NCO Program Launched

[Private Investigator]

I would venture to guess that outside of CAPTalk, the vast majority of CAP probably doesnt even know this is coming!   

My SWAG (Scientific Wild Assumption/Guess) is; You are correct. I doubt you will ever find a CAP NCO in a Senior Squadron. Senior Squadrons relate better to "Officers Club". The few NCOs we have now are usually in a Cadet or Composite Squadron.   

[Private Investigator]

So the purpose of education is to pick up concrete, specialized skill sets?  Why then did you take art, history, and literature in high school?  What specialized skill sets did those classes give you?

So they can create a better Big Mac   

[Al Sayre]

I would venture to guess that outside of CAPTalk, the vast majority of CAP probably doesnt even know this is coming!   

My SWAG (Scientific Wild Assumption/Guess) is; You are correct. I doubt you will ever find a CAP NCO in a Senior Squadron. Senior Squadrons relate better to "Officers Club". The few NCOs we have now are usually in a Cadet or Composite Squadron.   

You'd be suprised,  I have a retired USAF CMSgt/CAP Capt who recently became active again after a > 10 yr hiatus, in a Flight that was just recently chartered, pop up the other night asking about the "new NCO program", and I don't believe he's active on this board.  I'll have to ask him how he heard about it next time I see him...

[Panache]

I wonder if the restructuring of the Officer Corps could be something along the lines that was mentioned in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes:

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically.  Too often CAP officer grade is a misleading indication of ability or experience.  The general civilian population cannot tell the difference and draws no distinction between CAP officers and Air Force officers.  Therefore, the impression made is a direct reflection on our parent service.  In addition, the impression made, whether in ability, bearing, or appearance, is a direct reflection on Air Force officers who have worked very hard to achieve that same rank.   

Initial officer rank - It is not possible to produce a credible officer of someone with no military or CAP background by having them take an on-line course or even by spending a few hours in the classroom.

Subsequent promotions - Time in grade and PD awards are the minimum requirements for promotion - performance is also required.  A promotion is also recognition of the NEXT level of service. It is not uncommon to promote officers that become completely inactive.   Promotion is not a prize or payment for past service or a reward for simply being a volunteer.  It is not an entitlement.

PROPOSED CSAG ACTION:

That the CSAG recommend to CAP/CC changes to the promotion criteria to include:

1. Make current Flight Officer grades and requirements applicable to all new senior members with no military or cadet background, regardless of age.

2. Modify the minimum skill level/training and time-in-grade for duty performance promotions as follows:
 
a. Raise the skill level and training requirement one level for each grade
b. Make the Officer Basic Course a requirement for 2Lt instead of being taken at any time in the program
c. Require a letter of justification for promotion to field grade.  This letter should include documentation of the candidate's outstanding capabilities and experience, as well his/her plans for future contributions to CAP.


Grade     Min Skill Level/Trng      Time-In-Grade            In Addition
FO          Level I                         3 months as SM
TFO        Technician Rating           6 months as FO
SFO        Senior Rating                12 months as TFO
2 Lt        OBC                             6 months as SFO     Wing Level Board
1 Lt        Level II                        12 months as 2 Lt
Capt       Level III                       18 months as 1 LT    Justification letter
Maj         Level IV                       3 years as Capt       Justification letter
Lt Col      Level V                        4 years as Maj         Justification letter

[Papabird]

I wonder if the restructuring of the Officer Corps could be something along the lines that was mentioned in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes:

Wow, I like that.   :clap:

[johnnyb47]

I wonder if the restructuring of the Officer Corps could be something along the lines that was mentioned in the May 2013 CAP Senior Advisory Group minutes:

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

CAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically.  Too often CAP officer grade is a misleading indication of ability or experience.  The general civilian population cannot tell the difference and draws no distinction between CAP officers and Air Force officers.  Therefore, the impression made is a direct reflection on our parent service.  In addition, the impression made, whether in ability, bearing, or appearance, is a direct reflection on Air Force officers who have worked very hard to achieve that same rank.   

