NCO Program Launched

[Elioron]

A Spaatz cadet has far more leadership training and experience than most SM Captains. 

Some?  Maybe.  Most.  No way.

Even the oldest ones are still kids maturing, and none has ever had the responsibility that the senior members do.
For example, being the Cadet Commander of an encampment does not equal being the commander, etc., etc.

Most SM Captains haven't been commanders either, nor have many had any command or organizational responsibility at all.  All that's required is SLS and a Tech rating in something.  Oh, and hanging around for three years.

Spaatz cadets must attend more training and have been involved in command within their unit at the very least.  They have managed projects and followed through, which is more than most SMs.  If they haven't, whoever approved their promotions has no business in cadet programs.

[Elioron]

Sorry, this is derailing WAY off topic.

If people really want to discuss the worthlessness of Spaatz, perhaps a thread should be started in the Cadet Programs section.

EDIT: Thread started. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18080.0

[Майор Хаткевич]

Just as a side. Tech rating is given for Earhart.

[Storm Chaser]

I've never agreed with the current program where every SM that joins CAP, regardless of experience, training, qualifications or aptitude, can become an officer after completing Level 1 and being a member for six months. If done right, I welcome the idea of an enlisted membership (not only an NCO corps, but members starting as airman as well). These members can focus on operations and support roles and, as they progress in grade, assume additional staff duties later on.

For that to work, however, we need to increase the requirements to become a CAP officer. We also need defined roles for each "track" or type of membership (enlisted and officer) and tailor professional development to each of those roles. Commanders and key staff officers would be selected from the officer corps and trained accordingly. And NCOs would fill other duties commensurable with their grades, using a model similar to that of the Air Force.

By increasing the requirements to become an officer and get promoted, we can (eventually) eliminate or at least reduce the current situation were Lt Cols "serve coffee" at meetings, while 1st Lts command squadrons. We may also be able to boost membership by removing the (silly) requirement that everyone who joins must have a staff position to progress in the program. If someone wants to "enlist" in CAP to work on Emergency Services, but doesn't want to be a staff officer, they should be able to do so and still be able to progress in the enlisted program.

[Eclipse]

If someone wants to "enlist" in CAP to work on Emergency Services, but doesn't want to be a staff officer, they should be able to do so and still be able to progress in the enlisted program.

If we really want to do this right, then we go back to manning tables, billets, and an expectation that it's "up or out".
We'd probably need to put a time limit on membership as well, otherwise everyone will still pile up at either Chief or
whatever officer grade is the highest / easiest.
Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing the "easy" parts, to the detriment of the entire idea.

Of course you have to have a staff job to get promoted.  You can't just pay your dues and get a new pin every three years.
Military officers and enlisted receive promotions:

After they are qualified.
In anticipation on increased responsibility.
And only when the manning table allows for it because a job or jobs is now open.

Responsibility, especially, is something many CAP members have real issues with.  For every member who wakes up every day concerned
about the weight of what needs to be done and his duty to his fellow officers, there 5 who wear the "you're lucky I showed up at all" ribbon
with 3 "You can't, I won't, you can't make me" clusters.

[NCRblues]

Commanders and key staff officers would be selected from the officer corps and trained accordingly. And NCOs would fill other duties commensurable with their grades, using a model similar to that of the Air Force

Question #1. How do you keep the selection for officers fair and impartial? (In other words, how do you limit the GOB network from establishing kingdoms? How do you make sure that bob does not select his best buddy bobby over Timmy who is way more experienced?)  Lets be honest, CAP in the past has not been known as the most impartial selecting organization in the world...

Question #2. What the heck is a 40 year old Airman or A1C going to contribute to CAP if we artificially limit his/her roles??

[Elioron]

Commanders and key staff officers would be selected from the officer corps and trained accordingly. And NCOs would fill other duties commensurable with their grades, using a model similar to that of the Air Force

Question #1. How do you keep the selection for officers fair and impartial? (In other words, how do you limit the GOB network from establishing kingdoms? How do you make sure that bob does not select his best buddy bobby over Timmy who is way more experienced?)  Lets be honest, CAP in the past has not been known as the most impartial selecting organization in the world...

Question #2. What the heck is a 40 year old Airman or A1C going to contribute to CAP if we artificially limit his/her roles??

It's every 60-year-old's dream to be treated like a puissant after 20 years by a snot-nosed 25-year-old with no experience because the kid has a college degree so he's in charge.

