Clarification of Officer Rank Qualifications For "New" CAP

[JAFO78]

I though it best to start this as a new topic

Gentlemen, I applaud all of you for your hard work to bring CAP back into alignment with the Air Force as this should have happened long ago. But I do have questions as far as Officer Rank goes, ( I have been in CAP twice before, first time around I was a 1LT almost a Capt. 4 years in. I got married and CAP fell to the side. A few years later I rejoined and I again made 2LT, as I had to restart from the bottom. But family came first again I had to leave. I hope to rejoin again in a few months after a move to Florida.)

Now if all of this goes to plan, what happens to those of us that have no interest in flying? I very much would become a ground team member. I have real world job skills and training ramp flight operations or ground handling commercial jets. With at lest 6 years experience. I also have experience as a supervisor and Assistant Department Manager.

Now would any of that count towards becoming an officer or I am looking at being an "enlisted" member. I have been keeping up with CAP through CAPortal, and CAPtalk.
If it boils down to having to college I guess I would.

I have learned more in the last week, then at any point before. I eagerly await many replys to this.

Robert Goodman aka  Robg 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Rob:

None of this has gone beyond the talking stage yet.  Some of us, however, are going to prepare a paper to be circulated with ideas developed through R&D here on the net.  (R&D = Ripoff and Duplication).

Generally, the talk centers on creation of a more professional officer corps that can stand toe-to-toe and nose-to-nose with the USAF.  Mot of us feel that college should be the basic requirement, although there is discussion among us as to how much is enough.  Some want a BS/BA, others think an Associate would put you in the ballpark.  (I'm still undecided on this point.)

We all agree that some type of OTS is appropriate.  I'm working on putting one through here in FL that will be 3 months long.  Iowa is a full 6 months long.  (Month = 1 weekend). 

Where we have the most disagreement is how to handle highly qualified people who lack college, are not pilots, communications technicians, medical personnel, prior service, but are clearly not the kind of folks who should be considered "E-Nothings."  Should we expand the flight officer rank program?  Should we create an enlisted corps?  If we create an enlisted corps, how do we manage it and how do we promote?  Are Air Force rank insignia appropriate to use?  How will we differentiate between AF enlisted and NCO's and our CAP enlisted and NCO's, since enlisted will not have any epaulet, gray or otherwise?

Feel free, Rob, to jump in.  The water's fine.  You'll get splashed a few times, but that's part of the fun. 

[JAFO78]

Thanks Kack, I was hoping you would see this. Yes I understand what you are saying. Hey I would love more than anything to go to an OTS. I think it would be hard work and fun at the same time.

[DNall]

If I can echo Kach, we are in development at this stage & your input is valued as well. Let me tell you where we are at this point though...

We're ALSO talking about a transition plan of how to get from where we are to the new system. That tends to involve some sort of gradfathering, in that existing officers have to complete any item they're missing from the new system to keep their grade, or may be demoted to a lower officer grade. That would put 2Lts in OTS w/ new members to get started. 1Lts doing an officer basic course to convert the theory to practical leadership, etc on down the line. So, if you came back in (and you or NHQ has something to document you were 1Lt before - they prob do), they you'll be reinstated at 1Lt & maybe even can reclaim your time in grade (nice if you have a file or something in a closet somewhere). Then you'd transition w/ everyone else.

We haven't talked about what to do w/ returning officers after the transition is done, but I'd think either use the same transition rules or have them do OTS & then put them back at their former grade. That's a detail I hadn't considered yet.

Now the more generic... All the skills you described (GTM/L, Flt Line Sup, etc) would be performed by enlisted in the military. They are specialist operator skills. The good thing about that person is their expertise in a field, and THEN comes leadership skills to carry it out. An officer is a generalist - meaning not as expert at specific things but knows a little about a lot of related things - where they are leaders of people first & do-ers second. The way it should work is you have a specialty area in a shop w/ say three specialized fields, enlisted experts in each of those fields supervised by an NCO dept head that's an experienced expert who also has leadership skills, then an officer over it all that's basically qualified in all three areas. The officers job is to make sure each of the depts is running smoothly, the NCOs are doing their jobs, and otherwise to be a liaison to get requirements from the boss executed by the varrious depts... if it's all running smoothly & he doesn't have much to do, then it's appropriate for him to pitch in with the guys on the job.

Now, specifically, what we said was a BS is the requirement, easy to attain waivers for 60hrs/associates & special skills or experience (of which yours qualifies). I don't have anything against people that have not gone to college. Some of them are very smart, and some people that have gone are complete doofs. However, just requiring that 60hr mark will cut down the percentage of idiots. There's also some tradition to be looked at. Part of the reason college is required comes from George Washington taking over the Contentital Army & shaking up that officer corps, and on back before that for all time... in CAP terms, why does the corporate executive w/ an MBA down at Sq want to follow a region commander that's a truck driver? That sounds callous, but you know it causes big problems.

Anyway, I hope that helps. Please feel free to toss your views in & help us shape the concepts.

[JAFO78]

DNall,  Unfortunately I have no saved papers. Both my records were destroyed before I could get to them. I don't know what MN Wing has on file. My old squadron commander 1st time in, is at Wing HQ. Maybe a letter from him stating that I was his Deputy Commander, and then Squadron Commander after he moved up.

Not sure of the whereabouts of squadron commander from my second time in.

If I have to start at the bottom and work my way up so be it. I have no problem hitting the books and starting over. I think it makes a better person, and shows willingness to become an officer.

I will continue to read the postings and toss my quarter in from time to time.

[DNall]

A letter like that stating he remembers promoting you at the time, etc would be helpful. Not sure when you said you were in last, but email/call NHQ/DPR (the members services people) & aks if they can look & see what they have on you (name & SSN). If it's in the last what 5-7 years then they should have something. They'll print it out & mail it to you. One of those two route should be enough to take care of it.

I appreciate that you are willing to re-take courses, and that's great if you go that route to get updated to the newer material, especially in a specialty track & of course you have to redo CPPT & start from scratch on ES. However, there's more challenging stuff out there I'd rather see you spend your time on than repeatng the basics.

If it were just a matter of the grade or the training I wouldn't care. It'll take a few months to get you reinstated to 1Lt & by that time you might be eligible for 2Lt anyway. The point would be to shorten the time before you make Captain, which is sounds like you deserve at this point, and become eligible to take SOS. I wouldn't want you to spend 3-4 more years before you can do that. I'd rather see you get back up to date & build on your past experience to pick up pretty close to where you left off. Otherwise I worry you'll have a lot of dead time in there just waiting & won't feel like we need you as bad as we really do. Good luck though. I've been thru a similiar experience after taking a break, kind of in the back end of that process now actually. If you have questions or anything pleas feel free to drop me a msg. 

[BillB]

OK lets see where I would fall under your Rank Qualifications.
I hold a Masters degree and a B.A. and a B.S. and just finished an A.S. (different major)
Have completed Levels 1 thru 5 including AWC and NDU
Held a Cadet COP w/2clasps (roughly equal to Spaatz)
a command pilots rating (even if I don't renew a medical) a PPL with SEL, MEL and SES
Masters rating in PAO, Comm and CP
for ES all I have is GES even though I was MC for 21+ actual missions under old system

So where would someone like that fit into your rank (should be grade) qualifications??

[arajca]

OK lets see where I would fall under your Rank Qualifications.
I hold a Masters degree and a B.A. and a B.S. and just finished an A.S. (different major)
Have completed Levels 1 thru 5 including AWC and NDU
Held a Cadet COP w/2clasps (roughly equal to Spaatz)
a command pilots rating (even if I don't renew a medical) a PPL with SEL, MEL and SES
Masters rating in PAO, Comm and CP
for ES all I have is GES even though I was MC for 21+ actual missions under old system

So where would someone like that fit into your rank (should be grade) qualifications??

What command/staff positions have you served in?

[shorning]

So where would someone like that fit into your rank (should be grade) qualifications??

You could be a Master Corporal...

[fyrfitrmedic]

So where would someone like that fit into your rank (should be grade) qualifications??

You could be a Master Corporal...

... or Corporal Captain?

[RiverAux]

I think that 2Lt or 1Lt would be an appropriate rank for GTLs.  The size of the team is small enough that in most ground units it would be led by a Sgt. but there are various examples of other units of similar size being led by officers. 

[DNall]

OK lets see where I would fall under your Rank Qualifications.
I hold a Masters degree and a B.A. and a B.S. and just finished an A.S. (different major)
Have completed Levels 1 thru 5 including AWC and NDU
Held a Cadet COP w/2clasps (roughly equal to Spaatz)
a command pilots rating (even if I don't renew a medical) a PPL with SEL, MEL and SES
Masters rating in PAO, Comm and CP
for ES all I have is GES even though I was MC for 21+ actual missions under old system

So where would someone like that fit into your rank (should be grade) qualifications??

LtCol!!! You've already completed all the requirements plus some. Other LtCols who have not already done so would need to go back & take ACSC. Then would need to take AWC to be eligible for promotion to Col if they are selected to such a slot.

River,
Lt is appropriate for a platoon sized element or responsibility. Certainly officers could serve in that capacity over 4-6 people, and should do so while gaining experience before they move into multi-agency joint ICS command positions, but it can be filled just as well by an adult SrA or SSgt who's been around several years & is an expert in the field (SSgt being the equiv of Major now).

[Major Carrales]

Ya'll play with these senarios...

1) Five year squadron commander with no University study, currently has Captain's bars having completed LEVEL II.

2) 30 year member who is a Major or Lt Col

3) Certified teacher, BA in English, that has complete level IV and has bene a personnel officer for two years

What concessions would be made for those being grandfathered who have real, upwards of 5 or 10 years or experience in actually running CAP units or as staff officers?  What about those that have done so who began as a "man off the street?"

In theory a SPAATZ cadet, who as completed the CAP Cadet program should be a 2d Lt.

My word on this would be merely let everyone grandfathered keep the rank they are at but freeze them there until they back fill.  Stripping people's rank is a whole n'other issue issue than freezing it.

Devil's Advocacy...

Suppose no one want to take OTS or these other situations.  Lots of money is already spent by members merely trying to make their unit function.  Why attend these classes? 

Why not join the USAFR instead where one could be paid to do all that?

If everyone does all this, would a CAP officer really get any more resepect from USAF or USAFR or would it just be looked at as "baby-games?"

These are serious issue I present for discussion...

Have at it...

[JohnKachenmeister]

Joe, Dennis, Rob:

Joe, in answer to one of your first questions, IF you are qualified to join the US Air Force Reserve, Do it.  CAP is admittedly "Second line" troops, and have historically been so.  We understand that, and so does the Air Force.  You can do more for your country as an Air Reservist than you can as a CAP officer.

Dennis:  In normal military units, you would be correct in assuming that officers are managers and generalists, and NCO's would be the first-line supervisors, such as GTL's.  However, we're not normal.  In addition to the obvious manifestations of abnormality (working long hours without pay and fat guys wearing double-breasted uniforms) there are two other issues to consider:

1.  We can barely manage an officer development program.  Having to manage a parallel enlisted/NCO specialty track will ncrease the administrative burden, and in my opinion, be counterproductive to our overall goals.

2.  I know volunteer is a dirty word in some circles, but that's what we are.  We cannot pay people in coin of the realm, but we can allow them to earn titles that carry with them ego gratification and community recognition.  Even though my paycheck would be the same ($0.00), I LIKE being a major a lot more than I would like being a Master Sergeant.  And I was a Staff Sergeant (Army, E-6 type) when I was commissioned.  Some people thought I took a "Bust" to being a 2LT, but I liked earning officer rank.

While you guys were posting, I sat out by my pool with my dog and thought this over for a while.  I think I've come up with a fair system that improves officer quality, gives the "Ego strokes" that the volunteers desire, and is simple to administer.

[RiverAux]

River,
Lt is appropriate for a platoon sized element or responsibility. Certainly officers could serve in that capacity over 4-6 people, and should do so while gaining experience before they move into multi-agency joint ICS command positions, but it can be filled just as well by an adult SrA or SSgt who's been around several years & is an expert in the field (SSgt being the equiv of Major now).

I agree that it could go either way, but as I pointed out in the "infantry" thread we are actually in much more dire need of experienced ground team personnel than we are of pilots and if a little perk of being a Lt. is all that it might take to bring someone like this over the edge into CAP, its a small price to pay.

Keep in mind that the Sgts leading squads in infantry platoons are generally pretty closely supervised by an officer who is their platoon leader.  Our ground teams almost always operate independently of such direct supervision so a lot of judgement is necessary to lead those teams. 

[BillB]

ARAJCA
Command of three different squadrons (total 8 years)
Group Commander, 2 years

Now does that mean I qualify for MSgt?

[Major Carrales]

Joe, in answer to one of your first questions, IF you are qualified to join the US Air Force Reserve, Do it.  CAP is admittedly "Second line" troops, and have historically been so.  We understand that, and so does the Air Force.  You can do more for your country as an Air Reservist than you can as a CAP officer.

John,
My point would be that CAP is what it is and accomplishes all that it does using "citizen airmen" what give of their time, resources and personal money.  It is done, at least by be, like a vocation.

I do my best not to make CAP what it is not.  I work to make CAP a household word in my section of the country because I beleive in it.

It seems like the pecking order is clear...

The USAF- The best Air Force the world has ever produced on the cutting edge of technology in the field of Air and Space.  

The USAFR- Men and Women who desire to service in the USAF and do so in conjunction with their civilian lives.  Are ready to be called up to active service on a moment's notice.

Air National Guard- Part of the milita system of the US as per the Second Amendment, I would call them "Jefferson's Air Force" since Jeffersonian visions of national defense are based on a small National Force and an extensive militia.  Persons who seek to serve the Air Force in more local/ state capacity.  Will and can be deployed to combat if called upon.

Civil Air Patrol- Civilain Auxiliary of the USAF.  Conducts what amounts to Civil Defense, SAR, Emergency Services, a youth program and non-combat missions for the USAF.  Serve with no pay.  Maintain the world's largest civilian air force (to which Howard Hughes once had the title) and uses member owned aircraft.

