CAP Talk

In the February 2010 national board minutes Agenda item 17 gives me the impression that senior member NCO ranks are coming back.

At the moment there is no way to join CAP and earn NCO grade.  If you earned the rank in the actual military it carries over and you can join CAP at the same rank if you want.  They discuss developing a senior member NCO track so that such person can be promoted later and remain an NCO, unlike the current system where NCO rank is initial entry only and any promotion is to the normal officer structure.

My affiliation with CAP goes back 36 years and the senior member NCO ranks were long gone when I showed up.  It would be interesting to day the least, to see them return.

There has been no indications that they are thinking of letting non-prior service become NCOs.  Rather they are thinking of ways to let prior-service NCOs advance in CAP rank. 

A committee was formed about 2 years ago to study this issue and come up with recommendations for a CAP NCO program.  However, all we have to date is what is in the NB minutes.  I have no idea what will eventually proposed. 

IMHO, I think the NCO grades for CAP senior members make no sense.  It will not change our culture, will not improve our uniform issues, will not increase recruitment, will not increase retention, will not motivate our cadets, will not increase our customer base, will not improve our PD program and, will not make CAP a better organization (if I've left anything out, forgive me.... :D )

CAP's NCO program died years ago for good reasons.  And, I'm not one for raising the dead.  >:D

Search is your friend - this is a dead horse and a half.

Once more for the cheap seats.

Military NCO's are the "doers", officers are the "managers".  A fundamental caste-like separation exists, and while there are plenty of places they intersect, there is no question they are "different".  This is reflected in everything from education to parking spaces.

In a volunteer organization like CAP where "everyone" can do "whatever they want", and SMWOG command squadrons, while Cols. empty trash cans after meetings, a fundamental division between "doers" and "managers" would never work. It's bad enough today with having some people think they they are above the grunt work of a squadron just because they can drive a plane or work a radio.

There simply will never be a "corps" that needs "looking out for" by NCO's.  So in CAP, at most you would simply extend out the progression in the same way as the cadet program, where your grade is simply a milestone of membership.

We'd be much better served by looking at either Flight Officer or Specialist grades for those members who just want to do "x" and never progress, etc.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2010, 02:16:22 AMWe'd be much better served by looking at either Flight Officer or Specialist grades for those members who just want to do "x" and never progress.

I was actually wondering why the flight officer ranks were not used instead of "SMWOG" but the system is actually fine the way it is.

Quote from: FW on June 30, 2010, 02:04:23 AM
CAP's NCO program died years ago for good reasons.  And, I'm not one for raising the dead.  >:D

Good point - it surprised me to see that  and I read more into it than was there.

Quote from: RVT on June 30, 2010, 05:12:13 AM

Quote from: FW on June 30, 2010, 02:04:23 AM
CAP's NCO program died years ago for good reasons.  And, I'm not one for raising the dead.  >:D

Good point - it surprised me to see that  and I read more into it than was there.

This "program" was the work of one person, who is not even a member anymore.

There is no need for NCOs in CAP.  After reading the ridicule of CAP on other forum where people are making remarks suggesting  "poser/pretender-ism," I think it is a horrible idea. 

I am changing my stance on this...the only NCOs we should have are those having their earned millitary grade "bestowed" as an hommage.  Anything more will rain down critism we don't need.

I may be in the minority, but I believe that the cadet program has a genuine need for quality NCOs to serve as trainers, mentors, and role models for our cadets.

Our cadet program (unlike others) teaches both NCO and officer leadership styles as the cadets progress from C/Amn to C/Col.  And while we are fortunate to have a number of quality CAP officers to serve as role models and coaches for our cadet officers, there is a role for CAP NCOs to model and teach NCO leadership styles.

Sure, in the absencs of NCOs, our CP officers do the best they can to teach and mentor our cadet officers, and they are largely successful.  But genuine NCOs can do so more easily and genuinely.

YMMV.

Quote from: Ned on July 01, 2010, 03:07:11 AM
I may be in the minority, but I believe that the cadet program has a genuine need for quality NCOs to serve as trainers, mentors, and role models for our cadets.

Our cadet program (unlike others) teaches both NCO and officer leadership styles as the cadets progress from C/Amn to C/Col.  And while we are fortunate to have a number of quality CAP officers to serve as role models and coaches for our cadet officers, there is a role for CAP NCOs to model and teach NCO leadership styles.

Sure, in the absencs of NCOs, our CP officers do the best they can to teach and mentor our cadet officers, and they are largely successful.  But genuine NCOs can do so more easily and genuinely.

YMMV.

True. Only problem is, there's a lot of members out there that have no idea what it is to be a good NCO, let alone an officer.

But I digress...

I don't disagree, but how does their wearing stripes change their ability?

Military NCO's have a lot to give our cadets and seniors, but so do teachers, officers and postmen.  If a military NCO is a good leader and mentor, the grade he wear makes no difference, beyond his wearing stripes makes him "different" (in many ways).

I was opposed to a CAP Senior NCO Corps but have recently changed my mind.  Since I use to wear stripes, it would be great to have a NCO Corps where we could promote CAP NCOs.  Then I could turn in my officer rank and ask for NCO rank and progress up to Chief Master Sergeant or Command Chief Master Sergeant.  It could be a lot of fun and I bet I could get a bunch of others to join me going after the zebra stripes! We could all hang out in the Top Three room at the NCO club.  ;D

Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2010, 03:33:04 AM
I don't disagree, but how does their wearing stripes change their ability?

Military NCO's have a lot to give our cadets and seniors, but so do teachers, officers and postmen.  If a military NCO is a good leader and mentor, the grade he wear makes no difference, beyond his wearing stripes makes him "different" (in many ways).

Officer and NCO leadership styles are different.  It is mostly the difference between direct and indirect leadership, but there is more to it than just that.

CAP NCOs could and should model different behaviors than officers.  Obviously, since many terrific former RM NCOs wear CAP officer grade the skillset resides in many of our CP officers.  But it is harder for an officer to model the NCO behaviors and "lead by example."

I suspect we will never have enough NCOs to adequately staff all of our cadet and composite units in any event.  But there is definately a place for NCOs in CP.

Quote from: Ned on July 01, 2010, 04:46:12 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 01, 2010, 03:33:04 AM
I don't disagree, but how does their wearing stripes change their ability?

Military NCO's have a lot to give our cadets and seniors, but so do teachers, officers and postmen.  If a military NCO is a good leader and mentor, the grade he wear makes no difference, beyond his wearing stripes makes him "different" (in many ways).

Officer and NCO leadership styles are different.  It is mostly the difference between direct and indirect leadership, but there is more to it than just that.

CAP NCOs could and should model different behaviors than officers.  Obviously, since many terrific former RM NCOs wear CAP officer grade the skillset resides in many of our CP officers.  But it is harder for an officer to model the NCO behaviors and "lead by example."

I suspect we will never have enough NCOs to adequately staff all of our cadet and composite units in any event.  But there is definately a place for NCOs in CP.

How so...NCO ranks would be "FULL METAL JACKET" and OFFICER RANKS would be "Sgt BILKO a.k.a 1956?"

Just a jest...so some degree...but, a CAP NCO corps, to be effective, would have to 1) have a mechinism for Promotion, 2) have a distinct place in CAP that made its best efforts most effectively visible and supported and 3) would have to have a stirring need to exist.

This would also mean having a CAP that operated under "strict military protocols" which would require a complete overhaul of CAP culture.  Then, it would be ridiculed for "playing soldier."

To  have an effective "NCO Corps", CAP (members) must be willing to create and live with two distinct levels of active membership.  In an organization such as ours, I think that would be extremely difficult.  It is the main reason, IMO,  the NCO program died years ago. 

In the cadet program, it would be great to have an adult "NCO" to give that "direct leadership" experience to the cadets however, it may be better for our senior CP officers to guide our cadet NCO's to properly direct cadet airman.  The leadership laboratory should be designed for cadets to get the experience "hands on".  This makes the preference for senior member NCO's less important in the scheme of things.  I'm convinced there is no "need" for NCO's in CAP, no need for them in cadet programs and certainly, no need for them in the senior PD program.

Morning All,
Having served with the Air Training Corps and Civil Air Patrol I would just like to let members know how the ATC does it. The ATC has both NCO and Officer ranks. An individual can apply for either, allowing them to progress through the NCO track or Officer. An NCO may at a future date apply for appointment as an officer. The NCO ranks consist of Sergeant, Flight Sergeant and Warrant Officer. NCO's will serve for four years as a Sergeant before being eligible for promotion to Flight Sergeant and then another four years to Warrant Officer. Officers are a little different two years at entry level Pilot Officer then promotion to Flying Officer. The next rank Flight Lieutenant is for Squadron Commanders and for officers who have 12 years service as an officer.
NCO ranks perform slightly different rolls, one of their main duties is drill and discipline but also carry out many other duties. The only one they can not do is become Squadron Commander.
I started my career with the ATC as a Warrant Officer (the other two ranks were introduced after I was commissioned and after I moved to the USA). For me it was an excellent way of developing skills I needed. If I had not taken this route I would not of been the officer I became. I went on to become a Squadron Commander in the ATC and am now a Squadron Commander in CAP. It is my experience that some people are best suited to being NCO's and some Officers. Just because some are NCO's does not mean they are lesser qualified. Their roll may be different but they are equally important. I for one would love to see NCO ranks brought in for Senior Members.

Quote from: Ned on July 01, 2010, 04:46:12 AM
Officer and NCO leadership styles are different.  It is mostly the difference between direct and indirect leadership, but there is more to it than just that.

CAP NCOs could and should model different behaviors than officers.  Obviously, since many terrific former RM NCOs wear CAP officer grade the skillset resides in many of our CP officers.  But it is harder for an officer to model the NCO behaviors and "lead by example."

NCOs in the USAF are technicians and marching troops around is something very few NCOs ever do unless they are TIs in a training environment - and then they have to learn how to do it.  You are confusing USAF NCOs with Army or Marine Corps NCOs. 

Ned - to say that it is harder for an officer to "lead by example" is just plain insulting to RM Commissioned Officers.  Most USAF officers learn how to march troops around while a Cadet.  That is something that is not taught to USAF airmen.  BTDT both enlisted and commissioned.

Quote from: Short Field on July 01, 2010, 05:51:23 PM

Ned - to say that it is harder for an officer to "lead by example" is just plain insulting to RM Commissioned Officers.  Most USAF officers learn how to march troops around while a Cadet.  That is something that is not taught to USAF airmen.  BTDT both enlisted and commissioned.

It was certainly not my intent to insult anyone - I leave that to some of the other regulars here on CAPTalk.   ;)

After all, I am a retired Infantry officer and spent multiple decades dealing with highly competent NCOs and highly competent officers.

But wouldn't you agree with me that it would be difficult for a CAP officer to "lead by example" and model NCO behaviors and skillsets? 

Heck, I pointed out that a lot of terrific CAP officers are actual former RM NCOs - it's not a question of competence or knowledge in many cases.

But officers are supposed to lead and act like officers, and NCO's are supposed to lead and act like . . . (wait for it) . . . NCOs. 

And there are differences.  Important differences that have served the military well for several thousand years.

That's my point.  Cadets can llearn from textbooks, mentoring, coaching, experience, etc.

But they also learn by watching role models.  I think they would be well served by having a chance to watch high-speed NCOs ply their craft.  It can be a wonder to observe.

Unfortunately, the CAP cadet nco program and USAF NCO program are very different creatures. Not just in the particpants, but also in the goals. Contrary to what many cadets seem to believe, C/CMSgt is not the pinnicle of the cadet program. It isn't even half way through.

As for the notion that all RM NCOs are so incredibly awesome that no officer could ever hope to hold a candle to them - BULL PUCKEY. I have met good ncos and not-so-good ncos in about the same percentage as officers and civilians. When you have CAP NCOs going around pointing at their srtipes and telling folks "When you see these, think Lt Col" you have problem children who, IMNSHO, shouldn't be in CAP.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 30, 2010, 02:16:22 AM
We'd be much better served by looking at either Flight Officer or Specialist grades for those members who just want to do "x" and never progress, etc.

Which would basically be bringing back CAP Warrant Officers, something I've long supported.

You do one job, focus on that and you're GTG.

I'd trade my Captain's bars for CWO3.

Also, the USAF doesn't have Warrants, so there'd be no confusion with them.

Quote from: Ned on July 01, 2010, 06:41:23 PM
After all, I am a retired Infantry officer and spent multiple decades dealing with highly competent NCOs and highly competent officers.

You are on the BOG so please repeat after me, "United States Air Force Auxiliary".  As you should know, CAP is not a US Army centric program.  USA Infantry NCOs are trained in different things than USAF NCOs.   The majority of USAF airmen are trained as technicians and gain technical expertise as they advance. Yes, they pick up leadership skills, but it is different set of skills than combat arms NCOs. 

Quote from: arajca on July 01, 2010, 06:50:17 PM
As for the notion that all RM NCOs are so incredibly awesome that no officer could ever hope to hold a candle to them - BULL PUCKEY.

:clap: The last two Sergeant Majors that worked for me were great at organizing golf tournaments but tended to create as many problems in the organization as they solved. (Yes, they were USA E-9s - the USMC E-8 that replaced them didn't play golf and did a much better job).
   

"...I have met good ncos and not-so-good ncos in about the same percentage as officers and civilians."

I second that.

Quote from: Short Field on July 02, 2010, 01:08:00 AM

Quote from: Ned on July 01, 2010, 06:41:23 PM
After all, I am a retired Infantry officer and spent multiple decades dealing with highly competent NCOs and highly competent officers.

You are on the BOG so please repeat after me, "United States Air Force Auxiliary".  As you should know, CAP is not a US Army centric program.  USA Infantry NCOs are trained in different things than USAF NCOs.   The majority of USAF airmen are trained as technicians and gain technical expertise as they advance. Yes, they pick up leadership skills, but it is different set of skills than combat arms NCOs. 

Gosh, I think after 40+ years in CAP I have some sense of our Air Force lineage and relationships.

But I strongly disagree that USAF and USA NCOs have significantly different roles.

Sure, both "flavors" of NCO need to be technically competent in their respective career fields, but the primary reason for NCOs is to serve as leaders  and supervisors of their enlisted soldiers and airman.  And the basics of supervising servicemembers is pretty much the same whether they wear green or blue.

I have had the privilege of commanding fairly large joint units, and I have always selected an AF Command Chief rather than an Army Sergeant Major to assist me because I have found that the AF Chief was better at the working in a purple environment and leading soldiers and airmen.

Make no mistake - leading servicemenbers in an operational environment is a serious business that requires similar leadership skills regardless of your uniform color.  It does a serious disservice to CS/CSS/USAF NCOs to imply that only combat arms NCOs have "real" leadership skills.

Quote from: Ned on July 02, 2010, 04:52:29 AM
but the primary reason for NCOs is to serve as leaders  and supervisors of their enlisted soldiers and airman.  And the basics of supervising servicemembers is pretty much the same whether they wear green or blue.

The next step in this thought is that the primary reason for Officers is to serve as leaders and supervisors of their NCOs.  And the basics of supervising servicemembers is pretty much the same whether they are NCOs or Airmen.

Sheesh,  OK, Let's go back to "CAP 101"...

We are civilians.  Our cadets are too.  Our grade structure has nothing to do with the military.  NCO grades will make no difference.
CAP grade is not the impetus for good role models to our cadets; proper senior member training and adherence to our "Core Values" is.

I am not convinced we will change the above "laws of nature". 

Oh, BTW; the world is not flat. ;D

Quote from: FW on July 02, 2010, 11:21:12 AM
Oh, BTW; the world is not flat. ;D

What?! Whaddamean the world isn't flat! When did this happen? Who changed it? It looks flat on my wall...  ;D 

Quote from: FW on July 02, 2010, 11:21:12 AM
Oh, BTW; the world is not flat. ;D

Prove it using only personal experience...

Quote from: Eclipse on July 02, 2010, 02:51:19 PM

Quote from: FW on July 02, 2010, 11:21:12 AM
Oh, BTW; the world is not flat. ;D

Prove it using only personal experience...

of course the world isn't flat.  There are mountains and hills. ;D

Quote from: Eclipse on July 02, 2010, 02:51:19 PM

Quote from: FW on July 02, 2010, 11:21:12 AM
Oh, BTW; the world is not flat. ;D

Prove it using only personal experience...

When I observe ships approaching from the horizon on the Great Lakes I can see their tops before I can see their hulls, thus proving a curvature to the earth.

Further, during a lunar eclipse, the shape of the Earth is projected onto the Moon, and it is...round.

Quote from: N Harmon on July 02, 2010, 04:27:12 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 02, 2010, 02:51:19 PM

Quote from: FW on July 02, 2010, 11:21:12 AM
Oh, BTW; the world is not flat. ;D

Prove it using only personal experience...

Further, during a lunar eclipse, the shape of the Earth is projected onto the Moon, and it is...round.

But is it round like coin or like a ball? Can you tell from a shadow?

Quote from: Ned on July 01, 2010, 03:07:11 AM
I may be in the minority, but I believe that the cadet program has a genuine need for quality NCOs to serve as trainers, mentors, and role models for our cadets.

Our cadet program (unlike others) teaches both NCO and officer leadership styles as the cadets progress from C/Amn to C/Col.  And while we are fortunate to have a number of quality CAP officers to serve as role models and coaches for our cadet officers, there is a role for CAP NCOs to model and teach NCO leadership styles.

Sure, in the absencs of NCOs, our CP officers do the best they can to teach and mentor our cadet officers, and they are largely successful.  But genuine NCOs can do so more easily and genuinely.

YMMV.

I don't think the OP was referring to the Cadets.

Clarification, please:

1) are we talking about providing a way for former military NCOs to promote within CAP as NCOs? this might be a good idea

OR

2) are we talking about turning folks with no prior military experience into CAP NCOs? Why? We already try to train such folks as CAP officers, with mixed results at best...which is a result mostly of the system we have in place, rather than any fault of the trainees.

We keep talking about flight officer grades for those who want very limited or focused participation...this makes some sense, rather than the current system of making everyone who shows up for six months a lieutenant (at least!)

Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 02, 2010, 10:53:09 PM
Clarification, please:

1) are we talking about providing a way for former military NCOs to promote within CAP as NCOs? this might be a good idea

OR

2) are we talking about turning folks with no prior military experience into CAP NCOs? Why? We already try to train such folks as CAP officers, with mixed results at best...which is a result mostly of the system we have in place, rather than any fault of the trainees.

We keep talking about flight officer grades for those who want very limited or focused participation...this makes some sense, rather than the current system of making everyone who shows up for six months a lieutenant (at least!)

What is actually under discussion by the CAP leadership is the first option. 

Quote from: Short Field on July 02, 2010, 05:59:55 AM
The next step in this thought is that the primary reason for Officers is to serve as leaders and supervisors of their NCOs.  And the basics of supervising servicemembers is pretty much the same whether they are NCOs or Airmen.

Well, yes and no.

Mostly no.

Given your service, I know you know that officers are not merely "super NCOs."  I'm not sure why you are trying to imply that they are.

The officer and NCO realms and styles have been fairly consistent since the Roman legions.  Every successful military in the last couple thousand years or so has embraced this model.

No really.  It is a universal model.

And they are different.  Yes, they both wear uniforms and supervise folks.  And there may well be more similarities than differences - but the differences are crucial.

At this point I think you are arguing just for the fun of it.  As a legal type guy, I normally enjoy a pointess argument as much as the next guy.

But this is too important for the usual CT treatment.

Reasonable minds can differ as to whether we should have a CAP NCO program after a thorough review of the costs and benefits.  It requires an infrastructure to support and - depending on how we develop and implement it - a lot of new doctrine for training and promotion of an NCO corps.  Which takes time and effort of a lot of PD folks that could otherwise be working on other stuff.

