Time in grade

[Monty]

While the discussion of the grade/PD level relationship is a drift from the topic, I think both need to be reviewed together.

I agree - it was very shocking to me when I found Level 5 was not attached to any grade - pretty much disincentives even the most motivated members.

GRW#2381 doesn't agree with the notion that pursuing rank is more an incentive than the training, which should be used in CAP, real life, etc.  Otherwise, if we're brain-dumping RSC just for the grade or worse - NSC for our own hee-haws - then CAP might get real shallow, real quick, with lots of time spent away from family, friends, and work while doing the high-end, in-residence courses...

(But I was blessed with mentors more driven to see me focused upon attaining and applying that which I pursued and learned for CAP, in CAP, and in real life, versus knocking out check boxes for grades.  Grades which only really grant the "jolly seekers" 2.5 hours of joy per week, by and large.)

"Give him a fish, he'll eat a meal; teach him to fish, he'll eat a lifetime." 

Perhaps we should all consider changing ourselves and our focus on what's better (shoulder love or brain matter love), instead of bureaucratic regulated (re)considerations, like time in grade.

Just my take; no shame in disagreeing with me.

[brasda91]

My personal point was that I don't think there is enough time in grade to adequately learn what needs to be learned

TIG is irrelevent.  The squadron commander should not be promoting a member who isn't ready.  The s/c has a responsibility to promote based on the members ability to assume the next higher grade.  If the member has not mastered the current level of knowledge, then the commander has the authority to wait on the promotion until he/she feels the member is ready.  And no, I don't believe in advanced promotions right off the bat.

[RiverAux]

You're advocating a technique in which no one in CAP has been trained and for which there are no standards that can be consistently applied.  I suspect that most squadron commanders don't use this ability because they have no clue as to what constitutes proper reason to hold someone back and what doesn't.  Without standards and guidelines it just becomes a good-old-boy scenario where only the commander's buddies will get okayed and those who aren't buddies won't have any standing to complain as would be an entirely subjective choice on the part of the commander.

Now, such as system could be used, but would be more trouble to implement than its worth.  In the mean-time, time-in-grade is a halfway decent substitute. 

[arajca]

I sanction the drift -- but only if we assume that making Level 5 count for something goes along with time in grade requirements (either mine or the current). 

How about this:

Grade	TIG	PD Level
2d Lt	1 Yr	Level I
1st Lt	2 Yrs	Level II
Capt	3 Yrs	Level III
Maj	4 Yrs	Level IV
Lt Col	5 Yrs	Level V

The requirements for each PD level are a discussion for another thread.

[riffraff]

A supplement to TIG might be some type of points system for participation with points-multipliers applying to various levels of participation. To gain promotion, a promotion board would review both TIG and points.

Maintain the current TIG requirements but require X points to be promoted at that early 'gate'. Those with more points would be promoted sooner.  It would allow those stepping up and getting things done to be fast-tracked ahead of a contemporay who just shows up for the monthly meeting and does the minimum.

On a different note: This is a great process for moving forward but what about current personnel? Grandfathered? Tighter standards are great but you need to be aware of the "I got mine now let's make it tougher for everyone else" mindset.

[RiverAux]

I think it would have to apply to new promotions and could not be made retroactive.

I think a point system would also be one of those things that would be a lot more trouble than its worth unless fully integrated into some other part of the program.   

[mikeylikey]

I sanction the drift -- but only if we assume that making Level 5 count for something goes along with time in grade requirements (either mine or the current). 

How about this:

Grade	TIG	PD Level
2d Lt	1 Yr	Level I
1st Lt	2 Yrs	Level II
Capt	3 Yrs	Level III
Maj	4 Yrs	Level IV
Lt Col	5 Yrs	Level V

The requirements for each PD level are a discussion for another thread.

Crap.....6 years to make Captain.  If that were the case in the military.....you could have counted alot of people out years ago! 

[riffraff]

I think we're really talking about two distinct issues. One is the promotion system and the other is the rank system.

One can progress through the ranks in a somewhat orderly fashion. I takes some time but is otherwise pretty straight-forward.

The rank system is where the perceived chaos is -- IMO anyway. It's completely uncoupled from responsibility.

To tie the two together would be a very interesting process. Do you migrate the system used at the corporate level (Wing CC = COL) downwards to the squadron level.  Maybe a Sq CC is a MAJ?

Does assumption of command warrant automatic promotion to that rank? If not, how do you reconcile the matter of the incoming CC being outranked by his subordinates? What happens to the outgoing CC at the next change of command? Reduction to previous grade or does he stay at MAJ?

What happens at the Wing level? If the wing king steps down to give someone else a shot at command, does he lose O-6 or does he return to Sq level as a colonel?

CAP is in a unique situation. Since these aren't paid positions, it's not really possible for most people to up-and-move to chase after positions commensurate with their rank -- i.e. CAP can't transfer a 1LT Sq CC to a larger Sq upon promotion to CPT -- thereby assuming more responsibility, etc.

[RiverAux]

Thread drift.  See other existing threads to discuss these issues. 

[O-Rex]

I'd like to see a little more TIG requirements for the "field grades."

