HQ National Warning Letter to Senior Member "Wanna Bees" Trolling for Salutes

[EMT-83]

OPSEC, EO and the new safety course are on-line. The remaining training material is available on-line, but it not an on-line course.

[Major Carrales]

OPSEC, EO and the new safety course are on-line. The remaining training material is available on-line, but it not an on-line course.

Yes, but these things began as on line courses later "grafted" onto Level 1.  The course itself is still a squadron function complete with paperwork/documentation.

[davidsinn]

OPSEC, EO and the new safety course are on-line. The remaining training material is available on-line, but it not an on-line course.

http://capmembers.com/cap_university/level_i_foundations_course.cfm

That looks like an online course to me. Other than the BS courses that have been added in the past few years that link is the bulk of lvl1.

[EMT-83]

I taught at SLS last weekend, and specifically asked the students what their Level 1 training was like. There was absolutely no consistency in how squadrons introduce new members to CAP. One wing staffer in attendance swore that Level 1 was completed on-line and had no idea that a Form 11 was submitted to NHQ.

There's a good chance that Foundations is the only time many members will be instructed on customs & courtesies and uniforms. So, if we're doing a crappy job, and it appears that we are, how can we expect members to get it right?

[davidsinn]

So, if we're doing a crappy job, and it appears that we are, how can we expect members to get it right?

That is the question isn't it? I wish I had an answer.

[Major Carrales]

I taught at SLS last weekend, and specifically asked the students what their Level 1 training was like. There was absolutely no consistency in how squadrons introduce new members to CAP. One wing staffer in attendance swore that Level 1 was completed on-line and had no idea that a Form 11 was submitted to NHQ.

There's a good chance that Foundations is the only time many members will be instructed on customs & courtesies and uniforms. So, if we're doing a crappy job, and it appears that we are, how can we expect members to get it right?

On the cadet side, the first steps (Curry and Arnold) involve D&C with a Drill test for several of the achievements.  Lots of good leadership training is given and practiced.  But that is mandatory for promotion and advancement. 

On the senior side, this is not so.  Most seniors might bring in prior information or culture from Military service, ROTC or common knowledge on such matters...but it is NOT mandatory and, thus, it is not stressed.  That would account for the lack of consistency.

The question coming on this horizon here is..."What level of this should be taught?"  I have known many people unwilling to do drill and ceremonies and others that want it as part of every meeting.  A second question might be..."Should we add basic drill to Senior Training?"

[RADIOMAN015]

I taught at SLS last weekend, and specifically asked the students what their Level 1 training was like. There was absolutely no consistency in how squadrons introduce new members to CAP. One wing staffer in attendance swore that Level 1 was completed on-line and had no idea that a Form 11 was submitted to NHQ.

There's a good chance that Foundations is the only time many members will be instructed on customs & courtesies and uniforms. So, if we're doing a crappy job, and it appears that we are, how can we expect members to get it right?

On the senior side, this is not so.  Most seniors might bring in prior information or culture from Military service, ROTC or common knowledge on such matters...but it is NOT mandatory and, thus, it is not stressed.  That would account for the lack of consistency.

The question coming on this horizon here is..."What level of this should be taught?"  I have known many people unwilling to do drill and ceremonies and others that want it as part of every meeting.  A second question might be..."Should we add basic drill to Senior Training?"

Please note it was a MAJOR in CAP that caused the National letter to be written. I fail to see what is gained by having senior members march around in circles.  Even the AF after basic training (maybe also at technical school) has little (likely no) marching --   There may be some standing formations BUT anything more than that would require retraining & practice.
Please remember we are the CIVIL Air Patrol.   Likely much of the problems are caused by personnel that are recruited into CAP that are wanna bees for various reasons and somehow take on the role in their minds as being what they consider as being equal to a "military officer", which unfortunately may negatively affect CAP overall.  Fortunately, this doesn't happen that often in this overt of a manner,  BUT I have heard about uninvited CAP senior members showing up at base functions dressed in their AF blue uniforms, and some high ranking military personnel have wondered why they were there  
RM       

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Luckily these happenings are rare. Let's just train our people to know better than this and ensure that it doesn't happen, and if it does happen, ensure that it is taken care of before it hits this point. If there is someone that you feel may not be prepared to enter into the military's area of operations by themselves, just ensure that you have someone go with them into those areas until you are confident in their professionalism.