But my point all along has been that there is a least one aspect of our program that would benefit from a strong NCO program.  And that is our Cadet Program where NCOs could serve as valuable instructors and role models.

Obviously, we have a successful program now, so an NCO program is not crucual or vital to CP.  We can get along just fine without one.

But we could have a better CP with it.

Ultimately our volunteer leaders will decide.

Quote from: Ned on July 03, 2010, 01:13:14 AM
Obviously, we have a successful program now, so an NCO program is not crucual or vital to CP.  We can get along just fine without one.
But we could have a better CP with it.

This becomes a matter of opinion and that is where we have different opinions.

A lot don't understand what a FO is now, they really won't understand anything more complicated than it already is.

Is the CW, of those who will make the decisions, to recruit current or former military NCO's into CAP for the express purpose of giving a "role model" experience to cadets; augmenting our present "NCO Corps"?  Then, give these members a way to advance in grade?  OK, so?  I may be a bit thick however, I still don't see the benefit for CAP; none. 

In going over this thread, we all have a good idea of the NCO's place in the world.  It is an important place but, other than create a perceived "caste" system in CAP, what would be the difference between a CAP  2LT serving as a CP officer and a CAP MSGT doing the same job with the same training?  Grade insignia?

Cadets are supposed to figure out how to follow and how to lead with their peers.  Senior members are only guides.  What we, as senior members, wear on our shoulders or sleeves should not be a factor in the training and care of cadets.  Remember also, most teenagers think we are more of a "necessary evil" than "role models"... >:D

Most cadet and composite squadrons don't have many senior members to begin with.  Recruiting military NCO's into CAP is problematic because of demographics, interest and number.  And, if recruited, how would they serve differently than CAP members with "officer grade"?   Then, there is always the possibility that the "NCO" ends up being the only senior member at  a meeting.  Then what?  What if the "officer" gets into an argument with the "NCO" and walks out?  Do we allow the NCO to "take command"?  Does it matter?  Do we really care?  Not to me.... ::)

IMHO, cadets won't care what our grade insignia is.  They will only care for a well run program, excellent training opportunities and, a reason to continue coming to meetings every week.  We need to address these issues before worrying about NCO's in CAP. 

Oh, and BTW; the earth is round because we keep coming back to the same place.... what to wear. ;D

Another thing lost on people who don't understand the NCO place in the military is that NCO's are in "charge" or "control", but never in "command", which would negate an NCO from ever being a squadron commander or higher.

If you say "Well, what difference does it make?"  Exactly.

We need a constant stream of good leaders and mentors who work the program, not people who are so focused on the NCO vs. Officer mentality that they can't get past it.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 03:26:17 PMWe need a constant stream of good leaders and mentors who work the program, not people who are so focused on the NCO vs. Officer mentality that they can't get past it.

The fact is that since almost no prior-service NCOs choose this option for "NCO pride" or whatever reason indicates that not many people are of this mentality. 

If there was a realistic way to start everbody out as enlisted and give them a route to move up through the ranks, I wouldn't be opposed to that.  I just don't think we really have enough training opportunities to provide a couple of dozen meaningful ranks.  Heck, the PD steps we have now within the officer ranks are somewhat weak now.  Just think if we had to spread those steps out over enlisted ranks as well. 

Heres an Idea... let me know what you think of this...

The only CAP members who wear Officer rank would meet the following criteria, this would apply to new members and not those allready wearing the rank...

1.Former Commissioned Officers and NCOs
2. Former Cadets, Mitchell or higher
3. Members who hold skills we need.  Pilots, Nurses, Doctors, Financial people

All other members would fall into the NCO Tiers...

Provide an avenue for promotion and at a point allow those who have demonstrated the skills for an officer be promoted to one.

I think this would be fine for many members who join because their kids did or hey I just want to help out and volunteer.

Feedback?  This isn't a perfect plan but just something that was in my mind.

Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 03, 2010, 04:29:49 PM
1.Former Commissioned Officers and NCOs

Why do these deserve a CAP rank for something they probably did 30 years ago that has almost no bearing on CAP duties or skills while someone that has been in CAP for 15 years is relegated to NCO rank? 

I gotta go with River on this - talk about creating animosity.

You have a bunch of (recently) former cadets wearing brass while adults walking in the door who are otherwise leaders in their corporate fields have a single stripe?

Hire JJ ABrahms and reboot the entire program, including a way to re-certify the entire existing cadre within a reasonable amount of time, and you'll get my attention, otherwise, anything that builds an artificial lower tier "just because" fails before the vote.

Bear in mind, also, that the vast majority of CAP leaders who would make the decisions to implement such a program are Major's and higher with a decade in and little interest in starting as an Airman just to pacify someone's idea that NCO's are "better". 

So...

Do you grandfather these leaders and make them orphan officers, or cut the top end off of your program by hacking off the very people who are doing all the work today?

Quote from: RiverAux on July 03, 2010, 04:38:42 PM

Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 03, 2010, 04:29:49 PM
1.Former Commissioned Officers and NCOs

Why do these deserve a CAP rank for something they probably did 30 years ago that has almost no bearing on CAP duties or skills while someone that has been in CAP for 15 years is relegated to NCO rank?

Its hard to draw the line in the sand on this... but if you read the full post you will note that I said this would apply to only new members not those already serving as CAP Officers...  So.. those that have been serving for 15 years would by no means be relegated to the NCO Tier...

We could just get rid of rank all together and the only time we fall under a formal chain of command would be on a mission with the ICS System and in the unit where we have the Squadron Commander... but those would be titles...

Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 03, 2010, 04:29:49 PM
Heres an Idea... let me know what you think of this...

The only CAP members who wear Officer rank would meet the following criteria, this would apply to new members and not those allready wearing the rank...

1.Former Commissioned Officers and NCOs
2. Former Cadets, Mitchell or higher
3. Members who hold skills we need.  Pilots, Nurses, Doctors, Financial people

All other members would fall into the NCO Tiers...

Provide an avenue for promotion and at a point allow those who have demonstrated the skills for an officer be promoted to one.

I think this would be fine for many members who join because their kids did or hey I just want to help out and volunteer.

Feedback?  This isn't a perfect plan but just something that was in my mind.

As always with these kinds of things, it is best to start with a good definition of the "problem" you are trying to address with this solution.

And then show us how your proposal helps solve the problem as defined.

So, do you have a concise problem statement on the officer issue?

Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 03, 2010, 04:54:57 PM
We could just get rid of rank all together and the only time we fall under a formal chain of command would be on a mission with the ICS System and in the unit where we have the Squadron Commander... but those would be titles...

That's all we have today.

Grade confers no authority whatsoever in CAP, up to and including the National Commander.  All authority is based on duty posting.

In fact, our system today is somewhat akin to having Group and Unit Commanders really exercising an NCO-type authority, since the nearest thing we have to a "commission" is the corporate officers, and the subordinate commanders are actually acting through the Wing commander's corporate-appointed  command authority, just as NCO's take charge of their elements through the command authority of the commissioned officers appointed above them.

Quote from: Nolan Teel on July 03, 2010, 04:53:03 PM
Its hard to draw the line in the sand on this...

Most people agitating for change forget the 1st cardinal rule:   If it ain't broke, don't fix it.   

I can see some benefits in Ned's view; back when we had USAF LNCO's at wing level, the good ones had a profound impact on seniors and cadets -- sometimes more than the LO's.

I'm not really worried about an experienced NCO being able to 'manage' a new officer/former cadet....they've been handling 'butterbars' for generations!

Finally, if we want an NCO in a command slot, and the individual is amenable, then promote the person to 1 Lt or Captain!

Personally, I like Nolan Teel's ideas, too, but I'm afraid that ship sailed 20-30 years ago...at this point it would be like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 03, 2010, 06:04:54 PM
I can see some benefits in Ned's view; back when we had USAF LNCO's at wing level, the good ones had a profound impact on seniors and cadets -- sometimes more than the LO's.

I'd really like some hard examples of how the staffer's grade made a difference in their impact.  A good leader and staffer is just that, regardless of grade, and being an LNCO doesn't make you any more (or less) "not in the chain" than the State Directors are today (which is the real problem).

The duties are identical, and my experience does not echo the above.

As Ned and Short Field have said.....

What exactly is the "problem"?

There is none....except that those few individuals who wear NCO ranks cannot progress, fall outside the normal "idea" make up of CAP.  They throw sand into the already gunky machinery which is our rank system.

It is already bad enough that we have Squadrons commanded by 1st Lt's who have Lt Cols and Cols "under them".

The regs allow for a CAP NCOs to hold command....do we have a wing/regional/national commander who wears SSgt stripes?

Now talk about confusing.

The only reason we have CAP NCO ranks is to appease the few people who "don't want to be officers".

Any program that brings back NCO's with out also completely revamping our CAP rank structure is just eye wash to give this small hand full of individuals more prestige....with out really addressing the issue that there is no "need" for them in the first place.

^ Yep.  All the way.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 03, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
As Ned and Short Field have said.....

What exactly is the "problem"?

There is none....except that those few individuals who wear NCO ranks cannot progress, fall outside the normal "idea" make up of CAP.  They throw sand into the already gunky machinery which is our rank system.

It is already bad enough that we have Squadrons commanded by 1st Lt's who have Lt Cols and Cols "under them".

The regs allow for a CAP NCOs to hold command....do we have a wing/regional/national commander who wears SSgt stripes?

Now talk about confusing.

The only reason we have CAP NCO ranks is to appease the few people who "don't want to be officers".

Any program that brings back NCO's with out also completely revamping our CAP rank structure is just eye wash to give this small hand full of individuals more prestige....with out really addressing the issue that there is no "need" for them in the first place.

Seconded!

Let me add, that those of you who think that all of you who think that new members should start out as NCOs and the progress up toward commissioned ranks are just wrong.

I was a Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy. Not every enlisted person desired to become an Officer. Once you make E-9, it is not necessarily your desire to start out at the bottom by becoming an O-1.

If you have a former NCO who wants to wear stripes instead of bars, I say power to them.

If you want to treat NCO grades as a "stepping stone" then your only military experience is probably from watching Star Trek and trying to piece it together from there.

I am personally offended as a Petty Officer (a Navy NCO) that you would even suggest it. What you are suggesting is incredibly disrespectful to those who are proud to have been enlisted.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And if you don't know what you are talking about, keep your mouth shut.

+1

The only reason CAP has NCO grades at this time is stroke the egos of some military NCOs (not all military NCOs who join CAP choose to become CAP NCOs). The main justification that I have seen for expanding it is the fallacious argument that wearing stripes makes one a better role model for cadets than wearing bars/leafs/eagles/stars. Never mind that in the military, being an NCO is an end unto itself, whereas in the CAP cadet program, it is only a stepping stone to officership.

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
The only reason CAP has NCO grades at this time is stroke the egos of some military NCOs (not all military NCOs who join CAP choose to become CAP NCOs). The main justification that I have seen for expanding it is the fallacious argument that wearing stripes makes one a better role model for cadets than wearing bars/leafs/eagles/stars. Never mind that in the military, being an NCO is an end unto itself, whereas in the CAP cadet program, it is only a stepping stone to officership.

Yeah, it's that last part that I find offensive, to be honest.

It is what fuels the notion that there are two roles in the RM, Commissioned Officers and those who wish they were Commissioned Officers.

I'm not saying stripes are better than bars. But I am saying that bars are not better than stripes.

^ To your point as well - enlistedmen don't "start as NCO's", either, and many never attain that status.  CAP members would have to
join as Airmen basics and click three spots just to get to E-3.

At one time there was an issue in conferring advanced CAP officer grade to NCO's who joined, that was fixed a number of years ago fairly well.

As you say, those who are pushing for enlisted grades without a full program reboot don't understand what it means to be an NCO.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:59:16 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
The only reason CAP has NCO grades at this time is stroke the egos of some military NCOs (not all military NCOs who join CAP choose to become CAP NCOs). The main justification that I have seen for expanding it is the fallacious argument that wearing stripes makes one a better role model for cadets than wearing bars/leafs/eagles/stars. Never mind that in the military, being an NCO is an end unto itself, whereas in the CAP cadet program, it is only a stepping stone to officership.

Yeah, it's that last part that I find offensive, to be honest.

It is what fuels the notion that there are two roles in the RM, Commissioned Officers and those who wish they were Commissioned Officers.

I'm not saying stripes are better than bars. But I am saying that bars are not better than stripes.

What, you don't agree that the CAP cadet program starts at C/AmB progresses through the Airman grades, through the NCO grades, through the officer grades, finishing at C/Col? That C/CMSgt hasn't completed half the program? That, unlike the military, C/ncos are expected - no, REQUIRED - to become officers?

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 03:16:50 AM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 01:59:16 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
The only reason CAP has NCO grades at this time is stroke the egos of some military NCOs (not all military NCOs who join CAP choose to become CAP NCOs). The main justification that I have seen for expanding it is the fallacious argument that wearing stripes makes one a better role model for cadets than wearing bars/leafs/eagles/stars. Never mind that in the military, being an NCO is an end unto itself, whereas in the CAP cadet program, it is only a stepping stone to officership.

Yeah, it's that last part that I find offensive, to be honest.

It is what fuels the notion that there are two roles in the RM, Commissioned Officers and those who wish they were Commissioned Officers.

I'm not saying stripes are better than bars. But I am saying that bars are not better than stripes.

What, you don't agree that the CAP cadet program starts at C/AmB progresses through the Airman grades, through the NCO grades, through the officer grades, finishing at C/Col? That C/CMSgt hasn't completed half the program? That, unlike the military, C/ncos are expected - no, REQUIRED - to become officers?

No, I don't like that. Because it is not a realistic reflection of the military. There is nothing wrong with being enlisted. It is this sort of programming that creates the mentality that an O-1 is "better" than an E-9. Especially since these days, the most common difference between officers and enlisted (college degrees) has been lessened greatly.

In the USN these days, an Associates is expected to make E-7, Bachelors for E-8 and a Masters is becoming increasingly commonplace to make E-9. And hardly any of those folks move on to become Ensigns (O-1)

Well, unfortunately, that is the program.

Interesting, though, that being a C/CMSgt in CAP gets you nothing if you enlist in the military, but being a C/2d Lt does get you something. There must be a reason that the military values cadet officers over cadet ncos.

The Mitchell award is a milestone and shows extra effort and participation.

It is the first promotion that requires a cadet leave the squadron (i.e. encampment), besides, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 12:48:05 AM
If you want to treat NCO grades as a "stepping stone" then your only military experience is probably from watching Star Trek and trying to piece it together from there.

Or the CAP Cadet Program.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 12:48:05 AM
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. And if you don't know what you are talking about, keep your mouth shut.

:clap:

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
The main justification that I have seen for expanding it is the fallacious argument that wearing stripes makes one a better role model for cadets than wearing bars/leafs/eagles/stars.

Really?  Fallacious?

Please explain that to me.  I understand that you may disagree, but fallacious?

Quote from: Inigo MontoyaYou keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

As you all know by now I am a former RAF/ATC member, I was an NCO in the ATC as a cadet before enlisting in the RAF where I became an NCO before my 12 year career ended. I then went back to the ATC where I started as a Warrant Officer the only NCO rank at the time, Sergeant and Flight sergeant have since been added. I then took my commission in the RAFVR(T) and eventually was given my own cadet squadron. So with that in mind you can understand my puzzlement when I hear people saying there is no need or we should not have NCO ranks for senior members with in the CAP. From my experience some people make better officers having served as an NCO (Me included) some people make excellent officers and should never be NCO and others make excellent NCO and should never be officer.

As far as I see it Officers and NCO's play a special roll and a valuable roll. NCO ranks at the very least would be a way of showing progress with out the extra responsibility that an officer would have. I think it would have a very valid roll particularly with in cadet programs. There are people with in CAP that do a fabulous job but will never have the wish to become a squadron commander or higher. Why therefore give these people officer ranks. With in the ATC the highest rank is the commander. Yes I know the system is different here in the CAP and both are excellent organisations in their own right, but I still find it strange even after almost six years service that you can have a 1Lt in charge of a squadron that has Lt Col's or Majors in it.

Cadets have asked me in the past why there are no NCO senior members. They look at their rank/grade structure and wonder why ours is so different. Alas why not have NCO's they are the back bone of our armed services and emergency services, why not CAP.

Quote from: FW on June 30, 2010, 02:04:23 AM
A committee was formed about 2 years ago to study this issue and come up with recommendations for a CAP NCO program.  However, all we have to date is what is in the NB minutes.  I have no idea what will eventually proposed. 

IMHO, I think the NCO grades for CAP senior members make no sense.  It will not change our culture, will not improve our uniform issues, will not increase recruitment, will not increase retention, will not motivate our cadets, will not increase our customer base, will not improve our PD program and, will not make CAP a better organization (if I've left anything out, forgive me.... :D )

CAP's NCO program died years ago for good reasons.  And, I'm not one for raising the dead.  >:D

Sir, I disagree.

I was one of those former CAP NCOs that advanced into the officer corps. Although I agree with you that the current culture works just fine for many, there are select few individuals who enter this program who shouldn't be officers and wreak havoc when they advance to those ranks.

In our current organizational cluture, advancing in rank and awards are about all that you can offer a CAP senior member in recognition of faithful service. Our awards program is a joke, the piles of ribbons really don't amount to much, but that's another story. However, if all of the senior members (officers) advanced through the program like they should, eventually you'll have a bunch of lieutenant colonels running around with no upward mobility other than vying for wing, region, or NHQ assigments...and that, by the way, becomes a retention problem.

The standard response to that comment is that completing time and grade and training does not guarantee promotion. Then you have a morale problem because there really isn't upward mobility unless you are noticed at wing level.

So you have NCOs. The level of PD training I had as an Air Force SNCO is not even close to what a current CAP officer is required to complete until you start getting beyond Level II. NCOs are mid-level supervisors, something that our culture doesn't have and really does need.

Quote from: FW on July 01, 2010, 01:00:39 PM
To  have an effective "NCO Corps", CAP (members) must be willing to create and live with two distinct levels of active membership.  In an organization such as ours, I think that would be extremely difficult.  It is the main reason, IMO,  the NCO program died years ago. 

In the cadet program, it would be great to have an adult "NCO" to give that "direct leadership" experience to the cadets however, it may be better for our senior CP officers to guide our cadet NCO's to properly direct cadet airman.  The leadership laboratory should be designed for cadets to get the experience "hands on".  This makes the preference for senior member NCO's less important in the scheme of things.  I'm convinced there is no "need" for NCO's in CAP, no need for them in cadet programs and certainly, no need for them in the senior PD program.

The reason why the NCO program died was bacause it was abused. I know, I was there. It became an embarrassment to the Air Force, NCO professional organizations, and the Air Force NCO Corps.

Promotions were then controlled locally by a squadron commander. A person would come in off the streets and become an instant master sergeant without any of the training necessary for that rank. And they conducted their duties just like all those people in really bad war movies.

I also am aware of one instance where it was political. An individual was a wartime CAP officer (captain), had been a squadron commander, unit organizer, did active service, and was well-respected in the community. He was a threat to both the squadron and group commanders and was made a master sergeant when he returned....and you don't think politics doesn't run rampant in this organization.

By the way, that man eventually got his rank....after NHQ learned that the wartime promotion to captain was from John F. Curry himself.

Our current grade structure is darn near useless and there is little or no benefit to growing it.

Quote from: andysum15 on July 04, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
As you all know by now I am a former RAF/ATC member, I was an NCO in the ATC as a cadet before enlisting in the RAF where I became an NCO before my 12 year career ended. I then went back to the ATC where I started as a Warrant Officer the only NCO rank at the time, Sergeant and Flight sergeant have since been added. I then took my commission in the RAFVR(T) and eventually was given my own cadet squadron. So with that in mind you can understand my puzzlement when I hear people saying there is no need or we should not have NCO ranks for senior members with in the CAP. From my experience some people make better officers having served as an NCO (Me included) some people make excellent officers and should never be NCO and others make excellent NCO and should never be officer.

