Promotion system needs guidelines, dates, and followup

[Eclipse]

As eServices gets upgraded, NHQ needs to add folow-up requirements to the promotion system.

I would suggest:

1) Email notification 90 days in advance of a member's eligible date, with a follow-up on the date, and every 14 days thereafter.
1a) Those emails should be sent to the commander at every echelon involved in a respective grade.

2) Regulatory guidance on the time to approve / deny a promotion once submitted and email reminders every 14 days
when a promotion is in queue.

3) Reports that impact a unit's SUI and wing's CI grade of members eligible for promotion who have been not been submitted,
and also for submitted promotions not acted upon within the specified time period.

I would argue that 14 days per echelon is more then reasonable,  - the vast majority of promotions will be approved with no discussion,
and as you move up to higher HQ, the quantity is dropped dramatically, so there's no manpower issue. I am not of the "automatic school",
but it is detrimental to mission and motivation to let people hang for months to years with no indication if they will ever get promoted,
nor where things are sitting.

The only thing worse then not promoting a deserving, invested and involved member is having that same member see other members' promotions
fly through the system simply because of proximity to the approver. 

This is another baseline issue that could be fixed easily but which has been a problem for nearly everyone I know in CAP for the entirety of
the time I've been a member.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree. I've seen many members not get promoted because they either didn't know that they qualified for a promotion or they didn't know what they needed to do to qualify for one. This is especially true for new members.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I basically sailed through 2nd LT, 1st LT and Captain.

Of course, I then had a wing commander who was my former squadron commander and he was on top of anything.

My current difficulties with promotion to Major (which Eclipse is trying to help me with, God bless 'im) are documented elsewhere.

[rmutchler]

The only thing I would add on there is to email the member 90 days out too.  This would be beneficial for those members that need to schedule a promotion board to qualify for their new rank.

[LGM30GMCC]

As eServices gets upgraded, NHQ needs to add folow-up requirements to the promotion system.

I would suggest:

1) Email notification 90 days in advance of a member's eligible date, with a follow-up on the date, and every 14 days thereafter.
1a) Those emails should be sent to the commander at every echelon involved in a respective grade.

I think a notification to the member at 90 days out, and to the personnel officer...rather than the commander at the 90 day point. (Reread 35-5 Para 1-8) It's the primary responsibility of an immediate supervisor and the personnel officer (or others designated by the commander) to initiate the promotion action. At the 90 day out mark the personnel officer can ping the supervisor and start the process.

I do not think an e-mail to every echelon is necessary to the best either. In the case of Captains and Majors that is a lot of e-mails to the Wing Commander.  I also think every 14 days is excessive especially since that is a guaranteed 6 emails before the person can even be submitted for promotion. That could quickly add up to a lot of e-mails about something that can't even happen for 90 more days. I would say one maybe 90, or more realistically 30 days out.

2) Regulatory guidance on the time to approve / deny a promotion once submitted and email reminders every 14 days
when a promotion is in queue.

Again...maybe an e-mail. Perhaps better a report of 'Members with submitted promotion requests'. There is regulatory guidance that "The  promotion board should meet frequently enough to assure timely consideration of recommendations received." (CAPR 35-5 para 1-10a) One could make a reasonable argument that 'quarterly' meets this intent. And that's if it's cut and dry and the wing hasn't asked for more than the bare minimum supporting documentation. (Fully qualified)

3) Reports that impact a unit's SUI and wing's CI grade of members eligible for promotion who have been not been submitted, and also for submitted promotions not acted upon within the specified time period.

Failure to submit...maybe. Though there has to be a way for commanders to say 'The person is eligible by all qualifications...however I am invoking the right to deny it as laid out in CAPR 35-5' I would have it be more a question on the SUI of HOW the unit does it. What their process is. Heck there might even be one to that effect.

I would argue that 14 days per echelon is more then reasonable,  - the vast majority of promotions will be approved with no discussion,

I wonder if perhaps this isn't a problem we have? Should there be a little more discussion as people move up? Do you have someone who has been promoted based on AE or something else but aren't doing anything like that? I can understand the desire to keep things moving, but I would say 30 days is a bit more reasonable.

and as you move up to higher HQ, the quantity is dropped dramatically, so there's no manpower issue.

There shouldn't be, however there often is. The number of people holding multiple unit, wing, and possibly region positions is sizable. These things should be given due consideration and not just shot gunned through while trying to take on whatever else needs to be done. This is a personnel problem for CAP as a whole, but there are manpower issues, you just may not see them in your larger wing.

I am not of the "automatic school",
but it is detrimental to mission and motivation to let people hang for months to years with no indication if they will ever get promoted, nor where things are sitting.

The only thing worse then not promoting a deserving, invested and involved member is having that same member see other members' promotions fly through the system simply because of proximity to the approver. 

This is another baseline issue that could be fixed easily but which has been a problem for nearly everyone I know in CAP for the entirety of
the time I've been a member.

I can agree to some extent, however I think it is likely more of a problem with your specific experience. If someone's folks aren't getting promoted it's the job of the commander to get involved and start poking bigger commanders with progressively bigger sticks.

My experience is I have never had any problem getting my folks getting promoted, even in special and odd cases in requesting waivers. It sounds like you have a local, wing, or region issue.

All that being said, it is something to take into consideration and your concerns are agreed with (in principle) and it is something to be taken into consideration. I know in RMR we are balancing the desire for steady promotions and making sure that DESERVING members get promoted while those who perhaps aren't quite so much aren't and are given the feedback they need to get there.

[Eclipse]

I agree that this is a Personnel responsibity, but my experience has been that less then 1/3rd of the units in a wing actually have a Personnel officer,
and probably only 1/3rd of those are actually doing it "right".  The other either have triple-tracked members or the CC is doing it.

By every echelon, I meant that in regards to approving authority.  Lts never get passed the unit, Captains Group, Majors, wing, Lt Cols get messages all the way to region.  The majority will be well below field-grade.  I would hazard the average wing doesn't push up more then 10 Lt Cols a year, and
probably no more then 20 majors, and those tend to be cyclical (meaning an active "class" comes up basically together, but the waves aren't consistent.

And the point of this is that it is "intrusive". Want the messages to stop?  Act on the promotion, or find out downstream why they aren't getting done.

One more box could be added to the promotions module could be for "denied", and another could be "under consideration" - those would slow the emails down to maybe every 30 days. 

The reality is that this should not be a burden for anyone, no matter the echelon, if they were all doing their jobs, but more importantly, and sadly, at our current strength, there simply aren't that many promotions annually in the entire wing that they should ever be delayed, especially when you consider  that there are no issues of budget, billet, cur scores, or anything close.

[Eclipse]

Or perhaps, a big perhaps, all promotions should be automatic unless otherwise acted upon to disapprove?
Or automatic but provisional?

It would give us essentially the same situation as today, but negate the delays and omissions of inadequate commanders while still
allowing for a channel to withhold.

Because seriously, considering the current state of the grades, how many people are in CAP who are at once, unworthy of promotion, but
worthy of continued membership? 

Even in the case of marginal performers, the only members I've ever seen who should not have been promoted, were ongoing problem
children who should have been terminated long before.

[Pylon]

The emails every 14 days would have been really annoying.  I didn't submit my promotion to Capt for about 1.5 to 2 years after it was earned because it wouldn't have been approved in that command climate at the time.  I didn't submit my promotion to Major until well after it was earned as well.  That would have been a heck of a lot of emails.

[Eclipse]

The emails every 14 days would have been really annoying.  I didn't submit my promotion to Capt for about 1.5 to 2 years after it was earned because it wouldn't have been approved in that command climate at the time.  I didn't submit my promotion to Major until well after it was earned as well.  That would have been a heck of a lot of emails.

