CAP Talk

Hi All,

I was reviewing the Senior Member Promotion Chart and a question came to mind;

Why aren't Law Enforcement Officers, Fire Fighters, EMT's, and Emergency Service Personnel be included in the Professional Appointments category?

Emergency Services is one of the CAP Missions. I figure why not? ... Teachers, Lawyers, Health Service Professionals, Doctors, and financial officers are included in the Professional Appointments category.


Promotion Chart attached below. 

In a word, no.

I came to CAP with 25 years of experience as a Firefighter/EMT/911 Dispatcher, and 10 years as an Emergency Management Director. I've acquired an extensive skill set over the years, but it's a different skill set needed for CAP.

If I were to be granted a Professional Appointment and allowed to bypass introductory CAP training, neither CAP nor I would be better off. I turned down an initial appointment to second lieutenant because I didn't want to be HSO, and worked through the program like everyone else should.

IMHO, there should be fewer professional appointments, not more.

No for Law Enforcement - We do not do this as part of our organization
No for Fire Fighting - We do not do this as part of our organization
Yes for EMT's - Allready part of the PD program
Yes depending on Emergency Services Training

If the person is allready qualified in some sort of medical training such as EMT as part of their training for Law and Fire. There should be some level of "discretion" that can be done on an individual base.

Professional left out educators, and lawyers.

There was some discussion at one of the big meetings recently about having some sort of professional appointment for those in the "emergency management" field, but it didn't go very far since there were no real national standards out there in this field. 

In any case, we should be eliminating all advanced promotion options (including those for former military officers) rather than adding new ones.

I have not seen any analysis showing that such promotions actually help us recruit anybody that wouldn't have been recruited anyway. 

^ Where do I sign.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 16, 2010, 03:43:11 AM
There was some discussion at one of the big meetings recently about having some sort of professional appointment for those in the "emergency management" field, but it didn't go very far since there were no real national standards out there in this field.   

I agree with most of your post except this little blurb...The International Association of Emergency Managers would disagree with you about there not being a real national standard...They really like their CEM and AEM programs.

It was the NB (or NEC, I forget which) that came to that conclusion so take it up with them. 

I realize that some of these special appointments may be CAP-mission related, but it could be counter-productive by defeating the purpose of the senior member training program, possibly conflicting with the emergency services training and inviting more controversy over what justification is required for advancement.

I had a long discussion once with a A&P mechanic who came into our organization as a captain and had intended to use his skills by working on airplanes. However, under the current consolidated maintenance program, he wasn't even allowed to change the engine oil. He felt he had wasted his time and was a little bitter. Instead, he wound up in aerospace education and I was trying to convince him to enter into observer training.

So, what would be the point of new special appointments? Boosting the membership by giving away rank? Shouldn't we leave well enough alone?

Professional appointments don't bypass introductory training.  They must do level one first.  They must also do level 2 and so on to promote again.  They do everything the "regular" senior members does, but with a little more grade on their collar. Really, the only difference is time-in-grade.

You might want to re-read those criteria for the professional appointments.  You may be thinking of the mission-related skills appointments -- after the initial one then you do have to catch up on PD to promote, but its not that way for all of the professional ones.

I'll have to read each one, but I'm doing a Chaplin appointment and he has to do level one before applying for chaplin and then promotion.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 17, 2010, 07:03:53 AM
I had a long discussion once with a A&P mechanic who came into our organization as a captain and had intended to use his skills by working on airplanes. However, under the current consolidated maintenance program, he wasn't even allowed to change the engine oil. He felt he had wasted his time and was a little bitter. Instead, he wound up in aerospace education and I was trying to convince him to enter into observer training.

Who didn't tell him that isn't how it works?

Quote from: Eclipse on November 17, 2010, 05:00:25 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 17, 2010, 07:03:53 AM
I had a long discussion once with a A&P mechanic who came into our organization as a captain and had intended to use his skills by working on airplanes. However, under the current consolidated maintenance program, he wasn't even allowed to change the engine oil. He felt he had wasted his time and was a little bitter. Instead, he wound up in aerospace education and I was trying to convince him to enter into observer training.

Who didn't tell him that isn't how it works?

Not sure. He was from my wing, not my group. I only tried to help him...also recommended that he speak with his group's a/c maintenance officer. He's still in the system for now, however, and actively participating.

No.  A professional appointment requires you to work in that capacity IN CAP.  LE and firefighting obviously isnt an aspect of CAP. Nor is it "emergency services" in the context that CAP uses the term.  I dont think there should be special appointments at all. So perhaps I am a little bias.  The problem with them is that someone comes on as a Capt based on being a MD or a CFII, and they dont know the first thing about CAP, and, in my experience, seldom ever learn.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 16, 2010, 03:43:11 AM
In any case, we should be eliminating all advanced promotion options (including those for former military officers) rather than adding new ones.

I agree that there are too many "advanced promotions", but for Commissioned Officers who decide to become involved with CAP (especially of the Air Force type), I think they should keep their rank.

If we follow your logic, we should also eliminate CAP Enlisted Folks too....right?!?!

Quote from: Patterson on November 27, 2010, 12:31:45 AM
If we follow your logic, we should also eliminate CAP Enlisted Folks too....right?!?!

Yes please. They serve no purpose that they could not serve as an officer.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 04:00:23 AM

Quote from: Patterson on November 27, 2010, 12:31:45 AM
If we follow your logic, we should also eliminate CAP Enlisted Folks too....right?!?!

Yes please. They serve no purpose that they could not serve as an officer.

How strange.

Former Air Force officers "serve no purpose they could not serve as " senior members without grade.

What's the difference?

In keeping this chain of thought in mind. Why not look at Advanced promotion for other professions.

Personnel Specialty - Human Resource Management
IT Specialist - Various Network and Computer Certifications
Historian - Bachelors Degree in History

or--------- I may get smacked for this one.

Enrolling in a specialty track within your professional field.

Associates Degree - 2nd Lt.
Bachelors Degree - 1st Lt.
Masters Degree - Capt
MD/Phd/DBA or such - Major

or---------- Professional Certifications

PHR for HR Managers - Capt
CSP for Safety - Capt

Quote from: Ned on November 27, 2010, 04:53:21 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 04:00:23 AM

Quote from: Patterson on November 27, 2010, 12:31:45 AM
If we follow your logic, we should also eliminate CAP Enlisted Folks too....right?!?!

Yes please. They serve no purpose that they could not serve as an officer.

How strange.

Former Air Force officers "serve no purpose they could not serve as " senior members without grade.

What's the difference?

There isn't one really. But at least officers neatly fit in with the existing rank structure instead of bending "reality" to their ego. I've talked to a few CAP NCOs and the reason they stated as being an NCO was because they worked for a living and wouldn't be caught dead wearing bars. We have what, less than 500 of them total? Is it worth the heartburn to cater to such a small population when we could have a completely unified force?

I'm not a fan of advanced promotions for anyone but at least military officers(and NCOs) have leadership experience in almost all cases. I don't see the point in creating a new class of SM for people that don't want to adapt to the way the program is when they could use the exact same experience in the same ways with bars on their collars instead of standing out with stripes.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 03:12:18 PM
But at least officers neatly fit in with the existing rank structure instead of bending "reality" to their ego. I've talked to a few CAP NCOs and the reason they stated as being an NCO was because they worked for a living and wouldn't be caught dead wearing bars.

Once again, how strange.

CAP NCOs typically have many years of professional military leadership training and experience compared with a typical CAP officer who might have a few weeks worth.

And the CAP NCO is the one "bending  reality to match their egos?"  Shouldn't that be he other way around?

QuoteWe have what, less than 500 of them total? Is it worth the heartburn to cater to such a small population when we could have a completely unified force?

Maybe it is just me, but after 40+ years in CAP at all levels, including working with our senior USAF counterparts, I haven't seen much "heartburn" over CAP NCOs.  Most of the "heartburn I have encountered comes from the actions of CAP officers.  Our NCOs tend to be among the most professional of our members, perhaps because of their years of uniformed training and experience.

QuoteI'm not a fan of advanced promotions for anyone but at least military officers(and NCOs) have leadership experience in almost all cases. I don't see the point in creating a new class of SM for people that don't want to adapt to the way the program is when they could use the exact same experience in the same ways with bars on their collars instead of standing out with stripes.

I have some good news for you.  No one is creating a "new class" of leaders in CAP.  CAP NCOs have been around for over 60 years.

Militaries have used both NCOs and officers fairly universally for a couple of thousand years, and it has seemed to work out just fine.

Really, name a single military organization that has ever been an "officers only" organization.  With the possible exception of the  Kentucky Colonel's Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_colonel), I've never heard of one.

Why should CAP be different than every other operational military outfit in recorded history?

I actually tend to agree with you both. I think the best way to use the NCO Corp would be to make a real NCO Corp. Allow Senior Members to choose which role they want to pursue in CAP. Make an Officer and NCO corp in a way that NCOs can progress through their ranks. It would be rather simple to make an NCO program for Senior Members, not too much would really have to change from the Cadet promotion system. Use the leadership manuals, tailor them more towards adults and what Senior Member NCOs need to know. Add more to the manual, don't take anything out, just add to it. I wouldn't at all suggest giving each rank a ribbon, just give a ribbon for the milestones and make the rank progression more spread out. 2 months for AMN Basic to AMN same for A1C and SAMN and go on from there progressing one to three or four and so on. I think that training an NCO Corp would be rather Beneficial. Change the rank for SM NCOs to where they are still worn on the sleeve but they have the red prop and triangle in the middle instead of the USAF Star.
[img alt=]http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=312[/img]

Speaking of addional professional appointments, I know a fully certified Safety Officer who is the senior individual for an airline.  Considering the emphasis on safety in our organization, do any of yuu think he should be allowed to enter as a 2nd Lt? (he has no prior military service)

"Change the rank for SM NCOs to where they are still worn on the sleeve but they have the red prop and triangle in the middle instead of the USAF Star"

If your intent is to make the NCO grades distinctive from Air Force chevrons, we'd better make some change to the "officer" rank insignia as well.

Here's a thought - get rid of AF rank insignia in all forms.

Quote from: MSgt Van on November 27, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
"Change the rank for SM NCOs to where they are still worn on the sleeve but they have the red prop and triangle in the middle instead of the USAF Star"

If your intent is to make the NCO grades distinctive from Air Force chevrons, we'd better make some change to the "officer" rank insignia as well.

Here's a thought - get rid of AF rank insignia in all forms.

My thought for that was that may be the only way that USAF might allow us to have a full NCO Corps for SMs wearing the sleeve chevrons.

Oh-my bad.