Initial officer rank - It is not possible to produce a credible officer of someone with no military or CAP background by having them take an on-line course or even by spending a few hours in the classroom.

Subsequent promotions - Time in grade and PD awards are the minimum requirements for promotion - performance is also required.  A promotion is also recognition of the NEXT level of service. It is not uncommon to promote officers that become completely inactive.   Promotion is not a prize or payment for past service or a reward for simply being a volunteer.  It is not an entitlement.

PROPOSED CSAG ACTION:

That the CSAG recommend to CAP/CC changes to the promotion criteria to include:

1. Make current Flight Officer grades and requirements applicable to all new senior members with no military or cadet background, regardless of age.

2. Modify the minimum skill level/training and time-in-grade for duty performance promotions as follows:
 
a. Raise the skill level and training requirement one level for each grade
b. Make the Officer Basic Course a requirement for 2Lt instead of being taken at any time in the program
c. Require a letter of justification for promotion to field grade.  This letter should include documentation of the candidate's outstanding capabilities and experience, as well his/her plans for future contributions to CAP.


Grade     Min Skill Level/Trng      Time-In-Grade            In Addition
FO          Level I                         3 months as SM
TFO        Technician Rating           6 months as FO
SFO        Senior Rating                12 months as TFO
2 Lt        OBC                             6 months as SFO     Wing Level Board
1 Lt        Level II                        12 months as 2 Lt
Capt       Level III                       18 months as 1 LT    Justification letter
Maj         Level IV                       3 years as Capt       Justification letter
Lt Col      Level V                        4 years as Maj         Justification letter

That looks like a good start.
Not to nitpick (Ok I'm going to nitpick) but I see a couple of things that bug me:

1) Many Specialty Tracks require a bare minimum of 36 months to reach Senior Level, such as Emergency Services. Others can be achieved in 18 months, like Communications.
I would be concerned that some candidates may choose Specialty Tracks based on how quickly they can achieve their Senior Rating and be eligible for SFO. If all time requirements for Specialty Tracks were synchronized this wouldn't be an issue.

2)

b. Make the Officer Basic Course a requirement for 2Lt instead of being taken at any time in the program

OBC is a requirement for Level II and promotion to Captain in the current PD structure. It isn't a "Take it anytime you wish" requirement. I hate little things like this because it makes me wonder what else the presenter/committee missed when drawing up the new proposed plan.

That's it.
/nitpick

Otherwise I like it.

[MSG Mac]

I would venture to guess that outside of CAPTalk, the vast majority of CAP probably doesnt even know this is coming!   

My SWAG (Scientific Wild Assumption/Guess) is; You are correct. I doubt you will ever find a CAP NCO in a Senior Squadron. Senior Squadrons relate better to "Officers Club". The few NCOs we have now are usually in a Cadet or Composite Squadron.   

You'd be suprised,  I have a retired USAF CMSgt/CAP Capt who recently became active again after a > 10 yr hiatus, in a Flight that was just recently chartered, pop up the other night asking about the "new NCO program", and I don't believe he's active on this board.  I'll have to ask him how he heard about it next time I see him...

Maybe he got it directly off the CAP website, just like most of us did when the announcement was made.

[jeders]

That looks like a good start.
Not to nitpick (Ok I'm going to nitpick) but I see a couple of things that bug me:

1) Many Specialty Tracks require a bare minimum of 36 months to reach Senior Level, such as Emergency Services. Others can be achieved in 18 months, like Communications.
I would be concerned that some candidates may choose Specialty Tracks based on how quickly they can achieve their Senior Rating and be eligible for SFO. If all time requirements for Specialty Tracks were synchronized this wouldn't be an issue.

2)

b. Make the Officer Basic Course a requirement for 2Lt instead of being taken at any time in the program

OBC is a requirement for Level II and promotion to Captain in the current PD structure. It isn't a "Take it anytime you wish" requirement. I hate little things like this because it makes me wonder what else the presenter/committee missed when drawing up the new proposed plan.

