot Officer (2nd Lieutenant)
Flying Officer (1st Lieutenant)
Flight Lieutenant (Captain)
Squadron Leader (Major)
Wing Commander (Lieutenant Colonel)
Group Captain (Colonel - in the RAF/RAAF/RCAF/RNZAF Group is higher than Wing, the reverse of us)
Air Commodore (Brigadier General)
Air Vice-Marshal (Major General)

I'd stop there because that's as high as we go.

As well, the Navy Sea Cadets use Navy/CG officer rank and don't seem to have a problem with it, except that theirs is harder to earn (you have to be in at least a year before being considered for Ensign, whereas we just hand out 2nd Lieutenant to anyone who shows up for six months).

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 11:43:56 PM
I think I've seen our volunteer firefighters in two uniforms - something like BDUs, and something formal for ceremony. And their real work clothes, of course, which is more equipment/protective gear.

No disrespect to firefighters in general (I grew up next to a fire station) or to volunteer firefighters in particular (my uncle was one for many years), but we are not them.

Quote from: SunDog on March 16, 2014, 11:43:56 PM
USAF has a decent uniform; o problem with it. Heck, I wore it for some years. But we aren't USAF, and it may be the rank structure isn't as necessary for us - how about just accept the job, do the job, be given the authority the job requires.

That would only likely happen if we were completely cut loose from the USAF, in which case CAP would probably cease to exist.

However, I concede that there is a small(ish)-but-vocal minority within CAP who would like us to do just that.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2014, 09:00:15 PM

Quote from: CAP_truth on March 16, 2014, 08:54:10 PM
The specialty training makes no difference when it comes to duties positions with the exception of professional positions like chaplains, legal officers, or medical officers. all commanders or deputy commanders should always be an officer.

So then the point an NCO/Officer caste system would be...?

It's a well thought out solution in desperate search of a problem.

I spoke a representative from membership services while at a national conference about six years ago.  That person told me that there was a strong consideration at that time to add college education requirements for officer grades.  I agree it would be very difficult to establish different duties for officers and enlisted. If their solution is to expand the NCO grades to include those without college degrees, I'm not a fan of the idea.

If someone or some entity (i.e. USAF) decides that CAP officers must have college degrees, then perhaps the flight officer grades could be expanded to include members ages 21 and older without a college degree, those with associates degrees would be eligible for company grade, and those with bachelor degrees would be eligible for field grade.  That's my 2 cents.  That said, I already have a couple degrees, and I understand that not everyone does.  Plus there's the issue that they would plateau after three promotions unless they earned degree.

Such a move would serve practically zero purpose. In order to be accomplished with consistency, they would have to dump everyone that does not hold that precious piece of paper, and that take years and years to recover from the outfall caused.

Totally worthless.

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 05:26:11 AM
Such a move would serve practically zero purpose. In order to be accomplished with consistency, they would have to dump everyone that does not hold that precious piece of paper, and that take years and years to recover from the outfall caused.

Totally worthless.

I agree.  I don't see a problem that needs fixing.  It sounds like someone with the authority to affect change may want to fix this non-problem.  I don't think expanding the NCO force is the correct solution to this hypothetical non-problem.  If there is to be change (which I hope there isn't), I'm just saying that I would prefer a change to the officer program like I described versus expanding the NCO program.

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 05:26:11 AM
Such a move would serve practically zero purpose. In order to be accomplished with consistency, they would have to dump everyone that does not hold that precious piece of paper, and that take years and years to recover from the outfall caused.

Totally worthless.

I remember talking with a CAP Chaplain about this subject back in the '90s...he said that in such a system, current CAP officers would be "grandfathered" in if they choose to.

I completely support expanding the flight officer grades, but changing the insignia to warrant officer-type.

Grandfather smandfather. It would still be totally pointless, and would take so many years to "filter out" those who are suddenly "undesirable" to hold the title.  This is not the RM, and I can't think of one reason such a change would help anything. If it's because some agency, entity or what have you says "we're not going to deal with XXX because they're not a degree holder", then too bad for them. They're worried about the wrong thing.

Our grade is just that, ours, for our organization.

Quote from: CyBorg on March 17, 2014, 06:17:22 AM
I completely support expanding the flight officer grades, but changing the insignia to warrant officer-type.

So do I, but I still think that idea will should be taken further:  use the "commissioned officer"* grades to designated actual staff and command positions, and as such are temporary.  The use of "warrant officer" grade will be used to measure your professional development and will be yours permanently, and is the insignia you will wear when not actually in a staff or command position.