By the way, this is nothing like enlisted and officers in the military.  The only reason our members are here is because they want to be.  Give them reasons not to want to be here and they leave.  The military has contracts - you're paid to take their [mess] and if you leave you go to jail.  In a volunteer organization, we'll just tell you to [farg] off.

[Elioron]

By the way, love the auto-censor!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Form 1D10T... is that the form used to request the parachute pilot wings?

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

Commanders and key staff officers would be selected from the officer corps and trained accordingly. And NCOs would fill other duties commensurable with their grades, using a model similar to that of the Air Force

Question #1. How do you keep the selection for officers fair and impartial?

By having a defined set of requirements. I'll let the national leadership figure out what those should be.

Question #2. What the heck is a 40 year old Airman or A1C going to contribute to CAP if we artificially limit his/her roles??

Who said they have to join as an airman? Their grade would be determined by their background and qualifications, as well as their preference if they qualify for both enlisted and officer grades.

It's every 60-year-old's dream to be treated like a puissant after 20 years by a snot-nosed 25-year-old with no experience because the kid has a college degree so he's in charge.

Who said that it has to be that way?

I'm not the one who established the NCO program. But if we're going to have one, then it should be about more than just a member's preference (do I become enlisted or officer?). If there's no difference between the programs, then why have two? Why not just improve the one we currently have?

According to the article, Maj Gen Carr said that "the NCO corps is the backbone of any organization and brings a wealth of information to the table". I know what that means in the Air Force (I'm a former NCO and current officer) but, what does it mean in CAP? If we're just providing means for promotion and nothing else, then I'm not sure this new program is going to be worthwhile. How will a CAP promoted CMSgt rate against an Air Force CMSgt? If there's no difference in scope between officer and NCO then, can NCOs really be the "backbone" of CAP?

[Elioron]

If there's no difference in scope between officer and NCO then, can NCOs really be the "backbone" of CAP?

That's the question, isn't it?  Has anyone bothered to ask why the NCOs are the backbone of the military?  I would propose that it's because they supervise all of the actual work, done by the enlisted below them.  Officers manage and assign tasks to their NCOs, who pass to the enlisted their specific job.  Under that paradigm, the lower enlisted have no real voice, they do the job they're ordered to do.

While that works really, really well for the military, it is not really applicable for us.  We don't have the membership numbers to make that work, and it severely limits the officer corp and provides no chance for enlisted to have any real impact on the organization other than keeping their heads down and doing their job.  For something that I have to pay for and get no benefits out of (aside from the "pleasure" of doing work), I don't see this paradigm being able to retain members.  We are already spreading staff officers thin, and many places have a hard time finding Command Officers.  Severely limiting the number of available personnel would be crippling.

[Eclipse]

If there's no difference in scope between officer and NCO then, can NCOs really be the "backbone" of CAP?

That's the question, isn't it?  Has anyone bothered to ask why the NCOs are the backbone of the military?  I would propose that it's because they supervise all of the actual work, done by the enlisted below them.  Officers manage and assign tasks to their NCOs, who pass to the enlisted their specific job.  Under that paradigm, the lower enlisted have no real voice, they do the job they're ordered to do.

While that works really, really well for the military, it is not really applicable for us.  We don't have the membership numbers to make that work, and it severely limits the officer corp and provides no chance for enlisted to have any real impact on the organization other than keeping their heads down and doing their job.  For something that I have to pay for and get no benefits out of (aside from the "pleasure" of doing work), I don't see this paradigm being able to retain members.  We are already spreading staff officers thin, and many places have a hard time finding Command Officers.  Severely limiting the number of available personnel would be crippling.

^ This.

Has there been a recruiting push into military bases and the response cards said "Only if I can be an NCO?"

Has there been a member exit survey that indicated "I would have stayed if I could have been an NCO / been promoted as an NCO?"

Is there evidence that NCOs can somehow train cadets "more better" if they wear stripes instead of steel?

What specific, mission-focused problem does this solve?  Especially to have it come to the top of the list ahead of other real problems.

Absent actual recruiting, this does not bring us new members, nor impact retention in a meaningful way. 
Anyone angst-y enough to stay or quit over their grade is not likely engaged at a meaningful level anyway, because
most of those that are see the grade as a fun distraction, but not really a deal breaker either way.

It doesn't bring us funding.

It doesn't get us more missions, better standing in the ES community, or the toys some say we need to have.

?

[Shuman 14]

Here's an idea.

How about...

People join to volunteer their time in service to their country.

Everyone starts at the exact same level, no special appointments, no military equivalency, nothing.

