Basic encampment before staff job

[cobra6987]

So, I know there is at least a general rule that before you can be encampment staff, you have to complete a basic encampment first. is ther actually a reg that states this? I may just be blind, but I'm not having any luck find it.

[CAPDCCMOM]

Cobra, I just looked at CAPP 52-24. Like you, I did not find a specific regulation. I guess it is "understood" and that is never a good thing. If anyone can cite a reg for this. I would be grateful.

[Eclipse]

The is no regulation as such, however it is a basic tenant of the encampment program that all cadets must
attend at least once as students.

The experience of students vs. cadre is very different, with the student or "follower" experience considered
an important part of being a cadet.

There really is no "best interest of the cadet(s)" justification for the allowance, but ultimately it would be up to
the respective encampment commander.

[abdsp51]

Are you asking for yourself or for cadets?

Staffing for encampments is left up to the Commandant for Cadets.  For encampments and other activities it is usually a prerequisite that you have been to an encampment first.  I have never seen something hard fast and written in 52-16 nor 52-24.  I will say that this is generally a good rule of thumb and best practice.

Since every wing is different I would advise you contact the POC for staffing.   I know for events I have planned and led prior experience was a must for staffing.  And for some of these activities attending encampment was a must. 

But again every wing is different and you need to talk to the POC.

[cobra6987]

Are you asking for yourself or for cadets?

I was asking for a cadet. I was reading an awards package that stated his first (and only) encampment was acting like a senior member essentially. I know at the time he was a SNCO, but I've seen quite a few SNCOs that had to go through basic encampment.

I wasn't apart of the encampment planning so unfortunately I don't know what rules were in place at the time. I just saw that statement and it made me go "Wait, what!" because I feel like he was possibly robbed of good information and a great experience.

[abdsp51]

Are you asking for yourself or for cadets?

I was asking for a cadet. I was reading an awards package that stated his first (and only) encampment was acting like a senior member essentially. I know at the time he was a SNCO, but I've seen quite a few SNCOs that had to go through basic encampment.

I wasn't apart of the encampment planning so unfortunately I don't know what rules were in place at the time. I just saw that statement and it made me go "Wait, what!" because I feel like he was possibly robbed of good information and a great experience.

This sounds fishy.  His only encampment and he was acting like a senior member?  If he has only been to one encampment unless he is a rock star cadet he should have been a student.  Most activity directors do not want to hire someone who has never been to prerequisite activity especially encampment. 

Most encampment commandants will usually require that a cadet applying for staff at encampment have attended one as a student first.

[Mitchell 1969]

I've seen it done, but not often.

In 1969, after a couple years worth of small encampments due to base unavailability, CA Wing found themselves with a 200+ slot encampment. Since the usual progression hadn't produced a potential cadre that was big enough, a number of cadets found themselves at their first encampment serving as flight sergeants and even flight commanders. They were pretty much hand-picked, from the Wing drill team and/or vouched for by experienced CP people and senior cadet officers.

Fast forward to 1973, and I recall an older (college student) cadet who would have liked such an opportunity. However, it was made clear that no such deal was in the offing. He had to go through as a "basic cadet" (as they were known) and tough it out. It was both character building and productive - he is still active in CAP and posts here occasionally.

[Eclipse]

I was asking for a cadet. I was reading an awards package that stated his first (and only) encampment was acting like a senior member essentially.

More detail is needed as to "acting like a senior member".  Also, I've seen plenty of cadets who mischaracterize their role in a given situation,
sometimes on purpose, sometimes based on their perception.

Now, there is one fairly unusual possibility.  This cadet could be AFJROTC and have attended a Summer Leadership school of one sort or the other,
which could confer encampment credit w/o actually attending an encampment. In that case it would be reflected as such in eservices.

I know at the time he was a SNCO, but I've seen quite a few SNCOs that had to go through basic encampment.

Yes, sadly there are chiefs in the student ranks every year.

Another point to this, maybe in CAWG or TXWG things are different, but the average cadet from "Average Composite Squadron" (GO BIG BEIGE!!)
simply isn't prepared to serve at staff of an activity of the scale of even smaller encampments if they haven't participated in at least one, preferably more so.

It's one thing to "lead" 3 other cadets in a squadron with two flights of 5, and a whole 'nother ball of wax to be surrounded by
blue or green with 8-10 flights of 10-15+ cadets and moving parts all around you.