Quote from: caphistorian on November 27, 2010, 12:43:12 PM
In keeping this chain of thought in mind. Why not look at Advanced promotion for other professions.

Personnel Specialty - Human Resource Management
IT Specialist - Various Network and Computer Certifications
Historian - Bachelors Degree in History

or--------- I may get smacked for this one.

Enrolling in a specialty track within your professional field.

Associates Degree - 2nd Lt.
Bachelors Degree - 1st Lt.
Masters Degree - Capt
MD/Phd/DBA or such - Major

or---------- Professional Certifications

PHR for HR Managers - Capt
CSP for Safety - Capt

I'm not against this, nor are many other members from what I've heard in conversations. With many CAP specialties, it works out this way, but then shuns others who have advanced degrees in other areas.

For example, I know of someone with multiple advanced degrees and certifications in IT, but receives no promotion. Likewise, someone with a PhD in Business does not get anything, but an Associates Degree in Accounting does yield a promotion. Someone with a degree in Journalism or Public Relations does not get anything either, nor do many other CAP specialties. There are many other examples, but these special promotions seem to be a very sour note for many, and to be honest, I don't blame them.

Either we add an X degree = special promotion component as above, or we get rid of the entire special promotion category. This being said, if degrees are factored, then they need to recognize only legitimate degrees from regionally accredited schools.

Quote from: DBlair on November 27, 2010, 07:34:20 PM
This being said, if degrees are factored, then they need to recognize only legitimate degrees from regionally accredited schools.

I would say if the granting institution is recognized by the Department of Education it is a legitimate degree.

Only one I have ever wished would be changed is the 1st Lt. for a General Radiotelephone license.   Since we're not allowed to repair our radios anymore, that's reasonably pointless.   I'd rather see it for someone with good operating and emergency communications skills, like perhaps a ham radio operator with an Extra class license, maybe?  And some demonstrated emergency communications skills or leadership positions?   Yes, I am very biased on this.

The following are my own opinions and thoughts and not those of the CAP.

A Couple of thoughts:

NCO's - CAP NCOs contribute to their units in meaningful ways. If they do not wish to become a CAP Officer that's fine. NCOs have been an important part of CAP since its founding. Let them wear their stripes. If they want to advance in CAP NCO grade then we should set up a system that allows them to do that.

Special Appointments - This needs to be cleaned up. For example, with Centralized Maint there is no need for CAP to grant special grade for A/C maintainers. We do not use them as maintainers. Some wings use them as managers and liaison to the contractor but any pilot could do this work.

Special appointments need to be limited to mission need. Too many folks receive advanced grades because of a piece of paper on their wall.

If there is a legitimate special circumstance commanders have the flexibility to appoint those truly outstanding and contributing members to advanced grades (Region/CC's can appoint up to Capt and the National Promotion and Awards Team can recommend up to Col. to the NEC/NB)

Awarding advanced rank with an academic degree but without fundamental knowledge of the organization is a mistake. Just because someone has a PHD all that means is they spent allot of money and time in classes and took a lot of tests. It does not make them any more of a contributor or valuable to CAP than the member with a GED that took 8 years to make Major by doing his/her duty.

I have no problem with military officers being appointed to equivalent grade up to Lt Col as long as they contribute their expertise to the organization.

Cadets are receiving too many gimmes when they become senior members. I appreciate that some of our cadets become senior members but they lose out on the senior experience when they get their CP Ratings, Yeager's and the like handed to them on top of advanced rank for cadet milestone awards.

Again these are my thoughts and do not represent the official position of CAP.

With all due respect, since there is scarcely any Health Services program to speak of, and since CAP 'medical' personnel generally can't use their professional skills on behalf of CAP, why is this still a pathway to quick promotion?

Frankly, I think the whole 'professional appointments' business has gotten WAY out of hand...I'd scale it back to chaplains, lawyer, and mental health professionals (which would include some doctors & nurses) qualified to serve as CIS clinical directors.

I'd lose the AE appointments (and I'm a teacher myself...but the majority take the rank & don't do the job!), the accounting positions, and so forth.

I have to agree wholeheartedly, with you guys. Quick promotions are way out of hand. I was a cadet and earned my Mitchell. Now I come back to CAP after about 6 yrs out in the Army, and I get 2LT instantly after Phase One. I then take my Yeager test, and pass after about a week of being back in. I am still not sure if I should have gotten that promotion. I do have a good bit of knowledge about CAP (except the uniform changes). I do ES and Cadet Programs, if it weren't for the Cadet Programs specialty track, I would think that the promotion shouldn't be there at all. So far as promotions from being a cadet, I think that there should be a cut off for time out, like maybe two years.

Now with all the BS promotions for useless degrees for members who don't even use them for CAP, that should be a no go. History major? Is your degree mostly in military history? Sure, but you have to be a historian. Fine arts? No. That is one thing I hated about Army Officers, I had a PL out of ROTC as an Infantry Platoon leader. He had no idea what he was doing.  Your degree needs to be in what you are doing for CAP.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 27, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
Your degree needs to be in what you are doing for CAP.

I would have to agree 100% if this were part of the program.

Quote from: caphistorian on November 27, 2010, 11:33:47 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 27, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
Your degree needs to be in what you are doing for CAP.

I would have to agree 100% if this were part of the program.

I thought it was part of the program, lawyers for example. And accounting.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 27, 2010, 10:20:58 PM
Frankly, I think the whole 'professional appointments' business has gotten WAY out of hand

Agreed.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 27, 2010, 11:40:44 PM

Quote from: caphistorian on November 27, 2010, 11:33:47 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 27, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
Your degree needs to be in what you are doing for CAP.

I would have to agree 100% if this were part of the program.

I thought it was part of the program, lawyers for example. And accounting.

True, I was generally talking about if the program was "open" to other professions and not "restricted" to a few.

We should go back to the Warrant Officer Grades.   Most senior members would start out in WO status.   The unit organizational table would determine the maximum rank/grade for each position.

As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

I would think pilots without college degrees should come in as WO3's.   Generally lawyers, nurses, accountants, should come in as 1st Lt's.   Information Technology, Emergency Management, Emergency Medical Services professionals without bachelors degrees would also come in as WO3's.  With Degrees also as lst Lieutenants.

RM

Sounds a little elitist to me. I think the SM program should be separated by how the SM wants to contribute. I would love to be an NCO.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 28, 2010, 07:48:17 PM
Sounds a little elitist to me. I think the SM program should be separated by how the SM wants to contribute. I would love to be an NCO.

Ohh kay....

And what would that mean you would "do", vs. an officer?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 28, 2010, 07:48:17 PM
Sounds a little elitist to me. I think the SM program should be separated by how the SM wants to contribute. I would love to be an NCO.

Are you now, or have you ever been, an NCO in the US military? Do you have proof?

If so, you, too, can be a CAP NCO.

I have considered the choice many times, and have decided that there is no particular benefit to CAP or myself to be an NCO.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2010, 07:08:58 PM
As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2010, 09:17:29 PM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2010, 07:08:58 PM
As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

It shows a level of education, and associated skills in the professional area. Some of the professional advanced promotions are already based on level of education - AA/AS, 2d Lt; BA/BS, 1st Lt; MA/MS, Capt.

This was an answer to the Q, and not an endorsement of the underlying idea.

Since we currently have no WO grades, the idea already has holes. And I do agree that there is probably not a lot of correlation between bachelors degrees and leadership ability. I'm sure that my two BS degrees do not give me any kind of advanced standing in leadership skills.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2010, 09:17:29 PM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2010, 07:08:58 PM
As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

It shows the ability to set a goal and follow up until you get there. There is a reason the military requires one.

Quote from: nesagsar on November 28, 2010, 09:37:23 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2010, 09:17:29 PM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2010, 07:08:58 PM
As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

It shows the ability to set a goal and follow up until you get there. There is a reason the military requires one.

Yep, guys like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Richard Branson have no business being in leadership positions.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

Roll it up and whack people on the nose.

The gravitas of having spent 4+ years and thousands of dollars to be the best educated Fryer Guy (Microwave Mike thinks he's so smart!)

...that's about all I got...

A college degree is not the only route to education, nor is education an indicator of leadership ability.

Like most responders here, I agree that the professional appointments policy has quite a few holes.  I don't however, agree with anyone who slams individuals who have earned advanced degrees.  As "rank happy" as some of our colleagues are, I seriously doubt that they would refuse an appointment if they had put in the work to earn certain credentials.  I assure you that it takes much more than a few written papers and the passing of tests to earn a doctoral degree at a respected, fully-accredited institution.   I've been a member since 1984 and know that it is contradictory to award advanced rank to medical professionals who cannot perform medical duties or to the A&Ps who had better not ever attempt to actually repair an aircraft.  BUT:

Disparage the policy - not the individual who is merely conforming to the existing regulation. Better still, work to change the policy and not castigate those who now wear the rank. 

I'd lean towards giving commanders discretion to waive TIG for those contributing to the program.

For example, let Squadron Commanders waive 1/3 of the TIG time for up to 20% of promotions they offer (so they only do it for the exceptional candidates).  Give Group Commanders 40%, Wing Commanders 50%, Region Commanders 2/3 for example.

Then commanders can use this discretion to reward those who are actually contributing to the program, regardless of their specialty.  If someone happens to be a lawyer, but is contributes significantly as an IG for example, let the Wing Commander recognize that by waiving TIG requirements for a promotion.

No one is disparaging anyone in regards to the effort to get a degree, but the effort was not in CAP's behalf, nor in most cases does it bring much, if any, relevant "extra" skills to an individual that is specifically useful to CAP.

Trying to compare CAP to the military is useless, as usual.  In many (most?) cases, officers are getting financial and other aid while they pursue their education, whether that is in the form of an academy, ROTC scholarship, or direct funding while in uniform, and the curriculum will have a definite leaning towards areas of use for managers of mid-to-large sized organizations, not to mention tactics specific to their specialty.

Show me someone who majored in emergency management, with a minor in non-profit fund raising, and we can talk about relevant skills.  Educators have some leg to stand on, but nothing in CAP functions at the doctorate level and we aren't doing research.

Quote from: SarDragon on November 28, 2010, 07:55:04 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 28, 2010, 07:48:17 PM
Sounds a little elitist to me. I think the SM program should be separated by how the SM wants to contribute. I would love to be an NCO.

Are you now, or have you ever been, an NCO in the US military? Do you have proof?

If so, you, too, can be a CAP NCO.

I have considered the choice many times, and have decided that there is no particular benefit to CAP or myself to be an NCO.