SDF Air Branches- Normally serve with no pay in the service of their state.

That is how I view it.  If one wants to dedicate weekends to advanced training to hold CAP RANK...I submit they should rather going the Air Guard or Reserve.  For a group who meet one a week, take off of work (sometimes a week or more) to attend SARex, provide lots of member owned uniforms/equipment and serve without pay...the money to attend extra courses to do the exact same job they currently do seem to be a bit wasteful.

Now if CAP were to change to do more I could see making that expense...however, the some 1000 to 2000 dollars spent in traveling countless miles to take OTS (especially in Large states where it would all be done in Dallas or Houston) would better be spent on member owned equipment and the local unit.

That is my opinion, of course.  Should any of that be mandated, you will see me there among the others.

Semper Vigilans!!!!

[JohnKachenmeister]

KACK'S PLAN:

I.  Commissioned Officer Grades.  

    A.  BA/BS degree for initial entry into commissioned officer grade.
    B.  Appear before an officer selection board at wing
         1.  Board interviews applicant and verifies presented credentials.
         2.  Board MAY waiver education, and accept to commissioned rank if:
              a.  Applicant has a minimum of 2 years of college toward a BS/BA.
              b.  Applicant has an associate degree.
              c.  Applicant has completed & can document 6 full months of full-time
                  technical training.  (1,043 clock hours)
              d.  Applicant is a pilot with an FAA rating of Private or higher.
              e.  Board appearance is waivered for former cadets who are fully qualified
                   for entry into the commission program.
         3.  Board may accept applicant, reject applicant, or assign applicant to the
              Flight Officer program.
         4.  Board may award advanced rank based on CFI qualifications, but no
              higher than Captain, and then only after completion of OTS.
         5.  Applicants for commissions based on professions (doctor, lawyer,
              chaplain, nurse) will be boarded by wing officer in that field.
    C.  Officers selected will be ranked as "Officer Candidate" and attend OTS
    D.  Uniform for OC will be an officer uniform without grade insignia on epaulet.
    E.  Rank will be awarded upon completion of OTS. (No time-in-grade as OC)
    F.  OTS will include SLS.
    G.  Promotion to 1LT in 1 year.  Completion of AFIADL 13 required, or equivalent.
    H.  Promotion to Capt after 3 years TIG, CLC or UCC required
    I.   Promotion to Maj. after 3 years as Capt., CLC required.  BA/BS also required
         for promotion to major.
    J.   Promotion to LTC after 4 years TIG as Major, RSC or equivalent required.
    K.  Promotion to COL requires NSC or equivalent and assignment.  No TIG
         requirement.

II.  Flight Officers
    A.  High School or equivalency required.
    B.  Appearance at a wing board required.
         a.  Appearance waivered for former cadets with Mitchell or higher.
         b.  If the applicant was assigned to FO program after application for the
              commissioned program, no new appearance is required.
    C.  F/O's attend same OTS as commissioned candidates, and wear the same
         officer uniform without rank.
    D.  Rank of Flight Officer awarded at completion of OTS, No TIC as OC.
    E.  Technical Flight Officer after 1 year as FO, and completion of AFIADL 13 or
         the equivalent.
    F.  Senior Flight Officer, 3 years TIG as TFO, and completion of CLC or UCC
    G.  Chief Flight Officer, 4 years TIG as SFO, and completion of CLC.
    H.  Master Flight Officer, 4 years as CFO, completion of RSC or equivalent.
    I.   Flight Officers cannot command chartered units, but can command flights.
    J.   Technical Flight Officers and higher can command squadrons and chartered
          flights.
    K.  FO program participants can be promoted to commissioned grade upon
         award of bachelor degree.  Rank will be determined based on CAP training
         level.  In  other words, an MFO who earns a degree would be promoted
         to major.

III. Non-Commissioned Officers
    A.  CAP non-commissioned officers will be limited to those who served as NCO's
         in the US military.
    B.  NCO's can wear the AF rank device equivalent to their NCO service.
    C.  NCO's must understand that they will not be promoted.  There is no NCO
         promotion system in CAP.  Advancement would be only through entry into
         one of the above two officer programs.
    D.  NCO's cannot command units.

IV.  Enlisted Grades.
    A.  No minimum education requirement.
    B.  Selection and training at the local unit only.
    C.  Initial appointment to Airman Basic.
    D.  Promotion to Airman in 6 months.
    E.  Promotion to next grade after 1 year TIG, up to maximum grade of SrAirman.
    F.  Rank device will be Air Force chevrons, with the CAP 3-blade prop and
         triangle in center in lieu of star.
    G.  May not exercise leadership or command, except supervision of cadets.
    H.  May serve in specialties at technician level, including ES specialties.

[RiverAux]

So, NCOs are stuck at whatever they were in the military.  I just don't understand that.  Why can't they have a chance to get promoted within the NCO ranks? 

This is just way too complicated.  I see no utility in having something over 20 different potential ranks.  If you're going to require a BS to be an officer, just keep it simple and put everyone else in standard AF enlisted ranks to keep it as simple as possible.  Let them promote through NCO ranks similar to having the flight officers. 

[ZigZag911]

Thanks Kack, I was hoping you would see this. Yes I understand what you are saying. Hey I would love more than anything to go to an OTS. I think it would be hard work and fun at the same time.

The plan I posted elsewhere on this board (I think on the "Paper: Structural Change" thread) does not require a college degree to earn officer grades....the system I envisoion relies completely on CAP training and experience......it would take a bit longer than those with professional degrees or mission skills....but then again, it is designed to take the same time for a college grad LACKING any relevant background.

[ZigZag911]

My word on this would be merely let everyone grandfathered keep the rank they are at but freeze them there until they back fill.  Stripping people's rank is a whole n'other issue issue than freezing it.

I think you are absolutely correct on this one...let folks keep what they've got, but they need to catch up to advance further.

[Major Carrales]

And now, a flight of fancy...

I do see an issue with people who join off the street never getting promoted past Senior Airman.  I don't think we can keep an "NCO" as a position of "honor" to prior service and have a novice enlisted structure.

It would make more sense if persons who joined off the street could become enlisted and move up to NCO grades, give former NCOs warrant officer status and all educated (meaning University grads) enter the Officer program or start at the beginning.  The officer program would be of the intense type Dennis recommends.  

Former military officers would not get thier rank unless they complete CAP officer school (since CAP is vastly diffeent from the Military...once they complere LEVEL I Officer school they can resume their military rank.) We cannot have a system than honors former military rank with that CAP rank and a functional officer rank structure.  The rank equivlent would come after CAP officer training.

Former cadets who finish the program with SPAATZ get to be 2LTs, cadets that finish up to Mictchell get to be some type of NCO.  The cadet program would thus produce Senior Members who would have military bearing.  Since a Cadet of thsi nature has years of training, it shoudl count for something in the senior program.  thus the main purpose of the cadet program needs to do two things, 1) train cadets as they do now, a 2) train cadets to be CAP senior members. (imagine that, Senior Members who came up from cadet status and could thus empathize with them and champion their cause in the unit as adults)

As I think more on this and try to find solutions to this I find I produce more problems than solutions.  Help!!!!

[Major Carrales]

My word on this would be merely let everyone grandfathered keep the rank they are at but freeze them there until they back fill.  Stripping people's rank is a whole n'other issue issue than freezing it.

I think you are absolutely correct on this one...let folks keep what they've got, but they need to catch up to advance further.

I agree, freezing a senior in that rank until they backfill works.  In time, they will either backfill or pass out of the system.  The other way would be sort of insulting.  Since they obtained that grade via an establish CAP senior program, they it would be valid.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Thanks for the observantions and comments.

ZZ, I read your plan, and considered it in putting this one together.

RA:  I appreciate your non-concurrence.

Joe:  Thanks for reading it and thanks for your comments.

My proposal keeps CAP as an "Officer" force, much as it has been historically, except for during World War II.  But it makes the requirements for "Commissioned" officers higher in terms of education.  Those without the education can still serve, still wear officer rank, but will not be able to exercise command beyond the squadron level.

NCO's remain something of a "Protected species," in that it is limited to those who were NCO's in the RealMilitary, and they would exercise their NCO leadership skills at their former, and permanent, rank.  Of course, this status is voluntary, they could apply for officer status.

The enlisted grades I would see are for the short-term members.  This would be the "Soccer Mom" members, who join because their kid joins as a cadet.  They are not committed to the program, but they want membership to come along and help drive on cadet outings and do limited duty around the local unit.  Their requirements are similarly, minimal.  Show up, get promoted up to SrA.  They can get qualified at the technician level in a specialty track, but it is not required.  They can also get some ES qualifications so they can come along on missions, but that is also not required.

Of course, the option is always open to the enlisted members to apply for an officer appointment, and attend OTS.  A few may get fired up and avail themselves of that option.

None of this applies retroatively.  This changes CAP in the long term.  Everybody keeps his/her rank.

Former military officers keep their rank, but will have to backfill SLS and CLC.

[DNall]

ARAJCA
Command of three different squadrons (total 8 years)
Group Commander, 2 years

Now does that mean I qualify for MSgt?

Bill, everyone involved in this discussion has stated repeatedly that any program would be for NEW MEMBERS joining AFTER it is enacted. Plus you more than meet any requirement even remotely discussed.

The transition discussed for exisitng members involves giving everyone a couple years to get the PME for the grade they currently hold if they don't have it already. That means LtCol has to take ACSC if they hadn't already, they do NOT have to take SOS, the OBC, or this AuxOTS  we've discussed. If in two years or so (that number is still up for discussion) they STILL have not finished ACSC, AND they don't request an extension for cause, THEN they'll be demoted to Major TILL they do complete ACSC.

The only current memebrs who would take the Aux OTS course are 2Lts & SMs w/o Grade. They have two years to do so & are automatically in versus having to be selected. New members that join AFTER that drop dead date start at AB for six months & Lvl 1 to Amn. That's the earliest point at which they can apply for OTS.

Military officers & NCOs have to do a CAP transition course (obvious content), which we'll also be recommending as an orientation for AF officers & NCOs assigned or doing additional duty in any capacity w/ CAP-USAF. It would also be DVD based modules for the most part & link them together with another prior-service officer/NCO as "wingman" to walk them in. Then they get their full grade back. Initially we're accepting that tops at LtCol, but would prefer it go as high as necessary to accomadate them.

I'll get back to John's plan & the 45+ years of civilian to CAP NCO history we had before the AF was taken out of direct charge of CAP for budget reasons & we started this slide in need of correction.

[ZigZag911]

Thanks for the observantions and comments.

ZZ, I read your plan, and considered it in putting this one together.

RA:  I appreciate your non-concurrence.

Joe:  Thanks for reading it and thanks for your comments.

My proposal keeps CAP as an "Officer" force, much as it has been historically, except for during World War II.  But it makes the requirements for "Commissioned" officers higher in terms of education.  Those without the education can still serve, still wear officer rank, but will not be able to exercise command beyond the squadron level.

NCO's remain something of a "Protected species," in that it is limited to those who were NCO's in the RealMilitary, and they would exercise their NCO leadership skills at their former, and permanent, rank.  Of course, this status is voluntary, they could apply for officer status.

The enlisted grades I would see are for the short-term members.  This would be the "Soccer Mom" members, who join because their kid joins as a cadet.  They are not committed to the program, but they want membership to come along and help drive on cadet outings and do limited duty around the local unit.  Their requirements are similarly, minimal.  Show up, get promoted up to SrA.  They can get qualified at the technician level in a specialty track, but it is not required.  They can also get some ES qualifications so they can come along on missions, but that is also not required.

Of course, the option is always open to the enlisted members to apply for an officer appointment, and attend OTS.  A few may get fired up and avail themselves of that option.

None of this applies retroatively.  This changes CAP in the long term.  Everybody keeps his/her rank.

Former military officers keep their rank, but will have to backfill SLS and CLC.

This sounds workable.

Are you opposed to using Flight Officer grades for 'technical specialists' who don't want to get involved in the broad range of officer responsibilities & training?

That is, they just want to be a mission pilot, an aerospace instructor, and so forth.

[JohnKachenmeister]

ZZ:

Of course. 

Even if a person has a degree, he would not be REQUIRED to accept commissioned grade.  He could apply for and receive FO grade, and volunteer as much or as little as he wants.  With a degree, he could also change to commissioned rank at his option.

Of course, if he were commissioned, and only wanted to be a mission pilot, he could do that too.  We'll still get him some new qualifications when he gets old and loses his medical.

[jayleswo]

The outline below was my attempt to combine the good work that John Kachemeister has done with my own thoughts on limiting officer grades to those actually serving in Command assignments.

I've only gone up through Lt Col. The proposal makes allowances for officer grades for certain professionals to be appointed to but, again, depending on what echelon they are assigned to in an appropriate capacity. This makes sure that our Chaplains, Medical Officers and Legal Officers hold grade commensurate with what USAF might appoint someone to in order to facilitate any potential force augmentation.

Flight Officer / Warrant Officer grades (not sure what to call them, but I would prefer warrant as I used to be one myself) would be for highy skilled members or those meeting certain education, training and duty performance requirements.