OK - but again, that's the point. There shouldn't be a "command climate" in regards to promotions, that's ridiculous in our paradigm.
In a system like this one, there'd be no choice but to act on the promotions, one way or another, and that daylight, in and of itself,
would cause some change.

Members should be granted the respect of being denied if their commanders deem them unworthy, along with the risk that they
will feel unfairly treated and leave, or file a complaint.

Honestly, I think making people hang in limbo, having to walk on eggshells or avoid the conversation is more detrimental then
a simple denial.  If you deny a promotion, you need to have a good reason, or risk a complaint, but "limbo" lets these things
go on for years. 

When they are discussing retention factors, if this isn't high on the list, it needs to be.

[PHall]

Just because somebody is eligible for promotion doesn't mean they deserve to be promoted.
CAP does not have an Up or Out program...

[Eclipse]

Just because somebody is eligible for promotion doesn't mean they deserve to be promoted.

I said exactly that above, however they do deserve the respect of being denied officially, or at least know the status of the request.

[LGM30GMCC]

And again...you want 6 emails sent to the Squadron, (group), and wing COMMANDER before the person is even eligible for promotion. Seriously? How many is the average group or wing commander going to get with no way to shut them off? If you submit a promotion 90 days before you're eligible...you're going to be denied. Unless there is some way to do a promotion effective on X date. But hey...that doesn't jive with the Reg, so you can't do that.

I 100% DISAGREE with automatically approved unless denied. No way, no how. You think we have a problem with people feeling 'entitled' now?

I feel for ya Eclipse, yes...it sucks that some people are getting held up. That is a command problem though, not a system problem. I think you are trying to fix the wrong root cause.

[Eclipse]

And as long as you bring it up, please provide a single legitimate reason for denying a member a promotion, assuming that their PD is complete and
they have no pending adverse personnel actions.

To assist legitimate cause cannot include:

Requirements to hold office at a higher echelon (or any other objective criteria).

The ubiquitous "isn't ready", since that is meaningless in our paradigm.

[Eclipse]

And again...you want 6 emails sent to the Squadron, (group), and wing COMMANDER before the person is even eligible for promotion. Seriously?

Where are you getting six? 

And to move this discussion forward, it doesn't have to be the commander, it should be to a relevant staffer.

[LGM30GMCC]

Sorry, misread your proposal as one at 90 days, and every 14 days there after.

1 to the personnel officer at 90 days, 1 at the day of. But there has to be a way to turn it off it is denied by even the unit CC.

Hard to see how to set it up to make it really work out.

[Eclipse]

1 to the personnel officer at 90 days, 1 at the day of. But there has to be a way to turn it off it is denied by even the unit CC.

Everything stops at the point any echelon denies it, all parties are notified, and nothing more happens until it is resubmitted at some level.

A member can act on a denial - whether that means remediation of the problems indicated, complaint, or simply deciding to spend his time elsewhere,
but you can't make any decisions based on "limbo", which is where many members find themselves, and which cause some to choose the "time elsewhere" option anyway.

Leaving people in limbo also reduces the overall organizational trust so critical to the CAP's success.  I don't think you'll find anyone with exposure outside their local unit who doesn't know somebody, and probably more then a few somebodies, who has been unnecessarily or unfairly held back for no other reason then administrative failings.  Backdating doesn't fix this, either.

I will admit that I've had more then a few Capts and above cross my desk for signature - the ones yo know are easy, either way, but the ones who
are marginal players, but members in good standing are the challenge - which do you choose, a relatively meaningless "board", or expediency?  Neither
is a good choice for the organization.  And that doesn't even account for the actual mistakes and commanders with divided attention who won't act until
pressed.

[JeffDG]

And as long as you bring it up, please provide a single legitimate reason for denying a member a promotion, assuming that their PD is complete and
they have no pending adverse personnel actions.

To assist legitimate cause cannot include:

Requirements to hold office at a higher echelon (or any other objective criteria).

The ubiquitous "isn't ready", since that is meaningless in our paradigm.

Well, that's pretty simple, the pre-requisites for promotion are spelled out, including:

"(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended."

[Eclipse]

"(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended."

Fair enough, with two caveats.

If they are not performing an an exemplary manner, why are they not being disciplined?
In a CAP context, "exemplary" generally means not being a PITA, there are no other expectations set by most commanders.

And what is a Wing or Region going to know about a member they have never met, that would negatively influence their decision when a promotion
has already been approved at a unit and Group level by people who likely have personal, regular  contact with the member?

That's a big part of this - there's literally no expectation or requirement of higher HQ service, no billeting, etc., yet field grade promotions, especially,
are scrutinized as if there were, and with no real time constraints on the consideration, despite the fact that people who actually know the member already said "yes".

Remember, I'm not advocating automatic promotions, I'm advocating required action on the requests, with ramifications for all parties depending on
their decisions.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Or perhaps, a big perhaps, all promotions should be automatic unless otherwise acted upon to disapprove?
Or automatic but provisional?

It would certainly take some configuring at National to automatically green-light the person's TIG, PD, and to red-flag if they have any behavioural/discipline issues that have been formally reported.

[JeffDG]

"(4) Be performing in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade recommended."

Fair enough, with two caveats.

If they are not performing an an exemplary manner, why are they not being disciplined?
In a CAP context, "exemplary" generally means not being a PITA, there are no other expectations set by most commanders.

And what is a Wing or Region going to know about a member they have never met, that would negatively influence their decision when a promotion
has already been approved at a unit and Group level by people who likely have personal, regular  contact with the member?

That's a big part of this - there's literally no expectation or requirement of higher HQ service, no billeting, etc., yet field grade promotions, especially,
are scrutinized as if there were, and with no real time constraints on the consideration, despite the fact that people who actually know the member already said "yes".

Remember, I'm not advocating automatic promotions, I'm advocating required action on the requests, with ramifications for all parties depending on
their decisions.

You have a funny way of defining "exemplary".

Exemplary would exceed satisfactory performance, and satisfactory performance is not cause for discipline.

As for how would wing know...it's up to the recommending commander to establish the reasons for the promotion.  If the unit commander just says "Yep, has met the PD and TIG requirements" and nothing else, then that does not meet the language of the regulation.

[Eclipse]

I actually agree with you, but that's not the reality of CAP.

For these types of discussions to actually get anywhere, we need to speak in terms of the real world, not the one we'd like it to be, and this is where they usually get off track.

I've been a staunch advocate of a CAP reboot, especially in regards to the grades, but since that's not likely to happen, we need to accept the fact that grade is essentially a delimiter of longevity, with little room for the subjective "exemplary".

In the military, and most workplaces, "exemplary" would be easy to "see", if harder to define, but in CAP, sadly, the first and last time most members hear the word "expectation" is around promotion time, with little follow-up.  The mantra here and in real life of "we're just volunteers" is proof enough of that.

The truth is that the majority of members, especially those who get past Captain, are deserving of promotion, and the delays are either administrative failings or backhanded disciplinary actions.  Neither is fair or acceptable, especially in the volunteer paradigm.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I was just promoted to Captain. If in the next 3 years I ONLY do my assigned jobs, does that mean I don't deserve a promotion because I only volunteered and did my job to the best of my ability, but I didn't do an "above and beyond" job? Then why bother with PD?

[Eclipse]

I was just promoted to Captain. If in the next 3 years I ONLY do my assigned jobs, does that mean I don't deserve a promotion because I only volunteered and did my job to the best of my ability, but I didn't do an "above and beyond" job? Then why bother with PD?

That's the $64k question.

In the military and most corporations, promotions are supposed to be to provide additional authority for a larger scope going forward, not
a reward for past performance.  CAP doesn't work that way.