That's it.
/nitpick

Otherwise I like it.

Also, they apparently think that Capt is field grade rather than company grade.

c. Require a letter of justification for promotion to field grade.
...
Grade     Min Skill Level/Trng      Time-In-Grade            In Addition
...
Capt       Level III                       18 months as 1 LT    Justification letter

[Майор Хаткевич]

Heh, caught that too.

[ProdigalJim]

I liked that officer program change when we first posted on it here.

As for the NCO program, I'm really amused at the gnashing-of-teeth and rending-of-garments for a program which, in it's current outline, is at least three and possibly 4.5 years from implementation.

[Eclipse]

As for the NCO program, I'm really amused at the gnashing-of-teeth and rending-of-garments for a program which, in it's current outline, is at least three and possibly 4.5 years from implementation.

I didn't read those notes as being additive, I read them as indicating the proposal as written would take 18-24 months.  Which is reasonable considering what is proposed and
the fact that most of it is probably already done, considering it's been worked on for the last 3+ years.

With that said, it doesn't matter what the timeline is.  If it's not a good idea for the organization, it's not.   It just means that in 4-5 years people will be saying "why didn't anyone speak up?"
You have to understand that governments and their agencies work on a difference scale, and 4-5 years is nothing.

My town is just now getting affected, significantly, by a major highway construction plan that was approved 20 years ago.  People in town are up in arms because
it looks like it came out of nowhere and will take 10 years to finish.  Many didn't live here when the decisions were made.

Same goes for long-term initiatives - this will affect people who aren't even members (yet), and will live well past the current national leadership (which could also mean
it never reaches its potential fruition).

What's interesting, and all too typical for CAP, is that the potential negative consequences have either been dismissed, ignored, or are simply never to be discussed.
Any proposal that asserts to radically change an organization should always include the potential negative consequences.

[Storm Chaser]

Also, they apparently think that Capt is field grade rather than company grade.

Maybe they think this is more in line with the responsibilities they want a CAP Capt to have. If you think about it, the typical Air Force squadron is commanded by a field grade officer, not a company grade officer. In contrast, many CAP squadrons are commanded by company grade officers.

[Eclipse]

Maybe they think this is more in line with the responsibilities they want a CAP Capt to have. If you think about it, the typical Air Force squadron is commanded by a field grade officer, not a company grade officer. In contrast, many CAP squadrons are commanded by company grade officers.

Yes, but the scope of a typical USAF squadron looks more like a CAP wing.

[Storm Chaser]

Maybe they think this is more in line with the responsibilities they want a CAP Capt to have. If you think about it, the typical Air Force squadron is commanded by a field grade officer, not a company grade officer. In contrast, many CAP squadrons are commanded by company grade officers.

Yes, but the scope of a typical USAF squadron looks more like a CAP wing.

Not even close. The typical Air Force squadron has a very narrow focus (communications, security, airlift, civil engineering, finance, etc.). They don't have all the support functions that a typical CAP squadron has and are completely dependent on the group and wing for those services.

They do, however, manage much (and that's an understatement) larger budgets and resources. And their missions and capabilities are also much more complex.

[Eclipse]

They do, however, manage much (and that's an understatement) larger budgets and resources. And their missions and capabilities are also much more complex.

Agreed - I didn't say function, I said scope.  Why CAP feels the need to duplicate so much effort over and over when the majority of the administration could be handled at the wing
level and just let the units do "unit stuff" is beyond me.

Especially these days with the intertubes making things like personnel and most admin quick and simple, why have them at every echelon?

[Eclipse]

Not even close. The typical Air Force squadron has a very narrow focus (communications, security, airlift, civil engineering, finance, etc.).

except we don't do those things.  A typical aviation squadron has somewhere between 10-25 aircraft, which would be the only analog to a CAP squadron.