A.   Commissioned Officer Grades (Commander Appointments)
All Commissioned Officer grades are temporary grades held by unit commanders and deputy/vice commanders for the duration of their assignment only. Command tours are limited to three years at each echelon or unit (may be extended by 1 year with Wing/Regional/National approval).
a.   BA/BS degree for initial entry into commissioned officer grade.
b.   Approval by next higher echelon officer selection board. Board interviews applicant and verifies presented credentials. Selection board may waiver education and approve promotion to the appropriate commissioned grade if the applicant has a minimum of 2 years of college toward a BS/BA or an AA/AS degree and outside management experience at the appropriate level of command they are being selected for.
c.   Completion of Level I, with OTS (to include SLS.)
d.   2d Lt after completion of training requirements (Level I with OTS/SLS) and
i.   Initial appointment as Flight/Squadron Deputy Commander
e.   1st Lt after completion of training requirements (Level I with OTS/SLS) and one of the following:
i.   Initial appointment as Flight/Squadron Commander
ii.   Initial appointment as Group Deputy Commander
iii.   Current Assignment as Flight/Squadron Deputy Commander and 18 months satisfactory service
f.   Capt after completion of training requirements (Level II) and:
i.   Current Assignment as Flight/Squadron Commander and 18 months satisfactory service
ii.   Initial appointment as Group/Sector Deputy Commander
g.   Maj. after completion of training requirements (Level III) and:
i.   Initial appointment as Group/Sector Commander
h.   Lt Col after completion of training requirements (Level IV) and:
i.   Current Assignment as Group/Sector Commander and 18 months satisfactory service
ii.   Initial Assignment as Wing Vice Commander

B.   Officer Grades (Professional Appointment)
All Professional Appointment Officer grades are limited to company-grades and are temporary grades held by members in certain professions for the duration of their assignment only.
a.   BA/BS degree for initial entry into officer grade.
b.   Approval by Wing or next higher echelon officer selection board. Board interviews applicant and verifies presented credentials.
c.   Completion of Level I, with OTS (to include SLS.)
d.   2d Lt after completion of training requirements (Level I with OTS/SLS) and
i.   Licensed Vocational Nurse assigned to Health Services duty assignment at Flight/Squadron level or above.
ii.   Chaplain assigned to Flight/Squadron level and above
iii.   Attorney assigned as Legal Officer at the Flight/Squadron level and above
e.   1st Lt after completion of training requirements (Level I with OTS/SLS) and one of the following:
i.   Initial Assignment of Licensed Physician, Registered Nurse or Physician's Assistant assigned to Health Services duty assignment at Flight/Squadron level or above.
ii.   Chaplain assigned to Group/Sector level and above or 3 years satisfactory duty performance as Chaplain at Flight/Squadron level.
iii.   Attorney assigned as Legal Officer at the Group/Sector level and above or 3 years satisfactory duty performance as Legal Officer at Flight/Squadron level.
f.   Capt after completion of training requirements (Level II) and:
i.   Licensed Physician assigned to Health Services duty assignment at Group/Wing level or above with 18 months satisfactory service.
ii.   Assigned as Wing Chaplain
iii.   Attorney assigned as Wing Legal Officer

C.   Flight Officers / Warrant Officers (Mission Related skills)
Flight Officer / Warrant Officer grades for Mission Related Skills may be used for highly skilled technical specialists and waive certain Professional Development training requirements (but not time-in grade)
a.   High School diploma or equivalency required
b.   18 years of age (minimum)
c.   Approval by unit Commander and next higher echelon officer selection board. Board interviews applicant and verifies presented credentials.
d.   Completion of Level I
e.   Flight Officer (FO-1)/Warrant Officer (WO1):
i.   Completion of CAP Pilot achievement (CAP Form 5) and either:
1.   Cadet Orientation Pilot or
2.   Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot
ii.   General Class Radio Operator and completion of both:
1.   ACUT and
2.   Mission Radio Operator Achievement
iii.   Licensed FAA Airframe, Powerplant or A&P Mechanic and satisfactory completion of 1 year as Maintenance Officer, Aircraft Manager or assistant.
iv.   Financial Professional (CPA) with 1 year satisfactory service assigned as unit Finance Officer.
v.   TBD
f.   Technical Flight Officer (TFO) or Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) after two (2) years time-in-grade as FO/WO, and one of the following:
i.   Current CAP Pilot (CAP Form 5) and either:
1.   Current Cadet Orientation Pilot, minimum 8 flights or
2.   Current Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot, minimum 8 sorties
ii.   General Class Radio Operator and completion of the following:
1.   ACUT
2.   Current Mission Radio Operator with minimum 8 missions
3.   Technician Rating in Communications Specialty track
iii.   Licensed FAA Airframe, Powerplant or A&P Mechanic and satisfactory completion of 3 years as Maintenance Officer or Aircraft Manager
iv.   Financial Professional (CPA) with 2 years satisfactory service assigned as unit Finance Officer and completion of Technician rating in Finance specialty track.
v.   TBD
g.   Senior Flight Officer (SFO) or Chief Warrant Officer (CW3), three (3) years TIG as TFO/CW2, Completion of Level II and
i.   Current CAP Pilot (CAP Form 5), Instrument Rating or Commercial certificate and either:
1.   Current Cadet Orientation Pilot, minimum 25 flights or
2.   Current Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot, minimum 12 sorties
ii.   General Class Radio Operator and completion of the following:
1.   ACUT
2.   Current Mission Radio Operator with minimum 20 missions
3.   Senior Rating in Communications Specialty track
4.   Communications Unit Leader
iii.   Licensed FAA Airframe, Powerplant or A&P Mechanic and satisfactory completion of 3 years as Maintenance Officer or Aircraft Manager
iv.   Financial Professional (CPA) with 5 years satisfactory service assigned as unit Finance Officer and completion of Senior rating in Finance specialty track.
v.   TBD
h.   Master Flight Officer/Chief Warrant Officer (CW4), 4 years TIG as SFO, and completion of CLC.
i.   Current CAP Pilot (CAP Form 5), CFI/CFII/ATP certificate and three of the following:
1.   Current Cadet Orientation Pilot, minimum 50 flights
2.   Current Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot, minimum 25 sorties
3.   CAP Instructor Pilot/CAP Check Pilot
4.   Mission Check Pilot
5.   Project Officer/Instructor at two Flight Clinic/NSCPS
ii.   General Class Radio Operator and completion of the following:
1.   ACUT
2.   Current Mission Radio Operator with minimum 8 missions
3.   Master Rating in Communications Specialty track
4.   Communications Unit Leader
5.   Served for 1 year on Group/Wing Communications staff
iii.   Licensed FAA Airframe, Powerplant or A&P Mechanic and satisfactory completion of 5 years as Maintenance Officer or Aircraft Manager, of which 1 year assigned to Group/Wing
iv.   Financial Professional (CPA) with 9 years satisfactory service assigned as unit Finance Officer and completion of Master rating in Finance specialty track.
v.   TBD
i.   Chief Flight Officer (FRO)/Chief Warrant Officer (CW5), 4 years TIG as CFO/CW5.
i.   Current CAP Pilot (CAP Form 5), CFI/CFII/ATP certificate and three of the following:
1.   Current Cadet Orientation Pilot, minimum 100 flights
2.   Current Qualified SAR/DR Mission Pilot, minimum 50 sorties
3.   CAP Instructor Pilot/CAP Check Pilot
4.   Mission Check Pilot
5.   Air Operations Branch Director
6.   Project Officer/Instructor at four Flight Clinic/NSCPS
ii.   General Class Radio Operator and completion of both:
1.   ACUT
2.   Current Mission Radio Operator with minimum 8 missions
3.   Master Rating in Communications Specialty track
4.   Communications Unit Leader
5.   Served for 3 years on Group/Wing Communications staff
iii.   Licensed FAA Airframe, Powerplant or A&P Mechanic and satisfactory completion of 5 years as Maintenance Officer or Aircraft Manager, of which 1 year assigned to Group/Wing
iv.   Financial Professional (CPA) with 9 years satisfactory service assigned as unit Finance Officer and completion of Master rating in Finance specialty track.
v.   TBD

D.   Flight Officers / Warrant Officers (Duty Performance)
Flight Officer / Warrant Officer grades for Duty Performance promotions may be used for staff specialists with post-graduate degrees who complete CAP Professional Development courses and duty assignments.
a.   BS/BA degree (or higher)
b.   18 years of age (minimum)
c.   Approval by unit Commander and next higher echelon officer selection board. Board interviews applicant and verifies presented credentials. Board may have education requirement for BA/BS dedgree as long as applicant has 60 credits towards a BS/BA degree or an AA/AS degree form an accredited college or university and a minimum of 3 years work experience in a field relevant to their specialty track and duty assignment.
d.   Completion of Level I and OTS
e.   Flight Officer (FO-1)/Warrant Officer (WO1):
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Earhart Award
ii.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 6 months satisfactory service
iii.   TBD
f.   Technical Flight Officer (TFO) or Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) after two (2) years time-in-grade as FO/WO, and one of the following:
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Eaker Award
ii.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 18 months satisfactory service, completion of Level II and Technician rating in specialty track
iii.   TBD
g.   Senior Flight Officer (SFO) or Chief Warrant Officer (CW3), three (3) years TIG as TFO/CW2, and
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Spaatz Award
ii.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 3 years satisfactory service, completion of Level III and Senior rating in specialty track
iii.   TBD
h.   Master Flight Officer/Chief Warrant Officer (CW4), 4 years TIG as SFO/CW3, and completion of Level III.
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Spaatz Award
ii.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 3 years satisfactory service, completion of Level IV and Master rating in specialty track
iii.   TBD
i.   Chief Flight Officer (CFO)/Chief Warrant Officer (CW5), 4 years TIG as CFO/CW5 and completion of Level IV
i.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 8 years satisfactory service, completion of Level V.
ii.   TBD

E.   Non Commissioned Officers (Duty Performance)
NCO grades for Duty Performance promotions may be used for staff specialists who do not have a college degree who complete CAP Professional Development courses and duty assignments. NCO grades are limited to E5-E8 (Staff Sergeant through Senior Master Sergeant). Grade insignia will be gray Air Force chevrons.
a.   High School diploma or equivalency
b.   18 years of age (minimum)
c.   Approval by unit Commander and next higher echelon NCO selection board.
d.   Completion of NCOS (waived for prior-service NCO's)
e.   Staff Sergeant (E-5)
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Mitchell Award
ii.   3 years time-in-grade as E-4, unit Duty Assignment with 2 years exemplary performance, completion of Level II and Technician rating in specialty track
iii.   Prior service E-5 assigned to and performing a CAP duty assignment
f.   Technical Sergeant (E-6) after two (3) years time-in-grade as E-5, and
i.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 18 months satisfactory service, completion of Level III and Senior rating in specialty track
ii.   Prior service E-6 assigned to and performing a CAP duty assignment
g.   Master Sergeant (E-7) three (4) years TIG as TFO/CW2, and
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Spaatz Award
ii.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 3 years satisfactory service, completion of Level IV and Master rating in specialty track
iii.   Prior service E-7 assigned to and performing a CAP duty assignment
h.   Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) four (5) years TIG as E-7, and completion of Level III.
i.   Former CAP Cadet: Spaatz Award
ii.   Perform unit Duty Assignment with 3 years satisfactory service, completion of Level IV and Master rating in specialty track
iii.   Prior service E-8 assigned to and performing a CAP duty assignment
i.   Senior Master Sergeant (E-9)
i.   Prior service E-9 only assigned to and performing a CAP duty assignment

F.   Enlisted Grades.
a.   No minimum education requirement.
b.   Selection and training at the local unit only.
c.   Initial appointment to Airman Basic (E-1)
d.   Promotion to Airman (E-2) in 6 months.
e.   Promotion to Airman First Class (E-3) after 1 year time in grade as E-2 with active attendance and participation in unit meetings and activities as determined by the Commander.
f.   Promotion to Senior Airman (E-4) after 2 years TIG as E-3 with active attendance and participation in unit meetings and activities as determined by the Commander.
g.   Grade insignia will be gray Air Force chevrons
h.   May not exercise leadership or command, except supervision of cadets.
i.   May serve in specialties at entry level, including ES specialties.

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander PCR-CA-151

[BillB]

I have problems with requiring a degree to be an officer. I came up to LtCol through the old level 1-5 program and didn't get a degree until 15 years later.
And one proposal I see only has people in command positions or professional apointments as officers. Does that mean CAP will only have 12,000 officers (2 per charter unit)
Leave the current system alone, but do add training requirements, and I do NOT mean mission requirements.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I want to thank you guys for your input.  But I have a couple of concerns, and maybe you can convince me that you're right.

1.  Bill:  Yes, I know that requiring a degree for commissioned rank is going to raise some hairs on the backs of many necks.  I just think that we have to start somewhere.  We cannot survive bringing in some of the folks I've seen over the years in CAP and handing them butterbars.  It hurts the credibility of ALL of us, including us RLO's once we put on gray epaulets.  College may not be the answer to all of the problems facing CAP, but it at least insures a level of literacy that some officers currently lack.

I did, in my proposal, make accomodations for those who have 2 years of college, OR 6 months full time technical school, OR private pilot certificates.  I don't want CAP to be elitist, but I do want some educational standards.  If they look sharp before a board, and can speak well, and we have a current need for commissioned-grade officers, they might still qualify.

2.  John:  Your plan appears very complex.  It seems like it would be more difficult to manage than our current program.

I see that you create a class of CAP NCO's.  I intentionally avoided that.  I want to get Chief Chiafos' opinion on this, but I think that we should keep the NCO grades in CAP pristine and limited to NCO's who have actual military NCO experience.  We are placing them in a unique role in doing so, and they can do their part to mentor officers and the new class of lower enlisted, and (as the Chief put it) "Re-Blue the CAP."  That's why they alone would keep Air Force NCO rank devices.  They would enhance the credibility of CAP with the NCO corps of the Air Force, as well.

I like your alternative of gray enlisted chevrons vs. chevrons with the CAP emblem in lieu of a star.  Maybe one of the experts at Photoshop could create both designs, so we can see them. 

[arajca]

Comments:

Overall:
1. Your outline is hard to read. It would be better if you could put it in a Word doc and post the doc as an attachment. Your formating would hold.
2. Very complex with a rigid caste system based on college.

A. Commissioned Officer Grades:
I have a problem with "temporary" grades. What purpose does it serve? Since you are are using a somewhat military basis, remember not all military officers are commanders, doctors, nurses, or chaplains. There are a number of military officers who are leaders, but not commanders.

What the heck is a "Sector Commander"? I haven't seen that term on any CAP org charts.

B. Commissioned Officer Professional Appointments:
You reference AF practices as justification for the idea, but fail to follow through with adoption. If the idea is good enough to justify professional appointments, shouldn't it be good enough to adopt?

