Has anyone seen a link for the webcast of the NB??
CNF Site: http://www.cap.gov/visitors//events/2007_cap_annual_conference/
Agenda: http://www.cap.gov/documents/NB_Aug_08_Agenda.doc
Video Stream: http://www.capchannel.com/live_web_stream
The video stream is still on the Spring 08 NEC meeting...
The morning session is an NB-only closed-door affair, the general business meeting starts at 1300 EDT.
video started....sound is iffy
Very dark and sound is very low.
Link didn't like Firefox here is the direct URL: mms://civilairpatrolnhq.wmlive.internapcdn.net/live_civilairpatrolnhq_vitalstream_com_Summer2008
lost the stream
Now server busy errors and dumped connection.
They should offer an audio-only stream. The majority of interest is the discussions, not the panning around of the uniforms.
A low-bit-rate audio stream would support a lot more users.
I don't know why they need to stream it live, it's not like they are letting people phone in or IM questions and giving out prizes.
Its also kind of interesting that they stream it live, but then don't release the minutes, etc., for weeks to months.
A summary document, released immediately as an all-members email would probably be more effective, though the antics of HWSRN were always fun to watch.
Video, but no audio.
I'd prefer it the other way around.... But, at least I get to see the powerpoint! ::)
I've got both and they are both OK. Unfortunately I just heard them say that Vanguard is great and their donations went to pay for the repelling tower at Hawk. Too bad they can't get my orders right.
I joined a bit late. Have they concluded the CAP/CC and CV election?
not yet
They are planning for permanent Meeting locations for out units!!! That's awesome, now comes the breath holding
Quote from: IceNine on August 07, 2008, 06:04:34 PM
They are planning for permanent Meeting locations for out units!!! That's awesome, now comes the breath holding
huh? explain?
They didn't really go all that in depth. It was in the opening remarks.
Hence the breath holding.
Brig Gen Courter just showed a campaign video. Pretty cool...
That video somehow killed my stream, and now I can't connect again.
Quote from: edmo1 on August 07, 2008, 06:09:06 PM
They didn't really go all that in depth. It was in the opening remarks.
Hence the breath holding.
It's a strategic goal. Not something that they'll be acquiring for all of us anytime soon.
May be just my solution. But the 2 times I've been booted from the feed.
I had to go in, reset the cache and history in WMP (media Player) options-> privacy
And I am able to reconnect from the link, it hasn't worked any other way
And Amy Wins! ;D
The crowd goes wild! ;D
SHOCKING!!! I thought the other guy had it in the bag ;)
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Who is the Kansas Guy thats talking right now?
my system lagged, but I gather he is running for CV
Isn't the music they're playing before Col Chitwood speaks from the film "One Six Right?" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475994/
QuoteIsn't the music they're playing before Col Chitwood speaks from the film "One Six Right?"
I believe it is from Band of Brothers.
I've got audio, but video is stuck on one ppt slide...
Mine is working fine...
I really liked Col. Chazell's presentation...
CV goes to Col Chitwood.
Col. Chitwood was elected CV with 39 votes, Col. Chezell came second with 29.
Is it me or is the audio fading out?
it has gone in and out for me as well.... currently working
Would someone be kind enough to post a summary of the agenda items discussed and their outcomes? I was able to see the election results for CC and CV but then had to leave. When I came back they were onto Agenda items 10 & 11 so missed the rest. Thanks -- John
Quote from: Eclipse on August 07, 2008, 07:44:10 PM
I've got audio, but video is stuck on one ppt slide...
Exactly the same here. I just gave up and closed it.
Nothing earth shattering was discussed or changed. I was impressed by the discussions in that they were unimpressive, yet the members had informed opinions.
A couple items were tabled or sent to comitte, including the question about SSN's on MSA's and TSA's.
The tail end was a protracted discussion about where the authority should be for appointments to Captain. The meeting ran out of time, the discussion was tabled, but may be raised again during this board if they have time.
I love these threads. It's like a bunch of Apple devotees that couldn't attend MacWorld or WWDC, and just sit at their computer anxiously refreshing the blog pages and apple.com, hoping to hear some news.