For example: CAP member Joe Highspeed is Wing Commander of PAWG.  As such, he is Colonel Highspeed.  After serving his tenure as Wing King, he is burned out and wants to go back to the Squadron to chill out and get back to teaching cadets.  His title will change to whatever level of professional development he had (so, let's say Level V = Chief Warrant Officer 5) and he would become CWO5 Highspeed.  This is not a demotion, and shouldn't be thought as such.

This will also eliminate the phenomena of Lt. Colonels serving the coffee at a Squadron meeting.

(* - Yes, I know we're not commissioned officers.  I'm just using the phrase for illustrative purposes.)

But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With the Lt. Colonel setting up the coffee at the meeting.

Everyone pitches in. It's how we work.

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 03:56:37 PM
But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With the Lt. Colonel setting up the coffee at the meeting.

I disagree.  If we're going to do the entire "military customs and courtesies" thing, this is awkward, to say the least.

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 03:56:37 PM
But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With the Lt. Colonel setting up the coffee at the meeting.

Everyone pitches in. It's how we work.

I agree. Nothing wrong with it.  8)

Quote from: Panache on March 17, 2014, 04:43:08 PM

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 03:56:37 PM
But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With the Lt. Colonel setting up the coffee at the meeting.

I disagree.  If we're going to do the entire "military customs and courtesies" thing, this is awkward, to say the least.

Not in a volunteer paradigm.

Remove the FGOs from doing actual "work" and you might as well just close the doors.

Then why have rank?

Quote from: Private Investigator on March 17, 2014, 04:59:37 PM

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 03:56:37 PM
But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With the Lt. Colonel setting up the coffee at the meeting.

Everyone pitches in. It's how we work.

I agree. Nothing wrong with it.  8)

And people wonder why the Air Force looks at us like we're a bunch of yahoos.

Who do you think makes the coffee at BoG meetings?

Lieutenant Colonels.  Well, one of them, anyway.

("That was cream and one sugar, General?)

Quote from: lordmonar on March 17, 2014, 05:59:43 PM
Then why have rank?

I dunno. Why?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2014, 06:15:57 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 17, 2014, 05:59:43 PM
Then why have rank?

I dunno. Why?

So we can reenact Spies Like Us at meetings, just substitute "captain" or rank of choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFtyh-5LPxw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFtyh-5LPxw)

(one of these days I'll figure out how to embed)

Quote from: Ned on March 17, 2014, 06:02:26 PM
Who do you think makes the coffee at BoG meetings?

Lieutenant Colonels.  Well, one of them, anyway.

("That was cream and one sugar, General?)

Who do you think fetches coffee at the Pentagon? Lieutenant Colonels.

^^ And Chief Master Sergeants...

Quote from: lordmonar on March 17, 2014, 05:59:43 PMThen why have rank?

I see it as a resume, an indicator of what you've done combined with the ribbon rack, in the origanization.

Point is, this is -not- the military, though we are somewhat organized in that structure.

Quote from: UH60guy on March 17, 2014, 06:39:20 PM(one of these days I'll figure out how to embed)

Put the URL in without the "s" on https, just h++p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=theVideoHash only. No embedded stuff. Just that. The forum will parse it, and show the video inline, as long as the posted video author has not disabled embedding for that video. You'll see a notice if that is the case.  Do not paste as a link. Just the plain text. It will not work if it's showing as a hyperlink.

Spies LIke Us - Legendary "Doctor" scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFtyh-5LPxw#)

Quote from: a2capt on March 17, 2014, 07:36:24 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 17, 2014, 05:59:43 PMThen why have rank?

I see it as a resume, an indicator of what you've done combined with the ribbon rack, in the origanization.

My first few years in CAP I felt the same way, but the longer I'm in, and the more focused on trying to get things
done, vs. what I'm wearing, I see more and more what an unnecessary distraction they are.

Special appointments, military equivalency, and the GOBN pretty much break the assumptions you can make regarding
what relevent knowledge and experience a member has, and since they don't confer any authority, you're left
a whole lot of "no idea" when you meet someone new.

The highest in the room may well not be in command, nor ever was, the PD badges don't necessarily correspond in
any way to staff posting, etc., etc.

Being a Wing or Region Director doesn't mean you're the SME for the AOR, it means you took the job.

You can't even be sure the grades are "equal", since they could have been 10-year hard chargers who clocked every
promotion to the day, or a 10-year Major who was held back for years until someone got tired of being mean.

..and you will find people being mean in just about any system, along with people who don't care, people who do more, or do less, than the average.  That does not mean every system is broken.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that the CAP grade is mostly a misunderstood distraction, and in many case self-defeating.