Also, what if you did your job, but were never asked to do anything but the baseline?  Command failing?  Yes.  Not your fault.

A "successful" is a "successful".

I'm drifting my own thread, so shame, shame. 

The question isn't actually about deserving the promotion, only forcing the requests be acted on timely.  As I said, from a respect for the member perspective, a denial is better then the open-ended situation we have today.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Either way "examplary" sounds like example to me. Example, model, etc. If you do the job, you are exemplary of a good staffer.

[Eclipse]

Either way "examplary" sounds like example to me. Example, model, etc. If you do the job, you are exemplary of a good staffer.

I wouldn't disagree.  And in CAP "examplary" = "Do your job to at least a "SAT" level and don't be a PITA.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I wonder, as I have in the past, what all this says for people like me who are not visibly "excelling" but are just worker bees in the background, doing the best we can with what we have.  I would say that very few people outside of my squadron even know who I am.  Is "doing the best I can with what I have" being "exemplary," or is it just being a "drone?"

[Camas]

I was just promoted to Captain. If in the next 3 years I ONLY do my assigned jobs, does that mean I don't deserve a promotion because I only volunteered and did my job to the best of my ability, but I didn't do an "above and beyond" job? Then why bother with PD?

Good point! My guess is that the "above and beyond" phrase is aimed at the member who is pretty much a "no show" for the most part then shows up just in time for promotion. Is this someone who is deserving of a promotion? Probably not.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So what were really are talking about is PD and "Attend regularly". Mix in the Officer oath with the cadet oath I say!

[oracle471]

With the 27 December 2012 version of CAPR 35-5 now requiring Commanders at all echelons of command to utilize promotion boards I am not sure speedier promotions are the likely outcome.

CAPR 35-5  Section A, Sub-Section 1-10, Para a. "The commander at each echelon will appoint a promotion board to consider all promotion and demotion actions and make recommendations to the promoting authority.  The promotion board will consist of at least three officers as follows:  personnel officer, professional development officer and one additional officer designated by the commander.  The chairman of the promotion board should be equal to or higher than the highest grade being recommended.  Appointment to promotion boards will be reflected by appropriate personnel authorizations.  The
board is responsible for considering all pertinent information pertaining to promotion actions and ensuring that the member being considered for promotion meets the minimum eligibility
requirements.  The  promotion board should meet frequently enough to assure timely consideration of recommendations received.  The action by the promotion board will be in the
form of a recommendation to the approving authority as to whether the promotion or demotion should be approved or disapproved."

Note: Red text indicates change

[arajca]

Boy, I got my last promotion in just before the change. (Lt Col - 17 Dec 2012)

Instead of notifying commanders or personnel officers, the system should notify the member 90 and 30 days out. They can pursue the promotion if they so choose.

[Eclipse]

Why should me members have a choice?

Why should they have to "pursue" it?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Why should they have to "pursue" it?

Maybe there are some in various CAP echelons who think, "hey, if they want it bad enough, they'll have to beat the doors down" (meaning: make a general jerk of yourself and beg and wheedle for something you've already qualified for).

[JeffDG]

Why should me members have a choice?

Why should they have to "pursue" it?

What if a member doesn't want a promotion?

For example, a Captain who wants to take SOS, a promotion would make him/her ineligible to take the course.

[Eclipse]

There probably are, and that's one of the problems.

[LGM30GMCC]

I do think it is the responsibility of the member to be aware of their own progress; (No one cares about your career as much as you do -- good advice in the USAF and in CAP) however it is also the responsibility of the supervisors to know their people, and unit commanders to...ya know...STEP UP AND LEAD/COMMAND. It is not the responsibility of a group, wing, or region to hold someone's hand and poke them every time. "Hey, are you doing promotions, hey are you doing promotions?"

It's certainly something to ask during inspections and responsibility of the wing commander to make sure the hold-up isn't at their staff. But that's why it's important for wing commanders, group commanders, and squadron commanders to keep talking to each other. Probably on a weekly basis there should be at least an e-mail 'Hey we're good' or 'Hey got a question about...?' That's the avenue to ensure people are getting promoted.

If there is a problem...you do the same thing with any other issue. Poke the appropriate commander a few times and if that isn't working, let them know you are getting really concerned about it, and if that doesn't work...go to the next level commander. That should raise some serious attention on the subject and then the system in the specific weak spot will be addressed.

Again, I think you are facing a localized problem Eclipse that requires a localized command intervention. Not a revamping of the national system.

[Eclipse]

If there is a problem...you do the same thing with any other issue. Poke the appropriate commander a few times and if that isn't working, let them know you are getting really concerned about it, and if that doesn't work...go to the next level commander. That should raise some serious attention on the subject and then the system in the specific weak spot will be addressed.

"Concerned"?
This is the system we have today, and it literally doesn't work, but the nice thing is that technology can actually help the situation, since the
majority of the inertia is based on simply "not bothering".  Any commander who doesn't want to be bothered can act on the promotion,
and make it someone else's problem, or, you know, close the issue.

You have two types of members.
Type A++ - knows the hour and minute his TIG is up, and will hound you until it's done.  Annoying, yes.  But then a published process with reasonable
deadlines and action expectations keeps him at bay.  Lack of action without a good justification beyond "I was too busy / didn't care" will potentially sap this member's initiative and put his membership at risk.  And it unprofessional and unfair.

Type Other - Doesn't know the regs or doesn't want to "make a fuss about himself", so he stews in his own juices until someone else notices.
Lack of action without a good justification beyond "I was too busy / didn't care" will potentially sap this member's initiative and put his membership at risk.  And it unprofessional and unfair.


See the pattern?  80-90%+ of the promotions in CAP fall into one of those two categories.  The responses and delays tell a member far more about their value to CAP then anything else they encounter.

And again, then we wonder why we have retention issues.

Again, I think you are facing a localized problem Eclipse that requires a localized command intervention. Not a revamping of the national system.

Why do you insist on purporting this is somehow local to me?  I promise you, it not.

This is a national phenomena.

[LGM30GMCC]

To quote you on oh so many occasions...

[cite please]

[Eclipse]

To quote you on oh so many occasions...

[cite please]

http://www.captalk.net

Search the word "promotions"

[RiverAux]

In the real world that Ecliplse mentioned, CAP promotions ARE automatic for just about all grades so long as someone rememebers to submit the paperwork.  Lets make the real world match the regulations and just make them automatic, assuming all PD/TIG requirements are met, at least up to Captain.  That takes care of most members with no muss or fuss.

If we really want to somehow make sure that only "worthy" people are in the higher grades, lets focus what little time and attention we give to personnel issues to the field grades.  Heck, make them even tougher to get if you want. 

But, keep in mind that under the current system CAP grade is just a reward for past service and has nothing at all to do with any increased levels of responsibility or authority.  Once you get a grade, its yours for life so long as you don't do something really stupid.  Heck, don't do anything and you can keep it without a problem. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Type Other - Doesn't know the regs or doesn't want to "make a fuss about himself", so he stews in his own juices until someone else notices.
Lack of action without a good justification beyond "I was too busy / didn't care" will potentially sap this member's initiative and put his membership at risk.  And it unprofessional and unfair.

You are talking about me, yes?  That is all right, because in many ways it is very true.  I fall into the category of "not making a fuss about myself," but I am that way in virtually all areas of my life, not just CAP.  I even had a past girlfriend's dad ask me if I spoke words longer than two syllables!

Seriously, a big reason why I am that way with CAP is because of events I have personally observed over many years...someone pushing too hard for a promotion that they were due and ending up having it blocked because someone up the chain in the GOBN got the huff with it.  In one incident a person was told that as long as they remained in CAP they would never see another promotion.

I do not want to end up in that position, and I do not want to let apathy get the better of me, but it is a struggle.