In the military I made it only to E4.  What I am saying is that I would think CAP could really benefit from having NCO SMs. Especially if NCOs were restricted to only those who were enlisted in the military. Because there is a distinct difference in leadership styles and ways between NCOs and Officers.

In the military NCOs are in the dirt in the trenches doing the work (while supervising at the same time) with the soldiers (in our case cadets). officers on the other hand are more of a supportive role, they do more in the office liaison work than NCOs. Having the knowledge of Military enlisted being "enlisted" in CAP would be rather beneficial to CAP cadets as there would be someone that is there as a real known support channel as the military NCO is.

Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2010, 10:12:13 PM
I'd lean towards giving commanders discretion to waive TIG for those contributing to the program.

For example, let Squadron Commanders waive 1/3 of the TIG time for up to 20% of promotions they offer (so they only do it for the exceptional candidates).  Give Group Commanders 40%, Wing Commanders 50%, Region Commanders 2/3 for example.

Then commanders can use this discretion to reward those who are actually contributing to the program, regardless of their specialty.  If someone happens to be a lawyer, but is contributes significantly as an IG for example, let the Wing Commander recognize that by waiving TIG requirements for a promotion.

This is an interesting concept. You still need to do the PD program but can shorten the TIG. Similar to what we offer AFJROTC cadets.

I'd consider adding this can be done only once in your CAP career.

A member can apply for a TIG waiver currently. Obviously, it needs to have serious justification, and you can only get one waiver during your CAP 'career'.

Manfred, I have yet to see what unique role NCOs play in CAP. I have been less than impressed by most of the CAP NCOs I have met. They serve in the same positions and have the same duties as CAP officers, but CAP strokes their egos by letting them be a separate category.

When an NCO points to their stripes and says "When you see this, think Lt Col," they are a problem.

Quote from: arajca on November 28, 2010, 10:44:21 PM
A member can apply for a TIG waiver currently. Obviously, it needs to have serious justification, and you can only get one waiver during your CAP 'career'.

Manfred, I have yet to see what unique role NCOs play in CAP. I have been less than impressed by most of the CAP NCOs I have met. They serve in the same positions and have the same duties as CAP officers, but CAP strokes their egos by letting them be a separate category.

When an NCO points to their stripes and says "When you see this, think Lt Col," they are a problem.

Have you ever been in the military? If not then I understand how you would think that there is no point to the NCO on the SM side. 

I agree any one who points to stripes and tells you to think LT Col or anything of the sort is just plain wrong and they should be made to put on a bar or get lost. There should definitely be a separation between who CAP Officers and CAP NCOs are. NCOs are NCOs and Officers are Officers. I wonder if there are any SM NCOs here on CAPTALK. I wonder what their input would be.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 28, 2010, 11:02:08 PM

Have you ever been in the military? If not then I understand how you would think that there is no point to the NCO on the SM side. 

I have been in the military. I still don't see what unique role only an NCO can fill in CAP.

QuoteI agree any one who points to stripes and tells you to think LT Col or anything of the sort is just plain wrong and they should be made to put on a bar or get lost. There should definitely be a separation between who CAP Officers and CAP NCOs are. NCOs are NCOs and Officers are Officers. I wonder if there are any SM NCOs here on CAPTALK. I wonder what their input would be.

There are several on CAPTalk. There are also several NCOs who are CAP officers.

It's not necessarily unique. It would just be a support channel in the sense that an NCO support channel is supposed to be. It would be a helpful addition. Cadet NCOs would probably be more prone to connecting with a SM NCO as their grade's role in the chain of command is that of their own. There would be a connected understanding and trade of experience that is not there in some cases. All that I am saying, is that it would be a nice support addition.

Eclipse:  AEO's are continually asked by NHQ to write/develop curricula for the AEX and other programs.  That requires the preparation of public school-worthy offerings for students and teachers in grades 6-12 nationwide.  Holders of masters and doctoral degrees in education (at accredited programs) receive training in curriculum development, the most intensive of which is at the doctoral level.  Research is necessary to acquire the information appropriate for the preparation of texts and cite the sources to preclude charges of plagarism that would be leveled against Civil Air Patrol as a whole. Several national educational organizations such as the National Science Foundation monitor the levels of education held by our AEO's who write the instructional materials used in the AEX and subsequently consider the valadity of each as a result.  Yes, doctoral-level work AND research are certainly used in CAP education programs. I was specifically referring to that specialty and should have made that clear.  I apologize to everyone who read the previous post for not doing so.

I wholeheartedly agree with your other assessments about this "shaky" process and hope that effective solutions will be adopted in the future.  Master's level clinical psychologists and ministers (for example) are certainly licensed and qualifed to perform CISM, but I don't have a problem with doctoral degree holders receiving advanced rank if they (and all others who enter with advanced rank) specifically work in the assigned speciality.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 28, 2010, 10:14:52 PM
In many (most?) cases, officers are getting financial and other aid while they pursue their education, whether that is in the form of an academy, ROTC scholarship, or direct funding while in uniform, and the curriculum will have a definite leaning towards areas of use for managers of mid-to-large sized organizations, not to mention tactics specific to their specialty.

You seem to forget what I understand is the largest source of Military Officers: Officer Candidate School.

Officer Candidates at OCS already have their undergrad degrees and have received no prior military-specific college education, nor any military financial aid. Someone could have a Bachelor's Degree in Basketweaving and as long as it is from a regionally-accredited school and over a 2.0 GPA, you're good to go, Welcome to OCS.

Quote from: Ned on November 27, 2010, 03:43:05 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 03:12:18 PM
But at least officers neatly fit in with the existing rank structure instead of bending "reality" to their ego. I've talked to a few CAP NCOs and the reason they stated as being an NCO was because they worked for a living and wouldn't be caught dead wearing bars.

Once again, how strange.

CAP NCOs typically have many years of professional military leadership training and experience compared with a typical CAP officer who might have a few weeks worth.

And the CAP NCO is the one "bending  reality to match their egos?"  Shouldn't that be he other way around?

By bending reality I mean: ~99.5% of all SM are officers. That is our reality. They bend it by wearing stripes. Yes, we allow it but only to stroke their egos because some of them think they are better than officers. Ever hear the phrase: "don't sir me, I work for a living?"

Quote

QuoteWe have what, less than 500 of them total? Is it worth the heartburn to cater to such a small population when we could have a completely unified force?

Maybe it is just me, but after 40+ years in CAP at all levels, including working with our senior USAF counterparts, I haven't seen much "heartburn" over CAP NCOs.  Most of the "heartburn I have encountered comes from the actions of CAP officers.  Our NCOs tend to be among the most professional of our members, perhaps because of their years of uniformed training and experience.

There has been plenty in my area. We had two CMSgts in a single unit. One was the first shirt and the other was the command chief for the wing. Neither one was a true E9. Then you have the questions that pop up of: can an NCO command a squadron?

Quote

QuoteI'm not a fan of advanced promotions for anyone but at least military officers(and NCOs) have leadership experience in almost all cases. I don't see the point in creating a new class of SM for people that don't want to adapt to the way the program is when they could use the exact same experience in the same ways with bars on their collars instead of standing out with stripes.

I have some good news for you.  No one is creating a "new class" of leaders in CAP.  CAP NCOs have been around for over 60 years.

Yes they have been around for 60 years. But in the old days everyone started out there and only a minority of members were officers.

Quote
Militaries have used both NCOs and officers fairly universally for a couple of thousand years, and it has seemed to work out just fine.

Really, name a single military organization that has ever been an "officers only" organization.  With the possible exception of the  Kentucky Colonel's Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_colonel), I've never heard of one.

US Public Health Service and NOAA Corp. Lowest ranking members are Ensigns(O1)

Quote
Why should CAP be different than every other operational military outfit in recorded history?

As you are fond of pointing sir, we are not the military. We are our own organization.

Let's set up a scenario: We have CMSgt John Smith, USAF join our fine organization. He has a choice: wear his stripes or take a promotion to Capt. What can CMSgt John Smith, CAP do that Capt John Smith, CAP can't? Before you say liaise with the military better, that dog don't hunt, because not many members of the military even know that the only way to be a CAP NCO is to be prior/current service NCO.

Quote from: DBlair on November 28, 2010, 11:22:56 PM
You seem to forget what I understand is the largest source of Military Officers: Officer Candidate School.

ROTC supplies approximately 40% on average across the entire armed forces.

In the Air Force, they rack and stack the commissions roughly like this:

1) Academy
2) ROTC
3) OTS

So, if they have all the officers they need before they get through the ROTC guys, they cancel the OTS program for the year, like this year.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 28, 2010, 11:43:57 PM

Quote from: DBlair on November 28, 2010, 11:22:56 PM
You seem to forget what I understand is the largest source of Military Officers: Officer Candidate School.

ROTC supplies approximately 40% on average across the entire armed forces.

In the Air Force, they rack and stack the commissions roughly like this:

1) Academy
2) ROTC
3) OTS

So, if they have all the officers they need before they get through the ROTC guys, they cancel the OTS program for the year, like this year.

Perhaps in the AF, but I don't believe this true in every branch of them canceling OCS due to having enough ROTC guys. Canceling certain sessions, sure, but I'm not so sure about an entire year's Officer needs being satisfied via ROTC in the other branches.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 28, 2010, 11:27:59 PM
Yes, we allow it but only to stroke their egos because some of them think they are better than officers. Ever hear the phrase: "don't sir me, I work for a living?"

Of course, by virtually any conceivable objective standard the typical military NCO is better than the typical CAP officers.

Far more training, demonstrated leadership experience, demonstrated ability to put the mission and subordinates ahead of personal needs, mission accomplishments, etc. etc.

And as a retired military guy, of course I've heard that phrase countless times.  I've also heard similar canards about 2nd lieutenants, reservists, lifers, general officers, junior enlisteds, artillerymen, sailors, marines, and just about any other quantifyable group of folks in the military.

What was your point?  That NCOs do a lot of work?  OK, I'll buy that.  The enlisted structure does the lion's share of work in any military organization I've ever been associated with.  Was your experience different?

Quote

There has been plenty [of heartburn] n my area. We had two CMSgts in a single unit. One was the first shirt and the other was the command chief for the wing. Neither one was a true E9. Then you have the questions that pop up of: can an NCO command a squadron?

OK, maybe I'm a little slow on this one.  Where was the description of anything approaching a problem in your brief description?  You were lucky enough to have two senior enlisteds in your unit.  Why is that in any way a bad thing?

Quote

Yes [CAP NCOs] have been around for 60 years. But in the old days everyone started out there and only a minority of members were officers.

Not entirely true, but close enough.  Again, so what is the problem you are attempting to describe here?

