Iowa Wing lowers officer requirements??

[MIKE]

Let's break it down shall we:

3-2. Requirements for Membership. All applicants for senior membership in CAP must be accepted by the unit and higher headquarters and must meet the following criteria:
a. General. Possess the desire, willingness, and capability to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP.
b. Age. Be at least 18 years of age or be a member of the Armed Forces on active duty at any age.
c. Citizenship. Be a citizen of the United States of America or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States of America and its territories and possessions or any lawfully admitted non-citizen residing in the United States specifically approved by the National Commander's designee (NHQ CAP/LMM).
1) Those persons in "admitted for permanent residence" status must possess and present a current Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151 or I-551) when making application for CAP membership. If an alien's status changes from "admitted for permanent residence" other then by reason of acquiring citizenship, the alien is no longer eligible for membership.
2) Requests for waiver of the citizenship criteria for lawfully admitted non-citizens residing in the United States who were not admitted for permanent residence will be submitted through the wing and region commander along with a copy of the membership application to NHQ CAP/LMM. The waiver, if approved, will be only for the period of residence within the United States.
d. Suitability. Subject to being waived by the Executive Director or National Commander, any one of the following may be the basis for rejection of membership.
1) Conviction of a felony by any court of record whether federal, state or military.
2) A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence.
3) Discharge from the armed services under other than honorable conditions.
4) Falsification of information on the membership application.
5) Previously terminated or non renewed for cause from membership in CAP.
6) Any other unfavorable information brought to the attention of CAP officials at any level.

6. Minimum Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for initial appointment to CAP officer grade, senior members must meet the following minimum requirements:
a. Be at least 21 years of age.
b. Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program (see CAPR 50-17). NOTE: Former members who have completed Level I training and have less than a 2 year membership break and former cadets who have earned the General Billy Mitchell Award, or higher, and have less than a 2 year membership break are exempt from Level I training requirements.
d. Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.

[Pylon]

Now, if we had duty standards for each officer rank, then someone who couldn't do that job at that level could easily be denied promotion.

Without duty standards, it's a lot tougher.

Yep, a lot tougher to keep people who want to help your unit down.


(And people wonder why we have such a hard time keeping volunteers in this organization     )

[Dragoon]

Dragoon,

I would not put PHYSICAL capabilities on the list of promotional requirements (e.g. a 9-min mile for 1st Lt, and a 8.5 min mile for Capt and so on). If CAP were to implement such requirements a brief complaint as outlined in CAPR 36-2 would immediately reverse it.

If we can have a Commander in Chief of all of the US Armed Forces lead this Country and its military from a wheelchair (President Franklin Roosevelt), then EVERY person --regardless of physical capacity-- could be capable of performing in ANY grade in CAP. For example, although blindness might make it impossible for a person to serve as a GTM, it shouldn't --on its own-- preclude one from serving as a Wing Commander or even Nat'l CC.  We've had lawmakers and other leaders who've been blind ... it may make them unsafe to drive but not incapable of leading.

CAP simply cannot discriminate on the basis of physical ability or disability. That is, as long as we hungrily ask for and accept Federal dollars.

I would absolutely agree that any kind of PT requirement tied to promotion makes no sense whatsoever, and didn't mean to intimate any such thing.

I was thinking more of duty requirements.

For example, what if we decided that all 2d Lts had to be able to write a 5 paragraph Op Order and successfully plan and run a squadron level day-long activity?  And we weren't doing it to be arbitrary, but rather because we expect all CAP officers to be able to do this as part of their staff jobs?

If we set that requirement, and we had someone who, with reasonable accommodation, couldn't do it, it would make sense not to promote.  Because they could not do the job at the next level.

But as long as rank isn't tied to any duties, we have no reason not to promote anyone who shows up for the necessary classes.

[Dragoon]

Now, if we had duty standards for each officer rank, then someone who couldn't do that job at that level could easily be denied promotion.

Without duty standards, it's a lot tougher.

Yep, a lot tougher to keep people who want to help your unit down.


(And people wonder why we have such a hard time keeping volunteers in this organization     )

Hmmm...so you're against standards?  And in favor of promoting everyone, regardless of competence?  Because that's what I'm talking about - the ability to actually do the job you required for an officer of that grade?  Would you promote someone to Major who couldn't do a Major's job?

[DNall]

This is one of those times I have to be careful cause people know who I am & what unit I'm in.

