Custom and Courtisies

[Eclipse]

Out rank? Yes.   Difference in grade?  No.

Just as in the military and the civilian world, class ranking may make a difference on applications, but means nothing day-to-day, certainly
it does not confer or infer any superiority or subordination in grade.

[MIKE]

If the achievement confers no grade... I would say it would be irrelevant as to date of grade for purposes of seniority. But if you wanted to say that a C/CMSgt with an Armstrong is senior to a C/CMSgt with a Goddard...  I suppose you could.  One is closer to C/2d Lt than the other.

[BHartman007]

I'm just clarifying for my own knowledge: Hypothetically, you have two cadets- one has their Goddard (1st C/CMSgt achievement), and received it a week before a second cadet. However, this second cadet then gets their Armstrong (2nd C/CMSgt achievement), while the first cadet still only has their Goddard. So the Goddard cadet would still out rank the Armstrong cadet, correct?

If that didn't make any sense, tell me and I can rephrase.

Whichever one has been a C/CMSgt longest outranks the other.

[ol'fido]

I once heard that "office politics" in higher education/academics is so vicious because the stakes are so small. Don't know if it's true, but this thread makes me think of that.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm just clarifying for my own knowledge: Hypothetically, you have two cadets- one has their Goddard (1st C/CMSgt achievement), and received it a week before a second cadet. However, this second cadet then gets their Armstrong (2nd C/CMSgt achievement), while the first cadet still only has their Goddard. So the Goddard cadet would still out rank the Armstrong cadet, correct?

If that didn't make any sense, tell me and I can rephrase.

Whichever one has been a C/CMSgt longest outranks the other.

That is correct. Seniority has nothing to do with achievements and everything to do with rank. When two members are equal in rank, the member who has been that rank the longest outranks the other.

That said, rank is not the most important thing in a CAP unit or activity as members of lesser ranks often have positions of more responsibility and authority than others of higher rank. As an example, my unit has several Lt Cols, but the squadron commander is a Maj. The Maj may have to salute the Lt Cols when outdoors, but as commander, the Maj is still the officer in charge and with command authority over the unit. The commander also takes precedence in certain ceremonies and formations regardless of rank.

[Storm Chaser]

I have a question about custom and courtesies. At my squadron I'm a 2nd Lt. and I just earned my dear rank (ach. 10). But I there's another 2nd Lt. who got his Mitchell like 1 month before I did. Well I told him I got my dead rank and he says that I still have to treat him like he's still above me in rank (I still like the guy and whatnot). So my question is now that I'm at ach. 10 and he's still at ach. 9. Do I have to treat him like he's still above me in rank?

To answer the OP, while the other C/2d Lt outranks you by a month, that has very little relevance in the real world. As I said in my previous post, in CAP positions are more important than rank. One month difference is pretty negligible and, as such, you are both considered peers (unless one of you is in a position of higher authority). You both are cadet officers and should treat each other with the appropriate respect. The only time when that seniority would be relevant is if there's a need to determine the senior ranking officer (SRO) to be place in charge of a group. But even then, most of these appointments will not necessarily be made base on that alone. Usually, the best person for the particular job is selected regardless of one cadet having more seniority by just a month.

[lordmonar]

I'm just clarifying for my own knowledge: Hypothetically, you have two cadets- one has their Goddard (1st C/CMSgt achievement), and received it a week before a second cadet. However, this second cadet then gets their Armstrong (2nd C/CMSgt achievement), while the first cadet still only has their Goddard. So the Goddard cadet would still out rank the Armstrong cadet, correct?

If that didn't make any sense, tell me and I can rephrase.

Yes.

In the military the precedence of rank go like this.

Date of Rank
Date of Service
Date of Birth
Alphabetical Order

In CAP the "Sustained" achievements don't confer any "promotion" so the DOR stays the same.

Yes...it is kind of backwards....but having the sustained achievements is kind of strange IMHO, but there you go.