Everyone does (or does not do) the same PD and rises through the ranks based solely on what they accomplish within CAP?
If you want to start everyone at E-0 vs O-0, whatever.

As in the real world, those who have "special skills" (whatever they may be) will naturally use them to rise to
various levels and may well progress further and faster then others.  Some will choose not to do anything in that regard
and that's OK too. Most will work hard and use a combo of life skills and internally gained training to progress at an organic rate.

I know, crazy.

No not crazy... sounds like the USCGAux  model. 

[Elioron]

Here's an idea.

How about...

People join to volunteer their time in service to their country.

Everyone starts at the exact same level, no special appointments, no military equivalency, nothing.

Everyone does (or does not do) the same PD and rises through the ranks based solely on what they accomplish within CAP?
If you want to start everyone at E-0 vs O-0, whatever.

As in the real world, those who have "special skills" (whatever they may be) will naturally use them to rise to
various levels and may well progress further and faster then others.  Some will choose not to do anything in that regard
and that's OK too. Most will work hard and use a combo of life skills and internally gained training to progress at an organic rate.

I know, crazy.

No not crazy... sounds like the USCGAux  model. 

Aside from the special promotions, this is pretty much how it is now.  The issue would be to find something to replace the special promotions to complete their purpose: recruiting skilled people.  Somehow, offering people a starting salary at 150% of the entry salary doesn't help in that regard when the starting is still $0.00.

[CDCTF]

Hmm, NCO progression, but still no enlisted corps to lead, not sure where this is getting us.

[Flying Pig]

Its going to be funny when the confusion sets in.  People, even non-vets are going to have fun learning that despite having officers and enlisted.... we are still all the same and nobody really outranks anybody else.  It was hard enough explaining to new members why I was a 1Lt and was the Sq Commander, while I had LTCs on my staff 
I cant wait for a 19yr old 2Lt who spent 4 years in JROTC joins CAP for the first time and says "MSgt Hall, what is your major malfunction??!!!"   

[PHall]

Its going to be funny when the confusion sets in.  People, even non-vets are going to have fun learning that despite having officers and enlisted.... we are still all the same and nobody really outranks anybody else.  It was hard enough explaining to new members why I was a 1Lt and was the Sq Commander, while I had LTCs on my staff 
I cant wait for a 19yr old 2Lt who spent 4 years in JROTC joins CAP for the first time and says "MSgt Hall, what is your major malfunction??!!!"

I can't wait for that either.   bruhahahaha 

[sarmed1]

Hmm, NCO progression, but still no enlisted corps to lead, not sure where this is getting us.

My guess is there will be no non-NCO enlisted members....
Lvl I=SSGT
Lvl II=TSGT
Lvl III=MSGT
Lvl IV=SMSGT
Lvl V=CMSGT

part of this is I think that CAPNCO's want a system to promote, and thats fine.  But without some sort of major overhaul of the rank system for all seniors it seems like it is still just a continuation of the "I aint no officer, I work for a living" kind of line...

I wouldnt see a problem with having all senior members start in the SMWOG then depending on what there interest is and unit needs look for a track that matches up with their background and experience.
Cont with proffesional appointments for "commissioning"  Lawyers, Doctors, Nurses, Chaplins etc relatively automatic (and we can include current/former military officers)
Pilots also go directly to the O-range, the caveat would be if you dont have a college degree you dont go past Captain (we can argue out 2yr vs 4 yr vs credit hours later)

I would actually be inlinced to leave everyone esle in the enlisted grades unless you find a need to assign someone to an officer position.  ie commanders & DC's and I would say OPS, safey, PA and admin should also HAVE an officer assigment; there are other areas depending on unit size that you could also have officers, sort of like flight/platoon leaders on the RM side' mostly thinking ops specific (ie Stan/Eval for flying units and ES officer for both)

Also on eclipse's "billets" line of thinking rather than hard and fast "numbers" you could come up with more of a 1 LT for every X members 1 Capt etc etc sort of matrix.  (I think that flying squadrons would have to have a different matrix)

...its going to take more than that, and I am sure there are a number of possible options/contingencies that would have to be discussed.  But those are the iedeas rolling out of my head a the moment.

mk

Otherwise

[Walkman]

What about having different specialty tracks for Es & Os? Not sure how it would work, just throwing it out there.

[Flying Pig]

Why?  Just to give the ranks some sort of validity? Ehhhhhhh, yeah the hardest thing will be explaining to potential members why there are officers and enlisted.  It basically boils down to what you think looks better on your uniform.