As far as I see it Officers and NCO's play a special roll and a valuable roll. NCO ranks at the very least would be a way of showing progress with out the extra responsibility that an officer would have. I think it would have a very valid roll particularly with in cadet programs. There are people with in CAP that do a fabulous job but will never have the wish to become a squadron commander or higher. Why therefore give these people officer ranks. With in the ATC the highest rank is the commander. Yes I know the system is different here in the CAP and both are excellent organisations in their own right, but I still find it strange even after almost six years service that you can have a 1Lt in charge of a squadron that has Lt Col's or Majors in it.

Cadets have asked me in the past why there are no NCO senior members. They look at their rank/grade structure and wonder why ours is so different. Alas why not have NCO's they are the back bone of our armed services and emergency services, why not CAP.

Because, we DO NOT, READ DO NOT need a whole new rank structure to clog up the manuals. If we have managed to survive for several decades without a CAP NCO program, then guess what? We can still survive without it. NCO's are the backbone of the military simply because they are a gateway from the officers to the enlistees, they also are specially trained at their MOS. CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY. We use officers, and that's it. besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:56:55 PM

Quote from: andysum15 on July 04, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
As you all know by now I am a former RAF/ATC member, I was an NCO in the ATC as a cadet before enlisting in the RAF where I became an NCO before my 12 year career ended. I then went back to the ATC where I started as a Warrant Officer the only NCO rank at the time, Sergeant and Flight sergeant have since been added. I then took my commission in the RAFVR(T) and eventually was given my own cadet squadron. So with that in mind you can understand my puzzlement when I hear people saying there is no need or we should not have NCO ranks for senior members with in the CAP. From my experience some people make better officers having served as an NCO (Me included) some people make excellent officers and should never be NCO and others make excellent NCO and should never be officer.

As far as I see it Officers and NCO's play a special roll and a valuable roll. NCO ranks at the very least would be a way of showing progress with out the extra responsibility that an officer would have. I think it would have a very valid roll particularly with in cadet programs. There are people with in CAP that do a fabulous job but will never have the wish to become a squadron commander or higher. Why therefore give these people officer ranks. With in the ATC the highest rank is the commander. Yes I know the system is different here in the CAP and both are excellent organisations in their own right, but I still find it strange even after almost six years service that you can have a 1Lt in charge of a squadron that has Lt Col's or Majors in it.

Cadets have asked me in the past why there are no NCO senior members. They look at their rank/grade structure and wonder why ours is so different. Alas why not have NCO's they are the back bone of our armed services and emergency services, why not CAP.

Because, we DO NOT, READ DO NOT need a whole new rank structure to clog up the manuals. If we have managed to survive for several decades without a CAP NCO program, then guess what? We can still survive without it. NCO's are the backbone of the military simply because they are a gateway from the officers to the enlistees, they also are specially trained at their MOS. CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY. We use officers, and that's it. besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

Son, you need a serious attitude change. For that matter, you need to do some serious reading yourself. You don't salute an NCO! As far as your logic, let's say that justification to elminate your cadet rank as well. So, how would it feel just being a cadet, no rank at all.

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 06:41:16 AM

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 01:56:31 AM
The main justification that I have seen for expanding it is the fallacious argument that wearing stripes makes one a better role model for cadets than wearing bars/leafs/eagles/stars.

Really?  Fallacious?

Please explain that to me.  I understand that you may disagree, but fallacious?

Hyperthetical:
Two retired AF SMSgts join CAP. SMSgt 1 decides to take the officer track, receiving his silver bars after completing Level 1. SMSgt 2 decides, since he didn't care for officers in the AF, to keep his stripes. Who is the better role model for cadets?

Before you start wanting specifics on clarifications and details on each, remember this whole argument is based on the general notion that ALL CAP NCOs are better role models for cadets than ALL CAP officers.

However for the sake of discussion: SMSgt 1 was a Senior Drill Instructor before retiring and SMSgt 2 was a missile maintainer.

Quote from: flyboy1 on July 04, 2010, 02:09:46 PM

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:56:55 PM

Quote from: andysum15 on July 04, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
As you all know by now I am a former RAF/ATC member, I was an NCO in the ATC as a cadet before enlisting in the RAF where I became an NCO before my 12 year career ended. I then went back to the ATC where I started as a Warrant Officer the only NCO rank at the time, Sergeant and Flight sergeant have since been added. I then took my commission in the RAFVR(T) and eventually was given my own cadet squadron. So with that in mind you can understand my puzzlement when I hear people saying there is no need or we should not have NCO ranks for senior members with in the CAP. From my experience some people make better officers having served as an NCO (Me included) some people make excellent officers and should never be NCO and others make excellent NCO and should never be officer.

As far as I see it Officers and NCO's play a special roll and a valuable roll. NCO ranks at the very least would be a way of showing progress with out the extra responsibility that an officer would have. I think it would have a very valid roll particularly with in cadet programs. There are people with in CAP that do a fabulous job but will never have the wish to become a squadron commander or higher. Why therefore give these people officer ranks. With in the ATC the highest rank is the commander. Yes I know the system is different here in the CAP and both are excellent organisations in their own right, but I still find it strange even after almost six years service that you can have a 1Lt in charge of a squadron that has Lt Col's or Majors in it.

Cadets have asked me in the past why there are no NCO senior members. They look at their rank/grade structure and wonder why ours is so different. Alas why not have NCO's they are the back bone of our armed services and emergency services, why not CAP.

Because, we DO NOT, READ DO NOT need a whole new rank structure to clog up the manuals. If we have managed to survive for several decades without a CAP NCO program, then guess what? We can still survive without it. NCO's are the backbone of the military simply because they are a gateway from the officers to the enlistees, they also are specially trained at their MOS. CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY. We use officers, and that's it. besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

Son, you need a serious attitude change. For that matter, you need to do some serious reading yourself. You don't salute an NCO! As far as your logic, let's say that justification to elminate your cadet rank as well. So, how would it feel just being a cadet, no rank at all.

1)Excuse me?

2)Since when did this change into eliminating cadet rank? Care to elaborate?

Quote from: andysum15 on July 04, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
From my experience some people make better officers having served as an NCO (Me included) some people make excellent officers and should never be NCO and others make excellent NCO and should never be officer.

I think the issue is that there is no real meaning to serving as an NCO in CAP that would confer any training or experience to those members that is any different from that received by those in the CAP officer ranks.  There is a real qualitative difference between NCOs and Officers in the real military.  In CAP, there is not.  Heck, there is no real difference between being a CAP 2nd Lt. and being a CAP Lt. Col. 

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 02:21:34 PM

Hyperthetical:
Two retired AF SMSgts join CAP. ( . . .) Who is the better role model for cadets?

Before you start wanting specifics on clarifications and details on each, remember this whole argument is based on the general notion that ALL CAP NCOs are better role models for cadets than ALL CAP officers.

Aha,  I think I see the problem.

No one (especially me) is saying that "ALL CAP NCOs are better role models for cadets than ALL CAP officers."

All we are saying in this context is that - when it comes time to model NCO behaviors and leadership styles for our cadet NCOs - CAP NCOs can be more effective role models than officers.

For the simple reason that the CAP NCOs can directly model successful NCO leadership styles in ways that officers cannot, because the officers are officers and tend to act like officers.

Nothing more sinister than that.  Which is pretty much the definition of "role model", BTW.  "Someone worthy of imitiation."

Restating, since cadets need to learn NCO leadership styles and behaviors before they need to learn officer leadership styles and behaviors, it might be useful to have a high-speed NCO  at the unit to watch and imitate.

Kinda like a role model.

Getting back to your hypothtical the answer is :"Both can be outstanding role models.  One will model officer leadership styles and behaviors, the other can model NCO styles and behaviors."

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Restating, since cadets need to learn NCO leadership styles and behaviors before they need to learn officer leadership styles and behaviors, it might be useful to have a high-speed NCO  at the unit to watch and imitate.

And just how is CAP going to develop a high-speed NCO?  And what makes the high-speed NCO any different than if he was a CAP officer?  And who is going to tell the low-speed NCOs that we don't want them wearing CAP NCO rank and they need to wear CAP Officer rank instead?  Boy, that is something we want to teach cadets, "If you can't make it as a high-speed NCO, we will force you to be a CAP Officer!"  Talk about role models....

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
All we are saying in this context is that - when it comes time to model NCO behaviors and leadership styles for our cadet NCOs - CAP NCOs can be more effective role models than officers.

For the simple reason that the CAP NCOs can directly model successful NCO leadership styles in ways that officers cannot, because the officers are officers and tend to act like officers.

But, who will the CAP NCOs be leading in order to demonstrate their leadership styles?  In all liklihood they will be the only non-officer senior member in the squadron.  If they actually do hold some sort of leadership role in the unit, it will most likely be in a staff position normally filled by an officer, so that won't work. 

Remembering back to when I was a young cadet, I know a lot of us looked up to this National Guard NCO (don't remember his rank) in the unit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because he was a CAP NCO.  It was because he was in the militar right then.  There were several other older veterans, but they were just seen as regular adults.  Though my home unit now doesn't have any NCOs, we often have active duty AF officers who are members and I"m pretty sure the cadets look up to them, not because they are Captains, but because they are real military officers RIGHT NOW. 

I really don't think CAP cadets are going to have any special recognition for a 60 year-old guy who has been out of the military for 35 years just because he is wearing stripes.  I don't think he will be looked on as any different than any other CAP officer.

But, bring in a 25 year old NCO who just got back from Afghanistan and we're talking about an entirely different scenario. 

You don't need to learn NCO leadership styles before Officer Leadership styles, if you believe that, please, 2B yourself. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

In the RM, you can become an Officer after 4 years of ROTC or 13 weeks of OCS if you come fresh with a Bachelors degree already in hand. You don't go through NCO training or rank structures before putting on your butter bars.

Enlisted and Commissioned are two different worlds. While in yesteryear they were separate classes (officers had college education, enlisted were grunts), that is even starting to shift in the RM. Now, it is not unheard of to have enlisted folks who have Bachelors (or even Masters) degrees. The difference is in what they do. Enlisted folks serve as the field level technicians, while Officers are Administrators.

Undoubtedly, some intelligent soul is going to remind me that "we are not the military! We are CAP!"

Fine. Then go turn in all of your USAF style uniforms, wear only the whites/greys. You cannot have it both ways. Either we are made in the image of the Air Force, or we are an independent organization that can do whatever we want with ranks, just like a Volunteer Fire Company. Pick one. But if you pick the AF way, remember that to whom much is given, much is expected.

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 03:23:36 PM

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
All we are saying in this context is that - when it comes time to model NCO behaviors and leadership styles for our cadet NCOs - CAP NCOs can be more effective role models than officers.

For the simple reason that the CAP NCOs can directly model successful NCO leadership styles in ways that officers cannot, because the officers are officers and tend to act like officers.

But, who will the CAP NCOs be leading in order to demonstrate their leadership styles?  In all liklihood they will be the only non-officer senior member in the squadron.  If they actually do hold some sort of leadership role in the unit, it will most likely be in a staff position normally filled by an officer, so that won't work. 

Remembering back to when I was a young cadet, I know a lot of us looked up to this National Guard NCO (don't remember his rank) in the unit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because he was a CAP NCO.  It was because he was in the militar right then.  There were several other older veterans, but they were just seen as regular adults.  Though my home unit now doesn't have any NCOs, we often have active duty AF officers who are members and I"m pretty sure the cadets look up to them, not because they are Captains, but because they are real military officers RIGHT NOW. 

I really don't think CAP cadets are going to have any special recognition for a 60 year-old guy who has been out of the military for 35 years just because he is wearing stripes.  I don't think he will be looked on as any different than any other CAP officer.

But, bring in a 25 year old NCO who just got back from Afghanistan and we're talking about an entirely different scenario.

I was a Petty Officer, and I served during Enduring Freedom, but I wear bars. Cadets (or anyone who wishes to look up my ribbons) will know that I was there. Why do I need the stripes? Do the stripes lend more credibility to my military service than bars?

Why do we keep focusing on this fictional old man who used to be an NCO? Even a retired NCO/Petty officer could be 38 (perhaps old to a cadet, but come on..).

In my unit, many of us are vets. Some enlisted, some officers. We are all CAP Officers. Perhaps we should be trying to instill a general respect for all veterans in cadets rather than simply catering to their whims? Perhaps the lesson we should be conveying to cadets is that the 60 year old former NCO is just as "cool" as the 25 year old former NCO.

People keep talking about "leading by example" but I don't see anyone really willing to do it.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 03:27:20 PM
You don't need to learn NCO leadership styles before Officer Leadership styles, if you believe that, please, 2B yourself. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

(. . .)

Then go turn in all of your USAF style uniforms, wear only the whites/greys. You cannot have it both ways. Either we are made in the image of the Air Force, or we are an independent organization that can do whatever we want with ranks, just like a Volunteer Fire Company. Pick one. But if you pick the AF way, remember that to whom much is given, much is expected.

Sigh.

So much certainty, so little CP experience.

Please take a moment and reflect on our highly successful cadet program.

You will undoubtedly notice that for something like 60 years or so, our cadets have progressed though a leadership laboratory by starting as a Cadet Airman and moving up through the cadet officer grades.

IOW, if they hang around long enough, they spend time as cadet airmen, cadet NCOs, and finally as cadet officers.  Along the way, they learn followership skills as airmen, "first line supervisor" skills as NCOs, and indirect leadership skills as cadet officers in our hands-on leadership development program.

So, as cadets progress through our program they need to master both NCO and officer skillsets.  Using your terminology, they need to "live in both worlds" to successfully complete our program.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had an NCO role model while learning NCO skills?

(Can I come out of the corner now?)

Quote from: RiverAuxBut, who will the CAP NCOs be leading in order to demonstrate their leadership styles?  In all liklihood they will be the only non-officer senior member in the squadron.  If they actually do hold some sort of leadership role in the unit, it will most likely be in a staff position normally filled by an officer, so that won't work. 

Well, in a cadet unit, the NCO could lead and coach . . . cadets.  An NCO could successfully fill any of the critical staff jobs at a typical unit (LO, DCC, etc.)

Obviously in most units those roles are filled by officers, but I'm not clear on why you think it "wouldn't work" to have an NCO in them.

QuoteRemembering back to when I was a young cadet, I know a lot of us looked up to this National Guard NCO (don't remember his rank) in the unit, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because he was a CAP NCO.

Again, this isn't about who is worthy of respect and who isn't. 

NCOs and officers have different leadership styles and techniques.  Our cadets progress through a program that calls for them to master both NCO and officer leadership styles.  Wouldn't it be nice for them to have one or more NCO role models at the unit so they can see and appreciate the differences and imitate the NCO behaviors while in Phase II?

QuoteI really don't think CAP cadets are going to have any special recognition for a 60 year-old guy who has been out of the military for 35 years just because he is wearing stripes.  I don't think he will be looked on as any different than any other CAP officer.

Successful role models - whether they wear stripes or officer insignia - are NOT role models becasue of what they did 35 years ago.  They are role models because of what they are doing right now.  That's the definition of a role model - someone worthy of imitation.

Quote
But, who Well, in a cadet unit, the NCO could lead and coach . . . cadets.  An NCO could successfully fill any of the critical staff jobs at a typical unit (LO, DCC, etc.)

Obviously in most units those roles are filled by officers, but I'm not clear on why you think it "wouldn't work" to have an NCO in them.

Oh, the job would get done with an NCO in them, but it wouldn't be done any differently because an NCO was in them.  You were emphasizing that there is some sort of special NCO leadership style.  If they are performing the exact same job as a CAP officer would normally do, how is this special leadership style going to manifest itself?  How is a CAP NCO going to do the maintenance officer job differently than a CAP Captain so that these NCO leadership skills show themselves?   

Yes, the NCO will have plenty of opportunities to demonstrate leadership, its just that they will have the exact same opportunities to do so whether they are an NCO or an officer and the results will look 100% the same. 

Now, if we want to limit the role of CAP NCOs to serving in cadet and composite squadrons where their primary duty is to advise cadet NCOs, that would at least give them some explicit reason for being in existence.  Its just unnecessary since that same person could do the exact same thing as a CAP officer.

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:56:55 PMBecause, we DO NOT, READ DO NOT need a whole new rank structure to clog up the manuals. If we have managed to survive for several decades without a CAP NCO program, then guess what? We can still survive without it.

I agree with you up to this point.

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:56:55 PMNCO's are the backbone of the military simply because they are a gateway from the officers to the enlistees, they also are specially trained at their MOS.

Would care to educate me on what you mean by "gateway"?

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:56:55 PMCAP IS NOT THE MILITARY. We use officers, and that's it.

The only problem with this argument is......then why use officers either?  If we are not the "military" then we can call our squadron commanders "station leaders" and do away with all ranks and uniforms.  While it is true we are not active duty military we are the volunteer axillary to the military and we have modeled ourselves on the military structure.  A better argument would be to say....we structure our units on the model of the operational flying squadron (say a fighter or bomber squadron) that would have only 8-10 enlisted guys in a 200+ person squadron.  They do great with very little NCOs.   

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 01:56:55 PMbesides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

That one is just dumb.....and ruins your entire credibility.  YOU DON'T SALUTE NCOs....no need to think about it.  Cadets don't salute RM NCOs so why would they salute CAP NCOs?

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 04:04:35 PM
[Oh, the job would get done with an NCO in them, but it wouldn't be done any differently because an NCO was in them.

Yes and no.

I agree that the major requirements of the job could be successfully completed by either an officer or an NCO.

But much of the time, it would be done differently.

Kinda like a flight sergeant and a flight commander at encampment.  Ostensibly both have pretty much the same job (supervising the cadets in the flight), but they go about it in different styles.

QuoteYou were emphasizing that there is some sort of special NCO leadership style.

Well, to be fair, it isn't just me.  It is the hundreds of  millions of current and former servicemembers since Roman times,  But go on . . .

QuoteIf they are performing the exact same job as a CAP officer would normally do, how is this special leadership style going to manifest itself?  How is a CAP NCO going to do the maintenance officer job differently than a CAP Captain so that these NCO leadership skills show themselves?

It is going to manifest itself in the way the maintence NCO relates to each of the other members of the unit and the maintenance professionals above her at higher.

Obviously the wrench doesn't care if it gets spun by a airman, staff sergeant, or a general. 

I think you should drop by and watch some Air Force maintainers as they work.  Feel free to suggest to them that they don't need NCOs (or alternately that they don't need officers) since everyone can pretty much do everyone else's job.

Tell us what they say.

QuoteNow, if we want to limit the role of CAP NCOs to serving in cadet and composite squadrons where their primary duty is to advise cadet NCOs, that would at least give them some explicit reason for being in existence.

Uncanny.  It's like you have actually been reading my posts.  We agree that there is a valid, useful role for senior NCOs in the CP.

QuoteIts just unnecessary since that same person could do the exact same thing as a CAP officer.

Oops.  I take it back. 

Officers act and lead as officers.  NCOs act and lead like NCOs.

It is difficult or impossible for officers to act and lead like NCOs.

Cadet NCOs would benefit from an NCO role model or two to observe and watch.


(But we have a currently successful program essentially NCO-free, so the world won't end if we don't get more NCOs.  But it would be a better world if we did.)
QED


Now let's go eat some BBQ and celebrate the Glorious Fourth!

Cadets are there to learn everything.  They are in the CP to take.

Seniors are there to give.  They will learn much, but their first role is the mission.