[DakRadz]

I was a student attendee as a C/Chief, at 17 years old, having attended a Navy cadet academy and participating in AFJROTC at that point as well. I did well at the squadron level, as I had already been XO and Deputy at two other cadet programs where I and my cadet commander were running the show. I breezed through promotions with my one a month, and had enough delays to actually work my way up the ranks of CAP.


Going through encampment  as a student was an experience I wouldn't change for the world. It was helpful, educational, and I met friends and acquaintances I still know today (five, no! six years later)

1st Lt Raduenz

[PHall]

I've seen a number of 16 and 17 year old C/CMSgt's attending Encampment for the first time.
And while some of them turned out to be a real asset to the flight. Most of them were just there to get their "complete encampment" box checked so they could get their Mitchell Award.

[ZigZag911]

At times I have seen upper level cadet non-coms  used in a staff role while attending their first Basic Encampment; in fact, this was my own experience as a C?MSgt back in the early 70s.

It happens because of a lack of staff applicants from among prior attendees. When the issue arose years later when I was helping run things from the senior side, the general feeling was that it was better to utilize older/higher ranking cadets to help keep span of control manageable.

It's not an ideal practice, and I would suggest that in the normal course of events (i.e., the wing can muster sufficient cadet staff from prior attendees), ought not be followed. However, sometimes we have to "adapt, improvise, overcome"!

[Eclipse]

...this was my own experience as a C?MSgt back in the early 70s.

The difference being that today there is a structured curriculum to meet, not to mention evaluations, a written test, and other mandates.

When I first got involved with encampments in the early '00s, it was basically "what ever you got, is what you do", so there was a very
high level of flexibility in curriculum and expectations, but these days, there are 42+ required contact hours for a student cadet to properly complete
an encampment.

[ZigZag911]

There was a structured curriculum in the '70s, written aerospace and leadership tests through Phase 1 & 2; granted, the program has evolved in 40 plus years, but don't get the idea that cadet rank was handed out like Halloween candy back in the day!

[GaryVC]

don't get the idea that cadet rank was handed out like Halloween candy back in the day!

In the 1960s all the tests were closed book and taken under supervision in the squadron.

[Eclipse]

There was a structured curriculum in the '70s, written aerospace and leadership tests through Phase 1 & 2; granted, the program has evolved in 40 plus years, but don't get the idea that cadet rank was handed out like Halloween candy back in the day!

A structured encampment curriculum.

[SarDragon]

don't get the idea that cadet rank was handed out like Halloween candy back in the day!

In the 1960s all the tests were closed book and taken under supervision in the squadron.

When I started in the cadet program, tests were graded at NHQ, so there was a waiting period before you knew your test result. I don't recall when this changed, but I still have a couple of test result sheets in my olde cadet record. The most recent is May '65.

Now back to encampments. 

[ZigZag911]

There was a structured curriculum in the '70s, written aerospace and leadership tests through Phase 1 & 2; granted, the program has evolved in 40 plus years, but don't get the idea that cadet rank was handed out like Halloween candy back in the day!

A structured encampment curriculum.

Again, this was true in the 70s as well; as far as I know, there has always been an encampmant curriculum mandated by USAF.

[Eclipse]

Again, this was true in the 70s as well; as far as I know, there has always been an encampmant curriculum mandated by USAF.

I've been involved at the high level since 2001, so I can only speak to the state of the program in the last 17 years.

There's "structured" and there's "Structured".  When I first became involved, the "program", while purporting
40 minimum hours, was only two pages of very general class frameworks and expectations. As CAP-USAF was
heavily involved (more so in the early 00's and decreasing as manpower and funding dried up) in presenting classes,
conducting tours and assisting with various activities, and there generally a number of RAPS involved as well, some
staying on as staff and being present for the entire encampment, within that paradigm, and since
the State Director was the final authority as to encampment compliance and credit, if the USAF said it was "OK",
it was "OK". 

The above is a a far cry from what CAP has today (as flawed as it is), with 5 written tests, formal inbound and outbound evaluations, a
final written test, flight commander summations, individual experience interviews, mandated sleep periods,
mandated personal time, required number of Training Officers, not to mention parent orientations.

All of the above in addition to the various D&C time, venue-specific activities, PT, team sports, mandated AE, etc., etc.
(most of which have specified curriculum and presentations).  At one point there was ever rhetoric regarding
cadets failing to successfully complete the academics and not receiving credit (which lasted 1 year and apparently was almost
universally ignored).