You can make the argument that being a paramilitary organization, grade is simply part of the deal, but if that's the case then
some means to conferring weight or purpose beyond mere affectation and affinity should be found.  And as we see here on a regular
basis, not to mention in real life, a fair number (far too many) members choose the less "exciting" uniforms under the misconception
that this also relieves them from recognition of grade, and in some cases members have actual disdain for the grade system, either because
they feel wronged, they have some bizarre self-loathing about CAP vs. other services, or Twelveteen other mental hoops that members
jump through.

Taking this outside CAP, one could legitimately ask why any non-military organization adopts a pseudo military structure and insignia.
Take FDs and LEAs, especially LEAs - being an Lieutenant or Captain (or even Major as some state police departments have) means
little outside that specific department, and certainly no one would argue that the average Police Chief wearing 4 stars on his collar
has anything near the authority or responsibility as a military 4-star general.   Same goes for the Sergeants, etc.  "Shift Commander",
"Chief of Detectives", "Station Commander", etc., work just as well and actually mean something the average person can understand.
(Though conversely you rarely see FDs pr LEAs being taken to task as "wannabees" because they wear military-style insignia or use
military-style titles).

And obviously there is cronyism, favoritism, and multiple ways of entry in the military to grade as well, but at a baseline, for the average
"O-x", or "E-x" there's a baseline of training, TIG, and responsibility, not to mention a clear expectation of performance, for a
respective grade even between the services.

In other words, you can't get "x job" unless you are at least "x-grade", and if you want to keep either or both, you better
do more then show up.

That is pretty much non-existent in CAP.

The Border Patrol/Customs use military insignia.

However, they do not carry rank titles.

I was confused once when pulling in from Canada and noticing the GIB (Guy In Booth) had warrant officer insignia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection)

Theirs is connected to their GS (civil service) level.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2014, 08:49:53 PM
Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that the CAP grade is mostly a misunderstood distraction, and in many case self-defeating.

I got call the BS flag on that.

"a misunderstood distraction"
"Self-defeating"

I'm gonna have to ask you to "show me".

Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2014, 08:49:53 PM(Though conversely you rarely see FDs pr LEAs being taken to task as "wannabees" because they wear military-style insignia or use military-style titles).

Actually, in law enforcement circles you do - mostly centered around chiefs of smaller agencies who wear more stars on their uniforms than they have officers in their department.

The rank structure certainly seems accepted in society, but when one tries to make themselves out to be more important than they are through the use of military symbols (meaning rank), it gets noticed in the community.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 18, 2014, 01:15:55 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2014, 08:49:53 PM
Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that the CAP grade is mostly a misunderstood distraction, and in many case self-defeating.

I got call the BS flag on that.

"a misunderstood distraction"
"Self-defeating"

I'm gonna have to ask you to "show me".

Stand up at your next squadron meeting and look around. 
Make a list of every activity occurring that is in any way enhanced, or even impacted, by the grade on the shoulders.

The new average member walking in the door has no understanding past the movies of the purpose of military grade,
and they have zero as to how it works in CAP.  From day one, CAP does little-to-no training whatsoever to help
members better understand their place and role, and in fact, they make things worse by posting members at inappropriate
levels for their grade, assigning commands to lower-ranking members, and having practically no expectation of performance
beyond the checkboxes for promotions.

Except there are plenty of "unwritten" expectations for promotions, except they aren't allowed, except they are used anyway.

Promoting people who've done nothing but check boxes is self-defeating and disincentivises those who actually do the real work.

Promoting people who walk in the door with zero CAP experience before they've done anything in a relevent context is self-defeating
and rewards people for zero contribution, setting up the relative "value" of the grades.

Holding back hard-working members for years because "they aren't ready" is self-defeating and disincentivises those who actually do the real work.
Aren't ready for "what", exactly?  To be a wing-level staffer?  He's been one for three years.  Assume more responsibility?  He's an IC with
dozens of major real-worlds, not to mention there's nothing left to "assume".

Having a two-tiered uniform, one with military plumage and regalia and one with less, sets the tone that the single most important
factor in a member's career isn't their hard work, but the number on a scale.  That is self-defeating, disincentivises those who actually do the real work,
and when largely ignored by the very leadership charged with setting those rules, sets the tone that not all regulations are required.

So...

If the grade is simply a check-box delineation of PD work and TIG, then it is being used incorrectly and in contrast to the structure it seeks to emulate.
However in typical CAP "conflict avoidance", the organization wants to have it both ways, which in turn sets up it's own hypocrisy and confusion
in both the minds of the members and people we deal with externally.

