CAP grades

[DrJbdm]

So here is a question, what do we do with everyone right now? If you have a CAP Lt.Col who has no degree or special ability, but has put in his time and completed the requirements what do you do then? I agree that we should raise the bar for everyone who wants to be an officer, but we need to consider who we have now. If we grandfather them in, is that fair to the new members? It would be a nightmare to manage and I think a killer for recruitment.

 

[DrJbdm]

 Here's what I think. If you raised the standards as I suggested, there is a small problem about what you do with our current officers, I think the only option would be to grandfather them in until such time as they leave CAP. Would it be fair for new members who want to join? I don't think so, it would aid in recruitment as they realize that CAP has done a major overhaul in their professional standards. Having tight requirements actually aids in retention and in recruitment. We all want to be a part of an exclusive group, a group thats highly respectable and professionally trained. I work as a Police Officer, and my Department has some high standards for it's officers, we require alot from those who want to be an Officer but we have found that we have more people who want to join and we have less turn over. My agency also has a non paid volunteer Police Officer division known as reserve officers, we make the reserve officers hold the same qualifications and training requirements as our full time officers, they wear the same uniform and preform the same job. We have no problem recruiting those reserve officers. High standards for being a CAP officer isn't going to hurt recruitment or retention, it Will have just the opposite effect. Those who can't meet the new standards to become a CAP Officer could still serve CAP in all non command functions and they can still be a part of this great organization. Not everyone NEEDS to be an Officer. But we do need Officers who can be leaders.

   As for allowing CAP Officers into the same in-resident USAF courses? I would LOVE to see that happen, however I just don't see it being very realistic, maybe someone knows how to work it, but thats above my pay grade. Good Idea non the less. I do LOVE the idea of making ALL CAP Officers who want to be promoted to take all the USAF professional development courses. I would also go one step further.. a good first step would be making all Officer Canadates (as I'm guessing we're calling SM w/o grade) take the ECI-13 and the ANG Officer course offered thru AFIADL BEFORE they can be considered for promotion to 2LT. thats an easy first step fix for this problem. it raises standards fairly until a more permanant fix can be created.

[mmouw]

Agreed, we are all unpaid professionals, but yet still professionals. The in residence courses offer more than war fighting theory. They provide valuable management and leadership information. They also help us to understand what our big brother (AF) is and how they see things. If you have not had active, guard, or reserve experience, then how would anyone know unless you take these. The correspondence courses are the same as the in residence.

As to taking seats away from active duty, I don't think that would be a big problem. If the active duty folks are curious about us, GREAT!! The more people we are exposed to the better. Either they might be interested in joining or be able to bridge the gap between us and the rest of the AF.

I also understand that people have lives of their own and not everyone can afford to take the time, but that has not stopped National from moving the NSC around to different areas. You still have to attend it at Maxwell. As far as funding goes, there is always options.

[mmouw]

Here's what I think. If you raised the standards as I suggested, there is a small problem about what you do with our current officers, I think the only option would be to grandfather them in until such time as they leave CAP. Would it be fair for new members who want to join? I don't think so, it would aid in recruitment as they realize that CAP has done a major overhaul in their professional standards.


I agree with you on that point. One question is where would we draw the line? Also what about former Officers from the military? I know that they would have most qualifications, but not all.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for this. I agree that we need to have our aces in their places. I do think that this is worth exploring.

[DrJbdm]

I am glad I am not the only one who realizes that we have problems in CAP and we need to address them. These are all great ideas. As for what we do with former Military Officers who held a Federal Commission? thats easy they would come into CAP with the same grade they held in the Military up to the current regulations that CAP has. besides ALL Military Officers have a degree.

   The Texas State Guard had a major image problem a few years ago in that they didn't really have very many standards for being an Officer, I saw some guys in there who where Officers who really couldn't hope to be an Officer in the regular military, they suffered a big image problem. But in the years since they raised their standards to be an officer to the EXACT same requirements the ANG has to earn a commission including the age limit, now I'm not sure they needed to place an age limit as the AD forces have because they are a volunteer organization that doesn't have the same need for an age restriction as the AD or ANG forces do.  Now there is some debate as to rather or not they are really military or not. as far as I know they have NO privileges on any US military base, they can't go to any US military AAFES  clothing sales or to the BX. they can shop at STATE military bases where the Army National Guard is based. but from my experience those bases are small and don't have much in the way of Military clothing. But SDF forces are a whole different topic, and really doesn't concern us.