[Eclipse]

Well, yes, you kinda prompted the thread.

Pylon says if a member wants to pursue promotion it should be on them?  It already is.  Anyone not interested in promotion
can simply not pursue PD.  Few, if any duties will be restricted, and they never have to worry about the conversation.

Everyone else who pursues the PD Levels, even in a marginal, disconnected way, should be assumed to be interested, and
the pursing it should be a given.

To further River's point - make senior-member promotions automatic, and require any objections be filed 90 days before
the TIG date.  This allows for people "not ready" to be formally disapproved, with the requisite appeal available, etc.,
and everyone else can just move on.

Simple problem, simple solution.

[Private Investigator]

I agree that this is a Personnel responsibity, but my experience has been that less then 1/3rd of the units in a wing actually have a Personnel officer,
and probably only 1/3rd of those are actually doing it "right".  The other either have triple-tracked members or the CC is doing it.

Based on the SUIs I did as an IG. You are very correct.

I like your proposal   :clap:

[MSG Mac]

There is already a function under "Member reports" which lists everybody who meets the requirements for Duty Performance Promotions. It updates as a person meets the requirements (TIG, Training Level, and age) as recorded at National HQ.

[Eclipse]

There is already a function under "Member reports" which lists everybody who meets the requirements for Duty Performance Promotions. It updates as a person meets the requirements (TIG, Training Level, and age) as recorded at National HQ.

The system sends no alerts or otherwise flags the staffers, and no where does the system indicate the status of promotion requests, especially those
which are not processed fully through eServices. (Wings do things differently).

The entire process is manual, and there is no published expectation that a promotion be processed timely, if at all.

With the new requirement that promotions boards are a "will" instead of a "should", the time to process is likely to extend even more.

A fun fact to consider which pretty much encapsulates where the real emphasis items are in CAP and eServices.
ORMS send emails for anything involving property, including comm equipment.  There's an entire separate system for
processing financial paperwork (Sertify).  Promotions and related actions are still left to be manually noticed with inconsistent timeline expectations,
different processes in every wing, and a general disregard for the negative impact on moral and initiative when you have multiple standards for
something which is one of the few ways to recognize our membership but is ultimately meaningless from a mission perspective.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

A fun fact to consider which pretty much encapsulates where the real emphasis items are in CAP and eServices.
ORMS send emails for anything involving property, including comm equipment.  There's an entire separate system for
processing financial paperwork (Sertify).  Promotions and related actions are still left to be manually noticed with inconsistent timeline expectations,
different processes in every wing, and a general disregard for the negative impact on moral and initiative when you have multiple standards for
something which is one of the few ways to recognize our membership but is ultimately meaningless from a mission perspective.

Missing govt supplied equipment or financial issues will sink a unit / group / wing / CAP quickly. It's no surprise NHQ IT resources were spent on addressing those areas.

Ideally you would be able to go to a screen that showed exactly what you need to qualify for your next grade. To do that correctly you'd need the PD section of e-Services to track the few things it does not (Class Instruction / Director, Conference Attendance, etc) and ideally the pieces of all the Specialty Tracks in there as well.

I don't see this in the near or medium term.

[Eclipse]

Missing govt supplied equipment or financial issues will sink a unit / group / wing / CAP quickly. It's no surprise NHQ IT resources were spent on addressing those areas.

Agreed, but you kinda missed the point.

When things are "important" they are fixed expeditiously.

When they aren't "important" they languish for years, regardless of the effect on the membership.

Yes, units and wings get stood down when there are issues with finances and property.  Those are quick hits which are re mediated just as fast when they are found.

The issue with promotions, decorations, and similar recognition for our membership is a slow death that has cost us more then we will ever know in both initiated and former members.

I don't see this in the near or medium term.

Sadly, I'd have to agree.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The issue with promotions, decorations, and similar recognition for our membership is a slow death that has cost us more then we will ever know in both initiated and former members.

No joke and PM sent.

[CAP_truth]

A report available in esevice has a "Member Promotion Eligibiliity" which show all personnel that re current eligible for promotion. I think it should be the units personnel officer or commander to review this every month.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Why should the Personnel Officer have to initiate a request for the report? I add my voice to Eclipse and others in this. Although I am not ready to have the system automatically promote a member, I think the technology is in place to automate a list sent via email to the Commander, PDO, and Personnel Officer that "so and so TIG is up, meets all requirements for...."

I look regularly at these reports, by the way.

[Eclipse]

I think it should be the units personnel officer or commander to review this every month.

That would already be a typical duty for Personnel.  That presupposes the unit has a Personnel officer, and that he's not an empty shirt.

Also, reviewing a report doesn't put a clock on action, nor does it put a clock on upstream actions.

My issue continues to be members who are looking for the stewardship of their CAP experience that they deserve and which is an inherent responsibility
of commanders at all levels, and which is sorely lacking in the current state of CAP.

[LGM30GMCC]

You and I just have different views of how to handle that. You seem to want an automated system that takes responsibility off commanders and makes it automatic unless someone says no.

I want to see more training, and expectations of SMs to actually do their jobs and be held accountable if they do not.

[Eclipse]

You and I just have different views of how to handle that. You seem to want an automated system that takes responsibility off commanders and makes it automatic unless someone says no.

No, that's not what I am saying, that was a tangent.

The root here is a system of intrusive automation that forces action, whether denial or approval, so that members are not left hanging with no recourse
or even knowledge of the status of a request for weeks, months, sometimes years.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The Member Promotion Eligibility Report is good for what it is. A list of people with enough TIG and:
SMs that have Level 1
2nd Lts that have a Tech Rating
1st Lts that have Level 2
Captains that have Level 3
Majors that have Level 4

It does not / can not tell Captain X that if he attend 1 more conference that will complete Level 3 and with TIG make him eligible. Or Tell 2nd Lt Skippy that he needs X to finish his CP Tech Rating.

E-services has a section for What Do I Need for pilot ratings. This the the type of system we need.

If we collected the data required then you could have report that listed each member and has X of Y items completed for Level Z. This would avoid Capt Q from asking about Maj at 2 years and 9 months to then find out he needs CLC, etc to get done in 3 months.

That said a good PD Officer has developed a path for each member in their unit to achieve their PD goals to match their grade goals.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It varies, sometimes wildly, from squadron to squadron as to just what is "required," and too often it is not "quantified."

A member can get told that s/he does not qualify for promotion just by "checking all the boxes," but then it is not stated concretely what is required.

It is so subjective that promotion/advancement can get kiboshed by anyone in the chain, and a reason why does not have to be given...just "you're not ready," "it's not time," and the one I loathe the most, "you don't just get handed promotions."  In large part that is Bravo Sierra because some people, who know the "right" people, DO get "handed promotions."

The Navy Sea Cadet Corps has a much more delineated process for their promotions.  You do not pin on (literal, since they have metal grade) Ensign for at least a year, and that is after taking required, real tests.  They do not normally give grade for equivalent military grade, or for "special skills," the way CAP does.  Of course, they do not go any higher than Lieutenant Commander.

So, some might say, "why do you not join the NSCC?"  I would in a heartbeat if I could find a unit that would have any use for an old, broken-down Ensign who could not get promoted past Captain in CAP.  That is about as likely as me becoming National CC of CAP.

All right, some may say "the military does it the same way...anyone in the chain can stop a promotion."  In some ways that is true, but in the military a reason usually has to be given, based on performance reports, and giving the candidate options for corrective action.

Right now the "process," such as it is, is so subjective and open to whim that it gives me sour stomach just to think of it.

I honestly am beginning to wonder if I am wasting my time in this organisation.  Please do not say "then just quit," because it is not that easy for me.  CAP has been a large part of my life for about 20 years.  That is a hard thing to just slough off, especially since nature abhorrs a vacuum without something to fill that vacuum with.