Any response to the effect of "well it's never stopped us from accomplishing the mission" trivializes the issue and indicates the
person saying that either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore the fact that the mess that is our grade structure and uniforms,
things which should be a part of baseline identity, do, in fact, negatively impact CAP's ability to perform the mission in as much as they
negatively impact our external standing in the communities we wish to serve and complement, as well as member moral and initiative.

As said before, just because it's not the biggest whole, doesn't mean it's not letting in water.

By the way, you never answered "why" we need grade.

We need grade for several reasons.

1)  Human nature needs some sort of outward signal of dominance.
2)  We are the Auxiliary of the US Military
3)  We want to "play" at being USAF members.
4)  We want it.

Eclipse....you are a "mole hill" sort of a guy.   

Grade = "Dominance"?  Which CAP are you in?

The word "Commander" is all CAP has in that regard and it's all they need.

Mole hill?  How about it's time NHQ started accepting the reality of the mess we're in and tried to make some
meaningful changes instead of making it worse?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 18, 2014, 03:17:05 AM
Grade = "Dominance"?  Which CAP are you in?

The word "Commander" is all CAP has in that regard and it's all they need.

Mole hill?  How about it's time NHQ started accepting the reality of the mess we're in and tried to make some
meaningful changes instead of making it worse?

My position has always been that rank means nothing in CAP.  In CAP everything is position based.   CAP rank is a professional development recognition or prior service recognition.  But just like cadets, Senior also get ribbons for completing PD levels.  You could easily be a CAP Lt Col and have never been responsible for anything in your entire CAP career, while your Sq Commander is a 22yr old 2Lt.  Let that CAP Lt. Col stand up in a meeting and say "Look Lt... this is how its going to happen."  I would respond.."OK Joe, you, can you go grab me a soda, my throat is dry." 
I'm not up for changing it.  I say just leave it ALL alone.  However, even based on my thoughts on CAP rank, I was still proud to receive my Captain bars but its nothing more than a personal pride.  Doesn't really mean anything to anyone else. The fact that Im the guy who has the key to the door and the filing cabinet is what matters.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 18, 2014, 02:24:30 AM
Having a two-tiered uniform, one with military plumage and regalia and one with less, sets the tone that the single most important factor in a member's career isn't their hard work, but the number on a scale.  That is self-defeating, disincentivises those who actually do the real work, and when largely ignored by the very leadership charged with setting those rules, sets the tone that not all regulations are required.

:clap:      :clap:      :clap:

That's a slow clap!

Quote from: Ned on March 17, 2014, 06:02:26 PM
Who do you think makes the coffee at BoG meetings?

Lieutenant Colonels.  Well, one of them, anyway.

("That was cream and one sugar, General?)

Ned, you are always spot on   :clap:

CAP really boils down to mutual respect for other peoples accomplishments and responsibilities.   If my job was to make coffee.....  Then I made coffee.  If my job was to stock the refrigerator, then I did it.  If the wing commander came by my unit along with the wing staff for a commanders call, they got the respect they were due for their positions they held in the organization up to and including the rank on their shoulders.  Did people stand back and say "Wow... look... its a Colonel!"  No, they were more interested in the fact that he was the wing commander.  I never heard anyone say "Well we are all just volunteers"  or "Yeah, any one of us could do that job."  But even as an accomplished adult who has met and worked with a lot of great people in my time, I still thought it was cool to have the Wing Commander in my building.  It was with the same awe that I recall being at the Wing Conference in Fresno and realizing the master of ceremonies at the banquet was "Ned" and saying "So thats him ehhhhh?"   :clap:

I think all this stuff about ranks, and NCOs and WO's and O's just detracts away from all of that, and I sincerely hope CAP doesn't end up with a separation of classes, which to me, is where is appears to be headed by design.  In the end, we are all people donating our personal time to achieve the same goal.  If people want to be called MSgt or Captain is really irrelevant.  I just hope I don't see new members brought in later on under the new system adopting the mindset that certain jobs are below their rank.  Because thats what I see this encouraging.

Heck ... the man who was GAWG CC when I rejoined in 2009 was someone I'd gone to high school with.  And it was still coolness in the extreme to have the Wing Commander visit the squadron.  (Even though I called him "Colonel" around the cadets, when there was a second to talk he was just "Jay".)

Jack

That's why we have the fourth core value.

I don't think ranks detract away from getting the mission done.....because in the "real CAP" as opposed to CAPTALK it really does not come up all that much.

Sure every now and then you get someone who has drama over getting or not getting a promotion. 

But really....everyone just does their job.

