Delay of Promotion Due to Lack Of Personnel? Really???

[CAPDCCMOM]

I am a DCC for a small Composite Squadron. I have a cadet that has passed all of his Level 3 requirements except Drill. Our Cadet Program is in a, lets say rebuild phase. Most of my Cadets ave just passed their Curry, Way to go Guys :clap:!!! My Cadet ready for Level 3 was denied his Drill Test and delayed in Promotion, because "there were not enough people to participate in a Drill Test. The Cadet's morale is diminished as a result. Any suggestions???

[lordmonar]

So......why did you deny his promotion?

YOU are the DCC......YOU are the promotion authority for cadets in a composite squadron.

Who is doing the denying? 

I would suggest that you look at the drill test book and see how many cadets you actually need to do drill testing for Achievement 3. 

[Tim Day]

Serving as a Deputy Commander for Cadets is tough duty. WRT your cadet, I assume by Level 3 you're referring to Achievement 3, which does require 4 cadets in a formation. I hope he was not delayed more than one week for this.

I've used senior members in place of cadets to fill out the formation before. Cadet just has to know how to do the movements as part of a flight.

If you're a CDC for a small unit with few senior members helping, I recommend you become a testing officer.

[CAPDCCMOM]

Sgt Harris, Thank you for your response. The CO has delayed the promotion. All I need are four people, and I have those, but my CO is not listening. to me.

[CAPDCCMOM]

Col Day, Thank you Sir for the response. The CO delayed the promotion and has said it may need to wait until July. Nowhere in CAPR- 52-16 have I seen anything about promotion delay due to lack of people for a DRill Test

[lordmonar]

Sgt Harris, Thank you for your response. The CO has delayed the promotion. All I need are four people, and I have those, but my CO is not listening. to me.

Well....then there are a couple of ways to attack this.

One.....go over the commanders head.....always an option but there are consequences.
Two....quit.   If the commander does not have trust in your judgement then he needs to replace you as DCC.

52-16 does not talk about delaying due to not enough people to participate.....because it assumes you will be able to scrape up the minimum as spelled out in the test guide.

[NC Hokie]

Do you have a testing officer available to administer this test along with three other cadets or senior members willing to fill out the formation?  If so, have the testing officer give the test at the next available opportunity, and submit the cadet's promotion if he or she passes.  If the testing officer is consistently unavailable, see if someone else (perhaps you) can be assigned as an assistant testing officer.

If there is no testing officer, that's a deeper issue that needs to be addressed with your commander, as that is a violation of CAP regulations.  If the commander is the testing officer, that is also a violation of CAP regulations.

[Holding Pattern]

Might be a silly idea, but is there another squadron close by? If so, can you ask them to send some cadets over for one of your meeting days as part of an exchange program, and by the way, help this cadet meet his achievement goal?

[kwe1009]

We have used senior members and even JROTC cadets when we did not have enough for a drill test.  You should never penalize the cadet because there is not enough cadets for a drill test.

[coudano]

In a pinch, I think you could use 'ghost' marchers,
in other words, sorry cadet, we don't have enough people here....   So you're going to do column right AS IF you were the second element leader", or do 'open ranks' as if you were the 3rd member (of 5) in the second element (of 3).  for example.

It's not pretty, but it can get the job done.

Also, it probably requires the cadet to have a more thorough understanding of what is going on, as opposed to standing in a large group, with a lot of visual cues.



The problem with using a bunch of cadets that just got their curry as flight fillers for a cadet testing for achievement 3 (or even wba) is that the basic cadets might not be proficient themselves in everything that the cadet you are testing needs to do.  This seems to line up with your squadron commander's timing suggestion (in a few months, all those cadets will be more proficient at that type of drill).  Certainly, when you are evaluating a cadet for achievement 3 drill, you don't hold it against him if other cadets in the flight make mistakes;  you really only want to know if that cadet being evaluated has done the movement correctly or not.



I would not hold a cadet back for something out of the cadet's control like this.