C. FO/WO Mission Related Skills:
Following through your program, an A&P Mech would have to be in CAP for seven and a half years before receiving FO/WO grade. (6.5 to make SSgt, one more as Maintenance Officer(?) or Aircraft Manager [those are leadership positions and cannot be served in until the member makes SSgt]).
Also, just reading through, it appears that to be a FO/WO you need to be a pilot, FCC license holder, A&P mech, and CPA, although that may be becuase the format is so poor.

D. FO/WO Duty Performance:
With my BA in BS I can get a FO/WO out of school, but with my AAS in IT, I can't if I want to do Logisitics instead of IT for CAP.
A SFO/CW3 and MFO/CW4 both list Spaatz as one option. Why have Spaatz for two grades?

E. Non Commissioned Officers (Duty Performance):
Define "Exemplary performance" in purely objective terms. How would an NCO commnad something like an Encampment or NCSA? Would they be "promoted" to officer for the activity? Would you have a figurehead officer as commander? Would they be inelligible for such an assignment?

I strongly disagree with restricting CAP grade for military personnel only. It basically tells CAP members they're not, and will never be, good enough to hold whatever grade.

F. Enlisted:
Who runs activities at the unit that have both seniors and cadets as participants? If an enlisted member plans an activity, say a biovac, should they not lead it?

I may have more comments later...

[jayleswo]

Hi John and Bill,

Attached proposal in MS Word to this post for readability. Understand the concerns. I'm not trying to say the idea I proposed is the perfect 100% solution. It probably looks more convoluted than it is simply due to the outline format I used and the re-intruduction of enlisted/warrant grades along with an effort to address professional appointments. So, to simplify:

1. The issue we are trying to address is a more professional officer force, with higher education levels and additional CAP specific indoctrination/training (OTS, Levels 1-5) with officer grades tied directly to level of responsibility and limited to sitting commanders. This would put our commissioned officers more on par with USAF and avoid such a top-heavy officer structure. To Bill's point, we would actually have far fewer than 6,000 officers. With 1,500 chartered units, it would be something like 3,000-4,000 officers + an unknown number of professional appointments and former officer of the armed forces promotions (unaddressed in my proposal). Probably about 10% of our overall membership would be officers at any one time.

2. Use Warrant/Flight Officer grades for a) highly skilled specialists (pilots, mechanics, communicators) or b) more highly educated specialists filling staff positions who might otherwise qualify for officer grade if they were in command positions and c) former cadets Earhart and above who have the leadership training to fill senior member staff positions. Tie advancement for mission related skill to their level of qualification, time-in-grade and waive most CAP specific professional development (but not all). For "duty performance promotions" tie advancement to CAP specific training (OTS, Levels 1-5, specialty tracks, etc.). Regardless, members would not promote, regardless of skill/training, until they have time-in-grade at the previous rank. This avoid "instant" promotions to advanced grade thus tying grade to experience in CAP, something missing from mission related skill promotions right now. Probably 30% of our members would be in warrant/flight officer grades.

3. NCO grades would be used for members with High School educations (or better) who are otherwise not qualified for warrant/flight officer grade but highly motivated to become leaders and obtain the necessary training to be effective non-commissioned officers. These are the people, combined with the senior warrant grades, who will run the unit. The idea is to make CAP NCO's peer's of active duty NCO's with years of experience running things in CAP. They would have to attend NCO school, test, and then go through the same Level 1-5 PD program as exists today to advance. Limiting NCO grades to former military makes no more sense than limiting officer grades to former military. Maybe we could recognize former military NCO's differently: prior military would wear existing USAF enlisted grade insignia (white on blue), and non-prior military would wear white on gray enlisted insignia? Might divide the NCO corps, but just an idea. Probably 30% of our members would fall into NCO grades.

4. Enlisted Airman grades are for otherwise active members who attend meetings and contribute to our various missions but do not desire to command units, fill staff positions or qualify for warrant/flight officer grade. All new members would start as an E-1 "slick sleeve" until they complete training for higher grade. Lastly, about 30% of our memebrs would be enlisted airmen (combination of "new" members completing quals for advanced grade and the "soccar mom's" John Kachenmeister talked about).

So, that's the concept that goes with the above outline. It gives far more advancement opportunities than we have today (you could join today as an 18 y/o H.S. graduate and promote 12 times before topping out as a CW5 if you at least get an A.A degree). It also aligns with other discussions concerning being more selective about who our officers are and mandating higher standards in training. The transition would be difficult of course.

To remain an officer you would have to be in a command position, so term limits would have to be instituted at all levels to avoid "perpetual" commanders who want to stay officers. The culture would have to change. Current officers would have 3 years (?) to transition and meet the requirements for the new grade structure. They would continue to wear gray colored epaulets until the transition period is over or they begin wearing their new grade under the new program. "New" Officers and Warrant/Flight Officers would wear different colored epaulets (maybe blue/gray to signify our becoming closer to the Air Force, but still distinctive). After 3 years, grandfather them into warrant grades if they are not commanders.

As far as buying all kinds of grade insignia, really not that big an issue. The unit could issue grade insignia to the commander who would pass them on to his replacement after putting his permanent grade back on.

Anyway, that's it. Thanks for listening :-)

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[Major Carrales]

I would like to incude my contribution to the idea of an more professional RANK system.  I should point out that, in my opinion, the difference between Officer and Warrant officer would be unit level.  Warrant officers, if we were to have such things, would be made up of those officers that do not desire "moving up the chain" to past Level II seeing their contribution to CAP as service to their Squadron; in ES, Aviation or in Cadet Programs.  There would be Warrant Officer level system which would exist for those to transition to regular officer rank.

WO-1 to 2LT
WO-2 to 1LT
WO-3 to Capt
WO-4 to Major

This would preserve a command structure made of officers and WOs preforming unit level functions.

NCOs would be a "quality control" feature serving as advisors at the unit level.  They would have their own structure much as chaplains do.  NCOs that seek to command units or take a GROUP/WING staff position outside of their track woudl have to become officers.  A transition to officer system would have to be developed.

This reprinted section form another thread outlines this in greater detail.

WANT TO INCLUDE NCOs and WARRANT OFFICERS?
Could these be used to solve certain isues in CAP Rank?...how?

There is a lot discussed here about NCOs and Warrant Officers in CAP.  If you look at my analysis these such ranks would really only have a purpose at the squadron level.

HEAR ME OUT...

Persons who would at the Squadron Level qualify as NCOs or WOs
Those that fall into critera or situation where they woudl break rank structure

Current CAP 2d Lt

2) possible "bump" for one of the criteria...but still (ideally) less than a year time-in-grade
3) long time member who is in it for reasons other than rank (good or bad), might like ES or Cadet Program administration as opposed to command, or jumping through hoops to change the color and shape of the insignia.
Possible new pilot?  Pilot new to CAP...pilot basic?

Current CAP 1st Lt...

3) Maybe some squadron level officers with no ambitions to rise to group or to command.  Comfortable in current spot...maybe slowing down to get that Senior Rating
5) A pilot of certain qualifications
7) A professional of certain qualifications

Current  CAP Capt...

6) A Pilot of some note, CFI or the like
7) A professional of some note, lawyer, doctor long time teacher

The illustrated segments above are person that might best be serviced by WARRANT OFFICER's RANK or NCO status.  There is absolutely no need to CAP Airmen, especially if they cannot become NCOs, these types would  best be served as a WO of some sort.

Those pilots that want to fly and really done want to command groups or wing programs could become WOs and be an instrumentality of the Squadron.  Later, if they choose to rise up the chain, they will have to relinquish the WO status to take command. 

If one wanted NCOs I would have them at the SQUADORN LEVEL.  The general consensus is that prior service NCOs woudl b e sort of like the "soul of the unit."  They would provide military bearing and do the things NCOs are known for, sort of a STAN/EVAL of the unit.  I could see having one GROUP LEVEL NCO and one WING LEVEL NCO and ONE NATIONAL NCO to administer this CAP program of which NCOs would be functions of the SQUADRON. 

One could not have it both ways.  If one wanted to to be a SQUADRON COMMANDER and was an NCO, they would have to relinquish that position to take command.   Once cannot have "quality control" types also part of what they control.  That would be a duality.  And NCO could rise to be the GROUP or WING NCO, but they would operate much like the chaplains do in their own chain.

That is if you wanted to even do such a thing as WOs and NCO.

If these suggests are not palatable, then I question anything differing from an all Officer CAP with NCOs in the honor position they have now.  Only make slight adjustments to the OFFICER program to reflect the issues.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Comments:

Overall:
1. Your outline is hard to read. It would be better if you could put it in a Word doc and post the doc as an attachment. Your formating would hold.
2. Very complex with a rigid caste system based on college.

A. Commissioned Officer Grades:
I have a problem with "temporary" grades. What purpose does it serve? Since you are are using a somewhat military basis, remember not all military officers are commanders, doctors, nurses, or chaplains. There are a number of military officers who are leaders, but not commanders.

What the heck is a "Sector Commander"? I haven't seen that term on any CAP org charts.

B. Commissioned Officer Professional Appointments:
You reference AF practices as justification for the idea, but fail to follow through with adoption. If the idea is good enough to justify professional appointments, shouldn't it be good enough to adopt?

C. FO/WO Mission Related Skills:
Following through your program, an A&P Mech would have to be in CAP for seven and a half years before receiving FO/WO grade. (6.5 to make SSgt, one more as Maintenance Officer(?) or Aircraft Manager [those are leadership positions and cannot be served in until the member makes SSgt]).
Also, just reading through, it appears that to be a FO/WO you need to be a pilot, FCC license holder, A&P mech, and CPA, although that may be becuase the format is so poor.

D. FO/WO Duty Performance:
With my BA in BS I can get a FO/WO out of school, but with my AAS in IT, I can't if I want to do Logisitics instead of IT for CAP.
A SFO/CW3 and MFO/CW4 both list Spaatz as one option. Why have Spaatz for two grades?

E. Non Commissioned Officers (Duty Performance):
Define "Exemplary performance" in purely objective terms. How would an NCO commnad something like an Encampment or NCSA? Would they be "promoted" to officer for the activity? Would you have a figurehead officer as commander? Would they be inelligible for such an assignment?

I strongly disagree with restricting CAP grade for military personnel only. It basically tells CAP members they're not, and will never be, good enough to hold whatever grade.

F. Enlisted:
Who runs activities at the unit that have both seniors and cadets as participants? If an enlisted member plans an activity, say a biovac, should they not lead it?

I may have more comments later...

Andy:

I understand that you are concerned that we are using grades that AP members can never aspire to, specifically the NCO grades.  But that is the situation now, anyway.  The role of the CAP NCO is unique, and every NCO in CAP can be assumed to have a military background at that grade.  As an officer, I know what I can expect from an E-6, and what more I can expect from an E-9.  I haven't heard Chief Chiafo's views on this yet, but I suspect that he may agree that the experience provided by the NCO's from the military is so unique that it must be preserved as a military-only grade.

CAP members, with or without military backgrounds, could enter into one of thee other programs, under my proposal.

They could become commissioned officers, provided they have the basic education requirements.

They could become warrant (Flight) officers if they do not have a college education.

Or they could serve as enlisted members.  Enlisted members would be the "Soccer Mom" and "Den Mother" types that we have in units now.  They join while their child is a cadet, and have little interest in the program beyond those programs involving their own child's unit.  They can be used around the unit as test proctors, drivers, cooks, escorts on trips out of the unit, bivouacs, etc.

Commissioned and flight officers would have the same OTS and the same PD courses.  The only difference is that F/O's cannot command chartered units and 2LT's can, and that you must be a commissioned-grade officer to command Groups and higher.

I bounced all professional appointments to the staff officer responsible.  Chaplains board chaplains, Medical officers board health sciences, JAG boards lawyers.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

John:

I guess I non-concur with assigning "Acting Jack" grades routinely.  I also don't have a problem with CAP retaining its character as an "Officer" force.  I just want to improve the overall quality of those persons wearing officer rank.

To do that, I have proposed the creation of an officer class that does not wear commissioned grade, but which would still be considered an "Officer," specifically the CAP warrant officer.

I don't see the utility of creating CAP sergeants, except to the extent that CAP sergeants, with military experience, can assist us in maintaining the standards of the military in dress, deportment, and mission focus.  I don't see non-prior service guys cycled through the CAP system bringing that skill to the table.

But we concur on the wisom of reserving the lower enlisted grades for the "Soccer Moms" and the "Den Mothers."  I don't mean to be perjorative, they are needed in cadet units, but they clearly have no business being officers.

By the way, I PM'ed the Chief and solicited his input, but no joy on a response as yet.

[Dragoon]

John:

I guess I non-concur with assigning "Acting Jack" grades routinely.  I also don't have a problem with CAP retaining its character as an "Officer" force.  I just want to improve the overall quality of those persons wearing officer rank.

To do that, I have proposed the creation of an officer class that does not wear commissioned grade, but which would still be considered an "Officer," specifically the CAP warrant officer.

I don't see the utility of creating CAP sergeants, except to the extent that CAP sergeants, with military experience, can assist us in maintaining the standards of the military in dress, deportment, and mission focus.  I don't see non-prior service guys cycled through the CAP system bringing that skill to the table.

But we concur on the wisom of reserving the lower enlisted grades for the "Soccer Moms" and the "Den Mothers."  I don't mean to be perjorative, they are needed in cadet units, but they clearly have no business being officers.

By the way, I PM'ed the Chief and solicited his input, but no joy on a response as yet.

If you do decide to go with permanent (even if they aren't actually doing officer business), I'd suggest rethinking having the same PD for flight officers and "commissioned officers."

If the training is the same for each, then they are interchangeable and we don't need both grade systems.

If you create a specific role for each (for example, commissioned officers command and fill staff jobs above squadron, while FOs are ES and staff specialists at squadron level) then they need very different PD.

I did just come up with one possible category of CAP NCOs who don't have prior service - former cadets who don't want (or didn't earn) officer grade.  Unlike a soccer mom, these folks will have a fair amount of "military-ness" and might be useful in that role...