If someone things doing work is beneath their rank......okay....I'm sure that Group/Wing/Region/National needs your expertise....thanks for playing. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on March 18, 2014, 12:45:59 PM
You could easily be a CAP Lt Col and have never been responsible for anything in your entire CAP career, while your Sq Commander is a 22yr old 2Lt.  Let that CAP Lt. Col stand up in a meeting and say "Look Lt... this is how its going to happen."  I would respond.."OK Joe, you, can you go grab me a soda, my throat is dry." 

While it's true that our missional roles are disconnected from grade and rank, which is The Big Deceptor in our fine CAP, I'm not sure you can say that a lieutenant colonel (full disclosure: I'm one) can rise through CAP's ranks without having any responsibility at all. I think I may be picking nits here, but you don't make light colonel without having done SOMETHING in CAP. And with the occasional exception of a lieutenant colonel who's long past his or her shelf life, and serves as little more than a relic who's willing to help in some way (shouldn't those people be on the retired list?), anyone in field grade should be stepping up and willfully taking added responsibilities becuase they have the experience and the knowhow. Or are expected to have it.

Many times, we pick the willing-but-inexperienced member (the new guy, or one of the new guys) to be a squadron commander because either no one else wants it or they're underqualified in some way or another. A light colonel in that situation is along for the ride, or prefers a back-seat role, and that's (generally) wrong. We must expect people in field grade to step up and be engaged, not just be happy to be a personnel officer for a newly minted first lieutenant (given the grade in order to be a unit commander). It's one thing to be an O-5 personnel officer when the old man and his deputy (or deputies, in a composite squadron) are also wearing silver oak leaves. It's yet another for someone to say "been there, done that, got the T-shirt" and decide "it's someone else's turn" when all it really does is ensure burnout for a new member who could have given so much more to CAP than grow fatigued and jaded quickly as a squadron commander after a year or so.

Said company-grade officer should be serving an apprenticeship under a field-grade officer — whether it's as a personnel officer or supply officer or whatever, but in a position where increased responsibility is bestowed where needed — and developing slowly into a more effective CAP asset.

As for the "fourth core value," all it really does in CAP is underpin the first one. If you've ever read Air Force doctrine, you'll know that respect is part of integrity already.

Now as far as a CAP enlisted system, it's fine time. There's no reason many people we promote to butterbars should have that grade. Give them an opportunity to serve that puts them at a lower expectational threshold and watch them succeed.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 18, 2014, 09:42:53 PM

Now as far as a CAP enlisted system, it's fine time. There's no reason many people we promote to butterbars should have that grade. Give them an opportunity to serve that puts them at a lower expectational threshold and watch them succeed.

>:D :o  OH..... now you've done it. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on March 18, 2014, 10:36:30 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 18, 2014, 09:42:53 PM

Now as far as a CAP enlisted system, it's fine time. There's no reason many people we promote to butterbars should have that grade. Give them an opportunity to serve that puts them at a lower expectational threshold and watch them succeed.

>:D :o  OH..... now you've done it.

Nah, I don't think so. I'm not afraid to touch the third rail here, and while it may get me in hot water, let's face it — we don't equip our CGOs as well as we could. And many people we consider for second lieutenant aren't officer material. This is a handy alternative, once the program is better established. There's nothing wrong with developing our own Mustangs, for that matter.

We need to develop our people more and not just throw them into assignments, certainly not into command assignments, where burnout is an issue. We lose good people because their willingness to serve early in their CAP careers is capitalized upon — we take advantage of it, rather than grow and nurture it and then let it work for them AND for us. I don't know how many squadron commanders I've seen like that, and even a few group commanders, and it doesn't have to be like that at all. Let's get our senior, experienced people to realize they're the ones with the knowledge and the expectations, and use them as their grade and rank commends them.

The Navy Sea Cadets do not even consider a member for Ensign until they have been in a year with the title of "instructor."

http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer (http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer)

They may well have something there.

Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2014, 07:09:31 AM
The Navy Sea Cadets do not even consider a member for Ensign until they have been in a year with the title of "instructor."

http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer (http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer)

They may well have something there.

Eh. Still not as good as the CG Aux system. It has the "badge of dominance", lets you know who is in positions of authority and responsibility, and prevents the coffee making lieutenant colonel from existing...

Quote from: THRAWN on March 19, 2014, 11:43:09 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2014, 07:09:31 AM
The Navy Sea Cadets do not even consider a member for Ensign until they have been in a year with the title of "instructor."

http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer (http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer)

They may well have something there.