Actually, having a cadet on the edge of putting on C/SSgt, just as you have a bunch of other cadets freshly putting on C/A1C (and ideally recruiting a half dozen more shortly) is *IDEAL* in a 'rebuilding phase'.  Not knowing your specifics, or the individual cadet in question, I think this cadet should be getting pushed forward, not held back.

[NC Hokie]

Might be a silly idea, but is there another squadron close by? If so, can you ask them to send some cadets over for one of your meeting days as part of an exchange program, and by the way, help this cadet meet his achievement goal?

Or...can your cadet take the drill test at a nearby unit?

[Holding Pattern]

Indeed. What looks like a problem IMO is an opportunity in disguise to get some cross squadron activities on the table.

[CAPDCCMOM]

  Thank you for the assorted replies and ideas. I do agree, this is a time to work with other Squadrons, an idea I have had for a while. This is just the catalyst I needed.

One more question, I thought that a Deputy Commander for Cadets was banned from being a Testing Officer as well, is that true. I am also related to two cadets.

[lordmonar]

Thank you for the assorted replies and ideas. I do agree, this is a time to work with other Squadrons, an idea I have had for a while. This is just the catalyst I needed.

One more question, I thought that a Deputy Commander for Cadets was banned from being a Testing Officer as well, is that true. I am also related to two cadets.

52-16 discourages the testing officer from administering the test to relatives....but does not out right forbid it.

It does out right forbid the commander from being the testing officer.

[Pylon]

Also, as alluded to above, you're the Deputy Commander for Cadets.  You are the promotion authority and you control the cadet side of the house.  It's fully within the purview of your duty position to arrange the drill test yourself, arranging for what the regulation calls for, which is 4 cadets (using other fill-ins if necessary: seniors, JROTC, cadets from another squadron, whomever to reach the regulatory number) and administer it.  Then once the cadet has passed, you have full authority to sign-off on the promotions.


Make sure, of course, you document everything well to avoid any appearance of favoritism.  If somebody above you questions your authority to do this, show the regulation (namely CAPR 52-16).  Ask them to point out anything to the contrary to what you've done (protip: they will be unable to).

[Av8tion]

The kind of narrow-minded thinking your squadron commander is demonstrating (according to what you've said) leads me to believe one of two things

1) There is another reason why this cadet is being held back which he/she is either keeping from you or not communicating effectively to you (both of which are bad)
2) Your CC has a very misguided idea of how the cadet program is run and shouldn't be interfering in the cadet program.

Either way... I think your commander needs to have a nice long talk with the group/wing commander about how he/she is (mis)managing their program

[coudano]

Well at the very least, the commander should be communicating openly and clearly with YOU (his deputy).  Maybe he has a more legitimate reason that he just hasn't done a very good job of sharing with you.

Like I said, unless there is an extenuating circumstance, I think holding the cadet back for a reason like this is not a good choice.


You probably won't be ingratiating yourself particularly to just test and promote the cadet after the commander has explicitly said no (even though it is completely within your power).

You and your commander should be on the same page, and acting in concert with each-other (on the basis of shared values and reasoning), not under-cutting / overriding each-other.

In my experience, the best relationship is where the deputy commander for cadets autonomously runs the cadet program (including senior member cadet program officers like the leadership officer(s), cd instructor, etc)  and keeps the squadron commander briefed as to what is going on... and then the squadron commander stays out of the way and provides top cover and support.  But even this arrangement requires the commander and the deputy to arrive at a mutual understanding and working relationship and an agreed-upon model that the commander can live with supporting, without micromanaging.  Basically the squadron commander should show up on promotion and awards night to hand out cadets' stripes and ribbons and awards.  And probably serve as activity chaperone on occasion.      **The best feature of this arrangement is that it almost completely frees the squadron commander to focus on the other pieces of the squadron like personnel, pro development, flying (if any), transportation, logistics, finance, safety, and myriad other stuff from group and wing.

[Av8tion]

Well at the very least, the commander should be communicating openly and clearly with YOU (his deputy).  Maybe he has a more legitimate reason that he just hasn't done a very good job of sharing with you.