[Ned]

I honestly am beginning to wonder if I am wasting my time in this organisation. 

Captain,

Without for a moment suggesting that your concerns about commanders's discrections in promotions or the wisdom of providing additional guidance to the field about grade-related leadership standards are not valid, I am not sure I understand about how getting or not getting promoted relates to whether or not you are "wasting your time in CAP."

Mostly because what we do in CAP is so rarely related to getting promoted.  Highly valued volunteers like yourself spend countless thousands of hours volunteering their time to save lives, educate others, and run an outstanding cadet program.  We do not spend thousands of hours trying to get promoted.

From where I sit, job satisfaction in CAP is related to our actual duties, whether that is working as a Testing Officer in a rural cadet unit, or waking folks up at O-Dark Thirty to alert them for ES duties.  Some jobs are more exciting than others, of course, but if you are truly "wasting your time" in CAP, it is time to talk to your boss about a new assignment.

Since becoming a senior member about 40 years ago, I have been promoted exactly 3 times.  I have completed my fair share of CAP PD classes, including SLS, CLC, RSC, and NSC.  I knew I needed to get them done for promotion, of course, but they were also necessary for me to learn how to do my job on the wing, region, and national staff.

I fully understand that it is important to recgognize and reward our members for their selfless service.  And both decororations and promotions are part of the package.

But I'd also like to think that one can have a rewarding CAP career as Capt., Lt, or even a senior member.  As long as the work is meaningful and the member feels valued for their work.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Colonel Lee:

What you say makes sense, and I will try to take it in the spirit in which I am sure you meant it.

I am sure you are familiar with Abraham Maslow.  I studied him quite extensively in university Sociology and Social Psychology courses.

http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm

So much of what I do is behind-the-scenes and not very visible outside of the squadron, and even within the squadron.  Very few people at Group or Wing level even know me.  That is just the sort of person I am; though you would not know it from my posts on CT , I tend to be very reserved, if not an extreme introvert.  The character of Lt. Reg Barclay on Star Trek: The Next Generation could have been modelled on me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Barclay

I suppose what is most troublesome to me is the lack of concrete standards.  Hearing something like "you are not ready" is not an incentive to improve.

No, I do not view promotions and ribbons as the be-all and end-all in CAP, but they are part of it, otherwise they would not exist, correct?

Since you say you have been promoted three times, I will assume you came in at a higher grade.  I did not.  I worked my way up from SMWOG.

It may well be that we should derive the greatest satisfaction from our jobs within CAP.  However, if that were to solely be the case, there would not be promotions and awards.

This may sound selfish, but I do not apologise for it.  I do not want to spend the rest of my CAP career, however long that may be, halted at the rank of Captain.

No, I do not feel valued for the work I do, since so much of it goes unnoticed.

[Eclipse]

Ned,

Not everyone has the opportunity to serve at the level that you, I, and others have had the privilege.

The majority of members spent their entire CAP careers at the unit level, with promotions being one of the few tangible acknowledgements
or what they have accomplished.

I agree most members do not spend their time working to get promoted, but that just underscores the reasons why the process should
not be such a fog-shrouded mystery that can take weeks/months/years to accomplish.  When your time is up, you should be promoted, or not,
but never left wondering if anyone has even submitted you.

If we treated Cadet promotions like we do Senior promotions, we'd have a lot more free time since wed have few, if any cadets to worry about.

[SarDragon]

So much of what I do is behind-the-scenes and not very visible outside of the squadron, and even within the squadron.  Very few people at Group or Wing level even know me.  That is just the sort of person I am; though you would not know it from my posts on CT , I tend to be very reserved, if not an extreme introvert.

[redacted]

This may sound selfish, but I do not apologise [sic] for it.  I do not want to spend the rest of my CAP career, however long that may be, halted at the rank of Captain.

No, I do not feel valued for the work I do, since so much of it goes unnoticed.

These two statements run counter to each other. If you are, by nature, reserved and introverted, you need to work to get noticed. It's not an easy thing to do, especially since we have no periodic performance review process in place where you can toot your own horn.

As reprehensible as some think it is, many commanders don't "get it" when it comes to managing and recognizing the folks down in the trenches. The attitude is, "nobody's complaining, so everything must be OK."

Sell yourself. Make your contributions known. Get out to group and wing events so those folks do get to know you.  Hiding in a cave is counterproductive to your goals.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If it were only as easy as you say for me, SarDragon.

PM enroute.

[ProdigalJim]

I can see both sides of this debate. I know from 30+ years of playing corporate political football that nobody is responsible for your career progression other than you.

That said, I think there's a subtle distinction here between those who draw their reward in satisfaction, cadet feedback, etc., and those who seek promotion (or have it sought on their behalf) and inexplicably can't get it through.

While I disagree with the notion of "automatic unless blocked," I think Eclipse is 100% on the right track in asking why we can't have eServices play a more active role in managing the promotions process.

Where I work, every personnel action is handled online...and as an Executive, I'm often at the end of the chain for them. My email gets a message, "HR Service Center: A Personnel Action In Your Mailbox Requires Your Attention."

I can log in to our version of eServices, and there in my Inbox will be something I have do something about; approve someone's raise, approve a grade-level promotion, a bonus, a termination, a retirement, etc. There are three buttons -- Approve, Deny or Return. No matter which button I click, a system-generated email goes to 1) the originator of the request, 2) the most-recent approver (the person just below me who sent it my way) and 3) to the employee it affects.

There's a Comments section where I can say something like, "Mike, you have to attach the such-and-such to justify the bonus" before I hit the Return button. Or I can simply hit Return without a comment.

Even if I ignore the message for awhile, after 10 days the system will automatically escalate the request to my boss. And the subject line will basically tell on me (HR Service Center: A Personnel Action Has Been Escalated). That way my boss knows I didn't do anything about it. And the same business rules apply. The originator, the prior-level approver and the employee all get told that the system escalated the request to the next level because I failed to act on it.

If it escalates too far, it will be Returned all the way back to the originator and the last person who said "Yes."

We could write the business rules so that you have, say, 21 days to act on a request. That's ample time to account for work life obligations, vacations, and all the other "we're just volunteers" reasons why actions are generally untimely in Civil Air Patrol.

Philosophically, however, I think today's system of essentially putting the paperwork in a bottle and having no idea what the disposition is after you've sent it...is highly unprofessional. I don't think it's too much to ask to know WHERE something is in the process.

As to Cyborg's issue, from a professional-development point-of-view, he deserves better answers than "you're not ready."

[Ned]

When CP tackled this particular issue, we created "Leadership Expectations" that described the necessary leadership skillsets for cadets in grades ranging from Cadet Airman to Cadet Colonel.  For each achievement cadets are evaluated against the leadership standards, and provided with specific feedback.  The cadets have a fairly clear idea about the differences in behavior between a C/2d Lt and a Cadet Colonel, and what they have to do to be ready for their next promotion.



See CAPM 52-16 (in particular Chapter 5), The Cadet SuperChart , and especially the evaluation forms themselves, CAP Forms 50-1, 50-2, 50-3, and 50-4.

If the PD crew were to develop something similar, I think it might address some of the issues raised here.

Thoughts?

[ProdigalJim]

^^^^

Yep, I think this is solid. You can kinda/sorta piece something together like that now from the CAPF45, as a starting point. Then put descriptions of the knowledge items, skills and behaviors you expect at each level.

I think Ned's idea, coupled to a more transparent/accountable system in eServices to track promotions, would go a long way toward improving the professionalism of the entire corps. Everyone would know, in advance, what's expected of them, and commanders at all levels would have to act, either up or down. No more "pocket veto" of promotions. Like my favorite Canadian says, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Like my favourite Canadian says, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." 