Without Professional/skill/command waivers, a member makes LT Col in 10 years, nearly half the time required for officers the Armed Forces.

You make Lt Col in 10 yrs or less, and unless you have Wing-King aspirations, there you stay for life, so what's the hurry?

Also, I'd like to see Lvl 5 required for Lt Col.  It's do-able: I got my Garber as a Capt, and I DO have a life.   

[mikeylikey]

Also, I'd like to see Lvl 5 required for Lt Col.  It's do-able

Agreed!  I think we would see less Lt Col's that way.

[davedove]

Also, I'd like to see Lvl 5 required for Lt Col.  It's do-able

Agreed!  I think we would see less Lt Col's that way.

It would also provide some more incentive to achieve Level 5, instead of it just being a notable achievement.

[Dragoon]

If you want rank to be a sign of authority (you know, like the miltary uses it), it needs to be tied to position, not education.

At the very least, we should make folks serve in high level positions before earning higher grade.

Even better, the grade should be temporary.  That way the ranking guy is actuall in charge (what a concept!)

I'm personally much more interested in motivating capable folks to serve at higher level, tougher jobs, than I am in motivating folks down in squadrons to achieve level 5.  I think it's much more beneficial to CAP as a whole.

[riffraff]

deleted my post. I was rehashing my earlier comments   

[Cecil DP]

My personal point was that I don't think there is enough time in grade to adequately learn what needs to be learned, and I'm not just talking about the official requirements.  I'm not personally advocating trying to match the military, but if that sort of comparison is what it takes to get it done, I wouldn't object.

If everyone did the required training  and received their appintments in the minimum time. these arguments would be valid. Unfortuneately very few even complete Level II. I would say that the average Field grade officer has close to 15-20 years of service before achiving their grade. Not the 10 which is the minimum.

[SAR-EMT1]

My personal point was that I don't think there is enough time in grade to adequately learn what needs to be learned, and I'm not just talking about the official requirements.  I'm not personally advocating trying to match the military, but if that sort of comparison is what it takes to get it done, I wouldn't object.

If everyone did the required training  and received their appintments in the minimum time. these arguments would be valid. Unfortuneately very few even complete Level II. I would say that the average Field grade officer has close to 15-20 years of service before achiving their grade. Not the 10 which is the minimum.

Thing is I had many of these requirments for higher levels knocked out back when I was a teenage Flight Officer. If I dont make an effort to 'hold back' Id have Lt Col by the time I was in my late twenties..  I should be a Captain now. But Im not, for the simple reason that I want to delay my advancment in hopes of not burning out and second: who ever heard of a 22 year old Captain?

As to TIG
I would say that I would support TIG that Matched the Air Force.  ( and that includes 1year as a SMWOG to make 2nd lt, if that seems like a LONG time, then introduce a NCO position at the 6month point.)

As to PD Levels
I say match them up Level I for 2nd Lt and Level V to make Col

As to Rank vs job
I have for years harbored the idea that the Region Commanders should wear a single star.  That Colonels be in charge of Wings, Lt Cols - Groups, Majors Wings, and Capts should be assigned as DCC/ DCS.                  JMHO,  YMMV

Sorry for the long post

PS, someone exclaimed that 6 years to make Captain seemed unbelievable and remarked that it would be crazy for retention if practiced in the RM. I just want to remind folks of the HORRIBLE stagnation in the officers corps prior to WWII.

[Tim Medeiros]

For all those saying we should have a TIG time same as AF, why?  Whats the benefit to CAP as a whole?  How will CAP as a corporation and its membership benefit from having to spend so much time to get promoted?  With that said, would you be willing to reduce the SMWOG TIG/TIS to 90 days?  Just like some people in the AF can walk in off the street with a BS or BA can become a "90-day wonder".

Just playing devils advocate here, trying to inspire some thought provoking questions.

[davedove]

For all those saying we should have a TIG time same as AF, why?  Whats the benefit to CAP as a whole?  How will CAP as a corporation and its membership benefit from having to spend so much time to get promoted? 

Good questions, although AF TIG might be a guideline, the proper question is "What would be the appropriate TIG for the needs of CAP?"

[AC]

First post. I am returning to CAP after an absence of 25 years. I was a 1Lt, Mission Pilot Trainee when I dropped out. I just now got 2d Lt after 6 months. My squadron commander has written a justification to Wing for me to be reinstated at 1st Lt, due to the additional experience I have acquired during that time. What do y'all think about that?
The squadron really needs me my Commander says.

[mikeylikey]

This is a futile conversation when we have an organization that can make a new member a CAPT just because they had airplane flying school paid for by mom and dad, or make them a Major simply because the Wing Commander and Region Commander are friends with the person.  My favorite.....making a guy Captain because he completed 3 years of College ROTC, when others sit and wait upward of a year to make Captain even though they are military Officers. 

Am I bitter about how promotions and PD are skewed in CAP.  You bet I am!  We need to correct PD, TIG and special promotions.

If I see one more person get Captain or Major without any special promotable abilities, or listed on the table in the REG, I think I may poop a brick.  It is not fair to all the other members who play by the book and wait for promotions.

However, in the end, the person who waited for promotions, should feel better about getting promoted than the terds who had it handed to them for doing absolutely nothing.