Quote
US Public Health Service and NOAA Corp. Lowest ranking members are Ensigns(O1)

Nice try.  But let's not compare apples to asteroids, shall we?  You were probably referring to the Commissioned Corps of the Public Heath Service which, -by definition - only includes commissioned officers and is one of the seven uniformed services of the US.  But the Commissioned Corps is only a tiny part of the Public Health Service which has thousands of non-commissioned employees, including direct and intermediate supervisors.  Your example is like considering only the Commissioned Corps of the US Navy alone without considering the essential sailors and petty officers that work alongside the commissioned officers.

Same thing with NOAA.

Someone even PM'd me with the suggestion of Star Fleet until I pointed out Yeoman Rand and Chief Petty Officer Miles O'Brien.   :angel:

But by all means keep trying to identify a single military organization with officers only.  I'll stand by.

QuoteAs you are fond of pointing sir, we are not the military. We are our own organization.

That's not one of my lines.  My position is that we are military; we are just not part of the armed forces of the US.  Indeed, most people in the military are not in the US armed forces.

Of course, we are also civilians.  No question about that.  But the status of civilian and military can overlap a bit, and we exist in that overlap.

Quote
Let's set up a scenario: We have CMSgt John Smith, USAF join our fine organization. He has a choice: wear his stripes or take a promotion to Capt. What can CMSgt John Smith, CAP do that Capt John Smith, CAP can't? Before you say liaise with the military better, that dog don't hunt, because not many members of the military even know that the only way to be a CAP NCO is to be prior/current service NCO.

First, you don't get to set up and shoot down my arguments for me.  Allow my arguments to stand or fall on their own, please.

Having said that, CMsgt Smith can do a bunch of stuff better than Capt Smith can:

1.  He can indeed liaise more effectively with the military than Capt Smith can - since we currently require CAP NCOs to have "BTDT", they have more credibility when dealing with the military (particularly military NCOs) than a CAP officer.  Case in point, as a CAP encampment commander, it was far more effective to send over CAP CMSgt Smith to deal with the folks at Base Logistics than it was to send CAP Capt Smith. Really, really.

2.  If otherwise suitable, CMSgt has an important role to play with the cadet program (which is the focus of well over half our members).  The cadet program values and needs senior NCOs to model NCO leadership styles for our cadets progressing through Phases I and II.  Sure, it's the same guy as Capt Smith, but NCOs act and lead like NCOs; officers act and lead like officers.  It would be inappropriate for Capt Smith to act and lead like an NCO.  Acting and leading like an NCO is the very essence of what a role model does.

Wouldn't you agree?

3.  CMsgt Smith can and should serve more efficiently in the role of First Sergeant/Command Chief than Capt Smith could.  The roles are simply different and best filled by persons working and wearing the grade the position was designed for.

Any other concerns?

Ned Lee

Quote from: rmcmanus on November 28, 2010, 11:21:20 PM
Eclipse:  AEO's are continually asked by NHQ to write/develop curricula for the AEX and other programs.  That requires the preparation of public school-worthy offerings for students and teachers in grades 6-12 nationwide.  Holders of masters and doctoral degrees in education (at accredited programs) receive training in curriculum development, the most intensive of which is at the doctoral level.  Research is necessary to acquire the information appropriate for the preparation of texts and cite the sources to preclude charges of plagarism that would be leveled against Civil Air Patrol as a whole. Several national educational organizations such as the National Science Foundation monitor the levels of education held by our AEO's who write the instructional materials used in the AEX and subsequently consider the valadity of each as a result.  Yes, doctoral-level work AND research are certainly used in CAP education programs. I was specifically referring to that specialty and should have made that clear.  I apologize to everyone who read the previous post for not doing so.

"Google" is not research.  I don't recall seeing anything actually being developed by CAP.

Our textbooks are simply conglomerations of existing data, nothing new.  If you want to argue that a few educators at the national level deserve advanced grade because they are compiling the curriculum, so be it, none of that is happening at the unit level.

Repeating now.

The NCO / Officer relationship is as much a caste system as a managerial structure.  Officers point, NCO's and enlisted shoot (and do the majority of the heavy-lifting to get to be able to shoot).

In a universe where SMWOG command squadrons, and Generals empty trash cans, there is no no place for a traditional NCO corps in CAP.

Quote from: Ned on November 29, 2010, 12:09:55 AM
CMsgt Smith can do a bunch of stuff better than Capt Smith can:

1.  He can indeed liaise more effectively with the military than Capt Smith can - since we currently require CAP NCOs to have "BTDT", they have more credibility when dealing with the military (particularly military NCOs) than a CAP officer.  Case in point, as a CAP encampment commander, it was far more effective to send over CAP CMSgt Smith to deal with the folks at Base Logistics than it was to send CAP Capt Smith. Really, really.

2.  If otherwise suitable, CMSgt has an important role to play with the cadet program (which is the focus of well over half our members).  The cadet program values and needs senior NCOs to model NCO leadership styles for our cadets progressing through Phases I and II.  Sure, it's the same guy as Capt Smith, but NCOs act and lead like NCOs; officers act and lead like officers.  It would be inappropriate for Capt Smith to act and lead like an NCO.  Acting and leading like an NCO is the very essence of what a role model does.

Wouldn't you agree?

3.  CMsgt Smith can and should serve more efficiently in the role of First Sergeant/Command Chief than Capt Smith could.  The roles are simply different and best filled by persons working and wearing the grade the position was designed for.

Any other concerns?

Ned Lee

I could not have said it better.  :clap:

What do you think about a person coming in with previous but expired radio, GSAR, and, glider ratings from when he was a cadet as well as a BA in communication? Let us also suppose that this person intends to actually use this degree to support the mission of CAP by entering the public affairs specialty track and works in emergency services in a management function professionally. To finish off let us suppose that this person does not already get promotion preference because he only reached Armstrong in the cadet program. Do you believe that this person should gain extra grade from mission related skills?

^ Walking in the door, no.

Quote from: SarDragon on November 28, 2010, 09:36:13 PM
Since we currently have no WO grades, the idea already has holes.

But we do have Flight Officer grades, complete with insignia already in stock @ Vanguard, who would no doubt be delighted to sell even more of the stuff!

As for "elitist": the point is to spread out the SM's CAP experience, so that the average member actually knows something about the program before becoming a captain!

Also, I think it's bizarre to have an organization with grade in which SMWOG can command anything.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 29, 2010, 12:52:19 AM
Also, I think it's bizarre to have an organization with grade in which SMWOG can command anything.

Yep, but it all part of the "You're glad I showed up at all..." carousel.

Since we can't force anyone to take command, we take the best from the litter, and sometimes "best" = "only".

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 12:59:49 AM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 29, 2010, 12:52:19 AM
Also, I think it's bizarre to have an organization with grade in which SMWOG can command anything.

Yep, but it all part of the "You're glad I showed up at all..." carousel.

Since we can't force anyone to take command, we take the best from the litter, and sometimes "best" = "only".

I'd love to be a Commander (its part of why I took the UCC course), but I doubt anything in my area will open up for probably several years, especially considering that the Group/CC just took command a year ago and there are probably a half-dozen Lt Cols who seem to be interested in the Group/CC role, meaning that the opportunity to be a Group/CC is really not existent.

I often hear about a lack of people wanting to take command, but I've always seen quite a few chomping at the bit for each command slot that opens- perhaps I've just been in unique environments, but in two Wings, I've never really seen much of a "this is the only guy who will take the job" but I have seen quite a few commanders think that a CC position is a life appointment, or something of the sort. In my area, if there was an opening, I am pretty sure at least a half-dozen members would race to any CC spot.

Is this not the case in other Wings?

To refute some of Ned's agruments:

Quote
Having said that, CMsgt Smith can do a bunch of stuff better than Capt Smith can:

1.  He can indeed liaise more effectively with the military than Capt Smith can - since we currently require CAP NCOs to have "BTDT", they have more credibility when dealing with the military (particularly military NCOs) than a CAP officer.  Case in point, as a CAP encampment commander, it was far more effective to send over CAP CMSgt Smith to deal with the folks at Base Logistics than it was to send CAP Capt Smith. Really, really.

Do the folks at Base Logistics know CMSgt Smith is a current/former E-9?

Quote2.  If otherwise suitable, CMSgt has an important role to play with the cadet program (which is the focus of well over half our members).  The cadet program values and needs senior NCOs to model NCO leadership styles for our cadets progressing through Phases I and II.  Sure, it's the same guy as Capt Smith, but NCOs act and lead like NCOs; officers act and lead like officers.  It would be inappropriate for Capt Smith to act and lead like an NCO.  Acting and leading like an NCO is the very essence of what a role model does.

Wouldn't you agree?

Unfortunately, the progression through the cadet program extends far beyond the NCO grades. I have seen NCOs talking to cadets and telling the pinnicle of cadet achievement is C/CMSgt, just like in the military. These same NCOs fail to understand the cadet program progression and the fact that cadet NCOs are merely a step along the way to C/Col. They also overlook the two achievements per year requirement since the C/CMSgt "has reached the most effective point in the cadet program" and has no need to take the Mitchell and continue to progress. The NCOs tend to look at cadet officers the same way they looked at military officers - technically a superior grade, but actually an inferior species, completely forgetting every CAP cadet officer was a cadet NCO, unlike the military.

Quote3.  CMsgt Smith can and should serve more efficiently in the role of First Sergeant/Command Chief than Capt Smith could.  The roles are simply different and best filled by persons working and wearing the grade the position was designed for.

Where are these positions used? Not at the squadron level. Having a first sergeant without an enlisted force is an ego stroking exercise since there are no duties for the first sergeant.

Quote from: DBlair on November 29, 2010, 01:24:47 AM
Is this not the case in other Wings?

My region has had a 3-years, no more than 4 policy for about the last 5 years which changed the dynamic.

Prior to that we had CC's with multiple decades of command, regardless of performance.

Ned, i have a great respect for you but must disagree with you on your post.

#1. when i was a cadet, i never seen a CAP NCO (SM wise)...Maybe we just didn't have them around me or something but, i think overall its VERY rare that a cap cadet deals with a CAP NCO.

In my area sending an officer to leasion with base agency's has panned out much much better than sending retired NCO's. Mainly its because the hosting units and bases want everything done by officers to make sure its all on the "up and up". I cant count how many times i have been told by hosting base NCO's "let me check with my ops officer/ flight commander/base commander". By sending a (and this is just me...it can differ) Major or above to coordinate with the hosting base we seem to be treated better. (maybe its the idea of the grade = training and lots of time spent on cap to the base but...)