Like I said, unless there is an extenuating circumstance, I think holding the cadet back for a reason like this is not a good choice.


You probably won't be ingratiating yourself particularly to just test and promote the cadet after the commander has explicitly said no (even though it is completely within your power).

You and your commander should be on the same page, and acting in concert with each-other (on the basis of shared values and reasoning), not under-cutting / overriding each-other.

In my experience, the best relationship is where the deputy commander for cadets autonomously runs the cadet program (including senior member cadet program officers like the leadership officer(s), cd instructor, etc)  and keeps the squadron commander briefed as to what is going on... and then the squadron commander stays out of the way and provides top cover and support.  But even this arrangement requires the commander and the deputy to arrive at a mutual understanding and working relationship and an agreed-upon model that the commander can live with supporting, without micromanaging.

I completely agree with the above.

**The best feature of this arrangement is that it almost completely frees the squadron commander to focus on the other pieces of the squadron like personnel, pro development, flying (if any), transportation, logistics, finance, safety, and myriad other stuff from group and wing.

That's what the Deputy Commander of Seniors is for. Ideally, the DCC handles the cadets and CP seniors and the DCS handles the other aspects of the unit. The commander is there to ensure compliance/quality, deal with higher HQ, set the overall objectives of the unit and let the deputy commanders handle the implementation. The commander is the steering wheel, the DC's and staff officers are the engine.

[Alaric]

Well at the very least, the commander should be communicating openly and clearly with YOU (his deputy).  Maybe he has a more legitimate reason that he just hasn't done a very good job of sharing with you.

Like I said, unless there is an extenuating circumstance, I think holding the cadet back for a reason like this is not a good choice.


You probably won't be ingratiating yourself particularly to just test and promote the cadet after the commander has explicitly said no (even though it is completely within your power).

You and your commander should be on the same page, and acting in concert with each-other (on the basis of shared values and reasoning), not under-cutting / overriding each-other.

In my experience, the best relationship is where the deputy commander for cadets autonomously runs the cadet program (including senior member cadet program officers like the leadership officer(s), cd instructor, etc)  and keeps the squadron commander briefed as to what is going on... and then the squadron commander stays out of the way and provides top cover and support.  But even this arrangement requires the commander and the deputy to arrive at a mutual understanding and working relationship and an agreed-upon model that the commander can live with supporting, without micromanaging.

I completely agree with the above.

If the deputy commanders are running the programs autonomously, then the commander has abrogated his responsibilities.  That's why they are called Deputies, if you don't like how your commander is running things then speak to him privately, or run for his position.

**The best feature of this arrangement is that it almost completely frees the squadron commander to focus on the other pieces of the squadron like personnel, pro development, flying (if any), transportation, logistics, finance, safety, and myriad other stuff from group and wing.

That's what the Deputy Commander of Seniors is for. Ideally, the DCC handles the cadets and CP seniors and the DCS handles the other aspects of the unit. The commander is there to ensure compliance/quality, deal with higher HQ, set the overall objectives of the unit and let the deputy commanders handle the implementation. The commander is the steering wheel, the DC's and staff officers are the engine.

As the steering wheel, the ultimate decision is his, as is the ultimately responsibility

[Spam]

The CO delayed the promotion and has said it may need to wait until July.

As others have suggested, there is more to the picture here. Why July, when it is not even May quite yet?  Sounds like there's something we haven't heard yet.

Speculation: is he thinking, "delay until we have four other cadets who can do a column maneuver" (July)?  If so, he is knowingly delaying the advancement and motivation of a fast burner who could potentially be your next Flight Sergeant and eventually provide you with a Flight Commander or Cadet Commander.  You might point out that as CC and CDC (your correct office code for "DCC" by the way), thinking ahead strategically means not slowing everyone down to the least common denominator. Your goal is to push them, per the Cadet Oath, to "advance their education and training rapidly".

By the way, are your dependent cadets or his involved in this in any way?

V/R,
Spam