NCO's and Officers are "different".  Neither is "better", just different.

NCO's use a direct leadership model - hands-on, knows your name, maybe turns the wrench with you once in awhile.
An NCO's scope is generally, but not always, more limited than an Officer's, and in most cases an NCO can personally "do"
to make things happen.

Officers use an indirect leadership model - larger scope, might not be good with names, sees people as assets - managers.
By design they may seem more separated or aloof because that is the nature of the situation.  It also tends to be self-actualizing.
Generally their ability to "do" is very limited and their role is planning and directing.

(As a side note, the CAP commanders and staff who struggle, do so because they try to exisit in both world - plans, programs, and direction, while still turning the wrench themselves.  The only way to maintain that for any length of time is to control every resource,
which then gives you the cliques and the clubs. They can't delegate, so they have to keep others out of the sandbox)

Cadets, since they need to learn everything, need to start with, and understand, the direct leadership model - it's easier for a developing mind to help others use the same skills they recently learned.  As they grow and can understand indirect leadership, they move into the cadet officer ranks and jobs with larger scope.

Anyone who has ever herded cats, in any context, knows it's easier for an element leader to move 5, than an a commander to move 50,
because the element leader has a single task to worry about, and can "touch" the resources to get it done.  A commander has 12 other balls in the air, and must rely on concise, clear commands, and good NCO's to carry them out.  In some cases his "battlefield awareness" is limited to information from those same NCO's.

So cadets progress from slick-sleeve to diamonds and theoretically learn both indirect and direct leadership lessons and see the pitfalls and advantages of both.  From there, they will be better leaders in general whether their future is corporate, military or other.

We need mentors of both styles or leadership who can provide our cadets examples to model (and our seniors, too, who I see increasingly are coming to us with little leadership experience).  Successful military NCO's would clearly fall into that category, but so would police Sergeants, Fire Lieutenants, and production floor team leaders. 

Middle-managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals would generally be expected to bring good skills in indirect management to the table,
just as successful military officers.

The caveat to both, however, is that in a military world, followers are duty-and legally-bound to obey orders, with generally swift and direct consequences.  In CAP, the obligation to obey usually ends with your personal value of membership (perhaps a little further in ES), so in CAP there needs to be more consensus building and indirect leadership, especially with senior members, which is why the concept
of a Senior NCO corps being anything but PD-related tends toward failing.

At the end, we need the abilities, not the grade.  We all know military officer who's experience brought nothing to CAP and were actually a liability because they thought they had some special Jedi skills simply because of their DD214.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2010, 04:23:16 PM

Would care to educate me on what you mean by "gateway"?

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen? no, there is a good NCO to make up the middle.

QuoteThe only problem with this argument is......then why use officers either?  If we are not the "military" then we can call our squadron commanders "station leaders" and do away with all ranks and uniforms.  While it is true we are not active duty military we are the volunteer axillary to the military and we have modeled ourselves on the military structure.  A better argument would be to say....we structure our units on the model of the operational flying squadron (say a fighter or bomber squadron) that would have only 8-10 enlisted guys in a 200+ person squadron.  They do great with very little NCOs.   

Makes sense. There are many points of view on this, so it is a hard argument to fight.

QuoteQuote from: HGjunkie on Today at 08:56:55 AM
besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

That one is just dumb.....and ruins your entire credibility.  YOU DON'T SALUTE NCOs....no need to think about it.  Cadets don't salute RM NCOs so why would they salute CAP NCOs?

I phrased this incorrectly. I Guess I was trying to say that Cadets would have to learn more C&C to deal with SM NCO's. It would be a rocky slope for some cadets.

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 04:31:43 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 04:04:35 PM
[Oh, the job would get done with an NCO in them, but it wouldn't be done any differently because an NCO was in them.

Yes and no.

I agree that the major requirements of the job could be successfully completed by either an officer or an NCO.

But much of the time, it would be done differently.

Kinda like a flight sergeant and a flight commander at encampment.  Ostensibly both have pretty much the same job (supervising the cadets in the flight), but they go about it in different styles.

QuoteYou were emphasizing that there is some sort of special NCO leadership style.

Well, to be fair, it isn't just me.  It is the hundreds of  millions of current and former servicemembers since Roman times,  But go on . . .

QuoteIf they are performing the exact same job as a CAP officer would normally do, how is this special leadership style going to manifest itself?  How is a CAP NCO going to do the maintenance officer job differently than a CAP Captain so that these NCO leadership skills show themselves?

It is going to manifest itself in the way the maintence NCO relates to each of the other members of the unit and the maintenance professionals above her at higher.

Obviously the wrench doesn't care if it gets spun by a airman, staff sergeant, or a general. 

I think you should drop by and watch some Air Force maintainers as they work.  Feel free to suggest to them that they don't need NCOs (or alternately that they don't need officers) since everyone can pretty much do everyone else's job.

Tell us what they say.

QuoteNow, if we want to limit the role of CAP NCOs to serving in cadet and composite squadrons where their primary duty is to advise cadet NCOs, that would at least give them some explicit reason for being in existence.

Uncanny.  It's like you have actually been reading my posts.  We agree that there is a valid, useful role for senior NCOs in the CP.

QuoteIts just unnecessary since that same person could do the exact same thing as a CAP officer.

Oops.  I take it back. 

Officers act and lead as officers.  NCOs act and lead like NCOs.

It is difficult or impossible for officers to act and lead like NCOs.

Cadet NCOs would benefit from an NCO role model or two to observe and watch.


(But we have a currently successful program essentially NCO-free, so the world won't end if we don't get more NCOs.  But it would be a better world if we did.)
QED


Now let's go eat some BBQ and celebrate the Glorious Fourth!

And so we're back; full circle. I think we've exposed the real issue: a lack of effective leadership training and respect of senior members.

Yes, I believe that cadets need an NCO as a mentor, but I also see the problem as the fact that there is no apparent difference, in terms of rank and respect, between the cadet program and senior members...and part of that is because we have eliminated that aspect as the senior member training program has evolved.

It is for that same reason, that I've run into cadets, too often, with chips on their shoulders --who think that their experience and training makes them better than the senior members in leadership roles over them. That mentality sometimes actually gets worse when those cadets get to the age where they can qualify for senior member status. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of re-education. In my own case, I'm aware of a female cadet major who thinks she's on par with her squadron commander, a major with 10 years service and training, who makes the squadron commander's life absolutely miserable.

It doesn't matter to me whether a retired Air Force Senior NCO choses to retain his or her rank or pursue an officer appointment. Part of that is that individual's preference and goals. It has been that way for me. I can guarantee, however, that that former Senior NCO will use his leadership training to the benefit of our organization. I do now.

I wonder sometimes what would happen to senior members if the same standards were placed on them as on cadets. Imagine seeing a flight of senior members drilling or running aerobics? Imagine a serious uniform inspection. Imagine the impact that would have on cadets?

Quote from: flyboy1 on July 04, 2010, 05:07:26 PM
I wonder sometimes what would happen to senior members if the same standards were placed on them as on cadets. Imagine seeing a flight of senior members drilling or running aerobics? Imagine a serious uniform inspection. Imagine the impact that would have on cadets?

We do this stuff all the time.  You mean other units aren't?

QuoteI agree that the major requirements of the job could be successfully completed by either an officer or an NCO.

But much of the time, it would be done differently.

Kinda like a flight sergeant and a flight commander at encampment.  Ostensibly both have pretty much the same job (supervising the cadets in the flight), but they go about it in different styles.

Their jobs are actually different.  An NCO in a squadron staff job is doing the EXACT same job as might be done as a CAP officer.  Their duties and responsibilities in that job would be EXACTLY the same.  I'm at a loss to figure out how the NCO is going to do the paperwork differently than the officer.  The requirements of the position are going to be much more determinative in what actually happens than the military background (or lack thereof) of the person in that job. 

QuoteUncanny.  It's like you have actually been reading my posts.  We agree that there is a valid, useful role for senior NCOs in the CP.

If the stated explicit role of the CAP NCO program was to serve only as advisors to cadet NCOs, then there would be a useful role for CAP NCOs.  But, that certainly isn't the case now.  As it stands, CAP NCOs are just there.  They have no specific purpose as NCOs.  I don't think it would change much on the ground, but at least there would be some logic behind the program. 

CAP needs to either decide on a real reason to have NCOs or eliminate them entirely.  Right now they are members just like everyone else that just happen to be NCOs rather than officers.   

Lets just get rid of rank all together!!!  :clap: 

The Rank Structure in CAP only shows your education level in CAP.  Everyone can be a LTC, all you have to do is check the boxes. 

I will say I like how the TXWG Commander handles direct promotions... he simple asks how does the advance rank help CAP and how has this person been pulling their weight in the unit.  If you cant justify it, they aren't getting the promotion.

Senior member #1 "have we found a problem yet?"
Senior member #2 "no sir, but don't fret, when we do find one, we have plenty of solutions...to...whatever it may be"

Man oh man, we are really digging on this one.

Where did this "problem" arise from???? :o

I want to know who it was that was sitting at a squadron meeting, and went, "my god, if only we had a past NCO still wearing his stripes...that would solve this"

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 05:31:07 PM
  I'm at a loss to figure out how the NCO is going to do the paperwork differently than the officer.  The requirements of the position are going to be much more determinative in what actually happens than the military background (or lack thereof) of the person in that job.     

Well, there it is.

You look at squadron jobs as paperwork.  If that were true, I'd have to agree with you.

(All squadron jobs have paper work, of course.  This is CAP, after all.  8) )

But I look at squadron jobs as leadership roles that require officers - you know, leaders - to accomplish effectively.  Otherwise we wouldn't need coaches, mentors, managers, or leaders in units. 

Just clerks.

We are debating whether some of these hardworking officers could or should be of the "non-commissioned" variety.

Your "hey, the paperwork is the same either way" argument isn't an argument against NCOs as much as it is an argument for doing away with any sort of leadership roles in CAP.

(What a great idea for your next thread.  Think of the possiblities of boosting your post count back up to the top!)

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 04:57:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 04, 2010, 04:23:16 PM

Would care to educate me on what you mean by "gateway"?

Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen? no, there is a good NCO to make up the middle.

Sure they do...all the time.  There is usually an NCO somewhere in the chain but not always.

Quote

QuoteQuote from: HGjunkie on Today at 08:56:55 AM
besides, what would cadets do about saluting a CAP SM NCO? Think about it.

That one is just dumb.....and ruins your entire credibility.  YOU DON'T SALUTE NCOs....no need to think about it.  Cadets don't salute RM NCOs so why would they salute CAP NCOs?

I phrased this incorrectly. I Guess I was trying to say that Cadets would have to learn more C&C to deal with SM NCO's. It would be a rocky slope for some cadets.

No...they would no....they already know it (or should!).

Quote from: Eclipse on July 04, 2010, 05:26:22 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on July 04, 2010, 05:07:26 PM
I wonder sometimes what would happen to senior members if the same standards were placed on them as on cadets. Imagine seeing a flight of senior members drilling or running aerobics? Imagine a serious uniform inspection. Imagine the impact that would have on cadets?

We do this stuff all the time.  You mean other units aren't?

No...we focus on real work   ;D

Let's keep things in perspective.  We inspect, drill and PT our cadets because that is their "job".  My job is to run that program.  My ES officer's job is to run that program and my Admin Officer's job is to do paper work.  There is no need to do all those "fun" things and call it a "standard".

Now back to our orignally scheduled rant.

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 06:08:01 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 05:31:07 PM
  I'm at a loss to figure out how the NCO is going to do the paperwork differently than the officer.  The requirements of the position are going to be much more determinative in what actually happens than the military background (or lack thereof) of the person in that job.     

Well, there it is.

You look at squadron jobs as paperwork.  If that were true, I'd have to agree with you.

(All squadron jobs have paper work, of course.  This is CAP, after all.  8) )

But I look at squadron jobs as leadership roles that require officers - you know, leaders - to accomplish effectively.  Otherwise we wouldn't need coaches, mentors, managers, or leaders in units. 

Just clerks.

We are debating whether some of these hardworking officers could or should be of the "non-commissioned" variety.

Your "hey, the paperwork is the same either way" argument isn't an argument against NCOs as much as it is an argument for doing away with any sort of leadership roles in CAP.

(What a great idea for your next thread.  Think of the possiblities of boosting your post count back up to the top!)

Like it or not, most staff jobs in the squadron are not really leadership positions as they generally do not actually supervise or lead anybody.  There are a few that potentially could have a few people working for them, but that is the exception.  And yes, most staff jobs revolve around filling out paperwork and not much more than that. 

But the idea that there would be an actual difference in how a CAP NCO does just about any of the CAP staff jobs is absurd.  I'd say that they would be just as likely to do a great job or as poor a job or set a good example or a bad example as any other CAP member. 

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 04:57:58 PM
Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen?

Yes.  It is only in organizations that have few officers and many enlisted that the officer would not deal directly with enlisted of all grades.  There are probably more officers in the USAF that supervise two or three enlisted (E1 to E7) than there are that supervise over 100 enlisted.  Read "supervise" to mean "works for in the organization - to include Squadron Commanders, Branch Chiefs, Section Chiefs, OICs, etc..  If you have a large number of people under you, you need intermediate leadership positions.  As a 2nd Lt, I had a E-7 NCOIC and a E-4 working for me.  The E-7 wrote the paper on the E-4 but I never considered going through the E-7 to give the E-4 a task...

Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:25:23 PM

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 04:57:58 PM
Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen?

Yes.  It is only in organizations that have few officers and many enlisted that the officer would not deal directly with enlisted of all grades.  There are probably more officers in the USAF that supervise two or three enlisted (E1 to E7) than there are that supervise over 100 enlisted.  Read "supervise" to mean "works for in the organization - to include Squadron Commanders, Branch Chiefs, Section Chiefs, OICs, etc..  If you have a large number of people under you, you need intermediate leadership positions.  As a 2nd Lt, I had a E-7 NCOIC and a E-4 working for me.  The E-7 wrote the paper on the E-4 but I never considered going through the E-7 to give the E-4 a task...

I guess the USAF is significantly different, then.

In the USN, a non-PO would not report directly to an Officer. There are times when a PO might (I am thinking of numerous enlisted assistants to department heads) but a non-PO always has a PO of some level above them in their Chain.

The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 07:32:46 PM
The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

There was never an issue.  The E-4 was MY clerk and the E-7 was MY assistant.  We were in the USAF, different cultures and different environments. 

Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:43:27 PM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 07:32:46 PM
The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

There was never an issue.  The E-4 was MY clerk and the E-7 was MY assistant.  We were in the USAF, different cultures and different environments.

Right....that is exactly what I said in the line above the one you quoted.

My statement was one of "Huh, no kidding?" more than questioning your actions. I was never in the USAF, as such, I have no clue how the culture around the Chain of Command is. I can only speak from the POV of a sailor. I'm sure if we had a soldier jump in, we'd get yet a third take on the Chain of Command.

However, we digress.

The point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade. But it does not have that same military sound to it. As such, SM is a great place for those who don't WANT a military grade. And since grade does not equal positional authority or leadership responsibility, I am just trying to say that we seem to be focusing a bit too much on SM being a "junior" grade.

QuoteThe point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 08:14:06 PM

QuoteThe point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

No, it is a grade. It is not a MILITARY grade. But it is a CAP grade.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 06:39:38 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 03, 2010, 06:04:54 PM
I can see some benefits in Ned's view; back when we had USAF LNCO's at wing level, the good ones had a profound impact on seniors and cadets -- sometimes more than the LO's.

I'd really like some hard examples of how the staffer's grade made a difference in their impact.  A good leader and staffer is just that, regardless of grade, and being an LNCO doesn't make you any more (or less) "not in the chain" than the State Directors are today (which is the real problem).

The duties are identical, and my experience does not echo the above.

Back when LO/LNCO were active duty Air Force, LOs were more likely to be on a pre-retirement 'sunset' tour, and often approached their CAP duties wit h a somewhat minimalistic, 'short timer' attitude.

Even when this was not the case, LNCOs simply had a more 'hands on' relationship with cadet encampments, squadron activities and the like...this is not an indictment of the LOs, but rather in my view was a result of the nature of the officer/NCO roles in the USAF....LO tended to deal more with wing brass, ops/ES, regulatory/legal issues, relations with military authorities.

Different, not better or worse....

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 08:20:41 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 08:14:06 PM

QuoteThe point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

No, it is a grade. It is not a MILITARY grade. But it is a CAP grade.

No, it is not a CAP grade. It is a membership status. Any use of SM as a grade identifier is only just a matter of convenience. It is used in lieu of grade for those senior members who have not been appointed to a grade.

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 07:32:46 PM

Quote from: Short Field on July 04, 2010, 07:25:23 PM

Quote from: HGjunkie on July 04, 2010, 04:57:58 PM
Do officers interact directly with privates, sailors, or airmen?

Yes.  It is only in organizations that have few officers and many enlisted that the officer would not deal directly with enlisted of all grades.  There are probably more officers in the USAF that supervise two or three enlisted (E1 to E7) than there are that supervise over 100 enlisted.  Read "supervise" to mean "works for in the organization - to include Squadron Commanders, Branch Chiefs, Section Chiefs, OICs, etc..  If you have a large number of people under you, you need intermediate leadership positions.  As a 2nd Lt, I had a E-7 NCOIC and a E-4 working for me.  The E-7 wrote the paper on the E-4 but I never considered going through the E-7 to give the E-4 a task...

I guess the USAF is significantly different, then.

In the USN, a non-PO would not report directly to an Officer. There are times when a PO might (I am thinking of numerous enlisted assistants to department heads) but a non-PO always has a PO of some level above them in their Chain.

The action described in the above quote would likely lead to the officer and the E-7 having a conversation with the skipper, and the officer would not be happy afterward.

Many officers in the Air Force do not supervise anyone. They're the pilot of a single seat fighter and until they are a Flight Commander, they only supervise themselves.

In the Aircraft I flew in (C-141C Starlifter) we usually had two officers (the pilots) and four enlisted (Flight Engineer, Scanner and 2 Loadmasters) on a crew.
So in the pilot world, there's not many opportunities to get experience supervising large number of people until you become a Squadron Commander and above.

Quote from: bte on July 04, 2010, 09:11:25 PMNo, it is not a CAP grade. It is a membership status. Any use of SM as a grade identifier is only just a matter of convenience. It is used in lieu of grade for those senior members who have not been appointed to a grade.

If it looks like a grade....and talks like a grade.....and confirs the same rights, privileges and authority of a grade.....then.....hold on tight......it is a grade.

Quote from: bte on July 04, 2010, 09:11:25 PM

Quote from: Lt Oliv on July 04, 2010, 08:20:41 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 08:14:06 PM

QuoteThe point I was trying to make is that SM is a grade.

Again, it is not.  Thats the issue.  Either make SM an actual grade or come up with some other grade to assign new senior members to just like we do with new cadets.

No, it is a grade. It is not a MILITARY grade. But it is a CAP grade.

No, it is not a CAP grade. It is a membership status. Any use of SM as a grade identifier is only just a matter of convenience. It is used in lieu of grade for those senior members who have not been appointed to a grade.

NO, it's a status....and therefore, a rank. Please keep in mind that rank and grade are two different things. Grade means pay grade. If this SM was taking an AFLDI course, the grade would be E-1.

Debating over a new title for these individuals (and I would favor Officer Trainee) creates a compounding issue for CAP because we have so many adult membership categories. Aerospace Education Members are issued cards with "SM" as a rank, so, too, are Cadet Sponsor members. It would be entirely inappropriate to call them officer trainees.

OK, so getting NHQ to change the status on an identification card would probably become an administrative nightmare, so why can't the regs be changed to reflect something like OT for senior members entering the program during that six months that they are trying to get their entry-level requiements out of the way.