Its always nice to send "Maj. fluffy" who used to be military and wears a few of his past decorations...they look at the top 3 and usually see past/present active duty and are more open to his ideas and question (once again at least around me)

#3. First Sgt. of what Ned? if its a squadron he is the first shirt to...officers? Officers don't need or use the first shirt...they can go direct to the commander (not like that's a problem in cap anyway)

Quote from: Ned on November 29, 2010, 12:09:55 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 28, 2010, 11:27:59 PM
Yes, we allow it but only to stroke their egos because some of them think they are better than officers. Ever hear the phrase: "don't sir me, I work for a living?"

Of course, by virtually any conceivable objective standard the typical military NCO is better than the typical CAP officers.

So why not make them superior CAP officers then?

Quote
The enlisted structure does the lion's share of work in any military organization I've ever been associated with.  Was your experience different?

I'm not military so I have no direct experience. Point is we have no enlisted structure. The NCOs have no one to lead.

Quote

Quote

There has been plenty [of heartburn] n my area. We had two CMSgts in a single unit. One was the first shirt and the other was the command chief for the wing. Neither one was a true E9. Then you have the questions that pop up of: can an NCO command a squadron?

OK, maybe I'm a little slow on this one.  Where was the description of anything approaching a problem in your brief description?  You were lucky enough to have two senior enlisteds in your unit.  Why is that in any way a bad thing?

These guys were fraudulently appointed to Chief. They caused problems where ever they went. They are now former members with flagged files at NHQ.

Quote

Quote

Yes [CAP NCOs] have been around for 60 years. But in the old days everyone started out there and only a minority of members were officers.

Not entirely true, but close enough.  Again, so what is the problem you are attempting to describe here?

The problem is an ill-defined program that serves no purpose.

Quote

Quote
US Public Health Service and NOAA Corp. Lowest ranking members are Ensigns(O1)

Nice try.  But let's not compare apples to asteroids, shall we?  You were probably referring to the Commissioned Corps of the Public Heath Service which, -by definition - only includes commissioned officers and is one of the seven uniformed services of the US.  But the Commissioned Corps is only a tiny part of the Public Health Service which has thousands of non-commissioned employees, including direct and intermediate supervisors.  Your example is like considering only the Commissioned Corps of the US Navy alone without considering the essential sailors and petty officers that work alongside the commissioned officers.

Same thing with NOAA.

Someone even PM'd me with the suggestion of Star Fleet until I pointed out Yeoman Rand and Chief Petty Officer Miles O'Brien.   :angel:

But by all means keep trying to identify a single military organization with officers only.  I'll stand by.

They are still a uniformed service that has no enlisted structure what so ever. That they have civilian employees is irrelevant.

Quote

QuoteAs you are fond of pointing sir, we are not the military. We are our own organization.

That's not one of my lines.  My position is that we are military; we are just not part of the armed forces of the US.  Indeed, most people in the military are not in the US armed forces.

Of course, we are also civilians.  No question about that.  But the status of civilian and military can overlap a bit, and we exist in that overlap.

Quote
Let's set up a scenario: We have CMSgt John Smith, USAF join our fine organization. He has a choice: wear his stripes or take a promotion to Capt. What can CMSgt John Smith, CAP do that Capt John Smith, CAP can't? Before you say liaise with the military better, that dog don't hunt, because not many members of the military even know that the only way to be a CAP NCO is to be prior/current service NCO.

First, you don't get to set up and shoot down my arguments for me.  Allow my arguments to stand or fall on their own, please.

Having said that, CMsgt Smith can do a bunch of stuff better than Capt Smith can:

1.  He can indeed liaise more effectively with the military than Capt Smith can - since we currently require CAP NCOs to have "BTDT", they have more credibility when dealing with the military (particularly military NCOs) than a CAP officer.  Case in point, as a CAP encampment commander, it was far more effective to send over CAP CMSgt Smith to deal with the folks at Base Logistics than it was to send CAP Capt Smith. Really, really.

Capt Smith, CAP is still a USAF E9 at his day job or was one if he's retired so he has still BTDT. If the military NCO will only work with a CAP NCO than perhaps it is him with the problem.

Quote

2.  If otherwise suitable, CMSgt has an important role to play with the cadet program (which is the focus of well over half our members).  The cadet program values and needs senior NCOs to model NCO leadership styles for our cadets progressing through Phases I and II.  Sure, it's the same guy as Capt Smith, but NCOs act and lead like NCOs; officers act and lead like officers.  It would be inappropriate for Capt Smith to act and lead like an NCO.  Acting and leading like an NCO is the very essence of what a role model does.

Wouldn't you agree?

Who are they leading as an NCO? Surely not the cadets because the C/CC is in command of them taking direction from the CD/C which is the same relationship as a general and a colonel in the USAF. From the bottom of the cadet chain an airman follows, a C/NCO issues the orders to carry out the commands given by the C/Officer who is following the directives of the SM COC. There is no place for a SM NCO in there that does not usurp the C/Officers.

Quote
3.  CMsgt Smith can and should serve more efficiently in the role of First Sergeant/Command Chief than Capt Smith could.  The roles are simply different and best filled by persons working and wearing the grade the position was designed for.

Where in 20-1 are these listed and what do they do? I was under the impression that a First Sergeant was the commander's link to the enlisted corp and let him know what they were thinking and feeling. What enlisted corp are they linking us to again?

I'm not saying that CAP NCO's are necessary to our successful cadet program.  Obviously, most cadet and composite units do not currently have NCOs and still manage to produce outstanding cadets.

My point is to imagine how much better our cadet program would be if we had quality NCOs to train and mentor cadets, and particularly to role model NCO leadership techinques and styles in a way that CAP officers cannot.

(Remember, CAP's cadet program is unusual in that we expect our cadets to progress from cadet airmen through NCO to cadet officer in order to successfully complete the program.  If we agree that officers and NCOs lead differently; i.e. have different leadership "styles," then it surely must follow that it is a Good Thing to have NCO role models for our cadet airmen and cadet NCOs.)

And I certainly agree that the majority of a traditional First Sergeant / Command Chief's duties involve training, mentoring, and developing the enlisted structure.  But there are a whole bunch of other duties performed by those positions that are independent of the existence of a complete enlisted structure:

First sergeants:

• represent commanders at various meetings and councils, and when touring unit areas;
  
• coordinates resolution of complex problems with members and outside agencies;
  
• monitors unit support and sponsorship programs
  
• makes frequent contact with unit members
  
• manages upkeep of unit areas, initiatiing corrective action as required
  
• inspects unit areas as necessary
  
• conducts orientation for new members
  

And that's without even considering the considerable additional role they could play in cadet and composite units.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 29, 2010, 02:18:32 AM
So why not make them superior CAP officers then?

We already do, if they want to accept the advance professional appointment.  (Wasn't that the whole point of this thread?)

Of course, they would have to change some aspects of their leadership styles.  But the choice is up to them.

And not you or me.

QuoteI'm not military so I have no direct experience. Point is we have no enlisted structure. The NCOs have no one to lead.

Ahh, but we do have an enlisted strucure.  It is not very well utilized because folks like me have so far failed to convince you and others of the incredible value of an enlisted structure.

And even if we never get a significant number of junior enlisted senior members, we still have a large numbers of SMWOGs and cadet airmen and NCOs that would greatly benefit from the leadership of senior member NCOs.

Quote

These guys were fraudulently appointed to Chief. They caused problems where ever they went. They are now former members with flagged files at NHQ.

So the problem wasn't the enlisted structure, per se.  it was fraudulent paperwork of some kind.  That doesn't sound like a problem confined to the NCO strucure.  Indeed, although I don't have the figures handy, I'd wager an adult beverage or two that far more fraudulent promotions/appointments have been discovered in the officer ranks than the NCO ranks.

QuoteThe problem is an ill-defined program that serves no purpose.

Obviously I do not concur.  I have pointed out a bunch of purposes that are well served by a quality NCO.

But even if I am wrong, it doesn't sound like much harm is being done, either.  I have a list of things to "fix" in CAP, and this isn't on it.  Sure, ti could be better, but it is not a negative.

I also know that a lot of well-intentioned and hard working volunteers are addressing the issue to make the NCO program better defined.

Quote

Capt Smith, CAP is still a USAF E9 at his day job or was one if he's retired so he has still BTDT. If the military NCO will only work with a CAP NCO than perhaps it is him with the problem.

It has been my experience that we have to take our military partners as we find them.  If a CAP NCO can do a better job for us, then a CAP NCO can do a better job for us.

Blaming the military for their ignorance does not seem particularly helpful.

But YMMV.

Quote

Who are they leading as an NCO? Surely not the cadets because the C/CC is in command of them taking direction from the CD/C which is the same relationship as a general and a colonel in the USAF. From the bottom of the cadet chain an airman follows, a C/NCO issues the orders to carry out the commands given by the C/Officer who is following the directives of the SM COC. There is no place for a SM NCO in there that does not usurp the C/Officers.

See, that's the thing.  I grant you that your position seems eminently logical. 

It just ignores the reality of how a military organization functions, including our cadet program.

When I was a platoon leader, my platoon sergeant reported to me.  He did not report to the company First Sergeant, at least on paper.  And the squad leaders, team leaders, and individual soldiers did not have the First Sergeant in their chain of command either.  And yet the First Sergeant was indispensible, and directly and signficiantly influenced the platoon sergeant and every single soldier in my platoon.  Heck, once I got over being a junior second lieutenant, I actively sought input and guidance from Top.  He was a key leader for me, even if he didn't write my OER.

To use an officer example you might recognize in CAP, a senior member Tactical Officer at encampment is not in the cadet chain of command,  The cadet flight commander reports to the cadet squadron commander.  But the Tactical Officer is a key leader and actively mentors and guides the flight commander and flight sergeant throughout the encampment.


So, yes, senior NCOs in cadet and composite units actively lead and mentor cadets without being in the chain of command.  Kinda like the Leadership Officer and the Chaplain.

It makes no sense to think that the Leadership Officer and the Chaplain are somehow "usurping" the DCC simply because they mentor, train, and act as role models for the cadets.

I've been a DCC, and I can tell you it "takes a village" to train and grow cadets.  Any help from good NCOs is greatly appreciated.

A good number of CAP Cadets go on to either enlist or become commissioned in the military.

"But CAP isn't here to train kids to become soldiers."

I know, but a reality is that cadets by in large do go on to to military. Almost every single cadet including me from my squadron when I was a kid joined the military as soon as they graduated high school. If they have a real solid understanding of how the NCO corps and Officer corps work differently while cooperating then they are just that more prepared. A senior staff of just officers makes that a bit harder to understand. Especially when there are SMs who were enlisted in the military leading as NCOs do. Having the SM side of CAP have NCOs (which many squadrons do not) would just make that all the more understood. Even those who don't wish to go on to the military will have help understanding that there are different ways to lead, as officers and NCOs. Granted both Officers and NCOs can use the same "three leadership styles" but there is a bigger breakdown of ways to lead than just the three. every NCO leads differently  so does every Officer.