Eh. Still not as good as the CG Aux system. It has the "badge of dominance", lets you know who is in positions of authority and responsibility, and prevents the coffee making lieutenant colonel from existing...

IF you can remember all the abbreviations, and remember that you still call someone wearing chickens, silverballs, etc. "Jack" or "Jane" as they hand you your cuppa Joe.

The longer I've been in CAP the more I tend to agree with Eclipse on this matter. I'm not opposed to military-style grades in CAP, but I don't agree with CAP's current implementation of the grade system. I believe that for grades to be effective, a major overhaul is needed.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 19, 2014, 06:19:58 PM
The longer I've been in CAP the more I tend to agree with Eclipse on this matter. I'm not opposed to military-style grades in CAP, but I don't agree with CAP's current implementation of the grade system. I believe that for grades to be effective, a major overhaul is needed.

+1

Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 19, 2014, 06:19:58 PM
The longer I've been in CAP the more I tend to agree with Eclipse on this matter. I'm not opposed to military-style grades in CAP, but I don't agree with CAP's current implementation of the grade system. I believe that for grades to be effective, a major overhaul is needed.

Generally speaking, this is a major obstacle to overcome. It's not a private matter between CAP and USAF but something that needs to be looked at.

Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2014, 06:11:21 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on March 19, 2014, 11:43:09 AM

Quote from: CyBorg on March 19, 2014, 07:09:31 AM
The Navy Sea Cadets do not even consider a member for Ensign until they have been in a year with the title of "instructor."

http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer (http://www.seacadets.org/faqs#BecomingAVolunteer)

They may well have something there.

Eh. Still not as good as the CG Aux system. It has the "badge of dominance", lets you know who is in positions of authority and responsibility, and prevents the coffee making lieutenant colonel from existing...

IF you can remember all the abbreviations, and remember that you still call someone wearing chickens, silverballs, etc. "Jack" or "Jane" as they hand you your cuppa Joe.

You can still use the same "titles"(captain, lieutenant colonel, etc), but they would be granted in the same manner as the CG Aux (i.e specific staff slot, command, etc). And we sure as shootin' don't need an "NCO Corps".

If the system was overhauled to have grade indicate level of duty, then perhaps they could simply change the PD level requirements for staff duty assignment to staff duty assignments at and higher echelons.  Currently, someone could rise to the grade of Lt Col while serving in a position like the squadron assistant historian.  (no slight intended towards historians). 

How about making the PD level's required staff assignments be at higher echelons (group, wing, region)?  Then grade promotion to Maj and Lt Col would indicate higher levels of responsibility. 

Quote from: pierson777 on March 19, 2014, 07:36:56 PM
If the system was overhauled to have grade indicate level of duty, then perhaps they could simply change the PD level requirements for staff duty assignment to staff duty assignments at and higher echelons.  Currently, someone could rise to the grade of Lt Col while serving in a position like the squadron assistant historian.  (no slight intended towards historians). 

How about making the PD level's required staff assignments be at higher echelons (group, wing, region)?  Then grade promotion to Maj and Lt Col would indicate higher levels of responsibility.

Ideally, it should be that way. It does work IF the checklists are being followed, and IF they're not being pencil whipped. Lieutenants and captains should run squadrons, captains and majors run groups, and majors and lieutenant colonels should run wings. Should, in the land of ponies and rainbows...

Quote from: THRAWN on March 19, 2014, 07:43:01 PM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 19, 2014, 07:36:56 PM
If the system was overhauled to have grade indicate level of duty, then perhaps they could simply change the PD level requirements for staff duty assignment to staff duty assignments at and higher echelons.  Currently, someone could rise to the grade of Lt Col while serving in a position like the squadron assistant historian.  (no slight intended towards historians). 

How about making the PD level's required staff assignments be at higher echelons (group, wing, region)?  Then grade promotion to Maj and Lt Col would indicate higher levels of responsibility.

Ideally, it should be that way. It does work IF the checklists are being followed, and IF they're not being pencil whipped. Lieutenants and captains should run squadrons, captains and majors run groups, and majors and lieutenant colonels should run wings. Should, in the land of ponies and rainbows...

Actually, very few of the PD tracks require higher level service for any of the levels.  Those that do require that are exceptions, certainly not the rule.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 19, 2014, 07:52:58 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on March 19, 2014, 07:43:01 PM

Quote from: pierson777 on March 19, 2014, 07:36:56 PM
If the system was overhauled to have grade indicate level of duty, then perhaps they could simply change the PD level requirements for staff duty assignment to staff duty assignments at and higher echelons.  Currently, someone could rise to the grade of Lt Col while serving in a position like the squadron assistant historian.  (no slight intended towards historians). 