Over the years I've collected an assortment of CAP-related books and manuals. I have some older ones that show officer trainee as a status. Why can't we do that now for those in the officer corps.

I don't think active, former, or retired senior military NCO's are knocking down the doors to join Civil Air Patrol.

In our unit we have only one retired senior NCO, who has stayed with the unit (actually was an Air Guard Technician) for many years before retiring.  The rest of the military NCO's have gone inactive/did not renew over the years.   I know one told me volunteering at CAP was too much like work (his day work in the military) and he preferred doing something differently with his volunteer time.  (of the 4 active duty military members on the unit roster, none are currently active/participating members in the unit).

I personally don't think it matters that much whether ANY former/military member trains cadets.  Personally I think a professional teacher or counsellor actually is in a better position to provide training to cadets. (and that too can also be problematic because we have some members that are school teachers that don't want to be involved with cadets, because they too need a rest from doing the same thing at night that they do during the day).   

So perhaps with the senior NCO's there may be some success in some units, nationwide results will vary greatly.
RM   

Quote from: RiverAux on July 04, 2010, 06:17:26 PM
Like it or not, most staff jobs in the squadron are not really leadership positions as they generally do not actually supervise or lead anybody.   

I have to disagree here: all CAP members have a responsibility to lead by personal example, which in my view is the most basic and effective form of leadership!

Not every staff member may supervise others, true...nevertheless, how each staff member behaves, wears the uniform, carries out duties...all of this is going to be observed by other members including, perhaps especially, cadets and have an effect on them and their attitudes in CAP.

Keep in mind that my statement was responding to the assertion that NCOs would be performing a CAP staff job substantially different than a CAP officer. 

I'll stipulate that the squadron historian can lead by example by doing his job well even if they don't have people working underneath them.  But, how is an NCO serving as squadron historian going to lead by example substantially different than a CAP officer doing the exact same job? 

Quote from: flyboy1 on July 05, 2010, 11:12:54 AM
Grade means pay grade. If this SM was taking an AFLDI course, the grade would be E-1.

Then no one in CAP on the volunteer side has a grade because no one gets paid.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 05, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
I personally don't think it matters that much whether ANY former/military member trains cadets.  Personally I think a professional teacher or counsellor actually is in a better position to provide training to cadets.

I'd say you're wrong and that all depends on what kind of training you're trying to provide.  There is no substitute for training in the military aspects of the organization than what a military member can provide.  A professional teacher or counsellor can teach or counsel in their area of expertise quite well but most wouldn't know the first thing about military uniforms or drill and ceremonies.

WIWAC I was in a unit that was on a military base overseas and had nothing but military members and their spouses as seniors, and dependents as cadets.  We never had any problems with uniforms, drill, formations, etc.  I remember that our aerospace training came from pilots, first aid from medical folks, and there were even a couple of spouses who were teachers so we had it all covered.

Don't discount the military, they're experts too especially in a branch's auxiliary.

Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2010, 03:04:40 PM

Quote from: arajca on July 04, 2010, 02:21:34 PM

Hyperthetical:
Two retired AF SMSgts join CAP. ( . . .) Who is the better role model for cadets?

Before you start wanting specifics on clarifications and details on each, remember this whole argument is based on the general notion that ALL CAP NCOs are better role models for cadets than ALL CAP officers.

Aha,  I think I see the problem.

No one (especially me) is saying that "ALL CAP NCOs are better role models for cadets than ALL CAP officers."

All we are saying in this context is that - when it comes time to model NCO behaviors and leadership styles for our cadet NCOs - CAP NCOs can be more effective role models than officers.

For the simple reason that the CAP NCOs can directly model successful NCO leadership styles in ways that officers cannot, because the officers are officers and tend to act like officers.

Nothing more sinister than that.  Which is pretty much the definition of "role model", BTW.  "Someone worthy of imitiation."

Restating, since cadets need to learn NCO leadership styles and behaviors before they need to learn officer leadership styles and behaviors, it might be useful to have a high-speed NCO  at the unit to watch and imitate.

Kinda like a role model.

Getting back to your hypothtical the answer is :"Both can be outstanding role models.  One will model officer leadership styles and behaviors, the other can model NCO styles and behaviors."

So the retired NCO who elects to follow the CAP officer system is not a good role model for cadet ncos because of that? WTF, over?

I really hate to think leadership ability is solely defined by what uniform you wear and where you place your rank.

Quote from: arajca on July 07, 2010, 02:05:38 PM
So the retired NCO who elects to follow the CAP officer system is not a good role model for cadet ncos because of that?

For being an upright person who donates to her/his community and touches the future by mentoring and training cadets, of course the former NCO is a role model worthy of imitation.

But for modeling NCO roles and leadership styles for cadet NCOS, not so much.

If I wanted to improve my baseball skills, I could still learn a lot from Lance Armstrong in terms of how to overcome adversity and lifelong fitness.

But I could learn a lot more specific baseball skills by watching Pablo Sandoval.

Quote from: Ned on July 07, 2010, 03:54:30 PM
If I wanted to improve my baseball skills, I could still learn a lot from Lance Armstrong in terms of how to overcome adversity and lifelong fitness.

But I could learn a lot more specific baseball skills by watching Pablo Sandoval.

What unit are those guys in?

Quote from: Ned on July 07, 2010, 03:54:30 PM

Quote from: arajca on July 07, 2010, 02:05:38 PM
So the retired NCO who elects to follow the CAP officer system is not a good role model for cadet ncos because of that?

For being an upright person who donates to her/his community and touches the future by mentoring and training cadets, of course the former NCO is a role model worthy of imitation.

But for modeling NCO roles and leadership styles for cadet NCOS, not so much.

If I wanted to improve my baseball skills, I could still learn a lot from Lance Armstrong in terms of how to overcome adversity and lifelong fitness.

But I could learn a lot more specific baseball skills by watching Pablo Sandoval.

So the stripes on the uniform are more important to serve as a role model for cadet ncos than the fact the the person wearing the uniform is a retired NCO.

I think what Ned is saying....is that we are all playing roles.

A former AD NCO who puts on the uniform of an officer when he joins CAP "should" be modeling the leadership traits and habits of an officer.

Also....the cadets who are not sophisticated enough to see the NCO buried under the Capt's bars.....only see "officer".

So the over all effectiveness as an NCO ROLL MODEL are diminished because of the the "officer contamination".

If he kept his stripes and kept his NCO leadership styles and traits he would be MORE EFFECTIVE as a roll model.

So YES what rank you are and where you wear it does affect your effectiveness as a roll model.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2010, 04:53:42 PM

...roll model.

So YES what rank you are and where you wear it does affect your effectiveness as a roll model.

I like my roll models with butter and jelly.  Lightly toasted please.

;D

Quote from: jaybird512 on July 07, 2010, 05:48:59 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2010, 04:53:42 PM

...roll model.

So YES what rank you are and where you wear it does affect your effectiveness as a roll model.

I like my roll models with butter and jelly.  Lightly toasted please.

;D

:clap: :clap:

Quote from: arajca on July 07, 2010, 04:38:40 PM
So the stripes on the uniform are more important to serve as a role model for cadet ncos than the fact the the person wearing the uniform is a retired NCO.

Andrew,

I know you know that is not what I am saying.

As Patrick and others have pointed out - Officers act and lead like officers; and NCOs act and lead like NCOs.  Restated, officers do not act and lead like NCOs, and NCOs do not act and lead like officers.

Former NCOs who are current CAP officers presumably are "officer like" in their demeanor and leadership styles.

The whole point of my involvement in this thread is that there is a real difference between officer and NCO leadership styles, and CAP cadets - unlike any other military cadet program - requires our cadets to progress from cadet NCO to cadet officer. 

I think CAP officers can and do a pretty good job of teaching leadership as it is, and serve as coaches, mentors, and role models for our cadets.  But cadet NCOs would benefit from having senior NCO role models as well to observe NCO leadership styles in action.

This has never been about whether officers or NCOs are "better" or "more admirable."

No one would ever be able to win such an argument.

But I suspect you already knew that.

Ned Lee

The problem is my opinion of CAP NCOs has been colored by my experience with CAP NCOs. As a role model for cadets, NCO or officer, most have been less than satisfactory. There is also the whole "I'm an NCO. I work for a living" attitude I've gotten from most as well. There may be some out there who are good role models as NCOs, but I haven't met them.

The problem, IMO, is not about style, form or, function.  The problem is feasibility.  When all said and done, a senior member NCO program will create a whole new membership category which I don't see as workable.  I wrote about creating a perceived "caste" system; one NCO, one Officer.  The potential conflicts, IMO, outweigh the potential benefits.  As civilians, we tend to regard each other with a certain "sameness".  In creating an NCO "caste", we try to "militarize" ourselves.  However, we are not a military organization.  Officers have no authority over NCO's.  NCO's have no obligation to take direction from Officers.  And, as said by many, our grade structure has no relevance with military grade.  Without proper "culture" changes, training and, motivation, the system would collapse upon itself create a void we may not fill.

Everyone's contributions to CAP are based on their background. CAP NCOs have experience that may or may not be beneficial to the unit, depending on how they use that experience, and the attitude of those around them.  If you think I kept my stripes because I'm an arrogant s.o.b. who doesn't want to fit in with the crowd, my presence will have one effect. If you think I kept my stripes for other reasons, you'd no doubt think of me differently.  That being said, CAP Officers, unless they are prior military, do not have any experience as an officer. The CAP experience does not make an officer. It may help develop leadership skills, or make you a better organizer, but you won't pop out the other end of this an officer. This is a civilian volunteer organization where adult members are allowed to wear military-style insignia. Chevrons or bars, your effectiveness in CAP is determined by your personality more than the insignia you're wearing. There's no need for an NCO corp in CAP, because as a previous post explained our grade structure has no relevance to military grade. My squadron currently has a SMSgt, MSgt, and two SSgts. Lucky for us we fit in nicely, and hope we have a positive influence on our squadron based on our actions, not our rank insignia.

Quote from: MSgt Van on July 07, 2010, 10:09:55 PM
Everyone's contributions to CAP are based on their background. CAP NCOs have experience that may or may not be beneficial to the unit, depending on how they use that experience, and the attitude of those around them.  If you think I kept my stripes because I'm an arrogant s.o.b. who doesn't want to fit in with the crowd, my presence will have one effect. If you think I kept my stripes for other reasons, you'd no doubt think of me differently.  That being said, CAP Officers, unless they are prior military, do not have any experience as an officer. The CAP experience does not make an officer. It may help develop leadership skills, or make you a better organizer, but you won't pop out the other end of this an officer. This is a civilian volunteer organization where adult members are allowed to wear military-style insignia. Chevrons or bars, your effectiveness in CAP is determined by your personality more than the insignia you're wearing. There's no need for an NCO corp in CAP, because as a previous post explained our grade structure has no relevance to military grade. My squadron currently has a SMSgt, MSgt, and two SSgts. Lucky for us we fit in nicely, and hope we have a positive influence on our squadron based on our actions, not our rank insignia.

Well said.

Quote from: andysum15 on July 04, 2010, 09:05:10 AM
As you all know by now I am a former RAF/ATC member, I was an NCO in the ATC as a cadet before enlisting in the RAF where I became an NCO before my 12 year career ended. I then went back to the ATC where I started as a Warrant Officer the only NCO rank at the time, Sergeant and Flight sergeant have since been added.

Keep in mind that in British Commonwealth forces, there are a lot less Sergeant ranks than in the USAF.

There are Sergeants and Flight Sergeants - that's it.

Also, Warrant Officers are not like ours...they're considered NCO's but really they're on a special tier.  You do not salute them, but you do address them as "sir" or "ma'am" and you listen to them or else you will find yourself on the end of a very thorough bum-chewing.  Young Pilot Officers (O-1's) learn very quickly not to pull rank on "the Warrant" (just because you can, doesn't mean you should).

They are also often in charge of discipline in a particular unit...which they are very good at.

How does this relate to CAP?

If we were to bring such equivalent ranks into CAP (which isn't happening), they would not be ranks for adults...they would be cadet ranks.

http://www.cadet-world.com/cwwiki/Ranks_%28Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets%29

I've met NCO's of all five Armed Forces who are incredibly good at what they do, and some who basically just polish a chair.

In CAP, the few NCO's I've met are really dedicated.  I knew one who was a retired Army Drill SFC who wore AF MSgt stripes in CAP.  He was very good with the cadets, both mentoring and laying down the law when needed.  He didn't get to wear the AF MTI campaign hat, though...I know it's because he was an Army Drill and not an AF MTI, but I thought it would be a good way to recognise his years as a Drill...oh, well.

I certainly don't treat them differently because I'm an "officer" and they wear stripes...they got their stripes in the Real Military and I got my CAP railway tracks mostly by showing up, doing what I'm told, coming up with the occasional good idea (it does happen) and Professional Development.

Quite a vast difference.

The British Air Cadets (ATC) also have classification badges and badges of rank. Classifications are first class cadet (normally takes 9 to 12 months) Leading Cadet, Senior Cadet and Staff Cadet. One achieving First Class cadet they are eligible for promotion to rank of corporal (in practice this often doesn't take place until they are at least Leading cadet).
So NCO ranks for cadets are : Corporal, Sergeant, Flight Sergeant and Warrant Officer. The number of cadet NCO's in each squadron is governed by the number of cadets, so larger squadrons have more NCO's.
Senior Member NCO ranks start at Sergeant, then after 4 years Flight Sergeant and then Warrant Officer. These adult/ senior member NCO also wear ATC in brass on their rank slide. If in best blues they have ATC cut out on the collar like we have US.

http://www.aircadetonline.com/flash_site/sqn_organisation_ranks.htm[/url

Here is a link for those who interested in ATC ranks.

Quote from: CyBorg on July 08, 2010, 04:36:23 AMHe didn't get to wear the AF MTI campaign hat, though...I know it's because he was an Army Drill and not an AF MTI, but I thought it would be a good way to recognise his years as a Drill...oh, well.

Even ex USAF MTI's don't get to wear their smokey bear once they leave Lackland.  It has nothing to do with being Army.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 08, 2010, 03:37:28 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on July 08, 2010, 04:36:23 AMHe didn't get to wear the AF MTI campaign hat, though...I know it's because he was an Army Drill and not an AF MTI, but I thought it would be a good way to recognise his years as a Drill...oh, well.

Even ex USAF MTI's don't get to wear their smokey bear once they leave Lackland.  It has nothing to do with being Army.

FWIW, Army drill sergeants don't wear their distinctive headgear unless they are on the trail, either.

Edit: However, they are authorized a badge for wear on their uniform pocket.

AF guys get a TI ribbon.

Quote from: MSgt Van on July 08, 2010, 09:10:20 PM
AF guys get a TI ribbon.

And the cookie.

Unless it's changed, you can't wear the cookie if your not serving in an AETC assignment. My cookie is secured to the inside pocket of my service  blouse - "stealth cookie".

Ah, what is a cookie?

Cookie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Education_and_Training_Command_Instructor_Badge

My cookie is the top right round badge on my signature image.

Quote from: MSgt Van on August 20, 2010, 07:26:11 PM
My cookie is the top right round badge on my signature image.

Apparently, your signature image changes.  It wasn't there a minute ago  :o

It's magic (well, ok. so I just added it)   ::)

Having spent a few good years in the Army Infantry myself becoming a CPL, I would have to say that the notion that some people have of the private/ airman doesn't know how to march troops is a load. That is one of the first things that is taught in Basic for both branches. It is the most basic lesson in learning to receive and give orders. I have never seen an NCO in any branch other than Navy that doesn't know how to march soldiers. But I have seen multitudes of officers that don't.

That being said, there could be an advantage to having an NCO Corps in CAP. Yes there is a distinct difference in what leadership means to NCO and Officers. The NCO is the hands on, and the officer is more of the man behind the screen. The officer gives the ORDER to the NCO the NCO gives and SHOWS the OBJECTIVE and how to accomplish the mission.

The NCO could be a good way to teach the Airmen and NCO cadets the ways of the enlisted. While the Officer teaches those who are cadet officers and NCOs who are about to become officers.

Keep in mind, not all CAP cadets who go into the military do so as officers. I Made my Mitchell and went to the Army to enlist.

Keeping all of this in mind, I do not think that implementing an NCO Corps in CAP would be effective as I have stated. For the simple fact that some who join CAP as senior members do not have the knowledge of the difference between officers and NCOs. I could see it muddling things up in certain places.

However One NCO who has been prior military being in your squadron would be a good thing, especially if he/she were to keep their stripes. They would be able to set the standard for actions as an NCO.

As of today I have four NCOs in my squadron, with two more almost there. That's probably the most in CAP I'd bet. I hope we're making a difference (positive, that is).

Personally speaking the only place I see the usefulness of the "rank" structure is in the CP role.  As stated above no one care or seems to see a problem with a squadron commanded by a 2Lt with serving LTC's and Maj's.... however when trying to mentor and show a model of CofC, delegation of authority, small unit leadership etc etc having a "mirror" senior leader side to the cadet structure would be beneficial, and in that model an NCO corps would be usefull. (with that in mind that would be the only model you would need to have a military style uniform also, but thats a seperate discussion)... and that way a 2 caste system is ok, because that's what we are teaching the cadets

For that to be effective many unlikely changes would have to take place (and Wing CC who arent in a cadet unit wouldnt be able to be Col and wear fancy AF uniforms to the NB; since they make the decisons I see it as a catch 22 unless someone with a bigger foot lays down the law)

mk

I recently sent a question about the Senior Member NCO grades to the National Commander.  He stated that the program has been at National Headquarters for some time and that they are reviewing the program.

People are reviewing questions and concerns raised and MG Carr is reviewing these. 

I know that MG Carr is a proponent of the NCO grades as he introduced a Command Master Chief in Ohio and at GLR HQ. 

As for those who who think that would be bad to have the grades I think it is wrong.  I know a lot of people that would like to see the grades returned because they were NCO's and enlisted in the service and don't want to be an officer.  Others would like to see NCO grades returned because they do not want to be in a command position.

I would like to see NCO grades returned because it would also mirror the cadet programs.  It would teach them about the importance of the NCO and for those going into the service it would also show them the role of NCO's.

The military enlisted/officer model does not work for the CAP cadet program. There is a fundemental disconnect between them and I'm not talking about age. The cadet program does not "mirror" the miltary paths because the CAP cadet program has one path, not two. In the military, the enlisted and officer paths are separate (with the occasional exception) with end-all-be-all of the enlisted path being CMSgt.

Unlike CAP cadet officers, military officers are not enlisted who continued progression after CMSgt. Officers follow a separate path, starting at officer grades. The CAP cadet program starts with enlisted grade and progresses through C/CMSgt into officer grades.

In my eperience, the argument many CAP NCO's make for wearing stripes is "I dont want to be demoted to an officer."

I will admit I have limited experience with CAP NCOs, since they are statistically insignificant number in our membership and are hard to find. I have interacted with more CAP NCOs on CAPTalk than I have seen in person in probably 18 years as a cadet and senior member. No one, including me, will deny that NCOs bring alot of valuable skills and knowledge to CAP, however, unless CAP does a major restructure of the entire senior member grade structure, NCO stripes are merely ego stroking tools for the few current and former military NCOs who chose to get involved with CAP.

Quote from: docbiochem33 on September 09, 2012, 05:19:12 PMAs for those who who think that would be bad to have the grades I think it is wrong.  I know a lot of people that would like to see the grades returned because they were NCO's and enlisted in the service and don't want to be an officer.  Others would like to see NCO grades returned because they do not want to be in a command position.

Which is basically the only reason.