Most of what the NB deliberates on is not all that interesting. Yet here we always are, captivated by it all.
Of course, that assumes we can connect to the video stream, which has never worked well for me. They really oughta outsource that.
Did you hear about the new CAPphone and CAPtouch... sweet.
OK, Mike. Now that you have everyone's attention, what are they and why are they "sweet"?
::)
Quote from: bosshawk on August 08, 2008, 03:28:33 PM
OK, Mike. Now that you have everyone's attention, what are they and why are they "sweet"?
I don't know much about the CAPhone or CapTouch, but you should check out apples newer products anway:
Apple I-Rack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKW2O9a-nj8
Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 08, 2008, 03:52:28 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on August 08, 2008, 03:28:33 PM
OK, Mike. Now that you have everyone's attention, what are they and why are they "sweet"?
I don't know much about the CAPhone or CapTouch, but you should check out apples newer products anway:
Apple I-Rack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKW2O9a-nj8
Wow, that was funny and sad at the same time!
When do we get a CAPSignal? Any idea when the closed sessions are opening up again?
You know, if they weren't actually going to broadcast, why the heck did they include this time as part of the broadcast schedule??
seems like a waste of bandwidth.... might not be a concern... but a waste nun the less... Could at least be replaying some recruiting videos, or better yet, some sort of educational video....
That's a cool idea... do distributed training during these time slots... hmm I hope powers that be are listening to that one, people are already tuned in and a captive audience, great time for National updates or brief info sessions from various directorates.
OK; wise guys. I ask a cogent question and get a bunch of smart a*** answers. I don't do Apple: have enough trouble dealing with a PC and I certainly never go to Youtube. Don't even know how to get there and from what I hear about it, don't want to go there.
Am I a crochetty old B******? Probably.
Mike was making a joke, using CAPhone in place of Apple's infamous iPhone.
video is back up.
Proposal from NCO study group
-only looking at prior military service at the moment.
-promotion program
E5 18month TIG, Tech level, unit cc approval. Seems to be that you have to stay at senior member until achieve the above before you can become the E5.
E6 12 month TIG Senior level, Group/wing approval
E7 24 month TIG Master level, Wing Cc approval
E8 36 month TIG, Level IV, Region CC approval
E9 48 month TIG, Level V - National CC approval
-rank insignia. AF blue chevrons on sleeves with prop in circle. Possibly later move to ultramarine insignia on collar.
- NO DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE HECK THEY WOULD BE DOING. CAP-USAF wanted more info on this. He really, really stressed this. Seemed ok with the rest.
AZ Wing pointed out it takes longer to be an E5 than a 2nd Lt.
One of the NCO committee members said they want this promotion/advancement stuff get approved first because if it isn't, there wouldn't be much point in developing an actual NCO program.
Motion carried, stuff above will go to AF.
Cadet to Senior transition -- auto invitation to all cadets to become seniors when reach 21. Packet will go to them with all necessary paperwork. Striking the auto promotion to appropriate grade based on cadet achievements (leaving it to the unit commander).
APPROVED
Chaplain professional development
-- Make them take SLS and CLC as part of their PD in order to help familiarize them with the CAP program rather than the current exemptions from those.
APPROVED
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:22:55 PM
One of the NCO committee members said they want this promotion/advancement stuff get approved first because if it isn't, there wouldn't be much point in developing an actual NCO program.
I still don't know why we
need an NCO program to begin with. Why can't the prior service NCOs be satisfied with the stripes they earned...isn't that why they fought to get them on CAP uniforms in the first place? Now they want to redo the entire PD program so that they can add more stripes. Is this really something that will benefit CAP as a whole?
Hot weather flying uniform -- modification of CAP distinctive uniform
Blue golf shirt, knee-length khaki shorts, black belt, white crew socks, sneakers, civilian headgear or CAP hat. Determined by region commander
Didn't say it was limited to gliders.
Clarified that it to be treated like other flying uniforms. May be worn whenever you might be flying that day. Anywhere flightsuits would be appropriate in hot weather would be ok. Parker said not for meetings or for public speaking. Just around flying activities.
IN Wing CC focused on how hot it gets in planes in summer.