[ZigZag911]

1) Don't like "temporary officers" concept -- too CG Aux (works for them, no offense intended)

2) use "Iowa solution" for field grades (adapted locally)...assign all majors & above (other than those in command roles) to group or wing as their membership unit....in addition to their higher ecehlon responsibilities (which in many cases are going to be instructing or supporting an area of expertise) they could ATTEND a local unit in an advisory capacity (never interfering with local command, of course)

3) NCO grades should be available to all.....as with prior military officers, RLNCOs will have their experience recognized in advanced grade....others will need several years training and experience to achieve SSgt

4) NCOs need defined roles & responsibilities. Should be distributed at all echelons -- there are standards to be maintained at all levels

5) Enlisted ranks below NCO are ideal for inexperienced or otherwise limited members....let's get rid of cadet sponsor category with its ambiguous status....either join and fit into the existing system, or stay home!

6) Warrant officer flight officer, besides the natural ranks for technical specialists (like pilots) who don't want command or staff obligations, are the perfect grades for professionals starting out.....given the broader range of staff responsibilities of CAP officers than RLO (you rarely find a military doctor serving as PAO), commissioned status should be earned through CAP training & experience, not given.

[arajca]

Andy:

I understand that you are concerned that we are using grades that AP members can never aspire to, specifically the NCO grades.  But that is the situation now, anyway.  The role of the CAP NCO is unique, and every NCO in CAP can be assumed to have a military background at that grade.  As an officer, I know what I can expect from an E-6, and what more I can expect from an E-9.  I haven't heard Chief Chiafo's views on this yet, but I suspect that he may agree that the experience provided by the NCO's from the military is so unique that it must be preserved as a military-only grade.

There is a significant difference in what John has proposed and the current system. Currently, there is absolutely no provision for any non-military member to be an NCO. That's fine. Jayleswo has proposed having a grade at the top of the NCO chain (which is would be open to anyone) that non-military member cannot aspire to. They will always be held one notch below the top, knowing that in CAP"S eyes they will never be good enough. However, a Navy E-9 could come in at the top of the chain without having an indepth knowledge of the organization.

CAP members, with or without military backgrounds, could enter into one of thee other programs, under my proposal.

They could become commissioned officers, provided they have the basic education requirements.

They could become warrant (Flight) officers if they do not have a college education.

I was addressing Jayleswo's proposal. Without a degree or some special skill, all an adult can do is join as enlisted.

Or they could serve as enlisted members.  Enlisted members would be the "Soccer Mom" and "Den Mother" types that we have in units now.  They join while their child is a cadet, and have little interest in the program beyond those programs involving their own child's unit.  They can be used around the unit as test proctors, drivers, cooks, escorts on trips out of the unit, bivouacs, etc.

I have no problem with these members, although I think they should have a distinct membership type.

Commissioned and flight officers would have the same OTS and the same PD courses.  The only difference is that F/O's cannot command chartered units and 2LT's can, and that you must be a commissioned-grade officer to command Groups and higher.

So what happens when the only commissioned officer in a unit steps down from command? Close the unit?

Dragoon, an idea I had was PD would remain the same for FO's and CO's(Commissioned Officers), but CO's would receive more leadership training, which is what would be expected of CO's

[Dragoon]

Dragoon, an idea I had was PD would remain the same for FO's and CO's(Commissioned Officers), but CO's would receive more leadership training, which is what would be expected of CO's

There are probably other differences in PD as well.  If the intent of FOs is squadron level ops, then they don't need a lot of legal or budget stuff either.

There are major differences in Warrant and Commissioned Officer education in the Army today, as they do different jobs.  If we decide that our officers do different jobs, then we should do the same.

And if we just decide they can do the same jobs, then we don't need both.

[jayleswo]

All: perhaps I was trying to leverage the existing PD curriculum in my proposal too much, but I agree there should be some differentiation between the PD program for an NCO vs. Warrant vs. Officer. If Officers command/lead units, then I agree leadership training would be more important. Right now, all unit commanders get is a 2-day UCC (Unit Commander's Course) that doesn't fit into Level 1-5.

The issue that was identified is that our officers need better training to stack up against their military counterparts of similar grade AND provide better / improved leadership for our organization (of which there have been numerous complaints about lately). There is no way in the world that CAP could provide enough of the training and experience needed to make our officers stack up against a military officer of the same grade unless they come in with much of what is needed already. Not with part-time volunteers. So, how do we accomplish this? One way is to set the bar higher for members entering officer grades and *that* is the reason for a college degree (somewhat waiverable for exceptionally qualified people). If you want a more professional commissioned officer force, then standards have to go up. Which means, what's left for everyone else?

That's where warrant/flight officer, NCO and enlisted programs come into play... it provides a grade structure that people can advance through who do not meet the high requirements to be a CAP Officer or do not care for the responsibilities of being a commissioned officer and the amount of training required.  I actually do think that E-1 thru E-3 can be more than just Soccer mom's, but people just interested in doing E.S., being on a ground team or a mission scanner, helping out the cadet program, or other activities but not have to accept any responsibility for helping to run the unit. Every unit has a handful of people that fit this category.

The idea of making commissioned officer grade temporary is to avoid having officers who are not in positions of responsibility hanging around and mucking up what otherwise would be a pretty clear chain of command. That would make officer grade more meaningful both for us and the organizations we work with. Other ideas welcomed that don't perpetuate the current issue of Lt Col Assistant Morale and Laundry Officers...

Thanks

John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander, PCR-CA-151

[Dragoon]

So what happens when the only commissioned officer in a unit steps down from command? Close the unit?

Bingo.  If you establish jobs that only certain folks can do, you have to deal with 2 issues

1.  Some work just won't get done if you don't have the right kind of officer/NCO/FO around to do the work. We can't just transfer someone in against their will.  And if you start "breveting" to fill the slots, we're right back where we are now.  We just don't have the workforce mobility to support this kind of specialization.

2.  If someone no longer wants to do the work, but can keep the rank, you'll end up with folks who attend training to get promoted, but don't ever do the work required of their grade, leading to:

          a.  A bunch of incredibly inexperienced field grades who went to the right schools, but have no decent command or staff experience (meaning, in spite of good PD, they are basically unqualified)

          b.  No motivation to do the work.  What's the carrot for being a Wing Safety officer?  THAT'S our biggest problem - a lack of quality in key positions because you can get all the bennies without actually contributing!



Imagine this conversation:

USAF Lt Col: "So you are one of the new highly trained CAP Lt Cols.  How did you get promoted?"

CAP Lt Col:  "Well, I've got a college degree.  I went through a 6 weekend OTS.  And I've taken Squadron Officer's School and Air Command and Staff College."

USAF Lt Col: "Hmmm...so you've had about 12 days of hands-on training plus correspondence courses."

CAP Lt Col:  "Well yeah, but that's not all. I've got 20 years of CAP experience.  I'm a mission pilot and and ground team leader.

USAF Lt Col:  "Have you ever commanded a unit?"

CAP Lt Col: "Err......no."

USAF Lt Col::  "What staff jobs have you had?"

CAP Lt Col:  "Well, I was the Squadron Transportation Officer."

USAF Lt Col: "That sounds impressive.  How many vehicles did you manage?"

CAP Lt Col: "Err....one.  I was also the Squadron Aerospace Education Officer"

USAF Lt Col: "I see.  And what kind of staff work did you do there?  How big was your staff."

CAP Lt Col: "Just me.  I taught classes to 5 cadets every month or so."

USAF Lt Col: "No offense, but we'd have a senior airman do that.  What about this ground team leader thing?  That sounds pretty impressive.  How big is a ground team?"

CAP Lt Col: "Err...about 5 guys.  4 cadets and me."

USAF Lt Col:  "So that's your resume. A college degree, a few days of training, a bunch of correspondence courses and some E-4 level staff jobs.   What the heck do you need Air Command and Staff College for?"

CAP Lt Col::  "Because it makes me a field grade officer!"

USAF Lt Col::  So, Colonel, what CAP job do you have as a field grade officer?"

CAP Lt Col:: Nothing, really.  I'm just flying some orientation rides for cadets every couple of months. I'm real busy with other things right now."

USAF Lt Col::  "Wow...I'd hate to see your second lieutenants.  That's a nice rack of 18 ribbons, though..."

[Chappie]

The outline below was my attempt to combine the good work that John Kachemeister has done with my own thoughts on limiting officer grades to those actually serving in Command assignments.

B.   Officer Grades (Professional Appointment)
All Professional Appointment Officer grades are limited to company-grades and are temporary grades held by members in certain professions for the duration of their assignment only.
a.   BA/BS degree for initial entry into officer grade.
b.   Approval by Wing or next higher echelon officer selection board. Board interviews applicant and verifies presented credentials.
c.   Completion of Level I, with OTS (to include SLS.)
d.   2d Lt after completion of training requirements (Level I with OTS/SLS) and
i.   Licensed Vocational Nurse assigned to Health Services duty assignment at Flight/Squadron level or above.
ii.   Chaplain assigned to Flight/Squadron level and above
iii.   Attorney assigned as Legal Officer at the Flight/Squadron level and above
e.   1st Lt after completion of training requirements (Level I with OTS/SLS) and one of the following:
i.   Initial Assignment of Licensed Physician, Registered Nurse or Physician's Assistant assigned to Health Services duty assignment at Flight/Squadron level or above.
ii.   Chaplain assigned to Group/Sector level and above or 3 years satisfactory duty performance as Chaplain at Flight/Squadron level.
iii.   Attorney assigned as Legal Officer at the Group/Sector level and above or 3 years satisfactory duty performance as Legal Officer at Flight/Squadron level.
f.   Capt after completion of training requirements (Level II) and:
i.   Licensed Physician assigned to Health Services duty assignment at Group/Wing level or above with 18 months satisfactory service.
ii.   Assigned as Wing Chaplain
iii.   Attorney assigned as Wing Legal Officer


John Aylesworth, Lt Col, CAP
Commander PCR-CA-151

Are you suggesting that those with Professional appointments can only attain the highest rank/grade of Capt. and that is if they serve on Wing Staff?   I hope that I misread this.  

I know of several chaplains (myself included) who have completed all levels of CAP training --- which have not been taken in account in your proposal.  

As it currently stands (CAPR 35-5), chaplains are initially appointed to the rank of 1st Lt (provided they have an accredited Bachelors and 5 years ministry experience); Capt (provided they have an accredited Bachelors and Master of Divinity degree or accredited Bachelors and 7 years of ministry experience; Major (provided they have an earned Doctorate and 1 year time in grade as Capt).  

The only full-bird Colonel in the CAP Chaplain Service is the Chief of Chaplains.

[DogCollar]

Chappie is correct in outlining the 35-5 for chaplains.  Further, I believe that appointment grade is such so that it corresponds with the military branches chaplain corps. 

Maybe someone that's been around longer than I have can address this, but I believe that the appointment grade for chaplains is because CAP chaplains are called upon, from time to time, to "fill in" for Air Force, NG and ANG units that have deployed chaplains, and need chaplaincy services.

I may be all wet with this understanding!

[arajca]

So what happens when the only commissioned officer in a unit steps down from command? Close the unit?

Bingo.  If you establish jobs that only certain folks can do, you have to deal with 2 issues

1.  Some work just won't get done if you don't have the right kind of officer/NCO/FO around to do the work. We can't just transfer someone in against their will.  And if you start "breveting" to fill the slots, we're right back where we are now.  We just don't have the workforce mobility to support this kind of specialization.

2.  If someone no longer wants to do the work, but can keep the rank, you'll end up with folks who attend training to get promoted, but don't ever do the work required of their grade, leading to:

          a.  A bunch of incredibly inexperienced field grades who went to the right schools, but have no decent command or staff experience (meaning, in spite of good PD, they are basically unqualified)

          b.  No motivation to do the work.  What's the carrot for being a Wing Safety officer?  THAT'S our biggest problem - a lack of quality in key positions because you can get all the bennies without actually contributing!

So, if Capt X gets married and finds (to no one's great surprise) he doesn't have the time to continue in command of ABC Comp Sqdn, and decides to step down, giving up his railroad tracks in the process, and no one else in the unit qualifies for a commission, you'd tell 20 cadets (and their parents) and 10 seniors they have to find a new unit because Capt X 'selfishly' decided that his new family was important to him than CAP? Oh, and by the way, the nearest unit is 50+miles away.

That'll do wonders for retention and recruiting.

While this may seem far fetched, it realy isn't. My unit (which is the closest one to me) is 50 miles away.

[jayleswo]

Chappie, yes you read it correctly. Again, the idea is to tie commissioned officer grades to level of responsibility, not just training, even for professional/chaplain appointments. A squadron Chaplain has less responsibility than a Wing chaplain for example. Not that a chaplain doesn't have a lot of responsibility - they are one of the few, aside from unit commanders physicians/nurses and attorneys that are awarded officer grade in recognition of this. It make sense too in light of the fact that CAP Chaplain's can augment USAF performing chaplain duties.

But there should be a limit to the maximum grade. Maybe it should be Major not Captain, and someone more familiar with the Chaplain program could probably do a better job fleshing this oput than I could. But if you are no longer Wing Chaplain and just serving at the squadron, you'd take a bust to 1st Lt. Interested in your thoughts.

-- John

[Chappie]

Chappie is correct in outlining the 35-5 for chaplains.  Further, I believe that appointment grade is such so that it corresponds with the military branches chaplain corps. 

Maybe someone that's been around longer than I have can address this, but I believe that the appointment grade for chaplains is because CAP chaplains are called upon, from time to time, to "fill in" for Air Force, NG and ANG units that have deployed chaplains, and need chaplaincy services.

I may be all wet with this understanding!

No...you are dry    Since the CAP Chapain needs to meet the same educational requirements and receive the same ecclessiastical endorsements as active and reserve USAF Chaplains, they are often called upon to serve on bases when there is a deployment or other needs that arise.  The only exception to the CAP Chaplain not being able to perform USAF Chaplain Services are those CAP Chaplains who received the educational waiver (accredited Bachelors plus number of years of ministry experience).  Otherwise CAP Chaplains with accredited Bachelors and M.Divs (or above) can and have served with USAF Chaplains.