FTFY in CanEnglish.

Or choosing a ready guide in some celestial voice?

What you and Ned say have merit.  I offer some clarification, though...I'm not seeking a promotion, not in the way that I'm going to rattle cages until I either tick everyone from Group up to National off or someone hangs a Silver Medal of Valour on me for distinguished negotiation of CAP organisational Bravo Sierra.

What I am trying to do is just find out what the yardstick is, why I am not meeting it, and how my personal circumstances (matters beyond my control) are a part of it.

If I am to be told I can never be promoted again, I want to know that, and I want to know why.

[Eclipse]

I think Ned's idea is workable as well, the issue being that no matter when/how we raise expectations or change things, there will be
a fairly protracted time (5-10 years) where people have to deal with others who made it farther with less performance expected.

As the program exists today, it's reasonable to be a marginal player and still expect to be promoted to Lt Col.  I would say that needs to change.

Just as in the military, if you choose to be a less-active player, then perhaps Captain is a reasonable expectation on the top end, with the field grades reserved for those who choose to accept higher responsibility, serve at higher echelons, or run large-scale activities (such as encampments and national schools).

As it stands today, and unlike the CP, there is absolutely zero expectation or requirement to ever hold a command position, or any position of
real authority or leadership to be promoted to Lt Col.  There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Wings and Regions are holding people to "double-secret" extra expectations, but by the letter of the reg, a quietly-serving unit FM who completes his PD should have the same ability to be promoted, on the same timeline, as a member who moves up the command chain, is involved in high-visibility roles, and in general puts in more time to CAP.

[Ned]

[T]here will be
a fairly protracted time (5-10 years) where people have to deal with others who made it farther with less performance expected.

True, but that is also motivation.  When I crossed to the Dark Side, I did not even apply for the "Spaatz to Captain" program because I thought 21 year-old captains were a problem.  I wanted to have "grade integrity."  (Although I still am a little fuzzy about what I meant by that.)  I stayed a SMWOG for several years.

Then, a fair number of people I thought were "substandard" started sporting railroad tracks.  As I was saluting them, it occurred to me that it was time for me to start working my way through senior member PD.

Petty, I know, but it was what got me moving.  And just forty short years later I have been promoted 3 times!  Talk about a fast track.

As the program exists today, it's reasonable to be a marginal player and still expect to be promoted to Lt Col.

I think that was what I put in the Remarks block on my Form 2 -- "Marginal Player - promote to Lt Col."   

[JeffDG]

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Wings and Regions are holding people to "double-secret" extra expectations, but by the letter of the reg, a quietly-serving unit FM who completes his PD should have the same ability to be promoted, on the same timeline, as a member who moves up the command chain, is involved in high-visibility roles, and in general puts in more time to CAP.

That's not true.

The letter of the reg includes the requirement that the member be serving in an exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade.  Since exemplary is not defined, that comes within the discretion of the promoting commander, and since it's a very vague term, it gives tremendous latitude to such commanders to do what they deem to be appropriate.

[Eclipse]

It's 100% true. 

I'm not talking about the vagaries of "exemplary", which frankly need to be revisited and defined, I'm talking about
commanders placing specific, objective criteria in the path of promotion, outside the reg.

Like, for example, requiring UCC before a squadron CC promotion to Captain.  Completely reasonable, and not allowed.
There are lots more examples of this, but more commanders are smart enough not to write them down.

You may remember that a few years ago a wing actually had an OI that mandated higher HQ service before major.
This was published, yet stood until people made noise.

And again, just to clarify, I'm not advocating a single change to the promotion regs in regards to lowering or raising the standard,
this proposal is simply about mandating action on promotions and requests in a timely manner to pat basic respect to
our volunteers.

Whether denied or approved, the process and the timeline should not be vague or foggy.

[MSG Mac]

The establishment of a report to tell Commanders and individuals when promotions are due is a bit of overkill. As shown in a previous posting, there is a report in E-services which lists unit members who are eligible for promotion and  updates automatically when the qualifications are met. In addition members should be pro-active in working with the Professional Development and Personnel Officers to determine what must be done to advance in both grade and qualifications. The final step is to have a formal briefing with the Commander at a minimum of every six months to discuss their performance as CAP Officers, both good and bad, using CAPF 40 for a record. All of these actions are already available to every unit in CAP from the National Commander's Unit to the newest Flight. Let's use them rather than creating more reports (both up and down).

[JeffDG]

The Squadron CC captain is an unusual case, in that it's not a duty performance promotion, but a position promotion to which a cc is entitled by reg.

Duty performance promotions, however, are at the discretion of the approving authority (and in reality, lower-level commanders too).

A Wing Commander who uses his discretion to say "If you're not serving on at least a Group Staff, you're not getting Major" is entirely within his prerogative as the approving authority to determine that members who are performing in an exemplary fashion meriting promotion to a field-grade rank should be those serving on Group Staff.  If not, why bother with an approving authority at all?

Vague language is sometimes a feature, not a bug.  Sometimes it is intentional and permits commanders to utilize a little thing called "judgement",

[FARRIER]

Here is a a real world example from the corporate world. And since we are technically a corporation, we are not exempt like the military or certain governmental agencies. What if a member has a disability that prevents them from making regular attendance, but are more than able to perform their duties at their Squadron, Group, Wing over the web. Communications can be completed by phone or internet. Corporations globally hold training sessions over the web. Attendance is counted when you call into the training.

In relation to CAP, a member in a similar situation, doesn't physically attend regularly, but is performing their duties otherwise, and could phone in, if it was made on option, do you consider this member an active member? Does this effect their promotion?

[Eclipse]

A Wing Commander who uses his discretion to say "If you're not serving on at least a Group Staff, you're not getting Major" is entirely within his prerogative as the approving authority to determine that members who are performing in an exemplary fashion meriting promotion to a field-grade rank should be those serving on Group Staff.  If not, why bother with an approving authority at all?

Nope, sorry. That is in direct violation of the regulations in that no objective standards outside what is published may be put in place. As is a CC saying you have to complete UCC.  A refusal based on some subjective "you're not ready" is acceptable, but generally requires what that means, but any objective gateway, be it a staff post, class, or test, is explicitly prohibited.

[a2capt]

Wasn't PAWG was one of those entities that held back Field Grade promotions unless you served on staff at the Wing level? Seems like I read something restrictive about their promotions sometime back.

[JeffDG]

A Wing Commander who uses his discretion to say "If you're not serving on at least a Group Staff, you're not getting Major" is entirely within his prerogative as the approving authority to determine that members who are performing in an exemplary fashion meriting promotion to a field-grade rank should be those serving on Group Staff.  If not, why bother with an approving authority at all?

Nope, sorry. That is in direct violation of the regulations in that no objective standards outside what is published may be put in place. As is a CC saying you have to complete UCC.  A refusal based on some subjective "you're not ready" is acceptable, but generally requires what that means, but any objective gateway, be it a staff post, class, or test, is explicitly prohibited.

So,

You think it's better for a wing king toj just have in his head "If Capt Bagodonuts isn't good enough for Group Staff, then he's not field grade material" but not ever say it out loud (just telling everyone not meeting the criteria "youre not ready") than that same commander saying out loud and letting folks know what they need to do?

If a commander has discretion, then the preferable course is for him to let folks know what he expects of them.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Vague language is sometimes a feature, not a bug.  Sometimes it is intentional and permits commanders to utilize a little thing called "judgement",

And sometimes it is a way to deliberately muddy the waters so that personnel who DO THEIR BEST WITH WHAT THEY HAVE stay stuck where they are.

At least in the military one has performance reports, etc., to use as a point of reference.

