Addition To The Professional Appointments Category On The SM Promotion Chart.

[JeffDG]

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?

[SarDragon]

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.

[nesagsar]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[rmcmanus]

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. 

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

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.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

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.

[arajca]

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.

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.

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

[manfredvonrichthofen]

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.

[rmcmanus]

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.

[DBlair]

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.

[davidsinn]

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?"

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?

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?

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.

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.

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, I've never heard of one.

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

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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.

[DBlair]

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.

[Ned]

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?

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?

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?

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.

As 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.

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