Motion to strike all reference to headgear which would allow any type of hat to be worn at the individual's choice. Approved
Motion to allow at wing commander's discretion. Approved.
One Wing CC tried to bring up how our multi-uniforms goes against professioalism. Courter ran him down and didn't let him speak (she had just said was trying to save time).
Two very hot area wings spoke against it as no one asked for it in their wings.
One wing cc spoke for it due to high humidity in east, not high temp.
One wing cc said there was not enough difference between between khaki shorts and gray pants in terms of cooling abilities to justify the change. APPLAUSE FROM AUDIENCE
MOTION FAILS! Spacing - MIKE
motion to eliminate substitution of the word "officer" to describe all senior members. Never had been incorporated into regs, but was just for general use.
APPROVED.
Reconsideration of vote yesterday to move all criteria to 39-3. Will just have a reference in 39-3 to all the "of the year" awards pointing you to the appropriate regulation where the details for each specialty award will be found.
Proposal to make National CC and Vice CC ranks temporary and only permanent at end of their tours if approved by the NEC. If not approved by NEC they revert to their permenant rank. Courter and Chitwood supported.
Motion to ammend... if there isn't a vote in 18 months, the temp grade will automatically become permanent. FAILED
Secret ballot requested for this vote. APPROVED
-----
announcement -- marketing video has been updated. apparently will have several sections (cadets, ops, etc.). Sidebar by RiverAux -- always thought that it was more of an internal video rather than something that would be appropriate for the public.
- Col. Beason won the space shuttle spot landing contest (must have had some sort of simulator set up).
Next meeting to be in San Antonio.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:42:34 PM
One wing cc said not enough diff between khaki shorts and gray pants not enough to justify it. APPLAUSE
MOTION FAILS!
Honestly, that is true. The minor difference between a set of CAP shorts and CAP Pants is not enough to justify having it. Really, if a fellow is in the process of dehydrating a set of short instead of pants isn't going to make a bit of difference.
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 08, 2008, 07:12:52 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:42:34 PM
One wing cc said not enough diff between khaki shorts and gray pants not enough to justify it. APPLAUSE
MOTION FAILS!
Honestly, that is true. The minor difference between a set of CAP shorts and CAP Pants is not enough to justify having it. Really, if a fellow is in the process of dehydrating a set of short instead of pants isn't going to make a bit of difference.
You can make a bigger tent out of a pair of pants. ;D
You could look on this vote as part of their continuing efforts to protect us from sunburn by keeping those legs covered....
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:44:07 PM
motion to eliminate substitution of the word "officer" to describe all senior members. Never had been incorporated into regs, but was just for general use.
APPROVED.
THANK YOU LORD!!!
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:44:07 PM
motion to eliminate substitution of the word "officer" to describe all senior members. Never had been incorporated into regs, but was just for general use.
APPROVED.
I wasn't watching, but I take it that no replacement term for "officer" was proposed. While I was not a big fan of using "officer", it did, at least, get us away from the geriatric sounding SM.
Quote from: dhon27 on August 08, 2008, 08:55:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:44:07 PM
motion to eliminate substitution of the word "officer" to describe all senior members. Never had been incorporated into regs, but was just for general use.
APPROVED.
I wasn't watching, but I take it that no replacement term for "officer" was proposed. While I was not a big fan of using "officer", it did, at least, get us away from the geriatric sounding SM.
The whole mess was HWSRN's nonsense about "Senior Member" being connected with age.
Please.
If you really believe it matters to anyone, well, whatever, but the term "Officer" already
has a full definition both inside and outside CAP, so it was wholly inappropriate.
Since no regulations were changed to use the term "officer" as a generic term for all senior members including senior members without grade, the 50 CAP NCOs, and actual CAP officers, we'll probably return to the old practice of referring them to all as "senior members".
Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2008, 08:58:56 PM
Quote from: dhon27 on August 08, 2008, 08:55:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:44:07 PM
motion to eliminate substitution of the word "officer" to describe all senior members. Never had been incorporated into regs, but was just for general use.
APPROVED.
I wasn't watching, but I take it that no replacement term for "officer" was proposed. While I was not a big fan of using "officer", it did, at least, get us away from the geriatric sounding SM.