  To get back on track, they had a problem and they addressed it. we have a problem and National isn't addressing it, It just seems that they are LOWERING standards for membership which means they are LOWERING standards to be an Officer.  So you asked where do we draw the line? we draw the line when CAP moves to the new Standard and we then require all new members who want to earn a commission or appointment in CAP as an Officer to meet that standard. We could always waive the college hours or degree requirements for those former cadets who earned the Earhart award and waive it for those who where an E-5 or higher in the armed forces as they have leadership skills CAP can really use. we're still not being very exclusionary with those standards, we are just asking for a higher standard for our leaders.

   Look at the standards that other Cadet organizations have for their Officers like ACA or the USNSCC. they have standards that are alot higher then CAP's standard. Yet we do more and we interface with the AD military on a regular basis on a professional level as part of the total force concept, those other organizations can't claim that.

[SJFedor]

One thing that most of the active duty folks do not know is that we do have the opportunity to take Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and the Air War College by correspondance. I think if many of them knew that, we would probably rate a little higher in their opinions.

I think we'd rate higher in their opinions if we were required to take said courses.

[BillB]

Many of the AF residence courses include clasified material, I know Air War College does. SOS is not just a week long course, it runs I believe a full year. There is no way a CAP member can afford to be away from work and family for a year. Since there is little or no diference between many of the Professional USAF residence and corrospondance courses, the corrospondance courses should be required, not residence.
And as far as current CAP officers, many got their promotions under the old system where SOS ACSC and AWR plus Industrial College of the Armed Forces (now National Defense University) were required for promotion. A degree was not required as long as the professional AF courses were completed. There are to many valuable members or prospective members such as A&P or CFII holders that may or may not have a degree. All new members should start as FO and take the AF corrospondance courses to qualify for promotion. The exception would be the former cadets with minimum of Mitchell for 2Lt. as is the current program.

[lordmonar]

My agency also has a non paid volunteer Police Officer division known as reserve officers, we make the reserve officers hold the same qualifications and training requirements as our full time officers, they wear the same uniform and preform the same job. We have no problem recruiting those reserve officers. High standards for being a CAP officer isn't going to hurt recruitment or retention, it Will have just the opposite effect. Those who can't meet the new standards to become a CAP Officer could still serve CAP in all non command functions and they can still be a part of this great organization. Not everyone NEEDS to be an Officer. But we do need Officers who can be leaders.

That is all and good and I agree with it for the most part.  However, there is a vast difference between your reserve police officers and CAP officers.  Your reserve police officers are expeceted to maintain the same standards as your "active duty" officers because (I assume) when called up they have the same powers and responsibilities as your regular officers.  And that is just not true of CAP officers.

We will always be looked down upon by AD USAF officers because we are NOT AD USAF officers.  But that is okay.  JAG officers and Medical Officers are looked down upon by line officers all the time.

Making it harder to become an officer is not necessarilly the way to go.  While a college degree is fine, and SOS and AWC and all the other training an USAF officer gets makes them better USAF officer....it is not really necessary for a CAP officer...even one in command.   

We can make our officers much more respecitble by providing constiant, quality and timely training across the board to all our officers and we can do this with out turning anyone away because of some lack of a college degree.

It would be better to build our own ECI course to take the place of SLS, CLO and the commanders course.  The USAF versions are just to USAF/AD orented to be of much use.  I mean in the AWC they plan and execute a complete air campaign.  This is just not something a CAP officer would ever need and it would take a very sharp experinced officer to learn how to translate the good stuff for AWC into skills he can use to run his own squadron/group/wing.

The in residence option just wont work.  Who will pay for it?  You are talking $50-$60 a day in lodging and meals, transportation cots and time off from work.  It would be nice...but just not cost efficiant.