[a2capt]

..and that "outranking" thing on time in grade has to be the most wicked amount of voodoo in the entire formula. Since we don't have any kind of device or indicator that gives time in grade, it's really kind of ambiguous.

If people are asking, "hey, how long have you been Lt. Col?" just so they can figure out what side of someone to stand on, or who gets dibs ..

Can't really go by the service ribbon and it's clasps. Could have just gotten that rank awarded yesterday and still have 47 years in CAP. 

[lordmonar]

I once heard that "office politics" in higher education/academics is so vicious because the stakes are so small. Don't know if it's true, but this thread makes me think of that.

Well...in military terms.....who out ranks who....has some very important legal and command consequnces....so it is one of the things you have to know.....just in case. 

But beyond that.......it is just kind of an academic exercise.   It is has very little bearing on who is actually in charge....in fact the AFI's specifically states that for EPR purposes....a supervisor can be assigned a subordinate who out ranks him/her. (I know this to be true as I supervises another TSgt who outranked me by six months.)

[JeffDG]

If people are asking, "hey, how long have you been Lt. Col?" just so they can figure out what side of someone to stand on, or who gets dibs ..

Date of rank is a field tracked by eServices, and available in CAPWATCH.  If you have a protocol intensive event where you need to get that information, your IT folks can easily pull the data you need provided they have some experience dealing with Excel.

[ol'fido]

I once heard that "office politics" in higher education/academics is so vicious because the stakes are so small. Don't know if it's true, but this thread makes me think of that.

Well...in military terms.....who out ranks who....has some very important legal and command consequnces....so it is one of the things you have to know.....just in case. 

But beyond that.......it is just kind of an academic exercise.   It is has very little bearing on who is actually in charge....in fact the AFI's specifically states that for EPR purposes....a supervisor can be assigned a subordinate who out ranks him/her. (I know this to be true as I supervises another TSgt who outranked me by six months.)

It may in the military, but in CAP where cadets can promote every two months usually, it seems very ....petty.

[UH60guy]

I once heard that "office politics" in higher education/academics is so vicious because the stakes are so small. Don't know if it's true, but this thread makes me think of that.

Well...in military terms.....who out ranks who....has some very important legal and command consequnces....so it is one of the things you have to know.....just in case. 

But beyond that.......it is just kind of an academic exercise.   It is has very little bearing on who is actually in charge....in fact the AFI's specifically states that for EPR purposes....a supervisor can be assigned a subordinate who out ranks him/her. (I know this to be true as I supervises another TSgt who outranked me by six months.)

It may in the military, but in CAP where cadets can promote every two months usually, it seems very ....petty.

Agreed. I have never once asked, cared, or needed to know someone's date of rank in my ten years in the real (TM) military. To think about two officers concerned over who can pull rank over whom in a volunteer service organization seems like their enthusiasm can be better focused. However, in the interest of answering the OP question, neither calls the other sir or salutes the other.

[lordmonar]

It may in the military, but in CAP where cadets can promote every two months usually, it seems very ....petty.

Hence my first post about how it is ridiculous for Lt's to be worrying about Time in Grade. 

[Nuke52]

I'm just clarifying for my own knowledge: Hypothetically, you have two cadets- one has their Goddard (1st C/CMSgt achievement), and received it a week before a second cadet. However, this second cadet then gets their Armstrong (2nd C/CMSgt achievement), while the first cadet still only has their Goddard. So the Goddard cadet would still out rank the Armstrong cadet, correct?

If that didn't make any sense, tell me and I can rephrase.

Whichever one has been a C/CMSgt longest outranks the other.

Sure, let him/her "outrank" you for another month or two, then re-ask the question after you get your Mitchell first.  I'll bet who outranked whom as C/CMSgts won't matter so much then...

[Storm Chaser]

Trying to pull rank based on a month TIG shows a lack of leadership on the part of this cadet.

To be honest, I have a problem with the way the cadet promotion system is set up, where a cadet can promote to most ranks every couple of months. You end up with cadet officers that are too young and immature, and lack the necessary experience and leadership skills for the rank they have.