Jeff, you seem to be hung up on a definition of "exemplary" that I cannot square with.

This from the online Oxford Dictionary of the English Language:

adjective

    1serving as a desirable model; very good: exemplary behaviour

    2(of a punishment) serving as a warning or deterrent: exemplary sentencing may discourage the violent minority
    Law (of damages) exceeding the amount needed for simple compensation.


The danger with using such an open-ended definition is that while at one point it may work for you, depending on who is administering it later it may work against you.

[JeffDG]

Vague language is sometimes a feature, not a bug.  Sometimes it is intentional and permits commanders to utilize a little thing called "judgement",

And sometimes it is a way to deliberately muddy the waters so that personnel who DO THEIR BEST WITH WHAT THEY HAVE stay stuck where they are.

At least in the military one has performance reports, etc., to use as a point of reference.

Jeff, you seem to be hung up on a definition of "exemplary" that I cannot square with.

This from the online Oxford Dictionary of the English Language:

adjective

    1serving as a desirable model; very good: exemplary behaviour

    2(of a punishment) serving as a warning or deterrent: exemplary sentencing may discourage the violent minority
    Law (of damages) exceeding the amount needed for simple compensation.


The danger with using such an open-ended definition is that while at one point it may work for you, depending on who is administering it later it may work against you.

OK...let's say some fictional Wing King has it in his head that you should serve on at least Group Staff to make Major...were I a Wing/CC would I create such a policy, probably not, but that's why we have commanders, to exercise judgement.

That could well be justified as "serving as a desirable model" if the Wing/CC wants to have good folks serving on Group and Wing staffs (his desired outcome), and as such, fits squarely within that definition of exemplary.

What Eclipse is saying, that I squarely disagree with, if a Wing/CC does this (without saying the why he's doing it), that's OK, but if he declares the policy out loud, he's violating the regulations.  I disagree.  I would rather have him tell folks why he's denying their promotion requests, as he has every right to do as the approving authority.

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail.  We have commanders, at all echelons, to exercise good judgement.  If they are incapable of same, they should be relieved and replaced by those who can do so.

If you have some requirements that you want filled for promotion, reject it and tell the person why.  If you want to just leave it hanging without going through the bother of rejecting it, perhaps someone else should be there to make the decisions.

[Eclipse]

What Eclipse is saying, that I squarely disagree with, if a Wing/CC does this (without saying the why he's doing it), that's OK, but if he declares the policy out loud, he's violating the regulations.  I disagree.  I would rather have him tell folks why he's denying their promotion requests, as he has every right to do as the approving authority.

Which part of this is unclear?

CAPR 35-5, December 2012
"1-1. General.   Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly
throughout Civil Air Patrol.  CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications
or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures and practices prescribed
herein are prohibited."

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail.  We have commanders, at all echelons, to exercise good judgement.  If they are incapable of same, they should be relieved and replaced by those who can do so.

Yes, because the current state is so functional as to negate adjustment. What we have at most echelons are inconsistently trained members who
are generally trying to do their best with conflicting, ambiguous regulations, and little-to-no-guidance from higher HQ.

In far too many of the cases, the approving authority for a given promotion is of lower grade then the grade being considered, and the commander(s)
have less relevant CAP experience then the person who has been submitted for promotion. 1st Lts with less then a year in CAP who got bumped for a pilot ticket considering someone for a field grade because they are the Squadron CC.

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail.

As to this, lack of definition and "discretion" is one of the reasons we're in the state we are, and the only way this organization is ever going to
return to the baseline level of performance that it regularly gives itself credit for, is by stepping back and defining just about everything.
Until we show we're capable of following basic, clear instructions, we should not be allowed "discretion".

If you want to just leave it hanging without going through the bother of rejecting it, perhaps someone else should be there to make the decisions.

This has been the only point I tried to make, I said nothing, initially, about changing the criteria or removing authority from commanders, only they be required to actually do their jobs, but the "why" people let things sit is clearly a part of the problem.

[RiverAux]

Hence the silliness of some aspects of our promotion system.  It IS basically a check the box system to reward people for performing certain tasks in the past and that is where you get the requirement that no one can add any additional check boxes (which is clearly stated in the regulations).  BUT at the same time we give commanders the authority to approve or disapprove of promotion requests on a whim (the exemplary leadership clause). 

This will always lead to confusion and inequities in the system as it leaves open an incredible amount of latitude in a system that really isn't meant to have much. 

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col. 

[Eclipse]

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col.

Where do I sign?

[MSG Mac]

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col.

Where do I sign?

Why not just eliminate Lt's and FO's if everyone is guaranteed Captain. Better to require completion of OBC for initial appointment to officer grades, a formal promotion board at every level, and the requirement of a sit down session with the Commander to review membership every six months with a CAPF 40 or written review for the record.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I categorically reject the impulse of some people to define everything to the most minute detail. 

The less definition, the more room for abuse under the label of "judgement."

Perhaps it's my past experience with programming and flowcharting.  The current way things are done would require a flowchart that would look like a crazy-quilt.  I believe I actually could do a better one, given a couple of hours.  Would it be accepted?  No.

We have commanders, at all echelons, to exercise good judgement.  If they are incapable of same, they should be relieved and replaced by those who can do so.

Good luck with that one.  I do not know how long you have been in CAP, but relieving an incompetent/biased commander is like pulling teeth, for two reasons:

1. The still-extant-and-will-never-completely-go-away GOB network.
2. It is so hard to GET anyone to step up to TAKE command.

You talk much of "judgement."  Some people don't HAVE a good sense of judgement, and too often they find themselves in positions where they can lord that over others.

As the "system" stands, there is no accountability for a commander who refuses promotion to a qualified candidate.

[JeffDG]

What Eclipse is saying, that I squarely disagree with, if a Wing/CC does this (without saying the why he's doing it), that's OK, but if he declares the policy out loud, he's violating the regulations.  I disagree.  I would rather have him tell folks why he's denying their promotion requests, as he has every right to do as the approving authority.

Which part of this is unclear?

CAPR 35-5, December 2012
"1-1. General.   Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly
throughout Civil Air Patrol.  CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications
or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures and practices prescribed
herein are prohibited."

Defining what you think "exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade" is not changing the "basic policies, criteria, procedures and practices", it's letting folks know how you will implement it.

You may think that phrase has no meaning, but it's in there, and as such, it provides wide discretion to the approving authority to interpret.  It is incumbent upon someone exercising that authority to tell folks how he intends to exercise that discretion.

[JeffDG]

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col.

Where do I sign?

Why not just eliminate Lt's and FO's if everyone is guaranteed Captain. Better to require completion of OBC for initial appointment to officer grades, a formal promotion board at every level, and the requirement of a sit down session with the Commander to review membership every six months with a CAPF 40 or written review for the record.

That's a fantastic way to get more people to step up for command, add more paperwork and time requirements for this "membership review" twice a year for every senior member in the unit.  If there's one thing commanders don't have enough of right now is paperwork.

[RiverAux]

As I proposed earlier -- make all promotions up to Captain automatic (and lets get rid of the advanced promotion system while we're at it) and have really tough, but incredibly clear and specific, standards for Maj. and Lt. Col.

Where do I sign?

Why not just eliminate Lt's and FO's if everyone is guaranteed Captain. Better to require completion of OBC for initial appointment to officer grades, a formal promotion board at every level, and the requirement of a sit down session with the Commander to review membership every six months with a CAPF 40 or written review for the record.

Who said anyone was guaranteed Captain?  They would still need to complete the same requirements as we have now.  Heck, my proposal, by linking in elimination of advanced promotions, would probably result in fewer people reaching Captain than is now the case. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

That's a fantastic way to get more people to step up for command, add more paperwork and time requirements for this "membership review" twice a year for every senior member in the unit.  If there's one thing commanders don't have enough of right now is paperwork.

