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

[Eclipse]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

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:

[nesagsar]

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?

[Eclipse]

^ Walking in the door, no.

[ZigZag911]

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!

[ZigZag911]

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

[Eclipse]

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".

[DBlair]

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?

[arajca]

To refute some of Ned's agruments:

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[NCRblues]

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)

[davidsinn]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Ned]

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.

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.

I'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.

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

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.

[BillB]

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?

[CAP Producer]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

Many 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.

[Ned]

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"?

[Eclipse]

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.