NCO Program Launched

[Storm Chaser]

At first, I saw some merit with having an NCO program; mostly because I feel we have too many officers in CAP. After all, in most organizations (military and otherwise) only those holding a position of authority or responsibility are appointed or considered "officers". Since most CAP senior members are "workers/doers", it doesn't make much sense that almost everyone is an officer. I also think it's too easy to become an officer in CAP and not that much harder to get promoted. And even after getting the promotion, there's practically no expectation for members to perform in the level of their grade. For these reasons, having an active CAP enlisted membership seemed appealing.

Throughout this discussion, and without having much information about the proposed NCO program, I became more indifferent as it didn't seem to address my concerns expressed above, but it also didn't seem to change anything dramatically other than providing (for now) a way for current or future NCOs to get promoted. The problem is, in my opinion, that that's not enough to invest needed resources to develop a program that will not really benefit CAP as a whole, other than providing a few members with a way to promote.

I'm actually starting see some appeal on a warrant officer program, as proposed by others on this board. Everyone would have a warrant officer grade equivalent to their PD level and only those appointed as commanders or key staff officers would be promoted to equivalent officer grades. These officer grades would be temporary and members would revert to their permanent warrant officer grade when no longer in that position. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. If something like this was adopted, I don't think we would need NCO grades at all. Frankly, even after all these discussions, I'm still trying to figure out what would they do that is different and can't be done by non-NCO members (officer, warrant or other).

[Ned]

Ned, you know as well as anyone that by the time a draft regulation is being reviewed by the membership that it is a done deal that it is going to happen.

Strong non-concur.  Indeed, your assertion is demonstrably false.  Just look at the current pending revisions of the CPP.  CP posted a draft on line, received considerable feedback about ways it could be improved (both here and on the NHQ website), and revised it to directly address the criticisms posted.  (And reposted it for new comments.)  I'm sure others can provide other examples.

The ONLY way CAP membership has to impact something before it is decided by the leadership is to voice strenuous opposition to it on CAPTalk.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.  It is problematic for several reasons.  Initially, I need to point out that many "somethings" actually originate with the CAP membership, and are successfully passed up through the chain of command or via something like the CAC.  Second, it is difficult to offer effective "strenuous opposition" to any program or policy that you know relatively little about.  Third, unofficial forums like CAPTalk do not reach significant numbers of the senior leadership, so "strenuous opposition" made in a place where it is unlikely to be seen and evaluated by our senior leaders does not seem a productive or efficient way to impact policy.

But mostly, my point is that all CAP officers have the duty to publicly support approved policies, and that includes policies with which they may personally disagree.  Really.  I expect that each of us would agree that it would be improper to stand up in front of the closing formation and say things like "NHQ has announced a new regulation / policy concerning X, but I think it is ridiculous, 'dead on arrival,' and sticks in my craw because we haven't yet solved Problem Y."

Yet those exact words have been used by the usual naysayers in this very thread.

I think that is a problem.

Please note that all officers have a duty of loyalty to the organization as a whole, and that includes providing honest feedback in approved manners, taking action when regulations are violated or Core Values are not enforced.  And to whistleblowers are aggressively protected when they point out fraud, waste, or abuse.

[Shuman 14]

Would that be you pretty ladies talking troops into paying for overpriced, watered down drinks for a chance to talk with them. Mostly drunks sitting at me bar. Anything else isn't really in the job description. But the name does sound like its describing something dirty and no family oriented.

Thanks Top... was gonna trip off but you were much nicer.

[Shuman 14]

I'm sure that the reason that the Embroidered CAP, and the cutouts are worn to help distinguish CAP NCO's from active NCO's.

Pennsylvania Wing issued a Powerpoint presentation of the Civil Air Patrol NCO Program which seems to point at where it's going. I am not sure if it's been put out on their website, or elsewhere.

The NCO stripes have the CAP in the center and the propeller below it. Here is a picture that I copied from the presentation. I am sure you'll recognize that it is quite different than the Active Duty stripes...     