If, by the time someone gets to the point where they're thinking of command, they should know that CAP, or any grouping associated with the military, has shineola-loads of paperwork as part of the job.  That paperwork can have as much of a benefit for the commander as the subordinate, even if only as a CYA move on behalf of the commander to establish a paper trail in case someone makes a formal enquiry.  Is it not much better to say "I denied a promotion, and here is the documentation as to why," rather than to just say "Captain Railroadtracks isn't ready.  S/he may never be.  End of story," and leave it at that?

:POf course, it would be much simpler to deal with incompetent/unwilling/unethical higher-ups according to the Klingon way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rApjT3iWU_E#

However, since we live in the real world, and not that of Roddenberry, we must use other methods.  However, those methods are at least as subjective, if not moreso, than the "exemplary" wording that this seems to turn on.

[Eclipse]

What Eclipse is saying, that I squarely disagree with, if a Wing/CC does this (without saying the why he's doing it), that's OK, but if he declares the policy out loud, he's violating the regulations.  I disagree.  I would rather have him tell folks why he's denying their promotion requests, as he has every right to do as the approving authority.

Which part of this is unclear?

CAPR 35-5, December 2012
"1-1. General.   Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly
throughout Civil Air Patrol.  CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications
or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures and practices prescribed
herein are prohibited."

Defining what you think "exemplary manner meriting promotion to the grade" is not changing the "basic policies, criteria, procedures and practices", it's letting folks know how you will implement it.

You may think that phrase has no meaning, but it's in there, and as such, it provides wide discretion to the approving authority to interpret.  It is incumbent upon someone exercising that authority to tell folks how he intends to exercise that discretion.

I'm not going to defend a broken process, nor define the undefinable.

This situation >is<.

The rules say you cannot add objective criteria, formally or verbally.

Requiring staff service, etc., is an objective requirement.  Ergo.

[RogueLeader]

Command or staff duty is required for Levels 3-5.  Not to mention that in order to earn a tech rating in any specialty track, staff duty is required.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Command or staff duty is required for Levels 3-5.  Not to mention that in order to earn a tech rating in any specialty track, staff duty is required.

The level of command/staff duty is not specified.

I have a Master rating in Administration.  I was an Administration Officer for six years at one unit, two years at another, and a year at another.

I have a Technician rating in Safety.  I was a Safety Officer for six years at one unit (concurrent with my DA stint), and two years at another.

I was Deputy Commander of my first unit for roughly three years.

All were at the squadron level.

[Eclipse]

Command or staff duty is required for Levels 3-5.  Not to mention that in order to earn a tech rating in any specialty track, staff duty is required.

The level of command/staff duty is not specified.

Cyborg makes a key point in this discussion.

Someone serving quietly as a Unit FM fulfills the Finance Specialty requirements (or did last time I looked), simply by doing the job.
Master is essentially a matter of time, not any extra effort. 

Since no mandate for higher HQ appointment is in the regs, does this make them "less" eligible to be promoted?

[RogueLeader]

That depends on the specialty track.  Finance (CAPP 202) requires Wing or Region staff in order to complete a Master Rating.

[Eclipse]

That depends on the specialty track.  Finance (CAPP 202) requires Wing or Region staff in order to complete a Master Rating.

Whoops, you're right.

[RogueLeader]

There might be others, but Finance happened to stick with me.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Someone serving quietly as a Unit FM fulfills the Finance Specialty requirements (or did last time I looked), simply by doing the job.
Master is essentially a matter of time, not any extra effort. 

Anyone who can do that has my vote for promotion, anyway.  I can barely do basic math.

Should how long ago the duty status was have bearing?  I did both DA and SE positions for quite a number of years, but all I have now are assisting positions (in both), and due to breaks in service, those duty positions were a few years ago.  They are, however, documented in E-Services.

[Eclipse]

We've basically got two threads here and no clean place to split them.

What is allowed as subjective rejection is separate from the basic common courtesy of acting on requests in a timely manner.

Both are legit issues, both continue to cost use members and motivation, but we need to make sure they are seperated discussion-wise.

But with that said, far too many promotions are left with no response because the approver has no legitimate reason for disapproving, but doesn't want to have the discussion.

[FARRIER]

We've basically got two threads here and no clean place to split them.

What is allowed as subjective rejection is separate from the basic common courtesy of acting on requests in a timely manner.

Both are legit issues, both continue to cost use members and motivation, but we need to make sure they are seperated discussion-wise.

But with that said, far too many promotions are left with no response because the approver has no legitimate reason for disapproving, but doesn't want to have the discussion.

     You're actually hitting it on the head. Your example of the 1LT promoted based on his FAA rating then is commanding the squadron. That isn't just CAP, but a real world situation. You have younger people out of college promoted to a supervisory slot over older and more experienced workers. While some corporations are great at mentoring, some have nothing in place.

     At one point I was personnel officer for a wing and on the wing awards and promotion board. But, I haven't had the Unit Commanders Course, to be honest, so if I miss something my apologies. The new unit commanders, is there a system in place for mentoring, regardless of age? CAP is different from some of the major corporations and has some differences with the military. Is there someone to walk them through those differences.

     What does this have to do with the topic? How they handle the promotions, one of the few rewards that CAP can give to a member. As Eclipse and Rouge Leader pointed out, with the exceptions of Finance, and probably a few of the others, there is no command or staff level requirement to get your master rating. Complete the rest of the requirements for the grade, what is there to hold a member back? A commander if he/she uses discretion, in rejecting a promotion, must have a logical reason or be able to reference the regulations. That's where the experience level and mentoring to/advice to the new unit commander would be helpful.

[CAP_truth]

I have always been an advocate an annual performance reports using CAPF-40. In this way a paper trail is available to promotion boards and new commanders or staff when needed.

[Private Investigator]

I have a Master rating in Administration.  I was an Administration Officer for six years at one unit, two years at another, and a year at another.

I have a Technician rating in Safety.  I was a Safety Officer for six years at one unit (concurrent with my DA stint), and two years at another.

As I recall if you hit all the check boxes in Admin you can have "Master" in two years. But Safety use to take five years to rate "Master". (Reviewing CAPP 217 now it looks like you can get it quicker now)

You would hope a CAP Lt Col would have knowledge on a broader scale than just what happens at Petticoat Junction Squadron.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

As I recall if you hit all the check boxes in Admin you can have "Master" in two years. But Safety use to take five years to rate "Master". (Reviewing CAPP 217 now it looks like you can get it quicker now)

It takes a little more than that to be a good DA.  I first took on the job because my first squadron's deputy CC (later CC) presented it to me that Administration was not a popular job in CAP due to all the paper-pushing.  Back then there was a lot more of it because nothing was online.  I remember many Saturday mornings and afternoons in the floor of my living room with the big blue binder taking obsolete regs out, putting new ones in, etc.

I would never willingly be a Safety Officer again, which is why I never pursued it beyond Technician rating.  That was the biggest headache of a job I ever had in CAP.

You would hope a CAP Lt Col would have knowledge on a broader scale than just what happens at Petticoat Junction Squadron.

Is the only way to do so to have a position on Wing staff?  I disagree.  My knowledge of CAP is not encyclopaedic, but having served in all three types of squadrons (one of which produced a Spaatz), in two wings, I believe I have a little bit of knowledge about the way the cookie crumbles in the organisation as a whole, both good and bad.

I came in right after the berry boards and lived through John McCain's attempt to disestablish us.  I was in during part of the reign of the Generalissimo.  I then saw the milestones of the first female National CC and the first African-American National CC.  That's a little sampler of both the bad and the good that has happened in CAP.