The whole mess was HWSRN's nonsense about "Senior Member" being connected with age.
Please.
If you really believe it matters to anyone, well, whatever, but the term "Officer" already
has a full definition both inside and outside CAP, so it was wholly inappropriate.
I disagree that officer was "wholly inappropriate"....it did make a lot of assumption and was not really all that much to get bent out of shape over. I mean....was anyone going to take away your birthday because you said SM or Senior Member instead of "Officer".....and of course "Officer" works better in sentances like "Col Jumpshack is a senior officer in the Civil Air Patrol" instead of "Senior Senior member". When dealing with the outside world "officer" needed less explaining then "senior member".
It never bothered me. Though not technically 100% accurate, it did describe almost all adults in CAP since the non-officer adult component of CAP is so incredibly small. The only people not included were the 50 NCOs in all of CAP and a handful of new members who were going to be 2nd Lts in 6 months and didn't account for a large share of membership anyway.
Speaking of NCOs, when they were discussing this issue, the slide said that they would be later considering allowing non-prior service members to enter at NCO rank. However, when discussing it the Chief sort of said that it in the future it might be for all new adult members. Thats not an exact quote and I'm about 95% sure it was just a slip of the tongue.
Another issue...I mentioned how Gen. Courter sort of talked over one wing commander who was starting to discuss how unprofessional it looks for CAP to have 12 different uniforms. When she was stopping that train of thought, she said something along the lines of "we're not going to solve all of CAP's uniform problems today". Its not her comment that got me, but some on this board might be interested to know that there is at least one Wing Commander out there who might like to cut those options down a bit.
despite where the idea came from... i think Officer was a better term. People do understand what an officer is and know the difference between one that relates more to the police field or the profession of arms...
I don't like that guy either, but we shouldn't loose a good idea just because it came from him. I have had many people wonder about the term Senior Member and people have related it to Senior Citizen etc... The fact that it has nothing to do with age means nothing, in this instance like most, perception is everything.
We are a organization made up of Officers with a few random NCOs. (for whatever reason)
[No I am not forgetting our Cadet Officers... Isn't there a reason why we bother to say they are Cadet Officers? [C/Col not to be confused with Col...]
If I must use the term senior member... fine.... But I am a Officer in/of the Civil Air Patrol.
Could you feel the pride in that statement? How many of you have heard pride in a young adult saying he/she was a Senior Member. I normally hear their voice drop in tone and loudness. [Don't get me wrong, being proud to be in CAP is not the same as someone sensing pride when certain things are said....
Hopefully this made since to all. I know people resist change, and that CAP seems to be made up of a lot of OLD people who hate change. To those people, I say leave the Organization better then you left it. Be less concerned about keeping the term your had just because you had it, be more concerned with the legacy you leave... If you didn't know, your real legacy resides in those who are here today and will still be here well after you are gone....
Since there is no "replacement," I will use the term "CAP Officer" until one is named. CAP Officer is, in my opinion, the most correct term unless one uses something like "Air Force Auxiliarist" or "Civil Air Partrolperson."
"Senior Member" is so 20th Century... ;)
Actually it never changed to "Officer" in any official way in the first place.
Anyone have a summary what they accomplished?
New National CC
New National CV
No shorts in aircraft
Going forward with CAP NCOs
Card Type CO detectors mandatory in all aircraft
Chaplains now required (encouraged?) to go through CAP PD.
Tabled...who gets to approve special appointments to Capt.
Tabled?.....asking USAF to let us remove SSANs from MSA and TA's
CC and CV rank must be approved by NEC at the end of their terms for it be permanant.
"Officer" is no longer the generic term for an non-cadet CAP member....but it was never really the official term anyway so it was a do nothing vote.
That's all I can remember.
Did they talk about the line of succession for the CC?
Not only must CC/CV be affirmed, but the CV can now keep their star after their tenure (requires NEC approval)
chaplains will have to take sls and clc at the appropriate points in their PD program to promote.
Greetings from National and sunny FL (it's raining)! You guys already have all the news so I'll just send a shout out to all you folks.
You snooze, you lose in reporting the news.