Interestingly, while at the same time NHQ has increased the expectations and requirements, they have decreased the oversight -
CAP-USAF no longer vets curriculum or approves encampment credit,  CAP-USAF is still involved, as they are able, but is no longer required to be.
Curriculum compliance and encampment credit are at the sole discretion of the Encampment CC and Wing CC.

[Ned]

Interestingly, while at the same time NHQ has increased the expectations and requirements, they have decreased the oversight -
CAP-USAF no longer vets curriculum or approves encampment credit,  CAP-USAF is still involved, as they are able, but is no longer required to be.
Curriculum compliance and encampment credit are at the sole discretion of the Encampment CC and Wing CC.

I guess it kinda depends how you look at it.  The new encampment curricula was staffed extensively with our USAF colleagues since they are key stakeholders in the Mitchell Award which provides USAF benefits for cadets who choose to serve in the Armed Forces.  From my perspective, CAP-USAF extensively vetted the curriculum.

I certainly agree that "hands-on" involvement by AF officers at the encampment level have been reduced.  Heck, I'm sure we both remember the days when Reservists had to individually inspect CAP vehicles used at encampment and sign the inspection forms.  And had to personally walk the obstacle course.   

Based on my discussions with everyone involved (including multiple CAP-USAF commanders, AFNORTH commanders, and even a personal conversation with the Vice Chief of Staff), the AF would love to have officers engaging at every encampment.  As you point out, they simply do not have the resources to do so.

Which is one of the key reasons the encampment curriculum was upgraded - to help ensure a quality experience in ways significant to our AF stakeholders without the mandatory presence of AF personnel at the actual encampment.

And yes, encampment credit is certainly at the discretion of the CAP commanders involved, as long as their curricula meets the AF-approved standards.

Thank you for your work with our cadets.


Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

[Eclipse]

Any idea when or if the current version will ever be fixed?

They are just .PDFs.

[Spam]

Interestingly, while at the same time NHQ has increased the expectations and requirements, they have decreased the oversight -
CAP-USAF no longer vets curriculum or approves encampment credit,  CAP-USAF is still involved, as they are able, but is no longer required to be.
Curriculum compliance and encampment credit are at the sole discretion of the Encampment CC and Wing CC.

And yes, encampment credit is certainly at the discretion of the CAP commanders involved, as long as their curricula meets the AF-approved standards.


Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

Ned, I note with interest your italicized emphasis there at the end. I'm wondering if you could clarify your thoughts on that point?

Are you implying that if we have cadets whose encampments haven't been using any of the NHQ-standard tests, pre/post inspections, and other elements, those cadets could be denied encampment credit at a national level? I hope not, but what does that mean, where we have Wings that have continued to do it their own way? Is your statement strictly true for the curriculum only (i.e. skip the tests and inspections, cut the sleep hours, etc. and your activity will be 'acceptable' if non standard?).


(Quis custodiet ipsos custodies)?


Thanks,
Spam

[Eclipse]

I am very curious as to which wings would think they have the authority to ignore directives that are clear, unambiguous,.
and not optional in this regard, and further where the oversite is to insure this doesn't happen.

This current program has been implementation for at least 4 years, and mandated for the last two.  No one fit to serve
as and encampment CC or commandant should be unclear on the requirements at this point.

The whole point was standardization, cadet protection and comfort, and the elimination of annual "band camps" or mini BMTs.

[Ned]

Ned, I note with interest your italicized emphasis there at the end. I'm wondering if you could clarify your thoughts on that point?

Jeff, I'm at work, so please forgive a fairly brief answer.

Both the current encampment curricula, effective in 2014, and the previous (and considerably less detailed) curriculum were Af-vetted and approved.  And both are/were mandatory. 

IOW, I can't go rogue as a DCP or a wing commander and design my own encampment program that does not track the required curriculum in CAPP 52-24.  The whole point of a required curricula is to standardize the encampment experience across all 52 wings and overseas units.

By the same token, the curriculum recognizes that different encampment locations will have different local resources and allows for locally-determined electives to take advantage of special features of a host installation.  Encampments are permitted to issue their own OIs, training materials, etc., provided that they do not contradict or lessen the standards outlined in the 52-24.