I notice no First Sergeants, wonder why that is? 

[jimmydeanno]

No, I think it is pretty much just you.   

I thought so...

I'm not sure why you think that a modification to our existing NCO program would have "drastic implications on our entire organization."  As others have pointed out, we have had NCOs since WWII.  Our program has been modified significantly several times in the last 70 years or so without any appreciable overall effect on CAP.  There is certainly nothing to suggest that the latest approved changes will have any more or less effect than the previous changes.

Ned, in all seriousness, anyone who says that "we've had NCOs since WWII" is reaching a bit.  While, yes, it is the truth that there are people walking around with stripes on their sleeves now, stop giving the implication that our NCO program has been some sort of vibrant program for the last 70 years.  Right now we have fewer than 100 in our 60k+ membership.  In 15 years, I've run into 3.  So, yes, "we have NCOs and an NCO program" now is true, the reality is that it's a courtesy to a few members and really has no impact on the organization at all.

Redefining our NCO program to allow for promotions, creating more stringent requirements for CAP officers, staffing tables, etc., is more than a simple modification and (of course speculating since there aren't any details out) has real implications in execution at the local level where the administrative burden of getting up to speed, learning new requirements for promotion, integrating this new membership classification, etc., has to take place.  That is a -real- change.  If there isn't going to be any substantial effect on our program, then what is the point?  Which gets us back to where the thread started...

Really?  Not trying to be a naysayer? 

I suppose anyone is free to speculate about what the next 10 changes in CAP regulations are going to be.  Perhaps that is human nature.

But I am disappointed that any CAP officer would not approach a change in an existing program that has been approved not only by our senior leadership but the Air Staff as well with an attitude like "I don't know any of the details now, but when the draft regulations are posted for comment, I will offer my best advice.  And when the implementing regulations are issued, I will support them and do my best to implement them."

Seriously, isn't that the duty of every CAP officer?

There is a difference between what we stand in front of our troops and say and what is said in other venues, after all, how would progress and program changes happen if the current standards and regulations weren't questioned from time to time.  That is all that is being done here.  We want to be sold on this program, Ned, really.  Two years ago, it was pitched to me at NSC.  The crowd (which should be comprised of CAP's most experienced leaders, no?) at the time asked the same questions as here, and the brainchildren of the idea couldn't answer a single one directly, simply throwing out words like "respect" as the reasoning to do it. 

If after two years (maybe more) of publicly campaigning for, and getting approval from the Air Staff, we still can't put a finger on the "what is the objective" without the answer being "so we can have an NCO program" I think that is a problem. 

Just like our safety program, which is criticized for not being based on empirical data, and shooting from the hip in the way we address things, as well as the administrative burden placed on our members, a program needs the support of the commanders that are required to implement it. 

We gnash our teeth here, but in the field we keep out disgruntled viewpoints to ourselves and wave the "The CAP NCO program is going to be awesome" flag at our units.

[a2capt]

.. mostly because I feel we have too many officers in CAP..

What an interesting observation. Considering that is our current ranking system, should we take that as "we have too many (Senior) members? ..and if we have too many, do we just shut down recruiting for a while?

Since we seem to add about as many as we lose each year, if we shut down recruiting for 6 months that will be quite a purge. Still too many? Carry the lockout further.

We really don't have any other ranking system at the moment, so it's kind of hard to put a number on how many is too many.

If one interprets the limits mentioned in these slideshows, and goes so far as to interpret that they're going to eventually apply to the Officer ranks, you won't have to worry about having too many after a while.

[Ned]

[. . .] So, yes, "we have NCOs and an NCO program" now is true, the reality is that it's a courtesy to a few members and really has no impact on the organization at all.

I can only agree that the current state of the NCO program does not include a whole lot of people.  (But of course, each of our current NCO's is a valued member performing crucial volunteer service.)