No...it would be beter to consentrate and present our own CAP centric courses.  We need to teach SLS and CLP a lot more often by trained instructors on a regular basis.

There is someting to the argument that we should only promote those above and beyond the general membership.  I would not be opposed to every SM being just flight officers and only staff officers and commanders having officer rank.  This would go a long way to correct a lot of problems with the "rank means nothing" crowd and will solve a lot of problems the FO's are having now.

I will say...that requireing advanced education is NOT the way to go.  It is all good when you are talking about a 22 year old and giving him control of $15M airplane....but does not aways equate well when you are talking about a 40 year old buisness professional joining CAP for the first time.  You have to accept that life experince is sometime more important than a degree and that a BA is Advanced Basket Weaving does not make you ready for command while 20 years as a construction forman may be just the thing you want.

[DrJbdm]

But the central question is: Does EVERYONE in CAP need to be an Officer? couldn't we have something along the same lines as what some of these other organizations have and still feel like we are not excluding anybody?

  I agree that life experience does play a part in the over all education and skill of someone. theres many major universities offering college credit for life experience these days so yes it is very worthy and in some cases may be an equivalency of a college degree.

  I think if you have a great technical skill as a Pilot, CFI or A&P we should make those individuals FO's unless they can meet some higher standard for being a CAP Officer. There is nothing wrong with having members who are not officers but still contribute fully to the CAP mission.

  I don't expect everyone to agree that CAP needs to have a college requirement to serve as a CAP officer but having college hours or a college degree does help CAP in many beneficial ways, I doubt there is anything wrong with requiring 60 hours of college education or the recognized equivalency of such as a requirement to being an Officer. Now the hard part would be in defining "The recognized equivalency" of college hours or a degree. I just don't think it's right to allow anyone to be a CAP Officer regardless of their education.. Now supposedly CAP requires a person to be a HS grad or have a GED, however when i joined no one requested a copy of my HS transcripts or my college or grad school transcripts. which means to me that someone could come into CAP as an Officer who has nothing but a 3rd grade education, now they maynot advance very far but still how good does it look to AF or to anyone else to have that person even wearing 2Lt bars?? We need to be just a little more exclusive to whom we allow to wear Officer grade. I personally think that at the absolute minimum everyone needs to start as a SM w/o grade or whatever we start calling them for ATLEAST one full year while they complete SLS, CLC and ECI-13 before being approved to be an Officer. Standards have to start somewhere. they are pretty non existent now.

[arajca]

On another board, I posted, and there was many pages of discussion on, a similar idea. To summarize:

Every joins as Instructor.
Those who just want to help the local unit, the current AEM's, and CSM's, stay as Instructors. They are restricted to support functions at the unit.

Those interested in ES and more activities can apply for a warrant. This includes pilots, EMS, non-bachelor medical professionals, former cadets (CAP and other), etc. Warrant grades include: WO, TWO, SWO, MWO, CWO.

Those insaneinterested in and willing to serve as staff/command types, as well as certain professionals, can apply for commissions. Commissioned grades include: 2d Lt, 1st Lt, Capt, Maj, Lt Col.

I also had a suggestion to allow PD promotion to Col, but that's an issue for another discussion.

[lordmonar]

Here is what I would do if I were god.

Everyone comes in at FO-1.  Level I, one year and a tech rating they get FO-2. Level II gets them FO-3, Level III get them FO-4, Level IV gets them FO-5 and level V gets them FO-6.

Pilots, lawyers, educators and all those other specialties will get advanced placement in the FO ranks similar to what we have today.