Leadership is the process of influencing others to achieve a common objective goal or mission. How that is done varies greatly between Officers and NCOs.

Keep in mind that a CAP NCO has EARNED his/her grade in the military. Unlike CAP where you can be an officer after 6 months and level 1, the NCO earned their grade in the military. When I was a cadet, long before many of you were born, CAP had a strong NCO program. If cadets had questions, nine out of ten times they would talk to the NCO rather than an officer, who was an officer only because he was a pilot.
This carries on today. The few NCOs I've seen are the ones cadets still ask questions of. I agree with Ned that an NCO program in CAP has merit and should be expanded. Also allow NCOs to promote. Many SMWOG who were military NCOs would rather get their grade back rather than be an officer, so they remain SMWOG.  And this idea of replacing the AF style stripes with astripes with the CAP prop is hogwash. They earned the stripes, many in the USAF, why make them change to what amounts to a corporate grade structure?

Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2010, 08:18:04 AM
Keep in mind that a CAP NCO has EARNED his/her grade in the military.

Mr. Breeze,

CAP members also EARN their grade. CAP and military grade are 2 different things and it would help to remember that. CAP NCO's are appointed to their grade based on their military grade as are CAP Officers who were military officers.

CAP NCO's do not have the option to promote unless they are promoted in their parent service. I would like to see that corrected because these members do contribute to the organization and should have the opportunity to promote if they choose to do so.

If that is corrected I think we will actually have more members serve as NCO's and CAP (especially the Cadet Program) will be better for it.

Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2010, 08:18:04 AM
Keep in mind that a CAP NCO has EARNED his/her grade in the military.

Yes, they have.

They have not, however, earned that grade in CAP, which is really all that is relevant to the discussion.

Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2010, 08:18:04 AMMany SMWOG who were military NCOs would rather get their grade back rather than be an officer, so they remain SMWOG.

Um, what?  If they were NCO's, they can get their grade back tomorrow.   Not all enlisted were NCO's, and not all NCO's are good leaders.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 03:00:21 PM

Quote from: BillB on November 29, 2010, 08:18:04 AM
Keep in mind that a CAP NCO has EARNED his/her grade in the military.

Yes, they have.

They have not, however, earned that grade in CAP, which is really all that is relevant to the discussion.

Bob,

Why do you say that?

As I read the regs, a CAP NCO has to have a great deal of education and training in order to be appointed as a CAP NCO. 


My dictionary defines "earned" as "gained or acquired through effort or merit."  NCOs have all put in a great deal of effort and were selected for their military grade based on merit.

Why wouldn't that mean they have "earned their CAP grade"?

Quote from: Ned on November 29, 2010, 06:11:12 PM
Why wouldn't that mean they have "earned their CAP grade"?

There seems to be a misconception that simply being a member of the military imparts some Yoda-like inherent abilities in
terms of leadership and program knowledge.

Former members of the military bring with them (in theory), bearing, knowledge of wearing a uniform, drill and courtesies (maybe),
and some other baseline knowledge that anyone in a paramilitary program would have, even some higher-speed LEA's and EMS agencies.
I have personally, more than once, advised field-grade officers on how to wear their uniforms because they live in a flight suit
and actually wear anything else 1/10th as much as we do.   Come time for the funeral or the CoC at their base and they are stymied
as to how to configure a service coat.

Anything beyond the above will be based on their MOS, in exactly the same way as a non-prior civilian.  Either you have a usable
skill and experience leading volunteers or you don't.  Being a ranger has relatable skills in the GT curriculum, a pilot in air ops and AE,
even a hospital administrator has some relatable management skills, but being an explosive ordnance tech
may not necessarily bring much to the CAP table beyond grace under pressure and deserved admiration from your peers, since CAP
does not in any way involve explosive ordnance.

They do not, however, have any specific knowledge of the program, nor training in working in an environment of volunteers who
don't have to depend on them for their lives.  This is, in fact, a big challenge for many who believe that the fact that they were/are
a "Chief' in a military service means anything in the civilian sector, where most people don't even understand what a Chief "is".

Just because they wore E5 does not mean they can answer the NCSA question, train a cadet in how to use a compass, balance the
unit's checkbook, or write a good press release.  And has been pointed out, the "baggage" they carry about "NCO vs. Officer" may
actually generate bad advice to cadets about not pursuing past C/Chief, etc.

The current state of CAP does not allow for an "enlisted" corps, and to pretend that NCO's somehow have a different role within CAP than
any other senior member simply based on their military service is silly.  And further to that, I have seen many incredibly competent military
officers struggle in CAP as well, because at the end of the day, the volunteer, underfunded, understaffed, dynamic of CAP looks like the military, but functions more like the average condo board or PTA.

Field-grade officers and senior NCO's used to seeing a problem and implementing a fix with a few words and a/or a 3000PSI stare are stymied as to what to do when a member under their command says "no", or more likely simply ignores them.

(A recent quote from a CAP pilot "I don't read regs, I read FARs...")

I am personally against any professional appointments or early bumps, for any reason.  All they cause are misunderstandings, delusions of grandeur, and hurt feelings, while fostering none of the mission or intention of grade to start with.  Assuming an equal level of service, the average doctor, lawyer, and yes, even pilot, doesn't bring much to the table that first year than the average carpenter, mailman, or office worker.  The effort to get an MD, law degree, or pilot's license, so often quoted as the justification for advanced grade, is irrelevant to CAP.  You didn't do those things at the behest of CAP, you did them for yourself.  Great, congrats.  Now show us what you can do for us.  In nearly all cases, someone expecting advanced grade for a skill or history outside CAP doesn't really understand CAP enough to deserve that grade.

Show me commitment, CAP service, CAP professional development, and program experience, at a commensurate level and then we can talk about promotion.

Being a USAF E5 doesn't make you a CAP E5 any more than being a USAF O4 makes you a CAP O4.  They are different animals and need to be treated as such from end to end.

This has nothing to do with respect for the military, and everything to do with rewarding CAP-specific service.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 07:35:24 PM
I am personally against any professional appointments or early bumps, for any reason. 

So no one earning above Mitchell as a cadet should be promoted according?
I don't know, I think that NHQ has set up (in most areas) a rather good system of promotion for officers. However a good system for NCOs would be a positive addition. I have never met anyone that thought C/CMS is the pinnacle of the CP. WIWAC we had ONE prior service NCO, she was a USAF SSG. She was the one that most cadets go to for questions on what to do about this that and the other. I can't think of a single time she was wrong with her answer, and she had ZERO past experience with CAP.

Prior service anything combat related has a working knowledge of ES Ops. Army Infantry know from experience of rescue raids, the search aspect (to include questioning civillians) of SAD. Not EVERYTHING is related to killing in the Army or the Marines. Heck if you find someone who has been to ADV. AASLT at Campbell, they even know SPIES and FRIES. Anyone to Basic AASLT or Pathfinder knows LZ set up and directing landing traffic.

"But CAP doesn't do air ops with helicopters."

Check your GT manual it's in there.

There are many other things that prior service (both enlisted and officer) has to offer CAP.

Duplicate posting...

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
So no one earning above Mitchell as a cadet should be promoted according?

Frankly, no.  That is a retention initiative, not one based on the reality of 21 year old squadron cc's.
I have yet to meet a Mitchell cadet, fresh out of the program, who is ready to lead senior members, and if your service
was "years ago", you'd have to ask how relevant that specific experience is any more.

Conferring some credit for general program knowledge things like the CPO tech rating is one thing, but cadets do not serve or train
in the same dynamic as adults, and I am not the only one not excited about this.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
"But CAP doesn't do air ops with helicopters."

Check your GT manual it's in there.

CAP does not do air operations with helicopters.  Setting up an LZ is not helicopter "operations".

It is this mentality (i.e. "the word appears in one of the books, so we do it...") which has caused much of the problem.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
There are many other things that prior service (both enlisted and officer) has to offer CAP.

Yes, there are.  All of them related to skill, none of them related to grade or "NCO vs. Officer" status.

You still have to know it don't you? Either you test and pass knowing all the information you need, or you don't have the qual, am I right? Yes I am. You still have to know it. I guess you can study it then brain dump it when it is done. But then what if, just what if you need that knowledge down the line, someone is hurt and in an area that is not hospitable to carrying a litter, and even less accessible to EMS, what to do?
("YOU" is used as a general term.)
Mission Base "Roger stand by we are sending air EMS to evac, place position markers for pickup."
You "What? I don't know how to do that."
Mission Base "You should your a GTL."

OOPS!!!

If it is in an operations manual you need to know how to do it. If someone has working knowledge of some of the equipment used on that helicopter even better. But not having the knowledge means you are a liability to the team.

Yes, you need to know it.

If, you are involved in ground ops, which is a relatively small part of the membership, and anyone can teach it.  Based on my ten+ years in CAP, you will practice it once in a while, and if you are lucky get to do it for real with a Lifeflight Orientation.

If you recruit a helo pilot with the carrot of CAP "Helicopter Operations", don't be surprised when he gives you the stick in 6 months after finding out we don't fly them and never will.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 08:20:20 PM
Yes, you need to know it.

If, you are involved in ground ops, which is a relatively small part of the membership, and anyone can teach it.  Based on my ten+ years in CAP, you will practice it once in a while, and if you are lucky get to do it for real with a Lifeflight Orientation.

If you recruit a helo pilot with the carrot of CAP "Helicopter Operations", don't be surprised when he gives you the stick in 6 months after finding out we don't fly them and never will.

Why would you feed someone that rotten carrot? Needles to say, there is no and probably never will be "Hell Ops". Yet there is a need for the knowledge of part of how it works. You need to know how to set up an LZ, you need to know how to assume command of the helicopter, tell it where to land and how far off the ground it is, and then tell the pilot what direction to take off in. Having this kind of knowledge is useful, though it is a small part of ES Ops, and it doesn't in any way warrant a promotion. The useful knowledge that prior service has should be recognized and utilized in the best manner possible. If allowing that member to retain their NCO grade is part of making them valuable so be it. If giving that officer their promotion is part of it good. Lets utilize the assets and reward them. Telling someone they can't wear their prior rank or at least get an officer promotion, just tells them that you don't think that they are valuable. Which is what you are telling people who get these promotions and appointments, that their prior work, knowledge and commitment is worthless.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 08:13:46 PMFrankly, no.  That is a retention initiative, not one based on the reality of 21 year old squadron cc's.
I have yet to meet a Mitchell cadet, fresh out of the program, who is ready to lead senior members,

Then I'd like to introduce you to my squadron commander.

Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:47:39 PM
Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

Ummmmmmmmmmm. Photoshop?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:47:39 PM
Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

how about it's caption that says "Unofficial CAP helicopter"...


.. and while the Colors look legit, the lettering and logo's do look suspect.. 


Edit:

the N number shows up invalid as well.
looks like a myth to me...

Quote from: phirons on November 29, 2010, 08:50:30 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:47:39 PM
Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

Ummmmmmmmmmm. Photoshop?

I would highly doubt that the CAP Historians would add a photo shopped picture to be put into their site.

Quote from: tsrup on November 29, 2010, 08:52:24 PM
how about it's caption that says "Unofficial CAP helicopter"...

could not see that down there with my IE browser, good catch. I retract my blunder.

The N-number is not a US issued number. I suspect some 'Shoppage. FWIW, the other two pictures on that front page also have issues.

And, this has drifted WAY off topic. We need to rein it in or get it locked.

Starting from the original premise of this thread, there shouldn't be any additions to the Professional Appointments Category, there should be less. There should be only two advanced promotion categories total, prior military service and prior Mitchell/Earhart/Spaatz cadets. No gimmes on the tech and senior ratings for prior cadets in the CP track. All members have to complete the professional development program to insure a pool of senior members that can hold leadership positions. With th prior military there is a garauntee of some level of leadership skill. Prior cadets bring organizational knowledge and if they were active in ES, ES ratings.

Respectfully

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 29, 2010, 08:47:39 PM
Also, if we do not do any helicopter operations at all, then please explain this.

http://forum.teamcap.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2067

The picture right before that one is Shooped to say Gunner C.

Anyone wanna wager that a CT member of some sort was involved with these pictures?

Anyone wanna wager that these were designed to screw with people on CT? 8)

Quote from: FARRIER on November 29, 2010, 09:48:18 PM
Starting from the original premise of this thread, there shouldn't be any additions to the Professional Appointments Category, there should be less.

Concur.

Quote from: FARRIER on November 29, 2010, 09:48:18 PM
All members have to complete the professional development program to insure a pool of senior members that can hold leadership positions.

Concur on principle, but it will not likely impact who can/will be commanders, though one would like to think that a better understanding of the program would foster more personal ownership and cause some people to pick up their corner.

Quote from: FARRIER on November 29, 2010, 09:48:18 PM
With th prior military there is a garauntee of some level of leadership skill.

Non concur.  Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 09:54:18 PM
Non concur.  Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

That is why there is no advancement for E-1 - E-5. That should stay where it is.

What he just said, ditto!

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 09:54:18 PM
Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

Bob,

Wow.   Just wow.

Let me just stare at that for a moment . . . . .


Leaving aside for a moment that we have been talking exclusively about NCOs (and a bit about military officers), that is such a [darn]ing statement that it is not hard to imagine that almost every military veteran would take it rather personally.  Especailly coming from someone who has not served in the armed forces.

Nope, there is no way around it.  It is simply wrong on every possible level.

By definition, Every single military NCO and officer is a leader in a very real and not particularly abstract sense.

Sure, there have been some problematic military leaders.  After all, to paraphrase Garrison Kielor, about half of all NCOs and officers are belolw average. . .

But for you to bad mouth every military veteran who has achieved NCO and/or officer status is inconsistent with your normal common-sense posts.  I can only imagine that you responded quickly without giving the matter as much thought as you usually do.

Did I misread that somehow?

Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2010, 03:40:46 AM
But for you to bad mouth every military veteran who has achieved NCO and/or officer status is inconsistent with your normal common-sense posts.

I'm not bad mouthing anyone, and to characterize it as such is just trying to make this into a non-objective discussion.

Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2010, 03:40:46 AM
Did I misread that somehow?

Does it say the word NCO or officer in that sentence?

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 09:54:18 PM
Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

But even with that said, are you asserting that just because you can lead people in a military environment you
can lead them in a volunteer environment?  These are two completely different situations, especially at
enlisted "doer" level.

Success as a military commander does not guarantee success as a CAP commander.  That doesn't mean CAP is harder, just different.

...and don't assume that because someone is a veteran (enlisted or officer) that they've got a handle on leadership.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2010, 04:00:09 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 09:54:18 PM
Not everyone in the military is a leader, in either the abstract or actual sense.

Does it say the word NCO or officer in that sentence?

Ahh, your statement was not insulting, then.

In the context of our discussion, it was merely an irrelevant non-sequitor inserted into a conversation exclusively about NCOs and officers for no discernable reason.

Got it.

Thanks.

Quote
Success as a military commander does not guarantee success as a CAP commander.

Of course.  Just like success as a CAP officer does not guarantee success as a CAP commander.

Or just like success as a CAP squadron commander does not guarantee success as a group or higher commander.

But it in every one of those instances, it sure helps . . . .

Success in one position doesn't mean that you will be successful in the next higher position. But that is where most higher command comes from is those who make it through lower command. By make it through, I don't mean slip in unnoticed. A 2LT in the Army may be a great PL, but does that mean he would make a half decent XO or even CO? It never does, but that is how they select PLs to become an XO, if they do well as an XO then they will become a CO and so on and so forth. Just because someone was an Infantry PL, that doesn't mean you shouldn't afford them a decent shot at being one in an Artillery Battery.

Scratch that - someone wanted to take this to PM, something I'm not real fond of.

The first question was whether or not I was in the military.  The answer is no.  However that is irrelevant to this conversation,
and smacks of a "you weren't there, so you can't know" attitude.

The second is why I have such "contempt" for those who were in the military. If you knew me personally you'd know how ridiculous
a thing like that is to ask, but since you don't, I don't know why you would assume something like that from this thread.  We are discussing whether an NCO corps has any place in CAP and the relative abilities of military NCO's and Officers in a CAP context.

Is that off limits?  There's no room for the possibility that military veterans, used to no questions asked obedience, might struggle trying to herd volunteers?

I have no contempt for anyone who served, I highly respect the service and appreciate what veterans have done and can offer to CAP.
That doesn't mean, however, that I feel that the mere presence of a CAC card in your wallet means you are a leader.

"Volunteering" for the service is not the same as "volunteering" in CAP - not by a long shot.  If you believe it is, you are fundamentally misunderstanding
both situations.

A CAP member can, at just about any moment, simply pick up his ball and go home, with little to no threat of any ramifications beyond extra free time.
Not true in the military.

A CAP member can ignore a directive from a commander with little ramification beyond membership termination, and even then that is not a given.
Not true in the military.

Leading of group of inconsistently trained people who can come and go as they please is not the same as leading a a group of professionally trained
people who are legally bound to follow orders literally to the death, up to, and including death as a punishment for failure to comply.

In the military there need not be any use of the word "why" in orders, you simply do as you are told.

Volunteers need the "why", and further, have to agree with the "why", or they aren't even going to show up.

It is in the "why" that the leaders of volunteers are found.

Bob,

I agree with you that employing the "you weren't X, so you couldn't possibly understand . . ."  bomb is not helpful in the typical give-and-take of a CT discussion.

It usually means that the poster is missing an opportunity to share a point of view and exhange information on the way to understanding.

That said, I think you have so grossly distorted and over-simplified miiiitary leadership as to make it unrecognizable.

Sure, the UCMJ ultimately backs up military leaders, but that is only a tiny part of the equation, and any leader that primarily depends on "do what I say or you will go to the stockade" has already failed as a military leader.

Otherwise the Army wasted a whole lot of time and money teaching me about leadership, if all I really had to do was waive a copy of the UCMJ around.

Seriously, I spent a lot of time in military schools learning about Maslow, situational leadership, and organizational development.  (Coincidentally, pretty much the same thing - often using the exactly the same materials - as we teach our cadets.)

Of course there are some different and interesting aspects in leading volunteers.  But this is not an apples and oranges kind of comparison, more like comparing Pippins to Golden Delicious.

Similarly, a good CAP leader could normally expect to have a similar level of success if fate somehow conspired to have them leading some service members.

Good leadership is good leadership, regardless of context.

Every successful military leader I know did indeed spend a lot of time on "why."  Setting a vision and designing strategy is the essense of military leadership.  Heck, every single OPORD has a commanders vision statement.

Because military leaders depend on subordinate leaders using initiative and discretion in accomplishing the mission.  Which only really works if the subordinates understand the "why."

Finally, I think if you reflected a little more on your statements implying that military NCOs and officers are not really "leaders" merely because their authority has some basis in law does our veterans a disservice and will likely be perceived as hurtful.

Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2010, 06:06:56 AMFinally, I think if you reflected a little more on your statements implying that military NCOs and officers are not really "leaders" merely because their authority has some basis in law does our veterans a disservice and will likely be perceived as hurtful.

Ned,

I never, ever, said that or implied that.

A good military leader is likely to be successful in CAP, because they are a leader, period, and can adjust their dynamic for the audience.

But a poor military leader can, in most cases, still get the military job done, because when their "follow me because you want to" skills fail, they can fall back on the "follow me because you have to" reality of a military commitment.  That doesn't impune the military model, but it does recognize fundamental difference between CAP and the military.

Most CAP members will adopt the "I have to model" for a while, but the "I want to has to" come in soon and more often, or they will walk.

I am not speaking from some theoretical perspective, but personal experience in watching any number of former and current members of the military struggle in command positions because they believed that their military service and experience would be enough to rebuild
a squadron or wrangle a failing wing, even though they had little to no CAP experience or ever worked with volunteers.

I have personally had a number of conversations with a senior officer who believed that you just "tell people to do it, and they do it, or they are out...". Suffice to say he was less than successful in his attempts to bring about anything but rhetoric.

And how many of us have watched respected military officers come into CAP as pilots, with little command or management experience, ascend to positions of high authority by happenstance, and then crumble under the pressure of leading 2000 directionally-challenged people and managing a state-wide business with an empty pen and 2 paper clips.

This doesn't discredit their military service, or make them less valued to CAP, it is the simple fact that someone from the volunteer / charitable sector might be better suited to these jobs.

Surely you have had the same experience, and we all watched the implosion of the former CAP NCO who, when encountering resistance, proceeded to publically accuse fellow members of having "no honor".

Obviously the military imparts any number of requisite skills, and provides opportunities for experience in leadership, squad tactics, and
management.  My point here isn't that we don't need those things, but that the simple act of having served doesn't guarantee success in a volunteer environment.