How about making the PD level's required staff assignments be at higher echelons (group, wing, region)?  Then grade promotion to Maj and Lt Col would indicate higher levels of responsibility.

Ideally, it should be that way. It does work IF the checklists are being followed, and IF they're not being pencil whipped. Lieutenants and captains should run squadrons, captains and majors run groups, and majors and lieutenant colonels should run wings. Should, in the land of ponies and rainbows...

Actually, very few of the PD tracks require higher level service for any of the levels.  Those that do require that are exceptions, certainly not the rule.

IIRC the ONLY PD track that requires higher level service is Emergency Service.   Everything else can be done at the squadron level with some participation in group and wing activities. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2014, 08:05:44 PM
IIRC the ONLY PD track that requires higher level service is Emergency Service.   Everything else can be done at the squadron level with some participation in group and wing activities.

No Master Historian requires Group or higher.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 19, 2014, 08:05:44 PMIIRC the ONLY PD track that requires higher level service is Emergency Service.   Everything else can be done at the squadron level with some participation in group and wing activities.

No Master IG requires Wing or higher.   8)

Quote from: pierson777 on March 19, 2014, 07:36:56 PM
If the system was overhauled to have grade indicate level of duty, then perhaps they could simply change the PD level requirements for staff duty assignment to staff duty assignments at and higher echelons.  Currently, someone could rise to the grade of Lt Col while serving in a position like the squadron assistant historian.  (no slight intended towards historians). 

JMHO, but Major and higher should mean you have Command experience, in the past or present.  8)

Quote from: Private Investigator on March 19, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
JMHO, but Major and higher should mean you have Command experience, in the past or present.  8)

You can get to Lt Col in the USAF without any command experience.  Just saying.

PAWG had limits on field grade officers a while back, and it got plucked from them.

That makes a lot more sense in the active duty military where people tend to move up or out, but in this organization, there are only so many slots.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 19, 2014, 06:19:58 PM
The longer I've been in CAP the more I tend to agree with Eclipse on this matter. I'm not opposed to military-style grades in CAP, but I don't agree with CAP's current implementation of the grade system. I believe that for grades to be effective, a major overhaul is needed.

Agreed.

Quote from: Panache on March 20, 2014, 04:30:15 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 19, 2014, 06:19:58 PM
The longer I've been in CAP the more I tend to agree with Eclipse on this matter. I'm not opposed to military-style grades in CAP, but I don't agree with CAP's current implementation of the grade system. I believe that for grades to be effective, a major overhaul is needed.

Agreed.

Hear, hear.

Overhaul
Maj , CAP

It seems like most want functional grades, at least to the extent of showing experience. We do that now, but we really show non-CAP experience. I got 1st Lt because of my Earhart. A CFI got Capt because of his job. An accountant got Major because of his job. A former Air Force Colonel got Lt Col because of his AF experience. In all of these cases, the receiving end is basically clueless about what a SM is, the culture, or what any of it means. You can make an argument that a 21 year old former cadet is the closest to know how CAP works of the bunch, simply due to being around. But it was STILL an eye opener for me.

My first few meetings as an active SM consisted of hanging around, checking stuff out. The SMs, unless doing ES training were just...there. Sure some staff were doing administrative work, some flight crew may have been planning a training mission, but for the most part, people just wanted to get out of the house for the night. On the cadet side, cadets were doing their thing, and the CP SMs were doing a lot more "active" stuff by default. Because I had my separation for four years of college, I didn't feel like a cadet, but also felt out of place on the SM side. I asked questions about things that were happening. I suggested corrections when I knew something was off (drill, uniforms, etc).

But overall? I was adrift at sea, with little understanding for at least 6-8 weeks of what I'm doing with my 2+ hours a week.

Now imagine a new member who joined without any CAP experience. They see what I see, but have even less of an understanding. Even the former AF Colonel might be confused about most of it. So why do we give advanced rank to these (former cadets included) people? The military reasons are pay, respect, authority (JAGs, Medical, etc). In CAP? No one in their right mind will put a new CFI Captain in charge of anything. He doesn't know what he needs to be doing! So now you have a 4 year member who earned captain through PD and CAP experience, watch a guy with a PPL+ CFI get the same almost instantly while being useless to CAP in any meaningful way for at least 6-12 months to get a baseline understanding.

I have a lot of respect for certain Captains, Majors, and Lt Cols because I know the path they took to get there. The 1 year in Maj or Lt Col? I respect the person, but their CAP experience a lot of times leaves a lot to be desired.