Quote from: andysum15 on July 01, 2010, 01:32:32 PM
Morning All,
Having served with the Air Training Corps and Civil Air Patrol I would just like to let members know how the ATC does it. The ATC has both NCO and Officer ranks. An individual can apply for either, allowing them to progress through the NCO track or Officer. An NCO may at a future date apply for appointment as an officer. The NCO ranks consist of Sergeant, Flight Sergeant and Warrant Officer. NCO's will serve for four years as a Sergeant before being eligible for promotion to Flight Sergeant and then another four years to Warrant Officer. Officers are a little different two years at entry level Pilot Officer then promotion to Flying Officer. The next rank Flight Lieutenant is for Squadron Commanders and for officers who have 12 years service as an officer.
NCO ranks perform slightly different rolls, one of their main duties is drill and discipline but also carry out many other duties. The only one they can not do is become Squadron Commander.
I started my career with the ATC as a Warrant Officer (the other two ranks were introduced after I was commissioned and after I moved to the USA). For me it was an excellent way of developing skills I needed. If I had not taken this route I would not of been the officer I became. I went on to become a Squadron Commander in the ATC and am now a Squadron Commander in CAP. It is my experience that some people are best suited to being NCO's and some Officers. Just because some are NCO's does not mean they are lesser qualified. Their roll may be different but they are equally important. I for one would love to see NCO ranks brought in for Senior Members.

I think it's interesting that the ATC officers are actually commissioned in the training branch of the Royal Air Force. Seems like that would create a better collegial atmosphere between the ATC and RAF, not to mention the fact that the RAF has a dedicated group of instructors on standby if they're ever needed.

Quote from: docbiochem33 on September 09, 2012, 05:19:12 PM
I would like to see NCO grades returned because it would also mirror the cadet programs.  It would teach them about the importance of the NCO and for those going into the service it would also show them the role of NCO's.

While I am neither for or against CAP NCOs as there is a program for it and have had the privilege of going through SLS with one.  You can teach the importance of being an NCO without having them present. 

I am an AD NCO, CAP officer and was a prior cadet and out of all of those it is my AD experience I bring to the table and how I conduct business.  Many of the cadets have seen me in both CAP uniform and AF uniform and enjoy the aspect that I bring that AD experience to the table.  Do I always have an answer no, but I provide my input and let those who make the decisions make them and I then support it.  Most of the SMs I interacted with as a cadet were either AD or prior service and were all predominately enlisted. 

We have a NCO program I think we just need to reevaluate it and provide a clearer understanding of the program.

I've done the NCO thing in CAP for a couple of years. Went back to my Officer grade because it caused just too many problems.
And I'm not the only NCO in CAWG to come to this conclusion either... ::)

If you are looking for a "model" for a CAP NCO corps, I would suggest you look at the organizational structure and working dynamic of the U.S. Army Special Forces. Here you have mostly NCOs working with and for officers without having to have junior enlisted men for the sergeants to lead around. It's true that on Mobile Training Team deployments, these NCO's may train, advise, counsel, and in some cases lead indigenous personnel, but normally, these foreign troops have their own chain of command and leadership structure just like our cadets have their own separate and distinct chain and structure.

In the workings of an ODA, you have a Captain, a CWO, an E-8 Team Sergeant, and 9 E-7s, E-6s, and E-5s. There is no one there in the junior enlisted ranks(E-4 and below) normally. The institutional memory of the team resides with the CWO and the Team Sergeant. These two individuals will normally be assigned to the same team for several years. The detachment commander will normally be there for one short tour before moving up to a staff position withing the SF company, battalion, or group. You will find very little of the caste system and "aloofness" between these officers and the NCOs. Many of the NCOs are highly educated and in any other branch would probably be officer material, but they choose to stay "operational".

I think that this model would work well for CAP. This idea that officers should be aloof, looking at the big picture all the time, and are of a higher "caste" than NCOs is laughable. Reminds me of the character Courtney Massengale from the novel "Once an Eagle". As other people have pointed out, there are good NCOs and bad ones just like there are good and bad officers. We can all come up with "war stories" of the guy that was a sergeant 20 or 30 years ago that's going to get his stripes in CAP and show us all "How the real Air Force done it!". But for every one of those stories there are probably more of good solid NCOs who are leaders no matter what rank they wear. Leadership is leadership. The rank on your collar or sleeve impresses me less than the set of you eyes and the steel in your carriage.

QuoteOthers would like to see NCO grades returned because they do not want to be in a command position.

There's nothing that says just because you are a CAP officer you have to be in a "command position" to begin with.  Not to mention if you were offered one (which can happen as an NCO) you can say "no".  This is CAP, you have a choice on what you want to and not want to do (most of the time).   There are many CAP staff positions that do not require one to be in command. 

In the end you have to stop comparing the two structures. 

I know retired military NCOs and Officers  in my unit who decided to just go through the CAP PD program "just like any other member from scratch" and opted not to go with their prior military NCO or prior officer grade. 

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 09, 2012, 07:10:10 PM
We have a NCO program

Actually, we don't.  We have NCO grades but there isn't a program.  It would be like saying that we have an accounting programs because CPAs can get a certain CAP rank when they join.  That is the current situation.

Now, if we actually want to develop a real NCO program that has some purpose behind it (which may not actually be possible given the way CAP works), that would be something new.

20+ yrs in CAP and held just about every slot from asst trash can emptier up to and including Sq CC and I was never in a position where my rank was anything other than a decoration on my shoulder.  It was always the position held.  There was no authority just because someone outranked someone else.  Yeah, it shows your level of PD, but Ive met LTC's who hadnt done anything in CAP except take PD courses and hang out who needed my signature to get things done.  Heck, even grounded a LTC CAP pilot.  Asa 10yr 1st Lt I was running a Sq with 2 brand new G1000 182's and managed a Region Sq of Distinction award.   So this argument over what symbol you choose to wear on your shirt is nothing more than another uniform discussion.

Thank God we're not a government agency, otherwise you'd have had to spend some time as the senior deputy assistant trash can emptier. >:D

Quote from: JeffDG on September 10, 2012, 07:59:44 PM
Thank God we're not a government agency, otherwise you'd have had to spend some time as the senior deputy assistant trash can emptier. >:D

Senior Deputy Assistant to the Trash Can Emptier

Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2012, 08:02:51 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on September 10, 2012, 07:59:44 PM
Thank God we're not a government agency, otherwise you'd have had to spend some time as the senior deputy assistant trash can emptier. >:D

Senior Deputy Assistant to the Trash Can Emptier

Senior Deputy Assistant to the Trash Can Emperor

Quote from: RiverAux on September 09, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
Now, if we actually want to develop a real NCO program that has some purpose behind it (which may not actually be possible given the way CAP works), that would be something new.

Why not just an entire enlisted rank structure?


Make rank in Civil Air Patrol actually reflect their positional authority.  Make it so that members that actually participate in the organization actually get advanced in the program while others that just joined so they can hang out with their child who is a cadet...just kinda stays as an airman.

I know this is opening a can of worms but with an organization as large as ours we could make a viable enlisted corps and a viable officer corps.  Since our positions are not actually tied to funding we can have some overlap and can use rank to recognize those who actually contribute to our mission.

Who becomes an NCO? Who becomes an officer?

Do we make everyone w/o a college degree an NCO?

Do we make 18 y/o members NCOs?

Can the PHD, 30 year veteran Colonel join as an NCO?

I know we don't know WHAT they plan on doing (if anything), but really, how do we factor this in? How did it work in the past?

Quote from: SARDOC on October 31, 2012, 07:10:19 PMWhy not just an entire enlisted rank structure?

Because a volunteer organization cannot support the separation of duties between managers and doers that the NCO - Officer relationship represents.

You'd be better off increasing the expectations for Officer grade which would suppress the number of people who would ever exceed Lt.

I don't get why so many say we cannot have an enlisted rank structure when we had one from CAP's inception.

I've seen very old rank charts duplicating the Air Force structure from Airman to Master Sergeant.

I remember when I joined CAP and described it to my Army veteran dad...he said "sounds like you have more Chiefs than Indians."

Can we have one? 

Yes.

Is there a point?  No.


If we're talking about putting real authority behind grade, that's a different conversation, but if we're going to do it just so some people
can wear stripes instead of bars, the effort is wasted.

Enlisted personnel have much different roles, responsibilities, and expectations then officers - that separation doesn't exist in CAP.
Could a Chief command a unit?  If the answer is "yes", then we've missed the point.

This is a much better idea:
http://captalk.net/index.php?action=post;quote=199086;topic=10904.0;num_replies=153;e0e916a=be452a0266d74ecce514e25f66ee447d (http://captalk.net/index.php?action=post;quote=199086;topic=10904.0;num_replies=153;e0e916a=be452a0266d74ecce514e25f66ee447d)
assuming, again, you put the weight of authority and responsibility behind the grade.

Want to be a Major?  Fine - do this, that, and the other, take on these responsibilities, and if you fail, turn in the oaks.
I'd sign that.

Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2012, 09:42:48 PM
I remember when I joined CAP and described it to my Army veteran dad...he said "sounds like you have more Chiefs than Indians."

When I was first recruited as a senior member, being a Veteran, that was my first thought   ;)

Having been probably one of the last real CAP NCOs -- 1973 was when I traded technical sergeant stripes for Warrent Officer 1 -- and now being a retired AF Master Sergeant, I find the lack of NCOs in this program very lacking. Everyone's a chief of some sort and cadets really only get an idea of what an NCO does from other cadets.

I wish this level of leadership was came back. I know why it failed the last time. People would join from off the street and be instant master sergeants. The recruiting or good-old-boy tactic drew the ire of the NCOs of all services and the decision to end the program came from the CSAF or Air Staff.

However, former NCOs who join the program and prefer to retain their enlisted rank are handicapped in this program because they have to achieve the same professional development as CAP officers; yet their function is very different.

In another string on this forum, a former cadet was essentially complaining because as a Mitchell Award recipient and pilot, he was a one level in the promotion system, while former officers were coming in at higher ranks. Having CAP NCOs creates another level of leadership and would make that officer rank mean a little more.

What would it hurt.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 01, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
However, former NCOs who join the program and prefer to retain their enlisted rank are handicapped in this program because they have to achieve the same professional development as CAP officers; yet their function is very different.

Actually, their function is exactly the same as CAP officers under the current system -- thats the problem -- they don't serve any useful purpose under the current system and its not clear how CAP would actually function differently with a real NCO program unless our senior membership increased 10-fold.   

Now, if all we want to do is to get rid of the "all chiefs" issue and start all CAP senior members as airman and have everyone work their way up through the ranks we could certainly do that.  It would cut back on the number of officers as most members wouldn't progress that far (based on how many move up in the officer ranks available now).  Not sure how it would really do anything other than change the appearance of things.  We'd just end up with all our staff officer jobs filled by NCOs rather than officers. 

In my view the current program is there so that enlisted members who join CAP who are really proud of their military rank and achievements (as they should be) can carry them across to CAP.  In that regard, it's kind of a feel good measure.

End of the day, I don't _REALLY_ care if you are a CAP Lt Col, MSgt, or SMWOG; so much as I care about whether you are dependably handling some share of the load of running the squadron.

However, I think it is a mistake to create a massive dual-class system in CAP.
If you aren't creating a dual class system with real differences of authority, then it's just more 'feel good' measure stuff, which is so inane that this whole discussion might as well be about what color bows to add to the uniform next (yes, quite seriously missing the point).  Do we need an NCO structure to do a better job of accomplishing CAP's missions that we are doing without one?  In my opinion, no.


Finally, quite frankly, I question that a senior member off the street without prior military experience, basic training, several years as junior enlisted, and enlisted PME, is likely to meet NCO professionalism standards.  This is ultimately likely to actually undermine the image of the NCO overall, which is certainly going to irritate some people out there in the world.

Quote from: coudano on November 01, 2012, 01:20:48 PMEnd of the day, I don't _REALLY_ care if you are a CAP Lt Col, MSgt, or SMWOG; so much as I care about whether you are dependably handling some share of the load of running the squadron.

Quote from: coudano on November 01, 2012, 01:20:48 PMIf you aren't creating a dual class system with real differences of authority, then it's just more 'feel good' measure stuff, which is so inane that this whole discussion might as well be about what color bows to add to the uniform next (yes, quite seriously missing the point).  Do we need an NCO structure to do a better job of accomplishing CAP's missions that we are doing without one?  In my opinion, no.

This is really the core of the discussion, and we have to also be careful of the opposite unintended consequence - the idea that being an NCO
in CAP would somehow releave members of the responsibility of carrying their corner - an idea that pops up on here regularly.  "If they just want to
do 'x', then they can be NCOs or warrants and ignore PD".   That's a bad idea at our current manpower levels.

We have some people who would actually stand up and make the case that CAP grade has no relevance, and then in the next sentence argue
that instituting NCO grades in CAP would make a difference.  You can't have it both ways, and the stripes don't necessarily give
anyone any special "force powers" in a CAP context.  If they did, then the thousands of prior and current military officers already in CAP would be  shaping and guiding the organization in much more substantial ways.  Some do, plenty just like to fly or come to meetings.

The fact of the matter is that you bring to CAP what you bring, regardless of where those abilities came from - military, private sector, government service, whatever, and like any other job, your skills and experience are either relevant and applicable, or they aren't.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 01, 2012, 01:05:11 PM
Now, if all we want to do is to get rid of the "all chiefs" issue and start all CAP senior members as airman and have everyone work their way up through the ranks we could certainly do that.  It would cut back on the number of officers as most members wouldn't progress that far (based on how many move up in the officer ranks available now).  Not sure how it would really do anything other than change the appearance of things.  We'd just end up with all our staff officer jobs filled by NCOs rather than officers.

Would that include pilots?  I'm trying to envision an E-2 pilot.

Quote from: coudano on November 01, 2012, 01:20:48 PM
Finally, quite frankly, I question that a senior member off the street without prior military experience, basic training, several years as junior enlisted, and enlisted PME, is likely to meet NCO professionalism standards.  This is ultimately likely to actually undermine the image of the NCO overall, which is certainly going to irritate some people out there in the world.

Your point is well taken.  However, the exact same thing could be said for the current "almost-all-officer" system.  The public and military expect a certain level of competence out of even a butter-bar second looie.  We just basically give them that for showing up for six months.

A system where most would come in off the street as slicksleeve E-1's, where they would have to work their way up through things like (perhaps) modified SLS, CLC etc. (CAP-centric PME type courses), TIG, etc. would eliminate a lot of what you're talking about.

There is one significant flaw to the current system of letting NCO's keep their stripes.

I believe a Senior Airman can keep their stripes in CAP.

A Senior Airman is not an NCO.

It made sense when the AF still had buck sergeants, but not now.

Lt Oliv-

Please quote from CAP regulations where does it state that "SM is a CAP grade."

After 10 years as a CAP member, most of them as both Admin and Personnel Officer, I still cringe when members who have not read the regulations give opinions about what they see or hear in the program without basing their comments on the regulations, pamphlets, and manuals.

Please re-read CAPR 35-5, CAPR Officers and NCOs.

Flyer

35-5 says new members are SMWOG, but eServices and your ID card will say "SM".

I'm a CAP senior member NCO!   :o

Ill say it again....   As soon as everyone realizes that rank in CAP is about personal achievement, not authority, it all gets much easier to understand and accept.   

Quote from: flyer333555 on November 01, 2012, 06:10:59 PM
Lt Oliv-

Please quote from CAP regulations where does it state that "SM is a CAP grade."

After 10 years as a CAP member, most of them as both Admin and Personnel Officer, I still cringe when members who have not read the regulations give opinions about what they see or hear in the program without basing their comments on the regulations, pamphlets, and manuals.

Please re-read CAPR 35-5, CAPR Officers and NCOs.

Flyer

It is not.....it is a member with out grade......SMWOG...ergo it is a grade/non grade.  So the grade of SM is just short for SMWOG.   Clear?   Yes?  No?

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 01, 2012, 09:43:48 PM
Ill say it again....   As soon as everyone realizes that rank in CAP is about personal achievement, not authority, it all gets much easier to understand and accept.   

That's one of the flaws when working with other agencies.  When you go into a public safety meeting wearing bars.  People associate Rank Insignia with Authority.  When you are in your job and someone comes in wearing Captain bars...is it just because he's been in longer and took an online class that you didn't or is it because this person has been selected to be in a position of authority?

Society has an Expectation that rank insignia means authority.  I think we could recognize personal achievement through our current award/ribbon process.

The average member of the public and probably a lot in the ES community wouldn't have any clue just how much authority an AF Captain that shows up at the command post has in comparison to what a CAP Captain has.

In fact, I'd bet that in most situations when a CAP member shows up at the command post that CAP member has probably more actual authority to respond to the needs than would an equivalent ranking member of the military.  There is every possibility that CAP Captain is a CAP Incident Commander that can pretty much make most relevant decisions.  When it gets right down to it you're going to have to go pretty far up the military rank food chain to find someone with equivalent authority to a CAP Incident Commander. 

Heck, you could have a CAP NCO that is an CAP Incident Commander that can speak more for CAP than a AF Lt. Col. could speak for the AF. 

Now, I'm obviously speaking of a CAP IC's abilities after a mission has been approved.  Once that is done, there is very extra approval they need to use the resources under their control. 

Wow. How soon we forget. I have quoted some olde posts of mine, related to SMWOG, over the years, dates included.

Quote from: SarDragon
7/6/07
Well, the term Officer doesn't cover every non-cadet member. A SMWOG is not, by definition, an officer, but is still a senior member. Also, I think the term Senior Member is one of our traditions that shouldn't be arbitrarily discarded. Adult Member might be more definitive, but might make too close an association with other youth groups.

Quote from: SarDragon
7/3/10
'SM' is ambiguous. It can refer to all adult members as one large group (the senior members), and it is used that way quite often. It can also refer to those adult members who are at the bottom on the rank structure. In informal communication, it is usually clear from the context which meaning is desired.

'Senior members without grade' allows us to talk about that second group without the ambiguity. 'SM' functions as the grade the abbreviation for this group, when needed.

Quote from: SarDragon
7/3/10

Quote from: CAPR35-5
4. Initial Grades. All senior members will be enrolled as CAP senior members without grade, unless they are specifically exempt from Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program and immediately qualify for an officer grade in consideration of previous CAP experience, as set forth in section C.

Quote from: CAPR35-5
30. General. Only senior members under 21 years of age will be appointed to or promoted to the flight officer grades. This category is designed as a transition for cadets transferring to senior member status and for those senior members who are otherwise eligible for CAP officer grade except that they have not yet reached the minimum age of 21. Upon reaching age 21, the member will be appointed to an appropriate officer grade or will be classified as a senior member without grade until he or she is eligible for promotion to officer grade.

Quote from: SarDragon
7/3/10

Quote from: Eclipse on July 03, 2010, 06:57:55 PM
In what context would you need to distinguish between an "SM" and an "SMWOG"?  Once they are approved by NHQ, the grade is fairly irrelevant in terms of participation.

'SM' as an abbreviation fills the grade block as needed (forms, rosters, etc).

'Senior member without grade', never abbreviated, distinguishes the two groups of adult members I spoke of above, as is done in the bolded text I referred to.

Quote from: SarDragon
7/3/10

Quote from: lordmonar on July 03, 2010, 07:00:38 PM
What we have here is several related but separate issues.

A new adult member in CAP is referred to in the regulations as SMWOG.
By definition they have no grade.
But their title is senior member (SM).

Incorrect. The "grade" is SM. "SMWOG is NEVER used as an abbreviation. You only see it spelled out, referring to that particular level of members as a group.

QuoteIs this confusing?  Not really...only if you want to be nit picky about it.

Do SM have grade?  Sure thing...they are SMWOG.  Even it that is a contradiction in terms.

Again, incorrect. See above.

QuoteBut we deal with that all the time.

We have Officers and we have Enlisted....even if half the enlisted personnel have the word "officer" in their title!