Encampments are primarily conducted at the wing level (there are some region encampments, and the overseas units are authorized to conduct encampments, but the great majority of cadets attend a wing encampment.)  Accordingly, the primary responsibility for ensuring that encampments meet the prescribed standards falls on the wing DCP and commander.  Region CP folks actively support wing encampment programs and help with any necessary clarification of the program when questions arise.

Restated, NHQ is not the "encampment police," and we are not normally involved in evaluating whether a given encampment meets or exceeds the standards.  CAP holds roughly 40 encampments each year, and we do not have the resources to send NHQ staffers to check on each encampment.  We do try to visit 3-4 a year to help us evaluate the program overall, and to identify possible changes and future upgrades.  But our visits are not "inspections" as we normally use the term.

Of course, occasionally we see YouTube videos or happen to see posts here on CT or CadetStuff that suggest that Wing X may not have fully embraced the mandatory aspects of the encampment program.  Thankfully, that is fairly rare.  But when it does occur, we operate initially through normal staff channels and check with Region CP shop.  If staff channels are insufficient to correct a problem, we would begin to work through command channels.

NHQ staffers, like staff officers at every level in CAP, have no independent powers to make commanders or encampments do or stop doing anything.  That is a command thing. 

(Quis custodiet ipsos custodies)?

Custodes et in superiori gradu.  (The custodians at the next higher level.)  (If Google translate is to be believed.  )


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[Spam]

Thanks, Ned.

I cannot disagree with anything you've stated; thanks for the clarification/amplification. 

I would only say that (perhaps contrary to intent) not all DCPs are in the encampment loop (for example, when a DCP is told that since an encampment/CC is an appointed activity commander, it is inappropriate for a DCP to exercise any oversight into that Wings encampment... and when that DCP is neither involved in or informed of planning). Its that "dotted line" function claim that removes the Wing's CP SME (subject matter expert) from any review cycle/AARs that frees up E/CCs to deviate without any oversight or insight from Wing (save the Wing/CC himself) leading to various elements being down played or discarded. I cant argue with the point: a director cannot be in the chain of command of a sitting commander, activity or line, and that removes the DCP from the review and oversight chain (or, its happened).


Case in point: where an encampment sees no need to answer to a review, it may decide to throw out the stan/eval checks and the entrance/exit evaluations, which would be extremely helpful for a DCP to highlight which units are sending cadets at low levels of prep to the encampment (i.e. which six cadets consistently have their Curry awards but fail the Oath on arrival, or cannot exhibit PT performance as required for their current stripes). Such diagnostic info helps measure both encampment performance as well as indicates measures of effectiveness for individual units - but may have not been done.


Going then back to the point of this thread... if the DCP gets that feedback they theoretically could compile the data with eServices test completion rates, TLC data, and other metrics (I did, as DCP) and highlight units that either aren't sending cadets to encampments, or aren't pushing it until the cadet realizes they cant "commission" without one, as well as those that are showing up unprepared or not meeting min standards.


V/r
Spam

[Eclipse]

An encampment CC is still a subordinate CC to the Wing CC and thus open to review by whomever
the Wing CC designates.

While I agree to a point on the autonomy of the Enc CC once appointed and during the event,
between the events, and during the planning stage, encampments are fully within the OPR
of the DCP, and in fact the should be intimately involved in the activities.

There's also no way, other then negligence or insubordination, to ignore the administrative
requirements of the activity, and the DCP is well within his authority to make an issue to the
boss about it if they are not properly submitted, since for starters, the inbound evals are supposed
to be a temperature check for the Wing, as to the health of the wing's units in evaluating whether
cadets are being whipped to Curry, etc.

[Ned]

1.2 Key Program Guidance
a. Authorization. Only NHQ and commanders of regions, wings, and overseas squadrons may authorize
an encampment. Multiple encampments are are permitted in a given year. The Director of Cadet Programs (or
equivalent) oversees the encampment program and supervises (or serves as) the encampment commander.

(emphasis added)

[Spam]

Ned,

What would you say to a claim (not mine) that that's from a pamphlet and is therefore not mandatory, in that it conflicts (or is claimed to conflict) with the direct line of command from the Wing/CC to the encampment/CC?

In essence, that encampment is not within a DCPs "swim lane"?

V/r
Spam

[Eclipse]

OK, how about an "R", as in CAPR 52-16.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf

Page 34:
"a. Authorization. Only National Headquarters, regions, wings, and overseas squadrons may
authorize an encampment. These echelons may authorize multiple encampments in a given year. The
Director of Cadet Programs (or equivalent) is the functional supervisor of the encampment program.