On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.

Sounds like the whole story isn't there, to me.  If the guy is disruptive and "can't comprehend any concept necessary to be useful," your commander shouldn't promote him and ask him to leave the organization.  But if he couldn't comprehend any concept necessary, how did he get through Level I?  Did somebody in your unit allow him a free pass because they didn't want to bother with him?  Or did he actually comprehend the concepts necessary and legitimately earn his Level I?   Either way, I see a problem with attitudes.

Can I say "no comment, it happened before I came back in" and get my meaning across? I can tell you my repeat of Lvl 1 consisted of "here take this video home with you & don't lose it." We promoted two other members to 2Lt on the same night, I've been Deputy CC a while now, been to every meeting in six months, and I never met either one of them.

Not being able to pass GES doesn't mean a thing.  Participating on an ES mission is but one-third of our mission.   But I'm guessing that your unit feels it's necessary to contribute?   I personally know other members of CAP who can't pass GES either.  Should I assume they're worthless to the organization?

No. I really don't do ES anymore either, I may go back to it at some point, but re-earning all or even some of my quals is somewhat daunting while quite busy with other aspects of the unit. I mention it because GES is easier than breating & the guy in question really wants to do ES.

Again, as I said in my original post -- the job of the commander is to exercise his or her discretion.  If a commander feels bound and cannot feel free to exercise their commander's discretion with regards to promotions, duty assignments, and other decisions they shouldn't be in command.

Harsh. I can think of many situations under which a CC's discression is more limited to non-existent & it doesn't compromise his leadership or command authority. This is more like feeling bad for somebody though, & guilty for not giving them something they might technically deserve but that they can't actually do & that may be counter-productive to the unit or organization if you allow it.

So which is it?  Your commander can't exercise his or her proper discretion as a commander, or this member really wasn't all that disruptive and incompetent after all?

If you "lose a couple other high quality senior members" over this guy getting promoted to 2d Lt, I'd argue that these narrow-minded souls aren't actually all that high quality.

No comment. I understand what you're saying, but members are recruited to be highspeed officers (and I don't mean just ES). They come here with the expectation that they're going to work in a para-military organization doing a volunteer fire dept version of the Air Force, and actually doing some good for kids & the country. We send a lot of kids off to service academies using that foundation, and have done quite a bit of serious ES work over the years.


Grade is meaningless because we make it so. It's not a merit badge or longevity device. I believe those are worn a bit lower on the uniform. If you promote a person incapable of functioning as a leader at the next level, and if you give the color of authority or endorsement to a person that will use it to the detriment of the organization, than you are doing a disservice to CAP & all of our members.

[Nick Critelli]

Nick,  ...   I am a little taken back by your attitude of not welcoming members who may have different ideas than your own.
...    

I have no problem with divergent views...but we cannot  tolerate discrimination in any form.   

[RiverAux]

If this or any member can meet whatever CAP standards we have then they should be promoted.  That being said our current standards are too low. 

[MidwaySix]

I am so gonna make myself flamebait....

I completely agree with Nick. Discrimination is not part of my job description as a Unit Commander.

That being said, we should should try to invoke common sense where necessary.

When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.

(Forehead smacking ensued...)

At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.

You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.

Ugh.

I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!

You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.

I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.

-M6

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am so gonna make myself flamebait....

I completely agree with Nick. Discrimination is not part of my job description as a Unit Commander.

That being said, we should should try to invoke common sense where necessary.

When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.

(Forehead smacking ensued...)

At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.

You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.

Ugh.

I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!

You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.

I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.

-M6

Was it a large red station wagon?  Big Red Lives!

[lordmonar]

If this or any member can meet whatever CAP standards we have then they should be promoted.  That being said our current standards are too low. 

Concur.

But let's be careful how we beef them up.

[Eclipse]

I am so gonna make myself flamebait....

I completely agree with Nick. Discrimination is not part of my job description as a Unit Commander.

That being said, we should should try to invoke common sense where necessary.

When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.

(Forehead smacking ensued...)

At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.

You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.

Ugh.

I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!

You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.

I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.

-M6

One option open to you would have been to simply prohibit him from using his POV for missions.

Though in practicality we'd all be walking if we were restricted only to corporate vehicles for missions, a technicality of the regs indicates all POVs must be approved in advance and in writing by a unit cc for mission use.

[Dragoon]

When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.

(Forehead smacking ensued...)