So is a Staff Sergeant an officer?   It says so right there on my certificate of appointment to the Non Commissioned OFFICER corps.

But we live with this contradition in terms all the time.

The initial "grade" for all new members is "SMWOG" and he is referred to as "senior member" or "Mr/Ms".

Any one have any problems understanding that?

Apparently, a lot of people. Here's another instance where word-of-mouth has overwhelmed what's written in the regs, and people have done their very best to over complicate things. We need to invoke "KISS" and get people up to speed on what's really correct.

Bottom line - it's actually pretty clear what's going on. You simply need to discard preconceptions, and read the regs.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2012, 02:01:28 AM
The average member of the public and probably a lot in the ES community wouldn't have any clue just how much authority an AF Captain that shows up at the command post has in comparison to what a CAP Captain has.

In fact, I'd bet that in most situations when a CAP member shows up at the command post that CAP member has probably more actual authority to respond to the needs than would an equivalent ranking member of the military.  There is every possibility that CAP Captain is a CAP Incident Commander that can pretty much make most relevant decisions.  When it gets right down to it you're going to have to go pretty far up the military rank food chain to find someone with equivalent authority to a CAP Incident Commander. 

Heck, you could have a CAP NCO that is an CAP Incident Commander that can speak more for CAP than a AF Lt. Col. could speak for the AF. 

Now, I'm obviously speaking of a CAP IC's abilities after a mission has been approved.  Once that is done, there is very extra approval they need to use the resources under their control.

While I agree with most of this.  In my experience there are indeed some citizens there are some members of the Public who not only have absolutely no recognition of rank insignia or even the difference between military, law enforcement or other uniforms...doesn't change the fact that all of those have meanings in our society.

It is true that authority can be positional as anybody who has taken ICS100 can tell you.  The First Arriving responder to any incident is the Incident Commander until someone else gets there. 

So Ultimately...Why Wear Rank insignia at all if it doesn't really represent Authority?  I get the whole it's a professional development progression...but don't we already recognize that through the Ribbon/Award process?

The problem with this whole discussion is how to advance senior members who join the CAP between the ages of 18 and 21. Nobody, Air Force, BOG, or the like is ever going to approve lowering the age requirements below 21 years old; and I have often thought that what a senior member does to get promoted to second lieutenant is really lacking.

I'm not an advocate of brining back the warrant officer program. First, because it would never get Air Force approval; and second CAP warrant officers seemed to be in an odd category when the program was functional....and I was one for about six to eight months. I am an advocate of a formal NCO corps because it gives an alternative to senior members who would prefer that structure and may not have the desire or motivation ot be officers. How many times have you run into career second or first lieutenants? It's almost like those cadets who never progress beyond a Mitchell Award.

At the same time, back in the late 1940s (according to the old CAP Training Manual (1949) that I have and guard, we once had a Officers Training Corps.

Instead of debating the return of NCOs as anything other than a system involving former military NCOs, what would happen if we re-created the OTC, rolling the flight officer program into it, and then using that six months to aggressively ramp up mission training and the officer basic course into some sort of training academy. We do that with cadets at weekend leadership schools, why not senior members. For those senior members who do not meet the age requirements, there might be a model of progression that could be translated to officer rank.

You would say, "that's why we have flight officers," but I think the rank is ususally misunderstood, is taken away when that individual turns 21, and there is never a means to directly transition to second lieutenant...other than a promotion system that makes that rank something of what's the point.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
The problem with this whole discussion is how to advance senior members who join the CAP between the ages of 18 and 21.

An enlisted/NCO corps, with the option of going officer at 21 (depending on character of service as enlisted/NCO) or remaining an NCO.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
I have often thought that what a senior member does to get promoted to second lieutenant is really lacking.

What's lacking about just showing up for six months? :P

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
I'm not an advocate of brining back the warrant officer program. First, because it would never get Air Force approval; and second CAP warrant officers seemed to be in an odd category when the program was functional....

I think warrants in general in the military are like that, mainly because there are so relatively few of them.  Except for Army Aviators, they're generally former NCO's who have proven themselves above-and-beyond in their chosen speciality/MOS.  I believe one must reach E-7 in the Army/USN/USCG/USMC to even be considered for the grade.  I've never figured out, though, how (or why) the Navy juggles both warrants and LDO's.

The first time I ever heard of the rank was as a kid in the '70s watching Baa Baa Black Sheep (great TV, albeit inaccurate as heck) when Sgt. Micklin (Red West) was promoted to the rank (and lost it in the same episode).  I asked my Army veteran dad what a warrant officer was and he said "they're an officer, but they specialise in doing basically one job."

Question: Why would the AF never approve it?  Because they don't have them?  They don't have Flight Officers either.

Even the USPHS has approved warrant grades, though none have been appointed yet.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
I am an advocate of a formal NCO corps because it gives an alternative to senior members who would prefer that structure and may not have the desire or motivation ot be officers.

No argument here.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
How many times have you run into career second or first lieutenants?

Pilots in senior squadrons. >:D

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
It's almost like those cadets who never progress beyond a Mitchell Award.

Or who don't even make it that far because they've inexplicably been convinced that going past C/CMSgt is somehow "uncool."  I see that too much with cadets.

I've also seen cadets who almost drop off the radar when they get their Mitchell, because they have only got it to get E-3 in the AF.

Quote from: flyboy1 on November 02, 2012, 11:05:59 AM
At the same time, back in the late 1940s (according to the old CAP Training Manual (1949) that I have and guard, we once had a Officers Training Corps.

Instead of debating the return of NCOs as anything other than a system involving former military NCOs, what would happen if we re-created the OTC, rolling the flight officer program into it, and then using that six months to aggressively ramp up mission training and the officer basic course into some sort of training academy. We do that with cadets at weekend leadership schools, why not senior members. For those senior members who do not meet the age requirements, there might be a model of progression that could be translated to officer rank.

I'd still prefer an enlisted/NCO corps, and a warrant officer option, but the idea has merit.

I remember when I did SLS and CLC back in 1994.  Neither were an easy ride back then and graduation for showing up was not guaranteed.

Cyborg
I think warrants in general in the military are like that, mainly because there are so relatively few of them.  Except for Army Aviators, they're generally former NCO's who have proven themselves above-and-beyond in their chosen speciality/MOS.  I believe one must reach E-7 in the Army/USN/USCG/USMC to even be considered for the grade.  I've never figured out, though, how (or why) the Navy juggles both warrants and LDO's.

In the Marines you have to have at least 13 years and be an E6 to qualify for WO.  Not sure about the Army.  When I was in the Army (yes, I was in the Army also) I never had any contact with WO's.  Ive seen that episode of Ba Ba Black Sheep also.  The interesting thing though, is that it is a new career path.  I dont know that you would be demoted back to your last enlisted rank.  It would be like demoting a 2LT down to an enlisted grade.  Because think about it.  You get promoted from E-8 to WO1, some E-7 took your E-8 slot.  So I dont know how realistic that episode was.  Ive never heard of a WO being demoted.  Of course, you know the WWII Marine Corps was probably a vastly different animal than the HR/Admin world of today in the military. 

flyboy1
How many times have you run into career second or first lieutenants?
In regards to career 1Lts.  Yeah, I was a career 1LT and a pilot.  I imagine if there was no aviation, I dont know that I would have stayed around long.  However, my first 5-6 years as a Senior Member I wasnt even a pilot.  I was in Cadet Programs.  But like I have said before, Ive held pretty much every slot there is up to and including SQCC.  So to me.... being a career 1LT and a pilot wasnt an issue because I was still contributing to the program.  I was not interested in climbing the CAP ladder.   While I was the CC, I was promoted to Captain as a result of being the commander.  Again, it was a nice, but nothing changed.  I was still plugging along.  So personally I never saw really any benefit to pursuing PD. If I was going to volunteer MORE time to CAP, it was going to be something that had to do with me becoming a better Mission Pilot.  So the idea that I was in CAP just to fly?  Ehhhh, yeah.... sorta..... but I was also doing the behind the scenes work.  Fortunately I had a Deputy who was really the puppet master behind the scenes.  He is now the SqCC.  I understood, and told my people "CAP doesnt just happen.  If you want to enjoy the bennies, your going to earn them"  I had a couple people join, buy all the uniforms, and then after a year or so, quite CAP because myself and my DC wouldnt let them touch the plane because the only times we saw them was if there was flying to be had.  No thanks... we dont need you. 

Flying Pig,
  I was prior service Regular Army and an E-4 when I got out.  The National Guard recruiter asked me if I had some college and I told him I did.  When we went through all the classes at the time he asked me if I wanted to go to WOCS.  I would have been a WO in a short time, but I was not interested.  It would have been too hard to be in and going to school and working 40 hours a week.  I turned it down, but I did find out through it that you didn't have to be any more than an E-4 with almost an AA degree and you could be a WO.

I'm not sure if they still have the program and offer it the same way. In the past you could join the army specifically for the Warrant Officer candidate Program...Specifically for the Aviation guys.  The process was pass the testing, get accepted into the program, go to basic training, afterwards you immediately go to Warrant Officer candidate school getting paid as an E-5 the entire time, Graduate WOCS Become a WO1 and go to Fort Rucker and learn to fly a helicopter.  Every service has different programs so it depends on the needs of the service and the mission what kind of experience they need for that advancement.

re: the reduction in grade from WO to prior enlisted grade. I've seen it in a WO2 who was passed over for WO3 and was reappointed as a SFC/E-7. I've also seen a few COL/O-6's who were timed and were appointed W2, until their retirements.

A Colonel to WO2?  What the heck was that all about??

I know, in the Navy, that if an LDO doesn't have 10 years as an officer when he hits his retirement point, he reverts to his highest enlisted or WO rank at retirement, but gets paid for the highest rank honorably held. Makes little sense to me, but that's the system.

Interesting discussion about reducing officers' grade.  The following happened quite some time ago and my memory of the conversation may be hazy, but this is what I recall:

Back when I was working in radio, the husband of one of our sales people told me that he accepted an early retirement from the Air Force during a RIF.  The way he put it (he was a lieutenant colonel), he was basically informed that he had a choice - he could retire early as an O-5, or stay in and finish his time, but he'd do it as a SMSgt.  He'd get an O-5's retirement pay, but the last two or three years of his career, he'd be a senior NCO.  He opted for the early retirement.

Jack

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 03, 2012, 12:58:53 AM
A Colonel to WO2?  What the heck was that all about??

Quote from: MSG Mac on November 03, 2012, 12:13:23 AM
re: the reduction in grade from WO to prior enlisted grade. I've seen it in a WO2 who was passed over for WO3 and was reappointed as a SFC/E-7. I've also seen a few COL/O-6's who were timed and were appointed W2, until their retirements.

O-6's can serve  for a maximum of 5 years or 35 years total service, which ever comes first, unless they are selected for promotion. A WO can serve until until 60 (or more). Therefore if they wanted to stay on and were given the option they could get it. Their was a general (Walker?) in the 60's who had a public dispute with the Kennedy administration and resigned from the Army saying he wouldn't retire, because he had money of his pwn and wouldn't apply for retirement. About 10 years later he decided to retire and was brought back on duty for 1 day as a CW2 to retire as a MG.

Now that I think about it, I can think of two other instances of "O" to "E" reductions.

I worked with an AF SSgt back in the '70s whose AFSC (or whatever the officer version is) was downsized, and he either had to take a RIF, with no bennies (nowhere near close enough to retirement), or take a reduction in rank, from Capt to SSgt, and stay for his 20.

At my last command before I retired, we had an E-7 who reverted from O-2 when he bailed from the LDO Aviator Program.

A lot of you folks aren't old enough to remember, but there were things called Reduction in Force(RIF) for officers after both the Korean and Viet Nam wars.  In most cases, the officers didn't have enough time in service to qualify for retirement and wanted to remain on active duty until they could retire.  If they had ever served in the enlisted ranks, they could revert to the highest Enlisted rank held.  If no enlisted service, I seem to recall that they could revert to E-4.  I knew of a bunch of former Majors and Lt Cols who were E-6 and E-7.  I replaced a guy in Germany who went from Capt to CWO-4, because he had had a Warrant in the Reserves and had had it long enough to make W-4.  He actually got a pay raise when he reverted, but he was one bitter individual over the whole deal.

I had an ROTC instructor who was a Lt Col with less than 10 years of service(he had made a lot of rank in the Guard).  He was given the choice of reverting to highest Enlisted rank or leaving the Army: he had been an E-4 and he declined to revert: left the Army entirely.  After Viet Nam, there were a bunch of Army Aviators who had been officers and who reverted to Warrant Officer in order to stay on flight status.

And the beat goes on.

Quote from: bosshawk on November 03, 2012, 06:30:24 AM
A lot of you folks aren't old enough to remember, but there were things called Reduction in Force(RIF) for officers after both the Korean and Viet Nam wars. 

After Viet Nam, there were a bunch of Army Aviators who had been officers and who reverted to Warrant Officer in order to stay on flight status.

A very good friend of mine was an Army Warrant helo pilot who got RIF'd in '71. They offered him a deal - get out with no bennies, or revert to E-5 or E-6. But, there was a catch - he couldn't stay in aviation. That's because there was the potential for his working for someone that used to work for him. He bailed.

When I first joined CAP a gazillion years ago, NCO and Warrent grades were very common. Squadron Commanders could award the NCO grades and it was possible to promote thru NCO grades. Warrent Officer grade was often used for the 18-21 year old but required skills and Cadet COP in many cases.
One of the problems of todays Flight Officer grades is the insignia, they more or less follow the Junior ROTC insignia of grade. FO seem to get little "respect" from other seniors due to the mickey mouse insignia. If you don't wear bars, you're not an officer. While USAF has to approve CAP grade insignia, I doubt they would object to CAP reverting to the old Warrent Officer grade insignia (silver bar with blue horizontal stripes. Perhaps the BoG should ask about this.

I actually met a WO in 1992 that used to be a Captain in Vietnam.  At the end of the war he was offered out or E-5.  He took the E-5 for a short time and then got out.  He then went in the National Guard in 1991 and they made him a WO because of his education and experience.  He loved it even though he had been an officer.
He also liked the idea of living in the hotel on post.  He could watch tv in the day room and didn't have to do all the stuff the enlisted living in the dorms had to.  He would just show up, go to class, come back, study for an hour, and then sit in the day room.
When I left the hotel area he was still there and would tell me to go WO.  He joked that is was like being an officer only better.

Quote from: BillB on November 03, 2012, 11:45:39 AM
When I first joined CAP a gazillion years ago, NCO and Warrent grades were very common. Squadron Commanders could award the NCO grades and it was possible to promote thru NCO grades. Warrent Officer grade was often used for the 18-21 year old but required skills and Cadet COP in many cases.
One of the problems of todays Flight Officer grades is the insignia, they more or less follow the Junior ROTC insignia of grade. FO seem to get little "respect" from other seniors due to the mickey mouse insignia. If you don't wear bars, you're not an officer. While USAF has to approve CAP grade insignia, I doubt they would object to CAP reverting to the old Warrent Officer grade insignia (silver bar with blue horizontal stripes. Perhaps the BoG should ask about this.

You must not have seen a flight officer in a while..

http://www.vanguardmil.com/cap-senior-grade-cloth-insignia-flight-officer-single-stripe-p-7181.html (http://www.vanguardmil.com/cap-senior-grade-cloth-insignia-flight-officer-single-stripe-p-7181.html)


edit:
somehow missed the bolded part. 

Quote from: BillB on November 03, 2012, 11:45:39 AMFO seem to get little "respect" from other seniors due to the mickey mouse insignia. If you don't wear bars, you're not an officer.

The amount of respect the average Flight Officer gets has little to do with what they wear on their shoulder, nor would changing it to
something else "different" make things better.

I wonder how the USCG Aux manages because very few of their people are officers, no NCOs and so nearly everyone is an Auxilarist only.  ???

Quote from: Private Investigator on November 03, 2012, 03:59:51 PM
I wonder how the USCG Aux manages because very few of their people are officers, no NCOs and so nearly everyone is an Auxilarist only.  ???

I am so sick and tired of this comparison. The CAP v CGA is getting really old. Were not the coast guard, we don't do things like they do. Sorry, ill stop before I rant.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2012, 03:22:47 PM

Quote from: BillB on November 03, 2012, 11:45:39 AMFO seem to get little "respect" from other seniors due to the mickey mouse insignia. If you don't wear bars, you're not an officer.

The amount of respect the average Flight Officer gets has little to do with what they wear on their shoulder, nor would changing it to
something else "different" make things better.

The fact that FO's are primarily just out of High School and/or brand new college students, trying to mingle with members who are probably old enough to be their parents and grand parents might have something to do with it.  FOs are a way for former cadets to ease into adulthood if they choose to stay in the program. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 03, 2012, 05:31:59 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2012, 03:22:47 PM

Quote from: BillB on November 03, 2012, 11:45:39 AMFO seem to get little "respect" from other seniors due to the mickey mouse insignia. If you don't wear bars, you're not an officer.

The amount of respect the average Flight Officer gets has little to do with what they wear on their shoulder, nor would changing it to
something else "different" make things better.

The fact that FO's are primarily just out of High School and/or brand new college students, trying to mingle with members who are probably old enough to be their parents and grand parents might have something to do with it.  FOs are a way for former cadets to ease into adulthood if they choose to stay in the program.

I think that if we reestablished and enlisted structure and used the Flight Officer grades in lieu of Warrant Officer grades and opened it up to all ages...that respect issue would be changed.

Really, it's not the flight officer grade that's not respected as it's the age of the current holder.

If 18 year olds would be allowed to be 2d Lt's I think the lack of respect would still persist.

Because old farts just don't give respect, they demand it.

Quote from: NCRblues on November 03, 2012, 04:02:14 PM
I am so sick and tired of this comparison. The CAP v CGA is getting really old. Were not the coast guard, we don’t do things like they do. Sorry, ill stop before I rant.

Well it's not really an unfair comparison.  We are both Official Military Auxiliaries who frequently have similar challenges with volunteers/uniforms/roles/respect from their parent service.

We are very different organizations but we can look to them to see lessons learned so we don't always need to try and reinvent the wheel.  Yes, it can be like comparing apples and Oranges...but they are both Fruits that grow on trees with similar size and shape.  It's easier to compare these than comparing apples to moon rocks.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 03, 2012, 05:39:02 PM
Really, it's not the flight officer grade that's not respected as it's the age of the current holder.

If 18 year olds would be allowed to be 2d Lt's I think the lack of respect would still persist.

+1 - the average 18 year old is simply not prepared to interact with adults on an equal level.  They can't - they
have no real world experience, their skills are "wet" at best, and most are focused on "personal life building".

If anything, making them 2d Lts might make things worse.  I know today that a lot of members have little time
for a 21 yro Captain who believes he's on an equal footing with more mature Captains.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 05:43:35 PM
Because old farts just don't give respect, they demand it.

Why?  Because they dont break their necks when a 19yr old kid who was a cadet last week opens his mouth?  Knowing your place in the food chain is a valuable trait.  Im 37, spent 8 years in the military, 15 as a cop, Im one of 3 pilots in a 1000 man agency.....you think I immediately get respect everywhere I go?  There are plenty areas at work where I show up that nobody cares who I am, what I do, nor are they interested in my input.  Just because we wear the same uniform doesnt mean anyone has to care.   Now, they are not rude, they dont call me names or spit on me.  Do they respect me?  Im sure they do.  But they arent overly concerned about me when I show up.   Now, they come out to the hangar where I am the expert, trust me.... they respect me.  Especially when the starter engages!  I know my place and how to stay in it.  Same goes for an FO.  Do they dislike you?  I doubt it. Are they overly concerned with your input?  Probably not until you prove it needs to be listened to.  And that takes time. 