Level II and a squadron staff position gets you 2d Lt.
Level II and a squadron staff position for 2 years get you 1st Lt.
Level II and a squadron commander position gets you Capt.
Level III and a Group or Wing level staff position gets you Capt.
Level III and a group or wing level staff position for 3 years get you Maj.
Level III and a group or wing level Deputy position gets you Maj.
Level III and a group or wing level Deputy position gets you Lt Col
Level IV and a group command position gets you Lt Col
Level IV and a Wing Vice Command position gets you Lt Col
Level IV and a Wing Command position gets you Col
Level V and a regional staff position gets you Lt Col
Level V and a regional command or vice command position gets you Col
Level V and a national HQ staff position gets you Lt Col
Level V and a national HQ deputy position gets you Col
Level V and Vice National Commander gets you BGen
Level V and National Commander gets you MGen

The key here...is that the level helps denote when a member should be ready to accept that position.  Only those who hold or have held command/staff positions will have rank....all other rank and file members will be FOs and will remain FOs for their careers.

All other considerations for officer rank can just go out the door.  College degrees, certifications....all those things just are not necessary.  We promote based on skill and achievement.  If a FO-5 steps up to the plate and takes on a squadron level job he get 2d Lt...if he steps up and takes a Wing staff job he goes straight to Capt.

This allows us to mentor our personnel and pull the most talented from where ever they be.

[AlaskanCFI]

As for younger people earning their commission,
My oldest son went to the academy at age 17 and obtained his Navy commission just as he turned 21.  Now years later and an 0-3, he still has no leadership qualities. But, he has a commission, along with an academy college education.

Next was the oldest daughter who started college at age 16, joined the Army reserves at 17 and then finished her first college degree at age 20.  She turned down OCS and went to sandy-land as a combat engineer Sgt.   
She has leadership qualities.(as well as a couple combat action badges)  Now as an E-6 (25) she is thinking about OCS before her next deployment.

Audie Murphy was an undersized and uneducated kid from Texas.  He earned his Sergeant strips due to his leadership abilities.  He further EARNED a field commission.  Followed by the Medal of Honor before he was 21 years old.  He did not have a High School education.

Leadership qualities are not always found at the end of a four year degree.
Nor do chevrons instead of bars mean the lack thereof.   
There is nothing like watching the face of a young second or first Lieutenant  when he discovers that half the senior NCOs in the room have masters degrees.
My lovely bride has a Phd and was an Army NCO.
I've been on both sides and figure nobody ever listened to me until my hair turned gray.

[DrJbdm]

Capt. Harris,

   I appreciate your ideas and in some ways I can agree BUT I find a few issues, first thats too much like the CG aux. and I don't agree with how they are run at all, they try to be distinctly non military in my opinion. But the real reason why your idea will simply not work is because of the PME courses offered thru AFIADL. You have to be a Captain to be eligible for AF SOS.  as for the other PME courses you need to be a major for the Command and Staff College and a Lt. Col. for the Air War College. Those are great programs that our Officers should be HIGHLY encouraged to take and in my opinion they should be REQUERED courses before you could be a wing cc or higher. Besides all three of those courses have been evaluated for college credit thru the American Council on Education. And if I remember correctly the Air War College was evaluated for 27hrs of Graduate credit (towards a masters degree). These are wonderful benefits that our officers have and they should be made available. So thats the reason why your plan simply wouldn't work.

[BillB]

Lt Meiners
I enrolled in Air War College when I was a Major. AWC doesn't seem to enforce the LtCol requirement for CAP.

[DrJbdm]

Interesting, I may try that myself when I make Major. I'm very interested in pursuing those types of PME courses, Ultimately I would love to complete the National Staff and Command College and the AWC. First off I want to complete SOS.  I may try and enroll in the SOS when I promote to 1Lt even though your supposed to be a Captain. I'm due to be promoted as soon as I can complete the tech rating for Safety officer..... almost there. What was your experiences like in the AWC course?

[BillB]

AWC was an in-depth course, much of which doesn't apply to CAP. It will take you almost the full year to complete it. But it's a great learning experience. And you have to do a paper on any subject relating to the military or aerospace education. Mine I think ran 55 pages.

[Hawk200]

I do not understand the idea of make everybody a flight officer. Many people would like the military to show us a little more courteousy in relation to our officer positions, but I doubt anyone would take CAP seriously if we had a ranking system that no one else in the world understands or even knows about.