At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.

You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.

Ugh.

I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!

You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.

I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.

-M6

We used to refer to such guys as our Heavy Rescue Specialists.  Emphasis on the "heavy."   

[Hawk200]

On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.

If you have a member that's disruptive, then suspend them. And as long as you don't mention his handicap as part of the suspension, you should be fine. Just thouroughly document the disruptive behaviour, times and dates help, and include that.

If this member has some type of medication that he's supposed to be taking to control his behaviour, and he's not doing it, that's not your or CAP's fault. You can't  make him take his pills, that's his responsibility. And that's where he is failing to maintain standards to himself.

And before people jump me on this, I know it may sound insensitive, it's not. I do feel for those with such issues, and attempt to accomodate them when reasonably possible. Disruptive behaviour is not reasonable.

[DNall]

Thanks I appreciate it, that's my position as well. Unfortunately this guy comes as a package deal with two cadets that need to be in the situation with us. It's one big adoptive family, with all kinds of problems going on & I guess hoping I can deliver the structure & disciplie they're too overwhelmed to provide at home. From what I understand the individual was permitted to become a member on that basis, but with the understanding he'd never be promoted. Then he asked continually & out of pretty much guilt was moved up.

Let me try to clarify my feelings on the subject. I was in charge of risk mgmt on a volunteer multi-state board for a non-profit... God that sucked. Point being that I'm quite sensitive to legal issues. This guy presents a pattern of behavior that if something goes wrong in teh future there's no way I can say I shouldn't have known better & done more to prevent his contact. His behavior is problematic at times & has crossed the line on occation - to the degree that another member might well bounce twice on the way out the door for such actions. However, it's nothing I can't bring under control, as I said it's like dealing with a five year old. Primarily it's an annoyance to stop instruction to discipline or remove a senior in front of cadets. I've tried to keep him seperated, but that seems to be impossible. I'm also very unhappy that cadets view him almost like a mascot, which now they'll be saluting, which is going to become a joke quickly.

Currently I'd call him a detriment to good order & discipline, and a liability/risk mgmt issue of concern. I need to bring this situation under control or cut these people lose, which is not my first choice. This is not my top priority, but it's going to get that way fast if things get wierd after he puts on the grade.

[Hawk200]

Don't mean to make light, DNall, I'm viewing this seriously, but this is what I see:

Rock-you-hard place.

I don't envy your position there.

[DNall]

Yeah roger, I didn't figure there was a nice solution waiting out here either. I'll work thru it okay, one way or another. Proper application of leadership with a really mean look fixes just about everything. The main reason I cited the example (and really put out a lot more than I should), was to illitrate the state of our PD/promotion ssytem on one hand, and the degree to which the above legal/sesitivity perspective has to be tempered with practical reality. Appreciate the sympathy though. Hopefully I wan't need much of it.

[CadetProgramGuy]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

I was at the promotion of this individual.  I read the orders for this individual.

Let me share some facts for you......

He does not need Iowa's OTC, he is a 3-4 year vet of CAP, grandfathered in to CAP before OTC was even a breeze in the wind.

He has Downs Syndrome.  He is not a pilot, he is a Secone Leuitenant.  I am Pround of this individual.

By all of CAP's regs and standards he is just as quallified to wear his bars as you and I are to wear ours.

Hypothetical for you.......Should a cadet that has taken the Mitchell 13 times be allowed NOT to wear his bars?  he passed didn't he?

My bottom line is this....Let it go....

[CadetProgramGuy]

BTW.....I can't spell either.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

I was at the promotion of this individual.  I read the orders for this individual.

Let me share some facts for you......

He does not need Iowa's OTC, he is a 3-4 year vet of CAP, grandfathered in to CAP before OTC was even a breeze in the wind.

He has Downs Syndrome.  He is not a pilot, he is a Secone Leuitenant.  I am Pround of this individual.

By all of CAP's regs and standards he is just as quallified to wear his bars as you and I are to wear ours.

Hypothetical for you.......Should a cadet that has taken the Mitchell 13 times be allowed NOT to wear his bars?  he passed didn't he?

My bottom line is this....Let it go....

[darn] straight.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, sounds to me that the best thing you can do (at least to protect yourself) is to document this behavior in writing to your superiors (and get proof that they received/reviewed the documentation).  Even if no action is taken you will be able to show that you do what you could in accordance with CAP regs to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.