But over the decades that particular pendulum has swung back and forth several times.  My point is that each time we have revised the program, we have done so in an effort to improve CAP and make us more effective.  But so far, revising the NCO program has not correlated well with any significant reduction in our capabilities or size of the membership.  It is mostly "business as usual."

Redefining our NCO program to allow for promotions, creating more stringent requirements for CAP officers, staffing tables, etc., is more than a simple modification

Whoa, there Partner.  Where did the part about altering CAP officer requirements come from?

I didn't see anything about that in the press release or the PowerPoint referenced earlier in this thread.  Did I miss it?

But concerning modification to our NCO program, I guess reasonable minds can differ as to whether allowing for promotions and defining educational requirements is more than a "simple modification."  But we have had such requirments before, and then we didn't.  And it looks like we will again.

It just doesn't seem like a huge sea change to me.  Important, yes, but not huge.

Just like our safety program, which is criticized for not being based on empirical data, and shooting from the hip in the way we address things, as well as the administrative burden placed on our members, a program needs the support of the commanders that are required to implement it. 

We gnash our teeth here, but in the field we keep out disgruntled viewpoints to ourselves and wave the "The CAP NCO program is going to be awesome" flag at our units.

Do you honestly think that comments posted here on CAPTalk are "non-public"? 

I'm no IT expert, but comments posted here on the internet seem far more public and lasting than anything said in front of closing formation.  Such comments reach far more people than happen to be standing in your unit parking lot, and will last for years after we have all died.

[jimmydeanno]

Whoa, there Partner.  Where did the part about altering CAP officer requirements come from?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18078.msg328472#msg328472

Phase II Professional Military Education:

"Redefined the standards for entry into the CAP Officer Program"

I may be reading that wrong, but that sounds like, "Now that we have an NCO program, we're going to change how to be an officer," to me.

[RogueLeader]

I found out that what I had received, is not restricted; so here it is.

edit to correct minor grammar issue.

[Eclipse]

I found out that I had received is not restricted, so here it is.

Thanks for posting it - it's nice to finally see something on letterhead, but the details are essentially the same as the PPT and other documents we've seen.

It continues to make assertions which are likely "optimistic" (to be benevolent), and contains a few factual errors.
For example, the 10 or so NCOs and SMWOGs who are current unit CCs may be surprised to learn that the USAF thinks this is reserved for officers.
Trivial?  Maybe.  But when you're drafting a document that references AFIs for your parent company, there should be no ambiguities or factual issues.

There is also a fair amount of misunderstanding as to how CAP actually works in regards to a bunch of supervisor and technical roles which
do not exist, and some idea that this will magically fill them.

I would certainly be interested in see the statistical data from the service surveys NHQ has done that indicate
the number of NCOs who have turned down CAP membership because they can't wear their stripes and still be promoted within CAP.

And in all this, there isn't a single place where there is a list of bullet points as to what, exactly, stripes can do vs. metal.  None.
As jimmydeano has said a couple of times, there's lots of CAC-pamphlet rhetoric, and little beyond that.

If this document contained detailed assertions about CAP's need to develop the small-squad ethic and mentality, and
the ways that it will implement that idea, with a page or two at the end about the potential role NCOs could have in there,
it would be much better received, I think, then a lot of work towards equalizing the stripes with no real reason as to why
to have them to start with.

My experience has been that projects which concentrate on t-shirts and hats in the elevator pitches don't' generally succeed.

Pitch 1: "Our NCOs should be able to promote internally if they do CAP PD." Fine.  I seriously doubt anyone would care.

Pitch 2:  "Our polling data indicates that military NCOs won't join unless they can promote internally".  Again, cool and clear.

Pitch 3: "We feel we should have this."   "Why?"
.....
((*bing*)) third floor.

The consistent thread we are seeing is that this is someone's idea idea of "something we should have".

I'll put the steak dinner I still have on hold in regards to ABUs on a double-or nothing line that this gets implemented to the point
that military NCOs can get promoted based on PD level within CAP, regardless of military achievements, and the rest of the plans
will be so divisive and difficult to implement that phase two will be back-burnered indefinitely.