[mikeylikey]

If we are "giving" rank based on position and command, then take it away, why give it in the first place?  It means nothing......it means even less when you take it away at the end. 

[BillB]

If all that's considered is the current promotion structure, I agree there needs to be revisions. But, you have major's and LtCol's that earned their grade through the various training programs and duty assignements. Most have been members for 25+ years. Now what do you do with them? Transfer them to Wing so that Wing has 500 Majors and LtCol's on staff? Reduce them in grade to 1Lt?
It looks like the reality of CAP is totally ignored. You can have LtCol's that have completed training through Air War College, have commanded Squadrons and Groups for several years, and you want them out of the way for some unknown reason. I would assume that when a Wing Commander steps down you would reduce him in grade to Captain since he's no longer in a command position.
Many of the ideas expressed here are merely pie-in-the-sky, and would not work in the real world. When a USAF Squadron Commander is transferred to a Group staff position, does he get reduced in grade? So why should a CAP Major/LtCol be reduced in grade because he's no longer in a command position. If a member earns a grade, no matter by what means, it should be permanant. Lets have a reality check here.

[Dragoon]

If we are "giving" rank based on position and command, then take it away, why give it in the first place?  It means nothing......it means even less when you take it away at the end. 

The rank would designate who is in charge, who we call "sir" or "ma'am" and who is responsible for accomplishing the mission.

Same as in the real military.

[Dragoon]

. When a USAF Squadron Commander is transferred to a Group staff position, does he get reduced in grade? So why should a CAP Major/LtCol be reduced in grade because he's no longer in a command position. If a member earns a grade, no matter by what means, it should be permanant. Lets have a reality check here.

When the USAF Squadron Commander is transferred to Group Staff, he goes to a another Lt Col's job - a job deserving of his rank.  He does NOT go to a Captain's job.  That's the problem in CAP - our members often work wayyyyyyyyyyyy below their pay grade.  Which is why our rank means virtually nothing, and is ignored by a large number of our members.  It doesn't indicate responsibility or authority.

[mikeylikey]

How about keeping the rank and grade we have now and changing the pro development program.  The entire program needs overhauled and those geniuses at NHQ should start working for the money they are getting paid.  Develope a program that is exactly like what the AF has in terms of Officer development.  In fact, why not just "borrow"  their program and change words like Air Force to Civil Air Patrol, re-publish it and make it mandatory.  Better yet, ask the AF to develop a CAP specific Officer progression program, that way it would bring CAP and AF closer together.

Years ago (10 plus) the Air Force liaison for my Wing setup courses for CAP members that were instructed by Active Duty, Reserve, NG and Cap members.  IT was very successful.  Usually once per month members could sign up for development courses that were held on various military installations.  At that time the Liaison Officer had a "huge" budget and all expenses were provided by the Government.  After his retirement the program fell away because the Wing Commander did not believe in training in areas that were not part of the five levels of development. 

Those Wing Pro Dev Officers that only do the required SLS, CLS etc should be FIRED.  It is a real disservice to the membership.

[Chief Chiafos]

As I have said on other postings - CAP is schophrenic; are we civilians or military?  Until we decide what we are no meaningful change will ever happen.  Having said that, in regards to NCOs, no Air Force NCO is promoted without college.  I know E-6 tech sergeants with master's degrees - still want to make us officers?

[Chief Chiafos]

For GhostRider,

Re: College required for NCO promotions.  Yes, you are right.  But in my own experience, in my organization (AFOSI), the competition for the rare promotion is so stiff you are compelled to college classes.  Do you need a sheep skin to get promoted, no.  But when almost everyone being reviewed by the promotion board, and I sat on many as a Chief, has a degree, and you don't - your dead meat.

[JohnKachenmeister]

So what happens when the only commissioned officer in a unit steps down from command? Close the unit?

Bingo.  If you establish jobs that only certain folks can do, you have to deal with 2 issues

1.  Some work just won't get done if you don't have the right kind of officer/NCO/FO around to do the work. We can't just transfer someone in against their will.  And if you start "breveting" to fill the slots, we're right back where we are now.  We just don't have the workforce mobility to support this kind of specialization.

2.  If someone no longer wants to do the work, but can keep the rank, you'll end up with folks who attend training to get promoted, but don't ever do the work required of their grade, leading to:

          a.  A bunch of incredibly inexperienced field grades who went to the right schools, but have no decent command or staff experience (meaning, in spite of good PD, they are basically unqualified)

          b.  No motivation to do the work.  What's the carrot for being a Wing Safety officer?  THAT'S our biggest problem - a lack of quality in key positions because you can get all the bennies without actually contributing!

So, if Capt X gets married and finds (to no one's great surprise) he doesn't have the time to continue in command of ABC Comp Sqdn, and decides to step down, giving up his railroad tracks in the process, and no one else in the unit qualifies for a commission, you'd tell 20 cadets (and their parents) and 10 seniors they have to find a new unit because Capt X 'selfishly' decided that his new family was important to him than CAP? Oh, and by the way, the nearest unit is 50+miles away.

That'll do wonders for retention and recruiting.

While this may seem far fetched, it realy isn't. My unit (which is the closest one to me) is 50 miles away.

(Sound of loud whisle bolwing, and yellow flag flies into the air)

Some of you are mis-stating or misunderstanding my proposal.

A TFO and higher can command up to squadron level under my proposed plan.  An FO (entry level) can command a detached flight that is part of a squadron and under their charter, but NOT a separately chartered flight.

All FO's can serve is staff positions at all levels of command if they have the skill and knowledge needed.  I am not trying to tell commanders who to select for positions.  The only jobs barred to FO's are group, wing, region, and national command.

Also, there is no need for FO's to go to level 5 of the PD.  They are fully qualified at level 4. 

The purpose of my proposed plan is to:

1.  Make sure those who wear commissioned rank have credentials appropriate to the status as commissioned officer.  I do this by requiring a BA/BS college degree, but allow for certain exceptions.

2.  Make sure we have adequate numbers of officers to staff our units, knowing that the vast majority of our force does not have the required educational attainment.

3.  Provide incentives to persons who volunteer, beyond "Work hard, spend time away from your family, pay dues, and in a couple of years you might make sergeant!"

And Dragoon, your point is well taken.  We do not demand the same level of responsibility of our Lieutenant Colonels that the Air Force does.  We never will, because we don't have the assets they have.  On the other hand, we demand a lot more from our Lieutenants and Captains than they do.  And your point about the ribbon rack is similarly well taken.  Our award system is a case study in the celebration of mediocrity.

There's nothing to be ashamed of if all the CAP LTC is doing is running O-flights.  It's what he has the time to do, and the cadet program is still an important mission of CAP.  And when is the last time that that USAF colonel took out a rescue team consisting, in part, of 15-year olds? 

[JAFO78]

Kack, and all the others who care about CAP.

After reading the many, many posts about the CAP change talk I have one thing to add. These words are the best I have ever heard. It came from my high school history teacher.

"Don't confuse me with the FACTS, my mind is already made up."


.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Rob:

While it may seem that way, I think everybody has got at least one idea on how to improve CAP.  I like, for example, Dragoon's plan of making everybody Flight Officers, but I don't think that idea will last as long as a snowball in Hell with the membership unless the AF throws us a bone, like REAL warrants.

I thought about the idea of yo-yo officers, wearing LTC rank for your command tour and dropping back to F/O afterwards, but that also sounds like a real tough sell.

I'm still unconvinced that a CAP NCO career track is a good idea, but I'll admit the idea that former cadets could be brought in as NCO's if they are not qualified for officer rank may be a good idea, especially if we establish that they are to be leaders in the cadet program only.  Sort of like CAP T.I.'s. 

[JAFO78]

Kack, I know I was just trying to lighten things up a little. I felt too many people were acting like they had way too much caffeine. Don't want anyone to have a stroke.

I know things will work its self out some day........

[ZigZag911]

Rob:

While it may seem that way, I think everybody has got at least one idea on how to improve CAP.  I like, for example, Dragoon's plan of making everybody Flight Officers, but I don't think that idea will last as long as a snowball in Hell with the membership unless the AF throws us a bone, like REAL warrants.

I thought about the idea of yo-yo officers, wearing LTC rank for your command tour and dropping back to F/O afterwards, but that also sounds like a real tough sell.

I'm still unconvinced that a CAP NCO career track is a good idea, but I'll admit the idea that former cadets could be brought in as NCO's if they are not qualified for officer rank may be a good idea, especially if we establish that they are to be leaders in the cadet program only.  Sort of like CAP T.I.'s. 

John,

I'm still not sure what you mean by a "real" warrant.....what would it mean, exactly? Wouldn't it be, in large measure, an honorary thing? 

As a former cadet officer myself, while I have no problem letting former cadets who did not earn Mitchell have some advanced grade (Sr A, or maybe SSgt), I caution against using them as TIs.....if they lacked the motivation or ability to earn a Mitchell, then they may not be best role modelks or instructors for fledgling cadets....anyway, if they are seniors who recently transitioned from cadet program, they need to be weaned from cadet end of things, introduced to staff work & senior prof dev.

[Major Carrales]

CAP Lt Col:: Nothing, really.  I'm just flying some orientation rides for cadets every couple of months. I'm real busy with other things right now."

USAF Lt Col::  "Wow...I'd hate to see your second lieutenants.  That's a nice rack of 18 ribbons, though..."

CAP Lt Col:: "If you think that this rack is impressive, you should see the certificate my school gave me for being TEACHER of the YEAR."

USAF Lt Col::  "Huh...?"

CAP Lt Col:: "Yeah...this is my 19th Year teaching.  I forgot to tell you that I teach 7th Grade Math.  I'm also active in my Lodge and coach my daughter's softball team."

USAF Lt Col::  "Really?"

CAP Lt Col:: "What's more...after a full day of teaching, coaching, taking care of the family issues I get a call from AFRCC to track down an ELT at 3:00 am.  Then I get home just in time to shower, get dressed and teach another day."

USAF Lt Col::  "And your point is?  I don't understand."

CAP Lt Col:: "I didn't think you would."

Point is CAP and USAF are not similar.  A CAP Officer is a volunteer that does quite a lot actually, with little or no resources and much less funding and no pay.  A USAF officer is a professional Airman (Vandenberg's words) that makes the Defense of his nation his work.

Non-Prior Military CAP officers can't fully understand the "USAF lifestyle angle" which is full time Defense of Civilians and career USAF officers can't fully grasp the "CAP Lifestyle angle"(lest, of course, they are in CAP dating back before their USAF service) which is  part time Civil Defense.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Rob:

While it may seem that way, I think everybody has got at least one idea on how to improve CAP.  I like, for example, Dragoon's plan of making everybody Flight Officers, but I don't think that idea will last as long as a snowball in Hell with the membership unless the AF throws us a bone, like REAL warrants.

I thought about the idea of yo-yo officers, wearing LTC rank for your command tour and dropping back to F/O afterwards, but that also sounds like a real tough sell.

I'm still unconvinced that a CAP NCO career track is a good idea, but I'll admit the idea that former cadets could be brought in as NCO's if they are not qualified for officer rank may be a good idea, especially if we establish that they are to be leaders in the cadet program only.  Sort of like CAP T.I.'s. 

John,

I'm still not sure what you mean by a "real" warrant.....what would it mean, exactly? Wouldn't it be, in large measure, an honorary thing? 

As a former cadet officer myself, while I have no problem letting former cadets who did not earn Mitchell have some advanced grade (Sr A, or maybe SSgt), I caution against using them as TIs.....if they lacked the motivation or ability to earn a Mitchell, then they may not be best role modelks or instructors for fledgling cadets....anyway, if they are seniors who recently transitioned from cadet program, they need to be weaned from cadet end of things, introduced to staff work & senior prof dev.

That's a good point, Zig.  You're right.

What I mean by real warrants is exactly that.  The Air Force does not currently avail itself of the authority of the service secretary to appoint warrant officers.  IF we were to abandon the use of commissioned grades, and at the same time create higher standards for CAP officer membership, one of the alternatives is to award everyone warrant rank.  Backicng that up with an appointment as an Air Force warrant officer would give the USAF direct control of the officer appointment process, expanded supervisory authority over CAP, and at the same time create a vehicle by which serious mission augmentation could take place.

DNall pointed out that the AF does not issue warrants because they would count against their authorized officer totals, but I THINK that consideration would only apply to officers on the payroll.

[Dragoon]

CAP Lt Col:: Nothing, really.  I'm just flying some orientation rides for cadets every couple of months. I'm real busy with other things right now."

USAF Lt Col::  "Wow...I'd hate to see your second lieutenants.  That's a nice rack of 18 ribbons, though..."

CAP Lt Col:: "If you think that this rack is impressive, you should see the certificate my school gave me for being TEACHER of the YEAR."

USAF Lt Col::  "Huh...?"

CAP Lt Col:: "Yeah...this is my 19th Year teaching.  I forgot to tell you that I teach 7th Grade Math.  I'm also active in my Lodge and coach my daughter's softball team."

USAF Lt Col::  "Really?"

CAP Lt Col:: "What's more...after a full day of teaching, coaching, taking care of the family issues I get a call from AFRCC to track down an ELT at 3:00 am.  Then I get home just in time to shower, get dressed and teach another day."

USAF Lt Col::  "And your point is?  I don't understand."

CAP Lt Col:: "I didn't think you would."

Point is CAP and USAF are not similar.  A CAP Officer is a volunteer that does quite a lot actually, with little or no resources and much less funding and no pay.  A USAF officer is a professional Airman (Vandenberg's words) that makes the Defense of his nation his work.

Non-Prior Military CAP officers can't fully understand the "USAF lifestyle angle" which is full time Defense of Civilians and career USAF officers can't fully grasp the "CAP Lifestyle angle"(lest, of course, they are in CAP dating back before their USAF service) which is  part time Civil Defense.