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 12:05:47 AM
Not only must CC/CV be affirmed, but the CV can now keep their star after their tenure (requires NEC approval)
In my opinion the retention of grade should require the approval of the National Board, not the NEC.
Reason 1. The NEC is a subcommittee of the National Board-not the other way around.
2. It requires the National Board to elect the CC and CV, they should be the ones to make it permenant.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 11:10:49 PM
Actually it never changed to "Officer" in any official way in the first place.
Did anyone actually read this memo? I hear people fight about it all the time. People complain to me because I say "senior member." People even PM me here when I say SM in a post. Gimme a break.
The change was proposed to the NB some time ago. It was shot down. TP put out a memo saying that we'd use it for
external communications - to make it easier to understand what a "senior member" is, like in a news article. That was the whole point - at least on paper. FW could maybe shed some light on the original proposal that was shot down. I don't remember all the details.
The original verbiage from HWSRN was that using the term was a "suggestion", it never went further than that officially.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 09, 2008, 02:57:01 AM
The original verbiage from HWSRN was that using the term was a "suggestion", it never went further than that officially.
Thaaaaaank you. That means that you people who have nothing better to do than send me PMs when I say SM...can stop. :P
Original info is on CAPBlog, memo dated 24 AUG 2006
Quote from: HWSRN Memo Dated 24 AUG 2006, Source CAPBLOG http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2006/08/senior_members_.html
As we embark on our 65th anniversary celebrations across the country, more and more units will have an opportunity to provide presentations to civic organizations on the history and capabilities of this great organization. Many of you already have standard briefings that are used for this type of presentation, but I encourage you to be sure your briefings are up-to-date. As I travel around the country I find that individuals who are unfamiliar with Civil Air Patrol have trouble understanding our structure and membership categories. Specifically the term "Senior Member" often evokes the visible picture of aged or less than fully capable. This clearly is not reality nor is it the perception we want to portray. Therefore, I have asked my staff to recommend a new membership term to replace "senior member" for discussion at the November NEC. The new term will more accurately reflect the capabilities of our highly trained, technical CAP adult member. For now you are authorized and encouraged to use the term "officer" instead of "senior member" when making these external presentations.
- HWSRN
Major General, CAP
National Commander
I stand semi-corrected on my recollection, the word used was recommend, not suggest, but clearly this was intended for outside presentations, not a full re-naming of the class of membership.
I don't think it was on the Nov NEC agenda as indicated, it was just one of those things he "did" and left in his wake.
There it is! I was looking for it.
Quote from: Cecil DP on August 09, 2008, 02:37:49 AM
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 12:05:47 AM
Not only must CC/CV be affirmed, but the CV can now keep their star after their tenure (requires NEC approval)
In my opinion the retention of grade should require the approval of the National Board, not the NEC.
Reason 1. The NEC is a subcommittee of the National Board-not the other way around.
2. It requires the National Board to elect the CC and CV, they should be the ones to make it permenant.
True, however the NEC is the only body that can appoint someone to the grade of Colonel when it is not associated with an appointment to NB, so why should the NB be the approving authority for the General Officer grades?
Quote from: NC Hokie on August 08, 2008, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 08, 2008, 06:22:55 PM
One of the NCO committee members said they want this promotion/advancement stuff get approved first because if it isn't, there wouldn't be much point in developing an actual NCO program.
I still don't know why we need an NCO program to begin with. Why can't the prior service NCOs be satisfied with the stripes they earned...isn't that why they fought to get them on CAP uniforms in the first place? Now they want to redo the entire PD program so that they can add more stripes. Is this really something that will benefit CAP as a whole?
I'll say it again, CAP NCO's can promote any time they want after 6 months of membership to 2Lt! If you choose to wear stripes, your die is cast. Now I would like to see a program to allow CAP NCO's who have lots of time in CAP and have completed Level II or III or IV be able to get direct appointments to higher officer grade if they wish. You know MSgt vs 2Lt may have sounded good, but now that say an NCO has been in CAP awhile and completed Level 4, some might take Lt Col.....
With no disrespect intended, would you say the same thing if you don't get selected as a Chief?
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 06:36:05 AM
With no disrespect intended, would you say the same thing if you don't get selected as a Chief?
