Level V

[RiverAux]

Okay, here are the requirements to complete Level V and to get the Gill Robb Wilson Award:
1.  Completion of level IV
2.  Total 3 years in command or staff assignment
3.  National Staff College or a military education equivalent (a Senior NCO Academy, or a Command and Staff College, or a War College.
4.  Serve as a staff member at a Region Staff College/National Staff College or be a SLS/CLC Director
5.  Conduct a Level 1 Orientation Course

Is it just me or does this last requirement stick out like a sore thumb?  Conducting a Level 1 course is what a local squadron admin officer often does and surely doesn't come close to representing anything really difficult enough to be associated with this award.

Incidentally, this may be the only senior member award where you are encouraged to have it presented by a high ranking AF officer or important local official.  Usually we bring "outsiders" on board to give cadet officer awards. 

So, the question is, do you think this "Activity" requirement is appropriate and if not, what should replace it?  Also, any comments about the other requirements and/or possible replacements for them would be appropriate.  However, no talk about ranks based on PD levels is requested. 

[Camas]

Conduct a Level 1 Orientation Course Is it just me or does this last requirement stick out like a sore thumb?  Conducting a Level 1 course is what a local squadron admin officer often does and surely doesn't come close to representing anything really difficult enough to be associated with this award.

    I'm sure many of our forum members will recall that the old Level One Course, up to a couple of years ago, was a classroom environment so that this requirement was, perhaps, intended for Level V candidates to assist new members in this endeavor.  In the short time I've been in CAP (seven years) I don't remember that admin officers had much to do with this training, indeed, it was more likely that professional development officers at the unit level were assigned this responsibility. 
    Do I have a suggestion on this matter?  Not really other than perhaps to have the requirement reworded to the effect of having Level V candidates take part in the counseling of new members in completing Foundations, CPPT and OPSEC. I'm not sure what more one could add. It's certainly no secret that the CAPP 204 is woefully out of date in any case.

[lordmonar]

I agree that it was probably there to help force more Level I courses to be taught.  But now that they are conducted by the PDO/commander there is not much need for it.  It probably could be dropped.

[O-Rex]

Conducting a Level 1 was the last requirement I completed for my level V, and I thought it brought my PD full-circle.

For a new member, what better source for info and (in theory) example than someone who is about to reach the capstone of the senior program?

Or maybe I'm just being overly sentimental. . .  :angel:

[RiverAux]

Level 1 for at least the last 10 years consisted primarily of sitting people down in front of a VCR for a few hours and even now isn't all that much.  Its not what anyone in their right mind would consider a "course".   

[O-Rex]

Level 1 for at least the last 10 years consisted primarily of sitting people down in front of a VCR for a few hours and even now isn't all that much.  Its not what anyone in their right mind would consider a "course".   

Yeah, that's why I added a few embellishments, mostly Q & A, and "how to really navigato your way through your first months in your unit."

[RiverAux]

Level 1 is an important introductory course, but it is so out of whack with all the other Level 5 requirements.  Heck, one of the other requirements can be met by Air War College for petes sake, whereas just about anyone in CAP should be able to run a level 1 course if they've been in a few years.  Its just too easy.  Its like making someone do a Red Cross CPR course before receiving their medical degree.

[IceNine]

It is among the MANY outdated written documents in this organization... But as we all know, such a small piece of minutia neither warrants nor requires any real amount of attention.

And I don't feel the need to explain the process that it takes even to remove one line for a CAP doc

[RiverAux]

Oh, I don't know.  I think the criteria for the most important and prestigious award in our senior member program ranks slightly higher than minutia.  Granted, its not as critical as whether or not our BDU hats are "ranger rolled" or not, but really, what is?

[IceNine]

Its one line to check a box, the other tasks are no small feat.  So you have to fulfill task that is complete B/S and when all is said and done you have showed that you can follow written instructions fully and with a fair amount of integrity.

The effort that it takes to replace this line in a reg is not worth the time.