[NIN]

Please note it was a MAJOR in CAP that caused the National letter to be written. I fail to see what is gained by having senior members march around in circles.  Even the AF after basic training (maybe also at technical school) has little (likely no) marching --   There may be some standing formations BUT anything more than that would require retraining & practice.

Correctly executed, good D&C training (which, for seniors, should probably be more "C" than "D") is not "marching around in circles."  Nobody is suggesting that seniors learn more than fairly rudimentary D&C nor have any requirement really to continue to march about following Level I.

However, its been my experience that taking the time to teach your seniors the basic elements of D&C, especially those that have direct pertinence to the ongoing duties of a senior (reporting, standing in formation correctly, saluting, including the when, where and who of saluting) pays back dividends both in terms of the professional competence of your officers and the manner in which they are perceived by both our military colleagues and their fellow members.

Thats not a supposition, by the way.  Its based on direct observation of officer professional development over several years as a unit commander (2 the first time, 5 the second time, 2 the third time), time spent as both a group senior programs officer and a wing cadet programs officer, and about 28 years in a CAP uniform overall.

Marching around in circles accomplishes nothing.  Teaching your officers how to both report and be reported to, how to leave and return to ranks, how to get into and stand in formation, and both training and practical experience in the exchange of courtesies is not marching in circles.

Please remember we are the CIVIL Air Patrol.   Likely much of the problems are caused by personnel that are recruited into CAP that are wanna bees for various reasons and somehow take on the role in their minds as being what they consider as being equal to a "military officer", which unfortunately may negatively affect CAP overall.  Fortunately, this doesn't happen that often in this overt of a manner,  BUT I have heard about uninvited CAP senior members showing up at base functions dressed in their AF blue uniforms, and some high ranking military personnel have wondered why they were there          

Certainly, this can be a problem.  Frankly, I think that issues like this are correctable with better, consistent training for new members.  Not less.  Not powerpoints. Not "online" training. 

Used to be that Level I was six months long (no, I'm not talking about the "waiting period" between joining and pinning on 2Lt), and comprised a 4-ish hour long "orientation course" and "cadet protection training" just as part of that six month period.

In my experience, many units took that four hour orientation course as an "absolute."

As in "absolute maximum we need to do." 

Whereas, other units took it as a starting point, a place where officer learning could be assessed, questions answered, a road map laid out.  Where Level I, while formally comprising an orientation course and cadet protection training, also was several months of additional training, one-on-one mentoring and additional exposure to the "culture" of Civil Air Patrol.

I think the more CAP attempts to cut corners, make the training "more accessible" to people who can't or won't commit the time to participate, the more incidents like this you'll hear about.

And if you cut corners on this, the simple stuff, what other corners are being cut in the hundreds of units out the field?

[billford1]

The Civil Air Patrol does a pretty good job with Cadet Training by the way the Cadet Program is structured. I think it would be great if NHQ, CAP/USAF and whoever else would take a long look at the Senior Professional Development Program. Cadets I see are aware of what is expected of them. We do Level I online now which is cheaper. Senior Members go through a training program that more often does not involve the mentorship where an experienced CAP Leader guides them.  If trained well the Senior Member would more likely consider what Cadets, the Public and the Military see when the member represents the Civil Air Patrol.

[Ed Bos]

I think this may be good to talk about in a different thread, but have you looked at the Organizational Excellence Program? It's designed to supplement the Professional Development Program, and cultivate leadership in CAP at all levels.