Why would it matter. He IS a CAP Lt Col.
Because he is also speaking as an RM NCO, which is the group that will be impacted.
The idea's on this will vary wildly among RM and CAP folks, I am just interested to see what the opinion is for those who stand to gain v.s not.
If he makes Chief, he would gain nothing from this being passed, if he doesn't there is a very different set of circumstances.
I would bet that an RM E-3 coming in would be in favor, whereas an AD E-9 would probably either not care, or be opposed.
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 07:09:58 AM
Because he is also speaking as an RM NCO, which is the group that will be impacted.
The idea's on this will vary wildly among RM and CAP folks, I am just interested to see what the opinion is for those who stand to gain v.s not.
If he makes Chief, he would gain nothing from this being passed, if he doesn't there is a very different set of circumstances.
I would bet that an RM E-3 coming in would be in favor, whereas an AD E-9 would probably either not care, or be opposed.
ummm ok... I am a RM E-4. I think it is a very bad idea....
I have a brand new E-6 in my Squad and he has chosen the officer route... I have two E-2s (I believe) who are filling out their applications and they also chose the officer route. I don't believe they would change their mind if the regs were changed for enlisted promotion.
I noticed things seem to change back in forth between talking about NCOs and enlisted personnel. Just in case anyone is confused... in the AF,, you are NOT a NCO until you attain the rank of Staff Sgt (SSgt, E-5)
If the NCO program there was an NCO Program, chances are there will be radically different views on this whole subject.
You, don't like it. The CMSgt who is working this whole thing obviously does, and so on.
I am interested in seeing what the opinions of the people who this does/will/has the potential to affect feel about the whole thing. I don't ever see myself wearing stripes, so I don't really care
Quote from: RiveraJ on August 09, 2008, 07:59:12 AM
I noticed things seem to change back in forth between talking about NCOs and enlisted personnel. Just in case anyone is confused... in the AF,, you are NOT a NCO until you attain the rank of Staff Sgt (SSgt, E-5)
We pretty well know that. Currently, ONLY NCOs are permitted to wear enlisted rank in CAP, and E-4s in services other than the AF are considered NCOs. I could wear TSgt rank if I desired, but I see little benefit to either myself or CAP from doing so.
I still haven't figured out what function(s) NCOs will serve in an expanded program.
YMMV.
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 08:05:16 AM
If the NCO program there was an NCO Program, chances are there will be radically different views on this whole subject.
You, don't like it. The CMSgt who is working this whole thing obviously does, and so on.
I am interested in seeing what the opinions of the people who this does/will/has the potential to affect feel about the whole thing. I don't ever see myself wearing stripes, so I don't really care
oh but it could affect me... i could decide to switch to the enlisted structure... if its there... i don't see a reason i couldn't convert ... hmmm maybe i would convert... try it out for a year and convert back.... (OKAY so I wont do it but you know someone will....)
QuoteWe pretty well know that. Currently, ONLY NCOs are permitted to wear enlisted rank in CAP, and E-4s in services other than the AF are considered NCOs. I could wear TSgt rank if I desired, but I see little benefit to either myself or CAP from doing so.
I still haven't figured out what function(s) NCOs will serve in an expanded program.
Yes that is why I specifically said AF....
I can't figure out a function for NCOs either... I also can't see a need for debate without thought out reasons for considering it....
so my feeling is that this is a bad idea and yes I am qualified to give that feeling as I am someone who could go the NCO route. But rather then me trying to explain why this is bad, I would like someone to inform me of how it alone can be good.
by alone i mean, don't tell me about officers needing college etc....
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 06:36:05 AM
With no disrespect intended, would you say the same thing if you don't get selected as a Chief?
Yes I would! That is my point in fact, Who is pushing this? Folks who "neverwere" but want to become Chiefs. Take your "promotion" to 2Lt work hard in CAP and become a Lt Col... Now if everyone came it CAP as an Airman and our standards for 2Lt were higher I would sign a different tune where CAP NCO's led airman and SNCO's mentored CGO's... but that isn't our program... and do you really think once we had NCO's that would change? <rant off> :P
But, if the stripes are not the Air Force ones, I can be OK with it, but really what is the point? I still don't see the "purpose" of the entire thing....
wow. they really need to turn down the music and turn up the announcer's microphone. I can't hear him and the music is starting to get annoying.