Now add in the laundry list of other necessary changes and you may have a leg to stand on.

[Eclipse]

Level 1 for at least the last 10 years consisted primarily of sitting people down in front of a VCR for a few hours and even now isn't all that much.  Its not what anyone in their right mind would consider a "course".   

It is what you make it - mine take about 2 hours, not including the online work.

[Gunner C]

I would leave it in for this reason:  senior, most trained officers should be the ones to mentor the nubes.  If we don't do it, then who will?  The drill here is obviously not to show that you can give a class, or for that matter conduct a course (that's covered elsewhere). Give something back. If anything, I'd require an officer to complete 2 or 3 of them.

[drift] Heck, the hardest part for me to complete was just finding a CLC that would fit my schedule.  I had finished everything else for the GRW about two years earlier - I completed levels 3, 4, & 5 on the same day. [/drift]

GC

[RiverAux]

Nice in theory, but it would need to be a requirement much earlier in the PD program to be of any use.  I think there have only been a few thousand people to ever get this award in CAP which means that there might only have been 1 or 2 in each squadron in their entire history. 

[dwb]

Here's the way I always thought of this (note, this opinion was formed when Level I was still entirely an in-person course).

Requiring someone who is working on Level V to conduct a Level I orientation course accomplishes two things:

1. It puts an experienced, probably field grade, CAP officer in charge of training new people.  In theory, this allows the new person to learn from a BTDT, but in addition, they get an example of someone who has completed a lot of CAP professional development.

2. There are probably a lot of officers working on Level V that are at the Wing level or higher, or possibly Group level.  Forcing them to do an orientation course means they need to come back down from their higher echelon exosphere and actually do some hands-on training with a new person who is likely going to participate at a squadron.

So, both the new people receiving the orientation, and the person conducting it, get a new (or long overdue) perspective on things.

Does it work that way all the time?  Doubtful, especially since conducting an orientation is now just the Summary Conversation (which is still very important).  I think the concept has merit, though.

[Al Sayre]

Why would they have to "come back"?  They can just take credit for the many Level 1's  they did over the years as squadron officers...

[dwb]

Why would they have to "come back"?  They can just take credit for the many Level 1's  they did over the years as squadron officers...

Stop raining on my parade...

[FW]

I would leave it in for this reason:  senior, most trained officers should be the ones to mentor the nubes.  If we don't do it, then who will?  The drill here is obviously not to show that you can give a class, or for that matter conduct a course (that's covered elsewhere). Give something back. If anything, I'd require an officer to complete 2 or 3 of them.

Maybe we should change the requirement to serve as a mentor for 6 months (to include giving level 1 courses).?

[Pylon]

Maybe we should change the requirement to serve as a mentor for 6 months (to include giving level 1 courses).?

I think that's a better idea.  It fulfills the intent, I think, of having experienced senior members pass on some of their knowledge and learned experience to new members. 

Now that Level I has shifted from a classroom environment to a mostly home self-study, I think having a SM mentor a new member for 6 months would be a great alternative.

:clap:

[Eclipse]

Now that Level I has shifted from a classroom environment to a mostly home self-study,

I'm going to take exception to that statement, again.  Its not supposed to be.

The online portion is prep for the real discussions with the commander or his designate.  The new level one is more effective because members come in with some general ideas and real questions.

I don't think you're saying this, but I hear all to often how L1 is "online now", and I personally know of commanders who do it that way.

[lordmonar]

I would leave it in for this reason:  senior, most trained officers should be the ones to mentor the nubes.  If we don't do it, then who will?  The drill here is obviously not to show that you can give a class, or for that matter conduct a course (that's covered elsewhere). Give something back. If anything, I'd require an officer to complete 2 or 3 of them.

Maybe we should change the requirement to serve as a mentor for 6 months (to include giving level 1 courses).?

Sure...but maybe add that as a requirement for Level III instead of Level V.....It is kind of a skills miss match.