Quote from: LSThiker on March 20, 2014, 12:03:54 AM

Quote from: Private Investigator on March 19, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
JMHO, but Major and higher should mean you have Command experience, in the past or present.  8)

You can get to Lt Col in the USAF without any command experience.  Just saying.

That is apples and oranges or CAP and USAF. My point is in CAP a Lt Col should know something beyond Petticoat Junction Squadron or the fact that they were "Squadron of the Year" in 1994.   8)

Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 20, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
It seems like most want functional grades, at least to the extent of showing experience. We do that now, but we really show non-CAP experience. I got 1st Lt because of my Earhart. A CFI got Capt because of his job. An accountant got Major because of his job. A former Air Force Colonel got Lt Col because of his AF experience. In all of these cases, the receiving end is basically clueless about what a SM is, the culture, or what any of it means. You can make an argument that a 21 year old former cadet is the closest to know how CAP works of the bunch, simply due to being around. But it was STILL an eye opener for me.

My first few meetings as an active SM consisted of hanging around, checking stuff out. The SMs, unless doing ES training were just...there. Sure some staff were doing administrative work, some flight crew may have been planning a training mission, but for the most part, people just wanted to get out of the house for the night. On the cadet side, cadets were doing their thing, and the CP SMs were doing a lot more "active" stuff by default. Because I had my separation for four years of college, I didn't feel like a cadet, but also felt out of place on the SM side. I asked questions about things that were happening. I suggested corrections when I knew something was off (drill, uniforms, etc).

But overall? I was adrift at sea, with little understanding for at least 6-8 weeks of what I'm doing with my 2+ hours a week.

Now imagine a new member who joined without any CAP experience. They see what I see, but have even less of an understanding. Even the former AF Colonel might be confused about most of it. So why do we give advanced rank to these (former cadets included) people? The military reasons are pay, respect, authority (JAGs, Medical, etc). In CAP? No one in their right mind will put a new CFI Captain in charge of anything. He doesn't know what he needs to be doing! So now you have a 4 year member who earned captain through PD and CAP experience, watch a guy with a PPL+ CFI get the same almost instantly while being useless to CAP in any meaningful way for at least 6-12 months to get a baseline understanding.

I have a lot of respect for certain Captains, Majors, and Lt Cols because I know the path they took to get there. The 1 year in Maj or Lt Col? I respect the person, but their CAP experience a lot of times leaves a lot to be desired.

Very good points. Everytime CAP attempts a 'mentor' program it fails. The better Squadrons have somewhat of a mentor program or at least a "nice" guy/gal who will help the newbies. When I was an IG I would visit a Squadron every two years and the problem they had on the previous visit was still there.  8)

Quote from: Private Investigator on March 20, 2014, 07:31:18 PMMy point is in CAP a Lt Col should know something beyond Petticoat Junction Squadron or the fact that they were "Squadron of the Year" in 1994.

Agreed.  Should.

However unfortunately, owing to the lack of performance expectations and no "up or out policy" in CAP,
a significant number of FGOs haven't been active in a decade.

These "valued members" randomly pop up whenever they feel like "playing CAP" completely "non-current"
in process and procedure, or for that matter what the wing is doing at all.

And many wings are so desperate to fill staff slots, that they get assigned to difficult, subjective
jobs that no one else wants, warm the chair for a few months, maybe whine a bit about BITD, and
then fade out again with the same warning as they faded in.

You can set a clock by some of them, and the only function they serve is to inject a little chaos
to no actual value.

CAP collects alot of dough in dues from those old gray guys and some do no harm other than ride the rails.  No harm no foul??

Quote from: AirAux on March 20, 2014, 08:49:34 PM
CAP collects alot of dough in dues from those old gray guys and some do no harm other than ride the rails.  No harm no foul??

If they want to stay as empty shirts, fine, put them in an uncounted membership category off the wing's books and
cash their checks.

But counting them as members, or worse, then they pop-up ill informed every six months or so to take a
staff job, there's plenty of "foul and harm".

Catch 22, new members that don't know that they are doing, old members that forgot what they are doing, and midstream members that don't care what they are doing.   

Quote from: AirAux on March 20, 2014, 09:10:51 PM
Catch 22, new members that don't know that they are doing, old members that forgot what they are doing, and midstream members that don't care what they are doing.

Agreed - one of the top ten reasons CAP's attempt to emulate the military model doesn't work.
Inactive, ill-formed FGOs are allowed to wander in and out of the ranks at will.

I understand there's no way to staff a volunteer organization with such mandates, but an up-or-out policy
coupled with some expectation of annual proficiency and activity would go a long way towards fixing this.

Never.

Happen.