Also, if you have members in your unit that are not in a staff position, why do you have them? What purpose do they serve? My unit had three such members that never showed up. The commander gave them a month. Then they got transferred to the wing reserve squadron (or ghost squadron, or graveyard, there are a lot of different names for it).

As far as the ranking system goes, I'll throw in an alternative suggestion: How about "capping"? I'm not sure what else to call it. The basic premise is that if you don't step up; take courses; take valid command positions; don't make an effort to improve yourself; etc., then you top out at Captain. But it needs to be set up in a manner that doesn't necessarily screw over a person that actually is capable and wants a command, but can't get it for whatever reason.

[lordmonar]

I do not understand the idea of make everybody a flight officer. Many people would like the military to show us a little more courteousy in relation to our officer positions, but I doubt anyone would take CAP seriously if we had a ranking system that no one else in the world understands or even knows about.

What's to understand?  The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything so why would anyone outside of CAP need to know what 'rank" they are?  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

Also, if you have members in your unit that are not in a staff position, why do you have them? What purpose do they serve? My unit had three such members that never showed up. The commander gave them a month. Then they got transferred to the wing reserve squadron (or ghost squadron, or graveyard, there are a lot of different names for it).

Well, we got a boat load of mission pilots, mission observers, mission scanners, we have various groups of mission base personnel and communications guys that do nothing for the running of the squadron but are there to be ready for the next mission.  There are a lot of people who just show up for the meetings and the SAREXs.  It is not that they don't want to help but in our case we don't really have a job for them and that if fine with them.

As far as the ranking system goes, I'll throw in an alternative suggestion: How about "capping"? I'm not sure what else to call it. The basic premise is that if you don't step up; take courses; take valid command positions; don't make an effort to improve yourself; etc., then you top out at Captain. But it needs to be set up in a manner that doesn't necessarily screw over a person that actually is capable and wants a command, but can't get it for whatever reason.

We got that now.  Each level requires specific training and tenure in command staff positions.  It's not like if you stay in long enough you will become a Lt Col.  You got to complete the phases, comple the special tracks and serve your time in grade and in a staff position.

[Hawk200]

What's to understand?  The Flight Officers do not rate.  I.e. they are not in charge of anything so why would anyone outside of CAP need to know what 'rank" they are?  They only need to know what they do. Our leaders will be Lts, Capts, Cols etc and they will be using the same system as the USAF

So why create a ranking system that would be only "inhouse"? Seems easier to just not award any rank at all. I know it would make my personnel files easier.

Well, we got a boat load of mission pilots, mission observers, mission scanners, we have various groups of mission base personnel and communications guys that do nothing for the running of the squadron but are there to be ready for the next mission. 

ES people, easy fix: warrant officers. Military treats them as technical specialists, I don't see a better way of describing our ES folks. They're good, and when it comes to volunteers, the best.

We got that now.  Each level requires specific training and tenure in command staff positions.  It's not like if you stay in long enough you will become a Lt Col.  You got to complete the phases, comple the special tracks and serve your time in grade and in a staff position.

When it comes to just biding time, it really doesn't take much to make LTCOL. I'm only a captain, and I've only got two or three requirements for Level 4 to go. All it takes is just doing a little when the oportunity presents itself. I've had a command, and done staff positions as well, so personally I haven't been just biding time. I have however seen people that are doing just that.

I'm going to hazard a guess: if people don't fill command/staff and do the training levels, then they get a rank that isn't an officer rank. Is that the gist of your system?

And honestly, I'm trying to understand this concept, but so far, I don't see what it improves.

[MIKE]

I think grade, and by extension rank should mean something a little more than it does.  I think CAP both in the many ways it awards grade and just the culture in general have made it not mean what I think it should.  Anyone can be a captain etc, for any number of different reasons... So then people start with position being more important than grade... and you have 2d Lt Squadron Commanders demanding due respect from a senior officer.

If you are gonna do it that way, then you might as well have something like the CGAux model where grade is based on postion... Don't call 'em a captain, call 'em a Squadron Commander... but unlike the Aux, you don't get to keep the grade associated with a past office, you wear the grade that directly correlates to the position you hold.