[RogueLeader]

The thing that caught my eye, is that Flights can be Commanded by SNCOs provided that there are no Officers assigned to that unit, but in the Manning table, no SMSgt or CMSgt are authorized, so a big contradiction there.

[Shuman 14]

Quite honestly...it would look better in any other way, without the blue over the 4/5 stripes...

Can you do one up without the "CAP" at all but with the propeller's in red where the stars are in USAF rank are?

[Shuman 14]

I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed.

Looking at the powerpoint, I still can't see a "need" or legit purpose for the NCO corps in CAP.  As the way CAP is currently organized, I don't see why somebody who holds an officer grade can't perform the tasks listed, and why putting stripes on them all of the sudden makes them better at that function.

(/shrugs)

I just don't quite grok why we need two PD tracks which, for all intents and purposes, are identical in their achievement milestones but have different titles / wear different insignia.

That being said, I really don't see a reason to trade in my bars for stripes.  Personally, I don't feel it would effect my performance in any way.

Redefined the standards for entry into the CAP Officer program

Now this sounds interesting.  I wonder what they have in mind here.

Licensed pilots and/or college degrees only... if I had to make an educated guess.

With a grandfather clause for current officers that don't meet those requirements. 

[Shuman 14]

My suggestion.  An update to usafaux2004's previous work... 

That's what I was looking for but without the "CAP" completely.

If CAP NCOs need "CAP" on their uniform, make a disc version for the tunic lapels.

[RogueLeader]

I like those the best so far.  I would take the CAP off the collars, and allow the "circle US" on the service coat.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think Panache and I are. Ktb working g off the fact that the CAP has to be there. Certainly for SNCOs. That said...a whopping 80 NCOs in CAP! 5/80 are E-4 Bucks! Those members must be OOOOOLD.

[Patterson]

For those "older" members, I am curious what the feelings were when CAP eliminated the Enlisted Grades from the program, only allowing former military members to wear stripes??

I envision this to be the initial step toward a complete rework of the grade structure in CAP.

One thing I don't agree with in the letter is the one line regarding the Officer Grades.  The letter was approved by Air Force on the basis it was in regard to CAP NCOs, but that single sentence addressing CAP Officers could be used as justification to do whatever is deemed correct to the entry and promotion regulations for CAP Officers.

I feel as though the Air Force "gave" this to CAP in exchange for CAP giving something up, yet I can't figure out what was exchanged.  It obviously is a "bigger picture" piece, can't wait to see the implementation. 

[RogueLeader]

I think Panache and I are. Ktb working g off the fact that the CAP has to be there. Certainly for SNCOs. That said...a whopping 80 NCOs in CAP! 5/80 are E-4 Bucks! Those members must be OOOOOLD.

Remember that the Navy and Marine Corps E-4s are NCOs as well as certain Army E-4s.  I bet they requested a waiver to policy, and got it.

As a matter of fact I have 5 RM NCO's in my unit that could be CAP NCO's.  2 E-5s, 2 E-7s, and 1 E-9.  All but the E-9 is going Officer due to the no promoting clause.  How that is going to change with the new program.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Also note no prior CMSgts. Guess we'll be demoting or promoting or loosing some.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think Panache and I are. Ktb working g off the fact that the CAP has to be there. Certainly for SNCOs. That said...a whopping 80 NCOs in CAP! 5/80 are E-4 Bucks! Those members must be OOOOOLD.

Remember that the Navy and Marine Corps E-4s are NCOs as well as certain Army E-4s.  I bet they requested a waiver to policy, and got it.

As a matter of fact I have 5 RM NCO's in my unit that could be CAP NCO's.  2 E-5s, 2 E-7s, and 1 E-9.  All but the E-9 is going Officer due to the no promoting clause.  How that is going to change with the new program.

Sure, but CAP Reg clearly states E-5 and up. Also, bad news for your Chief...unless he goes to wing or up, he'll be a SMSgt.