Again, because until you're over the hill in age you can't formulate a coherent thought or idea, so should be promptly ignored.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2012, 05:47:45 PM
+1 - the average 18 year old is simply not prepared to interact with adults on an equal level.  They can't - they
have no real world experience, their skills are "wet" at best, and most are focused on "personal life building".

If anything, making them 2d Lts might make things worse.  I know today that a lot of members have little time
for a 21 yro Captain who believes he's on an equal footing with more mature Captains.

This creates another reason that the Civil Air Patrol has room for an enlisted and officer development program.  There are some people that are either not interested or prepared for the maturity to help manage our organization.  Without any requirement of rank quotas we can create more of a distinction for people dedication or preparation for advanced positions in our organizations.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 06:03:03 PM
Again, because until you're over the hill in age you can't formulate a coherent thought or idea, so should be promptly ignored.

You know you're actually making the case with responses like that, right?

The simple fact of the matter is that from a maturity and impulse control perspective, people under 25 tend to be less developed.
That doesn't mean they might not be more knowledgeable about a specific topic, even an SME, or don't have cat-like reflexes,
or the ability to calculate Pi in their heads, but their decision making ability, not to mention personal risk curve cannot be compared to
actual "adults".

For every 22 year old with a mortgage, there's 10 Million who just want gas and beer money for the weekend, and "long term" means
3 days.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 03, 2012, 06:07:36 PMThis creates another reason that the Civil Air Patrol has room for an enlisted and officer development program.  There are some people that are either not interested or prepared for the maturity to help manage our organization.  Without any requirement of rank quotas we can create more of a distinction for people dedication or preparation for advanced positions in our organizations.

I would buy into this, if it was a legit "development" program, much the same way the CP is run, including testing and progression requirements.
Knowing they are still in for a far bit of actual work might make the Cadet / Senior decision more equal for 18 years olds who just want to coast for
a few years in uniform.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 06:03:03 PM
Again, because until you're over the hill in age you can't formulate a coherent thought or idea, so should be promptly ignored.

Hmmm, Interesting observation.  When I was 23 (you are about that age right?)  I was a baby faced CAP 2LT, I looked like I was about 16.  However, I was also a 23 yr old former Marine infantry Sergeant.  I was an active Infantry Sgt in the Army Reserves, and I was a full time Deputy Sheriff.   I was married, had my own house and everything that came with it.  I never had any issues with people listening to me when I spoke or soliciting my input. 

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 03, 2012, 06:20:40 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 06:03:03 PM
Again, because until you're over the hill in age you can't formulate a coherent thought or idea, so should be promptly ignored.

Hmmm, Interesting observation.  When I was 23 (you are about that age right?)  I was a baby faced CAP 2LT, I looked like I was about 16.  However, I was also a 23 yr old former Marine infantry Sergeant.  I was an active Infantry Sgt in the Army Reserves, and I was a full time Deputy Sheriff.   I was married, had my own house and everything that came with it.  I never had any issues with people listening to me when I spoke or soliciting my input.

And I would be willing to bet you carried yourself and performed in a way which garnered respect.

There's a big difference between a Marine Sgt and a typical, non-service, CAP Darksider.

Looking back.... I was actually 22 as a Marine and Army vet and CAP 2Lt.  I became a Deputy when I turned 23.  I was driving Armored Cars at 22 during the 9 months it took me to get hired on by the S.O.  Thing is with CAP, CAP itself usually has little to do with how you are perceived.  Generally our members, as they get older, have a bigger picture to offer.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 03, 2012, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on November 03, 2012, 06:20:40 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 06:03:03 PM
Again, because until you're over the hill in age you can't formulate a coherent thought or idea, so should be promptly ignored.

Hmmm, Interesting observation.  When I was 23 (you are about that age right?)  I was a baby faced CAP 2LT, I looked like I was about 16.  However, I was also a 23 yr old former Marine infantry Sergeant.  I was an active Infantry Sgt in the Army Reserves, and I was a full time Deputy Sheriff.   I was married, had my own house and everything that came with it.  I never had any issues with people listening to me when I spoke or soliciting my input.

And I would be willing to bet you carried yourself and performed in a way which garnered respect.

There's a big difference between a Marine Sgt and a typical, non-service, CAP Darksider.

***DELETED DUE TO SOUNDING TOO MUCH LIKE A PITY PARTY***

My point is that yes, perhaps my peers can act like complete brainless idiots, but if we want to talk about respect, then everyone should start out at 100%. They screw up, say dumb stuff all the time, are unreliable, etc? That chips away at their respect. But I've seen plenty of BTDT adults who may be SMEs in their work life, completely fail in CAP jobs. Over time my respect for them had decreased in a similar fashion others have gained even more by their actions.

I don't want to be your buddy at a CAP meeting. If we go for beers I probably am not the best guy to talk to about your marriage problems or that ass boss who just got promoted over you - yet. But to be fair, I don't want to be that buddy yet anyway. While I've gotten to know many SMs over the past 9 years, I'm just now learning about them in the un-censored form. People at my unit may know me from before college, but ultimately I'm still one if the FNGs who does have to prove himself to earn trust. That's fine and I accept it. The problem I have is people dismissing others JUST due to age. For all I know, there are a bunch of 45 year old fat food workers who live with their elderly mothers on this board. They may have twice my years, but perhaps not the experiences I've had. I certainly have a different perspective and life from some other 22 year old back from a deployment to Afghanistan. He most certainly has a different perspective from someone who never went to college, doesn't work, and lives with his parents. We're all different, so judging the book by its cover is probably not wise.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 06:48:48 PMThe problem I have is people dismissing others JUST due to age.

You're going to have to change a wider swath then just CAP for that.

To make it clear, my Post was typed at the same time as the Majors, but what I was referring to are people who never leave the nest.

Darn tablet.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on November 03, 2012, 06:48:48 PM
My point is that yes, perhaps my peers can act like complete brainless idiots, but if we want to talk about respect, then everyone should start out at 100%. They screw up, say dumb stuff all the time, are unreliable, etc? That chips away at their respect. But I've seen plenty of BTDT adults who may be SMEs in their work life, completely fail in CAP jobs. Over time my respect for them had decreased in a similar fashion others have gained even more by their actions.

I don't want to be your buddy at a CAP meeting. If we go for beers I probably am not the best guy to talk to about your marriage problems or that ass boss who just got promoted over you - yet. But to be fair, I don't want to be that buddy yet anyway. While I've gotten to know many SMs over the past 9 years, I'm just now learning about them in the un-censored form. People at my unit may know me from before college, but ultimately I'm still one if the FNGs who does have to prove himself to earn trust. That's fine and I accept it. The problem I have is people dismissing others JUST due to age. For all I know, there are a bunch of 45 year old fat food workers who live with their elderly mothers on this board. They may have twice my years, but perhaps not the experiences I've had. I certainly have a different perspective and life from some other 22 year old back from a deployment to Afghanistan. He most certainly has a different perspective from someone who never went to college, doesn't work, and lives with his parents. We're all different, so judging the book by its cover is probably not wise.

[/b][/i]

Your absolutely right.  But your talking like that only happens in CAP.  Thats life.  Young, youthful appearance will always, ALWAYS be an issue for someone who has something to offer an older crowd to overcome .  Especially when you are with people who knew you when you were a kid.  If you were to pack up and move to somewhere where nobody knew you, it might be different.... it might not.

The last USAF Warrant Officer was a Reservist and he did not retire until the mid 90s. The USAF still has Warrant Officer grades on the books, they just do not use them since reworking the SNCO grades to include Senior and Chief. They basically just let the program phase out and die.

I have seen a few instances where O's became E's. While in the Army Guard, we had a guy who was RIF from the USAF and went guard to get this 20, from 03 to E5. He actually loved it! We had lots of guys get WOCS that were E4 and E5. I hear the USMC, USN, and USCG were WAY more strict with their WO programs.

There was a guy who recently retired from my reserve unit who was an CW3 in the Army and was a E6 in USAF reserve, when they read off your retirement grade, they read the highest rank held. It was wierd to hear someone in the USAF retirement ceremony with CWO rank.

Ive heard, that the USPHS plans/planned on using the WO ranks for those with professional certs and AA degrees but not Bachelor/Master degrees. Like paramedics, 2 year RNs, RDs etc... I wish they would get on with their reserve program as well! I would join tomorrow!

The last AF WO to retire was in the 90's.  I was told by a few people that he was actually offered a commission, but turned it down.  He knew he was the last and was going to make the best of it.

I think that the AF needs to bring back WO's.  With pilot-less aircraft why do we need any one from 2LT to LTC flying one.  A W/O could do the same thing.  Sure they get some flight school, but so did flying NCO's in WWII and Korea.

Having WO's in those position would lower costs for the DOD.  The real savings would also come from having only those that wanted to fly the drones actually apply for it.  We could also see a lot more people qualified for drones as you could use people with glasses and contacts.

Could someone tell me what kind of age restrictions WOs in the Army have as far as flight status. I know I saw an article a few years ago about a WO5 in the a commo specialty that was hitting mandatory retirement at 63. Also, in the book "No Easy Day" about the raid that got OBL, the author noted that their Blackhawk pilot was 50. Not trying to make a point here, just curious. Also, what kind of flight time do these older WOs have. I have read that Army aviators average the most flight time of any pilots in the military, so I wondered what kind of numbers a WO5 would rack up if they are still flying at 50 or 60.

Also, on the subject of NCOs in CAP, I still think that those who are opposed to it just don't understand or WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE the role that a lot of NCOs play in today's military. This idea of senior NCOs jumping through hoops around junior officers is the stuff of Hollywood. As someone else pointed out anyway, rank in CAP is not indicative of authority but merely a mark of personal desire/achievement.

The only thing I know about the Army Aviation Warrant Officer Program is that you have to be accepted and start training prior to your 30th birthday.  I don't know if they have a maximum range.

Now back to the topic of the thread.

Rank insignia is a commonly accepted symbol of authority and I think with the Paramilitary Structure of the Civil Air Patrol.  There is no reason why we can't use it as both a symbol of authority associated with Achievement and Professional development.  This can include an enlisted rank structure. 

I would eliminate Advanced Grade for those who have not necessarily made a contribution to our organization.  If we had an enlisted/Officer structure I might offer Military Commissioned Officers of any grade the Opportunity to be a 2d Lt and let there contribution to the organization lead to their professional development

Quote from: ol'fido on November 04, 2012, 03:05:18 PM
Also, on the subject of NCOs in CAP, I still think that those who are opposed to it just don't understand or WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE the role that a lot of NCOs play in today's military. This idea of senior NCOs jumping through hoops around junior officers is the stuff of Hollywood. As someone else pointed out anyway, rank in CAP is not indicative of authority but merely a mark of personal desire/achievement.

What role needs to be served in CAP that cannot be filled by existing members who serve as SMWOG or various other grades? 

Arguably we could abolish all grade structure in CAP and still get along just fine.  I'm not advocating for that, but we could do it and continue to serve professionally.

Abolish the grades.

CC's can wear the badge.

All cadets salute all seniors.

All seniors salute each other.

Done.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 04:15:09 PM
What role needs to be served in CAP that cannot be filled by existing members who serve as SMWOG or various other grades? 

The First thing that jumps to mind is Wing Commander, Region Commander, National Commander among others.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 04:15:09 PM
Arguably we could abolish all grade structure in CAP and still get along just fine.  I'm not advocating for that, but we could do it and continue to serve professionally.

I absolutely agree.  We could abolish all grades. IMO I think that the current process of using grade to recognize professional development is great though.  When dealing with Volunteers the more tools we have in the recognition tool box the better off we are.  We as an Organization are kind of weak with recognizing our people.  Some groups may be better than others...My group I don't think has officially recognized anybody in almost over two years.

I think with a more advanced professional development program and using structure to encourage people to participate in our missions could be a viable avenue.  I'm just not the most articulate in creating a comprehensive program to submit for consideration.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 04, 2012, 04:26:03 PM
Abolish the grades.

CC's can wear the badge.

All cadets salute all seniors.

All seniors salute each other.

Done.

I think that the CC job can be rotated around making us more of an autonomous collective where majority rules.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 04:45:57 PM
I think that the CC job can be rotated around making us more of an autonomous collective where majority rules.

OK, you lost me there - "majority rules" is never a good idea in situations where strategic, and sometimes unpopular decisions, have to be made.
You have to have "commanders", or at least people in clear and specific authority to get anything done.

This is true from Cub Scouts through any organization of consequence.  Majority rule only works when everyone is in agreement,
as soon as two influencers disagree, it's chaos.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 04:45:57 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 04, 2012, 04:26:03 PM
Abolish the grades.

CC's can wear the badge.

All cadets salute all seniors.

All seniors salute each other.

Done.

I think that the CC job can be rotated around making us more of an autonomous collective where majority rules.

But all the decisions of that CC have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a 2/3 majority in the case of...

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 04:44:21 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 04:15:09 PM
What role needs to be served in CAP that cannot be filled by existing members who serve as SMWOG or various other grades? 

The First thing that jumps to mind is Wing Commander, Region Commander, National Commander among others.

All those jobs ARE filled by members who serves in various other grades.  Not NCO's.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 05:58:53 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 04:44:21 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 04:15:09 PM
What role needs to be served in CAP that cannot be filled by existing members who serve as SMWOG or various other grades? 

The First thing that jumps to mind is Wing Commander, Region Commander, National Commander among others.

All those jobs ARE filled by members who serves in various other grades.  Not NCO's.

Sorry...I missed the intent of your question.

How about the CAP Command Chief Master Sergeant?  http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2297/~/cap-command-chief-master-sergeant (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2297/~/cap-command-chief-master-sergeant)

Quote from: Eclipse on November 04, 2012, 04:51:17 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 04:45:57 PM
I think that the CC job can be rotated around making us more of an autonomous collective where majority rules.

OK, you lost me there - "majority rules" is never a good idea in situations where strategic, and sometimes unpopular decisions, have to be made.
You have to have "commanders", or at least people in clear and specific authority to get anything done.

This is true from Cub Scouts through any organization of consequence.  Majority rule only works when everyone is in agreement,
as soon as two influencers disagree, it's chaos.

I'm sorry...I think the sarcasm didn't convey well.

So I suppose the real questions are:

1) Is the creation of the CAP NCO corps something that will actually strengthen our organization?

2) Is it just a feel good program for people who want to wear stripes instead?

3) Is there a differentiation between the roles that either can do or should do?

-------------

In regards to the CAP/CCC, what does the role even do?  The job description really doesn't contain anything that a CAP officer can do or isn't doing.  So, the CAP/CCC spot was created to develop an NCO corps TO DO WHAT? 

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 04, 2012, 08:33:41 PM
So I suppose the real questions are:

1) Is the creation of the CAP NCO corps something that will actually strengthen our organization?

2) Is it just a feel good program for people who want to wear stripes instead?

3) Is there a differentiation between the roles that either can do or should do?

-------------

In regards to the CAP/CCC, what does the role even do?  The job description really doesn't contain anything that a CAP officer can do or isn't doing.  So, the CAP/CCC spot was created to develop an NCO corps TO DO WHAT?

1) It can be, if our Professional Development Program were expanded. The Program would just need to be developed and the Culture of our organization changed.  Different things motivate different people.  These are tools that might be incentives to encourage participation in the Civil Air Patrol.

2)Yes, Former Military NCO's have the option of wearing stripes.  Just to make them feel better I guess.

3) I think the change could alter the roles of some.  Right now, if someone gets a master's rating in any Specialty and attends the right schools, can be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel even if there participation becomes just the Occasional Appearance at a SAREX as a GTM3...because that is the extent they choose to volunteer.  I would think that person might be a good NCO instead of an auxiliary equivalent to a Senior Field Grade Officer.

As far as the CAP Command Chief Master Sergeant...I don't really understand it either as our NCO corps is weak, ineffective and ultimately pointless in it's current configuration.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 08:46:58 PM
3) I think the change could alter the roles of some.  Right now, if someone gets a master's rating in any Specialty and attends the right schools, can be promoted to Lieutenant Colonel even if there participation becomes just the Occasional Appearance at a SAREX as a GTM3...because that is the extent they choose to volunteer.  I would think that person might be a good NCO instead of an auxiliary equivalent to a Senior Field Grade Officer.

The idea of NCOs in the military is functional specialty and tactical level operations.  There is a distinct difference between the roles of the NCO and that of the Officer.  There is an actual need for this setup in the military.  In CAP, I still fail to see a NEED for an NCO program, other than to provide a limited number of folks the ability to wear their stripes in a setting outside of their military service.

CAP does not differentiate between the roles of its personnel based on grade.  A SMSgt could be in charge of a Lt Col, so we are already not using the traditional model of what our grade insignia stands for. 

Creating an NCO corps for the sake of creating an NCO corps, thinking that it will somehow fix a problem that doesn't exist is strange to me.  Expanding our PD program can be incorporated into our existing structure. 

I just find it odd that there is a proposal to completely alter our current grade structure without so much as a peep from our volunteer leadership as to what the PROBLEM is that they are trying to solve with this solution.  The only things that I have heard are:

1. So that we can follow a model closer to the Air Force.  This would be fine if our program were like the Air Force.  It seems to be a change for the sake of change.  It still doesn't tell us what the problem is.

2. To provide our current NCOs an opportunity to progress.  Seems like the most reasonable of the reasons, but with so few NCOs opting to be NCOs, it seems like a program that would have a lot of effort for a small result.  I liken it to creating a distance learning course for cadets who find themselves in the situation of not being able to attend COS or RCLS.  Is the effort worthwhile for 0.001% of our membership?

3. To pay respect to the grade that NCOs have earned through their military service, since respect is one of our core values.  If this were true, then we should also be paying respect to the O-6+ types that aren't wearing what they earned.

The entire things comes across as the pet project of some former NCOs that really has no basis in a problem, and the solution provided isn't going to provide anything of real benefit to the organization.  When our own National Commander says that he isn't sure that he'd be in the spot he is now if there was an NCO program available, it gives me an indication that such a program could limit our pool of leadership candidates.

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 06:32:39 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 05:58:53 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 04:44:21 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 04:15:09 PM
What role needs to be served in CAP that cannot be filled by existing members who serve as SMWOG or various other grades? 

The First thing that jumps to mind is Wing Commander, Region Commander, National Commander among others.

All those jobs ARE filled by members who serves in various other grades.  Not NCO's.

Sorry...I missed the intent of your question.

How about the CAP Command Chief Master Sergeant?  http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2297/~/cap-command-chief-master-sergeant (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2297/~/cap-command-chief-master-sergeant)

LOL, you got me there.  Of course that position could be filled by any capable member, regardless of grade. 

Quote from: SARDOC on November 03, 2012, 05:44:14 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on November 03, 2012, 04:02:14 PM
I am so sick and tired of this comparison. The CAP v CGA is getting really old. Were not the coast guard, we don't do things like they do. Sorry, ill stop before I rant.

Well it's not really an unfair comparison.  We are both Official Military Auxiliaries who frequently have similar challenges with volunteers/uniforms/roles/respect from their parent service.

We are very different organizations but we can look to them to see lessons learned so we don't always need to try and reinvent the wheel.  Yes, it can be like comparing apples and Oranges...but they are both Fruits that grow on trees with similar size and shape.  It's easier to compare these than comparing apples to moon rocks.

I agree.

What is weird in some Squadrons you have a lot of Lt Cols and other Squadrons have just 2Lt and 1Lts. Right off you know who has a professional development plan and who does not. All the experiences I have had with the CGA has been very positive. JMHO ..

Not sure why the knowledge base article refers to "Chiefs and NCOs". Last time I checked Chiefs are NCOs (unless they're just an E-9  >:D)

Then again I"m not sure why we have a big cheese Chief other than to model those "darn" new chevrons.