There are any number of of military NCO's that served their country, did their jobs, and went home.  Thank God, for them, but during their
hitch, they never commanded or lead a group even the size of most CAP squadrons, or if they were charged with that leadership, they did an adequate job but weren't stellar, just like any other career field.

The entirety of all this text is two points.

1) If you really understand the enlisted / NCO / Officer relationship, you know it will never work in the current state of CAP, assuming it ever really "worked" in CAP at all.  Attempts to inject a few military NCO's into the current structure will just cause frustration for them and
confusion for everyone else, since there is no "enlisted" corps to be concerned about.  In this context they are essentially tasked with a responsibility for which they have no authority to execute, and those they would be helping don't understand they need their help.

2) Military service, in and of itself, is not a guarantee of success as a leader in the private or volunteer sector.

Are those really that unreasonable or hurtful?

Let me also say this.

I would fully support a program reboot that brought with it more expectation of personal responsibility, more real-world ramifications
for bad behavior, and more initial and continuing training for promotions, staff postings, and command.

I would welcome a program where grade was organically and properly suppressed at the company level based on service and training, and where that grade in turn conferred legitimate authority in and of itself.  I would also fully support WO's or NCO's as leaders and mentors for those who do not aspire to command, with the same level of expectation of performance for progression and increased responsibility.  I have no personal illusions that in such a system I would rise to the grade level I have today, assuming I was able to enter the officer track at all.

I further would support an "up or out policy" for progression, especially for those on a command track, to reduce or eliminate the circular progression that many of our members experience, where a decade of hard work and accomplishment is "rewarded" by being told to
take their clusters and "thank you" plaque and sit quietly in the back of the room while the "new kids" repeat the same mistakes they made 10 years before.

I think that in a perfect world, post WWII, the above would be a challenge to implement, and all but impossible in today's reality
of personal entitlement and low volunteerism.

Quote from: Ned on November 30, 2010, 06:06:56 AMFinally, I think if you reflected a little more on your statements implying that military NCOs and officers are not really "leaders" merely because their authority has some basis in law does our veterans a disservice and will likely be perceived as hurtful.

No, Eclipse that is pretty much exactly how it came across.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2010, 12:14:57 AM

Quote from: rmcmanus on November 28, 2010, 11:21:20 PM
Eclipse:  AEO's are continually asked by NHQ to write/develop curricula for the AEX and other programs.  That requires the preparation of public school-worthy offerings for students and teachers in grades 6-12 nationwide.  Holders of masters and doctoral degrees in education (at accredited programs) receive training in curriculum development, the most intensive of which is at the doctoral level.  Research is necessary to acquire the information appropriate for the preparation of texts and cite the sources to preclude charges of plagarism that would be leveled against Civil Air Patrol as a whole. Several national educational organizations such as the National Science Foundation monitor the levels of education held by our AEO's who write the instructional materials used in the AEX and subsequently consider the valadity of each as a result.  Yes, doctoral-level work AND research are certainly used in CAP education programs. I was specifically referring to that specialty and should have made that clear.  I apologize to everyone who read the previous post for not doing so.

"Google" is not research.  I don't recall seeing anything actually being developed by CAP.

Our textbooks are simply conglomerations of existing data, nothing new.  If you want to argue that a few educators at the national level deserve advanced grade because they are compiling the curriculum, so be it, none of that is happening at the unit level.

I give up Eclipse.  If you're content insinuating that AEO curriculum deveopers merely Google instead of conducting true research; you win. 

Quote from: rmcmanus on November 30, 2010, 04:16:13 PM
I give up Eclipse.  If you're content insinuating that AEO curriculum deveopers merely Google instead of conducting true research; you win.

Define research.  I meant in the scientific sense of exploring new technologies or re-purposing existing, not looking up who was the first to fly a powered flight.  CAP AEO's are not doing scientific research, at least not by design within the program.

And local AEO's, as a concept, are certainly not "creating" curriculum.  If they are, they aren't following the program.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
And local AEO's, as a concept, are certainly not "creating" curriculum.  If they are, they aren't following the program.

Except for former cadets, I'm not one to advocate advanced promotions; even for prior/current military.  However, we have the process in place and, it seems to work.

Professional educators who become AEO's; either by design or choice bring much to the table and should qualify for advanced grade, IMHO.  These individuals can use their talents to impart the AE program to those we target and, do it in a much more successful way than those who do not understand educational technique.  Research is more than the technical aspect of aerospace science or historical data.  It is also the search for improvement in fundamentals of the educational process.  This "research" can be used at the local level and should be commended.

What about when you have done the same things over and over with primarily the same group of cadets, they get bored. When that happens you can either just keep regurgitating the same thing over and over again until no one shows any interest in AE or you can come up with a few things here and there on your own to supplement the program. Come up with things that are out of the ordinary for the AE program, maybe one month instead of having another class on the same things you can "skip" the AE night and one Saturday take every one to an aerospace museum. Then have cadets pick one thing from the museum, have therm "research" it on the net and give a five to ten minute presentation on things that the museum might not have shown about the particular exhibit. Sometimes things can get a little stale doing them over and over, you have to shake things up from time to time to keep interest alive.

^ Yes, that is the description of an AEO, appropriate to the job.

It is not doctoral level "research" of the kind mentioned above and worthy of advanced promotion.

Who says a unit AE officer has to have a doctrine?
The thing about it as i read into giving the promotion is that hey this is great, he won't need much help doing his job, he can do it primarily on his own and he will be rather efficient with the material. If the AEO has that much schooling in the aerospace realm, he probably won't give much in the way of false information.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 30, 2010, 08:15:27 PM
Who says a unit AE officer has to have a doctrine?
The thing about it as i read into giving the promotion is that hey this is great, he won't need much help doing his job, he can do it primarily on his own and he will be rather efficient with the material. If the AEO has that much schooling in the aerospace realm, he probably won't give much in the way of false information.

Quote from: rmcmanus on November 28, 2010, 11:21:20 PM
Eclipse:  AEO's are continually asked by NHQ to write/develop curricula for the AEX and other programs.  That requires the preparation of public school-worthy offerings for students and teachers in grades 6-12 nationwide.  Holders of masters and doctoral degrees in education (at accredited programs) receive training in curriculum development, the most intensive of which is at the doctoral level.  Research is necessary to acquire the information appropriate for the preparation of texts and cite the sources to preclude charges of plagarism that would be leveled against Civil Air Patrol as a whole. Several national educational organizations such as the National Science Foundation monitor the levels of education held by our AEO's who write the instructional materials used in the AEX and subsequently consider the valadity of each as a result.  Yes, doctoral-level work AND research are certainly used in CAP education programs. I was specifically referring to that specialty and should have made that clear.  I apologize to everyone who read the previous post for not doing so.

I wholeheartedly agree with your other assessments about this "shaky" process and hope that effective solutions will be adopted in the future.  Master's level clinical psychologists and ministers (for example) are certainly licensed and qualifed to perform CISM, but I don't have a problem with doctoral degree holders receiving advanced rank if they (and all others who enter with advanced rank) specifically work in the assigned speciality.

I maintain that the vast majority of AEO's don't do anything on this level and that no one in CAP is doing scientific "research" in the way this is intended.  Checking to make sure you haven't committed copyright violations is not Doctoral-level research, that is an intern's job.

Again, you win Eclipse.  It's obvious that no one can convince you to change your mind on this topic and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Those of us who choose not to split hairs employing your interpretation of "research" are mindful of that fact. Unfortunately, you chose to select that single aspect of the education process and snidely refer to Google, implying that its use is common. Professional educators are trained, even warned against using "social media sources" to verify information.  Fortunately, the regulations clearly indicate that certain levels of credentials and experience are worthy of advanced promotion regardless of how little they are valued by some members of the organization.

Quote from: nesagsar on November 28, 2010, 09:37:23 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2010, 09:17:29 PM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on November 28, 2010, 07:08:58 PM
As far as professional appointments go rank should be determined by specialty skills and education of the member.   Initially, I'm skeptical of advancing anyone above WO rank status unless they have at least a BA degree. 

What does a BA have to do with skills or leadership ability?

It shows the ability to set a goal and follow up until you get there. There is a reason the military requires one.

Yet the USAF officer for whom our Aerospace Education award is named for, retired as Brigadier General and was later promoted to Major General...and never went to college.

So what? Gen Yeager was so awesome he made Rick James look like a baby he was so cool!

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on December 13, 2010, 08:09:26 PM
So what? Gen Yeager was so awesome he made Rick James look like a baby he was so cool!

True, true...the good General has one helluva story to tell about a phenomenal life.

But a BA qualifies you to pay a massive student loan while asking "Do you want fries with that?"  Nothing more.

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 03:12:18 PM
I've talked to a few CAP NCOs and the reason they stated as being an NCO was because they worked for a living and wouldn't be caught dead wearing bars. We have what, less than 500 of them total?

Just wanted to correct this mistake that slipped in early -- the last time we heard any numbers there were only about 50 total NCOs in all of CAP.  We've got many more Colonels than NCOs. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2010, 10:11:42 PMWe've got many more Colonels than NCOs.

Probably by a factor of 10.

Further to that - the only "enlisted" we have in CAP uniforms are the NCO's, so who's "health and welfare" are they supposed to be looking out for beside themselves?

The core reason for existence of an NCO literally does not exist in a CAP context.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 13, 2010, 10:23:13 PM
The core reason for existence of an NCO literally does not exist in a CAP context.

+1

Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2010, 10:11:42 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 03:12:18 PM
I've talked to a few CAP NCOs and the reason they stated as being an NCO was because they worked for a living and wouldn't be caught dead wearing bars. We have what, less than 500 of them total?

Just wanted to correct this mistake that slipped in early -- the last time we heard any numbers there were only about 50 total NCOs in all of CAP.  We've got many more Colonels than NCOs.

Fifty is less than 500...by an order of magnitude ;D

Ok, not technically a mistake - my bad.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2010, 11:47:27 PM
Ok, not technically a mistake - my bad.

I'm just yanking your chain, although you do point out the absurdity of the importance an NCO corps(in CAP) believes they have.

Quote from: davidsinn on December 13, 2010, 11:25:55 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2010, 10:11:42 PM

Quote from: davidsinn on November 27, 2010, 03:12:18 PM
I've talked to a few CAP NCOs and the reason they stated as being an NCO was because they worked for a living and wouldn't be caught dead wearing bars. We have what, less than 500 of them total?

Just wanted to correct this mistake that slipped in early -- the last time we heard any numbers there were only about 50 total NCOs in all of CAP.  We've got many more Colonels than NCOs.

Fifty is less than 500...by an order of magnitude ;D

There are more than 50 Col. in CAP...I think there's almost a dozen in my wing.