You are absolutely right.  Which is why, given the choice, I would only use some sort of CAP - specific grade system.

We ain't real USAF officers, and they ain't real CAP officers.  For al the reasons you mention above.

Let's stop trying to put little "apple" insignia on the oranges.  It's just confusing the grocer.

[Dragoon]

While it may seem that way, I think everybody has got at least one idea on how to improve CAP.  I like, for example, Dragoon's plan of making everybody Flight Officers, but I don't think that idea will last as long as a snowball in Hell with the membership unless the AF throws us a bone, like REAL warrants.

I thought about the idea of yo-yo officers, wearing LTC rank for your command tour and dropping back to F/O afterwards, but that also sounds like a real tough sell.

I would agree that these are both virtually impossible sells given the current governence structure.  I still think they are the right way to go, but my experience with CAP decision making is that folks will protect their right to keep what they have to the death, regardless of whether it's good for the organization.

But I'll keep plugging away. Some day, I expect CAP to undergo some kind of major reset (probably because of some internal crisis).  And that's when folks might actually be ready for a fresh approach.

[Chief Chiafos]

The warrant officer issue is dead, dead, dead, in the Air Force.  And any idea that it will allow warrants for CAP will also be DOA.  And it all has to do with flying status.  Under DoD regulations a warrant officer MUST be allowed to apply for any pilot training school offered by the members service branch - getting the idea?

Several attempts in the Air Force to bring back warrants for certain highly skilled positions, truly deserving of the benefits of a warrant commisson, have been immediately run through the office shredder at HQ USAF.

[Major Carrales]

Let's stop trying to put little "apple" insignia on the oranges.  It's just confusing the grocer.

You can keep the rank structure as it is, it could look and be called like the USAF...but one mustn't think it mean anything to any agency outside of CAP.  USAF included.  To anyone and everyone else it is best a term of address.  No CAP it should refect your professional development.

Love it for what it is, not hate it for what it is not!

[Major Carrales]

The warrant officer issue is dead, dead, dead, in the Air Force.  And any idea that it will allow warrants for CAP will also be DOA.  And it all has to do with flying status.  Under DoD regulations a warrant officer MUST be allowed to apply for any pilot training school offered by the members service branch - getting the idea?

Several attempts in the Air Force to bring back warrants for certain highly skilled positions, truly deserving of the benefits of a warrant commisson, have been immediately run through the office shredder at HQ USAF.

Why would it be dead here?  CAP is not the USAF and has totally different needs.   On that issue I will agree with Dragoon.  The DoD does not really apply to this. 

The main issues of this debate are that the traditional Officer Rank system is circumnavigated by current CAP practices that promote new persons of outstanding professional skills to ranks like CAPT and MAJOR when they have little or no CAP experience. 

Example: If a teacher joins CAP "cold turkey" and has a Masters/Doctorate and years of experience they become a field grade officer.  Now, would it not make more sense to promote them to a WO grade...especially if they never intend to rise to command of the unit or go to higher echelon?

CAP needs a rank structure that does several things 1) indicate Professional Development, 2) reward volunteer service (an abstract "paygrade", 3) a possible reflect command structure and 4) reflect the history/tradition of CAP.

The latter being the reason it resembles the USAF/USAAF.  The prior three are the true issue.

Warrant Officer status for those that do not seek to rise above the Squadron Level is a viable alternative to 1st Lt's commanding Captains and Majors.  NCOs who's job it is to "standardize" military bearing at the Squadron Level with an NCO Command structure via group and wing is the only viable way to institute NCOs (especially if it is going to be exclusionary to prior service members).

As for Warrant Officers being a dead issue...one could say the same for CAP NCO's.  Respectfully, the issue of NCOs in CAP is just as DOA since there really is not pressing need for it.

I know this (CAP-NCO) is a subject close to your heart but don't knock a WO program proposal because of it.  I submit that offering a WO program would solve the current flaw people see with a non-prior service person not becoming an NCO.

One should not have NCOs if there is no enlisted Airmen (I mean a rank structure that begins with four chevrons?  It is a bit disingenuous,)  It also stands to reason that it make no sense to have Airmen that can never become an NCO.  Thus, make these would be Airmen some sort of WO?  Voila!!!  Now you just circumnavigated the issue, kept a basic officer corps drive CAP with NCO safeguards (all prior service) and unit level people serving as WOs. 

Neat and pretty...

Comments?

[ZigZag911]

What I mean by real warrants is exactly that.  The Air Force does not currently avail itself of the authority of the service secretary to appoint warrant officers.  IF we were to abandon the use of commissioned grades, and at the same time create higher standards for CAP officer membership, one of the alternatives is to award everyone warrant rank.  Backicng that up with an appointment as an Air Force warrant officer would give the USAF direct control of the officer appointment process, expanded supervisory authority over CAP, and at the same time create a vehicle by which serious mission augmentation could take place.

DNall pointed out that the AF does not issue warrants because they would count against their authorized officer totals, but I THINK that consideration would only apply to officers on the payroll.

That makes sense, Kach.....I guess it would make our seniors subect to the UCMJ (which could clog the wheels of military justice for decades to come!)

[ZigZag911]

The warrant officer issue is dead, dead, dead, in the Air Force.  And any idea that it will allow warrants for CAP will also be DOA.  And it all has to do with flying status.  Under DoD regulations a warrant officer MUST be allowed to apply for any pilot training school offered by the members service branch - getting the idea?

Several attempts in the Air Force to bring back warrants for certain highly skilled positions, truly deserving of the benefits of a warrant commisson, have been immediately run through the office shredder at HQ USAF.

Chief:  understanding that the WO issue is a non-starter for USAF active/reserve/guard. nevertheless, the DOD requirement that WOs be allowed to apply for any pilot program would have little real impact in CAP.....you've seen enough of our folks (seniors) to realize that only a microscopically small percentage would have the remotest chance of qualifying for any USAF pilot training.

[Major Carrales]

I may have missed something here...

Are y'all under the impression that I am speaking about making CAP personnel USAF Warrant Officer?

I would not support that even for CAP pilots.  I was talking about WOs for Members that want to work at the squadron level only getting such a rank to maintian CAP grade structure.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The warrant officer issue is dead, dead, dead, in the Air Force.  And any idea that it will allow warrants for CAP will also be DOA.  And it all has to do with flying status.  Under DoD regulations a warrant officer MUST be allowed to apply for any pilot training school offered by the members service branch - getting the idea?

Several attempts in the Air Force to bring back warrants for certain highly skilled positions, truly deserving of the benefits of a warrant commisson, have been immediately run through the office shredder at HQ USAF.

I do not understand this, Chief.

The Army has LOTS of warrants who are not pilots... criminal investigators, physicians assistants, maintenance types, admin types, all can qualify for warrants in their career field, but since their career field is not aviation, they never get to see the flight line at "Mother Rucker."

And, can't anybody already apply for pilot school?  It doesn't mean that they will accept you.

I'd apply, but I think that they've got their quota of 57-year old pilots.  Besides, I don't wanna go to the Middle East.  The desert air is bad for my complexion.  Can I get right into the Thunderbirds after flight school?  That would be way cool!

[Chief Chiafos]

Warrant officers are the "third rail" of the USAF, anyone touching it is immediately electrocuted.  Why? It all has to do with commissioned officers, and commissioned officers only, being pilots.  The Air Force says that its NCO supergrades (E-8s & E-9s) can function as well, even better than, WOs.  In some respects this is true.  Yes, CAP is not the Air Force and it would matter little if WOs were allowed in CAP - But... perception is everything, and the Air Force will not tolerate WOs, even in its own auxiliary.  Irrational? Yes.  Can it be changed? No.

[Chappie]

Chappie, yes you read it correctly. Again, the idea is to tie commissioned officer grades to level of responsibility, not just training, even for professional/chaplain appointments. A squadron Chaplain has less responsibility than a Wing chaplain for example. Not that a chaplain doesn't have a lot of responsibility - they are one of the few, aside from unit commanders physicians/nurses and attorneys that are awarded officer grade in recognition of this. It make sense too in light of the fact that CAP Chaplain's can augment USAF performing chaplain duties.

But there should be a limit to the maximum grade. Maybe it should be Major not Captain, and someone more familiar with the Chaplain program could probably do a better job fleshing this oput than I could. But if you are no longer Wing Chaplain and just serving at the squadron, you'd take a bust to 1st Lt. Interested in your thoughts.

-- John

John, sorry about the delay in the response to your post.  I have busy and I was also awaiting information from one of my USAF Chaplain buddies.  So here are my thoughts....

As others have observed in this thread, CAP and USAF, while they have similar grade/ranks are different in the ways they promote.  CAP promotes on the basis of professional development and time in grade.  The USAF promotes on the basis of professional development and duty performance.  For example in the USAF Chaplain Service (in addition to professional development requirements), 1st Lt. and Captains serve on installation staffs; Majors serve as Senior Program Chaplains, Installation Chaplains, on the Resource Board, instructors at Chaplain Service Institute (Maxwell AFB); Lt. Colonels serve on MajComm Staff, field operating agencies, direct reporting units, or Wing Chaplains; Colonels serve the Joint Chiefs, Office of the Secretary Defense, USAF HQ or a Command Chaplain; the Brig. and Major Generals serve as the Deputy Chief and Chief of USAF Chaplain Service.  As USAF Chaplains promote, there are fewer and fewer duty positions.  Promotion rates drop dramatically.

Currently the CAP does not promote solely on the duty performance, but on professional development requirements and time-in-grade.  It has always irked me that the chaplains in CAP are not required to attain anything higher than Level 1 and completion of the 221A to promote.  They can be promoted for time-in-grade.  It has been my personal philosophy that what is good for the CAP Senior Member is good for the CAP Chaplain as well.  That is why I have pursued all levels of professional/ES training – receiving the GRW as well as the Master rating in 3 specialty tracks and a Mission Chaplain rating. During my years of membership, it has been my privilege to have served at all levels of CAP (except at National...though I have served on the NSC Staff). 

Based on the suggestion offered of tying rank to performance, if my CAP rank were based as that of an active or reserve USAF Chaplain, my CAP career would be over and I could retire as a Lt.Col. and go on my merry way wearing my "been there-done that" t-shirt.  That would be unless a National Commander would select me to serve as the National Chief of CAP Chaplain Service, which would put an eagle on my shoulder.    (Not gonna happen)

But regressing....now that I had attained the rank of Lt. Col. having hypothetically served as a Wing, or Region Chaplain and desiring to return to local squadron or to the Group and  share the wealth of knowledge and experience that I had gained throughout the year, you suggest that I take the "bust to 1st Lt.".  Hmmmmm...don't think so.

Since the CAP is a civilian/volunteer organization, the only recognition received by its members for their investment of time, talent, and money to participate in the various activities/missions as well as pursue their professional development is the certificates, ribbons, and rank.  To tie rank solely to duty performance/assignment would be a disservice – not only to the individual member but to the organization as a whole. 

I have seen many squadrons (including the one I attend) benefit greatly from individuals who have served at the higher levels of CAP return to actively participate.  Having experienced life first-hand at the higher levels of CAP (and reading the war stories/observations in this forum as well as other CAP-related forums), I consider it a relief at times to have returned to the local squadron and serve a newly appointed squadron commander, to teach Moral Leadership to the cadets and Core Values to the Senior Members, to counsel when needed and serve the needs of the local squadron...and all this having had more training and experience than when I first joined. 

Now I realize that with the silver oak leaf on an epaulet and a buck-fifty onecan get a cup of coffee at Denny's...but in the volunteer organization of CAP, the recognition from the rank of Lt. Col.  (based on training and years of service) goes a long way.  Frankly, since the USAF does not often recognize who CAP is, why does it concern me if the hypothetical conversation takes place between a CAP Lt. Col. and a USAF Lt. Col.?   Their mission and our mission are not the same.  However, it is funny to see the looks of airmen on an active AFB, when they see a 73 year old 1st Lt. 

Since the CAP is a civilian/volunteer organization, I agree with others who have posted here, where would be the motivation/incentive for our members to pursue their professional development and accept opportunities for performing duties of higher responsibility if they know that once they attained it, they would be asked to return to square one?  I can't see applying the example of the Wing Chaplain reverting to 1st Lt. upon returning to a local squadron to a Wing/Region Commander or Vice Commander should they desire to serve at the grassroots.   

Membership retention is a major problem in CAP.   Those who have served at higher levels of responsibility in CAP and attain a rank do not have an option of retiring to keep their highest rank earned do those who serve in the military.  While they may love to serve in CAP, to require them to "take the bust to 1st Lt" because they desire to still contribute to the organization by taking a duty assignment within the local squadron once their tenure of Wing/Region/National service is over, in all likelihood would see them leave rather than remain.

[DNall]

I'd apply, but I think that they've got their quota of 57-year old pilots. 

33, agre waivers granted less than 1% of the time, accepted by teh board to an even lesser degree - basically no one's ever heard of it happening unless some state is paying for your slot cause you got connections or something.

CAP Lt Col:: Nothing, really.  I'm just flying some orientation rides for cadets every couple of months. I'm real busy with other things right now."

USAF Lt Col::  "Wow...I'd hate to see your second lieutenants.  That's a nice rack of 18 ribbons, though..."

CAP Lt Col:: "If you think that this rack is impressive, you should see the certificate my school gave me for being TEACHER of the YEAR."

USAF Lt Col::  "Huh...?"

CAP Lt Col:: "Yeah...this is my 19th Year teaching.  I forgot to tell you that I teach 7th Grade Math.  I'm also active in my Lodge and coach my daughter's softball team."

USAF Lt Col::  "Really?"

CAP Lt Col:: "What's more...after a full day of teaching, coaching, taking care of the family issues I get a call from AFRCC to track down an ELT at 3:00 am.  Then I get home just in time to shower, get dressed and teach another day."

USAF Lt Col::  "And your point is?  I don't understand."

CAP Lt Col:: "I didn't think you would."