Back when I was a cadet, we didn't get to test very often and our squadron leadership didn't let us promote until we were ready for the extra responsibility. We had to perform well in every capacity and if we didn't, we had to wait to get promoted. The end result was cadet officers that were very well rounded and experienced. Now a day, I see units with lots of cadet officers and senior NCOs that have no military bearing, don't use appropriate customs and courtesies, can't march and don't wear their uniforms properly. And what do we do? We promote them and/or give them a ribbon every few months. Of course, I'm sure that's not the case everywhere, but it does happen often.

[Eclipse]

^ That's a double-edged sword.  Without regular testing opportunities, some unit artificially suppress their cadets.  USAFAUX2004's old unit didn't test in any way for over a year.
Not fair to the cadets.

I've seen those "promotion farm units" as well. A whole cadre that "magically" makes every promotion, to the day, as a group?  Then just as magically they all
get to double diamonds and not a single triple emerges, nor even tries, since that's the first time anyone outside the unit vets the cadet.

Not cricket.

[lordmonar]

I think maybe we need to reassess what we think cadets should be able to do at each rank.

This is where CAP's military model breaks down a little.

In the Real Military (tm)......we expect a CMSgt to be an expert in his field with years of experience and Professional Development training to operate at a strategic level.   We don't expect a 2d Lt to be able to work at this level.

But in CAP all our 2d Lt's are former CMSgts......and there is the break down. 

If I were building the program up from the ground.....I would think very hard about even having officer ranks.
I would maybe expect our SSgts to be at the level where we currently have Mitchell and CMSgts would be Eakers.....with our Spaatz being Lt's.

YMMV.

[Walkman]

I think maybe we need to reassess what we think cadets should be able to do at each rank.

This is where CAP's military model breaks down a little.

In the Real Military (tm)......we expect a CMSgt to be an expert in his field with years of experience and Professional Development training to operate at a strategic level.   We don't expect a 2d Lt to be able to work at this level.

But in CAP all our 2d Lt's are former CMSgts......and there is the break down. 

If I were building the program up from the ground.....I would think very hard about even having officer ranks.
I would maybe expect our SSgts to be at the level where we currently have Mitchell and CMSgts would be Eakers.....with our Spaatz being Lt's.

YMMV.

Or, I could see where the TIG for higher grade increase proportionately. Example: E1-E4 test = eligible to promo every 2 months, E5-E7, every 4, etc. Just a thought piggy-backing...

Or, CCs and other leaders actually lead and mentor the cadets correctly, use CAPF-50s for solid feedback and generally follow the program the way its supposed to be and...

[Storm Chaser]

^ That's a double-edged sword.  Without regular testing opportunities, some unit artificially suppress their cadets.  USAFAUX2004's old unit didn't test in any way for over a year.
Not fair to the cadets.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. In fact, there were times when the lack or infrequent testing opportunities did hurt the progression of many of our cadets, myself included.

My main complaint with the current system is that it allows for cadets to (sometimes) promote too fast, even when they're not ready for the new rank. I know it's up to the commanders and/or DCCs to ensure cadets not only meet the minimum standards, but are also ready for the increased responsibility that comes with the rank, but you know that doesn't always happen. I personally know of cadets that can pass every test, yet lack the necessary leadership required for each additional rank.

The problem is that if they continue to promote, it just gets worst. You expect, for example, that a C/CMSgt should be able to wear his/her uniform properly, observe the necessary customs and courtesies, be able to march and command a flight, and be a leader in the unit. When that's not happening, yet the cadet continues to get promoted, you know there's a problem. That may not happen in every squadron, but it certainly happens in more than a few.

[Eclipse]

Sadly, there aren't always the oportunities to perform at grade level - a unit with 1 senior, 3 empty shirts, and
5 cadets randomly showing up isn't going to offer many leader or follower opportunities.  Add in the "we don't go outside
the unit" mentality and you are where you are.

A little icing on the cake is that when these cadets do get corrected on "whatever", their poorly informed home leaders
"unfix" them soon after.