"b. Program Guidance. CAP encampments will be conducted in accordance with CAPP 52-24, Cadet
Encampment Guide. Encampments may issue operating instructions, handbooks, training materials, etc.,
that amplify, but do not contradict or lessen, that document's guidance."

Page 34-35
"g. Content & Graduation Requirements. CAPP 52-24 outlines the encampment's curricular
requirements. To become eligible for graduation credit, cadets must actively participate in at least 34
contact hours (amounting to approximately 80% of the course), adhere to the Core Values, and complete
all academic assignments to the satisfaction of the encampment staff. The adult staff and cadet cadre
become eligible for attendance credit upon completing 34 hours of on-site service. The encampment
commander is the final authority in determining which participants earn graduation or attendance credit."

Page 35
9-4. Reporting Requirements.

a. Course Critiques. Shortly before the encampment concludes, the encampment commander will
solicit feedback from all participants using a course critique (see CAPP 52-24) and retain those critiques in
a continuity file for 1 year for the benefit of the next encampment staff.

c. Encampment Operations Report. Within 45 days of the encampment's conclusion, the
encampment commander must submit a completed Encampment Operations Report via eServices and
notify the liaison region that the report is available for their review.

(1) Encampment commanders will provide documents supporting the report to the Director of
Cadet Programs (i.e. schedules, training plans, participant rosters, etc., as specified by the report's on-screen
instructions in eServices), who maintains them on file for 3 years. These documents provide continuity for
future encampments.

Encampment CCs who believe the totality of 52-24 is "optional", and Wing CC's who allow Enc CC's to operate with
impunity, are either unaware of, or unwilling to comply with, the regulations, not to mention the specific
intent of the encampment program.

And yes...this should be audited by both Region and NHQ CP staff, especially the regions.

[Tim Day]

OK, how about an "R", as in CAPR 52-16.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf

Page 34:
"a. Authorization. Only National Headquarters, regions, wings, and overseas squadrons may
authorize an encampment. These echelons may authorize multiple encampments in a given year. The
Director of Cadet Programs (or equivalent) is the functional supervisor of the encampment program.

"b. Program Guidance. CAP encampments will be conducted in accordance with CAPP 52-24, Cadet
Encampment Guide. Encampments may issue operating instructions, handbooks, training materials, etc.,
that amplify, but do not contradict or lessen, that document's guidance."

And interestingly the new CAPR 1-2 prohibits directive publications (like "R's") from requiring use of a non-directive publication, (like a "P").

[Eclipse]

And interestingly the new CAPR 1-2 prohibits directive publications (like "R's") from requiring use of a non-directive publication, (like a "P").

Does anyone cross-vet these over coffee?

There was a move several years ago to do the opposite for this very reason.

[Ned]

Does anyone cross-vet these over coffee?

This is a normal and expected part of the on going CAP-wide Publications Reengineering effort designed to simplify our publications, including our regs and pams.  Obviously the 2014 versions of the 52-16 and 52-24 were written before the reengineering effort was included in our Strategic Plan.

We are in the early stages of redrafting our CP pubs to come into line with the new standards.  Obviously we are not going to simply cut-and-paste the "mandatory portions" of the existing pamphlets into the 52-16 which would become unwieldy.

So we are "reengineering" our CP publications as part of the process.  There will be no changes in doctrine, but some doctrine might migrate from one CP publication to another. 

As always, CP will post any draft publications to the Proving Grounds for review and input from the field.  But it is going to be several months before we will be ready.


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[abdsp51]

Does anyone cross-vet these over coffee?

This is a normal and expected part of the on going CAP-wide Publications Reengineering effort designed to simplify our publications, including our regs and pams.  Obviously the 2014 versions of the 52-16 and 52-24 were written before the reengineering effort was included in our Strategic Plan.

We are in the early stages of redrafting our CP pubs to come into line with the new standards.  Obviously we are not going to simply cut-and-paste the "mandatory portions" of the existing pamphlets into the 52-16 which would become unwieldy.

So we are "reengineering" our CP publications as part of the process.  There will be no changes in doctrine, but some doctrine might migrate from one CP publication to another. 

As always, CP will post any draft publications to the Proving Grounds for review and input from the field.  But it is going to be several months before we will be ready.


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

So we are not going to see a repeat of what happened when the CAPP216 draft was published and never withdrawn?