Point is CAP and USAF are not similar.  A CAP Officer is a volunteer that does quite a lot actually, with little or no resources and much less funding and no pay.  A USAF officer is a professional Airman (Vandenberg's words) that makes the Defense of his nation his work.

Non-Prior Military CAP officers can't fully understand the "USAF lifestyle angle" which is full time Defense of Civilians and career USAF officers can't fully grasp the "CAP Lifestyle angle"(lest, of course, they are in CAP dating back before their USAF service) which is  part time Civil Defense.

AF LtCol: Oh yeah, I got called away from my son's graduation to drop bombs on Afghan for a couple months last year, otherwise it's a pretty standard 8-5 job. You should see my son in the reserves though. He's a teacher too you know, he teaches in the day, comes home coaches baseball, got a ski boat, great little family. Then a wknd a month he puts on his AF suit & every few years he's called on to use that training.

Lets just think about this a little:
- CAP member spends a monthly average of 13-20hrs, Gurard/Reserve 16-20.

- You want to get promoted in CAP you have to do correspondence course, weekend training sessions (SLS/CLC), or longer in-res programs (RSC/NSC), plus advance in your specialty; Guard/res you do the SAME correspondence courses, wknd training sessions, and/or slightly longer in-res courses, and you have to keep current & advance in your specialty.

- Besides PME, the factors in promotion are duty prfomance & TIG, same for both, but AF puts more emphasis on duty performance/evaluation & has a more structured set of rules to cover TIG.

- Nature of the work? We both work hard to serve our country in our designated specialties. Less than 4% of the AF are rated pilots, and most of them aren't the trigger pulling kind. The ONLY real difference in CAP & in exchange for a paycheck the reseerves can be forced to duty & shipped overseas for months at a time. Everything else is attitude.

We're more alike than we are different. There's a few narrow items from the AF world don't work well in the unique environment of CAP, but if you try to work with them rather than doing everything your own way you tend to find more of the AF-way works in CAP than doesn't, and what doesn't is pretty easy to solve. You'll find a few cases where you can do it the AF-way or some other way just as easy & neiter way is better than the other. In that case it's best to do it the AF way so they understand it & the oversight is as quick & cheap as possible so we can all get back to work.

[Major Carrales]

Dennis, you are making a great case for the USAFR.  Any CAP member that wants to join the USAFR and meets the criteria should do so immediately.

CAP is a different animal with different people and with persons of different ages and circumstance.  Mostly people who want to serve domestically for their community, state and nation.  There is a limit to what they can do as CAP officers and likely aren't in the Reserve for reason.  They serve without pay.

CAP Lt Col "That's good...I do my part for my nation as you do.  But its different work.  God Bless all you do and may He keep you safe.  You may have no respect for my position, but I hold you in the highest regard.   I am what I am...you are what you are.  I cannot be judged on the same scale as you...nor you I."

USAF Lt Col- "So long as you are the best CAP Officer you can be I respect that." 

CAP Lt Col "Thank you, Sir.  I will be just that."

[DNall]

See that's not the thing though. You understand the National Guard's dual-personality.... Well, then there's the reserves, they do the combat mission, CAP does the domestic non-combat mission, SDFs do the state/local mission. That's where we are, between SDF & Reserve. If I'm not mistaken, that's about where you slotted us in your spectrum.

Problem:
We can't stay what we are now, that thing is dying. The missions of CAP are virtually gone in two years & depending on how things work w/ NIMS we may be blocked form working for state & local as well. Plus the budget is gone as soon as we aren't bringing a priority return to the AF. That means the planes, radios, etc are all gone - either taken away or can't be operated or replaced. We got a choice of: 1) doing nothing & being dissolved as obsolete just like SAC after the cold war; 2) be cut off from the AF & their money, try to go it alone w/ no govt affiliation, have to sell planes each year to fund operations for a couple years till they run out & we close down; 3) have everything taken away from us & boot in the rear on the way out the door; or, 4) evolve to do a range of AF missions that make us necessary to them (to the tune of our budget).

Process:
I'm NOT in any way trying to make CAP into the military. I'm looking at the relationship SDFs have with the guard, the relationship CGAux has with the CG, how the guard/res works versus active duty, what similarities each of these have that make their operational function possible, & what are those operational functions, how do those functions compare against the list of things CAP is in a position to help with... from that where do we want to end up. Now look at the systemic problems that hold CAP down. How can those be addressed in a way that aligns & supports where we need to end up to survive.

solution:
What a lot of people have come up with from different directions is what we're talking about here. Professional standards, training, etc... a place somewhere between SDF & reserve, scaled from AF to our level of responsibility, adapted to our unique circumstance of not being paid & having limited time all spread out, and difficult geography to deal with. The problem the AF, FEMA, & the rest of the emergency response community has with us is not that we're idiots per se & has nothing to do with being paid or not. It has to do with not knowing how to do the job we claim to be able to do, not being able to lead or manage sufficient to the responsibilities placed in front of us, and not doing what we're told by those appointed over us. That's the stuff we have to fix, and just saying so doesn't mean anything, this is how you show them it's getting fixed & prove to them when it's there is according to a scale they can read. Otherwise you might as well be speaking martian.

[JAFO78]

DNall all I have to say is Bravo, Bravo. (Standing and applauding)

I agree with what you are saying.

If we DON"T CHANGE and soon. We won't have CAP at ALL!!

People do you get it now!!!!

I want to thank DNall, Kack, and the others who opened my eyes to what is happening or will happen, soon.

[ColonelJack]

I have to agree, at least in principle, with what's being said here.

There must be change.

Some of the suggestions for change that I've seen are, however, somewhat ... drastic ... and that's why they're getting ripped by others, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

And for the record ... no, I don't have a proposal for change.  That doesn't mean I can't comment on those I see.

And I will.

Jack

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have to agree, at least in principle, with what's being said here.

There must be change.

Some of the suggestions for change that I've seen are, however, somewhat ... drastic ... and that's why they're getting ripped by others, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

And for the record ... no, I don't have a proposal for change.  That doesn't mean I can't comment on those I see.

And I will.

Jack

Jack:

I don't see these changes as all that drastic.

We are talking about improving the quality of our officers, so that when a CAP captain or major, or lieutenant colonel speaks at a meeting planning for disasters, he or she has some credibility with the others at the table.  Automatic credibility, not the credibility that is granted to a single person based on having worked together over the years, but credibility based on the rank they wear.

We are talking about increased requirements on our ES folks (forced on us by outside agencies) such that the days of folks having a full "Dance Card" in the form of multiple 101-card qualifications is ending.  The time requirements to maintain proficiency in ONE area will fill up the volunteered time that is given to us.  We have to plan for that.

And, although it hasn't come up very much because we've been talking about other things, we are planning for ways to actually reduce the administrative burden on local unit commanders.  CAP will tell you they have reduced paperwork.  They have.  They made the reporting requirements into electronic formats.  You still have the workload, but it isn't "Paperwork."  That isn't progress.

[Dragoon]

If the goal is credibility at the table, consider this:

If you show up at a meeting as a CAP Lt Col, at least one guy in the room is going to be thinking "is this guy really deserving of those oak leaves."

So you end up having to justify it by taking Squadron Officer's School and ACSC, which really aren't geared towards training you to be an effective CAP leader.  But you do it so you have "credibility"

Now, suppose you show up as a CAP "Flight Officer".  Some weird grade no one used but CAP (or even no grade at all)

No one is going to be thinking "is this guy really deserving of that grade?"  Any more than you would think that of a Fire Chief.  Because it's clear that the grade is specific to CAP.

The element of competition and "proving your worthiness for your grade" is effectively dead, and now you can just focus on doing your job.

Another means to the same end, but without piling on USAF requirements that don't quite fit.


Do we need better training for our members and leaders?  You bet!  Is the best use of their time to try to train them to be USAF officers?.......I dunno. 

[Dragoon]

- Nature of the work? We both work hard to serve our country in our designated specialties. Less than 4% of the AF are rated pilots, and most of them aren't the trigger pulling kind. The ONLY real difference in CAP & in exchange for a paycheck the reseerves can be forced to duty & shipped overseas for months at a time. Everything else is attitude.

You really  believe there are no differences in the scope and responsibility of the work?

Remember you've got CAP Lt Col's acting as assistant testing officers in squadrons with 5 active cadets.

[JohnKachenmeister]

- Nature of the work? We both work hard to serve our country in our designated specialties. Less than 4% of the AF are rated pilots, and most of them aren't the trigger pulling kind. The ONLY real difference in CAP & in exchange for a paycheck the reseerves can be forced to duty & shipped overseas for months at a time. Everything else is attitude.

You really  believe there are no differences in the scope and responsibility of the work?

Remember you've got CAP Lt Col's acting as assistant testing officers in squadrons with 5 active cadets.

Yes, that situation does happen.  That doesn't mean it shuld be the norm, not does it mean that we should have a LtCol in that duty who is "Being all he can be."

I don't know for sure where you get the references to Squadron Officer School and AF training.  That won't work for us.  We do things different.  The first thing we throw out the door on a mission is unit integrity.  Our units, unlike the USAF, are nothing more than training bases.  We establish a task force organization under an IC for every mission.  We don't rotate units in and out of a mission like the AF, we rotate individuals.  our logistics is completely different as well.  Nobody in the USAF his to buy fuel, then file a 108 form for reimbursement when they bomb places ending in "--stan."

We DO need a tougher, more challenging program of officer training.  DNall wants to take the USAF model of officer training, gut it of all the stuff not pertaining to us, and stuff it with information we can use.  Bake it for 3 hours at 350 degrees, baste frequently, and serve with a pineapple garnish.

I think he's on to something, and we owe it to our organization to follow it up.

(I just made up the part about the garnish.  He never said that.)

[Hoser]

Geez you people are crazy!!!!  I got involved in CAP to do something useful for my community that involved aviation. If I wanted to play the "all these requirements for this or that and this class that class" game I'd have stayed in the Coast Guard!!! This is a volunteer organization for Pete's sake!!! You can't be placing all these arcane strings on people who are willing to give of their time, effort and money for no pay. We are manpower short as it is without creating a maze of bureaucratic hoops that would alienate most rational people. Those who would be willing to suffer these inane hoops and scrutiny fall into the category that professional EMS peopel call "street squirrels" If they were a volunteer firefighter their car would be so festooned with radio and scanner antennas it would look like a bloody porcupine!! I understand the need for quality people and training as well as professionalism in what we do, but as I said in another post, professionalism CANNOT be mandated, legislated or demanded. It is an intrinsic quality that can be taught, albeit with some effort and occasional head banging, but is usually present in an individual before they choose to give of their time, money effort, expertise. Only by fostering the need for professionalism  and demonstrating it's qualities by example can an organization steep itself in that quality. My experience has been that people who do not care about professionalism will go the way of the dodo.
That is my opinion, I could be wrong.

Hoser

[RiverAux]

Somewhere in the depths of this thread or maybe even back on CAPportal it was mentioned that Flight Officer was a common senior member rank back during WWII and quite a few of the subchasers who earned Air Medals were Flight Officers.  I have found a newspaper reference (so who knows how reliable it is) to a CAP Warrant Officer as well.  I don't know if the Army was regularly using Warrant Officers at that time or not, but it may provide some precedent to those who would rather use Warrant Officer than Flight Officer as part of their rank restructuring schemes. 

[ZigZag911]

professionalism CANNOT be mandated, legislated or demanded. It is an intrinsic quality that can be taught, albeit with some effort and occasional head banging, but is usually present in an individual before they choose to give of their time, money effort, expertise. That is my opinion, I could be wrong.

Hoser

Let me be the first to respectfully disagree with you.

Professionalism most certainly CAN, and indeed MUST be demanded......failure to do so, turning a bling eye to regulations and procedures, "pencilo whipping" training, is what has broguht this organization to its state, which, beyond wing level, is rather sorry.

Those who do not choose to do the right thing in the right way ought to find some other, less structured, way of serving the community!

The best way to teach professionalism, I would suggest, is by the personal example of those filling leadership roles.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Somewhere in the depths of this thread or maybe even back on CAPportal it was mentioned that Flight Officer was a common senior member rank back during WWII and quite a few of the subchasers who earned Air Medals were Flight Officers.  I have found a newspaper reference (so who knows how reliable it is) to a CAP Warrant Officer as well.  I don't know if the Army was regularly using Warrant Officers at that time or not, but it may provide some precedent to those who would rather use Warrant Officer than Flight Officer as part of their rank restructuring schemes. 

"Flight Officer" in the Air Corps was the same as "Warrant Officer" in the ground forces.  It was pretty common in World War II because of the tender age of the officers who were pilots, navigators, and bombardiers.  Until they were 21, they could not be appointed as lieutenants.  They were given "Flight Officer" rank until they turned 21, then they were promoted to 2nd Lt.  My dad was one, as a bombardier on B-29's.  He made 2LT with little fanfare and no change of duties.

Flight Officer is just what a Warrant Officer of the Air Corps was called.  A Marine warrant is called "Gunner."  A Navy warrant is called "Boatswain."  (Pronounced "BO-sun")

[Dragoon]

- Nature of the work? We both work hard to serve our country in our designated specialties. Less than 4% of the AF are rated pilots, and most of them aren't the trigger pulling kind. The ONLY real difference in CAP & in exchange for a paycheck the reseerves can be forced to duty & shipped overseas for months at a time. Everything else is attitude.

You really  believe there are no differences in the scope and responsibility of the work?

Remember you've got CAP Lt Col's acting as assistant testing officers in squadrons with 5 active cadets.

Yes, that situation does happen.  That doesn't mean it shuld be the norm, not does it mean that we should have a LtCol in that duty who is "Being all he can be."

Yup.  But it IS rather common now.  And the comment was made against the ludicrous comment that CAP Service is Equivalent to military service.  It ain't.

Now if you want to ask "CAN it be made equivalent?"  Sure, it's possible.  I don't think it's likely, because of the different dynamics when no one's getting paid.  But yes, it's possible.

Part of the deal would be firing the Lt Col who doesn't want to do Lt Col work anymore.  Up or out, that's the USAF way.