Given the comments of CAP-USAF at the meeting about the NCO proposal, I'm pretty sure that we're going to have to really justify having a distinct NCO program before they'll approve the promotion structure and stripes. The NCO working group obviously has put the cart before the horse and they got called on it by CAP-USAF.
Quote from: CAPSGT on August 09, 2008, 12:39:52 PM
wow. they really need to turn down the music and turn up the announcer's microphone. I can't hear him and the music is starting to get annoying.
I thought the announcer was outstanding!
;D
Quote from: SarDragon on August 09, 2008, 08:09:07 AM
Currently, ONLY NCOs are permitted to wear enlisted rank in CAP, and E-4s in services other than the AF are considered NCOs.
Unless I'm mistaken, Army E-4s who are Specialists are
not considered NCOs, while those wearing Corporal stripes are NCOs.
The difference in pay is negligible if it exists at all, while the difference in other ways is wide.
Of course, I could be wrong ...
Jack
Quote from: tkelley004 on August 09, 2008, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 06:36:05 AM
With no disrespect intended, would you say the same thing if you don't get selected as a Chief?
Yes I would! That is my point in fact, Who is pushing this? Folks who "neverwere" but want to become Chiefs. Take your "promotion" to 2Lt work hard in CAP and become a Lt Col... Now if everyone came it CAP as an Airman and our standards for 2Lt were higher I would sign a different tune where CAP NCO's led airman and SNCO's mentored CGO's... but that isn't our program... and do you really think once we had NCO's that would change? <rant off> :P
But, if the stripes are not the Air Force ones, I can be OK with it, but really what is the point? I still don't see the "purpose" of the entire thing....
Not quite true there is a chief behind all of this, I can't recall her name but they referred to her a few dozen times during thiis session of the board
Quote from: ColonelJack on August 09, 2008, 03:28:48 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on August 09, 2008, 08:09:07 AM
Currently, ONLY NCOs are permitted to wear enlisted rank in CAP, and E-4s in services other than the AF are considered NCOs.
Unless I'm mistaken, Army E-4s who are Specialists are not considered NCOs, while those wearing Corporal stripes are NCOs.
The difference in pay is negligible if it exists at all, while the difference in other ways is wide.
Of course, I could be wrong ...
Jack
Jack,
The new Army Blue Uniform doesn't allow junior enlisted (SPC and below) the gold trouser stripe to show a difference between NCO and EM. There is no pay difference - an E-4 is a E-4.
Don
As I recall, the Chief was the only NCO on the committee (they flashed a screen with the membership). I think there was one wing commander, a region commander and I forget who all else. However, the current Chief isn't the one who started this, it was the one from Iowa.
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 04:19:34 PM
Not quite true there is a chief behind all of this, I can't recall her name but they referred to her a few dozen times during thiis session of the board
CMSgt Lou Walpus from OK. She's retired AF and was OKWG Finance until joining the National Staff.
Someone needs to tell them to turn on the video cameras for the banquet. ;)
EDIT: Working...Thank you! :clap:
Did the national champion Color Guard already post? I think I missed them. (They're my cadets.)
Quote from: Captain B on August 09, 2008, 11:27:55 PM
Did the national champion Color Guard already post? I think I missed them. (They're my cadets.)
No video...just audio at that time. I know, I was looking for them too. :-X
Bummer. Hopefully someone shot good video.
Who's the fellow emceeing the banquet?
Jack
The Color Guard was perfect. The MC was Jonathan Freed, former CNN news correspondant. He's now spokesman for State Farm Ins. and a member of CAP.
It was a great evening.
Quote from: tkelley004 on August 09, 2008, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: IceNine on August 09, 2008, 06:36:05 AM
With no disrespect intended, would you say the same thing if you don't get selected as a Chief?