They do, however, manage much (and that's an understatement) larger budgets and resources. And their missions and capabilities are also much more complex.

Agreed - I didn't say function, I said scope.  Why CAP feels the need to duplicate so much effort over and over when the majority of the administration could be handled at the wing
level and just let the units do "unit stuff" is beyond me.

Especially these days with the intertubes making things like personnel and most admin quick and simple, why have them at every echelon?

The more you slice it, the more you see the military models don't fit CAP and never will.

[Storm Chaser]

The more you slice it, the more you see the military models don't fit CAP and never will.

Except, we don't really follow the current Air Force model. CAP units (squadrons, groups, wings, regions) are not structured the way the Air Force is structured.

I don't necessarily disagree that "military models don't" always "fit" CAP as a civilian volunteer organization. But that's the problem with wanting it both ways. If we want to be the Air Force Auxiliary, receive Air Force funding, wear Air Force-style uniforms and officer (or NCO) grade insignias, etc., then these somewhat incompatible models (military vs. civilian, government vs. volunteer) are going to be present in one way or another.

[Eclipse]

Fair enough, but then if a restructure is needed (and I think it is), concentrate on thing that makes meaningful differences and not
the trivialities of grade and other deck chairs.

Push as much of the administrivia of personnel, finance, etc., up to the wing level, get as much of it online as possible.

Focus inspections on mission performance at an appropriate level and get the units out of a constant circle of being graded on
box checking which not actually doing anything.

Retire specialties that are more about emulating a military model then are about what we actually do, or keep them at echelons where
they are appropriate.

The bottom, unpopular line is that if a member isn't focused on member-level mission execution, they probably shouldn't be assigned to a squadron.

In regards to who can command a squadron, I found it interesting the other day to learn that while the BSA has the same "must be present to win"
issues with their Scout Leaders, to be appointed as a Scoutmaster or A/Scoutmaster, you are required to attend classroom based training
as both a leader and in outdoor skills.  Imagine, requiring UCC and maybe SLS prior to being appointed to run a unit which has a lot more in
terms of expectations then a BSA unit.

[Storm Chaser]

Agree. Many functions know assigned to squadrons should either go away or transferred to higher headquarters. I also agree that we need to expand our online capabilities and continue automating many of the things we still do manually.

I also would like to see a focus on mission capabilities and use that as a measure of success. But for that, we need to eliminate some of the extraneous things we're expected to do now. There are so many (sometimes unnecessary) unit requirements, that it's almost impossible to keep up with the manning levels and resources we have available. We expect units to do so much (especially things that are not mission essential), that many end up not succeeding at any or very few of them.

Requiring training prior to becoming a commander would be ideal (I'm all for it), but hard to enforce in smaller units. Perhaps the new command specialty track is a step in that direction.

[Eclipse]

Requiring training prior to becoming a commander would be ideal (I'm all for it), but hard to enforce in smaller units. Perhaps the new command specialty track is a step in that direction.

It seems like it would be, but you simply make it a requirement and live with it.  As mentioned, it's hard-fast in the BSA, unit viability or not.

In the case of my son's Troop, their Scoutmaster quit abruptly and they were left hanging - this didn't change the BSA's rules.
Unit meetings were suspended while finding a replacement, and once found, the new guy couldn't be officially pointed until
he'd completed all the necessary training - and this is practical, standardized, classroom training.

In the interim the Scouts attended meetings and activities with other local troops, and the Troops committee continued the
administrative work of the unit. (FWIW I don't think the committee paradigm fits CAP, since I've seen far too much in-fighting
amongst parents who are otherwise no involved but have a small slice of power, but in the interim of a CC, Group or Wing
could keep the doors open, which is the kind of thing they actually should be doing).

So much of our baseline performance issues, which then ripple through out the organization could be fixed by just this simple requirement.
In CAP's case, I think it should be a combo of tenure and training, which then gets back to the unit responsibility of recruiting
a large enough pool to always have someone interested.