And the foundation of this whole program is mentorship.

Check it out and see if your Wing has a program running if you're interested in participating.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/OE_Announcement_162431602899A.pdf

[billford1]

I think this may be good to talk about in a different thread, but have you looked at the Organizational Excellence Program? It's designed to supplement the Professional Development Program, and cultivate leadership in CAP at all levels.

And the foundation of this whole program is mentorship.

Check it out and see if your Wing has a program running if you're interested in participating.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/OE_Announcement_162431602899A.pdf

Thanks for sharing that. I guess my point is that if the baseline Professional Development Program were upgraded it would be less likely that a Senior Member would have things that misunderstood and go do what the AF Magazine Forum commenter said happened.

[EMT-83]

Level 1 is fine the way it's currently structured.

The failure is squadrons treating it like an on-line course and not providing mentoring.

[JeffDG]

Level 1 is fine the way it's currently structured.

The failure is squadrons treating it like an on-line course and not providing mentoring.

Let's also not forget...this is not a Level 1 issue.  The individual in question held the grade of Major, which absent a small number of professional appointments, means they completed Levels 1-3 of the PD program.

[Eclipse]

^ Agreed, this is not something Level 1 or OE is going to fix.

[EMT-83]

Agreed, the person in question (hopefully) is far beyond Level 1.

However, comments posted in this thread hint towards a failure in how we train our members in uniforms and customs & courtesies. Rather than writing a new PD program, why don't we just properly implement the existing program?

[Eclipse]

^ Again I agree 100% - executed close to the text, everything most of us whine and complain about discuss regularly is already addressed, including the authority for diciplinary action when the lights go out.

The problem is that by the time you filter out commanders who...

1) don't care / can't be bothered
2) care but have never opened a reg
3) care, know the regs, but don't want to have uncomfortable conversations
4) etc.

...that leaves a fairly small percentage of members in positions of authority who know the program and have the where-with-all to train people
properly and enforce our rules.

Add to that members who think they can come and go as they please and make things up as they go along, and one does not need a flowchart to
see how we got where we are.

This isn't made any easier when people do lights-out things and instead of just addressing the person, we "spare feelings" by addressing the "issue" and adding one more generalized training or "reminder" to the already deafening background noise that interferes with our actual mission.

In the original case cited, I would have:

If the person who did it cannot be identified - sent a heartfelt apology to the base commander and a 3000psi memo to the local commanders
that hold the likely suspects, but also treated it with a few grains of salt.

If the person were identifiable, then suspend them pending an investigation, and suggest that they be demoted at least one click as a lesson,
still send a an apology to the base commander and the person who was affronted, but left it private from there.

[Eclipse]

Further to this, you can draw a pretty straight line from the mountain of administrative nonsense that our commanders and staff have to deal with
to the lack of leadership and mission-focused activity at the unit and member level.

Simply put, despite the recent rise in numbers, most functional squadrons have about the same number of members today that they had ten years ago,
yet the amount of paperwork they need to deal with just to keep the doors open has at least doubled.

So you have the same resources dealing with double the administration overhead, which leaves 1/2 the time (and 1/3 the G-A-S factor) to actually do what they joined for.

SUI's, real property survey's, AE plans of action, safety survey's, etc., all just someone's checkbox for a report no one pays any attention to, anyway, yet
increases the workload of the commanders and staff, to no mission advantage whatsoever.

None.

[JoeTomasone]

So why not delegate C&C and other member-centric (as opposed to unit-centric) issues to a DC or to the DCS & DCC?

[Eclipse]

So why not delegate C&C and other member-centric (as opposed to unit-centric) issues to a DC or to the DCS & DCC?

Why would the Director of Comms do that? (I know smartypants).

See above, seriously - the staffers are in the same boat, and in many cases only names on a page.  I'd be willing to bet that the units with
the most issues in this regard also have the fewest names on the command roster.