Yes I would! That is my point in fact, Who is pushing this? Folks who "neverwere" but want to become Chiefs. Take your "promotion" to 2Lt work hard in CAP and become a Lt Col... Now if everyone came it CAP as an Airman and our standards for 2Lt were higher I would sign a different tune where CAP NCO's led airman and SNCO's mentored CGO's... but that isn't our program... and do you really think once we had NCO's that would change? <rant off> :P
But, if the stripes are not the Air Force ones, I can be OK with it, but really what is the point? I still don't see the "purpose" of the entire thing....
To clarify, I believe this is a stepped process to achieve broader change. You can't implement radically higher standards for 2Lt without there being an alternative for those that don't/can't/won't meet them for whatever reason, but can still make an important contribution. Because we don't separate those two groups now, we end up not training anyone & accomplishing very little. It's really all indians with no functional chiefs, but a whole lot of headresses.
I believe the bigger picture here is to implement an NCO progression program, initially for prior service enlisted. Those folks would then establish themselves in the org with the purpose of cleaning up the non-functional mess that is CAP. The CCMSgt has explained his vision for the NCO corps a few times & I respect that view. I believe the next step is open up to non-prior service starting at E-1. And candidates for officership would be selected from the enlisted pool according to legitimate standards, and undergo legitimate training to become actually competent and functional officers.
As I said though, it's a stepped process. I can't assure you that's what's going on here, but it's my personal opinion and my hope that it is.
Quote from: ColonelJack on August 09, 2008, 03:28:48 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on August 09, 2008, 08:09:07 AM
Currently, ONLY NCOs are permitted to wear enlisted rank in CAP, and E-4s in services other than the AF are considered NCOs.
Unless I'm mistaken, Army E-4s who are Specialists are not considered NCOs, while those wearing Corporal stripes are NCOs.
The difference in pay is negligible if it exists at all, while the difference in other ways is wide.
Of course, I could be wrong ...
Jack
You are indeed correct. My statement stands as amended. I sit corrected.
CPL is a PSEUDO-NCO in the Army. The difference between CPL & SPC is a CPL is a mid-grade E-4 assigned duties commonly associated with a junior NCO - generally meaning leading troops. They are not technically an NCO though. The bigger deal is both are E-4 and get paid the same. Being a CPL is position related and can be removed at any time just cause I feel like it. You also don't have to be a CPL before you go to SGT, you can go straight from SPC.
There now, doesn't that just make all kinds of sense? It's the Army for ya.
Quote from: DNall on August 10, 2008, 08:04:25 AM
CPL is a PSEUDO-NCO in the Army. The difference between CPL & SPC is a CPL is a mid-grade E-4 assigned duties commonly associated with a junior NCO - generally meaning leading troops. They are not technically an NCO though. The bigger deal is both are E-4 and get paid the same. Being a CPL is position related and can be removed at any time just cause I feel like it. You also don't have to be a CPL before you go to SGT, you can go straight from SPC.
There now, doesn't that just make all kinds of sense? It's the Army for ya.
The difference between a corporal and specialist is a HUGE difference under the UCMJ. An NCO is an NCO, period. It makes all the difference in the world. This is especially true for MP's
OK... for all o' youse who went to the NB meeting... how's about a summary of what passed and did not?
read back up the thread. Already been done.
But the previous post didn't list any of the Saturday Board activity.
Just awards and the banquet according to the schedule for Saturday.
Quote from: DNall on August 10, 2008, 08:04:25 AM
CPL is a PSEUDO-NCO in the Army. The difference between CPL & SPC is a CPL is a mid-grade E-4 assigned duties commonly associated with a junior NCO - generally meaning leading troops. They are not technically an NCO though. The bigger deal is both are E-4 and get paid the same. Being a CPL is position related and can be removed at any time just cause I feel like it. You also don't have to be a CPL before you go to SGT, you can go straight from SPC.
There now, doesn't that just make all kinds of sense? It's the Army for ya.
Beg to differ, Dennis.
A corporal in the Army is an NCO. He can give a legally-binding order to a subordinate, and a specialist cannot. The UCMJ allows for prosecution for failing to oney the orders of a "Superior non-commissioned officer," not just someone at a higher pay grade.
You can be promoted from specialist to sergeant. If, however, I assigned a specialist to a sergeant's vacancy pending his promotion, I would cut orders to laterally appoint him/her a corporal, so that his/her orders had some weight.